This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Mordo
Pages: 1 ... 109110111 112113 ... 243
3301
« on: October 14, 2015, 03:14:07 PM »
What...? They're synonymous....
Unfortunately not, no. Alimony is the subsidized amount of money given to the divorcee. Child support is well, child support. But continue to grasp the straws.
3302
« on: October 14, 2015, 03:12:12 PM »
I never contested that.
What I take issue with is how ridiculously biased alimony is towards women. By all means, pay child support and a little leeway money for her to get back on her feet and start providing for herself and the child/children. It should not however, be used as a means to funnel ridiculous amounts of cash into her pocket just because she used to be under a contract with him that the state shouldn't even be involved with anyway.
Whoever has custody should get alimony until the kid turns 18. Just because it's usually the mother doesn't mean that the system is broken.
Well clearly it is when women can extort men for such stupendous amounts of money that she doesn't deserve nor need.
No system is perfect, but I'd rather have the parent who's raising the child have too much money than not enough. Gender doesn't matter. If the mother was a rich businesswoman and the father was the one who stayed with the kid before the divorce and got custody of it afterward, then the mother would obviously be the one to pay alimony until the kid is 18. Unfortunately though, in our society, the roles are usually reversed.
So you think women should be treated like infants with no agency then? She's a woman, so that automatically renders her unable to adequately provide for the children therefore the man has to take care of everything financially?
God fucking damn, I wish you progressives could see just how ironically sexist and racist you really all are.
What? I'm assuming the woman gets a job. But sometimes, even that isn't enough to raise a child. Tell me, why should the parent who doesn't have to buy shit for the kid on a daily basis get a get out of parenting free card just because he divorced the kid's mother? It's only fair that he provide for the child just as much as the one who's actually doing the hard work.
There's a patently stark difference between alimony and child support.
3303
« on: October 14, 2015, 03:08:52 PM »
I never contested that.
What I take issue with is how ridiculously biased alimony is towards women. By all means, pay child support and a little leeway money for her to get back on her feet and start providing for herself and the child/children. It should not however, be used as a means to funnel ridiculous amounts of cash into her pocket just because she used to be under a contract with him that the state shouldn't even be involved with anyway.
Whoever has custody should get alimony until the kid turns 18. Just because it's usually the mother doesn't mean that the system is broken.
Well clearly it is when women can extort men for such stupendous amounts of money that she doesn't deserve nor need.
No system is perfect, but I'd rather have the parent who's raising the child have too much money than not enough. Gender doesn't matter. If the mother was a rich businesswoman and the father was the one who stayed with the kid before the divorce and got custody of it afterward, then the mother would obviously be the one to pay alimony until the kid is 18. Unfortunately though, in our society, the roles are usually reversed.
So you think women should be treated like infants with no agency then? She's a woman, so that automatically renders her unable to adequately provide for the children therefore the man has to take care of everything financially? God fucking damn, I wish you progressives could see just how ironically sexist and racist you really all are.
3304
« on: October 14, 2015, 03:02:14 PM »
I never contested that.
What I take issue with is how ridiculously biased alimony is towards women. By all means, pay child support and a little leeway money for her to get back on her feet and start providing for herself and the child/children. It should not however, be used as a means to funnel ridiculous amounts of cash into her pocket just because she used to be under a contract with him that the state shouldn't even be involved with anyway.
Whoever has custody should get alimony until the kid turns 18. Just because it's usually the mother doesn't mean that the system is broken.
Well clearly it is when women can extort men for such stupendous amounts of money that she doesn't deserve nor need.
3305
« on: October 14, 2015, 02:57:04 PM »
Good one? You have an actual argument, or no?
I don't know, do you have an actual argument that isn't just you channelling your degenerate sexual fetishes into a serious discussion?
What the fuck? This has nothing to do with me. It has to do with what's right. Get over yourself.
It's pretty rich for you to accuse me of not providing an argument when all you do in discussions is haphazardly attack the sources, fumble around like a retard who forgot his point, then drop out of the discourse altogether.
But I'll humour you.
Why in the everloving fuck do you believe it is acceptable for one spouse to shell out half his earnings that the other partner had nothing to do with? She wasn't involved in his business dealings. She had nothing contributory to provide that automatically entitles her to such astronomical amounts of money.
And no, the "he can afford it" argument isn't going to cut it. Proportionality is irrelevant. Stealing is stealing no matter how you look at it.
But go on. Tell me why she deserves such gratuitous amounts of money because she happened to be sucking his dick once in a blue moon.
Because that's the whole point of marriage. Once you agree to a non-prenuptial marriage, you stop being two different people and start being one. That's literally why it was invented. If you have a problem with this, get a prenup. Simple as that. It's not stealing, because you consented to the deal.
