Obsession over a name

I did absolutely read the link which why I can rebut with confidence what you are attempting to say. Now who has the reading comprehension deficit? Word for word it says "someone will compare someone or something to Hitler" . That's not what I did. You just heard the word Hitler and think it applies. But no, so nice try.

No. You said: "I did not know Hitler either so I guess by your point I can't question his character either. People that knew Hitler would vouch for him too"

That is a direct comparison between bkight's argument and Hitler. It fits squarely within Godwin's Law.
 
You think he went too far but that his punishment was an over reaction. Correct?

So, let me see if I get this straight. You would be fine with Peterson as a Cowboy, despite the fact that he was convicted on a charge of beating a child until he bled and scarred. And you think his punishment was too severe.

But, you think Hardy should never get another chance in the NFL, despite the fact that he was never convicted and charges were dropped.

Yeah, that makes sense.

I never said anything about Peterson being a Cowboy.

Your problem is that you presume WAY too much. You connect dots that shouldn't be connected which leads you to conclusions that, just aren't true.
 
I never said anything about Peterson being a Cowboy.

Your problem is that you presume WAY too much. You connect dots that shouldn't be connected which leads you to conclusions that, just aren't true.

Ok, throw out Peterson being a Cowboy. You still think he was punished too severely and should play in the NFL again. Despite the conviction. But Hardy is different even though he was not convicted. Still makes no sense.
 
No. You said: "I did not know Hitler either so I guess by your point I can't question his character either. People that knew Hitler would vouch for him too"

That is a direct comparison between bkight's argument and Hitler. It fits squarely within Godwin's Law.

No it does not. Godwin's Law only applies if the comparison was directly to Hitler or Nazism. That's not what I did. I compared my not knowing Hardy to my not knowing Hitler but still being able to judge their character. I did not contribute Hardy's character to Hitler's or Nazism. There is a difference there that makes a big difference. Even as distasteful as I think Hardy's action were, I in no way would ever compare his character to that of Hitler.
 
No it does not. Godwin's Law only applies if the comparison was directly to Hitler or Nazism. That's not what I did. I compared my not knowing Hardy to my not knowing Hitler but still being able to judge their character. I did not contribute Hardy's character to Hitler's or Nazism. There is a difference there that makes a big difference. Even as distasteful as I think Hardy's action were, I in no way would ever compare his character to that of Hitler.

:facepalm:
 
Ok, throw out Peterson being a Cowboy. You still think he was punished too severely and should play in the NFL again. Despite the conviction. But Hardy is different even though he was not convicted. Still makes no sense.

Apples and Oranges.

Hardy was convicted of a DV and communicating threats of violence. The charges were later vacated on appeal which does make the charges go away but it does not make the fact that he beat his GF go away. She had bruises from head to toe, the evidence was clear. But as is his right to appeal, he did so and in the interim paid her off to no longer cooperate with the law. He is not a good man.

On the other hand, AP plead guilty to a class A misdemeanor child abuse. I much more minor offense than what Hardy was charged and found guilty of. Peterson is otherwise a good dude but I don't want him on the Cowboys either.

You are allowing the letter of the law cloud your opinion of these two. You think because Hardy's charges were vacated that he is good to go and AP's charges makes him worse than Hardy but the two cases do not compare in scope.
 
Apples and Oranges.

Hardy was convicted of a DV and communicating threats of violence. The charges were later vacated on appeal which does make the charges go away but it does not make the fact that he beat his GF go away. She had bruises from head to toe, the evidence was clear. But as is his right to appeal, he did so and in the interim paid her off to no longer cooperate with the law. He is not a good man.

On the other hand, AP plead guilty to a class A misdemeanor child abuse. I much more minor offense than what Hardy was charged and found guilty of. Peterson is otherwise a good dude but I don't want him on the Cowboys either.

You are allowing the letter of the law cloud your opinion of these two. You think because Hardy's charges were vacated that he is good to go and AP's charges makes him worse than Hardy but the two cases do not compare in scope.

