Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-2804:431:B700:3599:D022:2FE7:358A:6D2-20180523202338/@comment-31763506-20180525190454

Lostone2 wrote: I think that he means the bar's owner in Feroholm. I don't remember a drug dealer in this game.

Alcohol is, scientifically speaking, a drug. It even says so on the big English language wiki's page. In the title, no less. (I assure I did not just edit it to say so, BTW.) Every single argument you can muster for illegalizing marijauna, cocaine, opiods and the various psychoactives, and for demonizing people who sell them to addicts, applies just as much to alcohol, and in some cases moreso. Society just takes great pains to pretend there's a difference between liquor stores and the guy selling weed out of his apartment.

Under normal circumstances, I'd not consider the bar owner to be deserving of robbery and murder, and I actually still wouldn't have killed him if I was in Simon's place, but the game is quite careful to point out that there are extraordinary circumstances. The guy is selling booze to people who can't afford it and are in the process of starving to death. Does that make the bar owner a non-innocent? I think it nudges him just enough into a moral grey area where the you can say that using him to justify the statement "Simon killed innocents in Ch 1!" is an invocation of the noncentral fallacy. (Like saying that "Martin Luther King was a criminal!" or "Property is Theft!", read the link if you want more info. (NOTE: Yes, I am aware that the statement "The Feroholm Bar Owner was a Drug Dealer!" looks superficially like an invocation of the same fallacy, but there's a LOT more in common between him and the traditional conception of a street drug dealer then there is between Martin Luther King and the usual conception of a criminal. The fallaciousness of the rhetorical tactic is only in the degree to which the characterization is technically true but emotionally misleading.))