Theory: extending the right to vote to women has put western countries at risk

[1fast1]

Right back at ya. Unless you can give certified sources, your dribble is just that, mate.

lol his dribble?

drivel

made me chuckle when i read it though. a woman trying to argue with logic...with men, it's cute.

[skapis]

Just a fun fact, i can't remember exactly which election it was, but some time in the 30s in spain, women overwhelmingly voted right and the regim they voted for actually stripped some of their rights when they came to power

remember reading about it in history class and thinking it was pretty funny

"Right" in the 1930s Spain and "right" in modern US are most likely two completely different things

[StarFart]

ITT: 'Everyone that doesn't think like me is an idiot'.

Misc gets dumber by the day

[BobisMighty]

"Women suck, men are better" he typed into his computer, in his mom's basement, hoping he didn't type too loud to wake anyone up.

[Fang2]

Is this thread serious ?

[CitizenVagrant]

What was the main initial catalyst for the decline of Rome? Moving away from "Patriarchy" and giving women too much power, which led to a whole host of other things.

The PC cry****s wouldnt like it, but women and their unsavory natures need to be kept in check. Not only is our society failing hard at that overall...but there is so much excusing, glorifying, and rewarding shytty behavior in women. Its no accident either.

Marriage was a two-way social contract between the genders that was predicated on meeting mutual biological imperatives for both parties. I never looked deep into the exact origins of marriage as a construct, but there aren't too many formal religions that have stuck around over the centuries that didn't have rules for some form of organized heterosexual union. It's arguable religion at least fostered, if not outright formalized marriage.

When either gender opts out of their side of the biological imperatives of child-making and family structure, civilization tends to go to total chit soon after. Part of it is because their progeny don't have a place in a crumbling society - a society which is crumbling by definition can't support what's in it already, much less new people. But secondly society goes to chit because the reason biological imperatives are called ****ing "imperatives" is because they're ****ing imperative. Surprising idea, I know.

So when men can't have assurances they're passing on their own genes, and women can't get some kind of security or sustenance during the period they're incapacitated trying to deliver a child and subsequently care for a helpless baby, and the children themselves cannot get the required care and education they need to correctly replicate the process and pass it down - birthrates plummet and the population eventually spirals into decline. That's Calhoun in a nutshell:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B...se_experiments

...his most famous experiment, the mouse universe, was created.[1] In July 1968 four pairs of mice were introduced into the Utopian universe. The universe was a 9-foot (2.7 m) square metal pen with 4.5-foot-high (1.4 m) sides. Each side had four groups of four vertical, wire mesh “tunnels.” The “tunnels” gave access to nesting boxes, food hoppers, and water dispensers. There was no shortage of food or water or nesting material. There were no predators. The only adversity was the limit on space.

Initially the population grew rapidly, doubling every 55 days. The population reached 620 by day 315, after which the population growth dropped markedly. The last surviving birth was on day 600. This period between day 315 and day 600 saw a breakdown in social structure and in normal social behavior. Among the aberrations in behavior were the following: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, increase in homosexual behavior,[2] inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and females, aggressive behavior of females, passivity of non-dominant males with increased attacks on each other which were not defended against.

After day 600, the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction. During this period females ceased to reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely, never engaging in courtship or fighting. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits. Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars characterized these males. They were dubbed “the beautiful ones.” Breeding never resumed and behavior patterns were permanently changed.

The conclusions drawn from this experiment were that when all available space is taken and all social roles filled, competition and the stresses experienced by the individuals will result in a total breakdown in complex social behaviors, ultimately resulting in the demise of the population.

I've been considering for about a month the following question, which may seem really simple:

What is the natural state of the human animal?

Because answering that might shed some light on how dysgenic or not society currently is. If you want to derive anything from Calhoun, it's that struggle and conflict end up galvanizing us as a species. It culls the weak and enhances the strong. Calhoun made a world where there were no predators to flee from, no struggle required for the unlimited food and water supply. Yet they went extinct for these reasons.

If I had to posit an answer to my own question, I would say that the natural human state is not "Multicultural Peace."

The natural human state is probably closer to "Violent Tribalism."

Consider this, then consider the great human empires, including our own in the West. They were all predicated on the "Other." "Us" and "Them," right?

We continue to grow closer to a world where people would have you believe it's all just "us," right? It's all just one nice big homogenous blob of humanity. Globalism. Is multicultural globalist peace a natural human state?

I'd argue no.

[Sebstan01]

lol his dribble?

drivel

made me chuckle when i read it though. a woman trying to argue with logic...with men, it's cute.

I meant to say 'dribble' instead of 'drivel' (as in, the OP's argument is like a dribble; weak trickle of logic). Both words are usable within the context so your post is moot.

[rhadam]

Strong logic and argumentation. Thanks for helping to make a point.

Seems pretty logical for someone to back up their claims with evidence. That's kind of how it works.

But, this is the age of the internet where people can just say whatever they want regardless of it being factual or not.

[StarFart]

If you're really 39 years old and still have such juvenile views, just lmao. Strong life failure. Real life misc caricature

[GhenghisPWN]

Lol. Blame everyone but yourself for the demise of your ideology.

Brb college kids are liberal and ruining US.
Brb brown people are liberal and want free stuff.
Brb women CAN VOTE and are ruining the US.

Liberals are often painted as the cry-babies, overly PC, and ones who want to limit free speech. Not sure if these labels are warranted after reading the drivel posted by baked potatoes such as yourself.

[StarFart]

Lol. Blame everyone but yourself for the demise of your ideology.

Brb college kids are liberal and ruining US.
Brb brown people are liberal and want free stuff.
Brb women CAN VOTE and are ruining the US.

Potato gonna potato.

His thread is basically a thinly veiled 'everyone should vote like a middle aged white guy for the benefits of a middle aged white guy' and if you don't you're a feminist/liberal/destroying society/etc.

[MojoTheMonkey]

Right back at ya. Unless you can give certified sources, your dribble** is just that, mate.

**And yes, I meant to say 'dribble' instead of 'drivel' (as in, the OP's argument is like a dribble...feeble).

[nzgs]

The problem is democracy itself, not giving the vote to women. The majority of men, here at least, make stupid voting decisions so it isn't gender specific. Democracy allows for tyranny against a segment of the population so long as it has a popular mandate. Any kind of initiation of force is evil, it doesn't matter whether it by the consent of a communist ruling party, theocratic dictator, or democratic vote.

The west was built on trade - first the great European naval empires and then the USA itself. The freer the trade the more prosperity developed. If you want to reverse the decline of the west then you should oppose government and support free-markets. In the 19th century when Britain was a superpower and the USA was a developing superpower, both countries governments spending was less than 10% of GDP. These days it is around 50%. Both countries were tied to a gold standard, both governments were extremely small in size and citizens were afforded more freedoms. We've allowed government to undermine the free market and hold our countries and future generations hostage to an endless spiral of debt and borrowing.

[MorgainsFreeman]

Okay, so hear me out:

1) Women significantly more likely to have liberal voting patterns than men. Men tend to prefer courses of action involving things like war, or "get a fukking job". Women tend to prefer things like talking, and "what about the <fill in the blank with some group that supposedly needs help>?"

2) The primary threats to the safety and security of western nations are countries where there are limited civil rights, and the ability of women to participate in the political process is extremely limited.

3) Western nations have therefore become more peaceful than they have historically been, more open to people from other countries, more helpful to the poor, etc.

4) In a world where there are no threats to your nation, number 3 can be considered good or bad depending on your political leanings.

5) Unfortunately, we live in a world where the threats to western countries have no qualms about using extreme tactics, no tolerance for people of different backgrounds or faiths, and no limiting influence from women.


The net result is that western countries are now in a position where we effectively have one hand behind our back when it comes to dealing with threats.

The counter argument to that is that extending the right to vote to women is a basic human right, that no person should be denied. Unfortunately, by giving people rights, we are doing so at the expense of safety.

Will rights and freedom be able to triumph over those who respect neither? Hopefully so, but it's going to take the male part of the population to man up and stop trying to mimic the political views of the female half of our society in a misguided effort to win favor.

Wrong and dumb. Negged. I'm not explaining why either. You are just a stupid man that needs to be way more educated.

[Sinix]

I've yet to see someone present the argument that women voting has been a good thing. All I see is "durrrr are you serious?".

