Fury launches another foul mouthed attack

by Rodney Thu 10 Oct 2013, 4:21 pm

First topic message reminder :

Good marketing tool or is the man completely insane ?

http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/09/tyson-fury-in-astonishing-foul-mouthed-and-homophobic-twitter-rant-at-david-haye-lennox-lewis-and-wladimir-klitschko-4141152/

by **oxring** Tue 15 Oct 2013, 12:39 am

azania wrote:Fury is a boxer. Plain and simple. He is trying to garner interest in himself and therefore his upcoming fight with Haye. He will say anything, however silly to sell the PPV. As you rightfully state, it is something I do not agree with. I also said in a previous post on this thread that Angel Garcia made some racist comments prior to Garcia fighting Judah. In fact he used the N word. I didn't criticise him for it and took it for what it was; trying to sell a fight and get under the skin of Judah. Of course I don't approve of either comment but one has to look at who is saying it and take it from there.

If it was someone with a little more intelligence then I would have an issue with it. I am defending Fury because he comes in for some ridiculous criticism and is subjected to mush stereotypical abuse due to many factors including what he says and how he says it but in particular because of his heritage. Many boxers have been mouthy in the past but do not get the criticism Fury gets. He is called "tarmaccer", "pikey" and many other adjectives which people here find funny, yet take issue with his homophobia. I reckon a mirror is required fr them to look at.

If Fury were to make comments about Haye's ethnicity it still wouldn't offend me. I recall Bowe calling Lewis a "faggot" on many occasions. Rahman also called Lewis that. When discussing those fighters which we have done many times, that doesn't register an iota. But Fury says it and people wet themselves. Is it not equally offensive when Bowe and Rahman say it? Or it the moral hand wringing reserved for Fury. Or is it a case of "that was then and this is now" or the lovely canard of 2 wrongs don't make a right and we should all NOW be offended?

Hypocrites.

It is joyous indeed to come across a fellow deontologist! I am delighted that you agree that homophobia is morally and ethically unacceptable along the lines that discrimintation on the grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation is narrow minded. Those users who allowed Rahman, Bowe and Tyson leeway on their liberal use of homophobic vitriol should indeed be labelled as hypocrites.

I do struggle, however, to understand, given your deontological approach to ethics, your acceptance of Fury being stunningly homophobic on the grounds that he has to sell a fight. This smacks of utilitarian ethics and is logically incompatible with your previous approach.

An analogy would be as follows:
Opinion 1: Killing a dog is morally wrong!
Opnion 2: Killing a dog for food is acceptable, but otherwise killing dogs should be avoided.

Opinion 1 is a much easier position to hold as, in all circumstances and situations you have a moral and ethical framework by which you may base your decisions. In the example of the OP - homophobic abuse is morally wrong. As such, even if you wish to sell a fight through homophobic abuse, it remains morally unacceptable.

Opinion 2, however, is flexible but contradictory. You quasi-justify homophobic abuse to sell a fight but still state that discrimination is wrong. You cannot stand with a foot in both camps. If it is acceptable to be a bigot to sell a fight, when else is it acceptable? Further, if it is acceptable therefore to be bigoted to make money, why is being bigoted unacceptable in other circumstances? Being a narrow minded bigot causes others no less harm if one is trying to make money from this than if one is being generous with one's ignorance!

I cannot justify discrimination and small minded bigotry just for the purpose of fiscal gain. As such, I cannot accept the age old idea that "to sell a fight, anything goes".

azania wrote:Actually I have admitted to that with Windy, manos, Oxring (once) and one or two others. Only people who know their boxing and adequate social commentators.

To clarify - you only admitted the worth of my logical position once.

by Herman Jaeger Tue 15 Oct 2013, 4:51 am

azania wrote:If you say so.

I see the point is; many boxers can make choice remarks and are ignored. Fury makes same remarks and gets dragged through the mud for it. Poster makes choice remark about a gay boxer and it goes ignored.

Move along guv.

Choice remark? What kind of an idiot are you mate?

A joke is a joke is a JOKE.

And this coming from the poster who just a couple of months ago referred to homosexuals as 'poofters.'

Let's ask some of the gay posters on here, if they wish to come forward, which they find more offensive- my innocuous little joke or your term of address.

To me, all creatures great and small, the Lord God MADE them all. Every human being on this planet has as much right to be here as I do. And that includes Robert Mugabe.

