Google releases smart watch for kids

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.

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_(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.

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.

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 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.