NFL 2016

[Tequila Cowboy]

It is NEVER ok for a man to hit a woman. There may be some ultra extreme hypothetical where it becomes unavoidable, but the axiom has to be NEVER. I seriously can't even believe there is debate about this.

I watched Roger Goodell last night and his interview with Nora O'Donnell. I was really expecting to see his nose grow. What a load of shit. NO ONE IN THE NFL SAW THE FOOTAGE? Uh huh. Bullshit commish, time for you to go.

[Shakespeare]

It is NEVER ok for a man to hit a woman. There may be some ultra extreme hypothetical where it becomes unavoidable, but the axiom has to be NEVER. I seriously can't even believe there is debate about this.

yup. what kind of culture is this where "never hit women" is still some sort of controversial statement. quit trying to imagine some situation where you can and acknowledge that you shouldnt. you just shouldnt, ever. its not complicated.

I watched Roger Goodell last night and his interview with Nora O'Donnell. I was really expecting to see his nose grow. What a load of shit. NO ONE IN THE NFL SAW THE FOOTAGE? Uh huh. Bullshit commish, time for you to go.

i really cant fathom how that idiot keeps his job through this. he surely will, but how.

like i said, even if you give the nfl the benefit of the doubt that they hadnt seen the footage, that means THEY DIDNT EVEN ASK. what is wrong with this picture?

that is so far beyond any threshold of a morally responsible investigation, someone has to lose their job for it. its absurd.

did they really think that footage wouldnt eventually come out?

[Zip City]

It is NEVER ok for a man to hit a woman. There may be some ultra extreme hypothetical where it becomes unavoidable, but the axiom has to be NEVER. I seriously can't even believe there is debate about this.

The only time I can think would be if your life was actually in danger (a woman is attacking you with a knife or something). I think that would fall under your "ultra extreme hypothetical" category, though

[Iowan]

It is NEVER ok for a man to hit a woman. There may be some ultra extreme hypothetical where it becomes unavoidable, but the axiom has to be NEVER. I seriously can't even believe there is debate about this.

I watched Roger Goodell last night and his interview with Nora O'Donnell. I was really expecting to see his nose grow. What a load of shit. NO ONE IN THE NFL SAW THE FOOTAGE? Uh huh. Bullshit commish, time for you to go.

It's not an extreme hypothetical. In my line of work I've seen men hospitalized by women who were larger, and armed, and the female had initiated the scenario.

But because the man subscribed to your absurd axiom, he refused to defend himself and ended up beaten and stabbed. He then refused to cooperate with the criminal investigation, just like many female DA victims.

Absolutist stances are dangerous, and this is no exception. It's never ok for a man to provoke a physical fight with a woman, but we all have a right to defend ourselves from attackers who are capable of harming us. If you think larger, stronger, or armed women never attack men, you're being naive.

Like I said, the situation at hand is not an example of where its ok, but the situation exists, and it's not as rare as you'd like to think.

[Iowan]

It is NEVER ok for a man to hit a woman. There may be some ultra extreme hypothetical where it becomes unavoidable, but the axiom has to be NEVER. I seriously can't even believe there is debate about this.

I watched Roger Goodell last night and his interview with Nora O'Donnell. I was really expecting to see his nose grow. What a load of shit. NO ONE IN THE NFL SAW THE FOOTAGE? Uh huh. Bullshit commish, time for you to go.

There's debate because you've taken an absolutist position for which one can easily draw up exceptions, and then claim that anyone who disagrees with your absolutist position is a vile monster.

Excuse me if I think it's reasonable for an unarmed, small male to protect himself from a larger or armed female who initiates an assault, as opposed to allowing himself to be beaten or killed. Yup, I'm being a real "cretin" on this.

[Tequila Cowboy]

It is NEVER ok for a man to hit a woman. There may be some ultra extreme hypothetical where it becomes unavoidable, but the axiom has to be NEVER. I seriously can't even believe there is debate about this.

I watched Roger Goodell last night and his interview with Nora O'Donnell. I was really expecting to see his nose grow. What a load of shit. NO ONE IN THE NFL SAW THE FOOTAGE? Uh huh. Bullshit commish, time for you to go.

There's debate because you've taken an absolutist position for which one can easily draw up exceptions, and then claim that anyone who disagrees with your absolutist position is a vile monster.

Excuse me if I think it's reasonable for an unarmed, small male to protect himself from a larger or armed female who initiates an assault, as opposed to allowing himself to be beaten or killed. Yup, I'm being a real "cretin" on this.

That's the ultra extreme hypothetical. The vast majority of men are bigger and stronger than women they associate with. The rule has to be an absolute, why does the exception have to spelled out as some kind of caveat? Verbalizing it allows rationalization; "she came after me with a frying pan so I had to hit her" etc. Common sense and self preservation will take care of exceptions so there is no need say "except in these circumstances" because in good people conscience will be the guide. We all know that there are exceptions to "though shall not kill" but it's not "though shall not kill except when..." This us no different.

[Clams]

[Zip City]

"Thou shall not kill" seems to have exceptions left and right, no?

[Tequila Cowboy]

"Thou shall not kill" seems to have exceptions left and right, no?

Are they spelled out or are they left up to the morality of the individual? Spelling out exceptions to any moral axiom leads to rationalization and debate over things that should not be debated.

To clarify to Iowan though I certainly don't feel you're a bad person or wouldn't act in an appropriate manner but if you had a son wouldn't you teach him that it is never ok to hit a woman? Anyway that's how I was raised I see no reason to feel any differently.

[Iowan]

I get your point TC.

I plan on raising my son (should I have one) to believe that hitting anyone is wrong, unless necessary to defend yourself. Then I would explain how less force is required to stop someone smaller and weaker than you. I think this would cover the vast majority of instances where men wrongfully hit women.

I think that achieves the same goal without as absolutist of a stance.

[Tequila Cowboy]

I get your point TC.

I plan on raising my son (should I have one) to believe that hitting anyone is wrong, unless necessary to defend yourself. Then I would explain how less force is required to stop someone smaller and weaker than you. I think this would cover the vast majority of instances where men wrongfully hit women.

I think that achieves the same goal without as absolutist of a stance.

Fair enough, I think we are close enough to the same page that this can pretty much rest. I think one of the biggest issues here is that in today's world boys, and later men, are not taught to respect women in the same way earlier generations were and I think that leads to some of the problems. I understand that the vast majority of people get that what Ray Rice did was heinous and criminal and that's good, I just sometimes think that the underlying societal principals get lost in ambiguity.

[John A Arkansawyer]

Just call me new-fangled or something, but I figure the conditions under which it's okay for a man to hit a woman are pretty much the same conditions in which it's okay for any one person to commit violence against another: Almost never.

I was out eating dinner last night and all the TVs were tuned in to sports talk--ESPN, I presume, but I don't know that--and one of the commentators was talking about the complicity of the journalism industry and "the network" (which he did not name). That impressed me. I hope he keeps his job.

I also saw that video. I'd avoided it--I've seen enough violence, thank you--but there it was. What someone said--I wish I remembered so I could credit it--was that the NFL didn't take harsher action because the guy hit his wife. They took harsher action because you saw him hit his wife.

(Which reminds me: He was a boxer, right? Does that not still raise the level of his offense to assault with a deadly weapon? Or have I adopted an urban legend?)

So it's not about right or wrong. It's about the cash flow. Donald Sterling was fine for years as an NBA owner/racist slumlord. Then he endangered some other rich guys' cash flow. Suddenly he's a pariah. Color me depressed.

[wooswiff]

NFL didn't take harsher action because the guy hit his wife. They took harsher action because you saw him hit his wife.

NFL Announces New Zero-Tolerance Policy On Videotaped Domestic Violence

[njMark]

Speaking from very intense personal experiences from my marriage imploding, Iowan is right and TC is kind of right. I for one let my wife get handy with me and I just accepted it because I foolishly believed that I shouldn't defend myself because she's a lady. After months of this, I decided I'm not going to let this happen anymore. I never slugged my ex ala Mr. Rice but I made it clear that it was not going to happen anymore. Do I feel like a monster or somehow by defending myself less of a person? No I do not. Domestic situations do not no matter how badly we want them too, fit in a narrowly defined black and white world. The belief that your wife/gf can hit, kick, throw sharp objects at you with impunity is a very bad yet widely accepted belief in America today. How about no one hits anyone, that's the world I want to live in. Not to over share but I've been dealing with this divorce thing and getting this out makes me feel better.

[beantownbubba]

Good to see you, NJM. Sorry for the circumstances. Hope it gets better soon.

[Tequila Cowboy]

Speaking from very intense personal experiences from my marriage imploding, Iowan is right and TC is kind of right. I for one let my wife get handy with me and I just accepted it because I foolishly believed that I shouldn't defend myself because she's a lady. After months of this, I decided I'm not going to let this happen anymore. I never slugged my ex ala Mr. Rice but I made it clear that it was not going to happen anymore. Do I feel like a monster or somehow by defending myself less of a person? No I do not. Domestic situations do not no matter how badly we want them too, fit in a narrowly defined black and white world. The belief that your wife/gf can hit, kick, throw sharp objects at you with impunity is a very bad yet widely accepted belief in America today. How about no one hits anyone, that's the world I want to live in. Not to over share but I've been dealing with this divorce thing and getting this out makes me feel better.

I'm truly sorry to hear this. I never meant to imply that someone shouldn't defend themselves. I think that good people find a way to do what's right in difficult situations. When I say it's never acceptable to hit a woman I mean it, but not at the expense of your own well being or survival. Those become hard choices and I'm sorry you had to make them. Growing up there was a lot of domestic violence in my family and extended family, not abuse per-se but shoving, people chasing other people around with knives and baseball bats and slapping were not uncommon. My aunt (my mom's sister) once broke a plate over my mother's head at Christmas dinner over an argument when I was maybe 15. My father and my my mom's brother restrained my aunt and led her outside before it could escalate further. I had a lot of anger issues and could have gone down that path but I didn't. I worked on it by setting absolutes in my head and dealing with my issues. Violence sucks, I'm sorry njMark. That's all I got.

[tinnitus photography]

"Thou shall not kill" seems to have exceptions left and right, no?

as long as it's an accident at the Burger and Uzi joint, it's OK.

[Zip City]

"Thou shall not kill" seems to have exceptions left and right, no?

as long as it's an accident at the Burger and Uzi joint, it's OK.

Or it's an armed white guy "defending himself" against an unarmed minority

[Tequila Cowboy]

AP Source: Law Enforcement Official Sent Copy of Ray Rice Tape to NFL Executive in April

Well, so long Roger Goodell. Did he really think someone wouldn't find out??

[tinnitus photography]

what a dickdouche.

[Iowan]

AP Source: Law Enforcement Official Sent Copy of Ray Rice Tape to NFL Executive in April

Well, so long Roger Goodell. Did he really think someone wouldn't find out??

Not only did he make the NFL a shittier product, but he pulled this shit. What a douche.

[Clams]

AP Source: Law Enforcement Official Sent Copy of Ray Rice Tape to NFL Executive in April

Well, so long Roger Goodell. Did he really think someone wouldn't find out??

Not only did he make the NFL a shittier product, but he pulled this shit. What a douche.

But it's sure gonna be fun to watch the media chip away at his lie. I say that by Monday they'll have the video traced directly to goodell's laptop.

[beantownbubba]

Proving that $44 Million just doesn't buy what it used to.

Why, why, why do people still think these things can be "contained?"

Since Watergate, which was over 40 years ago, we've learned 2 things: The truth or at least the least desirable version of it will undoubtedly come out and more often than not the cover up bites harder than the original problem. And yet...

[Gang Green]

As much as I despise Roger Goodell and the NFL we can't lose sight of the issue of domestic abuse. The last time we cared so much about this issue was after OJ in 1995, when we heard about Robert Parrish, Warren Moon, Bobby Cox, Dante Bichette among others (see articles below). Then we forgot about it, myself included. It looks like someone will be taking a fall this time which, in my mind, is a good thing and hopefully we won't be turning our heads anymore.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-12/ ... c-violence

http://www.thefastertimes.com/football/ ... in-sports/

[tinnitus photography]

During the month of December, the NFL will make teams adorn their uniforms with pieces of a blood-stained camisole to raise awareness of domestic violence.

[Tequila Cowboy]

As much as I despise Roger Goodell and the NFL we can't lose sight of the issue of domestic abuse. The last time we cared so much about this issue was after OJ in 1995, when we heard about Robert Parrish, Warren Moon, Bobby Cox, Dante Bichette among others (see articles below). Then we forgot about it, myself included. It looks like someone will be taking a fall this time which, in my mind, is a good thing and hopefully we won't be turning our heads anymore.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-12/ ... c-violence

http://www.thefastertimes.com/football/ ... in-sports/

Agreed. Unknown to me until later my across the street neighbor was a serial abuser first with his wife and then two consecutive girlfriends before finally going to jail. My next door neighbor helped the latter two escape and helped in the investigation and legal battle.

The NFL is a violent game played by monstrous violent men and we love it for that. It's the modern equivalent of gage gladiatorial games and it does no good to deny that. I've been known to yell "pulverize him" and "break his bones" while watching games. It's a time to let your inner Neanderthals out for air. The problem is that many of these players are Neanderthals all the time. It's a serious problem and probably one without a solution except for the hope of a strong leader to keep those aspects in check. I do not believe Roger Goodell is that man.

[Zip City]

The owners are coming out in support of Goodell. Makes you wonder what other incidents they're trying to keep from seeing the light of day

[Clams]

Here's an alternative, and not far-fetched, scenario. Someone else takes the fall and Goodell keeps his job. Unless they can show that Goodell and the other decision-makers received the video, then Goodell can keep to his story and save his job. And the person who received the video gets fired for not forwarding it. It's just like Gov. Christie and Bridgegate. We all know that he knew what was going on, but absent a smoking gun, he can claim he didn't know and fire his staff members who were involved. Here, we all know that Goodell and/or those who reviewed Rice's case saw the video, but absent proof, a fall guy is sacrificed (probably with a golden parachute) and Goodell, just like Chrstie, lives to rule another day.

[rlipps]

Here's an alternative, and not far-fetched, scenario. Someone else takes the fall and Goodell keeps his job. Unless they can show that Goodell and the other decision-makers received the video, then Goodell can keep to his story and save his job. And the person who received the video gets fired for not forwarding it. It's just like Gov. Christie and Bridgegate. We all know that he knew what was going on, but absent a smoking gun, he can claim he didn't know and fire his staff members who were involved. Here, we all know that Goodell and/or those who reviewed Rice's case saw the video, but absent proof, a fall guy is sacrificed (probably with a golden parachute) and Goodell, just like Chrstie, lives to rule another day.

I have a feeling this is what is ultimately going to happen, especially since reports came out last night that Goodell was at Augusta National from April 9th-11th, and the tape was delivered to NFL headquarters on April 9th. This gives him an opportunity to say, "I wasn't there, someone else took possession of the video and it was gone by the time I got back to the office next week".

[Tequila Cowboy]

Here's an alternative, and not far-fetched, scenario. Someone else takes the fall and Goodell keeps his job. Unless they can show that Goodell and the other decision-makers received the video, then Goodell can keep to his story and save his job. And the person who received the video gets fired for not forwarding it. It's just like Gov. Christie and Bridgegate. We all know that he knew what was going on, but absent a smoking gun, he can claim he didn't know and fire his staff members who were involved. Here, we all know that Goodell and/or those who reviewed Rice's case saw the video, but absent proof, a fall guy is sacrificed (probably with a golden parachute) and Goodell, just like Chrstie, lives to rule another day.

Absolutely plausible but there are problems. First, yeah there would have to be a golden parachute and a confidentiality agreement signed and that might not be easy to do in such a high profile case for a female executive. She may very well not want to be tainted by such a thing which means if you whack her she's going to talk and who knows what else is lurking at 345 Park Avenue? Could be better to have your people pissing out instead of pissing in. From the owners standpoint they're only going to support Goodell to point. Already government officials are talking and if Congress starts making noises about the nature of the NFL, its non-profit status and its limited anti-trust exemption they're going to hang Goodell out to dry. The other long term issue here is how does this man lead now in negotiations with the NFLPA and even in situations where he called to punish players? What credibility does he have? In simple terms there are only two options as to what is happening here, either Goodell is lying or he really didn't know that someone in his organization had the video. In the first scenario he has no credibility in the second he is such a weak leader that, again, his credibility and ability to lead is in serious doubt. Current and former players are already speaking out and openly questioning his authority. I don't see how in the world he keeps his position in any case but this is the NFL so you never do know.