Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/5/07 03:56 PM, BanditByte wrote: Reading "Fifteen years are like that, but I'm not" from other fifteen year olds is priceless.

You're right there. I don't know of one fifteen-year-old who wouldn't make that argument.

I've met people of that age who are confident that if they were given total power over the earth, they alone would be able to sort out all of its problems.

I kid you not.

At 1/5/07 04:41 PM, Peter-II wrote: I've met people of that age who are confident that if they were given total power over the earth, they alone would be able to sort out all of its problems.

like me! vote Sol Invictus for supreme world controller!

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

I am not even gonna dignify that with a reaction.

At 1/5/07 04:47 PM, tigershark13 wrote: I am not even gonna dignify that with a reaction.

Please?

I have aids, i'm 15.

At 1/5/07 05:16 PM, Zohaib wrote: I have aids, i'm 15.

Sucks for you.

J, I think your thread is a big generalization. Age shouldn't be a determining factor for someone's political knowledge. Your points may fit the bill in some situations, but the attitude of your post seems childish.
We could look at Begoner as an example, he is fifteen, yet is a great participant in the political bbs. His posts are often interesting to read and well written.
In my opinion you have put yourself in league with the people you describe by creating this topic.

I don't exactly think 20 year olds are particularly smart either.

At 1/5/07 06:14 PM, packow wrote: I don't exactly think 20 year olds are particularly smart either.

That's because they don't wear Anarchy t-shirts like you, you philosophical rebel.

At 1/5/07 06:25 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote:

At 1/5/07 05:45 PM, fasdit wrote: We could look at Begoner as an example, he is fifteen, yet is a great participant in the political bbs. His posts are often interesting to read and well written.

Please stop. This isn't the general forum, no room for jokes.

But you're only saying that because you don't agree with many of his political views. He is in my opinion a quality poster

I hate to say it, but your opinion is wrong.

At 1/5/07 06:38 PM, JMHX wrote: I hate to say it, but your opinion is wrong.

In your opinion my opinion is wrong, but in my opinion your opinion is wrong. One opinion is wrong but not the other, which opinion is wrong?

At 1/5/07 06:24 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 1/5/07 06:14 PM, packow wrote: I don't exactly think 20 year olds are particularly smart either.

That's because they don't wear Anarchy t-shirts like you, you philosophical rebel.

1. I'm not 15, therefore I'm exempt from your stereotype.
2. Anyone who thinks anarchy is a good idea either doesn't know what it means or doesn't deserve to vote, and anyone who wears an anarchy t-shirt is worse.
3. Most people grow out of the whole "anarchy" phase by the time they're 11.
4. I wasn't talking about you.
5. I don't think that being a few years older than someone automatically makes their opinion more valid.

Just because someone is 15 doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about. Some kids take deep interests in certain isses and become substantially educated on the matter.

If they take the initiative and time to educate themselves, they shouldn't be shut down on the basis that "they're 15, therefore they don't know what they're talking about" by someone slightly older older who doesn't know anything about the topic and therefore has more life experience.

In fact, life experience can ("can," not "does") create heavy, undue bias and distortion of the issue.

If someone sees a person get shot, they might say "from my own experience, guns destroy lives, therefore, I have enough experience to know that all firearms should be illegal."

Meanwhile, a younger person might say "But the bill of rights guarantees us the right to bear arms, therefore, guns should not be illegal."

Now ask yourself: Which of the previous opinions would be accepted in a court of law- the one based on experience, or the one based on fact?

The issue is not life experience, but maturity.

Example:

15 year old: "I know for a fact that marijuana is the worst thing in the world and that all people who try it become crack addicts and die within the year."
Another 15 year old: "Well I have here some facts and statistics proving you wrong."
15 year old: "Well, from myperience, people can use facts and statistics to prove anything. So I'm right, you're wrong, go suck a cock and die of overdose you fucking hippie."

25 year old: "I know for a fact that marijuana is the worst thing in the world and that all people who try it become crack addicts and die within the year."
Another 25 year old: "Well I have here some facts and statistics proving you wrong."
25 year old: "Interesting. I shall have to do some more research for myself and revise my stance on the issue now that new evidence has come to light."

A greiving mother might want to make alcohol illegal if her son dies from alcohol poisoning during an all-night binge.

A younger person might point out that prohibition was tried once and did not work.

What would be more acceptable in a court of law?

Conclusion: Just because you are older than someone does not necessarily mean that your opinion is more valid.

At 1/5/07 06:50 PM, packow wrote:
In fact, life experience can ("can," not "does") create heavy, undue bias and distortion of the issue.

The best way for 15-year-olds to avoid the bias of life experience is for them to kill themselves.

At 1/5/07 06:54 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 1/5/07 06:50 PM, packow wrote:
In fact, life experience can ("can," not "does") create heavy, undue bias and distortion of the issue.

The best way for 15-year-olds to avoid the bias of life experience is for them to kill themselves.

By that logic the human race would become entirely made up of people age fourteen and under.

At 1/5/07 06:56 PM, Potassium-40 wrote:

At 1/5/07 06:54 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 1/5/07 06:50 PM, packow wrote:

By that logic the human race would become entirely made up of people age fourteen and under.

And, right now, all of those above 15. Meaning we would have to breed with each other and with the younger population, creating a new, prosperous Planet Earth.

At 1/5/07 06:54 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 1/5/07 06:50 PM, packow wrote:
In fact, life experience can ("can," not "does") create heavy, undue bias and distortion of the issue.

The best way for 15-year-olds to avoid the bias of life experience is for them to kill themselves.

What part of "can," not "does" is unclear?

Do you think that life experience takes precendence over hard facts?

Did you read any other part of the post?

At 1/5/07 06:57 PM, JMHX wrote: Meaning we would have to breed with each other and with the younger population

And now we see the entire diabolical purpose behind this thread: JMHX justifying his insatiable love of 14-year-olds.

At 1/5/07 06:57 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 1/5/07 06:56 PM, Potassium-40 wrote:

At 1/5/07 06:54 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 1/5/07 06:50 PM, packow wrote:

By that logic the human race would become entirely made up of people age fourteen and under.

And, right now, all of those above 15. Meaning we would have to breed with each other and with the younger population, creating a new, prosperous Planet Earth.

It wouldn't matter if the older populace bred within itself, eventually you are going to end up with a population of people age fourteen and under.
Naturally it would make the older populace achieve a more powerful quality of life since we would be controlling everything up until death. But once the older populace was dead, the shit would hit the fan and the yu-gi-oh cards would hit the table as the fourteens came to rule over all others below them.

I hardly see how a maximum of fourteen years living experience would make a more prosperous earth.
Also woman would take over since they hit puberty faster then most boys. You would have more big woman pushing around those unlucky 5'2'' thirteen year olds.

At 1/5/07 07:03 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 1/5/07 06:57 PM, JMHX wrote: Meaning we would have to breed with each other and with the younger population

And now we see the entire diabolical purpose behind this thread: JMHX justifying his insatiable love of 14-year-olds.

Damn, you got me.

At 1/4/07 07:28 PM, JMHX wrote:

10. We should impeach George Bush because his family is making a dynasty of the White House. I'm going to fix that by voting Clinton and getting rid of family ownership of the White House.

Exactly! It's high time Hillary got even with her two-timing husband by winning the presidency and hiring a sexy young intern to give her fellatio in the Oval Office!

At 1/4/07 07:28 PM, JMHX wrote: We can learn so much from the fifteen-year-olds in our lives. Think about all of the not-yet-street-legal children you know, and how much they know - which is to say, everything. One can only wonder what kind of miracle cures for cancer and explosions of regional and world peace would result if only we could get these High Schoolers in one place to sort out their cognitive brilliance over juice boxes and Yu-Gi-Oh!.

Sometimes I wonder if fifteen-year-olds ought to be allowed to run for government office in this, the most powerful country in the world. They have a peculiar knack for finding out the solutions to problems before they have heard the actual problem, having an answer before the question. If we could put a few dozen young teens into a machine that could somehow compress them and divine their essential oils into a bottle, I am sure the person who consumed that ambrosia would no doubt resign Stephen Hawking to the dunce's corner.

The Wisdon of 15-Year-Olds

1. Marijuana is the cure for all illnesses, mainly the illness of being caught by mom or dad and grounded from hanging out at the Skate Park for two weeks. America ought to have legalized marijuana in all fifty states so that we would not have to have it smuggled in from Ethiopia, or wherever it is grown.

Socialism allowed drugs in their countries, and karl marx promissed us perfection with his system of government. the 15 year olds should smoke marijuana. the community will spend their tax money twards fixing any of the slight damages which may be caused.

2. America is moving towards fascism. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the guy in the suit that I supported lost the election to the guy in the suit I did not support. This blunting of popular will is certainly a sign that the people are being held down by the oppressive hand of shadow governments.

It makes me proud to know that our media has worked it's craft in turning today's youth into future socialists, nancy pelocy and harry reed shall lead us to victory against capitalism.

3. Oil companies are bad because they keep all of their profits and do not turn any of that back to customers who buy the oil. It should be common sense that, because we use it, it should be free. Hot Topic's 23% profit margin on overpriced Anarchy tee-shirts is beside the point.

Capitalists dont deserve any of their money, it would go better twards the community.

4. The Democratic Party is clearly better than the Republican Party, despite the fact that they have nearly identical positions on same-sex marriage, foreign policy and trade.

Their are no such things as democrats, you should know that. There are capitalists in this world, and their are anti-capitalists. Democrats are good for the sole reason that they apeal to the un-intelligent every man who isn't yet ready for the intellectual concept of socialism, only the beginners beleifs of liberalim, which is mearly the peak of the iceburg.

5. Canada and Europe know how to do things a lot better than the United States, as evidenced by the fact that Canada and Europe rank as the world's largest global superpowers, and the United States is a veritable third-world country.

The united states economy will fail if the every man thinks it's failing, they'll lose interest in investments and the economy will eventually fall. That's our core strategy.

6. Communism is the best form of government because all people are equal and things should be equal for everyone, regardless of whether someone is more naturally skilled at something. Communism isn't popular because none of you get it.

EXACTLY! people dont get it, but they will JMHX, hatred fueled twards bush puts more money in the hands of the nobel working anti-capitalists.

7. We should leave Iraq because soldiers are dying, and that is unacceptable in a war.

It depends who's soldiers are dying. American soldier deaths are the only thing that's going to get people to beleive that the war is a loss, which puts bush in a falling position as you can plainly see.

8. Iran should be able to pursue nuclear technology because the Iranian President has promised that he won't use it for weapons, and Iran has never given us any reason to doubt their steadfast support of U.S. prosperity and influence in the region.

Lets just keep the iranians happy while america deals with it's wreched capitalist problem, this is temporary, but nessesary.

9. Gays ought to be able to marry. So what if it will cause a major disruption of state's rights, the tax code, and would be cobbled together based on minority opinion? The majority only matters when it agrees with me.

Exactly, it only matters when it agree's with us. and it IS agreeing with us, more and more.

10. We should impeach George Bush because his family is making a dynasty of the White House. I'm going to fix that by voting Clinton and getting rid of family ownership of the White House.

He isn't actually making a dynasty, but it's good that people think that. as i've said,. hatred twards the republicans fuels socialistic power.

In your opinion my opinion is wrong, but in my opinion your opinion is wrong. One opinion is wrong but not the other, which opinion is wrong?

Nice try Socrates. But your opinion is still wrong.

You may disagree with the President, but his opinion is gonna carry a lot more weight than yours. And BTW: JMHX is El Presidente, so you lose.

In fact, life experience can ("can," not "does") create heavy, undue bias and distortion of the issue.

ingornace is bliss.

If someone sees a person get shot, they might say "from my own experience, guns destroy lives, therefore, I have enough experience to know that all firearms should be illegal."

And what of the people reading history books, first hand accounts, interviews, and watching gun violence on TV and in movies? Are they going to get an "unbiased" view, or are they going to be stereotyped into an idealized Hollywood interpretation of what guns can do?

Meanwhile, a younger person might say "But the bill of rights guarantees us the right to bear arms, therefore, guns should not be illegal."

Without understanding WHY we have the 2nd Amendment, this younger person is a sheep.

Now ask yourself: Which of the previous opinions would be accepted in a court of law- the one based on experience, or the one based on fact?

Experience. Communism looked great on paper too ya know...... So did Napoleon's conquest of Russia for that matter.

The issue is not life experience, but maturity.

Also positively correlated. (Hopefully you have enough life experience to understand what that means).

Example:

Your example just furthered the stereotypes presented throughout this thread!

A greiving mother might want to make alcohol illegal if her son dies from alcohol poisoning during an all-night binge.

And life experience would tell everyone else that Prohibition didn't work, there ARE still some people who were alive during that period.....

Anoher idea that looked great on paper, but through life experience turned out to be a bust. Thanks for proving me correct, I love it when people do my work for me.....

What would be more acceptable in a court of law?

Laws are based on experience BTW. Cases are presented as precedents upon which future rulings can be made. That's called "LIFE EXPERIENCE".

Conclusion: Just because you are older than someone does not necessarily mean that your opinion is more valid.

Yes it does. The opinion of the 4 year old does not outweigh that of the 40 year old parent, there's enough of that going around already......

It wouldn't matter if the older populace bred within itself, eventually you are going to end up with a population of people age fourteen and under.

Age doesn't matter, remember? I'm sure a world filled with 14 year olds will function perfectly fine.

Also woman would take over since they hit puberty faster then most boys. You would have more big woman pushing around those unlucky 5'2'' thirteen year olds.

Well, men have controlled the boards for about 5000 years, we had a good run.....

Exactly! It's high time Hillary got even with her two-timing husband by winning the presidency and hiring a sexy young intern to give her fellatio in the Oval Office!

I think it should be aptly renamed the Champagne Room.

At 1/5/07 08:27 PM, Imperator wrote: Nice try Socrates. But your opinion is still wrong.

I agree. As said in the words of a great high school teacher years ago, "Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's right."

At 1/5/07 08:27 PM, Imperator wrote:

In your opinion my opinion is wrong, but in my opinion your opinion is wrong. One opinion is wrong but not the other, which opinion is wrong?

Nice try Socrates. But your opinion is still wrong.

no, YOUR opinion is wrong

You may disagree with the President, but his opinion is gonna carry a lot more weight than yours. And BTW: JMHX is El Presidente, so you lose.

Both of which are republican fools

In fact, life experience can ("can," not "does") create heavy, undue bias and distortion of the issue.

ingornace is bliss.

Ignorance***

If someone sees a person get shot, they might say "from my own experience, guns destroy lives, therefore, I have enough experience to know that all firearms should be illegal."

And what of the people reading history books, first hand accounts, interviews, and watching gun violence on TV and in movies? Are they going to get an "unbiased" view, or are they going to be stereotyped into an idealized Hollywood interpretation of what guns can do?

Hollywood is a saving grace to all the fools who doubt socialism, sometimes you have to turn humans into sheep if you want to herd them.

Meanwhile, a younger person might say "But the bill of rights guarantees us the right to bear arms, therefore, guns should not be illegal."

Without understanding WHY we have the 2nd Amendment, this younger person is a sheep.

Guns are evil, only the government should get guns. PERIOD.

Now ask yourself: Which of the previous opinions would be accepted in a court of law- the one based on experience, or the one based on fact?

Experience. Communism looked great on paper too ya know...... So did Napoleon's conquest of Russia for that matter.

The issue is not life experience, but maturity.

Communism looks great everywhere... your just blind to it.

Also positively correlated. (Hopefully you have enough life experience to understand what that means).

Example:

Your example just furthered the stereotypes presented throughout this thread!

A greiving mother might want to make alcohol illegal if her son dies from alcohol poisoning during an all-night binge.

And life experience would tell everyone else that Prohibition didn't work, there ARE still some people who were alive during that period.....

Prohibition is a republican concept of course it wont work.

Anoher idea that looked great on paper, but through life experience turned out to be a bust. Thanks for proving me correct, I love it when people do my work for me.....

What would be more acceptable in a court of law?

Laws are based on experience BTW. Cases are presented as precedents upon which future rulings can be made. That's called "LIFE EXPERIENCE".

Conclusion: Just because you are older than someone does not necessarily mean that your opinion is more valid.

Yes it does. The opinion of the 4 year old does not outweigh that of the 40 year old parent, there's enough of that going around already......

It wouldn't matter if the older populace bred within itself, eventually you are going to end up with a population of people age fourteen and under.

Age doesn't matter, remember? I'm sure a world filled with 14 year olds will function perfectly fine.

Also woman would take over since they hit puberty faster then most boys. You would have more big woman pushing around those unlucky 5'2'' thirteen year olds.

The average 14 year old male is larger then the average 14 year old female.

None the less, women should always rule. unless their pro-capitalistics.

Well, men have controlled the boards for about 5000 years, we had a good run.....

Exactly! It's high time Hillary got even with her two-timing husband by winning the presidency and hiring a sexy young intern to give her fellatio in the Oval Office!

And no one would care, you lose bitch.

I think it should be aptly renamed the Champagne Room.

I think socialism should, and will rule the world.

Oh, Kids.

At 1/5/07 08:38 PM, JMHX wrote: Oh, Kids.

I'm afriad your a minority now, accept the changes of socialism or we will kill you.

At 1/5/07 08:45 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 1/5/07 08:38 PM, JMHX wrote:

I'm afriad your a minority now, accept the changes of socialism or we will kill you.

Not unless you can throw those Yu-Gi-Oh cards like shurikens.

Look, imperator, I'm not going to try to tell you that everything you said is wrong.

I'm going to try to make this as simple as possible.

Just because a person has a bad experience with an issue doesn't mean that this experience suddenly should dictate law.

The mother might blame alcohol for her son's death, but fact will tell you that it was her son's fault for abusing the substance. It doesn't mean that alcohol should be illegal.

A person's experience is just that: Their own experience. It doesn't mean that they suddenly know more about the subject than a scholar.

In an argument between a kid with facts and a 20 year old with experience, the kid with the facts would be the winner. This is because the facts represent the experience of many, while the older person's argument represents only his own experience.

Arguing your own experience against established fact is saying "my experience makes me more of an expert on this subject than everyone else's experience."

Hopefully you understand what I'm getting at.

oh, and the 2nd ammendment was passed so that the colonies would be able to maintain a militia.

At 1/5/07 08:48 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 1/5/07 08:45 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 1/5/07 08:38 PM, JMHX wrote:

I'm afriad your a minority now, accept the changes of socialism or we will kill you.

Not unless you can throw those Yu-Gi-Oh cards like shurikens.

Anime is pointless, but we should respect the japanese.

[Satire off]

[Yu-gi-oh doesn't go past the real of 13 year olds in america, after that it's magic-thegathering]