NationStates Jolt Archive

Link (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/071216/oddities/canada_internet_drug_christmas_offbeat)

MONTREAL (AFP) - After catching his 15-year-old smoking pot, a father sold the hard-to-get "Guitar Hero III" video game he bought his son for 90 dollars for Christmas at an online auction, fetching 9,000 dollars.


The sale took place after the father spent two weeks searching for the video game for the Nintendo Wii gameboard.


"So I was so relieved in that I had finally got the Holy Grail of Christmas presents pretty much just in the nick of time. I couldn't wait to spread the jubilance to my son," the father wrote on the eBay website.


"Then, yesterday, I came home from work early and what do I find? My innocent little boy smoking pot in the back yard with two of his delinquent friends."


The man, a school teacher, who kept his identity private, said he sold the coveted video game to punish his son and discourage him from smoking dope.


The sale was a boon for the family's bank account, since the game the father purchased for 90 dollars (US) was finally sold to an Australian who plunked down 9,100 dollars for it.


The naughty son, however, will not go without a present on Christmas.


"I am still considering getting him a game for his Nintendo. Maybe something like Barbie as the Island Princess or Dancing with the Stars ... I know he will just love them," the father said, tongue-in-cheek.

...and, gee, I thought my parents were tough...

Anyway, as far as the punishment itself is concerned, I'm not quite sure what to make of it- on one hand, it is pretty anal and makes the dad sound like he's as uncool as he could possibly be ("Barbie"? Seriously), but on the other hand, I wonder how effective this really is- I doubt his son even *knew* he was getting Guitar Hero, and my guess is that if he can afford pot, he can afford Guitar Hero as well.

I'm also thinking how likely it would be for me to get "The Christmas Present of the Year" next year just to sell it...$90 turning into $9,100 is pretty sweet. Thoughts?

Thoughts?
My thoughts are, the parent saw the connection between pot smoking, friends, and Guitar Hero, and made a judicious effort to nip a future wasteoid from coming to fruition.

<.<
>.>

You can sell those for $9,100? Shit, I need to find some Chinese counterfeiters and start unloading fakes.

Shouldn't he be grateful that he made so much money?

$9000 US? Ridiculous. Wait until January/February morons, when the heat has died down, and stocks are on the rise. Dear God, that idiot buyer will probably regret his purchase for the rest of his life.

Unless he happens to be a millionaire I suppose. Oh well.

As to the punishment itself? Hmm... If the boy knew the fact that the parents would not approve of him smoking the drug and be so severely disappointed, then I'd say he deserves what he gets.

No need to rub him in the fact with the Barbie game though. That's just mean.

Asshole.

But, hey, with that nice 9911.11% profit, he might be more willing to buy presents for his son in the future....

*Heh* I like it. I really do.

This story is a lie. The father actually sold guitar hero so he could buy his son some Purple Haze and a vaporizer.

Works for me.

I'm fine with pot smoking mind you. More than fine, really. But if it were something that I had a 'rule' on, damn right I'd be yanking privileges, such as a coveted video game. It would have to be linked somehow to the infraction...

Hehehehe, very nice on the Dad's part. I hope he saves a picture of the Guitar Hero III game to show his son.

He just didn't want his son heading down the same path as many great musicians.

I wonder if the Dad is now smoking $9000 of pot instead now :p

Of course everyone realises that the son will now start doing heroin to get back at his dad.

Hehehehe, very nice on the Dad's part. I hope he saves a picture of the Guitar Hero III game to show his son.

If there's one thing that shouldn't accompany punishment, it's malicious glee....

If there's one thing that shouldn't accompany punishment, it's malicious glee....

Yea....I'm a sadistic bastard I know. Great for in the bedroom, not so great for parenting. :D

He just didn't want his son heading down the same path as many great musicians.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13298671&postcount=2
*nods*

This one is for $3,000!

http://cgi.ebay.com/Guitar-Hero-III-Legends-of-Rock-game-only-Playst_W0QQitemZ110206195967QQihZ001QQcategoryZ62053QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

:p

This sort of backfires, doesn't it?

Every time his dad gives him crap about his irresponsible pot smoking he can be, "Whatever, my pot smoking bought this turkey, bitch."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13298671&postcount=2
*nods*

*cries*

This sort of backfires, doesn't it?

Every time his dad gives him crap about his irresponsible pot smoking he can be, "Whatever, my pot smoking bought this turkey, bitch."

Unless the son doesn't know how much money he actually made from the sell of the game.

Unless the son doesn't know how much money he actually made from the sell of the game.

...
It made the news.

Oh my god I just cannot believe this would ever happen! A Canadian smoking pot.. The horror! I thought it was a myth!

Great for in the bedroom

Sadism? Well, um, I guess it depends on your partner.

I wouldn't make a good parent either. I don't know what I would do if a child of mine became a Republican, but it wouldn't be pretty.

Oh my god I just cannot believe this would ever happen! A Canadian smoking pot.. The horror! I thought it was a myth!

Wha? (http://spmedia.canada.com/gallery/00posted/0928pot2-475.jpg)

Wha? (http://spmedia.canada.com/gallery/00posted/0928pot2-475.jpg)

That is quite obviously photoshopped by some Satan loving 4chan fanboy.

That is quite obviously photoshopped by some Satan loving 4chan fanboy.

moar like 420chan amirite?

...
It made the news.

Yea, but there's no name mentioned.

Awesome dad.

Yup.

Yea, but there's no name mentioned.

Wilgrove, with all due respect, think. Is this a relatively common event? Is it possible that this is an odd news story, and is something that probably doesn't happen that often? Could the 15 year old possibly connect the events in news story to what happened to him?

*cries*

*consoles*

Wilgrove, with all due respect, think. Is this a relatively common event? Is it possible that this is an odd news story, and is something that probably doesn't happen that often? Could the 15 year old possibly connect the events in news story to what happened to him?

I think why it made the news was the fact that a dad just sold a Guitar Hero III game for $9,100, not that it's uncommon for a father to punish their children through the magic of Christmas. :D

Of course everyone realises that the son will now start doing heroin to get back at his dad.

Or he could play Heroin Hero! :D

You never catch the dragon!

Oh my god I just cannot believe this would ever happen! A canadian smoking pot.. The horror! I thought it was a myth!Didn't you know? Every Canadian smokes it. I have the experience of being Canadian, living in Vancouver. There's Grow-ops every two houses! And you even give directions with them: Turn right at the second grow-op, then go past three grow-ops, and turn left. It's the third grow-op on the left. That's my house

Or he could play Heroin Hero! :D

You never catch the dragon! Or bagpipe hero! not many people play that!

Bagpipe hero (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Dkygdt3l-LM)

Or bagpipe hero! not many people play that!

Then he can play harmonica hero. :p (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vBfzPfOq2I)

*consoles*

Hey! I don't roll that way.
PC ftw!

I am amazed that people think this is a good idea or a nice thing to do.

I am amazed that people think this is a good idea or a nice thing to do.
Why?

moar like 420chan amirite?

aaawwww ye!

*listens to Sublime*

I am amazed that people think this is a good idea or a nice thing to do.

What, you want the kid to be rewarded for breaking a rule set forth by the parents?

