Philip writes for his regular readers, and that was almost certainly intentionally absurd. He's an "if-this-then-that" sort of rhetoricist. If this absurd thin

Philip writes for his regular readers, and that was almost certainly intentionally absurd. He's an "if-this-then-that" sort of rhetoricist. If this absurd thing is considered socially acceptable, then obviously this even more absurd thing which logically follows should be acceptable too. He's working on a book about the travails of family law. He quotes from the book and the research extensively. He's deeply opposed to the calamities that are legally imposed on non-custodial parents. This would be one more thing on that list.