[quote]dk44 wrote:
[quote]StephenD wrote:
[quote]dk44 wrote:
Haye is a chicken shit. Gang Rape will happen whenever he takes off his skirt and fights one of the Klitch bros, either one will slaughter his punk ass.[/quote]
I really cant see it happening like you think. I think Haye will surprise quite a few people on your side of the pond [/quote]
Could happen, he most def. has a better shot than 99% of the current crop of heavyweights in the division. My side of the pond probably won’t get either Klitch bro vs Haye, surely that happens in one of their backyards. I hope I don’t come off as not liking Haye because of where he is from, with the crap heavyweights the US has been offering I would love to have someone like Haye to root for. [/quote]
He has absolutely no chance against Klit senior.
Klit junior - who knows - few years back maybe.
Uh, what was wrong with what he said?
How ridiculous for anyone to get offended by that. He didn’t say he LOVED gang rape…and even if he did, who cares?
[quote]Amiright wrote:
[quote]worzel wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Poor choice of words, but the tattle tale “I am personally offended” type of journalism is equally bad. If the lady actually gave a fuck, she wouldn’t be sitting next to him giving more air time.
Stuff white people like classic moment. Being Offended.
[/quote]
She was no more offended than he was for coming up with such a ridiculous comment. It was more of an opportunity for her to passively ridicule him and point the finger.
It was funny as hell though when he said it. You could nearly hear the nation ‘gasp’ in pure astonishment (followed by a loud laugh) at the stupidity of Haye
[/quote]
I didn’t get that at all from the video… he didn’t seem uncomfortable at any point. [/quote]
Agreed. If anyone is looking that hard for shit to be offended about, just about anything you say will set it off. I wasn’t aware we could no longer make any public reference to “gang rape” without following it with a national apology for ever mentioning it.
[quote]Nards wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Poor choice of words, but the tattle tale “I am personally offended” type of journalism is equally bad. If the lady actually gave a fuck, she wouldn’t be sitting next to him giving more air time.
Stuff white people like classic moment. Being Offended.
[/quote]
Seconded.
See how she wouldn’t let it go either.
Then she said it was very disrespectful. If I were him i would’ve said “To whom?”
Then she’d say “To people that have been raped.”
Then I’d say “You didn’t listen carefully…this would only be disrespectful to those who’ve been GANG raped you idiot!”[/quote]
Then he could say “I bet those who have been gang raped thought it was pretty one sided, eh?”
Haha I’ve only just seen that interview, but when I saw the one where he said it was gonna be as one sided as a gangrape I couldn’t believe how funny that was. It was the last thing I expected to hear.
[quote]BruceLeeFan wrote:
Props to him.
Why should he have to back down because people are too unintelligent to see that as he says he wasn’t condoning it.
What do they think??? Gang rape doesn’t exist? He shouldn’t mention it because it’s something that is horrible?
If that was an issue the history channel wouldn’t have Hitler specials on it all day long.[/quote]
I don’t think that the point is you don’t mention anything horrible, I think what most people are upset about is that it mitigates something as traumatizing as a gang rape by comparing it to something as inconsequential as a sporting event. I think there would’ve been approximately the same reaction if he’d said somethign like “I’ll slaughter him as badly as Hitler slaughtered the jews” or something like that. More that it’s just tasteless and stupid than that it actually has any real impact.
[quote]Ben_VFR85 wrote:
Haha I’ve only just seen that interview, but when I saw the one where he said it was gonna be as one sided as a gangrape I couldn’t believe how funny that was. It was the last thing I expected to hear.[/quote]
…and funny is all it should have been.
He allowed that woman to goat him into feeling sorry for what he said. Nothing was wrong with that statement. If people are that sensitive now, nothing you say will avoid offending them eventually. He should have stopped and flat out asked her what was offensive about the statement other than saying the word “gang rape” in a sentence.
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
[quote]BruceLeeFan wrote:
Props to him.
Why should he have to back down because people are too unintelligent to see that as he says he wasn’t condoning it.
What do they think??? Gang rape doesn’t exist? He shouldn’t mention it because it’s something that is horrible?
If that was an issue the history channel wouldn’t have Hitler specials on it all day long.[/quote]
I don’t think that the point is you don’t mention anything horrible, I think what most people are upset about is that it mitigates something as traumatizing as a gang rape by comparing it to something as inconsequential as a sporting event. I think there would’ve been approximately the same reaction if he’d said somethign like “I’ll slaughter him as badly as Hitler slaughtered the jews” or something like that. More that it’s just tasteless and stupid than that it actually has any real impact.[/quote]
I disagree. One names a victim and the other does not. You could potentially “gang rape” a hamster. By saying “jews” you make them the target of the statement.
“Gang rape” is not a person. It does not only affect one type of person. Therefore, how can any one group take offense to that statement?
Every time someone types “gang rape” a kitten dies in Canada.
Oooops, sorry about that, kitty.
People get offended easily these days. I remember Kevin Garnett making comments that used a weapon metaphor which he eventually apologized for:
Apparently this was offensive to people fighting overseas.
But that statement is NO different than saying “as serious as a heart attack”…yet that statement is “socially acceptable” for some dumb ass reason.
Anyone taking offense to this surely would never say that though and never has.
Must have been a slow news day. Most guys on here have said something 1000x more offensive in simple daily conversation.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Ben_VFR85 wrote:
Haha I’ve only just seen that interview, but when I saw the one where he said it was gonna be as one sided as a gangrape I couldn’t believe how funny that was. It was the last thing I expected to hear.[/quote]
…and funny is all it should have been.
He allowed that woman to goat him into feeling sorry for what he said. Nothing was wrong with that statement. If people are that sensitive now, nothing you say will avoid offending them eventually. He should have stopped and flat out asked her what was offensive about the statement other than saying the word “gang rape” in a sentence.[/quote]
Completely agree. I like the fact he didnt say he was sorry, that he just meant thats how one sided it was gonna be and that is that.
Thats just women, though.
I think it is sad that this actually created a discussion about how offensive it is…and that this in itself proves that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction in terms of sexual equality.
The only reason some of the guys in this thread even thought this was offensive is because the word “rape” is supposed to immediately conjure up images of women as victims. Men can be raped as well making the statement as universal as “heart attack”…which means it makes no sense for ANYONE to take offense unless you are some amped up women’s lib type.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think it is sad that this actually created a discussion about how offensive it is…and that this in itself proves that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction in terms of sexual equality.
The only reason some of the guys in this thread even thought this was offensive is because the word “rape” is supposed to immediately conjure up images of women as victims. Men can be raped as well making the statement as universal as “heart attack”…which means it makes no sense for ANYONE to take offense unless you are some amped up women’s lib type.
[/quote]
X, given how emasculated most of the guys on T-Nation are, I know you can’t be that surprised, unfortunately.
[quote]lewhitehurst wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think it is sad that this actually created a discussion about how offensive it is…and that this in itself proves that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction in terms of sexual equality.
The only reason some of the guys in this thread even thought this was offensive is because the word “rape” is supposed to immediately conjure up images of women as victims. Men can be raped as well making the statement as universal as “heart attack”…which means it makes no sense for ANYONE to take offense unless you are some amped up women’s lib type.
[/quote]
X, given how emasculated most of the guys on T-Nation are, I know you can’t be that surprised, unfortunately.
[/quote]
LOL, no, not surprised, but the tone of the OP makes it seem as if he agreed with this woman.
I am more pissed that he even felt he needed to defend his statement. I bet she says things more offensive than that herself but since ‘rape’ somehow means “protect the women folk”, he now has to act like he lied about getting a blow job while in office.
I think it was the whole “live on daytime sports TV” part that caught people by suprise cause y’know, everyone has to be responsible for what a 10 year old hears on TV and they must be protected against everything in the world - until their parents tell them that they’re ready, blah blah blah
[quote]Professor X wrote:
“Gang rape” is not a person. It does not only affect one type of person. Therefore, how can any one group take offense to that statement?
[/quote]
IHPBT, but… gang rape victims?
Anyways, I think some of you are confounding three issues here. I’ll illustrate them with my opinion for discussion’s sake:
-
He’s legally entitled to use the term “gang rape” in such a manner. But others are legally entitled to call him dense and out of touch. After all, he dances around in knee-socks for a living.
-
It could have been said way better. I would respect his braggadoccio if he had the balls to go after a Klitschko, and/or he had enough brains to come up with a more evocative simile.
-
There’s no point (on all those women’s groups behalves) in haranguing the guy for what he said. He’s said that he won’t apologise, and everyone should just accept that he’s a dumb “thug” (or “soulja” or whatever they call it these days) wannabe.
-Glee
That’s a lot better than “My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable, and I’m just ferocious. I want his heart! I want to eat his children! Praise be to Allah!”
Since Lennox had no kids at the time, Mike was essentially saying he wanted to eat his sperm.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
But that statement is NO different than saying “as serious as a heart attack”…yet that statement is “socially acceptable” for some dumb ass reason.
Anyone taking offense to this surely would never say that though and never has.[/quote]
I can’t believe you just wrote that. My grandfather died of a heart attack. How callous of you.
DB