http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6391918/whos-the-daddy.thtml
Just read it.
Presented without comment
60% of DNA paternity tests show that the woman lied (or was mistaken) about the identity of the father.
Now it's a self-selecting group, so you can't expand that to a general statistic. But if you have some reason to think the bitch is lying (or is mistaken), there's a 60% chance you are right.
Now it's a self-selecting group, so you can't expand that to a general statistic. But if you have some reason to think the bitch is lying (or is mistaken), there's a 60% chance you are right.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Made it about 60% percent into the article before I coldn't stomach anymore of it. I don't thinkit really matters. In Texas after a few years of paying child support a father asked for DNA on his three chhildren. 5,8 and 10 years of age. None were his. Took it to the judge. Judge says tough shit keep paying your name is on the birth certificate.
Seems to me the asshole that stuck it in the bitch should be the ones paying. But guess that is the law.
Seems to me the asshole that stuck it in the bitch should be the ones paying. But guess that is the law.
In marriage there is always one person right. And the other one is the husband.
Now, a cotton-wool swab with a bit of saliva, plus a small fee, less than £200, can settle the matter. At a stroke, the one thing that women had going for them has been taken away, the one respect in which they had the last laugh over their husbands and lovers. DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science...
You're bat-shit insane in a way that makes Ann Coulter look like a cloistered Zen Buddhist monk.
Now I can see that some men might rather welcome an end to the old-fashioned scenario whereby they find themselves held to account for the paternity of children born to girls with whom they just happen to have had sex.
Yes, because sex doesn't equal a binding contract. If you think it does, you probably need to get laid more.
Uncertainty allows mothers to select for their children the father who would be best for them.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, let's let human analysis trump billions of years of instinct and evolution.
The point is that paternity was ambiguous and it was effectively up to the mother to name her child’s father, or not.
In the same way that if someone walks up to you when you're holding a smoking gun over a dead body and asks, "Did you do it," the choice is up to you to smile, say, "Nope," and try to sell that story.
That eminently sensible Jewish custom, whereby Jewishness is passed through the mother, was based on the fact that we only really knew who our mothers are.
Yeah, because back then they didn't have DNA testing. If they did, every fucking man since the dawn of time would've been lining up for it. It's been the secret plan of men for all these years, all of history and science culminating in a master plan to deprive you of the opportunity/right to lie to a dude you fucked. Men are not bits of land you get to lay claim to when you suck them off.
Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter?
Y-E-S. Unless you think a kid showing up in your life one day isn't going to fuck with you.
You can feel quite as much tenderness for a child you're <s>mistakenly think to be yours</s> emotionally, mentally, and financially blackmailed to support as for one who is.
I'd like to note she uses the word "mistake" right in the sentence, too.
Piers Paul Read’s interesting new novel, The Misogynist, touches on just this issue.
That book's a work of pure fiction, literally. You might as well quote the "DaVinci Code" in support of the Holy Grail legend.
Scientific certainty has produced clarity all right, and relieved any number of men of their moral obligations, but at God knows what cost in misery, recrimination and guilt.
Sex != moral contract. Did the nuns hook your nipples up to electrodes whenever you looked at boys in school? You've almost got a damn complex about this.
But in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice. I’m not sure that many people are much happier for it.
I'd say about 50.3% are happier for it. Stop bitching because science has allowed us to overcome biological asymmetry.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
-
DoctorChaos
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:58 pm
Law has nothing to do with right. Just ask any attorney.unkbill wrote:Made it about 60% percent into the article before I coldn't stomach anymore of it. I don't thinkit really matters. In Texas after a few years of paying child support a father asked for DNA on his three chhildren. 5,8 and 10 years of age. None were his. Took it to the judge. Judge says tough shit keep paying your name is on the birth certificate.
Seems to me the asshole that stuck it in the bitch should be the ones paying. But guess that is the law.
Wadda mean? Other people can read this?!