DIY paternity tests: 20% of men will learn they are not father of tested child

#11
(Jan 16, 2019 09:16 PM)Syne Wrote: Again, you seem really keen on blaming men, when your OP article only mentions...


Good grief, bud. You're completely missing the obvious sadism on my part. My second reply to Wegs was simply to perturb you further, once you indicated that the bait of the first one did.

~
Reply
#12
(Jan 16, 2019 11:24 PM)C C Wrote:
(Jan 16, 2019 09:16 PM)Syne Wrote: Again, you seem really keen on blaming men, when your OP article only mentions...


Good grief, bud. You're completely missing the obvious sadism on my part. My second reply to Wegs was simply to perturb you further, once you indicated that the bait of the first one did.

~

So trolling.

You're either retracting what you wrote or you're just making up a backpedaling excuse. Either way, my point is made.
Reply
#13
it could be named methreeandpaternity movement

cant wait to see some US court test a man suing the child to recover his money because he has been proven to be not the father.

how is that going to swing custody battles ?

a good christian male would never abandon the opportunity to parent a parentles child.

no doubt behind some of the false drama is the gender discrimination that sits with child raising and is pandered to by those who wish to use the situation to further their own gender bigotry.

fyi previously (so i had read)male sought paternity tests had something like a 75% rate of proving the man was not the father.


in a climate of alt-right-ism
its a shady thing to leverage the fragile minds of teens to abandon their sense of home and belonging.
Reply
#14
(Jan 17, 2019 12:26 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Jan 16, 2019 11:24 PM)C C Wrote:
(Jan 16, 2019 09:16 PM)Syne Wrote: Again, you seem really keen on blaming men, when your OP article only mentions...

Good grief, bud. You're completely missing the obvious sadism on my part. My second reply to Wegs was simply to perturb you further, once you indicated that the bait of the first one did.

So trolling.

You're either retracting what you wrote or you're just making up a backpedaling excuse. Either way, my point is made.


I'm fine with you taking "trolling" literally (a lot quicker than waiting on the Black Humor barrier to be hurdled). For me it was an offhand, "couldn't care less" sardonic way of replying about a couple of posts that were belatedly noticed and even then barely glanced at apart from inferring some degree of accusatory tone and agitation in them. Chalking it up to "Syne must be perturbed about a pebble being in the wrong place again."

Retraction? Backpedaling? You speak like a radio listener who shouted back at a program airing on it, and felt that what you said had an effect. I didn't respond to those two posts apart from quoting that initial projective ranting in the second. What was that again? Ah, yes: "Again, you seem really keen on blaming men..."

Finally taking a closer look at the first one (below)...

Quote:That's rather non sequitur to go from an article that only talks about cheating and deceiving women to the completely unmentioned delinquent fathers.


I placed no declaration in the original post that comments had to be narrowly confined to the article's content. So here we find you essentially hijacking the thread and posturing as a micromanaging administrator of what can and cannot be added to this conversation. Apparently trying to conflate guidelines from some strictly regulated venue with a casual conversation transpiring between two posters on a casual discussion board. The article being held up as a holy standard from which none can deviate.

It's akin to placing a fake or non-sanctioned stop sign at a rural intersection which didn't have one beforehand. Then standing by the sign and getting miffed when a vehicle drives right on by ignoring the sign's bogus authority. "How dare you, how dare you do that!"

Quote:Did you feel some need to try spreading the moral blame around?

What of it one way or the another? IOW, your question is a further implying that something improper was transpiring, trailing back in dependence to your spuriously introduced standard that the article narrowly sets the parameter for what can be discussed in this thread.

Quote:Do you have any data to back up the notion that DIY paternity tests are significantly motivated by delinquent fathers...or even just absent fathers? That article doesn't mention any.

I never mentioned a paternity test to Wegs. This is your loaded language, your own hand-crafted property which you are challenging. A misrepresentation projected onto another's post. The proposed connection of "delinquent, absent fathers" having to necessarily or automatically connect to paternity tests rests again on your spurious introduction of the article's role as providing absolute regulation of what can be brought up or mentioned. Thereby in turn all conversational items must trail back to it and its paternity test.  

Quote:Again, you seem really keen on blaming men...

Wow. You seem really fond of running over Blue Heelers and eating them for breakfast.

~

(Jan 17, 2019 08:07 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: fyi previously (so i had read)male sought paternity tests had something like a 75% rate of proving the man was not the father.


Try the NBC Universal syndicated tabloids in Connecticut. I don't know if the Maury show is available where you're at or not. But the few times I ever watched it while killing time in waiting rooms, the lie-detector tests were 100% and paternity tests always right. Wink

~
Reply
#15
Whoa, C C! I've never seen that side of you before. I like it!
Reply
#16
(Jan 17, 2019 12:50 PM)C C Wrote:
(Jan 17, 2019 12:26 AM)Syne Wrote: So trolling.

You're either retracting what you wrote or you're just making up a backpedaling excuse. Either way, my point is made.

I'm fine with you taking "trolling" literally (a lot quicker than waiting on the Black Humor barrier to be hurdled). For me it was an offhand, "couldn't care less" sardonic way of replying about a couple of posts that were belatedly noticed and even then barely glanced at apart from inferring some degree of accusatory tone and agitation in them. Chalking it up to "Syne must be perturbed about a pebble being in the wrong place again."

Retraction? Backpedaling? You speak like a radio listener who shouted back at a program airing on it, and felt that what you said had an effect. I didn't respond to those two posts apart from quoting that initial projective ranting in the second. What was that again? Ah, yes: "Again, you seem really keen on blaming men..."
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.  Rolleyes

Quote:Finally taking a closer look at the first one (below)...

Quote:That's rather non sequitur to go from an article that only talks about cheating and deceiving women to the completely unmentioned delinquent fathers.


I placed no declaration in the original post that comments had to be narrowly confined to the article's content. So here we find you essentially hijacking the thread and posturing as a micromanaging administrator of what can and cannot be added to this conversation. Apparently trying to conflate guidelines from some strictly regulated venue with a casual conversation transpiring between two posters on a casual discussion board. The article being held up as a holy standard from which none can deviate.

It's akin to placing a fake or non-sanctioned stop sign at a rural intersection which didn't have one beforehand. Then standing by the sign and getting miffed when a vehicle drives right on by ignoring the sign's bogus authority. "How dare you, how dare you do that!"
So...non sequitur.

Again, you're protesting about things you only imagine. No one was trying to micromanage anything. You just seemed to salivate, like Pavlov's dog, over Leigha mentioning "child support", in passing, and I was hoping there was some measure of actual connective tissue between that "bell" and the OP. If it's just a rant about something you've got stuck in your craw, or humor that isn't meant to be readily apparent in trolling text, so be it. Just say so. Don't get all defensive just because someone's trying to make sense of it in the context of the thread.

Honestly, I was hoping it did have something to do with the OP and that you might actually have "data to back up the notion that DIY paternity tests are significantly motivated by delinquent fathers...or even just absent fathers". That would've been new and interesting info to me.

Quote:
Quote:Did you feel some need to try spreading the moral blame around?

What of it one way or the another? IOW, your question is a further implying that something improper was transpiring, trailing back in dependence to your spuriously introduced standard that the article narrowly sets the parameter for what can be discussed in this thread.
Nope, again, you're protesting things you only imagine. My question was honest. I could only assume that you either had a bone to pick about delinquent fathers or data that made them relevant to the thread, as it existed when you posted.

If neither, you could have just said it was an unrelated aside.

Quote:
Quote:Do you have any data to back up the notion that DIY paternity tests are significantly motivated by delinquent fathers...or even just absent fathers? That article doesn't mention any.

I never mentioned a paternity test to Wegs. This is your loaded language, your own hand-crafted property which you are challenging. A misrepresentation projected onto another's post. The proposed connection of "delinquent, absent fathers" having to necessarily or automatically connect to paternity tests rests again on your spurious introduction of the article's role as providing absolute regulation of what can be brought up or mentioned. Thereby in turn all conversational items must trail back to it and its paternity test.  
Yes, which is why I said it was non sequitur. It didn't have to connect to the OP article because you literally mentioned "a man already dodging or being tardy about child support". News flash, that's a delinquent father. And "wanted to find an escape route" could be by way of a DIY paternity test, but I'll take your word that wasn't the intent. And if it's just a non sequitur, the question of what motivated it stands on its own...as apart from the OP, that's even less clear.
Reply
#17
I'm sure there are men who want to find an escape route to paying child support, but there are also sexually irresponsible women who want to tag a guy with the ''baby daddy'' label. Both are reprehensible behaviors, because in the end, the child suffers the most. The thing about being a sexually reckless guy though, is that they often walk away from the children they've unknowingly fathered, and many women suffer in silence, raising the kid, alone. Wear a condom, stop being complacent when it comes to your sex life. Yet, there are still many men out there, who push the responsibility of birth control, onto women. Or they simply are too naive, and believe every woman when she tells them that she is on birth control. I see the different sides, here. Either side, men and women need to be sexually responsible, equally. It's hard to feel sorry for a guy who looks like a deer in the headlights, when he learns he's a dad to a kid from a one-night stand (or he's even in a relationship), because ''he didn't think it'd happen to him.''
Reply
#18
(Jan 17, 2019 08:28 PM)Syne Wrote: The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Rolleyes


So this impotent display of emotional disdain validating what was already well known in here: That any kind of response to your animated hysterics about a mundane _X_ is indeed just biting on bait. Whether apathetically or flippantly giving an acknowledgement to the pettiness of the wiggling shad or approaching it more seriously.

Quote:So...non sequitur. [...] It didn't have to connect to the OP article because you literally mentioned "a man already dodging or being tardy about child support".


You set the bogus standard of the article and created the bogus issue of anything related, adjacent, straying or outside its narrow parameters being improper. Syne wrote: "That's rather non sequitur to go from an article that only talks about cheating and deceiving women to the completely unmentioned delinquent fathers."

Thus here once more engaging in administrative posturing, appealing to inapplicable formal constraints in an informal conversation, dictating what can and cannot be said in the DIY forum of an overall casual discussion board. A slain or quite dead horse, which despite your propping it up here to imitate signs of life, deserves no further beating.

If you were the type abusively seeking aquariums of fish to treat and shoot like fish in a barrel sport, one might venture that the type also serves the function of a canary in the coal mine. The very predilection of that type for persistently hanging around at a place like Scivillage would indicate the latter having a lounge-like atmosphere. In contrast to the opposite environment which the type apparently perversely abhors, for fear that in the course of such strict rules and scrutiny of every sentence and paragraph it would be the one dragged into a corner and have a highbrowed saber repeatedly driven up its psychological arse.

Quote:Again, you're protesting about things you only imagine. No one was trying to micromanage anything. You just seemed to salivate, like Pavlov's dog, over Leigha mentioning "child support", in passing, and I was hoping there was some measure of actual connective tissue between that "bell" and the OP. If it's just a rant about something you've got stuck in your craw, or humor that isn't meant to be readily apparent in trolling text, so be it. Just say so. Don't get all defensive just because someone's trying to make sense of it in the context of the thread.

Honestly, I was hoping it did have something to do with the OP and that you might actually have "data to back up the notion that DIY paternity tests are significantly motivated by delinquent fathers...or even just absent fathers". That would've been new and interesting info to me.


So, in summary: Nothing. Just a continuing song and dance of projected misrepresention, loaded language, and a range of subtle to blatant catcalling to provoke the other party to keep participating in a manufactured farce. To a great extent, actually wrestling with and snarling at your own invented machinations rather than the person supposedly being addressed.

No one should be coddling a heap of intellectually juvenile tricks and stunts even as practice. The throat of yours has been slit at the fundamental level at which it was born, it has bled out, and if the Frankenstein designer of the poor creature doesn't have the decency to bury it, then the indecency is on him.

~
Reply
#19
(Jan 18, 2019 08:26 PM)C C Wrote:
(Jan 17, 2019 08:28 PM)Syne Wrote: The lady doth protest too much, methinks.  Rolleyes

So this impotent display of emotional disdain validating what was already well known in here: That any kind of response to your animated hysterics about a mundane _X_  is indeed just biting on bait. Whether apathetically or flippantly giving an acknowledgement to the pettiness of the wiggling shad or approaching it more seriously.
And now you're, what, projecting your trolling? Rolleyes
(Jan 17, 2019 12:50 PM)C C Wrote: I'm fine with you taking "trolling" literally (a lot quicker than waiting on the Black Humor barrier to be hurdled).