Hey! I don't roll that way.
PC ftw!That's SOOOOOOO 3 1/4 months ago :rolleyes:

Didn't you know? Every Canadian smokes it. I have the experience of being Canadian, living in Vancouver. There's Grow-ops every two houses! And you even give directions with them: Turn right at the second grow-op, then go past three grow-ops, and turn left. It's the third grow-op on the left. That's my house

:eek:

That's SOOOOOOO 3 1/4 months ago :rolleyes:

But...but...the personal computer is the wave of the future!

In fact, I will develop one now. It will be called 'Wave' and come only in a solid ocean blue colour. Its dual moisture condensing hypertreading processors will enable it to run off hydroelectic power. Despite hydroelectric power being like any other electricity going through the wires.

As for an ad campaign, I will hire the cheapest commercial scum I can to come onscreen every commercial break and incessantly proclaim "Dude! You gotta catch a Wave!"

But...but...the personal computer is the wave of the future!

In fact, I will develop one now. It will be called 'Wave' and come only in a solid ocean blue colour. Its dual moisture condensing hypertreading processors will enable it to run off hydroelectic power. Despite hydroelectric power being like any other electricity going through the wires.

As for an ad campaign, I will hire the cheapest commercial scum I can to come onscreen every commercial break and incessantly proclaim "Dude! You gotta catch a Wave!"

Hmm, that's actually not a bad idea.

*beats up Bann-ed and steals idea*

What, you want the kid to be rewarded for breaking a rule set forth by the parents?I'm with Rotarius on this. A parent using Christmas presents for such blackmail strikes me as cruel.

The father should come up with some other punishment and not purposely attach such unpleasantness to the holiday. All it will do is cause resentment, or at least that's what my response to such a thing would be. I'd also make sure not to tell such a father what was important to me in the future!

Fergi America;13298927']I'm with Rotarius on this. A parent using Christmas presents for such blackmail strikes me as cruel.

The father should come up with some other punishment and not purposely attach such unpleasantness to the holiday. All it will do is cause resentment, or at least that's what my response to such a thing would be. I'd also make sure not to tell such a father what was important to me in the future!

Hey, you break the rules, you pay the consequences, and selling the "most wanted video game of the Holiday season" seems to be a pretty good consequence for me.

Like the Merovingian said: Cause and Effect.

Unless the son doesn't know how much money he actually made from the sell of the game.

It made the news ... the father should have been more discrete

It made the news ... the father should have been more discrete

True. I still support the father though. As my dad used to tell me "As long as you live under my roof, you'll follow my rules."

It made the news ... the father should have been more discrete

Like, in separate pieces? Or discreet, as in not splashing it all over the news.

Like, in separate pieces? Or discreet, as in not splashing it all over the news.

Shhh drunk and auto correct is not helping this bad speller :)

Shhh drunk and auto correct is not helping this bad speller :)

Kehehehehe...it's just a pet peeve of mine. Guys who want to have a 'discrete' meeting...well...amuse me :D

True. I still support the father though. As my dad used to tell me "As long as you live under my roof, you'll follow my rules."

Yeah my dad was a hardass too but he found ways of making you NOT want to cross him without resorting to selling xmass presents

Kehehehehe...it's just a pet peeve of mine. Guys who want to have a 'discrete' meeting...well...amuse me :D

:) *huggles* forgive me!

:) *huggles* forgive me!

Always:)

Yeah my dad was a hardass too but he found ways of making you NOT want to cross him without resorting to selling xmass presents

Like what?

Also, just because someone is telling you to follow their rules because they pay the bills, that's not being a hardass. Hell I have some female friends moving in with me when I get out of college, I have rules for my house, does that make me a hardass? The reason I say "my house" is that the mortgage will be under my name.

Like what?

Also, just because someone is telling you to follow their rules because they pay the bills, that's not being a hardass. Hell I have some female friends moving in with me when I get out of college, I have rules for my house, does that make me a hardass? The reason I say "my house" is that the mortgage will be under my name.

No just meant my dad WAS a hardass not that this person was ... sorry to imply that

As for the what else not sure it was all about attitude with him he had a way of just letting you know where the limit was and to NOT fuck with him past that point. Did not really even need to have a punishment associated with it, even though he would have if necessary found something.

Hard to explain

I'm with Wilgrove on this. The kid broke a rule in his household. His father has every right to withhold any items he had considered giving as Christmas presents to his son as punishment. The kid has to learn there are consequences for going against the rules. Nor should he take for granted that people will be willing to shower him with gifts regardless of his rule breaking.

No just meant my dad WAS a hardass not that this person was ... sorry to imply that

As for the what else not sure it was all about attitude with him he had a way of just letting you know where the limit was and to NOT fuck with him past that point. Did not really even need to have a punishment associated with it, even though he would have if necessary found something.

Hard to explain

In my experience, if you make a line in the sand (so to speak), and teenagers being well, teenagers (IE idiots), they will cross that line, more than once. So that line has to come with punishment. I'm sure the dad drew that line, the son knew that line was there and crossed it.

What, you want the kid to be rewarded for breaking a rule set forth by the parents?

Christmas presents are not "rewards."

Fergi America;13298927']I'm with Rotarius on this. A parent using Christmas presents for such blackmail strikes me as cruel.
Well, the usual deal is that a child has to be good to get his presents or else Santa puts coal in his stocking. I'm assuming the 15-year-old is past the idea of Santa Claus being real, but I fail to see why that means the same rules shouldn't apply.

The father should come up with some other punishment and not purposely attach such unpleasantness to the holiday.
Like what? I'm sure the kid will get over it in time as well.

All it will do is cause resentment, or at least that's what my response to such a thing would be. I'd also make sure not to tell such a father what was important to me in the future!
Maybe being a dad myself now makes me ask, so what about the father's feelings of resentment that his son chose to break his rules in his house and still expects a high priced Christmas gift that he had put in a lot of effort to track down just for him?

The kid broke a rule in his household. His father has every right to withhold any items he had considered giving as Christmas presents to his son as punishment.

Does this reasoning apply to any rule? Is there any standard of legitimacy--procedural, content-wise--that it must meet?

Whoever bought that is an idiot. He won't be able to use an American disc in the exchange program, so he's stuck with a very expensive mono GH3. I really hope he has a modded Wii as well.

Also who calls consoles "gameboards"?

In my experience, if you make a line in the sand (so to speak), and teenagers being well, teenagers (IE idiots), they will cross that line, more than once. So that line has to come with punishment. I'm sure the dad drew that line, the son knew that line was there and crossed it.

Not in my family, 3 boys and it never came to much more then how he projected himself.

Like what?

Well, the punishment should fit the crime.

If the kid is failing at school, deprive him of the things he does instead of schoolwork.

If the kid neglects the tasks he should do around the house, stop doing similar tasks for him.

If there's really a drug problem, restrict his free time outside the house and his access to money.

But Christmas presents? If anything should be unconditional, those should be.

But Christmas presents? If anything should be unconditional, those should be.
Why? If anything I'd say that it fit perfectly. He wanted that game, his father was under no obligation to get it for him, but he spent the time and money to go after it for his son. His son also decided that he wanted to smoke weed too. I'd see it as a fair exchange, weed for the game. Maybe next time the kid will keep his priorities straight.

But Christmas presents? If anything should be unconditional, those should be.

