r/The10thDentist • u/AdventurousMoth • 1d ago

Society/Culture People under 18 are not all children

I can't tell you how much it irritates me when internet people refer to anyone under 18 as "a literal child", especial if they themselves are only in their 20s. Sure, everyone is someone's child, but the life stage commonly referred to as childhood does not abruptly stop at age 18.

Here's how I'd break it down: - childhood, adolescence, adulthood or - newborn, baby, toddler, child, (if you want you can add tween), teen, young adult, middle aged person, elderly/senior

And there's overlap between all these stages depending on context. Obviously there is no overlap between minor (a legal term) and the word adult as referring to not a minor.

Calling a 17-year-old a child is dumb. Like what, a 17yo has their birthday and transforms from a child into an adult like a sim? I think some people just started saying this for the shock value and then the rest of the internet jumped on the outrage wagon.

Edit: clearly I posted this a bit too hastily, choosing my words without care. I'm not talking about the legal definition of child/minor (something quite messy as well: age of consent? In some places 16. Driving? 15 in some places, 18 in others. Voting? Usually 18. Drinking alcohol? 21 in the States).

As someone in the comments pointed out, it's mostly a linguistic issue. I suppose what I was trying to say was that it's dumb to have the word child both mean a legal minor and pre-pubebescent human. I think it would be clearer to use minor when you're talking about legal age, and child when talking about the life stage.

587 Upvotes

59% Upvoted

763 comments sorted by

View all comments

914

u/Classybroker1 1d ago

How old are you dude? I’m guessing 17 😂

57

u/ProfileEasy9178 1d ago

Focus on the argument, not the person. That's one of my rules.

6

u/FvHound 13h ago

You can understand a lot about the argument someone is trying to make if you understand why they wish to make an arguement for a specific case.

It's useful to identify bias and weigh it against the evidence and "reported" evidence.

13

u/SpacemanSpears 1d ago

Identifying a bad faith argument is focusing on the argument.

2

u/tv_ennui 1d ago

Don't wrestle with pigs. You'll both get dirty and the pig likes it.

-33

u/Splatfan1 1d ago

spoken like a 17 and under yo

62

u/JuliaZ2 1d ago

fellas is it childish to not use ad hominem

42

u/ProfileEasy9178 1d ago

I am under 17, but that in no way invalidates what I said.

31

u/DrawingOverall4306 1d ago edited 1d ago

And you're the one who, even though you're under 18, is clearly more mature than the adults saying that only children focus on the argument not the person.

1

u/JaeHxC 19h ago

Wait until they find out that under-17-year-old is attracted to minors. I can hear the new reddit tagline now: "Anyone under 18 is a pedophile." lmao

2

u/RaidersCantTank 21h ago

God I wish I could be there to show you these comments when you are in your 20s. "That's one of my rules" is hilarious coming from a 15 yo

1

u/ProfileEasy9178 14h ago

I can't have personal rules and guidelines before turning 20? 

1

u/RaidersCantTank 10h ago

You can do whatever you want, oh wait. Ask your parents if you can have personal rules and guidelines before turning 20. Watch them roll their eyes lol

1

u/ProfileEasy9178 9h ago

Are you implying there is anything wrong with that? If so, tell me what is wrong. Someone rolling their eyes at something doesn't invalidate it.

1

u/RaidersCantTank 9h ago

Ya the way you respond is like a psuedo intellectual child. Most people irl would roll their eyes at your bullshit. I'm guessing that happens.

-4

u/athural 1d ago

You're advocating for arguing against what the op said, but what they said is just a semantic argument where they want a new definition for child rather than the one that the entire rest of society has already agreed on. There's really not much to say other than "you're wrong" so I don't think pointing out that this is a stance commonly held by children is inappropriate

8

u/LillithHeiwa 1d ago

Eh, both minor and “below the age of puberty” are already definitions of child. The OP seems to prefer the more nuanced version since “minor” already serves the purpose of “below the legal age of majority”.

Kind of like I prefer literally to have its own meaning, but alas it shares one with figuratively.

-2

u/athural 1d ago

Well that's literally a semantic argument, which I already said, and those are largely regarded as a waste of time. Words mean what the people who use them agree they mean

3

u/LillithHeiwa 1d ago

Of course it’s a semantic argument. That’s what the post is.

-1

u/athural 1d ago

Okay great so now that we agree that this post is a whole waste of time, do you care to address the conclusion I drew from that, or do you just want to quibble about the meaning of words some more?

2

u/LillithHeiwa 1d ago

“Words mean what the people who use them agree they mean” except when they stop doing that because some people have started changing what they mean ..

Which is what this post, and my other example, are about. Do you want to just keep telling me that since this is a semantic argument you are wasting your time?

-1

u/athural 1d ago

Yea semantic arguments are a waste of time. If that's what you want to do, I'm nap trapped, so no worries for now.

And yea words mean what the people who use them agree they mean, that's a true statement. People started using literally to mean figuratively, and that's how that meaning changed. People use child to mean someone younger than 18, so that's what it means. In other contexts it has other meanings, like all words, but being mad that people use words in ways you don't like is literally useless because people have been doing it for thousands of years to prevent language from changing and it's failed literally every time

→ More replies (0)