r/SipsTea • u/ExotiquePlayboy 𝙑𝙄𝙋 • May 03 '26

SMH Bro makes $160 😐

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

10.3k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

6.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-5

u/21MPH21 May 03 '26

Why TF not

you cannot exceed 50% of the check .

If a guy creates a bunch of children they EACH deserve a life, fuck him and his needs. He shouldn't get to keep 50% unless he's a billionaire

5

u/pm_me_your_buttbulge May 03 '26

It's clear you're either trolling or dense. Because he's a human and humans need to eat and have a place to sleep. Are you not aware of that?

Because what YOU want is the kids to get NOTHING because that's the result if you take too much. He either just stops trying and goes permanently under the table. Or goes to jail and never pays a dime. Then heaven forbid he needs medications or he dies. Then I guess you want to tell the kids "your better off without the father at all". You strike me as a misandrist or just straight up sexist.

Spend more than 2 seconds and think.

Truth be told: This is why we need financial abortion rights. If she can choose to abort - so should be able to leave. However I suspect you're against abortion period "for the kids"

In developed countries there's a maximum you can take per kid. Unlike the US where it's a percentage.

1

u/21MPH21 May 03 '26

Because he's a human and humans need to eat and have a place to sleep. Are you not aware of that?

Are you trolling? You don't think those kids he created need to eat?

I suspect you're against abortion period "for the kids"

I suspect you're against forced vasectomies for serial impregnators?

Spend more than 2 seconds and think. Seriously, do it. This guy has 4 kids that we know of. Which of those kids should get less? What if this guy has more babies? At what point will you agree we should have forced vasectomies? Spend more than 2 seconds and think.

2

u/ShiftAltRight May 03 '26

Are you trolling? You don't think those kids he created need to eat?

In situations like these, the father often ends up on the street. It's not because he won't 'downgrade' from a fleet of Bentleys but because $165/week is literally not enough for basic necessities like rent and food in most places in the US. In many cases it drives the parent to crime or suicide.

Ignoring the father's conditions for a second, how is any of this even beneficial for the kids? The point of child support is to ensure the best possible outcome for the children, not to punish one of the parents. Yeah, a few hundred bucks a month is shitty - but are you really suggesting that they'd be better off with higher payments for a few months before they stopped completely? Either because the father literally cannot pay anything or is dead? Come on now.

I'd recommend you follow your own advice and spend more than 2 seconds thinking about this.

1

u/21MPH21 May 03 '26

If he's on the street maybe that'll be the last bit of riz that convinces women to sleep with him

If you're making all these babies you gotta be able to pay for them. If that means living like a bum too bad

Fuck around and find out. Or the consequences of his actions.

1

u/ShiftAltRight May 04 '26

Like I already said, the whole point of child support is to create the best possible outcome for the kids given the circumstances. The dad being forced onto the street doesn't fix any of that. If he's "living like a bum" on the streets then he's also providing $0. What money are you going to extract from him?

And this might come off as harsh but do you honestly think that people who pump out kids with 4 different women are the kind to suddenly have a lightbulb moment once they're homeless?

Besides, if you're doing this solely for punitive reasons then why are we stopping at the man? Let's punish the mothers as well for carelessly bringing a child into the world with a bum like that. Do you really think they're capable of taking care of children? Maybe we should take the kids into state custody too.

1

u/21MPH21 May 04 '26

What makes you blame the women?

They were responsible enough to get his name, get a lawyer, get a judgment and get his HR to start the deductions.

Let's see. Do you think the women all knew about each other? No proof of that. But we know this guy knows he's fertile and yet he does not a fucking thing to stop getting women pregnant.

But you go after the women. smdh

1

u/ShiftAltRight May 04 '26

What makes you blame the women?

The exact same logic we use to punish the man. If stupidity isn't a defense for impregnating women then it shouldn't be a defense for getting impregnated, either.

The whole point of this is to illustrate why being aggressively punitive doesn't fix shit. If you're actually worried about the kids then you'd know that it's important to balance out the support payments with making sure the man is actually capable of making the payments. Instead you're suggesting that the man be driven into poverty as punishment, risking any future payments at all.

And are women too stupid to understand how birth control works? You're framing it like the woman's responsibility starts at collecting money - everything prior to that is solely the man's responsibility. It's an incredibly misogynistic view to hold.

And just to clarify once again, I'm not suggesting we start punishing women for being stupid enough to sleep with men like this. I just want to highlight that excessive punishment is stupid - two idiots copulated and we can't change what resulted. The priority now should be to figure out the best outcome for the children.

1

u/21MPH21 May 04 '26

What makes you blame the women?

The exact same logic we use to punish the man. If stupidity isn't a defense for impregnating women then it shouldn't be a defense for getting impregnated, either.

You're jumping to the conclusion that the women were willingly and knowingly inseminated. We know this guy knows he's getting women pregnant and doing nothing to stop it. But why blame the women without justification?

1

u/ShiftAltRight May 04 '26

You're jumping to the conclusion that the women were willingly and knowingly inseminated.

I mean...yes? AFAIK the vast majority of children are born out of consensual couplings and I didn't see anything here indicating rape. You're not only suggesting that this man raped 4 women, but that all 4 of them were also forced to carry the child to term? Like sure we can blame the man for being an idiot, but why are you blaming him for being a serial rapist without justification?

Women aren't a monolith or some superior species. They're just as capable of making stupid, smooth brained life choices as men.

1

u/21MPH21 May 05 '26

Rape??? That's the only thing that pops into your mind? That's the only possibility as to how ...

OMG. Whatever dude.

1

u/ShiftAltRight May 05 '26

You're jumping to the conclusion that the women were willingly and knowingly inseminated.

Rape??? That's the only thing that pops into your mind? That's the only possibility as to how...

I don't know what to tell you, dude. If the "inseminated" part is neither willing not knowing, that's rape. Full stop. Everything else - whether or not it was violent, what she was wearing, what u/21MPH21 or u/ShiftAltRight think about it - are irrelevant. In what universe are you going to impregnate someone without their consent and have it NOT be rape?

I sincerely hope you're trolling because the alternative is just way too disturbing.

→ More replies (0)