TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Futurist110 Archive

View 40 posts and 530 comments by Futurist110 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
10

DiscussionFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 12:53 AM
9

DiscussionFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/17 11:40 PM
9

Fathers/CustodyFuturist110/r/MensRights16/02/17 05:56 PM
6

DiscussionFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 06:42 AM
5

DiscussionFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/16 12:12 AM
5

Social IssuesFuturist110/r/MensRights19/12/15 09:53 PM
3

DiscussionFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/21 12:01 AM
3

DiscussionFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/16 11:35 PM
3

Futurist110/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 09:31 PM
3

Activism/SupportFuturist110/r/MensRights02/01/21 12:02 AM
3

DiscussionFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/16 09:46 PM
3

DiscussionFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 02:34 PM
3

DebateFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 02:42 AM
3

DebateFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 02:54 AM
3

Futurist110/r/MensRights22/02/16 05:38 AM
3

Futurist110/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 02:58 AM
3

QuestionsFuturist110/r/MensRights12/11/15 03:37 AM
2

DiscussionFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/17 03:40 AM
2

DiscussionFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 07:50 PM
2

DiscussionFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 02:38 AM
1

DiscussionFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/16 08:47 PM
1

Futurist110/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/16 02:24 PM
1

Futurist110/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/16 08:06 PM
1

Futurist110/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 12:30 AM
1

DiscussionFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/16 09:56 PM
1

Futurist110/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/16 02:10 AM
1

Futurist110/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/21 11:45 PM
1

DiscussionFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 12:51 AM
1

Futurist110/r/MGTOW16/11/16 03:25 AM
1

CMVFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/16 01:37 PM
0

Futurist110/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 07:28 AM
0

QuestionsFuturist110/r/MensRights19/12/15 12:52 AM
0

Off TopicFuturist110/r/TheRedPill15/11/16 11:35 AM
0

Futurist110/r/MensRights07/01/16 06:25 AM
0

QuestionsFuturist110/r/MensRights18/06/15 04:16 AM
0

DiscussionFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/16 04:46 PM
0

Futurist110/r/MensRights22/03/16 02:12 AM
0

Futurist110/r/MensRights16/02/17 06:51 PM
0

DiscussionFuturist110/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/16 09:47 PM
0

Futurist110/r/MensRights16/11/16 01:16 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Nope, chose this option instead. Thanks for the compliments, BTW!
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/21 01:08 AM
1

Nope; rather, I'm talking about the kinds of vasectomy failures where one's vas deferens regenerates--which AFAIK can occur at ANY time! :(
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/21 12:18 AM
1

I think anybody that brings this shit up should be forced to undertake the procedure Gladly! Just as soon as I will raise the necessary funds for this!
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/21 12:18 AM
1

And why would anyone want that as it's unnecessary. Not really; an EXTREMELY LONG history of vasectomy failures testifies to this.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/21 12:04 AM
2

Wouldn't that indeed always be rape, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 10:38 PM
1

That's what affirmative consent is. So, you mean affirmative consent before every part of sex?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 09:40 PM
1

What if they're not fighting about anything and if she doesn't say that she needs some space?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 09:40 PM
1

Can one give consent to this ahead of time, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 09:39 PM
1

OK; good.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 05:51 PM
1

An unconditional basic income can help deal with this problem, no?
/r/MensRights22/03/17 03:23 AM
1

which would cause other issues. Such as?
/r/MensRights21/03/17 10:44 PM
1

Don't many countries have child support extradition treaties with the U.S., though?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 07:12 AM
1

The state doesn't have to put people such as myself in such a shitty situation in the first place, though. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 04:36 AM
1

Yeah, I completely agree with this. However, in either case, I would still be left with a lifelong grudge against the state for compelling me to get such extremely unpleasant surgery! :(
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 04:25 AM
1

Actually, if the state unjustifiably puts someone in an unpleasant situation, then it's certainly the state's fault.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 04:24 AM
0

What exactly is your logic in regards to this?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 04:24 AM
1

Actually, I want to either get my entire reproductive tubing or, if that is impossible, to get my testicles surgically removed in order to avoid this outcome.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 04:08 AM
1

Well, that would be the state's fault.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 04:04 AM
1

Unless being desperate is degrading; is it?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 04:01 AM
0

No, not if there was no other way to escape that demon. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 04:00 AM
1

Degrade?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 03:53 AM
1

Are you sure about that? After all, CFinNY appears to have stated otherwise here: http://www.thechildfreelife.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=31799&start=50
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 03:39 AM
1

Even if it was morally acceptable, it won't work. No judge has ever said "oh, you're a cutter? Let's take away your parental obligations and call it even." Isn't being put into a mental hospital legitimate grounds to strip someone of parental rights and parental responsibilities, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 03:30 AM
0

Is it preferable for a man to go to mental institution, Temporarily? Yes, of course!
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/17 03:25 AM
1

Yeah it makes sense. I'd include participation in abortion fees if needed. Agreed. As long as it's signed before sex, although I can't imagine many guys bringing it up before sex and ruining their chances! If a woman already says before sex that she will utilize either abortion or adoption in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, though, having her sign such a contract wouldn't be too much to ask her. After all, doesn't she want you to trust her?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 07:40 PM
1

I would make the state accept pre-sex legal contracts which absolve one party of all parental rights and parental responsibilities.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 07:05 PM
1

Or a murder/manslaughter charge for killing a fetus! :(
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/17 08:03 AM
1

But there's no showing up with a ten year old and asking for ten years of back child-support. What about the best interests of the child, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/17 09:08 PM
2

I meant about birth control failure.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/17 06:08 AM
0

"it's basically save the children, help the children and let them prosper." Come on, Becky, you know better than that! :( Indeed, in reality, this is only a part of the reason for child support; after all, as far as I know, children cannot win tort lawsuits in adulthood against either their custodial parent for refusing to seek child support! :( Frankly, as I say: "Best interests of the child, my ass!" :(
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/17 05:29 AM
1

What's so wrong about giving them an adequate period of time for which to assert their rights? Frankly, if child support is the right of the child, then the time limit for this should be over 18 years--with adult children being able to sue in place of their parents in adulthood. After all, surely this would be a reasonable law in a country where testicle-chopping is literally required to escape the risk of forced child support payments, no? :(
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/17 05:25 AM
1

Have pro-choicers stop whining about birth control failure and then we'll talk.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/17 05:24 AM
1

Maybe she thinks initially she doesn't want him involved and she can make it on her own What about the best interests of the child, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/17 05:21 AM
1

I agree with a statute of limitations, What about the best interests of the child, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/17 05:21 AM
1

No, it actually isn't; after all, as far as I know, even vasectomy failure certainly (and unfortunately) isn't an acceptable excuse to avoid paying child support for 18+ years! :(
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/17 05:17 AM
1

Well, yeah, not everyone is actually qualified to raise a child!
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/17 06:58 PM
1

Two questions: Can you actually do a paternity test for all safe haven babies nationwide? How exactly does the government not track you down for child support unless you, say, flee abroad to certain countries?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/17 06:57 PM
1

Also, though, whether he pays child support or not doesn't affect the child other unless those payments actually make a difference in how much money is spent on the child.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/17 06:54 PM
1

whatever else he does really doesn't affect the kid if the payments are there. No, but it does affect himself.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/17 06:53 PM
1

So, safe-haven laws aren't actually about saving infants' lives and about saving infants from abandonment? :(
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/17 06:32 AM
1

No; however, I would say the same thing about, say, someone who relentlessly cuts himself in response to being forced to pay child support.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/17 06:24 AM
1

indeed, i want enough How much is enough here, though? it's pretty clear by this that they meant a legal and safe surrender was braver than the alternatives (like abandoning it in a dumpster or committing infanticide). Well, yeah; however, one alternative to this wasn't mentioned--specifically raising your child yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/17 04:10 AM
1

do you think any normal human thinks its brave to abandon your baby in a vacuum? If the alternative is killing them, maybe.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/17 04:07 AM
1

So, anyone who makes such comments is probably pro-life?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/17 04:04 AM
2

Well, here's another example of this: http://saveabandonedbabies.org/safe-haven-babiestestimonials/ Indeed, how much do you want?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/17 04:03 AM
2

Well, do a Google search on this.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/17 04:01 AM
2

For one, take a look at Jenny Paul's comment here: https://www.facebook.com/SaveAbandonedBabies/
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/17 03:43 AM
1

Why should we treat embryos like they're humans? Frankly, the only argument that I can think of for this is their potential--similar to unconscious people having the potential to wake up in the future.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 09:37 PM
1

Well, I certainly haven't heard of any country or province--with the possible exception of Ontario--which allows unwilling (male) parents to opt-out of paying child support.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 06:28 AM
1

How do you know it's a stranger's child? DNA test, of course. No I'm not. I need those organs and blood, and hell, maybe it's through no fault of my own. That's the thing, though--while there's no fault of your own here, there's also no fault of my own here. In contrast, that's certainly not true for pregnancy.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 04:15 AM
1

You're comparing apples and oranges here, though; indeed, let's also compare forcing you to pay child support to a child whom you willingly made to you paying child support for some stranger's child, shall we?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 04:06 AM
1

Am I responsible for your need for these body parts, though? Also, could I foresee that I will be the only person in the world who is able to help you out?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 04:04 AM
1

So, pigs, chickens, and fish all count for this, correct?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 03:29 AM
1

OK; indeed, that is what I myself am extremely curious about.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 02:16 AM
1

Question--does someone with global ischemia have brain waves?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 02:07 AM
1

Yeah, but then it's possible to end up with something like octuplets (hence, Octomom). Usually clinics only implant two at a time. From the pro-life perspective, though, wouldn't getting octuplets be better than having some of these embryos die?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 02:06 AM
1

But once again, you are giving the rights of a person to a foetus, a parasite. When exactly do you believe that personhood should begin, though? Another comparison would be that another person needs my liver or he/she will die. It is my fault that I have good organs because I live healthily (just like getting pregnant is my fault for having sex). Am I forced to give up my organs because of this? No. Same logic. Is it your fault that this person needs a new liver, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 02:00 AM
2

It doesn't really matter. A child should have legal rights when it is born, and at no point before that, because up until that point, it is up to the woman to decide what she wants to do with it. So, late-term abortions are OK? I don't see how that logic leads to child abandonment. Maybe yes, it would be fine to kill a newborn baby, following that logic, but the babys body is their own and you dont have the right to do anything to it. So, it's not OK to kill a child but it's OK to abandon it if …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 01:59 AM
1

OK.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 01:55 AM
1

Two things, Women don't exactly become pregnant on purpose. Women can try to become pregnant or avoid becoming pregnant, but to paint it as a conscious choice is just false. By the same argument, you could say men should be forced to pay child support because they had sex, even if their intention was not to impregnate the women. Based on the causation principle, though, pregnancy is one of the possible outcomes of sex; indeed, this is why doctors in medical malpractice cases have sometimes been …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 01:55 AM
1

If so, wouldn't the logically consistent pro-life position be to legally require women who get IVF done to implant as many of their embryos as they can right now?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 01:52 AM
2

So, you're moving the goalposts here?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 01:51 AM
1

Because it does not in any way make sense for me to take me in. They can sue me for burning their house. And if you're bankrupt and can't pay up right now? A foetus, being just a parasite, cannot do the same. No; however, the state can compensate it by allowing it to use your body. I support euthanasia, to answer your other question. If I get in that state, I wish to be killed immediately. I can write a will and specify this. A foetus can't, because it is just a parasite. That doesn't mean that …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 01:51 AM
1

So late-term abortions are OK?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 01:49 AM
1

Not that I necessarily disagree with you in regards to this, but out of curiosity--how exactly do you define "person"?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 01:47 AM
2

I do not have to do this, though. That's the key point. Why shouldn't the law be changed in regards to this, though? After all, if you made someone homeless and they can't get new lodging right now, why exactly wouldn't it make sense for you to take responsibility for your actions by helping them out? Also, this is an old argument, but we are not talking of people here. We are talking of what is by definition a parasite using my bodily resources. That's why I am entitled to destroy it at will. S…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 01:44 AM
1

A tumor isn't a human being, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 01:41 AM
2

If someone needs my house to survive, I am the one who chooses whether or not to allow them in. I also get to choose whether to kick them out or not, depending on how they behave. Actually, if you burn someone's house down, I think that giving them quarters in your house if they can't find anywhere else to say--regardless of whether or not you actually want to do this--would be quite reasonable.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 01:39 AM
1

pure ideology m8y. this claim weakens your argument Get rid of that argument in regards to child support and then we'll start talking.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 01:38 AM
2

Why would I care about something without personality and without intelligence? It's just a bunch of barely sentient cells. Out of curiosity--when exactly do you think that personhood begins? Hell, maybe I'm a saint and want to save my children from suffering. Who are you to say that argument is wrong? It's it's my body, it's my moral choice. So, playing Devil's Advocate--by that logic, in the absence of both safe-haven laws and adoption, couldn't your argument here also be used to justify things…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 01:37 AM
2

For the record, I am tempted to agree with you about personhood. However, playing devil's advocate, I would like to ask you this: Exactly which criteria do you think should be used to determine personhood?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 01:36 AM
1

Perhaps; question--IVF embryos are less likely to successfully implant if they've been frozen beforehand, correct?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/17 12:45 AM
0

Then some judge can say that this wasn't what was relevant and that the relevant thing was to offer to do more--which the doctors involved didn't do.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 06:41 AM
1

So, to answer your question: yes, absolutely, child support can be de facto 'free money' for mom. So, wouldn't that be enrichment on the custodial parent's part?
/r/MensRights17/02/17 11:20 PM
1

Exactly how so?
/r/MensRights17/02/17 09:33 PM
0

My vasectomy, the dr cut out about 1" of vas tubing, then cottorized the ends, then folded the ends over and sewed them shut. Am I supposed to be impressed?
/r/MensRights17/02/17 01:06 AM
1

Also, smart and wise doctors certainly defer to the state when it comes to determining what exactly is ethical (when it comes to consensual surgeries, that is).
/r/MensRights16/02/17 10:02 PM
2

The complication rate alone is enough to get this rejected by any medical ethics board. What about if the alternative to this is an orchiectomy, though? If you don't want a child, don't have sex. You sound life a pro-lifer here. You really do.
/r/MensRights16/02/17 09:55 PM
1

If a total reproductive tubing removal is mutilation, though, then so is a vasectomy!
/r/MensRights16/02/17 09:18 PM
1

Full, physical castration would increase the effectiveness of a vasectomy to 100%. Should the doctor offer that? On one hand, perhaps; however, surgical castration does have additional significant health issues. Of course, there is another, less severe option--offer to surgically remove both the entire epididymis and the entire vas deferens while keeping the testicles in place!
/r/MensRights16/02/17 08:41 PM
1

The failure rate for vasectomy is approximately 0.15% and most of those failures were within the first three months. Yes; correct! However, the vasectomy failure rate never decreases to exactly zero! : https://www.vasectomy.com/question/can-a-vasectomy-reconnect-its-self-after-27-years-11003 "Yes. It's possible anytime post-vasectomy, but to fail at 27 years out has to be very rare. The longest to failure in my personal experience is 16 years." When I had mine, I was: a) Fully informed of the fa…
/r/MensRights16/02/17 07:26 PM
6

Now, in practice we know that's usually full of shit, but regardless it's not cheap to raise a child. So, why not come up with a fixed sum and then have the custodial parent ask for increases if necessary, explain what exactly these increases are going to be spent on (private school, et cetera), and then have courts decide whether or not these requests are reasonable?
/r/MensRights16/02/17 06:33 PM
1

What about amount of tubing removed?
/r/TheRedPill03/01/17 07:01 AM
1

Are you going to respond to my question here?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/16 03:15 AM
1

For the medical things, I'd still highly recommend talking to your doctor. Completely agreed, and will do! :) As for publishing it, what exactly are you referring to? Whatever ways I can get my own story out. :) Do you want to give an interview to your local paper, or be talked about in a medical journal, or go on a radio show? If possible, all of the above. :) How much are you willing to speak of your decision, A lot. and to what extent do you want it to impact your life? Frankly, my limit for …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/16 09:50 PM
1

I'm only going to respond to this comment, because I'm not a doctor and honestly you are asking me questions I don't know the answers to. I'm a Business major, not a medical professional. If you want to know the spontaneous regenerative capabilities of the human body after cauterization and partial removal, I suggest you talk to someone who actually deals with this everyday. OK; will do! :) As it stands, I cannot believe that the vas deferens has such amazingly regenerative powers as to complete…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/16 08:14 PM
1

Indeed, think of it this way--in regards to the vas deferens, the worst that can happen to me after an orchiectomy is having salt water coming out of my penis. Seriously; after all, I certainly want and hope to get saline-filled prosthetic testicles (silicone has its issues and risks which I certainly don't want to deal with) after my orchiectomy and if my vas deferens regenerates, somehow manages to attach itself to one or both of these prosthetic testicles of mine, and then puts enough pressur…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/16 10:41 PM
1

Indeed, my own position on vasectomy recanalization is actually extremely reasonable; after all, there is certainly absolutely no rational reason to assume that the vas deferens becomes incapable of regeneration after a certain point in time and/or that the vas deferens becomes incapable of regenerating itself beyond a certain amount/length of tubing! :( Also, in regards to burning--Yes or No question: Does burned tissue on the human body eventually fall off and get replaced by fresh, healthy ti…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/16 10:11 PM
1

True, but nowadays they tend to cut off larger amounts of the vas deferens That doesn't mean much considering that the vas deferens can regenerate, though! :( and cauterize both ends, Here's a question for you--if I burn my hand, wouldn't the burned tissue simply eventually fall off and be replaced by fresh, healthy tissue? If so, why exactly wouldn't this likewise be the case with the vas deferens? :( instead of taking shorter amounts That doesn't mean very much for a body part which is capable…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/16 10:07 PM
1

Also, please keep in mind that your analogy here certainly doesn't work for total vas deferens removal; indeed, even if the entire vas deferens and the entire epididymis got surgically removed, there would still be other tubing both inside of the testicles and at the endpoint of the vas deferens (in other words, tubes such as the seminal vesicle). :( Thus, I certainly don't see why exactly this tubing can't regenerate from one or both of these sides/directions and thus create a new vas deferens …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/16 09:47 PM
1

Really? If a doctor removed your nailbed altogether and then cauterized the wound, you'd still expect your nails to grow back? Frankly, I will say this: Without your reference to cauterization, I would have probably said "I don't know." However, with your reference to cauterization, I am tempted to respond to this question with a "Yes"; after all, if one's nailbed and nails are capable of growing back after they are completely removed but not cauterized, I certainly don't see why exactly they wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/16 09:44 PM
1

Ugh, what? No. That would be a terrible idea. There would be nothing to stop a man from getting a vasectomy done, waiting past the 4-6 month period when it might reattach, then going to another, disreputable doctor and getting them reattached so that he could sue the first doctor. That's why doctors should only sign such affidavits in cases where the vasectomies that they perform cannot be voluntarily reversed! :) There--indeed, that should solve this problem once and for all! :) Let's use my br…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/16 09:39 PM
1

Also, though, I don't think that you have addressed the issue of publicity yet; indeed, I certainly want to publicize my orchiectomy after I will get it done in order to try sparking a debate--even a tiny debate--about the current child support laws and especially about their extreme nature. :) Frankly, how exactly would you advise me to do this? Also, for the record, I am extremely seriously thinking of becoming a high school history teacher after I will finish my education and was thus wonderi…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/16 09:35 PM
1

Because there are other issues that arise from doing so, and are worse than simply getting a vasectomy, in which case most of these risks aren't present at all. You are aware that being forced to pay child support to a (hypothetical) unwanted child of mine would result in extremely severe, permanent, and irreversible problems and issues for me and for my life, correct? :( http://www.healthtalk.org/peoples-experiences/cancer/testicular-cancer/side-effects-surgery-orchidectomy I have just read eve…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/16 09:31 PM
1

Indeed, here's a great piece of advice for vasectomy doctors: If they are so confident in their own surgeries, how about they become willing to sign affidavits which promise that their surgeries are 100% effective? After all, this would indicate that these doctors actually have some confidence in their own surgeries!
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/16 07:09 AM
1

Indeed, here's a great piece of advice for vasectomy doctors: If they are so confident in their own surgeries, how about they become willing to sign affidavits which promise that their surgeries are 100% effective? After all, this would indicate that these doctors actually have some confidence in their own surgeries!
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/16 06:55 AM
1

By that logic, though, why not commit suicide instead? :(
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/16 06:53 AM
1

By that logic, though, why not commit suicide instead? :(
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/16 06:52 AM
1

You didn't explain why exactly this desire is bad in the rest of your post here, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/16 05:57 AM
1

Indeed, were I to (purely hypothetically) change my mind in regards to getting an orchiectomy and then have my (hypothetical) vasectomy fail (and/or whatever) and thus end up being forced to pay child support for an unwanted child of mine for 18+ years afterwards, I would certainly never forgive myself for not getting an orchiectomy! :( Thus, why not get an orchiectomy as soon as I can afford it? :) Completely serious question, for the record. :)
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/16 05:47 AM
1

You repeatedly insist the desire to fuck fertile women in the cunt is too important for you to give up. Yes; correct! Indeed, what exactly is so bad about that?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/16 05:46 AM
1

No; not yet.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/16 05:45 AM
1

Nobody will care in the end What about people who oppose the current extreme child support laws, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/16 05:45 AM
1

Who could have advice for this extreme, neurotic and frankly mentally Ill and obsessive solution to a problem simple birth control fixes for almost everyone else on the planet. Birth control failure = No excuse to avoid paying child support for 18+ years afterwards! :( Do you even have sex with anyone? Not before my orchiectomy. Do you believe any normal woman in earth isn't going to recoil in horror from this? Yes; after all, the state/government is the one who put me into an extremely unpleasa…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/16 05:44 AM
1

You are aware of the existence of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), correct? He'll more likely turn into a pudgy emotional basket case and completely lose the drive necessary to work a full-time job, forget obtaining a Masters and PhD in anything. Well, that's certainly what being forced to pay child support to a (hypothetical) unwanted child of mine is going to do to me! :(
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/16 05:42 AM
1

I think you may be trans? Or headed down that path. Well, if I'm trans, so be it! However, as far as I can tell right now, I "merely" want to be a very feminine guy/eunuch who sometimes/frequently cross-dresses! :) This level of extremity can't have much to do with fear of child support. Extremely strongly disagreed; after all, losing tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of being forced to pay child support as a result of a vasectomy failure (plus whatever else …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/16 05:40 AM
1

Every other straight man manages somehow. First of all, I'm not fully straight; indeed, I certainly have a bit of a soft spot (OK, maybe a hard spot) for some of men's body parts. Secondly, some of these men might end up whining and complaining about being forced to pay child support for 18+ years in the event that their birth control will fail! :( Thus, I am simply taking proactive measures in regards to this. :) Also, out of curiosity--how exactly would you feel if I put you in a position/situ…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/16 05:37 AM
1

Because I want to try sparking at least a little debate about the current extreme child support laws and specifically about their extreme nature.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/16 05:34 AM
1

Well, please try anyway! :)
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/16 05:34 AM
1

OK; also, out of curiosity--do you know of any other subreddits for this? In addition to this, out of curiosity--I previously sent you a PM in modmail in regards to this, correct? Indeed, I simply want to make sure that my own memory isn't playing tricks on me.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/16 03:35 AM
1

I was talking about teaching at the high school level here with a Master's Degree (and a teaching certificate), though. Indeed, what exactly are your thoughts about that specifically? Also, thank you very much for sharing all of this information about universities; indeed, this information is certainly extremely useful for people--including for myself--to know! :)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 11:32 PM
1

So, would becoming a high school history teacher be a better life course/trajectory for me? Completely serious question, for the record.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 06:27 PM
1

Also, though, if I will end up becoming a teacher (if I'll become a teacher, I certainly hope to become a high school teacher), I should always ask reporters to use a fake name for me if some reporters would actually be willing to interview me about my orchiectomy, correct?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 06:27 PM
1

Getting a tenure track position as a history professor these days would be about the same as winning the lottery. Everybody hires on contract. OK; understood. :( Thus, should I become a teacher instead while keeping open the option of getting a PhD (perhaps by working on it during my summers) at some future point down the line? Would that be a better life course/trajectory for me? :) So it will be easier getting the other thing done. OK; understood.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 06:26 PM
1

In contrast, in tort law, as far as I know, "reasonable foreseeability" is relevant in determining whether or not involuntary obligations/responsibilities should be imposed on you for an action that you did.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 06:09 PM
1

The risk of unplanned pregnancy is completely irrelevant to the amount of child support that one is going to be forced to pay for 18+ years afterwards; indeed, it's certainly not like there is a significant reduction in the amount of child support that one is going to be forced to pay if one's risk of causing an unplanned pregnancy was extremely small/low! :( Does that make sense?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 06:08 PM
1

Well, can you please say it again? Indeed, is it that the state/government considers children to be joys and blessings to their parents and that thus their parents should be forced to take care of them rather than treating them as a loss? If not, what exactly is it?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 06:07 PM
1

Also, frankly, it would certainly be nice if you were actually able to put "your (own) money where your mouth is" in regards to this! :( Unfortunately, though, I cannot sign a contract with you in regards to this without the possibility of some judge striking down this contract if this contract will ever end up in court afterwards! :( Heck, I can't even insure child support or even insure my vas deferens for re-canalization (like someone on Reddit previously suggested) without the risk of a judg…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 03:55 PM
1

No it doesn't. Actually, Yes, it certainly does; after all, I certainly don't see why exactly the state would have been unable to make "reasonable foreseeability" relevant in regards to child support just like it is for tort law (had the state actually wanted to do this, that is!). I didn't "blame" you for anything. You're ignoring the policy reasons behind the stat'es "implicit messages." Actually, unless taxpayer money is actually on the line (and even then, the amount of taxpayer money that w…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 03:52 PM
1

The chances of this happening so long as you use them correctly are so, so slim. Yes, and? After all, unlike with tort law, the law in regards to child support is completely blind to the level/degree of risk in regards to unplanned pregnancy! :( HRT in menopausal or pre-menopausal women also causes cancer. Personally I wouldn't want to unnecessarily take that risk. OK; understood. Also, though, I'd rather die of cancer than be forced to pay child support for a (hypothetical) unwanted child of mi…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 03:50 PM
1

Well, it's certainly extremely easy to judge and condemn other people's choices and decisions when one's own money isn't actually on the line! :(
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 03:31 PM
1

Do you talk to your mother with that mouth?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 08:32 AM
1

Appeal to ridicule fallacy. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 08:10 AM
1

Maybe that's true for Italy; however, I am unsure if this is also true for the U.S.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 06:46 AM
1

OK; understood.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 06:23 AM
1

Well, when exactly did you give me this advice? Indeed, I have another appointment with my therapist on December 9 (if I remember correctly).
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 06:22 AM
1

Where exactly do you live, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 06:15 AM
1

Indeed, by refusing to allow men whose vasectomies failed to legally contract away all of their parental rights and parental responsibilities, the state/government certainly sends an extremely strong implicit message that vasectomy isn't a sufficiently good form of birth control. :( Frankly, the state's/government's various actions, decisions, and laws certainly have meaning and implicit messages; thus, rather than criticizing me for my response to the state's/government's implicit message(s) in…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 05:42 AM
1

Well, don't university professors generally earn relatively well here in the U.S.?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 05:13 AM
1

Yes and Yes; however, can't HRT deal with these hormonal problems? :)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 05:13 AM
1

Can't HRT deal with these hormonal consequences, though? :)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 05:12 AM
0

Can't HRT deal with these hormonal consequences, though? :)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 05:12 AM
1

Dude why would you just not get a vasectomy and then get it checked annually and then use a condom/pull out just to be safe. 2+ forms of birth control can simultaneously fail, though; plus, if this occurs, I'm certainly not going to get any slack in regards to being forced to pay child support for the next 18+ years! :( Aren't there extreme hormonal consequences to this? Yes, there are (though I am unsure if they are as scary as you think they are; after all, menopause doesn't appear to be that …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 05:12 AM
1

What do you mean publicize it? Make it public--such as by telling about it to some reporter(s)/journalist(s) and having them publish this story afterwards. :) This is a drastic solution. Have you considered banging dudes instead? :D I'm not gay and am only slightly bisexual, though. :( Indeed, I certainly overwhelmingly prefer women. :)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 05:10 AM
1

Just brainstorming some ideas: Start a youtube channel where you document the process of planning, undergoing, and recovering from the surgery. This will help you build followers and maybe a video will go viral. At least in theory, this might not be a bad idea. However, unfortunately, I'm not really a person who is good at making videos. :( Write letters to your elected officials telling them what you did and why. What exactly makes you think that these letters won't end up meeting the same fate…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 04:58 AM
1

I wish you the best of luck, Thanks! Also, my same wishes to you! :) you see to have a pretty a-dorkable personality with posting emojis after every sentence :P Actually, I'm just trying to be nice. very cute Thanks ... I guess?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 04:55 AM
1

OK; understood. :) Also, for the record, my own view on this is that people should do whatever makes them happy in regards to this! :) In addition to this, though, if you are curious, I myself certainly want to get prosthetic testicles at some point in time after my (planned) orchiectomy; after all, as much as I extremely strongly detest biological testicles, the idea of me having prosthetic testicles actually appears to be extremely sexy to me! :) Seriously; indeed, perhaps my own slight bisexu…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 04:41 AM
2

Well good for you, I always support the feminization of my fellow males. ♂ 👗 ❤️ 👩 ♂ Yeah, I myself am certainly not very fond of masculinity. :( Indeed, I myself certainly want to undo most of the effects that male puberty had on my body and face. :( I suggest you check out /r/feminineboys, good shit Thank you very much for this suggestion; indeed, will do! :)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 04:39 AM
1

Frankly, I am certainly not the type of person who dismisses any of my options in regards to HRT; indeed, I have previously heard some good things about estrogen HRT from various people here on Reddit. Basically, I especially like what I have heard about the emotional effects of estrogen HRT; indeed, I myself was a rather emotional boy before puberty began and frankly, I want to return to that emotional state. (Heck, after I had a TBI in late February 2014 as a result of severely hitting my head…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 04:23 AM
1

