Facebook parenting for the troubled teen

[Kimberly]

I wouldn't. I would research what I should do, and base what I would do on that.

 

Delaying actions/inconsistencies reduces the effectiveness of conditioning. Not to mention that's not always a luxury that parents have.

[Riku3220]

I wouldn't. I would research what I should do, and base what I would do on that.

I don't see how banishment from the laptop isn't the obvious solution.

[Assume Nothing]

I don't mean that I would research it after the action had occurred. I'm saying that I'd research it later today in foresight of it occurring with my own family. I currently don't know what I'd do - that shouldn't be too difficult to grasp. Don't even try to pose the hypothetical, because I don't have a family of my own right now for that to happen, so the likelihood of it would be zero.

 

EDIT - That's because the laptop is not the crux of the problem. It doesn't matter which device they will use - so long as they have the motive, they shall do it on whatever device they can get a hold of. It would be meaninglessly impractical to withdraw all access to all devices everywhere, without severely breaching the freedom rights.

 

The way to solve an issue is to locate its source and extinguish it. To do otherwise would only be addressing symptoms - not the problem in itself.

[Kimberly]

I currently don't know what I'd do - that shouldn't be too difficult to grasp.

 

If you don't know what you'd do in that situation then how is it you suddenly have enough insight to know what you won't do?

[Assume Nothing]

I know what I won't do because I know it's irrational. I don't know what I would do because I don't know if there's a superior alternative to what I could come up with. The objective is to find the best method - it should be self-evident honestly.

 

Instead of assuming, perhaps ask for clarification. It helps.

[Kimberly]

I know what I won't do because I know it's irrational. I don't know what I would do because I don't know if there's a superior alternative to what I could come up with. The objective is to find the best method - it should be self-evident honestly.

 

Instead of assuming, perhaps ask for clarification. It helps.

 

If you agree it's dependent on the situation - being a parent, the circumstances that lead to discipline - then you have no idea what will be rational at the time and what won't. Perhaps consider taking your own advice instead of trying hard to be a cynical intellectual.

[Assume Nothing]

"Perhaps consider taking your own advice instead of trying hard to be an intellectual." ~ Kimberly

 

If you even took a few moments to read my posts, you'd realise that I have never expressed any intent to be perceived as to be an intellectual. That's completely irrelevant to this argument anyway, so your point is moot.

 

"If you agree it's dependent on the situation then you have no idea what will be rational at the time and what won't."

 

We know the situation - we don't know the circumstances surrounding it. I'm not sure how you're defining rationality either, care to elaborate? I don't see how people would have 'no idea what will be rational at the time and what won't'.

 

You do realise that you have no moral supremacy because you don't agree with my ideals, right? Your recent posts have come across as nothing more than bitter arrogance, quick on assuming before allowing others to explain. Good job.

[Kimberly]

That's completely irrelevant to this argument anyway, so your point is redundant.

 

If it was irrelevant to the argument, it couldn't be redundant - that would imply it was already a part of the argument to begin with and I was restating it needlessly. See, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. :wall:

 

We know the situation - we don't know the circumstances surrounding it. I'm not sure how you're defining rationality either, care to elaborate?

 

...That's what I just said.

 

As for the definition of rational, it's the one we're all familiar with. Here:

1ra·tio·nal adj \ˈrash-nəl, ˈra-shə-nəl\

 

Definition of RATIONAL

 

1

a : having reason or understanding

b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>

2

: involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times

3

: relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers <a rational root of an equation>

 

I don't see what's unclear about my post.

 

You do realise that you have no moral supremacy because you don't agree with my ideals, right? Your recent posts have come across as nothing more than bitter arrogance, quick on assuming before allowing others to explain. Good job.

 

No one is stopping you from explaining. Finding your explanations inadequate != being bitter and arrogant because they state why they disagree with you.

[Assume Nothing]

That was a legitimate mistake. It should have been 'moot', not redundant, as per the edit.

 

The likelihood that the circumstances would have justified the action of shooting the laptop is so minute that it's negligible. I state that it's irrational on the premise that it lacks justification - the costs of shooting it outweighs the benefits that it potentially has. Nor was it likely to be very effective in teaching a lesson - which you've proclaimed in your previous posts as a premise of justifying the action (I've addressed why in an earlier post, I'm not repeating it for you).

 

Indeed, I can explain myself. The problem is that you're putting words into my mouth half the time with the plethora of assumptions being made.

[Range_This11]

Assume:

 

Rationality and logic are just as limiting of intellectual parameters as any hard line ideology--be it religious or not. By saying that rationality and logic are the only means by which one can come to a conclusion, you are in essence saying that not all thoughts are created equal. This is an extremely exclusionary mindset and limits intellectual freedom. Not only does it subject every idea to a cold brand of calculated empiricism, but completely removes the human emotions and faculties from the entire process--and furthermore, it is completely elitist.

 

How does one become rational? Surely you agree we are not all born with reason. It is something that is developed, in most cases, through education (formal or informal). What of the people that are not allowed or exposed to this type of education? If reason and logic are the ultimate determinants of what actions or ideas are "wrong" or "right," then those who lack the mental capabilities to comprehend the boundaries and possibilities of reason; those who lack access to education in reason; or those who simply refuse to submit to reason a source of cultural authority must then have to submit to their intellectual betters in order to receive guidance.

