User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 11:46:41 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft: OP THAT IS REAL RETARDED Even if I grant you that rights must be backed by force, by your fucked up interpretation, only the strong have rights, the strongest of strong men specifically. You miss two key realities. First: The gun equalized all. Men and women of all sizes can defend their rights. That is why we are on Arfcom. Second: societies operate systems of laws and governments to protect rights. That is what separated pre-gunpowder societies and even ancient civilizations for example, the Greek/Egyptian/Chinese Shang from small bands of barbarians where the biggest guy called the shots. Probably keeps "The Art of War" displayed somewhere so people think he's an intellectual. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 11:46:58 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft: OP THAT IS REAL RETARDED Even if I grant you that rights must be backed by force, by your fucked up interpretation, only the strong have rights, the strongest of strong men specifically. You miss two key realities. First: The gun equalized all. Men and women of all sizes can defend their rights. That is why we are on Arfcom. Second: societies operate systems of laws and governments to protect rights. That is what separated pre-gunpowder societies and even ancient civilizations for example, the Greek/Egyptian/Chinese Shang from small bands of barbarians where the biggest guy called the shots. I disagree. The stronger you are, the more capable you become with a weapon and the more likely you are to fight through being wounded. A 30 year old armed male is not equal to a 75 year old armed woman just because they both have a gun. Your last point, what enforces a societies “laws?” |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 11:48:10 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nsw8148: I think he's either really short or has a bad relationship with his mother. Probably keeps "The Art of War" displayed somewhere so people think he's an intellectual. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nsw8148: Originally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft: OP THAT IS REAL RETARDED Even if I grant you that rights must be backed by force, by your fucked up interpretation, only the strong have rights, the strongest of strong men specifically. You miss two key realities. First: The gun equalized all. Men and women of all sizes can defend their rights. That is why we are on Arfcom. Second: societies operate systems of laws and governments to protect rights. That is what separated pre-gunpowder societies and even ancient civilizations for example, the Greek/Egyptian/Chinese Shang from small bands of barbarians where the biggest guy called the shots. Probably keeps "The Art of War" displayed somewhere so people think he's an intellectual. Someone’s salty. Personal attacks without addressing the topic at hand. You sound like a libturd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 11:48:42 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XJ: Say, what is the birth rate in Islamic countries? It’s a factory compared to what our enlightened liberals have created here. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 11:48:51 AM EDT
[#5]
Originally Posted By thepantydropper: You can make the argument all rights are illusory, but women's rights definitely are. Let's think this through logically. In order for a right to exist, it must be enforced. To enforce a right, you must use force. Force is entirely under the dominion of men. For example, if all men woke up tomorrow and decided women no longer had rights, there is nothing women could do to stop it. Alternatively, if women woke up tomorrow and decided men no longer had rights, they would be unable to enforce it because men could easily stop it. That brings me to my last point, feminism. Feminism can only exist as long as men allow it to exist. Take your typical feminist. They claim they live in an oppressive patriarchal structure. How do they combat it? By using men in this patriarchal structure to fight against it to push their feministic ideals. It's quite ironic. Thus, most women in positions of power are merely wielding the levers of power to create additional illusory rights that don't and couldn't actually exist. weak is GOOD strong is BAD |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 11:51:26 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: Someone's salty. Personal attacks without addressing the topic at hand. You sound like a libturd. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By nsw8148: Originally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft: OP THAT IS REAL RETARDED Even if I grant you that rights must be backed by force, by your fucked up interpretation, only the strong have rights, the strongest of strong men specifically. You miss two key realities. First: The gun equalized all. Men and women of all sizes can defend their rights. That is why we are on Arfcom. Second: societies operate systems of laws and governments to protect rights. That is what separated pre-gunpowder societies and even ancient civilizations for example, the Greek/Egyptian/Chinese Shang from small bands of barbarians where the biggest guy called the shots. Probably keeps "The Art of War" displayed somewhere so people think he's an intellectual. Someone's salty. Personal attacks without addressing the topic at hand. You sound like a libturd. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 11:52:48 AM EDT
[#7]
Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Can you point back to a point throughout human history where women have used physical force to defend their rights? Originally Posted By HiramRanger: You realize speaking in the hypothetical of brute force, women wouldn’t have a say in that either. I’m not advocating it, but as a thought exercise if men were to decide to subjugate women they would not eat if they did not obey, their children would be taken away if they did not submit, and if they refused to conjugate they would be forcibly bred. It is a repugnant thought, but f we are thinking about a world in which brute strength determined “right and wrong” women would come out on the losing side every time. This is why society exists and governments are created, to curb such base and completely natural power dynamics - the collective rules rather than the individual. But the point stands, without men granting and protecting women’s rights they would have none. Unfortunately you guys are arguing with people that are using emotions rather than logic. They forget the world functioned for millions of years prior to 1919. Let’s use the family court as an example. How would we be different today if there weren’t a group of armed men to enforce their rulings? And to the guy proposing the extinction of the human race. I don’t see dogs and cats becoming extinct without this societal contract of equal rights. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 11:52:51 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AzzFaceKillah: Matches and gas could summarize women pretty easily. Jane, you do realize that gas vaporizes pretty quickly, so it will blow up in your face. Also, if you don't own a gun, are you just here to fuck with us?  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 11:52:54 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: I disagree. In the 50s a man worked and a women took care of the kids all on one income. Today, women and men both work, while the family dynamic has shifted. Is society better today than it was then? I don't think so, unless you support all the degeneracy going on today. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By QueenDeNile: Idk I think most men benefit from women having more opportunities and respect-which was the preface of equal rights. It's obviously gone to the extreme with a minority of women but in general it's been a good thing. Families are mostly two income now. Having your wife being able to earn more and be treated better is an advantage. Y'all seem to ignore or forget what it was like in the workplace for women before the confirmation of Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill did more for women than can be given credit. I have been sexually harassed by so many men in the workplace I can't list it-before the Anita Hill scandal and afterwards it stopped. Imagine your daughters or sisters working in a place where it was ok having your ass grabbed or boobs honked. Imagine being hired for a job and being the top candidate and getting paid less because of your gender. Imagine your paycheck being given to your spouse because you were deemed competent enough to do the work but not to manage your money. I have had all these things happen to me. It wasn't so long ago that women could be institutionalized-simply for disagreeing with their husbands. These are the equal rights I think of. I know a lot of you guys hate women but the only way things are going to improve is if we all strive to create better conditions for us. Take a look at your daughters and think about their adulthood and what they need to be healthy. They need to be respected and appreciated, they need to respect themselves and others and they need opportunities. I disagree. In the 50s a man worked and a women took care of the kids all on one income. Today, women and men both work, while the family dynamic has shifted. Is society better today than it was then? I don't think so, unless you support all the degeneracy going on today. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 11:53:16 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By QueenDeNile: Idk I think most men benefit from women having more opportunities and respect-which was the preface of equal rights. It's obviously gone to the extreme with a minority of women but in general it's been a good thing. Families are mostly two income now. Having your wife being able to earn more and be treated better is an advantage. Y'all seem to ignore or forget what it was like in the workplace for women before the confirmation of Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill did more for women than can be given credit. I have been sexually harassed by so many men in the workplace I can't list it-before the Anita Hill scandal and afterwards it stopped. Imagine your daughters or sisters working in a place where it was ok having your ass grabbed or boobs honked. Imagine being hired for a job and being the top candidate and getting paid less because of your gender. Imagine your paycheck being given to your spouse because you were deemed competent enough to do the work but not to manage your money. I have had all these things happen to me. It wasn't so long ago that women could be institutionalized-simply for disagreeing with their husbands. These are the equal rights I think of. I know a lot of you guys hate women but the only way things are going to improve is if we all strive to create better conditions for us. Take a look at your daughters and think about their adulthood and what they need to be healthy. They need to be respected and appreciated, they need to respect themselves and others and they need opportunities. Do you think most men in the western world hate women? Do you think if that were true anything would have changed? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 11:54:31 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XJ: Say, what is the birth rate in Islamic countries? OH shit !! |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 11:56:57 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nsw8148: Nah man, not salty. Just made it past my teenage years and dont hate women. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nsw8148: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By nsw8148: Originally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft: OP THAT IS REAL RETARDED Even if I grant you that rights must be backed by force, by your fucked up interpretation, only the strong have rights, the strongest of strong men specifically. You miss two key realities. First: The gun equalized all. Men and women of all sizes can defend their rights. That is why we are on Arfcom. Second: societies operate systems of laws and governments to protect rights. That is what separated pre-gunpowder societies and even ancient civilizations for example, the Greek/Egyptian/Chinese Shang from small bands of barbarians where the biggest guy called the shots. Probably keeps "The Art of War" displayed somewhere so people think he's an intellectual. Someone's salty. Personal attacks without addressing the topic at hand. You sound like a libturd. Ahh, the typical leftist response. If you disagree with me, insert “hate label” here. I can assure you I don’t hate women if it needs to be said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 11:58:00 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: Can you point back to a point throughout human history where women have used physical force to defend their rights? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Naamah: 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. Correct. A right only exists inasmuch as someone is willing and able to defend it. How are women going to defend theirs without men? Violence. The same way men defend theirs. When push comes to shove, most people in general aren’t willing to or capable of defending their rights. Some people, male and female, are. Are women less capable of overt violence? By and large, sure. But plenty are perfectly capable of a level of violence that would secure their rights, and everyone sleeps sometimes. Jael is a perfect example of this. Can you point back to a point throughout human history where women have used physical force to defend their rights? Individual women? Sure. Collectively fighting against men? No. Women have fought alongside men (French Revolution comes to mind). But by and large, most people understand that society isn’t functional when men and women are at odds. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 11:59:35 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Do you honestly think most men here hate women? Like actually hate them? Both sides do a fair share of bitching about the other but that's not hate. Do you think most men in the western world hate women? Do you think if that were true anything would have changed? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By QueenDeNile: Idk I think most men benefit from women having more opportunities and respect-which was the preface of equal rights. It's obviously gone to the extreme with a minority of women but in general it's been a good thing. Families are mostly two income now. Having your wife being able to earn more and be treated better is an advantage. Y'all seem to ignore or forget what it was like in the workplace for women before the confirmation of Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill did more for women than can be given credit. I have been sexually harassed by so many men in the workplace I can't list it-before the Anita Hill scandal and afterwards it stopped. Imagine your daughters or sisters working in a place where it was ok having your ass grabbed or boobs honked. Imagine being hired for a job and being the top candidate and getting paid less because of your gender. Imagine your paycheck being given to your spouse because you were deemed competent enough to do the work but not to manage your money. I have had all these things happen to me. It wasn't so long ago that women could be institutionalized-simply for disagreeing with their husbands. These are the equal rights I think of. I know a lot of you guys hate women but the only way things are going to improve is if we all strive to create better conditions for us. Take a look at your daughters and think about their adulthood and what they need to be healthy. They need to be respected and appreciated, they need to respect themselves and others and they need opportunities. Do you think most men in the western world hate women? Do you think if that were true anything would have changed? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:00:21 PM EDT
[#15]
Oh boy.
