• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vikings Finally Get It Right Regarding Peterson ..

tres borrachos said:
they never hit my brother in his privates.
Click to expand...


Sometimes I wonder whether people actually think things through or just accept what they are told at face value? I mean, how on God's green earth could leaving welts on a kids genitals be an accident? First of all, the kid would have to be naked, otherwise he would have had enough protection to lessen the impact just enough to avoid bloodying. Secondly, he would have been struggling like mad to protect himself there by either doubling over or placing his hands over his crottch, so he had to be overcome by force for Peterson to gain access there.

Honestly, do people think the kid just exposed his balls and said "hey, Dad, why don't you hit me HERE with that switch" ?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Best not to open the Rice can of worms in this topic Nimby, this convo's already got enough fuel on the fire...
Click to expand...

There's no fuel on the fire. There are a few child abuse advocates being hammered by the 99% of people that don't approve of such.

You're virtually alone, with but a couple pro-abuse members also spewing garbage. Let's not pretend your position gets any respect here or elsewhere.
 
ecofarm said:
You're confused. The claim was he's a good father via being attentive to his children. Clearly, the person making the claim did not know that Peterson has 7 children out of wedlock, all with different women. Thus, his claim of being a good father by being attentive to his children is clearly BS.
Click to expand...

The amount of women you have children with doesn't affect your parenting skills. A man can still find time to be with each child regardless of it being with seven different women or with one. The problem with Peterson is that he is a child abuser, not that he has kids out of wedlock.

I also damn well know the intent of the poster in question. This is not the first time he has blasted men for having children outside of wedlock. I have had it with that kind of stupid nonsense, sorry.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
I also damn well know the intent of the poster in question. This is not the first time he has blasted men for having children outside of wedlock.
Click to expand...

You're still confused. Someone claimed Peterson is a good father because he is attentive to his children. Having 7 children from 7 mothers dispels that claim. End of story. No one wants to her about how you are like Peterson.
 
ecofarm said:
You're still confused. Someone claimed Peterson is a good father because he is attentive to his children. Having 7 children from 7 mothers dispels that claim. End of story. No one wants to her about how you are like Peterson.
Click to expand...

Stop with this ignorant nonsense.
 
Gardener said:
Sometimes I wonder whether people actually think things through or just accept what they are told at face value? I mean, how on God's green earth could leaving welts on a kids genitals be an accident? First of all, the kid would have to be naked, otherwise he would have had enough protection to lessen the impact just enough to avoid bloodying. Secondly, he would have been struggling like mad to protect himself there by either doubling over or placing his hands over his crottch, so he had to be overcome by force for Peterson to gain access there.

Honestly, do people think the kid just exposed his balls and said "hey, Dad, why don't you hit me HERE with that switch" ?
Click to expand...

As the mother of 3 boys, the idea of getting anywhere near their genitals when they were 4 with a switch makes my stomach turn.

Peterson knew what he was doing. There is no way he didn't. And I'm not one of those "don't ever spank a child" types. But I know right from wrong, and this was wrong - and intentional, unless he was drunk or blindfolded. And neither of them would be an excuse either.
 
tres borrachos said:
I don't think we're supposed to ignore beating a child bloody in the name of ensuring a man with a net worth of $18 million can keep up with his child support payments.

I also don't think the child is going to be destitute.

50 to 100 years ago isn't today. I'm 52 and punishment my parents doled out then never made me bloody and they never hit my brother in his privates.
Click to expand...

We're not ignoring him "beating a child bloody", just saying that at some point he should be allowed to go back to football. Not now, not until after the trial concludes at the earliest. Some on here wouldn't be happy though unless the man never worked again. Actually that's not true, someone wouldn't be happy until we tied him up to a stick and left him out in the sun for the birds to pick at his eyes.

I don't think he should be cost his pay check until after the trial has been concluded, that way he can still support his children, and the NFL are spared a lawsuit in the unlikely event that he's found innocent. I know they won't be destitute, but they won't have the best life that can be afforded to them.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
We're not ignoring him "beating a child bloody", just saying that at some point he should be allowed to go back to football. Not now, not until after the trial concludes at the earliest. Some on here wouldn't be happy though unless the man never worked again. Actually that's not true, someone wouldn't be happy until we tied him up to a stick and left him out in the sun for the birds to pick at his eyes.

I don't think he should be cost his pay check until after the trial has been concluded, that way he can still support his children, and the NFL are spared a lawsuit in the unlikely event that he's found innocent. I know they won't be destitute, but they won't have the best life that can be afforded to them.
Click to expand...

That's the NFL's choice - isn't it?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Some on here wouldn't be happy though unless the man never worked again.
Click to expand...

A self serving lie. No one has called for a ban. An indefinite suspension is good enough. Some are ok with his deactivation.

Actually that's not true, someone wouldn't be happy until we tied him up to a stick and left him out in the sun for the birds to pick at his eyes.
Click to expand...

Uh oh... now you're a poor wittle victim again, aren't you?

I don't think he should be cost his pay check until after the trial has been concluded, that way he can still support his children, and the NFL are spared a lawsuit in the unlikely event that he's found innocent.
Click to expand...

Child abuse apologism and typical child abuse manipulation. Everyone knows what he did, there is no doubt.

Don't tell the cops, honey, we'll lose the house!!11!! Hide that black eye and don't let the kid go to school with those injuries, for the good of our family!
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
There's no fuel on the fire. There are a few child abuse advocates being hammered by the 99% of people that don't approve of such.

You're virtually alone, with but a couple pro-abuse members also spewing garbage. Let's not pretend your position gets any respect here or elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I was just saying stick to the topic at hand. If you want to continue that crusade, there's another thread for it.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
We're not ignoring him "beating a child bloody", just saying that at some point he should be allowed to go back to football.
Click to expand...
But she does enable Rice to beat his wife senseless in her direct posting while trying to save Goodell--it's a Palin thingy .
 
ecofarm said:
A self serving lie. No one has called for a ban. An indefinite suspension is good enough. Some are ok with his deactivation.

Uh oh... now you're a poor wittle victim again, aren't you?

Child abuse apologism and typical child abuse manipulation.

Don't tell the cops, honey, we'll lose the house!!11!!
Click to expand...

You know for all your banter, I've yet to actually hear you say what punishment you think is appropriate. Indefinite is easy to say, because at that point you never have to put an end date to it do you? Finally, just because he would keep his pay check, doesn't mean he has access to the kid, so your pathetic attack was pointless.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
You know for all your banter, I've yet to actually hear you say what punishment you think is appropriate.
Click to expand...

You're lying. I support an indefinite suspension. I've made this clear, as I do not believe the team should have to bear the financial cost of the league's image.

If he wants to work, he can go apply for a job. If he cannot find a job at the same pay, then I suppose he'll find he has a new market value.
 
Last edited:
Hamster Buddha said:
Technically, yes, but in actuality, it's up to the public, as we've seen the NFL don't have the backbone to make a decision and stand by it.
Click to expand...

I've read your posts in other threads and you seem like a capitalist who follows the constitution (as I do). The evidence is there that Peterson inflicted harm on his child who couldn't defend himself. Don't you think that they have a right to distance themselves from him under these circumstances? It's their money and their name in jeopardy. Most people would be hard pressed to say Peterson did nothing wrong. I'm struggling with that. He did. And the public will respond.

I was mad at the NFL for letting Michael Vick back in. The NFL has made bad calls IMO. This is one they have to make. The only one who will suffer is Peterson - but we all know there are consequences for bad actions. Maybe most of us do, and he doesn't.
 
ecofarm said:
Not true.
Click to expand...

No, what I said is the truth. You say something stupid that if expanded to the general population will lead to mass homelessness and then change the goal posts to something else.
 
Why? I work for WalMart and if I was accused (properly or not) of child abuse or spousal abuse or _________ fill in the blank, should WalMart or any other company stop paying me or restrict me from working or even think about it? Let's face it, the NFL is a business, the players are employees.
 
ecofarm said:
You're lying. I support an indefinite suspension. I've made this clear, as I do not believe the team should have to bear the financial cost of the league's image.

If he wants to work, he can go apply for a job. If he cannot find a job at the same pay, then I suppose he'll find he has a new market value.
Click to expand...

As I said, saying indefinite is easy because you don't have to name an end date. Also I've seen you say that should he get a job at McDonald's you'd protest that too, so really, no punishment is good enough is it?

tres borrachos said:
I've read your posts in other threads and you seem like a capitalist who follows the constitution (as I do). The evidence is there that Peterson inflicted harm on his child who couldn't defend himself. Don't you think that they have a right to distance themselves from him under these circumstances? It's their money and their name in jeopardy. Most people would be hard pressed to say Peterson did nothing wrong. I'm struggling with that. He did. And the public will respond.

I was mad at the NFL for letting Michael Vick back in. The NFL has made bad calls IMO. This is one they have to make. The only one who will suffer is Peterson - but we all know there are consequences for bad actions. Maybe most of us do, and he doesn't.
Click to expand...

I don't think the NFL should cut off pay, just because I think that it opens up an avenue for lawsuit should (however unlikely) these charges come out to be false. Once AP is convicted, in that case of course he gets no pay check, but until that point, keeping him off the field is good enough for me as it protects the NFL's image, but also shows that it will not tolerate such actions. From AP's perspective, he has nothing to complain about should he be found innocent because he was being paid the whole time and thus lost nothing (nor did all the children he is supporting.)

As far as Michael Vick goes, I was fine with him coming back into the NFL, because he had done his time. You bring up the constitution, and in it refers to the idea of "fair punishment". I don't know how much time he served, but I do know there was jail time. Also, he's an advocate against this crime now and speaks out on it regularly. You don't have to like the guy, but he served his time and thus was adequately punished in my book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom