Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)TO
Posts
1
Comments
543
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I don't believe in two wrongs making a right. I consider a lack of lower age representation a problem but I can not agree to flipping it around and making it a lack of upper age representation either. If that's your idea of a just society when a presented method could solve this without that issue I have concerns.

  • How would an opponent be able to attack you if the test is pass or fail? You either are able to have an opponent or you can't run.

    Using a strict age limit would only result in a segment of people who are paying taxes without having representation which is the exact situation we're brainstorming ideas to avoid.

  • Given I just stated my grandfather is a doctor, who is not suffering from Alzheimer's I can't help but feel insulted by your comment.

    I can understand being concerned by the Elderly however given that age does not ensure someone will develop Alzheimer's, I find your comment rude and offensive. I hope you'll consider using some tact in expressing your concerns in the future.

  • I'm fully in favor of having better representation in our elected offices but limiting it based solely on age feels bad a like solution when the problem is based on problems that may happen with age.

    For example, let's say you were a berry eater who loves wild berries. You go out and eat a berry and notices that later on it gave you indigestion, after several more times that berry has consistently done it but other berries do not, would you stop eating wild berries or identify the one giving you indigestion and stop eating those?

    It's a silly example, but it works. If someone is capable of performing the position without issues they should be able to. That's why I'm advocating for a solution that's based on identifying those solutions after they appear so that anyone who is capable and has the desire can work as they like.

    For those capable people, a fulfilling life can be defined as working the position. Why stop them from it?

  • I don't think age needs to be the limiting factor. I've met plenty of 70+ year olds who are mentally capable of performing any job. My grandfather is in his 80's and he's a kick ass doctor.

    I strongly feel that it needs to be test and check up based. Something impartial treated with an air of dignity so that people are raised respecting that it's perfectly alright to not pass it. That should help avoid stigma while ensuring people like that judge are a non-issue if not nearly a non-issue.

  • I definitely agree with you and I'm not worried about most, I'm worried about the few who wouldn't regardless of income. Fortunately the language allows a judge to say if someone (anyone) is a flight risk and take steps to handle that situation.

    Sadly me trying to ask a clarifying has lead to all kinds of assholes and thinly vieled accusations of being a bootlicker instead of someone wanting to understand something.

    It's honestly pretty fucking bullshit that people can't answer a question without being a full on piece of shit. I thought that was one of the reasons we got on Lemmy was to have decent conversations.

  • I've explained elsewhere but I'm no fan of today's system. The only part I didn't understand is what brings anyone back to the courtroom.

    Turns out that a judge under this proposed system can say if a person is a flight risk or not and take steps to handle it. That's honestly all I needed to know but now I still have to deal with assholes like you who assume I'm a boot licker FOR ASKING A CLARIFYING FuCKING QUESTION

    Jfc go back to reddit with your bullshit. I'm here for discussion conversation and understanding, not accusations assholes and brain rot.

  • Given it provably puts a higher punishment on poor people based on percentage of income than rich people, I fully agree with you.

    The part I didn't know (and hadn't had a moment to read in the article) was that in situations where required (run risk, threat to themselves and others, etc) a judge could still time that they need to be held in jail/holding/whatever.

    I love that the people field is getting leveled here, make no mistake. I just needed to understand were we saying "by default except where required no bail or holding" or "no bail yolo enjoy the chaos"