Actually, you're not a good reader at all. I was saying that things are fine the way they are and yes doctors do make a salary that allows them to live comfortably. Darwin was backing up his claims of all doctors being financially secure and noone ever having any complaints whatsoever with claims of 80,000 dollar cars and mansions. See when you argue, you examine the basis of people's statements and the validity of said statements. I could say:
Why is it that every time there is a thread about landscaping laborers, its based primarily on money/debt? I've never met a landscaping laborer who was struggling financially, nor one who regretted their decision to go into garden-tending.
>> Random Guy: Have you actually talked to these landscaping laborers, had a look at their numbers, or have firsthand knowledge as a landscaper? It sounds like you're full of ****?
I don't need to ask when I see them driving 69 Chevy low-riders with 20" inch rims, 600RMS sub-woofers, and custom paint jobs, DUH. But actually, I get some occasional gardening done, and I work closely with many gardeners when they're mucking around in my backyard. If you think i'm under the assumption that after landscaping 1 shift orientation, I will be living the good life and blowing money fast, you're wrong. That is the delusion that a lot of people have about their lives in general. I am not someone going into landscaping for money anyways so I really don't care. I'll pay for my chrome rims over years, and be able to live just fine.
Wow from the above statement you can see that I actually have no experience whatsoever in landscaping and am making totally baseless blanket statements. No worries though because maybe in 10 years where I actually become what I'm talking about - I will still be in the same frame of mind and think exactly the same way. Experiences don't change me! Therefore since I'm gonna be thinking exactly the same in 10 years - it's pretty much like I'm already doctor!
Darwin's lecturing medical students and physicians about something that he has no first hand knowledge about based on some half-baked assumptions. Do you think it's appropriate to lecture people with first hand knowledge about something of which you have no knowledge whatsoever?
P.S. I was gonna break down your comment, but it actually made no ****ing sense! ****it here goes: Doctors do make enough to live comfortably, but they still have remain "fixated on their finances and debt load." But wait - Darwin thinks students and doctors shouldn't be so "fixated on their finances or debt load". Then the second half of your comment. What the **** are you talking about? I was saying that if a doctor has been "living comfortably" and being conservative with his money and was broke that wouldn't make much sense right?!! See when you argue you often describe something much different to your opponent to find something you can agree on to both be true. Darwin was describing a world where all doctors live on golf courses and drive 80,000 cars and do not care about money. In the world, there's a thing called money and if you don't have enough of it you can get loans and look like you have more money than you actually own. Someone who doesn't really know you could then think that you are actually super rich when you are not. Then if you have a really small sample size you could then think everyone in that group is super rich!! Lets try an example: My neighbor works in construction - if he double mortgages his house and puts the downpayment on a Ferrari and doesn't show me any of his finances. I'd probably think he's rich!! Then since I only know one guy in construction - i'd think that everyone in construction is rich even though if I used common sense i'd realize that it is very unlikely that everyone in construction has a Ferrari. If I actually had DATA to back up my claims that everyone in medicine has an 80,000 car and a mansion then i'd have something. How in god's name did you manage to extrapolate from that logic that I was worried that doctors weren't making enough?
TLDR: Darwin has no factual basis for any of his claims and no first hand knowledge on the topic in discussion. Therefore, he is an idiot. You have further proven you have no reading comprehension skills. You are also an idiot.