[discussion]Is my degree better than yours

[Knife]

Interesting topic came up in the rather new clusterfuck this early weekend. In an argument about the over reaching issue of the gay rights movement, a rather disturbing development happened.

this thread is the one in question.

In it Fgalkin quite plainly posits the belief that his education and degree are for starters, better than Hav's and Coffee's lack of education. Then after learing that Coffee's does indeed have an education, pretty much puts an argument of 'my degree is better than yours'.

WTF.

This is a governor?

For the record, I rather like Fgalkin more than either Hav or Coffee, yet I'm having serious trouble with this concept. A fucking appeal to authority fallacy plain and simple. The issue at hand has absolutely nothing to do with Fgalkin's degree and thus Fgalkin has shit in education to add to it under some sort of authoridy. Why are we as a community letting this go?

I can't help but think of a thread I contributed to a bit ago about college degree's where I though a degree in an area not used was wasted, but others were quick to point out that a degree from a university also put forward an education in logic and thought process that a reciever was granted to use over their life time, thus a degree even if not used, was a benifit to the holder.

Where the fuck was that thought process here?

My degree versus their degree. What a bunch of fucking elitist shit.

[Broomstick]

We really need to check the water or change the coffee-maker filter or something - I'd say everyone was on the rag but since most of you yahoos are male that's physically impossible.

Formal education is not a good indicator of intelligence, as many intelligent people in this world do not have access to higher education for one reason or another whereas other stupid people get into Harvard or Yale as a "legacy admission" and wind up with unearned advantages due to family connections.

Having a degree may or may not be relevant to a discussion. For example, Mr. Wong's degree and experience as an engineer is highly significant in discussions of engineering and some sorts of technology but is largely useless in SDN recipe thread. In the recipe thread, someone who is professional cook would be much more an authority even if he or she had dropped out of high school.

Frankly, I'm not eager to read through another clusterfuck on this board. I've been accused of being over-emotional at times, but damn, I am NOT one of the folks having a major meltdown over recent political events, election results, the goddamn phase of the moon, or the temperature of spit in Wichita, Kansas. Folks, switch to decaf for a day or two, take a chill pill, a deep breath, and get a grip, m'kay?

[Noble Ire]

I will admit, I haven't had the time to monitor the board much of late, but from what I've seen, the level of discourse here, at least in some sectors, has taken a rather ugly turn. Discussions on subjects near and dear to certain posters are bound to yield controversy, but that does not excuse the degree of personal conflict that often manifests itself within them. It seems as though only a relatively small cross-section of the board population is involved in the recurring flame-fests, but that group includes several senators and well-respected members of SDN; Hav and Mr. Coffee appear with relative frequency in "derailed" discussions, and this isn't the first time I've seen Fgalkin personally involved in a HOSed thread.

In general, there seems to be a disturbing trend towards allowing the personalities and histories of certain posters to define the tenor of debate here. Citing personal experience or commenting on the personal experience and even past posting record of another can be instructive under certain circumstances, but allowing that sort of discourse to overshadow substantive, factual debate runs counter to the nature of this board. Prohibiting all discussion of posting reputation or individual, "real-life" experience is both infeasible and undesirable, but it certainly should not be allowed to hijack as many threads as it has (I will admit, this is hardly a pervasive problem, but it is still enough of an issue to be unsettling).

I don't know what can be done to effectively halt this trend, but as Broomstick implies, it is more than a handful of unrelated incidents.

[Knife]

From the rank and file:

Might I just point out a s a prole that this is nothing new, the general attitude in the forum (mainly promoted by Wong) is:
"Sciences/realistic/hard degree (science or engineering) is awesome and superior, anyone with a humanistic degree (literature, history, even economics) or a liberal education is a worthless bum who's degree is worthless, useless and a drain on society".

I'm astounded that you haven't encountered it before, this (fGalkin) is less blatant than most cases. (Not that there's anything to do about it )

Now I understand and don't want to make a fallacy out of the appeal to authority fallacy. If a person in his/her field is contributing knowledge and experience to a conversation it is not a fallacy. But a very blatent 'my degree is better than your non degree' or as it evolved in the thread in question; 'my degree is better than your degree' is pretty much what we like to say we're against. And yet here we are.

[Imperial Overlord]

Might I just point out a s a prole that this is nothing new, the general attitude in the forum (mainly promoted by Wong) is:
"Sciences/realistic/hard degree (science or engineering) is awesome and superior, anyone with a humanistic degree (literature, history, even economics) or a liberal education is a worthless bum who's degree is worthless, useless and a drain on society".

This isn't actually what I've seen Mike write. He is justifiably proud of his engineering degree and maintains that it involved harder work than getting an arts degree. I have an Arts degree and I know several engineers and Mike is without question correct in this regard. Undergraduate engineering at a reputable university is extremely demanding. I've never seen Mike denegrate someone for having an Arts degree for having one, although he has gone on the attack against people who have claimed they are as equally demanding as engineering degrees. I can't say I disagree with him on that. fgalkin's penis waving is a separate issue.

[Simplicius]

Might I just point out a s a prole that this is nothing new, the general attitude in the forum (mainly promoted by Wong) is:
"Sciences/realistic/hard degree (science or engineering) is awesome and superior, anyone with a humanistic degree (literature, history, even economics) or a liberal education is a worthless bum who's degree is worthless, useless and a drain on society".

I dispute the accuracy of this statement. Lord Zentei, Stas, thejester, Boyish-Tigerlilly, and Thanas - to name just the first few members who came easily to mind - have all contributed to the board by posting historical or economic content. While I can't pretend to know their respective degrees, their posts suggest to me extensive, if not formal, study in the humanities, yet at no point have I noticed these users being disparaged for this.

The existence of feckless humanities students on university campuses worldwide, and the disdain afforded them by everyone whose degree or whose work ethic caused them to work harder, study longer, and be more productive upon graduating, by no means justifies the anonymous constituent's hyperbole.

[Knife]

I would like it noted Simplicius, that it was not my quote, rather a quote from a member who PM'ed me.

[Broomstick]

I think part of the problem is that the world is a genuinely shitty place in some respects and we're all feeling it. We're all affected by the economic bullshit, we're all worried about employment, while we're all celebrating one advance in society and civil rights we're all pissed as hell about backtracking in another area.... there is some genuine Bad Shit out there and these days it's fucking global. It spills over into other places. I'll be the first to admit that over the past year I've been driven to tears over shit I can't control that has hurt me and mine. The Duchess stepped back from her senate duties because she is under unholy stress these days and while I won't give her carte blanche on account of it she has at least made us aware of it and when called on it she has the self-discipline to examine her actions and, when appropriate apologize or back down. I think some of the rest of you need to do some self-examination regarding your own situations and moods, and remember that you don't have to win every argument you get into. Have the self-discipline to take a few days away from here if the bullshit gets too deep. It won't kill you to agree to disagree on occasion.

I don't want to hand out blanket bans, temp bans, titles, or other forms of punishment. I'd rather see everyone get their shit together on their own. If these trainwrecks don't stop, however, something will have to be done so a few people don't spoil the party for everyone else.

[fgalkin]

Just for the record, I was insulting them, it's not like I go through life sneering at the unwashed masses at every turn. I tried to connect their lack of an advanced degree with their posting history here and pointing out that they are miserable failures at life (which they may or may not be, it's irrelevant since it was a flame rather than any sort of serious argument). However, that is not to say that all degrees are equal, which they are not- I have a humanities degree, and I know the amount of work which went into that is much lower than the work required for, say, an engineering degree. That doesn't mean I'm automatically inferior to an engineer, just like it doesn't mean I'm superior to, say, someone with a 2 year community college degree, but it does mean that I will probably will defer to the judgement of an expert in the field, given that they have studied the field extensively.

A degree in anything should not be used as a carte-blanche appeal to authority, of course, but it does often provide the knowledge necessary to make one an authority. And since this is a technical debate board, oftentimes an engineering or science degree is of greater use than a libarts degree, which is why I don't do as much technical debating as, say, Mike, or Connor.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Edi]

It's very hazardous territory when you go and flame someone for being a failure at life just because their posting history has some questionable stuff in it if you use your own education as the justification and the people you flame may not have similar education but have a long record of successful professionalism in a skilled trade. Such as Mr. Coffee has. You don't need a construction engineering degree to become a damn good professional at roofing, flooring, plumbing or other stuff like that, because while you need theory, you learn by doing.

That sort of flaming leaves you wide open to devastating retaliation and doing it in the wrong manner may also put you in the position of being in violation of the forum rules, so care should be taken. If you want to flame people, there are safer ways of insulting them in creative ways without starting to make comparisons of education unless the education happens to be directly relevant to the subject being discussed.

[LadyTevar]

One of those involved speaks:

Since I have also been brought up in this Senate thread, please note that my questions to Marina in the "Why I'm not a racist, Re: Robert Treder." thread were completely honest and without any kind of malice and were born out of a curiosity of what she was describing. It wasn't until fgalkin, a Senator, completely misinterpreted what I said, by no doubt, lumping me in with my perceived cohorts, and decided to claim his intellectual and social superiority over me, that I posted anything or responded in any kind of negative way in that thread. I was neither attacking, nor defending her.

[Simplicius]

I would like it noted Simplicius, that it was not my quote, rather a quote from a member who PM'ed me.

I believe I attributed it in the quote box to a "constituent," insofar as there can be one here. It was this fellow to whom I was responding.

[K. A. Pital]

While I can't pretend to know their respective degrees, their posts suggest to me extensive, if not formal, study in the humanities

Bachelor, economics. I can also state that humanities do have a bad reputation since getting the degree is extremely easy. Myself, for example, failed to get a technical degree due to Math problems, even though I worked as a technician in architectural projects and thus have some grip of physics - I hold respect for people who have a superior level of understanding in technical sciences. I also have 3,5 years of art shool behind my shoulders, and I can say the constituent totally misrepresented the view that he said the board "espouses".

Technical sciences are harder to master than humanities, and especially arts, and that's the only position I've seen people here maintain, not that people with humanities degrees are a "drain on society". Which is also fully justified, to say the least of it.

The disparaging comments regarding economists are mostly due to their lack of rigor in their own "scientific" community, which cast the doubt at the very heart of the "science" of economics, since the "scientific" community is often full of ideologues who hardly employ the scientific method for their predictions or analysis of events, employing ideology instead. That is also very true.

I think that boasting erudition or education when it is not relevant to the subject is hardly a good way of proving yourself right, though. Despite having an education in economics, or practical experience in architecture, I don't use it generally in debates - a good debater would use mere logic to convince the opponent, and explain his ideas in simple terms. In case the opponent does not understand, it's fine to mock him, but this means debate became pointless alltogether.

[RedImperator]

Just for the record, I was insulting them, it's not like I go through life sneering at the unwashed masses at every turn. I tried to connect their lack of an advanced degree with their posting history here and pointing out that they are miserable failures at life (which they may or may not be, it's irrelevant since it was a flame rather than any sort of serious argument).

Whatever your intent, I didn't particularly appreciate it. I come from a blue collar family and I've done blue collar work myself. I once got into a screaming 6 page flamewar with Brianeyci over a similar comment. You want to rip guys because you don't like their posting behavior, fine and dandy, but the way you chose to attack them in that thread had me grinding my teeth.

[The Yosemite Bear]

dropped out due to having a mental breakdown.

but I'm a medicated mentally damaged individual.

[Darth Wong]

Regarding the complaints about bringing up personal histories in recent threads, I agree that this is an increasingly serious problem. We have been perhaps remiss in allowing too much of this to creep into arguments, but we need to get stricter about this. It appears that everyone has decided it's OK to bring up personal histories in debate, and if we don't crack down on this, we'll have serious problems (if we don't already).

[The Yosemite Bear]

hey I may be crazy, and for the most part I try to be as open as possible, I've always found that lying tends to catch up with one.

[fgalkin]

In regards to Havokeff, I have misread his post and was too quick to lump him with Coffee. I withdraw my negative comments about his background and apologize.

Coffee, no such thing for you.

Just for the record, I was insulting them, it's not like I go through life sneering at the unwashed masses at every turn. I tried to connect their lack of an advanced degree with their posting history here and pointing out that they are miserable failures at life (which they may or may not be, it's irrelevant since it was a flame rather than any sort of serious argument).

Whatever your intent, I didn't particularly appreciate it. I come from a blue collar family and I've done blue collar work myself. I once got into a screaming 6 page flamewar with Brianeyci over a similar comment. You want to rip guys because you don't like their posting behavior, fine and dandy, but the way you chose to attack them in that thread had me grinding my teeth.

I normally don't do this sort of thing, either, and this is the first (and probably last) time I've ever done something like this (considering that I come from a peasant background myself- my grandparents have completed all of 5 grades of village school), so anyone dissmissing someone because of their background automatically earns negative points in my book.

However, in this case, my opponents have claimed that they are the same on the board, as in real life, and thus opened their real-life accomplishments up for scrutiny. My original point was that Marina is stable enough to not only function in the real world, but also to be involved in a high-stress high-difficulty degree program, whereas her accuser does not have similar intellectual accomplishments, despite not having the difficulties she had to face. I might have been a little too vicious, but then again Coffee was accusing a friend of mine of MPD (and as he later all but admitted in private, doing it for kicks, in other world, trolling). And in any case, I was not attacking all proletarians, just him personally (hence my calling him a lumpenproletarian).

As for "penis-waving" my accomplishments, I would not have brought them up had Coffee not asked about them. This was the first time I've even mentioned them on the board, since I don't actually like to brag or anything.

I hope this clarifies matters.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[RedImperator]

Regarding the complaints about bringing up personal histories in recent threads, I agree that this is an increasingly serious problem. We have been perhaps remiss in allowing too much of this to creep into arguments, but we need to get stricter about this. It appears that everyone has decided it's OK to bring up personal histories in debate, and if we don't crack down on this, we'll have serious problems (if we don't already).

Debating Rule 8: Do not engage in attacks on another member's personal history, even if you feel you have been provoked or that the attack is relevant to the thread. This will be considered a serious offense and strictly enforced.

Like that?

[CmdrWilkens]

Regarding the complaints about bringing up personal histories in recent threads, I agree that this is an increasingly serious problem. We have been perhaps remiss in allowing too much of this to creep into arguments, but we need to get stricter about this. It appears that everyone has decided it's OK to bring up personal histories in debate, and if we don't crack down on this, we'll have serious problems (if we don't already).

Debating Rule 8: Do not engage in attacks on another member's personal history, even if you feel you have been provoked or that the attack is relevant to the thread. This will be considered a serious offense and strictly enforced.

Like that?

As with a lot of rules, and Red I think you pointed it out in one of the other threads, the board has been rather lax about enforcing them. Mod and Admin time is limited since this is a job that obviously doesn't pay. At the same time it does appear that the natural tendency to let things pass is creeping in, I honestly think we are watching entropy in action. Either we invest the external energy to get the system organized again or we will continue the slow slide towards disorder

[Ender]

Regarding the complaints about bringing up personal histories in recent threads, I agree that this is an increasingly serious problem. We have been perhaps remiss in allowing too much of this to creep into arguments, but we need to get stricter about this. It appears that everyone has decided it's OK to bring up personal histories in debate, and if we don't crack down on this, we'll have serious problems (if we don't already).

Debating Rule 8: Do not engage in attacks on another member's personal history, even if you feel you have been provoked or that the attack is relevant to the thread. This will be considered a serious offense and strictly enforced.

Like that?

Sounds good to me. Obviously getting it enforced will take effort, but getting it on the books should be first priority. What is the proper terminology to start a vote thread on this? I want to do that.

[Darth Wong]

Regarding the complaints about bringing up personal histories in recent threads, I agree that this is an increasingly serious problem. We have been perhaps remiss in allowing too much of this to creep into arguments, but we need to get stricter about this. It appears that everyone has decided it's OK to bring up personal histories in debate, and if we don't crack down on this, we'll have serious problems (if we don't already).

Debating Rule 8: Do not engage in attacks on another member's personal history, even if you feel you have been provoked or that the attack is relevant to the thread. This will be considered a serious offense and strictly enforced.

Like that?

I'm not so sure that an extra rule is the way to go, given the fact that such diversionary attacks are textbook examples of the red-herring fallacy, and we already have a rule against unrepentant and repeated use of logic fallacies.

One of the things that bothered me most about the whole Wayne Poe thing was the fact that he was throwing out red-herrings left right and centre (I mean seriously, how do you go from "what is an acceptable response to an anti-gay rally" to "Mike Wong has a history of anti-Americanism"?), and the fact that nobody seemed to think this was noteworthy. Why make special rules about a particular kind of red-herring when the unrepentant use of red-herrings is already against the rules? Unfortunately, it would appear that our expectations for the use of logic have declined precipitously.

[Coyote]

Maybe we should repost the rules somewhere with a poll asking "agree-- or disagree?" and have everyone vote and post a "I was here" one-liner.

I wish there was a way to accurately quantify who read them again, anyway, if we were able to do that. I admit it has been a looong time since I read 'em, and usually I look at them only to check a singular, particular point... in other words, when I'm motivated to try to nail someone because they pissed me off. Maybe nothing more than a good re-reading of the rules is what's needed.

Maybe we're moving through the final stages of the Articles of Confederacy and ready to draft a Constitution!

[Darth Wong]

One phrase I've seen far too often and I really should have cracked down on, but for a lack of effort: "you'll find that <insert opinion> is frowned upon here". I've seen a lot of people say that to newbies, and it reinforces the impression that there is some kind of opinion orthodoxy in place. Technically, the rules state that no such orthodoxy is permitted and people must back up their positions, but those rules are of little value when a newbie gets swamped with empty-headed low-effort me-too posts (which are also against the rules, but rules are only meaningful as long as they're enforced).

[Coyote]

More Mods? With sweeping powers?

And if so, nominated and voted on by all, or only by the Senate?