Comments on: Was Family Plane Crash Deliberate?

Indiana Pilot And 8-Year-Old Daughter Were Killed When Plane Crashes Into Ex-Mother-In-Law's House

[susanhelit]

Males who think they are purely and naturally dominant can try to have those children they want to kill all by themselves, and see how well that dominance works. Maybe that's where gay guys come from, but they don't have much luck having kids alone.

And studies have shown that there's a natural edge given to women - rape tends not to concieve children - since I presume your strength is everything philosophy figures that's one more bit of dominance. Although today, dominance is all about intelligence. By strength, lions would be dominant, we'd be the weakest species around!

[agnim]

"Men don't ultimately decide the laws - however, there are a ton, an overwhelming majority of men on the police force enforcing the laws - and if you've ever watched Cops, you'd know the incredible contempt they have for those men who think as you do, and hurt their children or spouses.

Posted by SusanHelit at 03:15 PM : Mar 06, 2007"

Having 'contempt' is not going to bother men who WILL have their children, come hell or high waters.

Having 'contempt' will NEVER prevent these escalating tragedies, in which frustrated fathers resort to their ultimate weapon, force in defense of manhood!

Having 'contempt' will not save children; not that your kind cares!

In fact, the 'contempt' will cause stubborn foolish men to make stupid laws that will ensure the very tragedies that some claim the don't want visited upon children!

And I don't know which planet you are from; but in EVERY culture the Law Givers are ALWAYS males, and for obvious reasons: Mother Nature endow males with DOMINANCE!
Females have no powers less that which are given/allowed by males.

These are facts of life as long as males and female shall exist, and for which some are in deep ignorance/delusions/denial.

[susanhelit]

No one took his children - he had visitation. Not that anything, anything at all justifies killing her. If he loved her, if he cared for her at all, he would never have killed her. This is proof that the issue is absolutely NOTHING but about revenge and control. He couldn't care less about his children, the posession he was protecting was his pride. His 8-year old daughter, cute and lovable and just barely starting - she was nothing but a tool for revenge. He's below contempt - for men or women.

[Syndicate]

If you take a mans children you leave him with nothing worth living for. When a man has nothing worth living for no law can controll him. After all what are they going to do take his children.

[susanhelit]

Men don't ultimately decide the laws - however, there are a ton, an overwhelming majority of men on the police force enforcing the laws - and if you've ever watched Cops, you'd know the incredible contempt they have for those men who think as you do, and hurt their children or spouses.

You don't represent reality, nor do you represent men.

[agnim]

"From the sound of this one, I'd say the more appropriate lesson is that the father should never get any custody at all, so he can't kill the child.

Posted by SusanHelit at 02:10 PM : Mar 06, 2007"

What you fail to appreciate is that it is MEN who ultimately decide/allow the laws.

And when they become witless and listen to foolish females spout the kind of nonsense you do, then the society can expect more and more of these tragedies!

The more myopic minds like yours insist that men should not have their children, the more you foolishly challenge their manhood; and the more children are endangered!
But the deluded mindset doesn't really give a rat's arse about the children; you just need to live out your delusions of female grandeur. LOL

Of course what you are saying can't be taken too seriously; because females of themselves HAVE NO POWER but what the more dominant male give/allow them!

So I'm more after the relatively weak and mindless males who should know better and yet go about making stupid laws that MUST give rise to these tragedies, all because they allow foolish females to whine nonsense in their ears. LOL

[susanhelit]

Oh, and to the nutjobs on the board - this exact thing is how Trenton Duckett vanished - almost certainly killed by his mother, to get back at his father, who was about to win full custody. Sicko's exist everywhere, and giving the child to the parent you seem to think is less attached to him - that's just plain nuts.

I'm surprised the other guys on this board let you get away with painting them as such out of control, vicious, dumb savages.

[susanhelit]

I think the real lesson here is that child custody agreements should be more carefully worked out - when some parent (of either gender) shows signs of this type of sick posessive/control issues, they should not have any visitation until those are worked out. But, out in the real world, these things usually work themselves out, and we'd punish a lot of parents who are just temporarily mad over the divorce, who won't ever harm the kids.



There are some sick people out in the world (and posting here!) - but that's no reason to give violent jackholes whatever they want.

From the sound of this one, I'd say the more appropriate lesson (only for Agnim's limited mind - the rest of us can understand reason) is that the father should never get any custody at all, so he can't kill the child.

[pared1]

No matter what the family situation is it is NEVER okay to harm a child. Anyone who would harm a child is beyond sick.

[agnim]

"What the f*ck is wrong with you?

Posted by smb221 at 01:28 PM : Mar 06, 2007"

Welcome to the real world!
That is the reality that most have been hiding from; and in the process, endangering children in their state of ignorance and delusion. LOL

How many fathers must partake in these all too common tragedies before we change the foolish laws in favor of the fathers who MUST have their children?