| Atticus Grinch |
04-25-2005 06:41 PM |
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You didn't do well in reading comprehension on the LSAt, did you? Oscar asked for car recs, not affirmation of need.
|
I interpreted "I can't really wrap my head around having a car that can't actually fit the whole family even if they primarly ride in the van. Any ideas?" to invite the response I gave, to wit, "My idea is to wrap your head around having a car that can't actually fit the whole family."
It used to be that conservatives were the ones in the business of telling people non-affirming things that they didn't want to hear.
Quote:
Your taking the stance of knowing what all familys need might be a little bit pompous, no?
|
Which is precisely why I explained that I assumed the way he asked his question meant he was potentially receptive to my response. Not all families can swing this; my point (which remains lost on you) is that some families can, and he should consider whether he belongs to one of them. That you, or Fringey, or Ty, or frankly anyone, is a member of a family that cannot does nothing to either (1) defeat my point or (2) make my point somehow sexist or pompous.
Quote:
And wouldn't buying a car that won't hold the children guarentee that he wouldn't have to pick up or drop off until the lease expires? It just seems to me that buying a vehicle that forces his spouse to stay in the role of sole child transport is a bit passive-aggressive. you vote Republican, don't you?
|
Frankly, no. I reiterate: There are families that somehow manage to arrange to have productive lives with only one car that can fit ALL of the kids at once. I cannot think of any that have two minivans, and precious few with two SUVs. Why is that controversial? Is SF the only place on the planet where one family member can drive a Prius without reducing the other to domestic slave or houseboy?
|