• flooBanned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    27 days ago

    Removed by mod

    • shneancy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      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?

      • flooBanned
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        27 days ago

        Removed by mod

        • shneancy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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?

          • flooBanned
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            27 days ago

            Removed by mod

            • shneancy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              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