3 ms·

I'm guessing you don't have children? My seven year old asks EXACTLY this type of hypothetical question.

by vidanay 11y ago

harryh 11y ago
And is it a useful discussion when they ask this type of question? Or is it a transparent and poor attempt to get out of going to their room? (Incidentally, I have an 8 month old son. So, yes, I've got a few years before I get to have conversations like this.)
- vidanay 11y ago
  Congratulations. It's a fun ride. Who knows if it's transparent...children's brains function in a completely different universe sometimes.
- simoncion 11y ago
  The way we feel out the boundaries of a restriction is not infrequently to imagine an extreme but not impossible scenario and ask if the restriction would apply. People who fail to do this (especially when creating new restrictions <hello most everyone in Congress>) often end up very unpleasantly surprised down the line. So, the reply to the last question in your mother/child conversation is likely: "No. You would not be required to do so. However, there are presently no known obstructions between you and the door to your room. Go to your room now, lest I find you in contempt of Mother.". Simple, right? Right. So, make your commentary more productive in the future, please. :)
  - harryh 11y ago
    If you'll look back upthread you'll see that my first comment very much mirrors your "presently no known obstructions" rebuttal.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      I guess "upthread" is this [0]? If it is, there's a critical part of my comment that you left off in your comment; namely the part of the comment where the speaker addresses the hypothetical posed. This is a part that I included in my hypothetical Mother's Response: > "No. You would not be required to do so. However, there are presently no known obstructions between you and the door to your room. Go to your room now, lest I find you in contempt of Mother." Your comment omitted the explanation -thus ignoring the hypothetical- and went directly to analysis of the situation as it currently is. Context is everything, and the person to whom you were speaking was not likely a child and wasn't asking a series of hypothetical questions in order to put off some unpleasant task. Therefore, the lack of explanation in your comment makes it substantially different from mine and -because it lacks the useful components- not really productive. :) [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11308789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11308789

I'm guessing you don't have children? My seven year old asks EXACTLY this type of hypothetical question.

by vidanay 11y ago

I'm guessing you don't have children? My seven year old asks EXACTLY this type of hypothetical question.

And is it a useful discussion when they ask this type of question? Or is it a transparent and poor attempt to get out of going to their room? (Incidentally, I have an 8 month old son. So, yes, I've got a few years before I get to have conversations like this.)

vidanay 11y ago
Congratulations. It's a fun ride. Who knows if it's transparent...children's brains function in a completely different universe sometimes.
simoncion 11y ago
The way we feel out the boundaries of a restriction is not infrequently to imagine an extreme but not impossible scenario and ask if the restriction would apply. People who fail to do this (especially when creating new restrictions <hello most everyone in Congress>) often end up very unpleasantly surprised down the line. So, the reply to the last question in your mother/child conversation is likely: "No. You would not be required to do so. However, there are presently no known obstructions between you and the door to your room. Go to your room now, lest I find you in contempt of Mother.". Simple, right? Right. So, make your commentary more productive in the future, please. :)
- harryh 11y ago
  If you'll look back upthread you'll see that my first comment very much mirrors your "presently no known obstructions" rebuttal.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    I guess "upthread" is this [0]? If it is, there's a critical part of my comment that you left off in your comment; namely the part of the comment where the speaker addresses the hypothetical posed. This is a part that I included in my hypothetical Mother's Response: > "No. You would not be required to do so. However, there are presently no known obstructions between you and the door to your room. Go to your room now, lest I find you in contempt of Mother." Your comment omitted the explanation -thus ignoring the hypothetical- and went directly to analysis of the situation as it currently is. Context is everything, and the person to whom you were speaking was not likely a child and wasn't asking a series of hypothetical questions in order to put off some unpleasant task. Therefore, the lack of explanation in your comment makes it substantially different from mine and -because it lacks the useful components- not really productive. :) [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11308789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11308789