Apply the same logic to writing and 90% of the fantasy fiction genre owes Tolkien's estate some big bucks.

You posit? You're an ignorant embarrassment, and that embarrassment is now indelibly engraved on the internet for all time, connected to your Romancing Alaska... thing... And just think, you were so confident about teh muh soggy knees and how all teh wimminz would be lining up for a taste when you were done beating your chest like a jackass.

My work here is done. Not that I had to do much work, you did all the heavy lifting really.

That was a question, as indicated by the question mark. Remarkable how grammar works really. Except of course the actual facts cited were supported by links to research in a subsequent comment you unsalvageable pleb.

Yes, facts are misogynistic. Those damn woman hating facts.

I want you to stop, put down the bottle, and take a good hard look at what you're trying to excrete here. Nobody, but nobody denies that men get treated brutally by the family courts, except yourself.

Why might that be?

You presume that their reasons for doing so are benevolent.

After all, species which have the ability to first of all see these stars and secondly understand their meaning are probably going to head in that direction as soon as they can, meaning they're young and not very scientifically advanced compared to a civilisation that can manipulate stars on an almost unimaginable scale. Scout ships get captured, their source traced, and rival civilisations extinguished in their infancy.

It could be a megaengineered honey trap.

As an alternative, JAXA is already working on a microwave solar power satellite.

By the time we're colonising Mars, microwave solar power from orbit will already be old news. The idea of cutting ice, transporting it from the poles to the equator and then popping it into an engine is cute but really only a scientific curiousity.

All I've done is present facts and logic you unrelentingly chinless tit. Which is the exact opposite of what you've managed to disgorge into the conversation.

On your bike son, I'm not covering your bus fare home.

Brilliant, you're a one man sociological survey. Everyone clam up and gather round the fire as AK Marc tells his story.

You've never run for elected office no? Thank christ.

Indeed, I doubt being a father was ever one of your problems.

Listen bud, drop the hardman act and educate yourself on the real issues before mouthing off in public and making yourself look like an idiot again.

Just some friendly advice.

http://www.irishcentral.com/ne...

And of course the ratio of male to female suicides locally is higher than even the normal 4:1, it's 5:1.

Now if only those judgements were accompanied by genuine shared parenting legislation rather than a weekend every fortnight or what have you, and few penalties for making even that much harder. This is often accompanied by something known as "parental alienation", you should look it up.

And who bitterly and relentlessly opposes shared parenting legislation?

99% of men and women lose their homes in UK divorces? What?

And how often would you say that happens?

If you try to claim that a child was a result of a drunken one night stand and hence you aren't liable for child support payments you'd be laughed out of court. The "best interests of the child" principle is almost uniformly applied throughout the western world.

It is completely insane to claim that there is nothing wrong with that.

http://www.businessinsider.com...

http://www.truthrevolt.org/new...

And it's being codified into law in many places, in Ireland for example there's a new amendment to the Chikdren and Family Relationships bill which states in no uncertain terms that anyone the child considers a "father figure" is on the hook for child support.

None of your comments address the actual grisly outcomes for men in the family courts and the resultant suicidal ideation. When a father is reduced to a walking cash machine, torn away from his own children, it's no wonder that the majority of suicides, locally at least, are among men in the 30-50 age group.

I suggest you contact Fathers4Justice (you know, the guys who've been camping out on the roofs of government buildings trying to get attention) and educate yourself on these issues.

Fix the disease, not the symptom.

I'm not sure which country you're living in but it's not one I've ever heard of.

Suicide is a problem which overwhelmingly affects men. If you get married the only usual out is divorce, which means that men in 99% of cases are on the hook for support for the rest of their lives. If you're identified as the father of the child, the situation is the same. There have been cases in the US where men who donated to sperm banks, men who were raped by women when they were underaged, men who weren't even related to the child have been forced to pay child support.

This is the situation locally:

- 99 percent of husbands lose their homes during divorces
- Judges frequently make child maintenance orders against men on state benefits whose marriages have broken down - leaving many living below national insolvency guidelines, below subsistence levels
- In seven out of ten cases the judge ordered a transfer of the property into the wife’s name
- During 160 contested cases when an order was made to sell the home the wife received more than half of the proceeds in 25 percent of the cases, during the other 75 percent the proceeds were split
- Joint custody does not mean shared parenting, with children in more than nine out of 10 cases living with their mothers- the "standard access" for married dads to their children after separation is "a couple of hours" every second week, with a few hours once or twice during the week
- In no cases were the views of any child heard directly by a judge
- A significant number of divorce cases take eight years or more to be concluded
- 100% of maintenance orders, both child and spousal maintenance, are made in favour of the wife

It absolutely is reflected in most western countries.

If we're going to deal with the problem, let's deal with the problem. This article seems like political power grabbing and grandstanding on the backs of the dead, which is beyond reprehensible and shows the vile moral character of those proposing it.

Marx believed firmly in the labor theory of value, and as such all economic power derived from human labour, not from mechanical power. Communism was about combating the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few people who owned the means of production, at the expense of the masses who provided the labour and hence the real value.

His view was misguided in many ways, not least in that it almost completely ignores the value of intellectual work; the guy who figures out the right way to apply labour to raw materials is fantastically more effective than the one who does it the wrong way, and in fact this applies at all levels of the chain, up to and including the allocation of capital.

Marxism and all of its derivations are inherently horrible at effectively allocating resources since they lack the price signals that bundle cost and relative value and communicate them in a way that enables efficient allocation of resources to maximise what people collectively perceive as good, which is why communist economies always fail, and will always fail, even in the presence of automated systems that produce and distribute all of the essentials of life to everyone equally, even if said essentials include what we'd call luxuries. Those essentials will become the baseline expectation, much like oxygen, and economic competition will be around something else.

Marxism which is based upon class divisions, has failed as a predictive model of economic and social revolution. This is demonstrated in pure Marxist terms by the continued existence of bourgeois capitalism. In terms of a scientific method based on Popperian logical positivism, do you think these theories should now be rejected as null hypotheses?

Feel free to move to North Korea friend, you'll find out about slavery under that marxist regime.

Communism, we can all lounge around navel gazing our way through coffee table philosophy books as equals. Oh wait, no, someone has to make the coffee table and write the book, and if they don't feel like doing that, hey, looks like power does flow from the barrel of a gun after all.

Really? Because movie franchises like Aliens and Bladerunner, most sci-fi movies that deal with these issues in fact, revolve around a terror of corporate dystopias. I've yet to see the corporate dystopia that comes within a million miles of actual real life marxist government dystopias of the sort which claimed the lives of over 100 million innocents in the 20th century. China, in particular, should be aware of the horrors inflicted by those who dreamed themselves philosopher princes leading the way for the proles to seize power.

Star Trek is a good example of a favourable view of socialist goverrnments; possibly you meant the Borg when you refer to extreme socialists, which says all it needs to say.

When Chinese people express ideals that run along the same lines as the government ones they do so because they'll be locked up otherwise.

Westerners don't do the same, unless I missed the bit where the "west" had a single government. Why yes, you did just make an equivalency between one country and a vast selection of different countries with different values, ideals, languages, laws and cultures.

Exactly. Much of this stuff looks like communist agitprop. Capitalism will destroy civilisation, woo! Except everywhere (regulated) capitalism breaks out, wealth and prosperity follow.

He reminds me of Machiavelli writing The Prince to flatter Lorenzo de Medici, a proven and trusted means of accumulating wealth but worthy of little respect.