IS IRON MIKE TYSON STILL THE MAN?

Re: Now lets try Karla Homolka!

suuuuuure,

take the easy way out!

GE
-couldn't it have been the other way around?

 

Re: Now lets try Karla Homolka!

Many many people beleive that it was indeed the other way around. Homolka, imo, was the mastermind. And I agree that she should never be let out of max security.

cheers,

 

Re: Now lets try Karla Homolka!

They both should be hacked up with a skill saw, stuffed inside of cinderblocks, and dropped into a pond as true punishment for their crimes.

 

Re: Quit with the dumb stereotyping

ok, it's pretty clear what your points are now.
Lemme see if I have it straight,

The reporters like to go bearbaiting at mike tyson press conferences, so if he lashes out at them, it's justifiable. Not mike's fault.

From this biased, mike-bashing site: "Feb. 20, 1986 -- Tyson sexually propositions a sales clerk in an Albany, N.Y., shopping mall and becomes violent and abusive when she rebuffs him. Later the same night, he is ejected from a movie theater following a similar incident."
Whatever happened, we can be assured that Mike was somehow provoked. Not Mike's fault.

The MD motorists got in Mike's face and provoked him, so hitting them was understandable. Then the prosecutor/state of maryland railroaded him by subjecting him to both a fine AND jailtime for striking them.
Not mike's fault.

Mike's wife never provided sufficient proof that he ever hit her and fucked around, she's golddigging and making it up. She waited a healthy stretch of six or seven months for plausibility, then filed for a divorce she knew could net her millions. Not mike's fault.

The 18 year old at the beauty pageant, while initially hesitant, later decided she'd really liked to be fucked hard by mike, and mike merely complied with her wishes. She then backstabbed him and sued for rape in a transparent ploy to get his money, or because 'she got second thoughts when they were done'. Not mike's fault.

I haven't mentioned the fight in harlem, but we can be sure Mitch Green started it. Not mike's fault.

That incident where he tried to kiss the girl in the parking lot? She was asking for it or coming on to him in some way. When he slugged the male attendent in the same parking lot? He provoked mike somehow. People just love to test their strength against recognizable world heavyweight champions. Not mike's fault.

---

Wake UP. Is there a single scenario in your world that allows for ANY personal accountability for this asshole? Or does he just get misunderstood, misrepresented, and picked on time after time after time? Stop playing Johnny Cochran and just be content with admiring the guy for his boxing ability.

 

Re: Quit with the dumb stereotyping

I just like to mention that my previous posts in this thread are abouth Muhammed Ali and HE RULES.

 

Re: Quit with the dumb stereotyping

My God, CreeD you are still blind.

I'll respond this last time, just for the sake of saying it again. The I'll stop responding, because you're not debating. You're contradicting. I thought you would know the difference. Guess not.

My point: Every man is responsible for his own actions, but sometimes events transpire due to manipulation of details, actions, and encitement that present said man in a wrongful profile. I never said tha Mike was free from all guilt, but merely that I feel he has been viciously misrepresented by the media and his associates on several occasions.

1. If you provoke someone, then you better fucking understand when they beat your ass. Reporters are not immune to this. Freedom of Press, does not give you the right to attack any individual on an emotional level without fear of consequences. Punching a journalist for asking an inappropriate question may not be the most appropriate response, but it happens. Deal with it.

2. Maybe he was provoked? Who knows. Obviously you don't or you would have had a point there.

3. You can't even fucking comprehend simple sentence structures or refuse to, so retyping this again is pointless. Read again or go back to college.

4. It was never proven that he ever abused her. They divorced due to "Irreconcilable Difficulties". She was with him long enough for a court to award her enough money so she would never have to work again. She was quoted on many times for her unhappiness that he would never provide her with enough money to buy stuff. Like the house incident.

5. Once again your lack of or refusal to use comprehensional abilities rears it's ugly head. Move on.

6. Mitch Green is a hoodlum, simple. He was pissed about his crappy payday from Don King and decided to take it up with Mike. Him and Mike scuffled and Green sued for 25mil. He got 45k out of it, hich was more than he got paid to fight Tyson. There is always a pissed off loser. Even at the time Mitch was well-known as a street thug and gang member. He's still doing the same shit now, trying to bait people into fights. Not long ago he attemtped to provoke Steve Austin (WWE Wrestler) and Micheal Grant.

If I remember right. The eyewitness account said that Mitch was yelling about wanting a rematch, because King had cheated him and blackballed him. Then he got in Tyson's face. Tyson knocked him down, he got up again and Tyson, knocked him down again. Tyson left, but Green came outside and started beating on his Rolls-Royce. Tyson got out and knocked him unconscious and went to the hospital, because he broke his hand. Don't argue this weak ass shit, you keep presenting.

7. People like to test the courts with a rich man who has an aggressive past. It's the american way.

-------------
Get off your fucking high horse. Not everything is as black and white as the american media portrays it. Sometimes shit happens, because of many deciding fashions. The US legal system isn't known for being fair or competent. Too many fucking bleeding heart liberals. I greatly admire his boxing talent, but I have never said he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions. I just think narrow-mind peeps like you refuse to accept that a story can have different sides to it. NOOGE!

I'm done with this contradictory bullshit. Next time we debate as least show more initiative. /versus/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

Re: Quit with the dumb stereotyping

*Yawn*

You're ten years too early...

 

comprehensional abilities

Replicant...you say "sometimes shit happens". Sure. But then look through this thread at the argument/debate/whatever going on...this isn't sometimes shit happening. This is all the fucking time shit happening. Bad luck just doesn't follow the average joe around like this...not even the average maladjusted heavyweight champion. He's GOT to look for it. Press can spin. Press can goad. But the press isn't concocting this shit. Mike Tyson has serious anger problems. These anger problems keep him from dealing with a wide range of situations appropriately. Once upon a time he was a great fighter. It isn't likely we'll see him in bloom again. Now he's just the fucked up guy Tanya Harding opens up for.

 

Re: Quit with the dumb stereotyping

[ QUOTE ]

...If you provoke someone, then you better fucking understand when they beat your ass. Reporters are not immune to this. Freedom of Press, does not give you the right to attack any individual on an emotional level without fear of consequences. Punching a journalist for asking an inappropriate question may not be the most appropriate response, but it happens. Deal with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deal with it? I'm beginning to think you're almost as messed up as Mike is. I'm sorry, but there's no excuse for hitting a journalist for their questions, regardless of how inappropriate their questions are. None. You take the adult way out and respond with either "No comment" or "I feel that question is inappropriate.." You sure as hell don't hit the guy - that's just plain juvenile and completely out of line, not to mention grounds for assault.

[ QUOTE ]
...but merely that I feel he has been viciously misrepresented by the media and his associates on several occasions

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still not buying this. Vicious is a pretty strong word. Sure, the media has lapped up Mike stoogeness but it's Mike setting himself up, really. I don't think there's any misrepresentation here when we see what comes out of that freak's mouth during press conferences.

Replicant - you never did answer my question from an earlier post - and I'm truly interested in your reply: What is it that you admire so much about Mike Tyson that you feel you need to defend him here? To keep things clear, you're not just defending him for his boxing pseudo-talent. You're defending him for being a product of the media and by this you're implying that Mike is actually a good guy who's just had his share of bad luck. You claim that his dyslexia affects how he gets portrayed at press conferences - I happen to disagree, as I don't feel that dyslexia will change what I want to say, just how I say/read/write it. Saying I want to kill someone would not be a result of my dyslexia. Saying I like getting high and spending time with my kids would not be a result of my dyslexia. It's more likely the result of me being an idiot and partially insane.

So, really, I want to know - what is it that you admire so much about Mike Tyson that you feel you need to defend him here?

cheers,

 

Re: Quit with the dumb stereotyping

If you really wanted an honest answer Llan, I am sure you wouldn't have taken potshots toward me during your response.

FIN

 

Re: Quit with the dumb debating

LOL, did you steal your lines from wolf? "Go back to school!"

Rep, I like you when you have valid points to make... because you can then come across as well-spoken and educated. But when someone shoots down your points or makes some valid points of their own? You turn into a complete ass and haul out the ad homs. Tacking a smiley to the end of every post generally doesn't work, so maybe it's something to work on.

If I sound contradictory/ornery/debating just to prove you wrong, it's because I GENERALLY disagree with every one of your points... not because I'm incapable of seeing the other side or have some personal beef. I see the point of view of Mike's handlers and apologists and I have done as much research into the matter as I'm willing to. The conclusion? The rape trial may have been a farce, I can admit that. I think Mike raped the girl, and that she may have changed her mind as late as halfway through consensual sex. I can also agree that his being Mike Tyson made him not stand a chance, regardless of the circumstances. Mike's "justified" attacks on the maryland motorists, the parking lot attendents, etc? That's a crock of shit, it takes away personal responsibility from Mike and sounds suspiciously like "if someone attacks or rapes you, sometimes it's your fault". Mike's ALWAYS the first guy to take a swing in the brawl, but you want us to believe he's never the instigator.

As for "I never said Mike had no responsiblity" that's a pretty subtle and weaselly debate tactic.. .you never said Mike had no responsiblity, but you never once said he HAS responsiblity either. And you IMPLY that mike has no responsibility all over the place by attempting to defend literally every single one of the examples I give of Tyson being an asshole. Why defend these unless you believe it? If you've been playing devil's advocate now would be a prime time to say so.

That's at the heart of why I keep disagreeing with you and replying to this thread. I'm fishing for a single sign of intelligence from you, the sign that says "ok, in that case, mike was probably the instigator, mike had all the fault, the other person wasn't to blame". Hell, I'd settle for "hitting people in reaction to something they say is wrong." You never can bring yourself to say something even CLOSE to that... which drastically undermines whatever valid points you might have about mike being victimized by the media. I know you said you're done with this thread, but if you choose to take another crack at it, you should just save us time right off the bat and say "I honestly believe Mike wasn't at fault in any of those instances", then I can write you off as "blinded by fanboy-ism" and you can write me off as "blinded by the media".

 

Re: Quit with the dumb stereotyping

He's just expressing an opinion that crossed my mind too. From the way you casually dismiss or defend rape and assault, I know I'd never let a woman anywhere near you if I knew you in real life. If that's not the impression you meant to give, you have the chance to address it. If you write off the point as a personal attack and refuse to address it, then I guess you're stuck with it.

 

Re: Quit with the dumb stereotyping

Oh please, don't bail out because of my sarcasm. I do want to hear your answer to my question. I've never encountered anyone with the desire to defend this man as much as you. I'm intrigued.

cheers,

 

Re: Quit with the dumb stereotyping

Ok, here goes so you guys can understand.

What has replicant been doing the whole time?
Showing you that not everything is a cut and dry as the media portrays it.
I guess I was "Advocatus Diaboli".

Did replicant use some "weaselly" (Is that a word? /versus/images/graemlins/tongue.gif) tactics in his rebuttals?
Yeah, probably. Legal classes in college teach you those areas on argumentative speech at length /versus/images/graemlins/mad.gif.

How does replicant feel about raping and attacking other individuals?
Rape has no justification period. Whether it is times of war, raging libido, or what not it is *NOT* acceptable under any circumstances. I have grown up with a mother who was an ER nurse so I have seen too much of this already in my life. Also, for the record rape is not always rape. Sometimes people cry wolf and are very convincing. You can't always believe someone has been raped just because they say they have. My scenario still stands as a valid alternative and a proven scenario. Ask a psych teacher about the plausibility of my theory.

Fighting is another story. It really depends on the situation. What may not be acceptable by the mass, may not be always completely wrong. My father is retired military and I have many relatives who are/were bikers so I was taught about the importance of fighting a long time ago. I definitely try my best to not let someone get to me enough to cause physical violence, but any person can only be pushed so far. Unprovoked aggression is an altogether different subject. You hit someone for the sake of hitting them and you deal with the consequences. Simple. I was always taught that fighting is only an option for protection. If you try and hurt my family, me, or my friends, then your ass belongs to me.

Is Mike guilty of everything he has been charged with?
I personally don't think so. I don't think he raped Desiree and I don't think he abused his wife. I do think he has aggressive tendencies and will knock the fuck out of anyone who crosses him wrong. That would explain Mitch Green, MD motorists, and countless others. I also believe he is a borderline sexual predator. Not to the point of being a rapist, but to the point of being bad taste and juvenile. Openly telling a girl he wants to fuck her, grabbing her ass or crotch, and just kissing random girls. He spent too much time punching heavy bags and not enough time learning how to treat a woman.

Is Mike Tyson the greatest boxer of all time?
I would say yes. I know there are a billion Ali, Hagler, Foreman, Frazier, Lewis, etc fans out there, but most of them honestly bore me to tears. Ali to me was the best boxing "showman", but I don't think he had the raw power of Tyson. Although, I am taking nothing from Ali because he was a great champion and I love watching his matches. Tyson is (was) raw aggression and that is rare in boxing. At least it's rare in the last 30 years of boxing.

Is Mike Tyson responsible for his own actions?
Hell yes. No man is free from responsibilty. Period. Tyson made some poor decisions, did some incredibly stupid things, and acts more than he thinks. He may not be guilty of everything he has been accused of, but he probably is guilty of 75%-80% of them. Being ignorant, a minority, and rich can make you quite a target, but it can also give you a crutch to lean on.

Why do I admire Mike Tyson?
Honestly I do not admire Tyson, but I do respect his talent in the ring. If I were to choose something to admire it would be that Tyson is the American Dream. He was a street kid from a broken home, little education, abusive environment, and a troubled youth who rose up against all odds to the height of his sport. He showed that you didn't need Ivy league accredidation to become wealthy or respected. A punk kid from a crappy life became the youngest HW boxing champion and gained world reknown. He pissed most of that away, but he did acheive that much.

 

Re: Quit with the dumb stereotyping

Nicely put and now can we end this freaking thread since I'd would never expect it to last this long. /versus/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

 

Re: Quit with the dumb stereotyping

Replicant, you're such a re-visionist tool.

and that's all you'll hear from me on this subject ever after.

GE

 

Re: Quit with the dumb stereotyping

[ QUOTE ]
Replicant, you're such a re-visionist tool.

and that's all you'll hear from me on this subject ever after.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't even appear that you know what a revisionist is.
I don't think offering a different viewpoint on the subject of a boxer really constitutes the total rewriting of history to suit ones beliefs.

Although, you are still a gimp.
and that's all you'll hear from me on this subject ever after.

 

Re: Quit with the dumb stereotyping

I think there's a couple of revisions going on:

your first half dozen posts revised cut-and-dried examples of Tyson acting like an asshole (at the time, this looked like it was being done to suit the belief that he's just your average dumb joe who keeps catching bad breaks and unfair media spin).

then right around post 7 or 8, you revised your own story by doing a 180 degree about-face, claiming you feel he's guilty of ~80% of the things he'd been accused of. This isn't random criticism just to irritate you, it's just advice - if you don't honestly believe something but promote it with cochran-like fervor, you are generally either A: Playing devil's advocate or B: Trolling. Sometimes the line between them is not immediately obvious (sometimes it's not there). I think you should go out of your way to let us know when you're arguing for the sake of debate. It would save a lot of unnecessary name-calling and finger-pointing etc. It also avoids creating the impression that you're backpedaling or changing your mind abruptly to save face.

 

Re: Quit with the dumb stereotyping

>> Doesn't even appear that you know what a revisionist is.

open your sperm encrusted eyes and re-read all of your posts, you retarded chimp hypocrite - YOU were the one doing the inane johnny cochran act, justifying rape, and YOU were the one who went back and revised your views. i don't believe your horseshit devils advocate excuse for one fucking second.

i really do hope you shut your goddamn mouth, at least on this topic, because i've had enough of your self-righteous bullshit and trolling-with-handiwipes spew as i can take.

 

Re: Quit with the dumb stereotyping

A clasic Bungle post.

Someone should categorise them and put em on a website for all to read.

Bungle, when it comes to insults youre a poet.