User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:51:15 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By hoodonit00: I honestly can’t stand the opinions about women’s right that some of you have. Which opinions? When you post that, since people make posts on both sides, we have no idea what you are referencing. Be specific. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:52:14 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Animal rights really means "how we should treat animals" How animals are treated depends on the individual If animals don't have rights and "no victim no crime" animal cruelty laws are illogical. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:53:14 PM EDT
[#3]
If this website doesn't know your right to bear arms isn't real, I don't know what to tell you.
It is not real. It is really only because lots of individuals believe in it, and those that dislike it are kinda scared to test it in a big way. They would rather erode than repeal |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:53:40 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By iwouldntknow: If animals don't have rights and "no victim no crime" animal cruelty laws are illogical. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By iwouldntknow: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Animal rights really means "how we should treat animals" How animals are treated depends on the individual If animals don't have rights and "no victim no crime" animal cruelty laws are illogical. Correct |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:53:42 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: All rights only exist in practice because physical force is used to enforce them....not usually in daily life, any good society essentially comes to an agreement on what are considered "rights" and therefor doesn't need to use violence regularly to enforce them. However, violence in the service of rights is the foundation of society. Violence being the last and final resort used to enforce the agreed upon order. We judge societies largely based on what rights are recognized (intentionally implying that there are natural rights that exist regardless of recognition) and how much violence is needed to enforce them. So as misogynous as it sounds, men being the sex more physically capable of violence are indeed the reason feminism can flourish. I'm OK with that. If we believe in the principals that we wrote down 250 years ago, good men should defend the right to share ideas they don't necessarily agree with. Feminism has been a mixed bag for society. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By DK-Prof: By your argument,that is the case for ALL "rights" - there is nothing particularly unique about rights for women in the argument you are making. All rights are illusory. So as misogynous as it sounds, men being the sex more physically capable of violence are indeed the reason feminism can flourish. I'm OK with that. If we believe in the principals that we wrote down 250 years ago, good men should defend the right to share ideas they don't necessarily agree with. Feminism has been a mixed bag for society. Good post. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:54:27 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PlaneJane:  yeah..roll your eyes at him...that'll help....  Sorry, this is a loaded topic and I couldn't help but let the dark humor in.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:55:15 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: In your new dystopian world, where women don't have rights, how do you plan on forcing them to produce children and not allowing them to have body autonomy? So holding someone against their will, raping them, and forcing them to bear children isn't a form of slavery?  No offense, but your thought experiments are gross. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: My argument is to enslave women? That's a new one! Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Oh look, another women-hating thread in GD. Say all men decide to revoke the "rights" of women. What would happen if women decided they were no longer going to give birth? Suddenly people wouldn't have the right to even exist. It's as equally retarded/plausible as OP's scenario. Again, women wouldn't be able to enforce their body autonomy. So your thought experiment fails. In your new dystopian world, where women don't have rights, how do you plan on forcing them to produce children and not allowing them to have body autonomy? Originally Posted By JamPo: You prove his and mine by using inflammatory language "enslaving women". It's a thought experiment that not only apply to women but anyone..I repeat, anyone. If someone is stronger than I am, they can prevent me from doing something. Men and women got along just fine for quite a long time before equal rights. It's a societal contract. Sure, not everyone follows it. Just like not everyone follows any laws or decides not to join polite society. So holding someone against their will, raping them, and forcing them to bear children isn't a form of slavery? No offense, but your thought experiments are gross. No one suggested enslaving or forcing anyone to do anything. The premise of the conversation is do you have a right if someone can take it. Example, I was just talking to my son over lunch. His phone was beside me. I ask him “son, do you have a right to this phone.” He thought for a second and said yes. I took the phone. Then I said, “can you take it back.” He said no. I ask him what happened to his rights? Thought provoking. |
|
|
|
TN, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:55:32 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: By your argument,that is the case for ALL "rights" - there is nothing particularly unique about rights for women in the argument you are making. All rights are illusory. True, but this all completely ignores the point of rights. In the OPs world there’s no point in “right” because whoever wins the fight pretty much gets whatever they want. The point of “rights” is to create a foundation for shared morality. For example, asserting a right to self defense morally justifies the violence necessary to defend oneself. Feminists are trying to assert various “rights” to morally justify behavior many consider beyond reprehensible, eg abortion, having sex with 122 dudes in a month, etc. It’s not more complicated than that. The right to free speech is moral justification for letting people say bad or stupid things. The right to exercise religion is moral justification for allowing Muslims and Satan worshippers. The RKBA is moral justification for the obviously dangerous practice of letting retards carry guns The real problem is, as Scalia once made the compelling case, only a moral society can be free. Laws only exist because people can’t behave. The worse and more frequent the misbehavior, the more laws and thus less freedom. People say “we’re not free anymore”. Yes that’s true. It’s because we are not moral anymore. Arguing about women not having rights because they can’t defend them physically is beyond retarded. The question is only, do we as a society want to impose limitations on behavior for moral reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:56:32 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By taliv: True, but this all completely ignores the point of rights. In the OPs world there’s no point in “right” because whoever wins the fight pretty much gets whatever they want. The point of “rights” is to create a foundation for shared morality. For example, asserting a right to self defense morally justifies the violence necessary to defend oneself. Feminists are trying to assert various “rights” to morally justify behavior many consider beyond reprehensible, eg abortion, having sex with 122 dudes in a month, etc. It’s not more complicated than that. The right to free speech is moral justification for letting people say bad or stupid things. The right to exercise religion is moral justification for allowing Muslims and Satan worshippers. The RKBA is moral justification for the obviously dangerous practice of letting retards carry guns The real problem is, as Scalia once made the compelling case, only a moral society can be free. Laws only exist because people can’t behave. The worse and more frequent the misbehavior, the more laws and thus less freedom. People say “we’re not free anymore”. Yes that’s true. It’s because we are not moral anymore. Arguing about women not having rights because they can’t defend them physically is beyond retarded. The question is only, do we as a society want to impose limitations on behavior for moral reasons. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By taliv: Originally Posted By DK-Prof: By your argument,that is the case for ALL "rights" - there is nothing particularly unique about rights for women in the argument you are making. All rights are illusory. True, but this all completely ignores the point of rights. In the OPs world there’s no point in “right” because whoever wins the fight pretty much gets whatever they want. The point of “rights” is to create a foundation for shared morality. For example, asserting a right to self defense morally justifies the violence necessary to defend oneself. Feminists are trying to assert various “rights” to morally justify behavior many consider beyond reprehensible, eg abortion, having sex with 122 dudes in a month, etc. It’s not more complicated than that. The right to free speech is moral justification for letting people say bad or stupid things. The right to exercise religion is moral justification for allowing Muslims and Satan worshippers. The RKBA is moral justification for the obviously dangerous practice of letting retards carry guns The real problem is, as Scalia once made the compelling case, only a moral society can be free. Laws only exist because people can’t behave. The worse and more frequent the misbehavior, the more laws and thus less freedom. People say “we’re not free anymore”. Yes that’s true. It’s because we are not moral anymore. Arguing about women not having rights because they can’t defend them physically is beyond retarded. The question is only, do we as a society want to impose limitations on behavior for moral reasons. Based Scalia |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:56:40 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By QueenDeNile: Yes I actually do think most of GD hates women. It probably isn't a conscious hate but a lot of toxic threads permeate in GD. I think most people are decent men and women alike but there is a lot of dysfunction. I don't understand your last question. If most men wanted bad things for women (hated them) the male dominated society would have allowed things to change? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:56:42 PM EDT
[#11]
True
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:57:07 PM EDT
[#12]
I don't even think I should vote.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:59:16 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sixnine: Pretty sure many women would trade their ass for protection. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:00:53 PM EDT
[#14]
Feminism is self-enslavement and destructive.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:01:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Master_Shake]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: You are 100% accurate. Exactly. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: My argument is to enslave women? That's a new one! Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Oh look, another women-hating thread in GD. Say all men decide to revoke the "rights" of women. What would happen if women decided they were no longer going to give birth? Suddenly people wouldn't have the right to even exist. It's as equally retarded/plausible as OP's scenario. Again, women wouldn't be able to enforce their body autonomy. So your thought experiment fails. In your new dystopian world, where women don't have rights, how do you plan on forcing them to produce children and not allowing them to have body autonomy? Through physical force? That's his whole point. It is the same as you pointing to words on a page of the Constitution as you're arrested for hate speech. Whoever has physical power makes the rules. Using your's and OP's logic then 30yo males (or any other demographic) don't have any rights because if the rest of society decided to physically oppress them could. So in reality no one has any rights because anyone else can gang up on them to physically opress them. Interesting OP decided to choose women as the oppressed group in his thought experiment. You are 100% accurate. Exactly. If that was truly OP's point he could have picked any demographic to make it. He could have said, "None of us have any rights because the rest of society could gang up to physically suppress us." Instead, he chose women to be edgy and because he knew he could predictably sucker in some people here to defend his point. So this thread is actually about hating on women instead of any kind of any logical debate. Thanks for confirming what I already knew. Stay classy GD. Originally Posted By JamPo: No one suggested enslaving or forcing anyone to do anything. The premise of the conversation is do you have a right if someone can take it. Example, I was just talking to my son over lunch. His phone was beside me. I ask him "son, do you have a right to this phone." He thought for a second and said yes. I took the phone. Then I said, "can you take it back." He said no. I ask him what happened to his rights? Thought provoking. Did you read where OP told me women wouldn't have any bodily autonomy concerning bearing children? Is that not forcing someone to do something? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:01:37 PM EDT
[#16]
Weak men have no rights either.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:01:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: zhass]
[#17]
I guess this begs the question. How many men here would stand with other men, or with the wives, daughters and women they love and would protect with their lives?
That kind of throws a wrench in this whole idea. I would without question kill to preserve what the woman in my life have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:05:32 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By swede1986: Weak men have no rights either. Accurate |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:06:15 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: If that was truly OP's point he could have picked any demographic to make it. He could have said, "None of us have any rights because the rest of society could gang up to physically suppress us." Instead, he chose women to be edgy and because he knew he could predictably sucker in some people here to defend his point. So this thread is actually about hating on women instead of any kind of any logical debate. Thanks for confirming what I already knew. Stay classy GD. Did you read where OP told me women wouldn't have any bodily autonomy concerning bearing children? Is that not forcing someone to do something? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: My argument is to enslave women? That's a new one! Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Oh look, another women-hating thread in GD. Say all men decide to revoke the "rights" of women. What would happen if women decided they were no longer going to give birth? Suddenly people wouldn't have the right to even exist. It's as equally retarded/plausible as OP's scenario. Again, women wouldn't be able to enforce their body autonomy. So your thought experiment fails. In your new dystopian world, where women don't have rights, how do you plan on forcing them to produce children and not allowing them to have body autonomy? Through physical force? That's his whole point. It is the same as you pointing to words on a page of the Constitution as you're arrested for hate speech. Whoever has physical power makes the rules. Using your's and OP's logic then 30yo males (or any other demographic) don't have any rights because if the rest of society decided to physically oppress them could. So in reality no one has any rights because anyone else can gang up on them to physically opress them. Interesting OP decided to choose women as the oppressed group in his thought experiment. You are 100% accurate. Exactly. If that was truly OP's point he could have picked any demographic to make it. He could have said, "None of us have any rights because the rest of society could gang up to physically suppress us." Instead, he chose women to be edgy and because he knew he could predictably sucker in some people here to defend his point. So this thread is actually about hating on women instead of any kind of any logical debate. Thanks for confirming what I already knew. Stay classy GD. Originally Posted By JamPo: No one suggested enslaving or forcing anyone to do anything. The premise of the conversation is do you have a right if someone can take it. Example, I was just talking to my son over lunch. His phone was beside me. I ask him "son, do you have a right to this phone." He thought for a second and said yes. I took the phone. Then I said, "can you take it back." He said no. I ask him what happened to his rights? Thought provoking. Did you read where OP told me women wouldn't have any bodily autonomy concerning bearing children? Is that not forcing someone to do something? RustedAce already did that thread. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:06:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Master_Shake]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By zhass: I guess this begs the question. How many men here would stand with other men, or with the wives, daughters and women they love and would protect with their lives? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By zhass: I guess this begs the question. How many men here would stand with other men, or with the wives, daughters and women they love and would protect with their lives? OP and others are being disingenuous with regard to the purpose of this thread. They are the "weak men" people keep referring to. Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: RustedAce already did that thread. So what's the purpose of this thread? Parady? OP thought there were already too many "women shouldn't be able to vote threads"? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:07:10 PM EDT
[#21]
It still doesn't mean women's rights are real.
Taxes aren't even real, they're just backed up by force |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:07:40 PM EDT
[#22]
If you have a good enough fighting force you don't have to pay taxes
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:08:32 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: If that was truly OP's point he could have picked any demographic to make it. He could have said, "None of us have any rights because the rest of society could gang up to physically suppress us." Instead, he chose women to be edgy and because he knew he could predictably sucker in some people here to defend his point. So this thread is actually about hating on women instead of any kind of any logical debate. Thanks for confirming what I already knew. Stay classy GD. Did you read where OP told me women wouldn't have any bodily autonomy concerning bearing children? Is that not forcing someone to do something? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: My argument is to enslave women? That's a new one! Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Oh look, another women-hating thread in GD. Say all men decide to revoke the "rights" of women. What would happen if women decided they were no longer going to give birth? Suddenly people wouldn't have the right to even exist. It's as equally retarded/plausible as OP's scenario. Again, women wouldn't be able to enforce their body autonomy. So your thought experiment fails. In your new dystopian world, where women don't have rights, how do you plan on forcing them to produce children and not allowing them to have body autonomy? Through physical force? That's his whole point. It is the same as you pointing to words on a page of the Constitution as you're arrested for hate speech. Whoever has physical power makes the rules. Using your's and OP's logic then 30yo males (or any other demographic) don't have any rights because if the rest of society decided to physically oppress them could. So in reality no one has any rights because anyone else can gang up on them to physically opress them. Interesting OP decided to choose women as the oppressed group in his thought experiment. You are 100% accurate. Exactly. If that was truly OP's point he could have picked any demographic to make it. He could have said, "None of us have any rights because the rest of society could gang up to physically suppress us." Instead, he chose women to be edgy and because he knew he could predictably sucker in some people here to defend his point. So this thread is actually about hating on women instead of any kind of any logical debate. Thanks for confirming what I already knew. Stay classy GD. Originally Posted By JamPo: No one suggested enslaving or forcing anyone to do anything. The premise of the conversation is do you have a right if someone can take it. Example, I was just talking to my son over lunch. His phone was beside me. I ask him "son, do you have a right to this phone." He thought for a second and said yes. I took the phone. Then I said, "can you take it back." He said no. I ask him what happened to his rights? Thought provoking. Did you read where OP told me women wouldn't have any bodily autonomy concerning bearing children? Is that not forcing someone to do something? Abortion is banned or limited in 21 states. Does that make them slaves. Do you agree with abortion yourself? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:08:51 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By zhass: I guess this begs the question. How many men here would stand with other men, or with the wives, daughters and women they love and would protect with their lives? That kind of throws a wrench in this whole idea. I would without question kill to preserve what the woman in my life have. Of course you would. Whether you're successful or not doing so depends on the amount of violence and the amount of people coming to take what you value. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:09:32 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: None. OP and others are being disingenuous with regard to the purpose of this thread. They are the "weak men" people keep referring to. So what's the purpose of this thread? Parady? OP thought there were already too many "women shouldn't be able to vote threads"? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By zhass: I guess this begs the question. How many men here would stand with other men, or with the wives, daughters and women they love and would protect with their lives? OP and others are being disingenuous with regard to the purpose of this thread. They are the "weak men" people keep referring to. Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: RustedAce already did that thread. So what's the purpose of this thread? Parady? OP thought there were already too many "women shouldn't be able to vote threads"? Why are you asking me? I'm not OP |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:10:12 PM EDT
[#26]
Drug laws aren't real either turns out you can just go buy drugs
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:10:37 PM EDT
[#27]
And if you have enough force (see cartels) you can deal drugs all you want
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:11:11 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: restated: If most men wanted bad things for women (hated them) the male dominated society would have allowed things to change? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:11:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: zhass]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: It still doesn't mean women's rights are real. Taxes aren't even real, they're just backed up by force |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:11:42 PM EDT
[#30]
The south has been proving distillation laws aren't real for a very long time
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:11:45 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft: yea... "Put down the gun and give me your wallet, your virginity, and be my servant. I'm big and strong and will fight through two to the head and one to the chest." That is exactly how society works according to you. Not precisely equal, but so fucking close that a 30 year old male is not going to start a fight where he can easily be grievously wounded or die. Groups, teams, structures, and organizations who operate under the society's authority and the idea that the biggest thug with a club doesn't get to rule all. If you were right, the leaders and the enforcers would be the biggest burliest 25 year olds in the barbarian hill tribe. Even 3000 years ago kings and queens were not the strongest in advanced ancient civilizations. 2500 years ago, Athens was a democracy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:12:58 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By zhass: It actually proves they are real. I'm willing to bet that the majority of men, regardless of political beliefs would kill other men to enforce woman's rights. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By zhass: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: It still doesn't mean women's rights are real. Taxes aren't even real, they're just backed up by force Depends on the woman depends on the made up rights. My mom's made up right to live? Yep I'm murdering people everywhere. Some fat pink hair's made up right to have 96 abortions? Best of luck to her |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:15:37 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Drug laws aren't real either turns out you can just go buy drugs Pot is available immediately, but I have to wait three days for a gun |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:15:43 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: yeah..roll your eyes at him...that'll help.... Sorry, this is a loaded topic and I couldn't help but let the dark humor in....
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:16:34 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PlaneJane: Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PlaneJane: Originally Posted By xd341: yeah..roll your eyes at him...that'll help.... Sorry, this is a loaded topic and I couldn't help but let the dark humor in.... Gun laws aren't real Jane you can buy a Bofors |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:16:56 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: But society cannot function with men and women actively all out warring against each other. Which means a society in which all women were locked in cages would quickly die off. And in that sense, women's rights exist because the species doesn't exist without them. My guess is when you have a choice between surviving or not, most people would chose to survive. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:17:02 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Why are you asking me? I'm not OP Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By zhass: I guess this begs the question. How many men here would stand with other men, or with the wives, daughters and women they love and would protect with their lives? OP and others are being disingenuous with regard to the purpose of this thread. They are the "weak men" people keep referring to. Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: RustedAce already did that thread. So what's the purpose of this thread? Parady? OP thought there were already too many "women shouldn't be able to vote threads"? Why are you asking me? I'm not OP |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:18:13 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Depends on the woman depends on the made up rights. My mom's made up right to live? Yep I'm murdering people everywhere. Some fat pink hair's made up right to have 96 abortions? Best of luck to her |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:18:52 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: this will really light fires...but isn't that still happening? wealthy men dating attractive women 30 years younger...you can't tell me it's always true love. Protection....financial security... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By sixnine: Pretty sure many women would trade their ass for protection. @Chasim as you define feminism you are correct but my definition is different. Safety in the work place, equal rights to educational opportunity, equal pay for equal work, respect is feminism to me. I don't believe I have any rights that are not basic human decency-and this should be true for all humans. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:20:02 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Because you are continuously defending his point instead of correctly out that women have no more or less rights than anyone else. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By zhass: I guess this begs the question. How many men here would stand with other men, or with the wives, daughters and women they love and would protect with their lives? OP and others are being disingenuous with regard to the purpose of this thread. They are the "weak men" people keep referring to. Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: RustedAce already did that thread. So what's the purpose of this thread? Parady? OP thought there were already too many "women shouldn't be able to vote threads"? Why are you asking me? I'm not OP There are very few women that can kick my ass, therefore he has a valid point. There's lots of dudes that could kick my ass. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:20:32 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By zhass: But you can't have it both ways in the real world, so what's it going to be? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By zhass: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Depends on the woman depends on the made up rights. My mom's made up right to live? Yep I'm murdering people everywhere. Some fat pink hair's made up right to have 96 abortions? Best of luck to her I can though. I just gave you two examples of where I would and would not decide to use violence. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:24:27 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By swede1986: Weak men have no rights either. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:24:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: sixnine]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By zhass: I guess this begs the question. How many men here would stand with other men, or with the wives, daughters and women they love and would protect with their lives? That kind of throws a wrench in this whole idea. I would without question kill to preserve what the woman in my life have. ETA: I would fight to the death over my wife and daughters too because they are not capable of defending themselves as good as I can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:24:56 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Through most of human history women didn't have rights. Some still don't. I think Saudi women were just allowed to go outside un-escorted and drive cars like 3 years ago. Because the man in charge let them. Same fuck that sawzall'd a journalist in an embassy. Not a society I want to be emulated but they seemed to survive just fine. My guess is when you have a choice between surviving or not, most people would chose to survive. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By Naamah: But society cannot function with men and women actively all out warring against each other. Which means a society in which all women were locked in cages would quickly die off. And in that sense, women's rights exist because the species doesn't exist without them. My guess is when you have a choice between surviving or not, most people would chose to survive. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:26:58 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By QueenDeNile: It is amazing what we are able to endure. I am pretty old fashion but I would balk if I was sent back in time. Probably most of would. I also think the responsibility of dictatorship over women would be a burden. There are dystopian fiction to this extent--imagine if you had to drive your wife everywhere you needed her to go? It would be a burden. There's a reason the Saudi's rely upon the US for so much, half their time is spent doing what soccer moms do. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By QueenDeNile: Originally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By Naamah: But society cannot function with men and women actively all out warring against each other. Which means a society in which all women were locked in cages would quickly die off. And in that sense, women's rights exist because the species doesn't exist without them. My guess is when you have a choice between surviving or not, most people would chose to survive. Well of course the Saudis are retarded |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:28:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Master_Shake]
