We are equally qualified to comment on parenting being we represent part of the viewers reading everyone else's parental bullshit on slashdot you insensitive clod.
Take you for instance. Even though my hypothetical XYZ guy technically has more parenting skill, I'm sure you can contribute engaging conversation from your experiences that he happens to lack.
The point is: Parenting isn't all-encompassing where everyone learns the exact same lessons over time.
Try qualifying his statements by what he said, ffs. Didn't know we all needed parental licenses or something.
It's sad you are a parent and you can't contribute anything better than DE-constructive criticism.
Ironic that an insightful post about parenting on this subject would have been time better well spent for both of us. Instead, you had to challenge the nonparent slashdot community to a verbal duel subject being "Slashdot poster's qualifications as a parent".
With your logic I could reply by asking you how long ago you reproduced, and how many children you've had and plan on having.
Then, when you say "I had them X years ago, had Y children, and plan to have Z total." I'll reply with yea but you're not as qualified as slashdot user ABC over here who had children when he was X+1 years ago, has had Y+1 children, and plans to have Z+1, total.
Qualifying someone's point of view on parenting by quantifying parenting skill is stupid because we were all kids once, so we at least have some experience through being close to our own parents. (hopefully)
Some of us grew up, our parents told us no and that's all it took. So STFU FUDWEISER.
Doctors are like Investigators, sometimes they get things wrong because lack of experience. Sometimes they get things wrong because too much experience. The problem with investigative fields is so much of what can ensure a correct diagnosis is different from case to case.
I've said this a million times, it's the same for the support field in the IT industry. Luck has so much to do with it. It's pointless to condemn people when they give you a wrong diagnosis.
Some human conditions have the exact same symptoms but entirely different treatments. At times, exclusion diagnosis won't even work. Doctors sometimes must use their best guess. Sometimes a lot of experience can help this, and sometimes it can distract from the obvious. So, it should be no suprise when doctors, or technicians, of all shapes and sizes are wrong. People shouldn't condemn them for mistakes anyone could make, regardless of disposition or experience. But, they do because they figure a Doctor, just like their view of a Tech should be able to resolve any problem, and more specifically the client's CURRENT problem.
I laugh when I hear people complaining about "waiting for another set of test results" from their doctor when the doctor is just trying to ensure a correct diagnosis in a confusing field.
Feel lucky your doctor is relying on the tests, in some cases a test may not EXIST and the doctor has to fall back on their best guess.
Doctors, like Techs are encouraged to always look and sound confident no matter what the case. If they're entirely truthful and let you know they're not sure what the diagnosis is, you will question their credentials and possibly go to the competition.
I believe you're arguing a different point than he.
You're referring to a hypothetical situation where the TXT format is lost.
Your wiki source betrays you! The fact the ppm's data is arranged pictorially means it's fairly obvious we'll easily decode it in the future, with image dimensions to boot.
It's not hard to imagine future online gaming tournaments which are televised or streamed and the participants have sponsor logos on their game character's skin.
And I know many a gaming clan who was sponsored by a local business. I'm not sure WHY, but I know of them within my online circles.
Some would say watching REAL american football is stupid, too.
There's plenty of guys who would consider professional online tournaments right up there with the Superbowl (or beyond.)
The only problem is they can't tell anyone about it:P
But, seriously the core appeal behind these types of competitions (man vs his peers) is universal regardless if it takes place in a real or virtual world.
I am very active in online gaming. If one finds a game where people don't cheat and each contestant has an equal shot of winning, it can become addicting, fast. It's not the question "Who's a better clicker?" but "Who's a better man" that people get addicted to. Don't laugh, because, after all, if the playing field is level for all competitors then one could view the game cancels itself out and all that's left is what each competitor decides to do.
I'm not saying I agree with this mentality, it's just natural for competition and it breeds human interest...And it should probably be exploited.
I remain unentertained while watching football on TV because I never played, yet I can watch televised Basketball and be fully entertained. This is probably because basketball is a sport I played competitively. This is most likely the same reason why you aren't interested in online gaming tournaments. Try playing one of the games these online competitors do, and actually try to win instead of playing like it's your leisure time. Then, watch a demo of one of the professional players playing. Try not to be impressed.
It's not a question of "if" online competition will become serious in the U.S., it's a question of "when".
Online gaming competitions might never be mainstream to the level of football, but then neither is chess and it's a competitive game that has been around for thousands of years.
On a sidenote an interesting thing about Online gaming is the gamer maintains the stance of someone who might play chess (sitting down) but the tactics are generally much more organic like football or tennis.
You know I live in Colorado at more than a mile above sea-level and the last two times a solar flare was belatedly announced on Slashdot I had cell phone calls drop the day they were to have occurred multiple times.
I wonder if higher elevation significantly affects the probability of a solar flare disrupting communication with a cell phone tower.
I couldn't see that it would, probably just a coincidence.
Maybe it has to do more with the mountains in combination with solar flares.
Kind of OT, but I would have to agree with the fact most people round down 9.99 to 9.
When I first noticed a friend back in my High School days make this mistake I was absolutely amazed.
Ironically enough it was for a PC game purchase.
The Price was something like 46.99 and he rounded down to 40!
Myself, I usually ALWAYS round up because of sales tax. e.g.
I think of 42.99 as 50. After a 7% tax it almost is 50.
It's funny because there are so many analogies one could use to show how ridiculous this practice is.
1: "Why do your reports show 0 patients?" 2: "Because they're all amputees"
1: "Hi boss." 2: "You're late. We were supposed to meet at 12:00" 1: "Sorry I had to clean out my car. I just rounded down. It's still 12:59, what up?"
1: "May I have your credit card number?" 2: "Ok, 4000000000000000" 1: "I'm sorry sir but that credit card number is not valid." 2: "Hmm, did you enter the expiration date? it's 12/00, rounded down as uuuussuuuall."
1: "Thanks for bringing those parts over" 2: "No problem." 1: "Hey where's the distributor cap?" 2: "Meh I couldn't fit it in the box so I just rounded it down, you know, because it makes so much goddamn sense."
I've used MyIE2 and it didn't bundle with spyware at the time (this was about a year ago.)
I'm pretty sure you're thinking about Cool Web Search..
Which changed to My Web Search..
and is probably Nude Web Search by now.
And yes that guy is a parasite from hell, and I would bet at least 30% U.S. homes have it installed as an IE toolbar and don't even realize it because it was installed as part of a hidden package from the 'HUGE NEW SUPER GREAT EMOTICONS FOR MSN' or from one of the MANY other packages distributed through partners with an appealing free product.
True, one can see the state of the chessboard as it is at any given time. But the units on a chessboard have a very organic relationship to each other, complicating things down the road (it reminds me of poker, actually.) That's why humans CAN still beat computers. When you have variables upon variables upon variables things tend to get complicated very quickly.
It's amazing the possibilities that can fit on a chessboard. And yes, poker is just as organic. Taking the nontrivial theme of chess and considering the fact both chess and poker are games that you compete with other players, I'm inclined to think that a computer has just a good chance of winning in poker as it does in chess, as computer poker playing technology advances.
The key is intelligence versus intelligence, so that provides a global constant when comparing chess and poker.
The only game a computer has no advantage over a humans is a game that's completely random, e.g. there is no advantage to be had. To clarify I'm speaking of hypothetical, god-powered computers of the future that have had years of software developers' tweaking to defeat certain games.
Not to mention there are attributes of game theory we mere mortals have never even thought of.
It's interesting because with Chess programs there are "Endgame Databases". If computers were invincible at chess they'd have an "Everygame Database". They'll probably get there some day, as will Poker. The implementations will differ, but the result will be the same because it's player vs player.
Like mmo bots, I would assume poker bots go off of graphical queues. So, it doesn't matter what the filename of an ace is because the bot scans the card graphic to determine this.
"I want to inflict terrific carnage upon evil people (note the evil qualifier - which is why I won't play GTA)"
Uh.
Ok, that was wildly off-topic.
Because killing virtual people in a hypothetically evil setting is different from killing innocent "people".
The reality is it's all polygons, so get over it. Anyone who cannot be taught this fact is neither here nor there. It bears no significance on our society. Games are not reality and will never be, they'll be polygons, or pixels, or little dots on the screen. -- Or full-featured holodecks, matrix, perfect, BUT WAIT IT'S ALL STILL FAKE.
I'm just saying I don't feel less moral for playing games where I kill innocent "bots" regardless of how I do it.
Interestingly enough we didn't get to any parts with black things running everywhere and showing up under people's covers. It was about 15 minutes into the movie when we left.
Strange coincidence that the movie actually turned out to be funny, despite the massive amount of overzealous teens ruining the experience with their laughter, though. lol I'm glad I didn't miss much:D
You say 'let' like a child is completely incapable of making a decision for themselves and will do everything 'bad' in the universe out of pure curiousity without a parent to guide them.
Let's take a second and realize that Parents are for the most part "older children" with more experience and a few variances in different chemicals running through them.
People try to generalize an open format as 'bad' for a certain age group, it makes me laugh.
There are limits, but these are decided by the parent, not by the media.
To accentuate my argument we will take a look at your horrendous examples.
"why not let them drink a beer, have sex with adults, drive cars, and get jobs at McDonald's?"
Outside of driving & consesual sex between two adults to produce a child, what, exactly is good about ANY of that?
Same with Natural Born Killers, cut it out of your movie diet it's probably not doing you any good anyway.
What's the underlying reason you can responsibly watch that movie and be entertained? Isn't it CAUSED by the experiences you have thinking of and dealing with today's harsh world of sex & violence.
Maybe you're familiar with a rape victim, or knew someone who was murdered?
Maybe you took a lot of psych classes in college and enjoy the philisophical debates of good and evil. Are the psych classes required for your child to responsibly pursue enjoying media that may provide insight into this philisophical subject?
I don't know why you like that movie, maybe you had a bad home life, and maybe there is no one reason you like it. -- All I know is obviously through your actions YOU feel justified in watching it, so why should you have to hide it from your child?
Do you regret that you have this hypothetical experiences your child lacks that allows you to responsibly watch 'nasty' movies? If so #1 wtf are you doing watching the movie, still and #2 Actually DO something productive about it (like boycotting those types of movies) instead of trying to delay the inevitable realities your child will undoubtedly be exposed to because in the end you won't have any power over their life anyway.
And that's the key, eventually they will leave and not have a parent, so it's best to keep things simple. "This is good. This is bad. This is how I treat you. Hopefully it is good and not confusing so you have the opportunity to treat your children likewise."
Think about how parenting and teaching works. Confusion doesn't help at all. You will confuse your child by not giving them a chance to understand why you like to watch "bad" movies and not share with them.
Typically the things that are considered 'bad' for people, are bad for them regardless of their ages.
And driving cars, please, they're just too small in most cases. I've seen many a child drive a vehicle just as well as the average driving population does. (Bikes, tractors, 4x4's, small cars & trucks, etc.)
One might argue that a child doesn't have the experience to responsibly drive a car even if a car physically constructed for someone of small stature was built and children could use it legally on the open road. However, if it was standard children age 12 could legally drive I believe that they would make up for the learning curve easily. Whether or not that would increase the fatality-rate (by scale) of the road is all conjecture. You could say OMG YES IT WOULD, but then I could point to the fact that a 12 year old is a faster leaner than a 16 year old.
Children are just less experienced adults, this is remedied by giving them the chance to experience. If you take enjoyment out of watching Natural Born Killers and hold a double standard to your child then you're basically telling them, "Yes, I enjoy this, but you can't because I want you to be better than me and not take enjoyment from watching Juliette Lewis kill someone after oral."
Ah yes, but if you actually check all of the imagined hiding places first, with them......some of them who need the lights on will eventually sleep with the lights off.
That's more based on disposition than an example to describe the general population of children.
Some kids hate sleeping with the light on, like adults, it's annoying. These kids may or may not believe in monsters.
The main thing is you couldn't convince them to not be scared despite using logic to explain it to them.
Wow, you know I know some Adults who will remain scared of airplanes yet they are completely calm in the vehicle on the way to the airport. You can tell them people are more likely to die in a car accident on the way to the airport but that may not make them any calmer during takeoff.
Fear is a force unto itself which can defy logic, don't use it in your analogy because it affects us all differently independent of our ages.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad you found nirvana by quitting games.
Some people's nirvana is another person's cottage cheese.
Some of us have time in our lives to play games, just because you don't doesn't mean they're bad.
Something that remains consistently universal, however, is that anything in excess is bad - including your posted examples.
We are equally qualified to comment on parenting being we represent part of the viewers reading everyone else's parental bullshit on slashdot you insensitive clod.
Take you for instance. Even though my hypothetical XYZ guy technically has more parenting skill, I'm sure you can contribute engaging conversation from your experiences that he happens to lack.
The point is: Parenting isn't all-encompassing where everyone learns the exact same lessons over time.
Try qualifying his statements by what he said, ffs. Didn't know we all needed parental licenses or something.
It's sad you are a parent and you can't contribute anything better than DE-constructive criticism.
Ironic that an insightful post about parenting on this subject would have been time better well spent for both of us. Instead, you had to challenge the nonparent slashdot community to a verbal duel subject being "Slashdot poster's qualifications as a parent".
yay.
For the record IANAParent.
With your logic I could reply by asking you how long ago you reproduced, and how many children you've had and plan on having.
Then, when you say "I had them X years ago, had Y children, and plan to have Z total." I'll reply with yea but you're not as qualified as slashdot user ABC over here who had children when he was X+1 years ago, has had Y+1 children, and plans to have Z+1, total.
Qualifying someone's point of view on parenting by quantifying parenting skill is stupid because we were all kids once, so we at least have some experience through being close to our own parents. (hopefully)
Some of us grew up, our parents told us no and that's all it took. So STFU FUDWEISER.
Doctors are like Investigators, sometimes they get things wrong because lack of experience. Sometimes they get things wrong because too much experience. The problem with investigative fields is so much of what can ensure a correct diagnosis is different from case to case.
I've said this a million times, it's the same for the support field in the IT industry. Luck has so much to do with it. It's pointless to condemn people when they give you a wrong diagnosis.
Some human conditions have the exact same symptoms but entirely different treatments. At times, exclusion diagnosis won't even work. Doctors sometimes must use their best guess. Sometimes a lot of experience can help this, and sometimes it can distract from the obvious. So, it should be no suprise when doctors, or technicians, of all shapes and sizes are wrong. People shouldn't condemn them for mistakes anyone could make, regardless of disposition or experience. But, they do because they figure a Doctor, just like their view of a Tech should be able to resolve any problem, and more specifically the client's CURRENT problem.
I laugh when I hear people complaining about "waiting for another set of test results" from their doctor when the doctor is just trying to ensure a correct diagnosis in a confusing field.
Feel lucky your doctor is relying on the tests, in some cases a test may not EXIST and the doctor has to fall back on their best guess.
Doctors, like Techs are encouraged to always look and sound confident no matter what the case. If they're entirely truthful and let you know they're not sure what the diagnosis is, you will question their credentials and possibly go to the competition.
Wikipedia agrees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario
..
"Other" from a third party perspective. So, of the two one is luigi and the OTHER is Mario.
I believe you're arguing a different point than he.
You're referring to a hypothetical situation where the TXT format is lost.
Your wiki source betrays you! The fact the ppm's data is arranged pictorially means it's fairly obvious we'll easily decode it in the future, with image dimensions to boot.
It's not hard to imagine future online gaming tournaments which are televised or streamed and the participants have sponsor logos on their game character's skin.
And I know many a gaming clan who was sponsored by a local business. I'm not sure WHY, but I know of them within my online circles.
Some would say watching REAL american football is stupid, too.
:P
..And it should probably be exploited.
There's plenty of guys who would consider professional online tournaments right up there with the Superbowl (or beyond.)
The only problem is they can't tell anyone about it
But, seriously the core appeal behind these types of competitions (man vs his peers) is universal regardless if it takes place in a real or virtual world.
I am very active in online gaming. If one finds a game where people don't cheat and each contestant has an equal shot of winning, it can become addicting, fast. It's not the question "Who's a better clicker?" but "Who's a better man" that people get addicted to. Don't laugh, because, after all, if the playing field is level for all competitors then one could view the game cancels itself out and all that's left is what each competitor decides to do.
I'm not saying I agree with this mentality, it's just natural for competition and it breeds human interest.
I remain unentertained while watching football on TV because I never played, yet I can watch televised Basketball and be fully entertained. This is probably because basketball is a sport I played competitively. This is most likely the same reason why you aren't interested in online gaming tournaments. Try playing one of the games these online competitors do, and actually try to win instead of playing like it's your leisure time. Then, watch a demo of one of the professional players playing. Try not to be impressed.
It's not a question of "if" online competition will become serious in the U.S., it's a question of "when".
Online gaming competitions might never be mainstream to the level of football, but then neither is chess and it's a competitive game that has been around for thousands of years.
On a sidenote an interesting thing about Online gaming is the gamer maintains the stance of someone who might play chess (sitting down) but the tactics are generally much more organic like football or tennis.
funny stuff
is that true about karate kid and top gun or did you just make that up for the joke ^_-
ah-ha!
You know I live in Colorado at more than a mile above sea-level and the last two times a solar flare was belatedly announced on Slashdot I had cell phone calls drop the day they were to have occurred multiple times.
I wonder if higher elevation significantly affects the probability of a solar flare disrupting communication with a cell phone tower.
I couldn't see that it would, probably just a coincidence.
Maybe it has to do more with the mountains in combination with solar flares.
Who are the jedi?
The looters?
Kind of OT, but I would have to agree with the fact most people round down 9.99 to 9.
When I first noticed a friend back in my High School days make this mistake I was absolutely amazed.
Ironically enough it was for a PC game purchase.
The Price was something like 46.99 and he rounded down to 40!
Myself, I usually ALWAYS round up because of sales tax. e.g.
I think of 42.99 as 50. After a 7% tax it almost is 50.
It's funny because there are so many analogies one could use to show how ridiculous this practice is.
1: "Why do your reports show 0 patients?"
2: "Because they're all amputees"
1: "Hi boss."
2: "You're late. We were supposed to meet at 12:00"
1: "Sorry I had to clean out my car. I just
rounded down. It's still 12:59, what up?"
1: "May I have your credit card number?"
2: "Ok, 4000000000000000"
1: "I'm sorry sir but that credit card number is not valid."
2: "Hmm, did you enter the expiration date? it's 12/00, rounded down as uuuussuuuall."
1: "Thanks for bringing those parts over"
2: "No problem."
1: "Hey where's the distributor cap?"
2: "Meh I couldn't fit it in the box so I just rounded it down, you know, because it makes so much goddamn sense."
You have time to play multiple mmo's?
I stick to the 1 MMO rule.
You can play 2 FPS's.
You can play 1 FPS and 1 MMO.
You can't play 2 MMO's.
They're too time consuming as it is. I couldn't imagine playing two.
IAAT (I am a tech)
I've used MyIE2 and it didn't bundle with spyware at the time (this was about a year ago.)
I'm pretty sure you're thinking about Cool Web Search..
Which changed to My Web Search..
and is probably Nude Web Search by now.
And yes that guy is a parasite from hell, and I would bet at least 30% U.S. homes have it installed as an IE toolbar and don't even realize it because it was installed as part of a hidden package from the 'HUGE NEW SUPER GREAT EMOTICONS FOR MSN' or from one of the MANY other packages distributed through partners with an appealing free product.
Just another reason to switch to Firefox.
True, one can see the state of the chessboard as it is at any given time. But the units on a chessboard have a very organic relationship to each other, complicating things down the road (it reminds me of poker, actually.) That's why humans CAN still beat computers. When you have variables upon variables upon variables things tend to get complicated very quickly.
It's amazing the possibilities that can fit on a chessboard. And yes, poker is just as organic. Taking the nontrivial theme of chess and considering the fact both chess and poker are games that you compete with other players, I'm inclined to think that a computer has just a good chance of winning in poker as it does in chess, as computer poker playing technology advances.
The key is intelligence versus intelligence, so that provides a global constant when comparing chess and poker.
The only game a computer has no advantage over a humans is a game that's completely random, e.g. there is no advantage to be had. To clarify I'm speaking of hypothetical, god-powered computers of the future that have had years of software developers' tweaking to defeat certain games.
Not to mention there are attributes of game theory we mere mortals have never even thought of.
It's interesting because with Chess programs there are "Endgame Databases". If computers were invincible at chess they'd have an "Everygame Database". They'll probably get there some day, as will Poker. The implementations will differ, but the result will be the same because it's player vs player.
To simplify this, a good player can beat some bad players who use collusion.
A good player cannot, however, beat two (or one masquerading as two) equally good players who use collusion.
*CUES
Like mmo bots, I would assume poker bots go off of graphical queues. So, it doesn't matter what the filename of an ace is because the bot scans the card graphic to determine this.
"I want to inflict terrific carnage upon evil people (note the evil qualifier - which is why I won't play GTA)"
Uh.
Ok, that was wildly off-topic.
Because killing virtual people in a hypothetically evil setting is different from killing innocent "people".
The reality is it's all polygons, so get over it. Anyone who cannot be taught this fact is neither here nor there. It bears no significance on our society. Games are not reality and will never be, they'll be polygons, or pixels, or little dots on the screen. -- Or full-featured holodecks, matrix, perfect, BUT WAIT IT'S ALL STILL FAKE.
I'm just saying I don't feel less moral for playing games where I kill innocent "bots" regardless of how I do it.
The dedication to spatial relationships and abstract concepts (imagination) is a nice emphasis of the IQ test.
It tests your creative problem-solving skills under pressure.
The thing with math, if you don't have any skills with it, expect it to be your bottleneck when trying to enhance your other skills.
IMO anyway.
paraphrasing.
"So you actually talk to the customers?"
"No... My secretary does that."
"OH, so you must take the information to the engineers."
"No... pft, well, SOMETIMES.."
Interestingly enough we didn't get to any parts with black things running everywhere and showing up under people's covers. It was about 15 minutes into the movie when we left.
:D
Strange coincidence that the movie actually turned out to be funny, despite the massive amount of overzealous teens ruining the experience with their laughter, though. lol I'm glad I didn't miss much
You say 'let' like a child is completely incapable of making a decision for themselves and will do everything 'bad' in the universe out of pure curiousity without a parent to guide them.
Let's take a second and realize that Parents are for the most part "older children" with more experience and a few variances in different chemicals running through them.
People try to generalize an open format as 'bad' for a certain age group, it makes me laugh.
There are limits, but these are decided by the parent, not by the media.
To accentuate my argument we will take a look at your horrendous examples.
"why not let them drink a beer, have sex with adults, drive cars, and get jobs at McDonald's?"
Outside of driving & consesual sex between two adults to produce a child, what, exactly is good about ANY of that?
Same with Natural Born Killers, cut it out of your movie diet it's probably not doing you any good anyway.
What's the underlying reason you can responsibly watch that movie and be entertained? Isn't it CAUSED by the experiences you have thinking of and dealing with today's harsh world of sex & violence.
Maybe you're familiar with a rape victim, or knew someone who was murdered?
Maybe you took a lot of psych classes in college and enjoy the philisophical debates of good and evil. Are the psych classes required for your child to responsibly pursue enjoying media that may provide insight into this philisophical subject?
I don't know why you like that movie, maybe you had a bad home life, and maybe there is no one reason you like it. -- All I know is obviously through your actions YOU feel justified in watching it, so why should you have to hide it from your child?
Do you regret that you have this hypothetical experiences your child lacks that allows you to responsibly watch 'nasty' movies? If so #1 wtf are you doing watching the movie, still and #2 Actually DO something productive about it (like boycotting those types of movies) instead of trying to delay the inevitable realities your child will undoubtedly be exposed to because in the end you won't have any power over their life anyway.
And that's the key, eventually they will leave and not have a parent, so it's best to keep things simple. "This is good. This is bad. This is how I treat you. Hopefully it is good and not confusing so you have the opportunity to treat your children likewise."
Think about how parenting and teaching works. Confusion doesn't help at all. You will confuse your child by not giving them a chance to understand why you like to watch "bad" movies and not share with them.
Typically the things that are considered 'bad' for people, are bad for them regardless of their ages.
And driving cars, please, they're just too small in most cases. I've seen many a child drive a vehicle just as well as the average driving population does. (Bikes, tractors, 4x4's, small cars & trucks, etc.)
One might argue that a child doesn't have the experience to responsibly drive a car even if a car physically constructed for someone of small stature was built and children could use it legally on the open road. However, if it was standard children age 12 could legally drive I believe that they would make up for the learning curve easily. Whether or not that would increase the fatality-rate (by scale) of the road is all conjecture. You could say OMG YES IT WOULD, but then I could point to the fact that a 12 year old is a faster leaner than a 16 year old.
Children are just less experienced adults, this is remedied by giving them the chance to experience. If you take enjoyment out of watching Natural Born Killers and hold a double standard to your child then you're basically telling them, "Yes, I enjoy this, but you can't because I want you to be better than me and not take enjoyment from watching Juliette Lewis kill someone after oral."
CONFUSION STIFLES LEARNING!
And to dot my 'i's and cross my 't's:
Your sex example sucks, too.
Ah yes, but if you actually check all of the imagined hiding places first, with them... ...some of them who need the lights on will eventually sleep with the lights off.
That's more based on disposition than an example to describe the general population of children.
Some kids hate sleeping with the light on, like adults, it's annoying. These kids may or may not believe in monsters.
The main thing is you couldn't convince them to not be scared despite using logic to explain it to them.
Wow, you know I know some Adults who will remain scared of airplanes yet they are completely calm in the vehicle on the way to the airport. You can tell them people are more likely to die in a car accident on the way to the airport but that may not make them any calmer during takeoff.
Fear is a force unto itself which can defy logic, don't use it in your analogy because it affects us all differently independent of our ages.