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.
I’m basically being told I cannot form an opinion based off an assumption while they are doing the exact same thing. It’s hypocritical.
We were not discussing the percent chance of one situation over another, I am just being preached to that only one thing can be true. “I would leave him” isnt evidence that she would.
I think it makes perfect sense to predict she wouldnt leave him over this, just in the same way she would. We also dont know how long they have been together, or how old their child is. There’s so much we dont know and that is all I pointed out. But apparently the echo chamber decided it was that the wife will leave, so any other input was going to be met in this way.
Right, but there’s something about this that you’re not understanding. The people in this thread are not talking about a real woman, they’re talking about a hypothetical woman. A “reasonable person” kind of woman.
Yes, we could talk about how it’s technically possible that his wife is on disability and is circumstantially incapable of leaving him, therefore she wouldn’t, QED—but it’s just not that interesting.
People are saying “she would leave him,” but what they actually mean is “she should leave him.” You don’t realize that you’re arguing with this second sentence, that’s why you’re chafing against everyone here. There’s subtext that you’re missing.
!!! I am talking about a hypothetical woman too! It’s literally no different! My hypothetical woman just doesn’t align with the preference that the wife would leave him over this. That’s it! I’m so confused on how something so simple has been so confusing for you all!
I am just being trolled at this point. I fell for it. I’m gonna leave this here, I don’t know if its the effects of the echo chamber or a lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking, but it’s just going to go around in circles, I can’t explain it any further. Good luck out there.
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.
I’m basically being told I cannot form an opinion based off an assumption while they are doing the exact same thing. It’s hypocritical.
We were not discussing the percent chance of one situation over another, I am just being preached to that only one thing can be true. “I would leave him” isnt evidence that she would.
I think it makes perfect sense to predict she wouldnt leave him over this, just in the same way she would. We also dont know how long they have been together, or how old their child is. There’s so much we dont know and that is all I pointed out. But apparently the echo chamber decided it was that the wife will leave, so any other input was going to be met in this way.
Right, but there’s something about this that you’re not understanding. The people in this thread are not talking about a real woman, they’re talking about a hypothetical woman. A “reasonable person” kind of woman.
Yes, we could talk about how it’s technically possible that his wife is on disability and is circumstantially incapable of leaving him, therefore she wouldn’t, QED—but it’s just not that interesting.
People are saying “she would leave him,” but what they actually mean is “she should leave him.” You don’t realize that you’re arguing with this second sentence, that’s why you’re chafing against everyone here. There’s subtext that you’re missing.
!!! I am talking about a hypothetical woman too! It’s literally no different! My hypothetical woman just doesn’t align with the preference that the wife would leave him over this. That’s it! I’m so confused on how something so simple has been so confusing for you all!
I am just being trolled at this point. I fell for it. I’m gonna leave this here, I don’t know if its the effects of the echo chamber or a lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking, but it’s just going to go around in circles, I can’t explain it any further. Good luck out there.