Unconditional? So you think the kid should just take for granted that he'll get Christmas presents every year, no matter what he's done? He doesn't have an enshrined right to gifts. In fact, you can't even call them gifts if that is the case. More like a tithe.

The myth of Santa Claus, mentioned previously, is supposed to teach kids that if they're good, they'll be rewarded. Just because the kid is old enough not to believe in the story, the rules still apply.

Link (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/071216/oddities/canada_internet_drug_christmas_offbeat)



...and, gee, I thought my parents were tough...

Anyway, as far as the punishment itself is concerned, I'm not quite sure what to make of it- on one hand, it is pretty anal...

I'm also thinking how likely it would be for me to get "The Christmas Present of the Year" next year just to sell it...$90 turning into $9,100 is pretty sweet. Thoughts?1# I am 100% for legalizing Marijuane.

2# Parents have every right to set the rules in their home (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545483&page=3).
Want to smoke? do it at the drive-in theater or skyline or whatever.. or get yourself your own apartment.

3# Christmas gifts are the choice of the giver, no one is forced to give you an expensive gift, The Dad had every right to give away the game... or sell it, and in this case thumbs up for getting 9000 for mortgage payments.

BTW.. he is not getting him a Barbie game.. that was just rethoric speech.

Why?

Because you don't give someone a Christmas present because they've done what you want them to. You give someone a Christmas present because you love them.

I'd see it as a fair exchange, weed for the game.

A "fair exchange" maybe if a punishment like this were made explicit beforehand: "If you indulge in drugs, I'll stop buying you electronic shit."

Even then, I would probably leave Christmas presents out of it. And the punishment should probably address the crime far more directly.

Unconditional? So you think the kid should just take for granted that he'll get Christmas presents every year, no matter what he's done?

Yes.

He doesn't have an enshrined right to gifts.

No, no one has a "right" to gifts. Similarly, no one has a "right" to love. (This applies regardless of whether or not the person in question has been "good.") But these are nevertheless the kind of things children expect from their parents... and should absolutely reciprocate, in one form or another.

In fact, you can't even call them gifts if that is the case.

What should we call them under your formulation? Bribes?

The myth of Santa Claus, mentioned previously, is supposed to teach kids that if they're good, they'll be rewarded.

That notion is both obviously false and thoroughly wrong-headed... goodness is not something in which you engage for the sake of a reward. It's done for its own sake.

Edit: More to the point, the myth of Santa Claus has far more to do with adding another incentive to "be good" than to constructing a framework of gift-giving.

his 15-year-old
......
My innocent little boy


LOL.

1# I am 100% for legalizing Marijuane.

2# Parents have every right to set the rules in their home (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545483&page=3).
Want to smoke? do it at the drive-in theater or skyline or whatever.. or get yourself your own apartment.

3# Christmas gifts are the choice of the giver, no one is forced to give you an expensive gift, The Dad had every right to give away the game... or sell it, and in this case thumbs up for getting 9000 for mortgage payments.

BTW.. he is not getting him a Barbie game.. that was just rethoric speech.

scions are so ugly.

scions are so ugly.how'bout a Tiburon? :D

how'bout a Tiburon? :D

Totally acceptable. *nods*

Totally acceptable. *nods*cool.. :D

Soheran's arguments mirror my own, so no need for me to repeat those aspects.

A "gift" with strings attached isn't an actual gift, it's blackmail, or at best merely a payment.

scions are so ugly.
I like 'em. They look like little delivery trucks. They'd be great for when I get enough business to actually need a dedicated vehicle for it. I can imagine one with my company name plastered across the side...

For a noncompany vehicle, though, I'll stick with a car.

Fair play to the father -- he recouped 100x his investment, which has to be good for the family overall.

Too many parents act like they're on a date with their kids instead of acting like their parents. Dad doesn't want me on weed, Dad will find a way to motivate me away from it. I want Guitar Hero III, I need to stop hitting the ganj'. If the kid can't understand that, then that's his lookout.

Bravo to the father.

1# I am 100% for legalizing Marijuane.

2# Parents have every right to set the rules in their home (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545483&page=3).
Want to smoke? do it at the drive-in theater or skyline or whatever.. or get yourself your own apartment.

3# Christmas gifts are the choice of the giver, no one is forced to give you an expensive gift, The Dad had every right to give away the game... or sell it, and in this case thumbs up for getting 9000 for mortgage payments.

BTW.. he is not getting him a Barbie game.. that was just rethoric speech.

I'm with Soheran on this one- Christmas is a time to bring families together in a celebration of love and togetherness, not to make some sort of "life lesson" statement. I've got no complaints that the dad punished his son for what he did- I too wouldn't take a similar action (as I believe in legalizing marijuana as well), but parents have a right to set their own rules for their children and this kid contravened them so he deserves punishment; just not this one.

I also question how well this would work- I doubt the kid even knew he'd be getting "Guitar Hero" (maybe he "expected" it from someone but he probably didn't "know for sure") and if I were him and I saw my dad indulging in some wealthy extravagance (he *did* earn $9,100) I'd certainly be questioning his ethics (I mean, the dad would be spending money on himself that could have gone to his son). He also risks looking bad on Christmas- he's risking ridicule of his own son in front of his family at Christmas who probably won't look highly on the "downer" he's caused on a day that's meant for celebration (as noted in the previous paragraph). Ground him for a year, cut off his Internet, remove privledges like TV, whatever- just don't embarass him on Christmas. That's just low.

I also question how well this would work- I doubt the kid even knew he'd be getting "Guitar Hero" (maybe he "expected" it from someone but he probably didn't "know for sure") and if I were him and I saw my dad indulging in some wealthy extravagance (he *did* earn $9,100) I'd certainly be questioning his ethics (I mean, the dad would be spending money on himself that could have gone to his son). He (Dad) also risks looking bad on Christmas- he's risking ridicule of his own son in front of his family at Christmas who probably won't look highly on the "downer" he's caused on a day that's meant for celebration (as noted in the previous paragraph). Ground him for a year, cut off his Internet, remove privledges like TV, whatever- just don't embarass him on Christmas. That's just low.I'm with Soheran on this one-...In a way.. I am too.
.
Christmas is a time to bring families together in a celebration of love and togetherness...So, why must your Dad/Mom buy you -at least- a $50 present? to prove his love?

hahah

True. I still support the father though. As my dad used to tell me "As long as you live under my roof, you'll follow my rules."

Reason and intelligence would make such dictatorial nonsense entirely unnecessary. Takes more effort though.

Hey, you break the rules, you pay the consequences

Says the Ron Paul libertarian. Tell me, why is this philosophy acceptable in your private relationships, but not in your public relationships?

Does this reasoning apply to any rule? Is there any standard of legitimacy--procedural, content-wise--that it must meet?

Of course not. Irrationality and dictatorship cease to be so once properly privatized.

Or something.

Wilgrove, with all due respect, think. Is this a relatively common event? Is it possible that this is an odd news story, and is something that probably doesn't happen that often? Could the 15 year old possibly connect the events in news story to what happened to him?

ACtually, the more relevant point is, at 15, would the kid be watching the news?

Unlikely.

Fergi America;13299218']Soheran's arguments mirror my own, so no need for me to repeat those aspects.

A "gift" with strings attached isn't an actual gift, it's blackmail, or at best merely a payment.

It is blackmail, but the threat is against the parent not the child.

My problem is that withholding gifts for "bad" behavior creates the connection in the child's mind that a person should exhibit "good" behavior only when it will pay off.

Of course, "good," moral, or ethical behavior should stand in its own right, and should be adhered to regardless of benefit or cost. The parent who reduces his or her self to paying tribute in order to get their child to behave properly has failed miserably in his or her duties. These are the parents who produce the little monsters who cry, scream, and attack because they don't get exactly what they want NOW! That includes all of the 18-and-over little monsters infesting the planet.

(and, like communism, this "Christmas time" stuff is a red herring.)

So not having Guitar Hero is meant to stop him from smoking pot? But....how? If anything, giving him Guitar Hero would have given him and his friends something cheaper than pot to amuse themselves with.

Wilgrove, with all due respect, think. Is this a relatively common event? Is it possible that this is an odd news story, and is something that probably doesn't happen that often? Could the 15 year old possibly connect the events in news story to what happened to him?I suppose it would depend on how much of a stoner he is.

If the kid knew that pot smoking was against his parents' house rules, then yeah, he should be punished.

However, I think a more appropriate punishment should have been restricting his access to money and his free time, instead of selling his christmas present, which had nothing to do with his potsmoking (unlike money and free time).

Doesn't take too much to find the ebay link:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Guitar-Hero-III-3-Legends-of-Rock-Wii-NEW-WITH-RECEIPT_W0QQitemZ200181539427QQihZ010QQcategoryZ62053QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphoto hosting

From the updates the father has given the son got told about it, and even supported it towards the end (they also explain a lot more as to what's going on)

My position on it is until its been wrapped as a gift it's still the fathers property to do with as he wants, just because it was bought with the intention of being a gift doesn't automatically make it the son's from the start.

The father should be arrested for cruelty.

The father should be arrested for cruelty.Now that's just fucking stupid.

Now that's just fucking stupid.

So you think its ok for a father to treat his son like dirt?

since they don't allow parents to hit their children anymore i think selling his xmas present is definitley the next best thing

and the fact that the dad sold it and he made such a huge profit from it, just finishes it off xD

So you think its ok for a father to treat his son like dirt?

it's called discipline

So you think its ok for a father to treat his son like dirt?Like dirt? Deciding to punish him by not giving him a game is not treating someone like dirt. Faaaar from it.

it's called discipline

Sorry but that is inappropriate, the state has a monopoly on violence in it's own territory, any private discipline risks differing codes of sanction between households and thus disrupts uniform rules on discipline.

Good day sir.

Sorry but that is inappropriate, the state has a monopoly on violence in it's own territory, any private discipline risks differing codes of sanction between households and thus disrupts uniform rules on discipline.

Good day sir.

The question of who possesses the "monopoly on violence" is entirely irrelevant once we realize that violence is the measure resorted to by those who have already failed to maintain order. Or, at least, by those who are not rational or intelligent enough to even try to maintain order to begin with.

Of course, the question of who possesses the "monopoly on violence" is entirely irrelevant to the topic of this thread, as depriving a child of a video game is hardly an act of violence. Stupid and pointless perhaps, as it does nothing to establish the behavior that the parent supposedly wants, but hardly violent.

"Good day sir."

The question of who possesses the "monopoly on violence" is entirely irrelevant once we realize that violence is the measure resorted to by those who have already failed to maintain order. Or, at least, by those who are not rational or intelligent enough to even try to maintain order to begin with.

Of course, the question of who possesses the "monopoly on violence" is entirely irrelevant to the topic of this thread, as depriving a child of a video game is hardly an act of violence. Stupid and pointless perhaps, as it does nothing to establish the behavior that the parent supposedly wants, but hardly violent.

"Good day sir."
Well, a monopoly on coercion then, which of course can take many forums depending on the willingness of the subject.

Well, a monopoly on coercion then, which of course can take many forums depending on the willingness of the subject.

Putting a synonym of "violence" in place of "violence" doesn't suddenly negate my response. For example:

"The question of who possesses the "monopoly on coercion" is entirely irrelevant once we realize that coercion is the measure resorted to by those who have already failed to maintain order. Or, at least, by those who are not rational or intelligent enough to even try to maintain order to begin with.

Of course, the question of who possesses the "monopoly on coercion" is entirely irrelevant to the topic of this thread, as depriving a child of a video game is hardly an act of coercion. Stupid and pointless perhaps, as it does nothing to establish the behavior that the parent supposedly wants, but hardly coercive.

"Good day sir."

Christ, i just went out opening day and got it for the Wii.

Because you don't give someone a Christmas present because they've done what you want them to. You give someone a Christmas present because you love them.
And what love has the son shown the father by smoking weed?

See, again, you seem to be feeling sorry for the son, I feel more towards the father who did go out and try to get that special gift to find his son doing something like that when he knew he shouldn't have. In a later post, you talk of children should expect the love of their parents, granted, but you forgot that parents should have a responsible expectation that their rules would be obeyed.

The father bought it, it was his to do with as he would until it was actually in the kid's hands. The father decided after the incident that the kid didn't deserve that gift any more, that's the consequences of the child's own actions.

Thoughts?
My thoughts are, the parent saw the connection between pot smoking, friends, and Guitar Hero, and made a judicious effort to nip a future wasteoid from coming to fruition.

<.<
>.>

I reckon he just flipped his lid wanted to belt the kid, realised that he couldn't really do that and so sold his shit instead. I think a better punishment would have been to sell his Shit! instead.

I wouldn't give my kid a present if they didn't follow my rules. Christmas presents aren't a right. Also, I could totally afford a dime bag and not have enough money for Guitar Hero III, I don't know how expensive pot is where you are, but it's damn cheap here, lots of people would have money for it and not for Wii games.

I wouldn't give my kid a present if they didn't follow my rules. Christmas presents aren't a right. Also, I could totally afford a dime bag and not have enough money for Guitar Hero III, I don't know how expensive pot is where you are, but it's damn cheap here, lots of people would have money for it and not for Wii games.

Indeed you could buy almost two weeks worth for the price of one wii game

Indeed you could buy almost two weeks worth for the price of one wii game

It could be more than two weeks depending on the country, and remember this is GH3 which costs significantly more anyway.

First off, I don't have any problem with most people smoking Pot, or cigarettes, or any other drug for that matter. The only thing I care about is if my family does it(Meaning my wife or my kids), or if whoever is doing it is bringing it around me(I HATE people who light up while they are walking down the street, and then they are in front of me and I'm having to smell that crap! It's TERRIBLE!!!). If my kids do the drugs, I care because I know the effect of drugs on their body, even cigarettes. To be honest, I think the Father did the right thing.
I've already told my wife that if she ever got back on cocaine, I would personally take her to rehab. If she refused rehab, I told her I would leave. Now this would be the hardest thing I'd ever have to do, but Cocaine already almost ruined her life and she had to be strong enough to detox in secret just to hide it from her family. I refuse to let it do so again. I love her to much.
The point is, for family, drugs is no joke, and sometimes a punishment must be cruel and unusual. Think about it. The point of a punishment isn't to hurt someone, it's to make it stick in their mind that the action which reciprocated the punishment is absolutely unacceptable. In order to do that, you need something exceptionally memorable, like selling the Christmas present the Son was sure to know was being bought, because he had probably been begging for it. To be honest, I would have sold off his Wii too myself, and then I would force him to try out for a sport, and I would be at EVERY practice and Game just to keep him on his toes...

