@Fire-brand: Allow me to rephrase. One's personal history shouldn't come into play when posing an argument. No matter who one is, or what one's experiences are- using them as arguments do not hold water because person a's experiences don't mean any more than person b's experiences.
I again state- when did I start talking about being yourself? Let's say in theory, you made a perfect argument. It was all for nothing! I came here to respond to a comment about teenagers brain development. I brought you up as an example because you can't seem to stop talking about high school no matter what the topic, and how irrelevant it may be. Case in point, I start talking about sweeping generalizations- and you tell me people should be themselves. I don't disagree, I merely don't see the correlation.
@Fire-brand: I think you are confusing me with someone else- I never even touched the subject 'be yourself.' I feel like a broken record. I also resent the way you phrased this topic as 'about how difficult women can be.' Relationships are rough (no matter what the gender pairing) and I assumed that was what this thread was about.
@Edamame: "1.to infer (a general principle, trend, etc.) from particular facts, statistics, or the like. 2. to infer or form (a general principle, opinion, conclusion, etc.) from only a few facts, examples, or the like. 3.to give a general rather than a specific or special character or form to. 4.to make general; bring into general use or knowledge. "
@Fire-brand: I'm sorry, but I don't see what your relationship with women has to do with anything I was saying. In fact, I was trying to point out that anyone's personal story holds water because it could easily be disputed by another person saying, "NU UH, IT HAPPENED TO ME THIS WAY." If you could also point out where I condoned putting on an act, or being anyone other than yourself, I would appreciate it. I did not mean to imply that.
@Edamame: Yes. And I am telling you that you misinterpreted what I was saying. In every post I made it clear that I do not think all teenagers (any age group for that matter) are the same. I also provided cases where sweeping generalizations do work- because saying that they never work is a sweeping generalization.
@Edamame: I was giving fact- the brain is not developed. People change. It's unhealthy not to. I never said they were all the same either.
A completely separate debate- perhaps for another topic, but how can you say sweeping generalizations never work? I am not one for stereotyping, but without generalizing there would be no such thing as a target audience- political parties- religion. The entire field of marketing and research wouldn't exist. Polls would never be taken for sociology experiments. The comics we all know and love wouldn't exist if they never targeted towards kids. The fact is- they have to work for society to go on.
I don't think erik ever said that all teenagers were alike. What he said was they didn't know themselves- which, one cannot debate. The frontal lobe isn't completely developed until you are about 33. I would agree that teenagers don't know themselves. (I would even go as far as to say that many middle aged people don't know themselves, but that's personal opinion.) If more people did, laser tattoo removal wouldn't be in such high demand XP
I also don't see where personal history comes in. Fire-brand, you had a healthy self esteem. That's good, but not relevant. If you would pay close attention to what was said, self esteem and popularity where never brought up in the initial comment.
I'm a big fan of the Left 4 Dead series. There have been a lot of complaints about the second game not having enough material to be a new game vs an expansion pack, but I see no problems with it. The first game is more about survival where the l4d2 has the added element of 'missions.' Both games have great character design and amazing land party potential if you're a social gamer. In either case, tearing through zombies is always a fun past time.
Log in to comment