Thread: If Mike Tyson was instead convicted of...............................

child molestation instead of rape and let's say there was irrefutable evidence of him doing it, should he still be in the Hall of Fame? Because in the other thread Howling Mad Missy defended Colin Hart's view that he went with his conscience for not voting for Tyson and Missy said that what if he was convicted of being a child molester instead of just rape, should he still be voted in?

I think she makes a good point because crimes against children are considered to be the most heinous in almost any society, and I would say Tyson wouldn't get in because of that if I was a voting member regardless of how sensational he was in the ring.

BTW it has been accused by Teddy Atlas that Tyson tried to sexually assault Atlas little niece. I don't know if it's true or not, but that's one hell of an accusation.

mate, people who molest children should be hung

should be castrated then repeatedly arse rapped by gorillas.

Missy probably regards rape as heinous a crime as child molestation but I highly doubt most, especially males on here (as the first couple of replies show), do.

If Tyson was convicted of molesting a child then his entry to the HOF wouldn't even be considered, however if there was just suspicion he was a child abuser he would probably be looked at far more sympathetically, like Michael Jackson, so would definitely be considered for the HOF.

Either way, rapist or peado, it doesn't take away from his boxing prowess.

i loved tyson, he was so good for the sport and an animal in the ring, a phenonomen

he's done some bad things

a maniac is a maniac and just because he is a maniac it doesnt make him a rapest or a child molester

ok he was convicted of rape, i for one tho hope it was his position and his personality that worked against him, im probably daft thinking that

i just hope one day we have another tyson or ali in the HWs, i cant see it tho

Oh man a nonse?!

That would be as fucked up as it could possibly be! I mean, I would like to think that the promoters would refuse to work with him and that if they didn't, then maybe the Arenas would ban him from their premisses! And if THEY didn't then the T.V companies would be under enough pressure to ban him.

But if they ALL didn't.... If they ALLOWED a convicted kiddie fiddler to ply his trade... You know he'd get inducted. You just know it.

Is it right? No, not really but then a man's measure is undeniable. If he has been allowed to become it, he is it.

Not sure this should hang on the front board?
Leave it up to Saddo in the morning,he can shove it back there if its suitable.

Well the Hall of the Fame should always be about his in the ring achievements in my book. It would be hard to vote for him if he had such a conviction hanging over him, but in a way, if that sort of conviction should stop you from voting for him, then so should rape.

There shouldn't be a gap of acceptance between the two offences.

Originally Posted by ono

Well the Hall of the Fame should always be about his in the ring achievements in my book. It would be hard to vote for him if he had such a conviction hanging over him, but in a way, if that sort of conviction should stop you from voting for him, then so should rape.

There shouldn't be a gap of acceptance between the two offences.

I think you make a good point, but clearly rape (although a heinous crime) just isn't seen in the same light as child molesting, we live in a male dominated patriarchal society and sometimes the rape victims are portrayed as asking to be raped and/or deserved it because of let's say the way they dress or were flirtatious, while child molestation are about really innocent little kids that did nothing to deserved it, I'm not saying rape victims deserve it or anything like that, but it just seems that way that's how society thinks, then factor in that some people belive that there has been false cases of rape, whereas I don't think I have seen a false case of child molestation.

So clearly with that in mind many people would view child molestation as the more heinous crime and probably the most egregious offense in society, much more worse than murder.

He doesn't molest children.............he eats them, and no it shouldnt keep him out

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Originally Posted by ono

Well the Hall of the Fame should always be about his in the ring achievements in my book. It would be hard to vote for him if he had such a conviction hanging over him, but in a way, if that sort of conviction should stop you from voting for him, then so should rape.

There shouldn't be a gap of acceptance between the two offences.

I think you make a good point, but clearly rape (although a heinous crime) just isn't seen in the same light as child molesting, we live in a male dominated patriarchal society and sometimes the rape victims are portrayed as asking to be raped and/or deserved it because of let's say the way they dress or were flirtatious, while child molestation are about really innocent little kids that did nothing to deserved it, I'm not saying rape victims deserve it or anything like that, but it just seems that way that's how society thinks, then factor in that some people belive that there has been false cases of rape, whereas I don't think I have seen a false case of child molestation.

So clearly with that in mind many people would view child molestation as the more heinous crime and probably the most egregious offense in society, much more worse than murder.

I've yet to see false accusation of child molestation, but i'm pretty sure they exist. You'd have to be unlucky to be on the wrong end of one of those.

The way i was thinking about it was the complete opposite way really. Like...

Person A) - 'No he can't be allowed in, didn't you hear he molested a kid.

Person B) - 'No he didn't, he raped a twenty year old'

Person A) - Ah ok, ok i'll put him back in