I just can't understand the $9000 part. Have Australians gone mad?

I just can't understand the $9000 part. Have Australians gone mad?It's probably not just Australians. Australian is the nationality of the final buyer, and not necessarily that of the other bidders.

To be honest, I would have sold off his Wii too myself, and then I would force him to try out for a sport, and I would be at EVERY practice and Game just to keep him on his toes...

What would forcing him to try out for a sport achieve, other than making him resent you greatly?

It could be more than two weeks depending on the country, and remember this is GH3 which costs significantly more anyway.Guitar Hero II: 96.52$
14 gr of Quebec gold: 100$

Becoming WWW Urban Legend by selling the Guitar for 9100$ : Priceless
http://www.priceless.com/wce/GIF/18869_priceless_logo.gif

Says the Ron Paul libertarian. Tell me, why is this philosophy acceptable in your private relationships, but not in your public relationships?

Umm.......notice that one of them is private and the other one is public. There ya go sport!

Like dirt? Deciding to punish him by not giving him a game is not treating someone like dirt. Faaaar from it.


So you support child cruelty then?
Nice. :rolleyes:

So you support child cruelty then?
Nice. :rolleyes:Depriving someone of a copy of Guitar Hero III when they didn't own it in the first place is not an act of cruelty. Beating the shit out of the kid would be. Are you suggesting we beat the shit out of kids instead? Nice :rolleyes:

So you support child cruelty then?
Nice. :rolleyes:

Reading comprehension. You need more of it.

Pycological.

So you support child cruelty then?
Nice. :rolleyes:

Oh for the love of......

Is the Father depraving his son of shelter, food, clothes, or a place to sleep? No, then how about physical or sexual abuse? No again, well how about being a dead beat dad? Wow, another No. So, what's exactly is the cruelty then?

Pycological.

I assume you mean psychological. And no, choosing not to give your child Guitar Hero III is not psychological cruelty. Children have no right to new video games, and parents have no responsibility to provide them.

So you support child cruelty then?
Nice. :rolleyes:

Bwhahahahah you're funny!:D

Pycological.
What's pycology?

What's pycology?

Isn't it that blue stuff you find on the ol' magik mushrooms?:D

Didn't you know? Every Canadian smokes it. I have the experience of being Canadian, living in Vancouver. There's Grow-ops every two houses! And you even give directions with them: Turn right at the second grow-op, then go past three grow-ops, and turn left. It's the third grow-op on the left. That's my house

Sadly, being in Toronto, I have to agree with you. I swear, it seems that for every grow-op they bust in Markham, another three pop-up. :)

Not every Canadian, but every other Canadian smokes... ;)

The myth of Santa Claus, mentioned previously, is supposed to teach kids that if they're good, they'll be rewarded. Just because the kid is old enough not to believe in the story, the rules still apply.

Ah, carrot-on-a-stick style morality. This kind of thing only works for younger children who are still grasping the shades of grey that lie between right and wrong. For older people, starting in their teens, this won't work because the stage has been reached when they start to think of ways to get around the punishment, making it futile all together.

All punishments like this do for older children is just allow for them to learn creative ways of getting around parental control. It took a lot to be creative. Of course, after a while parents can't be creative and you can learn to predict their punishments and get around them.

So you think its ok for a father to treat his son like dirt?

So he didn't give his son a Christmas present.

That is NOT treating someone like dirt. You seem to lack a general grasp on reality.

So you support child cruelty then?
Nice. :rolleyes:

If that is child cruelty, I would have loved if I had gone through that. I was hit for less than smoking weed. I got hit just for arguing with my mother as a teenager. I got privileges taken away because I wanted to go barefoot.

Interesting, i think there is some sort of famliy dispute going on here, i don't see how the child won't try to smoke it again though, the father did the right thing i guess but i don't know enough about it to pass judgement on it,

PS
if i find anyone who says "this is made of fail" i will personally make sure they burn in hell.

Interesting, i think there is some sort of famliy dispute going on here, i don't see how the child won't try to smoke it again though, the father did the right thing i guess but i don't know enough about it to pass judgement on it,

PS
if i find anyone who says "this is made of fail" i will personally make sure they burn in hell.

This IS made of fail!:D

My position on it is until its been wrapped as a gift it's still the fathers property to do with as he wants, just because it was bought with the intention of being a gift doesn't automatically make it the son's from the start.

Bingo.

What's pycology?

Well, phycology is the study of algae. Perhaps he thinks it would be cruel to force the kid to eat nothing but spirulina-based protein shakes for breakfast?

What's pycology?

Maybe he means Phrenology.

Damn it. The whole concept of "fail" is utterly pointless and is like saying "boo" sure it defines what you think but doesn't justify it nor give any evidence or be objective. I might as well ask a cow what it thinks on foreign immigration policy and it says "moo", great that means nothing to me.

PS i also have a personal loathing of teachers who put down your marks and say it isn't "concise" or "incorrect" and don't explain, sure i know it's wrong thats why you've marked it down you don't need to emphasise my failure by humiliating me by saying "fail", just gabble some exuse about me needing to revise more, that's what most of the ones i know do, then pretend to be really nice to you, as if they enjoy teaching.*sulks*

What i'd really like to see is a democratic marking scheme (this is my imagination so i already know it's wrong, just humour me okay), where if one student fails by one mark, and another passes by over say two then divert that mark to the one who failed, no problem. then no-one fails.

As you might notice i am vastly experienced in failure, i know lets pay attention in class "well duh, it's not as if i go to class and go, hmmm i want to fail lets make up some rule where i say you fail, ha that sounds stupid and pointless, yay!" (i also despise people who say "just pay attention" a more valid advice might be to get the persons attention)

Sorry i went a bit off topic there, um er yes er poverty is BAD! yes um i think that's right, probably well i guess i don't have to borrow marks for that yes Poverty Is Bad, yes very clever, but what does it mean? "uh what he say?".

Now I can't quiet make out whether this is satire or true example of what those kind of fluffy liberals where speaking about when telling us all that it does kids self esteem much harm when they fail, no kid should be made to feel a failure, and so lets ban all competitive sports, ohh ohh and grades, annnnnnd lets not call fat people fat! Umkay?

PS i also have a personal loathing of teachers who put down your marks and say it isn't "concise" or "incorrect" and don't explain, sure i know it's wrong thats why you've marked it down you don't need to emphasise my failure by humiliating me by saying "fail", just gabble some exuse about me needing to revise more, that's what most of the ones i know do, then pretend to be really nice to you, as if they enjoy teaching.*sulks*

Why not ask Kat this. She's a teacher. I'm sure she'll tell you she'd love to give you as better answer but she's got lots of papers to grade and often it's easier to just mark it as wrong and go over with the whole class to explain the right answers.

I remember my professors saying that if people had questions that they could either ask during class or after.

Now telling people not to do something here is basically giving them permission to use selective interpretation skills.

What i'd really like to see is a democratic marking scheme (this is my imagination so i already know it's wrong, just humour me okay), where if one student fails by one mark, and another passes by over say two then divert that mark to the one who failed, no problem. then no-one fails.