Not going to go overboard and say I was rooting for Cruz the other night, but was certainly hoping he'd give a good account of himself against Salido. Takes a lot of guts to do what he's done.

by Rowley Tue 15 Oct 2013, 7:37 am

Can I just point out as one of the mods on here, there was a situation sometime ago where Az, rightly or wrongl,y felt he had been racially abused. I can assure you his reaction was not "that's ok the person saying it is not a social commentator" nor was it "not to worry, he is only trying to stir up debate on a forum".

Sorry Az but your position has more holes in it than a pin cushion.

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 7:43 am

Rowley wrote:Can I just point out as one of the mods on here, there was a situation sometime ago where Az, rightly or wrongl,y felt he had been racially abused. I can assure you his reaction was not "that's ok the person saying it is not a social commentator" nor was it "not to worry, he is only trying to stir up debate on a forum".

Sorry Az but your position has more holes in it than a pin cushion.

Nonsense Rowley. I don't recall being racially abused here. I recall a neo fascist mod making some racially chaeged comments and when I called it I got banned with the smirking neo fascist sending me a pm about how happy he was that I was banned.

by Rowley Tue 15 Oct 2013, 7:47 am

Don't have the time to look through the deleted threads to find the incident I was referring to, however in the cursory glance I did have I did find this comment from you:

Re: Azania'a Last Words

by azania on Wed 5 Jun - 22:03
.
Of course I agree with harsh stance on any bigotry. But everything has to be within the law. Harsh does not mean violence even when a black person is saying it.

Not particularly sure how this first sentence fits with your stance on this board and your seeming willingness to ignore or forgive Fury's blatant bigotry.

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 8:48 am

oxring wrote:
azania wrote:Fury is a boxer. Plain and simple. He is trying to garner interest in himself and therefore his upcoming fight with Haye. He will say anything, however silly to sell the PPV. As you rightfully state, it is something I do not agree with. I also said in a previous post on this thread that Angel Garcia made some racist comments prior to Garcia fighting Judah. In fact he used the N word. I didn't criticise him for it and took it for what it was; trying to sell a fight and get under the skin of Judah. Of course I don't approve of either comment but one has to look at who is saying it and take it from there.

If it was someone with a little more intelligence then I would have an issue with it. I am defending Fury because he comes in for some ridiculous criticism and is subjected to mush stereotypical abuse due to many factors including what he says and how he says it but in particular because of his heritage. Many boxers have been mouthy in the past but do not get the criticism Fury gets. He is called "tarmaccer", "pikey" and many other adjectives which people here find funny, yet take issue with his homophobia. I reckon a mirror is required fr them to look at.

If Fury were to make comments about Haye's ethnicity it still wouldn't offend me. I recall Bowe calling Lewis a "faggot" on many occasions. Rahman also called Lewis that. When discussing those fighters which we have done many times, that doesn't register an iota. But Fury says it and people wet themselves. Is it not equally offensive when Bowe and Rahman say it? Or it the moral hand wringing reserved for Fury. Or is it a case of "that was then and this is now" or the lovely canard of 2 wrongs don't make a right and we should all NOW be offended?

Hypocrites.
It is joyous indeed to come across a fellow deontologist! I am delighted that you agree that homophobia is morally and ethically unacceptable along the lines that discrimintation on the grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation is narrow minded. Those users who allowed Rahman, Bowe and Tyson leeway on their liberal use of homophobic vitriol should indeed be labelled as hypocrites.

I do struggle, however, to understand, given your deontological approach to ethics, your acceptance of Fury being stunningly homophobic on the grounds that he has to sell a fight. This smacks of utilitarian ethics and is logically incompatible with your previous approach.

An analogy would be as follows:
Opinion 1: Killing a dog is morally wrong!
Opnion 2: Killing a dog for food is acceptable, but otherwise killing dogs should be avoided.

Opinion 1 is a much easier position to hold as, in all circumstances and situations you have a moral and ethical framework by which you may base your decisions. In the example of the OP - homophobic abuse is morally wrong. As such, even if you wish to sell a fight through homophobic abuse, it remains morally unacceptable.

Opinion 2, however, is flexible but contradictory. You quasi-justify homophobic abuse to sell a fight but still state that discrimination is wrong. You cannot stand with a foot in both camps. If it is acceptable to be a bigot to sell a fight, when else is it acceptable? Further, if it is acceptable therefore to be bigoted to make money, why is being bigoted unacceptable in other circumstances? Being a narrow minded bigot causes others no less harm if one is trying to make money from this than if one is being generous with one's ignorance!