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: There are very few women that can kick my ass, therefore he has a valid point. There's lots of dudes that could kick my ass. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By zhass: I guess this begs the question. How many men here would stand with other men, or with the wives, daughters and women they love and would protect with their lives? OP and others are being disingenuous with regard to the purpose of this thread. They are the "weak men" people keep referring to. Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: RustedAce already did that thread. So what's the purpose of this thread? Parady? OP thought there were already too many "women shouldn't be able to vote threads"? Why are you asking me? I'm not OP There are very few women that can kick my ass, therefore he has a valid point. There's lots of dudes that could kick my ass. So some women have more rights than you because they can beat you up and rights are directly correlated with the ability of someone to beat someone else up? What about the women who would simply shoot you with a gun? They have more rights than you. So far no one has convinced me that OP's thought exercise is logical and OP didn't start this thread to troll people into women-hating. Originally Posted By sixnine: Originally Posted By zhass: I guess this begs the question. How many men here would stand with other men, or with the wives, daughters and women they love and would protect with their lives? That kind of throws a wrench in this whole idea. I would without question kill to preserve what the woman in my life have. No, it proves that society as a whole needs people willing to protect each other's rights. You could replace the word "women" with any other demographic and the idea would hold true. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:28:49 PM EDT
[#47]
Gosh I just can't understand why lots of women won't vote Republican..
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:30:08 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: So some women have more rights than you because they can beat you up and rights are directly correlated with the ability of someone to beat someone else up? What about the women who would simply shoot you with a gun? They have more rights than you. So far no one has convinced me that OP's thought exercise is logical and OP didn't start this thread to troll people into women-hating. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By zhass: I guess this begs the question. How many men here would stand with other men, or with the wives, daughters and women they love and would protect with their lives? OP and others are being disingenuous with regard to the purpose of this thread. They are the "weak men" people keep referring to. Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: RustedAce already did that thread. So what's the purpose of this thread? Parady? OP thought there were already too many "women shouldn't be able to vote threads"? Why are you asking me? I'm not OP There are very few women that can kick my ass, therefore he has a valid point. There's lots of dudes that could kick my ass. So some women have more rights than you because they can beat you up and rights are directly correlated with the ability of someone to beat someone else up? What about the women who would simply shoot you with a gun? They have more rights than you. So far no one has convinced me that OP's thought exercise is logical and OP didn't start this thread to troll people into women-hating. Decent question but I'm a better shot. I suppose if I were a woman I would use ambush tactics to gain an advantage. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:31:33 PM EDT
[#49]
Women could in theory just set up L shaped ambushes everywhere but then men would fight through them as doctrine states so I'm still not really sure they'd win.
Men would also probably have ISR |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:35:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Master_Shake]
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Decent question but I'm a better shot. I suppose if I were a woman I would use ambush tactics to gain an advantage. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By zhass: I guess this begs the question. How many men here would stand with other men, or with the wives, daughters and women they love and would protect with their lives? OP and others are being disingenuous with regard to the purpose of this thread. They are the "weak men" people keep referring to. Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: RustedAce already did that thread. So what's the purpose of this thread? Parady? OP thought there were already too many "women shouldn't be able to vote threads"? Why are you asking me? I'm not OP There are very few women that can kick my ass, therefore he has a valid point. There's lots of dudes that could kick my ass. So some women have more rights than you because they can beat you up and rights are directly correlated with the ability of someone to beat someone else up? What about the women who would simply shoot you with a gun? They have more rights than you. So far no one has convinced me that OP's thought exercise is logical and OP didn't start this thread to troll people into women-hating. Decent question but I'm a better shot. I suppose if I were a woman I would use ambush tactics to gain an advantage. Here's an equally idiotic thought exercise. What if all women decided to ambush, physically incapacitate all men, and enslave them? Originally Posted By 7empest: Gosh I just can't understand why lots of women won't vote Republican.. Come on, this is simply a thought exercise to point out how rights aren't real because men can beat up women. But this thread is totally not about women. Don't forget women should be allowed to have abortions or vote |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
