• agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Is a democracy where I can’t vote for a literal infant still a democracy or is it no democracy because I can’t choose a baby to run the country? Like if I wanna vote for a 2 year old and they say no, that means it’s not a democracy anymore?

    • blazera@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        You dodged the question so I’m assuming you know exactly what you’re doing and that democracy is indeed fully capable of still being democracy even with regulations. Thanks for showing you whole ass by sitting on the fence made it easy. I should have just assumed you were the way you are but I was curious.

        • blazera@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          Dodged, man i explained in detail why banning you from voting for a 2 year old doesnt matter. Go ahead and vote for a 2 year old.

      • irmoz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        So, you see the problem with your point, yet are still trying to make that point. How… curious?

        • blazera@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            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.

            • blazera@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              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?

              • irmoz@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                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?

                • blazera@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Stop ignoring my answers. For democracy, no, there’s no limits that I agree with.

                  • irmoz@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    This is extremely naive. In the same vein, I suppose there’s no point in keeping murder illegal, since people should just know not to do that.