Dube

[skilles]

Call me a troll, call me a virtue signaler, hell you can even call me a white knight. I don’t give a [fork].

This has been a very enlightening thread. It’s exposed quite a few people for who they truly are.

A bunch of scumbags.

There’s many of you that should never have children and if you already did, I truly feel for them. Especially your daughters.

Unsurprisingly, very few actual men post in this group. The rest of you need to be better.

I have a daughter and I want her to have all the rights and opportunities as any man and with that comes being held to the same standards and responsibility for her choices.

To be honest if this female chose to do what they did I would actually find my daughter being around her to be a bigger concern than being around them.

and yes I think you are virtue signaling

[Walter Sobchak00]

I believe the team started the turnaround when he arrived. He’s been fantastic in the playoffs. He’s a Center which we desperately need.

He was very young, and I believe he was not even convicted, although there was certainly some bad behavior in bad choices.

I would ask that, and even some of the older players have his behavior has been and if it looks like he’s learned and grown up, give him a second chance.

Here comes the “we all did dumb stuff at 19” crowd.

Right on cue.

This is extra hilarious/sad coming from an adult you of all people having twice asked this board to forgive you your behavior here.

Or has it been three times?

You can't make this up.

I think he's as big of a blowhard egomaniac dumb take writing guy as anyone but comparing his forum behavior and taking advantage of an intoxicated woman isn't even comparable.

Everyone was intoxicated

Which changes what exactly?

I don't know, you tell me? You brought up intoxication.

for the victim it changes the ability to be able to consent.. for the perpetrator it doesn't change a thing.

What makes A person the victim?

If you can't see how the girl was the victim in the situation we've got nothing else to discuss and you need a look in the mirror.

Even if there was no crime committed she was 100% the victim in this situation and any morally correct man would have removed her from the situation knowing she was drunk and even if she said she was OK with it.

At best the group took advantage of a comprised individual and should ashamed of themselves for doing it regardless if she said she was OK with it.

Oh I disagree completely, if all parties were willing she is just as responsible for her drunken bad choices as they are IMO.

To be honest I can't even wrap my head around why you would think if they all got drunk and did it together anyone is more guilty than the others.

Because there were 5 of them and 1 of her.. this should not be a difficult thing to understand...

[skilles]

I believe the team started the turnaround when he arrived. He’s been fantastic in the playoffs. He’s a Center which we desperately need.

He was very young, and I believe he was not even convicted, although there was certainly some bad behavior in bad choices.

I would ask that, and even some of the older players have his behavior has been and if it looks like he’s learned and grown up, give him a second chance.

Here comes the “we all did dumb stuff at 19” crowd.

Right on cue.

This is extra hilarious/sad coming from an adult you of all people having twice asked this board to forgive you your behavior here.

Or has it been three times?

You can't make this up.

I think he's as big of a blowhard egomaniac dumb take writing guy as anyone but comparing his forum behavior and taking advantage of an intoxicated woman isn't even comparable.

Everyone was intoxicated

Which changes what exactly?

I don't know, you tell me? You brought up intoxication.

for the victim it changes the ability to be able to consent.. for the perpetrator it doesn't change a thing.

What makes A person the victim?

If you can't see how the girl was the victim in the situation we've got nothing else to discuss and you need a look in the mirror.

Even if there was no crime committed she was 100% the victim in this situation and any morally correct man would have removed her from the situation knowing she was drunk and even if she said she was OK with it.

At best the group took advantage of a comprised individual and should ashamed of themselves for doing it regardless if she said she was OK with it.

Oh I disagree completely, if all parties were willing she is just as responsible for her drunken bad choices as they are IMO.

To be honest I can't even wrap my head around why you would think if they all got drunk and did it together anyone is more guilty than the others.

Because there were 5 of them and 1 of her.. this should not be a difficult thing to understand...

What difference does that make if they were all willing participants?

If 5 guys and a women robbed a bank would the woman be the victim?

Would you say the same if it were 5 women and 1 guy?

[Walter Sobchak00]

Here comes the “we all did dumb stuff at 19” crowd.

Right on cue.

This is extra hilarious/sad coming from an adult you of all people having twice asked this board to forgive you your behavior here.