I never contested that. What I take issue with is how ridiculously biased alimony is towards women. By all means, pay child support and a little leeway money for her to get back on her feet and start providing for herself and the child/children. It should not however, be used as a means to funnel ridiculous amounts of cash into her pocket just because she used to be under a contract with him that the state shouldn't even be involved with anyway.
3306
« on: October 14, 2015, 02:49:49 PM »
Good one? You have an actual argument, or no?
I don't know, do you have an actual argument that isn't just you channelling your degenerate sexual fetishes into a serious discussion?
What the fuck? This has nothing to do with me. It has to do with what's right. Get over yourself.
It's pretty rich for you to accuse me of not providing an argument when all you do in discussions is haphazardly attack the sources, fumble around like a retard who forgot his point, then drop out of the discourse altogether. But I'll humour you. Why in the everloving fuck do you believe it is acceptable for one spouse to shell out half his earnings that the other partner had nothing to do with? She wasn't involved in his business dealings. She had nothing contributory to provide that automatically entitles her to such astronomical amounts of money. And no, the "he can afford it" argument isn't going to cut it. Proportionality is irrelevant. Stealing is stealing no matter how you look at it. But go on. Tell me why she deserves such gratuitous amounts of money because she happened to be sucking his dick once in a blue moon.
3307
« on: October 14, 2015, 02:43:44 PM »
fuck the tv license
>everyone has to willingly pay for a channel called the BBCcoincidence?
3308
« on: October 14, 2015, 02:42:45 PM »
Good one? You have an actual argument, or no?
I don't know, do you have an actual argument that isn't just you channelling your degenerate sexual fetishes into a serious discussion?
3309
« on: October 14, 2015, 02:38:52 PM »
3310
« on: October 14, 2015, 02:36:47 PM »
 >wake up >bobby knocks on door >"oi wake ahp you cheeky cant and gis a cop of your sleeping license" >fumble around and finally find my license >"s-sorry good sir, it's right e're, God save the Queen" >bobby peers in and catches a cheeky glimpse of me tele >"oi, where's your tele license you bugga" >draw TV license from me government registered wallet >bobby gives a look like the bloody Queen's dodger >"oi mate where's yeh license for this e're licence" >show him my license license >"this license license is invalid, I'm taking you in" >bobby draws his toy gun >stab him with my unregistered butterknife >mfw I should've voted UKIP
3311
« on: October 14, 2015, 02:24:14 PM »
3312
« on: October 14, 2015, 01:56:21 PM »
Still think the state should interfere in marriage, fam?
When did I say the state should be involved in marriage hombre?
3313
« on: October 14, 2015, 01:52:34 PM »
Women should not be in infantry positions.
I don't care what bullshit equality argument you throw at me. Safety comes before any kind of tenuous quota someone has to fulfill.
If a woman is qualified to hold an infantry position, why shouldn't she be allowed to do it?
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a262626.pdf
Innumerable evidence within the IDF and relevant studies suggest that a woman's presence has an adverse effect on unit cohesion and the capacity to carry out orders within a unit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/14/navy-secretary-threw-us-under-the-bus-say-marines-in-gender-integrated-infantry-unit/
Not to mention that women are twice as likely to sustain injury during combat situations and have been shown to be substantially less skilled in regards to shooting accuracy.
Sometimes it makes me wonder what you guys are prepared to sacrifice just for the sake of 'equality.'
Gave the first one a scan and it almost definitely only cited evidence where the women were unable to operate at expected levels, and used that difference in effectiveness as reason to why mutual bonds would be weakened in units. Max's point is that if you have a woman who meets the standards of men then there is no reason to disallow her. For fuck's sake, the mean accuracy or lifting capacity of women is lower than men doesn't matter for shit when the subject matter is allowing a woman who is at the men's mean to serve. No one is saying let a woman who can't drag a 240 pound person serve because mah feelings, they are saying if a woman is able to do that then there is no reason to disallow her. It doesn't matter how rare that event is, the person in question does not share the characteristics with other women that makes them detrimental, thus there is no reason to not take them.
It probably helps if you don't just 'scan' things. The article clearly illustrates that a women's inherent physiological inferiority, even when relevant criterion have been met, have been shown to physically and psychologically diminish the organisational bonding and morale within a unit, and thus increase the susceptibility of unit breakdown. It doesn't matter if she meets the grade. Even women who pass the relevant tests (which are usually lowered) have been shown to be less physically capable and more susceptible to injury than men. That's just biological fact.
3315
« on: October 14, 2015, 09:21:03 AM »
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34524641Just fuck men's lives up I see absolutely no benefit for men entering into a contract of marriage nowadays. This is just punitive fucking damage for having a penis and a bit of money at this point, like fucking hell. "but muh comfortable lifestyle I was leeching off of for 30 years" "but muh millionaire ex who can afford it" Tough fucking shit. By all means, both parties should be paying child support, but just because you used to fuck him occasionally does not personally entitle you to a cent of his money, regardless of how wealthy he may or may not be.
