Posted on 08/22/2002 6:45:01 AM PDT by RogerFGay
That supports my point -- in any given population, there are some who will, when put under sufficient pressure, crack.
It is interesting that they do not crack prior to being put through the meat grinder.
That most do not crack when subjected to unmitigated dehumanizing abuse is not in any way an endorsement of the idea that unmitigated dehumanizing abuse is good, yet, there is no shortage of people who defend a system based on unmitigated dehumanizing abuse.
It is distressing that so many putative "conservatives" do so, mouthing the words written by hard core left wing radical feminists.
What an amazing remark, since that is exactly the basis of the defense of "the system" that "pressure-treats" those who crack.
The liberal dictum: "Allow me to be irresponsible, and I'll allow you all to pay for the consequences of my irresponsibility."
Unemployed females get all the breaks from the system and that's one of them.
Be my guest, but extend the courtesy of reading all my traffic in that post before assuming you've seen the whole picture.
"You have tried to justify the actions of a guy who held hostages by his treatment at the hands of child support collectors."
Bovina fecundis. I explained it. There is a wide gulf between explaining something and defending it.
By your brand of "logic", the Weisenthal Center is "defending the actions of the nazis."
"I hate to say it but some of you guys sound like suicide by cop candidates. And that is frightening."
You sound like you need thorazine.
Unemployed females get all the breaks from the system and that's one of them.Spoken as a true generalism. Since that statement can be proven false in certain instances, the whole statement becomes false.
As an enthusiastic non-supporter of the current laws regarding child support, this is what worries me. If these guys want to get themselves blown away by the police, fine, that just makes them Darwin Award candidates. What concerns me is that the good name of FR will be besmirched by their membership in the forum.
You sound like an historian.
You know what they say -- history is written by the victors.
Claims of fair equitable reasonable treatment by the divorce industry ring quite hollow when delivered by victorious women.
The choir has left the building and this is pure dribble. Address the real problems and leave out the hype.
,,, I had this experience for a minimum of three and a half years. I wish it on you.
Yup, good thing the feminists are only looking for "fair, equitable" treatment, and have no inclination towards vindictive, punitive, confiscatory tactics vis-a-vis "child" support.
Thank you for that demonstration of feminist ethics.
Oh, right. You mean like the "Gee, my ex's CS was just increased to $470/mo. and he's not living in his car....but he will be. LOLOL" type of stress?
"LOLOL" indeed.
What a vindictive little so and so.
Fine, I'll go along with that.
Now why won't you go along with making those who create the dehumanizing system of abuse also "pay for their crimes"?
You had an incompentent lawyer. Who's fault is that?
Thank you for that demonstration of feminist ethics.You're so very welcome. And had I wanted you to give a reasonable response, like perhaps asking the circumstances of such a modification, I'd have given you more info. I didn't for the simple fact that I knew what kind of a response it would elicit from you. Look further below that post and you'll see part of the reason. But then, as I've said, I've dealt with Mr. Gay and his likeness in many forms for many years. Ppl such Mr. Gay and his supporters only see what they want to see. No matter the circumstances, to you I will probably always be the money grubbing bitch. And I get a real good laugh out of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.