I don't agree that forgetfreeman and I are talking past each other. >Legally, you're right Cool, but my response doesn't hinge on there being a legal definiti

I don't agree that forgetfreeman and I are talking past each other. >Legally, you're right Cool, but my response doesn't hinge on there being a legal definition of "adult". In fact, the definition I gave was biological, which besides the legal is the definition most people use in casual conversation. When would you say a dog is an adult? >Most notably, we can describe someone as acting like an adult. We can recognize that behaving like an adult, with the responsibilities that go along with that, can be independent from age. Sure. But notice that you had to say that acting like an adult is independent from age, and not being an adult is. You wouldn't say that someone who, say, gambled his home is not adult, except figuratively, would you? You wouldn't think he should be entrusted to a guardian and that he should be signed up for school with other children. Regardless of how irresponsible his behavior, he still is an adult in your eyes. >Refusing to acknowledge it, even after it's pointed out, is bad form What's been pointed out, exactly? forgetfreeman said something -- something stupid, in my opinion -- I countered it, and they doubled down on it. What, I should just capitulate to anyone who is being insistently stupid? >it's against site guidelines asking us each to use reasonable interpretations of each others thoughts and comments. So what's the "reasonable interpretation" for the comment? "An individual who routinely fails to understand the consequences of their actions is by definition not an adult." By all means, tell me what I missed.