7 ms·

So you think anyone should be able to call themselves "physicians" or "lawyers" or "police", as those are English words that predate their professional associat

• gambiting 8y ago
  Sure. I'm just trying to think what would be the negative consequence of someone calling themselves a lawyer or police in a TV interview like here, and I can't think of one, other than the fact that they are making an idiot out of themselves. Like, it shouldn't be illegal.
  • monochromatic 8y ago
    Would it be ok for a non-lawyer to hold himself out as a lawyer and accept money from “clients” who were fooled?
    • Gibbon1 8y ago
      Difference between a lawyer and a realtor is a lawyer has to get a law degree and pass the bar exam and then really doesn't owe anyone shit. Realtor's are a cross between a MLM and a guild.
      • paulie_a 8y ago
        Real estate agents are legally acting as a lawyer in a very specific scope in some states. They are considered to be one, again in a very narrow scope. And no Realtors/real estate agents in no way is anything close to an mlm. They work as an authorized extension of a licenced broker. They work on their behalf with oversight and receive compensation. But that is literally every job.
        • stan_rogers 8y ago
          Not lawyer, attorney (someone with the legal right to act on another's behalf in a legally binding manner). Where a lawyer is an attorney-at-law, a real estate agent (whether a "realtor" or not) would be an ad hoc attorney-in-fact.
      • EvanAnderson 8y ago
        Being a real estate sales agent, in my US state, requires licensure. It's not a particularly difficult test, and arguably it has a component or protectionism to it, but there is also liability too. Realtors (a trademark of the National Asociation of Realtors) are members of a private organization.
    • gambiting 8y ago
      Of course not. That's fraud and already illegal.
      • throwaway2048 8y ago
        What makes it fraud, what makes them calling themselves a lawyer not valid, if not the law?
        • gambiting 8y ago
          Fraud is lying for financial gain. Lying for its own sake is not. You can say and pretend you are a lawyer as much as you like, but only as long as you don't do it to decieve someone for money.
          • throwaway2048 8y ago
            I read become a lawyer in 8 hours the howto book, am i still committing fraud?
            • not_kurt_godel 8y ago
              Yes.
              • throwaway2048 8y ago
                So its almost like there is still a legal standard for what a lawyer is
                • gambiting 8y ago
                  I'm not sure what your point is. That's exactly what we are saying - there is a legal standard for actually being a lawyer. But, we are also saying there shouldn't be any repercusions for someone just saying that they are a lawyer in any non-financial, non-professional context. If you go out and say to someone "hey, I'm a lawyer and I am very smart" then this shouldn't be illegal in any way or form, just like saying you are a pope or Bonaparte isn't - you're just making an idiot out of yourself. As long as you don't go and act as a lawyer(try to represent people for money for instance) then knock yourself out. This should be double obvious seeing as we're on the internet, where you can say you are a noble-winning physicist or a NASA engineer and without a way to verify it it matters nothing. It is scummy, immoral, unfair to lie about it? Of course it is. But it shouldn't be illegal.
  • darpa_escapee 8y ago
    If someone who calls themselves a doctor or a lawyer goes on TV and gives medical or legal advice, that can cause harm and sets a bad precedent.
    • wallace_f 8y ago
      Even worse, people who never mention they're doctors can cause harm by saying vaccinations cause autism. It doesn't mean it should be illegal. Due process can cause some predators to roam free, or cost taxpayers and victims expense to the benefit of evil people. This argument that something should be illegal because it can cause harm is really shallow.
      • darpa_escapee 8y ago
        I guess I just don't see the harm in requiring someone to say "I am not a doctor, but..." if they want to give medical advice while giving themselves the title of Dr. without having earned it. However, I do see the harm in someone pretending to be a doctor and giving medical advice that can hurt or kill someone.
        • wallace_f 8y ago
          People should be held liable for intentionally stating non-truths with respect to one's own, or another's character: ie falsely claiming to have a certain medical license. Howver, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that ordinary people should not be able to tell their children, friends, parents, or anyone, medical advice. If so, where does it end? Can you tell your child to take medication? Which medications? Can you help victims of accidents? Give CPR? Can you tell your Father not to get that particular medical treatment? Can you tell someone to not trust a particular doctor? What you're suggesting sounds like a litigious nightmare of egg shells through life. On principle, should we not err towards advocating for granting power to the people instead of centralized, corporate and government authority structures? Or do you just not believe in that?
          • 8y ago
• jshmrsn 8y ago
  I think the OP's point was that the National Association of Realtors is a private organization, not a democratically formed government institution.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• LeifCarrotson 8y ago
  The problem is that there are a small, specialized clique of Engineers who have professional certification, and a huge population of engineers who don't have this certification and are not required to have it. The boundary between the two groups is fuzzy and a bit contentious, with each side seeking to expand their domain. There's no such confusion when it comes to the other professions listed, no huge gray area where everyone calls you a physician even though you only work with animals: those are veterinarians. 2 of 68 in my graduating class of BSE students took the PE exam. I think almost all of us now have business cards which include the word 'engineer'. That's not a gopd position from which some outsiders can selectively declare that the term is protected. My experience has been that anyone who claims 'engineer' is protected is selling something, or at least trying to protect the value of the scheme they bought into. There are a couple jobs that legitimately need it where the regulatory environment requires, but they know who they are and know they are rare.
  • ThrowMeDown01 8y ago
    > here everyone calls you a physician even though you only work with animals Just an aside, but that is a gigantic undersell of veterinarians. The difficulties of becoming one aside, just seeing that "humans-only" doctors only work on one kind of ape, compared to the many very different kinds of life forms a veterinarian has to deal with (of course they specialize too), I don't understand why one would think a veterinarian would deserve the word "only".
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  • someguydave 8y ago
    I have a BSEE (and masters) and I have passed the engineering intern test. I do use my engineering knowledge for my day job and my business card says “engineer”. I would consider getting a PE but I literally know nobody with a PE and I cannot find a good reason to get one other than maybe advertising.
    • 8y ago
• nitwit005 8y ago
  Police are an obvious special case, and have special laws around it. As for physician or lawyer, people generally have no idea which terms are protected, so it tends to be a bit meaningless. There seems to be something of a permanent argument over who gets to be called "doctor", so even people in the industry might not know if it's meaningful: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5026525/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5026525/
• DINKDINK 8y ago
  Järlström didn't claim he was a Professional Engineer (a very specific certification) just an engineer. This case is akin to someone who does wood working in their house (maybe even studied it) calling themselves a carpenter but not a Licensed Carpenter. Speech can never be a crime "They have uttered the untoward words! Imprison them." Speech can breach a contract "You agreed not to yell fire in my theater, you owe me damages"
  • lsiebert 8y ago
    Yelling fire(falsely) in a theater wasn't an example of breach of contract that is prohibited by a private agreement, but an understanding that the government has the right to prohibit speech made with the specific intent to create criminal harm. It's also not, as far as I understand, not the current legal standard, as of 2010's Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project.
  • learc83 8y ago
    >Speech can never be a crime Speech can be a crime. Google limitations on free speech. The specific example you gave is in fact a crime.
    • WilliamEdward 8y ago
      But in this case the intent is to cause harm which is a crime, not merely saying the words. Thats why the crime is "yelling fire in a crowded theater" not just "yelling fire". Notice the difference and how it becomes a completely different action altogether despite saying the same thing. I don't think it's fair to say speech can be a crime on its own.
      • learc83 8y ago
        >But in this case the intent is to cause harm which is a crime This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Intent is a necessary component of the crime, just like intent is necessary component of most crimes. The intent to cause harm is not the crime. >Thats why the crime is "yelling fire in a crowded theater" not just "yelling fire". Notice the difference and how it becomes a completely different action altogether despite saying the same thing. Actions in themselves aren't universally crimes in all contexts, that doesn't mean they aren't crimes in specific contexts. If what you are trying to argue is that no string of words can be a crime to utter in any context, then yes you are correct, but by that standard no individual action can be labeled criminal. >I don't think it's fair to say speech can be a crime on its own. SCOTUS has ruled many times that all speech isn't protected by the first amendment. Some speech can be made, and has been made criminal.
• garmaine 8y ago
  Is a mall cop a cop?
  • ovao 8y ago
    "Cop" is colloquial. A mall cop is a "security guard"; a cop is typically a "police officer" or "law enforcement officer".
    • garmaine 8y ago
      Mall cops are referred to in the industry as a “private police force.”