Elysian Shadows

avansc not trying to fight but really at 13 kids know really if they want to pursue education or just be bums i know that i want to go as far as i can and i'm 14. REally my teachers make me correct homework (6-8 english and 6-7 math and my ss teacher and science teacher wouldn't teach handed out packets and said due next week (end of chapter) but this years math teacher effing rocks, uses the white board like really well and if you ask a question doesn't give you the answer but shows you how to solve it. Also parents should have a choice with education my mom would make me go and most would but sometimes kids shouldn't go but are forced to such as being harassed or maybe they are having problems at home well they still got to go to school so yeah. but this is all my opionon

thbp wrote:avansc not trying to fight but really at 13 kids know really if they want to pursue education or just be bums i know that i want to go as far as i can and i'm 14. REally my teachers make me correct homework (6-8 english and 6-7 math and my ss teacher and science teacher wouldn't teach handed out packets and said due next week (end of chapter) but this years math teacher effing rocks, uses the white board like really well and if you ask a question doesn't give you the answer but shows you how to solve it. Also parents should have a choice with education my mom would make me go and most would but sometimes kids shouldn't go but are forced to such as being harassed or maybe they are having problems at home well they still got to go to school so yeah. but this is all my opionon

Are you fucking with me? Every 13 year-old would drop out of school and sit at home playing pokemon cards if they had the chance. There is a reason why you are a minor until age 18 in the US. And even then you're still a dumbass.

thbp wrote:avansc not trying to fight but really at 13 kids know really if they want to pursue education or just be bums i know that i want to go as far as i can and i'm 14. REally my teachers make me correct homework (6-8 english and 6-7 math and my ss teacher and science teacher wouldn't teach handed out packets and said due next week (end of chapter) but this years math teacher effing rocks, uses the white board like really well and if you ask a question doesn't give you the answer but shows you how to solve it. Also parents should have a choice with education my mom would make me go and most would but sometimes kids shouldn't go but are forced to such as being harassed or maybe they are having problems at home well they still got to go to school so yeah. but this is all my opionon

Yes, you clearly understand the early teen age group better than all of us because we were never 14.

no i'm saying, that kids that actually want to do something with liffe
will understand to actually work

thbp wrote:no i'm saying, that kids that actually want to do something with liffe
will understand to actually work

come back to me when you are 21 and let me know if you still feel the same.
its just not worth discussing this because you are a child.

avansc wrote: come back to me when you are 21 and let me know if you still feel the same.
its just not worth discussing this because you are a child.

aaaaaaannnnndd....../thread

avansc wrote: hahah omg... so what if a 50 year old has a gun and goes balistic and kills 20 people.. is he or she then also not mature enough to have a gun. and if in fact that is your OPINION, how do we discover who is and who is not mature enough to do anything, including owning a gun.

you have got to have the worst reasoning skills i have ever seen. just horrible.

Avansc, you said you "went" to a public school. I suppose that means you're graduated now? I'm finding that really hard to believe. I'm not going to go off childishly badgering you, as you have done to me; however, may I make a recommendation that you return to school? You're actually very fun to talk to. It's humorous watching you struggle to form a decent sentence.

My reasoning skills are horrible? Your entire viewpoint is horrible. You've already agreed that you think the government should control people's educational choices. You cry over an internet argument discussing maturity vs age. You make foolish assumptions without reading my full statement or even trying to understand it. Maybe you're so afraid of the topic of "maturity" because you've never really reached a high enough level to understand it fully.

Now, I would prefer from this point on we cut the bullshit. Insult me again and I refuse to reply to you further. If you have an argument, present it in a reasonable fashion. If I didn't care about other's opinions, I wouldn't be here right now reading them and trying to defend mine. Stop thinking I'm some narcissistic asshole as you are no doubt proving to be.

Master Jake wrote:

aamesxdavid wrote: Do you really think that you should have absolute control over another person simply due to biological relation?

Only until the child is mature enough to make its own decisions.

This is pretty much the only place I respectfully disagree with you. You're allowed to think that getting someone pregnant (or becoming pregnant yourself) gives you absolute reign over another human being, including the ability to completely fuck it up, that's your belief. But I don't think you honestly believe that; I think you believe it in this specific case because it's convenient to your argument.

Master Jake wrote:Because I'm allowed to defend my opinion. And yes, everything I say is my opinion. Excuse me if you don't explicitly say that on every paragraph when I've already said it referring to every post I'll ever make.

