Originally posted by Silent Master
I'm not using the "he was a kid" argument to excuse any of his actions, I'm just using it to show the difference in ages between the people involved. but I can understand the confusion. I'll try and start using the term teens instead.
Fair.
I thought you were differentiating the two groups by "kids vs. adults" like I'm seeing a lot on the net.
My bad.
Originally posted by dadudemon
To your first point: that's wrong, too. It's an old myth that won't die. Your brain keeps changing over time until you die. Children think extremely rationally from around sapience (toddler age). That's what makes us human. Hence our species name being "Homo sapiens sapiens."The average lifespan was so low in, say, 40,000 years ago because infant mortality was huge. If you lived beyond 11 or so, your average life expectancy was 60-ish. But I will note that in one study I was reading, the average number of children an early human female had by 18 years was 3. The male skeletons also had "battle scars" in young males, as well. Meaning, we were full adults in our early teens with the males being expected to hunt and fight at quite an early age. This matches much more closely with our closest relatives - Chimps.
Yes, you're right, human males often take longer to physically develop with average skeletal maturity occurring between 14-17 as opposed to females which are 1-3 years earlier than males. I actually don't know what the evolutionary advantage of that is (there is sexual asymmetry even in our development). Perhaps it's the energy expenditure to go through menstruation so females that grew to maturity faster were more likely to survive and pass on their genes.
Anyway, I feel we are off track. That student is a young man, not a child. He did show immense restraint by not punching Phillips, justifiably, in the face, for assaulting him. How does that fit your "just a kid with no rationality" narrative, you punk?
I said teens don't think rationally. There are always exceptions to the rule lol.
Originally posted by Robtard
So I did a search, and someone did indeed did shout "build the wall" during the chanting/mocking, found it on an embedded link at VoxIt's at the 00:11-00:13 mark: https://www.vox.com/2019/1/19/18189668/white-students-maga-gear-harass-native-elders
Enjoy.
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Did anyone ever bring up the point that this guy Andrew Phillips who says hes a "Vietnam vet" and much older then this kid should be beating drums in peoples faces, and why that is morally and socially acceptable for any other reason now besides the kid was wearing a red hat?
Yes. I brought that up. And I mentioned ages ago, with a citation, that it is assault.
Originally posted by Robtard
1) This story is blown way out of proportion2) Those White kids were indeed acting like intolerant racist by mocking the Native Americans there, but luckily no one was hurt so see 1) above
3) The PR spin that the kids and especially "Smirk Boy" are the innocent victims here is hilarious though, top-notch spinning there. "He was doing a silent prayer trying to deescalate the situation". Top Lolz.
The positive that came out of this: More and more Americans are starting to associate #MAGA and MAGA-Hats as being symbols synonymous with bigotry, oppression, racism and intolerance. As the Trumper's favorite son said it best: "I love it!".
edit: Apparently some wealthy parents hired a PR firm to spin the story in favor of the kid and kids in general, so that makes sense in regards to 3). World-Class spinning, that.
Yes right here