The loss of video games...(OR: Why I hate my stepfather)

[Ken Rauhl]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Ken Rauhl: hey man, no offense, but the note wrote to Steven/Sauceman, said something like "spend too much time on these f**king games". is that something you usually say to your kid? do you give your son's pets a "heart attack"? chances are a child will become the way how his parents treat him, and if Steven's sf treat him so, then the evil stepdad may need to go.

Have we an authenticated copy of the note to inspect?
I would also submit that Ill use any word I please when addressing my son.
So I don't feel compelled to tell this guy which he can or cannot use.
[/QUOTE]as for inspecting the note, we will see about that. as for your choice of language, do you CARE abt your son truely, deeply, sincerely? or are you out to make him miserable? consider the difference. if your answer is no, then no, you shouldnt be lecturing him, and you have no right to BE his parent. if you dont give as much as you are required to, then you have no right to BE his parent. if on top of that, you talk like that in front of your son, then you have no right to BE his parent.

[Ken Rauhl]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Ken - as long as a teenager is living in his/her parents (or stepparents) house, there is NO "Right to Privacy". Parent that didn't want to violate their teenagers "right to privacy" is what allowed two middle-upscale kids to collect guns, saw off their barrels, and plan a massacre for over a year before carrying out their plans (Columbine High).

you are talking about being responsible here, not the kid's privacy, although the kid's prvicay is involved. the parents are responsible to guide the child to a rightful course at the same time responsible for respecting him/her, admiring him/her and protecting him/her from sinister harms.

so, I say, as long as a teenager is living in his/her parents (ESPECIALLY stepparents) house, there IS RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

wtf, if they parents do THEIR goddamn job well, you think the kids will go on an all out shooting?

[ 05-28-2003, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Ken Rauhl ]

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Luvian - This same logic applies to charge of "theft" towards the step-dad. Would it be theft if he threw out the drugs his daughter bought with her own money? Would it be theft if he threw away any porn magazines sauceman might have hidden in his closet? {hypothetically speaking, of course. Not implying that sauceman actually has any magazines hidden in his room. ).

Actually Cerek - yes. If the source of the money is sauceman's, and he is of age (18), then it is theft whether pr0n, CDs, games, or drugs were taken. The only arguement that a parent has in the case of drugs is "Be glad I didn't have you arrested". Everything else is legal for him to own.

I agree that the SF had every right to discipline, but destroying something that sauceman bought (assuming that they are destroyed and not just confiscated), for whatever reason is inexcusable. Just for comparison, what if sauceman had bought a car, and the SF took it to a junkyard or sold it without sauceman's permission? It shouldn't matter it the item(s) in question cost $1 or $10,000. This is wrongful destruction of property.

DISCLAIMER: As MagiK said, this is only one side of the story.

Originally posted by Ken Rauhl: you are talking about being responsible here, not the kid's privacy, although the kid's prvicay is involved. the parents are responsible to guide the child to a rightful course at the same time responsible for respecting him/her, admiring him/her and protecting him/her from sinister harms. so, I say, as long as a teenager is living in his/her parents (ESPECIALLY stepparents) house, there IS RIGHT TO PRIVACY. wtf, if they parents do THEIR goddamn job well, you think the kids will go on an all out shooting?

Ken what you SAY and what IS are two vastly seperate issues... in this case, you are wrong about the kids privacy..he gets as much or little as the paretn dictates, untill the kid is emancipated or he turns 18 AND moves out of their house. You kind of contradicted yourself with your last statement...claiming parents should do their job...well part of that job requires invading their kids privacy any time they feel that it is needful.

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Actually Cerek - yes. If the source of the money is sauceman's, and he is of age (18), then it is theft whether pr0n, CDs, games, or drugs were taken. The only arguement that a parent has in the case of drugs is "Be glad I didn't have you arrested". Everything else is legal for him to own. If this were in fact the case, then the federal government would not have the right to seize the parents house if the drugs belonged to the kid..but that ain't the way it's played in the real world. I agree that the SF had every right to discipline, but destroying something that sauceman bought (assuming that they are destroyed and not just confiscated), for whatever reason is inexcusable. Just for comparison, what if sauceman had bought a car, and the SF took it to a junkyard or sold it without sauceman's permission? It shouldn't matter it the item(s) in question cost $1 or $10,000. This is wrongful destruction of property. If Sauceman were not age 18 then he couldn't have legally entered a contract to buy the car in the first place. If you want to push the fact that he is 18 but still living at home, then you can say that the legal guardians are within their rights to toss every piece of his possessions and himself out on the lawn the day he turns 18. You don't see this happen much...more likely they are gracious enough to let him graduate first...then toss him out. That being the case, said person should be gracious enough to obey the rules of the domicile. Still inour current society the parent is responsible for the kid untill he graduates highschool or reaches age 18. DISCLAIMER: As MagiK said, this is only one side of the story.

[Ken Rauhl]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Ken Rauhl: you are talking about being responsible here, not the kid's privacy, although the kid's prvicay is involved. the parents are responsible to guide the child to a rightful course at the same time responsible for respecting him/her, admiring him/her and protecting him/her from sinister harms. so, I say, as long as a teenager is living in his/her parents (ESPECIALLY stepparents) house, there IS RIGHT TO PRIVACY. wtf, if they parents do THEIR goddamn job well, you think the kids will go on an all out shooting?

Ken what you SAY and what IS are two vastly seperate issues... in this case, you are wrong about the kids privacy..he gets as much or little as the paretn dictates, untill the kid is emancipated or he turns 18 AND moves out of their house. You kind of contradicted yourself with your last statement...claiming parents should do their job...well part of that job requires invading their kids privacy any time they feel that it is needful. [/QUOTE]jeez, I DONT believe this. heh, how old do you think a young man, who is about to graduate high school, is? do YOU go around violate your son's rights, privacy? DO YOU?

so... what you SAY and what IS may be two different things as well.

if it really happened the way Steven said it did, this SF of his had no right to do things the WAY he did. ok, fine, lets re-emphasize, it is VIOLATE we are talking about here, not privacy. fair? you can do whatever you want, but behaving like THAT is NOT what a dad should do.

[ 05-28-2003, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Ken Rauhl ]

[Night Stalker]

Won't disagree with you MagiK .... except that the SF was still wrong in destroying (if such is the case) the items. I am not saying that sauceman should not have been discipined. I am saying that the SF was wrong in the chosen action. Yes, since sauceman is 18, his 'rents could toss him out, but that does not give them the right to destroy his property, nor does it give him the right to destroy theirs. Like I said, use the car comparison, since he IS old enough to buy one. Substitute car for games, and the SF is clearly wrong for the destruction.

Now, his 'rents were perfectly justified for disciplining him for bad grades. Especially on their dime.

Sauceman! Study harder! If you didn't like the course, you should have dropped it if it wasn't required!

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by the sauceman: Cloudy RightO, sorry bout that. And trust me, I want to get a better grade in Econ, dont want to let my mom down. I tr to believe hes doing what he thinks is in my best interest, but the way he goes to extremes makes it hard for me to trust him...

Sauceman, it sounds like you and your stepdad don't see eye to eye on some things and forgive me for sounding like an old mother hen...LOL, (well, I AM old enough to be your mom and then some ) but I wonder if some of your anger is due to the past disagreements you've had with him? I definitely do NOT think he should have destroyed or disposed of your games, but if he was truly acting in what he felt was your best interest- by which I mean if he thought that your game playing was interfering with your studying, then I understand why he and your mom wanted to take them away til you got your grades up.

BUT, I get the feeling this is about more than just the games, just this one time so my mother hen-type advice is for you to try talking with your parents about what bothers or concerns you and if you don't feel that can work or it doesn't work when you try it, then I'd have to recommend you sit tight and rough it out til you are graduated, working and can find your own place in a few years. I truly think it would be better ..well, let's say easier for you to stay where you are as it's not a simple thing to get a good, permanent job and a decent inexpensive place to live in most areas. Still if that's the only way you could find peace, then it's a possibility you'll have to consider.

I get the feeling that mostly you were ranting here because you were very angry at the time your games were taken and felt like your space and property were messed with. I can relate to that! My mom used to search my room all the time! Heck after I was in college she'd open and read my mail...which stopped very quickly when I pointed out it was a felony to do so. (I was over 18, paying my own way through college and never did live at home again for more than a visit after I left for my freshman year) But in your situation, there's not much that can legally be done about your games being taken and all you'll get out of that kind of thinking is more and more frustrated and angry. I guess my advice is simply to make do with the situation and if possible, to make the lines of communication with your folks clearer.

You and your stepdad don't have to be best buddies, so long as you are at least moderately civil acquaintances while you live there.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Ken Rauhl: wtf, if they parents do THEIR goddamn job well, you think the kids will go on an all out shooting?

Just a reminder...your language here is a violation of the Terms of Service. Remember to keep things PG.

Originally posted by Ken Rauhl: jeez, I DONT believe this. heh, how old do you think a young man, who is about to graduate high school, is? do YOU go around violate your son's rights, privacy? DO YOU? so... what you SAY and what IS may be two different things as well. if it really happened the way Steven said it did, this SF of his had no right to do things the WAY he did. ok, fine, lets re-emphasize, it is VIOLATE we are talking about here, not privacy. fair? you can do whatever you want, but behaving like THAT is NOT what a dad should do.

My son has whatever rights I allow him. He has no illusion however that,
a. he is in charge
b. his room is inviolate and won't be searched at my discreation
c. he makes the rules
d. he can do anythign about the rules untill he leaves the house.

I don't treat him like a slave, but I do retain my parentl rights and responsibilities to know exatly what he has and what he does and who he associates with (ok he is only 12 and this isn't as big a problem as it could be.) I have the feeling that you or steve would not like living in my home [img]smile.gif[/img] but My son knows the rules and seems reletively happy and non-destructive.

On second thought, he has the right to be fed, clothed, cared for and sheltered..those are his rights and my responsibilities...but all other rights are dictated by me...or my ex.

IF Steve's dad did everything exactly as steve said and there are no...unmentioned details forgotten...I think his Step father was within his rights to do exactly what he did....not that it would be nice...just within his rights. (this is predicated on the mother agreeing, the step issue comlicates things a bit) I think destroying the CD's was wasteful and overly harsh In my opinion, but parents/legal guardians are the ultimate authority in a child/young adult's life period...untill the federal or state governments step in.