destroys the other person's property or threatens to kill pets
He bought the laptop, it's his property. It may be a gift, and that would be a dick thing to destroy it. But if all gifts are now you're property, then any parent who tries to take something from a child would be considered theft. So where exactly is the line with this?
OK, look, I see this argument over and over again in one variation or another, but in any other context it makes no sense whatsoever.
(I don't have children, so references to this are hypothetical)
If I give my child a gift, by your logic it's still my property, and I can do whatever I like with it.
If I give my best friend a gift... Are you seriously implying I can walk into their house and destroy it, because I was the one that gave it to them in the first place?
How about if a shop gives me something for free? Since I didn't technically pay for it, it's clearly a gift of some kind.
But, does that mean the shop technically still owns it? No. I do. Because they gave it to me.
if you give someone a gift, it is generally understood that you relinquish ownership of it, and the person who received it is now it's rightful owner.
So... On what grounds does the parent/child relationship otherwise undermine this basic concept of gifts and ownership?
destroys the other person's property or threatens to kill pets
He bought the laptop, it's his property. It may be a gift, and that would be a dick thing to destroy it. But if all gifts are now you're property, then any parent who tries to take something from a child would be considered theft. So where exactly is the line with this?
OK, look, I see this argument over and over again in one variation or another, but in any other context it makes no sense whatsoever.
(I don't have children, so references to this are hypothetical)
If I give my child a gift, by your logic it's still my property, and I can do whatever I like with it.
If I give my best friend a gift... Are you seriously implying I can walk into their house and destroy it, because I was the one that gave it to them in the first place?
How about if a shop gives me something for free? Since I didn't technically pay for it, it's clearly a gift of some kind.
But, does that mean the shop technically still owns it? No. I do. Because they gave it to me.
if you give someone a gift, it is generally understood that you relinquish ownership of it, and the person who received it is now it's rightful owner.
So... On what grounds does the parent/child relationship otherwise undermine this basic concept of gifts and ownership?
Thank you. Sad that it's buried under so many wackos who think either that a 15 year old needs the same kind of parental relationship as a 3 year old (potty training comments, seriously?) or that turning 18 somehow magically changes the definition of abuse. It's about what it does to the emotional state of the individual being abused, not who is doing it to them. Also, why is everyone taking this guy's word at face value? The thought process seems to go "well, he says his daughter is spoiled, so she must be lying, and he must be telling the truth!" The only thing we can tell for sure is that one of them is lying and I'm not sure why anyone would even /suspect/ it was the daughter after watching that video.
destroys the other person's property or threatens to kill pets
He bought the laptop, it's his property. It may be a gift, and that would be a dick thing to destroy it. But if all gifts are now you're property, then any parent who tries to take something from a child would be considered theft. So where exactly is the line with this?
OK, look, I see this argument over and over again in one variation or another, but in any other context it makes no sense whatsoever.
(I don't have children, so references to this are hypothetical)
If I give my child a gift, by your logic it's still my property, and I can do whatever I like with it.
If I give my best friend a gift... Are you seriously implying I can walk into their house and destroy it, because I was the one that gave it to them in the first place?
How about if a shop gives me something for free? Since I didn't technically pay for it, it's clearly a gift of some kind.
But, does that mean the shop technically still owns it? No. I do. Because they gave it to me.
if you give someone a gift, it is generally understood that you relinquish ownership of it, and the person who received it is now it's rightful owner.
So... On what grounds does the parent/child relationship otherwise undermine this basic concept of gifts and ownership?
That still doesn't explain the basic principle here.
What is the justification for treating your child like they don't have even an approximation of the basic rights of an adult?
Do you really think ownership is that trivial a consideration?
But I think your reaction says it all really. You seem to think there's some implicit difference. (Or that this is a strawman argument. Gotta love message notifications and edits.)
Yet you give no actual justification for why there should be a difference.
You DO realise the justification being given that I'm taking issue with is that it's OK for this guy to shoot his daughter's laptop is as follows:
"It's his property, he can do what he likes with it."
If it had to do with some issue surrounding parenting, then the above is a bullshit justification for the simple reason that under any other circumstances it wouldn't be considered his property, and what he did to it would be considered destroying another person's property. (and possibly theft too, amongst other things.)
Therefore, if there is a justification for why this is OK, saying it's his propertyis not it!
This is for a partner. As in romantic relationship.
The girl he was angry at in the video was his daughter. As in most of the things you've put in bold do not apply one bit.
Loosely applying some of this logic to the video, my opinion has still not changed. I agree with what he did.
Taking it public for the world to see? Maybe. If I was the kid of that guy, I'd be mortified. Still doesn't change my opinion of his tactics. The only reason I think people are freaking out about it is because they've never seen a kid punished like that before.
If the kid was getting beaten or screamed at constantly, you'd have every right to flip a *****. But I have a feeling that that was as angry as that guy gets, and he was keeping it in check. He knew how to handle himself. And damn, did he handle himself.
The partner relationship is meant to be an equal one. The parent-child relationship is not.
To spell it out: If one partner in a relationship between two adults "makes all of the decisions" then that can be seen as (at the very least) an unhealthy relationship. Between a father and daughter, we call that parenting. If a parent does not make decisions for their child, they can be accused of negligence.
destroys the other person's property or threatens to kill pets
He bought the laptop, it's his property. It may be a gift, and that would be a dick thing to destroy it. But if all gifts are now you're property, then any parent who tries to take something from a child would be considered theft. So where exactly is the line with this?
OK, look, I see this argument over and over again in one variation or another, but in any other context it makes no sense whatsoever.
(I don't have children, so references to this are hypothetical)
If I give my child a gift, by your logic it's still my property, and I can do whatever I like with it.
If I give my best friend a gift... Are you seriously implying I can walk into their house and destroy it, because I was the one that gave it to them in the first place?
How about if a shop gives me something for free? Since I didn't technically pay for it, it's clearly a gift of some kind.
But, does that mean the shop technically still owns it? No. I do. Because they gave it to me.
if you give someone a gift, it is generally understood that you relinquish ownership of it, and the person who received it is now it's rightful owner.
So... On what grounds does the parent/child relationship otherwise undermine this basic concept of gifts and ownership?
That still doesn't explain the basic principle here.
What is the justification for treating your child like they don't have even an approximation of the basic rights of an adult?
Do you really think ownership is that trivial a consideration?
But I think your reaction says it all really. You seem to think there's some implicit difference. (Or that this is a strawman argument. Gotta love message notifications and edits.)
Yet you give no actual justification for why there should be a difference.
You DO realise the justification being given that I'm taking issue with is that it's OK for this guy to shoot his daughter's laptop is as follows:
"It's his property, he can do what he likes with it."
If it had to do with some issue surrounding parenting, then the above is a bullshit justification for the simple reason that under any other circumstances it wouldn't be considered his property, and what he did to it would be considered destroying another person's property. (and possibly theft too, amongst other things.)
Therefore, if there is a justification for why this is OK, saying it's his propertyis not it!
Especially when we're talking about a 15 year old young adult, not a 5 year old child. The only justification that makes sense is for the child to be a part of the parents' property herself -- in which case, why exactly are we shaming Hannah for pointing out that she's a slave?
To those who think I'm a troll: hah, you wish. Check my health bar and post count. Usually even normal posters are almost in the yellow by the time they've been here as long as I have. Trolls are pushing the red.
destroys the other person's property or threatens to kill pets
He bought the laptop, it's his property. It may be a gift, and that would be a dick thing to destroy it. But if all gifts are now you're property, then any parent who tries to take something from a child would be considered theft. So where exactly is the line with this?
OK, look, I see this argument over and over again in one variation or another, but in any other context it makes no sense whatsoever.
(I don't have children, so references to this are hypothetical)
If I give my child a gift, by your logic it's still my property, and I can do whatever I like with it.
If I give my best friend a gift... Are you seriously implying I can walk into their house and destroy it, because I was the one that gave it to them in the first place?
How about if a shop gives me something for free? Since I didn't technically pay for it, it's clearly a gift of some kind.
But, does that mean the shop technically still owns it? No. I do. Because they gave it to me.
if you give someone a gift, it is generally understood that you relinquish ownership of it, and the person who received it is now it's rightful owner.
So... On what grounds does the parent/child relationship otherwise undermine this basic concept of gifts and ownership?
That still doesn't explain the basic principle here.
What is the justification for treating your child like they don't have even an approximation of the basic rights of an adult?
Do you really think ownership is that trivial a consideration?
But I think your reaction says it all really. You seem to think there's some implicit difference. (Or that this is a strawman argument. Gotta love message notifications and edits.)
Yet you give no actual justification for why there should be a difference.
You DO realise the justification being given that I'm taking issue with is that it's OK for this guy to shoot his daughter's laptop is as follows:
"It's his property, he can do what he likes with it."
If it had to do with some issue surrounding parenting, then the above is a bullshit justification for the simple reason that under any other circumstances it wouldn't be considered his property, and what he did to it would be considered destroying another person's property. (and possibly theft too, amongst other things.)
Therefore, if there is a justification for why this is OK, saying it's his propertyis not it!
Alright, I think I owe you a bit of an apology. First of all, I removed the bit about the strawman argument because I realized it was incorrect. I am sorry about that.
Second of all, I mistook your argument of "a child's property is not their parent's property" as "a parent taking something of their kids away as punishment is wrong". Again, I'm sorry about that.
Third of all, yeah... my post made me come off as a huge doucebag. You didn't deserve that for simply posting an opinion. I'm sorry about that.
Now, as for whether or not shooting her laptop was justified in my opinion. I agree that it being his property is faulty logic. No question about that. However, as to whether or not he should be considered a bad person for shooting her laptop I'm a little more iffy. She complained how he never gives her anything, so he takes away something he paid quite a bit of money on. Maybe it was a little extreme to shoot the laptop, but don't forget this wasn't the first time she had badmouthed her parents on Facebook. The first time, if I recall correctly, he simply took away her cell-phone and laptop for a little while. Apparently that didn't work, so he needed to up the ante so to speak. As with most forms of punishment, it's largely a form of opinion whether or not the punishment was reasonable.
As to the difference between interacting with your child and your best friend, you don't have the responsibility or even the right to punish your best friend when they do something wrong. I mean, I'm guessing... If you can possibly believe it, I've never actually had a best friend .
At any rate, I am sorry about my previous post. I was wrong.
She is *his* daughter; until she decides to be otherwise, or the law takes her away. There is an ownership there. To be blunt, it is also that ownership that makes it OK for him to destroy his laptop.
If you really think that 14-year-olds are emotionally, mentally, or physically mature enough to be acting on their own without authoritative parenting, then you know nothing of child and teenage psychology.
He taught her the lesson that actions have consequences. She gets to experience that yes, her words will have repercussions while also seeing that his do as well through the media attention and bile spewed his way by the self-righteous like you.
Seriously, I'm 22 and I wish my parents had been half as hard on me. I'd be in a better place and certainly wouldn't have had to learn some of those hard lessons in areas that it really matters.
She is *his* daughter; until she decides to be otherwise, or the law takes her away. There is an ownership there. To be blunt, it is also that ownership that makes it OK for him to destroy his laptop.
If you really think that 14-year-olds are emotionally, mentally, or physically mature enough to be acting on their own without authoritative parenting, then you know nothing of child and teenage psychology.
He taught her the lesson that actions have consequences. She gets to experience that yes, her words will have repercussions while also seeing that his do as well through the media attention and bile spewed his way by the self-righteous like you.
Seriously, I'm 22 and I wish my parents had been half as hard on me. I'd be in a better place and certainly wouldn't have had to learn some of those hard lessons in areas that it really matters.
Operative word: Authoritative. The video showed Authoritarian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting_styles
Edit: Seriously, if you're going to talk child psychology, you need to understand the difference between these two terms. It could, quite literally, save a child's life.
wikipedia said:
Authoritative parenting, also called 'assertive democratic'[14] or 'balanced' parenting,[15] is characterized by a child-centered approach that holds high expectations of maturity. Authoritative parents can understand their children?s feelings and teach them how to regulate them. They often help them to find appropriate outlets to solve problems. "Authoritative parenting encourages children to be independent but still places limits and controls on their actions." [1] "Extensive verbal give-and-take is allowed, and parents are warm and nurturant toward the child."[1] Authoritative parents are not usually as controlling, allowing the child to explore more freely, thus having them make their own decisions based upon their own reasoning.[16]
Authoritative parents set limits and demand maturity, but when punishing a child, the parent will explain his or her motive for their punishment. "Their punishments are measured and consistent in discipline, not harsh or arbitrary. Parents will set clear standards for their children, monitor limits that they set, and also allow children to develop autonomy. They also expect mature, independent, and age-appropriate behavior of children."[1] They are attentive to their children?s needs and concerns, and will typically forgive and teach instead of punishing if a child falls short.[17] This is supposed to result in children having a higher self esteem and independence because of the democratic give-take nature of the authoritative parenting style. This is the most recommended style of parenting by child-rearing experts.
[edit] Authoritarian parenting
Authoritarian parenting
The parent is demanding but not responsive. Elaborate becomes totalitarian parenting.
Authoritarian parenting, also called strict parenting,[15] is characterized by high expectations of conformity and compliance to parental rules and directions, while allowing little open dialogue between parent and child. "Authoritarian parenting is a restrictive, punitive style in which parents advise the child to follow their directions and to respect their work and effort."[1] Authoritarian parents expect much of their child but generally do not explain the reasoning for the rules or boundaries.[18] Authoritarian parents are less responsive to their children?s needs, and are more likely to spank a child rather than discuss the problem.[19]
Children resulting from this type of parenting may have less social competence because the parent generally tells the child what to do instead of allowing the child to choose by him or herself.[20] Nonetheless, researchers have found that in some cultures and ethnic groups, aspects of authoritarian style may be associated with more positive child outcomes than Baumrind expects. "Aspects of traditional Asian child-rearing practices are often continued by Asian American families. In some cases, these practices have been described as authoritarian."[1] If the demands are pushed too forcefully upon the child, the child will break down, rebel, or run away.
As for the whole ownership thing: thank you for admitting that you support ownership of a human being. Underage or not, people are not property, either legally or morally. I mean, if she is his property, would you support him shooting her just like he shot her laptop? Afterall, she's his property, he can do what he wants with her.
destroys the other person's property or threatens to kill pets
He bought the laptop, it's his property. It may be a gift, and that would be a dick thing to destroy it. But if all gifts are now you're property, then any parent who tries to take something from a child would be considered theft. So where exactly is the line with this?
OK, look, I see this argument over and over again in one variation or another, but in any other context it makes no sense whatsoever.
(I don't have children, so references to this are hypothetical)
If I give my child a gift, by your logic it's still my property, and I can do whatever I like with it.
If I give my best friend a gift... Are you seriously implying I can walk into their house and destroy it, because I was the one that gave it to them in the first place?
How about if a shop gives me something for free? Since I didn't technically pay for it, it's clearly a gift of some kind.
But, does that mean the shop technically still owns it? No. I do. Because they gave it to me.
if you give someone a gift, it is generally understood that you relinquish ownership of it, and the person who received it is now it's rightful owner.
So... On what grounds does the parent/child relationship otherwise undermine this basic concept of gifts and ownership?
That still doesn't explain the basic principle here.
What is the justification for treating your child like they don't have even an approximation of the basic rights of an adult?
Do you really think ownership is that trivial a consideration?
But I think your reaction says it all really. You seem to think there's some implicit difference. (Or that this is a strawman argument. Gotta love message notifications and edits.)
Yet you give no actual justification for why there should be a difference.
You DO realise the justification being given that I'm taking issue with is that it's OK for this guy to shoot his daughter's laptop is as follows:
"It's his property, he can do what he likes with it."
If it had to do with some issue surrounding parenting, then the above is a bullshit justification for the simple reason that under any other circumstances it wouldn't be considered his property, and what he did to it would be considered destroying another person's property. (and possibly theft too, amongst other things.)
Therefore, if there is a justification for why this is OK, saying it's his propertyis not it!
Alright, I think I owe you a bit of an apology. First of all, I removed the bit about the strawman argument because I realized it was incorrect. I am sorry about that.
Second of all, I mistook your argument of "a child's property is not their parent's property" as "a parent taking something of their kids away as punishment is wrong". Again, I'm sorry about that.
Third of all, yeah... my post made me come off as a huge doucebag. You didn't deserve that for simply posting an opinion. I'm sorry about that.
Now, as for whether or not shooting her laptop was justified in my opinion. I agree that it being his property is faulty logic. No question about that. However, as to whether or not he should be considered a bad person for shooting her laptop I'm a little more iffy. She complained how he never gives her anything, so he takes away something he paid quite a bit of money on. Maybe it was a little extreme to shoot the laptop, but don't forget this wasn't the first time she had badmouthed her parents on Facebook. The first time, if I recall correctly, he simply took away her cell-phone and laptop for a little while. Apparently that didn't work, so he needed to up the ante so to speak. As with most forms of punishment, it's largely a form of opinion whether or not the punishment was reasonable.
As to the difference between interacting with your child and your best friend, you don't have the responsibility or even the right to punish your best friend when they do something wrong. I mean, I'm guessing... If you can possibly believe it, I've never actually had a best friend .
At any rate, I am sorry about my previous post. I was wrong.
Well, thank you for the apology. I appreciate it, and I know it's easy to misread things.
I agree you can't punish your friend (well, you can try, but it's probably not a good idea. XD), but you probably do have to punish your child at some point or another.
And destroying something as a punishment isn't entirely unheard of.
After all, despite the principle behind ownership, if you break certain laws the government might take things from you as well.
(Cars are a common thing that can be taken from you and sold, or even crushed in some cases).
I don't know if what he did is right or wrong. To me doing something like that to a computer feels implicitly wrong. (In the same way that destroying a work of art, or a novel feels wrong. Not because a computer is either, but because it might contain digital equivalents of such.)
But overall, I didn't mean to imply what he did was actually wrong, merely that justifying it solely by claiming it's his own personal property he's destroying, doesn't seem at all right.
(And a lot of people seemed to be making that argument all by itself, with no further explanation.)
Especially when we're talking about a 15 year old young adult, not a 5 year old child. The only justification that makes sense is for the child to be a part of the parents' property herself -- in which case, why exactly are we shaming Hannah for pointing out that she's a slave?
Because having to do what your parents say until you become a legal adult, which Hannah is not, is not considered slavery. Because calling yourself a slave because you have to do a few chores around the house is an insult to people who actually went through slavery.
One thing I am curious about though. Do you believe he was wrong for taking her laptop away at all, or is it specifically the fact he completely destroyed it? Also do you believe at fifteen someone no long has the need to be punished for doing something wrong?
By the way, I don't believe you are a troll (not that you needed approval from me, but I just thought I would point that out). While I don't agree with your point of view, calling you a troll for having a different opinion would be a low thing to do.
destroys the other person's property or threatens to kill pets
He bought the laptop, it's his property. It may be a gift, and that would be a dick thing to destroy it. But if all gifts are now you're property, then any parent who tries to take something from a child would be considered theft. So where exactly is the line with this?
OK, look, I see this argument over and over again in one variation or another, but in any other context it makes no sense whatsoever.
(I don't have children, so references to this are hypothetical)
If I give my child a gift, by your logic it's still my property, and I can do whatever I like with it.
If I give my best friend a gift... Are you seriously implying I can walk into their house and destroy it, because I was the one that gave it to them in the first place?
How about if a shop gives me something for free? Since I didn't technically pay for it, it's clearly a gift of some kind.
But, does that mean the shop technically still owns it? No. I do. Because they gave it to me.
if you give someone a gift, it is generally understood that you relinquish ownership of it, and the person who received it is now it's rightful owner.
So... On what grounds does the parent/child relationship otherwise undermine this basic concept of gifts and ownership?
That still doesn't explain the basic principle here.
What is the justification for treating your child like they don't have even an approximation of the basic rights of an adult?
Do you really think ownership is that trivial a consideration?
But I think your reaction says it all really. You seem to think there's some implicit difference. (Or that this is a strawman argument. Gotta love message notifications and edits.)
Yet you give no actual justification for why there should be a difference.
You DO realise the justification being given that I'm taking issue with is that it's OK for this guy to shoot his daughter's laptop is as follows:
"It's his property, he can do what he likes with it."
If it had to do with some issue surrounding parenting, then the above is a bullshit justification for the simple reason that under any other circumstances it wouldn't be considered his property, and what he did to it would be considered destroying another person's property. (and possibly theft too, amongst other things.)
Therefore, if there is a justification for why this is OK, saying it's his propertyis not it!
Alright, I think I owe you a bit of an apology. First of all, I removed the bit about the strawman argument because I realized it was incorrect. I am sorry about that.
Second of all, I mistook your argument of "a child's property is not their parent's property" as "a parent taking something of their kids away as punishment is wrong". Again, I'm sorry about that.
Third of all, yeah... my post made me come off as a huge doucebag. You didn't deserve that for simply posting an opinion. I'm sorry about that.
Now, as for whether or not shooting her laptop was justified in my opinion. I agree that it being his property is faulty logic. No question about that. However, as to whether or not he should be considered a bad person for shooting her laptop I'm a little more iffy. She complained how he never gives her anything, so he takes away something he paid quite a bit of money on. Maybe it was a little extreme to shoot the laptop, but don't forget this wasn't the first time she had badmouthed her parents on Facebook. The first time, if I recall correctly, he simply took away her cell-phone and laptop for a little while. Apparently that didn't work, so he needed to up the ante so to speak. As with most forms of punishment, it's largely a form of opinion whether or not the punishment was reasonable.
As to the difference between interacting with your child and your best friend, you don't have the responsibility or even the right to punish your best friend when they do something wrong. I mean, I'm guessing... If you can possibly believe it, I've never actually had a best friend .
At any rate, I am sorry about my previous post. I was wrong.
Well, thank you for the apology. I appreciate it, and I know it's easy to misread things.
I agree you can't punish your friend (well, you can try, but it's probably not a good idea. XD), but you probably do have to punish your child at some point or another.
And destroying something as a punishment isn't entirely unheard of.
After all, despite the principle behind ownership, if you break certain laws the government might take things from you as well.
(Cars are a common thing that can be taken from you and sold, or even crushed in some cases).
I don't know if what he did is right or wrong. To me doing something like that to a computer feels implicitly wrong. (In the same way that destroying a work of art, or a novel feels wrong. Not because a computer is either, but because it might contain digital equivalents of such.)
But overall, I didn't mean to imply what he did was actually wrong, merely that justifying it solely by claiming it's his own personal property he's destroying, doesn't seem at all right.
(And a lot of people seemed to be making that argument all by itself, with no further explanation.)
What do you mean cut the blue wire?! THEY'RE ALL BLUE WIRES!!!
Umm I mean...
Yeah, I've heard some many people spout things like "If I ever have kids, I'll let them do whatever they want without punishing them". Makes me laugh every time I hear it. Yeah, I am of the belief a parent has the right to take something of their kids (would that be kids or kid's?) away as a form of punishment. Like you said, if you misuse your car the police has the right to take it away from you.
I'm more thinking about any schoolwork she might have had saved on the laptop. Though that would be a pretty awesome excuse. "I'm sorry Miss, I don't have my assignment on me because my Dad put nine bullets into my laptop. I swear!". But yeah, destroying the laptop was going a little too far in my opinion.
As I've said, I agree with you. Something given to a child should be the property of the child. Whether or not the parent has the right to take something the child owns away as a form of punishment is a completely seperate issue, in my opinion.
*A knock on the door is heard. A mysterious man with an eyepatch walks in*
Hello Mr. Avenger... I'm here to talk to you about The Escapist Initiative.
Let me just throw something into the mix, pal. His facebook [http://www.facebook.com/tommyjordaniii] is linked to in the description of the video.
He stands by his decision but hoped it could have been done another way, but regrets swearing in the video, though he was incredibly worked up at the time. People have called the police on him, to when the entire department said "Kudos" an walked off to show their kids. He's had child support come around and chat to his kid, himself, explore the house, check the firearms are up to regulations being around children and his competence with them, his relationship with other family members, his history and profession; then said everything was completely fine. He's had people impersonate him and send threats and he regrets so many people seeing this, and he said he will get rough with anybody threatening to harm his daughter.
So hop off your moral high horse and see the facts. He just shot her laptop and stated she's to be punished for a very long time. It's his laptop, technically, and she's under his parental guidance. If your parents have ever threatened to smack you is a worse case than this.
Oh, and I don't think he's a good dad because this situation could've been avoided. However his handling of the situation he found himself in I can agree with as it is entirely justified.
The girl bitched to her friends in what she thought was a private forum. Her parent then spied on her to find a reason to punish her.
He then went online in a chest pounding display of alpha-male machismo and shot her laptop, this wasn't a display of parenting this was a display of power. Sure parenting involves power, but its hardly the only thing involved. Honestly he was clearly more concerned with being in charge then what would raise his daughter in an effective, successful manner. He could have spoken to her about her actions, he could have taken the laptop, he could have broken the laptop.
What he chose to do was to publicly humiliate and shame, a much darker and crueler action and one more focused on agrandizing himself. The obvious thing though is that the reason his daughter was brought into trouble. (Her wish to talk shit to her friends in private) Was never adressed, honestly she'll just have to find a new more secretive forum to speak ill of him.
OP, get over yourself. The guy disciplined his daughter and posting a list of signs of domestic abuse in a relationship is creating a strawman argument at best. You dont like what he did? fine, but to be willfully disingenuous to win people over to your side is nothing but trolling.
Could you people please link these threads together, I can't keep up with all the weekly internet celebs.
This is about that redneck who shot some shit in a field? Well just like monkeys fling, rednecks will that at some point shoot some shit in a field, and some people are impressed by that...
Does it have anything to do with parenting, nope, he is just acting out on selfish impulse, and with it providing much proof as to what his kid is protesting about, under-appreciation, kids disrespect their parents because they learned it from them.
And then the beautiful circle of laughter is complete.
The girl bitched to her friends in what she thought was a private forum. Her parent then spied on her to find a reason to punish her.
He then went online in a chest pounding display of alpha-male machismo and shot her laptop, this wasn't a display of parenting this was a display of power. Sure parenting involves power, but its hardly the only thing involved. Honestly he was clearly more concerned with being in charge then what would raise his daughter in an effective, successful manner. He could have spoken to her about her actions, he could have taken the laptop, he could have broken the laptop.
What he chose to do was to publicly humiliate and shame, a much darker and crueler action and one more focused on agrandizing himself. The obvious thing though is that the reason his daughter was brought into trouble. (Her wish to talk shit to her friends in private) Was never adressed, honestly she'll just have to find a new more secretive forum to speak ill of him.
1. He only saw the post because it appeared on their dog's facebook page. She has it set so her family cannot see her posts, but she forgot to set her dog to family. The post appeared on the dog's facebook which the father saw.
2. As far as I know, he only posted the video on her facebook page so only her friends could see it. These things just have a way of getting out I guess. He does seem remorseful it became as big as it did. Now, as to whether or not someone who claims to be in I.T. should have realized it would undoubtedly leak out is another issue altogether.
Edit: Just rewatching it now, and he does say he is sharing the video with everyone. That was my mistake; sorry about that.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
. 
