Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ...
6
7
8
9
10
... LastLast
  1. #141
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Yeah because everybody knows couples don't separate/divorce pre-20th century.

    Let's just say it was easier to stay 20 years with someone when people died at 50.......

  2. #142
    So lifetime alimony seems pretty stupid. I don't see how a judge can look at a guy who is making $90,000 a year and expect him to pay... $90,000 a year in alimony to someone. It doesn't make a shred of sense.

  3. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8490YW20120510

    It's not like I was making an obscure or unbelievable claim. This has been well known for a long time.

    On second thought...
    Nice try, did you even read the article you linked? It doesn't provide even a single useful statistic, other than saying "More and more" what is that? 1% more? 2%? A useless article, and a useless comment. Provide a citation for an actual % of men receiving alimony, the highest I can find is from 2006 and it's less than 4%. You comment attempts to suggest that it is now a significant % of alimony payments going to men, back it up with facts or stay silent.

    That aside, it's not really important who is receiving alimony, it's a dumb law, nobody should receive alimony, man or woman.

  4. #144
    Herald of the Titans Kezool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Itisamuh View Post
    Semaphore, I mean this in as nice a way possible, but your method of arguing is extremely abrasive. People don't care what statistics or studies say, they care about their own experiences. Experiences are what shape a person's perspective. If I, or someone I know, or any of these other posters and people they know have had this kind of crap happen, then it's happened. The fact that they don't have an encyclopedia article detailing it doesn't make it any less real, or any less valid. Given the sheer number of men complaining about settlements regarding alimony and child support, I'd say that's enough evidence that there's a serious problem in the system, and that it very often does favor the woman by default. And to be fair, I know you've stated that you agree it's not a perfect system and needs worked on, but I'm trying to offer constructive criticism here. The reason you never get the sourced evidence you ask for is because that's not what people go by. They go by experience.
    And if you're trying to argue something from personal experience, expect to be made a fool out of. Seriously, they are your experiences, not anyone elses.
    Live in fear, for the bullsquirrel is near.

    The entire internet needs to be aware of this

  5. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by Kezool View Post
    And if you're trying to argue something from personal experience, expect to be made a fool out of. Seriously, they are your experiences, not anyone elses.
    And? Look how many people are saying the same thing. It's not like they're isolated incidents. I don't consider it "being made a fool out of" when someone simply doesn't believe me. If I know I'm right (since, you know, it happened) then the one arguing against it is the fool.

  6. #146
    Bloodsail Admiral Goatfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Stars
    Posts
    1,020
    Quote Originally Posted by whoranzone View Post
    Don't you find that a bit too anecdotal yourself ?

    Well I don't know the most recent divorce I happened to witness was the father of a good friend of mine who divorced his wife after ~42 years and he is paying a rather significant amount willingly as she raised all his three children and kept the household intact. I can't see anything wrong with that. I mean she can't go back to work anyways. Who the fuck takes somebody in who didn't work for 20 years and is now in their 60ies.


    Walmart, Target, most grocery and general goods stores actually. Even the butcher shop where I work employs a couple 65-75 year olds just for wrapping and packaging meat.

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    I asked for legal cases and decisions, since the point Laize made was about judges abusing their power. Not youtube videos of people saying stuff you agree with (not saying that's all it is, but 3 seconds of it looks like just some guy with a camera).

    Yes yes bash a whole gender over the actions of some.
    Your thought process is why no one but feminists take feminists seriously. You ask for multiple documented court records on many of these sort of threads repeatedly knowing full well that those sort of records are incredibly hard to get hold of unless you are a lawyer or were part of the case itself meaning you have one on hand. Even then from the way you post and reaction to what you have been given, I see the response as "Well that's just one case, show me 1000 more like that to prove it isn't an isolated incident." You act like everything told from a mans perspective is nothing but a fish story and is either completely false or greatly exaggerated, when honestly, what reason would all these people have to lie? Why would a person go to a newspaper complaining about this situation and give off false, easily proven wrong information knowing full well it is going to draw some attention and suspicion?

    I'm not saying bashing all females is right, or that this situation is never reversed. What I, and other people in this thread are saying is it is generally the woman who takes the cake in the majority of these alimony situations, which is proven, if by nothing else than the fact that women on average throughout the entire workforce take home less money than men (not paycheck by paycheck for the same job mind you, just gross income overall over all jobs, men work higher paying jobs on average). This means that more often than not, a man is going to be the target to be paying alimony, not receiving it. This isn't even getting into blatant child custody issues, but that's really for a different thread.

    PS: I found it funny that in that article it mainly used personal experience as content, as well as the statement that the amount of women in law classes have doubled, which by his numbers mean a jump from ~6 per 135 to ~12 per 135, or still less than 10%.
    Last edited by Goatfish; 2012-12-08 at 07:55 PM.

