[sofuture]

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.

[notahacker]

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.