Comments Thread For: Briedis At Odds With His Country Ahead of 'Potential Last Fight' With Opetaia

[BoxingUpdates]

Seven years ago Mairis Briedis was awarded the Order of the Three Stars, the most prestigious award any Latvian can receive.
[Click Here To Read More]

[Rbs3rd]

The Latvian people will love him when he is dead and long gone. Its crazy how a small quote can cause so many to form such a strong opinion, either way. Whether for or against.

[M'Boro]

Fencesitting has its downsides, Briedis is dealing with the consequences of said fencesitting...

Be a man take a moral stance and stick with it.

[rudy]

He tried become a mp for Europe for Russia what does he expect

[JeBron Lamez]

Fencesitting has its downsides, Briedis is dealing with the consequences of said fencesitting...

Be a man take a moral stance and stick with it.

Fencesitting may indeed have its downsides but lest we forget, so does blindly inherited beef.

Breidis took a moral stance, he said he is against humans being slaughtered.

It just didn't happen to be consistent with what either side of a particular conflict wanted it to be, i.e corralled into one of the two polarised camps.

Now, speaking of celebrity opinions on serious issues... WHERE IS JA?????!!?!?!?!!

[M'Boro]

Fencesitting may indeed have its downsides but lest we forget, so does blindly inherited beef.

Breidis took a moral stance, he said he is against humans being slaughtered.

It just didn't happen to be consistent with what either side of a particular conflict wanted it to be, i.e corralled into one of the two polarised camps.

Now, speaking of celebrity opinions on serious issues... WHERE IS JA?????!!?!?!?!!

Well the problem is he hasn't given a strong opinion either way which is what this article is about.

He's claiming to be oblivious to the conflict whilst also claiming he's against people dying which of course any sane person is but that isn't a strong stance.

It's just a relatively banal statement to appease his manager and it backfired.

[JeBron Lamez]

Well the problem is he hasn't given a strong opinion either way which is what this article is about.

He's claiming to be oblivious to the conflict whilst also claiming he's against people dying which of course any sane person is but that isn't a strong stance.

It's just a relatively banal statement to appease his manager and it backfired.

Yep, exactly.

A hasty & banal statement with an unimpeachable moral opinion, made under pressure to appease his manager after being threatened with misrepresentation for the purposes of character assassination.

He doesn't have to take one side or the other. No-one does, even if they come from one of the two countries at war... ...which Breidis doesn't.

The key issue here is the assumption that everyone must always choose to completely align themselves with one or other of two sides of a conflict, which is of course ridiculous (hence the existence of the perfectly valid yet always somehow annoying phrase: "I'm staying out of it.").

[M'Boro]

Yep, exactly.

A hasty & banal statement with an unimpeachable moral opinion, made under pressure to appease his manager after being threatened with misrepresentation for the purposes of character assassination.

He doesn't have to take one side or the other. No-one does, even if they come from one of the two countries at war... ...which Breidis doesn't.

The key issue here is the assumption that everyone must always choose to completely align themselves with one or other of two sides of a conflict, which is of course ridiculous (hence the existence of the perfectly valid yet always somehow annoying phrase: "I'm staying out of it.").

The problem is when you don't take a stance or "side" you're deemed deceptive and untrustworthy hence why the manager pushed him to take a stance in the first place.

You could even go a far as to argue it's not even morally defensible to fence sit in moralized/politicized issues.

You do have to take a stance if you want to remain respected and trusted, it's actually been studied that "staying out of it" backfires in contentious moral and political disagreements and people really do care what others stand on contentious moral and political issues.

[JeBron Lamez]

The problem is when you don't take a stance or "side" you're deemed deceptive and untrustworthy hence why the manager pushed him to take a stance in the first place.

You could even go a far as to argue it's not even morally defensible to fence sit in moralized/politicized issues.

You do have to take a stance if you want to remain respected and trusted, it's actually been studied that "staying out of it" backfires in contentious moral and political disagreements and people really do care what others stand on contentious moral and political issues.

Taking a stance & taking a side are not the same thing.

To be deemed untrustworthy by the dogmatic, even if they are in the overwhelming numerical majority, does not make one untrustworthy (just one's life extremely difficult or worse).

Also, trustworthiness can (& I stress "can") be completely subjective. Trusted with or to do what, and by whom?

I realise, of course, the truth that objectivity is usually unpopular during nearby conflict lol.

[M'Boro]

Taking a stance & taking a side are not the same thing.

To be deemed untrustworthy by the dogmatic, even if they are in the overwhelming numerical majority, does not make one untrustworthy (just one's life extremely difficult or worse).

Also, trustworthiness can (& I stress "can") be completely subjective. Trusted with or to do what, and by whom?

I realise, of course, the truth that objectivity is usually unpopular during nearby conflict lol.

Taking a side is necessary to taking a stance particularly in this case of latvians who's country was under the yoke of USSR...

Not condemning their (Russias) actions is tantamount to condoning them.

As for the "numerical majority" appeasing them is best for business, it's only logical to go along to get along despite your ACTUAL opinion.