I'll refrain from ad-hominem attacks, thank you, and just stick to the facts.
You shouldn't. Your red-herring already put you at that level. I was just responding in kind.
Anyways, let's proceed:
/u/slublueman wrote:
How many years in a row am I allowed to have kids before they cut me off?
Please note that his usage of I makes this an exceptional case because it does not work in general. That's what exceptional means.
However, you didn't respond to this. You responded to the child comment (which is still the same context by the way):
This is the question I'd like to see answered... considering the 9 month turnaround
to which you wrote:
That's such nonsense. If you think women want to have multiple babies within a year, you've never been pregnant or been anywhere near someone who's pregnant.
Did you catch what context we're in? If you didn't we're still in the exceptional one.
The thread was about the Netflix policy
It may have been but we're not discussing the general thread we're talking about your response /u/slublueman who is the OP for this subthread.
the military is irrelevant
It's not. Again, we are looking for an exceptional case where women will do this.
because it's a completely different policy and system, subsidized by the government
again we're not talking about the underlying system under which these type of women reside. Unless you would like to say that the same type of women wouldn't be married to men at Netflix and men in the military. In which case that's incredibly short-sighted and elitist.
because it's anecdotal, "some people I know" nonsense.
When you responded to /u/fargin_basiges that it's not analogous you conceded that it did happen in the military. Again silence is concession.
Did the asinine thing hit you yet?