On February 11 2012 14:26 Spieltor wrote:
he is a psycho, look at the over dramatization of the entire event that he made public. Look at his attention seeking behavior by publicizing his "punishment". Drama queen or attention whore fits here, and these are lay person understandings for sociopathic tendencies.
I've tried every method I can use to go through a logical step to show you that you're wrong, and the law itself backs my argument. I failed, oh well, I'll move on understanding that I couldn't persuade you with reason.
Show nested quote +
On February 11 2012 14:19 Bippzy wrote:
its my bad, i just stated the daughter is the fathers property which is true to an extent, and then slavery discussion happened. its my bad. atleast now we dont have to listen to people saying they think the dad is a psycho, or id have to post more.
edit: its my bad for saying its my bad so much and i really just want to say its my bad for that, too. :D
On February 11 2012 14:17 Vilonis wrote:
As another example for this post...
Slavery is a great example of a shitty comparison to the OP, as well as demonstrating how a mis-comparison raises two new, useless, unrelated discussions.
As another example for this post...
Slavery is a great example of a shitty comparison to the OP, as well as demonstrating how a mis-comparison raises two new, useless, unrelated discussions.
its my bad, i just stated the daughter is the fathers property which is true to an extent, and then slavery discussion happened. its my bad. atleast now we dont have to listen to people saying they think the dad is a psycho, or id have to post more.
edit: its my bad for saying its my bad so much and i really just want to say its my bad for that, too. :D
he is a psycho, look at the over dramatization of the entire event that he made public. Look at his attention seeking behavior by publicizing his "punishment". Drama queen or attention whore fits here, and these are lay person understandings for sociopathic tendencies.
Show nested quote +
On February 11 2012 14:25 Candadar wrote:
It's like you're intentionally looking at this from a skewed perspective.
Yes, the children are people. Yes, they are protected because they are people. However, they are also basically their parents property legally, but there are many laws that protect them from being abused in any shape or form. Nonetheless, they are still their parents until they turn 18 and, furthermore, anything they own is their parents as well.
On February 11 2012 14:19 Spieltor wrote:
I didn't deny history anywhere. Slavery is illegal where this person lives. Therefore his child cannot be his "slave", therefore he does not own his child as property. You brought up child slavery to muddy the waters of this debate for no reason except to annoy people.
But ask me one more time if I'll deny it and sure I'll start denying child slavery has existed in history.
the law doesnt protect them because they are property. the law protects them because they are PEOPLE, and PEOPLE cannot be owned, under law. Just because they don't have full adult rights, and just because their parents have authority does not mean their parents own their children and their children's possessions.
On February 11 2012 14:14 amazingxkcd wrote:
there has been child slaves within the last 2000 years. You are still going to deny that?
On February 11 2012 14:13 Spieltor wrote:
that is not true. they have authority over them, but do not own them. also, they cannot take something that is the property of the children. There was this little thing called children's rights, which became a big deal in the early 1900's due to factory conditions. I suggest you reasearch this.
that doesn't make her property. The fact that slaves existed in history has nothing to do with children or ownership of children.
rights not granted as a full adult doesn't mean NO RIGHTS. How does slavery have anything to do at all with children? Thats like saying 1+1= banana.
On February 11 2012 14:05 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
Spieltor, provide proof everything she said was true. She has a reason to lie as well, you know.
Also, at least in this country, parents do own their children legally. It's not like furniture or anything, so he doesn't have the right to abuse her and he can have his "ownership" (that word just doesn't fit the context here) revoked if he is bad at it. Legally, children are owned by parents. Legally, children have very little rights. Socially, it isn't viewed as such and never abused in a horrible manner due to the checks in place, but legally, parents own children and all their property.
On February 11 2012 13:57 Spieltor wrote:
anach, provide proof that everything she said was untrue, and that everything he said was accurate representation of the facts. this just in: People lie. politicians do it, especially if maligned, (read the india thread where a politician tries to lie about what he was watchign on his phone to look better). he has all the reason in the world to call his daughter a liar when she levels such accusations at him publicly, shaming him.
My point is, we have no proof either party is telling the truth. People lie for social gains, or to prevent social loss. He has reason to lie, and she doesn't.
yep, Im glad it'll end here then, because you're explicitly stating people have OWNERship over children as if theyre furniture, which is patently untrue .
On February 11 2012 13:53 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
I love ironic punishment. It's the best method of punishment.
This girl went a little too far, lying about "how horrible her life was" and disrespecting her parents in front of, well, every fucking person she knows on facebook, which should be over a hundred or more if she had that account for any period of time. So he got rid of her laptop in a creative and hilarious fashion.
