# Hey hauss, suck it up, chickenshit **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 14, 2004, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802 "2004-12-14T16:35:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/561 "2004-12-17T06:42:34Z")
Hey, it’s my OP and this is only my 8th post here. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/562 "2004-12-17T09:50:49Z")
> [@treis](#): > > _clears throat_ THERE IS NO PRIVATE INFORMATION GIVEN OUT TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE MOTHER. > > Do we all see this? Jeeez you’re dense. So then are you going to draft **treis’s** law #2, in which men are by pain of getting their asses thrown in jail, FORCED to not reveal who the mother is, or what happened during his and her tryst which resulted in her getting preggers? Again I say, what’re you **12**??? You have all the logic and common sense of Gracie Burns on a bender. How, pray tell, in the event that the women is tortured and browbeat into giving up the father’s name, are the authorities to prevent him from finding out who she is, and WHERE she is? Hello? Your whole premise is that the father is to get to know this infomration so that he can get to know his child and, as you say above “make an agreement with the mother as to what relationship they’ll have” (paraphrased). Is this going to take place in the supersecret cloak of invisibility? Since the idea is that the father gets to know the kid, how’s that going to happen without him knowing anything about the mother, hence having the opportunity to share her private information? Not to mention, how’re you going to keep all these agency people from **treis’s** super dad avoiding mom catching agency from talking? (you know, the ones assigned to “break” the mom and make her talk). Are they going to have security clearances? Sign confidentiality agreements? How exactly do you propose to make sure her information stays private? ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/563 "2004-12-17T11:32:27Z")
Originally Posted by CanvasShoes What are you, 12? > [@](#): > > treis: 19 Well, THAT explains almost everthing, thank goodness, or it would be quite evident that you’re just bonkers. Quote: Originally Posted by CanvasShoes And as many people have mentioned so far, Who would PAY for such a program of father information retrieval? You? for ONE woman it is 20 dollars to place an ad. But you are talking about any woman who won’t divulge the information. That means: - Workers to place ads, interview mothers, take information and enter it into a database - Computers, offices, supplies, overhead in which these workers and files will exist - Additional law officers for tracking, questioning and arresting “reluctant moms” (term to save time and typing ONLY) And that’s just scratching the surface of what such a law and effort would mean moneywise, and workwise to put into effect. > [@](#): > > treis: Like I said if it proves to be too expensive for the benefit scrap the program. I don’t have the means to do an indepth financial analysis of the program. If you do have specific numbers by all means share them. It has ALREADY “proven” to be too expensive. It’s called “common sense” and life experience. And simply observing the realities of how life operates all around you. But, if you absolutlely MUST have some “number” all you have to do is look at any budget for a start up business to see what kinds of costs we’d be talking about. Or, look back at the gov’t cites so thoughtfully provided ages ago Quote: Originally Posted by CanvasShoes Now, that’s not even to take into account how ridiculous your “it would be obvious she’s lying”. Ummmm…SO? Sorry, did I miss the part about attaching electrodes to her nipples and torturing it out of her? > [@](#): > > treis: Do I have to spell this out again? If we think she is lying we inform her of the penalities of perjury. If we find out later that she lied we toss her ass in jail for perjury. Very unrealistic, and again, what happens to the children? Remember? The reason we were having this pitting in the first place? Or does anything which gives everything he wants to this hypothetical rare father who, while making no effort to track the results of his dalliances, nevertheless suddenly wants to have and be a father to his baby, REGARDLESS of how it damages the baby? Quote: Originally Posted by CanvasShoes Or were you thinking that once she lies, then she’ll be arrested on suspicion of lying about not knowing, and then a court case would ensue? PUH lease! You think our court systems are just sitting there with pencils all freshly sharpened twittling their thumbs with want of something to do? > [@](#): > > treis: Unless we have evidence we don’t arrest her I have been over this. You didn’t pay attention to, or answer the question. Your hypothesis is unrealistic, the courts are not, and CANNOT with our current gov’t funding, be set up to take care of this in any sort of way that protects the mother and quickly solves this for the hypothetical father. Quote: Originally Posted by CanvasShoes And lets say that there was this new segment of the gov’t in place, so what happens when she is, by a court order determined to be lying and has to go to jail. Okay, so, you’ve now got lying "reluctant moms in jail by the hundreds of thousands (and based on you and catsix’s posts, you seem to think this is some vast evil conspiracy by ALL women, and have taken the baby away as punishment. > [@](#): > > treis: Oh please I don’t think hundreds of thousands of moms will go to jail. Whos being disingenous now? Well, if it’s just the few rare exceptions that we’ve been TELLInG you it is, why would we need to go to all the trouble of making this law? YOU are the one who has been acting as if this problem of women hiding their children from men is SOOO widespread and epidemic. My “hundreds of thousands of women” was merely picking up on your assertions that this is SUCH a widespread, constant and worrying problem that we need such a law. The REALITY is, that your scenario of women secretly getting pregnant and hiding the baby from their men, is the exception rather than the rule, and a rare one at that. It’s much more common that women want the man to at least have some responsibility, if not be in both hers and the child’s life. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/564 "2004-12-17T12:31:33Z")
Quote: Originally Posted by CanvasShoes Do you have any idea how idiotic this kind of reasoning is? Sigh…do you REALLY think that a piece of paper will prevent a batterer from gaining access to his target and harming or killing her, or them? There have been countless cases of men hunting down and finding their ex-spouses who dared to leave them and either killing them, or attempting to kill them even years after the woman left or divorced them and moved hundreds of miles away. > [@](#): > > The father gains no information about the location of mother or child. Even if finding out he has a child sends the father into a flying rage he doesn’t know who the mother is. I say this in later posts, but how is the father to be kept from knowing who the mother is, once “your” secret child hiding prevention agencies TELL him who his child is? Is there going to be some vacuum in which he and the child are introduced and form a relationship? And once again, since you’ve ignored or dodged this question, WHO is going to pay for the programs to make SURE she’s kept safe from him? Quote: Originally Posted by CanvasShoes Not to mention how long it takes things to go through the courts, so, a woman who has been threatened petitions the court. Do you think that she gets in to see a judge that day, that hour? That she gets police protection until the case is decided? What planet are you from anyway? Because you are NOT living on real world planet earth, that’s for sure. > [@](#): > > What are you talking about? The father doesn’t know shit about the kid until after the trial. I’m talking about your constance assurances of 'well, all she has to do is “prove” it to the judge, and/or get a restraining order. Again, those things do NOT happen in a vacuum. The person against whom they’re taken out DOES have a right to face his accuser. Namely HER, so he WILL upon her saying “this man is an abuser, that is why I refuse to name him”, KNOW who she is, since the judge and jury will be informing him of his restraining order, or allowing him to face his accusor in court, or do you plan on chaning All of our justice system’s laws? Quote: Originally Posted by CanvasShoes In a perfect world, the mere filing of a protective order would do the trick. A determined batterer or stalker isn’t stopped by a piece of paper, and that goes for female stalkers or batterers too (there are about 3 times the number of male batterers as there are female batterers according to the US Justice Website. I posted this on a previous catsix fiasco of a thread several months ago, but will look it up again if you’d like). > [@](#): > > I don’t know how many times I gotta say this but the father doesn’t gain any information about the mother and child until he is granted custody. Stated and answered, by nearly everyone in this thread. Quote: Originally Posted by CanvasShoes Ummm, WHAT? holmes said "real world events. You are aware of what that term means right? As in, those events that happen all around you, on the news, written up in books, sensationalized (the name Laci Peterson ring a bell?). [quote[Do we have to go over what statistics are?