Tyson Fury

Has he lost his belt or had it nicked and weighed in by one of his mates?
 
City Raider said:
The hypocrisy with this particular award is worse. Apparently it was morally ok to give it to a man who slept with his brothers wife. It seems actions don't speak louder than words.
Click to expand...

Exactly, total mind blowing.
 
Yates said:
Tell you what, how hypocritical are we as a society? People hounding out Fury because they don't like his views yet expect others to adhere to theirs? If he's against homosexuality, that's his issue. Also I thought it was "Sports" personality not Personality award. Let's judge every contender with the same measuring stick used on Fury so we can cut out the double standards. I personally don't care for the award just don't like seeing blatant double standards and hypocrisy. I also feel some of what he comes away with is just to build his persona, make himself a polarizing character so people tune into his fights to either boo or cheer, not too dissimilar to how Wrestling works.
Click to expand...

I think the double standards and hypocrisy argument cuts both ways though. The BBC's position that it's based purely on sporting achievement suggests that there's NOTHING he could say that would see him excluded from the list. I just don't believe that. I think if he'd made similar comments about people of different races he wouldn't be anywhere near that list. It's kind of hypocritical to say we'll ignore homophobia but not racism.

Aguerovic said:
He never said about killing gays and paedos.
Click to expand...

"dont like gays shoul all b shot dead"

That came from his twitter account. I know he's blamed his cousins but in light of the rest of his comments it doesn't look good for him. He also said he'd hang his sister if she shagged around.

City Raider said:
The hypocrisy with this particular award is worse. Apparently it was morally ok to give it to a man who slept with his brothers wife. It seems actions don't speak louder than words.
Click to expand...

What Giggs did was morally reprehensible but there was nothing in his actions that encouraged hateful attitudes and actions towards marginalised groups. It was a private matter.

Maybe Tyson Fury is an ok guy really but just thick as shit. If he really is the nice guy he claims he is, he needs to start listening to those explaining why what he's saying is so dangerous. It worries me that he's at the pinnacle of a sport where we have young guys coming through, being trained and equipped with the tools to do serious damage to people. The guy they're looking up to is saying that women should be on their back, (but only with one guy of course, or they deserve a good hanging) and then intimating that equality for gays is some kind of precursor to paedophilia being legalised. Society ought be supporting people who've been marginialised throughout history and it sends out a really shit message if we're going to laud someone spouting this kind of hateful nonsense. I don't care if he doesn't mean it, or he's just ignorant, it needs to be addressed.

Also, his whole religious argument is a nonsense so let's just drop it. It's 2015 and religious beliefs don't excuse the actions of fundamentalists of any other religions and nor should they in Tyson Fury's case. Not only that, but it's total bollocks anyway as he clearly doesn't follow the full teachings of the bible. He's just cherry picking whatever suits to back up his appalling comments.
 
Tbf anyone who interviews a pikey boxer and expects intelligent discourse on any matter except hitting people needs to give their heads a wobble.
 
geoff clipp said:
I think the double standards and hypocrisy argument cuts both ways though. The BBC's position that it's based purely on sporting achievement suggests that there's NOTHING he could say that would see him excluded from the list. I just don't believe that. I think if he'd made similar comments about people of different races he wouldn't be anywhere near that list. It's kind of hypocritical to say we'll ignore homophobia but not racism.



"dont like gays shoul all b shot dead"

That came from his twitter account. I know he's blamed his cousins but in light of the rest of his comments it doesn't look good for him. He also said he'd hang his sister if she shagged around.



What Giggs did was morally reprehensible but there was nothing in his actions that encouraged hateful attitudes and actions towards marginalised groups. It was a private matter.

Maybe Tyson Fury is an ok guy really but just thick as shit. If he really is the nice guy he claims he is, he needs to start listening to those explaining why what he's saying is so dangerous. It worries me that he's at the pinnacle of a sport where we have young guys coming through, being trained and equipped with the tools to do serious damage to people. The guy they're looking up to is saying that women should be on their back, (but only with one guy of course, or they deserve a good hanging) and then intimating that equality for gays is some kind of precursor to paedophilia being legalised. Society ought be supporting people who've been marginialised throughout history and it sends out a really shit message if we're going to laud someone spouting this kind of hateful nonsense. I don't care if he doesn't mean it, or he's just ignorant, it needs to be addressed.

Also, his whole religious argument is a nonsense so let's just drop it. It's 2015 and religious beliefs don't excuse the actions of fundamentalists of any other religions and nor should they in Tyson Fury's case. Not only that, but it's total bollocks anyway as he clearly doesn't follow the full teachings of the bible. He's just cherry picking whatever suits to back up his appalling comments.
Click to expand...

Saved me from typing it.

Completely agree.
 
The BBC takes the money of people with all views on all topics so it has a duty to serve and treat them all equally.

If 'politically correct' types want a broadcaster that only serves and represents people with their approved views then they are free to set one up.

But they shouldn't expect the BBC to be that broadcaster on their behalf.
 
urmston said:
The BBC takes the money of people with all views on all topics so it has a duty to serve and treat them all equally.

If 'politically correct' types want a broadcaster that only serves and represents people with their approved views then they are free to set one up.

But they shouldn't expect the BBC to be that broadcaster on their behalf.
Click to expand...

It's not "political correctness" driving people's attitudes to towards sexism and homophobia, it's common decency and recognition of the fact that throughout history we've treated certain groups of people like absolute shit and we should stop now. I don't think it's correct to say the BBC has a duty to serve all views equally purely. I'm sure there are plenty of racists who are license fee payers but i don't expect the BBC to celebrate racists purely to appease those people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.