2 things to be taken from this situation: 1. Never hit a woman (duh, he should have learned that a long time ago) 2. Don't marry the woman who spit in your face even if your attorney tells you that this will help you avoid litigation.
They have a 2 year old child together. Yeah, he knocked the fuck out the mother of his child. That child is going to have fun with google in about 10 years. Hopefully she never sees this thread. _
It seems you still don't get it, this had nothing to do with me trying to make myself feel better about myself, I am quite secure in my masculinity. You on the other hand seem to want to continually talk about men being raped when it has nothing to do with this thread. If you want to be a dumb ass and continue to broach the subject of men being raped in a thread that is not discussing anything even remotely close then I will continue to mock you.
pro·voke prəˈvōk/ verb stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone. it has nothing to do with her being held accountable for anything, it has to do with the fact that by the very definition of the word provoke her actions in conjunction with his reaction fit the definition. her actions (reportedly spitting on him) stimulated his strong and unwelcome reaction. she provoked him. if you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the word, but it is being used accurately. should the word be stricken, and the situation it is meant to describe, from the English language just because you don't like it, or only when it applies to a woman? problem is people hear the word and they want to add their own additional meanings to it that aren't part of its meaning, and claim that if you concede she provoked him, which all reports are she did, that to use that word you are defending his reaction or that it is stating she deserved it. of course not, that is an asinine position and is the result of anyone who is taking that position's ignorance of the meaning provoke. she provoked him. it doesn't mean she deserved it or he was justified, just that her action and his reaction, when taken together, meet the definition of provoke. that's the point of language, to have words that have definitions that describe objects, actions and events. to provoke someone requires the reaction. if she spit in his face and he did nothing, spitting in his face was not provoking him. if she spit in his face and he hit her, that same behavior created a situation where his reaction was provoked. the word is merely describing a situation in which an action led to a reaction. to interpret that as criticizing her or defending Ray Rice is your issue, and your baggage that you are applying incorrectly to the word.
That's actually a good literal post. I just don't think that Stephen A. Smith is smart enough to have believed or understood that definition.
Maybe, but in the end the hysterics are simply reacting to the use of the word provoke. The worst part is that society has become vocally dominated by hysterics only concerned with their own personal branding as caring, socially enlightened elitists that they all pretend that the completely false claim that the word implies it was her own fault is true just so that they can pat each other on the back for opposing that asinine and false claim. And everyone else joins in out desperation to be accepted into the socially enlightened elitist club so they can have their back patted too.
That worst part is only accentuated by the fact that Disney/aka ABC/aka ESPN may have suspended a worthless mouthpiece due to the hysterics of another worthless mouthpiece, but they are still tops in the ratings and will use that angle to promote hysterics to get ratings, and people are so stupid that they will eat it up and let it control their behavior. I didn't even know about the Stephen A. saga until 2 days after the fact when I read it on this forum. But I did read it, because people are ruled by media. And they will continue to watch BSPN. Not that BSPN is the problem, but they are certainly a very valuable tool to spread it.
ESPN sucks balls, yes, but unfortunately they have no real competition on television. The NFL Network is the worst pile of shit station I've seen. It's remarkable how they fuck up something that you almost can't fuck up the nfl is so popular. Even still they just have football obviously. That new garbage Fox Sports 1, has potential as finally some competition to ESPN, but they suck pretty bad. I'll watch SNY a lot, they aren't too bad but they are mostly local. On the national scene A decent alternative to ESPN doesn't exist. That why I watch that shit, unfortunately
i know what it means, I'm just in tizzy over people holding an abused person's actions ANY BIT responsible for whats happened to them. Theres a feeling that an abused person holds responsibility for an abuser's actions because they put themselves in place to be abused. she provoked him so she deserves some credit for being knocked out and such. thats just incorrect to me, FULL responsibility lies within the reactor, after all they're the one that did the deed and have a full range of self control at their disposal and chose not use it. Not saying you believe that just to clarify, but its just something thats always bugged me.
there's no excuse to hit a girl ever. Im not in favor of ANY suspensions for off the field stuff, but as long as Der Furer Goodell has set the precedent, the guy should be done for the year
Can you say damage control? http://mweb.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-o...offense-lifetime-ban-for-2nd-offense?v=1&vc=4
Strange how he's basically admitting that he punched her in the face and but since he took that weak plea bargain there are zero legal ramifications.
Wow- why the fuck did that smug ass Goodell vehemently defend the decision on Rice's suspension before only to do this. What an ass.
What else would you expect from the Jets' handpicked GM? I mean, he interned for the Jets for one season 30 years ago, the guy is bleeding Jets green with this. /Pats tard
I'm curious what constitutes domestic violence in regards to this rule since they are clearly differentiating it from domestic abuse. If a spouse or girlfriend attacks the player, and the player is a victim of domestic abuse, and the player defends themselves, thus committing domestic violence, will they get suspended or banned? Will it not matter which party is the aggressor and initiates the violence, which is the basic determinant in who is the perpetrator and the victim of domestic abuse, or will the NFL take the position that being a victim of domestic abuse is irrelevant if you defend yourself which can be qualified as domestic violence. I can see alot of spouses and girlfriends smacking the shit out of their man yelling go ahead and hit me!
