Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[Oystein]

When you retract your claim I do not know what a trust is, then I will do the same re Carool Vorderman.

"I will stop being mean only when Jim stops being mean first" does not signal "high ethical standards" even just in kindergarden, regardless of whether or not Jim is in fact at all being mean.

 

[JayUtah]

"I will stop being mean only when Jim stops being mean first" does not signal "high ethical standards" even just in kindergarden, regardless of whether or not Jim is in fact at all being mean.

Indeed, ethics often means you have to do things in spite of your ego rather than in service of it. Ethical people do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not as part of a negotiation to get something they want.

 

[Oystein]

For the record I did not say I had high moral standards, I said I have a set of ethical principles.

This admission implies two thruths:

1. You, Vixen, do not have high moral standards, or any moral standards whatsoever
2. Your set of ethical principles may, at least as likely as not, stink, suck or otherwise be of sub-zero ethical value.

I had to laugh, but also wonder how anyone would drop their trousers this publicly to reveal for all to see her stunning lack of moral character.

 

[junkshop]

Yes, I have to admit I was one of those naive voices, noting that Vixen had given no indication that she agreed with the conspiracy theorists. Which was, to be fair, true at the time.

[Original post deleted]


I fell for that too.

 

[Vixen]

I certainly won't quibble on the difference between high moral standards and high ethical principles. Indeed, I see no real difference and were there a difference, it would not be particularly relevant to my post.

The difference is that 'high moral standards' is something out there, societal, set by others, a bar or threshold of standards to maintain 'according to morals, rules or regulations'. Your personal values are something entirely different. They are a result of your culture, family, education, work, friends, acquaintances, neighbours, etcetera but also your own personal ethics. For example, you might refuse to bet on horses as a matter of principle because you think horse racing is cruel. Because you have those values, you are resistant to others expecting you to bet on horses. Likewise, where your ethical values are sincerity*, nobody can make you act insincerely. For example, demanding that you believe the car that started the fire at Luton was a Range Rover Sport 2014 simply because they say so.

*Finnish culture is not dissimilar to English culture in that respect. People don't like insincerity and pomposity is likely to be pricked. A friend mentioned that when she goes for a walk in England she smiles at people because she thinks that it might cheer up someone who might be lonely. Here in Finland if someone smiles at you in the street, people would wonder what trickery you were up to, as it is likely to be seen as fake or manipulative. Refusing to be insincere or inauthentic is what makes people think Finns are stubborn. But it is not stubborness, it is being true to yourself and being authentic. Why would you let anyone bully you into agreeing with their beliefs if you do not? It is also to do with the protestant culture of being modest, honest and not being impressed by show-offs. It is also good for mental health to have a set of values that are not imposed on you by others.


So that is the difference.

 

[Vixen]

That's "science" in the figurative sense.




That doesn't make it a STEM subject, any more than the social "science" of anthropology is a STEM subject. Further, I renew a question to which you've failed to give a satisfactory answer in the past. If accounting is a real science, as you claim, then why can't people with accounting degrees become Registered Scientists or Chartered Scientists?

Further, in terms of actions, what the AICPA is trying to do is to get emerging accounting programs with heavy emphasis on information technology recognized as STEM programs. But that doesn't automatically make your 30+year-old education a technology degree, and it certainly doesn't make it a science degree.




It has to do with your repeated attempts to Vixensplain (h/t Jay) STEM subjects to others in this thread who have actual STEM credentials and experience.

Er, a poster demanded to know what science education I had and I gave them a straight answer. I have not asked for anybody's approval. I was providing factual information. Full stop.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, I have to admit I was one of those naive voices, noting that Vixen had given no indication that she agreed with the conspiracy theorists. Which was, to be fair, true at the time.

And yet here we are, with Vixen insisting the fire brigade are not lying but carelessly mis-stating the facts, except it's not careless, it's deliberate, because they were ordered to do it by the Prime Minister, but it's still not lying because, umm, something something. A position no reasonable person could hold. She is of course simply messing with us, as has been fairly obvious for a long time.

Not so much messing with us, I think. Rather, IMO the posts and "arguments" to which you're referring are more likely to be exhibiting a case of a) a pathological need to be correct; b) a pathological need to be proved correct at virtually any cost; c) a pathological need to be correct not only on the bigger picture, but also on the smallest and most granular matters; d) a pathological need to twist, distort, handwave and misrepresent the known evidence in order to try to be proved correct; and (most importantly) e) a pathological need to be viewed as clever, insightful, crusading and righteous (especially in the sense of "sticking it to the man").

 

[Wudang]

https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-morality-and-ethics

Ethicists today, however, use the terms interchangeably. If they do want to differentiate morality from ethics, the onus is on the ethicist to state the definitions of both terms. Ultimately, the distinction between the two is as substantial as a line drawn in the sand.

 

[Wudang]

Er, a poster demanded to know what science education I had and I gave them a straight answer. I have not asked for anybody's approval. I was providing factual information. Full stop.

So, none? OK.

 

[Craig4]

For the record I did not say I had high moral standards, I said I have a set of ethical principles.

I find that people telling me that they have ethical principles is a strong indicator that they don't.

 

[JayUtah]

Er, a poster demanded to know what science education I had and I gave them a straight answer. I have not asked for anybody's approval. I was providing factual information. Full stop.

But you did not provide factual information. You straight up said, “I am a scientist.” It took days of pursuit and many posts to get you to admit that this was nothing more than vocational training in accounting.

You are not a scientist. Your training is not in science. You are incapable of demonstrating any proficiency at science.

 

[JayUtah]

So that is the difference.

And none of it is relevant. Someone pointed out that you were dishonestly representing the available evidence, and your answer was to claim “high ethical principles” and repeat your misrepresentation.

The evidence demanded by you has shown your lack of ethics.

 

[Vixen]

https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-morality-and-ethics

Interesting article here:

Wondering If You Need To Strengthen Your Moral Code? How To Be A More Moral Person

https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/m...our-moral-code-how-to-be-a-more-moral-person/

 

[JayUtah]

Interesting article here:

https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/m...our-moral-code-how-to-be-a-more-moral-person/

Yeah, Betterhelp is such a bastion of research in moral philosophy.

Quit dodging. You have explanations and apologies to make.

 

[SpitfireIX]

My city is in the process of completely replacing its airport buildings, including the car parks and terminal buildings. It's a 15-year construction project, with the designs having been frozen in 2012.

I had to double-check with my boss to be sure that I wasn't misremembering, but several years ago, we provided a component for an earlier phase of the Salt Lake City airport redevelopment. Something I'm not sure he ever told me before, though, is that we never got paid, because the mechanical subcontractor went bankrupt, and there was some problem with their performance bond.

 

[JayUtah]

I had to double-check with my boss to be sure that I wasn't misremembering, but several years ago, we provided a component for an earlier phase of the Salt Lake City airport redevelopment. Something I'm not sure he ever told me before, though, is that we never got paid, because the mechanical subcontractor went bankrupt, and there was some problem with their performance bond.

Color me unsurprised.

 

[Vixen]

But you did not provide factual information. You straight up said, “I am a scientist.” It took days of pursuit and many posts to get you to admit that this was nothing more than vocational training in accounting.

You are not a scientist. Your training is not in science. You are incapable of demonstrating any proficiency at science.

Here's a third party opinion:

What are the hardest degree subjects?
The hardest degree subjects are Aerospace Engineering, Law, Chartered Accountancy, Architecture, Chemistry, Medicine, Pharmacy, Psychology, Statistics, Nursing, Physics, Astrophysics, Biomedical Engineering, Astronomy, and Dentistry.

https://www.oxford-royale.com/articles/hardest-degree-subjects/

 

[phiwum]

The difference is that 'high moral standards' is something out there, societal, set by others, a bar or threshold of standards to maintain 'according to morals, rules or regulations'. Your personal values are something entirely different. They are a result of your culture, family, education, work, friends, acquaintances, neighbours, etcetera but also your own personal ethics. For example, you might refuse to bet on horses as a matter of principle because you think horse racing is cruel. Because you have those values, you are resistant to others expecting you to bet on horses. Likewise, where your ethical values are sincerity*, nobody can make you act insincerely. For example, demanding that you believe the car that started the fire at Luton was a Range Rover Sport 2014 simply because they say so.

*Finnish culture is not dissimilar to English culture in that respect. People don't like insincerity and pomposity is likely to be pricked. A friend mentioned that when she goes for a walk in England she smiles at people because she thinks that it might cheer up someone who might be lonely. Here in Finland if someone smiles at you in the street, people would wonder what trickery you were up to, as it is likely to be seen as fake or manipulative. Refusing to be insincere or inauthentic is what makes people think Finns are stubborn. But it is not stubborness, it is being true to yourself and being authentic. Why would you let anyone bully you into agreeing with their beliefs if you do not? It is also to do with the protestant culture of being modest, honest and not being impressed by show-offs. It is also good for mental health to have a set of values that are not imposed on you by others.


So that is the difference.

As I said, the "difference" is irrelevant to me. I use the terms "ethics" and "morality" (and the corresponding adjectives) as synonyms personally. In fact, I do so in the classroom. But if you use the terms to mean different things, then please substitute the appropriate terms for what I wrote, since I was trying to express what you said in substance.

I'm not about to get into a pointless semantic argument. Different folks use the same words in different ways. No big deal.

 

[JayUtah]

Here's a third party opinion:

It mentions several unrelated fields, including some sciences.

You are not a scientist. You have no training in science. You cannot demonstrate any proficiency at science. Incidentally, you cannot demonstrate proficiency in many of the subjects traditionally associated with accountancy. I conclude that all your claims to expertise are likely false.

 

[Wudang]

Here's a third party opinion:


https://www.oxford-royale.com/articles/hardest-degree-subjects/

"Hard" subjects does not make them sciences.