maybe if you did yours you’d understand that “and” means both conditions need to be fulfilled for a statement to be true. so how is that child considered a property of anyone in this situation?
the definition part of the definition is the paragraph next to “1.” the bullet points below it are examples of how it applies. you provided that definition, are you telling me that on top of not understanding the meaning of “and” you also failed to understand the formatting itself?
i’m really not enraged, not even close to that. i’m calmly bewildered by your far-reaching thought process
it’s you who picked a hypertechnicality (“property of their parents” who btw. aren’t the ones making the kid do work here? it’s the school doing that, in case you forgot) to be mad about
maybe if you did yours you’d understand that “and” means both conditions need to be fulfilled for a statement to be true. so how is that child considered a property of anyone in this situation?
Talk about cherry picking, lol
the definition part of the definition is the paragraph next to “1.” the bullet points below it are examples of how it applies. you provided that definition, are you telling me that on top of not understanding the meaning of “and” you also failed to understand the formatting itself?
I love how you are enraged by this hypertechnicality, but children are property of their parents, in every legal way, but the name.
So you can continue being enraged by this hypertechnicality, but it doesn’t actually exist. You made yourself very angry over nothing. Lol.
It must suck to be so bored that you have to invent reasons to be mad. Lol.
i’m really not enraged, not even close to that. i’m calmly bewildered by your far-reaching thought process
it’s you who picked a hypertechnicality (“property of their parents” who btw. aren’t the ones making the kid do work here? it’s the school doing that, in case you forgot) to be mad about
Classy.
Your astounding level of hypocrisy literally made me laugh out loud
sigh