Sullinger and Ray Rice

[zimbo]

  His initial response wasn't "someone has to be knocked out for it to be DV". You seem to be stumbling upon a more reasonable inference later in your post (what Sully did wasn't as bad as what Rice did). That doesn't at all imply that what Sully did shouldn't be considered DV.

I was using a debate tactic. To try to understand why he wrote what he initially wrote. You know, like you did with the child abuse thing. His initial response was, in my opinion, dismissing the OP because he missed where Sully KO'd his girl. Never mind that people were outraged by the initial Rice suspension without even seeing how bad vid he abused Janay.

  I'm not sure that mis-characterizing what people say in order to cast aspersions on them really qualifies as a debate tactic. What I was doing with the child abuse thing was showing how ridiculous your claims were. And frankly I'm not sure what the big deal about the video is. Everyone knew that he knocked her out in the elevator.

No everyone did not know that. She appeared to be knocked out coming out of the elevator. In fact it has been said that one of the first people that attended to them after they came out of the elevator thought she was drunk. So when you see her appear to be unconscious she could have been 'faking' it, or she could have been shoved and hit her head knocking her unconscious. She could have slipped and fell. There was no certainty as to what happened in the elevator until the very graphic video showing the mayhem he unleashed on her.

  I think you took "Everyone knew" a bit too literally. The large majority of people who were at all familiar with the case were well aware that Ray caused his girlfriend's unconsciousness.

Are you really going to revise history like that? You used the "everyone" how else is anyone going to take it. Many people assumed not "knew" as you claimed.

[zimbo]

  I think the people with sense here are the ones that realizes that those responses don't all imply that Sullinger did no wrong.

Insult all you want, if that makes you feel like you have a point. Are you the authority on responses? You seem to know everyone's intentions. At least the one's you agree with.

[zimbo]

Instead of having Ray Rice come to the presser and express remorse and  claim that it was an isolated incident that will never happen again why don't you ask him what kind of vile hatred do you have for another human being that caused you to knock her out cold? Ask him to tell the truth and perhaps you will hear how he cannot even express what it is to love someone, he definitely is not happy with her. How do I know? You do not punch out someone you are happy with. If he is not happy with her, why is he with her? Hmmm. The answer to that is a whole new thread. Bottom line is problem will never be solved until you hear from all interested parties in society.  Again, with the NFL in particular and other violent sports it is more a reflection of the 'gladiators' we breed.

You make some very good points. Like you said it deserves a thread dedicated to itself.

[blink]

I really don't get the point of this thread

I don't either. People knew that domestic abuse was bad before the Ray Rice incident. The Sully incident received plenty of scrutiny.

So, let me get this straight, you wouldn't gently restrain your girlfriend if she went berserk and started slapping and hitting you? Sully made a wise decision and ended the dispute as peacefully as possible. It's just that women tend to over-dramatize.

Pointless thread.

I forgot the portion where Sullinger threw a punch that knocked out his girlfriend.

"domestic abuse " is a fuzzy term and you know it.

Wow with some of these responses. I understand some sports have predominately male fan bases, but some of these responses are just disturbing. No wonder society sweeps this issue under the rug. I hate that a gruesome video finally opened some peoples eyes.

Thank for this tread Desani. What Sullinger (and many other NBA players) have done is unacceptable. Does the NBA even have a domestic violence policy?

But I am not going to expect some Celtics fans to care. Some fans believe their players (esp fav one) can do no wrong. You see this with some Ravens fans.

I wouldn't be surprised if this thread gets locked.

well said.  . finally someone with sense on here. Yes, many fans of teams think their player can do no wrong. Sullinger did do wrong in this case. Even the FO  suspended him for the opener last year (should have been more games) even though there were no charges. It was a bad look for the team.

  I think the people with sense here are the ones that realizes that those responses don't all imply that Sullinger did no wrong.

i agree with this 100%.  Not one person in the whole thread ever said, implied, or alluded to Sully having done nothing wrong.

And just because someone completely misses the point doesn't mean that you are attacking them either.

[Ogaju]

"Can we really expect these 'gladiators' that thrive on our cheers for the harder hits to behave like normal beings once off the field? You train brutes, yet think because you put them in an Armani suit turns them into gentlemen. "

Wait wait wait.  Don't we have actual soldiers in society that are actually trained to kill? Don't we have actual guards with actual weapons? Don't we have actual Secret Service members etc, that deal with actual violence and problems all the time? And by most measures aren't most of these people fairly well adjusted? Aren't many of them actually considered heroes and our finest? Yeah. I would say we probably can expect them to be fine individuals off the field.

Yes we have actual soldiers but they are not treated like gladiators, and their training includes psychological training unlike the NFL players. I am not sure that all returning combat troops are as well adjusted as  you think.

[zimbo]

I really don't get the point of this thread

I don't either. People knew that domestic abuse was bad before the Ray Rice incident. The Sully incident received plenty of scrutiny.

So, let me get this straight, you wouldn't gently restrain your girlfriend if she went berserk and started slapping and hitting you? Sully made a wise decision and ended the dispute as peacefully as possible. It's just that women tend to over-dramatize.

Pointless thread.

I forgot the portion where Sullinger threw a punch that knocked out his girlfriend.

"domestic abuse " is a fuzzy term and you know it.

Wow with some of these responses. I understand some sports have predominately male fan bases, but some of these responses are just disturbing. No wonder society sweeps this issue under the rug. I hate that a gruesome video finally opened some peoples eyes.

Thank for this tread Desani. What Sullinger (and many other NBA players) have done is unacceptable. Does the NBA even have a domestic violence policy?

But I am not going to expect some Celtics fans to care. Some fans believe their players (esp fav one) can do no wrong. You see this with some Ravens fans.

I wouldn't be surprised if this thread gets locked.

well said.  . finally someone with sense on here. Yes, many fans of teams think their player can do no wrong. Sullinger did do wrong in this case. Even the FO  suspended him for the opener last year (should have been more games) even though there were no charges. It was a bad look for the team.

  I think the people with sense here are the ones that realizes that those responses don't all imply that Sullinger did no wrong.

i agree with this 100%.  Not one person in the whole thread ever said, implied, or alluded to Sully having done nothing wrong.

And just because someone completely misses the point doesn't mean that you are attacking them either.

Well you and BBallTim have completely missed my point. I said the responses I quoted were disturbing and dismissive about domestic violence. I stand by my point. It really doesn't have to do with weather if anyone implied or alluded to Sully being wrong. I cringed at the responses because it spoke to how some people view domestic violence.

[BballTim]

  His initial response wasn't "someone has to be knocked out for it to be DV". You seem to be stumbling upon a more reasonable inference later in your post (what Sully did wasn't as bad as what Rice did). That doesn't at all imply that what Sully did shouldn't be considered DV.

I was using a debate tactic. To try to understand why he wrote what he initially wrote. You know, like you did with the child abuse thing. His initial response was, in my opinion, dismissing the OP because he missed where Sully KO'd his girl. Never mind that people were outraged by the initial Rice suspension without even seeing how bad vid he abused Janay.

  I'm not sure that mis-characterizing what people say in order to cast aspersions on them really qualifies as a debate tactic. What I was doing with the child abuse thing was showing how ridiculous your claims were. And frankly I'm not sure what the big deal about the video is. Everyone knew that he knocked her out in the elevator.

No everyone did not know that. She appeared to be knocked out coming out of the elevator. In fact it has been said that one of the first people that attended to them after they came out of the elevator thought she was drunk. So when you see her appear to be unconscious she could have been 'faking' it, or she could have been shoved and hit her head knocking her unconscious. She could have slipped and fell. There was no certainty as to what happened in the elevator until the very graphic video showing the mayhem he unleashed on her.

  I think you took "Everyone knew" a bit too literally. The large majority of people who were at all familiar with the case were well aware that Ray caused his girlfriend's unconsciousness.

Are you really going to revise history like that? You used the "everyone" how else is anyone going to take it. Many people assumed not "knew" as you claimed.

  I'm not revising history. Most people understand that the use of "everyone" doesn't always imply every single person. But this whole parsing of a comment and taking it to mean exactly what was said is something that's new to you, at least in this thread. Why don't you go back to the earlier comments you discussed and try to read them in that fashion, without the ridiculous leaps in logic that you took.

[BballTim]

  I think the people with sense here are the ones that realizes that those responses don't all imply that Sullinger did no wrong.

Insult all you want, if that makes you feel like you have a point. Are you the authority on responses? You seem to know everyone's intentions. At least the one's you agree with.

  I didn't say I knew everybody's intentions. In fact I didn't necessarily agree or disagree with the posts that you were mis-characterizing. I was just commenting on what you were doing.

[Eja117]

"Can we really expect these 'gladiators' that thrive on our cheers for the harder hits to behave like normal beings once off the field? You train brutes, yet think because you put them in an Armani suit turns them into gentlemen. "

Wait wait wait.  Don't we have actual soldiers in society that are actually trained to kill? Don't we have actual guards with actual weapons? Don't we have actual Secret Service members etc, that deal with actual violence and problems all the time? And by most measures aren't most of these people fairly well adjusted? Aren't many of them actually considered heroes and our finest? Yeah. I would say we probably can expect them to be fine individuals off the field.

Yes we have actual soldiers but they are not treated like gladiators, and their training includes psychological training unlike the NFL players. I am not sure that all returning combat troops are as well adjusted as  you think.

Well no but combat troops face combat.  Gladiators were trained to kill. Football players are trained to tackle other people wearing pads.

[BballTim]

"Can we really expect these 'gladiators' that thrive on our cheers for the harder hits to behave like normal beings once off the field? You train brutes, yet think because you put them in an Armani suit turns them into gentlemen. "

Wait wait wait.  Don't we have actual soldiers in society that are actually trained to kill? Don't we have actual guards with actual weapons? Don't we have actual Secret Service members etc, that deal with actual violence and problems all the time? And by most measures aren't most of these people fairly well adjusted? Aren't many of them actually considered heroes and our finest? Yeah. I would say we probably can expect them to be fine individuals off the field.

  TBH, a lot of those people probably wouldn't fit many people's definitions of well adjusted.

[zimbo]

  I'm not revising history. Most people understand that the use of "everyone" doesn't always imply every single person. But this whole parsing of a comment and taking it to mean exactly what was said is something that's new to you, at least in this thread. Why don't you go back to the earlier comments you discussed and try to read them in that fashion, without the ridiculous leaps in logic that you took.

Do you use the appeal to common sense fallacy in all of your retorts?  I mean really.

[zimbo]

  I think the people with sense here are the ones that realizes that those responses don't all imply that Sullinger did no wrong.

Insult all you want, if that makes you feel like you have a point. Are you the authority on responses? You seem to know everyone's intentions. At least the one's you agree with.

  I didn't say I knew everybody's intentions. In fact I didn't necessarily agree or disagree with the posts that you were mis-characterizing. I was just commenting on what you were doing.

Mis-characterizing what? I considered the the posts I quoted disturbing and dismissive to domestic violence in general. I can state my opinion.

[Eja117]

"Can we really expect these 'gladiators' that thrive on our cheers for the harder hits to behave like normal beings once off the field? You train brutes, yet think because you put them in an Armani suit turns them into gentlemen. "

Wait wait wait.  Don't we have actual soldiers in society that are actually trained to kill? Don't we have actual guards with actual weapons? Don't we have actual Secret Service members etc, that deal with actual violence and problems all the time? And by most measures aren't most of these people fairly well adjusted? Aren't many of them actually considered heroes and our finest? Yeah. I would say we probably can expect them to be fine individuals off the field.

  TBH, a lot of those people probably wouldn't fit many people's definitions of well adjusted.

I think your average WW2, Korea, or Vietnam vet is reasonably well adjusted, and by most objective measures Vietnam vets actually performed a little better as a group in civilian life than non vets other things equal.

[RJ87]

"Different levels of domestic violence." Wow, I can't believe I just read that. This thread is an embarrassment and as a female, I've lost a lot of respect for several posters I had once admired.

Anyone who honestly thinks the Sullinger incident isn't as bad as the Ray Rice incident is delusional. The only difference is that there was no video of what Jared did. And just because that was the only publicized incident with Jared, doesn't mean it was the first or the last. Domestic violence just doesn't pop up out of nowhere, there's always a history.

[Eja117]

"Different levels of domestic violence." Wow, I can't believe I just read that. This thread is an embarrassment and as a female, I've lost a lot of respect for several posters I had once admired.

Anyone who honestly thinks the Sullinger incident isn't as bad as the Ray Rice incident is delusional. The only difference is that there was no video of what Jared did. And just because that was the only publicized incident with Jared, doesn't mean it was the first or the last. Domestic violence just doesn't pop up out of nowhere, there's always a history.

Wait a minute. I have to admit I am under the impression that just from a legal and technical perspective there are different levels of domestic violence, but not just domestic, but really any violence. Hence assault and battery vs simple assault and manslaughter vs first degree murder, etc. 
I am under the impression for right or wrong authorities have to make decisions about various levels of violence all the time.

I just don't think I can say all violence is the same all the time.