|
Post by Cassie on Sept 17, 2019 8:33:07 GMT 10
As most of you know, many people start childhood at 3 and end at 10-12. However, someone over on Personality Cafe argued that 2 is childhood because kids can go to preschool at age 2, they can form memories at 2 and that at places like airlines and movie theaters, you have to pay for your 2 year olds to enter.
What do you think? (I will definitely answer no to that).
|
|
|
Post by rainbow on Sept 17, 2019 10:57:40 GMT 10
I don't even think age 3 is childhood, to be honest. Barely anyone remembers being at that age. It only seems like one would remember because on forums like these people try so hard to remember a time period they weren't old enough to experience so they can try and fit in with the older crowd. The average person born in like 1998 or 1999 that you see in public probably won't remember the early 2000's that well.
I think core childhood is ages 5-10, or 6-9. I think 10-12 is more like a preteen because they're finally double digits but they're technically not a teen yet. It's more clear cut that way IMO.
|
|
|
Post by smartboi on Sept 17, 2019 11:24:49 GMT 10
Yes considering childhood starts when you are born.
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Sept 17, 2019 11:31:28 GMT 10
No, it is not. Age 2 is too young. The average person born in like 1998 or 1999 that you see in public probably won't remember the early 2000's that well. Well for me personally, 2003 is the only year from the Early 2000s which I can remember pretty well and that was when I was 4 years old. My memories from 2001 and 2002 are generally quite vague. I'd imagine that most people around my age would be in the same boat.
|
|
|
Post by ItsMichael on Sept 17, 2019 12:01:00 GMT 10
Definitely not. I couldn't even remember what I did in while I was two years old besides take naps.
|
|
|
Post by kennedywalsh2000 on Sept 18, 2019 5:33:26 GMT 10
I have seen many sources that consider childhood as age 2. I can agree businesses forcing those who are 2 and up to pay for things is a dumb reason to why childhood starts at age 2, but I see it as age 2 since your second birthday is the first birthday when you were on two feet standing. Wikipedia starts it as birth, but I can agree someone under 2 is too young to be a kid. I cant remember the years 2000 and 2001 even, but 2002, I can vividly.
|
|
|
Post by behindawall on Sept 18, 2019 5:38:19 GMT 10
2 was my age a long time ago so i cant remember it im just going to call 2 years my infant years
|
|
|
Post by Cassie on Sept 18, 2019 6:13:53 GMT 10
I have seen many sources that consider childhood as age 2. I can agree businesses forcing those who are 2 and up to pay for things is a dumb reason to why childhood starts at age 2, but I see it as age 2 since your second birthday is the first birthday when you were on two feet standing. Wikipedia starts it as birth, but I can agree someone under 2 is too young to be a kid. I cant remember the years 2000 and 2001 even, but 2002, I can vividly. I have a feeling you're that guy from Personality Cafe. He was born in 1997 and says he can relate to those 4 years older than him but not those 3 years younger.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2019 6:15:18 GMT 10
No
|
|
|
Post by broadstreet223 on Sept 18, 2019 6:15:57 GMT 10
No, because you can't remember being 2.
|
|
|
Post by prodanny288 on Sept 18, 2019 6:16:25 GMT 10
Does it even matter?
I will forever consider 2007 my core childhood. No matter what anyone else's shitty definitions say.
|
|
|
Post by kennedywalsh2000 on Sept 18, 2019 6:34:36 GMT 10
No, because you can't remember being 2. Well, I was born in 2000, and I remember 2002 vividly. 2002-2000 = 2.
|
|
|
Post by kennedywalsh2000 on Sept 18, 2019 6:38:56 GMT 10
I have seen many sources that consider childhood as age 2. I can agree businesses forcing those who are 2 and up to pay for things is a dumb reason to why childhood starts at age 2, but I see it as age 2 since your second birthday is the first birthday when you were on two feet standing. Wikipedia starts it as birth, but I can agree someone under 2 is too young to be a kid. I cant remember the years 2000 and 2001 even, but 2002, I can vividly. I have a feeling you're that guy from Personality Cafe. He was born in 1997 and says he can relate to those 4 years older than him but not those 3 years younger. I was born in 2000, and I can relate to those born in 1998 and 1999. I dont know about 1997 though. They were seniors in high school when I was a freshman in high school. Well, it depends on each person. He must be saying that cause someone 4 years older than him was born in 1993, which is the same decade as him, but I was born in a different millennium, even though if I was born five days earlier on December 31, 1999, he would maybe claim that he can relate to me. Anyways, thats all I can say.
|
|
|
Post by rainbow on Sept 18, 2019 6:48:26 GMT 10
No, because you can't remember being 2. Well, I was born in 2000, and I remember 2002 vividly. 2002-2000 = 2. I doubt most people can even remember being 2 let alone vividly.
|
|
|
Post by Cassie on Sept 18, 2019 6:49:49 GMT 10
I have a feeling you're that guy from Personality Cafe. He was born in 1997 and says he can relate to those 4 years older than him but not those 3 years younger. I was born in 2000, and I can relate to those born in 1998 and 1999. I dont know about 1997 though. They were seniors in high school when I was a freshman in high school. Well, it depends on each person. He must be saying that cause someone 4 years older than him was born in 1993, which is the same decade as him, but I was born in a different millennium, even though if I was born five days earlier on December 31, 1999, he would maybe claim that he can relate to me. Anyways, thats all I can say. I can relate to 2004, and to an extent 2005 babies. It's stupid to say that they relate more to 1993 babies though. 93' babies never attended middle or high school with those born in 1997 (except for late 1993 babies), and 1993 babies spent most of their childhood before 9/11 while 1997 babies weren't even in school then.
|
|