I'm utterly unconvinced by your assertion that the public did not think his rape conviction devalued his endorsement. Why do you think that? Because you did? As soon as i understood the story (there's no description) my immediate reaction was, "well if an ear biting rapist ex-boxer endorses you...."

I'm not saying that the broadcaster definitely had heard people saying that, but i think it's naive to think that his rape conviction went unnoticed by everyone who heard about his endorsement - i noticed. I take the way people act very seriously and mike tyson has shown himself to be a dangerous and troubled individual so my ONLY reaction to the endorsement news is "why should i care what that person thinks, given his record?"

Furthermore what responsibility are you referring to that requires him to name the persons who suggested the question to him? I thought media people have the right to protect their sources? This isn't an investigation and we're not his jury, so why would he need to name his source?

I think you're dead wrong on this one, for example if he had said "Some people are saying this is mike tyson's big come back! What do you have to say to them?" I don't think you'd be demanding that he name his individual sources.

Now if mike tyson were on tv to give his opinion on who was going to win the next football/baseball season then i'd say his past wasn't relevant. But if he's going to offer his endorsement to what seems to be a political interest, then his character and therefore his past is the only relevant issue. Mike tyson had a good opportunity here to talk about how his life has turned around, and what he believes in now. He's a very eloquent man when he wants to be, and he could have knocked that question out of the park, made a viral hit, made the endorsement 10x stronger. But you know what he did instead? He acted like a thug and spat abuse at the guy, swearing and being childish and making his endorsement 10x weaker.

Am i going crazy here? Surely publicly presenting your approval to something requires us to place a value on your approval, and allows your character to be questioned? And i can only see good reason to protect the anonymity of the person who wanted the question asked (even if it was the interviewer!) judging by tyson's childish, aggressive reaction! I mean i liked mike on charlie sheen's roast too, but this isn't a comedy show and that question was fair. Mike could have knocked this one out of the park if he had thought about it.

What They Didn't Tell You About Mike Tyson's Rape Conviction has been added as a related post - related requested by MrFisk.

Mike Tyson vs. Canadian Reporter has been added as a related post - related requested by MrFisk on that post.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/What-They-Didnt-Tell-You-About-Mike-Tysons-Rape-Conviction

Had the broadcaster said, "You're a convicted rapist, and I think your association with the politician may possibly taint his bid to win this election," then you'd be correct. But he didn't. He brought allegations without citing sources, which is unethical. And I'm not arguing that Tyson was charged and convicted in a U.S. court of law for rape -- I'm arguing that the broadcaster probably never heard anybody say that it would look bad for a convicted rapist to endorse a politician, and if he had, then he has a responsibility to audience to say exactly who said it. For example, had he said, "ChaosEngine, from Videosift, said you're a convicted rapist who may sully the politicians chances to win an election. And he called you an asshole," then we'd know the source. But he didn't, and Tyson called him out for it.

That said, Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law School's most high-profile professor <--[Cite your sources!], said the evidence against Tyson for the rape conviction is flimsy and incomplete.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/4/13/dershowitz-wages-media-war-for-tyson/

Except he didn't make anything up. Tyson is a convicted rapist.

Fuck that asshole.

I was LOL when Mike Tyson took them all down with 1 punch. I remember how tough this game was now. The NES controller didn't help either - anyone would be feeling the pain by the time they reached 2nd title bout.

MIKE TYSON'S PUNCH-OUT!! (Teens React: Retro Gaming) has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

Your video, Exploring the Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson... stoned, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 25 Badge!

Cosmos On Weed with Neil deGrasse Tyson has been added as a related post - related requested by Grimm.

Exploring the Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson... stoned has been added as a related post - related requested by Grimm on that post.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Cosmos-On-Weed-with-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson

I was being sarcastic...

http://videosift.com/video/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-on-aliens-going-to-hell

Did you read my post you quoted?

Let me refresh your memory:

Should there be strong regulatory oversight? Of course, same way there is for any commercially produced food.

What Neil deGrasse Tyson and some of the other scientists/doctors (myself include) have are saying is that the IDEA of GMO's is a great one. The fact that we can engineer our foods to get the traits we want or add additional beneficial traits is an incredibly useful tool. We've already engineered rice that is able to produce vitamin A, which has been a huge help for places with vitamin A deficiencies and we can engineer potatoes to absorb less fats and oils when we fry them, there is also a professor at SUNY-ESF who is using GMO's to try and save the American Chestnut tree from extinction.

GMing is simply another tool in humanity's struggle to survive. First it was finding which foods were safe to eat, then it was breeding organisms within species to make inbred organisms that had the traits we wanted (think cattle, dogs, cats, corn, banana's; some of these things are more inbred than the Hapsburgs), then we starting creating our own hybrids across different species, and now we have GMO's.

However, what I object to is the current corporate use of GMO's to exploit farmers over patents, and breed for traits that people do necessarily need. NdT I'm sure is not advocating for that, but is advocating for the use of transgenic organisms/GMO's to solve some of the world's most pressing issues.

GMO's are probably the most powerful tool we have to curb world hunger, and mal-nutrition, and it could also be the thing that allows humans to venture beyond the solar system. What the Sift seems to be objecting to, and the rest of the "developed" world is the use of GMO's by greedy corporations who care more about turning a profit than solving world problems (there isn't very much money in feeding the needy and hungry). They are the one's making what appear to me more or less useless and potentially dangerous GMO's. Turn your anger away from GMO's specifically and narrow it to the ill use of GMO's by greedy corporations.

Lastly, the argument that "we don't know what they'll do" is for the most part unfounded, there are a decent amount of studies (find them yourself sorry) which show that GMO's in general won't cause harm (though it really depends on what you're trying to make). The same argument was made about the LHC "We don't know what will happen when we turn it on!" but everyone was fine.