Same. I don't know, maybe it would be kind of cool to see someone reappear in a totally different context on a large platform. On here you get to know a lot of the other major users anyway.
So what, you mean that in just a relative way, compared to some kind of platonic, maximally-ordered alternate possibility? If the world was actually irrational, as in defying logic, basic planning, like walking in the direction you want to go, would not work.
Instead, it's extremely orderly if you look closely at any given thing, only becoming unpredictable with scale and influence by other, unknown-to-you parts. Even quantum mechanics has utterly predictable probabilities. And interpretations where the randomness is, itself, an illusion.
Malice is still a possibility, though. He was getting some kind of revenge on everyone around him, and then didn't want to face the music when he got caught.
Most of the time when you see this, the person being accused straight-up doesn't seem to know their fallacies, so it doesn't work.
If they do know, and try to explain why they're not doing whatever fallacy, the conversation descends into a weird semantic debate, and the original point tends to be forgotten.
Explaining the problem with the argument in plain terms has a far better track record.
Yep, and that's probably through better access to and knowledge of contraception and other kinds of family planning. In really patriarchal societies men don't have to worry as much about the difficulty of raising a high number children. Or giving birth to them.
You can find anecdotes supporting that causation, although there's no hard data that I'm aware of.
In general, good. Very good.
That's an important bit of context, and makes it somewhat more likely to be true. Either way, if he doesn't want you contacting his wife it stinks.