Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Mellor · 17-04-2021 3:34pm

Cass wrote: »

Most religions view homosexuality as an abomination and/or sin. So will expressing these religious views now be a crime?

Shouldn’t be. People are free to practise religion abd it’s included beliefs.
Thinking homosexuality is an abomination doesn’t mean it’s inciting hatred.

Same as thinking organised religion is a cult that prays on feeble minded idiots is an entitled opinion without it inciting hatred.

Travellers have a disproportionately higher rate of incarceration by population size so is pointing this out a crime?

Why would it be? It’s a fact.
It’s not like your finding lads to go bash the pikies who’ve come to town.

The intent bit is what bothers me. How do you prove what is in someone's head? I see the, in my view, ridiculous theory of unconscious bias so is this going to be used as a reason for prosecution?

Determining intent is at the heart of a lot of crime. Pretty standard tbh.
There’s often evidence to intent, but if there not it’s a hard case to prove.

I just don't get hate crime. Crime is hateful so why put special circumstances based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Surely its heinous regardless of the "persuasion" of the victim? IOW if assaulting someone gets you 5 years why does it turn into 10 because they're black, white, green or pink? It'll open the door for people to claim every assault (physical or otherwise) on them is due to some form of "-ism".

No all crime is hateful. Some people steal because they need or want something. Not because they hate the victim. Obvious lots of assaults, murders fall into a form of hate

If I beat up a white bloke because he split my drink, it’s assault.
If I beat up a green man for spilling my drink, it’s still just assault. Skin colour doesn’t change it. Or shouldn’t.
But if I beat up a green man, purely because he’s got green skin. That motive makes it a hate crime.
It should be really obvious that crime exists. Kinda hard to justify it as acceptable. But there will be definitely fake claims made. The onus is on the accuser to prove motive imo. Should never be default stance.

Cass · 17-04-2021 6:35pm

Mellor wrote: »

Shouldn’t be.

Buy you don't know, nor more than i do and with this power will come abuse.

People are free to practise religion abd it’s included beliefs.

How?

If a church or religious group comes out against anything that goes against their religious beliefs but is accepted as a society it may be viewed as inciting hatred or discrimination hence an offence. IOW the presumption of innocence is somewhat mooted as you must prove there was no intent.

Thinking homosexuality is an abomination doesn’t mean it’s inciting hatred.

Never said thinking anything was inciting hatred, you added thinking.

I said in the context of this bill which states communicating such beliefs in any form which may cause incitement of hatred is an offence.

Same as thinking organised religion is a cult that prays on feeble minded idiots is an entitled opinion without it inciting hatred.

Organised religion is not deemed a protected group or minority.

Why would it be? It’s a fact.

Since when has that mattered and i'm not being vague or deflecting. If someone takes offence and claims its incitement to hatred then you can be sure you'll get a knock on the door. Its happened in the UK, Canada and other countries that have tried this nonsense.

It’s not like your finding lads to go bash the pikies who’ve come to town.

Again its not simply about hatred in a physical form, it covers any communication of beliefs that may, however purposeful or not, cause incitement to hatred. If you share a post on twitter, fb or some other social media that is deemed to be an offence you are now as guilty as the person that is the author.

Determining intent is at the heart of a lot of crime. Pretty standard tbh.

Not what i'm talking about.

There’s often evidence to intent,

You seem to be focusing on the physical. If someone robs a bank but gets caught walking into the bank with the balaclava and gun well intent is obvious. Someone making a statement on social media or via some other form of media may do so innocently or without intent but is now, possibly, guilty of an offence.

but if there not it’s a hard case to prove.

Thats literally what i said.
No all crime is hateful. Some people steal because they need or want something. Not because they hate the victim. Obvious lots of assaults, murders fall into a form of hate

If I beat up a white bloke because he split my drink, it’s assault.
If I beat up a green man for spilling my drink, it’s still just assault. Skin colour doesn’t change it. Or shouldn’t.
But if I beat up a green man, purely because he’s got green skin. That motive makes it a hate crime.

Do you think that hate crime needs an explanation? Do you think i, or others don't understand what hate crime is? Why the need to explain it?

It should be really obvious that crime exists.

I did not say it does not exist.

Kinda hard to justify it as acceptable.

Who has done that?

But there will be definitely fake claims made.