This thread will go places. Are men and women the same? No Are they equal? Well define equality. That's the problem here. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:00:46 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By QueenDeNile: The 50's is an anomaly that needs more introspection. For families who had fathers who were dedicated to their families it was an ideal situation but there were many who weren't. Father's abandoned their families and women struggled to support themselves and their children. What they endured in the workplace was often traumatic. Trauma and stress has created a lot of toxic byproducts. I was raised to be a housewife. I wasn't allowed to take stem classes in high school because it would compete with the boys. How is this advantageous to society? How is men behaving immorally (grabbing breasts and asses-pressuring sex with their employees) good for society? I love the nuclear family but the nuclear family failed. It's a good theory but it didn't work and what caused it to fail wasn't the woman's movement. It was because men behaved badly. If men would respect women equally and appreciate them - a better generation of men and women would evolve. The women who have prompted so many men on this forum to hate women were raised side by side with men. Laws of nature would show that if the women are fuck ups so are the men. Since we only have control over ourselves all we can do is try to look inward and be better people. It's pretty fucked up to say women are equal only because men pretend (illusion) that they are. And that fucked up thinking is going to create fucked I sons and daughters. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By QueenDeNile: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By QueenDeNile: Idk I think most men benefit from women having more opportunities and respect-which was the preface of equal rights. It's obviously gone to the extreme with a minority of women but in general it's been a good thing. Families are mostly two income now. Having your wife being able to earn more and be treated better is an advantage. Y'all seem to ignore or forget what it was like in the workplace for women before the confirmation of Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill did more for women than can be given credit. I have been sexually harassed by so many men in the workplace I can't list it-before the Anita Hill scandal and afterwards it stopped. Imagine your daughters or sisters working in a place where it was ok having your ass grabbed or boobs honked. Imagine being hired for a job and being the top candidate and getting paid less because of your gender. Imagine your paycheck being given to your spouse because you were deemed competent enough to do the work but not to manage your money. I have had all these things happen to me. It wasn't so long ago that women could be institutionalized-simply for disagreeing with their husbands. These are the equal rights I think of. I know a lot of you guys hate women but the only way things are going to improve is if we all strive to create better conditions for us. Take a look at your daughters and think about their adulthood and what they need to be healthy. They need to be respected and appreciated, they need to respect themselves and others and they need opportunities. I disagree. In the 50s a man worked and a women took care of the kids all on one income. Today, women and men both work, while the family dynamic has shifted. Is society better today than it was then? I don't think so, unless you support all the degeneracy going on today. Fathers abandoned their families in the 50’s? Do you have statistical data for that? All the modeling I’ve seen shows the degradation of the nuclear family starting in the 60’s right as the pill went into effect and women celebrated their sexual freedom from those evil men. Lastly, I think the caricature you created at the end of your statement is not indicative of how it was in the 50s. In fact, I think my daughters are far more apt to have their boobs honked today versus 1950 when “men” would collectively enforce social norms on society. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:01:10 PM EDT
[#17]
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. Agreed.... |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:02:55 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Individual women? Sure. Collectively fighting against men? No. Women have fought alongside men (French Revolution comes to mind). But by and large, most people understand that society isn’t functional when men and women are at odds. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Naamah: 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. Correct. A right only exists inasmuch as someone is willing and able to defend it. How are women going to defend theirs without men? Violence. The same way men defend theirs. When push comes to shove, most people in general aren’t willing to or capable of defending their rights. Some people, male and female, are. Are women less capable of overt violence? By and large, sure. But plenty are perfectly capable of a level of violence that would secure their rights, and everyone sleeps sometimes. Jael is a perfect example of this. Can you point back to a point throughout human history where women have used physical force to defend their rights? Individual women? Sure. Collectively fighting against men? No. Women have fought alongside men (French Revolution comes to mind). But by and large, most people understand that society isn’t functional when men and women are at odds. You are making my point for me. There are a few exceptional women who can partake in combat. However, on the whole, the weakest man is stronger than 99% of females. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:05:05 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JamPo: Unfortunately you guys are arguing with people that are using emotions rather than logic. They forget the world functioned for millions of years prior to 1919. Let's use the family court as an example. How would we be different today if there weren't a group of armed men to enforce their rulings? And to the guy proposing the extinction of the human race. I don't see dogs and cats becoming extinct without this societal contract of equal rights. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JamPo: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Can you point back to a point throughout human history where women have used physical force to defend their rights? Originally Posted By HiramRanger: You realize speaking in the hypothetical of brute force, women wouldn't have a say in that either. I'm not advocating it, but as a thought exercise if men were to decide to subjugate women they would not eat if they did not obey, their children would be taken away if they did not submit, and if they refused to conjugate they would be forcibly bred. It is a repugnant thought, but f we are thinking about a world in which brute strength determined "right and wrong" women would come out on the losing side every time. This is why society exists and governments are created, to curb such base and completely natural power dynamics - the collective rules rather than the individual. But the point stands, without men granting and protecting women's rights they would have none. Unfortunately you guys are arguing with people that are using emotions rather than logic. They forget the world functioned for millions of years prior to 1919. Let's use the family court as an example. How would we be different today if there weren't a group of armed men to enforce their rulings? And to the guy proposing the extinction of the human race. I don't see dogs and cats becoming extinct without this societal contract of equal rights. Do you think OP's point, which you agree with, is a logical argument rather than emotionally driven? OP's talking about enslaving women by force and making them baby-producing slaves. For that to happen you'd have to convince all the men in the world that women should be slaves and effectively removed from society. Not only that but their daughters would be turned into slaves as well. What's worse is that people here are defending him. If there was a top ten list for stupid threads in GD this would make it. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:09:45 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HangfiresGhost: You'd be trading your weapon for a piece of ass on day two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:12:25 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By hoodonit00: I honestly can’t stand the opinions about women’s right that some of you have. The idea of rights is important because it conditions your brain to think about objective morality. However rights are not real. |
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:12:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheAvatar9265ft]
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: I disagree. The stronger you are, the more capable you become with a weapon and the more likely you are to fight through being wounded. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: I disagree. The stronger you are, the more capable you become with a weapon and the more likely you are to fight through being wounded. 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. A 30 year old armed male is not equal to a 75 year old armed woman just because they both have a gun. 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. Your last point, what enforces a societies “laws?” 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 12:13:19 PM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:15:10 PM EDT
[#24]
Your definition wouldn't exclude just women from having rights. It would encompass many of the men as well. Especially the elderly & infirm. It would also include those combat veterans who were sufficiently disabled that they could no longer exercise sufficient force.
|
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:15:20 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Do you think OP's point, which you agree with, is a logical argument rather than emotionally driven? OP's talking about enslaving women by force and making them baby-producing slaves. For that to happen you'd have to convince all the men in the world that women should be slaves and effectively removed from society. Not only that but their daughters would be turned into slaves as well. What's worse is that people here are defending him. If there was a top ten list for stupid threads in GD this would make it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By JamPo: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Can you point back to a point throughout human history where women have used physical force to defend their rights? Originally Posted By HiramRanger: You realize speaking in the hypothetical of brute force, women wouldn't have a say in that either. I'm not advocating it, but as a thought exercise if men were to decide to subjugate women they would not eat if they did not obey, their children would be taken away if they did not submit, and if they refused to conjugate they would be forcibly bred. It is a repugnant thought, but f we are thinking about a world in which brute strength determined "right and wrong" women would come out on the losing side every time. This is why society exists and governments are created, to curb such base and completely natural power dynamics - the collective rules rather than the individual. But the point stands, without men granting and protecting women's rights they would have none. Unfortunately you guys are arguing with people that are using emotions rather than logic. They forget the world functioned for millions of years prior to 1919. Let's use the family court as an example. How would we be different today if there weren't a group of armed men to enforce their rulings? And to the guy proposing the extinction of the human race. I don't see dogs and cats becoming extinct without this societal contract of equal rights. Do you think OP's point, which you agree with, is a logical argument rather than emotionally driven? OP's talking about enslaving women by force and making them baby-producing slaves. For that to happen you'd have to convince all the men in the world that women should be slaves and effectively removed from society. Not only that but their daughters would be turned into slaves as well. What's worse is that people here are defending him. If there was a top ten list for stupid threads in GD this would make it. My argument is to enslave women? That’s a new one! |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:17:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: cash50]
[#26]
Power is a lot more than what you think op. Jfc what a simple take.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:17:51 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Do you think OP's point, which you agree with, is a logical argument rather than emotionally driven? OP's talking about enslaving women by force and making them baby-producing slaves. For that to happen you'd have to convince all the men in the world that women should be slaves and effectively removed from society. Not only that but their daughters would be turned into slaves as well. What's worse is that people here are defending him. If there was a top ten list for stupid threads in GD this would make it. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:19:04 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JamPo: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Do you think OP's point, which you agree with, is a logical argument rather than emotionally driven? OP's talking about enslaving women by force and making them baby-producing slaves. For that to happen you'd have to convince all the men in the world that women should be slaves and effectively removed from society. Not only that but their daughters would be turned into slaves as well. What's worse is that people here are defending him. If there was a top ten list for stupid threads in GD this would make it. 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. I need to figure out if we're rightsposting or womenposting because I'm not sure I can do both at the same time |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:19:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Master_Shake]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: My argument is to enslave women? That's a new one! Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:24:23 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: Can you point back to a point throughout human history where women have used physical force to defend their rights? Physical force has not been needed, it’s always been the quiet whispers in the ears of men. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:24:34 PM EDT
[#31]
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? 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? 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:24:35 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: You are making my point for me. There are a few exceptional women who can partake in combat. However, on the whole, the weakest man is stronger than 99% of females. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Naamah: 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. Correct. A right only exists inasmuch as someone is willing and able to defend it. How are women going to defend theirs without men? Violence. The same way men defend theirs. When push comes to shove, most people in general aren’t willing to or capable of defending their rights. Some people, male and female, are. Are women less capable of overt violence? By and large, sure. But plenty are perfectly capable of a level of violence that would secure their rights, and everyone sleeps sometimes. Jael is a perfect example of this. Can you point back to a point throughout human history where women have used physical force to defend their rights? Individual women? Sure. Collectively fighting against men? No. Women have fought alongside men (French Revolution comes to mind). But by and large, most people understand that society isn’t functional when men and women are at odds. You are making my point for me. There are a few exceptional women who can partake in combat. However, on the whole, the weakest man is stronger than 99% of females. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:29:23 PM EDT
[#33]
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. Slavery and undeclasses in general are a very poor solution, both morally, legally and economically |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:30:39 PM EDT
[#34]
Back in the day, the Stonepainter tribe had hunting "rights" to the Fat Bison valley because the former inhabitants dare not show up there again.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:30:54 PM EDT
[#35]
I was listening to a podcast on how shitty Lenin was the other day and a lot of what the greens fought for was literally just to be able to grow stuff and sell it. "Sew and sell"
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:36:33 PM EDT
[#36]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:41:16 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HangfiresGhost: You'd be trading your weapon for a piece of ass on day two. Noooo 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:41:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Master_Shake]
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:42:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: FivespeedF150]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah:Correct. A right only exists inasmuch as someone is willing and able to defend it. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:43:07 PM EDT
[#40]
If men and women were equal we would not be ingrained as children not to hit women. There would not be shelters and programs for battered women. Trans women would not be dominating women's sports, women sports never would have needed to be invented, college campuses wouldn't have programs where girls can be escorted by men on campus. The list goes on and on. Unfortunately a woman's rights might as well be written on the same paper they use for restraining orders as neither mean anything when a male decides he doesn't care.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:43:58 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:44:51 PM EDT
[#42]
It's not YOUR airspace if you can't defend it.
