Tapology Forums
Could Khabibs faith bring strong implications in a USA market?
Anonymous Mode
You are not logged in to Tapology. When browsing anonymously, profanities and images are automatically removed from the forum.
11.22.2016 | 10:31 AM ET
Question I believe is warrented considering the times we live in. I try and envision a fighter bringing at least %30 drawing power ringside to events... hopefully... Then I look at the Conor/Khabib matchup...then I factor in the social tug of war going on along with the fact UFC has done a magnificent job so far in not engaging in any political or religous debate through its productions.. But could this last? Could this actually force people like Dana to actually reveal themselves in such a light? What would a crowd of %70 Irish catholics look like with say %10 even faithful Muslim fans in an arena once the drunk "chatter" were to begin? Hate to say it but its something I truly think they have considered for awhile now with basic sensitivitys here in the US.... so what do you guys think?
"“And tell Dana I said get off Conor’s nuts”....(Nate Diaz) "
Responses Page 4
11.29.2016 | 4:57 PM ET
Hey Mikey you're a big free speech guy what do you think about President Elect Trump wanting to imprison those who burn the American Flag and taking away their citizenship?
"It does not make sense that humans deliberately malfunction. - Upgrade"
11.29.2016 | 11:41 PM ET
It sounds like the same thing Hillary wanted to do in 2005.
"here I come to save the day"
11.29.2016 | 11:54 PM ET
"Liberal media" oh please, if people think there actually liberal, then they need a reality check. Media is in the pocket of the elites. it very easy to see this. Fox is just controlled opposition and trying to sell the same ********, as the rest of the Main stream Media. All the Main stream Media hosts, are all multi millionaires, they don't give a rats ass about the people and they are not Liberal, they are conservative. Democratic party is pretty much at this point conservatives, pretending to be democrats. That fact should be clear, given the fact the only actual Democrat that ran (Bernie) was attack by the very people who are suppose to support these views, but instead they decided to side with Neo-Cons aka republicans pretending to be liberal. We saw what they stood for in there private emails, courtesy of Wikileaks and it was far from Liberal ideals.
* Edited at 11.30.2016, 12:01 AM ET *
"here I come to save the day"
11.30.2016 | 1:07 AM ET
@Franklin880088 what does Hilary have to do with the question I asked. I asked as a supporter of free speech what does one think about our current president elects stance of arresting people who burn the flag? My question is about an issue not a person.
* Edited at 11.30.2016, 1:10 AM ET *
"It does not make sense that humans deliberately malfunction. - Upgrade"
11.30.2016 | 1:49 AM ET
I was just pointing out that Hillary was also for the same thing, which I feel is never mentioned when this subject is brought up. So I decided, to point it out. Anyways I don't think people should get in trouble personally, but that just me. As for the religion thing, the US spent 540 million dollars on fake ISIS videos, revealed by Wikileaks, people should think on that before assuming 99% of terrorist are Muslim.
* Edited at 11.30.2016, 2:04 AM ET *
"here I come to save the day"
11.30.2016 | 3:07 AM ET
@Franklin880088 Thank you for your last point that is very eloquent and useful looking at the debate we had with @mikeyg. Religion is in my opinion very far to be the only issue here. We are not talking about exact science here so bringing on the table some other factors like political or social ones is always useful to apprehend this all situation better.
11.30.2016 | 3:41 AM ET
ya @boredoms lets go back to talking about all the love for Conor... and what his big sweaty Irish balls must taste like.,.. pipe down dumbass
"“And tell Dana I said get off Conor’s nuts”....(Nate Diaz) "
11.30.2016 | 7:06 AM ET
Hilary did say that so Neoliberals will have to defend what she said first but will not. Do not use the word "liberal" to describe the Left. They are nothing like the Classical definition of it.
"The only thing predictable about MMA is that it is unpredictable."
11.30.2016 | 3:40 PM ET
@StreamFan68
Instead of arguing with you I'm going to recommend Hooked on Phonics to help you with your crippling illiteracy.
Instead of arguing with you I'm going to recommend Hooked on Phonics to help you with your crippling illiteracy.
"I am trained in gorilla warfare" - Stay Ready
11.30.2016 | 5:51 PM ET
Man your just a troll bro... and your in for a looong day if your going to worry about my spelling... but have at her son...
"“And tell Dana I said get off Conor’s nuts”....(Nate Diaz) "
11.30.2016 | 8:06 PM ET
your going to be a busy man .....LOL
"“And tell Dana I said get off Conor’s nuts”....(Nate Diaz) "
11.30.2016 | 8:27 PM ET
@BigJ, "I don't think you know what the word Fact Means."
How nuanced of you.
"I don't think you've uttered one fact in your entire rantings."
Such hyperbole. I got one, how about Muslims worshipping a pedophile warlord, that's true.
"I'm limiting it to America b/c I'm American"
Irrelevant.
"my chances of being killed by a Muslim in America is minute."
You limited your scope because you have no worldly perspective, it's very untraveled sounding. It shows you don't give a damn about anyone else in the world since it affects you less, so you care less or condone it.
"Now if I was a Muslim living in Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan then I would be more concerned and more afraid from the radical extremists as my odds of being killed by a terrorist would be much higher."
Care about other people instead of just yourself. I'm not likely to die of AIDS but I still can feel empathy for the people who do and try to take steps to eliminating the problem instead of sweeping it under the rug or minimizing it.
"Lol at the idea the 'liberal' mainstream media doesn't cover terrorist attacks."
I love how you put liberal media in quotations because I was going to do that as well. They are not liberal, they do not publish anything on the news that will not make them money or get them views, Journalism here is dead. Islamic terrorism does not even come on to the radar like it should EVERY day because mini-911's happen every day or week throughout the world. You hardly ever hear world news on CNN, or even news for that matter.
"You are so diluded you can't see through your own ********."
Deep down you meant to say that to Muslims or your comrades on the regressive left.
"You shape your 'facts"
Citations and evidence needed.
"around your preconcieved beliefs rather than letting your beliefs be shaped by facts."
Such as? Have I already addressed and debunked it? Probably, you just didn't' like the answer.
"Your very assertion that the Muslim religion as a whole is violent..."
Read the Qu'ran and the Hidith, have you ever done that? It's a disgusting dangerous group of books full of actual bigotry, violence, sexism, anti-atheist, anti-jewish nonsense and etc. Look at how Islam is applied in practice...Oh wait, you won't, you're stuck in your naive regressive bubble and don't care about world news. You said you're not worried about Muslims because it's less likely for you to be killed here.
"...is a bigoted statement."
Do me a favor, if you're not afraid of Islamic Incursion, draw Muhammad and let people know who you are. Grow a pair to prove your point, but you won't, because you know it's the only religion that acts like the mafia that if you say or do the wrong thing one of them will kill you. Any muslim of any walk of life can be radicalized, even so called moderates. Osama Bin Ladin came from a wealthy family for example.
"Also the 1st amendment protects you from government censorship. Of course there are limits to even this"
Who said there were no limits to speech? I'm saying don't add laws to what we have now.
"Free speech doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want without consequence."
Did I say that? No one said you get to say bomb on an airplane or incite murder. We're talking about within the bounds of the law of free speech, not above it. This is a diversion tactic from you to get away from what I'm getting at with someone like Alex trying to curb free speech or add more laws to free speech.
"You go online ranting about Muslims you may get labled a bigot."
Not surprising, much nicer people than myself who say only 5% of what I say get called a bigot too.
"You harrass people on twitter you may get banned."
Irrelevant, that's a private company and you're missing my point on purpose on free speech again. You are so beyond intellectually dishonest there's not much point of discussing this further with you.
"Free Speech doesn't mean you get to lie and make up facts"
That's your opinion that I'm making things up, if you want citations for things, ask me for what you want specifically. But even if I was lying and spreading it, actually it does fall under free speech. Because I'm not breaking any laws and that's the only way it's relevant, is if it's legal or not, to put MORE laws on free speech is what I'm talking about, are you ******* with me yet? You shouldn't pretend you know the law, fail.
"You can say whatever you want and I can say you are diluted xenophobic bigot who perpetuates lies to fit a false narrative. "
Well we just came full circle didn't we? You just made my point for me that I was making all along, don't add more laws to free speech because it could be your free speech curbed with those laws. And I'm not phobic of them what a cop out. I'm considering this your white flag moment. Good day.
How nuanced of you.
"I don't think you've uttered one fact in your entire rantings."
Such hyperbole. I got one, how about Muslims worshipping a pedophile warlord, that's true.
"I'm limiting it to America b/c I'm American"
Irrelevant.
"my chances of being killed by a Muslim in America is minute."
You limited your scope because you have no worldly perspective, it's very untraveled sounding. It shows you don't give a damn about anyone else in the world since it affects you less, so you care less or condone it.
"Now if I was a Muslim living in Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan then I would be more concerned and more afraid from the radical extremists as my odds of being killed by a terrorist would be much higher."
Care about other people instead of just yourself. I'm not likely to die of AIDS but I still can feel empathy for the people who do and try to take steps to eliminating the problem instead of sweeping it under the rug or minimizing it.
"Lol at the idea the 'liberal' mainstream media doesn't cover terrorist attacks."
I love how you put liberal media in quotations because I was going to do that as well. They are not liberal, they do not publish anything on the news that will not make them money or get them views, Journalism here is dead. Islamic terrorism does not even come on to the radar like it should EVERY day because mini-911's happen every day or week throughout the world. You hardly ever hear world news on CNN, or even news for that matter.
"You are so diluded you can't see through your own ********."
Deep down you meant to say that to Muslims or your comrades on the regressive left.
"You shape your 'facts"
Citations and evidence needed.
"around your preconcieved beliefs rather than letting your beliefs be shaped by facts."
Such as? Have I already addressed and debunked it? Probably, you just didn't' like the answer.
"Your very assertion that the Muslim religion as a whole is violent..."
Read the Qu'ran and the Hidith, have you ever done that? It's a disgusting dangerous group of books full of actual bigotry, violence, sexism, anti-atheist, anti-jewish nonsense and etc. Look at how Islam is applied in practice...Oh wait, you won't, you're stuck in your naive regressive bubble and don't care about world news. You said you're not worried about Muslims because it's less likely for you to be killed here.
"...is a bigoted statement."
Do me a favor, if you're not afraid of Islamic Incursion, draw Muhammad and let people know who you are. Grow a pair to prove your point, but you won't, because you know it's the only religion that acts like the mafia that if you say or do the wrong thing one of them will kill you. Any muslim of any walk of life can be radicalized, even so called moderates. Osama Bin Ladin came from a wealthy family for example.
"Also the 1st amendment protects you from government censorship. Of course there are limits to even this"
Who said there were no limits to speech? I'm saying don't add laws to what we have now.
"Free speech doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want without consequence."
Did I say that? No one said you get to say bomb on an airplane or incite murder. We're talking about within the bounds of the law of free speech, not above it. This is a diversion tactic from you to get away from what I'm getting at with someone like Alex trying to curb free speech or add more laws to free speech.
"You go online ranting about Muslims you may get labled a bigot."
Not surprising, much nicer people than myself who say only 5% of what I say get called a bigot too.
"You harrass people on twitter you may get banned."
Irrelevant, that's a private company and you're missing my point on purpose on free speech again. You are so beyond intellectually dishonest there's not much point of discussing this further with you.
"Free Speech doesn't mean you get to lie and make up facts"
That's your opinion that I'm making things up, if you want citations for things, ask me for what you want specifically. But even if I was lying and spreading it, actually it does fall under free speech. Because I'm not breaking any laws and that's the only way it's relevant, is if it's legal or not, to put MORE laws on free speech is what I'm talking about, are you ******* with me yet? You shouldn't pretend you know the law, fail.
"You can say whatever you want and I can say you are diluted xenophobic bigot who perpetuates lies to fit a false narrative. "
Well we just came full circle didn't we? You just made my point for me that I was making all along, don't add more laws to free speech because it could be your free speech curbed with those laws. And I'm not phobic of them what a cop out. I'm considering this your white flag moment. Good day.
* Edited at 11.30.2016, 9:20 PM ET *
This user is suspended from posting until 4 years, 3 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, 20 hours, and 39 minutes from now.
11.30.2016 | 10:04 PM ET
@AlexBJJ, "Or maybe being disrespectful and insultant when you argue with someone is part of freespeech for you?"
Under our laws, yes. It's not against the law to insult, so it falls under free speech.
"In this case, i don't know how you communicate even with your family and friends (i am not telling you think this way)"
I tend not to debate heavy topics with people who I might lose for having strong disagreement. But I don't think it should be against the law to insult one of my family members. That's what you're not getting, don't add more laws to speech.
the "BUT" is just a word to explain what i understand by "freespeech"
I'm saying there should be no 'but' after saying you're for free speech. Being from Belgium, you don't have freedom of speech as we know it. However, using the word 'but' is a way to downplay that thing you're talking about, which for you is more stipulations and road blocks in our speech.
"why i didn't agree with the original comment. I am absolutely for freespeech."
I've demonstrated you don't, you want to add more laws and caveats to speech.
"It is your right."
Well if you add more laws to speech it might not be our right to even discuss this. Read the book 1984.
"And i know the problem of trying to put some limits on freespeech which is to subjective"
You finally understand? Because I can't lay it out any clearer that there's no way to objectively enforce a strict limit of free speech which includes discerning hate speech from free speech or insult from satire, it would be a mess. Keep speech as free as possible, that's been my main point to you that you should agree on.
"and depend on the sensibility of everysingle person."
I don't give a damn if they're sensitive or not, speech stays as free as possible for everyone's benefit.
"The point i tried to underline is that if freespeech is a right"
Which you seemingly want to curb more than it already is with more laws.
"it is also your right to use it the way you want."
Not if people like you get their way and make more restrictions on speech.
(i consider we agree on the difinition of "freespeech")."
I don't think we do, your version of free speech is more authoritarian.
"Since the beginning of our discussion, i just tried to explain you that this right can be used "badly"."
Which means what? We punish someone for insulting people because it ended in tears? **** no.
"It can be a pretext to say absolutely whatever and hurt people."
If it's not against the law, then get a helmet and get a thicker set of skin, the world is tough. Freedom of speech the way in which it's practiced here (not the made up scenario you conjured up) gives everyone the right to speak their mind UNDER THE LAW. It's not against the law to hurt your feelings, and hope it never is.
"(I know that it's here you will not agree with me, you don't really consider and give credits to how people can feel because of words, right?)"
Your feelings should not be legislated, no. Because those same laws could curb your free speech down the road.
"This is where i find that it's your responsability to use this right in some decent ways."
It's one thing to say kind things, but it's another thing entirely to want to make laws against not saying kind things (under the law of course). You are authoritarian in how you think free speech should look.
"(i know it's subjective"
Right, because then other people decide for you what's okay to say and not say. It's madness.
"i agree with you on the fact that ultimately, everyone can say what he wants)."
Everything under the law, sure.
"I just think that everyone must try to use this right in a good and contructive way."
That's no reason speech should have more rules than it has now. It's awesome the way it is in the US.
"I can handle insult man, don't worry for that, but i am not interested in an exchange of insults."
Should it be against the law for me to insult you if you were insulted? Think...
"I am just telling you that you are kind of blaming religion for "all" or "a lot" of the "diseases" in our world."
Religion in general is a major black eye on the human race that needs to be discussed & debated.
"I hope (i think you are) you are conscient of the disease of capitalism and "money" too."
No, I'm not an Anti-western, Regressive leftist, sorry. There's no other system that works better.
"I just refer to money as a religion as a joke but it actually have real implications. I saw you loved stats but i am not sure there are so many stats about the repercussion of capitalism on people (the reasons are obvious to me)."
You're right, there's downfalls to capitalism, but it's the best thing we got on this floating rock in space.
"I can affirm without a doubt that capitalism have killed way more people than religion (all the recent wars are not caused by religion even if it serves some elite to blame religion for that)."
Isn't it ironic that when the rise of Capitalism came around the Dark Ages came to an end and The Renaissance began? Pretty strong correlation there. Capitalism has killed more? Not even close. Religion is many orders of magnitude worse in history especially if you go back to prehistoric religions. Also religion is much older as well, that alone mathematically shows it's been a destructive force longer.
"I think we start to heard about "islamic" terrorism just before USA go to war"
I think parts of the War in Afghanistan were justified. Islamic terrorism needed to be stood up against. Do I agree with the trillions spent though? No. I can't support all our decisions over seas but that's ridiculous to say we only talk about Islamic terrorism to go to war, so completely wrong.
"Or why are we not trying to bring democracy in Russia or North Korea? lol"
Russia kind of already has it and North Korea is like Earth's ******** cousin no one wants to look after.
"I hope i bring some constructive info for you to understand my point of view"
I understand you Alex, I just think you're way too sensitive and authoritarian on speech.
Under our laws, yes. It's not against the law to insult, so it falls under free speech.
"In this case, i don't know how you communicate even with your family and friends (i am not telling you think this way)"
I tend not to debate heavy topics with people who I might lose for having strong disagreement. But I don't think it should be against the law to insult one of my family members. That's what you're not getting, don't add more laws to speech.
the "BUT" is just a word to explain what i understand by "freespeech"
I'm saying there should be no 'but' after saying you're for free speech. Being from Belgium, you don't have freedom of speech as we know it. However, using the word 'but' is a way to downplay that thing you're talking about, which for you is more stipulations and road blocks in our speech.
"why i didn't agree with the original comment. I am absolutely for freespeech."
I've demonstrated you don't, you want to add more laws and caveats to speech.
"It is your right."
Well if you add more laws to speech it might not be our right to even discuss this. Read the book 1984.
"And i know the problem of trying to put some limits on freespeech which is to subjective"
You finally understand? Because I can't lay it out any clearer that there's no way to objectively enforce a strict limit of free speech which includes discerning hate speech from free speech or insult from satire, it would be a mess. Keep speech as free as possible, that's been my main point to you that you should agree on.
"and depend on the sensibility of everysingle person."
I don't give a damn if they're sensitive or not, speech stays as free as possible for everyone's benefit.
"The point i tried to underline is that if freespeech is a right"
Which you seemingly want to curb more than it already is with more laws.
"it is also your right to use it the way you want."
Not if people like you get their way and make more restrictions on speech.
(i consider we agree on the difinition of "freespeech")."
I don't think we do, your version of free speech is more authoritarian.
"Since the beginning of our discussion, i just tried to explain you that this right can be used "badly"."
Which means what? We punish someone for insulting people because it ended in tears? **** no.
"It can be a pretext to say absolutely whatever and hurt people."
If it's not against the law, then get a helmet and get a thicker set of skin, the world is tough. Freedom of speech the way in which it's practiced here (not the made up scenario you conjured up) gives everyone the right to speak their mind UNDER THE LAW. It's not against the law to hurt your feelings, and hope it never is.
"(I know that it's here you will not agree with me, you don't really consider and give credits to how people can feel because of words, right?)"
Your feelings should not be legislated, no. Because those same laws could curb your free speech down the road.
"This is where i find that it's your responsability to use this right in some decent ways."
It's one thing to say kind things, but it's another thing entirely to want to make laws against not saying kind things (under the law of course). You are authoritarian in how you think free speech should look.
"(i know it's subjective"
Right, because then other people decide for you what's okay to say and not say. It's madness.
"i agree with you on the fact that ultimately, everyone can say what he wants)."
Everything under the law, sure.
"I just think that everyone must try to use this right in a good and contructive way."
That's no reason speech should have more rules than it has now. It's awesome the way it is in the US.
"I can handle insult man, don't worry for that, but i am not interested in an exchange of insults."
Should it be against the law for me to insult you if you were insulted? Think...
"I am just telling you that you are kind of blaming religion for "all" or "a lot" of the "diseases" in our world."
Religion in general is a major black eye on the human race that needs to be discussed & debated.
"I hope (i think you are) you are conscient of the disease of capitalism and "money" too."
No, I'm not an Anti-western, Regressive leftist, sorry. There's no other system that works better.
"I just refer to money as a religion as a joke but it actually have real implications. I saw you loved stats but i am not sure there are so many stats about the repercussion of capitalism on people (the reasons are obvious to me)."
You're right, there's downfalls to capitalism, but it's the best thing we got on this floating rock in space.
"I can affirm without a doubt that capitalism have killed way more people than religion (all the recent wars are not caused by religion even if it serves some elite to blame religion for that)."
Isn't it ironic that when the rise of Capitalism came around the Dark Ages came to an end and The Renaissance began? Pretty strong correlation there. Capitalism has killed more? Not even close. Religion is many orders of magnitude worse in history especially if you go back to prehistoric religions. Also religion is much older as well, that alone mathematically shows it's been a destructive force longer.
"I think we start to heard about "islamic" terrorism just before USA go to war"
I think parts of the War in Afghanistan were justified. Islamic terrorism needed to be stood up against. Do I agree with the trillions spent though? No. I can't support all our decisions over seas but that's ridiculous to say we only talk about Islamic terrorism to go to war, so completely wrong.
"Or why are we not trying to bring democracy in Russia or North Korea? lol"
Russia kind of already has it and North Korea is like Earth's ******** cousin no one wants to look after.
"I hope i bring some constructive info for you to understand my point of view"
I understand you Alex, I just think you're way too sensitive and authoritarian on speech.
* Edited at 11.30.2016, 10:31 PM ET *
This user is suspended from posting until 4 years, 3 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, 20 hours, and 39 minutes from now.
12.01.2016 | 1:51 AM ET
Mikey how do manage to type so much but say so little?
"It does not make sense that humans deliberately malfunction. - Upgrade"
This user is suspended from posting until 4 years, 3 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, 20 hours, and 39 minutes from now.