fuchsntf Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 I dont get the 2 facedness of this thread, we are all Leicester boys, not one bloody innocent among us.!! Simpson has been judged.Dont like what he did, actually dont like what many footballers do or say, including the surrounding media. The quiet unassuming profi male sportsman died off ca 30yrs ago.They grow up without home, street wise education. No mates to tell them they are idiots, few girlfriends to show not beeing bothered about their childish (we have all had them) tantrums. Mrs Vardy seems to have got the balance right.
Finnegan Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 5 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said: I don't believe he is a racist anymore than I believe Danny Simpson is going to knock his next Girl friend out mate, that's the point. Bit different though isn't it? Shouting something at a guy that's annoying you and it being a racist slur is a bit different to pinning down your missus and belting lumps out of her or trying to choke her or whatever he did. I think you have to be predisposed to a certain level of violence to find yourself in that situation. I've not hit anyone since the age of 13 and I've never really had to stop myself, either. I certainly wouldn't dream of hitting someone that much smaller than I am, intoxicated or otherwise.
Manwell Pablo Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 Just now, Finnegan said: Bit different though isn't it? Shouting something at a guy that's annoying you and it being a racist slur is a bit different to pinning down your missus and belting lumps out of her. I think you have to be predisposed to a certain level of violence to find yourself in that situation. I've not hit anyone since the age of 13 and I've never really had to stop myself, either. I certainly wouldn't dream of hitting someone that much smaller than I am, intoxicated or otherwise. Did he actually belt lumps out of her though? I honestly don't know what he was actually found guilty of in the end I thought it was grabbing her round the throat, whole case was dodgy. I think we all know both were wrong but do we really need to keep going on about it now the law and the club have dealt with it? He's been a good boy, hopefully he has learned his lesson, no ones asking anyone to be best mates with him, if we are allowing some highly immoral and illegal actions and not others where is the line exactly, hency why I asked the question in the first place? Just looks hypocritical to me. Well, or you'd probably just need to be predisposed to some of the birds that chase footballers around About died laughing at that because I'm on two days without punching someone had to restrain someone on Tuesday night.
VLC86 Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 2 hours ago, okie fox said: Let him who is without sin cast the first stone Alright Shakespear calm down.
Manwell Pablo Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 Just now, Costock_Fox said: Alright Shakespear calm down. It was Jesus actually Christ not Navas.
VLC86 Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 Just yesterday I was told he gives talks to the youth players about gloving up so you don't spend all of your wages on child support and then this all kicks off on twitter.
VLC86 Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 1 minute ago, Manwell Pablo said: It was Jesus actually Christ not Navas. Probably a better crosser of the ball as well tbh.
BenTheFox Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 The stupidity of many professional footballers never ceases to amaze me.
Jimothy Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 3 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said: Probably a better crosser of the ball as well tbh. They both struggle with crosses tbf.
Manwell Pablo Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 1 minute ago, Facecloth said: They both struggle with crosses tbf. Gold star
Innovindil Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 1 hour ago, Manwell Pablo said: Just out of interest do you have a problem cheering on a convicted "irresponsible" driver and a racist. Are we seriously comparing 2 intoxicated idiots, one who felt like superman and could drive drunk and one who I dare say is so uneducated he probably had no idea the word "jap" was racially offensive to someone who intentionally throttled the mother of their child? If so, that's probably the most ridiculous strawman I'll see all year. And it's early days yet.
Manwell Pablo Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 16 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Are we seriously comparing 2 intoxicated idiots, one who felt like superman and could drive drunk and one who I dare say is so uneducated he probably had no idea the word "jap" was racially offensive to someone who intentionally throttled the mother of their child? If so, that's probably the most ridiculous strawman I'll see all year. And it's early days yet. Well no we are comparing 3 intoxicated idiots. It is funny how being intoxicated is now an excuse for ones actions btw. I guess we can drop the case against Simpson after all. In any case, you didn't answer the question. I'm sure the families of the 3000 people killed or severely injured by drunk drivers on the roads last year will be delighted with that attitude.
Finnegan Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 17 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said: Did he actually belt lumps out of her though? I honestly don't know what he was actually found guilty of in the end I thought it was grabbing her round the throat, whole case was dodgy. I think we all know both were wrong but do we really need to keep going on about it now the law and the club have dealt with it? He's been a good boy, hopefully he has learned his lesson, no ones asking anyone to be best mates with him, if we are allowing some highly immoral and illegal actions and not others where is the line exactly, hency why I asked the question in the first place? Just looks hypocritical to me. Well, or you'd probably just need to be predisposed to some of the birds that chase footballers around About died laughing at that because I'm on two days without punching someone had to restrain someone on Tuesday night. I'm pretty sure the police turned up to find him straddling her on the floor having been pinning her down throttling her. He was ordered to do community service and no heavier punishment after she refused to testify. I'm sorry but, whoever you are, that's abhorrent behaviour. Normal, functional people don't do that to anyone, let alone their partners.
Manwell Pablo Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 Just now, Finnegan said: I'm pretty sure the police turned up to find him straddling her on the floor having been pinning her down throttling her. He was ordered to do community service and no heavier punishment after she refused to testify. I'm sorry but, whoever you are, that's abhorrent behaviour. Normal, functional people don't do that to anyone, let alone their partners. I don't think anyone's trying to excuse his actions.
VLC86 Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 17 minutes ago, Facecloth said: They both struggle with crosses tbf. Claiming an assist for that.
AKCJ Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 8 minutes ago, Finnegan said: I'm pretty sure the police turned up to find him straddling her on the floor having been pinning her down throttling her. He was ordered to do community service and no heavier punishment after she refused to testify. I'm sorry but, whoever you are, that's abhorrent behaviour. Normal, functional people don't do that to anyone, let alone their partners. My missus loves it tbf.
Innovindil Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 12 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said: Well no we are comparing 3 intoxicated idiots. It is funny how being intoxicated is now an excuse for ones actions btw. I guess we can drop the case against Simpson after all. In any case, you didn't answer the question. Where on earth did I make excuses for ones actions? I merely stated that they are incomparable. Hence, strawman.
Manwell Pablo Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 7 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Where on earth did I make excuses for ones actions? I merely stated that they are incomparable. Hence, strawman. You labelled them intoxicated as if to say they only acted in the way they did because they were drunk. You are right though Drunk Driving does have far greater consequences. As my edit above states sure the families of the 3000 victims of drunk drivers last year will be delighted with your attitude. EDIT: Oh, and you still haven't answered the question.
Jimothy Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 2 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said: You labelled them intoxicated as if to say they only acted in the way they did because they were drunk. You are right though Drunk Driving does have far greater consequences. As my edit above states sure the 3000 victims of drunk drivers last year will be delighted with your attitude. EDIT: Oh, and you still haven't answered the question. I'm sure why he labelled him as intoxicated as to excuse his actions anyway, being intoxicated was the very problem with his actions. Had he not been pissed he'd have just been driving.
Finnegan Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 11 minutes ago, AKCJ said: My missus loves it tbf. Yeah but imaginary ladies aren't as fussy as the real ones.
AKCJ Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 3 minutes ago, Finnegan said: Yeah but imaginary ladies aren't as fussy as the real ones.
Innovindil Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 10 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said: You labelled them intoxicated as if to say they only acted in the way they did because they were drunk. You are right though Drunk Driving does have far greater consequences. As my edit above states sure the families of the 3000 victims of drunk drivers last year will be delighted with your attitude. EDIT: Oh, and you still haven't answered the question. Did Morgan hurt anyone? No. Did Vardy? Again, no. Unless you count hurting someone's feelings. And no, I'm not going to answer and justify your ridiculous strawman. If we're going to play strawman silly bollocks take this one: (hypothetically) we've got a 21 year old lad who's Leicester born and bred and been with us since he was a baby. He goes out and rapes a 12 year old girl and gets banged up for 5 years. After he's released he comes back to play for us. Should we cheer him on? He's done his time and is just oh so sorry he hurt the little girl. Should we just ignore it and move on? Tell me we should so we can all see you're full of crap. See? Strawman. Completely fuching irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Manwell Pablo Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 Just now, Innovindil said: Did Morgan hurt anyone? No. Did Vardy? Again, no. Unless you count hurting someone's feelings. And no, I'm not going to answer and justify your ridiculous strawman. If we're going to play strawman silly bollocks take this one: (hypothetically) we've got a 21 year old lad who's Leicester born and bred and been with us since he was a baby. He goes out and rapes a 12 year old girl and gets banged up for 5 years. After he's released he comes back to play for us. Should we cheer him on? He's done his time and is just oh so sorry he hurt the little girl. Should we just ignore it and move on? Tell me we should so we can all see you're full of crap. See? Strawman. Completely fuching irrelevant to the topic at hand. Again, sure those who have lost family members to drunken drivers will love that attitude.
HesNotGudjonsonn2 Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 If you won't cheer on footballers unless they are model human beings then god knows who you can cheer on. Perhaps we can change this thread to suggestions of players with no sins in their lives.
Innovindil Posted 5 January 2017 Posted 5 January 2017 16 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said: Again, sure those who have lost family members to drunken drivers will love that attitude. Thank you for answering my strawman.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.