To claim that you would is so retarded that I can barely think of responding to you again after this if you say that you are serious...
I made a joke that we were dealing with three angry teenagers... I apologize if you thought I was being serious, but I wasn't. It was sarcasm.You were not joking and were you not just arguing that you were simply confused or that I had said something to imply that? Why are you changing your justifications?
If you aren't a lawyer, then you are just talking out of your ass and if you are I would expect that I would win against you as well. My wifes lawyer acted like you did, telling me what things mean or don't and guess what, the Judge agreed with me... I have represented myself twice and won both, once against the IRS and once in Family Court against my wife's lawyer.I am aware of the legal term and its meaning. In fact, I got the impression that is the context you were using it in and thought perhaps you were a lawyer but pulled back from that supposition since it did not fit with what I have read and your general behavior. Certainly it is consistent with someone who represented himself once pro se and now fancies himself a lawyer. That would also be consistent with someone of your attitude.
Controversial; subject to argument.
Pleading in which a point relied upon is not set out, but merely implied, is often labeled argumentative. Pleading that contains arguments that should be saved for trial, in addition to allegations establishing a Cause of Action or defense, is also called argumentative.
argumentative legal definition of argumentative. argumentative synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Since all you have done is merely imply something, nope, it isn't accurate yet.No matter how you were using it my statement is still accurate.
This line of debate is so old and pointless, lets just move on. Hell, I'll concede you are correct too...Dude, you are the one who insists on responding to comments that are not directed at you. The fact you lose sight of that after some back and forth is no fault of mine.
This point is getting skewed... chiildren are healthier when they are parented or cared for, that is how they survive at a young age. Parents use a variety of discipline techniques that range from modelling, re-directing and punitive, among others. I can't find studies that don't cost money yet, but from personal experience, asking and observing other parents, being in the education system, talking to PhD's in psychology and others, we all conclude that children that are cared for better, have clear and defined boundaries and expectations, are healthier mentally and emotionally. Children that lack this guidance, when provided with it, flourish. There is a profound change. Children, when asked about this, have expressed that they like and understand the clear boundaries and expectations, that it makes it easier to live. These boundaries and expectations are "Control". The parent controls the child within these rules. This is the control that I, and the other parents on this thread have been discussing.So what you are actually saying is not that kids desire to be controlled because you do not actually have any sort of proof of any such desire conscious or unconscious. Rather, you say that children are simply healthier in such a context and therefore this must be something they desire.
Accept this or don't. It seems as if the others have given up on you, and I am about to as well...
Not to me, as far as I can tell...I have actually provided a source earlier regarding uniforms.