Facebook Parenting (Viral video)

[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.

[Alkaloid]

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?

Publicly. Publicly humiliated. In these cases, the player is embarrassed in front of the team, and the kid is embarrassed in front of the people who live in the house, not whoever the hell feels like having a look.

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.

Yes, I took it to an extreme. This is a case where shit is being taken to the extreme.

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.

Either your high school was a far nicer place than mine, or you were friends with everyone. Either way, well done.

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

They are also capable of analysing cause and effect and reason. A kid may not like being punished, but they can actually think about the punishment and whether or not they deserver what they got. That's how is works, kid is able to say, yes, I did wrong, and this is what occurred, this is reasonable and I can expect that if I perform similar actions in later life I will get a similar level of punishment. If you go balls to the wall mental punishing your kids, any and all fuckups are considered terrible and you get either people who never take any risks for fear of consequence or people who do the wrong thing all the time and just make damn sure they don't get caught because as far as they're concerned they're boned anyway.

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.

As far as her laptop goes, she doesn't have a laptop. What changes is she can never get it back, regardless of what she does, she will not get another laptop until college. Not only that, no one else gets the laptop, this one mistake on her part can never be fixed by her or anyone else.

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.

What? Parents have a responsibility to educate their children. If he doesn't talk to her how does he know that she has learned anything from this? She needs to not only know that her behaviour was unacceptable, she needs to know why it was unacceptable so she can avoid making similar mistakes in the future, otherwise all she takes from this is 'never ever criticise people who can punish you.'

Parents condemn kids bad behavior all the time.

Yes, it's helpful if it is to their children so that the children know what they are doing is wrong and why it is wrong.

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

She's not scarred for life, I never said she was. She has been exposed to the line of thinking that all infractions should be punished severely and publicly.

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?

Sit down with the child, have her try to make her case that I overwork her. She won't, because she isn't being overworked. Then explain to her why she has the chores she does, (typically because it is my job as a parent to ensure she becomes a functioning adult, and the chores teach her skills she needs to be one) explain to her why her behaviour was unacceptable, get her to explain to me, in her own words why it was unacceptable so I know she understands it and can apply that knowledge in future situations, and probably punish her by giving her extra chores. Mowing the lawns, cleaning the car and vacuming the whole house, maybe, I don't know what needs to be done.

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!

Difference of scale. Lonestar was embarrassed in front of the lady at the Salvos, not everyone he knew. If his dad had had the lady come into the school, and organised for Lonestar to give her the Nintendo and the explanation in front of a whole school assembly it would be both unreasonable and a comparable situation.

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.

She had been doing her chores, her father just didn't like her complaining about it or the language she used to do it.

[Darth Fanboy]

Publicly. Publicly humiliated. In these cases, the player is embarrassed in front of the team, and the kid is embarrassed in front of the people who live in the house, not whoever the hell feels like having a look.

Embarassed in front of the team, and whomever is watching. Which can be as many as zero people or many thousands and perhaps millions given the context. Now for most of your high school events they aren't going to be televised nationally but you get the idea. The players are humiliated in public, in front of a crowd's eyes, not just internet eyes.

Yes, I took it to an extreme. This is a case where shit is being taken to the extreme.

I fail to see how the appropriateness of firearm usage in this case can ever be equivocated with "oh my god would you suggest eye for an eye punishments when teaching kids about rape?"

Either your high school was a far nicer place than mine, or you were friends with everyone. Either way, well done.

Eh, not really. Because kids get grounded, it's not that big of a deal. "Oh man Jimmy got grounded let's stuff him in a locker!"

They are also capable of analysing cause and effect and reason. A kid may not like being punished, but they can actually think about the punishment and whether or not they deserver what they got. That's how is works, kid is able to say, yes, I did wrong, and this is what occurred, this is reasonable and I can expect that if I perform similar actions in later life I will get a similar level of punishment. If you go balls to the wall mental punishing your kids, any and all fuckups are considered terrible and you get either people who never take any risks for fear of consequence or people who do the wrong thing all the time and just make damn sure they don't get caught because as far as they're concerned they're boned anyway.

But that's just it, while there is a lot of drama and flair in this punishment, the punishment itself isn't the "balls to the wall" mental punishment you make it out to be. This isn't a "fuckup being considered terrible", this is a bad behavior that the child has already stated to have been guilty of doing in the past.

As far as her laptop goes, she doesn't have a laptop. What changes is she can never get it back, regardless of what she does, she will not get another laptop until college. Not only that, no one else gets the laptop, this one mistake on her part can never be fixed by her or anyone else.

And she will never be able to have one ever again ever and having a laptop is so important to a young girl's life how did they ever exist without them before! Nobody gets the laptop ever!

Do you even read what you post?

What? Parents have a responsibility to educate their children. If he doesn't talk to her how does he know that she has learned anything from this? She needs to not only know that her behaviour was unacceptable, she needs to know why it was unacceptable so she can avoid making similar mistakes in the future, otherwise all she takes from this is 'never ever criticise people who can punish you.'

Talking had happened before and after this video, so your perception that no discussion took place is laughable.

She's not scarred for life, I never said she was. She has been exposed to the line of thinking that all infractions should be punished severely and publicly.

Obviously that is the conclusion to draw from this and not "Gee if I act like a spoiled bitch I don't get to have nice things."

Sit down with the child, have her try to make her case that I overwork her. She won't, because she isn't being overworked. Then explain to her why she has the chores she does, (typically because it is my job as a parent to ensure she becomes a functioning adult, and the chores teach her skills she needs to be one) explain to her why her behaviour was unacceptable, get her to explain to me, in her own words why it was unacceptable so I know she understands it and can apply that knowledge in future situations, and probably punish her by giving her extra chores. Mowing the lawns, cleaning the car and vacuming the whole house, maybe, I don't know what needs to be done.

Emphasis mine.

Because you very eloquently described your step one, which is very reasonable. However you have no idea what to do when the child escalates the situation, as teenagers are prone to do. You don't have an idea what to do if the child refuses to do the extra chores, or even if she does the chores but still persists in the negative behavior. You seem to think that what this guy did was step one, when it is clearly closer to a "last resort" where clearly the messages needed to get through.

Difference of scale. Lonestar was embarrassed in front of the lady at the Salvos, not everyone he knew. If his dad had had the lady come into the school, and organised for Lonestar to give her the Nintendo and the explanation in front of a whole school assembly it would be both unreasonable and a comparable situation.

And Lonestar's dad wasn't going to waste that much fucking time either don't forget. But that is still public humilation, and I would argue far more embarassing because he had to do it face to face. But humilation is wrong children are our future!

She had been doing her chores, her father just didn't like her complaining about it or the language she used to do it.

She didn't do what she was supposed to be doing, which was not posting on facebook the way she was doing. And she did so in an incredibly arrogant way that nobody in this thread, yourself included, agrees with.

[Dragon Angel]

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.

...No, because there is a practical reason behind shooting an outline on a range. I don't see any other reason for putting up that kind of a public display, other than "hurr hurr I'm so macho, I'm the leader and I'll set an example on your laptop, and let everyone know of it too!"

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.

Well, there is still a possibility that hangs around. It's irresponsible for you to post things that can backfire on you, and "hope" that not a lot of people on the Internet catch on to it. In fact, that's downright naive as well.

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.

Yes, and why did humanity build a tool that can fire projectiles at very high speeds? The same reason why we continue to build bigger and bigger bombs meant to blow other people's civilizations into ashes! Jesus Christ, your willful ignorance of human nature is frustrating.

(yes, guns can also be used for hunting for meat, and we use explosives to clear obstacles, but these are different types of guns and different types of explosives. and this returns to "guns kill things".)

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.

Well, you and I will have to agree to disagree then. I wouldn't depend on a child that age to have the mental faculties to separate "I'm using this gun on your laptop" from "I am willing to do anything to you".

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 a possibility, but the way he worded it made it sound as if he was taking separate classes. Not classes already-integrated into his high school schedule. Don't split hairs here.

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.

Then it's his fault that he did not communicate this properly, and instead make his teenage years sound so superhuman. Just the fact that he worked two jobs compared to his daughter's laziness, as well as him living alone, should have brought his point home to everyone. But no...he had to suffer through a painful teenage life of juggling one thousand things at once.

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.

And let me remind you since you keep forgetting (or you're ignoring on purpose, but I'm thinking the former): He was living on his own with no help. You had a room in your house, with food, electricity, gas, water, and all those other neat things that make civilization nice. He had to pay for everything, which your two part-time jobs (you only mentioned your babysitting, so I will guess that you worked for probably at most 12-16 hours a week) would not even begin to cover. Your experiences and what he is claiming are not even close to matching.

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.

Then please demonstrate it. Actually, I'll provide a link I found on some history in American fire training. It seems that firefighter training back then was certainly simpler compared to how it's structured today, but by no means was it something that you could breeze through without time to commit. Which I find it hard to believe with what this guy is boasting.

And really, could standards have been so lax back in the day, that fire departments would hire people with these kinds of schedules and commitments and rely on them for help?

[Alkaloid]

Embarassed in front of the team, and whomever is watching. Which can be as many as zero people or many thousands and perhaps millions given the context. Now for most of your high school events they aren't going to be televised nationally but you get the idea. The players are humiliated in public, in front of a crowd's eyes, not just internet eyes.

And the public can guess why he was benched, but they never know. They don't listen to that conversation, it stays between the team the coach and the player.

I fail to see how the appropriateness of firearm usage in this case can ever be equivocated with "oh my god would you suggest eye for an eye punishments when teaching kids about rape?"

Fair enough. It can't.

Eh, not really. Because kids get grounded, it's not that big of a deal. "Oh man Jimmy got grounded let's stuff him in a locker!"

Yeah, but if Jimmy got grounded and his dad was at the school telling people that Jimmy got grounded, why he got grounded and they'd better not do what he did or their parents might ground them too? It's not that the laptop was taken away, it was the way the laptop being taken away was flaunted.

But that's just it, while there is a lot of drama and flair in this punishment, the punishment itself isn't the "balls to the wall" mental punishment you make it out to be. This isn't a "fuckup being considered terrible", this is a bad behavior that the child has already stated to have been guilty of doing in the past.

No, it's the drama and flair that's the crux of the issue. The punishment of the laptop being taken away is not as bad as the way it was waved in her and everyone elses faces. It is beyond what most people go to, the fact that it is drawing as much attention as it has is testament to that.

And she will never be able to have one ever again ever and having a laptop is so important to a young girl's life how did they ever exist without them before! Nobody gets the laptop ever!

Do you even read what you post?

She's a teenager. It is that important to her. Most of her friends will have laptops, her, most people in the school probably have their own computer, but she doesn't and they know she doesn't, and while yeah to adults it isn't that big a deal, they are teenagers, inherently cliquey and looking for differences between themselves and others, and stupid as it is this sort of thing matters to them.

Talking had happened before and after this video, so your perception that no discussion took place is laughable.

Obviously that is the conclusion to draw from this and not "Gee if I act like a spoiled bitch I don't get to have nice things."

That's the point, if she is behaving like this, she doesn't see this as acting like a spoiled bitch. The jobs she has been given, assuming the list the father gave was complete and I have no reason to believe otherwise, are reasonable. That fact that she sees them as being unreasonable means that she hasn't worked it out and no one has explained it to her and made sure she understood it.

Emphasis mine.

Because you very eloquently described your step one, which is very reasonable. However you have no idea what to do when the child escalates the situation, as teenagers are prone to do. You don't have an idea what to do if the child refuses to do the extra chores, or even if she does the chores but still persists in the negative behavior. You seem to think that what this guy did was step one, when it is clearly closer to a "last resort" where clearly the messages needed to get through.

No, as in I don't know what jobs they have that need doing. Yeah, if she didn't cut it out i might start taking things off her, stop her going out, all that jazz, but I would never do it like this and never in via video uploaded to facebook. The fact that we apparently have first incident = step one, second incident = last resort laptop shooting doesn't really speak well for the father here either.

And Lonestar's dad wasn't going to waste that much fucking time either don't forget. But that is still public humilation, and I would argue far more embarassing because he had to do it face to face. But humilation is wrong children are our future!

What, so because facebook didn't exist a decade ago we have to compare things that take a similar amount of effort rather than things that have similar results? And you're right, it could arguably be more embarrassing, for the five minutes you are in the store. Then you will probably never see he lady again. This girl has to go to school day after day, where everyone knows about it and has seen it, she knows people are talking about it, some parents may have threatened some kids with similar punishments because they saw it, and we all know kids are so reasonable when it comes to assigning blame and the like. That's pretty much her best case scenario until everyone forgets about it, which even if no one keeps reminding people about it could take months.

She didn't do what she was supposed to be doing, which was not posting on facebook the way she was doing. And she did so in an incredibly arrogant way that nobody in this thread, yourself included, agrees with.

So she was upset and grumbled about it. No, I don't think she really had grounds to complain, and I'm aware I'm from a culture much less sensitive to swearing than most people in the States, and think that yeah, teens posting expletive filled rants on facebook shouldn't be encouraged, but that was what she did, grumbled and swore a bit. And her father launches into his own rant about rebellious behaviour, starts shooting her things and posts both for everyone she knows to see. I'm sorry but I don't see how you can't see either of those things as a complete over reaction.

[Darth Fanboy]

...No, because there is a practical reason behind shooting an outline on a range. I don't see any other reason for putting up that kind of a public display, other than "hurr hurr I'm so macho, I'm the leader and I'll set an example on your laptop, and let everyone know of it too!"

Yes, he was obviously overcompensating for...whatever is that you think...rather than trying to prove a point to his kid.

Well, there is still a possibility that hangs around. It's irresponsible for you to post things that can backfire on you, and "hope" that not a lot of people on the Internet catch on to it. In fact, that's downright naive as well.

How has it backfired on him? In the recent LA Times article I posted the only things he says he regrets are his smoking of a cigarette during the video and calling his daughter "an ass", specifically saying that doing so set a bad example. It has only "backfired" to people like you with your undies in a bunch because he used a gun to shoot something.

Yes, and why did humanity build a tool that can fire projectiles at very high speeds? The same reason why we continue to build bigger and bigger bombs meant to blow other people's civilizations into ashes! Jesus Christ, your willful ignorance of human nature is frustrating.

(yes, guns can also be used for hunting for meat, and we use explosives to clear obstacles, but these are different types of guns and different types of explosives. and this returns to "guns kill things".)

Again, one day years from now I hope you reread these posts so you can listen to your sanctimonious preachy bullshit. I love how you gloss over the fact that millions of responsible gun owners in the US who are not traumatizing people or trying to kill people every day. There are people who use firearms improperly and violently, a small percentage of those millions of people. The fact you are unwilling or unable to admit is that the gun by itself doesn't do harm.

(source for the number of Americans with gun ownership: here and here.)

Well, you and I will have to agree to disagree then. I wouldn't depend on a child that age to have the mental faculties to separate "I'm using this gun on your laptop" from "I am willing to do anything to you".

Then you severely underestimate teenagers, especially in a country where children can get a hunting license.

It's a possibility, but the way he worded it made it sound as if he was taking separate classes. Not classes already-integrated into his high school schedule. Don't split hairs here.

Pot calling kettle black. You're splitting hairs by doubting the complete accuracy of this guy's claims regarding his schedule in high school and turning that around to paint him in a negative light as some sort of bad guy. The fact is you and I have an equivalent amount of proof (read, jack and shit) one way or the other and in the end it means dick because the point he was making with that statement, that its good for a 16 year old kid to get a job and earn some of their own money, is completely valid.

Then it's his fault that he did not communicate this properly, and instead make his teenage years sound so superhuman. Just the fact that he worked two jobs compared to his daughter's laziness, as well as him living alone, should have brought his point home to everyone. But no...he had to suffer through a painful teenage life of juggling one thousand things at once.

Which, as I said above, means fuck all because this is about his daughter being a snot and him taking away the laptop. But he used a gun so obviously anything he says is mean.

And let me remind you since you keep forgetting (or you're ignoring on purpose, but I'm thinking the former): He was living on his own with no help. You had a room in your house, with food, electricity, gas, water, and all those other neat things that make civilization nice. He had to pay for everything, which your two part-time jobs (you only mentioned your babysitting, so I will guess that you worked for probably at most 12-16 hours a week) would not even begin to cover. Your experiences and what he is claiming are not even close to matching.

That was so far from the point that you've entered a completely different time zone. The point is that a spoiled brat kid who wants everything should stop whining and get a fucking job to pay for things. She doesn't have to pay the rent or for her own food. Maybe she can buy herself her own laptop, I think she needs a new one.

Actually, I'll provide a link I found on some history in American fire training. It seems that firefighter training back then was certainly simpler compared to how it's structured today, but by no means was it something that you could breeze through without time to commit. Which I find it hard to believe with what this guy is boasting.

And really, could standards have been so lax back in the day, that fire departments would hire people with these kinds of schedules and commitments and rely on them for help?

Again, after i've been accused of splitting hairs you want to pursue the firefighting claim as if it is relevant to the issue at hand? But whatever, i'll bite. If the guy lived in a small town who the fuck knows? Maybe they would just take whatever they could get, or maybe he actually did some of that shit.

[Darth Fanboy]

And the public can guess why he was benched, but they never know. They don't listen to that conversation, it stays between the team the coach and the player.

The public seeing is the worst part (aside from not getting to participate). And anyone sitting close enough to the bench can hear, and at big enough schools any jerkoff high school sports reporter can put it in the paper. And any player on the team can go gossiping about it in class the next week. Fuck, I got benched once during a high school game (DF warmed a mean bench for the freshman team) for doing something I shouldn't have been doing and it was right in front of my teammates. I never did it the fuck again because that felt like shit more than anything else and i deserved it, because it was not a good way to represent the team. It was in front of my parents, my classmates, and people I didn't know from two different towns.

Yeah, but if Jimmy got grounded and his dad was at the school telling people that Jimmy got grounded, why he got grounded and they'd better not do what he did or their parents might ground them too? It's not that the laptop was taken away, it was the way the laptop being taken away was flaunted.

This isn't like that at all, this would be the equivalent of Jimmy's dad putting a sign in the yard in front of his house or a note in front of the door for anyone who passed by. He didn't actively seek people out, he put out a message for anyone to see. And hey, I hear this modern technological internet stuff really is a lot different from even that!

No, it's the drama and flair that's the crux of the issue. The punishment of the laptop being taken away is not as bad as the way it was waved in her and everyone elses faces. It is beyond what most people go to, the fact that it is drawing as much attention as it has is testament to that.

How is it waved in "everyone elses faces", it was put up to be seen but unless this guy was emailing it to everyone one and actively distributing it aside from posting on a facebook then it's really not. And as for it being waved in her face? Its a punishment, she's the one getting punished, how can it not be "in her face."

She's a teenager. It is that important to her.

BOO-FUCKING-HOO.

A laptop computer and the internet are not inherent rights for young girls.

Most of her friends will have laptops, her, most people in the school probably have their own computer, but she doesn't and they know she doesn't, and while yeah to adults it isn't that big a deal, they are teenagers, inherently cliquey and looking for differences between themselves and others, and stupid as it is this sort of thing matters to them.

Having a laptop computer and internet is a privilege that can be revoked by the parent or legal guardian at any time. Any kid who doesn't realize this should have that privilege revoked. Under no cricumstances is a teenager entitled to a luxury like that and if they don't want to lose that then they shouldn't misbehave.

That's the point, if she is behaving like this, she doesn't see this as acting like a spoiled bitch. The jobs she has been given, assuming the list the father gave was complete and I have no reason to believe otherwise, are reasonable. That fact that she sees them as being unreasonable means that she hasn't worked it out and no one has explained it to her and made sure she understood it.

Or conversely, have you considered that she had been talked with but is still persisting in the behavior? Or are you so butthurt over the guys .45 that you assume that she has no fault at all?

No, as in I don't know what jobs they have that need doing. Yeah, if she didn't cut it out i might start taking things off her, stop her going out, all that jazz, but I would never do it like this and never in via video uploaded to facebook. The fact that we apparently have first incident = step one, second incident = last resort laptop shooting doesn't really speak well for the father here either.

Neither of us knows if this is the second, third, or even fourth step along those lines. But the video indicates she was grounded for almost three months, which tells us that whatever happened the first time was pretty serious. You also neglect that she posted this, despite the father investing a lot of time and money in upgrading that very laptop the day prior. It was an incredibly ungrateful act that deserves no sympathy.

What, so because facebook didn't exist a decade ago we have to compare things that take a similar amount of effort rather than things that have similar results?

Absolutely! Posting a video on the internet takes a few minutes and it's quite easy for anyone with basic computer knowledge. To get the equivalent spreading of that message prior to streaming video online is incredibly intensive. Even ten years ago when cable modems started becoming more readily available you couldn't accomplish a fraction of what we do nowadays, and twenty years ago you had to be on a major cable or broadcast TV network to get a message out to millions of people and it took spectacular effort and.or a shit ton of money to do so.

And you're right, it could arguably be more embarrassing, for the five minutes you are in the store. Then you will probably never see he lady again. This girl has to go to school day after day, where everyone knows about it and has seen it, she knows people are talking about it, some parents may have threatened some kids with similar punishments because they saw it, and we all know kids are so reasonable when it comes to assigning blame and the like. That's pretty much her best case scenario until everyone forgets about it, which even if no one keeps reminding people about it could take months.

Oh no, the teenage angst, she is going to be just like every other kid who has been punished and grounded. Oh wait that will likely be the vast majority of them, in fact I would be inclined to think there is a chance she could get sympathy. But apparently in the grim and dark evil world of high school, there is no mercy at all corners.

So she was upset and grumbled about it. No, I don't think she really had grounds to complain, and I'm aware I'm from a culture much less sensitive to swearing than most people in the States, and think that yeah, teens posting expletive filled rants on facebook shouldn't be encouraged, but that was what she did, grumbled and swore a bit. And her father launches into his own rant about rebellious behaviour, starts shooting her things and posts both for everyone she knows to see. I'm sorry but I don't see how you can't see either of those things as a complete over reaction.

[/quote]

Because his point was completely valid, and the only "overreaction" he had was the shooting of the laptop, which is superfluous and means fuck all because it's just a laptop not a magic sunshine box filled with the hopes and dreams of the young.

[Dragon Angel]

Yes, he was obviously overcompensating for...whatever is that you think...rather than trying to prove a point to his kid.

Sigh, I'm tired of repeating myself.

How has it backfired on him? In the recent LA Times article I posted the only things he says he regrets are his smoking of a cigarette during the video and calling his daughter "an ass", specifically saying that doing so set a bad example. It has only "backfired" to people like you with your undies in a bunch because he used a gun to shoot something.

