Facebook Parenting (Viral video)

[Terralthra]

That's why I don't think the father acted reasonably. This is analogous to her father snooping around her room, reading her diary, and punishing her for the contents.

Errrr no.

He didn't snoop, he was on the dog's facebook account (i'd laugh but mine somehow has one too). This would be more like if she left her diary open to that page on the kitchen table, or better yet having overheard from the other room while she was reading it aloud to a group of people. You can't compare a fucking diary kept under the bed that nobody else reads to a facebook page out in the open to everyone except a handful of blocked people.

That would be great, if that's how FB works, but it's not, any more. If something was marked so that her mother and father couldn't read it, that meant it was "Friends Only", and only people on her friends list could read it. Blocking someone prevents them from contacting you, not from reading your posts. You have to unfriend them for that.

That she unfriended her mother and father might seem like a good clue to them that she wanted some privacy, but I guess "I want some privacy" is a parental clue for "spy on me using the dog's facebook account, I'm up to NO GOOD."

And you know, if her dad was deliberately sitting outside her bedroom window so he could listen to her talk to her friends and happened to hear her reading a page from her diary, I'd say that's unreasonable too. He didn't "just happen" onto her FB page.

[Dragon Angel]

I'm going to post some articles that I found, to show that I'm not exactly talking out of my butt here with my assertions. I finally had some free time to search for them:

Signs of Bad Parenting
Effective Fathering
Children Exposed to Partner Violence

Let's start with the first article. There is a whole list of things on it that bad parents can, intentionally or not, do to their children. Two of them struck out to me in this case...

2. Physical and Verbal Abuse: Exposing the child to physical violence or verbal abuse can be very damaging to a child’s psychology. Most children are victims of verbal abuse from their parents. Many Parents are seen venting out their frustrations at their children without realizing what sort of psychological damage you are inflicting on your child. Such acts can also lead the child in losing confidence and developing inferiority complex. Punishment is required when a child does something wrong but when they are extensively punished for even small matters it may lead to them being rebellious. A child requires physical contact with the parent like hugs, kisses or other signs of affection. If you are yelling at your child, calling names or telling that he or she is no good, you are passing the wrong message to the child.

...

8. Not trusting the child: Many parents believe in others more than believing their own children and many times do not even allow the child to even give an explanation. Many parents have no faith in their children and de-motivate them with their words or actions. This sort of behavior can cause a child to be a rebel or do things which they are not supposed to do.

Playing Yosemite Sam on an inanimate object counts as violence, but in the show-of-force way. It, as you constantly mention, is violence against an object...but still, symbolic violence. And, you know, all that stuff I said about it maybe mentally affecting her.

On the second point, well, by now it should be self-evident that there are pretty bad trust problems between parents-and-child. Her father's explosion is hardly a motivational speech for his child, now is it?

Onto the next one...

4.4 Disciplining Children Appropriately

The role that fathers play as disciplinarians cannot be underestimated. The way this role is understood and implemented within the individual family can have an enormous impact on how the family responds to efforts to prevent further child maltreatment.

One advantage of having two parents rather than one is that two parents can share the load of parenting. Discipline often is difficult and frustrating; hence, fathers can make raising children easier for all in the family by taking up a substantial share of child discipline. Fathers seem to be uniquely successful in disciplining boys, perhaps in part because boys are often more likely to respond to discipline by a man.55

How should fathers discipline their children? First of all, a father must maintain control of his emotions, his body language, and his hands when he disciplines his children. Fathers who scream at their children, who pound tables, or who strike their children are destined to fail as disciplinarians, both because they are modeling bad behavior and because they lose their children's respect when they let their emotions take hold of them.56 Unfortunately, many fathers resort to these tactics out of frustration when they feel they cannot control their children, because they cannot control their anger, or because they simply do not know another way.

See that part I bolded? In no way was Tommy Jordan calm at all in that video. Sure, I would expect very much rage from any parent with a troublemaking child that constantly disobeyed the house's rules, and did fuck nothing with the chores. But I wouldn't use a beyond-sledgehammer solution like this.

Sorry, but I am not and would never be willing to inflict mental damage on - and set a bad example to - my children by shooting a fucking firearm as an assertion of authority. Considering what could possibly happen to my children if I did that, I would be extremely irresponsible as a mother.

And finally,

Most of the research cited used various standardized instruments that measure psychological and other problems. Researchers compared scores of children exposed to partner violence with normed scores or with scores of control groups. Most, but not all, of this body of research found that children who witness violence are significantly more likely to have problems in one or more of the five areas cited than children who do not.

These findings do not imply that every child who witnesses partner violence, even frequent and severe violence, will have problems. Many children are able to cope successfully with disturbing events. Moreover, this body of research is relatively recent, and its findings are limited by methodological and other difficulties detailed later in this chapter. At this point, researchers are uncertain whether the problems of these children are attributable to exposure to partner violence alone or to the cumulative effect of exposure and other difficulties prevalent in violent homes.

Yes, not all children will have behavioral problems related to what this guy did to his daughter. But nevertheless, I cannot condone it because of this great (not guaranteed, but still large enough) possibility of lasting damage occurring to a child.

Actually, now that I read more about this, if her mother really did confirm this with her father, then I think she is fucking disgraceful as a parent. Of course, this is assuming that there was a discourse between the both of them. But I'm not going to touch on that here, since we can fly through baseless theories and guesses all week long.

[Darth Fanboy]

That would be great, if that's how FB works, but it's not, any more. If something was marked so that her mother and father couldn't read it, that meant it was "Friends Only", and only people on her friends list could read it. Blocking someone prevents them from contacting you, not from reading your posts. You have to unfriend them for that.

That she unfriended her mother and father might seem like a good clue to them that she wanted some privacy, but I guess "I want some privacy" is a parental clue for "spy on me using the dog's facebook account, I'm up to NO GOOD."

And you know, if her dad was deliberately sitting outside her bedroom window so he could listen to her talk to her friends and happened to hear her reading a page from her diary, I'd say that's unreasonable too. He didn't "just happen" onto her FB page.

Yes because parents should have no role in what their kids do online, and because accidentally dsicvoering a child's bad behavior means they should get a pass.

[Dread Not]

So this IS purely about directing people to his video and not about protecting his reputation.

It's the same thing. By having people at the original source, he ensures they aren't getting an unfairly edited or modified version.

Note how, in his response to the Toronto reporter, he aired concerns about his words being edited or taken out of context and thus wrote up the whole thing publically.

And you're saying that he'll fraudulently try to have videos removed that are covered under fair use.

As the rights holder, he can have potentially infringing material taken down. This includes reproductions and derivative works.

Fine, retracted since I'm not sufficiently familiar with the legality. I'll assume he's within his rights.

If the defendant wants to call it fair use, they do that in the counter argument; it isn't fraud for the plantiff to assert a right without making the defense's arguments for them.

Whether they win or lose though, he wins since it will take some time, and viral shit is short lived anyway.

So it's guilty until proven innocent? Guess I shouldn't be surprised what with how Megaupload is being handled.

And you haven't addressed the fact that he has put his wife, kids and his life in general on full display in his other videos. If he's hoping to avoid future embarrassment he's doing a shitty job of it.

It can take up to 1,000 views to make five cents from Google. I don't know the youtube pay rate, but since it is a Google company, it is probably pretty similar.

Twenty million views may make as little as $1000, and most those views happened before the monetization was put in place.

If there's a lot of clicks, that makes a lot more dough, so it is possible to make tens of thousands of dollars off this.

But, very unlikely. I'd be surprised if it totaled to more than a couple thousand bucks, if even that much.

Cite your source for your five cent figure. This shows twenty times that amount for "Random blogs or content" which is the theme with the lowest figure. Every other calculator I've googled shows similar results. At that amount he needs 10,000,000 views to make $10,000. I have no idea when he monetized the video, but do you think he isn't going to end up getting 10,000,000 views after that?

He shared it with her friends, the same way she shared the letter with them. The youtube masses thing was out of his control.

What does that have to do with anything? You suggested that shooting the thing was better than giving it away because people "react to it differently." The woman who disciplined her son by force feeding him hot sauce and forcing him to take freezing cold showers caught a lot of attention too. Does that mean she's not a bitch or that there are no better alternatives?

That's the way YOU see it, probably because you're a fucktard.

That's an ad hom if I've ever seen one, dipshit. Why don't you come up with a less nebulous justification than "impact" for why giving away the computer is not a sufficient disciplinary measure?

A repeated pattern of laziness, disrespect, and public posturing against the family is not a minor infraction.

In the grand scheme of things, yes it is. Her behavior is perfectly normal for a teenager and it is not necessary to ruin a working computer to discourage it. This isn't something like drunk driving where a second infraction could result in death. THAT is the time to ensure a behavioral change regardless of cost. If giving away the computer doesn't get the message across, all he has to worry about is his injured pride from more trash talk, and he can then confiscate her phone or whatever else.

If the attitude doesn't change before she grows up, it is going to be lots of trouble for her down the line.

For example, if you bitch about your boss in public, that often gets you fired, even if it is in a private forum! You can get sued over less if you signed an NDA.

These things have consequences. It is good to learn that from your parents. And this is just one of many things that letter showed could be problems.

And most parents with half a brain manage to discourage such behavior and raise their kids into productive adults without resorting to destruction of personal property.

[Terralthra]

Well, if that's a lesson you think parents should be passing on to their children, that's great. "Don't ever complain about anything, because if you do, someone might get their feelings hurt and shoot your possessions."

[Darth Fanboy]

blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah

You are still entirely glossing over the fact that there was no abuse in this case, save for one slip where he called his kid "an ass" which he has admitted he regrets but that did not invalidate his point. Your personal interpretation fo the firearm use is way off, and while you claim not to have strong opinions about firearms use it seems to me that you do. You also gloss over that this child's behavior was not only poor but that it was a recurring problem, hence the extreme measure of taking away the laptop. Not to mention the fact that not only is there no evidence that he directly yelled at the girl, or abused her in any way (something that a Child Services visit appears to have confirmed, something you haven't addressed either).

There is no reason to trust a child completely when that child engages in a bad behavior more than once and demonstrates that they have not learned the lesson.

The part of your post about Partner Violence is stupid because there is no evidence that nay opf that has taken place. By confirming and talking with the mother, clearly these parents (who are not married by the way but still having an apparently clear dialogue about their child's behavior whcih suggests a somewhat amiable relationship) are both having issues and something needs to be corrected.

But then again you being the expert, I should not doubt you because you read some articles on the internet. You aren't going to touch on the fact that there might have been a dialogue between the parents shows your unwillingness to accept the fact that, maybe this kid was being a bitch and deserved to lose her computer?

