What Type Of Government Would You Have..

[torn asunder]

Countless "else". It does kinda relate to what Phee says. The older one gets, the more questions crop up. Answers you thought you had in your teens may change because of things you learn in your 20's, and then comes your 30's with a whole different mess of input, and maybe you find you no longer feel the same way you did a decade ago. And so it goes, throughout your life. Answers come, opinions change, new answers crop up.

It does have to do with age. Because, talking physics (which is NOT something I dare to often do), you simply don't have at 20 what you will have at 30. And so on.

Basically, come to me when (the collective) you're well out of your 20's and maybe midway through your 30's or older and tell me you feel EXACTLY the same way you did now, and maybe I'll change my mind. But I'm willing to bet you'll be the one saying, "duh, it makes sense to me now."

one question, fc... did you read daniel's post? not to be insulting, but he explained how one can experience way more "life" in one's 20's than another who's in their 50's. one can live a full life, or a sheltered life, and that alone will determine one's relative level of "wisdom" regardless of chronological age. i'm very confused as to why/how you can't see that!? if you're trying to say that, as a "generalization" older people have more wisdom, that makes a bit more sense, but you don't seem like one to stereotype, so i guess i'm lost again...

[torn asunder]

In a way, if person A is 25 years old and is of the opinion that purple socks just don't work, and person B is 45 years old and is of the opinion that purple socks just don't work, yes, I am more likely to respect the opinion of person B. Because I know how much more information, experience & knowledge person B has gained in that difference of 20 years.

no, actually, you have no idea how much information the 45yr old has gained, because you have no idea what kind of life either one of those people has lived. i'm honestly not trying to be rude or insulting, but that kind of thinking smacks of close-mindedness... it's making an assumption based on nothing more than chronology, which has been my entire argument.

[Fierce Critter]

Basically, I'm thinking the same thing - that you 20-year-olds are the ones who are being closed-minded.

You'll go on thinking that of me, and Ill go on thinking that of you.

Yes, I read his post. And I see how happily you agree with him - basically saying that we older folk are the ones who aren't understanding you.

I know exactly what you're trying to say. That a person who is 40 years old and has sat alone in their house all their life is going to have less experience than a 20 year old who has lived in 30 different cities and climbed x number of mountains and been in x number of peace rallies, etc. I know that's what you're trying to say.

But I'm not talking about everybody on the planet. I'm not talking extremes. I'm talking your average person.

And the average 40 year old by virtue of having lived twice as long as an average 20 year old has, unrefutably, more to go on.

Not everyone on this board is average. We've all come to learn that DGN is rife with people who have lived far, far outside the norm. Which may be why it's a more difficult point to get across here.

[Daniel]

Yes, I read his post. And I see how happily you agree with him - basically saying that we older folk are the ones who aren't understanding you.

This is unfair, as I'm not much younger than you, FC. If younger at all. But let's not split hairs. The point is that I clearly do not fall under the inexperienced youth category, so this sort of ad hominem is even more inappropriate than it would be otherwise. In fact, I'm reaching the older, yet still much more experienced than many people my age category. Not to suggest my personal experiences trumps everyone else's, but I've seen things you wouldn't believe.

Now, speaking in terms of closed-mindedness: Closed mindedness is a tendency to draw sweeping, all encompassing conclusions based on nonspecific and unproven rules that cannot fairly be applied to all situations. All of us are closed-minded to some degree, but some more than others. For instance, what are the racial crime statistics? One in every three black men will serve time in prison at some point in their lives? If you figure how many criminals get away with crimes versus how many get caught, that could very well mean that more than every other black man is in reality a criminal. If we accept your rule of averages as sound, we could reasonably act on the assumption that all black males are criminals, except in extreme situations (Tiger Woods and Cliff Huxtable). That is, however, racist. It is also closed-minded. Why? Because you're using bad logic and poor science for general rules that apply to averages (or less than averages) and applying them to all untested scenarios. That is more or less, by definition, what closed-mindedness is.

