Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.

And the story continues....I'm lovin' this Dad.... His facebook link is embedded on the link below...

The former Marine wrote on his Facebook page that Child Protective Services officials came to his home in Stanly Co. on Saturday and interviewed him and his daughter — separately — after viewers of the video called with concerns about his actions.

He said the police also stopped by.

“The police by the way said ‘Kudos, sir,’ ” Jordan wrote. "I actually had a "thank you" from an entire detectives squad. And another police officer is using it in a positive manner in his presentation for the school system. How’s about those apples? Didn’t expect THAT when you called the cops did you?”

www.wsoctv.com...

Des

reply to post by Destinyone



I love it. What a riot.

Interesting that he said his daughter is also OK with it all. I wonder what that means exactly.

I love the police responses.

I guess it was no huge surprise that a ton of busybodies had called CPS.

Sheesh.

Talk about clueless.

reply to post by daskakik

. . . but this wasn't about discipline, it was about one-upping his daughter.

Yes and no.

1. They were in a p*ssing contest--probably for years.

2. The daughter had upped the ante a TON telling the world on FB that 'her's' was longer than his.

3. The daughter was exhibiting arrogance, cheekiness, selfishness, rebellion bigtime.

4. FOR THE DAUGHTER'S SAKE HE HAD TO WIN THAT BATTLE. And, he had to keep his word about what he'd do with the laptop . . . for HER sake.

5. I think over all, he's confident enough of his own manhood and skills.

6. He'd put up with a huge amount of horse biscuits from her and kept on being giving, kind, thoughtful, loving.

7. He had limits. Probably they came too late. Tougher limits administered differently way earlier would have been better.

8. Nevertheless, as has since come out . . . evidently all in that household are OK with how it all came down. Unless and until the daughter stupidly disagrees . . . I'm going to take that as the way it is.

reply to post by BO XIAN


Whole lot of assumption on your part. There are certain things that make me doubt. In his words:

would have worn my Silverbelly Stetson, not my Tilley hat if I'd known that image was going to follow me the rest of my life and I'd probably have cleaned my boots."

That's a whole lot of ego showing.

Also

He has said that the video has since been monetized to pay for attorney’s fees, as many people have tried to impersonate, duplicate, and otherwise copy his video.

Lawyer's fees? If it had been all about the girl's best interest why would he care if people use his vid? I'm not buying it.

reply to post by daskakik



Yeah, there's an ego problem on all sides. I noted that early on.

As to 100% in the girl's behalf . . . how many of your actions and choices are 100% selfless?

I think he's above average in doing with what he was dealt as his thrownness in life.

I don't know many people in this economy who'd be turning down (needlessly) any additional income.

.
.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by daskakik

 

Yeah, there's an ego problem on all sides. I noted that early on.

As to 100% in the girl's behalf . . . how many of your actions and choices are 100% selfless?

I think he's above average in doing with what he was dealt as his thrownness in life.

The selflessness of my actions don't add or take away the selfishness of this guys action. Had he not been thinking about himself he would have taken the girls action for what it was, venting. The funny thing is that when she did it it was wrong but he turns around and does the same and it's great parenting.

Should he turn down money? At first he said that he would turn down any offer from the media because it would give his daughter the message that it was OK to make money from it when that wasn't the purpose behind it, then he does a 180º. Man of principle? Sorry, still not buying it.

In the long written response, he says he refuses to talk to the media as he believes benefiting from the ordeal would send the wrong message to his teen daughter.

reply to post by daskakik



You make some good points.

However, your selfishness is well to consider when you're the one labeling someone else selfish.

Particularly when you're accusing him of being hypocritical.

I've said plenty above about how he could have done things better.

I don't consider him an ideal parent.

I don't consider him to be as bad as you seem to.

I suspect the intensity of all this will have bonded he and daughter together much better than it was before.

That should result in good things regardless of both their serious flaws.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
However, your selfishness is well to consider when you're the one labeling someone else selfish.

Particularly when you're accusing him of being hypocritical.

Not really. The phrase "takes one to know one" comes to mind. Maybe I'm the most self-centered person and that is why I can spot my own a mile away.

I've said plenty above about how he could have done things better.

I don't consider him an ideal parent.

I don't consider him to be as bad as you seem to.

I didn't really say he was bad. I said that what he did was just as bad as what his daughter had done. I don't see why venting by a 15 year old girl is seen as bad behavior but if a grown man does it it becomes something worthy of admiration. Not talking about anyone in particular, but rather the cheering squad that this guy found siding with him.

reply to post by daskakik



It's NOT per se

the VENTING in and of itself that was

sooooooooooooooooooo inherently bad.

It was that HE as her authority

told her not to do it again ON FACE BOOK.

She rebelled very disobediently to her proper authority.

He HAD to respond as he said he would--for the daughter's sake.

He had no authority over him telling him not to vent on face book nor on YouTube.

You seem to be equating things that aren't exactly equal.

reply to post by BO XIAN

You seem to be equating things that aren't exactly equal.

I believe that to be the core of the problems we see around us.

A child is not just a little adult. The differences go much deeper. A child needs guidance and discipline in order to become a well-adjusted adult. That guidance by definition involves forceful actions at times.

I tend to chuckle a little when someone posts about how a good talk will solve the problem, or maybe a kinder, gentler approach is needed. That philosophy makes an assumption that the child has the same reasoning and personal skills as an adult, an assumption that is completely, wildly separated from reality. A child is not born with an inherent sense of right and wrong, nor a sense of "fair play"; a few minutes watching the antics at a playground will tell you that. Children will forcibly take toys, lash out at other children, cry to get their way, and ignore instructions from those watching over them more often than not.

The ideas of fairness, equality, decency, and civility are things that we instill in these children in order to maintain the societal structure around us. I remember one time I was confronted by this fact:

My son was around ten, and he had just gotten an X-Box with a few games. He loved playing it, but I started catching him getting angry with it, almost to the point of tears or throwing the controllers, and screaming "It cheated!" I tries to explain to him that the game couldn't cheat; it was a machine. He wouldn't hear any of that. So finally, after a couple months of putting up with this, i sat him down after one outburst and asked point-blank: "How did the game cheat?"

"It beat me!" was his reply.

That was the problem; he didn't know what cheating was. He thought he was supposed to win every game, and if he didn't, then the machine was obviously "cheating". My role as parent was to explain the error of his thinking, to tell him that cheating did not mean beating him, but it rather meant not following the rules. He had no idea that was what cheating meant. The result was that he had a lot more fun with the challenge of the game after that, and a whole new outlook on fairness.

There were other times when he would start to behave violently, especially toward his sister and mother. My job at that point was to make sure he reversed his attitude, and that was accomplished in accordance with my adage that the attitude bone is directly connected to the butt bone. Punishment was always done in proportion to the offense and with an eye toward discipline and not in anger. It also worked; many times he would disobey his mother and all it took from me was a stern look and he was suddenly happy to obey.

Each child is different; each case is different; each incident is different. Parents handle them as they see fit, hopefully in a way they have learned will work with their child. My point at showing this video is to show that it is both proper and necessary to discipline children, and it saddens me that so many still believe it is not.

Would I have acted as this father did? Probably not. I doubt it would have gotten this far, since I would have taken her computer permanently far earlier and possibly even forbidden her to associate with those particular 'friends'. I know I could not have completely enforced that, but I could have made it very difficult to do so.

But that's not the point. The point is, the father took action. The father did something that he believed would help prevent his daughter from continuing on the road she was on.

To try and find an analogy that readers can understand, imagine for a moment that you have a car with a specific quirk. Say every once in a while the fuel pump stops working and the car dies, but all you need to do to get it running is tap on the side of the fuel tank. Now, one day you coast to the side of the road and start tapping on the fuel tank. Someone stops and starts screaming at you that the fuel tank could rupture and cause an explosion. Someone else scolds you for using a screwdriver handle and demands you act responsibly and use a rubber mallet. Yet another is complaining that you should have a new fuel pump installed.

So you give in... you have a new fuel pump installed, but it turns out that isn't the problem and it still dies on the road. You start using a rubber mallet instead of a screwdriver handle, but it doesn't work as well and takes longer to fix. You also start tapping on the body around the fuel tank, which makes it even harder to fix.

The problem was a bad connection at the fuel tank just above where you were tapping. Left alone, you would have probably noticed it and fixed it yourself, but instead, because so many other people felt they knew your car better than you did, you finally drive the car to the crusher; it has become useless.

(continued)

reply to post by BO XIAN

(continued)

We have something similar happening in this country: a lot of people have decided they know exactly how to parent every child, as though each child were some sort of assembly-line manufactured toy, and they are going to make darn sure that every child is treated the way they "should" be treated, if it kills every child out there! No consideration of their solutions is needed; any aberration is simply ignored and any undesirable result is attributed to something else.

That's not the way to make change.

So regardless of whether someone thinks this dad was showing ego, stooping to her level, throwing a fit, acting violently, airing laundry, destroying self-esteem, or just being a jerk... he was doing something to try and control his daughter. That in itself is over and above what a lot of parents do when confronted with a disobedient teen.

Heck, some are calling 911 to get kids to do their homework!

TheRedneck

Originally posted by BO XIAN
You seem to be equating things that aren't exactly equal.

You seem to be looking for differences to justify the guys actions. I'm looking at the actions for what they are. Being the "authority" doesn't justify a tantrum. I'm saying that this is all this was and not some great feat of parenting.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by BO XIAN

(continued)

We have something similar happening in this country: a lot of people have decided they know exactly how to parent every child, as though each child were some sort of assembly-line manufactured toy, and they are going to make darn sure that every child is treated the way they "should" be treated, if it kills every child out there! No consideration of their solutions is needed; any aberration is simply ignored and any undesirable result is attributed to something else.

That's not the way to make change.

So regardless of whether someone thinks this dad was showing ego, stooping to her level, throwing a fit, acting violently, airing laundry, destroying self-esteem, or just being a jerk... he was doing something to try and control his daughter. That in itself is over and above what a lot of parents do when confronted with a disobedient teen.

Heck, some are calling 911 to get kids to do their homework!

TheRedneck

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

I think Charlotte Iserbyt's narrative about the elite's use of "education" to destroy the Republic; the family etc. in behalf of the global government is quite accurate.

Parents are seen as evil enemies of the state in their construction on 'reality.'

Sigh.

May God have mercy.

The dad shows plenty of caring and love in behalf of his daughter. Otherwise he'd not have bothered so much trying to fix her computer; bought her the toys etc.

Could he have been a better dad. Absolutely.

Is he an above average Dad? In my book, he is.

Of course, the average is pretty low.

Sigh.

Originally posted by daskakik
You seem to be looking for differences to justify the guys actions. I'm looking at the actions for what they are. Being the "authority" doesn't justify a tantrum. I'm saying that this is all this was and not some great feat of parenting.

I don't see that he needs to justify his actions near as much as a lot of the naysayers hereon.

He demonstrated some integrity about keeping his word and setting a firm boundary to a rebellious, increasingly out of control teen.

He certainly could have done better earlier in the daughter's life. At this point, he's playing catchup. And he's still above average.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
I don't see that he needs to justify his actions near as much as a lot of the naysayers hereon.

You are justifing his actions, not him.

He demonstrated some integrity about keeping his word and setting a firm boundary to a rebellious, increasingly out of control teen.

But not about making money from the vid. And was/is the kid really that bad? All she did was vent on FB. Kids have been filling diaries with similar thoughts for ages. When they get a little older life usually makes them realiize that the world doesn't revolve around them.

He certainly could have done better earlier in the daughter's life. At this point, he's playing catchup. And he's still above average.

No he's not. The millions of people that raise respectful children without having to resort to these type of tactics are average. How would this guy be above them?

reply to post by daskakik

But not about making money from the vid.

How exactly does his making a buck change what he did or why he did it? Is it now immoral to make money? And would most others do any different?

Do you work for money? Do you try to make as much as you can? Have you ever accepted a raise?

Have you ever sold anything? Did you price it for as much as you thought you could get?

This is just another excuse to say the guy is "bad", based on the idea that all parents are "bad". The kids are the "good" people, right? Let those poor defenseless kids do what they want! Let them stay out as late as they want, let them hang out with troublemakers. Let them eat what they want, and then we can blame their parents when they come up pregnant, in jail, or obese.

And we'll blame them all "for the sake of the children".

The millions of people that raise respectful children without having to resort to these type of tactics are average.

So you believe most parents do not discipline their children? Or maybe that most parents don't take things from their children when they get abused? Got news for you: most parents that raise successful happy children do do all those things. Maybe they don't post it on FaceBook or YouTube, but considering the asinine things I see already posted on there by obviously troubled teens (and young adults), maybe they need to.

I said it earlier and I will say it again: she posted her little rant on FaceBook, not in a diary. She lied to the world openly and publicly about her situation. She took the kindness of her father and turned it into a weapon against him. She was out of control.

He responded with an explanation in the same venue to set straight her lies, and followed through with his earlier promise in that venue. If you don't want a parent responding to lies on FaceBook, how about we stop kids from lying on FaceBook to start with?

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
How exactly does his making a buck change what he did or why he did it? Is it now immoral to make money? And would most others do any different?

He said that he wouldn't because it would send the wrong message to his daughter. He later went back on this. That is the opposite of being a man of his word.

This is just another excuse to say the guy is "bad", based on the idea that all parents are "bad". The kids are the "good" people, right?

I have never said that. I said that there is nothing special about his form of parenting.

So you believe most parents do not discipline their children? Or maybe that most parents don't take things from their children when they get abused? Got news for you: most parents that raise successful happy children do do all those things. Maybe they don't post it on FaceBook or YouTube, but considering the asinine things I see already posted on there by obviously troubled teens (and young adults), maybe they need to.

I never said discipline is a bad thing. Parents do whatever they have to do but they don't go attention seeking like this guy did. If parents do similar things then he is an average parent. Nothing special, which is all I am saying.

I said it earlier and I will say it again: she posted her little rant on FaceBook, not in a diary. She lied to the world openly and publicly about her situation. She took the kindness of her father and turned it into a weapon against him. She was out of control.

Quit making the dad to be the victim. Neither of them was. They were both ranting in public. You think he had the right and she didn't. I disagree.

He responded with an explanation in the same venue to set straight her lies, and followed through with his earlier promise in that venue. If you don't want a parent responding to lies on FaceBook, how about we stop kids from lying on FaceBook to start with?

How about acting like an adult and recognizing that kids will vent and that it isn't that big of a deal. They have always done it but it wasn't stored in some server where the parent could run across it. The world always managed to chug along.

reply to post by daskakik

He said that he wouldn't because it would send the wrong message to his daughter. He later went back on this. That is the opposite of being a man of his word.

Yes, he did. However, he did not make the video for money originally (as in via contract or anticipation of income), and the allegations of taking money have been used not to judge him, but to justify judgments already entered. It's therefore an excuse to disapprove of his actions, not a reason to disapprove of his actions.

Everyone makes money. Everyone has to in order to provide for themselves and their family. I personally find this particular excuse to be the most hypocritical imaginable and therefore the most baseless and inane excuse imaginable.

They were both ranting in public. You think he had the right and she didn't. I disagree.

Consider this: if someone went on YouTube and started posting videos talking about how you had done things you never had done, or how you said things you never had said, heinous things that offended you deeply, is that their 'right'? And do you think you would have no right to challenge them?

That's what happened: she posted false allegations via Internet social networking. He refuted those allegations and followed through with his earlier promise. And you say she's right and he's wrong?

How about acting like an adult and recognizing that kids will vent and that it isn't that big of a deal. They have always done it but it wasn't stored in some server where the parent could run across it.

Keeping one's promise and exposing lies is "acting like an adult".

Here's the problem in a nutshell: he didn't choose where all this would happen; she did. He was not the one who chose to start spreading innuendo and outright lies on a public social medium; she was. He responded in the same venue and set the record straight.

This situation has been going on since there were children, but before the invention of Internet social media, it was typically to a few close friends or in a diary or journal. Thus, it would be handled by confrontation in front of those few friends or privately in the home. But it has to be handled wherever it exists! I would be in complete agreement with you had the girl wrote this in her diary and the father posted it online. It would make no sense to try and correct a public allegation privately. The accuser always, always, always chooses the venue! And the accuser in this case is: the daughter.

With greater authority (ability to post in a public Internet forum) comes greater responsibility.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yes, he did. However, he did not make the video for money originally (as in via contract or anticipation of income), and the allegations of taking money have been used not to judge him, but to justify judgments already entered. It's therefore an excuse to disapprove of his actions, not a reason to disapprove of his actions.

Actually you don't know what his original intentions were. If he said that making money from it would be wrong, then he decided to do just that, then by his own words, he is doing wrong. I don't need an excuse to disappove of his actions when he disapproves of them himself.

Consider this: if someone went on YouTube and started posting videos talking about how you had done things you never had done, or how you said things you never had said, heinous things that offended you deeply, is that their 'right'? And do you think you would have no right to challenge them?

If that someone was my daughter I would do it face to face, not on the net.

That's what happened: she posted false allegations via Internet social networking. He refuted those allegations and followed through with his earlier promise. And you say she's right and he's wrong?

I say they are both wrong, but I will be more understanding of a teen that acts childish than an adult that does the same.

Keeping one's promise and exposing lies is "acting like an adult".

Not when done in a childish way.

Here's the problem in a nutshell: he didn't choose where all this would happen; she did. He was not the one who chose to start spreading innuendo and outright lies on a public social medium; she was. He responded in the same venue and set the record straight.

Your just making excuses on his behalf. Nobody put a gun to his head and forced him to tape his vid and upload it. He could have chosen another way.

This situation has been going on since there were children, but before the invention of Internet social media, it was typically to a few close friends or in a diary or journal. Thus, it would be handled by confrontation in front of those few friends or privately in the home.

Or not handled at all because the parents never found out and the kids ended up growing up just fine. That is why I keep saying that this wasn't a big deal.

The accuser always, always, always chooses the venue! And the accuser in this case is: the daughter.

Wrong, had he approached her and told her I printed this off of your FB and then taken the laptop and shot it full of holes, he would have still handled things in the same way, with the same effect.

Originally posted by daskakik

Actually you don't know what his original intentions were. If he said that making money from it would be wrong, then he decided to do just that, then by his own words, he is doing wrong. I don't need an excuse to disappove of his actions when he disapproves of them himself.

I don't agree.

People do things all the time for the right reason - - without thought to a pay back.

I used to be very self-righteous with integrity. Then one day I woke up and understood I can still be personally self-righteous with integrity - - - and not be stupid in turning down an opportunity.

If you do something - - people find it interesting and want to pay you - - take the Damn money!