Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

734 Excellent


About MalletFace

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 01/21/1998

Personal Information

  • Species
    Fascist Dictator

Recent Profile Visitors

1592 profile views
  1. My gut reaction is that he shouldn't have to, but my reaction after looking at law/court cases/stories/viewpoints/etc for a while is that it probably should depend. First I looked into whether or not anybody can voluntarily opt out of child support by giving up parental rights. In North Carolina, my state in the U.S., neither parent can voluntarily give up all their parental rights to get out of child support - man or woman. Even more, nobody at all acting in the place of a parent can give up rights to stop supporting a child. Even if grandpa and granny are given custody of a child and granny decides to split with her bingo money, she still has to support the child. There are a select few ways to give up all parental rights, and I think all of them technically require the consent of all parties acting as parents or one parent or a representative of the state proving a person can not or should not have parental rights. So I think child support, as it is in the U.S., has nothing to do with obligation due to biological relation or custody and everything to do with obligation based on the idea that all parties acting in the place of a parent are obligated to support the child until the child does not need support according to whatever government in the U.S.. That makes sense for me, and I can't come up with or find a better solution in as long as I have been looking. Other systems and ideas seem like they might hurt minorities, poor people, and other disadvantaged groups really hard. That said, there's the issue of deciding who gets to or must act in the place of a parent. The most common parents are the two common law assumes; a mother and a father that are the biological parents of the child. The only issue I can think of or find in this case is the issue of sexual assault or rape. As far as I can find, in most cases of rape, a woman gets to decide to keep the child or surrender the child and a man gets to be absolved of all obligations to a child. The problem is that sexual assault is underreported for many reasons, and men that are victims of statutory rape, for example, can sometimes have an obligation to a child if the person that assaulted them was never charged, and rape and sexual assault laws in the U.S. (and most places) suck, and cases of sex that really ought to be treated as rape or sexual assault are not. If somebody removes or damages a condom during sex without the other person agreeing to it, I think that person is guilty of rape by deception. I think a person that is a victim of rape should not be forced to act as a parent if they do not want to. If two people agree to and have sex without contraception and the result is a child, I believe they should act out an obligation to support the child as long as everybody agrees the obligation is to the child and they are both are capable of supporting the child. I think this obligation should end for one or both if one or both are unfit or incapable to meet the obligation or if both agree to give some other agreeing person or people the obligation. So, it depends. I guess it would just be nice if sex came with paperwork. On another note, abortion and obligation of support are two different issues legally. People conflate the two in courts to get attention. One is an issue of whether or not an individual can decide to end another's physical reliance on their body, and the other is an issue of what obligations a parent has to a child once it is born. A parent that does not carry a child has no obligation to support that child until it is born, I believe from what I've read and seen. Nobody does, technically - not even the person that carries the child. While she's probably right if she got a positive result on any number of tests, you might want to look into how pregnancy works and how soon a test can usually give a meaningful negative just in case you are in a "somebody might be pregnant" situation in the future. Would a more even comparison not be, "If women have a right to decide what happens to their eggs, then men should have equal right to determine what happens to their sperm."? I'm not sure spermous autonomy is a thing, or that it should be. I don't want to get sued or charged with a crime for using the wrong public bathroom and standing in the wrong spot. As far as I can find, these laws technically still require everybody acting as a parent to agree, and either parent, in my state at least, can come back before a certain period and return the obligation to everybody that was acting as a parent beforehand. I believe the "men not getting a say" in those laws mostly stem from men not realizing they have a kid, especially in cases of uncertain parentage, and then making a complaint after it is too late. I think that would be a discussion of "should the one with the sperm be told their sperm kickstarted a baby in all cases?"
  2. They had shit like this. Google Wallet got blocked by carriers. Comcast blocked BitTorrent use and pretended they didn't. This kind of shit happened. It only wasn't worse because there was legislation that kept ISPs and carriers from doing worse things because they were afraid they'd get hit with legislation that would completely shut down the little things they were doing. They did get stopped in 2015, not 2014, because people in power were willing to put a stop to it by reclassifying ISPs as telecoms services. And if you don't remember with the Comcast thing, people in the Bush government and media suggested tiered pricing just like that as a solution to the issue; it could have happened then, and we have a government that is more likely to allow it now.
  3. Because I know this was directed at me... I made that statement because a person I know was arrested for sexual assault some time ago. I thought they were being horribly treated. They had not had a trial and it had been a long time. They were finally released because it turned out the person accusing them was being coerced into accusing them by the person actually abusing them. The person close to me was black kid that knew the family. The person accusing was a young white girl. The abuser was her white father. The other day somebody told me being tough on crime is necessary and that the kid should have been executed long ago because that's what we should do to people accused of raping children. Unfortunately, some people can't escape politics. Their lives are tied to the opinions and beliefs of others. I hate when people can't see that and forget what the real world looks like; they forget that the lives of countless others are at the whims of other people's "politics," seeking comfort in a shitpost they made between jacking off to the latest episodes of South Park which will net them 0 to 1 likes.
