4 ms·
True. Just because Oregon board has a narrow view of what the word 'engineer' means I do not think this gentleman should be harassed this way. I find this immor
by tn135 9y ago
True. Just because Oregon board has a narrow view of what the word 'engineer' means I do not think this gentleman should be harassed this way. I find this immoral.
Another instance I can recount is here where a woman was banned from touching horses.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/17/woman-could-go-to-jail-for-horse-massage http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/17/woman-could-go-to-jail-for...
- EpicEng 9y agoHe was previously warned, he accepted the warning and promised not to do it again... and then he of course did it again. What's your moral concern exactly?
- tn135 9y agoMy moral concern is some "board" gets to become the sole arbitrator of who is an "engineer". Ideally the board's warning must have been thrown into dustbin.
- EpicEng 9y agoWhy exactly? Are engineers somehow special? What about RN's, and architects, and home inspectors? All licensed positions. I could list a thousand different role which require licensing because a mistake in their field has serious repercussions, especially regarding safety. I don't think most software devs should require licensing, but they're not doing what I and many others would consider 'real' engineering. At least, their mistakes don't often have serious impact on people. We're not talking about that here though, we're talking about civil engineering.
- anigbrowl 9y agoJarlstrom isn't being harassed and the woman in Tennessee has not been banned from touching horses. Exaggeration never, ever makes a legal argument more convincing.