I cannot justify discrimination and small minded bigotry just for the purpose of fiscal gain. As such, I cannot accept the age old idea that "to sell a fight, anything goes".

azania wrote:Actually I have admitted to that with Windy, manos, Oxring (once) and one or two others. Only people who know their boxing and adequate social commentators.
To clarify - you only admitted the worth of my logical position once.

I'll get back with a full response later but where have I condoned homophobic abuse?

by Rowley Tue 15 Oct 2013, 8:54 am

Not sure what your issue is on this thread Az, you advocate a harsh stance on any bigotry (your words). Fury has displayed bigotry, people have judged him harshly for it. You should be over the moon.

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 9:08 am

Rowley wrote:Not sure what your issue is on this thread Az, you advocate a harsh stance on any bigotry (your words). Fury has displayed bigotry, people have judged him harshly for it. You should be over the moon.

And I have stated my views on what he said. Some guy joked about his comment on Cruz. It's all good until Fury makes a similar joke. Then it becomes an issue where all must condemn him. Yeah he's a pikey tarmacer. That seems back slapping acceptable bigotry.

by Rowley Tue 15 Oct 2013, 9:29 am

It isn't and if you care to look warnings have been posted about such comments and I will continue to delete comments that use such language. Does not change the fact though that people judged Fury harshly for his bigotry and you wrote a post suggesting quite clearly that people were over reacting, despite them only doing exactly what you have advocated in the past.

by jbeadlesbigrighthand Tue 15 Oct 2013, 9:52 am

azania wrote:
Rowley wrote:Not sure what your issue is on this thread Az, you advocate a harsh stance on any bigotry (your words). Fury has displayed bigotry, people have judged him harshly for it. You should be over the moon.
And I have stated my views on what he said. Some guy joked about his comment on Cruz. It's all good until Fury makes a similar joke. Then it becomes an issue where all must condemn him. Yeah he's a pikey tarmacer. That seems back slapping acceptable bigotry.

But surely if their jokes about Cruz are unacceptable, then so are Fury's comments? You can't condemn other people for holding contradictory views, but then say that both elements of those views are wrong. That's equally contradictory.

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 9:55 am

It's the perception that such words SHOULD be acceptable not if they are permitted here. Those who have used those words feel free to criticise Fury without a hint of irony. Im not referring to fools like lumber man either. And yes people are overreacting. Let he without sin cast the first stone is written somewhere.

by Boxtthis Tue 15 Oct 2013, 9:55 am

Two classic Az argumentative devices on display here:

1/ The Deflect: Faced with clear evidence of your own double standards, point out "here's something that someone else said one time that was wrong"

2/ Blame the Whole Board: Come out with "people on this board think this, etc, etc". No, what you are doing is attributing a few minority voices (the ones that had the most easily refutable stances) to the opinion of the whole board. This is convenient because it a) will usually allow you one or two strands of credibility for your arguments b) will perpetuate the whole 'me vs the world' thing that you love.

I still haven't seen anything that has addressed Gentleman's comment, which for me summed up your behaviour well. All I've seen is you continue to talk in convoluted circles, presumably hoping to get some sort of 'draw' by sheer attrition, while the normal people on here roll their eyes.

Calling others hypocrites is laughable. You are either the world's most patient wind-up merchant or you have serious issues.

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 9:57 am

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:
azania wrote:
Rowley wrote:Not sure what your issue is on this thread Az, you advocate a harsh stance on any bigotry (your words). Fury has displayed bigotry, people have judged him harshly for it. You should be over the moon.
And I have stated my views on what he said. Some guy joked about his comment on Cruz. It's all good until Fury makes a similar joke. Then it becomes an issue where all must condemn him. Yeah he's a pikey tarmacer. That seems back slapping acceptable bigotry.
But surely if their jokes about Cruz are unacceptable, then so are Fury's comments? You can't condemn other people for holding contradictory views, but then say that both elements of those views are wrong. That's equally contradictory.

Neither are acceptable. If Fury made a racist comment the unhinged racists on here would wade in free from irony.