Or has it been three times?

You can't make this up.

I think he's as big of a blowhard egomaniac dumb take writing guy as anyone but comparing his forum behavior and taking advantage of an intoxicated woman isn't even comparable.

Everyone was intoxicated

Which changes what exactly?

I don't know, you tell me? You brought up intoxication.

for the victim it changes the ability to be able to consent.. for the perpetrator it doesn't change a thing.

What makes A person the victim?

If you can't see how the girl was the victim in the situation we've got nothing else to discuss and you need a look in the mirror.

Even if there was no crime committed she was 100% the victim in this situation and any morally correct man would have removed her from the situation knowing she was drunk and even if she said she was OK with it.

At best the group took advantage of a comprised individual and should ashamed of themselves for doing it regardless if she said she was OK with it.

Oh I disagree completely, if all parties were willing she is just as responsible for her drunken bad choices as they are IMO.

To be honest I can't even wrap my head around why you would think if they all got drunk and did it together anyone is more guilty than the others.

Because there were 5 of them and 1 of her.. this should not be a difficult thing to understand...

What difference does that make if they were all willing participants?

If 5 guys and a women robbed a bank would the woman be the victim?

If it was the 6 of them all "interacting" with each other your analogy might have some merit.. since it was 5 "interacting" with 1 your analogy isn't valid.

[skilles]

This is extra hilarious/sad coming from an adult you of all people having twice asked this board to forgive you your behavior here.

Or has it been three times?

You can't make this up.

I think he's as big of a blowhard egomaniac dumb take writing guy as anyone but comparing his forum behavior and taking advantage of an intoxicated woman isn't even comparable.

Everyone was intoxicated

Which changes what exactly?

I don't know, you tell me? You brought up intoxication.

for the victim it changes the ability to be able to consent.. for the perpetrator it doesn't change a thing.

What makes A person the victim?

If you can't see how the girl was the victim in the situation we've got nothing else to discuss and you need a look in the mirror.

Even if there was no crime committed she was 100% the victim in this situation and any morally correct man would have removed her from the situation knowing she was drunk and even if she said she was OK with it.

At best the group took advantage of a comprised individual and should ashamed of themselves for doing it regardless if she said she was OK with it.

Oh I disagree completely, if all parties were willing she is just as responsible for her drunken bad choices as they are IMO.

To be honest I can't even wrap my head around why you would think if they all got drunk and did it together anyone is more guilty than the others.

Because there were 5 of them and 1 of her.. this should not be a difficult thing to understand...

What difference does that make if they were all willing participants?

If 5 guys and a women robbed a bank would the woman be the victim?

If it was the 6 of them all "interacting" with each other your analogy might have some merit.. since it was 5 "interacting" with 1 your analogy isn't valid.

I guess you are entitled to your opinion but the courts under extreme microscope found that there was no victim and the accuser lacked credibility.

[Walter Sobchak00]

I think he's as big of a blowhard egomaniac dumb take writing guy as anyone but comparing his forum behavior and taking advantage of an intoxicated woman isn't even comparable.

Everyone was intoxicated

Which changes what exactly?

I don't know, you tell me? You brought up intoxication.

for the victim it changes the ability to be able to consent.. for the perpetrator it doesn't change a thing.

What makes A person the victim?

If you can't see how the girl was the victim in the situation we've got nothing else to discuss and you need a look in the mirror.

Even if there was no crime committed she was 100% the victim in this situation and any morally correct man would have removed her from the situation knowing she was drunk and even if she said she was OK with it.

At best the group took advantage of a comprised individual and should ashamed of themselves for doing it regardless if she said she was OK with it.

Oh I disagree completely, if all parties were willing she is just as responsible for her drunken bad choices as they are IMO.

To be honest I can't even wrap my head around why you would think if they all got drunk and did it together anyone is more guilty than the others.

Because there were 5 of them and 1 of her.. this should not be a difficult thing to understand...

What difference does that make if they were all willing participants?

If 5 guys and a women robbed a bank would the woman be the victim?

If it was the 6 of them all "interacting" with each other your analogy might have some merit.. since it was 5 "interacting" with 1 your analogy isn't valid.

