Tyson Fury says he will takeover in 2017

[dirk2686]

So you're advocating a policy of being able to say absolutely anything you want, to anyone, and as long as you don't directly incite violence. Which would mean, if I worked with, say, a black guy, I could repeatedly refer to him using the worst racist abuse I could think of and as long as I don't hit him or advocate him being hit I'm untouchable?

This is an odd way to deal with a problem, which is surely more easily solved by simply not being a complete arsehole. And the thing is, I doubt Fury himself would agree with it. If his children were being called thieving pikey c*nts every day of their lives I'm sure he'd want more done about it than the teachers just saying 'well, they're not hitting anyone so it's free speech.'

You have presumably heard of the shouting fire in a theatre analogy? Total freedom of speech can't realistically happen.

If one says anything, to anyone, at any given time (which is their right to do so) they must then accept the concept that they, too, in return will be receiving the same treatment: "Do unto others as you would like done to yourself", comes to mind.

So you genuinely think it would be ok if I was at work with a black guy and repeatedly called him a n^gger? You are seriously saying that is ok?

[HomicideHenry]

So you're advocating a policy of being able to say absolutely anything you want, to anyone, and as long as you don't directly incite violence. Which would mean, if I worked with, say, a black guy, I could repeatedly refer to him using the worst racist abuse I could think of and as long as I don't hit him or advocate him being hit I'm untouchable?

This is an odd way to deal with a problem, which is surely more easily solved by simply not being a complete arsehole. And the thing is, I doubt Fury himself would agree with it. If his children were being called thieving pikey c*nts every day of their lives I'm sure he'd want more done about it than the teachers just saying 'well, they're not hitting anyone so it's free speech.'

You have presumably heard of the shouting fire in a theatre analogy? Total freedom of speech can't realistically happen.

If one says anything, to anyone, at any given time (which is their right to do so) they must then accept the concept that they, too, in return will be receiving the same treatment: "Do unto others as you would like done to yourself", comes to mind.

So you genuinely think it would be ok if I was at work with a black guy and repeatedly called him a n^gger? You are seriously saying that is ok?

On moral and ethical grounds, no it would not be okay. HOWEVER, as a human being, you do have the right to say whatever it is you like to whoever you like, whenever you like--- but you must also take responsibility for whatever you say (or do) and if you excercise the right to say whatever you wish to whoever you wish in whatever tone you wish: then you must expect the same in return. Period. So if you call someone the N-word or any other sort of word, be prepared to face the same blunt judgement.

[Boxerbeetle]

So you're advocating a policy of being able to say absolutely anything you want, to anyone, and as long as you don't directly incite violence. Which would mean, if I worked with, say, a black guy, I could repeatedly refer to him using the worst racist abuse I could think of and as long as I don't hit him or advocate him being hit I'm untouchable?

This is an odd way to deal with a problem, which is surely more easily solved by simply not being a complete arsehole. And the thing is, I doubt Fury himself would agree with it. If his children were being called thieving pikey c*nts every day of their lives I'm sure he'd want more done about it than the teachers just saying 'well, they're not hitting anyone so it's free speech.'

You have presumably heard of the shouting fire in a theatre analogy? Total freedom of speech can't realistically happen.

If one says anything, to anyone, at any given time (which is their right to do so) they must then accept the concept that they, too, in return will be receiving the same treatment: "Do unto others as you would like done to yourself", comes to mind.

So you genuinely think it would be ok if I was at work with a black guy and repeatedly called him a n^gger? You are seriously saying that is ok?

To be fair, that very much depends on the context.

[dirk2686]

If one says anything, to anyone, at any given time (which is their right to do so) they must then accept the concept that they, too, in return will be receiving the same treatment: "Do unto others as you would like done to yourself", comes to mind.

So you genuinely think it would be ok if I was at work with a black guy and repeatedly called him a n^gger? You are seriously saying that is ok?

On moral and ethical grounds, no it would not be okay. HOWEVER, as a human being, you do have the right to say whatever it is you like to whoever you like, whenever you like--- but you must also take responsibility for whatever you say (or do) and if you excercise the right to say whatever you wish to whoever you wish in whatever tone you wish: then you must expect the same in return. Period. So if you call someone the N-word or any other sort of word, be prepared to face the same blunt judgement.

Well, I literally don't, and nor do you.

Which is why if a black guy started working with you, and you called him a stupid dumb f*cking n*gger, you would get sacked, and if you appealed you would lose your appeal, because you're a f*cking idiot.

[HomicideHenry]

Well, I literally don't, and nor do you.

Which is why if a black guy started working with you, and you called him a stupid dumb f*cking n*gger, you would get sacked, and if you appealed you would lose your appeal, because you're a f*cking idiot.

Hmm..... there is a big difference (in my view) than a common man working in a day to day job.... and an athlete who works for himself.... the fact that the BBBC and the local authorities wanted to investigate Fury for WORDS and OPINIONS, whether they be in jest or his wholehearted beliefs, is a big difference than someone working for a private enterprise or corporation, etc.

Boxing organisations are meant to RANK fighters, and ensure the rules of the sport. Period. Nothing more, and nothing less. It was a dramatic overreach on their part. You know it, I know it, the whole world knows it. Boxing organisations have no right to dictate and rule over what somebody says or does---- UNLESS it is directly concerning the organisations themselves. Think Riddick Bowe and him throwing the WBC belt in the trash, for instance.

Now had Fury said the BBBC was full of homosexuals and they need to be shot.... then I could see them reprimanding him.... Had Fury said twitter, facebook (or any other social media outlet) was full of homos and was invented by homos and they needed to be shot.... then I could see him being reported and investigated for a crime.... But someone making a generalized statement, concerning nobody in particular, concerning no organisation in particular, etc. does not warrant a reprimand.

It warrants criticism, and his views can be challenged by those who deem it to be wrong. That's a given. But criminal investigations for hate crimes? Getting the law involved? The BBBC getting involved and making comments on the situation? Etc etc etc. Thats above and beyond their jurisdiction. That's being the thought police.

[Boxerbeetle]

Well, I literally don't, and nor do you.

Which is why if a black guy started working with you, and you called him a stupid dumb f*cking n*gger, you would get sacked, and if you appealed you would lose your appeal, because you're a f*cking idiot.

Hmm..... there is a big difference (in my view) than a common man working in a day to day job.... and an athlete who works for himself.... the fact that the BBBC and the local authorities wanted to investigate Fury for WORDS and OPINIONS, whether they be in jest or his wholehearted beliefs, is a big difference than someone working for a private enterprise or corporation, etc.

Boxing organisations are meant to RANK fighters, and ensure the rules of the sport. Period. Nothing more, and nothing less. It was a dramatic overreach on their part. You know it, I know it, the whole world knows it. Boxing organisations have no right to dictate and rule over what somebody says or does---- UNLESS it is directly concerning the organisations themselves. Think Riddick Bowe and him throwing the WBC belt in the trash, for instance.

Now had Fury said the BBBC was full of homosexuals and they need to be shot.... then I could see them reprimanding him.... Had Fury said twitter, facebook (or any other social media outlet) was full of homos and was invented by homos and they needed to be shot.... then I could see him being reported and investigated for a crime.... But someone making a generalized statement, concerning nobody in particular, concerning no organisation in particular, etc. does not warrant a reprimand.

It warrants criticism, and his views can be challenged by those who deem it to be wrong. That's a given. But criminal investigations for hate crimes? Getting the law involved? The BBBC getting involved and making comments on the situation? Etc etc etc. Thats above and beyond their jurisdiction. That's being the thought police.

Actually it's the opposite. An athlete may be working completely for themselves, but they are still held up by many as 'role models' (incorrectly, imo). Because of this, they are subjected to scrutiny which a 'common man working in a day to day job' would not be.

[Oiky]

He will, he is still the real heavyweight King and no one in the division can beat him

[dirk2686]

But criminal investigations for hate crimes?

This made me laugh. As though hate crimes should be legalised or something in your deeply mental world.

[HomicideHenry]

But criminal investigations for hate crimes?

This made me laugh. As though hate crimes should be legalised or something in your deeply mental world.

You (once again) have taken my words out of proper context. When I said it, it was CLEARLY in sarcasm, because Fury committed no hate crime: and the authorities (also) said that no crime was committed just by speaking his opinion.

[dirk2686]

But criminal investigations for hate crimes?

This made me laugh. As though hate crimes should be legalised or something in your deeply mental world.

You (once again) have taken my words out of proper context. When I said it, it was CLEARLY in sarcasm, because Fury committed no hate crime: and the authorities (also) said that no crime was committed just by speaking his opinion.

Ok, so the authorities investigated it, and concluded no crime had taken place. What point are you making?

[Cyclops]

This made me laugh. As though hate crimes should be legalised or something in your deeply mental world.

You (once again) have taken my words out of proper context. When I said it, it was CLEARLY in sarcasm, because Fury committed no hate crime: and the authorities (also) said that no crime was committed just by speaking his opinion.

Ok, so the authorities investigated it, and concluded no crime had taken place. What point are you making?

He agrees with Tyson Fury's views and thinks he should therefore be allowed to say them.

That's fine. The brilliant argument he's trying to use to justify it is exactly why I love having Henry back on the forum. He's quality entertainment.

[HomicideHenry]

You (once again) have taken my words out of proper context. When I said it, it was CLEARLY in sarcasm, because Fury committed no hate crime: and the authorities (also) said that no crime was committed just by speaking his opinion.

Ok, so the authorities investigated it, and concluded no crime had taken place. What point are you making?

He agrees with Tyson Fury's views and thinks he should therefore be allowed to say them.

That's fine. The brilliant argument he's trying to use to justify it is exactly why I love having Henry back on the forum. He's quality entertainment.

Whether I believe (or agree) with Fury's views or not is immaterial. What I am upholding is the right for all people, to say all things. There can be no free society, without all trains of thought and expression co-existing together. Any limitations on these things, only undermines society itself. Only through confrontation (conversation, debate, etc) can compromise and concessions be made, and/or an understanding of one another.

As for Tyson's views, we're not exactly talking about a "great communicator" here with a great academic background. So I take his words with a grain of salt. He isn't going to always be polished and say the correct things---- or if he does say the correct things, he doesn't say them in the right tones or with the right delivery or with the right wordings. The 'controversy' of his statements lie with HOW he said things, rather than his actual positions.

When he talks about women and their purpose, he's drawing comparisons to his own culture--- and even his own wife said if he really was that prehistoric and base in his sentiments, she never would have been with him in the first place. Therefore, when he says "women are home makers, cook in kitchens, and are on their backs," he's really referring to his own culture, or at least how his culture was (or has been), rather than how he exactly feels on the matter.

When he talks about homosexuality and the world and the Bible---- one must look at the context of his actual words. When he said "Who would have thought fifty years ago that gay marriage would be legal," he is probably closer to the truth than one would admit. When he brings up pedophilia, he wasn't exactly drawing comparisons to homosexuality, but rather lamenting the fact that in our 21st century world there exists a sub-culture mindset where pedophiles are being 'humanized' and he talked at length of 'child robot dolls' being manufactured for these mentally ill people, and said that it was wrong.

I can't find a single, rational thinking human being who would disagree with his thoughts on this as well. When he mentions the Bible, and talks about "these things must come to pass" to usher in the end of the world---- we have to look at it in different ways: number one, he's not a theologian, secondly he's speaking his opinions on his understanding of the Bible, thirdly he's speaking in a generalized sense that all manner of sin (not just homosexuality) becomes a common thing in the end times (Biblically speaking) and he drew comparisons between the state of our present times SEEMS (keyword there) to be heading in a bad direction morally, ethically, socially, etc. I don't know of too many people out there who would disagree that our world does SEEM to be going down a bad path.

So again, what are we really bitching about when he says such things? It must, then, come down to his tone and his delivery, as well as a complete and total misunderstanding of the context of his words: rather than the subjects at hand.

[dirk2686]

What I am upholding is the right for all people, to say all things. There can be no free society, without all trains of thought and expression co-existing together. Any limitations on these things, only undermines society itself. Only through confrontation (conversation, debate, etc) can compromise and concessions be made, and/or an understanding of one another.

I do find it amusing that in your world, I could repeatedly label you a paedophile under your 'right to say absolutely anything to anyone' and there would be nothing you could do about it.

[HomicideHenry]

What I am upholding is the right for all people, to say all things. There can be no free society, without all trains of thought and expression co-existing together. Any limitations on these things, only undermines society itself. Only through confrontation (conversation, debate, etc) can compromise and concessions be made, and/or an understanding of one another.

I do find it amusing that in your world, I could repeatedly label you a paedophile under your 'right to say absolutely anything to anyone' and there would be nothing you could do about it.

You would be correct. What could I really do about it?

Other than give an accord of myself, to demonstrate what you say to be untrue.
Other than challenge your statement, by giving evidence to the contrary to show what you say is untrue.
Other than ignore what you said completely, because I know personally it is untrue.

You have the right to say whatever it is you like, and I can't stop you from saying so. I may not like what is said, but it is ultimately up to ME to decide what is the best course of action to take. But, beware, if you do say such things and there is no proofs and evidences as such then you must be prepared to know and accept (fully) that I will use every ounce of my being to prove yourself to be nothing more than a liar and that your words are meaningless---- or ----- I can be a greater person than you, completely ignore your words (your opinions, your beliefs, etc) and walk away because I know who and what I am, whereas you have no clue as to my being and nature. Either way, I accept the responsibility of deciding what is BEST to do in response to your words. I have no control over YOUR actions, but I do have control over mine.

[dirk2686]

But that's completely ridiculous. Your life could be completely ruined by baseless accusations, and you're fine with this because 'freedom of speech.'

A black child should not have to deal with a classmate repeatedly calling him a n*gger every day of his life. In your world, he does what? Asks him nicely to stop?

[Cyclops]

What I am upholding is the right for all people, to say all things. There can be no free society, without all trains of thought and expression co-existing together. Any limitations on these things, only undermines society itself. Only through confrontation (conversation, debate, etc) can compromise and concessions be made, and/or an understanding of one another.

I do find it amusing that in your world, I could repeatedly label you a paedophile under your 'right to say absolutely anything to anyone' and there would be nothing you could do about it.

You would be correct. What could I really do about it?

Other than give an accord of myself, to demonstrate what you say to be untrue.
Other than challenge your statement, by giving evidence to the contrary to show what you say is untrue.
Other than ignore what you said completely, because I know personally it is untrue.

You have the right to say whatever it is you like, and I can't stop you from saying so. I may not like what is said, but it is ultimately up to ME to decide what is the best course of action to take. But, beware, if you do say such things and there is no proofs and evidences as such then you must be prepared to know and accept (fully) that I will use every ounce of my being to prove yourself to be nothing more than a liar and that your words are meaningless---- or ----- I can be a greater person than you, completely ignore your words (your opinions, your beliefs, etc) and walk away because I know who and what I am, whereas you have no clue as to my being and nature. Either way, I accept the responsibility of deciding what is BEST to do in response to your words. I have no control over YOUR actions, but I do have control over mine.

you're such a maniac. What are you defending here? The right to call somebody a paedophile? Why on earth would you do that?

If you called Tyson Fury a peadophile he'd smack you in the mouth.

[mickey1975]

A few years ago, Tyson had a relative boxing on an amateur dinner show in Leeds. He was pretty well known, around the John McDermott time, but nowhere near like he is now. Haye was the paid after dinner speaker... There was a problem with the paramedics so things ran very late, Haye, who'd been an arsehole all night, said he was only booked until 11 and left. Tyson stepped in and presented every boxer with their trophy after this. Seriously, he's a good man who says stupid things.

