Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

grandparents rights in ontario

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    tayken , have your herad of this group?have you heard of this group? NADADS I tried to send a PM but your box is full LOL . I originated from southern Ontario please send your opinon back in a pm

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Peaboo View Post
      tayken , have your herad of this group?have you heard of this group? NADADS I tried to send a PM but your box is full LOL . I originated from southern Ontario please send your opinon back in a pm
      Peaboo:

      I am a neutralist and see only parents and family members not, sex, sexual orientation, race or religion.

      I am of the opinion that any organization specifically gender biased is of very little value to improving the quality of the lives of our most precious asset in our great nation... Children.

      I do not support nor endorse any organization that is gender identified or demonstrates any bias to any religious, sexual orientation or any identifiable difference that would constitute discrimination.

      Children have parents. They are men, women, gay, straight, lesbians, trans-gendered, disabled, able bodied, and of many races. Until such time these organizations truly understand this very fact... They are only contributing to the conflict and "wars" they try to create on individual family law matters and in parliament as a whole.

      Furthermore, my observation and opinion is that they appear on the service to be a "fathers rights" advocacy group but, I am very concerned with the membership fees, points system, and other possibly for-profit mechanisms on their site. Furthermore, they repost materials from CanadaCourtWatch.com which I do not affiliate with, support or recommend to anyone.

      Good Luck!
      Tayken
      Last edited by Tayken; 11-22-2012, 11:46 AM.

      Comment


      • #48
        thanks for your opinion

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Tayken View Post
          I do not support nor endorse any organization that is gender identified or demonstrates any bias
          That is like the gazelles forming a support group to stop the senseless slaughter by the lions, and you lambasting them because they are not treating all animals the same.

          Sometimes, the gazelles might kill a lion, or each other, but usually the lions are killing the gazelles. Pretending that the world is otherwise is a little silly. The rules are pretty non-discriminatory... you kill whatever you can. That doesn't make them fair.

          I think it is reasonable and appropriate for the gazelles to make a group that focuses on saving the gazelles, and leaving the gazelle-on-gazelle or gazelle-on-lion violence for somebody else to deal with.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Janus View Post
            That is like the gazelles forming a support group to stop the senseless slaughter by the lions, and you lambasting them because they are not treating all animals the same.

            Sometimes, the gazelles might kill a lion, or each other, but usually the lions are killing the gazelles. Pretending that the world is otherwise is a little silly. The rules are pretty non-discriminatory... you kill whatever you can. That doesn't make them fair.

            I think it is reasonable and appropriate for the gazelles to make a group that focuses on saving the gazelles, and leaving the gazelle-on-gazelle or gazelle-on-lion violence for somebody else to deal with.
            Fortunate for us we are rational human beings and not animals of different species preying upon each other.

            When a gazelle is born with opposable thumbs your argument will hold more weight.
            Last edited by Tayken; 11-22-2012, 01:19 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Janus View Post
              That is like the gazelles forming a support group to stop the senseless slaughter by the lions, and you lambasting them because they are not treating all animals the same.
              As you clearly don't like me for some odd reason and are continually trying to dissprove me and defame my character... I do have a question.

              "lambasting " is defined as:

              1. To give a thrashing to; beat. See Synonyms at beat.
              2. To scold sharply; berate.

              How did I do this?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                As you clearly don't like me for some odd reason
                I am sorry if I gave that impression. You present yourself as a wide-ranging authority, I like to challenge presumed authority . I've mentioned it before, I think that you are a very interesting person, and I like reading what you write.

                and are continually trying to dissprove me and defame my character... I do have a question.
                Guilty of the former, not the latter. You've been pretty snarky to me as well. I just push back more than other people, big words don't scare me. You can say "cogent" ten times, it still doesn't mean that you've produced a case law to back up your statement.

                "lambasting " is defined as:

                1. To give a thrashing to; beat. See Synonyms at beat.
                2. To scold sharply; berate.

                How did I do this?
                You said

                I am of the opinion that any organization specifically gender biased is of very little value
                In my books, that's a lambasting.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Janus View Post
                  I am sorry if I gave that impression. You present yourself as a wide-ranging authority, I like to challenge presumed authority . I've mentioned it before, I think that you are a very interesting person, and I like reading what you write.
                  Again, I will state for everyone on this site.

                  I am NOT a wide-ranging authority on anything. Anything I post here is for information purposes and hopefully helps someone somewhere. Anyone can take or leave my advice at the door and I do not offer discounts for the information posted nor do I accept any liability for it either.

                  Originally posted by Janus View Post
                  Guilty of the former, not the latter. You've been pretty snarky to me as well.
                  Again, how?

                  Originally posted by Janus View Post
                  I just push back more than other people, big words don't scare me. You can say "cogent" ten times, it still doesn't mean that you've produced a case law to back up your statement.
                  Again, what purpose do I have to prove a point to you? Or anyone on this board for that matter? You can simply put me on ignore and move along. Furthermore, I am not your researcher... Especially for general case law that any competent person with a search engine can find themselves...

                  Originally posted by Janus View Post
                  You said
                  I am of the opinion that any organization specifically gender biased is of very little value

                  In my books, that's a lambasting.
                  Well, I guess I won't be reading your your books. Lambasting would be attacking the organization, without supporting an opinion without evidence to reason. Critical thinking is not... "lambasting".

                  Good Luck!
                  Tayken
                  Last edited by Tayken; 11-22-2012, 04:30 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                    Again, what purpose do I have to prove a point to you? Or anyone on this board for that matter? You can simply put me on ignore and move along. Furthermore, I am not your researcher... Especially for general case law that any competent person with a search engine can find themselves..
                    Note the "competent", not an outright attack, but as I said, snarky.

                    I might be confusing threads, but you are the one who meta'ed this. You had claimed that a financial advisor could provide evidence to a court that could be used to reduce CS obligations. I asked if this had ever happened. You declined to provide any case law to back up your assertion.

                    You are welcome to put me on ignore as well if I bother you so much. I'm not sure how asking you for case law to back up a statement you made is so harsh that you have to repeatedly refer me to google as if I were a child. Furthermore, it is wrong, since I cannot find a case that does not exist.


                    Lambasting would be attacking the organization, without supporting an opinion without evidence to reason.
                    Exactly, you have dismissed some organizations immediately, without evidence, based soley upon their identification with a gender. I tend to do the same type of dismissal with the "men's rights" groups, but that just means that I'm guilty of the same thing as you are.

                    Also, I'm not sure why you are so hung up on a word I used while relating an allegory about gazelles. I was being moderately playful... is that really so wrong?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Janus View Post
                      Note the "competent", not an outright attack, but as I said, snarky.

                      I might be confusing threads, but you are the one who meta'ed this. You had claimed that a financial advisor could provide evidence to a court that could be used to reduce CS obligations. I asked if this had ever happened. You declined to provide any case law to back up your assertion.
                      Search "Now that is a lot of craft dinner" on this site... To see how CS rules are applied and some case law...

                      Originally posted by Janus View Post
                      You are welcome to put me on ignore as well if I bother you so much. I'm not sure how asking you for case law to back up a statement you made is so harsh that you have to repeatedly refer me to google as if I were a child. Furthermore, it is wrong, since I cannot find a case that does not exist.
                      There is case law... And you are not bothering to look for it. It the guideline Rule that would be applied on undue hardship is s.10 to help *you* look for it.

                      Originally posted by Janus View Post
                      Exactly, you have dismissed some organizations immediately, without evidence, based soley upon their identification with a gender.
                      Actually, that is completely incorrect and the message for which I provided an opinion on clearly is immutable and still here if you want to look at it...

                      http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...tml#post116618

                      Originally posted by Tayken
                      Peaboo:

                      I am a neutralist and see only parents and family members not, sex, sexual orientation, race or religion.

                      I am of the opinion that any organization specifically gender biased is of very little value to improving the quality of the lives of our most precious asset in our great nation... Children.

                      I do not support nor endorse any organization that is gender identified or demonstrates any bias to any religious, sexual orientation or any identifiable difference that would constitute discrimination.

                      Children have parents. They are men, women, gay, straight, lesbians, trans-gendered, disabled, able bodied, and of many races. Until such time these organizations truly understand this very fact... They are only contributing to the conflict and "wars" they try to create on individual family law matters and in parliament as a whole.

                      Furthermore, my observation and opinion is that they appear on the service to be a "fathers rights" advocacy group but, I am very concerned with the membership fees, points system, and other possibly for-profit mechanisms on their site. Furthermore, they repost materials from CanadaCourtWatch.com which I do not affiliate with, support or recommend to anyone.

                      Good Luck!
                      Tayken
                      I provided my opinion based on their requests for money and some weird points based system and their affiliation with an organization that has the most infamous case law attached to it... (well one of them). Feel free to type "canada court watch" in CanLII.

                      As you have difficulty finding things in CanLII here you go:

                      C.S. v. M.S., 2007 CanLII 6240 (ON SC)
                      Date: 2007-02-27
                      Docket: 297-03
                      Parallel citations: 37 RFL (6th) 373
                      URL: http://canlii.ca/t/1qr43
                      Citation: C.S. v. M.S., 2007 CanLII 6240 (ON SC)

                      And this one... Which was used in the case law often cited on this site about "wings"...

                      S.(C.) v. S.(M.), 2007 CanLII 20279 (ON SC)
                      Date: 2007-05-31
                      Docket: 297-03
                      Parallel citations: 38 RFL (6th) 315
                      URL: http://canlii.ca/t/1rpb3
                      Citation: S.(C.) v. S.(M.), 2007 CanLII 20279 (ON SC)

                      Originally posted by Janus View Post
                      I tend to do the same type of dismissal with the "men's rights" groups, but that just means that I'm guilty of the same thing as you are.
                      I dissmissed them because their "membership model" represents on the surface a for-profit system. Also, they sell books for-profit it appears.

                      Not much of a "rights group"...

                      Originally posted by Janus View Post
                      Also, I'm not sure why you are so hung up on a word I used while relating an allegory about gazelles. I was being moderately playful... is that really so wrong?
                      Not hung up on anything... Thank-you for jumping to a conclusion... Again... So if you oppose my opinion, please feel free to provide a counter argument to the debate on why I am dismissing this organization without actually *thinking critically* about why I would not recommend them to anyone... I would be more than happy to respond.

                      Good Luck!
                      Tayken
                      Last edited by Tayken; 11-22-2012, 08:39 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                        As you have difficulty finding things in CanLII here you go:
                        Snarky... again

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Janus View Post
                          Snarky... again
                          I would say more wit than snark... Especially in consideration to the entire message which I responded to but, it is a common pattern of behaviour for a possibly highly conflicted individual to not be able to respond to particulars and focus on a single element of communications and not the entire body of the message. Especially when they have nothing else to respond to possibly because they have nothing constructive to add to the discussion other than criticism of the person asked to provide the opinion...
                          Last edited by Tayken; 11-22-2012, 09:17 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                            It is a common pattern of behaviour for a possibly highly conflicted individual to not be able to respond to particulars and focus on a single element of communications and not the entire body of the message. Especially when they have nothing else to respond to possibly because they have nothing constructive to add to the discussion.
                            Ouch, and a personal attack.

                            I have never personally attacked you Tayken, and I am disappointed that you would stoop to such a level.

                            Another possibility: I'm working on the computer, and procrastinating by going to this site, so I may not have time for a point by point rebuttal. But you never make assumptions, right?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Janus View Post
                              Ouch, and a personal attack.
                              Or the truth?

                              Originally posted by Janus View Post
                              I have never personally attacked you Tayken, and I am disappointed that you would stoop to such a level.
                              And what "level" am I stooping to? One that is demonstrating the flaws in your argument.

                              Originally posted by Janus View Post
                              Another possibility: I'm working on the computer, and procrastinating by going to this site, so I may not have time for a point by point rebuttal. But you never make assumptions, right?
                              Sorry, not sitting beside you and my telepathy is not as great these days on what random people on the internet are actually doing.

                              Procrastination results from cognitive distortions i.e. faulty thinking (Ellis and Knaus). This is often treated by cognitive therapy. Procrastination is unrelated to ability or intelligence (Rosati 1975). Procrastinators however, may have problems perceiving and estimating time (Aitken 1982). On Psychometric validation scales, procrastination was found to be related to 1) fear of failure and neuroticism and/or 2) a lack of conscientiousness or impulsiveness.

                              1) Procrastinators in the first category, often have perfectionist expectations and are overconscientious. They may display an irrational fear of success or failure which leads to neurotic avoidance. They may also be emotionally overwhelmed and anxious. They lack self efficacy, self esteem( Effert and Ferrari 1989) and are publically self-conscious and highly self critical. They have less need for cognitive complexity (Effert & Ferrari 1989). High procrastinators are more likely to attribute success to external and unstable factors (Rothblum & Solomon 1986). Often, they avoid diagnostic information (Ferrari 1991)and engage in exaggerated self handicapping(Ferrari 1991), because they are so sensitive to rejection(Burka and Yuen 1983).

                              2) On the other hand, impulsive procrastinators may fail to pick up cues from the environment (Ferrari and Emmons 1994). They may be unable to delay gratification of pleasure, have exaggerated sensation seeking patterns and a lack of self control. They may be antiauthoritarian and therefore avoid meeting external demands (Aronson and Gilbert 1963). Procrastinators may lack motivation for the achievement of their goals (Briordy 1980), energy or organizational abilities(Psych Reports 1991). These patterns of neuroticism and impulsivness are not mutually exclusive and a procrastinator can have symptoms of both behaviors.
                              http://http-server.carleton.ca/~tpychyl/causes.htm

                              Just saying... Procrastination is usually an excuse for avoidance...

                              Good Luck!
                              Tayken

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Janus, have your heard of this group? NADADS? What is your opinion of them?

                                Comment

                                Our Divorce Forums
                                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                                Working...
                                X