I guess so. What did I miss? Seriously, I don't recall ever hearing anything bad about the guy before.fairlee76 said:
Adrian Peterson indicted for reckless/negligent injury to a child
- Thread starter TSC
- Start date
- Status
The male on make shaming stigma may be about beating on someone weaker but it's not why domestic violence is bad.
Calling victims merely weak does them a disservice, imo. As for beating kids, I don't know nearly enough to comment, but to me while I can understand that psychologically corporal punishment is not good discipline, I can believe that Adrian Peterson needs to be taught that and he honestly believes otherwise. I guess Ray rice could say "I hit my fiance so she would act right the next time" I think we all know that is pretty much bullshit.
Hopefully both men figure out how to treat the humans in their lives.
Calling victims merely weak does them a disservice, imo. As for beating kids, I don't know nearly enough to comment, but to me while I can understand that psychologically corporal punishment is not good discipline, I can believe that Adrian Peterson needs to be taught that and he honestly believes otherwise. I guess Ray rice could say "I hit my fiance so she would act right the next time" I think we all know that is pretty much bullshit.
Hopefully both men figure out how to treat the humans in their lives.
smastroyin said:
Dude had a 2 year old son die last year as a result of abuse. If by now he hasn't figured out dishing violent corporal punishment to small children might be bad, he's helpless.
My 4 yr old loves Jake and the Neverland Pirates, which features a harmless Captain Hook. A couple of months ago, he came to the scene in Peter Pan where Tic Toc Croc tries to eat Captain Hook and, not knowing how the scene ends, he freaked out -- real tears, panicked crying. Genuine sympathy, entirely divorced from reality.DennyDoyle said:
Either Roddy White doesnt know how to look stuff up on the internet, or he is in fact the dumbest person on the planet.
I don't condone or defend bruising kids or leaving welts. I've devoted my entire career to prosecuting those cases, and I would gladly take, and win, Peterson's case (and if he also had a CPS finding of abuse - which is likely - and wanted to contest it, I have a 1 in 7 chance of being assigned the case). I won't pretend to be able to authoritatively answer your question. I don't know the answer. I suspect it may be that parents are tasked with raising, guiding, and disciplining their children. A man is in no way, shape, or form tasked with disciplining or raising a girlfriend/wife/partner whoever.Marciano490 said:
But this thread is tracking into a debate on corporal punishment, with several posters waxing poetic on their children and why they'd never hit them. I think that's great. Others disagree and believe in corporal punishment. For the record, I have a 4 year old son and a 3 year old son, and we do spank them. We never ever ever do it in anger, and it always comes after much dialogue to bring clarity on what went wrong. I have never left a mark on either child. But nobody - not even in *gasp* TEXAS believes that kids should be beaten to the point of open wounds and welts/bruising. Which makes the turn this thread has taken disappointing and, frankly, uninteresting.
It is a shame, because there is a (in my opinion) more interesting discussion to be had in this context, as it relates to children, discipline, and culture. Having spent 6 years doing cases in NYC and now 4 years in Texas, it is fascinating to me the effect one's culture has on their attitudes, values, and practices surrounding discipline. In addition, what role does the government have in selecting end enforcing those values?
It's probably just me - in which case I should probably bow out - but I find the specifics of this case fairly routine and boring (which is a sad commentary, but true).
You're correct that there is a divide. A lot of us believe such a divide shouldn't exist.Judge Mental13 said:
The comments the child makes are the most chilling to me. He sounds traumatized and in absolute fear of his dad. This wasn't once, even if the beating was.
AP was trying to hurt his child just enough to show he's boss, but the psycholgical mindfuck he is placing on that child is deplorable. This is clearly child abuse that goes beyond a beating imo. I was a victim of severe child abuse at the same age and that boy's words just resonate with me, as I had that same fear of my attacker.
I can get a belt, but a stick? And making the child bring him the weapon he'll beat the kid with? AP is a POS that just wants absoulte power by means of fear.
I dunno, if you aren't a victim or parent or both maybe it'd be hard to understand that the "yes master" is worse than the beating. I grew up in deep fear of arguing with anyone thinking the normal outcome of such an event was a cutting, or getting an epic beat down, or being choked because that's what I was exposed to. I didn't have another world view. I was 4-9.
