Selling Son's Beloved Play Station 2 For Punishment!

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


1. I don't agree with underage drinking. That would be a rule that, even if I have alcohol, I don't want my kid drinking.

2. I would have to have a talk with my husband about getting plastered. Once he's sober, we would do so alone.

3. I would express my disappointment that he would drink the wine I hoped we would share.

Well we can save 1. for another day. As for 2 and 3, why would you respond in totally different ways to your spouse and your son? They caused you the same damage. Why would you be so much more respectful to your spouse than your son?

All things being equal, one would think the mother would take her husbands prized golf clubs and sell those on ebay. But I doubt she would. I imagine she'd respond just like you, Ben. But why the huge difference?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He has no property to own. He's a 13 year old with no job or income and probably has his parents buy the Playstation. Ergo, they have the full right to get rid of it should they choose to do so.

Property ownership is a legal thing, that can (and trust me one day will) be changed. So put that aside and assume people can relate to each other on different levels than the letter of the law.

If the Playstation was a birthday gift then its a GIFT. If I give you something as a gift and you piss me off, I have NO right to take it back. Why different rules for different people?

[Ben Kenobi]

But why the huge difference?

Property.

The kid did not buy the bottle for himself. Rather, the father bought the wine to share.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Why different rules for different people?

He's not paying rent.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Property.

The kid did not buy the bottle for himself. Rather, the father bought the wine to share.

Actually the father didn't buy the wine. It was a gift to both of them. So it was just as much her property as his. He would be as wrong to take it as the son. Especially as the understanding between them is it is theirs, not his. The husband stole it from 'them'.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He's not paying rent.

Again, why different rules for different people?

Charge him rent.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Again, why different rules for different people?

I get to treat people differently who live with me without paying any rent.

Charge him rent.

They did. They took the Playstation as payment.

[Ben Kenobi]

It was a gift to both of them. So it was just as much her property as his. He would be as wrong to take it as the son.

No, it's not.

If you have a share in half, it is not just as wrong for him to drink the whole.

Unless you want to apply some other principles, that make stealing a penny just as bad as stealing a thousand dollars.

[OzzyKP]

Well the idea is the same.... But ok, I'll conceed that point.

The question though, is if that bottle of wine was owned exclusively by the wife, and the husband drank it, would your reaction/approach be affected by the change?

[Ben Kenobi]

The question though, is if that bottle of wine was owned exclusively by the wife, and the husband drank it, would your reaction/approach be affected by the change?

Not really.

"The two shall become one flesh."

A wife ought to treat her husband differently from her children.

[OzzyKP]

I didn't think it would change things, so why did you argue that point if it was inconsequential?

The question is why should the wife treat her children differently than the husband?

Different circumstances obviously call for different reactions, but in the case of the same or very similar circumstances why are vastly different methods employed?

This is the crux of ageism. Not that people are harsh toward youth, but the fact that they are hypocritical as well. Why is it that if a fellow adult knocks over a glass the reaction is "Oh don't worry about it, accidents happen." But if a kid knocks over a glass the reaction is "THOMAS!! You come here right now!! You are grounded Mr.!"

If parents have such love and compassion for children, why are they so much harder on them when they would let a fellow adult slide for the same mistake?

[Lorizael]

Generally the idea is that children are not fully developed, and thus do not yet have a fully developed sense of morality. So when they do something wrong, you need to show them that it is wrong and express your discontent. With adults, they are already supposed to know that it is wrong, so there is only so much that you can do.

That being said, I think doing something to your child with the specific intent of upsetting them is pretty stupid, because I am against using emotion as a personal force.

[DinoDoc]

They could always use physical discipline.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I didn't think it would change things, so why did you argue that point if it was inconsequential?

The question is why should the wife treat her children differently than the husband?

well, for one thing I hope that she isn't ****ing her children

JM

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
They could always use physical discipline.

Yah, I don't use that either. I try to reason with people. That, or spark their imagination. Not very good at the second one, though, and the first one won't work on children who have yet to develop reason.

I also don't want to have children.