Blunt tools shouldn’t be used for complex real-world things. Other examples would be mandatory sentencing in courts (you should let the judge assess the particular situation), or things like “I don’t go out with guys under 160cm” (you should get to know him).
Just because someone is in their 70s, doesn’t mean they can’t lead. Not with any certainty. In some cases it does, but the political process should have the flexibility to deal with each case.
Look at Deng: he was mid-70s to mid-80s when he was in power and he improved the lives of 10⁸ or 10⁹ people.
Look at Deng […] he improved the lives of 108 or 109 people
Lemmy.ml? Makes sense. Your supposed hero “Deng” was a maniacal tyrannical dictator that was responsible for the deaths of countless students at the Tiananmen Square Massacre. He was an offender who committed crimes against humanity and he should be treated as such.
Might I suggest you leave Lemmy then, as Lemmy was created by a communist, or did you not know that? Not just lemmy.ml, mind you. Lemmy the software.
I mean, stick around if you want, but if you’re going to complain about communism on a communist founded platform, that’s like me going on Truth Social or Twitter and spouting antifascism. I’m gonna get some hate in those circles. Just saying.
By 60 a significant amount of people show cognitive decline, by 70 it’s basically every one. Laws are designed for the general case, not outliers.
and that’s exactly why laws / legal systems leave room for human judgement on a case-by-case basis.
We can’t do everything on a case by case basis, that slows everything to a crawl. Some things we just have blanket rules.
Explain how this would work? How would political positions be filled without being chosen one-by-one?
Voting can happen like that, but we don’t let super qualified 34 year olds run for president and we shouldn’t let 70 year olds run either.
I don’t see anything wrong with leaders under 34 per se