Your rule breaks down as this:

Generally, people of group Y are Z (in comparison to people of group A), so it is reasonable to assume Y is Z in all cases.

Generally, younger people are unwise (compared to older people), so it is reasonable to assume all younger people are unwise in all cases.

Generally, black males are criminals (compared to other demographics/white people/whatever), so it is reasonable to assume all black males are criminals.

I have not even begun to argue that your hypothesis is tested in a completely unscientific environment, with too little observable control groups(only observable group is people you know, which constitutes an immeasurably small percentage of the overall human population) with too little variety (largely limited to Americans, with geographic proximity to you). I'm simply refuting your logic. In reality, your hypothesis should require proof before you can expect anyone to take it seriously. But, never mind that. =)

I think the relevant point is that comparing A to B with any general rule where A and B are two different people of any two different ages is unfair, but you might have a better argument comparing A(age X) to A(age Y). Obviously, A will likely evolve some, even if immeasurably little, over time. However, saying B is always better (smarter/wiser/whatever) than A because B's age is higher is extremely fallacious, largely because A and B do not evolve at the same rate, ever. Nor do they have the same catalysts. Your rule seems to imply that all catalysts are equal, which is a dubious claim. I provided an extreme example for illustration (orphan survivor versus isolationist), but most real situations havequite a bit of variance, as people simply do not evolve the same ways at all, particularly if you look at cross cultural differences in different countries, etc. If we all evolved the same way, we would all be Mozart or the Buddha. When you meet any person, you have no idea what their IQ is, or how many situations they have had to apply their potential brilliance with, so assuming, automatically, that they have less wisdom, or experience than anyone your age is simply fallacious in every way. Again, someone working a 9-5 job and watching TV every evening for twenty years isn't likely to have the same experiences as someone who, for example, spends five years during their twenties in the Peace Corps helping AIDS victims in a third world country. And when you meet a random twenty year old, you have, at first, no way of knowing which variety of person you are dealing with.

In fact, I would put any violent crime survivor's twenty minute traumatic experience as being a far more educational(in this context) than any twenty years of being a plumber by day and watching reruns of Sanford and Son by night. Not to suggest it is a "better" experience, but personal evolution occurs at an accelerated rate, in most cases, in stressful and traumatic situations. Of course, PTSD could reverse that, but that tangents the argument a lot.

Basically, I'm thinking the same thing - that you 20-year-olds are the ones who are being closed-minded.

You'll go on thinking that of me, and Ill go on thinking that of you.

Yes, I read his post. And I see how happily you agree with him - basically saying that we older folk are the ones who aren't understanding you.

I know exactly what you're trying to say. That a person who is 40 years old and has sat alone in their house all their life is going to have less experience than a 20 year old who has lived in 30 different cities and climbed x number of mountains and been in x number of peace rallies, etc. I know that's what you're trying to say.

But I'm not talking about everybody on the planet. I'm not talking extremes. I'm talking your average person.

And the average 40 year old by virtue of having lived twice as long as an average 20 year old has, unrefutably, more to go on.

Not everyone on this board is average. We've all come to learn that DGN is rife with people who have lived far, far outside the norm. Which may be why it's a more difficult point to get across here.

[creatureofthenyte]

I think,

I would have the type of government that has a federal law that states that everyone living under my government's rule would have to have civilized conversations about politics,

that contain no drama of any kind

or personal mudslinging.

And anyone found to be in violation of this law would be sent to prison for 87987987 years and have to drink bad cawphee every single day, and say something nice about each other.

[know_buddy_kares]

I think,

I would have the type of government that has a federal law that states that everyone living under my government's rule would have to have civilized conversations about politics,

that contain no drama of any kind

or personal mudslinging.

And anyone found to be in violation of this law would be sent to prison for 87987987 years and have to drink bad cawphee every single day, and say something nice about each other.

you know this would devastate 90% of all campaigning don't you?

