Vikings message board shuts down, disgusted by both team and fans

[moklerman]

I don't, because then anyone can say "I'm not abusing them, if I wanted to do that I would have used a knife!". If he's leaving marks that stay for days then he's crossing that line. Just because he can do worse or doesn't think he's crossing the line doesn't mean its not as bad or okay.

Intent is a huge part of this conversation IMO.

I don't think one can just say the end result is all that matters. If I was driving down a hill and my brakes went out and I subsequently ran someone over and killed them, I'd hardly consider that equitable to waiting in the bushes for someone I hated and blowing their head off with a shotgun.

Going too far with discipline isn't the same as beating a child just because you can. IMO.

 

[AnarchyRam]

As a parent, I kind of view spanking as a parental weakness. The few times I've resorted to that, I was at the end of my rope and just took the easy way out. Parenting without fear and domination and threats is hard. So why did I do it? Because parenting isn't freaking easy. It's hard as crap from time to time and no one is perfect 100% of the time. I think you just have to decide for yourself that spanking and that sort of punishment is not the best way and that you don't want to do it. It's really about self-discipline than disciplining your child. AP went too far and I think deep down he knows it. I think some parents talk their kids to death, they don't stand by what they say, they give in too easily, they raise their kids to not think about consequences, they are too much a friend than a parent. There's all kinds of things people do that I don't agree with. But avoiding all of those things doesn't require beating them.

I agree. I can see from my numerous nieces and nephews that being a parent is a full-time job that most people simply don't prepare for properly. This is where spanking becomes such a quick and easy way to "resolve" problems. Problems, which are usually of their own making because they're not paying attention.

 

[moklerman]

There has to be some form of discipline though and the other options can be just as painful mentally. Which I think can be more damaging than physical discipline.

In the case of a switch or a belt or whatever, there is an association that separates the parent from the act and object that could be viewed as better. If one uses an object for discipline the object becomes feared.

Taking away one's rights or possessions is a very personal act and can instill resentment toward the parent and redirect the point of the lesson. Instead of understanding they are being disciplined it turns into a personal resentment.

I don't think there's any misunderstanding with the former.

At least, that's my experience.

 

[Dieter the Brock]

Maybe the owner of the board just got tired of it all and his two reasons are exactly why he or she shut it down. Clearly Peterson's child abuse indictment along with the clowns pushed him over the edge. The dude is probably a real nice guy - maybe himself a victim of child abuse, either mental or physical.

I'm just saying. It's a possibility that both reasons are exactly why he or she shut it down

 

[bluecoconuts]

Intent is a huge part of this conversation IMO.

I don't think one can just say the end result is all that matters. If I was driving down a hill and my brakes went out and I subsequently ran someone over and killed them, I'd hardly consider that equitable to waiting in the bushes for someone I hated and blowing their head off with a shotgun.

Going too far with discipline isn't the same as beating a child just because you can. IMO.

I know someone, I'll be very choosy about my words to respect their privacy since this is public, who was abused in the name of discipline. Now what happened to them was far worse than what Peterson did, but when they were two their mother broke their arm over the bathtub because they peed the bath. Whenever they did something wrong they were hit, broken fingers, etc. Needless to say it was far overboard.

Now the mother didn't think it was abuse, they were just "teaching" their child and disciplining them. In her mind she wasn't doing anything wrong, and after a few years when the father finally stepped in (they weren't together) and got the courts to give him my friend, which he promptly gave up to another person so he wouldn't have to deal with it, the mother still didn't understand. In fact the years up to her death she constantly wanted to see her child, and would get very upset when she wasn't wanted to come around, for obvious reasons.

And she had 2 other children who she didn't abuse. The person I know thinks the mother was a horrible person, her siblings dont and miss her a lot. The mother's intent wasnt abuse, but her actions sure as shit were. There's permanent damage done to a finger because of it, no wound was allowed to properly heal.

So while Peterson didn't go as far as this other example, they both had similar mindsets to their actions. Which tells me that motive and intent aren't as huge as actions.

 

[blue4]

There has to be some form of discipline though and the other options can be just as painful mentally. Which I think can be more damaging than physical discipline.

In the case of a switch or a belt or whatever, there is an association that separates the parent from the act and object that could be viewed as better. If one uses an object for discipline the object becomes feared.

