Rape victim ordered to pay her abuser child support

[Jimmy Higgins]

But unlike Abelseth, the court and Barnes didn't go on social media to weaponize the daughter in an ugly domestic drama.
Tom

They didn't have to - Both the court and Abelseth got what they wanted.

Who is "they"?

The court and Abelseth. Duh. Please try to read with a modicum of comprehension in future.

Abelseth got her way?

Sorry, I don't pay much attention to family drama in other places.

I thought that the reason for this thread is that Abelseth didn't get her way in family court, so took it to the court of the internet.

You mean the newspaper... because she was ordered to pay her rapist money. That is newsworthy... as well as vile.

It seems impossible for a single person to be mistaken all the time.

 

[TomC]

You are the one who consistently reports the "facts" without including the fact that Abelseth committed statutory rape. Not me.

I'm not reporting facts.
There are very few facts available, which is what I keep mentioning. Most of them come from a parent in a heated battle with the other parent, who seems to have little regard for the welfare of the dependent daughter.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are the one who consistently reports the "facts" without including the fact that Abelseth committed statutory rape. Not me.

I'm not reporting facts.

Good night everybody!

 

[TomC]

You mean the newspaper...

No, actually, I don't.
I'm talking about the IIDB posters making claims.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Thanks @Jokodo
For bringing this all up again.

 

[laughing dog]

You are the one who consistently reports the "facts" without including the fact that Abelseth committed statutory rape. Not me.

I'm not reporting facts.

Your exact words in this thread are

Yes.
She was in a bar, drink in hand, minimum age requirement 21, and she got laid.

Those are the facts.

Now, why should anyone pay attention to your posts when you clearly do not?

 

[TomC]

You are the one who consistently reports the "facts" without including the fact that Abelseth committed statutory rape. Not me.

I'm not reporting facts.

Your exact words in this thread are

Yes.
She was in a bar, drink in hand, minimum age requirement 21, and she got laid.

Those are the facts.

Now, why should anyone pay attention to your posts when you clearly do not?

Which part of that are you objecting to?

You're rather vague, unless you're attacking me for things I didn't post because I don't believe them.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Which part of that are you objecting to?

Channeling Giuliani; facts aren’t facts?
I don’t understand the accusation or the denial. But can’t help noticing how very often this sort of thing “happens to“ you.

 

[Emily Lake]

Really the heart of the discussion is "corrupt judge gives corrupt asshole custody of his rape baby from a grown woman as that girl becomes the same age as her mother was when she was raped.

There's no excuse giving a sick fuck who fucks kids access to a kid the age of the kids he fucked

 

[TomC]

Which part of that are you objecting to?

Channeling Giuliani; facts aren’t facts?
I don’t understand the accusation or the denial. But can’t help noticing how very often this sort of thing “happens to“ you.

I'm pretty sure the reasons that this sort of thing happens to me is that I express nuanced opinions that don't fit the ideological bubble that dominates IIDB.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm pretty sure the reasons to this sort of thing happens to me is that I express nuanced opinions that don't fit the ideological bubble that dominates IIDB.
Tom

As someone who makes posts that often don't fit the ideological bubble at IIDB (formerly know as Talk Freethought (formerly know as Freethought and Rationality Discussion Board (formerly know as IIDB))))... sometimes you express your opinions in ways that are misleading or easy to misinterpret then.

Because I pretty much infer from this thread that you 1) don't care that Abelseth was a minor because 2) you think the 30+ yo man was fine having sex with her and 3) you insist it was consensual even though Abelseth has called it rape-rape not just statutory rape and 4) you seem fine with the rapist (either staturory or rapey-rape) getting custody of the result of that rape (either staturory or rapey-rape), even though that daughter-via-rape also claims that Barnes raped her... and 5) Abelseth has to pay child support to her rapist who has now been credibly accused of raping his own daughter.

Not exactly sure what nuance you think isn't being gleaned from your posts, because it pretty much comes across as "he said he thought she was 21 so it's all good".

 

[laughing dog]

You are the one who consistently reports the "facts" without including the fact that Abelseth committed statutory rape. Not me.

I'm not reporting facts.

Your exact words in this thread are

Yes.
She was in a bar, drink in hand, minimum age requirement 21, and she got laid.

Those are the facts.

Now, why should anyone pay attention to your posts when you clearly do not?

Which part of that are you objecting to?

You're rather vague, unless you're attacking me for things I didn't post because I don't believe them.
Tom

You claimed you were not reporting facts. I presented a quote from you which included the sentence "Those are facts".
The "facts" you presented omitted the statutory rape (which is a fact). Due to the persistent omission of that salient fact, those presentation of the 'facts" are slanted towards excusing Mr. Barnes behavior.

Perhaps you did not intend to engage in persistent rape apologia. but combination of vehement persistence and blatant falsehoods suggest otherwise.

Of course, I and all the others who have similar conclusions are wrong.
Perhaps you are simply confused about what you actually write, because it appears you really either do not pay attention to your words or do not understand your words.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Which part of that are you objecting to?

Channeling Giuliani; facts aren’t facts?
I don’t understand the accusation or the denial. But can’t help noticing how very often this sort of thing “happens to“ you.

I'm pretty sure the reasons that this sort of thing happens to me is that I express nuanced opinions that don't fit the ideological bubble that dominates IIDB.
Tom

No, it's because you make a particular effort to use words in your points that you know will trigger objections. Then, you say "what, who me? YOU are the biased one."

For example, in this case you are talking about a drunk minor who claims she did not have consensual sex with a 30 yo man, calling it "she got laid" with full knowledge the connotation is of fun and consent, even if the literal meaning is of merely sex. You can then cling to the denotation and call it a fact and increase the count of objections to the offensive word choice, eventually making the thread about you...which you wanted anyway.

 

[TomC]

that you 1) don't care that Abelseth was a minor

I never said that because I don't believe it.

2) you think the 30+ yo man was fine having sex with her

I never said that because I don't believe that.

3) you insist it was consensual even though Abelseth has called it rape-rape not just statutory rape

I never said that because I don't know, nor ever claimed to know.

4) you seem fine with the rapist (either staturory or rapey-rape) getting custody of the result of that rape (either staturory or rapey-rape), even though that daughter-via-rape also claims that Barnes raped her...

I never said that. I don't believe that. I keep saying "I don't know what the situation is concerning the Daughter.

5) Abelseth has to pay child support to her rapist who has now been credibly accused of raping his own daughter.

The non-costodial parent is being required to pay child support.
I don't see that as a problem.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

I'm pretty sure the reasons that this sort of thing happens to me is that I express nuanced opinions that don't fit the ideological bubble that dominates IIDB.

I’m pretty sure you are not the only one whose opinions lie outside of this bubble of which you speak (if indeed it exists and is not just yet another example of the flame-baiting-by-insinuation that Emily points out).
Yet, I don’t see such whining from others whose opinions are in the minority around here.
So I reject your excuse, categorically.
Of course it matters not in the least what I reject (just to forestall your having to point that out).

 

[bilby]

I'm pretty sure the reasons that this sort of thing happens to me is that I express nuanced opinions that don't fit the ideological bubble that dominates IIDB.

I’m pretty sure you are not the only one whose opinions lie outside of this bubble of which you speak (if indeed it exists and is not just yet another example of the flame-baiting-by-insinuation that Emily points out).
Yet, I don’t see such whining from others whose opinions are in the minority around here.
So I reject your excuse, categorically.
Of course it matters not in the least what I reject (just to forestall your having to point that out).

I reject his pathetic excuse on the solid and obvious basis that neither "I'm not reporting facts" nor "those are the facts" constitutes a nuanced opinion. They are direct (and contradictory) claims.

Unequivocal statements that contradict each other don't fail to "fit the ideological bubble", unless you consider "making any kind of logical sense" to be an ideology that you roundly reject.

 

[Elixir]

neither "I'm not reporting facts" nor "those are the facts" constitutes a nuanced opinion.

I missed that elephant in the room. It was probably hiding behind the gorilla.

 

[TomC]

neither "I'm not reporting facts" nor "those are the facts" constitutes a nuanced opinion.

I missed that elephant in the room. It was probably hiding behind the gorilla.

Probably because @bilby is quote mining in a very dishonest way.

Oh well.
I've come to expect it here.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

The non-costodial parent is being required to pay child support.
I don't see that as a problem.

That’s NOT the problem. If you want to address The Problem you need to read others’ posts more carefully.
Unless you are contending that it is ALWAYS ok to make a non-custodial parent pay child support regardless of extenuating circumstances. But you didn’t say that, right? So my point stands; - that your ”non-custodial parent” rubric Is a cop out piece of distracting bullshit. Otherwise why did you bring it up?

 

[TomC]

That’s NOT the problem.

According to @Jimmy Higgins and many other posters here that is the problem.

It's hard to tell, as quickly as posters contradict themselves.

Did the family court assign custodianship to the most competent parent?
I don't know.
Tom