Sure, teach your daughter how to be a parent by making a point with a public shooting display. That's a good example indeed!

Again, one day years from now I hope you reread these posts so you can listen to your sanctimonious preachy bullshit. I love how you gloss over the fact that millions of responsible gun owners in the US who are not traumatizing people or trying to kill people every day. There are people who use firearms improperly and violently, a small percentage of those millions of people. The fact you are unwilling or unable to admit is that the gun by itself doesn't do harm.

Where am I saying that guns by themselves harm people, you dishonest idiot? Prove that I said it. I said that guns are used by people to kill other living beings, be they humans or animals, and that by using a gun to deliver your point you are delivering a very bad message to your children.

Then you severely underestimate teenagers, especially in a country where children can get a hunting license.

Where does children having a hunting license even factor into any of this? Will you continue with your strawmen?

Pot calling kettle black. You're splitting hairs by doubting the complete accuracy of this guy's claims regarding his schedule in high school and turning that around to paint him in a negative light as some sort of bad guy. The fact is you and I have an equivalent amount of proof (read, jack and shit) one way or the other and in the end it means dick because the point he was making with that statement, that its good for a 16 year old kid to get a job and earn some of their own money, is completely valid.

Am I supposed to take the point of a man that made himself into a caricature seriously? How am I supposed to do that if he starts using out-of-this-world examples to illustrate them?

Which, as I said above, means fuck all because this is about his daughter being a snot and him taking away the laptop. But he used a gun so obviously anything he says is mean.

Yeah, let's be more dishonest shall we.

That was so far from the point that you've entered a completely different time zone. The point is that a spoiled brat kid who wants everything should stop whining and get a fucking job to pay for things. She doesn't have to pay the rent or for her own food. Maybe she can buy herself her own laptop, I think she needs a new one.

Again, after i've been accused of splitting hairs you want to pursue the firefighting claim as if it is relevant to the issue at hand? But whatever, i'll bite. If the guy lived in a small town who the fuck knows? Maybe they would just take whatever they could get, or maybe he actually did some of that shit.

You're right, none of this is relevant. But you were the one who started to compare all of this guy's bullshit to your life stories, so don't get pissy if all of that comes right back at you.

[Darth Fanboy]

Sigh, I'm tired of repeating myself.

Tell me about it

Sure, teach your daughter how to be a parent by making a point with a public shooting display. That's a good example indeed!

BLABHALBHALBAHKBLAH GUNS R BAD

Where am I saying that guns by themselves harm people, you dishonest idiot? Prove that I said it. I said that guns are used by people to kill other living beings, be they humans or animals, and that by using a gun to deliver your point you are delivering a very bad message to your children.

-Was it to make her listen? Well, it'll only make her withhold more information from you out of fear, thanks to your macho-man gunplay.

-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.

-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.

- If you mean "people" as in "your own 15-year old teenage kid", then hell fucking yes I would think so. (when asked "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?")

-I wouldn't depend on a child that age to have the mental faculties to separate "I'm using this gun on your laptop" from "I am willing to do anything to you".

You have made a pretty clear stand in this thread that the use of the gun in this case is potentially mentally harmful to the girl, without any evidence whatsoever oher than the fact that you assert it and even though the gun was used only on an inanimate object. With no history of violence, and nothing that even a visit from child services found wrong (from the LA times article I posted) we can easily conclude that you're fucking wrong.

Where does children having a hunting license even factor into any of this? Will you continue with your strawmen?

Because Americans, and this includes kids, are familiar with guns and are not pissing their pants at the sight of daddy shooting an object in a field.

Am I supposed to take the point of a man that made himself into a caricature seriously? How am I supposed to do that if he starts using out-of-this-world examples to illustrate them?

You can take the point seriously if it's, y'know, right. That he chose to illustrate it poorly in the video has no bearing on the fact that the daughter misbeheaved and that the actual punishment itself (taking away the laptop and then grounding her) are justifiable and normal parental options. The video itself? Not really all that bad.

Yeah, let's be more dishonest shall we.

You're one to talk.

You're right, none of this is relevant. But you were the one who started to compare all of this guy's bullshit to your life stories, so don't get pissy if all of that comes right back at you.

The comparison was to show the point that embelishment does not equal the entire statement being untrue, and that just because the guy makes his points in a way you don't like, doesn't make said points untrue either.