Also, out of curiosity--do you want to eventually get SRS?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 04:19 AM
1

OK; understood. Anyway, I myself am not a trans-woman (though nevertheless frequently daydream about being one); rather, I myself want to be a very feminine, cross-dressing, and (obviously) sterile eunuch. :) Indeed, women certainly aren't the only ones who like pretty and sexy clothes! :)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 04:18 AM
1

OK; understood. :) Also, out of curiosity--are you a trans-woman or do you have some other gender identity? :)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 04:13 AM
1

Oh, I certainly agree with you that, in the long(er)-run, getting a full-time job as a history professor is much more important. However, in the short(er)-run, I am not going to have the qualifications to become a history professor in any case and thus have to worry about more near-term concerns--including getting an orchiectomy. Also, please keep in mind that I myself am incapable of having a meaningful sex life without an orchiectomy; indeed, surely you can understand the value of having a mea…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 04:10 AM
1

OK; understood! :) Indeed, good luck with your plans! :) Also, out of curiosity--would it be okay for you to tell us the reason(s) for your desire to get an orchiectomy? :)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 04:08 AM
1

What do you hope to accomplish by publicizing it? I want to intensify the discussion in regards to the current child support laws and specifically their extreme nature. :( Who are you thinking of publicizing it to? To whomever is willing to listen; however, I certainly hope that some politicians, judges, and/or family law professors are willing to read about my own orchiectomy and about the story behind it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 04:04 AM
1

Frankly, even if a doctor promises to remove the entire vas deferens, I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see it grow back. After all, since there will still be some tubing within the testicles as well as in the areas near the removed vas deferens, I certainly don't see why exactly this tubing is incapable of regenerating and recreating a new vas deferens after the old one is removed! :( Plus, this is not to mention the possibility that a doctor can screw up and leave 0.1% (or whatever) of the …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 04:02 AM
1

Some doctors will go nuclear on the vas deferens, cauterizing and closing them beyond all hope of repair. When you're talking about a tube which is capable of regeneration, cauterizing it, closing it, and taking out parts of it probably isn't guaranteed to ensure that it will not grow back. After all, can't cauterized tissue fall off and be replaced with fresh tissue (similar to the case with the skin in hand burns, et cetera)? Plus, can't a closed vas deferens simply reopen? In addition to this…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 03:59 AM
1

Indeed, it's just like with my nails; while doctors, scientists, et cetera can come up with whatever ways they want to damage one's nails and to obstruct their growth, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if my nails nevertheless grew back in spite of all of this damage to them. :( After all, I certainly can't imagine any guaranteed ways to destroy the regenerative abilities and regenerative potential of a body part which is capable of regeneration! :(
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 03:39 AM
1

I agree with this, but advancements have been made to the point that a vasectomy is almost certainly enough to prevent you from becoming a father. Advancements such as, what exactly? After all, you can damage the pesky tube known as the vas deferens however much you want and you can cover the peksy tube known as the vas deferens with a sheath and/or with whatever else you want, and the vas deferens can still regenerate and have its two ends reattach together! :( Indeed, the key word in your post…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 03:37 AM
1

Why an orchiectomy and not a vasectomy? Because vasectomies can and sometimes do fail and because vasectomy failure isn't an acceptable excuse to avoid paying child support for 18+ years afterwards. :( Honestly, why damage a tube which is capable of regenerating when I can eliminate the root case of this problem? :) Wouldn't that mess up your natural testosterone production? Absolutely; however, the existence of testosterone HRT (in the event that I will end up disliking estrogen HRT) can help d…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 02:02 AM
1

Honestly, why damage a tube which is capable of regenerating when I can eliminate the root case of this problem? :)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 02:01 AM
1

Because vasectomies can and sometimes do fail and because vasectomy failure isn't an acceptable excuse to avoid paying child support for 18+ years afterwards. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 02:01 AM
2

Thanks; will do! :)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 01:10 AM
1

Yep; in other words, it's the medical term for surgical castration. :)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 01:10 AM
1

Indeed, I would prefer to do it as soon or almost as soon as I actually do it; however, there are also potential career considerations to think about. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 01:07 AM
1

Any guesses and/or ideas, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 01:06 AM
1

Any advice, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/16 01:04 AM
1

Why exactly, though?
/r/MGTOW16/11/16 04:15 PM
2

Yes, it certainly is.
/r/MGTOW16/11/16 03:53 PM
1

No. Not if your doc cuts off enough of te vas. Go to a Urologist not a gp. Hang on--if the vas can regenerate over short distances, why exactly wouldn't the vas be able to likewise regenerate over long distances? You're a troll. No man worth his shit and in Co trol of his RP life will resort to cutting out his balls. Rude much, no? :(
/r/TheRedPill16/11/16 03:58 AM
1

What exactly are you buying, though?
/r/TheRedPill16/11/16 03:20 AM
1

That seems too harsh, no? After all, neither vasectomy failure nor saying "I trusted her" is an acceptable excuse to avoid paying child support for 18+ years afterwards! :( Plus, it is certainly (and unfortunately) extremely easy for people to talk big when their own money isn't actually on the line! :(
/r/TheRedPill16/11/16 03:19 AM
1

Two things: Can't re-canalization occur at any time? An aspiring eunuch can also freeze his sperm before his orchiectomy. :)
/r/TheRedPill16/11/16 03:18 AM
1

Would it be possible to address this by Vasectomy - testing to no sperm No, it wouldn't; after all, can't recanalization occur at any time? and then addressing and fears with condom usage? Condoms can still fail even with consistently perfect usage, though! :(
/r/MensRights16/11/16 03:16 AM
0

If they did address it, they would mock you and use it as a vehicle to label all men's rights advocates as psychologically bonkers. That seems too harsh, no? After all, neither vasectomy failure nor saying "I trusted her" is an acceptable excuse to avoid paying child support for 18+ years afterwards! :( Plus, it is certainly (and unfortunately) extremely easy for people to talk big when their own money isn't actually on the line! :(
/r/MensRights16/11/16 03:15 AM
0

it's a catastrophic overreaction That seems too harsh, no? After all, neither vasectomy failure nor saying "I trusted her" is an acceptable excuse to avoid paying child support for 18+ years afterwards! :( Plus, it is certainly (and unfortunately) extremely easy for people to talk big when their own money isn't actually on the line! :(
/r/MensRights16/11/16 03:15 AM
1

Yeah, orchiectomy is essentially the medical term for surgical castration.
/r/MensRights16/11/16 02:15 AM
1

It may be helpful if you explain your reasoning for a preference for orchiectomy over vasectomy, or none invasive contraceptive options. Because vasectomies can and sometimes do fail and because vasectomy failure (unfortunately) isn't an acceptable excuse to avoid paying child support for 18+ years afterwards! :( If you already have children, it will not alter the issues you face with "the current child support system" which ever country you are in. It is likely to be seen as a crank act and pro…
/r/MensRights16/11/16 02:11 AM
1

Just go get a vasectomy, much easier. Vasectomies can and sometimes do fail, though. :( Since you are trans you will probably get a medal of honor I'm actually not trans (well, at least not in a binary sense), though.
/r/MensRights16/11/16 01:28 AM
1

Get your facts straight. If so, then please enlighten me! :)
/r/TheRedPill16/11/16 12:13 AM
1

No it is not. You think it is. But this is not your real motivation. Most likely you are hating your own masculinity, and it is this that you are trying to remove, more than symbolically. This is probably due to the extreme gynocentric culture in which we live, but your mother probably shamed you extensively for being male. Actually, the situation in regards to my mother was the opposite. Also, while I certainly detest my masculinity, I am also unsure that long-term estrogen HRT is right for me …
/r/TheRedPill15/11/16 11:56 PM
1

No woman is going to stop suing her baby daddy for child support because a random guy cut his balls off in protest. I never said that they would, though; rather, I was talking about trying to cause legal and/or judicial changes in regards to this.
/r/TheRedPill15/11/16 11:45 PM
1

This is a stupid decision because your fucking with your hormones by cutting off the supply. HRT can help fix that afterwards, though. :) Vasectomy is and will be the best decision since it leaves your balls in tact The problem with that, though, is that vasectomies can and sometimes do fail and vasectomy failure certainly (and unfortunately) isn't an acceptable excuse to avoid paying child support for 18+ years afterwards. :(
/r/TheRedPill15/11/16 11:44 PM
1

Never, of course; however, getting an orchiectomy isn't really giving up--at least, not in my own opinion!
/r/TheRedPill15/11/16 04:16 PM
-1

So, preferring male pronouns isn't good enough?
/r/TheRedPill15/11/16 03:19 PM
-2

In the Trump Era I suspect we go back to the idea that being the dominant male in a family is the ideal and less of this side variation which went into infertility. Frankly, on a personal level, I certainly don't want to be "dominant" in the family; rather, I want to be equals with my future girlfriend/wife. :)
/r/TheRedPill15/11/16 02:15 PM
0

Indeed, the current child support laws extremely strongly piss me off and thus I certainly want to stick it to the politicians and judges who support the current situation in regards to child support; frankly, having me publicize my orchiectomy might be a good way of doing this. :)
/r/TheRedPill15/11/16 02:14 PM
-2

Vasectomies can and sometimes do fail, though; plus, vasectomy failure certainly (and unfortunately) isn't an acceptable excuse to avoid paying child support for 18+ years afterwards! :(
/r/TheRedPill15/11/16 02:12 PM
1

So, should the law treat adult pigs better than human infants? For instance, should one get a greater penalty for killing a wanted adult pig than for killing a wanted human infant?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/16 11:34 PM
1

Actually, one can argue that one's species membership should determine whether or not you are a person based on the maximum mental potential/ability of your species. Also, out of curiosity--who exactly currently has greater mental abilities--an adult pig or a newborn human infant?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/16 11:13 PM
2

That's the thing, though--how exactly should these lines be drawn? Indeed, if it's impossible to clearly draw these lines, why not allow legislatures rather than judges to work this out?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/16 11:05 PM
1

Human ''personhood'' is decided by the results of findings in medical science. There is nothing to suggest that there's anything important about zygotes, embryos, or early fetuses, other than religious and philosophical dogma. Actually, personhood appears to be based on people's interpretations of the results of medical science.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/16 11:03 PM
2

Two things: Do the courts actually have the authority to determine when exactly legal personhood should begin? By that logic, charging people who kill wanted embryos and fetuses with either murder or manslaughter for doing this would be a form of cruel and unusual punishment since it is disproportionate to the nature of the crime committed.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/16 10:33 PM
2

The 14th amendment says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" The right to bodily autonomy is a fundamental natural right (i.e. liberty). It should also be noted that the founding fathers never intended for the government to be able to infringe on rights if the rights weren't specifically spelled out. The way they …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/16 10:31 PM
2

Don't you discuss abortion here?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/16 10:26 PM
2

It says that people have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy and to make medical decisions over it. Where exactly in the U.S. Constitution does it actually say that, though? Also, if people have a right over their bodies, why exactly can't adults: Engage in consensual incest with other adults? Sell their own body parts for money? Commit suicide with the help of a physician? Use various drugs? Engage in prostitution?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/16 10:02 PM
0

Because that would be a restriction of everyone's liberty. Exactly how so, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/16 07:15 AM
0

Off-campus, mostly, Source, please?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/16 11:13 PM
2

Is that not exactly the way it already exists in USA, save an individual state or two? What's the difference? For one, does the current law include a person being "frozen" in its definition of "incapacitated"? What do you mean by "frozen"? Are you referring to the freeze response? Yes. How would an individual be able to tell when someone is experiencing the freeze response vs just not being super enthusiastic about the sex? Well, what about by asking this person a question or two and seeing if t…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/16 10:32 PM
1

Students will still go to bars and parties and socialize with the opposite sex. This is where (accusations of) rape is taking place. On campus or off-campus, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/16 10:29 PM
3

Not all forms of sex segregation; rather, just sex segregation in restrooms. Why? Because it's an unnecessary form of symmetric discrimination.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/16 10:29 PM
2

OK; also, for the record, one good way to do might be be for the U.S. Supreme Court to impose strict scrutiny in regards to sex-based segregation and thus to declare all sex-segregated restrooms nationwide to be unconstitutional. :) Also, though, out of curiosity--what about for unisex prisons?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/16 10:11 PM
2

You mean for affirmative consent to backfire and to blow up in the faces of its supporters?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/16 10:06 PM
1

Also, out of curiosity--do you oppose unisex restrooms and unisex prisons?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/16 10:05 PM
1

So the best option in your opinion is to segregate men and women physically? It is the best option? No, not necessarily. However, it appears to be better than creating a vague definition of sexual assault using the "affirmative consent" principle.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/16 10:05 PM
1

Women do not benefit from segregation. So, why not have/impose unisex restrooms nationwide?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/16 10:04 PM
2

Or... guys could stop raping women. Yes, they certainly could; however, unfortunately not all guys are going to listen to your advice. :( Indeed, if all people were decent, then we would certainly never have any crime!
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/16 09:56 PM
1

What is so bad if you have a child? Frankly, it's the financial losses that I am very worried about. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/16 06:12 PM
1

I strongly beg to differ. :( Indeed, in such a scenario, I will certainly never forgive myself for not get an orchiectomy and will thus (literally) relentlessly cut myself and thus end up in a mental hospital for the rest of my life. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/16 05:54 AM
0

Sure--by (literally) cutting myself relentlessly and thus ending up in a mental hospital for the rest of my life. :( Indeed, frankly, this is why an orchiectomy really does appear to be the only acceptable long-term solution for me; after all, the alternative appears to be so much worse. :( Frankly, I certainly can't afford to ever risk having an unwanted child of mine be conceived. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/16 05:51 AM
1

What about if it will be mine, though? :(
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/16 01:37 AM
1

Unfortunately, it (or at least its epithelium) really does appear to regenerate. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/16 01:12 AM
2

You can probably get insurance for anything. The key is whether or not this insurance will actually hold up in court, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/16 09:03 PM
1

You (and some/many judges, unfortunately) appear to be ignoring the fact that the damages are childcare costs rather than the child himself/herself, though. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/16 04:02 PM
1

Most states do not recognize wrongful conception claims. And that certainly appears to be a huge mistake on their part. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/16 04:02 PM
1

and they are pretty universally not recognized in the US for policy reasons. For idiotic policy reasons, to be more precise. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/16 04:01 PM
1

I am primarily justifying my argument with my own morals. Also, to clarify--I am not fond of invoking law to justify my arguments here unless it is a type of law that most people appear to agree with (such as tort law). Since some pro-lifers might even oppose a "life of the mother" exception, I prefer to use other arguments to make my case here. However, after thinking it over, I also think that I judged what you wrote here too quickly considering that your argument here might be appealing/persu…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/16 10:20 PM
1

I am not using the law to back up my argument here, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/16 10:12 PM
1

That's the thing, though--you appear to be guilty of the appeal to authority fallacy here because you use the current law to justify your argument here.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/16 10:10 PM
1

Indeed, I certainly don't view forcing a person to unnecessarily risk his or her life as being any better than violating this person's bodily autonomy.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/16 10:06 PM
1

A distinct possibility that birth is safer for the woman?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/16 10:04 PM
1

Also, while I accepted the pro-life position on personhood for the sake of argument here, I would like to point out that, in reality, I am certainly very uncomfortable giving a higher legal status to a viable fetus or even to a viable infant in comparison to a non-human animal who currently has greater or equal mental capabilities to this viable fetus/infant. After all, I am certainly not fond of speceisism! :(
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/16 10:03 PM
1

because it now has a right to live So, would all embryos and fetuses acquire a right to live if/after we will successfully develop and commercialize artificial wombs and become able to transplant embryos and fetuses from women's wombs into artificial wombs?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/16 10:02 PM
1

Also, out of curiosity--what exactly is safer (for the woman)--giving birth (in a normal case) or getting a late-term abortion? After all, if getting a late-term abortion is safer (for the woman), then I don't think that any late-term abortions should be illegal.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/16 10:00 PM
1

That appears to be a case of an appeal to authority fallacy, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/16 09:52 PM
1

My "use of language"?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/16 09:52 PM
1

Perhaps I should have clarified this; basically, I certainly think that there is a relevant difference between a non-risky burden of a small magnitude and a risky burden of a large magnitude. Indeed, that is why I support things such as duty-to-rescue laws while opposing things such as legally forcing people to donate their body parts to other, needy people.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/16 08:55 PM
1

Extending a voluntary favor (giving away a kidney) does not equate with pregnancy. Actually, Yes, it (arguably) does. After all, a woman caused a fetus to exist; indeed, one can certainly view that as a favor. However, just because the woman (arguably) extended a voluntary favor to the fetus doesn't mean that this woman should be legally required to extend an additional favor to the fetus by extending this fetus's lifespan through the use of her body.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/16 08:33 PM
1

You create that fetus (person/a clone that can't swim) on your boat, you cannot make it leave the boat until the end of the boat tour unless you kill it. Disagree; indeed, if you create a clone (heck, let's make it a very sick clone who can infect you with a life-threatening disease) on your boat (and let's assume that it is a very small boat), then you would be justified in throwing this clone overboard.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/16 08:31 PM
1

Yes, that is very much correct! However, some pro-choicers might be unwilling to take their personhood arguments to their logical conclusions.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/16 08:29 PM
1

For the record, for the sake of argument, I accepted the pro-life premise in regards to personhood. However, this still doesn't change anything about my argument here.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/16 08:17 PM
1

Can you please elaborate on this? :)
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/16 09:02 PM
1

OK; however, I want to clarify that what you wrote here doesn't appear to contradict with what I wrote above. :) Also, off-topic, but out of curiosity--exactly what type/method of U.S. Constitutional interpretation do you prefer?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/16 06:16 AM
1

No idea. Interesting question. Issue in Roe of course was the right to privacy (which extends to bodily autonomy). I'd imagine it could be considered discriminatory on the basis of sex but it's odd to think about it particularly being seen that way as there is literally only one sex whose rights it involved. I'd have to think about it, tbh. Yeah--I mean, it's discriminatory in practice but not in theory. Of course, pro-lifers can say that the state has a compelling interest in protecting prenata…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/16 06:15 AM
1

I think that's shitty and measures should be taken in general to prevent that. But women don't have a financial incentive to do that. If she told him right away, he'd be paying the whole time. So, what about having some kind of requirement (an e-mail, a text message, something) that the "baby daddy" knew about his child's existence several years ago in order for a court to be able to order him to pay retroactive child support? I personally always supported mandatory child support because it make…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/16 02:13 AM
1

That seems a little steep. Would it be more reasonable to require income-based child support (though at a lower rate than for child support for parental rights) if the child's primary caretaker is on welfare? That certainly makes sense! :) Of course, unless a child's non-custodial parent is extremely poor, this ultimately shouldn't make a difference; after all, a child's non-custodial parent should be able to pay the state back at his or her own pace based on the limitations of his or her income…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/16 01:28 AM
1

No they are not unconstitutional. As u/Atlas_B_Shruggin pointed out, sex discrimination is subject to intermediate scrutiny (not strict scrutiny, which is the highest form of constitutional scrutiny). Hence, so long as the law furthers an "important government interest" using means related to further that interest - even an explicit discriminatory law would pass muster. So, would abortion bans pass muster if Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned and if someone will challenge an abortion ban in cou…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/16 11:05 PM
1

Basically, in regards to child support, the "taxpayer money" argument really is the only one that appears to be persuasive to me; of course, if only $5,000 in taxpayer money is actually on the line, then an unwilling parent certainly shouldn't be forced to pay any more money than that in child support payments. Rather, he or she should only be held responsible for paying these $5,000.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/16 10:57 PM
1

the father should only be forced to provide child support if she cannot afford to support the child herself? Yes; correct! To elaborate on this--if a man doesn't want any parental rights, then this man should only be forced to pay back the state for any money that this man's "baby mama" acquires in the form of welfare during the 18 years of their child's childhood. Also, the same logic should certainly apply to women who don't want any parental rights (but who, say, didn't realize that they were…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/16 10:56 PM
1

My point here is about the concept of "separate but equal."
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/16 10:47 PM
1

So your saying there would be no option for a one gender locker-room? Who exactly said that I oppose that or said that this isn't an option, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/16 10:18 PM
1

Students - even in public schools - have far less Constitutional rights than adults do. I didn't dispute that, now did I? Rather, I simply challenged your apparent assertion here that the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to school students and to university students at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/16 10:18 PM
1

What makes you think school and disciplinary proceedings are governed by the Constitution? Past court cases.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/16 10:08 PM
1

IDK--to look at attractive men's bodies, perhaps?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/16 09:58 PM
1

OK; sorry.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/16 09:57 PM
1

The rationale most federal courts express is that issues pertaining to family rights, child support, and anything having to do with families and kids (other than abortion) are for state courts to deal with; and federal courts just don't want to have to handle those disputes. Don't state courts also have to follow the U.S. Constitution (as well as their own state constitution, obviously), though?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/16 09:31 PM
1

state enforcement of child support Actually, I'm not so sure about that; after all, the state doesn't prevent single people from using donor sperm/donor eggs and doesn't require custodial parents to seek child support. and reimbursement of itself for the custodial parents use of government entitlements can easily be argued to pass this test I completely agree with you on this part. :)
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/16 09:30 PM
1

If school and university disciplinary proceedings are governed by the U.S. Constitution, though, wouldn't it likewise make sense to say that family law courts are also governed by the U.S. Constitution?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/16 09:29 PM
1

Illegality has nothing to do with liability. Sure they can overlap (you can be held liable for illegal actions but ONLY when they meet the elements of a civil claim, which ALWAYS requires damages or I guess in the case of a claim seeking an injunction - an imminent threat of irreparable harm). In the case of speeding, if there are no damages, there is no claim. Who is going to sue someone for speeding and on what grounds if there is no damages? I can't just sue you because I learned you got a sp…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/16 02:34 AM
1

Jesus christ you again :) Yep--me again! :) Totally your prerogative. That's going way overboard, IMO, but to each his own. Oh, I certainly agree with you that such a decision shouldn't be taken lightly. However, just like with abortion, I am certainly pro-choice in regards to this issue. :) Also, though, two things: Frankly, if the government/policymakers considered surgical castration to be an extreme solution to this, then they certainly shouldn't have created such extremely back-and-white ch…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/16 11:58 PM
1

Yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/16 11:52 PM
1

It honestly depends on the jx. Since this particular scenario isn't one I've ever litigated, I can only surmise that the courts don't view the parent's actions in making the decision to bring a disabled child into the world a legal "harm" negligently imposed upon the child. As I said earlier, I believe if there's gross negligence or malicious intent, that kid could be successful. OK. Actually it doesn't, but I don't doubt it's an easy element to confuse with damages. Anytime you speed, for examp…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/16 11:51 PM
1

Well for one, child support is designed and calculated to provide the child the lifestyle the child would have had if the parent stayed together. In other words, if they were both poor, working class folks, it's not designed or going to give that child a life of luxury. It's still going to be better than not getting this child support, though. Second, you have a point, but technically by the time the child is grown, it's assumed they were able to live some sort of decent life and survive, That's…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/16 11:45 PM
1

Hang on--to clarify--you are a woman, correct?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/16 11:22 PM
1

Wear a condom. Or get your testicles surgically removed, for that matter.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/16 11:22 PM
1

By contrast, vasectomy-failure insurance is a purely contractual issue by the time it lands in court. There is no affront to the dignity of the child because the issue is whether the insurance company should fulfill its side of the contract. Please let me put it to you this way: If a (stupid) judge refuses to strike down such an insurance contract, then (in his or her mind) this judge is essentially endorsing the view that children are losses. Meanwhile, if this judge does strike down such an in…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/16 06:57 AM
1

I think you might have better luck securing vasectomy-failure insurance. Again, such insurance might be contrary to public policy. :( Indeed, in the view and mind of a judge who is too stupid to differentiate between children themselves and childcare costs, such an insurance contract would be an endorsement of the view that children are losses--a big "No, No" for judges! :( After all, insurance only covers things that are losses, no? Also, though, there are also these issues to consider here :(:…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/16 06:53 AM
1

While it's possible the dignity rationale could apply, I think the likelihood of that is very, very low. Actually, I certainly think that it's very, very high! :(
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/16 06:50 AM
1

In cases of rape, the child support would actually be recoverable as damages, even in criminal court. I wonder if companies would write rape-insurance policies for men though. I mean, they would make money hand over fist in premiums... I thought that recovering child support as damages is an affront to the "dignity of the child," though?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/16 06:46 AM
1

On the other hand, it's never a moot point because the parents/GAL/whoever can sue on behalf of the child. What about if this person/these people will screw over this child, though? Completely serious question, for the record.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/16 06:43 AM
1

You're missing the point - the child is not the direct subject of the contract the same way the child is the subject in a wrongful birth suit. Again, I was primarily talking about wrongful conception cases here. Indeed, as far as I know, the subjects of wrongful conception cases are pregnancy costs, childbirth costs, and childcare costs (as opposed to the child himself/herself). In this regard, this appears to be very similar to child support insurance contracts; after all, the subject of these …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/16 06:41 AM
1

Assuming the rape was proven and we are now at a sentencing/judgment hearing, no. That's a gender-based equal protection issue. Totally different area of law. Aren't judges generally hesitant to treat childcare costs as a loss, though? After all, isn't that against the "dignity of the child"?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/16 06:38 AM
1

Frankly, if you're certainly not worried about irreversible sterility, then I would advise you to get both your entire epididymis removed and to get as much of your vas deferens--indeed, ideally all of it--removed. Yes, seriously.
/r/askTRP04/08/16 06:04 AM
1

OK; good. :)
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/16 06:24 AM
1

Where exactly do you live, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/16 05:20 AM
1

They are mandated by law in California and New York, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/16 04:54 AM
1

The (quasi-)legal contract idea sounds much better, though. :)
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/16 02:30 AM
1

Unenforceable? Are college and university affirmative consent policies unenforceable?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/16 02:29 AM
1

Affirmative permission, that is! ;)
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 11:29 PM
1

Frankly, it's certainly extremely interesting that the actions of extreme feminists ironically result in misogyny such as this. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 10:23 PM
1

I need to literally chop my balls off before I will have sex with anyone, though. Indeed, that is certainly only going to happen after I will actually finish my university education.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 09:57 PM
1

a pointless effort since consent can be revoked at any time Revoked without telling me or outwardly showing this in any way, correct?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 09:53 PM
1

College women certainly don't reject it, though. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 09:48 PM
1

Also, though, does currently being engaged in kissing mean that one is giving affirmative consent to one's sexual partner to touch one's other body parts? Completely serious question, for the record.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 09:47 PM
1

So, in other words, see if she is willing to sign a legal contract before sex which indicates what exactly she is and isn't OK with, correct?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 09:46 PM
1

Honestly, I am certainly worried about the current affirmative consent standards in colleges and universities. However, I am also certainly worried about what both civil law and criminal law will look like in regards to this issue in 5, 10, 20, 25, and 50 years. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 09:45 PM
1

Actually, I'm certainly going to do all of this. After all, I simply don't know how far we will continue to go down the rabbit hole that is known as affirmative consent. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 09:43 PM
1

or through conduct So, does being engaged in kissing right now mean consent to touching other parts of one's body? Completely serious question, for the record.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 09:42 PM
1

OK; thanks for this information.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 09:41 PM
1

This does not define affirmative consent as we were discussing. The operative phrase is " expressed by the words or conduct". Also, while it does reference explicit revocation of consent after initially consenting, it does not require getting consent throughout the encounter. OK. Interestingly, the American Law Institute rejected standards of affirmative consent, "which generally require parties to affirmatively and continually vocalize their willingness to participate in a sexual encounter". Ye…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 09:40 PM
1

Also, out of curiosity--after I will actually enter into the dating and relationship business (as in, after I will get an orchiectomy and finish my university education), do you think that having me create a quasi-legal contract which has check-boxes for various types of touching and whatnot during sex as well as check-boxes for sex itself and having both me and all of my (future) sexual partners sign, date, and initial such a quasi-legal contract would be enough to establish a sufficient level …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 09:38 PM
1

OK. Also, though, out of curiosity--would it be against the rules of this subreddit for me to ask you if you share, trim, and/or wax your pubic hair?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 09:30 PM
1

Some people are sexually attracted to their partners' pubic hair, correct? If so, why exactly can't some people get turned on by literally touching, stroking, and/or grabbing their partners' pubic hair?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 09:24 PM
2

It already appears to have become reality in both the U.K. and Canada, though. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 09:23 PM
1

Where in Canada can you see this sort of stuff? http://www.sascwr.org/files/www/resources_pdfs/legal/CRIMINAL_CODE_OF_CANADA.pdf
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 09:22 PM
1

Indeed, about how you try gently grabbing your own pubic hair and see if it's particularly painful? :) ;)
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 09:03 PM
1

It will never catch on outside of colleges. I think that it already caught on in criminal law in Britain and maybe also in Canada, though. :( Also, though, out of curiosity--what exactly is ASD?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 08:57 PM
1

Well, I grab my own pubic hair (well, when my crotch isn't trimmed or shaved) on regular occasions and it certainly doesn't feel particularly painful if I don't use too much force to do this. :)
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 08:55 PM
0

You gave an example yourself, kissing -> butt touch. That seems very concerning, though. Indeed, imagine how many times you will have to ask for affirmative consent in just one sexual encounter: -Can I kiss you? -Can I touch your face? -Can I touch your neck? -Can I touch and rub your nipples? -Can I grab your arms? -Can I grab your shoulders? -Can I grab your legs? -Can I grab your stomach/belly? -Can I grab your back? -Can I grab your butt? -Can I grab your crotch? -Can I grab your pubic hair?…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 08:46 PM
1

you have to gain consent for every escalation explicitly. How exactly do you define "escalation" here, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 08:34 PM
1

Hang on ... indeed, I just want to clarify this part--in the pre-affirmative consent era, a person could still be convicted of sexual assault if he or she kissed another person with affirmative consent but didn't receive affirmative consent to, say, touch this other person's back or butt during this kissing, correct? Completely serious question, for the record.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 08:22 PM
2

Indeed, if it's a violation of the law, shouldn't it result in conviction?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 08:19 PM
1

Affirmative consent laws just bolster this aspect further along in stages of private sexual behavior. You mean in regards to sex specifically or in also in regards to things other than sex, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 08:18 PM
1

Yes. Indeed, I am currently rethinking and reconsidering my own position on affirmative consent. Of course, I also certainly want to avoid a situation where many, if not most, American adults will be offenders because affirmative consent laws will be too broad and/or too vague. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 08:16 PM
2

and that's probably very unlikely to result in conviction in the absence of any actual harm is another issue Why exactly is that very unlikely to result in conviction, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 08:15 PM
1

You're thinking of Julian Assange, and it was because the consent was given predicated on the agreement to use a condom. When it turned out that he hadn't, that consent was null and void. By that logic, though, shouldn't this apply both ways? For instance, if a woman claims to be on birth control but actually isn't and a man only consents to sex with this woman due to his belief that this woman is on birth control, then did this woman rape this man? Completely serious question, for the record.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 06:24 PM
1

If I was hooking up with a women, when it came to the time that sex was the next step I always asked a variation of "should I get a condom?"...IE are you OK with this going further. She might think that this condom is meant for, say, anal sex or oral sex rather than for penis-in-vagina sex, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 06:21 PM
2

As long as it isn't misinterpreted, Short of explicit verbal consent, though, how exactly would you know for sure that this isn't misinterpreted?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 06:08 PM
1

I believe there should be affirmative consent for touching sexual parts - boobs, ass, vagina, dick, balls. So, if a male football player slaps one of his male friends on the ass in the middle of a football game without receiving prior affirmative consent, should this male football player be found guilty of sexual assault? Because colleges and universities are allowed to make their own rules. If you want to go to X university, you agree on X university's rules. Otherwise, don't go to X university…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 05:00 PM
1

My junk? In regards to my junk, I would think that permission is necessary. Of course, perhaps if a woman was in a relationship or marriage with me, then I might make an exception in regards to this.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 04:57 PM
2

this doesn't seem like a great site to begin with, How exactly, though? but it sounds to me like they're just discussing a decision made at the university level, not law. the situation and the expulsion is certainly unfortunate, to say the least. but it's not what i would consider insane punishment for a guilty person (if we're talking about guilty people, the incident in the article aside). Wouldn't other universities and one's employers and potential employers find out about a college or unive…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 03:28 AM
3

why would his friend report it if he was okay with it? Because they had an argument/disagreement later on and his friend thus wanted to spite him. Also, here is a problem with your logic: By your logic, let's only throw men in jail if they are actually accused of rape! After all, why exactly would a woman report a man for raping her if she wasn't actually raped? and if he did, how would it even be proven? Well, affirmative consent clearly wasn't met. Plus, you only need 50.01% certainly to verif…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 03:26 AM
2

Nicely put. Thank you very much! :) The question is: why hasn't this issue yet made it up the appellate judiciary to SCOTUS? I honestly don't know. However, I think that I have heard of a couple of lower-level judges who ruled against specific affirmative consent laws or decisions due to their belief that these laws/decisions were unconstitutional. Indeed, I can try finding these cases for you if you want! :)
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 03:09 AM
2

and aren't enforced in an insane way, I extremely strongly beg to differ: https://reason.com/blog/2015/06/11/amherst-student-was-expelled-for-rape-bu
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 03:07 AM
3

Out of curiosity--do you believe that a male college student who slapped his male friend on the ass during a game of football without receiving affirmative consent beforehand should be expelled from his university and have "sexual assaulter" or whatever be written on his college record if his friend will ever report him for this ass slap (even though he was perfectly OK with this ass slap during the time that it actually occurred)? Completely serious question, for the record.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/16 03:06 AM
1

Can you please respond to my last several posts here?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/16 05:11 AM
1

Why deleted?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/16 07:18 AM
1

Indeed, the only way that your doctor-patient relationship analogy would actually apply to the parent-child relationship is if the doctor-patient relationship was capable of being both involuntary and unintented--for instance, by legally requiring parents who are doctors to have a doctor-patient relationship with their children. Indeed, do you support legally requiring parents who are doctors to have a doctor-patient relationship with their children? Completely serious question, for the record.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/16 02:13 AM
1

You have to owe a duty first. So, do parents owe a duty to their children before they conceive them? If so, how exactly can one have a duty of care to a non-existent person (after all, an embryo's/fetus's state before conception is non-existence)? A kidney donor would have not duty to financially support a child, whereas a parent would, under traditional common law and policy principles. But not under traditional tort law, correct? Ok, I'm following you here. You are correct that child support i…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/16 02:07 AM
1

Regardless of your belief in the government's inconsistencies, the state's position and policy is that children need to be taken care of by both parents. Frankly, this statement of yours can likewise be said either verbatim or near-verbatim by a pro-affirmative consent (on college and university campuses only) person. After all, who cares that colleges and universities don't have the same due process protections that civil courts have (obvious sarcasm)? Also, I would certainly like to see some t…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/16 01:25 AM
1

Indeed, arguing that "society believes so and so" appears to be a case of the argumentum ad populum fallacy. After all, you haven't explained why exactly society's position in regards to this is the right (and best) one. Indeed, what you appear to be doing here might actually be similar to what an anti-gay marriage person could tell a pro-gay marriage person back in the 1990s. Specifically, this anti-gay marriage person could say that "society has determined from a policy standpoint that same-se…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/16 01:12 AM
1

Why is child support different from a person who voluntarily rescues someone else? Do you honestly not see the difference there? Oh, there certainly is a difference in regards to this. However, the key question here appears to be whether or not this difference is relevant. One is voluntarily taking upon a duty to rescue, that's it, You mean just like one is voluntarily having sex? you can't just then impose upon them an entirely separate duty they never voluntarily took on. A pro-child support o…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/16 01:08 AM
1

OK. Thus, here is a question for you--wouldn't it be in the best interests of a severely disabled and a severely suffering child (whose disability and suffering is the result of an inherited genetic disorder) who was already given up for adoption to have his or her adoptive parent(s) sue and win a tort lawsuit against his or her birth parent(s) (for conceiving him or her in the first place, that is)?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/16 12:54 AM
1

Indeed, there are a couple of additional questions that I have for you: In your honest opinion, why exactly would the disabled and suffering (adult) child in my earlier scenario lose his or her tort lawsuit against his or her parents? A breach of a standard of care means that you made someone worse off than he or she would have otherwise been (had you either acted differently or not acted at all), correct? If so, then how exactly is any action before a custodial parent is actually forced to pay …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/16 12:49 AM
1

Also, I've got a question--can a child's custodial parent sue on a child's behalf in tort law? Completely serious question, for the record.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/16 12:24 AM
1

This is honestly a decent point. Yeah. After all, if a child didn't get as good of a childhood as he or she should have gotten, then this (now former) child should certainly be able to get compensated for this in adulthood. I'm not even 100% that this doesn't or cannot happen. Actually, as far as I know, (adult) children themselves certainly cannot do this. :( I do know that the custodial parent can sue the deadbeat parent for back child support, but that's basically to compensate them for their…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/16 12:20 AM
1

Also, though, if, purely hypothetically, requiring body part donors (such as kidney donors) to pay child support for the children to whom they donate their body parts didn't result in a decrease in such willing body part donors, then the "best interests of the child" argument can likewise apply to requiring these body part donors to pay child support. Indeed, would you agree with that in such a (purely hypothetical) scenario? In addition to this, though, I would like to point out that, contrary …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/16 12:10 AM
1

The best interests of the child is not a one-size-fits-all standard to apply in every scenario you can dream up. It still appears to apply to many, if not most or all, of my scenarios here, though. It is inapplicable to legal adults. I was talking about this issue from the perspective of children who currently aren't receiving any child support from their non-custodial parents, though. Indeed, it would certainly be in the best interests of these children to be able to acquire this child support …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/16 12:05 AM
1

It's also easier to see from a more equitable standpoint - what is in the best interests of the child? That certainly doesn't appear to be how tort law actually works, though. For instance, it would certainly be in the best interests of the severely disabled and severely suffering (adult) child to win his or her tort lawsuit against his or her parent(s). However, this fact certainly isn't going to cause this (adult) child to win this tort lawsuit or even to have a higher chance of winning this t…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 11:12 PM
1

Also, though, even if you were completely consistent in regards to this, the issue that I have with endorsing the view that it's OK to make (at least a partial) break with the principles of tort law in order to ensure that children are financially supported is that pro-lifers can try making a similar argument in regards to this when it comes to forcing women to remain pregnant against their will. Yes, you can say "bodily autonomy" and "my body, my choice," but those are intellectually lazy argum…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 11:02 PM
1

Basically, if you actually argued that the right to have children financially supported by both of their parents is such a compelling state interest that it should be illegal for single people to have/get access to donor sperm/eggs, that custodial parents should be legally required to seek child support, (if the previous point doesn't work) that children whose non-custodial parents weren't ordered to pay child support for some or all of the 18 years of their childhood should be able to go to cou…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 10:52 PM
1

The duty is basically breached to the child when the child is only getting support from one parent, when both owe that duty. The thing is, though, that the government imposed this duty on the child's other parent in spite of the fact that, before this duty was imposed, this child's other parent certainly didn't breach any duty of care. Frankly, this is why exactly I disagree with forcing this child's other parent to pay child support in this scenario. Indeed, this is like saying that you have to…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 10:48 PM
1

The duty of care imposed on all of us--in the most general sense--is to not negligently harm others. Yes; correct! In turn, this is why exactly I have absolutely no problem forcing rapists to pay child support. It isn't good enough to impose a duty of care to financially support someone until they are 18. Then why exactly is child support different, though? After all, causing a child to exist isn't necessarily a morally negative act; indeed, it would probably most often be either a morally neutr…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 10:45 PM
1

what is in the best interests of the child? It's also in the best interests of children who don't receive child support from their non-custodial parents to be able to retrieve this support in adulthood. Indeed, should we allow that as well? Also, it would certainly be in the best interests of a child whose father has just died to force this child's uncle or aunt to pay child support. However, we certainly don't do this in spite of the fact that this certainly would be in the best interests of th…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 10:37 PM
1

Child support isn't "damages" owed to the custodial parent. It's for the child. If anything it would fit as "damages" to the child. OK. However, if child support is the right of the child, then it appears to follow that children whose non-custodial parent didn't pay (and wasn't even ordered to pay) child support for some or all of the 18 years of their childhood should be able to go to court in adulthood, to successfully demand child support for all of these years, and to win. Indeed, I think th…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 10:35 PM
1

Frankly, are you suggesting that a duty of care was already breached before the point in time where a man is forced to go to court in order to have a judge order him to begin paying child support? If so, then what exactly did this breach of a duty of care consist of? Completely serious questions, for the record.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 09:41 PM
1

Indeed, in regards to wrongful conception cases and child support, my point here was this: In wrongful conception cases, one certainly should be awarded childcare costs as a result of a breach of a duty of care. In contrast, one certainly isn't awarded child support as a result of a breach of a duty of care. After all, there was no breach of a duty of care before one is actually forced/ordered to begin paying child support. In other words, the breach of a duty of care has to come before financia…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 09:40 PM
1

Indeed, the way that I look at it is this--if a duty of care is to be imposed on someone, then there must actually be a good reason for imposing this duty of care on someone. Frankly, in my honest opinion, just like extending one's life through a kidney donation isn't a sufficiently good reason for imposing a duty of care (in this case, child support) on someone, causing someone to exist in the first place isn't a sufficiently good reason for imposing a duty of care (in this case, child support)…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 09:34 PM
1

First of all, I just want to clarify something--are you arguing in favor of child support from the perspective of the child or from the perspective of the custodial parent? After all, those are certainly two different lines of argument. You're right and you're wrong, mostly wrong tbh. In the specific scenario you bring up (bringing a child into existence w/knowledge they may have a genetic abnormality) I find it difficult to believe you, as the child, could successfully sue your parents. However…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 09:32 PM
1

Indeed, the only way that child support can make sense under tort law is if it is viewed as damages to the custodial parent. However: One still first needs to establish that a duty of care was broken/violated/breached. By that logic, child support opt-out contracts between a child's two parents should certainly be valid (other than in cases where taxpayer money is on the line, that is). However, as far as I know, this certainly (and unfortunately) isn't the case right now--even if a child's cust…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 09:17 PM
3

But it does. It holds up under proximate cause principles. You are responsible for the voluntary choices you make, which result in financial consequences--bodily harm or no bodily harm. Under a common law tort standard, he proximately caused the child to exist, just as she did. Therefore, they are equally (or even jointly and severally), "liable" so to speak. By that logic, though, if I extend some child's life by donating a new kidney to him or her, then I should be forced to pay child support …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 09:13 PM
1

Indeed, as far as I know, even a child who is permanently and severely disabled (as a result of a genetic disorder that one of his parents had and knew about before he actually conceived this child) and who was given up for adoption afterwards certainly isn't going to be able to acquire any compensation from his or her birth/biological parents under tort law even if this disability causes him a lot of (literal) pain and suffering and even if he actually prefers non-existence to existence. Why? B…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 08:57 PM
2

Because causing someone to exist isn't a harm and because having consensual sex is neither illegal nor negligent. Indeed, child support simply wouldn't hold up under tort law standards and principles.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 08:49 PM
1

Indeed, I myself am certainly a fan of creating and having greater consistency in regards to the law. :)
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 08:15 PM
1

Since most people do not understand what causation is legally under tort law, I will spell it out. Proximate cause does not mean the very last thing that occurred to permit an event to happen. Proximate cause means the natural or foreseeable consequences that could occur from a negligent or intentional act. So, if I run you over and while at the hospital being treated for the injuries I caused you, you contract an infection and die, my negligent act in running you over is the proximate cause of …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 08:13 PM
2

Nah, Casey-style laws have certainly moved us a bit backwards, although we aren't there all the way yet. OK; fair enough, I suppose. When is this the case? Rich unmarried single mothers? Whenever a child's custodial parent isn't on public assistance, no?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 08:05 PM
2

We're not moving backwards, though. Rather, we're simply stuck at the same place that we were in the mid-1970s or so. Also, though, some pro-choicers themselves are arguably partly to blame for this. :( After all, the arguments that they use to justify forcing unwilling parents (generally males) to pay child support--even in cases where taxpayer money isn't on the line--can certainly be extended by pro-lifers to justify abortion restrictions and abortion bans. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 07:34 PM
2

Yes, certainly--at least in cases where taxpayer money isn't on the line. Also, though, why limit it to men? For instance, if a woman discovered her pregnancy too late for her to get an abortion, this woman should certainly be given a unilateral opt-out from paying child support (presumably within a certain time-frame)--at least in cases where taxpayer money isn't on the line.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 05:42 PM
2

When artificial wombs are a thing, would you assert that instead of abortions women should have to put the fetus into an artificial womb If I actually considered embryos and fetuses to be persons, then I would say Yes, but only if doing this is just as safe or safer for the woman than getting an abortion is. and then take care of it when it becomes a child? No. After all, causing someone to exist isn't consent to paying child support for 18+ years afterwards.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 03:52 PM
1

I'm sorry, but what exactly do you mean here? After all, my own statement above (the one that you quoted) isn't true in regards to the Violinist scenario.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 07:37 AM
2

