Adrian Peterson indicted for reckless/negligent injury to a child
- Thread starter TSC
- Start date
- Status
Fred in Lynn said:
My objection is to your idea that morality is found only within the rule of law, and if the legal system doesn't get someone then a private company shouldn't sanction them (in particular, that the NFL shouldn't consider anything other than football performance in its sanctions and should assume that the legal system covers everything else). It's absolutely ludicrous. There are plenty of things that are immoral and have significant private repercussions that don't rise to the level of illegality; if one of my friends cheats on his girlfriend, I'm going to tell him he's a dick and possibly stop being his friend. Most people will agree that doing so is wrong, even though it's not illegal. If someone wanders around the office calling coworkers assholes, they're going to get fired even though the law isn't going to punish them.
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
One of my friends in elementary school had a collection of glass/ceramic animals that were his favorite toys. Whenever he forgot to do a chore, his parents would make him pick one that they'd then smash with a hammer in front of him. I'd much rather be spanked.
I was spanked on very rare occasions as a kid, and don't recall it ever even hurting for as much as an instant. The shock value of it happening however taught me that what I had done was NOT acceptable, and conveyed it to my seven year old brain in a manner far more effectively than any conversation with my parents would have. Getting caught swearing or breaking something you weren't supposed to touch is one thing. When it comes to something like running through a parking lot, a kid knowing beyond all shadow of a doubt that he's not supposed to do it trumps his need to know why, and if he's more likely to remember the spanking the next time he's in a parking lot than the 10 minutes he spent in timeout, then mission accomplished.Ralphwiggum said:
I think it's interesting that some who were hit as kids seem to break the cycle and some don't. I think jaymags had it right on when he mentioned cognitive dissonance. Humans aren't always able, at least emotionally, to draw fine distinctions. One thinks: I love my dad. My dad hit me. Therefore hitting must be ok because I would not love a person who did bad things. This moves into "I deserved it" pretty quickly, which means of course that sometimes kids must deserve it. Of course intellectually most of us don't view our parents quite so monolithically. We recognize their flaws even though we love them (or maybe we don't). We understand they lived in different times, with different social conventions. But we usually only recognize these flaws with how they treat others or interact with the outside world. With something as personal as corporal punishment, especially if it starts at an age where a child has no perspective other than to understand, cognitive dissonance is pretty powerful. "Oh, this is something that happens in the world sometimes, I get hit. Interesting."Monbo Jumbo said:
For those who use CP, if (away from a message board where people can dig in on their opinions) you could be shown empirically that it's just not very effective except occasionally in the short term with longer term negative effects would you keep using it? If your answer is, "I dispute the premise because that's just wrong," that's a clue (if you care) that cognitive dissonance is actually blocking you from making the best decision.
It seems like most in this thread supporting corporal punishment have some experience with it. It would be interesting to hear from any of those who use it who did not experience it (or whose spouse's didn't). Why did you make that choice? Is it prevalent in your community? How is it going?
SumnerH said:
I have. Great answer though.
The point I think you are missing here in this case of Adrian Peterson is that the object isn't really the issue, it's the fact that he hit the kid hard enough to produce cuts and welts, which he just as easily could have done with his bare hands.
Also:Fred in Lynn said:
a) My post isn't sarcastic, I'm genuinely shocked that anyone could honestly take the stance you were taking; and
b) Myt1's only post in the topic on the subject appears to agree 100% with me:
Myt1 said:
OnWisc said:
But what if it isn't more effective, and he's not more likely to remember that than a stern rebuke accompanied with some other type of non-violent discipline?
Even if striking your child got better results I wouldn't/couldn't do it. But it isn't clear to me that it works better than other methods of discipline. And absent crystal clear proof that hitting your kid is the best way to deal with certain types of behavioral issues, why ever do it?
The parking lot problem strikes me as an illegitimate debate tactic. It's like the "would you torture a terrorist if a nuke was about to go off"? Aha! You agree it's sometime ok. If a parent has decided that some form of physical (non welt or bruise inducing) discipline is appropriate solely to deal with the problem bad judgment of those too young to reason in a life or death situation, I don't think that's the parent that's being discussed here.
