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.
Sad, sad, little man that you are.
so still no answer of whether you told the girl about your sick fantasy?
we can all see who the saddo is
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.
get help
OMG a rape joke 
One of many of course
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.
Telling that a simpleton like you doesnât understand the difference between kicking up and kicking down.
Then again, as a fat, useless doughnut-chomping Guard, youâve made a career out of kicking down.
Shrieking hypocrite. That is all.
You donât have the intellect to even understand what hypocrisy is, as youâve proved again here.
Keep shrieking at me, you vapid bellend.
Youâre another constant source of unintended amusement.
Can you not deal with a simple point?
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.
How on earth are drug abusers not among societyâs most vulnerable?
Youâve entered some sort of weird parallel universe here.
How is it societyâs fault that he started doing drugs?
How is it inequality?
Iâll repeat the question.
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.
Sorry but youâre talking crap.
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.
It has nothing to do with inequality.
And still you peddle rot about drug addicts not being among societyâs most vulnerable.
Iâm beginning to think you must be pretty vulnerable yourself.
Youâd have to be to be so gullible as to fall for such shite.
Why is this so difficult for you?
You stated this about the article;
How is it inequality?
You moved onto emotive language like âvulnerableâ as you cannot form a basic argument about how this manâs story evidences inequality.
What I see is a man who got State supports in education.
Got employment because of that.
Made personal decisions that sent him down the wrong track.
This happens to people from all walks of life.
Ah leave him alone, heâs vulnerable
This should be pretty obvious if you have the ability to comprehend on a level other than that of a libertarian simpleton.
Itâs obviously a bit complicated for you.