The Ray Rice video

Yup, looking more and more like Goodell is toast...

http://deadspin.com/report-nfl-had-...ource=deadspin_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

A few thoughts I haven't seen or heard discussed.

First, a rhetorical question: Why do civilized people abhor male-on-female violence?

Answer: Generally speaking, it offends our sense of fairness. Due to genetically dominant characteristics, and exceptions both ways noted, most men can physically handle most women with ease. The difference in upper body strength, muscle mass, quick-twitch nerves, power-weight combination...all that heavily favors men.

So most women aren't a physical match for most men, especially when the adrenaline is flowing.

It's the same fundamental reason that we abhor child abuse and cruelty to animals. The victim has no realistic means of defense, and is entirely at the mercy of a @&!(@&$ with nothing to fear. It's just wrong and often reminds us of times we were in predicaments with similar characteristics.

Point being, what if Ray Rice had punched out an average man? I seriously doubt there would be near the outcry. But is there a realistic difference in the advantage a 6-1, 230 lb professional running back Ray Rice, in world-class physical condition, would have held over the average 5-10, 175 lb male and the one he held over his fiancée?

It's kind of like debating whether middleweight Sugar Ray Leonard would have given Mike Tyson a better bout than the contemporaneous bantamweight. Ask the male victimS of Pettway, Calloway, et. al, how that works.

For Roger Goodell -- When you saw the tape of Rice dragging the woman out of the elevator, and both admitted what happened, did you think he knocked her unconscious with a love tap to the wrist?

Did the tape make the difference? If so, why? You knew what happened, whether you'd seen a tape or not. And it took a picture to go from a 2 game suspension to lifetime?

Are you stupid, or is it just that you think the rest of us are?

How do you plan to address the other 20+ players on other teams with domestic violence backgrounds, but who weren't unfortunate enough to have their acts on tape?

Or is it just the pictures, that were at least as damning to you as they were to Rice, that made the difference?

The message you're sending is that it's OK to punch out your woman, so long as you make sure there are no cameras around.

For the feminists, both male and female, who want to see women in front-line military combat positions, you're strangely quiet. How do you reconcile (1) wanting male-on-female violence to have special consequences, primarily because of the undisputed physical disadvantage females face, with (2) advocacy of women in combat?

The act, the NFL's reaction, the public's reaction, the reaction of the talking heads, and the deafening silence from audiences that would normally be on this like stink on garbage, are telling. And usually thoughtless, condescending, or intellectually inconsistent.

mikes12 said:

The NFL's job is to make a profit by putting together the best football teams to compete at the highest levels of the sport.

Click to expand...

And that is exactly what this is about. Do you really think the NFL is risking money by doing this? The NFL (like most for-profit organizations) will do whatever is needed to appease the largest percentage of their customers. In this case, the backlash was big enough the choice was obvious.

It has nothing to do with an agenda, other than the agenda to make money...

crimsonaudio said:

And that is exactly what this is about. Do you really think the NFL is risking money by doing this? The NFL (like most for-profit organizations) will do whatever is needed to appease the largest percentage of their customers. In this case, the backlash was big enough the choice was obvious.

It has nothing to do with an agenda, other than the agenda to make money...

Click to expand...

Agreed. It is ALL about $$$. If the NFL feels like they are going to lose a portion of their customer base or have any hint that maybe a major sponsor will pull out, then you can guarantee they will start "caring" about the issue. But their "caring" is more about the loss of $$$ than it is the actual issue.

This is stupid. Now days an apology is not enough. We have to go to sensitively training. I would have offered an apology but no way would I have gone to sensitively training over what he said. I'd just tell them "I'll gladly give an apology but I'm not going to any sensitivity training." If it cost me my job then so be it.



http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...oadcaster-ted-robinson-comments-rice-incident