Dad uses Facebook to teach daughter a lesson.

[Kuroneko97]

Oh boy. A controversial thread in which I can already see on the first page that people are getting nasty with their comments against each other.

I'm not touching this one with a 50-foot pole.

 

[Koeken]

The father definitely has the right idea, but the problem is he's just made his daughter absolutely despise him, now.

If you read the response you would find that she doesn't despise him, she even wanted him to shoot her phone and put it on youtube so they could make money by selling the casings.

Someone claimed that the video is completely false. There was no teenage rebellion in the household, no facebook post at all. This Tommy dude was using the attention to direct people to his web enterprise on facebook. And after reading that quote you posted, I feel more convinced that it is so. How convenient! The girl is asking for money for the family.

Why the hell would I want to buy casings just because weasel "Tommy" posted a viral video, that gained 18 million views. A piece of disgusting shit. Using his family to make money like this.

 

[mellemhund]

If you think broadcasting a theatrical revenge on your kids is parenting, then I hope you neither have nor will ever have any kids. Parents who get their methods from the worst dictators is not fit to be parents.

You know why people use public humiliation? Because it's a damn effective form of punishment. If you beat someone the pain subsides. If you lock someone up in their room eventually they adapt and make due. However if you publicly humiliate someone that gets their attention and gives them a Hell of an incentive to keep from fucking up in the future. Psychologically punishing someone works in ways that cuts them to the quick and goes far beyond what your typical punishments will ever accomplish

Do you know why public humiliation is forbidden in the declaration of human rights? because it's an inappropriate and ineffective way of punishing.

The girl told her friends on face book. The dad was blocked but gained access somehow. He's the one doing something he shouldn't. Then he gets mad and act like a drama queen. How anyone can defend that is beyond me.

 

[lord canti]

Whats this the escapist is once again taking something that's not that big of a deal and taking it to the extreme.

 

[Koeken]

If you think broadcasting a theatrical revenge on your kids is parenting, then I hope you neither have nor will ever have any kids. Parents who get their methods from the worst dictators is not fit to be parents.

Do you know why public humiliation is forbidden in the declaration of human rights? because it's an inappropriate and ineffective way of punishing.

The girl told her friends on face book. The dad was blocked but gained access somehow. He's the one doing something he shouldn't. Then he gets mad and act like a drama queen. How anyone can defend that is beyond me.

Mellemhund, you are damm right! Put a gun to my head, and I'd most likely grovel and lick your shoes per your commands because I don't want to die. But do you really think it'd change my beliefs? Hell no! The only thing it does, is to greatly minimize my want to act out on it, because of the risk involved. Give me a chance to aid someone carrying the same ideals as I, in a less riskier game? I'd do it! Because the belief stays in my heart!

That's why you can't buy nor force REAL Love, real loyalty and real respect. People will either respect you or they don't. And they will change their views only of their own accord.

 

[mellemhund]

I don't think I can argue this with you. The man is stumbling over words because of the adrenaline he got running from acting out his revenge on a daughter he feels slighted him in public. Then he goes theatrical (yay, more great parenting there) and destroys something. whether it would be don't with hammer, hands or guns is irrelevant it a violent action.

This destruction of property is not "violent." Now, if he were smashing something of hers in front of her in an effort to scare her? Yes, that would be an act of violence. But you can see, if you watch, that she is not present. He isn't yelling or stomping or pounding his chest. He is very calm in his presentation. And, above all, he is destroying HIS OWN PROPERTY. Since he's recording it and showing it to her, this point is moot. She's show the violence and I would like for you to concede that point.

What he is doing does not damage (or seek to damage his child) in any way. Nowhere does he demonstrate an unsafe or unloving home environment. In fact, he demonstrates a clear interest in her betterment as a person. He targets the undesirable behavior directly, makes the punishment "fit the crime," and explains his reasoning very clearly.

How does he want to better her? He just punished her in public. And with a "you will respect my authority" attitude. Why didn't he take the laptop away from her and explain why? Instead he makes a video he even admits she'll not be able to see. He demands respect, which is the wrong way to go about it.

He is her father. He is the guy that pays all of her bills and is responsible for her upbringing. If she was just saying, "Man, I really hate these chores. These chores suck. I wish I didn't have to do these chores," I could agree with you. Instead, she:

1. Directly insulted her parents, calling them "lazy" and several other names.
2. Insulted a friend of the family, treating her like hired help.
3. Claimed to be assigned chores that, as we learned in the video, actually weren't assigned -- she was just trying to make the situation look worse with lies.
4. Grossly overstated her responsibilities and understated her current privileges.

Basically, she spouted insults and lies, and demonstrated a gross misunderstanding of how her home (and her place in it) actually works.

And this is what teenagers do. They vent their "the world is hard" to their friends. If every parent got just as upset as this one, no teenagers would have any laptops. Imo it's the same as grounding for not doing choirs. Explaining it to her would've helped alot more than him trying to save face online.

 

[Fayathon]

I laughed so goddamn hard when he unloaded his gun into her laptop. When I was a kid and I did shitty things to my parents they took all my stuff away or broke the offending object so I would have to do without. I like to think that I might have learned something or another from that, as this girl should learn from this.

 

[fenrizz]

I like this man.

Funny as hell.

 

[Dastardly]

How anyone can defend that is beyond me.

The problem, then, might be your capability, if it's really that far "beyond you" that people might think differently.

And this is what teenagers do. They vent their "the world is hard" to their friends.

Yes, they do. Every child also tries to hit other kids to get his/her way. Every child also tries to lie and steal. EVERY. SINGLE. CHILD. Is it because they're evil? No. It's just human nature to try these things, until you learn not to. Just because we expect a teenager to do these things doesn't obligate us to excuse them for doing it.

If every parent got just as upset as this one, no teenagers would have any laptops. Imo it's the same as grounding for not doing choirs. Explaining it to her would've helped alot more than him trying to save face online.

You're still overstating how "upset" he was. He was disappointed in her, and he clearly felt that she needed some strong convincing. There's nothing about what this guy is doing that gives off the impression that he's upset about what her friends think of him. He's upset that she thinks so little of her family and home. That's 150% justifiable.

Grounding for not doing chores also makes complete sense in the way that every parent I've ever known explains it: You get freedom by being responsible. Chores are how to take responsibility for your part in this household. If you don't take that responsibility, you don't get the freedom that comes with it. Chores = Responsibility. Ability to Go Out = Freedom.

"Explaining" it is part of the process. It's not the entire process. Just like how "time outs" exploded ten years ago, with everyone using them as the "doctor-approved punishment"... only to have the doctors come out and say, "Um, that's not what we meant. Time outs are part of the process, not the whole damned thing."

He explained it to her. Twice, apparently. Since, clearly, just explaining didn't get the job done the first time, he had to follow it up with something more. He did.

I think you're still among those people in a complete irrational panic because oh-my-god-a-gun. If you grow up in a family that handles guns responsibly, you learn to respect them without having to be absolutely terrified of them. So I doubt that anyone in this family reacts with abject horror every time they see a gun.

Or maybe you're part of the, "Any time someone gets loud or anything gets broken, it must only be a result of pure, uncontrollable rage, and that person is dangerous." Good luck with kids one day, if that's the case.

 

[Kinokohatake]

In this thread you should have to state your age at the beginning of your post. I have a feeling that those saying the dad is crazy is very young.

 

[Dastardly]

You haven't heard one word I've said, so I'm going to say it again: even in a court of law, "No, I didn't do it" is not enough evidence to cast reasonable doubt on a piece of evidence that shows you committing a crime.

What crime? Where is the crime? You haven't demonstrated this, yet you still base your entire case on it. It's called "begging the question," and you're aaaaaall over it.

Now, if that was an isolated incident, you might make a case that it wasn't child abuse. But we can't just take his word that it was, let alone that his daughter was happy with it.

So... because we don't have any evidence of abuse, we can't not accuse him of being a child abuser.... wait, what? And what do you mean about his daughter being "happy" with it? What child is "happy" being punished or corrected? Ridiculous.

I guess in your world, accused murderers, rapists, and thieves can get away with pulling a knife on the victim, grabbing the victim and dragging him/her off to a car, or using the item known to be stolen, on camera, just by saying "no, I didn't do it."

No. In our world, people who are accused of murder, rape, or theft are not CALLED murderers, rapists, or thieves until they are convicted by weight of evidence in a court of law. Because until such determination is made, in the eyes of the law, they are not one.

Because that's all that has happened here: we've got the buildup to, if not the actual commission of a crime on camera, and you're going "well, he says everything's alright, we can trust him!" That's not how innocent until proven guilty works.

Again, what crime? Destruction of (his own) property? Discharging a firearm in the city limits? -- oh wait, no, by your estimation, we're clearly out "in the sticks." Abusing a child (who does not appear on camera being abused in any way, nor is there any admission or indication of abuse on the part of the father, except what you're fabricating to create your point)?

You are saying things that are not true. You are saying things for which you have no evidence. And then you are saying other things based on those things.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

You haven't heard one word I've said, so I'm going to say it again: even in a court of law, "No, I didn't do it" is not enough evidence to cast reasonable doubt on a piece of evidence that shows you committing a crime.

What crime? Where is the crime? You haven't demonstrated this, yet you still base your entire case on it. It's called "begging the question," and you're aaaaaall over it.

Now, if that was an isolated incident, you might make a case that it wasn't child abuse. But we can't just take his word that it was, let alone that his daughter was happy with it.

So... because we don't have any evidence of abuse, we can't not accuse him of being a child abuser.... wait, what? And what do you mean about his daughter being "happy" with it? What child is "happy" being punished or corrected? Ridiculous.

I guess in your world, accused murderers, rapists, and thieves can get away with pulling a knife on the victim, grabbing the victim and dragging him/her off to a car, or using the item known to be stolen, on camera, just by saying "no, I didn't do it."

No. In our world, people who are accused of murder, rape, or theft are not CALLED murderers, rapists, or thieves until they are convicted by weight of evidence in a court of law. Because until such determination is made, in the eyes of the law, they are not one.

Because that's all that has happened here: we've got the buildup to, if not the actual commission of a crime on camera, and you're going "well, he says everything's alright, we can trust him!" That's not how innocent until proven guilty works.

Again, what crime? Destruction of (his own) property? Discharging a firearm in the city limits? -- oh wait, no, by your estimation, we're clearly out "in the sticks." Abusing a child (who does not appear on camera being abused in any way, nor is there any admission or indication of abuse on the part of the father, except what you're fabricating to create your point)?

You are saying things that are not true. You are saying things for which you have no evidence. And then you are saying other things based on those things.

Actually, I made a separate thread that explains exactly what I mean. To wit:

Read this:

AM I BEING ABUSED?

Does your partner:

embarrasses the other person with put-downs
looks or acts in ways that are frightening
tries to control what the other person does, who the other person sees or talks to, or where the other person goes
tries to stop the other person from seeing friends or family members
tries to take the other person?s money or Social Security check
makes the other person ask for money or refuses to give the other person money that is supposed to be shared
makes all of the decisions
threatens to take away or hurt the children
prevents the other person from working or attending school
acts like the abuse is no big deal, denies doing it, or blames something or someone else, even the person being abused
destroys the other person?s property or threatens to kill pets
intimidates the other personwith guns, knives or other weapons
shoves,slaps, chokes or hits the other person
forces the other person to try and drop charges
threatens to commit suicide
threatens to kill the other person
If you answered ?yes? to even one of these questions,you may be in an abusive relationship.For support and more information please call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) or at TTY 1-800-787-3224.

Bold text mine.

Now, for discusion, do you still think this man is awesome??

And here's the link to the thread: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.348986-For-all-those-who-think-Tommy-Jordan-is-a-great-dad#comment_form

 

[ELD3RGoD]

People actually agree with this? She was venting a teenage girls rage and used a few minor swear words. LETS ALL GET WORKED UP ABOUT HER USING THE WORDS "ASS", "SHIT" AND "BULLSHIT!" Christ, if my kids had said that, I'd have laughed, confronted them, then talked about it like a civilized adult.

What is the harm in pocket money for doing a weeks chores? I used to get £5 a week when I was younger, it gave me an incentive to get a job later on (hits on another point.) Why would she want to work if doing a weeks worth of chores doesn't give her anything back. Sure, the house is tidy but what teenager gives a fuck about that?

She called the cleaner the cleaner lady. Wow, she doesn't know the woman's name, big deal.

People who agree with this are just idiots.

 

[Dastardly]

In this thread you should have to state your age at the beginning of your post. I have a feeling that those saying the dad is crazy is very young.

My guess? High school juniors through College sophomores.

Old enough to have taken an Introductory Psych course, maybe even Developmental if they're education majors. So they've learned the fancy words and phrases.

Young enough to still harbor the bitterness of teenage angst. They still have a burning desire to "unseat" every authority figure they can, believing that each idea they're just now discovering is entirely new and original, and they're going to "change the world" with it.

Old enough to believe they know it all. Young enough to lack practical experience or humility. It's a Perfect Storm of "informed ignorance."

 

[Roma]

So...he destroyed his daughter's laptop and humiliated her on facebook so that she would learn not to humiilate him on facebook? You know why she's a self-entitled *****? Because he's a self-entitled asshole.

 

[Dastardly]

And here's the link to the thread: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.348986-For-all-those-who-think-Tommy-Jordan-is-a-great-dad#comment_form

It's a list of potential signs of spousal/partner abuse. For you to use this to "diagnose" this man would be like you linking to WebMD and pretending to be a gastroenterologist.

But, heck, it's the internet, so I'll humor you:

embarrasses the other person with put-downs
Example? Where did he "put her down?" She was insulting him and her mother. Maybe she's being abusive here?

looks or acts in ways that are frightening
Again, you're projecting. I don't see anything "frightening" about this man. He isn't yelling or frothing at the mouth, he isn't even using threatening body language (like finger-thrusting or slamming fists).

makes the other person ask for money or refuses to give the other person money that is supposed to be shared
Try to process this: HE IS HER FATHER. Not her boyfriend or spouse. It isn't "their money." It's HIS MONEY. Not because of some weird control thing, but because HE WORKED THE JOB THAT EARNED IT. There is no "supposed to be shared." He, as a parent, is choosing to give her things she needs/wants rather than giving her the money directly. And that's his perfectly valid choice.

makes all of the decisions
Clearly he doesn't. He didn't DECIDE she would have a job. He ENCOURAGED her to get one, but obviously didn't make her do it. But beyond that, again, and I'll type this s.l.o.w.l.y -- HE IS HER FATHER. PARENT. Not friend, buddy, partner. Of course he's going to make a ton of the decisions. He's an adult and she's a child.

tries to control what the other person does, who the other person sees or talks to, or where the other person goes
Evidence? He let her use the laptop -- I've seen abusive households, and that's a BIG no-no. The children of abuse do not get laptops or cell phones, because those are mobile, hidden avenues of communication with "the outside world." But I digress... She is allowed to use facebook (as long as she's not using it to spread lies about the people giving her the laptop). We see no evidence of abnormal control here, just normal parental control.

acts like the abuse is no big deal, denies doing it, or blames something or someone else, even the person being abused
Unrelated. This is apparently just bolded to, what, make it look like a bigger deal? You have not yet established that there is abuse, so you can't claim he's "denying" it. Begging the question. Again.

destroys the other person's property or threatens to kill pets
What property? HIS laptop? What pets? Again, it's different between spouses, because the property is SHARED. This is parent-child. Any responsible psychology professional will tell you that you can't just run around applying this list to the wrong situations. You're being irresponsible with this information.

intimidates the other personwith guns, knives or other weapons
HA! Wow! There it is, I guess, huh? He's "intimidating" her? I didn't hear him threaten, imply a threat, or in any way try to intimidate her. He "threatened" to ground her, not harm her.

So... out of what, sixteen possible symptoms, you've successfully attributed.... none? It's none, right? Zero out of sixteen.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

And here's the link to the thread: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.348986-For-all-those-who-think-Tommy-Jordan-is-a-great-dad#comment_form

It's a list of potential signs of spousal/partner abuse. For you to use this to "diagnose" this man would be like you linking to WebMD and pretending to be a gastroenterologist.

But, heck, it's the internet, so I'll humor you:

embarrasses the other person with put-downs
Example? Where did he "put her down?" She was insulting him and her mother. Maybe she's being abusive here?

looks or acts in ways that are frightening
Again, you're projecting. I don't see anything "frightening" about this man. He isn't yelling or frothing at the mouth, he isn't even using threatening body language (like finger-thrusting or slamming fists).

makes the other person ask for money or refuses to give the other person money that is supposed to be shared
Try to process this: HE IS HER FATHER. Not her boyfriend or spouse. It isn't "their money." It's HIS MONEY. Not because of some weird control thing, but because HE WORKED THE JOB THAT EARNED IT. There is no "supposed to be shared." He, as a parent, is choosing to give her things she needs/wants rather than giving her the money directly. And that's his perfectly valid choice.

makes all of the decisions
Clearly he doesn't. He didn't DECIDE she would have a job. He ENCOURAGED her to get one, but obviously didn't make her do it. But beyond that, again, and I'll type this s.l.o.w.l.y -- HE IS HER FATHER. PARENT. Not friend, buddy, partner. Of course he's going to make a ton of the decisions. He's an adult and she's a child.

tries to control what the other person does, who the other person sees or talks to, or where the other person goes
Evidence? He let her use the laptop -- I've seen abusive households, and that's a BIG no-no. The children of abuse do not get laptops or cell phones, because those are mobile, hidden avenues of communication with "the outside world." But I digress... She is allowed to use facebook (as long as she's not using it to spread lies about the people giving her the laptop). We see no evidence of abnormal control here, just normal parental control.

acts like the abuse is no big deal, denies doing it, or blames something or someone else, even the person being abused
Unrelated. This is apparently just bolded to, what, make it look like a bigger deal? You have not yet established that there is abuse, so you can't claim he's "denying" it. Begging the question. Again.

destroys the other person's property or threatens to kill pets
What property? HIS laptop? What pets? Again, it's different between spouses, because the property is SHARED. This is parent-child. Any responsible psychology professional will tell you that you can't just run around applying this list to the wrong situations. You're being irresponsible with this information.

intimidates the other personwith guns, knives or other weapons
HA! Wow! There it is, I guess, huh? He's "intimidating" her? I didn't hear him threaten, imply a threat, or in any way try to intimidate her. He "threatened" to ground her, not harm her.

So... out of what, sixteen possible symptoms, you've successfully attributed.... none? It's none, right? Zero out of sixteen.

Good god man, and you call /me/ dense?

Edit: To add more content, your post doesn't need a response. This quote is more to preserve it for posterity in case of an edit, because it really speaks for itself.

 

[Dastardly]

And here's the link to the thread: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.348986-For-all-those-who-think-Tommy-Jordan-is-a-great-dad#comment_form

It's a list of potential signs of spousal/partner abuse. For you to use this to "diagnose" this man would be like you linking to WebMD and pretending to be a gastroenterologist.

But, heck, it's the internet, so I'll humor you:

embarrasses the other person with put-downs
Example? Where did he "put her down?" She was insulting him and her mother. Maybe she's being abusive here?

looks or acts in ways that are frightening
Again, you're projecting. I don't see anything "frightening" about this man. He isn't yelling or frothing at the mouth, he isn't even using threatening body language (like finger-thrusting or slamming fists).

makes the other person ask for money or refuses to give the other person money that is supposed to be shared
Try to process this: HE IS HER FATHER. Not her boyfriend or spouse. It isn't "their money." It's HIS MONEY. Not because of some weird control thing, but because HE WORKED THE JOB THAT EARNED IT. There is no "supposed to be shared." He, as a parent, is choosing to give her things she needs/wants rather than giving her the money directly. And that's his perfectly valid choice.

makes all of the decisions
Clearly he doesn't. He didn't DECIDE she would have a job. He ENCOURAGED her to get one, but obviously didn't make her do it. But beyond that, again, and I'll type this s.l.o.w.l.y -- HE IS HER FATHER. PARENT. Not friend, buddy, partner. Of course he's going to make a ton of the decisions. He's an adult and she's a child.

tries to control what the other person does, who the other person sees or talks to, or where the other person goes
Evidence? He let her use the laptop -- I've seen abusive households, and that's a BIG no-no. The children of abuse do not get laptops or cell phones, because those are mobile, hidden avenues of communication with "the outside world." But I digress... She is allowed to use facebook (as long as she's not using it to spread lies about the people giving her the laptop). We see no evidence of abnormal control here, just normal parental control.

acts like the abuse is no big deal, denies doing it, or blames something or someone else, even the person being abused
Unrelated. This is apparently just bolded to, what, make it look like a bigger deal? You have not yet established that there is abuse, so you can't claim he's "denying" it. Begging the question. Again.

destroys the other person's property or threatens to kill pets
What property? HIS laptop? What pets? Again, it's different between spouses, because the property is SHARED. This is parent-child. Any responsible psychology professional will tell you that you can't just run around applying this list to the wrong situations. You're being irresponsible with this information.

intimidates the other personwith guns, knives or other weapons
HA! Wow! There it is, I guess, huh? He's "intimidating" her? I didn't hear him threaten, imply a threat, or in any way try to intimidate her. He "threatened" to ground her, not harm her.

So... out of what, sixteen possible symptoms, you've successfully attributed.... none? It's none, right? Zero out of sixteen.

Good god man, and you call /me/ dense?

And avoidant, yes. You've made a habit so far out of not answering questions. You just restate your previous answer, ignoring evidence to the contrary, but you do it in an increasingly sarcastic and arrogant tone. Heck, I get increasingly sarcastic, but at least I specifically answer the question.

Your reply here? It completely ignores valid points. You're basically just hoping to play on your "audiences's" good graces, by pointing my way with a sort of, "C'mon... this guy, amirite, folks?"

 

[Gustavo S. Buschle]

I don't have a problem with him using a gun, and I agree his daughter needed some punishing.

But I don't think it was a very effective way of dealing with the problem. She won't really respect him anymore, she will just resent him more.

Also I don't think he should randomly peer though his daughters personal stuff. He, most likely, is making her feel like she doesn't have a place for herself.
I take that as him trying to control her feelings, he simply can't make her dislike the fact that she has to do those things.