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.
You must log in or register to comment.
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
So a couple of things.
I generally think all the “Biden is so old!” stuff is pretty silly. The president largely delegates. Yes he makes tons of decisions and some of them must happen quickly. But generally, I do think the president can be an elder.
However. Contrast this with members of Congress. They sit on committees. They have to learn intricate details about the committee topic. They are supposed to pass laws to keep our government current (and then largely the president appoints leaders to execute those laws passed)
Overall, it would be great to have more Gen X and Millenials in office. Specific leadership roles can be filled by the old, as the old folks do gain some things. But when leaders refuse to engage on new topics or refuse to understand why 90% of people under 50 all agree on something… That’s a problem.
…who is “Deng”???
The guy did nothing on Tiananmen Square in 1989. Those protests were against Deng and how amazingly he was doing
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping
Deng Xiaoping (Chinese: 邓小平[a]; 22 August 1904 – 19 February 1997) was a Chinese revolutionary and statesman who served as the paramount leader of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from December 1978 to November 1989. After Chinese Communist Party chairman Mao Zedong’s death in 1976, Deng rose to power and led China through its process of Reform and Opening Up and the development of the country’s socialist market economy. Deng developed a reputation as the “Architect of Modern China” and his ideological contributions to socialism with Chinese characteristics are described as Deng Xiaoping Theory.
PS Not OP, I just searched “Deng political leader” and found the above wikipedia article, the age matches so I think this is the person OP is referring to, but I may be wrong.
Yep right Deng. Tankies like to forget about the Tiananmen Square part of his resume.
The wilipedia article was an interesting read. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests_and_massacre
On 2 June, Deng Xiaoping and several party elders met with the three PSC members—Li Peng, Qiao Shi, and Yao Yilin—who remained after Zhao Ziyang and Hu Qili had been ousted. The committee members agreed to clear the square so “the riot can be halted and order be restored to the Capital”. They also agreed that the square needed to be cleared as peacefully as possible; but if protesters did not cooperate, the troops would be authorized to use force to complete the job.
According to Ezra Vogel, Deng at 2:50pm told General Chi Haotian that his troops could use all possible methods to clear the square.
On 9 June, Deng Xiaoping, appearing in public for the first time since the protests began, delivered a speech praising the “martyrs” (PLA soldiers who had died). Deng stated that the goal of the student movement was to overthrow the party and the state. Of the protesters, Deng said: “Their goal is to establish a totally Western-dependent bourgeois republic.” Deng argued that protesters had complained about corruption to cover their real motive, replacing the socialist system. He said that “the entire imperialist Western world plans to make all socialist countries discard the socialist road and then bring them under the monopoly of international capital and onto the capitalist road.”
This is Deng’s world; you are just living in it.
From his wiki article.
Furthermore, he is associated with some of the worst purges during Mao Zedong’s rule; for instance, he ordered an army crackdown on a Muslim village in Yunnan which resulted in the deaths of 1,600 people, including 300 children.
It seems like killing a whole village is a pretty blunt tool.
Edit spelling
burnt tool
😁 good un!
Is that all you have, judging a spelling error? Only a weak argument relies on pettiness. If you believe in him so much how about you comment on his well documented crimes? Or do you have nothing to say?
oh I thought you were punning.
Please don’t be grumpy. It’s a summertime Saturday.
If you believe in him so much how about you comment on his well documented crimes?
I didn’t say I “believe in Deng so much”. I wouldn’t be the sort of person who goes around hero-worshipping politicians. What I said was he improved the lives of a billion-or-so people. You have provided no evidence that is untrue.
Is that all you have, judging a spelling error? Only a weak argument relies on pettiness… Or do you have nothing to say?
You’re coming across like one of those people who argues on the internet.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks
k
If you can collect retirement, you can’t run for office. That would be my rule
So MTG can run for office in 2038, but Gavin Newsom can’t in 2032.
I don’t like either, but yea
No one should be in charge of creating laws they won’t be alive to see the consequences of. There’s very little chance someone of that age is truly in sync with what the average person wants, Bernie excluded. But even he I doubt is fully up to speed with everything. There’s so many reasons why it’s bad to have people 70+ in charge and since I’m on mobile I’ll let others go more into depth.
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.
Tankies going to tank
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.
I didn’t see them say anything about communism, he arguing against authoritarianism and the killing of people with different opinions.
For the record then are you saying that you support the oppression of the students and other protesters at Tiananmen Square?
This thread is getting sidetracked.
We can debate the various pros and cons of Deng in particular as a leader, but he generally has a good reputation (even the website you linked says so) and the point is about leaders in their 70s and 80s in general rather than him in particular.
Wow, a single example of someone over 70 who was (probably) not voted into office in one of the worst regimes humanity has ever known.
I guess that sure is an unpopular opinion.
