Why all the hate for 14 year olds?

[Octorok]

I've always thought I was odd being 13, having a deep voice, having intellectual discussions, and not being a dick on the internet

Huh. Me too. Well, 14 now but I've been on the internet and using genuine words since I was 13.

Actually, depends on your definition of "a dick". I'm a grammar Nazi, and a bit of an elitist when it comes to idiots, and I have definitely had my "grrrrrrrrr RAGEQUIT" moments when I simply snap.

Then again, I take a look at the fourteen year olds that create the terrible stereotype, and I thank the Gods I'm not one of them.

American "14 year olds" are generally the squeaky ones, because they're actually 10 and are appalling at whichever Call of Duty makes them look coolest. 14 year olds from the UK are, generally 14, they're just bastards. Very thick bastards.

 

[slackbheep]

A lot of us remember being 14. I can say I wasn't one of the terrible examples, but I was still a fourteen year old. Trust me, it will make more sense in six or seven years.

 

[I Stomp on Kittens]

They only annoy me when the descide to be obnoxous...I have quite a few friends on my friends list like that.

 

[Dancingman]

I hate anyone that acts like a dick online, and I've met more than my fair share of people who act like children when they're in their 20s online, but I have noticed a huge amount of this early adolescents are really annoying. I don't mind the ones who are okay and just play the game, I hate the ones that brag about how good they are in the game when they suck, and never shut the hell up, at least it's fun to kill those people.

 

[Flying Dagger]

I'm still a dick on games, If i think a TK will be funny i'll do it. i'm just that cool.
that said, it's fucking hilarious at the right moments:
running from someone in the L4D2 demo because they are coming at me with a medkit, and when they finally get to me... BOOM.

 

[TheMatt]

Because they are predominantly dumb.

 

[jboking]

snip

I remember my days in high school, I knew quite a number of freshmen in those days who's voices were high-pitched, cracking, screeching annoyances. Also, as I was in choir I knew at least 5 boys who's voices are naturally about high C, silly tenor 1's(I kid, I kid).

So yeah, I can believe there are a number of 13/14 year olds who have high voices that are squeaky and annoying.

 

[dududf]

It's due to the fact that the most prominate retards are indeed around the age of 14.

And thus we generalise, don't worry you'll get over it. I'm 15 dammit I've lived through the generalization

Also, just to throw out there my voice got very low when I was 12, so I've never had the voice insult thrown my way, everyone assumed I was 30 or something from which in the end works out well.

This is odd. Each few months it changes. May 08 I heard (on other sites) alot of hate on 11 year olds. Fall 08 it turned into 12 year olds. Summer 09 it turned into 13 year olds. Fall 09 it tuned into 14 year olds. I can't wait for when it's 80 year olds.

What ever it is, I'm glad i'm a year ahead of the retard wave

 

[theseworlds]

Somebody with no experience of children.

0-3 years old: can't talk, so they have no beef with me

They can talk from the age of 1 onwards. Younger children (1-3) are generally more pleasant to talk with than older children. 3-year-olds can often read simple books and hold quite coherent conversations about the contents.

4-6 years old: learnt to talk, start whinging and whining to mummy to buy a chocolate, and if they don't get it, they always have spare tears and screams to hand out, essentially embarassing their parents into anything they want

This is not the fault of the children as much as a failing of the parents. Giving in to children and teaching them that by whining, they will get what they want is just positive reinforcement. If you don't teach them that it won't work, how will they ever learn? If you give in to them all the time, all they learn is that it works and they will keep doing it. Ad infinitum.

Humanity has lost its way, and it's not getting corrected any time soon, particularly by means of the behaviour of children.

See the above. In a decade or so, when you start to seriously think that at some point you might have children, it will be YOU who will be the one responsible for shaping their upbringing and their views of the world. If you teach them values and common sense, they'll grow up to be perfectly likeable individuals. If you behave like an idiot, they'll simply go on to generate dozens of worthless threads on forums whining about how unfair life is, and never amount to anything in their pointless existence.

Ok, I really have no idea how you can say I have no experience with children, seeing as your just an empty face on the internet. I really cannot see how you can know me. With this in mind, I am constantly in contact with children, and I have had these views all during MY childhood.
I must ask, why do you feel the need to lecture me? I know how to raise kids, and I know my own actions will influence them in their upbringing. I know all this, so what's the point of attempting to make my points mute? Ultimately, I don't care what you think or believe, because, like I said, you're just another faceless individual on the internet.
However, you're points are valid, and most of them somewhat agree with me, so again, I can't see the point. What you think and what I think are two seperate entities, and they're not going to be changed anytime soon, so I'm kind of lost as to what you aimed to achieve by arguing with me . . .

 

[JohnSmith]

I only dislike people who's age<15 when I find them playing games with a 15+ rating. For instance almost all the online multiplayer FPS games.

ratings dont mean shit, they are for overzealous parents and over-sensitive children.

As far as I know all ratings whether we like them or not are decided within a regulatory framework that the majority agrees with. Furthermore I feel justifiably angry when six year olds are allowed to play online; they are unable to communicate, they can't play properly and I am sick of hearing "hey daddy/mommy they shot me...".

 

[filecore]

Ok, I really have no idea how you can say I have no experience with children, seeing as your just an empty face on the internet. I really cannot see how you can know me.

It's quite simple. YOU are the empty face on the internet, from my point of view. How else am I supposed to evaluate you, except by what you say? As you point out, it is the only thing that I know about you. Perhaps you're an expert in children - but if you don't seem like it on this thread, and this is the only thing I have to base my conclusion upon, then what other conclusion can you expect me to arrive at?

I must ask, why do you feel the need to lecture me?

Because, based on what you wrote, you're wrong.

Ultimately, I don't care what you think or believe, because, like I said, you're just another faceless individual on the internet.

You seem to, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered responding. Since you felt the urge to respond, you must have cared about what I wrote. Ergo, you have contradicted yourself. Knowing nothing of you on a personal level, I can only base this conclusion on what I see in this thread. Again, what other conclusion am I supposed to reach based on this?

What you think and what I think are two seperate entities, and they're not going to be changed anytime soon, so I'm kind of lost as to what you aimed to achieve by arguing with me...

Yes, your attitude is quite clear. I wasn't arguing, I was simply correcting. You're so quick to point out that I must be wrong about you because I know nothing about you; why aren't you just as quick to realise that the inverse is also true? ("Inverse" means the reverse - that you also don't know anything about me, so how can you be sure I'm wrong, regardless of whether or not you're right?) Your argument lacks logic.

 

[theseworlds]

Ok, I really have no idea how you can say I have no experience with children, seeing as your just an empty face on the internet. I really cannot see how you can know me.

It's quite simple. YOU are the empty face on the internet, from my point of view. How else am I supposed to evaluate you, except by what you say? As you point out, it is the only thing that I know about you. Perhaps you're an expert in children - but if you don't seem like it on this thread, and this is the only thing I have to base my conclusion upon, then what other conclusion can you expect me to arrive at?

I must ask, why do you feel the need to lecture me?

Because, based on what you wrote, you're wrong.

Ultimately, I don't care what you think or believe, because, like I said, you're just another faceless individual on the internet.

You seem to, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered responding. Since you felt the urge to respond, you must have cared about what I wrote. Ergo, you have contradicted yourself. Knowing nothing of you on a personal level, I can only base this conclusion on what I see in this thread. Again, what other conclusion am I supposed to reach based on this?

What you think and what I think are two seperate entities, and they're not going to be changed anytime soon, so I'm kind of lost as to what you aimed to achieve by arguing with me...

Yes, your attitude is quite clear. I wasn't arguing, I was simply correcting. You're so quick to point out that I must be wrong about you because I know nothing about you; why aren't you just as quick to realise that the inverse is also true? ("Inverse" means the reverse - that you also don't know anything about me, so how can you be sure I'm wrong, regardless of whether or not you're right?) Your argument lacks logic.

yeah, can't really be bothered to answer in depth and force a rebuttle. evrything you've said is meaningless to me. 'correcting' my perspective is not possible, as I've explained. Yadda Yadda yadda

yawn

 

[filecore]

Then you must keep responding to me because you're lonely :-(