Besides wearing Crocs or drinking White Claws....

[doublewing]

The "crocs and white claws" discussion has morphed into what appears to be some folks that need trained counseling.

 

[Jim14510]

The "crocs and white claws" discussion has morphed into what appears to be some folks that need trained counseling.

That's one of the best monologs of all time.

 

[pigsonthewing]

Here's a video that tells the story of a sucker who's market value was so low the best woman he could get was one with 7 kids.

FIFY.

Take the woman from the vid. Let's say there's two of them, identical in every conceivable way, except one has 7 kids and the other has zero. You tell me which one every dude is gonna pick.

 

[HCFord1]

I'd get a paternity test if I were you. real talk, just protect yourself. The AABB (American Association of Blood Banks), which accredits DNA testing labs, released its findings about paternity testing in a landmark 1999 report. That report states that 30% of DNA paternity tests nationwide turned out negative. Think about it, if you can. That was 1999, before social media and women getting global access to the sexual market. I'm willing to bet that number has increased by 10 percent at the very least.

Oh and I can't admit to something that hasn't happened. Sorry kid. 😎

I’m sure you would get a paternity test, because you’re so afraid of getting cucked that you actually researched how often it happens.

 

[pigsonthewing]

I’m sure you would get a paternity test, because you’re so afraid of getting cucked that you actually researched how often it happens.

ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adjective
adjective: ad hominem

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "vicious ad hominem attacks"
   

adverb
adverb: ad hominem

1. 1.
   in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
   
   
2. 2.
   in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.
   "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"
   

So let's get this straight, you think its wiser to operate blindly? or are you just that desperate to attack me that you'll say anything? because thats what democrats do. knowledge is power, do better kid.

 

[BBTown Bomber]

ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adjective
adjective: ad hominem

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "vicious ad hominem attacks"

adverb
adverb: ad hominem

1. 1.
   in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
   
   
2. 2.
   in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.
   "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

So let's get this straight, you think its wiser to operate blindly? or are you just that desperate to attack me that you'll say anything? because thats what democrats do. knowledge is power, do better kid.

Is yore primary issue anger or thin-skin?

One of the reasons that @HuskerGarrett put tPB together was so we didn’t have to deal with the stupid drama of the old RSS. Just like MLPFC.

What’s yore goal here, internet tough-guy?

.

 

[pigsonthewing]

Is yore primary issue anger or thin-skin?

One of the reasons that @HuskerGarrett put tPB together was so we didn’t have to deal with the stupid drama of the old RSS. Just like MLPFC.

What’s yore goal here, internet tough-guy?

.

You quoted my post but either didn't read the definition or it went right over your head. What part of "attack the argument, not the person," do you not understand? I'm still waiting for any reason why its a good idea to deal with single mothers. Instead its been SIGN language... that means Shame, Insults, Guilt, and the need to be right.

So what do you want from me? An apology? An admission that I'm wrong? Hope you've got a long time to wait.

So, that leaves you with a choice. You can either continue to sling insults and attack me and I continue to expose you all for acting like a bunch of women, or you can walk away. Tell the guy with the gun to your head forcing you to read my posts to take a bathroom break or something.

 

[ThomOsborneMD]

I also think a real man doesn't get out of the shower to take a piss....

That’s really weird. Did you get pissed on in the shower before? Who pisses in the shower? I’m so cornfused by this one

 

[huskermack]

That’s really weird. Did you get pissed on in the shower before? Who pisses in the shower? I’m so cornfused by this one

You don’t piss in the shower?
Huh

 

[BBTown Bomber]

You quoted my post but either didn't read the definition or it went right over your head. What part of "attack the argument, not the person," do you not understand? I'm still waiting for any reason why its a good idea to deal with single mothers. Instead its been SIGN language... that means Shame, Insults, Guilt, and the need to be right.

So what do you want from me? An apology? An admission that I'm wrong? Hope you've got a long time to wait.

So, that leaves you with a choice. You can either continue to sling insults and attack me and I continue to expose you all for acting like a bunch of women, or you can walk away. Tell the guy with the gun to your head forcing you to read my posts to take a bathroom break or something.

Yore a smug fuck…….I’ll give you that.

As far as “attack the argument” here’s the simple response. I got divorced, she was already divorced, we met, dated, fell in love, got married and joined two families into one.

Thirty two yrs later our five kids are doing just fine, nine grandkids and life goes on. And “yes” I accepted the financial responsibility to help raise someone else’s kids. Coulda gone one of two ways and it happened to work out for us.

