TN Man “Fathers” 30 Kids But Can’t Support Any

Let me see if I get this right.

We have some dumb fuck in bumfuck tenney key with 30 children who will be locked up before age 15 being discussed on a millionaire gay Webster forum.

I say he's doing it right.
 


How do you know whether the kids might not turn out well?

David Beckham's great-grandfather was a rag-and-bones man and records show that he was constantly on Parish Relief and in and out of the workhouse during Victorian times. I expect the Victorians thought he should have been sterilised too.

But Becks has paid so much tax now he's repaid not only all the stuff given to past generations of his family, but paid in advance for future generations for a few centuries too.

Family history often turns on a dime - all it takes is one family member to figure stuff out, and they then pull up all their siblings as well as their children and grandchildren. Look back to your own families - it was probably one member that did something different that gave everyone else a different outlook. But before that point they probably seemed like deadbeats to their contemporaries.
 
I've seen other men end up in jail or prison for not paying their child support before even if they couldn't afford it. How is the fuck face not locked up?
 
Rusky said:
Make the people on welfare work for that check. Clean up the ghetto or at least they can take care of parks and roads. Someone might say why not just go get a regular job and make a man of myself.
Yes this sounds socialist; like giving away free money isn't. Sometimes people just need pattern interruption. Some will always be on welfare but are perfectly capably of making a great living.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, make the cunts work so there is at least some benefit from them.
 
Rusky said:
Make the people on welfare work for that check. Clean up the ghetto or at least they can take care of parks and roads. Someone might say why not just go get a regular job and make a man of myself.
Yes this sounds socialist; like giving away free money isn't. Sometimes people just need pattern interruption. Some will always be on welfare but are perfectly capably of making a great living.
Click to expand...

I agree with this in principle.

But it also seems like a slippery slope to forced labor camps. Unemployed for a week? Then you're required to enroll in the Government subsidized "Job Placement" program.

That may be the direction we're heading anyway.

Given the choice, I'd rather be destitute and free than turned into a slave working for Government handouts.

And this...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkTeZLiNCoM&t=3m12s"]When you are born in this world, you are given a ticket to the Freak Show - George Carlin - YouTube[/ame]

Embed fail. Was supposed to start at 3:12.
 
lukep said:
In an AnCap society, this couldn't happen of course, because you're forced to take on much more responsibility for your own actions. Clearly that's the correct answer.
Click to expand...

It's not clear to me but I'm genuinely interested in understanding. Do you mean a guy couldn't knock up 30 ladies or a guy couldn't have his balls chopped off?

I'm taking these videos as reference so please excuse my lack of depth as a foundation.

OK we blink and we're in an ancap environment discussing this issue. So this guy knocks up thirty ladies and they want some monies to help raise their kids.

He's not making monies so I'm going to guess the ladies' respective adjudicative representatives would end up telling him to get a job. He says yeah whatever, dupes around and slacks off, doesn't follow through. So then they maybe decide to put him into a work program to make the monies? (Who's work is he doing? A third party with a relationship with the adjudicators?)

Or not, I don't know. Would they do something else? What if he doesn't want to work? Say he signed a contract with his own representatives binding him to an obligation to work off debts to ladies he knocks up if he doesn't act right. I guess that gives his representatives the right to use force to compel his productive capacity for profit and enforce their contract?

OK back up. He knocks up ten ladies. He's got ten crews representing these ten ladies breathing down his neck. He's not making any money and he's a liability because he won't keep his dick in his pants so he can't get anyone to rep him. He knocks up twenty more. He's in a tough spot.

Hmm, and then the ladies who have representation would have been prequalified for liability etc. and their contracts might have their own conditions about having kids etc. Lots of variables. I'd say too many to make this all feasible but that would be ridiculous.

So maybe some of the ladies' contracts say if you get pregnant we're dropping you or your rates will go up and they can't pay and get dropped. I don't know. Could it be that the representatives of the women with representation come together and set this guy straight? What's the recourse?

And what if none of the ladies had representation? And to push the point, what if a bunch of these ladies' representative companies decided that this guy was too much of a liability to their clients - indeed anyone's clients - and decided that the best solution was to chop the guy's balls off?

I'm guessing this wouldn't happen because their actuarials would advise them not to carry clients who got knocked up by deadbeats in the first place. So then maybe none of the women had representation? So you've got thirty pregnant ladies knocked up by a deadbeat and no one representing or advocating for them.

Live and let die?

