Jump to content
UNLV2001

Let's hear both sides

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, youngredbullfan said:

Well, it's a major debate. 

My take is that you can definitely describe what happened to Native Americans in some places and times as genocide. In other places and times you can say that the Europeans/Americans' presence created conditions that were not conducive to Native American life and culture, even if there was not direct violence.

Regardless, the government and citizenry of the United States certainly participated in multiple, direct, undisputed genocides against indigenous peoples.

 

 

It can be considered genocide because there were specific tribes we wared with where the purpose was to depopulate them into compliance.  Yes the numbers show that for every native killed doing this X times amount were killed via indirect contact or direct contact with no knowledge and X is greater by huge orders of  magnitude but it does not alleviate the forced removal and the planned reduction in numbers that were US policy.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Naggsty Butler said:

While the vast majority of Native American deaths (prior to 1800, at least) can be attributed to disease, there are a number of instances in American history that could be considered genocide. For example, the Indian Removal Act in 1830, which included the Trail of Tears, where 8,000 Cherokee died (about half of the Cherokee population). The army deliberately marched the Cherokee through areas plagued with cholera. The Indian Wars saw massacres of men, women, and children. One notorious Indian fighter, Col. John Chivington, led a massacre of around 100-150 Arapaho and Cheyenne, most of whom were women and children. The soldiers took scalps, genitalia, and even fetuses as war trophies. Col. Chivington said

"Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians! ... I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God's heaven to kill Indians. ... Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice." 

The Mendocino War and Round Valley War saw the Yuki people brought to the brink of extinction. The forced removal of Indians from their lands resulted in tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of deaths. All of these instances can be called genocide.

I agree that there are state-sponsored ethnic cleansing events in our country's history. I do not dispute that. I am curious about the death toll figure oft cited of tens of millions. I think we cannot attribute that to genocide because it was uncontrolled spread of disease.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CV147 said:

I agree that there are state-sponsored ethnic cleansing events in our country's history. I do not dispute that. I am curious about the death toll figure oft cited of tens of millions. I think we cannot attribute that to genocide because it was uncontrolled spread of disease.

I think you can blame European imperialism for tens of millions of genocidal deaths in the new world. But I don't think you can blame the US, even dating back to what, 1630. A lot of the genociding had already happened, but also the population of the part of north america we are in now was not that high. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, youngredbullfan said:

Well, it's a major debate. 

My take is that you can definitely describe what happened to Native Americans in some places and times as genocide. In other places and times you can say that the Europeans/Americans' presence created conditions that were not conducive to Native American life and culture, even if there was not direct violence.

Regardless, the government and citizenry of the United States certainly participated in multiple, direct, undisputed genocides against indigenous peoples.

 

 

I don't dispute what you're saying here.

The worst thing about the Native Americans is that many tribes allied with the Europeans to punish their enemy tribes, but whenever the enemy tribes struck back, the European settlements attacked their ally tribes.

It was terrible. The Trail of Tears was horrific. The betrayal of so many broken treaties should never be forgotten. The American government should have recognized a Native American state.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, CV147 said:

I don't dispute what you're saying here.

The worst thing about the Native Americans is that many tribes allied with the Europeans to punish their enemy tribes, but whenever the enemy tribes struck back, the European settlements attacked their ally tribes.

It was terrible. The Trail of Tears was horrific. The betrayal of so many broken treaties should never be forgotten. The American government should have recognized a Native American state.

We got an Indigenous Peoples day last week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, renoskier said:

imo, way better than freaking Columbus day

Yep...but only one day. Latinos and Blacks get a month. Guess it's TRUE...the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Edit: LGBTQ gets a month as well.

Natives are forgotten and ignored.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, happycamper said:

All right.

First off, do you notice something.... else about my profile picture that might indicate another state? 
Secondly, you think that awarded child support being withheld doesn't harm the child? You think that it doesn't mean the child, say, has to wear ill-fitting clothes? Or can't afford to participate in sports? Or needs to get reduced lunch at school?

Thirdly, you think that the kid is somehow ignorant of their dad being a deadbeat!? Even if the mother is some kind of angel, the grandparents won't be. The aunts and uncles won't be. Even just the turns of conversation, sudden shushes, how they treat the father... that is all incredibly damaging to the child and to their relationship with their father. The child's view of the father is irreparably damaged. 

You assertion is nuts. It is of the type if not the severity of "a sexually abusive father is better than an absent one!" It is one thing to not be able to afford what the court appoints and try to support your kid. You're just out here apologizing for deadbeats. 

I see that you're a Wyoming fan, but Wyoming law also prohibits withholding visitation for a non-custodial parent for the non-payment of child support. I'm not aware of any state that allows that. I never said that withholding child support doesn't hurt the child. Of course it does and it hurts the custodial parent and if you read my post, it clearly said that a child is harmed much more by not being able to spend time with both parents and there is a ton of research out there that supports that. 

In most cases, a child is only aware that their other parent because the other parent is making comments to or in front of the child about the other. You may phrase it as "even if the mother is some sort of angel", but that sort of situation is, in most cases, explicitly covered in the custody agreement. The custody agreement prohibits the parents from making disparaging comments about the other party or their family OR to remain in the presence of any third person (the custodial parent's family or friends) who is making disparaging comments. That is addressed in agreements just like child support is and it is done so for a reason....because it is also harmful to the child. 

My assertion that a child needs time with both parents is nuts? Something tells me that you're not reading my posts and, instead, creating your own narrative. So let me me state it again:

A parent who doesn't (or can't) pay child support harms the child in most cases. A parent who isn't allowed by the custodial parent to spend time with their child for any reason, including not paying child support is also harming the child (the harm being caused by the custodial parent) and studies show that this has a bigger negative impact than non-payment of child support. Parents who make disparaging comments about the other are harming their child. All of that being said, any parent who declines to spend time with their child by their own volition is doing the greatest amount of harm and is either a pretty shitty person or is going through something pretty shitty. Please tell me which of those assertions would you consider to be nuts? 

Also, deadbeat parents are not always men and, in fact, women fail to pay at a higher rate (57% of women who are required to pay actually do, 68% of dads who are required to pay do), which was my original point. Too many threads on this OT board make blanket comments that simply aren't true, which is why I replied in the first place. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Slapdad said:

I see that you're a Wyoming fan, but Wyoming law also prohibits withholding visitation for a non-custodial parent for the non-payment of child support. I'm not aware of any state that allows that. I never said that withholding child support doesn't hurt the child. Of course it does and it hurts the custodial parent and if you read my post, it clearly said that a child is harmed much more by not being able to spend time with both parents and there is a ton of research out there that supports that. 

In most cases, a child is only aware that their other parent because the other parent is making comments to or in front of the child about the other. You may phrase it as "even if the mother is some sort of angel", but that sort of situation is, in most cases, explicitly covered in the custody agreement. The custody agreement prohibits the parents from making disparaging comments about the other party or their family OR to remain in the presence of any third person (the custodial parent's family or friends) who is making disparaging comments. That is addressed in agreements just like child support is and it is done so for a reason....because it is also harmful to the child. 

My assertion that a child needs time with both parents is nuts? Something tells me that you're not reading my posts and, instead, creating your own narrative. So let me me state it again:

A parent who doesn't (or can't) pay child support harms the child in most cases. A parent who isn't allowed by the custodial parent to spend time with their child for any reason, including not paying child support is also harming the child (the harm being caused by the custodial parent) and studies show that this has a bigger negative impact than non-payment of child support. Parents who make disparaging comments about the other are harming their child. All of that being said, any parent who declines to spend time with their child by their own volition is doing the greatest amount of harm and is either a pretty shitty person or is going through something pretty shitty. Please tell me which of those assertions would you consider to be nuts? 

Also, deadbeat parents are not always men and, in fact, women fail to pay at a higher rate (57% of women who are required to pay actually do, 68% of dads who are required to pay do), which was my original point. Too many threads on this OT board make blanket comments that simply aren't true, which is why I replied in the first place. 

 

Whoa now, what blanket statement was made about dead beat dads?  Seems you brought up the issue out of nowhere, after missing a board joke about Maynard, CS and his "bet" thread.

FWIW my dad struggled to pay child support so my mom stopped asking him for it, and instead just asked he split the costs of new clothing, birthdays and holidays as well as any medical and dental expenses.  As my mom was a single mom making $7 an hour and raising two kids, I have always respected that.  She never brought it up but my grandma was sure bitter about it, even asked me to stop praying for him in my nighttime prayers lol.  Dad simply did not have the money but taught me to fish, hunt, play chess and flirt with girls.  So, no respect lost.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Slapdad said:

I see that you're a Wyoming fan, but Wyoming law also prohibits withholding visitation for a non-custodial parent for the non-payment of child support. I'm not aware of any state that allows that. I never said that withholding child support doesn't hurt the child. Of course it does and it hurts the custodial parent and if you read my post, it clearly said that a child is harmed much more by not being able to spend time with both parents and there is a ton of research out there that supports that. 

