I explained it. Latin sometimes hints that a line of thought is very, very old and well established. But I explained it in English. There is no syllogism and no conclusion. Only your trumpeting of your personal gut judgment with scarcely any evidence to base it upon.
Yes I did assume Michael is manipulative, since the article did indicate that he could switch his emotions on or off...but that wasn’t begging, as that wasn’t my question.
I asked (and continue to ask this) was Michael spanked/disciplined appropriately when he first started to misbehave? Has there been any consistent approach to discipline? Or just the chaotic non-approach described in the article?
The article doesn’t say (since, as I said, it is quite safe to assume to the NYTimes, any spanking is child abuse...), it does indicate a lenient father and “strict” mother who aren’t on the same page on how to approach the problem.
Any child who can physically threaten a sibling, and defy and disrespect his father...with no negative consequences...will behave badly—and worse again, (and again, and again) especially if that’s the pattern for years.