Peterson charged with reckless or negligent injury to a child? (2 Viewers)

[Grateful Parrot]

I'm a parent of 4. Seen and heard things my kids have done that made my internal outrage meter go off. As the most pissed off and physically strongest person in the room, sometimes it's hard to channel that anger and focus your energy into a constructive, patient, lesson learning punishment. That brute animal instinct at the moment the #### hits the fan can make you twitch in anger thinking you need to unload your frustrations. Then you look down at your small child who you love...who cannot in any way defend him or herself from you and you remind yourself that the point of discipline is to right your child. It's not to inflict pain or release personal frustrations. That is not your right as a parent. The line you draw between abuse and discipline is a fine line, but you need to know that there are laws that delineate what you can and cannot do. Throw out cultural bias, that's a worthless crutch that enables domestic violence. The same kind of cultural bias was once used to justify segregation and women's suffrage.

A four year old child cannot even understand half the time what it is they are being punished for. They are very inquisitive at that age, and naturally get themselves in situations that get them into trouble. It's in their nature to push the boundaries. And it's completely normal. What's abnormal is to be a grown (yet immature) man of Adrian Peterson's might that believes he can somehow knock some sense into them. Hiding behind cultural upbringing is buying into the same cycle of violence and the chain never breaks. PSA to future parents, If you don't have patience, then don't get into the parenting business. It's not for everybody.

How is that abnormal? Humans have been doing that for thousands of years.

As a parent I agree with everything raiderfan said except that. It may be misguided but it's certainly not abnormal for people to think they can "knock some sense into em."

I think it's completely abnormal. Any sane person understands that a 4 year old is barely cognizant of his world and able to grasp only the most basic ideas of right and wrong. I hate to be insensitive but beating up a 4 year old kid isn't so diffferent than beating up a developmentally disabled adult. They don't have the ability to understand right from wrong. Now, to be fair, the kid will eventually learn, but needs some time and parental guidance. To think you can beat some sense into a 4 year old is as abnormal as shouting at a collicky baby for crying. Adult operator error. Go read the parent manual. Beating up kids is crazy. Crazy is abnormal.

And some could also say that the lack of discipline in our kids has brought on more suicides, gender questioning, alcohol and drug abuse. Not implying that's what your saying, but book knowledge doesn't lead to good parenting. Again, I got spanked as a kid and I think I turned out alright. Have I ever spanked my kids, no, but it's mostly due to it being 3 daughters, at least that's what I tell myself. Frankly I'm having a harder time dealing with technology that kids have access too, but that's another topic.I'm 6'4", around 275. Have I intimidated my girls, hell yes..are they emotionally scarred, no because as they grew older, they learned who dad really is. We know nothing about the family structure or how good or bad AP is, your basing his whole existence on this one (that we know of) instance.I don't feel bad that AP spanked his kid, but do feel bad for the kid that AP went overboard, especially given his size and strength. He needs to find a way to temper that

A lot here. Just that first sentence is loaded. Can you start by just explaining what all that means (i.e., how lack of discipline contributes to suicide and "gender questioning")?

There's too much to debate here, but in short today's kids are the softest that society has ever known. We reward and reason to prevent them from feeling uncomfortable. Unlike the idiot who posted about "beating the gay out", that's not where I'm coming from.

 

[Henry Ford]

Well said.

Unfortunately it's now cooler to shout from our keyboards that, "I hope that P.O.S. never plays again and ends up penniless" and further sensationalize the "facts" that have been shared on the internet. Pointing the finger at the bad guy makes people feel better about themselves.

When Brian Westbrook took a knee at the one yard line to preserve an NFL victory, fantasy players across the nation screamed "I hope that P.O.S. never plays again and ends up penniless". I think it's perfectly acceptable that we react at least as strongly to Peterson whipping his kid with a switch until he bleeds.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm a parent of 4. Seen and heard things my kids have done that made my internal outrage meter go off. As the most pissed off and physically strongest person in the room, sometimes it's hard to channel that anger and focus your energy into a constructive, patient, lesson learning punishment. That brute animal instinct at the moment the #### hits the fan can make you twitch in anger thinking you need to unload your frustrations. Then you look down at your small child who you love...who cannot in any way defend him or herself from you and you remind yourself that the point of discipline is to right your child. It's not to inflict pain or release personal frustrations. That is not your right as a parent. The line you draw between abuse and discipline is a fine line, but you need to know that there are laws that delineate what you can and cannot do. Throw out cultural bias, that's a worthless crutch that enables domestic violence. The same kind of cultural bias was once used to justify segregation and women's suffrage.

A four year old child cannot even understand half the time what it is they are being punished for. They are very inquisitive at that age, and naturally get themselves in situations that get them into trouble. It's in their nature to push the boundaries. And it's completely normal. What's abnormal is to be a grown (yet immature) man of Adrian Peterson's might that believes he can somehow knock some sense into them. Hiding behind cultural upbringing is buying into the same cycle of violence and the chain never breaks. PSA to future parents, If you don't have patience, then don't get into the parenting business. It's not for everybody.

In discussions about this kind if thing with people at work I've brought up an alternative idea. Try waiting 15-30 minutes and then do it. It takes all emotion out of it. If it's about discipline, then waiting a few should not matter. I think in many (I'd say most but I don't have data on it, just a feeling) instances, the act of physical punishment of a child is just as much about getting rid of your own anger as it is correcting something that a child does wrong. If you believe physical punishment is a viable parenting choice to correct behaviors (ie a child learns a specific long term lesson from a spanking/whipping) then just waiting until you're calm shouldn't matter right?

But wouldn't the longer you wait to discipline a child make it less likely that they associate the physical punishment with the unwanted behavior?

If they're unable to connect the physical punishment to the behavior by reason, then whipping them is no better than whipping a dog. This isn't a good argument.

 

[Neofight]

Well said.

Unfortunately it's now cooler to shout from our keyboards that, "I hope that P.O.S. never plays again and ends up penniless" and further sensationalize the "facts" that have been shared on the internet. Pointing the finger at the bad guy makes people feel better about themselves.

When Brian Westbrook took a knee at the one yard line to preserve an NFL victory, fantasy players across the nation screamed "I hope that P.O.S. never plays again and ends up penniless". I think it's perfectly acceptable that we react at least as strongly to Peterson whipping his kid with a switch until he bleeds.

Not the approach I would have taken with this one... But I like it!

 

[VaTerp]

Well said.

Unfortunately it's now cooler to shout from our keyboards that, "I hope that P.O.S. never plays again and ends up penniless" and further sensationalize the "facts" that have been shared on the internet. Pointing the finger at the bad guy makes people feel better about themselves.

When Brian Westbrook took a knee at the one yard line to preserve an NFL victory, fantasy players across the nation screamed "I hope that P.O.S. never plays again and ends up penniless". I think it's perfectly acceptable that we react at least as strongly to Peterson whipping his kid with a switch until he bleeds.

For the sake of playing along I'd invoke the "two wrongs don't make a right" argument here.

 

[cvnpoka]

And here's the reality: There's no need to put "facts" in quotes. They're facts. The pictures are real, the texts are real, this actually happened. Pretending like that's really in doubt just weakens your point (chinawildman was guilty of the same exact thing earlier in the thread). The debate isn't whether or not this happened, the debate is what happens next. Maybe all this information shouldn't have leaked to the media and the internet, but it did. Trivializing it or acting like this might just all be a big misunderstanding just detracts from whatever other valid points you're trying to make.

I advocated that people should consume information, with an inclination towards critical analysis rather than just wholesale buying into whatever it is they read. What's wrong with that? Throughout this thread, I've seen people cite the following:

1) Peterson showed no remorse

2) Peterson took pleasure in "whoopin" his kids

3) Peterson in now under investigation for a 2nd child

4) Peterson hit his kid against a car

None of this is true or based on any facts. And according to you, because I am against the dissemination of inaccurate reporting, I am "guilty" of what exactly Mr. Grand Inquisitor?

Initial reports thought the kid was 11 for at least an hour before they got that straightened out. You think with this kind of reliablility we shouldn't read the news more closely and examine reported facts under a microscope?

1 and 2 are based on his text messages and public statements. so the are certainly based on facts. ofc, they can not be proven, but neither can the opposite. so which is more likely? given the facts of the situation, i think those are accurate statements.

the last 2 points are largely irrelevant. does it really matter that he isnt currently under investigation for the first incident? is anyone using that to make a point?

and, so he didnt hit his kid against the car. i havent seen anyone argue that he did. i suppose it may have been that way for a fleeting moment when first reported. regardless, does it really matter? ofc not. his abuse inflicted a nasty gash on the kids head. whether banged him into a car are a car seat, does it really matter?

i notice you failed to include one of the main inaccuracies that the child abuse defenders clung to which was that the da grand jury shopped and it took 2 attempts to get an indictment.

 

[golfguy]

And some could also say that the lack of discipline in our kids has brought on more suicides, gender questioning, alcohol and drug abuse.

Drug use among teens is actually far lower than it was in the 70s. Alcohol use is at "historically low" levels, down 30% just since the 1990s. Suicide rates are the same as they were in the 80s (though they'd dropped in the late 90s). Gender questioning, well, yes, that's happening more often now since it's less likely to get you killed than it used to be. You think that's a bad thing?

not to go off course here, but I would really argue that kids are using a lot more dangerous drugs and a much higher rate then they were 20-30 years ago.

 

[Henry Ford]

Well said.

Unfortunately it's now cooler to shout from our keyboards that, "I hope that P.O.S. never plays again and ends up penniless" and further sensationalize the "facts" that have been shared on the internet. Pointing the finger at the bad guy makes people feel better about themselves.

When Brian Westbrook took a knee at the one yard line to preserve an NFL victory, fantasy players across the nation screamed "I hope that P.O.S. never plays again and ends up penniless". I think it's perfectly acceptable that we react at least as strongly to Peterson whipping his kid with a switch until he bleeds.

For the sake of playing along I'd invoke the "two wrongs don't make a right" argument here.

When your entire business model is based on making people take admittedly "fanatical" positions in opposition to one another based on something arbitrary like "this team snuck away from Cleveland and became the Baltimore Ravens" you're not going to get calm, reasoned responses to a legitimate scandal. It's why the NFL has a personal conduct clause in its CBA. They know how these things will go.

It's not just that pointing the finger at the bad guy makes people feel better about themselves, it's that the entire business model of the league invites people to let out strong emotions, both negative and positive. When those emotions are based on something truly visceral and real, they're going to be pretty strong when they're let out. That goes for positive emotions like the feelings we all felt when the NFL resumed after 9/11 and negative emotions, like anger at a child abusing P.O.S.

 

[dparker713]

I'm a parent of 4. Seen and heard things my kids have done that made my internal outrage meter go off. As the most pissed off and physically strongest person in the room, sometimes it's hard to channel that anger and focus your energy into a constructive, patient, lesson learning punishment. That brute animal instinct at the moment the #### hits the fan can make you twitch in anger thinking you need to unload your frustrations. Then you look down at your small child who you love...who cannot in any way defend him or herself from you and you remind yourself that the point of discipline is to right your child. It's not to inflict pain or release personal frustrations. That is not your right as a parent. The line you draw between abuse and discipline is a fine line, but you need to know that there are laws that delineate what you can and cannot do. Throw out cultural bias, that's a worthless crutch that enables domestic violence. The same kind of cultural bias was once used to justify segregation and women's suffrage.

A four year old child cannot even understand half the time what it is they are being punished for. They are very inquisitive at that age, and naturally get themselves in situations that get them into trouble. It's in their nature to push the boundaries. And it's completely normal. What's abnormal is to be a grown (yet immature) man of Adrian Peterson's might that believes he can somehow knock some sense into them. Hiding behind cultural upbringing is buying into the same cycle of violence and the chain never breaks. PSA to future parents, If you don't have patience, then don't get into the parenting business. It's not for everybody.

In discussions about this kind if thing with people at work I've brought up an alternative idea. Try waiting 15-30 minutes and then do it. It takes all emotion out of it. If it's about discipline, then waiting a few should not matter. I think in many (I'd say most but I don't have data on it, just a feeling) instances, the act of physical punishment of a child is just as much about getting rid of your own anger as it is correcting something that a child does wrong. If you believe physical punishment is a viable parenting choice to correct behaviors (ie a child learns a specific long term lesson from a spanking/whipping) then just waiting until you're calm shouldn't matter right?

But wouldn't the longer you wait to discipline a child make it less likely that they associate the physical punishment with the unwanted behavior?

If they're unable to connect the physical punishment to the behavior by reason, then whipping them is no better than whipping a dog. This isn't a good argument.

You're trying to train two things with the inability to reason and communicate effectively. Why isn't this a good argument?

 

[whiskey7]

And some could also say that the lack of discipline in our kids has brought on more suicides, gender questioning, alcohol and drug abuse.

Drug use among teens is actually far lower than it was in the 70s. Alcohol use is at "historically low" levels, down 30% just since the 1990s. Suicide rates are the same as they were in the 80s (though they'd dropped in the late 90s). Gender questioning, well, yes, that's happening more often now since it's less likely to get you killed than it used to be. You think that's a bad thing?

not to go off course here, but I would really argue that kids are using a lot more dangerous drugs and a much higher rate then they were 20-30 years ago.

+1

 

[patalbert]

I'm a parent of 4. Seen and heard things my kids have done that made my internal outrage meter go off. As the most pissed off and physically strongest person in the room, sometimes it's hard to channel that anger and focus your energy into a constructive, patient, lesson learning punishment. That brute animal instinct at the moment the #### hits the fan can make you twitch in anger thinking you need to unload your frustrations. Then you look down at your small child who you love...who cannot in any way defend him or herself from you and you remind yourself that the point of discipline is to right your child. It's not to inflict pain or release personal frustrations. That is not your right as a parent. The line you draw between abuse and discipline is a fine line, but you need to know that there are laws that delineate what you can and cannot do. Throw out cultural bias, that's a worthless crutch that enables domestic violence. The same kind of cultural bias was once used to justify segregation and women's suffrage.

A four year old child cannot even understand half the time what it is they are being punished for. They are very inquisitive at that age, and naturally get themselves in situations that get them into trouble. It's in their nature to push the boundaries. And it's completely normal. What's abnormal is to be a grown (yet immature) man of Adrian Peterson's might that believes he can somehow knock some sense into them. Hiding behind cultural upbringing is buying into the same cycle of violence and the chain never breaks. PSA to future parents, If you don't have patience, then don't get into the parenting business. It's not for everybody.

How is that abnormal? Humans have been doing that for thousands of years.

As a parent I agree with everything raiderfan said except that. It may be misguided but it's certainly not abnormal for people to think they can "knock some sense into em."

I think it's completely abnormal. Any sane person understands that a 4 year old is barely cognizant of his world and able to grasp only the most basic ideas of right and wrong. I hate to be insensitive but beating up a 4 year old kid isn't so diffferent than beating up a developmentally disabled adult. They don't have the ability to understand right from wrong. Now, to be fair, the kid will eventually learn, but needs some time and parental guidance. To think you can beat some sense into a 4 year old is as abnormal as shouting at a collicky baby for crying. Adult operator error. Go read the parent manual. Beating up kids is crazy. Crazy is abnormal.

And some could also say that the lack of discipline in our kids has brought on more suicides, gender questioning, alcohol and drug abuse. Not implying that's what your saying, but book knowledge doesn't lead to good parenting. Again, I got spanked as a kid and I think I turned out alright. Have I ever spanked my kids, no, but it's mostly due to it being 3 daughters, at least that's what I tell myself. Frankly I'm having a harder time dealing with technology that kids have access too, but that's another topic.I'm 6'4", around 275. Have I intimidated my girls, hell yes..are they emotionally scarred, no because as they grew older, they learned who dad really is. We know nothing about the family structure or how good or bad AP is, your basing his whole existence on this one (that we know of) instance.

I don't feel bad that AP spanked his kid, but do feel bad for the kid that AP went overboard, especially given his size and strength. He needs to find a way to temper that

If someone said that I would ask for proof of such an assertion. This is a red herring...

 

[dparker713]

And here's the reality: There's no need to put "facts" in quotes. They're facts. The pictures are real, the texts are real, this actually happened. Pretending like that's really in doubt just weakens your point (chinawildman was guilty of the same exact thing earlier in the thread). The debate isn't whether or not this happened, the debate is what happens next. Maybe all this information shouldn't have leaked to the media and the internet, but it did. Trivializing it or acting like this might just all be a big misunderstanding just detracts from whatever other valid points you're trying to make.

I advocated that people should consume information, with an inclination towards critical analysis rather than just wholesale buying into whatever it is they read. What's wrong with that? Throughout this thread, I've seen people cite the following:

1) Peterson showed no remorse

2) Peterson took pleasure in "whoopin" his kids

3) Peterson in now under investigation for a 2nd child

4) Peterson hit his kid against a car

None of this is true or based on any facts. And according to you, because I am against the dissemination of inaccurate reporting, I am "guilty" of what exactly Mr. Grand Inquisitor?

Initial reports thought the kid was 11 for at least an hour before they got that straightened out. You think with this kind of reliablility we shouldn't read the news more closely and examine reported facts under a microscope?

1 and 2 are based on his text messages and public statements. so the are certainly based on facts. ofc, they can not be proven, but neither can the opposite. so which is more likely? given the facts of the situation, i think those are accurate statements.

the last 2 points are largely irrelevant. does it really matter that he isnt currently under investigation for the first incident? is anyone using that to make a point?

and, so he didnt hit his kid against the car. i havent seen anyone argue that he did. i suppose it may have been that way for a fleeting moment when first reported. regardless, does it really matter? ofc not. his abuse inflicted a nasty gash on the kids head. whether banged him into a car are a car seat, does it really matter?

i notice you failed to include one of the main inaccuracies that the child abuse defenders clung to which was that the da grand jury shopped and it took 2 attempts to get an indictment.

The DA denying he grand jury shopped is not the same thing as disproving that the DA grand jury shopped.

 

[chinawildman]

I advocated that people should consume information, with an inclination towards critical analysis rather than just wholesale buying into whatever it is they read. What's wrong with that? Throughout this thread, I've seen people cite the following:

1) Peterson showed no remorse

2) Peterson took pleasure in "whoopin" his kids

3) Peterson in now under investigation for a 2nd child

4) Peterson hit his kid against a car

None of this is true or based on any facts. And according to you, because I am against the dissemination of inaccurate reporting, I am "guilty" of what exactly Mr. Grand Inquisitor?

Initial reports thought the kid was 11 for at least an hour before they got that straightened out. You think with this kind of reliablility we shouldn't read the news more closely and examine reported facts under a microscope?

1 and 2 are based on his text messages and public statements. so the are certainly based on facts. ofc, they can not be proven, but neither can the opposite. so which is more likely? given the facts of the situation, i think those are accurate statements.

the last 2 points are largely irrelevant. does it really matter that he isnt currently under investigation for the first incident? is anyone using that to make a point?

and, so he didnt hit his kid against the car. i havent seen anyone argue that he did. i suppose it may have been that way for a fleeting moment when first reported. regardless, does it really matter? ofc not. his abuse inflicted a nasty gash on the kids head. whether banged him into a car are a car seat, does it really matter?

i notice you failed to include one of the main inaccuracies that the child abuse defenders clung to which was that the da grand jury shopped and it took 2 attempts to get an indictment.

So you think it's ok to have headlines like "Adrian Peterson hit another one of his sons, leaving scar"

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/khou-report--adrian-peterson-hit-another-one-of-his-sons--leaving-scar-000243619.html

When the content of the article actually says that he was cleared of the very thing that the headline states?

You don't consider that misleading or bad journalism?

 

[93_Confirmed]

Is this a fantasy football forum? I must be in the wrong place.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

And according to you, because I am against the dissemination of inaccurate reporting, I am "guilty" of what exactly Mr. Grand Inquisitor?

Don't get your underpants all bunched up just because you think you're being level-headed and everyone else just falls prey to a bunch of logical fallacies. You were guilty of exactly what I accused VaTerp of doing - diminishing his own point by characterizing this as media sensationalism and pretending that we don't actually have facts in this case yet:

The reality of that statement is...

"Adrian Peterson has not been found guilty of any crime. But I saw some tweets from someone who supposedly leaked pictures from a police report, and also read some blogs about how someone heard that the 4 year old kid said that Peterson hit him in the face and stuffed leaves in his mouth... "

That's one I found and while I won't go digging I seem to recall you've also put quotes around words like "news" and "facts" at various other points in the thread. I get the point you were making at the time, and agree that Goodell should act more like a judge, exhibit some restraint and wait until he gathers more reliable facts before taking action. But language like "some tweets" and "supposedly leaked pictures" just diminishes your point. If there was some chance that the pictures were somehow not real, you don't think we'd have heard that by now?

Initial reports thought the kid was 11 for at least an hour before they got that straightened out. You think with this kind of reliablility we shouldn't read the news more closely and examine reported facts under a microscope?

Of course I think we should all practice some reasonable scrutiny, I said as much earlier in the thread. And that includes not taking anything as gospel "an hour" after the story breaks. But it hasn't been an hour, it's been days, and some of the facts have been reasonably established at this point. This isn't hearsay from some random blogger, this story has been picked up by every major news outlet, statements have been made by the team and attorneys and PETERSON HIMSELF (in which he doesn't deny beating his son with a switch), there are photographs of the child...

What exactly are we pretending is still in doubt here? In trying to be the voice of reason you're going too far in the opposite direction. The court will take it's time, as it should. Goodell should act similarly, though he can act independently of the legal outcome. But Joe Messageboard doesn't need to sit through a bunch of procedure before discussing the case, precisely because we're not the ones making the actual decisions in the case. Enough about the case has been established at this point that you're beating a dead horse to keep arguing that it's premature for anyone to form an opinion.

 

[fourd]

Yeah, the justice system likely failed that kid. This really isn't a hard concept to grasp. As a direct result of the "whooping" AP gave that kid, he now has a permanent scar above his right eye. I don't give a #### if the kid got it trying to avoid a back hand from his 6'1 220 lb "dad", it was still the direct result of AP's archaic view of discipline. I feel bad for him (AP), because I truly think he thinks there's some strong correlation between beating the #### out of your kids and them becoming a man. Regardless, it doesn't excuse any of it. It's all is so obviously wrong it boggles my mind that anyone could defend it.

Sounded like his dad beat the crap out of him. And it's likely he feels that somehow contributed to him becoming a beast of a running back.

I still don't think you get it. Nobody is defending Peterson the person or his actions. Speaking for myself I am defending the tenets of due process, trying to correct factual inaccuracies that are being propagated in this thread, and speaking out against irresponsible journalism and the mob frenzy it creates. That it so happens to rebut the assertions of people denouncing Peterson has nothing to do with how I feel personally about his actions, which I find repugnant.

Yet you find fault with others that have the same view you just posted. How is it that you can come to this conclusion but you call out others? After all, he hasn't had his day in court. All we have are shoddy internet accounts of what may have happened. So how can you find his actions repugnant?

Because...

I feel like the course of rehabilitation is more beneficial for him than punishment. Where has any of this been decided? And where have I advocated either? And for anyone that has how is their opinion on what should happen different than you giving yours?

I feel like he should and will be given a second chance by not only the Vikings, but the NFL. Again, where has any of this been decided? Where have I said one way or the other?

I feel this issue encompasses a myriad of issues from religion to race and is not as simple and cut and dry as some seem to believe. The issue for most everyone here is whether or not what happened to this 4 year old was right or wrong. That seems cut and dry, even to you based on your repugnant feelings.

I feel the mob mentality, encouraged by shoddy journalism, has gone a bit overboard in this thread. Examples of shoddy journalism in this case? And when you say mob mentality are you referring to most people believing what he did was wrong?

