re: Pissed dad sells son's car to teach lesson for weed, "acting all a thug"

quote:

---

However, when a parent publicly assails his child for breaking a family rule, I see that as inappropriate. I think social media is exacerbating this phenomenon that amounts to a public scrutiny of the family and weakens its bonds.

---

Upon further review, I agree with you. The 'punishment' in and of itself was okay IMO, but it didn't need to go viral.

Have an upvote,sir.

quote:

---

Well, we can agree on this. Social Media is going to ruin this world altogether.

---

It does seem to bring out the worst in people. I just can't understand why such a large percentage of people want to share every nuance of their lives, especially their "dirty laundry."

quote:

---

So he tried your stupid method.

---

What the hell are you talking about? I would have sold the SUV and kept the matter within the family and not published it on Facebook. He made it a public matter.

quote:

---

I just can't understand why such a large percentage of people want to share every nuance of their lives, especially their "dirty laundry."

---

I don't get it either. People love to tell the world how ignorant they really are.


I think I actually agree with you about all of it now. You're just saying the facebook part was stupid. Him trying to sell the car nearby so that the kid could have a reminder isn't what you were against?

I would be down with that. Just no need to put the reason you are selling it on the listing, or on social media. Tell your son what you are doing, but leave it at that.

quote:

---

The kid learned that it's okay to be shitty to people over whom you hold power and that public humiliation is acceptable.

---

Utter bullshite

If the dad holds title to the car, its likely he also is paying the insurance. if the kid does drugs, its about 100% guaranteed that he drives around high, at least part of the time. Its also pretty much guaranteed the kid drives the vehicle in some dodgy places to procure his drugs of choice.

THat puts the FAMILY at risk legally. Shithead kid hits somebody and seriously injures or kills them then the FAMILY will get sued. People lose houses this way.

I speak from experience from having a close relative whose kid is/was a heroin addict. Wound up totaling the car while driving downtown atlanta to purchase H.

Dad did what he HAD to do.

quote:

---

believe many of you are missing the gentleman from the Bluegrass state's point of contention. He appears to be in full agreement that the boy was in the wrong and needed stern discipline. I believe he has stated the the re-sale of the vehicle was appropriate.

---

Thanks.

I think a lot of tRanters come in late to threads and don't read all of it before posting. Anybody who has read all of my posts in this thread surely knows that I back the Dad's selling the SUV as punishment.

They would also know that I strongly disagree with making family matters public, especially on social media such as Facebook, which is disgusting. I guess I was just raised differently.

quote:

---

The boy could indeed learn his lesson from this but he could in turn could try to shame or "one-up" someone he feels does him wrong in the future which could lead to unfortunate consequences.

---

Yeah, I think handling matters within the family strengthens it. The Dad's approval-seeking on Facebook makes his punishment of the kid seem weaker than it actually was. The punishment was completely appropriate, although I wouldn't have put up with the kid as long as his Dad did.

No it will not go all the way.

Something being legal at the state level but illegal at the federal level does not pose a constitutional issue. There are a great many issues where that is the case. Foer example, the Feds have a very short Red Snapper fishing season in the Gulf of Mexico. All the gulf states have much longer ones. Until this year, you could have been fishing legally under state law but if a fed stopped your boat you were getting charged.

quote:

---

much like how the Feds forced Louisiana to up its legal age.

---

There was no SCOTUS case about the right of a state vs federal government to set a drinking age. Congress got the state's to raise their drinking age by withholding a relatively small percentage of highway funds. The right of the state was NEVER an issue.

Again, that isn't anything unique. Take for example, Title IX. Schools don't have to follow it unless they get federal funding.

Congress could indeed pass a law saying states that legalize pot are ineligible for some form of federal money, but that won't generate a court challenge because the precedent has been well established that congress controls where federal money goes. If Trump wins the election, I strongly suspect you will see that tactic used to eliminate sanctuary cities but again, the right of the city or state isn't impeded but that choice has a consequence.

Umm please never have kids