3 ms·

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 th

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. https://old.reddit.com/r/Adulting/comments/168eike/young_adults_do_your_parents_track_your_location/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Adulting/comments/168eike/young_adu...

teddyh 2y ago
> why would an adult with a new phone let them? You said “a parent is stealing their 30 year old child's phone”, so consent is not required. > Not kids. Maybe, but we’re not talking about them. We were talking about parents. > Prove it, you haven't linked a single thing. This wikipedia article has some references: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism_(belief_revision)&oldid=1161452910 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism_(bel...> > More back peddling. 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.
- CyberDildonics 2y ago
  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?
  - teddyh 2y ago
    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.

teddyh 2y ago

> why would an adult with a new phone let them? You said “a parent is stealing their 30 year old child's phone”, so consent is not required. > Not kids. Maybe, but we’re not talking about them. We were talking about parents. > Prove it, you haven't linked a single thing. This wikipedia article has some references: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism_(belief_revision)&oldid=1161452910 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism_(bel...> > More back peddling. 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.

CyberDildonics 2y ago
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?
- teddyh 2y ago
  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.