How are they straw arguments? I contend if you have never driven while intoxicated throw the first stone. Just because you never killed anyone while DWI doesn't make it different just lucky. It's not like he said I'm getting sloshed and going to kill my friend in an accident. I guess I KNOW I have fucked up and DWI and have been lucky not to have kill or injured anyone. By the way not one DUI on my record but I have been stupid plenty of times.
That has nothing at all to do with Brent, or whether he should be wearing the star or not. This is all deflection and fallacious. As pointed out earlier.
Brent skills are football so teams will take a chance. If a great lawyer gets a DUI you don't think a firm will give him a shit at practicing. Or a great surgeon, won't get a 2nd chance. You can't use the common folks when grading the situation because NFL talent is not common.
Please: Brent is 2nd team talent at best, don't be comparing him to a "great surgeon" or anything else "great."
This is how silly and illogical the argument is: the surgeon and the lawyer would LOSE THEIR LICENSES to practice, if they were convicted of intox manslaughter.
You are reaching for comparisons where none exist, in a apparent desperate attempt to defend a dumbass, fatass, mid to low level talent anyway. There's no logic at all to support it.
Dude is a serial substance abuser. To the point he killed someone. Then while out on bail for that, fails multiple piss tests.
Tell me again how that is someone you want on the team, showing that level of dedication to come back.
You can't use the common folks when grading the situation because NFL talent is not common
And yet, that is what you have been trying to do with the whole "have any of you ever drank and drove" crap.
See yet?