BoxRec

Nike wouldn't have jacked him in if he made these comments five years ago.

Too many people out there searching for reasons to be offended. I bet there's hardly anyone here who actually gives two shites about Manny's comments.

lillywhite14 wrote:Nike wouldn't have jacked him in if he made these comments five years ago.

Too many people out there searching for reasons to be offended. I bet there's hardly anyone here who actually gives two shites about Manny's comments.

Yes they would. A company like Nike would get rid of anyone for that, too big of a risk.

SNG wrote:

lillywhite14 wrote:Nike wouldn't have jacked him in if he made these comments five years ago.

Too many people out there searching for reasons to be offended. I bet there's hardly anyone here who actually gives two shites about Manny's comments.

Yes they would. A company like Nike would get rid of anyone for that, too big of a risk.

Yeah. Nike have always seemed very keen on keeping a very polished image, as much as possible. Jon Jones who was/is a very big name and probably the best P4P fighter in the UFC/MMA lost his contract with Nike over his indiscretions.

lillywhite14 wrote:Nike wouldn't have jacked him in if he made these comments five years ago.

Too many people out there searching for reasons to be offended. I bet there's hardly anyone here who actually gives two shites about Manny's comments.

Agreed. Its an easy excuse to terminate the contract now after all these years now he's getting punchy

ThereByTheGrace wrote:

lillywhite14 wrote:Nike wouldn't have jacked him in if he made these comments five years ago.

Too many people out there searching for reasons to be offended. I bet there's hardly anyone here who actually gives two shites about Manny's comments.

Agreed. Its an easy excuse to terminate the contract now after all these years now he's getting punchy

If they were so keen to get out, they could have ditched him after the Mayweather fight. Pacquiao brought this on himself. Just sounds like a horrible homophobic bully

He's also an adulterous gambler.

banjo wrote:He's also an adulterous gambler.

Yeah good point, a bit hypocritical given Tiger Woods, although like golf I don't think anyone does adultery like Tiger Woods.

roy wrote:

banjo wrote:

ste1983 wrote:
But criticise homosexuality and you equally can be accused of a hate crime and end up in prison thats my point it all contradicts.

Me opinion would be people should be allowed to say what the eff they want (all it often does is show their own stupidity anyway) all this 'it may offend someone else' so you can't say it

Yet religion is just an idea, like communism or democracy that you can very easily make a decision on whether to follow it or not. Homosexuality is not only something which predates any religious/political philosophy it's also a natural instinct, it's a sexual attraction, you can't control who you are and aren't attracted to. Whereas you can choose what idea to believe in.

Does that make paedeophilia acceptable in your book then?

Roy, have you been reading the "Tyson Fury Book of Sexuality" again, mate

If he really cared about the poor, WTF was he doing being sponsored by Nike anyway? The whole world knows they make their fortunes by exploiting poor kids in Africa and India and then sell them for £100 to poor kids in the U.S. And Europe.

veriton wrote: pacman neednt apologise for views that the majority of the world agree with.

Can you provide the proof to back up this anti gay argument?

But what about transgender
Men and women who say they believe they are a woman in a mans body and vice versa

Then u get get men who become women and then date other women . Is that straight or gay ???

Taansend wrote:

veriton wrote: pacman neednt apologise for views that the majority of the world agree with.

Can you provide the proof to back up this anti gay argument?

i could be glib and say try stepping outside your perpetually-offended guardian reading world and take a look.

i could say look at who is in power in the uk, and who could be the next president in the uk. hardly left wing are they...

try asking the muslim world what they think of homosexuality, then ask the catholic world.

when you're done then think about what most normal people think about two geezers being "married" and i put it in quote marks because it is impossible for that to happen in the traditional sense.

attacking the religious is getting boring now, as if some shi thouse capitalist consumer driven company like Nike has the last word in morals.

It's funny how the religious always make the comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia when it's more likely to be the religious person involved in the latter.

banjo wrote:It's funny how the religious always make the comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia when it's more likely to be the religious person involved in the latter.

I was watching Sky news yesterday and they were reporting on an 11 year old being indecently assaulted at a magic show but they accidently showed footage of the Pope

Nightmare Roy wrote:If he really cared about the poor, WTF was he doing being sponsored by Nike anyway? The whole world knows they make their fortunes by exploiting poor kids in Africa and India and then sell them for £100 to poor kids in the U.S. And Europe.

Nike have branched out into people trafficking? Just Do It is supposed to be a pithy slogan, not an excuse for organised crime.

banjo wrote:

ste1983 wrote:Similar to Fury I don't really agree with his comments but its based on his religion the 'freedom of speech' brigade can't want people to be able to express their views but only if it suits them.

Criticise a religion you are accused of hate speech and can end up in prison.

You mean just for criticising a religion, you can end up in prison?

veriton wrote:

Taansend wrote:

veriton wrote: pacman neednt apologise for views that the majority of the world agree with.

Can you provide the proof to back up this anti gay argument?

i could be glib and say try stepping outside your perpetually-offended guardian reading world and take a look.

i could say look at who is in power in the uk, and who could be the next president in the uk. hardly left wing are they...

try asking the muslim world what they think of homosexuality, then ask the catholic world.

when you're done then think about what most normal people think about two geezers being "married" and i put it in quote marks because it is impossible for that to happen in the traditional sense.

attacking the religious is getting boring now, as if some shi thouse capitalist consumer driven company like Nike has the last word in morals.

Who are the 'normal people'? I agree there can be a big difference between what the media represents and what the majority view actually is. But I'd like to know the basis for your definition of 'normal people', and how you have a direct line to this large swathe of the population and their beliefs.

veriton wrote:
i could be glib and say try stepping outside your perpetually-offended guardian reading world and take a look.

i could say look at who is in power in the uk, and who could be the next president in the uk. hardly left wing are they...

try asking the muslim world what they think of homosexuality, then ask the catholic world.

when you're done then think about what most normal people think about two geezers being "married" and i put it in quote marks because it is impossible for that to happen in the traditional sense.

attacking the religious is getting boring now, as if some shi thouse capitalist consumer driven company like Nike has the last word in morals.

It's the religious people that are perpetually-offended.

The rest of us are basically are a bit more modern and just say 'Manny your thick prat, shut your gob' and then move onto the next drama. No soapbox, no real anger. We recognise clowns that are too stupid to form their own opinion and need to adopt one from an old book about their particular flavour of sky daddy.

G0mez wrote:

veriton wrote:
i could be glib and say try stepping outside your perpetually-offended guardian reading world and take a look.

i could say look at who is in power in the uk, and who could be the next president in the uk. hardly left wing are they...

try asking the muslim world what they think of homosexuality, then ask the catholic world.

when you're done then think about what most normal people think about two geezers being "married" and i put it in quote marks because it is impossible for that to happen in the traditional sense.

attacking the religious is getting boring now, as if some shi thouse capitalist consumer driven company like Nike has the last word in morals.

It's the religious people that are perpetually-offended.

The rest of us are basically are a bit more modern and just say 'Manny your thick prat, shut your gob' and then move onto the next drama. No soapbox, no real anger. We recognise clowns that are too stupid to form their own opinion and need to adopt one from an old book about their particular flavour of sky daddy.

Agreed. It's amazing, considering that religiosity requires faith, devotion and conviction, that the religious seem to have absolutely paper-thin tolerance when it comes to their faith - any slight or questioning of their religion, results in all hell breaking loose.

G0mez wrote:

veriton wrote:
i could be glib and say try stepping outside your perpetually-offended guardian reading world and take a look.

i could say look at who is in power in the uk, and who could be the next president in the uk. hardly left wing are they...

try asking the muslim world what they think of homosexuality, then ask the catholic world.

when you're done then think about what most normal people think about two geezers being "married" and i put it in quote marks because it is impossible for that to happen in the traditional sense.

attacking the religious is getting boring now, as if some shi thouse capitalist consumer driven company like Nike has the last word in morals.

It's the religious people that are perpetually-offended.

The rest of us are basically are a bit more modern and just say 'Manny your thick prat, shut your gob' and then move onto the next drama. No soapbox, no real anger. We recognise clowns that are too stupid to form their own opinion and need to adopt one from an old book about their particular flavour of sky daddy.

I don't understand why any bloke would fancy another bloke when women are by far the most beautiful gender on the planet. Yet, they do. It's not right, it's not wrong; it's just the way it is and it's entirely natural - and that's why it's common throughout the natural world.

The difference with paedophilia - if it really needs pointing out to some of the idiots on this board - is that involves an adult exploiting a child for their own sexual gratification.

the hostility towards religion is intense, not sure why.

the bible teaches believers to expect being mocked and questioned so not sure where you are getting thin-skinned from. have a look at matthew 5:11, that's the first and last time ill quote scripture on a boxing forum. peace.

I have some sympathy for people who have maintained orthodox religious beliefs as they get attacked quite often in the media. You don’t have to agree with them, but surely freedom of speech crosses across the religious divide? Someone also mentioned it being hate crime/speak, which is not true as that only applies if you direct the comments at a specific individual as part of an attempt to harass or abuse them.

We live in an increasingly secular world, so that’s why the views jar, yet people should be allowed to talk about their faith and what they believe due to that faith.

A lot of it boils down to living in an age of apology porn, people cream themselves over celebrities/politicians having to either recant their views or doing grovelling public apologies. It’s all got a bit daft.

Metal Fingers wrote:I have some sympathy for people who have maintained orthodox religious beliefs as they get attacked quite often in the media. You don’t have to agree with them, but surely freedom of speech crosses across the religious divide? Someone also mentioned it being hate crime/speak, which is not true as that only applies if you direct the comments at a specific individual as part of an attempt to harass or abuse them.

We live in an increasingly secular world, so that’s why the views jar, yet people should be allowed to talk about their faith and what they believe due to that faith.

A lot of it boils down to living in an age of apology porn, people cream themselves over celebrities/politicians having to either recant their views or doing grovelling public apologies. It’s all got a bit daft.

They can talk about it sure, but they will have to live with the consequences of their retarded mindset, and belief in sky gods and their laws from outer space. In this case, losing a lucrative contract with Nike, and being called a bell-end by lots of people.

Strange that Manny, like many religious hypocrites, had no problem ignoring the bit about adultery, but likes to opine about homosexuality being wrong in the eyes of the bible.

veriton wrote:the hostility towards religion is intense, not sure why.

Couple of reasons, firstly religious people have discriminated against people for millenia just for not being like them and secondly it's about as factual as Star Wars, it's scary that an adult in the 21st century believes in the concept of virgins giving birth by some miracle or the idea of resurrection.

Religion provides us with some very interesting stories, I enjoy anything regarding the ancient gods of Greece and Rome and Norse mythology but I don't take it literally.

veriton wrote:the hostility towards religion is intense, not sure why.

the bible teaches believers to expect being mocked and questioned so not sure where you are getting thin-skinned from. have a look at matthew 5:11, that's the first and last time ill quote scripture on a boxing forum. peace.

Try Genesis 19:5-8 for a really good time.