Quote:
Quote:So...non sequitur. [...] It didn't have to connect to the OP article because you literally mentioned "a man already dodging or being tardy about child support".


You set the bogus standard of the article and created the bogus issue of anything related, adjacent, straying or outside its narrow parameters being improper. Syne wrote: "That's rather non sequitur to go from an article that only talks about cheating and deceiving women to the completely unmentioned delinquent fathers."

Thus here once more engaging in administrative posturing, appealing to inapplicable formal constraints in an informal conversation, dictating what can and cannot be said in the DIY forum of an overall casual discussion board. A slain or quite dead horse, which despite your propping it up here to imitate signs of life, deserves no further beating.

If you were the type abusively seeking aquariums of fish to treat and shoot like fish in a barrel sport, one might venture that the type also serves the function of a canary in the coal mine. The very predilection of that type for persistently hanging around at a place like Scivillage would indicate the latter having a lounge-like atmosphere. In contrast to the opposite environment which the type apparently perversely abhors, for fear that in the course of such strict rules and scrutiny of every sentence and paragraph it would be the one dragged into a corner and have a highbrowed saber repeatedly driven up its psychological arse.
No, the thread itself set the existing context of the discussion. You're the one who brought up delinquent fathers. In the context of the discussion up to that point, it's valid to ask your reasoning for doing so. If you don't like it, you can continue to throw your little fit, but you're accusation of any "administrative posturing" is just projecting your own attempt to do just that with all this whining and carrying on.

What part of "why did you bring that up" don't you understand? O_o
It's a simple question that you seem very defensive about while repeatedly denying any motivation to be. Huh

Informal conversation actually means that no questions are out of bounds. No one ever said you couldn't post whatever you wanted, and claiming so is a transparent lie. You were only asked why you decided to take the discussion there. Apparently, you think that is a horrible affront to forum. Rolleyes

Piss off with your impotent and thinly-veiled allusions to violence.

Quote:
Quote:Again, you're protesting about things you only imagine. No one was trying to micromanage anything. You just seemed to salivate, like Pavlov's dog, over Leigha mentioning "child support", in passing, and I was hoping there was some measure of actual connective tissue between that "bell" and the OP. If it's just a rant about something you've got stuck in your craw, or humor that isn't meant to be readily apparent in trolling text, so be it. Just say so. Don't get all defensive just because someone's trying to make sense of it in the context of the thread.

Honestly, I was hoping it did have something to do with the OP and that you might actually have "data to back up the notion that DIY paternity tests are significantly motivated by delinquent fathers...or even just absent fathers". That would've been new and interesting info to me.


So, in summary: Nothing. Just a continuing song and dance of projected misrepresention, loaded language, and a range of subtle to blatant catcalling to provoke the other party to keep participating in a manufactured farce. To a great extent, actually wrestling with and snarling at your own invented machinations rather than the person supposedly being addressed.  

No one should be coddling a heap of intellectually juvenile tricks and stunts even as practice. The throat of yours has been slit at the fundamental level at which it was born, it has bled out, and if the Frankenstein designer of the poor creature doesn't have the decency to bury it, then the indecency is on him.

So, in summary: Nothing. Just evading simple questions while contrarily claiming no motive to do so, making multiple allusions to violence that [sarcasm]couldn't possibly betray the existence of such a motive[/sarcasm], projecting your own "administrative posturing" by trying to dictate what questions/conversation is out of bounds, hypocritically projecting trolling after already admitting to doing just that, and generally jumping at shadows of your own imagining. To a great extent, whining about assumptions that are made in lieu of any forthcoming answers from you.



~
Reply
#20
If 20% of pregnancies then (might we guess) something like 50% (or more) of ... oh no let's not go there. I loved Mrs C2 because I loved her - I married her because I trusted her, I'm pleased to say it seems to have been working out OK so far.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)