Oh, there have definitely been extreme reactions on both sides. That's why I'm saying it seems reasonable to me to stand on either side of "based on the statements I've read from him he seems to acknowledge his wrongdoing and seems contrite", and "My read of this guy is that he hasn't truly come to terms with how awful what he did was and his statements of contrition aren't convincing to me". But there are a lot of people in this thread taking some very personal shots from both sides of that line and that is I think baffling - how can anyone be so totally certain about their stance as to actually get into internet fights and attack other posters for their stance when they don't know this person?
Other than that I mostly agree with what you're saying, although I took the "work at McDonalds" thing to be a rhetorical effort to make the same point I was indicating - that if your position is that the consequences for these actions should be that he is never allowed to play in the NHL, how did you determine what that line was. That is, should he also be barred from AHL, or the ECHL, or where does it stop, and wherever it stops, what is the principled justification for choosing that particular stopping point.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|