Iron MikeyJ

6 minutes ago, Dazey said:

A report published in 2002 showed that approximately 4.3% of catholic priests over the previous 50 years had been habitually fucking kids. The leadership covered it up and refused to report them to the authorities. I'm guessing  we can expect Mikey's rosary in the mail pretty soon?   

Well, the CHURCH is the people, not the leaders. I KNEW you would go here Dazey, you always do. 

2 minutes ago, downzy said:

No it doesn't.

Putting forward absurd and uneducated bollocks (to use @Dazey's term) justifies the labels.

No you're not.  You're trying to talk about something you have little to no education on and dismiss a very real social movement because you're uncomfortable with it.  

No.  I have attacked your willingness to have a genuine discussion on this matter.  There has been little to no consistency in anything you have written on this topic.  You claim on the one hand that your issue isn't with the movement, that you only really take issue with the supposedly marixst agenda of its self-appointed leaders, and on the other you're in the US politics thread claiming systemic racism isn't a real thing or a problem.  It's quite clear what your problem is with BLM and it isn't limited to some self-anointed pinhead black marxist.  

Yes, and your alternative view is one that undermines a movement that seeks to promote racial equality by constantly needing to characterizing it with its worst elements.  Your approach here is painfully transparent.  It's possible to both denounce the violence and support the overall cause.  But that's not what you're doing.  For DD and yourself, the violence is inseparable from the cause because, hey look, here are two or three marxists amongst their ranks.  It's just tiring listening to this and expect myself and others to show this attitude any level of respect.  

Oh, my... The amount of ASSUMPTIONS in this post.

1 hour ago, downzy said:

Myself and others do respond to your points as best we can. The problem is your points aren’t well thought out or defensible. 

I acknowledged I broke the rules. But I’m tired of this forum being used to promote utter nonsense.  It’s exhausting. Tell you what.  You spend thousands of dollars to own and operate a forum while putting in hundreds of hours a year to maintain it and see how much tolerance you have for utter asinine nonsense.

Just because people don't share your political ideology does not make them full of "asinine nonsense," Or promoting "utter nonsense." This is the kind of thing I was talking about. I'm simply trying to have a civil dialogue. I haven't attacked your character, yet you have resorted to attacking mine. I did talk about how you run the forum (but that doesn't pertain to the topic at hand). I'm not trying to get you or anyone else to agree with me, I'm just trying to give an alternate view of the current landscape. We don't have to always agree, but civility should be the rule of the day.

3 minutes ago, downzy said:

Exactly. So why do you and others impugn the entire movement because of the actions of a few?  

But it's not just a few, it's MARXIST leaders that I have a problem with. 

Just now, downzy said:

Well, I guess I am expecting too much from someone who couldn’t get into the remake of kids movie involving dancing/speaking candle sticks because they included a few black people.

Sorry, that’s on me. 

Why is this even an issue here? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Typically liberal twattle speak, can't argue my points, so you resort to character attacks. Here is your wanting post for going off topic. 

By the way, you broke the forum rules the other day with DD. Where is your suspension? Oh that's right, you are above the rules.

1 minute ago, soon said:

Apparently you and King would hate the Early Church who lived communally and shared life as one family.

Also, MLK had relationships with many other leaders in civil rights/liberation who promoted the use of violence. Stockely, X, etc

I'm sorry, but you have very little understanding of the early church my friend. Even what you think you know, has so many incorrect aspects to it. To put it bluntly, you've been mislead. 

I'm not going down that rabbit hole in this thread though.

You can sympathize with what the cause is trying to accomplish but not align yourself with the movement/organization. The two are not mutually exclusive.

2 minutes ago, downzy said:

I guess understand how you would interpret that as calling for the end of the nuclear family, but anyone a little less prejudiced would read that and laugh at the accusation. 

But you’re still a GNR fan, right?  By virtue of being a fan are you not therefore aligned to the worst elements of the group?  This what you’re doing with the BLM movement. 

I'm a fan of gnrs music, but not them personally. If they came out with some things I have major problems with (like BLM being admitted Marxists), then I would reevaluate even enjoying their music. 

1 minute ago, downzy said:

GNR was responsible for the actions of maybe 30-50 assholes because they chose not to play?

Was the Canucks organization responsible for the few hundred morons who burned down parts of Vancouver?

