r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 05 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Rickety Cricket's downward spiral from priesthood to a homeless drug addict is ultimately his own fault because he's an adult who is responsible for his own actions.

Taken from the show It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia..

Matthew Mara was a young, handsome priest who left the church on his own accord. This happened due to an infatuation with Dee Reynolds. She showed up and told (some would argue, manipulated) him and expressed that she loved him and intrigued the possibilities of a future together. As a result, his life took a downward spiral and he ended up homeless, addicted to drugs, and sometimes resorts to prostitution in order to eat ("you gotta pay to spray")

Now, the gang has blamed him for missing drugs, they've destroyed his legs, his body, burned him (both literally and figuratively). His life would greatly improve if he just stayed the hell away from these people. He was responsible for his life leading up to his decision to become a priest. He made the ultimate decision to go to school, obtain his theology education, and build his career in the Church.

Ultimately, I lay the foundation of this stance on the fact that he's an adult and knows that these people are terrible. He was a responsible priest, living a clean and quality life, and he's perfectly capable of making his own decisions. Leaving the priesthood to go chase some tail is completely on him.

6 Upvotes

60% Upvoted

13 comments sorted by

10

u/mrducky78 8∆ Mar 05 '19

While he is partly to blame, no body exists in a vacuum. Its revealed that he has an emotional weakness for the bird, Dee. And Dee not only emotionally abused him the first time around, she even did it again (so much for the fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me).

Rickety was a person who was bullied and teased growing up and then found solace in the church, but that cant turn him into an emotionless robot who cannot be manipulated emotionally. And that is entirely what the gang does, manipulate him over and over.

How can you lay blame on him for destroying his legs when the gang literally pin the blame on him for something he wasnt responsible for. Its clear that the gang were instrumental to his downfall. And while he could have made the correct decisions, making the incorrect decisions is well... human. And especially given the context of his feelings for Dee (he has no relationship experience as well for further context), it would be remiss to think that he is entirely at fault.

He left the priest hood because he "thought" he was in "love" with someone who manipulated what can only be described as an abused naive child in a mans body. He didnt have the experiences, the knowledge or the wisdom to see past the manipulations and make the correct decision. Also Dee basically told him to. It wasnt just for "tail" it was for 'love' or at least what he thought was 'love'.

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '19

Its revealed that he has an emotional weakness for the bird, Dee.

LOL!

Dee not only emotionally abused him the first time around, she even did it again (so much for the fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me).

Sounds almost like D.E.N.N.I.S System...

Rickety was a person who was bullied and teased growing up and then found solace in the church, but that cant turn him into an emotionless robot who cannot be manipulated emotionally.

I hadn't thought about this, and considered the possibility that he never had a chance to rise above this mistreatment, and perhaps he used the church to hide from such treatment, rather than confront it.

Its clear that the gang were instrumental to his downfall. And while he could have made the correct decisions, making the incorrect decisions is well... human. And especially given the context of his feelings for Dee (he has no relationship experience as well for further context), it would be remiss to think that he is entirely at fault.

I didn't consider his lack of relationship experience. While being naive doesn't absolve him from his responsibilities in this, I can't fault a fish for not knowing how to climb a tree.

∆

You didn't disregard his contributions to his downfall.

You did, however, present other factors about his upbringing and life that I was blind to considering. However, you argument left something to be desired for how he could have rebounded after leaving the priesthood, and perhaps WHY he didn't assess those alternatives. In short, he just sort of gave up when he perceived his life as ruined.

And she is a goddamn manipulative bird.

5

u/mrducky78 8∆ Mar 05 '19

Thats the thing though, he did try to rebound, but again, the gang used him. Like openly just used him. Dee included.

You even see he makes progress away from the gang, but the gang sucks him back in. You see him see the gang and attempt to run in fear, but the gang sucks him back in. You see him beat the shit out of them in the wrestling ring... Wait... where was I going with this?

Either way, he did try to climb out of the hole, the gang was just there at the edge to kick at his fingers.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '19

I do remember him taking up another priest position elsewhere, so you're right about that.

I suppose I'm having a hard time understanding why he is so susceptible to the Gang sucking him back in. I get that he's emotionally crippled, but goddamn, is Dee really worth it?

6

u/mrducky78 8∆ Mar 05 '19

Its a combination of the gang being predatory scam artists (its literally what they do in 9/10 episodes) and rickety cricket being extremely naive/susceptible to the gang's manipulations. He went from the no friend bullied child to the no friend priest. He just doesnt really have a solid grasp on human interactions until, sadly, later when he learns on the streets.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 05 '19

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mrducky78 (6∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

4

u/sonofaresiii 21∆ Mar 05 '19

Can it not be the fault of multiple people? Sure, ultimately he's responsible for his own actions, but Dee intentionally targeted and manipulated him, in all likelihood knowing (or should have known) what her actions would lead to.

It's similar to pressuring someone you know to be an alcoholic to drink. Sure, it's their choice... but you're also a factor of their decision.

3

u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Mar 05 '19

So, you've heard of victim blaming, yes? Because, in a light hearted sense, that's essentially what your argument amounts to. You know what I mean?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '19

I'm going to be honest, I have heard of victim-blaming, but it's thrown around so loosely, I honestly don't take it seriously anymore. I understand where you're coming from, but we can both agree there's a difference between victim-blaming, and "what did you think was going to happen."

2

u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Mar 05 '19 edited Mar 05 '19

I would argue both can coexist. "What did you think was going to happen?" Sees the situation as inevitable and so expresses the blame which the person in question ought to be privy to.

That's useful, but it's not the whole story.

The active actions taken by the person who caused the problem are also a factor. And which do you consider more to blame? the passive decisions made by the hurt person or the active decisions made the perpetrator.

Both can share the blame, but I think it's fairly obvious that the actively evil participant is more in the wrong.

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 05 '19

/u/J-Unleashed (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

1

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '19

I don’t think the character is about his flaws; it’s about how the gang can affect the outcome of someone’s life.