Peter F

Read what I wrote and not what you wish I wrote

I agee with most of what you say. But I am not and have not claimed that women in too many places are not treated as chattel. What I did say is " I doubt whether you'd be able to find a single person on the face of this earth who would seriously agree that women are chattel and should be treated as such."

A pacifist would let them take it.

I doubt whether you'd be able to find a single person on the face of this earth who would seriously agree that women are chattel and should be treated as such. So I cannot imagine what process would be able to weed such people out of the immigration line.

Well, yeah. Certainly. But I'm pretty sure they do that already. They do tell the prospective immigrant that Canada has different laws, Sharia Law has no legitimacy in Canada; Canada is a western country where women are allowed and in many cases encouraged to dress 'prevocatively'; That Canada is a secular nation where the Christian church - or any other religion - doe's not make the rules. I'm pretty sure that they get all that information already before being accepted as immigrants. Unless, of course, they find immigration applications to Canada lying in the street... I would say that the reason people immigrate is not because of the cultural conflict but because of the opportunity to gather wealth for themselves and thier children. So, even if immigrants are told loud and clear that thier cultural belief system won't wash in Canada, What do we do with folks who, after being told these things, immigrate anyways? Will such pronouncements ensure that only folks willing to trash thier cultural beliefs immigrate to Canada?

Wilber: Regarding Sacrifice; the whole point of pacifism is a willingness to be sacrificed to meet thier moral goal. Perhaps what you mean is violence by others (Riverwinds police and military) enables pacifists to be pacifists. If not, then the sacrifice of others, pacifists as well as non-pacifists, has enabled my continued pacifism (maybe). So the implied claim that without non-pacifists there'd be no pacifists is not established. Pacifism certainly is a selfish indulgence. So is killing for a greater good, or sacrifice for the greater good. All are selfish acts because they are performed simply to satisfy ones idea of achieving a personal standard that the performer feels self-satisfied with. No sacrifice by anyone has or will allow me to be a pacifist. The dead of WWII (to continue an example used by others in previous posts) may have made it unlikely for me to be a german-speaking Nazi-worshipper, but it has nothing to do with me hoping to be a pacifist. That is up to me alone. If you successfully kill someone bent on murdering me does that enable me to be a pacifist? Is my pacifism dependant upon the actions or inactions of others? No. It may enable me to live for a little while longer but has nothing to do with my pacifism.

Thats okay. It's not your moral code they are living/dying by.

Wilber: ...and, I would suggest, that a dead pacifist has proved thier pacifism.

No. A pacifist would let someone kill them rather than take a life.

...and that is exactly what happened when I got mugged!

Nice try. Germany is a soveriegn country. US forces are in Germany at thier soveriegn governments agreement. I don't think the same can be said of the Golan Heights today, nor the Sinai in 1973. Propagandize all you want over the matter. The fact is that in 1973, The IDF was occupying land that was not Israel; that they had siezed in 1967 and refused to give up. Unprovoked my ass.

I was wrong in previous posts. I have claimed that support payments are per child. They are not. child support guidelines 2 kids and $50k income: Alberta = $729 Nova Scotia = 715 British Columbia = 759 Ontario = 753 Manitoba = 699 Prince Edward Island = 714 New Brunswick = 712 Quebec = 656 Newfoundland & Labrador = 699 Saskatchewan = 699 Northwest Territories = 758 Yukon = 752 Nunavut = 796 Also, the child support amounts are not fixed in stone as I have been making them out to be. They could vary, but such variation seems to depend on prior agreement between the parties. These levels are used by the courts where the court cannot determine prior agreement in a dispute. Still, there they are and they are pretty cheap if you ask me.

Not being able to discern between child support and spousal support is the biggest problem divorced/separated men have. They see both cheques going to the same woman and assume its all hers to spend on clothes, makeup and pool-boys. There real problem is with spousal support, not child support. But thier resentments cloud the difference and so they have to forgo thier dream corvette and the Grecian Formula...f'ing b****

Riverwind, where are you getting this information from? I got divorced. I've been shown the charts. Child support payments are fixed at a certain minimum depending upon income. And they are per child. I suspect you may be confusing 'child support' with 'spousal support'. They are not the same thing. Family Courts in this country cannot and do not set child support above what is mandated on the chart. Any parent can agree to pay more than the minimum child support, of course, but they cannot be forced by the courts to do so. Spousal support however, is a different matter. Millionaires can be end up paying oodles for spousal support depending upon the decree of the court - there is no chart for spousal support. Get a good lawyer if you are going to fight how much Spousal support you will be liable for...but don't waste your time and money on lawyers to dispute Child support - That is fixed and all the Lawyers in the land and appeals and bankruptcys and debt wont change the level of Child support you are liable for. It is fixed; This much per child; no more and no less. He may very well pay slightly more than 50% of his pretax income - but it is not because of odious child support rules. No, you are wrong. Child support payments continue as long as the child is living at home and going to school. Yes, that includes university. My daughter is 22 and attending university and I am still obligated to pay child support as long as she continues to do so. My son is 18 and quitting CEGEP after this term. I will no longer be liable to pay child support for him.(even if he is allowed to continue living at home). But - I am not paying for my daughters education. I am paying Child Support. The costs of her education are included in the Child Support - to an extent. But also sent exta money to help her pay for her tuition (horrors!). Bullshit. I have (had) the option of not paying for my childs education. But my obligation to help support the child does not end until the child is done school, wether I pay for her tuitions etc or not.Just the same as the married father; His obligations are the same for the young adult living at home and attending school. He can choose to help with university costs or not, as he wills, but he is still obligated to put food on thier plates and pay for heat and clothes and busses. There is no difference financially between the two.

Unprovoked? Israel was occupying what turned out to be the two main battlefields of that war - The Sinai and the Golan Heights...unprovoked...

Child support payments are very simple things to figure out. They probably do the same thing in the states....There is a chart. How much a parent pays is dependant upon thier gross income and the payment is per child supported. In my income bracket it comes to almost $300.00/month/child. About half of what I think it should be, but nevertheless thats what the courts have determined it shall be. Less income means lower child support. More income means more child support. How many families are involved is irrelevant. That is how much you pay to the parent/guardian of each child supported. You get a raise then your support goes up. You lose your job and your support goes down. (mind you the parent will have to get a court order amending the previous court order setting out the amount of child support to be paid.) From my understanding, When it comes to child support and divorce, the interests of the child outwiegh all other considerations. I think it is right for the courts to do so. A child's well being is totally dependant upon the adults around them. The courts recognize (in this country anyways) that too often those adults are more concerned with themselves than the child. In a court-room the child/ren has no advocate pleading thier interest. If the judges don't do it themselves during the 'last resort' of the courtroom, who will? If my childs right overides my right to my money in a court, I say good. And that applies to his step-father too and everyone else involved in parenting him.

Are they more moral? More moral than who? What are they comparing thier morality to? Other people? Is the purpose of morality to become the most moral person in the world? Personally, my morality lies with pacifism. But, I must also admit that my avowed pacifism has never been put to the test. So am I really a pacifist? or am I not? I think not. I can imagine unpleasant circumstances in wich my family is endangered where I may become violent. But perhaps thats just daydreaming about being Bruce Willis and is not reality. That has never been put to the test either. I do know that I have been mugged and had no desire during or after the event to inflict harm upon the perps. I do know that a woman wanted me to inflict harm upon her wich I though I could do until it came down to brass tacks and without thought I said "I can't hurt anybody" - Revelation!

deleted - double post

No. Customs Excise Union (CEUDA) But arming border agents is not all roses Swamps & Alligators Topaz: Here's a link to Topazs' post: CTVnews dec 2 From which I quote: Which is to say the 30% is a guesstimate at best. The methodology used to arrive at this number is iffy - to say the least.

...and if Joe Stalin hadn't have been responsible for the deaths of billions, you'd be moaning and groaning about bread-lines and Lada's... Pretty feeble argument you're making there.

True enough. I have no business making presumptions. You are correct to point that out. However, this morphed discussion is not about step parents who refuse to enter into relationships because of kids, but about people who do enter into relationships involving kids. I think the argument that the childrens lives are enhanced by not paying child support would last about 30 seconds in a court of law. But then, I'm not trained in the nuances of Family Law.

You, too, have the right to be pregnant. (apologies to 'Life of Brian')

Bullshit. It's you who claim the possibility of being a parent is keeping you away from the woman and children you supposedly care about. You want to be able to walk away on a whim with no consideration for those left in the lurch. So don't had me the crap that you are only seeking to make thier lives better, just like a bunch of bitchy step-parents who are pissed about paying child support. I think the lesson here is, wich you apparently reject, is: Know who you're going to have sex with. Know who the person is that you intend to have children with. Sex can always result in pregnancy You cannot walk away from being a parent. Though many try and too many succeed. Now enough of this silly back and forth. I have stated my case and there it stands for good or ill.

What you advocate equals the same thing - without financial support.

Hah! If they don't want to be considered the parent then don't take on the parental responsibility. Support payments are not conditional upon the childs love or lack of it.