 

I can't believe you don't see how gnrs actions directly caused the riots. If it were an isolated incident, you might have an argument. But gnrs past DIRECTLY influenced that riot. So yes, they were to blame (as well as the rioters themselves).

Just now, Dazey said:

So if you choose not to denounce the worst of your members and cover for them it indicates the whole organisation is rotten beyond repair? 

I never said it was rotten beyond repair, but it does require leadership from the top down. 

1 minute ago, downzy said:

As someone who has read a lot of King’s writing, I can unequivocally state your assumption here is wrong. 

He wouldn't support breaking down of the family unit. He wouldn't support violence. 

10 minutes ago, downzy said:

So then by that logic any Vancouver Canucks fan (or use any other fan base that has a history of riots) is part of a violent movement or organization.

Or better yet, what about is GNR fans?  I was at the 2002 Philly riot.  I didn’t break a thing, but am I guilty by association as a GNR for having been there?

 

I never said that EVERY member of the movement is guilty by association. I DO hold the organization responsible though. Was GNR responsible for those riots? Yes. Same applies.

10 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Honest question. What percentage of a group acting like dicks would it take to taint the whole organisation/movement? 1%? 2%? 6%? What if there was only a couple of thousand bad apples? At what point do you write it off as an insignificant minority?

It's not a percentage per say, its taking ownership and responsibility. If BLM came out and denounced rioting and self policed themselves (handing over those that engage in such things to authorities), actions like that can go a long way. The BLM Organization has not done anything remotely like this though, if anything they secretly enjoy then anarchy. 

There are two ways to accomplish change at this kind of level (society\ government) peacefully or by force. When things are done by force they ALWAYS get push back. Thus far, the BLM movement could hardly be argued as being peacefully (even if the majority are). I could be wrong, but I don't believe if MLK was alive he would view this movement as a good thing or positive. It has produced MORE separation, not unity. That's my opinion anyways.

18 minutes ago, downzy said:

The demand for being treated equally by the US legal system isn't responsible for the violence produced by a slim minority. 

A recent study showed that 93 percent of the protests in the name of BLM was peaceful. 

Do you think it is at all fair to judge the 93 percent by the actions of the 7?

There is no one single dominant BLM organization.  Much of the money raised was used (unfortunately in some cases rather haphazardly) to assist with bail and legal fees.  

And what's wrong with that if one organization is using the money to get the word out?

And you base this on what knowledge?  

So do you admit that the movement and the organization are one in the same?

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You might not have seen this post from me:

So the vast majority of BLM protest marches have been entirely non-violent. This would come as a surprise to anyone following far-right social media, or just reading DieselDaisy's posts, which tries to paint the entire movement as violent in an effort to undermine its objective which is racial equality.

And as for your idea that something is wrong with a movement that contain violent components: Can you think of any movement of people of the size of BLM that wasn't exploited by thugs and vandals to some extent? What you are seeing is just humanity in action. It doesn't take away from the movement's genuine objective.

And lastly, racism. The definition of racism has been pretty stable (valuing some races/ethnicicities/peoples higher than other; or rather, some lower than others), but as society has become less and less racist and with less and less tolerance for overt examples of racism, racist people have learnt to hide their racism better. So the displays of racism have morphed somewhat. Racists simply have to be a bit more clever about their racism. They have to because they dare not be honest about their feelings on race. They dare not openly admit believing some races are lesser than others (actually, we had one self-acclaimed racist here some moths ago, horrible but refreshing). But here's a way to identify a racist who doesn't want to be identified: He or she is someone who never say anything suggesting he isn't a racist, he or she is someone whose beliefs and opinions entirely align with racist ideology without explicitly admitting being a racist, he or she is someone who would consistently attack/reject/dismiss attempts at racial equality ("the entire BLM movement can be rejected because of some vandalism and violence"), and is someone who, when confronted with this, will refuse to deny being a racist. I mean, if you consistently attack the idea of racial equality for obviously vicarious motives, that is a pretty clear giveaway. Don't get me wrong, one can easily be against BLM because one doesn't like protests in general, or doesn't like the fact that 7 % of the protest marches contain some violence, or because some protesters want to destroy statues. That's fair enough. On its own that's not wrong. But when you consistently undermine and mock any attempts at racial equality, or fight the notion that racism exists and is wrong, then the sheer burden of all this would strongly indicate that you are a racist.  You quack like a duck, you walk like a duck, and you align ideology with a duck  - yeah, safe to say you are a duck.

 

 

7% is a fairly large number imo. If a movement cause violence at ANY percentage, than the movement has major issues imo. 

I don't disagree with the underlying issue. If Black America feels like they are being targeted by police unfairly, then they are entitled to that opinion. If Black athletes want to kneel during the national anthem, that's their right imo. But when a movement causes violence and destruction (at any percentage) than it can not be considered peaceful. It also can not be considered protesting, and has to acknowledge that it has moved into rioting. There comes a point when we have to consider that the movement will turn into anarchy, especially if Trump wins the election. If that's the case, is Trump wrong for sending in the military to stop the anarchy?

At the end of the day, I hope the majority of people want peace and respect. We don't always have to agree, but we should avoid violence and try and remain respectful. 

Where I personally draw the line is that none of these "victims" were completely innocent. Does that mean they deserved what happens to them, no I would say that. But at the same time, how you conduct yourself around the police IS important. All 3 of the major cases have some pretty large holes in them. They are not simply black and white (pun intended) or nearly as clear cut as many make them sound. All I'm saying is that, if you see both sides of all of these cases, that doesn't make you "bad" or "racist" or anything else. We all should hold our opinions on these case (Floyd especially) until the case is heard in court. If the officer is found not guilty, then he is found not guilty. Same applies if he is found guilty. We have a judicial system for a reason, and we should allow it to work before we jump to conclusions. 

2 minutes ago, downzy said:

You have been spewing your nonsense for years without anyone calling you a racist.  

But the totality of your posting history here, coupled with the need to tar and feather a large social movement because of the actions of a few assholes, finally brought home the charge of being a racist.  To claim that I level the charge only to denounce dissent is to ignore the numerous responses and counter-arguments myself and others have provided.  

It hasn't been just a "few assholes" though. If the "movement" is causing violence, then doesn't that imply the "movement" has some major issues?

On a side note, it's not logical to say the "movement" is different than the "organization." Which I'm not saying anyone here has said that (maybe they have, IDK?) My point is, where is the money that is being raised by the "movement" going? It's going to the organization, therefore the two are one in the same. Before you say "what money? When you see BLM in commercials or on an NBA court, then people ARE indeed giving them money. I would like to see a record of how much money BLM has made in 2020, I bet it's an alarming amount. Where is that money going? Back to the community? No. 

10 hours ago, downzy said:

So let me get this straight.

The cop who shot Blake seven times in the back while he was allegedly unarmed attempting to return to his car that contained his three children has no blame in the consequences of his actions?

Candace Owens is a fraud who makes money appealing to conservatives because she's black.  It's a hustle.  And it would appear that there are enough suckers out there to buy the bullshit she peddles.

 

Typical Liberal twattle speak. You can't argue her points, so you attack her character/motivation. You also can't call her a "racists" so it doesn't fit the typical Liberal response narritive.

Let me ask you a serious question, do you think that Biden gave Cardio B his first proper interview in months even slightly questionable? 

For the record, I'm not a "Trump supporter." I've never been to a "rally." I've even voted democrat for the past 3 elections. I've always considered myself a true "Independent." It's the far left that has changed the entire Democratic party, to a place that I can no longer support. 

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

Amidst insanity, Candace Owens, as usual, speaks a whole load of sense. Pity she wasn't running for President,

 

I agree, Candace Owens NEEDS to be on a ballot in 2024. 

2 hours ago, DTJ80 said:

To be fair - we all agree regarding the fullness etc....it’s just that for most of us the CD vinyl are defective. I mean - properly bad! It’s why we are all annoyed as the parts which are fine sound tremendous.

I agree that they (and mine) are "defective" due to the skips. Beyond what I said earlier, it's also the only time I listen to the whole album. It just becomes a more satisfying experience, plus it also makes me appreciate/underatand the album more. When the album first came out, I listened to it start to finish many times. All these years later though, I NEVER listen to the CDs or MP3's start to finish now. But with the vinyl I do. Even the songs I'm not particularly fond of (scraped, rhiad) I like them better within the contexts of the album, and vinyl does that for me. Other songs like Maddy stand out THAT much more on vinyl as well imo. Which that isn't a song that I'm overly in love with, it's probably not even on my phone right now. But on vinyl I do like it far more. If that makes sense?

I gotta disagree here. While my CD vinyl DOES have 2 skips (if memory serves). Despite that, everytime I listen to it I appreciate the album far more than listening to CD or MP3's. I find it has a fullness to the vinyl that gets lost in other formats. Maybe that's just me though???

3 hours ago, moreblack said:

Remember when that Creed actor said he could take Roy Jones?

That made me lose respect for him. Someone should tell him "it's just a movie." Even at 50, Jones would make him look so bad it's not even funny. 

3 hours ago, Silverburst80 said:

Heres mine

1. Roy Jones Jnr

2. Sugar

3. GGG

4. Ali

5. Tyson

6. James Toney

7. Calzaghe

8.Julio Chavez

9. Canelo

10. fuck it Prince Naseem

So you gotta be interested in this Tyson vs Jones fight? 

As I showed on my list, I'm a Roy Jones Jr fan as well. I'm pretty proud of my fight collection, and I have all of Jones best fights (as well as a laundry list of other fighters). He is honestly my 3rd favorite fighter to watch (behind Tyson and Leonard). Throwing on an old Roy Jones Jr fight is a good time imo. 

On aside note here are my all time favorite fighters

1. Tyson

2. Sugar Ray Leonard

3. Ali

4. Tommy Hearns

5. Foreman

6. Roy Jones 

7. Joe Louis

8. Earnie Shavers

9. Marvin Hagler

10. Joe Frazier

That's my top 10

12 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Nowt but a bunch of Johnny Schmucks. Tyson, Ali, Sugar Ray: that was boxing.

That's part of Tyson's motivation for starting this "league." He said "the athletes of old are still more popular, have more fans, etc than the current guys are." Which he is not wrong, for every guy like Len that is still really interested in the current guys, there are 10 that stopped caring after "their" guys retired. 

Don't get me wrong, I still "care" about current boxing. I've always been a heavyweight guy, while I enjoy welter, middle, and light heavy I detest how many weight classes exist. I also don't care for anything under welter. I also have serious issues with the alphabet sanctioning bodies (I could go on and on here). 

Another thing that has changed in me, is I no longer am a "fan" of athletes anymore. I tried liking Wilder, but he's a tool honestly. I respect Fury, I think Joshua has only had one real fight (Klitschko), so I'm not jumping for joy for the current guys. Having said that, I enjoyed Fury vs Wilder and would enjoy Fury vs Joshua and Joshua vs Wilder. My interest in a Wilder vs Fury 3 is there as well, but below the other two. 

My disinterest in modern athletes goes well beyond boxing. I still like my hometown teams, and the players on them. But as far as guys on other teams, I honestly can't stand the lot of them, in all sports. LeBron James is there queen, and I could go on and on about that wanker (different topic). But it's sowered me on all modern athletes. I will never like another boxer as much as I liked Tyson. Or another basketball player as much as I liked Michael Jordan. A lot of that is they were the guys of my youth, yes. But it's also the modern entitled premadonna attitude they have now. 

Anyways to get back on topic, yes a Tyson vs Jones exhibition bout is MORE exciting to me than anything boxing can offer outside of Fury vs Joshua. 

I don't think it's going to be like the Sanders fight. I think it's going to be a lot more competitive than that, neither one of these guys wants to be made to look bad. I think it's going to be a lot more authentic than some realize. They are wanting to start this new "league" so they have to make a good first impression. 

I've heard Mike talk about it, and he wants this to be separate from traditional boxing (especially the major sanctioning bodies). That's one of the reasons why he's fighting Roy, because he was ok with that. Other fighters Mike talked to had managers, promoters, etc that had ties to the alphabet sanctioning bodies. Mike said "Roy has been promoting himself on his own for years, and that's what I was looking for." Roy also is a BIG name (that's important), and he isn't really a contemporary of Mike's like Holyfield or someone like that is. 

Roy talked about he fight also and he eluded to the "contemporary thing". He was asked about fighting Hopkins again and he said "I want to, and that would be a different thing. If I fight Hopkins again, it's going to be a real fight not an exhibition, too much history." So I'm sure Tyson has similar feelings about getting into the ring with Holyfield or Lewis or someone else like that. He's taking this fight serious, as is Roy, but not having a "winner" kinda takes the pressure off.