[–] 1 point 3 days ago (2 children)

Well, that's a different take than the one I responded to. You seem focused on age limits, which are not the same as term limits.

As the other person noted, term limits won't keep old people from being elected, if they're old when they're first elected.

Not that they both can't be problems worth addressing, but we should take care to define what it is we're trying to solve, and solve it as directly as possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    Term limits are a double edged sword. You lose experience when you kick people out just because they have experience, not to mention taking away voter choice.

    It might be better to limit consecutive terms to a low number, based on the length of the term of office. For example, no more than 2 consecutive terms as a US Senator, or something.

    I agree with you that there's a problem that needs solving.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] -1 points 3 days ago (8 children)

    I noticed. Maybe that would have been a good place to start?

    So, if you're not using the dictionary definition, which does not imply consent, why are you pretending it does imply consent? Better, what makes you feel justified in claiming someone is wrong for using a dictionary definition, instead of your seemingly made up personal definition?

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago (10 children)

    Well, a quick look at a dictionary doesn't support this definition you're using, but it does maybe provide me a path to showing you where I'm coming from. The relevant definition I have here is "sexual intercourse". Are you saying that consent is implied in that definition? If yes, which word is providing that implication: "sexual" or "intercourse"?

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] -1 points 3 days ago (12 children)

    What are you even talking about? I didn't "come at you" nor is your semantic argument "defending" anyone lol. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just virtue signalling. I think I'm about done with that now.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a web designer can refuse to create websites for same-sex weddings on religious grounds. The case involved a Colorado web designer named Lorie Smith, who refused to create a website for a same-sex couple's wedding. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, alleging that Smith's refusal violated their civil rights.

    view more: next ›