Father puts .45 rounds into teenage girl's laptop

[ThomasT]

He invaded her privacy by getting into her FB account to read her PRIVATE messages. That's like breaking the lock on her diary. This guy has emotional problems. Children are entitled to talk privately to their friends.

I don't recall having any privacy while I was living with my parents.

Maybe you're right that the guy has emotional problems. Or, maybe his daughter is a bad seed and he's frustrated and doesn't really know how to deal with it.

All I can say is that, in my day, if someone wrote what his daughter did, then that person would be considered an ungrateful, disprespectful person, and would be treated accordingly.

 

[Pythagorean]

That's too bad, because as you see in the quote above, he makes the claim that using a gun is WORSE. I want to know WHY.

Yes, the gun makes it worse, but it's still bad to start with. The gun is a dedicated symbol of violence. It carries bad connotation with it. It adds the additional message that it's ok to use a deadly weapon in anger. As if reacting publicly in anger doesn't make one look foolish enough as it is.

 

[I like Serena]

I found the distinction between gun use and bad parenting pretty interesting, so I did a recount.

Current score is:

11 people accept the use of a gun in this context
10 people judge the use of a gun unacceptable
20 people show no clear opinion about the gun

15 people think the father did good as a parent
13 people think it's bad parenting
13 people show no clear opinion about his parenting skills.

And yes, we already have 41 different people that have vented their opinion!EDIT: What I also find interesting is seeing that every poster's opinion is clear is his/her first post.
Any discussion does not seem to change anyone's point of view, but only confirms it.

 

[Pythagorean]

I would also echo Integral's question about how many are actually teen parents themselves.

 

[Pythagorean]

Sociopaths, psychopaths -- or less extreme variations on those themes, but still what most of us would consider not good people. Ungrateful people, complainers, manipulators, etc.

You'll actually find that a large majority of criminal socio/psycho paths were abused or neglected as children. People with the brain-type that don't become criminals often find productive roles in society (as police or fire-fighters or journalists or stunt-men for instance).

 

[ThomasT]

You'll actually find that a large majority of criminal socio/psycho paths were abused or neglected as children. People with the brain-type that don't become criminals often find productive roles in society (as police or fire-fighters or journalists or stunt-men for instance).

Are you saying that many policemen, firemen, journalists and stuntmen are socio/psycho paths? Why stop there? What about teachers, scientists, politicians, sanitation workers, and chefs, etc., etc.

 

[ThomasT]

I found the distinction between gun use and bad parenting pretty interesting, so I did a recount.

Current score is:

11 people accept the use of a gun in this context
10 people judge the use of a gun unacceptable
20 people show no clear opinion about the gun

15 people think the father did good as a parent
13 people think it's bad parenting
13 people show no clear opinion about his parenting skills.

And yes, we already have 41 different people that have vented their opinion!


EDIT: What I also find interesting is seeing that every poster's opinion is clear is his/her first post.
Any discussion does not seem to change anyone's point of view, but only confirms it.

Quantification is always good. So, what's your opinion? Is the father out of line? Or the daughter? Or not enough data?

 

[Pythagorean]

Are you saying that many policemen, firemen, journalists and stuntmen are socio/psycho paths? Why stop there? What about teachers, scientists, politicians, sanitation workers, and chefs, etc., etc.

No, socio/psycho paths is a DSM diagnosed disorder, I was talking about the underlying neural similarities (a lack of fear response). And of course it's not all members of the occupation.

The neural feature is that they don't have the fear response associated with risky behavior that the large majority of the populous does have and they tend to be excited by risky behavior, so they tend to find occupations that include the risky behavior, but if they are raised right, they generally don't choose activities that are harmful to society.

Maybe I should have said war/crime journalist to emphasize the point of risky behavior.

 

[I like Serena]

Quantification is always good. So, what's your opinion? Is the father out of line? Or the daughter? Or not enough data?

Oh, I already gave my opinion in my first post and confirmed it in the ones after.

I believe the father did right in parenting, finally setting clear boundaries, following up on what he said and promised before, and using a tit-for-tat strategy.
I usually fervently oppose guns, but in this case he followed up on his word and used his gun in a safe manner which I deem acceptable.

Hey! This is the majority view (by now)!
I do hope my opinion did not skew my counting. ;)

 

[ThomasT]

No, socio/psycho paths is a DSM diagnosed disorder, I was talking about the underlying neural similarities (a lack of fear response). And of course it's not all members of the occupation.

The neural feature is that they don't have the fear response associated with risky behavior that the large majority of the populous does have and they tend to be excited by risky behavior, so they tend to find occupations that include the risky behavior, but if they are raised right, they generally don't choose activities that are harmful to society.

Maybe I should have said war/crime journalist to emphasize the point of risky behavior.

That's interesting stuff. Never thought about it much.

 

[ThomasT]

Oh, I already gave my opinion in my first post and confirmed it in the ones after.

I believe the father did right in parenting, finally setting clear boundaries, following up on what he said and promised before, and using a tit-for-tat strategy.
I'm usually a fervent opponent against guns, but in this case he followed up on his word and used his gun in a safe manner which I deem acceptable.

I do hope my opinion did not skew my counting.

Ok, I remember now. I don't think you skewed anything. I agree that consistency, wrt reasonable contingencies, would seem to be a good training strategy. Unfortunately, apparently, something went askew in this particular situation.

 

[Char. Limit]

Ok, I remember now. I don't think you skewed anything. I agree that consistency, wrt reasonable contingencies, would seem to be a good training strategy. Unfortunately, apparently, something went askew in this particular situation.

I'd say what went askew was the fact that the world found out...

 

[I like Serena]

I'd say what went askew was the fact that the world found out...

Yep. It appears that things on facebook do not always remain hidden. ;)

 

[Evo]

All I can say is that, in my day, if someone wrote what his daughter did, then that person would be considered an ungrateful, disprespectful person, and would be treated accordingly.

Even when they confide it in private to friends?

 

[Evo]

Yep. It appears that things on facebook do not always remain hidden. ;)

Yes, when an insecure, distrustful, control freak breaks into your account.

 

[I like Serena]

Yes, when an insecure, distrustful, control freak breaks into your account.

Please.
Regardless of whether the father is an "insecure, distrustful, control freak", he did not publish it to the world.
I presume her "friends" did.

 

[Hurkyl]

Whether he takes away privileges or not is irrelevant to the actual parenting issue.

In previous posts, you had made several statements to the effect that threats and punishment being bad parenting. These are withdrawn, then?


Now, if you're just complaining that you think the father was taking action irrationally, then try and say just that; don't make it look like you're against the very notion of discipline, or that you think destroying the laptop is an inherently inappropriate punishment regardless of circumstance.

But...

his method of revoking privilege

You do seem to explicitly state that that the props are important. That, regardless of the circumstances involved, shooting the laptop is inherently inappropriate. If that is true, then you need to discuss that point on its own without getting it all confused up in the other aspects.


Anyways one thing I want to point out:

The father was visibly shaken and his feeling were hurt by his daughter's words. And his choice of words further demonstrates this.

demonstrates ... it's okay to destroy people's possessions in anger.

Taking action in anger is a very different thing than being angry/upset while taking action.

Going through with the punishment was clearly very difficult and upsetting for him. But that doesn't mean it was done in anger. In fact, the main feature of the punishment is described as being selected beforehand during "amicable discussion".

 

[I like Serena]

Yes, when an insecure, distrustful, control freak breaks into your account.

Btw, he does not strike me as an insecure, distrustful, control freak.
He strikes me as a concerned parent that, yes, did break into her account, but I think that's better than a parent that doesn't know or care that his kid is into bad things.

 

[Evo]

Please.
Regardless of whether the father is an "insecure, distrustful, control freak", he did not publish it to the world.
I presume her "friends" did.

No, he broke into her FB account through her laptop and obtaining her password without her knowledge.

yes, did break into her account, but I think that's better than a parent that doesn't know or care that his kid is into bad things.

What *bad things* did she do? All I read is that she confided her frustrations privately to her friends.

 

[I like Serena]

No, he broke into her FB account through her laptop and obtaining her password without her knowledge.

That's not what I said or responded to in the post you quoted.
I did respond to that in my other post.

Edit: Btw, we do not know that he hacked into her account to get the information.
To see what he did, it would probably suffice if he was a friend of a friend of her, which is quite likely.
I can imagine that after what he saw, he hacked into her account.

What *bad things* did she do? All I read is that she confided her frustrations privately to her friends.

I didn't say she did *bad things*. I said he was a concerned parent that did monitor his kid as he should (on a medium that is semi-public).

 

[Oltz]

Even when they confide it in private to friends?

If you look back at post #56 I will assume most have not seen it as it was far back it contains a reply from teh father to a news outlet originally posted by Char.limit

I put the reprisal in exactly the same medium she did, in the exact same manner. Her post went out to about 452 people. Mine went out to about 550 people… originally.

He included the parents of many of the "friends" involved.

Evo how many people can you say somethign to and still consider it to be confide(ing) it in private to friends?

I do not think that number is over 20 let alone 400.

For the count I support the dads choice but would prefer he threw it out the window, but once he committed in the previous grounding to putting a bullet in it he needed to follow thru.

 

[Evo]

If you look back at post #56 I will assume most have not seen it as it was far back it contains a reply from teh father to a news outlet originally posted by Char.limit

He included the parents of many of the "friends" involved.

Evo how many people can you say somethign to and still consider it to be confide(ing) it in private to friends?

I do not think that number is over 20 let alone 400.

For the count I support the dads choice but would prefer he threw it out the window, but once he committed in the previous grounding to putting a bullet in it he needed to follow thru.

She didn't post it on youtube. I think the father is insecure, and vindictive. Great example for a child, IMO. I'm so glad that I had emotionally stable parents.

 

[Oltz]

Its not about posting it on you tube he used you tube to host the video and post it to FB her "private friends list" included more then 400 people.

I agree that it was not the best plan on his part but she as you have said repeatedly was not just venting to close friends in private.

Does that change your rather harsh stance on him at all?

Or are you sticking with the "she was posting in private to her friends" he had no right to even see it let alone punish her for it?

For all we know one of the parents of another child saw it on a news "feed" and called him about it before he "broke into" her FB account.

 

[Pythagorean]

@ Hurkyl

It's fairly standard child psychology that states that punishing bad behavior is ineffective compared to rewarding good behavior. Punishment is a short term resolution that is more convenient for parents; sometimes it's all a parent can do for their own sanity. I don't retract those statements, but they aren't the main issue; the one you specifically asked about: emotional inhibition.

You're still putting words in my mouth. The props still don't matter. It's the method (which can be reproduced with any number of props).

Are you honestly having trouble with this or are you attempting Socratic sagaciousness?

 

[I like Serena]

She didn't post it on youtube. I think the father is insecure, and vindictive. Great example for a child, IMO. I'm so glad that I had emotionally stable parents.

I just... disagree.

It's fairly standard child psychology that states that punishing bad behavior is ineffective compared to rewarding good behavior.

When a parent is totally fed up with the behavior of his child, I think it is good that he does not keep that to himself, but that he shows that.
That's not about punishing or rewarding, which is more of a policy.
It's about venting what you really think and feel.
IMO that's one of the best messages anyone can send - straight from the heart.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes, discussion is good. Badass tough guy demonstration not so much.

 

[Pythagorean]

I should specify though, depending on how you mean "venting". The wiki on "catharsis" has some citations to why venting might be bad (basically it reinforces negative feelings by rewarding them, so it increases the chance you'll have negative reactions inte future)

 

[Pythagorean]

iPhone typing is high stress situation. I am trying not to shoot autocorrect...

 

[Integral]

...
You do seem to explicitly state that that the props are important. That, regardless of the circumstances involved, shooting the laptop is inherently inappropriate. If that is true, then you need to discuss that point on its own without getting it all confused up in the other aspects....

This is what the thread should be addressing, not whether discipline was in order, but if one should use a gun for disciplining misbehavior.

In my eyes the use of a gun in this fashion is a very thinly veiled threat. He used his weapon on an inanimate object for this "crime". For what "crime" will he use it on an animate object. If you make him mad enough will he shoot the offender?

As I said before if you have to discipline a teenager you are 10yrs to late. Proper parenting teaches discipline and respect by being disciplined and respectful. You cannot beat respect or discipline into a child's head or behind, if you treat them with respect they will respect you in return. If you behave in a disciplined manner your kids will learn discipline.

While there may be a few humans who cannot and will not learn such basic lessons I think that they are very few and far in between. Virtually every teenager I have worked with responds to respect with respect.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't retract those statements, but they aren't the main issue;

I didn't ask for a retraction, just if you were withdrawing them from the conversation.

You're still putting words in my mouth. The props still don't matter. It's the method (which can be reproduced with any number of props).

The method he used was "shoot the laptop on video."

One, of course, might mean to emphasize / deemphasize different aspects of the issue, or consider it in more or less generality. It's hard to know, especially since I feel like you've been almost deliberately vague and resisting attempts to clarify.

Are you honestly having trouble with this or are you attempting Socratic sagaciousness?

I honestly don't know. If I don't want to just ignore you, I'm forced to put words in your mouth. I prefer to let you know what words I think fit best, and give you a chance to replace them with words of your own.


(aside: to one of the more likely alternatives, I'm going to reply something about "snapping a credit card". If that doesn't actually make sense, then ignore it)