Facebook Parenting (Viral video)

[Darth Fanboy]

While I, of course, do not think that all parents are liars (now that would just be silly), I am not going to take this guy's word as full gospel either. I held off on accusing him of abuse for a reason. But I doubt that him and his daughter's relationship has been healthy for a long time. Him going 8-bullets on a laptop out of complete rage on the Internet is enough to make me think that he is not the most mentally sound of people, and as the only one with a voice in this he has all the room to stretch a truth here or there.

Glad that your degree in internet psychology trumps that of the official record. I am not against healthy skepticism but you really don't have a good reason to doubt this other than the fact that your position is being contradicted.

He posted the video on his wall, while according to the story she posted her rant on her own wall. Where are you getting this "posting in the same specific place" from?

Then it would be my mistake, I mistakenly thought he had initially used the "dog account" to post it on her own wall. Either way, I can't imagine that his own facebook wall would be that much more likely to gain significant attention over that of his 16 year old daughter.

Yeah, let's not try to think about this too much. That would be hard!

Put yourself in her position. Your father just decided to make a display and shoot a laptop for everyone to see, as an example to you. Shoot a laptop. He used a gun to drive his point across. Are you really going to, as a 15-year old, ignore that detail? Seriously?

This is how children grow up with screwed-up thoughts.[/quote]

So if he had crushed the laptop with his car would we now be talking about his irresponsible use of a vehicle? You are way too fixated on the gun.

And before you stretch this and say "no he's not going to point a gun and shoot his daughter", no, I don't believe he is stupid enough to actually do that. But that is me being charitable. The image of this example being stuck in her mind, though, is a real possibility. As is the fear that would generate. And he wants to try to fix a broken relationship with this Yosemite Sam solution?

I am glad you are so full of charity you will assume fathers will not shoot their daughters with guns. Your ivory tower is a shining light of hope for this world.

It is, because there are many other actually civil and more effective ways in which he could have handled this, as many people in this thread have mentioned. And I'm sure that he isn't the only parent in the world who has had a mouthy, rebellious teen. But he chose to use a gun, on YouTube. You read the subtext here.

Newsflash, nobody is denying the use of the gun is over the top. But you are overly fixating on its significance when there really isn't as much to it as you think.

I myself don't care if he was raised in a "tough love" life either. Actually, I rewatched that video: "lived on my own, worked two jobs, was a volunteer fireman, attended college while in high school"... Wow, what a detail I missed.

I have known people in situations like that, and even I find half of this hard to believe. I can believe that he lived on his own, worked in two jobs, and went to high school all at once. But also working as a volunteer fireman and taking college classes at the same time? Are you fucking joking me? That kind of super-exaggeration sounds all too familiar to me.

Do you have anything other than your own personal opinions to justify this implied assertion the guy is a liar? You said you know people in similar situations, so what is so hard to believe that this person was in one as well? If he lived in small town Texas 30-40 years ago I can see this as being fairly reasonable in fact, and also why he and other people like him don't see the use of a gun in this situation as out of the ordinary.

Oh and for the record, I'm 25 years old. Glad I got that out of the way, otherwise I would probably have my arguments invalidated because I'm a spoiled teenage brat.

You weren't the one arguing that the punishment is excessive, you are arguing about the use of the gun, which is why we can have an actual discussion. But anyone who thinks the daughter was not out of line aqnd deserved no punishment clearly should have their age taken into account, as whiny damn teengaers tend to sympathize with each other.

[Dalton]

Hmm. Claims that this is a hoax.

[Thanas]

Hmm. Claims that this is a hoax.

Looks pretty convincing.


Yeah, his claims about his accomplishments did sound like BS.

[Dragon Angel]

Glad that your degree in internet psychology trumps that of the official record. I am not against healthy skepticism but you really don't have a good reason to doubt this other than the fact that your position is being contradicted.

If you have something resembling an actual response to my argument then, please present it instead of going "lol internet psychology". I'm glad to see that you are able to take everything that he said at 100% face value, and not think "gee, he used a weapon that is meant to kill people on a laptop to punish his daughter, that probably sent the wrong type of message didn't it?"

Actually, you would have to be pretty naive not to see that.

Then it would be my mistake, I mistakenly thought he had initially used the "dog account" to post it on her own wall. Either way, I can't imagine that his own facebook wall would be that much more likely to gain significant attention over that of his 16 year old daughter.

What you post on the Internet is left to the Internet's will. This is the same reason why you avoid posting drunken fratboy pictures of yourself, or photographing your dick on Twitter.

So if he had crushed the laptop with his car would we now be talking about his irresponsible use of a vehicle? You are way too fixated on the gun.

This is a strawman. I am fixated on the gun because it is a weapon to kill. Cars, while you can technically use them to kill people, are not weapons in their primary function.

I am glad you are so full of charity you will assume fathers will not shoot their daughters with guns. Your ivory tower is a shining light of hope for this world.

Had I not been charitable, I would've thought that this man was a lunatic and would need the immediate attention of several men in white coats.

Newsflash, nobody is denying the use of the gun is over the top. But you are overly fixating on its significance when there really isn't as much to it as you think.

I repeat for emphasis: A gun is a weapon to kill. If you want to send a message to your child, you don't use a weapon of death to do it. Unless you want to have a traumatized child as she grows up, in which case go right on!

Do you have anything other than your own personal opinions to justify this implied assertion the guy is a liar? You said you know people in similar situations, so what is so hard to believe that this person was in one as well? If he lived in small town Texas 30-40 years ago I can see this as being fairly reasonable in fact, and also why he and other people like him don't see the use of a gun in this situation as out of the ordinary.

Do you really need to be told in baby-language how hard it would actually be to work two jobs (which are supposed to sustain his life alone, keep that in mind), stay in high school with good grades, take college courses with good (or barely decent?) grades, and work as a volunteer fireman? That last part, as a volunteer fireman, would take a lot of effort on its own, and it would never even be presented to him unless he volunteered as a janitor (in which case, he is obviously not a fireman). Being a fireman takes a lot of strength, willpower, and time. He needs to be available to call at any moment. Otherwise, he is not reliable, and therefore he cannot perform his duties.

Ostensibly, since he is taking a hundred classes and working for two companies to barely scrape a living, he would not have that kind of time.

You weren't the one arguing that the punishment is excessive, you are arguing about the use of the gun, which is why we can have an actual discussion. But anyone who thinks the daughter was not out of line aqnd deserved no punishment clearly should have their age taken into account, as whiny damn teengaers tend to sympathize with each other.

I argued that the punishment was excessive because it may have inspired terror into her because of his gun. Do you have a mental inability to connect dots?

And it's a strawman to claim that I don't think Hannah was out of line, because I even accounted for that possibility in my arguments.

[Dragon Angel]

Hmm. Claims that this is a hoax.

Welp... If all of this is true, then that means this guy is not only an attention whore, but he is an attention whore who marred his own daughter's name...

Humanity does not disappoint.

[Alkaloid]

Easy for you to say after the video has already gone viral. "Millions would almost certainly see it." Don't make me laugh.

Hey, I started at hundreds, you were the one that started throwing the number millions around, and I was willing to move up to your number, so don't get pissy with me about that.

*SHOCK!* Parents can take away their kids toys/gadgets! This has fuck all to do with free speech.

Sure can. They don't often destroy them publicly while mocking their children with a prepared speech that amounts to little more than 'don't say mean things about me, your mum or the cleaning lady that isn't a cleaning lady.'

What is unreasonable about being grounded and having a laptop taken away? You are confusing the over the top method of destroying the laptop with the punishment itself, and judging by follow up stuff that we have the family appears to have moved on from this far faster than everyone else. Or do you just write that entire article off as "lies" too?

I haven't said grounding or having the laptop taken away are unreasonable. I actually brought them up as examples of reasonable punishments, along with actually talking to your child, not making a video at her. And this is not the same as just taking the laptop. Putting that video up was designed to humiliate his daughter in front of her friends, that's why he put it on her facebook wall. He could have taken the laptop and given it to the cleaning lady to show he appreciated her hard work, which not only takes the laptop from the child but also sends the message that hard work leads to rewards. He chose to destroy it in the most public manner available to him.

Parents are so mean, IM GONNA GO LISTEN TO LINKIN PARK!

Yes, I'm the childish one because I don't think destroying an inoffensive inanimate object because someone talked about you behind your back is a reasonable action.

[Dread Not]

An IT guy can be anything from a laborer who lugs computers around to a network admin and all kinds of other stuff. None of it implies that he'd believe in the unbeatable Nerd Internet nor know the limits of the law.

Something to the effect of "I thought that with having a father in IT you'd be smarter than that," doesn't sound like a grunt laborer, nor does someone installing hundreds of dollars worth of software for their teenaged daughter. Anyone remotely familiar with the existence of piracy, sex tapes or the internet in general in this day and age should know that it's pointless to try and suppress something once it has gone viral. He's either a naive moron or a liar.

Parents spend thousands of dollars every year trying to do what's best for their kids.

So what? It's moronic to call someone spoiled and then be a wasteful prick because of a bruised ego. If he thinks pissing away expensive goods like that is an appropriate response then it's no wonder that he raised a daughter who takes her prosperity for granted. Giving away the computer would have been an admirable way to teach her a lesson. The only "virtues" to take away from filling it full of bullet holes are pettiness and wastefulness.

Hmm. Claims that this is a hoax.

Wouldn't shock me.

[Darth Fanboy]

If you have something resembling an actual response to my argument then, please present it instead of going "lol internet psychology". I'm glad to see that you are able to take everything that he said at 100% face value, and not think "gee, he used a weapon that is meant to kill people on a laptop to punish his daughter, that probably sent the wrong type of message didn't it?"

Actually, you would have to be pretty naive not to see that.

Curious, what's your stance on privates firearms usage and ownership? Because while I am not a gun fetishist I don't stigmatize the use of said weapon for a nonviolent purpose, and in case it isn't clear I don't think shooting an inanimate object is violent.

What you post on the Internet is left to the Internet's will. This is the same reason why you avoid posting drunken fratboy pictures of yourself, or photographing your dick on Twitter.

Yes but this doesn't guarantee a viral video, now if this hoax is true

This is a strawman. I am fixated on the gun because it is a weapon to kill. Cars, while you can technically use them to kill people, are not weapons in their primary function.

It is not a strawman. A gun is designed as a weapon, but it is up to the intent of the user as to whether or not killing people is the primary function. The risk inherent in improper use is why they should be regulated. Assuming the video/is/was/were true you are fixating on the mere use of the weapon tot he point where you have thrown intent out the window, which I disagree with completely.

Had I not been charitable, I would've thought that this man was a lunatic and would need the immediate attention of several men in white coats.

Good for you sunshine.

I repeat for emphasis: A gun is a weapon to kill. If you want to send a message to your child, you don't use a weapon of death to do it. Unless you want to have a traumatized child as she grows up, in which case go right on!

Do you really think that people are so psychologically weak that by using a gun to shoot an inanimate object it is somehow likely to cause trauma? With no history of gun violence, and the weapon being used in a way that does not bring harm to people, I don't see much if any risk for the trauma so you pissing your pants about.

Do you really need to be told in baby-language how hard it would actually be to work two jobs (which are supposed to sustain his life alone, keep that in mind), stay in high school with good grades, take college courses with good (or barely decent?) grades, and work as a volunteer fireman? That last part, as a volunteer fireman, would take a lot of effort on its own, and it would never even be presented to him unless he volunteered as a janitor (in which case, he is obviously not a fireman). Being a fireman takes a lot of strength, willpower, and time. He needs to be available to call at any moment. Otherwise, he is not reliable, and therefore he cannot perform his duties.

Ostensibly, since he is taking a hundred classes and working for two companies to barely scrape a living, he would not have that kind of time.

Nowadays yes, 30-40 years ago I don't think it would be uncommon to have part time jobs as well as a school schedule. A person could have two part times jobs 8-10 hours per week and take AP courses in high school, and the volunteer firefighter bit is something he might have done on weekends when he was a senior. I'm under no impression that, if any of this is true, that he did everything simultaneously with a 20-hour a day schedule. I can tell you when I was a junior in high school I worked two jobs, took college courses, and did volunteer work on a newspaper. Sounds impressive? It's true, but it's because you're not hearing the whole story. It was a pair of AP courses within my high school schedule (Macroeconomics and AP History), a babysitting gig that was maybe 2-4 hours per week, and a part time desk job at a bank that did 6 hours or so each Saturday.

I argued that the punishment was excessive because it may have inspired terror into her because of his gun. Do you have a mental inability to connect dots?

No, I have an incredibly hard time believing by default "OMG A GUN HOW SCARY!" (assuming the story is true which recent events may cast doubt on).

And it's a strawman to claim that I don't think Hannah was out of line, because I even accounted for that possibility in my arguments.

And I never said you did, it was the dishonest chickenshit back towards the beginning of the thread.

[Darth Fanboy]

Hey, I started at hundreds, you were the one that started throwing the number millions around, and I was willing to move up to your number, so don't get pissy with me about that.

I didn't throw the number millions around. I made mention of "millions" because thats the number of hits the video IS GENERATING. Given the possibility this may be a hoax, I would say that discussion on this point is about moot if that is the case. My point was going to be that posting something on a facebook wall does not mean it would become a widespread phenomenon, which this did. A point rendered moot if this was intended as a hoax and valid if not.

Sure can. They don't often destroy them publicly while mocking their children with a prepared speech that amounts to little more than 'don't say mean things about me, your mum or the cleaning lady that isn't a cleaning lady.'

Great, care to tell me how this has fuck all to do with "free speech?"

I haven't said grounding or having the laptop taken away are unreasonable. I actually brought them up as examples of reasonable punishments, along with actually talking to your child, not making a video at her. And this is not the same as just taking the laptop. Putting that video up was designed to humiliate his daughter in front of her friends, that's why he put it on her facebook wall. He could have taken the laptop and given it to the cleaning lady to show he appreciated her hard work, which not only takes the laptop from the child but also sends the message that hard work leads to rewards. He chose to destroy it in the most public manner available to him.

Except you stated earlier in the thread that this is normal behavior for a teen and imply by your other commentary that you don't think what she did was so wrong. Then you said that taking away the laptop, even if he had gave it away or sold it, was not called for.

Now, in the scenario that this is not a hoax, I still do not defend the use of the gun, but I certainly don't think it was a big deal and that the punishment of taking away the laptop is perfectly acceptable in this case. I don't see the video as harmful to be posted because the daughter would then see what happens when a video is posted about her, and the guy says nothing about harming his daughter, or belittling her in any way other than mentioning the punishment as being severe (but as described I would not consider that punishment abusive, strict perhaps). Are parents only supposed to discipline their kids at a time and place of the child's choice to minimize percieved embarassment?

Yes, I'm the childish one because I don't think destroying an inoffensive inanimate object because someone talked about you behind your back is a reasonable action.

No, you're childish because you can't seem to grasp that parents are allowed to discipline their kids.

[Dread Not]

Yeah. There's a whole range of things, none of which require him to buy into the futility bullshit.

Then he's a naive moron.

It is not waste to spend money on teaching your children.

How about you quote my full response and then you might actually remember to address it? He could have perfectly adequately disciplined his daughter without destroying the laptop. It was senseless, and thus wasteful, and he looks like every bit the dick he makes his daughter out to be. Maybe he should have shot the internet router while he was at it for good measure?

[Alkaloid]

My point was going to be that posting something on a facebook wall does not mean it would become a widespread phenomenon, which this did. A point rendered moot if this was intended as a hoax and valid if not.

Even so, posting it on her facebook wall guaranteed that people that knew her, the people she is most likely to be personally humiliated by, would see it.

Great, care to tell me how this has fuck all to do with "free speech?"

Going by this video, I'm pretty sure this is the sort of guy that takes any opportunity to scream about his constitutional rights and how no one can take them away. He is apparently at liberty to control what his daughter says, however. I have no proof of this, though.

Except you stated earlier in the thread that this is normal behavior for a teen and imply by your other commentary that you don't think what she did was so wrong. Then you said that taking away the laptop, even if he had gave it away or sold it, was not called for.

Now, in the scenario that this is not a hoax, I still do not defend the use of the gun, but I certainly don't think it was a big deal and that the punishment of taking away the laptop is perfectly acceptable in this case. I don't see the video as harmful to be posted because the daughter would then see what happens when a video is posted about her, and the guy says nothing about harming his daughter, or belittling her in any way other than mentioning the punishment as being severe (but as described I would not consider that punishment abusive, strict perhaps). Are parents only supposed to discipline their kids at a time and place of the child's choice to minimize percieved embarassment?

Permanently taking away the laptop? Yes, I do think that is unnecessary, but it is downright reasonable compared to what he did. Since when has eye for an eye been a good method for teaching children? Should we beat them to prove assault is wrong? Take away their things without warning or explanation to show them the consequences of theft? How do we teach about rape and murder? And posting the video on her facebook wall was clearly designed to humiliate her in front of her friends, anyone that has ever been to high school should be able to work out that someone is going to get stuck into her about this.

I wouldn't say it's abusive either, but I think her father is making a bigger deal out of what she actually did than it deserves, and he is teaching her to overreact to personal insults and doing it in a irresponsible and humiliating manner. Humiliation might be a good method to make sure your teen doesn't do something again, but it doesn't tend to lead to well balanced individuals, and I still wouldn't say her complaints are justified, but seriously? She said he was a tyrant, and he responded by confiscating and destroying her property? How will that not reinforce that position in her mind? She might not scream it from the rooftops any more, but it isn't going to make her think any differently, and she will just be more circumspect with her 'rebellion' in future.

No, you're childish because you can't seem to grasp that parents are allowed to discipline their kids.

No, I expect parents to discipline their children. I expect them to do it reasonably and responsibly too.

[Dragon Angel]

Curious, what's your stance on privates firearms usage and ownership? Because while I am not a gun fetishist I don't stigmatize the use of said weapon for a nonviolent purpose, and in case it isn't clear I don't think shooting an inanimate object is violent.

I don't have a stance on that because I don't particularly care about it, and in any case it is irrelevant. There is such a thing as responsibility while using firearms; you would not take your gun outside and randomly shoot in the air, or record yourself shooting at someone's grave stone.

Yes but this doesn't guarantee a viral video, now if this hoax is true

It does not guarantee a viral video, but we are talking about the Internet, where anything that is visible can be taken advantage of. How do you think most Internet memes spring about? Do you think that most of them are carefully crafted to be popular?

Note that this assumes what Tommy Jordan did was not for attention whoring, which would make this part of the argument moot.

It is not a strawman. A gun is designed as a weapon, but it is up to the intent of the user as to whether or not killing people is the primary function. The risk inherent in improper use is why they should be regulated. Assuming the video/is/was/were true you are fixating on the mere use of the weapon tot he point where you have thrown intent out the window, which I disagree with completely.

These are pointless semantics. A gun's primary purpose is to kill, whether or not it is "used for killing" is a distraction because of the connotations behind it. When you think about cars, your first thought would not be "I can run people over with them", unless you're a psychopath.

Do you really think that people are so psychologically weak that by using a gun to shoot an inanimate object it is somehow likely to cause trauma? With no history of gun violence, and the weapon being used in a way that does not bring harm to people, I don't see much if any risk for the trauma so you pissing your pants about.

Point...flies over head. If you mean "people" as in "adults", then probably not, unless someone has bad experiences related to guns. If you mean "people" as in "your own 15-year old teenage kid", then hell fucking yes I would think so. This isn't a message from one stranger to another; this is a message from a father to his daughter. It has a hell of a lot more meaning with that kind of relationship.

Nowadays yes, 30-40 years ago I don't think it would be uncommon to have part time jobs as well as a school schedule. A person could have two part times jobs 8-10 hours per week and take AP courses in high school, and the volunteer firefighter bit is something he might have done on weekends when he was a senior. I'm under no impression that, if any of this is true, that he did everything simultaneously with a 20-hour a day schedule. I can tell you when I was a junior in high school I worked two jobs, took college courses, and did volunteer work on a newspaper. Sounds impressive? It's true, but it's because you're not hearing the whole story. It was a pair of AP courses within my high school schedule (Macroeconomics and AP History), a babysitting gig that was maybe 2-4 hours per week, and a part time desk job at a bank that did 6 hours or so each Saturday.

Please prove that he meant "AP high school courses" when he claimed college classes, or shove it.

It's good for you that you managed a work schedule, but did you do all of that while living on your own, and paying for every single one of your expenses, including the roof over your head? You are forgetting this crucial detail. And you cannot compare working as a volunteer firefighter with working as a volunteer on a newspaper. (What kind of newspaper was it? Was it a city- or town-published newspaper? A local door-to-door newsletter, or something for your school?)

You would probably like to read this site for more information on being a volunteer firefighter. It requires its own special training program, a time commitment that is determined by your department (which is far more than 2-6 hours per shift), and intensive physical training (if you aren't up to their specifications yet).

No, I have an incredibly hard time believing by default "OMG A GUN HOW SCARY!" (assuming the story is true which recent events may cast doubt on).

Answered this above...

And I never said you did, it was the dishonest chickenshit back towards the beginning of the thread.

Ok, that is understood then.

[Lonestar]

Everyone in this thread should post their age so we can gauge just what spoiled brats you are. I'm 30.

80 million.


(29)


I'll be honest, it baffles the hell out of me that so many people are getting worked up over this. I had a Marine Dad. I was the guy mowing the lawn as soon as I was tall enough and strong enough to push it. Complaining about the chores would not have garnered much sympathy from my Dad, and if I had done so in a public manner persistantly, I would have been punished as well.


As far as I can tell, the Dad went over-the-top to make a point. Oh no, big mean daddy humiliated her by posting that video. What goes around comes around, and I've yet to see anything to indicate that he is abusive.

[Darth Fanboy]

Even so, posting it on her facebook wall guaranteed that people that knew her, the people she is most likely to be personally humiliated by, would see it.

Humilitation isn't always a bad thing (to an extent), depending on why she is embarassed it could actually be the right thing to do.

Going by this video, I'm pretty sure this is the sort of guy that takes any opportunity to scream about his constitutional rights and how no one can take them away. He is apparently at liberty to control what his daughter says, however. I have no proof of this, though.

Not only do you have no proof, but you also are mistaken if you think a parent can't punish their children for what they say because of "free speech."

Permanently taking away the laptop? Yes, I do think that is unnecessary, but it is downright reasonable compared to what he did.

Um, that is exactly what he did. The way he took it away is what generates the controversy, but you are one of very few people who I have seen that think that he is not justified, perhaps even obligated, to return the laptop at some point.

Since when has eye for an eye been a good method for teaching children? Should we beat them to prove assault is wrong? Take away their things without warning or explanation to show them the consequences of theft? How do we teach about rape and murder? And posting the video on her facebook wall was clearly designed to humiliate her in front of her friends, anyone that has ever been to high school should be able to work out that someone is going to get stuck into her about this.

Slippery slope much? Taking things away from misbehaving children and revoking privileges has been a common parenting move for a very long time.

And how is it damaging to her that her friends at school know she is being punished? Really. If this hadn't been a big thing she would have probably told them herself or it would have gotten out at some point.

I wouldn't say it's abusive either, but I think her father is making a bigger deal out of what she actually did than it deserves, and he is teaching her to overreact to personal insults and doing it in a irresponsible and humiliating manner. Humiliation might be a good method to make sure your teen doesn't do something again, but it doesn't tend to lead to well balanced individuals, and I still wouldn't say her complaints are justified, but seriously? She said he was a tyrant, and he responded by confiscating and destroying her property? How will that not reinforce that position in her mind? She might not scream it from the rooftops any more, but it isn't going to make her think any differently, and she will just be more circumspect with her 'rebellion' in future.

Again I am sure you are using your degree and/or relevant experience to come to these great conclusions.

No, I expect parents to discipline their children. I expect them to do it reasonably and responsibly too.

As do I, but I think you are seriously mistaken if you think that taking a child's laptop away from them (which is part of your argument) is somehow not reasonable or responsible.

[Darth Fanboy]

I'll be honest, it baffles the hell out of me that so many people are getting worked up over this. I had a Marine Dad. I was the guy mowing the lawn as soon as I was tall enough and strong enough to push it. Complaining about the chores would not have garnered much sympathy from my Dad, and if I had done so in a public manner persistantly, I would have been punished as well.


As far as I can tell, the Dad went over-the-top to make a point. Oh no, big mean daddy humiliated her by posting that video. What goes around comes around, and I've yet to see anything to indicate that he is abusive.

Lonestar, did your dad have a gun (a weapon whose purpose is to KILL AND MURDER)? If so tell us, are you a severely traumatized and imbalanced individual?

[Lonestar]

Lonestar, did your dad have a gun (a weapon whose purpose is to KILL AND MURDER)?

Yeah, but he just used it to improve his pistol marksmanship for work-related stuff(being in the muhreens and all).

He didn't let any of the kids touch firearms outside of a very controlled enviroment. There was one pellet rifle in the house that he let us use outside of a actual firing range.

My dad's philosophy was that firearms were tools, and you shouldn't operate tools unless you knew what the hell you were doing. I am not convinced that the guy in the video didn't know what the hell he was doing.

If so tell us, are you a severely traumatized and imbalanced individual?

Well sure, but not because my Dad owned a firearm.

[Darth Fanboy]

I don't have a stance on that because I don't particularly care about it, and in any case it is irrelevant. There is such a thing as responsibility while using firearms; you would not take your gun outside and randomly shoot in the air, or record yourself shooting at someone's grave stone.

Then why are you so adamant about the use of a gun to shoot a lifeless piece of electronic equipment? People shoot targets all the time, some of them with the outline of a person shaped on them. People do this sometimes because they find shooting a gun enjoyable. Do you think people that enjoy shooting guns have issues?

If not, then how is what this father did any different from shooting a target? He was taking the laptop away anyway, he acted rashly by not doing something more constructive with it but if that's the worst he can be accused of then the bullshit being spewed against him is just as over the top if not more so than he was for shooting hte computer.

If so, then I can see why you would have the opinion that you do while at the same time strongly disagreeing.

It does not guarantee a viral video, but we are talking about the Internet, where anything that is visible can be taken advantage of. How do you think most Internet memes spring about? Do you think that most of them are carefully crafted to be popular?

And what percentage of things on the internet do you think reach meme status? For every all your base there are thousands of stupid things that fade into obscuirty probably daily.

These are pointless semantics. A gun's primary purpose is to kill, whether or not it is "used for killing" is a distraction because of the connotations behind it. When you think about cars, your first thought would not be "I can run people over with them", unless you're a psychopath.

A gun's primary purpose is to fire a bullet, what is done with the bullet is at the sole discretion fo the person firing. Your "pointless semantics" are actually not pointless at all. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" has been part of the gun control debate for a long time.

Point...flies over head. If you mean "people" as in "adults", then probably not, unless someone has bad experiences related to guns. If you mean "people" as in "your own 15-year old teenage kid", then hell fucking yes I would think so. This isn't a message from one stranger to another; this is a message from a father to his daughter. It has a hell of a lot more meaning with that kind of relationship.

Only because you are ascribing that, I personally don't think a 15 year old kid is that stupid by default unless you accuse this guy of inflicting other trauma. In which case I would ask why that is your default assumption.

Please prove that he meant "AP high school courses" when he claimed college classes, or shove it.

I can't, I can't prove whether he took AP classes or drove to a local juco or what. But you can't just fucking dismiss the possibility that just because the truth doesn't exactly to every detail match up with what you percieved in your mind, doesn't make it false.

It's good for you that you managed a work schedule, but did you do all of that while living on your own, and paying for every single one of your expenses, including the roof over your head? You are forgetting this crucial detail. And you cannot compare working as a volunteer firefighter with working as a volunteer on a newspaper.

Absolutely not but I never said I had a schedule comparable to what this guy claimed either. The whole point was that he was more than likely playing up his past too much, but it doesn't invalidate them, and it certainly doesn't invalidate the point of his argument that there is no harm and that it can be good for a high school kid to have a part time job to pay for their own things.

And for the record it didn't cut into my free time that much at all, working "two jobs" and taking a college course doesn't translate to 40 hours a week on top of a full school schedule, use some common fucking sense.

(What kind of newspaper was it? Was it a city- or town-published newspaper? A local door-to-door newsletter, or something for your school?)

Ah yes I forgot to add this part, as it lends more to my idea that the guy could just be embelishing like a motherfucker, it was a student run and funded parody of what we felt was the piss poor official paper and contained lots of non journalistic bullshit.

You would probably like to read this site for more information on being a volunteer firefighter. It requires its own special training program, a time commitment that is determined by your department (which is far more than 2-6 hours per shift), and intensive physical training (if you aren't up to their specifications yet).

No, I wouldn't, because whatever this guy claims to have done when he was 18, it would be more appropriate to have information from however the fuck long ago it was when he says he volunteered. (I said rural Texas earlier I think but I appear to have been mistaken, because he is from North Carolina.) It is not unreasonable to think though, that the standards were different back then.

[Darth Fanboy]

Mr. Lonestar, thank you for your testimony.

Another article, this one from the LA Times with new info.

Facebook made Tommy Jordan the Dad Who Knew Too Much. Now you could say something similar for the rest of us.

Five days ago, Jordan posted an epic — as many young YouTube followers might describe it — video rant of eight minutes and 23 seconds that starts in a lawn chair and ends with bullets. The North Carolinian’s 15-year-old daughter had posted a bratty Facebook update to her friends that she thought he wouldn’t see.

In short, she was tired of doing chores.

“I’m tired of picking up after you. You tell me at least once a day to get a job,” she wrote, as quoted by her father on YouTube. She then apparently ran through her daily responsibilities — doing dishes, wiping the countertops. “I have no idea how I have a life. I’m gonna hate to see the day when you get too old to wipe your (butt), and you call me asking for help. I won’t be there.”

Jordan videotaped his emotional response. “Are you out of your mind?” he replied after reading her post to the camera. He then put nine .45 rounds into her laptop, posted the video online and rode it to instant Internet stardom. The video had surpassed 21 million hits on YouTube as of Monday afternoon.

It’s the latest entry in the annals of public parenting and, as with most cases of Internet stardom, it says as much about the audience as it does about the star.

Jordan’s outburst is wound up with contradictions. His daughter’s Facebook post, intended to be private, has now been read to millions, and some of Jordan’s subsequent aw-shucks rejections of attention have not been overwhelmingly convincing.

“I just had a friend run Good Morning America off my lawn.. grr.,” he posted to Facebook on Saturday, also saying that CBS called to offer him a show. That could be called a textbook “humblebrag,” by the way; the comment was public and got more than 900 responses.

In fact, even though Jordan turned off his phone and hasn’t been responding to media requests for interviews, you can still learn a lot about him on Facebook, because he hasn’t made a big effort to keep things secret. He’ll vote for Ron Paul. He’s got a stake in an online auction startup he’d like you to know about. He likes coffee and Krispy Kreme.

He’s also talked to his attorneys, and he doesn’t want you to copy his video: “Otherwise, the lawsuits start tomorrow morning.”

Oh, and one more thing: He says on his Facebook page that the police came to visit him after the video went viral. “The police by the way said ‘Kudos, Sir’ and most of them made their kids watch it. I actually had a ‘thank you’ from an entire detectives squad.”

Child Protective Services also apparently paid a visit to interview him and the daughter separately, and Jordan writes that the visit went well. “At the end of the day, no I'm not losing my kids, no one's in danger of being ripped from our home that I know of, and I actually got to spend some time with the nice lady and learn some cool parenting tips that I didn't know.”

But whatever Jordan does with his new-found stardom — he claims to have raised more than $5,000 for an area Muscular Dystrophy Assn. drive after the video went viral — the video has clearly struck that not-going-to-take-it-anymore nerve that sometimes runs through many Americans. (A fed-up flight attendant who quit his job in 2010 was similarly idolized; you might recall that he bawled out his passengers, grabbed some beer and made an emergency-chute exit.)

In the case of Jordan’s video, it reveals some raw feelings by pre-Facebook-generation parents about their entitled, digital-native adolescents.

“It is both disturbing and so deeply satisfying that you can’t watch it without reliving every fantasy you’ve ever had about hurling one of your teen’s gadgets out a window or under a car after they’ve used it to ignore you or deceive you, or distract themselves from something they’re supposed to do,” wrote Susanna Schrobsdorff for Time.

But it wasn’t just parents who agreed with Jordan’s reaction; some teenagers were of like mind too.

“I have to say, as a girl who has been there before — in the land of you-get-everything-handed-to-you kind of thing — I completely agree with what you did, completely,” a young YouTube user named “hb4l1f3” commented in a popular response video.

Others were not so charmed by the use of the gun, but Jordan writes that he’d do it all over again -- except maybe without the cigarette. But he does wish he hadn’t called his daughter an “ass,” which he said was “rude and a bad example of a parent using the ‘Do as I say, not as I do’ philosophy.”

“I'd have worn my Silverbelly Stetson, not my Tilley hat if I'd known that image was going to follow me the rest of my life and I'd probably have cleaned my boots,” he writes on Facebook. “That's it. I meant all the rest of it. My wife is OK with it. My daughter is OK with it. My Mother is OK with it. I'm OK with it. We're the only ones that matter.”

[Alkaloid]

Humilitation isn't always a bad thing (to an extent), depending on why she is embarassed it could actually be the right thing to do.

Really? I've always held that people in positions of authority publicly humiliating those they have power over is a bad thing, but if you think otherwise that's your prerogative.

Not only do you have no proof, but you also are mistaken if you think a parent can't punish their children for what they say because of "free speech."

True. If he is though, and again I'm assuming, the hypocrisy of the situation amuses me.

Um, that is exactly what he did. The way he took it away is what generates the controversy, but you are one of very few people who I have seen that think that he is not justified, perhaps even obligated, to return the laptop at some point.

No, he publicly destroyed it. There is a clear difference, stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Slippery slope much? Taking things away from misbehaving children and revoking privileges has been a common parenting move for a very long time.

Course it is, doesn't change the fact that you said that posting embarrassing things about them on facebook is a good way to teach a child not to embarrass people on facebook, that is eye for an eye is it not?

And how is it damaging to her that her friends at school know she is being punished? Really. If this hadn't been a big thing she would have probably told them herself or it would have gotten out at some point.

Seriously, did you not go to high school? Kids are cruel little bastards when they want to be, they look to get a leg up over other kids socially all the time and they don't need help doing it. It doesn't have to make sense, someone could easily twist this to 'don't go to their house their parents are crazy,' and that
s being the least bit creative possible.

Again I am sure you are using your degree and/or relevant experience to come to these great conclusions.

No, just the fact that I am a person, and people don't like to have shit like this done to them, and the first step in fixing it is usually to try and flaunt the authority of the people doing it to them.

As do I, but I think you are seriously mistaken if you think that taking a child's laptop away from them (which is part of your argument) is somehow not reasonable or responsible.

Taking the laptop would not be an issue. I think it's over the top, but ultimately not unreasonable. That is not what he did. Before he spoke to his daughter about anything, he took her laptop, wrote a speech condemning her, telling her that she now owed him money as a result of his actions, videoed himself making the speech and shooting her laptop into scrap, then posted it on facebook where all her friends could see it even though one of the reasons he professed for destroying her laptop was so that she couldn't access facebook. I think that is neither reasonable nor responsible.

[Alkaloid]

I'll be honest, it baffles the hell out of me that so many people are getting worked up over this. I had a Marine Dad. I was the guy mowing the lawn as soon as I was tall enough and strong enough to push it. Complaining about the chores would not have garnered much sympathy from my Dad, and if I had done so in a public manner persistantly, I would have been punished as well.


As far as I can tell, the Dad went over-the-top to make a point. Oh no, big mean daddy humiliated her by posting that video. What goes around comes around, and I've yet to see anything to indicate that he is abusive.

Dude, there's like one guy claiming abuse, everyone else just thinks the guy was a dick and his reaction unreasonable. Or do you think you dad would have reacted to you complaining about doing chores by running over your bike with his car?

[Lonestar]

Dude, there's like one guy claiming abuse, everyone else just thinks the guy was a dick and his reaction unreasonable. Or do you think you dad would have reacted to you complaining about doing chores by running over your bike with his car?

Well, when I was in high school I had a particularly bad semester and he made me donate my Nintendo to the Salvation Army, and tell the lady why I was donating it.

Now, was it humiliating? Yes, that's the point. Looking back I don't think it was that unreasonable, I was dicking around playing Ocarina of time instead of doing homework.

[Alkaloid]

So, you were actually not doing what you needed to rather than just bitching you would rather be dicking around with the nintendo. And he didn't take the offending console into the backyard and shoot it? Wow, what lax parenting. How shocking.

[Darth Fanboy]

Really? I've always held that people in positions of authority publicly humiliating those they have power over is a bad thing, but if you think otherwise that's your prerogative.

You don't think that there is ever an appropriate time for someone to be shamed into something? Humiliation can be very abusive, but it can be very constructive. Consider a team sport where one player is hogging posession of the ball and gets benched by the coach. Is that not humilitation in a constructive manner? How about when a child breaks a window and is forced to go to the house he or she damaged and offer an apology?

True. If he is though, and again I'm assuming, the hypocrisy of the situation amuses me.

Yes, this hypothetical hypocrisy. Free speech doesn't mean that you should be allowed to say qhatever you want without consequences, especially for a minor still in high school.

No, he publicly destroyed it. There is a clear difference, stop trying to pretend otherwise.

And the end result is different how? Either he gives the laptop away, sells it, or puts a few bullet holes in it, or whatever. In the end no laptop for the kid, which in and of itself is not as extreme as you make it out to be.

Course it is, doesn't change the fact that you said that posting embarrassing things about them on facebook is a good way to teach a child not to embarrass people on facebook, that is eye for an eye is it not?

And you're the one who took it to the extreme and said "how do we teach our kids about rape." As if I were somehow in favor of a violent action with a violent response when this isn't the case. Again, you somehow think that the daughter's "humilitaion" is somehow equivalent when it is not.

Seriously, did you not go to high school? Kids are cruel little bastards when they want to be, they look to get a leg up over other kids socially all the time and they don't need help doing it. It doesn't have to make sense, someone could easily twist this to 'don't go to their house their parents are crazy,' and that
s being the least bit creative possible.

Yeah I did, but even the meanest fuckers there didn't bat an eyelash to make fun of someone if they got grounded and lost their internet privileges. You are letting this fantasy run wild in your head.

No, just the fact that I am a person, and people don't like to have shit like this done to them, and the first step in fixing it is usually to try and flaunt the authority of the people doing it to them.

Kids never like to be punished, even when they do something bad, news at 11.

Taking the laptop would not be an issue. I think it's over the top, but ultimately not unreasonable. That is not what he did.

Uh...yeah he did, but i'll let you continue as if somehow the end result of him shooting the laptop is somehow different from him taking it away and doing something else.

Before he spoke to his daughter about anything, he took her laptop,

I know i'm dissecting this a little thing but he does not owe her an explanation or need to talk to her, he is the parent.

wrote a speech condemning her,

Parents condemn kids bad behavior all the time.

telling her that she now owed him money as a result of his actions, videoed himself making the speech and shooting her laptop into scrap, then posted it on facebook where all her friends could see it even though one of the reasons he professed for destroying her laptop was so that she couldn't access facebook.

I'm sure she is scarred for life (p.s. child services didn't think so and neither should you.)

I think that is neither reasonable nor responsible.

The gun part? You have a case. The rest of it? You're being overdramatic.

How would you as a parent deal with this situation. Your high school aged child engages in bratty behavior, then does so on line, and says things that you do not approve of her saying. I would love to hear what your infinite wisdom would provide as an alternative. Perhaps you would let her continue without being interrupted as hopefully in time she will learn from her own mistakes?

[Darth Fanboy]

So, you were actually not doing what you needed to rather than just bitching you would rather be dicking around with the nintendo. And he didn't take the offending console into the backyard and shoot it? Wow, what lax parenting. How shocking.

Why aren't you championing him as a victim of the INUSTICE OF HUMILIATION! IF people knew that his Nintendo had been taken away he could be made fun of, high schoolers are cruel!

Poor Lonestar

[Lonestar]

So, you were actually not doing what you needed to rather than just bitching you would rather be dicking around with the nintendo. And he didn't take the offending console into the backyard and shoot it? Wow, what lax parenting. How shocking.

The point is, she hadn't been doing what she was suppose to be doing and was bitching about her big mean parents on a public forum for having to crawl up her ass about it. Well, fine, don't expect a lot of sympathy from me when her big mean Dad uses said public forum to make a fucking point.