Lightning

Should women's right to vote be revoked

39 posts in this topic

There's some interesting talk going on around the internet on various platforms about what is wrong with the western world and its decline. I only recently discovered people talking about the idea of removing women's right to vote and they make an interesting case. 

Quote

Women are the majority of voters and society is gynocentric which is most clear in the laws that clearly favor women. Women make little to no benefit to the economy as they take about as much as they put in. Their responsible for the welfare state, big government, free speech being under attack, mass-immigration and tanking birth rates.  

Do you think women's right to vote should be revoked? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all women support all of the stupid policies quoted there. And plenty of men do.

I don't think you can put all of those things on women either, seems like an oversimplification. 

Really its stupid people whose right to vote needs to be revoked.

While this is probably an edgy troll topic, I would think the obvious solution would be to continue to red pill as many women as possible rather than driving them away with shit like this.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Not all women support all of the stupid policies quoted there. And plenty of men do.

I don't think you can put all of those things on women either, seems like an oversimplification. 

Really its stupid people whose right to vote needs to be revoked.

While this is probably an edgy troll topic, I would think the obvious solution would be to continue to red pill as many women as possible rather than driving them away with shit like this.

Yes it was simplified greatly, most men who support those policies subconsciously/deliberately do it to try to win favor with women in hopes the women will breed/mate with them. Being the nice guy.

Red pill won't work as its not in their interest, if you're giving all this free stuff to women they won't give it up willingly. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lightning said:

Yes it was simplified greatly, most men who support those policies subconsciously/deliberately do it to try to win favor with women in hopes the women will breed/mate with them. Being the nice guy.

Red pill won't work as its not in their interest, if you're giving all this free stuff to women they won't give it up willingly. 

 

That is debatable. Seems like you just have a very low opinion of women in general lmfao.

Also I disagree with the claim most men do it to win favor with women, frankly I think you are giving some men way too much credit. Some of them are just stupid.

After all, in this scenario we'd talking about all men on the left for the most part, not just the ultra cuck male feminists. Not every policy the left pushes for is catered directly to women.

EIther way this just comes across like the same feeble minded stuff pushed for by the far left identity politics peddling nutjobs.

Edited by Sketchy
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sketchy said:

That is debatable. Seems like you just have a very low opinion of women in general lmfao.

Also I disagree with the claim most men do it to win favor with women, frankly I think you are giving some men way too much credit. Some of them are just stupid.

After all, in this scenario we'd talking about all men on the left for the most part, not just the ultra cuck male feminists. Not every policy the left pushes for is catered directly to women.

EIther way this just comes across like the same feeble minded stuff peddled by the far left identity politics peddling nutjobs.

Not a very low opinion, from an evolutionary standpoint I have an idea of how they think subconsciously which may come across as a low opinion but its not. 

Stupid men is basically the same thing if you think about it. All men on the left and a lot of men on the right, the right might not be as bad but its still catering. Not every policy the left pushes is to benefit women directly but every policy is what women want which likely won't benefit men. I certainly agree it seems feeble minded from the outside even to me but then humans aren't beyond their biology as much as we think we're. We're now essentially killing our societies trying to fight against our nature hence the tanking birthrate. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to vote should be revoked for everyone, Kim Jong-un eternal world leader!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am tempted to lock this thread as I find it quite demeaning to women, but in the spirit of a free debate I will let it remain open and ideally these abhorrent arguments that women should not have the right to vote will be quickly put down.

I will let it be known here and now that sexism will not be tolerated, and in particular we (the moderators) will be eyeing this thread.

Remember, we have women players and, to me, the very idea that someone would propose this question for debate is repulsive and probably one of the reasons why we have so few women who play online games like these, and of those that do, why so many of them choose to pretend to be men online.

Women are not objects. They deserve the same fundamental equality and human rights as men and all humans.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alex said:

I am tempted to lock this thread as I find it quite demeaning to women, but in the spirit of a free debate I will let it remain open and ideally these abhorrent arguments that women should not have the right to vote will be quickly put down.

I will let it be known here and now that sexism will not be tolerated, and in particular we (the moderators) will be eyeing this thread.

Remember, we have women players and, to me, the very idea that someone would propose this question for debate is repulsive and probably one of the reasons why we have so few women who play online games like these, and of those that do, why so many of them choose to pretend to be men online.

Women are not objects. They deserve the same fundamental equality and human rights as men and all humans.

Thanks and don't be worried about women fleeing these sorts of games, most have no interest in playing games like these. Free speech is definitely not a reason as the moderators here are quite strict on speech so women should feel comfortable here. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lightning said:

Thanks and don't be worried about women fleeing these sorts of games, most have no interest in playing games like these. Free speech is definitely not a reason as the moderators here are quite strict on speech so women should feel comfortable here. 

 

Considering the high-level woman players we have had in this game (*cough* JR *cough*), I think that is a little excessive. Many women certainly do have interest in playing games like this, although I have noticed that the trend seems to be to not express their gender online due to the negative attention it brings. 

In regards to voting, I live in New Zealand, the country which first gave the woman the right to vote, and strongly stand by that sentiment. Woman make up 50% (approximately) of the population, and therefore should definitely have an input on how the world they live in is run; if as you say women are the majority of voters the solution is not to force them out of the scene where they can, but instead to get more men aware of the political impact they can have by using their voice and voting themselves. 

In regards to the i/o of the economy, in many cases where woman are working later and focussing less on families, then surely they are now contributing more to the economy than they did in the historic non-voting / stay-at-home wife era. If anything, as the primary caregiver is usually the person who works the least, and therefore provides that imbalance to the economy, are you not saying that raising and educating children is not of the utmost importance to the future of our society? For that alone I would argue that this person - male or female - is providing a crucial role and should be given leeway for not contributing as much to the economy. 

I am also curious as to how woman no longer voting will be able to fix "tanking birth rates", are you suggesting that they should be legislatively forced to procreate? 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Timmy said:

In regards to the i/o of the economy, in many cases where woman are working later and focussing less on families, then surely they are now contributing more to the economy than they did in the historic non-voting / stay-at-home wife era. If anything, as the primary caregiver is usually the person who works the least, and therefore provides that imbalance to the economy, are you not saying that raising and educating children is not of the utmost importance to the future of our society? For that alone I would argue that this person - male or female - is providing a crucial role and should be given leeway for not contributing as much to the economy. 

I am also curious as to how woman no longer voting will be able to fix "tanking birth rates", are you suggesting that they should be legislatively forced to procreate? 

They're taking out as much as they're putting into the economy today because of the welfare state which they primarily helped build, they may not if they don't have kids but that's another problem. Rather than been dependent on their man, today they're dependent on the government while also using the man for extra resources. A lot of women aren't very good workers either. 

In the past a family could survive on a single income, dual income is necessary today as the value of workers is less because of women entering the workforce. Children are of the utmost importance and women aren't having them in sufficient numbers so they need to be removed from the work force to give birth and take care of the kids. 

Edited by Lightning
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alex said:

I am tempted to lock this thread as I find it quite demeaning to women, but in the spirit of a free debate I will let it remain open and ideally these abhorrent arguments that women should not have the right to vote will be quickly put down.

I will let it be known here and now that sexism will not be tolerated, and in particular we (the moderators) will be eyeing this thread.

Remember, we have women players and, to me, the very idea that someone would propose this question for debate is repulsive and probably one of the reasons why we have so few women who play online games like these, and of those that do, why so many of them choose to pretend to be men online.

Women are not objects. They deserve the same fundamental equality and human rights as men and all humans.

I was gonna make a huge response to this, but my draft deleted. Let me do the TL:DR that would’ve been requested regardless, while free speech/ freedom to debate is good, this topic won’t end well. I know, you know and many others know that there’s lots of people in this game with, albeit asinine, extremely offensive views towards women, different beliefs, races etc. and said people love to voice those things it seems. But I think it should be locked, I honestly can’t see it ending in any way besides it being locked. It’s like a small fire, you can stomp it out now, or just say “Nahhh, it’ll be fine” until it burns down your house. I know the OP and poster mean no harm, but there’s people who 1000% do, and will once they see this.

 

2 hours ago, Lightning said:

Thanks and don't be worried about women fleeing these sorts of games, most have no interest in playing games like these. Free speech is definitely not a reason as the moderators here are quite strict on speech so women should feel comfortable here. 

Can confirm tbh, I’m a woman bee and like, I’m not very political, I’m mostly here to talk to people lul

But PnW is still a good game! :) 8.25 goldfish crackers/10

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How intolerant. How would your little sister feel about this?

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No amount of voting power will fix the fact that anyone who believes eliminating women's (or anybody's) right to vote is an abhorrent piece of shit. 

Edited by Wilhelm the Demented
5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lightning said:

Thanks and don't be worried about women fleeing these sorts of games, most have no interest in playing games like these. Free speech is definitely not a reason as the moderators here are quite strict on speech so women should feel comfortable here. 

 

Yeah women aren't interested in games like these unless they're nerdy, seeking desperate male attention, or both.

Yes, we should repeal women's right to vote. You can't redpill a woman btw. It's incompatible with their natural mental hardwiring. They only think about today and tomorrow, not long term. 

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ϟħ̧i̧ᖷɫ̵γ͘ ̶ϟɫΓåπ҉გ℥̨Γ said:

Yeah women aren't interested in games like these unless they're nerdy, seeking desperate male attention, or both.

please-notice-me-senpai.jpg

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to make a case, by all means, at least spell "they're" correctly. Perhaps this person's right to vote should be revoked for illiteracy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people who don't normally post here posting... ummm... you can certainly do that better than me Lightning I'll say that.

Anyway. Women are generally considered to be more vulnerable to the listed arguments however as Sketchy says, the number of men involved in that is large. These sort of things certainly won't appeal to women to change their minds. I much prefer simply stating the truth, like for example on the Islam issue I just say that as a man it'll ultimately be fine for me. I support Polygamy anyway so cool, I get something I want, in addition respect from the women is then... so much easier to gain shall we say. It is them who'd suffer under such things as women.

The statement that women being allowed to vote means things are shifted towards X, Y, and Z is true enough however. It is like if America suddenly gave all the illegals voting power, guess what that results in. The obvious. The economic end... well, last time I honestly answered this I got called a woman hater but whatever, nothing new, the truth is if women were outside the workforce then yeah, sure, things would be better for men. More jobs available, women would naturally become more dependant on a man so hooking up and staying hooked up becomes easier (and that would raise the birthrate sure). However, to give fellow citizens such an uneven go at life simply based on how they were born is not right or just. 

The real question is more if voting at all is really the golden goose it is made out to be. After all groups make use of it to get things that are not a benefit to people as a whole, the huge corruption is well know, it results in wide shifts back and forth on policies that means there is constant failure as the goal is never what works, but to put in place what belongs to my side and what the groups under me want. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/alexjwinchell/status/482063103077519360

9 hours ago, Rozalia said:

A lot of people who don't normally post here posting... ummm... you can certainly do that better than me Lightning I'll say that.

Anyway. Women are generally considered to be more vulnerable to the listed arguments however as Sketchy says, the number of men involved in that is large. These sort of things certainly won't appeal to women to change their minds. I much prefer simply stating the truth, like for example on the Islam issue I just say that as a man it'll ultimately be fine for me. I support Polygamy anyway so cool, I get something I want, in addition respect from the women is then... so much easier to gain shall we say. It is them who'd suffer under such things as women.

The statement that women being allowed to vote means things are shifted towards X, Y, and Z is true enough however. It is like if America suddenly gave all the illegals voting power, guess what that results in. The obvious. The economic end... well, last time I honestly answered this I got called a woman hater but whatever, nothing new, the truth is if women were outside the workforce then yeah, sure, things would be better for men. More jobs available, women would naturally become more dependant on a man so hooking up and staying hooked up becomes easier (and that would raise the birthrate sure). However, to give fellow citizens such an uneven go at life simply based on how they were born is not right or just. 

The real question is more if voting at all is really the golden goose it is made out to be. After all groups make use of it to get things that are not a benefit to people as a whole, the huge corruption is well know, it results in wide shifts back and forth on policies that means there is constant failure as the goal is never what works, but to put in place what belongs to my side and what the groups under me want. 

https://twitter.com/alexjwinchell/status/482063103077519360

 

On 12/4/2017 at 11:47 AM, Alex said:

I am tempted to lock this thread as I find it quite demeaning to women, but in the spirit of a free debate I will let it remain open and ideally these abhorrent arguments that women should not have the right to vote will be quickly put down.

I will let it be known here and now that sexism will not be tolerated, and in particular we (the moderators) will be eyeing this thread.

Remember, we have women players and, to me, the very idea that someone would propose this question for debate is repulsive and probably one of the reasons why we have so few women who play online games like these, and of those that do, why so many of them choose to pretend to be men online.

Women are not objects. They deserve the same fundamental equality and human rights as men and all humans.

https://twitter.com/alexjwinchell/status/482063103077519360

"Women are not objects" why the hell are you asking for one for Christmas like some sort of toy? Not very humanizing of you.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the uninformed idiots of the world would think that women don't contribute to the economy. I would honestly recommend a book on women's role in the armaments industry during WWII, but that might not be a book you would want to read because the Nazis are the bad guys in that one. 

Besides, Trump carried the vote through white suburban women in key battleground states. If women weren't allowed to vote, all the Nazi internet trolls would still find themselves under a dark rock because society shunned their worthless pathetic ideology. 

 

Besides, do you even pay taxes? I'm assuming not, because spelling errors on your tax forms would warrant a visit from the IRS. Talk about not contributing to the economy. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gabranth said:

That's cute, you think you are making an argument by just posting from a journal that you never read. 

 

Oh? How do I know you didn't even read the !@#$ing abstract? I'm glad you asked. First, the country specified in the study is NEW ZEALAND, a country known for its koala-bear hugging hippy !@#$ whose economy ranks below Greece. GREECE. Yeah, the same !@#$ing country that is being propped up by the EU for its massive public debt and stagflation. To compare the economy of New Zealand to the US is like trying to race a F1 race car on a !@#$ing tricycle. 

Second, and it says it in the abstract itself, but "Notwithstanding considerable within-gender heterogeneity, women are found on average to have systematically and persistently lower net fiscal liabilities than men, especially at older ages." 

Translation: Men use more public money than women because their penis-driven hormonal thought distracts them from actually having sound fiscal sense as to not depend on the government for everything. 

 

Even if it did say what you were thinking it said, using government-funded social welfare programs doesn't mean you don't contribute to the economy. Poor people have jobs, contrary to popular belief. And they consume things with that money they made, at a substantially higher rate than higher income individuals. When you make 10 bucks an hour, you are going to spend a larger portion of your paycheck buying things like TVs and food at restaurants. When you make 6 million dollars a year, there are only so many yachts one could buy. 

 

I still stand by my statement. Anyone who thinks that women don't contribute to the economy is a !@#$ing idiot, so thoroughly devoid of education and academic curiosity (admittedly, not necessarily by their own volition) that one might mistake them for being severely mentally disabled. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I pay taxes. At 40-45hr work weeks/25 an hour and being a single taxpayer with nothing else but himself, I pay within one of the higher brackets proportionally. I'm also in commiefornia. No, I don't use public services. I proudly speed in my Challenger, I dial AR-15 or draw the knife not 911 or the cellphone, and I obey the law.

So sorry, not everyone is a "muh NEET bux and gibs Mr. Sanders. Oh no, da pohleese is ebil for stopping me and pls pay for my birth control."

