The subjectivity of defining "child abuse"

[Low D Flat]

There are close cases. This wasn't one. Leaving lacerations all over a four-year-old's legs is monstrous. Especially when you figure that this was a man who lost another son when a grown man beat the child to death.

There are plenty of cultures where it's OK (or mandatory) to do things like razor off a girl's clitoris. A democracy is perfectly entitled to say that that's beyond the pale, and so was this.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Low D Flat

There are close cases. This wasn't one. Leaving lacerations all over a four-year-old's legs is monstrous. Especially when you figure that this was a man who lost another son when a grown man beat the child to death.

Exaaactly.

And what could a four-year-old possibly do wrong to make a parent think that this was OK? Pee their pants? Color outside the lines? This is simply unacceptable. If the NFL wants to see "the legal process play out" prior to making any judgments, they should do so while Peterson takes a paid leave of absence.

ETA: DrPhil, I know that your question isn't directly related to the Peterson case, and it speaks more to the "definition" of child abuse in general, but I still wanted to make my point regarding the case.

I'm interested to see where this conversation goes...

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Low D Flat

Leaving lacerations all over a four-year-old's legs is monstrous.

A democracy is perfectly entitled to say that that's beyond the pale, and so was this.

Based on whose standard?