Ok, maybe that doesn't happen super often, but bonus points are always awarded to weddings that end in bars.
But I digress.
The Adrian Peterson situation came up and someone made the comment that people find whaling on kids to be ok because "people view children as property."
I was surprised by exactly how simple and yet accurate that statement was.
The debate over the extent to which corporal punishment is appropriate always boils down to ... "It's my kid, I'll do what I want" and "Who are you to tell me what I can and can't do to punish my child?"
People can go at it for hours about this topic, but doesn't it really just boil down to property?
Little Bobby is mine. End of argument.
But why kids and nothing else?
If you said "She's my girlfriend, I'll discipline her as I choose," you'd be an asshole.
Clearly Ray Rice has already shown us that most people agree that you shouldn't hit women.
But say that you shouldn't hit, spank, whip or whatever verb you want to use a 4-year-old and now there's an argument to be had.
People on one side will say that those who physically punish kids are child abusers.
Those on the other side complain that kids who aren't hit lack discipline and are spoiled brats.
But why is it that children are the only things in the world you can say that about?
Go ahead.
Try and justify taking a belt or "switch" to your dog.
Or cat.
Or girlfriend. (Minus the 50 Shades stuff if that's how you roll.)
How about your employees? They're kinda like property. I mean you pay for them, right?
What? That's ridiculous?
But hitting a 4-year-old is ok?
Not even if you consider your child property. Sorry folks.
It would be nice if the level of outrage leveled at Ray Rice was directed at Adrian Peterson, but it won't happen. Not long-term.
Michael Vick will forever be the guy who tortured dogs.
But Peterson? This will be a wiki subhead in five years and that's all.
Here's to hoping he's been setting aside some of his NFL paycheck for that kid's future therapy bills.
It will definitely be needed.