Sorry m8, ad hominem doesn't work here.

Edited by ϟħ̧i̧ᖷɫ̵γ͘ ̶ϟɫΓåπ҉გ℥̨Γ
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Caecus said:

Mumbo jumbo about how uneducated everyone else is, without reading the journal. 

You know Caecus, I expected more of you, considering you always claim to be so learned despite not looking into the journal any further than the abstract. If you had bothered to look any further into the journal I provided, you would see a few interesting fact patterns that dispute your initial claim regarding women and their contribution to the state. I really didn't want to have to get into a discussion about this but it seems you've forced my hand. 

To dispel your claims about the hopelessness of New Zealand as an accurate portrayal of Western life, I'd like to point you towards the HDI, which is practically on par with the American, here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
The debt to GDP ratio here, which is 4 times better than the American. https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/government-debt-to-gdp
The unemployment rate which is 15% worse in America, the fact Americans spend 2.7 times the amount New Zealanders do on healthcare (an important factor in the journal), the American murder rate, the amount of AIDS patients, the oil and electricity consumption per capita, the likelihood of dying in infancy amongst a whole host of other problems that America has, that, in comparison to the Oceanic nations, makes the United States of America look like a fever dream.  All this combined would lead to an even greater disparity in the numbers presented in the journal. You can go on about how hopeless the New Zealand economy is but at the end of the day it has an economy on par with Greece despite having half the population. Did you even bother to check that?

On to the actual numbers presented. Let's begin in order, firstly to figure 4. 

rSllYc4.png

From here, you can see that the labour participation rate amongst all age groups denote women as more likely to be unemployed in comparison to their male counterparts. In fact, I'm going to have a look at the American numbers because I'm certain that the percentages would be even worse.

hipple-fig6.png

What a surprise. The only claim you can make regarding women and working is that the percentage has plateaued and stopped growing by the turn of the century. A noble effort considering, in the 60 years of the second wave feminist movement. That's quite a bit of progress, but it still doesn't hold a candle to the amount of men working throughout the ages. In fact, you can quite easily see a crossover from young women and old men, quite a switch. Regardless, the point to be made here is that women, on average, don't have as many workers as a percentage of their sex. 

A simple rebuttal you might have is "but, women are more often college graduates, so surely they must be taxed more per capita". An astute observation and a clear correlation, but it is once again trounced by the raw numbers. 

iND2mfl.png

From here you can pretty clearly see that women, at their peak, contribute about 40% of what men do, in their peak. It's quite a strange phenomena. I don't know if it is implicit, or an aspect of society, I think that is a conclusion for you to come to but here is a graph detailing that women don't nearly contribute as much in tax as men do, not even close. 

Now, for the amount that women use in tax. Quite a graph if I do say so myself. 

b354aRp.png

As you can clearly see, men use little in terms of income support until retirement whereas women are much more susceptible for income support, likely because of motherhood. Even if motherhood weren't a gendered issue, women would still use more, as evidenced by the later age groups. Are women more susceptible to medical issues or other health complications that forces them to take time off work? Or do they just take more time off work? I'm sure there's a paper out there that supports both hypothesis', but as it stands, women use more in terms of income support. The only thing I could find in terms of American studies was this, and even this supports the graph in terms of just men and women, though doesn't touch on age groups. 

8-9-12ss-f1.jpg

To combine the two graphs to make them easier to digest in terms of give/take ratio between men and women, the journal includes that too. 

wLRp32v.png

As you can clearly see, men become a net positive on the taxman all the way from leaving college until retirement, whereas women only become a positive in their mid life. In other words, women only positively contribute monetarily for 25% of their life or thereabouts, and men contribute for more than 60% of theirs. Quite a disparity. In fact, the graph shows that women are a total net drain on the taxman for about $150,000, and men just about break even (damn old people), as supported below. 

