about f'ing time (bike rule enforcement)

Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Irresponsible young men (boys, really) also frequently think their
recreational rolls in the hay should have no consequences. And
irresponsible older men who abandon families and avoid supporting
their own children are worse, far worse....

Yes the two cases are certainly different. However, in the first case,
when the woman consents to have sex, she is the one morally responsible
for the outcome, since she has the rights to make the decisions on what
to do with the fetus. Since the biological father has no say in the
matter, he should have no responsibility.

Quite obvious if one thinks it though after abandoning preconceived notions.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

On 2008-08-28, Geoff Gass wrote:
Brent P wrote:
On 2008-08-28, Phil W Lee phil wrote:
Brent P considered Thu, 28 Aug
2008 00:22:06 -0500 the perfect time to write:

Some people like being a slave or at least forever a child and doesn't
like it when someone challenges the limited thinking that allows them
to be happy as such.

And some people are detached from reality.

An amusing come back. However I'd much prefer a reasoned argument.

why? you're not capable of one, why should anyone give you one?

Nice projection there gassbag.

Tom Sherman wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Irresponsible young men (boys, really) also frequently think their
recreational rolls in the hay should have no consequences. And
irresponsible older men who abandon families and avoid supporting
their own children are worse, far worse....

Yes the two cases are certainly different. However, in the first case,
when the woman consents to have sex, she is the one morally responsible
for the outcome, since she has the rights to make the decisions on what
to do with the fetus. Since the biological father has no say in the
matter, he should have no responsibility.

Quite obvious if one thinks it though after abandoning preconceived notions.

I don't think you'd find a court agreeing with you on that one.
Child support is the right of the child, not of the custodial parent.
It is the right of the child to be supported by both of its parents.
You may not like that; but it's how courts see it and how they rule.


Bill, who's been there and collected that


__o | Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain
_`\(,_ | or freed a human soul in this world--and never will.
(_)/ (_) | --Mark Twain

wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Irresponsible young men (boys, really) also frequently think their
recreational rolls in the hay should have no consequences. And
irresponsible older men who abandon families and avoid supporting
their own children are worse, far worse....

Yes the two cases are certainly different. However, in the first case,
when the woman consents to have sex, she is the one morally responsible
for the outcome, since she has the rights to make the decisions on what
to do with the fetus. Since the biological father has no say in the
matter, he should have no responsibility.

Quite obvious if one thinks it though after abandoning preconceived notions.

I don't think you'd find a court agreeing with you on that one.

The courts enforce laws made by politicians with preconceived notions.

Child support is the right of the child, not of the custodial parent.

But the mother can choose to abort a fetus, or give up the child to
adoption shortly after birth, and the father does not even have the
right to be informed of these decisions. That in and of itself is as it
should be, but with no rights there should be no responsibility.

It is the right of the child to be supported by both of its parents.

No, it is the moral duty of the state to see that the child is cared
for. Biological parents can give children up for adoption or turn them
over to the wardship of the state.

You may not like that; but it's how courts see it and how they rule.

Courts are not morally infallible.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Tom Sherman wrote:
wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Irresponsible young men (boys, really) also frequently think their
recreational rolls in the hay should have no consequences. And
irresponsible older men who abandon families and avoid supporting
their own children are worse, far worse....

Yes the two cases are certainly different. However, in the first case,
when the woman consents to have sex, she is the one morally responsible
for the outcome, since she has the rights to make the decisions on what
to do with the fetus. Since the biological father has no say in the
matter, he should have no responsibility.

Quite obvious if one thinks it though after abandoning preconceived notions.

I don't think you'd find a court agreeing with you on that one.

The courts enforce laws made by politicians with preconceived notions.

Child support is the right of the child, not of the custodial parent.

But the mother can choose to abort a fetus, or give up the child to
adoption shortly after birth, and the father does not even have the
right to be informed of these decisions. That in and of itself is as it
should be, but with no rights there should be no responsibility.

It is the right of the child to be supported by both of its parents.

No, it is the moral duty of the state to see that the child is cared
for. Biological parents can give children up for adoption or turn them
over to the wardship of the state.

You may not like that; but it's how courts see it and how they rule.

Courts are not morally infallible.

You're free to believe that Tom, but if you knock a woman up and she
brings an action for support, it won't stop your wages being garnisheed.


Bill


__o | Every person takes the limits of their own field
_`\(,_ | of vision for the limits of the world.
(_)/ (_) | - Arthur Schopenhauer

wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Irresponsible young men (boys, really) also frequently think their
recreational rolls in the hay should have no consequences. And
irresponsible older men who abandon families and avoid supporting
their own children are worse, far worse....
Yes the two cases are certainly different. However, in the first case,
when the woman consents to have sex, she is the one morally responsible
for the outcome, since she has the rights to make the decisions on what
to do with the fetus. Since the biological father has no say in the
matter, he should have no responsibility.
Quite obvious if one thinks it though after abandoning preconceived notions.

I don't think you'd find a court agreeing with you on that one.

The courts enforce laws made by politicians with preconceived notions.

Child support is the right of the child, not of the custodial parent.

But the mother can choose to abort a fetus, or give up the child to
adoption shortly after birth, and the father does not even have the
right to be informed of these decisions. That in and of itself is as it
should be, but with no rights there should be no responsibility.

It is the right of the child to be supported by both of its parents.

No, it is the moral duty of the state to see that the child is cared
for. Biological parents can give children up for adoption or turn them
over to the wardship of the state.

You may not like that; but it's how courts see it and how they rule.

Courts are not morally infallible.

You're free to believe that Tom, but if you knock a woman up and she
brings an action for support, it won't stop your wages being garnisheed.

What do the decisions of the courts have to do with morality?

Contrary to the beliefs of the authoritarian types, legal is not the
same as moral.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Tom Sherman wrote:
wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Irresponsible young men (boys, really) also frequently think their
recreational rolls in the hay should have no consequences. And
irresponsible older men who abandon families and avoid supporting
their own children are worse, far worse....
Yes the two cases are certainly different. However, in the first case,
when the woman consents to have sex, she is the one morally responsible
for the outcome, since she has the rights to make the decisions on what
to do with the fetus. Since the biological father has no say in the
matter, he should have no responsibility.
Quite obvious if one thinks it though after abandoning preconceived notions.

I don't think you'd find a court agreeing with you on that one.

The courts enforce laws made by politicians with preconceived notions.

Child support is the right of the child, not of the custodial parent.

But the mother can choose to abort a fetus, or give up the child to
adoption shortly after birth, and the father does not even have the
right to be informed of these decisions. That in and of itself is as it
should be, but with no rights there should be no responsibility.

It is the right of the child to be supported by both of its parents.

No, it is the moral duty of the state to see that the child is cared
for. Biological parents can give children up for adoption or turn them
over to the wardship of the state.

You may not like that; but it's how courts see it and how they rule.

Courts are not morally infallible.

You're free to believe that Tom, but if you knock a woman up and she
brings an action for support, it won't stop your wages being garnisheed.

What do the decisions of the courts have to do with morality?

Contrary to the beliefs of the authoritarian types, legal is not the
same as moral.

I didn't say it was. I've talked to more than one lawyer who
acknowledged that courts don't decide what's moral, just what's legal.

Again, you're free to believe what you choose to believe. You might
even want to write your Congressman or start your own political party to
push your beliefs. But meanwhile, if you knock a woman up and she
brings an action for support, your beliefs won't stop your wages being
garnisheed.


Bill


------------------------------------------------------------------
| What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the |
| homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name |
| of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? |
| -- Mahatma Gandhi |
------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding State enforced child support payments on Aug 26, 4:45*pm,
Brent P wrote:


It's a civil matter between the two parties. It should be handled like
any other dispute over monies owed to one party by another.


Suppose I burglarize your home. I deprive you of your property but
harm no one else. Suppose I am the CEO of a large corporation and by
cooking ther books I deprive stockholders of their investments. Are
these also civil matters between two parties or do you expect that the
police (agents of the government) arrest me and the SEC freeze company
assets? Just wondering.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

On 2008-09-02, Bob wrote:
Regarding State enforced child support payments on Aug 26, 4:45*pm,
Brent P wrote:


It's a civil matter between the two parties. It should be handled like
any other dispute over monies owed to one party by another.

Suppose I burglarize your home. I deprive you of your property but
harm no one else.

This is not a contract. It's called theft.

Suppose I am the CEO of a large corporation and by
cooking ther books I deprive stockholders of their investments.

This is not a contract. It's called fraud or theft depending on the
particulars.

Are
these also civil matters between two parties or do you expect that the
police (agents of the government) arrest me and the SEC freeze company

Failure to pay an obligation, child support, is a breach of contract. A
better analogy would be those who stopped paying their mortgage or car
loan or credit card debts.

In chi.general barbie gee wrote:


On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Peter Cole wrote:

Brent P wrote:
On 2008-08-25, Peter Cole wrote:

Motorists get special treatment -- they are required to be licensed,
insured, use only qualified and periodically inspected vehicles, must be
minimum age and visual acuity.

No inspections other than some cars being emissions tested in IL. Most of
the rest is really feel-good nonsense that exists to collect
taxes and all for government control.

We have safety inspections in MA in addition to emissions. I think that's
pretty standard (and sensible).

"MA"? This explains much.

like you have any clue what cycling in Chicago proper is like?

Cities like Boston and Providence are worse than Chicago... Also they have a
fog issue at night... I was diverted back and forth between Logan and Bradley
in Hartford, CT once due to fog and they mentioned that Logan had one of the
tallest tower in the country and that often times they could only direct
planes by the tail markings because the fog was so heavy on the ground.

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)