Praeothmin wrote:Ok, the Highest Ethical Standards that Mike Wong was talking about certainly only apply to an engineer's job, because if that's not the case, then I'm afraid that half the engineers I know, or those that I work with should have their Degrees revoked...
Ethic has little to do with engineering, although there is such thing like engineering ethics
[1]. But it is primary a question of behaviour. What is good and what is bad behaviour?
This is an example from the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE):
- 1.] Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.
- 2.] Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence.
- 3.] Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
- 4.] Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest.
- 5.] Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.
- 6.] Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession and shall act with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption.
- 7.] Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers, and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision."
Please take note of Nr. 3.] and 6.] !!!
Praeothmin wrote:That being said, many engineers see themselves as above most people when competence is concerned, and it is a common enough character flaw.
It is not a crime to have a character flaw. But these engineers don't appear in internet and insult other persons and boast with their degree and address other peoples like idiots only because they have not studied engineering.
Praeothmin wrote:And the insults that are thrown on an internet board, unless they actually threaten a person's well-being, isn't illegal, and really isn't worth the hassle a lawsuit would create.
Internet is a public medium. More people worldwide can read, what he has written about some people
[2] [3] [4], who have sometimes nothing do to with him, in internet, as if he would have written it in a local paper. His behaviour is not only illegal in Germany, it is even a criminal offence
[§§ 185 ff. StGB]. If such insults would be uncommon, I wouldn't say anything. But if you look at his posts, you will notice, that many posts of him are nothing but insulting and don't include "objective and truthful" arguments [see below].
Praeothmin wrote:That being said, it is also very true that by doing exactly what Mike is accused of doing, we are not putting ourselves in very good light for others to judge us... :)
There is a difference, if I judge him or his behaviour from a juridical point of view, "objective and truthful" or if I would attack him without proven facts.
I have not said, something like this:
Darth Wong wrote:It really is nothing more than a handful of obsessive, uneducated crackpots. It's pretty sad, really. And for all their handwaving and accusations, none of them can explain why all of the scientists, engineers, and military veterans in this debate happen to be on my side. I guess relevant education and experience must be the "bias" they're referring to.
Darth Wong wrote:Claims of scientific education aren't worth the bandwidth they use, unless they come with enough information for you to verify their accuracy. Doesn't matter whether it's some obvious liar like GStone or one of the more clever creationist debaters.
Darth Wong wrote:GStone wrote:there are loads of examples of people learning military tactics without being in the military
In other words, his military training was the tutorial level of Halo.
Darth Wong wrote:What do you expect from GStone et al? None of them have any real education, so they don't respect the qualifications. It's just like creationists who presume to tell real scientists how wrong they are. As the old saying goes, they don't even know how little they know.
Darth Wong wrote:You can't compete with these kiddies for sheer doggedness. They don't have real lives. All you can do is produce superior quality rather than quantity, backed up by vastly superior credentials, and trust in the fact that knowledgeable readers will be able to see the difference. The fact that they can sway the ignorant and uneducated is of no concern.
Darth Wong wrote:You will never prove to AVOCADO's satisfaction that he broke the rules because he's too goddamned stupid to understand when he's committed a fallacy or ignored an argument which he did not understand. That's always been a problem with the truly stupid: they don't understand anything but the very simplest arguments, so they ignore most of what they see and honestly can't seem to understand why they're being accused of ignoring points or disregarding evidence.
That's why we have our Parting Shots forum: so that a reader who is reasonably intelligent can judge whether the banning was justified, in an open and transparent manner. The ban victim himself will rarely see why, except in the case of those who deliberately provoked the banning.
Darth Wong wrote:GStone wrote:-Have I ever fired a gun? Answer: Yes.
-Did it take me long? Answer: No, I'm a natural shot.
-Have I ever fired a gun on someone? Answer: Yes.
-Have I ever been in a knife fight? Answer: Yes.
-Have I ever fought unarmed against someone with a gun or without one? Answer: Yes to both.
-Have I ever watched men die and/or were they part of the ones I've lead? Answer: Yes to both.'
GStone is Walker, Texas Ranger?
Dart Wong wrote:It's like arguing with really small children. They might as well reply to everything you say with "I know you are but what am I?" and "I'm right a hundred times!" "I'm right a million times!" "I'm right infinity times plus one!!!!!!"
They will never be able to explain why the doctors, scientists, engineers, and military people gravitate to my side of the fence. They will never be able to admit that they're nothing but a bunch of uneducated kiddies and losers.
That are only quotations from one single thread. You will notice, that he makes insulting statements about persons, from which he knows nothing.
Nobody minds, if he states his opinion and substantiate it with his expert knowledge in an objective and truthful manner. But that's not, what he does. He commits criminal offences. And that is not OK.
And if I outline his behaviour with concret quotations and links to these and summarize his behaviour under the elements of an criminal offence in an objective and truthful manner, is it not a libel.
It's from my profession exactly what he should do in his profession.