29 ms·

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

by 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

by harryh 11y ago

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