I'm not saying AP always beats his kids, but I'd have a hard time believing he isn't emotionally abusing all of them. Maybe he doesn't know any better, but he shouldn't be around them unsupervised.
AP was trying to hurt his child just enough to show he's boss, but the psycholgical mindfuck he is placing on that child is deplorable. This is clearly child abuse that goes beyond a beating imo. I was a victim of severe child abuse at the same age and that boy's words just resonate with me, as I had that same fear of my attacker.
I can get a belt, but a stick? And making the child bring him the weapon he'll beat the kid with? AP is a POS that just wants absoulte power by means of fear.
I dunno, if you aren't a victim or parent or both maybe it'd be hard to understand that the "yes master" is worse than the beating. I grew up in deep fear of arguing with anyone thinking the normal outcome of such an event was a cutting, or getting an epic beat down, or being choked because that's what I was exposed to. I didn't have another world view. I was 4-9.
I'm not saying AP always beats his kids, but I'd have a hard time believing he isn't emotionally abusing all of them. Maybe he doesn't know any better, but he shouldn't be around them unsupervised.
I don't know AP, never met him, no clue what he is like as a person. I know that lots of people - including, of course, most people in all of human history - believe (or have believed) that corporal punishment is acceptable on some level. It doesn't make you a bad person to use corporal punishment.
Of course, the degree of this seems way over the top, to be generous. Leaving a red mark on the fanny from a spanking is not at all the same thing as leaving these welts from a switch. Every kid probably deserves a swat on the butt from time to time, but no 4-year old deserves what Peterson dished out.
I will say this: good people sometimes do really bad things. Bad people sometimes do really good things. I think all of us have done things we really regret. Imagine if our entire lives were judged by people who don't know us on that bad thing we did. We would all probably not like that very much or think it's a fair assessment.
From the looks of it, Peterson did a really bad thing. And I am all in favor of whatever punishment he gets for this. If you're a good person who does something bad, you still have to be accountable for that really bad thing. No way should this be let go.
And, of course, Peterson may actually be a really bad guy. That's entirely possible. I don't know. All I know is that he did something really bad, he's a hell of a RB, and he won't be playing the Patriots on Sunday.
Of course, the degree of this seems way over the top, to be generous. Leaving a red mark on the fanny from a spanking is not at all the same thing as leaving these welts from a switch. Every kid probably deserves a swat on the butt from time to time, but no 4-year old deserves what Peterson dished out.
I will say this: good people sometimes do really bad things. Bad people sometimes do really good things. I think all of us have done things we really regret. Imagine if our entire lives were judged by people who don't know us on that bad thing we did. We would all probably not like that very much or think it's a fair assessment.
From the looks of it, Peterson did a really bad thing. And I am all in favor of whatever punishment he gets for this. If you're a good person who does something bad, you still have to be accountable for that really bad thing. No way should this be let go.
And, of course, Peterson may actually be a really bad guy. That's entirely possible. I don't know. All I know is that he did something really bad, he's a hell of a RB, and he won't be playing the Patriots on Sunday.
I can understand the views of those folks who defend the rights of parents to engage in corporal punishment, but this wasn't corporal punishment. This wasnt appropriate discipline that simply "went over the line". This was a crime from the start.
Bullshit. There are a number of people in this thread who apparently think it's okay to "spank" children with a belt or stick. Given your expertise on the subject, I don't think I need to tell you that beating, I mean spanking, a child with a stick or belt is going to leave bruises, welts, and, in the case of a thin stick, open wounds.LeftyTG said:
ivanvamp said:
This is what I've been trying to figure out how to say for awhile now. I will now bow out of the conversation I never entered.
Agree. Why should a helpless child have less protections under the law than an adult woman?JayMags71 said:
I don't think most people think of spanking as using something other than their hand on a rear end.MarcSullivaFan said:
Am I wrong?
The people who hate spanking seem to be intentionally blending spanking into a form of beating. There is a difference.
Sure, for things they do on the job. (Workers have no right to be employed, either, but employers do not merely fire employees at will, across the board, and for very good reason; that's not the theme.)DrewDawg said:
My comments may appear purely philosophical in nature, but the purpose in distinguishing between a football-related act and non-football act is to suggest some greatly needed clarity for the NFL. They began judging morality without consideration for whether they were qualified and equipped to do so. Clearly, they lack the necessary skills. My suggestion is that they should take Joshua's queue and win by not playing that game. Alternately, as it may be tough to un-ring that bell, they may considering putting a legal firm on retainer or hiring a qualified staff without someone named Goodell to handle supplemental discipline for off-field acts.
