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?
I think a ban on voting for 2 year olds would be pointless.
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?
