What's new

Ray Rice - BYE BYE

waaaait.... just because you saw it on an internet message board doesn't make it true


at any rate - Log's comments on provocation are spot-on. Part of the issue then, is whether a reaction is warranted. Is Ray Rice's reaction appropriate to the provocation of spitting?

I would say no.

By the way, when did this incident actually happen? So many questions about this incident and how it was and is being handled by the NFL...

That's the key. I just fail to see how an appropriate response to your GF spitting or even slapping you would warrant a closed fist punch. There was no weapon involved. Rice was never in any physical danger. He could have simply pushed her away.
 
What about the AP?

https://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=11514522&src=desktop

Minnesota Vikings star running back Adrian Peterson turned himself in to Montgomery County, Texas, authorities early Saturday morning.

He was booked into the Montgomery County jail at 1:06 a.m. CT and released at 1:35 a.m. CT after posting the $15,000 bond.

Peterson had been indicted by a grand jury on charges of reckless or negligent injury to a child and a warrant had been issued for his arrest. He flew back early Saturday morning to Minnesota, where he has been deactivated for the Vikings' home game against the Patriots on Sunday.
 
Very bad decision. Any fool knows you have to move the young lady away from the cameras if you feel the need to knock her *** out. Even then, you absolutely NEVER, freaking EVER, strike a woman square in the face. That's just bad form. Nope, he should have encouraged her away from the cameras, gut punched her, and then when she's bent over recovering, punch her in the back of the head and knock her out. Kinda like when you donkey punch a girl, except all you care about is knocking her loopy so she'll shut the **** up with all the yap yap yip, and you can get some peace and quiet for a while.
 
Very bad decision. Any fool knows you have to move the young lady away from the cameras if you feel the need to knock her *** out. Even then, you absolutely NEVER, freaking EVER, strike a woman square in the face. That's just bad form. Nope, he should have encouraged her away from the cameras, gut punched her, and then when she's bent over recovering, punch her in the back of the head and knock her out. Kinda like when you donkey punch a girl, except all you care about is knocking her loopy so she'll shut the **** up with all the yap yap yip, and you can get some peace and quiet for a while.

shocked-look-on-a-monkeys-face.jpeg

donknotts.jpg

P8rgz5R.png

ike_narrowweb__300x441,2.jpg

mgid:uma:content:mtv.com:1687550
 
Or our experience in life teachers us that rarely do normal human beings do horrible things without provocation, even if only perceived as a provocation by the individual, so we expect to see some sort of provocation because truly evil people who do such horrible things without provocation are a legitimate rarity.

I gave this some thought before responding. So much depends on your world view.

I don't know how Mormons view the human condition, but for Catholics and Protestants, the view of humans is basically total depravity; everyone is completely separated from God and equally capable of evil acts. Is the Mormon belief different?

For me. actions are the result of training and habit. Evil acts don't require a provocation, but mere an inclination, based on how the person has learned to respond to the world. This can also vary greatly by social context. Men who would never harm their wife become rapists while being soldiers, and vice-versa.
 
I gave this some thought before responding. So much depends on your world view.

I don't know how Mormons view the human condition, but for Catholics and Protestants, the view of humans is basically total depravity; everyone is completely separated from God and equally capable of evil acts. Is the Mormon belief different?

For me. actions are the result of training and habit. Evil acts don't require a provocation, but mere an inclination, based on how the person has learned to respond to the world. This can also vary greatly by social context. Men who would never harm their wife become rapists while being soldiers, and vice-versa.

I do not want to sidetrack this topic, but I want to reference the correct Catholic teaching. As well as some of the early protestant reformers understanding of human nature in relation to God. Humans are not completely separated from our creator.

The following quotes are from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

If you need any further clarification you can message me, although I must admit that I do not check this message board daily.
 
Top