However dubious this instance of censuring someone's comments simply because they've bothered to do some research to support their case may be, I think it generally is in the public interest that people actually representing themselves as engineers have a sound understanding of what they're actually doing (e.g. designing bridges that don't fail and kill people). I doubt civil engineers in the US are disproportionately well paid.

I wholeheartedly disagree. While this instance is especially compelling, certainly, you're still attempting to argue that someone might invalidate their point by making 'too good' of an argument without the qualifications.

Someone presenting an argument to whomever (the public, the city, etc.) has every right to make their case to the full extent possible (implied: honestly, without representing themselves falsely). No one has represented themselves as an engineer falsely so... Uhh, this sounds like a big load of crap, both specifically and generally.

I'm not attempting to argue that someone might invalidate their point by making "too good" an argument, or that it wouldn't be an overreach for a board to censure someone not practising as or representing themselves as an engineer.

I'm arguing that the implicit argument that state engineering boards exist and act [primarily] to protect the jobs of engineers overlooks the benefits of ensuring that people actually representing themselves as engineers are suitably qualified and competent. I also seriously doubt it's in the financial interests of engineers to reduce the amount of paid work they need to do to to alleviate public concerns over their plans.

>I think it generally is in the public interest that people actually representing themselves as engineers have a sound understanding of what they're actually doing

It's not clear to me what calculus should be used to decide "the public interest" much less what calculus should be used to threaten otherwise peaceful adults on its behalf.

Further, while it is good for engineers to have a sound understanding of what they're doing, the issue at hand is whether or not one has the permission of some state bureaucracy. While the latter may intend to yield the former, one should take care not to unnecessarily conflate them.

What about the licensed to kill? Pirates and Emperors?

re. unions.

Sure, as long as you don't claim you have an M.D. and I don't care that you don't, then we're okay.

Good thing you don't. Stitch away.

Just stick to friends and/or people who won't sue you.

Or yourself. Stitches aren't that hard to do.

If you can get a hold of a medical stapler they're even easier.

It's more like if someone stitches me up, in an emergency, after warning me they aren't a doctor, they will be sued by the AMA for "doctor-level work".

No, not really. This is more like if you're dying and someone gives you CPR but didn't pay $20 to renew their CPR certification, the CPR certification board goes after them for "practicing lifesaving without a license".

In other words, utter fucking bullshit.

You're right, this is why we have "Good Samaritan" laws to protect people who are trying to help people in an emergency.

That said, it's definitely not a bad idea to keep your CPR training up to date. Mine was renewed last December.

You say "No, not really", but I think you are in full agreement with your parent, who also sketched an instance of something ridiculous.