macfarlan Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 (edited) Why let it go ? Should people be allowed to accuse others of things and when asked - just respond by saying they are not 'playing a game' and leave it at that ? I don't think so. I believe this is one of the reasons this country is in a mess. I think people should be allowed to make observations about the general tone of a conversation without being obliged to explain themselves if they think it's the right thing to do. Any country that didnt allow this probably wouldn't be a nice place to live. Edited May 16, 2016 by macfarlan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justthisbloke Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 I think people should be allowed to make observations about the general tone of a conversation without being obliged to explain themselves if they think it's the right thing to do. Any country that didnt allow this probably wouldn't be a nice place to live. I mainly agree - and I'm certainly not going around chasing people down for justifications for posts. But it is fair to respond to an "observation of general tone" (which is what I did). If the poster doesn't want to come back, then fair enough - but it does make for less interesting debate if people just chuck around insults/one-line-critiques (depending on your POV, of course) and then bugger off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macfarlan Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 I mainly agree - and I'm certainly not going around chasing people down for justifications for posts. But it is fair to respond to an "observation of general tone" (which is what I did). If the poster doesn't want to come back, then fair enough - but it does make for less interesting debate if people just chuck around insults/one-line-critiques (depending on your POV, of course) and then bugger off. Fair point. We should encourage responses if we are to learn anything about others views. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canbuywontbuy Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Maybe some men and women marry or form joint long-term financial relationship partnerships for the wrong reasons, greedy, needy and selfish reasons, recommended not to lean on or over depend on another then you can't go far wrong......the higher you reach, the harder the fall....choices. All adult-to-adult relationships are highly conditional. We like to pretend they are not, but they are. Money, personality, looks, even character/ethics are conditions. And those conditions can change as people get older. Being reliable and loyal might have been alluring to someone 20 years ago, and now it's "boring". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 All adult-to-adult relationships are highly conditional. We like to pretend they are not, but they are. Money, personality, looks, even character/ethics are conditions. And those conditions can change as people get older. Being reliable and loyal might have been alluring to someone 20 years ago, and now it's "boring". Quite right......then why bother to marry at all?......or if you do see you are not highly dependent on another to bring you stability or happiness..... No success without failure, no failure without success..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibbon Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Quite right......then why bother to marry at all?......or if you do see you are not highly dependent on another to bring you stability or happiness..... No success without failure, no failure without success..... The ONS says 42% of marriages end in divorce. But I always wonder how many of the other 58% are living in misery together but won't go through with the divorce for the kids sake, financial armageddon, would rather be unhappy than alone etc I'm also convinced the only reason the marriage rate isn't now longer dropping is due to all the sham marriages Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 There are both legal and financial reasons why people get married...and there are reasons why people get divorced middle aged when the kids fly the nest, they may have married the wrong person or have grown apart, who knows?...why then get married? Stay happy forever together without a piece of paper that has nothing to do with either love, commitment or future happiness and joy......just saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CunningPlan Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 If you don't get married you don't have any rights whatsoever over your children (your mother in law has more rights than you) If you do get married you have no rights over your money and assets. I think that is probably a zugzwang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssKay Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 I mainly agree - and I'm certainly not going around chasing people down for justifications for posts. But it is fair to respond to an "observation of general tone" (which is what I did). If the poster doesn't want to come back, then fair enough - but it does make for less interesting debate if people just chuck around insults/one-line-critiques (depending on your POV, of course) and then bugger off. I didn't just bugger off though did I? I explained that I didn't want to respond on that particular point because I didn't want to get drawn into a heated argument. Not ideal for someone who really wants to debate the point I agree, but better than getting into a pointless flame war surely? Rather than just accepting that and agreeing to disagree, I then get called a **** by your mate CCC. Do you think that's acceptable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justthisbloke Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 I didn't just bugger off though did I? I explained that I didn't want to respond on that particular point because I didn't want to get drawn into a heated argument. Not ideal for someone who really wants to debate the point I agree, but better than getting into a pointless flame war surely? Rather than just accepting that and agreeing to disagree, I then get called a **** by your mate CCC. Do you think that's acceptable? Well, calling someone a **** (without scouring the thread, I don't know what's actually been censored there!), is not what I would do. And, as I said, I'm not going to chase someone down to get a response. What ccc does is his business. The best way of avoiding heated arguments is probably not to throw incendiary terms about. Nothing wrong with heated arguments - it's how we learn (if they're carried out constructively) but if you don't want one, then, as I said, fair enough. I'd like to think that not all heated debates descend into "pointless flamewars" - but then I am a perennial optimist! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 I mainly agree - and I'm certainly not going around chasing people down for justifications for posts. But it is fair to respond to an "observation of general tone" (which is what I did). If the poster doesn't want to come back, then fair enough - but it does make for less interesting debate if people just chuck around insults/one-line-critiques (depending on your POV, of course) and then bugger off. Except I can't see anything wrong at all with ccc's position. I've noted someone who didn't want to follow through and explain their claim of slightly misogynistic overtones in this thread This comes to mind.. ...telling other people how to post. Perhaps if your plan is to police the rest of us for "text and tone" you ought to start reading our posts and responding to their actual contents, and when you don't do that and get called out, maybe your go to tactic should be humility not pompous umbrage. Also I've noted a post - which seems to have been edited out or pulled, going way over the top for CCC simply asking for more info. Sensitive. Fair enough if they don't want to explain, but why make the claim in the first place, which projects similar view many mumsnetters seem to hold of hpc posters without any justification. ------------ What hostility ? You accused people on this thread of something - I am simply asking you to point out what it is - and if you can't do that then don't say it in the first place. Seems entirely reasonable to me. Why let it go ? Should people be allowed to accuse others of things and when asked - just respond by saying they are not 'playing a game' and leave it at that ? I don't think so. I believe this is one of the reasons this country is in a mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 If you don't get married you don't have any rights whatsoever over your children (your mother in law has more rights than you) If you do get married you have no rights over your money and assets. I think that is probably a zugzwang. Wrong.... Look up parental responsibility..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssKay Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 The best way of avoiding heated arguments is probably not to throw incendiary terms about. Nothing wrong with heated arguments - it's how we learn (if they're carried out constructively) but if you don't want one, then, as I said, fair enough. I'd like to think that not all heated debates descend into "pointless flamewars" - but then I am a perennial optimist! Fair enough - It wasn't intended to cause offence and I didn't think at the time that it was particularly incendiary (hindsight is a wonderful thing) I've had my fair share of heated arguments though and have a pretty good sense (from my PoV) which ones are likely to descend into pointless exchanges. Of course, YMMV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CunningPlan Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Wrong.... Look up parental responsibility..... Which part is wrong? If not the case now it was 16 years ago since it was one of the main reasons I got married. (And they don't call me romantic for nothing!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 There are both legal and financial reasons why people get married...and there are reasons why people get divorced middle aged when the kids fly the nest, they may have married the wrong person or have grown apart, who knows?...why then get married? Stay happy forever together without a piece of paper that has nothing to do with either love, commitment or future happiness and joy......just saying. When the kids approach university age, divorce and the lower-earning partner gets custody. So the kids qualify for all the means-tested grants and bursaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Which part is wrong? If not the case now it was 16 years ago since it was one of the main reasons I got married. (And they don't call me romantic for nothing!) So what you are saying is some men only get married to have rights over their kids...a parental responsibility order sees to it that they get that....same as a property in joint names and or a legal will, will see the unmarried are better protected.....now marrying for religious reasons is an entirely different kettle of fish.....since fewer people are religious nowadays or marry for religious reasons why do they bother to get married? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justthisbloke Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Mrs JTB and I were debating whether we'd like to see our kids get married or not. I can't see the point. Or, rather, the points are very limited: IHT, CGT (both of which are minor issues for most people), and immigration benefits if you end up with a foreigner. Mrs JTB, OTOH, thought it was an important public commitment - essential before kids. If you want a public statement then invite everyone round and make some vows. But they'll be vows and commitments of your choosing - and you won't be signing up to an unwrittten, state-devised contract that can be changed at whim at any point in the future by a third party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Mrs JTB and I were debating whether we'd like to see our kids get married or not. I can't see the point. Or, rather, the points are very limited: IHT, CGT (both of which are minor issues for most people), and immigration benefits if you end up with a foreigner. Mrs JTB, OTOH, thought it was an important public commitment - essential before kids. If you want a public statement then invite everyone round and make some vows. But they'll be vows and commitments of your choosing - and you won't be signing up to an unwrittten, state-devised contract that can be changed at whim at any point in the future by a third party. Unless you are very wealthy, want rights and entitlements to live in a particular place, want to 'hide' certain assets....what is the point?.....great for the economy, many thousands of pounds spent on getting married and many thousands of pounds made by others when getting divorced...so the question to ask is...who benefits the most from marriage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CunningPlan Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 So what you are saying is some men only get married to have rights over their kids...a parental responsibility order sees to it that they get that....same as a property in joint names and or a legal will, will see the unmarried are better protected.....now marrying for religious reasons is an entirely different kettle of fish.....since fewer people are religious nowadays or marry for religious reasons why do they bother to get married? No. What I am saying is that it was a factor for me 16 years ago. I discovered that if my wife and child were in an accident and she was unable to communicate, the authorities would turn to her parents, not me, to discuss any care the child required. I had no right to be consulted or even told what was happening. Births registered in England and WalesIf the parents of a child are married when the child is born, or if they’ve jointly adopted a child, both have parental responsibility. They both keep parental responsibility if they later divorce. Unmarried parentsAn unmarried father can get parental responsibility for his child in 1 of 3 ways: jointly registering the birth of the child with the mother (from 1 December 2003) getting a parental responsibility agreement with the mother getting a parental responsibility order from a court Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Mrs JTB and I were debating whether we'd like to see our kids get married or not. I can't see the point. Or, rather, the points are very limited: IHT, CGT (both of which are minor issues for most people), and immigration benefits if you end up with a foreigner. Mrs JTB, OTOH, thought it was an important public commitment - essential before kids. If you want a public statement then invite everyone round and make some vows. But they'll be vows and commitments of your choosing - and you won't be signing up to an unwrittten, state-devised contract that can be changed at whim at any point in the future by a third party. In the end though, it shouldn't be your decision. Discuss it, but for your children to decide in future, imo. (Recently helped out with significant financial contribution toward cost of a wedding for member of my family). It's similar to the BTLers who justify their buying BTLers at super high prices, in recent times, for their 12 month year old daughters so they will have a home when they're 18 years old - equity paid off by mug tenants. Maybe the parents will be lucky to hang on to their own homes, into a hpc, and pay for their expectations to have so much control. But what if what your what your daughter will want, in the fullness of time, is to grow up and make her own way in the world? To meet a young man, or a young woman, and establish her independence from you, so that she can meet you as an equal. Will the flat you've gifted be a dowry or sorts, or will she be encouraged to make a love match only with people who own their own homes, and not some loser who has crawled out from under their rented rock? Life is a rich web of connections. An apparently hyper-rational decision, informed by love, can have disastrous consequences. Just as the tracers of the incipient lightning strike work their way through disparate cascades towards the ground, a society that seeks to escape its debt problem by loading itself up with debts it cannot pay seeks only its own destruction. If that's what you really want for your daughter, are you right, or are you a monster? Seventy-months and counting on so-called emergency interest rates... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssKay Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 bland unsight: Life is a rich web of connections. An apparently hyper-rational decision, informed by love, can have disastrous consequences. Just as the tracers of the incipient lightning strike work their way through disparate cascades towards the ground, a society that seeks to escape its debt problem by loading itself up with debts it cannot pay seeks only its own destruction. If that's what you really want for your daughter, are you right, or are you a monster? Seventy-months and counting on so-called emergency interest rates... That reads almost like an intro to a twilight zone episode.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macfarlan Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Fair enough if they don't want to explain, but why make the claim in the first place, I would imagine there could be any number of reasons, but let's say it's because they think that they should. Surely that is reason enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 <p><p>No. What I am saying is that it was a factor for me 16 years ago. I discovered that if my wife and child were in an accident and she was unable to communicate, the authorities would turn to her parents, not me, to discuss any care the child required. I had no right to be consulted or even told what was happening. Births registered in England and WalesIf the parents of a child are married when the child is born, or if theyve jointly adopted a child, both have parental responsibility.They both keep parental responsibility if they later divorce. Unmarried parentsAn unmarried father can get parental responsibility for his child in 1 of 3 ways: jointly registering the birth of the child with the mother (from 1 December 2003) getting a parental responsibility agreement with the mother getting a parental responsibility order from a court What I am saying is loving parents get a parental order when children are born...they sign up to child joint responsibility only....if they want to tie themselves into more legal commitments they are then free to pick a choose what they want to legally sign themselves up to... As I have already said marriage, apart from for religious purposes is out of date with changing times.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 I would imagine there could be any number of reasons, but let's say it's because they think that they should. Surely that is reason enough? And let's just say it's perfectly ok for another poster to calmly and politely ask them to explain their reasoning for the claim - and/or suggest they don't make such claims without evidence in the future - without other posters going onto accuse that poster of behaviour that I won't repeat from the post that was pulled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Mrs JTB and I were debating whether we'd like to see our kids get married or not. I can't see the point. Or, rather, the points are very limited: IHT, CGT (both of which are minor issues for most people), and immigration benefits if you end up with a foreigner. Mrs JTB, OTOH, thought it was an important public commitment - essential before kids. If you want a public statement then invite everyone round and make some vows. But they'll be vows and commitments of your choosing - and you won't be signing up to an unwrittten, state-devised contract that can be changed at whim at any point in the future by a third party. Just noting that marriage was the choice you took. Love is one reason. Commitment. Can you remember back to the reasons why you proposed and she accepted.... ? Not suggesting it works out for everyone, or that everyone thinks of it the same level - divorces/people change. It works for many though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.