No, I'm saying that's irrelevant. Matt Greene got hit by a jeep and played within 24 hours. Because he did that, should we shift blame to any guy who gets injured and misses time for being soft because somebody else played when they were hit harder?Are you telling me you haven't seen harder punches result in nothing?
I can't even believe you would think that, but that's the argument you keep making.
When you say "This wouldn't have happened if Bob hadn't done this" you are trying to shift blame to Bob. It's not that hard of a concept to understand...
Probably is, but that's not the issue I have with it.Maybe it's a little insensitive of me to say that but I'm just calling it like it is.
Is that an accurate statement? Sure. Should it matter? No. The only thing that should matter here is Thornton did something incredibly unusual and bad (a slewfoot and a few punches to the head is unusual) and he ALONE is responsible and to blame for the results caused by his actions, and only his actions.Is it right that if it was a guy who had a harder chin, Thornton likely wouldn't be suspended?
I really question people who believe this. It's not realistic. If I go through a red light in my car, I get a ticket. If I go through a red light and take out 3 cars, I'm responsible for the damage I cause. I don't get to blame the other cars for being there, or complain that I wouldn't have done as much damage if I'd hit an SUV instead of a SmartCar. It's my responsibility not to run red lights, and I'm responsible for the results.It's the act that matters. Not the result.
You've done very little to convince anyone of this.And I'm not taking blame away from Thornton.
I agree.It's the pitchfork yielding masses who pick and choose what to get worked up over that annoy me.
What's hard to grasp is how you can think people find your first sentence 100% sincere, when your second sentence is about blaming other for it.Yes, blame Thornton for a BS move. But then also blame countless other players for incidents that don't result in an injury. That's all I'm saying. I don't think it's that hard to grasp.
My mistake, I must have misread that. You said "I didn't see the slewfoot but even still" which to me means you're just passing it off as nothing bad. Regardless, Scott messed up in a way, and will have to pay for it.And the only thing I've said about the slewfoot is that I didn't see it because I only saw the replay once or twice and not even the angle that shows the slewfoot. I don't know where you're getting that I don't think it matters. For the hundredth time, I'm not defending Thornton.
Can we hug it out now?