Comment by Dylan16807

> I was never talking about if they made a mistake or not. That is after the fact and outside the scope of what I have been saying. I know it matters, but that is not within the scope of my first comment that started this.

When I say mistake here, I specifically mean "mistake as far as their goal of making the right choice". And I mean that in the moment, using knowledge they have at that time, just like you're defining "right choice". Nothing after the fact nor outside the scope.

> I took the little information they gave and from that the only true logical conclusion was they made the right choice for them at that moment. Full Stop.

I don't see how they gave enough information to be sure, but more importantly you seemed to make a generic statement that anyone making a choice like that would be making the right choice, and that's what I really object to.

> You’re the one bringing the extra opinions

I am not! Please stop misreading me! Why won't you listen to what I'm saying about my own argument?

> Neither of us can know 100% what was right or wrong for them in that moment,

Please explain how "neither of us can know 100%" can be true at the same time as "only true logical conclusion was they made the right choice for them at that moment. Full Stop."

> A, B

Remember that not reporting the company was also part of the choice they made. The basic description of the choice was to report, quit, both, or neither, and they chose to quit.

> If they changed their mind later, it does not change the immutable facts of that moment. It simply provides a new set of choices and options that is outside the scope of my original comment.

I'm not talking about whether someone might change their mind later with new information, per se. I'm making the objectively true claim that people don't always think things through, meaning their choice might fail to represent the knowledge and priorities they had at the time.