fnP0Lgf.png

To finally talk about the OP, I want to preface by saying I don't believe in voting, for one, and I certainly don't believe in universal suffrage in said democracy. To me, what would be fair, is the people who contribute a net positive to the state should be allowed to vote, and those even amongst them, people who pay more tax should have more of a vote. After all, if more of your money is contributing to the nation then your opinion should count for more than someone else's who contributes less. Seems simple enough. With that said, and with all the information above, it seems that very few women should have a say in politics and those that do have one would not have nearly as much representation as their male counterparts. Is this wrong? Maybe, if that's what you believe. I certainly do not believe that any man or woman should get a stake in the decision making of the nations future if he or she is a net drain on it. 

In all, I don't believe in rights. That much should be clear from before the initial discussion. Every perceived right is simply a privilege that is protected. In that, voting is a privilege and should not be given to just any man. No taxation without representation, and it seems to me as if there are some parties which are much over represented simply because of universal suffrage. By virtue of living until you are old enough to be an adult in the eyes of the state is not qualification enough in my eyes for you to decide the destiny of my country. You must earn that privilege through outstanding contribution and service to the nation. There is an intelligent discussion to be had around the topic, despite it's apparent toxic nature. I'm not one for whataboutisms, but there was a thread titled should we nerve gas the ghettos? funnily enough. 

Overall, this has been a less than stellar topic considering some of the responses. Even the most integral pillars of our society need to be questioned for their utility every now and again, and the way this question was framed was terrible and the responses herein are equally detestable from a debate perspective. I've been accused of being a woman-hater before and I probably will again after this thread, but my negative demeanor towards women is simply due to the sense of entitlement that I get from speaking to many of them. Even some in this thread. Again, you do not have the right to vote, you have the privilege of voting and it is protected. I do not believe you should have that privilege if you did not earn it. Living is not avid qualification. I hope that the response is not deemed as woman-hating, but the perceived negativity towards my response will likely be because of the mixture of the fact that women don't contribute as much as men to the nation despite having the same voting power. I don't agree with that. I hope I made that clear enough. 

As for some other responses in this thread. Lightning, the way you opened this makes you seem like a hick. Not only that, you continued this in your attacks on womanhood practically calling them unfit for politics given their overtly empathetic nature and inability to see the consequences of the policies they enact. Or, at least, that's the line of thinking I got when I read your arguments. Yes, dual income is practically necessary because of the influx of female workers which has led to a decline in birthrate as there is less time for motherhood due to career work, but in the same response to call them dependent and "bad workers" just ruins your overarching argument. Not only that, you attempted to simplify the viewpoints of the men who support womanlike policy, such as welfare and what have you by saying that they only do it for female favour. I don't think you can say that without having some kind of example to reach from, and it is probably better to not say it at all because simplification of positions just leads to wider divides in the political climate. You can see it quite clearly even in this game, where Kosmo attempts to dehumanise and simplify the positions of the people in SIR by repeatedly calling them nazis ad nauseum. That does not lead to a fruitful resolution or a further understanding of the deeper grievances held by those people, and so the divide simply increases. Similarly, people on the right cannot simply call the left-wingers cucks or pandering to women without first understanding the problems they see and the solutions they present, as you have done. 

Alex, I hope you don't consider this a call-out but rather a simple comment. Even in the most preposterous of topics, free and open discussion needs to be had and a platform for all must be presented, even if you don't agree with the position some people hold. This is debate, after all, and it is better to allow someone to convey their beliefs and have them disproven in open and honest debate than have the topic prematurely locked and no one gets to say their piece. That simply leads to people creating their own convictions and not having them challenged, which again, leads to a wider political divide. Again, even the most integral aspects of our society must be challenged from time to time to reaffirm or reform them. This message can also be applied to Zeebrus. 

Everyone else (besides Roz and Tim), I'd say that you should think about these topics a bit harder before posting and saying "is what I'm saying really contributing to the topic?" and if not, then don't post. Debating is srs bsns.

Before I close, I'll remind the people of this thread of the election results based on demographic.

wDf9gNa.png

From this, some people see the evil white man attempting to remain in the seat of power while all the oppressed are voting hard to break their chains. I don't see it that way. I see it as the democratic party attempting to pander towards minorities with open border policies, radical gun control stances whilst also decreasing police militarisation to stop gang violence and save the lives of young POC, and women see this as an opportunity to attempt to help the disenfranchised simply because that is just a natural aspect of womanly behaviour. Motherhood is a profession of compassion, sisterhood is an occupation of understanding. Because the situation has been framed to view minorities as an oppressed people, through unjust laws, institutional racism or whatever, women vote with them, despite it being against the nations' best interest from both a financial and social aspect. I hope you, reading this, do not see that as a jab at minorities for contributing to the downturn of American culture or economy, but, put simply, that minorities are not in a good position for a variety of reasons, and encouraging women to support the party which, historically, does not help them in any meaningful way, is not a viable solution. Women are not gullible, women are not naive, they are simply more caring than men. They have just been duped into believing in solutions that do not solve the issues for which they care for. 

Overall, no, women should be allowed to vote if you want a system in which people vote, but a system in which people's contribution to the country directly affects the amount their vote matters would lessen the voice of women and minorities both. Is that bad? I'd say it's encouragement to Make America Great Again.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to spend a huge amount of time on something that might not be allowed. 

Quote

Not only that, you continued this in your attacks on womanhood practically calling them unfit for politics given their overtly empathetic nature and inability to see the consequences of the policies they enact. Or, at least, that's the line of thinking I got when I read your arguments

Yes that alone is enough reason not to be making decisions. There is a darker side to it as well where they're subconsciously trying to test the males in society by creating conflict.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Gabranth said:

Wall Text

Yeah, I didn't bother to look more into your journal beyond the abstract for a lot of reasons, chiefly because YOU DIDN'T !@#$ing READ WHAT YOU POSTED. Besides, I don't have a fancy-pansy subscription to actually read the entire article. I briefly skimmed your wall text, but it doesn't seem like you are refuting the claim of the abstract, which is that in New Zealand, women are less of a "financial liability" than men. 

Secondly, you were responding to my claim that "anyone who thinks women don't contribute to the economy is a !@#$ing idiot." What your wall text essentially says is that women do contribute to the economy (albeit, your argument is that they contribute less than men). So you've already proven my point, and I'll gladly use your wall text as Exhibit A for any other dipshit who thinks women don't contribute to the economy. 

Finally, to tie this all back into the op, your belief that only the rich people ("net contributors") should have the right to vote is undemocratic and bad for the economy, because it inherently puts a value on the opinions of a landed aristocracy. Considering that a third of the Fortune 500 CEOs inherited their wealth, I don't think you would want somebody deciding the destiny of your country by "virtue of living until you are old enough" to inherit wealth. A landed aristocracy only breeds complacency, nepotism, and stagnation, just ask the Chinese in the latter Tang Dynasty. 

 

 

And if you are thinking, "Oh, but Trump has already installed all of his relatives to positions of power despite being ridiculously unqualified and mega donors now influence corporate tax cut legislation by simply threatening to cut GOP senators off," well...

You should be happy with the state of the US then. Rich people and special interests dominate sound fiscal policy, billionaires are awarded official positions in government by virtue of having a shit ton of money and not competence, and the capacity for the people to hold elected officials accountable for their actions is dead. "Democracy," the type of government you so despise for being the inefficient, hand-holding system that takes from the "deserving" and gives it to needy dependent people, is ironically the opposite of what we have now given the excessive gerrymandering, super-pac, unlimited-terms-in-congressional-office system we have now. 

 

Also, btw, again. White suburban women in key battleground states allowed for Trump to win the election. In some districts (I'm looking at you, the stinking shithole called Florida), that percentage gap was as high as 30 points. It's ironic that you would all try to take the vote away from them when they were literally the reason why Trump won. 

Edited by Caecus
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.