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
You don't have to be able to reason with a four year old to manipulate them into getting them to do what you want. Four year old kids are not intellectually sophisticated enough to be able to match wits with an intelligent adult.
And that's my point. The people who use spanking seem to be those people who don't understand human psychology and are unable to control their kids through positive reinforcement. (Or are unable to control their own anger.) Given that fact I think we have to accept that while spanking is not an optimal means of parenting, it may be the best that some parents can manage.
That's not germane to the Adrian Peterson discussion, though. Clearly whipping a four old to the point that they are still bloody six days later is not acceptable.
Its hard for me to understand why you don't get it. I can understand that there are people who don't whoop their kids. But to not get why and understand when it's applicable really alludes me. Maybe it's because I'm from the a southern and country setting and thus is the norm. The fact is kids raised around my area get the same similar raising. I would say the large majority of parents in my large community and in generations before and after use the same approach. what I'm speaking of is not child abuse. Beating your kid hard enough for a mark, bruise, or blood obviously is. This is a subject matter that's a no win argument much like politics. I'm not even sure why I got in this. I know what I'm doing is right for my family and I can appreciate what those who disagree are doing what is right for their family. While we may disagree on the handling of punishment it's probably a safe bet that we all care about our kids if we're able to jump on this thread and voice such a strong opinion on the subject.Ralphwiggum said:
IF it isn't, then the stern rebuke or the non-violent discipline is the way to go, and that may well be the case for a lot of people. But I remembered the rare occasions on which I was spanked and, more due to the rarity than any actual physical implications, it got the point across.Ralphwiggum said:
I agree that it's not the type of parent that's named in the thread title, but the net seems to be cast a bit wider with certain posts (My post would have been out of place on the first few pages of this thread). My experience with spanking may have been of the non welt or bruise inducing (or even momentary pain, for that matter), but it was still spanking.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
OnWisc said:
So, maybe there's an opportunity here for at least some common ground.
Let me start with a premise that I hope we can all agree on. Hitting a child for absolutely no reason at all should be avoided. Just doing it to do it, with no attempted purpose other than to hit a child is something that shouldn't happen and shouldn't be defended or encouraged.
Ok. I would think it follows from that premise that if it could be shown, in a particular situation, that hitting a child will not have the effect the parent desires, then in that case too there is no reason to hit the child and it shouldn't happen.
Children every day (probably every minute) in the U.S. get hit for making mistakes. That is, for spilling milk, or breaking something. Put to the side the cases where the child was doing something naughty that led to the mistake -- like jumping on the bed or some other activity that he or she has been told before not to do. Just a mistake for not paying attention or being momentarily careless. The justification for spanking or other corporal punishment in this case is usually the same -- this will teach them to be more careful.
There is, however, a mountain of science that you simply cannot teach a person to be more careful in the case of mistakes or errors -- whether by discipline or reward. And the science comes from those who have the greatest incentive to try to avoid mistakes of this nature -- NASA, surgeons, the military. All you can do is improve your systems. You can teach a person not to do a particular thing that leads to more accidents -- don't put your glass on the edge of the table -- but you can't teach a person "be careful around your milk glass." Children get hit every day for the second kind of mistake. It is, literally, for no reason. Or perhaps more accurately, it is simply because the child did something inconvenient for the parent.
So, while there's a macro debate on whether corporal punishment overall is effective or counterproductive, as I said, I'd hope maybe there is some common ground even for those who adhere to it on the micro level. That is, that they have the burden of proof to justify its use on each and every occasion -- because otherwise they are simply hitting a child for no reason -- and to understand that it is frequently used in cases where that burden cannot be carried (whether it leaves welts or not).
"Everybody I know does it" does not make something right. If that's your only argument in favor of spanking, and you're not capable of understanding the reasoning of people trying to explain why it's terrible, then there's not much point in you staying in the discussion.garlan5 said:
Also, while I'm sure that you love your children and you believe that what you are doing is good for them, that also does not mean that something is right. Parents who don't immunize their kids are harming them. Parents who don't get their children needed medical attention because of their religious beliefs are harming them.
I'm not trying to say that a mild open hand spank on the bottom is as bad as what AP did. But being not as bad is not the same thing as being good.
I'm not trying to say that a mild open hand spank on the bottom is as bad as what AP did. But being not as bad is not the same thing as being good.
Wonder if it's coincidence that the South has the highest homicide rates in the country:garlan5 said:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state
Not to nitpick, but there is a level of physical violence in this disciplinary "technique." Unorthodox, for sure, but still violent.wade boggs chicken dinner said:
My experience was growing up in a household with a very domineering and verbally abusive father. However, as the youngest of four children (my siblings were from 5 - 11 years older), I was spared the physical punishment they endured. While I always heard about and deathly feared the threat of a "lickin'" (as he liked to call it) only one time do I remember receiving the belt treatment (at about 5-6 years old), and he went incredibly easy on me, which I even realized at the time. After that, aside from the regular threats and angry verbal abuse, he never laid a hand on me. I have often wondered what went through this bitter and cruel man's mind to go from feeling OK about physically punishing my older siblings (he once pulled this classic: strapping a pair of boxing gloves onto each of my brothers when they were around 8 - 10 years old and forced them to punch each other for a while as a way to teach them to stop fighting--another sadistic variation of corporal punishment), to totally eliminating it from his parenting repertoire. To me it's especially interesting since he never let up on the verbal abuse, and he psychologically fucked up every other member of my family to one degree or another as a result. Anyway, like others, I find it fascinating how people with similar experiences growing up (that is, spanking that wouldn't legally be construed as abuse) can come to such opposite conclusions.
I am most definitely with the majority who feel that physical punishment is pretty much never OK. I understand it in cases of the child putting himself in extreme danger (and I have instinctively spanked my child when he was younger in one or two such instances), but I agree with those who argue that its effects are ultimately counterproductive.
Spanking is lousy parenting. That it's legal or illegal is beside the point because, as we established, law is not the sole arbiter of morality.Myt1 said:
Anyway. Half tempted to see if tickets to the game are a lot cheaper now.
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
indeed...
Myt1 said:
indeed, again: the level of moral superiority asserted in a thread goes up as nuance and caveat go down.
JayMags71 said:
SeoulSoxFan said:
Is there a reason not to lock this thread? Or to have it in this forum?
There are two very different issues here.
Is spanking OK? Overwhelming evidence suggests it isn't. Garlan5, I'm sorry, but your examples and your experiences don't sway the overwhelming psychological evidence. I get that sometimes three-year-olds will suddenly take a run without looking. Mine did. Yours did. They all do. You grab them and stop them. The question is what's next. At that age, they don't have the cognitive ability to connect the spanking to the behavior that ended minutes earlier. All they learn from spanking is fear of the people they have to trust the most in life. And I would suggest that spanking is somewhat traumatizing to the parent. How do you hit the defenseless little creatures you are entrusted to raise? Spanking changes that relationship.
Our society does seem to be somewhat blind to abuse of our most vulnerable people. Spanking is nothing compared to what we allow in the schools. But that doesn't make spanking a good idea.
Second issue is Peterson himself. Was that a beating or spanking too hard? His account suggests that his intent was not to beat his child. However, the injuries suggest he crossed the line into abuse. Therefore, the state should get involved. There should be a penalty. But I don't think, because of his intent, that this is something that should include incarceration. This is very different from the Ray Rice case.
Myt1, I agree that the state should choose a threshold for involvement higher than what's often suggested. But where? We allow schools so much discretion in allowing violence, and the result is these bizarre "zero tolerance" games that include drawings of guns and all sorts of nonsense when we should be focusing on the actual harm done to individuals. What constitutes abuse of an individual?
Is spanking OK? Overwhelming evidence suggests it isn't. Garlan5, I'm sorry, but your examples and your experiences don't sway the overwhelming psychological evidence. I get that sometimes three-year-olds will suddenly take a run without looking. Mine did. Yours did. They all do. You grab them and stop them. The question is what's next. At that age, they don't have the cognitive ability to connect the spanking to the behavior that ended minutes earlier. All they learn from spanking is fear of the people they have to trust the most in life. And I would suggest that spanking is somewhat traumatizing to the parent. How do you hit the defenseless little creatures you are entrusted to raise? Spanking changes that relationship.
Our society does seem to be somewhat blind to abuse of our most vulnerable people. Spanking is nothing compared to what we allow in the schools. But that doesn't make spanking a good idea.
Second issue is Peterson himself. Was that a beating or spanking too hard? His account suggests that his intent was not to beat his child. However, the injuries suggest he crossed the line into abuse. Therefore, the state should get involved. There should be a penalty. But I don't think, because of his intent, that this is something that should include incarceration. This is very different from the Ray Rice case.
Myt1, I agree that the state should choose a threshold for involvement higher than what's often suggested. But where? We allow schools so much discretion in allowing violence, and the result is these bizarre "zero tolerance" games that include drawings of guns and all sorts of nonsense when we should be focusing on the actual harm done to individuals. What constitutes abuse of an individual?
Your choice of disciplinary methods aside, if you're expecting your 42 month old kid to reliably exercise that sort of self-control you're setting him up for failure. Most kids that age lack the prefrontal development to link cause and effect or to anticipate the consequences of their actions. It's why, you know, they don't pick up on it even after you tell them a thousand times not to.garlan5 said:
From the little that I ve read, it seems to me that the tragedy is that Peterson didn't know any better. Which does speak volumes about the education he himself got as a kid.
I live in a different world than AP. In my community, there are far more parents who don't discipline their children at all than parents who might physically abuse their child. Which is probably why the moral superiority of some people in the anti-spanking crowd in this thread rubs me the wrong way, even though I don't spank my kids.
maufman said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that those who are anti-spanking tend not to set boundaries for their kids? In my own little circle, I would say it's the complete opposite. Parents I know who spank have children who have no idea what the boundaries are (usually they're thrown up in a reactionary way) and what can render them a spanking or any other consequence.
I am not suggesting that all parents who spank have this problem, of course. But, I don't see the connection you're trying to make.
Also, you've said you don't spank. So, does this mean you are anti-spanking or you are not anti-spanking? Can one choose not to spank their children but still be pro-spanking or neutral on the topic?
riboflav said:
I half agree. I have seen it both ways, and think parents who lack the ability to control their children either give up completely and let the little monsters run wild or get frustrated and use violence to force their kids "back into line." I think the problem for parents who use the latter method is that it does yield the effect they want -in the short term- and thus they think it works.
I was raised in a household where I was very rarely spanked, and honestly spankings tended to be my preferred form of punishment. It stung for a bit and then it was done. Compare to being grounded, which in my house typically was a multi-month thing meant having my room emptied of anything except a bed and an empty desk with some textbooks on it, then being forbidden to do anything but go to school (assuming it wasn't summer vacation, in which case I had to go to the library to work on research projects my mom assigned), come right home, go right to my room, come out briefly for dinner, then go to bed. Spanking was way better than an entire summer or school semester essentially spent trapped in my room without anything to occupy my time except textbooks. I'm sure a vicious beating ala this one would have been worse, but in my book an open-handed smack on the bottom is pretty much infinitely better than most of the (non-violent) punishments I received as a child.
I do think Peterson went too far in this case, but I generally disagree with the idea that a non-violent punishment is intrinsically better than a spanking.
I do think Peterson went too far in this case, but I generally disagree with the idea that a non-violent punishment is intrinsically better than a spanking.
Ralphwiggum said:
Violence is acceptable in some circumstances. One can debate the precise circumstances, but the idea that it is every parent's duty to raise a pacifist strikes me as extremely suspect.
I believe he's referring strictly to domestic situations. I'm fairly certain that we all understand telling a mugger (to cite one example) to "use his words" is doomed to failure.NatetheGreat said:
JayMags71 said:
That's a circular argument. "Don't spank your kids because it teaches your kids its ok to spank" relies on accepting the premise that spanking is wrong. Presumably parents who spank don't agree with this, which makes the argument meaningless.
Tony C said:
I'm not sure...
DrewDawg said:
Now I'm sure.
If people want to discuss spanking vs non-spanking, start a thread in another forum because this shop is closed.
- Status