News Colby taking nasty shots at Dustin .. "His family are swamp trash"..

Status
Not open for further replies.
D 1 Wrestler said:
Nah colby wants to beat Usman then force Dustin up for an easy pay day
Click to expand...

First of all, Colby's not getting past Usman.

Besides that... why is it that Colby depends on his opponent to get a good payday and can't earn one for himself? Poirier's name is worth a lot more than Colby's right now, like it or not, and he's not going to oblige the coward when he can take bigger and better fights than some pro wrasslin' wannabe.
 
WaylonMercy5150 said:
He told me Fuck You when I ordered a drink because he thought I was cutting but I just knew the bartender. He was mugging me too.
Click to expand...
Oh you poor fucking thing. Got your feelings hurt? Fuck you, go cry about it now.
 
I'm not going to lie the fights based on his shit talk do seem interesting.

I do want to see him against a GJJ guy in Ortega and I do want to see him fight DP.

Those are interesting match ups for sure.
 
TRUS8888 said:
To be fair I agree with Colby about the charity part. I always assume celebs and athletes are just doing it for tax write-offs, and probably find a way to launder the donations back to themselves.
Click to expand...
I won't even round up for charity. Fucked 5% goes to the cause at most. Conor may have been right that 1 time.
 
D 1 Wrestler said:
Go look up most charities. Most money goes to paying the administration with very small amount going to the actual cause
Click to expand...
And if that were a statement about "most charities" it would indeed be fair. But he's speaking about a specific charity. And he presented ZERO information on that specific charity to come to this "fair" conclusion.
 
TRUS8888 said:
I meant to be fair to Colby.

People are usually incredibly biased either for or against him (usually against) so i wanted to make it clear that im simply taking into account what he said without any bias regarding him. Unfortunately we live in an age where someone can speak the truth but their words won't be heard if they aren't particularly liked.

I agree I could be totally wrong about Dustin or many other charities for that matter, but my opinion towards those particular types of enterprise still stand. In really not interested in digging into finding concrete evidence to prove my point this is just an mma forum where people can/will agree or trash the opinions of others.
Click to expand...
I hear you. I know charities, like ANY enterprise where money changes hands, can be corrupt. But they are not all corrupt. Nor are all businesses.

We have no clue if Dustin's charity is corrupt or even wasteful. No evidence was ever presented by Colby on this point. He makes baseless accusations and tries to sully ppl's names based on nothing but empty words and I would say that being fair to him in this context would be to say "he made a baseless accusation and tried to sully Dustin's name based on nothing but empty words"

I don't think being fair to him would involve taking his baseless accusations and empty words and trying to lend value to them. They are valueless, and not because Colby said them either. Simply because he neglected to add the value of data, information, stats, or investigation.

I can say Colby is a child rapist but without evidence it's a foul thing to say, no matter if I don't like him. And to be fair to me would be to say I was being a salty douchebag, not to try to back up my baseless assertion.
 
mudrubble said:
I hear you. I know charities, like ANY enterprise where money changes hands, can be corrupt. But they are not all corrupt. Nor are all businesses.

We have no clue if Dustin's charity is corrupt or even wasteful. No evidence was ever presented by Colby on this point. He makes baseless accusations and tries to sully ppl's names based on nothing but empty words and I would say that being fair to him in this context would be to say "he made a baseless accusation and tried to sully Dustin's name based on nothing but empty words"

I don't think being fair to him would involve taking his baseless accusations and empty words and trying to lend value to them. They are valueless, and not because Colby said them either. Simply because he neglected to add the value of data, information, stats, or investigation.

I can say Colby is a child rapist but without evidence it's a foul thing to say, no matter if I don't like him. And to be fair to me would be to say I was being a salty douchebag, not to try to back up my baseless assertion.
Click to expand...
Yes you're right, Colby's accusations are hardly persuasive given he has provided no evidence whatsoever to support his claims. Of course it's the reasonable thing to do to rely on evidence before making any assertion of fact.
However given the tendency for charities or other businesses to often be used for tax write off purposes, I was inclined to at least hear what he was saying, even if for my own entertainment.
Being fair to him was just to listen without automatically dismissing everything he says because he's Colby.
You can justifiably call me a cynical salty asshole for entertaining the idea that Colby could be correct, or I could call you a naïve gullible fool for giving the benefit of the doubt to Dustin (i'm not by the way).
It just comes down to each individual person's experience and judgement to form their own opinion. Unless you genuinely think my humble post on sherdog is somehow going to spread like wildfire through the masses and eventually affect an innocent Dustin one day I wouldn't let it upset you :)
 
It’s funny how the stuff has so much currency with MMA fans, this bigoted bs.
I mean, how lame do you have to be to use politics to sell your fights?
 
D 1 Wrestler said:
Go look up most charities. Most money goes to paying the administration with very small amount going to the actual cause
Click to expand...
I've done this because I support several charities. This is not a question about most charities, as I said before. This is a question about Dustin's charity only. To get accurate information on it we'd have to look up HIS charity (well, his wife's).

You could just as easily say "most black North Americans can't swim so mudrubble can't swim - go look it up" but that would be bs because I can swim. Looking up statistics on averages tells you nothing about any one specific instance. It only tells you about likelihoods among large groups that become more accurate the larger the group it is applied to and less accurate the smaller the group it is applied to. Because it averages out individual occurrences into abstracted non-entities it is almost useless in predicting the situation of one specific real-world entity.

Dustin's wife's charity is no more an abstracted non-entity than I am. It is one charity.

That said I would not be shocked to find out it was wasteful or corrupt, just like I wouldn't be surprised to find out a given black North American can't swim. I also wouldn't be shocked to find out he can swim or that Dustin's charity is disciplined and frugal. What I wouldn't do is feel justified making a prediction about one specific human being or charity based on no more investigation than an awareness of averages of large groups. At that point I may have no more than a 50/50 chance of being correct - it's essentially blind guesswork at that level.
 
mudrubble said:
I've done this because I support several charities. This is not a question about most charities, as I said before. This is a question about Dustin's charity only. To get accurate information on it we'd have to look up HIS charity (well, his wife's).

You could just as easily say "most black North Americans can't swim so mudrubble can't swim - go look it up" but that would be bs because I can swim. Looking up statistics on averages tells you nothing about any one specific instance. It only tells you about likelihoods among large groups that become more accurate the larger the group it is applied to and less accurate the smaller the group it is applied to. Because it averages out individual occurrences into abstracted non-entities it is almost useless in predicting the situation of one specific real-world entity.

Dustin's wife's charity is no more an abstracted non-entity than I am. It is one charity.

That said I would not be shocked to find out it was wasteful or corrupt, just like I wouldn't be surprised to find out a given black North American can't swim. I also wouldn't be shocked to find out he can swim or that Dustin's charity is disciplined and frugal. What I wouldn't do is feel justified making a prediction about one specific human being or charity based on no more investigation than an awareness of averages of large groups. At that point I may have no more than a 50/50 chance of being correct - it's essentially blind guesswork at that level.
Click to expand...
Is his charities info public? If not you have your answer
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,933
Messages
55,455,845
Members
174,786
Latest member
Gladiator47

Share this page

Back
Top