Peterson charged with reckless or negligent injury to a child? (1 Viewer)

[Grateful Parrot]

God, Ray Rice must love Adrian Peterson at this point.

It's possible that the feeling is mutual. If the NFL didn't turn the Rice fiasco into another watergate, they probably would have much more legal wiggle room to act on this Peterson case right now. Now they're looking at a lawsuit from the Rice camp, reprimands from sponsors, and a large segment of the population reading into their lack of action as ineptness.

IMO the Vikings really botched it reinstating Peterson so soon. It's like the dumb bank robber that goes out and buys a Ferrari the day after...

The NFL and the Vikings will replace any sponsors they lose in a month - you really think if Anheiser-Busch bolts Miller and Coors won't come running? I'm sure Under Armor would love to take Nike's spot, as would Addidas.

If you do not understand its about appearances, I do not know what to tell you.

If you think those sponsors will come running with the public backlash, I believe you will be mistaken.

It's current reactions. More sponsors will come running. Remember after Tiger Woods, everybody was pulling out..now he's still got Nike, Rolex and a half a dozen others. The other sponsors will just wait for the dust to settle and put in their bids.

 

[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?

Are you claiming you can't train a dog with a whip?

By whipping it? I guess that depends on what you're training it to do. Are you training it to fear you, be disobedient, and lose control of its bowels?

If you can train a dog to salivate at the sound of a bell, I'd wage you could train it to do a whole lot more than that due to whipping.

Yes - fear you, be disobedient, and lose control of its bowels. The dog knows that the pain doesn't come from the behavior - it comes from you. This is dog training 101.

 

[dparker713]

God, Ray Rice must love Adrian Peterson at this point.

It's possible that the feeling is mutual. If the NFL didn't turn the Rice fiasco into another watergate, they probably would have much more legal wiggle room to act on this Peterson case right now. Now they're looking at a lawsuit from the Rice camp, reprimands from sponsors, and a large segment of the population reading into their lack of action as ineptness.

IMO the Vikings really botched it reinstating Peterson so soon. It's like the dumb bank robber that goes out and buys a Ferrari the day after...

The NFL and the Vikings will replace any sponsors they lose in a month - you really think if Anheiser-Busch bolts Miller and Coors won't come running? I'm sure Under Armor would love to take Nike's spot, as would Addidas.

If you do not understand its about appearances, I do not know what to tell you.

If you think those sponsors will come running with the public backlash, I believe you will be mistaken.

The public backlash will die down. And fairly quickly at that. The outrage machine needs new content to keep going. The longer a story is dormant the faster it falls out of the news. It's really pretty simple, especially when the ratings stay monstrous.

 

[chinawildman]

Well the headline reads, "KHOU report: Adrian Peterson hit another one of his sons, leaving scar"

KHOU did do the reporting.

Peterson did acknowledge hitting this boy, in texts to the boy's mother. They're all over the internet.

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

Peterson: "Yep."

There are photographs of the boy with a scar from the incident. Again, widely available on the internet.

It seems the scar resulted not from a direct blow, but rather from one or more flinches/thrashes into the carseat as Peterson was delivering the hits. Again, Peterson's texts are the source of this information.

Peterson: "be still n (and) take ya (your) whopping, he would have saved the scare (scar)."

So what wrong conclusion is being drawn, exactly? Peterson beat his son, and a scar resulted. Those facts do not seem to be in question.

I'm glad that you carefully dissected the article to glean the relevant contents for yourself.

However if you don't see how the headline infers that a scar resulted from Peterson's fist impacting his child, then I don't know what else to say.

A scar did result directly from Peterson striking his child. The boy thrashed his head into the carseat, either reacting to, or trying to avoid the strike. Read Peterson's texts where he says as much.

There, does that make sense now?

Fist is your term, not the article's.

The point remains, Peterson's texts confirm the scar did result directly from Peterson striking his child, as the headline indicates.

Good god man, do you understand what an inference is? Please tell me you're just trolling me now.

 

[Neofight]

Well the headline reads, "KHOU report: Adrian Peterson hit another one of his sons, leaving scar"

KHOU did do the reporting.

Peterson did acknowledge hitting this boy, in texts to the boy's mother. They're all over the internet.

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

Peterson: "Yep."

There are photographs of the boy with a scar from the incident. Again, widely available on the internet.

It seems the scar resulted not from a direct blow, but rather from one or more flinches/thrashes into the carseat as Peterson was delivering the hits. Again, Peterson's texts are the source of this information.

Peterson: "be still n (and) take ya (your) whopping, he would have saved the scare (scar)."

So what wrong conclusion is being drawn, exactly? Peterson beat his son, and a scar resulted. Those facts do not seem to be in question.

I'm glad that you carefully dissected the article to glean the relevant contents for yourself.

However if you don't see how the headline infers that a scar resulted from Peterson's fist impacting his child, then I don't know what else to say.

A scar did result directly from Peterson striking his child. The boy thrashed his head into the carseat, either reacting to, or trying to avoid the strike. Read Peterson's texts where he says as much.

There, does that make sense now?

No, not at all.

 

[fatness]

Anheuser-Busch, the beer maker that spends a fortune on NFL advertising and sponsorship, has released a strongly worded statement in response to the controversies that have unfolded over the last week regarding Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardy and Ray McDonald.

“We are disappointed and increasingly concerned by the recent incidents that have overshadowed this NFL season. We are not yet satisfied with the league’s handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code. We have shared our concerns and expectations with the league,” the statement said.

Previous statements from the NFL’s corporate partners have generally shown confidence in the NFL’s ability to get a handle on the events that have contributed to the ugliest week in NFL history. The statement from Anheuser-Busch shows no such confidence. If the NFL can’t satisfy Anheuser-Busch, the NFL is at risk losing one of its most lucrative partners.

Which means Roger Goodell is at risk of losing his job. Make no mistake, the reason the NFL’s owners are supportive of Goodell is that the NFL’s owners have made a lot of money while Goodell has run the league. The day Goodell’s mismanagement of this issue costs the owners money is the day Goodell loses the support of the owners. Goodell has already mismanaged the Rice case. He had better figure out the right way to handle the cases of Peterson, Hardy and McDonald.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/16/anheuser-busch-disappointed-concerned-dissatisfied-with-nfl/

 

[davearm]

Well the headline reads, "KHOU report: Adrian Peterson hit another one of his sons, leaving scar"

KHOU did do the reporting.

Peterson did acknowledge hitting this boy, in texts to the boy's mother. They're all over the internet.

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

Peterson: "Yep."

There are photographs of the boy with a scar from the incident. Again, widely available on the internet.

It seems the scar resulted not from a direct blow, but rather from one or more flinches/thrashes into the carseat as Peterson was delivering the hits. Again, Peterson's texts are the source of this information.

Peterson: "be still n (and) take ya (your) whopping, he would have saved the scare (scar)."

So what wrong conclusion is being drawn, exactly? Peterson beat his son, and a scar resulted. Those facts do not seem to be in question.

I'm glad that you carefully dissected the article to glean the relevant contents for yourself.

However if you don't see how the headline infers that a scar resulted from Peterson's fist impacting his child, then I don't know what else to say.

A scar did result directly from Peterson striking his child. The boy thrashed his head into the carseat, either reacting to, or trying to avoid the strike. Read Peterson's texts where he says as much.

There, does that make sense now?

Fist is your term, not the article's.

The point remains, Peterson's texts confirm the scar did result directly from Peterson striking his child, as the headline indicates.

Good god man, do you understand what an inference is? Please tell me you're just trolling me now.

I was going to ask you the same thing, but figured that would be kinda petty.

A headline can imply one thing or another. It's the reader that infers.

 

[Stealthycat]

I'm from the south. I was a kid that had a switch used on him.

I've not used a switch on my kids - but I've spanked them hard and often when they were younger, more than most people would, harder too.

After seeing the pictures .... #### me Peterson, you drew blood, left whelps and in a dozen places on each leg. I can imagine the kid screaming and begging and you just beating and beating ??

Uncalled for - goes way, way beyond what we are told to do

Proverbs 13:24 KJV

King James Version
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes .

 

[chinawildman]

Well the headline reads, "KHOU report: Adrian Peterson hit another one of his sons, leaving scar"

KHOU did do the reporting.

Peterson did acknowledge hitting this boy, in texts to the boy's mother. They're all over the internet.

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

Peterson: "Yep."

There are photographs of the boy with a scar from the incident. Again, widely available on the internet.

It seems the scar resulted not from a direct blow, but rather from one or more flinches/thrashes into the carseat as Peterson was delivering the hits. Again, Peterson's texts are the source of this information.

Peterson: "be still n (and) take ya (your) whopping, he would have saved the scare (scar)."

So what wrong conclusion is being drawn, exactly? Peterson beat his son, and a scar resulted. Those facts do not seem to be in question.

I'm glad that you carefully dissected the article to glean the relevant contents for yourself.

However if you don't see how the headline infers that a scar resulted from Peterson's fist impacting his child, then I don't know what else to say.

A scar did result directly from Peterson striking his child. The boy thrashed his head into the carseat, either reacting to, or trying to avoid the strike. Read Peterson's texts where he says as much.

There, does that make sense now?

No, not at all.

cmon, you're better than that.

 

[cvnpoka]

Well the headline reads, "KHOU report: Adrian Peterson hit another one of his sons, leaving scar"

KHOU did do the reporting.

Peterson did acknowledge hitting this boy, in texts to the boy's mother. They're all over the internet.

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

Peterson: "Yep."

There are photographs of the boy with a scar from the incident. Again, widely available on the internet.

It seems the scar resulted not from a direct blow, but rather from one or more flinches/thrashes into the carseat as Peterson was delivering the hits. Again, Peterson's texts are the source of this information.

Peterson: "be still n (and) take ya (your) whopping, he would have saved the scare (scar)."

So what wrong conclusion is being drawn, exactly? Peterson beat his son, and a scar resulted. Those facts do not seem to be in question.

I'm glad that you carefully dissected the article to glean the relevant contents for yourself.

However if you don't see how the headline infers that a scar resulted from Peterson's fist impacting his child, then I don't know what else to say.

A scar did result directly from Peterson striking his child. The boy thrashed his head into the carseat, either reacting to, or trying to avoid the strike. Read Peterson's texts where he says as much.

There, does that make sense now?

Fist is your term, not the article's.

The point remains, Peterson's texts confirm the scar did result directly from Peterson striking his child, as the headline indicates.

Good god man, do you understand what an inference is? Please tell me you're just trolling me now.

it most certainly does not "infer" anything about a fist. at this point i just gotta think you are some sort of elaborate joke. the sheer amount of times you have done the exact thing you are accusing everyone else of doing is just phenomenal.

