A MELBOURNE man is suing his ex-wife for the money he spent on birthday presents, zoo trips and McHappy meals for a little girl he wrongly believed was his daughter.

More... (http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,5399720%255E661,00.html)

So what happened? The guy was with this girl, they had a kid, together they raised the kid for five years. Then they split, and he learns that she was a cheap skanky slut and the kid was not his after all. So he wants back all the money he spent on the child.

I have no respect at all for the slut. She screwed this guy over, slept around, lied, took five years of his life with a lie. The guy claims he intends to make her pay, and put all that money in a trust fund for the little girl, rather than keep it himself. I'm all for it. The bitch should pay, and if the money is really to go into tust for the child, then the guy is clearly not being greedy.

He now refuses to see the child, claiming having too many "daddies" will confuse her.
He sounds like a completley selfish, immature twat to me. If you're the first person to hold a child when it's born and hear the word daddy directed at you then it's for life. Doesn't matter whose sperm was involved. If he has an issue with his x then fine. but the child is not to blame and should'nt suffer for his bruised macho ego. I think it just fuckin stinks.:mad:

i would do anything i could to that bitch but i dont think i could ever cut contact with the child

but then it might be to painfull

i dont know

Originally posted by bbcboy
He sounds like a completley selfish, immature twat to me. If you're the first person to hold a child when it's born and hear the word daddy directed at you then it's for life. Doesn't matter whose sperm was involved. If he has an issue with his x then fine. but the child is not to blame and should'nt suffer for his bruised macho ego. I think it just fuckin stinks.:mad:
Looks to me like the guy has every intention of doing his bit to look after the child, prepare for her future, and so on. Good on him for that. Yet the slut should pay.

a child needs more than money

im 20 and i would hate to lose my father

he is someone who i can talk to and stuff

even if the old man cant walk properly and when he does looks like one of those rolly clowns:p

Looks to me like the guy has every intention of doing his bit to look after the child, prepare for her future, and so on. And when she needs a hug?

Since their divorce, the guy gets visits with her. I see nothing about changing that.

adam he was saying he wanted to cut all contact with the child cause she could only have one father

The guy says:


"I love this kid like nothing else. I've even got her name tattooed on my arm," he said.

"I was the very first person to hold her after she was born. To find out she's not mine, it's soul-destroying. Now I would like some compensation for having my heart broken."

"I want to be officially recognised as her dad but I can't, so I have to walk away," he said.

It seems to me he wants to be there but basically can't be a father to her now. Walking away early might be the right thing to do. I'm not sure.

I say cut the kid in three pieces, give one to the real dad, fake dad, and the slut. Make the slut pay for the operation.

Originally posted by grazzhoppa
I say cut the kid in three pieces, give one to the real dad, fake dad, and the slut. Make the slut pay for the operation.
I vote for grazzhoppa as our new attorney general.

no

i vote for choping up the slut and letting the 2 fathers raise her

she will have better morals than that BITCH

He sounds like a completley selfish, immature twat to me. If you're the first person to hold a child when it's born and hear the word daddy directed at you then it's for life. Doesn't matter whose sperm was involved. If he has an issue with his x then fine. but the child is not to blame and should'nt suffer for his bruised macho ego. I think it just fuckin stinks

I think Bbcboy is right and anyone who would make a child suffer because of empathy for a bruised male ego does not deserve the epithet of "human".

Actually, anyone who would want to harm another human for something so trivial should go slime their way back into whatever novel of de Sade they oozed out of. We're all on this planet together, and we can make the most out of each other's companionship and we can act with compassion and humanity or we can be grotesque parodies of human potential.

Ah, I see. If a guy finds out the most important thing in his life is based on a lie, it's simply a "male ego" problem? That's an easy answer for everything, isn't it Xev? All human failings, such as that of the lying slut, can be forgiven simply because, for some reason, it's all really the fault of the guy's ego? Clever.

Violence is the last refuge of the weak, Adam.

Sadism is the last refuge of the weak, Adam.

Cruelty is the last refuge of the pathetic, Adam.

It is nothing to be cruel. Any twit can be a cruel and vengeful creature. It takes a strong person to not only resist the impulse to amuse themselves in this manner, but to not need to harm others for revenge.

Do you know who Nat Turner was, Adam? Or the Jaquerie? Slave rebellions are naturally bloody. But even worse are when the slaves turn on each other.

