this post was submitted on 22 May 2024
1012 points (95.1% liked)
memes
9997 readers
2503 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's "got me absolutely stumped" because we have a small kitchen and a small sink. There's no room. We could put them on the floor, but we have dogs. Conceivably we could do something like put all the dishes on a shelf in the living room and come and get them one by one to clean them. Maybe you think that would teach my daughter something, but other than 'my parents are doing something silly when we could just use the dishwasher,' I don't know what it would be.
Could it be that you don't know my situation because you've never been to my home?
Moving them onto another surface also means an additional surface to clean. Floors don't need anything more than regular vacuuming or a quick mop most of the time. If you get grease there, that's so much more work to clean up.
I have a small kitchen and a small sink. I somehow still understand the concept of piling them on some other surface for a moment so I can wash other dishes in the sink. I'm genuinely amazed by how a supposedly functioning adult seems to genuinely think their actual ability to wash the dishes hinges on whether their kid puts them away or not. Imagine if the kid didn't do that, would you really, actually, just not be able to in any way wash the dishes? I just can't believe that.
You're telling your kid to put the dishes away because it makes things easier and convenient. It's not an actual requirement for your ability to wash dishes, but I wouldn't bother explaining that to a kid either. I'd just say put the dishes away so we can wash them. It's not the whole truth but it's a kid so I wouldn't care either. This is unless you genuinely think your ability to wash the dishes hinges on your kid putting them away. In which case, wow.
Where, specifically, would this other surface be since you know my kitchen so well?
I can't believe an adult just can't wrap their head around this, bless your heart.
Maybe this will help: You tell your kid to put the dishes away, claiming so you can wash the dishes. But it's not true in that you could wash the dishes without them having been put away. It just wouldn't be as convenient. You could pile the dishes somewhere else, hell outside on the ground (lol) to make room in the sink and whatever while you clean other dishes. But it'd be inconvenient and stupid. You could wash the dishes on the kitchen table, but that'd also be inconvenient and stupid. You could do a lot of things but they wouldn't be as convenient (and could be really stupid). So it's not really that the dishes need to be put away so you can wash your dishes, it's just it is much more convenient to do so. So what you are saying to the kid isn't true in that sense.
Does that finally explain it?
So what you're saying is, I should tell my daughter, "if you don't put the dishes away, I will be forced to take them all outside and bring them in one by one and wash them." Because that's a sane thing to tell a child, rather than explain to them the concept of keeping things clean to keep the roaches away.
Got it.
Is that what you tell your kids?
I didn't say at all what you should say, I was just noting that what you're saying isn't exactly the truth. It wasn't a value judgement or even advice.
If you want help workshopping this you could say that it's just more convenient to put them away. That'd be true without being very convoluted, if being 100% honest was the goal. Whether it should be or not, imo not.
Most children, I would wager, are not so stupid that when you say something like I said, they will think, "well he must mean that there is literally no other possible option and therefore he is being 100% honest with me." I know my daughter isn't. She understands nuance and she understands that means that in our house, we clean dishes with the dishwasher.
Again, what do you tell your kids? I'm starting to suspect you don't have any, which is what prompted this conversation.
If they understand that then it seems like you could say that it's just more convenient and it'd be the same, but also 100% truthful. Assuming that's the goal.
That it's more convenient
Yes, again, my child is smart enough to understand nuance. She doesn't have to have everything put to her 100% literally. I'm not sure why your children do.
Also, I hope you're not the one who is responsible for telling your children the difference between things like "honest" and "100% literally true" or they are fucked.
Sounds like your daughter might have you beat there since I didn't say she doesn't, I didn't say she does, I didn't say they do.
That's very sweet of you.
You said I wasn't being honest with her by not telling her the 100% literal truth. So yeah, you're saying she doesn't understand nuance.
I said it's a lighter lie in that it's not actually (literally) true.
Got it, so if you ask me to do something important for you and I tell you I'm too busy, but when in actual fact, I could quit my job, sell my belongings, move to your city and do it, it's a lie. Right?
It's not a lie if you actually are too busy at the moment.
I wouldn't be too busy at the moment if I quit my job if my job was what made me busy. So it's a lie, right?
You wouldn't be too busy after quitting your job so whether or not it's a lie depends on if you had quit your job before answering. If you had quit it and didn't have anything to do at that moment then yeah it'd be a lie. If you still had your job when you answered then you wouldn't be lying.
Wow. Everyone must be lying to you constantly. I can picture you at a restaurant after a waiter lists the specials. "Those are made of conventional ingredients I could buy at a grocery store and cook myself, so they aren't really special now are they? You're lying to me!"
Not really, afaik
I thought the list specials meant it was something outside of the ordinary menu, making them special to the list. If they claim they're made of special ingredients and it's the same ingredients from the regular store you visit, then they probably are taking you for a ride tbh.
"They're from outside the ordinary menu, but you could make them if you wanted to and I paid you enough. So they aren't special, you liars! Also, you call this the soup of the day, but you offer three soups so they are all the soups of the day! I am taking my business to an honest establishment! Good day, sir!"
That makes them special to the menu though. Not sure what your issue with that is tbh.
"Nowhere do you state that "specials" mean something other than what is on the ordinary menu! You did not make that clear to me at all, you liar!"
By the way, how many children do you have? Remember, if it's zero, you wouldn't want to lie like you did earlier when I asked you what you told them and you responded.
If they don't specify how they're special then they need to be special in any way for what they say to be true though. If they say they're special in a certain way and they aren't, then that'd be a lie.
Not sure why you think I wouldn't want to lie or why you think I lied earlier.
Got it. Lying by omission is not lying. You need to contact the world's justice systems and let them know.
Okay, then what is even the point of this conversation? Are you just bored and looking for someone to be contentious with?
I'm not sure what omission you are talking about.
I just wanted to make the original point. And now I'm just replying to your messages (even though the original discussion seem to be over) because I feel like it'd be rude not to.
Your "original point" was that I was lying to my daughter by not coming up with unreasonable alternatives even though she clearly knew what I meant and understood what I was saying. It was a ridiculous point and it is no more a lie than the specials example because, as you made clear, she understood the context.
Sorta, I just meant that yeah you were lying because the actual reason was convenience. As for the specials example, I'm not sure it really worked (or you didn't properly work it out), since in that case the special was actually special in some form. If you meant that it wasn't actually special in any way but I was expected to know it wasn't supposed to be, it would be closer, in that it would also be lying.'
What was the omission you talked about earlier btw?
Again, it wasn't convenience if she understood the context.
Why are you not getting that?
I was saying the reason to put the dishes away is convenience, not that dishes literally couldn't be washed otherwise.
Yes, and the reason to not beat clothes with a rock by the stream and put them in the washer instead is convenience, but my daughter knows that when I tell her, "if you don't put clothes in the wash, you'll have to wear stinky clothes," it isn't a lie, even though she understands that, if she wanted to, she could go out to the stream in the middle of February, break through the ice for the water, get a rock and start beating on the clothes.
Because she's not a fucking idiot.
I mean the explanation is not 100% true in the sense that it’s not the actual reason, but if she isn’t supposed to believe it then it’s not a lie in that sense, if you require intent. Not all definitions do, so it still could be a lie.
I don’t know enough to comment on that
I don't consider it a lie. She doesn't consider it a lie. Only you consider it a lie.
Why does your opinion on the matter have any relevance?
Me and some definitions of the word, correct.
I mean, does it?
Are you saying you give someone your contentious opinion, an opinion that implies via the context of the discussion before you butted in that my daughter is stupid and I'm a liar, when it has no relevance? That sort of sounds like trolling to me.
Are you a troll?
I didn't imply anything about your daughter. I was thinking you might be a bit simple since the sink think was so hard for you but it might've been something else too, so I don't necessary think that. Not sure where I implied you are a liar, I think you implied that about me but I don't remember doing it back. Could be I forgot.
I just mentioned how what you said was lying. It was imo relevant in that discussion. For my opinions, I'm not sure which ones you mean. I hope you found them relevant but they were really just additional comments brought on by the discussion. I thought they were relevant.
Oh and no, I'm not trolling. I try to answer your questions as best I can. You are asking about this stuff and I'm always not sure of the relevance, but I hope you don't think I'm a troll just for answering.
Do you not understand what the word context means? Because I would bet you know what it means since you seem to be literate enough.
Again, you implied I was a liar and she was stupid via the context of the discussion before you butted in.
The civil thing to do would be to apologize for implying such a thing even if you didn't intend to. Since I'm now fairly certain you're just a troll, I will not be holding my breath for that apology.
I understand context. I'm just saying you've misunderstood what I've implied. I don't doubt you believe you understood it correctly but I'm just saying you haven't.
I mean I didn't imply such a thing. I'm sorry you felt so though. I understand why you're upset.
Thank you.
You are welcome
Holy shit. You two actually went back and forth this long on something this stupid?! Impressive.
U forgot small brain.
Oooh snap