• 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!

NFL suspends Adrian Peterson without pay for at least rest of regular season

He violated his contract with the NFL. Courts don't matter.

So long as he's guilty and that can be demonstrated, I suppose so. In this case there was likely ample evidence, but so long as we are reasonable and wait for evidence.
 

So what? You're calling everyone an "emotional dimwit". Has it ever occurred to you that maybe everyone else is not the problem you're having?
 
So long as he's guilty and that can be demonstrated, I suppose so. In this case there was likely ample evidence, but so long as we are reasonable and wait for evidence.

His contract specifically states that criminal conviction is not required for action by the NFL.
 
So what? You're calling everyone an "emotional dimwit". Has it ever occurred to you that maybe everyone else is not the problem you're having?

You know, if it was true that no one agrees with me that fact alone wouldn't mean everyone agrees with you.
 
His contract specifically states that criminal conviction is not required for action by the NFL.

Which is fine, I said so long as we remain reasonable and evidence is presented. We can't just go off of hearsay.
 
You know, if it was true that no one agrees with me that fact alone wouldn't mean everyone agrees with you.

It's a yes or no question. You're totally alone and claiming everyone is an "emotional dimwit". That's like a child throwing a fit. I don't know what causes this behavior and this is not the place to figure that out. So, I bid thee a good day.
 
Which is fine, I said so long as we remain reasonable and evidence is presented. We can't just go off of hearsay.

There are pictures of the boy (4 years old) with wounds on his genitals, legs, arms, hands (defensive wounds) and elsewhere. A doctor took these pictures when he felt obligated to report the wounds to the police. Peterson admitted doing it (with a stick) and claims he did nothing wrong.

This is not the first time Peterson has admitting to wounding one of his children. Another child of his bears a scar on its face inflicted while the child was in a car seat.
 
Last edited:
It's a yes or no question. You're totally alone and claiming everyone is an "emotional dimwit". That's like a child throwing a fit. I don't know what causes this behavior and this is not the place to figure that out. So, I bid thee a good day.

Even if you were "qualified" to figure it out I wouldn't care what your diagnose was. Anyway, your assumption continues to be that everyone disagrees with me and that everyone agrees with you.
 
Even if you were "qualified" to figure it out I wouldn't care what your diagnose was.

I presume you know why you hold a delusional position. So I really don't think a diagnosis would be news.

Anyway, your assumption continues to be that everyone disagrees with me and that everyone agrees with you.

It's not an assumption. It's an observation. Evidence is found in this and every other thread about Peterson. When one finds themself alone with a position (and claiming everyone else is an "emotional dimwit"), it might be time to reevaluate.
 
Last edited:
I presume you know why you hold a delusional position. So I really don't think a diagnosis would be news.

My position is factual, not delusional. :shrug:

It's not an assumption. It's an observation. Evidence is found in this and every other thread about Peterson.

I think I was only in one other thread about Peterson and I believe I did get likes in that thread. :shrug:
 
So why is his actions in his private life reflective of the NFL?

I'm willing to bet there is a clause in all NFL contracts.
 
No, his behavior has nothing to do with the NFL.

the nfl is about entertainment. the idea of people beating their kids is not entertaining.

I know that these people that entertain me make a great deal of money. As a member of the consumer class, it is my responsibility to make my wishes known, and my wishes are to not enrich child abusers.
 
Why is it ****ing stupid? If a man built houses for a living and spent most of his time driving nails does it matter at all that he is an abusive asshole to his children? It would make sense to fire someone that works with children if they are found to be abusive to their own children, but otherwise, it makes no sense.

Organizations, including the NFL, are parts of society. They are not wholly separate and isolated units unto themselves. They depend on society for customers, employees, suppliers, investors, etc. Hence, when an employee does something that harms society e.g., commits a crime, organizations often act, as well. To be indifferent would be to risk sacrificing the stakeholders on whom their revenue and profits depend.
 
What does beating your kid have to do with running a football? Sorry, but I still don't get what his job has to do with how he treats kids.
The company that hires him can suspend him for what ever reason they want. It's a private industry. All the sudden you are against private industry doing what is in its best interest?

So You ate only a libertarian when it doesn't conflict with your television?
 
The company that hires him can suspend him for what ever reason they want. It's a private industry. All the sudden you are against private industry doing what is in its best interest?

I never said they couldn't suspend him for whatever reason they wanted.

So You ate only a libertarian when it doesn't conflict with your television?

What? Are you saying you don't eat libertarians? :lol:
 
I never said they couldn't suspend him for whatever reason they wanted.
So what are you on about? They know their business better than you.



What? Are you saying you don't eat libertarians? :lol:
No, for some reason my spell check confuses the word "are" with the word "ate."
 
The guy who questioned why possession of child pornography should be illegal, has a problem with the NFL suspending a child abuser... I'm starting to see a disturbing pattern.
 
The company that hires him can suspend him for what ever reason they want. It's a private industry. All the sudden you are against private industry doing what is in its best interest?

So You ate only a libertarian when it doesn't conflict with your television?

Libertarians can be delicious, or so I'm told by some of my cannibal friends. ;)
 
Libertarians can be delicious, or so I'm told by some of my cannibal friends. ;)

Child-like logic and ideologies, sadly, do not translate to child-like taste!
 
Why is it ****ing stupid? If a man built houses for a living and spent most of his time driving nails does it matter at all that he is an abusive asshole to his children? It would make sense to fire someone that works with children if they are found to be abusive to their own children, but otherwise, it makes no sense.

Because if the carpenter did something that would make people not want to buy his company's houses, he'd be kicking stones down the road soon enough. The NFL produces fans. This a**hole is bad for business.
 
Because if the carpenter did something that would make people not want to buy his company's houses, he'd be kicking stones down the road soon enough. The NFL produces fans. This a**hole is bad for business.

I'm more than aware of their motivations. I even said as much by saying they were motivated to act because of their consumers. I just think their consumers need to focus on the game.

The consumer is there for a show, and since Peterson can still put up pretty good numbers the last time I checked(it's been a while admittedly) they have no reason to think he wouldn't be worth the ticket price.

It's a goddamn transaction for entertainment, not a goddamn morality convention.
 
Last edited:
So what are you on about? They know their business better than you.

That I disagree with apparently society that this behavior should cause him to not able to run a football for a living.

No, for some reason my spell check confuses the word "are" with the word "ate."

I figured as much.
 
Back
Top Bottom