I’mma quote from the post you responded to, maybe you can help me see what I’m missing.
…I guess my point is that gardening and entry-level-grocery are completely fine and expected experience for a 22 year old; but that no 22 year old could have the experience to do well as a leader in terror prevention. So, there’s a distinction between criticizing the absence of experience (justified), vs criticizing someone for having actual experience in an unrelated field (bullshit).
You say your point and their point are different, and I’m not seeing the differences? From my end, it looks like you’re saying the same thing, just with different words.
I’m just confused because somebody said “it’s not important he was a gardner, it’s important that he’s unqualified”, and you jumped in with a “I disagree, its important he’s not qualified” and I’m just lost.
Like, are you saying its important to focus on his lack of qualifications, or are you saying you disagree with that?
I’mma quote from the post you responded to, maybe you can help me see what I’m missing.
Where does your argument contradict that?
I guess I am failing to understand your question with what I said. Can you word it another way?
You say your point and their point are different, and I’m not seeing the differences? From my end, it looks like you’re saying the same thing, just with different words.
Well I guess at some point the most important point is that she was elected? Beyond that, I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
I’m just confused because somebody said “it’s not important he was a gardner, it’s important that he’s unqualified”, and you jumped in with a “I disagree, its important he’s not qualified” and I’m just lost.
Like, are you saying its important to focus on his lack of qualifications, or are you saying you disagree with that?
Yeah totally, it’s his lack of qualifications. Because of his age also disqualifies him from experience.
Okay, ty