[creatureofthenyte]

you know this would devastate 90% of all campaigning don't you?

OMG the canidates would have to act like mature adults!!!??? <--this kind of thinkin would be legal in my government

[Steven]

true, but you're getting into semantics now. by the time i finish writing this, i'm older, and will know more. i can learn/experience things like this without having attained some magical "age of wisdom" when people will say, "oh, you're Xyrs old - ...

steven was implying (not trying to put words in your mouth - just my impression) that because brass hadn't experienced/lived through some serious hardships, her "knowledge" or "wisdom" was lacking, and that her pride was "unearned". to follow that logic, if i learned, not through living, but watching addiction ruin someone's life, would that imply that my experience was less important than someone who'd actually lived it? to look at it one way, i would be the wiser of the two for not going down that path!

also, both steven and FC seem to be implying (disclaimer as above) that were we to be in our late 30's-early 40's they'd respect our experiences/wisom more.

example:

edited to add: i tried to figure out how to split this into another thread, but it would have removed some posts that had material related to both topics, so i left it alone...

well, on the surface it seems this way Mike, but were not (Im not) equating it to X amount of mystical years. Nor was I really talking about addicition, although I used that as just ONE point to suggest some years of experience as it leads to personal revelation....which incidently comes thru positive experience as well as hardships. Didint I say that somewhere in here allready, like, two posts ago or so???

Now, in Brass' case - a very good challange was made by Mark about her own personal investment of time and resources to make the legal/social change that is so passionately (and sometimes very agressive and/or demeaning in style) presented by her. And actually one of the main points I was trying to make to Brass was that she is talented and educated - but she's (possibly) failing to recognize a repeat pattern in responses to her soapboxing. her prideful style is nothing new, nor is Marks for that matter, and at what point do we consider the end result of our efforts?

Lesson 1: respect your audience - and therefore EARN your platform. Thats a basic. And unfortunately it often only gains value over time. You seem to have missed the very obvious in what I was doing Mike, because you feel that I'm trying to disregard youth in general. Maybe thats my fault, but thats not what Im doing.

So - my circular suggestion to her or anybody for that matter (and remember were follwing "Redneck" statments and the like) was/is to move beyond the passionate verbiage into pro-activity if your to expect a receiving ear with a demeaning and or demanding style. mark and I dont always get along either - but I respect Mark overall because I know he's got some true miles under him.

I personally, respect and recognize experience, and to further ilustrate that I have many times on this board talked about a mentoree relationship that I was in - where the mentoree was myself, and the mentor was my friend Shawn Prince, someone quite a few years younger. BUT - he had walked the walk for a very long time and had the career balance, social resouces and very solid family structure to prove it. He was succesful by and large, at LIVING, because he had built a long term working model that was self sufficient. He had EARNED his position within my social circle, and he had EARNED my respect. And by the way I had done way more "things" in my life by way of sheer volume than Shawn had, but shawn had done it right. ANybody worht their salt will take a 2nd look at a succesful model.

Now -I dig Brass. And Brass has a monumental crush on me. And I DONT know all about her to be fair. But I'm under the impression, that she's still in the nest - and like it or not that affords you a certain degree of Plan B fallout protection that I have not had since I was 16. Only Brass is much smarter than me, and I'm 41. I would quite simply, love to see Brass stretch out a bit, and engage us from a more learned position, because I think sh'd actually CONNECT much better and get a much better end result. Thats a positive thing. And Brass if I've made you feel less than in my discussions with you then I apologize because thats not what I m trying to do.

and Mike - I only do this with people who mean something to me.....(and what the hell did you do to your hair?)

[Steven]

This is unfair, as I'm not much younger than you, FC.

Your rule breaks down as this:

Generally, people of group Y are Z (in comparison to people of group A), so it is reasonable to assume Y is Z in all cases.

Generally, younger people are unwise (compared to older people), so it is reasonable to assume all younger people are unwise in all cases.

Generally, black males are criminals (compared to other demographics/white people/whatever), so it is reasonable to assume all black males are criminals.

Wow dude.

never at any point whatsoever did Camille lean in any of these directions.

you pretty much ripped the football out of her hands and ran for a touchdown all by yourself in the opposite direction of her intended course of action. (she obviously struck a nerve. )

[Steven]

no, actually, you have no idea how much information the 45yr old has gained, because you have no idea what kind of life either one of those people has lived. i'm honestly not trying to be rude or insulting, but that kind of thinking smacks of close-mindedness... it's making an assumption based on nothing more than chronology, which has been my entire argument.

to reduce her (or my) points to mere chronology is really short sighted Brutha and it refutes and argument or positiont hat is really NOT being made in the classic sense yrou suggesting. Nobody here has been that black and white, and you know both of us better than that.

[Steven]

ah, but you don't truly know less, you just realize there are more questions than you first believed...

unless of course, your simply wrong.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I think I can put Stevena nd FC's point of view to a finer point.. though I could be wrong... It has nothing to do with age.. but time to think. Think about it for a bit. Keep thinking about it. Think about some major event in your past... like... something that happened 10 years ago... Do you still think about it the exact same way you did when it happened? or now that hindsight is looking at it... through a wide angle lens that now show more of the mitigating factors of the event... and friends who have had simular experiances tell you wabout them... and how they felt.. so you self examine your own thoughts and feelings on your experiance.. and time passess and well.. you change.. and how you think abou tthings changes...

They day you can think about something that happened 20 years ago.. and you were an adult when it happened.. that moment of relization.. that changes how you think about htings too.

[BrassFusion]

man, i missed a lot while i was at work! first things first.

mark: with all due love, respect, and humor...

Wow. I was enjoying a converation with Erin.

BULLLLLSHIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTT!!!!!!!!

P.S. what we really need to do to solve the "does age = life experience?" question is get some fuckin' 80-year-olds on here. like my grandma. actually, no, she's 82 almost.

that would be fucking phenomenal. cuz y'know, you late 30's/early 40's types don't know SHIT compared to 80-year-olds.

that's why we americans treat our elders with such respect and dignity.

*cough*

P.P.S. that daniel guy needs to post more. i saw his av and i'm like "OMG HOTTTT" but THEN i read his posts...

[Fierce Critter]

That's Dangerous... but In my country because of that statement, I will make you head of the ASPCA....

Heh. I missed this.

It's a deal. But only if I can mandate that the punishment for cruelty to animals is having the same cruelty performed on the perpetrator.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Well, nevermind. scratch everything I said.

Dictator it is.

and the first thing I'll do is stuff everyone who utters any of the words on this list into prison.

then I'll have everyone that doesn't support gay marrige shot, twice.

and people who don't support 3rd trimester abortions will get a very late term abortion.

screw it... i'll just get the members list for PETA, the ACLU, Moveon.org and a few other left wing groups and kill everyone who is not a member of at least one of them.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

The above is sarcasm. As I have come to realize that any view that is not to the far left is by default an evil conservative thought.

[BrassFusion]

Well, nevermind. scratch everything I said.

Dictator it is.

and the first thing I'll do is stuff everyone who utters any of the words on this list into prison.

then I'll have everyone that doesn't support gay marrige shot, twice.

and people who don't support 3rd trimester abortions will get a very late term abortion.

screw it... i'll just get the members list for PETA, the ACLU, Moveon.org and a few other left wing groups and kill everyone who is not a member of at least one of them.

