Zierro

Now you are making the claims that: 1. You did not insult me. 2. Your post was on-topic. When you make claims like these, people naturally start losing their credibility for you.

Are you serious? This isn't immature? If you can't accept the fact that flaming and spamming is immature, then... Well, that speaks for itself. You never admit when you're wrong, even when you know you are. And contrary to what you believe, that is actually counterproductive to the debating process.

The point is you called out children for being immature and making wildy rants, and now I'm calling you out for being immature and making completely irrelevant posts with only the intention to insult someone. And now you change it into an argument of "I said tomotoes - not tomatoes!" to distract us from the issue of your immaturity and oppressiveness.

Really then? Immaturity only applies to wildy rants?

Again, never said that. Building laughably wrong arguments over things someone never said doesn't do much for your integrity. Funny... Naturally, I am not gonna quote you word for word every time, but the ideas are exactly the same.

Of course you wouldn't. Acknowledging it would mean you just disproved your entire point. You were the one who said kids are the ones who make immature Rant Threads - not adults. Now you're making immature posts in the Rants. You also make posts deciding what should be done with the fate of humanity. Speaks loads for your character.

Ahh, and you said adults aren't the ones who are immature on the internet yet you make a post like this.

Superpowers? We already have the power of existentialism at our sides.

You can celebrate 4:20 everyday.

And I ask again, how? Wikipedia is wrong then? That's exactly what you did. That's hypocritical for you to be allowed to use words interchangeable at whim, but you get fussy when anyone else plays by your rules. :lol: Oh, just the fact that Wikipedia disagrees with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maturity_(psychological) All in all, one can sum up your argument by how you said kids cannot do mature things. Like I've reiterated time and time again, it is possible for a child to perform a mature action.

Thanks for not answering the question. Like I said, just because you reply to my point doesn't automatically count as a refutation. I asked, "How does that disprove the fact that kids can be mature." You said, "Because it's a definition." One of the definitions also say "a function of awareness, feeling, or motivation". Are you saying a child cannot function out of awareness, feeling, or motivation? What you seem to be implying is that psychological maturity and physical maturity are the same thing - they wouldn't have separate definitions if that were true, so you are wrong. Then you contradict yourself... again... for like the 50th time. If they can do this act, then they can be mature. "Kids can't be mature."

How does that disprove anything I said wrong? Stop slapping the label of "disproven" on everything that works against you, with irrelevant material. The case is that kids can respond to circumstance in an appropriate manner, and to say they can't is not only ageist but ignorant too. Kids will not always accept a pack of cigarettes.

Just one point I would like to add. I like how you make it seem like I'm the one going against sources, even though you're the one who said kids can't be psychologically mature. Maturity is a psychological term used to indicate that a person responds to the circumstances or environment in an appropriate manner. This response is generally learned rather than instinctual, and is not determined by one's age. Maturity also encompasses being aware of the correct time and place to behave and knowing when to act in serious or non-serious ways. And take a look at this contradiction: Who were you arguing against? I've been saying exactly that since page 7. The only things I were arguing about was that children cannot be as mature as adults, and that children write spammy, wilderness removal threads. I won on both accounts 8-) Really, that's all that is needed to understand what's going on here. After those two incidents, I find it impossible to take anything you say seriously anymore. :lol: Sorry, you last your chance. And I'm not anti-intellectual. That statement would only be true if you actually were intellectual. I guess you could call me an anti-anti-intellectual though. ;)

My room wasn't as nice as that one, but the concept was the same. I have posters that glow in black lights and I had several different types of light sources - all with their own colors. Of course, living with clumsy siblings obviously means I didn't get to keep them. :(

