"Maturity is a psychological term used to indicate how a person responds to the circumstances or environment in an appropriate manner."
If I am correct you are essentially arguing that since roleplaying is an escape from reality it is inherently immature, since maturity is based on responding appropriately to your environment.
I think this is a bad way to think about it, because that means that ANY escape from reality is immature. That would mean that watching a movie is immature, playing videogames is immature, reading a book is immature, etc. Doing these things are essentially recreation, and while they are not productive in and of themselves having a healthy life requires a balance of work and play. Therefore, play is not necessarily immature. I feel like finding the appropriate balance is a big part of maturity. You could have someone that works all the time and dies and early age because he put stress on his body 24/7, and I would see that as not "responding appropriately to your environment."
I feel like part of the problem with this argument is that maturity is a vague and inherently society driven concept, so what people view as mature is going to vary a lot.
For instance with the definition I linked... I did think it was a kind've odd definition but when I thought about it it made sense. You say that thinking a long time about taking candy from a baby, then choosing to do so is still immature because you are taking candy from a baby. However, if you thought about it, weighed your options, and realized that you can take candy from a baby with no consequences and only a reward for yourself, how is that not an appropriate response? It just depends on what the society sees as "right." This is what I was saying about maturity being a hard thing to define and varying a lot from person to person.
P.S. Yes I know that arguing with Canoas is a terrible idea, but for some reason I feel compelled to about this particular subject. Also there's no reason to insult Duff for agreeing with me... Someone choosing not to argue with someone else does not mean that you accept that you're wrong. It could mean a lot of things. If you think the person you're arguing with will never change his mind even though you think he's wrong, then it would be a waste of time to argue. Therefore, choosing not to waste your time arguing with someone is an "appropriate response to your environment." :)
If I am correct you are essentially arguing that since roleplaying is an escape from reality it is inherently immature, since maturity is based on responding appropriately to your environment.
I think this is a bad way to think about it, because that means that ANY escape from reality is immature. That would mean that watching a movie is immature, playing videogames is immature, reading a book is immature, etc. Doing these things are essentially recreation, and while they are not productive in and of themselves having a healthy life requires a balance of work and play. Therefore, play is not necessarily immature. I feel like finding the appropriate balance is a big part of maturity. You could have someone that works all the time and dies and early age because he put stress on his body 24/7, and I would see that as not "responding appropriately to your environment."
I feel like part of the problem with this argument is that maturity is a vague and inherently society driven concept, so what people view as mature is going to vary a lot.
For instance with the definition I linked... I did think it was a kind've odd definition but when I thought about it it made sense. You say that thinking a long time about taking candy from a baby, then choosing to do so is still immature because you are taking candy from a baby. However, if you thought about it, weighed your options, and realized that you can take candy from a baby with no consequences and only a reward for yourself, how is that not an appropriate response? It just depends on what the society sees as "right." This is what I was saying about maturity being a hard thing to define and varying a lot from person to person.
P.S. Yes I know that arguing with Canoas is a terrible idea, but for some reason I feel compelled to about this particular subject. Also there's no reason to insult Duff for agreeing with me... Someone choosing not to argue with someone else does not mean that you accept that you're wrong. It could mean a lot of things. If you think the person you're arguing with will never change his mind even though you think he's wrong, then it would be a waste of time to argue. Therefore, choosing not to waste your time arguing with someone is an "appropriate response to your environment." :)
Thanks to GrandMasterD for my sig!
Dainou wrote:
Which I'm surprised some people haven't learned that you should never argument with Canoas, should be a warning text when you join mobafire^^
Yeah :P I can't even respond, he doesn't understand what people say because he really can't differentiate his opinions from fact. From now on, he and his posts simply don't exist to me. He just goes around making everybody mad in every forum that he ever posts in, and I'm personally not going to waste the energy on this guy any more, not worth it. It's just unfortunate he doesn't visibly break many rules so that he can't get banned, would be really nice if he just disappeared.
Mowen wrote:
If you think the person you're arguing with will never change his mind even though you think he's wrong, then it would be a waste of time to argue. Therefore, choosing not to waste your time arguing with someone is an "appropriate response to your environment." :)
If you were single I'd propose.
http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/build/duffs-336706
Come hang out when I'm streaming! http://www.twitch.tv/dufftime
The thing about Canoas is the fact that he is well researched and prepared to defend one side of an argument. It doesn't matter whether or not his side is right or wrong, the fact is he is prepared to defend his topic. The topic can be something like "What is 1+1?". Canoas says 3, you say 2. You can argue with Canoas, but chances are, he has a plethora of points ready to use at the drop of the hat when you explain your reasoning to why you believe 1+1= 2. Being prepared and well researched on a position is surely a threat to be reckoned with. If you don't believe me, just take a look at politics. I personally believe canoas plays the devils advocate at times, even when he knows he's wrong, just to make the other person arguing look like a fool for having a tool's knowledge and being poorly researched on the very position they're trying to uphold. Canos learned well from his critical thinking and debate classes.
If you were single I'd propose.
BACK OFF YOU PERFECTLY CHISELED-FACED CREETON! >:^[
DuffTime wrote:
If you were single I'd propose.
BACK OFF YOU PERFECTLY CHISELED-FACED CREETON! >:^[
The problem is when a person who is well prepared truly begins to believe that they know everything. There is nothing to concede, there is never a good point they haven't thought of.
Even when points being made are legitimate, there isn't even reason to discuss them with a person who believes they know everything. When you've decided with 100% certainty that 1+1=3, it doesn't even matter if you're actually wrong. You are convinced that your interpretation of the topic at hand is the correct and factual one.
Now, couple that mentality with a sassy and smart-alecky attitude, and a general sense of superiority/willingness to talk down to people, and you have quite literally one of the least enjoyable individuals that could ever exist in a forum. It wouldn't be so offensive if he just believed he was right and walked away, but he goes after people and shoves it down their throat and provokes them with little statements, and everybody who knows this guy just knows that arguing with him is useless. And nobody thinks that he's right all the time, only he thinks that.
Anyway, I just want to express that I think he either plays the devil's advocate (or is just simply delusional) as well, but the reason it's not a legitimate method to expose whether or not a person is thinking well, is because he never concedes that a differing opinion from his own can be legitimate. He will agree with people who are saying things he agrees with, sure, but otherwise he just drives right through, insisting that his own belief is the absolute, end of story.
I guess my point is that being well prepared to argue a point and being a condescending douchebag for a hobby are two entirely different things. I give an example:
You came in here and made points and discussed a topic at hand. End of story, there was no insinuation that I were an idiot in your words, you spoke to me with the respect that I probably will understand what you said, and might have the ability to even respond with something that means something.
Canoas comes into arguments to make people mad, and if not to make them mad, then to try to make people look stupid. He wants you to respond, but the only reason he wants you to respond is to try to prove what you just said wrong, and reinstate his superiority in the argument. Who wants to talk to a guy like that? Particularly when he's commenting on things that he clearly does not understand or even truly care about at all.
BACK OFF YOU PERFECTLY CHISELED-FACED CREETON! >:^[
Oh you ;>
Even when points being made are legitimate, there isn't even reason to discuss them with a person who believes they know everything. When you've decided with 100% certainty that 1+1=3, it doesn't even matter if you're actually wrong. You are convinced that your interpretation of the topic at hand is the correct and factual one.
Now, couple that mentality with a sassy and smart-alecky attitude, and a general sense of superiority/willingness to talk down to people, and you have quite literally one of the least enjoyable individuals that could ever exist in a forum. It wouldn't be so offensive if he just believed he was right and walked away, but he goes after people and shoves it down their throat and provokes them with little statements, and everybody who knows this guy just knows that arguing with him is useless. And nobody thinks that he's right all the time, only he thinks that.
Anyway, I just want to express that I think he either plays the devil's advocate (or is just simply delusional) as well, but the reason it's not a legitimate method to expose whether or not a person is thinking well, is because he never concedes that a differing opinion from his own can be legitimate. He will agree with people who are saying things he agrees with, sure, but otherwise he just drives right through, insisting that his own belief is the absolute, end of story.
I guess my point is that being well prepared to argue a point and being a condescending douchebag for a hobby are two entirely different things. I give an example:
You came in here and made points and discussed a topic at hand. End of story, there was no insinuation that I were an idiot in your words, you spoke to me with the respect that I probably will understand what you said, and might have the ability to even respond with something that means something.
Canoas comes into arguments to make people mad, and if not to make them mad, then to try to make people look stupid. He wants you to respond, but the only reason he wants you to respond is to try to prove what you just said wrong, and reinstate his superiority in the argument. Who wants to talk to a guy like that? Particularly when he's commenting on things that he clearly does not understand or even truly care about at all.
Toshabi wrote:
BACK OFF YOU PERFECTLY CHISELED-FACED CREETON! >:^[
Oh you ;>
http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/build/duffs-336706
Come hang out when I'm streaming! http://www.twitch.tv/dufftime
DuffTime wrote:
The problem is when a person who is well prepared truly begins to believe that they know everything. There is nothing to concede, there is never a good point they haven't thought of.
Even when points being made are legitimate, there isn't even reason to discuss them with a person who believes they know everything. When you've decided with 100% certainty that 1+1=3, it doesn't even matter if you're actually wrong. You are convinced that your interpretation of the topic at hand is the correct and factual one.
Now, couple that mentality with a sassy and smart-alecky attitude, and a general sense of superiority/willingness to talk down to people, and you have quite literally one of the least enjoyable individuals that could ever exist in a forum. It wouldn't be so offensive if he just believed he was right and walked away, but he goes after people and shoves it down their throat and provokes them with little statements, and everybody who knows this guy just knows that arguing with him is useless. And nobody thinks that he's right all the time, only he thinks that.
Anyway, I just want to express that I think he either plays the devil's advocate (or is just simply delusional) as well, but the reason it's not a legitimate method to expose whether or not a person is thinking well, is because he never concedes that a differing opinion from his own can be legitimate. He will agree with people who are saying things he agrees with, sure, but otherwise he just drives right through, insisting that his own belief is the absolute, end of story.
I guess my point is that being well prepared to argue a point and being a condescending douchebag for a hobby are two entirely different things. I give an example:
You came in here and made points and discussed a topic at hand. End, there was no insinutation in your words, you spoke to me with the respect that I probably will understand what you said, and might have the ability to even respond with something that means something.
Canoas comes into arguments to make people mad and try to make people look stupid. He wants you to respond, but the only reason he wants you to respond is to try to prove what you just said wrong, and reinstate his superiority in the argument. Who wants to talk to a guy like that? Particularly when he's commenting on things that he clearly does not understand or even truly care about at all.
Oh you ;>
Again, see politics. Specifically liberals and conservatives.
Politics are the dumbest thing I've ever witnessed in my life. What a terrible thing to point to :p
If we're using politics as the model, then Canoas for president.
If we're using politics as the model, then Canoas for president.
http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/build/duffs-336706
Come hang out when I'm streaming! http://www.twitch.tv/dufftime
The point is, political discussions between both of those sides are ridiculously stupid. They'd rather argue a point that they know is wrong just so they can uphold their 'honorable duties' to their political party rather than to see some of the wisdom that people on the other side might have on different topics. That's why it's always stupid for people to say they vote in accordance to party lines rather then them actually going in and seeing what's good and bad about the political party they're supporting. Much the same with a lot of the stupid arguments I see spouted all over the face of offtopic. Mind you, I honestly don't mind and I very much enjoy watching you all tear each others windpipes out (I'm kind of a creep). Just thought I'd point out the comparison between the two.
jhoijhoi wrote:
Also, I think the levels of immorality in this thread are astounding. You'd really throw a child off a boat for your own luggage? Wow.
Yes, well, I'm not a politician, and I don't comment in threads to make anybody happy. I come in and express my opinion, simple as that.
I've role played many times, through many different avenues, and I can tell you from a lot of personal experience that for a role play to be enjoyable for me, it has to be both intelligent and the people involved cannot be immature. That's what spawns, "Dragonball Z with swords" role play. People flying about and doing this and that.
And while I don't have anything against use of magic and even flying aorund and being larger than life in a roleplay, what I really don't like is "God moding" if you will, and it does take a mature person to understand both his character and the realistic boundaries of said character, and to not step over them when some scenario goes down. What's the point of a role play where everyone is invincible and flies around with meteo x5 sword to obliterate the sun and kill the whole world?
I'd much prefer role playing with a more mature and well grounded person, since there are varying levels of maturity even within role play, and it does make a massive difference in regards to the quality.
Simple as that.
I've role played many times, through many different avenues, and I can tell you from a lot of personal experience that for a role play to be enjoyable for me, it has to be both intelligent and the people involved cannot be immature. That's what spawns, "Dragonball Z with swords" role play. People flying about and doing this and that.
And while I don't have anything against use of magic and even flying aorund and being larger than life in a roleplay, what I really don't like is "God moding" if you will, and it does take a mature person to understand both his character and the realistic boundaries of said character, and to not step over them when some scenario goes down. What's the point of a role play where everyone is invincible and flies around with meteo x5 sword to obliterate the sun and kill the whole world?
I'd much prefer role playing with a more mature and well grounded person, since there are varying levels of maturity even within role play, and it does make a massive difference in regards to the quality.
Simple as that.
http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/build/duffs-336706
Come hang out when I'm streaming! http://www.twitch.tv/dufftime
Personally, I don't have a problem with role play (whether you be good or bad at it). All that matters is how much you make that fantasy your life. I know people who go off the wall with roleplaying to the point where they would prefer living in wonderland then in reality. That's when roleplaying becomes immature (in one way, that is).
jhoijhoi wrote:
Also, I think the levels of immorality in this thread are astounding. You'd really throw a child off a boat for your own luggage? Wow.
You need to log in before commenting.
Which I'm surprised some people haven't learned that you should never argument with Canoas, should be a warning text when you join mobafire^^
No, I just properly research each subject before making an argument. Unlike most of you, my arguments aren't just uneducated guesses.