Society/Culture I support free speech, unless it offends me

[Lester Burnham]

no of course not. many simply volunteer. but if a potential father disputes paternity then a test is required before a man can be forced to pay things like child support.

That's not quite true. If the Child Support Agency Registrar determines by application of the Presumptions of parentage rules that a man is the father
eg

a man who cohabited with the child's mother at any time during the period beginning 44 weeks and ending 20 weeks before the child was born, but they were not married at any time during that period​

then that man has to pay child support unless he takes court action.

http://guides.dss.gov.au/child-support-guide/2/1/3

 

[Long Live HFC]

That's not quite true. If the Child Support Agency Registrar determines by application of the Presumptions of parentage rules that a man is the father
eg

a man who cohabited with the child's mother at any time during the period beginning 44 weeks and ending 20 weeks before the child was born, but they were not married at any time during that period​

then that man has to pay child support unless he takes court action.

http://guides.dss.gov.au/child-support-guide/2/1/3

yeah so there are presumption clauses that can be challenged in court; it's not like someone can be forced to pay child support with no recourse though.

The Registrar is not making a finding of parentage, but an administrative decision as part of a decision whether or not to accept an application for assessment.

 

[clogged]

Single. No kids?

Gets beaten by women.

 

[The Coup]

That's not quite true. If the Child Support Agency Registrar determines by application of the Presumptions of parentage rules that a man is the father
eg

a man who cohabited with the child's mother at any time during the period beginning 44 weeks and ending 20 weeks before the child was born, but they were not married at any time during that period​

then that man has to pay child support unless he takes court action.

http://guides.dss.gov.au/child-support-guide/2/1/3

That's pretty standard in enforcement.

Same thing with speeding fines and littering from a vehicle. There's a presumption as to the identity of the person, but they are able to dispute it or provide contrary evidence.

It's a reverse onus of proof and it makes sense in certain circumstances. Rarely in criminal cases though.

 

[telsor]

Gets beaten by women.

Indeed, I have been. Although I'm told that didn't happen because domestic violence is only done by men to women.

 

[telsor]

That's not quite true. If the Child Support Agency Registrar determines by application of the Presumptions of parentage rules that a man is the father
eg

a man who cohabited with the child's mother at any time during the period beginning 44 weeks and ending 20 weeks before the child was born, but they were not married at any time during that period​

then that man has to pay child support unless he takes court action.

http://guides.dss.gov.au/child-support-guide/2/1/3

Even a DNA test showing you're not the father doesn't stop the need for child support, you need to get the court to rule.

Of course, you also probably need the court to issue an order in order to get a DNA test in the first place, as both parties need to approve, and if the mother is the custodial parent, she would need to approve as the child's legal guardian.

To get a court order to check, you need reasonable cause to suspect you're not the father. (was away at time of conception, proof of infidelity, etc).

http://www.qflp.com.au/legal-information/dna-testing

 

[kfc1]

Indeed, I have been. Although I'm told that didn't happen because domestic violence is only done by men to women.

Given what you have been through your patience with some of the real dumb s**t that gets said on here is remarkable. Credit to you.

 

[clogged]

Indeed, I have been. Although I'm told that didn't happen because domestic violence is only done by men to women.

Violence is perpetrated by the strong over the weak, and therefore it is thoroughly unsurprising you were subjected to it.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Violence is perpetrated by the strong over the weak, and therefore it is thoroughly unsurprising you were subjected to it.

What a s**t thing to say.

 

[clogged]

What a s**t thing to say.

I've known women who have targeted men for mental anguish and abuse. They specifically seek out those they can manipulate, like all predators.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The story of Muslims in western society! "Burqa Lurka Mohamma Jihand" This translates to : "We can pedal our medieval ideology as much as we want and insult other faiths, but you cannot criticize islam because it goes against our political agenda of one day seeing Australia under Shariah law".

I kind of agree, but then I kind of don't. Legitimate criticism should always be a valid part of the sharing of ideas - but in each instance its good to ask as to what end the criticism is aiming for. If its to point out wrongs like the treatment of women in Islamic society then I think its valid.

But if the criticism is just because someone hates Muslims (or indeed, any culture), then I reckon its invalid.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The hardliners are a problem, yes. But I also know Muslims who just want to get on with life, the same as everyone else. The 'dream' of an Islamic Australian Caliphate isn't a dream to all of them, not by any stretch.

 

[Gough]

What religion doesn't lie to protect the faith? Three days dead? That's about as believable as two dozen nubile virgins awaiting you upon your martyrdom.

 

[Gough]

Elephant with eight arms anyone?

 

[telsor]

Violence is perpetrated by the strong over the weak, and therefore it is thoroughly unsurprising you were subjected to it.

I'm weak because I chose not to hit her back?

I wonder how you'd describe me if I did 'return fire'.

 

[louismaxwell]

I'm weak because I chose not to hit her back?

I wonder how you'd describe me if I did 'return fire'.

In my opinion, if your over 18yo, game on, doesnt matter what your sex is, they get the first punch but you need to follow through in return.

 

[scon]

In my opinion, if your over 18yo, game on, doesnt matter what your sex is, they get the first punch but you need to follow through in return.

Fuq yeah

 

[telsor]

In my opinion, if your over 18yo, game on, doesnt matter what your sex is, they get the first punch but you need to follow through in return.

Yeah, sure.

Girl hits guy, then guy hits girl...Who do you think gets arrested?

 

[louismaxwell]

Fuq yeah

please i have you on ignore

 

[scon]

please i have you on ignore

Don't tell me it'll spoil it.

 

[louismaxwell]

Don't tell me it'll spoil it.

Now you know, so no more responses to my posts, thanks in advance

 

[scon]

Now you know, so no more responses to my posts, thanks in advance

10.4!
Can't promise though

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Nothing wrong with disagreeing, but you should a view to actual resolution too.

There is a thing called scientific method, it can apply to opinion too. It's one of the key planks of left wing politics.

Leftists might like the see it that way but the scientific methods stands in opposite to rigid Dogmatism and Dogmatism is equally associated with either side of the political spectrum.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

She does live with the consequences. Do you forget that she is the one is pregnant? The one whose life is irrevocably changed whatever she chooses?

I agree with this broad sentiment. Such a scenario has to exist because the risks for men are so low and so high for women.

But the difference here is all the dynamic choice sits with the women. The man has ceded his own rights at the moment of intercourse and from a legal perspective the responsibility (financial or otherwise) to raise the child doesn't sit with any one parent.

The issue here is people confuse this arrangement for something resembling equality, when it's all about social utility.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

The feminazi's are part of the five per centers. That is the 5% who have been sent to make out lives a misery.

Freedom of expression is a primary value. It should be protected except it rare circumstances such as vilification.

Unfortunately there are zealots who feel it's their life's work to ensure freedom of expression is limited to what they believe is acceptable.

I find it in the dying with dignity conversations where religious zealots ( mainly from the extreme right of the Catholic church) seek to control the agenda.

I would fight for the right of those who have a view regarding end of life decisions to follow their chosen path if it didn't accord with mine. Yet those very same zealots would fight to deny me my choice should it not accord with theirs.

We have to expose the five per centers and fight with every fibre in our bodies their intimidation and efforts to deny us our right to freedom of choice both in terms of speech and action.

All power to the arm of Brendan O'Neill and all who feel aggrieved by the five per centers.

I actually blame the neo-liberal narrative for the rise of this self driven leftist movement who increasingly value "lived experiences" over more objective analysis of our society. Unfortunately the rhetoric is unquestionable, to shake their little worlds is an open act of violence against them. In essence they're past gone.