  4. How the people that pushed for things like "limited government," being "tough on crime," "states' rights," use of the term "globalism," and so many other things can literally admit they are code for despicable, racist, backwards ideas, but people keep on ignoring that reality or happily living with it.
  5. Having to explain how different world language education is in my state compared to other subjects each time I have to talk about education as it relate to me. Like, no, instructor, I cannot pick a grade level's requirements; world language education standards are by proficiency. Yes, I will have the same overall standards other teachers do, but I am not going to shoehorn my standards into a rubric so it is easier for you to grade because it just ruins the point of me being here. Let me learn to teach my subject. Those "mental gymnastics" are professional scholarship discussing what it means to have power and culture and research that shows that exchanges of culture based in an imbalance of power lead to a perpetuation of the conditions that lead to the imbalance of power in the first place despite the opinions and intent of each individual involved. As one of those scholars noted, Just so you know, the person that said that basically built a career around understanding and teaching what it means to understand other people when you come from a different context - the exact situation you suggest the act of wearing a costume is. Even more, his ideas have directly impacted how teachers and students have participated in important moments of liberation in recent history like towards the end of Apartheid in South Africa and during the Arab Spring. These people do actually do quite a bit of shit, as it turns out. "All anti-SJW people really mean is they want exclusive rights to remain a snowflake and bitch about other people failing to actually look into issues and understand them when they themselves don't do shit."
  6. When teachers don't love their subject. Or when they hate kids. Or when they hate teaching theory. Or when they hate other teachers. Or when they hate teaching practice. Or that this is all so common. Like, what are you even trying to do?
  7. When people repeat the idea of the "Dunning-Kruger Effect" over and over without having actually read anything on it, especially the original article.
  8. How education currently works at lower levels + how many people want to change it + how many people actually do anything about it because they think teaching should be apolitical Education is an institution situated within, defined by, and acted out through our culture that socializes a huge number of people in the way educators define (or fail to). Education is inherently political. Stop letting people tell you not to do what's right.
  9. How, even with things like what is currently happening in Catalonia or what has happened so often elsewhere, people can think the police exist to protect the people when their actual purpose is to protect institutions.
  10. I don't think hate describes this well, even though it was a word used. Hate has caused a lot of good through history. As Elie Wiesel eloquently said, "The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference." The person full of spite can change the world for the better just as much as a person full of love for others can take it a step back; the only constant is the person indifferent to it all. These are good questions. One should ask these kinds of questions about any group. Would you be okay with clearly answering each one in your words? That would actually be pretty cool. I wanted to break this whole section of thought down and ask specific questions, but I am not sure how to do that. If nothing else, could you try and explain the last two sentences? Are you talking about how people like Elves/ELFS and related groups were and are treated and them being called the biggest terrorist threat right up until they decided it was actually groups like Al-Qaeda simply because groups like that were hurting corporate profits? Much of the fact that the human population is increasing at all in any place rather than decreasing is socioeconomic. This would suggest correcting the socioeconomic positions and relations that cause population growth with the socioeconomic positions and relations that cause population decline would be the best way to fix this. The idea that human overpopulation is a problem that cannot be solved without population control - like breeding limits - started with Malthus as kind of a precursor to some of the tenets of Social Darwinism. As you might know, Social Darwinism isn't even discussed much in modern philosophy, anthropology, sociology, or biology simply because it is an idea with no backing, no true hypotheses or predictions, and very little support from any credible individual in any related field. Most of Social Darwinism's supporters are economists and political writers. Why do you think population controls would work, though? Was this just something you thought would be common sense? If so, it is okay to start there, but I would recommend you look into it. I understand your emotions on this issue, but I can tell you might not have looked thoroughly into this. Be careful when talking about things you hate. It is okay to hate them, but understand them. Be an expert in them. Know everything about things you hate so you can do the best possible work in deconstructing and eliminating the things you hate. Just to emphasize that point - as somebody has already noted - hunters don't shoot deer in the face. It can be kind of frustrating trying to understand something you hate, but I don't know of a better way to get started on fixing the things you hate. Forget hunters for a second. If you really want to see that, I tried to find it for you. I just found stuff on reddit, but I tried to do this stuff fast. If you want more stuff, I can try and find more for you later. And if this isn't the right kind of stuff, that's fine. Here's r/Restoration_Ecology, which might fit that bill at times. Maybe other ones like r/Conservation would help? Would you possibly be interested in ways people are trying to limit their impact on other life? Many of the people sitting over at r/Aquaponics seem to be into it exactly for that. That's just environmental stuff, which I am not really well-versed in. I should try more. If you want humans doing well for other humans, though, I've got you on that if you want to see it. I understand that hate can surface like this, but this is not a good thing. As you noted, you know this. If it helps, many of the people suffering through the hurricanes want the world to be a better place. If you look at r/Aquaponics, you'll actually find that quite a number of the people there are getting into aquaponics as a way to limit their environmental impact, and many of them were right in the paths of the hurricanes. These are good people doing something to fix the world, and they got hurt. As another