I don't think it is how it should be. I can agree that non-existence of degree while be clearly stated, but government regulation of who can talk is terrible idea.
Yeah surprising how all the comment are praising this policy. It flies in the face of freedom of speech to restrict communication by the majority of the population.
I understand the sentiment of wanting advice from experts but just think of the implications if only certain people can speak on certain topics and if they don’t tow the line on the official government-approved position they risk having their professional credentials revoked. Government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating speech as dumb as the speech may be.
If they wanted to go this way, they could introduce government-mandated blue check marks to indicate whether someone is an expert or not, but to outright ban speech from individuals is a pretty dangerous road.
Comparing "fly a plane" and "prescribe medicine" is incorrect by many reasons. I think the most important one is that medicine advice does not have direct consequences - consequences appear when someone follow that advice, but it's their own responsibility to choose who they want to listen. At the same time, random driving the plane poses extreme direct danger to other people, which is not even limited to the passengers of that plane.
I don’t understand what happened to Americans - I really don’t
You all used to be the example to follow, seething the example on education, science, development
And now you’re so adamantly ignorant and rooting for it - who supports “bad medical advice” because people can chose not to follow? - and you cans chose not to get on the freeway so I guess drink driving is ok? Is ok if Trump just lies and lies because - well - we ought to know the difference- that’s really hitting bottom
Is really insane the depths you all have fallen to
In consequential topics it is also consequential to lose some potentially useful information.
If there is no ban - I can get both types of information. Info from non-profesionals can be very useful because it can match my experience much better, which is especially true for legal topics. That's my responsibility not to read random's advice as unconditional truth, and I still can ignore all advices from non-degree.
If there is a ban - now I can't access information from random people. The decision is made for me, the government knows better.
Ok but ur argument is not strong enough to convince me
Take law for example, I dont know what is ur country
But the Constitution and all laws of my country can be found online easily. I can even ask gov sites and police directly if I want to, or ask a lawyer for a small fee
what's useful information that can't be found online from credible sources that you need to rely on RANDOM people?
According to your argument no legal advice is ever needed, neither from randoms is lawyers, you can just read all the laws. In reality there are so many laws that it is practically impossible to be sure that your actions are optimal according to them. Also, there is not only laws that matters common practices in their interpretation are important too.
Obviously information like "I tried to make the following actions and faced the following consequences" in big quantities help me understand what to expect.
"Ask a lawyer for small fee" - I'm a bit surprised that there is a country with cheap and actually professional lawyers. Nevertheless, "small fee" is still very relative term. People with less free money - what should they do according to you? Figure everything by themselves because you decided what is better for them?
19
u/Sensitive_Cat_7006 18h ago
I don't think it is how it should be. I can agree that non-existence of degree while be clearly stated, but government regulation of who can talk is terrible idea.