Claiming Immaturity As A Logical Fallacy

[cal]

How does one be "immature" in conversation?

 

This is always something that I've had a hard time understanding because everyone has always given me a different answer about it. As far as I can ascertain, "maturity" has very little to do with what you say and mostly to do with how you act. If you don't hit the guy, you're being "mature," or at least that's how it's usually presented in social situations. However, when it comes to the inverse function of maturity, immaturity, it seems like the focus is always on what is said, not what is done. If we take the physicality out of maturity, then maturity to me seems to be when you've reasoned out what conversations to enter, not what is said in the conversations (maybe you could define this as "wise" instead). And if that's the case with maturity, then it seems to follow that immaturity still has nothing to do with the content or specific words you use in the dialogue.

 

So then it would seem that "immaturity" when talking to someone is directly connected with the physical age level of the speakers. When people claim that you are being "immature" in what you're saying, what they mean to say is that you are being childish. Right? But if that's the case, then only conversations you would have with a young child are the kinds of conversations that you could accuse another person of being immature about. Children do not have every kind of adult conversation however, so this is a bad way to use "immature".

 

Let's say you're having a completely normal small-talk conversation with someone, or a deep intellectual conversation with them, or you're actively trying to anger them because you're trying at their character; in each of these scenarios it seems like you can be accused of being "immature" simply because they disagreed with what you were saying, or how you went about saying it. This doesn't seem right to me. In fact, it seems like a very crude way of trying to reduce someone's argument to the absurd. While yes, reducing to the absurd can be a logically valid tactic, it is also a named logically fallacy because it is used incorrectly more often than correctly. Let's say that someone is being legitimately childish in how they're approaching a topic, childishness still does not mean wrong. I would even argue that being childish and innocent towards something can usually lead to a good solution for that thing. So what is "immature" about something you say? Even if it's the scenario where you are actively trying to challenge someone's character, I would meet any opposition with the law in comedy that there is nothing you can't make funny, meaning getting at someone is only a negative thing based on your predisposition to thinking it be negative. And yes, comedy has laws, just like any other field of study.

 

What am I getting at here? What is the point of this? Since no one has ever been able to give me a consistent answer to my initial question, I submit that when someone claims you are being "immature," that it is really the accuser who cannot handle the conversation. I do not believe there is any topic or subject, or any angle at which to tackle those subjects, that is "below" you or any other human. In fact, I am also submitting that anyone that claims another to be immature simply because of a conversational topic, is an elitist pig. lol

 

I do not have a terribly entertaining back-story to this, I simply observed my friend being called immature by a female because she couldn't keep up with the arguments. What say you, hypographers?

[cal]

The lack of opposition on this topic means to mean there is no favorable opposition and that my schema has won-out as the supreme and objectively true truth of the universe. Thank you for playing, here's your consolation prize -

Edited February 2, 2014 by Snax

[ErlyRisa]

The last statement is the sad one...

 

Yeah females of "Intellectual Superiority" - that shun "the plebs" as being "lesser" than they are...

 

I call them Hippies or Jane Fondas

 

I find nothing wrong with, people verbalising "thier" view points, and those that do it publicly, are very funny indeed.

 

I call these people Politicians.

 

The question rises: about Maturity.

 

Out of any of the examples that I have given, does the average person, consider these socially placed personas as mature?

 

...the answer comes, in disguise as the word HATE

 

in other words: We should be thanking that there is HATE, that way, that which is percieved immature, becomes

 

YOU

 

now who is the immature one?

 

ANS: Matter of opinion.