~ archived since 2018 ~

Another Father Loses custody Self-Control. Kills Own Children.

thisdadsamamabear · 2018-08-10T03:57:35+00:00

Father Alienation Sufferer: Newest Victims According to court documents obtained by USA Today, Ndossoka said on the phone with Ntongo that he had killed their...

thisdadsamamabear

August 10, 2018

0 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Another Father Loses custody Self-Control. Kills Own Children.
Author	thisdadsamamabear
Upvotes	0
Comments	26
Date	August 10, 2018 3:57 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/963lh4/another_father_loses_custody_selfcontrol_kills/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/another-father-loses-custody-self-control-kills.896442 https://theredarchive.com/post/896442

Comments

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thisdadsamamabear[S] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mode1961 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]thisdadsamamabear[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]grasshopa 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

Want to tell you about the case of a friend I know. She had a child with some guy when they were younger and the child reached the age of about 9. The father had never sent a dollar or even seen the child more than twice. But when the state came after him for back child support, he tried to get custody of his daughter. He lived in the house with people convicted of selling drugs and had sold drugs himself and this was known to the court. He was not working was diabetic and had no money. The court did everything they could to help him get an apartment and get on welfare and tried to give him full custody of the child. Luckily, he didn't show for the last couple of Court hearings and the mother was granted full custody. By the way the mother was and is an outstanding Citizen and teacher. So, I don't know if it's only the courts intention to harm fathers, but it doesn't seem that the courts intend to truly do what's in the best interests of the children. It seems "best interests" are the code words for screwing the children's life up.

[–]Mode1961 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]grasshopa 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I think "fair custody rights" would be more reasonable. I don't agree with "equal custody rights" given that usually, one parent sucks and the other does not. It's not an equal thing.

...and who decides what's fair? The misandric judges and mediators who have already demonstrated a careless disregard for children in their pursuit of ensuring mom gets to keep the lifestyle to which she's accustomed?

No, "shared custody presumption" is the only way forward, and even that's not great given how horrible the people in our legal system are, but it's a start.

As far as anyone who harms children, and especially their own, in effort to sooth their own pain...they're pieces of shit, and should be tossed down the deepest hole to be found. I don't care what their rationalizations are; parents who were abused by the court system, or court personnel who are "just doing their jobs"; deepest hole.

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

...and who decides what's fair? The misandric judges

I don't know how it works in the U.S., but it's pretty hard to force judges to rule the way you want even if you implement law. In the moment, a corrupt judge can easily sway a verdict, sentence or decision to whichever direction he wants and what you are arguing is in fact, corruption.

I am arguing from the position that judges will do what they're supposed to do, I.e. interpret the law in a fair and just manner. If you start from the position that judges are corrupt, it doesn't matter what laws exist.

As far as anyone who harms children, and especially their own, in effort to sooth their own pain...they're pieces of shit, and should be tossed down the deepest hole to be found.

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but my point was, I can understand a man that is grossly abused and mistreated by a leftist government that destroys him in favor of benefitting a woman can snap and decide to do something unthinkable.... obviously I strongly disagree with what was done in this case and similar cases, but I'm not a leftist , the kind of person that doesn't understand the concept of individuality....

I don't care what their rationalizations are

Who are you even arguing with ?

[–]89peters 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

you think merely "leftists" are responsible for maintaining alimony, child support, unfair custody arrangements, "violence against women" acts allowing false accusations etc?

I am unaware of "violence against women acts allowing false accusations", perhaps facilitating them, but allowing? not to my knowledge.

In any case, no one on the right, by definition, supports government subjugation of the citizenry. If they do, they're not on the right. Being on the right means you support liberty and this goes counter to what that means, it lines up perfectly with the left though.

It is possible to be on the right and make mistakes, yes. But generally speaking anyone that advocates for a bigger, more powerful government seeking to subjugate others via state muscle, is a leftist , again by definition.

Indeed it was Republicans in the

Being a "republican" in your nation does not necessarily mean being on the right. After all, the term "RINO" didn't come from nowhere.

You need to stop getting all your ideas from Alex Jones

Project much? I don't watch Alex Jones.

Maybe you should stop watching The Young Turks and Kyle Kullinski, the propaganda is messing with your head.

[–]89peters 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]grasshopa 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]thisdadsamamabear[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Nonsense. I would argue that you NEED to start from the position that judges are corrupt, and word laws appropriately.

.... no, that's completely wrong.

You'd need a communist/totalitarian government for what you're arguing to work. I get that you dislike judges and you are not wrong in saying that they are ruling corruptly against men. Fair enough, but jurisprudence operates by vesting specific people with a certain degree of power which they exercise in "judgment calls" all across the judicial process.

You can't just lay down mandates from the highest level of government and everyone beneath operates like robots with zero discretion. Again that's communism/totalitarianism.

If the law won't give me satisfaction, perhaps public shaming will.

Uhhh..... no, absolutely not.

You cannot take justice into your own hands by operating outside the law in the way you are describing. What do you think the current witch hunt "MeToo" is ? it's basically that, well the witch hunt is worse but it operates on the principles you are using.

Calm down. You are being very unreasonable which is kind of ironic given that you said this earlier;

As far as anyone who harms children, and especially their own, in effort to sooth their own pain...they're pieces of shit, and should be tossed down the deepest hole to be found. I don't care what their rationalizations are

Take a step back and realize what you are arguing....

[–]grasshopa 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm arguing that those in power should be treated with a constant state of suspicion. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Giving judges latitude is exactly what got us to where we are, and you advocate we just continue along with the status quo.

What? Do we hope and pray everything works out? Fuck that. I say we look at what hasn't worked and implement what will work.

You can't just lay down mandates from the highest level of government and everyone beneath operates like robots with zero discretion. Again that's communism/totalitarianism.

You don't have the strongest grasp of political theory, given this is your position. This is precisely how governments operate, no matter the method of control they rely upon. Judges aren't dictators over their little fiefdoms ( no matter how much they may delude themselves into thinking so ), they still have to follow the rule of law. What I suggested? It's already in place in some areas and in other areas of law.

Perhaps you aren't understanding what I'm saying?

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

[–]TheMythof_Feminism -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm arguing that those in power should be treated with a constant state of suspicion.

That's not what you were arguing. You were arguing for extrajudicial, borderline vigilantee-ism , to put it VERY kindly.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Correct.

Have you ever had power? I had actual power but only once in my life and I was legitimately too young and immature to handle it (early 20s) , I became corrupt fairly quickly. I'm in my mid 30s now and if I were given equal or greater power again, I would not become corrupt, not even a little bit..... possibly unless if I were given absolute power which will obviously never happen. My point is, people learn from their mistakes and past behavior, not everyone is corrupt as you seem to believe.

The Lord Ackton quote is fair, but you are taking it to absurd extremes.

Do we hope and pray everything works out? Fuck that. I say we look at what hasn't worked and implement what will work.

You appear to be a hardcore leftist. I do not think we will find common ground here.

You don't have the strongest grasp of political theory, given this is your position.

You appear to be projecting.

Earlier you suggested committing grand-scale calumny which is a terrible crime..... and you did it while condemning men that committed another terrible crime. You do not appear to have self-awareness.

This is precisely how governments operate

You're completely wrong.

Most specifically, the judicial branch requires individuals to have some level of discretion which they apply according to their own judgment. Get it? judicial? judgment? this isn't complicated.

You are again projecting, except this time, your own corruption and desire for a communist/totalitarian government to all governments. That is lunacy.

Judges aren't dictators over their little fiefdoms

What in the holy motherless goat are you talking about? are you mentally unstable?

they still have to follow the rule of law.

No.

How can you possibly say that I "don't have the strongest grasp of political theory" while arguing that judges should not have the ability to make "judgment calls"? you are deranged...

Answer me this one last question , although I already know the answer but I want to see if you have any self awareness at all;

Do you consider yourself a communist/advocate of totalitarianism?

[–]grasshopa 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you consider yourself a communist/advocate of totalitarianism?

I'm not simple enough to consider myself affiliated with any political party. There are things I like about libertarians, things I like about conservatives, a few from republicans and very few from liberals.

Do you know why I avoid labeling myself? Look at your own behavior; you have somehow come to the conclusion that I am an "other", because I do not fit in to whatever political sphere you identify with, and thus you try to cram everything I say into the "other category".

Laying out laws and guidances for judges to follow is not uniquely "communist" or even "totalitarianism"...judges are not meant to create law, but enforce it. There is not a legal system I know of in which this is not the case, yet you actually are arguing that judges should not be constricted by the laws they are meant to be enforcing.

You are the problem. You and those like you are the reason things are as fucked up as they are. You don't understand how legal systems work, you don't understand how people work, which means you have no concept of how political systems work.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]grasshopa 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link