If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
How many had prior knowledge of the
teachrmama wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "Bob" wrote in message ... big snip If there did happen to be a pedophile who was caught in the act by the preacher, the chief of police, and Mother Teresa herself, would you think that, perhaps, he should not be permitted to be alone with children? That, maybe, his wife would be justified in leaving him in order to protect the children? By the time she gets done telling it, Adam will be the scum wife beater pedophile, and Eve would have escaped to save the child. By the time she gets done telling it, Joseph will be the scum wife beater pedophile, and Mary would have escaped to save the child. Whether or not there are actual pedophiles and wife beaters can not be determined by listening to wives who would destroy their families. Who, then, would you listen to if not the witness? If the woman goes to the hospital with broken bones, and the child has bruises up and down his body, how can you say "Don't listen to the woman who wants to break up the family"? I'm trying to understand what you are saying, Bob. I do not think marriages whould be ended on a whim, or "to find myself" or any other nonsense. Most do actually. In data that has been posted several times over the past year those are the most common reasons. Which is very sad, but does not invalidate every reason to end a marriage. I am not in favor of breaking up families. But sometimes there *are* serious problems that have to be addressed from a point of safety. Usually not. Children are usually, statistically, safer staying with their fathers. But not always, Bob. I am asking about the few that are not included in your "usually safer with their fathers" And your answer to that *seems* to be that the woman does not have the right to break up the family, because she is probably lying just to get out of the marriage. So, instead of making the same statement again, please tell me how it should be determined that an abuser is abusive enough for a woman to be justified in leaving. Or how it can be determined that a man is a pdeophile if you are not willing to listen to the wife or the kids. One day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was no wolf. The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was no wolf. The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was no wolf. The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!" The people of the town sat home and hoisted another glass of beer because by then nobody gave a **** whether there was a wolf or not. Females who cry "wife beating pedophile" are like the shepherd. They've been crying the same lying crap so many times nobody gives a **** any more whether it's true this time or not. There are absolutely women who have abused the system, who have lied about fathers being abusive only to get custody of the children. These scum are one of the reasons the system is as badly screwed up as it is. They should lose custody of their children and spend some time in jail as far as I am concerned. But these are not the ones I am asking about. I am asking about the women who are *truly* abused by their husbands. About the children who are *truly* molested by their fathers. Your comments to women on this forum who have offered medical and/or criminal evidence that they or their children have experienced this is that they are just propogating the normal feminist lies. You can't possibly know that, but you claim it anyway. So my bottom line question for you, Bob, is: Do you feel that there are circumstances involving abuse and or molestation that would give the wife/mother an acceptable reason to "break up the family" in order to keep herself and her children safe? As Ret Butler once said, Frankly Toots, I don't give a damn. Bob -- When did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
How many had prior knowledge of the
teachrmama wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "Bob" wrote in message ... big snip If there did happen to be a pedophile who was caught in the act by the preacher, the chief of police, and Mother Teresa herself, would you think that, perhaps, he should not be permitted to be alone with children? That, maybe, his wife would be justified in leaving him in order to protect the children? By the time she gets done telling it, Adam will be the scum wife beater pedophile, and Eve would have escaped to save the child. By the time she gets done telling it, Joseph will be the scum wife beater pedophile, and Mary would have escaped to save the child. Whether or not there are actual pedophiles and wife beaters can not be determined by listening to wives who would destroy their families. Who, then, would you listen to if not the witness? If the woman goes to the hospital with broken bones, and the child has bruises up and down his body, how can you say "Don't listen to the woman who wants to break up the family"? I'm trying to understand what you are saying, Bob. I do not think marriages whould be ended on a whim, or "to find myself" or any other nonsense. Most do actually. In data that has been posted several times over the past year those are the most common reasons. Which is very sad, but does not invalidate every reason to end a marriage. I am not in favor of breaking up families. But sometimes there *are* serious problems that have to be addressed from a point of safety. Usually not. Children are usually, statistically, safer staying with their fathers. But not always, Bob. I am asking about the few that are not included in your "usually safer with their fathers" And your answer to that *seems* to be that the woman does not have the right to break up the family, because she is probably lying just to get out of the marriage. So, instead of making the same statement again, please tell me how it should be determined that an abuser is abusive enough for a woman to be justified in leaving. Or how it can be determined that a man is a pdeophile if you are not willing to listen to the wife or the kids. One day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was no wolf. The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was no wolf. The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was no wolf. The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!" The people of the town sat home and hoisted another glass of beer because by then nobody gave a **** whether there was a wolf or not. Females who cry "wife beating pedophile" are like the shepherd. They've been crying the same lying crap so many times nobody gives a **** any more whether it's true this time or not. There are absolutely women who have abused the system, who have lied about fathers being abusive only to get custody of the children. These scum are one of the reasons the system is as badly screwed up as it is. They should lose custody of their children and spend some time in jail as far as I am concerned. But these are not the ones I am asking about. I am asking about the women who are *truly* abused by their husbands. About the children who are *truly* molested by their fathers. Your comments to women on this forum who have offered medical and/or criminal evidence that they or their children have experienced this is that they are just propogating the normal feminist lies. You can't possibly know that, but you claim it anyway. So my bottom line question for you, Bob, is: Do you feel that there are circumstances involving abuse and or molestation that would give the wife/mother an acceptable reason to "break up the family" in order to keep herself and her children safe? As Ret Butler once said, Frankly Toots, I don't give a damn. Bob -- When did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
How many had prior knowledge of the
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Bob" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "Bob" wrote in message snipped So my bottom line question for you, Bob, is: Do you feel that there are circumstances involving abuse and or molestation that would give the wife/mother an acceptable reason to "break up the family" in order to keep herself and her children safe? Why bother asking? He won't answer. T |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
How many had prior knowledge of the
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Bob" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "Bob" wrote in message snipped So my bottom line question for you, Bob, is: Do you feel that there are circumstances involving abuse and or molestation that would give the wife/mother an acceptable reason to "break up the family" in order to keep herself and her children safe? Why bother asking? He won't answer. T |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
How many had prior knowledge of the
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Bob" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "Bob" wrote in message snipped So my bottom line question for you, Bob, is: Do you feel that there are circumstances involving abuse and or molestation that would give the wife/mother an acceptable reason to "break up the family" in order to keep herself and her children safe? Why bother asking? He won't answer. T |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
How many had prior knowledge of the
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 10:28:26 -0600, Bob wrote:
Beverly wrote: On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:26:42 -0600, Bob wrote: Lecher9000 wrote: My "mistake" was believing that if I "did the right thing", nothing horrible would happen to me. I never cheated on my wife, paid her way for everything for 13 years, then she bailed out on me, with my son, because she " never loved me". And she took me for everything she could get. Yep, they do that, and by the time she gets done telling about it you're the scum wife beater pedophile and she escaped to save your child. And if she can prove the man is a pedophile? For your information, not all pedophiles are arrested and convicted. It is a psychological diagnoses based, in part, on the actions of the diagnosed. My ex was diagnosed long before I ever met him. It was not until one of my children accused him of things that I ever found out. Had I known before we were married, he'd have no child support order for our children because there wouldn't be any. There would have been no divorce because there would not have been a marriage. Yep, they do that, and by the time she gets done telling about it you're the scum wife beater pedophile and she escaped to save your child. QED. I disagree. I asked if she could PROVE it, not if she claims it. I WILL agree that many women CLAIM these things and the man is portrayed as a horrid monster before she is done. This is why there SHOULD be a burden of proof to the person accusing another of such. My ex was a WONDERFUL husband. My friends were envious of my relationship until we found out his sordid past by way of a current accusation. The saying "too good to be true" was magnified in our marriage. You have no idea what agony it is finding out that your child has been molested by your spouse (at least I hope not). While you could say I "escaped to save my children," the reality of the matter was that the state was going to remove them if I didn't divorce him. I was still in denial when we split... I loved my husband dearly and could not imagine him doing the things he did. However, living apart was not enough for the state. They demanded I divorce him. I fought them on this issue until I nearly lost all my children. HE was not going to be allowed access to his children either way, why should they lose a mother too? So no, my ex is not a scum wife beater pedophile. He is simply a man with a mental illness that cannot be cured and makes it unsafe for him to be alone with children. If I could have changed that, I would have. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
How many had prior knowledge of the
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 10:28:26 -0600, Bob wrote:
Beverly wrote: On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:26:42 -0600, Bob wrote: Lecher9000 wrote: My "mistake" was believing that if I "did the right thing", nothing horrible would happen to me. I never cheated on my wife, paid her way for everything for 13 years, then she bailed out on me, with my son, because she " never loved me". And she took me for everything she could get. Yep, they do that, and by the time she gets done telling about it you're the scum wife beater pedophile and she escaped to save your child. And if she can prove the man is a pedophile? For your information, not all pedophiles are arrested and convicted. It is a psychological diagnoses based, in part, on the actions of the diagnosed. My ex was diagnosed long before I ever met him. It was not until one of my children accused him of things that I ever found out. Had I known before we were married, he'd have no child support order for our children because there wouldn't be any. There would have been no divorce because there would not have been a marriage. Yep, they do that, and by the time she gets done telling about it you're the scum wife beater pedophile and she escaped to save your child. QED. I disagree. I asked if she could PROVE it, not if she claims it. I WILL agree that many women CLAIM these things and the man is portrayed as a horrid monster before she is done. This is why there SHOULD be a burden of proof to the person accusing another of such. My ex was a WONDERFUL husband. My friends were envious of my relationship until we found out his sordid past by way of a current accusation. The saying "too good to be true" was magnified in our marriage. You have no idea what agony it is finding out that your child has been molested by your spouse (at least I hope not). While you could say I "escaped to save my children," the reality of the matter was that the state was going to remove them if I didn't divorce him. I was still in denial when we split... I loved my husband dearly and could not imagine him doing the things he did. However, living apart was not enough for the state. They demanded I divorce him. I fought them on this issue until I nearly lost all my children. HE was not going to be allowed access to his children either way, why should they lose a mother too? So no, my ex is not a scum wife beater pedophile. He is simply a man with a mental illness that cannot be cured and makes it unsafe for him to be alone with children. If I could have changed that, I would have. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
How many had prior knowledge of the
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 10:28:26 -0600, Bob wrote:
Beverly wrote: On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:26:42 -0600, Bob wrote: Lecher9000 wrote: My "mistake" was believing that if I "did the right thing", nothing horrible would happen to me. I never cheated on my wife, paid her way for everything for 13 years, then she bailed out on me, with my son, because she " never loved me". And she took me for everything she could get. Yep, they do that, and by the time she gets done telling about it you're the scum wife beater pedophile and she escaped to save your child. And if she can prove the man is a pedophile? For your information, not all pedophiles are arrested and convicted. It is a psychological diagnoses based, in part, on the actions of the diagnosed. My ex was diagnosed long before I ever met him. It was not until one of my children accused him of things that I ever found out. Had I known before we were married, he'd have no child support order for our children because there wouldn't be any. There would have been no divorce because there would not have been a marriage. Yep, they do that, and by the time she gets done telling about it you're the scum wife beater pedophile and she escaped to save your child. QED. I disagree. I asked if she could PROVE it, not if she claims it. I WILL agree that many women CLAIM these things and the man is portrayed as a horrid monster before she is done. This is why there SHOULD be a burden of proof to the person accusing another of such. My ex was a WONDERFUL husband. My friends were envious of my relationship until we found out his sordid past by way of a current accusation. The saying "too good to be true" was magnified in our marriage. You have no idea what agony it is finding out that your child has been molested by your spouse (at least I hope not). While you could say I "escaped to save my children," the reality of the matter was that the state was going to remove them if I didn't divorce him. I was still in denial when we split... I loved my husband dearly and could not imagine him doing the things he did. However, living apart was not enough for the state. They demanded I divorce him. I fought them on this issue until I nearly lost all my children. HE was not going to be allowed access to his children either way, why should they lose a mother too? So no, my ex is not a scum wife beater pedophile. He is simply a man with a mental illness that cannot be cured and makes it unsafe for him to be alone with children. If I could have changed that, I would have. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
How many had prior knowledge of the
"Bob" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "Bob" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "Bob" wrote in message ... big snip If there did happen to be a pedophile who was caught in the act by the preacher, the chief of police, and Mother Teresa herself, would you think that, perhaps, he should not be permitted to be alone with children? That, maybe, his wife would be justified in leaving him in order to protect the children? By the time she gets done telling it, Adam will be the scum wife beater pedophile, and Eve would have escaped to save the child. By the time she gets done telling it, Joseph will be the scum wife beater pedophile, and Mary would have escaped to save the child. Whether or not there are actual pedophiles and wife beaters can not be determined by listening to wives who would destroy their families. Who, then, would you listen to if not the witness? If the woman goes to the hospital with broken bones, and the child has bruises up and down his body, how can you say "Don't listen to the woman who wants to break up the family"? I'm trying to understand what you are saying, Bob. I do not think marriages whould be ended on a whim, or "to find myself" or any other nonsense. Most do actually. In data that has been posted several times over the past year those are the most common reasons. Which is very sad, but does not invalidate every reason to end a marriage. I am not in favor of breaking up families. But sometimes there *are* serious problems that have to be addressed from a point of safety. Usually not. Children are usually, statistically, safer staying with their fathers. But not always, Bob. I am asking about the few that are not included in your "usually safer with their fathers" And your answer to that *seems* to be that the woman does not have the right to break up the family, because she is probably lying just to get out of the marriage. So, instead of making the same statement again, please tell me how it should be determined that an abuser is abusive enough for a woman to be justified in leaving. Or how it can be determined that a man is a pdeophile if you are not willing to listen to the wife or the kids. One day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was no wolf. The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was no wolf. The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was no wolf. The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!" The people of the town sat home and hoisted another glass of beer because by then nobody gave a **** whether there was a wolf or not. Females who cry "wife beating pedophile" are like the shepherd. They've been crying the same lying crap so many times nobody gives a **** any more whether it's true this time or not. There are absolutely women who have abused the system, who have lied about fathers being abusive only to get custody of the children. These scum are one of the reasons the system is as badly screwed up as it is. They should lose custody of their children and spend some time in jail as far as I am concerned. But these are not the ones I am asking about. I am asking about the women who are *truly* abused by their husbands. About the children who are *truly* molested by their fathers. Your comments to women on this forum who have offered medical and/or criminal evidence that they or their children have experienced this is that they are just propogating the normal feminist lies. You can't possibly know that, but you claim it anyway. So my bottom line question for you, Bob, is: Do you feel that there are circumstances involving abuse and or molestation that would give the wife/mother an acceptable reason to "break up the family" in order to keep herself and her children safe? As Ret Butler once said, Frankly Toots, I don't give a damn. Pretty much what I expected from you, Bob. "If it doesn't benefit me, who gives a ****." You use the misandry of others as an excuse to validate your own misogyny. And you try to cloak it in the same "best interests of the children" mantra that the other side uses--but with your own special twist. Tut, tut, Bob! |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
How many had prior knowledge of the
"Bob" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "Bob" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "Bob" wrote in message ... big snip If there did happen to be a pedophile who was caught in the act by the preacher, the chief of police, and Mother Teresa herself, would you think that, perhaps, he should not be permitted to be alone with children? That, maybe, his wife would be justified in leaving him in order to protect the children? By the time she gets done telling it, Adam will be the scum wife beater pedophile, and Eve would have escaped to save the child. By the time she gets done telling it, Joseph will be the scum wife beater pedophile, and Mary would have escaped to save the child. Whether or not there are actual pedophiles and wife beaters can not be determined by listening to wives who would destroy their families. Who, then, would you listen to if not the witness? If the woman goes to the hospital with broken bones, and the child has bruises up and down his body, how can you say "Don't listen to the woman who wants to break up the family"? I'm trying to understand what you are saying, Bob. I do not think marriages whould be ended on a whim, or "to find myself" or any other nonsense. Most do actually. In data that has been posted several times over the past year those are the most common reasons. Which is very sad, but does not invalidate every reason to end a marriage. I am not in favor of breaking up families. But sometimes there *are* serious problems that have to be addressed from a point of safety. Usually not. Children are usually, statistically, safer staying with their fathers. But not always, Bob. I am asking about the few that are not included in your "usually safer with their fathers" And your answer to that *seems* to be that the woman does not have the right to break up the family, because she is probably lying just to get out of the marriage. So, instead of making the same statement again, please tell me how it should be determined that an abuser is abusive enough for a woman to be justified in leaving. Or how it can be determined that a man is a pdeophile if you are not willing to listen to the wife or the kids. One day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was no wolf. The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was no wolf. The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!" The people of the town all ran out to save his sheep, but there was no wolf. The next day the little shepherd ran into town crying "wolf! wolf! wolf!" The people of the town sat home and hoisted another glass of beer because by then nobody gave a **** whether there was a wolf or not. Females who cry "wife beating pedophile" are like the shepherd. They've been crying the same lying crap so many times nobody gives a **** any more whether it's true this time or not. There are absolutely women who have abused the system, who have lied about fathers being abusive only to get custody of the children. These scum are one of the reasons the system is as badly screwed up as it is. They should lose custody of their children and spend some time in jail as far as I am concerned. But these are not the ones I am asking about. I am asking about the women who are *truly* abused by their husbands. About the children who are *truly* molested by their fathers. Your comments to women on this forum who have offered medical and/or criminal evidence that they or their children have experienced this is that they are just propogating the normal feminist lies. You can't possibly know that, but you claim it anyway. So my bottom line question for you, Bob, is: Do you feel that there are circumstances involving abuse and or molestation that would give the wife/mother an acceptable reason to "break up the family" in order to keep herself and her children safe? As Ret Butler once said, Frankly Toots, I don't give a damn. Pretty much what I expected from you, Bob. "If it doesn't benefit me, who gives a ****." You use the misandry of others as an excuse to validate your own misogyny. And you try to cloak it in the same "best interests of the children" mantra that the other side uses--but with your own special twist. Tut, tut, Bob! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care Releases Sweeping Recommendations to Overhaul Nation's Foster Care System | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | May 19th 04 05:50 PM |
Improvements seen in foster care system Fewer kids in limbo in Milwaukee County | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | February 8th 04 05:42 PM |
HALF OF KIDS IN FOSTER CARE NEEDLESSLY | Malev | General | 0 | December 12th 03 03:53 PM |
HALF OF KIDS IN FOSTER CARE NEEDLESSLY | Malev | Foster Parents | 0 | December 12th 03 03:53 PM |
look | Goran | Kids Health | 0 | August 30th 03 06:51 AM |