Cruelty (in this context) has never been a sign of nobility. It shows weakness, vengefulness and fear. It shows how easily one can be harmed, and it shows how degraded one's response to being harmed is.

Pathetic.




Note: I hesitate to connect the Marquis to pathetic lowlifes who would harm another human simply for revenge on an indifferent cosmos. However, he did describe suchlike.

Violence is the last refuge of the weak, Adam.
Sadism is the last refuge of the weak, Adam.

The weak have two last refuges? Lucky bastards.



Violence is the last refuge of the weak, Adam.

Piffle. Violence is the first resort of the effective guardian.



Sadism is the last refuge of the weak, Adam.

A Xevism? Never heard this claim before. Actually it seems the first refuge of the Sadist.



Cruelty is the last refuge of the pathetic, Adam.

That makes no sense. Cruel people inflict cruelty because they want to, not because it is their last choice.



It is nothing to be cruel. Any twit can be a cruel and vengeful creature. It takes a strong person to not only resist the impulse to amuse themselves in this manner, but to not need to harm others for revenge.

And your posting history indicates...?

Anyway, I don't see this guy being cruel. The ex-wife is proven to have no integrity, to be untrustworthy. Whatever money she possesses is therefore unsafe in her hands, and can not be counted upon to secure the girl's future. However, if the guy gets what he wants, and her money goes into a trust fund for the child, the child has a much more secure future ahead of her. In short, the guy is doing the best thing he can, given that his access to the child is limited by law.



Do you know who Nat Turner was, Adam? Or the Jaquerie? Slave rebellions are naturally bloody. But even worse are when the slaves turn on each other.

Indeed.



Cruelty (in this context) has never been a sign of nobility. It shows weakness, vengefulness and fear. It shows how easily one can be harmed, and it shows how degraded one's response to being harmed is.

I agree.



Pathetic.

Indeed.



Note: I hesitate to connect the Marquis to pathetic lowlifes who would harm another human simply for revenge on an indifferent cosmos. However, he did describe suchlike.

Um... De Sade was a pathetic lowlife who harmed people for simple amusement. There's a reason why he was tossed in prison. He was a complete prick, and wandered about with his soldiers killing peasants for sport.

Adam:

The weak have two last refuges? Lucky bastards.

That was a stylistic way of putting it. Really, the phenomena is the same.


Piffle. Violence is the first resort of the effective guardian.

Well put. I see I did not explain myself clearly:

There are two principal reasons (that I can think of now) for inflicting violence. One is to remove a real or percieved threat to oneself or others. The other is to harm another person for one's own amusement.

I refer to the latter. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this - sadism and strength are sometimes combined (as in the case of Cesare Borgia or the fictional Juliette) but I think this is rare. Most commonly, the violent are the powerless. The weak.

There's a reason Juliette belongs in the realm of fiction, and there's a reason Cesare was not quite the monster he's portrayed as.


A Xevism?

My style becomes aphoristic. I rant about cruelty and master and slave morality.
I think I'm posessed by the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche.

Cool!


Actually it seems the first refuge of the Sadist.

What is a sadist?


That makes no sense. Cruel people inflict cruelty because they want to, not because it is their last choice.

Why do they want to?


And your posting history indicates...?

Indicates that I amuse myself with a certain intellectual viciousness.


Anyway, I don't see this guy being cruel. The ex-wife is proven to have no integrity, to be untrustworthy. Whatever money she possesses is therefore unsafe in her hands, and can not be counted upon to secure the girl's future.

I know you have problems justifying your conditioned response with logic, but why don't you try?


However, if the guy gets what he wants, and her money goes into a trust fund for the child, the child has a much more secure future ahead of her. In short, the guy is doing the best thing he can, given that his access to the child is limited by law.

I was referring, actually, to the posters on this thread. His actions are childish and exactly to be expected.

The blatent cruelty of Grazzhoppa and Asguard's responses were more in line with my critique. You deserve praise for not advocating bodily dismemberment.


Um... De Sade was a pathetic lowlife who harmed people for simple amusement. There's a reason why he was tossed in prison. He was a complete prick, and wandered about with his soldiers killing peasants for sport

(Actually, he was "tossed in prison" under a letter de cachet, which was basically an order to toss an individual into prison without recourse to law or right to be tried. I do not intend to defend de Sade, as many aspects (i.e the alleged treatement of his servents) are indefensible. However, there is no evidence that he commited murder or rape at any point in his life. For you to claim that the real Domitain murdered people because the fictional Saint Just did is as ludicrious as it would be to claim that grazzhoppa murders people because of the suggestion he made re: the child. Certainly if I write:

I KILL PEOPLE FOR MONEY

it does not mean that I kill people for money. I don't think Thomas Harris is in the process of dismembering women for their skins, yes?

But this is OT and de Sade got me in this stupid position anyway, so fuck him. :)

*Edit to add*

Actually, I do kill people for money.

*Edit to add*

And his writing style sucks rubber turkey dildo.

Hmm, looking back, I sound angrier than I am.

I simply feel that you people should show a bit more of the better side of human nature. I feel that life as a vicious animal, satisfying one's own desires and attacking without mercy anyone who should stop you, or offend you, is no sort of life to live. At the end of the day, it's as sterile as living a perfectly Christian life.

de Sade and other immoralists (however, he's the one I'm recovering with) asked the question of why you shouldn't be cruel and avaricious.

I ask why you should. Although avarice is a lesser part of this discussion.

Right, I'm rambling.

Anyways, I have no doubt that a certain sort of person could derive the most sublime pleasure from "cutting the slut in three peices" or whatever. I also have little doubt that such a person is, while a fascinating specimen, ultimately a misnomer of human. Why be less than human when one can be more than human?

And yet morality creeps into my views here. I come close to advocating "goodness". Hell, I have, in my private musings, commended my own "purity of heart". Don't know if this is good.

Yes, I agree that for most, violence is used because their minds prove insufficient to the occasion. People are monkeys. I wish there was less violence in the world. However, that is human behaviour. Violence itself is a force, like wind or gravity; it just is. The only thing good or bad about it is the use it is given, the purpose.



What is a sadist?

One who derives sexual pleasure from the suffering of another. Since sexual pleasure is rather a preferble thing and not a last consideration, sadism would be a primary drive of the sadist, rather than a last resort.



Why do they want to?

Weakness.



I know you have problems justifying your conditioned response with logic, but why don't you try?

I've done so. The woman has proven herself untrustworthy, a liar and a fraud. She is a liar and a fraud. The guy, on the other hand, demonstrates that although the law limits his access to the child, he wishes to do something to help her along the way. A purely selfless act, as he would not be gaining any money from it.

I have all De Sade's surviving writings here, but I'm not going to read through all the included biographical stuff now. I believe in this biography (http://www.popsubculture.com/pop/bio_project/marquis_de_sade.html) they mention murder as one of his passtimes.

Adam:

Yes, I agree that for most, violence is used because their minds prove insufficient to the occasion. People are monkeys. I wish there was less violence in the world. However, that is human behaviour. Violence itself is a force, like wind or gravity; it just is. The only thing good or bad about it is the use it is given, the purpose.

Strike the terms "good" and "bad" and I'd agree.


One who derives sexual pleasure from the suffering of another. Since sexual pleasure is rather a preferble thing and not a last consideration, sadism would be a primary drive of the sadist, rather than a last resort.

Good. Strike "sexual", it's a red herring.

I see my argument is still rather juvenile. Bear with me, if you will.

I can see two reasons to enjoy the suffering of another. One is that one takes pleasure because of some sort of neurological quirk, a sort of reverse of the empathic pleasure one feels from the pleasure of another.

The other is enjoying the suffering of another as a form of revenge, either on the person who is suffering or on the world. I believe many who would not be termed sadists yet who enjoy inflicting/watching another suffer fall under this category.

The first group of people cannot be described as weak for feeling this. If they exist in a pure form. Perhaps Mengle would have fallen under this category. However, I doubt somewhat that they exist in a pure form (i.e the characters in de Sade are pure in this way, but I wonder if suchlike could exist in reality)

But I focus on the second group. Why revenge?

Thank you Adam, I need to think this through.


Weakness.

Darling! I agree completely.


I've done so. The woman has proven herself untrustworthy,

How so?


a liar

Given.


and a fraud.

How so?


She is a liar and a fraud. The guy, on the other hand, demonstrates that although the law limits his access to the child, he wishes to do something to help her along the way. A purely selfless act, as he would not be gaining any money from it.

He'd be gaining revenge on the woman who made him "father" another man's child. His actions are in no way selfless.

Indeed, by impoverishing the mother, he is harming the child. I could bring up statistics showing this, but I'm rushed and my head still hurts:

http://www.google.com/search?q=maternal+poverty+child+developmen&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I doubt very much that his actions will help the child. If he wishes to support the kid's college education, he could establish a trust fund, rather than impoverishing the child's circumstances now.

The most humiliating thing I experienced (save arrest) was going with my mother while she requested financial assistance from a certain charity. I cannot see ever inflicting that on an innocent child, no matter how much the mother offended me.

He is a selfish prick who ought to be taken outside and shot. :)

P.S: Your site mentions murder in passing. There is no mention of any specific case. Given the wrath Donatain provoked, I doubt very much that a case of murder would have gone unpunished.
Also, they make the obvious error (fuck. why am I talking like a fucking Harvard intellectual? It's a dumb mistake, not an obvious error) of connecting Donatain to sadomasochism - betraying a most grotesque ignorence of his works.

do u think the mother is good xev?

u told me that the image of ur man sleeping with another girl would kill u

i gess its hard to understand for a girl because it cant happen but how would u feel if u found out that ur man had had a child with another man?

do u think u would love the child with all ur heart or would her image turn bitter?

her very pressants becomes pain

i simpathise with this guy because i have HAD my fondest memories become the biggest pain

I can just imagine the conversation between mother and daughter in fifteen years or so:

Daughter: "What?! The guy who visits me as often as he legally can and put me through university isn't my real father?! Then who is? Do you even know?"

Mother: "Your real father? Of course, I know exactly who it is. Your real father is Bob. Or Fred, or Joe, or Doug. Or maybe the local football team. One of them, for certain..."

I've done so. The woman has proven herself untrustworthy,

How so?

By saying, "Oh gosh, what a surprise, I'm having your kid. No dear, I'm not a skanky whore, it's definitely your kid". Heck, being the filthy slut she is, and proven to be none too safe in sex, she could even have caught something terminal and passed it on to him. Anything might have happened. As I said, she's an untrustworthy slut.



Indeed, by impoverishing the mother, he is harming the child.

She seems to me (from the TV interviews and such) the kind of girl who ends up with 5 bastard children by the time she's twenty, supporting herself on welfare. However, that's leaping to a judgement a bit.



I doubt very much that his actions will help the child. If he wishes to support the kid's college education, he could establish a trust fund, rather than impoverishing the child's circumstances now.

The money from the case is to go into a trust fund. I doubt very much the mother has the money to pay anyway, in which case the state pays the money.



The most humiliating thing I experienced (save arrest) was going with my mother while she requested financial assistance from a certain charity. I cannot see ever inflicting that on an innocent child, no matter how much the mother offended me.

She could leave the child with a friend, or her latest fling, for half an hour while she goes to the welfare office.

Asguard:

The man I love could fuck the entire continental US in my presence and I would not harm him this way.

And never under these circumstances would I harm an innocent child.

Adam:

No, it'd go something like:

Daughter: "Oh, you mean that the guy who fucked us over financially to satisfy his pathetic, slavish revenge isn't my real dad? Thank Cthulhu!"

Mom: "Yeah. I think one of these men (pulls out phone book) might be"

actully i have been to centerlink

i had to get a job seeker number (which is what puts u officaly on the list of the unemployed) because the job placement places couldnt get me a job without it

its just like going into any goverment place

Adam:

By saying, "Oh gosh, what a surprise, I'm having your kid. No dear, I'm not a skanky whore, it's definitely your kid". Heck, being the filthy slut she is, and proven to be none too safe in sex, she could even have caught something terminal and passed it on to him. Anything might have happened. As I said, she's an untrustworthy slut.

What an assumption. Who says she's sleeping with more than one man?


She seems to me (from the TV interviews and such) the kind of girl who ends up with 5 bastard children by the time she's twenty, supporting herself on welfare. However, that's leaping to a judgement a bit.

A bit.

You know nothing of this woman.


The money from the case is to go into a trust fund. I doubt very much the mother has the money to pay anyway, in which case the state pays the money.

One that he could establish, if he loved or cared about the child.


She could leave the child with a friend, or her latest fling, for half an hour while she goes to the welfare office.

She'd still be on welfare. You think that's going to help the kid?
You think that's fun for a child?

um

ur the one who told me that no woman should expect a guy to pay for a child cause its hers and if she wants it or doesnt its her body

well fine

he wants his money back that acording to U he should never have paid at all

Asguard:

I don't care whether he's morally or logically right. Morality and logic are tools that serve me, not chains that bind me.

I care about the welfare of this child.

He has the right to his money back. He is still scum for harming an innocent to have it back.

What an assumption. Who says she's sleeping with more than one man?

Biology says she was screwing with more than one guy. The guy she told was the father of the kid, and the one who actually was. At the very least.



You know nothing of this woman.

I know she's cheats on guys, lied about the paternity of her child, and used some guy for five years.



She'd still be on welfare. You think that's going to help the kid? You think that's fun for a child?

I'm sure it's not fun. I think what would help the child is a stable set of parents. The mother guaranteed that would not happen by being a cheat and a liar. And also by being a heartless bitch by sending a mobile phone SMS message to the guy after the divorce telling him he wasn't the father.

i dont know

a trust alows for a child to be feed, clothed ect from it

for all i care the mother can stave to death

and where is the natural father as well?

Adam:

Biology says she was screwing with more than one guy. The guy she told was the father of the kid, and the one who actually was. At the very least.

Should have read "other man". My bad, and a cookie to you for noticing the minor error in my english.


I know she's cheats on guys, lied about the paternity of her child, and used some guy for five years.

And nothing else.
And how was he "used"?


I'm sure it's not fun.

Yet you think it should be inflicted on an innocent.


I think what would help the child is a stable set of parents. The mother guaranteed that would not happen by being a cheat and a liar. And also by being a heartless bitch by sending a mobile phone SMS message to the guy after the divorce telling him he wasn't the father.

I've never argued that she's commendable. However, this is not about what was done but what can be done.

He can harm the child or he can be a real man and get past the pain.

Asguard:


a trust alows for a child to be feed, clothed ect from it

Depends on the kind of trust. The kind that would allow that would also allow the mother to buy a Mercedes, if she's halfway smart.


for all i care the mother can stave to death

Gee Asguard, I'm sure it must be fun to watch your mother starve to death.

so her mother should be prasised and the little girl grow up knowing guys are just there for money and sex?

Asguard:

Where did I say that? Quote me.

I say that the guy should stay in his child's life as much as he can, and get over the bitterness and resentment he feels. I say that if the guy was worthy of the epithet "human", he'd drop this suit and try to help his child out rather than harming his child by harming her mother.

I say that she is his child, just not biologically. I say that nobody who is worth anything would harm a child for their own selfish revenge.

I say that whether he's logically or legally in the right is irrelevent.

And:

"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun"


guys are just there for money and sex?

They AREN'T? :p

the mother deserves a bit of hardship

it shouldnt hurt the child tho

actully i would love to see that guy take the child away from the mother and her rot

Asguard:

the mother deserves a bit of hardship

Why?


it shouldnt hurt the child tho

Because it would be, to you, "wrong"?

Then are not his actions "wrong"?


actully i would love to see that guy take the child away from the mother and her rot

Contradicts your above statement:

"it shouldnt hurt the child tho"

There needs to be justice in the world. Germans now are paying for the actions of their fathers, and the world supports that. I don't, but the rest of the world seems to. The mother deserves to pay. The kid doesn't.

So how can she recieve some justice without it directly harming the child?

Perhaps a tattoo on her forehead marking her as a slut, liar, cheat, and thief? Just so guys know in advance that any kids she has aren't necessarily theirs, and she could be screwing any number of guys while with them, passing around diseases and such? Definitely bad for the kid, to have such a mother, to grow up under such a shadow. (Actually my younger brother is a big fan of the idea of tattooing people for certain things.)

Take her money? As you say, it harms the kid.

Ah, an idea. The amount of money that guy is claiming is recorded, and gains interest until she pays it off. Any time she earns any money whatsoever above the average wage, it goes to him, or to the daughter's trust fund, until the debt is paid. If she marries, her husband is responsible to that debt as well, and he'll know exactly why.

Adam:

There needs to be justice in the world.

Why?


The mother deserves to pay. The kid doesn't.

So you agree that the man's actions are "wrong"?


Perhaps a tattoo on her forehead marking her as a slut, liar, cheat, and thief?

How about putting her in the stocks and having Cotton Mather condemn her sins?


If she marries, her husband is responsible to that debt as well, and he'll know exactly why.

Right, because women are chattel and I should shut up and get back to cooking and tending children.

I'm suprised you haven't chided me on being uppity with a man, Adam.

I humbly apologize to all and sundry for forgetting my place and will go back to serving my lord and master.

There needs to be justice in the world.

Why?

Because a world without fairness and justice, or without the hope of such, would be hell.



So you agree that the man's actions are "wrong"?

I agree there are better solutions. Perhaps such as the one I presented in my previous post.



Right, because women are chattel and I should shut up and get back to cooking and tending children. I'm suprised you haven't chided me on being uppity with a man, Adam. I humbly apologize to all and sundry for forgetting my place and will go back to serving my lord and master.

If she married again, her husband would deserve to know what kind of woman he was getting involved with. If she was a man who ahd done the same and was to marry a woman, then she would deserve to know what kind of man he was. Your grandstanding about sexism and all is pointless.

Adam:

Because a world without fairness and justice, or without the hope of such, would be hell.

What is justice?


I agree there are better solutions. Perhaps such as the one I presented in my previous post.

Dodges the issue.

Are this man's actions not "wrong"?


If she married again, her husband would deserve to know what kind of woman he was getting involved with.

Prove it.


Your grandstanding about sexism and all is pointless.

If it's pointless for me to show you your prejudices, yes. I had, however, a rather high opinion of you. Perhaps I'm wrong.

It is only be examining our prejudices that we can defeat them, Adam.

What is justice?

Revenge in equal measure.



Are this man's actions not "wrong"?

If his actions would take resources away from the kid, then yes. But I doubt they would. I think any monetary award would be paid by the state.



Prove it.

Prove it? Okay... Suppose you decide you like a guy. Would you want to know he used to be a serial rapist? A murderer? What about if he used to be married, had thirteen kids, and stole all his wife's money and left his kids to starve? Wouldn't you need to know such things before making an informed decision?



If it's pointless for me to show you your prejudices, yes. I had, however, a rather high opinion of you. Perhaps I'm wrong. It is only be examining our prejudices that we can defeat them, Adam.

Sounds good, but ultimately hollow, since I already displayed quite clearly that I apply the same standard to everyone.

i know u dont trust those u love xev

its to protect from this sort of hurt

dont u think that this guy deserves to hit back a bit??

u wouldnt feel "vengful" if u found out that some other girl was having ur guys child?

Adam:

Revenge in equal measure.

I like this definition very much. Thanks.


If his actions would take resources away from the kid, then yes. But I doubt they would. I think any monetary award would be paid by the state.

Fair enough on his "moral" stance. However, this raises the question of why the state, having done nothing wrong, should pay.

Why make the taxpayers suffer?


Prove it? Okay... Suppose you decide you like a guy. Would you want to know he used to be a serial rapist? A murderer? What about if he used to be married, had thirteen kids, and stole all his wife's money and left his kids to starve? Wouldn't you need to know such things before making an informed decision?

There's a difference between these things and adultery, isn't there? The degree of pain adultery causes is negligable compared to the degree of pain murder causes.

That said, these allegations would be in the divorce proceedings, which may or may not be sealed. Any man interested in marrying this chick could look them up.

Which raises another interesting question:

How much do we have a "right" to know about the one we love?

Just to muddy the waters a bit: :)
Cheating is common to humans and indeed, exists in most pair bonding animals. Thus, when we fall in love or marry we accept the possibility that our partner will screw around.

Does this mean that if we are cheated on, we "get what's coming to us"? If we do have the "right" to know anything about the person we love, do we have the right to know about past infidelities or only past crimes?

Asguard:

dont u think that this guy deserves to hit back a bit??

I actually don't think anyone deserves anything. He will hit back, that much is clear. And his method of doing so is "wrong" by conventional standard.


u wouldnt feel "vengful" if u found out that some other girl was having ur guys child?

No, I don't think so.
I know that I would not dream of attacking the child for this, as I know that I would not actually harm him for his actions. How I would feel is uncertain to me.

Why make the taxpayers suffer?

On the one hand: I don't like paying for the crimes and mistakes of others. They should pay.

On the other hand: Society should keep paying through the nose until people in general start behaving decently.



Thus, when we fall in love or marry we accept the possibility that our partner will screw around.

I don't accept that at all.

Adam:

On the other hand: Society should keep paying through the nose until people in general start behaving decently.

In other words, she should be punished in a way that garners no harm to her and makes my wallet suffer?

For what purpose?

"Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish
is powerful." --Friedrich Nietzsche


I don't accept that at all.

I don't accept football saturday in my town, but lo and behold, traffic is tied up for some reason and there are drunk people littering the streets (well, okay, there aren't. But it'd be cool if there were!)

I don't accept the existance of stupidity, cruelty, death or boy bands. However, all these things do exist. It's up to me to deal with them.

My point stands, regardless.