Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday August 28 2017, @07:24PM   Printer-friendly
from the get-their-attention dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Kids have always been a little difficult.

Technology may have made things worse, as the young tend to know more about tech than their parents do.

They know, for example, how to ignore mom and dad and do whatever they like.

Nick Herbert found this a touch frustrating.

Kids have a habit of simply not replying to texts. Not because they're bad kids, but, well, they're doing something more interesting on the phone -- like playing a game.

So, as CBS News reports, Herbert conceived ReplyASAP. This is an app (currently available only on Android) that forces your child to address your texts.

By annoying the living hell out of them.

[...] Herbert insists that ReplyASAP is meant to be used only in emergencies. This isn't about annoying your kids all the time, however tempting that might be.

Indeed, he told me that it's not about forcing your child to reply. Instead, he said: "It is simply a means of getting an important message to the child, even when they have their phone on silent, and for the parent to know they have seen it."

[Ed Note - Updated Google Play link to correct a typo]

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:09PM (1 child)

    by edIII (791) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:09PM (#561084)

    No it didn't.

    The children's fathers filed suit in U.S. District Court, which upheld the decision of the Des Moines school board. A tie vote in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit meant that the U.S. District Court's decision continued to stand, and forced the Tinkers and Eckhardts to appeal to the Supreme Court directly. The case was argued before the court on November 12, 1968.

    That was my whole point. A child has rights simply because every human being has them. However, as a species, we recognize that children simply don't have the ability to exists as adults, and that it's an unwise idea to expect that. I don't see what is controversial about it. It's not as if human being when born are fully matured, possess genetically transferred knowledge, skills, and memories, and can be responsible for their rights within hours of being born. A human being cannot even see correctly for months after being born IIRC.

    As a result of this simple biological fact, like teenagers being controlled insanity (hormones, puberty, etc.), we don't recognize them as having rights on their own. Which, as you can see in bold, means that the fathers are acting with de facto power of attorney to represent the rights of their respective children. What if a father didn't want to? Now that would be a court case. A child initiating it against adults, and winning. I don't think that has ever happened outside of a few edge cases where some teenagers have been emancipated from their parents, and most of those cases had parental support. Has an orphaned child ever won emancipation? I dunno.

    I really have to laugh at the ACs saying I support chattel slavery. I swear I had that argument with my parents over chores, and it didn't work out well for me :)

    What I think is missing, and I will spell it out, is that I myself don't have the ability (or desire) to arbitrarily abridge the human rights of a child. However, their parents do. That's the fundamental point. Parents exist to take care of their children, and administrate their rights until emancipated, or have reached adulthood as agreed upon society. You haven't provided proof that a child on his own can defend his rights. Especially against his parents.

    If you could.... where the fuck were you around 40 years ago dude?! I could've used you calling me on a phone and giving me pointers in my legal fight against chores. Heck, today, you would be very popular amongst kids that have had their iphones taken away....

    Finally, there are some rights that children have that cannot be abridged by their parents. In those cases, we call it child abuse and have ways of dealing with it in our legal system. Obviously, I've never promulgated child abuse... unless you think giving kids chores, responsibilities, and consequences is child abuse.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:22PM

    by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:22PM (#561451) Journal

    I think a good way to put it would be that children do of course have rights; what they lack is only power of attorney. Plenty of adults are in the same situation, but we wouldn't normally say they don't have rights. And there's plenty of adults who can't functionally defend their rights even if they do -- those who can't afford to hire an attorney, for example. Children are actually in a much better position in that case...for example, children are legally required to attend school, and school officials are legally required to report suspected abuse, so the kids have more ability to protect their rights than a vast number of perfectly competent adults. The child also doesn't generally need a specific designated person to initiate legal action, they just need any adult. And in some ways children even have MORE rights than adults -- a child has a legally enforceable right to food, for example, while adults generally do not. So if you're going to say that children don't have rights, I think you also have to accept that the majority of adults in this country don't have rights either...