Just thinking aloud.
 
Clearly this is why the US government is so pissed off about losing Saverin's tax money. Now men all across the US won't be able to have the government pay for their 30 kids.
 
I'm sure the 11 moms are all super classy ladies, especially the ones that had more than one kid with him.
 
Where comes the responsibility of the women in all of this? I'm a huge supporter of attachment parenting, (you know, mother being with child as much as possible), but I'm also a huge supporter of personal re-fucking-sponsibility; like, don't open your legs and get fucked by a guy you barely know without protection of some sort. It's a 2 way street.
 
You guys are missing a large part of this. The women. They all consented to sex with this loser, and they all are having his kids.

That's because the welfare state allows women to raise children without income, and without a man around.

This guy is subsidized by the state, but the subsidy doesn't go to him, it is going to the moms.

Some theorists like Walter Williams see the break up of the black family as tied to the welfare state, and the fact that young black men don't have to be fathers (because the state fulfills that role) and these kids are raised in broken homes, which leads to a cycle of the same (more black boys having kids without becoming dads, and more black girls getting knocked up to receive welfare).

Not saying it doesn't happen to whites and others, but this is the dominant paradigm in the urban black community.
 
MSTeacher said:
OK we blink and we're in an ancap environment discussing this issue.
Click to expand...
To understand society and human action, you have to understand the effect of incentives (costs and benefits).

In an ancap environment, there probably would not be welfare (there may be private charity).

These people would be compelled to take some responsibility for their actions, particularly the women, who would either need to have abortions, or find some way to fund their baby, if the father is the type to not stick around.

That puts a lot of pressure on the mother to make a better choice.

Right now, a lot of these women are having these kids because the incentives make it rational to exploit the system. Remove that incentive, and behaviors will change.

Perfectly? Probably not.

Better? Likely.
 
guerilla said:
pressure on the mother to make a better choice.
Click to expand...

The idea of "state as baby-daddy" removes the biological need for the woman to choose a dedicated mate who is likely to stick around and provide for the child...this certainly does free her up to do lots of exploratory fucking with whoever happens to be working at the closest car wash.

It's a horrible self-perpetuating cycle that runs counter to almost every mate-selection trait human beings have relied on for time immemorial.
 
scottspfd82 said:
You don't feel that severely infringes on personal liberties?
Click to expand...
With this government in charge? Hells yeah it does. It could start out as a penalty for not supporting lots of kids and wind up a DUI or manslaughter punishment instead... Then something cops can have done to you because you didn't pay their bribes... I am NOT advocating it for right here right now.

If it could magically be enforced fairly though; I'd be all for this form of punishment. If people are incapable of taking care of children, we the taxpayers should not allow them to force us to. The only two ways I know how are to either cut off his balls, or kick him out... But if kicked out then the question becomes where is he being exiled to? Mexico has enough deadbeat dads already and might not take kindly on such a law...

But it is obviously more humane than execution.


tygoldberg said:
We have some dumb fuck in bumfuck tenney key with 30 children who will be locked up before age 15 being discussed on a millionaire gay Webster forum.

I say he's doing it right.
Click to expand...
He would be if we were going to donate something perhaps... I don't think that's going to happen.

teatree said:
How do you know whether the kids might not turn out well?
Click to expand...
Oh the kids absolutely can turn out well. I was born to trailer trash parents like this guy. In fact when I read the title I honestly wondered if this story was about my brother... Thankfully the name is wrong. (Right number of kids, tho!)

I'm not a fan of punishing the kids in any way... I'm for preventing their births in the first place.


scottspfd82 said:
Given the choice, I'd rather be destitute and free than turned into a slave working for Government handouts.
Click to expand...
What's your definition of Destitute though? Living on welfare? In the USA, destitution can be downright comfy and I don't fucking want to pay for your destitution, you got it?


@MSTeacher: Since you did a thorough job researching for your post, I don't want to give you a hurried answer. I'll get back to you on this later when I've properly thought about it.
 
Benji49 said:
So, all judgement aside, the one thing that popped into my head was the 30th woman to file for support. She must have known about SOME of the OTHER 29 kids. So, was she really thinking there was any money to squeeze out of loverboy?

Suing people who have no money to begin with not one of the smarter things to do in life.

(Oh wait, I'm supposed to be in outrage over this man's wayward penis. Yeah, yeah...)
Click to expand...

There were only 11 women, not 30 individual women. He is averaging a little under 3 kids between 11 women.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom