chunkyman wrote...
Obviously it's questionable. Anyone's parenting methods are questionable. There isn't a definitive way to raise kids that is going to be perfect. I'm not backpedalling in the slightest. If you really think you've identified the perfect way to raise children, you're wrong.
False. I have not once identified a "perfect" way of parenting. I have, however, identified a very poor and abusive way of parenting.
And sorry, but going from agreeing with his methods to calling them "questionable" is backpedaling, plain and simple. You should've chosen your words more carefully if you wished to convey otherwise.
chunkyman wrote...
Here's a logical argument for you: Children need stern discipline.
I agree. Nor did I ever at any point imply that I believed otherwise. I've only outlined that what Mr. Jordan did goes far beyond what can be considered "stern" discipline.
chunkyman wrote...
As he stated in the video, he initially grounded her when she posted rants on Facebook the first time. This wasmild discipline to show his daughter that she shouldn't do that. This is a logical way to discourage her bad behavior. Clearly the initial disciplinary action did not work, so he went to a harsher form of punishment than grounding.
If using a firearm in a disciplinary action against your child and humiliating them in front of millions of people worldwide is what you call "mild", then I shudder to think what type of punishment you consider to be "moderate" or "severe."
chunkyman wrote...
Humiliation is an effective way to stop bad behavior because humans are social animals and dislike appearing bad to tothers. It is just like when a parent takes their shoplifting kid back to the store and make them apologize for their theft or spanking a child in front of everyone. These are forms of humiliation that serve to stop the bad behavior. Likewise, humiliating his daughter on youtube serves the same function as spanking in public or making a kid apoligize to the store. I do not consider humiliating a child that does something bad to be abuse or bad parenting, because humiliation is a temporary feeling that does no harm but teaches a lesson effectively.
No, it doesn't serve the same function. The difference between spanking your child in a public place (which may have a few dozen people in visible range at most) for misbehaving compared to humiliating them in front of millions of people across the globe is extreme. If you can't understand this most simple of distinctions, then you and I are both wasting our time debating.
Furthermore, witnesses of a public spanking likely pay little mind to it and soon forget. But posting a video on the Internet will circulate and be watched by people for years to come. That is a clear, important distinction between the two things that you're also apparently not very keen on acknowledging.
chunkyman wrote...
Another way to teach a lesson to disobediant children is by removing things they enjoy from their lives. If a child gets bad grades, take his gameboy away. If a child posts insulting comments on Facebook, take her laptop away.
Something he could have accomplished by simply taking the laptop away. A simple solution to a simple problem. Instead, he filled it full of bullet holes and publicly humiliated her on a global scale. It goes beyond being "a little harsh" or even "questionable", whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
chunkyman wrote...
This father used a combination of humiliation and taking away her laptop. Now she will think twice before acting rashly and posting disrespectful comments about her parents and family friends. This serves to make her a better person in the long run. Of course she will be pissed off and embarrassed now, but she'll get over it. I do not consider this a bad parenting method.
No, you just consider it a "questionable" one. And your conjecture that she will become a "better person in the long run" and will "get over it" presumes much, but proves little.
People have actually
committed suicide over being the subject of a humiliating Internet meme like this (something that usually ends up being exploited in and of itself should it hit the press).
That is a fact. You ought to think about that before branding this as an "acceptable" punishment.
chunkyman wrote...
The only criticism I have is that he should have sold the laptop instead of shot it. He also should have explained that he did all of this because he loves her and wants her to grow up to be a decent human being. I highly doubt he did this for the lulz or to be a petty jerk.
If he loves her, he just did a very poor job of demonstrating it. Subjecting your daughter to global humiliation comes off as cruel and sadistic, not as "love."
Actions speak louder than words. You can tell your kids you love them all day, but if you fail to show it (or show them you feel otherwise), then you have failed spectacularly as a parent.
chunkyman wrote...
As for the gun safety issue, a bullet hitting a laptop has borderline no chance of ricocheting and injuring someone. The puncturing power of the bullet is massively greater than the stregth of the laptop. And he was pointing the gun at the ground when his finger was on the trigger.
No, you said he wasn't violating the basic tenets of gun safety. I proved you wrong. Making a conjecture on whether or not his shooting the laptop at point-blank range would have actually resulted in injury or not doesn't change that fact.
And yes, he did indeed have his finger on the trigger prior to aiming the gun at the laptop. Look closer.
Modifié par Angus Cousland, 12 février 2012 - 10:00 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
