The First Feebles

[sock puppet]

Bingo. Those that adhere to and spout things for which there is no possible verification are intellectually inferior to those that stick to the facts. Beliefs without observable evidence is in intellectual realms like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

You are doubling down on the very behavior I'm critiquing. It is not fair to state that mocking or dismissing religious belief is justified. Rejecting faith as a valid epistemology is showing a lack of respect for those that live a life of faith/belief. It's also a bit arrogant. Condescending treatment of believers will not strengthen your cause/case.

Regards,
MG

You are entirely premised on a false equivalency--that your non-factual beliefs should be accorded the same weight and persuasion as verifiable facts. Your beliefs are intellectually inferior to fact-based, logical assertions.

Further, morality depends on truth. Actual truth depends on facts. Beliefs without facts are inferior "truths" to assertions based on observable facts and logic. Thus, your beliefs are morally inferior to fact-based assertions.

You feel it stinging that your non-factual beliefs are not given the same intellectual respect as fact-based assertions. It's not a matter of condescension. It's reality.

[MG 2.0]

You are doubling down on the very behavior I'm critiquing. It is not fair to state that mocking or dismissing religious belief is justified. Rejecting faith as a valid epistemology is showing a lack of respect for those that live a life of faith/belief. It's also a bit arrogant. Condescending treatment of believers will not strengthen your cause/case.

Regards,
MG

You are entirely premised on a false equivalency--that your non-factual beliefs should be accorded the same weight and persuasion as verifiable facts. Your beliefs are intellectually inferior to fact-based, logical assertions.

Further, morality depends on truth. Actual truth depends on facts. Beliefs without facts are inferior "truths" to assertions based on observable facts and logic. Thus, your beliefs are morally inferior to fact-based assertions.

Again, you are dismissing faith as epistemically and ethically substandard. You are reflecting a positivist worldview, where truth is defined strictly by empirical verification and logic. You are excluding other ways of obtaining truth such as revelation, intuition, or lived experience as valid sources of knowledge.

We will probably continue to talk past each other on this point.

You might consider that there are many domains of human meaning such as ethics, aesthetics, and metaphysics that operate without empirical truth. For those that belong to faith traditions, including those of us that belong to the LDS church, faith-based reasoning can be internally coherent, compelling, and transformative. Many lives have been changed dramatically by accepting and living according to the dictates of faith-based systems.

Including those that are Latter-day Saints.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

You already practice this, MG. You do it every time you call people out for their sins, or their 'choosing' unbelief.

You are flipping the term back on me to suggest that calling out unbelief or sin is itself a form of religious racism. I think that is a category error. Calling something "sin" or "unbelief" isn't the same as denying someone's humanity or worth because of the framework of their religious convictions.

Religious racism is mocking someone or stereotyping them because of their religious identity. Making a theological judgement, which is what believers might do, is not the same as a personal dismissal.

Regards,
MG

WOW. That's an utterly mangled thought process. When the mental gymnast mocks and stereotypes people different from him it's okay, because it's "theological judgment." And also, he's RIGHT.

MG 2.0 is giving quite the object lesson in bigotry today.

[Marcus]

Boy, oh boy, did MG 2.0 ever step into a pile of crap with his biases clearly driving him on this one.

One of my favorite things to point out around here is the fact that people make a mountain out of a molehill. If the picture that was posted at the beginning of the thread is an unadulterated clip from the 1st Presidency meeting held in front of cameras while being interviewed...great!

I do think that there were/are better photo clips that could have been used. But...whatever. Big deal.

You folks will look for and try and find anything to suit your purposes in order to make those that are different from you look bad. I'm tempted to suggest that we create a term called, "religious racism", not because of the color of one's skin, but the color of one's religious belief.

Regards,
MG

Note that before mg found out this was a pic put out by LDS pr, he wrote:

...I think there could have been better representations/pictures to use. As I said, this one fit the bill for the purposes of the person that posted it...

Sounds like someone wrote that "in order to make those that are different from you look bad."

MG is projecting again.

[sock puppet]

It is amazing that a photo of the First Feebs put out by the LDS Church itself is, for MG 2.0, the 'hill worth dying for.' If he yet had a shred of credibility, in this thread he decimated it.

[sock puppet]

But, it is quite frank of you to admit that "these three gentlemen" don't look "very user friendly." The "incongruities" you see seem to be their unease with one another and the situation they find themselves in.

If the picture hasn't been doctored at all I would say that this snapshot is catching them at an inopportune moment. If you watch the complete news conference you find many other 'still frames' that portray them as being happy, smiling, and engaging.

Christofferson seems to be a bit off...more than the others. Shading is off. There does seem to be some A.I. manipulation as mentioned earlier. The armrest, hands/fingers, etc. A.I. has a difficult time separating what is real and what is not real when putting two human forms next to each other and contextualizing everything in between.

We can all be 'snapshot' at times when we may have a blank look on our face or other 'face view' that is less than appealing.

I think there could have been better representations/pictures to use. As I said, this one fit the bill for the purposes of the person that posted it.

Regards,
MG

So, how did the LDS church fudge this photo to make the new First Feebs look not user friendly? Be specific, with detail.

[sock puppet]

MG 2.0,

You said Christofferson seems to be a bit off...more than the others. The young one of the trio is the one that's a bit off? Yea, his body language seems to suggest he wants to keep his distance from the Crypt Keeper, a.k.a. Oaks. But then, so does Eyring--especially with Oaks' spindly, creepy little pinky finger crossing over to Eyring's chair arm.

You say the shading is off. You think they look shady?

You say that A.I. has a difficult time separating what is real and what is not real when putting two human forms next to each other and contextualizing everything in between. Hmmm. Explain the contextual incongruities, be specific now, ya hear?

[I Have Questions]

MG 2.0,

You said Christofferson seems to be a bit off...more than the others. The young one of the trio is the one that's a bit off? Yea, his body language seems to suggest he wants to keep his distance from the Crypt Keeper, a.k.a. Oaks. But then, so does Eyring--especially with Oaks' spindly, creepy little pinky finger crossing over to Eyring's chair arm.

You say the shading is off. You think they look shady?

You say that A.I. has a difficult time separating what is real and what is not real when putting two human forms next to each other and contextualizing everything in between. Hmmm. Explain the contextual incongruities, be specific now, ya hear?

You should know by now that MG cannot bring himself to admit his error. He cannot hold his hands up and say he was mistaken. He cannot apologise for erroneously casting aspersions against posters. What type of person refuses to acknowledge their own mistakes?

[sock puppet]

MG 2.0,

You said Christofferson seems to be a bit off...more than the others. The young one of the trio is the one that's a bit off? Yea, his body language seems to suggest he wants to keep his distance from the Crypt Keeper, a.k.a. Oaks. But then, so does Eyring--especially with Oaks' spindly, creepy little pinky finger crossing over to Eyring's chair arm.

You say the shading is off. You think they look shady?

You say that A.I. has a difficult time separating what is real and what is not real when putting two human forms next to each other and contextualizing everything in between. Hmmm. Explain the contextual incongruities, be specific now, ya hear?

Tou should know by now that MG cannot bring himself to admit his error. He cannot hold his hands up and say he was mistaken. He cannot apologise for erroneously casting aspersions against posters. What type of person refuses to acknowledge their own mistakes?

Exactly. That's why he will come here and give some asschat "reasons". Game on!

[I Have Questions]

Has MG been along to apologise for besmirching the posters he accused of manipulating the image yet?