[bripez]

A few years ago, Tyson had a relative boxing on an amateur dinner show in Leeds. He was pretty well known, around the John McDermott time, but nowhere near like he is now. Haye was the paid after dinner speaker... There was a problem with the paramedics so things ran very late, Haye, who'd been an arsehole all night, said he was only booked until 11 and left. Tyson stepped in and presented every boxer with their trophy after this. Seriously, he's a good man who says stupid things.

So you keep saying that it is ok for Tyson to say stupid things about others - what happens if people say stupid things about him?

What if somebody said that all gypsies should be shot - would that be ok if they said that that is what they were brought up to believe?

The argument is complete nonsense.

[mickey1975]

A few years ago, Tyson had a relative boxing on an amateur dinner show in Leeds. He was pretty well known, around the John McDermott time, but nowhere near like he is now. Haye was the paid after dinner speaker... There was a problem with the paramedics so things ran very late, Haye, who'd been an arsehole all night, said he was only booked until 11 and left. Tyson stepped in and presented every boxer with their trophy after this. Seriously, he's a good man who says stupid things.

So you keep saying that it is ok for Tyson to say stupid things about others - what happens if people say stupid things about him?

What if somebody said that all gypsies should be shot - would that be ok if they said that that is what they were brought up to believe?

The argument is complete nonsense.

People do say things like that all the time. When York was flooded last year, people bent over backwards to help almost anyone involved. A traveller site right in the middle of it got none. I speak to about 100 people a week in my car and 90% of their reaction was "well, they won't pay tax", etc. It's a council run site, you can't just live there and do what you want. People have never said the n word, p word or mentioned other Asian people in derogatory terms in all my years doing it but were quite happy to say gypo, pikey etc so, yes, not surprised he has a chip on his shoulder. His dad will have had it worse, and is a raging loony anyway so Tyson never got the best start....

[mickey1975]

A few years ago, Tyson had a relative boxing on an amateur dinner show in Leeds. He was pretty well known, around the John McDermott time, but nowhere near like he is now. Haye was the paid after dinner speaker... There was a problem with the paramedics so things ran very late, Haye, who'd been an arsehole all night, said he was only booked until 11 and left. Tyson stepped in and presented every boxer with their trophy after this. Seriously, he's a good man who says stupid things.

So you keep saying that it is ok for Tyson to say stupid things about others - what happens if people say stupid things about him?

What if somebody said that all gypsies should be shot - would that be ok if they said that that is what they were brought up to believe?

The argument is complete nonsense.

Talk to people who've met him, in real life. Not one has a bad thing to say. We all say silly things, I called my mother in law a slag, she isn't, I didn't mean it, I've probably(definitely) insulted people for their colour, size, wearing glasses, anything that's a target when you're annoyed.

[HomicideHenry]

you're such a maniac. What are you defending here? The right to call somebody a paedophile? Why on earth would you do that?

If you called Tyson Fury a peadophile he'd smack you in the mouth.

What am I defending? The excercise of free speech: regardless whether it offends or doesn't.

Now why would anyone on earth call someone something they are not.... is another matter altogether....

But the question of whether one has the right to do so, or not, should never be in question.

To do so is to limit free thought and expression: and that is a detriment to a free society.

What is the difference, per say, from someone calling something they are not and someone making a portrait of Jesus with fecal matter, or having a contest of what the prophet Mohammed looked like? Nothing. None what so ever. To limit one thing, is by extension, a threat to all other forms of expression. That is something you do not want. Believe me, we'd be living either in Orwell's 1984 or Huxley's Brave New World if we began such things.

[dirk2686]

I know this is a bit rude, but you don't seem to know what you're talking about. You suggest you live in a society where you are free to say what you like to whoever you like, but you obviously don't. There is nowhere on earth with a practical policy of unlimited free speech.

[Cyclops]

you're such a maniac. What are you defending here? The right to call somebody a paedophile? Why on earth would you do that?

If you called Tyson Fury a peadophile he'd smack you in the mouth.

What am I defending? The excercise of free speech: regardless whether it offends or doesn't.

Now why would anyone on earth call someone something they are not.... is another matter altogether....

But the question of whether one has the right to do so, or not, should never be in question.

To do so is to limit free thought and expression: and that is a detriment to a free society.

What is the difference, per say, from someone calling something they are not and someone making a portrait of Jesus with fecal matter, or having a contest of what the prophet Mohammed looked like? Nothing. None what so ever. To limit one thing, is by extension, a threat to all other forms of expression. That is something you do not want. Believe me, we'd be living either in Orwell's 1984 or Huxley's Brave New World if we began such things.

I like you Henry because you're mental A portrait of Jesus in fecal matter would make the gallery very smelly and I'm not sure there would be much of a market for it at auction. A competition to draw the prophet Mohammed would be extraordinarily foolish and inflammatory.

Your argument is bonkers.

Surely it should be treat others as you would like to be treated. Absolute free speech is basically saying do whatever you like. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. That's not very Christian. That's satanism, mate.

[HomicideHenry]

I like you Henry because you're mental A portrait of Jesus in fecal matter would make the gallery very smelly and I'm not sure there would be much of a market for it at auction. A competition to draw the prophet Mohammed would be extraordinarily foolish and inflammatory.

Your argument is bonkers.

Surely it should be treat others as you would like to be treated. Absolute free speech is basically saying do whatever you like. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. That's not very Christian. That's satanism, mate.

Lol, actually I used real life events that actually took place and was labeled as freedom of speech and expression protected under our God given rights under our Constitution here in America. Don't believe me, look it up. Or for that matter, here's some links, just so you know I am not pulling the wool over your eyes. We may not like it, that people do such things, but it is considered protected free speech.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/0 ... 70692.html

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/01/world/gal ... rsial-art/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2-gunmen-ki ... -in-texas/

http://www.wmur.com/article/rochester-m ... st/5201074

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... eline.html

The irony is that some people have been killed because of expressing themselves. Sure, what they did was controversial and mass outcries over such things. But one must wonder aloud, "Should words and expression result in death?" and further still, "Should words and expression result in prison time?", etc. and that is really the crux of my argument. I may not at all condone, support, etc. the views of some but they do indeed have the right to say what is on their minds.

And I agree wholeheartedly: I would like people to treat me like I treat them. Fair is fair. You reap what you sow. Period. I'm not saying that people should go out and act immoral and evil towards one another. What I am saying, though, is in free democratic societies there has to be protection for all people and all opinions and all beliefs and all trains and schools of thought and expression. The Bible thumper has the same protected rights as that of the anarchist. The Muslim has the same protected rights as the bigot. Etc etc etc. As long as no one is under threat of violence, etc. ultimately one can (in theory) say whatever they want, however they want, to whomever they want, wherever they want.

The question, though, should be "At what cost?" and "Should we say whatever we like even when it is not warranted?", and that is the problem with today's society: we interject our personal opinions and emotions on EVERYTHING, even when we haven't been asked to do so. In short, I agree with you. To do such things, for no real reason at all, is evil and unnecessary and has no real place other than to feed one's own weak ego and diminished confidence, etc. Again, for courtesy sake, I agree with you: it is wrong, it is evil, it is bad, it is careless, it is not necessary, it is not warranted, it is not something to be applauded and given credit and supported and uplifted, etc etc etc.

But it remains all the same: either we have full, unlimited freedoms or we do not, though I must admit (and concede) that the laws of morality, common sense, values, ethics, etc. prevail more times than not because people (on the whole) are generally good and respectful and try not to offend and these greater virtues are indeed God given and are (as Lincoln stated) "The better angels of our nature."

[bripez]

I know this is a bit rude, but you don't seem to know what you're talking about. You suggest you live in a society where you are free to say what you like to whoever you like, but you obviously don't. There is nowhere on earth with a practical policy of unlimited free speech.

Are you new to the forum mate?

Put the kettle on and do a search on Henry's posts from last year - it might leave you slightly confused wondering if the guy is for real but it will keep you entertained for a while.