I guess you are entitled to your opinion but the courts under extreme microscope found that there was no victim and the accuser lacked credibility.

They found the players not guilty, doesn't mean there wasn't a victim.

I don't have enough knowledge of the case to say if they were legally guilty, the courts said they weren't which means they weren't but that doesn’t change the fact the 5 of them were 100% wrong in their actions.

[skilles]

Everyone was intoxicated

Which changes what exactly?

I don't know, you tell me? You brought up intoxication.

for the victim it changes the ability to be able to consent.. for the perpetrator it doesn't change a thing.

What makes A person the victim?

If you can't see how the girl was the victim in the situation we've got nothing else to discuss and you need a look in the mirror.

Even if there was no crime committed she was 100% the victim in this situation and any morally correct man would have removed her from the situation knowing she was drunk and even if she said she was OK with it.

At best the group took advantage of a comprised individual and should ashamed of themselves for doing it regardless if she said she was OK with it.

Oh I disagree completely, if all parties were willing she is just as responsible for her drunken bad choices as they are IMO.

To be honest I can't even wrap my head around why you would think if they all got drunk and did it together anyone is more guilty than the others.

Because there were 5 of them and 1 of her.. this should not be a difficult thing to understand...

What difference does that make if they were all willing participants?

If 5 guys and a women robbed a bank would the woman be the victim?

If it was the 6 of them all "interacting" with each other your analogy might have some merit.. since it was 5 "interacting" with 1 your analogy isn't valid.

I guess you are entitled to your opinion but the courts under extreme microscope found that there was no victim and the accuser lacked credibility.

They found the players not guilty, doesn't mean there wasn't a victim.

I don't have enough knowledge of the case to say if they were legally guilty, the courts said they weren't which means they weren't but that doesn’t change the fact the 5 of them were 100% wrong in their actions.

They didn't just not have evidence to prove guilt. They found the woman to lack credibility...you know what that means?

It means they found her to be lying...thats what that means.

The reason you don't have the information is because SHE was not on trial and nobody is trying to hold HER accountable for HER actions because they just want it to go away. She was not put under a microscope.

[Walter Sobchak00]

Which changes what exactly?

I don't know, you tell me? You brought up intoxication.

for the victim it changes the ability to be able to consent.. for the perpetrator it doesn't change a thing.

What makes A person the victim?

If you can't see how the girl was the victim in the situation we've got nothing else to discuss and you need a look in the mirror.

Even if there was no crime committed she was 100% the victim in this situation and any morally correct man would have removed her from the situation knowing she was drunk and even if she said she was OK with it.

At best the group took advantage of a comprised individual and should ashamed of themselves for doing it regardless if she said she was OK with it.

Oh I disagree completely, if all parties were willing she is just as responsible for her drunken bad choices as they are IMO.

To be honest I can't even wrap my head around why you would think if they all got drunk and did it together anyone is more guilty than the others.

Because there were 5 of them and 1 of her.. this should not be a difficult thing to understand...

What difference does that make if they were all willing participants?

If 5 guys and a women robbed a bank would the woman be the victim?

If it was the 6 of them all "interacting" with each other your analogy might have some merit.. since it was 5 "interacting" with 1 your analogy isn't valid.

I guess you are entitled to your opinion but the courts under extreme microscope found that there was no victim and the accuser lacked credibility.

They found the players not guilty, doesn't mean there wasn't a victim.

I don't have enough knowledge of the case to say if they were legally guilty, the courts said they weren't which means they weren't but that doesn’t change the fact the 5 of them were 100% wrong in their actions.

They didn't just not have evidence to prove guilt. They found the woman to lack credibility...you know what that means?

It means they found her to be lying

You're missing the point.. I don't care if she was lying about consent, I don't care if she 100% consented.. any person that has a moral compass would have removed her from that situation or at a minimum removed themselves. To not do that shows a lack of moral judgement.

[skilles]

I don't know, you tell me? You brought up intoxication.

for the victim it changes the ability to be able to consent.. for the perpetrator it doesn't change a thing.

What makes A person the victim?

If you can't see how the girl was the victim in the situation we've got nothing else to discuss and you need a look in the mirror.

Even if there was no crime committed she was 100% the victim in this situation and any morally correct man would have removed her from the situation knowing she was drunk and even if she said she was OK with it.

At best the group took advantage of a comprised individual and should ashamed of themselves for doing it regardless if she said she was OK with it.

Oh I disagree completely, if all parties were willing she is just as responsible for her drunken bad choices as they are IMO.

To be honest I can't even wrap my head around why you would think if they all got drunk and did it together anyone is more guilty than the others.

Because there were 5 of them and 1 of her.. this should not be a difficult thing to understand...

What difference does that make if they were all willing participants?

If 5 guys and a women robbed a bank would the woman be the victim?

If it was the 6 of them all "interacting" with each other your analogy might have some merit.. since it was 5 "interacting" with 1 your analogy isn't valid.

I guess you are entitled to your opinion but the courts under extreme microscope found that there was no victim and the accuser lacked credibility.

They found the players not guilty, doesn't mean there wasn't a victim.

I don't have enough knowledge of the case to say if they were legally guilty, the courts said they weren't which means they weren't but that doesn’t change the fact the 5 of them were 100% wrong in their actions.

They didn't just not have evidence to prove guilt. They found the woman to lack credibility...you know what that means?

It means they found her to be lying

You're missing the point.. I don't care if she was lying about consent, I don't care if she 100% consented.. any person that has a moral compass would have removed her from that situation or at a minimum removed themselves. To not do that shows a lack of moral judgement.

Sure by all 6 of them, I'm not arguing that.

If you understand the teenage brain/growth design you would know they all lack Morales. Like literally their brain is designed to lack what we consider Morales. It is designed that way to recklessly propagate our species. An unnecessary function in today society that has not evolved yet.

The part of the brain that regulates that immoral behavior catches up in the early 20s, this is when their behavior will change and people will think they "learned their lesson" or learned from experience but it's really just increased brain function/growth.

[DoneLurking]

for the victim it changes the ability to be able to consent.. for the perpetrator it doesn't change a thing.

What makes A person the victim?

If you can't see how the girl was the victim in the situation we've got nothing else to discuss and you need a look in the mirror.

Even if there was no crime committed she was 100% the victim in this situation and any morally correct man would have removed her from the situation knowing she was drunk and even if she said she was OK with it.

At best the group took advantage of a comprised individual and should ashamed of themselves for doing it regardless if she said she was OK with it.

Oh I disagree completely, if all parties were willing she is just as responsible for her drunken bad choices as they are IMO.

To be honest I can't even wrap my head around why you would think if they all got drunk and did it together anyone is more guilty than the others.

Because there were 5 of them and 1 of her.. this should not be a difficult thing to understand...

What difference does that make if they were all willing participants?

If 5 guys and a women robbed a bank would the woman be the victim?

If it was the 6 of them all "interacting" with each other your analogy might have some merit.. since it was 5 "interacting" with 1 your analogy isn't valid.

I guess you are entitled to your opinion but the courts under extreme microscope found that there was no victim and the accuser lacked credibility.

They found the players not guilty, doesn't mean there wasn't a victim.

I don't have enough knowledge of the case to say if they were legally guilty, the courts said they weren't which means they weren't but that doesn’t change the fact the 5 of them were 100% wrong in their actions.

They didn't just not have evidence to prove guilt. They found the woman to lack credibility...you know what that means?

It means they found her to be lying

You're missing the point.. I don't care if she was lying about consent, I don't care if she 100% consented.. any person that has a moral compass would have removed her from that situation or at a minimum removed themselves. To not do that shows a lack of moral judgement.

Sure by all 6 of them, I'm not arguing that.

If you understand the teenage brain/growth design you would know they all lack Morales. Like literally their brain is designed to lack what we consider Morales. It is designed that way to recklessly propagate our species. An unnecessary function in today society that has not evolved yet.

The part of the brain that regulates that immoral behavior catches up in the early 20s, this is when their behavior will change and people will think they "learned their lesson" or learned from experience but it's really just increased brain function/growth.

Wow. Um. I don’t think anyone is going to change your mind on this.

[skilles]

Wow. Um. I don’t think anyone is going to change your mind on this.

Well no, what I just said is based on facts. I'm not going to decide its not true based on someones opinion.

Every human being lacks morals at that age, the part of the brain that causes that matures years before the part of the brain that regulates it matures.

Its designed to make humans break family bonds, take huge risks, reproduce, and all kinds of behavior our modern society deems immoral. That is why teenagers are idiots. Then most of them turn into decent people and become functioning members of society somewhere around early-mid 20s when the prefrontal cortex fully matures/develops and regulates that behavior.

The only real difference is they have learned/been taught to be fake and act/talk like they have morals long before that so society will like/accept them.

This does not just apply to the boys....it applies to the female as well.

[BleedingBleu]

Not my call. I’d need to trust the Blues and their decision on the player.

Blues sign Dube to AHL tryout after sexual assault acquittal
Dec 10, 2025, 10:53 AM ET

”The St. Louis Blues have signed Dillon Dube to a professional tryout with our AHL affiliate in following the process set forth by the National Hockey League and its Players' Association upon his reinstatement," the team said in a statement to ESPN.

"This decision follows a comprehensive review of the details of his case and discussions at all levels of our organization. We are confident in the decision to offer the tryout and will provide the necessary support to ensure Dillon contributes positively both on the ice and in the community. We will always hold our players to the highest of standards, consistent with the core values of our organization, and that will be emphasized as we move forward."

I do believe in second chances. I do believe in rehabilitation. Not every rehabilitation is successful, but the chances of someone being successful in their attempt to function within a society greatly increases with a strong support system.

I don’t like the scandal, but that scandal was as much an indictment of the Canadian Junior Hockey System as it was the individual players. The players should have known better, but were also set up for failure.

Again, the NHL reinstated the player’s eligibility. The Blues did their due diligence and believe they can adequately provide a support system that will allow him and the team to thrive. I don’t have a problem with it. Time will tell if the decision was the right one.

[ratonmono2]

Wow. Um. I don’t think anyone is going to change your mind on this.

Well no, what I just said is based on facts. I'm not going to decide its not true based on someones opinion.

Every human being lacks morals at that age, the part of the brain that causes that matures years before the part of the brain that regulates it matures.

Its designed to make humans break family bonds, take huge risks, reproduce, and all kinds of behavior our modern society deems immoral. That is why teenagers are idiots. Then most of them turn into decent people and become functioning members of society somewhere around early-mid 20s when the prefrontal cortex fully matures/develops and regulates that behavior.

The only real difference is they have learned/been taught to be fake and act/talk like they have morals long before that so society will like/accept them.

This does not just apply to the boys....it applies to the female as well.

I don't know nearly enough about the situation to know who was in the wrong or not, but development of the prefrontal cortex alone doesn't work for explaining the scope of human behavior. Human beings do not lack morals from teen years through late 20s, they tend to lack self-regulation and risk evaluation that is found in fully developed adult brains. They know right from wrong by then except in extreme personality disorder cases. Socialization also plays a key factor in development. The amount of privilege afforded to young male athletes is just as much a factor in shaping their behaviors and explaining how things like this keep occurring. Especially when the adults who are there to guide these young men so often themselves are the products of a toxic socialization process which has long swept things like this under the rug and/or normalized it. There's as much if not more blame to go into the foundations of how we socialize these kids in conjunction with their athletics positions, as there is a problem with their still developing brains.

[SMSU2MU]

I believe the team started the turnaround when he arrived. He’s been fantastic in the playoffs. He’s a Center which we desperately need.

He was very young, and I believe he was not even convicted, although there was certainly some bad behavior in bad choices.

I would ask that, and even some of the older players have his behavior has been and if it looks like he’s learned and grown up, give him a second chance.

Here comes the “we all did dumb stuff at 19” crowd.

Right on cue.

Right on cue Rollin on a one man island.

I hope your daughters don't accidentyally get pregnant. Its a life altering mistake. You will have to abandon her.

I am a two daughter dad as well. There were bad decisions all around from what I have looked into. Dube was aquitted in court. Enjoy your island.

[SMSU2MU]

The honest answer is idk. I know the details of the case and that he was acquitted but you also have to factor in potential reputational damage to the org. I’m sure the Blues have a ton more info on it all than me though - a more detailed understanding of what all happened that night (regardless of what could or couldn’t be proven in court), Dube’s part in it, how he is as a person now as well as what the likely perception around the league would be if they were to sign him.

But given what I know, I’d be hesitant to sign him to a NHL deal. He’s a guy that could probably be a good 4C but is he worth the potential headache and baggage? Wouldn’t it just be easier to find someone else, go with Finley or see if Dean can work his way back on the map in camp?

I paid attention to the case pretty well and my sense is the girl didn’t make it all up but I also absolutely got the impression that Mikey McLeod was by far the worst perpetrator and it’s possible the rest of the guys didn’t fully know she really wasn’t all that into it. But it’s all a big he said, she said and she seemed timid as heck and didn’t really voice she wasn’t into it so I wasn’t remotely surprised they were found not guilty as there just wasn’t much of any proof, especially once the judge threw out a lot of the previous depositions from the accused that were a lot more damning than what they said in court this time around.

But again, the Blues would know the circumstances and the player way better than I so if they do decide to give him a NHL contract, I’d probably hesitantly be ok with it.

But even if the Blues feel he is completely innocent, or feel he’s a better person now and are willing to give him a 2nd chance, teams still have to weigh if he brings enough talent to truly be worth the baggage. I question if a guy that looks like he could be a solid NHL 4C is truly worth that baggage. It’s a harsh way of looking at it but businesses have to weigh potential risk/reward all the time.

This is a well reasoned post right after DawgDad's point by point explanation. One of the things I pointed out was what is his behavior like now? Plenty of bad people continue to behave badly. Some learn and do things the right way.

[skilles]

Wow. Um. I don’t think anyone is going to change your mind on this.

Well no, what I just said is based on facts. I'm not going to decide its not true based on someones opinion.

Every human being lacks morals at that age, the part of the brain that causes that matures years before the part of the brain that regulates it matures.

Its designed to make humans break family bonds, take huge risks, reproduce, and all kinds of behavior our modern society deems immoral. That is why teenagers are idiots. Then most of them turn into decent people and become functioning members of society somewhere around early-mid 20s when the prefrontal cortex fully matures/develops and regulates that behavior.

The only real difference is they have learned/been taught to be fake and act/talk like they have morals long before that so society will like/accept them.

This does not just apply to the boys....it applies to the female as well.

I don't know nearly enough about the situation to know who was in the wrong or not, but development of the prefrontal cortex alone doesn't work for explaining the scope of human behavior. Human beings do not lack morals from teen years through late 20s, they tend to lack self-regulation and risk evaluation that is found in fully developed adult brains. They know right from wrong by then except in extreme personality disorder cases. Socialization also plays a key factor in development. The amount of privilege afforded to young male athletes is just as much a factor in shaping their behaviors and explaining how things like this keep occurring. Especially when the adults who are there to guide these young men so often themselves are the products of a toxic socialization process which has long swept things like this under the rug and/or normalized it. There's as much if not more blame to go into the foundations of how we socialize these kids in conjunction with their athletics positions, as there is a problem with their still developing brains.

Well to be honest if everyone was consenting age and consented its not really up to you or I to decide if it was right or wrong.

As far as the rest morals are a subjective concept which is why I said they lack what modern society considers moral. Its not the PFC alone, its the order in which the brain/body develops giving them the desire to take risk, reproduce, defy the rules and many other things modern society deems immoral before the PFC gives them the development to regulate such behavior.

This does not at all just happen with privileged kids or elite athletes, this happens at HS and College parties all over the place. It is simply brought to light more when certain people do it and it is very much (100%) related to the order in which the brain/body develops. Musicians probably being the biggest culprit and it doesn't matter at all if they are rich or poor or privileged. It matters if they can find a female that will let them do it which happens more if they are elite athletes, musicians etc. These people are not more prone to this behavior as much as they have more opportunity to do it.

The PFC also plays a huge role in modifying behavior based on anticipated outcomes (rewards/consequences)

In short the human body produces all kinds of hormones before it produces a brain capable of regulating them and that is why teenagers do all kinds of [shirt] deemed immoral....male and female.

Many human behaviors society has deemed immoral and even illegal are in direct conflict with the way the human body and brain works.