[QUOTE=Irkalla;39039858]Then why can't teenagers own firearms and conceal carry? Why can't they purchase alcohol? Why can't they obtain a driver's license earlier?
I've asked you why teens shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of decisions requiring sound judgement and reasoning, and you haven't answered me once.[/QUOTE]
I doubt most adults would need firearms
In Britain, we're not allowed guns at all, and we have less than 10 firearm deaths
[URL="http://www.creativecriminals.com/images/Handguncontrolgodblessamerica1.jpeg"]This is so needed[/URL]
They cant purchase alcohol because their brain is not fully developed, and alcohol slows development of new brain cells. Which are pretty damn important for a growing brain.
But there's a difference between stopping a child from driving a car or drinking alcohol - both of which could easily kill them in a multitude of ways - and owning a phone, which is basically a social requirement these days
And no, you did not just seriously compare carrying a gun to carrying a phone, what the fuck
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;39039883]Means I currently am not obligated to answer that, but I will anyways: it's because they can threaten lives. A smartphone can't unless you attach some sort of a weapon onto it.[/QUOTE]
A smartphone can wreck someone's social, mental, and emotional self as much as a firearm can injure one's physical self.
[editline]31st December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ojcoolj;39039889]I doubt most adults would need firearms
In Britain, we're not allowed guns at all, and we have less than 10 firearm deaths
[URL="http://www.creativecriminals.com/images/Handguncontrolgodblessamerica1.jpeg"]This is so needed[/URL]
They cant purchase alcohol because their brain is not fully developed, and alcohol slows development of new brain cells. Which are pretty damn important for a growing brain.
But there's a difference between stopping a child from driving a car or drinking alcohol - both of which could easily kill them in a multitude of ways - and owning a phone, which is basically a social requirement these days
And no, you did not just seriously compare carrying a gun to carrying a phone, what the fuck[/QUOTE]
10 firearm deaths? Kinda predictable in a country that's never had a gun culture anyway. And honestly, if banning guns would magically make gun crime stop, I'd gladly give up my right to keep and bear arms.
Back on topic, You're right, these things do kill whereas smartphones do not. But a smartphone is up there in the things one must use responsibly category.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;39039891]A smartphone can wreck someone's social, mental, and emotional self as much as a firearm can injure one's physical self.[/QUOTE]
A firearm can kill you with very little effort
The worst you can get with a smartphone is "omfg sum1 has a negativ opinin about me, ill tel facebook and luk strong and get lieks xDD"
Painful, yes, I know
But here's the thing. If someone is getting their social, mental or emotional self figuratively killed, then surely its the one with the social firearm who did it
i.e., in cyberbullying, blame the bully, not the kid with the phone
I'm not making much sense because I haven't slept in 2 days but goddamn it pretzel mary i will finish this tuna
[QUOTE=Irkalla;39039891]A smartphone can wreck someone's social, mental, and emotional self as much as a firearm can injure one's physical self.[/QUOTE]
But with social/mental/emotional stuff, there's a thing called therapy and counseling. Physical: there's the hospital, but there's no guarantees to whether they can fix your problems or not. Your social/emotional/mental self relies on your physical self. If your physical self gets taken out of the equation (eg death), no social/mental/emotional self.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;39039917]But with social/mental/emotional stuff, there's a thing called therapy and counseling. Physical: there's the hospital, but there's no guarantees to whether they can fix your problems or not. Your social/emotional/mental self relies on your physical self. If your physical self gets taken out of the equation (eg death), no social/mental/emotional self.[/QUOTE]
Boy all that expensive counseling and therapy because my hypothetical daughter started showing nudes of herself with her smartphone or arranged to meet up with someone who was actually a pedophile, or even worse, a murderer.
When I could have just been monitoring her text messages.
Yes, the probability of these things happening is alarmingly small (not really for the former, because we kinda have a sex culture here,) but I think that the child's privacy is a very small price to pay for their safety. Especially if they retain the false sense of privacy.
It's shitty, but hey. I'll gladly by morally shitty to protect my hypothetical future children.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;39039924]Boy all that expensive counseling and therapy because my hypothetical daughter started showing nudes of herself with her smartphone or arranged to meet up with someone who was actually a pedophile, or even worse, a murderer.[/QUOTE]
The hospital bill would be quite expensive too in a country without universal health care.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;39039934]The hospital bill would be quite expensive too in a country without universal health care.[/QUOTE]
Oh boy, more hidden America jabs. I'm on the fence about universal healthcare. NHS is kinda shit, you know.
Also, I wish I had a tag mate like you :(
I can't be the only person that supports stronger parents rather than weak ones.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;39039924]When I could have just been monitoring her text messages.
Yes, the probability of these things happening is alarmingly small (not really for the former, because we kinda have a sex culture here,) but I think that the child's privacy is a very small price to pay for their safety. Especially if they retain the false sense of privacy.
It's shitty, but hey. I'll gladly by morally shitty to protect my hypothetical future children.[/QUOTE]
The damage is still going to be done once the recipient views the text and you'll still be left with the same options as without text monitoring (provided your child actually lets you know they were in touch with someone suspicious).
I had a phone when I was eight and it was never a problem
what the fuck is this
I'm outta here. Had fun debating.
And for the record, I believe everything you two said was morally correct. But I do think that sometimes what is morally correct isn't the RESPONSIBLE thing to do.
Yes, I would feel like a fucking dick for spying on my children like that. But I think it would be irresponsible not to. That's part of being a parent, it's not easy and sometimes you have to betray your morality for what you percieve to be the greater good.
[QUOTE=Eric95;39039959]I had a phone when I was eight and it was never a problem
what the fuck is this[/QUOTE]
Good on you.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;39039980]I'm outta here. Had fun debating.
And for the record, I believe everything you two said was morally correct. But I do think that sometimes what is morally correct isn't the RESPONSIBLE thing to do.
Yes, I would feel like a fucking dick for spying on my children like that. But I think it would be irresponsible not to. That's part of being a parent, it's not easy and sometimes you have to betray your morality for what you percieve to be the greater good.[/QUOTE]
Want to pass the favor back. Thanks for keeping it civilized.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;39039993]Want to pass the favor back. Thanks for keeping it civilized.[/QUOTE]
For the record, how old are you? I'm 21, and grew up in a household of, at first, overly strong parents (emotional abuse and the like,) and afterwards weak parents (or should I say i became stronger and more formidable as a child...)
Wondering what motivates your side of the argument.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;39039924]Boy all that expensive counseling and therapy because my hypothetical daughter started showing nudes of herself with her smartphone or arranged to meet up with someone who was actually a pedophile, or even worse, a murderer.
When I could have just been monitoring her text messages.
Yes, the probability of these things happening is alarmingly small (not really for the former, because we kinda have a sex culture here,) but I think that the child's privacy is a very small price to pay for their safety. Especially if they retain the false sense of privacy.
It's shitty, but hey. I'll gladly by morally shitty to protect my hypothetical future children.[/QUOTE]
If a girl sends people nudes of herself, well I'm pretty sure a lot of the responsibility falls on her too
Teenagers should have more sense than that
I got an iPod touch with none of these rules at the same age this kid got his iPhone, and as far as I know, I'm not fucked in the head.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;39040015]For the record, how old are you? I'm 21, and grew up in a household of, at first, overly strong parents (emotional abuse and the like,) and afterwards weak parents (or should I say i became stronger and more formidable as a child...)
Wondering what motivates your side of the argument.[/QUOTE]
See the PM I sent you about the first part.
Mix of both lax and stricter parents until they seperated. I occasionally see the stricter one, but lax is home for me.
[QUOTE=Naaz;39037898]I believe that Carboniferous amphibians are considered int he same order as modern ones.[/QUOTE]
Yes and no, all modern amphibians are inside "Lissamphibia", and other critters like Diplocaulus and Eryops are in sister groups or paraphyletic/separated ones. But if you count Lissamphibia as a group inside Temnospondyli (Where a lot of popular carboniferous amphibians are in), then more or less yeah, they're in the same order; it's the same as whenever you want to consider snakes as lizards or something separate.
And I think a lot of REALLY old critters like Ichtyostega just sit on Tetrapoda and not in Amphibia sensu lato.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;39039764]The password thing is fairly controversial.
On one hand, your child should have nothing to fear if he's not doing anything wrong.
On the other, a child has a right to some manner of privacy. It's a tough one.
I, personally, go through the mobile carrier and get text message monitoring service. It's a good compromise to allowing the kid to feel a sense of privacy, and giving you the peace of mind of knowing what he's up to.[/QUOTE]
I would feel like my privacy was being very protected when you're monitoring my fucking texts.
got an iphone when i was 13 with no crazy rules and i'm just fine.
being a spoiled brat != having lots of things. you can be a normal person even if your parents are billionaires, and a spoiled brat with middle class parents.
i think invading pretty much anyone's privacy without a good reason (as in, them going missing or committing a crime) is terrible
yes you want your child to be safe but there are better ways to do it.
you could actually try trusting your child, having a good relationship with them.
if somebody feels like he's not trusted. he will be less likely to actually share anything in the first place
[editline]31st December 2012[/editline]
basically if you don't treat your kid like an actual human being, with rights to privacy and shit, it won't end well
[QUOTE=Irkalla;39040015]For the record, how old are you? I'm 21, and grew up in a household of, at first, overly strong parents (emotional abuse and the like,) and afterwards weak parents (or should I say i became stronger and more formidable as a child...)
Wondering what motivates your side of the argument.[/QUOTE]
what message does it set for a person(a child), when the authority figure of their life says "No, you don't have privacy". It's not about how miserable or happy a kid is, but the implications of that behaviour on them. Giving them mistrust of authority and a representation of it that isn't likeable nor respectable due to a lack of understanding between two parties, it's not going to work out in the long run.
Kids are due a certain level of privacy so they can learn how to use it and how to be smart with it. As a parent, invading your kids space in every way you can to keep them "safe" may seem like the best option, but it's going to end up giving your child a view of privacy and private space that's not going to work out for the best in every case.
By giving kids freedom, a few feet at a time they can learn how to walk before they try to run, and kids will learn from this. Every kids different, but if you try and force some methods on some kids, it doesn't work. I'd rather believe that getting to test the waters out for yourself, knowing you have a line back home is going to lead to better results than being shafted out of person privacy.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;39039667]I'm not saying that at all. But I was a teenager once, and in some ways I still am. Teenagers aren't the best at making decisions based on reason and critical thinking. It's why we don't let people drive at 13 and let people own firearms at 13.
In regards to number one, it clearly wasn't a gift. What she gifted him was the ability to sign an agreement licensing his use to the phone.
In regards to number two, it may be shitty, but at least it's responsible. You should know if your child is gonna sneak out and go get shitfaced at some party or something.
Number four, you're also on break. Or I assume so, anyway. I'll yield and say the parent should have made exceptions for weekends and offtime. But really, one does need to impart the knowledge unto their children that they should not be bothering people at midnight. It's just rude.
Five, teenagers aren't the best at making good decisions. Let someone use it and they run off with it. Either that, or someone will see him with it and just yank it out of his pocket. I had that happen with a iPod one time, and the school refused to do anything because it was my fault for bringing it. Schools like to wash their hands of responsibility. If something happens at school, it's going to be your fault for being the victim.
Eleven: It's not rude to talk on the street or to leave the table in the restaurant (only after you excuse yourself) and go outside. Basic manners.
Twelve: It's not that head having a brain I'm worried about :v: I have a brain too, but you bet your ass I'da done that shit.
Seventeen: Yeah that just dumb. Not even gonna try to rebut.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand why you think a 13-year-old shouldn't be up past 8. That's ridiculous. He isn't a child.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;39039942]Oh boy, more hidden America jabs. I'm on the fence about universal healthcare. NHS is kinda shit, you know.
[/QUOTE]
In what way?
I had a shit phone from the age of 12-13 which was given to me because my parents wanted me to be able to contact them whenever I needed to, and for them to be able to contact me. That was the primary purpose. I had limited texting (200 a month, counts received texts), and it really was primarily a phone. When it died, I upgraded to a pantech blackberry ripoff type thing. It worked well enough, no real apps, but I finally had unlimited texting, which was great. I didn't get an actual smart phone until I was about 17, and I think it was worth the wait. I learned how to responsibly handle the amount of tech I had, and was rewarded accordingly. It was like taking baby steps, one new freedom at a time.
When I have kids, they will probably start out on basic phones, too. If they do well, upgrade! If the phone does nothing but cause problems, it'll have to wait until they're either mature enough to handle it or I need them to have it for my own peace of mind.
I'm planning on taking parenting tips from my parents because they have somehow given me more than I could ever ask for without me feeling entitled to it. I feel partially like I've earned it, and partially like I'm incredibly lucky that my parents are able and willing to give me so much.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;39039764]The password thing is fairly controversial.
On one hand, your child should have nothing to fear if he's not doing anything wrong.
On the other, a child has a right to some manner of privacy. It's a tough one.
I, personally, go through the mobile carrier and get text message monitoring service. It's a good compromise to allowing the kid to feel a sense of privacy, and giving you the peace of mind of knowing what he's up to.[/QUOTE]
I don't hand out things to my mother in fear that she might take them out of context.
Most users aren't really against this because they're teenagers, but because it's really selfish to dictate her child's interests. You shouldn't raise a kid like a Sims character. You should let him explore his own interests.
this mom sounds like a borderline luddite
Strong parents support, care by just giving their time and love.
They respond calmly to questions of curiosity and try to grant as much of an objective answer without involving dramatic opinions of their own and approach it with acceptance and understanding towards variety.
Weak parents teach, restrain and lacks the understanding that they forcing a living being into silence, lies and a pattern of compromises.
These people may also have a harder time to live in moderation once they are on their own.
They may have a harder time to even consider something new/odd.
Some may not see the difference by a friends concern and those tiresome words which they were constantly haunted by as a kid.
I got my first iPhone when I was 13. No terms and conditions to be signed. Just "Have fun!" This is just absolutely ridiculous. This women thinks she can raise a perfect child when in reality she isnt. She is just creating something worse. She is making a reason for this poor kid to rebel against her long ass list of rules. When I read over these rules, very few of them made sense, but were taken to the extreme.
[QUOTE]3. If it rings, answer it. It is a phone. Say hello, use your manners. Do not ever ignore a phone call if the screen reads "Mom" or "Dad". Not ever.[/QUOTE]
Yea I'll answer it if it is my Mom or Dad. But Not ever? Why the threat? When I got my phone, I was expected to know my common sense about using it. Because if I did get into trouble with it, my phone was gone and never to be seen again. This mom is just showing that her son doesn't already know the rules and he has to be taught them. So in a nutshell, you showed the world your son is too stupid to own an iPhone so you have to write up an 18-point contract. It's like she is trying to raise the next president of the united states for christ sakes.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;39041267]this mom sounds like a borderline luddite[/QUOTE]
Luddites actually were good people protesting because they were out of jobs due to the machines they used.
[QUOTE=AlphaGunman;39031015]That's just stupid. What if he wants to contact one of his friends or maybe even his parents if something's gone wrong?[/QUOTE]
I'm 22, and the one thing I don't think I'll ever regret is taking too many photos. I wish I took more. I mean, sure, if you post them everywhere it's annoying, but telling your kid not to take as many photos as they like is really stupid. He think to not take photos of a great moment he's experiencing growing up. Cellphones are the polaroids of the 21st century.
Heh, I remember when I got my first computer when I was a wee lad, similar rules were applied...and the promptly forgotten about a week later.
haha, and my parents yell at me for NOT carrying my cell phone enough!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