example, Food Not Bombs is doing as much as they can - as far as I am aware - to feed individuals impacted by the storms. While that not be of much interest to you, they try to do this through using food that would otherwise go to waste in an effort to limit the waste through the whole system of production and supply that would have otherwise happened. I might help you feel even better if you knew that FNB was literally feeding people food that would have otherwise gone to waste for no reason in order to protest war, poverty, and greed. If I can impart any knowledge onto you, let it be that talking about any kind of constant human nature is a quick way to miss a lot about the world. As far as I am aware, no biologist, sociologist, anthropologist, or even philosopher knows of any consensus on the question, "What does it mean to be human?" We were not made to destroy the world. We were not made to bleed the world dry. We simply are. What causes us to do these things are the cultures and societies we have built. An amazing thing about those cultures and societies is that their construction means they can be changed. People resist those changes to their death, but it can happen. Do you want to make it happen? What are you doing to make it happen? What will you do? This is one thing to do, but it isn't going to be enough. Is there something else you can do? Can you help local groups in other ways? Can you start your own groups? Remember, though, that many of the organizations that act for people are also acting for the environment. Food Not Bombs is a great example again. While they feed people, they explicitly state "Food Not Bombs is trying to inspire the public to participate in changing society and focus our resources on solving problems like hunger, homelessness and poverty while seeking an end to war and the destruction of the environment." They are helping people, but they are also using the aid they provide to direct the people they help to become activists for the environment. I severely doubt this. I don't know what else to say about this, but I doubt the notion. I think one of the reddits I linked to might have examples of this kind of thing, though. I'm severely concerned that you have so routinely encountered horrible people. This seems like a severe combination of cognitive biases and unfortunate situations. What kind of environment are you in in real life and online? I'll admit that you are a person that is very hard for me to understand sometimes. I think it is mostly because I tend not to interact with the threads you do. Sometimes I just have to agree with you when our paths cross, though. I also think this might have to do with your environment. I can't escape hunting where I am, and I get targeted advertisements for hunting even though I very much don't advocate hunting for any people that does not need it to survive. Most major malls around here even have entire stores dedicated to hunting, and most "superstores" have a huge section dedicated to hunting that is constantly being used. I'll usually try at least once to be nice and help if I know how, but knowing this and some other stuff almost made me not do that in this case. Fine if they're a gay person asking others not to say that word in any way. Gay individuals everywhere are a marginalized group because the nature of nearly all the institutions they use and inhabit involves their exclusion in some way. Asking people that aren't gay to limit their use of the word to limit the exclusion gay individuals experience in this case is okay. But as a fucking furry acting in the interest of furries? No. "Almost" because maybe, I hope, this is somebody that is either a troll or simply does not know. If not for them in the first case, I'd like whatever information I thought would be useful for them to get out there. I do not approve of metaphysics and alternatives being mentioned on this forum in any way at all, be it in passing, by accident, or in honest discussion. That is not allowed. Unless it is in the post in which I discussed them a while back. Because I am allowed.
  11. I respect the point you tried to make, but I sorely regret you not immediately posting one of the songs most celebrated as patriotic literally saying private property should be abolished. I also happen to prefer other songs he sang / the almanac singers performed about fighting fascists, but that's just my opinion. "We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens. We are ready to hang, electrocute, or lynch anyone, who, from economic necessity, will risk his own life in the attempt upon that of some industrial magnate. Yet our hearts swell with pride at the thought that America is becoming the most powerful nation on earth, and that she will eventually plant her iron foot on the necks of all other nations. Such is the logic of patriotism." - Emma Goldman from What is Patriotism? Like did the people in the thread conspire to make this century-old quote so relevant?
  12. Arpaio getting pardoned for a crime he actually committed that nearly all people agree should be something people get punished for. The dude was holding people illegally in inhumane conditions under suspicion of being hispanic in the country illegally, and he was ordered to stop. But he didn't and he became a convicted criminal. So Trump pardoned him. Because Arpaio "continued his life's work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration" by literally causing many people to suffer and/or die. He committed and ordered people to commit awful crimes. So he got a pardon. The first pardon of this president. I hate it.
  13. So after a white supremacist banner got put up (and swiftly removed), most of my university has been actively making sure people like that don't feel welcome here. Like they're not doing anything illegal. They're just letting them know that's not okay. I love it. You realize in that post he called Neil DeGrasse Tyson's claim that the methodology and instruments used to predict the solar eclipse are just as accurate as the ones used to predict climate change a "logical fallacy," right? The man said he wasn't anti-intellectual, and then proceeded to say an astrophysicist is wrong about his field of study. You know Mike Rowe denies climate change, right? The man who says he is not anti-intellectual tells professionals they are wrong about their fields. And you realize he complained about universities, and then proceeded to plug mikeroweWORKS, which partners with UTI - a for-profit college that the Senate found provides worse education than any normal community college or university for more money - to train people in trades, right? Like... the dude was called out for being anti-intellectual and for just looking to make money, and he responded by saying scientists are wrong and by plugging a partnership he actually makes money from. Do you not see the issue? I'm amazed that this is a thing. And I looked it up and it isn't too pricey. What is this?
  • Create New...