That's also convenient. And what's stopping me from saying my exception proves my point? What's up with you and your one-sided points? I can say the same exact thing to you and it's an even slower procedure than proper debating (an already slow procedure). It's boring and I suggest you stop putting your opinion behind every tiny statement and assuming it to be correct. Your credibility is falling just like sand in an hour glass. It's up to you if you want to flip that hourglass around or not. Being something and acting something are the same unless you make the assumption that they are pretending. In the correct context, which you are apparently opposed of, acting denotes that an action is taking place and has nothing to do with theaters or making action movies. We're not talking about what actors and actresses do - we're talking about what people do in general - any verb. If you exhibit mature behavior then you exhibit mature behavior. There is no other way to put it, unless, like I said, they are being actors or actresses. Is acting childish and being childish any different? They're not. You're just attempting to make it seem (or should I say act) like you've been saying the same things over and over again when in reality you are changing arguments and slandering the English language in order to completely change the meaning of words around. Acting and being are a prime example of this. Unless you're talking about actors or actresses, acting simply means performing an action. Nobody said it was your only point. You seem to love strawmans. Just because I disagreed with that point doesn't mean I disagree with all of your points, so whether it was your main point or not is irrelevant. It's still a point and I disagreed with it. Hate to break it to you, but I do have that right. These are the irrelevancies I speak of. It seems like you don't care about straightening things out, you care about replying to what I say no matter how dumb of an argument it is. Not all replies can be counted as refutations though. Of course you've admitted how egotistical you are and how you are right over 99% of the time, so anything I say will only be taken with a grain of salt - if that. Hopefully you're just posting your denials in order to keep your reputation of being such a great debater up and deep down in your heart you understand the logical mistakes you've made on this thread - namely the contradictions and the denials but the irrelevancies are a no-no too. And while we're on topic, I find it quite distasteful how you give yourself that title of a great debater even though the only subjects you debate about have to do with RS. I don't see you on the Is God Real? thread because that's where the big dogs go for a debate. Not bashing wildy-ranters which shouldn't even count as a debate in the first place. :lol: I don't understand how the definitions magically alter to suit your argument? It doesn't sound realistic at all, and makes me wonder whether or not I should trust you. It is a contradiction, because in the context he was talking about (actions) you disagreed. You said kids can't perform the action of being as mature as an adult. Then you said they can. This whole debate has been a flipflop of your arguments. You twist them and turn them just to make a rebuttal, no matter how many contradictions you have to make in the process. It's just not right. Let's see here... You said you weren't talking about actions of maturity and when I point out that you were, you change the argument and say, "Well they are related!" Then I point out the Wiki quote that says the type the poster and I were talking about is not determined by age. Then you go back in a circle, and say you weren't talking about it. I caught your contradictions red-handed, but what do you do? You follow the same formula and switch the argument yet again. The thought pattern doesn't matter - the action matters. If an adult comes up with the wrong decision, even though he technically used his brain and thought about it, it can still be called immature. Just because you have the ability to rationalize your opinions does not make you mature in the sense you are talking about. What is mature and what is not is completely subjective. Denying it is like denying the word "good". You can't tell me that I can't call buttered bread "good", just like you can't tell me that I can't say it's immature for an old man to cry about spilled milk and I can't say it's mature for a child to ignore what a bully says. I can say it and it is completely justifiable. If someone does something which I find mature, then I can call that person mature - not physically, but psychologically and in that certain context. In other words, ignoring the bully is a mature thing to do but it doesn't automatically make you a mature person. It means that you are mature in that context. Let me bring up the good example again. Donating to the poor is good, but it doesn't mean you are completely or fully good - it only means you are good in that context. So you see, it's okay to say kids can be mature, because it doesn't mean all the time. It only applies to the action being discussed. Psychological Physical Psychological has to do with your actions, period. So if you are psychologically mature, that means you make mature actions. It's impossible to make a psychologically mature action, but not be psychologically mature, unless you mean they are pretending which is not the case. Kids don't pretend to be mature by refusing cigs - it's not an illusion, they really are doing a mature action which translates into them being mature in that specific instance. There are two possibilities: 1. Kids can be mature in this context, meaning they have the ability to respond to a circumstance in an appropriate manner, or 2. Kids can't be mature in this context, meaning they do not have the ability to respond to a circumstance in an appropriate manner. Physical has to do with your body and brain. The moment you bring up the body and brain structure, you open a whole new can of worms because you're talking about a different definition altogether. As stated, psychological maturity is not determined by age (brain structure). Please note the difference and stop combining the terms and formulating your own definitions. See the difference? You keep making an unnecessary transition between the two. The maturity we're talking about describes things in a subjective manner - it doesn't have to do with how long something is alive. It has to do only with how one can describe something as, like good or bad. Kids can be mature by doing their chores. Adults can be immature by crying over stupid things. Do you disagree with those statements? If you do, then you are denying reality and these is no foundation in which to debate with you in the first place. It's the same as trying to teach a blind person how to read. Nice to see proof that you ignore every point I made. The punishment isn't even relevant to the issue. You're just using a cop-out argument to support your thesis. Like I said, exclude the parents and kids can still make the decision to not smoke off the basis of getting lung cancer. The reason I didn't smoke had nothing to do with my parents. I didn't smoke because I didn't want to harm my body. I was even younger than 10 when this happened. I'm assuming you're gonna change your argument again, now that I pointed out a child can weigh pros and cons and make mature decisions. This whole ordeal can be understood by checking Wikipedia. The poster was talking about psychological maturity only and said kids can be just as psychologically mature as adults. He was talking about actions, not brain structure or age. He was right. Everything can easily be understood in this paragraph. 1.)Maturity is a psychological term used to indicate that a person responds to the circumstances or environment in an appropriate manner. This response is generally learned rather than instinctual, and is 2.) not determined by one's age. 3.) Maturity also encompasses being aware of the correct time and place to behave and knowing when to act in serious or non-serious ways. 1.) People who respond to a circumstance in an appropriate manner are being mature in the given context. 2.) Even kids can be this. 3.) There are cases where adults don't know when to behave or know when to act in serious/non-serious ways, meaning there is only a correlation when it comes to age - it doesn't mean kids can't be mature and adults can't be immature. This will probably be my final post, because I'm pretty sure I've addressed every point being argued about and I think I did a good job clearing up how being mature and making mature actions are the same thing. That being said I'm off, as I don't want this to be the thread I posted on the most and the debate is also getting excessively tedious and circular. Too much denial and contradiction for my taste as well. I prefer intellectual debates, not just cases of people trying everything they possibly can to make it look like they weren't wrong. We're never going to come to a consensus, no matter how many times I have to point to the facts. The fact is, kids can be psychologically mature (because they can respond to circumstances appropriately) and there is nothing you can do to change that. Adios ageist.

