You are making up a story that fits what you believe. The other commenter is right, you dont have kids and its very apparent in how you write. Confidently having an opinion and then making up details to suit that opinion is a childish thing to do.
So telling you the FACTUAL truth of my childhood gets rejected because it doesn’t fit your narrative?
I don’t claim every kid is like me. Lots of kids won’t listen to their parents no matter what they say. Lots of kids WILL go find vapes even if you make possession punishable by death. Lots of kids will see someone older/cooler vaping and will forget everything they learned. I don’t claim every kid is like me. I’m saying that if more parents were like mine there’d be a lot less vaping. That’s all.
What you did is make an assumption- that I don’t have kids. An assumption that you have no positive evidence either way on. And thus by your assumption, you claim I am unqualified. But again, this relies on two assumptions-- 1. that I don’t have kids, and 2. that someone who has kids is incapable of understanding the nuances of dealing with kids. I reject both assertions as unprovable.
You are making up a story that fits what you believe. The other commenter is right, you dont have kids and its very apparent in how you write. Confidently having an opinion and then making up details to suit that opinion is a childish thing to do.
So telling you the FACTUAL truth of my childhood gets rejected because it doesn’t fit your narrative?
I don’t claim every kid is like me. Lots of kids won’t listen to their parents no matter what they say. Lots of kids WILL go find vapes even if you make possession punishable by death. Lots of kids will see someone older/cooler vaping and will forget everything they learned. I don’t claim every kid is like me. I’m saying that if more parents were like mine there’d be a lot less vaping. That’s all.
I simply said you are unqualified to be in this conversation, but you are free to continue giving your opinion.
What you did is make an assumption- that I don’t have kids. An assumption that you have no positive evidence either way on. And thus by your assumption, you claim I am unqualified. But again, this relies on two assumptions-- 1. that I don’t have kids, and 2. that someone who has kids is incapable of understanding the nuances of dealing with kids. I reject both assertions as unprovable.
Okay, I will continue to think it more likely I’m right than wrong, but thanks for the additional info.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” --Aristotle