Fury is a role model

by tunes666 Mon 07 Dec 2015, 1:24 am

First topic message reminder :

Loved this interview.

[spoiler="https]

Just beat the greatest and now world champ, and the whole team still down to earth and cool guys. I don't know why he gets so many haters...

by **ShahenshahG** Thu 10 Dec 2015, 10:28 am

Its the F*cking gyppo curse

by Guest Thu 10 Dec 2015, 10:29 am

Perhaps Tunes' dyslexia is making some of the arguments more difficult to comprehend or maybe he's just up for a ruck

by Guest Thu 10 Dec 2015, 10:32 am

Shah you f*cking ignorant darkie ****...it's gypo not gyppo. Bloody hell fire!

I'm gonna get that f*cking flouncy screaming queen Sean to come round your gaff and bum you to death now!

by TopHat24/7 Thu 10 Dec 2015, 10:34 am

Did Fury actually compare or correlate homosexuality with paedophilia or did he just chuck them in the same pot of derision??

Maybe I've not read the right quotes, but it seemed to me like he didn't like either, both being 'bad' or 'wrong' in his opinion, and that those partaking in either would/should end up in hell (a notional concept restricted to those of a religious persuasion).

I may simply be wrong here, but I haven't read/heard Fury say "all homos are pedos and being a homo turns you into a pedo and vice versa".

by **ShahenshahG** Thu 10 Dec 2015, 10:35 am

DAVE667 wrote:Shah you f*cking ignorant darkie ****...it's gypo not gyppo. Bloody hell fire!

I'm gonna get that f*cking flouncy screaming queen Sean to come round your gaff and bum you to death now!

Sean is a lovely bloke but he likes to take rather than give. I'm not inclined that way plus you could probably fit a big yellow storage through Sean's arseh*le so there's no pleasure in it for any that are.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 10 Dec 2015, 10:43 am

Young gay men find it hard to deal with their homophobia without someone equating it to Paedo-philia.....

Young gay men are 30 times more likely to kill themselves than their young heterosexual counterparts..(Stonewall 2012 study)

The independent newspaper also found that young gay men are three times more likely to self harm than young heterosexual men...

The only slack you can cut him is to say he's an uneducated, ignorant idiot...

by Hammersmith harrier Thu 10 Dec 2015, 10:53 am

Fury will be under the spotlight more than Mayweather or Pacquiao because he's an Englishmen making the comments in England
Yet another way to try and excuse him for being an idiot.

by tunes666 Thu 10 Dec 2015, 10:59 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Do people even know what Freedom of Speech is? It does not allow you to say whatever you want, hate speech which this was is a crime.

I'm anything but liberal but that seems your one and only argument.

Well actually it does mean you can say what ever you want, thats why its called "free Speech".

Speaking does not assault people.

If within that free speech you promote crime, or admit to crime then your free speech becomes an issue.

for example if Fury said, I like to attack gay people. Then that would be hate speech and promoting criminal activity..

what we are seeing is because our freedoms are being shrunk, then we also see free speech shrink.

I tend to use mine up while I have it... Its funny how some have brought up Hitler, When currently we have a government preparing to insert a law which meansd they can arrest and outlaw any group they find extreme or divisive, if you have trouble defining that thats because its not possible.

And there for if anyone starts a party the government does not like, they do not need to rely on media assassination, but can go for the juggler and ban them.... This of course will also lead to no free speech!

Go Fury!

by DuransHorse Thu 10 Dec 2015, 11:00 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Young gay men find it hard to deal with their homophobia without someone equating it to Paedo-philia.....

Young gay men are 30 times more likely to kill themselves than their young heterosexual counterparts..(Stonewall 2012 study)

The independent newspaper also found that young gay men are three times more likely to self harm than young heterosexual men...

The only slack you can cut him is to say he's an uneducated, ignorant idiot...

I agree he's an uneducated, ignorant idiot.

Given that society may never irradicate prejudice, certainly not for many hundreds of years, what would you like to happen or change? Do we have freedom of speech... but not on certain topics? If so, who decides what topics? In most cases, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and in this case the needs of the many are represented by freedom of speech and expression within legal boundaries and the needs of the few are those that might ( I stress might!! ) take their own lives of the back of such words.

Freedom of speech largely represents our freedoms in general.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 10 Dec 2015, 11:04 am

I already put down the example of "Dr Tiller the Babykiller" and how a fox news loony nut viewer shot him dead.......

I agree with freedom of speech but hate speech like that can be very dangerous to a sensitive minority.......

Posters on here say get over it..............Tell that to Parents of kids they find dead in a bedroom or garage....

by Hammersmith harrier Thu 10 Dec 2015, 11:07 am

It doesn't mean that in the slightest Tunes and hasn't for well over 40 years, if you wish to promote hate speech then that says an awful lot about you. I doubt you have the intelligence to understand that.

by DuransHorse Thu 10 Dec 2015, 11:08 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I already put down the example of "Dr Tiller the Babykiller" and how a fox news loony nut viewer shot him dead.......

I agree with freedom of speech but hate speech like that can be very dangerous to a sensitive minority.......

Posters on here say get over it..............Tell that to Parents of kids they find dead in a bedroom or garage....

There are over 7 billion people on the planet, TRUSS. Well done for highlight the plight of 1 and concluding the debate.

by Scottrf Thu 10 Dec 2015, 11:18 am

tunes666 wrote:
Well actually it does mean you can say what ever you want, thats why its called "free Speech".

Indeed and when we say bee's knees we are talking about joints on a flying insect.

by milkyboy Thu 10 Dec 2015, 11:22 am

tunes666 wrote:
milkyboy wrote:If that's how Hitler treated second class citizens Dave what did he do to the ones he really didn't like.

Wasting your breath here I'm afraid all of you. There's a few members of the flat earth society on this place and no-one's changing their minds on anything anytime soon.

And Hitler comes up, never seems to fail that one!... if your loosing an argument, bring up Hitler and WW2!, the big bad Christian... nothing like a 75 year old war to assess the current state of affairs!

The Lefties never like to bring up Stalin and Meo though, both Atheists I might add, and apx 40m second class citizens dead between them...

Dave used a nazi example and I replied to him in a lighthearted manner tunes... You just seemed to get a bit confused over it and thought I was using hitler to counter your argument. I don't need adolf's help for that.

As to why the debate is ongoing. There are two points being argued:

1. Was fury wrong to say what he did

2. How best to deal with it... Should such comments be outlawed or allowed because of 'free speech' and so that the issues can be debated/educated.

On point 1, pretty much everyone except tunes is in agreement.
On point 2, opinion is divided.

The third and most obvious reason the debate is ongoing is that it's 606, arguing is what we do.

by DuransHorse Thu 10 Dec 2015, 11:29 am

milkyboy wrote:
tunes666 wrote:
milkyboy wrote:If that's how Hitler treated second class citizens Dave what did he do to the ones he really didn't like.

Wasting your breath here I'm afraid all of you. There's a few members of the flat earth society on this place and no-one's changing their minds on anything anytime soon.

And Hitler comes up, never seems to fail that one!... if your loosing an argument, bring up Hitler and WW2!, the big bad Christian... nothing like a 75 year old war to assess the current state of affairs!

The Lefties never like to bring up Stalin and Meo though, both Atheists I might add, and apx 40m second class citizens dead between them...

Dave used a nazi example and I replied to him in a lighthearted manner tunes... You just seemed to get a bit confused over it and thought I was using hitler to counter your argument. I don't need adolf's help for that.

As to why the debate is ongoing. There are two points being argued:

1. Was fury wrong to say what he did

2. How best to deal with it... Should such comments be outlawed or allowed because of 'free speech' and so that the issues can be debated/educated.

On point 1, pretty much everyone except tunes is in agreement.
On point 2, opinion is divided.

The third and most obvious reason the debate is ongoing is that it's 606, arguing is what we do.

Milky, on point 2, if any one of us on a boxing forum can conclusively answer how we stop ONLY the desired comments from being shared without inhibiting the rights of every person in the country, I'll happily walk bollock naked into Tyson's caravan, bend over and demand he treat me like the real woman I desire to be!

by Noble-Surfer Thu 10 Dec 2015, 11:39 am

I think Steve Hughes sums this up best:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fHMoDt3nSHs

by Guest Thu 10 Dec 2015, 11:48 am

tunes666 wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Do people even know what Freedom of Speech is? It does not allow you to say whatever you want, hate speech which this was is a crime.

I'm anything but liberal but that seems your one and only argument.

Well actually it does mean you can say what ever you want, thats why its called "free Speech".

Speaking does not assault people.

If within that free speech you promote crime, or admit to crime then your free speech becomes an issue.

for example if Fury said, I like to attack gay people. Then that would be hate speech and promoting criminal activity..

what we are seeing is because our freedoms are being shrunk, then we also see free speech shrink.

I tend to use mine up while I have it... Its funny how some have brought up Hitler, When currently we have a government preparing to insert a law which meansd they can arrest and outlaw any group they find extreme or divisive, if you have trouble defining that thats because its not possible.

And there for if anyone starts a party the government does not like, they do not need to rely on media assassination, but can go for the juggler and ban them.... This of course will also lead to no free speech!

Go Fury!

Really? Why, then, do we have the words "libel" and "slander"? An assault does not have to be physical to cause irreparable damage. For a self proclaimed intelligent person, you do seem incredibly daft

Tunes wrote:Its funny how some have brought up Hitler, When currently we have a government preparing to insert a law which meansd they can arrest and outlaw any group they find extreme or divisive, if you have trouble defining that thats because its not possible.

That's as maybe however, homosexuals aren't an extreme or divisive group, they aren't a concept or a group of misguided idealists. They are human beings with different sexual preferences to (I believe) the majority of people yet use of the term "gay" is used, by some, to imply their inferiority...is that acceptable to you? Tyson Fury has used this term himself and been fined by the BBBof C. Therefore, he will have been told that there are standards of acceptability and, more importantly, common bloody decency, that people are expected to adhere to. He will have been under no illusion that this term, when used in that context, is offensive and unacceptable. However, he has still seen fit to mention homosexuals in a manner which again implies that it wrong, unnatural or un-Godly (whatever that's meant to mean). It's offensive and those remarks have been hurtful to a great number of people. Yes, others have heard his comments and chosen not to take offence but just because they haven't does it make his remarks any less hurtful to those it HAS offended.

by milkyboy Thu 10 Dec 2015, 11:55 am

The DuransHorse wrote:
milkyboy wrote:
tunes666 wrote:
milkyboy wrote:If that's how Hitler treated second class citizens Dave what did he do to the ones he really didn't like.

Wasting your breath here I'm afraid all of you. There's a few members of the flat earth society on this place and no-one's changing their minds on anything anytime soon.

And Hitler comes up, never seems to fail that one!... if your loosing an argument, bring up Hitler and WW2!, the big bad Christian... nothing like a 75 year old war to assess the current state of affairs!

The Lefties never like to bring up Stalin and Meo though, both Atheists I might add, and apx 40m second class citizens dead between them...

Dave used a nazi example and I replied to him in a lighthearted manner tunes... You just seemed to get a bit confused over it and thought I was using hitler to counter your argument. I don't need adolf's help for that.

As to why the debate is ongoing. There are two points being argued:

1. Was fury wrong to say what he did

2. How best to deal with it... Should such comments be outlawed or allowed because of 'free speech' and so that the issues can be debated/educated.

On point 1, pretty much everyone except tunes is in agreement.
On point 2, opinion is divided.

The third and most obvious reason the debate is ongoing is that it's 606, arguing is what we do.

Milky, on point 2, if any one of us on a boxing forum can conclusively answer how we stop ONLY the desired comments from being shared without inhibiting the rights of every person in the country, I'll happily walk bollock naked into Tyson's caravan, bend over and demand he treat me like the real woman I desire to be!

... that would get a few ppv buys

by DuransHorse Thu 10 Dec 2015, 11:57 am

DAVE667 wrote:
tunes666 wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Do people even know what Freedom of Speech is? It does not allow you to say whatever you want, hate speech which this was is a crime.

I'm anything but liberal but that seems your one and only argument.

Well actually it does mean you can say what ever you want, thats why its called "free Speech".

Speaking does not assault people.

If within that free speech you promote crime, or admit to crime then your free speech becomes an issue.

for example if Fury said, I like to attack gay people. Then that would be hate speech and promoting criminal activity..

what we are seeing is because our freedoms are being shrunk, then we also see free speech shrink.

