OT: Brady's got nothing on Henry

[letekro]

Oh...God of wrath....gotcha.....now I see why reason fails to reach you.

I'm sorry for everything I said....I truly didn't realize that I was dealing with one of Them.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

What the hell are you talking about? First, I conceded that I was using hyperbole in order to make a clean analogy. Second, if you write a bad check, you still wrote a bad check. You didn't just "make a mistake", you broke the law. We are a nation that gives second chances (Look at the repeat felony lists for verification), but that doesn't mean the initial act is considered acceptable or above reproach.

You seem to be taking this argument and lumping people into two groups:

1. You think Brady made a huge mistake and should be criticized harshly for it.

2. You think Tom Brady did absolutely nothing wrong and should actually receive a medal for his actions.

As I've tried to say, there is a huge middle ground. I think all of us fall into that area. We don't blindly believe that Tom's situation is 100% perfect and exactly how a person should live his life, just that he's done very well in a not-so-perfect situation and until he does it again and again, deserves more understanding than that of comparing him to Travis Henry simply because they "both did something wrong."

 

[Slagathor]

Complete and utter nonsense. But then again, you already know that.




Tom has become the object of ridicule for other teams fanbases, is not considered an upstanding guy by anyone who actually follows a Christian religion rather than just playing lipservice to it. Furthermore, in Tom's own words, from Patriots.com (from 8/17/2006):



He put himself out there as a role model, not me. If you have a problem with him subsequently being held to that standard, go take it up with him and tell him to take the Charles Barkley approach in the future.




What the hell are you talking about? First, I conceded that I was using hyperbole in order to make a clean analogy. Second, if you write a bad check, you still wrote a bad check. You didn't just "make a mistake", you broke the law. We are a nation that gives second chances (Look at the repeat felony lists for verification), but that doesn't mean the initial act is considered acceptable or above reproach.

You're ridiculous at so many levels.

The fact that you're trying to equate Tom Brady's situation with Travis Henry's speaks of an agenda because no sane minded person would ever bring such an argument to the table.

The fact that fan's of other teams make fun of the situation is meaningless. These were the same folks that were accusing him of homosexuality. Why? Because he's gay? No....because he's winner and not on there team. Dumb argument.

As far as being a role model, there are very few guys in Pro sports I'd want my kids to look up to in the first place. But if they had to, Brady would be OK in my book.

One child out of wed-lock who will be loved and taken care of is better than nine kids that will probably find themselves in some awful statistical categories, or murderers, dog killers, thieves and wife beaters.

But my argument is done because my type of thinking doesn't exist in your world.

 

[pats-blue]

Complete and utter nonsense. But then again, you already know that.




Tom has become the object of ridicule for other teams fanbases, is not considered an upstanding guy by anyone who actually follows a Christian religion rather than just playing lipservice to it. Furthermore, in Tom's own words, from Patriots.com (from 8/17/2006):



He put himself out there as a role model, not me. If you have a problem with him subsequently being held to that standard, go take it up with him and tell him to take the Charles Barkley approach in the future.




What the hell are you talking about? First, I conceded that I was using hyperbole in order to make a clean analogy. Second, if you write a bad check, you still wrote a bad check. You didn't just "make a mistake", you broke the law. We are a nation that gives second chances (Look at the repeat felony lists for verification), but that doesn't mean the initial act is considered acceptable or above reproach.

Last time I checked no one has been prosecuted for having sex before marriage.

You seem to be the morality police. We are not supposed to judge the "mother" according to you but you have no problem judging Brady it seems.

I really like the part where Brady shouldn't have sex with anyone else until his son is full grown. That shows your bias right there and is LAUGHABLE!

I will add that a friend of mine was pretty much broken up with his girlfriend but went to a wedding with her and they had a night of passion (she was suppossed to still be on the pill) Low and behold she gets pregnant and he DOES marry her even though they were through. Great...for the next 4 years they try and make it work and create a terrible home for their daughter as they were simply THROUGH like they knew before she got pregnant. Now it has taken almost 3 years for them to have a civil relationship because of all the acrimony the divorce caused.

Wait Deus Irae says you have to stay together for he child...really? Show me where that is written.

 

[Slagathor]

You seem to be taking this argument and lumping people into two groups:

1. You think Brady made a huge mistake and should be criticized harshly for it.

2. You think Tom Brady did absolutely nothing wrong and should actually receive a medal for his actions.

As I've tried to say, there is a huge middle ground. I think all of us fall into that area. We don't blindly believe that Tom's situation is 100% perfect and exactly how a person should live his life, just that he's done very well in a not-so-perfect situation and until he does it again and again, deserves more understanding than that of comparing him to Travis Henry simply because they "both did something wrong."

I think everyone was surprised by the whole Moynihan/Baby/Bundcheon triangle and it did create a chink in Brady's flawless armor.

He was harshly criticized and roasted.

But to that point he had been looked at as an upstanding guy. Even with his current situation, few would argue that he's a bad person.

But to put him in same boat with TRAVIS not Chris Henry just because the both had kids out of wedlock is totally assinine and the only reason you would push such an argument is because of an agenda.

I'm no Tom Brady advocate, but I am sensitive to thinly veiled agendas and devil's advocacy. I find it patronizing and refuse to let people who perpetrate that junk get away with it.

I feel if you're an intelligent upstanding person and you do have an agenda, don't be a sniveling coward and cover it up with a bunch of heresay and flowery grammar. Spit it out. Put it on the table. Then we'll discuss things honestly.

 

[Deus Irae]

You're ridiculous at so many levels.

The fact that you're trying to equate Tom Brady's situation with Travis Henry's speaks of an agenda because no sane minded person would ever bring such an argument to the table.

I didn't equate them, slick. I simply noted that the difference is in degree, not kind. Is reading comprehension a struggle for you?

The fact that fan's of other teams make fun of the situation is meaningless. These were the same folks that were accusing him of homosexuality. Why? Because he's gay? No....because he's winner and not on there team. Dumb argument.

No, it's not. It's precisely what is done on this board when it comes to the Matt Leinharts and Chris Henry's of the world. Brady has now put himself at a level where he's included in those conversations now.

As far as being a role model, there are very few guys in Pro sports I'd want my kids to look up to in the first place. But if they had to, Brady would be OK in my book.

That simply tells me something about the kind of person you are, not the kind of person Brady is.

One child out of wed-lock who will be loved and taken care of is better than nine kids that will probably find themselves in some awful statistical categories, or murderers, dog killers, thieves and wife beaters.

But my argument is done because my type of thinking doesn't exist in your world.

I never claimed that there was no difference between the two situations, I never claimed that Brady wasn't a better person than Henry and I never claimed that Brady's kid will not be taken care of. Again, Brady put himself forward as a role model, not me.

And by the way, Brady's kid IS a statistic now.

 

[patchick]

Unless Brady was drugged, or tripped and fell right into Bridgett's vagina, his choice was also conscious. The "idiot" is the fool who can't grasp that obvious truth. And for a moderator to respond to that post in the manner you did is pathetic.

While I've disagree with the vast majority of what you posted, I did mean to clip out the gratuitous insult before I quoted. I apologize for that.

 

[Deus Irae]

Last time I checked no one has been prosecuted for having sex before marriage.

Nor did I say anyone should have been prosecuted.

You seem to be the morality police. We are not supposed to judge the "mother" according to you but you have no problem judging Brady it seems.

I didn't say not to judge the mother. I said it wasn't the point I was making and nobody else had brought it up either. It is possible for more than one person to be wrong at a time.

I really like the part where Brady shouldn't have sex with anyone else until his son is full grown. That shows your bias right there and is LAUGHABLE!

1: I actually didn't say Brady shouldn't have sex with anyone else. You're taking what I said and twisting it.

2: Historically, not having sex prior to marriage was expected. Sociologically, not having kids out of wedlock is vastly superior to having kids out of wedlock. If you want to call that bias, you go for it. However, to call it laughable shows either your ignorance of your lack of character.

I will add that a friend of mine was pretty much broken up with his girlfriend but went to a wedding with her and they had a night of passion (she was suppossed to still be on the pill) Low and behold she gets pregnant and he DOES marry her even though they were through. Great...for the next 4 years they try and make it work and create a terrible home for their daughter as they were simply THROUGH like they knew before she got pregnant. Now it has taken almost 3 years for them to have a civil relationship because of all the acrimony the divorce caused.

So? How is one example supposed to change the general point? You do understand how statistics work, don't you? Also, your argument isn't a defense of leaving the woman, it's a defense of not having sex with a woman until you're confident that she's the one for you. All of those terrible years could have been avoided if he'd just kept it in his pants.

Wait Deus Irae says you have to stay together for he child...really? Show me where that is written.

Good point. Show me where I wrote that.

 

[Slagathor]

I didn't equate them, slick. I simply noted that the difference is in degree, not kind. Is reading comprehension a struggle for you?

<<But the whole purpose of the thread was about degree. The similarity was understood. I think you're the one with the comprehension problem. Read the title.>>



No, it's not. It's precisely what is done on this board when it comes to the Matt Leinharts and Chris Henry's of the world. Brady has now put himself at a level where he's included in those conversations now.


<<I have never read of any forums of discussion lumping Brady with any of the individuals you mentioned. Must be just specific boards you go on.>>


That simply tells me something about the kind of person you are, not the kind of person Brady is.

<<<Whatever that means??? I guess I'm not cerebral enough to understand that one.>>>



I never claimed that there was no difference between the two situations, I never claimed that Brady wasn't a better person than Henry and I never claimed that Brady's kid will not be taken care of. Again, Brady put himself forward as a role model, not me.

And by the way, Brady's kid IS a statistic now.

<<<If the worst statistic he'll be part of is being the child of un-wed parents, he could be in worse company. Is surmise Henry's offspring will be included in much more dire stats.>>>

 

[Deus Irae]

<<<If the worst statistic he'll be part of is being the child of un-wed parents, he could be in worse company. Is surmise Henry's offspring will be included in much more dire stats.>>>

I completely agree that the odds are we'll see a lot more problems resulting from Henry's inability to keep it zipped or properly wield a condom in concert with a birth control pill than we will from Brady's similar failings.

 

[Slagathor]

I completely agree that the odds are we'll see a lot more problems resulting from Henry's inability to keep it zipped or properly wield a condom in concert with a birth control pill than we will from Brady's similar failings.

Why would you assume that?

According to you, the situations should be looked at similarly.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Unless Brady was drugged, or tripped and fell right into Bridgett's vagina, his choice was also conscious. The "idiot" is the fool who can't grasp that obvious truth. And for a moderator to respond to that post in the manner you did is pathetic.

The only pathetic fool on this thread is you.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see exactly at what point Brady did anything wrong.

He and Bridget Moynahan were in a committed relationship of numerous years. During which, as two consenting adults, they chose to be sexually active.

So far, I don't see anything wrong with this.

At some point last fall, Brady and Moynahan ended their relationship. According to Moynahan's publicist, the decision to break-up was mutual. In other words, Brady didn't leave Moynahan any more than she left him.

A few months later, word got out that Moynahan was pregnant. Due to the timing of the announcement -- ~3 months after they were reported to have broken up -- we have no idea whether Brady knew that Moynahan was pregnant when they broke up. Honestly, if I can be permitted to speak blunty, Ms. Moynahan might not have known herself, as women whose professions require them to stay thin as she is frequently have irregular menstrual cycles.

Either way, Moynahan, at 36 years old, and admittedly eager to have children , decided to have the baby. At this time, according to her publicist, Brady conveyed his support for her decision, and wanted to be a part of his child's life.

So tell me -- going back through that timeline, pinpoint for me the exact moment at which Brady acted wrongly.

 

[Deus Irae]

Why would you assume that?

According to you, the situations should be looked at similarly.

Brady has one child out of wedlock. Henry has nine. Again, I never claimed that Brady=Henry. I said that the difference is one of degree, not kind. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

 

[Deus Irae]

The only pathetic fool on this thread is you.

Get back to me when you grow up.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

I completely agree that the odds are we'll see a lot more problems resulting from Henry's inability to keep it zipped or properly wield a condom in concert with a birth control pill than we will from Brady's similar failings.

In that lies what I believe is the reason people aren't as harsh on Brady as you think we should be: We don't see this situation becoming a problem for anyone involved. It's not so much whether or not we think what happend is the right thing to do, it's that we don't expect John (his son's name if you didn't hear) to have a tough life because of his parents circumstances.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Brady has one child out of wedlock. Henry has nine. Again, I never claimed that Brady=Henry. I said that the difference is one of degree, not kind. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Speaking from a standpoint of rhetoric and logic, this particular DI statement is correct.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

Speaking from a standpoint of rhetoric and logic, this particular DI statement is correct.

It is not correct, because it is based on the incredibly fallacious assumption that all children born out of wedlock are of the same "kind."

There are many examples of children born "out of wedlock" to committed couples who, for whatever reason, choose not to be legally married.

For example, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon have two children out of wedlock. They have been a committed couple for going on 20 years now.

Do they differ from Henry in degree only?

 

[Slagathor]

Brady has one child out of wedlock. Henry has nine. Again, I never claimed that Brady=Henry. I said that the difference is one of degree, not kind. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Trust me I understand.

The problem is you were arguing that when Brady does it, he gets a free ride, but when Henry does it, he get's ridiculed.

Brady never got a totally free ride on this issue. The whole point of the thread had to do with degree....i.e.....

.....If you guys think Brady having a kid out of wedlock was bad......check out Travis Henry's situation.

Your whole initial argument was "sure Brady can get away with that but Henry can't...?

The problem was nobody insinuated that. Everyone was responding to the severity of Henry's over-fertility.

 

[Deus Irae]

In that lies what I believe is the reason people aren't as harsh on Brady as you think we should be: We don't see this situation becoming a problem for anyone involved. It's not so much whether or not we think what happend is the right thing to do, it's that we don't expect John (his son's name if you didn't hear) to have a tough life because of his parents circumstances.

No, people here aren't as harsh on Brady because he's a Patriot. They are defending his actions and saying that he did nothing wrong. I fully agree with the idea that the 'lovechild' of TB and BM has a lot more safety nets in place than the typical 'lovechild', and is much more likely to come out of the situation in good shape than the normal illegitimate child. However, Brady has put himself out there as a role model to children. The notion that he shouldn't be taken to task for this action when he, himself, has willingly taken on the mantle of role model is absurd.