Except that it wasn’t ‘it’. TC Nole brought up the issue and I gave my opinion on that issue. What makes you the arbiter of what I’m allowed to reply to? Do you have any other rules that apply specifically to me that I should know about?
You replied to MY post where I don’t mention anything about whatever reasons she might have for abandoning him. You made me the arbiter. Here it is to jog your memory.
What I know with absolute certainty is that if my spouse was in the hospital on life support, I’d be right there by her bed holding her hand for the duration. There is nothing that would take precedence over that.
Not a single word about why Chou might have abandoned him. I didn't even mention that situation - I simply stated where I would be.
You, of course, had to respond.
Even if you had tickets to the 2022 Final Four?
Not all marriages are created equal. My best guess is Chao’s trip was planned before Mitch’s medical emergency. If he is in fact brain dead then she probably decided there’s nothing she can do anyway. So she decided to go ahead with her trip knowing that he’s laying in a vegetative state with little or no hope of recovery and will still be laying in a vegetative state with little or no hope of recovery when she returns.
And here, you seem to suggest it's perfectly ok for her to abandon her critically ill and possibly dying husband. He's a veg, right? He'll be a veg when she gets back. No harm, no foul. Perfectly "normal". I responded:
I would pass on the FF knowing the Heels were guaranteed a win if my wife was lying in a hospital bed at the end of her life. It wouldn’t be a close call. Anyone who says otherwise might as well not bother being married.
So here we are...
If the winking emoji didn’t make it obvious that the UNC/Duke comment was a sarcastic reply to your claim that you would never leave your wife’s deathbed under any circumstances then I don’t know what I can do to indicate sarcasm to you. Would flashing red font help? You tell me what would work best.
I dismissed it out of hand. Should I have acknowledged that your scenario was sarcasm? Why? There's no rancor in my response. Go back and read it again. Feel free to post it in "flashing red font". My response would be exactly the same.
The other part of the discussion was this:
I’ve made it abundantly clear multiple times that my point has nothing to do with whether it was appropriate for her to go to China. My point has everything to do whether she did it for the purpose of keeping Mitch on life support.
I simply pointed out that wasn't whatever point you were trying to make when you responded to me given that I never opined on that issue.
I actually agree that she wouldn't have to flee the country to avoid "pulling the plug" but that's my first word on it. That you seemed to defend her choice to abandon her critically ill husband to travel to the other side of the world... that's what's troubling.
As I said, if that's what he means to her, they have no marriage... they have at best what was called a civil union back in the days before marriage equality. They have a contract with no deeper meaning attached - someone else called it "tranactional". That's why people fought so hard for gay
marriage - it just means more.
People who are actually married - they don't take off on a trip while their spouse lies critically ill in the hospital unless there is an extreme circumstance. A previously scheduled business trip could never rise to that level for me. Perhaps for you it could but, like you said, "Not all marriages are created equal".
Feel free to accept this as the last word.