The above is sarcasm. As I have come to realize that any view that is not to the far left is by default an evil conservative thought.

uh... i guess i can't be certain that you're mocking ME for saying i'd be a tyrannical dictator, but i certainly wouldn't imprison people for disagreeing with me or have them shot for "not supporting gay marriage."

that would be the easiest mandate, actually. give gay couples the benefits of straight ones and who cares if there's vocal dissent as long as people obey the letter of the law? the only problem i could see would be something like companies refusing to honor my mandate of marriage equality in not extending benefits, and that would be dealt with in the same manner as employers who have ever disenfranchised racial minorities. i'm sure that happened back in the '60s after the civil rights amendments passed. easy peasy. no need to shoot anyone. i'd have to imprison violent protesters, of course.

for the record, peta's way left of me in most respects.

[Daniel]

never at any point whatsoever did Camille lean in any of these directions.

to reduce her (or my) points to mere chronology is really short sighted Brutha and it refutes and argument or positiont hat is really NOT being made in the classic sense yrou suggesting. Nobody here has been that black and white

Yes she did. Her statements about age were very absolute, black and white suggestions.

Maybe not see EVERYTHING, but definitely have my eyes open through time & experience & the kind of wisdom that only comes with age.

I repeat only comes with age.

But when you are about a decade older - then, and only then, will you be able to see where we "were" coming from when we say things like this.

I don't care how many books one reads. I don't care if a person has been on their own since 12 years old and lived in everything from a highway overpass to a burned-out-car to a tenament to subsidized housing. I don't care how high the IQ, or how self-assured one is.

Without the experience of age, there's still a lot one just plain does NOT know.

In a way, if person A is 25 years old and is of the opinion that purple socks just don't work, and person B is 45 years old and is of the opinion that purple socks just don't work, yes, I am more likely to respect the opinion of person B. Because I know how much more information, experience & knowledge person B has gained in that difference of 20 years.

What she is saying is very dismissal of youth experience. Like I said, I agree, generally, with the idea that any one person's perspective widens with time (people become wiser as they age), but comparing two people based on an entirely different set of circumstances is generally a very poor rule.

What is a position hat?

[Steven]

Yes she did. Her statements about age were very absolute, black and white suggestions.

What she is saying is very dismissal of youth experience. Like I said, I agree, generally, with the idea that any one person's perspective widens with time (people become wiser as they age), but comparing two people based on an entirely different set of circumstances is generally a very poor rule.

What is a position hat?

not everyone becomes wiser with age Bro, some people get old doing the exact same thign they've always done and then wonder why they have not improved their lives.

I still believe you completely missed the spirit of what Camille and I were talking about in favor of introducing a well thought out refute. Remember too that both Camille and I have been where you are - to be dismissive doesent really make any sense or serve any purpose does it? What satisfaction might be gained there on our part?

PS - I have no idea what a position hat is.....

[Steven]

man, i missed a lot while i was at work! first things first.

mark: with all due love, respect, and humor...

BULLLLLSHIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTT!!!!!!!!

P.S. what we really need to do to solve the "does age = life experience?" question is get some fuckin' 80-year-olds on here. like my grandma. actually, no, she's 82 almost.

that would be fucking phenomenal. cuz y'know, you late 30's/early 40's types don't know SHIT compared to 80-year-olds.

that's why we americans treat our elders with such respect and dignity.

*cough*

P.P.S. that daniel guy needs to post more. i saw his av and i'm like "OMG HOTTTT" but THEN i read his posts...

good post.

and your right - many of our 30's / 40's dont know shit compared to the 80 year olds, which is WHY we treat our elders with such disdain......they were trying to build something with permanence and dignity, while were all busy shooting for that SUV and the new XBox.

[Daniel]

And one last remark: I do not agree that in all cases people get wiser with age. I do believe it would be a more sound argument, and a more reasonable assumption to assume people do evolve some over time. This is hardly universal. For one, some trauma and stress breaks people's fortitude and ambition. Some people can suffer injuries that impede or damage brain functions. Some people simply live unhealthy lifestyles, where the "lessons" they have learned have made them less efficient, less caring and less intelligent than where they were before they started living that unhealthy lifestyle. I'm simply giving Camille's argument the benefit of the doubt.

I am not presenting the whole of my position on this topic. I am refuting poor arguments and logic. I will not reply to any more accusations that I am misunderstanding something when that is obviously an absurd suggestion, and an easy way to "cop out" of providing a complete and concise retort to the actual argument I presented. Please leave "me" out of the argument, and focus on the argument.

*Edited off topic comments.

[torn asunder]

first, i don't think i even have to reply anymore... daniel has done a wonderful job of explaining my position on this, and even quoted and replied to/refuted the points that i would have, had i been here earlier.

thanks, daniel!

ah, but you don't truly know less, you just realize there are more questions than you first believed...

dude, you can't be wrong - there are no mistakes in life, only experiences. sure you can greatly dislike the outcome of your choices, but that doesn't make them wrong, because, who would define wrong/right? (let's skip the argument about "a chair is a chair, a cup is a cup", ok?)

btw, i want you all to know that i'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation - i rarely get a chance to have a well-thought-out debate such as this with people who are intelligent enough to back up their beliefs without things degrading to "you're a jerk!, no, YOU'RE a jerk!"

thanks guys!

[Steven]

first, i don't think i even have to reply anymore... daniel has done a wonderful job of explaining my position on this, and even quoted and replied to/refuted the points that i would have, had i been here earlier.

thanks, daniel!

dude, you can't be wrong - there are no mistakes in life, only experiences. sure you can greatly dislike the outcome of your choices, but that doesn't make them wrong, because, who would define wrong/right? (let's skip the argument about "a chair is a chair, a cup is a cup", ok?)

btw, i want you all to know that i'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation - i rarely get a chance to have a well-thought-out debate such as this with people who are intelligent enough to back up their beliefs without things degrading to "you're a jerk!, no, YOU'RE a jerk!"

thanks guys!

First - we will have to agree to disagree on the idea of there being no mistakes in life and who gets to define them (we've been there before).

Next - I too am thoroughly enjoying this conversation and that is why I have continued to push the jack.

Finnaly: I see you deftly doged my question about your hair. I call you on that shit.

[torn asunder]

Finnaly: I see you deftly doged my question about your hair. I call you on that shit.

that's an old picture from a couple years ago!? my hair's still long (getting longer/too long!?) & black, at least for a little while longer! (i may go back to the short blond look soon tho; i might keep it long & try out some fom of red too - haven't decided!!)

[Steven]

You mentioned something about a "position hat" above. I have no idea what that means.

a wee bit of laughter here. as you read my stuff you'll notice that I type too quickly and literally never spell check and for some reason i always assume that im being understood. A "Position Hat" is a great mystery to me, obviously of my own creation. I'll have to go back and re read....im gogin to assume it was part of some sentence that said soemthign akin to "position That....."???

Anyway, what do you mean by you've "been where" I am? Where am I? What do you know about me? How old do you think I am? Don't assume I am some twenty-something kid because I look young in my photo. Assuming you are referring to my age, and not some other "where you are"...? I have no idea what you are talking about. You are using a lot of ambiguous language and pronouns lacking antecedents.

Good questions, fair questions, and perhaps too many assumptions made by me. Im not being intentionally ambiguous Daniel - and remember that Im talking to several people at once who are all making various points(theres no air of mystery to me, you'll find Im rather boring in my straightfowardness) and good lord did you REALLY just accuse me of using pronouns lacking antecedents???!!!

First let me agree (I think - now its my turn to have no idea what yoru talkign about). But yes I admit I have assumed a great deal about you and I know literally nothing about you with one exception - that I used to think along similar lines in terms of what your arguments have been. That is the "where you are" that I am referring to. If you go back and re read my claims to NOT be clinging to chronology (I have no idea how old you re dude and your picture did not lead me - yoru argument did) that might help. What else have I assumed? a great deal, which is probably not cool and it sounds like it jsut may be flat out wrong. for example I assume you are not like me, say.........40-something to be, married for fucking eons, a veteran, a vagabond, a hack, an upper level management guy, someone who eats too many coney dogs, i dont know, lots of things. But I meant no disrespect - and neither did Camille.

I am not missing FC's point. I may be missing yours, but not hers. Her sentences and paragraphs were clearly structured and finely written. There is not a grand amount of ambiguity present. She communicates very effectively, and she was making very solid points. I cannot say the same for your replies, as they contain a lot of ambiguity and contradiction.

First - I should let Camille speak for Camille, that was my first mistake - although the difference between us regarding our impressions of her seems to be that I tend to beleive that I "get her" on a personal level, and therefore beleive there are nuances there that your missing. Fair enough. it happens. Let me add however that your starting to sound upset.....why? I'm going to read on now....

I will also note that you believe a well thought out refute does not equal reading comprehension. I am sorry you feel that way. However, you're saying I do not understand the argument presented, even though I cited key points directly. And just because you say it does not make it so. Maybe my argument went over your head?

Maybe. And, "maybe" you simply do not recognize certain Camille-specific ideals and a great amount of grace that she uses when communicating at all with anybody? You seem to be a sort of person who values thigns being done "RIGHT" (citing my improper use of prounouns and such). Thats fair, but not everybody speaks that type of structured language. I went to yoru site - I see that you are an artist. As a collaborative artist have you ever encountered a structured peice of music or idea that was being interpreted or even presented in a manner that was completely different from your own form of expression? Thats individuality. Thats color. Thats personal reflection and transparancy. people are different, I love that. All I am /was suggesting to you Daniel is that perhaps thigns are not as simple as you beleive they are. you dont have to bother to feel sorry for me....

People do and think things that serve no function, or garner any satisfaction from. Why should you be any different?

Great question. Um....why are you asking me this? Was i elevating myself amongst my peers? Was I putting you beneath my feet? In fairness you dont know me, and in general unless im being an idiot for the sake of beign an idiot I dont really tend to do things for no reason. So my question as to what purpose would it serve - that was a legit question - but you dont know me yet so maybe that was not a fair question.

And one last remark: I do not agree that in all cases people get wiser with age. I do believe it would be a more sound argument, and a more reasonable assumption to assume people do evolve some over time. This is hardly universal. For one, some trauma and stress breaks people's fortitude and ambition. Some people can suffer injuries that impede or damage brain functions. Some people simply live unhealthy lifestyles, where the "lessons" they have learned have made them less efficient, less caring and less intelligent than where they were before they started living that unhealthy lifestyle. I'm simply giving Camille's argument the benefit of the doubt.

Nothign to add here other than I agree, and did so on this topic earlier. I know alot of aged and stunted people. I also know alot of very smart people who tend to do very dumb thigns with their lives.

I am not presenting the whole of my position on this topic. I am refuting poor arguments and logic. I will not reply to any more accusations that I am misunderstanding something when that is obviously an absurd suggestion, and an easy way to "cop out" of providing a complete and concise retort to the argument I presented. Please leave "me" out of the argument, and focus on the argument.

Neither am I (presenting the whole of my position).

OK before I mentioned that you started to sound upset.

Now I'm going out on a limb and agreeing with myself.

Absurdity and poor logic, cop outs and arguments....Daniel do what you have to do man, that's all I ever do. nobody (at lest not me) needs to conquer in here, and nobody (ESPECIALLY me) is asking anything of you. I have a tendency to have these sorts of "run ins" if you will with the more linear thinkers of the group. But I'd like to think that all of us have learned from one another. For example Mike (Torn) is a buddy. We've had fun togethor in the past. I like him, I respect him. he wont answer my hair questions but I trust he and I will get to know each other more over time. Brass (Erin) is also a friend, we've had some doozies between us - but that girl has depth and can REALLY make me laugh sometimes. Incidently I like the way you post and make your arguments.

Peace Out.

Steven