Taking away one's rights or possessions is a very personal act and can instill resentment toward the parent and redirect the point of the lesson. Instead of understanding they are being disciplined it turns into a personal resentment.

I don't think there's any misunderstanding with the former.

At least, that's my experience.

Mine as well. You have to know your child, know at what ages which type is appropriate, and reserve true punishment for actual bad behavior. And never punish when angry. IME anyway. Myself, I think physical punishment loses all effectiveness pretty early on for most kids. That's how I was anyway.

 

[blue4]

Maybe the owner of the board just got tired of it all and his two reasons are exactly why he or she shut it down. Clearly Peterson's child abuse indictment along with the clowns pushed him over the edge. The dude is probably a real nice guy - maybe himself a victim of child abuse, either mental or physical.

I'm just saying. It's a possibility that both reasons are exactly why he or she shut it down

You said in one post what I failed to get across in several.

 

[LesBaker]

I'm having a hard time with this issue. Not to say that I think it's ever acceptable to harm a child but I've had my ass whipped and/or beat more than a few times when I was growing up.

I never got the switch so I don't really know what kind of marks that "normally" leaves. But I've got the belt and that doesn't leave marks but if we get right down to it, it would also be considered child abuse nowadays.

So, I completely agree that Peterson went too far but I still feel like it was in the act of discipline and not torture. I mean, if Peterson really wanted to hurt someone...anyone, much less a 4 years old, he could easily do a LOT of permanent damage so it makes me doubt that he was actually trying to inflict damage.

When you were 4 years old did your father beat you bad enough to draw blood on a few spots, hit you in the balls with a switch and leave marks and welts that were still visible several days later? There is a difference between what many parents do, spanking and so on, and what AP did.

It was overboard, not a normal course of discipline for a four year old child who was disturbing another child playing a video game.

It's a FOUR year old kid. You cannot beat a child that young that badly, it's wrong. A simple whack in the ass sends the same message if you want to do something physical.

 

[blue4]

I had no idea it was that bad and for such a small thing.

 

[-X-]

They need to quit taking themselves so seriously. Ban the retards and continue on.

boom.

 

[moklerman]

I know someone, I'll be very choosy about my words to respect their privacy since this is public, who was abused in the name of discipline. Now what happened to them was far worse than what Peterson did, but when they were two their mother broke their arm over the bathtub because they peed the bath. Whenever they did something wrong they were hit, broken fingers, etc. Needless to say it was far overboard.

Now the mother didn't think it was abuse, they were just "teaching" their child and disciplining them. In her mind she wasn't doing anything wrong, and after a few years when the father finally stepped in (they weren't together) and got the courts to give him my friend, which he promptly gave up to another person so he wouldn't have to deal with it, the mother still didn't understand. In fact the years up to her death she constantly wanted to see her child, and would get very upset when she wasn't wanted to come around, for obvious reasons.

And she had 2 other children who she didn't abuse. The person I know thinks the mother was a horrible person, her siblings dont and miss her a lot. The mother's intent wasnt abuse, but her actions sure as crap were. There's permanent damage done to a finger because of it, no wound was allowed to properly heal.

So while Peterson didn't go as far as this other example, they both had similar mindsets to their actions. Which tells me that motive and intent aren't as huge as actions.

Not sure how you can say that the mother's intent wasn't abuse when she broke an arm over the edge of a bathtub. That pales in comparison to taking a belt or switch to someone's backside.

Sounds exactly like she intended to do physical harm rather than impose discipline.

 

[moklerman]

When you were 4 years old did your father beat you bad enough to draw blood on a few spots, hit you in the balls with a switch and leave marks and welts that were still visible several days later? There is a difference between what many parents do, spanking and so on, and what AP did.

It was overboard, not a normal course of discipline for a four year old child who was disturbing another child playing a video game.

It's a FOUR year old kid. You cannot beat a child that young that badly, it's wrong. A simple whack in the ass sends the same message if you want to do something physical.

I've already agreed it was excessive. I don't think anyone's arguing that.

But I never got beat with a switch either. I assume it draws blood or at least welts every time as opposed to a belt that won't leave much physical evidence other than redness.

Like I said, AP went too far but I still feel there is a difference between abuse with the intent to injure and a switching getting out of hand.

 

[LesBaker]

I've already agreed it was excessive. I don't think anyone's arguing that.

But I never got beat with a switch either. I assume it draws blood or at least welts every time as opposed to a belt that won't leave much physical evidence other than redness.

Like I said, AP went too far but I still feel there is a difference between abuse with the intent to injure and a switching getting out of hand.

I'm not sure how to debate abuse with intent to injure moklerman because he could clearly see the welts and bleeding as he was hitting the kid. A switch leaves instant welts and he hit hard enough to break skin.

And it was a four year old and I keep bringing that up because it is really, really, really relevant IMO. And IMO the punishment doesn't fit the crime, it was wildly excessive and over the top.

 

[cracengl]

I'm not sure how to debate abuse with intent to injure moklerman because he could clearly see the welts and bleeding as he was hitting the kid. A switch leaves instant welts and he hit hard enough to break skin.

And it was a four year old and I keep bringing that up because it is really, really, really relevant IMO. And IMO the punishment doesn't fit the crime, it was wildly excessive and over the top.

Yeah, I have a 4 year old. If I switched him every time I wanted to, he'd be bled out by now. Just being honest. At that age, they take the word "no" as a personal attack, they never listen, they bounce off the walls, they say things that aren't nice because they don't know better, and it's all bundled in a package of kid that knows just enough language to seem like he's having a conversation with you, except the comprehension level is just not there. I tell my wife it's like having a 14 year old girl in 4 year old boy form. I ask my son questions about why he did certain things and the answers he gives are just nonsensical most of the time. So I just can't see hitting a 4 year old with a switch like that, because he's not going to learn anything. Hell, he probably didn't even have a clear sense of what he did wrong. I really think with a kid that age, you just have to do the best you can. You don't not discipline them, because some of what you say probably sticks, but you just have to know that most of it doesn't. I think at that age, you are setting the expectation of right and wrong, while not fretting over the execution.

 

[LesBaker]

Yeah, I have a 4 year old. If I switched him every time I wanted to, he'd be bled out by now. Just being honest. At that age, they take the word "no" as a personal attack, they never listen, they bounce off the walls, they say things that aren't nice because they don't know better, and it's all bundled in a package of kid that knows just enough language to seem like he's having a conversation with you, except the comprehension level is just not there. I tell my wife it's like having a 14 year old girl in 4 year old boy form. I ask my son questions about why he did certain things and the answers he gives are just nonsensical most of the time. So I just can't see hitting a 4 year old with a switch like that, because he's not going to learn anything. Hell, he probably didn't even have a clear sense of what he did wrong. I really think with a kid that age, you just have to do the best you can. You don't not discipline them, because some of what you say probably sticks, but you just have to know that most of it doesn't. I think at that age, you are setting the expectation of right and wrong, while not fretting over the execution.

Agreed and nicely worded post right there.

 

[RamzFanz]

Chris carter gets the last word for me.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Not sure how you can say that the mother's intent wasn't abuse when she broke an arm over the edge of a bathtub. That pales in comparison to taking a belt or switch to someone's backside.

Sounds exactly like she intended to do physical harm rather than impose discipline.

That was her rational, and the person I know was under the impression they were being disciplined. It wasn't until years passed that she learned it was abuse, and the mother didn't see it that way. The point is that abusers rarely think they are abusing another person or crossing that line. Which is why taking them for their word, or saying if they really wanted to hurt them badly they would have, shouldn't make their actions any better.

 

[moklerman]

That was her rational, and the person I know was under the impression they were being disciplined. It wasn't until years passed that she learned it was abuse, and the mother didn't see it that way. The point is that abusers rarely think they are abusing another person or crossing that line. Which is why taking them for their word, or saying if they really wanted to hurt them badly they would have, shouldn't make their actions any better.

Intentionally breaking someone's arm is intent to injure, regardless of the reason. Spanking someone and going too far is not the same thing.

I can easily see that AP set out to give the kid an ass-whipping he wouldn't forget. That's an entirely different category than curb-stomping someone(or tub-breaking in this case).

 

[bluecoconuts]

Its still abuse though. Giving a 4 year old an "ass whipping" is abuse, and I can't imagine what the kid did to "deserve" it.