Another Man Down in the War Against Fathers

FatherMag.com ^ | August 22, 2002 | Roger F. Gay

[RogerFGay]

Nobody's stopping you.

[RogerFGay]

OK then. It's decided. As soon as I get a new website, I win.

[Cultural Jihad]

You really need to focus on no-fault divorce and moral-liberalism. Try to leave the anarcho-Stalinist hyperbole out of the mix.

[RogerFGay]

You really need to focus on no-fault divorce and moral-liberalism. Try to leave the anarcho-Stalinist hyperbole out of the mix.

I guess whenever you use the word "hyperbole" it changes everything. Not!

[RGSpincich]

Maybe Roger gets a commission based on the number of outlandish hypes he writes.

If he did, he would be rolling in money rather than the other stuff.

[Home By Dark]

Roger, it's obvious that you see divorced men with offspring as quintessential victims (which you keep tossing in our faces with dreary regularity).

What would you consider a FAIR system?

[RogerFGay]

Yes of course. Kill 'em all. They're men.

[RogerFGay]

Roger, it's obvious that you see divorced men with offspring as quintessential victims (which you keep tossing in our faces with dreary regularity).

When I read comments like that, it tells me that I haven't tossed it in enough faces often enough. How bored are you with that 9/11 victimization prattle? Strange we thought we were getting a Republican president and he's so involved in victim politics like that. You really need to take what I write more literally. Don't get clouded by political stereotypes. I've gone to a great deal of effort to understand what's going on and to explain it. Repeating things over and over again so they sink in subliminally is not my favorite option. I'd rather you just read what I write and understand it consciously.

What would you consider a FAIR system?

How meaningless is it to you when I say that the system is not operating according to the constitution? A central committee making arbitrary en masse decisions. How much explanation do you need? Apply the constitution. Fathers rights are literally about fundamental rights & constitutional rights.

[kidd]

Oh come on!

Every guy you cited as an example in this article is threatening someone else's life. That's simply sensationalism. And frankly, its counter-productive to the father's rights movement.

Sensationalism is lazy reporting. Find a normal guy. Not a "perfect" man, but not one who is going to point a gun to someone's head either. They are in the vast majority. Report what they have to sacrafice to make ridiculous payments. Compare it to what they were paying before their child was taken from their lives. Discuss his emotions (I'm not interested in the emotions of a man who is willing to kill strangers). Find out what the mother is actually doing with the money. Point out how few "rights" he actually has.

If you think we should hear about the thousands who don't run and shoot, then by golly tell us about them!

[RogerFGay]

You have no reasonable argument against what I've said. Taking a girlish psychological approach isn't going to help your case.

[Home By Dark]

=>Repeating things over and over again so they sink in subliminally is not my favorite option.

And curiously enough, you are not God, and thus, not an infallible source of truth.

=>What would you consider a FAIR system?

How meaningless is it to you when I say that the system is not operating according to the constitution? A central committee making arbitrary en masse decisions. How much explanation do you need? Apply the constitution. Fathers rights are literally about fundamental rights & constitutional rights.

Where in the constitution does it detail how the children of divorced people will be raised?

Answer the question in a straightforward manner. Please.

[Centurion2000]

My brother pays $300 per month for the rest of his life for kids that are over 20. This is a lifetime interest payment made to the state of California.

What is this ???

[RogerFGay]

And frankly, its counter-productive to the father's rights movement. Sensationalism is lazy reporting. Find a normal guy. Not a "perfect" man, but not one who is going to point a gun to someone's head either. They are in the vast majority.

I've certainly written many articles without mentioning the physically violent side of the war against fathers. But Catalino Morales is a real person and I don't think he should be dropped off like the trash. I hope you'll read the article again and try to understand what it says.

[RogerFGay]

Where in the constitution does it detail how the children of divorced people will be raised?

Answer the question in a straightforward manner. Please.

I answered your first question in a straightforward manner and asked you questions which you ignored. Now I'll answer your second question in a straightforward manner and hope you'll give the dialogue your best effort.

The constitution does not detail how the children of divorced people will be raised. If you think that means that the constitution provides an open invitation for government to dictate and enforce arbitrary orders, you don't understand the constitution.

[Raymond Hendrix]

I am just trying to point out that some men are trying to pay their lawfull obligations for past due child support. My brother is one of them. Yes, he made a mistake and now he wants to make it right. The state of California "helps" by compounding interest on the past due amount. None of the money he pays ever goes on the principal. He will be paying this for the rest of his life. The kids are now grown and they were supported by my mother when my brother was negligent. I agree that the system is a joke. Do the kids get the money from these life long interest payments?

[Home By Dark]

=>I answered your first question in a straightforward manner and asked you questions which you ignored. Now I'll answer your second question in a straightforward manner and hope you'll give the dialogue your best effort.

The constitution does not detail how the children of divorced people will be raised. If you think that means that the constitution provides an open invitation for government to dictate and enforce arbitrary orders, you don't understand the constitution.


I assume from your failure to answer the question, and repeated whiney posts about the woes and sorrows of divorced dads that you have NO idea how the children of divorced people should be raised.

It's one thing to be aware of a problem. It's quite another to go on whining about it interminably with no idea how things could be fairly and equitably done.

[RogerFGay]

And another thing: Don't ever suggest to me that I should take a politically biased approach to reporting on real life events.

[RogerFGay]

BWAAAHAAAHAAHA