NationStates Jolt Archive

honeybunny, i AM a child.

i hold a degree in neurobiology, and i am studying for my doctorate.

One wonders how both of these can be true if children are so “unable to exercise adult reasoning” as you say.

regardless of your physical age, your behavior shows that you are a child.

Please point out which part of my “behavior” imparted this to you. If you say it was because of this:


First of all, if we used grammar as a measurement of intelligence like we do age, then you would end up even lower than a few of the "children" you hate so much.

I use the word “hate” in the same context as you “hate” men who degrade women.

Also, if my behavior shows that I am a child, then you’re behavior shows that you are a baby. Can you even type a post without LAMBASTING someone at least a dozen times?
If you ask what part of your behavior makes me think this, I could say the same thing about my “behavior”. Is it simply because I think degrading children is as bad as degrading women? They’re both human, or do you not understand that the phrase, “human rights” does not mean “adult rights only”?

How will they handle the world once this gift of magical kiddy super intelligence leaves them when they do grow up?

I could say the same thing about the magical gift of “adult reasoning”.

you seem to really hate adults...why is that?

I don’t hate adults, I just hate hypocrites who believe that discriminating against women is wrong, while discriminating against children the same way. Face it, the arguments you’re using against me are the same arguments men have been using against women for centuries.

The mentioning of Bush as a playing of an emotional button on what is obviously a liberal group to gain some measure of agreement with a single portion of statement, thereby confusing the issue is...cute.

I say this not to appease liberals, but simply because it’s a fact. I hate (see above) George W. Bush.

Which big picture is that?

Sorry, it was a bad choice of words, “inability to see the other side of the argument” is more like it.

flinging childish insults about my grammar, \

If you don’t want people to insult your grammar, IMPROVE IT!

Also, you’ve thrown more childish insults to me than I have to you. I count three to one.

you have yet to provide any evidence. all you have done is make a wild speculation about my feelings, temperment, and intelligence, based on nothing more than a post that states the scientific realities of human development. if you wish to assume that my understanding of science is some kind of age-ism then that's your choice, but persecution delusions are as dull as Peter Pan complexes...couldn't you try for, maybe, a little more extreme paranoia? like, that all the adults are trying to fatten kids up to be eaten or something?

You’ve done WAY more wild speculations about me than I have about you. Let’s see:

You:
Assuming that I’m a child.
Assuming that I hate all adults
Assuming that all of your facts are “scientific” and mine aren’t
Assuming all of my words are just “opinion” and not fact just because you think otherwise.

Me:
None that I see. Please inform me if you find one that is valid.

So, my behavior seems a lot more “mature” that yours, doesn’t it? I don’t go around assuming things about people I’ve never met and proceed to insult them just because I disagree with them, do I?

Isn’t it odd that you accuse me of things that you are doing yourself on a much greater extent than I? Who’s accusing their opponent of flinging mud instead of arguing the actual points? I have no problem with your opinion, hey, it’s your opinion, but I would respect you a lot more if you weren’t acting like a democratic political commercial.

And no, they may be facts in your mind, but I am presenting evidence that is just as valid as yours, and yes you ignore it and lash out at me much more than I lash out at you.

i'm glad you are confident in your intelligence. please apply it to this debate.

I could ask you to apply yours. *shrug*

i say this not to intimidate or brag, but simply to assure you that i know what i am talking about

I know what I’m talking about, too. Your point?

I personally have not seen open minded teens-I meet many simple-minded teens who confuse one for the other.

My best friend is a teenager and he is certainly more open-minded than you. This is demonstrated by your inability to see things from any point of view other that your own.

FYI means "For Your Information" That sentence imparted very little.

I was simply informing you that I am not a teenager. If you look at it that way, that sentence makes perfect sense.

I would venture to say no one is as smart as you think you are. Lower the expectations.

Then you aren’t as smart as you think you are by the same reasoning. Oh, wait, I’m a CHILD (this remains false), so any point I make is wrong by default.

we just can’t let you do whatever you please, you would hurt yourself.

If I need proof if my theories, then you need proof of this.

This is the most interesting thing you have said.

And that was the most interesting thing you’ve said. Your point?

An experienced typist can type without one finger, I can type holding my baby.

Excuse me for not being an experienced typist.

Wrong, you must first however put up this evidence.

If I’m correct, you’re simply going to dismiss and lambaste me again even though I have put lots of evidence in front of you. Oh, wait, I’m a CHILD (still incorrect), so I’m inherently wrong.

I see your opinion and respect it as your opinion, even though I disagree with it. The fact that you can’t makes me more “mature” (in the sense you use it), than you are.

Thank you for bitching and wasting forum space. Now go away.

I don't mind children as long as they leave me alone and don't ask really stupid questions or get in a fit about somthing totally unrelated to whats going on. Most people would consider me a child (I'm 15) but I find I'm more independant and more self reliant.

This is a response to a sub-debate in another topic which I moved here so that thread could get back on topic. That post is more "bitchy" then mine was, anyway. You didn't even bother to read it.

If you wish to see the original debate, go here:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7315602&posted=1#post7315602

Hate leads to the dark side.

Don't give into hate!


Now what was the purpose of this thread?

Grigala, I didn't bother to read it because you didn't link to it in your opening post. I'm not going to spend time hunting down a thread somewhere in this massive forum just to find out whether it is more bitchy. The fact remains that you're bitching. Not to say that you don't have a right to be pissed (I don't know, I didn't read the original thread), just saying that that's what you're doing.

This is a response to a sub-debate in another topic which I moved here so that thread could get back on topic. That post is more "bitchy" then mine was, anyway. You didn't even bother to read it.

If you wish to see the original debate, go here:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7315602&posted=1#post7315602

To above:

You want a link? You got a link. ;)

Yep, the link works. I don't care, but it works. Exiting the thread now....

Meh?

I love children, the younger they are, the more tender the meat.

Kids are cool. I hope to have some someday.

I hate children. I'm getting fixed as soon as I can afford it.

Children are evil.

If you ask a child to go and choke Grandma for a cookie, they will.

Evil.

Okay, so now I know where you stand...

But I'm really waiting for Bottle and Skibereen.

Thank you for bitching and wasting forum space. Now go away.

There are worse ways to waste forum space. At least it's not spam or trolling.

I can't believe that someone would start a thread about something like this, and take the time to reply point-by-point in that way. There really are some very sensitive people out there.

Oh right...

You know, you really should be careful when telling someone else off for their grammatical errors that you don't fill your own post with errors yourself. It really does lower your credibility.

Not to mention that perhaps a better coping method is to just let it go.

Or is that one something that you learn with age...haha, sorry couldn't resist :P

I can't believe the way you attacked Bottle.

She pointed out the human brain isn't fully formed at a certain age, and you... abuse her grammar, accuse her of discriminating against 'children', claim her science is wrong (without any actual evidence)...

And then... you start a thread trying to make HER look bad?

What a colossal waste of time.

And you've answered your own question. Threads like this are the reason people don't like children or childish people.

Piss poor flame fest. Where is the pulling hair and clawed eyes?

*sorry Bottle, you got baited*

They are difficult to cook and it is hard to find a good wine that goes with them.

I'd understand this topic completely if you changed the title from "Why is it that people hate children so much?" to "BottlE aNd SkibEReen R teh SUXX0rS LOLOL!!1!ONEONE!"

I can't believe the way you attacked Bottle.

She pointed out the human brain isn't fully formed at a certain age, and you... abuse her grammar, accuse her of discriminating against 'children', claim her science is wrong (without any actual evidence)...

And then... you start a thread trying to make HER look bad?

What a colossal waste of time.

And you've answered your own question. Threads like this are the reason people don't like children or childish people.

Could you find a grammatical mistake in my post, please? Please don't assume that it's bad because you think I'm a kid.

Ah, I am simply pointing out that she has as much evidence as I do.

As I said, this is a continuation of a depate that sprouted off from another thread which I started to get the origional thread back on topic. I started this thread so that the people in the other thread wouldn't have to deal with

I have no intent of making Bottle "look bad". Yes, I am upset that she is insulting me "read the other thread if you need proof of this", but the purpose of this thread is solely to continue a existing debate. Now, if I was like Bottle, I would be lambasting you for accusing me of spurting falsehoods, but I am not Bottle, am I? (Need proof? She did it to me.)

And why do you immediatley assume she is right? Why do you assume that I'm the one trying to make her look bad when she has used basless personal insults much more than I have? Oh, right, because I'm a CHILD! (Not true, though people assume I am because I think they should have equal rights, too)

Do you even know what started this? I simply pointed out that everyone, regardless af age or gender, should be equal. She points out that she disagrees, and gives reasons, and then I do the same, and then she starts throwing insults. Don't think that I'm the offender here, because I'm not.

Oh? So people don't like children because they stand up for their rights? Isn't that what the feminists are doing?

Now, I do not hate Bottle. I would just respect her a lot more if she was at least able to see where I'm coming from.

I'd understand this topic completely if you changed the title from "Why is it that people hate children so much?" to "BottlE aNd SkibEReen R teh SUXX0rS LOLOL!!1!ONEONE!"

I have nothing personal against Bottle and Skibereen, I just disagree with them on this issue, and wish to debate with them on it. And, even though I was looking forward to a polite and sensible debate, Bottle insulted me first, and being insulted tends to not go over very well.

Oh, and the fact that everyone lambasts my veiws when they don't even bother to pay attention to them might have siomething to do with it, too...

Oh, and the fact that everyone sees ME as the antagonist just I'm the one disagreeing with the mainstream view...

Why do I even bother to reply to these?

That is a rhetorical question. Now, where would I like to jump into this mess? How about over the issue of grammar in anonymous Internet discussions?

First: You have to realize that people post to these things from all over the world, and *gasp* not all of them speak English as a first language. We native speakers of English have the luxury of life-long learning, and most of us still make grammatical mistakes. So when we are talking to people who may be writing (admirably, in most cases) in a second language, it is simply common courtesy to allow them the luxury of some less-than-ideal grammatical constructions. Of course, it would also be decent of us to write as clearly as we can, so everyone understands us--but as long as grammar does not get in the way of meaning, we may as well let it lie.

Second: Essentially the same applies to the fact that we are dealing with people of various backgrounds and levels of education. Often enough it turns out that someone far less well educated than one's self has some really stunning insight--and how do we intellectual snobs respond? No doubt threatened by the possibility that ours is not the biggest mind in the room, we lash out with petty attacks on the construction of the idea so as to avoid the idea itself. How irresponsible of us! For what other effect can our insults have than to turn those less experienced in formal writing away from the endeavor, convinced that all they can find in scholarship is the inflated snobbery of the kids who were always chosen last for kickball?

In the interest, I hope, of deflating at least one dangerous ego, I will proceed to criticize the critique. I will point out all errors and awkward constructions in the post with which this thread began.
One wonders how both of these can be true if children are so “unable to exercise adult reasoning” as you say.
In this sentence the author should either place a comma after "reasoning," or replace "so" with "as."
Please point out which part of my “behavior” imparted this to you. If you say it was because of this:
First of all, if we used grammar as a measurement of intelligence like we do age, then you would end up even lower than a few of the "children" you hate so much.
I use the word “hate” in the same context as you “hate” men who degrade women.
You incorrectly indicate the contentious statement using a colon; the result is a sentence fragment. Moreover, it is not clear to what you refer with the pronoun "it" in the second sentence. In the previous sentence you request an example of behavior that might have influenced an opinion. Assuming that "it" refers to the behavior, you might have written, "If you say that it was this..." If, on the other hand, "it" refers to the opinion, then the sense of your statement would seem to be "If you say it due to this..." In any case, as it stands the meaning is ambiguous.

The entire construction, to avoid colon misuse, might become, 'If you say this because I said, "First of all... you hate so much," then realize that I use the word "hate" in the same context...' I add the words "then realize that" because it makes clear that you intend to point out a problem in your audience's interpretation of your statement. Presumably, your word usage is not caused by your reader's misunderstanding, as your original "if-then" construction would imply.

Ironically, your reader's misunderstanding of your views on grammar are probably due to the poor construction of the sentence in question, viz:
First of all, if we used grammar as a measurement of intelligence like we do age, then you would end up even lower than a few of the "children" you hate so much.
First of all, you should replace the past tense "if we used" with the subjunctive "if we were to use." Second, you need a comma after "intelligence," and "like" should be replaced with "as". (Alternatively, you might delete "we do.") "Measurement" you must replace with "measure," since the former implies either the action of measuring, or a specific figure or amount obtained my measuring--not the scale upon which one measures. Speaking of the scale, you need to mention it after the word "lower," as in "lower on the scale of intelligence," since in your existing construction we might imagine that grammatical ability might determine, for example, on what floor we allow a person to live.
Also, if my behavior shows that I am a child, then you’re behavior shows that you are a baby.
Oh! We have an obvious usage error: "you're" where it should be "your." The construction "shows that I am" is questionable, but I think I would let it go. In my opinion, "shows me to be" flows better.
Can you even type a post without LAMBASTING someone at least a dozen times?
Can you? Ah, but I apologize, for I stray from my stated purpose, which was to critique your grammar and style. As it happens, this sentence is basically correct, although it is unclear why you would use "someone" instead of "me," since you are the person being lambasted.
If you ask what part of your behavior makes me think this, I could say the same thing about my “behavior”.
This sentence makes absolutely no sense. What could you say about your behavior? And why do you keep putting "behavior" in quotes, but only when it refers to your behavior? Do you suppose that your words and actions constituted something other than behavior? If so, I would be curious to know what you call it.
They’re both human, or do you not understand that the phrase, “human rights” does not mean “adult rights only”?
While technically correct, you should avoid contractions in writing. Your use of the phrase "or do you not" is highly questionable. The entire sentence, in fact, is quite ugly and includes a double negative. I offer two alternative constructions:

1. 'They are both human, unless you understand "human rights" to refer to "adult rights" alone.'

Note that in option one, the logical problem of your statement is preserved, since one can understand children to be human while also holding the belief that "human rights" protect adults, but not children. One would merely hold that when we say "human rights," we mean something other than what we say.

2. 'They are both human, and the phrase "human rights" does not refer to "adult rights" alone.'

This preserves the sense of your argument, eliminates the double negative, and avoids the suggestion of a loophole implied in your original construction.
I could say the same thing about the magical gift of “adult reasoning”.
This sentence is fine, although you probably mean "adult" reasoning rather than "adult reasoning."
I don’t hate adults, I just hate hypocrites who believe that discriminating against women is wrong, while discriminating against children the same way.
I will not harp on the contractions. It is unclear what is hypocritical about believing two things that do not prima facie contradict one another. There is nothing contradictory, after all, in believing that it is wrong to discriminate against women, but acceptable to discriminate against children. Clearly, such a person makes a moral judgment based on the moral object in question. I think what you mean to say is something more like this:
"... hypocrites who complain that discrimination is wrong, but themselves discriminate consistently against children." This is contradictory behavior, since you accuse them of declaring that all discrimination is wrong. While this is not a grammatical question per se, I include it because I believe your meaning was obscured by your ineffective use of language.
Face it, the arguments you’re using against me are the same arguments men have been using against women for centuries.
Your comma is misused (and abused). Oddly enough, the colon that confounded you before would work well here.
I say this not to appease liberals, but simply because it’s a fact.
You did all right with this one.
I hate (see above) George W. Bush.
Your parenthetical redirection would probably make more sense at the end of the sentence.
Sorry, it was a bad choice of words, “inability to see the other side of the argument” is more like it.
Your commas are in pain. Do not abuse them.
If you don’t want people to insult your grammar, IMPROVE IT!
Here your grammar is correct. Unfortunately, the intensity of your advice makes the remainder of your structurally baffling dialogue read like a work of comedy.
Also, you’ve thrown more childish insults to me than I have to you. I count three to one.
You mean "at me," and "at you." I doubt either of you expects the other to "catch" what you throw "to" them.
You’ve done WAY more wild speculations about me than I have about you.
You use "way" incorrectly. Try "far" or "many." Also, one does not "do" speculations about anything. This error can be remedied in one of two ways:

1. "You have done far more wild speculation about me than I have regarding you."
2. "You have produced many more wild speculations about me than I have regarding you."

[I omit the next section because it was clearly intended as a list, in which fragments are acceptable.]

So, my behavior seems a lot more “mature” that yours, doesn’t it?
Do you really want to use "a lot," and then complain about the grammar of others? (I assume "that" is a spelling error and no representative of faulty usage.)
Isn’t it odd that you accuse me of things that you are doing yourself on a much greater extent than I?
...to a much greater extent...
Who’s accusing their opponent of flinging mud instead of arguing the actual points?
There is nothing really wrong here, but you could do without the definite article, unless you mean to imply that a distinct list of "actual points" has been established, and no other "actual points" will do.
I have no problem with your opinion, hey, it’s your opinion, but I would respect you a lot more if you weren’t acting like a democratic political commercial.
Your commas just jumped off a bridge in frustration.
And no, they may be facts in your mind, but I am presenting evidence that is just as valid as yours, and yes you ignore it and lash out at me much more than I lash out at you.
This is a horrible run-on.

Wow. :eek:

Someone should hire you as an editor or something. That was really good!

I know this is feeble, but,

"She dosen't use capitalization..." (Meant to be said in a small, meek voice.)

About the "that": My stupid spell checker dosen't find it because "that" is still a word. Face it, I'm better at just scrawling down ideas than I am at editing them. (It dosen't do grammar, either.) :mad: *needs a better spell checker*

Again, nice job on the editing!

Someone should hire you as an editor or something.

Worse: They make me teach freshmen English.

They are difficult to cook and it is hard to find a good wine that goes with them.


Try a good Pinot Noir.

So... wait. You start an entire thread because someone called you a child and demand to know what you did that was childish?

Irony is lost on so many of our youngsters today...

Could you find a grammatical mistake in my post, please? Please don't assume that it's bad because you think I'm a kid.

Actually, I specifically pointed out the difference between 'children' and those who act 'childishly'. I did not say Bottle accused you of bad grammar, I said you jumped on her immediately for hers (and then ranted later about people avoiding addressing points). I have read your various claims of not being a kid, and believe them, and I myself *could* be considered a kid (am 17). Your age did not have anything to do with my response.

Ah, I am simply pointing out that she has as much evidence as I do.

But, alas, you have no given any reference. And, to be frank, I have been in various debates where Bottle played an active role, and she has always had sources to quote. You I have not debated with, and until you develope a track record of having evidence, I will not assume you have it unless you provide it. Many others will take a similar stand.

As I said, this is a continuation of a depate that sprouted off from another thread which I started to get the origional thread back on topic. I started this thread so that the people in the other thread wouldn't have to deal with

It was a pointless distraction in the other thread, and it's just as pointless in a thread all of it's own. You should have simply let matters lie, because you aren't making yourself or your ideals out to be sympathetic at all, and your random attacks on other members are ludicrous.

I have no intent of making Bottle "look bad". Yes, I am upset that she is insulting me "read the other thread if you need proof of this", but the purpose of this thread is solely to continue a existing debate. Now, if I was like Bottle, I would be lambasting you for accusing me of spurting falsehoods, but I am not Bottle, am I? (Need proof? She did it to me.)

I did read the other thread. Bottle's first post to you was almost entirely neutral (albeit that she was of the opposing view to you). Your first post in reply was full of attacks and slights that were baseless and, quite frankly, totally unjustified.

And why do you immediatley assume she is right? Why do you assume that I'm the one trying to make her look bad when she has used basless personal insults much more than I have? Oh, right, because I'm a CHILD! (Not true, though people assume I am because I think they should have equal rights, too)

I don't 'assume' she is right; I agree with her stance, I find your conduct off putting, I'm well aware of her track record in debates (as a well informed and well spoken individual who does not make baseless claims or attack people without due cause). You aren't a child, you have said so repeatedly. Don't assume I didn't read your posts. My responses to you are based soley on your post content and your conduct.
As an aside, if you want people to stop thinking you're a child, stop throwing a temper tantrum, suck it up and accept that people disagree with you, and find this whole battle ridiculous and unneccessary.

Do you even know what started this? I simply pointed out that everyone, regardless af age or gender, should be equal. She points out that she disagrees, and gives reasons, and then I do the same, and then she starts throwing insults. Don't think that I'm the offender here, because I'm not.

I know exactly what started this. You wrote a heated response to another poster about children's rights. Bottle posted to point out that children do NOT have the physical qualities neccessary to be able to handle the responsibilities associated with those rights. You replied, attacking her grammar, scientific knowledge, morals, all while second-guessing her reasons for disagreeing with you. I personally found that incredibly odious and offensive, especially knowing Bottle's well-earned reputation as a level-headed and informed debater.

You really couldn't have picked a worse target to attack.

Oh? So people don't like children because they stand up for their rights? Isn't that what the feminists are doing?

Quite frankly, I for one (and perhaps people in general) don't like children because they whine and moan and bitch when they don't get their way. And then try to drag others into the situation because they seek drama and an audience.

Now, I do not hate Bottle. I would just respect her a lot more if she was at least able to see where I'm coming from.

People would respect you more if you hadn't attacked her in your very post to her, and then started another thread to continue attacking her. Here's a hint: no one cares.

I have nothing personal against Bottle and Skibereen, I just disagree with them on this issue, and wish to debate with them on it. And, even though I was looking forward to a polite and sensible debate, Bottle insulted me first, and being insulted tends to not go over very well.

Actually, you insulted her first. Your persistence in denying this says a great deal about you, I imagine.

Oh, and the fact that everyone lambasts my veiws when they don't even bother to pay attention to them might have siomething to do with it, too...

Maybe your posts don't accurately reflect your opinion, but every reply I've seen so far has been very apt, considering what you've written and who you are attacking.

Oh, and the fact that everyone sees ME as the antagonist just I'm the one disagreeing with the mainstream view...

Everyone sees you as the antagonist because it was you who was the first to fling insults, because you were the one posting the heated and antagonistic posts in the first place.

And puh-lease. 'Mainstream view'? Going to accuse us of being close-minded then, eh wot?

If you truly believe that, why are you still here defending your actions? Evidently we're all too close minded to give a damn.

my my my, i sure pissed off this one, didn't i? :P
One wonders how both of these can be true if children are so “unable to exercise adult reasoning” as you say.

it is perfectly possible to recognize one's own limitations.


Please point out which part of my “behavior” imparted this to you.

when i pointed out the physical realities of human neurobiology, you lept immediately into insulting my intelligence (based on my grammar, no less) and assuming that i must be a nasty old adult who just wants to keep kids from having any fun. i'd say those are extremely childish reactions.


I use the word “hate” in the same context as you “hate” men who degrade women.

i don't "hate" men who degrade women. i feed on them :). they are pathetic and pitiable creatures, and are easy prey.


Also, if my behavior shows that I am a child, then you’re behavior shows that you are a baby. Can you even type a post without LAMBASTING someone at least a dozen times?

wait, so you say i am a baby but then say i "lambast" you at "least a dozen times"...that means you were metaphorically beaten to a pulp by an infant, by your own description. you then start an entire thread to vent your tantrum about this.


If you ask what part of your behavior makes me think this, I could say the same thing about my “behavior”. Is it simply because I think degrading children is as bad as degrading women? They’re both human, or do you not understand that the phrase, “human rights” does not mean “adult rights only”?

i have never proposed degrading children in any way, shape, or form. recognizing that children do not have the same neurological attributes as adults is not degrading. am i degrading toddlers by saying they are not physically capable of driving cars? am i degrading preschoolers by saying they are not capable of consenting to sex? i am making statements of fact regarding the physical abilities of children, i am not in any way saying that children do not deserve human rights.

in fact, the only "right" that i have said should be kept from children is the right to vote, and i support lowering the voting age to 15 anyhow.

furthermore, for you to compare women's rights to children's rights is demeaning in the extreme. adult women are not equivalent to children.


I could say the same thing about the magical gift of “adult reasoning”.

you misattributed this quote, i think...i don't recall ever saying this:
"How will they handle the world once this gift of magical kiddy super intelligence leaves them when they do grow up?"

but, to answer your statement, you certainly are welcome to hold adult reasoning in contempt. many adults do. as i explained on the other thread, you could very easily have made a case for allowing children to vote based on the fact that adults frequently do not choose to exercise their reasoning and therefore we are not necessarily making the PRESENCE of such reason a criterion for granting voting rights. rather than attempting to discuss the issue, possibly by building a case and presenting evidence, you have thrown a fit. please do not be surprised if people regard you as childish.


I don’t hate adults, I just hate hypocrites who believe that discriminating against women is wrong, while discriminating against children the same way. Face it, the arguments you’re using against me are the same arguments men have been using against women for centuries.

again, if you believe that an adult women is equivalent to a child then you are extremely misguided. you are also being deeply insulting. children do not have equal legal rights with adults because children are not capable of exercising those rights with good judgment. a woman has judgment capabilities equal to that of a man. if you cannot see the distinction then i hope you are a gay man...for your sake.

children cannot get drivers licenses, purchase alcohol, consent to sex, enter contracts, or a miriad of other things, but i don't see you pushing to allow 3 year olds to drive, buy booze, have sex, and enter contracts.


I say this not to appease liberals, but simply because it’s a fact. I hate (see above) George W. Bush.

again, you misattributed that quote. i really don't like when people do that.


Sorry, it was a bad choice of words, “inability to see the other side of the argument” is more like it.

and AGAIN you misquote.



If you don’t want people to insult your grammar, IMPROVE IT!

if you don't want people to insult your maturity, grow up.


Also, you’ve thrown more childish insults to me than I have to you. I count three to one.

but, to be fair, that is because i am rubber and you are glue, and whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.


You’ve done WAY more wild speculations about me than I have about you. Let’s see:
You:
Assuming that I’m a child.
Assuming that I hate all adults
Assuming that all of your facts are “scientific” and mine aren’t
Assuming all of my words are just “opinion” and not fact just because you think otherwise.

i have told you that your behavior is childish, and therefore you are a "child" regardless of your age. i make no assumptions about your physical age; as i have said many times, it is quite possible for people to be children well into adulthood :).

again, your behavior indicates that you feel very strongly against adults. i don't think it is unreasonable for me to pick up on your anger and enquire into its origins.

i know that my facts are scientific (that's not an assumption) because i have read them in accreditted scientific journals and had them presented to me in scientific lectures. as far as i have seen, you haven't presented any facts at all...only your opinion of the relative reasoning abilities of children compared to adults. if you would like to present facts then i will give them all due consideration.

your words are opinion because you have provided nothing to support them, and because the scientific facts contradict your conclusions. you may hold those opinions if you like, but you cannot refer to them as "fact" using any current English definition of that word.

Me:
None that I see. Please inform me if you find one that is valid.

-that i am an adult
-that i am stupid
-that i wish to oppress/degrade children
-that i think adults are better than children
-i really don't have time to keep listing all of them, quite frankly...


So, my behavior seems a lot more “mature” that yours, doesn’t it? I don’t go around assuming things about people I’ve never met and proceed to insult them just because I disagree with them, do I?

actually, you did exactly that. the posts are there for everyone to read. also, you started this thread...i don't think anybody is going to view that as mature.


Isn’t it odd that you accuse me of things that you are doing yourself on a much greater extent than I? Who’s accusing their opponent of flinging mud instead of arguing the actual points? I have no problem with your opinion, hey, it’s your opinion, but I would respect you a lot more if you weren’t acting like a democratic political commercial.

i'm not a Democrat...that's another assumption.


And no, they may be facts in your mind, but I am presenting evidence that is just as valid as yours, and yes you ignore it and lash out at me much more than I lash out at you.

you have not yet presented any evidence at all. my statements are not only facts in my mind, but also in Leninger's 4th edition Neuroscience text, Robert Muriel's documented research on adolescent neurobiological development, the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association. among others. should you like to present any facts, i will be waiting with open ears.


I could ask you to apply yours. *shrug*

honey, at this rate you don't WANT me to apply my intelligence to this debate. just look what i am doing to you without it!


My best friend is a teenager and he is certainly more open-minded than you. This is demonstrated by your inability to see things from any point of view other that your own.

i see this debate from the perspective of empirical reality. if you think that your personal opinion is a better perspective then that is your business, but i believe that reality is a more sound vantage point from which to base our legal codes and voter regulations.


I was simply informing you that I am not a teenager. If you look at it that way, that sentence makes perfect sense.

you misquoted AGAIN. and you misquoted me with the last quote that you posted, too. doing that is a warnable offense, just so you know.

Piss poor flame fest. Where is the pulling hair and clawed eyes?

*sorry Bottle, you got baited*
don't be sorry, it's always nice when somebody like Grigala sets up a fresh scratching post for me. :)

I don't hate children. I hate the parent(s) that do NOTHING when the kids misbehaves.

I mean, kids are kids. Fine. But do NOT let your kid scream and yell for half an hour on a plane to the visible annoyance of everyone for 12 rows. And don't look defiantly when I look back and shoot you a glance of "please do something".

First of all, I think you misunderstand that many of those times, I was quoting Skibereen, not you. Furthermore, I never quoted you in my last post. Please read them again for confirmation.

I do not view you as unintelligent (I never called you stupid.), and I do not think you wish to oppress/degrade children. You appear to have read many books. I don’t doubt that these books claim that children are incapable of exercising “adult reasoning.” However, I think this is a stereotypical statement that cannot be applied to all children anymore than the statement that all adults using “adult reasoning.” I find the ‘safety nets’ created by adults to protect children from harm to be unnecessarily confining to a child who can exercise “adult reasoning.” For example, I think a few children are quite capable of understanding political topics needed to vote. In fact, I think some children are more informed than some adults.

I think “age” is a over simplistic and ineffective way of measuring whether someone is capable of coping with situations. I think it should be based on an individual’s abilities rather than on some stereotype. You can’t really tell a person’s abilities simply by their age. I think it’s arbitrary that 17 year olds are considered unable to exercise this judgment but 19 year olds are.

This isn’t saying that we should do away with all ‘safety nets’ – just that I wish the system didn’t rely so heavily on arbitrary age limits without having some allowance for individual differences. I would like to have these ‘safety nets’ determined on abilities rather than simply on age. For example, I think a child who can take care of him/herself does not need these ‘safety nets’, while a mentally impaired adult may need these ‘safety nets’ for life. I think these ‘safety nets’ should be removed when a person shows the ability to deal with a situation rather than simply at a certain age.

"I've never had any intention of having a child. I definitely see children as destroying my lifestyle. It's inconceivable that that I would become pregnant. I've taken the pill for years. I realise my attitude is unusual, but I have other interests which crowd out everything else, and I think I'd go round the bend if my small amount of spare time was taken up by children."

- Helen Clark, Prime Minister of New Zealand

... lol

Children are a constant source of new knowledge. Just last week, thanks to my nephew, I learned that a marble is a lot easier for a child to stick into his nostril than to get it out again. :)

Children are a constant source of new knowledge. Just last week, thanks to my nephew, I learned that a marble is a lot easier for a child to stick into his nostril than to get it out again. :)


Keep in mind that a child would walk up to a giant pus machine, and press the jolly candy-like button clearly labeled "Dont Press!".

Keep in mind that a child would walk up to a giant pus machine, and press the jolly candy-like button clearly labeled "Dont Press!".

Which is exactly what makes them so special: entertainment. :)

Which is exactly what makes them so special: entertainment. :)


So....

Would you press the pus-machine button too?

So....

Would you press the pus-machine button too?

:D

:D


Yah, that was a gimme.

If anyone on this forum would walk up to a pus -machine, and press the button, it would definately be you.

Becuase watching someone else get covered in mung is frickin hilarious.

I don't hate children, I plan to have 7 of them and they will be the major facilitators of the revolution.

I don't hate children. I hate the parent(s) that do NOTHING when the kids misbehaves.

I mean, kids are kids. Fine. But do NOT let your kid scream and yell for half an hour on a plane to the visible annoyance of everyone for 12 rows. And don't look defiantly when I look back and shoot you a glance of "please do something".

I completly agree but that isnt what this topic is really about

good to see bottle getting some of her own back, just warning you mate, she isnt stupid. Show her some respect or you will probably get banned she knows how to manipulate people, since I havnt read the original thread she probably baited you with a well disguised flame. I applaud you for standing up for yourself but Bottle is a pro

Worse: They make me teach freshmen English.

You poor bastard. :(

Yah, that was a gimme.

If anyone on this forum would walk up to a pus -machine, and press the button, it would definately be you.

Becuase watching someone else get covered in mung is frickin hilarious.

I've always been willing to put my health at risk to entertertain people. ANd I've always been willing to put other people's health at risk for the same reason.

Yo Squatch, go choke gramma and I'll you a cookie.

I've always been willing to put my health at risk to entertertain people. ANd I've always been willing to put other people's health at risk for the same reason.


Thats fair.

Everyone wins.

Yo Squatch, go choke gramma and I'll you a cookie.


What kind of cookies are we talking?

What kind of cookies are we talking?

What kind of cookies what you like?

What kind of cookies what you like?


Oh No!

If you want me to choke out grandma, you better know what kind of cookies I'm gonna need.

Oh No!

If you want me to choke out grandma, you better know what kind of cookies I'm gonna need.

So RPP has to be telepathic to get you to choke grandma? Kind of a tough deal, that. :p

So RPP has to be telepathic to get you to choke grandma? Kind of a tough deal, that. :p


Hmm..

Very well then.

Chocolate Chip, with walnuts!

YA HEAR THAT GRANNY? YER GOIN' DOWN!

*POUNCE!*

Children are evil.

If you ask a child to go and choke Grandma for a cookie, they will.

Evil.
those cookies were good though...

Oh No!

If you want me to choke out grandma, you better know what kind of cookies I'm gonna need.

Alright.

*plugs in USB mind-reader*

I have chocolate-chip and ginger.

I really hate walking in on the middle of conversations.

I really hate walking in on the middle of conversations.

But sometimes it can be very amusing.

Alright.

*plugs in USB mind-reader*

I have chocolate-chip and ginger.


don't get the microsoft usb mind reader, it doesn't just read other peoples minds...it reads yours too and sends all your thoughts to microsoft... :p

don't get the microsoft usb mind reader, it doesn't just read other peoples minds...it reads yours too and sends all your thoughts to microsoft... :p

So that's why everyone's favourite colour is black.

I don't hate children, I plan to have 7 of them and they will be the major facilitators of the revolution.

Aren't you afraid that (being children) they'll rebel against *your* teachings and become antidisestablishmentarians? :D

Aren't you afraid that (being children) they'll rebel against *your* teachings and become antidisestablishmentarians? :D

Sure. I'm willing to run that risk.

I can't believe that someone would start a thread about something like this, and take the time to reply point-by-point in that way. There really are some very sensitive people out there.


No kidding sheesh

And talk about re-enforcing the opinions the quoted have on him/her lol

I don't hate children I have two of my own :)

I don't hate children I have two of my own :)

You can't count your husband. ;)

First of all, I think you misunderstand that many of those times, I was quoting Skibereen, not you. Furthermore, I never quoted you in my last post. Please read them again for confirmation.

if you were quoting Skibereen you shouldn't have posted the quotes with my name identifying them. and yes, the last quote on that initial post was also misattributed to me.


I do not view you as unintelligent (I never called you stupid.),

to quote you, "First of all, if we used grammar as a measurement of intelligence like we do age, then you would end up even lower than a few of the "children" you hate so much."

now, that doesn't say i am STUPID, but i think the implication is pretty clear. if you want to claim that you did not intend that comment as an insult toward my intelligence then i think you will find very few people who are willing to believe you. but feel free to try to wriggle out of it.


and I do not think you wish to oppress/degrade children.
again, to quote you, "Is it simply because I think degrading children is as bad as degrading women? They’re both human, or do you not understand that the phrase, “human rights” does not mean “adult rights only”?"
(bold mine)

now, again, if you want to claim that this, and your later comments about "people who discriminate against children," was not aimed at me, then you can go right ahead and try to claim that. if you honestly didn't intend it to apply to me then you are doing a terrible job of communicating. if you did intend it to apply to me then you did, infact, directly imply that i degrade children.


You appear to have read many books. I don’t doubt that these books claim that children are incapable of exercising “adult reasoning.” However, I think this is a stereotypical statement that cannot be applied to all children anymore than the statement that all adults using “adult reasoning.”

the statement that all human newborns are unable to talk is a "stereotypical statement" by your reasoning, even though it is totally and factually true. the statement that all human children before a certain point of neurological development lack the physical capacity for certain levels of moral judgment and logical reasoning is also a statement of fact. it is simply the case. it has nothing to do with the individual cognitive abilities of children, and everything to do with the basic biology. a child who has not gone through puberty will lack certain adult features of the body; why is it so difficult for you to accept that they will also lack certain features in the brain?


I find the ‘safety nets’ created by adults to protect children from harm to be unnecessarily confining to a child who can exercise “adult reasoning.” For example, I think a few children are quite capable of understanding political topics needed to vote. In fact, I think some children are more informed than some adults.

some "safety nets" are. as i have stated before, i fully support lowering age of consent and voting age to 15 years. however, the fact that children may be better INFORMED has nothing to do with this debate, so please don't cloud the issue.


I think “age” is a over simplistic and ineffective way of measuring whether someone is capable of coping with situations. I think it should be based on an individual’s abilities rather than on some stereotype.

again, i am speaking of biological FACTS, not stereotypes. i'm not judging children's capabilities based on some random subjective features, i am judging it based on the presence of PHYSICAL STRUCTURES...children before a certain age don't have these structures. me pointing out that they don't have them isn't stereotyping, any more than it is stereotyping for me to point out that pre-pubescent children lack mature secondary sex characteristics.


You can’t really tell a person’s abilities simply by their age.

you can tell certain things about their abilities, with pretty much 100% certainty. that's the beauty of neurobiological research and developmental neuroscience :).


I think it’s arbitrary that 17 year olds are considered unable to exercise this judgment but 19 year olds are.

now THAT we can agree on; there is no significant developmental turning point during that time frame, and therefore i don't see any reason to use it as an arbitrary cut-off point.

I love kids, there the most awesome thing next to capn crunch lol

I love children, the younger they are, the more tender the meat. :D :D :eek: :D

Could you find a grammatical mistake in my post.....
WTF...you really think im going to waste my time.... :sniper:

[Y]our statement would seem to be "If you say it due to this..."




Which should be, "if you say it owing to this...."

In any event, the preferred construction is "because of," which is always correct.

I did not wade through the rest of the drivel but I am sure there are many other errors.

Kids: loud, smelly, and stupid.