• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should parents use a GPS tracking device to monitor their children?

Should parents use GPS tracking to monitor their children?


  • Total voters
    34
Part of the problem here seems to be that Kandahar is not really interested in a two way open minded adult conversation about the topic. His early post read like those of a teenager, berating parents about "invasion of privacy" and sifting through kid's rooms and going through their "private things" gasp! This is at the same time as he charges anyone who does not agree with his POV as being "paranoid." Not once but twice.

We will ignore for the moment two common sense points that elude Kandahar. Namely that all parents go through their kids rooms and that of course all children are not "teenage" and children's rights to privacy come about with age and trust. They are not born with it and arguing about a newborn's right to the same is ludicrous. Period.

Incite to ridicule seems to be the point. In reply to Bohdi he stated the following:
If your kids are doing things like that, then perhaps you need to do a better job of raising them instead of expecting a machine to do it for you.

When I pointed out that Bohdi nor anyone else has suggested that a machine raise children for anyone he replied with:
If your kid finds out about the hidden GPS (which they probably will if you call them out on doing something they weren't supposed to do), they'll never trust you again. If people would raise their kids properly, then maybe they wouldn't NEED to resort to gross invasions of their kids' privacy. :roll:
Again this requires, clearly so that he can simply argue for the sake of it, that kids means "teenagers" or post teens. I have noticed with Kandahar that he attempts to set the perimeters of the argument quickly and in a truly narrow way.

It is also very important to the argument that the only possible use of a GPS implant is "gross invasions of their kids' privacy." He is perfectly willing to pretend that the only use for such a GPS implant is to violate privacy rights. Apparently he is perfectly willing to also pretend that a GPS implant will include optic and audio sensors and would thus be capable of doing more than relaying a location.:doh Which is of course exactly what most parents would want from the implant, those looking for more from such an implant must wait for some truly Star Trek like advances in technology before they can salaciously eavesdrop on the privacy of their victims.

Also never mind that many parents will be of the mind to let their children know they have the implants, once they reach the age the parent deems appropriate and they need not be hidden. A point he added to the OP, not something anyone has actually argued! I have been unable to locate anyone advocating these GPS implants as anything other than tracking devices and safety tools.

Somewhere along this area in Kandahar's oh so thoughtful commentary he then decided that not only are those who don't agree with him and his narrow framing on this issue paranoid, but he would offer many other situations that prove if you don't agree with him you are wrong and in fact "stressing" about needless worries.
Ya know, because ya can't think for yourself here and you must be a dupe of the media or media hype.:doh

Frankly he is so busy sneering and jibing at everyone in thread as foolish or a dupe engaged in violating privacy rights, it never occurred to him to come up for air and realize we are talking about a GPS implant. Just like those implanted in pets, so that when the go missing or stray, they can located, these can't actually violate or give away anything more than a location. Yes my lord how "evil" of rational parents to utilize such a device to protect their children.

Kandahar, seriously kid, you got a lot to learn.;)
 
You know what's interesting about this thread? Liberals and Conservatives don't line up according to their supposed ideologies regarding this topic.
 
I wonder how children are gonna turn out.The amount of elbow pads and safety gear you see them wearing when they are on bikes and stuff.

Parents can have such an obsession with their kids it can become unhealthy.
 
In May 1995, the Washington Post reported that Prince William was implanted with a gps tracking chip at the age of twelve.
I'm not sure if Harry was too; if so, I wonder what implications it would have for his soldiering career. He actually served in Afghanistan for a period of time. If his minders and caretakers can track him, so probably can his enemies.
 
it's a plain waste of money, humanity and its children has survived for hundreds of thousands of years without GPS devices, and kids have a right to privacy of there own, it eases the minds of the parents, but the toll it takes on the kids could be bad, it could eliminate the risks people take as part of coming of age and seeking independence.
 
In May 1995, the Washington Post reported that Prince William was implanted with a gps tracking chip at the age of twelve.
I'm not sure if Harry was too; if so, I wonder what implications it would have for his soldiering career. He actually served in Afghanistan for a period of time. If his minders and caretakers can track him, so probably can his enemies.

Most such GPS tracking devices are implanted either in the arm or buttocks or legs. Not to mention any such frequency would first have to be found and then any protective code broken.
 
it's a plain waste of money, humanity and its children has survived for hundreds of thousands of years without GPS devices, and kids have a right to privacy of there own, it eases the minds of the parents, but the toll it takes on the kids could be bad, it could eliminate the risks people take as part of coming of age and seeking independence.

Children do not have a right to privacy and it takes NO toll on the child. Such a device does not stop someone from taking risks....unless the risks you're talking about is breaking rules and laws? In which case that would be a good thing.
 
I wonder how children are gonna turn out.The amount of elbow pads and safety gear you see them wearing when they are on bikes and stuff.

Parents can have such an obsession with their kids it can become unhealthy.

Don't know about the area that you live in but around here a parent can be fined if they do not provide a helmet and pads when their children go bike riding.
 
In May 1995, the Washington Post reported that Prince William was implanted with a gps tracking chip at the age of twelve.
I'm not sure if Harry was too; if so, I wonder what implications it would have for his soldiering career. He actually served in Afghanistan for a period of time. If his minders and caretakers can track him, so probably can his enemies.
Not unless his enemies have a tremendous amount of "inside intel" and I mean a TREMENDOUS amount. So much so as not to be anymore a "worry" than the statistical mumbo jumbo which fueled Kandahar's prior ignorant screed. I'd say good try, but NOT SO MUCH.:shock:
 
it's a plain waste of money, humanity and its children has survived for hundreds of thousands of years without GPS devices, and kids have a right to privacy of there own, it eases the minds of the parents, but the toll it takes on the kids could be bad, it could eliminate the risks people take as part of coming of age and seeking independence.
It is not a waste of money if a parent chooses to utilize the tool. That is an entirely subjective argument, negated the nanosecond a missing child is located via these means. Oh wait, I forgot about the larger crime that moron Kandahar swears somehow exist otherwise. Privacy for the two, three, four, five, six, seven and name it all the way up to "tween" years old!

Please observe this statement, spud_meister is it? Exactly nobody has suggested killing children of any segments of humanity. So any attempts to attach genocidal definitions to this argument come out not only as as stupid as Kandahar's bilge, but perhaps by accident, the same might also reveal the mindset of them that stated the same idiocy. Care to share on the topic?

Also frankly, the rest of your comments about the "toll it takes" make not a lick of sense. Care to explain that as well, or was it a good night with the bottle?
 
Last edited:
Children do not have a right to privacy and it takes NO toll on the child. Such a device does not stop someone from taking risks....unless the risks you're talking about is breaking rules and laws? In which case that would be a good thing.

yes but i would also argue that parents dont own their children in all circumstances.
 
yes but i would also argue that parents dont own their children in all circumstances.
You mean to say parents don't "own" their offspring? Thanks be to God someone showed up to state the really important points that escape us all. What next? We don't need to breath oxygen except when we want to maintain a heartbeat?
 
You mean to say parents don't "own" their offspring? Thanks be to God someone showed up to state the really important points that escape us all. What next? We don't need to breath oxygen except when we want to maintain a heartbeat?

Nothing to do with what im saying.For example if parents where to sexually abuse their children should that be ok because they are their children,or should the state take them from them?
 
As a parent I have no problem with this at all.

As long as it is voluntary for the parents to use it.
 
Nothing to do with what im saying.For example if parents where to sexually abuse their children should that be ok because they are their children,or should the state take them from them?
No and of course this is not the case and such behavior is in fact at this time a crime. You know that right?
 
yes but i would also argue that parents dont own their children in all circumstances.

While parents don't own their kids like a person "owns" a slave they do have a semi-ownership of their kids. A parent can tell their child to go do the dinner dishes and if the child happens to refuse that child can be punished. Either thru swats on the butt or sitting in a corner to even grounding them. A parent can give a child a curfew, do chores around the house, etc etc.

The only thing that a parent cannot do is put that child in physical danger and real mental danger. Those would be the only circumstances which your post would cover.
 
I'd argue that there is a large difference between things can can legally do to their kids, and stuff that are a good idea. While throwing a GPS tracker on your kid strikes me as overly paranoid and controlling, it really isn't serious enough for the government to get involved. Bad parenting isn't a crime, but that doesn't make it above criticism either.
 
It might also depend upon the child.
Autistic teens, for instance, sometimes become a problem because they wander away. They are large and mobile enough to get pretty far, but sometimes they don't then have the social and cognitive resources to take care of themselves or even find their way home again. They become lost and afraid, and sometimes fall victim to predators.

With disabled youths like this, I think it might be warranted.
 
I'd argue that there is a large difference between things can can legally do to their kids, and stuff that are a good idea. While throwing a GPS tracker on your kid strikes me as overly paranoid and controlling, it really isn't serious enough for the government to get involved. Bad parenting isn't a crime, but that doesn't make it above criticism either.
I would not argue with you either, except of course if you too are making the knee jerk leap to the idea that use of a simple tool, one which will provide parents with a location via the GPS system, equates either "control" or "paranoia."

Use of these kinds of devices is likely inevitable as we continue to miniaturize this kind of technology. We already use them on pets and in the military and many medical patients already utilize human microchip implants devices. RIFD implants offer information storage, including personal identification, medical history, medications, allergies, and contact information. Oddly those people are not complaining about "privacy invasion" and about suffering from paranoid delusion.

I can envision a time when people look back and talk about the days when parents did not have this kind of technology available to them. And I don't think the vast majority of people will do so while braying that it all has to do with control and paranoia.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom