God, you're dumb and you're a WHAT?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around perceptions of competence among professionals in various fields, particularly in engineering, medicine, and trades. Participants share anecdotes and express concerns about encountering individuals in responsible positions who seem incompetent or unqualified. The conversation touches on the implications of educational backgrounds and the value of trade schools versus university degrees.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express fear about the competence of professionals in critical fields, citing examples of individuals who seem unqualified yet hold significant positions, such as doctors and engineers.
  • There is a concern about the perception that trade school attendees are less capable, with some arguing that trades are valuable and that competence is still required to succeed in those fields.
  • Participants share personal anecdotes about individuals who have succeeded in high-stakes professions despite questionable backgrounds, raising questions about the reliability of educational credentials.
  • Some participants critique the ease of obtaining degrees through questionable means, suggesting that this undermines the integrity of professional qualifications.
  • There is a humorous tone in some posts, with participants joking about the absurdity of quick degree programs and their implications for professional competence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the competence of professionals in various fields. While some express skepticism about certain individuals' qualifications, others defend the value of trade schools and the necessity of competence in all professions.

Contextual Notes

Participants' views are influenced by personal experiences and anecdotes, which may not represent broader trends. The discussion reflects a mix of serious concerns and humorous commentary on educational standards and professional qualifications.

  • #61
zoobyshoe said:
You've been reading too many paranormal/conspiracy websites, or something. If you simply go back and read the original Archimeliees, buoyancy is explained in perfectly logical, rational terms. Check out, for instance, proposition 4 of "On Elven Support Of Bodies In Water": a solid immersed in fluid will be prevented from sinking if there be any local water elves thereabouts who do not wish it to clutter the bottom of the body of water. These will exert an upward magic thrust on the solid via spell or incantation in direct proportion to their desire to be rid of it.
puts a new spin on the whole "walking on water" miracle doesn't it.
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
15K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K