What, in the ever-living fuck, happened in yore life to make you such a nasty-ass shit-stain?

Jesus……..🙄

.

 

[Jim14510]

You don’t piss in the shower?
Huh

Yeah weird @ThomOsborneMD . I thought everyone pissed in the shower.

 

[pigsonthewing]

Yore a smug fuck…….I’ll give you that.

As far as “attack the argument” here’s the simple response. I got divorced, she was already divorced, we met, dated, fell in love, got married and joined two families into one.

Thirty two yrs later our five kids are doing just fine, nine grandkids and life goes on. And “yes” I accepted the financial responsibility to help raise someone else’s kids. Coulda gone one of two ways and it happened to work out for us.

What, in the ever-living fuck, happened in yore life to make you such a nasty-ass shit-stain?

Jesus……..🙄

.

So you chose more personal attacks. Got it.

Let me try to make this easier for you. I'll list off nine or ten reasons why it's not a good idea and you can form a proper counter argument instead of more ad hominem fallacies and all that jazz.

1. You will always be second.
2. possible baby daddy problems.
3. its possible the kids may hate you
4. she may have questionable morals
5. you could love the step kids, but if she divorces/leaves you those kids are gone, which leads to
6. You can end up paying child support for kids that aren't even yours. Daddy by default.
7. its always a reminder of your wife's/gf's sexual history
8. all the responsibility, none of the authority.
9. logistical nightmare.

hope this helps.

 

[huskermack]

Yeah weird @ThomOsborneMD . I thought everyone pissed in the shower.

My wife doesn’t.
She’d be pissed if she knew.

 

[Jim14510]

My wife doesn’t.
She’d be pissed if she knew.

Every man*

 

[huskermack]

So you chose more personal attacks. Got it.

Let me try to make this easier for you. I'll list off nine or ten reasons why it's not a good idea and you can form a proper counter argument instead of more ad hominem fallacies and all that jazz.

1. You will always be second.
2. possible baby daddy problems.
3. its possible the kids may hate you
4. she may have questionable morals
5. you could love the step kids, but if she divorces/leaves you those kids are gone, which leads to
6. You can end up paying child support for kids that aren't even yours. Daddy by default.
7. its always a reminder of your wife's/gf's sexual history
8. all the responsibility, none of the authority.
9. logistical nightmare.

hope this helps.

 

[Jim14510]

So you chose more personal attacks. Got it.

Let me try to make this easier for you. I'll list off nine or ten reasons why it's not a good idea and you can form a proper counter argument instead of more ad hominem fallacies and all that jazz.

1. You will always be second.
2. possible baby daddy problems.
3. its possible the kids may hate you
4. she may have questionable morals
5. you could love the step kids, but if she divorces/leaves you those kids are gone, which leads to
6. You can end up paying child support for kids that aren't even yours. Daddy by default.
7. its always a reminder of your wife's/gf's sexual history
8. all the responsibility, none of the authority.
9. logistical nightmare.

hope this helps.

1, 2, 3 and 4could be an issue with a woman if they have kids or not.

9 do you have kids? They're a logistical nightmare.

7 is true but there are other things that could be reminders. What if your wife/gf was a porn star?

6 isn't true unless biological dad gives up his rights and you adopt kids.

5 and 8 are situational. What if you're the biological father and kids like step dad better so it's the opposite?

 

[pigsonthewing]

6 isn't true unless biological dad gives up his rights and you adopt kids.

https://www.schlissellawfirm.com/prostitution-charges-against-sixteen-year-old-dismissed-2/ State of New York says otherwise.


"In a paternity by estoppel situation a man who is not the biological father of a child can be forced to pay child support. In the matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D., 7 N.Y. 3D 330, 853 NE 2d 610, 820 NYS 2d 199, 206 NYSlop op.05238 the New York State Court of Appeals held in a child support proceeding a man who had mistakenly represented himself as the child’s father could be estopped (stopped) from denying paternity. In this case the child justifiably relied on the man’s representation of paternity. This is true even though DNA testing showed the man was not the actual father of the child. The court reached this conclusion based on the best interest of the child.