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 10:01 am

Boxtthis wrote:Two classic Az argumentative devices on display here:

1/ The Deflect: Faced with clear evidence of your own double standards, point out "here's something that someone else said one time that was wrong"

2/ Blame the Whole Board: Come out with "people on this board think this, etc, etc". No, what you are doing is attributing a few minority voices (the ones that had the most easily refutable stances) to the opinion of the whole board. This is convenient because it a) will usually allow you one or two strands of credibility for your arguments b) will perpetuate the whole 'me vs the world' thing that you love.

I still haven't seen anything that has addressed Gentleman's comment, which for me summed up your behaviour well. All I've seen is you continue to talk in convoluted circles, presumably hoping to get some sort of 'draw' by sheer attrition, while the normal people on here roll their eyes.

Calling others hypocrites is laughable. You are either the world's most patient wind-up merchant or you have serious issues.

Let's keep it insult free eh. But I'll respond fully to your post during the England game where boredom will lead me back here

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 10:02 am

It was just trash talk from fury. Get over it.

by jbeadlesbigrighthand Tue 15 Oct 2013, 10:07 am

azania wrote:It was just trash talk from fury. Get over it.

But just 2 minutes ago you've replied to my comment saying it was unacceptable. Which is it to be?

For what it's worth, I think Fury is charismatic and a decent enough guy, but not the brightest. As such, I think he has a tendency to say things without thinking about them. I don't think he's a homophobe, though I do think he should apologise for his comments (to gay people, if not to Lewis/ Haye). What hurts Fury is that he has previous for this sort of comment. That's what makes it harder for people to let it go on this occassion.

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 10:27 am

If he was a politician then apologising would be correct. But his job is to beat people up for our pleasure. He will not apologise as that would indicate that the mind games are getting to him. Plus I reckon he is a homophobe.

by Guest Tue 15 Oct 2013, 11:16 am

azania wrote:If he was a politician then apologising would be correct. But his job is to beat people up for our pleasure. He will not apologise as that would indicate that the mind games are getting to him. Plus I reckon he is a homophobe.

If he was any sort of decent human being and mature adult, then apologising would be correct.

Not apologising because "it would indicate the mind games are getting to him" is one of the more ridiculous things you've suggested as Fury seems to be the only one playing mind games at the minute so in essence he's managed to out psyche himself (probably on a par with punching himself in the face in the stupidity stakes)

Apologies to the rest of the board for wading in with my twopen'th as you all appear to have done an admirable job of pointing out Az's massive failure in this task. When you shoot yourself in the foot fella, you use a cannon and take your whole leg off at the hip.

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 11:26 am

Do you know of a boxer who has ever apologised for insulting another boxer prior to a fight?

by Boxtthis Tue 15 Oct 2013, 11:27 am

Yep, best to admit defeat and put this one to bed Az. You've contradicted yourself. Accept it and move on.

by Boxtthis Tue 15 Oct 2013, 11:27 am

azania wrote:Do you know of a boxer who has ever apologised for insulting another boxer prior to a fight?

This isn't the point of this discussion. Nice deflect.

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 11:30 am

Boxtthis wrote:
azania wrote:Do you know of a boxer who has ever apologised for insulting another boxer prior to a fight?
This isn't the point of this discussion. Nice deflect.

I take it the answer is no.

It was a response to dave's comment.

by Boxtthis Tue 15 Oct 2013, 11:46 am

azania wrote:
Boxtthis wrote:
azania wrote:Do you know of a boxer who has ever apologised for insulting another boxer prior to a fight?
This isn't the point of this discussion. Nice deflect.
I take it the answer is no.

It was a response to dave's comment.

I know it was. The point here being that a response to this is largely irrelevant. The real thrust of the discussion is that you have rules that you apply to certain people or situations and completely different ones for other people/situations. It's there in black and white. There are a load of people on this thread alone that have commented on it. In the last page of comments you continue to deride racist comments from the board - you, of all the people on here, are one of the most hardline on speaking up against offensive terms. Fair enough, I say. But, then, in an instant, Fury is ok to make these comments because he not a 'social commentator' (whatever that means) or because 'he's just trash talking'. Which is it then? Or, is it both, and you get to decide when someone is only joking? You argue like a child.....or a schizophrenic.

by Rowley Tue 15 Oct 2013, 11:49 am

Not sure what is so difficult to understand boxthis. His position seems clear

"Of course I agree with harsh stance on any bigotry, unless it is in the context of promoting a fight" Is right up there with "I have a dream"

by Boxtthis Tue 15 Oct 2013, 11:50 am

For the record, I'm not even that bothered about what Fury said here. He's not too bright, but he's bright enough to have realised that doing this sort of thing raises your profile. It seems clear to me that this is what he's doing. It makes him look really stupid, but I guess he's fine with that.

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 11:51 am

Boxtthis wrote:For the record, I'm not even that bothered about what Fury said here. He's not too bright, but he's bright enough to have realised that doing this sort of thing raises your profile. It seems clear to me that this is what he's doing. It makes him look really stupid, but I guess he's fine with that.

Correct

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 11:56 am

Boxtthis wrote:
azania wrote:
Boxtthis wrote:
azania wrote:Do you know of a boxer who has ever apologised for insulting another boxer prior to a fight?
This isn't the point of this discussion. Nice deflect.
I take it the answer is no.

It was a response to dave's comment.
I know it was. The point here being that a response to this is largely irrelevant. The real thrust of the discussion is that you have rules that you apply to certain people or situations and completely different ones for other people/situations. It's there in black and white. There are a load of people on this thread alone that have commented on it. In the last page of comments you continue to deride racist comments from the board - you, of all the people on here, are one of the most hardline on speaking up against offensive terms. Fair enough, I say. But, then, in an instant, Fury is ok to make these comments because he not a 'social commentator' (whatever that means) or because 'he's just trash talking'. Which is it then? Or, is it both, and you get to decide when someone is only joking? You argue like a child.....or a schizophrenic.

Every situation is different. There isn't a one size fits all. But it is a fact on here that fury is judged to different standards.

If you take your morality out of your rwar end you will see that I have criticised fury for his comments.

by joeyjojo618 Tue 15 Oct 2013, 12:04 pm

azania wrote:It was just trash talk from fury. Get over it.

Yes, stinging criticism.

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 12:09 pm

joeyjojo618 wrote:
azania wrote:It was just trash talk from fury. Get over it.
Yes, stinging criticism.

Yes . I'm outraged by his comments. I'm typing faster on my phone to show my outeage. Get over it.

by Lumbering_Jack Tue 15 Oct 2013, 12:15 pm

azania wrote:
joeyjojo618 wrote:
azania wrote:It was just trash talk from fury. Get over it.
Yes, stinging criticism.

Yes . I'm outraged by his comments. I'm typing faster on my phone to show my outeage. Get over it.

Don't play the victim and run to the mods next time. Apply some consistency and you'll be taken seriously.

You been demoted Rowley?

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 12:21 pm

Lumbering_Jack wrote:
azania wrote:
joeyjojo618 wrote:
azania wrote:It was just trash talk from fury. Get over it.
Yes, stinging criticism.

Yes . I'm outraged by his comments. I'm typing faster on my phone to show my outeage. Get over it.
Don't play the victim and run to the mods next time. Apply some consistency and you'll be taken seriously.

You been demoted Rowley?

The gift that keeps on giving.

by Boxtthis Tue 15 Oct 2013, 12:58 pm

Ah the old 'every situation is different' - just like 'everyone has their opinion and yours is no more valid than mine' - its the standard way to simply undermine the very concept of argument in order to deflect the fact that you were wrong/contradictory.

Well I feel that Az has sufficiently made a d!ck of himself on here now. Diminishing returns from here on out. Enjoy.

by bhb001 Tue 15 Oct 2013, 1:10 pm

There is one point I agree strongly with Az on; the term pikey or any deriviative is term of racial abuse. My point is that it is used in a derogatory way to demote the person below that of the user of the term. It is therefore a term of abuse and no longer a descriptive term. I won't use it and cringe when I see or hear other educated people use it and then try to justify it as acceptable.

The fact that he is rightly outraged by the use of this term, but happy enough that someone can use terms that are equally offensive to sell a fight is hard to swallow. Words mean something.

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 1:27 pm

Boxtthis wrote:Ah the old 'every situation is different' - just like 'everyone has their opinion and yours is no more valid than mine' - its the standard way to simply undermine the very concept of argument in order to deflect the fact that you were wrong/contradictory.

Well I feel that Az has sufficiently made a d!ck of himself on here now. Diminishing returns from here on out. Enjoy.

Care to point out where I was wrong?

