Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[phiwum]

Here's a third party opinion:


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

Well, if a summer school says chartered accountancy is hard, that settles it. It must be a science.

After all, everyone knows that science is hard.

This is just logic, people.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Someone having a different opinion from yourself does not mark them out as 'unethical'.

I think people should be more mindful of confusing ad hominem with 'winning the argument'.


Calling people names doesn't make them whatever the name it is being bandied.

 

[JayUtah]

Someone having a different opinion from yourself does not mark them out as 'unethical'.

Irrelevant. You are unethical. Therefore kindly do not excuse yourself further from being held to account because you imagine you have high ethical principles that exempt you.

 

[Vixen]

"Hard" subjects does not make them sciences.

A BSc(Hons) is regarded as a science.

You can dispute it but that is just your opinion. And it makes me question why you would want to deny something that is accepted as a science by consensus.

You'll find it is another poster who is determined to claim that chartered accountancy is (a) not a post-graduate qualification and (b) is not a STEM subject. Their words, not mine.

Any particular reason why this bothers you one way or the other?

 

[JayUtah]

A BSc(Hons) is regarded as a science.

No. You attempted this equivocation before.

You can dispute it but that is just your opinion.

No. The difference between the Sc at the end of traditional degree name and the actual activity and proficiency at science is well known.

You'll find it is another poster who is determined to claim that chartered accountancy is (a) not a post-graduate qualification and (b) is not a STEM subject. Their words, not mine.

Name the poster and quote the words.

Any particular reason why this bothers you one way or the other?

Because your ongoing claim to be a scientist despite not having the proper qualifications or being able to demonstrate any scientific proficiency directly contradicts your claim to have "high ethical principles," which claim you are using to evade accountability for your factual errors.

More directly, your attempts to analyze evidence in connection with the Luton fire presume both basic scientific proficiency and detailed, specialized understanding. Your insinuations to have these skills must be evaluated with your claims for how you got them. If you suggest that your analysis of the evidence benefits from your scientific understanding, that understanding must be assessed.

 

[phiwum]

Someone having a different opinion from yourself does not mark them out as 'unethical'.

I think people should be more mindful of confusing ad hominem with 'winning the argument'.


Calling people names doesn't make them whatever the name it is being bandied.

You seem to be confusing me with someone else. I don't think you'll find any post where I've called you unethical. In fact, I agree that all this crap about whether you are correct when you claim that you "live by high ethical principles" is an unfortunate derail of the thread.

(To be sure, you told Mark in that very same post that he may be surprised to learn that some folk live according to high ethical principles. This was an obvious dig at his own ethics, the sort of thing you're complaining about here.)

ETA: In fact, Vixen's quoted response above makes literally no damned sense, given the post she was responding to. Once again, she is six steps or so in some direction or another.

 

[LondonJohn]

Here's a third party opinion:


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

Oh. My. Word. How tragicomic.

 

[LondonJohn]

(To be sure, you told Mark in that very same post that he may be surprised to learn that some folk live according to high ethical principles. This was an obvious dig at his own ethics, the sort of thing you're complaining about here.)

Yes. I seem to remember a certain proverb: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".

 

[Mojo]

Name the poster and quote the words.

Here you go:

Please stop with the rationalizing and the pop-psychology. You are talking down to a psychology postgraduate here.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Well, if a summer school says chartered accountancy is hard, that settles it. It must be a science.

After all, everyone knows that science is hard.

This is just logic, people.

If it weighs the same as a duck, it's science!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

A BSc(Hons) is regarded as a science.

By the same principle that says every PhD is both a philosopher and a doctor, and every MA is an artist.

 

[SteveAitch]

I have a BSc in Computer Science. Well that's what they called it.

A modular degree that covered programming, operational research, economics and a couple of other things that escape me at the moment. Not that it matters, most of it was outdated a couple of years after I got the degree. It may have been a BSc and have 'Science' in its name, but it wasn't a science degree. Maybe technology. At a stretch.

Deep down, what one person/group calls something is irrelevant if everybody else uses a different definition. One which makes actual sense.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

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.

Also a lie.

You first stated you were a scientist outright, and when pushed equivocated by saying you had 5 years of science education.

When you were pushed for further details you eventually admitted this was basic schooling that everyone does.

So no, you did not give a straight answer at any point, and you kept attempting to hide behind misleading language to avoid admitting you did not have any actual experience in the sciences.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

A BSc(Hons) is regarded as a science.

You can dispute it but that is just your opinion. And it makes me question why you would want to deny something that is accepted as a science by consensus.

You'll find it is another poster who is determined to claim that chartered accountancy is (a) not a post-graduate qualification and (b) is not a STEM subject. Their words, not mine.

Any particular reason why this bothers you one way or the other?

Oh look, more lies.

It bothers me Vixen because you are falsely representing yourself as something you are not. Your claim to be a scientist is false, and is therefore not acceptable. If I claimed to be a Premier League footballer that would be equally false and unacceptable.

The fact is you're a compulsive liar.

 

[whoanellie]

People don't like insincerity and pomposity is likely to be pricked.

Almost there. You're so close.

 

[whoanellie]

I have a BSc in Computer Science. Well that's what they called it.

Conversely, I attended a liberal arts college and received a BA in Chemistry.

 

[Vixen]

You seem to be confusing me with someone else. I don't think you'll find any post where I've called you unethical. In fact, I agree that all this crap about whether you are correct when you claim that you "live by high ethical principles" is an unfortunate derail of the thread.

(To be sure, you told Mark in that very same post that he may be surprised to learn that some folk live according to high ethical principles. This was an obvious dig at his own ethics, the sort of thing you're complaining about here.)

ETA: In fact, Vixen's quoted response above makes literally no damned sense, given the post she was responding to. Once again, she is six steps or so in some direction or another.

No, it was not. It was an explanation of why I don't do insincerity.

 

[whoanellie]

No, it was not. It was an explanation of why I don't do insincerity.

It's clear you don't do self-awareness.

 

[Vixen]

I have a BSc in Computer Science. Well that's what they called it.

A modular degree that covered programming, operational research, economics and a couple of other things that escape me at the moment. Not that it matters, most of it was outdated a couple of years after I got the degree. It may have been a BSc and have 'Science' in its name, but it wasn't a science degree. Maybe technology. At a stretch.

Deep down, what one person/group calls something is irrelevant if everybody else uses a different definition. One which makes actual sense.

This is my point exactly. People who claim that one designation (science versus art) is superior to the other remind me of my exes aunt. He did a joint sciences (or was it double) in Physics and Philosophy at London Uni (Bedford College) - not bad for someone labelled an 'E' grade dunce and left his sink school at 16 to work in the steel works - and then a couple of Masters and a PhD from Warwick Uni plus a PGSCE in teaching. His aunt would tell his mother (her sister) that 'BSc (Hons) is not as good as a BA', when her son, Wyn, who supposedly had the best 11-plus result in the county of Glamorgan never left the Valleys or the steelworks. It is just stupid Hyacinth Bucket-style one-up-manship. It is pointless.

 

[phiwum]

No, it was not. It was an explanation of why I don't do insincerity.

That makes as little sense as my guess, but I have no desire to continue this silly conversation.