|
|
|
|
|
|
by lapcat
842 days ago
|
|
|
> the reasonable reading of your words "is your claim that the firstborn child stops being the firstborn child when another child is born?" is not a reasonable reading of my words in any way, shape, or form. It's an absolutely absurd reading. > I will say, growing up most of us have encountered that 1 kid who is just a bit weird due to the way his or her parents were raising them. How is this relevant? I'm not denying it, just wondering what exactly it's supposed to prove, if anything. My only claim is that the family-size psychological theory proposed by the OP is not true. > I'm not in the mood to even try. That much is obvious, given your aforementioned absurd interpretation. |
|
|
which is why I asked for clarification. Just because what you said is ridiculous doesn't mean I should know what you meant.
your communication sucks, get better at it. or don't, but the feedback has been given.