 

[chinawildman]

Well the headline reads, "KHOU report: Adrian Peterson hit another one of his sons, leaving scar"

KHOU did do the reporting.

Peterson did acknowledge hitting this boy, in texts to the boy's mother. They're all over the internet.

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

Peterson: "Yep."

There are photographs of the boy with a scar from the incident. Again, widely available on the internet.

It seems the scar resulted not from a direct blow, but rather from one or more flinches/thrashes into the carseat as Peterson was delivering the hits. Again, Peterson's texts are the source of this information.

Peterson: "be still n (and) take ya (your) whopping, he would have saved the scare (scar)."

So what wrong conclusion is being drawn, exactly? Peterson beat his son, and a scar resulted. Those facts do not seem to be in question.

I'm glad that you carefully dissected the article to glean the relevant contents for yourself.

However if you don't see how the headline infers that a scar resulted from Peterson's fist impacting his child, then I don't know what else to say.

A scar did result directly from Peterson striking his child. The boy thrashed his head into the carseat, either reacting to, or trying to avoid the strike. Read Peterson's texts where he says as much.

There, does that make sense now?

Fist is your term, not the article's.

The point remains, Peterson's texts confirm the scar did result directly from Peterson striking his child, as the headline indicates.

Good god man, do you understand what an inference is? Please tell me you're just trolling me now.

I was going to ask you the same thing, but figured that would be kinda petty.

A headline can imply one thing or another. It's the reader that infers.

DING DING DING Yes!

You may not infer that, but I'm willing to bet there are plenty of other readers that will.

 

[Neofight]

Well the headline reads, "KHOU report: Adrian Peterson hit another one of his sons, leaving scar"

KHOU did do the reporting.

Peterson did acknowledge hitting this boy, in texts to the boy's mother. They're all over the internet.

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

Peterson: "Yep."

There are photographs of the boy with a scar from the incident. Again, widely available on the internet.

It seems the scar resulted not from a direct blow, but rather from one or more flinches/thrashes into the carseat as Peterson was delivering the hits. Again, Peterson's texts are the source of this information.

Peterson: "be still n (and) take ya (your) whopping, he would have saved the scare (scar)."

So what wrong conclusion is being drawn, exactly? Peterson beat his son, and a scar resulted. Those facts do not seem to be in question.

I'm glad that you carefully dissected the article to glean the relevant contents for yourself.

However if you don't see how the headline infers that a scar resulted from Peterson's fist impacting his child, then I don't know what else to say.

A scar did result directly from Peterson striking his child. The boy thrashed his head into the carseat, either reacting to, or trying to avoid the strike. Read Peterson's texts where he says as much.

There, does that make sense now?

No, not at all.

cmon, you're better than that.

Shows how much you know.

 

[Henry Ford]

Good god man, do you understand what an inference is? Please tell me you're just trolling me now.

I don't think this is a good argument for you to have.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

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.

It's a trick question, that's why. There are no studies on this. Any study would have be in the form of a survey, which is about the lowest level of scientific evidence there is.

Why? Because (if you know anything about research) there is no way a high level study (RCT or prospective) on spanking would be approved. This would be on the basis of 1) risk of harm to participants (children and parents), and/or 2) parents choosing not to discipline under the supervision of others.

So, while I'm on the fence on this issue, the fact is your question/request can't be answered. So give it a rest.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

I'm from the south. I was a kid that had a switch used on him.

I've not used a switch on my kids - but I've spanked them hard and often when they were younger, more than most people would, harder too.

After seeing the pictures .... #### me Peterson, you drew blood, left whelps and in a dozen places on each leg. I can imagine the kid screaming and begging and you just beating and beating ??

Uncalled for - goes way, way beyond what we are told to do

Proverbs 13:24 KJV

King James Version
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes .

FWIW....He said the kid wasnt crying. He said had he known the end of the switch was wrapping around the kids leg and doing that he would have stopped.

 

[davearm]

Well the headline reads, "KHOU report: Adrian Peterson hit another one of his sons, leaving scar"

KHOU did do the reporting.

Peterson did acknowledge hitting this boy, in texts to the boy's mother. They're all over the internet.

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

Peterson: "Yep."

There are photographs of the boy with a scar from the incident. Again, widely available on the internet.

It seems the scar resulted not from a direct blow, but rather from one or more flinches/thrashes into the carseat as Peterson was delivering the hits. Again, Peterson's texts are the source of this information.

Peterson: "be still n (and) take ya (your) whopping, he would have saved the scare (scar)."

So what wrong conclusion is being drawn, exactly? Peterson beat his son, and a scar resulted. Those facts do not seem to be in question.

I'm glad that you carefully dissected the article to glean the relevant contents for yourself.

However if you don't see how the headline infers that a scar resulted from Peterson's fist impacting his child, then I don't know what else to say.

A scar did result directly from Peterson striking his child. The boy thrashed his head into the carseat, either reacting to, or trying to avoid the strike. Read Peterson's texts where he says as much.

There, does that make sense now?

Fist is your term, not the article's.

The point remains, Peterson's texts confirm the scar did result directly from Peterson striking his child, as the headline indicates.

Good god man, do you understand what an inference is? Please tell me you're just trolling me now.

I was going to ask you the same thing, but figured that would be kinda petty.

A headline can imply one thing or another. It's the reader that infers.

DING DING DING Yes!

You may not infer that, but I'm willing to bet there are plenty of other readers that will.

Actually I did infer that the scar was a result of the whooping, and I hope all the other readers do as well, because that's what Peterson said happened.

 

[dparker713]

Anheuser-Busch, the beer maker that spends a fortune on NFL advertising and sponsorship, has released a strongly worded statement in response to the controversies that have unfolded over the last week regarding Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardy and Ray McDonald.

“We are disappointed and increasingly concerned by the recent incidents that have overshadowed this NFL season. We are not yet satisfied with the league’s handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code. We have shared our concerns and expectations with the league,” the statement said.

Previous statements from the NFL’s corporate partners have generally shown confidence in the NFL’s ability to get a handle on the events that have contributed to the ugliest week in NFL history. The statement from Anheuser-Busch shows no such confidence. If the NFL can’t satisfy Anheuser-Busch, the NFL is at risk losing one of its most lucrative partners.

Which means Roger Goodell is at risk of losing his job. Make no mistake, the reason the NFL’s owners are supportive of Goodell is that the NFL’s owners have made a lot of money while Goodell has run the league. The day Goodell’s mismanagement of this issue costs the owners money is the day Goodell loses the support of the owners. Goodell has already mismanaged the Rice case. He had better figure out the right way to handle the cases of Peterson, Hardy and McDonald.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/16/anheuser-busch-disappointed-concerned-dissatisfied-with-nfl/

They came out strongly against FIFA prior to the World Cup too. They didn't do anything then. Plus Arian Foster just killed them on Twitter.

 

[Neofight]

Well the headline reads, "KHOU report: Adrian Peterson hit another one of his sons, leaving scar"

KHOU did do the reporting.

Peterson did acknowledge hitting this boy, in texts to the boy's mother. They're all over the internet.

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

Peterson: "Yep."

There are photographs of the boy with a scar from the incident. Again, widely available on the internet.

It seems the scar resulted not from a direct blow, but rather from one or more flinches/thrashes into the carseat as Peterson was delivering the hits. Again, Peterson's texts are the source of this information.

Peterson: "be still n (and) take ya (your) whopping, he would have saved the scare (scar)."

So what wrong conclusion is being drawn, exactly? Peterson beat his son, and a scar resulted. Those facts do not seem to be in question.

I'm glad that you carefully dissected the article to glean the relevant contents for yourself.

However if you don't see how the headline infers that a scar resulted from Peterson's fist impacting his child, then I don't know what else to say.

A scar did result directly from Peterson striking his child. The boy thrashed his head into the carseat, either reacting to, or trying to avoid the strike. Read Peterson's texts where he says as much.

There, does that make sense now?

Fist is your term, not the article's.

The point remains, Peterson's texts confirm the scar did result directly from Peterson striking his child, as the headline indicates.

Good god man, do you understand what an inference is? Please tell me you're just trolling me now.

I was going to ask you the same thing, but figured that would be kinda petty.

A headline can imply one thing or another. It's the reader that infers.

DING DING DING Yes!

You may not infer that, but I'm willing to bet there are plenty of other readers that will.

Actually I did infer that the scar was a result of the whooping, and I hope all the other readers do as well, because that's what Peterson said happened.

But the fist man, the fist...!!! What about the fist?!?!

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Anheuser-Busch, the beer maker that spends a fortune on NFL advertising and sponsorship, has released a strongly worded statement in response to the controversies that have unfolded over the last week regarding Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardy and Ray McDonald.

“We are disappointed and increasingly concerned by the recent incidents that have overshadowed this NFL season. We are not yet satisfied with the league’s handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code. We have shared our concerns and expectations with the league,” the statement said.

Previous statements from the NFL’s corporate partners have generally shown confidence in the NFL’s ability to get a handle on the events that have contributed to the ugliest week in NFL history. The statement from Anheuser-Busch shows no such confidence. If the NFL can’t satisfy Anheuser-Busch, the NFL is at risk losing one of its most lucrative partners.

Which means Roger Goodell is at risk of losing his job. Make no mistake, the reason the NFL’s owners are supportive of Goodell is that the NFL’s owners have made a lot of money while Goodell has run the league. The day Goodell’s mismanagement of this issue costs the owners money is the day Goodell loses the support of the owners. Goodell has already mismanaged the Rice case. He had better figure out the right way to handle the cases of Peterson, Hardy and McDonald.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/16/anheuser-busch-disappointed-concerned-dissatisfied-with-nfl/

They came out strongly against FIFA prior to the World Cup too. They didn't do anything then. Plus Arian Foster just killed them on Twitter.

Solid points by him

 

[RichInOrlando]

God, Ray Rice must love Adrian Peterson at this point.

It's possible that the feeling is mutual. If the NFL didn't turn the Rice fiasco into another watergate, they probably would have much more legal wiggle room to act on this Peterson case right now. Now they're looking at a lawsuit from the Rice camp, reprimands from sponsors, and a large segment of the population reading into their lack of action as ineptness.

IMO the Vikings really botched it reinstating Peterson so soon. It's like the dumb bank robber that goes out and buys a Ferrari the day after...

The NFL and the Vikings will replace any sponsors they lose in a month - you really think if Anheiser-Busch bolts Miller and Coors won't come running? I'm sure Under Armor would love to take Nike's spot, as would Addidas.

If you do not understand its about appearances, I do not know what to tell you.

If you think those sponsors will come running with the public backlash, I believe you will be mistaken.

Seriously? Peterson being a scumbag aside. You are sorely mistaken if you think a company wouldn't jump at the chance to replace a competitor as the "Official [insert product] Sponsor of the NFL." Why do you think many of them are just "suspending" or voicing their discontent? And not ending them? (For the reocrd, I'm sure their contract includes an 'out' if their ethics disagree with the NFL. So they may be able to temrinate when they can, but they won't)

They all think this is horrible, but they know it will blow over in a year once punishments are handed out and they will be raking in money again. You know what makes big companies forget about bad PR? Lots of money.

 

[chinawildman]

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...

LOL yea I know right? I wake up everyday thinking to myself "Man, it's such a trip how anyone with half a brain doesn't agree with me!"

Seriously though, the primary reason you don't see scholarly articles or research done to reinforce the merits of corporal punishment is likely because it is the status quo in England and the United States. People often do research and studies to attempt to change the status quo. For example I think several of the articles regarding children's rights on the internet are written by a professor at my wife's law school, who is a self-professed "liberal". (She just took his Social Injustice course last semester, and the dude's got some pretty crazy ideas including doing away with the concept of inheritance altogether)

Regardless, should states begin to ban corporal punishment and the sides start to even out, I suspect that corporal punishment advocates will muster their own troops in academia to fire back with their own pedagogical ammunition. Until then, I suspect research in this field will likely remain one-sided.

 

[tone1oc]

Chinawildman.. Take a step back and think about all the hours you've spent in this thread vehemently protecting a child abuser from antipetersons.

Let that soak in, you will never get that life back.

 

[chinawildman]

But the fist man, the fist...!!! What about the fist?!?!

Give it a rest man...

 

[Neofight]

But the fist man, the fist...!!! What about the fist?!?!

Give it a rest man...

Oh come now, this is good natured. Like two kids wrestling and one getting a black eye.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

what are the chances the governor has peterson publicly whipped?

 

[chinawildman]

Chinawildman.. Take a step back and think about all the hours you've spent in this thread vehemently protecting a child abuser from antipetersons.

Let that soak in, you will never get that life back.

On the contrary, I consider it perhaps the most worthwhile time I've ever spent in this forum. Though reading that first sentence I do regret that that is all you've gathered from these exchanges.

But I suppose talking about imaginary football teams is much more important than debating tangible issues in our world.

 

[chinawildman]

But the fist man, the fist...!!! What about the fist?!?!

Give it a rest man...

Oh come now, this is good natured. Like two kids wrestling and one getting a black eye.

Aw, now you're gettin' it!

 

[chinawildman]

what are the chances the governor has peterson publicly whipped?

Meh, woulda watched if JV was still governor.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Anheuser-Busch, the beer maker that spends a fortune on NFL advertising and sponsorship, has released a strongly worded statement in response to the controversies that have unfolded over the last week regarding Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardy and Ray McDonald.

“We are disappointed and increasingly concerned by the recent incidents that have overshadowed this NFL season. We are not yet satisfied with the league’s handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code. We have shared our concerns and expectations with the league,” the statement said.

Previous statements from the NFL’s corporate partners have generally shown confidence in the NFL’s ability to get a handle on the events that have contributed to the ugliest week in NFL history. The statement from Anheuser-Busch shows no such confidence. If the NFL can’t satisfy Anheuser-Busch, the NFL is at risk losing one of its most lucrative partners.

Which means Roger Goodell is at risk of losing his job. Make no mistake, the reason the NFL’s owners are supportive of Goodell is that the NFL’s owners have made a lot of money while Goodell has run the league. The day Goodell’s mismanagement of this issue costs the owners money is the day Goodell loses the support of the owners. Goodell has already mismanaged the Rice case. He had better figure out the right way to handle the cases of Peterson, Hardy and McDonald.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/16/anheuser-busch-disappointed-concerned-dissatisfied-with-nfl/

They came out strongly against FIFA prior to the World Cup too. They didn't do anything then. Plus Arian Foster just killed them on Twitter.

Solid points by him

Does Arian Foster understand where his money comes from?

It seems to be the opinion of many here that if Bud chooses to pull their advertising dollars, another company will step right in. While that may be true, there's less competition for that advertising slot, thus it will cost less to win the bid. ie. if Miller/Coors doesn't have to bid against Bud they may get the same contract for 25% less than bud was paying.

The NFL has seen nothing but growth for a long, long time. At some point businesses are not going to believe it's worth the investment anymore.

 

[RichInOrlando]

Anheuser-Busch, the beer maker that spends a fortune on NFL advertising and sponsorship, has released a strongly worded statement in response to the controversies that have unfolded over the last week regarding Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardy and Ray McDonald.

“We are disappointed and increasingly concerned by the recent incidents that have overshadowed this NFL season. We are not yet satisfied with the league’s handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code. We have shared our concerns and expectations with the league,” the statement said.

Previous statements from the NFL’s corporate partners have generally shown confidence in the NFL’s ability to get a handle on the events that have contributed to the ugliest week in NFL history. The statement from Anheuser-Busch shows no such confidence. If the NFL can’t satisfy Anheuser-Busch, the NFL is at risk losing one of its most lucrative partners.

Which means Roger Goodell is at risk of losing his job. Make no mistake, the reason the NFL’s owners are supportive of Goodell is that the NFL’s owners have made a lot of money while Goodell has run the league. The day Goodell’s mismanagement of this issue costs the owners money is the day Goodell loses the support of the owners. Goodell has already mismanaged the Rice case. He had better figure out the right way to handle the cases of Peterson, Hardy and McDonald.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/16/anheuser-busch-disappointed-concerned-dissatisfied-with-nfl/

They came out strongly against FIFA prior to the World Cup too. They didn't do anything then. Plus Arian Foster just killed them on Twitter.

