One thing before i make myself scarce, has anyone noticed Icecream's red herring about how much physicians are compensated?

Posted by Mahratta :

Well, here's my rationale for doing precisely that.

Consider the options of a non-premed (I don't know about law, so let's say 'non-prelaw' as well). For example, take someone in my own program (as I'm most familiar with the options). If they take enough easy courses to bring up their GPAs, they won't have a shot at getting into graduate school and landing a "good", relatively high-paying job in mathematics. So they've got to distinguish themselves in more difficult courses if they want their undergraduate work to pay more dividends (i.e. get into graduate school). Let's now look at this in terms of social factors. In these terms, if I want to make a (financial) living anywhere close to as cushy as that of a doctor, I've got to do a hell of a lot of hard work in my undergraduate years, and I don't get to take 'Big Questions' or 'Waters' or 'Gemstones' to lighten the load. There is no easy way to a mathematics professorship, or a good physics job, or a cushy chemistry placement. There is an easy way to medical school.

This concern, I think, is shared by many non-premeds. I wouldn't say it's irrational at all to hold it.

Conclusion : Compares the way to get a job with the way to get into a school.

Originally Posted by Icecream

And so much appeal to flattery by Mowicz.

Do I dare ask?

And how about you and your love affair with Ad Hominem?

Originally Posted by Mowicz

Do I dare ask?

And how about you and your love affair with Ad Hominem?

I did not claim you were wrong because you attacked me.

Rather, I claimed you were wrong because you base your assumptions on something I have never written. (I never said that PhD= job) <--- Your first claim. Burden of Proof

Your signature is an example of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

Originally Posted by Icecream

I did not claim you were wrong because you attacked me.

Proof or it didn't happen.

Rather, I claimed you were wrong because you base your assumptions on something I have never written. (I never said that PhD= job) <--- Your first claim. Burden of Proof

I think the burden of proof falls on you here, namely, to demonstrate where I have "attacked you" and to point out where my "argument" hinges on the fact that you allegedly said "PhD = job."

I don't even know what you think my argument is...but you've bastardized so much in this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if you thought I was trying to prove zebras are brown.

Your signature is an example of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

My signature is not part of my "argument" unless you're claiming my argument is that you don't know how not to contradict yourself. If so, then you've very clearly demonstrated that you can indeed contradict yourself, and then yes, my signature can be taken as evidence to support that.


You need to read about logic a little more.


EDIT: And I'd still like to see where I've appealed to flattery.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

Proof or it didn't happen.

I think the burden of proof falls on you here, namely, to demonstrate where I have "attacked you" and to point out where my "argument" hinges on the fact that you allegedly said "PhD = job."

You claimed I committed Ad Hominem and that I mentioned that PhD is associated to having a job.. You have the burden.

Your signature is not an argument but this is (ad Hominem Tu Quoque):

Originally Posted by Mowicz

Great, so from now on I have conclusive proof that everything you say is utter bullshit.

Proof that you claim I said PhD implies a job.

Perhaps it used to be true, 30-40 years ago, that getting a PhD implied employment.

followed by

Originally Posted by Mowicz

You did actually mean the road to being a math professor, and so my post is relevant.

Okay I didn't read all the posts above, I have a life and a job, but it seems to me like the people above like the job security that getting an MD allows. Yeah that might be the case but think about how much of your life you have to sacrifice, talk about lessening the quality of life! lucky for me I'm well connected enough in the field of business, and enough of a smooth talker, and have enough common sense to do something I love, and am sure to get employed quickly.

everyone else who doesn't have that option (apparently need to get phd/md) sucks to be you, and I'll be sure to wave to you guys on the bus while I drive by you in my beamer. Or maybe you won't see me because I'll be vacationing in jamaica. hahaha.

I like the diversity of opinions here.

What makes me scowl is people personally attacking each other...and unwilling to see other people's views and perhaps admit one's mistakes - or at least consider their perspectives.

I also resent the people ganging up on IceCream. It's easy to pick on one person when you have multiple people supporting you on your side.

IceCream is speaking his/her mind and in my mind, and I respect that despite what everyone else here says. Where I agree with his/her points is beside the point.

Edit:

*whether I agree with

I can't tell if syd is a troll or stupid.

Originally Posted by jjae0958

I also resent the people ganging up on IceCream. It's easy to pick on one person when you have multiple people supporting you on your side.

Initially, no-one was 'picking on' Icecream. Various forumers responded to his original post, and he then proceeded to repeat the same post without considering their points while throwing in the occasional Latin name for a particular logical fallacy (where it doesn't apply, may I add).

IceCream is speaking his/her mind and in my mind, and I respect that despite what everyone else here says.

If you read IceCream's original post, you'll see that it was an argument about word choice. I responded to his original post by clarification. He then proceeded to ignore all my subsequent posts and continue repeating his original point (adding more capital letters, exclamation marks, personal attacks and expletives as time progressed) before agreeing with my (and Mowicz') original comparison...and then continued arguing for some reason.

I've learned from prior experience with Icecream that there's no point responding after a period of time.

Originally Posted by Silver

I can't tell if syd is a troll or stupid.

It looks like the second one, but I really think is the first one if you look at his previous posts. Trust me, he's a troll.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Initially, no-one was 'picking on' Icecream. Various forumers responded to his original post, and he then proceeded to repeat the same post without considering their points while throwing in the occasional Latin name for a particular logical fallacy (where it doesn't apply, may I add).

If you read IceCream's original post, you'll see that it was an argument about word choice. I responded to his original post by clarification. He then proceeded to ignore all my subsequent posts and continue repeating his original point (adding more capital letters, exclamation marks, personal attacks and expletives as time progressed) before agreeing with my (and Mowicz') original comparison...and then continued arguing for some reason.

I've learned from prior experience with Icecream that there's no point responding after a period of time.

ya ya yaya, whatever

you seem like the type of person who has a lot to say in an argument no matter what the other person says. you are going to have some sort of a "comeback" no matter what anyone says.

You seem like an articulate, intelligent person though.

But whether you are right or wrong, it'd be nice if you care more about others' feelings. You dont have to come off so aggressive to make your point...even if you may be right.

alright? Im done. You can come up with a smart ass reply with mini quotations, dissecting every one of my sentence and why Im wrong. I dont care. Im exhausted. Let's move on.