There is at least one a week, we just don't hear about them.

The onus is on the accuser to prove motive imo.

The accusation will be enough as has been the case in the many hoax and fake claims over the years to ruin someone's life, career, etc.

Should never be default stance.

I don't get this. What stance?

I still don't get it nor agree with hate crime laws. They're vague, easily open to abuse, will cause segregation among races, and will do nothing to deter hate crime but merely serve to push it "underground".

tudderone · 17-04-2021 11:19pm

I cannot believe our gang of eejits are tackling this. The trouble this has caused in France with the Charlie Hebdo thing a few years back, and the recent outbreak of the same thing at a school in Bradford in England only last month should be warning enough.

The conflict between freedom of speech and some people being offended, being a minefield, getting it wrong can lead to actual bloodshed, it should not be tampered with unless they really know what they are doing.

Its a bit like seeing Neanderthal man heading for a nuclear reactor with a stick, you just know its not going to end well.

Mellor · 18-04-2021 4:00am

Cass wrote: »

Buy you don't know, nor more than i do and with this power will come abuse.

Of course I don;'t know that it won't. And neither do you as you said.
Which is the point. If it's abused, that's an issue.
But that's not a reason for the genuine use not to exist.

If a church or religious group comes out against anything that goes against their religious beliefs but is accepted as a society it may be viewed as inciting hatred or discrimination hence an offence. IOW the presumption of innocence is somewhat mooted as you must prove there was no intent.

Religion groups having a certain feeling is their own business.
They've absolutely no business feeling me how I should feel. I find it hilarious that religions people still think they have the power to dictate to others.

The onus is always on the accuser to prove intent, not the defendant. That's a basic principle in law.

Never said thinking anything was inciting hatred, you added thinking.
I said in the context of this bill which states communicating such beliefs in any form which may cause incitement of hatred is an offence.

That's it in a nutshell. People are entitled to have opinions.
Using those opinions in order to incite hatred is not ok.
Communicating an opinion doesn't mean inciting hatred, iimo

Organised religion is not deemed a protected group or minority.

From your quote;
“protected characteristic” means race; colour; nationality; religion, ethnic or
national origin; sexual orientation; gender; or disability

So have proposed protect from hate crime as the others do.

Again its not simply about hatred in a physical form, it covers any communication of beliefs that may, however purposeful or not, cause incitement to hatred. If you share a post on twitter, fb or some other social media that is deemed to be an offence you are now as guilty as the person that is the author.

Clearly "incitement of hatred" needs to be defined. As "I'm offended" doesn't cut it for me.

Do you think that hate crime needs an explanation? Do you think i, or others don't understand what hate crime is? Why the need to explain it?

That was in response to;
"I just don't get hate crime."

It was just an example.

I did not say it does not exist.

Cool. So we both agree it exists.

So next question, do you think it should be allowed, or is acceptable?

Cass · 18-04-2021 11:17am

Mellor wrote: »

Which is the point. If it's abused, that's an issue.

It will be and once in law its too late.

They've absolutely no business feeling me how I should feel. I find it hilarious that religions people still think they have the power to dictate to others.

Same applies to Government. This is the policing of speech, hence the end of free speech which is constitutionally protected.

The onus is always on the accuser to prove intent, not the defendant. That's a basic principle in law.

By the time it gets to this point you're already in court and suffering the ramifications i mentioned above. This is a life changing scenario even if "found" innocent.

That's it in a nutshell. People are entitled to have opinions.
Using those opinions in order to incite hatred is not ok.
Communicating an opinion doesn't mean inciting hatred, iimo

And all of that is already covered under the 1989 act.

From your quote;

Nope, not me.

Clearly "incitement of hatred" needs to be defined. As "I'm offended" doesn't cut it for me.

Guarantee it'll be in there in some other format.

That was in response to;
"I just don't get hate crime."

The rest of that quote said how i don't understand why one type of crime against one race is more heinous than another.

Cool. So we both agree it exists.

Not a Eureka moment considering i never said people don't hate others.

So next question, do you think it should be allowed, or is acceptable?

Its already legislated for and if they want to "update" the law for the new age then so be it, but they have already made mention from 18 months when Charlie Flanagan started this, their intent to legislate for hate speech, not just crime.

So if i believe there are only two genders and someone i'm speaking to claims to be a bi-fluid Dolphin and i don't address them as such then i'm guilty of an offense. Speech police and the end of free speech. Free speech may include hate speech, but it should (as i've said ad nauseum) be brought out into the public domain and dismissed/highlighted for the ignorant and vile speech that it is, not hidden away and allowed to fester and grow until it becomes a real world problem.

As said look to Canada and the UK as examples of the ridiculousness of such laws.

Cass · 18-04-2021 12:15pm

You know the excrement is hitting the fan when the Dalai Lama is tooling up:

174583518_1610194489370974_2432255415628953747_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=Vv9MsAD4Q3YAX8_HtxU&_nc_ht=scontent-dub4-1.xx&oh=a2c275d999cedf4e98837ce4465fe6c7&oe=60A25E80

174583518_1610194489370974_2432255415628953747_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=Vv9MsAD4Q3YAX8_HtxU&_nc_ht=scontent-dub4-1.xx&oh=a2c275d999cedf4e98837ce4465fe6c7&oe=60A25E80

Rows Grower · 18-04-2021 1:31pm

Mellor wrote: »

Of course I don;'t know that it won't. And neither do you as you said.
Which is the point. If it's abused, that's an issue.
But that's not a reason for the genuine use not to exist.

Religion groups having a certain feeling is their own business.
They've absolutely no business feeling me how I should feel. I find it hilarious that religions people still think they have the power to dictate to others.

The onus is always on the accuser to prove intent, not the defendant. That's a basic principle in law.

That's it in a nutshell. People are entitled to have opinions.
Using those opinions in order to incite hatred is not ok.
Communicating an opinion doesn't mean inciting hatred, iimo

From your quote;
“protected characteristic” means race; colour; nationality; religion, ethnic or
national origin; sexual orientation; gender; or disability

So have proposed protect from hate crime as the others do.

Clearly "incitement of hatred" needs to be defined. As "I'm offended" doesn't cut it for me.

That was in response to;
"I just don't get hate crime."

It was just an example.

Cool. So we both agree it exists.

So next question, do you think it should be allowed, or is acceptable?

That's it plain and simple.

Easy to understand and shouldn't have to be explained to decent people.

Cass · 18-04-2021 2:10pm

We're going to combat racism...................................

............. by being racist!

BattleCorp · 18-04-2021 2:54pm

The best way to combat this new hate crime legislation is to report every single article that says anything negative about white people as being a hate crime.

Mellor · 18-04-2021 3:10pm

Cass wrote: »

Same applies to Government. This is the policing of speech, hence the end of free speech which is constitutionally protected.

Which part of the constitution protects inciting hatred or anything of the sort.
The Free State, and later the republic was founded on the literal opposite idea.

Guarantee it'll be in there in some other format.

When will the text be availible? I thought it already was, but may be wrong.

The rest of that quote said how i don't understand why one type of crime against one race is more heinous than another.

Sorry you've lost me. At which point does this apply to one race more than another?

Its already legislated for and if they want to "update" the law for the new age then so be it, but they have already made mention from 18 months when Charlie Flanagan started this, their intent to legislate for hate speech, not just crime.

Sorry, this is entirely my fault. But I'm really not following.
It really sounds like you agree with the concept. But clearly you don't.
Are you saying hate speech should be allowed, under the contitution, or that it's noy ok?

So if i believe there are only two genders and someone i'm speaking to claims to be a bi-fluid Dolphin and i don't address them as such then i'm guilty of an offense.

Unless you hate Dolphin people, and try spur up some anti dolphin drama.
I really don't see what see what offense this is

Cass · 18-04-2021 4:00pm

Mellor wrote: »

Which part of the constitution protects inciting hatred or anything of the sort.

Not sure if, for someone that seems to like explaining the obvious, you're being purposefully provocative or just not understanding what i'm posting. I said free speech was constitutionally protected. Please do your best to read my posts as you've misquoted me twice now as having said things i either did not say or by using only part of the quote misrepresented what i said.

When will the text be availible? I thought it already was, but may be wrong.

The content was due to be published Friday morning however i've not found/read it yet, but i'm waiting for the Act. The Bill may go through various changes and amendments before its finished.

Sorry you've lost me. At which point does this apply to one race more than another?

The attacks by black youths against white youths last year in Cork, Limerick and Blanchardstown. TDs urged people not to focus on the ethnicity of those involved while the media either barely covered it or did so as a "youths fight". Had the race roles been reversed you can be sure the headlines would be white attacks black. However these hate crimes were dismissed out of hand and given the offenders put up social media videos definitively saying they were targeting white people and calling for attacks on whites its clearly a hate crime but no action was taken on a hate crime level.

So it is important for this not to be used as a tool for "social justice".

Sorry, this is entirely my fault. But I'm really not following.

I see that.

Update the law, it needs done after 30 or 40 years, but i draw the line when i'm being told that my criticism of an ideal or my held beliefs/opinions (protected under the constitution, but also not inviolsation of common law) of current social trends is or could be viewed as hatred or incitement and now criminalised.

Unless you hate Dolphin people,

And there it is. So now i cannot hate anything, any group or any aspect of something i don't agree with.

.......and try spur up some anti dolphin drama.

My point exactly.

If i think Dolphin people are troubled and should seek medical help for obvious mental illnesses the act of provoking such sentiment that is likely to give rise to hatred of them (with no physical or worldly action being taken) is now an offense.

Lets move away from "gender" because its not solely about that. There ar other factors in this bill. Race, ethnicity, etc.

So if i'm against the Governments policies on immigration am i now guilty of anti immigrant rhetoric and hence a hate crime?

If, as discussed above, i'm concerned or against a particular religion based on their ideologies and real world actions, am i guilty of an offense because i stir up anti *insert religious denomination" sentiment?

Remember this bill will make the communication of such views an offense. Not actions or real world interactions, but words.

In effect it makes speech a form violence.

Mellor · 18-04-2021 4:22pm

Cass wrote: »

Not sure if, for someone that seems to like explaining the obvious, you're being purposefully provocative or just not understanding what i'm posting. I said free speech was constitutionally protected. Please do your best to read my posts as you've misquoted me twice now as having said things i either did not say or by using only part of the quote misrepresented what i said

I don't see where I've misquoted you. I trimmed down some posts for the sake of getting to the point. But I don't believe I've misrepresented you at all.

I'll be direct. Which section of the constitutions protects free speech?
And does any part of this law as proposed contravene that? (I haven't read it yet so a genuine question, to be clear)

The attacks by black youths against white youths last year in Cork, Limerick and Blanchardstown. TDs urged people not to focus on the ethnicity of those involved while the media either barely covered it or did so as a "youths fight".

But the law wasn't in place then?

If this law comes in, it comes in for all.

I see that.

Dodging the question again,

So if i'm against the Governments policies on immigration am i now guilty of anti immigrant rhetoric and hence a hate crime?

I fail to see how you've made that connection.
If you're minister for immigration, with policy A.
And I'm shadow minister for immigration who thinks policy A is terrible. That's how political debate works. The public too can have an opinion.

If, as discussed above, i'm concerned or against a particular religion based on their ideologies and real world actions, am i guilty of an offense because i stir up anti *insert religious denomination" sentiment?

Can you explain how you got from concerns to stirring up voilent sentiment?

And, just to establish.
Do you think hate speech should be permitted? - simple yes or no

Cass · 18-04-2021 4:46pm

Mellor wrote: »

I don't see where I've misquoted you.

You quoted me as saying something i did not say (it was another user) and above you ask where i said hatred is constitutionally covered when i never said it was.

I'll be direct. Which section of the constitutions protects free speech?

Article 40 (specifically part 6). Freedom to express their opinions and beliefs. It draws a line at anything that contravenes public order or seditious "material" but allows for the criticisng of the Government (my wording, not the constitutions).

And does any part of this law as proposed contravene that? (I haven't read it yet so a genuine question, to be clear)

The freedom of expression/opinion bit. I can no longer criticise any topic/subject for fear of it being labeled as hate speech, regardless of it inciting hatred in others. Again its an argument on words not actions. I've no issue with laws on stopping acts of physical violence, but words are not violence.

But the law wasn't in place then?

The 1989 act means nothing then?

If this law comes in, it comes in for all.

Didn't in those cases.

Dodging the question again,

You didn't ask one.

I fail to see how you've made that connection.
If you're minister for immigration, with policy A.
And I'm shadow minister for immigration who thinks policy A is terrible. That's how political debate works

Political debate is not what this bill is for. So the above is utterly irrelevant.

