Facebook parenting for the troubled teen

[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.

I'm patiently waiting :)

[Alg]

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.

It gets a bit more complicated when dealing with social situations, though. The same premise can be applied to getting a bad grade in a class: While some students will realize that it means that they have to work harder, many others will conclude that the teacher just doesn't like them.

 

In this case, it seems to have worked as intended, if the many articles quoted on the OP are to be believed.

[Riku3220]

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.

It gets a bit more complicated when dealing with social situations, though. The same premise can be applied to getting a bad grade in a class: While some students will realize that it means that they have to work harder, many others will conclude that the teacher just doesn't like them.

 

In this case, it seems to have worked as intended, if the many articles quoted on the OP are to be believed.

Which is why the fear of failing should also be included.

[stevepole]

I just saw this on Wired, and briefly skimmed it, but I find the topic relevant. (Acting on emotions vs acting on rationality)

 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/are-emotions-prophetic/

[Randox]

I have met people who really don't understand how the world works before (actually I've met people who didn't seem to grasp that the purpose of corporations like insurance companies was to make money before), and that allowing that kind of ignorance to carry into adult hood would not be 'in the childs best interest'. Another very very important concept to grasp is that there are consequences for your actions. Better to learn it the hard way in an environment with no real lasting consequences than in the working world where you could very easily do something that might ensure you never rise beyond a certain level in a company, or an entire industry.

 

To the second, it was a forgone conclusion that the laptop was going to vanish, and it was never coming back. It also might be important to point out that rightfully, the laptop belonged to the parents, as did all the payed for software on it. It's possession by the daughter was a privaledge, not a right (another important concept to grasp, especially during your teens). So I really don't see how it could possibly matter how it was disposed of. Shot, smashed, thrown in the trash, locked in a safe and throw away the key. Different means to the same end.

 

However, it is worth pointing out that the video wasn't for the daughter. Yes, chances we're she was going to see it, but that wasn't a goal, or a requirement. The video was for her friends, and for the parents of her friends, to make a point to them. I think shooting the laptop makes perfect sense given that the whole point of it was to send a message to some people through a video.

 

Things like chores exist to teach children the first lesson I mentioned (that life isn't a free ride), and also are a way to help repay your parents a bit for all the work they do providing for you. So aside from the disgusting lack of respect that her message showed, it also demonstrated a total lack of understanding that her father (and mother if she works too) does more than relax in a pool on a floating bed sipping drinks when he is at work. That he actually, you know, works (that or she is a terrible and totally self centered person). I would consider it important to grasp, in a practical understanding, that life is not a free ride before you move out so that the shock of the real world doesn't consume you. To that end, things like having a job are imperative.

 

So at the end of the day, I think the message showed the father just what fantasy world his daughter was living in, and highlighted excellently that whatever his current parenting technique was, it wasn't working to the desired effect, and that changes needed to be made. Since he can't parent his daughters friends, but apparently felt the need to do so, he milked that change in his approach for all that it was worth in that video.

 

 

Now, I don't know if what he did was the right thing, or the wrong thing. I only know that I think I can see where he is coming from. I don't believe I will ever have the perspective needed to say whether something was in the child best interest until I have children of my own, and even then, that will probably only ever apply to me because only then would I even have a chance of having all the information I need. I would also love to know what the approach he took with his daughter though (because we only saw a message for her friends, which is naturally going to be different because its a different medium, and a totally different relationship and role, and there was probably some exaggeration for emphasis).

 

I will give him props for one thing for sure though. He took action. Some people are so afraid of ruining their children that they are petrified by the idea of doing something drastic, of doing something big enough to actually get a point home. I still remember being a child enough that if you think you can just talk your children into being sound and capable adults, you have another thing coming. Sometimes I wish my parents had been a bit more hard line with me, taught me a couple more things the hard way rather than trusting me to understand. And I know they feel the same way because we've talked about it before.

[sees_all1]

the laptop belonged to the parents

Children (non-adults, under 18) by law cannot own property. It doesn't matter who payed for the laptop, if it was a gift, or even if somehow she built it out of sand herself. Legally, her parents own everything she has.

[Randox]

the laptop belonged to the parents

Children (non-adults, under 18) by law cannot own property. It doesn't matter who payed for the laptop, if it was a gift, or even if somehow she built it out of sand herself. Legally, her parents own everything she has.

Interesting. I did not know that.

 

I'd be less concerned with the law though, and more concerned with what is going to matter in your offspring's mind (child seems wrong here). They are going to react a lot differently to you taking away something they bought with their money as opposed to something you bought them with your money. Not sure if I made it clear why I brought that up or not.

[anonymous1234]

The father had every right to destroy that laptop, by why would he waste that money like that? He could have simply sold the laptop or given it to a friend or relative that could use one.

[Assume Nothing]

the laptop belonged to the parents

Children (non-adults, under 18) by law cannot own property. It doesn't matter who payed for the laptop, if it was a gift, or even if somehow she built it out of sand herself. Legally, her parents own everything she has.

 

Where does this apply? What kind of property does it entail? Is it limited to just property? Does it include a right to withdraw a child's funds from their bank accounts if they so wish - regardless of who earned it? Does this somehow justify the moral stance of shooting the laptop? Was it necessary at all? I don't see how shooting the laptop would have benefited anyone here, except for the egoistic father.

 

It does not justify the stance to 'teach them a lesson' if the lesson isn't likely to be effective, or that the purported 'lesson' may have adverse effects in the long run thus making the entire purpose of such a redundant, if not counter-effective, activity. I personally believe that shooting the laptop achieved neither effective teaching (merely appeal to consequences, loss aversion which falls into the second category), and was likely to have adverse effects to the child. To reiterate - I consider this punitive punishment, tantamount to corporal punishment, except as a psychological tool instead.

 

I shall clarify that I'm arguing on a consequentialist standpoint - as opposed to a deontologistic standpoint.

[Guest jrhairychest]

Assume, do you actually have kids?

[Assume Nothing]

What relevance does that question have?

[anonymous1234]

the laptop belonged to the parents

Children (non-adults, under 18) by law cannot own property. It doesn't matter who payed for the laptop, if it was a gift, or even if somehow she built it out of sand herself. Legally, her parents own everything she has.

 

Does it include a right to withdraw a child's funds from their bank accounts if they so wish - regardless of who earned it?

 

 

Yes.

[Guest jrhairychest]

What relevance does that question have?

 

It helps to have some experience in bringing up kids before lecturing that someone is bad for keeping their kid in line. :shame:

[Kimberly]

What relevance does that question have?

 

It helps to have some experience in bringing up kids before lecturing that someone is bad for keeping their kid in line. :shame:

 

The same thing holds true then for those who are saying it's right.

 

Do you mean to say that NONE of us are in any position to pass judgement? B-b-b-but what will we discuss now?! :ohnoes:

[obfuscator]

What relevance does that question have?

 

It helps to have some experience in bringing up kids before lecturing that someone is bad for keeping their kid in line. :shame:

 

The same thing holds true then for those who are saying it's right.

 

Do you mean to say that NONE of us are in any position to pass judgement? B-b-b-but what will we discuss now?! :ohnoes:

I think a lot of us aren't saying he's right, rather than he has the freedom to discipline his children as he sees fit :P

[sees_all1]

What relevance does that question have?

 

It helps to have some experience in bringing up kids before lecturing that someone is bad for keeping their kid in line. :shame:

 

The same thing holds true then for those who are saying it's right.

 

Do you mean to say that NONE of us are in any position to pass judgement? B-b-b-but what will we discuss now?! :ohnoes:

What it means is that the people who've had to discipline children are the ones who probably have more experience and will know what to do (been in that situation, know if what they did worked or not).

 

At least it's much better than saying, "I think what he did was wrong but I have no better solution."

You know, back-seat drivers and Monday morning quarterbacks are the best.

[Kimberly]

What it means is that the people who've had to discipline children are the ones who probably have more experience and will know what to do (been in that situation, know if what they did worked or not).

 

I know what he meant and the point he was trying to make. I guess I was just being a bit of an ass by trying to say that most of us have zero experience, not being parents ourselves. My bad.

 

At least it's much better than saying, "I think what he did was wrong but I have no better solution."

 

truedat.png

[Guest jrhairychest]

Mr Logic

What it means is that the people who've had to discipline children are the ones who probably have more experience and will know what to do (been in that situation, know if what they did worked or not).

 

At least it's much better than saying, "I think what he did was wrong but I have no better solution."

You know, back-seat drivers and Monday morning quarterbacks are the best.

 

Yep well said.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Kimberly
Removed quote/response

[Rainy_Day]

Well, I'd be annoyed if that were my laptop, but then I wouldn't go onto Facebook to insult someone (let alone a parent) when I have them added (though granted you can prevent them seeing it but still, I wouldn't take the chance).

 

Teaches them a lesson though. :shades:

[Saradomin_Mage]

I wonder where she got off thinking she could do this without fear of punishment in the first place. Just goes to show how badly her parents had already disciplined her, I suppose.

 

It doesn't need analysing to the nth degree.

I must concur on this.

[Assume Nothing]

It doesn't need analysing to the nth degree.

 

It depends on what the users are claiming. If they are saying 'It is morally righteous to shoot a laptop when he could have simply destroyed it with a hammer and thus minimized the risk of endangering oneself', then I'd certainly hold contention.

 

I don't agree with what the child did. I'm saying that the parent's act of shooting the laptop, recording it and subsequently posting on Facebook/YouTube was not justified. I don't believe that the notion 'bad actions should have consequences' should justify what I believe to be excessive, unnecessary force with a firearm.

 

What had the laptop got to do with it in the first place? Why was that destroyed, exactly? I find his methodology to be barbaric, like religious logic. Oh wait, that operates on faith.

[Guest jrhairychest]

So.....you disagree with it. Fine. Enough said.