That's convenient, but exactly what is stopping me from posting my definitions of those words that show that they can be identical? No, they can be. Either they can be psychologically mature or they can't be. There is no in between. Either disagree with Wikipedia, or disagree with yourself because they contradict. What does it mean to be psychologically mature you may ask. I'll tell you. It means if you respond to a circumstance in an appropriate manner, then you are being mature. It's that simple. There is the scientific definition (mature fetus) that has to do with growth, and there is the common definition (mature speech) which has to do with describing an action or thing as adult-like, considered, or appropriate. Let's try a new approach. Mature pretty much means "adult-like" right? Well, does this mean adults will always do "adult-like" things and kids can never do it? No. Kids can read the newspaper and adults can cry. Not the best examples, but you get the point. Mature is just a word that is trying to fit the description of how adults should be, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are always going to adult-like.

No, don't pull that card again because you explicitly said they both can and cannot be as mature. Who were you arguing against? I've been saying exactly that since page 7. The only things I were arguing about was that children cannot be as mature as adults, and that children write spammy, wilderness removal threads. I won on both accounts 8-) I don't see how you're gonna weasel yourself out of this one. You got away with the other ones because there was different word uses and you used the ones that benefited your argument for your advantage. This is a contradiction, stated verbatim. You have been saying exactly, "kids can be as mature as adults". Then you say, "children cannot be as mature as adults." Are you gonna tell me there is a difference between kids and children now? :lol:

I'm really getting tired of pointing out contradictions that are literally right there. Oh and let's go back and see what you really said. No, they can't. Kids can sometimes act more appropriate than adults, but they can't think carefully before talking about it? No, it's not. All I'm saying is that the older you are, the more mature you are. It's an undeniable fact, and I don't see how your trying to argue against it. Maturity isn't a switch, it's a level. Kids can sometimes act more appropriate than adults, but the older you are automatically the more mature you are? No, they can't. They are not physically as developed as adults. And you STILL have completely managed to avoid pointing out a post with an immature, spammy, flaming adult. Until you do, I shall continue to assume that immature, spammy, flaming posts that aren't even readable for the grammar and spelling errors are made mostly by teens. Kids can sometimes act more appropriate than adults, but they can't be as sensible as adults? One last one: Who were you arguing against? I've been saying exactly that since page 7. The only things I were arguing about was that children cannot be as mature as adults, and that children write spammy, wilderness removal threads. I won on both accounts 8-) I said you admit that kids can be as mature as adults. You said you've been saying this. Then you say children cannot be as mature as adults. Pick one and stick with it.

Case in point. You just admitted kids can be as mature as adults in the context of actions. You lost the game. \ Did you realize this was my entire argument?

Let's compare a 30-year-old mentally handicapped person with the 14-year-old who went to college. Does this mean the 30 year-old is psychologically more mature than the kid? Why can't you understand that they are separate definitions? It has nothing to do with age. Please understand that. An adult can do something totally immature and a child can do something mature. Adults do immature things like gambling all their money. Kids do mature things like refusing to smoke. Please understand this. I smell another contradiction: I'm not sure what other meaning can be drawn. As the definition proved, not being determined by age means that age is not the conclusive, end all-be all factor; there are other factors dependent on the individual. So you believe that children can never respond to a circumstance in an appropriate way? And that adults will always respond appropriately more than children? You must be the most indecisive person I've met. You change your mind constantly. Either you believe that kids can be mature, accepting the fact that they can respond appropriately or you can believe they can't be mature, meaning you believe they never respond appropriately. Pick.

You don't get the point. Age is irrelevant. Just because your brain is programmed to do mature things more than a child's is, it doesn't automatically make you more psychologically mature than them. That is up to your actions. You can have the brain capacity to do it, but it doesn't mean you always will. On the other end of the spectrum, just because a child isn't fully mature that doesn't mean they can't do a mature action. I told you that we never said kids can be fully mature. I said they can be mature. You proceeded by saying, "It's either fully mature or not mature". You're wrong. You can be mature and you can be fully mature, or you can not be mature at all. Either way, you can be just a little mature. So you're saying that actions and brain development are the same exact thing? That all adults make mature actions all the time and all children make immature actions all the time? Then why do you say kids can't be psychologically mature?

Oh it's not? There is no "fully mature" and "mature", there's a "fully mature" and a "not fully mature". Do you have to be completely evil in order to be bad? And no one said it can be. However, the actions can be. And a person's actions make up who they are. Yes, adults generally commit more mature acts than children but this doesn't mean it's impossible for children to commit them too.

Apparently you do not, seeing as you feel that one must be fully mature or they are not mature at all. You contradict yourself again. A while ago you said it was a level - not a switch. Now you're saying it is an either on-or-off status. Make up your mind. Actually, it is. We said it was numerous times. He brought up the two types of maturity - phys. and psych. He was talking about psychological. Besides, saying it was an adjective was only a means to get my point across. Meaning that mature is subjective in the same sense as good and bad. It is possible for me to say, "That kid is real mature for not letting that bully get to him." Is that sentence impossible? You are the one misinterpreting things. Tell me, what other meaning can the sentence, "It isn't determined by age," mean? Exactly. Maturity in the sense we were talking about is an opinion much like good and bad. It is used to say things such as, "It is mature to do ignore a bully." You don't have to be a certain age to receive that comment. Also, "It is immature to steal candy from a baby." It is completely reasonable to say this statement to an old man, even though he is physically mature. I don't see why Comp doesn't understand that. Maybe it's because he's over 30 so that means he is perfect.

You don't have to be a 30-year-old to refuse a pack of cigarettes. You don't need full maturity to make a mature decision. Just like you don't have to be completely evil to commit one bad action. If you go by the dictionary then go by the dictionary. Don't just pick and choose. The dictionary says mature is an adjective defined as "considered". Now, can a kid consider something? If he can then he has the ability to be mature. Oh and more relevantly, physical means it has matter. Can you touch matter? Case closed. ;) That doesn't mean it's a must have. Key word: difficult. As in, they don't know everything about it and there is a lot of debate about it. In no way does in contradict itself when it says it doesn't have to do with age. If you think it contradicts itself, then why do you rely on a source that you don't even agree with? More importantly, why can't you understand simple concepts such as: No they can't =/= Yes they can Acting mature = Being mature Psychological maturity doesn't have to do with age. So you're admitting that kids can be mature?

No one says he is fully mature. We just said he could be mature. Again, you put words in our mouths but cry when it happens to you. Yeah, and I can bring up a definition of physical that means something you can touch. Can you touch maturity? You don't have an argument here. Stop dictating what definitions I'm doing when you won't even allow me to tell you what definitions you implied. No, it doesn't. Maturity is a psychological term used to indicate that a person responds to the circumstances or environment in an appropriate manner. This response is generally learned rather than instinctual, and is not determined by one's age. Maturity also encompasses being aware of the correct time and place to behave and knowing when to act in serious or non-serious ways. How many times are you going to ignore that? This is the maturity we're talking about: mature - considered: a mature plan of action. Are you seriously telling me a 10-year-old doesn't have the ability to consider things? :lol: