1. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.Terralthra wrote: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.
2. It wasn't her computer, it was her father's. Perhaps she should have understood that before being an idiot.
Disrespecting the people who have voluntarily cared for you for a decade and a half isn't an example of poor behavior? Especially since this is at least the second instance of such behavior (he grounded her for three months prior to this instance, as I recall, leading me to strongly suspect that the prior time wasn't the first instance, either) and she apparently takes all the high-tech gadgetry she receives for granted and as being necessities like room and board as opposed to privileges that can be revoked at will.Terralthra wrote: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.
There's also the matter that if she were at a job and saying that sort of shit on Facebook and her boss found out, she would be fired instantly. So, she's learning a valuable life-lesson: don't say shit on the internet that can come back later to bite you in the ass in a major way.
This also isn't a criminal trial, for one. Two, it was in the quasi-press release from the dad that he has punished his daughter multiple times for similar behavior.Terralthra wrote: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.
She's getting/using free technology that costs hundreds of dollars. The dad just upgraded the computer significantly prior to her whiny post. She was getting compensated quite nicely for her rather small set of chores (clean up after yourself, occasionally get a coffee for your father who has graciously given you 4 phones in the not so recent past). She may not have outright owned the laptop or the phones, but she was getting free, unlimited use out of them, too. It was basically a free rental of such devices.Darth Fanboy wrote: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.
He's done that multiple times.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,
Wasn't her laptop, for one. For two, he was making a point that now she wasn't going to be getting free, unlimited access to a privilege anymore. She's living with the consequences of not thinking that she was getting it pretty good for what she had.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.
So, how is destroying it not taking it away from her?Terralthra wrote: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.
Also, he emphatically posted it as not friends only so that the parents of his daughter's friends would see what sort of shit their children are likely doing too. Otherwise, how was he to predict it'd turn into a YouTube hit? Even professional marketers can't predict what the hell will do that and what won't (hey, I can find other videos of guys shooting computers with under 1,000 views, why should this guy have expected his video to go viral when the vast majority of youtube videos never receive more than a handful of views?).
Further, the father himself is the one dealing with most of the heat from the video, not the daughter. He mentions that in his press-release (and he also happens to mention how he's using this experience to show her how you can't close Pandora's box on the internet).
Assumes evidence not in the record.Terralthra wrote: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.
You have no way of knowing the workings inside their head and only know what he has said through the video and the press-release, both of which basically state that the daughter has repeatedly done shit she wasn't supposed to do and that he was going to permanently eliminate the computer. The press-release also states that the punishment was effective enough that she won't be disrespectful of her parents again and that she understands her actions have consequences.
