Mom's own iPhone use ToC (Terms of Conditions) to her son

Merry Christmas! You are now the proud owner of an iPhone. Hot Damn!

1. It is my phone. I bought it. I pay for it. I am loaning it to you. Aren't I the greatest?

Doubt this would hold up in court.

Actually, it would. I highly doubt the phone is in the kid's name, or is even possible for it to be in his name. As a result, since the contract is in his mother's name, it is officially his mother's property.

The same applies to, let's say, my car. Technically it is mine. I have the keys, I drive it, I repair it, etc. But it is in my father's name. If he were to want it back for any reason, there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. According to the law, I do not own it in any way, even if I spent more money into it than my father has.

If all parents were like this, the world would be a MUCH better place to live in for all of us. Kids wouldn't be little assholes, and adults wouldn't be assholes because they wouldn't grow up thinking being an pimento was acceptable.

Faith in humanity +1.

I think it's stupid for any child to have a smartphone. There is no need for something like that. My 11 yr old has a LG slide something phone. He texts and calls only. He is pissed cause I won't buy him a smart phone, but who's going to pay for it? Me. No thanks. I have enough bills and there is enough in this world to worry about on top of a child having such an adult "luxury" of sorts.

2nd, I don't see anything wrong with this mom wanting her son to be a person. If he wants a grown up phone, he needs to act like a person. Kids are dicks these days. All parents should use their brain a little more like this lady.

+1 to this mom!

-Too young for a smartphone.
-It was given as a gift, yet is a loan? Okay..seems a bit odd to me.
-The rules seem somewhat relate-able and common-sense, but once again as stated earlier, poorly executed and the mother seems full of herself.

Seems a bit controlling, and as stated earlier, every child is different.
However, I do believe this could be as result of such rules:

 Spoiler

-Too young for a smartphone.
-It was given as a gift, yet is a loan? Okay..seems a bit odd to me.
-The rules seem somewhat relate-able and common-sense, but once again as stated earlier, poorly executed and the mother seems full of herself.

Seems a bit controlling, and as stated earlier, every child is different.
However, I do believe this could be as result of such rules:

 Spoiler

If a child is "sneaky" enough to get away with things, the parents aren't doing their job and are still to blame. Kids are not as clever as people make them out to be. Fast learners, yes, clever, no. If a child can outsmart an adult, it is entirely the adult's fault and they are not intelligent enough to have had a kid to begin with.

If a child is "sneaky" enough to get away with things, the parents aren't doing their job and are still to blame. Kids are not as clever as people make them out to be. Fast learners, yes, clever, no. If a child can outsmart an adult, it is entirely the adult's fault and they are not intelligent enough to have had a kid to begin with.

Can't say I agree with that. I do believe there comes a point in a child's life where one can no longer blame the parents on the outcome or actions of a child.
From what your post is saying, the stricter, the better. I don't think that's right at all. I believe there needs to be a balance between the two. I don't believe parents should be on a friend-level with their children, on the other hand, I don't believe a parent is someone that should be feared or held in such a position that there is no room for compromise on certain rules and such.

Not saying I never got caught with anything, but eh, my parents are extremely strict and I got away with plenty.
I know a few people whose parents have absurdly strict rules, and the children work their way around it (of course, some of these friends are 18+ but still live at home).

Can't say I agree with that. I do believe there comes a point in a child's life where one can no longer blame the parents on the outcome or actions of a child.
From what your post is saying, the stricter, the better. I don't think that's right at all. I believe there needs to be a balance between the two. I don't believe parents should be on a friend-level with their children, on the other hand, I don't believe a parent is someone that should be feared or held in such a position that there is no room for compromise on certain rules and such.

Not saying I never got caught with anything, but eh, my parents are extremely strict and I got away with plenty.
I know a few people whose parents have absurdly strict rules, and the children work their way around it (of course, some of these friends are 18+ but still live at home).

Until around 16 (though I could go on to argue for any age up until the day someone dies, at a slow decrease in the ratio on the first, a drastic decrease on the second, and a moderate increase on the final), well over half of all decisions a child makes stem directly from what their parents taught them, a much smaller pieces of the pie being influence from friends/acquaintances, and ideas they formed on their own with no outside influence being being by far the smallest. Hell, until grade school they are just regurgitating morals, ideas, values, whatever you want to call them, without even fully understanding what the basic underlying concepts mean until much later; they are able to learn very quickly at a young age, but the downside of that is, it's just memorization, linking things together, not understanding what the concepts on either end actually mean.

And no, stricter is not better. Consistency is better. You make a rule, you enforce it, every single time, in the exact same way. Wiggle room is something a child should not have when it comes to rules; it makes them grow up and become politicians that believe the laws for an entire country should also have wiggle room, and look at that, here we are. The best way to create a serial killer is to erratically punish them for different things in different ways based on your mood without explaining the reasoning behind it to them.

In this case, it is technology that is made for an adult, so I feel that she is absolutely right in not giving him ownership of it. I've worked with computers all my life and even I didn't get one (a computer; to this day I still use a crappy last century cellphone because I see no need for something higher end; it's a phone, that's what I need it for, and that's all I need it for) until I turned 16.

No porn, no point. Am I right?

jk.

Seems like a good mom to me. She clearly loves her son but doesn't want him brainwashed into most of the dumbasses of our society today. He's only 13, that age till he stops puberty is where most of the molding of his entire life happens.

Until around 16 (though I could go on to argue for any age up until the day someone dies, at a slow decrease in the ratio on the first, a drastic decrease on the second, and a moderate increase on the final), well over half of all decisions a child makes stem directly from what their parents taught them, a much smaller pieces of the pie being influence from friends/acquaintances, and ideas they formed on their own with no outside influence being being by far the smallest. Hell, until grade school they are just regurgitating morals, ideas, values, whatever you want to call them, without even fully understanding what the basic underlying concepts mean until much later; they are able to learn very quickly at a young age, but the downside of that is, it's just memorization, linking things together, not understanding what the concepts on either end actually mean.

I'm pretty sure we both know that I was not talking about an age that would be younger than that in the OP's article.
That being said, yeah, it' easy for children (once again, being 13+ in age) just to 'be a product of their environment'. Which is what many people blame as the problem with our society. Granted it plays a role, but as I stated before I do believe there comes a time when you can't blame a child's parents for how they act. They have a sense of discernment. But based on what you're saying, is that every choice that an individual makes is based on what they were taught as I child.

I don't see justification in this for all cases. Yes, it is common. But it does not apply to everyone. There are those (myself included) that look into why we believe what we believe, why we make the decisions we do. I honestly could care less about what my parents have taught me at this point in life.

And no, stricter is not better. Consistency is better. You make a rule, you enforce it, every single time, in the exact same way. Wiggle room is something a child should not have when it comes to rules; it makes them grow up and become politicians that believe the laws for an entire country should also have wiggle room, and look at that, here we are. The best way to create a serial killer is to erratically punish them for different things in different ways based on your mood without explaining the reasoning behind it to them.

I agree with consistency, however, if the child is older (say, 16+), and can provide some sort of logical reasoning as to why there could be a modification to a rule, I see no issue with it. For example, say the student's curfew is usually 9pm. Say it's spring break, and the weekend. In my opinion if the child wanted to make a compromise with the parent to allow them to stay out later, I don't see that as wrong.

In this case, it is technology that is made for an adult, so I feel that she is absolutely right in not giving him ownership of it. I've worked with computers all my life and even I didn't get one (a computer; to this day I still use a crappy last century cellphone because I see no need for something higher end; it's a phone, that's what I need it for, and that's all I need it for) until I turned 16.

I agree with that. There's no need for that age group to have that type of access to technology...I didn't have a phone, driver's license, computer, ipod, facebook, etc. until I turned 18.

I actually appreciate this a lot; there used to be a time that people talked to each other to learn things, and this also would break the ice between them. and a way to display the personality trait of willingness to help others. lmgtfy.com is not clever, its just a icon of people's dwindling social skills and inability to see a question as a chance to talk to someone new.

me and my friends :

Me : *ask a question*
Friends : *answers the qustion*
Me: Really meh ??? i thought blah blah blah
Friends : if you want correct answers go google lah =_=(\

me and my friends :

Me : *ask a question*
Friends : *answers the qustion*
Me: Really meh ??? i thought blah blah blah
Friends : if you want correct answers go google lah =_=(\

Side note: ____ lah is one of the most amusing verbal tics I've ever encountered. Confused the heck outta me when I was in Singapore.

Side note: ____ lah is one of the most amusing verbal tics I've ever encountered. Confused the heck outta me when I was in Singapore.

then dont come to singapore lah =_=(\

 Spoiler

loljk and yes, sarcastic 'lahs' are the funniest

then dont come to singapore lah =_=(\

 Spoiler

loljk and yes, sarcastic 'lahs' are the funniest

[COLOR="#cc8899"]
Am I doing it right lah?[/COLOR]

[COLOR="#cc8899"]
Am I doing it right lah?[/COLOR]

like that is wrong. must be like "if you dont want to do it then dont do it!" change to "if you dont want to do then dont lah!"

[COLOR="#cc8899"]
Am I doing it right lah?[/COLOR]

As DeanNim has mentioned, 'lah' does not really apply to questions and is also used to imply sarcasm at times. Take this as another example:

Normal: If you think you're so capable, do it yourself!
Our style: Aiyo*, you think you so clever you do it yourself lah!

*This is optional.

I should also mention that I have developed a hatred of answering questions precisely because I'm somehow hounded for this in various communities and even in classes despite not being all-knowing or smart. Like that ah, you want to wait for me to give you answers better you just Google it yourself lah, faster also. -_-" This kid would benefit from finding other ways to communicate and only use questions sparingly.

I should also mention that I have developed a hatred of answering questions precisely because I'm somehow hounded for this in various communities and even in classes despite not being all-knowing or smart. Like that ah, you want to wait for me to give you answers better you just Google it yourself lah, faster also. -_-" This kid would benefit from finding other ways to communicate and only use questions sparingly.

the irony level is over 9000. When you ask someone a question, they'd just ask you to google the answer, but when you start to google questions without asking first, you are letting 'the internet take over your life'.

the irony level is over 9000. When you ask someone a question, they'd just ask you to google the answer, but when you start to google questions without asking first, you are letting 'the internet take over your life'.

Yeah. I prefer Google if only because it's faster than asking most of the time. >_>

Yeah. I prefer Google if only because it's faster than asking most of the time. >_>

Also more accurate. Ever seen how many different answers people get to "when's 2x?" on Maple?

Funny. Back in my day, we were encouraged to "look stuff up". This was before the internet, so that meant printed media. Dictionary, encyclopedia, textbooks, magazines. Going to the library and learning to use their various indexing methods. Fun stuff.
Now that looking things up has become so much easier, we're supposed to go back to relying on random people's memories?

And nevermind questions, I hate it when people get into a long drawn-out argument about simple facts that can be looked up in a moment.

 example

"...just like Bogart in 'Gone with the Wind'"
"Bogart was never in 'Gone with the Wind', you probably mean Eastwood."
"You crazy? Eastwood wasn't even born when they filmed that."
"Well maybe not Eastwood then, but it definitely wasn't Bogart, I know that because my mom's a huge Bogart fan and owns all his movies."
and so on and so forth when it takes a minute, tops, to ask IMDB (and discover it was Clark Gable).

I'd rather talk with people to discuss opinions, ideas, and personal experiences.
Impersonal data I'll get from impersonal media.

Also more accurate. Ever seen how many different answers people get to "when's 2x?" on Maple?

Funny. Back in my day, we were encouraged to "look stuff up". This was before the internet, so that meant printed media. Dictionary, encyclopedia, textbooks, magazines. Going to the library and learning to use their various indexing methods. Fun stuff.
Now that looking things up has become so much easier, we're supposed to go back to relying on random people's memories?

And nevermind questions, I hate it when people get into a long drawn-out argument about simple facts that can be looked up in a moment.

 example

"...just like Bogart in 'Gone with the Wind'"
"Bogart was never in 'Gone with the Wind', you probably mean Eastwood."
"You crazy? Eastwood wasn't even born when they filmed that."
"Well maybe not Eastwood then, but it definitely wasn't Bogart, I know that because my mom's a huge Bogart fan and owns all his movies."
and so on and so forth when it takes a minute, tops, to ask IMDB (and discover it was Clark Gable).

I'd rather talk with people to discuss opinions, ideas, and personal experiences.
Impersonal data I'll get from impersonal media.

A truer thing could not be said. I'd admit too that I only chat with people to know about them and discuss opinions such as what they thought of the latest chapter of a series I read because I get into ridiculous 'discussions' about whether fertilizer causes leaves to become green (What?) which just causes bad feelings all around. That's more or less why I became more active on SP and quit the other forum I was at too because people were insisting that one-off questions better Googled for counted as 'discussion', which shows exactly how bad communication has become. ._.

And nevermind questions, I hate it when people get into a long drawn-out argument about simple facts that can be looked up in a moment.

My parents get into these arguments with each other ALL THE TIME when talking about anything TV related. I just get up, go to the computer, and go to imdb.com and look it up to shut them up, because they never agree on anything when it comes to that crap. Many times it gets to a point where I wish I was temporarily deaf.

Father: "Oh look, it's [Actor name here]. He died two years ago."
Mother: "No it's more like four, I remember it on the news!"
>Insert Senseless arguments and useless reasons on why the other person is wrong or they are right.
Me: "I just looked it up, it was 3 years ago, you're both wrong."