It does not surprise me that my last comment went totally over your head. The one where I was insinuating that the problem you are perpetrating is that Adults should not actively supervise their children, as your comment of,
suggests.
I fully understood your "insinuation"; it simply wasn't worth replying to as such.
Dragging a metaphor out merely shows the limits of its applicability; it does nothing to refute an argument which stands on its own merit; nor does it, in this case, automatically render my suggestion a bad one.
Furthermore, if I accept that the metaphor deserves expansion, I would simply say that adults who interject themselves into childish disagreements of no substance, and no tangible effect, are merely stooping to the level of children, and that this entails no worthwhile "supervisory" effect whatsoever. Furthermore, the adult has actually
encouraged their behavior, by reinforcing the children's perception of the importance of their disagreement. In fact, he may best discourage such inanity by demonstrating, by example, that adults do not concern themselves with such nonsense. Children, in their desire to emulate adults, are quite responsive to such leading by example.
Two children disagree over who's imaginary friend is cooler. The actively supervising adult steps in: which child's imaginary friend shall he favor?
Which makes it clear that you not only intentionally ignore what the real problems are, but then attempt to rationalize your own failures by attempting to degenerate others.
Shall I respond with another iteration of "NO U!"?
