We have one data point: him attempting to shirk his familial responsibility after being asked. It provides some small level of support for the stance you’re arguing against.
It does not support your contrarian response at all.
It does, if you choose not to understand that, no problem. We have no idea what the next response from the wife could be. “Wow, that’s an amazing idea honey!” is just as likely considering she married this man.
Understand that you need to INVENT something that isn’t part of the evidence to support your position. That is not the same as overeager extrapolation from what IS available.
Hivemind goes crazy. You fabricated that in the same way I did. There’s no telling what the wife reaction would be, so you can infer anything from the tweet.
Nobody is denying this: him attempting to shirk his familial responsibility after being asked
The point you are arguing is that his wife would leave him from things like this, which is assuming that his wife would object to his “familial responsibility avoidance”, which is the same as assuming she would not object to it. You are inventing the wife having a negative reaction, I am saying the wife could have a positive reaction.
Also, you invented something first, pot calling the kettle black.
He may have chosen a different trajectory from hers
which is the same as assuming she would not object to it.
Whenever a law says “a reasonable person,” my strategy is to drag them into an infinite fractal of technicalities and possible exceptions because I don’t know what reasonable means.
I’m not disagreeing with you about that. Any reasonable person would leave him.
All I was saying is that perhaps the wife is not reasonable. How something so simple caused some people to explode, I dont know.
Re-reading the thread, I understand better what you were saying. This is different, though: the AI thing is kind of sudden, in a cultural sense, and it’s harder to imagine someone having married a person already knowing they would be into this extremely anti-human parenting style beforehand.
Like, you’re suggesting that a Republican guy probably has a Republican wife, and yeah that’s true, but I don’t think that it follows that an AI-absentee-father would probably be married to an AI-absentee-mother.
And that’s broadly why people are blowing up at you. Rhetorically speaking, it sounds a bit like you’re just being spiteful.
We have one data point: him attempting to shirk his familial responsibility after being asked. It provides some small level of support for the stance you’re arguing against.
It does not support your contrarian response at all.
So, no. It doesn’t boil down to the same thing.
It does, if you choose not to understand that, no problem. We have no idea what the next response from the wife could be. “Wow, that’s an amazing idea honey!” is just as likely considering she married this man.
Reread what I said.
Understand that you need to INVENT something that isn’t part of the evidence to support your position. That is not the same as overeager extrapolation from what IS available.
Hivemind goes crazy. You fabricated that in the same way I did. There’s no telling what the wife reaction would be, so you can infer anything from the tweet.
Nobody is denying this: him attempting to shirk his familial responsibility after being asked
The point you are arguing is that his wife would leave him from things like this, which is assuming that his wife would object to his “familial responsibility avoidance”, which is the same as assuming she would not object to it. You are inventing the wife having a negative reaction, I am saying the wife could have a positive reaction.
Also, you invented something first, pot calling the kettle black.
Most people don’t realize, or care that they’re constantly being validated by echo chambers.
You don’t seem to understand what the words invent or fabricate mean.
So, because you have played yourself, you are now throwing out wild accusations. Got it.
Whenever a law says “a reasonable person,” my strategy is to drag them into an infinite fractal of technicalities and possible exceptions because I don’t know what reasonable means.
Just because you would like one situation to be reality and think that because it is the most reasonable, doesnt mean it is the only possible reality.
Think of all the famous pieces of shit that exist, they have spouses. Why? Because they are also pieces of shit.
You need more evidence for that, mate.
I’m saying she would leave him because I would leave his ass. If she wouldn’t, then I feel sorry for her. Truly pitiful.
I’m not disagreeing with you about that. Any reasonable person would leave him. All I was saying is that perhaps the wife is not reasonable. How something so simple caused some people to explode, I dont know.
Re-reading the thread, I understand better what you were saying. This is different, though: the AI thing is kind of sudden, in a cultural sense, and it’s harder to imagine someone having married a person already knowing they would be into this extremely anti-human parenting style beforehand.
Like, you’re suggesting that a Republican guy probably has a Republican wife, and yeah that’s true, but I don’t think that it follows that an AI-absentee-father would probably be married to an AI-absentee-mother.
And that’s broadly why people are blowing up at you. Rhetorically speaking, it sounds a bit like you’re just being spiteful.
You’re a very strange person.
That makes at least three of us in this thread!