Adrian Peterson Indicted

By your argument you are saying that there is some level of grey in this, and I'm trying to elicit what the grey is. Is it the kids age? Is it that kids are chattel and a parent can do anything they want to them? Is it that the kid deserved it?

Please tell me where you see grey here so I can understand it, because I looked at this and didn't see any grey. Show me what I'm not seeing.

 

Exactly what is it about Adrian Peterson's upbringing or his current life that is causing people to look to him as a parenting model?

It's because he can run through defensive linemen. That's it. If he couldn't, he'd be in prison long ago and there would be no dispute that he is a sadistic bully.

Yet somehow this man whose father (the one who apparently taught him all this good discipline) is a convict, and who has seven-that-we-know-of children, has become the standard-bearer for all that used to be good and right about the world.

 

You behaved like an animal and taught your son that violence solves problems. This is how male apes exert dominance. We've supposed to have evolved beyond that point.

 

I hear NOBODY defending this. Show me where it is being defended.

This is past the point itself to me. This is about the exchange of ideas, and how people just can't let others argue a point once their moral-outrage meter hits 11.

And ThomsonONE, with all due respect, that's what you're missing. It's not about the child abuse after a while. It's about not being able to discuss the child abuse.

It all makes me WANT to tell you that you're wrong, that you're missing something. But I agree with you on this point. Again: It's not about the issue with me. It's about the methodology here.

 

What exactly is there to discuss about child abuse? Please clarify your point, because I don't think people are understanding the point you're trying to make.

 

Yes.

 

The exchange of ideas you keep referring to means that there are at least two sides to this, one is that it is wrong, the other that there must be some degree of justification for this. I'm still waiting to hear the justification argument. I'm not only willing to hear it, I'm begging someone to explain it to me because I don't see what it could be. That isn't closed minded, I'm not shouting you down, I'm asking you to educate me.

Explain the grey, please.

 

Jim Rome, of all people, with a pretty good summation: "If you were whipped as a child and do the same to your kid because you turned out fine, you did not turn out fine."

 

Any chance we can beat Adrian Peterson with a switch for having too many kids for him to handle apparently?

 

Nope. I'm not going to be the face of child abuse, or what you define as child abuse. There are enough people who understand what I'm talking about. Anyway, a moderator has already shut down the exchange of ideas on it, from what I could see.

One parting shot, and I just heard it on Mike & Mike. Peterson is getting a lot more support from his peers right now than Ray Rice ever got. So apparently some people think there IS some grey on the issue.

 

One of the elements of this that has really caught my attention throughout this is the ferociousness with which adults defend their own parents. I can understand making parenting mistakes because, subconsciously, methods were ingrained in you, i.e. that's how you were taught. But a high percentage of the defense of Peterson and child abuse in general that I have seen has been anchored in vehement defenses of the person speaking's parents and how they went about the task decades before. It appears that a lot of people consider it a betrayal to second-guess how their parents raised them. Why?

 

Can you imagine the terror these kids feel when they're dropped off to visit with daddy?

I hope this fucker is never allowed another unsupervised visit with his kids again.