MarkAF43 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I think my biggest issue with any of this, AP, RR etc is when people feel that the employer (team or league), shouldn't have a say about this persons job. The league isn't something like working at Joe's Hot dog stand, it's a multi billion dollar corporation with some of the most highly visible employees on the planet. To allow them to continue to serve in that role (while committing crimes etc), sets an awful view for young athletes that shows that we don't care about the human side of things, if you can throw/run/catch a football really well, you can make millions of dollars in a career doing that even though you're a scumbag human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 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. Thats a great goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrod's Tailor Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 AP's other son died recently also. WTF? Yup and AP was out of his life. So the "he's just abusing him because he cares as a father" idea falls apart with any scrutiny whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finn Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 If that's a response to me you should re-read the exchange above. No, I was referring to the backlash I've been reading and hearing in many places charging that the negative reaction to the beatings amounts to political correctness or a lynch-mob mentality. Maybe that's what we call widespread responses that we don't like. But I like to think that virtually all of us can agree on some things, like beating a 4-year old bloody is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 @ProFootballTalk: Minnesota governor calls on Vikings to suspend Adrian Peterson http://wp.me/p14QSB-9zBZ AP's other son died recently also. WTF? That had nothing to do with AP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I think my biggest issue with any of this, AP, RR etc is when people feel that the employer (team or league), shouldn't have a say about this persons job. The league isn't something like working at Joe's Hot dog stand, it's a multi billion dollar corporation with some of the most highly visible employees on the planet. To allow them to continue to serve in that role (while committing crimes etc), sets an awful view for young athletes that shows that we don't care about the human side of things, if you can throw/run/catch a football really well, you can make millions of dollars in a career doing that even though you're a scumbag human being. Yup. If you have a high profile job with any company, you better believe you'll be out of a job if you are arrested for punching your wife's lights out or beating your kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 @ProFootballTalk: Minnesota governor calls on Vikings to suspend Adrian Peterson http://wp.me/p14QSB-9zBZ Interesting that the head of the state government is passing the buck to the team. Shameless pandering? You decide. If only MN had some way to punish criminal behavior they wouldn't be at the mercy of the team. Maybe the governor could encourage the legislature to take that up. I think my biggest issue with any of this, AP, RR etc is when people feel that the employer (team or league), shouldn't have a say about this persons job. The league isn't something like working at Joe's Hot dog stand, it's a multi billion dollar corporation with some of the most highly visible employees on the planet. To allow them to continue to serve in that role (while committing crimes etc), sets an awful view for young athletes that shows that we don't care about the human side of things, if you can throw/run/catch a football really well, you can make millions of dollars in a career doing that even though you're a scumbag human being. It's not that the employer shouldn't have a say, it's that the public shouldn't expect it. Businesses don't punish unrelated behavior on moral grounds, they do it solely for the purpose of protecting image. The public demand that the league act according to some moral code is convoluted at best and is essentially demanding that the league be disingenuous in its handling of these matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I dunno, it's pretty hard to maintain and/or get new jobs with criminal records, especially felonies. Businesses want people who are reliable, not people that might end up in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I looked at a couple of sites who source a stripper friend in Houston of AP's. He has 7 kids, many of them boys. That is tragic. If he could be anything, I wish it was sterile. The guy is a retard. Why does he have to shoot XX's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Interesting that the head of the state government is passing the buck to the team. Shameless pandering? You decide. If only MN had some way to punish criminal behavior they wouldn't be at the mercy of the team. Maybe the governor could encourage the legislature to take that up. It's not that the employer shouldn't have a say, it's that the public shouldn't expect it. Businesses don't punish unrelated behavior on moral grounds, they do it solely for the purpose of protecting image. The public demand that the league act according to some moral code is convoluted at best and is essentially demanding that the league be disingenuous in its handling of these matters. On that note I don't disagree. It's become that way with Social media being what it is, that if someone in the public feels they are wronged, if they take it to social media they will get their way, so in that regard I agree. In this case, I feel there are folks in the Vikings ownership and front office that have a lack of a moral compass and now they'll deal with unending pressure from the public to do what they should be doing to begin with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 It's not that the employer shouldn't have a say, it's that the public shouldn't expect it. Businesses don't punish unrelated behavior on moral grounds, they do it solely for the purpose of protecting image. The public demand that the league act according to some moral code is convoluted at best and is essentially demanding that the league be disingenuous in its handling of these matters. untrue. it's often done to protect society. how would you feel if us air let an alcoholic pilot slide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 (edited) On that note I don't disagree. It's become that way with Social media being what it is, that if someone in the public feels they are wronged, if they take it to social media they will get their way, so in that regard I agree. In this case, I feel there are folks in the Vikings ownership and front office that have a lack of a moral compass and now they'll deal with unending pressure from the public to do what they should be doing to begin with That's the crux of it all. I don't understand why anyone would claim they had a moral duty in the first place. Even if they did, who would the duty be to? Also, whose morality are they to apply and how do they determine what would be the most moralistic penalty? untrue. it's often done to protect society. how would you feel if us air let an alcoholic pilot slide? It still goes to protecting their business. Only a fool would argue it was done as punishment for moral purposes. Edited September 16, 2014 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 No, I was referring to the backlash I've been reading and hearing in many places charging that the negative reaction to the beatings amounts to political correctness or a lynch-mob mentality. Maybe that's what we call widespread responses that we don't like. But I like to think that virtually all of us can agree on some things, like beating a 4-year old bloody is wrong. this. john oliver does a bit on this during this week's show. he references sources on the ray rice case imploring people to think how they would feel if a family member were hit like this. then oliver comedically asks why the act itself isn't enough to outrage people without invoking that link. it's a very good question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 this. john oliver does a bit on this during this week's show. he references sources on the ray rice case imploring people to think how they would feel if a family member were hit like this. then oliver comedically asks why the act itself isn't enough to outrage people without invoking that link. it's a very good question. Wonderful. Let's appeal to the least rational impulses of people and encourage them to act on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 (edited) That's the crux of it all. I don't understand why anyone would claim they had a moral duty in the first place. Even if they did, who would the duty be to? Also, whose morality are they to apply and how do they determine what would be the most moralistic penalty? It still goes to protecting their business. Only a fool would argue it was done as punishment for moral purposes. wow. i thought i was cynical re american business. this is truly sad. do you really believe airline executives wouldn't care if passengers were harmed if it didn't affect their profits? how do you get up in the morning? do you not recognize any redemptive attributes in your fellow humans? Edited September 16, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 (edited) wow. i thought i was cynical re american business. this is truly sad. do you really believe airline executives wouldn't care if passengers were harmed if it didn't effect their profits? how do you get up in the morning? do you not recognize any redemptive attributes in your fellow humans? Now you're just trying to confuse the issue. I'm not arguing that they wouldn't care if people were harmed, but that's not remotely related to what we're talking about. We're talking about punishment. Try to stay on point. Edit: Interesting how you reverted to your typical fall back of claiming moral high ground wen you have nothing of substance to offer. Edited September 16, 2014 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Now you're just trying to confuse the issue. I'm not arguing that they wouldn't care if people were harmed, but that's not remotely related to what we're talking about. We're talking about punishment. Try to stay on point. doesn't morality encompass concern for other people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 doesn't morality encompass concern for other people? Again, we're talking about punishment. Not sure what you don't get about that. Your analogy is nonsensical. Preventing a drunk pilot from flying and thus putting passengers in harm's way is not categorically similar to preventing a football player from playing because he did something bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 doesn't morality encompass concern for other people? "Fire AP so he'll have all day to spend time with his kids!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalScotts Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Seriously!? Because he whipped his kid with a "switch?" How many of us were disciplined with a belt when we were growing up? The charges against him are pathetic, IMO. blacks could sit at the same lunch counter with whites when some of us were growing up- most people figured out that's wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts