Nope. Like I said, he had not distinctly separated the two arguments, and in the manor in which we were discussing them they both crossed over, as Jac pointed out for you. I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this over and over to you, but I guess you can keep it going.

 

 

 

:lol: What? The whole point of his point was to separate the two meanings. Read:

 

 

 

"Mature has several meanings, one meaning you have met full development of your mind (which is what you're talking about) and another is that you think something out fully and carefully before you talk about it (which even 10 year olds can do if they put their mind to it)."

 

 

 

The part he is speaking about is (2) - the number you agreed to!

You expect me to take anything you say seriously after that? You're making Comp's argument look even worse.

 

 

 

I hardly see how asking a professional in field of discussion opinion hurts his argument in any way shape or form. I am no expert in psychology so I went to someone who was because I was curious. He wasn't on your side. Why does that mean that nothing I say can be taken seriously?

I hardly see how asking a professional in field of discussions opinion hurts his argument in any way shape or form. I am no expert in psychology so I went to someone who was because I was curious. He wasn't on your side. Why does that mean that nothing I say can be taken seriously?

 

 

 

I'm not going to believe a professor is illiterate.

 

 

 

"Thinking something out fully and carefully = Responding in an appropriate manner."

 

 

 

These two sentences are the same, even though he disagreed to the first and agreed to the second. Surely a professor would understand that?

 

:lol: What? The whole point of his point was to separate the two meanings. Read:

 

 

 

"Mature has several meanings, one meaning you have met full development of your mind (which is what you're talking about) and another is that you think something out fully and carefully before you talk about it (which even 10 year olds can do if they put their mind to it)."

 

 

 

If you cannot understand that paragraph, then what are you doing on the forums? The part he is speaking about is (2) - the number you agreed to!

 

No, it's not. You obviously missed the whole background to the post, and I suggest reading them.

 

 

 

If you cannot understand that paragraph, then what are you doing on the forums?

 

You have two choices:

 

 

 

#1 Assume me to be correct, and read past posts to verify

 

#2 Assume I am incapable of comprehending basic english

 

 

 

Now, feel free to look up a few debates from other threads such as my disagreement with ydraisl, and I think you'll find that I seem to be capable of understanding and responding to basic queries. It's rather unlikely I would have lived to middle age without possessing this extraordinary skill.

#1 Assume me to be correct, and read past posts to verify

 

#2 Assume I am incapable of comprehending basic english

 

 

 

Now your argument is that you are always right? Wow... that's... mature.

 

 

 

I'll say it again. "Thinking something out fully and carefully = Responding in an appropriate manner." These two sentences are the same, even though you disagreed to the first and agreed to the second. What makes you think they are different? Tell me!

 

 

 

No, it's not.

 

 

 

Not sure if I'm comfortable with believing anything you say after that. Actually, there is a bit of hypocrisy in this too. You say that I shouldn't be telling you what you meant, but at the same time you're telling me what he meant.

Now your argument is that you are always right? Wow... that's... mature.

 

Is that my argument? No, I don't think it is. Perhaps I could quote it again?

 

I think you'll find that I seem to be capable of understanding and responding to basic queries.

 

 

 

Himm, what part of that says that I'm always right?

 

 

 

Oh, and for the record, at age 32, I'm at least halfway mature. So far as I know, my brain shows no abnormalities, and an IQ of 142 seems to indicate it has developed normally.

 

 

 

 

Not sure if I'm comfortable with believing anything you say after that. Actually, there is a bit of hypocrisy in this too. You say that I shouldn't be telling you what you meant, but at the same time you're telling me what he meant.

 

Oh, so your more qualified to tell me what he meant without even reading the posts? Like I said, he had not distinctly separated the two arguments, and in the manner in which we were discussing them they both crossed over.

I think the bottom line here is that no one can be forced to change his mind against his will.

 

 

 

Neither of you have the possibility that the other may be right as even being close to an option in your head. So the best thing to do is agree to disagree. Obviously one of you is right and the other is wrong, but at the end of the day does it really matter? Both will go to bed tonight thinking he is in the right and the other is in the wrong, no point stressing over not being able to convince someone else that your view was the correct one.

 

 

 

I think for all intents and purposes if this discussion should continue we should start over, with no more quotes that are lost from their original context 5-6 pages back. Say what you think is true and have the other respond to that.

That whole post was entirely irrelevant to the argument. Look. My intentions are to clear things up. When you go off track on tangents like that it makes me wonder whether you care at all or just feel like practicing typing.

 

 

 

Let's clear this up:

 

 

 

1.) "Thinking something out fully and carefully"

 

 

 

2.) "Responding in an appropriate manner"

 

 

 

Which one(s) do you agree that kids can do?

That whole post was entirely irrelevant to the argument. Look. My intentions are to clear things up. When you go off track on tangents like that it makes me wonder whether you care at all or just feel like practicing typing.

 

 

 

I don't have a clue what your talking about, and I don't think you do either. That post was a direct and complete response to yours.

 

 

Let's clear this up:

 

 

 

1.) "Thinking something out fully and carefully"

 

 

 

2.) "Responding in an appropriate manner"

 

 

 

Which one(s) do you agree that kids can do?

 

Not sure about 1. I would say they probably can't in most circumstances, but I haven't given it enough thought

 

 

 

As for 2, it depends on the circumstances. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Whether or not they do so is determined in part by their brains physical maturity.

 

 

 

 

Neither of you have the possibility that the other may be right as even being close to an option in your head.

 

He is accusing me of lying and meaning something other then what I now say in a previous post. I'm saying I am and was telling the truth, and that he misinterpreted my response when he read it without seeing the underlying discussion. This isn't a 'both of us are right' situation; it's a direct argument about who is right.

 

 

 

 

I think for all intents and purposes if this discussion should continue we should start over, with no more quotes that are lost from their original context 5-6 pages back. Say what you think is true and have the other respond to that.

 

We already did that, and we are in complete agreement. Zero refuses to believe, however, that I told to truth about what I meant, and I respond each time he posts that - that's the argument you've been seeing for the past 5 pages.

 

Neither of you have the possibility that the other may be right as even being close to an option in your head.

 

He is accusing me of lying and meaning something other then what I now say in a previous post. I'm saying I am and was telling the truth, and that he misinterpreted my response when he read it without seeing the underlying discussion. This isn't a 'both of us are right' situation; it's a direct argument about who is right.

 

 

 

I did not mean to say that this was a both of you are right argument, i meant to say that he thinks that he is right and you think that you are right. As to him saying that the post was completely irrelevant to the conversation, i believe that was to me.

 

 

 

And no Z, it was not irrelevant, I was trying to iron things out and get you both to start from square one so that any misunderstandings that occured due to other posts in the past could be done away with. Now that you have clearly said what you believe is true and comp responded things are cleaner and easier to deal with.

 

I did not mean to say that this was a both of you are right argument, i meant to say that he thinks that he is right and you think that you are right. As to him saying that the post was completely irrelevant to the conversation, i believe that was to me.

 

And why should we? I know I'm not lying, he's not going to suddenly convince me I was. It's an opinionated debate, but we're arguing about each other opinions, which is why I find it stuipd and pointless. But it's an argument, and I find it interesting, so I'll keep it up as long as he wants.

Note: This is dragging out longer that I intended, so let's work together to clear it up. Teamwork gets things done - rivalries just distracts us by making us only care about hating on each other.

 

 

 

Not sure about 1. I would say they probably can't in most circumstances, but I haven't given it enough thought

 

 

 

As for 2, it depends on the circumstances. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Whether or not they do so is determined in part by their brains physical maturity.

 

 

 

They are the same. Thinking carefully and responding appropriately both mean the same as "doing the right thing" in simpler terms. If you don't think they have the capability to think carefully or respond appropriately, then you are saying they never do the right thing. This is not true. It is nearly impossible to always do the wrong thing (always be immature).

 

 

 

And like I said, it is supported by Wiki.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Let's look at a few examples.

 

 

 

1. Thinking carefully. Someone peer-pressures a 10-year-old to smoke a cigarette. He thinks about it and about the dangers. He refuses the cig. He exhibited thinking carefully and being mature. This scenario is completely possible and most likely happened before, do you agree?

 

 

 

2. Responding appropriately. A 10-year-old's parents tell him not to go playing in the woods after dark. His friend invites him to play in the woods, but the boy remembers what his parents said and he responds by declining the offer. He responded appropriately to the situation. Do you agree that this is a possible situation too?

Nope, they are not the same. A response can appear rational without the full logic behind the decision revealed. Take the example of two types of logic: 'smoke this and your parents will punish you' or 'smoke this and years from now you'll suffer from various illnesses related to this habit'. One type indicates maturity and long term planning ahead; another indicates simple, direct punishment of "touch this wire and you get hurt", something even primitive animals can manage.

Nope, they are not the same. A response can appear rational without the full logic behind the decision revealed. Take the example of two types of logic: 'smoke this and your parents will punish you' or 'smoke this and years from now you'll suffer from various illnesses related to this habit'. One type indicates maturity and long term planning ahead; another indicates simple, direct punishment of "touch this wire and you get hurt", something even primitive animals can manage.

 

 

 

That's assuming the parents will punish him (and it's assuming they would find out). Let's take the parents out of the situation then. Do you think a child without parents has the ability to decline a cigarette and has the ability to know it is dangerous in the woods after dark?

 

That's assuming the parents will punish him. Let's take the parents out of the situation then. Do you think a child without parents has the ability to decline a cigarette and has the ability to know it is dangerous in the woods after dark?

 

Depends what punishments are in question. To a child, it's generally a matter of 'cigarettes will kill you eventually'. Some children have advanced to the point where the huge long term consequences outweigh the small short term gain, although that is usually offset by short term fear of parental\lawful punishment - but many have not, as evidenced by the high rates of smoking in high schoolers and the average age of the 'first try' nearing 13.

Some children have advanced to the point where the huge long term consequences outweigh the small short term gain

 

 

 

The some who have are the ones I've been talking about. I'm sure there are at least a few 10-year-old's out there who have exhibited the acts of thinking carefully and responding appropriately. Definitely not the majority - I've agreed with you that the older you are, generally the more mature you will be, but I think that even children can exhibit at least some traits of maturity.

The some who have are the ones I've been talking about. I'm sure there are at least a few 10-year-old's out there who have exhibited the acts of thinking carefully and responding appropriately.

 

Good, then you agree with me.

I still don't understand why you said, "No, they can't," though because this was the whole point he was getting at. He agreed that kids aren't mature in the sense of brain development, but he only said that they can be mature in the sense of thinking carefully.

 

I still don't understand why you said, "No, they can't," though because this was the whole point he was getting at. He agreed that kids aren't mature in the sense of brain development, but he only said that they can be mature in the sense of thinking carefully.

 

Because in the previous posts when I was arguing with him it was established that there was a link preventing them from being considered fully mature, as I've said at least 25 times now.

And as I've stated, I agree that there is a correlation. All I've been saying is that kids can be mature and think carefully (even if that means only a little bit). I never said they are completely mature.

There are two types of being mature discussed here.. acting mature, and physically being mature. Compfreak is talking about the latter, if I understand him well. And he's right. Kids can act perfectly mature, but physically they are never, since kids brains are never fully developed, irregardless of their behaviour. The complex of interconnecting neurons goes on for quite some time, untill they start dying off starting at about the age of -I believe- 30.

And as I've stated, I agree that there is a correlation. All I've been saying is that kids can be mature (even if that means only a little bit). I never said they are completely mature.

 

Good, then you again agree with me. Nice to see you've decided to being reading my posts before responding.

And he's right. Kids can act perfectly mature, but physically they are never, since kids brains are never fully developed, irregardless of their behaviour.

 

 

 

I know that. I never said he was wrong about the physical maturity - just that he's wrong about kids not being able to think carefully (acting mature).

 

 

 

Why do you all keep saying, "Oh, Comp was talking about this type," even though the poster clearly said that he wasn't talking about that type. The poster was talking about acting mature, yet Comp still disagreed.

 

 

 

Good, then you again agree with me. Nice to see you've decided to being reading my posts before responding.

 

 

 

This still doesn't explain why you said, "No, they can't" to us saying kids can act mature.

 

I know that. I never said he was wrong about the physical maturity - just that he's wrong about kids not being able to think carefully (acting mature).

 

I think that sometimes kids can think things through carefully, and sometimes they can't. What part of that do you think is wrong?

 

 

 

 

This still doesn't explain why you said, "No, they can't" to us saying kids can act mature.

 

Because that particular statement was tied into physical maturity, and was being responded to as such. Had you read the background, you would have understood.

I think that sometimes kids can think things through carefully, and sometimes they can't. What part of that do you think is wrong?

 

 

 

Because when you say they can't you're saying that they never can. No one said they will always be mature. He only said that they can.

 

 

 

Can't = impossible, can never do

 

Can = possible, can do at least once

 

 

 

Because that particular statement was tied into physical maturity, and was being responded to as such. Had you read the background, you would have understood.

 

 

 

The point of his post was to divide the two different types of maturity, hence the mentioning that there are several meanings for the word. If this wasn't what he meant, then mind telling me what else he implied by bringing up two different meanings?