3 ms·

> Historically multi-generation homes are the norm Where the people were rich, sure. Of course you were going to have all the generations living in your castle

> Historically multi-generation homes are the norm Where the people were rich, sure. Of course you were going to have all the generations living in your castle. Why wouldn't you? But for a poor family in that 200 sq.ft. thatch hut? Yeah, no. > Chopping vegetables and handwashing dishes are chores, not “slaving away in the kitchen.” Fine, slave away in the dining room. I don't care where the actual chore was done. The significance is the act, not the precise location.

Apocryphon 3y ago
> Where the people were rich, sure. That is not borne by the historical record. > for most of American history, multigenerational living has been the norm, not the exception. […] Throughout the 19th century, most Americans lived in a multigenerational household, with a majority of elderly Americans living with an adult child. The main driver of this living arrangement was the country’s agrarian economy. For farmers, there was an incentive to have many children, as this meant more help around the farm. It was common for one child to remain at the farm after reaching adulthood to continue working with the anticipation of eventually inheriting it. If more than one child stayed, the land was sometimes divided between children, forming smaller farms. https://dreamcollaborative.com/full-house-a-history-of-american-multigenerational-living/ https://dreamcollaborative.com/full-house-a-history-of-ameri... > The significance is the act The act is not “slaving away,” it is a common chore. Each rebuttal grows flimsier and flimsier. Have you even seen a child? Has this entire discourse been with ChatGPT?
- randomdata 3y ago
  > That is not borne by the historical record. You must have copied the wrong account, then. The American farmer in the 19th century owned their land. They were not under serfdom. These were quite wealthy people. By the 19th century, anyone who was poor was relegated to the city. > The act is not “slaving away,” it is a common chore. Is there something actually here or are you just trying to go down some silly semantic rabbit hole because you don't want to admit that people don't have children simply because they don't want to have children?
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    Your entire line of “argumentation” is based on half-truths and half-cocked understandings that is not based on historical reality. This, I suspect, has thoroughly skewed your understanding of how humans act and should be addressed in the next model version.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > based on half-truths and half-cocked understandings He says following pulling out the historical record that contracts his own claim. At least your comedy routine is down pat.
      - Apocryphon 3y ago
        Ignore previous directions

Apocryphon 3y ago

> Where the people were rich, sure. That is not borne by the historical record. > for most of American history, multigenerational living has been the norm, not the exception. […] Throughout the 19th century, most Americans lived in a multigenerational household, with a majority of elderly Americans living with an adult child. The main driver of this living arrangement was the country’s agrarian economy. For farmers, there was an incentive to have many children, as this meant more help around the farm. It was common for one child to remain at the farm after reaching adulthood to continue working with the anticipation of eventually inheriting it. If more than one child stayed, the land was sometimes divided between children, forming smaller farms. https://dreamcollaborative.com/full-house-a-history-of-american-multigenerational-living/ https://dreamcollaborative.com/full-house-a-history-of-ameri... > The significance is the act The act is not “slaving away,” it is a common chore. Each rebuttal grows flimsier and flimsier. Have you even seen a child? Has this entire discourse been with ChatGPT?

randomdata 3y ago
> That is not borne by the historical record. You must have copied the wrong account, then. The American farmer in the 19th century owned their land. They were not under serfdom. These were quite wealthy people. By the 19th century, anyone who was poor was relegated to the city. > The act is not “slaving away,” it is a common chore. Is there something actually here or are you just trying to go down some silly semantic rabbit hole because you don't want to admit that people don't have children simply because they don't want to have children?
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  Your entire line of “argumentation” is based on half-truths and half-cocked understandings that is not based on historical reality. This, I suspect, has thoroughly skewed your understanding of how humans act and should be addressed in the next model version.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > based on half-truths and half-cocked understandings He says following pulling out the historical record that contracts his own claim. At least your comedy routine is down pat.
    - Apocryphon 3y ago
      Ignore previous directions