Proust Loves Cake said:
I really find it interesting and sad to see the lengths to which people will go and the time--and energy spent--defending such a grotesque act of child abuse.
This is a pretty depressing world sometimes seeing how people prioritize things.
Hey look dude, I took the time to write you a fairly respectful response
here regarding where I'm coming from on this whole thing. Yet you seem to have ignored it and prefer to keep labeling me as a child abuse defender. So yea you're probably right, I am likely wasting my time. I mean, when's the last time anybody changed their mind because they read someone else's disparate opinion on a message board... Futile right?
I do have one question for you. Suppose a person is defending the right to free speech under the 1st amendment for a klan-run website, does that make the person a white supremacist in your eyes?
I've had mixed feelings regarding your contributions to this discussion. At some moments, I feel there is genuine content that has potential for progress/insights on all sides. At other times, I felt you've backslid. My own self-assessment is the same, so I'm not taking any higher ground here, just trying to be honest about how I've seen this evolve over the past few days.
That post you referenced was among the best of the bunch. It was very thoughtful and added a lot of perspective. I still feel you rely on assumptions and code words/phrases in mischaracterizing my views (and perhaps others). For instance, I never referenced AP as an "animal" or intimated that he is subhuman or that he does not enjoy the right to due process in a court of law. Because I have very strong views about what constitutes child abuse versus what does not, I am not particularly swayed by what a bunch of legislators in Texas document as their laws on child abuse. i work in the mental health arena. I say this with no self-congratulatory back-patting, but I am an expert on child abuse, domestic violence, PTSD, among other light and fluffy areas in the world of treatment. There is no room for ambiguity or moral relativism about what AP did, so if others want to debate the abuse/no child abuse angle, leave me out of it. I know what it is, intent or no intent, accident or deliberate, it's child abuse.
That said, AP needs to have his day in court. He's been indicted on a very serious crime. If he cops a plea, we'll never know the full details, which is just as well because I believe they will only serve to obfuscate the matter for some. Either way, he needs to follow the process here, and that's fine. The notion I reject, however, is that the team is obligated to put AP on the field until due process has seen its final day. The argument around the latitude teams have to suspend with/without pay, cut players outright, put on exemption lists, etc...it's is a good academic exercise, but one that I find only marginally interesting and mostly avoid. For me, that's all a distraction, one that has deliberately been put forward by others, I suspect, to take attention away from AP. Those who are highly invested in this argument for religious and/or political reasons have an agenda, none of which aligns with what's important to me, which is to use this case as public model and make abundantly clear that this is/was abuse.
In the end, while I do respect your candor and willingness to explore some concepts, I don't think we are much on the same page. I do not believe in the doctrine of moral relativism. I can have empathy for AP (and I genuinely think I do) and still hold quite firmly that what he did was wrong and abusive. The TX court will determine if my assessment maps on with the laws of the land in that state. I have no control over that, so what will be will be.
Moreover, and I think this is where we really diverge...my distress with the NFL and the Vikings and whatever misgivings I have about their decision-making process pales in comparison to my feelings about AP and what he did that kid. I'll leave the issues of due process to others here. I've heard people a lot smarter than me and expert on legal issues argue both sides. My personal view aligns with the right of an organization to choose who represents them. Particularly in the case of an employee who abuses his child, I would support that organization if they no longer wanted to associate with him. And, I frankly have no interest in debating whether or not AP committed child abuse, because it's just not a matter of debate in my experience.
