Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xAngelx)
    i dont think so, but alot of people say they do i dont agree with it myself
    Unfortunatley I don't think I can give you any new persepective on this issue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *dave*)
    Of corse it is. A man and a woman have a baby and split up. It would take the mother being a drug addict, alcoholic, gambling psychomanic before the authorities would even attempt to give custody to a father.
    You're just making wild accusations but you arent backing them up. You have provided no evidence to substantiate what you've said, so I'm afraid your argument can't be taken seriously.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    You're just making wild accusations but you arent backing them up. You have provided no evidence to substantiate what you've said, so I'm afraid your argument can't be taken seriously.
    have you got any evidence to back yours up

    and knowing you, you will have
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xAngelx)
    have you got any evidence to back yours up

    and knowing you, you will have
    I'm not actually the one who started to hypothesise about court results, that was Dave. What is it you want me to provide evidence for?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    I'm not actually the one who started to hypothesise about court results, that was Dave. What is it you want me to provide evidence for?

    you said he or she need to state evidence to show that it isn't the fact that mothers do get the kids b4 the fathers even if she's a druggie i may have been mistaken before you jump on your high horse
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xAngelx)
    you said he or she need to state evidence to show that it isn't the fact that mothers do get the kids b4 the fathers even if she's a druggie i may have been mistaken before you jump on your high horse
    I know what I said. But what do you mean?
    Dont start getting all arsey so early in the day now will you. Not very angelic of you, is it? Try and grow up a bit, you're the same age as me after all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    I know what I said. But what do you mean?
    Dont start getting all arsey so early in the day now will you. Not very angelic of you, is it? Try and grow up a bit, you're the same age as me after all.
    your jumping on your high hrse now by insulting me just cos i said you get evidence to back your own opinions like you said to him or her thats all i meant before you insult my intelligence
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xAngelx)
    your jumping on your high hrse now by insulting me just cos i said you get evidence to back your own opinions like you said to him or her thats all i meant before you insult my intelligence
    Who insulted your intelligence? Nobody.
    Who began the insults? You.
    I have lots of evidence to back up things I say when I have made a point, but it wasnt actually me who made an assertion. Theres a difference between stating something and repudiating it sweetheart.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Who insulted your intelligence? Nobody.
    Who began the insults? You.
    I have lots of evidence to back up things I say when I have made a point, but it wasnt actually me who made an assertion. Theres a difference between stating something and repudiating it sweetheart.
    look i never insulted you all i said is you state evidence to prove that women dont always get the child, instead your going all defensive about this when i just said that, well next time i'll just f***ing agree with you just so you dont kick off all the time

    Edit - Language Please.Mod Expression
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by xAngelx)
    look i never insulted you all i said is you state evidence to prove that women dont always get the child, instead your going all defensive about this when i just said that, well next time i'll just f***ing agree with you just so you dont kick off all the time
    Angel - you do know that swearing isn't allowed on this site and that everytime you swear you risk a mod removing your entire post if they don't feel like just editing the swear words?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Angel - you do know that swearing isn't allowed on this site and that everytime you swear you risk a mod removing your entire post if they don't feel like just editing the swear words?
    well i'm sorry i didn't mean to just that i just said something not even insulting and she kicks off everytime and its irriating me,
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xAngelx)
    look i never insulted you all i said is you state evidence to prove that women dont always get the child, instead your going all defensive about this when i just said that, well next time i'll just f***ing agree with you just so you dont kick off all the time
    You did start the insults, you came out with that line about jumping on the high horse (more then once, is that all you can think if to say?). I am not the one who kicks off, but if you try and pick an argument you can always have one.
    I never actually suggested that women either do or dont always get the child, I said dave had to provide some evidence to support his claim. I was careful not to make any claim myself. You're making assumptions and putting words into my mouth, which is never a good idea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    You did start the insults, you came out with that line about jumping on the high horse (more then once, is that all you can think if to say?). I am not the one who kicks off, but if you try and pick an argument you can always have one.
    I never actually suggested that women either do or dont always get the child, I said dave had to provide some evidence to support his claim. I was careful not to make any claim myself. You're making assumptions and putting words into my mouth, which is never a good idea.
    all i said is that have you got evidence and you could of replied with a few facts to state that he or she was wrong and you may have a point instead you went off saying like oh oh what you mean by that eh god next time i'll just wont say anything as you may not like that,

