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.
It’s not a strawman. You think a minimum age is “pointless” because “no one would actually vote for a child”. I transplanted that exact argument into a situation I knew would showcase its absurdity.
Proving you wrong isn’t a fallacy!
Democracy requires majorities of people to do anything.
Majorities can be misled. Surely you’re aware of this?
A few people voting for nonsense options doesnt do anything.
It’s not “a few people” though. Trump is actively and increasingly popular despite his obvious crimes.
A few people murdering actually kills people.
A bloc of fanatics actually gets their way when organised. That’s democracy.
If youre worried a majority of people will choose a nonsense option, well then you dont believe in democracy anymore.
Now that’s a fallacy - A false dichotomy, AKA a black and white fallacy.
You sure changed your tune quick! What happened to this not being likely? What happened to it being pointless to block voting for criminals because they simply wouldn’t be that silly?
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 not 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.
It’s not a strawman. You think a minimum age is “pointless” because “no one would actually vote for a child”. I transplanted that exact argument into a situation I knew would showcase its absurdity.
Proving you wrong isn’t a fallacy!
Majorities can be misled. Surely you’re aware of this?
It’s not “a few people” though. Trump is actively and increasingly popular despite his obvious crimes.
A bloc of fanatics actually gets their way when organised. That’s democracy.
Now that’s a fallacy - A false dichotomy, AKA a black and white fallacy.
According to you, there are only two options:
I believe people only ever vote rationally.
I don’t believe in democracy.
This is absurd.
You dont believe in democracy. Democracy is people collectively deciding, and you dont like what people are collectively deciding.
You sure changed your tune quick! What happened to this not being likely? What happened to it being pointless to block voting for criminals because they simply wouldn’t be that silly?
US voters are too dumb to be trusted with having democracy then.