Selling Son's Beloved Play Station 2 For Punishment!

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by 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.

I would argue that at 13 the son is sufficiently developed, and should be understood to have an adult sense of right & wrong. We aren't talking about 5 year olds here.

But putting that aside and assuming you are correct, wouldn't that situation call for the opposite reaction? If your son steals your prized bottle of wine because he is not developed fully and doesn't fully understand what he is doing, then you should sit him down and talk to him. Explain why what he did was wrong, how it hurt you, and basically do to him what Ben suggested the wife do to her husband.

On the other hand, if you are dealing with a person with a full understanding of right and wrong who is a competent, intelligent human (in the husband example) then the assumption is he knows full well what he did was wrong, but choose to do it anyway. No amount of talking or reasoning will fix that. He did something wrong on purpose. The only appropriate response to that is punishment or some kind of restitution. Except, that's not the course of action anyone would propose for a husband.

Does my logic err? Does anyone else find this switch in reactions a bit odd?

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Because it is part of the process. We must first eliminate the inconsequential before one can proceed to the important bits.

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

The relationships are different. Substantially different. Even if a mother loves her children dearly, she loves them in a different way than she loves her husband.

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?

Your glasses are tinted. Sure, a parent will excuse the accidents of a guest in his home, due to hospitality. But if the guest is obnoxious enough, then he will not be invited back.

Can you do so with a child? No. I have seen parents put up with plenty of things from their children, that they would not tolerate from anyone else.

Be careful about your mission, Ozzy. The privileges of the young have been hard won.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Your glasses are tinted. Sure, a parent will excuse the accidents of a guest in his home, due to hospitality. But if the guest is obnoxious enough, then he will not be invited back.

Can you do so with a child? No. I have seen parents put up with plenty of things from their children, that they would not tolerate from anyone else.

Be careful about your mission, Ozzy. The privileges of the young have been hard won.

The 'priviledges' of the young are a trap and a lie. These same 'privileges' existed for women, why then did they rail against them? These same 'privileges' still exist today for women in Muslim countries. Yet we (correctly) don't see them as privileges, we see them as oppression and dangerous for women.

Freeing slaves denied them the privilege of having a reliable home and meal. Damn that Lincoln.

Freedom and equality are the only privileges any human needs. Be they young or old, man or woman, black or white.

[Ben Kenobi]

Children need protection.

They cannot fend for themselves.

The fact that they are protected by law, ought to be celebrated rather than scorned. A parent has an obligation to take care of her children, regardless of the circumstances, or to ensure that if she cannot provide for her children, that someone else can take care of them.

Children are not sent to workhouses, nor do they scour chimneys as sweepers. They are comparatively pampered and spoiled.

I know I have been sheltered, and I thank my parents, even as I strive to go at things on my own. I don't know how they managed to put up with me for so long.

[OzzyKP]

To give a more specific reply, I wouldn't object to a mechanism of giving up children. Assuming it is fair and safe and workable.

Keeping in mind however that duty does lie with the parents since (thinking contractually) they made the decision to have a child in the first place and accept all the consequences of said action.

Ben this is a point we can agree on. If someone chooses to have sex and get pregnant they agree (in theory) to carry that child to term and care for it after birth. Though if there are inreconcilable differences between them, either party should have a right to divorce. This would bring up adoption and foster care of course, but better to have the kid with parents who want him than with parents who can't stand him.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I would argue that at 13 the son is sufficiently developed, and should be understood to have an adult sense of right & wrong. We aren't talking about 5 year olds here.

Well in the United States we have a thing called rule of law, and the laws of the US state that a thirteen year old is not sufficiently developed to understand morality, hence juvenile hall. But I do of course understand that the law is not everything.

That being said, I really don't think thirteen year olds have a real sense of right or wrong. Study psychology. Humans go through a couple phases before they get to the point where they have their own ethical standards that are thought out and entrenched. Thirteen year olds, for the most part, simply have not had the time to get to that stage.

But putting that aside and assuming you are correct, wouldn't that situation call for the opposite reaction? If your son steals your prized bottle of wine because he is not developed fully and doesn't fully understand what he is doing, then you should sit him down and talk to him. Explain why what he did was wrong, how it hurt you, and basically do to him what Ben suggested the wife do to her husband.

I think what the mother did was stupid. I don't think the child will learn anything from that, except maybe to hide the evidence next time, or that he should hate his mother for the things she does to him.

But I think more of a response is necessary than when dealing with an adult, because the child does not know. The adult does know that something wrong has been done, and maybe just needs to be reminded of that, whereas the child must be taught it. How you teach, I don't know. But I'll agree that yelling at the child and taking away their stuff is probably not the answer.

On the other hand, if you are dealing with a person with a full understanding of right and wrong who is a competent, intelligent human (in the husband example) then the assumption is he knows full well what he did was wrong, but choose to do it anyway. No amount of talking or reasoning will fix that. He did something wrong on purpose. The only appropriate response to that is punishment or some kind of restitution. Except, that's not the course of action anyone would propose for a husband.

Does my logic err? Does anyone else find this switch in reactions a bit odd?

The difference is that a husband and wife mutually enter into a relationship for each other's benefit, and neither has control over the other.

When raising a child, the parents are assumed to be doing it for the benefit of the child. They have a responsibility to raise the child well. Because of this they must be granted some sort of authority over the youngling so that they are able to do the whole parenting thing well. I am of the opinion, however, that most parents abuse this authority.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Children need protection.

They cannot fend for themselves.

The fact that they are protected by law, ought to be celebrated rather than scorned. A parent has an obligation to take care of her children, regardless of the circumstances, or to ensure that if she cannot provide for her children, that someone else can take care of them.

Children are not sent to workhouses, nor do they scour chimneys as sweepers. They are comparatively pampered and spoiled.

I know I have been sheltered, and I thank my parents, even as I strive to go at things on my own. I don't know how they managed to put up with me for so long.

Depending on what age we are talking about, children can fend for themselves a heck of a lot better than people give them credit for. But yes, much less than adults, at least for younger children (and not at all below a certain point).

Not being sent to workhouses isn't a matter of protection, its a matter of rights. Protection won't solve that problem, equal rights will. Forcing someone to work is slavery, it doesn't matter how old that person is. If this law were applied equally, (i.e. equal rights) then any additional youth specific 'protection' is irrelevant.

The current law doesn't protect, it harms. A young person cannot get a job if they willingly want to. Surely they shouldn't be forced, but if they want to... why stop them?

[DinoDoc]

Excellent. When can we ship the little troublemaker to adult prison for his crimes?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Well in the United States we have a thing called rule of law, and the laws of the US state that a thirteen year old is not sufficiently developed to understand morality, hence juvenile hall. But I do of course understand that the law is not everything.

That being said, I really don't think thirteen year olds have a real sense of right or wrong. Study psychology. Humans go through a couple phases before they get to the point where they have their own ethical standards that are thought out and entrenched. Thirteen year olds, for the most part, simply have not had the time to get to that stage.

Actually the law recognizes that at 13 many do understand morality. Increasingly people at 13 are charged as adults for crimes. I've seen that most psychologists date the understanding of right vs. wrong at around 8 or 9. I know I clearly knew right from wrong at 8 or 9, and beyond question I knew at 13.

I think what the mother did was stupid. I don't think the child will learn anything from that, except maybe to hide the evidence next time, or that he should hate his mother for the things she does to him.

But I think more of a response is necessary than when dealing with an adult, because the child does not know. The adult does know that something wrong has been done, and maybe just needs to be reminded of that, whereas the child must be taught it. How you teach, I don't know. But I'll agree that yelling at the child and taking away their stuff is probably not the answer..

I assure you with no hesitation, the son in the above example knew what he did was wrong. He was trying to get away with it. He knew he was wrong. But we are agreed, yelling and taking way stuff isn't going to solve anything.

The difference is that a husband and wife mutually enter into a relationship for each other's benefit, and neither has control over the other.

When raising a child, the parents are assumed to be doing it for the benefit of the child. They have a responsibility to raise the child well. Because of this they must be granted some sort of authority over the youngling so that they are able to do the whole parenting thing well. I am of the opinion, however, that most parents abuse this authority.

I challenge the automatic assumption parents do it for the benefit of the child. We are agreed above that the punishment selected does not benefit the son. It is vengeful and unrelated to the crime committed. It will only create more complications in their relationship and his development.

I agree that most parents abuse their authority, and I think giving that authority to parents with little regulation is harmful to their stated purpose of raising the child. Curtailing it (though not entirely removing it in all cases) will only have a net benefit to children.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Excellent. When can we ship the little troublemaker to adult prison for his crimes?

It already happens.

But go right ahead. Get rid of the juvenile justice system, put them in the adult system, it'll be fairer and better. Sentances are longer in juvenile courts for the same crimes as in the adult system.

Though to clarify, we might need different facilities to house the criminals. Just for safety's sake. It is unwise to put men and women in the same prisons, it is unwise to but adults and youths in the same prisons. Give them the same treatement though once in.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Actually the law recognizes that at 13 many do understand morality. Increasingly people at 13 are charged as adults for crimes. I've seen that most psychologists date the understanding of right vs. wrong at around 8 or 9. I know I clearly knew right from wrong at 8 or 9, and beyond question I knew at 13.

No. They may date the understanding of right and wrong at eight or nine, but that does not equate to a fully developed sense of morality.

Once your sense of morality is mature, you do right things because they are right, and you do not do wrong things because they are wrong.

At eight or nine a child may understand that something is right or wrong, but they will only do things because they expect either reward or punishment, depending upon whether or not their action was right or wrong.

I assure you with no hesitation, the son in the above example knew what he did was wrong. He was trying to get away with it. He knew he was wrong.

Yes, he was trying to get away with it. He wanted to avoid punishment. Intellectually he was aware that what he did was wrong, but he did not actually consider it to be wrong, or he either would not have done it at all or would have only done it under extenuating circumstances (means to an end, inebriation, etc...)

I challenge the automatic assumption parents do it for the benefit of the child.

It's an assumption of what the ideal should be. Unfortunately it is not always so. But we should act in such a way as to effect the ideal we wish, instead of merely compromising to make the best out of a flawed system.

I agree that most parents abuse their authority, and I think giving that authority to parents with little regulation is harmful to their stated purpose of raising the child. Curtailing it (though not entirely removing it in all cases) will only have a net benefit to children.

*shrug* I'm not really sure parents have too much power. I think we just need to make sure they use their power wisely. I'm of the opinion that there should probably be a parenting license of some sort. Too many people out there as it is. Reduce the number of people born and make sure that the people that are born are raised well.

[Skanky Burns]

I say well done to the mother. The boy clearly knew what he did was wrong and needed to be punished. This is one punishment he will not forget, and he will likely think twice before engaging in any similar efforts at deception.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Verto
Seriously, perhaps they should have gone to more trouble finding out specifics on the item for sale, and less time about their family problems.

You obviously don't have clue how marketing or eBay works.

This story has increased the odds of getting an increase in price manifold. People love a story like this, and they will be more inclined to shell out bucks for an item that isn't necessarily worth it. This was proven by the guy selling his ex-wife's wedding dress.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
it is unwise to but adults and youths in the same prisons.

Hypocrite! Equal treatment! Why different rules for different people?

[pedrop357]

Ben Kenobi posted this:
"Children need protection.

They cannot fend for themselves."

I see this attitude a lot as justification for "protecting" (oppressing) their kids.

Well, the law prevents them from protecting themselves and creates the system that prevents them from fending for themselves. This is a self-sustaining system.

First deny youth 95% of the power that they need to to control and further their lives. Then when the stuff hits the fan, as it always will, come in to rescue the "helpless" youth from "themself".

This concept of helpless, usually talked about in terms of "vulnerable", comes up in curfew arguments and is present in many cities codes as justification for the curfew.

No states allow youth to purchase non-lethal self-defense equipment, and only a few allow them to possess things like pepper spray and stun guns. No state allows them to possess firearms. How can they defend themselves on the same level that adults can?

I always appreciate the irony in a pro-2nd amendment lawmaker pushing a curfew because youth are "vulnerable" while they fail to make any connection between the complete disarmament of teens and their possible "vulnerable" condition.

If I disarm my cat (by declawing him) and send him outside where he'll inevitably run into problems, I'm not really doing him any favors by deciding to now lock him in the house for his protection.

While I can sympathise with the mother in the original post for losing her expensive bottle of wine, her response has been of one of vengeance and vindictiveness. If the bottle of wine can be replaced, the she should make him pay for it or replace it.
I also think that should she sell his playstation he should be allowed the whole bottle of wine as he did, after all, pay for it.