That's what most people would call communism. You'd get plenty of people outraged by this. It would never work and it's made of fail from the start because you're depriving people of their earned marks. No, marks are not taxes.

As you might notice i am vastly experienced in failure, i know lets pay attention in class "well duh, it's not as if i go to class and go, hmmm i want to fail lets make up some rule where i say you fail, ha that sounds stupid and pointless, yay!" (i also despise people who say "just pay attention" a more valid advice might be to get the persons attention)

Well, it does help to pay attention because they you know what you need to study more on, and what to ask for help with. Even if you don't grasp it, by paying attention, you become of aware of what you need help with.

Asshole.

But, hey, with that nice 9911.11% profit, he might be more willing to buy presents for his son in the future....
Who, the father or the son? I've got a feeling that you mean the father, but that would imply a rather judgemental approach towards him, which is in the opposite direction as the judgemental approach of "UN Protectorates" whose "If the boy knew the fact that the parents would not approve of him smoking the drug and be so severely disappointed, then I'd say he deserves what he gets." comment you did not rebutall...

yes it's satire, smart one, notice i titled it "just me ranting not important", how much more clear do i need to make it?:headbang:

I think you need to chill. If we compare our posts, we note that I don't use certain smileys that you have used. The ones you've made use of indicate that it may indeed be you who ought to chill.

Now, as for it being satire, satire best conveys the message when written following the rules of written English or whatever language you're doing the satire in. Unfortunately for you, you didn't meet the first requirement, hence the satire failed to be effective.

I think you need to chill. If we compare our posts, we note that I don't use certain smileys that you have used. The ones you've made use of indicate that it may indeed be you who ought to chill.

Now, as for it being satire, satire best conveys the message when written following the rules of written English or whatever language you're doing the satire in. Unfortunately for you, you didn't meet the first requirement, hence the satire failed to be effective.

hmmm, i was about to be nasty then i realised on closer inspection that you were right, but i was baited by two people and my post was "meant" to be funny. I can see why other teachers would be upset by my posts. And you were mercilessly sniping at me, never mind, only words.
Well i suppose i can learn from this, don't post my thoughts to people i don't know.

Anyway....merry christmas

I just can't understand the $9000 part. Have Australians gone mad?

Even worse, it's in mono, and won't play on Aussie Wiis.

That father didn't do nearly enough. I'd've knocked my son straight out cold if I saw him smoking anything or drinking alcohol or doing drugs. I strongly support what he did though.

Wow 10000% profit...wtf

Umm.......notice that one of them is private and the other one is public. There ya go sport!

So one does not contest that Libertarian ideology is entirely supportive of the exercise of arbitrary or absolutist authority so long as that exercise is suitably privatized? When dealing with the government (public authority), the Libertarian prescription is to criticize and reject laws, comming up with all kinds of reasons to disobey or change them. But when dealing with a private individual (private authority), we suddenly revert to a defense of that authority which is considered absolute so long as one is under its roof.

This seems like a rather strange switch, and implies a rather blatant double standard. It is especially strange considering that this thread is dealing with the issue of drug use. In the public sphere Libertarians despise the government "war on drugs," noting the general harmlessness of many of those drugs, but ultimately basing their position on the freedom of choice. Yet when we speak of a private authority, the argument seems to revert to one where said authority can make and enforce whatever rule they want and those subject to that authority must submit. Freedom of choice appears to go out the window.

The reason this apparent contradiction is important to point out is that normally a Libertarian would bend over backwards to deny that they hold different standards for public and private authority because of the obvious implications for all kinds of private relationships, including those of the work place. A charge commonly leveled against Libertarians is that they defend liberty and the removal of public government from most (if not all) aspects of society only to the extent that it is convenient for their ideological adherents. But then, in the absence of any higher authority with the ability to stop them, those ideological adherents may engage in all the coercion against their dependents they wish, without restriction. This is a very common criticism of the Libertarian interpretation of "laissez-faire" economics, for instance. Of course, the tendency to act in a similar manner within the walls of the family residence is simply a manifestation of exactly the same two-faced ideology.

So is one actually confirming that Libertarians believe and intend to act this way? How remarkably honest, even if rather morally/ethically hollow.

since they don't allow parents to hit their children anymore ....

Somebody better tell my dad that. I'm 34, and the last time I was over at my parents house, my dad smacked me in the back of the head .

Of course, that's because I said the word "fuck" in front of my mother, so I guess I deserved it.

So you support child cruelty then?
Nice. :rolleyes:

This is in no way child cruelty. Where the hell are you pulling these statements from?

Maybe he means Phrenology.

Isn't that the study of the bumps on someone's skull/scalp?

If there's one thing that shouldn't accompany punishment, it's malicious glee....


Really? I seem to recall my childhood being full of malicious glee >.>

So you support child cruelty then?
Nice. :rolleyes:

Oh, waaaah, life is over because I didn't get a video game. Goodbye, cruel world!


Seriously. get a grip.

And what love has the son shown the father by smoking weed?

Smoking weed, even against the wishes of a parent, has absolutely nothing to do with love either way.

See, again, you seem to be feeling sorry for the son, I feel more towards the father who did go out and try to get that special gift to find his son doing something like that when he knew he shouldn't have.

Yeah, and the father shouldn't be looking at it in this way at all. Breaking a rule is breaking a rule. Punish it as a violation of the rules, not as a personal affront.

You think your child shouldn't smoke weed? Fine. Make the rule and enforce it. But don't take it as an insult when your rule is disobeyed.

In a later post, you talk of children should expect the love of their parents, granted, but you forgot that parents should have a responsible expectation that their rules would be obeyed.

That's true. And I've never disputed that parents, in general, have the right to punish their children for breaking the rules. My dispute has entirely been with the manner of punishment.

The father bought it, it was his to do with as he would until it was actually in the kid's hands. The father decided after the incident that the kid didn't deserve that gift any more, that's the consequences of the child's own actions.

We don't "deserve" gifts. That's why they're gifts.

If the child has privileges--free time, spending money, Internet access--and these are in some way contributing to the rule-breaking in question, restrict those. That is a matter of "desert", at least defined loosely--such privileges have nothing to do with love, and everything to do with how much freedom a child is capable of handling responsibly.

But the beauty of gift-giving, and the only redeeming feature in the morass of materialistic consumerism that is the holiday season, is that you don't do it because someone has done what you want, or helped you in some way. It's not a reward or a bribe, and has nothing to do with desert or incentive. It's an expression of love.

Smoking weed, even against the wishes of a parent, has absolutely nothing to do with love either way.true.

when my father asked me to Not smoke in his home.. I did comply, out of respect and appreciation.
All my weed I smoke outside and never in his presence.

Who, the father or the son?

The father, but I'm not willing to defend the characterization. Neither part of that post was meant seriously.

which is in the opposite direction as the judgemental approach of "UN Protectorates" whose "If the boy knew the fact that the parents would not approve of him smoking the drug and be so severely disappointed, then I'd say he deserves what he gets." comment you did not rebutall...

I'm sorry. Next time I'll be sure to respond to each and every post that is in some way inconsistent with what I say, however redundant and repetitive it gets. :rolleyes:

...
It made the news.

That was a beautiful moment. Admire the use of ellipsis to create a textual comedic beat.

Christmas presents are not "rewards." Very true. *nods*

Oh, waaaah, life is over because I didn't get a video game. Goodbye, cruel world!


Seriously. get a grip.

My sentiments exactly.

Just buy the boy Rehab Hero instead.

After reading the entire thread, here's my take on the situation. The boy broke a major rule (smoking pot in the parent's home), the father hadn't given the gift yet (so it was still his choice to do with as he pleased), and the boy lost NOTHING that he already had. After all, it's not like the boy was given the gift, got caught smoking pot, had the game taken away, and watched as it was sold on eBay.

I reckon he just flipped his lid wanted to belt the kid, realised that he couldn't really do that and so sold his shit instead. I think a better punishment would have been to sell his Shit! instead.
That's just as likely as what i'd said, methinks. I merely felt it important to toss the first volley to what appears at times to be a VERY sympathetic crowd. :p

In a way.. I am too.
.
So, why must your Dad/Mom buy you -at least- a $50 present? to prove his love?

I agree- presents shouldn't be based on how much one spent on them- as the saying goes, one should never look a gifthorse in the mouth, because if someone thought well enough of you to give you a gift you should appreciate it, even if it's not "expensive" or something you might actually like (my mother bought me Crocs for Christmas last year...I didn't particularly like them but I didn't complain, as I appreciated the thought).

However, this is different than someone simply buying a gift the receiver might not actually like- this is a case of a parent willfully buying his son a terrible present just to spite him and that's wrong. I believe a gift should be given solely with the intent of showing gratitude to the receiver and should never be given with any kind of malicious intent- especially on Christmas, a day that's supposed to be about togetherness and joy, not "making a point".

<snip>

So you're trying to say here that in a libertarian government parents shouldn't be allowed to set their own rules in their own houses? Seems contradictory, doesn't it? From how I understand libertarianism, it's all about minimalizing government as much as possible, including removing restrictions on the public as much as possible- yet you're restricting what one can do in private, including in a private setting such as a home. I mean, to my understanding, libertarianism wouldn't forbid parents from raising their kids in any particular way (unless it's somehow extreme such as using "honour killings" or something like that), so this counteracts that.

I am amazed that people think this is a good idea or a nice thing to do.

I do not like thee, doppleganger...


As for Mr. Dad, he needs a swift kick in the nuts. Not for selling the gift, but for hoping to further the "punishment" by adding perverted, twisted glee to it. That's just disgusting on so many levels.

However, this is different than someone simply buying a gift the receiver might not actually like- this is a case of a parent willfully buying his son a terrible present just to spite him .What "terrible" present did he buy?
Notice I am using the word "did" as in action that actually took place.

smoking pot is certainly a smaller threat to humanity's future then driving an automobile. so the kid's father was a retarded ass.

(to the extent of the title of the thread being the story, which is all i've read of it.)

which is kind of not news as this world is full of retarded assess and there are many ways of being one.

=^^=
.../\...

Why? If anything I'd say that it fit perfectly. He wanted that game, his father was under no obligation to get it for him, but he spent the time and money to go after it for his son. His son also decided that he wanted to smoke weed too. I'd see it as a fair exchange, weed for the game. Maybe next time the kid will keep his priorities straight.

Im sorry, but weed beats guitar hero any day of the week.

.. the kid's father was a retarded ass.By definition, if you make $9000 out of $90 in one day.. the last thing I can call you is "retarded".

So -i guess- you could call him an smart ass.

I am just going to call him wise. ;)

By definition, if you make $9000 out of $90 in one day.. the last thing I can call you is "retarded".

So -i guess- you could call him an smart ass.

I am just going to call him wise. ;)

i wouldn't, and don't, credit economic status as having a damd thing in hell to do with the presence or abscence of any kind of sense.

that's an apples and oranges argument to pretend that it does.

=^^=
.../\...

So, the father grows a spine, realizes he can discipline the stupid kid, and sells the game for insane profit.

Remind me why it's bad to try an attempt to make someone a productive, useful member to society again, instead of being a worthless stoner?

What "terrible" present did he buy?
Notice I am using the word "did" as in action that actually took place.

Well, not knowing him personally I wouldn't be able to tell you. However, I can deduce by the way he off-handedly said he would buy his son a present such as "Barbie" or "Dancing With The Stars" (which, given the context, can be reasonably deduced to be "terrible presents") that his gift-giving practice here is intended to be malicious.

i wouldn't, and don't, credit economic status as having a damd thing in hell to do with the presence or abscence of any kind of sense.
penalizing him for smoking pot in his house: makes sense to me.
selling the Guitar for $9000: it sure makes sense to me.

Well, not knowing him personally I wouldn't be able to tell you. However, I can deduce by the way he off-handedly said he would buy his son a present such as "Barbie" or "Dancing With The Stars" (which, given the context, can be reasonably deduced to be "terrible presents") that his gift-giving practice here is intended to be malicious.(about the Barbie Game) I will condemn his action when he does it. If he does it.
For now its just rhetoric speech. Its like when some idiot you injured at the football game screams at you "I am going to break your face mothafucker".. he is not really going to do it. Its just words.

penalizing him for smoking pot in his house: makes sense to me.
selling the Guitar for $9000: it sure makes sense to me.

Guitar Hero, surely?

Though selling an actual guitar for $9,000 wouldn't be half bad, either. But if it was a guitar of such impeccable quality, I'd rather keep it than sell it, honestly. :p

So you're trying to say here that in a libertarian government parents shouldn't be allowed to set their own rules in their own houses? Seems contradictory, doesn't it?


What you characterize is contradictory, mainly because that's not what I intend to argue.

What I'm looking for is simply a basis for private authority (in this specific case, that of the parent) based on something other than the "under my roof" tripe. Said tripe is nothing more than an excuse used to rationalize the arbitrary and irrational. It is rightly rejected by all sorts, including Libertarians, when employed by public authority ("love it or leave it", et cetera); but I see no reason why the arbitrary and irrational should get a free pass for the private.

At any rate, my own personal experience in observing many a "parent" and their undisciplined and disrespectful spawn (having "shared" my personal living space growning up in an in-home day care) leads me to conclude that the sheer ineffectiveness of the "under my roof" approach ought to be obvious.


..yet you're restricting what one can do in private, including in a private setting such as a home.


At most I intend to restrict the exercise of arbitrary and irrational authority. If a private authority chooses to behave arbitrarily and irrationally, I consider it a valid target.

So, the father grows a spine, realizes he can discipline the stupid kid, and sells the game for insane profit.

Remind me why it's bad to try an attempt to make someone a productive, useful member to society again, instead of being a worthless stoner?

I'd ask you to remind us how being a stoner goes hand in hand with being worthless and is mututally exclusive with being a productive, useful member of society, but you haven't explained it yet.

I smell a made-up story for the sake of an eBay auction!

Somebody better tell my dad that. I'm 34, and the last time I was over at my parents house, my dad smacked me in the back of the head .

Of course, that's because I said the word "fuck" in front of my mother, so I guess I deserved it.

Heh 34 years old and you can't say fuck in front of your mother?

I mean I'm quite hard on my kids, they know there are things they can and can't do, and they also know that I will punish transgressions. On the other hand though they also know that it is purely an age thing and as they grow older they will eventually be allowed to do as they please.