Dilemma For Men Who Support Children

There is a dilemma for men who seek to help children. Imagine a case where a man seeks to help support his girlfriend’s child. He pays periodic child support. Thereafter he breaks up with the girlfriend. She brings a proceeding in the Family Court requesting he be forced to pay child support. She can allege in the suit that by paying the child support in the past he represented he was acting as the child’s father. The man could ask for DNA testing which would show that he is not the biological father of the child. When the case becomes before the Judge, the Judge can stop him from presenting evidence that he is not the actual biological father of the child because it would be in the child’s best interest to have a relationship with a father figure. It’s in the child’s best interest that money be received by the mother to help support the child. Is this justice? In the writer’s opinion, it is very questionable. No!

Conclusion

If you are helping to support a child that is not yours, be careful. Should your relationship with the mother end, you may be forced to make involuntary child support payments, even if you are not the biological father of the child."




but i agree with some of your statements, but either way it's not a safe bet.

 

[HCFord1]

https://www.schlissellawfirm.com/prostitution-charges-against-sixteen-year-old-dismissed-2/ State of New York says otherwise.


"In a paternity by estoppel situation a man who is not the biological father of a child can be forced to pay child support. In the matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D., 7 N.Y. 3D 330, 853 NE 2d 610, 820 NYS 2d 199, 206 NYSlop op.05238 the New York State Court of Appeals held in a child support proceeding a man who had mistakenly represented himself as the child’s father could be estopped (stopped) from denying paternity. In this case the child justifiably relied on the man’s representation of paternity. This is true even though DNA testing showed the man was not the actual father of the child. The court reached this conclusion based on the best interest of the child.

Dilemma For Men Who Support Children

There is a dilemma for men who seek to help children. Imagine a case where a man seeks to help support his girlfriend’s child. He pays periodic child support. Thereafter he breaks up with the girlfriend. She brings a proceeding in the Family Court requesting he be forced to pay child support. She can allege in the suit that by paying the child support in the past he represented he was acting as the child’s father. The man could ask for DNA testing which would show that he is not the biological father of the child. When the case becomes before the Judge, the Judge can stop him from presenting evidence that he is not the actual biological father of the child because it would be in the child’s best interest to have a relationship with a father figure. It’s in the child’s best interest that money be received by the mother to help support the child. Is this justice? In the writer’s opinion, it is very questionable. No!

Conclusion

If you are helping to support a child that is not yours, be careful. Should your relationship with the mother end, you may be forced to make involuntary child support payments, even if you are not the biological father of the child."




but i agree with some of your statements, but either way it's not a safe bet.

There’s no question whatsoever that this is personal for you somehow, you’re just scared to say how.

 

[Jim14510]

https://www.schlissellawfirm.com/prostitution-charges-against-sixteen-year-old-dismissed-2/ State of New York says otherwise.


"In a paternity by estoppel situation a man who is not the biological father of a child can be forced to pay child support. In the matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D., 7 N.Y. 3D 330, 853 NE 2d 610, 820 NYS 2d 199, 206 NYSlop op.05238 the New York State Court of Appeals held in a child support proceeding a man who had mistakenly represented himself as the child’s father could be estopped (stopped) from denying paternity. In this case the child justifiably relied on the man’s representation of paternity. This is true even though DNA testing showed the man was not the actual father of the child. The court reached this conclusion based on the best interest of the child.

Dilemma For Men Who Support Children

There is a dilemma for men who seek to help children. Imagine a case where a man seeks to help support his girlfriend’s child. He pays periodic child support. Thereafter he breaks up with the girlfriend. She brings a proceeding in the Family Court requesting he be forced to pay child support. She can allege in the suit that by paying the child support in the past he represented he was acting as the child’s father. The man could ask for DNA testing which would show that he is not the biological father of the child. When the case becomes before the Judge, the Judge can stop him from presenting evidence that he is not the actual biological father of the child because it would be in the child’s best interest to have a relationship with a father figure. It’s in the child’s best interest that money be received by the mother to help support the child. Is this justice? In the writer’s opinion, it is very questionable. No!

Conclusion

If you are helping to support a child that is not yours, be careful. Should your relationship with the mother end, you may be forced to make involuntary child support payments, even if you are not the biological father of the child."




but i agree with some of your statements, but either way it's not a safe bet.

Yeah that case is a pretty narrow situation. Typically that's not true.

 

[pigsonthewing]

There’s no question whatsoever that this is personal for you somehow, you’re just scared to say how.

Whatever you have to tell yourself. edit: it's definitely personal for you, no question whatsoever.

Yeah that case is a pretty narrow situation. Typically that's not true.

Are you sure? I disagree. It's more common than you think.