AP could be traded; UPDATE: will be active week 3,more allegations

[Rob's House]

They may not be doing "dick ****" about it but it is their board that they spend money to operate and maintain. They seem to be willing to continue to spend their money to support a team that, on their opinion, isn't handling this situation in a manner that they feel is correct. If this was the Bills, I could understand Scott doing the exact same thing.

 

Not really sure what your point is. They obviously have the right to shut their board down for any reason they like, just as they have the right to chop off their own feet to protest the working conditions at Nike. But both will have about the same effect on their respective causes, which is none. And if Scott decided to shut the board down as a poorly thought out reaction over some misplaced anger, I wouldn't question his right to do so, but I certainly wouldn't see it as admirable. And forgive me if I don't have a soft spot for self-righteous indignation.

[CountDorkula]

I'm not talking about the league's actions, I'm talking about the fan response.

 

 

From the article:

 

 

This went on for a while, it was the second accusation, and no league or team action was taken until a full police and league investigation was done.

 

The ink hasn't dried on the AP story and people are lauding the bravery of some self-righteous dipshits who are shutting down their Vikings website b/c they have the audacity to try to win football games pending the outcome. It's patently absurd.

 

Actually you agreeing with the Vikings trying to win football games with no regard to the child abuse allegations is pretty absurd. but i guess I am part of the mob that thinks child abusers should not be allowed in the NFL just as they are not allowed in the worfkorce. Man my morals are effed...

[Rob's House]

 

 

Actually you agreeing with the Vikings trying to win football games with no regard to the child abuse allegations is pretty absurd. but i guess I am part of the mob that thinks child abusers should not be allowed in the NFL just as they are not allowed in the worfkorce. Man my morals are effed...

 

The air must be getting thin up there atop your high horse. If you can draw some direct correlation between the two I'd love to hear it. Don't worry, none of the other mob members can either. That's how misplaced anger works. BTW, your little twist at the end that implies that Your opinion constitutes moral superiority while my position against mob mentality is immoral is cute. Simple-minded, but cute.

 

Also, what is this "work force" that people accused of crimes are banned from? I know certain employers won't hire those convicted of certain crimes, but as it's stated in your post it's overbroad and incorrect.

[thebandit27]

I couldn't care less about a Vikings message board. I'm upset that the culture I live in is becoming so irrationally and emotionally driven to mob mentality on a regular basis. I'm also bothered by the realization that what appears to be a majority of grown men tend to think and act like 13 year old girls.

 

I find it disturbing that you think an adverse reaction to child abuse constitutes mob mentality. I find it equally disturbing that there's a fairly large contingent of folks that think what Peterson did is okay and is acceptable because it's "old school" or "Southern discipline".

 

He beat his 4-year-old son bloody. As a father of two very small children, that pisses me off to a degree that I probably cannot accurately describe with words.

 

I couldn't care less how anyone in the media or on a message board thinks I should feel about the situation.

 

If that's what you consider acting like a 13-year-old girl, then fine, call me what you like. I consider it acting like a father--a real one. You might also consider how many of these supposed "13-year-old girls" are fathers as well.

 

How many stories, posts, comments, etc. have you read criticizing Goodell and how many criticizing the local DAs?

 

Nearly every Ray Rice story is littered with comments calling for Goodell's head, I realize that. I can't speak for others, but I'm appalled at the idea that Rice doesn't face serious criminal charges. I did note that Peter King called out the NJ legal system for allowing Rice to basically walk scot-free. Beyond that I'm not sure.

 

I can only speak for myself, and it's absolutely unfathomable that what Rice did is so easily dismissed by the legal system.

 

Stupid retort. I was around and I remember. YOU may have been calling for that **** but most were not, and most here would have gladly taken Big Ben on this team.

 

First off, stop calling anyone that tries to discuss this stupid or an idiot. People are allowed to express opinions that differ from yours. You've debated with me enough on here to know that I'm not stupid, and I'm not an idiot, so keep that crap for the people that deserve it.

 

Second, yes, I did call for Ben to be kicked out of the league. I have a personal history with Roethlisberger, as he was my first interview (when he was a RS Freshman at Miami) when I got my gig with the AP back in college. He struck me as such a cool kid. I wanted the Bills to draft him horribly. I cheered for him as a guy that I found to be down to earth and unique in his abilities for the time. Once I found out about his treatment of women, I was done.

 

For the record, I think he got off light. Now, by all accounts he's handled himself well since then, and folks I maintain relationships with in the Pittsburgh and Cleveland areas tell me he genuinely has cleaned up his act. That's good, but it's awfully hard to forget how he handled himself.

 

The air must be getting thin up there atop your high horse. If you can draw some direct correlation between the two I'd love to hear it. Don't worry, none of the other mob members can either. That's how misplaced anger works. BTW, your little twist at the end that implies that Your opinion constitutes moral superiority while my position against mob mentality is immoral is cute. Simple-minded, but cute.

 

Also, what is this "work force" that people accused of crimes are banned from? I know certain employers won't hire those convicted of certain crimes, but as it's stated in your post it's overbroad and incorrect.

 

Please.

 

The correlation is readily apparent to anyone who's even pretending to think: the Vikings believe that having Peterson on the field gives them the best chance to win, and so they are playing him. Putting him on the field is, in effect, saying that they don't care that he beats his children, and that winning is more important than making sure your employees aren't committing child abuse. If you disagree with that, fine, state your case. To say that such a correlation doesn't exist is nearly the book definition of burying your head in the sand.

[Rob's House]

 

 

I find it disturbing that you think an adverse reaction to child abuse constitutes mob mentality. I find it equally disturbing that there's a fairly large contingent of folks that think what Peterson did is okay and is acceptable because it's "old school" or "Southern discipline".

 

He beat his 4-year-old son bloody. As a father of two very small children, that pisses me off to a degree that I probably cannot accurately describe with words.

 

I couldn't care less how anyone in the media or on a message board thinks I should feel about the situation.

 

If that's what you consider acting like a 13-year-old girl, then fine, call me what you like. I consider it acting like a father--a real one. You might also consider how many of these supposed "13-year-old girls" are fathers as well.

I don't think adverse reaction to AP is inherently mob mentality. I've said twice in this thread that jail time is likely warranted (I'm thinking in the 30-90 day range). What I think is mob mentality is this new knee jerk reaction to blame the employer for sins of the employee.

 

I expect grown men to feel gut emotions. But then I expect them to apply their logical minds to the situation. I expect a 13 year old girl to let the emotion carry her thoughts. Hence the reference. And I think too many men (not necessarily saying you're one of them) are tossing logic aside to jump on the feel-good outrage bandwagon.

 

And I have a child as well, and if anyone did to her what AP did to his kid the Ray Rice video would look like an episode of Barney compared to what I'd do to the sad sorry POS that hit my kid (man or woman, a vagina isn't a license to hit my kid). What I wouldn't do is expect that person's employer to step in and assist in the punishment.

 

 

First off, stop calling anyone that tries to discuss this stupid or an idiot. People are allowed to express opinions that differ from yours. You've debated with me enough on here to know that I'm not stupid, and I'm not an idiot, so keep that crap for the people that deserve it.

 

Fair enough. "Speak for yourself" seemed an odd choice of replies, but I did regret responding that way. Although I think I've been fair otherwise.

 

Second, yes, I did call for Ben to be kicked out of the league. I have a personal history with Roethlisberger, as he was my first interview (when he was a RS Freshman at Miami) when I got my gig with the AP back in college. He struck me as such a cool kid. I wanted the Bills to draft him horribly. I cheered for him as a guy that I found to be down to earth and unique in his abilities for the time. Once I found out about his treatment of women, I was done.

 

For the record, I think he got off light. Now, by all accounts he's handled himself well since then, and folks I maintain relationships with in the Pittsburgh and Cleveland areas tell me he genuinely has cleaned up his act. That's good, but it's awfully hard to forget how he handled himself.

 

 

For the record, I thought he was a first class !@#$ after that second incident and was appalled that Bills fans would want him on the team (and a lot did). That said, I wasn't advocating league boycotts over it.

 

Please.

 

The correlation is readily apparent to anyone who's even pretending to think: the Vikings believe that having Peterson on the field gives them the best chance to win, and so they are playing him. Putting him on the field is, in effect, saying that they don't care that he beats his children, and that winning is more important than making sure your employees aren't committing child abuse. If you disagree with that, fine, state your case. To say that such a correlation doesn't exist is nearly the book definition of burying your head in the sand.

 

First, I want to thank you for taking the time to present your argument. We have a lot of hit and run types that throw something out there, but won't support it.

 

Second, there is a logical flaw here. This not only implies that the Vikings have a duty to monitor and regulate the private lives and affairs of their players, but it also assumes that benching him will prevent child abuse and that playing him will increase the likelihood of abuse. I see no evidence to support that assumption.

 

My theory on what's going on here is people are angered by what he did to a child (I am too) and are looking to anyone who has the ability to hurt him and demanding that they not only have a right, but an obligation to do so. I have a problem with that.

 

And as far as that Vikings message board, if next season they bring him back and fans decide they aren't going to enjoy cheering for a scumbag and pull the plug, I get that. But to have this level of outrage because less than 2 weeks after the allegations came out, and before any formal adjudication, they've decided not to effectively throw in the towel on their season as a symbolic gesture, to me is a bit much.

[thebandit27]

I don't think adverse reaction to AP is inherently mob mentality. I've said twice in this thread that jail time is likely warranted (I'm thinking in the 30-90 day range). What I think is mob mentality is this new knee jerk reaction to blame the employer for sins of the employee.

 

I expect grown men to feel gut emotions. But then I expect them to apply their logical minds to the situation. I expect a 13 year old girl to let the emotion carry her thoughts. Hence the reference. And I think too many men (not necessarily saying you're one of them) are tossing logic aside to jump on the feel-good outrage bandwagon.

 

And I have a child as well, and if anyone did to her what AP did to his kid the Ray Rice video would look like an episode of Barney compared to what I'd do to the sad sorry POS that hit my kid (man or woman, a vagina isn't a license to hit my kid). What I wouldn't do is expect that person's employer to step in and assist in the punishment.

 

Okay that makes more sense. Admittedly I didn't read the whole thread, and I do think that placing the greater blame on the organization would be a mistake. I do still believe, however, that the Vikings look bad by throwing their support behind Peterson right now.

 

Thankfully, the business I run requires no employees, so I don't have to worry about how their behavior affects my reputation. The Vikings do, however, and I think that putting the guy on the field is sending the wrong message. JMO of course.

 

Fair enough. "Speak for yourself" seemed an odd choice of replies, but I did regret responding that way. Although I think I've been fair otherwise.

 

Heated topic; no harm done.

 

For the record, I thought he was a first class !@#$ after that second incident and was appalled that Bills fans would want him on the team (and a lot did). That said, I wasn't advocating league boycotts over it.

 

Agree--league boycott is going to far; they can't be fully responsible for the actions of over 2,000 people with their own brains.

 

First, I want to thank you for taking the time to present your argument. We have a lot of hit and run types that throw something out there, but won't support it.

 

Second, there is a logical flaw here. This not only implies that the Vikings have a duty to monitor and regulate the private lives and affairs of their players, but it also assumes that benching him will prevent child abuse and that playing him will increase the likelihood of abuse. I see no evidence to support that assumption.

 

See, I disagree that the implication is that the Vikings have a duty to monitor their players' private lives. I think that it's no different (in this case) than any other company in the world in that if you get charged with a crime, you can lose your job. The more serious the crime, the more likely you are to lose your job.

 

I don't mean to say that benching him prevents child abuse, but rather that it sends a message saying that--as an organization--you do not and will not in the future accept that type of behavior from your players. Do they have to do this? Of course not. Would I if I were in charge? Yes.

 

My theory on what's going on here is people are angered by what he did to a child (I am too) and are looking to anyone who has the ability to hurt him and demanding that they not only have a right, but an obligation to do so. I have a problem with that.

 

And as far as that Vikings message board, if next season they bring him back and fans decide they aren't going to enjoy cheering for a scumbag and pull the plug, I get that. But to have this level of outrage because less than 2 weeks after the allegations came out, and before any formal adjudication, they've decided not to effectively throw in the towel on their season as a symbolic gesture, to me is a bit much.

 

That's probably part of it; I also think people are thinking about what they'd do if they were in the position to have an effect on the situation (as I am).

 

As for the message board, it may indeed be a bit much. Sometimes, when it comes to a multi-million dollar powerhouse entity, the only way to get their attention is with an aggressive stand. Right or wrong, that's probably their thinking.

[Canadian Bills Fan]

Funny Tweet I read...

 

"Hey AP, remember when you were 9 yards shy of the rushing record? That was God who tackled you"

 

CBF

[Cugalabanza]

Anybody else get weirded out by the fact that the kid calls him "Daddy Peterson?"

[CountDorkula]

http://youtu.be/S3Glks3Dmu4

 

This is such a powerful video, IMO. Good on CC for standing up for what he believes in. It takes a man to open up like that.

[Jauronimo]

Anybody else get weirded out by the fact that the kid calls him "Daddy Peterson?"

Thats the modern family for you. A friend of mine married a woman with a 5 year old daughter. She called him "Daddy Steve" at first. Now she calls him "Daddy" which I assume puts her biological father on a "daddy [first name]" basis.

[Rob's House]

 

 

This is such a powerful video, IMO. Good on CC for standing up for what he believes in. It takes a man to open up like that.

 

Didn't expect you to back up any of your bull **** from earlier.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Rob's House

[finn]

Thanks for posting the video. This is the kind of thing a lot of parents need to hear, directly about their own behavior but also indirectly, about their own parents'. Carter's message is that someone you love can be simply wrong; acknowledging they're wrong doesn't change your love for them.

 

You know, the NFL is all about fun and enjoyment, for us, anyway. But. like any public forum, it's also a means of reinforcing--or, on rare occasions, changing--behaviors. Maybe this outraged response will make a few parents think about what they do to their kids. I wouldn't call the outrage a "mob mentality"; I would call it consensus. You don't do that to a child. Period.

[Rob's House]

Thanks for posting the video. This is the kind of thing a lot of parents need to hear, directly about their own behavior but also indirectly, about their own parents'. Carter's message is that someone you love can be simply wrong; acknowledging they're wrong doesn't change your love for them.

 

You know, the NFL is all about fun and enjoyment, for us, anyway. But. like any public forum, it's also a means of reinforcing--or, on rare occasions, changing--behaviors. Maybe this outraged response will make a few parents think about what they do to their kids. I wouldn't call the outrage a "mob mentality"; I would call it consensus. You don't do that to a child. Period.

 

If that's a response to me you should re-read the exchange above.

[The Poojer]

http://youtu.be/210-IqddN-U

[CountDorkula]

Didn't expect you to back up any of your bull **** from earlier.

 

Cool.

[Jauronimo]

I do not understand the constant comparisons of the AP situation to the Rice case. Most of us, including myself, do not agree with physical forms of discipline when it comes to raising children. It isn't how I was raised and I don't see it fitting in to my child rearing techniques if the day comes when a woman can prove paternity in a court of law. However, such methods are permissible under state and fed law whereas striking your spouse is not. There is quite the gray area between abuse and discipline and we've seen in this thread people attempting to draw the line based on quantity, severity, and frequency of such discipline. I think child abuse is indicative of a pattern of behavior rather than a single incident.

 

Then there's intent. Did AP intend to hurt his child for kicks or out of anger or was this overzealous parenting? Rice certainly intended to harm his fiance. There was no other intent or greater purpose.

 

Unless AP is found guilty of child abuse, I don't see what place the NFL has in ruling on proper child rearing practices. Its certainly the NFL's right to deal out punishments as arbitrarily as they see fit and with no regard for consistency, coherency and precedent but that system doesn't seem to be satisfying the fans. Those of you calling for justice need to take it up with your representatives.

[Canadian Bills Fan]

I cant see the video but if its the clip of him from Sunday morning on ESPN then yes I agee it was a very powerful and moving video

 

 

CBF

[Cugalabanza]

Thats the modern family for you. A friend of mine married a woman with a 5 year old daughter. She called him "Daddy Steve" at first. Now she calls him "Daddy" which I assume puts her biological father on a "daddy [first name]" basis.

 

Yeah, I'm a product of a family tree that looks like an M.C. Escher sketch. It's a top priority for me to make sure my daughter doesn't have to ever deal with that split custody, step-parents crap, with constant family awkwardness and holidays that become a burden, etc...

 

If I can accomplish that one thing, I'll count my life a success.

[FireChan]

I do not understand the constant comparisons of the AP situation to the Rice case. Most of us, including myself, do not agree with physical forms of discipline when it comes to raising children. It isn't how I was raised and I don't see it fitting in to my child rearing techniques if the day comes when a woman can prove paternity in a court of law. However, such methods are permissible under state and fed law whereas striking your spouse is not. There is quite the gray area between abuse and discipline and we've seen in this thread people attempting to draw the line based on quantity, severity, and frequency of such discipline. I think child abuse is indicative of a pattern of behavior rather than a single incident.

 

Then there's intent. Did AP intend to hurt his child for kicks or out of anger or was this overzealous parenting? Rice certainly intended to harm his fiance. There was no other intent or greater purpose.

 

Unless AP is found guilty of child abuse, I don't see what place the NFL has in ruling on proper child rearing practices. Its certainly the NFL's right to deal out punishments as arbitrarily as they see fit and with no regard for consistency, coherency and precedent but that system doesn't seem to be satisfying the fans. Those of you calling for justice need to take it up with your representatives.

 

Great sarcasm, hilarious!

[milehiLou]

AP's other son died recently also. WTF?