If you have a country where the majority will vote for a 2 year old, you have much bigger problems than something a ban on voting for 2 year olds would address. This is like folks warning about marrying dogs with the gay marriage debate.
what problem? How are you guys interpreting what I wrote? So see, when gay marriage was being proposed, opponents were using crazy arguments like allowing gay marriage will lead to people marrying their dogs. Like really fucked up strawmen that wouldnt even really have consequences even if it happened, but it was still made in the worst possible faith. So this guy is arguing that we shouldnt allow some candidates, because what if people voted for 2 year olds? Again, it’s a ridiculous, bad faith strawman, do you think he would vote for a 2 year old if he was allowed? Do you think he believes that enough people would vote for a 2 year old that it would matter if it was allowed? So even going along with their ridiculous strawman doesnt result in me thinking we should bar candidates from running.
I think a ban on voting for 2 year olds would be pointless. Saying its an infringement on democracy is also pointless, because it wouldnt disenfranchise a single voter. Its a nonsense strawman. Legalize 2 year old candidates, legalize people eating sand. You gonna expect to see a sand eating epidemic?
Keep reaching for further and further strawmen. Democracy requires majorities of people to do anything. A few people voting for nonsense options doesnt do anything. A few people murdering actually kills people. If youre worried a majority of people will choose a nonsense option, well then you dont believe in democracy anymore.
If you have a country where the majority will vote for a 2 year old, you have much bigger problems than something a ban on voting for 2 year olds would address. This is like folks warning about marrying dogs with the gay marriage debate.
So, you see the problem with your point, yet are still trying to make that point. How… curious?
what problem? How are you guys interpreting what I wrote? So see, when gay marriage was being proposed, opponents were using crazy arguments like allowing gay marriage will lead to people marrying their dogs. Like really fucked up strawmen that wouldnt even really have consequences even if it happened, but it was still made in the worst possible faith. So this guy is arguing that we shouldnt allow some candidates, because what if people voted for 2 year olds? Again, it’s a ridiculous, bad faith strawman, do you think he would vote for a 2 year old if he was allowed? Do you think he believes that enough people would vote for a 2 year old that it would matter if it was allowed? So even going along with their ridiculous strawman doesnt result in me thinking we should bar candidates from running.
You’re still refusing to see the point.
Do you think not allowing 2 year olds to run is an infringement on democracy?
If not, then you agree that there are acceptable limits.
I think a ban on voting for 2 year olds would be pointless. Saying its an infringement on democracy is also pointless, because it wouldnt disenfranchise a single voter. Its a nonsense strawman. Legalize 2 year old candidates, legalize people eating sand. You gonna expect to see a sand eating epidemic?
Jesus, dude… smh my head. It’s not a specific ban. It’s a minimum age, you doofus. Stop sidestepping the question.
Do you agree that acceptable limits are possible?
Stop ignoring my answers. For democracy, no, there’s no limits that I agree with.
This is extremely naive. In the same vein, I suppose there’s no point in keeping murder illegal, since people should just know nkt to do that.
Keep reaching for further and further strawmen. Democracy requires majorities of people to do anything. A few people voting for nonsense options doesnt do anything. A few people murdering actually kills people. If youre worried a majority of people will choose a nonsense option, well then you dont believe in democracy anymore.