3316
« on: October 14, 2015, 09:06:26 AM »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33980904>bribing people to actually use sanitation properly haha holy fuck curryniggers have outclassed actual niggers in almost every single way.
3317
« on: October 14, 2015, 08:59:28 AM »
 should we even consider them human tbh
3318
« on: October 14, 2015, 08:56:42 AM »
T A K E T H E P O O
O
T
H
E
L
O
O
3319
« on: October 14, 2015, 08:54:28 AM »
This election really is a meme.
3320
« on: October 14, 2015, 07:27:24 AM »
I don't care about gay marriage. Go to fucking town. The only caveat I take is enforcing religious institutions to perform gay weddings, other than that, do what you want.
I'm sick to the back teeth of this conservative boogeyman meme. Just because someone identifies as conservative does not automatically render their points, opinions or arguments invalid because they just so happen to position themselves on the opposite side of the political spectrum to you.
3321
« on: October 14, 2015, 07:19:58 AM »
Women should not be in infantry positions.
I don't care what bullshit equality argument you throw at me. Safety comes before any kind of tenuous quota someone has to fulfill.
3322
« on: October 13, 2015, 12:12:39 PM »
Look, we can debate the etymology of metadata until the cows come home tbh, but I don't think it would be as intellectually stimulating.
Point is, Snowden's 'revelation' had very little if anything to do with the government's domestic spying activities, and using him as this paragon of liberty is as bad as the SJWs using Anita Sarkeesian as an idol for women's rights.
3323
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:53:44 AM »
Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.
...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?
Information being what exactly?
I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.
Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.
Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.
I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.
But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.
It's not even YOUR personal data though. It's just descriptive transcripts of what kind of data is being communicated.
It's basically the difference between a police car patrolling the streets at night to a cop busting down your door without a warrant or a probable cause. The latter is illegal, the former isn't.
How are data transcripts not my personal data?
Because metadata is simply data that describes the data. They aren't allowed to open up your emails or trawl through your bank account history contrary to what everyone believes.
But that metadata is describing my personal data. I don't understand how you can separate the two. Regardless of what they can actually "see", the fact that any data is being collected by default is the issue. Data should only be collected once a warrant is obtained.
All that would do is render counter terrorism and domestic threats so astronomically difficult to tackle and you'd still have just as much privacy as you did before.
...so because my right to privacy makes it difficult for the government to spy on me, I should feel bad?
Except the NSA isn't spying on you. You are conflating the examination of metadata which is completely anonymous and discreet with the actual invasion of someone's data. I'm not sure what else to say. Metadata is not your data, nor is it anyway linked to your privacy.
I don't think you really understand what metadata is...
What exactly do you think it is then?
3324
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:40:04 AM »
Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.
...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?
Information being what exactly?
I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.
Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.
Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.
I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.
But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.
It's not even YOUR personal data though. It's just descriptive transcripts of what kind of data is being communicated.
It's basically the difference between a police car patrolling the streets at night to a cop busting down your door without a warrant or a probable cause. The latter is illegal, the former isn't.
How are data transcripts not my personal data?
Because metadata is simply data that describes the data. They aren't allowed to open up your emails or trawl through your bank account history contrary to what everyone believes.
But that metadata is describing my personal data. I don't understand how you can separate the two. Regardless of what they can actually "see", the fact that any data is being collected by default is the issue. Data should only be collected once a warrant is obtained.
All that would do is render counter terrorism and domestic threats so astronomically difficult to tackle and you'd still have just as much privacy as you did before.
...so because my right to privacy makes it difficult for the government to spy on me, I should feel bad?
Except the NSA isn't spying on you. You are conflating the examination of metadata which is completely anonymous and discreet with the actual invasion of someone's data. I'm not sure what else to say. Metadata is not your data, nor is it anyway linked to your privacy.
3325
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:35:35 AM »
Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.
...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?
Information being what exactly?
I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.
Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.
Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.
I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.
But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.
It's not even YOUR personal data though. It's just descriptive transcripts of what kind of data is being communicated.
It's basically the difference between a police car patrolling the streets at night to a cop busting down your door without a warrant or a probable cause. The latter is illegal, the former isn't.
How are data transcripts not my personal data?
Because metadata is simply data that describes the data. They aren't allowed to open up your emails or trawl through your bank account history contrary to what everyone believes.
But that metadata is describing my personal data. I don't understand how you can separate the two. Regardless of what they can actually "see", the fact that any data is being collected by default is the issue. Data should only be collected once a warrant is obtained.
All that would do is render counter terrorism and domestic threats so astronomically difficult to tackle and you'd still have just as much privacy as you did before.
3326
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:30:19 AM »
Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.
...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?
Information being what exactly?
I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.
Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.
Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.
I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.
But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.
It's not even YOUR personal data though. It's just descriptive transcripts of what kind of data is being communicated.
It's basically the difference between a police car patrolling the streets at night to a cop busting down your door without a warrant or a probable cause. The latter is illegal, the former isn't.
How are data transcripts not my personal data?
Because metadata is simply data that describes the data. Everything is surrounded in anonymity. They aren't allowed to open up your emails or trawl through your bank account history contrary to what everyone believes.
3327
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:27:32 AM »
Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.
...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?
Information being what exactly?
I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.
Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.
Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.
I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.
But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.
It's not even YOUR personal data though. It's just descriptive transcripts of what kind of data is being communicated. It's basically the difference between a police car patrolling the streets at night and a cop busting down your door without a warrant or a probable cause. The latter is illegal, the former isn't.
3328
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:20:22 AM »
>'revealed' what we already knew then handed classified documents of military operations to the Russians on a silver platter.
Why do you pretend that Russia and China were not his best options for personal safety? Hell China isn't an entirely safe bet now.
I really don't care about his personal safety. He clearly had no concern for the personal safety of the undercover military personnel he revealed to innumerable terrorist groups.
I'm just thinking you need to stop implying he handed information to Russia because he wants Russia to have the upperhand. He was essentially forced to because he is only protectend there as long as he cooperayes with them.
I don't think he really cares who has the upper hand. He saw an opportunity to sell data to the highest bidder and took it at the expense of the safety of others.
Thinking this is solely about money is equally retarded, no one would take that risk just for wealth. It'd be more likely to land you a censor label in a document than where he is now. Just because what he did was irresponsible and unjust does not mean he had nefarious intentions.
So care to explain why the vast majority of files that Snowden leaked had nothing to do with government oversight of domestic activities? 90% of the extracted documents were related to military capabilities.
Because what liberties the military has is most certainly relevant information to his type of view? He's an ideological defector, stop characterizing him otherwise.
You would think for an ideologue, he would have focused on domestic spying, not military operations and procedures that endangered people's lives.
But whatever. Keep eulogizing this prick who did more damage to our counter terrorism capabilites than he did to the government's capacity to spy on its citizens.
What measurable effect did he have? How are you measuring this damage?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/snowden-leaks-could-cost-military-billions-pentagon-n46426http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/23/politics/nsa-surveillance-north-korea/
3329
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:16:48 AM »
>'revealed' what we already knew then handed classified documents of military operations to the Russians on a silver platter.
Why do you pretend that Russia and China were not his best options for personal safety? Hell China isn't an entirely safe bet now.
I really don't care about his personal safety. He clearly had no concern for the personal safety of the undercover military personnel he revealed to innumerable terrorist groups.
I'm just thinking you need to stop implying he handed information to Russia because he wants Russia to have the upperhand. He was essentially forced to because he is only protectend there as long as he cooperayes with them.
I don't think he really cares who has the upper hand. He saw an opportunity to sell data to the highest bidder and took it at the expense of the safety of others.
Thinking this is solely about money is equally retarded, no one would take that risk just for wealth. It'd be more likely to land you a censor label in a document than where he is now. Just because what he did was irresponsible and unjust does not mean he had nefarious intentions.
So care to explain why the vast majority of files that Snowden leaked had nothing to do with government oversight of domestic activities? 90% of the extracted documents were related to military capabilities.
Because what liberties the military has is most certainly relevant information to his type of view? He's an ideological defector, stop characterizing him otherwise.
You would think for an ideologue, he would have focused on domestic spying, not military operations and procedures that endangered people's lives. But whatever. Keep eulogizing this prick who did more damage to our counter terrorism capabilites than he did to the government's capacity to spy on its citizens.
3330
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:00:25 AM »
>'revealed' what we already knew then handed classified documents of military operations to the Russians on a silver platter.
Why do you pretend that Russia and China were not his best options for personal safety? Hell China isn't an entirely safe bet now.
I really don't care about his personal safety. He clearly had no concern for the personal safety of the undercover military personnel he revealed to innumerable terrorist groups.
I'm just thinking you need to stop implying he handed information to Russia because he wants Russia to have the upperhand. He was essentially forced to because he is only protectend there as long as he cooperayes with them.
I don't think he really cares who has the upper hand. He saw an opportunity to sell data to the highest bidder and took it at the expense of the safety of others.
Thinking this is solely about money is equally retarded, no one would take that risk just for wealth. It'd be more likely to land you a censor label in a document than where he is now. Just because what he did was irresponsible and unjust does not mean he had nefarious intentions.
So care to explain why the vast majority of files that Snowden leaked had nothing to do with government oversight of domestic activities? 90% of the extracted documents were related to military capabilities.
Pages: 1 ... 109110111 112113 ... 243
|
Show Posts