Marciano490 said:
There's the rub. And to further illustrate, if I pick up my wife (or anyone else) and put her in a cell for a couple of minutes, it's unlawful restraint, but if I pick up my son and put him in his crib for a couple of minutes, it's a timeout. So children aren't treated like autonomous people, obviously there's leeway allowed for parental discipline, but we've deemed restraint as substantively different from corporeal punishment. From what I've read, it seems like there is a basis in efficacy underlying this, but I wouldn't be shocked if it is merely culturally rooted.
Read my posts above. I'm responding to previous posts where people who defended Peterson were referring to this as "spanking."StuckOnYouk said:
This is the weakest of all argument tactics.ivanvamp said:
They also thought slavery was dandy, women were property who had no rights at all, death or maiming was an acceptable punishment for most crimes, anyone who didn't worship the same imaginary people in the sky as you had to be murdered and a bunch of other shit that very few people would consider acceptable today.
Why did we decide that striking someone with a wooden rod was an unacceptable punishment for criminals, but just fine for children?
The idea that people always did stupid, destructive things doesn't mean they are right or that we should continue to do them.
Cellar-Door said:
I agree.
I was simply saying that it is pretty normal to believe some form of corporal punishment is ok. And lots of great people use it. I get the sense here that some folks are saying that if you use any form of corporal punishment on your kids you are automatically a colossal A-hole. I would disagree with such a claim.
That has nothing to do, really, with what Peterson did. And I'm not really interested in a debate about corporal punishment itself.
Fred in Lynn said:
I'm not an expert but I generally agree with this. I think the NFL should have a standard policy (whatever it may be). The easiest policy would be, "If you are a free man, suit up." This case by case basis is a real problem.
If nothing else, society has deemed violence unacceptable in all circumstances but this one. If a man rapes my mother I don't have the right to beat him. If my girlfriend sleeps with my best friend, I don't have the right to beat her. If another grown man steals from me or spits in my face, I don't have the right to hit him even if he weighs 100 pounds more than me.DannyDarwinism said:
If my 3 year old talks back or spills on the rug, I can smack him. Just doesn't make sense, but I agree it has to do with parental autonomy and long-rooted norms of childrearing.
Marciano490 said:
Great post. I think it also might have something to do with this: You can generally reason about right and wrong with an adult. It's hard to do that with a 4-year old. So, as a deterrent, parents sometimes use corporal punishment. And kids *get* that. If I disobey, I get a whack on the butt. I don't like the whack on the butt, so I will learn to obey my parents.
I think that's the general idea, anyway, behind corporal punishment and behind societies allowing it despite not allowing such things with adults.
Ok, I'm done here. I feel like I'm getting sucked into a major societal debate and I don't want that.
Well they are well past that - Ray Rice is a free man, and out for six games. You are also overlooking the right of an owner to refuse to allow a player to represent their team. They may still have to pay them, but they don't have to play them.luckiestman said:
Marciano490 said:
I got ya, but I was mainly trying to tease out the difference between affirmative violence and, I guess, a more passive restriction of autonomy. Society has also deemed physical restraint unacceptable in all circumstances but this one. If a man rapes your mother, you also don't have the right to lock him in a room as punishment. If your girlfriend sleeps with someone else, you don't have the right to physically restrain her.
Your question "where's the disconnect" struck me pretty hard (bah, no pun) as a father of a toddler who put in a fair amount of research about timeouts. I'll never hit my son, but I do give him timeouts where I physically pick him up, put him in his room and lock the door. My parents would, on a rare occasion, break out a belt or hairbrush. It pains me to even think of physically hurting my child, but I recognize that the method that I (and I assume others here) do use for discipline, may also be one day looked at as barbaric. I dunno, I'm still trying to process the disconnect.
Well, yes and no. If a man rapes my mother I absolutely can "lock him up" till the police come, whereupon he'll be locked up again. Restraint is the form of punishment our society condones, at least for criminal acts.DannyDarwinism said:
Marciano490 said:
Right, but you can't lock him up for sleeping with your girlfriend, which is the more parallel (i.e. non-criminal, but personally unacceptable) act.
