SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (54813)3/21/2008 8:41:07 AM
From: epicure  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 542152
 
"A leader isn't supposed to be a gullible as his flock."

You know, I'm not sure you'd hold a creationist to this standard. People leading flocks are, by your definition, "gullible" at least in the sense that they believe the claptrap they "preach"- if they didn't, then they'd be "hypocrites"- which I'd assume you don't like either. I think that people usually get to the front of the flock by being strong believers in the first place. You seem to be using "gullible", and "capable of believing something I, Lane3, choose not to believe", as synonymous. IMO you've misused both gullible and bait. I mean I'm all for calling everyone who believes something without scientific basis gullible- but I know that doesn't really do the dictionary definition justice, and it also condemns a huge majority of humanity.

Folks who are in the "belief" business could probably be expected to be less rational than a scientist. You want people who aren't "gullible", by your definition, go look at a list of scientists. But don't look at the heads of churches.

PS- I'd also argue that this "belief" actually stems from a deep cynicism in the black community, cynicism which really represents the opposite of what gullibility normally means. If anything the black community is untrusting, which is why they don't believe a lot of the "evidence" trotted out to show them their belief is wrong.