Keep in mind this is, for all intensive puposes, what would have happened in a "normal" household. The laptop would have been taken away and the child would have gotten a stern talking to. He just decided to get creative to drive the lesson home. He's also obviously had to deal with her a lot before now, as he said himself.
Completely justified, in my opinion.
I love ironic punishment. It's the best method of punishment.
This girl went a little too far, lying about "how horrible her life was" and disrespecting her parents in front of, well, every fucking person she knows on facebook, which should be over a hundred or more if she had that account for any period of time. So he got rid of her laptop in a creative and hilarious fashion.
Keep in mind this is, for all intensive puposes, what would have happened in a "normal" household. The laptop would have been taken away and the child would have gotten a stern talking to. He just decided to get creative to drive the lesson home. He's also obviously had to deal with her a lot before now, as he said himself.
Completely justified, in my opinion.
anach, provide proof that everything she said was untrue, and that everything he said was accurate representation of the facts. this just in: People lie. politicians do it, especially if maligned, (read the india thread where a politician tries to lie about what he was watchign on his phone to look better). he has all the reason in the world to call his daughter a liar when she levels such accusations at him publicly, shaming him.
My point is, we have no proof either party is telling the truth. People lie for social gains, or to prevent social loss. He has reason to lie, and she doesn't.
On February 11 2012 13:54 Candadar wrote:
...Because I say minors are not equal to their parents and should not be treated as such in our social strata?
The second someone deems it necessary to say the equivalent of "lol troll" in an intellectual argument is the second I stop caring about anything they have to say on the matter. =/
On February 11 2012 13:52 Chilling5pr33 wrote:
Man you really get scary to me.
I cant say how much i disagree here.
On February 11 2012 13:46 Candadar wrote:
[quote]
Legally, minors are "owned" by their parents.
Nothing "scary" about it.
[quote]
A gift is a gift no matter how old, however, there is a difference between giving something to your child, and giving something to your buddy or whatever. If you give something to your child, something you yourself paid for, you reserve the right to take it away from them. Hell, you can legally take gifts away from friends even you gave shit to if you really wanted to go through the hoops and lose your friends over it. Rambling on now, but you get my point. You're comparing a social idea between two separate entities. Parents and their children are not, and should not be treated as equals.
[quote]
Legally, minors are "owned" by their parents.
Nothing "scary" about it.
[quote]
A gift is a gift no matter how old, however, there is a difference between giving something to your child, and giving something to your buddy or whatever. If you give something to your child, something you yourself paid for, you reserve the right to take it away from them. Hell, you can legally take gifts away from friends even you gave shit to if you really wanted to go through the hoops and lose your friends over it. Rambling on now, but you get my point. You're comparing a social idea between two separate entities. Parents and their children are not, and should not be treated as equals.
Man you really get scary to me.
I cant say how much i disagree here.
...Because I say minors are not equal to their parents and should not be treated as such in our social strata?
On February 11 2012 13:47 Spieltor wrote:
I suppose Im being trolled.
I suppose Im being trolled.
The second someone deems it necessary to say the equivalent of "lol troll" in an intellectual argument is the second I stop caring about anything they have to say on the matter. =/
yep, Im glad it'll end here then, because you're explicitly stating people have OWNERship over children as if theyre furniture, which is patently untrue .
Spieltor, provide proof everything she said was true. She has a reason to lie as well, you know.
Also, at least in this country, parents do own their children legally. It's not like furniture or anything, so he doesn't have the right to abuse her and he can have his "ownership" (that word just doesn't fit the context here) revoked if he is bad at it. Legally, children are owned by parents. Legally, children have very little rights. Socially, it isn't viewed as such and never abused in a horrible manner due to the checks in place, but legally, parents own children and all their property.
that is not true. they have authority over them, but do not own them. also, they cannot take something that is the property of the children. There was this little thing called children's rights, which became a big deal in the early 1900's due to factory conditions. I suggest you reasearch this.
On February 11 2012 14:05 amazingxkcd wrote:
Ok, so you want to throw away the last 2000 years of human history on this planet? Slavery is owning people as property. And the girl is a minor, thus her rights have not been granted yet; still under care by parents. That is why we have to declare matriculation for a purpose.
On February 11 2012 13:42 Spieltor wrote:
what scared me is that the person you quoted saidd the daughter is "the dads property". Right, people are property...
people can never legally be property. Children have ownership rights just as much as adults. You can't steal from children.
I don't know where you live that it can be true that people are property. property implies you can destroy (kill) them if you want to throw them away. SInce this isnt true in any culture, they are not property. And you don't own anything your kid owns.
On February 11 2012 13:21 Candadar wrote:
I mostly don't like the father because of his "holier-than-thou" attitude the entire time. I agreed with everything he said and did. It's just the way he said it made me not like him.
On February 11 2012 13:14 Bippzy wrote:
I shall respond to your post in 2 part:
Part A) Cherrypicking most likely means he didn't disagree with anything you said except the douchebag part. Generally, people in the south are incredibly nice people in my experience. Basically you are stereotyping, instead of objectively judging. It was a worthy cherrypick. In fact, cherry picking would be more like you saying the following:
+ Show Spoiler +
and someone responding
+ Show Spoiler +
What they did is just responding.
Part B) You have been trolled~ Basically you are so close to being an intelligent minded poster and responder, and you are just held back by prejudice. You would sound much more intelligent if you kept your stereotype to yourself and only stated it if there was something in the video to evidence that.
edit:
Actually she is under 18 so she is essentially the dad's property and he can therefore control anything he gives her.
I guess you are of the opinion that mistakes made when you are a teenage will right themselves eventually somehow where as all the "orgasmers" are pleased to see a parent attempting to create a morally correct offspring.
Dad being a dick? For a good reason :D to make a point, to parent, to teach.
On February 11 2012 13:07 Candadar wrote:
[quote]
Don't think you quite know what "cherry pick" means.
[quote]
If that's your opinion of me, so be it. Fail to see how any of this is relevant to the issue at hand, nonetheless.
My experience with that culture has been only negative in my life, so that's my generalized opinion. We all categorize, we all generalize, we all have overarching opinions even if we don't want to admit it. Nonetheless, as that is all entirely irrelevant to the discussion, this guy did a great job teaching his spoiled brat a lesson.
[quote]
Don't think you quite know what "cherry pick" means.
[quote]
If that's your opinion of me, so be it. Fail to see how any of this is relevant to the issue at hand, nonetheless.
My experience with that culture has been only negative in my life, so that's my generalized opinion. We all categorize, we all generalize, we all have overarching opinions even if we don't want to admit it. Nonetheless, as that is all entirely irrelevant to the discussion, this guy did a great job teaching his spoiled brat a lesson.
I shall respond to your post in 2 part:
Part A) Cherrypicking most likely means he didn't disagree with anything you said except the douchebag part. Generally, people in the south are incredibly nice people in my experience. Basically you are stereotyping, instead of objectively judging. It was a worthy cherrypick. In fact, cherry picking would be more like you saying the following:
+ Show Spoiler +
I hate people who say "I hate obese people"
and someone responding
+ Show Spoiler +
You said "I hate people". You must be a sadistic asshole
What they did is just responding.
Part B) You have been trolled~ Basically you are so close to being an intelligent minded poster and responder, and you are just held back by prejudice. You would sound much more intelligent if you kept your stereotype to yourself and only stated it if there was something in the video to evidence that.
edit:
On February 11 2012 13:12 nttea wrote:
[quote]
I don't think this is true, if you give something away it's not your property anymore Don't really see why so many people seem to get a total orgasm out of this, she's being 15 and he's being a dick VERY IMPRESSIVE GO FAVORITE TEAM!!!11
[quote]
I don't think this is true, if you give something away it's not your property anymore Don't really see why so many people seem to get a total orgasm out of this, she's being 15 and he's being a dick VERY IMPRESSIVE GO FAVORITE TEAM!!!11
Actually she is under 18 so she is essentially the dad's property and he can therefore control anything he gives her.
I guess you are of the opinion that mistakes made when you are a teenage will right themselves eventually somehow where as all the "orgasmers" are pleased to see a parent attempting to create a morally correct offspring.
Dad being a dick? For a good reason :D to make a point, to parent, to teach.
I mostly don't like the father because of his "holier-than-thou" attitude the entire time. I agreed with everything he said and did. It's just the way he said it made me not like him.
what scared me is that the person you quoted saidd the daughter is "the dads property". Right, people are property...
people can never legally be property. Children have ownership rights just as much as adults. You can't steal from children.
I don't know where you live that it can be true that people are property. property implies you can destroy (kill) them if you want to throw them away. SInce this isnt true in any culture, they are not property. And you don't own anything your kid owns.
Ok, so you want to throw away the last 2000 years of human history on this planet? Slavery is owning people as property. And the girl is a minor, thus her rights have not been granted yet; still under care by parents. That is why we have to declare matriculation for a purpose.
that doesn't make her property. The fact that slaves existed in history has nothing to do with children or ownership of children.
rights not granted as a full adult doesn't mean NO RIGHTS. How does slavery have anything to do at all with children? Thats like saying 1+1= banana.
there has been child slaves within the last 2000 years. You are still going to deny that?
I didn't deny history anywhere. Slavery is illegal where this person lives. Therefore his child cannot be his "slave", therefore he does not own his child as property. You brought up child slavery to muddy the waters of this debate for no reason except to annoy people.
But ask me one more time if I'll deny it and sure I'll start denying child slavery has existed in history.
On February 11 2012 14:15 Bippzy wrote:
Hey, im that guy you talked about the property.
children are like property of parents, but because of this the law protects them.
for example
mandatory school
you must feed you children
child abuse is illegal.
you cannot kill them
however, for purposes like this, they can be considered your property. and if your property has a laptop you put their, you can shoot it with a gun.
also, it isnt stealing if the dad takes it. ofcourse you cant steal.
idealism<reality of the law. the school can punish students because the law says they act as parents during the school day. therefore, the school can do something like go on her facebook and take away her laptop too, albeit less extreme.
On February 11 2012 13:42 Spieltor wrote:
what scared me is that the person you quoted saidd the daughter is "the dads property". Right, people are property...
people can never legally be property. Children have ownership rights just as much as adults. You can't steal from children.
I don't know where you live that it can be true that people are property. property implies you can destroy (kill) them if you want to throw them away. SInce this isnt true in any culture, they are not property. And you don't own anything your kid owns.
On February 11 2012 13:21 Candadar wrote:
I mostly don't like the father because of his "holier-than-thou" attitude the entire time. I agreed with everything he said and did. It's just the way he said it made me not like him.
On February 11 2012 13:14 Bippzy wrote:
I shall respond to your post in 2 part:
Part A) Cherrypicking most likely means he didn't disagree with anything you said except the douchebag part. Generally, people in the south are incredibly nice people in my experience. Basically you are stereotyping, instead of objectively judging. It was a worthy cherrypick. In fact, cherry picking would be more like you saying the following:
+ Show Spoiler +
and someone responding
+ Show Spoiler +
What they did is just responding.
Part B) You have been trolled~ Basically you are so close to being an intelligent minded poster and responder, and you are just held back by prejudice. You would sound much more intelligent if you kept your stereotype to yourself and only stated it if there was something in the video to evidence that.
edit:
Actually she is under 18 so she is essentially the dad's property and he can therefore control anything he gives her.
I guess you are of the opinion that mistakes made when you are a teenage will right themselves eventually somehow where as all the "orgasmers" are pleased to see a parent attempting to create a morally correct offspring.
Dad being a dick? For a good reason :D to make a point, to parent, to teach.
On February 11 2012 13:07 Candadar wrote:
Don't think you quite know what "cherry pick" means.
If that's your opinion of me, so be it. Fail to see how any of this is relevant to the issue at hand, nonetheless.
My experience with that culture has been only negative in my life, so that's my generalized opinion. We all categorize, we all generalize, we all have overarching opinions even if we don't want to admit it. Nonetheless, as that is all entirely irrelevant to the discussion, this guy did a great job teaching his spoiled brat a lesson.
On February 11 2012 13:06 Torte de Lini wrote:
dont cherrypick, make a generalization about everyone in the South.
swing and a miss.
On February 11 2012 13:05 Candadar wrote:
[quote]
Generally everyone from the South is a pretentious douchebag in my opinion.
Anyways, take the time to read my post and I praise him for what he did.
Don't cherry pick.
[quote]
Generally everyone from the South is a pretentious douchebag in my opinion.
Anyways, take the time to read my post and I praise him for what he did.
Don't cherry pick.
dont cherrypick, make a generalization about everyone in the South.
swing and a miss.
Don't think you quite know what "cherry pick" means.
On February 11 2012 13:07 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Generally, people who say things like that are pretentious douchebags in my opinion.
On February 11 2012 13:05 Candadar wrote:
[quote]
Generally everyone from the South is a pretentious douchebag in my opinion.
Anyways, take the time to read my post and I praise him for what he did.
Don't cherry pick.
[quote]
Generally everyone from the South is a pretentious douchebag in my opinion.
Anyways, take the time to read my post and I praise him for what he did.
Don't cherry pick.
Generally, people who say things like that are pretentious douchebags in my opinion.
If that's your opinion of me, so be it. Fail to see how any of this is relevant to the issue at hand, nonetheless.
My experience with that culture has been only negative in my life, so that's my generalized opinion. We all categorize, we all generalize, we all have overarching opinions even if we don't want to admit it. Nonetheless, as that is all entirely irrelevant to the discussion, this guy did a great job teaching his spoiled brat a lesson.
I shall respond to your post in 2 part:
Part A) Cherrypicking most likely means he didn't disagree with anything you said except the douchebag part. Generally, people in the south are incredibly nice people in my experience. Basically you are stereotyping, instead of objectively judging. It was a worthy cherrypick. In fact, cherry picking would be more like you saying the following:
+ Show Spoiler +
I hate people who say "I hate obese people"
and someone responding
+ Show Spoiler +
You said "I hate people". You must be a sadistic asshole
What they did is just responding.
Part B) You have been trolled~ Basically you are so close to being an intelligent minded poster and responder, and you are just held back by prejudice. You would sound much more intelligent if you kept your stereotype to yourself and only stated it if there was something in the video to evidence that.
edit:
On February 11 2012 13:12 nttea wrote:
I don't think this is true, if you give something away it's not your property anymore Don't really see why so many people seem to get a total orgasm out of this, she's being 15 and he's being a dick VERY IMPRESSIVE GO FAVORITE TEAM!!!11
He bought the laptop, so in the end it's still his property. Granted shooting it was a bad choice.
I don't think this is true, if you give something away it's not your property anymore Don't really see why so many people seem to get a total orgasm out of this, she's being 15 and he's being a dick VERY IMPRESSIVE GO FAVORITE TEAM!!!11
Actually she is under 18 so she is essentially the dad's property and he can therefore control anything he gives her.
I guess you are of the opinion that mistakes made when you are a teenage will right themselves eventually somehow where as all the "orgasmers" are pleased to see a parent attempting to create a morally correct offspring.
Dad being a dick? For a good reason :D to make a point, to parent, to teach.
I mostly don't like the father because of his "holier-than-thou" attitude the entire time. I agreed with everything he said and did. It's just the way he said it made me not like him.
what scared me is that the person you quoted saidd the daughter is "the dads property". Right, people are property...
people can never legally be property. Children have ownership rights just as much as adults. You can't steal from children.
I don't know where you live that it can be true that people are property. property implies you can destroy (kill) them if you want to throw them away. SInce this isnt true in any culture, they are not property. And you don't own anything your kid owns.
Hey, im that guy you talked about the property.
children are like property of parents, but because of this the law protects them.
for example
mandatory school
you must feed you children
child abuse is illegal.
you cannot kill them
however, for purposes like this, they can be considered your property. and if your property has a laptop you put their, you can shoot it with a gun.
also, it isnt stealing if the dad takes it. ofcourse you cant steal.
idealism<reality of the law. the school can punish students because the law says they act as parents during the school day. therefore, the school can do something like go on her facebook and take away her laptop too, albeit less extreme.
the law doesnt protect them because they are property. the law protects them because they are PEOPLE, and PEOPLE cannot be owned, under law. Just because they don't have full adult rights, and just because their parents have authority does not mean their parents own their children and their children's possessions.
It's like you're intentionally looking at this from a skewed perspective.
Yes, the children are people. Yes, they are protected because they are people. However, they are also basically their parents property legally, but there are many laws that protect them from being abused in any shape or form. Nonetheless, they are still their parents until they turn 18 and, furthermore, anything they own is their parents as well.
I've tried every method I can use to go through a logical step to show you that you're wrong, and the law itself backs my argument. I failed, oh well, I'll move on understanding that I couldn't persuade you with reason.
i didn't want to argue this, but i will.
Edit: Not gonna lie I was gonna go to sleep but I got out of bed to check this thread. So I do want to argue this.
on the topic of kids as property: its a useful concept. just like its useful to think of girls as raccoons when buying jewelry and how its useful to think of electron orbitals as a multipart balloon where one part must be filled full with electrons before the next part can be started. don't get too riled up over it, the parent should technically be a guardian with the ability to do the things he has done.
on the topic of psychopath. its parenting. i once called my dad fucking stupid and i was sent to my room so i would know how it was being fucking stupid.
If he is discussed on a public forum by his daughter, he can discuss on a public forum back. I don't see him as some psycho, but rather a tough love no shit style parent, which is effective. claiming he is psycho is romantisizing the event. I don't even buy into the argument that she'll be mortified nor the argument that the dad doesn't respect her enough(obviously he does nearly always)