With the same kind of reasoning you could say “The guy was beaten to death for being 65 years old, because if he was 2 years old, he wouldn’t have been room mates with that guy, and then he wouldn’t have asked for a cigarette, and then there wouldn’t have been a fight over that, and then he wouldn’t have been beaten to death”.
If you say “He was beaten to death for smoking”, then smoking would have to be the main (if not only) reason for that guy to have been beaten to death. Which was clearly not the case.
And you’re saying if the smoker wasn’t a smoker they wouldn’t have asked for cigarettes so they wouldn’t have been killed.
That’s such a weak chain of reasoning.
With the same kind of reasoning you could say “The guy was beaten to death for being 65 years old, because if he was 2 years old, he wouldn’t have been room mates with that guy, and then he wouldn’t have asked for a cigarette, and then there wouldn’t have been a fight over that, and then he wouldn’t have been beaten to death”.
If you say “He was beaten to death for smoking”, then smoking would have to be the main (if not only) reason for that guy to have been beaten to death. Which was clearly not the case.
I guess the main thing is it isn’t a 1:1 comparison it’s more of the way society generally views each group.
No.
Okay.
You are the sort of person that needs to practice taking the L. At some point, trying desperately to be right just looks… sad.
No it doesn’t.
So this has gone from “im14andthisisdeep” to “I’ll never admit I’m wrong.” Goodbye forever.