05-23-12 10:33 AM
144 ... 456
tools
  1. wuulfy's Avatar
    I employ university students in my business, and the degree of helicopter parenting with some of these kids is astounding. There are parents who really do believe they need to be at their kids' sides (or at least track them by calling them incessantly) at all times. But hey - their text messages are private! Now what do you think is worse?
    if they are uni students they are adults, so it doesnt really apply i would have thought.
    05-23-12 08:22 AM
  2. qbnkelt's Avatar
    WOW, the level of rhetoric and drama on this thread is astounding.

    Let's look at some facts and use common sense...

    Kids have rights. Children have rights. To clean water, shelter, food, safety from predation, safety from child labour, safety from the sex trade.

    Parents have obligations. To provide shelter, food, water, safety from predation, safety from child labour, safety from the sex trade.

    Parents must fulfill these obligations towards their children. To do so, parents must avail of those tools that are appropriate for the environment where the child is being reared. Obviously proper food and water are not a big deal in most suburban homes. Equally obvious, there are areas of the world where the argument for or against smartphone rights are the least of a parent's concern as they try to keep their children alive.

    The law recognises that children do not behave as adults. For this reason, children are required to ascribe to the rules and the tutelage of a parent or guardian. Children have not obtained the required skills to manage subtleties of relationships where they may be in danger of predation. We can tell a young ten year old boy to never talk to a stranger and we think that it's good enough until a very skilled stranger appears distraugt in a park calling for his puppy who has run away and lures the child into the bushes because the child, like most children, will not see past the ruse and will want to help find the puppy. Children have not developed cognitively to understand the nuances of manipulation. Honestly, neither have loads of adults.

    There is no magic to the age of 18 other than that is the general age of consent when children are expected to have learned to navigate the adult world. Predation is no longer simply a man in a corner wearing a raincoat - it's a man (or woman) in a basement taking on the personality of a teenager to lure a victim into a meeting. Frankly, there are adults who have been lured into bad relationships over the internet. Many adults. Why is it so inconceivable to think a child, with less coping skills, could fall prey to that danger?

    Children do not have the right to behave as adults because they have not gained the lifeskills necessary to live in an adult world. The law understands this and does not give a child the same autonomy as an adult. A child who wishes to be an adult has to prove to the court through an emancipation hearing that he/she has gained the skills needed to be treated as such.

    Parents' obligation is to ensure that the child has gained the skill set to live as an adult in an adult world. To fail at that is to allow a child to navigate a world that many, many adults cannot manage. And if a monitoring tool needs to be used, so be it. It is no different than another child in another world being given the tools necessary to ensure his survival, like the means to procure food or water.
    05-23-12 08:31 AM
  3. wuulfy's Avatar
    WOW, the level of rhetoric and drama on this thread is astounding.

    Let's look at some facts and use common sense...

    Kids have rights. Children have rights. To clean water, shelter, food, safety from predation, safety from child labour, safety from the sex trade.

    Parents have obligations. To provide shelter, food, water, safety from predation, safety from child labour, safety from the sex trade.

    Parents must fulfill these obligations towards their children. To do so, parents must avail of those tools that are appropriate for the environment where the child is being reared. Obviously proper food and water are not a big deal in most suburban homes. Equally obvious, there are areas of the world where the argument for or against smartphone rights are the least of a parent's concern as they try to keep their children alive.

    The law recognises that children do not behave as adults. For this reason, children are required to ascribe to the rules and the tutelage of a parent or guardian. Children have not obtained the required skills to manage subtleties of relationships where they may be in danger of predation. We can tell a young ten year old boy to never talk to a stranger and we think that it's good enough until a very skilled stranger appears distraugt in a park calling for his puppy who has run away and lures the child into the bushes because the child, like most children, will not see past the ruse and will want to help find the puppy. Children have not developed cognitively to understand the nuances of manipulation. Honestly, neither have loads of adults.

    There is no magic to the age of 18 other than that is the general age of consent when children are expected to have learned to navigate the adult world. Predation is no longer simply a man in a corner wearing a raincoat - it's a man (or woman) in a basement taking on the personality of a teenager to lure a victim into a meeting. Frankly, there are adults who have been lured into bad relationships over the internet. Many adults. Why is it so inconceivable to think a child, with less coping skills, could fall prey to that danger?

    Children do not have the right to behave as adults because they have not gained the lifeskills necessary to live in an adult world. The law understands this and does not give a child the same autonomy as an adult. A child who wishes to be an adult has to prove to the court through an emancipation hearing that he/she has gained the skills needed to be treated as such.

    Parents' obligation is to ensure that the child has gained the skill set to live as an adult in an adult world. To fail at that is to allow a child to navigate a world that many, many adults cannot manage. And if a monitoring tool needs to be used, so be it. It is no different than another child in another world being given the tools necessary to ensure his survival, like the means to procure food or water.
    well said, i will go further and say all children should be chipped...and before you shout about civil liberties just think how many children would be alive right now if this was in practise.

    And how many bad guys would be in prison rather than walking the streets,
    mnhockeycoach99 likes this.
    05-23-12 08:35 AM
  4. Chrisy's Avatar
    Yes, woman too. I typed men because that's the majority. But woman preds as well.

    Also, a few people mentioned 18 is not a magic number. I'm using that as an example of being an adult. I'm sure kids still need guidance after that and well into their 30s at times! Ha

    But at 18 they can legally be on their own (I was at 18) and probably their parents won't have as much control if they're notliving at home.

    But, yeah, I said what Q did, an d I agree.
    05-23-12 08:37 AM
  5. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    well said, i will go further and say all children should be chipped...and before you shout about civil liberties just think how many children would be alive right now if this was in practise.

    And how many bad guys would be in prison rather than walking the streets,
    Why don't we just chip everybody and there would be no more crime, we'll just arrest everybody pre crime. Yes, I am being sarcastic.
    05-23-12 08:42 AM
  6. wuulfy's Avatar
    Why don't we just chip everybody and there would be no more crime, we'll just arrest everybody pre crime. Yes, I am being sarcastic.
    not at all predictable
    05-23-12 08:44 AM
  7. Chrisy's Avatar
    In the end, it's up to each parent to decide how they'll do their parenting jobs.

    I'm so glad I don't have kids!
    05-23-12 08:47 AM
  8. xandermac's Avatar
    Why don't we just chip everybody and there would be no more crime, we'll just arrest everybody pre crime. Yes, I am being sarcastic.
    We should at least use common sense. I'm all for civil rights but as long as these civil rights groups are protecting the right for perverts to join MBLA I'm not going to trust them when they say they're protecting the rights of kids to have privacy. At some point the parent has to get involved and make sure nothing is going on that could harm the child.

    BTW, if a person is a registered member of MBLA you're damn right I think they should be chipped.
    mnhockeycoach99 likes this.
    05-23-12 08:50 AM
  9. wuulfy's Avatar
    In the end, it's up to each parent to decide how they'll do their parenting jobs.

    I'm so glad I don't have kids!
    actually i dont agree with that either, in many cases the parents should be the last people to decide.

    The amount of children killed by their parents by neglet and other reasons is just heart breaking.
    05-23-12 08:50 AM
  10. sleepngbear's Avatar
    WOW, the level of rhetoric and drama on this thread is astounding.

    Let's look at some facts and use common sense...

    Kids have rights. Children have rights. To clean water, shelter, food, safety from predation, safety from child labour, safety from the sex trade.

    Parents have obligations. To provide shelter, food, water, safety from predation, safety from child labour, safety from the sex trade.

    Parents must fulfill these obligations towards their children. To do so, parents must avail of those tools that are appropriate for the environment where the child is being reared. Obviously proper food and water are not a big deal in most suburban homes. Equally obvious, there are areas of the world where the argument for or against smartphone rights are the least of a parent's concern as they try to keep their children alive.

    The law recognises that children do not behave as adults. For this reason, children are required to ascribe to the rules and the tutelage of a parent or guardian. Children have not obtained the required skills to manage subtleties of relationships where they may be in danger of predation. We can tell a young ten year old boy to never talk to a stranger and we think that it's good enough until a very skilled stranger appears distraugt in a park calling for his puppy who has run away and lures the child into the bushes because the child, like most children, will not see past the ruse and will want to help find the puppy. Children have not developed cognitively to understand the nuances of manipulation. Honestly, neither have loads of adults.

