I know. It’s still super weird.
Breaking promises
3 Likes
Except the world doesn’t work like that you cannot divorce people from the situations they find themselves in. What might be no biggie for one person could be a huge problem for someone else.
If say Cesaro was in a similar situation it would be a mistake by him but no big deal because he doesn’t have a history of addiction, doesn’t have a history of making similarly bad choices mistakes etc. But for Hardy who has had a ton of issues with addiction and bad choices it is a bigger deal.
But at this point I see that you amount to an alt-right troll with the repeated use of terms like moral grandstanding and virtue signaling. You are arguing against straw men you set up for yourself. No one said he doesn’t have the right to do what he did, no one said it was a major crime.
Everyone else: “This is concerning because of his history.”
Deezy: “no big deal, he didn’t physically harm anyone, and I’ve passed out in the street too it happens.”
Everyone else:”Yeah but he needs help.”
Deezy:”I stand by his right to make bad choices.”
Not one person said he should be imprisioned, barred from drinking, etc.
Apparently for you the only thing that makes something a big deal is it being a felony, or it resulting in the physical harm of another person. Sorry that is not how life works.
4 Likes
And there it is…you’re projecting…I’m a liberal minority pal.
And yes…if a grown man didn’t hurt anybody doing what is within his legal rights…he’s entitled to it.
You ban him from that…then we all can’t afford those same rights.
Also, straw manning isn’t staying on point, that’s going off on tangents my friend…something you’re doing right now.
Strawmannirg has nothing to do with tangents it is a logical fallacy dealing with arguing against a position no one is defending because it is easier to do. No one in this thread has said he should be banned from doing it. In fact I have said several times that he should not be. The only argument being made is that it is a big deal for reasons other than the legality of the action including his personal history. Which you want to remove from the argument because you cannot include it and still argue that it isn’t a big deal.
Essentially I disagree with your premise that because something is a minor crime that defacto makes it not a big deal.
Is your argument that you don’t find it concerning at all that a person with a history of substance abuse to be found passed out drunk?
Do you not think said person should get help?
If the answers to those are yes…I disagree but it is fine that you feel that way I suppose.
As to the liberal minority, I never claimed you as white, and the use of “virtue signaling” is common from alt-right/right wing Libertarian people far more often than actual liberals. So I apologize for the mischaracterization. You argue like an alt-right troll. (Although I said amount to which is not actually specifically saying you are in fact alt-right, just that the effects are the same)
2 Likes
Not that I want to defend him, but he definitely has never presented as an alt right. Lots of other things but not that.
This right here
1 Like
Yeah I was more commenting on his style of argument using things like the terms moral grandstanding, and virtue signaling. Those terms are very much associated with the alt right, where if anyone says anything about any social cause it is virtue signaling. Implying that they are being disingenuous and just want to appear like a good person.
1 Like
It’s really odd bc he tried to call me alt right once when I used the “fake news” comment as a joke .
It shows you how political certain phrases are these days.
1 Like
I’m not against day drinking or public intoxication, I’ve dabbled in both quite a bit, I just don’t think it’s a good sign when a middle aged father with past addiction issues does it, and I don’t know if it’s within his legal rights either (thought I am no expert in SC state law).
1 Like
I want to see some videos of Finn making Lego models on his Sabbatical
3 Likes