3 ms·

The article is mostly separate of my point--this is quite alright. HN would be boring if every comment was only to be directly related to whatever article was b

The article is mostly separate of my point--this is quite alright. HN would be boring if every comment was only to be directly related to whatever article was being discussed. It is strongly hinted (at least in my reading) that the money required to cover the fuckups could've been at least partially covered by the author's pre-divorce wealth; had they written something like "even without the divorce I couldn't have fixed the troubles we were in" then it would've been much clearer.

dalke 11y ago
It's completely tangential. You're reading into it things that aren't there, and seemingly using it as platform to express views similar to what I've seen in anti-feminist writings. Do you agree with me that everyone has the right to a no-fault divorce? If so, then it doesn't really matter what might have happened had there been no divorce. They got a divorce, end of story. If not, then who has the 'privilege' of being able to divorce? Do you agree that a 50-50 cash split is a reasonable split after a divorce, at least when you know nothing about the details of the marriage and reason for divorce? If so, then there's no "privilege", or sign of "Fuck male privilege." If not, then you haven't said what the non-privilege version should be. Since people do get divorced, do you not also agree with me that it's a factor to consider in business planning? And what's not clear about the essay? The author said, 1) the team screwed up, because 2) the owner's son didn't have enough experience, and 3) the owner didn't provide enough oversight. As the company stated to flounder, he got bad press, and lost investment interest. So he decided to risk his own money on the chance of a big win. And note, this is after the divorce, so it's his own decision to invest his own money. If he hadn't done so, he would be worth millions. We also don't know if his wife would have agreed to the gamble if they had stayed married. He then lost the gamble. So it's not like he went broke because of the divorce, or diminished funds - it's that he made a gamble and lost. He already said it wasn't his son's fault, even though the son was the most proximate cause to his problem. Why should he think that he needed to even add the statement that you want, when it was clearly his decisions that lead going broke, and where he places full responsibility on himself?

dalke 11y ago

It's completely tangential. You're reading into it things that aren't there, and seemingly using it as platform to express views similar to what I've seen in anti-feminist writings. Do you agree with me that everyone has the right to a no-fault divorce? If so, then it doesn't really matter what might have happened had there been no divorce. They got a divorce, end of story. If not, then who has the 'privilege' of being able to divorce? Do you agree that a 50-50 cash split is a reasonable split after a divorce, at least when you know nothing about the details of the marriage and reason for divorce? If so, then there's no "privilege", or sign of "Fuck male privilege." If not, then you haven't said what the non-privilege version should be. Since people do get divorced, do you not also agree with me that it's a factor to consider in business planning? And what's not clear about the essay? The author said, 1) the team screwed up, because 2) the owner's son didn't have enough experience, and 3) the owner didn't provide enough oversight. As the company stated to flounder, he got bad press, and lost investment interest. So he decided to risk his own money on the chance of a big win. And note, this is after the divorce, so it's his own decision to invest his own money. If he hadn't done so, he would be worth millions. We also don't know if his wife would have agreed to the gamble if they had stayed married. He then lost the gamble. So it's not like he went broke because of the divorce, or diminished funds - it's that he made a gamble and lost. He already said it wasn't his son's fault, even though the son was the most proximate cause to his problem. Why should he think that he needed to even add the statement that you want, when it was clearly his decisions that lead going broke, and where he places full responsibility on himself?