The public too can have an opinion.

Only, now, to a point. If it borders on, or crosses over into what is deemed hate speech or incitement to hatred its an offence.

Can you explain how you got from concerns to stirring up voilent sentiment?

Once again, as said at the start of the last post and in answer to it at the start of this post, stop bastardising my comments.

Where did i say violent sentiment. I said anti *insert religious denomination* sentiment. Funny that you linked anti with violent. Wonder will the bill make the same leaps?

And, just to establish.
Do you think hate speech should be permitted? - simple yes or no

Hate speech is a part of free speech. You cannot have one without the other and trying to legislate against what people want to say, or are, will result in bias and a reduction in constitutional/civil liberties.

I assume you support the restriction of speech under the guise of hate speech laws. No need for simple yes or no, feel free to write as much as you like.

By the way what is hate speech? Before you try give me the definition what i'm asking is what constitutes hate speech? Which topics? Who will be responsible for the content now deemed hateful?

Grizzly 45 · 19-04-2021 12:49pm

Cass wrote: »

You know the excrement is hitting the fan when the Dalai Lama is tooling up:

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be quite reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

Dalai Lama Seattle Times May 15th 2001

yubabill · 19-04-2021 2:12pm

civdef wrote: »

If you start off believing all but a “few” scientists and medical professionals are genuine- you will be very hard to satisfy about anything in the modern world I fear.

Are you basing this assessment of millions of trained professionals off any training of your own?

Thirty years ago, I turned down two unsolicited PhD scholarships in Chemistry. I did toy with the idea of completing a PhD in one year, but my experience with some people whose ambition overshadowed their talent coloured my decision. (See Bret Weinstein's interview with Joe Rogan recently for a similar scenario).
I've continued my work, which is a crossover of physics, chemistry and medicine. I have written papers and reports, filed a patent and have another patent in prep. other than the patent, my work has been under NDA, but it gets reviewed by peers.

How about you?

civdef · 19-04-2021 2:54pm

Did degree in engineering originally, plus work as a research assistant in Uni for a while. Still keep up an interest.

Given what you state there it's a bit disappointing you seem to hold the scientific / medical community in such low regard?

Feisar · 19-04-2021 2:56pm

yubabill wrote: »

Thirty years ago, I turned down two unsolicited PhD scholarships in Chemistry. I did toy with the idea of completing a PhD in one year, but my experience with some people whose ambition overshadowed their talent coloured my decision. (See Bret Weinstein's interview with Joe Rogan recently for a similar scenario).
I've continued my work, which is a crossover of physics, chemistry and medicine. I have written papers and reports, filed a patent and have another patent in prep. other than the patent, my work has been under NDA, but it gets reviewed by peers.

How about you?

No dog in the fight but I couldn't resist:D

otmmyboy2 · 19-04-2021 3:10pm

civdef wrote: »

Given what you state there it's a bit disappointing you seem to hold the scientific / medical community in such low regard?

I've a bachelor of science degree in a technical discipline and work in that field every day. Considering a Phd for increased advancement prospects, but for no other reason.

Just the holding of a degree, or degrees, of whatever level does not make you competent, which is a hole a lot of people tend to fall into.

I know plenty of people in my degree and it's sister degrees who were excellent at book learning, recall and recitation and did great in their exams but were piss-poor in implementation of those supposedly learned skills.

Similarly an MD does not make one a good doctor.
A doctor sure, but not a good or necessarily competent one.

This seems to be particularly true in countries like Ireland where degrees are dime a dozen for current generations due to subsidization, since the entry requirements for a lot of jobs now specify a degree in X simply because they can, my industry included.

riffmongous · 19-04-2021 3:17pm

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

I've a bachelor of science degree in a technical discipline and work in that field every day. Considering a Phd for increased advancement prospects, but for no other reason.

Just the holding of a degree, or degrees, of whatever level does not make you competent, which is a hole a lot of people tend to fall into.

I know plenty of people in my degree and it's sister degrees who were excellent at book learning, recall and recitation and did great in their exams but were piss-poor in implementation of those supposedly learned skills.

Similarly an MD does not make one a good doctor.
A doctor sure, but not a good or necessarily competent one.

This seems to be particularly true in countries like Ireland where degrees are dime a dozen for current generations due to subsidization, since the entry requirements for a lot of jobs now specify a degree in X simply because they can, my industry included.

A degree of lower levels maybe, but at PhD level you can't get by anymore on recitation etc anymore, you've got to be capable of analysis, planning, being able to critically defend your work. Sure some people will still get by if they get lucky and have their supervisor do most of that for them or get handed their topic, but in general it's a whole different ballgame compared to lower degrees.

BattleCorp · 19-04-2021 3:37pm

riffmongous wrote: »

A degree of lower levels maybe, but at PhD level you can't get by anymore on recitation etc anymore, you've got to be capable of analysis, planning, being able to critically defend your work. Sure some people will still get by if they get lucky and have their supervisor do most of that for them or get handed their topic, but in general it's a whole different ballgame compared to lower degrees.

Completely off topic but is a PhD worth it career wise? I could be mistaken but I mostly see them as being good if one wants to work in academia but not of tremendous value in the real world.

otmmyboy2 · 19-04-2021 3:40pm

riffmongous wrote: »

A degree of lower levels maybe, but at PhD level you can't get by anymore on recitation etc anymore, you've got to be capable of analysis, planning, being able to critically defend your work. Sure some people will still get by if they get lucky and have their supervisor do most of that for them or get handed their topic, but in general it's a whole different ballgame compared to lower degrees.

Chap I worked with was doing a phd with Oxford uni, a pretty august institution I think you'll agree.
And the degree was pretty damn heady too.

Having worked with him he was an utterly useless employee, but very quick to tell everyone the way he thought things should have been done, with a complete lack of understanding of what they were doing.

As soon as he had his phd completed he went off to, and remains in, academia in one of the best regarded universities in Ireland.

That is one example, but I cannot count the clones of that kindof character I've encountered both in academia and industry, but particularly the former.

He was a career academic, no practical knowledge but a lot of theoretical. Now he is in his element lecturing those who know no better

I never said that all phd holders were incompetent, but I have encountered my fair share, at uni and in industry.
Masters too. In fact I was taught completely outdated concepts and technology by masters holders in uni who evidently hadn't changed their module since it's inception in the early 00s.

Never worked in industry, not an original thought in their heads, and happily there with a job for life.

Put it this way, when I have been on hiring boards in work I don't care about the degree, I care and ask about what the individual has done or can do, not what degree they have.

yubabill · 19-04-2021 3:42pm

civdef wrote: »

Did degree in engineering originally, plus work as a research assistant in Uni for a while. Still keep up an interest.

Given what you state there it's a bit disappointing you seem to hold the scientific / medical community in such low regard?

You have to understand the desperation in some people to make a discovery in their field, however small.

I was entirely lucky to make a small discovery in my very first paid work (along with a lot of hard work) and it unleashed an avalanche of professional jealousy among some.

I'm not disappointed with everyone in the med/sci community, just a portion.

And I'm not sure which Weinstein I mentioned earlier, came back to check but got here first - it's the dark haired guy, bigger build, difficult to understand what he's saying most of the time (not claiming to be on his level, btw).

I've read thousands of research articles and I could tell you some stories - like the guy who published scientific rubbish and managed to get addition wrong; the paper got him promoted to Asst. Prof, where he remains. I know, because it was in trying to repeat his work over the course of months that I found out. I totally accepted his bona fides and those of the peer reviewers at first and only after much trying and failing did I check his arithmetic. And that's only one story of many.

Have to say, it's very hard to beat the research coming from Japan. Don't worry about China, it appears good on the surface, but scratch beneath and you'll find very little original thinking IMHO.

otmmyboy2 · 19-04-2021 3:42pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Completely off topic but is a PhD worth it career wise? I could be mistaken but I mostly see them as being good if one wants to work in academia but not of tremendous value in the real world.

Some jobs gatekeep higher positions based on degree attainment, for others it lets you start at a higher salary to those with lesser degrees, but generally similar to a lower degree + experience.

Entirely depends on field but academia certainly weighs degrees heavier than industry experience.

In my experience that is

yubabill · 19-04-2021 3:53pm

riffmongous wrote: »

A degree of lower levels maybe, but at PhD level you can't get by anymore on recitation etc anymore, you've got to be capable of analysis, planning, being able to critically defend your work. Sure some people will still get by if they get lucky and have their supervisor do most of that for them or get handed their topic, but in general it's a whole different ballgame compared to lower degrees.

The most savage intellectual grilling I ever received was in defending my first work.

That stood me in good stead ever since.

The guy was a senior official in IUPAC (they decide what's an element).

riffmongous · 19-04-2021 3:56pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Completely off topic but is a PhD worth it career wise? I could be mistaken but I mostly see them as being good if one wants to work in academia but not of tremendous value in the real world.

It depends on the area I think.. from my specific experience where I work (environment/meteorology) the PhD people are the ones responsible for implementing new methods and technology and such.. the downside is that you've lost about 5 years of practical experience over the others, which will take a good while to catch up on (maybe even financially too if you have no other experience). If you work in a company where they are focused on routine work a PhD won't help much, infact you'll probably get bored quickly. If the company is interested in updating their methods and staying cutting edge then it's definitely an asset.

Personally what I felt benefited me most was the variety of things I had to do and implement during the PhD, there was always new models and equipment and codes. It gave me a lot of knowhow and confidence in how to approach problems and solve them. When I started at my company pretty much everything I had to do was new to me, but within a few weeks I knew how to work everything (the downside of course is the time lost).

civdef · 19-04-2021 4:01pm

I heard a fella say once the Dr. title was very handy when looking for upgrades on flights. Which was fantastic till the stewardess asked would the good doctor mind helping out with a passenger in the back who seemed to be having a heart attack.
Bit awkward pointing out his PhD in Maths mightn’t be of massive help to the unfortunate man.

riffmongous · 19-04-2021 4:03pm

yubabill wrote: »

The most savage intellectual grilling I ever received was in defending my first work.

That stood me in good stead ever since.

The guy was a senior official in IUPAC (they decide what's an element).

I'm guessing from what you say because it was a work of some note? The vast majority of bachelor/master works won't get that level of scrutiny though

Rows Grower · 19-04-2021 4:44pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Completely off topic but is a PhD worth it career wise? I could be mistaken but I mostly see them as being good if one wants to work in academia but not of tremendous value in the real world.

I know a few people with PHD's and they each considered it a challenge to themselves. None of them did it specifically for the money but they knew they would have a greater choice of who they might want to work for or with once they achieved it. They basically did it because they wanted to be the best they could be in their chosen field and be remembered as someone who introduced something new.

Some people just want to keep learning and studying all the time, there are great supports there too for them that rarely get publicity. Individual philanthropists and big companies often head hunt the brightest students and pay them to keep on studying to achieve their full potential.

My nephew was contacted by the solicitor representing a very high profile Irish businessman when he got his Leaving Cert results and was told he had been chosen to receive a gift of 30,000 euro so as to ease any financial worries he might encounter when attending college. The same businessman does the same thing for 52 Irish students every year. He is what I would class as a true patriot.

Last year the same nephew finished his Master's and was contacted out of the blue again by a solicitor for a company who told him they wanted to sponsor him to do a PHD. He loves studying so he's delighted he is getting paid very good money to do it. Obviously the company in question will be hoping he will come and work with them when he is finished but there is no obligation.

The people I know all get a kick out of being addressed as Doctor but the only person I know outside of the medical field that likes to use the title of Doctor when booking anywhere or being introduced was actually gifted an honorary doctorate (for his outstanding voluntary work).

Cass · 19-04-2021 5:26pm

civdef wrote: »

Bit awkward pointing out his PhD in Maths mightn’t be of massive help to the unfortunate man.

He could count while someone performs CPR!

Rosahane · 19-04-2021 8:16pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Completely off topic but is a PhD worth it career wise? I could be mistaken but I mostly see them as being good if one wants to work in academia but not of tremendous value in the real world.

As with everything else the answer is; it depends.

Years ago I was on the technical board of a joint venture research organisation which was a collaboration between Industry, Manufacture and a University.

The representative for the manufacture was a lady double PhD who ran the research organisation for her company which employed about 70 people, primarily PhD's.

She mentioned at dinner one night that she hated a particular month - June I think, because she spent it interviewing PhD graduates and "finding the smart ones" In my naivety I said would they not all be smart, to which she replied "No, some of them just work hard"

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Comments

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County