Insane father shoots daugthers laptop [Archive]

View Full Version : Insane father shoots daugthers laptop

kuros

15th February 2012, 13:05

kl1ujzRidmU

What do you think of this?

I think it was an extremely injust and wrong thing to do, parents should't punish kids for expressing they opinions or complaining about they parents, that's they right to do so.

Fawkes

15th February 2012, 15:05

Punishing your daughter for ridiculing you on the internet by ridiculing her on the internet.... makes perfect sense to me :rolleyes:

By the way, if you want to post videos from youtube, copy/paste everything after the = sign (in this case, kl1ujzRidmU) and then place it within the youtube tags. It should look like this when you post it (without any of the space marks though):

[ youtube ] kl1ujzRidmU [ /youtube ]

kuros

15th February 2012, 15:17

The Young Pioneer

15th February 2012, 15:29

Per Levy

15th February 2012, 15:41

Nox

15th February 2012, 16:10

I already posted this in another thread, I'd reccommend you go on the dad's facebook because he explains it in more detail. He's actually a really nice guy and although I think he was too harsh, he was justified in punishing his daughter

praxis1966

15th February 2012, 17:08

btw this guy was flming himself shooting the laptop of his daughter, what do you know what he does to her when he is not filming himself?

This is just a hypothesis, but the inverse of what you seem to be suggesting could be also true. To be certain, the camera does bring with it a certain observer effect, but that doesn't necessarily mean his behavior is worse off camera. It could mean that his behavior is better and he's 'showing off.' I'm not defending him, just making a point.

At any rate, one has to wonder what kind of parenting on his part produced this kind of behavior his daughter. In other words, if your kid's a shithead, it's probably because you're a shithead, too.

I already posted this in another thread, I'd reccommend you go on the dad's facebook because he explains it in more detail. He's actually a really nice guy and although I think he was too harsh, he was justified in punishing his daughter

Yeah, who knows what he's really like? Frankly, I think he's an overgrown adolescent, what with his idiotic attention seeking, "Hey everybody, it's the Me Show! Look over here! It's me, me, me!" The guy's no better than his daughter that way... and he wonders where she gets it, lol.

PhoenixAsh

15th February 2012, 17:35

Well...technically it was his laptop...

IMO his action was justified. As has been said....you should read the guys facebook.

However...aside from this situation...his facebook also reveals he uses or at the very least condones smacking, or corporeal punishment. Which is why I can't defend him as a decent guy.

Aside from that fact...I think this action is one I won't condemn.

The Dark Side of the Moon

15th February 2012, 17:38

I think it was l completely justified. I would have done the same thing

#FF0000

15th February 2012, 17:59

i dont think its a big deal tbh

The Young Pioneer

15th February 2012, 18:17

so if you dont work its ok that someone is shooting and destroying your stuff then, do i get you right? btw this guy was flming himself shooting the laptop of his daughter, what do you know what he does to her when he is not filming himself?

A) It was HIS laptop, and he'd just spent hundreds putting new software on it FOR the ungrateful kid (Did you even watch the clip?).

B) Child services has investigated the family and found nothing to suggest what you're implying.

Fawkes

15th February 2012, 18:22

People are being really presumptuous here. The only things we know about this are what can be gleaned from the video and what is on his facebook. I don't get where this "he's a nice guy" stuff is coming from, all we know is that he filmed himself shooting his daughter's laptop after she publicly insulted him for coming down too hard on her for apparently not doing her chores.

kuros

15th February 2012, 18:35

While it might be true that the laptop was technically his, he also said other things which were definitely not justified, such as grounding her (which in my opinion should be illegal) and claiming that she should pay him 130 dollars.

Leonid Brozhnev

15th February 2012, 18:52

Yeah, spoiled brat totally deserved it! Nice to see some us justifying emotional abuse... :rolleyes:

Fawkes

15th February 2012, 19:01

However...aside from this situation...his facebook also reveals he uses or at the very least condones smacking, or corporeal punishment. Which is why I can't defend him as a decent guy.

But public humiliation's fine?

PhoenixAsh

15th February 2012, 19:31

But public humiliation's fine?

Like what she did to her parents?

Remember the situation... this whole video win a reply to the insults and humiliation she posted on her facebook about her parents....not only that but also towards other people who work hard for the family (you know...the "cleaning lady"). And from what I gather there were a lot of people out of the social circles of her parents on the girls facebook.

I personally think that is a fair exchange...and that the parents are justified in replying in kind. It is not my style...but I am certainly not condemning it.

SHORAS

15th February 2012, 19:39

What a big man. There's no defence for going on the net and telling the world what a scumbag your own child is. All you agreeing with him are pathetic.

He doesn't even have to say anything it is the very principle of going on the net with the intent. Go and round up the herd you fucking loser.

Landsharks eat metal

15th February 2012, 19:43

The problem with this situation is that many parents expect their children to think exactly like adults. That's not exactly possible, as the brain often isn't fully developed until mid-twenties. Not only that, but what praxis said about the father's modeling of the behavior is very important to consider. I'm speaking only from experience here, and I've never been a parent myself, so I've never really seen the other side, but parents will see flaws in their own children and never be aware that they have modeled this behavior and just blame the kids for being screwed up because they are unwilling to admit to making mistakes.

I have no knowledge of this situation besides what I saw in the video, but what's going on in there is not a positive situation for anyone.

black magick hustla

15th February 2012, 19:59

teenagers are dumbasses, adults shouldn't expect them to be on equal grounds. he should have sat and talked to her about it. i can see his line of reasoning, bbbbbut its my money and i bought her laptop blahblahlbha, well teens are idiots and you have to bear with their idiotness, not this one upmanship bullshit

praxis1966

15th February 2012, 20:12

Like what she did to her parents?

Seriously? Soooo... Your kid acts like a childish jackass in public so the solution is to one-up them? That's not a punishment, that's encouragement. It's the same thing with the corporal punishment you mentioned. That sort of thing doesn't teach a child to behave properly, it teaches them that the proper method of resolving interpersonal disputes is violence.

As for the laptop itself, well, that just shows how myopic this guy is. If he weren't dead set on throwing a histrionic tantrum, he might have donated the laptop to a needy child who would appreciate it. Of course, that wouldn't have served the purposes of his public melodrama nor would it have served his attention seeking behavior.

heyjoe

15th February 2012, 20:26

so none of you people supporting him had ever complained about your parents to your friends in your teenage years? the difference is today kids put things on facebook instead of just talking face to face. the whole thing should have been handled privately by the father.
shooting a gun in anger is never good. he was angry when he did it. its an intimidation tactic and poor practice for handling and using a gun. he also was shooting in the direction of moving traffic in the backround. another example of poor judgement gun safety wise and a big no no. besides he missed two shots at very close distance and is a bad shot. you people who think they know about guns who thought it was a great idea to shoot the laptop dont know half of what you think you know about guns.

the girl is 15. is getting a job after school really all that important at this age. doing well in school and learning is a higher priority for me as a father. they dont seem to be hurting or needing the girls earnings to survive financially. Everything about this guy seems to be about money, what he spent, what she costs, what she doesnt earn. personally i think he is a shitbird.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

15th February 2012, 20:59

This happened near where my parents live.

Given the culture of the area, it's a pretty predictable thing, and I don't think that he was wrong to do it. She wasn't working for her parents as they asked (and from watching the video, they weren't asking much!) - If you don't work and you're able...C'mon we're all communists here. ;)

Yes, children are made to do labour for their parents, right. They owe it to their parents for their tremendous debt of having been born. I quite loathe teenagers, but there's something I loathe more; and it's those bloody parents bossing their children around like they were made for free labour.

It's interesting to see that so many on here have no trouble with the hierarchical and system of domination that prevails in the family, yet supposedly opposed to the same in its economic incarnation; and the attitude of the girl in utterly question is irrelevant to this; spoilt brat or otherwise.

SHORAS

15th February 2012, 21:07

It's interesting to see that so many on here have no trouble with the hierarchical and system of domination that prevails in the family, yet supposedly opposed to the same in its economic incarnation; and the attitude of the girl in utterly question is irrelevant to this; spoilt brat or otherwise.

It's a good thing, it shows them up for the fakes and frauds that they are.

Leftsolidarity

15th February 2012, 21:09

The guy is clearly a childish asshole that I would not want as a parent.

