Democrats Move to Ensure No More AOCs

Ziggurat said:
Next time, try reading for comprehension. Your objection was addressed at the very start.
Click to expand...


I've been reading from the very start and No, it was not. You are complaining specifically about AOC's Economics degree. You attempted to make an exception for "very specific technical fields" (eg, STEM fields), completely ignoring the fact that Economics is a specific technical (STEM) field.

Your own exception negated your original complaint!! LOL!!!
 
Cabbage said:
I've been reading from the very start and No, it was not. You are complaining specifically about AOC's Economics degree. You attempted to make an exception for "very specific technical fields" (eg, STEM fields), completely ignoring the fact that Economics is a specific technical (STEM) field.

Your own exception negated your original complaint!! LOL!!!
Click to expand...

AOC wasn't elected to the job of economist (and even there, you better get a graduate degree if you want to do anything important). And that very much addresses your objection of who you get to do your taxes.
 
Ziggurat said:
AOC wasn't elected to the job of economist (and even there, you better get a graduate degree if you want to do anything important). And that very much addresses your objection of who you get to do your taxes.
Click to expand...

Right, but if we highlight the more sociological and political parts of her academic and career history, then you're back to complaining about it not being a serious enough field.

Catch 22.

All to avoid retracting a totally bogus estimation of her qualifications.
 
Ziggurat said:
AOC wasn't elected to the job of economist (and even there, you better get a graduate degree if you want to do anything important). And that very much addresses your objection of who you get to do your taxes.
Click to expand...

....but having a degree in a technical field demonstrates a level of competence that is desirable in a Representative.

Anyway, let's not forget the specific claim I chose to respond to:

Ziggurat said:
You missed the point. If college is the only place you can learn something, then your odds of learning it at college (nonzero) are higher than not at college (zero). The conclusion follows. But if you can learn it somewhere else, then the odds are nonzero with or without college. So which has the greater odds? Yes, it's possible that the odds are greater at college, but it's also possible that the odds are less at college. That's why the conclusion doesn't follow. It could be wrong. More evidence is needed to make that claim.
Click to expand...

Are you still standing by that specific claim? If so, my comments are absolutely relevant, and I ask again: Would you hire a random person (before hiring a CPA) to do your taxes??? After all, evidently you think it's quite possible (perhaps even likely?! LOL!) the random person is more knowledgeable than the CPA!

If you're not still standing by that specific claim, well....duh!....I was right all along!
 
Ziggurat said:
What do you think “qualification” even means? If you never consider changing your vote of the basis of some particular quality, then how is it a qualification for your vote? How is it a qualification for office if you don’t actually care about it?
Click to expand...

To repeat, I'm saying that you repeatedly tried to pick a fight against arguments that no one had made and that I, at least, am not going to humor your attempt to change the subject to that via a thoroughly dishonest method further.

Amazingly, there might be something you could do, though, if you actually want discussion on that topic. Actually address what was actually said and admit that your choice of response was mistaken, then give real basis to discuss the topic that you're pushing in the first place. Currently, the basis that you're running on is "Legitimize my rude refusal to actually address the things that were actually said and my insults based on stuff I'll treat you as saying even though you didn't!" You might find it strange, but that's not particularly enticing reason to engage in conversation. Honestly, so far the only "enticing" reasons to engage with you presently are the old "Correct their errors to help them learn" and "Laugh at the nonsense this guy's spouting." I engaged in the former and you spouted nonsense in response, which has led us here. I'm not particularly in the mood for the latter.
 
Last edited:
ArchSas said:
Not entering the country at a port of entry (under section 8, which Homan cited), is civil offense (although, as AOC said, people who do it to seek asylum don't get charged with crimes, because their presence in the US isn't illegal),
Click to expand...

It's also criminal offense under 8 U.S. Code § 1325.

You can still apply for asylum if you entered the country illegally. What statute nullifies the criminal offense of improper entry when claiming asylum?
 
8 U.S. Code § 1325 was introduced by white supremacist, Coleman Livingston Blease, in order to preserve the white majority in the USA.
Blease defended violence against people he called racially inferior, saying a band of white men had done “exactly right” for whipping blacks, saying that “the morals and the mode of living between colored people are not up to the standard adopted and lived up to by the white people.”

Cite: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...an-livingstone-blease/?utm_term=.4c9357b83613
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Right, but if we highlight the more sociological and political parts of her academic and career history, then you're back to complaining about it not being a serious enough field.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. Degrees in technical fields are meaningful within those technical fields. They are basically meaningless outside those technical fields, especially when other, more direct methods of evaluation are available.

Cabbage said:
....but having a degree in a technical field demonstrates a level of competence that is desirable in a Representative.
Click to expand...

Competence in one field frequently doesn't translate to other areas. A degree in, say, nuclear engineering is certainly useful if you are going to do nuclear engineering, but Representatives don't do nuclear engineering. So no, a technical degree doesn't really demonstrate a level of competence in politics that is desirable in a Representative.
 
Ziggurat said:
You misunderstand. Degrees in technical fields are meaningful within those technical fields. They are basically meaningless outside those technical fields, especially when other, more direct methods of evaluation are available.



Competence in one field frequently doesn't translate to other areas. A degree in, say, nuclear engineering is certainly useful if you are going to do nuclear engineering, but Representatives don't do nuclear engineering. So no, a technical degree doesn't really demonstrate a level of competence in politics that is desirable in a Representative.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you are shifting away from this nonsense claim:

Ziggurat said:
You missed the point. If college is the only place you can learn something, then your odds of learning it at college (nonzero) are higher than not at college (zero). The conclusion follows. But if you can learn it somewhere else, then the odds are nonzero with or without college. So which has the greater odds? Yes, it's possible that the odds are greater at college, but it's also possible that the odds are less at college. That's why the conclusion doesn't follow. It could be wrong. More evidence is needed to make that claim.
Click to expand...


...which you are now refusing to even try to defend, even when I draw your attention to it.


I consider that Progress!
 
Zigg: why are you letting them drag you under a bridge and give you a club? I thought you were better than that.
 
I find it amusing that the Trumpies here are such sticklers for enforcing the law against illegal immigrants. but seem to be very loose when if comes to enforcing laws against Republican Politicians....
 
thaiboxerken said:
8 U.S. Code § 1325 was introduced by white supremacist, Coleman Livingston Blease, in order to preserve the white majority in the USA.
Blease defended violence against people he called racially inferior, saying a band of white men had done “exactly right” for whipping blacks, saying that “the morals and the mode of living between colored people are not up to the standard adopted and lived up to by the white people.”

Cite: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...an-livingstone-blease/?utm_term=.4c9357b83613
Click to expand...

None of this has to do with that one guy misinterpreting the law.
 
Belz... said:
Assuming you're correct, why not taking it to the appropriate threads?
Click to expand...

This is the thread that the claim was made in. If it's the wrong thread for that claim, why not address the person who made the claim in this thread?
 
Ziggurat said:
This is the thread that the claim was made in. If it's the wrong thread for that claim, why not address the person who made the claim in this thread?
Click to expand...

Because it caught my attention. If you think the claim is wrong I suggest you do more than nay-say it, but obviously you would want to do it in the appropriate thread.




Wouldn't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom