• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Women voting, bad idea?

Women voting, bad idea?

  • women voting is a terrible idea

    Votes: 13 14.3%
  • women voting is fine with me

    Votes: 78 85.7%

  • Total voters
    91
No. None of that changes what the guy said. Does what he said not offend you as a feminist?

Sure, but I refer you to Fiddy's wise words.

I've seen the same posters do what you ask in other threads, and I have abstained in those particular threads. In some threads I participate in one discourse that I did not in another thread, and do that on a whim. The same goes for others. Besides us two have responded at length. Maybe the other posters had similar thoughts to us and thought better of repeating them.

And my internal obstinacy also is inclined to just let you bloviate over it. :lol:

Here's the question: Why is it not enough that you're doing it? Why do you need an echo chamber of people with different genitals? What if I, or other feminists, have nothing to add to what you've already said?
 
No, no, no. Not THE first post. Pter King's first post.

Oh jesh Nitro - you can't do that to a woman late in the evening . . . my my I do declare. LOL

No, but I'd think they'd want to respond if they actually stand for what they say they do. I'd think they'd very passionately want to respond to a man making unapologetic, blatantly sexist statements and actually building and presenting a case for why one gender might justifiably be denied the right to vote.

Isn't that exactly what the twit in the OP did? Isn't that exactly the type of thing feminists are supposed to be offended by and respond strongly against?

You know why - because on this particular forum we have a good hefty handful. There have been at least 7 over the years that I can think of who were quite obnoxious about it to an extreme. They're all the same. They say the same things, they have the same silly reasoning and primitive ego-boosting concepts - and when you've said it about 100 times you've said it all.

What they want is attention. They're like little children feeling deprived. They are all the same - we've engaged with them plenty. They're sexist, they have various opinions, and they voice them knowing and wanting a response - so they can continue with their opinions and retorts and spewing their blind crap endlessly to the beat of their own drum.

Why should we cater to their attention needs and self serving desires? It's obvious they do it to gain some sense of popularity or what have you - they love being able to control others and piss people off from a distance.

The douches and the dicks won't be changing their boisterous views after an argument with any of us - or a deep, heated, serious debate. Because we've done it all. We've done it enough to know that's exactly the case.

They want the attention - attention denied. They want people to expend the effort - effort unexpended. They want to dominate the subject - domination denied. Their views mean *that little* to me. I won't kowtow and give them all that attention they crave - through the vise of the internet no less - they won't be guiding my day. They aren't worth the gum on my shoe.

You're asking 'why not' and I'm saying 'why bother'
 
Here's the question: Why is it not enough that you're doing it? Why do you need an echo chamber of people with different genitals? What if I, or other feminists, have nothing to add to what you've already said?
Because the man is obviously a feminist himself, or at least considers himself one. He is never going to realize that his ugly views about men are (supposedly) unacceptable for a feminist unless feminists, and women in general, tell him so. In droves. It's not going to matter to him coming from me, clearly.

And I harp on the feminists about it because I hold a strong suspicion that those types of views and that type of rhetoric regarding men are generally acceptable among many feminists, and I am hoping that some feminists will come along and prove me wrong. So far, none have. None have condemned it. Women have even liked his posts along the way. This is very disturbing to me. It strengthens the notion that feminists are not really anti-sexism, anti-discrimination, anti-gender stereotyping, and pro-equality as they claim... but rather pro-woman and anti-man.

All I want is some indication that that's not true.
 
Last edited:
Because the man is obviously a feminist himself, or at least considers himself one. He is never going to realize that his ugly views about men are (supposedly) unacceptable for a feminist unless feminists, and women in general, tell him so. In droves. It's not going to matter to him coming from me, clearly.

And I harp on the feminists about it because I hold a strong suspicion that those types of views and that type of rhetoric regarding men are generally acceptable among many feminists, and I am hoping that some feminists will come along and prove me wrong. So far, none have. None have condemned it. Women have even liked his posts along the way. This is very disturbing to me. It strengthens the notion that feminists are not really anti-sexism, anti-discrimination, anti-gender stereotyping, and pro-equality as they claim... but rather pro-woman and anti-man.

All I want is some indication that that's not true.

You're trying to whip up a gender war. We don't wanna play. Simple as that.
 
Because the man is obviously a feminist himself. He is never going to realize that his ugly views about men are (supposedly) unacceptable for a feminist unless feminists, and women in general, tell him so. In droves. It's not going to matter to him coming from me, clearly.

And I harp on the feminists about it because I hold a strong suspicion that those types of views and that type of rhetoric regarding men are generally acceptable among many feminists, and I am hoping that some feminists will come along and prove me wrong. So far, none have. None have condemned it. Women have even liked his posts along the way. This is very disturbing to me. It strengthens the notion that feminists are not really anti-sexism, anti-discrimination, anti-gender stereotyping, and pro-equality as they claim... but rather pro-woman and anti-man.

Yes, he is. Let's take another example.

There are Christians who believe that Chris is love and that we have an obligation to our poor and weak.

There are Christians who believe in vigilante justice and that sinners should be abandoned by society.

They are both Christians.

Likewise, there are feminists who believe in equality for women and feminists who believe in dominance for women. They're both feminists.

Now, moving on.

Why do you equate being a feminist with being a woman? If you believe women should be treated equally in society and afforded full rights as citizens, then you're a feminist regardless of what's between your legs. You sound like a feminist to me. The fact that you're a man doesn't matter. You're someone who believes in female equality, who is speaking out against a female dominance attitude held by another feminist (who is also a man).

I am also not in the third grade, which means that I don't feel it necessary to form a dog pile in order to make a point. A point made is a point made. If you need "back up" to speak your mind, then you're looking at this wrong.

I had nothing to add to your posts. They were perfectly succinct. So I liked them and moved on to the thread of conversation I was already engaged in. I don't feel obligated to repeat what you've already said because I have a vagina, as though it means something different when the speaker has a penis. It doesn't. It means the same thing.

If someone likes your post and then doesn't make one of their own, that means you've covered the bases and they have nothing to add. Stop seeing feminazi boogie women where they don't exist.
 
Oh jesh Nitro - you can't do that to a woman late in the evening . . . my my I do declare. LOL



You know why - because on this particular forum we have a good hefty handful. There have been at least 7 over the years that I can think of who were quite obnoxious about it to an extreme. They're all the same. They say the same things, they have the same silly reasoning and primitive ego-boosting concepts - and when you've said it about 100 times you've said it all.

What they want is attention. They're like little children feeling deprived. They are all the same - we've engaged with them plenty. They're sexist, they have various opinions, and they voice them knowing and wanting a response - so they can continue with their opinions and retorts and spewing their blind crap endlessly to the beat of their own drum.

Why should we cater to their attention needs and self serving desires? It's obvious they do it to gain some sense of popularity or what have you - they love being able to control others and piss people off from a distance.

The douches and the dicks won't be changing their boisterous views after an argument with any of us - or a deep, heated, serious debate. Because we've done it all. We've done it enough to know that's exactly the case.

They want the attention - attention denied. They want people to expend the effort - effort unexpended. They want to dominate the subject - domination denied. Their views mean *that little* to me. I won't kowtow and give them all that attention they crave - through the vise of the internet no less - they won't be guiding my day. They aren't worth the gum on my shoe.

You're asking 'why not' and I'm saying 'why bother'
Alright well I admit that I haven't been hanging out with you guys very long, so maybe it is just a tired old thing around here, and I'm totally barking up the wrong tree.

But still... not one woman says anything to the guy? Not one? Come on!
 
So, in other words, you cannot explain how gun ownership is related to respecting individual liberties and boundaries.
I guess I can't, so here's someone who can:
The gun is civilization

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.


In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

~snip~
If you are a member of a non-gun owning society, then this means you choose force over reason. Having removed the people's ability to resist you, they have no choice but to comply with your policies.

Being part of a gun-owning society means you've chosen to deal with people through reason, not force. Far fewer legislative actions are even necessary when people can communicate among themselves and come to a compromise on their own. Generally, the government should only be turned to after we fail.
 
Last edited:
I guess I can't, but here's someone who can:

If you are a member of a non-gun owning society, then this means you choose force over reason. Having removed the people's ability to resist you, they have no choice but to comply with your policies.

Being part of a gun-owning society means you've chosen only to deal with people through reason, not force.

But how does an individual not owning a gun imply that they don't support gun rights?
 
You're trying to whip up a gender war. We don't wanna play. Simple as that.
Oh my god. I'm trying to whip up a gender war? Seriously? By hoping and even expecting that maybe a woman or two might tell a guy he's wrong and that he doesn't speak for them when he's being all sexist and ****ty?
 
I find the existence of this poll to be offensive. Why give ignorant fools a stage to speak on? Of course women voting is not a bad idea and only an idiot would argue it is. The question is offensive, and I'm not going to participate in this thread because this topic is not deserving of discussion.
 
Oh my god. I'm trying to whip up a gender war? Seriously? By hoping and even expecting that maybe a woman or two might tell a guy he's wrong and that he doesn't speak for them when he's being all sexist and ****ty?

I don't think your penis prevents you from being able to make good points. Don't be sexist. ;)
 
Oh my god. I'm trying to whip up a gender war? Seriously? By hoping and even expecting that maybe a woman or two might tell a guy he's wrong and that he doesn't speak for them when he's being all sexist and ****ty?

He's wrong.
 
Now can we get back to the OP topic of some nimrod publicly announcing that women should not be able to vote?
 
Yes, he is. Let's take another example.

There are Christians who believe that Chris is love and that we have an obligation to our poor and weak.

There are Christians who believe in vigilante justice and that sinners should be abandoned by society.

They are both Christians.
Yeah, but at least the difference between them is clear because they stand up to each other, vocally. They let it be known that the other doesn't speak for, or represent them.

I am also not in the third grade, which means that I don't feel it necessary to form a dog pile in order to make a point. A point made is a point made. If you need "back up" to speak your mind, then you're looking at this wrong.

I had nothing to add to your posts. They were perfectly succinct. So I liked them and moved on to the thread of conversation I was already engaged in. I don't feel obligated to repeat what you've already said because I have a vagina, as though it means something different when the speaker has a penis. It doesn't. It means the same thing.

If someone likes your post and then doesn't make one of their own, that means you've covered the bases and they have nothing to add. Stop seeing feminazi boogie women where they don't exist.
So you think that homophobia would be as diminished as it is today if other straight people wouldn't have spoken out in droves, and encouraged others to do so as well? You think it would have made just as much impact if straight people had kept quiet, and it had been only gay people telling homophobes that they're wrong?

Do you think that it wasn't necessary for men to speak out against sexism in the fight for womens rights? Do you think women would have made the same progress if it had been only women addressing the sexism against them?

I mean, I realize that sexism against men is a tiny problem by comparison. Don't get me wrong. But to say that it doesn't matter if women speak out against it is just wrong. This guy thinks he speaks on your behalf. Tell him he doesn't! Again, it's not gonna mean much coming from me.

Anyway, I'll stop now.
 
Of course they should. If they're not PMSing, women can be just as rational as men.
 
Alright well I admit that I haven't been hanging out with you guys very long, so maybe it is just a tired old thing around here, and I'm totally barking up the wrong tree.

But still... not one woman says anything to the guy? Not one? Come on!

'Tired old thing' - I like that :) Yes - that's how some things get. But I don't know . . . You seemed to cover all I might have said if I cared to engage him on the issue.

But here - just for you, Nitro. . . Peter - you're wrong and you don't speak for me. Now stop.
 
I dont know about that mate! When I joined the army at 16 I had no clue about politics and didnt really begin to get interested until the end of my service. Most of the guys I served with could care less about politics and we spent most of our time talking about when we could next get drunk and women we wanted to ****. Serving in the military doesnt make you any more informed than the guy who works in an office 9-5, its not like we sat down and had long discussions about how a certain party would affect our tour etc. We just put our heads down and did whatever we were ordered too.
Military service has to do with social cohesion and national identity, not political IQ.
 
Yeah, but at least the difference between them is clear because they stand up to each other, vocally. They let it be known that the other doesn't speak for, or represent them.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Maybe they're afraid to, maybe they're too tired that day, or maybe someone else already has.

So you think that homophobia would be as diminished as it is today if other straight people wouldn't have spoken out in droves, and encouraged others to do so as well? You think it would have made just as much impact if straight people had kept quiet, and it had been only gay people telling homophobes that they're wrong?

Do you think that it wasn't necessary for men to speak out against sexism in the fight for womens rights? Do you think women would have made the same progress if it had been only women addressing the sexism against them?

I mean, I realize that sexism against men is a tiny problem by comparison. Don't get me wrong. But to say that it doesn't matter if women speak out against it is just wrong. This guy thinks he speaks on your behalf. Tell him he doesn't! Again, it's not gonna mean much coming from me.

Anyway, I'll stop now.

I do that all the time here and elsewhere. Do I have to do it every single day? I don't even do that for the ladies. I'm one person. I get tired, other people get there first, etc. It's nice that that takes a little of the burden off me.

I am not going to simply echo your posts for no reason. You've done it already. Stop crying.

But for the record, I think you're wrong. I think female issues are still more visible, but male issues are for more insidious and harmful.
 
But how does an individual not owning a gun imply that they don't support gun rights?
It's not about letting people choose to belong or not belong, it's about who actually does choose to belong.

If the only reason you don't own a gun is simply because you just choose not to, pure preference, this means you just choose to let others force their way on you. That is an unhealthy state of mind which shouldn't have any power to set public policy.
 
Oh - I have to do this because every time I see this thread scroll up I think of Henry . . . and this thread needs some levity.
 
It's not about letting people choose to belong or not belong, it's about who actually does choose to belong.

So you're not in favor of individuality and freedom, then.
 
Back
Top Bottom