It's not your right unless you can physically defend it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:46:36 PM EDT
[#43]
IDK. Both my Wife and Daughter are capable of enforcing their individual Right to self-preservation.
|
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:47:00 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Do you think OP's point, which you agree with, is a logical argument rather than emotionally driven? OP's talking about enslaving women by force and making them baby-producing slaves. For that to happen you'd have to convince all the men in the world that women should be slaves and effectively removed from society. Not only that but their daughters would be turned into slaves as well. What's worse is that people here are defending him. If there was a top ten list for stupid threads in GD this would make it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:47:26 PM EDT
[#45]
Kids don't have rights. If they don't listen to you then you can just physically put them in their room.
That's why the idea of Rights is important, to get thinking about how to morally apply force. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:48:35 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Makarov: IDK. Both my Wife and Daughter are capable of enforcing their individual Right to self-preservation. That's a good plan |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:49:14 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StraightShootinGal: This thread goes to show how men's brains differ from womenz.... Hate to break this to you all but WOMEN have the power in this world.... Look how Chyna is taking over the world without shedding any blood - where there's more than one way to skin a cat, where you don't have to use "force" Years ago Dr. Laura wrote a book called "Women Power": https://www.amazon.com/WOMAN-POWER-Laura-Schlessinger/dp/0060833637 Women's power lies in biology - where men want the vagina, where look at all the simpy stuff guys do for women, men can't fight biology and want the vagina, so women's power lies in controlling access to the vagina and feminine wiles, where Feminism has lied to women and told them to give their vagina for free (sexual "empowerment"); to lower the standards they apply to men (i.e. shacking up, sex and kids w/o marriage); and, that feminine wiles and domestic things women do (i.e. cooking, cleaning, etc.) is beneath them. Look at women now a days, they are "liberated" and are fucking miserable. They have to go to work to help guys pay for the bills, yet still come home to cook/clean and don't even have time or interest for sex with their men. Then, we got the fatties and purple haired and LGBTQ idiots. If women would go back to the basics, and put some standards on guys and be more "feminine" - they'd be happier and have control over men. But quite frankly, women, even though they don't have much to offer now a days for a guy, STILL are able to have power over a lot of men, cuz unless guys turn ghey, they still will simp for the vagina - even if they only get that vagina once a month or year. Here's a something to chuckle about:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgQIlbCB-CkYour example falls into this category. Womens power doesn't lie in biology. Yes men are motivated by sex, but if not for the fact that the world is full of good men, we wouldn't care about your opinion on the matter, ultimately bad men don't have to. Which is why women rightfully fear bad men. Good men raise the next generation of good men, and we keep the bad men in check for the most part. "Toxic" masculinity and the values of the western world keeps women from going back to being chattel. My wife was being stalked by some nutter a couple years ago. Guy was genuinely mentally ill, apparently had been obsessing for years. We did the usual things, order of protection etc...when you are in that situation it will hit you that the piece of paper is a piece of paper, and the cops won't be there to save you. The assumptions you've made about law, order and society go away. Your physical safety is up to you and those willing to defend you with necessary violence. Our society is fragile. Women's rights are very fragile. Choose the men in your life wisely. That's your power. Men can get sex, it's transactional these days, what good men want is a partner in life, that's more valuable. I am a lucky man and I know it. Our current world is bizarre in this regard, the political party that is majority supported by women is pushing biologic men into womens lockers rooms and sports, supporting human trafficking that has rape trees as a regular cost of transit....this is all anathema to men who value and cherish women. I have a daughter, nobody worries like the father of a daughter. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:49:40 PM EDT
[#48]
Animal rights really means "how we should treat animals"
How animals are treated depends on the individual |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:49:50 PM EDT
[#49]
Electricity is women rights. End electricity, end women's rights, and return to the constitution as written.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:50:44 PM EDT
[#50]
A right to food really means "I think we should feed poor people"
It's also not real |
|
|
|
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.
