Cliff wrote:He's said the words he regrets it. He's gone to a counseling session and it could be that Peterson truly regrets what he did and feels he has a problem that needs to be dealt with, however, this incident happened months before it became public knowledge and he only sought counseling after it was required for reinstatement.
He actually mentioned meeting with a psychologist about the issue all the way back in his initial written statement to the press back in September. This
USAToday article from November 18th also states:
Peterson has acknowledged injuring his son but said that was not his intent, and said he has sought counseling from a psychologist on other ways to discipline children.
Does when he sought counseling matter that much anyway? He has been receiving counseling and has supposedly been making progress with it, which seems like the important thing to me.
At the same time he's also blaming the people of Minnesota for "kicking him while he's down" rather than understanding what he did is the reason for that reaction.
I don't think anything he's said suggests he fails to understand the reason for the reaction. I got the impression he was just disappointed
by the reaction. Of course, people were obviously disappointed with him too (an understatement).
That mentality doesn't match with someone who realizes what they did was wrong and people had a right to be outraged at what happened.
I think it matches quite well with someone who doesn't see himself as a child-abusing monster but as a caring parent who went way overboard one time while disciplining his child and sincerely regrets it. To an awful lot of people, that one action defines Peterson but quite naturally, he doesn't see it that way. To me, the reaction you referred to above has always struck me as that of someone who sees himself as a caring parent who made a huge mistake and is hurt that people not only didn't give him the benefit of the doubt about that but eagerly believed what he claims were misrepresentations or outright falsehoods about him in the press.
I think it's just as easy to draw that conclusion that Peterson is saying what he has to say for reinstatement and public opinion sake just as easily as you can conclude all of his statements have been sincere.
Sure it's easy and it's obvious that people are going to draw whatever conclusions they want no matter what he does. A thousand tearful apologies on television and contributions to charity won't change that. If people choose to believe he's insincere, they'll just see all of it as an act. If people refuse to believe Peterson is sincere, there's also no way for him to demonstrate that, as Kluwe put it, " he understands he did something wrong and that he wants to work to change that". It's not as if he can take his actions back. However, he's been in counseling, he's "said the words" that he regrets what happened, he's repeatedly expressed his love for his son, the boy's mother has allowed him to see his son again and it appears (to me anyway) that Peterson genuinely wants to be a part of his child's life. I don't see anything to contradict the idea that he means what he's been saying and because he's been saying it, and taking other action, I think it's wrong for Kluwe to perpetuate the idea that it's not happening.
How does Klue-less know that AD hasn't "owned up to his mistakes"? Maybe he has to his family and friends for all anyone knows. Who asked for his opinion anyway?
