I do not know the ages of your children but i fear for them if/when they're teenagers. A small child does not care, a teenager _very much does and should_. Will you still track them when they're 25? Or 30? What if they ask you to stop, what will you do?
I gained very very significant experiences by lying to my parents about where i was. I never got hurt, not once, we were never running from the cops or anything and i solved every problem on my own. Those are invaluable experiences! A 6 year old simply cannot, but a teenager must.
What is your true motivation in tracking them? Is it based in fear? And I'm sure you're aware that any apps they have installed on their phone can also be capable of storing and selling this location data you'd like them to provide. Are you comfortable with Google storing a record of every movement your child makes?
To be perfectly clear here, you think that a parent that buys this smart watch and tracks their kid's location will "oh absolutely" track their child's location into their 30s when they are old enough to have their own career and family?
Can you explain why this completely abnormal behavior is an accurate prediction?
> Can you explain why this completely abnormal behavior is an accurate prediction?
“Abnormal” is ambigous. It can either mean “unhealthy” or “uncommon”. I mean that this behavior, while unhealthy, is not uncommon. Most parents absolutely do not trust their kids to be adults, since in the eyes of the parents, the kids still are just that; kids. It takes an uncommonly strong sense of self-discipline and insight on the side of the parents to force themselves to break out of that thinking.
> What are you saying exactly? This was about location tracking.
The question, as posed by you, was whether a parent who was keeping track of their child while the child was very young, would still do so when the child comes of age and into adulthood. I proposed that the likelihood was very high indeed, since most parents have trouble reevaluating their perception of their child, even though that perception was formed and solidified while the child was very young. It follows, that parents would not see a good enough reason for deliberately altering their habitual tracking as the child turns into an adult.
keeping track of their child while the child was very young
You keep avoiding saying location tracking. Are you seriously talking about location tracking an adult in their 30s? Say it directly.
Are you saying this happens with knowledge or without? With consent or without? Are you saying parents are putting live location trackers on their 30 year old children's owned phones?
Why do you keep ignoring the actual point and saying abstract irrelevant things like 'parents want to keep track of their children' ?
(Please keep this conversation about the topic and less about what you evidently consider some sort of personal conflict.)
> You keep avoiding saying location tracking. Are you seriously talking about location tracking an adult in their 30s? Say it directly.
Yes, of course. I did not intend to be obscure.
> Are you saying this happens with knowledge or without? With consent or without? Are you saying parents are putting live location trackers on their 30 year old children's owned phones?
I’m saying that parents will probably keep location trackers on their kids’ phones, and never get out of the habit of installing them, regardless of how their child ages into adulthood. Show me a parent who had such a tracker installed in a child’s phone, but go out of their way to make an effort to uninstall it the day the child turns 18, and I will show you a rare parent indeed. With or without knowledge and/or consent? Of course without their child’s consent; the parents originally put the tracker in the child’s phone without consent, and so the habit will continue. They key word in all of this is habit; parents acquire habits about their kids, and will continue to follow these habits regardless. The same goes for knowledge; if the child originally was always told about the tracking, this will continue, but if the child was never informed, this will also continue.
Parents, like all people, are creatures of habit, and will not easily change their ways and opinions, even though time passes, things change, and children grow up.
> Why do you keep ignoring the actual point and saying abstract irrelevant things like 'parents want to keep track of their children'?
You are quoting something I did not write, and I can therefore not answer this question.
> Address the actual point and show some evidence.
If you think I am ignoring the point, please state what you would like the point to be, and I will comment on it as proper in this forum. Contrary to what you seem to believe, I am not trying to be obtuse.
Regarding evidence, I am not aware of any research about any of this.
Regarding evidence, I am not aware of any research about any of this.
You don't say. In other words you are making up and hallucinating these vague scenarios. You saying things like 'parents are creatures of habit' is not evidence that these made up things actually happen.
This smart watch is being advertised for actual kids. 6-12 year olds. Do you actually think a 30 year old is going to keep using their toy watch for 20 years, stay on their parents phone plans and their parents are going to track their 30 year old child?
If you ask 100 people if they think a child is going to keep their toy watch that is made for tracking kids for 20 years and let their parents track them decades into adulthood, they wouldn't just say no, they would look at you like you're speaking a different language.
This has never happened and you aren't even close to showing this is something that happens normally because all you keep doing is repeating your claim without evidence.
> you are making up and hallucinating these vague scenarios
You are using very combative and insulting language, which is not helping.
> This smart watch is being advertised for actual kids. 6-12 year olds. Do you actually think a 30 year old is going to keep using their toy watch for 20 years, stay on their parents phone plans and their parents are going to track their 30 year old child?
No. I was not discussing the watch. I made a comment specifically on your statement about whether a parent, which initially has used location tracking on a child, will keep doing so as the child has reached the age of 30. And my position is that yes, very many parents will do so if they don’t need to alter their habits significantly in order to keep doing it.
You are using very combative and insulting language, which is not helping.
No I'm not. This is something people do when they say things without evidence, they try to attack how the other person is pointing out they have no evidence.
If you don't want to be told you're making things up, prove that you're not. You keep repeating the same claims and you haven't shown anything to support that.
No. I was not discussing the watch.
You might want to look at the title because that's what this thread is about.
I made a comment specifically on your statement about whether a parent, which initially has used location tracking on a child, will keep doing so as the child has reached the age of 30. And my position is that yes, very many parents will do so if they don’t need to alter their habits significantly in order to keep doing it.
You have definitely made the comment over and over, it's just that it's nonsense and you have zero evidence that it's true. Repeating yourself isn't evidence and rephrasing your claims isn't either.
It doesn't even make sense. Why would someone become and adult and never get a new phone so they can keep using what they had when they turned 10 for multiple decades?
Who has ever heard of this happening let alone enough that "very many parents do so"?
This is not reality. This is like someone saying that bigfoot exists and when someone asks for evidence they just say "what I'm saying is that bigfoot exists".
I maintain that your usage of the word “hallucinating”, “nonsense”, and associated language is combative and insulting. Of course, I have no proof whatsoever for this claim.
> You might want to look at the title because that's what this thread is about.
A thread very frequently strays in topic, and comments are not all strictly about the article’s headline.
> It doesn't even make sense. Why would someone become and adult and never get a new phone
My thinking was that parents would typically keep installing tracking software on the child’s phone whenever they get the opportunity to do so, provided they have acquired the habit of always doing that.
It’s quite possible, of course, that, in practice, most adult children don’t have any tracking software on their phone, simply because they have gotten a new phone without the parents having access.
> This is not reality. This is like someone saying that bigfoot exists and when someone asks for evidence they just say "what I'm saying is that bigfoot exists".
We don’t have any hard evidence either way. I mean, either parents who track their children’s location do mostly stop doing that when the children become adults, or parents do try to keep tracking the kids as long as practically possible. Both are observable phenomena (unlike bigfoot, whose non-existence is not observable).
I think you mean that you started making outrageous claims that you can't back up.
My thinking was that parents would typically keep installing tracking software on the child’s phone whenever they get the opportunity to do so, provided they have acquired the habit of always doing that.
So in this made up scenario, a parent is stealing their 30 year old child's phone and installing tracking software on it?
Where are you even getting these ideas? You keep repeating them, what even made you think this stuff in the first place?
We don’t have any hard evidence either way.
You're the one making the claim and you don't have any evidence at all, hard, or soft. You can't even explain how it would happen.
I mean, either parents who track their children’s location do mostly stop doing that when the children become adults,
Now the backpeddling finally begins because you keep replying without evidence.
Both are observable phenomena
So observe it and show me evidence.
Here's some actual evidence. Most people replace their phone every 3.5 years on average. Not every 20 years while using the toy watch they got when they were 10.
> So in this made up scenario, a parent is stealing their 30 year old child's phone and installing tracking software on it?
If a parent did so for a 15-year old kid who got themselves a new phone, I would assume that a parent is likely to do it again when the child is at 18, and beyond.
> Where are you even getting these ideas? You keep repeating them, what even made you think this stuff in the first place?
People’s opinions and habits change slowly, if at all. This is especially noticeable in parent’s opinions of their kids; parents frequently treat their children as if they were underage, regardless of the children’s actual age. It’s a habit the parents fell into, and is hard to break, and most parents have neither the motivation nor the insight to do so.
This parental behavior is observable to most people. I used this information to deduce that parents who already track their kid’s location when the kid is underage would still do so, by mere force of habit and unchanging attitude, at 18 and beyond.
> Here's some actual evidence. Most people replace their phone every 3.5 years on average.
All right, in that case the parents who are habitually tracking the location of their children will probably only track their kids up to the age of about 20, when the child statistically has gotten a new phone without the parent’s access. This will make the tracking stop naturally in any case, whatever the parent’s wishes are.
My thinking was mostly about the attitude of the parents. I.e. whether the parents would wish and try to keep tracking the location of their children, given that the parents did keep track of their kids’ location when they were under 18. Your data, however, shows that tracking becomes infeasible as soon as the child acquires a new phone without the parent’s access, and therefore the wishes of the parent becomes moot.
I remain unmoved on my point about the attitude, wishes and inclinations of parents, but since your data has made those moot in most practical cases, the issue becomes uninteresting. I think we can therefore wrap up this discussion.
> you started making outrageous claims that you can't back up.
> in this made up scenario
> you don't have any evidence at all, hard, or soft. You can't even explain how it would happen.
> Now the backpeddling finally begins because you keep replying without evidence.
Your attitude is frankly terrible and can I see from your comment history that this has been a recurring problem for you. I would prefer it if you would refrain from commenting further on this forum until you have at least learned to restrain yourself.
I would assume that a parent is likely to do it again when the child is at 18, and beyond.
Your assumption is wrong, why would an adult with a new phone let them? Where is your evidence that this happens?
People’s opinions and habits change slowly, if at all.
Not kids.
This parental behavior is observable to most people.
Prove it, you haven't linked a single thing.
All right, in that case the parents who are habitually tracking the location of their children will probably only track their kids up to the age of about 20,
More back peddling. Now it's not 30 year olds any more to try to save some face. This is like people doing rain dances or using leeches for medical treatments. Repeating the same thing over and over then seeing if you can get the other person to stop showing that it's made up is not the same as figuring something out. You need actual numbers, data, statistics and you have none of that.
I would prefer it if you would refrain from commenting further on this forum until you have at least learned to restrain yourself.
I would prefer it if you had evidence when making claims. I've seen this dozens of times. Someone with no evidence and a ridiculous claim can't admit that they have no evidence so they repeat their claims more forcefully and say the other person is being a big meany by pointing out that without real data it's all made up.
The other two scenarios are trying to pretend the burden of proof is not on the person who made the claim and pretending you already gave evidence, but we haven't gone there yet.
Here's an actual outside perspective where people are universally mortified at the idea of someone tracking a 24 year old.
I’m not “back peddling”, I’m conceding that the point is now moot and uninteresting.
> I would prefer it if you had evidence when making claims.
I’ve seen no evidence from you, either, that those parents who track the location of their child will mostly give that up volontarily as the child becomes an adult. You have shown that those parents will lose the tracking anyway for technical reasons, and you have shown that most people find the tracking of adults to be disagreeable. But nothing which speaks to the issue in question.
> Here's an actual outside perspective where people are universally mortified at the idea of someone tracking a 24 year old.
Oh, I agree; most people do find the idea to be distasteful, especially when presented like in that link, i.e. from the now-adult child’s perspective. But we were not talking about “most people”, the issue is whether parents who already track their children’s location would continue to try to do so.
Me: You think someone keeping track of their small child means they will somehow track their location when the child is 30 years old?
You: Oh, absolutely.
You: And my position is that yes, very many parents will do so
You said “a parent is stealing their 30 year old child's phone”, so consent is not required.
This is just a lie. I asked if that's what you were saying, which it seems to be since people switch their phones every few years.
I’m not “back peddling”, I’m conceding that the point is now moot and uninteresting.
I think you mean 'I realize what I'm saying is ridiculous and defensible'.
I’ve seen no evidence from you,
I certainly called this, the reversed burden of proof for your claims.
parents will lose the tracking anyway for technical reasons
Now it's 'technical reasons' and 'the point is uninteresting' instead of "parents that track their small children track them when they're 30 and very many parents will do it".
would continue to try to do so.
Now it's "try to do so". What does that mean? People turn into adults and get new phones. Now you're not saying they will, you're saying "they'll try".
This was ridiculous from the first reply, how many times are you going to shift these goal post, back peddle, lie and repeat yourself without evidence?
I originally said (paraphrased) ‘parents will’, and I reasoned that since I was convinced that parents will try, they will mostly succeed. But you have presented evidence against this, and therefore I was wrong in saying that “parents will”.
You seemed, however, from the start to argue against the “trying” part and not the “will succeed” part, which confused the issue, since I still think parents will try. If only you had been more clear, this could have been settled quite soon.
> This is just a lie.
I should perhaps have worded it like “the phrase you used was…”, which is what I meant. I did not mean to claim that you said some parent was actually stealing someone’s phone.
> I certainly called this, the reversed burden of proof for your claims.
Since we both claimed things which can be observed, any one of us could potentially give proof. I did not mean to push the burden on proof wholly unto you, only to point out that it was not completely mine.
> Now you're not saying they will, you're saying "they'll try".
Yes, that is my position. But it’s an uninteresting one, since they’ll fail (as your reference showed).
> This was ridiculous from the first reply, how many times are you going to shift these goal post, back peddle, lie and repeat yourself without evidence?
You have a real problem with following the guidelines for this forum. I suggest you re-read them. Note, for example, that most of your actual reply now consists entirely of references to what I wrote, and references to me, and not about the actual issue we are supposedly debating. This is usually something to be avoided.
Note, for example, that most of your actual reply now consists entirely of references to what I wrote, and references to me, and not about the actual issue we are supposedly debating.
Stop with the persecution complex. Pointing out that you don't have evidence is not a personal attack. You could avoid everything by showing evidence but you won't.
I never meant to accuse you of a personal attack, only of not following this forum’s guidelines. I am guessing that you must have become accustomed to some really horrible forums, since you seem to read accusations and underhandedness into every post. But I assure you that this is not what I am doing, and it is not what this forum is supposed to be.
I could not show evidence I did not have, which is understandable since I was wrong. You did have a reference, which you showed, and so you did resolve the issue. And after some further confusion about the actual issue (the “will” vs. “will try”), the issue is now resolved.
I gained very very significant experiences by lying to my parents about where i was. I never got hurt, not once, we were never running from the cops or anything and i solved every problem on my own. Those are invaluable experiences! A 6 year old simply cannot, but a teenager must.
What is your true motivation in tracking them? Is it based in fear? And I'm sure you're aware that any apps they have installed on their phone can also be capable of storing and selling this location data you'd like them to provide. Are you comfortable with Google storing a record of every movement your child makes?