Is age a mark of maturity?

[Guest]

Because I get carried away. Although I did try to not actually answer the question.

The original point of all my lines was how this is an invalid question, which encourages disscussion through ambiguity rather than with its substance. I still think that is true.

[Occhidiangela]

. . . encourages disscussion through ambiguity rather than with its substance.

I won't disagree with that line of thought. :)

[Occhidiangela]

In order for that to be the case it would require that "maturity" be a singular state.

I suppose some people see it that way.

I dont.

I would suggest that maturity is an achievable condition of being, and I do not require for it to be a singular state, nor do I imply that in the post. Like the analogy with wine, maturity can be enhanced in some caes, but it won't be enhanced in all cases: with some products, such as fruit, age and time induce rot after a certain point. :o

Perhaps this thread is reaching that point in it's aging process. :D

[Guest]

I consider an achievable state to be a singular one.

In the case of maturity and the other examples you gave, people often denote a particular segment of a cline and treat it as a state. This is often handy but its not accurate.

[Occhidiangela]

Mature.

More mature.

Of greater maturity.

All varying states of base condition 'Mature.'

Not a singular state, but a range of conditions. You second line observation noted.

And, as I am sure you are aware, mature, particularly when applied to humans, is a bit of a non digital descriptive, that is to say, it is often a subjective assessment.

[Guest]

But everyone has a degree of maturity. My 4 year old niece is more mature than my 1 year old niece. My Dad is more mature than my younger bother. My younger brother may be more mature than me.

See my point. It may be a "base condition" but its a condition we all have a degree of. Its not a state that you "have" or "have not" attained.

[Occhidiangela]

Well, let's go back to the original question, and some of the original definitions, and the issue of subjective condition. Are you first level mature, are you tenth level mature, and at what point is the level of maturity irrelevant? At what amount of aging does a fine wine transcend wine and become a classic? And, unless one is an oneophile, does it matter past a certain point?

So, as I pointed out earlier, look for contextual clues, and infer what the questioner is asking. That is what I did, and funnily enough, my inferences were partially confirmed by the original questioner, and we both _still_ agree that the question was clumsy/ambiguous to start with. :)

[Archon_Wing]

Insults are valid as a follow up to a logical rebutal or defense. In fact its the only time insults are valid.

You may consider it bad form. But it doesnt make my actual arguement any weaker.

It shows that you have to waste space by putting them there. Which implies lack of actual content. Please explain why you find it necessary to directly attack your opponent.

The way an idea is presented is fairly important.

[Count Duckula]

...but I'll make one anyway.

Mr. Kenobi, I think the responses on this thread about maturity, both the words spoken and the words implied in context, will tell you more about maturity than a simple "yes" or "no" post ever could.

Nicodemus, care to share some Midol with me? :D

EDIT: If maturity is indeed a "clin", I suggest that people push back their chairs, walk away from their computers, and sit out in the sunshine. (The sun's shining out here, anyway. What a beautiful day it is!)

It's a sad situation when one wastes precious time posting when they could be bicycling out in the sunshine! True, there's no way for a brash youngin to fail miserably at one-upping three of the finest wordsmiths at the Lurker Lounge, but when you're pedaling in the warm summer breeze of a gorgeous May evening, who the hell cares?

Hell, I'm not even riding the bicycle right now and I STILL say who the hell cares. B)

[Guest]

Ya Im just having fun seeing thin I can cut these wiskers.

IMO if maturity is a clin - my defintions hold :)

[Guest]

I never said it was necessary. But then neither is posting on a OT forum. I do what I do because I enjoy it.

But before we all start accepting how evil I am.

Why dont you read all my posts this week and then read the responses. It is telling.

[Occhidiangela]

But I guess my lingo file is missing an entry.

For Count Duckula:

What is a capper post?

*heads home to go shoot baskets and ride bikes with son*

I'll check the reply in a bit, and I suspect that here in Texas it is a bit warmer than it is in Hollins College, there is the pretty part of Virginia. :)

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Were done.

You said that almost-exact phrase to Occhi 11 replies ago... and you're still shooting yourself in the foot. You've now moved yourself into the inenviable title of REPETATIVE HYPOCRITE WITH NO IMAGINATION. Well done.

But you are just trolling. If you had a problem with something I actually said and cared to refute it - that would be great. You are just making up "stuff" now.

Au contraire, I have quoted and refuted your points in every post I've made. Hardly "trolling", I label it "calling a spade a spade".

Whats particularly odd is the way your posts are full of the exact items which you complain of me using.

Quite correct! However, I was never involved in the "debate" (I use the term generously) between you and Occhi. My initial post was a reaction to your charming technique of insult and innuendo, sanctimony and the wonderful declaration of "I'm done, I'm taking my ball home and not playing anymore". In the grading of your argumentative abilities... you'd be re-enrolled to Kindergarten.

Don't look at me, sirrah: You pulled the gloves off in the first place. I just happen to be slapping you stupid with them.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

I shared a warm afternoon outside with my daughter. She seemed to find the only remaining patch of gooey mud in the entire grassy playground, bless her pointed head.

Point taken and absorbed, milady... pass on the Midol, but a Lemonaid would be superb. :)

"I'm done." *chuckles*

[Count Duckula]

She seemed to find the only remaining patch of gooey mud in the entire grassy playground, bless her pointed head.

I did that all the freakin time as a little kid! My mother has before-and-after pictures of me outside at play to prove it. I can't help it that the muddy patch looks so much more interesting than the grass! Mom eventually figured out how to get the mud out of the jeans...

I have some Kool-Aid on the top shelf...strawberry flavored...perhaps the Phaulkon family would like a pitcher? :)

Occhi, I made a comment in the big current typo thread at Atma's about capper posts. I'd say more, but the gang's dragging me off to Subway. I think we're going to be dancing in the parking lot... :blink:

[Baylan]

Ok, I know I shouldn't have butted in.. but now that I'm in the conversation.

Actually I didnt use a geometric proof on "the human psyche. That would be a rather fantastic undertaking ifit achieved even the slightest useful result.

*looks back at Ghostiger's posts earlier*

Maturity is a measure of devopement.
Development is a a function of time.
Age is a measure of time.

Thus - Maturity is a mark of age.

Age is not a mark of maturity.

I'm studying geometry right now, this is essentially a geometric proof in verbal form.

If M = Maturity, and D = Development, and A = The measure of time (age)...

Statements | Reasons

A -> D | Given
D -> M | Given
A -> M | (Forget the exact conjecture, I believe it is the congruency/equality conjecture?)

Therefor, if A increases, then M must increase. Or "Thus - Maturity is a mark of age." This is just a geometric proof in a different form.

I used the proof with some rather basic definitions of words. The geomtric figure never was used to actually tell anything about a human. It was a place holder.

Hmmm, ok, the geometric figure never was used to actually tell anything about a human. It was a place holder. That is a valid point, however you caused ambiguity with your statement as follows:

If a person was an equation of a geometric shape(a simple closed equation with several variables all positive).

By this, and your previous post, I was assuming that you were attempting to define a person to a geometric shape - your right, it would be an enormous undertaking and would be an extremely thought-inducing and intellectually stimulating process, but flawed in its essence because there are variables in a human being that cannot be measured, cannot be compared, and cannot be assumed. Your geometric figure was merely a 'visual' representation of the geometric proof that you offered up earlier in the thread.

For your final statement in reply to me... as quoted from the original post.

Honestly, your lapse in understanding here is rather large, you need to read and consider more carefully.

I believe that I've proved my point, and that YOUR lapse in understanding here should force you to read and consider more carefully before flaming someone who has replied to your post. I wasn't flaming, I was merely trying to point out the apparent, and inherent flaw in your logic.

Thanks *puts on flame-proof suit*

Baylan

[Occhidiangela]

Interesting illustration. Your translation does not seem to work, since development is not solely dependent on time or age, and since it is based on Ghostigers flawed progression, step two, where develpment is defined incorrectly as solely time dependent, which age is. Development is a mutlivariable function.

Age is purely dependent on time, a single variable function. Maturity and development are synonyms, but they hold more than time as contributing variables.

Put geometrically, how is a circle congruent to a sphere? They only relate or intersect partially, in two dimensions, which is fine for the circle, but the sphere is three dimensional.

Back to fruit and food: Comparing canteloupes and pancakes makes for poor comparisons. :)

[Guest]

Arggggh you drew me back in.

You just said the flaw with my example was that I say "development is solely time dependent".

GO BACK AND REREAD IT. I specifically used a geometic figure with more than 1 variable. I did that specifically for the reason you mention.

* My entire point was that time(age effects) maturuty but does not have a set correlation - it cannot "mark" maturity as it helps determine maturity*

I am convinced that you are simply argueing to save face now. I mean really it is wrong to say exactly what I didnt say and then fault me for it.

Since you list that as THE reason I was wrong, now that I pointed out your that you "missread" it - I assume you agree?

[Baylan]

Hello Occhi,

Part of the reason that I threw out the translation is to in a way show the flaws in the statements provided by Ghostiger. Inherently, because of the undefinable variables and multi-dimensional variables (Development is really based upon time, as well as nurturing, as well as experiences. Someone could spend an eternity in complete silence, with no light and not develop as completely as someone could in a mere 5 years with social interaction.

I personally can't stay out of a mathematically debate, especially one that revolves around something I've fought on and off with in the past 5 or so years. I almost wish I had stayed out of this one... Almost :-)

Baylan

[Occhidiangela]

Hmm, I thought my most recent observation was that comparing apples and canteloupes makes for poor comparisons.

We have split too many hairs on this anyway, and you are correct that we are beyond useful discussion, probably long past.