Technically Yes, but the distinction between them and embryos/fetuses that I want to emphasize here is that, for older children and adults, one can enforce and protect one's own rights without killing them. In contrast, for embryos and fetuses, there is no equally safe (or safer) alternative to killing them for the pregnant woman if this pregnant woman wants to reassert her bodily autonomy and her rights over her own body.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 07:15 AM
1

The idea that you can make a convincing argument that will change a significant amount of peoples viewpoints on this is a waste of time. Eh ... I'm not so sure about that. After all, both pro-lifers and pro-choicers appear to agree with the principles of tort law.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 06:44 AM
2

Indeed, think of Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist scenario, but with a twist: Let's say that you voluntarily plug yourself into the violinist and change your mind sometime later and thus unplug yourself from the violinist and thus cause the violinist to die. In such a scenario, you will make a violinist worse off by unplugging him in comparison to the situation right before, but not in comparison to the situation before you plugged yourself into the violinist in the first place. Indeed, does th…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 06:25 AM
1

It doesn't matter, women will just go and have illegal abortions if need be. Yes--some women. However, almost certainly not all women who want abortions.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 06:21 AM
2

Yes, I am already well-aware of this. However, here in the U.S., we appear to still have a vibrant politically anti-abortion movement.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 06:20 AM
3

Not in comparison to the situation that one was in before he or she was conceived. Indeed, both before conception and after death, one's situation is the name: Non-existence.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/16 06:19 AM
0

In terms of international human rights law, bodily autonomy is a holy cow. Actually, that's at best debatable. After all, things such as incest (and some/many drugs) certainly aren't legal everywhere, some/many countries still have a military draft, and some backwards countries still criminalize gay sex! Can I ask why you don't think it's a holy cow? In short: Because there are cases where I think that another party's interests should hold some sway over this. I think they might overturn it on a…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/16 09:04 PM
1

For sure, but Roe v Wade is a decision that has been upheld for quite some time It look a whopping 58 years to reverse Plessy v. Ferguson, though. and it's highly unlikely that they'd reverse it on the basis that you want them to -- ie that the separation of powers bt/wn the state and the court has not been adequately respected. Eh ... I'm not so sure about that. After all, the core holding of Roe was almost overturned back in 1992. Plus, Republican Presidential candidates continue to support no…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/16 07:44 PM
1

You can't just click 'unfollow' and pretend the whole debacle never happened. The U.S. Supreme Court has sometimes reversed its own precedents, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/16 07:35 PM
1

So, do you support turning the U.S. into a unitary state?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/16 02:58 PM
1

What exactly is a "Red Pill/Blue Pill issue," though? Completely serious question, for the record.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/16 02:55 PM
1

Yes, it's illegal. But an abuser could potentially coerce the minor he's fucking into saying the incest was consensual, which is a huge issue. Couldn't that also be an issue in cases of regular (non-incestuous) sex, though? Prostitution laws aren't the best. Clearly. But they exist for a reason, and I gave it to you. Anti-abortion laws also existed for a reason, though. Technically, although it would never be used. Let's certainly hope not. Abortion and drugs are two separate issues entirely. No…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/16 02:54 PM
1

Anti incest laws are there to prevent abuse. Isn't abuse already illegal, though? Completely serious question, for the record. Anti prostitute laws, however misguided they are, are there to prevent the spread of diseases. By that logic, though, how about we ban all people who know that they have at least one STI and/or at least one STD from having sex with anyone? Indeed, the fact that, as far as I know, we currently don't do this makes me tempted to say that maybe the courts/judiciary should st…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/16 02:18 PM
0

Yes, but they aren't a majority. There are still some highly religious areas, like the aforementioned Texas. Yes; correct! However, even a religious person can have both religious and secular reasons for opposing legalized abortion. I've yet to hear a good anti abortion argument that isn't "omg you're killing babies!!!!". All of it are appeals to emotion and almost all of it is based in religion. In my previous post, I have explained how exactly a secular person can be politically anti-abortion.…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/16 02:00 PM
2

Indeed, if a person is a speceisist, doesn't consider bodily autonomy to be a "holy cow," and believes that it's acceptable to impose involuntary obligations on a person due to the fact that this person previously committed either a morally neutral or a morally positive action, then this person can certainly oppose legalized abortion regardless of what exactly his or her religious beliefs are.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/16 01:54 PM
3

No. That's ridiculous. Do you really think the good ol Christian White boy in Texas should we deciding whether women have the right to do what they want with their own bodies? Of course not. Women actually have the right to vote throughout the entire U.S., though. The abortion issue is a religious one, and considering all people aren't holding the same religious and moral values, forcing yours on people is wrong. Oh, sure, some people oppose legalized abortion for religious reasons. Similarly, I…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/16 01:52 PM
2

you have some serious issues dude... Really? if sterilization is what you want why not just get a vasectomy? Because vasectomies can and sometimes do fail due to re-canalization. assuming you do the chances of it failing are less than 1 in 500, Those odds certainly aren't good enough for vasectomy doctors themselves, though! and you avoid all those nasty side effects of losing your testosterone, and what not... Frankly, you appear to be forgetting about the option of HRT. seems to me you're bein…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/16 01:12 PM
1

Indeed, for what it's worth, I myself was inclined to be a transvestic fetishist ever since I began experiencing puberty at age 9 or 10 (in either fourth or fifth grade). For instance, when I saw girls wearing clothes such as short shorts and knee socks, I myself immediately wanted to wear such clothes myself (but without actually identifying as female).
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/16 08:57 PM
0

No disrespect here, but my hunch is that you're in denial about feelings of gender dysphoria. Actually, it appears to be more body dysphoria than gender dysphoria and I am actually not in denial about this. Indeed, I want to emulate women (as opposed to actually becoming a woman) while simultaneously using male pronouns and identifying as male. You yourself say that you want to feminize your body, Yes; correct! After all, I certainly can't wear female clothes such as short skirts, short shorts, …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/16 08:55 PM
1

I suppose yes because no one should have the authority to prohibit it. But I'll say this, it is a horrendous method of birth control. The current legal realities in regards to child support here in the U.S. are certainly extremely horrendous, though: http://www.childsupportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html You may be able to avoid the .1% chance of a vassectomy failing, but you incur a new risk, the risk of regretting the procedure and being unable to reverse it, and the risk of this is und…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/16 06:29 PM
1

1 in 20 odds? That means 1 failure for every 20 people!
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/16 02:01 PM
1

This is exceedingly rare. Recanalization happens 1 out of 500 times over a period of years. Talk to an urologist. Regular sperm check ups to monitor post vasectomy addresses the concern about returning fertility. Again, though, reasonable foreseeability is completely irrelevant in regards to forcing unwilling parents to pay child support. Also, you appear to have at least partially missed my point here. Indeed, obviously there is some point in time at which the process of re-canalization is comp…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/16 02:00 PM
1

Also, for the record, I am not actually encouraging men to get surgically castrated. Rather, I am simply pro-choice in regards to this issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/16 01:44 PM
1

Well, that's you. The vast majority of straight men want to keep their balls and natural production of testosterone! Yes, they certainly do. Of course, many of these straight men might also whine about forced child support payments down the line, so yeah. The aim of contraception is to prevent pregnancy. Yes, except contraception can and sometimes does fail (as some pro-choicers apparently love to point out). For men there are plenty of ways to keep their sperm from fertilizing an egg that are l…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/16 01:43 PM
1

Also, for the record, I would like to point out that reasonable foreseeability is (unfortunately) completely irrelevant when it comes to forcing unwilling parents to pay child support.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/16 01:38 PM
2

You do know you can get your sperm levels regularly checked post vasectomy, right? As far as I know, though, a vasectomized man can be infertile at one point in time and yet become fertile just one hour later (or even less than that). Vasectomy + condom OR vasectomy + pulling out (ie, not ejaculating instead the vagina) are pretty definitive doubling up methods to make sure none of your little swimmers fertilize an egg. Pulling out is like going on a train ride only to stop going on this ride wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/16 01:37 PM
1

If you want to keep your hormones in the normal range for males then you have to take artificial testosterone shots for the rest of your life! While I am unsure that I actually want to take testosterone HRT, even that will certainly be better than being forced to pay child support for an unwanted child of mine for 18+ years!
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/16 01:22 PM
1

Snipping or cauterizing the vas deferens will cause sterility and won't interfere with the natural production of male hormones in a man! It certainly wouldn't always cause permanent sterility, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/16 01:21 PM
1

6/10?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/16 04:53 AM
1

Women don't kill people and build things?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 10:47 PM
1

Yes, but I mean, I think vasectomy is a way better option for your goals. Vasectomies can and sometimes do fail due to re-canalization, though. Castration is going to have serious side effects, such as lack of natural testosterone production, and all the health and mental issues that arise from that (risk of obesity, depression, low sex drive). Hence the importance of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). A vasectomy seems closer to what you want...a functioning male body minus baby risk. Just chec…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 10:19 PM
1

Are you trolling here?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 09:48 PM
1

And men actually have objective value?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 09:42 PM
1

You're looking at a 0.00024 chance. Those are decent odds. Reasonable foreseeability is (unfortunately) completely irrelevant when it comes to forcing people to pay child support for unwanted children of theirs, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 09:31 PM
1

Get a vasectomy and for extra protection, wrap it. 2+ forms of birth control can simultaneously fail, though. Male birth control will hopefully be available on the market soon...I can't wait. Women have taken the brunt of it for a long time. Completely agreed. Indeed, while I myself won't use it (since eunuchs have no need for it), I certainly fully support efforts to promote additional forms of birth control.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 09:07 PM
1

Anything that reduces the value of women even lower than it already is has my full support. I'm sorry, but how exactly does surgical castration reduce the value of women? Completely serious question, for the record.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 09:03 PM
2

Eunuchs can keep their penises, though. Indeed, being a eunuch only means that one has no testicles.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 06:42 PM
2

Yeah--after all, transphobia is certainly completely unacceptable (especially in the 21st century).
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 04:48 PM
2

Thank you.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 03:59 PM
1

Fem?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 03:59 PM
1

I cho What exactly did you want to say here? Those are pretty good odds. Those are not good enough odds for vasectomy doctors themselves, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 03:56 PM
-1

Not low enough for vasectomy doctors to be willing to pay all of their patients' child support payments for 18+ years in the event of a vasectomy failure, though. Plus, "reasonable foreseeability" is (unfortunately) absolutely irrelevant when it comes to things such as child support. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 03:41 PM
1

Fem?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 03:08 PM
-1

But... why not just get a vasectomy? Due to the possibility of re-canalization, of course.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 03:01 PM
0

(joking. Seriously, men are meant to have their testicles and sex drive and no, hormone replacement is not good enough.) I suppose that it depends on exactly which men/eunuch you ask, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 07:33 AM
3

Your transphobia is showing.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 07:33 AM
3

I don't want to become a woman, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/16 07:21 AM
1

I am God, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/16 10:28 PM
1

By the time we get artificial wombs, the controversy around abortion would likely be a thing of the past. I really hope so. After all, the pro-choice movement has unfortunately not been very effective at changing public opinion in regards to this over the last 40 years. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/16 01:37 AM
1

Possibly Yes. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/16 12:29 AM
1

How exactly does this statement of yours relate to this topic/issue, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/16 12:13 AM
1

Indeed, do you actually want to get punished for the decisions and mistakes that your parents made?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/16 01:52 AM
1

From a previous post of mine elsewhere: "It was your action, though. Indeed, maybe you think that the causation principle isn't fair (in which case I might agree with you in regards to this), it does appear to be used in the law. For instance, as far as I know, if Bob stabs Jane and Jane is able to go to the hospital afterwards and thus to save her own life but chooses not to do this and thus dies from the excessive blood loss which occurred as a result of this stabbing, then Bob will be charged…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/16 11:49 PM
1

Any guesses, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/16 04:44 PM
1

OK. Also, though, what exactly would be good subreddits to ask this question of mine? Completely serious question, for the record.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/16 04:39 PM
1

Out of curiosity--exactly which topics are suited to this? Completely serious question, for the record.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/16 04:24 PM
1

That's irrelevant. Exactly why so, though? I shouldn't get child support money if I'm not a child. Wouldn't it be in your own best interests to get this money, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/16 06:02 AM
1

And yet you would still benefit from having more money.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/16 05:36 AM
1

If they're adults, then they don't need the support anymore, correct? False; after all, even adults can certainly benefit from having more money in their wallet.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/16 04:55 AM
1

I wouldn't say the child has a right to the money. I would not agree that missed child support payments should then be "owed" to the adult child, like some kind of mortgage or loan. The payments are supposed to support them, as they are growing up. But that doesn't mean they should have a right to the money as adults. It's not a pay-off to substitute for non-parenting. When your child turns 18 or whatever legal adult age is in the country, the parent's financial obligation should end. So, in oth…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/16 08:15 PM
1

Indeed, if one has a right to something (whether to vote, to get an abortion, or to receive child support), then one should have an opportunity to actually exercise this right.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/16 05:12 AM
1

Exactly why not, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/16 05:10 AM
1

Indeed, think of it this way--if a friend owed me money and then cut off all contact with me for 20+ years, and if this friend later decided to restore contact with me, then it would be extremely immoral (if not illegal) for my friend not to pay me back the money that we owes me even though 20+ years have already passed, correct? After all, better late than never, no?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/16 07:45 PM
1

The point of child support is to support the child, correct? Yes. However, if it is too late for that, then it is better for the person who was supposed to get that money in childhood to get that money in adulthood as opposed to being unable to ever get that money. After all, better late than never, no?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/16 07:42 PM
1

Exactly why not, though? After all, isn't allowing children who don't receive child support from their non-custodial parents to successfully get this money (child support) later on in their lives in the best interests of these children?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/16 07:25 PM
1

Maybe if there were a court order to pay child support. What about if there wasn't a court order to pay child support, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/16 06:54 PM
1

Great to hear! :)
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/16 04:40 PM
1

Wasn't abortion pretty dangerous back in colonial times, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/16 04:39 PM
1

By that logic, though, how about we allow parents to unilaterally give up all of their parental rights and parental responsibilities right now on the condition that these parents agree (at most--if these parents are too poor, then they can pay less than that) to pay the state back all of the money that their children's custodial parent will get from welfare while their child is still a minor (but not a penny more than that!)? Completely serious question, for the record. After all, this will make…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/16 04:38 PM
1

Causing a child to exist certainly isn't a harm and having consensual sex is neither illegal nor negligent, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/16 04:36 PM
1

Can you please respond to this question of mine?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/16 04:35 PM
2

Beautifully and very well-written! :)
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/16 04:34 PM
1

Yes, but it's too small, no?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/16 04:33 PM
1

It's with how horrendously unfair the current system is to fathers, who frequently aren't the "deadbeat dads" they're always portrayed as. Completely agreed. :( Also, though, I certainly find it extremely disgusting and extremely hypocritical for people to denounce such men as "deadbeat dads" if their children's mothers ask for child support but not if their children's mothers don't ask for child support in spite of the fact that their children will still be screwed either way as a result of the…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/16 04:32 PM
1

yet I doubt the average Terper would offer to marry a pregnant girlfriend. Well, considering that I have never heard of an orchiectomy failing (well, not yet, at least!), if my future girlfriend will get pregnant, then it will almost certainly be done by some other male-bodied person's sperm. :( Thus, why exactly should I offer to marry my future girlfriend in such a situation?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/16 04:30 PM
2

By that logic, though, should children who didn't get child support from their non-custodial parents for some or all of the 18 years of their childhood be able to go to court in adulthood (as in, after these children themselves will become adults) and to successfully demand child support from their non-custodial parents for all of these years?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/16 04:26 PM
1

If that's already ensured, To be fair, though, that could still be ensured to an even greater degree if child support is paid in this scenario of mine.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 07:52 PM
1

because it incentivizes people to not be productive. Not if freeloaders are prevented from accessing this income (in which case it certainly wouldn't be completely universal), though. :)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 11:02 PM
1

Would you have gotten an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 08:38 PM
1

Yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 08:27 PM
2

For the record, I was giving the head of the household a certain amount of money and then giving everyone else in this household a smaller amount of money.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 04:52 PM
1

Indeed, did you abstain from penis-in-vagina sex with all fertile and potentially fertile people of the opposite sex for your entire life? Completely serious question, for the record. After all, I certainly don't think that people who have never done this should be able to give other people this very same advice (which, again, is much worse than surgical castration and a lifetime of hormone replacement therapy is)! :(
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 04:20 PM
1

No because the child support is NOT for the custodial parent to spend on themself. Child support is for the child. By that logic, though, how about you support allowing children who didn't get child support from their non-custodial parents for some or all of the 18 years of their childhood to go to court in adulthood and to successfully demand child support for all of these years? If you don't want to ever pay child support, you have the choice not to have vaginal sex with women. Frankly, surgic…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 04:03 PM
1

Thanks for sharing this link with us! :)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 03:38 PM
0

This website is so weird. Reddit?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 03:38 PM
1

Question: How do you continue to pay for this, as the number of babies carried to term grows? At least in large part through higher taxes on the wealthy, no? Men would no longer need to fear consequences for unprotected sex, Unless we are talking about decent men here, that is. and women would have far less worries about providing for the children they do carry to term? Frankly, I'm not sure about "far less worries." After all, an unconditional basic income would (at least in the initial stages …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 03:18 PM
1

I certainly agree with forcing parents to don't want to give up their parental rights to pay child support (and frankly, I would certainly put this amount at much more than five bucks). However, I also think that people (regardless of their gender or biological sex) should be able to unilaterally give up all of their parental rights to their child(ren)--at least within a certain time frame.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 03:12 PM
1

I'm more in favor of a negative income tax like Friedman suggested Care to please elaborate on this part?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 03:11 PM
1

Who is going to generate the money to fund it? The wealthy, no?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 04:01 AM
1

Where exactly do you live, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 01:14 AM
5

That I completely agree with. :) However, I think that the anti-unilateral child support opt-out position becomes extremely indefensible if a sufficiently large unconditional basic income will be created.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 01:08 AM
3

Good to hear! :) Indeed, I think that the opposite position (as in, opposite from your and my views on this issue) on this issue is extremely hard to defend unless one also advocates allowing children who don’t receive child support from their non-custodial parents for some or all of the 18 years of their childhood to go to court in adulthood and to successfully demand that their non-custodial parents pay them child support for all of these years. After all, if (former) children aren’t allowed t…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 01:05 AM
1

Voluntarily have children? Yes, it is--if you don't consider the possibility of frozen sperm. However, the issue of insurance fraud using frozen sperm can probably be easily dealt with by requiring a doctor's letter which confirms that re-canalization did, in fact, actually occur.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/16 01:23 AM
1

But if it were used discerningly, sure. I just feel bad for the kid born into that. They will need therapy, but who doesn't? Frankly, this is why I am extremely worried that some court(s)/judge(s) will strike down such an insurance contract on grounds of public policy. :( After all, some court(s)/judge(s) might (unfortunately) literally be too stupid to know the difference between children and childcare costs. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/16 10:26 PM
1

What about for irreversible sterilization, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/16 10:24 PM
1

There is no guarantee you will even be able to have sex after surgical castration. Apparently it is sometimes possible, but your testosterone drops by ~95%, and its extremely difficult to obtain or maintain an erection. So, how about taking anti-androgens and estrogen HRT and then taking anti-androgens and testosterone HRT to get a feel for both of these things? Not to mention the reaction when a woman sees you have no testicles! I imagine it might kill the mood a bit. Exactly why so, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/16 10:24 PM
1

Yes; correct!
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/16 03:39 PM
1

That is why anyone who has a vasectomy is supposed to come in shortly after the procedure to test their semen for sperm. To ensure the procedure was successful before the patient starts having unprotected sex. Actually, I was talking about re-canalization here. :( A licensed surgeon would notice this during the removal of the testicles. Not only is this condition incredibly rare, but you can visually see the extra testis upon surgically opening the scrotum (and many times even with the scrotum i…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/16 06:43 AM
1

Indeed, here is an article (apparently from a medical journal) about "back-alley" surgical castrations: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4184492/
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/16 02:22 AM
1

They don't remove either of those. (Edit: for vasectomies) They either cut or clamp the vas deferens in order to seal off the introduction of sperm into the semen. The epididymis is not removed. You'd have a hell of a hard time finding a doctor who would be willing to remove the entirety of the vas deferens and the epididymis without a legitimate medical need to. The problem with that, though, is that vasectomies can and sometimes do fail. :( Not only that, but that's not even how surgical castr…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/16 02:21 AM
1

You're not getting compensation for the child existing in and of itself, That's would also be true for healthy children, though. After all, a child's existence and childcare costs are certainly two very different things.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/16 01:50 AM
1

And courts don't feel sorry for healthy children who are going to be a financial burden on their parents?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 08:24 PM
1

Courts certainly don't always make the right decisions, though. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 08:23 PM
1

The parents are the beneficiaries ONLY because they are the ones who would have to get care for the kid and are legally liable for the expenses. Can't one say the exact same thing about having courts award childcare costs to parents for healthy children, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 08:21 PM
1

It's not for the parents. It's really for the child. Isn't the same thing also true for child support for healthy children, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 08:21 PM
1

Also, though, couldn't the birth of a disabled child likewise be a case of wrongful conception?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 08:17 PM
1

So, why exactly should there be a compromise for the parents of disabled children?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 08:16 PM
0

Also, though, this type of court mentality is exactly why child support insurance is a completely unacceptable option for me (after all, why buy insurance that some court(s)/judge(s) can strike down on grounds of public policy?) and exactly why any form of surgical sterilization other than surgical castration is completely unacceptable for me. After all, I am certainly extremely uncomfortable with the possibility of some doctor being paid to remove both my entire vas deferens and my entire epidi…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 08:16 PM
1

So what exactly would be the compromise for parents of healthy children in cases of sterilization failure due to medical negligence?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 08:12 PM
1

OK; thus, why exactly should competent vasectomy and tubal doctors worry about this?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 08:09 PM
1

Isn't disabled human life also precious, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 08:08 PM
1

The "far reaching liability" part has to do with the enormous costs of raising a child. Doesn't it also cost a lot of money to pay for a disabled child's medical care, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 08:06 PM
1

then it's not too far a stretch to recognize causes of action for failed birth control. Wouldn't that only be true in cases where negligence is involved, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 08:05 PM
1

As far as I can remember, this court said the parents could recover for the medical care of the disabled child, because of the facts of the case - the parents wanted to be sterilized because they didn't want a disabled child. By that logic, though, if someone gets sterilized because he or she doesn't want to pay child support, then his or her doctor should pay all of his or her child support for 18+ years in the event that his or her sterilization will fail due to medical negligence, correct?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 07:58 PM
1

and the lifetime costs of medical care to treat the child's condition. Also, doesn't this part suggest that disabled children shouldn't be born? In addition to this, though, the information in your comment here certainly helps explain why exactly I would never rely on court(s)/judge(s) to uphold an insurance contract which will pay 18+ years of child support for me in the event of sterilization failure. :( Seriously; after all, as a result of this information, such an insurance contract might ve…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 07:56 PM
1

Parents are liable for ordinary child care expenses like food, clothing, shelter, education, routine medical care, etc. Aren't parents also liable for the medical care of their disabled children, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 07:44 PM
1

That would cause an explosion of lawsuits and far-reaching liability. Care to please elaborate on this part, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 07:44 PM
1

The emotional trauma to the child? Yes. Are you asking whether knowing your parents didn't want a kid is traumatic? Or that somehow the particular path to finding this out (court to try and get your daycare costs covered) would be more traumatic than finding out some other way, so we disallow suing? Not disallowing suing, but simply refuse to award childcare costs. And then there is the medical malpractice issue. Doctors don't lose suits in the .05% of cases that spontaneously heal despite follo…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 04:03 PM
1

A wrongful conception lawsuit would be against the Dr. Performing the surgery it wouldn't be child support. Yes, but a part of the financial compensation that you would be demanding would be childcare costs.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 03:34 PM
1

I think you might have better luck securing vasectomy-failure insurance. Indeed, as I have already previously stated, such insurance would pretty much be pointless if some court(s)/judge(s) can strike down this insurance contract on grounds of public policy (either due to their belief that this insurance contract is an affront to the "dignity of the child" or for another reason). :( After all, I certainly have very little confidence in courts and judges who fail to understand and/or to acknowled…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 02:52 PM
1

I don't think that is as common as you think. Yes, it's probably pretty rare. However, it certainly has happened in the past. Indeed, please look up "wrongful conception" lawsuits.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 02:49 PM
0

Well, you can think of some doctor who was supposed to perform a tubal ligation tying the wrong tubes by mistake.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/16 02:45 PM
1

Are you going to respond to my last replies to you here, TyrianPlum? After all, it has already been almost one month by now! :(
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/16 08:30 PM
1

First of all, I want to strongly thank you for having this conversation with me. :) Seriously--after all, it is certainly beneficial to learn new things and new information. :) Anyway, in response to your last post here: Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 US 689 (federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction for family law cases). Can't this ruling get overturned/repealed, though? Also, though, do federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction for insurance cases? In addition to this, though, is Du…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/16 12:07 AM
1

That's not a terribly large concern because you get two bites at the apple. If you can't get restitution in a criminal trial, you get a second chance in a civil suit because res judicata doesn't apply where the standards are different (which is a gross oversimplification, I know, but covers the base here). Also, though, couldn't courts/judges refuse to award any compensation to male victims of rape in cases where these males' rapists actually have custody of their children? After all, awarding c…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/16 06:31 AM
1

Also, two additional questions: If child support is genuinely the right of the child, then shouldn't a special fund be created for child support money in order to ensure that a child's non-custodial parent doesn't, say, save some or all of this child support money for his or her own retirement? If child support is genuinely the right of the child, then shouldn't court-ordered child support (from a child's minor years) which is only being paid after a child becomes an adult (due to previous nonpa…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/16 05:54 AM
1

Also, though, in regards to causation (which I view as a weak argument in any case considering that sperm/egg donors knew perfectly well what purpose their sperm and eggs were going to be used for after they donated/sold them), I would like to point out that, as far as I know, causation generally applies to cases which involve harm, negligence, and/or illegal activity. Thus, I don't think that using causation to justify forcing people to pay child support is a particularly good argument. After a…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/16 05:11 AM
1

Correct, but federal courts almost never hear family law cases. Federal jurisdiction only extends to enforcement. Why exactly is this the case, though? Also, what exactly are the exceptions to this? No - not correct. Implied powers only come into play if there is a question about what the scope of the court's authority is, Who exactly makes a question about this occur in the first place, though? and when they do, intent is always relevant. Exactly why so, though? After all, intent isn't relevant…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/16 04:59 AM
1

Kind of depends on the state. Many state courts are legislative entities, meaning they were created by a statute, rather than a constitution. These courts are bound by the terms of their creating statutes and cannot exercise jurisdiction beyond that scope. That's certainly not true for federal courts, correct? And no, the court cannot give itself new powers, and that is not what occurred in Marbury - judicial review is an implied power from Article III, and it is very clear that the founders int…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/16 02:24 AM
1

It would depend on the law - otherwise there is no basis for jurisdiction over the issue. Can't courts find jurisdiction for certain cases, though? After all, I know that some people have argued that the U.S. Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear Bush v. Gore but nevertheless heard and decided this case. Also, though, can't courts give themselves new powers? After all, as far as I know, this is what the U.S. Supreme Court previously did with the power of judicial review back in Marbury v. Ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/16 09:45 PM
1

Yes to both questions, but only after the contract has been challenged. It's unheard of for a court to have to ratify a contract. About the only similar thing I can think of are when courts approve or reject a settlement in civil suits. Even if it is unheard of, though, is it actually impossible? After all, there certainly is a difference between "unheard of" and "impossible." Yep, which is why it's a bad idea. OK. I guess I'm maybe misunderstanding. You want a family law court that already fuck…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/16 07:26 PM
1

Care to please elaborate on this part?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/16 03:22 AM
1

Which is who exactly? Men or women or both? Men, no? I answered this already. There is no such thing as BC that is immune from user or Doctor error. What about a vasectomy after azoospermia occurs, though? Indeed, I am only talking about user error on the patient's part here.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/16 03:02 AM
1

The insurance company, obviously.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/16 02:59 AM
1

How exactly does this relate to insurance, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/16 02:59 AM
1

No, though not for the reason you would expect. Such an insurance contract would almost certainly need to name the putative father as the beneficiary and not the child. Why? Because of the problems with having un-named beneficiaries in insurance policies. If the man is the beneficiary, then the contract is solely between the man and his insurance company, and the court has no place in the arrangement unless one party sues to enforce (or not) the contract. Can't courts get involved in matters whi…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/16 02:57 AM
1

You want to know what happens when people get implants and still get pregnant? The device companies blame it on Doctor error. Oh you got pregnant while on an IUD? Dr must have perforated your uterus upon insertion (which can make it ineffective m). Oh your essure perforated your Fallopian tube (therefore making it ineffective)? Dr error. Oh you got an ectopic pregnancy? We warned about that in the label. So, what about making sure that your doctor did his job properly? Indeed, would that work fo…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/16 02:51 AM
1

You yourself certainly don't have to purchase such insurance, though. :)
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/16 02:49 AM
1

Why exactly is a 100% guarantee relevant here, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/16 02:49 AM
1

Who would pay for this insurance? The person being insured, obviously. The fuck would you go for surgical castration for virtually any reason? No, certainly not for any reason. How would you go about proving BC failed?? What about having such insurance only cover sterilization and birth control where there is no possibility of user error on the patient's part, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/16 02:48 AM
1

Yeah--what about having such insurance only cover sterilization and birth control where there is no possibility of user error on the patient's part?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/16 02:47 AM
1

What about having such insurance only cover sterilization and birth control where there is no possibility of user error on the patient's part, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/16 02:47 AM
1

Dumbest idea I ever heard? What would keep people from just getting an insurance policy like this and then just have children? Nobody company in their right mind would cover this. What about having this insurance only cover long-term contraceptives with no user error (and which need a doctor to insert and remove them) and/or sterilization, though? Would that work for this?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/16 11:01 PM
1

Also, while I apologize if my language here was a little harsh, my point here still stands--indeed, if someone thinks that surgical castration for sterilization purposes is too extreme, then he or she better provide me with another guaranteed unilateral way that I can have consensual penis-in-vagina sex with fertile and potentially fertile cis-women without ever worrying about being forced to pay child support for 18+ years afterwards. If he or she can't do that, then he or she should certainly …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/16 08:31 PM
1

Insurance can only work when the insurer is confident that the event being insured against will cause a loss to the insured. That's why you can buy auto insurance even though you might very well be at fault. No one likes being in car accidents. OK. Having a baby is not a loss to all people. Some people actually want to have babies. What is to stop them purchasing a cheap baby insurance policy, then somehow their birth control "accidentally" fails; and voila, free child support for decades! Havin…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/16 05:28 PM
1

Sure, I support such a law. But good luck finding any insurance company offering such a policy at a rate that anyone could afford. Aren't the odds of certain birth control/sterilization failure very small, though? If so, then shouldn't such insurance be pretty cheap? How does the insurance company know that you didn't sabotage the birth control to get a payout? How do they know you didn't use condoms incorrectly and massively increase the risk? This can be dealt with by only allowing such insura…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/16 01:10 PM
1

Care to please elaborate on this part?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/16 01:08 PM
1

There have been cases relating to traffic cameras issuing tickets to the registered owner of the car regardless of whether they were driving. California, IIRC, tried avoiding these cases by declaring statutory liability for registered owners, but that law was struck down for obvious reasons. Frankly, it appears that I made a typo in my original post here. Indeed, this is what I meant to say in that part of my original post here: "(Indeed, can anyone here name any cases other than child support (…
/r/MensRights01/04/16 10:50 PM
1

You're not entitled to sex with fertile women - this is not a problem you bring to a doctor. You don't like the consequences that may come from having sex? Don't have sex. Indeed, this appears to be an extremely stupid thing to say on your part. Sorry, but I certainly mean it. After all, by that logic, doctors certainly shouldn't perform vasectomies either due to the fact that no man is entitled to sex with fertile women. Indeed, while male-bodied people certainly aren't entitled to sex, they ce…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/16 10:20 PM
1

Indeed, a vasectomy is certainly a shitty form of birth control considering that the pesky tube known as the vas deferens can and sometimes does grow back. :( Heck, even insurance certainly isn't an acceptable option for me due to the possibility that such an insurance contract will get struck down by some court(s)/judge(s) on grounds of public policy. :( Seriously; after all, I certainly wouldn't underestimate judges in regards to this.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/16 10:15 PM
1

Question: Did the City-Data person cite a law or a case? No, I don't think so. However, if you want, I can provide you a link to the relevant thread so that you can see for yourself. :) I'm a bit surprised you'd never heard of an argument that child support is actually for the non-custodial parent, considering MRAs make it all the time. Frankly, the version of this argument that I heard MRAs make is that child support is (legally) supposed to be for the child (as in, for the child's welfare and …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/16 10:12 PM
1

Also, though, I would like to point out that people certainly aren't robots. Rather, people can change their minds, including in regards to abortion and adoption. In addition to this, though, saying "I trusted her" certainly isn't an acceptable excuse to avoid paying child support for 18+ years.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/16 06:02 AM
1

It's almost like you shouldn't have premarital sex with pro-life women you aren't interested in marrying... Gee, that sounds a lot like an argument that pro-lifers make. :( Also, of course it's for the woman. Someone has to physically raise the kid 24/7, and someone has to financially take care of that caregiver. When you say "women who can afford it", you mean women who can afford to pay a babysitter to take on this role for 9 hours a day. Two adults are still involved in raising the kid. Or mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/16 05:51 AM
1

I see you've put a lot of thought into this. Well, yeah. Indeed, if you see any flaws with my thought process here, then please let me know! :) Also, though, I would like to point out that based on what some trans-men on Reddit have told me, the cost of testosterone HRT actually doesn't appear to be that high even without any insurance coverage. :) You're not entitled to sex with fertile women Yes; correct! Indeed, did I ever claim or state otherwise? After all, if no woman will ever want to hav…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 09:13 PM
1

The ones I listed are the ones that WILL enforce support. Hence why I said avoid those. OK. However, don't countries other than those specific countries still enforce their own (as opposed to the U.S.'s) child support laws? No doubt. But I hereby reserve the right to make jokes about your future silicon ball implants. :-p The thing is, though, that I certainly don't intend to ever get prosthetic testicles unless one or more of my future (female) sexual partners will demand this. After all, my ow…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 08:36 PM
1

Yes; correct! Also, though, for what it's worth, I feel like I should mention that if hormone replacement therapy (of either type) hypothetically didn't exist, then I would have probably settled for removing both my entire vas deferens and my entire epididymis. Of course, even this might have allowed for failure if a doctor would have screwed up by accidentally leaving some of the vas deferens and/or epididymis in place and/or if a fistula would have developed afterwards. Indeed, if a doctor agr…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 08:33 PM
1

OK.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 08:18 PM
1

OK. Anyway, though, isn't that also the purpose and intent of cauterization?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 08:18 PM
1

OK. However, no offense, but it's a bit strange for you to say that metal caps prevent the vas deferens from growing back only to be unable to provide an explanation as to why exactly this would always be the case. Again, no offense, but I am simply curious about this. After all, the human body sometimes makes surprises happen.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 08:15 PM
1

Oh it most definitely would. Courts only consider what's "in the best interest of the child", and would invalidate your contract on the spot. Oh, I certainly agree with you that a court can (unfortunately) strike down such an insurance contract on the spot. :( However, I am unsure if your reasoning in regards to this is correct; after all, this child would get the exact same amount of money in child support from this insurance company that he or she would have otherwise got from me. Rather, what…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 08:07 PM
1

Indeed, since the vas deferens is capable of growing back, how exactly am I going to be sure that the vas deferens is unable to displace and dislodge these metal caps? Completely serious question, for the record.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 07:58 PM
1

Well, I want to never have to work again but still maintain my lifestyle. We can't always get what we want. Surgical castration is still the next best thing, though. :) Again, no. Because the promise is not part of the treatment process. Additionally, the promise would not be enforceable in court, if the doctor did nothing to alter his handiwork after the surgery. Basically you would have the burden to prove that he was responsible for your body healing itself, which you could not do. Hence why …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 07:56 PM
1

Also, in regards to your point about a guarantee in writing not being enforceable in court, I would like to point out that I cannot even consider the option of insurance for a similar reason. To elaborate on this, even if I found some insurance company which will be willing to create an insurance contract which cost less than $300-$400 per month and which will pay all of my child support payments for 18+ years in the event of sterilization failure, this option would certainly be unacceptable to …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 07:54 PM
1

Also, two additional things: I find it hard to believe that insurance will cover to cover estrogen HRT for me if I will decide to go down this route and if this insurance covers estrogen HRT for trans-women. After all, just like trans-women, I myself was born with a male body. Even if one completely ignores the "back-alley argument," I would like to point out that unless a doctor can give me another way that I can have penis-in-vagina sex with fertile and potentially fertile cis-women without ev…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 07:50 PM
1

I realize that. I'm just saying that since you need a guarantee that you will never have, you might as well chop off your dick now, because you're not going to be using it for sex, ever. I certainly want to have sex, though. No. Malpractice is if something goes wrong during treatment or a misdiagnosis leading to further injury. It is not a shield against possible future events, such as your body healing itself. Wouldn't falsely promising 100% effectiveness be a case of medical malpractice, thoug…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 07:43 PM
1

Ah it'd be different in the case of trans people. But you'd be hard-pressed to find any doctor who would perform a castration on a cis person only to then prescribe hormones consistent with their biological sex, The thing is, though, that when doctors refuse to perform elective castrations on aspiring eunuchs, some/many of these aspiring eunuchs seek much more dangerous "back-alley" surgical castrations instead. Thus, as a result of their excessive "gate-keeping," these doctors are actually doin…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 07:41 PM
1

I never talked about chopping off my dick, though. Rather, I was talking about chopping off my balls. However, can't I sue a doctor for malpractice if he promises 100% effectiveness only to have my sterilization fail later on?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 07:34 PM
1

Not forgetting, just not seeing it as a practical option when you make perfectly good testosterone for free. I'm pretty sure the out-of-pocket cost of an elective castration and HRT would end up being more than child support. First of all, I am unsure that I want to take testosterone HRT rather than estrogen HRT. However, even if I wanted to take testosterone HRT, I am curious about this--on what exactly are you basing your claim that a surgical castration plus a lifetime of hormone replacement …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 06:58 PM
1

Unless a doctor is willing to promise in writing that this will be 100% effective and that he or she is going to pay all of my child support for me for 18+ years in the event of a vasectomy failure, this certainly isn't an acceptable option for me. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 06:55 PM
1

Frankly, you might be forgetting about the existence of hormone replacement therapy. Plus, celibacy is no more acceptable to me than it is to pro-choice cis-women when pro-lifers give them this very same advice. In addition to this, though, I certainly want greater equality with cis-women by being able to have penis-in-vagina sex with fertile or potentially fertile people of the opposite sex without ever being forced to pay child support for an unwanted child of mine afterwards. :)
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 04:39 AM
1

You might be forgetting about the existence of hormone replacement therapy, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 04:38 AM
1

Actually, No, I don't. :( However, if something such as that will ever happen to me, then I will certainly go down fighting! Indeed, I would even show my dead testicles to a judge to try getting out of this.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 04:20 AM
1

No; rather, I am worried about re-canalization.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 04:19 AM
1

Well, if something such as that will ever happen to me, then I will certainly go down fighting! Indeed, I would even show my dead testicles to a judge to try getting out of this.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 04:19 AM
1

I actually am talking about surgical castration here, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/16 02:58 AM
1

A failure rate of 2%-5% in addition to the ability to select the woman you sleep with hedges your risk significantly. But not completely! :( There is always the chance that all will fail, but that is the risk you take when you have sex. Actually, No--one shouldn't have to accept this risk when one has sex. As with all risk, you have to be prepared to accept the responsibility in case of failure. Exactly why so, though? Forcing other people to pay for your choice is just wrong. Exactly why so, th…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/16 10:25 PM
1

Couldn't creating a DNA database/registry of all safe haven babies be a better way of going about this, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/16 02:52 AM
1

The thing is, though, that all non-drastic forms of birth control can and sometimes do fail and that men certainly don't have the guaranteed option of abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/16 07:26 PM
1

I would imagine that a woman who doesn't have financial guarantee in the case of a pregnancy and who can't afford a child but enjoys sex would use birth control a lot more often and effectively as a woman who does have a financial guarantee. Agreed; plus, such a woman would probably be more careful and selective when it comes to choosing the men that she will have sex with in the first place. :) Men can't even do anything to avoid liability. Surgical castration, no? :) Hell, if she lies about pa…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/16 07:13 PM
2

Or, even better, not having sex with men who are personally okay with not paying child support. :) After all, if men are expected to trust women when it comes to abortion and adoption, then women should likewise be expected to trust men when it comes to child support.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/16 07:10 PM
1

Out of curiosity--is either surgical gonad removal or abstaining from penis-in-vagina sex for your entire life acceptable/tolerable life choices for you personally? Completely serious question, for the record.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/16 07:09 PM
1

Then have the taxpayers help financially support this child. :)
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/16 07:08 PM
1

Avoid this problem in the first place by creating a sufficiently large unconditional basic income for everyone. :) There--problem solved, no? :)
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/16 07:08 PM
1

Once we get a male contraceptive it will change the game. Common Japan hurry the fuck up. Only if this male contraceptive is completely infallible. After all, it's certainly not like pro-choice women have never whined or complained about the risk of contraception failure and/or sterilization failure. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/16 07:05 PM
2

Frankly, the "best interests of the child" argument certainly isn't always applied. After all, it would certainly be in the best interests of a child for a child's wealthy birth parents to pay child support to their child after they give their child up for adoption to a less well-off middle class couple (so that their child can have the same standard of living that he or she would have had if he or she wouldn't have been given up for adoption). However, we certainly don't do that in spite of the…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/16 07:04 PM
1

It is victim blaming, though--just like one is telling women to be careful in order to decrease the risk of them getting raped (or something similar).
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/16 07:01 PM
1

Vasectomies and vasectomy reversal is cheaper than child support. Yes, there are risks, because it is still surgery and there is no guarantee the reversal will work. Vasectomies can and sometimes do fail, though. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/16 07:00 PM
1

They could have taken all reasonable steps to prevent that reality but still be on the hook. Surgical castration. :) There--problem solved! :) Indeed, this is what I myself certainly plan to do. :)
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/16 06:56 PM
1

An abortion isn't a button you press. An abortion is certainly much less difficult to endure than surgical castration and a lifetime of hormone replacement therapy afterwards, no?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/16 06:54 PM
1

she is asked the identity of the father. And if she doesn't want to do this? Then what?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/16 06:52 PM
1

Parental consent for what exactly, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/16 06:51 PM
1

Frankly, my ideal solution to this would probably be to create a sufficiently large unconditional basic income. :) Indeed, that should solve the issue of additional taxpayer money going towards this. :) Also, though, the "taxpayers will be supporting unwanted children" argument appears to be rather weak for cases of vasectomy/Vasalgel failure. After all, please correct me if I am wrong, but I'm assuming that a majority of straight taxpayers don't consider either surgical removal of gonads or abs…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/16 06:50 PM
1

Maybe. ;)
/r/MensRights07/01/16 06:14 PM
1

The part you're most interested in is somehow wanting your name attached to the results you think could come about and care more about glory than results. I'm sorry, but how exactly did you come to this conclusion? After all, I certainly don't care anywhere near as much about getting my own name out there than I do about results. :)
/r/MensRights19/12/15 03:04 PM
-1

Why exactly, though?
/r/MensRights19/12/15 01:32 AM
0

Thanks. :)
/r/MensRights19/06/15 03:04 AM
-1

Please pardon my ignorance in regards to this, but how exactly do I send you a PM?
/r/MensRights19/06/15 02:54 AM
-1

Here's the thing, i know i already commented, and i do support your choice in something like this, but this is a super drastic step Yes, I certainly understand that. (is it even really possible in the US?) It better be, because otherwise I will be compelled to get this done in a "back-alley" instead, something which I absolutely loathe to do. :( That said, though, I think that there is this one doctor in Michigan and another doctor in California who are willing to perform elective orchiectomies …
/r/MensRights19/06/15 02:39 AM
0

In order to be sterilized in a way which cannot ever fail and, if possible*, in order to help feminize myself and in order to regulate my sex drive (frankly, a somewhat lesser sex drive would probably be nice to have). *Basically, I still want to be able to continue getting erections using my penis even after I will become a eunuch; thus, anything which eliminate this possibility is not going to work for me.
/r/MensRights18/06/15 06:30 AM
-1

Sure, if you want to get castrated, I'm pretty sure you can just ask your doctor. I certainly don't think that it is as easy as you make it out to be; if there was, then there wouldn't be any back-alley castrations to begin with! But I also think vasectomy would be a much better option for your situation. As far as I know, though, vasectomies can fail even with cauterization. Thus, they are simply not good enough for me.
/r/MensRights18/06/15 06:03 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter