Brooks post finals interview

[Nailbender]

I'm honestly torn about what to be most mad about after this year's tourney. I mean I have to be outraged about something, right?

 

Spencer's loss

The ridiculousness of discussing this for 5 pages

That guy here who had me thinking Nebraska was going to have like 4 champs

 

 

That's it, I've decided! @jajensen09 is a false prophet!!!!

 

 

 

[Supreme Technique]

2 hours ago, BigRedFan said:

Or with respect instead of disdain.  As Brooks did not.

Overly simplistic. Ultimately a lot of these debates/discussions center on the nature of reality and whether or not the worldview or religion put forth is true or not.  If Brooks' religion is true (or at least certain facts about it), then you would be asking him to respect a religion that first disrespected his own. Put it this way, would you say it's wrong to defend your religion if it is attacked? If yes, then one could say that Brooks was doing that if, in fact, Muhammad's religion started with attacking that which came before it. The unfortunate, controversial yet true case is many religions insult others by simply existing. Thanking Jesus as the only Lord and savior would offend other religious sensibilities even without making an explicit reference to any other religion.  Even those condemning Brooks statements are offending adherents of other religions or no religions (as several popular religions use what would be considered offensive language about those who do not believe in God(s)) even if they don't realize it. I could tease this out and prove that but would prefer those to really think on this before responding. In short, there are no religiously neutral statements, and there are likely none that would offend exactly zero people.

Also, disagreeing with something does not imply disdain. I disagree that Spencer Lee was better than Kyle Dake at any point in his career, that doesn't mean that I have disdain for those who disagree with me.

[BigRedFan]

6 hours ago, Supreme Technique said:

Overly simplistic. Ultimately a lot of these debates/discussions center on the nature of reality and whether or not the worldview or religion put forth is true or not. 

I stopped reading at this point.

[BuckyBadger]

6 hours ago, Supreme Technique said:

Overly simplistic. Ultimately a lot of these debates/discussions center on the nature of reality and whether or not the worldview or religion put forth is true or not.  If Brooks' religion is true (or at least certain facts about it), then you would be asking him to respect a religion that first disrespected his own. Put it this way, would you say it's wrong to defend your religion if it is attacked? If yes, then one could say that Brooks was doing that if, in fact, Muhammad's religion started with attacking that which came before it. The unfortunate, controversial yet true case is many religions insult others by simply existing. Thanking Jesus as the only Lord and savior would offend other religious sensibilities even without making an explicit reference to any other religion.  Even those condemning Brooks statements are offending adherents of other religions or no religions (as several popular religions use what would be considered offensive language about those who do not believe in God(s)) even if they don't realize it. I could tease this out and prove that but would prefer those to really think on this before responding. In short, there are no religiously neutral statements, and there are likely none that would offend exactly zero people.

Also, disagreeing with something does not imply disdain. I disagree that Spencer Lee was better than Kyle Dake at any point in his career, that doesn't mean that I have disdain for those who disagree with me.

Overly complicated

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

On 3/19/2023 at 12:57 AM, billyhoyle said:

Wait, but why can't they just let their athletes wrestle the Israelis? I'm pretty sure China doesn't refuse to compete against Taiwan. 

LOL China actually adds Taiwan's medals to their own medal count.

[Supreme Technique]

56 minutes ago, BigRedFan said:

I stopped reading at this point.

Why? Your statements about what is or isn't disrespectful largely hang on this point.

Here's the rest. "If Brooks' religion is true (or at least certain facts about it), then you would be asking him to respect a religion that first disrespected his own. Put it this way, would you say it's wrong to defend your religion if it is attacked? If yes, then one could say that Brooks was doing that if, in fact, Muhammad's religion started with attacking that which came before it. The unfortunate, controversial yet true case is many religions insult others by simply existing. Thanking Jesus as the only Lord and savior would offend other religious sensibilities even without making an explicit reference to any other religion.  Even those condemning Brooks statements are offending adherents of other religions or no religions (as several popular religions use what would be considered offensive language about those who do not believe in God(s)) even if they don't realize it. I could tease this out and prove that but would prefer those to really think on this before responding. In short, there are no religiously neutral statements, and there are likely none that would offend exactly zero people." In light of this, how are your statements any less controversial than Brooks'?

[BigRedFan]

4 minutes ago, Supreme Technique said:

Why? Your statements about what is or isn't disrespectful largely hang on this point.

Why?  "whether or not the worldview or religion put forth is true or not. " (and not because of the poor grammar)

Any argument or discussion that is based on whether a particular religion is true is a non-starter.  In fact, that's pretty much the reason for this whole thread.

[Supreme Technique]

1 minute ago, BigRedFan said:

Why?  "whether or not the worldview or religion put forth is true or not. " (and not because of the poor grammar)

Any argument or discussion that is based on whether a particular religion is true is a non-starter.  In fact, that's pretty much the reason for this whole thread.

In this case, the entire religion would not have to be true for my point to stand. If certain facts associated with the religion are true then that is enough. Let me put it another way: is it okay to respond to someone that disrespects your religion? If yes, Brooks' statements can be arguably justified. It's quite possible you're condemning Brooks' actions while unintentionally defending someone that did the very same thing as Brooks on a much broader scale.

[Supreme Technique]

39 minutes ago, BuckyBadger said:

Overly complicated

How so? You mentioned earlier, "I get that Brooks and other guys are driven by their strong faith and they are just coming off the mat with heightened emotions, but disparaging other religious beliefs?" If disparaging religious beliefs is a bad thing, is it inappropriate to address or respond to a person that disparages religious beliefs? If yes, then Brooks may be off the hook. What if you're accidentally advocating for respect of beliefs that are inherently disparaging of other religious beliefs?

[1032004]

11 minutes ago, Supreme Technique said:

In this case, the entire religion would not have to be true for my point to stand. If certain facts associated with the religion are true then that is enough. Let me put it another way: is it okay to respond to someone that disrespects your religion? If yes, Brooks' statements can be arguably justified. It's quite possible you're condemning Brooks' actions while unintentionally defending someone that did the very same thing as Brooks on a much broader scale.

This is a stretch.  He wasn’t responding to anyone.  Responding to a religion existing like you tried to claim earlier is not a thing.

And no, there probably wouldn’t be a thread about this if all he said was “Jesus is the only lord and savior.”

[BigRedFan]

10 minutes ago, Supreme Technique said:

In this case, the entire religion would not have to be true for my point to stand. If certain facts associated with the religion are true then that is enough. Let me put it another way: is it okay to respond to someone that disrespects your religion? If yes, Brooks' statements can be arguably justified. It's quite possible you're condemning Brooks' actions while unintentionally defending someone that did the very same thing as Brooks on a much broader scale.

Brooks insulted the religion of almost two billion people.  On national TV.  Are you and others defending that?  In what world is that okay?

Whether any particular religion is "true" is utterly irrelevant:  no religion can be shown to be "true," by definition.  Isn't that why they call it "faith?"

[Bigbrog]

Man you anti-religious folks are dense...do you not get that the islamic faith insults all other faiths in it's whole concept.  And vice versa.  That is why they are...get ready for it...DIFFERENT religions!!  

A lot of you are like "Karen" sitting at the park calling out things that are "bad" when you know nothing about the very thing you are calling bad.

[Supreme Technique]

4 minutes ago, BigRedFan said:

Brooks insulted the religion of almost two billion people.  On national TV.  Are you and others defending that?  In what world is that okay?

Whether any particular religion is "true" is utterly irrelevant:  no religion can be shown to be "true," by definition.  Isn't that why they call it "faith?"

What if Brooks is responding to a religious figure or ideology that first insulted his religion? Religious doctrine can't be inherently offensive simply because of the amount of followers? That's why I ask, is it okay to respond to someone who disparages your religion? I think that question is fundamental to this discussion.

Also, an entire faith needn't be true for one to disparage it. You can disparage a religious belief that is false. Although no religion can be shown to be true entirely, nearly every religion maps onto reality to some degree. It is true to say that Joseph Smith was a White religious figure that lived in America. If one later claims that Joseph Smith really was a Black man that lived the entirety of his life in Asia, that would be false. Mormonism need not be true to make inaccurate claims or even disparaging remarks about it.

[BigRedFan]

3 minutes ago, Supreme Technique said:

What if Brooks is responding to a religious figure or ideology that first insulted his religion? 

Again:  Brooks insulted the religion of almost two billion people.  You are defending the indefensible. 

A review of Matthew 5:38-39 might help here.

[Supreme Technique]

4 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Man you anti-religious folks are dense...do you not get that the islamic faith insults all other faiths in it's whole concept.  And vice versa.  That is why they are...get ready for it...DIFFERENT religions!!  

A lot of you are like "Karen" sitting at the park calling out things that are "bad" when you know nothing about the very thing you are calling bad.

I think you're getting the point. All religions are guilty of insulting other religions. I don't want to get lost in the weeds but this thread is deeply ironic. Some truly appear to be defending things that they don't understand.

[BuckyBadger]

37 minutes ago, Supreme Technique said:

How so? You mentioned earlier, "I get that Brooks and other guys are driven by their strong faith and they are just coming off the mat with heightened emotions, but disparaging other religious beliefs?" If disparaging religious beliefs is a bad thing, is it inappropriate to address or respond to a person that disparages religious beliefs? If yes, then Brooks may be off the hook. What if you're accidentally advocating for respect of beliefs that are inherently disparaging of other religious beliefs?

Because its the NCAA wrestling championships, not the Evangelical network.

[Supreme Technique]

1 minute ago, BigRedFan said:

Again:  Brooks insulted the religion of almost two billion people.  You are defending the indefensible. 

A review of Matthew 5:38-39 might help here.

What if the religion he's responding to has core doctrines that inherently insult the religion of another religion with even more adherents, in addition to other religions or those without a religion?

[BigRedFan]

2 minutes ago, Supreme Technique said:

What if the religion he's responding to has core doctrines that inherently insult the religion of another religion with even more adherents, in addition to other religions or those without a religion?

Stop with the "what if" crap.

Again:  Brooks insulted the religion of almost two billion people.  You are defending the indefensible.

[BuckyBadger]

5 minutes ago, Supreme Technique said:

What if the religion he's responding to has core doctrines that inherently insult the religion of another religion with even more adherents, in addition to other religions or those without a religion?

You’re not wrong about that. So why not use the post-match interview to talk about every other inconsistency in the world? Maybe Brooks should have also talked about the role government plays in our lives, race relations and foreign policy? Hmm, I wonder why he didn’t talk about where the current policies there go wrong?

[CoachC]

Well, it's Bible. It's not his opinion.  “You Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me” (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 5:7) 

[Scouts Honor]

1 hour ago, BigRedFan said:

Why?  "whether or not the worldview or religion put forth is true or not. " (and not because of the poor grammar)

Any argument or discussion that is based on whether a particular religion is true is a non-starter.  In fact, that's pretty much the reason for this whole thread.

its funny that people here are attacking brooks for attacking a religion..

when they are attacking EVERY religion... 

hmmm

[Scouts Honor]

37 minutes ago, BuckyBadger said:

Because its the NCAA wrestling championships, not the Evangelical network.

tell that to ESPN and their continued bowing to the religion of the left 

[Supreme Technique]

Just now, BigRedFan said:

Stop with the "what if" crap.

Again:  Brooks insulted the religion of almost two billion people.  You are defending the indefensible.

Okay, I didn't want to do this, but I will get a little deeper. According to the standard religious doctrine (as opposed to individual adherents), I grew up a Muslim. I'm no longer a Muslim. The religious figure that Brooks addressed as being false taught that I should be killed for that fact alone. All of the various major schools of Islamic law (Sharia) agree with this figure and would cite his explicit teachings in an official court of law as to why I should be killed. If I go home, there would even be family members willing to kill me. However, they wouldn't need to as they could hand me over to authorities (not vigilantes, not ISIL/ISIS) and I would be executed by the state. And many of those 2 billion would agree with that, though not all. That's why I mentioned that you were unintentionally defending someone that has said far worse than Brooks. It's very ironic, "don't insult the religion even though that religion explicitly insults other religions, adherent of other religions, and even pagan Gods in it's authoritative texts." My "what ifs" aren't merely hypothetical. Please thoughtfully consider how your statement undercuts itself. In short, your standard would have you condemning the very religious figures/religion you are calling out Brooks for offending. There really is no way to get around this without arbitrarily making yourself an authority and dismissing the mountains of findings both past and current of sharia scholars.

[Supreme Technique]

28 minutes ago, BuckyBadger said:

You’re not wrong about that. So why not use the post-match interview to talk about every other inconsistency in the world? Maybe Brooks should have also talked about the role government plays in our lives, race relations and foreign policy? Hmm, I wonder why he didn’t talk about where the current policies there go wrong?

I'm not sure what was going on in Brooks mind. He was asked an explicit faith question and gave an explicit faith-based answer. Honestly, I would prefer to not hear Brooks thoughts on matters outside of wrestling.

 

[Supreme Technique]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

This is a stretch.  He wasn’t responding to anyone.  Responding to a religion existing like you tried to claim earlier is not a thing.

And no, there probably wouldn’t be a thread about this if all he said was “Jesus is the only lord and savior.”

In context, he would be responding to the prophet of Islam's comments about his own religious doctrines. There may or may not have been a thread about those hypothetical comments, that doesn't mean that they are not controversial or offensive as many would take offense to those sentiments.  There are very few religious statements that offend 0 people. There may, in fact, be none.