I don't think this is a huge deal though.

bcbm

15th February 2012, 21:13

the only thing i hate more than children is parents

praxis1966

15th February 2012, 21:41

the only thing i hate more than children is parents

Oh, don't even get me started... :laugh:

Bostana

15th February 2012, 22:01

I think he is kinda a Dumb ass for *****ing about Money and then Shooting an expensive laptop. He somewhat has a point I mean a Daughter should be able to help her parents around the house, but that doesn't justify shooting her laptop for posting her opinion on Facebook

But she does sound Like a Lazy Ass

Nox

15th February 2012, 23:57

What swang me over to the father's side was the fact that she literally has to do TEN MINUTES of chores each day.

manic expression

16th February 2012, 00:50

Yes, children are made to do labour for their parents, right. They owe it to their parents for their tremendous debt of having been born. I quite loathe teenagers, but there's something I loathe more; and it's those bloody parents bossing their children around like they were made for free labour.

It's interesting to see that so many on here have no trouble with the hierarchical and system of domination that prevails in the family, yet supposedly opposed to the same in its economic incarnation; and the attitude of the girl in utterly question is irrelevant to this; spoilt brat or otherwise.
Not that I think what he did was right (IMO calling it an overreaction would be a gross understatement), but let's keep this in perspective. It doesn't at all seem like she was being used as a free laborer by her parents, she had a few chores everyday which kinda sucks when you're a teenager but it's what it is. Don't exaggerate.

And there's way more to being a parent than just siring and birthing a child (which in itself isn't a trifling matter)...guardians who fulfill their basic responsibilities sacrifice a lot for their kids every day. Refusing to recognize that is bad form.

Lastly, I don't find it very useful to extrapolate political tendencies from this sort of thing. Just because someone believes in an economically egalitarian society doesn't mean they think household chores are evil.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

16th February 2012, 01:07

Not that I think what he did was right (IMO calling it an overreaction would be a gross understatement), but let's keep this in perspective. It doesn't at all seem like she was being used as a free laborer by her parents, she had a few chores everyday which kinda sucks when you're a teenager but it's what it is. Don't exaggerate.

And there's way more to being a parent than just siring and birthing a child (which in itself isn't a trifling matter)...guardians who fulfill their basic responsibilities sacrifice a lot for their kids every day. Refusing to recognize that is bad form.

Lastly, I don't find it very useful to extrapolate political tendencies from this sort of thing. Just because someone believes in an economically egalitarian society doesn't mean they think household chores are evil.

This isn't about the specifics, it isn't about this case on its own. The chores are irrelevant (which frankly didn't seem that limited). The idea that the parents has any special leverage on behalf of being the ones to create is the issue; the concept of the family as a whole. The children have no responsibility to their parents to do chores, and if you shoot up a laptop in some tantrum as a response to this - probably the most idiotic way you could possible handle such a situation where obviously there appears to be some unresolved tensions - you should have your child taken away, for starters, for being a potential threat, psychologically unstable and abusive. Equally illegal should be to threaten to throw out your child or make reality of such threats (ideally, of course, eventually, the family would be destroyed in its entirety and such troubles would be a thing of the past).

The problem is that the parents are the authority and this is based solely on their giving birth to the individual over which they have this power, which frankly, entitles them, on its own, to squat.

It makes perfect sense to extrapolate political ramifications from a position on an issue such as this. We see comments like, "oh but it was his laptop, ergo he can do whatever he want!" What child/teenager owns their own computer in the sense of having bought them? They are generally gifted. Only occasionally do they have enough to buy a new one - or even a used one, lest they have been gifted money-- well, digression; but to assume that the father was somehow righteous because his daughter was "spoiled" - refusing to do chores, I don't think speaks to this, though certainly having a maid is a good sign - is an absurd conclusion.

However, to in such a reaction simply side with the rotten maniac patriarch is still something that should come as alien to people who are well-versed in the injustices & abuses of power that prevail around this world, the capitalist hierarchy; which replicates itself in the order of the family as well, and the authority which he holds is unrighteous and should not be respected by virtue of him being a parent.

Astarte

16th February 2012, 01:26

I haven't seen this guy's facebook, but i think there are a couple of things here. Notice how it is all happening on the internet - Before the internet if a kid was pissed off they would curse out their parents to their friends and the parents would never even know about it, now with the internet kids curse out their parents on facebook to their friends (she tried to block her parents) but since its the internet, the father still found out, and conversely, reacted as a child when he is suppose to be the father, bringing the antagonism between himself and his daughter to a qualitatively new level since now the video is viral. And they call it progress...:(

I am of the opinion they are both, more than likely, incorrigible people, otherwise the contradiction would not have been so extreme to bring it to this elevated level.

manic expression

16th February 2012, 01:40

@Takayuki, you say this isn't about this case, and then you cite the specific act of shooting a laptop to prove your point.

Children don't have a responsibility to do chores? Well then I guess parents don't have a responsibility to cook and clean for children, either. Do you have any reasoning for your arguments or is this just an anti-hierarchy reflex?

The problem is that the parents are the authority and this is based solely on their giving birth to the individual over which they have this power, which frankly, entitles them, on its own, to squat.
Parents aren't the ultimate authority, but they are the immediate authority. It's not based on solely giving birth because non-parents can be guardians with the same responsibilities. So again, what's your reasoning for this?

It makes perfect sense to extrapolate political ramifications from a position on an issue such as this. We see comments like, "oh but it was his laptop, ergo he can do whatever he want!" What child/teenager owns their own computer in the sense of having bought them? They are generally gifted. Only occasionally do they have enough to buy a new one - or even a used one, lest they have been gifted money-- well, digression; but to assume that the father was somehow righteous because his daughter was "spoiled" - refusing to do chores, I don't think speaks to this, though certainly having a maid is a good sign - is an absurd conclusion.

However, to in such a reaction simply side with the rotten maniac patriarch is still something that should come as alien to people who are well-versed in the injustices & abuses of power that prevail around this world, the capitalist hierarchy; which replicates itself in the order of the family as well, and the authority which he holds is unrighteous and should not be respected by virtue of him being a parent.
Yet none of that has to do with your original statements about how it speaks to some latent political conservatism. You can object to the father's utterly unwarranted and reckless reaction, as well as the downright immature addition of putting it up on the internet...but to say that this means parents shouldn't have any authority whatsoever doesn't follow. It would come off as alien to anyone who's observed what responsible parents do in the course of an average day.

Rafiq

16th February 2012, 02:00

This isn't about the specifics, it isn't about this case on its own. The chores are irrelevant (which frankly didn't seem that limited). The idea that the parents has any special leverage on behalf of being the ones to create is the issue; the concept of the family as a whole. The children have no responsibility to their parents to do chores, and if you shoot up a laptop in some tantrum as a response to this - probably the most idiotic way you could possible handle such a situation where obviously there appears to be some unresolved tensions - you should have your child taken away, for starters, for being a potential threat, psychologically unstable and abusive. Equally illegal should be to threaten to throw out your child or make reality of such threats (ideally, of course, eventually, the family would be destroyed in its entirety and such troubles would be a thing of the past).

The problem is that the parents are the authority and this is based solely on their giving birth to the individual over which they have this power, which frankly, entitles them, on its own, to squat.

It makes perfect sense to extrapolate political ramifications from a position on an issue such as this. We see comments like, "oh but it was his laptop, ergo he can do whatever he want!" What child/teenager owns their own computer in the sense of having bought them? They are generally gifted. Only occasionally do they have enough to buy a new one - or even a used one, lest they have been gifted money-- well, digression; but to assume that the father was somehow righteous because his daughter was "spoiled" - refusing to do chores, I don't think speaks to this, though certainly having a maid is a good sign - is an absurd conclusion.

However, to in such a reaction simply side with the rotten maniac patriarch is still something that should come as alien to people who are well-versed in the injustices & abuses of power that prevail around this world, the capitalist hierarchy; which replicates itself in the order of the family as well, and the authority which he holds is unrighteous and should not be respected by virtue of him being a parent.

What disgusts me is the solutions (in response to abuse) within the capitalist system: Either accept your abusive father, or end up in a shit hole foster home, perhaps seperated from children. What this does, is it gives the bourgeois families (which are always wealthy) a backdoor in abusing their kids physically. If their kids try to put an end to the abuse, they are threatened with living lives far worse than what they're used to (and this applies to all families, rich or not).

Child "protective" servicies essentially punishes the young for trying to escape their abusive parents.

In some situations, if it could be handled, physically abused kids in patriarchial families (with the Joseph Fritzl mentality), if at the right age, should defend themselves violently in response, let's face it, unless you're in a wealthy town, cops are not going to give a shit (they do the same thing). If your in a shit school, nor will the administration.

PhoenixAsh

16th February 2012, 02:54

What everybody is forgetting:

The kid did this before. A few months back. This resulted in a serious talk.

Apparantly the talk didn't work

....because...newsflash...people do not listen 100% of the time...even to the most reasonable well argued talks.

The double standard is astounding. So kids can be forgiven when they vent their rage in a public forum including friends and family and the immediate social circle of her parents she is basically accusing of child labour and abuse? But her parents can NOT respond in the same public forum? Come on now...

A Revolutionary Tool

16th February 2012, 06:05

They both seem like jackasses imo. And the dad seems like a liar too. Who really lived by themselves at the age of 15, had two jobs, was a volunteer firefighter, and went to college? It's like when my dad would tell me not to complain about walking to school in the morning, he used to have to walk 5 miles uphill to and from school even when there was a blizzard. Come on now really? And you're really going to ground your daughter over shit like that? What an asshole.

The daughter on the other hand seems like a douchey spoiled brat. "Omg I have to do the dishes? We have a cleaning lady for a reason! Arghhhh, I hate my life, it is so horrible!" :rolleyes:

praxis1966

16th February 2012, 17:15

But her parents can NOT respond in the same public forum?

No, they can't. At some point, her parents have to decide to behave like adults if they want to teach her how to behave when she becomes one. Anyway, I'm not saying she didn't deserve to be punished... I'm not even saying she didn't deserve to have the laptop taken away.

What I was saying is that his reaction was completely immature and if I were a betting man, I'd wager that not only is this modeled behavior on her part, this is only going to encourage future misbehavior on the part of the girl. I bet you dollars to doughnuts the next time there's a dispute in that house I bet the coffee maker which is the source of so much of her ire gets smashed to bits...

If he wanted to handle this appropriately, he would've handled it "in-house" and let that be an example to her.

I think he is kinda a Dumb ass for *****ing...

Verbal warning for prejudiced language.

SHORAS

16th February 2012, 22:15

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/8481/factoryn.jpg

PhoenixAsh

17th February 2012, 19:51

No, they can't. At some point, her parents have to decide to behave like adults if they want to teach her how to behave when she becomes one. Anyway, I'm not saying she didn't deserve to be punished... I'm not even saying she didn't deserve to have the laptop taken away.

Well...this isn't exactly about punishment. It is about wether or not the father is an unfit parent or...as OP stated in the thread title: insane.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by adult behaviour? Because it seems to me that is largely a subjectively defined term based on ones own perception of what exactly is the right kind of behaviour.

I also do not subscribe to the idea that kids only model themselves after their parents. Kids model themselves after all kinds of things they encounter throughout their entire environment up to and including firends, strangers, tv shows, internet fora, books, magazines etc....and base their behaviour on that. It is not uncommon for children to behave exactly contrary to what their parents have taught them or how their parents behave as example....purely because some magazine, friend or TV show says.

How parents chose to deal with that is IMO just as subjective as any other kind of action...up to and including our own subjective ideas of what constitutes the ideal way of parenting.
There are a lot of ideas on what is the ideal parenting method. There are litterally libraries that can be filled on the subject ranging from pseudo scientific, religious to scientific. Most of these proclaim that they are the best way. We also all have our own ideas on what is right and what is wrong....and what in our opinion works and how we will handle this. More often than not...we modeled that perception on how we perceived our own parents to be and how we are definately not going to make the same mistakes they made.

All this...immediately goes out of the window when we have kids....because kids do not fit nice models and theories, kids do not fit into our own perception and we will run into situations we are not equiped and prepared to handle or simply do not know how to handle. Wether or not this involves a changing way society operates and the technological communicative possibilities and capabilities of our children.

What I was saying is that his reaction was completely immature and if I were a betting man, I'd wager that not only is this modeled behavior on her part, this is only going to encourage future misbehavior on the part of the girl. I bet you dollars to doughnuts the next time there's a dispute in that house I bet the coffee maker which is the source of so much of her ire gets smashed to bits...

Well...again...what constitues maturity?

As the term is defined: becomming an adult.
Subsequently the term mature is being defined: becomming capable of sexual reproduction.
It says very little about a certain set of behavioural patterns.

IMO....adults start wars, visit prostitutes, cheat on each other, exploit each other, drive drunk, and exhibit a whole range of behavioural patterns and expressions which are IMO extremely negative.

We could expand the term with being self-sufficient, responsible and independent....but we could then very easilly conclude that there are preciously little adults in the world.

Now we could take the term...responsible....

Meaning that you are accountable for your own actions...and/or having the capacity to make moral decisions. And if we do so we HAVE to conclude that a minor...in this case the daughter...is NOT accountable for her own actions and/or is NOT capable to make moral decision....in which case it would be extremely illogical to let her run her own life on her own whims.

Either way....any and all arguments against the father are void. Since that would mean minors (as opposed to adults) are simply to be considered walking dissasters waiting to happen....and we can´t let those walking around freely in society...since that would seriously affect the functioning of society...wether this is capitalist or communist in nature....and would mean kids pose a real threat to others.

Since I do not ascribe to any of these notions...what exactly do both terms mean other than a subjective interpretation of what is wrong and what is right?

If he wanted to handle this appropriately, he would've handled it "in-house" and let that be an example to her.

Well...they did do that. In the previous situation the father mentions in the video....and to be fair...on his facebook (but unfortunately that is now closed for public viewing). They had a nice long talk about her behaviour and why it was wrong. Then they explained why she was being grounded. And then she was grounded. This seems to be exactly what most people here advocate....and yet it didn't work.....because quite obviously the girl did it again. Only with one small difference....this time she excluded her parents from viewing the post.

Now...nothing in the video was especially shocking or to be considered over the line. Apparantly we have to accept that online public fora are a huge part of the lives of kids and that they are going to express themselves in it. But for some reason parents can not use that same public forum as an educational tool.

Do I agree with the method? Well...it is not my style. I do not know the kid.

But I do know that kids from the same parents can be vastly different in personality. And that what works for one doesn't for the other. A nice example are my nephews. One is very inclined to listen to reason...you sit him down....explain things and he won't do it again. The other one however isn't so inclined. You can explain untill you are blue in the face but as soon as you turn your back he will do it again. What he does respond to is being disallowed to play or disallowed to run around. Two kids...same situation...different methods work.

Do I think the kid will be scarred from this? Well...no more or less than ANY kid will be scarred by their parents. Because wether you like it or not...parents are just as human....they can have the best intentions and focus their entire lives on the kids....but eventually everybody being a parent will knowingly or unknowingly fuck up.

Did you for example know that when a kid is in bed crying...and everytime you go to that kid...but ONE time....you forget or you do not go. That this can cause serious de- and attachment problems or trust issues in adult live 20 or 30 years later?

No? I didn't think so. I didn't untill I read some cse studies about the subject. a huge percentage of later developmental psychological issues stem from such very innocent acts out of childhood.

Or treating a very intelligent child as an adult can cause self security problems? Or instill an unhealthy drive to perform beyond their actual capabilities as an adult? Causing serious mental problems in their thirties?

Probably not.

I am not going to condemn these actions or have a subjective interpretation of them. The father did what he did. THe kid wasn't hurt. Mayvbe her pride was. But:

One educational theory is based on direct experience. If a kid consistantly displays certain behaviour...the learning process will benefit more from direct experience of the negative consequences of that behaviour.
It is actually quite popular and a lot of popular contemporary scientists swear by this method....not to mention a lot of family councilors advice parents to let kids experience the negative consequences of actions and stop shielding them from them.

I think this is a nice example of experiencing negative consequences of actions. The kid wasn't hurt in anyway except for the fact that punishment or being faced with negative consequences is never any fun.

PhoenixAsh

17th February 2012, 19:55

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/8481/factoryn.jpg

Awesome! Did you make that yourself because I love the artwork.

:thumbup:

Drosophila

17th February 2012, 19:58

The parents are assholes if they actually make her do all of that.

PhoenixAsh

17th February 2012, 20:24

The parents are assholes if they actually make her do all of that.

Really? The parents are assholes to ask her to help around the house?

Lets see...wht does she have to do?

- put dirty dishes in the dishwasher
- empty the dishwasher if it has run and the stuff is clean
- swipe the counter top
- swipe the floor
- make her own bed
- put her own laundry in the machine

That is like 1.5 hours of chores every week.

Here is what I had to do when I was a kid:

- Vacuum the living room, hallway, kitchen, stairs and my own room twice a week
- Clean the toilet every week
- Clean the bathroom every week

- Set the table every night together with either my mom or dad
- Clean the table every night together with my mom or dad
- Do the dishes every night....either washing or drying....my choice...untill I learned how to cook....then I could also opt to cook.
(house rule: whoever cooks doesn't have to set the table, clean the table or do the dishes)

- Walk the dogs every day directly out of school
- Walk the dogs every day in the evening before bed

- Make my own bed
- Clean my own room every day....and clear all my toys from the entire house.
- Iron my own clothes
- I wasn't allowed anywhere near the washing machine....but I did have to seperate my own clothes and hang them

- Do groceries twice a week

- In the summer: Swipe the garden path to the front door. Every two weeks
- Wash the car once every month
- Remove weeds every month
- Clean the toilet every week
- Clean the bathroom every week

That is like 4-7 hours of chores right there....per week.

The ONLY excuse I had not to do these chores was when I had a lot of homework....a serious test comming up shortly...when I went on sleepovers or holiday....or when I was doing something else which required doing....such as helping my grandmother or visiting my grandfather. Now...this was considered normal. You help out. Simple....I make stuff dirty...I have to help keep it clean. You pull your weight around for your family.

If I didn't do this...I didn't get to watch TV or play on the computer or wasn't allowed to play outside that day or have friends over. I NEVER experienced that as harsh....or my parents as assholes.

Why?

I always got a small base allowance....depending on age. I always got a lot of pressents so I had a very comfy life. I had a very small black and white television, I had a little cd player stereo type of thing....and a shitload of toys and books. So there was NOTHING I needed...or ever in want. I got all my clothes etc. And when I had to go on camp or whatever...my parents arranged it for me.

So for me it was only natural that I helped out. Did I always like to do it? No. I didn't. Did I complain? Sometimes. Did I complain outside my parents? Yes...sure. But I NEVER seen my parents as assholes.

At age 14...my chores became part of expanding on the base allowance. I didn't get punished anymore for doing them or not. If I didn't do chores...I didn't get allowance. I could opt to do more...in which case I got more. And I could either spend it all or save up....if we wanted to go out...I had to pay for it myself. Offcourse I sometimes got a little extra and I still got pressents on appropriate days....but everything was now more or less in my own controll. And at one point I refused to do chores. My parents simply didn't give me an allowance anymore....I had to find a job.

The same with clothes. I got an allowance for clothes every month. My parents didn't buy my clothes anymore. So with the small allowance I could save up to buy clothes.

If I wanted to spend more...I needed to earn more. It was THAT simple.

#FF0000

17th February 2012, 20:47

idk living with my family is basically the same as living with roommates in that i don't get punished for not doing chores but i just get told 'hey stop being a dick and wash a dish once in awhile please'

Tenka

17th February 2012, 20:47

Drosophila

17th February 2012, 20:47

PhoenixAsh

17th February 2012, 20:59

@hindsight
I'm 22 and I can't work, but I do chores (i.e., clean up after other people than myself) else they'll kick me out and I'll be homeless. Also, even when I was young, I never got an allowance. I don't think birthing and housing a child entitles the parents to treat them like a house slave, as so many clearly do. It may often be of economic necessity (for the family, as it's structured under capitalism) for the children to do domestic child labour while the parents are out working shit-paying jobs; but where it's not necessary, where the family is relatively economically advantaged -- or under communism -- the only logic in making children do chores is traditionalist (i.e., conservative/regressive) logic, of arseholes.

Why?

I also do not see this as child labour. It isn't about finances. It is about having to spend time cleaning up after somebody who makes a mess....wether that is a child or an adult. Simply put...if you make a fucking mess then you are also responsible for cleaning it up. And when you live together you clean together. If you do not want7 to do that...do not make a mess.

WHY should this fall on the parents when the child is perfectly capable and able to clean up themselves?

Because they had kids? And therefore the kid should be run free and be completely free from helping around the house? Ca do whatever the fucking hell it pleases because there is no financial need in the family? And have parents clean up after them?

Or are you suggesting that parents with a 40 hour job should hire somebody to clean the house for them?

Because your logic seems to be: children shouldnt give a fuck and just live free and run and play around doing whatever the fuck they please because they are children (highly debatable when they become adults by the way...as in previous post I made)....untill they are adults and then they have to fend for themselves?

That seems a classist argument in my opinion.

PhoenixAsh

17th February 2012, 21:00

@hindsight 20/20
The letter that the father read in the video made it seem like she was doing literally everything around the house. Also, just because you had to do all that when you were a kid doesn't make it right.

Yes...THAT was her scetch of the situation....making it appear like she had to do everything.

What I wrote down was what she actually had to do. As per father, as per child services after the kid explained to them what she had to actually do.

Tenka

17th February 2012, 21:08

Why?

I also do not see this as child labour. It isn't about finances. It is about having to spend time cleaning up after somebody who makes a mess....wether that is a child or an adult. Simply put...if you make a fucking mess then you are also responsible for cleaning it up. And when you live together you clean together. If you do not want7 to do that...do not make a mess.

WHY should this fall on the parents when the child is perfectly capable and able to clean up themselves?

Because they had kids? And therefore the kid should be run free and be completely free from helping around the house? Ca do whatever the fucking hell it pleases because there is no financial need in the family? And have parents clean up after them?

Or are you suggesting that parents with a 40 hour job should hire somebody to clean the house for them?

Because your logic seems to be: children shouldnt give a fuck and just live free and run and play around doing whatever the fuck they please because they are children (highly debatable when they become adults by the way...as in previous post I made)....untill they are adults and then they have to fend for themselves?

That seems a classist argument in my opinion.
This seems like you didn't read my post. Cleaning up after oneself is not, technically, a chore, I said. Making the child clean up after the whole family is only justified where the parents are working and cannot very well clean up after themselves. Please, reread my previous post.

edit: but even here, by "justified" I mean "arguably justifiable under capitalism".

bcbm

18th February 2012, 02:32

Really? The parents are assholes to ask her to help around the house?

dude they have a cleaning lady for a reason

PhoenixAsh

18th February 2012, 03:00

This seems like you didn't read my post. Cleaning up after oneself is not, technically, a chore, I said. Making the child clean up after the whole family is only justified where the parents are working and cannot very well clean up after themselves. Please, reread my previous post.

edit: but even here, by "justified" I mean "arguably justifiable under capitalism".

I read your post...here is what I refer to:

but where it's not necessary, where the family is relatively economically advantaged -- or under communism -- the only logic in making children do chores is traditionalist (i.e., conservative/regressive) logic, of arseholes.

A chore is routine or minor duty task. Making ones bed would fall under chore for example. Emptying a dishwasher or cleaning a counter top would also fall under chores.

Chores do not necessarilly involve cleaning up after others....but when you look at all the work that needs to be done in the house it is not relly strange that you split what needs to be done including chores for the kids....

Some of the chores will inevitably involve things the whole family does together....like dinner, breakfast. You can not sensibly split that in everybody only cleaning up after themselves and doing just their part of it. Or it would, for another example involve areas that everbody uses. Again...there is no reason why one or two family members be solely responsible for keeping that clean.

I am not entirely sure why the economic situation of the family is included in your argument.

PhoenixAsh

18th February 2012, 03:08

dude they have a cleaning lady for a reason

...she is a lady that cleans the house as favor to trade some services. She is not and you wil never again refer to her as a cleaning lady. That lady works harder in one day than you ever have in your live.

Thats it...no more internetz for you.

Now...where is my .45??

;):p

bcbm

18th February 2012, 03:25

i think the whole 'make a video and shoot a laptop' thing is dumb an indicative of poor parenting skills, i think parents should treat kids with respect and use communication rather than one-up-man-ship or whatever but i can also see being annoyed at a kid complaining about doing chores and i don't think its an unreasonable thing to expect. when you live with other people you share the workload, thats how it is if you're a decent human being. and like idk i'd hate to be a parent and come home from working a 10 hour shift and be like 'hey little human whose food i buy and who i put a roof over and who i buy cell phones and video games and pay for your internet and blah blah blah blah could you please empty the dishwasher' and little human is like 'ugh you are an oppressor treating me like a slave' and i would frown and pray for the day children are raised in youth camps by robots. but it'd be better to share those feelings in a respectful way than shoot your kids stuff

praxis1966

18th February 2012, 04:32

Well...this isn't exactly about punishment. It is about wether or not the father is an unfit parent or...as OP stated in the thread title: insane.

I don't think that I said anywhere that I agreed with that characterization so I don't think it's quite fair to paint me with the same brush as the OP. In fact, I've said all along (or at least tried to; perhaps I was ineffective) that I thought she deserved some kind of discipline--which is perhaps a far better word than 'punishment' as punishment is more about revenge than education. Further, I never used the word 'unfit' either, so to me you're arguing a false dichotomy here.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by adult behaviour? Because it seems to me that is largely a subjectively defined term based on ones own perception of what exactly is the right kind of behaviour.

In some cases what differentiates adult versus childish behavior is hazy. This isn't one of them. It would have been easy for him to avoid this characterization if he hadn't behaved exactly as his 15 year old child did, except worse. At any rate, I think you know very well what I mean...

I also do not subscribe to the idea that kids only model themselves after their parents. Kids model themselves after all kinds of things they encounter throughout their entire environment up to and including firends, strangers, tv shows, internet fora, books, magazines etc....and base their behaviour on that. It is not uncommon for children to behave exactly contrary to what their parents have taught them or how their parents behave as example....purely because some magazine, friend or TV show says.

Certainly, but here we have a clear cut case where the daughter and father are behaving in exactly the same fashion: public temper tantrums. Any other conclusion is supposition.

How parents chose to deal with that is IMO just as subjective as any other kind of action...up to and including our own subjective ideas of what constitutes the ideal way of parenting.

Not really. Developmental psychology has made a lot of inroads in the last few decades and as flawed as the science may be, I'm pretty sure damned near every child shrink on the planet would agree that humiliating your kid in front of 27 million YouTube viewers is an objectively bad idea.

There are a lot of ideas on what is the ideal parenting method. There are litterally libraries that can be filled on the subject...

...More often than not...we modeled that perception on how we perceived our own parents to be and how we are definately not going to make the same mistakes they made.

Exactly. This guy believes in corporal punishment. Why? Because his parents believed in it and he had a positive opinion of them. In fact, he actually made the argument on his Facebook page that if he had made an outburst like that in a grocery store when he was a kid, his parents would have whooped his ass in front of "God and everybody" right there in the store. He then went on to make the argument that his behavior was qualitatively no different than that since the objective in both cases is humiliation. To that I say, fine, fair enough... But just because you had shitty parents doesn't mean you have to be one as well.

All this...immediately goes out of the window when we have kids....because kids do not fit nice models and theories, kids do not fit into our own perception and we will run into situations we are not equiped and prepared to handle or simply do not know how to handle. Wether or not this involves a changing way society operates and the technological communicative possibilities and capabilities of our children.

No offense, but this sounds to less me like an argument, more like apologia.

Well...again...what constitues maturity?

Well, the capacity to show the kind of emotional restraint at 35 that most 15 year olds lack might be a good starting point.

As the term is defined: becomming an adult.
Subsequently the term mature is being defined: becomming capable of sexual reproduction.
It says very little about a certain set of behavioural patterns.

That's a pretty narrow definition and if it were accurate, there would be no functional, decent human beings whatsoever. However, this just isn't true. Besides, I think you smart enough to be aware I was talking about emotional and not physical maturity, so what you're doing is a pretty transparent (arguing tactically rather than factually). Nice strawman, though.

IMO....adults start wars, visit prostitutes, cheat on each other, exploit each other, drive drunk, and exhibit a whole range of behavioural patterns and expressions which are IMO extremely negative.

Now we're getting far beyond the realm of child rearing... But I'll indulge you. They're also capable of remarkable acts of altruism, selfless sacrifice, generosity, kindness, and love. All of those things, in case you were curious, are some of the reasons I'm a revolutionary.

We could expand the term with being self-sufficient, responsible and independent....but we could then very easilly conclude that there are preciously little adults in the world.

Perhaps... That still doesn't actually contradict anything I've said so far.

Now we could take the term...responsible....

Meaning that you are accountable for your own actions...and/or having the capacity to make moral decisions. And if we do so we HAVE to conclude that a minor...in this case the daughter...is NOT accountable for her own actions and/or is NOT capable to make moral decision....in which case it would be extremely illogical to let her run her own life on her own whims.

Either way....any and all arguments against the father are void. Since that would mean minors (as opposed to adults) are simply to be considered walking dissasters waiting to happen....and we can´t let those walking around freely in society...since that would seriously affect the functioning of society...wether this is capitalist or communist in nature....and would mean kids pose a real threat to others.

Come on. You can't honestly believe that your average 15 year old has the same intellectual and emotional capacity, or should be expected to, as your average 35 or 40 year old do you? On the other side of the same token, shouldn't we hold 35 and 40 year old adults to different standards than a 15 year old? And I'm not even addressing the obvious and functionally useless reducto ad absurdem in the final paragraph here. :rolleyes:

Since I do not ascribe to any of these notions...what exactly do both terms mean other than a subjective interpretation of what is wrong and what is right?

I don't either. In fact, I'm kind of wondering why you brought them up. My whole point was about effective parenting. Yours, until now, has been that 'tit for tat' is "justified," not that there is any intrinsic value in it in terms of correcting an undesirable behavior in a child.

Well...they did do that. In the previous situation the father mentions in the video....and to be fair...on his facebook (but unfortunately that is now closed for public viewing). They had a nice long talk about her behaviour and why it was wrong. Then they explained why she was being grounded. And then she was grounded. This seems to be exactly what most people here advocate....and yet it didn't work.....because quite obviously the girl did it again. Only with one small difference....this time she excluded her parents from viewing the post.

Now...nothing in the video was especially shocking or to be considered over the line. Apparantly we have to accept that online public fora are a huge part of the lives of kids and that they are going to express themselves in it. But for some reason parents can not use that same public forum as an educational tool.

But where do you go from here? You've already unloaded a full clip into a laptop. What happens the next time (and trust me, she's a teen, there will be a next time) she fucks up? What happens when she uses the car you bought her to break curfew? Do you blow up the fucking car? You've now locked yourself into a ridiculous cycle of escalations.

Do I agree with the method? Well...it is not my style. I do not know the kid.

So before it was "justified," and now it's "not your style"? Do you or don't you agree with what he did?

But I do know that kids from the same parents can be vastly different in personality. And that what works for one doesn't for the other. A nice example are my nephews. One is very inclined to listen to reason...you sit him down....explain things and he won't do it again. The other one however isn't so inclined. You can explain untill you are blue in the face but as soon as you turn your back he will do it again. What he does respond to is being disallowed to play or disallowed to run around. Two kids...same situation...different methods work.

Yeah, I get that, and the when the g/f (you know, the pediatric behavioral specialist) and I were talking this very incident over this morning she was saying that one of the most effective methods is that when a kid does something wrong, take away a luxury as an example of negative consequences. However, as a way of recognizing and reinforcing positive behaviors, you give them a way to earn said luxury back within X amount of time.

For instance, she has a client very similar to your second nephew. As an alternative to grounding him for months at a time (sound familiar?) for coming home late from school, she suggested that the mother take away his Playstation for two weeks. However, if he behaves well and comes home on time every day, he can get it back in one week. Guess what? He comes home on time now and has been for over a month. In other words, you can't just provide disincentives (negative reinforcement) poor behavior, you have to provide incentives (positive reinforcement) for positive behavior as well if you really want to be effective. If you want another example, I can tell you the story about the "behavior bucks" program she started with another parent and child.

Do I think the kid will be scarred from this? Well...no more or less than ANY kid will be scarred by their parents. Because wether you like it or not...parents are just as human....they can have the best intentions and focus their entire lives on the kids....but eventually everybody being a parent will knowingly or unknowingly fuck up.

