Dead. He killed himself rather than be saddled with unplayably high child support payments

Also she'll recieve her own subsidized old age security pension later, which is the compensation she seeks.

So...

Why does society need to pay for your work, that is what a husband or wife is for. This is why husbands were the bread winners, to pay you in shit. Then you didn't want them being the bread winners, so you went to work yourself. Yet still kept your first job (stay at home wife) but apparently let the person who is supposed to be paying you (the father) off the hook. Or even kicked him out!

single mother of 4 children.... yeah pay her for her poor choices

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/second-amendment-slavery-nyt-piece-misleading-claims/amp/#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

I... Remember getting someone annoyed when I said that one of the things I look in a woman is "not a single mother"

I mean, seeing as how 99% of single mothers have made an extremely bad life choice, that doesn't seem like a bad stance to take

@Deller I think thats a little extreme

If you're a single mother one of 3 things likely happened. You had a child with a shitty person, your partner left you, or your partner died. Unless you became a single mother because your partner died, you made an extremely bad life choice

Both the choice to have a baby with a fucking jackass who'd abandon his family or having unprotected sexual encounters with someone who probably didn't want children sound like bad life choices

single mothers are the worst

Damn, that's some fucking bullshit right there

single parents and widower's are different things but people like to blur that line because someone who had their partner die often had no choice in that (unless they did the killing of course) where as single parents which are mostly women because of the biased legal system clearly made a bad decison of who to have kids with, or had unplanned kids

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/26/us-liberal-islamophobia-rising-more-insidious

Kek

"Maajid Nawaz leverages his as a “former Islamist”, brown skin and an affiliation with Harris, to peddle Islamophobia within largely cosmopolitan circles and liberal audiences. His Quilliam Foundation the Islamophobic tenet that radicalization is a uniquely Muslim phenomenon, and Nawaz has stated that “Islamism is the biggest form of extremism”, endorsing destructive policing programs that have eroded the civil liberties of Muslims in the United Kingdom. With the help of Harris, Nawaz has extended his native informant reach into the United States. "

There realy should be some sort of quality control of what opinion pieces they show

Yeah, that quality control should be a far greater ability for the general public to sue news organizations.

Especially for such 'opinion' pieces

why won't they realise that labling everything as Islamophobia is helping the real extremists

They look at it from the point of power dynamics

They see the move to try to smear legitimate critics as islamophobes more advantageous then risks of legitimazing actual islamophobes

Notice how little actual facts did the profesor used in that article

I find the need to put muslims calling for reforms of their beliefs most interesting in that article.

Clearly he wants any criticism be recognised as phobic reaction

opinion pieces should not be protected by freedom of press

if its an opinion piece its not different to a random person writing something on some random blog and should be protected/not protected just like that

Press should be fact based not opinion based but at the same time I'm wary about giving the government more power.

I dont mind ppl publishing their opinions

But the press should be held acountable for them

That article was bordering on libel imo

specialy if you pay for it. Like any product... standards should be met.

Worst thing is that sometimes guardian does good job

But lots of opinion pieces in there are just rubbish

Ad i dont mean them having opinions i disagree with

I mean them publishing halftruths and oversimplifications like that one.

the word you are looking for is "lies" 😉

Opinions and emotional half truths sell, that is just how it is unfortunately. Just look at one of the biggest daily papers here in Germany, Bild. Most people agree that that paper is a terrible mess of fake news and blowing unimportant stories out of proportion, but it still sells more than any other publication, because people just like to read it, regardless of truth.

“ Rotherham child sexual abuse claim ‘made up to boost EDL cause’ “ by The BBC

The British government claims it put journalists/activist Tommy Robinson in prison for a year because his reporting could influence the Rotherham trail, yet the BBC is free to write slanted articles throwing shade at an alleged rape victim. Keep in mind , the BBC is run by the government. Looks to me like they have an agenda.

http://archive.today/UA9xk

Bild sprach zuerst mit den toten.