 

My point here is that strict adherence to reason and logic as the source of intellectual authority inherently engenders elitism.

 

I would like to see your response to my arguments here on this board, but if you want to send it as a PM you are more than welcome since it is slightly off topic.

[Danqazmlp]

A real distinction needs making in the argument that being incredibly strict means not having a loving family, or in other words, a family that isn't strict with punishments, is not a loving and nurturing family.

 

Punishments in a non-loving family are retaliatory and not for the good of the child, but for the good of the parent. Punishments in a loving family are for the good of the child, hopefully sculpting them to respect and adhere to the rules.

 

Just because you severely punish a child does not mean that the family is not a loving and nurturing family.

[Assume Nothing]

I define loving and nurturing to be to act in the best interests of the child. Given that severely beating and punishing would not act in the best interests of the child, it cannot then, by definition, be considered loving and nurturing. They may want to, and they may have all intentions to - but objectively, they aren't.

 

I've yet to respond to the long 'rationality' post because I'm still a little tired from my poor sleeping patterns. Bah.

[obfuscator]

Why is beating being discussed here? It has nothing to do with the OP....

[Assume Nothing]

I've misread into the lines of punishment. I still don't think psychological ploys, or damage to property would be considered loving or nurturing when its to act against the best interests of the child.

[Saradomin_Mage]

I still don't think psychological ploys, or damage to property would be considered loving or nurturing when its to act against the best interests of the child.

I'm not sure that these can never be in the "best interests" of the child, but I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

[Assume Nothing]

I'd rather have it resolved. Please provide an example of how it could be in the best interests of the child, and illustrate how in this scenario, its more likely than not to be the case. I fail to see how very minor exceptions should be considered above whats ultimately the most likely scenario. To do so would be special pleading.

[Riku3220]

It's in the best interests of the child because it shows them that their actions have consequences. That's the main reason for any punishment.

[Assume Nothing]

It's a fabricated consequence - and disproportionate to say the least. Utilitarianism says if harm > benefits, then its an unwise decision. In this case, it appears to me that the likelihood would be that the harm would supersede the benefits.

 

EDIT

 

Here's the questions to consider when we analyse acting in one's best interests: Does it promote health, happiness, or wellbeing? Does it mitigate or otherwise reduce harm/suffering? Is it an effective method, and is there a better alternative?

 

I consider the 'teaching of consequences' benefit as negligible, and flawed at best. It illustrates that if they cannot resolve it through discussion, then violence would be necessary. I don't believe that to be the case.

[Riku3220]

It's a fabricated consequence - and disproportionate to say the least. Utilitarianism says if harm > benefits, then its an unwise decision. In this case, it appears to me that the likelihood would be that the harm would supersede the benefits.

The human mind puts harm > benefits. We fear losing something more than we anticipate gaining something. It's called loss aversion

[Assume Nothing]

Loss aversion is not a strong incentive to behave well. It takes a great deal of harm (psychological or physical) before any surmountable effect is evident.

 

EDIT - Do we really want to teach out of fear rather than out of understanding?

[Riku3220]

EDIT - Do we really want to teach out of fear rather than out of understanding?

Why does it have to be one or the other? How about punishments for poor behavior and benefits for exceptional behavior? That way they have a reason to do well but a fear of doing poorly.

[Assume Nothing]

What do you mean when you say 'punishments'? I'd say a natural understanding of why misbehaving is unacceptable is stronger in the long-term than a man-made punishment that does nothing but instill fear.

 

The human mind doesn't work the same way as say, dogs do when they respond to incentives. Here's a video of my basic mindset:

 

 

EDIT - I submit that I believe its a dichotomy because fear and understanding seem contradictory to me.

[Riku3220]

What do you mean when you say 'punishments'? I'd say a natural understanding of why misbehaving is unacceptable is stronger in the long-term than a man-made punishment that does nothing but instill fear.

Nobody in the world has a natural understanding of why misbehaving is unacceptable, especially not children. Punishments such as time outs, groundings, and taking things away tells a child that not only has their behavior been unacceptable, but that it comes with a price as well. If you tell a child that something is wrong, but don't do anything about it, then what reason would they have to stop?

[Assume Nothing]

By natural understanding, I don't mean an innate ability - rather, a developed sense of morality. I wouldn't tell a child it's merely wrong - I would explain why, and the consequences of poor decisions/actions. That in itself should be the reason. Do take a note of the video I've posted - it's a more cohesive form of my ideals.

 

I'm not sure what ages you're referring to either. Are we still referring to ~ 14 year old teens, or toddlers?

[Riku3220]

By natural understanding, I don't mean an innate ability - rather, a developed sense of morality. I wouldn't tell a child it's merely wrong - I would explain why, and the consequences of poor decisions/actions. That in itself should be the reason. Do take a note of the video I've posted - it's a more cohesive form of my ideals.

 

I'm not sure what ages you're referring to either. Are we still referring to ~ 14 year old teens, or toddlers?

I'm talking about all ages until adulthood.

 

Please tell me what you would say to a toddler that's running around yelling while at the doctors' office or to a teenager that badmouths your family on Facebook to get them to stop. You can explain the consequences all day but unless one of them actually happens they have no reason to stop.

 

EDIT - As for an example of fear and understanding working together, think of a child touching a hot stove. After the first time, a child has the understanding that touching the stove will indeed burn them and have fear of the pain that being burned had on them.