(That she saved up for and paid for with her own money)
Where did you hear that? Because that was not the impression that I got, considering he said she wouldn't get a laptop until she saved up and paid for one herself--the implication being that she *didn't* pay for this one. So yeah. Unless I see a reliable source on that, I'm skeptical. It is my impression (and I think a lot of older-than-Millenial adults probably share this impression) that a lot of teens don't adequately appreciate what their parents do for them by providing them with many, many of the things they care about, including access to technology. Teens do *not* have an absolute right to have full access to cell phones, laptops, ipods, etc. that their parents provide for them. Parents are within their rights restricting all or some of their access to those, especially when they use those things to misbehave. (If she really did buy that laptop herself, then that would make things a bit different. Her parents would still have some right to restrict access to it, IMO, within reason, but not to destroy it.) Either way, I think shooting it was definitely overkill. At the least, he could have wiped it's memory and given it to charity. Anther less theatrical/hysterical option would have been to cut off her internet access (by, say, removing the wireless card). And tearing her down on YouTube was definitely not good parenting. That's the part that really bothered me. But the essence of what he did--taking away her access to the communication technology that she used to disrespect him--is probably the main reason people are cheering him on. Understandably so, IMO.
no subject
Where did you hear that? Because that was not the impression that I got, considering he said she wouldn't get a laptop until she saved up and paid for one herself--the implication being that she *didn't* pay for this one. So yeah. Unless I see a reliable source on that, I'm skeptical. It is my impression (and I think a lot of older-than-Millenial adults probably share this impression) that a lot of teens don't adequately appreciate what their parents do for them by providing them with many, many of the things they care about, including access to technology. Teens do *not* have an absolute right to have full access to cell phones, laptops, ipods, etc. that their parents provide for them. Parents are within their rights restricting all or some of their access to those, especially when they use those things to misbehave. (If she really did buy that laptop herself, then that would make things a bit different. Her parents would still have some right to restrict access to it, IMO, within reason, but not to destroy it.) Either way, I think shooting it was definitely overkill. At the least, he could have wiped it's memory and given it to charity. Anther less theatrical/hysterical option would have been to cut off her internet access (by, say, removing the wireless card). And tearing her down on YouTube was definitely not good parenting. That's the part that really bothered me. But the essence of what he did--taking away her access to the communication technology that she used to disrespect him--is probably the main reason people are cheering him on. Understandably so, IMO.