Where? Where is the research that shows that more time with a deadbeat is preferable to less visitation time with a responsible father?

11 minutes ago, Slapdad said:

In most cases, a child is only aware that their other parent because the other parent is making comments to or in front of the child about the other. You may phrase it as "even if the mother is some sort of angel", but that sort of situation is, in most cases, explicitly covered in the custody agreement. The custody agreement prohibits the parents from making disparaging comments about the other party or their family OR to remain in the presence of any third person (the custodial parent's family or friends) who is making disparaging comments. That is addressed in agreements just like child support is and it is done so for a reason....because it is also harmful to the child. 

So first off, you're quoting a post that explicitly addressed the fact that the child would mostly hear it from their extended family and that simply the behavior towards the deadbeat would be noticeable.

Secondly, you're assuming that the custodial parent will feel explicitly bound by the custody agreement, in a manner which is nearly impossible to enforce, while the non-custodial parent is flouting the agreement? Why? I mean for chrissakes, "your dad isn't paying child support again so no we can't afford pizza tonight"?

11 minutes ago, Slapdad said:

My assertion that a child needs time with both parents is nuts? Something tells me that you're not reading my posts and, instead, creating your own narrative. So let me me state it again:

Yes, your assertion that time with both parents, regardless of circumstances, is nuts. 

11 minutes ago, Slapdad said:

A parent who doesn't (or can't) pay child support harms the child in most cases. A parent who isn't allowed by the custodial parent to spend time with their child for any reason, including not paying child support is also harming the child (the harm being caused by the custodial parent) and studies show that this has a bigger negative impact than non-payment of child support. Parents who make disparaging comments about the other are harming their child. All of that being said, any parent who declines to spend time with their child by their own volition is doing the greatest amount of harm and is either a pretty shitty person or is going through something pretty shitty. Please tell me which of those assertions would you consider to be nuts? 

Your apologism for deadbeats is nuts dude. 

11 minutes ago, Slapdad said:

Also, deadbeat parents are not always men and, in fact, women fail to pay at a higher rate (57% of women who are required to pay actually do, 68% of dads who are required to pay do), which was my original point. Too many threads on this OT board make blanket comments that simply aren't true, which is why I replied in the first place. 

So your point is... what? Women deadbeats are worse?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Whoa now, what blanket statement was made about dead beat dads?  Seems you brought up the issue out of nowhere, after missing a board joke about Maynard, CS and his "bet" thread.

FWIW my dad struggled to pay child support so my mom stopped asking him for it, and instead just asked he split the costs of new clothing, birthdays and holidays as well as any medical and dental expenses.  As my mom was a single mom making $7 an hour and raising two kids, I have always respected that.  She never brought it up but my grandma was sure bitter about it, even asked me to stop praying for him in my nighttime prayers lol.  Dad simply did not have the money but taught me to fish, hunt, play chess and flirt with girls.  So, no respect lost.  

 

Shoot when my dad had me over the first couple summers after the divorce, money was fairly tight for both and my mom and dad came to a handshake agreement that he wouldn't pay child support and they "pro rated" months that I was with my dad for more than a week. When my dad's income increased a few years later he just bumped up what he was paying without asking the court. 

There is a hell of a difference between "deadbeat" and "abiding by the letter of the divorce decree". 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, happycamper said:

Shoot when my dad had me over the first couple summers after the divorce, money was fairly tight for both and my mom and dad came to a handshake agreement that he wouldn't pay child support and they "pro rated" months that I was with my dad for more than a week. When my dad's income increased a few years later he just bumped up what he was paying without asking the court. 

There is a hell of a difference between "deadbeat" and "abiding by the letter of the divorce decree". 

My father has mental health issues that are pretty significant and has kept him from changing careers from the same job he took as a 16 year old, despite having an IQ of around 150 and being one of a handful of people in the PNW that is just a flat out better chess player than I am.  Was what it was and my mom being the saint she is would never hear a bad word about him, neither would my grandfather.  Grandma on the other hand....oh boy.  

Anyways, big difference between not being able to abide by the court orders for various reasons and thinking you simply do not need to abide by them, and would not even if you could, cus reasons and sov cit.  

Oh, and get rid of SRO's and no "other side" story of the Holocaust is anything anybody without a Klan robe or a shaved head would be interested in reading. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Whoa now, what blanket statement was made about dead beat dads?  Seems you brought up the issue out of nowhere, after missing a board joke about Maynard, CS and his "bet" thread.

FWIW my dad struggled to pay child support so my mom stopped asking him for it, and instead just asked he split the costs of new clothing, birthdays and holidays as well as any medical and dental expenses.  As my mom was a single mom making $7 an hour and raising two kids, I have always respected that.  She never brought it up but my grandma was sure bitter about it, even asked me to stop praying for him in my nighttime prayers lol.  Dad simply did not have the money but taught me to fish, hunt, play chess and flirt with girls.  So, no respect lost.  

 

Blanket statements are all over this board and there is public misconception about custodial/noncustodial/deadbeat dads/deadbeat moms in society, so that was was what I was referring to.

And you're right, I missed whatever joke about Maynard, so I must have taken your deadbeat dad comment out of context....and took us off onto a tangent. Though I'm not opposed to tangents. My bad for missing the joke/context.  

And your situation (sans your grandma's comments) is a better co-parenting situation, IMO. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Slapdad said:

Blanket statements are all over this board and there is public misconception about custodial/noncustodial/deadbeat dads/deadbeat moms in society, so that was was what I was referring to.

And you're right, I missed whatever joke about Maynard, so I must have taken your deadbeat dad comment out of context....and took us off onto a tangent. Though I'm not opposed to tangents. My bad for missing the joke/context.  

And your situation (sans your grandma's comments) is a better co-parenting situation, IMO. 

S'all gravy baby.  Going off on tangents is the best part of MWCboarding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There's no such thing as "child support". Your offspring have no more of a right to a set amount of support every month than they have a right to an XBOX, or a car when they turn 16. 

The Child Support Enforcement Program was created in the 1970s to recoup welfare funds. And that's never changed. What did change in the 90s is the feds had to relent and include the counties in the profits. That's because the counties are just like any other govt,  they don't gaf about you. Amazing right, as if thousands of years of precedent wasn't enough?!

None of you are or were the intended beneficiaries of child support. Your moms signed you over to a federally owned franchisee. The franchisee's job is to pimp you out for matching funds from the franchisor, the OCSE. Don't bother arguing that, the Supreme Court (U.S. v. Sage; Blessings v. Freestone) and 11th Circuit (Wiehunt v. Ledbetter) will shout you TF down. The only intended beneficiary of csep is the state treasury. 

The govt's job isn't to create better familial relations. Its only purpose is to take money outta your azzes. In this case, the county seeks to deprive the NCP of as much visitation as possible. Less visitation --> Higher guideline support --> More iv-d funding to the state treasury.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Where? Where is the research that shows that more time with a deadbeat is preferable to less visitation time with a responsible father?

 

What? You're reading that wrong. Spending time with a deadbeat dad is preferable to spending no time with a dad. There is a mountain of research on that.  

55 minutes ago, happycamper said:

So first off, you're quoting a post that explicitly addressed the fact that the child would mostly hear it from their extended family and that simply the behavior towards the deadbeat would be noticeable.

It doesn't matter if it is from the extended family or not. The custodial parent.....actually, both parents....are responsible for telling extended family and friends not to make disparaging comments in front of the child. They're all adults and that if they can't do that, then that's pathetic. My ex told would talk bad about her daughter's dad and I had to sit her down and tell her not to make those comments in front of my kids and suggested that she not make them in front of her daughter. I also told her to never say anything bad about my kid's mom in front of them...and there was plenty to say. Between the two of us was a different story, but not in front of the kids. That's putting kids who are already feeling conflicted in an ever worse situation. Sometimes we have to be the bigger person. 

59 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Secondly, you're assuming that the custodial parent will feel explicitly bound by the custody agreement, in a manner which is nearly impossible to enforce, while the non-custodial parent is flouting the agreement? Why? I mean for chrissakes, "your dad isn't paying child support again so no we can't afford pizza tonight"?

I'm assuming that BOTH parents are bound by the legal agreement that they signed. I'm not excusing either, but rather expecting both to follow the agreement and whoever doesn't should face the consequences. This isn't a difficult concept, so I'm not sure what you're not getting. 

59 minutes ago, happycamper said:

yes, your assertion that time with both parents, regardless of circumstances, is nuts. 

Your apologism for deadbeats is nuts dude. 

So your point is... what? Women deadbeats are worse?

You can feel that spending time with both parents is nuts, but nearly all psychologists, child psychiatrists and the courts are in agreement with a few exceptions, which are if there is a history of abuse (physical or sexual), substance abuse, mental illness, incarceration, neglect, or if the parent can't provide safe living conditions. Again, if you think it's nuts, then you're in the minority...by a large margin. 

Where have I been an apologist for deadbeat dads? I've done no such thing. They should be required to pay and when they don't there are mechanisms in place to make them 1) pay or 2) make their life difficult by denying CCL, tax refunds, suspending licenses and even incarceration. I'm all for those provided there are no extenuating circumstances that should be considered. 

Good God man, you've got to be kidding me. The point is that deadbeat parents come from both sides of the aisle, not just dads. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Slapdad said:

What? You're reading that wrong. Spending time with a deadbeat dad is preferable to spending no time with a dad. There is a mountain of research on that.  

But for one, you didn't say that. You said that any absence was worse than being a deadbeat. And for two, you said it in a way to apologise for deadbeats. It was gross as hell. 

11 minutes ago, Slapdad said:

It doesn't matter if it is from the extended family or not. The custodial parent.....actually, both parents....are responsible for telling extended family and friends not to make disparaging comments in front of the child. They're all adults and that if they can't do that, then that's pathetic. My ex told would talk bad about her daughter's dad and I had to sit her down and tell her not to make those comments in front of my kids and suggested that she not make them in front of her daughter. I also told her to never say anything bad about my kid's mom in front of them...and there was plenty to say. Between the two of us was a different story, but not in front of the kids. That's putting kids who are already feeling conflicted in an ever worse situation. Sometimes we have to be the bigger person. 

No, that's bullshit. that's not how family dynamics work in a marriage, why the hell would they work that way in a divorce? You expect grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins to pretend like the divorced parent, who isn't paying what the court figured they could afford, is totally fine? Or refer to them positively every time?

That's not true to life dude. If the husband does a crummy job doing the dishes, the wife lets him know and doesn't care if the kids hear about it. That isn't disparaging. 

11 minutes ago, Slapdad said:

I'm assuming that BOTH parents are bound by the legal agreement that they signed. I'm not excusing either, but rather expecting both to follow the agreement and whoever doesn't should face the consequences. This isn't a difficult concept, so I'm not sure what you're not getting. 

I'm not getting why you're fine with deadbeats, and are apologising for them, but are hard on. the entire other family not being thrilled at the non custodial parent being a deadbeat. It's a bullshit take. 

11 minutes ago, Slapdad said:

You can feel that spending time with both parents is nuts, but nearly all psychologists, child psychiatrists and the courts are in agreement with a few exceptions, which are if there is a history of abuse (physical or sexual), substance abuse, mental illness, incarceration, neglect, or if the parent can't provide safe living conditions. Again, if you think it's nuts, then you're in the minority...by a large margin. 

You just said what I said. Are you bothering to read my posts, slap?

11 minutes ago, Slapdad said:

Where have I been an apologist for deadbeat dads? I've done no such thing. They should be required to pay and when they don't there are mechanisms in place to make them 1) pay or 2) make their life difficult by denying CCL, tax refunds, suspending licenses and even incarceration. I'm all for those provided there are no extenuating circumstances that should be considered. 

Good God man, you've got to be kidding me. The point is that deadbeat parents come from both sides of the aisle, not just dads. 

This entire conversation has been you stumping for deadbeats. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maynard Delecto said:

 

There's no such thing as "child support". Your offspring have no more of a right to a set amount of support every month than they have a right to an XBOX, or a car when they turn 16. 

The Child Support Enforcement Program was created in the 1970s to recoup welfare funds. And that's never changed. What did change in the 90s is the feds had to relent and include the counties in the profits. That's because the counties are just like any other govt,  they don't gaf about you. Amazing right, as if thousands of years of precedent wasn't enough?!

None of you are or were the intended beneficiaries of child support. Your moms signed you over to a federally owned franchisee. The franchisee's job is to pimp you out for matching funds from the franchisor, the OCSE. Don't bother arguing that, the Supreme Court (U.S. v. Sage; Blessings v. Freestone) and 11th Circuit (Wiehunt v. Ledbetter) will shout you TF down. The only intended beneficiary of csep is the state treasury. 

The govt's job isn't to create better familial relations. Its only purpose is to take money outta your azzes. In this case, the county seeks to deprive the NCP of as much visitation as possible. Less visitation --> Higher guideline support --> More iv-d funding to the state treasury.

 

 

 

 

Like seriously.  This cannot be a real human being, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, 702Canary said:

Like seriously.  This cannot be a real human being, right?

Cal alum. I never used to put much weight into all the hype. But the more I read from you guys, the more it proves us Cal ppl really are a cut above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...