fatslob-:O said:
How do you prove that such was invariant ? It was BOTH a consquence AND a choice. Their failure was an inspiration or an influence for the father to humiliate them ... How hard was it for them to shape up and get good grades at their age ? The worst part is they didn't even object meaning they full well knew that they were guilty for their own performance! |
Perhaps I should be more clear in my words though. What I should have said is that it was not a logical consequence.
If you were invited to my house and drank my orange juice from my carton, and I stabbed you in the eye with a rusty nail, that would technically be a consequence of your action. After all, you did drink the orange juice. That doesn't mean my response was logical, justified, or warranted.
There is no intrinsic relationship between cutting hair and grades in school. Their hair was not causing them to get bad grades.
The purpose of a consequence is to show someone the impact their actions will have on them. The consequence has to relate to the actual action. For example, if a kid doesn't do their homework because they're playing videogames all the time, limiting the games is a logical consequene to that.
As for the kids not objecting, you can't say why that is. They could be intimidated, or worried about embarassing themselves more on video.
And as for how hard it is for them to shape up and get good grades at their age... It can be very hard for some children. I'm a teacher and have spent quite a bit of time studying why it is hard for some kids. Could be learning disabilities, behavioral issues, self esteem issues, etc etc. Having a shitty dad who humiliates you generally does not help.
Of course, they could also just be shitty kids, but even in that case, humiliating them will not make them any less shitty.
http://www.livescience.com/20314-embarrassing-punishments-children-discipline.html
http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/2/195.full
http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/hartling/HartlingAssessingHumiliation.pdf
