Fury launches another foul mouthed attack

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/

bhb001 wrote:

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.

Are those my only criticisms of fury or are you being selective?

azania wrote:

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.

But you not taking offence does not make it right!!! So a member of a Royal Family making a racist comment(for example) is ok because he's done it in the past and is considered a bit of an oul fogey meaning no harm?

When someone uses the line of argument you're using I wonder if it's debate you're after or point scoring? In short I haven't said it was ok or fine.

You guys will lambast fury yet ignore the bigoted remarks aimed at him. You condemn his homophobia yet laugh at homophobic jokes about the gay boxer. How do you know he wasn't joking before passing judgement?

Pedro147 wrote:

azania wrote:

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.

But you not taking offence does not make it right!!! So a member of a Royal Family making a racist comment(for example) is ok because he's done it in the past and is considered a bit of an oul fogey meaning no harm?

Was that the one when Prince Phillip asked the Queen what he was thinking of?

azania wrote:When someone uses the line of argument you're using I wonder if it's debate you're after or point scoring? In short I haven't said it was ok or fine.

You guys will lambast fury yet ignore the bigoted remarks aimed at him. You condemn his homophobia yet laugh at homophobic jokes about the gay boxer. How do you know he wasn't joking before passing judgement?

Firstly there is no points scoring. Secondly I don't think any gay jokes being made about Cruz or the gay community in general are ok. Some people might on the board but I don't.
 
The issue here is that you have shown ambiguity by trying to suit your own argument. Everybody on the board has got a prediction wrong or their expectation of a fighter wrong and has admitted it. But when it comes to you with Fury nobody can say anything negative because it means they dislike him as he's from a traveller background. Perhaps the issue is people are treating him like an equal but it's you who is labelling him a traveller and as a justification of why he says these things.
 
I'm not the biggest contributor to the board and there are some people here with fantastic knowledge and insight. But I've stopped reading the board recently because of your blinkered views. I hope the MOD's act and ban you from the forum for the good of the debate.

Oh do belt up. I am not responsible for what others say. I have been critical of him several times but when he is singled out and others get a pass I wonder why.

Quit right Pedro!  This is utilitarianism, plain and simple and Azania loses the moral authority to judge other users as hypocrites.  Through long experience of debating az, over various topics, I know him to be a rather clever fellow and I suspect he is adopting this position to be a trifle provocative.

This is a slightly unusual picture of moral relativism, however.  Classically, outcomes are the most important thing in utilitarianism.  If an action occurs which overall causes harm, it is bad, rather than if it overall causes good.  Here, however, position determines actions - as Fury is known to be less than intelligent, his actions should be understood.  As Fury is not "a social commentator", he must not be condemned.

When Joe Bloggs takes a gun and shoots John Doe, father of two children, loving husband, owner of pets and generous charitable donor - Joe Blogg's intelligence or position in society does not matter.  His charities will be the poorer, his pets as hungry, his children as orphaned and his wife as widowed - whether Bloggs is Secretary General of the United Nations or a homeless meth addict living outside.

Let us say, perhaps, that next year, the final of the British University Boxing Championships are televised on ITV1.  In the final, student 1, a PhD student from Imperial, living in digs in Soho, knocks out his opponent from Plymouth university with a picture perfect right hook.  When interviewed afterwards - says - "I had to KO him, I hate them poofs".

This would, by your logic, azania, be morally wrong.  Student 1 is in a position as a "social commentator" as he holds a respectable position in society and is speaking to a massive audience on terrestrial TV.  Furthermore, he holds a position associated with educational achievement and thus cannot cite lack of intelligence for his stupidity.  The abuse comes after the fight, so cannot be justified to drum up interest in the contest.

If, then, Student 1 makes a homophobic comment before the fight, does that make the comment acceptable?  Student 2, if gay, will be no less upset.  If, rather than students, these were the finalists of "Borstal's got Talent", ITV4's new Saturday night talent show - would the comment be acceptable then?  Boxer 2 is no less likely to be distressed if boxer 1 has the IQ of a drunk gnat.

If users of a boxing board were to give student 1 a free pass because of a beautiful boxing style but condemn boxer 1 - that would indeed by hypocrisy.

By this notion, refusing to condemn boxer 1 whilst stating that student 1 was in the wrong would also be hypocrisy.

As an audience member, condemning others for failing to condemn student 1, whilst refusing to condemn boxer 1, would, again, be hypocrisy.

I do enjoy an analogous philosophical aside - but to draw this back to the present argument - sub Floyd/Rahman for student 1 and Fury for boxer 1 - and we are drawn back to the original topic for discussion.

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

Is that really your counter argument? Should Fury refuse to apologise because no-one else ever has? Superb!

Anyway, didn't Mike Tyson apologise for the things he said/did to Lennox Lewis in the build-up to their fight?

Someone should send this thread to Fury. He would laugh himself silly.

I don't want Azania banned. Just because I (and most people on here apparently) disagree with him on lots of issues is not grounds for banning. If you think he is a WUM, then ignore him. If you think he is wrong, then debate him. When it becomes boring, go and have a cup of tea.

I prefer a board where the Az's of this world (and Winchesters and Gordys etc) are allowed to have their say. Ban people for abuse, but not for having a different opinion which they refuse to change even in the face of over whelming logic! Winchester was never abusive, I believe. Annoying and boring in his single opinion, but never abusive from my memory. I just hope he moved on and was not "encouraged" by our moderators. I don't find Az abusive either, so wish him to stay on the board as long as he wants to.

Remember D4 the irritating little scamp? He actually was a WUM - who would twist and turn any debate about any historical boxer into one where we might discuss his favourite fighters.

Azania is a bit of a contrarian - but he is not one track minded and in my experience (I accept I haven't been around much for 12 months+) - is generally willing to discuss any topic.

He remains wrong that Marciano was overhyped, that Fitzsimmons was nothing more than a drunken blacksmith and that club fighters of the 80s would have beaten Greb - but we all have our little eccentricities.

Vive le debat!

He is abusive, he's called plenty of people idiots etc. Not ban worthy though. What happened to coxy anyway? We need him before RJJ love gets out of hand.

The issue is not that I don't agree with everything he says, that's the basis for any forum but it's the mindless comments that follow a thread he comments on. Something is posted about Price and he manages to turn that into a comment about his chin and people dislike Fury and Khan because of their backgrounds even though it was a thread about Price for example.
 
I'm not doubting his knowledge of boxing and he can add value without doubt.

Pedro147 wrote:I'm not doubting his knowledge of boxing.

Well, why not?