Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Love <3

is that consent for skeleton gangrape?

I'm already a Yuppie, holmes.

Oh man this thread is priceless!

I've got it bookmarked for quick access.

This is a classic in the making! Props to JMHX for a brilliant thread.

At 1/4/07 07:53 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 1/4/07 07:52 PM, fli wrote:

But it aint that far from the 19 year old yuppie who's into Washington and watches Cobert off and on...

I don't watch Colbert anymoore!

Yeah, you switched backed to Daily Show...

The Word: Truthiness...

Sorry man, I was too busy listening to punk rock on my iPod to read your shit topic.

In addition, ur gey. not that thur nething rong wit dat!!!

At 1/4/07 07:31 PM, Begoner wrote: Most 15-year-olds are the opposite of what you described. You fail.

Begoner. I would actually LOVE to agree with you on that, but I can't. At least not where I am.

At 1/5/07 01:34 AM, Durin413 wrote:

At 1/4/07 07:31 PM, Begoner wrote: Most 15-year-olds are the opposite of what you described. You fail.

Begoner. I would actually LOVE to agree with you on that, but I can't.

We've all said that at one time.

To JMHX:

You're almost right with your notions, Mr. Burns; the truth is, 15-year-olds don't know anything at all. I guess I could go so far as to say 20-year-olds don't really "know" anything either. All it takes is a college student with a cocky outlook to get slapped around a little before he realizes that he truly knows nothing. If I remember correctly, you were quite the liberal before you entered college. Surprising what a few years makes eh?

-Your #1 chemical engineer fan who's decided to give this forum a second chance (you should know who this is)

P.S.: I haven't read Alcardia yet.

I disagree with this whole shitting on younger people culture that has sprung up on this forum. That younger people are more "black and white" when looking at politics is not at all suprising considering how politics superficially works and the rhetoric of politicians. That the 15 year olds that come to this forum are interested in politics is a fairly amazing thing, even if they are yet to develop proper analytical tools. There's no reason to dump on people just because they're younger. And the "older people" aren't that much older and certainly not that far removed.

For example, a 20 year-old can make three errors in one sentence!

All that is necessary for a political debate is fact backed up by logic; life experiences are unnecessary.

Then explain age minimums to hold US political offices, such as President.

1) He said political debate, not hold political office which is obviously more demanding. 2) You assume that because something is the case, then the reasoning for it is correct. 3) You equate age with "life experiences" which, if you've ever met anyone through the internet, is obviously not the case.

god man just because an age group is bad you don't have to write all of them off as idiots.

I don't care what anyone of you says. Mr. Judge M. Harsh X is flat out right. 15 year olds are just not ready to argue in any sort of setting. It takes life to argue politics. At 15 there hasn't been much to be had, so it is hard to argue about it. Yes, it's easy to make points about things you've heard, but unless you've really experienced them or studied them (no, there is no high school class in existance that counts) you cannot actually argue. the best thing for a 15 year old is to sit back, watch how the grown ups act and argue and try to emulate and them create on top of that, for when they try to interject all they do is derail what was good discourse.

And that of course, leaves thirteen year olds as the epitome of political wisdom. In fact I can't see anything there I agree with, although I think British troops should withdraw from Iraq sometime this year.

To a point a lot of the starting topic is right. I've only seen one person over the age of 18 who has argued for socialism as a real, viable solution (although he's starting to learn of that folly, the last time I saw him). I always hated my own age group when I was 15 or so, because they were oftentimes dumb, choosing to focus on things that really didn't matter instead of how they were failing a class.

And a lot of the time, the personality doesn't change. I see it, for instance, in one girl I knew at 15-- she was complacent, meaning that she knew I was getting picked on by her friends, and she did nothing, since she didn't want to come between two friends. Nowadays, I get to see her in an unsatisfying job, in a place she doesn't want to live in, and having gained enough weight to look pregnant (I take a personal thrill in that). She also doesn't seem to really care that much beyond what happens in her own world.

To all the 15 year olds who are decrying the generalizations, know this: you may be an exception, but an exception to the rule doesn't make it the new rule.

aye maybe its a rule. but a lot of the people in England i now who are 15 are just fine. besides what separates the 15 year olds from the 14 or 16 year olds. oh and socialism is a viable solution. as long as you don't take it too far and become a new Stalin.

At 1/5/07 01:57 PM, tigershark13 wrote: aye maybe its a rule. but a lot of the people in England i now who are 15 are just fine. besides what separates the 15 year olds from the 14 or 16 year olds. oh and socialism is a viable solution. as long as you don't take it too far and become a new Stalin.

You're so cute. Like a little retarded puppy.

At 1/5/07 02:09 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: You're so cute. Like a little retarded puppy.

like this guy?

At 1/5/07 09:38 AM, Slizor wrote:
1) He said political debate, not hold political office which is obviously more demanding.

The careers in which political debates are most prevalent are political offices, obviously. And the argument was about "life experience" being worthwhile or not worthwhile. Obviously the system has been in place that gives merit to age, otherwise Begoner could run for President.

2) You assume that because something is the case, then the reasoning for it is correct.

Not at all. I assumed Begoner's rationale was correct, and then used cases where it failed to counter his argument. The complete opposite.

3) You equate age with "life experiences" which, if you've ever met anyone through the
internet, is obviously not the case.

First off, what does the meeting of a person have to do with anything? I've performed at rock concerts with a band I've met through the internet. Does that experience not add to my "life experiences"?

Second, age and life experience are positively correlated. The older you are, the more chances and opportunities to learn you've had, therefore the more "life experience" you have gained, unless you're a 30 year old who's never been out of his parents' baesment.

Even the symbolism of the words matches. "Life experience" denotes a quantitative value, and age is the amount of time one has spent alive.

At age 15, Begoner has not driven a car. Held a steady job. Paid rent, electric, heat, water bills. Paid car insurance. Been responsible for his own survival. Attended a wide range of subjects in an academic setting. Gone to a dance club. Gone to a bar. Served the military. Been shit-faced drunk. Smoked a cigar. Been married. Been divorced. And the list goes on....

You see that age really does matter. While not every person will experience everything listed here, the probability that they've experienced one or more is much much higher than that of a 15 year old, thereby we can make the assumption that at age 20, 30, 40, and 50 an individual has more life experience.

And since 2 other people posted in disagreement with Begoner's philosophy I'm positive I'm not coming from left field here......

To all the 15 year olds who are decrying the generalizations, know this: you may be an exception, but an exception to the rule doesn't make it the new rule.

The exception that proves the rule! There always needs to be one or two of those, just for good measure. And I think this thread already met that quota too!! ZING!

At 1/4/07 07:31 PM, Begoner wrote: Most 15-year-olds are the opposite of what you described. You fail.

i do agree

At 1/5/07 02:23 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 1/5/07 02:09 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: You're so cute. Like a little retarded puppy.

like this guy?

He looks more angry than retarded. I was thinking more happy-special, like this one:

The rule stands: 15 year olds are idiots.

At 1/4/07 11:47 PM, JMHX wrote: Love <3

Congratulations, I believe you pissed off an entire demograph, JMHX.

Reading "Fifteen years are like that, but I'm not" from other fifteen year olds is priceless.

Yes, I'm going through social groups and poking them with sticks.

At 1/5/07 04:20 PM, JMHX wrote: Yes, I'm going through social groups and poking them with sticks.

Do us eighteen year olds next. I would be honored to incur your sarcastic wrath.

Wow, another amusing example of verbal irony. A+ for originality.

sarcasm

At 1/5/07 04:21 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 1/5/07 04:20 PM, JMHX wrote:

Do us eighteen year olds next. I would be honored to incur your sarcastic wrath.

I would do sixteen next, but I've been imprisoned for doing sixteen year olds before, and I don't want a repeat of that episode.

Hyeeee.

At 1/5/07 04:29 PM, JMHX wrote: I would do sixteen next, but I've been imprisoned for doing sixteen year olds before, and I don't want a repeat of that episode.

15 will get you 20.

At 1/5/07 04:32 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:
15 will get you 20.

not in Canada BWAHAHAHAHA!

oh wow, i sound like a creep

At 1/5/07 03:06 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: He looks more angry than retarded. I was thinking more happy-special, like this one:

ya he seems more appropriate. why do pugs always have one eye way off centre?