  7. #147
    Herald of the Titans Kezool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Itisamuh View Post
    And? Look how many people are saying the same thing. It's not like they're isolated incidents. I don't consider it "being made a fool out of" when someone simply doesn't believe me. If I know I'm right (since, you know, it happened) then the one arguing against it is the fool.
    Everything happens at some point. If I get beaten up by a group of white kids from good homes does that mean that's now a point of concern rivaling gang violence? No, it just means I got beat up by some kids.

    Case here too is the exact same. It's cherrypicking incidents from personal experience to make your case stronger. It's flawed, insanely so, when you're discussing a topic as big as this. But fine, go ahead and continue jerking to the text of "My nephews friends father got totally shafted by the system after a divorce" if you want.
    Live in fear, for the bullsquirrel is near.

    The entire internet needs to be aware of this

  8. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by Itisamuh View Post
    Semaphore, I mean this in as nice a way possible, but your method of arguing is extremely abrasive. People don't care what statistics or studies say, they care about their own experiences. Experiences are what shape a person's perspective. If I, or someone I know, or any of these other posters and people they know have had this kind of crap happen, then it's happened. The fact that they don't have an encyclopedia article detailing it doesn't make it any less real, or any less valid.
    You're mixing two things: your personal experiences, and your subjective opinions drawn from those experiences. When I argue against a poster, I'm not usually arguing that you or their experiences did not happen. I'm typically disputing the conclusions you are drawing from it. Anecdotal evidences are not very sound grounds for making conclusions in general. So yes - the experiences are (probably) real. But that does not at all imply that the conclusions are valid.

    I'm aware that I am abrasive. But saying you don't care about statistics or scientific studies, doesn't really refute my arguments, not here or really anywhere else. The only way to truly judge a large scale system is through scientific studies, not anecdotal evidence. I mean, I have mine too:

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    I once heard about this sleazy guy who rented a room from a woman, proceeded to start a friends with benefits relationship with the landlady, and broke off after 3 year (3 years is the minimum requirement by law here). Then he sued and won half her house. Laws that are easily exploitable works both ways and I personally don't agree with the lax requirements my country has for equal share of relationship properties.
    However, I don't use it to claim anything about the male gender, legal biases, or anything other than that there is such an experience. Because I have no reasonable grounds upon which to generalise based on my sample size of one.


    Quote Originally Posted by Itisamuh View Post
    I'd say that's enough evidence that there's a serious problem in the system, and that it very often does favor the woman by default.
    I didn't say the system has no problems. I do however question the validity of your claim that it favors women by default.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-08 at 07:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Zurtle View Post
    Nice try, did you even read the article you linked? It doesn't provide even a single useful statistic, other than saying "More and more" what is that?
    What is that is exactly what I said: more and more woman are paying. Did you even remember what you asked sources for?

    I never made any claims as to how many woman are paying because I don't know. But the point is woman are paying, and more often now, so the pretense that it's always men is as equally silly as the purported pretension that all women are materially harmed by marriage.

  9. #149
    Scarab Lord slime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    USA PA
    Posts
    4,095
    @ semaphore - your raging feminism is showing. I don't deny that over the last few years men have start to play this crutch card on their successful spouses. All I am saying is we got a long way to go to catch up to how many women built there lives around this welfar.. opps i mean alimony. And you bringing up this handful of men in comparison to the years and years this was only done by women, is all a feminist's arguements always end up being, worthless, angry drivil that points to anomolies in statistics.
    Last edited by slime; 2012-12-08 at 08:10 PM.

  10. #150
    Regardless of how necessary or not alimony is, whether or not the system favors men or women, whether or not power is being abused, and whatever else is being discussed in this thread, this specific case is simply ridiculous. I don't know how they expected someone to pay more than they make a year to their divorced spouse, on top of child support, legal fees, and their own cost of living. Certainly the judge must have seen this coming.

  11. #151
    Herald of the Titans Kezool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by slime View Post
    Okay, you are correct - you have facts and figures, I will even give it to you.
    Now - if we can keep it this way - (men getting the alimony) - for like about 60 more years - then we'll be even. But we have a long way to go to catch up to all the worthless women - who used this crutch for about the last 70 years. Then maybe your point will mean something. The current trend means shit to me until stuff evens out. I can be murderer all my life - and on the day of my death renounce all I did and apoligize and say it was wrong - and it makes everything okay? No, this is law not christianity.
    If that's your argument I recommend you invent a time machine and fix it in that sense, because not a singular sensible person in charge will sit on a chair and shout "NOW SUFFER LIKE WE HAVE SUFFERED".

    Get fucked. The situation is getting better, and for some particular men it will feel like it is getting worse, but never, not ever, should we use the argument "We suffered, why can't you?" in this argument, or in any argument actually. Being a vindictive cunt isn't a good mindset.
    Live in fear, for the bullsquirrel is near.

