My Response:
I find that absolutely absurd. I can understand and sympathize with wanting to discipline one's child for posting inappropriate comments, but come the fuck on. This helmet-wearing hick needs to get it through his thick skull that a negative response only perpetuates the initial event by giving reason for a negative reaction. I am thoroughly pissed at what this man did because his "parenting" skills are asinine. This child made an emotional response by expressing her rage and frustration - albeit unreasonable - and the parents should have enough common sense to respond appropriately and with maturity, not in the childish way they did.

Punishment is a counterproductive form of discipline that has been shown to be ineffective. That being said, the least this idiot could have done would be to discipline his daughter through a more productive manner, such as making her write an apology on her Facebook and explaining to her just how misguided she is perceiving her current state of being. If she is unwilling to listen, then so be it - tell her she can leave if she's unwilling to respect the boundaries and rules of the household. To destroy her computer for posting her opinion - something she has every right to do, regardless of how smart of a decision it may be - however is more absurd and inappropriate than her actions.

I'm definitely NOT defending, nor siding with the child in this case, however this "parent's" form of discipline is ignorant and outdated. I respect him for keeping his cool (from what I see in the video), but I wouldn't be surprised if what his daughter had said had some factual basis. If he is so disapproving of his daughter's actions, then he should have raised her better. Rebelliousness and a desire to go against authority is a natural response adolescent children and young adults (not to mention some full-grown adults, as well) have because their emotions are volatile due to the hormonal and chemical changes occurring in their body. These parents' failure to realize that and address it properly is more appalling to me than the little brat's rant. On that note, I think the father should have acted like a mature, adult man and dealt with the situation in a more understanding manner, as compared to the sheer stupidity and emotional reaction he had displayed. Just like therapists have told me in the past: Act instead of react; if you react, the other person won.

In this case, the father reacted. Therefore, the father failed in his duty and allowed for his daughter to win.

His Reply To My Response:
"+David Greene I'm sorry, but your post is so stupid, so condescending, its not staying on my thread. If you don't like it, block me, but its gone." - J.C. Kendall

To each their own, I guess.
Rob Gordon's profile photoDavid Greene (Nøkkenbuer)'s profile photo
Taking away the right to have something is not a very productive way of discipline, +Ben Timmins. Punishment (Negative) is rarely effective because it's basically responding to a negative (re)action with a negative (re)action - a logical fallacy that can lead to a vicious cycle; I know this from personal first-hand experience. The concept of "an eye for an eye" is outdated and very uncivilized because such vindictive retaliation rarely yields a positive result. In the words of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

I can assure you that the rejection of punishment, specifically negative punishment as a legitimate form of discipline is far from being "liberal feel good nonsense." The idea has been around for hundreds - if not thousands - of years and has been practiced, exercised, and endorsed by countless influential people throughout the years. There is even scientific and psychological evidence to support these claims. Feel free to check out the following articles:

Effectiveness of [Legal] Punishment -
Rewards are Better than Punishment: Here's Why -
Psychology 101: Reinforcement -
What Is Punishment? -
Discipline and Punishment: What is the Difference? -
Effective Alternatives To Physical Punishment -
+Ben Timmins, the fallacy with that response is that the links I provided are from legitimate, valid, scientifically supported and verified organizations. There was even one link from a *.edu website. I recommend you please check the links before you discriminate them.
Feel free to provide an appropriate rebuttal with your own completely accurate and legitimate links to articles written by psychological and medical professionals at any time, +Ben Timmins. Until such an event occurs, I don't see how your logic has any reasonable grounds in reality, aside from the fact that negative punishment and reinforcement are traditional and commonly practiced forms of discipline in some cultures (especially in the United States among the Conservative and Republican affiliations).
It's unfortunate, I agree, +L. Gray. Hopefully one day, such absurdities can diminish. In regards to your reference to Scandinavia, however, could you explain that to me? What's happening over there?
You seem to have a very prejudicial perception of sociopolitical Liberalism, for you're seemingly referring to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), a bill proposed to Congress by the George W. Bush administration - a very prominent figure in the Conservative and Republican communities - immediately after he took office and passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. If my inferences are correct, then you are confusing the actions of the GOP with that of Liberalism - a concept, mind you, that has very little to do with politics whatsoever in the first place.

In addition to that, I have not heard of a single case heard of only a few cases in which professional educators - with the support of the school district - gave a failing student a 95%+ grading average for any reason. Regardless, those rare cases were corrected and fixed shortly after, supported by Liberals and Conservatives alike. If you know of such a case, feel free to point it out to me. I agree that the education system in the United States is crumbling and corrupt, but much of that is due to Conservative and Republican acts, such as NCLB and the GOP's desire to take money out of government education funds and put it into military ventures, something we can't even afford. In fact, people who claim a Liberal stance almost always support better education and strongly oppose the horrible state of the current U.S. Department of Education.

Your claim that "teachers are overwhelmingly liberal" is biased, but not completely incorrect, +Ben Timmins. In fact, I have met many Conservative and Republican teachers in the past. It is estimated that there are twice as many teachers with a liberal viewpoint than there are conservative ones, but please note that this is mainly because education is a very liberal field of study, not to mention Liberals are the main proponents of providing more funding to the education system. On that note, it's only logical for there to be more liberals than conservatives in the teaching field.

Lastly, your generalization that Liberals as a whole oppose punishing kids is quite frankly false and grossly inaccurate. People's perception of how punishment and discipline should be exercised has almost no basis in their political stance. The only correlation is that more Conservatives tend to favor negative punishment and reinforcement, whereas Liberals usually support positive reinforcement and constructive punishment.

Just to clarify: I am a person with liberal views, however my liberalism is based upon the definition of what being liberal is, not what many Liberals have become in politics. I am not a Democrat, nor do I associate with any political party because I claim to be an Independent and do not wish to affiliate myself with a group of people that mainly consists of corrupt individuals. If you disagree with my views, I understand if you wish to discontinue this discussion. Do not, however, attack anybody or anything in a negative and aggressive manner - if you must, please do so respectfully and provide a good reason to support your action(s). Thanks.

EDIT: Minor issues and typographical errors fixed; context slightly changed, however said changes are noted in post.
Today I joined the LONG list of people blocked by the original poster.
+Ben Timmins, I did not state that you mentioned NCLB; I said that you seemed to be referring to it.

+Rob Gordon, what do you mean? I did not block you. If you blocked me, then so be it, I cannot stop you. I wish you wouldn't, though.

I will, +L. Gray.
Yeah, but it doesn't matter. Someone called him to a private post where there were other people he had blocked and he told me that if I associate with them he would resign from a group I started here - which is really just a loose association. I told him that no one had the power to tell me who I can, or cannot associate with, and that I sometimes even associate with people I don't like, and that should be none of his concern. I even asked for advice first on how to phrase it diplomatically but it apparently didn't work
Alas, some people are like that, +Rob Gordon. I tried explaining to J.C. (you're talking about him, right?) that I have nothing against guns and I actually love guns, I just disapproved of the man's unnecessary misuse of his gun in the video provided. I personally think he may have overreacted, but it still worries me that it might have been due to something I said. Oh well, life goes on I suppose.
Add a comment...