But seriously though, a week of "vacation" time spent with a two-year old and mama laid up useless from surgery... can't wait for Monday.
Slapping a kid only teaches them to fear you. It doesn't teach them to understand why what they did was unacceptable.
It's lazy parenting. What's more, it breeds a belief that violence is an acceptable way to resolve differences.
Toddlers learn stuff constantly; how to shit in a bowl,
How to speak, how to count, how to avoid falling off the couch;
all without getting smacked upside the head or on the ass. This idea that physical pain is an necessary component to learning is so fucked. It's a shortcut for people who either don't understand kids or would rather not be bothered.
It's lazy parenting. What's more, it breeds a belief that violence is an acceptable way to resolve differences.
Toddlers learn stuff constantly; how to shit in a bowl,
How to speak, how to count, how to avoid falling off the couch;
all without getting smacked upside the head or on the ass. This idea that physical pain is an necessary component to learning is so fucked. It's a shortcut for people who either don't understand kids or would rather not be bothered.
The NFL can have whatever policy they want. But then there's the policies of sponsors, and the policies of fans. Obviously I'm using 'policy' loosely.luckiestman said:
The nfl doesn't react to off-field things because an inherent moral stance (in general). It reacts because of the moral stance of its sponsors, which in turn reflect the moral stance of the fans.
If no one cared about wife beating or child abuse, the nfl probably wouldn't either. Or steroids or drugs for that matter.
They need a policy that somehow gets them in sync with the fans. Right now try haven't quite found it, but it hasn't quite hurt them, so they're synced up enough (up until these recent events).
'Suit up if you're not in prison' is easy, but after a point it affects their product (which isn't football per se... It's the overall entertainment package, because that's what the fans have decided it is)
Immanuel Kant be turning over in his motherfucking grave after reading your post.simplyeric said:
Morality in our society is found within our rules of law. People who want second and third and fourth bites at the apple in the way you've described are the spoiled toddlers at the party.
I'm also talking about the distance between 'if your not incarcerated you're free to suit up' and other moral positions in our society.Fred in Lynn said:
I just don't think the nfl is taking a stance on this (or steroids, or pot, or concussions) because of an innate morality. Their doing it out of business concerns.
That really is a morality in our society. It's reflected in our laws but not entirely circumscribed by them.
I'm not advocating that the nfl be mute on moral issues...quite the opposite.
Law...and corporations whose profitability hinges on public consumption and public opinion. (I bet Snyder is happy to be out of the spotlight for a while)drleather2001 said:
Thoughts are still somewhat divided on spanking, but it's been over 20 years since high school health classes were teaching that striking a child with an object is wrong and psychologists were classifying it as child abuse.Judge Mental13 said:
You have an obligation as a parent to realize that former generations are often wrong and look to a more modern consensus. If you're a year or four behind the curve that sucks but it's somewhat forgivable (imo). But when you're doing things that society and specialists have deemed unacceptable for decades, you fucked up in a bad way.
We don't do enough to protect children. In school, if a child commits an assault against another child - one that would lead to serious jail time if it were an adult committing the crime - it's maybe a three-day time out from school.
Supposedly, spanking is unpleasant enough to get their attention, but not enough to cause any lasting harm. Peterson's statement indicates that he feels strongly that's the case in that he talks about the end of the stick causing a serious cut. So his intent was clear.
The problem from a teaching perspective is that even the swat on the butt when it's not hard enough to cause bruising or a laceration only teaches obedience through fear. It's still about "I own you, this is how I exert control."
I don't see this as an issue as serious as what Ray Rice did. As guardians, we have a responsibility to set boundaries, to teach. Ray Rice does not have that responsibility with his fiance (now wife). Peterson is misguided, and he crossed the line anyway with regard to how hard he hit his son. Kids test their boundaries constantly, and it's up to us as parents to control our anger in response. To think about discipline before we act. If you're spanking because you're pissed off at that moment, what's the lesson?
As far as intent goes, I think there's a world of difference between Rice and Peterson, and whatever punishment he receives should reflect that difference. It's just awful timing coming right on the heels of all that waffling on the Rice case.
luckiestman said:
We don't do enough to protect children. In school, if a child commits an assault against another child - one that would lead to serious jail time if it were an adult committing the crime - it's maybe a three-day time out from school.
