Jake Daniels, the UK's only openly gay active male professional footballer, speaks about his mental health, Jordan Henderson and the 18 months since coming out.
The comparison doesn’t hold. I’ve already explained why. “Worse” doesn’t come into it. It’s not relevant to why the comparison is awful.
“Person says A is a terrible thing and then does A.”
“Person says nothing public about B and then does B.”
I shouldn’t have to break it down that basic for you but apparently, you don’t get it unless I do.
“Are Liverpool fans not singing about Steven Gerrard any more?” was the qoute. The inference being that gerrard did bad things and is still a hero so why isn’t Henderson? For the reason I just explained.
But Henderson hasn’t done ‘A’. He’s just sold out to people who do ‘A’.
Whereas Gerrard has done ‘B’. Which is bad regardless of whether or not he’s publicly denounced it previously. Because organised crime and physically attacking people is bad by default.
That’s the comparison. Gerrard’s reputation is intact because barely anyone gives a shit about the moral dimension of his character. By this same measure, Henderson’s will be fine also.
Your logic is astoundingly moronic. It’s like saying Adam Johnson never spoke out against pumping kids so doesn’t belong in the same conversation as Henderson.
Gerrard only physically assaulted someone and sucks up to organised crime.
But did he come out against violence and organised crime BEFORE he did those things?
I never claimed he wasn’t a dick. I claimed comparisons to Henderson were erroneous.
The comparison holds, Gerrard’s reputation is fine despite his ties to organised crime and his own historic offence(s).
Henderson’s hypocrisy vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia does not outweigh that in most people’s estimation.
And if you think insincerely milking a bit of positive PR is worse than assaulting someone, then you need to get out more.
The comparison doesn’t hold. I’ve already explained why. “Worse” doesn’t come into it. It’s not relevant to why the comparison is awful.
“Person says A is a terrible thing and then does A.”
“Person says nothing public about B and then does B.”
I shouldn’t have to break it down that basic for you but apparently, you don’t get it unless I do.
“Are Liverpool fans not singing about Steven Gerrard any more?” was the qoute. The inference being that gerrard did bad things and is still a hero so why isn’t Henderson? For the reason I just explained.
It’s a terrible, terrible comparison.
But Henderson hasn’t done ‘A’. He’s just sold out to people who do ‘A’.
Whereas Gerrard has done ‘B’. Which is bad regardless of whether or not he’s publicly denounced it previously. Because organised crime and physically attacking people is bad by default.
That’s the comparison. Gerrard’s reputation is intact because barely anyone gives a shit about the moral dimension of his character. By this same measure, Henderson’s will be fine also.
Your logic is astoundingly moronic. It’s like saying Adam Johnson never spoke out against pumping kids so doesn’t belong in the same conversation as Henderson.