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.

  • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • frightful_hobgoblinOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      and that’s exactly why laws / legal systems leave room for human judgement on a case-by-case basis.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        We can’t do everything on a case by case basis, that slows everything to a crawl. Some things we just have blanket rules.

        • frightful_hobgoblinOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Explain how this would work? How would political positions be filled without being chosen one-by-one?

          • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.