Supposedly, spanking is unpleasant enough to get their attention, but not enough to cause any lasting harm. Peterson's statement indicates that he feels strongly that's the case in that he talks about the end of the stick causing a serious cut. So his intent was clear.
The problem from a teaching perspective is that even the swat on the butt when it's not hard enough to cause bruising or a laceration only teaches obedience through fear. It's still about "I own you, this is how I exert control."
I don't see this as an issue as serious as what Ray Rice did. As guardians, we have a responsibility to set boundaries, to teach. Ray Rice does not have that responsibility with his fiance (now wife). Peterson is misguided, and he crossed the line anyway with regard to how hard he hit his son. Kids test their boundaries constantly, and it's up to us as parents to control our anger in response. To think about discipline before we act. If you're spanking because you're pissed off at that moment, what's the lesson?
As far as intent goes, I think there's a world of difference between Rice and Peterson, and whatever punishment he receives should reflect that difference. It's just awful timing coming right on the heels of all that waffling on the Rice case.
beating kids like AP did is just wrong. Slapping kids is wrong. A spanking on the ass for dropping a cup of juice is wrong. Spanking a kid on the ass, and i'm not talking whale on the kid, for doing something for the thousandth time after not listening is sometimes, again sometimes, acceptable. Example- my kids 2, 3.5, and 6 have been told calmly and repeatedly to not run in a parking lot. They know it, they repeat it, they get it. Yet my 3.5 son ran out of a store from my wife and through the parking lot. This qualifies for an ass whooping. If you dont whoop your kids ass for repeatedly running through a parking lot then I question your parenting skills.drleather2001 said:
edit- for clarity when I say ass whooping I'm still not talking about a vicious beating. even though that should be obvious.
I think it bears repeating: What you are referring to as "spanking" was beating a 4 year old with a switch on his bare skin leaving welts and bruises on his butt, thighs, and scrotum.Chemistry Schmemistry said:
I'm obviously not a fan of corporal punishment. But even I can acknowledge that some level of corporal punishment is probably harmless in the long run. Whatever that level is, this is way, way beyond that. It's sadistic.
I really think you can make a huge impression on toddlers about dangers like parking lots without striking them. In many states AP would no longer be allowed to be with his children unsupervised.
If the police report is to be believed, he didn't spank his child, he wasn't practicing corporal punishment, he beat his child.
When I read the CBS Houston story and his comments to the cops and via text message I couldn't help but be reminded immediately of Michael Vick.
He literally thought there was nothing wrong with dog fighting and the raising and killing of these animals was a-ok. Never questioned it. Never gave it a second thought.
Because it was common in the environment in which he grew up. I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that the same cultural blind spot about 'whoopins' could exist
in AP's upbringing. Just a fact of life for him. No big deal. Just look at the casual nature of the texts and his conversations with the cops.
We're talking about a completely different mindset. It never occured to him that this wasn't ok. It wasn't in his background.
I'm not trying to paint with a broad brush here or say something awful about all African Americans, because of course most people do not do this, but I am sure when he gives whatever statement he's going to give, he'll say something along the same lines as Vick.
When I read the CBS Houston story and his comments to the cops and via text message I couldn't help but be reminded immediately of Michael Vick.
He literally thought there was nothing wrong with dog fighting and the raising and killing of these animals was a-ok. Never questioned it. Never gave it a second thought.
Because it was common in the environment in which he grew up. I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that the same cultural blind spot about 'whoopins' could exist
in AP's upbringing. Just a fact of life for him. No big deal. Just look at the casual nature of the texts and his conversations with the cops.
We're talking about a completely different mindset. It never occured to him that this wasn't ok. It wasn't in his background.
I'm not trying to paint with a broad brush here or say something awful about all African Americans, because of course most people do not do this, but I am sure when he gives whatever statement he's going to give, he'll say something along the same lines as Vick.
From a utilitarian perspective, spanking simply doesn't work in the long run even though you may net short-term results. I know the science was ignored in my last post so here's some more on spanking.
http://www.ahaparenting.com/parenting-tools/positive-discipline/should-I-spank-my-child
http://www.ahaparenting.com/parenting-tools/positive-discipline/should-I-spank-my-child
The twitter feed of Nick Wright, the reporter who got both Peterson's and the son's accounts, is worth following. Here's some tweets:
https://mobile.twitter.com/getnickwright
https://mobile.twitter.com/getnickwright
- Status