Karl vs. George on Boxing

[popinjay]

I don't care if he thinks boxing is noble, but he has to say the same thing about UFC if he thinks that. There is no difference when it comes to discipline or keeping people off the streets.

[mickyv]

I actually do care if he thinks boxing is noble, not only because I obviously disagree, but more importantly because I think it undermines his creditability, & consequently of the other more crucial views he holds. You might think that I’m exaggerating about something as seemingly trivial as GG views on boxing, but it does in my mind call into question his judgement in general when he can ludicrously claim that his considers boxing as noble, whereas most people rightly regard it as the complete opposite. He has succeeded where numerous malicious character assignations have previously failed, in making himself appear both ridiculous & as the holder of irrational views.

[nekokate]

I quite like the fact that he is not perfect. If I agreed with everything he said I'd be totally creeped out.

[mickyv]

Of course nobody is perfect, but as a prominent spokesperson of the anti-war movement representing the views of millions, whetever he likes it or not he carries a lot of responsibility. Imagine what a let down it would be if he started losing all creditability in a David Icke sort of way, because of irrational & bizarre views. It would be almost an equivalent as the let-down of Labour finally coming to power, but turning out to more Thatcherite than Thatcher. We need leaders like GG to be as rational & creditable as possible, and not to give any sort of ammunition to the War Mongers to undermine the anti-war movement by ridiculing its leaders, because we know that they will use any stick possible.

[nekokate]

Nah, you're barking up the wrong tree, micky. George got where he is today by NOT saying to himself "ooh, I'd better only harp on about things that lots of people want me to, avoid things that twats might use against me, and to hell with what I really think". He got where he is by saying exactly, to the Nth degree, precisely what he thinks, and fame be fucked.

That's actually why he's unpopular in many circles - he says egg-effin-zackly what he thinks. And so do I, as is evident from what you are even now passing your eyes over.

[mickyv]

I have not suggested, nor would I, that people should self-censor their views in exchange for popularity, so perhaps it’s you Kate barking up the wrong tree. This boxing issue is not a real political “convictional” issue, but an eccentric personal view on something not really "political". It’s just GG’s rose tinted view of boxing, as he obviously has a sentimental appreciation of it, probably because he personally once practised & enjoyed it. His notion that boxing is “noble”, simply strikes most people as ridiculous verging on the ludicrous, and does him no favours at all, and no favours to those who defend & support him against malicious attacks.

By the way, David Icke also got to where he is today by saying exactly what he thinks, ie in a position of total ridicule.

[faceless]

Boxing is noble if the alternative is being in a street gang. It does teach discipline and self-control to those who take part - mostly.

I just found this page on the Marquess of Queensbury - it's quite interesting.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/oscar_wilde/4.html

[mickyv]

Yes anything compared to anything more brutal can be called more “nobler”, but that does not mean that it is in itself “noble”.

Thanks for the interesting site, just hope I don’t get nightmares now !

[faceless]

But there is a nobility in learning that you could splatter a person's nose who's just called you out, while being able not to rise to the bait. It's part of the discipline any martial art teaches you.

[nekokate]

[mickyv]

Faceless,

Definition of “noble”;

1. Possessing hereditary rank in a political system or social class derived from a feudalistic stage of a country's development.

2. Having or showing qualities of high moral character, such as courage, generosity, or honour, possessing eminence, elevation, dignity.

So we are obviously talking about number 2 (unless GG has really gone to pot); Using your rationale, (and ignoring that the discussion was about Boxing as an entertainment & sport), just by being trained to know how to hurt somebody automatically means that you have “high moral character, such as courage, generosity, or honour, possessing eminence, elevation, dignity”, and only if you chose (ie have the “discipline”) not to use this skill. You would have made a better point if you had said that being trained to be able to stop somebody harming others can be morally justified, but bearing in mind that any likely opponent is hardly going to oblige by following the Queensbury Rules, boxing skills may well be definite disadvantage ! The truth is very few people who learn martial arts follow it through or practise it to its true philosophical goal of using only as a last resort for self-defence; most people drop out after learning basic bone breaking strikes & kicks, which they often employ as a first resort rather than a last. Even in the case of so called “professional soldiers”, like the ones that beat the Iraqi Baha Mousa to death by using him as a punch bag for karate strikes & Kung Fu kicks.

[mickyv]

Kate,

The only implication here is the incorrect one that you drew from the point that I was making. A fairly simple point I thought ; if somebody insists on broadcasting his eccentric views on a certain subject; it both undermines their judgement per se, and it gives ammunition to their critics. Pointing out inevitable consequences is not the same thing as advocating that somebody should court popularity by stating views that they don’t really hold !

Yes David Icke was an extreme example, but the principle is the same & is what matters. I have spent years defending GG from hate-filled Galloway bashers, and I know that anything that can be used to ridicule & undermine him will be used, and
I personally just will not be able explain this ludicrous “boxing is noble” nonsense, but if you can please feel free to enlighten me.

[faceless]

[mickyv]

"your opinion is basically worthless"

Oh dear, that’s the verdict of an imagined assumption that makes Kate’s imagined assumptions seem quite rational !

Just for the record, I lived until quite recently in a rough area in the East End of London. I once followed a karate course for three years, took about four grading (belts), sufferered cracked ribs & broke fingers more than once when sparring, that is not even getting into my youthful gangs & “best fighter” for my year at school past; but apart from all that yes I’ve only seen violence on TV (NOT !!).

I must say that I’m surprised that you can jump to such irrational wrong deductions simply based on what ?! I’ve reread what I wrote & cannot even begin to see how you can make such an incorrect inference.

The question of whetever learning self-defence can be considered noble is different as to boxing being a noble entertaining sport. Learning how to defend yourself is certainly useful, but calling is a “noble” endeavour is being very loose with the term, in my very humble & apparently “basically worthless” opinion. Sorry to have troubled you by venturing to post what I thought was a constructive criticism on what most people think is a ridiculous notion by verified by this thread own polling vote.

[faceless]

I just edited that comment as you were posting.

I wish I hadnt bothered now.

You're just looking for a fight.