I tend to use mine up while I have it... Its funny how some have brought up Hitler, When currently we have a government preparing to insert a law which meansd they can arrest and outlaw any group they find extreme or divisive, if you have trouble defining that thats because its not possible.

And there for if anyone starts a party the government does not like, they do not need to rely on media assassination, but can go for the juggler and ban them.... This of course will also lead to no free speech!

Go Fury!

Really? Why, then, do we have the words "libel" and "slander"? An assault does not have to be physical to cause irreparable damage. For a self proclaimed intelligent person, you do seem incredibly daft

Tunes wrote:Its funny how some have brought up Hitler, When currently we have a government preparing to insert a law which meansd they can arrest and outlaw any group they find extreme or divisive, if you have trouble defining that thats because its not possible.
That's as maybe however, homosexuals aren't an extreme or divisive group, they aren't a concept or a group of misguided idealists. They are human beings with different sexual preferences to (I believe) the majority of people yet use of the term "gay" is used, by some, to imply their inferiority...is that acceptable to you? Tyson Fury has used this term himself and been fined by the BBBof C. Therefore, he will have been told that there are standards of acceptability and, more importantly, common bloody decency, that people are expected to adhere to. He will have been under no illusion that this term, when used in that context, is offensive and unacceptable. However, he has still seen fit to mention homosexuals in a manner which again implies that it wrong, unnatural or un-Godly (whatever that's meant to mean). It's offensive and those remarks have been hurtful to a great number of people. Yes, others have heard his comments and chosen not to take offence but just because they haven't does it make his remarks any less hurtful to those it HAS offended.

I will just say that the BBBC are much like an employer. Employers have different standards and can act upon stipulations in their contracts if employees fail to adhere to their rules and regulations they signed up to.

If I get a tattoo I could get fired, in theory at least. I'm not even sure what getting a tattoo would symbolise to my employer? Given this fact, I would stress that any BBBC fine is a private and contractual matter and does not conclude any legal guilt.

by EX7EY Thu 10 Dec 2015, 11:58 am

This board has surprised me. Did Fury actually liken homosexuals to peados? No he didn't.

The World today makes me sick. We are forced to conform and think the same thoughts.

People have different thoughts and beliefs and we should be able to express those opinions and if others don't like it they should move on. Its not like the mans come out and said gay people should be burned on a cross is it? Jesus.

I am not anti anybody, for me its each to their own, but do I agree with everything that goes on in the World today? No I don't. Should I be allowed to express it, yes I should. If someone asked me a question on my views about an issue they'd get an honest answer, you don't see me on the Streets in protest about things though spouting hate.

Its fine being a tolerant socitet but we should also be tolerant of every bodies views and beliefs not just the views that conform to the norm.

Let the man box, and don't ask him his opinions on anything else if you don't like answers other than your own beliefs. Sickens me.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 10 Dec 2015, 12:08 pm

"Them three things abortion, homosexuality and pedop***lia need to be accomplished before the world ends"....

There is plenty of scum on this board Dave, Milky and Hammer..........I'm not likening Hammer to Dave though.... Cool

by EX7EY Thu 10 Dec 2015, 12:13 pm

TRUSS just because he put them in the same sentence doesn't mean he holds them as equals does it?

He might strongly disagree with them all but I very seriously doubt he finds homosexuality as abhorrent as peadophillia. I mean seriously does anybody actually think that?

He's a normal bloke, from a travelling background. He's not someone who's been through the PR machine like AJ for example and I doubt he wants to.

I think its been blown way over the top personally.

by Guest Thu 10 Dec 2015, 12:23 pm

DuransHorse wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
tunes666 wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Do people even know what Freedom of Speech is? It does not allow you to say whatever you want, hate speech which this was is a crime.

I'm anything but liberal but that seems your one and only argument.

Well actually it does mean you can say what ever you want, thats why its called "free Speech".

Speaking does not assault people.

If within that free speech you promote crime, or admit to crime then your free speech becomes an issue.

for example if Fury said, I like to attack gay people. Then that would be hate speech and promoting criminal activity..

what we are seeing is because our freedoms are being shrunk, then we also see free speech shrink.

I tend to use mine up while I have it... Its funny how some have brought up Hitler, When currently we have a government preparing to insert a law which meansd they can arrest and outlaw any group they find extreme or divisive, if you have trouble defining that thats because its not possible.

And there for if anyone starts a party the government does not like, they do not need to rely on media assassination, but can go for the juggler and ban them.... This of course will also lead to no free speech!

Go Fury!

Really? Why, then, do we have the words "libel" and "slander"? An assault does not have to be physical to cause irreparable damage. For a self proclaimed intelligent person, you do seem incredibly daft

Tunes wrote:Its funny how some have brought up Hitler, When currently we have a government preparing to insert a law which meansd they can arrest and outlaw any group they find extreme or divisive, if you have trouble defining that thats because its not possible.
That's as maybe however, homosexuals aren't an extreme or divisive group, they aren't a concept or a group of misguided idealists. They are human beings with different sexual preferences to (I believe) the majority of people yet use of the term "gay" is used, by some, to imply their inferiority...is that acceptable to you? Tyson Fury has used this term himself and been fined by the BBBof C. Therefore, he will have been told that there are standards of acceptability and, more importantly, common bloody decency, that people are expected to adhere to. He will have been under no illusion that this term, when used in that context, is offensive and unacceptable. However, he has still seen fit to mention homosexuals in a manner which again implies that it wrong, unnatural or un-Godly (whatever that's meant to mean). It's offensive and those remarks have been hurtful to a great number of people. Yes, others have heard his comments and chosen not to take offence but just because they haven't does it make his remarks any less hurtful to those it HAS offended.

I will just say that the BBBC are much like an employer. Employers have different standards and can act upon stipulations in their contracts if employees fail to adhere to their rules and regulations they signed up to.

If I get a tattoo I could get fired, in theory at least. I'm not even sure what getting a tattoo would symbolise to my employer? Given this fact, I would stress that any BBBC fine is a private and contractual matter and does not conclude any legal guilt.

Is it likely the BBBofC has a vastly different view on standards of decency to the rest of "civilized" society? I'd suggest the majority of employers are against language or behavior likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. We're not talking about Fury using wrong fork at their annual dinner.

by DuransHorse Thu 10 Dec 2015, 12:33 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Them three things abortion, homosexuality and pedop***lia need to be accomplished before the world ends"....

There is plenty of scum on this board Dave, Milky and Hammer..........I'm not likening Hammer to Dave though....

Fury was speaking more like a prophetic, Nostradamus loon than an evil, 'lynch em', wannabe dictator, TRUSS.

by DuransHorse Thu 10 Dec 2015, 12:37 pm

DAVE667 wrote:
DuransHorse wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
tunes666 wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Do people even know what Freedom of Speech is? It does not allow you to say whatever you want, hate speech which this was is a crime.

I'm anything but liberal but that seems your one and only argument.

Well actually it does mean you can say what ever you want, thats why its called "free Speech".

Speaking does not assault people.

If within that free speech you promote crime, or admit to crime then your free speech becomes an issue.

for example if Fury said, I like to attack gay people. Then that would be hate speech and promoting criminal activity..

what we are seeing is because our freedoms are being shrunk, then we also see free speech shrink.

I tend to use mine up while I have it... Its funny how some have brought up Hitler, When currently we have a government preparing to insert a law which meansd they can arrest and outlaw any group they find extreme or divisive, if you have trouble defining that thats because its not possible.

And there for if anyone starts a party the government does not like, they do not need to rely on media assassination, but can go for the juggler and ban them.... This of course will also lead to no free speech!

Go Fury!

Really? Why, then, do we have the words "libel" and "slander"? An assault does not have to be physical to cause irreparable damage. For a self proclaimed intelligent person, you do seem incredibly daft

Tunes wrote:Its funny how some have brought up Hitler, When currently we have a government preparing to insert a law which meansd they can arrest and outlaw any group they find extreme or divisive, if you have trouble defining that thats because its not possible.
That's as maybe however, homosexuals aren't an extreme or divisive group, they aren't a concept or a group of misguided idealists. They are human beings with different sexual preferences to (I believe) the majority of people yet use of the term "gay" is used, by some, to imply their inferiority...is that acceptable to you? Tyson Fury has used this term himself and been fined by the BBBof C. Therefore, he will have been told that there are standards of acceptability and, more importantly, common bloody decency, that people are expected to adhere to. He will have been under no illusion that this term, when used in that context, is offensive and unacceptable. However, he has still seen fit to mention homosexuals in a manner which again implies that it wrong, unnatural or un-Godly (whatever that's meant to mean). It's offensive and those remarks have been hurtful to a great number of people. Yes, others have heard his comments and chosen not to take offence but just because they haven't does it make his remarks any less hurtful to those it HAS offended.

I will just say that the BBBC are much like an employer. Employers have different standards and can act upon stipulations in their contracts if employees fail to adhere to their rules and regulations they signed up to.

If I get a tattoo I could get fired, in theory at least. I'm not even sure what getting a tattoo would symbolise to my employer? Given this fact, I would stress that any BBBC fine is a private and contractual matter and does not conclude any legal guilt.
Is it likely the BBBofC has a vastly different view on standards of decency to the rest of "civilized" society? I'd suggest the majority of employers are against language or behavior likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. We're not talking about Fury using wrong fork at their annual dinner.

No. I wasn't arguing that at all, Dave. All I was saying was that it's not the same as being legally prosecuted, which I doubt he will be.

by tunes666 Thu 10 Dec 2015, 12:41 pm

catchweight wrote:Lets be honest though, a lot people are only getting their knickers in a twist because its tyson fury and he made a lot of people look like clowns. Pacquiao has expressed similar christian driven anti homosexuality views. Mayweather has done time for woman beating ( not saying they look good in a dress) and has had racist rants. People pick and choose what they want to be offended to based on their own preferences.

*Hits like button*

by TopHat24/7 Thu 10 Dec 2015, 12:42 pm

Not sure how he can be legally prosecuted for anything?

He hasn't incited anything he's just stated his views (as disagreeable as they may be to most). He's also not taken any action that can be considered discriminatory (e.g. refused to employ a gay person by reason of their sexual preference).

by TopHat24/7 Thu 10 Dec 2015, 12:46 pm

EX7EY wrote:TRUSS just because he put them in the same sentence doesn't mean he holds them as equals does it?

That was the point I was trying to get at.

Assumed I must simply be wrong as everyone kept ignoring it........

by EX7EY Thu 10 Dec 2015, 12:52 pm

Yes tophat people on here tend to ignore lots of posts on here unless they are of the same view or they're slanging back and forth insults with their usual sparring partner.

by **ShahenshahG** Thu 10 Dec 2015, 12:55 pm

EX7EY wrote:Yes tophat people on here tend to ignore lots of posts on here unless they are of the same view or they're slanging back and forth insults with their usual sparring partner.

F*ck you tophat

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 10 Dec 2015, 12:58 pm

tunes666 wrote:
catchweight wrote:Lets be honest though, a lot people are only getting their knickers in a twist because its tyson fury and he made a lot of people look like clowns. Pacquiao has expressed similar christian driven anti homosexuality views. Mayweather has done time for woman beating ( not saying they look good in a dress) and has had racist rants. People pick and choose what they want to be offended to based on their own preferences.

*Hits like button*

What a cheap, immature argument.......

Perhaps you need to be a Father or have some level of maturity to comment on this....

I posted statistics earlier on how... many young gay people are sensitive and vulnerable..................Being put in the same sentence as Pedos is really beyond contempt...

Seems to be only kids and bitter morons left on the shelf at 30 that just don't seem to get it !!..

by tunes666 Thu 10 Dec 2015, 1:01 pm

DAVE667 wrote:
Given Hitler famously expressed his opinions in a book that was "recommended reading" for his followers, I'd suggest that certain opinions and beliefs, can indeed lead to death and war and other such inconveniences....especially when some of the people reading/hearing them aren't intellectually equipped to process the information they're taking in.

So you are saying that WW2 only happened because of the book Hitler wrote? Had that book not been written Stalin was killing lots of people before the war and after as was Meo and there is nothing to say that they also would not have stretched their "goals" further if the scenario in Europe was different at that time. also, such books still exist today and are not against the law, they have done for 60 years with no major issues, no wars as a result, and not been another mass killing, So this all shows that its not free speech that killed all the people, and also not just one ideology.

what Liberal Extremists do, is attack any right wing flavored ideology and brand it as a Nazi threat.
But at the same time they will uphold other ideologies but not hold them up to previous left wing dictatorships.

Point being, to hold free speech accountable for a 75 year old war crime, should also mean it should be held accountable for the other crimes of those days via other ideologies...

main point, wars are not caused by free speech, they are caused by conflicting groups of power. And to act like there should only be one group of power dictating "free speech" and hence oppressing opposition, brings us back around to the very kind of power you have expressed fear of.

Debate and speech is the answer and left and right should learn lessons of the past.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 10 Dec 2015, 1:05 pm

You don't have to be a liberal extremist to be able to acknowledge homophobia is wrong.

by Guest Thu 10 Dec 2015, 1:09 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:Not sure how he can be legally prosecuted for anything?

He hasn't incited anything he's just stated his views (as disagreeable as they may be to most). He's also not taken any action that can be considered discriminatory (e.g. refused to employ a gay person by reason of their sexual preference).

His comments have been perceived as homophobic by the person(s) who reported him. Once reported, the Police have a duty to investigate it and their job will be to see whether or not the comments were deliberately intended to cause offence. Even in someone was to go on a rampage and start attacking homosexuals then say "Tyson Fury made me do it!" They would have to prove that Fury's intention was to deliberately incite that person to attack people. However, stuff like that is as near impossible to prove as it is to prove Marilyn Manson told these kids that run amok in High Schools with weapons to do it.

by tunes666 Thu 10 Dec 2015, 1:11 pm

milkyboy wrote:
As to why the debate is ongoing. There are two points being argued:

1. Was fury wrong to say what he did

No, he was expressing his opinion, did he maybe world him self harshly, maybe a little, and that could have been rectified on the spot but the interviewer who also patched other interviews to the report, obviously was looking for dirt.

2. How best to deal with it... Should such comments be outlawed or allowed because of 'free speech' and so that the issues can be debated/educated.

No, I think if anything should be outlawed it should be when journalists are proven to distort and misquote and it can be proven.

On point 1, pretty much everyone except tunes is in agreement.

not all, but I do seem to be the only one who is not afraid of offending gay people who are too easily offended. especially as in this day and age very few gays have suffered any real kind of oppression anyway... more kids suffer r*** than gays suffer abuse... So I focused more on those parts of Furies comments.

The third and most obvious reason the debate is ongoing is that it's 606, arguing is what we do.

one of the wonders of free speech!

by Guest Thu 10 Dec 2015, 1:14 pm

tunes666 wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
Given Hitler famously expressed his opinions in a book that was "recommended reading" for his followers, I'd suggest that certain opinions and beliefs, can indeed lead to death and war and other such inconveniences....especially when some of the people reading/hearing them aren't intellectually equipped to process the information they're taking in.

So you are saying that WW2 only happened because of the book Hitler wrote? Had that book not been written Stalin was killing lots of people before the war and after as was Meo and there is nothing to say that they also would not have stretched their "goals" further if the scenario in Europe was different at that time. also, such books still exist today and are not against the law, they have done for 60 years with no major issues, no wars as a result, and not been another mass killing, So this all shows that its not free speech that killed all the people, and also not just one ideology.

what Liberal Extremists do, is attack any right wing flavored ideology and brand it as a Nazi threat.
But at the same time they will uphold other ideologies but not hold them up to previous left wing dictatorships.

Point being, to hold free speech accountable for a 75 year old war crime, should also mean it should be held accountable for the other crimes of those days via other ideologies...

main point, wars are not caused by free speech, they are caused by conflicting groups of power. And to act like there should only be one group of power dictating "free speech" and hence oppressing opposition, brings us back around to the very kind of power you have expressed fear of.

Debate and speech is the answer and left and right should learn lessons of the past.

No, I'm saying that the subjugation of the Jews, Communists, Homosexuals and Gypsies and their forced repatriation into camps was caused by one man's ideology being blindly followed by enough stupid people to make it a reality.

by milkyboy Thu 10 Dec 2015, 1:16 pm

ShahenshahG wrote:
EX7EY wrote:Yes tophat people on here tend to ignore lots of posts on here unless they are of the same view or they're slanging back and forth insults with their usual sparring partner.

F*ck you tophat

While I have empathy with the point, maybe 15000 post, 'picks a fight with anybody' tophat isnt the best example going. Wink

i've defended fury in the past, and expressed my view that he was a lot better fighter than given credit for. I haven't been embarrassed by his performance against wlad. I'm embarrassed by what he's said.

Yeh people have said worse, yeh he's not inciting hate crimes, but he's voicing some unacceptable opinions. No he didn't say homosexuality is as bad as Paedophilia. But he did say they are two of the three things required to bring hell. To me that's lumping them together in a not too positive fashion.

No doubt that his new position means his comments get greater scrutiny. All the more reason to keep his unsavoury ones to himself.

by Guest Thu 10 Dec 2015, 1:17 pm

tunes wrote:especially as in this day and age very few gays have suffered any real kind of oppression anyway... more kids suffer r*** than gays suffer abuse

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 10 Dec 2015, 1:26 pm

How can he quantify a statement like that..

He's the thickest of the thick..

by tunes666 Thu 10 Dec 2015, 1:27 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:You don't have to be a liberal extremist to be able to acknowledge homophobia is wrong.

You do to falsely accuse someone of having homophobia. And to accuse people who do not approve of homosexuality as being homophobic.

It does not bother me, but I think mutual assessment on what it actually is is a free debate. for sure we understand most Gay people are helpless in their sexuality and there for must not be condemned and persecuted. This does not mean assessment and opinion on what it is should be persecuted.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 10 Dec 2015, 1:30 pm

Fury is homophobic.

And you're now saying some people choose to be gay? Oh dear.

by ONETWOFOREVER Thu 10 Dec 2015, 2:15 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Fury is homophobic.

And you're now saying some people choose to be gay? Oh dear.

Fury is entitled to his views his problem is he chose to air them in the public domain.

Fury needs to learn how to play the game, he needs media training thats all.

Ali, back in his pomp flat out called white people devils in Parkinsons face (I mean the television personality Michael Parkinson) that was back in the 70's. Backstage before participating in a television show to promote their upcoming fight, he asked Chuck Wepner if he would stir the pot,as it were, and call him a n***er, Chuck refused but it highlights how much things have changed.

You cant say the like of what Fury said and expect to be invited onto strictly come dancing or something.

by **seanmichaels** Thu 10 Dec 2015, 2:24 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Fury is homophobic.

And you're now saying some people choose to be gay? Oh dear.

The gayer voice is not natural so I expect in at least someway they choose to bowl from the pavilion end.

by kingraf Thu 10 Dec 2015, 2:26 pm

Even if people choose to be gay... So what? There's nothing wrong with choosing your sexual orientation, Personally I think gay people are great because they cross out the competition.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 10 Dec 2015, 2:29 pm

Ali was condemned for those stupid remarks too......"All whites are the devil...who have we raped ??...who have we slaved ??"

Takes a complete special to not know that black people have enslaved and raped.....

Fury's comments were aimed at a small minority...many of whom are sensitive and vulnerable.......

They don't need bracketing with scum like Pedos..

by No 7&1/2 Thu 10 Dec 2015, 2:30 pm

When did you choose to be heterosexual?

by kingraf Thu 10 Dec 2015, 2:31 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:When did you choose to be heterosexual?

When Sergio Martinez retired

by ONETWOFOREVER Thu 10 Dec 2015, 2:34 pm

kingraf wrote:Even if people choose to be gay... So what? There's nothing wrong with choosing your sexual orientation, Personally I think gay people are great because they cross out the competition.

What choice???

for man woman for woman man

or is there another species of human I should know about?

by **ShahenshahG** Thu 10 Dec 2015, 2:34 pm

kingraf wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:When did you choose to be heterosexual?

When Sergio Martinez retired

by Hammersmith harrier Thu 10 Dec 2015, 2:37 pm

I think anyone can atest to the fact I am anything but a liberal and it's a cheap infantile argument to label anyone who disagrees with homophobia as such.

by Sponsored content