Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
A question for you. You are throwing a lot of vitriol at this person without knowing them. Given what we know about bullying - high propensity for mental illness and high potential for previous abuse can you see a scenario where you would feel bad about your current stance. If this kid was beaten every night like Patrick O’Sullivan was or some other severe abuse or illness would that change the way you are posting?
And if it would shouldn’t the fact that it is in the realm of reasonable possibilities that maybe we shouldn’t be passing such harsh judgement without knowing the situation.
|
We can use that excuse for absolutely every criminal ever. Absent evidence of this, why should we assume that's the case? How do you feel about Kyle Rittenhouse? Brock Turner? Ethan Couch? The Stoney Nakoda teen who shot the German tourist?
Who's to say they didn't have bad upbringings as well? I mean we know Couch did in that he wasn't given limits as a kid. But we all laughed (very angeringly) at the idea he wasn't responsible for his actions. The Stoney Nakoda teen did, as put into evidence in the case, but most people wanted to see him suffer much more than his sentence.
Do we feel the same away about sexual predators? How many of them were abused when they were young?
But that's really besides the point because there's 0 evidence that he had anything wrong with his upbringing except that he was a piece of ####. So should we now assume all pieces of #### aren't responsible? (This sounded rhetorical, but it's a serious question I'd love for you to answer).
The idea I don't know him, sure, but I know what he did. And as Cannon7 says, actions speak louder than words. We can condemn his actions and his failure to feel remorse or seek redemption from his victim.
If you can provide evidence that he himself was a victim, sure I can feel bad for him while still recognizing that what he did was disgusting and that he hasn't redeemed himself. But I think it's a folly to give him, and just him apparently, some benefit of the doubt when he hasn't insinuated there was other factors at play.
I mean, look how people crucified Sandmann for smiling respectfully at a racist elder. I'm not sure why an actual racist teen should be given a free pass if he hasn't explained the situation or apologized.
Where were all the people defending the brothers who kidnapped and raped a girl in the NE when we actually know they had a terrible upbringing and didn't have the mental capacity to know right from wrong? Most people wanted them locked off for life (some as protection, others as punishment).
As for the vitriol, I mean hoping someone who didn't beat a disabled person while being racist and refusing to apologize about it as an adult makes the NHL over him doesn't seem particular bad. If I was rooting for a career ending injury, or for him to be killed, fair enough, but right now my position is he has a right to continue to try to make the NHL and I can hope he doesn't if he doesn't seek forgiveness.