    The entire internet needs to be aware of this

  12. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by slime View Post
    Okay, you are correct - you have facts and figures, I will even give it to you.
    Now - if we can keep it this way - (men getting the alimony) - for like about 60 more years - then we'll be even.
    It's not like I said we should sit back and do nothing. I'm simply pointing out that the system works both ways, and is (I believe) equally terrible to both.


    The current trend means shit to me until stuff evens out.
    It's one thing to say things should be completely balanced between the genders. I absolutely agree with that.

    However it's another to try to "even" things out across time, with men getting compensated in the future for perceived past excesses by women in the "last 70 years". I'll suggest to you that it is neither a practical nor a reasonable path to go down, and especially not a smart move to argue from a male perspective.

  13. #153
    Alimony should be based on a % of what you make, its very unfair to make people pay for someone who does nothing, but this is america.

  14. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    What is that is exactly what I said: more and more woman are paying. Did you even remember what you asked sources for?

    I never made any claims as to how many woman are paying because I don't know. But the point is woman are paying, and more often now, so the pretense that it's always men is as equally silly as the purported pretension that all women are materially harmed by marriage.
    Yet you have provided no statistics or facts to back up your claim. Your entire argument consists of "it's common knowledge" The article you linked provides nothing more than anecdotal "50% of laywers say this" No statistics or proof or any kind are provided. How do you know more women are paying?

    If you want to demand everybody else prove everything they say with studies and statistics, you had better be prepared to do the same. So far you have not been able to.

  15. #155
    Old God
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    10,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Zurtle View Post
    Nice try, did you even read the article you linked? It doesn't provide even a single useful statistic, other than saying "More and more" what is that? 1% more? 2%? A useless article, and a useless comment. Provide a citation for an actual % of men receiving alimony, the highest I can find is from 2006 and it's less than 4%. You comment attempts to suggest that it is now a significant % of alimony payments going to men, back it up with facts or stay silent.

    That aside, it's not really important who is receiving alimony, it's a dumb law, nobody should receive alimony, man or woman.
    It's not really a useless article, I'm pretty sure most men still earns more then women for a number of different reasons but it's an interesting read as it indicates that things are changing, no suprises there really as more women then men work(I think), more women goes through higher education(not always education that will make them high income earners though) etc.
    The nerve is called the "nerve of awareness". You cant dissect it. Its a current that runs up the center of your spine. I dont know if any of you have sat down, crossed your legs, smoked DMT, and watch what happens... but what happens to me is this big thing goes RRRRRRRRRAAAAAWWW! up my spine and flashes in my brain... well apparently thats whats going to happen if I do this stuff...

  16. #156
    Moderator Anakso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    4,699
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Yes you do. It's called spousal maintenance. Most developed countries have them, they're just a lot more prominent in the United States because the government doesn't really take care of the people in America - so the court/legal system assigns responsibility to former spouses. It's almost like having a social safety net is a good idea.
    Hmm, so we do. Never really hear about it here.
    It seems a lot is taken into consideration including ability to work, and not just if they have a job or not. I'd assume that's the case in America too though?

  17. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Yeah it's not like the average child support payments only cover less than half the cost of actually raising a child (for that income bracket).
    That's a complete lie. In every case I have seen or heard about the ordered payments are grossly excessive. They should not be based on income at all. They should determine the actual difference in expenses between the child being in the home or not (rent or mortgage payments not being included since they'd be there either way) and that amount, which really would not be that great in almost all cases, should be split down the middle regardless of how much either parent makes. It should never total more than 5 or 6 thousand a year and in most cases would be well below that.
    Last edited by Dch48; 2012-12-08 at 09:30 PM.

  18. #158
    Merely a Setback Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    25,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Anakso View Post
    Hmm, so we do. Never really hear about it here.
    It seems a lot is taken into consideration including ability to work, and not just if they have a job or not. I'd assume that's the case in America too though?
    It's should not be an ex-spouse's duty to send a check to the other spouse simply so they can sit on their ass and do nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    Both of those links don't provide any evidence. They make unsubstantiated statements

  19. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by Dch48 View Post
    That's a complete lie. In every case I have seen or heard about the ordered payments are grossly excessive. They should not be based on income at all. They should determine the actual difference in expenses between the child being in the home or not (rent or mortgage payments not being included since they'd be there either way) and that amount, which really would not be that great in almost all cases, should be split down the middle regardless of how much either parent makes. It should never total more than 5 or 6 thousand a year and in most cases would be well below that.
    Agree with this 100%. Cost of raising a child for most cities in the United states is less than $5,000 a year, and that is with a large leeway.

  20. #160
    From what I understood the "check" is and should be for the kid welfare. And call me crazy but I do think that should be regulated as it should be calculated based on that parent earning and a minimum of how much does a kid need to be taken care of. Just like there is a minum wage there should be a minim alimoney so that any child can live decent and on top of that it's depending on the parent sallary. Case closed. If by any chance the alimony is more then what the parent earns then the system is flawd.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •