Ok bud, here we go.

> And the inverse is?

This is a fine example of not every word in the English language having a pure inverse. This whole topic is flawed from the jump because you don't seem to understand this point, leading to the rest of your commentary.

> I don't think I agree that this is common language.

Nobody needs you to agree to anything at all for something to be common. What point did you think you were making here? What an arrogant way to think.

> The simple form of relationship is "our children" or "my parents", clarifying the age bracket isn't normally used. I say this as someone with 2 children, one is 19.

If you're going to tell me you've never clarified the age of your offspring when in conversation with someone, I'd call you a liar. As an aside [0] the first three definitions of "child" according to Merriam-Webster:
1.) an unborn or recently born person
2a.) a young person especially between infancy and youth
2b.) a childlike or childish person
3.) a son or daughter of human parents

So, according to the dictionary, your definition of 'child' is 4th place. And here you tried to argue "common language" like it was somehow helping your cause. It didn't.

> In some contexts I may describe my parents as "my elderly parents", but only if the age context is relevant.

So age context DOES matter huh? Just when you want it to? Not all the time? Just when you decide it does?

> So you'd introduce every time, as your (infant|toddler|young child|tween|teenager|adult|senior|elderly) child? Because that seems odd.

If age context is relevant, yes. Every time, no, I never said that. Stop misquoting me, and stop making assumptions. You're being an ass. Also, no it isn't odd, those words exist for a reason. I find it quite odd you find it... odd.

> You introduced your children into the discussion using the bare noun "kids" rather than a more specific noun phrase like "young kids" or "teenage kids."

Age wasn't germane to the post you dug up. The part where you got so worked up you had to look into my post history is quite telling, as an aside. I have not, nor do I have, any interest, in reading your post history. This was where you tipped your hand completely and I realized I was dealing with someone who can't handle being wrong. Like, this is a big deal to you and I kind of feel sorry for you.

> This choice demonstrates common linguistic practice, we typically only mention the age range of relatives when it's directly relevant to the topic at hand. Your language use here is a nice example of this principle in action, effectively supporting my argument.

Nope, not at all supporting your "argument" if that is what you call it. It doesn't even make sense. This all started because you claimed that there are either adults or children, nothing else. You've completely reversed your argument and are now claiming some kind of victory. How very bizarre.

> EDIT: I also see it's not the first time you've, according to your definition, been arrogant enough to not provide the age range of your children: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41213069

When it is germane to the topic at hand I will mention the age of my offspring.

>Your response perfectly illustrates a common behaviour: the inability to admit when one is wrong. Rather than engaging with the linguistic analysis I presented, you've retreated to personal attacks and dismissive language. This is a textbook reaction of someone who realises their argument doesn't hold water but lacks the integrity to acknowledge it.

Stop projecting. You're on tilt at this point.

> I provided a thoughtful, on-topic discussion. Your choice to sidestep it entirely speaks volumes. It strongly suggests you recognise the validity of my points but are too prideful to concede.

No, you didn't. Which is why we're here and NOBODY ELSE responded to you. Yeah you nailed it. /s

> If you actually have a substantive rebuttal to the linguistic concepts we were discussing, let's hear it. Otherwise, your ad hominem remarks only serve to underscore the strength of my original argument and your inability to counter it.

You're talking in circles, see above.

> And let's be clear - I'm not your 'bro'. Resorting to such casual dismissiveness doesn't mask your failure to engage in genuine debate.

You sure aren't. If you failed to grasp the linguistic principals of that comment, maybe you shouldn't lecture people about linguistics.

> I'll take no response to this as an acknowledgement that you were incorrect in your assertion.

Now this, this is just brilliant. I learned this technique when I was a child as well. Your maturity is unparalleled.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child#:~:text=%3A...