Interesting Links for 11-02-2012

[andrewducker]

• A Strange Form of Social Collapse (i.e. one where life is getting steadily better)
  (tags: society usa crime pregnancy )
• About my 'spilled semen' amendment to Oklahoma's Personhood bill
  (tags: politics women usa viaZornhau )
• What does new glacier data mean for the climate debate?
  (tags: globalwarming glaciers )
• IT guy answers daughter's

Comments

[andrewducker]

There may, of course, be a link between the fourth and last items there.

[bohemiancoast]

Though I am pretty sure that the child in question is not delinquent and the father only moderately controlling. I don't suppose there's a parent in history who hasn't considered destroying, permanently confiscating, or giving away, the toy that a child has persisted in using in a way that they've been repeatedly told not too.

Sometime in his 6m YouTube hits, social services popped round to make sure that the kids were ok; which they are of course.

Oh, yes, and the best comment I've seen so far: "he should be ashamed of himself. That's appalling grouping for shots at that range".

[andrewducker]

There's a big difference between considering destroying a child's toy, and putting several rounds into it and then posting a video of it online.

And I don't think the child is delinquent either. If there are teenagers that have never said bad things about their parents when upset then there' probably something wrong with them.

[skreidle]

Response from the family here: http://www.litefm.com/pages/news-story.html?feed=421220&article=9744152

[theweaselking]

When upset by his teenager, he took back a gift he had given her, pulled a weapon, and destroyed it. While filming himself. And bragging about it on the internet. And then demanding that she pay him for the privilege.

That's "manipulative psycho", not "competent parent". And the reason they didn't take his kids away from him despite him being a manipulative psycho and not a competent parent is that parental INCOMPETENCE is not grounds for removal. Yes, he's fucked up and he's abusing her and he's undoubtedly abusing his other kids in the same way - but he's not abusing any of them to the degree that the foster system would. And since he's not as fucked up as the foster system, he gets to keep his kids, since it may be terrible for them to grow up near him but the only available alternative is worse.

[naath]

If I gave you a laptop and then when you used it in a way I don't like I took it away or destroyed it that would be illegal. When I gave it to you as a gift it became your property not mine. I see no reason why gifts given to children should be treated any differently