I feel the demonization of public figures also says a lot about the accusers. What do you mean by what he did makes you feel repugnant? And where have I demonized AP?

I feel like emotion and not logic is driving much of the "analysis" in this thread. What drove AP to hit his child like he did? Too often it's emotion that is the problem in discipline. So what is illogical about the analysis?

I feel like false consensus and false confirmation biases are running rampant in this thread. Perhaps your feelings are incorrect?

Just as the same jury can find a man guilty and then differ on opinions for sentencing, I can be disgusted at the photos and articles I've read, yet maintain the above opinions which seem to differ from yours. Don't insist that because I don't support his personal actions, I have to agree with the antipeterson crowd on everything else. Yet you've spent the entire thread telling everyone how wrong they are to feel the way THEY do.

 

[fourd]

Yeah, the justice system likely failed that kid. This really isn't a hard concept to grasp. As a direct result of the "whooping" AP gave that kid, he now has a permanent scar above his right eye. I don't give a #### if the kid got it trying to avoid a back hand from his 6'1 220 lb "dad", it was still the direct result of AP's archaic view of discipline. I feel bad for him (AP), because I truly think he thinks there's some strong correlation between beating the #### out of your kids and them becoming a man. Regardless, it doesn't excuse any of it. It's all is so obviously wrong it boggles my mind that anyone could defend it.

Sounded like his dad beat the crap out of him. And it's likely he feels that somehow contributed to him becoming a beast of a running back.

I still don't think you get it. Nobody is defending Peterson the person or his actions. Speaking for myself I am defending the tenets of due process, trying to correct factual inaccuracies that are being propagated in this thread, and speaking out against irresponsible journalism and the mob frenzy it creates. That it so happens to rebut the assertions of people denouncing Peterson has nothing to do with how I feel personally about his actions, which I find repugnant.

Yet you find fault with others that have the same view you just posted. How is it that you can come to this conclusion but you call out others? After all, he hasn't had his day in court. All we have are shoddy internet accounts of what may have happened. So how can you find his actions repugnant?

Because...

I feel like the course of rehabilitation is more beneficial for him than punishment.

I feel like he should and will be given a second chance by not only the Vikings, but the NFL.

I feel this issue encompasses a myriad of issues from religion to race and is not as simple and cut and dry as some seem to believe.

I feel the mob mentality, encouraged by shoddy journalism, has gone a bit overboard in this thread.

I feel the demonization of public figures also says a lot about the accusers.

I feel like emotion and not logic is driving much of the "analysis" in this thread.

I feel like false consensus and false confirmation biases are running rampant in this thread.

Just as the same jury can find a man guilty and then differ on opinions for sentencing, I can be disgusted at the photos and articles I've read, yet maintain the above opinions which seem to differ from yours. Don't insist that because I don't support his personal actions, I have to agree with the antipeterson crowd on everything else.

Well said.

Unfortunately it's now cooler to shout from our keyboards that, "I hope that P.O.S. never plays again and ends up penniless" and further sensationalize the "facts" that have been shared on the internet. Pointing the finger at the bad guy makes people feel better about themselves.

When you can show me where I've said any of your post I'll be happy to agree with you. And I think it makes most people feel bad, not good about themselves. Bad that things like this can go on, that the person who should protect you from this type of harm is the one administering it in the name of making you a better person. I don't feel any better about myself because of what AP did, but I would sure feel better if it had never happened.

 

[CalBear]

And some could also say that the lack of discipline in our kids has brought on more suicides, gender questioning, alcohol and drug abuse.

Drug use among teens is actually far lower than it was in the 70s. Alcohol use is at "historically low" levels, down 30% just since the 1990s. Suicide rates are the same as they were in the 80s (though they'd dropped in the late 90s). Gender questioning, well, yes, that's happening more often now since it's less likely to get you killed than it used to be. You think that's a bad thing?

not to go off course here, but I would really argue that kids are using a lot more dangerous drugs and a much higher rate then they were 20-30 years ago.

Do you have a reason to believe that? Because the CDC doesn't agree. Since 1994 drug use among teens has dropped significantly; in half for most drug classes (inhalants, hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin).

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/high-school-youth-trends

 

[Alonzo Mosely]

How can people defend Peterson? Seriously? How can you?

How can you condemn a man before you walk a mile in his shoes?

Its all part of the wussification of america. The greatest generation in America all grew up with whoopings, and it seemed to work out fine for them. America now has a soft underbelly, and it will be our downfall.

That soft underbelly started when we gave slavery, right?

 

[VaTerp]

Yeah, the justice system likely failed that kid. This really isn't a hard concept to grasp. As a direct result of the "whooping" AP gave that kid, he now has a permanent scar above his right eye. I don't give a #### if the kid got it trying to avoid a back hand from his 6'1 220 lb "dad", it was still the direct result of AP's archaic view of discipline. I feel bad for him (AP), because I truly think he thinks there's some strong correlation between beating the #### out of your kids and them becoming a man. Regardless, it doesn't excuse any of it. It's all is so obviously wrong it boggles my mind that anyone could defend it.

Sounded like his dad beat the crap out of him. And it's likely he feels that somehow contributed to him becoming a beast of a running back.

I still don't think you get it. Nobody is defending Peterson the person or his actions. Speaking for myself I am defending the tenets of due process, trying to correct factual inaccuracies that are being propagated in this thread, and speaking out against irresponsible journalism and the mob frenzy it creates. That it so happens to rebut the assertions of people denouncing Peterson has nothing to do with how I feel personally about his actions, which I find repugnant.

Yet you find fault with others that have the same view you just posted. How is it that you can come to this conclusion but you call out others? After all, he hasn't had his day in court. All we have are shoddy internet accounts of what may have happened. So how can you find his actions repugnant?

Because...

I feel like the course of rehabilitation is more beneficial for him than punishment.

I feel like he should and will be given a second chance by not only the Vikings, but the NFL.

I feel this issue encompasses a myriad of issues from religion to race and is not as simple and cut and dry as some seem to believe.

I feel the mob mentality, encouraged by shoddy journalism, has gone a bit overboard in this thread.

I feel the demonization of public figures also says a lot about the accusers.

I feel like emotion and not logic is driving much of the "analysis" in this thread.

I feel like false consensus and false confirmation biases are running rampant in this thread.

Just as the same jury can find a man guilty and then differ on opinions for sentencing, I can be disgusted at the photos and articles I've read, yet maintain the above opinions which seem to differ from yours. Don't insist that because I don't support his personal actions, I have to agree with the antipeterson crowd on everything else.

Well said.

Unfortunately it's now cooler to shout from our keyboards that, "I hope that P.O.S. never plays again and ends up penniless" and further sensationalize the "facts" that have been shared on the internet. Pointing the finger at the bad guy makes people feel better about themselves.

When you can show me where I've said any of your post I'll be happy to agree with you. And I think it makes most people feel bad, not good about themselves. Bad that things like this can go on, that the person who should protect you from this type of harm is the one administering it in the name of making you a better person. I don't feel any better about myself because of what AP did, but I would sure feel better if it had never happened.

Where did I say or suggest you said anything? You were not the focus of my post.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

:IBTL:

:IBTL: Belongs in FFA.

 

[chinawildman]

Of course I think we should all practice some reasonable scrutiny, I said as much earlier in the thread. And that includes not taking anything as gospel "an hour" after the story breaks. But it hasn't been an hour, it's been days, and some of the facts have been reasonably established at this point. This isn't hearsay from some random blogger, this story has been picked up by every major news outlet, statements have been made by the team and attorneys and PETERSON HIMSELF (in which he doesn't deny beating his son with a switch), there are photographs of the child...

Like this gem right here? http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/khou-report--adrian-peterson-hit-another-one-of-his-sons--leaving-scar-000243619.html

How many people do you think will take one look at that headline, and draw the wrong conclusion? How many of these people do you think will actually read the contents of the article and realize that the facts in the article repudiate the actual headline? This has little to do with your opinion or mine, it's just bad journalism that people unfortunately love to eat up.

 

[TheFanatic]

Kid tries to touch the stove. You smack their hand away, they don't touch the stove. Now, they may try again a little while later, but you can certainly change behavior immediately. Also, if they don't understand much of anything, they certainly understand pain.

No, no, no. It's better to let them touch the stove and feel that pain than inflict it yourself to make sure they don't head to the ER for third degree burns...

 

[golfguy]

And some could also say that the lack of discipline in our kids has brought on more suicides, gender questioning, alcohol and drug abuse.

Drug use among teens is actually far lower than it was in the 70s. Alcohol use is at "historically low" levels, down 30% just since the 1990s. Suicide rates are the same as they were in the 80s (though they'd dropped in the late 90s). Gender questioning, well, yes, that's happening more often now since it's less likely to get you killed than it used to be. You think that's a bad thing?

not to go off course here, but I would really argue that kids are using a lot more dangerous drugs and a much higher rate then they were 20-30 years ago.

Do you have a reason to believe that? Because the CDC doesn't agree. Since 1994 drug use among teens has dropped significantly; in half for most drug classes (inhalants, hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin).

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/high-school-youth-trends

that is some flawed data. it's a survey to high school students for crying out loud.

and from your article:Illicit drug use among teenagers remains high, largely due to increasing popularity of marijuana. Marijuana use by adolescents declined from the late 1990s until the mid-to-late 2000s, but has been on the increase since then. In 2013, 7.0 percent of 8th graders, 18.0 percent of 10th graders, and 22.7 percent of 12th graders used marijuana in the past month, up from 5.8 percent, 13.8 percent, and 19.4 percent in 2008. Daily use has also increased; 6.5 percent of 12th graders now use marijuana every day, compared to 5 percent in the mid-2000s.

and surveying 41,675 students from 389 public and private schools in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grades participated in the 2013 survey. is not exactly a double blind study here. you could be missing some serious demographics here. I know in a lot of suburbs and rural schools abuse of pharmacy drugs and heroin has sky rocketed in the last decade.

 

[fourd]

Yeah, the justice system likely failed that kid. This really isn't a hard concept to grasp. As a direct result of the "whooping" AP gave that kid, he now has a permanent scar above his right eye. I don't give a #### if the kid got it trying to avoid a back hand from his 6'1 220 lb "dad", it was still the direct result of AP's archaic view of discipline. I feel bad for him (AP), because I truly think he thinks there's some strong correlation between beating the #### out of your kids and them becoming a man. Regardless, it doesn't excuse any of it. It's all is so obviously wrong it boggles my mind that anyone could defend it.

Sounded like his dad beat the crap out of him. And it's likely he feels that somehow contributed to him becoming a beast of a running back.

I still don't think you get it. Nobody is defending Peterson the person or his actions. Speaking for myself I am defending the tenets of due process, trying to correct factual inaccuracies that are being propagated in this thread, and speaking out against irresponsible journalism and the mob frenzy it creates. That it so happens to rebut the assertions of people denouncing Peterson has nothing to do with how I feel personally about his actions, which I find repugnant.

Yet you find fault with others that have the same view you just posted. How is it that you can come to this conclusion but you call out others? After all, he hasn't had his day in court. All we have are shoddy internet accounts of what may have happened. So how can you find his actions repugnant?

Because...

I feel like the course of rehabilitation is more beneficial for him than punishment.

I feel like he should and will be given a second chance by not only the Vikings, but the NFL.

I feel this issue encompasses a myriad of issues from religion to race and is not as simple and cut and dry as some seem to believe.

I feel the mob mentality, encouraged by shoddy journalism, has gone a bit overboard in this thread.

I feel the demonization of public figures also says a lot about the accusers.

I feel like emotion and not logic is driving much of the "analysis" in this thread.

I feel like false consensus and false confirmation biases are running rampant in this thread.

Just as the same jury can find a man guilty and then differ on opinions for sentencing, I can be disgusted at the photos and articles I've read, yet maintain the above opinions which seem to differ from yours. Don't insist that because I don't support his personal actions, I have to agree with the antipeterson crowd on everything else.

Well said.

Unfortunately it's now cooler to shout from our keyboards that, "I hope that P.O.S. never plays again and ends up penniless" and further sensationalize the "facts" that have been shared on the internet. Pointing the finger at the bad guy makes people feel better about themselves.

When you can show me where I've said any of your post I'll be happy to agree with you. And I think it makes most people feel bad, not good about themselves. Bad that things like this can go on, that the person who should protect you from this type of harm is the one administering it in the name of making you a better person. I don't feel any better about myself because of what AP did, but I would sure feel better if it had never happened.

Where did I say or suggest you said anything? You were not the focus of my post.

Then my apologies, just that it followed their responses to mine.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Kid tries to touch the stove. You smack their hand away, they don't touch the stove. Now, they may try again a little while later, but you can certainly change behavior immediately. Also, if they don't understand much of anything, they certainly understand pain.

No, no, no. It's better to let them touch the stove and feel that pain than inflict it yourself to make sure they don't head to the ER for third degree burns...

huge difference in a wrist slap than taking a switch to a kids nutsack

 

[Grahamburn]

‏

@SteveRushin

Vikings: "We feel strongly as an organization that this is about disciplining a child."

What a nauseating statement.

I'm sure they'd feel the same way if the accused was a backup guard instead of Peterson.

Funny you should say that. In 2011 Vikings cornerback Chris Cook was charged with choking his girlfriend. Ultimately Cook was acquitted of all charges, but the Vikings suspended him indefinitely without pay while allowing "due process" to be carried out.There is NO concept of justice in the NFL. It doesn't exist. They always do what is best for themselves and their wallet. That is why people need to bang the drum and be so obnoxious about voicing their displeasure here.

So does 99% of the rest of the human race.

 

[CalBear]

And some could also say that the lack of discipline in our kids has brought on more suicides, gender questioning, alcohol and drug abuse.

Drug use among teens is actually far lower than it was in the 70s. Alcohol use is at "historically low" levels, down 30% just since the 1990s. Suicide rates are the same as they were in the 80s (though they'd dropped in the late 90s). Gender questioning, well, yes, that's happening more often now since it's less likely to get you killed than it used to be. You think that's a bad thing?

not to go off course here, but I would really argue that kids are using a lot more dangerous drugs and a much higher rate then they were 20-30 years ago.

Do you have a reason to believe that? Because the CDC doesn't agree. Since 1994 drug use among teens has dropped significantly; in half for most drug classes (inhalants, hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin).

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/high-school-youth-trends

that is some flawed data. it's a survey to high school students for crying out loud.

and from your article:Illicit drug use among teenagers remains high, largely due to increasing popularity of marijuana. Marijuana use by adolescents declined from the late 1990s until the mid-to-late 2000s, but has been on the increase since then. In 2013, 7.0 percent of 8th graders, 18.0 percent of 10th graders, and 22.7 percent of 12th graders used marijuana in the past month, up from 5.8 percent, 13.8 percent, and 19.4 percent in 2008. Daily use has also increased; 6.5 percent of 12th graders now use marijuana every day, compared to 5 percent in the mid-2000s.

and surveying 41,675 students from 389 public and private schools in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grades participated in the 2013 survey. is not exactly a double blind study here. you could be missing some serious demographics here. I know in a lot of suburbs and rural schools abuse of pharmacy drugs and heroin has sky rocketed in the last decade.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." If you have some data about heroin and pharmacy drugs, bring it up.

Pot use is up since the 90s, mostly because of greater availability, but it's still way lower than it was in the 70s.

In any case, there's no support for the idea that beating four year olds will make them less likely to smoke pot in their teens. The idea is ridiculous.

 

[VaTerp]

Yeah, the justice system likely failed that kid. This really isn't a hard concept to grasp. As a direct result of the "whooping" AP gave that kid, he now has a permanent scar above his right eye. I don't give a #### if the kid got it trying to avoid a back hand from his 6'1 220 lb "dad", it was still the direct result of AP's archaic view of discipline. I feel bad for him (AP), because I truly think he thinks there's some strong correlation between beating the #### out of your kids and them becoming a man. Regardless, it doesn't excuse any of it. It's all is so obviously wrong it boggles my mind that anyone could defend it.

Sounded like his dad beat the crap out of him. And it's likely he feels that somehow contributed to him becoming a beast of a running back.

I still don't think you get it. Nobody is defending Peterson the person or his actions. Speaking for myself I am defending the tenets of due process, trying to correct factual inaccuracies that are being propagated in this thread, and speaking out against irresponsible journalism and the mob frenzy it creates. That it so happens to rebut the assertions of people denouncing Peterson has nothing to do with how I feel personally about his actions, which I find repugnant.

Yet you find fault with others that have the same view you just posted. How is it that you can come to this conclusion but you call out others? After all, he hasn't had his day in court. All we have are shoddy internet accounts of what may have happened. So how can you find his actions repugnant?

Because...

I feel like the course of rehabilitation is more beneficial for him than punishment.

I feel like he should and will be given a second chance by not only the Vikings, but the NFL.

I feel this issue encompasses a myriad of issues from religion to race and is not as simple and cut and dry as some seem to believe.

I feel the mob mentality, encouraged by shoddy journalism, has gone a bit overboard in this thread.

I feel the demonization of public figures also says a lot about the accusers.

I feel like emotion and not logic is driving much of the "analysis" in this thread.

I feel like false consensus and false confirmation biases are running rampant in this thread.

Just as the same jury can find a man guilty and then differ on opinions for sentencing, I can be disgusted at the photos and articles I've read, yet maintain the above opinions which seem to differ from yours. Don't insist that because I don't support his personal actions, I have to agree with the antipeterson crowd on everything else.

Well said.

Unfortunately it's now cooler to shout from our keyboards that, "I hope that P.O.S. never plays again and ends up penniless" and further sensationalize the "facts" that have been shared on the internet. Pointing the finger at the bad guy makes people feel better about themselves.

When you can show me where I've said any of your post I'll be happy to agree with you. And I think it makes most people feel bad, not good about themselves. Bad that things like this can go on, that the person who should protect you from this type of harm is the one administering it in the name of making you a better person. I don't feel any better about myself because of what AP did, but I would sure feel better if it had never happened.

Where did I say or suggest you said anything? You were not the focus of my post.

Then my apologies, just that it followed their responses to mine.

All good. People in this thread and others have said those things and I was just citing them in my agreement with chinawildman's post that happened to quote yours.

 

[whiskey7]

And some could also say that the lack of discipline in our kids has brought on more suicides, gender questioning, alcohol and drug abuse.

Drug use among teens is actually far lower than it was in the 70s. Alcohol use is at "historically low" levels, down 30% just since the 1990s. Suicide rates are the same as they were in the 80s (though they'd dropped in the late 90s). Gender questioning, well, yes, that's happening more often now since it's less likely to get you killed than it used to be. You think that's a bad thing?

not to go off course here, but I would really argue that kids are using a lot more dangerous drugs and a much higher rate then they were 20-30 years ago.

Do you have a reason to believe that? Because the CDC doesn't agree. Since 1994 drug use among teens has dropped significantly; in half for most drug classes (inhalants, hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin).

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/high-school-youth-trends

That surprises me. Seems like all I hear about is increased numbers of kids going to the ER due to being FUBAR from bath salts, designer drugs, heroin, meth, etc. Maybe its just increasing regionally but (overall) down.

 

[fourd]

Of course I think we should all practice some reasonable scrutiny, I said as much earlier in the thread. And that includes not taking anything as gospel "an hour" after the story breaks. But it hasn't been an hour, it's been days, and some of the facts have been reasonably established at this point. This isn't hearsay from some random blogger, this story has been picked up by every major news outlet, statements have been made by the team and attorneys and PETERSON HIMSELF (in which he doesn't deny beating his son with a switch), there are photographs of the child...

Like this gem right here? http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/khou-report--adrian-peterson-hit-another-one-of-his-sons--leaving-scar-000243619.html

How many people do you think will take one look at that headline, and draw the wrong conclusion? How many of these people do you think will actually read the contents of the article and realize that the facts in the article repudiate the actual headline? This has little to do with your opinion or mine, it's just bad journalism that people unfortunately love to eat up.

Not necessarily disagreeing about the headline, but do you think the cause of the cut on the child's head was due to AP trying to hit him?

 

[Shrugs]

How about take all of the debate on child discipline to the FFA Peterson thread and in this thread post news on Peterson? As a guide, if your post doesn't have some form of Peterson, Adrian, All Day, ADP, AP or Purple Jesus, take it to the FFA.

 

[General Tso]

It's amazing how many educated, well meaning people continue to accept at face value that corporal punishment is ok, just because they were spanked as children and ended up ok. I'm pretty sick of hearing it. If it works so well, back it up with data. I've issued the challenge three times in this thread for anyone, anywhere to produce a credible study of any kind that indicates spanking or whooping is an effective means of educating a child...

Crickets...

It just doesn't work. It's antiquated, ineffective, and potentially harmful. And contrary to what the "tough guys" in here will tell you, it actually takes more of a man, and more strength, to parent correctly.

So as not to lose the forest through the trees, another great article talking about what kids "learn" with spankings and corporal punishment. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/09/adrian_peterson_and_corporal_punishment_hitting_children_teaches_them_nothing.html

I can tell you what kids learn from being hit. They dont learn whatever youre telling them while youre hitting them. They learn about hitting, and about you. When violence is the medium, violence is the message.

Study after study documents this pattern. It suffuses every interaction between adults and children: love, cooperation, exploitation, violence. The strongest predictor of whether a child thinks its OK to hit kids, and whether hell grow up to do so, is how often hes been disciplined that way. Light spanking isnt as bad as wielding a tree branch. But its part of the continuum. Researchers call this the hidden curriculum: Corporal punishment teaches itself.

But when you hit a child for hitting another child, the hitting does all the talking. Thats the upshot of a recent study of more than 100 children and their parents. Every parent who approved of spanking a child for hitting a sibling passed this belief on to their kids. And 79 percent of kids who came from homes with lots of spanking said theyd hit a sibling for trying to watch a different TV showalmost the same scenario that led to Petersons beating of his son. According to the researchers, Not one child from a no-spanking home chose to resolve these conflicts by hitting. The kids absorbed the model, not the lecture.

 

[chinawildman]

Just as the same jury can find a man guilty and then differ on opinions for sentencing, I can be disgusted at the photos and articles I've read, yet maintain the above opinions which seem to differ from yours. Don't insist that because I don't support his personal actions, I have to agree with the antipeterson crowd on everything else. Yet you've spent the entire thread telling everyone how wrong they are to feel the way THEY do.

1) If I feel like if people are basing their conclusions on an inaccurate piece of information, then yea that's wrong.

2) If I feel somebody says "AP shows no remorse" when his several of his texts have him saying "I felt so bad" then yea, that's wrong.

3) If I feel someone is interpreting grand jury indictment as a degree of "guilt" because they don't know how it works, then yea that's wrong.

a) If I feel the NFL is not going to suspend Peterson due to the issue crossing ethnic, cultural, religious lines, then that's opinion.

b) If I feel the media is partly to blame for this feeding frenzy then that's opinion.

c) If I personally believe that corporal punishment is justified in some instances that is also my opinion.

I've posted a ####load in this thread and yea I've spent most of it pontificating and correcting people, but at least try to tell the difference. I'm not indiscriminately telling people that their opinions wrong, only when I feel like it's based on inaccurate or incomplete information.

 

[TheFanatic]

How about take all of the debate on child discipline to the FFA Peterson thread and in this thread post news on Peterson? As a guide, if your post doesn't have some form of Peterson, Adrian, All Day, ADP, AP or Purple Jesus, take it to the FFA.

Already started a new thread for that

 

[fourd]

It's amazing how many educated, well meaning people continue to accept at face value that corporal punishment is ok, just because they were spanked as children and ended up ok. I'm pretty sick of hearing it. If it works so well, back it up with data. I've issued the challenge three times in this thread for anyone, anywhere to produce a credible study of any kind that indicates spanking or whooping is an effective means of educating a child...

Crickets...

It just doesn't work. It's antiquated, ineffective, and potentially harmful. And contrary to what the "tough guys" in here will tell you, it actually takes more of a man, and more strength, to parent correctly.

It always begs the question, "How do you know you wouldn't have been fine without it?" Or even better?

 

[CalBear]

That surprises me. Seems like all I hear about is increased numbers of kids going to the ER due to being FUBAR from bath salts, designer drugs, heroin, meth, etc. Maybe its just increasing regionally but (overall) down.

There might be more reporting; certainly everything bad that happens gets reported everywhere now in a way that wasn't true 30 years ago.

 

[TheFanatic]

Kid tries to touch the stove. You smack their hand away, they don't touch the stove. Now, they may try again a little while later, but you can certainly change behavior immediately. Also, if they don't understand much of anything, they certainly understand pain.

No, no, no. It's better to let them touch the stove and feel that pain than inflict it yourself to make sure they don't head to the ER for third degree burns...

huge difference in a wrist slap than taking a switch to a kids nutsack

For all the folks that think there should never be any sort of pain inflicted by an adult. There is a line and it seems ADP crossed it. But some are taking the extreme here to the other side.

 

[VaTerp]

It's amazing how many educated, well meaning people continue to accept at face value that corporal punishment is ok, just because they were spanked as children and ended up ok. I'm pretty sick of hearing it. If it works so well, back it up with data. I've issued the challenge three times in this thread for anyone, anywhere to produce a credible study of any kind that indicates spanking or whooping is an effective means of educating a child...

Crickets...

It just doesn't work. It's antiquated, ineffective, and potentially harmful. And contrary to what the "tough guys" in here will tell you, it actually takes more of a man, and more strength, to parent correctly.

So as not to lose the forest through the trees, another great article talking about what kids "learn" with spankings and corporal punishment. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/09/adrian_peterson_and_corporal_punishment_hitting_children_teaches_them_nothing.html

I can tell you what kids learn from being hit. They dont learn whatever youre telling them while youre hitting them. They learn about hitting, and about you. When violence is the medium, violence is the message.

Study after study documents this pattern. It suffuses every interaction between adults and children: love, cooperation, exploitation, violence. The strongest predictor of whether a child thinks its OK to hit kids, and whether hell grow up to do so, is how often hes been disciplined that way. Light spanking isnt as bad as wielding a tree branch. But its part of the continuum. Researchers call this the hidden curriculum: Corporal punishment teaches itself.

But when you hit a child for hitting another child, the hitting does all the talking. Thats the upshot of a recent study of more than 100 children and their parents. Every parent who approved of spanking a child for hitting a sibling passed this belief on to their kids. And 79 percent of kids who came from homes with lots of spanking said theyd hit a sibling for trying to watch a different TV showalmost the same scenario that led to Petersons beating of his son. According to the researchers, Not one child from a no-spanking home chose to resolve these conflicts by hitting. The kids absorbed the model, not the lecture.

You should send this to your local, state, and federally elected officials.

This speaks to the point I made several pages back that ignatio missed as he tried to break down my post and took things out of context.

"One of many things I see wrong with this thread is people trying to use this situation as a way to justify their stance on physical punishment of children, one way or the other." Everyone is entitled to how their opinion on corporal punishment but it's currently legal so arguments for or against it are moot here when it comes to what should happen next. What Peterson did may or may not be illegal and I think almost everyone is in agreement that he was in the wrong.

Again, the question then becomes what do we think should be done about it. Some think he should be permanently banned and left penniless. Others like me think he should go receive counseling and parenting classes and/or whatever else the court system ultimately decides, and be allowed to continue doing what he does best, play football.

 

[golfguy]

And some could also say that the lack of discipline in our kids has brought on more suicides, gender questioning, alcohol and drug abuse.

Drug use among teens is actually far lower than it was in the 70s. Alcohol use is at "historically low" levels, down 30% just since the 1990s. Suicide rates are the same as they were in the 80s (though they'd dropped in the late 90s). Gender questioning, well, yes, that's happening more often now since it's less likely to get you killed than it used to be. You think that's a bad thing?

not to go off course here, but I would really argue that kids are using a lot more dangerous drugs and a much higher rate then they were 20-30 years ago.

Do you have a reason to believe that? Because the CDC doesn't agree. Since 1994 drug use among teens has dropped significantly; in half for most drug classes (inhalants, hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin).

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/high-school-youth-trends

That surprises me. Seems like all I hear about is increased numbers of kids going to the ER due to being FUBAR from bath salts, designer drugs, heroin, meth, etc. Maybe its just increasing regionally but (overall) down.

it's not going down. They are using a survery given to 40k students from less then 400 schools across the country. most kids aren't going to report on a survery that they use hard core drugs.

work in a school district, or know police in the area and ask them. I'll take that information more to heart.

 

[chinawildman]

Of course I think we should all practice some reasonable scrutiny, I said as much earlier in the thread. And that includes not taking anything as gospel "an hour" after the story breaks. But it hasn't been an hour, it's been days, and some of the facts have been reasonably established at this point. This isn't hearsay from some random blogger, this story has been picked up by every major news outlet, statements have been made by the team and attorneys and PETERSON HIMSELF (in which he doesn't deny beating his son with a switch), there are photographs of the child...

Like this gem right here? http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/khou-report--adrian-peterson-hit-another-one-of-his-sons--leaving-scar-000243619.html

How many people do you think will take one look at that headline, and draw the wrong conclusion? How many of these people do you think will actually read the contents of the article and realize that the facts in the article repudiate the actual headline? This has little to do with your opinion or mine, it's just bad journalism that people unfortunately love to eat up.

Not necessarily disagreeing about the headline, but do you think the cause of the cut on the child's head was due to AP trying to hit him?

Yes, the story and Peterson's attorney's admit as much. However do you think the way the headline is worded reflects that? It would be something like:

Fourd shoots and kills man, leaving widow and 2 daughters

AP News - (Oct 16 2014) He was later cleared of all charges when officials learned he shot and killed the other man in self-defense....

All sentiments regarding Adrian Peterson aside, you can at least agree with me that misleading, incomplete headlines are a problem no?

 

[golfguy]

And some could also say that the lack of discipline in our kids has brought on more suicides, gender questioning, alcohol and drug abuse.

Drug use among teens is actually far lower than it was in the 70s. Alcohol use is at "historically low" levels, down 30% just since the 1990s. Suicide rates are the same as they were in the 80s (though they'd dropped in the late 90s). Gender questioning, well, yes, that's happening more often now since it's less likely to get you killed than it used to be. You think that's a bad thing?

not to go off course here, but I would really argue that kids are using a lot more dangerous drugs and a much higher rate then they were 20-30 years ago.

Do you have a reason to believe that? Because the CDC doesn't agree. Since 1994 drug use among teens has dropped significantly; in half for most drug classes (inhalants, hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin).

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/high-school-youth-trends

that is some flawed data. it's a survey to high school students for crying out loud.

and from your article:Illicit drug use among teenagers remains high, largely due to increasing popularity of marijuana. Marijuana use by adolescents declined from the late 1990s until the mid-to-late 2000s, but has been on the increase since then. In 2013, 7.0 percent of 8th graders, 18.0 percent of 10th graders, and 22.7 percent of 12th graders used marijuana in the past month, up from 5.8 percent, 13.8 percent, and 19.4 percent in 2008. Daily use has also increased; 6.5 percent of 12th graders now use marijuana every day, compared to 5 percent in the mid-2000s.

and surveying 41,675 students from 389 public and private schools in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grades participated in the 2013 survey. is not exactly a double blind study here. you could be missing some serious demographics here. I know in a lot of suburbs and rural schools abuse of pharmacy drugs and heroin has sky rocketed in the last decade.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." If you have some data about heroin and pharmacy drugs, bring it up.

Pot use is up since the 90s, mostly because of greater availability, but it's still way lower than it was in the 70s.

In any case, there's no support for the idea that beating four year olds will make them less likely to smoke pot in their teens. The idea is ridiculous.

I never said anything about spanking your kid leading to decreased pot usage.

 

[Run It Up]

Just read the blurb on rotoworld about the Minnesota Governor calling for the Vikings to suspend Peterson. Has anything like this ever happened before?

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton is calling for the Vikings to suspend Adrian Peterson.
Public and political pressure on both the Vikings and the NFL continues to mount. "Whipping a child to the extent of visible wounds, as has been alleged, should not be tolerated in our state. Therefore, I believe the team should suspend Mr. Peterson, until the accusations of child abuse have been resolved by the criminal justice system," read a statement from Dayton. The Vikings have chosen to reinstate Peterson. It remains to be seen if the NFL can or will step in with further discipline.

 

[chinawildman]

Just read the blurb on rotoworld about the Minnesota Governor calling for the Vikings to suspend Peterson. Has anything like this ever happened before?

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton is calling for the Vikings to suspend Adrian Peterson.
Public and political pressure on both the Vikings and the NFL continues to mount. "Whipping a child to the extent of visible wounds, as has been alleged, should not be tolerated in our state. Therefore, I believe the team should suspend Mr. Peterson, until the accusations of child abuse have been resolved by the criminal justice system," read a statement from Dayton. The Vikings have chosen to reinstate Peterson. It remains to be seen if the NFL can or will step in with further discipline.

Wouldn't surprise me if the Vikings did suspend him. My original prediction in the other thread was that they'd shut him down for about a month this season. The NFL's not gonna do anything this season.

 

[cvnpoka]

I advocated that people should consume information, with an inclination towards critical analysis rather than just wholesale buying into whatever it is they read. What's wrong with that? Throughout this thread, I've seen people cite the following:

1) Peterson showed no remorse

2) Peterson took pleasure in "whoopin" his kids

3) Peterson in now under investigation for a 2nd child

4) Peterson hit his kid against a car

None of this is true or based on any facts. And according to you, because I am against the dissemination of inaccurate reporting, I am "guilty" of what exactly Mr. Grand Inquisitor?

Initial reports thought the kid was 11 for at least an hour before they got that straightened out. You think with this kind of reliablility we shouldn't read the news more closely and examine reported facts under a microscope?

1 and 2 are based on his text messages and public statements. so the are certainly based on facts. ofc, they can not be proven, but neither can the opposite. so which is more likely? given the facts of the situation, i think those are accurate statements.

the last 2 points are largely irrelevant. does it really matter that he isnt currently under investigation for the first incident? is anyone using that to make a point?

and, so he didnt hit his kid against the car. i havent seen anyone argue that he did. i suppose it may have been that way for a fleeting moment when first reported. regardless, does it really matter? ofc not. his abuse inflicted a nasty gash on the kids head. whether banged him into a car are a car seat, does it really matter?

i notice you failed to include one of the main inaccuracies that the child abuse defenders clung to which was that the da grand jury shopped and it took 2 attempts to get an indictment.

So you think it's ok to have headlines like "Adrian Peterson hit another one of his sons, leaving scar"

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/khou-report--adrian-peterson-hit-another-one-of-his-sons--leaving-scar-000243619.html

When the content of the article actually says that he was cleared of the very thing that the headline states?

You don't consider that misleading or bad journalism?

sure seems that peterson hitting his son led to a nasty gash on his head. he even admits it.

Mother: "What happened to his head?"

Peterson: "Hit his head on the Carseat."

Mother: "How does that happen, he got a whoopin in the car."

Peterson: "Yep."

and no, he was not "cleared of the very thing that the headline states." he was cleared of any wrongdoing. but its not illegal to hit your kid leading to permanent scars.

its really ridiculous. the very thing you are criticizing everyone for doing, you are doing far worse.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm a parent of 4. Seen and heard things my kids have done that made my internal outrage meter go off. As the most pissed off and physically strongest person in the room, sometimes it's hard to channel that anger and focus your energy into a constructive, patient, lesson learning punishment. That brute animal instinct at the moment the #### hits the fan can make you twitch in anger thinking you need to unload your frustrations. Then you look down at your small child who you love...who cannot in any way defend him or herself from you and you remind yourself that the point of discipline is to right your child. It's not to inflict pain or release personal frustrations. That is not your right as a parent. The line you draw between abuse and discipline is a fine line, but you need to know that there are laws that delineate what you can and cannot do. Throw out cultural bias, that's a worthless crutch that enables domestic violence. The same kind of cultural bias was once used to justify segregation and women's suffrage.

A four year old child cannot even understand half the time what it is they are being punished for. They are very inquisitive at that age, and naturally get themselves in situations that get them into trouble. It's in their nature to push the boundaries. And it's completely normal. What's abnormal is to be a grown (yet immature) man of Adrian Peterson's might that believes he can somehow knock some sense into them. Hiding behind cultural upbringing is buying into the same cycle of violence and the chain never breaks. PSA to future parents, If you don't have patience, then don't get into the parenting business. It's not for everybody.

In discussions about this kind if thing with people at work I've brought up an alternative idea. Try waiting 15-30 minutes and then do it. It takes all emotion out of it. If it's about discipline, then waiting a few should not matter. I think in many (I'd say most but I don't have data on it, just a feeling) instances, the act of physical punishment of a child is just as much about getting rid of your own anger as it is correcting something that a child does wrong. If you believe physical punishment is a viable parenting choice to correct behaviors (ie a child learns a specific long term lesson from a spanking/whipping) then just waiting until you're calm shouldn't matter right?

But wouldn't the longer you wait to discipline a child make it less likely that they associate the physical punishment with the unwanted behavior?

If they're unable to connect the physical punishment to the behavior by reason, then whipping them is no better than whipping a dog. This isn't a good argument.

You're trying to train two things with the inability to reason and communicate effectively. Why isn't this a good argument?

Not a big dog trainer, are you?

 

[Omniscient Deity]

Don't feel like reading through 20+ pages. But has anyone brought up how the Vikings have not waited for the "due process" in past instances where their players have been in trouble?(Cooks, Jefferson, etc).

 

[Smack Tripper]

Fellas, why are you showing us polls from sports related websites regarding AP's fate? Do you think you'd see the same results at parenting.com? What about womensday.com or catholic.org?

Ok, maybe not that last one. But seriously, what do you expect or think this means?

Isn't your audience and demo what matters?

Or what other aspects of your life do you want to put up to the special interest electorate?

 

[General Tso]

You should send this to your local, state, and federally elected officials.

This speaks to the point I made several pages back that ignatio missed as he tried to break down my post and took things out of context.

"One of many things I see wrong with this thread is people trying to use this situation as a way to justify their stance on physical punishment of children, one way or the other." Everyone is entitled to how their opinion on corporal punishment but it's currently legal so arguments for or against it are moot here when it comes to what should happen next. What Peterson did may or may not be illegal and I think almost everyone is in agreement that he was in the wrong.

Again, the question then becomes what do we think should be done about it. Some think he should be permanently banned and left penniless. Others like me think he should go receive counseling and parenting classes and/or whatever else the court system ultimately decides, and be allowed to continue doing what he does best, play football.

You continue to assert this is a legal issue, as if AP's fate us going to be decided by what happens in a court of law.

It's not a legal issue. If the public is morally outraged it is well within the Viking's or NFL's right to suspend him. If the public asserts enough pressure, and if sponsors keep bailing, he will most certainly be suspended.

That is why you can't escape the discussion here about the morality of corporal punishment.

 

[dparker713]

Kid tries to touch the stove. You smack their hand away, they don't touch the stove. Now, they may try again a little while later, but you can certainly change behavior immediately. Also, if they don't understand much of anything, they certainly understand pain.

No, no, no. It's better to let them touch the stove and feel that pain than inflict it yourself to make sure they don't head to the ER for third degree burns...

huge difference in a wrist slap than taking a switch to a kids nutsack

The purpose in both cases is to use pain to change behavior.