Where's the contradiction? All I see is one statement saying children cannot be as mature, and another saying they can act as mature. Shall I quote the post where this was settled before?

 

 

 

No, don't pull that card again because you explicitly said they both can and cannot be as mature.

 

 

 

 

Case in point. You just admitted kids can be as mature as adults.

 

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:

 

No, don't pull that card again because you explicitly said that both can and cannot be as mature.

 

That has nothing to do with this; this is the difference between being (actually, well, being) and acting (appearing, but without the correct underlying cause that is itself maturity) mature. Proof:

 

 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/act/

 

False show; pretense; feint: The politician's pious remarks were all an act.

 

 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/be/

 

To take place; happen; occur:

 

 

 

I don't see how you're gonna weasel yourself out of this one.

 

Of course you don't. That's the whole point of arguing.

 

 

 

You got away with the other ones because there was different word use and you used the ones that benefited your argument for your advantage.

 

Because I didn't edit the posts, and because I successfully proved myself correct, it's blindingly obvious that it was indeed what I meant in the posts and you simply misread them

 

 

 

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."

 

 

 

When you posted the 'kids can be as mature as adults' statement, you were still stuck in the 'be and act are the same thing' delusion; with both of us having previously established that children indeed cannot be as mature as adults but can act as such, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't simply falling back to your previous, already misproven argument. If indeed you had, then forget my response and re read my counterargument above; if you hadn't, then my response makes perfect sense in the context of acting instead of being.

 

 

 

Are you gonna tell me there is a difference between kids and children now? :lol:

 

Nope, both kids and children are used as a catchall for anyone 0-25

That has nothing to do with this; this is the difference between being (actually, well, being) and acting (appearing, but without the correct underlying cause that is itself maturity) mature. Proof:

 

 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/act/

 

False show; pretense; feint: The politician's pious remarks were all an act.

 

 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/be/

 

To take place; happen; occur:

 

 

 

That's convenient, but exactly what is stopping me from posting my definitions of those words that show that they can be identical?

 

 

 

When you posted the 'kids can be as mature as adults' statement, you were still stuck in the 'be and act are the same thing' delusion; with both of us having previously established that children indeed cannot be as mature as adults but can act as such, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't simply falling back to your previous, already misproven argument. If indeed you had, then forget my response and re read my counterargument above; if you hadn't, then my response makes perfect sense in the context of acting instead of being.

 

 

 

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.

That's convenient, but exactly what is stopping me from posting my definitions of those words that show that they can be identical?

 

Nothing, except that one exception proves my point.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

They don't contradict at all. In the context of 'acting' or 'seemingly mature responses', both adults and children can respond maturely. In the context of actual maturity, only adults have the fully developed brain to handle the complex thought patterns required for full maturity.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Thanks for telling me. Unfortunately, that's not the full definition of mature. In a single response, there are two ways of thinking it through. One is when a 'mature' decision is reached simply due to short term reasoning and incomplete thought processes (Smoke the cigarette -> parents will kill me when I get home), and the other is a 'mature' decision reached due to long term consequence recognition and mature thought patterns (Smoke the cigarette -> develop a higher risk of lung cancer in my old age). Both have the same apparent outcome, but one indicates mental maturity and the other does not.

Nothing, except that one exception proves my point.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Because I didn't edit the posts, and because I successfully proved myself correct, it's blindingly obvious that it was indeed what I meant in the posts and you simply misread them

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

If 'no you can't' was my entire argument, it would be. Fortunately, as explained before, it's far from being my only point.

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

When you posted the 'kids can be as mature as adults' statement, you were still stuck in the 'be and act are the same thing' delusion; with both of us having previously established that children indeed cannot be as mature as adults but can act as such, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't simply falling back to your previous, already misproven argument. If indeed you had, then forget my response and re read my counterargument above; if you hadn't, then my response makes perfect sense in the context of acting instead of being.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Nope, children can respond appropriately and in some cases, even more appropriately then adults. The distinction is in how the decision comes about; only an adult can think through the problem with complete thought patterns as a result of fully developed frontal lobes. Yes, sometimes it ends up with the wrong decision, just as a child may choose the correct one because of immature processes instead of mature ones, but on average the outcomes are more mature.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

They don't contradict at all. In the context of 'acting' or 'seemingly mature responses', both adults and children can respond maturely. In the context of actual maturity, only adults have the fully developed brain to handle the complex thought patterns required for full maturity.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Thanks for telling me. Unfortunately, that's not the full definition of mature. In a single response, there are two ways of thinking it through. One is when a 'mature' decision is reached simply due to short term reasoning and incomplete thought processes (Smoke the cigarette -> parents will kill me when I get home), and the other is a 'mature' decision reached due to long term consequence recognition and mature thought patterns (Smoke the cigarette -> develop a higher risk of lung cancer in my old age). Both have the same apparent outcome, but one indicates mental maturity and the other does not.

 

 

 

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 also convenient. And what's stopping me from saying my exception proves my point? What's up with you and your one-sided points?

 

Because we are arguing what I meant. I know what I meant - your argument was that the dictionary proved me wrong, and even one exception proved me correct (as we were arguing over what I meant). In your wikipedia article, we didn't have the benefit of knowing the word beforehand so the correct definition had to be found before using it.

 

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.

 

 

Is english your second language or something? Using act is a common word where I live, referring to a superficial show (just as the dictionary said). That's how I was using it, and given that the dictionary backed me up, it certainly isn't my fault you couldn't or wouldn't understand it.

 

 

 

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.

 

Congratulations, you show a remarkable talent for completely ignoring the past 7 pages of posts. Fortunately, as I explained earlier, that line was part of a much larger argument; just because you tried to pluck three words out of context and base an entire argument off of them doesn't mean they can't mean exactly what I said.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

They don't. And you have an obvious tendency to completely ignore the facts and anything resembling a source. You tried so hard to base an entire argument off of a single word, whos definition you didn't even know. I linked to many sources all quoted proving you wrong, you tried to disprove it without a single source or fact on your side. As stated earlier, Dictionary > Zero.

 

 

 

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.

 

You really need to learn to read replies. I took great pains to re word everything as simply as possible, providing dozens of examples and links where you could read more, and each of your responses indicated you had no clue what I was saying. It's obvious I didn't do this for a reputation - if I was looking for a reputation, I would have given up on my slayer sucks thread long before I hit 10 pages. I do it for the fun of it, and I've gotten a reputation because I'm good at it, not the other way around.

 

 

 

 

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:

 

Debate: To argue with one another. Looks like this is a debate! I'm not interested in completely non-scientific or mathematical debates based on complete guesses; I go for the more concrete ones, ones where someone is actually right or wrong. This is a RS forum, and I came here to debate. You can whine about that all you want, but I aint gonna go away.

 

 

 

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.

 

Nope, I used 'couldn't' in reference to be and 'could' in reference to act. I took great pains to keep them straight. You don't seem to get that those two terms were bait I used to back you into a corner. Then I pulled out the dictionary, and lo and behold the words you based your debate on where not what you though.

 

 

 

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.

 

Again, how do you know what I'm talking about? Given your horrendous track record of trying to put words into my mouth, I don't think your the best judge of what I mean.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

It's not completely subjective, it's an easily established fact. Complex, mature thought patterns indicate maturity. A 3 year old might pick bread over candy because her mother said she'd spank her if she ate candy, but that makes her far less mature then an adult who knows it will cause long term damage to his system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Source please? Oh wait, you made them up. Now let's see what an ACTUAL source says:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychological

 

1. of or pertaining to psychology.

 

2. pertaining to the mind or to mental phenomena as the subject matter of psychology.

 

3. of, pertaining to, dealing with, or affecting the mind, esp. as a function of awareness, feeling, or motivation: psychological play; psychological effect.

 

 

 

Oops. Perhaps it would be best to consult a dictionary next time before making up your own definitions.

 

 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/physical

 

1. of or pertaining to the body: physical exercise.

 

2. of or pertaining to that which is material: the physical universe; the physical sciences.

 

 

 

Now yours is correct for this one, but your underlying reasoning isn't. If your talking about your brain being physically mature, it certainly isn't - if your talking about your body being physically mature, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

It's really a good idea to, you know, look things up before starting an argument. Otherwise you just look stuipd when the other guy comes out with a dictionary and proves you laughably wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Yeah, right. And I suppose your thought patterns were identical, despite having an underdeveloped brain that wasn't even physically capable of that type of thinking. Made up personal opinions don't qualify as argument material.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Sorry, but basing your argument off the single word 'determined' isn't really a great idea, especally when you don't have a clue what it means.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

1) Only in the sense of appearing mature - the underlying thought process is not mature, and the key distinction in maturity is how that decision comes about.

 

2) Sorry, but the dictionary agrees with me: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/determined:

 

"1. resolute; staunch: the determined defenders of the Alamo.

 

2. decided; settled; resolved.

 

1. To settle or decide (a dispute, question, etc.) by an authoritative or conclusive decision."

 

 

 

Nope, maturity isn't decided, settled, or resolved in a conclusive decision by age - but age certainly has a huge effect on it.

 

Sorry, but nice try at building an argument on a single misinterpreted sentence you found on wikipedia =D>

 

 

 

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.

 

Aww, I was really enjoying it. At least you bowed out gracefully, it's better then the flame and leave I was plan on.

 

Advice for next time:

 

 

 

#1 Don't base an entire 7 page argument off one word, especially when

 

#2 You don't know what that word means

 

 

 

Adios ageist. Image

 

Adios anti-intellectual

ahhhhhh too many words!!!!

ahhhhhh too many words!!!!

 

Just answer this question honestly. I promise I won't insult you in any way or bring it up ever again, I'm just curious. Are you under 13?

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:

 

 

 

 

Case in point. You just admitted kids can be as mature as adults.

 

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. ;)

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.

 

 

Which the sources verified. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychological:

 

1. of or pertaining to psychology.

 

2. pertaining to the mind or to mental phenomena as the subject matter of psychology.

 

3. of, pertaining to, dealing with, or affecting the mind, esp. as a function of awareness, feeling, or motivation: psychological play; psychological effect.

 

I'm afraid your mind cannot be mature unless your brain is, given that mind is a synonym for brain (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mind: "[synonyms]Brain is properly the physiological term for the organic structure that makes mental activity possible)

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Really, that's all that is needed to understand what's going on here.

When you posted the 'kids can be as mature as adults' statement, you were still stuck in the 'be and act are the same thing' delusion; with both of us having previously established that children indeed cannot be as mature as adults but can act as such, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't simply falling back to your previous, already misproven argument. If indeed you had, then forget my response and re read my counterargument above; if you hadn't, then my response makes perfect sense in the context of acting instead of being.

 

 

 

 

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. ;)

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intellectual:

 

-Noun: A person of superior intellect.

 

 

 

Obviously that was simply a personal dig, as I have no knowledge of your intelligence outside of this debate - for all I know, your IQ could be far higher then 143.

Which the sources verified. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychological:

 

1. of or pertaining to psychology.

 

2. pertaining to the mind or to mental phenomena as the subject matter of psychology.

 

3. of, pertaining to, dealing with, or affecting the mind, esp. as a function of awareness, feeling, or motivation: psychological play; psychological effect.

 

I'm afraid your mind cannot be mature unless your brain is, given that mind is a synonym for brain (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mind: "[synonyms]Brain is properly the physiological term for the organic structure that makes mental activity possible)

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

How does that disprove anything I said wrong? Stop slapping the label of "disproven" on everything that works against you, with irrelevant material.

 

Ah yes, you are indeed correct. How dare I use the dictionary definition of the exact word we're arguing about to prove my point!

 

 

 

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.

 

I don't recall ever saying otherwise.

 

 

 

 

Kids will not always accept a pack of cigarettes.

 

Great. I agree with you. Problem solved!

Ah yes, you are indeed correct. How dare I use the dictionary definition of the exact word we're arguing about to prove my point!

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Great. I agree with you. Problem solved!

 

 

 

Then you contradict yourself... again... for like the 50th time. If they can do this act, then they can be mature.

 

 

 

I don't recall ever saying otherwise.

 

 

 

"Kids can't be mature."

 

Thanks for not answering the question. Like I said, just because you reply to my point doesn't automatically count as a refutation.

 

In this case it does, namely because it refuted your point.

 

 

I asked, "How does that disprove the fact that kids can be mature."

 

You said, "Because it's a definition.

 

 

Yep. "Your" definition was wrong, and that's where your misunderstanding stemmed from - I showed you the correct definition, and that cleared up the issue.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Do either of those three words have to do with maturity? I didn't think so. Not all definitions apply to every usage of the word :roll:

 

 

 

 

"Kids can't be mature."

 

Yep, that's exactly what I said. Do you have a point, or do you just like repeating my statements over and over?

In this case it does, namely because it refuted your point.

 

 

 

And I ask again, how?

 

 

 

Yep. "Your" definition was wrong, and that's where your misunderstanding stemmed from - I showed you the correct definition, and that cleared up the issue.

 

 

 

Wikipedia is wrong then?

 

 

 

Do either of those three words have to do with maturity? I didn't think so. Not all definitions apply to every usage of the word

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

Yep, that's exactly what I said. Do you have a point, or do you just like repeating my statements over and over?

 

 

 

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.

 

And I ask again, how?

 

 

Because it proved that the word your whole argument hinged on wasn't what you thought it was, and irrefutably proved my argument.

 

 

 

 

Wikipedia is wrong then?

 

 

No, just your made up definition for the words used.

 

 

 

 

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:

 

 

Actually, that's not even remotely related to what I did. In my argument, you said what I meant was different then what it was because the word couldn't be used that way - I proved it could, and won my argument with the benefit of having known what I meant beforehand. Now, I'm arguing against your interpretation of a word that you DON'T know the meaning behind, and the correct definition proves you wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, just the fact that Wikipedia disagrees with you.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maturity_(psychological)

 

That's odd, as mentioned in the past dozen pages or so wikipedia agrees completely with me. Perhaps there's a new edit I missed? It would be nice if you could point it out.

 

 

 

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.

 

Here we go again, pretending I said what I didn't. Now, as I said before, children cant act mature, but they can't be mature.

 

 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/act/

 

False show; pretense; feint: The politician's pious remarks were all an act.

 

 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/be/

 

To take place; happen; occur:

Ah I remember the good old days, kindness, correct spelling, very little leet. It was a glorious time, the rune running capitalists (curse them). I my self made a small fortune, That was the thing though, I spent months making a my first 50k, after a while it became easier and eventually I got pretty good at merchanting, the the GE and I have a small fortune of inventory that I had to sell off and I didn't break even and lost a lot of gold. I miss the good old days. Before the swamped worlds full of bots, whiners, and under aged kids. I am going on six years playing rune scape and sometimes I am still in disbelief. I can only hope that one day this will pass, and it will go back the way it was. Join the Nostalgia Union now! To build a stronger community.

Ah I remember the good old days, kindness, correct spelling, very little leet. It was a glorious time, the rune running capitalists (curse them). I my self made a small fortune, That was the thing though, I spent months making a my first 50k, after a while it became easier and eventually I got pretty good at merchanting, the the GE and I have a small fortune of inventory that I had to sell off and I didn't break even and lost a lot of gold. I miss the good old days. Before the swamped worlds full of bots, whiners, and under aged kids. I am going on six years playing rune scape and sometimes I am still in disbelief. I can only hope that one day this will pass, and it will go back the way it was. Join the Nostalgia Union now! To build a stronger community.

 

I didn't get the sarcasm until the last few sentences :lol:

 

 

 

Posting this so we don't have a small army of angry new players swarming to disrupt your vision of perfection.

Posting this so we don't have a small army of angry new players swarming to disrupt your vision of perfection.

 

 

 

It is not necessarily a vision of perfection just a misplaced dream that will probably never be fully realized. Nothing I can really do about it except planting ideas and spreading the word. Remember pass on the good vibe, I sometimes try to bring back the good community by purposely giving out 1k or 2k to the new players. I do what I must, mainly because I have the sense to make more money, heck I sometimes even handout full suit of armor, had a 99 set of bronze armor once. confused me however because, a lvl 56 took a lot of it and I was oh so very puzzled.

Posting this so we don't have a small army of angry new players swarming to disrupt your vision of perfection.

 

 

 

It is not necessarily a vision of perfection just a misplaced dream that will probably never be fully realized. Nothing I can really do about it except planting ideas and spreading the word. Remember pass on the good vibe, I sometimes try to bring back the good community by purposely giving out 1k or 2k to the new players. I do what I must, mainly because I have the sense to make more money, heck I sometimes even handout full suit of armor, had a 99 set of bronze armor once. confused me however because, a lvl 56 took a lot of it and I was oh so very puzzled.

 

You succeeded in confusing me with the last two sentences, so I'll just check to make sure... you ARE being sarcastic, right?

You succeeded in confusing me with the last two sentences, so I'll just check to make sure... you ARE being sarcastic, right?

 

 

 

Yes and No...

 

 

 

Yes in the fact that I am not delusional I understand completely that my vision will probably never even be completed.

 

 

 

No in the matter of what I do to help other people. I do give money to new players who, in my view, are in need of the money. I also did that 99 set drop and it really was quite confusing. Everybody was running it was quite humorous actually.

Its the internet, you don't need to "be mature" You just need to act mature for the 20 seconds it takes to type a post, or the 10 seconds it takes to type something in runescape. When your online you can be whoever you want to be, and any immature thing you say and do can be edited out before anyone even sees your message.

 

 

 

So, don't blame the age, blame the player.

Its the internet, you don't need to "be mature" You just need to act mature for the 20 seconds it takes to type a post, or the 10 seconds it takes to type something in runescape. When your online you can be whoever you want to be, and any immature thing you say and do can be edited out before anyone even sees your message.

 

 

 

So, don't blame the age, blame the player.

 

That had nothing to do with my post, it was just an argument with zero for the sake of an argument. What my original post (and entire point) was that adults don't make long, indecipherable wilderness rants filled with spelling and grammar errors that blatantly ignore facts, cherry picking what they want to believe and flaming anyone who disagrees them without a speck of proof. Children do. End of story.

Have you got any proof that adults don't do that?

 

 

 

Sure, younger players might do it more often, but it dosent mean its only them.

 

Have you got any proof that adults don't do that?

 

 

 

Sure, younger players might do it more often, but it dosent mean its only them.

 

There's only a few rants on here, so it's not a question of probability. I have proof children do; do you have proof that adults do? A 30 year old simply isn't going to sit down and type an unreadable, hazy, error-laden rant about how Jagex ruined his RS life, then flame anyone who points out that it had to be done for the good of the game.