Up to one in TEN Britons 'don't know who their real father is' - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

News stories of lesser political significance, but still of international interest.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

Forum rules: Please include a source with news articles. No stupid or joke stories. The usual forum rules also still apply.
#15010607
@noemon
The majority of the argument in this thread was between Ter and PoD regarding the right of a man to do a paternity test to know whether the kid is his or not in a scenario where doubt is cast on the woman cheating.
Ter is arguing that: Yes, you should have the right to do a paternity test, without the mother's consent, to confirm if they're your own children or if they're someone else's children.
PoD is arguing the opposite.

The arguments presented in this thread against having that right are so far, at best, bullshit.

To make matters worse some people in here have actually argued that any male should have the right to order a paternity test for any child in the world without even requiring a court order which is absolutely ridiculous but that's what you get when you post fake news, you get proven wrong and then you try to shift the goalposts to save face.

No one made the argument that any random guy on the street can go and do DNA test to any kid around. That's a strawman made by snapdragon and in response to Rich, not to Ter nor by hem.

Anyone of the parents can order a DNA test so the argument that a mother can deny paternity tests from the father in the UK is totally fake.

True, but the discussion that went on for 4 pages thus far hasn't been about the UK law, the argument was about the right of the parent in question to do a paternity test.
PoD was arguing that you should not have that right, even in case of reasonable doubt; While Ter was arguing that you should.
And the argument branched off to several points that are, in various degrees, relevant to the main topic.

I hold the stance that you should have that right.
If, in a hypothetical scenario, your wife was pregnant and you found out she was cheating on you the whole time, you do have the right to test if it's your kid or the kid of the other guy she was cheating on you with.
And I also do agree that to the point that if indeed it was the other guy's kid, then you should not be held legally or financially responsible for that kid.
#15010617
anasawad wrote:@noemon
The majority of the argument in this thread was between Ter and PoD regarding the right of a man to do a paternity test to know whether the kid is his or not in a scenario where doubt is cast on the woman cheating.
Ter is arguing that: Yes, you should have the right to do a paternity test, without the mother's consent, to confirm if they're your own children or if they're someone else's children.
PoD is arguing the opposite.


So you are following the irrelevant conversation that is total nonsense rather than the actual point on whether what Ter claimed is true that allegedly dad's cannot DNA test their own children in the UK without the consent of the mother.

No one made the argument that any random guy on the street can go and do DNA test to any kid around. That's a strawman made by snapdragon and in response to Rich, not to Ter nor by hem.


It is not a strawman at all. Ter keeps parading around a quote that says that due to privacy, consent has to be granted either by the individual or in the case of a minor by one of his/her parents as evidence of some kind of terrible injustice that has befallen someone when all this quote says is that one of the parents of the child have to sign off the dna sampling and testing of the child which is perfectly reasonable.

I hold the stance that you should have that right.


:roll: As if snapdragon or anyone other than PoD ever said otherwise.
#15010630
@noemon
Of 4 pages of the discussion, there were 5 posts that were off topic entirely and only 7 or 8 posts that are regarding the OP article.
The rest were about this argument.

It is not a strawman at all. Ter keeps parading around a quote that says that due to privacy, consent has to be granted either by the individual or in the case of a minor by one of his/her parents as evidence of some kind of terrible injustice that has befallen someone when all this quote says is that one of the parents of the child have to sign off the DNA sampling and testing of the child which is perfectly reasonable.

It is reasonable that one of the parents must consent, obviously.
But again, that's not what the discussion is about, and this line was exchanged between Snapdragon and rich.

And regarding the line, it was a response to a post by Rich where I'm assuming that in his word salad mentioned that a stranger cannot get a DNA test without the approval of the mother.

So, yes. Strawman by definition.

:roll: As if snapdragon or anyone other than PoD ever said otherwise.

PoD is the main one arguing and pushing the thread. :|
#15010634
anasawad wrote:It is reasonable that one of the parents must consent, obviously.
But again, that's not what the discussion is about, and this line was exchanged between Snapdragon and rich.

And regarding the line, it was a response to a post by Rich where I'm assuming that in his word salad mentioned that a stranger cannot get a DNA test without the approval of the mother.

So, yes. Strawman by definition.


You are wrong on both counts and you should re-read the whole thread.

a) The discussion is indeed about whether a father can do a paternity test without the mother's consent. And indeed contrary to Ter's consistent claims as well as the erroneous perceptions of several people in the first page like Sivad, Rich and blackjack21, a male parent can indeed do that!!! So Ter's fake news are exactly that. Even on this last page Ter seems to be insisting that his fake news may be right just because he posted some nonsense article from 2002 claiming that the law might change in the future. So all this fake outrage expressed by Ter as well as well these posters is nonsense.
b) This reply here is not a strawman: viewtopic.php?f=76&t=176635&start=20#p15010122 It is a valid reply to invalid nonsense. Rich stated it outright and Ter implied it more than once. As long as we agree that both of these points are true facts the rest are irrelevant opinions.

The 2 points being:

a) It is a fact that a parent in the UK can order a paternity test without the mother's consent so a guy can actually find out if the child is his.
b) That the 2006 Human and Tissue Act in the UK requiring consent from the individual or one of its parents in the case of a minor is a valid law meant to protect the privacy of a person and a child and not some undercover feminist plot to strip a guy of his right to know whether the child is his so it should not be used as an argument to that effect which is what Ter has explicitly done making it totally not a straw-man.

Lastly your claim that you were referring to Ter's conversation with PoD but not with snapdragon is funny because it is posted right after my post praising snapdragon for her trashing Ter's arguments while your post is claiming the opposite but anyway...
#15010638
@noemon
b) This reply here is not a strawman: viewtopic.php?f=76&t=176635&start=20#p15010122 It is a valid reply to invalid nonsense. Rich stated it outright and Ter implied it more than once. As long as we agree that both of these points are true facts the rest are irrelevant opinions.


The reply was to this:
A man who is not already a recognised parent / guardian can not force a DNA test. This I know about. This I am right about. A man can apply to a court for a DNA test and in principle if the mother refuses, the court can overrule the mother and force the DNA test, but in practice if the man is not a legal guardian and has never been an acting parent to the child then this will virtually never happen.

He's saying that a stranger can not force through a DNA test; Which, in turn, was a response to a response for his post on the first page which was regarding parents or acclaimed parents, not strangers.

As such, cutting the quote in half, and implying the exact opposite of what is being said is a strawman.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument



a) The discussion is indeed about whether a father can do a paternity test without the mother's consent. And indeed contrary to Ter's consistent claims as well as the erroneous perceptions of several people in the first page like Sivad, Rich and blackjack21, a male parent can indeed do that!!! So Ter's fake news are exactly that. Even on this last page Ter seems to be insisting that his fake news may be right just because he posted some nonsense article from 2002 claiming that the law might change in the future. So all this fake outrage expressed by Ter as well as well these posters is nonsense.

Sure, the article was fake. It doesn't change the fact that the main discussion taking place in the thread is the one with PoD, not regarding the article about the UK.
And in that argument, which takes multiple countries as examples, the idea that a guy shouldn't have the right to confirm if a kid is his or not is ludicrous.

You're still focused on the OP when you know full well that discussions evolve and almost never stay with the OP in here.
It's already established that the article is false. It's also not the center of discussion.
#15010639
anasawad wrote:@noemon

He's saying that a stranger can not force through a DNA test; Which, in turn, was a response to a response for his post on the first page which was regarding parents or acclaimed parents, not strangers.

As such, cutting the quote in half, and implying the exact opposite of what is being said is a strawman.


That is not the exact opposite of what is being said, it is exactly what is being said. :eh:

Rich wrote:@Ter is right in as much as a man who is not a recognised parent can not force a DNA test to prove paternity. He can not force a DNA test to disprove paternity either.


You are confused. It is not even implied by Rich, it is outright explicitly stated, and it is also implied by Ter as well.

You're still focused on the OP when you know full well that discussions evolve and almost never stay with the OP in here.
It's already established that the article is false. It's also not the center of discussion.


Of course it is established except that in this final page Ter insists that he might actually be right and despite me further establishing the fact by bringing over the governmental links that snapdragon posted, you interjected to breath fresh air to the nonsense by posting immediately after my post that according to you Ter is actually correct in everything. :eek:

I am going to say it once more. I do not care about PoD's or Ter's opinion, it's just that, their own opinion on a miniscule matter. I am only here to buttress the established facts, not support any opinions.
#15010644
So I have stated that in England and Wales:
a man who is not a recognised parent can not force a DNA test to prove paternity. He can not force a DNA test to disprove paternity either.

How many times does the complete truth of this have to be demonstrated? How many times do we need to see my accuracy? Now @Ter may have used loose wording in one or two of his posts. But it always seemed obvious to me that he was talking about the case of where the man was not already a recognised parent. Where has Ter explicitly claimed that a man who is a recognised parent can not take a DNA test of his recognised child? I believe he suggested that even that right might be under threat, which sounds perfectly plausible to me. I remember when the prophets who warned about Gay marriage were ridiculed as dishonest fear mongers, or those of us who said once they had come and taken our guns away, they'll be after our knives next. of course all the lefties liberals scoffed in their usual high handed patronising way.
#15010645
Just going to quickly point out that allowing a father to unilaterally force a paternity test in his kids provides no benefit to the children.

Since family law regarding children always looks at the best interests of the child, there seems to be no reason to allow a father to do this.
#15010646
Rich wrote:So I have stated that in England and Wales:

How many times does the complete truth of this have to be demonstrated? How many times do we need to see my accuracy? Now @Ter may have used loose wording in one or two of his posts. But it always seemed obvious to me that he was talking about the case of where the man was not already a recognised parent. Where has Ter explicitly claimed that a man who is a recognised parent can not take a DNA test of his recognised child? I believe he suggested that even that right might be under threat, which sounds perfectly plausible to me. I remember when the prophets who warned about Gay marriage were ridiculed as dishonest fear mongers, or those of us who said once they had come and taken our guns away, they'll be after our knives next. of course all the lefties liberals scoffed in their usual high handed patronising way.


A man can certainly force a child to undergo a DNA test in England Wales to establish whether or not he's the father, but he has to go through a court to do it, if he doesn't have parental responsibility.

I'm not sure why you'd have a problem with this, because otherwise any berk could force any child to undergo a DNA test at any time for any reason he chooses.

That would be ridiculous wouldn't it?

( the law applies equally to women, by the way)

Ter has been wrong from the get go. He's nearly always wrong.

And you're wrong when you say the current law is under threat. Who told you that?
#15010693
@noemon
That is not the exact opposite of what is being said, it is exactly what is being said. :eh:

How the fuck is it not the opposite?
His statement is clearly saying the only someone who is already in a parental role can do these tests, while strangers can not.
The statement is clear, there is no further implied meaning.

In what way this:
Are you saying some random man off the street should be able to force a child to undergo a DNA test?

In response to someone saying that strangers can not force DNA tests on random children, is not a strawman?
Read the post, the tone was not sarcastic, nor was the post hinting at anything other than what it stated.



Of course it is established except that in this final page Ter insists that he might actually be right and despite me further establishing the fact by bringing over the governmental links that snapdragon posted, you interjected to breath fresh air to the nonsense by posting immediately after my post that according to you Ter is actually correct in everything. :eek:

In the main argument, he is. With snapdragon is barely half a page.
Perhaps I should've made clear which discussion I was referring to, a mistake.


I am going to say it once more. I do not care about PoD's or Ter's opinion, it's just that, their own opinion on a minuscule matter. I am only here to buttress the established facts, not support any opinions.


But the entire thread is talking about the minuscule matter :lol:
#15010734
In response to someone saying that strangers can not force DNA tests on random children, is not a strawman?


No. It's what this topic is about.

It's only possible for people with parental responsibility to have a child's DNA tested if said child is under 16 without a court order (as far as the UK is concerned).

This angers Ter , who thinks anyone should be able to do it. It also seems to anger Rich, but I find his posts so convoluted , it's hard to say.

You have claimed to agree with everything Ter has posted, so you agree that any man should be able to get any child tested to discover whether he's the father, without needing a court order.

Why do you agree with that?
#15010740
anasawad wrote:I don't. I agree that a parent should, specifically the father who is expected to raise the kid, without needing the mother's approval.


Which is exactly how it is.
So what is your problem?

The entire discussion is about recognized parents, not strangers.


If it was, then there would be no need for this discussion.
#15010760
This all reflects the massive social crisis that the UK is facing and which continues to get worse. It's a sign of the UK's disintegration and collapse.

It shouldn't be applauded or celebrated as some type of liberal development. Not knowing one's father is a less than ideal situation for anyone.

In 2019 the UK has serious problems. By 2075 the situation will be at a pre-collapse stage. Brexit and the rise of extremism are all part of this.

It's being caused by the incompetence of the political class. It was accelerated by the Thatcherite reforms of the 1980s and the Blairite stupidity from 1997 to 2010. The 2010s are just more incompetence from the same idiots of all the parties. Corbyn and his group are not any better.
#15010768
anasawad wrote:@noemon

How the fuck is it not the opposite?
His statement is clearly saying the only someone who is already in a parental role can do these tests, while strangers can not.
The statement is clear, there is no further implied meaning.


Honestly, when 2 native english speakers and myself(being living in England for 17 years now) understand something perhaps you should get a hint and consider the possibility that you are wrong and that you possibly have misunderstood what both Ter and Rich are saying. Rich(being English) understood exactly what Ter implied when he posted the Human Tissue Act 2006 and he(Rich) stated it outright in black and white. He, like you agree with Ter's implication in that the Human and Tissue Act is from their perspective wrong and is somehow a feminist plot to undo a man's rights. So when something is considered wrong(otherwise why would Ter post it as evidence of wrongdoing on the UK's part?) then the opposite of what this law is about is directly implied. But as snapdragon correctly pointed out, this is absolute nonsense because if we were to repeal the Human and Tissue Act what we would get would be any random stranger being able to sample whatever child they prefer. Now before you make any more of this and continue down the rabbit hole, go back to Ter's post and ask yourself, why did he post it? Did he post it because he agreed with it? Or because he didn't?

In response to someone saying that strangers can not force DNA tests on random children, is not a strawman?
Read the post, the tone was not sarcastic, nor was the post hinting at anything other than what it stated.


Of course it is not a strawman, because Ter disagrees with the Human and Tissue Act that defines the legislation that forbids strangers from doing exactly that. And if you disagree with that legislation there is only one conclusion and since everyone in here understands something different it is not only a straw-man but compulsory for someone in this case snapdragon to point it out because otherwise we will have a chorus of babbits cheerleading the abolition of a law that protects their own children which is what almost happened if snapdragon had not trashed the argument right at its inception. So no, not only is it not a straw-man but very significant in fact.
#15010774
Political Interest wrote:This all reflects the massive social crisis that the UK is facing and which continues to get worse. It's a sign of the UK's disintegration and collapse.

It shouldn't be applauded or celebrated as some type of liberal development. Not knowing one's father is a less than ideal situation for anyone.

In 2019 the UK has serious problems. By 2075 the situation will be at a pre-collapse stage. Brexit and the rise of extremism are all part of this.

It's being caused by the incompetence of the political class. It was accelerated by the Thatcherite reforms of the 1980s and the Blairite stupidity from 1997 to 2010. The 2010s are just more incompetence from the same idiots of all the parties. Corbyn and his group are not any better.


This is so hilariously unhinged I don't know where to start.

1. 1 in 10 is a small minority. It might have been lower in previous generations but without some actual data to look at we can't say for sure that this is abnormally high compared with previous generations or other parts of the world currently.

2. If it is abnormally high the likely cause is state subsidies for single parents which is not something you can blame on either Thatcher or Blair.

3. The "rise of extremism" in the UK is solely down to the increasing muslim population and is completely unrelated to this problem.

4. "By 2075 the situation will be at a pre-collapse stage." ROFL! It seems we have a long time to wait for "pre-collapse"! :lol: Nice prediction Mystic Meg! Perhaps you could tell us the winning lottery numbers for 2075 while you are at it? :lol:

5. You are a known anglophobe. You should know that your opinion is extremely warped by your prejudice.

6. Where are you from?
#15010775
a) PI is not an anglophobe nor is he prejudiced against the UK.
b) He is a conservative and his outrage against liberalism is par for the course of the same outrage that the Daily Fail and our resident cons are hoping to stoke.
c) This is exactly why articles like the OP's need to be trashed.
#15010778
noemon wrote:a) PI is not an anglophobe nor is he prejudiced against the UK.
b) He is a conservative and his outrage against liberalism is par for the course of the same outrage that the Daily Fail and our resident cons are hoping to stoke.
c) This is exactly why articles like the OP's need to be trashed.


He looks that way to me. He hardly ever posts except to say something negative about anglo-saxons.

I thought he was a nazi? I don't mean a nazi like how the left thinks everyone "to the right" of Mao is a "nazi" but an actual "I love der fuhrer" nazi? If he was an actual nazi it would explain his hatred for Britons, re: WW2.

The article is fine; don't shoot the messenger, as they say.
#15010779
Well I certainly think we are in a pre revolutionary situation. I think in the next few weeks we are going to see the world turned upside down. 7/7 could well be like a bomb going off on the London Underground.

Yes I believe the Intel / Nvidia establishment could be under severe threat.

Almost everyone was already poor in Russia. In […]

The Paradox of Poverty

While I like your definition of Socialism, the re[…]

Trump and the Rule of Law

evidence for impeachment and braking of rules of […]

Firehosing

"Firehosing relies on pushing out as many li[…]