Smoking, drinking, swearing all have age limits in my house.

Remind me why it's bad to try an attempt to make someone a productive, useful member to society again, instead of being a worthless stoner?

Remind me again why smoking pot instantly makes you a worthless stoner.

You're just spouting meaningless propaganda, so don't bother with it.

Yea, but there's no name mentioned.

...
It made the news.

Wouldnt the son realise though...? If my dad got me a barbie game for christmas I'd wonder why, wouldnt you?

Also, after all this, Wouldnt he start encouraging his son to smoke pot, just so he can make insane profits on his sons birthday presents?

Wouldnt the son realise though...? If my dad got me a barbie game for christmas I'd wonder why, wouldnt you?

Also, after all this, Wouldnt he start encouraging his son to smoke pot, just so he can make insane profits on his sons birthday presents?

Barbie games might even be pretty good when you're high.

Heh 34 years old and you can't say fuck in front of your mother?

I mean I'm quite hard on my kids, they know there are things they can and can't do, and they also know that I will punish transgressions. On the other hand though they also know that it is purely an age thing and as they grow older they will eventually be allowed to do as they please.

Smoking, drinking, swearing all have age limits in my house.

Well, to be completely honest, my mom and I were discussing Wal-Mart at the time (a subject my dad hates hearing about, due to the fact that my mom works there, and I used to), so that may have been a factor too.

Heh 34 years old and you can't say fuck in front of your mother?Me and my Dad, we are with Gun Manufacturers and his Father on this.

Smoking and swearing are against house rules in my Dad's house.. some rules dont need to have an age limit.

when I am alone or with my peers at the mall/club/theirhome/whatever I can swear, smoke weed, get laid, go nuts, etc.

But, when I have kids I will probably set the same my-house rules..

Me and my Dad, we are with Gun Manufacturers and his Father on this.

Smoking and swearing are against house rules in my Dad's house.. some rules dont need to have an age limit.

when I am alone or with my peers at the mall/club/theirhome/whatever I can swear, smoke weed, get laid, go nuts, etc.

But, when I have kids I will probably set the same my-house rules..

Ohh yeah I agree. Lets get this straight. In respect for my parents I will obey any of their house rules when I'm in either of their houses, as I would do with my friends, other family members in fact any house I enter I will comply with the house rules.

For my kids though, they can't swear in my presence until they are old enough, umm perhaps 16-17 would be the age. They can't touch booze until they are legally old enough to buy it, and the same with smoking.

They know these rules and at the moment seem quite okay with them.

they can't swear in my presence until they are old enough, umm perhaps 16-17 would be the age

I don't understand why swearing suddenly becomes 'OK' when they reach a certain age...?

I don't understand why swearing suddenly becomes 'OK' when they reach a certain age...?

Man that's easy really. Imagine the difference between being called a ****, by your ten year old son, and by your 36 year old work mate.

I don't understand why swearing suddenly becomes 'OK' when they reach a certain age...?

I don't really understand why swearing is ever not OK...?

Man that's easy really. Imagine the difference between being called a ****, by your ten year old son, and by your 36 year old work mate.

Thats about respect not necessarily the words he chooses to use, if my kid used the sort of attitude behind saying that sort of thing to me even without the words themselfs he is in trouble

It is the attitude, swear words applied without that attitude would be fine by me as long as he was watching the company he said it in ... working in a garage with my 12 year old who drops the Fbomb when hitting self with a hammer would not even phase me

You can sell those for $9,100? Shit, I need to find some Chinese counterfeiters and start unloading fakes.

Great idea! Now to call up my contact in Hong Kong, Wun Hung Lo.

Damn, if I'd known that Guitar Hero could sell for that much, I would have bought it for the purpose of selling it on ebay! I could use $9000.

I will condemn his action when he does it. If he does it.
For now its just rhetoric speech. Its like when some idiot you injured at the football game screams at you "I am going to break your face mothafucker".. he is not really going to do it. Its just words.

That is true. Given what is provided by the actual eBay auction, it seems that the son is okay with the whole thing and the dad harboured thoughts of cancelling it (only to keep it going at the son's behest). I still don't know if I'd use Christmas as a punishment though- to my understanding, Christmas is supposed to reward a year's worth of gratitude and while this incident is pretty grave, it's still a single incident (meaning I doubt the son has been bad all year). Maybe he doesn't deserve "Guitar Hero III" anymore but he at least deserves something he might like.

What you characterize is contradictory, mainly because that's not what I intend to argue.

What I'm looking for is simply a basis for private authority (in this specific case, that of the parent) based on something other than the "under my roof" tripe. Said tripe is nothing more than an excuse used to rationalize the arbitrary and irrational. It is rightly rejected by all sorts, including Libertarians, when employed by public authority ("love it or leave it", et cetera); but I see no reason why the arbitrary and irrational should get a free pass for the private.

At any rate, my own personal experience in observing many a "parent" and their undisciplined and disrespectful spawn (having "shared" my personal living space growning up in an in-home day care) leads me to conclude that the sheer ineffectiveness of the "under my roof" approach ought to be obvious.

.....

At most I intend to restrict the exercise of arbitrary and irrational authority. If a private authority chooses to behave arbitrarily and irrationally, I consider it a valid target.

My mistake. I admit, I dove into the argument without realizing what it's about and I've horribly miscategorized it.

I will say this though- under the libertarian system (as I understand it), the legality of restricting how one can raise their children undermines the cause since it would go against the whole "freedom of choice" thing (i.e., "freedom of culture"). It's not something I'd particularly agree with (have too much freedom and things will get crazy) but that's how I think that angle would be covered.

I do, more or less, agree with your points there (having understood where they are coming from better)- I too, always liked logic and reasoning behind any rule, because then I can follow it better. If a rule is arbitrarily applied then it is weak as the rulemaker has no solid foundation for making it- and, not only that, if a rule can be arbitrarily applied, I can arbitrarily disobey. It works both ways.

Remind me again why smoking pot instantly makes you a worthless stoner.

You're just spouting meaningless propaganda, so don't bother with it.

Except for not being able to remember what you were doing a few moments ago, spending money in an extremely unwise fashion, getting arrested for owning illegal materials...

Yeah. Meaningless propaganda. Mhm.

Except for not being able to remember what you were doing a few moments ago

That's a pretty ridiculous claim. Even if true for anyone who smokes pot (it isn't), it doesn't support your argument that smoking pot makes one worthless. The ability to - at any and all times - recollect events within a specific time frame has very little to do with a person's worth, by any measure thereof.

, spending money in an extremely unwise fashion

Another ridiculous claim. Even if true for anyone who smokes pot (it isn't), it doesn't support your argument that smoking pot makes one worthless.

For the record, if spending money in a way I think is unwise makes a person worthless, then this world has about 6.6 billion worthless people, including yourself.

, getting arrested for owning illegal materials...

Another ridiculous claim. Not everyone who smokes gets arrested (very few, actually), and once again, getting arrested doesn't make someone worthless.

Yeah. Meaningless propaganda. Mhm.

Indeed. If you feel like having your meaningless, unsupported and frankly stupid statements shredded up again, just feel free to keep repeating them as you are. In fact, I daresay that they'll continue to get shredded no matter what you do at this point.