Let's clear the air...

[citizenzen]

What was that topic again?

Somebody better crack a window.

The rooms getting a little stuffy.

 

[bananabrain]

In an ideal world you are right, such stereotyping is bad for society. But Jews are not exempt from it, as the recent outrage over Israeli army T-shirt designs shows.

an outrage which i share. if the army still had any moral credibility, that has left it in tatters. and surely it says something about the society; but it is not the be-all and end-all, particularly if it is the organs of liberty, as it were, within the society itself that expose such a scandal and a desecration of the Divine Name; surely that is a cause for hope? i sincerely hope so.

You know you are just like Thomas, constantly telling me who I am, throwing mud in the hope that it sticks. Trying to diminish not my words but my person.

i have only ever addressed the poor quality of your arguments, latterly with reference to fellow travellers most reasonable people would be ashamed of. i think you are rather rude, as it happens, but i've not found it necessary to play the man rather than the ball; your arguments are clear and your moral sense is admirable, but because you appear only to deal in reductionist absolutes they are also simplistic, tendentious and in the final analysis counterproductive. i must say that it says something for your level of arrogance that you continue to pick fights based on your own ignorance about judaism and catholicism with two people that clearly know more about it than you do. look at the discussion that thomas and i had on hans kung - we clearly disagree on how right he is and how important he is, but i am willing to trust that he is arguing in good faith and honestly. you, quite obviously, make no such presumption and that, unfortunately, undermines the whole basis of dialogue for you; you assume there must be some sort of hidden agenda, because that is an axiom of your worldview:

Am I right in thinking that you also work for some sector of your establishment?

you are not. QED.

Your blanket dismissal and your wholly inaccurate description of Chomsky reveals to me you know little or nothing of what he says.

it's not a blanket dismissal. he's a clever man by all accounts and as i think i said, he is an extremely effective critic of certain things. that does not make him the last word in all criticism; success in one field does not confer automatic credibility in all and the tendency to generalise from specific expertise is a particular failing of experts. i am strongly reminded of terry eagleton's critique of richard dawkins' attacks on religion, where he says that it is like listening to someone holding forth on evolution armed only with a thorough knowledge of the "standard book of british birds". it's a bit like michael moore, i think he's incredible at exposing the failings of america at home, but when he tries to leave his field and look at international stuff, he just comes across as a tendentious ranter. as it happens, dialogue with convinced chomskyites is not a new thing for me; my comment is based on my prior experience, which does not inspire me with great respect for chomsky's insight across the board, whilst respecting him as insightful within certain fields.

Or that you know he is far to big a man for you to take on.

yeah, because chomsky really cares what some idiot on a web forum is saying.

I have seen your bias played out in the perversion of facts on many a post now.

so now you're calling me a liar? i just want to get that straight. because if i am dishonest, then you cannot trust a single thing i say to be in good faith. it could all be a "play".

You make much wind of your independence of thought but it seems to me increasingly that you are nothing but a barking guard dog who comes to shout down and humiliate anyone who might dare suggest anything other than the doctrine you support.

you make much of this, but you don't seem to understand what it is i actually do support. do you know what my position is on any actual, specific issue?
you seem to see yourself as a sort of crusader for right, truth and so on, but when you look at it it really boils down to "i'm cleverer and more rational than all of you, so i must be right" - the first being an assertion and the second a similiarly illogical conclusion.

I stand by every word I say about Israel and the manipulation of the holocaust legacy for American Imperial aims.

you've always been entitled to your opinion. i've tried to show that it's a lot more complicated than you imagine and that you are considerably mistaken about a great many things - but you're the one with the agenda to prove something to all of us and you resent any implication that you might be anything less than 100% right.

And you can do your damnedest to link me to some fringe loonies but I know that is not where I belong. And shame on you for suggesting that I do.

all i've done is to show you that your arguments and tactics are similar to people who you purport to disapprove of. if you don't like being called a duck, stop quacking like one.

"clear the air"? sheesh.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Avi]

BB, I would be interested in hearing your views on the conditions in Europe, in general and Britain before WWI which led to the Balfour Declaration and the impact that this agreement has had on post WWI Middle East ? Do you think on balance it was a good agreement for Israel and the Middle East ? Also, why aren't Europeans more sympathetic to Israel ?

 

[wil]

Dauer,

I'd love to answer your questions, but I can't find what I didn't answer.

As to the Oronians, sorry I couldn't follow it all. I can't relate well to what ifs, science fictiion, fantasy etc. have never been my forte.

I deny that I have sought out business relationships due to stereotypes, I didn't have many Jewish friends growing up or if I did was unaware. I've learned most of the stereotypes from my jewish friends. I also ended up with the business relationships by proxy/recommendations, I've not selected anyone because they were or were not Jewish.

My first real knowledge that I associated with a number of Jews was sitting at a Juggling Club meeting. A friend was looking at the roster and made the comment that well over half of the members were Jewish...to which I replied...Who is Jewish? Seriously, I was 30 years old and that naive, and he was correct, nearly all my friends in that club, that I'd been playing with, performing with were Jewish, and of those I was aware of only two, the rest were a surprise to me.

Since then I've discovered that the entertainment industry, lawyers, doctors, college professors, entrepreneurs, business owners, and those in politics in the US are populated by Jews at a percentage that is 3-7 times the percentage found in the general population.

Now you are correct, that immigrants and first generations of immigrants often excel compared to the general population. And according to articles I've just looked up, Asians are increasing in this direction, but as our history shows that doesn't continue on infitum for subsequent generations. And I still contend, to the credit of the Jewish population, they are better at bringing up their children to learn the value of education, money and to excel in society than the average American.

And no BB, I don't know any Jewish policeman, but again as I've said, I am naive in this regard, but I'd doubt that I'd find them as a higher percentage in the force than in the general population.

Record no. of Jews elected to Congress | America Decides 2008 | Jerusalem Post

Is There a ‘Docta’ in the House? | Health | Jewish Journal

 

[Bandit]

You know you are just like Thomas, constantly telling me who I am, throwing mud in the hope that it sticks. Trying to diminish not my words but my person. Am I right in thinking that you also work for some sector of your establishment?

Your blanket dismissal and your wholly inaccurate description of Chomsky reveals to me you know little or nothing of what he says. Or that you know he is far to big a man for you to take on. I have seen your bias played out in the perversion of facts on many a post now. You make much wind of your independence of thought but it seems to me increasingly that you are nothing but a barking guard dog who comes to shout down and humiliate anyone who might dare suggest anything other than the doctrine you support.

I stand by every word I say about Israel and the manipulation of the holocaust legacy for American Imperial aims. And you can do your damnedest to link me to some fringe loonies but I know that is not where I belong. And shame on you for suggesting that I do.

Yes, the barking dog syndrome, humiliating others is very popular when they disagree and put themselves above everyone else due to their religion.

an outrage which i share. if the army still had any moral credibility, that has left it in tatters. and surely it says something about the society; but it is not the be-all and end-all, particularly if it is the organs of liberty, as it were, within the society itself that expose such a scandal and a desecration of the Divine Name; surely that is a cause for hope? i sincerely hope so.


i have only ever addressed the poor quality of your arguments, latterly with reference to fellow travellers most reasonable people would be ashamed of. i think you are rather rude, as it happens, but i've not found it necessary to play the man rather than the ball; your arguments are clear and your moral sense is admirable, but because you appear only to deal in reductionist absolutes they are also simplistic, tendentious and in the final analysis counterproductive. i must say that it says something for your level of arrogance that you continue to pick fights based on your own ignorance about judaism and catholicism with two people that clearly know more about it than you do. look at the discussion that thomas and i had on hans kung - we clearly disagree on how right he is and how important he is, but i am willing to trust that he is arguing in good faith and honestly. you, quite obviously, make no such presumption and that, unfortunately, undermines the whole basis of dialogue for you; you assume there must be some sort of hidden agenda, because that is an axiom of your worldview:


you are not. QED.


it's not a blanket dismissal. he's a clever man by all accounts and as i think i said, he is an extremely effective critic of certain things. that does not make him the last word in all criticism; success in one field does not confer automatic credibility in all and the tendency to generalise from specific expertise is a particular failing of experts. i am strongly reminded of terry eagleton's critique of richard dawkins' attacks on religion, where he says that it is like listening to someone holding forth on evolution armed only with a thorough knowledge of the "standard book of british birds". it's a bit like michael moore, i think he's incredible at exposing the failings of america at home, but when he tries to leave his field and look at international stuff, he just comes across as a tendentious ranter. as it happens, dialogue with convinced chomskyites is not a new thing for me; my comment is based on my prior experience, which does not inspire me with great respect for chomsky's insight across the board, whilst respecting him as insightful within certain fields.


yeah, because chomsky really cares what some idiot on a web forum is saying.


so now you're calling me a liar? i just want to get that straight. because if i am dishonest, then you cannot trust a single thing i say to be in good faith. it could all be a "play".


you make much of this, but you don't seem to understand what it is i actually do support. do you know what my position is on any actual, specific issue?
you seem to see yourself as a sort of crusader for right, truth and so on, but when you look at it it really boils down to "i'm cleverer and more rational than all of you, so i must be right" - the first being an assertion and the second a similiarly illogical conclusion.


you've always been entitled to your opinion. i've tried to show that it's a lot more complicated than you imagine and that you are considerably mistaken about a great many things - but you're the one with the agenda to prove something to all of us and you resent any implication that you might be anything less than 100% right.


all i've done is to show you that your arguments and tactics are similar to people who you purport to disapprove of. if you don't like being called a duck, stop quacking like one.

"clear the air"? sheesh.

b'shalom

bananabrain

You set a horrible example for your religion and the people in it.

 

[17th Angel]

My sympathies. I have been the subject of the negative side of stereotyping too in England and abroad. Not that it bothered me. I have worn glasses since I was 6 and so quickly got used to the fact that some people are just not nice.

You got picked on as a kid for wearing glasses? :/ I had a kid laugh at me at school I broke his nose No one else said or did **** after that...... Aggression can be defeated by relentless aggression

 

[bananabrain]

You set a horrible example for your religion and the people in it.

well, you are of course entitled to your opinion. but if you are waiting for me to admit that judaism is a terrible religion and we should all just give up and bend over i think you're going to be waiting for some time.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Bandit]

well, you are of course entitled to your opinion. but if you are waiting for me to admit that judaism is a terrible religion and we should all just give up and bend over i think you're going to be waiting for some time.

b'shalom

bananabrain

That is not what I wrote nor did I make a suggestion. That is your own suggestion. This is what I wrote:

You set a horrible example for your religion and the people in it.

 

[bananabrain]

yes, i know, i can read. you, apparently, cannot understand.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Bandit]

I understand far better than you ever will.

 

[wil]

Should I have titled this, lets muddy the waters?

 

[bananabrain]

I understand far better than you ever will.

no bandit, you don't. you are in absolutely no position to tell me that you understand what judaism teaches better than i do. you display no insight, little actual knowledge and instead appear to be parroting arguments without backing them up. i refer you to a previous comment i made: if you want to understand something about medicine, to dismiss the comments of doctors as being somehow less valid than your own opinions is simply cloth-headed. you are of course welcome to do so, assuming that credibility is not an issue for your positions.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Bandit]

no bandit, you don't. you are in absolutely no position to tell me that you understand what judaism teaches better than i do. you display no insight, little actual knowledge and instead appear to be parroting arguments without backing them up. i refer you to a previous comment i made: if you want to understand something about medicine, to dismiss the comments of doctors as being somehow less valid than your own opinions is simply cloth-headed. you are of course welcome to do so, assuming that credibility is not an issue for your positions.

b'shalom

bananabrain

I dont give two cents what your own cloth-head teaches or your own parroted arguments about judaism. If I want to know something about judaism that I don't already know I will find someone else to ask.

 

[Tao_Equus]

i must say that it says something for your level of arrogance that you continue to pick fights based on your own ignorance about judaism and catholicism with two people that clearly know more about it than you do.

First off...show me where I have ever picked a fight with Judaism. You will not be able to because I have never done so. As for it being arrogant to question a given testimony just because someone declares themselves an expert you must have a different attitude altogether than me. Thomas is an expert on the endless doctrinal drivel of the CC and when he is in that mode with people who enjoy such drivel I rarely interject. My 'issue' with Thomas is that he constantly seeks to proselytise yet refuses to meet me on the very real challenges I make in regard to the institution as a political mercenary. How dare I say bad things about the CC! I find the very real conspiracy of silence regarding the CC's close involvement in the machine of fascist state throughout the 20th century appalling. Yet I am the only one asking the pertinent questions here. Is this what you mean by arrogance? That I want to discuss TRUTH and not the interminable gobbledygook of doctrinal interpretation?
Further, in my limited experience experts loyal to their area of expertise in this way are full of bias and often require challenging. Indeed it would be foolish and credulous of me to take someone's self-declared expertise at face value. Especially when someone would have themselves presented as a quasi-official voice.

it's not a blanket dismissal. he's a clever man by all accounts and as i think i said, he is an extremely effective critic of certain things. that does not make him the last word in all criticism; success in one field does not confer automatic credibility in all and the tendency to generalise from specific expertise is a particular failing of experts. i am strongly reminded of terry eagleton's critique of richard dawkins' attacks on religion, where he says that it is like listening to someone holding forth on evolution armed only with a thorough knowledge of the "standard book of british birds". it's a bit like michael moore, i think he's incredible at exposing the failings of america at home, but when he tries to leave his field and look at international stuff, he just comes across as a tendentious ranter. as it happens, dialogue with convinced chomskyites is not a new thing for me; my comment is based on my prior experience, which does not inspire me with great respect for chomsky's insight across the board, whilst respecting him as insightful within certain fields.

Chomsky's arguments are lucid and verifiable. He is a meticulous researcher who would never make any assertion without there being documentary evidence to support it. He is as valued for his political commentary as he is for his Linguistic scholarship. It saddens me to see you try to assert that he is not an expert in politics after some 50+ years of political activism and writing dozens of books dealing wholly with politics.

yeah, because chomsky really cares what some idiot on a web forum is saying.

Chomsky realises that the only effective counter to the forces of fascism is public awareness. I cannot speak for the man but I would hope that he sees my posting of the pertinent facts as part of that growing awareness and would support it.

so now you're calling me a liar? i just want to get that straight. because if i am dishonest, then you cannot trust a single thing i say to be in good faith. it could all be a "play".

I said you display a persistent "bias". If I thought you a liar I would use the word.

you make much of this, but you don't seem to understand what it is i actually do support. do you know what my position is on any actual, specific issue?

Yes. Israeli persecution of civilians. Your position?.. Defend Israeli violence with every bit of verbage you can muster.

you seem to see yourself as a sort of crusader for right, truth and so on, but when you look at it it really boils down to "i'm cleverer and more rational than all of you, so i must be right" - the first being an assertion and the second a similiarly illogical conclusion.

You flatter me!! I am no crusader. What I write here is entirely selfish. It is me using everybody I engage with to explore and rationalise the information we discuss. I have in the past made it clearly known that I am uneducated, unaligned and here only to discuss things that interest me. I do not promote myself as an authority on anything but my own thinking. I certainly do not view myself as being more clever than anyone else. But I am not entirely stupid either. And if I see a flaw in an argument I will highlight it. Not to be 'clever' but because such flaws deserves exploration.

but you're the one with the agenda to prove something to all of us and you resent any implication that you might be anything less than 100% right.

LMAO, that is priceless coming from you BB.

all i've done is to show you that your arguments and tactics are similar to people who you purport to disapprove of. if you don't like being called a duck, stop quacking like one.

Now if this was a one off incident I might accept this. But truth is you persistently try to link me to Jew-haters. To be honest I do not think you set out to do this to me consciously. I think it a facet of your deeply prejudiced ingrained bias.

 

[bananabrain]

If I want to know something about judaism that I don't already know I will find someone else to ask.

that, i believe will leave you with a large pile of questions; if you get radically different answers from anyone else i will be delighted to explain why they might differ from my own.

show me where I have ever picked a fight with Judaism.

i agree you are careful to avoid any discussion of religious interpretation. however, in refusing to engage in this area you are essentially retreating to a reductionist viewpoint and it is because of this, in my opinion, that you tend to see things so much in simplistic black and white. the trouble is that you keep thinking you understand what motivates the ethnic group known as jews and in reality you are seeing only a small part of the picture, because you think it can all be put down to US expansionism and so on and so forth. that is what i have a problem with.

As for it being arrogant to question a given testimony just because someone declares themselves an expert you must have a different attitude altogether than me.

that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying that discounting knowledgeable input as irrelevant on subjects where you clearly lack knowledge is not guaranteed to support your credibility.

Is this what you mean by arrogance? That I want to discuss TRUTH and not the interminable gobbledygook of doctrinal interpretation?

look, tao, if you impute certain views to "zionism", or to "israel" and you refuse to consider the religious aspects of such concepts, because it's about "doctrinal interpretation" (a phrase, incidentally, which has very little meaning in judaism as opposed to catholicism) then that is like saying a car is badly driven because there's something wrong with the engine and ignoring the mental state of the driver, or vice-versa, or something.

Further, in my limited experience experts loyal to their area of expertise in this way are full of bias and often require challenging.

and that does not exclude chomsky.

Chomsky's arguments are lucid and verifiable. He is a meticulous researcher who would never make any assertion without there being documentary evidence to support it. He is as valued for his political commentary as he is for his Linguistic scholarship. It saddens me to see you try to assert that he is not an expert in politics after some 50+ years of political activism and writing dozens of books dealing wholly with politics.

that may indeed be the case, but it does not therefore follow that his views are accepted unequivocally by all parties concerned. many linguisticians (or whatever the word is) disagree with him. many anarchists disagree with him. many socialists disagree with him. many lebanese disagree with his support for arming hezbollah. it is tendentious to describe the palestinians as "indigenous" whilst ignoring their genetic relationship to jews and ignoring middle-eastern jews altogether. many atheists disagree with him - take this from sam harris:

Nothing in Chomsky's account acknowledges the difference between intending to kill a child, because of the effect you hope to produce on its parents (we call this "terrorism"), and inadvertently killing a child in an attempt to capture or kill an avowed child murderer (we call this "collateral damage"). In both cases a child has died, and in both cases it is a tragedy. But the ethical status of the perpetrators, be they individuals or states, could not be more distinct... For [Chomsky], intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all.

by contrast, there are several matters on which i completely agree with His Chomskety, principally his position on what he refers to as the absurd "war on some drugs". however, being right about some things does not confer infallibility, nor are his methods, interpretations or conclusions immune to dispute.

Yes. Israeli persecution of civilians. Your position?.. Defend Israeli violence with every bit of verbage you can muster.

that is absolutely and totally incorrect. you are misrepresenting me.

LMAO, that is priceless coming from you BB.

well i do like to be right, that is true, hehe, but when someone says something that is manifestly untrue, or is tendentious and debatable, i don't think it is unreasonable to argue. neither do you.

But truth is you persistently try to link me to Jew-haters.

i don't think that's right. i have tried to point out that some of your arguments are very popular with some people of whom you would probably strongly disapprove, as would indeed all right-thinking people; the fact that you find that unpleasant is intended to get you to examine your own position and question whether the arguments themselves are founded on incorrect assumptions. i suppose i should probably concede that there are not that many people who are 100% wrong about everything 100% of the time, not even ken livingstone, so perhaps it isn't an effective method of argument. however, in the case of such people as george galloway and david irving, i would have thought that it was obvious that nobody sensible would be happy about finding themselves sharing a position. all i am really trying to say here is that your way of arguing is counterproductive, but you just keep on big fat arguing like that anyway as if you're spoiling for a fight. i don't come here to butt heads, tao. i can recommend any number of other sites where people go for that.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Tao_Equus]

i agree you are careful to avoid any discussion of religious interpretation. however, in refusing to engage in this area you are essentially retreating to a reductionist viewpoint and it is because of this, in my opinion, that you tend to see things so much in simplistic black and white. the trouble is that you keep thinking you understand what motivates the ethnic group known as jews and in reality you are seeing only a small part of the picture, because you think it can all be put down to US expansionism and so on and so forth. that is what i have a problem with.

You may see an aim of reductionism as flawed, though I thought at least you might welcome this as a refreshing change on a forum, but for me it really is black and white simple. I look at the top of the chain of command, to the order givers. When I do that I see religion hardly enters the debate. Power is what decides what happens at every level below. Those on any side that get lost in the religious complexities are dealing with emotionally powerful beasts the decision makers never consider. Yeh they are quite happy to let the religious hate each other for the supremacy of their given delusion, the leaders like lots of little groups distrusting one another. Deflecting attention from the price ordinary folk have to pay so the legitimised Mafia bosses can exercise their lust for wealth and power. They are always together at their state dinners, smiling and bowing for the cameras, no religious agenda on the table at all. So wake up BB. Stop getting on your high horse thinking I cannot understand because I am not Jewish. There are pyramids of power and religion only features on their lowest tiers.

that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying that discounting knowledgeable input as irrelevant on subjects where you clearly lack knowledge is not guaranteed to support your credibility.

With you!...and Thomas ! Sure you guys know a lot about stuff I know sweet fa about. If I dismiss something I try to qualify it. If I do not qualify it please feel free to ask for it.

look, tao, if you impute certain views to "zionism", or to "israel" and you refuse to consider the religious aspects of such concepts, because it's about "doctrinal interpretation" (a phrase, incidentally, which has very little meaning in judaism as opposed to catholicism) then that is like saying a car is badly driven because there's something wrong with the engine and ignoring the mental state of the driver, or vice-versa, or something.

Well it seems to me you and Thomas often like to give your Doctrinal Interpretation of your respective faiths. And I know the car is broken and the driver is crazy. I'm more interested in how to get the bulldozer it has become to stop!

that may indeed be the case, but it does not therefore follow that his views are accepted unequivocally by all parties concerned. many linguisticians (or whatever the word is) disagree with him. many anarchists disagree with him. many socialists disagree with him. many lebanese disagree with his support for arming hezbollah. it is tendentious to describe the palestinians as "indigenous" whilst ignoring their genetic relationship to jews and ignoring middle-eastern jews altogether. many atheists disagree with him - take this from sam harris:

The thing Chomsky cannot be faulted on is his research. His writing is tediously hardgoing because it is so jam packed full of information, source and reference. Whatever complaint or flaw may be found in him no one ever questions the integrity of the facts he presents. That is important to me. If I cannot trust Chomsky on the facts then there can be no trust for any written word.

that is absolutely and totally incorrect. you are misrepresenting me.

So why should I like the same medicine

i don't think that's right. i have tried to point out that some of your arguments are very popular with some people of whom you would probably strongly disapprove, as would indeed all right-thinking people; the fact that you find that unpleasant is intended to get you to examine your own position and question whether the arguments themselves are founded on incorrect assumptions. i suppose i should probably concede that there are not that many people who are 100% wrong about everything 100% of the time, not even ken livingstone, so perhaps it isn't an effective method of argument. however, in the case of such people as george galloway and david irving, i would have thought that it was obvious that nobody sensible would be happy about finding themselves sharing a position. all i am really trying to say here is that your way of arguing is counterproductive, but you just keep on big fat arguing like that anyway as if you're spoiling for a fight. i don't come here to butt heads, tao. i can recommend any number of other sites where people go for that.

Hmmmm am I reading this right... I should go and read narrow minded little fascists because I might be one and not realise it? Maybe just download some child porn just to see how disgusting it is too? You see BB you did not come at me butting heads you came at me trying to kick my ass and found "ma heid" waiting, and that's a double metaphor. On thread after thread your posts are as or even more likely than mine to be 'confrontational'. So spare me the "Tao, your such an argumentative chap" routine. We have similarly aggressive styles often and independently. And if you try and deny that I will call you a liar

 

[Marsh]

BB, I would be interested in hearing your views on the conditions in Europe, in general and Britain before WWI which led to the Balfour Declaration and the impact that this agreement has had on post WWI Middle East ? Do you think on balance it was a good agreement for Israel and the Middle East ? Also, why aren't Europeans more sympathetic to Israel ?

Because they forget so easily.

Come on, Europe, you know it's true.

Should I have titled this, lets muddy the waters?

I think "Let the $#*& fly!!" would be much more appropriate, actually

 

[shawn]

if you want to understand something about medicine, to dismiss the comments of doctors as being somehow less valid than your own opinions is simply cloth-headed.

This is of course not true in all cases.
I have seen many examples of the layman knowing better than the "qualified specialist".
Just because a person has a paper pedigree does not make their notions superior to others.
It just makes them biased.
Often times in a wrong, yet very authoritarian way.

 

[Marsh]

This is of course not true in all cases.
I have seen many examples of the layman knowing better than the "qualified specialist".
Just because a person has a paper pedigree does not make their notions superior to others.
It just makes them biased.
Often times in a wrong, yet very authoritarian way.

Will you believe that when you require surgery, Shawn?

 

[Bandit]

Will you believe that when you require surgery, Shawn?

I would. I happen to agree very strongly with his statement considering the original context.

I would definately get the opinions of others including those outside of the medical field and not just one doctor as we all know, not all doctors agree and there are quite a few pathetic surgeons out there where patients should not have listened to their chop shop doctor and the little guy taking xrays was far more experienced in his observations. Been there and done that. I believe his statement was in reference to religion anyway and not the literal context of the ignorant and original comparison of religion to the medical field. There are plenty of nasty think they know it all popes and rabbis around here who only know their one opinion and that is it.

I would never compare the factual medical field to human ideas on their religion to begin with.