4 ms·

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

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".

teddyh 2y ago
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).
- CyberDildonics 2y ago
  A thread very frequently strays in topic, 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. https://www.sellcell.com/blog/how-often-do-people-upgrade-their-phone-2023-statistics/ https://www.sellcell.com/blog/how-often-do-people-upgrade-th...
  - teddyh 2y ago
    > 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.

teddyh 2y ago

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).

CyberDildonics 2y ago
A thread very frequently strays in topic, 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. https://www.sellcell.com/blog/how-often-do-people-upgrade-their-phone-2023-statistics/ https://www.sellcell.com/blog/how-often-do-people-upgrade-th...
- teddyh 2y ago
  > 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.