You could go by yourself, but why? I love waterparks, but part of the fun is going with and having friends/family to go with you.
Besides, if you really wanted to go, and did go by yourself, why would you give a rat's ass about what anyone else there thought?
getting all butt-hurt just because someone treated you "like a kid" or "dissed" you
Possibly, BUT on the flipside you should never accept being treated like a child at that age. My mom and I are (temporarily hopefully) not on speaking terms because she refuses to stop talking to me and treating me like a kid.
I'm 37 and I:
-still say dude (in fact I've called my mom dude before)
-have several t-shirts (including Transformers, Kermit the frog and Marvin the Martian)
-still build scale model cars
-go mountain biking regularly
Fellas, you cannot grow up too fast, lose your youthful exuberance and expect to live a low-stress life.
You can't take life too seriously.
Can't remember what book it was (I wanna say it was Combat Swimmer: Memoirs of a Navy SEAL), that one of the former SEALS said, 'You can lose just about everything in life but your sense of humor, and still survive'.
I'm positive that the generations that grew up saying "dude" will continue to say it for most for most of their life. It is the same thing with old men and the old fashion terms they use, they still say them because they grew up using them. Dude has just become common with the last two generations, that is why people think of it has a youthful expression.
To a certain point, there is not a damn thing wrong with being selfish. Honestly, a person does have to look out for number one (albeit not while affecting others negatively, of course).
I don't agree with the idea that "you should do whatever you damned well like at whatever age," Brett. I believe that idea smacks too much of arrogance,
Obviously, as I said once before to Michael, I believe, that doesn't encompass things like being rude, cruel or obnoxious "just because you can." There are rules of civility and decency, whether written or unwritten, which govern dealing with others.
As long as you are not infringing on/affecting the rights of others or shirking your responsibilities, then you should do whatever you damned well like at whatever age is ok.
The idea that you should do whatever you damn like at whatever age you are is a distinctly modern one.
The idea that you should do whatever you damn well like is new ("do your own thing"; "if it feels good do it"), but so is the idea that there are things appropriate to one (adult) age but not another, isn't it?
The idea that we *have* generations, and that 20-y-o men should be friends and colleagues with 20-y-o and not 40-y-o, etc. -- or that they should have different clothing styles -- or that they have distinct roles in life, aside from whether they were at the top of the ladder or just starting -- is not one I've heard before the 1960's. The Generation Gap was new then. Sure, people later reacted to it by trying to stay on the right (young) side of the gap with style, but before then, there wasn't a gap to lie to yourself about.
I have a picture of my grandfather and grandmother back around 1930 or so. They looked middle-aged, except for their smooth, young faces. They were 20.
Well, the generation thing has been there forever. The Greek epics and tragedies have young gods v. old gods motifs. Tocqueville argues American democracy encouraged greater trans-generation harmony than European aristocracy in Democracy in America.
As for the second idea, seems it too was there with the Epicureans and other hedonists forever. That it would be a prevailing view, yeah, that's new.
Note that I wasn't talking about the old complaining that the young are arrogant, ignorant, and lazy, or the young thinking, Geez, grandpa, you're past it. I was talking about the idea that the young, middle-aged, and old should be segregated into different social circles, clothings styles, and life roles.
Hmm. Maybe that's an effect of our industrialized society. With an intellect-based culture, we try to group people by experience level, rather than social class or occupation. We've always had the young, the middle-aged, and the old. To some extent, we've also always segregated ourselves by age. Now I think there are just more delineated steps through adulthood. Certainly the clothes thing is new.
Though Aristotle argues for marriage for men, for example, at 32? 36? somewhere in there. Yet he'd probably say men should vote, serve in the military, etc., more around 18. Though Jewish legal adulthood is at 13 for males, there is religious significance to turning 30 and 50. That speaks to "life roles." Not sure what you mean by "different social circles." People will always be friends with those with whom they have much in common, including age and the resulting levels of experience, family obligations, etc.
Disagree. The demarcation between boys and men is ancient and I'm surprised you would argue against it. Although the line was simply between boy/men/elders. In tribes across the world when a boy was a boy he wore certain things and was allowed to do certain things. When he went through a rite-of-passage, he stopped associating with the boys and only socialized and lived with the men. And when he was an old man he lived with different expectations as well. This was true in varying degrees up until about the 50s. There were boy things and man things, and when a boy became a man, he put away the childish things-dressed differently, talked differently, engaged in different activities, and had different goals.
Note that I'm not arguing that there were ever lines marking things appropriate for 20/30/40. (As a side note, a generation is about 20 years, so we're obviously not talking about generation gaps here). That was just for the sake of having a fun discussion-that has, of course, as most things do around here-had all the fun sucked right out of it. But then those who objected weren't objecting to where the lines were drawn, but to the idea that there should be any difference in how a man acts when he is young and when he is older. And so I simply come back to what I said before-that the idea that there shouldn't be different expectations for youth and for men is a distinctly modern one.
No, no, I *didn't* argue against a demarcation between boys and men. As much as I've promoted the concept of initiation into manhood, and recognition of the fact of manhood in the young, on this site, of course I didn't! I argued against the idea that segregation of *men* into social groups based on age is traditional, rather than modern. In traditional societies, once you're a man, you're a man.
My passion about this is that I think the new way, not knowing what it takes to be a man, having a sort of moving goalposts and no clear demarcation -- is too discouraging to the young. It sure was to me. I had to wait till 38 to claim that title, and that's a shame.
Dagonet from the 2004 King Arthur movie.
He was probably one of the more under played knights in the film but he was always my favorite. Didn't speak unless he had something to say, and simply did what needed to be done."
"It shouldnt. If you cant (or think you might not be able to) kill another human to save yourself, why would you be able to to live with it to save a kid? Before you (or anyone else) says "you should just try wound them and only kill if you have…"
I'm glad to see that you are questioning yourself. This type of introspection demonstrates that you will be the "ideal" gun owner, since you consider the consequences of your actions not just short term, but long term as…"