So Tired!

[olanna]

What if all we had to get around was a coal-powered locomotive?  Would we view that as a great way to get around? Or would we say, hey, there has to be a better way, as this thing is using something we are quickly finding way to expensive and polluting the air so much, we aren't going to have any breathable air left!

Look how far things have come.  We now drive hybrid and electric cars because people realized the need for change in gas-guzzling, atmospheric polluting cars.  While the others may have served the purpose, they were hardly something anyone considered effective in meeting all the needs we have.

Same thing is true for the current CS system.  It *is* all we have currently but it is in serious need for reform. Mostly because those NCP parents realize just how inefficient the system is for them and their children.  

[SPARC Admin]

>>I this this is equivalent to surveying a gymnasium and
>>concluding that everyone in the world is healthy.
>
>Fortunately, no one has ever done that.

You did.



>The studies that I am referring to are the only ones that have
>been provided so far.

The studies exist and I have no doubt you'd find them if that happened to be the point you wanted to make. Why don't you contact ACFC or similar parenting groups and see what they have to say? I'll tell you why: because it doesn't fit your paradigm.



>>parent and I can tell you for a fact that in general, things
>>are a mess.
>
>Based on what? Your experience?

In a word, yes. I've been at this a while. And yes, based on thousands of real-world experiences and interactions with thousands of people and numerous Child Support Offices across the United States, the system has some major problems.



>That's true. I'm still waiting for valid evidence that
>'Titanic' is a relevant analogy.

You won't be convinced with mere proof, so I'm not going to bother trying. You're welcome to seek alternative evidence out on your own if you desire. I do not think you will do that.




>At least if people work through the system you don't get
>foolish advice like the person who keeps posting that child
>support is unconstitutional and people should stop paying it.
>Or the advice that you can tell a judge that he has no say in
>how divorced people raise their kids.

I personally don't agree with either of those ideas myself. I have no idea whether child support is "constitutional", and I doubt anyone here does either. None of us are constitutional scholars. Frankly, it's beside the point.

As for whether or not judges "have no say" in how divorced people raise their kids, I would say that it's obvious beyond any argument that they do have some say in it.

Those are all side issues. In the end, yes, my experience and observations over the last decade tell me the system is deeply flawed ("broken") in many ways.

[mistoffolees]

>>>I this this is equivalent to surveying a gymnasium and
>>>concluding that everyone in the world is healthy.
>>
>>Fortunately, no one has ever done that.
>
>You did.

Where? When did I say that the system ALWAYS works?

Don't put words into my mouth.

>
>
>
>>The studies that I am referring to are the only ones that
>have
>>been provided so far.
>
>The studies exist and I have no doubt you'd find them if that
>happened to be the point you wanted to make. Why don't you
>contact ACFC or similar parenting groups and see what they
>have to say? I'll tell you why: because it doesn't fit your
>paradigm.

Sorry, you're the one claiming that the system is inherently broken - you need to provide the evidence. After all, you're the one claiming that there are dozens of studies supporting your position. Either you're making that up or you must know about these studies - so it should be much easier for you to provide evidence than for me to search the web looking for something.

I already searched for evidence of the status and came up with evidence - and based my conclusion on that.

>
>
>
>>>parent and I can tell you for a fact that in general,
>things
>>>are a mess.
>>
>>Based on what? Your experience?
>
>In a word, yes. I've been at this a while. And yes, based on
>thousands of real-world experiences and interactions with
>thousands of people and numerous Child Support Offices across
>the United States, the system has some major problems.

I never said it didn't have problems. My position is that more often than not, it works. Where's your documentation that it fails more often than not?

Furthermore, 'thousands' of cases doesn't prove anything. There are millions of divorces in this country every year. The fact that a few thousand (or even a greater number) have problems is not evidence that the system is fundamentally broken.


>
>
>
>>That's true. I'm still waiting for valid evidence that
>>'Titanic' is a relevant analogy.
>
>You won't be convinced with mere proof, so I'm not going to
>bother trying. You're welcome to seek alternative evidence out
>on your own if you desire. I do not think you will do that.

Actually, I WOULD be convinced with proof. Sadly, you're unwilling to provide any.

>
>
>
>
>>At least if people work through the system you don't get
>>foolish advice like the person who keeps posting that child
>>support is unconstitutional and people should stop paying
>it.
>>Or the advice that you can tell a judge that he has no say
>in
>>how divorced people raise their kids.
>
>I personally don't agree with either of those ideas myself. I
>have no idea whether child support is "constitutional", and I
>doubt anyone here does either. None of us are constitutional
>scholars. Frankly, it's beside the point.
>
>As for whether or not judges "have no say" in how divorced
>people raise their kids, I would say that it's obvious beyond
>any argument that they do have some say in it.

Then you should read some of the posts from someone here who advocates that judges DON'T have any say.

