Yes, that's what I'm telling you.

You definitely know that I did not mean to say "Someone else did it, therefore it's always the correct response." But by framing it that way, you're trying to misrepresent and limit my argument in to a stupid illogical one that it did not apply to because you don't think Jeremy Clarkson should have been dismissed. That's called "attacking the straw man".

Countering your argument is not a support of Clarkson and his actions

Of course it's not. Nor is my statement a support of always doing the same thing in every instance because "someone else did it."

I can still find both to be in the wrong.

Why anyone could possibly think the BBC should have done anything less is beyond me.

/u/Nagem7460 compared a similar work related instance. My point is that in his instance of work related violence, the offending employees were terminated, and because the Jeremy Clarkson incident is similar enough for him to have compared the two, JC should also have been dismissed.

I quite obviously do not think JC should have been dismissed because someone else did it at another time. I think he should have because the instance described is obviously similar and no one would question the firing of those employees. The only reaosn anyone questions Clarkson's dismissal is because he is entertaining. If anything, the Clarkson situation is worse because it was not between two drunken offenders, it was an unprovoked attack by a spoiled celebrity on a subordinate because he didn't get his way.

Nor is my point:

"...because it happened in this one case I'm quoting."

You're still using the straw man argument because you're a disingenuous person. Clarkson should have been dismissed because it happened period. Whether it happened in another case or not is irrelevant. However, the commenter compared a similar case with a similar outcome and I was using that to demonstrate that the BBC acted in the right as well, as no one would have questioned the firing of the drunken employees.

I think you understand my point perfectly well and you're being willfully ignorant because you are unhappy Clarkson was dismissed and you want to attack anyone who supports his dismissal wholeheartedly. Or maybe you are actually ignorant and just cannot understand. Either way, my point still stands.