Solid points by him

Does Arian Foster understand where his money comes from?

It seems to be the opinion of many here that if Bud chooses to pull their advertising dollars, another company will step right in. While that may be true, there's less competition for that advertising slot, thus it will cost less to win the bid. ie. if Miller/Coors doesn't have to bid against Bud they may get the same contract for 25% less than bud was paying.

The NFL has seen nothing but growth for a long, long time. At some point businesses are not going to believe it's worth the investment anymore.

Partially true. The NFL's ad team most likely has set prices on what it costs to be a sponsored company. We're not privy to the process, so it could be a bid, but it could also be something where the NFL says "We have the most viewers int he nation. We host the most watched TV event annually. We have access to millions of fans every week in 32 major markets. So why do we have to lower our costs for you?"

Although sponsorships carry weight in NFL's wallet, don't underestimate how much those companies would enjoy to have exclusive access to the NFL's audience. Which gives the NFL power.

Fellas, this is the NFL. Not the AFL, USFL or some other puny football league. This is the NFL. They have HEAVY pull.

 

[chickensoup]

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?

Are you claiming you can't train a dog with a whip?

By whipping it? I guess that depends on what you're training it to do. Are you training it to fear you, be disobedient, and lose control of its bowels?

If you can train a dog to salivate at the sound of a bell, I'd wage you could train it to do a whole lot more than that due to whipping.

I didn't mean my thought to turn it into a debate about dogs but sure, let's talk about this entirely different subject for a second....

It's a dog. An animal that has only the most rudimentary forms of communication between it and any other animal type. It can understand a word as a desired action. Notice something, one single word (stop, sit, halt, outside etc). The ability for dogs to think is probably lower than my 18 month old daughter. Please do not compare the two.

Now back on actual human beings......if someone cannot connect what they did wrong with a spanking/whipping/whatever else you do to physically harm them after 15 minutes, how effective, long term, with the physical "teaching tool" be? Is it that kids that are young can ONLY remember not to do certain things when there is physical force used?

If there is a problem connecting the punishment to the problem then physical pain won't help. They are too young to actually make any kind of change long term and using something like a spanking really only immediately corrects the problem the same way any other method would. If the child is old enough to actually understand the punishment 15 or so minutes later, then what's the downside besides missing the immediate satisfaction?

Someone else brought this up and I'm curious if anyone has found anything yet. Where is the evidence that corporal punishment is effective as a method of teaching children? PI'm guessing that might be hard to find because it might not exist.

 

[Gatorman]

Anheuser-Busch, the beer maker that spends a fortune on NFL advertising and sponsorship, has released a strongly worded statement in response to the controversies that have unfolded over the last week regarding Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardy and Ray McDonald.

“We are disappointed and increasingly concerned by the recent incidents that have overshadowed this NFL season. We are not yet satisfied with the league’s handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code. We have shared our concerns and expectations with the league,” the statement said.

Previous statements from the NFL’s corporate partners have generally shown confidence in the NFL’s ability to get a handle on the events that have contributed to the ugliest week in NFL history. The statement from Anheuser-Busch shows no such confidence. If the NFL can’t satisfy Anheuser-Busch, the NFL is at risk losing one of its most lucrative partners.

Which means Roger Goodell is at risk of losing his job. Make no mistake, the reason the NFL’s owners are supportive of Goodell is that the NFL’s owners have made a lot of money while Goodell has run the league. The day Goodell’s mismanagement of this issue costs the owners money is the day Goodell loses the support of the owners. Goodell has already mismanaged the Rice case. He had better figure out the right way to handle the cases of Peterson, Hardy and McDonald.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/16/anheuser-busch-disappointed-concerned-dissatisfied-with-nfl/

They came out strongly against FIFA prior to the World Cup too. They didn't do anything then. Plus Arian Foster just killed them on Twitter.

Solid points by him

Does Arian Foster understand where his money comes from?

It seems to be the opinion of many here that if Bud chooses to pull their advertising dollars, another company will step right in. While that may be true, there's less competition for that advertising slot, thus it will cost less to win the bid. ie. if Miller/Coors doesn't have to bid against Bud they may get the same contract for 25% less than bud was paying.

The NFL has seen nothing but growth for a long, long time. At some point businesses are not going to believe it's worth the investment anymore.

You still buying tickets to games?

 

[chinawildman]

Someone else brought this up and I'm curious if anyone has found anything yet. Where is the evidence that corporal punishment is effective as a method of teaching children? PI'm guessing that might be hard to find because it might not exist.

I attempted to answer this in an earlier post.

 

[RichInOrlando]

Someone else brought this up and I'm curious if anyone has found anything yet. Where is the evidence that corporal punishment is effective as a method of teaching children? PI'm guessing that might be hard to find because it might not exist.

I'm against corporal punishment of any kid, but for the sake of playing devil's advocate. Quick Google search of the terms: "Studies supporting Corporal Punishment" brings up ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/25/us/findings-give-some-support-to-advocates-of-spanking.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/spanking-kids-perform-better-school-helps-successful-study-article-1.457285

This is 2014. You can find studies supporting almost any abhorrent thing including this crap. Just FYI.

 

[Sinn Fein]

what are the chances the governor has peterson publicly whipped?

And then auctioned off?

 

[Sinn Fein]

I'm from the south. I was a kid that had a switch used on him.

I've not used a switch on my kids - but I've spanked them hard and often when they were younger, more than most people would, harder too.

After seeing the pictures .... #### me Peterson, you drew blood, left whelps and in a dozen places on each leg. I can imagine the kid screaming and begging and you just beating and beating ??

Uncalled for - goes way, way beyond what we are told to do

Proverbs 13:24 KJV

King James Version
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes .

Kid wasn't screaming, thats why he got 5 extra ones - since Peterson assumed the first 10 did not hurt.

 

[Van Dyman]

Chinawildman.. Take a step back and think about all the hours you've spent in this thread vehemently protecting a child abuser from antipetersons.

Let that soak in, you will never get that life back.

On the contrary, I consider it perhaps the most worthwhile time I've ever spent in this forum. Though reading that first sentence I do regret that that is all you've gathered from these exchanges.

But I suppose talking about imaginary football teams is much more important than debating tangible issues in our world.

There's a time and a place for everything. Now is the right time. There's a place to discuss how this relates to fantasy football, and a place to discuss how the world should be (anywhere else but here).

 

[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.

It's a trick question, that's why. There are no studies on this. Any study would have be in the form of a survey, which is about the lowest level of scientific evidence there is. Why? Because (if you know anything about research) there is no way a high level study (RCT or prospective) on spanking would be approved. This would be on the basis of 1) risk of harm to participants (children and parents), and/or 2) parents choosing not to discipline under the supervision of others.

So, while I'm on the fence on this issue, the fact is your question/request can't be answered. So give it a rest.

Complete and utter bs. It's been studied ad-nauseum. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131211103958.htm

"More than 100 studies have detailed these side effects of spanking, with more than 90 percent agreement among them. There is probably no other aspect of parenting and child behavior where the results are so consistent"

 

[chinawildman]

Chinawildman.. Take a step back and think about all the hours you've spent in this thread vehemently protecting a child abuser from antipetersons.

Let that soak in, you will never get that life back.

On the contrary, I consider it perhaps the most worthwhile time I've ever spent in this forum. Though reading that first sentence I do regret that that is all you've gathered from these exchanges.

But I suppose talking about imaginary football teams is much more important than debating tangible issues in our world.

There's a time and a place for everything. Now is the right time. There's a place to discuss how this relates to fantasy football, and a place to discuss how the world should be (anywhere else but here).

I presume you mean not is NOT the right time... regardless that ship sailed long ago on this thread. I could care less if this got moved to FFA.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

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?

Are you claiming you can't train a dog with a whip?

By whipping it? I guess that depends on what you're training it to do. Are you training it to fear you, be disobedient, and lose control of its bowels?

If you can train a dog to salivate at the sound of a bell, I'd wage you could train it to do a whole lot more than that due to whipping.

I didn't mean my thought to turn it into a debate about dogs but sure, let's talk about this entirely different subject for a second....

It's a dog. An animal that has only the most rudimentary forms of communication between it and any other animal type. It can understand a word as a desired action. Notice something, one single word (stop, sit, halt, outside etc). The ability for dogs to think is probably lower than my 18 month old daughter. Please do not compare the two.

Now back on actual human beings......if someone cannot connect what they did wrong with a spanking/whipping/whatever else you do to physically harm them after 15 minutes, how effective, long term, with the physical "teaching tool" be? Is it that kids that are young can ONLY remember not to do certain things when there is physical force used?

If there is a problem connecting the punishment to the problem then physical pain won't help. They are too young to actually make any kind of change long term and using something like a spanking really only immediately corrects the problem the same way any other method would. If the child is old enough to actually understand the punishment 15 or so minutes later, then what's the downside besides missing the immediate satisfaction?

Someone else brought this up and I'm curious if anyone has found anything yet. Where is the evidence that corporal punishment is effective as a method of teaching children? PI'm guessing that might be hard to find because it might not exist.

so, you guys think I should hold on peterson?

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Anheuser-Busch, the beer maker that spends a fortune on NFL advertising and sponsorship, has released a strongly worded statement in response to the controversies that have unfolded over the last week regarding Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardy and Ray McDonald.

“We are disappointed and increasingly concerned by the recent incidents that have overshadowed this NFL season. We are not yet satisfied with the league’s handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code. We have shared our concerns and expectations with the league,” the statement said.

Previous statements from the NFL’s corporate partners have generally shown confidence in the NFL’s ability to get a handle on the events that have contributed to the ugliest week in NFL history. The statement from Anheuser-Busch shows no such confidence. If the NFL can’t satisfy Anheuser-Busch, the NFL is at risk losing one of its most lucrative partners.

Which means Roger Goodell is at risk of losing his job. Make no mistake, the reason the NFL’s owners are supportive of Goodell is that the NFL’s owners have made a lot of money while Goodell has run the league. The day Goodell’s mismanagement of this issue costs the owners money is the day Goodell loses the support of the owners. Goodell has already mismanaged the Rice case. He had better figure out the right way to handle the cases of Peterson, Hardy and McDonald.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/16/anheuser-busch-disappointed-concerned-dissatisfied-with-nfl/

They came out strongly against FIFA prior to the World Cup too. They didn't do anything then. Plus Arian Foster just killed them on Twitter.

Solid points by him

Does Arian Foster understand where his money comes from?

It seems to be the opinion of many here that if Bud chooses to pull their advertising dollars, another company will step right in. While that may be true, there's less competition for that advertising slot, thus it will cost less to win the bid. ie. if Miller/Coors doesn't have to bid against Bud they may get the same contract for 25% less than bud was paying.

The NFL has seen nothing but growth for a long, long time. At some point businesses are not going to believe it's worth the investment anymore.

You still buying tickets to games?

For other reasons, I have opted out of Sunday ticket and going to a game this year.

 

[RichInOrlando]

Just wish a decision would be made on AP, so we can all get back to enjoying FF as the mind-numbing distraction to our regular lives.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

RoyalWitCheese is actually right about this - to set up a randomized study and have one group of parents spank and the other one not spank would be unethical.

However, there's plenty of evidence that spanking has a negative effect on children and I don't think there's one that shows positive results from spanking.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Anheuser-Busch, the beer maker that spends a fortune on NFL advertising and sponsorship, has released a strongly worded statement in response to the controversies that have unfolded over the last week regarding Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardy and Ray McDonald.

“We are disappointed and increasingly concerned by the recent incidents that have overshadowed this NFL season. We are not yet satisfied with the league’s handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code. We have shared our concerns and expectations with the league,” the statement said.

Previous statements from the NFL’s corporate partners have generally shown confidence in the NFL’s ability to get a handle on the events that have contributed to the ugliest week in NFL history. The statement from Anheuser-Busch shows no such confidence. If the NFL can’t satisfy Anheuser-Busch, the NFL is at risk losing one of its most lucrative partners.

Which means Roger Goodell is at risk of losing his job. Make no mistake, the reason the NFL’s owners are supportive of Goodell is that the NFL’s owners have made a lot of money while Goodell has run the league. The day Goodell’s mismanagement of this issue costs the owners money is the day Goodell loses the support of the owners. Goodell has already mismanaged the Rice case. He had better figure out the right way to handle the cases of Peterson, Hardy and McDonald.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/16/anheuser-busch-disappointed-concerned-dissatisfied-with-nfl/

They came out strongly against FIFA prior to the World Cup too. They didn't do anything then. Plus Arian Foster just killed them on Twitter.

Solid points by him

Does Arian Foster understand where his money comes from?

It seems to be the opinion of many here that if Bud chooses to pull their advertising dollars, another company will step right in. While that may be true, there's less competition for that advertising slot, thus it will cost less to win the bid. ie. if Miller/Coors doesn't have to bid against Bud they may get the same contract for 25% less than bud was paying.

The NFL has seen nothing but growth for a long, long time. At some point businesses are not going to believe it's worth the investment anymore.

Partially true. The NFL's ad team most likely has set prices on what it costs to be a sponsored company. We're not privy to the process, so it could be a bid, but it could also be something where the NFL says "We have the most viewers int he nation. We host the most watched TV event annually. We have access to millions of fans every week in 32 major markets. So why do we have to lower our costs for you?"

Although sponsorships carry weight in NFL's wallet, don't underestimate how much those companies would enjoy to have exclusive access to the NFL's audience. Which gives the NFL power.

Fellas, this is the NFL. Not the AFL, USFL or some other puny football league. This is the NFL. They have HEAVY pull.

I agree they have HEAVY pull, and yes it may not be a bid process. However, its a two way street. Miller/Coors may say we have $X. We aren't going to spend more than $X.

Suffice it to say I believe the BIG NFL sponsors have quite a bit of influence over what the NFL league office does and says.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Does Arian Foster understand where his money comes from?

Foster truly DGAF.

 

[Coach3K]

For the love of all that's holy, don't effing multi-quote if you don't have a tangible point to follow that requires the specific context from the quote.

You're killing mobile users...nothing like scrolling down for 5 minutes because a nested quote is squeezing earlier posts into a single-digit line. Especially when the follow up post is so thrilling....

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Budweiser could be disappointed, dismayed, shocked, horrified, insert adjective but doesn't any believe for a second they would pull advertising from their bread and butter audience?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

sounds like foster's pop came home drunk on a somewhat regular basis, caused a bit of a ruckus, and foster feels more comfortable blaming the alcohol.

 

[RichInOrlando]

@JeffDarlington Adrian Peterson’s foundation — the All Day Foundation — is on hiatus, according to the website. Here’s the statement:

pic.twitter.com/HjKSvTEhy8


--------------------------

Should we just start taking bets on who pulls next? It's the growing trend.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

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.

It's a trick question, that's why. There are no studies on this. Any study would have be in the form of a survey, which is about the lowest level of scientific evidence there is. Why? Because (if you know anything about research) there is no way a high level study (RCT or prospective) on spanking would be approved. This would be on the basis of 1) risk of harm to participants (children and parents), and/or 2) parents choosing not to discipline under the supervision of others.

So, while I'm on the fence on this issue, the fact is your question/request can't be answered. So give it a rest.

Complete and utter bs. It's been studied ad-nauseum. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131211103958.htm

"More than 100 studies have detailed these side effects of spanking, with more than 90 percent agreement among them. There is probably no other aspect of parenting and child behavior where the results are so consistent"

Just as I suspected. No idea what constitutes good evidence and research. Are you aware that there are 7 levels of evidence? And that this "study" is of the lowest level? And that anyone can write a book (even John Rocker)?

I would be interested to see these 100 other "studies" over "40 years". Which brings us to another problem with this book: Old evidence is no evidence in research.

I'm not defending AP. But as a part time researcher myself, I don't believe everything I read. It has to be well done, high-level evidence to have true meaning and application.

So again, there is no good evidence out there on this topic, because it would be unethical to perform such studies.