Here's a question for most people - would you be for revoking women's suffrage if it meant a strengthening of the family unit/morals for the country as a whole?

[Hesher]

ITT: 'Everyone that doesn't think like me is an idiot'.

Misc gets dumber by the day

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. Your thoughtful, well stated response has been the highlight of my day. Previous posters have agreed or disagreed with my position, but none have done so with the strength of conviction that you have demonstrated. In the annals of history, there are many great thinkers, but none dare hold a candle to StarFart. A poet. A scholar. A noble gentleman. A gentle spirit. In his mere 23 years upon the earth, he has gathered a level of wisdom that all of us may aspire to, but will sadly never attain. The mere fact that he stooped to post in English, as opposed to Latin, should give us cause to praise his name for generations to come. In just over five years, we have been blessed with his pearls of wisdom a mere 302 times, but I would gladly die a thousand deaths to be able to gaze upon the 303rd piece of wisdom that he would bestow upon us.

[StarFart]

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. Your thoughtful, well stated response has been the highlight of my day. Previous posters have agreed or disagreed with my position, but none have done so with the strength of conviction that you have demonstrated. In the annals of history, there are many great thinkers, but none dare hold a candle to StarFart. A poet. A scholar. A noble gentleman. A gentle spirit. In his mere 23 years upon the earth, he has gathered a level of wisdom that all of us may aspire to, but will sadly never attain. The mere fact that he stooped to post in English, as opposed to Latin, should give us cause to praise his name for generations to come. In just over five years, we have been blessed with his pearls of wisdom a mere 302 times, but I would gladly die a thousand deaths to be able to gaze upon the 303rd piece of wisdom that he would bestow upon us.

Dam a wasted paragraph you could've used to make a sky is falling post about feminists, liberals, minorities, gays, etc. Shame

[Hesher]

Wrong and dumb. Negged. I'm not explaining why either. You are just a stupid man that needs to be way more educated.

Just because you're incapable of discussing something critically doesn't mean that you get a pass.

Saying "you're just a stupid man" combined with 5'4", 140lbs leads me to believe that you're either female or have gone potato beta.

[Hesher]

I've yet to see someone present the argument that women voting has been a good thing. All I see is "durrrr are you serious?".

Here's a question for most people - would you be for revoking women's suffrage if it meant a strengthening of the family unit/morals for the country as a whole?

I hope you get a legitimate response.

[Hesher]

Dam a wasted paragraph you could've used to make a sky is falling post about feminists, liberals, minorities, gays, etc. Shame

What a dam might look like:

[MojoTheMonkey]

Dam a wasted paragraph you could've used to make a sky is falling post about feminists, liberals, minorities, gays, etc. Shame

Feminists and Liberals are pure evil. The only reason that I don't agree with minorities and gays most of the time is because they have a liberal worldview. When they aren't liberal I have no problem with them.

I'm a big fan of Milo Yiannopoulos and he's queerer than a three dollar bill.

[KingofLifts]

In the thought exercise I conducted above, none of these salaries/payments would be exorbitant, i.e $100 to vote and 20-30k income. This alternative is STILL better than the current system where you have people who literally couldn't care less about any actual politics or learning any facts/figures/stats, people that don't produce, people that don't even WANT to produce vote.

Again, that was just an alternative to have a more educated voter base as opposed to letting people vote for MORE welfare, MORE spending and MORE government ENTIRELY at the cost of someone else because on SOME level they are actually invested in producing or even "bucking up" by payment themselves.

I understand that it is a thought exercise, but any voting system resembling that structure would lead to the downfall of the middle class (leading to the rest of the country.) I see that producing is a central theme. I get it. But I'm arguing there is no reasonable way whatsoever to deem an appropriate amount of "production" that is required to vote. For example, lets say anyone under $25,000 doesn't earn the right to vote. Well now you've eliminated most college students (future producers), many single parents (again, future producers), or even full family households. Now there is no-one that can represent these groups of people.

Being in those groups of people does not mean that you will vote for increased government spending, and sit on your arse all day collecting welfare. That assumption is fully incorrect.

The idea that increased government, and what level of involvement government should play in our lives is a VERY difficult topic of politics. I'm just gonna say that the Government is mostly a neutral force, and can be influenced to either screw us, or save us.

[NVious]

I understand that it is a thought exercise, but any voting system resembling that structure would lead to the downfall of the middle class (leading to the rest of the country.) I see that producing is a central theme. I get it. But I'm arguing there is no reasonable way whatsoever to deem an appropriate amount of "production" that is required to vote. For example, lets say anyone under $25,000 doesn't earn the right to vote. Well now you've eliminated most college students (future producers), many single parents (again, future producers), or even full family households. Now there is no-one that can represent these groups of people.

Being in those groups of people does not mean that you will vote for increased government spending, and sit on your arse all day collecting welfare. That assumption is fully incorrect.

The idea that increased government, and what level of involvement government should play in our lives is a VERY difficult topic of politics. I'm just gonna say that the Government is mostly a neutral force, and can be influenced to either screw us, or save us.

As opposed to non-merit voting system where NO criteria is set? I think we've seen the results of that.

Most college students nowadays are indoctrinated into socialist/Marxist ideas and most that aren't can easily earn 20 since they don't have a disdain for capitalism/work.

Most single parents can easily earn 20k+.

Lmfao @ government being a neutral force, government is a parasite that uses force to steal while producing nothing.

[SauceBrah]

A woman's vote should count as 3/5

[ScubaStevo]

In for lulz

[KingofLifts]

As opposed to non-merit voting system where NO criteria is set? I think we've seen the results of that.

Most college students nowadays are indoctrinated into socialist/Marxist ideas and most that aren't can easily earn 20 since they don't have a disdain for capitalism/work.

Most single parents can easily earn 20k+.

Lmfao @ government being a neutral force, government is a parasite that uses force to steal while producing nothing.

Yeah, the "merit-voting" system cannot reasonably be implemented in real life. It's a fantasy. Not to mention the unfairness of the system; it can also be considered a violation of the most fundamental rights that a person can have. I don't understand what bad results you are insinuating bro. Your merit-voting system was in effect at a time in this nations history. Only white-property owners could vote; effectively silencing 80-90% of the population, and eventually leading to a bloody civil war. I think we've seen the results of that.

Again, your statement that most college students are socialists, or marxists is VERY loosely based in reality. Sure many college students are liberals, but then again many are conservatives. I would wager that most college student AREN'T very active in political life. In fact, last years election only had "19.9 percent of 18- to 29-years old cast ballots in the 2014 elections". That includes people well out of college.

Yeah many single parents can earn $20k+. Many others cannot. Again, where do we set the income limit?

The government is a parasite in your eyes. In my eyes it's not. Again, both opinions. Let's agree to disagree.

[NVious]

Yeah, the "merit-voting" system cannot reasonably be implemented in real life. It's a fantasy. Not to mention the unfairness of the system; it can also be considered a violation of the most fundamental rights that a person can have. I don't understand what bad results you are insinuating bro. Your merit-voting system was in effect at a time in this nations history. Only white-property owners could vote; effectively silencing 80-90% of the population, and eventually leading to a bloody civil war. I think we've seen the results of that.

Again, your statement that most college students are socialists, or marxists is VERY loosely based in reality. Sure many college students are liberals, but then again many are conservatives. I would wager that most college student AREN'T very active in political life. In fact, last years election only had "19.9 percent of 18- to 29-years old cast ballots in the 2014 elections". That includes people well out of college.

Yeah many single parents can earn $20k+. Many others cannot. Again, where do we set the income limit?

The government is a parasite in your eyes. In my eyes it's not. Again, both opinions. Let's agree to disagree.

Yes you have the right to use third parties to steal from others....oh wait you don't, but that is what the government does and that is what voters enable.

Democracy has very little to do with human welfare. Capitalism, the respect of private property is the real reason humans have prospered as much as they have over the last 200 years.

Oh yes, earning 20k or something ANYONE working a minimum wage job can do is akin to slavery/the civil war.

Not really:





All helping to bring about:

Status quo bias and do-nothing syndrome - keeping things the way they are. Includes minimizing effort and a preference for default options.

Bias from consistency tendency - being consistent with our prior commitments and ideas even when acting against our best interest or in the face of disconfirming evidence. Includes confirmation bias - looking for evidence that confirms our actions and beliefs and ignoring or distorting disconfirming evidence.

Bias from mere association - automatically connecting a stimulus with pain or pleasure; including liking or disliking something associated with something bad or good. Includes seeing situations as identical because they seem similar. Also bias from Persian Messenger Syndrome - not wanting to be the carrier of bad news.

Over-influence by vivid or the most recent information.

Lmfao yeah bro 20k is insane to earn, how would anyone EVER earn that amount....oh wait, minimum wage is calling.

par·a·site
ˈperəˌsīt/
noun
noun: parasite; plural noun: parasites

an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

Tax payers=host
Government=parasite

Nobody WILLINGLY takes on a parasite and much like the government, rich or poor, young or old, EVERYONE is robbed in the way of taxes so the intellectual do gooder class can decide how to spend YOUR money. Oh and poor people get robbed JUST as much seeing as they are more proportionally effected due to having lower income, paying into social security while not living as long (rich wouldn't even want it this way) and having their kids forced into state funded indoctrination camps where after 10k+ hours of indoctrination most STILL either lack any real skills and a few even turn to a life of crime.

Government is the epitome of a parasite because UNLIKE the private sector which produces goods that you as the consumer can consume or NOT consume and there is NOTHING corporations can do about you NOT buying their products, the government produces NO good (unless you consider words on paper goods) or unless you consider hiring individuals to do things that the free market would otherwise require and allocate resources more efficiently to regardless AND you cannot choose NOT to use their good.

But yes it's ALL an opinion, solipsism+feels ftw...there is no objective truth, everything is anything!

[KingofLifts]

I never said there wasn't an objective truth to this issue. I said I don't know, and prefer to think the Government is a neutral entity, not hell bent on reaching deep into your pocket.

Like I said earlier, I'm not trying to argue whether the government is cock-sucking parasite or not. I'm pointing out to you that a "merit-based" voting system has been implemented before, and FAILED miserably.

[laser23]

Marriage is the foundation of society. Women and their enablers have through no fault divorce, liberal divorce laws, and child custody laws literally destroyed the institution of marriage. Feminism and all forms of matriarchy destroy society at its very core. Feminism and it's ideas like flooding the workplace with women= lowers the birthrate and thus causes western countries to need to rely on 3rd world immigration to keep its economies running. Islam will destroy europe within 100 years and you can thank liberal/ marxist policies for it. Very very srs.

[Jimmy255]

Allowing women to vote was the worst decision in human history.

That choice opened up a can of worms that has led to a tragedy greater than any other in human history: greater than the holocaust, WW2, religious exploitation, slavery. It has destroyed the happiness of the entire world.

As soon as women were allowed to vote, the parties began to target them. People thought they were being nice.. why not let women vote? let's all be involved. why shouldn't my mother vote, she's a smart lady. Oh boy did they not realise what they had just started.

Women are followers and are so easily controlled. Think about what shopping actually is for a second. Everything is now targeted towards women, roping control of them. Women are never actually free, they are meant to be controlled. Instead of her man and father controlling her, now the government and business does. Literally everything in this world is about women now. There is no democracy. It is simply who can market to women the most effectively. Every business targets women. Everything you see, hear or watch in the world is targeted at women. It is one big fap session over who can exploit women the best.

No man is happy with women, only those dumb enough that just accept the world as it is and don't understand how it works and how it's supposed to be. They're not happy, but they don't know any different. And no women are happy.. whilst they get bombarded, they have no idea what's going on.. they get told to want this, then that. They want a man to control them, but then they're constantly told to be sexually free. They're told to want a diamond, but feel nothing when they get it. They're told to work, but hate working. They're told to look for this and that in a man, but can't find any. They're told their special, then can't understand why they're not. They're told to wear tonnes of makeup, then can't understand when guys hate that look, and they'll just keep doing it. They're told that everything happens for a reason, then sit there and can't figure out why nothing's happening.

The government and business has taken control of our women, ****ed them up so we hate them and they hate themselves, and there is nothing we can do about it. A few nice men have ruined the world.

With women being 50% of the vote, there is no way out. Because they suffer from herd mentality they are always the target. Winning the woman's vote is winning the election. Until there is a massive war, or global chaos due to mass immigration to replace the dwindling birthrate and fill the hole in the economy, it won't change. Something bad is going to have to happen.