Adrian Peterson Indicted

[doomy3]

Reckless/negligent injury to a child. Indicted.

This league may not be able to sustain too many more of these black eyes. It's a mess.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

I get your point.

Corporal punishment used to be the norm. Period. According to these studies people keep quoting the entire US population from known existence to the last 20 years or so should be criminals and bad people due to this.


Yet oddly enough as corporal punishment has become less the norm, we have more criminals in jail than ever.

Violent crime rates are down, I believe.
What is filling the jails are people in for drug-related stuff. Not sure how that relates to smacking kids though.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

The minimum amount of corrective action needed to change the behavior.

That doesn't only apply to corporal punishment nor does it rule it out.

There it is.

And yes, there are kids out there born with emotional issues. There are kids out there that have very violent tendencies without being abused. It's not the norm, but it does happen. I worked with some.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Violent crime rates are down, I believe.
What is filling the jails are people in for drug-related stuff. Not sure how that relates to smacking kids though.

Sex crimes are up. Hopefully do to catching more pedo's than in the past...

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Violent crime rates are down, I believe.
What is filling the jails are people in for drug-related stuff. Not sure how that relates to smacking kids though.

Crime is ****ing crime.

Using drugs is against the law, we all know this.

Get the idea here? Never mind.

[OldSchool]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

This is complete bullshit.

I know people who have many kids, are great parents, and one of their kids is a complete shithead turd.

That's not that uncommon and blows away this stupid generalized simple statement.

Yes environment can play a roll but some kids are born bad. Its a ****ing fact.

It's complete bullshit?

So kids are just born to be thugs? It's not learned from the environment they grew up in?

And I question what you believe to be "great parenting" since you seem to think that it's ok to beat 4 year olds until they are bloody.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by OldSchool

It's complete bullshit?

So kids are just born to be thugs? It's not learned from the environment they grew up in?

What environment caused me to have ADD?

I didn't eat paint chips or snort borax growing up...

And I question what you believe to be "great parenting" since you seem to think that it's ok to beat 4 year olds until they are bloody.

I haven't read a post yet taking that position...

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by OldSchool

It's complete bullshit?

So kids are just born to be thugs? It's not learned from the environment they grew up in?

And I question what you believe to be "great parenting" since you seem to think that it's ok to beat 4 year olds until they are bloody.

The fact I have not 1 time stated that what AP did was OK leads me to believe you are again talking out your ass and it isn't my opinion that needs questioned.


Or else you lack simple comprehension skills.

[Don Corlemahomes]

Originally Posted by Rausch

Look at your own study.



This is stating the obvious. You can't beat the $3it out of a kid and think he won't be ****ed up. That's common sense. But the article states that they relied on the word of the parents. This was not, at any point, direct observation of behavior.

You get that right? It's not science - it's a ****ing poll after the fact.

Oh, right. If only the researcher conducting the study would have observed punishment behaviors of thousands of parents over a 62 year period, then it would be a legitimate study.

You are clowning me, right?

The author's discussion to add perspective, further commentary to the results, and discourage drawing definite conclusions is common practice in research.

This silliest part of this is someone with a PhD does a meta-analysis of 62 years of studies, yet [insert CP internet child psychologist] is picking parts where she tempers the knee-jerk conclusions some are prone to (ie Corporal punishment is going to **** up your kid no matter what!) and use that to discredit the 20 page study.

I bet you feel good about that.

[philfree]

My big brother was a terror of a brother. He'd pick on me and push me to the brink and there would be a commotion in the end. You know what happened when dad got home? We both got spanked with a belt. I got spanked for my brother being a dick. And you know what? I'm not scarred from it. My brother though, as big of a jerk that he was would bull up and pout and be a big baby about getting spanked even if he truly deserved it.

AP went to far but all I see now is a world full of men with vaginas. Figuratively speaking of course. Bunch of butt hurt babies.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist

This silliest part of this is a someone with a PhD did a meta-analysis of 62 years of studies, yet you are picking parts where she tempers the knee-jerk conclusions some are prone to (ie Corporal punishment is going to **** up your kid no matter what!) and use that to discredit the 20 page study.

I bet you feel good about that.

Someone with a PHD took results from other studies, done over the past 62 years, and made associations based on them.

We agree that's exactly what was done, correct? Took data someone else collected and looked for connections based on that data from numerous studies.

At this point we should be in agreement.

The person doing the study admits the results depend on the honesty of the parents studied. I can go back and quote it but we both know that's in there.

No one is going to admit to abusing their child. Even AP describes what he did as normal and no different than his parents.

That makes the whole thing invalid. It's like asking someone if they're an alcoholic. If they are they won't admit to it...

[OldSchool]

I'll give you a prime example of two different sets of kids. This is from within my own family.

Group 1: 8 kids, ages 6 months to 16 years. All of them who can talk cuss more than I do, they also openly talk about sexual things despite being only elementary to middle school aged. They're always punching and hurting each other. They do poorly in school, some of them can't read very well.

Group 2: 2 kids, both girls. One is 12, the other is 5. For kids, they are pretty well mannered but they each had a typical streak between age 3-4 where they thought everything was theirs. The little one annoys the older one all of the time but that's about as far as their bad behavior goes. Both are exemplary students.

Now can you make a guess at what kind of parents each of these groups of kids have?

Group 1 Parents: I have no idea what they do for a living, all I know is that they are almost never around their kids now, they leave them at the home of the grandparents so much that the kids think that Grandma is their mom. Father is an alcoholic gang banger who is always in and out of jail for stealing cars, fighting, etc. Mother is never around and she is also a gang banger. When they did keep their kids around, their idea of "teaching" and "raising" their children was to "discipline" then with belts, fly swatters, and their own hands and sometimes feet. They cuss out their own children, even when guests are around.

Group 2 Parents: Father has a 6-figure job as a financial consultant at a car dealership; he never went to college but got his job through hard work. Mother used to work as a fashion designer/ personal stylist but is now a stay at home mother who is always with her kids, teaching them stuff and taking them to classes for extracurricular things such as martial arts, acting, ballet, piano, singing, and swimming. Both kids have gotten minor roles in commercials and other things as well.

And no, these are not "special cases" that fit the narrative of kids being heavily influenced by their environment; this is how things almost always are. There is a reason why the phrase, "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree", was coined; because it is true.

Now are there exceptions to the rule? Certainly.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Crime is ****ing crime.

Using drugs is against the law, we all know this.

Get the idea here? Never mind.

It also used to be against the law for whites to marry blacks.

So, was that crime equivalent to murder in 1943? According to your logic, it was.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Crime is ****ing crime.

Using drugs is against the law, we all know this.

Get the idea here? Never mind.

Well, not really. I mean, I guess you could count drug possession as being no more or less of a crime than murder or rape, but that doesn't seem like it makes a lot of sense.

[Don Corlemahomes]

Originally Posted by Rausch

Someone with a PHD took results from other studies, done over the past 62 years, and made associations based on them.

We agree that's exactly what was done, correct? Took data someone else collected and looked for connections based on that data from numerous studies.

At this point we should be in agreement.

The person doing the study admits the results depend on the honesty of the parents studied. I can go back and quote it but we both know that's in there.

No one is going to admit to abusing their child. Even AP describes what he did as normal and no different than his parents.

That makes the whole thing invalid. It's like asking someone if they're an alcoholic. If they are they won't admit to it...

Rausch, that is the definition of a meta analysis. They are really ****ing common.

The reason that study design was used is it's the best we have. It's simply not practical to observe thousands of parents and their punishment patterns for hours to make conclusions.

That the author is acknowledging the limitations of the study does not discredit the results.

However, if anything, parents framing their behaviors as normal and leaving out details that would otherwise characterize their actions as abusive would mean the study underestimated the association between the effects and the punishment. How does that make this study invalid, exactly?

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by OldSchool

And no, these are not "special cases" that fit the narrative of kids being heavily influenced by their environment; this is how things almost always are. There is a reason why the phrase, "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree", was coined; because it is true.

Now are there exceptions to the rule? Certainly.

I don't disagree with most of this.

The difference would I see Parents1 as being neglectful and abusive.
Not punishing with a spanking, abusive.

Parents2 are present in their kids lives and aren't abusive.

I think that's clear cut.

I'm advocating corporal punishment and I only spanked my daughter twice in 6 years. That's it. That's all I felt was appropriate.

My wife has 3 daughters and 1 son. I just never felt comfortable with the idea of spanking a 2nd grade girl. I just couldn't do it. Wasn't fair to spank the boy and not the girls so we didn't do it.

They acted up they stood in the corner holding oranges above their shoulders for 5 minutes. Next time it was 10. Never had to spank them.