(EDIT: a quick edit was made to clarify a point)

[Dragon Angel]

Tell me about it

Actually, I'm pretty sure that you're trolling at this point. I clocked you as a troll several posts ago, but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt just in case you actually had something to bring up. I guess I was too generous. *shrugs*

BLABHALBHALBAHKBLAH GUNS R BAD

It's really not my fault that you can't tell the difference between "don't use gunshots to send a point to your kid" and "guns r bad mmkay". I'd like to see what would happen if you made an honest, serious threat to one of your friends and recorded yourself shooting a dummy while doing it.

Then again, I'm sure you know all of this well enough. If not, I'm glad that you don't have children now, otherwise with that kind of emotional stunting you would suck as a parent.

You have made a pretty clear stand in this thread that the use of the gun in this case is potentially mentally harmful to the girl, without any evidence whatsoever oher than the fact that you assert it and even though the gun was used only on an inanimate object. With no history of violence, and nothing that even a visit from child services found wrong (from the LA times article I posted) we can easily conclude that you're fucking wrong.

Have you ever heard of psychological domestic violence? It does not have to involve him physically beating his daughter into submission - you might as well say that if he punched holes in walls to make his point then he wasn't being aggressive at all. And if families can hide even worse shit from the authorities, while someone is making painfully obvious gestures like breaking inanimate objects, one visit from the local police and Child Protective Services would not nearly be extensive enough to cover something like this.

Because Americans, and this includes kids, are familiar with guns and are not pissing their pants at the sight of daddy shooting an object in a field.

This is more than "daddy shooting an object in a field", and you know it damn well.

You can take the point seriously if it's, y'know, right. That he chose to illustrate it poorly in the video has no bearing on the fact that the daughter misbeheaved and that the actual punishment itself (taking away the laptop and then grounding her) are justifiable and normal parental options. The video itself? Not really all that bad.
...
The comparison was to show the point that embelishment does not equal the entire statement being untrue, and that just because the guy makes his points in a way you don't like, doesn't make said points untrue either.

His point was valid. His method of showing it...completely off of the spectrum of being taken seriously.

Whether you like it or not, needless exaggeration affects your credibility. If you try to claim that you are a seasoned neurosurgeon, and you worked your ass off to become that when in reality you only worked as a nurse for one, then obviously I'm going to see your "embellishment" as complete bullshit.

[Dread Not]

And you're ignorant. It actually is not an impossible task to control something on the Internet. If his lawyers sent letters to the big offending videos, they can be taken down leaving his original message with the vast majority of the traffic.

This isn't even that hard.

Bullshit. Under current law there's absolutely nothing he can do to silence people who use the vid for parody or commentary. And how successful has Michael Rosen been in trying to get people to stop using his material for youtube poops? If Mr. Jordan thinks lining the pockets of an attorney with tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of ad revenue is a good use of money then we have further evidence of his idiocy.

And how do you know that? Were you there? Do you know the whole story?

How about you explain to me what the fuck shooting the damn thing accomplishes that giving it away or just confiscating it indefinitely would not? All it says to me is say "I'm a petty douche. When I get a bruised ego I like to throw expensive goods away on a whim like the Kardashian sisters and other dipshits might do. Maybe next time when my son gets in a fender bender with the family car I'll drive it into the ocean to teach him a lesson about how important it is to take care of your stuff. Now be sure to appreciate the great life I've given you Hannah. I'm not hypocritical at all. How dare you ask me for a new phone/camera/computer part. Where would you ever get the idea that I can just frivolously piss away money?"

[Kamakazie Sith]

I don't agree with using a firearm in such a manner but that's just my personal opinion. I do disagree with the negative opinions about this guy.

Did this guy violate any of the rules regarding firearm safety. The answer is no. Did he break the law? My guess is they live outside city limits in an area where discharging a firearm is not illegal. This brings me to my next point. It is likely that the use of firearms is very common out in these areas and/or firearms are part of their family. This brings in to question just how traumatizing doing so would actually be to a child that is very accustomed to firearms. I don't think it'd be traumatizing at all to a child accustomed to firearms but I'm no child psychologist.

During some of my responses to ungovernable juveniles I've recommended to struggling parents that they take away property. During one such incident where the juvenile was destroying the walls in the house I recommended that the parents destroy his property to teach him a lesson about respecting the property of others. I pointed out the juveniles favorite possession, his guitar, as a prime target. We haven't been back out there since that time. (No, they didn't destroy the guitar.) Anyway, I agree with destroying the laptop.

How about teaching her to respect authority? Her letter wasn't just complaining. It was very disrespectful. Being disrespectful to authority in the adult world can cost you much more than a laptop. It can cost you your job.

[AniThyng]

How about teaching her to respect authority? Her letter wasn't just complaining. It was very disrespectful. Being disrespectful to authority in the adult world can cost you much more than a laptop. It can cost you your job.

The best part about this concept to me is that even on this board, where casual swearing is practically culture at this point, to talk back to a Mod or Admin when he is wearing his admin/mod hat is a severe offense.

I'm curious about the statement a while back that the girl would be severely persecuted back in school by her peers for lacking a laptop (and facebook, despite maybe that she could just use the library or the family computer) and this is considered to be a very very bad thing. If this kind of attitude is indeed true, then it seems like quite frankly that the entirety of high school society needs a lesson.

[Dread Not]

Send a cease and desist order for copyright infringement. All he has to do is prove that it is a derivative work of his video and he has ground.

Even if it is parody or commentary, the defendant has to prove that in the counter argument. By the time they do (if they bother), odds are the viral thing has blown over, so it's a win for the father here.

So this IS purely about directing people to his video and not about protecting his reputation. Thanks for exposing yourself as a dishonest shit. And you're saying that he'll fraudulently try to have videos removed that are covered under fair use. Your defense of him only makes him look like more of a cunt.

If Ray William Johnson, the Young Turks or any number of other internet personalities decide to upload footage of his video that is covered under fair use, he has ZERO grounds to have it removed and will be putting himself at risk for legal action by trying to fraudulently remove videos that other youtube partners profit from. And afterwards their videos will will go right back up and he will have accomplished nothing other than further exposing himself to be a douchebag. Anyone later on who wants to see Tommy Jordan's little stunt will still be able to. The video will still be floating around and he won't have prevented any future embarrassment. And that assumes that he won't simply trigger a Streisand effect.

Not to mention that he has dozens of other youtube videos posted of him and his family. He clearly doesn't have a problem putting his life on display.

How much do you think internet ads pay? Jesus Christ.

Many people make a decent living off of youtube ads and get views far fewer than in the tens of millions in a matter of days. Tens of thousands of dollars is a low estimate, so laugh it up chucklefuck.

It proves to her that there's no chance of getting it back.

If I take a child's thing, she knows it is still there. She might just stall until I (or her mother) give in and she gets it back. She might try to sneak it back. She might lie in negotiations to get it back.

Giving it away is a possibility, but doesn't have the same impact. The fact we're even having this argument proves that people react to it differently.

What a flimsy crock of shit. Grabbing the attention of the youtube masses doesn't mean it's going to teach her anything more. If he uploaded a video disciplining her with a whipping her it would have gotten a lot of attention too.

Destroying it shows, very clearly, she's crossed the line. It isn't coming back. It has a nice sudden impact on the video that a trip down to the charity or the dealer or whatever to turn it in doesn't have.

Yeah, it has a nice sudden impact that her dad is a petty fuckwad. Any "impact" the video might have had will be temporary compared to the message it leaves behind. The punishment is that she loses her computer for good. He chose to get rid of it in a spiteful rather than a generous way. How in the hell does "impact" outweigh that? He could have framed it as "Since you lack perspective and don't appreciate what I provide for you, I'm going to instead provide a bit to somebody else who does." But nooo, clearly his is a better solution because his video has "impact" and caught the attention of the internet.

The fact that it is gone, forever, from everybody, might make her think more about what happened than if it was given away. I betcha her father knows more about her reaction to things than you or I.

Don't give me that cop out shit. He uploaded the video to send a message to her friends, and the message he sends is "It's better to be spiteful than generous." And if his daughter doesn't see through that shit then her father has bigger problems to worry about the moron he's raising.

The point of this was to teach her an important life lesson. If that costs a couple hundred bucks, it is worth it for the good of the kid.

What fucking important life lesson? Don't trash talk your parents? He isn't teaching her to stay away from drugs or to not be promiscuous or to practice safe sex. Those lessons are worth shelling out hundreds of dollars "for the good of the kid." Millions of parents manage to raise well adjusted kids without resorting to destroying expensive items for minor infractions, and EVERY kid has bad-mouthed their parents at one time or another. If this is his reaction to giving him lip, what should his reaction be to catching her sexting, driving drunk, cheating on an exam, stealing from her job, or any number of other far more serious infractions? Is he going to torch the fucking house?

[Terralthra]

How about teaching her to respect authority? Her letter wasn't just complaining. It was very disrespectful. Being disrespectful to authority in the adult world can cost you much more than a laptop. It can cost you your job.

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.

[Darth Fanboy]

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.

[Questor]

Dread Not,

Do you believe that the creator of content has the right to control it?

Any fair use of his material (going by some of the best us guidelines) will show only a small portion of the item.

As for your assumption that fair use allows the others to profit off the material and gives them some ability to sue for lost revenue of potentially infringing material, is that a joke?

A few more questions:

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?

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?