“I believe there is a clearly defined line here that you don’t punch a woman half your size in the face until she’s knocked out.”
Can you hit her until she’s, ya know, not quite knocked out, but not quite standing either? Where is that “clearly defined line” you were talking about?
I’m offering this advice as congenially as I can: stop.
“It went too far and that’s the reason he was indicted and arrested for it.”
This seems like a tacit statement that beating your children is OK as long as you don’t go “too far”, whatever the hell that means.
“I don’t think it’s fair to fire him from his job (effectively ending his career) for this particular offense until he is convicted.”
If he were a teacher, doctor, lawyer or engineer, there are several jurisdictions where he would lose his job pending the outcome of the trial. Why is an athlete exempt from these types of rules?
“We have hearsay, rumors, and a few “leaked” photos – this isn’t the same situation Ray Rice was in. With Ray Rice, there was video evidence of the crime being committed and, in that situation, the NFL obviously had to suspend him.”
No. Adrian Peterson testified to these facts before a grand jury. Instead of a video, we have him saying it in the first person before a quasi-judicial body, leading to his indictment. Perhaps you are not as informed as you believe.
“I think there is enough evidence at this point to support the fact that physical punishment is not the most effective way to teach kids right from wrong – let’s make that clear. Let’s get some clear laws out there!”
I agree, it is wrong. I believe the laws are quite clear, though. I also believe the average person is not aware of most laws, because there is no impetus for them to inform themselves.
“I’m just so sick of the media and general population getting on their high horses and forming these strong opinions before they even have the facts straight.”
See above re: facts.
“Give it a rest – you don’t understand the situation and neither do I.”
I agree with 50% of this statement.
Neither of us was suggesting he walked away unscathed. We both recognize the emotional repercussions are serious.
I was trying to say that I do not believe your statement that black children heal well is an appropriate one to make. At all. It adds an asterisk where none is required.
@Justifiable seemed to be saying that no child, black or otherwise, should have to be healing as a result of a beating from an adult. He also does not seem to believe your healing comment was appropriate.
re: Demi Lovato Bikini Photos: Miami (1 comments)
I thought the Lingerie Football League was out of season.
Think this through next time.
I haven’t seen anybody looking to crucify him or destroy his life. I have seen lots of people looking to hold him accountable for beating his son. In many people’s minds, that also includes not allowing him to continue to make millions of dollars a year as a professional entertainer.
The argument that he was raised a certain way and should be judged according to a sliding scale flies in the face of justice and how it applies to our society. The law does not operate so that only people who know what they did is wrong are punished; anyone who commits a wrong (and is caught) is punished. Certain crimes require intent, and those are outlined in the various statutes. Whatever the case, Peterson was charged with “reckless or negligent injury to a child”, suggesting it is not a specific intent offense.
I am going to go out on a limb here, though, and say anyone who finds themselves whipping a 4 year old with a switch ought to know that what they are doing is wrong, anyway.
This argument falls into the “black or white fallacy”. There are more options that beating your kid or doing nothing. The problem is that so many parents and other guardians do not realize it.
I would just like to say that I do not believe a discussion of whether he will be left with visible scars is helpful to this discussion. It’s similar to Floyd Mayweather’s contention that if he doesn’t leave any bruises on a woman, he hasn’t beaten her.
I was parodying your use of “shrieking from a soapbox”, “haughty moral superiority”, “redneck conservatives”, and “idiot puppet readers”.
I didn’t have any impressions of you until now. And now, I think you’re an idiot.
I don’t believe you’re fairly characterizing this situation. You read the same article I did. To the best of my knowledge, no one forcefully made you read it. You saw the title, presumably are aware enough of the news to know what it would be about, and chose to read through it.
How, then, is this about Fish or me forcing you to listen to our opinions? And where, pray tell, does this piece focus on “how smart [Fish] is”?