Are there any occupations/professions that you violently dislike, so much that..

nvm

 

And I am sure professors, doctors, lawyers and cops are just waiting in line to be his friend.
Seriously, dude dislikes professors?
Like.....all of them?

 

I hope for you that you saved up

 

Cops - I'm suspicious of them, but I have cop friends. Some consider themselves above the law. Or have compartmentalised personalities.
Politicians - most are pretty harmless, puppets even. One or two are the sleaziest, creepiest people you'd ever meet. But again, part of a bigger unit.
Professors - generally harmless. Altho the ones that run unis *can* be the sleaziest scum ever. (Atleast at mine).
drug dealers -(obviously I can only speak about former ones.. : -/) non heroin - usually ok.
heroin and crack- absolute pondlife.
I'm friends with British military, and while I disagree(massively) with their wars, they do seem embarrassed about it. Unlike say , some American soldiers I've met.
traffickers - difference between "human slavery" ones/cheats and those who are genuinely trying to help for money. I think those who employ illegals should be given more shit.
barristers - I'm friends with some (atypical ones fortunately). But the rest of the culture is like something out of Brideshead Revisited. They're a fucking nightmare.
Much like corporate bankers.

One group that really creeps me out is private/retail banking staff. The ones who try and sell people shit. I've never had a problem with a bank. But I know people who have. They seem very innocuous at first glance, often coming across as "dippy airheads". But they'd happily cheat some old granny out of her life savings, because "well someone else would if I didn't".
Give me a coke importer or "freelance debt collector" over a bank sales rep any day of the week.
lawyers - they're a pretty diverse bunch IMO. Some are full of a misplaced sense of self importance tho.
deputy headteachers (not so much others) - wow, seriously maladjusted people, in my experience.

 

Economists

 

Some economists are really quite informative and enlightening the large public. They're not all as bad as the most atrocious economist you might know.

 

I wouldn't want to be friends with anybody involved in police work, or making tobacco products.

 

Lots of unskilled labourers that need a job work at a tobacco factory if it's near them. I have one in my city. Would not dismiss people as a friend for working there.

 

One of my favorite professors is an economist. He is a really smart, nice, cultured and insightful man.

 

I wouldn't be friends with prostitutes, people who own sex clubs, work in porn industry, or have anything to do with the whole sex indsutry.
And I can't really imagine befriending a protestant pastor or something like that, although it's not impossible!

 

Economics is less scientific than even sociology.

In order for me to take an economist seriously, they should express at least some skepticism for their field of study.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9KAd_nqINY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9KAd_nqINY

Most economists think they know everything. This is because economics is not capable of generating new questions like physics, Biology, and Chemistry do. It doesn't deal with the real world. Economics is an abstract subject like mathematics. For instance the word "proof" turns up more often in certain economics papers than it does in many mathematics papers.


Economists have yet to grasp to full complexity of the real world. Instead they've been mired in the shallow end of a swimming pool. They use very flawed assumptions to produce oversimplified models with very little predictive power. The so-called "representative agent models" which are still widely used assumes that an economy(like the global economy) has only one participant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWn86ESze6M"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWn86ESze6M

 

You know the majority of economists in the world? Impressive. I disagree that economics aren't dealing with the real world.

 

Anyone(ie the vast majority of economists over the last 4 decades) who thinks these "representative agent" models have any validity is not dealing with the real world.

 

I think you are projecting stuff on economists in general

 

It's blood money. If a local group's only job option was Mafia hit man, would you be okay with that too?

 

families that provide funeral services...fucking leeches of society emptying the wallets of people at their worst times...then most of them make so much money they start using their time to boost up their egos by making donations to hospitals and charities (always getting buildings named after them of course)...a true generous person would help annonymously

i hope they all go to hell

 

In what way do you mean that? Because smoking tobacco is unhealthy? I hope not.

 

Here is a paper on superconductors:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.3712.pdf

A random economics paper dealing with consumer behaviour in the IT market:

http://rady.ucsd.edu/docs/faculty/shin_Niculescu_Shin_Whang_ISR_2012_full.pdf

Notice how many times the words "proof", "theorem" and "proposition" show up.

proof comes up 26 times.

Edit: and "theorem" 35 times. Proof comes up 0 times in the physics paper. Physics deals with evidence, not mathematical handwaving.

 

Is that paper made by all economists together? Why project the paper/work of one (or more) on all of them?

 

Do you feel the same about people who produce/sell alcohol as well?