So, in answer to my question, itâs pretty clear the answer was yes, the sum total of your problem with Kitty Hollandâs work is that you donât like issues regarding the most vulnerable in society being highlighted.
But sure we already knew that.
You could have saved yourself all that typing and just admitted it straight off, instead of launching into a cliched, incoherent rant against poor people which reeks of the sort of posh boy arrogance, know nothingness and sense of entitlement that people like Holland so rightly rail against.
Youâre a walking cliche and you donât even realise it.
Well done you. I hope doing so brightened up your day because itâs obvious you have fuck all else to brighten it up, except perhaps fantasising about rape, you freak.
Again you fail to deal with the point and default to emotive language.
âMost venerable in societyâ
This guy had jobs. He did courses paid for the State which helped him get these jobs. He personally decided to do drugs and now the State have him in more courses and treatment.
What more exactly should society do? This man made a choice after the State helped him improve his attractiveness in the labour force.
Thatâs not inequality. He made personal choices and has personal demons.
Did you tell the women you were supposed to be âhelpingâ during rape trials that you consider rape a joking matter and appear to not even consider it a crime?
Did you tell the Courts Service that you were making jokes about rape online?
These are serious questions and matters, art, unlike the utterly deranged, obsessive shit you write about me and which makes me genuinely worry about you as a person.
Iâm not the one holding myself out as a virtue signaler. youre the one screamking rape apologist at everyone when the opportunity arises.
so yes, the question needs to be asked of you whether or not you told that poor girl about your weirdness, otherwise people might just start to see you for a hypocrite.
Lolz. You demonise the vulnerable and talk about âclass warfareâ and âemotive languageâ.
Irony alert.
There are places where they cater for and indulge this social Darwinian nonsense. Renua for one. I believe thereâs also a thing called the Hibernia forum which you might consider joining, where Ayn Rand fetishist blowhards write worthless nonsense that nobody reads.
How exactly is he amongst the most vulnerable and what more do you suppose we do about it?
The Government provides virtually free third level. He didnât take it- thatâs a culture problem.
Regardless, the State paid for courses for him, which made him employable into good jobs.
He started to do drugs. His decision.
He lost his job. His fault.
The State are supporting him through his addiction and more courses.
Can we change our approach? Absolutely, but money isnât always the answer and demonizing the State/Society is completely unreasonable given the various supports provided.
He made life choices, the State did not cause his situation.
I only repeat it given that itâs now clear you donât consider drug abusers to be among societyâs most vulnerable.
Which is the view of an Ayn Rand-worshipping nutcase.
The Government has a responsibility to try and protect people from the horrors of drug abuse.
Enlightened policy makers such as Aodhan OâRiordain can help in the direct area of how drug addiction itself is treated, the long term fix is education, support and not abandoning communities to failed social Darwinian bullshit like youâre peddling here, so that the likelihood of people falling into addiction is lessened.
You said the article is about inequality. That is clearly Kittyâs intention and what her followers like you gobble up.
But how is it?
The man had opportunity and supports from the State and used them. He was going through life fine. He just made a personal decision and went off the rails. Women playing croquet in Ballsbridge didnât cause that.
Jonathan Corrie was from a relatively well off background. He fell into drugs. He sold two houses given to him by his family to support his habit.