Right, but the example in question is totally different from say...

Did you for example know that when a kid is in bed crying...and everytime you go to that kid...but ONE time....you forget or you do not go. That this can cause serious de- and attachment problems or trust issues in adult live 20 or 30 years later?

No? I didn't think so. I didn't untill I read some cse studies about the subject. a huge percentage of later developmental psychological issues stem from such very innocent acts out of childhood.

Or treating a very intelligent child as an adult can cause self security problems? Or instill an unhealthy drive to perform beyond their actual capabilities as an adult? Causing serious mental problems in their thirties?

Probably not.

...the examples you've provided given that the one in the OP is a very conscious decision, the ones you've provided are certainly not. Parents obviously can't avoid unconscious decisions, but this father's reaction can't be characterized that way... Quite the contrary, it was obviously highly premeditated. What you're arguing, that parents will fuck their kids up one way or another, could be used to excuse any and all manner of disgusting behavior... behavior far worse than anything we've seen in this video. Anyway, there's no reason to be condescending.

I am not going to condemn these actions or have a subjective interpretation of them. The father did what he did.
THe kid wasn't hurt.

You can't know that and you've admitted as much. [my emphasis]

One educational theory is based on direct experience. If a kid consistantly displays certain behaviour...the learning process will benefit more from direct experience of the negative consequences of that behaviour.
It is actually quite popular and a lot of popular contemporary scientists swear by this method....not to mention a lot of family councilors advice parents to let kids experience the negative consequences of actions and stop shielding them from them.

Fair enough, but I'd already said prior to this loquacious response of yours that I wasn't opposed to taking away the laptop permanently. What I objected to was the public humiliation.

I think this is a nice example of experiencing negative consequences of actions.

First it's "justifiable," then it's "not your style," now it's a "nice example of experiencing negative consequences." Make up your mind.

The kid wasn't hurt in anyway except for the fact that punishment or being faced with negative consequences is never any fun.

You've already said that in your estimation it's practically impossible not to scar a child, now you say she wasn't hurt in any way. C'mon HS, you know I'm no fool. Why argue in circles and try to bury me under a 5000 word post? lol

praxis1966

18th February 2012, 04:53

Really? The parents are assholes to ask her to help around the house?

Lets see...wht does she have to do?

- put dirty dishes in the dishwasher
- empty the dishwasher if it has run and the stuff is clean
- swipe the counter top
- swipe the floor
- make her own bed
- put her own laundry in the machine

That is like 1.5 hours of chores every week.

Here is what I had to do when I was a kid:

- Bunch of shit HS did when he was a kid and why he didn't mind doing it.;)

Basically I agree with this post, but I'm quoting it to make a point. Not only is every child different, every family is as well. I had to do a ton of the stuff you mentioned (and then some) except minus 95% of the luxuries... That still wasn't why I hated my "chores." I hated them because I actually did my shit and the the three lazy good for nothing bastards I called my sisters and brother did absolutely nothing. For some reason, throwing a hissy fit got them out of house work. When I threw one, I caught a beating.

Klaatu

18th February 2012, 05:25

The whole thing of this is that you must respect your parents. Mom changed your smelly diapers and sat up with you when you were sick and dad busted his ass earning a modest living so he could feed your bottomless pit mouth... at least do your trivial duties for christsake.

I have elderly parents. My dad can hardly get around the house. I cook, clean, shop, do all the yard work, bills, etc and am glad to do it, because I owe them a lot, and will probably not ever repay them for all they have done for me (when the young lady gets a bit older, she will come to realize her debt to her parents)

Tenka

18th February 2012, 11:10

*snip*
Again...there is no reason why one or two family members be solely responsible for keeping that clean.

I am not entirely sure why the economic situation of the family is included in your argument.
Because my single working mother uses her work at a shitty wage job as an excuse to be a complete slob and make me do everything in the house while all she does when she's not working is play farmville, etc.
Oh, I gon' done it now; if she ever sees my posts here she might trash my PC! And it'd be entirely justified on account of her having payed for it and gifted it to me years ago when I was a child.

Except she wouldn't actually do that; because she's not so much of an abusive lunatic as the man in the video.

Anyway, my definition of chores appears to have been mistaken; there's still no reason that's not conservative to force children to do such domestic labour (outside of making their own bed and such personal things) when the rest of the family is entirely capable.

Klaatu:

The whole thing of this is that you must respect your parents. Mom changed your smelly diapers and sat up with you when you were sick and dad busted his ass earning a modest living so he could feed your bottomless pit mouth... at least do your trivial duties for christsake.
You can't respect your parents by virtue of them being your parents alone. They have to be good parents; and so what if they changed your diapers? -- it's something they sign onto when they bring an infant into the world, so they'd fucking better do it, or get someone else to.
And the situation of parents "busting" their arses to feed their children, I believe, is not a situation whose continued necessity and existence any socialist would hope to preserve.

manic expression

18th February 2012, 14:49

there's still no reason that's not conservative to force children to do such domestic labour (outside of making their own bed and such personal things) when the rest of the family is entirely capable.
Oh, OK, so parents are supposed to cook and clean everything except the child's own bed and personal things? What kind of sense does that make?

You can't respect your parents by virtue of them being your parents alone. They have to be good parents; and so what if they changed your diapers? -- it's something they sign onto when they bring an infant into the world, so they'd fucking better do it, or get someone else to.
And the situation of parents "busting" their arses to feed their children, I believe, is not a situation whose continued necessity and existence any socialist would hope to preserve.
Um, what? Sorry, but that's BS...parents do make a commitment to their kids, sure, but that doesn't mean everything they do for their kids is something to be expected like it's the sun rising in the morning. It's not too much to show some respect for the crap that parents put up with on a daily basis for the better part of two decades. I once spent about 48 hours around a few young children, around the clock, and I swear to the gods I have no idea how parents do it, any parent who sticks through it deserves far better than the dismissal you've expressed here.

Further, the fact that they are committed to their kids means that they're responsible for instilling good habits in them. Kids have to know that dishes don't clean themselves, that floors have to be vacuumed. Parents are supposed to expect that of their children. Even beyond that, children need to understand that being part of a larger unit (be it a family, a home or a society) means putting in a fair share of work.

PhoenixAsh

18th February 2012, 21:39

I don't think that I said anywhere that I agreed with that characterization so I don't think it's quite fair to paint me with the same brush as the OP. In fact, I've said all along (or at least tried to; perhaps I was ineffective) that I thought she deserved some kind of discipline--which is perhaps a far better word than 'punishment' as punishment is more about revenge than education. Further, I never used the word 'unfit' either, so to me you're arguing a false dichotomy here.

In some cases what differentiates adult versus childish behavior is hazy. This isn't one of them. It would have been easy for him to avoid this characterization if he hadn't behaved exactly as his 15 year old child did, except worse. At any rate, I think you know very well what I mean...

Well...fair enough. You indeed didn´t say this...but you implied it. See below.

But your argument that he behaves exactly as his 15 year old daughter does not really impart either the label childish or adult to either one....and it provides no basseline for behavioural patterns either. As I argued...what is considered adult and what is considered childish is largely a subjective interpretation.

Because the qualification on behaviour relies heavilly on the end result. See next argument...

Certainly, but here we have a clear cut case where the daughter and father are behaving in exactly the same fashion: public temper tantrums. Any other conclusion is supposition.

Now...they do not behave exactly alike. What they both share is that they are using the public forum. But the intention and the intended effect are vastly different. And that distinguishes the behaviour.

Not really. Developmental psychology has made a lot of inroads in the last few decades and as flawed as the science may be,

Well most developmental theories have been around and expanded upon for decades. Most parents do not use them. Most developmental psychologists know to pick and chose from the meriad of points. None of them work for all induviduals...

One such theory is negative morlity. It is amongst many theories which argue that learning through negative actions, memories and shame is in fact the guideline to protecting good and positive behaviour. Mistakes experienced are remembered more vividly as shown fe. by CAT-scans and therefore provide a better basis for resisting moral traps.
(not that whatever is good and positive is also highly subjective and usually societally/environmentally oriented)

I'm pretty sure damned near every child shrink on the planet would agree that humiliating your kid in front of 27 million YouTube viewers is an objectively bad idea.

Well...for one humiliation is a very subjective emotion. So...you can not say the girl felt humiliated and if she did to what extend.

Humiliation might be the called the atomic bomb of emotions. BUT at the same time all psychologist recognize that the actual effects of humiliation and the severity differ from subject to subject and are largely dependend on society, family and inter personal relations.

But lets assume that there was humiliation felt....

I think every adult shrink would have the same reaction. Why would you assume that humiliation suffered by a kid elicits a different reaction than in an adult?

Exactly. This guy believes in corporal punishment. Why? Because his parents believed in it and he had a positive opinion of them. In fact, he actually made the argument on his Facebook page that if he had made an outburst like that in a grocery store when he was a kid, his parents would have whooped his ass in front of "God and everybody" right there in the store. He then went on to make the argument that his behavior was qualitatively no different than that since the objective in both cases is humiliation. To that I say, fine, fair enough... But just because you had shitty parents doesn't mean you have to be one as well.

See here is what I ment with that you implied him being a shitty father.

Anyways.

This is exactly the reason why there is a double standard in your argument...within the very same humiliation.

Why would you assume that the girl should not be humiliated when she is humiliating others....for the second time by the way.

Because we are continuously overlooking the fact that she did exactly the same thing a few months back and was then punished through a sit down with a talk and explanation and punishment. Which apparantly...didn't work. So then...when that development model doesn't work. Another has to be chosen.

Your argument hinges on the negative impact humiliation supposedly has....and that includes the negative consequences on the long run. On the other hand you argue that the guy who is himself humiliated should be able to free himself from the effects of this humiliation. This makes very little sense.

Especially...since it seems that he does not qualify the humiliation as so damaging. Which undermines the argument that humiliation is always negative.

But moving aside the humiliation argument...since we can not say for sure if and to what extend humiliation played a part in the psyche of the girl...

No offense, but this sounds to less me like an argument, more like apologia.

The argument in it was that developmental models and educational models are simply models...nice on paper but worthless in practice.

Well, the capacity to show the kind of emotional restraint at 35 that most 15 year olds lack might be a good starting point.

That is when you assume he didn't show emotional restraint.

The answer to that question lies in what the intended outcome is and was. Personally I think the intention is clear:

Show exactly how it feels.
Teach a very valuable practical lesson.
Make that lesson stick.

I think the clarity of the expression of intent here goes beyond a mere emotional reaction.

That's a pretty narrow definition and if it were accurate, there would be no functional, decent human beings whatsoever. However, this just isn't true. Besides, I think you smart enough to be aware I was talking about emotional and not physical maturity, so what you're doing is a pretty transparent (arguing tactically rather than factually). Nice strawman, though.

Emotional maturity is a reasonably subjective term as well. And wether or not it is displayed here is again...largely a matter of perspective as I showed above. The term is also way beyond traditional psychology and goes into the realm of pseudo psychological characteristics and subjects. Michael Power writes about it for example. It isn't well defined. Nor is it depending on chronological age.

I could give you seventeen different definitions of emotional maturity....and perhaps more when I do an extensive google search.

There are preciously little people who fit any of them.

Now we're getting far beyond the realm of child rearing... But I'll indulge you. They're also capable of remarkable acts of altruism, selfless sacrifice, generosity, kindness, and love.

True...but so are kids.

All of those things, in case you were curious, are some of the reasons I'm a revolutionary.

I know :)

Come on. You can't honestly believe that your average 15 year old has the same intellectual and emotional capacity, or should be expected to, as your average 35 or 40 year old do you? On the other side of the same token, shouldn't we hold 35 and 40 year old adults to different standards than a 15 year old? And I'm not even addressing the obvious and functionally useless reducto ad absurdem in the final paragraph here. :rolleyes:

Well the question isn't really if we should hold them to a different standard but how 15 year olds get to the same level as 35 year olds.

Why I argued this is to show that situational analysis are vastly more complex than just deducting or reacting based on a one sided video of 8+ minutes. And that such incidents can not be interpreted outside the entire context of family dynamics and personalities within it. I took some of the arguments here and took them to the logical next step....based on the subjective interpretations given.

Either you are an adult of a minor. And what differentiates that is a hard definition. It presupposes that these stages have a sharp definition when placed on humans...and it considers that all people of a certain age exhibit the same behaviour....or indeed use the same definition or expression of the definition.

Labels such as adult and child are basically useless when they are to represent behaviour...because as I stated...behaviour is subjective and in the eye of the beholder...

I don't either. In fact, I'm kind of wondering why you brought them up. My whole point was about effective parenting. Yours, until now, has been that 'tit for tat' is "justified," not that there is any intrinsic value in it in terms of correcting an undesirable behavior in a child.

I brought them up because you introduced them.

By the way....I am currently slightly destracted as it seems my upstairs neighbors are having a very, very good time. And they do not put on animal planet. ;)

Anyways...where were we

Well a whole range of modern developmental theories say that it is extremely effective. But I argued this above.

But where do you go from here? You've already unloaded a full clip into a laptop. What happens the next time (and trust me, she's a teen, there will be a next time) she fucks up? What happens when she uses the car you bought her to break curfew? Do you blow up the fucking car? You've now locked yourself into a ridiculous cycle of escalations.

Well...that is assuming that this is in reaction to a general fuck up....rather than a specific one. Which I do not think it is. As it is linked to an earlier similar situation.

The idea of cycle of escalation is in my opinion not relevant. Because talking to kids doesn't work. Where do you go from there? Hitting them? Grounding them? And after that? What is next?

Since behavioural patterns aren't linear the assumption that reactional patterns should be linear is rather strange. Why would there be a cycle of escalation?

So before it was "justified," and now it's "not your style"? Do you or don't you agree with what he did?

Well...the word "now" does not apply. Since I already used it in an earlier post.

It is not my style. I would not chose this option. Just like I would not chose a meriad of actions.

But I think his actions are justified and I do not condemn them as ineffective parenting.

Yeah, I get that, and the when the g/f (you know, the pediatric behavioral specialist) and I were talking this very incident over this morning she was saying that one of the most effective methods is that when a kid does something wrong, take away a luxury as an example of negative consequences. However, as a way of recognizing and reinforcing positive behaviors, you give them a way to earn said luxury back within X amount of time.

He did...didn't he? He said: when she is not grounded. I am pretty sure she will know when that is. And she can buy it herself. Instilling two lessons at the same time.

For instance, she has a client very similar to your second nephew. As an alternative to grounding him for months at a time (sound familiar?) for coming home late from school, she suggested that the mother take away his Playstation for two weeks. However, if he behaves well and comes home on time every day, he can get it back in one week. Guess what? He comes home on time now and has been for over a month. In other words, you can't just provide disincentives (negative reinforcement) poor behavior, you have to provide incentives (positive reinforcement) for positive behavior as well if you really want to be effective. If you want another example, I can tell you the story about the "behavior bucks" program she started with another parent and child.

Awesome please do.

Right, but the example in question is totally different from say...

...the examples you've provided given that the one in the OP is a very conscious decision, the ones you've provided are certainly not. Parents obviously can't avoid unconscious decisions, but this father's reaction can't be characterized that way... Quite the contrary, it was obviously highly premeditated. What you're arguing, that parents will fuck their kids up one way or another, could be used to excuse any and all manner of disgusting behavior... behavior far worse than anything we've seen in this video. Anyway, there's no reason to be condescending.

Well...again...there is an assumption that the mentioned acts (except the one of forgetting) are not conscious. Maybe the parent doesn't go becausethey are tired of going. Maybe because they do not want to go and maybe they treat the kid like an adult because they made the conscious effort to do so on the basis of developmental theories which state that treating kid like adults will help them develop faster and better...you know the ones...

Either way the reason why I mentioned them was to illustrate that what hurts people is highly subjective. And can not be deducted from an 8 minute video and its subjective interpretation. Nor can we say how effective the method is.

You can't know that and you've admitted as much. [my emphasis]

I meant physically...but yes..you are indeed correct that I can not say if and to what extend the kid was hurt psychologically. That was the point.

[quote]Fair enough, but I'd already said prior to this loquacious response of yours that I wasn't opposed to taking away the laptop permanently. What I objected to was the public humiliation.

See above. I am not sure if she was publicly humiliated....and if so...to what extend. And wether or not humiliation in this case has a negative consequence or not.

First it's "justifiable," then it's "not your style," now it's a "nice example of experiencing negative consequences." Make up your mind.

Why would they be mutually exclusive?

It is not my style. I think it is justified. I also think it is a very nice example of Negative Morality development theory.

What is and is not my stykle does not mean that if it falls outside the bounds of what I would personally do it is wrong.

You've already said that in your estimation it's practically impossible not to scar a child, now you say she wasn't hurt in any way. C'mon HS, you know I'm no fool. Why argue in circles and try to bury me under a 5000 word post? lol

Fair enough....but you have to admit that it usually works :P

Franz Fanonipants

18th February 2012, 21:41

Punishing your daughter for ridiculing you on the internet by ridiculing her on the internet.... makes perfect sense to me

yes but unironically

workersadvocate

18th February 2012, 22:11

PhoenixAsh

18th February 2012, 23:10

Who involved a weapon in this relationship?

I can't believe you folks are arguing about chores. As soon as daddy pulled his pistol and started firing, the thing about chores was the least of concerns.
People have had children taken away and locked away for far less that this asshole did.

The moment a weapon is presented in a dispute, all threats are serious until disarmed and defeated. He shot his daughter's computer, but if I were her, I would take that as am abusive terroristic threat against my person, and act accordingly to remove the threat from my life. The evidence is online, uploaded from his computer to one of the biggest websites in existence.

What would you do if you were her and also a communist?

One...I would be used to the fact that there are weapons around the house and would probably be able to use them. In fact I would know weapons are very prevalent in the area I lived in.

Two...I would know my father and wouldn't jump to insane conclusions like this.

Three...what would be the point of shooting the laptop if he was going to kill the kid...again more illogic from you.

Four...I would not have posted such strange rants as she did online.

Five...I would have listened to his words and heard that there was no threat to my life whatsoever.

Six...I would be distinguishing between threats made at a person and threats made at an object.

:rolleyes:

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

19th February 2012, 00:05

Oh, OK, so parents are supposed to cook and clean everything except the child's own bed and personal things? What kind of sense does that make?

A whole great load of sense. That's what they signed up for when they decided to have a child. They should expect nothing in return.

Further, the fact that they are committed to their kids means that they're responsible for instilling good habits in them. Kids have to know that dishes don't clean themselves, that floors have to be vacuumed. Parents are supposed to expect that of their children. Even beyond that, children need to understand that being part of a larger unit (be it a family, a home or a society) means putting in a fair share of work.

I'm not surprised you think this, given your ideological persuasion and your typical way of arguing, seeing as Marcyites are basically conservative anyway.

I'm a bit surprised that hindsight, as an anarchist, is suddenly so keen on defending not only this father, but as I interpret it, the entire concept of the family and its order. I've never seen anarchists defend such an inherently oppressive institution before.

PhoenixAsh

19th February 2012, 00:27

well...for one because the notion of free child rearing (you know...that anarchist method) is a load of horsecrap, doesn't work and doesn't create healthy well rounded induviduals like the theory claims. In fact...it is based on criticising other methods and not in any way shape or form based on scientific methods. Rather only on presumptions and theorising.

Here is a nice example...free childraising theory for example states that when conflict between adults and children arises...lets say....when the child uses violence against another. The object is to reach a common consensus and with the child. Very interesting...this offcourse presumes the child can communicate and understand language....which we all now isn't always the case.

Other methods include positive reinforcement. So in the same situation....free childraising advices....to reward the absence of negative behaviour. Which would be rich in the above mentioned case.

Free childraising rejects any and all form of negative language near a child. Meanning you can not use words which would instill shame. You can not use words like: naughty, dirty, bah, tutut or even sigh. All these words and sounds will instill negative connotations and would introduce morality and the concept of right and wrong.

So no. I definately reject that notion.

It doesn't work.

bcbm

19th February 2012, 00:39

What would you do if you were her and also a communist?

complain on relveft instead of a fb post

well...for one because the notion of free child rearing (you know...that anarchist method) is a load of horsecrap, doesn't work and doesn't create healthy well rounded induviduals like the theory claims. In fact...it is based on criticising other methods and not in any way shape or form based on scientific methods. Rather only on presumptions and theorising.

Here is a nice example...free childraising theory for example states that when conflict between adults and children arises...lets say....when the child uses violence against another. The object is to reach a common consensus and with the child. Very interesting...this offcourse presumes the child can communicate and understand language....which we all now isn't always the case.

Other methods include positive reinforcement. So in the same situation....free childraising advices....to reward the absence of negative behaviour. Which would be rich in the above mentioned case.

Free childraising rejects any and all form of negative language near a child. Meanning you can not use words which would instill shame. You can not use words like: naughty, dirty, bah, tutut or even sigh. All these words and sounds will instill negative connotations and would introduce morality and the concept of right and wrong.

So no. I definately reject that notion.

It doesn't work.

i have anarchist friends who have raised great kids so no it can work

PhoenixAsh

19th February 2012, 00:39

The second part is that you regard the concept of family as an oppressive institution. I do not. Neither do anarchists as a pluralistic group by the way. You are sadly mistaken if you think they do.

Neither am I defending the concept of family. I am however defending the concept of freedom in childrearing and what works and doesn't work in that respect...and with that the notion that doing chores is necesarilly a bad thing, is exploitive or is in any way shape or form negative to a childs development. Nor do I think that some form of negative reinforcement is anti-thethical to anarchist theory.

I do, as I said, not ascribe to the notion of free childraising. That is a load of horsecrap...no matter if it is supposedly the "epithomy of anarchist theory" like some of the groundlayers of this bucket of pseudo-scientific bordering on spiritualistic shite claim.

PhoenixAsh

19th February 2012, 00:44

complain on relveft instead of a fb post

i have anarchist friends who have raised great kids so no it can work

Did they use the free childraising method?

I have anarchist friends who raised horrible kids by this method. So no....it doesn't work. Either it works or it doesn't. If it works then it works in all cases. And since that is not the case then that must mean that childraising according to specific methods tailored on concepts and theories doesn't work...methods must be tailored to induviduals. Free Childraising isn't tailored to induviduals...it is applied generalistic politics.

bcbm

19th February 2012, 03:30

i don't know that they subscribed to any 'method' rigidly but they certainly try to raise their kids in a respectful and i would say 'anarchistic' way and i think it has worked well for them.

manic expression

19th February 2012, 14:56

A whole great load of sense. That's what they signed up for when they decided to have a child. They should expect nothing in return.
What a load of ungratefulness. Parents don't sign away their soul when they have a kid. They're parents, not slaves, they aren't to do everything for their kid. That's a sure way to teach their children nothing about real life, making them spoiled and entitled. It would be unfair to the guardians and unfair to the children, and harmful to both.

As I said, parents do make a commitment to their children. BUT that commitment means raising responsible, self-dependent, well-accustomed people. Again, your solution is to have parents, already responsible for providing their families with the requisite resources to survive, to do every single thing for their kids. Cooking, cleaning, washing and ironing clothes.... Not only is this utterly stupid and impractical, it's irresponsible. Children need to learn that it's important to clean after themselves because a day will come when no one else will be there to do it for them. Children need to learn how to iron clothes because their parents won't always be there to do it. Children need to be able to cook rudimentary meals because every halfway responsible person can. Deny them this opportunity and you're doing them a severe disservice.

You ignore all that because you prefer cheap, hollow rhetoric to reality.

I'm not surprised you think this, given your ideological persuasion and your typical way of arguing, seeing as Marcyites are basically conservative anyway.
Well, one of my comrades was acting as a single parent, working and doing full-time political work on top of it (and when I say full-time, I mean 6 hours a day). I guess s/he was a rank conservative because s/he wasn't there to throw rose petals at the feet of his/her children every morning. :rolleyes:

If you really think showing some respect and appreciation for what parents go through to raise children well is "conservative", you obviously know nothing about the subject.

I'm a bit surprised that hindsight, as an anarchist, is suddenly so keen on defending not only this father, but as I interpret it, the entire concept of the family and its order. I've never seen anarchists defend such an inherently oppressive institution before.
Hahaha, is there anything more pathetic than this? People fashioning themselves as "oppressed" because they were told to wash the dishes every once in awhile. :laugh:

heyjoe

19th February 2012, 19:54

who irons clothes anymore?