    okay then get off your short horse is that more polite

    as i would like to know if you have any facts to show that it might not be true women getting the kids all the time (back to the original subject)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xAngelx)
    all i said is that have you got evidence and you could of replied with a few facts to state that he or she was wrong and you may have a point instead you went off saying like oh oh what you mean by that eh god next time i'll just wont say anything as you may not like that,

    okay then get off your short horse is that more polite

    as i would like to know if you have any facts to show that it might not be true women getting the kids all the time (back to the original subject)
    Angel we've been through this. I havent actually said whether I think women always get the kids or not. You just assumed that. Asking people to back up an argument they havent made doesnt make sense- you're just assuming I think something when you dont actually know if I do or not. Pointing out that dave has offered no facts doesnt necessarily mean I dont agree with what he says. You chose to infer that, but you inferred wrong. That was what I meant about the difference between asserion and repudiation but I guess you didnt pick up on that.
    You're starting to ramble now, by the way. Are you getting angry?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Angel we've been through this. I havent actually said whether I think women always get the kids or not. You just assumed that. Asking people to back up an argument they havent made doesnt make sense- you're just assuming I think something when you dont actually know if I do or not. Pointing out that dave has offered no facts doesnt necessarily mean I dont agree with what he says. You chose to infer that, but you inferred wrong. That was what I meant about the difference between asserion and repudiation but I guess you didnt pick up on that.
    You're starting to ramble now, by the way. Are you getting angry?
    okay you've lost me, fair enought i thort you may have facts cos you told him to have some to back his up, thats all, i have no idea what your on about if you agree with or not it didn't cross my mind at all if you did,

    no i'm not angry i have sweets with me so i'm bothered, your just irritating, cos i say something and you go on about how i'm in the wrong
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally Posted by *dave*
    Of corse it is. A man and a woman have a baby and split up. It would take the mother being a drug addict, alcoholic, gambling psychomanic before the authorities would even attempt to give custody to a father.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Woman - Claims that the baby was conceived inside her, grew inside her, came to this world from her. Claims that child should rightfully be hers.

    Man - Claims that if he put some money into a Coke machine, and the drink did indeed come out, the product is actually his and not the property of the machine.

    I know people are going to take that the wrong way, but they would be the immature ones out there. Worth thinking about isn't it? The one who should get custody of a child when couples split up really should be the one who can offer both the better life, and every chance of seeing the other parent. Just my two cents.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xAngelx)
    okay you've lost me, fair enought i thort you may have facts cos you told him to have some to back his up, thats all, i have no idea what your on about if you agree with or not it didn't cross my mind at all if you did,

    no i'm not angry i have sweets with me so i'm bothered, your just irritating, cos i say something and you go on about how i'm in the wrong
    You're irritating because you're so petulant. You come on and start being argumentative and then whinge when someone replies to you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally Posted by *dave*
    Of corse it is. A man and a woman have a baby and split up. It would take the mother being a drug addict, alcoholic, gambling psychomanic before the authorities would even attempt to give custody to a father.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Woman - Claims that the baby was conceived inside her, grew inside her, came to this world from her. Claims that child should rightfully be hers.

    Man - Claims that if he put some money into a Coke machine, and the drink did indeed come out, the product is actually his and not the property of the machine.

    I know people are going to take that the wrong way, but they would be the immature ones out there. Worth thinking about isn't it? The one who should get custody of a child when couples split up really should be the one who can offer both the better life, and every chance of seeing the other parent. Just my two cents.
    you have a point
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xAngelx)
    you have a point
    I usually do. Even if a lot of people can't open their mind enough to appreciate it. Though I do hate to offend. Just hope everyone sees the point in that one. It isn't a good point, but a point to consider all the same.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    I usually do. Even if a lot of people can't open their mind enough to appreciate it. Though I do hate to offend. Just hope everyone sees the point in that one. It isn't a good point, but a point to consider all the same.
    thats what i was saying like you have put it in to two things like a womans point of view and a males view to get the child

    the parents shouldn't split up dammit!

    i didn't mean to offend anyone by saying that (but i guess i will have done to someone)
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.