lAmebAdger
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:
i dare ya to find the word "purpose" in that article...
i dare ya to find the word "purpose" in that article...
On the rights of unwilling fathers:
- Thread starter PlagueBearer
- Start date
BobCox2
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:
It's the only thing that everyone agrees all life does - thus I put to you that it is it's purpose, not only that but higher life forms tend to do it at a greater rate than lower ones and intelligent life does it at what can be described as a logarithmically greater rate.
I really don't like some of the terms they use like Gibb's free energy or negative entropy but if you follow the links in detail or research the source material it's clear that those are just terms used to explain local effects on Life on the universe and that in total what it does in increase the total rate of entropy above the background effect one would see without life present.
It's the only thing that everyone agrees all life does - thus I put to you that it is it's purpose, not only that but higher life forms tend to do it at a greater rate than lower ones and intelligent life does it at what can be described as a logarithmically greater rate.
I really don't like some of the terms they use like Gibb's free energy or negative entropy but if you follow the links in detail or research the source material it's clear that those are just terms used to explain local effects on Life on the universe and that in total what it does in increase the total rate of entropy above the background effect one would see without life present.
lAmebAdger
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:
apparently not everyone... maybe everyone would agree that it's what "life" as per its scientific definition does
i'm sure that most of the entropy in our universe does not come from organic life forms... it's really not all that significant, maybe this increase is only a cool side-effect, i don't see the point in saying that is the purpose of life as given to us by chance (or not chance) on this earth
Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:
I'd say it's also consensual at least in that it's definitely not something happening under duress. You don't sit there and ask, "You're sitting here looking at pornography with the Kleenex and lotion next to you. Do you consent to your touching of your sex organs?" of course, but you generate the idea and you don't protest that idea being carried out.
Of course, this leads us to the question:
"If you're beating off and someone starts to stab you, do you scream like a little girl, stop masturbating, and run for help like I would, or do you just keep going like the greatest, most heroic masturbator ever?" I mean, seriously: that guy… I mean… he was using his powers for evil, but you can't help but admire his tenacity. A hero—a fallen, tragic, masturbating hero.
I'd say so. It's funny because dictionary.com, for example, defines "sex act" as only the sex act—coitus, but by their own definitions, masturbation's a sex act in that it's sexual in that it's "[o]f, relating to, involving, or characteristic of [...] the sex organs and their functions," and it's an act in that it's "[something] done, being done, or to be done." A cursory view of Google's search results shows that there's also at least one source other than me which uses "sex act" to refer to masturbation.
I'd say it's also consensual at least in that it's definitely not something happening under duress. You don't sit there and ask, "You're sitting here looking at pornography with the Kleenex and lotion next to you. Do you consent to your touching of your sex organs?" of course, but you generate the idea and you don't protest that idea being carried out.
Of course, this leads us to the question:
"If you're beating off and someone starts to stab you, do you scream like a little girl, stop masturbating, and run for help like I would, or do you just keep going like the greatest, most heroic masturbator ever?" I mean, seriously: that guy… I mean… he was using his powers for evil, but you can't help but admire his tenacity. A hero—a fallen, tragic, masturbating hero.
In which case? In the one from Louisiana, the guy apparently consented to the sexual contact—just not to the impregnation. I think it's like if he owned a tiger but left the key to its cage lying in a condom in her trash can and she turned the tiger loose on the neighborhood when he wasn't around. He didn't ask her to do that, he didn't even know she was going to do that, so there's no implicit or explicit consent there. It's his tiger, though, so he's responsible regardless, because nobody put a gun to his head and made him own and keep a tiger, which by its nature potentially poses a great threat to others.
lAmebAdger
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:
nonetheless it's the woman's fault. if you own a hammer and someone steals it to whack some other guy, then that thief would be held responsible, no?
nonetheless it's the woman's fault. if you own a hammer and someone steals it to whack some other guy, then that thief would be held responsible, no?
Dondrei
Diabloii.Net Member
krischan
Europe Trade Moderator
Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:
Yes, it's the mother's fault, but it's not the fault of the child as well and it has the natural right to get the help of its parents, just as the parents have the natural right to raise their own children. The child also has no choice in who's going to raise it. If the parents want the child, maybe it would be better if it gets adopted by somebody else than them ? It's not their property, after all.
You do not have a right to decide freely about caring for your direct relatives (parents, children), at least it's like that where I live. The rights of being a human only come together with the duties.
BTW, that child will also be one of your heirs, there might be nothing you can do about it. Here in Germany you can only deinherit your children if they failed on you in a severe manner (which being an unwanted child isn't), but that might be different in other countries.
It's not just a wound from a hammer, it's about a child which is your own son or daughter, whether you wanted to have it or not.
Yes, it's the mother's fault, but it's not the fault of the child as well and it has the natural right to get the help of its parents, just as the parents have the natural right to raise their own children. The child also has no choice in who's going to raise it. If the parents want the child, maybe it would be better if it gets adopted by somebody else than them ? It's not their property, after all.
You do not have a right to decide freely about caring for your direct relatives (parents, children), at least it's like that where I live. The rights of being a human only come together with the duties.
BTW, that child will also be one of your heirs, there might be nothing you can do about it. Here in Germany you can only deinherit your children if they failed on you in a severe manner (which being an unwanted child isn't), but that might be different in other countries.
Johnny
Banned
Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:
"Look at this tape! Look at it! My son missed the goal from 5 meters! He's no Beckenbauer! He doesn't deserve any of my money!"
How do you even legally define that?
"Look at this tape! Look at it! My son missed the goal from 5 meters! He's no Beckenbauer! He doesn't deserve any of my money!"
krischan
Europe Trade Moderator
Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:
You have a certain minimum share here which is half of the monetary value (not any particular parts of the heritage) of that you would get if there was no testament. Only your children and your wife/husband have that guaranteed share.
If there is no testament, your wife/husband will inherit half of it if still alive, the rest is distributed among your children. If there are none, other relatives will come into play, else they will get nothing. If there are no relatives at all and no testament, the state inherits everything.
Your minimum share can be denied under certain circumstances: if you tried to kill the devisor, his wife/husband or one of his descendants or if you tried to cause bodily harm to them, tried to commit a crime against them or have "an immoral and unhonorable way of life". The latter is rather volatile, but common practice is that it needs a bit to justify being deinherited, like being convicted for a serious crime. Your parents probably cannot disinherit you because you married a somebody who doesn't meet their "moral standards" (which might have been a reason in earlier times).
You have a certain minimum share here which is half of the monetary value (not any particular parts of the heritage) of that you would get if there was no testament. Only your children and your wife/husband have that guaranteed share.
If there is no testament, your wife/husband will inherit half of it if still alive, the rest is distributed among your children. If there are none, other relatives will come into play, else they will get nothing. If there are no relatives at all and no testament, the state inherits everything.
Your minimum share can be denied under certain circumstances: if you tried to kill the devisor, his wife/husband or one of his descendants or if you tried to cause bodily harm to them, tried to commit a crime against them or have "an immoral and unhonorable way of life". The latter is rather volatile, but common practice is that it needs a bit to justify being deinherited, like being convicted for a serious crime. Your parents probably cannot disinherit you because you married a somebody who doesn't meet their "moral standards" (which might have been a reason in earlier times).
lAmebAdger
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:
1.part: the woman inseminates herself and gives birth (whacks someone with a hammer). now, the woman is responsible for that act (everyone blames her for causing a hammer wound, the baby).
2.part: there is now a child and that child must be cared for. a dna test confirms that she is the mother and he is the father. they both need to do their part in supporting the child.
so, to make sure i'm still right, i'd separate this into two parts :whistling:
1.part: the woman inseminates herself and gives birth (whacks someone with a hammer). now, the woman is responsible for that act (everyone blames her for causing a hammer wound, the baby).
2.part: there is now a child and that child must be cared for. a dna test confirms that she is the mother and he is the father. they both need to do their part in supporting the child.
Last edited:
krischan
Europe Trade Moderator
Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:
I wasn't sure if we have opposing points of view at all, I haven't read the postings before :whistling:
We also agree on entropy. Each millisecond, our sun increases entropy by more than all mankind ever did. Who cares if a fly needs energy to lift its leg if a nuke is exploding nearby ? That's about the same difference of the magnitudes involved. BTW, global warming and the destruction of our environment etc. is completely unrelated to that.
I wasn't sure if we have opposing points of view at all, I haven't read the postings before :whistling:
We also agree on entropy. Each millisecond, our sun increases entropy by more than all mankind ever did. Who cares if a fly needs energy to lift its leg if a nuke is exploding nearby ? That's about the same difference of the magnitudes involved. BTW, global warming and the destruction of our environment etc. is completely unrelated to that.
Garbad_the_Weak
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:
Well, its clearly a sex act and you chose to tickle your pickle, so...
AeroJonesy
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:
But you're right in that we don't have the government telling us where we have to give our money. Then again, we're not sandwiched between multiple other countries trying to protect our wealth from them...
Not quite. You disinherit your kids, and then leave your estate to a trust which is set up to care for the dog. A dog, not being a legal entity, cannot directly inherit.
But you're right in that we don't have the government telling us where we have to give our money. Then again, we're not sandwiched between multiple other countries trying to protect our wealth from them...
krischan
Europe Trade Moderator
Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:
If you don't want your children to inherit anything, you can still donate your property for lifelong care in return... only if it's enough, of course. If you are doing it in time, it cannot be undone by your ungrateful, mishappen children later. Otherwise you can still burn it up, lose it in the casino or spend it on something else of a temporary value.
The issue has two sides. Parents have more power over their children that way. They can basically rule them if the legacy is about a lot of property. Rich people are often (not always !) used to exert power over others or to be unscrupulous to get their will (which are useful abilities for becoming rich), often unconsciously while they are believing that they just do the best for their children. It's the choice of the children to obey or not, of course, but everybody has his price. Giving people the freedom to decide to become a slave might lead to less freedom instead of more of it.
Settling things like that is not just an issue of doing with your property what you want. Having property and deciding about it as you like is a constitutional right here, but the constitution also says that it comes with duties. You cannot use your it to deny people their constitutional rights. Being able to put pressure on your children with denying them something which they expected to receive is violating the constitutional right to develop their personality freely. I'm not sure if that's the justification why our laws about inheriting are not a violation of our constitution, but that would be my guess.
From a pragmatic point of view it's better if the old are sometimes angry about the young (because they cannot disinherit them) than the other way around. The old will die earlier, so the problem will solve itself that way.
If you don't want your children to inherit anything, you can still donate your property for lifelong care in return... only if it's enough, of course. If you are doing it in time, it cannot be undone by your ungrateful, mishappen children later. Otherwise you can still burn it up, lose it in the casino or spend it on something else of a temporary value.
The issue has two sides. Parents have more power over their children that way. They can basically rule them if the legacy is about a lot of property. Rich people are often (not always !) used to exert power over others or to be unscrupulous to get their will (which are useful abilities for becoming rich), often unconsciously while they are believing that they just do the best for their children. It's the choice of the children to obey or not, of course, but everybody has his price. Giving people the freedom to decide to become a slave might lead to less freedom instead of more of it.
Settling things like that is not just an issue of doing with your property what you want. Having property and deciding about it as you like is a constitutional right here, but the constitution also says that it comes with duties. You cannot use your it to deny people their constitutional rights. Being able to put pressure on your children with denying them something which they expected to receive is violating the constitutional right to develop their personality freely. I'm not sure if that's the justification why our laws about inheriting are not a violation of our constitution, but that would be my guess.
From a pragmatic point of view it's better if the old are sometimes angry about the young (because they cannot disinherit them) than the other way around. The old will die earlier, so the problem will solve itself that way.
AeroJonesy
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:
Now if only I can find that thread on differences between Europe and America.