[Darth Fanboy]

Well, if that's a lesson you think parents should be passing on to their children, that's great. "Don't ever complain about anything, because if you do, someone might get their feelings hurt and shoot your possessions."

Did you even read her complaints? Do you think that her behavior is excusable?

"I am not your slave."

"We have a cleaning lady, her name is Linda, not Hanna."

"Maybe you should pay me for the work I do around the house."

But according to Terralthra, defender of the weak, we must allow her to voice the complaints without punishment, for clearly she is just frustrated and not being a spoiled petulant child!

[Dread Not]

1. Do I have a right to destroy my own property?

2. Does a parent own things they purchased, even if they allow their children to use them?

It's his computer and he's within his right to destroy it. Where have I suggested otherwise? A man is within his rights to take a sledgehammer to to his television when his favorite team loses. He's still being an imbecilic douchebag.

3. Am I committing some great sin if I take a bunch of GI Joes into the desert and run over them with a dirt bike?

4. What about blowing them up with firecrackers?

Depends on how many GI Joes we're talking about, and what you mean by sin. If you confiscate hundreds of dollars worth of action figures from your kid and decide to pour gasoline on them and watch them burn rather than donate them to a Salvation Army, yeah, I'd say you're being a prick.

[Dragon Angel]

You are still entirely glossing over the fact that there was no abuse in this case, save for one slip where he called his kid "an ass" which he has admitted he regrets but that did not invalidate his point. Your personal interpretation fo the firearm use is way off, and while you claim not to have strong opinions about firearms use it seems to me that you do. You also gloss over that this child's behavior was not only poor but that it was a recurring problem, hence the extreme measure of taking away the laptop. Not to mention the fact that not only is there no evidence that he directly yelled at the girl, or abused her in any way (something that a Child Services visit appears to have confirmed, something you haven't addressed either).

I've already provided proof of my side, between what I hoped would be common sense to you, and research. It's now your responsibility to disprove them or fuck right off.

Hint: I've already accounted for, and addressed, half of these. The other half are strawmen to our main argument. If you can't deal with reading what I've put forth, then that's your problem and not mine.

Oh wait, you're just here to be a troll and be contrary for contrary's sake.

There is no reason to trust a child completely when that child engages in a bad behavior more than once and demonstrates that they have not learned the lesson.

Have you stopped to think that there just might be reasons why Hannah would be acting like this? But you've already established that such an act is too hard for you.

The part of your post about Partner Violence is stupid because there is no evidence that nay opf that has taken place. By confirming and talking with the mother, clearly these parents (who are not married by the way but still having an apparently clear dialogue about their child's behavior whcih suggests a somewhat amiable relationship) are both having issues and something needs to be corrected.

No evidence, except that which was showed in the vid---oh wait.

You do realize that we are still talking about the video...right?

But then again you being the expert, I should not doubt you because you read some articles on the internet. You aren't going to touch on the fact that there might have been a dialogue between the parents shows your unwillingness to accept the fact that, maybe this kid was being a bitch and deserved to lose her computer?

Actually, what I've come to know has been through a lot of reading over the years, and personal life experience. Not only through these articles. And you're basically being dishonest on the same point that even you have acknowledged earlier, that I was not denying if she was merely being disrespectful to her parents for no good reason, then she should have lost her computer as a lesson.

Remember what you type, or don't type at all.

[Terralthra]

Nothing she said was offensive or hurtful. It was teenage whining. If you're going to punish a child for saying spoiled or petulant things, that makes a certain amount of sense, but doing so by shooting a laptop, charging your kid for the bullets, and posting a video online doesn't teach your kid anything useful besides "if you're going to petulant, be petulant with a gun." Because that's all this video is: the dad got his feelings hurt and is being petulant right back at his daughter, only he's in a position of authority and armed, so it's even stupider.

Can you even point out any harm caused by his daughter posting a whiny note on Facebook?

More importantly, the punishment doesn't connect to the purported offense at all. Meaningful punishment is more than "do something to make your child feel bad when your child does something that makes you feel bad." If you want to say the kid is doing something wrong by complaining about a situation she perceives is unjust you have to show her that the situation isn't actually unjust, because otherwise, what you're teaching is "complaining about injustice just ends up hurting you," and that's not actually a good lesson to be teaching children.

If she thinks the chores are unfair because they have a cleaning lady and they pay her, fine: stop hiring a cleaning lady, pay the daughter instead, and expect the daughter to do all the cleaning to the same standard. That will teach the daughter how much work it is to clean as a job, and maybe she won't take that for granted. You have to examine punishment and negative reinforcement from the perspective of the punished, not just the punisher, because the lesson you teach may not be the lesson you intended to teach.

[Dread Not]

He posted this on his facebook page yesterday.

We don't need a talk show. If we decide to share something with the world, we've learned that my digital camera does JUST as effective a job as an NBC/CBS/ABC (and to hell with Fox who cant' get ANYTHING right) film crew and takes less headache and WE control the way it gets portrayed.

We've got so many followers on YouTube now, we'll probably even make a profit doing it.

I guess all that profit from future videos is also to pay for attorneys. At least he claims to hate Fox News.

[Dread Not]

What does that have to do with anything? He's been trying to paint himself as someone not in it for the money and yet he's monetized all of his videos and plans to profit off of more of them. He's certainly not trying to shield his family from embarrassment or keep them out of the spotlight. The fact that he only wants to make money in ways that allow him to "control the way it gets portrayed" is consistent with the guy who claims Jordan is a hoaxster.

[Darth Fanboy]

I've already provided proof of my side, between what I hoped would be common sense to you, and research. It's now your responsibility to disprove them or fuck right off.

Hint: I've already accounted for, and addressed, half of these. The other half are strawmen to our main argument. If you can't deal with reading what I've put forth, then that's your problem and not mine.

Your "proof" and your "research" are contradicting the facts as demonstrated in what I posted, and instead you've resorted to allegations, suppositions, and guesses.

Oh wait, you're just here to be a troll and be contrary for contrary's sake.

And yet even if that were true, my points would still stand. Just like the father in the video who did not articulate his message well, yet his intentions and his points are completely acceptable.

Have you stopped to think that there just might be reasons why Hannah would be acting like this? But you've already established that such an act is too hard for you.

Lets see, why would a teenager act whiny and spoiled, perhaps because they are a teenager who thinks they are entitled and thus need to learn proper behavior? I know this is going to be very difficult for you, because it isn't sunshine and lollipops, but many teenagers just act like this because they don't know better yet. And in the US, where millions of kids lead a pretty nice life, they need to learn. You don't understand it seems why this video became so popular, because parents and adults across the country have to deal with kids who act like this on a regular basis and haven't yet learned the value of work. In Hannah's case, her rotten behavior caught up to her and there's no reason to think she won't be just fine once the lesson sticks. Unless of course you think that no child should ever be without their dear laptop like SOME PEOPLE.

No evidence, except that which was showed in the vid---oh wait.

You do realize that we are still talking about the video...right?

Why post anything about partner violence when nothing at any point in this suggests partner violence? You have forcibly inserted that into the discussion to try and paint the guy in the video as an unctrollable violent person, you can point to how upset he appears in the video without casting the shadow of domestic abuse.

Actually, what I've come to know has been through a lot of reading over the years, and personal life experience. Not only through these articles. And you're basically being dishonest on the same point that even you have acknowledged earlier, that I was not denying if she was merely being disrespectful to her parents for no good reason, then she should have lost her computer as a lesson.

Oh my god you have life experience, something I am sure nobody else in this thread has. I am also certain that, while your life experience is unique and special like a snowflake, it is not so unique that you can't apply all of your own same perceptions and feelings onto everyone else in the world.

And while you have acknowledged that if she was being disrespectful she should have lost the computer, but you continue posting allegations and suppositons about violence and abuse, and ask me to consider why she was acting like a spoiled teenager (a phrase about walking like a duck and sounding like a duck comes to mind). Your focus on the matter is so out of fucking whack it is comical.

Am I saying that the ends justify the means? Absolutely not, But just because you disagree with facets of the said means does not by default make them invalid, and the end result in this case appears to be that of a happy ending.

Remember what you type, or don't type at all.

Did your parents have any children that lived?

[Darth Fanboy]

Nothing she said was offensive or hurtful. It was teenage whining. If you're going to punish a child for saying spoiled or petulant things, that makes a certain amount of sense, but doing so by shooting a laptop, charging your kid for the bullets, and posting a video online doesn't teach your kid anything useful besides "if you're going to petulant, be petulant with a gun." Because that's all this video is: the dad got his feelings hurt and is being petulant right back at his daughter, only he's in a position of authority and armed, so it's even stupider.

Are you going to jump in the middle and fucking rehash everything I've been going on with Alkaloid and Dragon Angel for the last few pages or are you going to add something new you worthless cumstain?

And I know that airing family business in public in a backhanded way like that can be very hurtful and offensive, especially if these sort of complaints are embelished and portray the family negatively.

Can you even point out any harm caused by his daughter posting a whiny note on Facebook?

Certainly.

-By doing this online the way she did she is demonstrating that she believes her bad behavior to be ok.
-She demonstrates that it is ok to talk about people behind their back in a negative way,
-She demonstrated disregard for her parents by being punished for the same or a similar offense prior
-She shows disrespect for other adults ("We have a cleaning lady")
-Her poor behavior online in a semi public way reflects on the rest of her family.

More importantly, the punishment doesn't connect to the purported offense at all. Meaningful punishment is more than "do something to make your child feel bad when your child does something that makes you feel bad." If you want to say the kid is doing something wrong by complaining about a situation she perceives is unjust you have to show her that the situation isn't actually unjust, because otherwise, what you're teaching is "complaining about injustice just ends up hurting you," and that's not actually a good lesson to be teaching children.

Using all of your parenting expertise on this one I assume yes?

Spiled kid acts spoiled, loses privilege, end of story. I've said this already in this thread, got anything new to add or are you going to defend against injustice like you did for those worthless pedo advocates in the loli thread?

If she thinks the chores are unfair because they have a cleaning lady and they pay her, fine: stop hiring a cleaning lady, pay the daughter instead, and expect the daughter to do all the cleaning to the same standard. That will teach the daughter how much work it is to clean as a job, and maybe she won't take that for granted. You have to examine punishment and negative reinforcement from the perspective of the punished, not just the punisher, because the lesson you teach may not be the lesson you intended to teach.

Are you out of your fucking mind? Why should a child be paid to do normal household chores?

And secondly, demonstrating you haven't seen the video or care enough to become familiar with it before joinging the "Oh no guns are bad!" crew, that person is not a paid cleaning lady and is helping around their house in exchange for some usnpecified assistance that was provided.

[Terralthra]

Nothing she said was offensive or hurtful. It was teenage whining. If you're going to punish a child for saying spoiled or petulant things, that makes a certain amount of sense, but doing so by shooting a laptop, charging your kid for the bullets, and posting a video online doesn't teach your kid anything useful besides "if you're going to petulant, be petulant with a gun." Because that's all this video is: the dad got his feelings hurt and is being petulant right back at his daughter, only he's in a position of authority and armed, so it's even stupider.

Are you going to jump in the middle and fucking rehash everything I've been going on with Alkaloid and Dragon Angel for the last few pages or are you going to add something new you worthless cumstain?

Darth Fanboy blusters instead of responding to what I've said, surprise!

And I know that airing family business in public in a backhanded way like that can be very hurtful and offensive, especially if these sort of complaints are embelished and portray the family negatively.

Yes, and surely the best way to show "you shouldn't air family business in public" is to shoot a video and post it in public. Wait a minute...

Can you even point out any harm caused by his daughter posting a whiny note on Facebook?

Certainly.

-By doing this online the way she did she is demonstrating that she believes her bad behavior to be ok.

Begging the question.

-She demonstrates that it is ok to talk about people behind their back in a negative way,

Begging the question.

-She demonstrated disregard for her parents by being punished for the same or a similar offense prior

Relies on facts not in evidence.

-She shows disrespect for other adults ("We have a cleaning lady")

It's disrespectful to refer to someone who cleans your house as a cleaning lady?

-Her poor behavior online in a semi public way reflects on the rest of her family.

Begging the question.

Keep in mind, we have, on this very forum, two hundred and eighty-nine threads devoted explicitly to complaining in semi-public, in which many posts consist solely of "family business" or similar ostensibly private materials. This is over and above who knows how many ARSE threads concern similar matters regarding family and relationships, aired in "semi-public." Are you saying everyone who has ever posted in those threads should have their laptops shot?

More importantly, the punishment doesn't connect to the purported offense at all. Meaningful punishment is more than "do something to make your child feel bad when your child does something that makes you feel bad." If you want to say the kid is doing something wrong by complaining about a situation she perceives is unjust you have to show her that the situation isn't actually unjust, because otherwise, what you're teaching is "complaining about injustice just ends up hurting you," and that's not actually a good lesson to be teaching children.

Using all of your parenting expertise on this one I assume yes?

Since this is like the 8th time you've questioned other posters based on their "parenting expertise" or age, I feel compelled to ask on what personal authority you base your opinion. How old are you? How many children have you raised?

Spiled kid acts spoiled, loses privilege, end of story. I've said this already in this thread, got anything new to add or are you going to defend against injustice like you did for those worthless pedo advocates in the loli thread?

That you can say with a straight face that recording and posting a video of wanton destruction of property is simply "losing a privilege" says a lot about how far you're willing to stretch facts. Also, ad hominem and demonstrating a vendetta.

If she thinks the chores are unfair because they have a cleaning lady and they pay her, fine: stop hiring a cleaning lady, pay the daughter instead, and expect the daughter to do all the cleaning to the same standard. That will teach the daughter how much work it is to clean as a job, and maybe she won't take that for granted. You have to examine punishment and negative reinforcement from the perspective of the punished, not just the punisher, because the lesson you teach may not be the lesson you intended to teach.

Are you out of your fucking mind? Why should a child be paid to do normal household chores?

Well, I can't speak for you, but I certainly got an allowance in exchange for chores when I was 15. Connecting "doing work" to "receiving pay" is a valuable lesson to teach children.

And secondly, demonstrating you haven't seen the video or care enough to become familiar with it before joinging the "Oh no guns are bad!" crew, that person is not a paid cleaning lady and is helping around their house in exchange for some usnpecified assistance that was provided.

So, your argument is that receiving non-financial compensation in exchange for work isn't "pay"?

Also, I've at no point said that guns are bad, I've said that shooting a laptop and posting a video of it as punishment for "posting a whiny note online" is not an effective or reasonable punishment. So, strawman.

[Darth Fanboy]

Darth Fanboy blusters instead of responding to what I've said, surprise!

Because you are rehashing what i already being discussed, i'm interested in saying it again. Dragon Angel and Alkaloid have at least done the courtesy of not overlapping too much.

And I know that airing family business in public in a backhanded way like that can be very hurtful and offensive, especially if these sort of complaints are embelished and portray the family negatively.

Yes, and surely the best way to show "you shouldn't air family business in public" is to shoot a video and post it in public. Wait a minute...[/quote]

I will admit that perhaps I didn't phrase that so well, but I don't think it is unreasonable for a parent to discipline a child in view of the public.

Begging the question.

Begging the question.

Do you dispute that her behavior is unacceptable? That is ok for a teenager to act liek that without any punishment required?

Relies on facts not in evidence.

It's in the video you idiot.

It's disrespectful to refer to someone who cleans your house as a cleaning lady?

It's incredibly arrogant and disrespectful for a child to say that they don't need to do chores because "we have a cleaning lady".

Begging the question.

The only question I am begging to have answered is how much your mother drank when she was pregnant.

Keep in mind, we have, on this very forum, two hundred and eighty-nine threads devoted explicitly to complaining in semi-public, in which many posts consist solely of "family business" or similar ostensibly private materials. This is over and above who knows how many ARSE threads concern similar matters regarding family and relationships, aired in "semi-public." Are you saying everyone who has ever posted in those threads should have their laptops shot?

And if one of those posters is a child who isn't supposed to be posting stuff like that online? THey should absolutely lose computer privileges. I like how misrepresented me there, as I have repeatedly said I don't condemn the use of the gun but I wholeheartedly support taking away the computer. What happened to the inanimate piece of private property after the fact is not relevant, and since shooting the laptop is what is generating the outrage over this, my whole position has been that the rest of the punishment (grounding, taking away the computer, a little embarassment) is fine.

Since this is like the 8th time you've questioned other posters based on their "parenting expertise" or age, I feel compelled to ask on what personal authority you base your opinion. How old are you? How many children have you raised?

Already stated that I am 29, and I have worked with kids at different age groups in an education capacity (not in a school setting). I also helped raise my youngest brother, who is currently 15. I have no kids of my own at this time.

That you can say with a straight face that recording and posting a video of wanton destruction of property is simply "losing a privilege" says a lot about how far you're willing to stretch facts. Also, ad hominem and demonstrating a vendetta.

She lost a computer, she wasn't getting it back no matter what. Plus, it's the father's property to do with as he wishes. Show me how i'm stretching the facts.

And boy if you really want demonstrating a vendetta i'd have done it already and I know exactly what I would say. Trust me, you're showing your damned stupidity enough in this thread alone, that you have a history of being an idiot is icing on the cake.

Well, I can't speak for you, but I certainly got an allowance in exchange for chores when I was 15. Connecting "doing work" to "receiving pay" is a valuable lesson to teach children.

Allowances are nice, but I had to chores regardless. I got a little extra for some things that were optional (agreeing to mow the lawn for $5 etc..) But I still had chores that were expected of me. It is certainly not unreasonable for a kid to do chores just because they are part of the family.

So, your argument is that receiving non-financial compensation in exchange for work isn't "pay"?

The point is that she isn't their cleaning lady, and the argument is that a child saying they shouldn't have to clean because they have someone else to do it for them is extremely arrogant.

Also, I've at no point said that guns are bad, I've said that shooting a laptop as punishment for "posting a whiny note online" is not an effective or reasonable punishment. So, strawman.

Again, bring up something new other people haven't said. Shooting the laptop with the gun mean absolutely nothing, save to clearly demonstrate that the laptop wouldn't be returned. It could have been destroyed by any other means but you can't seem to acept that no matter what he did, she wasn't getting the damn thing back.

[Ryan Thunder]

Eh, I only object to shooting the laptop since I think it sends the wrong message. But other than that I don't think the guy did anything terribly objectionable.

[Alkaloid]

Darth, at this point I think we are going to have to call this, because we are now just regurgitating the same old arguments and no one is convincing the other. As far as I can tell we pretty fundamentally disagree on how children should be trained to treat authority, and I don't have the time or inclination to argue that whole other kettle of fish. Cool?

[Terralthra]

And I know that airing family business in public in a backhanded way like that can be very hurtful and offensive, especially if these sort of complaints are embelished and portray the family negatively.

Yes, and surely the best way to show "you shouldn't air family business in public" is to shoot a video and post it in public. Wait a minute...

I will admit that perhaps I didn't phrase that so well, but I don't think it is unreasonable for a parent to discipline a child in view of the public.

It's amazingly hypocritical to punish a child (purportedly) for "airing family business in public" by airing punishment in public. If, on the other hand, the father is punishing the child because he got his feelings hurt by her whiny note, then making a video destroying something of hers and posting it in public is a great (petty) way to humiliate her and enact some petulant vengeance. In fact, it seems reasonable to me to assume she is spoiled and petulant because her father models that behavior marvelously.

Begging the question.

Begging the question.

Do you dispute that her behavior is unacceptable? That is ok for a teenager to act liek that without any punishment required?

It's not on me to prove your case for you. You are the one saying there's harm inherent in her making whiny posts, but when asked to show this harm, you respond by saying that the harm is "that she thinks it's ok to behave badly." That's a textbook example of begging the question: to assume the conclusion of your argument as a premise. The burden is on the person claiming harm to show it.

Relies on facts not in evidence.

It's in the video you idiot.

You don't actually know the circumstances nor the punishment of the previous incident, only that she was apparently punished before for doing something bad before. The father doesn't relay any specifics.

It's disrespectful to refer to someone who cleans your house as a cleaning lady?

It's incredibly arrogant and disrespectful for a child to say that they don't need to do chores because "we have a cleaning lady".

Really? She sees that someone else is doing cleaning work in exchange for compensation, and bitches because she is also doing cleaning work and doesn't see herself getting compensated. The appropriate thing to do is to show her the compensation she does receive and takes for granted, or take action which emphasizes that. Yes, taking away a privilege (like internet access) is certainly one way to go about it, but posting a public video about it is unnecessary, destroying her laptop is over the top at best, and doing both is needlessly cruel, vengeful rather than just, and actively passes on bad lessons.

Begging the question.

The only question I am begging to have answered is how much your mother drank when she was pregnant.

Ooh, what a sick burn, bro! That's the best answer to having your logical fallacies pointed out, after all, just insult the person who pointed it out. Wait, I think that's a fallacy too...

