I want money back: man sues ex-wife

[Adam]

A MELBOURNE man is suing his ex-wife for the money he spent on birthday presents, zoo trips and McHappy meals for a little girl he wrongly believed was his daughter.

More...

So what happened? The guy was with this girl, they had a kid, together they raised the kid for five years. Then they split, and he learns that she was a cheap skanky slut and the kid was not his after all. So he wants back all the money he spent on the child.

I have no respect at all for the slut. She screwed this guy over, slept around, lied, took five years of his life with a lie. The guy claims he intends to make her pay, and put all that money in a trust fund for the little girl, rather than keep it himself. I'm all for it. The bitch should pay, and if the money is really to go into tust for the child, then the guy is clearly not being greedy.

 

[bbcboy]

He now refuses to see the child, claiming having too many "daddies" will confuse her.

He sounds like a completley selfish, immature twat to me. If you're the first person to hold a child when it's born and hear the word daddy directed at you then it's for life. Doesn't matter whose sperm was involved. If he has an issue with his x then fine. but the child is not to blame and should'nt suffer for his bruised macho ego. I think it just fuckin stinks.

 

[Asguard]

i would do anything i could to that bitch but i dont think i could ever cut contact with the child

but then it might be to painfull

i dont know

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by bbcboy
He sounds like a completley selfish, immature twat to me. If you're the first person to hold a child when it's born and hear the word daddy directed at you then it's for life. Doesn't matter whose sperm was involved. If he has an issue with his x then fine. but the child is not to blame and should'nt suffer for his bruised macho ego. I think it just fuckin stinks.

Looks to me like the guy has every intention of doing his bit to look after the child, prepare for her future, and so on. Good on him for that. Yet the slut should pay.

 

[Asguard]

a child needs more than money

im 20 and i would hate to lose my father

he is someone who i can talk to and stuff

even if the old man cant walk properly and when he does looks like one of those rolly clowns

 

[bbcboy]

Looks to me like the guy has every intention of doing his bit to look after the child, prepare for her future, and so on.

And when she needs a hug?

 

[Adam]

Since their divorce, the guy gets visits with her. I see nothing about changing that.

 

[Asguard]

adam he was saying he wanted to cut all contact with the child cause she could only have one father

 

[Adam]

The guy says:

"I love this kid like nothing else. I've even got her name tattooed on my arm," he said.

"I was the very first person to hold her after she was born. To find out she's not mine, it's soul-destroying. Now I would like some compensation for having my heart broken."

"I want to be officially recognised as her dad but I can't, so I have to walk away," he said.

It seems to me he wants to be there but basically can't be a father to her now. Walking away early might be the right thing to do. I'm not sure.

 

[grazzhoppa]

I say cut the kid in three pieces, give one to the real dad, fake dad, and the slut. Make the slut pay for the operation.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by grazzhoppa
I say cut the kid in three pieces, give one to the real dad, fake dad, and the slut. Make the slut pay for the operation.

I vote for grazzhoppa as our new attorney general.

 

[Asguard]

no

i vote for choping up the slut and letting the 2 fathers raise her

she will have better morals than that BITCH

 

[Xev]

He sounds like a completley selfish, immature twat to me. If you're the first person to hold a child when it's born and hear the word daddy directed at you then it's for life. Doesn't matter whose sperm was involved. If he has an issue with his x then fine. but the child is not to blame and should'nt suffer for his bruised macho ego. I think it just fuckin stinks

I think Bbcboy is right and anyone who would make a child suffer because of empathy for a bruised male ego does not deserve the epithet of "human".

Actually, anyone who would want to harm another human for something so trivial should go slime their way back into whatever novel of de Sade they oozed out of. We're all on this planet together, and we can make the most out of each other's companionship and we can act with compassion and humanity or we can be grotesque parodies of human potential.

 

[Adam]

Ah, I see. If a guy finds out the most important thing in his life is based on a lie, it's simply a "male ego" problem? That's an easy answer for everything, isn't it Xev? All human failings, such as that of the lying slut, can be forgiven simply because, for some reason, it's all really the fault of the guy's ego? Clever.

 

[Xev]

Violence is the last refuge of the weak, Adam.

Sadism is the last refuge of the weak, Adam.

Cruelty is the last refuge of the pathetic, Adam.

It is nothing to be cruel. Any twit can be a cruel and vengeful creature. It takes a strong person to not only resist the impulse to amuse themselves in this manner, but to not need to harm others for revenge.

Do you know who Nat Turner was, Adam? Or the Jaquerie? Slave rebellions are naturally bloody. But even worse are when the slaves turn on each other.

Cruelty (in this context) has never been a sign of nobility. It shows weakness, vengefulness and fear. It shows how easily one can be harmed, and it shows how degraded one's response to being harmed is.

Pathetic.




Note: I hesitate to connect the Marquis to pathetic lowlifes who would harm another human simply for revenge on an indifferent cosmos. However, he did describe suchlike.

 

[Adam]

Xev

Violence is the last refuge of the weak, Adam.
Sadism is the last refuge of the weak, Adam.

The weak have two last refuges? Lucky bastards.

Violence is the last refuge of the weak, Adam.

Piffle. Violence is the first resort of the effective guardian.

Sadism is the last refuge of the weak, Adam.

A Xevism? Never heard this claim before. Actually it seems the first refuge of the Sadist.

Cruelty is the last refuge of the pathetic, Adam.

That makes no sense. Cruel people inflict cruelty because they want to, not because it is their last choice.

It is nothing to be cruel. Any twit can be a cruel and vengeful creature. It takes a strong person to not only resist the impulse to amuse themselves in this manner, but to not need to harm others for revenge.

And your posting history indicates...?

Anyway, I don't see this guy being cruel. The ex-wife is proven to have no integrity, to be untrustworthy. Whatever money she possesses is therefore unsafe in her hands, and can not be counted upon to secure the girl's future. However, if the guy gets what he wants, and her money goes into a trust fund for the child, the child has a much more secure future ahead of her. In short, the guy is doing the best thing he can, given that his access to the child is limited by law.

Do you know who Nat Turner was, Adam? Or the Jaquerie? Slave rebellions are naturally bloody. But even worse are when the slaves turn on each other.

Indeed.

Cruelty (in this context) has never been a sign of nobility. It shows weakness, vengefulness and fear. It shows how easily one can be harmed, and it shows how degraded one's response to being harmed is.

I agree.

Pathetic.

Indeed.

Note: I hesitate to connect the Marquis to pathetic lowlifes who would harm another human simply for revenge on an indifferent cosmos. However, he did describe suchlike.

Um... De Sade was a pathetic lowlife who harmed people for simple amusement. There's a reason why he was tossed in prison. He was a complete prick, and wandered about with his soldiers killing peasants for sport.

 

[Xev]

Adam:

The weak have two last refuges? Lucky bastards.

That was a stylistic way of putting it. Really, the phenomena is the same.

Piffle. Violence is the first resort of the effective guardian.

Well put. I see I did not explain myself clearly:

There are two principal reasons (that I can think of now) for inflicting violence. One is to remove a real or percieved threat to oneself or others. The other is to harm another person for one's own amusement.

I refer to the latter. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this - sadism and strength are sometimes combined (as in the case of Cesare Borgia or the fictional Juliette) but I think this is rare. Most commonly, the violent are the powerless. The weak.

There's a reason Juliette belongs in the realm of fiction, and there's a reason Cesare was not quite the monster he's portrayed as.

A Xevism?

My style becomes aphoristic. I rant about cruelty and master and slave morality.
I think I'm posessed by the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche.

Cool!

Actually it seems the first refuge of the Sadist.

What is a sadist?

That makes no sense. Cruel people inflict cruelty because they want to, not because it is their last choice.

Why do they want to?

And your posting history indicates...?

Indicates that I amuse myself with a certain intellectual viciousness.

Anyway, I don't see this guy being cruel. The ex-wife is proven to have no integrity, to be untrustworthy. Whatever money she possesses is therefore unsafe in her hands, and can not be counted upon to secure the girl's future.

I know you have problems justifying your conditioned response with logic, but why don't you try?

However, if the guy gets what he wants, and her money goes into a trust fund for the child, the child has a much more secure future ahead of her. In short, the guy is doing the best thing he can, given that his access to the child is limited by law.

I was referring, actually, to the posters on this thread. His actions are childish and exactly to be expected.

The blatent cruelty of Grazzhoppa and Asguard's responses were more in line with my critique. You deserve praise for not advocating bodily dismemberment.

Um... De Sade was a pathetic lowlife who harmed people for simple amusement. There's a reason why he was tossed in prison. He was a complete prick, and wandered about with his soldiers killing peasants for sport

(Actually, he was "tossed in prison" under a letter de cachet, which was basically an order to toss an individual into prison without recourse to law or right to be tried. I do not intend to defend de Sade, as many aspects (i.e the alleged treatement of his servents) are indefensible. However, there is no evidence that he commited murder or rape at any point in his life. For you to claim that the real Domitain murdered people because the fictional Saint Just did is as ludicrious as it would be to claim that grazzhoppa murders people because of the suggestion he made re: the child. Certainly if I write:

I KILL PEOPLE FOR MONEY

it does not mean that I kill people for money. I don't think Thomas Harris is in the process of dismembering women for their skins, yes?

But this is OT and de Sade got me in this stupid position anyway, so fuck him.

*Edit to add*

Actually, I do kill people for money.

*Edit to add*

And his writing style sucks rubber turkey dildo.

 

[Xev]

Hmm, looking back, I sound angrier than I am.

I simply feel that you people should show a bit more of the better side of human nature. I feel that life as a vicious animal, satisfying one's own desires and attacking without mercy anyone who should stop you, or offend you, is no sort of life to live. At the end of the day, it's as sterile as living a perfectly Christian life.

de Sade and other immoralists (however, he's the one I'm recovering with) asked the question of why you shouldn't be cruel and avaricious.

I ask why you should. Although avarice is a lesser part of this discussion.

Right, I'm rambling.

Anyways, I have no doubt that a certain sort of person could derive the most sublime pleasure from "cutting the slut in three peices" or whatever. I also have little doubt that such a person is, while a fascinating specimen, ultimately a misnomer of human. Why be less than human when one can be more than human?

And yet morality creeps into my views here. I come close to advocating "goodness". Hell, I have, in my private musings, commended my own "purity of heart". Don't know if this is good.

 

[Adam]

Xev

Yes, I agree that for most, violence is used because their minds prove insufficient to the occasion. People are monkeys. I wish there was less violence in the world. However, that is human behaviour. Violence itself is a force, like wind or gravity; it just is. The only thing good or bad about it is the use it is given, the purpose.

What is a sadist?

One who derives sexual pleasure from the suffering of another. Since sexual pleasure is rather a preferble thing and not a last consideration, sadism would be a primary drive of the sadist, rather than a last resort.

Why do they want to?

Weakness.

I know you have problems justifying your conditioned response with logic, but why don't you try?

I've done so. The woman has proven herself untrustworthy, a liar and a fraud. She is a liar and a fraud. The guy, on the other hand, demonstrates that although the law limits his access to the child, he wishes to do something to help her along the way. A purely selfless act, as he would not be gaining any money from it.

I have all De Sade's surviving writings here, but I'm not going to read through all the included biographical stuff now. I believe in this biography they mention murder as one of his passtimes.

 

[Xev]

Adam:

Yes, I agree that for most, violence is used because their minds prove insufficient to the occasion. People are monkeys. I wish there was less violence in the world. However, that is human behaviour. Violence itself is a force, like wind or gravity; it just is. The only thing good or bad about it is the use it is given, the purpose.

Strike the terms "good" and "bad" and I'd agree.

One who derives sexual pleasure from the suffering of another. Since sexual pleasure is rather a preferble thing and not a last consideration, sadism would be a primary drive of the sadist, rather than a last resort.

Good. Strike "sexual", it's a red herring.

I see my argument is still rather juvenile. Bear with me, if you will.

I can see two reasons to enjoy the suffering of another. One is that one takes pleasure because of some sort of neurological quirk, a sort of reverse of the empathic pleasure one feels from the pleasure of another.

The other is enjoying the suffering of another as a form of revenge, either on the person who is suffering or on the world. I believe many who would not be termed sadists yet who enjoy inflicting/watching another suffer fall under this category.

The first group of people cannot be described as weak for feeling this. If they exist in a pure form. Perhaps Mengle would have fallen under this category. However, I doubt somewhat that they exist in a pure form (i.e the characters in de Sade are pure in this way, but I wonder if suchlike could exist in reality)

But I focus on the second group. Why revenge?

Thank you Adam, I need to think this through.

Weakness.

Darling! I agree completely.

I've done so. The woman has proven herself untrustworthy,

How so?

a liar

Given.

and a fraud.

How so?

She is a liar and a fraud. The guy, on the other hand, demonstrates that although the law limits his access to the child, he wishes to do something to help her along the way. A purely selfless act, as he would not be gaining any money from it.

He'd be gaining revenge on the woman who made him "father" another man's child. His actions are in no way selfless.

Indeed, by impoverishing the mother, he is harming the child. I could bring up statistics showing this, but I'm rushed and my head still hurts:

http://www.google.com/search?q=mate...lopmen&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I doubt very much that his actions will help the child. If he wishes to support the kid's college education, he could establish a trust fund, rather than impoverishing the child's circumstances now.

The most humiliating thing I experienced (save arrest) was going with my mother while she requested financial assistance from a certain charity. I cannot see ever inflicting that on an innocent child, no matter how much the mother offended me.

He is a selfish prick who ought to be taken outside and shot.

P.S: Your site mentions murder in passing. There is no mention of any specific case. Given the wrath Donatain provoked, I doubt very much that a case of murder would have gone unpunished.
Also, they make the obvious error (fuck. why am I talking like a fucking Harvard intellectual? It's a dumb mistake, not an obvious error) of connecting Donatain to sadomasochism - betraying a most grotesque ignorence of his works.