So it's just your opinion when you say you can scientifically prove something? That's not an opinion; it's a statement of supposed fact. My point was that you can't just say "this can be scientifically measured" when you have no basis for it. If I told you it could be scientifically measured just how wrong your opinions are, I think you would challenge that - and you'd have every right to do so. Because I wasn't simply giving my opinion that you're wrong, I was saying that it's a provable scientific fact.

Master Jake wrote:Umm... no.

Shit, you completely got me there.

Master Jake wrote:

You're saying if you don't want cigarettes, you're mature enough to decide if you want cigarettes. That is exactly what you're saying. Now you're just flat out lying.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not, in reality, they ACTUALLY buy the god damn cigarettes or not. It only defines their maturity to make a right decision (yes, in my opinion).

So someone decides not to smoke cigarettes, so you give them the option to buy them, and you think some of them will still buy cigarettes? You're even more retarded than I thought if you believe that.
But let's say by some fluke this happens. Then, if once they were given the right to buy cigarettes, they buy them, haven't they just proven that they were not actually mature enough to make the decision? Wouldn't you then have to revoke their right to do so? Or do you only have to prove that you're mature when you're young?

Master Jake wrote:Umm.. the entire point of the argument is to make our suggestions on improvements to the government.

Wrong. The entire point of the argument is that you think your opinion can be scientifically validated when it can't. Then you say it's just your opinion, all the while suggesting laws should be made by your subjective standards of maturity.

Master Jake wrote:You perform the study Mr. Science god.

So being skeptical of your baseless claims makes me Mr. Science god? Okay, thanks.

But once again, you completely miss the point. My point was that even if this study was done and proved you right, you would still be wrong, because it would then be logical to buy fast food, and therefore a mature decision, based on your own criteria.

Master Jake wrote:

Again, this only applies if the decision to buy fast food is logical (which would simply make you wrong in a whole other way), which it isn't.

No.

No what? Why don't you be a little less specific so your argument sounds even weaker than it is. No, it's not logical to eat fast food? No shit, but you just said it was because it's cheaper. Are you retracting that statement now?

Master Jake wrote:No, I already said eating fast food wasn't a decision for a highly mature (fully developed) brain to make. However, being that it is quick and cheap, people let that get a hold of them and kind of ignore the negative aspects of it.

What you said was that there was logic behind the decision. And the use of logic determines maturity. Therefore, eating fast food is a mature decision, because there is logic behind it. So what, now only certain kinds of logic are mature? This argument just gets weaker and weaker.

Master Jake wrote:Yes, I apologize, incorrect term. What I meant was the biological drives like eating, drinking, and so on that's only goal is to keep you alive. The biological aspects are very strong and can usually overpower other emotions.

Great, so we agree that biological drives are not emotions. But the point that you were trying to make was that some emotions are logical and others are not. If these drives are not emotions, than you've displayed no examples of logical emotions.

Master Jake wrote:See apology above. Oh yeah, and stop making personal attacks. One of the ground rules of debates is that you cannot personally attack your opponent. Clearly you are running out of things to say if you have to commence actions such as those.

Wrong again; I've got plenty more to say, and I reject your dichotomy of substance and attack. Personal attacks shouldn't be the substitute for arguments, this is true, in fact in smart-people land, we call this an "ad hominem". The important difference between that and what I did was instead of substitute one for the other, I simply used both. Personal attacks are not arguments themselves, but they can make an argument more entertaining when combined with one. This is all my opinion of course, but I'm sure it could be scientifically validated.

Master Jake wrote:I said there are logical aspects of it (the cheapness and quickness) which fog up negative aspects like heart disease, high cholesterol, etc.

Again, if only certain types of logic qualify as mature, then the criteria by which you judge said logic must be subjective, which once again should never be implemented as law.

Master Jake wrote:

Well, maybe that's because you're suggesting that laws be made based on your ideas. Which we keep coming back to, and you haven't addressed. Are you now saying that these shouldn't be laws?

Addressed previously several times.

You mean like here?

Master Jake wrote:Umm.. the entire point of the argument is to make our suggestions on improvements to the government.

How can I make this any fucking clearer to you? I understand that these are just your opinions. What I disagree with is that your opinions of improvements to the government are based on your opinions of ideas that you can't back up. If you present ideas on laws that would affect everyone, be prepared to be challenged on those ideas. And be prepared to back them up with facts, not more opinions. And stop saying that things can be scientifically measured when you have no reason to think so.

Allow me to make a demonstration of the way you've presented your argument so far, with a new subject: I don't think you should ever have the right to vote.

"I don't think you should be allowed to vote, because you're not mature enough to handle that decision, and you never will be."
"Why do you say that?"
"Because by the way I define maturity, you could never reach those standards."
"Well how do you define maturity?"
"Well, obviously be scientific research."
"What research would that be."
"Excuse me for not having the data here right now, but people study it."
"That doesn't mean you can base a law on it."
"Hey, this is just my opinion, geeze, don't be a dick."

You're basically saying: "everyone should be forced to abide by this standard because I personally believe it is correct."

All I'm saying is that that is not a good basis for any law.

Master Jake wrote:

avansc wrote: hahah omg... so what if a 50 year old has a gun and goes balistic and kills 20 people.. is he or she then also not mature enough to have a gun. and if in fact that is your OPINION, how do we discover who is and who is not mature enough to do anything, including owning a gun.

you have got to have the worst reasoning skills i have ever seen. just horrible.

Avansc, you said you "went" to a public school. I suppose that means you're graduated now? I'm finding that really hard to believe. I'm not going to go off childishly badgering you, as you have done to me; however, may I make a recommendation that you return to school? You're actually very fun to talk to. It's humorous watching you struggle to form a decent sentence.

My reasoning skills are horrible? Your entire viewpoint is horrible. You've already agreed that you think the government should control people's educational choices. You cry over an internet argument discussing maturity vs age. You make foolish assumptions without reading my full statement or even trying to understand it. Maybe you're so afraid of the topic of "maturity" because you've never really reached a high enough level to understand it fully.

Now, I would prefer from this point on we cut the bullshit. Insult me again and I refuse to reply to you further. If you have an argument, present it in a reasonable fashion. If I didn't care about other's opinions, I wouldn't be here right now reading them and trying to defend mine. Stop thinking I'm some narcissistic asshole as you are no doubt proving to be.

Please note how you completely avoided the question I posted. Then also note your complete hypocrisy.

"You've already agreed that you think the government should control people's educational choices."
Let us assume that I do in fact believe that. what is the alternative? To whom do you leave the decision? after all we are talking about CHOICE here. Surly you cannot be so naive to think that a child
will have the fortitude and foresight to endure schooling, so then do you let the parent decide? Well what if the parent decides to with hold any education from that child, and for that matter, what other
choice does the parent have that will be in the domain of choices imminent to the child's life. And then ultimately when do those freedoms of choice become available to the child.

May I ask what you age is, and what level of schooling you have completed, and what particular fields.

PS: I so do apologize for inconveniencing and seems somewhat entertaining you with my horrible grammar and spelling, English is not my first language.

I'm just going to ignore your personal badgering and assume they are just a way for you to amuse yourself in this oh so boring internet world.

aamesxdavid wrote: This is pretty much the only place I respectfully disagree with you. You're allowed to think that getting someone pregnant (or becoming pregnant yourself) gives you absolute reign over another human being, including the ability to completely fuck it up, that's your belief. But I don't think you honestly believe that; I think you believe it in this specific case because it's convenient to your argument.

You're giving life to someone else, and I know you don't believe in God so why wouldn't you agree with this. If a God created the life before giving it to the mother, then it would be God's choice. If you don't believe in a God in the first place, then why should it matter. That's like saying (I'm going to build this road on my private land, but I'm not going to be allowed to control who drives over it.) In your case, you're handing over the control to the government. This idea holds a hint of communism except bodily based instead of property based.

So it's just your opinion when you say you can scientifically prove something? That's not an opinion; it's a statement of supposed fact. My point was that you can't just say "this can be scientifically measured" when you have no basis for it. If I told you it could be scientifically measured just how wrong your opinions are, I think you would challenge that - and you'd have every right to do so. Because I wasn't simply giving my opinion that you're wrong, I was saying that it's a provable scientific fact.

Because I believe that my opinion actually could be proven. I believe in smart people land you would call that a hypothesis.

So someone decides not to smoke cigarettes, so you give them the option to buy them, and you think some of them will still buy cigarettes? You're even more retarded than I thought if you believe that.
But let's say by some fluke this happens. Then, if once they were given the right to buy cigarettes, they buy them, haven't they just proven that they were not actually mature enough to make the decision? Wouldn't you then have to revoke their right to do so? Or do you only have to prove that you're mature when you're young?

I highly doubt I'm retarded. I think that's your opinion. My academic grades and awards are physical evidence of that. Anyway, these are pseudo-ideas. I don't know how many times I have to completely point that out before you stop addressing them as "carved-in-stone" laws. Since this is age vs maturity, why don't you start backing up your side of the argument: age. Why do you think age is better than maturity at standardizing a law? Granted, quite a few age laws do have restrictions. For instance, driving. You have to be 15, 16, depending on the state to get a permit. However, you don't just get the permit at that age, you would also have take a test to insure you have proper vision and thinking skills.

Wrong. The entire point of the argument is that you think your opinion can be scientifically validated when it can't. Then you say it's just your opinion, all the while suggesting laws should be made by your subjective standards of maturity.

You say it can't, meaning it's impossible to validate my argument. Do you have any proof behind your claim that said argument can't be validated? And no, not by MY subjective of maturity, just maturity in general. I have just been presenting ideas of maturity as examples. This doesn't mean I think my way is the only way. I just think maturity should be a factor instead of age.

But once again, you completely miss the point. My point was that even if this study was done and proved you right, you would still be wrong, because it would then be logical to buy fast food, and therefore a mature decision, based on your own criteria.

No, it would just prove that there are logical aspects to buying fast food rather than eating healthy. It doesn't make it 100% logical. Very little can be done to verify something to that extent.

No what? Why don't you be a little less specific so your argument sounds even weaker than it is. No, it's not logical to eat fast food? No shit, but you just said it was because it's cheaper. Are you retracting that statement now?

OK, I thought you would catch that, but whatever. Retry: No, you're ENTIRE statement was incorrect.

What you said was that there was logic behind the decision. And the use of logic determines maturity. Therefore, eating fast food is a mature decision, because there is logic behind it. So what, now only certain kinds of logic are mature? This argument just gets weaker and weaker.

Your interpretation just gets weaker and weaker. You are correct in some aspect. I do believe that logic and maturity have a link. As one becomes more and more mature their use of logic to create the best possible environment for themselves increases. As stated, the logic behind eating fast food is that it is cheap and quick. When someone is in a hurry or broke, their logical mind becomes clouded. They are faced with a decision and must ignore their health to eat quickly and cheaply, or to eat well and possibly face financial risk.

Great, so we agree that biological drives are not emotions. But the point that you were trying to make was that some emotions are logical and others are not. If these drives are not emotions, than you've displayed no examples of logical emotions.

That was the point I was trying to make, except I mistakenly mixed emotions in. I believe our biological drives are logical to the extent of survival. If you were a healthy person who hadn't eaten fast food in 20 years, and you were stranded, starving, with only a McDonalds around, your biological drive would take over. You would obviously end up eating the fast food to survive, ignoring your bodily crave to stay healthy. This is why the biological drives are the strongest.

Wrong again; I've got plenty more to say, and I reject your dichotomy of substance and attack. Personal attacks shouldn't be the substitute for arguments, this is true, in fact in smart-people land, we call this an "ad hominem". The important difference between that and what I did was instead of substitute one for the other, I simply used both. Personal attacks are not arguments themselves, but they can make an argument more entertaining when combined with one. This is all my opinion of course, but I'm sure it could be scientifically validated.

At least you admitted to being a jerk. That's the first step to curing any problem.

Again, if only certain types of logic qualify as mature, then the criteria by which you judge said logic must be subjective, which once again should never be implemented as law.

Fine. I just think maturity should looked into further. Maybe it won't define our laws, but I believe there is a lot more too maturity than we see from the outside. I will no longer argue that maturity should be a basis for laws; case closed. Are you happy now?

avansc wrote: May I ask what you age is, and what level of schooling you have completed, and what particular fields.

PS: I so do apologize for inconveniencing and seems somewhat entertaining you with my horrible grammar and spelling, English is not my first language.

No you may not ask that. I'm not giving you anything that you can throw back in my face later. Besides, I agreed that david was right and I was wrong. My idea will never be applied as a law.

Your English was fine, I was just using that as a way to fight you back for attacking me for no apparent reason.

Master Jake wrote:

avansc wrote: May I ask what you age is, and what level of schooling you have completed, and what particular fields.

PS: I so do apologize for inconveniencing and seems somewhat entertaining you with my horrible grammar and spelling, English is not my first language.

No you may not ask that. I'm not giving you anything that you can throw back in my face later. Besides, I agreed that david was right and I was wrong. My idea will never be applied as a law.

Your English was fine, I was just using that as a way to fight you back for attacking me for no apparent reason.

Well Jake Chappell it would not be that hard if I was really interested, but I'm not. I did not want to know that info to use against you, rather to try and understand where you are coming from.

I will leave you with this tid bit about "maturity", maturity is not something you get and have forever, or something that is persistent, it is something that is very much intermittent and is heavily influenced by
your emotions. The only way you can become more mature is by controlling/dealing with your emotions. Being mature has nothing to do what or how much you know, but by how well you handle the emotions life conjure
up in you, whether it be treating someone fairly even though you hate their guts, or studying hard in school when you would have more fun doing something else.. and the simple fact is that kids just do not handle their emotions well.
they are impulsive, and want instant gratification. and life is nothing like that.

I personally am bad at dealing with my emotions... and so are many people here.. including you.... -> "Your English was fine, I was just using that as a way to fight you back for attacking me for no apparent reason."
that is not a personal attack, but rather an attempt at opening your eyes to a different view point.

avansc wrote: Well Jake Chappell it would not be that hard if I was really interested, but I'm not. I did not want to know that info to use against you, rather to try and understand where you are coming from.

I will leave you with this tid bit about "maturity", maturity is not something you get and have forever, or something that is persistent, it is something that is very much intermittent and is heavily influenced by
your emotions. The only way you can become more mature is by controlling/dealing with your emotions. Being mature has nothing to do what or how much you know, but by how well you handle the emotions life conjure
up in you, whether it be treating someone fairly even though you hate their guts, or studying hard in school when you would have more fun doing something else.. and the simple fact is that kids just do not handle their emotions well.
they are impulsive, and want instant gratification. and life is nothing like that.

I personally am bad at dealing with my emotions... and so are many people here.. including you.... -> "Your English was fine, I was just using that as a way to fight you back for attacking me for no apparent reason."
that is not a personal attack, but rather an attempt at opening your eyes to a different view point.

I agree, I'm terrible at controlling my emotions. You could have opened my eyes in a more friendly way though

There's like.. 1MB+ more text in this post since the last time I checked it. Hope the participants found the information enlightening, because I sure as hell don't have the patience to read it.

Master Jake wrote:I'm just going to ignore your personal badgering and assume they are just a way for you to amuse yourself in this oh so boring internet world.

Ignoring something means giving no attention to it. Not only did you clearly pay attention to these things, but you mentioned them immediately in your response. So your first sentence alone is a complete failure. It has nothing of course to do with the argument, I'm only bringing it up because as you have already pointed out, I readily admit to being an asshole.

Master Jake wrote:You're giving life to someone else, and I know you don't believe in God so why wouldn't you agree with this.

I don't recall ever mentioning this here, so kudos to your observational skills being better than my memory.

Master Jake wrote:If a God created the life before giving it to the mother, then it would be God's choice. If you don't believe in a God in the first place, then why should it matter.

Well, let's pretend for a moment that there is a supernatural being that created the entire universe. Are you really comparing that to something that can be accomplished by a 13-year-old? If you want to base any kind of law on maturity, then why give such power to people irresponsible enough to accidentally get pregnant? Does this act suddenly make you mature enough to make decisions for another human being?

I'll even go farther than that, and let's pretend for a moment that not only did this being exist, but I believed in it. I would still think it was fucked up that such a being would create a person who could think and feel, and then decide by its own standards what it should do.

Master Jake wrote:That's like saying (I'm going to build this road on my private land, but I'm not going to be allowed to control who drives over it.) In your case, you're handing over the control to the government. This idea holds a hint of communism except bodily based instead of property based.

Yeah, except for the fact that you're talking about an inanimate object, and I'm talking about a human being. It's amazing you would even make such a comparison. I have no problem with having control over one's own property, because it has no consciousness; it can't think, it can't feel, it doesn't give a shit what you do. The difference is that I don't think that a human being should be the property of another human being - whether their existence is the result of you fucking someone or not. It's such a trivial act, and I already disagree with most of the laws that result from such standards. So if I'm talking about communism, then you're talking about slavery.

Master Jake wrote:Because I believe that my opinion actually could be proven. I believe in smart people land you would call that a hypothesis.

Wrong. A hypothesis is a testable proposed explanation for something, based off of supporting evidence and logical deductions from said evidence. You have an idea, with no evidence, that you believe. You have supporting ideas, simply containing your own opinion, but no facts. This, in smart-people land, is what we call "faith". In other words, your idea might one day be a hypothesis if ever there came to light some supporting facts. As it stands, you have nothing but an opinion, and your belief that it can be proven is completely meaningless, and far from makes it anything resembling a hypothesis.

Master Jake wrote:I highly doubt I'm retarded.

I agree.

Master Jake wrote:I think that's your opinion.

No, actually, it isn't. My opinion is that if you actually believe the shit that I quoted you as saying, then I think you're retarded. But as I said about a previous quote, I don't think you actually believe it. I just think you haven't given it enough thought, or that you're ignoring the lack of sense it makes so you can still defend your position.

Master Jake wrote:My academic grades and awards are physical evidence of that.

Really, your grades? From school? I'm afraid you've got quite a bit of defending to do of such an inept and corrupt school system to say that it is a testament to your intelligence that it gave you the earlier letters in the alphabet.

Master Jake wrote:Anyway, these are pseudo-ideas.

Wow, that came a long way down from "hypothesis". At least you're being more honest.

Master Jake wrote:I don't know how many times I have to completely point that out before you stop addressing them as "carved-in-stone" laws.

I'm not; I'm addressing them as conceptual laws. Seeing as how they are laws that you have proposed as a possible solution, I really don't see the problem with that. You see, a good way to address the validity of an idea is to assume its reality, and come to an opinion of it that way. I'm simply stating that if these types of laws were implemented, these are the problems I see with them. I certainly couldn't address anything as "carved-in-stone" that doesn't even have a good theory behind it.

Master Jake wrote:Since this is age vs maturity, why don't you start backing up your side of the argument: age. Why do you think age is better than maturity at standardizing a law?

Oh, you mean I should say something like this:

aamesxdavid wrote:Age limits exist because age and maturity have a high correlation, and age can be measured to an absolute, undeniable standard.

I'm granting that it's not a perfect system, but there's a good reason why it's there. At some point, there needs to be some kind of absolute standard. And you have nothing resembling one.

And let me emphasize one point here: I'm not even saying that age is the best measurement that we could have for such laws. What I am saying is that a system that has some grounding in facts and statistics is better than one that has absolutely none.

Furthermore, this isn't an age vs maturity argument - maturity is absolutely the deciding factor in someone making a reasonable decision or an unreasonable one. I'm arguing that you cannot measure such a thing to an absolute standard. If that were ever possible, I would be on your side 100%. And even though it's not right now, I wouldn't even be arguing if your examples of these types of measurements weren't such a fucking joke.

Master Jake wrote:Granted, quite a few age laws do have restrictions. For instance, driving. You have to be 15, 16, depending on the state to get a permit. However, you don't just get the permit at that age, you would also have take a test to insure you have proper vision and thinking skills.

An even better system: one that waits until you're a certain age, and then makes you prove that you're capable of such responsibility. Testing children below this age would be a waste of time.

Master Jake wrote:You say it can't, meaning it's impossible to validate my argument. Do you have any proof behind your claim that said argument can't be validated?

This is what's known as the argument from ignorance. When someone states something, the burden of proof lies with that person; it is not everyone else's responsibility to prove them wrong or else the statement is true. Even if I couldn't prove you wrong, it would do nothing to validate your claim, so this is a pointless argument. You can't prove that I did not dictate this post to an invisible dragon who typed it into my computer. Yet I would never use the fact that you couldn't prove me wrong as any kind of justification to this claim - and even if I did, you wouldn't accept it as having any merit whatsoever. So why would you even bother saying this?

But that's not really an interesting response, now is it? You asked for proof - at least, proof of something other than the fact that you were stupid for even asking for it. Well, here you go:

Maturity, by definition, is subjective. Now, you've already stated that you don't agree, so I guess I can't get away with just telling you that it, in fact, is. Let's get some definitions.

Google wrote:Maturity is a psychological term used to indicate that a person responds to the circumstances or environment in an appropriate manner.

Appropriate as determined by whom? By society? By what society? If every society can have differing definitions of what is appropriate, how could there ever be an objective, scientific measurement of maturity based on it?

Dictionary.com wrote:full development; perfected condition

What determines a perfected condition? How does one know when a mind is fully developed?

Wikipedia wrote:Maturity is a psychological term used to indicate that a person responds to the circumstances or environment in an appropriate and adaptive manner.

Et cetera, et cetera, et motherfucking cetera.

Provide any definition of maturity you'd like - it's all based off of some kind of subjective standard. If it's not simply an individual who supplies this subjective standard, it's a society. And why should a society be any more trusted to provide an absolute definition of something? Even a society's view of "appropriate" has constantly changed over time. It's just as stupid to believe that anyone could provide an absolute definition to these things as it is to believe that you can.

Master Jake wrote:And no, not by MY subjective of maturity, just maturity in general.

And what is "maturity in general"? It's someone's subjective maturity, you'd do better to defend your own subjective standard of maturity than to just say "well, someone will figure it out".

Master Jake wrote:I have just been presenting ideas of maturity as examples.

Yes, you've been presenting the worst examples of maturity, which I have already ripped apart.

Master Jake wrote:This doesn't mean I think my way is the only way. I just think maturity should be a factor instead of age.

Well, no shit. That's not even the argument, because I agree with you on that. But you can't fucking measure it. If you could measure maturity, then it would be the only sensible thing to do to base restrictions on that rather than the relatively arbitrary measurement of age. I don't see one person arguing that.

Master Jake wrote:No, it would just prove that there are logical aspects to buying fast food rather than eating healthy.

Precisely, the use of logic that you cited as being a factor in determining someone's maturity.

Master Jake wrote:It doesn't make it 100% logical. Very little can be done to verify something to that extent.

So now for something to be mature, it has to be 100% logical? And if very little can be done to verify something to that extent, then how can you determine someone's maturity on it?

Master Jake wrote:OK, I thought you would catch that, but whatever. Retry: No, you're ENTIRE statement was incorrect.

That's odd, because here is the statement that you said "No" to:

Again, this only applies if the decision to buy fast food is logical (which would simply make you wrong in a whole other way), which it isn't.

That entire statement was wrong? So, the decision to buy fast food is logical, but that doesn't make you wrong for saying that it's also not a mature decision, seeing as how logical decisions are a factor in determining maturity? That sure does sound like your brand of logic.

Master Jake wrote:I do believe that logic and maturity have a link. As one becomes more and more mature their use of logic to create the best possible environment for themselves increases. As stated, the logic behind eating fast food is that it is cheap and quick.

Again, with logic behind it, it becomes a more mature decision then, by your own definition.

Master Jake wrote:When someone is in a hurry or broke, their logical mind becomes clouded. They are faced with a decision and must ignore their health to eat quickly and cheaply, or to eat well and possibly face financial risk.

This is a bullshit example for two reasons: 1) There's nothing illogical about eating only what you can afford; it's entirely logical. Are you saying that logically someone should eat better food even though it could cause financial distress? 2) We have no reason to believe that anywhere even near the majority of fast food patrons eat like they do for financial reasons, or because they simply cannot spare the time. Again, even if this were the case, it would make the decision a logical one, and therefore mature by your definition, despite the fact that you arbitrarily state that it isn't.

Master Jake wrote:That was the point I was trying to make, except I mistakenly mixed emotions in. I believe our biological drives are logical to the extent of survival. If you were a healthy person who hadn't eaten fast food in 20 years, and you were stranded, starving, with only a McDonalds around, your biological drive would take over. You would obviously end up eating the fast food to survive, ignoring your bodily crave to stay healthy.

Again, this only serves to prove you wrong - if our biological drives are logical, and in a given situation lead us to eat fast food, then that decision is a logical one, and that person has gone some way towards proving their maturity by your definition.

Master Jake wrote:At least you admitted to being a jerk. That's the first step to curing any problem.

And yet that only applies if you consider what I admitted to as being a problem - I don't.

Master Jake wrote:Fine. I just think maturity should looked into further. Maybe it won't define our laws, but I believe there is a lot more too maturity than we see from the outside. I will no longer argue that maturity should be a basis for laws; case closed. Are you happy now?

I think that's a much bigger concession than you've made in all of your posts here, including earlier in this one. Not because of the idea of basing laws off of it, but the difference between stating that something can be scientifically measured to the idea that there is a lot more to it than we see from the outside. There's nothing wrong with that idea, because it doesn't imply an absolute standard, as we've been given no reason to think that there is one. That was the only goal of my argument.