So instead of taking a step back to look at this shyt with some cotdamn sense, you thought 'well since what Millie is saying must be true, and despite not knowing the context of the exchanges between them, Drake must be grooming her, and it will lead to other sexually suggestive shyt; either ending in him looking to fukk her soon, or planting the seeds until she's of age.'
Did I get that right? You're saying there's no other possible explanation for this? It's one thing to be suspicious (which is understandable, I get it), but it's another thing entirely to leap to a conclusion based off a minuscule amount of details of what you believe is happening, and not what it is.
With some "cotdamn sense?" -- Drake is a known simp who was just revealed to be fuccing a 18-year-old the he started talking to at 16. He's a major celebrity in Hollywood, where child stars are routinely preyed on and assaulted, who is now whispering sweet nothings to a 14-year-old over text and private dinners.
SENSE and LOGIC dictate to me that something here is not normal and not right, but go on with your "it's just Hollywood
" excuse.
By pointing out you're not completely behind your irresponsible, ignorant, reckless and ill-prepared position. You say that he's grooming her, and you're condemning him for it, but when faced with the actions/consequences you start to backtrack; focusing on minutiae because you don't want to acknowledge the actual picture of what you're arguing.
Backtrack from what? What actions/consequences? I believe he's grooming her. "Grooming" is a BLANKET TERM, NOT A LEGALLY DEFINED CRIMINAL ACT. You can groom a youth by communicating, befriending them, being nice to them, establishing an emotional connection, etc before a crime is ever committed. So no, Mr. Straw Man, your claim that people here want Drake "crucified" and "thrown in jail" was yet another straw man in a thread full of them to rush to cape for your mans. What the FUCC are you even trying to argue here at this point?
Addressing an analogy that doesn't make sense (which I did in my first post in this thread), is different to then me arguing about my stance on the matter in another post. Not every post I make is going to have my every single viewpoint on a topic, nevermind the fact, that I didn't even give my opinion in my first post - I simply stated what existed, and because
that existed, meant that the analogy didn't fit. This is a typical reading comprehension problem for folks who have the blinders on when others are trying to use some cotdamn sense.
It's clear from this thread you wanna pretend like you straddle the fence on this on some "hey that's just how Hollywood is, I'm not saying it's right though" shyt like you don't really wanna rush to judgment, but on the other hand it's clear from your replies you're giving Drake the benefit of the doubt, despite his rumored history of preying on a young girl, and hollywood in general's history of youth sex scandals.