Keep in mind, we have, on this very forum, two hundred and eighty-nine threads devoted explicitly to complaining in semi-public, in which many posts consist solely of "family business" or similar ostensibly private materials. This is over and above who knows how many ARSE threads concern similar matters regarding family and relationships, aired in "semi-public." Are you saying everyone who has ever posted in those threads should have their laptops shot?

And if one of those posters is a child who isn't supposed to be posting stuff like that online? THey should absolutely lose computer privileges. I like how misrepresented me there, as I have repeatedly said I don't condemn the use of the gun but I wholeheartedly support taking away the computer. What happened to the inanimate piece of private property after the fact is not relevant, and since shooting the laptop is what is generating the outrage over this, my whole position has been that the rest of the punishment (grounding, taking away the computer, a little embarassment) is fine.

Wait, you don't condemn the use of the gun? Do you mean "condone"?

Already stated that I am 29, and I have worked with kids at different age groups in an education capacity (not in a school setting). I also helped raise my youngest brother, who is currently 15. I have no kids of my own at this time.

You're the same age as me, and have less experience raising children than I do, and far less than many.

That you can say with a straight face that recording and posting a video of wanton destruction of property is simply "losing a privilege" says a lot about how far you're willing to stretch facts. Also, ad hominem and demonstrating a vendetta.

She lost a computer, she wasn't getting it back no matter what. Plus, it's the father's property to do with as he wishes. Show me how i'm stretching the facts.

Losing a privilege would be taking the computer away. He didn't. He recorded a video of needlessly destroying it, then posted it online to humiliate her in front of friends, family, and anyone with the link (since the video he posted was not "friends only"). Pretending that all those other things didn't happen or have no impact is dishonest.

And boy if you really want demonstrating a vendetta i'd have done it already and I know exactly what I would say. Trust me, you're showing your damned stupidity enough in this thread alone, that you have a history of being an idiot is icing on the cake.

You haven't shown I'm an idiot at all, in this thread, or any other. You have shown that you still don't know how to use quote tags, though, so that's something.

Well, I can't speak for you, but I certainly got an allowance in exchange for chores when I was 15. Connecting "doing work" to "receiving pay" is a valuable lesson to teach children.

Allowances are nice, but I had to chores regardless. I got a little extra for some things that were optional (agreeing to mow the lawn for $5 etc..) But I still had chores that were expected of me. It is certainly not unreasonable for a kid to do chores just because they are part of the family.

I agree, wholeheartedly. She had chores expected of her, did them, and then bitched about having to do them. There is certainly room to talk to her about whether her parents' expectations that she'll do chores is fair or unfair (we both agree that it's fair to expect her to do chores, and the list of chores seems reasonable), whether her expectation to be paid [allowance, etc.] is fair (again, we both seem to agree that an allowance for teenage children is fair, and that connecting said allowance to chores is also fair). So, we agree on that so far, right?

What we seem to disagree on is how bad it is to complain in a semi-private/semi-public forum about perceived unfairness, and what a reasonable punishment is for that, if it's bad enough to deserve punishment.

Is that a reasonable assessment?

Also, I've at no point said that guns are bad, I've said that shooting a laptop as punishment for "posting a whiny note online" is not an effective or reasonable punishment. So, strawman.

Again, bring up something new other people haven't said. Shooting the laptop with the gun mean absolutely nothing, save to clearly demonstrate that the laptop wouldn't be returned. It could have been destroyed by any other means but you can't seem to acept that no matter what he did, she wasn't getting the damn thing back.

If it means nothing, why do it, record it, and post that video online? Clearly it meant something to both her and her father, or he wouldn't have done it. My position is that he shot it and posted a video because it made him feel better and her feel worse, and has little to do with any effective or reasonable punitive motivation.

[Kamakazie Sith]

She wasn't disrespectful "to" authority. She was disrespectful about authority. In point of fact, she was careful to hide the disrespect from her parents, and post it in a private manner, so not everyone could read it. Her father eavesdropped on her, more or less invaded her privacy, and then got bent out of shape because he didn't approve of what she was saying.

That's why I don't think the father acted reasonably. This is analogous to her father snooping around her room, reading her diary, and punishing her for the contents.

You and I will have to agree to disagree then. As far as I'm concerned a juvenile does not have a right to privacy and if there are behavioral problems a parent has the right to snoop around and figure out what's going on. This is all especially true as far as I'm concerned when posting from a laptop owned by her parents and utilizing a connection owned by her parents.

[JointStrikeFighter]

You and I will have to agree to disagree then. As far as I'm concerned a juvenile does not have a right to privacy and if there are behavioral problems a parent has the right to snoop around and figure out what's going on. This is all especially true as far as I'm concerned when posting from a laptop owned by her parents and utilizing a connection owned by her parents.

Right so if she got pregnant and needed an abortion she has no right to privacy from her parents?

I guess it's to be expected from you; you have constantly demonstrated your authoritarian attitudes in the past.

Protip; rights documents don't make distinctions to limit the rights of young people; neither should you

[Dragon Angel]

Your "proof" and your "research" are contradicting the facts as demonstrated in what I posted, and instead you've resorted to allegations, suppositions, and guesses.

You will, of course, back this up.

And yet even if that were true, my points would still stand. Just like the father in the video who did not articulate his message well, yet his intentions and his points are completely acceptable.

I'm just going to return to "agree to disagree" here, because you and I will never make any progress in this argument. You say that I completely underestimate teenagers, while I say that they are still mentally developing children, and at the age of 15 there is still a hell of a lot of room remaining for her to grow and learn. That means she will likely stop her rebellious phase and take his point to grow the fuck up, but it also means that bad lessons he teaches her will stick with her for a long time.

Lets see, why would a teenager act whiny and spoiled, perhaps because they are a teenager who thinks they are entitled and thus need to learn proper behavior? I know this is going to be very difficult for you, because it isn't sunshine and lollipops, but many teenagers just act like this because they don't know better yet. And in the US, where millions of kids lead a pretty nice life, they need to learn. You don't understand it seems why this video became so popular, because parents and adults across the country have to deal with kids who act like this on a regular basis and haven't yet learned the value of work. In Hannah's case, her rotten behavior caught up to her and there's no reason to think she won't be just fine once the lesson sticks. Unless of course you think that no child should ever be without their dear laptop like SOME PEOPLE.

Of course they don't know better. That's why you don't teach them with trash examples like this. You're sending the wrong message to your child if you use a weapon for it, and they are going to subtly remember that message for the future. If that side-effect was not part of his intentions, then tough shit because he's made it so prominent that it's going to be pretty much unavoidable for her in her mind for the foreseeable future.

I'm beginning to believe that we both pretty much agree on at least this one thing (it being a trash example), but we heavily disagree on the lasting effects it would have against his daughter.

Why post anything about partner violence when nothing at any point in this suggests partner violence? You have forcibly inserted that into the discussion to try and paint the guy in the video as an unctrollable violent person, you can point to how upset he appears in the video without casting the shadow of domestic abuse.

I included it because it shows that real violence, physical or psychological, exposed to children can cause similar negative side effects as excessively mishandled parental actions. Although I will grant you that it isn't the best of examples to present because of its subject matter, in which case I'll withdraw it. I also withdraw other accidental allegations I may have made with regard to abusive treatment of his wife.

Oh my god you have life experience, something I am sure nobody else in this thread has. I am also certain that, while your life experience is unique and special like a snowflake, it is not so unique that you can't apply all of your own same perceptions and feelings onto everyone else in the world.

This is an ad hominem, and such a far off one in fact. You implied that I only just now started to read about parental violence with this comment:

But then again you being the expert, I should not doubt you because you read some articles on the internet.

And my response was an answer to your statement.

I'm not special, nor am I an "expert" or a "real-world psychologist", but I at least know that if you show a child bad things when they are young, then these things are likely going to come back big time as they grow older.

And while you have acknowledged that if she was being disrespectful she should have lost the computer, but you continue posting allegations and suppositons about violence and abuse, and ask me to consider why she was acting like a spoiled teenager (a phrase about walking like a duck and sounding like a duck comes to mind). Your focus on the matter is so out of fucking whack it is comical.

I've been saying those to try and make you think of what else could be happening that could cause this family tension, besides standard teen rage (which by the way, does not necessarily include ABUSE ABUSE ABUSE). For your convenience, though, I'll just stop mentioning it.

Am I saying that the ends justify the means? Absolutely not, But just because you disagree with facets of the said means does not by default make them invalid, and the end result in this case appears to be that of a happy ending.

A happy ending through a gunshot display is not exactly a happy ending. At its best, it's a very forced happy ending.

Did your parents have any children that lived?

Uh... What?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Right so if she got pregnant and needed an abortion she has no right to privacy from her parents?

Are you asking if the clinic should be required to notify the parents prior to proceeding with an abortion? No, it should not. Pregnacy is a much more complicated issue. Let's stay on topic.

I guess it's to be expected from you; you have constantly demonstrated your authoritarian attitudes in the past.

Is this suppose to be an argument? If I am, does that mean you win?

Protip; rights documents don't make distinctions to limit the rights of young people; neither should you

Which documents are you referring? I appreciate your opinion on what I should or should not do. You will actually have to present an argument to change my mind. Protip; An extreme example, a personal attack, and a vague reference to rights documents are not an argument. Now drive thru, son.

[Terralthra]

I think he's referring to things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which doesn't distinguish between adults and children for rights like privacy and so on:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Pregnancy is way more complicated an issue, I think, and it isn't necessary to bring in the extreme examples to have a debate about whether or not adolescents are entitled to any privacy.

And vague personal attacks referencing other threads are pointless and stupid.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I think he's referring to things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which doesn't distinguish between adults and children for rights like privacy and so on:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

It also is likely refering to a governments conduct towards its people and not a parent/child relationship. Unless you believe that a child should enjoy the same privacy as an adult. I would like to hear the justification for that one. Based on my experiences in the real world that does not work. Parents need to be involved in the lives of their children. They need to know what they're doing, who their friends are, where those friends live, etc. You can't do that if you allow your child the same amount of privacy as you would a tenant renting out a room at your home.

Pregnancy is way more complicated an issue, I think, and it isn't necessary to bring in the extreme examples to have a debate about whether or not adolescents are entitled to any privacy.

And vague personal attacks referencing other threads are pointless and stupid.

Privacy should be rewarded to a juvenile based upon their actions. If they demonstrate that they are responsible then they should be rewarded. However, an adult is responsible to society for the poor decisions of an irresponsible juvenile and in some cases will have to pay for their mistakes. This is why I think that a juvenile is not entitled to privacy.