this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2026
80 points (88.5% liked)
Showerthoughts
44401 readers
543 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do you think the same should apply to people with terminal illnesses?
No, I think complexity breeds contempt and loopholes.
A simple cutoff, once you hit 'X' age, you are lucky...go and enjoy the rest of your life. Stop trying to affect a future you will not be part of.
Hopefully it would spur people to do proper succession planning, there would be no ambiguity you will know to the day when your last day in power is, so train the next generation.
But if you're a very healthy 80 year old man you might still have 15+ years to go. That's plenty of time for policies to affect your life. On the other hand that 18 year old patient with the incurable cancer probably just has 1-2 years left, so why should they get to vote but the old man doesn't?
You can still vote, I would never call for disenfranchisement. I mean you can't be a politician, or board member of a trust, or a company director etc...
Excluding from election is disenfranchisement for something they have no control over.
No different than saying people with 1 hand, or a disease.
This is not really an issue.
Nobody would vote for an 18 year old with terminal cancer.
And there's several magnitudes more 80 year olds that won't make it to 90 than there are that will, that's why it's the average.
Everyone will age. Not everyone will become terminally ill. A hard rule effects everyone equally.
Like the previous person said, complexities breed loopholes.
Generalisation breeds discrimination. People are complex that's why most laws are rather complex and leave a lot of room for interpretation.
For example, old people driving. Introducing just a simple age based ban would be very unfair for healthy old people while doing little about demented drivers under the specific limit. Makes much more sense to introduce merit-based checks from a certain age onwards. More complex but also a lot more fair.
Part of the idea is to discriminate. Harshly.
You have already lived to the average age, hand on power, give to the future what was given to you. By law. Step back and let the people you (should have) trained take up the mantle of leadership. If you have neglected to train your successor, then watch your works falter and maybe fail because of your hubris.
wouldn't they be bringing the average down, and so never see any negative consequences of the decision?
Well the main argument behind the post seems to be that people shouldn't be able to vote when it doesn't affect their future, so it's not really about just age.
...no? there's nothing about voting in there. it's suggesting that setting a maximum age for positions of power to the average lifespan would encourage those in power to extend the average lifespan for their own gain.
Fair, I kind of implied it from that statement. But you can still apply the same argument. Should terminal ill people be allowed to hold office?
well again, it only comes into play if they outlive the average person, so i don't really see why it would be a problem.
But what is the argument for tying it to the average age other than "it doesn't affect their future", which can also be applied on other circumstances?
average lifespan. important distinction.
Enlighten me. How is that different?
average lifespan is like average age but for dead people
Which one though? The one in your city? State? Country? World?
Country, initially.
Eventually world. Humanity must work together to thrive.
i'm assuming the country.