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 1:31 pm

bhb001 wrote:There is one point I agree strongly with Az on; the term pikey or any deriviative is term of racial abuse. My point is that it is used in a derogatory way to demote the person below that of the user of the term. It is therefore a term of abuse and no longer a descriptive term. I won't use it and cringe when I see or hear other educated people use it and then try to justify it as acceptable.

The fact that he is rightly outraged by the use of this term, but happy enough that someone can use terms that are equally offensive to sell a fight is hard to swallow. Words mean something.

Again. I have criticised fury for his homophobic abuse. I just find it odd that those who are critical of fury see no harm in using terms you described. I wish those people will respond but are strangely silent.

by bhb001 Tue 15 Oct 2013, 1:33 pm

azania wrote:
bhb001 wrote:There is one point I agree strongly with Az on; the term pikey or any deriviative is term of racial abuse. My point is that it is used in a derogatory way to demote the person below that of the user of the term. It is therefore a term of abuse and no longer a descriptive term. I won't use it and cringe when I see or hear other educated people use it and then try to justify it as acceptable.

The fact that he is rightly outraged by the use of this term, but happy enough that someone can use terms that are equally offensive to sell a fight is hard to swallow. Words mean something.
Again. I have criticised fury for his homophobic abuse. I just find it odd that those who are critical of fury see no harm in using terms you described. I wish those people will respond but are strangely silent.

azania wrote:
It was just trash talk from fury.

Hardly damning I'd say

by **oxring** Tue 15 Oct 2013, 1:34 pm

azania wrote:Fury is a boxer. Plain and simple. He is trying to garner interest in himself and therefore his upcoming fight with Haye. He will say anything, however silly to sell the PPV.

azania wrote:If it was someone with a little more intelligence then I would have an issue with it.

There my friend. Both those examples.

Example 1 was in reference to your point re: social commentators, so astutely raised by Gentleman01. Even though you state that you do not approve of the post, you do not condemn it. This position is not logically compatible with your deontological approach to ethics later in the quote - where you request that the opprobrium directed at Fury be directed at all narrow minded bigoted boxers.

Example 2 - again - a moral wrong is a moral wrong. A murder causes no less harm if committed by a child. Any idiot can hold a gun. Stupidity is generally accepted to be no defence.

by **oxring** Tue 15 Oct 2013, 1:35 pm

Rowley wrote:Not sure what is so difficult to understand boxthis. His position seems clear

"Of course I agree with harsh stance on any bigotry, unless it is in the context of promoting a fight" Is right up there with "I have a dream"

Rowley, I salute you. Magnificent.

by JabMachineMK2 Tue 15 Oct 2013, 1:47 pm

Everyone who has contributed to making Az look like such a wally clap

I would have never been able to do so in such a well mannered fashion, particularly impressed with Oxring - that was beautiful.

Allow me to wade slightly into the water. What I've read is.

"Anyone who doesn't adhere to a certain code of ethics is wrong"

"But...you don't adhere to it yourself, you actually condone most of it for various reasons"

"No I don't"

"Yes you do - look"

"No I don't"

Its hilarious watching Az tie himself in knots.

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 1:54 pm

I thought you put me on your foe list or were you attention seeking again?

by JabMachineMK2 Tue 15 Oct 2013, 1:57 pm

As I've explained a few times (I clicked "display this post" as you replied after me, knowing what you'd have said - but still) I have to log in to have you on my foe list, unfortunately nobody has wiped you off the board yet to a permanent foe list for everyone, logged in or not. So I saw everything you posted while NOT logged in, but then when i logged in, you were gone. I can't keep on top of being signed in on every device. Does this make sense? Should i draw you a picture? I'm sure a moderator or admin can confirm you have been on my foe list for a good long time.

I wasn't logged in until I decided to comment, honestly - everyone making you look like the wally you are and you choose that stick to beat me with? How about next you take the urine about Kell Brook? Or harp on about the fact you don't rate some of the ATG's? As we're playing broken records - you may as well play a few classics.

I may have my detractors young man, but honestly - the way you conduct yourself, I'm surprised you're still here.

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 2:02 pm

bhb001 wrote:
azania wrote:
bhb001 wrote:There is one point I agree strongly with Az on; the term pikey or any deriviative is term of racial abuse. My point is that it is used in a derogatory way to demote the person below that of the user of the term. It is therefore a term of abuse and no longer a descriptive term. I won't use it and cringe when I see or hear other educated people use it and then try to justify it as acceptable.

The fact that he is rightly outraged by the use of this term, but happy enough that someone can use terms that are equally offensive to sell a fight is hard to swallow. Words mean something.
Again. I have criticised fury for his homophobic abuse. I just find it odd that those who are critical of fury see no harm in using terms you described. I wish those people will respond but are strangely silent.
azania wrote:
It was just trash talk from fury.

Hardly damning I'd say

So saying he was wrong is not damning enough. If I throw in a few adjectives would that suffice?

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 2:05 pm

JabMachineMK2 wrote:As I've explained a few times (I clicked "display this post" as you replied after me, knowing what you'd have said - but still) I have to log in to have you on my foe list, unfortunately nobody has wiped you off the board yet to a permanent foe list for everyone, logged in or not. So I saw everything you posted while NOT logged in, but then when i logged in, you were gone. I can't keep on top of being signed in on every device. Does this make sense? Should i draw you a picture? I'm sure a moderator or admin can confirm you have been on my foe list for a good long time.

I wasn't logged in until I decided to comment, honestly - everyone making you look like the wally you are and you choose that stick to beat me with? How about next you take the urine about Kell Brook? Or harp on about the fact you don't rate some of the ATG's? As we're playing broken records - you may as well play a few classics.

I may have my detractors young man, but honestly - the way you conduct yourself, I'm surprised you're still here.

Oh dear. More attention seeking. Also I have never used the Brook issue. I found it amusing and tfaux outrage laughable.

by **seanmichaels** Tue 15 Oct 2013, 2:06 pm

This is a bit boring....

by Lumbering_Jack Tue 15 Oct 2013, 2:11 pm

It's like watching a kid argue he didn't eat the biscuits, despite the fact he has crumbs all over his face.

by **Union Cane** Tue 15 Oct 2013, 2:12 pm

seanmichaels wrote:This is a bit boring....

True, but it does keep them all in one place.

by bhb001 Tue 15 Oct 2013, 2:18 pm

azania wrote:
bhb001 wrote:
azania wrote:
bhb001 wrote:There is one point I agree strongly with Az on; the term pikey or any deriviative is term of racial abuse. My point is that it is used in a derogatory way to demote the person below that of the user of the term. It is therefore a term of abuse and no longer a descriptive term. I won't use it and cringe when I see or hear other educated people use it and then try to justify it as acceptable.

The fact that he is rightly outraged by the use of this term, but happy enough that someone can use terms that are equally offensive to sell a fight is hard to swallow. Words mean something.
Again. I have criticised fury for his homophobic abuse. I just find it odd that those who are critical of fury see no harm in using terms you described. I wish those people will respond but are strangely silent.
azania wrote:
It was just trash talk from fury.

Hardly damning I'd say
So saying he was wrong is not damning enough. If I throw in a few adjectives would that suffice?

I've now highlighted where you have "criticised" Fury i.e. explained it away as just trash talk. That is not criticism, that is excuse making.

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 2:20 pm

I said he was wrong. It was also trash talking whether you like it or not.

by azania Tue 15 Oct 2013, 2:26 pm

oxring wrote:
azania wrote:Fury is a boxer. Plain and simple. He is trying to garner interest in himself and therefore his upcoming fight with Haye. He will say anything, however silly to sell the PPV.
azania wrote:If it was someone with a little more intelligence then I would have an issue with it.
There my friend. Both those examples.

Example 1 was in reference to your point re: social commentators, so astutely raised by Gentleman01. Even though you state that you do not approve of the post, you do not condemn it. This position is not logically compatible with your deontological approach to ethics later in the quote - where you request that the opprobrium directed at Fury be directed at all narrow minded bigoted boxers.

Example 2 - again - a moral wrong is a moral wrong. A murder causes no less harm if committed by a child. Any idiot can hold a gun. Stupidity is generally accepted to be no defence.

Eg 1. I have said he was wrong many times. It appears that you're trying to cut pieces of a puzzle to make a picture you want as opposed to the actual picture.
2. I disagree with you totally. If for example an idiot like lumbering jack makes another racist comment ir wouldn't offend me in any way. But if someone like capt C made a racist remark I would take ussue. Simply because lj us a jackass and capt isn't.

If Prince Phillip makes another faux pas would you take offence? I wouldn't.

by david lee Tue 15 Oct 2013, 2:27 pm

it is boxing where the big boys play there goin to be a bit of trash talk sometimes. laughing

by Sponsored content