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
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
In article , Bob
wrote: Nan wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:18:51 GMT, dragonlady wrote: In article , Bob wrote: Yes she is, in that scenario she betrayed her marriage much worse than the husband. His conduct did nothing to harm the marriage. Hers destroyed the family. She is by far the most guilty. Just to make sure I'm clear on your point, Bob, you say "his conduct did nothing to harm the marriage." Are you saying that adultry doesn't harm a marriage? Would this also be true for a woman committing adultry without creating another child in the process? IOW, are you saying that adultry only harms a marriage when a child is conceived in the adultry? Bob's bias is very clear. The man can stray, but the woman isn't allowed to. Nan Nan's bias is very clear, as usual. The woman in dragonlady scenario deliberately destroyed her family and marriage, and used children as pawns in a hate game. SHE hurt the children deliberately and permanently. But Nan and dragonlady blame the nearest available man. Bob Bob, I didn't say anything about what the woman did, or even about who I think behaved worse -- I just asked a question, which you have not answered. Are you saying that adultry doesn't hurt a marriage? (and it wasn't my scenario) meh -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
In article , Bob
wrote: dragonlady wrote: In article , Bob wrote: Rosalie B. wrote: x-no-archive:yes "Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote: "Nan" wrote in message m... On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:11:59 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" [] It's not about choosing to be hostile. It's about being deeply hurt. When people are hurt the protect themselves. Sometimes they even lash out at innocent bystanders. Of course it's about *choosing* to be hostile. Bob isn't lashing out at an innocent bystander, he's choosing to eradicate a relationship that previously existed, in an effort to punish a woman. Bob has been writing about a hypothetical situation. We don't know what Bob would do if this actually happened to him. Bob is making the point that a man has no obligations to a child that is a product of his wife's adultery. A man might choose to maintain a relationship with such a child, but he is not obliged to. snip OK - what would be the take on this situation? A man and a woman who are married have three boys. All three boys are genetically the children of both the mom and dad. The mom makes a surprise visit to a conference that the dad is attending and walks into his hotel room and finds the dad in bed with another woman engaging in sex. She is enraged. That's a typical feminist reaction. French President Miterand's mistress and family came to the state funeral and sat behind the wife and her family. Its much less vicious than the "enraged" attitude of feminists. She says to the man OK you were unfaithful to me. I am going to get artificial insemination from a sperm bank. I will get a divorce and you will have to support all four children. Typical feminist -- any excuse to destroy the family and use children to hurt the man. Feminists hate families. Shame on her. The woman is not the one who was unfaithful. Yes she is, in that scenario she betrayed her marriage much worse than the husband. His conduct did nothing to harm the marriage. Hers destroyed the family. She is by far the most guilty. Just to make sure I'm clear on your point, Bob, you say "his conduct did nothing to harm the marriage." Are you saying that adultry doesn't harm a marriage? Would this also be true for a woman committing adultry without creating another child in the process? IOW, are you saying that adultry only harms a marriage when a child is conceived in the adultry? meh If she had stayed home and not gone to the convention to snoop and scream, how, specifically, would the marriage, or the children, have suffered? Other than her ranting and hurt feelings, how, specifically, had the family been destroyed the year before? Bob So adultry is OK if you don't get caught? Does this go for both women and men? And if they DO get caught, it's the fault of the "snooping" spouse? meh -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
dragonlady wrote:
In article , Bob wrote: Nan wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:18:51 GMT, dragonlady wrote: In article , Bob wrote: Yes she is, in that scenario she betrayed her marriage much worse than the husband. His conduct did nothing to harm the marriage. Hers destroyed the family. She is by far the most guilty. Just to make sure I'm clear on your point, Bob, you say "his conduct did nothing to harm the marriage." Are you saying that adultry doesn't harm a marriage? Would this also be true for a woman committing adultry without creating another child in the process? IOW, are you saying that adultry only harms a marriage when a child is conceived in the adultry? Bob's bias is very clear. The man can stray, but the woman isn't allowed to. Nan Nan's bias is very clear, as usual. The woman in dragonlady scenario deliberately destroyed her family and marriage, and used children as pawns in a hate game. SHE hurt the children deliberately and permanently. But Nan and dragonlady blame the nearest available man. Bob Bob, I didn't say anything about what the woman did, or even about who I think behaved worse -- I just asked a question, which you have not answered. Are you saying that adultry doesn't hurt a marriage? (and it wasn't my scenario) meh You're right. It was "grandma Rosalie's" scenario. She said nothing about any harm to the family or the children from the man's actions. She described deliberate horrible harm to the children by the mother. "grandma Rosalie" did not describe harm to the children caused by the adultry in this scenario. Sometimes adultry hurts a marriage, but no where near as often as anger about adultry. French President Miterand is a good example of a more civilized and less harmful custom of dealing with adultery. Bob |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
dragonlady wrote:
In article , Bob wrote: Just to make sure I'm clear on your point, Bob, you say "his conduct did nothing to harm the marriage." Are you saying that adultry doesn't harm a marriage? Would this also be true for a woman committing adultry without creating another child in the process? IOW, are you saying that adultry only harms a marriage when a child is conceived in the adultry? meh If she had stayed home and not gone to the convention to snoop and scream, how, specifically, would the marriage, or the children, have suffered? Other than her ranting and hurt feelings, how, specifically, had the family been destroyed the year before? So adultry is OK if you don't get caught? Does this go for both women and men? And if they DO get caught, it's the fault of the "snooping" spouse? meh We need to be clear on what specific harm to the children, family, you are talking about. All you did was dodge. Please answer the question. Bob |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
Nan wrote:
YIP YIP YAP YAP Nan Somebody let the bitch out. She needs to pee again. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
Rosalie B. ) writes:
x-no-archive:yes "Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote: "Nan" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:11:59 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" [] It's not about choosing to be hostile. It's about being deeply hurt. When people are hurt the protect themselves. Sometimes they even lash out at innocent bystanders. Of course it's about *choosing* to be hostile. Bob isn't lashing out at an innocent bystander, he's choosing to eradicate a relationship that previously existed, in an effort to punish a woman. Bob has been writing about a hypothetical situation. We don't know what Bob would do if this actually happened to him. Bob is making the point that a man has no obligations to a child that is a product of his wife's adultery. A man might choose to maintain a relationship with such a child, but he is not obliged to. snip OK - what would be the take on this situation? A man and a woman who are married have three boys. All three boys are genetically the children of both the mom and dad. The mom makes a surprise visit to a conference that the dad is attending and walks into his hotel room and finds the dad in bed with another woman engaging in sex. She is enraged. She says to the man OK you were unfaithful to me. I am going to get artificial insemination from a sperm bank. I will get a divorce and you will have to support all four children. Creating, maliciously, a child that will never have a father, in an effort to get recenge and stolen resources... How sweet. Thats an excellent definition of of criminal negligence. The woman is not the one who was unfaithful. Its a double standard, to decry one evil, while perpetrating another. She did not deceive the man about the parentage of the fourth child (who was a girl BTW). Gee, one offense that shes not guilty of... Just like *he's not guilty* of making fatherless children... They get a divorce and the man gets custody of all the two youngest children (including the one not biologically his), remarries and has other children by the 2nd wife. This is an actual case. And, an excellent example of the biases of Family Kourts. The wife, for her malice and revenge, in *taking it out on a not yet CREATED child*, is evil. She should lose all custody, pay about 50% of her income in CS, and be barred from any unsupervised contact with the ex, and the kids. At some point in this thread a guy commented that the woman was the only one who could chose to 'throw away' the child by having it adopted. I don't think that is correct. IIRC I remember at least one case where the mom gave the baby up for adoption but the dad didn't know that the child was his. When he found out about his child he took the child away from the adoptive parents because he had not given consent for the child to be adopted. But, you may remember poorly... So, no sale. Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
Nan ) writes:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 17:33:16 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote: "Rosalie B." wrote in message . .. [] OK - what would be the take on this situation? A man and a woman who are married have three boys. All three boys are genetically the children of both the mom and dad. The mom makes a surprise visit to a conference that the dad is attending and walks into his hotel room and finds the dad in bed with another woman engaging in sex. She is enraged. She says to the man OK you were unfaithful to me. I am going to get artificial insemination from a sperm bank. I will get a divorce and you will have to support all four children. The woman is not the one who was unfaithful. She did not deceive the man about the parentage of the fourth child (who was a girl BTW). They get a divorce and the man gets custody of all the two youngest children (including the one not biologically his), remarries and has other children by the 2nd wife. This is an actual case. That woman behaved horribly. To have a child for the purpose of hurting someone is terrible. Jayne And the man behaved horribly by having an affair, thus tossing his family to the dogs. Amazing. Before, you were all a'twitter at a man " harming " a child NOT HIS, by leaving it. Now, you see the CREATION of a child PURELY for *revenge* as fine, and of no " harm " to the *child*... Your MISANDRY is clear. Any evil women DO, you excuse. Any men's response to *such female evil*, you decry. Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
In article , Bob
wrote: dragonlady wrote: In article , Bob wrote: Just to make sure I'm clear on your point, Bob, you say "his conduct did nothing to harm the marriage." Are you saying that adultry doesn't harm a marriage? Would this also be true for a woman committing adultry without creating another child in the process? IOW, are you saying that adultry only harms a marriage when a child is conceived in the adultry? meh If she had stayed home and not gone to the convention to snoop and scream, how, specifically, would the marriage, or the children, have suffered? Other than her ranting and hurt feelings, how, specifically, had the family been destroyed the year before? So adultry is OK if you don't get caught? Does this go for both women and men? And if they DO get caught, it's the fault of the "snooping" spouse? meh We need to be clear on what specific harm to the children, family, you are talking about. All you did was dodge. Please answer the question. Bob Adultry hurts a marriage in at LEAST two ways: 1 - the person committing adultry is spending time, often $$, and emotional energy on another relationship; those things ought to be spent on their marriage, and taking them away from the marriage hurts the family. 2 - the person committing adultry is lying to his or her partner, which damages THAT relationship further; anything that damages the relationship between the married couple damages their children. There is the added potential damage of creating a baby outside of a marriage, and of bringing an STD into the marriage bed. Finally, adultry would lead to a higher potential for divorce -- and I think we ALL agree that divorce hurts children. So -- are you really saying adultry is OK if you don't get caught? meh -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
10 ways to be a better father
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
... Rosalie B. ) writes: At some point in this thread a guy commented that the woman was the only one who could chose to 'throw away' the child by having it adopted. I don't think that is correct. IIRC I remember at least one case where the mom gave the baby up for adoption but the dad didn't know that the child was his. When he found out about his child he took the child away from the adoptive parents because he had not given consent for the child to be adopted. But, you may remember poorly... So, no sale. That information Rosalie gave is accurate. There have been several cases in recent years where adoptions were nullified or blocked because the father was located and asserted his rights to parent the child. Hence the mis-begotten Florida statute requiring women to attempt to locate the father of a child which they want to place for adoption so that the father can also sign surrenders - even if the father is a john or rapist. Big hoo-ha hereabouts in last couple years. -Aula, in Florida -- see my creative works on ebay under aulame123 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
10 ways to be a better father | Renee | General | 1 | November 16th 03 02:29 PM |
Father Upset With Foster Service Over Near-Drowning Of Son | [email protected] | General | 0 | June 30th 03 10:43 PM |