First of all, both of Hardy's charges were misdemeanors as well. Secondly, the accuser stated that she had bruises from head to toe but declined to receive treatment at the time and the police report described "minor scratches and bruises". She later went to the emergency room well after the incident took place.

Peterson's offense was also a misdemeanor. However, in this case, the injuries were to his child and caused bleeding and marks that were noticeable a week after the event.

By my thinking, beating a child until he is bloody and causing scarring is worse than what Hardy was accused of doing. Neither is good but beating your child is on another level, in my opinion.

Finally, I think neither of them are good people. Matter of fact, earlier in the thread I said:

"I don't think he has "character". People who get in trouble and accused of the things he is accused of, tend not to have "character". I do think he is a good team mate and a hard worker at practice and in game. His former team mates all attest to that.

There is more than one kind of "character". Hardy certainly has one type. Hopefully, he learned his lesson and will develop the others."

To me, that statement is a long way from calling him a good person.
 
First of all, both of Hardy's charges were misdemeanors as well. Secondly, the accuser stated that she had bruises from head to toe but declined to receive treatment at the time and the police report described "minor scratches and bruises". She later went to the emergency room well after the incident took place.

Peterson's offense was also a misdemeanor. However, in this case, the injuries were to his child and caused bleeding and marks that were noticeable a week after the event.

By my thinking, beating a child until he is bloody and causing scarring is worse than what Hardy was accused of doing. Neither is good but beating your child is on another level, in my opinion.

Finally, I think neither of them are good people. Matter of fact, earlier in the thread I said:

"I don't think he has "character". People who get in trouble and accused of the things he is accused of, tend not to have "character". I do think he is a good team mate and a hard worker at practice and in game. His former team mates all attest to that.

There is more than one kind of "character". Hardy certainly has one type. Hopefully, he learned his lesson and will develop the others."

To me, that statement is a long way from calling him a good person.

Okay good to know. I don't know either guy so you may be right about them both and I really should just leave it at that. It's been nice talking to you this morning but I'm calling it a night. Peace bro.
 
Okay good to know. I don't know either guy so you may be right about them both and I really should just leave it at that. It's been nice talking to you this morning but I'm calling it a night. Peace bro.

Have a good night. I don't think either of them are good people. I find what one was accused of despicable and what one was convicted of equally despicable. But, if Hardy cleans up his off the field issues and stays clean, he can help this team and that is why I want him here.
 
Funny since we only have 3-4 guys on our defense who could make the 53 of several teams. Our guys make Hardy look like Watt.
Your claim is extremely hyperbolic.
Demarcus Lawrence
Jeremy Mincey
Tyrone Crawford
Sean Lee
Anthony Hitchens
Brandon Carr
Orlando Scandrick
Barry Church
JJ Wilcox
Terrell McClain
Keith Rivers
Jasper Brinkley
CJ Spillman

All these players would easily make the 53 on almost every team in the league.
 
Your claim is extremely hyperbolic.
Demarcus Lawrence
Jeremy Mincey
Tyrone Crawford
Sean Lee
Anthony Hitchens
Brandon Carr
Orlando Scandrick
Barry Church
JJ Wilcox
Terrell McClain
Keith Rivers
Jasper Brinkley
CJ Spillman

All these players would easily make the 53 on almost every team in the league.

Yea I though about that last night. I'll admit, I went overboard on that. I guess I should've said start on most teams.
 
I think too many of you fall in love with names. I mean come on, you're acting like Greg Hardy is JJ Watt or something.

Yes, he's a fantastic playe
r,

but he's not some All-World generational talent;

he's a good DE.
.

You started to lay out the point of your thread.

THEN ... You contradict your point.

Then you qualify

Then you demote him from fantastic to just "good"
 

Forum statistics

Threads
464,089
Messages
13,788,231
Members
23,772
Latest member
BAC2662
Back
Top