85% of Protection Orders Entered Against Men. 90% of Those Entries Used to Gain Tactical Advantage for Divorce!

EyeNeedOptions · 2018-03-25T07:03:19+00:00

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/order-of-protection-and-j_b_974970?m=false “These orders are (for women) easy to obtain” “Documented Evidence of...

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]EyeNeedOptions[S] 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Luchadorgreen 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrway_1000 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrwhibbley 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]EyeNeedOptions[S] 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

There’s a reason why the federal government has banned the public statistics of domestic violence and protection order cases. Even lawyers cannot log on to the internet and collect this data. They have to have a specific case number and call the court up to obtain any information if they’re willing to reveal it.

So the question begs, why does it have to be hidden? It’s clear. The agenda is to break men and humiliate them and shame them and to destroy families.

You know what else? If a woman claims she was cheated on they give women an STD test but then go on to hand them extra large condoms. Sometimes they give them Trojan magnums. Hmmmm why is this?

So that when she and her man get back together or he walks in to collect his items and sees it his ego gets hit. He starts thinking, “what a slut, my cock wasn’t enough for her” and it begins to create doubt in his mind.

If he challenges her and he doesn’t accept her pleas, it reinforces her idea that this man has nothing but bad things to say or think about her and she should no longer tolerate him.

These aren’t conspiracies. There’s a coordinated effort by the left, atheists, and foreign government subverters to push this agenda.

Lastly, women are protected from perjury in cases of domestic violence. Do you wish to read Supreme Court judges opinions? Women would bait their husbands still do and use it against them.

Men have been jailed for women sending s text to buy their children some diapers. What father won’t take care of his kids? Goes to the store and cops arrest the man before he reaches home since he texts back OK and that’s a violation.

They’re allowed to lie, instigate and bait men and get away with it.

[–]tinysackbigshaft 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EyeNeedOptions[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrwhibbley 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrwhibbley 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]btmims 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alclarkey 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GinoMan2440 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EyeNeedOptions[S] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[+]mymonster8u1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (15 children) | Copy Link

Their should not be religion of any sort in schools with exception to a cutural/history lesson. There is no place for religion in a science or math classroom. Atheism is not anti religion. It is freedom from religion. Children are welcome to be any religion they or their parents choose for them. Your childs religion should not be decided by Ms Becky the 3rd grade teacher. People who think religion should be allowed in schools are always the ones who cry the loudest when the church of the satanic temple shows up to hand out coloring books. You just want YOUR religion pushed on MY kids. And you dont get to do that sorry.

[–]GinoMan2440 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[+]mymonster8u1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

No. There is not some religion called atheism. Teaching in the public school is based upon science/scientific method and something called emperical data and evidence based education. What that means is that you perform a scientific study-say comparing 2 English curriculums and collect data on the outcomes of performance based tests. The curriculum with the highest achievement scores and of course best price wins district or state wide adoption. The adoption process at the state level has the problem of officials injecting their agenda be it political or religious or even to be inclusive in regards to diversity or if they want it white washed. Changes are made to make those peopke happy and then they get paid, or polititians recieve campaign donations to skip all the bullshit. The process also involves parents at the local level and local curriculums such as a local teachers contributions.

The thing is... Religion isnt evidence based curriculum geared toward academic performance on standardized tests. It also does not adhere to the scientific method. That means that in a science clessroom you can not talk about chemistry and stress the importance of evidence based experimentation then switch over to the 'you just gotta have faith in magic'bullshit. The kids past age 5 that haven't been "indoctrinated" will call the teachers on their crap. And that just makes the adults feel dumb. You can not sit there in a science class and claim the bible-a pre modern science text- and say maybe the earth is 6000 year old cuz jeasus then switch over to dinosaurs and mendelian genetics.

Sure it belongs in a history class. The justifications for slaves genocide and crusades can not properly be understood out of context and the brainwashing of the masses.

Just because You have not looked into the way the earth was formed doesn't mean that astrophysists that write scientific textbooks don't understand or that 10 year olds cant understand.

I really dont see the issue. There is no God. We already have 99% of creation scientifically understood. Adding in pre science text would be like putting dumb people in charge. Its like if trump was a flat earther not just a piece of shit. The religious right is holding back science. We should look forward not backwards. Into green technology before these coperate mofos blow the place up.

If you are refering to moral teachings for adoption by districts there are cognative behavioral evidence based curriculums that tap into children's needs again, better than a pre science text. And its not that polite of a book to begin with.

Abstinence education leads to HIV outbreaks and teen pregnancy... Or did you not see the statistics.

[–]GinoMan2440 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I'll take apart your assertions point by point:

"religion called atheism"

Definition of religion (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Notice 2, and 4? Are you saying that you have NO beliefs in ANYTHING? Is that your belief? You can see how this quickly reduces to absurdity to claim that you don't have a religious belief. You do. You have a system of beliefs as an atheist which are common to most other atheists and you hold to those attitudes, beliefs, and practices with a strong commitment. Practically the only definition you DON'T fit is number 1, except that I would argue that for atheists, they are their own gods and they tend to hold themselves up as the highest ideal in discussion. My commitment however is to Jesus Christ. Both of us are religious; I'm just up front about it.

"teaching in public schools... statewide adoption"

Since we're both functioning on a religious worldview, albeit opposite religious worldviews, and that this is true of everyone who engages this argument, then there is no neutrality. Therefore, this idea that the things you assert are part of public schooling (actually they're not, History taught in public schools is vastly inaccurate and relies on tertiary sources while idealizing false heros and villianizing multifaceted people, students are behind in most other subjects compared to the rest of the world) are neutral and not religious is also false. They are religious and either they will be religiously Christian (or some other theistic religion) or they're religiously atheistic and secularist. Either 2 + 2 = 4 because Jesus Christ made it to be so, or you only think it is because chemical reactions in your brain say so. There is no neutrality there.

"Adoption process... state level... problems... local teachers contributions"

I agree that this religious influence is a problem when it comes to teaching most of our kids by government compulsion according to one or the other set of influences. That's why I oppose public schooling entirely and advocate for private, or home schooling. Parents should be in control of their own child's education; not the state.

"The thing is... Religion isnt evidence based curriculum geared toward academic performance on standardized tests."

Well, you seem to think your own religion's education is so geared so clearly that's not the case. And "academic performance on standardized tests" is a crap idea. It in no way successfully measures the intelligence or competency of the student in necessary or even relevant subjects. I got higher grades than my classmates in school on tests because I had a gift for logical consistency that I held the test to. Often times the answer to one question I knew would rule out the wrong answer to another question I had initially thought was the answer. Some tests were so bad that literally just holding the test to consistency would get you a high grade if you knew 30-50% of the answers. That's not a mastery of the material, that's a mastery of thinking. If I really wanted to learn something I had to learn about it myself. Meanwhile religious schools and the homeschooled (often also religious) often outperform the public school on those same metrics because they do better.

"It also does not adhere to the scientific method."

That's patently false.

"That means that... 'you just gotta have faith in magic'bullshit."

Strawman. And by the way, that doesn't seem to be the case with the religiously home-schooled or private-schooled who again, outperform our public school educated students.

"The kids past age 5 that haven't been "indoctrinated" will call the teachers on their crap."

Risible. I know very few five year olds who don't believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny.

"And that just ... mendelian genetics."

That would be called Chronological snobbery. Grow up! They knew that the earth was round and that the universe was expanding far sooner than "science" did.

"Sure it belongs in a history class. The justifications for slaves genocide and crusades can not properly be understood out of context and the brainwashing of the masses."

Sorry but what does a random result of chemical reactions over billions of years have to complain about the chemical reactions of other results hundreds of years ago? Remember, two worldviews in conflict here, no neutrality, if I'm right, those things ARE horrible, and I have every right to disown that history. If you're right then there's nothing to complain about those events in the first place.

"I really dont see the issue. There is no God. We already have 99% of creation scientifically understood. Adding in pre science text would be like putting dumb people in charge. Its like if trump was a flat earther not just a piece of shit. The religious right is holding back science. We should look forward not backwards. Into green technology before these coperate mofos blow the place up."

More Chronological Snobbery. Look, you wouldn't have science in the first place, if you didn't have people who were led to believe that the universe is orderly and governed and consistent because God carries all things along to their intended purpose believing that they could study the universe and know things about it by applying principles and working from there. Just like it says above the entrance to the library of Columbia University: in lumene tuo, videbiumus lumen - In your light shall we see light; a reference to Psalm 36:9. Your worldview on the other hand cannot even begin to be certain that any of that consistency is so, that induction is even possible, that evidence will always yield consistent conclusions, etc. You can't even justify what's wrong with chemical bags fizzing such that "science" is held back or even what would be wrong with "blowing the place up".

"If you are refering to moral teachings for adoption by districts there are cognative behavioral evidence based curriculums that tap into children's needs again, better than a pre science text. And its not that polite of a book to begin with."

I was more referring to consistency of principles. circular reasoning is wrong, except when you believe that circular reasoning is wrong because circular reasoning is wrong. Actually circular reasoning is wrong because it sets up an alternative foundation when ones foundation must be singular and the only circular reasoning allowed (ones ultimate authority that is). Everyone reasons from a circular argument as a foundation, the atheist argues from many circular foundations: "fallacies are wrong because they're fallacies", "truth can be known because truth can be known", "my senses are reliable because my senses tell me so", etc.

Though yes, teaching children that they came from stardust and that they fundamentally are just stardust robs any worldview that adopts it of being able to explain why anything is wrong. Stardust bumping into stardust just is, it's neither right nor wrong. Right and wrong appeals to something greater than just matter in motion, some sort of objective meaning external to the viewer and intrinsic to the actors. Christians have that as a feature of their worldviews, but atheists cannot have that without being completely capricious.

"Abstinence education leads to HIV outbreaks and teen pregnancy... Or did you not see the statistics."

That's because it's abstinence education; not marriage education. Again, I must point out that there's nothing wrong with bags of protoplasm being infected with protein envelopes with chemicals that cause them to produce more of these chemicals and protein envelopes in an atheist view of the world. It IS problematic from a Christian perspective because it results in the death of God's image bearers.

[+]mymonster8u1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

You called it a religion not me. Its not.

[–]GinoMan2440 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]mymonster8u1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Your religion is stupid and everyone with above a 5th grade science education laughs at you behind your back. You must be fucking dumb to think that shit has any truth or value. Satan is a better role model for your children than any christian ever will be. Jesus made wine from water... And science put a man on the moon and fixes Gods mistakes like cancer. Backassward uneducated retard. Your religion is false and everyone plays along... Haven't you ever read the childrens story the emperor's new clothes. Thats your people... A fucking child could see past their lies. Have fun at church. Dont get sand in your eyes while your head is burried in the sand stupid fuck. Your people ruin shit for the rest of us and are so fucking annoying and uneducated read a fucking physics book retard. One college intro to biology book has more info on life than the entire bible. Not that you would know.

[–]GinoMan2440 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ad hominem. more ad hominem even more ad hominem, more ad hominem. red herring more red herring strawman ad hominem x3 Bare assertion which you cannot possibly substantiate Red herring Ad hominem Ad hominem. Mere rhetoric more Rhetoric and Ad hominem unsubstantiable claim, no substance ad hominem non sequitur risible assertion and mere rhetoric Ad hominem...

Amazing. I've never seen anyone spout what can only be described as an entire paragraph of logical fallacies. I can't find literally anything in that whole paragraph with anything worth responding to except perhaps the bare assertions and rhetoric but that would be a waste of time. Do you have ANY foundation for your assertions and presuppositions? or are you just going to project onto me and call me an idiot like an asshole while having literally no rational argument against me?

[+]mymonster8u1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

I dont "believe" in atheism lol. I adhere to scientific principles and reality. Like you dont believe in a cat giving birth. You understand the mechanisms of genetics and reproduction. I dont believe in a CAT scan i analyze results. Believing requires "faith" i don't have faith in no god. I look at empirical research and evidence to draw conclusions which are left open to change upon recieving new information. Like i don't think we have been contacted by aliens but if we were.... I would change my conclusion to yes we have been contacted by aliens. Thats how science works. "Theories" and Laws.

[–]GinoMan2440 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Actually you DO believe in those things. You just don't generally question them because to do so would be absurd. I'm saying that questioning whether God exists or not similarly reduces to absurdity just less obviously so to most people. Anything that you know or claim or opine or whatever is subject to belief or faith concerning that thing. You believe the chair you're sitting on won't float up to the ceiling. You don't even consciously think about it. But that's still belief because if you didn't believe that, you would have to be suspicious of every surface you sit on. You keep putting faith in parenthesis as if it were some unique special thing that you can exist without but that's not the case. Your belief in empirical research and evidence is founded on principles that you believe just as much as my religion is founded on principles that I believe. You're assigning arbitrary additional value to faith in science over faith in God and I'm asking you to provide a self sufficient basis for that value but I'm also fully aware of the fact that no such basis exists. The only basis for such valuations can be God but you don't have that in your worldview, so you have to borrow it from mine.

We can go back and forth about these things but in the end, we both have faiths that we are defending. I'm just up front about admitting it's a faith.

[+]mymonster8u1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Belief in empirical research? I dont even know what that means. The whole point of controlled experimentation is to remove the guess work and rely upon double blind data to produce tangable results. I dont believe in science. You dont quite get what that means.

Look up on google how the earth formed, how genes mutate, evidence of evolution, take a basic biology and geology class. Take a math class and a methods of research class so you can understand how the data collection methods work.

I dont believe there were other homonoids besides homo sapiens. Ive personally seen other hominids bones in museums. I understand the process of anthropological research. Ive seen artifacts that predate Christian origin stories by hundreds of thousands of years. I dont have faith its on another plane of existance.... Its hanging in the science museum. With carbon dating.... Im sure you know what carbon dating means right??? I understand how genetics work. I understand how light travels and how things photosynthise. I understand chemistry and astronomy and paleontology. ... And you were home schooled and take what your mommy said as facts. Im sorry but you were fed some serious bullshit. But hey you have the internet... Look some shit up. Dont get laughed at anymore flat earther dumbfuck. Take a college course. You can even bring your mommy along if u like so she can black out all the devil parts in Your textbooks.

[–]GinoMan2440 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You still seem to think faith is "guess work". I can't help you. I defined faith and used examples of what faith was to help you understand it. You refuse.

I've explained already how all of those fields rely upon presuppositions that can only be granted in a Christian's understanding of the world. You haven't touched it. I'm aware of gene mutation, evolution, (heck, I even believe in evolution on smaller scales of differences between species genuses and even classes), current theories of how the earth formed, biology and geology, (the latter two I studied individually in high school, I loved science in school, they were actually my favorite subjects, chemistry was fantastic and if I wasn't wedded to computers as a field of study, I'd probably be a chemist like my older brother who has a Bachelors of Science in chemistry. I'm currently studying Linear Algebra because I want to get into 3D graphics programming and art. So I don't understand why you seem to think that I'm ignorant of these topics, I haven't really said anything about them and neither have you. It's like you have a prejudice that Christians are just dumb. That's not helping your position a whole lot.

And yes I'm aware of carbon dating. I'm also aware of the limits of carbon dating, and the presuppositions of carbon dating, and why that cannot be relied upon past a certain point. Really I'm surprised you didn't refer to other radiometric dating methods with better half lives than carbon. You understand a lot of science, but here's the problem, philosophically, you cannot justify knowing everything you would have to presuppose in order to make sense of science and the study of science. You don't know the future will be like the past as David Hume pointed out (he was an atheist by the way). You don't know that anything you morally object to is actually wrong and you would probably admit to this (like William Provine did saying "There is no imminent morality", or Dawkins: "There is no good, there is no evil, only blind and pitiless indifference").

I was public schooled. While we're at it et ego latinam scio quia in scola secunda id accepi; bene satis posse adhoc uti id hodie cum dictionarii auxilio (I even know latin because I learned it in high school; well enough that I can still use it today with the help of a dictionary). And no, I don't believe the earth is flat either. What's actually hilarious is how risible and foolish you are in your prejudice to think that I'm some "flat earther dumbfuck" who hasn't even taken college classes and was homeschooled when I'm actually a high school graduate, took college classes, and probably would have fared better homeschooled and done much better since I would have been on a firmer foundation. Instead my untreated ADHD and having to maintain a job through college since I didn't have economic advantages to go made it very difficult and ultimately led me to drop out.

Hopefully I'll get to go back someday and actually get a degree, probably in computer science, but NONE OF THIS has anything to do with your strawmen and ad hominem. For someone with a masters, you don't seem to reason very well.

[+]mymonster8u1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Im sorry you are against the public school system and advocate home schooling. I have a masters degree in education we are done here. You are uninformed and ignorant even if you type a lot. Marriage is a religous social construct not an anatomy based curriculum. There is no way that home schooling over several generations will brighten America's future. If your mom can not spell and do math you can not spell and do math? If your mom works you receive no education at all. Your premise is less about children and education and more about keeping women barefoot and pregnant we are done here.

[–]GinoMan2440 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sorry that I feel that way. I'm sorry that you think the state which does badly at virtually everything else would be a good institution to educate our children. I'm also sorry that you have credentials (a masters in education) and don't even seem to understand or know what I claim to believe. Let's start with the fact that you have a Masters degree. That's great! I expect that you will be highly intelligent, intellectually fair and even-handed, and open-minded. You're none of those. I'm a high school graduate with some college experience under my belt. I tried to make sure that I did some minimal spell checking at least. Yet you seem to have neglected that in your initial long post that I responded to.

Marriage is a divinely instituted human construct. As long as humans can and do mate until death with an opposite-sex partner, there is marriage. When I say marriage education, my premise is that we ought to divorce marriage from this idea of middle-class readiness and high age attainment (pretty much after human beings peak before age begins to go downhill). "Wait until marriage" doesn't work because biologically human beings are not designed to wait "that long". Wait until marriage means wait until you finish college, get a career job, and have your own place and health benefits and a 401k and then you can get married and it's bogus. We're designed to marry in youth, and until the last 100 years, we used to do that. Instead of teaching our teens to wait, we should teach them to get married. We ought to facilitate their romantic relationships and provide the tools and scaffolding as parents and mentors to make those relationships last and be healthy, instead we leave people to their own devices and teach them that they can have all the sex they want and it doesn't matter because we've got these rubber things and magic pills so they don't have to have all the responsibility that goes with it.

We homeschooled in America from its founding until about 100 years ago when public schooling became compulsory. Home education continues to outperform public schools despite your protestations. Apparently having a Masters degree in education doesn't actually give you the ability to think very well and make up your mind according to evidence. If mom cannot spell or do math, she'll probably hire someone who can, or she'll buy a curriculum that will teach her child how to spell and do math. It used to be that the church provided teaching services to the poor so that they could learn these things but we don't have that anymore because of compulsory schooling. I'd rather take chances with a system that can get better very easily and which allows the most kids to have the most opportunity to get quality education, over a system that indoctrinates them with a secular worldview and doesn't even accomplish education in the first place.

Finally, I don't know where you got "women barefoot and pregnant" from, but suffice it to say, that's a strawman. Come back when you get a masters degree in critical thinking.

[+]mymonster8u1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Im currently getting a second PhD in anastesology.... That would be under my paygrade loser. But im sure that sounds like a lot to you.

[–]GinoMan2440 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	85% of Protection Orders Entered Against Men. 90% of Those Entries Used to Gain Tactical Advantage for Divorce!
Author	EyeNeedOptions
Upvotes	140
Comments	31
Date	March 25, 2018 7:03 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/86z8v5/85_of_protection_orders_entered_against_men_90_of/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/85-of-protection-orders-entered-against-men-90-of.903824 https://theredarchive.com/post/903824

Comments