Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Exposing Child Abuse

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 30-09-2014, 07:24 PM   #21
jpcusicksr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: 20636 USA
Posts: 392
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Exclamation Response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrag View Post
I understand what you are getting at. But that to me is human rights gone bonkers.
I am happy to see you refer to it as "human rights" even though you degrade it anyway.

What the Child Support and Custody laws do is violate the human rights and the human interactions and violate the human relationships where the laws do not belong.

It is one thing for the two parents to hate each other and to fight like dogs and cats, but the government has no right to interfere except only in cases of physical violence, and even with violence the government has a vested interest in promoting and trying to preserve the marriage and the family unit.

Anything otherwise is inhuman and barbaric and evil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrag View Post
The parent on the run is being passively abusive and neglectful to the child by
denying them resources.
Resources and/or care should be coming from both parents equally.
That is not to be done by the brute force of the law enforcement.

There is no 11th commandment of = Thou shalt pay for the care of thy children.

The two (2) parents simply must work out their parenting between their selves, and that includes that either or both parents get to behave like uncaring jerks, and the law has no business to interfere with that.

It is true that Public Assistance is affected, and that must not be a factor or excuse to interfere with force.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrag View Post
I know some of the mens rights activists are wanting the laws to change so that men can go around fertilizing as many women as possible and having no participation in the child's life what so ever. They arguing that its natural for men to behave in this way and any other set up is unnatural for men and so against their rights.
I do not like the men's groups or the fathers' group as I find them all to be reprehensible, and I have communicated with many of them and they are mostly about as blind stupid and immoral as are the females.

You say the men are trying to have babies by many women, and I do not find that to be true for the vast majority of men, and I find most women to be very cold and cruel in their opinions of men.

But that really does not matter, as the laws are simply pitting the men against the women and putting mothers against fathers as the laws use the divide-and-rule procedure so that then everyone gets trashed.
__________________
SIGNATURE:
Mr. Know-it-all, sir.
jpcusicksr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2014, 07:33 PM   #22
jpcusicksr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: 20636 USA
Posts: 392
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Exclamation Response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamlinn View Post
So you are suggesting that we jail anyone who has sex with a married person. Well good luck with that is all I have to say.
There are other options besides putting the home-wreckers into jail or prison, as there could be a large fine or having to leave the area or put them onto parole or probation, and certainly making them known to the public so everyone would know that they are a danger to the social structure.

I am sure that you and everyone reading this comment already know people who actively look for a married women or look for married men as they are predators who get some kind of pleasure in hurting families and destroying marriages, or better yet is to do it without getting caught as if it is a sport.

Instead when some adulterer violates a family unit then the only option available is the Divorce Industry who are just waiting to attack and to destroy.
__________________
SIGNATURE:
Mr. Know-it-all, sir.
jpcusicksr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2014, 07:39 PM   #23
tamlinn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,901
Likes: 824 (482 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcusicksr View Post
There are other options besides putting the home-wreckers into jail or prison, as there could be a large fine or having to leave the area or put them onto parole or probation, and certainly making them known to the public so everyone would know that they are a danger to the social structure.

I am sure that you and everyone reading this comment already know people who actively look for a married women or look for married men as they are predators who get some kind of pleasure in hurting families and destroying marriages, or better yet is to do it without getting caught as if it is a sport.

Instead when some adulterer violates a family unit then the only option available is the Divorce Industry who are just waiting to attack and to destroy.
I guess there is the gallows and then make them embroider a large scarlet "A" onto their shirts might do the trick. Look, this is silly. Society isn't going to return to the Puritan times.
tamlinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2014, 07:46 PM   #24
wildhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In a stable by a sacred spring
Posts: 5,257
Likes: 220 (114 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcusicksr View Post
There are other options besides putting the home-wreckers into jail or prison, as there could be a large fine or having to leave the area or put them onto parole or probation, and certainly making them known to the public so everyone would know that they are a danger to the social structure.

I am sure that you and everyone reading this comment already know people who actively look for a married women or look for married men as they are predators who get some kind of pleasure in hurting families and destroying marriages, or better yet is to do it without getting caught as if it is a sport.

Instead when some adulterer violates a family unit then the only option available is the Divorce Industry who are just waiting to attack and to destroy.
they also do it because the married person and the person they are cheating with, are both emotionally unavailable, meaning they do not want to be in a committed relationship so something on the side ensures that a true commitment is never made, and the spouse at home being cheated on is a good fall back option.

Common Law marriage...when it ends, it ends with no vultures. It is not classed as legally binding or has as much legal status as the usual marriage needing a license, but it is a form of legal commitment none the less.
wildhorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2014, 07:56 PM   #25
jpcusicksr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: 20636 USA
Posts: 392
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Thumbs down Reply

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamlinn View Post
I guess there is the gallows and then make them embroider a large scarlet "A" onto their shirts might do the trick. Look, this is silly. Society isn't going to return to the Puritan times.
You are misrepresenting the so called Puritan Law, as it was the married person who got the letter "A" and not the adulterer.

Why not be like this = We will just let the outsider adulterer go free and clear and instead we will get the marriage a divorce and break up the family unit and alienate their children and then order such things as Child Support and Custody laws which turn the parents into criminals and degrades the entire social structure.

God knows you do not want to punish some home-wrecker as they have the human right to adulterate any marriage or family that they can violate.

That way as it is now is inhuman and extremely stupid.
__________________
SIGNATURE:
Mr. Know-it-all, sir.
jpcusicksr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2014, 08:14 PM   #26
tamlinn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,901
Likes: 824 (482 Posts)
Default

If I had a dollar for every married man who tries to convince me to be with him..These guys are like vultures. Or liars, who take off their rings and pretend to be single. Of course they are entirely innocent, they way they get raped against their will by the nasty adulterers. I don't have much sympathy for what they go through in court. Sorry. I do feel sorry for the children though. And whether they actually find someone to cheat with or not, when the spouses find out what they are up to, I'm pretty sure there are lots of divorces from that.
tamlinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2014, 08:34 PM   #27
wildhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In a stable by a sacred spring
Posts: 5,257
Likes: 220 (114 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcusicksr View Post
You are misrepresenting the so called Puritan Law, as it was the married person who got the letter "A" and not the adulterer.

Why not be like this = We will just let the outsider adulterer go free and clear and instead we will get the marriage a divorce and break up the family unit and alienate their children and then order such things as Child Support and Custody laws which turn the parents into criminals and degrades the entire social structure.

God knows you do not want to punish some home-wrecker as they have the human right to adulterate any marriage or family that they can violate.

That way as it is now is inhuman and extremely stupid.
or, maybe the married person not cheat.

radical huh

failing that, divorce. Cannot expect the spouse to be cheated on to stay. That is inhumane.

If someone cheats on me, Im gone...I cannot make it work with a liar who I no longer trust.
wildhorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2014, 09:07 PM   #28
jpcusicksr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: 20636 USA
Posts: 392
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Wink Reply

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamlinn View Post
If I had a dollar for every married man who tries to convince me to be with him..These guys are like vultures. Or liars, who take off their rings and pretend to be single. Of course they are entirely innocent, they way they get raped against their will by the nasty adulterers. I don't have much sympathy for what they go through in court. Sorry. I do feel sorry for the children though. And whether they actually find someone to cheat with or not, when the spouses find out what they are up to, I'm pretty sure there are lots of divorces from that.
It would be very different if both the people knew that the person would get into legal trouble for violating a marriage.

If Hillary Clinton was able to press charges against Lewinsky then both her husband and the adulteress would have felt the danger and acted accordingly.

A married Man can not seduce his secretary if both he and that secretary knows that she will get into trouble.

And you say that you see married men (and we see wives too) trying to mess around, but it would be different still if instead of telling their spouse we could report them to the law - then that game would change.

The married person has nothing to consider but a divorce, and it is the misguided inhuman laws which empower that.
__________________
SIGNATURE:
Mr. Know-it-all, sir.
jpcusicksr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2014, 09:16 PM   #29
jpcusicksr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: 20636 USA
Posts: 392
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Exclamation Response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhorse View Post
or, maybe the married person not cheat.

radical huh

failing that, divorce. Cannot expect the spouse to be cheated on to stay. That is inhumane.

If someone cheats on me, Im gone...I cannot make it work with a liar who I no longer trust.
If you study the psychology as I have then married people who are sexually active with each other are far more vulnerable to their sex drive then are single people who do not have a steady partner.

It is sexually active people who actually get into "heat" while people who are not sexually active do not get that way.

It is like people who go swimming a lot will want to do more swimming, but those who do not swim or swim very seldom will not have that strong of a craving.

The point though is that the government needs to have its own vested interest in protecting and defending the family unit, and the Child Support and Custody laws do the exact opposite by empowering the break-up of the parents.
__________________
SIGNATURE:
Mr. Know-it-all, sir.
jpcusicksr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2014, 09:21 PM   #30
tamlinn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,901
Likes: 824 (482 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcusicksr View Post
If you study the psychology as I have then married people who are sexually active with each other are far more vulnerable to their sex drive then are single people who do not have a steady partner.

It is sexually active people who actually get into "heat" while people who are not sexually active do not get that way.

It is like people who go swimming a lot will want to do more swimming, but those who do not swim or swim very seldom will not have that strong of a craving.

The point though is that the government needs to have its own vested interest in protecting and defending the family unit, and the Child Support and Custody laws do the exact opposite by empowering the break-up of the parents.
I'll use that one on the next man who tells me his wife won't have sex with him so he needs to get it somewhere else! Since he's not having any sex, he shouldn't want any!
tamlinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2014, 10:24 AM   #31
wildhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In a stable by a sacred spring
Posts: 5,257
Likes: 220 (114 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamlinn View Post
I'll use that one on the next man who tells me his wife won't have sex with him so he needs to get it somewhere else! Since he's not having any sex, he shouldn't want any!


this thread has hit the shitter.

Gunna leave the psychological marriage researcher to their theories
wildhorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2014, 10:44 AM   #32
lyrag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 871
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhorse View Post
ok, many NRPs (that covers both fathers and mothers who for whatever reason, do not have access to their children) are financially raped by the CSA. This is not just a fathers rights issue, it is across both genders.


You say it is passively abusive towards the child by denying them resources. What if the NRP does not have their own resources to even care for themselves, let alone a child?

If somebody cannot afford to pay for their own rent, food, bills etc etc then why are they having children. Yes I understand that in some rare cases people can get pregnant whilst using contraception or maybe the woman is raped and does not want an abortion and fails to get the emergency pill.

But those who consciously choose to have a child when they can barely look after themselves in my eyes, they create the situation. I'm not saying that its fair that only those with higher incomes can afford to have children but in a mark of rebellion the parents put the child into those situations. A lot of people seem to see children as a basic right, not a luxury item, which really is what they are in the way the world is right now.

The only people I can use as examples are those that I have known. I don't work within the system and thankfully I have not personally been caught up in it so I don't know the full ins and outs of it. I'm just speaking from seeing what has happened to some close friends.


Do I think its 'right' No. But I also think from what I have seen in my small circle that there is a large amount of people not fully knowing what they are getting themselves into before they choose to have children. I see people in relationships that are not long term or stable, people who are mentally unstable, people who are on low income, people who right before they decide to have children have been binge drinking, drug users having children and just expecting for things to turn out okay once the child is born.

I've seen women and men who are stable have children with women/men who are very unstable, alcoholics or drug users and they get pregnant with them. As soon as the child is out they expect a miracle to happen for the unstable parent to suddenly see the child and for their personality to totally change, when it doesn't happen they end up getting full custody of the child even though the other person was good enough to get pregnant with prior.

You could argue that that parent is also unstable for choosing that person as a parent.

Yes I agree, who wouldn't. There are people out there totally abusing CSA. I know of one child who is always wearing clothing to small for it and fed junk food whilst the parent receiving the benefit manages to always have new clothes, sky tv, pets, holidays etc

I think it should be changed where people are not giving cash but items or vouchers for specific things for the child. But people who want to abuse the system will always find ways around it.

There again, maybe people should be making better decisions when choosing somebody to have a child with.

Not all children want to see the other parent, I have seen parents in denial, parents who have had aggression problems, drink problems etc believe that the child is just 'being silly' but really the child is scared of them and doesn't want to see them.

One of my own parents believed(or maybe he didn't believe but had to say this to everyone he knew to prove that he was still a 'good father') I wouldn't have contact with him due to my other parents influence. The truth is I made up my mind about him before he even left the household.

Some parents egos are so huge that they even when the other parent, the children, the state all believe the parent to be doing something wrong in how they are bringing up their child, they still believe they are right. It totally becomes about themselves and proving things rather than the child.

But yes I get your point, sometimes that is all the child wants and to deny your child access to another parent because of your emotions towards them is abusive and immature.

(I was replying to your entire quote just just shortened it as my reply is quite long also )
lyrag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2014, 10:48 AM   #33
lyrag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 871
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcusicksr View Post
If you study the psychology as I have then married people who are sexually active with each other are far more vulnerable to their sex drive then are single people who do not have a steady partner.

It is sexually active people who actually get into "heat" while people who are not sexually active do not get that way.

It is like people who go swimming a lot will want to do more swimming, but those who do not swim or swim very seldom will not have that strong of a craving.

The point though is that the government needs to have its own vested interest in protecting and defending the family unit, and the Child Support and Custody laws do the exact opposite by empowering the break-up of the parents.
I have not had sex for a couple of years. I think about it all of the time. I think about it with anybody I come into contact with even if i'm not attracted to them. When I'm with someone it is curbed. A lot of people I have spoken to about it are this way.

What statistics is this based on?
lyrag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2014, 01:59 PM   #34
wildhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In a stable by a sacred spring
Posts: 5,257
Likes: 220 (114 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrag View Post
If somebody cannot afford to pay for their own rent, food, bills etc etc then why are they having children.
sorry, I read upto that statement, and cut it short.



when people split up, the joint finances that kept things afloat GO...when you become single after a split, its a financial shock.

Whilst I agree we shouldnt be having children if we cant support them, and by that as a woman, I looked at it as if I could support (I didnt take into account on whether or not I would get support from the dads)...but...there are families who can support and split up and situations change. Families and relations are complex and can change.

Then add the CSA ontop of that, and the nrp doesnt stand a chance in hell to support himself, let alone their child(ren)...who thanks to the CSA, lose out both financially (as nrp cant work due to the CSAs demands so they give £5 a week out their benefits because they were unable to afford to go to work)

and most importantly, the child(ren) lose out on the emotional bond of the parent not living with them, which is what happens when the pwc bans contact out of spite.
wildhorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2014, 02:42 PM   #35
tamlinn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,901
Likes: 824 (482 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhorse View Post


this thread has hit the shitter.

Gunna leave the psychological marriage researcher to their theories
Yes, it definitely needs to be flushed!
tamlinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2014, 04:35 PM   #36
jpcusicksr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: 20636 USA
Posts: 392
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Cool Reply

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamlinn View Post
I'll use that one on the next man who tells me his wife won't have sex with him so he needs to get it somewhere else! Since he's not having any sex, he shouldn't want any!
Actually you are failing to understand the vast scope of government and of laws, in that the men and women will do as they are told, and in fact they are doing as they are orchestrated to do right now.

The governments (USA and UK and beyond) have created laws and empower a culture of broken families and of licentiousness, and the people simply do as they are instructed to do as like puppets on strings.

The only resistance to the social pressure requires an effort far beyond what most people are capable of doing.

The Child Support and Custody laws along with the Divorce Industry (regardless whether one is married or not) are political policies and they are there to serve the government and not to empower the mothers and fathers. They might claim to be our servants but they are not.


=====================================

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrag View Post
I have not had sex for a couple of years. I think about it all of the time. I think about it with anybody I come into contact with even if i'm not attracted to them. When I'm with someone it is curbed. A lot of people I have spoken to about it are this way.

What statistics is this based on?
That is what you are expected to do, as it is propagated in TV and magazines and everywhere, as you are a home-wrecker just waiting to strike.

I am sure you see your self as independent and free, but really most people are just pawns or puppets or worse.
__________________
SIGNATURE:
Mr. Know-it-all, sir.
jpcusicksr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2014, 07:10 PM   #37
elenita
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 246 (137 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhorse View Post
I am sorry your brother is going through this. It is so sad to hear of other cases.
...'

Send my regards to your brother, and send him to google and type in csa hell :luv:
Aww, thanks for that.
As I said, often this situation can only be truly understood for what it is when you have experience.

:luv:
elenita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2014, 05:03 PM   #38
lyrag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 871
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhorse View Post
sorry, I read upto that statement, and cut it short.



when people split up, the joint finances that kept things afloat GO...when you become single after a split, its a financial shock.

Whilst I agree we shouldnt be having children if we cant support them, and by that as a woman, I looked at it as if I could support (I didnt take into account on whether or not I would get support from the dads)...but...there are families who can support and split up and situations change. Families and relations are complex and can change.

Then add the CSA ontop of that, and the nrp doesnt stand a chance in hell to support himself, let alone their child(ren)...who thanks to the CSA, lose out both financially (as nrp cant work due to the CSAs demands so they give £5 a week out their benefits because they were unable to afford to go to work)

and most importantly, the child(ren) lose out on the emotional bond of the parent not living with them, which is what happens when the pwc bans contact out of spite.

I'm well aware of what happens. Like I said my parents divorced and I have a few close friends who have been through it all.

What I have seen in all of those cases is one parent values finances and hating the other person more than the needs of their child. I understand that basing my view on a short group of people is obviously going to be very biased.

If both parties make sure that they are NEVER dependent on the other OR get a prenuptial before they decide to have children it will make it financially easier for them, they can get on with their relationship and minimize greatly emotional blackmail and power play, when you have one person who has more resources very often it seems to be that there is constant overhang on the other person.

If people rely on trusting another person to always be nice and not pull the carpet from under their feet then
lyrag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2014, 05:15 PM   #39
lyrag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 871
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcusicksr View Post

That is what you are expected to do, as it is propagated in TV and magazines and everywhere, as you are a home-wrecker just waiting to strike.

I am sure you see your self as independent and free, but really most people are just pawns or puppets or worse.
So your saying that I only act in this way due to brainwashing?

I see myself as a free puppet

But no, I don't see myself as independent and free in that respect. I want sex most of the time. I don't feel like I'm free to have it when I want with whoever I want with no consequences , if that was a possibility then I would feel free.
lyrag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2014, 05:28 PM   #40
lyrag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 871
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcusicksr View Post
I am happy to see you refer to it as "human rights" even though you degrade it anyway.

What the Child Support and Custody laws do is violate the human rights and the human interactions and violate the human relationships where the laws do not belong.

It is one thing for the two parents to hate each other and to fight like dogs and cats, but the government has no right to interfere except only in cases of physical violence, and even with violence the government has a vested interest in promoting and trying to preserve the marriage and the family unit.

Anything otherwise is inhuman and barbaric and evil.


That is not to be done by the brute force of the law enforcement.

There is no 11th commandment of = Thou shalt pay for the care of thy children.

The two (2) parents simply must work out their parenting between their selves, and that includes that either or both parents get to behave like uncaring jerks, and the law has no business to interfere with that.

It is true that Public Assistance is affected, and that must not be a factor or excuse to interfere with force.


I do not like the men's groups or the fathers' group as I find them all to be reprehensible, and I have communicated with many of them and they are mostly about as blind stupid and immoral as are the females.

You say the men are trying to have babies by many women, and I do not find that to be true for the vast majority of men, and I find most women to be very cold and cruel in their opinions of men.

But that really does not matter, as the laws are simply pitting the men against the women and putting mothers against fathers as the laws use the divide-and-rule procedure so that then everyone gets trashed.
Well its your opinion that its evil and barbaric, I believe otherwise. Your putting the parents needs above the childs, just like I am putting the childs needs above the parents. Who is to say which is the 'right' one?

I think that actually other people should be involved. If you are bringing a child up in an environment where they are suffering psychological or emotionally(not just physical abuse) if that could be lessened in SOMEWAY(I'm not saying removing a parent instantly is a good thing, but the parent as least needs lessons on what is/isn't damaging to a child)

There should be an 11th commandment. I'm pretty sure those rebelling against authority are not to concerned with the commandments anyway though

If two parents act like 'uncaring jerks', that impacts the rest of humanity. I personally think that if people are only concerned with their own agendas and not benefiting humanity(the environment and animals etc all other life included) that they need to be forced into a program to straighten them out. If they are going to continue to throw their weight around and shoulder chips on everyone else then they need removing.

I don't know how I worded it, but yes one of the MGTOW 'leaders' in his manifesto that hundreds of men are agreeing with are wanting for men to be able to 'spread their seed' with no responsibility. I can find the link and post it if you are interested?
lyrag is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
child, child support, crime, injustice, parent

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:57 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.