You just can't help yourself from being wrong, gawddamnit. Like genuinely you've proven yourself wrong several times in this thread. In hilariously simple ways, like when saying "oh if that's how filial responsibility laws work in Finland" when the article literally begins "... are laws in the United States.".

Let's have another look at that link, shall we?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws

#Support required

#Typically, these laws obligate adult children (or depending on the state, other family members) to pay for their indigent parents'/relatives' food, clothing, shelter and medical needs.

Weird how there's a bunch of words before "medical needs", innit, buddy?

Like I said earlier, you really should just say "okay, I was wrong, TIL, thanks sir", and bugger away. "Gracefully" isn't an option anymore.

Like I said, you'd try to make this personal. Me being personal doesn't have anything to do with it. You're just desperate to make it personal, because you're not qualified to talk on the subject and you know it. (In short, insults do not constitute an ad hominem. I'll leave you to figure out the meaning behind those words. I'm assuming it'll take a few years.)

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

I’d like to see a single source for anything you’re claiming that isn’t a Wikipedia or other -pedia.

You’re correct I’m not qualified to speak on inheritance law because I’m not a lawyer. Neither are you.

The reason I brought up Finland is because you’re making ridiculous claims that don’t happen here in the United States. Just like how you say the article doesn’t mention child support, that article doesn’t mention Finland. I don’t have any clue what the laws are there, much like you don’t have any clue what the laws are here.

Who said anything about ad hominem? I’m not claiming that you say my argument is wrong for some personal flaw of mine. That’s an ad hominem. You’re just insulting me because you have no argument here, no supporting evidence for the frankly ridiculous claim that child support debt falls under filial responsibility.

Once again, you resort to insults, because you have no grounds for your claims.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

I’d like to see a single source for anything you’re claiming that isn’t a Wikipedia or other -pedia.

Yeah keep chanting this, as if Wikipedia and Investopedia don't have sources. 2005 called and wants it's "wikipedia is bullshit" rhetoric back.

You don't have sources. You keep constantly being wrong, but then not admitting that you've made a single mistake. Just like I called it a dozen comments ago, you're just simply one of those people who can not accept when they're wrong.

You'll just keep ignoring all the times you're wrong, and then you're pathetically going to try to make it personal, while I'll keep repeating the actual arguments, which you didn't know jack shit about from the start, while I do.

That's ad hominem. It's not "insults" unlike people assume it is. It's when you're pathetically trying to drag an argument to be about something on a personal level, instead of the facts, because you're wrong and would like to ignore the facts. Such as:

Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?

Filial responsibility laws aren't only for medical debts, you were wrong. Are you gonna ignore that?

And before all that, you were saying that "filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt". Are you gonna ignore that?

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Still waiting on you to cite multitude of legitimate stories that you mentioned earlier. I reckon they don’t actually exist.

Shit man, you’re failing to comprehend the things you said I wouldn’t comprehend. You don’t even know what ad hominem constitutes. Ad hominem is “your argument is wrong because of with your character”. If I said that because you’re a Finn, you’re wrong about filial responsibility, that’s an ad hominem. I haven’t done anything of the sort. Your points are incorrect because they’re incorrect, not because of an issue with your character or other personal characteristic not related to the argument.

Medical debt is dismissed in probate insolvency, except in rare cases. If my mother had a pacemaker implanted, owed $250k, died the next day in a car crash, that’s not subject to filial responsibility. Once again, you’re wrong. Classic case of someone reading a Wikipedia article and thinking they understand the laws of a foreign country.

Are you gonna ignore that?

Probably, yeah. The opinion of a Finn on US estate law matters little to me. I have a lawyer to deal with the facts.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I said that I've read credible similarly fucked up stories. I meant that I've read them over the years. You know that the US is fucked up and crazy shit happens there and I've just shown you a personal clip of a person saying that it's a 100% true story what happened to them, then I've shown you how that is plausible through the legislation that the US has.

You've constantly been shown wrong, yet you won't admit to a single mistake and you're just shifting goalposts further and further and further.

If I said that because you’re a Finn, you’re wrong about filial responsibility, that’s an ad hominem.

Oh god, this is hilarious. Remember how I said that you keep proving yourself wrong? Self-humiliating? This is one those times. You literally implied this, very strongly, SEVERAL TIMES.

Honestly dude, I don’t give a shit what someone from Finland thinks about filial responsibility laws in the United States.

As in "your opinion on these facts doesn't matter because of a personal property."

That's literally a textbook ad hominem. Once again, I prove you wrong, based on things you've said, yet you can't accept it. You say in your last comment that "I don't have arguments", but you keep literally ignoring the ones I'm saying in each and every single comment:

Medical debt is dismissed in probate insolvency, except in rare cases.

Why are you talking about medical debt? We've already established that it's an exception to this. We're now pointing out that you argued that filial responsibility laws have "nothing" to do with inheriting debt, which is wrong, you then claimed that filial responsibility SOLELY concerns medical debt, which is also wrong. And you're simply going to ignore having been wrong, because you're not a big enough person to do that, just like I said from the very start.

Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?

Filial responsibility laws aren’t only for medical debts, you were wrong. Are you gonna ignore that?

And before all that, you were saying that “filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”. Are you gonna ignore that?

You simply can't argue, you don't know the subject, and you should've taken the gracious option I offered earlier. ;)

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Medical debt can be dissolved in probate, just potentially not the kind related to say, nursing homes, assuming you’re in one of those states, and you’re in a rare scenario when they actually enforce it. I’m not responsible for my parents medical debt; I am responsible for their care and medical debt can be a part of that, but not necessarily, as in the pacemaker example I used earlier. That pacemaker example would fall into the same category as other debtors seeing payment from the estate.

There’s no ad hominem in my comments. Quote me, and don’t paraphrase and put quotes around it. Implications are neither here nor there, either. I’m saying you’re wrong because the facts don’t support your points, not because of any personal characteristics you have. A prime example is you mistakenly equating any medical debt to what would be covered under filial responsibility.

”filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”

It is remarkable how you selectively quote what I said. You left out “…to the state”, which is a key part of the point I was making about how a child would never be responsible for their parents child support debt.

Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance of the laws here in the United States, something which you have no experience with, nor any sort of legal expertise. You may want to work on that reading comprehension rather than spending time formatting your text just so.

Medical debt is dismissed in probate insolvency, except in rare cases.

Why are you talking about medical debt? We've already established that it's an exception to this. […] Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?

Dude you contradict yourself in the same paragraph here, lol. Is it an exception or not? For the record, it is dissolved unless it’s debt directly related to care, and only in rare cases is that actually enforced.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 20 minutes ago

in probate

UUUH, he's *learned the words! Only after me repeating them a dozen fuckingtimes :D

Blablabla more excuses and more denial.

Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?

Filial responsibility laws aren’t only for medical debts, you were wrong. Are you gonna ignore that?

And before all that, you were saying that “filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”. Are you gonna ignore that?

You simply can’t argue, you don’t know the subject, and you should’ve taken the gracious option I offered earlier. ;)

You're simply not man enough to admit to when you're wrong, and that's why you're never gonna learn, and why you're gonna stay a small, insignificant ignorant arsehole who no-one will ever love.

Dude you contradict yourself in the same paragraph here, lol. Is it an exception or not?

I'm not contradicting anything. Do you not speak English. Medical debt is the established exception. I'm asking for you to say what the reason is for that exception. Which you simply aren't abled enough to do.

Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?

Filial responsibility laws aren’t only for medical debts, you were wrong. Are you gonna ignore that?

And before all that, you were saying that “filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”. Are you gonna ignore that?

You simply can’t argue, you don’t know the subject, and you should’ve taken the gracious option I offered earlier. ;)

Next I'll stop replying to any of your personal bullshit, and just post facts about the thread and the convo we've had, the questions you've answered. Then you won't be able to answer them and you'll fuck off in a week or so, your tail between your legs. Like the thousand or so other pathetic cases I've seen before who can't admit when they've wrong.