You think that contrary to millions of years of human evolution, history and parallels to virtually every mammal on the planet, humans to do not become biologically adults around the age of 13. That somehow, within that last few generations, the age has shot up to the mid twenties. I can't speak for your genetic line, but my genetic line is still intact.
You take biological adults, declare them to be entirely different, remove their rights and responsibilities, and then use the fact that they get screwed up to be proof that they are biologically different because they behave just like any other adult would behave given their position.
There you go. It is misandrist problem. Yes. The courts should stop screwing men and their children. Unfortunatly, like many other abused demographics in the past, just saying "something should change" doesn't solve the individuals problem.
You should reread your link. It does not say that a 4 year old is just learning to navigate stairs. Yes. His peers at 4, 5, 6, etc...
Funny, I've heard the same thing, almost verbatim, from the hippy parents that feed their kids nothing but granola and dress them in burlap sacks.
Straw man falicy. With how badly you failed at understanding your own citation, I would guess that you don't understand your own use of a falicy either.
It's almost as if every parent is under the impression that their method of parenting is superior to all others, despite a complete lack of scientific evidence...
Of course it is common for parents to think that their method of parenting is superior to all others. It would take a truly evil person to raise their child in a way that they thought was bad. And, there is no scientific evidence for the parents belief because the entire field of child development is a "soft science", meaning it is filled with people making stuff up and declaring their findings to an echo chamber.
You clearly disapprove of a 4 year old having a phone, but you make no actual statements to support that belief.
The caves on Tom Sawyers Island at Disneyland. A different isle of the grocery store. Department stores. Or, any event that he wants to handle on his own. 4 year olds love to be "big boys" and handle things on their own. There is a balance between being a "helicopter parent" and "not parenting". A cell phone just extends the range that a child can roam without pushing too far in either direction.
Of course, in the case of the original story's poster, his kid would be with a bad mother.
Or, we live in a society that screws men in the courts, so the father cannot physically be there because men with guns will come and lock him up if he keeps showing up. There is nothing in this story that says the father is trying to give the child a phone *in lieu of* being there. He is asking about phones because he wants to give his son a phone *in lieu of* not having any contact at all.
That is the case here. The courts acknowledge that the guy is a great dad. They acknowledge that the his home is healthy and happy. They acknowledge that he has been raising his kids with full legal custody. Their response to this is to issue full custody in their state, and when the police come because of domestic violence in the mother's house, they arrest the kids. Issue shared custody between the mother and the state of Illinois. Issue a court order that the children cannot leave the state of Illinois. Start drugging the kids because their instance that they want to go back home to their father in California makes them victims of the mental disorder Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Thus instead of sending the kids home, they drug them. One of the two they physically tortured with the excuse that they needed to keep sticking him with needles to draw blood in the attempt to figure out why he insists that he wants to go home to his father.
Not my children, but for the dad in question... No, that doesn't work. As a rule, states will not issue criminal charges against someone who is in a different state for doing something that the other state specifically authorizes them to do. Not to mention, he has a penis and she has a vagina. Thus he does not have equal rights in the courts of either state.
Yes. Full legal custody in CA. The feds will not get involved in custody disputes. This kind of thing is not uncommon.
But yes, people that have messed up 100 times then cry when the one time they actually try using the system it doesn't do exactly what they want go cry about how badly the system they ignored for years abused them.
You are underestimating 4 year olds. (Most people do.) My son did just fine with a myTouch at 4. He also did just fine with a dumb phone at 3. Good thing since he found an extra exit to the Tom Sawyer caves at Disneyland. He had no problem calling us and telling us where he was when he came out. Sure, not every 4 year old can read the signs around them to tell you where they are, but most can handle dialing a smartphone by pressing a picture of dad.
The guy doesn't have access to his kid. This sort of thing happens to men all the time. I have read enough of your posts to know that you are fully aware of how messed up our society can be concerning gender. Instead of telling this guy that he is abusing his child because a court doesn't like penises, you should be applauding him for doing his best to find a way to be a part of his child's life.
My child did just fine with a myTouch when he was 4. Some children are destructive, and some children are not. A properly chosen phone is far more rugged than a Nintendo DS, and kids do just fine with those. For less than $50 he could get his kid a used myTouch. An extra phone line can cost as little as $5 a month. So, for as little as $110 a child can have a father for the next year.
It might not work, or it might. My kid did just fine with a phone at 4. Others I know might try and eat the phone. Either way, for this person, getting a ~$100 smart phone and a cheap phone plan might not be the end of the world cost wise. I know that I would happily pay for a phone and hope for the best when the alternative is no contact at all.
The ability to use tech that you don't understand isn't limited to a 4 year old. You might be surprised at how many adults don't understand how even a land line telephone works, much less a cell phone. Most people use and understand cell phones exactly as a 4 year old would. The press a picture of the person they want to talk to and press the hang up button when they are done.
The claim that using a phone at 4 would somehow break a child so that they could not develop socially is pure Luddite propaganda.
What a 4 year old is not ready for is having a court force his father to abandon him. It is amazing how many people here are suggesting that a child is better of without their parent. It's crazy.
Why? My son had a phone at 4. It allowed and still allows him to have far more freedom than many of his peers. That freedom has allowed him to develop both socially and intellectually at a rate that is far greater than what he could have under the tethered leash of a child who cannot leave his parent's sight.
Maybe not going to jail and thus not being with his child anyway is worth not being physically with his child. There are these things called "Judges". The do things like "give custody" of children to mothers irrelevant of how bad the mother is or how good the father is. There are also these things called "Police". If a "Judge" says that the mother has "full custody" and the father shows up anyway, these people called "Police" come with guns. They first tell you to leave. Failing that, they physically force you to leave up to shooting you if you fight back hard enough.
From the description, this guy cannot physically be there. Men with guns will make sure of that. He is left with the choice of abandoning his child, or trying to have some contact via a telephone. Not only is your suggestion that he abandon his child the wrong choice. It is evil.
As opposed to your real plan which is to abandon the kid. It seems to me that there is a middle ground, and this guy is a lot closer to it than you are.
Are you really suggesting that children are better off talking to recordings of corporate mascots than their own parents? I guess that's the orphanage state for you.
I hear you. First we give them electricity, then we get them immunized. Heck, I even see the entitlement generation parents feeding their kids water that no one has dumped their feces into.
Seriously, a cell phone just isn't that expensive compared to a bulk of children's toys, and this guy isn't even trying to get it as a toy.
Good luck with that. I pal of mine has spent the last year trying to get his kids returned to him. He had full custody in California, and when the kids went for a 1 week visit to their mother's house in Illinois, the state decided they would just give her full custody and declare it illegal for the children to leave Illinois. When the cops came to deal with the physical abuse, instead of sending the kids back home to the father, the state of Illinois decided to seize custody of the children themselves. No one claims the father provided anything but a safe and loving home to the kids. The state of Illinois just decided that putting the kids in jail (for their protection from their mother) is better than allowing the kids to return home. And that is just scratching the surface of the abuse that the courts have put on these kids.
The short version of the story is, men and children get screwed in divorce courts. A good lawyer is only as effective as the mother wants to let him be.
I've found exactly the opposite. Tell her that it isn't the dress that is making her butt look big. That will start a fight. Telling a woman that her dress is ugly is like telling her that her dress is stuck in the back of her nylons. If you are not a jerk about it, she will appreciate it.
Insightful comment from an Anonymous Coward. Teenager is a paper demographic. Biologically, you are a child or an adult. Teenagers are just adults who have been told that they have no responsibilities and no rights. How can anyone expect that combination to produce responsible citizens?
I agree. That is why 2 weeks after my son's second birthday, I formatted his hard drive, gave him a DVD with Linux on it and told him that if he wanted to play his games again, he would just have to reinstall the OS himself. No, kidding. I really did that.
Slashdot Mirror
Big and round are orthogonal.
You think that contrary to millions of years of human evolution, history and parallels to virtually every mammal on the planet, humans to do not become biologically adults around the age of 13. That somehow, within that last few generations, the age has shot up to the mid twenties. I can't speak for your genetic line, but my genetic line is still intact.
You take biological adults, declare them to be entirely different, remove their rights and responsibilities, and then use the fact that they get screwed up to be proof that they are biologically different because they behave just like any other adult would behave given their position.
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4279555&cid=44989003
There you go. It is misandrist problem. Yes. The courts should stop screwing men and their children. Unfortunatly, like many other abused demographics in the past, just saying "something should change" doesn't solve the individuals problem.
Funny, I've heard the same thing, almost verbatim, from the hippy parents that feed their kids nothing but granola and dress them in burlap sacks.
Straw man falicy. With how badly you failed at understanding your own citation, I would guess that you don't understand your own use of a falicy either.
It's almost as if every parent is under the impression that their method of parenting is superior to all others, despite a complete lack of scientific evidence...
Of course it is common for parents to think that their method of parenting is superior to all others. It would take a truly evil person to raise their child in a way that they thought was bad. And, there is no scientific evidence for the parents belief because the entire field of child development is a "soft science", meaning it is filled with people making stuff up and declaring their findings to an echo chamber.
You clearly disapprove of a 4 year old having a phone, but you make no actual statements to support that belief.
The caves on Tom Sawyers Island at Disneyland. A different isle of the grocery store. Department stores. Or, any event that he wants to handle on his own. 4 year olds love to be "big boys" and handle things on their own. There is a balance between being a "helicopter parent" and "not parenting". A cell phone just extends the range that a child can roam without pushing too far in either direction.
Of course, in the case of the original story's poster, his kid would be with a bad mother.
Or, we live in a society that screws men in the courts, so the father cannot physically be there because men with guns will come and lock him up if he keeps showing up. There is nothing in this story that says the father is trying to give the child a phone *in lieu of* being there. He is asking about phones because he wants to give his son a phone *in lieu of* not having any contact at all.
That is the case here. The courts acknowledge that the guy is a great dad. They acknowledge that the his home is healthy and happy. They acknowledge that he has been raising his kids with full legal custody. Their response to this is to issue full custody in their state, and when the police come because of domestic violence in the mother's house, they arrest the kids. Issue shared custody between the mother and the state of Illinois. Issue a court order that the children cannot leave the state of Illinois. Start drugging the kids because their instance that they want to go back home to their father in California makes them victims of the mental disorder Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Thus instead of sending the kids home, they drug them. One of the two they physically tortured with the excuse that they needed to keep sticking him with needles to draw blood in the attempt to figure out why he insists that he wants to go home to his father.
Not my children, but for the dad in question... No, that doesn't work. As a rule, states will not issue criminal charges against someone who is in a different state for doing something that the other state specifically authorizes them to do. Not to mention, he has a penis and she has a vagina. Thus he does not have equal rights in the courts of either state.
But yes, people that have messed up 100 times then cry when the one time they actually try using the system it doesn't do exactly what they want go cry about how badly the system they ignored for years abused them.
I can't parse what you are trying to say here.
If turning off notifications from a black list of people is architecturally difficult, then LinkedIn has bigger issues.
You are underestimating 4 year olds. (Most people do.) My son did just fine with a myTouch at 4. He also did just fine with a dumb phone at 3. Good thing since he found an extra exit to the Tom Sawyer caves at Disneyland. He had no problem calling us and telling us where he was when he came out. Sure, not every 4 year old can read the signs around them to tell you where they are, but most can handle dialing a smartphone by pressing a picture of dad.
The guy doesn't have access to his kid. This sort of thing happens to men all the time. I have read enough of your posts to know that you are fully aware of how messed up our society can be concerning gender. Instead of telling this guy that he is abusing his child because a court doesn't like penises, you should be applauding him for doing his best to find a way to be a part of his child's life.
My child did just fine with a myTouch when he was 4. Some children are destructive, and some children are not. A properly chosen phone is far more rugged than a Nintendo DS, and kids do just fine with those. For less than $50 he could get his kid a used myTouch. An extra phone line can cost as little as $5 a month. So, for as little as $110 a child can have a father for the next year.
It might not work, or it might. My kid did just fine with a phone at 4. Others I know might try and eat the phone. Either way, for this person, getting a ~$100 smart phone and a cheap phone plan might not be the end of the world cost wise. I know that I would happily pay for a phone and hope for the best when the alternative is no contact at all.
The ability to use tech that you don't understand isn't limited to a 4 year old. You might be surprised at how many adults don't understand how even a land line telephone works, much less a cell phone. Most people use and understand cell phones exactly as a 4 year old would. The press a picture of the person they want to talk to and press the hang up button when they are done.
The claim that using a phone at 4 would somehow break a child so that they could not develop socially is pure Luddite propaganda.
What a 4 year old is not ready for is having a court force his father to abandon him. It is amazing how many people here are suggesting that a child is better of without their parent. It's crazy.
Why? My son had a phone at 4. It allowed and still allows him to have far more freedom than many of his peers. That freedom has allowed him to develop both socially and intellectually at a rate that is far greater than what he could have under the tethered leash of a child who cannot leave his parent's sight.
Maybe not going to jail and thus not being with his child anyway is worth not being physically with his child. There are these things called "Judges". The do things like "give custody" of children to mothers irrelevant of how bad the mother is or how good the father is. There are also these things called "Police". If a "Judge" says that the mother has "full custody" and the father shows up anyway, these people called "Police" come with guns. They first tell you to leave. Failing that, they physically force you to leave up to shooting you if you fight back hard enough.
From the description, this guy cannot physically be there. Men with guns will make sure of that. He is left with the choice of abandoning his child, or trying to have some contact via a telephone. Not only is your suggestion that he abandon his child the wrong choice. It is evil.
As opposed to your real plan which is to abandon the kid. It seems to me that there is a middle ground, and this guy is a lot closer to it than you are.
Are you really suggesting that children are better off talking to recordings of corporate mascots than their own parents? I guess that's the orphanage state for you.
Ahhh sarcasm. Here, let me try....
I hear you. First we give them electricity, then we get them immunized. Heck, I even see the entitlement generation parents feeding their kids water that no one has dumped their feces into.
Seriously, a cell phone just isn't that expensive compared to a bulk of children's toys, and this guy isn't even trying to get it as a toy.
Good luck with that. I pal of mine has spent the last year trying to get his kids returned to him. He had full custody in California, and when the kids went for a 1 week visit to their mother's house in Illinois, the state decided they would just give her full custody and declare it illegal for the children to leave Illinois. When the cops came to deal with the physical abuse, instead of sending the kids back home to the father, the state of Illinois decided to seize custody of the children themselves. No one claims the father provided anything but a safe and loving home to the kids. The state of Illinois just decided that putting the kids in jail (for their protection from their mother) is better than allowing the kids to return home. And that is just scratching the surface of the abuse that the courts have put on these kids.
The short version of the story is, men and children get screwed in divorce courts. A good lawyer is only as effective as the mother wants to let him be.
I've found exactly the opposite. Tell her that it isn't the dress that is making her butt look big. That will start a fight. Telling a woman that her dress is ugly is like telling her that her dress is stuck in the back of her nylons. If you are not a jerk about it, she will appreciate it.
Your comment is a perfect example of why there are "teenage" problems.
Insightful comment from an Anonymous Coward. Teenager is a paper demographic. Biologically, you are a child or an adult. Teenagers are just adults who have been told that they have no responsibilities and no rights. How can anyone expect that combination to produce responsible citizens?
I agree. That is why 2 weeks after my son's second birthday, I formatted his hard drive, gave him a DVD with Linux on it and told him that if he wanted to play his games again, he would just have to reinstall the OS himself. No, kidding. I really did that.