Cuckolds

Beta Ray Bill · 14-10-2019 4:26pm #1

THIS IS FAKE NEWS
The actual report is here:
welfare.ie/en/downloads/GROAnnualReport-2018.pdf

I've been completely "Had" by this article.... :mad:

I read this today:

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/civil-registration-service-report-shows-75-people-changed-their-gender-on-birth-cert-last-year-957044.html

And the bit that caught my eye was this:

...
There has been a gradual fall in the number of birth registrations recorded in recent years to 61,901 last year
...
...
Also relating to birth certificates, there were 3,842 corrections made to the register of live births last year, mostly due to removal of father's details as it was proven the name registered was not that of the actual biological father
...

Am I reading that incorrectly, or is that saying for the 61,901 births there was in 2018, there was 3,842 corrections required on the birth certs of those children that were born in 2018, as the father on the birth cert wasn't the actual father.

IE 6% or 1 in every 16 men discovered that they were not the biological father of a child born in 2018!?

That's an absolutely shocking statistic if it is.
And if this is what's been discovered, how many more have slipped under the radar?

I know a man this has happened to, and he's been willing to forgive his girlfriend and take the kid on as his own.
He's a better person than me, as I don't think I could do it.

BrokenArrows · 14-10-2019 4:33pm

Ya that seems like a crazy high statistic.

blinding · 14-10-2019 4:35pm

All men should have DNA checks on their supposed children .

Why make such a commitment unless you are 100% sure that these children are certainly yours .

Its not like you can trust women on such matters .

ArchXStanton · 14-10-2019 4:36pm

Needs to be brought in..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6shktwDwzM

B.A._Baracus · 14-10-2019 4:37pm

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

I know a man this has happened to, and he's been willing to forgive his girlfriend and take the kid on as his own.
He's a better person than me, as I don't think I could do it.

While on one hand you could say he is good person... on the other he is a feckin' ejit and I don't say that to be mean. I say that because it never sits right when you see someone nice get taken advantage of.

Life's too short.

Beta Ray Bill · 14-10-2019 4:37pm

blinding wrote: »

Its not like you can trust women on such matters .

But relationships are based primarily on trust?

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

While on one hand you could say he is good person... on the other he is a feckin' ejit and I don't say that to be mean. I say that because it never sits right when you see someone nice get taken advantage of.

Life's too short.

True.
However he was thinking of the life the kid would have.

It was a mistake (drunk one nighter, not an affair), and she told him a couple of months into the pregnancy and gave him option to walk.

katiek102010 · 14-10-2019 4:38pm

That is also my interperation and that is horrific

jam_mac_jam · 14-10-2019 4:38pm

I don't know why you are using a word from Shakespeare. I can't understand why this has become popular again. its weird.

Also, its all corrections to birth certs listed in the article not just where the incorrect father was registered. So the percentage is high because you re not reading it correctly. It does not give the number just says mostly.

Does seem like a lot of corrections though.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 14-10-2019 4:39pm

Maybe more men are demanding proof of paternity in the case of casual encounters?

Of course, some of the corrections will be down to infidelity too.

The number of corrections is high indeed.

Mango Joe · 14-10-2019 4:39pm

Oh ****..... so there's a very strong statistical chance that one of my 16 kids isn't mine?

Well it could be Noreen, or maybe Patrick or Sean.....Or it might be Michelle or Zhang Wei.....Hmmmm

cruizer101 · 14-10-2019 4:40pm

I don't think the 3,842 is directly related to the 61,901 births.
Rather just the number of corrections in 2018, some of those could be corrections of people born years ago.
That said, you would think it is around that amount every year (no obvious reason for 2018 to be outlier) which does seem very high if it really is mostly due to wrong father.

arctictree · 14-10-2019 4:40pm

Could it just be the mother removing the Fathers name in the event of a breakup?

blinding · 14-10-2019 4:40pm

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

But relationships are based primarily on trust?

True.
However he was thinking of the life the kid would have.

It was a mistake (drunk one nighter, not an affair), and she told him a couple of months into the pregnancy and gave him option to walk.

Trusting humans , female or male with regard to sex is very naive .

14-10-2019 4:40pm

It doesn’t day that the 3,842 are from the one year. Just that that number of corrections were made in that year b

Mango Joe · 14-10-2019 4:41pm

katiek102010 wrote: »

That is also my interperation and that is horrific

Yet you haven't apologised or shown any shred of remorse.....

mikhail · 14-10-2019 4:43pm

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Ya that seems like a crazy high statistic.

I think the estimates of misattributed paternity are something like 1-3% in most societies. Some older studies have suggested higher rates again.

banie01 · 14-10-2019 4:44pm

A correction on a Birth cert is far more likely to be addition of a father's name rather than its amendment to a different one.

But that wouldn't gel as well with the incel agenda now would it

blinding · 14-10-2019 4:45pm

I don’y know how some women work out who the Father is ?

brevity · 14-10-2019 4:46pm

Why did I click on this?

mikhail · 14-10-2019 4:47pm

banie01 wrote: »

A correction on a Birth cert is far more likely to be addition of a father's name rather than its amendment to a different one.

But that wouldn't gel as well with the incel agenda now would it

From the article:

Also relating to birth certificates, there were 3,842 corrections made to the register of live births last year, mostly due to removal of father's details as it was proven the name registered was not that of the actual biological father

If you want to argue there's a factual error in the article, fine, but otherwise it's kind of ****ty behaviour throwing labels like incel into the discussion.

Beta Ray Bill · 14-10-2019 4:48pm

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I don't know why you are using a word from Shakespeare. I can't understand why this has become popular again. its weird.

What word?

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Also, its all corrections to birth certs listed in the article not just where the incorrect father was registered. So the percentage is high because you re not reading it correctly. It does not give the number just says mostly.

Does seem like a lot of corrections though.

See I though I was reading it incorrectly too

It says:
Also relating to birth certificates, there were 3,842 corrections made to the register of live births last year, mostly due to removal of father's details as it was proven the name registered was not that of the actual biological father, cases where the identity of parents needed to be regularised under Irish law, or where other elements needed correction.

The bit in bold is the important bit. It means mostly due to removal of father's details as it was proven the name registered was not that of the actual biological father

If it were written like this:
mostly due to,

It would mean a general combination of all three because of the position of the comma

arctictree wrote: »

Could it just be the mother removing the Fathers name in the event of a breakup?

Can't do that legally.

Mango Joe · 14-10-2019 4:52pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn’t day that the 3,842 are from the one year. Just that that number of corrections were made in that year b

Maybe it was just that 384 women with 10 kids each went out and tried to find some chump to pay for them all?

Beta Ray Bill · 14-10-2019 4:52pm

banie01 wrote: »

A correction on a Birth cert is far more likely to be addition of a father's name rather than its amendment to a different one.

But that wouldn't gel as well with the incel agenda now would it

Maybe you're right.
Maybe the article should say change the fathers name to the correct name (as that's probably what is happening)

Although that being said, a man doesn't have to have his name on the birth cert if he doesn't want to. (which is ballix)

Irish Law is crap for this kind of stuff.

banie01 · 14-10-2019 4:53pm

mikhail wrote: »

From the article:

If you want to argue there's a factual error in the article, fine, but otherwise it's kind of ****ty behaviour throwing labels like incel into the discussion.

Perhaps if you didn't so carefully select the quote from the article?
And presented it in its full context, you could swerve offence at a shítty label?

For clarity

Also relating to birth certificates, there were 3,842 corrections made to the register of live births last year, mostly due to removal of father's details as it was proven the name registered was not that of the actual biological father, cases where the identity of parents needed to be regularised under Irish law, or where other elements needed correction.

The full sentence makes quite a different whole, than the part you cherry picked.

jam_mac_jam · 14-10-2019 4:53pm

"Mostly" could be 51%, its a bit of a stretch when the article is vague to say they are all down to this.

Your calculations then become much more guestimate to sound worse then it is. Also you are really cherry picking the wording to support your idea.

ceadaoin. · 14-10-2019 4:55pm

But it doesn't say how many of those corrections were because of the wrong father being listed. It just says "mostly". So you can't really extrapolate percentages etc based off that.

But yeah. Women. Evil liars, all of us. Blah blah blah

Wibbs · 14-10-2019 4:56pm

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

While on one hand you could say he is good person... on the other he is a feckin' ejit and I don't say that to be mean. I say that because it never sits right when you see someone nice get taken advantage of.

+1. Somebody does the dirt on you and brings a kid that isn't yours into the equation(and I'd bet the farm it wasn't some random one night thing), and you go "I'll support you now"? There are plenty of women, the vast majority who wouldn't dream of doing anything like this, so why stay with some bow legged slapper? Nice guy? Damned fool IMHO.

sportsfan90 · 14-10-2019 4:57pm

blinding wrote: »

I don’y know how some women work out who the Father is ?

The one with the most money.

Thankfully women like that are very much in the minority.

mikhail · 14-10-2019 4:58pm

banie01 wrote: »

Perhaps if you didn't so carefully select the quote from the article?
...
The full sentence makes quite a different whole, than the part you cherry picked.

Fair enough, except that it was Beta Ray Bill who did the cherry picking in the first post in the thread.

Fair ****s to you for avoiding the swear filter like that, ya rebel.

banie01 · 14-10-2019 4:58pm

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

"Mostly" could be 51%, its a bit of a stretch when the article is vague to say they are all down to this.

Your calculations then become much more guestimate to sound worse then it is. Also you are really cherry picking the wording to support your idea.

Mostly could mean any of the the factors listed in the articles sentence.
Given that the removal of a name from a birth cert requires a courts acquiescence, even if done via in camera court.
If even 51% of the total related to the removal of a name and substitution of another every practicing solicitor in the country would be approaching family law, custody and maintenance in quite a different fashion than they currently are.

The sentence in the article is vague in the extreme and seeing how it has been grasped by some is quite interesting.

Not you Jam btw

partyguinness · 14-10-2019 4:59pm

I did read at one stage that as a rough guesstimate anything from 10-20% of fathers are bringing up children that are not biologically belong to them as in unbeknownst.

Somedaythefire · 14-10-2019 5:00pm

What’s up with the thread title? It has nothing to do with the content.

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

"Mostly" could be 51%, its a bit of a stretch when the article is vague to say they are all down to this.

Your calculations then become much more guestimate to sound worse then it is. Also you are really cherry picking the wording to support your idea.

Mostly could be a lot less than 51% as long as it’s the most common cause.

Wibbs · 14-10-2019 5:01pm

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I don't know why you are using a word from Shakespeare. I can't understand why this has become popular again. its weird.

Seems to be a porn thing from what I can tell, specifically American smut, where there appear to be enough viewers, particularly when the other guy involved is a Black lad with a tree trunk mickey, to sustain enough interest in producing the stuff. That and shagging family members. It seems to have broken out from that into "Red Pill" and even US political witterings, where "cuck" is a popular insult, along with lashings of "No homo" in case anybody might think you play for the other team. Freud would have a bloody field day with some aspects of current American culture.

banie01 · 14-10-2019 5:01pm

mikhail wrote: »

Fair enough, except that it was Beta Ray Bill who did the cherry picking in the first post in the thread.

Fair ****s to you for avoiding the swear filter like that, ya rebel.

Thanks

got to love a fadá in a bind!
And yep it's Bills point, and you ran with it without checking the context.
Its a bit of a cop out to blame Beta Bill now when you jumped on his wagon.

Beta Ray Bill · 14-10-2019 5:01pm

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

"Mostly" could be 51%, its a bit of a stretch when the article is vague to say they are all down to this.

Your calculations then become much more guestimate to sound worse then it is. Also you are really cherry picking the wording to support your idea.

In fairness
I'm trying to find the actual report online and I can't.
This could all be a load of ballix and I've just spread a bunch of fake news

mikhail · 14-10-2019 5:01pm

partyguinness wrote: »

I did read at one stage that as a rough guesstimate anything from 10-20% of fathers are bringing up children that are not biologically belong to them as in unbeknownst.

I think the origins of figures over 10% are from a study in the 70s that was never published. Most modern studies suggest the right answer is closer to a tenth of that rate.

Wibbs · 14-10-2019 5:03pm

partyguinness wrote: »

I did read at one stage that as a rough guesstimate anything from 10-20% of fathers are bringing up children that are not biologically belong to them as in unbeknownst.

Very spurious percentages indeed. The numbers came from court/divorce cases where parentage was already in question and DNA tests were ordered and even then the figure was closer to 10%. In the real world it's likely to be far lower.

partyguinness · 14-10-2019 5:04pm

mikhail wrote: »

I think the origins of figures over 10% are from a study in the 70s that was never published. Most modern studies suggest the right answer is closer to a tenth of that rate.

I imagine that there are certain societies around the world where the figure will be higher but that does seem unbelievably high and well, not credible.

mikhail · 14-10-2019 5:05pm

banie01 wrote: »

Thanks got to love a fadá in a bind!
And yep it's Bills point, and you ran with it without checking the context.
Its a bit of a cop out to blame Beta Bill now when you jumped on his wagon.

Jumped on his wagon? I questioned your completely unsupported counterpoint and pathetic attempt to troll. That the OP turns out to be no better than you hardly places you on a pedestal.

Beta Ray Bill · 14-10-2019 5:06pm

Actually.....

How many of the Cuckoo fathers have families of their own, and were playing offside with a woman that is also in a relationship with kids and stuff, and got her preggers!???
Two to tango and all that jazz!

Also now that abortion is accessible, you'd hopefully see a decline in these kind of stats.

Reviews and Books Galore · 14-10-2019 5:07pm

There is an oddly high statistic in America about this. I don't remember what it I'd, but it is sadly high.

s7ryf3925pivug · 14-10-2019 5:07pm

Depends on when you find out. If you find out your kid is someone else's, you still love the kid. Same way as a kid who finds out they're adopted still loves their adoptive parents. As a man you are at a major disadvantage in keeping custody or staying in your own home if you split up with their mother. So you don't have many options at that point.

If the kid isn't on the scene yet though yeah you're just a fool

banie01 · 14-10-2019 5:08pm

mikhail wrote: »

Jumped on his wagon? I questioned your completely unsupported counterpoint and pathetic attempt to troll. That the OP turns out to be no better than you hardly places you on a pedestal.

I don't want a pedestal, so you can stay where you are.
There was no attempt to troll, if the OP has an issue with how I described him, I'm happy to discuss it with our resident Beta.

And yeah you did jump on a bandwagon, one that reading the article would have led you to at least query.

Reviews and Books Galore · 14-10-2019 5:11pm

banie01 wrote: »

A correction on a Birth cert is far more likely to be addition of a father's name rather than its amendment to a different one.

But that wouldn't gel as well with the incel agenda now would it

What's with this incel.malarky? It seems to be the common insult to regulate men nowadays.

banie01 · 14-10-2019 5:11pm

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

Actually.....

How many of the Cuckoo fathers have families of their own, and were playing offside with a woman that is also in a relationship with kids and stuff, and got her preggers!???
Two to tango and all that jazz!

Also now that abortion is accessible, you'd hopefully see a decline in these kind of stats.

You have yet to present any stats?
None!

A headline number, with no breakdown of how the numbers were arrived at in any meaningful way other than the actual number of live births.
Along with the number of amendments that relate to an indefinite time period.

Unless and until a breakdown is available any musings on what caused the necessity for an amendment is just speculation.

Beta Ray Bill · 14-10-2019 5:14pm

banie01 wrote: »

You have yet to present any stats?
None!

A headline number, with no breakdown of how the numbers were arrived at in any meaningful way other than the actual number of live births.
Along with the number of amendments that relate to an indefinite time period.

Unless and until a breakdown is available any musings on what caused the necessity for an amendment is just speculation.

I asked Noel Baker where he got the report from on Twitter.
Cause I can't find the thing anywhere

Somedaythefire · 14-10-2019 5:15pm

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

What's with this incel.malarky? It seems to be the common insult to regulate men nowadays.

Incel is “involuntary celibate”. They usually give themselves that label.

banie01 · 14-10-2019 5:16pm

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

I asked Noel Baker where he got the report from on Twitter.
Cause I can't find the thing anywhere

Will be quite interested to see what he comes back with.
From professional experience I can count on 1 hand the number of paternal applications to be removed from a birth certificate over the last 5/6 yrs, that I've heard about.
Now granted that would be 2nd hand as I don't do family law but briefs do tend to talk shop.
So I'd be very curious to know what his justification is.

Will I Am Not · 14-10-2019 5:16pm

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

What's with this incel.malarky? It seems to be the common insult to regulate men nowadays.

Funnily enough, the people using it are quite often neckbeardy, virginal, creepy male feminist types.

partyguinness · 14-10-2019 5:17pm

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

What's with this incel.malarky? It seems to be the common insult to regulate men nowadays.

I was thinking just the same earlier.

What the hell is all this "incel" about? Is it what we called a frustrated "can't get any" lad in the old days? All a bit juvenile.

So basically it is a term of abuse?

banie01 · 14-10-2019 5:20pm

partyguinness wrote: »

I was thinking just the same earlier.

What the hell is all this "incel" about? Is it what we called a frustrated "can't get any" lad in the old days? All a bit juvenile.

Agreed, but it's moving from not being able to get any.
To not being able to get any because Women are all into "Alpha" and alpha males are cuckolding all the hard working "Beta" males...
Which funnily enough ties in with the OPs username.

Cuckolds

Comments