Jump to content

Should women's right to vote be revoked


Clarke
 Share

Recommended Posts

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? 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
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.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
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. 

 

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
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

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
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. 

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
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. 

 

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
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? 

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
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

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 4

Humans cannot create anything out of nothingness. Humans cannot accomplish anything without holding onto something. After all, humans are not gods.

Link to comment
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. 

  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

  • Upvote 1

Frank Castle Was Here

Link to comment
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. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
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. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
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
  • Upvote 1

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ϟħ̧i̧ᖷɫ̵γ͘ ̶ϟɫΓåπ҉გ℥̨Γ said:

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.

U troll. I wasn't talking to you. Though you do have spelling problems. 

 

My recommendation for you: get laid. Put a ring on that finger, and pop out a couple of kids. You'll find the deductions for having a family may go well with your AR-15 for compensating your small penis size.  Though you may be in a catch 22 if you have a small penis and can't get laid. Might I suggest presenting a case to the Supreme Court to legalizing marrying your AR-15? I assume it would have to be a AR pistol, since the barrel might be too long for you. 

  • Upvote 3

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is primarily about European countries and other western countries, not solely the US. 

Also Trump shouldn't have needed the voting power of white women, the fact it is required to win is also the fault of white women. 

Edited by Lightning

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Caecus said:

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. 

And Hillary got the overwhelming minority woman vote. Hard to say exactly, but your claim there is not certain. Not to mention that if such a thing was the case, women not being to vote, then it would have changed how the campaigns went heavily. Not to mention the fact that Hillary unlikely wouldn't even been able to run to start with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.