Wasting other people's time isn't the same thing as saving time for yourself.
He’s telling you, overtly but maybe unwittingly, that you and your questions are not worth his time and his effort.
No. But I do have to limit the time spent here. So I pick and choose. And truthfully, some questions and inquiries are more interesting to me than others.
In the following article, Jacob Hansen exhorts his fellow Mormons to vote for Donald Trump.
With Trump's warts fully recognized, I would like to attempt to frame him in a more complete context (without justifying his flaws) so you can make an informed choice and feel fully justified in making it.
If you don’t like either candidate please choose policy over personality for the sake of your fellow Americans whose lives are far more affected by things like banning the oil industry, or a war in Syria than by Trump making an insensitive or stupid comment on Twitter.
One wonders if MG 2.0 is similarly impressed by Jacob Hansen on this topic and followed his exhortation to vote Trump.
Hansen also tried to mitigate the murder of George Floyd. By blaming Floyd.
I think there probably is a case for criminal negligence, especially when you consider that Chauvin kept his knee on his neck after he went unresponsive. However, what many don't realize is that one of the officers on video express that they think this may be a case of "excited delirium." This is a situation in which a suspect begins to act extremely erratically and unless subdued may go into cardiac arrest. In such situations officers are told to cuff the suspect and hold them until medical help arrives. They even have a training document showing how to hold such a person.
If you want to fully understand how uninformed Hansen is, I encourage you to research the term “excited delirium” and would point you in the direction of Jon Robson’s podcast series “Things Fell Apart” - Series 2 Episode 1 it’s a worthy 34 minute listen.
I don’t have a problem with Jacob Hansen proselyting his political beliefs. The fact that you may not agree with him doesn’t then entail that he is not to be taken seriously. You may have your own flaws in the way you view the world of politics. Should you not be taken seriously also?
It’s unfortunate when we start to attack the messenger rather than the arguments.
IHAQ wrote:He’s telling you, overtly but maybe unwittingly, that you and your questions are not worth his time and his effort.
That's interesting if true. He said point blank there is a such thing as bad apologetics, and I only asked for an example. If I claimed there were a such thing as cars, then surely I have in mind at least one example of an automobile, and it wouldn't be much effort to say, "Ford!" or "crossover!"
That he resorted desperately to copilot shows that he did not have any examples of bad apologetics in mind when he made the statement. In other words, MG does not believe there have been bad apologetics. He threw out a talking point to make himself sound fair minded.
Of course there are. How could there not be? There are good a bad arguments everywhere.
Will somebody kindly give me an example of some statement about Mormonism by MG that has in some way added to their insight into, and perhaps even sympathy for that particular belief system?
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
M.G. 2.0's hero, Jacob Hansen really doesn't like Julie Hanks or her counseling methods. In fact Jacob Hansen was so irritated by Julie, that he studied, prayed and even pondered about what he should do. The answer he received from God was to notify Julie's Stake President and to make a series of online videos attacking Julie.
After sending the letter, along with various materials, to Julie's Stake President, Julie's Stake President then contacted Jacob Hansen's Stake President. Unfortunately for Jacob, it didn't turn out like he had expected.
It’s always worth checking into MG 2.0’s sources, because he clearly doesn’t! It’s no wonder he ran away pretty sharpish this time.
I’m OK with using Thoughtful Faith as a resource. I would encourage others to do so. That doesn’t mean that one necessarily is committed to accepting everything that Jacob or his guests have to say as being the absolute truth.
It’s a useful resource. One, possibly, that some folks would rather that others ignore…for reasons of their own making. Some folks here have simply written him off. Politics, religious disagreements, etc.
That's interesting if true. He said point blank there is a such thing as bad apologetics, and I only asked for an example. If I claimed there were a such thing as cars, then surely I have in mind at least one example of an automobile, and it wouldn't be much effort to say, "Ford!" or "crossover!"
That he resorted desperately to copilot shows that he did not have any examples of bad apologetics in mind when he made the statement. In other words, MG does not believe there have been bad apologetics. He threw out a talking point to make himself sound fair minded.
Of course there are. How could there not be? There are good a bad arguments everywhere.
Regards,
MG
I suppose the existence of bad arguments is obvious enough that one is not required to produce an example to demonstrate that. However it isn't very interesting to just say there exist bad arguments.
I was going to complain that this many page thread seems primarily about MG and not much about the debate. I have tried to watch the debate but could only find interest enough to watch some. Not much new. I have heard about NHM before it is one of the stronger positive evidences. It is sort of archeological support. On that subject one might add that we know where Jerusalem is and was,which is the starting location for the story.
I did hear an argument I have never heard before. Hansen noted that with NHM there is more archeological evidence for 1 Nephi than there is for the Exodus. It is true there is no direct evidence of a bunch of people crossing the desert 3500 years ago. There are several consideration which could cast doubt on the reality or accuracy of the Exodus story. I find it difficult to think of reasons why that can help belief in the Book of Mormon .
I thought this Exodus comparison is a pretty good example of bad apologetic arguments.
Last edited by huckelberry on Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Of course there are. How could there not be? There are good a bad arguments everywhere.
Such as what? You can't give an example. You just said this to make yourself sound fair-minded when in reality you know you're not.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
Of course there are. How could there not be? There are good a bad arguments everywhere.
Regards,
MG
I suppose the existence of bad arguments is obvious enough that one is not required to produce an example to demonstrate that. However it isn't very interesting to just say there exist bad arguments.
I was going to complain that this many page thread seems primarily about MG and not much about the debate. I have tried to watch the debate but could only find interest enough to watch some. Not much new. I have heard about NHM before it is one of the stronger positive evidences. It is sort of archeological support. On that subject one might add that we know were Jerusalem is, the starting location of the story.
I did hear an argument I have never heard before. Hansen noted that with NHM there is more archeological evidence for 1 Nephi than there is for the Exodus. It is true there is no direct evidence of a bunch of people crossing the desert 3500 years ago. There are several consideration which could cast doubt on the reality or accuracy of the Exodus story. I find it difficult to think of reasons why that can help belief in the Book of Mormon .
I thought this Exodus comparison is a pretty good example of bad apologetic arguments.
Thank you for sifting through the video to find some novel arguments. I think the Exodus argument might be more persuasive to believing Christians than those who think Exodus was too far back in the Bible to have any link to actual history. According to wikipedia "Much of the focus of modern criticism has been the historicity of the United Monarchy of Israel, which according to the Hebrew Bible ruled over both Judea and Samaria around the 10th century BCE."
It stands to reason that beyond 1000 B.C. those stories aren't history so much as they are mythology.
