Selling Son's Beloved Play Station 2 For Punishment!

[Al B. Sure!]

spare the rod and spoil the child

[Qilue]

Getting back to original topic, I don't believe selling the PS2 is such a good idea. However, confiscating it and then requiring the child earn the privilege of it's return.

[Paddy]

for such insolence, the little bugger can go without a playstation

maybe a dose of reality will do him good

better to learn some reality now, than doing 10 to 12 in some tin can later in life

[Skanky Burns]

Or send him out to the coal mines to earn money and let him buy a console himself. That way he can learn the value of money at the same time.

[Paddy]

hahahahahaha

indeed indeed

down to Port Kembla for 3 months mining, 7 months school and some time cleaning tables at the pub

give the kid a good clean healthy aspect to lief

allbeit he may have a shorter life span from the coal dust

[dudemanjack]

If $177 is a terrible wrongdoing, then they should not have had children at all. How much money has the kid costed them just for being alive 13 years? I'm not even talking about damage he's caused, just diapers, food, etc.

I doubt this story is real, but if it is, these parents are morons because you just know that if the kid is usually well behaved, then they will feel bad for selling the PS2 and probably just buy another one.

I'm wondering if these parents sold the kid's rattle when he vomited on the floor as a toddler.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by dudemanjack
then they will feel bad for selling the PS2 and probably just buy another one.

I probably would once I felt he learned his lesson.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
i still think you should've beat the tar out of him... can anyone tell me why not?

I'm one of those weird people who think that the use of physical violence is not the right way to discipline children.

[DinoDoc]

Well you don't have to worry about that.

[MrFun]

DD -- in your sig line, are you quoting Che out of context?

[DinoDoc]

I only removed FARC and the IRA from the quote. Ask che. He'll back me up. It isn't as if he's ashamed of what he said.

[bigtony]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


One because the state forces you to take care of your kids (because kids cannot take care of themselves, even at 13) and in exchange you get the right to raise that kid, including having property rights over them.

bull.sh!t.

[Verto]

How is that?

[Ben Kenobi]

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

How so?

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.

Such as?

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.

Whoa. Where did I defend curfews? I'm talking about the responsibility of parents to provide for their children, and for their welfare. What you call oppression, comes from loving care.

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?

Why do they need to defend themselves with weapons? The very fact that a child needs to defend himself with weapons is a sign that something is very wrong. Children, because they are young, ought to be protected, and respected by others, rather than assaulted or exploited.

The solution is not to give the means to fight back, but rather to punish those who take advantage of children to the fullest extent of the law.

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.

I think that her response, given the deliberate attempt to evade the authority of the parents is both reasonable and rational. Vindictiveness would be beating the child for disobedience. Rather, to have the child give up something dear, for what the parents considered dear, is only a fair trade. There is nothing preventing the child from buying another playstation, should he earn the money.