Not if we stay in the realm of what can truly be called “rights.” A’s right to not be killed(the right to life) does not effect B’s right to the same. A’s right to retain(edited for clarity) property does not affect B’s right to do the same(with other property, of course). A’s right to do as he pleases does not effect Bob’s right to do the same(obviously, the limit to this is when it effects any of the three rights of another).
If we go beyond those rights, one’s gain IS another’s loss.
How does that apply to any of the rights enumerated in the bill of rights?
What was taken from men as a result of women being included in voting?
I’m not sure what you’re asking here, but I don’t think anything in the Bill of Rights conflicts with any natural rights.
It just dilutes the power of one’s vote further. I think allowing non-property-owners to vote is a far bigger issue than the sex of voters.
If 1 male vote = 1 vote
And 1 female vote = 1 vote,
How is either one worth less than the other?
They’re not. But the right is to decide upon one’s governance(of course, if secession isn’t permitted, that’s pretty much dead anyway). Anyway: If there are 100 male voters, a vote is worth 1/100th; if adding women brings the number of voters to 200, a vote is now worth 1/200th.
And that’s not even taking into account the likelihood of men and women taking actual rights into consideration when voting. Maybe there’s no difference, and maybe there is.
That’s assuming one’s genitalia is the deciding factor in how they vote.
Thats not how votes work.
Votes are counted 1 for 1, not as a fraction of a whole.
Well put, and perhaps something I should ponder for myself.
@BrickHead @Andrewgen_Receptors @Njord Am I that guy at the party for you when we’re in disagreement? Ruining a good time? I think I may have assumed that this is a study group, lol.
I don’t work for CPS. I’m an outpatient psychotherapist, so I talk to people about their lives and problems for an hour each. On Thursday, the last day I worked, I saw 5 people. Two were men, ages 30 and 58.
Regarding suicide rates and growing up in this climate - I would engage with enthusiasm in a conversation about that, but that is not the issue you raised. The issue you raised is, as you say very clearly in this post:
It’s hard for me to take you seriously. You just seem pugnacious to me. More than half the time I can’t even tell what your point is.
Yes. The political agenda. This doesn’t represent me or “women” as I know them. Almost every single straight woman I have spoken to about love and pair-bonding has expressed a desire for a good and permanent attachment. That these women may be jerks or attracted to jerks is a whole different issue.
This is really beautifully stated. I could not agree more.
Also this is beautiful.
Right! Which is certainly not assured. I would have voted for any of the Republicans on the 2015 debate stage against Hillary Clinton, except for Trump and Cruz. I have as often voted Republican as Democrat, both locally and nationally. I like fiscal responsibility AND compassion. I like moderates. I like people who seem decent, or as decent as we can expect from people who’ve made it that far in politics.
I don’t think that. An off-topic forum would be boring without opposing views, I believe.
It’s much easier to call me that then it is to address the fact that there is a change in language that most people don’t agree with. And language is a powerful tool to control people. That was a major theme of 1984, which was influenced by how the Soviets used language to control how people thought. I shouldn’t have to explain that to an educated person.
You question my objective facts. Well, it’s a fact that Latinx is on government forms and is used in schools. It is also an objective fact that studies have shown that an overwhelming majority of Spanish speakers don’t agree with it.
Birthing parent is used in schools and is on government forms. Do you need a poll to tell you most Americans think it’s ridiculous? Do you need a poll to tell you that a woman would prefer her child to call her mommy vs birthing parent?
So why is this change in language going beyond, say what you want, use what term you want, to this is the term you will use? This is the term you will use to identify yourself? If this is no big deal, then why is it even happening? Those demanding these changes must have some motivation, well, what is it smarty pants?
There is genuine value in being exposed to opposing views, and something that young liberals aren’t getting in most universities.
I am more socially liberal than most on this board (the views benefit me) but more socially conservative than most of my professors and I have gotten value from making arguments on both sides, even if I don’t publicly engage in political discussion
Edit: I don’t know how I made this post in response to @doogie . Maybe I pressed reply to his post by accident.
I bet you assume one’s genitalia is the deciding factor in one’s athletic ability(or maybe you’re on the trans-competing-with-female train; I don’t know). Men and women are wired differently, in general. Most men will never be as fast as FloJo, but I still believe men have an advantage over women in athletics.
It’s how the right to choose your governance works. It’s why people point out the decreased representation one receives today vs. when the U.S. began(there’s about one representative for every 750,000 now vs. one for every 30-40,000 residents back then).
If most men took PEDs, as she did, the number of men who could run that fast would go way up. With that said, every year there are many HS boys who are not using who could have beaten her. Thousands of males have recorded times that are better than Flojo. And not every male runs track so who knows just how many men can run faster. Take out the drug use and that number would be even higher. I ran track in HS, I wasn’t a sprinter, and I would have beaten a drug free Flojo when I was 16.
What in the world does that have to do with how men/women vote?
Exactly.
Men and women are wired differently. My post ONLY dealt with numbers, but you felt it necessary to respond with:
So, because you took it there, I felt the need to point out that men and women are different.
A drug free Flojo doesn’t break 11 seconds in the 100. People don’t realize how well drugs work. In one year she improved her best time by half a second. She was 28 or 29 at the time. That is crazy for an adult who had been competing for years prior to that. Female sprinters who are still using can’t get close to her times.
Again, exactly. Men and women are very different. I was just skipping ahead to the stupid argument made in opposition.
And this is the woke mafia’s conundrum. On the one hand they want to say that there are no differences between the sexes, that gender is a man made social construct. Men can have babies too! But if this were true, then transgenderism must also be a human construct and not the result of some inherent genetic trait. You can’t claim you were born into the wrong body. How can you say you feel like a male or female when males and females are not only the same but don’t really exist naturally?
Do you think that all men vote one way and all women vote another way because they are wired different? If not, how does allowing women to vote harm men?