>
>Those are all side issues. In the end, yes, my experience and
>observations over the last decade tell me the system is deeply
>flawed ("broken") in many ways.

I never said that the system wasn't flawed. I said that it is not fundamentally broken. There's a huge difference.

Since you are arguing that I'm wrong, why are you unable to provide evidence that it's fundamentally broken?

[SPARC Admin]

>Since you are arguing that I'm wrong, why are you unable to
>provide evidence that it's fundamentally broken?

I'm not unable to, I'm just not going to bother. It's obvious that nothing could or will change your mind.

The fact is that I have better, more important things to do than engage in some trivial mental masturbation with you. I'm getting remarried and starting several new businesses this year, so you'll just have to pardon me if I don't have the time to satisfy your overweening need to be "right" about everything. :)

[mistoffolees]

>>Since you are arguing that I'm wrong, why are you unable to
>>provide evidence that it's fundamentally broken?
>
>I'm not unable to, I'm just not going to bother. It's obvious
>that nothing could or will change your mind.
>
>The fact is that I have better, more important things to do
>than engage in some trivial mental masturbation with you. I'm
>getting remarried and starting several new businesses this
>year, so you'll just have to pardon me if I don't have the
>time to satisfy your overweening need to be "right" about
>everything. :)

The funny thing is that it's always people who are making things up who say that.

If you had any facts, you'd present them. I can only assume that the 'dozens of studies' that you claimed would support your position were all fabricated.

In the real world, evidence matters.

[SPARC Admin]

>The funny thing is that it's always people who are making
>things up who say that.

The funny thing is that it's always people who have trouble letting go who say that.



>If you had any facts, you'd present them.

If you wanted any facts, you'd go get them. It's not my job to do your homework.


> I can only assume that the 'dozens of studies' that you
> claimed would support your position were all fabricated.

People used to assume the Earth was flat, too. They were wrong too.

[mistoffolees]

>>The funny thing is that it's always people who are making
>>things up who say that.
>
>The funny thing is that it's always people who have trouble
>letting go who say that.
>

I see you still can't back up your assertions.

>
>
>>If you had any facts, you'd present them.
>
>If you wanted any facts, you'd go get them. It's not my job to
>do your homework.

You're the one who made the claim. In fact, you specifically stated that you had dozens of studies. It's not my job to back up your claim -that's your job (if you weren't making up the dozens of studies, of course).

>
>
>> I can only assume that the 'dozens of studies' that you
>> claimed would support your position were all fabricated.
>
>People used to assume the Earth was flat, too. They were wrong
>too.

That's right. They stopped believing the earth was flat WHEN EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED. Since you haven't provided anything, there's no reason to ignore the evidence that HAS been presented.

[SPARC Admin]

Lol...you're still having trouble letting go, eh? That's okay, I've seen loads of people like you who can't be bothered to consider an alternative point of view. With an attitude like that it's no wonder you ended up here. ;)

I'm curious, though...if you know so much and have all the answers to everything, why don't you start your own site? Then you could pontificate freely there without feeling so threatened by dissenting opinions. )


>there's no reason to ignore the evidence that HAS been presented.

I find your devotion to groupthink amusing. :)

 

[mistoffolees]

>Lol...you're still having trouble letting go, eh? That's
>okay, I've seen loads of people like you who can't be bothered
>to consider an alternative point of view. With an attitude
>like that it's no wonder you ended up here. ;)

You must have been looking in a mirror when you said that.

Let's look at the two positions:

Me: "I have found evidence which leads to one conclusion. I'm perfectly willing to consider alternative evidence if you can provide it which might change my mind"

You: "I don't have any evidence and I refuse to even consider your evidence because my mind is made up. In fact, I'll pretend that there are dozens of studies which support my view even though they don't exist"

Which one is the closed mind?

>
>I'm curious, though...if you know so much and have all the
>answers to everything, why don't you start your own site? Then
>you could pontificate freely there without feeling so
>threatened by dissenting opinions. )

I'm not threatened by anything. I'm actively seeking alternative evidence. You, OTOH, are not interested in evidence.

And I see you're back to the usual refuge of people who are incapable of rational discussion - you make things up and pretend I've said them. I never claimed to have all the answers to everything.

>
>
>>there's no reason to ignore the evidence that HAS been
>presented.
>
>I find your devotion to groupthink amusing. :)

See above. Seems to me that you are the one so enmeshed in groupthink. You are convinced of something and insist that you're right - without any evidence and you're willing to ignore any evidence presented.

[SPARC Admin]

>I'm actively seeking alternative evidence.

No, you're whining because people aren't serving it up to you on a silver platter. Don't be so lazy, do your own research.


>Which one is the closed mind?

Yours.


>You are convinced of something and insist that you're right -
>without any evidence and you're willing to ignore any evidence
>presented.

You must have been looking in a mirror when you said that. :) lololol