[/quote] Yes, LET’S, I’m SO glad you asked. From Canada [http://www.justice.gov.yk.ca/prog/cor/vs/abusestats.html](http://www.justice.gov.yk.ca/prog/cor/vs/abusestats.html) US [http://www.minot.com/~dvcc/2001statpg.html](http://www.minot.com/~dvcc/2001statpg.html) [http://www.dccadv.org/statistics.htm](http://www.dccadv.org/statistics.htm) [http://ksmeyer.com/statistics.html](http://ksmeyer.com/statistics.html) [http://www.ilj.org/dv/dv\_state\_statistics.htm](http://www.ilj.org/dv/dv_state_statistics.htm) [http://www.therapistfinder.net/Domestic-Violence/Domestic-Violence-Statistics.html](http://www.therapistfinder.net/Domestic-Violence/Domestic-Violence-Statistics.html) Here is just one excerpt. …However, the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics published a report in May, 2000 which sheds some light on part of domestic violence. Their report is based on their own surveys (National Crime Victimization Survey), and on data from the FBI (homicide data). In their report they define domestic violence as violent crimes by current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends. Violent crimes include lethal (homicide) and nonlethal (rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault) offenses. From their data, we can say that in 1998, women experienced at least 900,000 violent offences at the hands of an intimate, and men were victims of at least 160,000 violent crimes by an intimate partner. Their report did not mention emotional abuse, harassment or stalking. So, more than 1 million violent crimes were committed against persons by their current or former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends. To view the report, go to Intimate Partner Violence 16 Or this excerpt Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001 Reports on trends in intimate partner violence of persons age 12 or older in the United States using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports. Murder and nonfatal violent crimes – such as aggravated assault, simple assault, robbery, and rape/sexual assault – are examined for male and female victims. This Crime Data Brief updates some of the data in Intimate Partner Violence, a more detailed report on this subject published in 2000. OR, this one: > **[Office of Justice Programs | Office of Justice Programs](https://www.ojp.gov/)** > > OJP is the federal government’s leading source of funding and research to strengthen the justice system, support law enforcement, and enhance victim services. Highlights include the following: The number of violent crimes by intimate partners against females declined from 1993 to 2001. Intimate partner violence made up 20% of all nonfatal violent crime experienced by women in 2001. **1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner in 2000.** (hmmm, as I said, about 3 times as many women as men) I’ll not clog up the hamsters wheel with more. Quote: Originally Posted by CanvasShoes It’s exceedingly illogical to propose a law which is designed to stop an action which is the rare exception rather than the rule, as almost everyone else in this thread has pointed out. And that is what you’re proposing. > [@](#): > > You are assuming that it is an rare exception when we don’t know if it is or not. Based on our knowledge of real world events, and how people NORMALLY act, in other words the women who generally WANT to have the fathers of their children involved, but can’t GET them to, we have a darn good idea. Also, most people, especially in THIS country, aren’t likely to let an injustice go uncomplained about and brought to justice, all that rot. We’ve yet to hear of a slew of these cases. An occasional one with extenuating circumstances, yes. But women PURPOSELY hiding kids from perfectly ordinary dads who really want one? Not so much. Quote: Originally Posted by CanvasShoes If you want “real world” statistics, look around you, 90% of the people in just this thread alone are telling you that you’re nuts, that’s a similar percentage (adjusting for the less informed outside the dope ), to what you’d see in a real world vote should your silly law ever make it to be voted upon (though likely it’d cause a few coronaries of older politicians as they laughed themselves to death, before it ever even made it to the floor to be voted down), is a resounding “NO! Not just no, but HELL no!” If you can’t see the logic, just from the reacfions and attempts of the good people here on the board (by the way, some who’ve expressed your nuttiness are ones that I don’t generally agree with, so it’s not like we’re all in cahoots or something), that your ideas wouldn’t hold water in the outside world, well, you’re either VERY young and naive, or nuttier than a fruitcake. I hope it’s the former, so you have a chance. > [@](#): > > The plural of anecdote is not statistic. Like I have said (are we up to countless yet?) before if we get data that shows that this law isn’t worth the expense or does more harm then good then we scrap it. You ASKED for “real world” as in how do we know this wouldn’t get voted in. Statistics aren’t gonna do that for ya in this case, nor are they available. In order to determine what way people would vote, for instance in the case of a proposed law like this, you have to look around at how your fellow citizens feel about it. And THAT my friend is what you’re seeing here, and THAT is your “real world”. Magnify the couple dozen dopers into a large setting and you’ve got how most adult Americans are going to feel about your little law. Since it’s a hypothetical, and something proposed, hasn’t happened yet, there aren’t any statistics. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/565 "2004-12-17T12:35:27Z")
Am I missing something? Why are you quoting yourself? ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/566 "2004-12-17T12:45:02Z")
Quote: Originally Posted by CanvasShoes What would this accomplish? Besides depriving a 3 year old, at the one of the MOST critical stage of a child’s life, of the mother he has known? > [@](#): > > We don’t allow mothers to break the law. Why should this one be any different? You didn’t answer the question. Let’s say we’ve got ms. will not talk no matter what. WHAT will it accomplish to throw her in jail? As others have mentioned many times, you proposed laws are designed with vengeance against an imagined conspiracy by evil women and the end result is harm to children. What does your law ACCOMPLISH? Not why you think it should be put into affect. NOT “they can’t be allowed to get away with it”. What is it’s PURPOSE? Putting murderers behind jail protects the rest of us from their murdering ways. Likewise rapists and thieves. That is the purpose behind their being jailed. What is the purpose behind the moms being jailed for refusal to divulge the father’s name? What does it accomplish? Does it make her talk? Does it get the absentee hypothetical father the information? Where is the logic? Quote: Originally Posted by CanvasShoes What is your reasoning here? Just to punish her because she did something assholish? > [@](#): > > Punishment is meant to force people to comply with the law. Same with this law. And it works SO very well doesn’t it? That’s why the recidivism rates are what they are here (don’t MAKE me post another several cites). Again, I wasn’t asking you to justify your cause, if that’s even possible, I was asking for what your reasoning was, how you think it will “fix” anything. Quote: Originally Posted by CanvasShoes Again, if you are imagining this, you know NOTHING of human development, psychology or human nature. Kids have a hard enough time adjusting at that age to a divorce where they’ve KNOWN both parents all of their lives. Have you any idea what it would do to a toddler to be taken from the only mother he’s known and be given to a stranger? > [@](#): > > If the mother cares about her child she won’t lie. You’re completely ignoring what I ACTUALLY asked. My question was based upon mom already having been tossed in the pokey. Do you THEN think that this is in the best interest of a toddler who has only KNOWN mom? Do you imagine that it’s going to magically all be hunky dory if the father actually manages to find the child? And if mom continues her non-spill stance? What about the CHILD? Remember, she’s already played martyr to prevent the father from finding out, NOW what is your solution? Quote: Originally Posted by CanvasShoes And once again, WHO IS GOING TO PAY for all of these changes and new programs and agencies? > [@](#): > > The tax payers who else? As we suspected. So, contrary to your first posts in this thread, you think it’s perfectly okay for someone other than the mother (who duped the man into this) to have to foot the bill for the child. So basically, these poor put upon absentee fathers whom you’ve been trying Soooo hard to protect, have to bend over and take it up the tail pipe ANYWAY. Only instead of having the pleasure of actually helping to raise and provide for their kids, they’re having even MORE taken from their paycheck by Unca Sam. Wow, you’re a GENIOUS, you’ve just solved all our problems…now, do one about the trillion dollar national debt…Please??? PLEASE? ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/567 "2004-12-17T12:53:18Z")
> [@spooje](#): > > Am I missing something? Why are you quoting yourself? Because I SUCK at coding… It’s supposed to be to show to which statements treis is responding. But every time I try that quote in a quote thing, it never turns out. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![35340](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/8baadc/32.png) [@35340](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/35340)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/568 "2004-12-17T13:55:53Z")
> [@Rilchiam](#): > > I gave him a heads-up in another thread. Don’t know if he’s seen it yet. But he did claim to be 19, so now we know that. Yeah, originally his posts were of one sort and tone, including a short string talking about arthritis at the age of 23, and once mentions his brother, who is 19 who he is helping out with a job doing lawnwork. A time away, and an appearance in a different sounding ‘voice’ and now it seems it’s hauss’ brother (or was all along, asking questions on behalf of his brother back then?). ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/569 "2004-12-17T14:25:57Z")
> [@CanvasShoes](#): > > Because I SUCK at coding… > It’s supposed to be to show to which statements treis is responding. But every time I try that quote in a quote thing, it never turns out. > :smack: Try this: {QUOTE=person 1}What person 1 said{quote=person2}person 2’s response{/quote} {/QUOTE} Replace {and } with [and] to get this: > [@person 1](#): > > What person 1 said > > > [@person2](#): > > > > person 2’s response ---
**Author:** ![Bites\_When\_Provoked](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bites_when_provoked/32/18073_2.png) [@Bites\_When\_Provoked](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bites_When_Provoked)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/570 "2004-12-17T16:02:29Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Can we get back to the topic of calling **Hauss** a tool for trying to skip out on his obligations to his child? Absolutely! That \*\*hauss \*\* guy \*is \* a tool. No argument from me. ---
**Author:** ![stretch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@stretch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stretch)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/571 "2004-12-17T17:35:56Z")
> [@treis](#): > > It already happens in Washington: > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by stretch > > > > Simplified for brevity: In Washington, if someone names you the dad and you don’t show for your paternity test–for purposes of child support–you’re the dad. > > I’ll see if I can dig up a cite or maybe stretch could help. I tried digging through the Washington DCS website for a cite but couldn’t find one. I know that when they inform the guy that he’s been named as a father and has to have a paternity test they notify him of the possiblity of being named dad if he doesn’t show. Mr.stretch isn’t here now for me to ask for more specifics. The main purpose is to get guys to show up for paternity testing rather than blowing it off because he thinks that will relieve him of his finanical responsibility toward a child he helped create. **Treis** , your desire to make sure no guy is prevented from knowing that he’s a dad is laudable. Implementing a law to compel women to name the father of the child is unworkable and unnecessary. Unless something new and compelling comes up, I’m done here. ---
**Author:** ![SteelWolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c6cbf5/32.png) [@SteelWolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteelWolf)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/572 "2004-12-17T23:26:24Z")
After reading this thread, I have the image in my head of Woody yelling at Buzz from the first Toy Story Movie… YOU! ARE! A! TOY!!! Anyone who has seen that movie knows the scene. Only replace Woody with, well, everyone, and replace Buzz with **treis**. Oh, and replace “TOY!” in that sentence with “MORON!” _goes back to warming himself by the flames_ ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/573 "2004-12-18T00:58:31Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Try this: > > {QUOTE=person 1}What person 1 said{quote=person2}person 2’s response{/quote} {/QUOTE} > > Replace {and } with [and] to get this: Okay, **Miller** had given it to me once before, and I’d copied and saved it into a word doc with other coding stuff, then I somehow lost the document, and had tried to keep doing it from memory. So, now I’ve saved it again, and will try to be a good girl and copy and use it properly…Sigh, I’m GOOD at most computer stuff, REALLY I am, I don’t know why this ONE darn task (well that of coding in itself) just eludes me. Most stuff, once I’ve learned it, it stays and I can just recall it at will. For some reason, this stuff just won’t behave in my brain and allow itself to be recalled 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802.md?page=28)