    There is no magic to the age of 18 other than that is the general age of consent when children are expected to have learned to navigate the adult world. Predation is no longer simply a man in a corner wearing a raincoat - it's a man (or woman) in a basement taking on the personality of a teenager to lure a victim into a meeting. Frankly, there are adults who have been lured into bad relationships over the internet. Many adults. Why is it so inconceivable to think a child, with less coping skills, could fall prey to that danger?

    Children do not have the right to behave as adults because they have not gained the lifeskills necessary to live in an adult world. The law understands this and does not give a child the same autonomy as an adult. A child who wishes to be an adult has to prove to the court through an emancipation hearing that he/she has gained the skills needed to be treated as such.

    Parents' obligation is to ensure that the child has gained the skill set to live as an adult in an adult world. To fail at that is to allow a child to navigate a world that many, many adults cannot manage. And if a monitoring tool needs to be used, so be it. It is no different than another child in another world being given the tools necessary to ensure his survival, like the means to procure food or water.
    In the absence of the ability to give this several hundred Likes, let me just say, "Bingo".
    mnhockeycoach99 likes this.
    05-23-12 08:53 AM
  11. mnhockeycoach99's Avatar
    It's you who is misinterpreting it, what it says is no matter what you are ultimately responsible for your child, you and nobody else.
    Exactly...which is why monitoring the activity of your child (within reason), whether it be text messaging, Facebook, or sitting next to them in a movie theater, is perfectly ACCEPTABLE behavior by their parent, WHO IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHILD'S WELL BEING.
    Chrisy likes this.
    05-23-12 09:20 AM
  12. wuulfy's Avatar
    it may be over simplifying a complicated and contentious issue, but i feel if this saves just one childs life then its worth it.
    05-23-12 09:23 AM
  13. xandermac's Avatar
    If anyone tries to limit a parents right to monitor their childs actions I would be highly suspicious of that groups motives.
    05-23-12 09:23 AM
  14. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    it may be over simplifying a complicated and contentious issue, but i feel if this saves just one childs life then its worth it.
    Really? Should we ban everything that might result in a child's death?
    05-23-12 09:28 AM
  15. john_v's Avatar
    Great post Q, thanks for bringing some common sense into this thread. I would add that my obligations as a father supercede my boys' right to privacy, when it comes to things like cell phones, who they are hanging around with, etc. (obvious things such as showers excluded, but figured I should clarify so my statement doesn't get taken out of context )

    Each week I do volunteer work with incarcerated juveniles, and every Thursday night I learn more and more about how NOT to parent.

    I think the most important thing in parenting is that your kids know without a shadow of a doubt that you love them, no matter what. That they know if they screw up, yes there will be consequences, but that they can rest assured that you love them and aren't going to judge them or verbally beat them down.

    I think if they know that you love them, AND you communicate this, it makes it somewhat easier for them to understand why you want to know who they're hanging out with, etc.

    I've had very "graphic" (for lack of a better term) talks with my oldest about people who have messed their lives up. When someone we know died from a drug OD, I took him to the wake and let him see what consequences can bring.

    For my kids anyway, the bottom line is that they know I love and care for them. They also know, as I've admitted to them, that I will make mistakes as a parent - but if I do, it's because I'm watching out for them.

    Well, to keep with the original post , I'm surprised no one has mentioned that RIM is going to be releasing the Parental Controls app from the 7.1 leak, as an app for OS5 & 6. To me it's a great idea.


    WOW, the level of rhetoric and drama on this thread is astounding.

    Let's look at some facts and use common sense...

    Kids have rights. Children have rights. To clean water, shelter, food, safety from predation, safety from child labour, safety from the sex trade.

    Parents have obligations. To provide shelter, food, water, safety from predation, safety from child labour, safety from the sex trade.

    Parents must fulfill these obligations towards their children. To do so, parents must avail of those tools that are appropriate for the environment where the child is being reared. Obviously proper food and water are not a big deal in most suburban homes. Equally obvious, there are areas of the world where the argument for or against smartphone rights are the least of a parent's concern as they try to keep their children alive.

    The law recognises that children do not behave as adults. For this reason, children are required to ascribe to the rules and the tutelage of a parent or guardian. Children have not obtained the required skills to manage subtleties of relationships where they may be in danger of predation. We can tell a young ten year old boy to never talk to a stranger and we think that it's good enough until a very skilled stranger appears distraugt in a park calling for his puppy who has run away and lures the child into the bushes because the child, like most children, will not see past the ruse and will want to help find the puppy. Children have not developed cognitively to understand the nuances of manipulation. Honestly, neither have loads of adults.

    There is no magic to the age of 18 other than that is the general age of consent when children are expected to have learned to navigate the adult world. Predation is no longer simply a man in a corner wearing a raincoat - it's a man (or woman) in a basement taking on the personality of a teenager to lure a victim into a meeting. Frankly, there are adults who have been lured into bad relationships over the internet. Many adults. Why is it so inconceivable to think a child, with less coping skills, could fall prey to that danger?

    Children do not have the right to behave as adults because they have not gained the lifeskills necessary to live in an adult world. The law understands this and does not give a child the same autonomy as an adult. A child who wishes to be an adult has to prove to the court through an emancipation hearing that he/she has gained the skills needed to be treated as such.

    Parents' obligation is to ensure that the child has gained the skill set to live as an adult in an adult world. To fail at that is to allow a child to navigate a world that many, many adults cannot manage. And if a monitoring tool needs to be used, so be it. It is no different than another child in another world being given the tools necessary to ensure his survival, like the means to procure food or water.
    Last edited by john_v; 05-23-12 at 09:31 AM. Reason: Fixed dang auto correct
    hpjrt and xandermac like this.
    05-23-12 09:28 AM
  16. wuulfy's Avatar
    Really? Should we ban everything that might result in a child's death?
    not talking about banning anything, if we were banning major causes of child death we should be looking at the car, and ultimately parents smokeing in front of their children. I have often found it ironic that employees are protected but children are not.
    05-23-12 09:39 AM
  17. wuulfy's Avatar
    Great post Q, thanks for bringing some common sense into this thread. I would add that my obligations as a father supercede my boys' right to privacy, when it comes to things like cell phones, who they are hanging around with, etc. (obvious things such as showers excluded, but figured I should clarify so my statement doesn't get taken out of context )

    Each week I do volunteer work with incarcerated juveniles, and every Thursday night I learn more and more about how NOT to parent.

    I think the most important thing in parenting is that your kids know without a shadow of a doubt that you love them, no matter what. That they know if they screw up, yes there will be consequences, but that they can rest assured that you love them and aren't going to judge them or verbally beat them down.

    I think if they know that you love them, AND you communicate this, it makes it somewhat easier for them to understand why you want to know who they're hanging out with, etc.

    I've had very "graphic" (for lack of a better term) talks with my oldest about people who have messed their lives up. When someone we know died from a drug OD, I took him to the wake and let him see what consequences can bring.

    For my kids anyway, the bottom line is that they know I love and care for them. They also know, as I've admitted to them, that I will make mistakes as a parent - but if I do, it's because I'm watching out for them.

    Well, to keep with the original post , I'm surprised no one has mentioned that RIM is going to be releasing the Parental Controls app from the 7.1 leak, as an app for OS5 & 6. To me it's a great idea.
    were we talking about phones?????
    05-23-12 09:40 AM
  18. Laura Knotek's Avatar

    You leave your kid with a 13 year old for a babysitter and if they burn the house down (I nearly did when I was a kid, forgot a frying pan on) and see who's gonna be held responsible for it and see if the insurance will pay.
    I am a renter, not a homeowner, but this is a financial issue that affects anyone.

    I am responsible for any damage to my apartment, such as fire. It does not matter if I burn the place down, a child burns the place down, or another adult who is a guest burns the place down. Nor does it matter if I am home or not when the place burns down. That is why I carry a renter's insurance policy.

    The same goes for any injuries to guests in my apartment. It is my financial responsibility, so my renter's policy covers this.
    05-23-12 10:23 AM
  19. drfever's Avatar
    There should be no ethical questions surrounding this. Afterall, if you are like me, I PAY THE BILLS for my childrens' phones and I AM the one that worries most about my childrens' safety. If they want the privilege of having a phone then they will have to accept the fact that as a child under 16, I, the parent has every right to keep an eye on what they are doing. I love this idea and wish it were available now in Canada.

    Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk
    05-23-12 10:33 AM
144 ... 456
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD