# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  Women voting - Good or bad?

## Gemini

Anybody ever think that women being able to vote was a bad idea?  Because I've wondered a few times in my life, just wondering what others thoughts were on the topic.  

For the most part, women are plenty bright, actually brighter on average but the IQ of men tends to have higher range of variation.  Meaning the dumbest person in the world is probably a man, and the smartest person in the world is also probably a man.

Women also tend to be more emotionally reactive, with exceptions.  Why this is?  Not a shrink.  I suspect it is largely societal, but also having biological factors as well as well as a few aspects of gender we've yet to codify.  Whereas men are more prone to a 'fix it' mind set when confronted with a problem - with exceptions.

So... In your opinions-

Should they be able to vote? Yes or no.

Reason why you feel this way?

Should their be conditions to voting regardless of sex?  Like education, actually paying taxes vs. being a drain on society?

We qualify people based on age, we used to qualify people based on sex, should there be other qualifiers?

----------


## The XL

Men vote just as stupid.

Frankly, 99% of men, women, whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, from 18-100 years old have absolutely no business voting.

It's a human thing.  Not a race, age, or gender one.

----------


## Gemini

> Men vote just as stupid.
> 
> Frankly, 99% of men, women, whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, from 18-100 years old have absolutely no business voting.
> 
> It's a human thing.  Not a race, age, or gender one.


 @The XL

While I can empathize with the above sentiment, I can't help but notice you didn't answer any of the questions listed.

----------


## Guest

Are you trolling?  Because I can see no other reason to ask why women, some of whom pay 2-3 times in their share of the income tax then most men of their acquaintance, should not have a say in their government.

----------


## The XL

> @The XL
> 
> While I can empathize with the above sentiment, I can't help but notice you didn't answer any of the questions listed.


I believe citizens 15 years old and older should be able to vote.  Near post puberty should be the only qualification.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

Of course they should. Try all you want, but we need that heart response in our decisions. It's the heart response that tells us abortion is bad. Logical thinking can come up with several reasons abortion is good, but it's heart thinking that tells us why it is bad.

----------


## Gemini

> Are you trolling?


No.  Although your vehemence is understood.  This is actually a serious question.




> Because I can see no other reason to ask why women, some of whom pay 2-3 times in their share of the income tax then most men of their acquaintance, should not have a say in their government.


Like The XL, you hadn't answered any of the questions.

----------


## Gemini

> Of course they should. Try all you want, but we need that heart response in our decisions. It's the heart response that tells us abortion is bad. Logical thinking can come up with several reasons abortion is good, but it's heart thinking that tells us why it is bad.


Using the same logic, I can think of gobs of reasons why abortion is bad.  I'm not saying having a heart response is bad, but it is one that does need to be tempered sometimes.

----------


## The XL

What makes men superior voters?  Women may be more inclined to vote for fuckheads like Obama and Hilary, but men fancy equally as destructive douchebags like McCain and Romney.

----------


## The XL

Rina_Dragonborn is probably the most qualified person to vote on this site, if we take into account education, IQ, and contribution to society.  Why should she not be allowed to vote?

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (05-13-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> What makes men superior voters?  Women may be more inclined to vote for fuckheads like Obama and Hilary, but men fancy equally as destructive douchebags like McCain and Romney.


I didn't say they were superior voters.

----------


## Guest

> No.  Although your vehemence is understood.  This is actually a serious question.
> 
> 
> 
> Like The XL, you hadn't answered any of the questions.



Certainly I have.  Anyone paying taxes should have a voice.  In fact, I should get 5x as many voting opportunities as everyone else.

----------


## Gemini

> Rina_Dragonborn is probably the most qualified person to vote on this site, if we take into account education, IQ, and contribution to society.  Why should she not be allowed to vote?


Again, I was asking the opinions of others.  I have my own pet theories on the topic.  But women are integrally involved.

----------


## The XL

> Certainly I have.  Anyone paying taxes should have a voice.*  In fact, I should get 5x as many voting opportunities as everyone else.*


I don't agree with that point of view, either.

----------


## usfan

this is getting good.. i see a lot of feet in mouth in this thread!   :Laughing4: 

Women's voting was part of the evolution of modern society, where slavery was outlawed, & imperialism became passe.  Of course there are plenty of stupid people voting, from any gender, but it's not a 'heart' issue, or 'feminine intuition'..  Women's brains work just as effectively as mens, & some of them are considerably brighter.  I'd put our own rina up against most men, even in this forum, for general purpose intelligence.

I think the least we should have is a general competency test.. not necessarily written, but a test to weed out imbeciles.  Of course, we run the risk of keeping everyone out, like @The XL said, but surely we can dumb it down enough for basic understanding skills.

----------


## Gemini

The questions were-




> Should they be able to vote? Yes or no.
> 
> Reason why you feel this way?
> 
> Should their be conditions to voting regardless of sex?  Like education, actually paying taxes vs. being a drain on society?
> 
> We qualify people based on age, we used to qualify people based on sex, should there be other qualifiers?

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

I am not touching this thread except to say that I think women should have the vote.  You're on your own, devil dog.

----------


## Gemini

> *I am not touching this thread except to say that I think women should have the vote.*  You're on your own, devil dog.


Sissy.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Using the same logic, I can think of gobs of reasons why abortion is bad.  I'm not saying having a heart response is bad, but it is one that does need to be tempered sometimes.


I've yet to meet a woman that couldn't temper her emotions. Hell, I'm worse at heart responses over brain responses than most women I know  :Tongue:

----------


## Gemini

> I've yet to meet a woman that couldn't temper her emotions. Hell, I'm worse at heart responses over brain responses than most women I know


Well, I did mention that there were exceptions to both majorities.

----------


## The XL

> this is getting good.. i see a lot of feet in mouth in this thread!  
> 
> Women's voting was part of the evolution of modern society, where slavery was outlawed, & imperialism became passe.  Of course there are plenty of stupid people voting, from any gender, but it's not a 'heart' issue, or 'feminine intuition'..  Women's brains work just as effectively as mens, & some of them are considerably brighter.  I'd put our own rina up against most men, even in this forum, for general purpose intelligence.
> 
> I think the least we should have is a general competency test.. not necessarily written, but a test to weed out imbeciles.  Of course, we run the risk of keeping everyone out, like @The XL said, but surely we can dumb it down enough for basic understanding skills.


I don't agree with a subjective test, either.

I believe all people at least near post puberty have the right to have their say.  15+ year old citizens.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I don't agree with a subjective test, either.
> 
> I believe all people at least near post puberty have the right to have their say.  15+ year old citizens.


Especially since in some states you can get a job between the ages of 14-16. Guess what? They now have an interest in who gets elected.

----------

The XL (05-13-2013)

----------


## usfan

> Of course they should. Try all you want, but we need that heart response in our decisions. It's the heart response that tells us abortion is bad. Logical thinking can come up with several reasons abortion is good, but it's heart thinking that tells us why it is bad.


They why do so many women favor abortion, if their 'heart' tells them it is wrong?  If more women were pro life, we would already have roe v wade struck down.

----------


## Gemini

> I don't agree with a subjective test, either.
> 
> I believe all people at least near post puberty have the right to have their say.  15+ year old citizens.


15 years old?  Kid can't even drive, yet you want him able to vote?  I heard up in scotland they were pandering to the idea in reference to an independence referendum a while back.  Don't know what became of it though.

----------


## The XL

> *15 years old?  Kid can't even drive, yet you want him able to vote?*  I heard up in scotland they were pandering to the idea in reference to an independence referendum a while back.  Don't know what became of it though.



Arbitrary statist laws are not a accurate determination of competence.  These idiots think it's okay for 18 year olds to fight in war and serve on a mother fucking jury, but they need to wait 3 years to drink.

----------


## usfan

> I don't agree with a subjective test, either.
> I believe all people at least near post puberty have the right to have their say.  15+ year old citizens.


The downside to this is party loyalists going to the local loony bin with registrations & ballots, telling everyone how to cast their vote.  It can' be helped if someone is deluded, but they need to at least know what they are doing, & they should also be alive..  The dems got a lot of votes from the cemetery & the alzheimers homes...

----------


## Gemini

> Arbitrary statist laws are not a accurate determination of competence.  These idiots think it's okay for 18 year olds to fight in war and serve on a mother fucking jury, but they need to wait 3 years to drink.


Touche.  Calm down there chief.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Anybody ever think that women being able to vote was a bad idea? Because I've wondered a few times in my life, just wondering what others thoughts were on the topic. 
> 
> For the most part, women are plenty bright, actually brighter on average but the IQ of men tends to have higher range of variation. Meaning the dumbest person in the world is probably a man, and the smartest person in the world is also probably a man.
> 
> Women also tend to be more emotionally reactive, with exceptions. Why this is? Not a shrink. I suspect it is largely societal, but also having biological factors as well as well as a few aspects of gender we've yet to codify. Whereas men are more prone to a 'fix it' mind set when confronted with a problem - with exceptions.
> 
> So... In your opinions-
> 
> Should they be able to vote? Yes or no.
> ...


...anyone voting with their heart is bad...

----------


## Guest

> They why do so many women favor abortion, if their 'heart' tells them it is wrong?  If more women were pro life, we would already have roe v wade struck down.


Look, its about marketing.  It's not a simple black and white issue when you see the social controls that careful mass market media has been able to put into place.  Republicans and the Pro Life community shot themselves in the foot on that issue by letting people like Todd Akin open his fucking mouth.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> 15 years old?  Kid can't even drive, yet you want him able to vote?  I heard up in scotland they were pandering to the idea in reference to an independence referendum a while back.  Don't know what became of it though.


Oh, well, hell, if ya can't drive because the government says no, there's no way you're a competent, intelligent individual.

----------

The XL (05-13-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> Look, its about marketing.  It's not a simple black and white issue when you see the social controls that careful mass market media has been able to put into place.  Republicans and the Pro Life community shot themselves in the foot on that issue by letting people like Todd Akin open his fucking mouth.


Are some people more receptive to certain types of marketing?  Are they more pliable?

----------


## The XL

> Oh, well, hell, if ya can't drive because the government says no, there's no way you're a competent, intelligent individual.


Ding, ding, ding.  Winner.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> They why do so many women favor abortion, if their 'heart' tells them it is wrong?  If more women were pro life, we would already have roe v wade struck down.


Women are divided practically in half on the abortion issue.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ...anyone voting with their heart is bad...


Bull-fucking-shit.

----------


## Gemini

> Oh, well, hell, if ya can't drive because the government says no, there's no way you're a competent, intelligent individual.


Believe me I get what you're saying, but I have learned first hand the extensive judgment of teenagers.  Most are largely governed by their glands at that point in life.  Having them vote with equal foresight could be a little interesting.

I do think some sort of say should be granted for paying taxes, but I don't know if voting in full swing should be on the table.  It does seem rather prickish to bill them for something they have no say in though, surely a good solution could be worked out.

----------



----------


## Calypso Jones

> Look, its about marketing. It's not a simple black and white issue when you see the social controls that careful mass market media has been able to put into place. Republicans and the Pro Life community shot themselves in the foot on that issue by letting people like Todd Akin open his fucking mouth.



late to this topic but saw Rina's post.....Akin in my opinion was a non event.  hell.  Dems have said far worse with less press. SO.  They get away with it.   I see the problem as.....people do not know what a 6 or 7 month old in utero baby looks like AND that it has the great potential of living.   THIS Is horrendous stuff allowing abortions at this late a date...it IS murder.

----------


## Guest

> Are some people more receptive to certain types of marketing?  Are they more pliable?


I think this is more about personality types than gender.  Look at the Myers Briggs or Kiersey temperaments, certain personalities are more trusting and less introspective.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Believe me I get what you're saying, but I have learned first hand the extensive judgment of teenagers.  Most are largely governed by their glands at that point in life.  Having them vote with equal foresight could be a little interesting.
> 
> I do think some sort of say should be granted for paying taxes, but I don't know if voting in full swing should be on the table.  It does seem rather prickish to bill them for something they have no say in though, surely a good solution could be worked out.


I wouldn't complain about a President Chris Hemsworth or President Nathan Fillion, or a President Scarlet Johansson  :Tongue:

----------


## The XL

> Believe me I get what you're saying, but I have learned first hand the extensive judgment of teenagers.  Most are largely governed by their glands at that point in life.  Having them vote with equal foresight could be a little interesting.
> 
> I do think some sort of say should be granted for paying taxes, but I don't know if voting in full swing should be on the table.  It does seem rather prickish to bill them for something they have no say in though, surely a good solution could be worked out.


What makes a 75 year old who can barely remember his name more qualified than an 11 year old, nevermind a 15 year old?

Age has nothing to do with it.  With all due respect, there are a ton of idiots in real life, and even on this site, that are over 50.

----------


## Gemini

> I think this is more about personality types than gender.  Look at the Myers Briggs or Kiersey temperaments, certain personalities are more trusting and less introspective.


So where do these lines fall in terms of gender in broad percentages then?  Because if personality X is more prevalent in specific genders would it not make sense to tailor your advertisement for these specific traits?

Case in point:

Baby wipes, child care products, and baby lotion - these will not be seen at a monster truck rally.

Neither will impact wrenches or creepers be at a chick flick advertisement.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> What makes a 75 year old who can barely remember his name more qualified than an 11 year old, nevermind a 15 year old?
> 
> Age has nothing to do with it.  With all due respect, there are a ton of idiots in real life, and even on this site, that are over 50.


See, I think we should not let people vote passed 70. Just my opinion. Cardinals over 80 can't vote for the new Pope, I don't see it as all that unreasonable.

----------


## Gemini

> What makes a 75 year old who can barely remember his name more qualified than an 11 year old, nevermind a 15 year old?


Temperment, it makes a difference.  There is a reason that insurance rates for the elderly and the youth are high - one for being too aggressive and inexperienced, the other for vision purposes and other medical problems.




> Age has nothing to do with it.  With all due respect, there are a ton of idiots in real life, and even on this site, that are over 50.


Age is a factor, not the end all be all factor.  More importantly is the experience than age.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> late to this topic but saw Rina's post.....Akin in my opinion was a non event.  hell.  Dems have said far worse with less press. SO.  They get away with it.   I see the problem as.....people do not know what a 6 or 7 month old in utero baby looks like AND that it has the great potential of living.   THIS Is horrendous stuff allowing abortions at this late a date...it IS murder.


How you feel about it is 100% irrelevant. You'll vote for him regardless. It's the voters who actually care that you need to worry about.

----------



----------


## Archer

> Anybody ever think that women being able to vote was a bad idea?  Because I've wondered a few times in my life, just wondering what others thoughts were on the topic.  
> 
> For the most part, women are plenty bright, actually brighter on average but the IQ of men tends to have higher range of variation.  Meaning the dumbest person in the world is probably a man, and the smartest person in the world is also probably a man.
> 
> Women also tend to be more emotionally reactive, with exceptions.  Why this is?  Not a shrink.  I suspect it is largely societal, but also having biological factors as well as well as a few aspects of gender we've yet to codify.  Whereas men are more prone to a 'fix it' mind set when confronted with a problem - with exceptions.
> 
> So... In your opinions-
> 
> Should they be able to vote? Yes or no.
> ...


Any person who votes should be a stakeholder and pass a poll test.

----------


## Guest

> So where do these lines fall in terms of gender in broad percentages then?  Because if personality X is more prevalent in specific genders would it not make sense to tailor your advertisement for these specific traits?
> 
> Case in point:
> 
> Baby wipes, child care products, and baby lotion - these will not be seen at a monster truck rally.
> 
> Neither will impact wrenches or creepers be at a chick flick advertisement.


Those are things we are adapted to by gender, personality types are of either gender.

----------


## Gemini

> Those are things we are adapted to by gender, personality types are of either gender.


Do certain personality types emerge more often respective of being male or female?   It would appear so.




> The INTJ personality type is one of the rarest and most interesting  types – comprising only about 2% of the U.S. population (INTJ *females  are especially rare – just 0.8%*)


http://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality

----------


## Guest

> Do certain personality types emerge more often respective of being male or female?   It would appear so.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality


And yet...

----------


## Calypso Jones

> They why do so many women favor abortion, if their 'heart' tells them it is wrong? If more women were pro life, we would already have roe v wade struck down.


why does society think that so many women are feminists and that we are all democrats.   The left has the PR.  Great PR.  What chance do you stand when the media chooses a side and promotes it unflinchingly.   You see what they do...anyone who disagrees with leftist ideas are effectively ruined...and the left isn't satisfied to simply go after that person's beliefs.  They destroy their lives, their reputation, their livlihood, their wives livelihood and the safety and security of their children.     Not many people want to tackle that.

----------



----------


## Gemini

> And yet...


I'm guessing you didn't like the OP eh?

----------


## Guest

> why does society think that so many women are feminists and that we are all democrats.   The left has the PR.  Great PR.  What chance do you stand when the media chooses a side and promotes it unflinchingly.   You see what they do...anyone who disagrees with leftist ideas are effectively ruined...and the left isn't satisfied to simply go after that person's beliefs.  They destroy their lives, their reputation, their livlihood, their wives livelihood and the safety and security of their children.     Not many people want to tackle that.


It is 50/50, not even 60/40.

----------


## Archer

The voting age should also be moved up to 21 or higher.

How about you can't vote for the position if you are not old enough to hold the position and you still pay a poll tax if you are not a stake holder, take a poll test on the issues and the actual duties and powers of those you wish to vote for.

----------


## Gemini

> The voting age should also be moved up to 21 or higher.
> 
> How about you can't vote for the position if you are not old enough to hold the position and you still pay a poll tax if you are not a stake holder, take a poll test on the issues and the actual duties and powers of those you wish to vote for.


Interesting idea.  However that would mean a lot of people couldn't vote for congress, senate, or the presidency.  An idea in which they will likely be most displeased.

----------


## Archer

> Interesting idea.  However that would mean a lot of people couldn't vote for congress, senate, or the presidency.  An idea in which they will likely be most displeased.


Who gives a shit. Well fine no age restrictions but everything else still applies.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> The voting age should also be moved up to 21 or higher.
> 
> How about you can't vote for the position if you are not old enough to hold the position and you still pay a poll tax if you are not a stake holder, take a poll test on the issues and the actual duties and powers of those you wish to vote for.


Well, okay, Alexander Hamilton. Why don't we also make it so only those with noble parentage can vote.

----------


## usfan

How about no age, but a general competency test at the  polls.. verbal or written.  Nothing hard, but simple awareness questions.

1. what year is this?
2. do you know your name?
3. What country are you a citizen of?
4. Why are you here at the polls?

I also think they should crack down on bussing in big groups to the polls.. this should be an individual right & duty, & there should be  no peer pressure or lunch/beer reward to participate in the election process.

----------


## Common

Voting age was 21 when I was growing up, I had to wait till I was 21 to vote.

----------


## Archer

> Well, okay, Alexander Hamilton. Why don't we also make it so only those with noble parentage can vote.


Anyone can vote as long as you are a stake holder and know what you are voting for.

----------


## Guest

Logically people should have to pass a candidate or issue proficiency test, but Constitutionally...there is no justification for it.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Voting age was 21 when I was growing up, I had to wait till I was 21 to vote.


Do you support Obama, @Common?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> How about no age, but a general competency test at the  polls.. verbal or written.  Nothing hard, but simple awareness questions.
> 
> 1. what year is this?
> 2. do you know your name?
> 3. What country are you a citizen of?
> 4. Why are you here at the polls?
> 
> I also think they should crack down on bussing in big groups to the polls.. this should be an individual right & duty, & there should be  no peer pressure or lunch/beer reward to participate in the election process.


The founders prohibited poll tests.

----------


## Archer

> The founders prohibited poll tests.


The founders also limited voting in many other ways. Tell me I am wrong! So Petabyte me!

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> The founders also limited voting in many other ways. Tell me I am wrong! So Petabyte me!


Yes - numerous restrictions _except_ a poll test. That should tell us something.

----------


## Archer

> Yes - numerous restrictions _except_ a poll test. That should tell us something.


When I say poll tax I am talking about putting some money on your horse. It is a way for non land owners and non tax payers to get a vote as long as they can pass a competency test.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> When I say poll tax I am talking about putting some money on your horse. It is a way for non land owners and non tax payers to get a vote as long as they can pass a competency test.


Yes, but competency tests are bad, as I've been saying this whole time.

----------


## Archer

> Yes, but competency tests are bad, as I've been saying this whole time.


Yes look what is has done for our nation. Good thinking.

----------


## Guest

> Yes, but competency tests are bad, as I've been saying this whole time.


I actually don't think they are bad.  I think they are unconstitutional.  Uneducated people make uneducated decisions.

----------


## Archer

> I actually don't think they are bad.  I think they are unconstitutional.  Uneducated people make uneducated decisions.


As the rules were initiated it really was not necessary.

When the country was founded, in most states, only white men with real property (land) or sufficient wealth for taxation were permitted to vote. Freed slaves could vote in four states. Unpropertied white men, women, and all other people of color were denied the franchise. At the time of the American Civil War, most white men were allowed to vote, whether or not they owned property. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and even religious tests were used in various places, and most white women, people of color, and Native Americans still could not vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_..._United_States

So don't be stupid and argue with me on this. I have has a little constitutional law but what really counts is the Lit classes. Try me:

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Yes look what is has done for our nation. Good thinking.


The so-called "smart" in our nation are the ones that bankroll the Obamas and McCains. I know stupid people provide an easy target, but you seem to forget that it's the smart people that get the stupid ones to vote for the bad guys.

----------


## Archer

> The so-called "smart" in our nation are the ones that bankroll the Obamas and McCains. I know stupid people provide an easy target, but you seem to forget that it's the smart people that get the stupid ones to vote for the bad guys.


I can agree with that. I thought you were going full retard on me. Never go full retard:

----------


## Guest

> The so-called "smart" in our nation are the ones that bankroll the Obamas and McCains. I know stupid people provide an easy target, but you seem to forget that it's the smart people that get the stupid ones to vote for the bad guys.


No, I don't forget that.  Sure, they may bankroll them but they are too few to make the voting numbers it takes to put these people into office.  There are a handful of rich, smart people voting and masses of uneducated people voting.

----------


## The XL

> The voting age should also be moved up to 21 or higher.
> 
> How about you can't vote for the position if you are not old enough to hold the position and you still pay a poll tax if you are not a stake holder, take a poll test on the issues and the actual duties and powers of those you wish to vote for.


I think adult 18-20 year olds deserve a say in their country.  Age is so overrated, smart people stay smart as they age, and young dumb people usually die old dumb people.

18-20 year old Republicans supported Ron Paul whereas 40+ year old Republicans supported Mitt Romney.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (05-13-2013)

----------


## Network

Voting is bad, mmkay.

----------

The XL (05-13-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> No, I don't forget that.  Sure, they may bankroll them but they are too few to make the voting numbers it takes to put these people into office.  There are a handful of rich, smart people voting and masses of uneducated people voting.


Right. If you keep the uneducated from voting, you'll only have the smart, rich guys voting, and at that point, they'll prolly just decide to fuck the whole voting thing and just appoint each other to office, and forget about checks and balances.

----------


## Common

> Do you support Obama, @Common?


  No, I didnt vote for obama the first time, this last time I didnt vote for the first time in my life because I thought they were both garbage for different reasons.
  Romney would have finished off the middle class,like teaparty govs are doing in the states they control

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (05-13-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Right. If you keep the uneducated from voting, you'll only have the smart, rich guys voting, and at that point, they'll prolly just decide to fuck the whole voting thing and just appoint each other to office, and forget about checks and balances.


So the remedy is to have the smart rich guys have their votes boosted by propaganda aimed at the stupid.  That's worked out brilliant for us all.  Sorry, but I'd much rather have a bunch of libertarian kids voting then usual suspects.


_I still love ya tho. _

----------


## lostbeyond

VERY interesting thread.  Popular individual voting, in contrast to per-community voting, is very bad already, it is there only to provide an environment to corruption, so women voters are just another set of pawns, and another division line to exploit people even more.  Makes no difference.  

If there was community voting, instead of individual voting, then women's votes would make sense, as the votes of co-owners of assets and partners in business.

----------


## Network

_Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage.

A good politician, under democracy, is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar.
__
History deals mainly with captains and kings, gods and prophets, exploiters and despoilers, not with useful men._

   -H.L. Mencken

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> So the remedy is to have the smart rich guys have their votes boosted by propaganda aimed at the stupid.  That's worked out brilliant for us all.  Sorry, but I'd much rather have a bunch of libertarian kids voting then usual suspects.


While I find Plato's idea of philosopher kings intellectually pleasing, the implications competency tests have for freedom are terrifying. What happens when someone makes a competency test that excludes you and I?

_



			
				I still love ya tho.  


_Ditto, Trina  :Big Grin:

----------


## Guest

> While I find Plato's idea of philosopher kings intellectually pleasing, the implications competency tests have for freedom are terrifying. What happens when someone makes a competency test that excludes you and I?


If there is a competency test that I cannot pass then I think that the voters are truly educated and I will rest easy.

----------


## Network

Our political leaders should be drawn at random from the population.  The winners get to strut around in fabulous gowns and ornaments like harmless royalty.

----------


## Guest

> Our political leaders should be drawn at random from the population.  The winners get to strut around in fabulous gowns and ornaments like harmless royalty.


Best idea yet.

----------


## lostbeyond

Do they also get free girls at taxpayer expense?

----------


## Archer

> I think adult 18-20 year olds deserve a say in their country.  Age is so overrated, smart people stay smart as they age, and young dumb people usually die old dumb people.
> 
> 18-20 year old Republicans supported Ron Paul whereas 40+ year old Republicans supported Mitt Romney.


Deserve? They deserve nothing! They should earn everything.

----------


## Network

> Do they also get free girls at taxpayer expense?


Not as expensive as the political prostitutes we currently pay for, but we could provide them with mid-priced girl-next-door-stitutes.

----------

TheTemporaryBG (05-13-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> Best idea yet.


But they should be bound to wear the color blue at all times.  And a rainbow beret.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

I still think we should cut off the voting age at 70 and lower it to 14.

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> I still think we should cut off the voting age at 70 and lower it to 14.


No.

----------


## Gemini

Well. Not surprised.

/thread.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> No.


To which, and why not?

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> To which, and why not?


Because its bad enough that we have these dumbasses from the projects being bussed into vote and then to add on top of that someone who will most likely vote for the coolest person would just about ensure that we're ruled by assholes for eternity.

----------


## Guest

> Because its bad enough that we have these dumbasses from the projects being bussed into vote and then to add on top of that someone who will most likely vote for the coolest person would just about ensure that we're ruled by assholes for eternity.


You're a little not so much yourself today.  ::hugs::

----------


## Gemini

> You're a little not so much yourself today.  ::hugs::


You big tease.  You just don't get it.

----------


## Guest

> You big tease.  You just don't get it.


Don't get that he normally doesn't talk about dumbasses from the projects?  Yep.  I don't get that.

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> Don't get that he normally doesn't talk about dumbasses from the projects?  Yep.  I don't get that.


Oh Rina.  How am I supposed to talk around you?

----------


## Guest

> Oh Rina.  How am I supposed to talk around you?


I won't judge you.  Talk however you like.  You just seemed on that other thread that you didn't think generalizing was the way to go, so I was surprised by this.  That's all.

So you feel that those who live in project housing should not vote or make bad voters?

----------


## The XL

> Deserve? They deserve nothing! They should earn everything.


And why do 21+ year olds deserve to vote?

Everyone forced to live by these silly rules deserves a say.

----------


## The XL

> Because its bad enough that we have these dumbasses from the projects being bussed into vote and then to add on top of that someone who will most likely vote for the coolest person would just about ensure that* we're ruled by assholes* for eternity.


I'm not sure how that's any different than the situation we're in now.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (05-13-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Because its bad enough that we have these dumbasses from the projects being bussed into vote and then to add on top of that someone who will most likely vote for the coolest person would just about ensure that we're ruled by assholes for eternity.


So add the caveat that anyone who votes before the age of 18 has to have a job. Though, I think your characterization of kids 14-17 is unfair.

----------


## The XL

> So add the caveat that anyone who votes before the age of 18 has to have a job. Though, I think your characterization of kids 14-17 is unfair.


Why should that caveat only apply to minors?

I don't think there should be any strings attached at all.

----------


## The XL

Remember, before you speak ill of the youth, older people have royally fucked everything up, and are ruining the future for the under 30 crowd.  You guys don't know what you're doing, either.  Minor teenagers definitely deserve the opportunity to have a say in their fate

----------


## Archer

> And why do 21+ year olds deserve to vote?
> 
> Everyone forced to live by these silly rules deserves a say.


Actually I would prefer as old as the age for positions being voted for.

Only competent stakeholders deserve a say.

----------


## Guest

I don't really want the average fourteen year old voting.  We will end up with Justin Bieber or Kid Cudi for president.

----------

JohnAdams (05-13-2013)

----------


## The XL

> I don't really want the average fourteen year old voting.  We will end up with Justin Bieber or Kid Cudi for president.


Is that even worse than Bush or Obama?  Look at the garbage we're getting now.  Give me Justin Bieber over Obama.  I'm only half kidding.

----------


## JohnAdams

> Anybody ever think that women being able to vote was a bad idea?  Because I've wondered a few times in my life, just wondering what others thoughts were on the topic.  
> 
> For the most part, women are plenty bright, actually brighter on average but the IQ of men tends to have higher range of variation.  Meaning the dumbest person in the world is probably a man, and the smartest person in the world is also probably a man.
> 
> Women also tend to be more emotionally reactive, with exceptions.  Why this is?  Not a shrink.  I suspect it is largely societal, but also having biological factors as well as well as a few aspects of gender we've yet to codify.  Whereas men are more prone to a 'fix it' mind set when confronted with a problem - with exceptions.
> 
> So... In your opinions-
> 
> Should they be able to vote? Yes or no.
> ...


No, and Women rightly have the right to vote. 

Don't like that, change the law, until such time as one is ready to call for and work towards that goal (changing the law) why even ask the question?

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> I'm not sure how that's any different than the situation we're in now.


That's why I said ensure.  We're ruled by a bunch of evil dicks because we let every butt reaming asshole vote.  I'm sorry but Lafawnda has a vested interest in the welfare state.  She will always vote to take money out of my pocket for her kids.  Javier is always going to vote for the person who will do nothing about illegal immigration.  Teens will vote for whoever hands out free condoms.  Call me an asshole but I don't think government should go to the person offering the most gimmes paid for by my taxes.

----------


## Gemini

> No, and Women rightly have the right to vote. 
> 
> Don't like that, change the law, until such time as one is ready to call for and work towards that goal (changing the law) *why even ask the question*?


Looking for something specifically, testing the water.

Did not find what I was looking for.  Irrelevant at this point.

----------


## Guest

> That's why I said ensure.  We're ruled by a bunch of evil dicks because we let every butt reaming asshole vote.  I'm sorry but Lafawnda has a vested interest in the welfare state.  She will always vote to take money out of my pocket for her kids.  Javier is always going to vote for the person who will do nothing about illegal immigration.  Teens will vote for whoever hands out free condoms.  Call me an asshole but I don't think government should go to the person offering the most gimmes paid for by my taxes.


I can see this bothers you.   :Smile:

----------


## The XL

> That's why I said ensure.  We're ruled by a bunch of evil dicks because we let every butt reaming asshole vote.  I'm sorry but Lafawnda has a vested interest in the welfare state.  She will always vote to take money out of my pocket for her kids.  Javier is always going to vote for the person who will do nothing about illegal immigration.  Teens will vote for whoever hands out free condoms.  Call me an asshole but I don't think government should go to the person offering the most gimmes paid for by my taxes.


It isn't just Javier and Lafawnda, Richard and Jim vote for statist fuckheads too.  Just give them some bullshit excuse like the war on terror to invade every country on Earth and destroy our liberties, and white people are all in, too.

Make no mistake, people of all races and ages vote statist.  Everyone succumbs to some stupid reason.

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> It isn't just Javier and Lafawnda, Richard and Jim vote for statist fuckheads too.  Just give them some bullshit excuse like the war on terror to invade every country on Earth and destroy our liberties, and white people are all in, too.
> 
> Make no mistake, people of all races and ages vote statist.  Everyone succumbs to some stupid reason.


Richard and Jim are less likely to vote in favor of more money coming OUT of their pocket and that suits me much better, but I agree.  Everyone votes statists.

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> I can see this bothers you.


A lot of things bother me.

----------


## The XL

> Richard and Jim are less likely to vote in favor of more money coming OUT of their pocket and that suits me much better, but I agree.  Everyone votes statists.


Richard and Jim are the primary reasons for the wars, Social Security, the war on drugs, and play a part in other things, like entitlements, even for illegals.

Look, fuck Javier, Lafawnda, Richard, and Jim.  But it makes no sense to single anyone out when they all have fucked us up.

----------


## Network

If anyone should vote, it obviously shouldn't be women.  They are ridiculous, unpredictable, and psychopathic.  

Ban women and Asians from the booth.

----------



----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> Richard and Jim are the primary reasons for the wars, Social Security, the war on drugs, and play a part in other things, like entitlements, even for illegals.
> 
> Look, fuck Javier, Lafawnda, Richard, and Jim.  But it makes no sense to single anyone out when they all have fucked us up.


I feel like singling them out because I'm pretty fucking sick of people who contribute nothing getting to control the destiny of people who contribute something.  Yeh, I get that whitey did them a bad deal with slavery and Jim Crow and welfare or some bullshit and that poor whites are all out of their union jobs but it is not my problem.  Move.  Get a job.  Quit whining.  Do something.  I'm just so sick to death of people just lying down and giving up while taking money from people who didn't.  For the record Richard and Jim sent my ass to Iraq.  Thanks assholes.  But Lafawnduh and Javier took a huge chunk of the paycheck I earned getting shot at, seeing my buddies lose a foot or leg and I'm tired of having to sit back and hear people make excuses for their behavior because the government is bad.  The government almost killed me several times over.  Yes, it's bad.  I get that.  /rant

----------


## Guest

> I feel like singling them out because I'm pretty fucking sick of people who contribute nothing getting to control the destiny of people who contribute something.  Yeh, I get that whitey did them a bad deal with slavery and Jim Crow and welfare or some bullshit and that poor whites are all out of their union jobs but it is not my problem.  Move.  Get a job.  Quit whining.  Do something.  I'm just so sick to death of people just lying down and giving up while taking money from people who didn't.  For the record Richard and Jim sent my ass to Iraq.  Thanks assholes.  But Lafawnduh and Javier took a huge chunk of the paycheck I earned getting shot at, seeing my buddies lose a foot or leg and I'm tired of having to sit back and hear people make excuses for their behavior because the government is bad.  The government almost killed me several times over.  Yes, it's bad.  I get that.  /rant


I blame @Gemini.  He started this thread that got you all worked up.   :Frown:   Bad, bad Gemini.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Why should that caveat only apply to minors?
> 
> I don't think there should be any strings attached at all.


I don't want it, I'm just saying kids 14-17 should also be able to vote because they can (and many do) have jobs, which gives them a stake in who gets elected. I only added the caveat because someone complained. Either everyone 14-17 votes, everyone 14-17 with a job votes, or pass a law banning kids 14-17 from working. 

Personally, I vote the first option.

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> I blame @Gemini.  He started this thread that got you all worked up.    Bad, bad Gemini.


Gemini didn't get me worked up.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> That's why I said ensure.  We're ruled by a bunch of evil dicks because we let every butt reaming asshole vote.  I'm sorry but Lafawnda has a vested interest in the welfare state.  She will always vote to take money out of my pocket for her kids.  Javier is always going to vote for the person who will do nothing about illegal immigration.  Teens will vote for whoever hands out free condoms.  Call me an asshole but I don't think government should go to the person offering the most gimmes paid for by my taxes.


And let's not forget Sister Susan and Pastor Jim, who will always vote to send good guys like you off to get shot at as long as someone says, "The Muslims did it!" 

Where does this line of logic end?

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> I don't want it, I'm just saying kids 14-17 should also be able to vote because they can (and many do) have jobs, which gives them a stake in who gets elected. I only added the caveat because someone complained. Either everyone 14-17 votes, everyone 14-17 with a job votes, or pass a law banning kids 14-17 from working. 
> 
> Personally, I vote the first option.


We should probably just say fuck the age limit and let 7 year olds vote.  That way we can have a Ninja Turtle as president.  That would at least be kinda cool.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (05-13-2013)

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> And let's not forget Sister Susan and Pastor Jim, who will always vote to send good guys like you off to get shot at as long as someone says, "The Muslims did it!" 
> 
> Where does this line of logic end?


Everyone sends my ass off to get shot.  Do you think its only conservatives?  And my pastor said not to join the military btw.

----------


## Gemini

> I blame @Gemini.  He started this thread that got you all worked up.    Bad, bad Gemini.


I refuse to accept the responsibility of another human's emotional state.  That cross is theirs to bear alone or with those who will comfort them of their own accord.

Besides, the thread took a completely different direction than I had hoped for.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Everyone sends my ass off to get shot.  Do you think its only conservatives?  And my pastor said not to join the military btw.


Well, I like that pastor. Sadly, there are too few like him.

*EDIT: And for the record, no, everyone does not. I have never and will never cast such a vote.

----------


## Guest

> I refuse to accept the responsibility of another human's emotional state.  That cross is theirs to bear alone or with those who will comfort them of their own accord.
> 
> *Besides, the thread took a completely different direction than I had hoped for.*


They always do.

----------


## Guest

> Everyone sends my ass off to get shot.  Do you think its only conservatives?  And my pastor said not to join the military btw.


You did what you thought was best at the time.

----------


## Umm

> Anybody ever think that women being able to vote was a bad idea?  Because I've wondered a few times in my life, just wondering what others thoughts were on the topic.  
> 
> Women also tend to be more emotionally reactive, with exceptions.  Why this is?  Not a shrink.  I suspect it is largely societal, but also having biological factors as well as well as a few aspects of gender we've yet to codify.  Whereas men are more prone to a 'fix it' mind set when confronted with a problem - with exceptions.
> 
> So... In your opinions-
> 
> Should they be able to vote? Yes or no.
> 
> Reason why you feel this way?
> ...


Never thought it was a bad idea. I enjoy being able to vote.

Women aren't any more emotional than men. They are more likely to express their emotions however (this is due to society). This has been confirmed in many studies. Some even suggest that men are more emotional than women.  :Big Grin:  However, it really doesn't matter. Emotions aren't bad, and without them we would be incapable of making decisions. 

I don't think there should be any conditions on who gets to vote (well except for letting 5 year olds for example vote). Whether or not someone pays taxes or had an "adequate" amount of formal schooling shouldn't determine if they get the right to vote because regardless, what happens effects them and therefore they deserve a say. 




> I believe citizens 15 years old and older should be able to vote.  Near post puberty should be the only qualification.


I agree. I don't think people give youth enough credit. I also think people give adults too much.




> They why do so many women favor abortion, if their 'heart' tells them it is wrong?  If more women were pro life, we would already have roe v wade struck down.


I can't speak for all women, but I will say I'm pro-choice and my "heart" doesn't me tell me it's wrong at all. Probably because a fetus isn't capable of consciousness or have the ability to feel pain until at least around the mid second trimester. Their brains just aren't developed enough. Even after that it's a bit iffy since they're basically sedated in the womb for the majority of the pregnancy. Most abortions take place well before then. After that time it's near impossible to get one unless there's something seriously wrong. I could go on but this thread isn't about this.




> http://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality


Yay! I'm rare!




> Yes, but competency tests are bad, as I've been saying this whole time.


 :Thumbsup20:  

There are so many reasons why it would be a bad idea.

----------

kilgram (05-15-2013)

----------


## Archer

> There are so many reasons why it would be a bad idea.


Name them

----------


## Umm

> Name them


I was going to go but got lazy. How about you tell me how you think the test should be and I'll tell you if it's a good idea or not.

----------


## Archer

> I was going to go but got lazy. How about you tell me how you think the test should be and I'll tell you if it's a good idea or not.


It really should not be a academic (no math, science) test. It should be a general knowledge, psychological and competency test.

If a person does not know the difference between assets and liabilities, when explained to them, there is a problem.
If they do not know the difference between a trade deficit and a budget deficit there is a problem.

There are so many things that we thing are common knowledge that are not.

America lacks critical thinking skills.

----------


## Umm

> It really should not be a academic (no math, science) test. It should be a general knowledge, psychological and competency test.
> 
> If a person does not know the difference between assets and liabilities, when explained to them, there is a problem.
> If they do not know the difference between a trade deficit and a budget deficit there is a problem.
> 
> There are so many things that we thing are common knowledge that are not.
> 
> America lacks critical thinking skills.


So you only want accountants and economists voting?

You're going to eliminating a large portion of the population who might care about their taxes going up, abortion, education, jobs, equal rights, etc. and want to have a say on those matters but don't care at all about expanding their vocabulary with issues they care less about.

----------


## Archer

> So you only want accountants and economists voting?
> 
> You're going to eliminating a large portion of the population who might care about their taxes going up, abortion, education, jobs, equal rights, etc. and want to have a say on those matters but don't care at all about expanding their vocabulary with issues they care less about.


Look is that really what you think? 

If a person does no know what an asset is there is an issue and the same goes for liability. I mean simple terms here not the accounting equation. 

What you have verses what you owe. Not a damn balance sheet.

And if a person does not know the difference between trade and national debt they are brain dead and need to go to school not the polls.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Look is that really what you think? 
> 
> If a person does no know what an asset is there is an issue and the same goes for liability. I mean simple terms here not the accounting equation. 
> 
> What you have verses what you owe. Not a damn balance sheet.
> 
> And if a person does not know the difference between trade and national debt they are brain dead and need to go to school not the polls.


Or they could just be more philosophical-minded people rather than analytical/mathematical-minded people, who care less about economics and cares more about, say, civil liberties.

----------

Umm (05-15-2013)

----------


## Umm

I disagree. I'm sure there are plenty of people who wouldn't be able to answer that correctly but are still intelligent enough to make a rational choice over who is best to represent them and what they care most about.

----------


## Archer

> I disagree. I'm sure there are plenty of people who wouldn't be able to answer that correctly but are still intelligent enough to make a rational choice over who is best to represent them and what they care most about.


Yeah them, because they lack the ability to think past what they get from the government. They don't need to vote. They have no stake in the race other than what they can get!

----------


## Guest

> I disagree. I'm sure there are plenty of people who wouldn't be able to answer that correctly but are still intelligent enough to make a rational choice over who is best to represent them and what they care most about.


If people made rational choices we wouldn't have had 3/4 of the president's that we've had.  I have no faith in the rationality of the voting public.

----------

Archer (05-15-2013)

----------


## Umm

> Yeah them, because they lack the ability to think past what they get from the government. They don't need to vote. They have no stake in the race other than what they can get!


I'm pretty sure that's how most people vote regardless of their intelligence and their vocabulary, and if not for themselves, then usually for other people like voting for someone who supports universal healthcare even when they can afford their own for example.

----------


## Umm

> If people made rational choices we wouldn't have had 3/4 of the president's that we've had.  I have no faith in the rationality of the voting public.


And I would have no better faith in keeping the voting limited to a few because odds are, I wouldn't agree with them either.

----------


## Guest

> And I would have no better faith in keeping the voting limited to a few because odds are, I wouldn't agree with them either.


So you agree that most people are too ignorant to pass a voting issues competency test?  And this makes you believe that it is a good thing that so many ignorant people are voting?

I have more faith in people that if they want something badly enough they will do what it takes to achieve it.  If you must pass a test to vote and you care that much, you'll educate yourself.  If you don't bother to do so then voting wasn't a high priority for you to begin with.

I hardly think Alice Paul allowed herself to be imprisoned, strapped to a chair, and force-fed for weeks so that we women today can be ignorant and irresponsible voters.  I think she had more faith in future generations than we deserve.

----------


## Archer

> I'm pretty sure that's how most people vote regardless of their intelligence and their vocabulary, and if not for themselves, then usually for other people like voting for someone who supports universal healthcare even when they can afford their own for example.


Yeah no intelligence in voting... We require ID, a background check, mental health checks... to get a gun. We require credit checks, criminal background checks, pre-employment testing, drug tests... to get a job. We require nothing to vote for our leaders, hell the libs do not even want to confirm life or identity. Pretty fucked up if you ask me. So that is also my opinion of your view about this. Pretty fucked up.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Yeah no intelligence in voting... We require ID, a background check, mental health checks... to get a gun. We require credit checks, criminal background checks, pre-employment testing, drug tests... to get a job. We require nothing to vote for our leaders, hell the libs do not even want to confirm life or identity. Pretty fucked up if you ask me. So that is also my opinion or your view about this. Pretty fucked up.


The private employer decides to drug test their employees, if I'm not mistaken. As for gun ownership, would you be happy handing a gun to Charles Manson?

Voting is harmless, especially when you consider that our votes don't matter anyway.

----------

Umm (05-15-2013)

----------


## Archer

> The private employer decides to drug test their employees, if I'm not mistaken. As for gun ownership, would you be happy handing a gun to Charles Manson?
> 
> Voting is harmless, especially when you consider that our votes don't matter anyway.


Voting is the most dangerous tool you can hand to people that can manipulate masses and have an agenda. You know this.

If it were not the case then why all the dead people voting? Why is the left so worried?

----------


## kilgram

> Voting is the most dangerous tool you can hand to people that can manipulate masses and have an agenda. You know this.
> 
> If it were not the case then why all the dead people voting? Why is the left so worried?


LOL. Why are you so worried about giving more power to people?  :Smile:

----------


## Archer

> LOL. Why are you so worried about giving more power to people?


People is not the same as moochers.

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> LOL. Why are you so worried about giving more power to people?


Why are you afraid of work?  What would it kill you learn something before being given that privilege?

----------

Archer (05-15-2013)

----------


## Umm

> So you agree that most people are too ignorant to pass a voting issues competency test?  And this makes you believe that it is a good thing that so many ignorant people are voting?
> 
> I have more faith in people that if they want something badly enough they will do what it takes to achieve it.  If you must pass a test to vote and you care that much, you'll educate yourself.  If you don't bother to do so then voting wasn't a high priority for you to begin with.
> 
> I hardly think Alice Paul allowed herself to be imprisoned, strapped to a chair, and force-fed for weeks so that we women today can be ignorant and irresponsible voters.  I think she had more faith in future generations than we deserve.


Too ignorant to pass a voting test? I really don't know. Do I think there are many ignorant people voting? Yes. However, there are usually reasons why people vote for the people they do, and it's usually social issues. The test Archer gave does not address any of that. The test he gave wouldn't really change anything for me because I would still most likely think the majority of voters are dumb and I would still think the majority of people in office are dumb. To an extent of course.

Plus if people did decide to educate themselves more, there's a good chance they would vote the same anyway. People tend to cherry pick where they get their data, and interestingly looking at actual facts don't typically change anyone's minds. They merely become more set in their beliefs.

One reason why I dislike the idea of competency tests for voting is that the test could be created to eliminate voters due to how they would vote rather than their intelligence. Imagine as a result of a test the people voted into power decided to get some of the rights women have gained. Unlikely, but considering women have been arrested and jailed for having miscarriages, forced into having c-sections, getting hysterectomies without their knowledge and consent, etc. it's still a concern.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Voting is the most dangerous tool you can hand to people that can manipulate masses and have an agenda. You know this.
> 
> If it were not the case then why all the dead people voting? Why is the left so worried?


Because generally speaking, that stuff is done by poll-workers, and poll-workers are just average voters given a job. But the government knows the score.

Besides, the voter fraud you're referencing is miniscule. It's not enough to sway elections even if voting actually mattered.

----------

Umm (05-15-2013)

----------


## Archer

> Too ignorant to pass a voting test? I really don't know. Do I think there are many ignorant people voting? Yes. However, there are usually reasons why people vote for the people they do, and it's usually social issues. The test Archer gave does not address any of that. The test he gave wouldn't really change anything for me because I would still most likely think the majority of voters are dumb and I would still think the majority of people in office are dumb. To an extent of course.
> 
> Plus if people did decide to educate themselves more, there's a good chance they would vote the same anyway. People tend to cherry pick where they get their data, and interestingly looking at actual facts don't typically change anyone's minds. They merely become more set in their beliefs.
> 
> One reason why I dislike the idea of competency tests for voting is that the test could be created to eliminate voters due to how they would vote rather than their intelligence. Imagine as a result of a test the people voted into power decided to get some of the rights women have gained. Unlikely, but considering women have been arrested and jailed for having miscarriages, forced into having c-sections, getting hysterectomies without their knowledge and consent, etc. it's still a concern.


Why the fear? I personally think we need to go back to our original system. And the women had a vote! They told their man how he had better vote!

----------


## Archer

> Because generally speaking, that stuff is done by poll-workers, and poll-workers are just average voters given a job. But the government knows the score.
> 
> Besides, the voter fraud you're referencing is miniscule. It's not enough to sway elections even if voting actually mattered.


For president not so much but you do know where the electoral college comes from, do you not?

----------


## Umm

> LOL. Why are you so worried about giving more power to people?


I think most people who agree with competency tests think the tests will result in people they like getting elected more often. I'd rather take my chances with people being selected at random (I think someone already mentioned that in this thread) or having everyone vote.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Why are you afraid of work?  What would it kill you learn something before being given that privilege?


 @kilgram's problem is that he has done the same thing men like Lenin did. They took a philosophy and twisted it - mostly unintentionally, I think. The greatest Socialist thinkers always praised work as necessary and the only way for society to function.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> For president not so much but you do know where the electoral college comes from, do you not?


How do you mean? Do you mean who it came from? If so, the founders.

----------


## Umm

> Why the fear? I personally think we need to go back to our original system. And the women had a vote! They told their man how he had better vote!


Yeah, I like being considered property.

----------


## Guest

> Too ignorant to pass a voting test? I really don't know. Do I think there are many ignorant people voting? Yes. However, there are usually reasons why people vote for the people they do, and it's usually social issues. The test Archer gave does not address any of that. The test he gave wouldn't really change anything for me because I would still most likely think the majority of voters are dumb and I would still think the majority of people in office are dumb. To an extent of course.


I'm not speaking of Archer's test.  It could be a test on government and platforms




> Plus if people did decide to educate themselves more, there's a good chance they would vote the same anyway. People tend to cherry pick where they get their data, and interestingly looking at actual facts don't typically change anyone's minds. They merely become more set in their beliefs.


Quite possibly.  This is a philosophical discussion.  I'm a voluntaryist so I don't have a dog in this particular fight as much as others, but if I actually cared about maintaining our current system instead of sitting on the sidelines and watching gleefully as the currency collapses and the current administration shows itself for the invasive authoritarian regime it is, well, then I might want to establish criteria like a driver's exam.




> One reason why I dislike the idea of competency tests for voting is that the test could be created to eliminate voters due to how they would vote rather than their intelligence. Imagine as a result of a test the people voted into power decided to get some of the rights women have gained.


I have gained no rights.  No one gives me rights.  I am born with rights.  What nonsense is this?




> *Unlikely, but considering women have been arrested and jailed for having miscarriages, forced into having c-sections, getting hysterectomies without their knowledge and consent, etc. it's still a concern.*


How many?  We're talking unicorns right now.  There's a nation of 310 million to 350 million people that haven't devolved into the Sudan just yet.

----------


## kilgram

> @kilgram's problem is that he has done the same thing men like Lenin did. They took a philosophy and twisted it - mostly unintentionally, I think. The greatest Socialist thinkers always praised work as necessary and the only way for society to function.


???? What the hell are you saying?

Really I don't understand what are you saying. And I don't know where I talked about work? I think that we were talking about voting?

----------


## Archer

> How do you mean? Do you mean who it came from? If so, the founders.


No how the current electors are chosen.

----------


## Archer

> Yeah, I like being considered property.


That is how it was.

----------


## Umm

> I have gained no rights.  No one gives me rights.  I am born with rights.  What nonsense is this?
> 
> How many?  We're talking unicorns right now.  There's a nation of 310 million to 350 million people that haven't devolved into the Sudan just yet.


I need to get some sleep soon, but I'll try to cover some of this quickly. 

Here's some of the rights you were born with: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

As for the things I mentioned: http://www.alternet.org/story/153090...es_together%27

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-consent.html

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/ite...rcerated-women

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...murder-charges (As many as 300 women in South Carolina alone have been arrested for having miscarriages. This was a while back though so the number is probably higher.)

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/20...ures-on-women/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...week-date.html

There's plenty of better articles but those were the fastest to find.

----------


## Guest

> I need to get some sleep soon, but I'll try to cover some of this quickly. 
> 
> Here's some of the rights you were born with: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html


I'm a Jeffersonian.  I was born with rights under Nature's Law which the government attempts to subdue.




> As for the things I mentioned: http://www.alternet.org/story/153090...es_together%27
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-consent.html
> 
> http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/ite...rcerated-women
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...murder-charges (As many as 300 women in South Carolina alone have been arrested for having miscarriages. This was a while back though so the number is probably higher.)
> 
> http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/20...ures-on-women/
> ...


The women in these articles were charged because of substance use, yes, I can see that.  My point in bringing up the unicorn is that we live in a nation of 310-350 million people.  While oddities make news headlines, this doesn't happen every day.  I try not to succumb to hysteria over such things in order to be swayed to vote against my *individual* interests.  I am not a single issue voter.  Abortion won't affect me ever.  Instead of allowing ourselves to be manipulated by Democrats using this single issue, we should question all that we've lost in the process and then see if it is worth it.

Abortion is easily fixed through education--which women should do in the days of AIDS.  Loss of due process, loss of food freedom, loss of overall privacy, the drug war, the loss of free speech...I would be both selfish from a gender perspective and stupid from an individual perspective to vote Democratic.

They don't "own" me.  I'm an individual before I am a female.

----------

Archer (05-15-2013),TheTemporaryBG (05-15-2013),usfan (05-15-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> No how the current electors are chosen.


It varies from state to state.

----------


## Archer

> It varies from state to state.


Yes but it has quite a bit to do with the voting population and the people in power at the state level. All the power still, ultimately lies with the people and that is an issue. The people are so stupid they just vote as they are told. No critical thinking or reasoning skills.

Now I know I am going to be accused of being a brainwashed (R) but the fact is I ain't. I have voted third party and democrat as much as I have republican. Hell I voted for Perot! And Mickey Mouse as well!

----------


## Archer

Back to the OP! Women are generally more level headed by nature. Yes they are more emotional but they exercise more control than men. If women were in charge men would have it made. They (the men) would work all day, come home to a nice dinner, do their chores as directed and then get screwed to death every night after putting the kids to bed.

----------



----------


## Gemini

> Back to the OP! Women are generally more level headed by nature. Yes they are more emotional but they exercise more control than men. If women were in charge men would have it made. They (the men) would work all day, come home to a nice dinner, do their chores as directed and then get screwed to death every night after putting the kids to bed.


Something tells me men would never go for this - being told what to do all the time that is.  And eventually, women would get tired of their largest child coming home.  I highly doubt women simply want men they can order around, they couldn't respect them nor be attracted to them in a long term situation.

----------


## Guest

> Something tells me men would never go for this - being told what to do all the time that is.  And eventually, women would get tired of their largest child coming home.  I highly doubt women simply want men they can order around, they couldn't respect them nor be attracted to them in a long term situation.


^^This

----------


## Archer

> Something tells me men would never go for this - being told what to do all the time that is.  And eventually, women would get tired of their largest child coming home.  I highly doubt women simply want men they can order around, they couldn't respect them nor be attracted to them in a long term situation.


Women yeah but there again... Get with it that is how it goes most of the time the wife stays at home. The man is tired, takes care of what needs took care of and goes to bed.

----------


## Gemini

> Women yeah but there again... Get with it that is how it goes most of the time the wife stays at home. The man is tired, takes care of what needs took care of and goes to bed.


Simply put, most men will not be told what to do by a woman indefinitely - it will get ugly in one of two ways.  The woman will see him as a child and despise him for 'not being a man' or the man will snap out of irritation and become rebellious, obnoxious, or dangerous.  It is contrary to the natural order of things.

There is a reason men hold the bulk of the world's seats of power, women as a general rule, don't really do the authority thing very well - hell, most men have a hard time with it.  Another thing is that men typically respect that which is physically stronger than them - few women will ever meet this criteria.  So respecting her as a legitimate authority figure will be challenging for the bulk of all males.

I didn't write the rules of nature, just making observations about them.  

If you put a woman above you, she will trample you to death.  If you walk all over her, she will be crushed to death.  Let her walk beside you, and she is yours for life.

----------

lostbeyond (05-16-2013)

----------


## Archer

> Simply put, most men will not be told what to do by a woman indefinitely - it will get ugly in one of two ways.  The woman will see him as a child and despise him for 'not being a man' or the man will snap out of irritation and become rebellious, obnoxious, or dangerous.  It is contrary to the natural order of things.
> 
> There is a reason men hold the bulk of the world's seats of power, women as a general rule, don't really do the authority thing very well - hell, most men have a hard time with it.  Another thing is that men typically respect that which is physically stronger than them - few women will ever meet this criteria.  So respecting her as a legitimate authority figure will be challenging for the bulk of all males.
> 
> I didn't write the rules of nature, just making observations about them.  
> 
> If you put a woman above you, she will trample you to death.  If you walk all over her, she will be crushed to death.  Let her walk beside you, and she is yours for life.


Being told what to do and being asked to do something are not the same thing and I guess that err is on me.

In my home.

Her: Will you get... Me: No it is not necessary... Her: But on FB I saw and article that... cut off by me. Me: Yeah and I have years of industrial maintenance experience and I am telling you that... Her: Oh.

Her: Honey will you get some meat out for dinner tomorrow night. Me: Yeah in a minute... Next night Her: Honey where is the beef?... Me: In the freezer. The new microwave will take care of the that in no time. Her: Oh

Her: Honey I am taking the van to... Me: That van is not moving until I change the oil. Her: Oh

Me: Hey honey I am ordering... Cuts me off  Her: Did you make any money of the last... Me: Not yet... Her: Don't order it then... Me: Oh

There again we run our home sort of like a business and we each have our duties.

So I look at my life and think everyone can run that way. She is in charge of paying the bills and keeping me in line. I am the last word but rarely use that authority that way when I do the answer is Oh.

----------

usfan (05-15-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> Being told what to do and being asked what to do are not the same thing and I guess that err is on me.


Being asked many times, and being told register about the same over time.  But everybody is different, it might work with some depending on how things are phrased.  

Case in point-

If asked politely, I'll help a stranger push his car uphill for a quarter mile to his house or wherever for no reason other than being asked as long as I'm not pressed for time, but I'd try to help regardless.  Now if that same person tells me I'm a jackass for not helping, and that I should have known to help him and that he shouldn't have to ask.  Well, I'll probably push the wrong direction just to spite him, then break his mirrors off.

Treat me nice, you get sugar.  Treat me wrong, and my indignation shall wax strong indeed.

----------

Archer (05-15-2013)

----------


## Archer

> Being asked many times, and being told register about the same over time.  But everybody is different, it might work with some depending on how things are phrased.  
> 
> Case in point-
> 
> If asked politely, I'll help a stranger push his car uphill for a quarter mile to his house or wherever for no reason other than being asked as long as I'm not pressed for time, but I'd try to help regardless.  Now if that same person tells me I'm a jackass for not helping, and that I should have known to help him and that he shouldn't have to ask.  Well, I'll probably push the wrong direction just to spite him, then break his mirrors off.
> 
> Treat me nice, you get sugar.  Treat me wrong, and my indignation shall wax strong indeed.


Yup. I am a real son of a bitch and not much gets under my skin. I am a pro at... Yeah honey... And then a week later asking what it was she wanted.

----------

Gemini (05-16-2013)

----------


## lostbeyond

> Simply put, most men will not be told what to do by a woman indefinitely - it will get ugly in one of two ways. The woman will see him as a child and despise him for 'not being a man' or the man will snap out of irritation and become rebellious, obnoxious, or dangerous. It is contrary to the natural order of things.
> 
> There is a reason men hold the bulk of the world's seats of power, women as a general rule, don't really do the authority thing very well - hell, most men have a hard time with it. Another thing is that men typically respect that which is physically stronger than them - few women will ever meet this criteria. So respecting her as a legitimate authority figure will be challenging for the bulk of all males.
> 
> I didn't write the rules of nature, just making observations about them. 
> 
> *If you put a woman above you, she will trample you to death. If you walk all over her, she will be crushed to death. Let her walk beside you, and she is yours for life.*



This is a line of wisdom.  

How did you know this? 

I have been observing this in women's attitudes too.  Very interesting.

----------


## Gemini

> This is a line of wisdom.  
> 
> *How did you know this?* 
> 
> I have been observing this in women's attitudes too.  Very interesting.


Cruel experience - I just learned from it.  Also cemented by religious teachings.

----------


## Umm

> The women in these articles were charged because of substance use, yes, I can see that.  My point in bringing up the unicorn is that we live in a nation of 310-350 million people.  While oddities make news headlines, this doesn't happen every day.  I try not to succumb to hysteria over such things in order to be swayed to vote against my *individual* interests.  I am not a single issue voter.  Abortion won't affect me ever.  Instead of allowing ourselves to be manipulated by Democrats using this single issue, we should question all that we've lost in the process and then see if it is worth it.


Abortion won't effect you or many women, and while the cases I linked to are related to abortion, they effect almost every woman as most do get pregnant. It's the trouble with personhood laws. Being arrested for having a miscarriage might be rare now, but under some circumstances it could be more common and the scary thing is that not all of these women actually abused substances or did what the prosecution claimed. Even when they did, the substance wasn't always what caused the miscarriage. They were still imprisoned. But since that isn't likely to effect you personally, what about birth control?

"If under Griswold the distribution of contraceptives to married persons cannot be 	prohibited, a ban on distribution to unmarried persons would be equally impermissible. It 	is true that in Griswold the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital 	relationship. Yet the marital couple is not an independent entity with a mind and heart 	of its own, but an association of two individuals each with a separate intellectual and 	emotional makeup. *If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the 	individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into 	matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a 	child.*"

-Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)

It is birth control that gave precedence for Roe v Wade and women are allowed to get abortions for the same reason women are allowed access to birth control. Many people would love to reverse Roe v Wade and if that was reversed... how long before our right to birth control is attacked (if you don't think it already is)? 

Unicorns don't exist. The issues I brought up aren't me chasing unicorns, and even though they might not be common, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a concern. Over 300 people in one state alone, and just one aspect of women's rights, is worrisome to me. Now if you want to see people getting worried over unicorns, let's look at photo ID laws. At first glance it doesn't seem like that much of an issue, but voter fraud is extremely rare, even in comparison to those women I talked about. And to top it off, most of those few cases have more to do with registration issues than actual voting. So not only is it pointless to have, but it also eliminates a large number of voters.

Photo ID laws are one of the things that makes me concerned with requiring tests to vote. Here's the main reason why:



The majority of those people would vote democrat. Tests could seemingly appear to not be discriminatory at first glance just like photo ID laws, but they could still be if they happened to eliminate a large number of people who would vote one way. You probably wouldn't have a problem with that if they eliminated people who disagreed with you, but I'm sure you would if it meant voters who did agree with you weren't able to vote.

Then of course if it doesn't discriminate and people are still divided similar to how they are now, then isn't it kind of pointless to make people go through the trouble of taking a test?

----------


## Dante1

> this is getting good.. i see a lot of feet in mouth in this thread!  
> 
> Women's voting was part of the evolution of modern society, where slavery was outlawed, & imperialism became passe.  Of course there are plenty of stupid people voting, from any gender, but it's not a 'heart' issue, or 'feminine intuition'..  Women's brains work just as effectively as mens, & some of them are considerably brighter.  I'd put our own rina up against most men, even in this forum, for general purpose intelligence.
> 
> I think the least we should have is a general competency test.. not necessarily written, but a test to weed out imbeciles.  Of course, we run the risk of keeping everyone out, like @The XL said, but surely we can dumb it down enough for basic understanding skills.


This is an example of the problem.

The fact is, boys and girls are DIFFERENT, they are not "equal." Failing to take account of those differences is like failing to take account of the law of gravity (you'll kill yourself).

Male feminism brought us the disastrous 19th Amendment, and it is evident now that male feminism may bring about the end of our civilized world.

Dante.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Back to the OP! Women are generally more level headed by nature. Yes they are more emotional but they exercise more control than men. If women were in charge men would have it made. They (the men) would work all day, come home to a nice dinner, do their chores as directed and then get screwed to death every night after putting the kids to bed.


...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...I got my eye on you, you are a closet liberal!...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Simply put, most men will not be told what to do by a woman indefinitely - it will get ugly in one of two ways. The woman will see him as a child and despise him for 'not being a man' or the man will snap out of irritation and become rebellious, obnoxious, or dangerous. It is contrary to the natural order of things.
> 
> There is a reason men hold the bulk of the world's seats of power, women as a general rule, don't really do the authority thing very well - hell, most men have a hard time with it. Another thing is that men typically respect that which is physically stronger than them - few women will ever meet this criteria. So respecting her as a legitimate authority figure will be challenging for the bulk of all males.
> 
> I didn't write the rules of nature, just making observations about them. 
> 
> If you put a woman above you, she will trample you to death. If you walk all over her, she will be crushed to death. Let her walk beside you, and she is yours for life.



...I give this a 9 on 1-10...the thing you forgot to mention is females are being forced on males as equals via laws and legislation...like I said earlier the rules are being changed to protect females from males...if males and females were truly equals then there'd be no reason to make laws protecting females from males...

----------


## Archer

> ...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...I got my eye on you, you are a closet liberal!...


Absolutely not. I am a traditionalist. The wife runs the house and the man makes the money and handles the rest. The man is the head but there is no need for the man to exert that power. The Bible is pretty clear about how you treat your woman and you are to die for her. You are to satisfy her in all ways and she you. If you are a control freak then God will bless you with the woman you deserve, and she will rip you a new ass hole in court. If you treat her as she should be God will bless you with a helper for life.

----------


## Archer

Remove me

----------


## Umm

> This is an example of the problem.
> 
> The fact is, boys and girls are DIFFERENT, they are not "equal." Failing to take account of those differences is like failing to take account of the law of gravity (you'll kill yourself).


List all relevant differences please.

----------


## Gemini

> List all relevant differences please.


The list is quite extensive.

Pretty sure you can figure out the relevant differences.

----------


## Guest

> List all relevant differences please.


There is an excellent book that made many of the ancient crones crap their pants because it is difficult to refute the hard sciences, but..."The Female Brain" is an outstanding look at the neurological differences in the sexes.  The book is 500 pages and the only things old school feminists could reproach were in footnotes at the bottom of pages--meaning not even her work, someone elses.

Women and men are different physiologically (brains shaped different as well as obvious physical differences), and chemically/neurologically.  It is why women have better language aptitudes than men, why we have better memories, why we can come up with multiple solutions to a problem (harder for us to select one)...it goes into why we make better *lawyers*, doctors (GP--not surgeons --hand dexterity better for men), research scientists, etc.

Different does not mean "worse".  Both sexes have their strengths, neither sex is better.  Just different.

----------

Gemini (05-16-2013)

----------


## Umm

> The list is quite extensive.
> 
> Pretty sure you can figure out the relevant differences.


Do you really think I've never read about the differences between men and women? In my opinion there are no relevant differences.

----------


## Archer

> Abortion won't effect you or many women, and while the cases I linked to are related to abortion, they effect almost every woman as most do get pregnant. It's the trouble with personhood laws. Being arrested for having a miscarriage might be rare now, but under some circumstances it could be more common and the scary thing is that not all of these women actually abused substances or did what the prosecution claimed. Even when they did, the substance wasn't always what caused the miscarriage. They were still imprisoned. But since that isn't likely to effect you personally, what about birth control?
> 
> "If under Griswold the distribution of contraceptives to married persons cannot be     prohibited, a ban on distribution to unmarried persons would be equally impermissible. It     is true that in Griswold the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital     relationship. Yet the marital couple is not an independent entity with a mind and heart     of its own, but an association of two individuals each with a separate intellectual and     emotional makeup. *If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the     individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into     matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a     child.*"
> 
> -Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
> 
> It is birth control that gave precedence for Roe v Wade and women are allowed to get abortions for the same reason women are allowed access to birth control. Many people would love to reverse Roe v Wade and if that was reversed... how long before our right to birth control is attacked (if you don't think it already is)? 
> 
> Unicorns don't exist. The issues I brought up aren't me chasing unicorns, and even though they might not be common, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a concern. Over 300 people in one state alone, and just one aspect of women's rights, is worrisome to me. Now if you want to see people getting worried over unicorns, let's look at photo ID laws. At first glance it doesn't seem like that much of an issue, but voter fraud is extremely rare, even in comparison to those women I talked about. And to top it off, most of those few cases have more to do with registration issues than actual voting. So not only is it pointless to have, but it also eliminates a large number of voters.
> ...


This is fucking beat the floor hilarious. I have seen threads and news about how conservatives are dumber than liberals but when it comes to a test you squirm like little chicken shit bitches.

----------


## Gemini

> Do you really think I've never read about the differences between men and women? In my opinion there are no relevant differences.


Then clarify the reasoning for your opinion then.

----------


## Umm

> There is an excellent book that made many of the ancient crones crap their pants because it is difficult to refute the hard sciences, but..."The Female Brain" is an outstanding look at the neurological differences in the sexes.  The book is 500 pages and the only things old school feminists could reproach were in footnotes at the bottom of pages--meaning not even her work, someone elses.



_The Female Brain_, cites literally hundreds of academic  articles. To the unwary reader, both she and the book seem reliable and  authoritative. And yet, as a review of the book in Nature comments,  "despite the author's extensive academic credentials, The Female Brain  disappointingly fails to meet even the most basic standards of  scientific accuracy and balance. The book is riddled with scientific  errors and is misleading about the processes of brain development, the  neuroendocrine system, and the nature of sex differences in general."  The reviewers later go on to say that, "[t]he text is rife with facts'  that do not exist in the supporting references."  This is a common  discovery made by people who take the time to fact-check Brizendine's  claims.

That was easy to find. Skimmed through it and already know to be suspicious if I ever read that book. 




> Different does not mean "worse".  Both sexes have their strengths, neither sex is better.  Just different.


Why I asked for relevant differences instead of just differences.

----------


## Umm

> This is fucking beat the floor hilarious. I have seen threads and news about how conservatives are dumber than liberals but when it comes to a test you squirm like little chicken shit bitches.


You just lost the debate. Thanks for dropping out so quickly.

----------


## Archer

> You just lost the debate. Thanks for dropping out so quickly.


Debate? There is no debate. You just told me that the left is so full of stupid people that testing would mean 200 years of conservative rule.

How the hell can I debate somebody that wins it for me?

Stupid people vote liberal because they can not understand what the fuck they are voting for.

I  win. 

If they got educated enough to pass the test half would become conservative meaning you would still be out.

This is why the dems keep latinos and blacks at the bottom.

----------


## kilgram

> Debate? There is no debate. You just told me that the left is so full of stupid people that testing would mean 200 years of conservative rule.
> 
> How the hell can I debate somebody that wins it for me?
> 
> Stupid people vote liberal because they can not understand what the fuck they are voting for.
> 
> I  win. 
> 
> If they got educated enough to pass the test half would become conservative meaning you would still be out.
> ...


Or they would become more leftist because they would understand better the system, and they would fight against a system that is the law of the jungle.

----------


## Guest

> Abortion won't effect you or many women, and while the cases I linked to are related to abortion, they effect almost every woman as most do get pregnant.


It will not trouble me because I am not about to abuse my body with hard narcotics like the women in your articles.  If I do that's Darwin at work.




> It's the trouble with personhood laws. Being arrested for having a miscarriage might be rare now, but under some circumstances it could be more common and the scary thing is that not all of these women actually abused substances or did what the prosecution claimed. Even when they did, the substance wasn't always what caused the miscarriage. They were still imprisoned.


You cannot be arrested for a regular miscarriage.  The laws do not work that way.  You don't have to stretch anything to make your point on a philosophical issue.  I know the law.  You cannot be arrested for a miscarriage without having purposefully attempted to destroy a fetus after the 20th week when it is also illegal for a physician to do so.

Next.




> But since that isn't likely to effect you personally, what about birth control?


Condoms should be your friend.




> "If under Griswold the distribution of contraceptives to married persons cannot be     prohibited, a ban on distribution to unmarried persons would be equally impermissible. It     is true that in Griswold the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital     relationship. Yet the marital couple is not an independent entity with a mind and heart     of its own, but an association of two individuals each with a separate intellectual and     emotional makeup. *If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the     individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into     matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a     child.*"
> 
> -Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)


First of all, my philosophical perspective as a libertarian remains the same.  It is not the governments business to hinder or help social concerns.

The courts should never comment on social issues, nor the government regulate vices and/or morality in any case or concern.  Libertarian philosophy gets me to the same spot you are going without the other intrusiveness of Democrats.  Democrats support abortion because they need a large voting block, not because they have consistency of position.  To support them on this, a single issue knowing that with it comes the drug war, the war on food, the war on small farms, the war on food freedom, the war against the free press, the war against free speech, etc...I'd feel like a selfish asshole and rather stupid and gullible for being taken in by their ruse.




> It is birth control that gave precedence for Roe v Wade and women are allowed to get abortions for the same reason women are allowed access to birth control. Many people would love to reverse Roe v Wade and if that was reversed... how long before our right to birth control is attacked (if you don't think it already is)?


I think this is highly inflated scare tactics and drama.  Go to Reason.com and read a libertarian perspective, something growing both inside and outside the Republican party.  The Todd Akins have no more chance of getting through their legislation on this than we have of a nation wide soda ban.

Instead of having political action committees keeping you afraid and corralled into the Democratic platform of limited free thought you should free yourself to other mindsets that embrace real freedom from intrusion, real privacy, and a belief in humans as capable, responsible individuals.




> Unicorns don't exist. The issues I brought up aren't me chasing unicorns, and even though they might not be common, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a concern. Over 300 people in one state alone, and just one aspect of women's rights, is worrisome to me.


Reread your own article.




> Now if you want to see people getting worried over unicorns, let's look at photo ID laws. At first glance it doesn't seem like that much of an issue, but voter fraud is extremely rare, even in comparison to those women I talked about. And to top it off, most of those few cases have more to do with registration issues than actual voting. So not only is it pointless to have, but it also eliminates a large number of voters.


Again, this is more fear based reasoning.  *Omigod, 10, 000 people across a nation of 313,000,000 people might not be able to vote because we believe they are too stupid or impaired to get an ID but somehow smart enough to find the correct polling place, get there, and vote!  It's less than a .009 percent chance that someone could be punished by this but we have to create drama--look at those terrible Republicans.

*Meanwhile, you LOVE to use those unicorn and rare statistics with partial birth abortions when people point out that some of them have been for reasons psychological other than physiological.  That's when the .009% can be raised.

When Planned Parenthood fucks up...then 99% of the time they don't fuck up!

That's why I can't be scared into this type of emotional persuasion.  Data is everything.  Women shouldn't be so stupid and gullible as to be led around by the nose.  We need to look at data, statistics, and make reasoned-based decisions.




> Photo ID laws are one of the things that makes me concerned with requiring tests to vote. Here's the main reason why:


Well, they need to get ID then.  If you want to pursue an activity, be prepared for that activity.




> The majority of those people would vote democrat. Tests could seemingly appear to not be discriminatory at first glance just like photo ID laws, but they could still be if they happened to eliminate a large number of people who would vote one way.


Oh, so you're saying that poor blacks are so monolithic in thought that you automatically know who they would vote for?  Condescend much?  Let me ask you this, if they do not care enough to get a hardship ID, to prepare themselves to vote, why should I care?  

If you believe in something so much, a party, a platform, a belief then don't be lazy.  Do what it takes to participate.  If you don't, you probably shouldn't be doing it anyway.




> You probably wouldn't have a problem with that if they eliminated people who disagreed with you, but I'm sure you would if it meant voters who did agree with you weren't able to vote.


You don't know me very well.  No one will vote for what I want.  I want a stateless society.  Many voluntaryists even feel that voting is immoral if you believe that the state is corrupt.  I'm speaking philosophically with consistency because you seem to be under the grips of the mass hysteria campaign inflicted on women by the patriarchy and, ironically, the CIA during the 1970s.  




> Then of course if it doesn't discriminate and people are still divided similar to how they are now, then isn't it kind of pointless to make people go through the trouble of taking a test?


Oh, I don't allow emotions and sarcasm to work on me.  I'm beyond those parlor tricks.  I think for myself and look at the numbers, the statistical providers, and I follow the links within the links.

----------


## Guest

> _The Female Brain_, cites literally hundreds of academic  articles. To the unwary reader, both she and the book seem reliable and  authoritative. And yet, as a review of the book in Nature comments,  "despite the author's extensive academic credentials, The Female Brain  disappointingly fails to meet even the most basic standards of  scientific accuracy and balance. The book is riddled with scientific  errors and is misleading about the processes of brain development, the  neuroendocrine system, and the nature of sex differences in general."  The reviewers later go on to say that, "[t]he text is rife with ‘facts'  that do not exist in the supporting references."  This is a common  discovery made by people who take the time to fact-check Brizendine's  claims.
> 
> That was easy to find. Skimmed through it and already know to be suspicious if I ever read that book. 
> 
> 
> 
> Why I asked for relevant differences instead of just differences.


LOL, @Umm proving the point.  You _know_ to be suspicious _if_ you read the book.  Don't possibly read a book or look at the research.  I love it.

Or I would love it if it wasn't so sad that you're too afraid to think for yourself.  

Cordelia Fine is a psychologist.  She is not an MD.  She is not qualified to look at research science and make that determination.  The writer of the female brain spent years developing pharmaceuticals, versus Ms Fine who, let's face it the only easier course in undergrad than psychology was art history, is a psychologist.

----------


## Archer

remove me

----------


## Archer

> Or they would become more leftist because they would understand better the system, and they would fight against a system that is the law of the jungle.


That would not happen. As @Umm put it... Stupid people vote liberal. So if I did my math right (I always do) that would move the majority of them to the conservative side. Mostly (L) though because they would see that the (R) ain't much different than the (D). This would in effect steal votes from the left (D) and split them up between the (R) and (L).

----------


## Guest

And on that subject...does anyone wonder why all of the psychology classes are no brainers and why the biggest alcoholics in undergrad were psych majors?

----------


## Archer

> And on that subject...does anyone wonder why all of the psychology classes are no brainers and why the biggest alcoholics in undergrad were psych majors?


Psych is like lit or history. Some people have brains that are good for it and others do not. The question is not the degree but the retention level and damnit if they graduated with more than a 2.X GPA.

----------


## Guest

for @Umm

~fyi, Miss Fine did no research herself.  She merely critiqued the hard science research from the perspective of a behavioralist, meaning she has a dog in the fight but that dog has no experience in the subject matter.  Here is a critique of her critique:

A critique of the simplicity and emotional aspect to her argument:




> These are just some of the dozens of social psychological studies that  Fine reviews, and her argument has an appealing simplicity: if women and  men can score equally in areas where robust sex differences have been  reported, then surely they don’t constitute essential sex differences.  They must instead be a remnant of the centuries of sexism that attempted  to portray women as less intelligent than men. Fine goes further to  argue that any *modern cognitive neuroscientist* who suggests there may be  any essential sex differences in the human mind is just perpetuating  these historic sexist attitudes. And she coins a new word for the  exploration of sex differences in the mind by contemporary scientists:  ‘neurosexism’. She litters her book liberally with quotes from 18th- and  19th-century sexists, as if contemporary scientists in the field of sex  differences are no different from those who wished to deprive women of the vote, keep them confined to domesticity, and as if to say ‘look: nothing has changed’.


ie, using the liberal disdain for anything counter to their politicised strain of soft science--they will never put anyone on the moon, I swear.




> ...showing that a manipulation of social variables changes behaviour  does not prove that it was those very social variables that cause the  spontaneous sex differences in the first place. Social manipulations are  forms of intervention, and we shouldn’t fall victim to the old fallacy  of assuming that the absence of a treatment is the cause of a condition.  Aspirins can make headaches vanish, but headaches aren’t necessarily  caused by the absence of aspirin. Where I – and I suspect many other  contemporary scientists – would part ways with Fine is in her strident,  extreme denial of the role that biology might play in giving rise to any  sex differences in the mind and brain. My own book The Essential  Difference was I think quite moderate in suggesting that sex differences  are the result of both social and biological influences, and the same  is true of Melissa Hines’ excellent book Brain Gender. *But for Fine,  even a hint of biological influence is too much biology.* 
> 
> So how does she deal with experimental findings that show either  prenatal or neonatal influences on sex differences? Here, her main  strategy (arguing that sex differences can be made to vanish by using  the trick of manipulating social psychological variables) just doesn’t  apply. So she is forced to adopt a different strategy, namely,  dissecting the experiments that purport to show prenatal or neonatal  influences, to reveal that such experiments are flawed and therefore  incorrect in their conclusions. This is Fine’s last-ditch attempt to  make sex differences go away.
> 
> 
>  Being a co-author of some of these experiments I can examine her  criticisms with the benefit of close knowledge of the studies she  discusses, and found errors in her critiques. For example, in our  newborn study (Connellan et al., 2001), which showed that girls look  longer at a human face and boys look longer at a mechanical mobile, Fine  attempts to dismantle this evidence by saying we should have presented  both stimuli at the same time, rather than one at a time, since one at a  time might have led to fatigue-effects. However, she overlooks that it  was for this very reason that we included counter-balancing into the  experimental design, to avoid any risk of such order-effects.
> 
> 
>  Secondly, she argues that the experimenter may not have been totally  blind to the baby’s sex because there might have been ‘congratulations’  cards around the bed (‘Congratulations! It’s a boy!’). However, she  overlooks that it was precisely for this reason that we included a panel  of independent judges coding the videotapes of just the eye-region of  the baby’s face, from which it is virtually impossible to judge the sex  of the baby. Fine is right that our newborn baby study needs to be  independently replicated, given its importance for establishing a human  sex difference in the mind at a point in development before culture has  had a chance to have any influence. But it is an example of where  Fine’s scholarship shows some shortcomings, *where details are overlooked  in order to fit her biology-free theory of human sex differences.*


So, Miss Fines opinion is her opinion that sells books to traditional feminists.  Perhaps, you, @Umm, read both Ms Fine's book and the actual research and make a determination for YOURSELF.

Don't let people tell you how to think, Umm.  You're selling yourself and the future, short.  Science and data isn't scary.  It's fun.

----------

Gemini (05-17-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> That would not happen. As @Umm put it... Stupid people vote liberal. So if I did my math right (I always do) that would move the majority of them to the conservative side. Mostly (L) though because they would see that the (R) ain't much different than the (D). This would in effect steal votes from the left (D) and split them up between the (R) and (L).


Well, the Americans that have travelled, seen other systems... they usually question conservatism. So, I don't know, and they don't like anything that ideology.

Conservatism is an murderous ideology and reactionary, I don't see how someone can support it. Mainly, because it is a purely statist ideology, however they try to dress up it. I've had enough seeing people like Reagan, Thatcher, Pinochet, to know how it really works. So a well educated person never will support this. An ideology that does not care for the welfare of people and also it is an extremely xenophobe ideology how I've seen many times, really close to the fascism in that aspect.

----------


## Archer

> Well, the Americans that have travelled, seen other systems... they usually question conservatism. So, I don't know, and they don't like anything that ideology.
> 
> Conservatism is an murderous ideology and reactionary, I don't see how someone can support it. Mainly, because it is a purely statist ideology, however they try to dress up it. I've had enough seeing people like Reagan, Thatcher, Pinochet, to know how it really works. So a well educated person never will support this. An ideology that does not care for the welfare of people and also it is an extremely xenophobe ideology how I've seen many times, really close to the fascism in that aspect.


Said the pot to the kettle.

The issue is within the two groups you have four mindsets in differing combinations.

Liberal economic policy/Liberal social policy
Liberal economic policy/Conservative social policy
Conservative economic policy/Liberal social policy
Conservative economic policy/Conservative social policy

Red is wingnut and blue is moderate.

I believe in a conservative economic policy and my social ideas lean slightly right of center. I am a conservative democrat that leans libertarian.

So understand that you really can not lump people together. Now I will not call democrats liberal and republicans conservative because all (D) are not liberals and all (R) are not conservatives.

So I have been to europe and all over this nation. I am well educated with a very high IQ. I believe in the truth of the Bible and I believe in a creator. I have felt the life of loved ones slip away while I held their hand and I have felt the life flow from others as I crushed their throats. I have been so poor as a child that we ate nothing but pan fried dough and perhaps some borrowed welfare cheese and I have been pretty well off. I have black, latino, white and Native American family. I am not completely white either. Yeah I was adopted.

You want to fucking try and peg me man? What am I? I am an American! This is an American thing. We fight each other all the time. Just don't get in between us because we will give our lives to protect Americans we hate from outsiders. I would lay down my life for that POS Obama if it were an outsider coming in on the POS.

You say the US goes out of its borders and starts wars and sticks its nose where it does not belong but... You assholes cant manage to get out of a wet paper bag by yourselves. You let Hitler rise, you are at fault for the crusades... You started the shit in Korea and Indo-China. We went in and cleaned up your damn messes and got our guys killed. 

So do you have any fucking thing else to say?

EDIT: Bring up the ME or Africa or Asia or... The US is cleaning up the mess Europe fucking caused. Smarter and enlightened my ass. America should just bow out and let you bastards fuck each other until you are taken over by Islam. Then China can nuke your asses.

----------

usfan (05-17-2013)

----------


## kilgram

?????????????

I am K.O. with your last post.

----------


## usfan

> ?????????????
> 
> I am K.O. with your last post.


Me too..  it was great, wasn't it?!!
 :Headbang:

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> _Well, the Americans that have travelled, seen other systems... they usually question conservatism._ So, I don't know, and they don't like anything that ideology.
> 
> Conservatism is an murderous ideology and reactionary, I don't see how someone can support it. Mainly, because it is a purely statist ideology, however they try to dress up it. I've had enough seeing people like Reagan, Thatcher, Pinochet, to know how it really works. So a well educated person never will support this. An ideology that does not care for the welfare of people and also it is an extremely xenophobe ideology how I've seen many times, really close to the fascism in that aspect.



...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...accepting another culture's way(s) doesn't mean you question your own...what a goofy thing to say...

----------


## Dante1

> There is an excellent book that made many of the ancient crones crap their pants because it is difficult to refute the hard sciences, but..."The Female Brain" is an outstanding look at the neurological differences in the sexes.  The book is 500 pages and the only things old school feminists could reproach were in footnotes at the bottom of pages--meaning not even her work, someone elses.
> 
> Women and men are different physiologically (brains shaped different as well as obvious physical differences), and chemically/neurologically.  It is why women have better language aptitudes than men, why we have better memories, why we can come up with multiple solutions to a problem (harder for us to select one)...it goes into why we make better *lawyers*, doctors (GP--not surgeons --hand dexterity better for men), research scientists, etc.
> 
> Different does not mean "worse".  Both sexes have their strengths, neither sex is better.  Just different.


This chick has it all wrong and she knows it.

Females do not have better memories than men. They remember only the things that impact their emotions, they forget the rest.

Females do NOT make better lawyers. I have been practicing law for 30 years and I have found by experience that the only way to get a female lawyer on the other side to work with me is to charm her emotionally. Otherwise she becomes destructive of herself and her client's interests. Once she is charmed, it becomes possible to correct the contradictions and incoherence inherent in the female brain. But it has to be done subtly; otherwise her emotions can take over again and destroy everything.

Females are not driven by facts, evidence, truth, and force of argument. Females are driven first and foremost by human perceptions, whether those perceptions are true or false, and how those perceptions play on their emotions.

That is why it was a grave mistake 90+ years ago to give females the right to vote.

Dante.

----------


## Archer

> This chick has it all wrong and she knows it.
> 
> Females do not have better memories than men. They remember only the things that impact their emotions, they forget the rest.
> 
> Females do NOT make better lawyers. I have been practicing law for 30 years and I have found by experience that the only way to get a female lawyer on the other side to work with me is to charm her emotionally. Otherwise she becomes destructive of herself and her client's interests. Once she is charmed, it becomes possible to correct the contradictions and incoherence inherent in the female brain. But it has to be done subtly; otherwise her emotions can take over again and destroy everything.
> 
> Females are not driven by facts, evidence, truth, and force of argument. Females are driven first and foremost by human perceptions, whether those perceptions are true or false, and how those perceptions play on their emotions.
> 
> That is why it was a grave mistake 90+ years ago to give females the right to vote.
> ...


Dayum... Dude Rina ain't the one. This should be interesting.

----------



----------


## Guest

> This chick has it all wrong and she knows it.
> 
> Females do not have better memories than men. They remember only the things that impact their emotions, they forget the rest.
> 
> Females do NOT make better lawyers. I have been practicing law for 30 years and I have found by experience that the only way to get a female lawyer on the other side to work with me is to charm her emotionally. Otherwise she becomes destructive of herself and her client's interests. Once she is charmed, it becomes possible to correct the contradictions and incoherence inherent in the female brain. But it has to be done subtly; otherwise her emotions can take over again and destroy everything.
> 
> Females are not driven by facts, evidence, truth, and force of argument. Females are driven first and foremost by human perceptions, whether those perceptions are true or false, and how those perceptions play on their emotions.
> 
> That is why it was a grave mistake 90+ years ago to give females the right to vote.
> ...


You're just angry because I don't believe you have a large portfolio.  Sorry bout it.

----------


## Guest

> Dayum... Dude Rina ain't the one. This should be interesting.


I'm not bothering.  I've never been charmed by a male attorney in my life.  Well, for a brief moment I was charmed by an entertainment attorney's clientele list...

----------


## Gemini

> This chick has it all wrong and she knows it.
> 
> Females do not have better memories than men. They remember only the things that impact their emotions, they forget the rest.
> 
> Females do NOT make better lawyers. I have been practicing law for 30 years and I have found by experience that the only way to get a female lawyer on the other side to work with me is to charm her emotionally. Otherwise she becomes destructive of herself and her client's interests. Once she is charmed, it becomes possible to correct the contradictions and incoherence inherent in the female brain. But it has to be done subtly; otherwise her emotions can take over again and destroy everything.
> 
> Females are not driven by facts, evidence, truth, and force of argument. Females are driven first and foremost by human perceptions, whether those perceptions are true or false, and how those perceptions play on their emotions.
> 
> That is why it was a grave mistake 90+ years ago to give females the right to vote.
> ...


All of you arguments can equally be applied to men.  However, more often than not, they apply more so the the lady folk than the men folk.

Which is why I agree.

I wonder, if we did a look-see at when our social programs starting exploding which are currently draining us dry - I wonder what the correlation would look like with respect to females voting and the social programs implemented.

These programs we have now are unsustainable because of their endless expansion and they were made off of emotional pleas vs. sound thinking.

----------


## Guest

> All of you arguments can equally be applied to men.  However, more often than not, they apply more so the the lady folk than the men folk.
> 
> Which is why I agree.
> 
> I wonder, if we did a look-see at when our social programs starting exploding which are currently draining us dry - I wonder what the correlation would look like with respect to females voting and the social programs implemented.
> 
> These programs we have now are unsustainable because of their endless expansion and they were made off of emotional pleas vs. sound thinking.


Do I seem incapable of sound, rational thought?

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> Do I seem incapable of sound, rational thought?


Still think I should listen to his "wise counsel"?   :Big Grin:

----------


## Archer

> I'm not bothering.  I've never been charmed by a male attorney in my life.  Well, for a brief moment I was charmed by an entertainment attorney's clientele list...


Was it long a long list in a thick binder?

----------



----------


## Guest

> Still think I should listen to his "wise counsel"?


No.

----------


## Archer

> No.


 :Frown:  so sorry.

----------


## kilgram

> This chick has it all wrong and she knows it.
> 
> Females do not have better memories than men. They remember only the things that impact their emotions, they forget the rest.
> 
> Females do NOT make better lawyers. I have been practicing law for 30 years and I have found by experience that the only way to get a female lawyer on the other side to work with me is to charm her emotionally. Otherwise she becomes destructive of herself and her client's interests. Once she is charmed, it becomes possible to correct the contradictions and incoherence inherent in the female brain. But it has to be done subtly; otherwise her emotions can take over again and destroy everything.
> 
> Females are not driven by facts, evidence, truth, and force of argument. Females are driven first and foremost by human perceptions, whether those perceptions are true or false, and how those perceptions play on their emotions.
> 
> That is why it was a grave mistake 90+ years ago to give females the right to vote.
> ...


Hey you forgot to say that women should stay in the kitchen and procreating.

----------



----------


## Dante1

> Dayum... Dude Rina ain't the one. This should be interesting.


You must be joking . . . (or maybe castrated?).

Dante.

----------


## Archer

> Hey you forgot to say that women should stay in the kitchen and procreating.


Hey I am the neanderthal around here! Barefoot and pregnant or dinner ready with clean bed sheets.

----------


## Gemini

> Do I seem incapable of sound, rational thought?


I did preface that statement with "more often than not".

I would wager you are the exception to the generality.  Aberrations exist.  You are one such person.

----------


## Archer

> You must be joking . . . (or maybe castrated?).
> 
> Dante.


No; @Rina_Dragonborn is smart because she is knows when to STFU and when to talk shit. She can be a challenge when you go up against her.

----------



----------


## Archer

> I did preface that statement with "more often than not".
> 
> I would wager you are the exception to the generality.  Aberrations exist.  You are one such person.


Sadly men are no better.

----------


## Dante1

> No; @Rina_Dragonborn is smart because she is knows when to STFU and when to talk shit. She can be a challenge when you go up against her.


Let me wager you one. 

This chick will either STFU or squeal about my book of business (which she knows nothing about). She is a chick after all, lawyer or not.

Dante.

----------


## Gemini

> Sadly men are no better.


But the trends are fairly predictable.  Indeed, aberrations exist in men as well.  This doesn't change the majority of events though.

I'd also wager that men make for better long term thinkers, but I really don't feel like defending that assertion at this point.  It is a person opinion based off of observation.  Men are better at the plan, women better with the details.

Evidence?  Family camp outs, men may plan the trip and the places to sleep, build the fire, set the tents.  While mom makes sure to pack diapers, food, and toilet paper so the whole family isn't wiping with pine cones in the wilderness.  Both have their strengths.  It is when we step away from them that we are engulfed in natural weaknesses.

----------


## Guest

> You must be joking . . . (or maybe castrated?).
> 
> Dante.


No, it is you, not Archer, purveying bad jokes.

----------


## Guest

> Let me wager you one. 
> 
> This chick will either STFU or squeal about my book of business (which she knows nothing about). She is a chick after all, lawyer or not.
> 
> Dante.


If you are in your 40s and 50s as you claim with the "30 years of practicing law" comment then I find it a sad state of affairs that you wish to act like a man in his youth by using terminology like "chicks".  It makes you look ridiculously like "old party guy".  This, more than anything else, makes me think you're just Montoya or someone else from politicalforum coming over to troll and not worth my time.

I don't buy that a man of your age and occupation would speak like this.  Sorry.

----------


## Gemini

You having a rough morning? @Rina_Dragonborn

Or just not finding the content appealing?  Not a jab, just curious.

----------


## Guest

> You having a rough morning? @Rina_Dragonborn
> 
> Or just not finding the content appealing?  Not a jab, just curious.


I am honestly spent.  I was handed a task by my boss because he's too lazy to do it and it's nothing but nonstop inanity.

----------


## Dante1

> If you are in your 40s and 50s as you claim with the "30 years of practicing law" comment then I find it a sad state of affairs that you wish to act like a man in his youth by using terminology like "chicks".  It makes you look ridiculously like "old party guy".  This, more than anything else, makes me think you're just Montoya or someone else from politicalforum coming over to troll and not worth my time.
> 
> I don't buy that a man of your age and occupation would speak like this.  Sorry.


Boy, is she pissed! :Thinking: 

Dante.

----------


## Gemini

> Hey you forgot to say that women should stay in the kitchen and procreating.

----------


## Gemini

> Boy, is she pissed!
> 
> Dante.


You don't get it.

----------



----------


## Guest

> Boy, is she pissed!
> 
> Dante.


No, not at all.  People here challenge me daily.  It is why I stay and post.  I just think you're one of the many socks/trolls that inhabit these murky waters--a suspicion that could be unfounded, but we'll see in time.

----------


## Gemini

> No, not at all.*  People here challenge me daily*.  It is why I stay and post.  I just think you're one of the many socks/trolls that inhabit these murky waters--a suspicion that could be unfounded, but we'll see in time.


Who are these titans of intellect?

----------


## Guest

> Who are these titans of intellect?


You're fishing for a compliment and I shall give you one.  You present a unique perspective needed here.  While I do not always agree with you fully, I find points of departure that enable me to more adequately address and augment my personal beliefs.

As for the rest, I'm smart enough not to make a list.  I shall just compliment you instead.

----------


## Gemini

> You're fishing for a compliment and I shall give you one.  You present a unique perspective needed here.  While I do not always agree with you fully, I find points of departure that enable me to more adequately address and augment my personal beliefs.
> 
> As for the rest, I'm smart enough not to make a list.  I shall just compliment you instead.


Quasi correct.  Only because I am slightly egotistical.  

While I enjoy praising remarks as much as the next keyboard commando, I am actually still thinking about something else.  The thread of the personality tests.  I am wondering if the best debaters are of the rational family.  And since it is highly subjective, I am looking for another perspective.  Sadly, many haven't taken the test so I have only their posts to look through and make a guess accordingly.

----------


## Guest

> Quasi correct.  Only because I am slightly egotistical.  
> 
> While I enjoy praising remarks as much as the next keyboard commando, I am actually still thinking about something else.  The thread of the personality tests.  I am wondering if the best debaters are of the rational family.  And since it is highly subjective, I am looking for another perspective.  Sadly, many haven't taken the test so I have only their posts to look through and make a guess accordingly.


I don't know.  I'm an INFJ.  According to the description of that type I should be a doctor or a nun, but instead I'm an evil bloodsucker.  ::shrugs::

----------


## Gemini

> I don't know.  I'm an INFJ.  According to the description of that type I should be a doctor or a nun, but instead I'm an evil bloodsucker.  ::shrugs::


But you do lie within the Idealist family of the varying personas, that being said, you can effectively argue quite rationally.  I had a guess that the best debaters were going to be the rationals.  The only other INTJ I saw other than myself hasn't posted much, or at least I have not seen them much.
 @Thomas Paine is good, but seems quite emotionally driven at times and slips up many times.  @Trinnity, also effective, but tends to get fairly detached when things get a little obnoxious, or extremely irritated - but I attribute this to having to wear the mod hat,  same with @Calypso Jones. @TheTemporaryBG?  Still drawing a bead on him.  But he is largely here because of you for the most part, I don't think he is as cerebral as many here, but still interesting to have around.  
 @Maximatic is a difficult opponent, because he sideswipes you easily if you don't cover your bases, and carefully examines each post before he commits.  He profiles people quite effectively I think.

Kinda hard to evaluate with such limited material.

----------


## Dante1

> No, not at all.  People here challenge me daily.  It is why I stay and post.  I just think you're one of the many socks/trolls that inhabit these murky waters--a suspicion that could be unfounded, but we'll see in time.


I take that back. I think she loves me.

Dante. :Cool20:

----------


## Dante1

> You don't get it.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

Dante.

----------


## Guest

> But you do lie within the Idealist family of the varying personas, that being said, you can effectively argue quite rationally.  I had a guess that the best debaters were going to be the rationals.  The only other INTJ I saw other than myself hasn't posted much, or at least I have not seen them much.


I also have been disciplined to do so.  With all things, practice makes perfect.

----------


## Guest

In @TheTemporaryBG s defense, he's quite intelligent.  His temperament is more energetic and less prone to sit and quietly, rationally discuss a topic.  He'd rather bring humor for he dearly loves to laugh.

----------

TheTemporaryBG (05-17-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> I take that back. I think she loves me.
> 
> Dante.


There is only room enough for only a few egotistical arses on the forum.  The slots are already taken.  

But...resident "deluded simpleton" is currently open. :Smiley20:

----------

kilgram (05-17-2013),TheTemporaryBG (05-17-2013)

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> But you do lie within the Idealist family of the varying personas, that being said, you can effectively argue quite rationally.  I had a guess that the best debaters were going to be the rationals.  The only other INTJ I saw other than myself hasn't posted much, or at least I have not seen them much.
>  @Thomas Paine is good, but seems quite emotionally driven at times and slips up many times.  @Trinnity, also effective, but tends to get fairly detached when things get a little obnoxious, or extremely irritated - but I attribute this to having to wear the mod hat,  same with @Calypso Jones. @TheTemporaryBG?  Still drawing a bead on him.  But he is largely here because of you for the most part, I don't think he is as cerebral as many here, but still interesting to have around.  
>  @Maximatic is a difficult opponent, because he sideswipes you easily if you don't cover your bases, and carefully examines each post before he commits.  He profiles people quite effectively I think.
> 
> Kinda hard to evaluate with such limited material.


Why do I get the feeling I was just called stupid?

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> In @TheTemporaryBG s defense, he's quite intelligent.  His temperament is more energetic and less prone to sit and quietly, rationally discuss a topic.  He'd rather bring humor for he dearly loves to laugh.


I have AD-oh, look I found my old pocket knife!

----------

Archer (05-17-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> I also have been disciplined to do so.  With all things, practice makes perfect.


I used to say that, until I realized I never got any better by practicing.

Now I say practice makes habit, perfect practice makes perfect.

----------


## Gemini

> Why do I get the feeling I was just called stupid?


Not stupid, but different, I suspect your talents lie elsewhere than making calculated moves and thinking of long term effects.  There is genius of all sorts.

I would say I am a fairly bright individual, but I know others surpass me.  That being said, I do not truly understand the dynamics of 'feelings' of other people.  I learned to deal with them and respond with them, but true understanding is beyond my ken.

I think you are different in this regard.  Not stupid, but your talents are geared towards other things I suspect.

But inferring that someone called you stupid, and the word choice involved, more or less kind of edifies my personal hypothesis about you.

----------


## Guest

> I used to say that, until I realized I never got any better by practicing.
> 
> Now I say practice makes habit, perfect practice makes perfect.


When money is on the line, a lot of money, most people can discipline themselves to act against nature.  

Also, when life literally crushes you it is a scary thing to put so much emotional investment into people or ideas after that.  I suppose my "nature" is either temporarily suppressed or permanently altered.  I'm not sure which at the moment.

----------


## Guest

> Not stupid, but different, I suspect your talents lie elsewhere than making calculated moves and thinking of long term effects.  There is genius of all sorts.
> 
> I would say I am a fairly bright individual, but I know others surpass me.  That being said, I do not truly understand the dynamics of 'feelings' of other people.  I learned to deal with them and respond with them, but true understanding is beyond my ken.
> 
> I think you are different in this regard.  Not stupid, but your talents are geared towards other things I suspect.
> 
> *But inferring that someone called you stupid, and the word choice involved, more or less kind of edifies my personal hypothesis about you.*


He was making a joke.  That is _my_ point about him--it is difficult for him to wish to expose his serious side to others.  He is a merry traveler.  If this were D&D he would be the Rogue, maybe a Ranger, but probably a Rogue.  Jack of all trades, but master of none.  It is extremely difficult to make him be serious, whereas it is difficult to make me be merry.

Can I be happy and fun loving?  Certainly, but my humor is more akin to the entertainment value of @Network.

----------


## Dante1

> There is only room enough for only a few egotistical arses on the forum.  The slots are already taken.


How much power do you have with the MODs here?  I suspect little.

Then perhaps you would shy away from a debate? 

Dante.

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> He was making a joke.  That is _my_ point about him--it is difficult for him to wish to expose his serious side to others.  He is a merry traveler.  If this were D&D he would be the Rogue, maybe a Ranger, but probably a Rogue.  Jack of all trades, but master of none.  It is extremely difficult to make him be serious, whereas it is difficult to make me be merry.
> 
> Can I be happy and fun loving?  Certainly, but my humor is more akin to the entertainment value of @Network.


Interesting.  I guess I just don't see the point in always being so serious. Max told me I was very smart on some thread and was amazed when I said I'd rather be happy than smart.  It's true.  Smart got me nowhere.  Being happy is its own reward.

----------

Gemini (05-17-2013),kilgram (05-17-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> When money is on the line, a lot of money, most people can discipline themselves to act against nature.  
> 
> Also, when life literally crushes you it is a scary thing to put so much emotional investment into people or ideas after that.  I suppose my "nature" is either temporarily suppressed or permanently altered.  I'm not sure which at the moment.


People are not cast into stone, they are malleable, changeable creatures.  Were it not so, I would not bother being at college, nor sharpening my mind here.  The earth's purpose would be wasted if improvement were not possible.

----------


## Gemini

> He was making a joke.  That is _my_ point about him--it is difficult for him to wish to expose his serious side to others.  He is a merry traveler.  If this were D&D he would be the Rogue, maybe a Ranger, but probably a Rogue.  Jack of all trades, but master of none.  It is extremely difficult to make him be serious, whereas it is difficult to make me be merry.
> 
> Can I be happy and fun loving?  Certainly, but my humor is more akin to the entertainment value of @Network.


Humor.  An emotional art.  Is largely wasted when the two parties concerned do not know each other well enough.  Especially when the only medium is text.

Were he in the room physically I could have detected it via body language, voice tone, level of eye contact...

I'll chalk it up to another of my brilliant miscalculations.  Being wrong is marvelous at times.

...probably a halfing, or a gnome playing tricks on people too no doubt.

----------

TheTemporaryBG (05-17-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Humor.  An emotional art.  Is largely wasted when the two parties concerned do not know each other well enough.  Especially when the only medium is text.
> 
> Were he in the room physically I could have detected it via body language, voice tone, level of eye contact...
> 
> I'll chalk it up to another of my brilliant miscalculations.  Being wrong is marvelous at times.
> 
> ...probably a halfing, or a gnome playing tricks on people too no doubt.


You know, we should (inner nerd comes out) do a thread some late night on which D&D characters and alignment we all are.  We should guess first, though.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (05-17-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> How much power do you have with the MODs here?  I suspect little.


Fact, I am but a minnow in the ocean.




> Then perhaps you would shy away from a debate? 
> 
> Dante.


I don't think this has ever been the case, unless it was remarkably stupid and utterly beneath me.  

Hell, I even admit when I'm wrong too - try it sometime.  It's weird at first.  But the more you talk too people, the more you realize just how little you know about the world.

----------


## Gemini

> You know, we should (inner nerd comes out) do a thread some late night on which D&D characters and alignment we all are.  We should guess first, though.


Class, race, alignment?  All of that?  Fine, but no templates, and we're limited to only core with the expanded psionics edition.  Otherwise it could go on forever in deciding who is what.

----------


## Dante1

[QUOTE=Gemini;75188]Fact, I am but a minnow in the ocean. [?QUOTE]

Geez, Pal, with those words, you just lost five chicks. :Sad20: 

Dante.

----------


## usfan

I completely disagree with the sexist stereotyping here..  It depends completely on the individual.  My daughter is a biomed engineer.  She works with other male engineers twice her age.  Many of them are dumb as rocks.  She has a problem analyzed, solved, & implemented while they are struggling to understand the question.  From what i know of rina, she is a bright person, too.  I've known plenty of dumb lawyers who i wonder how they can reason their way around a courtroom.  The sharp gals love those kinds of guys.. they are like shooting fish in barrels for them.  My daughter vents with me a lot over the dumb men in the field.  She can do 10 times the work of these guys, & they try to take credit for her work.

Are there dumb women around?  Sure.  Go to any of the places where women liberals congregate for lots of examples.   :Laughing7: 

Are there dumb men around?  of course.  I'd take maggie thatcher over obama, anyday, for basic intelligence, & a grasp of history & humanity.  I'd take her as a leader over plenty of dumb men on either side of the pond.  I think it can be proven, statistically, that half of all men are dumber than the other half.  The same is true with women.  I don't think you can prove that men are smarter than women.  You can prove they are stronger, or other physical traits related to hormones, but intellect is not subject to those things.

If we're just kidding around, with some sexist humor, it is one thing.  But if people are really believing that men are smarter than women, just because of their hormones, that is ridiculous.  I know couples where the man is smarter.  I also know some where the wife is smarter.  Intelligence is not based on gender.  It is genetic, & women have not been encouraged historically, to develop & exercise their innate intellect, but that does not mean it isn't there.

Most of the more intelligent people i know are more humble.. they don't toot their horn, or flaunt their intellect.. those who do, i have found, usually do it to make up for their deficiency.

If anything, men become pretty stupid when they begin thinking with their little head.  All rationality leaves them, & nothing makes any sense other than meeting the immediate need..      :Sign19:

----------



----------


## Dante1

> Fact, I am but a minnow in the ocean.


Geez, Pal, with those words, you just lost five chicks. :Sad20: 

Dante.

----------


## Archer

> Fact, I am but a minnow in the ocean. [?QUOTE]
> 
> Geez, Pal, with those words, you just lost five chicks.
> 
> Dante.


Dude don't hit shift when quoting. You can not close with?

EDIT: You caught it :Smile:

----------


## Guest

[QUOTE=Dante1;75191]


> Fact, I am but a minnow in the ocean. [?QUOTE]
> 
> Geez, Pal, with those words, you just lost five chicks.
> 
> Dante.


I'm glad for your alleged clients that revocable trusts are not that difficult to write.

----------

Gemini (05-17-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Class, race, alignment?  All of that?  Fine, but no templates, and we're limited to only core with the expanded psionics edition.  Otherwise it could go on forever in deciding who is what.


Agreed!

----------


## Dante1

> I completely disagree with the sexist stereotyping here..  It depends completely on the individual.  My daughter is a biomed engineer.  She works with other male engineers twice her age.  Many of them are dumb as rocks.  She has a problem analyzed, solved, & implemented while they are struggling to understand the question.  From what i know of rina, she is a bright person, too.  I've known plenty of dumb lawyers who i wonder how they can reason their way around a courtroom.  The sharp gals love those kinds of guys.. they are like shooting fish in barrels for them.  My daughter vents with me a lot over the dumb men in the field.  She can do 10 times the work of these guys, & they try to take credit for her work.
> 
> Are there dumb women around?  Sure.  Go to any of the places where women liberals congregate for lots of examples.  
> 
> Are there dumb men around?  of course.  I'd take maggie thatcher over obama, anyday, for basic intelligence, & a grasp of history & humanity.  I'd take her as a leader over plenty of dumb men on either side of the pond.  I think it can be proven, statistically, that half of all men are dumber than the other half.  The same is true with women.  I don't think you can prove that men are smarter than women.  You can prove they are stronger, or other physical traits related to hormones, but intellect is not subject to those things.
> 
> If we're just kidding around, with some sexist humor, it is one thing.  But if people are really believing that men are smarter than women, just because of their hormones, that is ridiculous.  I know couples where the man is smarter.  I also know some where the wife is smarter.  Intelligence is not based on gender.  It is genetic, & women have not been encouraged historically, to develop & exercise their innate intellect, but that does not mean it isn't there.
> 
> Most of the more intelligent people i know are more humble.. they don't toot their horn, or flaunt their intellect.. those who do, i have found, usually do it to make up for their deficiency.
> ...


You're not qualified to opine on females. You have a little princess daughter and thus cannot think rationally on the subject. :Thumbsup20: 

Dante.

----------


## Guest

> You're not qualified to opine on females. You have a little princess daughter and thus cannot think rationally on the subject.
> 
> Dante.


Montoya, 3link, Dasein or Santa's Little Helper again.  That's my guess.  We'll see how it plays out.

----------


## Dante1

> Dude don't hit shift when quoting. You can not close with?
> 
> EDIT: You caught it


Thanks. I inadvertently hit the shift button for forward slash.

Dante.

----------


## Dante1

> Montoya, 3link, Dasein or Santa's Little Helper again.  That's my guess.  We'll see how it plays out.


So much for "wymmin's intuition" . . . :Geez: 

Dante.

----------


## Gemini

> You're not qualified to opine on females. You have a little princess daughter and thus cannot think rationally on the subject.
> 
> Dante.


 @Rina_Dragonborn

Confirmed.  Will hold pattern and circle.

----------



----------


## Gemini

> Agreed!


Critical question though.  What edition?  Makes a huge difference as you likely know.

I should ask.  Whitewolf?

----------


## Archer

> Thanks. I inadvertently hit the shift button for forward slash.
> 
> Dante.


Been there, done that :Smile:

----------


## Guest

> Critical question though.  What edition?  Makes a huge difference as you likely know.
> 
> I should ask.  *Whitewolf*?


For the people on here?  Yes.  We have to wait for @Network or I'll feel like I'm cheating.

----------


## Gemini

> For the people on here?  Yes.  We have to wait for @Network or I'll feel like I'm cheating.


Well, whitewolf is a vastly different animal.  So we'll have to go game by game with whitewolf.

----------


## Gemini

> Geez, Pal, with those words, you just lost five chicks.
> 
> Dante.


This may help you.

Purpose for life.

I'm just pointing you in the right direction.  The rest is up to you.  None here will hold your hand.

----------



----------


## Trinnity

> But you do lie within the Idealist family of the varying personas, that being said, you can effectively argue quite rationally.  I had a guess that the best debaters were going to be the rationals.  The only other INTJ I saw other than myself hasn't posted much, or at least I have not seen them much.
>  @Thomas Paine is good, but seems quite emotionally driven at times and slips up many times.  @Trinnity, also effective, but tends to get fairly detached when things get a little obnoxious, or extremely irritated - but I attribute this to having to wear the mod hat,  same with @Calypso Jones. @TheTemporaryBG?  Still drawing a bead on him.  But he is largely here because of you for the most part, I don't think he is as cerebral as many here, but still interesting to have around.  
>  @Maximatic is a difficult opponent, because he sideswipes you easily if you don't cover your bases, and carefully examines each post before he commits.  He profiles people quite effectively I think.
> 
> Kinda hard to evaluate with such limited material.


I like to research the details behind my positions. Yeah, no meltdowns for me. Not my style.

----------

Gemini (05-17-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (05-17-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> But you do lie within the Idealist family of the varying personas, that being said, you can effectively argue quite rationally.  I had a guess that the best debaters were going to be the rationals.  The only other INTJ I saw other than myself hasn't posted much, or at least I have not seen them much.
>  @Thomas Paine is good, but seems quite emotionally driven at times and slips up many times.  @Trinnity, also effective, but tends to get fairly detached when things get a little obnoxious, or extremely irritated - but I attribute this to having to wear the mod hat,  same with @Calypso Jones. @TheTemporaryBG?  Still drawing a bead on him.  But he is largely here because of you for the most part, I don't think he is as cerebral as many here, but still interesting to have around.  
>  @Maximatic is a difficult opponent, because he sideswipes you easily if you don't cover your bases, and carefully examines each post before he commits.  He profiles people quite effectively I think.
> 
> Kinda hard to evaluate with such limited material.


Slips up how?

----------


## Guest

> Slips up how?


When you let people get under your skin.

----------


## Gemini

> When you let people get under your skin.


^^That.  But also, some emotional pleas without a plausible solution to back it up.  At the same time, I perceive flaws differently than most.  I see emotional lashing out as a flaw, another would see my golem like temperance a flaw too.  Point of view really.

Intelligence?  Not even going to touch that.  No sense in judging another intellect when all I have is text to base it off of.  Trolls can be intelligent, they are just obnoxious.

However, you are a truly a shrewd bastard when it comes to digging up details.  I love it when you do that.

----------


## Dante1

> ^^That.  But also, some emotional pleas without a plausible solution to back it up.  At the same time, I perceive flaws differently than most.  I see emotional lashing out as a flaw, another would see my golem like temperance a flaw too.  Point of view really.
> 
> Intelligence?  Not even going to touch that.  No sense in judging another intellect when all I have is text to base it off of.  Trolls can be intelligent, they are just obnoxious.
> 
> However, you are a truly a shrewd bastard when it comes to digging up details.  I love it when you do that.


"Golem-like"?

Geez, you just lost another five chicks. . . :Thinking: 

Dante.

----------


## Archer

> "Golem-like"?
> 
> Geez, you just lost another five chicks. . .
> 
> Dante.


Lost chicks? He just took the chicks from 20 liberals for having balls.

----------



----------


## Gemini

> "Golem-like"?
> 
> Geez, you just lost another five chicks. . .
> 
> Dante.


Still relevant I guess.




> This may help you.
> 
> Purpose for life.
> 
> I'm just pointing you in the right direction.  The rest is up to you.  None here will hold your hand.


...but you do have to actually click the links, they won't just magically open for you.

----------



----------


## Guest

> "Golem-like"?
> 
> Geez, you just lost another five chicks. . .
> 
> Dante.


I'll defer you to @exotix  he/she trolls much more creatively than you do.  I pray that you are a troll, for if you are not then it is a sad state of affairs than a man of your alleged age is so clueless as to women and men like @Gemini.

----------


## Gemini

> I'll defer you to @exotix  he/she trolls much more creatively than you do.  I pray that you are a troll, for if you are not then it is a sad state of affairs than a man of your alleged age is so clueless as to women and men like @Gemini.


Ouch...for both of us.

----------


## Guest

> Lost chicks? He just took the chicks from 20 liberals for having balls.


If I were to generalize about my gender I would say that heterosexual women fall into these categories:

Women who like abusers (these women belong out of the gene pool, but sadly breed like hares)

Women who like poets (these are usually liberal women, but libertarian women like a good poet every now and then.  I have swooned, for example, over a man who read me Shakespeare one night)

Women who like men with money (this is evolutionary and most women deep, deep down like bright sparkly things and therefore will throw their personal tastes and desires to the wind to have an apartment on the Park and shopping trips at Bergdorfs)

Women who like military men (yes, this is a type--I'll not comment here)

Women who like men they can run roughshod over (actually a small but loud number)

Women who like funny guys (this is all women)

----------


## Guest

> Ouch...for both of us.


Not at all.  I was merely commenting that while he is allegedly a relationship impaired male you are not, @Gemini

----------


## usfan

> You're not qualified to opine on females. You have a little princess daughter and thus cannot think rationally on the subject.
> Dante.


You're doing a pretty good job for a newbie of trolling..  is this by design, or does it just come natural?   :Laughing7: 

Who IS qualified to opine on females?  Certainly not females, as they vary too widely.  My experience with them is pretty wide & varied.  I have been married to one of them for 38 yrs.. raised 2 others.. one was a princess, the other was not.  And of course, i have known many women over the years, & even worked for them.. they bossed ME around.

I just don't see any rationality in your sexist premise.  Women are not inherently intellectually inferior to men.  You have no studies to suggest this, nor are there any  real life examples, other than particular individuals.

So, i am as qualified as any male here to opine on females.  Would you like to present your qualifications?  Why do you feel your opinion is expert on the nature & intelligence of female humans?

.. but you could just be trolling.. i've not conversed with you, & you seem very familiar with everyone here.. a bit unusual for a typical newbie..

----------



----------


## Dante1

> I'll defer you to @exotix  he/she trolls much more creatively than you do.  I pray that you are a troll, for if you are not then it is a sad state of affairs than a man of your alleged age is so clueless as to women and men like @Gemini.


748 years is not that old. :Smiley20: 

How old are you?

Dante.

----------


## Gemini

> Not at all.  I was merely commenting that while he is allegedly a relationship impaired male you are not, @Gemini


No matter either way.  The clueless part was what I was looking at, but for the most part, it is correct.

----------


## Gemini

> You're doing a pretty good job for a newbie of trolling..  is this by design, or does it just come natural?  
> 
> Who IS qualified to opine on females?  Certainly not females, as they vary too widely.  My experience with them is pretty wide & varied.  I have been married to one of them for 38 yrs.. raised 2 others.. one was a princess, the other was not.  And of course, i have known many women over the years, & even worked for them.. they bossed ME around.
> 
> I just don't see any rationality in your sexist premise.  Women are not inherently intellectually inferior to men.  You have no studies to suggest this, nor are there any  real life examples, other than particular individuals.
> 
> So, i am as qualified as any male here to opine on females.  Would you like to present your qualifications?  Why do you feel your opinion is expert on the nature & intelligence of female humans?
> 
> .. but you could just be trolling.. i've not conversed with you, & you seem very familiar with everyone here.. a bit unusual for a typical newbie..


You have wasted far too much of your valuable time addressing that genital wart.  I say genital wart because it is likely he has been here before, gotten rid of, but now its back again...

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> When you let people get under your skin.


An unfortunate character flaw I am trying to overcome. I have daddy issues.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ^^That.  But also, some emotional pleas without a plausible solution to back it up.  At the same time, I perceive flaws differently than most.  I see emotional lashing out as a flaw, another would see my golem like temperance a flaw too.  Point of view really.
> 
> Intelligence?  Not even going to touch that.  No sense in judging another intellect when all I have is text to base it off of.  Trolls can be intelligent, they are just obnoxious.
> 
> However, you are a truly a shrewd bastard when it comes to digging up details.  I love it when you do that.


You mean in a debate? Or personal details?

----------


## Gemini

> An unfortunate character flaw I am trying to overcome. I have daddy issues.


Is it wrong that I reflexively chuckle at this?

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (05-17-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> You mean in a debate? Or personal details?


In debate.  Sometimes you lose your cool.  But at the same time, you're fantastic at providing source material.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (05-17-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> In debate.  Sometimes you lose your cool.  But at the same time, you're fantastic at providing source material.


I used to introduce myself on forums as arrogant with anger issues, but that usually got me banned within a week. So I changed tactics  :Big Grin:

----------


## Gemini

> I used to introduce myself on forums as arrogant with anger issues, but that usually got me banned within a week. So I changed tactics


Seems to have worked eh?  I usually introduce myself in a fairly detached manner, only to reveal that I am a complete weirdo later.

----------



----------


## Dante1

> If I were to generalize about my gender I would say that heterosexual women fall into these categories:
> 
> Women who like abusers (these women belong out of the gene pool, but sadly breed like hares)
> 
> Women who like poets (these are usually liberal women, but libertarian women like a good poet every now and then.  I have swooned, for example, over a man who read me Shakespeare one night)
> 
> Women who like men with money (this is evolutionary and most women deep, deep down like bright sparkly things and therefore will throw their personal tastes and desires to the wind to have an apartment on the Park and shopping trips at Bergdorfs)
> 
> Women who like military men (yes, this is a type--I'll not comment here)
> ...


I would disagree with all these characterizations. Females are not that complicated.

The middle one on the parasitic aspect comes closest to reality.

Dante.

----------


## Gemini

> I would disagree with all these characterizations. Females are not that complicated.
> 
> Dante.


Women are complicated, but they are not mysterious.  Men typically less complicated, and even less mysterious.

----------


## Dante1

> Seems to have worked eh?  I usually introduce myself in a fairly detached manner, only to reveal that I am a complete weirdo later.


How do you expect to get dates with chicks after saying things like that?

Dante.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Seems to have worked eh?  I usually introduce myself in a fairly detached manner, only to reveal that I am a complete weirdo later.


Indeed it has. My wife still jokes every time I talk about a new forum. "I give it a week." With this one, it was, "You're not banned yet? Damn."

----------


## Dante1

> You're doing a pretty good job for a newbie of trolling..  is this by design, or does it just come natural?  
> 
> Who IS qualified to opine on females?  Certainly not females, as they vary too widely.  My experience with them is pretty wide & varied.  I have been married to one of them for 38 yrs.. raised 2 others.. one was a princess, the other was not.  And of course, i have known many women over the years, & even worked for them.. they bossed ME around.
> 
> I just don't see any rationality in your sexist premise.  Women are not inherently intellectually inferior to men.  You have no studies to suggest this, nor are there any  real life examples, other than particular individuals.
> 
> So, i am as qualified as any male here to opine on females.  Would you like to present your qualifications?  Why do you feel your opinion is expert on the nature & intelligence of female humans?
> 
> .. but you could just be trolling.. i've not conversed with you, & you seem very familiar with everyone here.. a bit unusual for a typical newbie..


I have three brothers. Each of them has a daughter. After each of their daughters were born, they lost all objectivity and their lenses went out of focus on the subject of females.

I have two sons (and a lens still in focus).

Dante.

----------


## usfan

> No matter either way.  The clueless part was what I was looking at, but for the most part, it is correct.


I think 'clueless' is a bit over the top..  'misinformed' would probably be better..   :Laughing7:   But you could go with 'deluded' or even 'confused'.

But seriously, i think @Gemini is pretty sharp, & has pretty good communication skills.  I don't know if that qualifies him to opine on females, though..   :F Zen: 




> An unfortunate character flaw I am trying to overcome. I have daddy issues.


It is not a character flaw to treat people civilly & reply with patience.  It is perhaps naive to think people are expecting that reply, but i do the same.  I get caught in the troll net more than most.




> In debate.  Sometimes you lose your cool.  But at the same time, you're fantastic at providing source material.


You mean he sets you up for your witty comebacks?  TP is your straight man?   :Laugh:

----------


## Guest

> I would disagree with all these characterizations. Females are not that complicated.
> 
> The middle one on the parasitic aspect comes closest to reality.
> 
> Dante.


^ This would explain why you're allegedly an aged man who lives alone.  Or a troll that lives under a bridge.

----------

Gemini (05-17-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (05-17-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> How do you expect to get dates with chicks after saying things like that?
> 
> Dante.






Among the many differences between you and I, is that the above video doesn't apply to me all the time.

----------


## Guest

> How do you expect to get dates with chicks after saying things like that?
> 
> Dante.


If he were to get chicks at this point in his life we would all be sorely disappointed in him.

----------


## Guest

> 748 years is not that old.
> 
> How old are you?
> 
> Dante.


I'm an immortal nature goddess.  Age doesn't apply to me.

----------


## usfan

> I have three brothers. Each of them has a daughter. After each of their daughters were born, they lost all objectivity and their lenses went out of focus on the subject of females.
> I have two sons (and a lens still in focus).
> Dante.


IOW, still deluded?   :Laughing7: 

You & your sons outnumber & intimidate your poor wife..  You don't even have a lens, much less see out of it!   :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

With few women around you, you can keep your caricature of ALL women intact.  But it is based on conjecture, prejudice, & fantasy, not real women in the real world.  
 :Boobs:

----------


## Gemini

> If he were to get chicks at this point in his life we would all be sorely disappointed in him.


That and somebody close to me would have to die.  But trolling for chicks is entirely past me at this point.  

Frankly, if the wife died,  I don't think another woman would be in the picture for a while.  Not many women want to marry a guy(a bloody strange one at that) who already has 3+ kids and deal with constant comparison, the step mother complex and dual inlaws.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> It is not a character flaw to treat people civilly & reply with patience.  It is perhaps naive to think people are expecting that reply, but i do the same.  I get caught in the troll net more than most.


The character flaw is allowing people to get under my skin.

----------


## Dante1

> IOW, still deluded?  
> 
> You & your sons outnumber & intimidate your poor wife..  You don't even have a lens, much less see out of it!  
> 
> With few women around you, you can keep your caricature of ALL women intact.  But it is based on conjecture, prejudice, & fantasy, not real women in the real world.


You must be a male feminist, right?

Dante.

----------

Kabuki Joe (05-18-2013)

----------


## Dante1

> ^ This would explain why you're allegedly an aged man who lives alone.  Or a troll that lives under a bridge.


She's still mad. :Thinking: 

Dante.

----------


## Gemini

> You must be a male feminist, right?
> 
> Dante.


Or just someone who disagrees with a flawed outlook.  It is one thing to acknowledge and adhere to principles of masculinity and femininity, and another to take it to the extreme and make known one's imbecility.

I don't exactly agree with usfan on the issue here, but he is closer to the mark than you are.  And I'm sure he thinks I'm off the mark too, among others.  Difference is that we're at least aiming and hitting the target - you're off doing something else.

----------



----------


## usfan

> You must be a male feminist, right?
> 
> Dante.


me?  no, i'm a male realist  :Yepp: 

My perception of women comes from years of experience, not porn movies.   :Rofl: 

I'll leave that fantasy with you..   :Laughing7:

----------

Kabuki Joe (05-18-2013)

----------


## Dante1

> Or just someone who disagrees with a flawed outlook.  It is one thing to acknowledge and adhere to principles of masculinity and femininity, and another to take it to the extreme and make known one's imbecility.
> 
> I don't exactly agree with usfan on the issue here, but he is closer to the mark than you are.  And I'm sure he thinks I'm off the mark too, among others.  Difference is that we're at least aiming and hitting the target - you're off doing something else.


Is it your habit to answer for other people before they have the chance to speak for themselves.

That won't get you a date either. :Sad20: 

Dante.

----------


## Guest

> That and somebody close to me would have to die.  But trolling for chicks is entirely past me at this point.  
> 
> Frankly, if the wife died,  I don't think another woman would be in the picture for a while.  Not many women want to marry a guy(a bloody strange one at that) who already has 3+ kids and deal with constant comparison, the step mother complex and dual inlaws.


Yes, it takes a different and special sort of man or women to be able to deal with that.

----------


## usfan

> The character flaw is allowing people to get under my skin.


My point was THAT is a surface flaw.. the basic trait it comes from is the desire for common ground, civility, & peace.  When that doesn't happen, you get irritated.  It's something you can get used to.. you will get thicker skin, if you continue public engagement with diverse opinions... or, you'll become an insufferable asshole..   :Laughing7:

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (05-17-2013)

----------


## Guest

> She's still mad.
> 
> Dante.


I am rarely mad.  Irritated by trolling?  Yes, often.

----------


## Gemini

> Is it your habit to answer for other people before they have the chance to speak for themselves.


This is a forum.  Get used to it.




> That won't get you a date either.
> 
> Dante.


Your obsession with my romantic life is strange, unhealthy even.  I feel I should let you know that I am taken.

----------


## Guest

> Is it your habit to answer for other people before they have the chance to speak for themselves.
> 
> That won't get you a date either.
> 
> Dante.


If I were a troll, I would probably use a more consistent and logical troll approach.  

For example, if my schtick was that I am a male chauvinist I would not be so hyper-focused on getting dates with "chicks" or pointing out who got said date.  I would not also indicate 3-4 decades of a law practice and still utilize with frequency the word "chick".  It conjures up the image of a balding, lonely individual who goes to paid dating sites.

Just some helpful advice.

----------


## usfan

fun thread.. but i gotta go..    :Frown: 

I'm giving a buddy a ride to phx to pick up a new motorcycle!  Now that is a manly thing to do, isn't it?   :Laughing7:

----------


## Gemini

> If I were a troll, I would probably use a more consistent and logical troll approach.  
> 
> For example, if my schtick was that I am a male chauvinist I would not be so hyper-focused on getting dates with "chicks" or pointing out who got said date.  I would not also indicate 3-4 decades of a law practice and still utilize with frequency the word "chick".  It conjures up the image of a balding, lonely individual who goes to paid dating sites.
> 
> Just some helpful advice.


You forgot to mention a reliable user of 'escort services'.

----------



----------


## Dante1

> If I were a troll, I would probably use a more consistent and logical troll approach.  
> 
> For example, if my schtick was that I am a male chauvinist I would not be so hyper-focused on getting dates with "chicks" or pointing out who got said date.  I would not also indicate 3-4 decades of a law practice and still utilize with frequency the word "chick".  It conjures up the image of a balding, lonely individual who goes to paid dating sites.
> 
> Just some helpful advice.


OK. How about "broads"? :Smiley20: 

Dante.

----------


## Gemini

I wonder how long this one will stick around?  A week?  A month?

----------


## Guest

> I wonder how long this one will stick around?  A week?  A month?


Depends on how much we feed him.

----------


## Gemini

> Depends on how much we feed him.


Internal debate with whether to fatten it up before slaughter, or to starve it.

I have time and energy for one, but desire for another.  Oh the dilemma.

----------



----------


## Dante1

> Depends on how much we feed him.


Incidentally, can any of you broads on here cook a good lasagna?

Dante.

----------


## Archer

Women? Men are the better Chefs! Women are better (when they want to do it) at things like precision welding, high precision machining and design.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> My point was THAT is a surface flaw.. the basic trait it comes from is the desire for common ground, civility, & peace.  When that doesn't happen, you get irritated.  It's something you can get used to.. you will get thicker skin, if you continue public engagement with diverse opinions... or, you'll become an insufferable asshole..


In that case, we agree.

----------


## Guest

> Incidentally, can any of you broads on here cook a good lasagna?
> 
> Dante.


That's a lotta carbs there, pops.  I guess my initial summation about your physique was correct.

----------


## Dante1

> That's a lotta carbs there, pops.  I guess my initial summation about your physique was correct.


Is that a No? :Sad20: 

Dante.

----------


## The XL

> That's a lotta carbs there, pops.  I guess my initial summation about your physique was correct.


Take it easy on him, not everyone can have a God-like physique like me.

----------



----------


## Archer

> Take it easy on him, not everyone can have a God-like physique like me.


Crap I got to take off my crocks and put on my boots!

----------


## Guest

> Crap I got to take off my crocks and put on my boots!


I've seen @The XL.  He's looking good.   :Wink:

----------


## Dante1

> I've seen @The XL.  He's looking good.


Another "feminist broad" or just another "sl*t on wheels," or aren't they just the same?

Dante.

----------


## Guest

> Another "feminist broad" or just another "sl*t on wheels," or aren't they just the same?
> 
> Dante.


If complimenting a friend who works out religiously and wants to do help others achieve their personal goals makes me a slut on wheels, _vroom-vroom._

::shrugs::

----------


## The XL

I wouldn't pay much mind to the troll, Rina.

----------


## Guest

> I wouldn't pay much mind to the troll, Rina.


I am undisturbed.  I am also not the whiner type that hits the report button.  As always, in the immortal words of RuPaul: _Other people's opinions of me are not my business.
_

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (05-17-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> I am undisturbed.  I am also not the whiner type that hits the report button.  As always, in the immortal words of RuPaul: _Other people's opinions of me are not my business.
> _


Generally the report function is over used.  But every now and then it gets tempting.  Every now and then the ban hammer is a good thing.  Although he isn't flinging uber vile insults or posting gross pictures, somethings are just best kicked to the curb.

And I know that Trinnity's really despised people who clutter up the site with garbage.  I mean if he took exotix's cue and did it a little better it would almost be fun to play with him.

But right now?  Such a waste of bandwidth.

----------


## Guest

> Generally the report function is over used.  But every now and then it gets tempting.  Every now and then the ban hammer is a good thing.  Although he isn't flinging uber vile insults or posting gross pictures, somethings are just best kicked to the curb.
> 
> And I know that Trinnity's really despised people who clutter up the site with garbage.  I mean if he took exotix's cue and did it a little better it would almost be fun to play with him.
> 
> But right now?  Such a waste of bandwidth.


I know, @exotix always leaves me going: wtf?   I miss him/her when he/she is away.

----------


## Gemini

> I know, @exotix always leaves me going: wtf?   I miss him/her when he/she is away.


I have wondered where that one went.  I wish that one were here to teach this one their fine craft of trolling.  The one we have now is amateurish, requiring training.

----------


## Guest

> I have wondered where that one went.  I wish that one were here to teach this one their fine craft of trolling.  The one we have now is amateurish, requiring training.


Yes, we deserve nothing less than amusement!

----------


## exotix

> I know, @exotix always leaves me going: wtf?   I miss him/her when he/she is away.


Don't be hard on yourself  ... you look good waiting for me to come on and thrash ... LOL.

----------


## Guest

> Don't be hard on yourself  ... you look good waiting for me to come on and thrash ... LOL.


Bans up on Sunday right?  Well, send my love to Grokmaster when you go back.

----------


## Gemini

> Bans up on Sunday right?  Well, send my love to Grokmaster when you go back.


Why is Grokmaster not here?  I always enjoyed reading his stuff.

----------


## exotix

> *Bans up on Sunday right?* 
> 
> Well, send my love to Grokmaster when you go back.


Lie

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> me?  no, i'm a male realist 
> 
> _My perception of women comes from years of experience, not porn movies._ 
> 
> I'll leave that fantasy with you..




...yeah, movies of any type don't show how females really are...my my daughter is a nasty "c u next thursday"...she loves drama and loves gossip...but I'm an asshole for pointing out how F'd up she is...when her and her cousin get together they are just nasty and gossip about everyone...but that's how good looking chics are...

----------


## Guest

> ...yeah, movies of any type don't show how females really are...my my daughter is a nasty "c u next thursday"...she loves drama and loves gossip...but I'm an asshole for pointing out how F'd up she is...when her and her cousin get together they are just nasty and gossip about everyone...but that's how good looking chics are...


Someone who is so disloyal as to call their family members that word to a bunch of strangers ought to think that maybe they had some part in why their child didn't turn out as they wanted them to.  It's low class and intolerable, but hey...if you want to show the world how YOU really are...keep it coming.

----------


## Gemini

> ...yeah, movies of any type don't show how females really are...my my daughter is a nasty "c u next thursday"...she loves drama and loves gossip...but I'm an asshole for pointing out how F'd up she is...when her and her cousin get together they are just nasty and gossip about everyone...but that's how good looking chics are...


I hate using the word irony constantly as it is a splendid word.  But this is dripping with irony.

Update:  Get Rina beat me to it.

----------



----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ...yeah, movies of any type don't show how females really are...my my daughter is a nasty "c u next thursday"...she loves drama and loves gossip...but I'm an asshole for pointing out how F'd up she is...when her and her cousin get together they are just nasty and gossip about everyone...but that's how good looking chics are...


It takes a real Class A dick to speak in such a manner of one's own child.

----------



----------


## Archer

Joe I got to agree with the group here. My kids can be a PITA but to demean my DNA in such a way before the world is... Hey they are aggravating but they are children. Cut your nuts off if you can not handle it.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (05-18-2013)

----------


## usfan

_




			
				but I'm an asshole for pointing out how F'd up she is.
			
		

_
I'm going to defend joe.. he made the disclaimer, remember?

maybe he went too far.. but he went out on a limb & was pretty personal.. and if a parent can't bitch about their kids, then life isn't worth living.  I've said some pretty disparaging things about my kids.. maybe not on a public forum, but the anonymity of it generally makes it a post of generalities.. probably none of us know or will ever know the people in question.  It was an illustration, & like anything else, should be taken with a grain of salt.  Who knows if joe even has kids?  Maybe he's a teenager typing in his mom's basement!      :Laughing7:

----------

Kabuki Joe (05-18-2013)

----------


## Archer

> I'm going to defend joe.. he made the disclaimer, remember?
> 
> maybe he went too far.. but he went out on a limb & was pretty personal.. and if a parent can't bitch about their kids, then life isn't worth living.  I've said some pretty disparaging things about my kids.. maybe not on a public forum, but the anonymity of it generally makes it a post of generalities.. probably none of us know or will ever know the people in question.  It was an illustration, & like anything else, should be taken with a grain of salt.  Who knows if joe even has kids?  Maybe he's a teenager typing in his mom's basement!


Generalization, insulting and sexist were the issues and he used his kid to make his points. Says quite a bit about him that he would even say it.

----------

TheTemporaryBG (05-18-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I'm going to defend joe.. he made the disclaimer, remember?
> 
> maybe he went too far.. but he went out on a limb & was pretty personal.. and if a parent can't bitch about their kids, then life isn't worth living.  I've said some pretty disparaging things about my kids.. maybe not on a public forum, but the anonymity of it generally makes it a post of generalities.. probably none of us know or will ever know the people in question.  It was an illustration, & like anything else, should be taken with a grain of salt.  Who knows if joe even has kids?  Maybe he's a teenager typing in his mom's basement!


There's complaining about your kids, and there's calling your kids a "fucked up cunt."

----------

TheTemporaryBG (05-18-2013)

----------


## usfan

> Generalization, insulting and sexist were the issues and he used his kid to make his points. Says quite a bit about him that he would even say it.


That's fine.  It's your call.  But i've heard plenty of balanced, level headed stuff from him too.. i'm letting it pass.  Too many things are dissected in the forums & taken too seriously.  IIRC, you've said some pretty edgy stuff, too!

I see his post as a reply to mine, & one where he probably got too familiar & was writing to someone who he felt was sympathetic..  i don't know.  But i don't want a big deal over it, either.  I made a small defense, & that's it.

Anyway, off to work for me.. sprinkler stuff.. slaving in the hot sun & hard packed ground.  But digging in the ground, solving irrigation problems, & baking in the sun is a metaphor for my time in the forums..   :Laughing7:

----------


## Archer

> That's fine.  It's your call.  But i've heard plenty of balanced, level headed stuff from him too.. i'm letting it pass.  Too many things are dissected in the forums & taken too seriously.  IIRC, you've said some pretty edgy stuff, too!
> 
> I see his post as a reply to mine, & one where he probably got too familiar & was writing to someone who he felt was sympathetic..  i don't know.  But i don't want a big deal over it, either.  I made a small defense, & that's it.
> 
> Anyway, off to work for me.. sprinkler stuff.. slaving in the hot sun & hard packed ground.  But digging in the ground, solving irrigation problems, & baking in the sun is a metaphor for my time in the forums..


This will pass. I generally do not carry personal thoughts, of individuals, from thread to thread unless it is somebody I have decided I need to beat down every chance I get. Only been two that has happened with and one has been forgiven. Now Reiver @ PF will always be my bitch.

----------


## Guest

> I'm going to defend joe.. he made the disclaimer, remember?
> 
> maybe he went too far.. but he went out on a limb & was pretty personal.. and if a parent can't bitch about their kids, then life isn't worth living.  I've said some pretty disparaging things about my kids.. maybe not on a public forum, but the anonymity of it generally makes it a post of generalities.. probably none of us know or will ever know the people in question.  It was an illustration, & like anything else, should be taken with a grain of salt.  Who knows if joe even has kids?  Maybe he's a teenager typing in his mom's basement!


Sorry, it's bad enough to call any woman the c word...your own daughter?  That's classless.  I'm saying that right here.  @usfan we're parting ways on this one.

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> I'm going to defend joe.. he made the disclaimer, remember?


I'm not the brightest person on here obviously but that wasn't a disclaimer.  He was implying that when he points out this behavior he's called an asshole.  I have three older sisters and a mother who is a saint.  I might see differences in the sexes but I am not at war with women.  If a woman can do better than me something then I either improve or I deal with it.  I don't think much of men who talk like that about women in general much less people in their own family.

----------



----------


## Kabuki Joe

> I hate using the word irony constantly as it is a splendid word.  But this is dripping with irony.
> 
> Update:  Get Rina beat me to it.



...I see irony when rina and xl defend women against me yet they bring my wife into a debate and start taking shots at her when she's not even involved in the discusson...and they don't even have the self respect to apologise about it when I point it out...do as I say, not as I do...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Joe I got to agree with the group here. My kids can be a PITA but to demean my DNA in such a way before the world is... Hey they are aggravating but they are children. Cut your nuts off if you can not handle it.



...I have rina, xl and trat on block so I can't see what they are going on about...my daughter is a sweetheart 99% of the time, but she has her moments when she's around certain people...and at those times I let her know what I think, whether or not she wants to hear it...she's 25 and she has her own opinions, just like everyone...but just like most people, you included, she's inconsistent with her opinions, depending on the topic...

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

Blocked? Why, I'm flattered  :Big Grin:

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Generalization, insulting and sexist were the issues and he used his kid to make his points. Says quite a bit about him that he would even say it.



...oh, so you are one of those few people that don't have anything dysfuntional in your life?...I thought they were like santa claus, myths...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> That's fine.  It's your call.  But i've heard plenty of balanced, level headed stuff from him too.. i'm letting it pass.  Too many things are dissected in the forums & taken too seriously.  IIRC, you've said some pretty edgy stuff, too!
> 
> I see his post as a reply to mine, & one where he probably got too familiar & was writing to someone who he felt was sympathetic..  i don't know.  But i don't want a big deal over it, either.  I made a small defense, & that's it.
> 
> Anyway, off to work for me.. sprinkler stuff.. slaving in the hot sun & hard packed ground.  But digging in the ground, solving irrigation problems, & baking in the sun is a metaphor for my time in the forums..



...I'm very honest with nothing to be ashamed about or anything to hide...I was raised by a mental health therapist where nothing is too painful to discuss, otherwise you don't grow, only stagnate...I have a very good understanding about people...very good...like when certain people come on here telling us how gifted they are with the ladies...LOLOLOL...that stuff makes me laugh...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> I'm not the brightest person on here obviously but that wasn't a disclaimer.  He was implying that when he points out this behavior he's called an asshole.  I have three older sisters and a mother who is a saint.  I might see differences in the sexes but I am not at war with women.  If a woman can do better than me something then I either improve or I deal with it.  I don't think much of men who talk like that about women in general much less people in their own family.



...just going through this quickly you forgot to mention you weren't very honest either...

----------


## Archer

> ...oh, so you are one of those few people that don't have anything dysfunctional in your life?...I thought they were like santa claus, myths...


I have issues but my kids and family are off the table. But no; my home is not dysfunctional in any way. Extended family (outside the home) yeah.

I grew up in a dysfunctional environment and I will be damned if I put my kids through that much unnecessary hell. I am the father of my children, that live in my home with my first and only wife that has only been with me. No drugs, drunken parties or drama because I will not allow it. I do not allow fucked up people in my home and stick to myself.

I also base my life philosophy on the Bible, don't bother anyone and I don't take any shit.

We are educated and we are near the top of the intellectual food chain. We are responsible for our home and our actions. We hold ourselves to a higher standard in all things, not because it is easy (like being liberal) but because it is the right thing to do.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> I have issues but my kids and family are off the table. But no; my home is not dysfunctional in any way. Extended family (outside the home) yeah.
> 
> I grew up in a dysfunctional environment and I will be damned if I put my kids through that much unnecessary hell. I am the father of my children, that live in my home with my first and only wife that has only been with me. No drugs, drunken parties or drama because I will not allow it. _I do not allow fucked up people in my home and stick to myself._
> 
> _I also base my life philosophy on the Bible, don't bother anyone and I don't take any shit._
> 
> We are educated and we are near the top of the intellectual food chain. We are responsible for our home and our actions. We hold ourselves to a higher standard in all things, not because it is easy (like being liberal) but because it is the right thing to do.



...these 2 statements tell me you aren't being honest...but most people that are dysfunctional are honest...I happen to know more then a few christians and you posting curse words on a public forum where chilfren can have access to reading them would absolutely horrify them...even I don't post like this...

----------


## Archer

> ...these 2 statements tell me you aren't being honest...but most people that are dysfunctional are honest...I happen to know more then a few christians and you posting curse words on a public forum where chilfren can have access to reading them would absolutely horrify them...even I don't post like this...


No those are not curses. You lack understanding of what is and what is not. I have cursed no person and fuck is simply a strong expression which has its roots in Scandinavian (I believe) and the root is Fukka or to copulate. It is meaningless in the form I used it in Joe it is simply a modifier in this case and nothing more. Not profane, not vulgar, not a curse.

If I say may god make you burn in hell it would be closer to a curse.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> No those are not curses. You lack understanding of what is and what is not. I have cursed no person and fuck is simply a strong expression which has its roots in Scandinavian (I believe) and the root is Fukka or to copulate. It is meaningless in the form I used it in Joe it is simply a modifier in this case and nothing more. Not profane, not vulgar, not a curse.
> 
> If I say may god make you burn in hell it would be closer to a curse.



...like I said...

----------


## Archer

> ...like I said...


http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...5692#post75692

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ...these 2 statements tell me you aren't being honest...but most people that are dysfunctional are honest...I happen to know more then a few christians and you posting curse words on a public forum where chilfren can have access to reading them would absolutely horrify them...even I don't post like this...


Right. You'd never call someone a fucked up cunt on a board children can see...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...5692#post75692


...you are missing my point, I'm not offended by cussing, I'm offended by you cussing in an innappropriate place (public) and then saying you live by the bible...while saying you aren't dysfunctional...

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ...you are missing my point, I'm not offended by cussing, I'm offended by you cussing in an innappropriate place (public) and then saying you live by the bible...while saying you aren't dysfunctional...


One of the guys who wrote the Bible cussed in the text of the Bible.

----------


## Archer

> ...you are missing my point, I'm not offended by cussing, I'm offended by you cussing in an innappropriate place (public) and then saying you live by the bible...while saying you aren't dysfunctional...


You just want to make yourself feel better about trash talking your family. You fail to realize that you are the one with the issues not others. Hey I understand so I will let you win this tiff so your pussy will stop hurting.

----------



----------


## Guest

> ...I see irony when rina and xl defend women against me yet they bring my wife into a debate and start taking shots at her when she's not even involved in the discusson...and they don't even have the self respect to apologise about it when I point it out...do as I say, not as I do...


OH BULL-fucking-SHIT.  We didn't even believe you were married.  Based on you comments about women I didn't honestly think there was a woman alive who WOULD marry you.  I was wrong.  You are just being a baby right now.  We spoke of a hypothetical woman that you may be with.   

I can't stand hysterical men who jump to conclusions.  You complain so much about women but right now you're acting like an old one.

----------


## Guest

> ...just going through this quickly you forgot to mention you weren't very honest either...


^^Full. Of. Shit.

----------


## The XL

Kabuki Joe is a troll.  Either that, or he lacks brain cells.  He's already conceded that he can't back his points of view up when he put us on ignore.

He's a waste of time.

----------



----------


## Kabuki Joe

> You just want to make yourself feel better about trash talking your family. You fail to realize that you are the one with the issues not others. Hey I understand so I will let you win this tiff so your pussy will stop hurting.



...it's not about winning or loosing, it's about being honest with yourself...people say I disrespect women but I don't call them bitches, hoes, I don't talk about dominataing them sexually, nor anything else derogatory, I just point out the differences with males/men that somehow have been removed from society...

----------


## Guest

> ...it's not about winning or loosing, it's about being honest with yourself...people say I disrespect women but I don't call them bitches, hoes, I don't talk about dominataing them sexually, nor anything else derogatory, I just point out the differences with males/men that somehow have been removed from society...


Except, obviously, his daughter.

----------


## usfan

> Another "feminist broad" or just another "sl*t on wheels," or aren't they just the same?
> 
> Dante.


I just think you should have kept posting as slh..   :Dontknow:

----------


## usfan

> Sorry, it's bad enough to call any woman the c word...your own daughter?  That's classless.  I'm saying that right here.  @usfan we're parting ways on this one.


No problem.  I guess threads like this are mostly for trolling, anyway..  It's a place for people to go to fight & squabble.  I guess that's fun.. sometimes..

We roll from one set of flame wars to the next, sometimes not even bothering to change the players.  It's mildly amusing, but the schtick gets old, & eventually any topical discussion gets dropped, as it becomes personality conflicts, repeated over & over throughout the forum.

----------

Perianne (07-08-2013)

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> No problem.  I guess threads like this are mostly for trolling, anyway..  It's a place for people to go to fight & squabble.  I guess that's fun.. sometimes..
> 
> We roll from one set of flame wars to the next, sometimes not even bothering to change the players.  It's mildly amusing, but the schtick gets old, & eventually any topical discussion gets dropped, as it becomes personality conflicts, repeated over & over throughout the forum.



...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...sorry about that USFAN but I saw your quote of rina and had to laugh...I learned " c u next thursday" from my daughter...she'd say it to me and I'd think, "WTF?!?!?...but I'll see her when she gets off work?!?!?"...I'm just wondering where "the most interesting man in the world is" with his "it's just a word"...

----------


## Guest

> ...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...sorry about that USFAN but I saw your quote of rina and had to laugh...I learned " c u next thursday" from my daughter...she'd say it to me and I'd think, "WTF?!?!?...but I'll see her when she gets off work?!?!?"...I'm just wondering where "the most interesting man in the world is" with his "it's just a word"...


1. Excuses, excuses, excuses...doesn't make up for referring to your daughter as that to strangers
2. Sure, he only got my comment from reading usfan   :Wink:

----------


## Gemini

> No problem. * I guess threads like this are mostly for trolling,* anyway..  It's a place for people to go to fight & squabble.  I guess that's fun.. sometimes..


That was never the intent of the thread, but it has since devolved into...this.

I was looking for something in particular, it didn't happen, or if it did, I missed it.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> It is 50/50, not even 60/40.


Nah.   I think there are less 'feminists' than we're led to believe.

----------



----------


## Trinnity

> I have wondered where that one went.  I wish that one were here to teach this one their fine craft of trolling.  The one we have now is amateurish, requiring training.


He tends to show up when he gets a temp-ban at BIG PF. I kinda miss him....

----------


## Gemini

> He tends to show up when he gets a temp-ban at BIG PF. I kinda miss him....


Yeah.  Been a while since I've seen something like that.

----------


## Canadianeye

> why does society think that so many women are feminists and that we are all democrats.   The left has the PR.  Great PR.  What chance do you stand when the media chooses a side and promotes it unflinchingly.   You see what they do...anyone who disagrees with leftist ideas are effectively ruined...and the left isn't satisfied to simply go after that person's beliefs.  They destroy their lives, their reputation, their livlihood, their wives livelihood and the safety and security of their children.     Not many people want to tackle that.


It is complex, and you are correct about the PR. That is essentially the issue regarding Tammy Bruce, former president of N.O.W regarding the follow up action to her OJ Simpson statements.

Reading the ass kissing from N.O.W, with about 20 references to our "allies" and "joined causes" etc, etc in the apology letter written to attempt to get Tammy to retract is absolutely sickening.

Obviously women have every right to vote, as blindly or as enlightened politically as men do. (just to stay on thread topic)

----------


## kilgram

Men voting good or bad?

----------



----------


## Gemini

> Men voting good or bad?


Finally, somebody hits it.

----------


## Guest

> Men voting good or bad?


Democracy, like all other forms of government, will always be unfair to the free people however small a minority they may be that disagrees with the majority's decision. 

A fair system would allow those people to leave...or force a caucus system until a solution that everyone agrees with can be had.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> It is complex, and you are correct about the PR. That is essentially the issue regarding Tammy Bruce, former president of N.O.W regarding the follow up action to her OJ Simpson statements.
> 
> Reading the ass kissing from N.O.W, with about 20 references to our "allies" and "joined causes" etc, etc in the apology letter written to attempt to get Tammy to retract is absolutely sickening.
> 
> Obviously women have every right to vote, as blindly or as enlightened politically as men do. (just to stay on thread topic)


The one thing the evil left has over the right is that they stick together. IN all their vileness, they are one.   IF the right, conservatives and Christians  AND JEWS in particular do not START STANDING WITH EACH OTHER, there is going to be unleashed on this planet another Hell on earth.   HEAR ME TP??

----------

Perianne (07-08-2013)

----------


## Guest

> The one thing the evil left has over the right is that they stick together. IN all their vileness, they are one.   IF the right, conservatives and Christians  AND JEWS in particular do not START STANDING WITH EACH OTHER, there is going to be unleashed on this planet another Hell on earth.   HEAR ME TP??


Do you mean real conservatives, libertarians, etc?  Because those in Washington are 99% infiltrated leftists.

----------


## kilgram

> The one thing the evil left has over the right is that they stick together. IN all their vileness, they are one.   IF the right, conservatives and Christians  AND JEWS in particular do not START STANDING WITH EACH OTHER, there is going to be unleashed on this planet another Hell on earth.   HEAR ME TP??


LOL. Nothing else is more divided than the left.

----------


## kilgram

> Do you mean real conservatives, libertarians, etc?  Because those in Washington are 99% infiltrated leftists.


I am leftist and do you mean that the government is leftist?

----------


## Canadianeye

> The one thing the evil left has over the right is that they stick together. IN all their vileness, they are one.   IF the right, conservatives and Christians  AND JEWS in particular do not START STANDING WITH EACH OTHER, there is going to be unleashed on this planet another Hell on earth.   HEAR ME TP??


I admire your hope CJ....but let's face facts. There is only the slimmest of chances of turning the global pariah of leftist liberalism around. They have diseased your children and utilize their minority slaves, with a propaganda media machine that is far, far beyond simple bias.

Add that to their characterless void, and your own restrictions of having character, integrity and values...and the game is long lost.

----------


## Guest

> I am leftist and do you mean that the government is leftist?


Yes, permanently stuck in vanguard.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> The one thing the evil left has over the right is that they stick together. IN all their vileness, they are one.   IF the right, conservatives and Christians  AND JEWS in particular do not START STANDING WITH EACH OTHER, there is going to be unleashed on this planet another Hell on earth.   HEAR ME TP??


What have you done to make me feel comfortable siding with someone like you? I'd prefer to take my chances with someone like @Rina_Dragonborn or @countryboy, both of whom I disagree with but trust.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Do you mean real conservatives, libertarians, etc? Because those in Washington are 99% infiltrated leftists.



I mean US Rina.

----------


## Coolwalker

_Everyone_ should be allowed to vote...even dummies, but no illegals and no one without a valid ID.

----------


## Calypso Jones

Only US citizen property owners male female black white, red, green, yellow, brown whatever.

----------


## kilgram

> Only US citizen property owners male female black white, red, green, yellow, brown whatever.


Then someone who does not own a house, living in a rental house cannot vote. Nice form to reduce the already low number of voters.

Do you know that the voters is around 50% of the USA's population?

----------


## The XL

> Only US citizen property owners male female black white, red, green, yellow, brown whatever.


Then non property owners should not have to listen to any law that government makes, since it does not represent them.

----------


## Calypso Jones

I don't care.  You don't vote unless you have some skin in the game.

----------


## The XL

> I don't care.  You don't vote unless you have some skin in the game.


Those people should not have to follow any laws or regulations set by the government then, because it is not legitimate.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Only US citizen property owners male female black white, red, green, yellow, brown whatever.


I don't support voting restrictions, but if we're going to have them, if you have a job/pay taxes, you can vote.

----------


## Archer

> Then someone who does not own a house, living in a rental house cannot vote. Nice form to reduce the already low number of voters.
> 
> Do you know that the voters is around 50% of the USA's population?


She is essentially saying people who have a vested interest in the US.  People who actually pay taxes in a sum greater than is received from the government every year you know? And do not give me that sales tax and FICA bullshit. I get so sick of hearing that fucking stupid shit from idiots who have no fucking clue.

And if someone wants to argue about it we can meet in the NC state capital and then I can actually teach them how it works. Then I will beat the shit out of them for my trouble.

Yeah if you are a woman I will come up with something. Perhaps digging a ditch for me so I can lay some water pipe at the house.

----------


## The XL

> I don't support voting restrictions, but if we're going to have them, if you have a job/pay taxes, you can vote.


Even though I don't agree with this either, it makes more sense than Calypsos proposal.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (07-08-2013)

----------


## Canadianeye

> _Everyone_ should be allowed to vote...even dummies, but no illegals and no one without a valid ID.


I agree. No illegals and none without valid ID.

----------


## kilgram

In USA can vote immigrants in all legislatures, local, state...?

In Spain inmigrants can only vote in local.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> In USA can vote immigrants in all legislatures, local, state...?
> 
> In Spain inmigrants can only vote in local.


Legal immigrants can vote in any election and run for any election except President.

----------


## Archer

> Legal immigrants can vote in any election and run for any election except President.


Legal immigrants that have become citizens you mean. Yes a few places may let them vote in local elections if they are not citizens but you must be a citizen for the rest and for national level elections. Many times I think the immigrants have more of a vested interest than many natural born citizens.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Legal immigrants that have become citizens you mean. Yes a few places may let them vote in local elections if they are not citizens but you must be a citizen for the rest and for national level elections. Many times I think the immigrants have more of a vested interest than many natural born citizens.


When I say "legal immigrants," I mean citizens.

----------


## Archer

> When I say "legal immigrants," I mean citizens.


Yes I understood that but somebody would want to be an ass about it and start shit or they would simply misunderstand and think that anyone in America legally could vote.

----------


## Roadmaster

> So... In your opinions-
> 
>  Should they be able to vote? Yes or no.
> 
>  Reason why you feel this way?


 Yes because one I have a right to and I don't vote on feelings but what a person has shown. Won't vote for a person just because they look better or can talk a good talk. Talk is cheep, I want to see what they have done and how they voted in the past.

----------


## usfan

In the current system, illegals, felons, & mercenaries vote early & often, for the democratic party.  It is 'technically' illegal, but they don't seem bothered by it.  The dems pick up illegals by the busload, flood the polls, & get the votes out.  Most of the polling workers are in on it, so the voting process isn't very good, here.

----------


## Perianne

Yes, women should be able to vote.  I just wish they would make better choices, especially the younger ones.

----------


## kilgram

> Yes, women should be able to vote.  I just wish they would make better choices, especially the younger ones.


MMM, better choices? What do you mean?

That according to you your ideas are the best and the rest are bad choices?

And do you really expect that young people vote conservative? LOL Mainly when conservative are anti women.

----------


## Guest

> MMM, better choices? What do you mean?
> 
> That according to you your ideas are the best and the rest are bad choices?
> 
> And do you really expect that young people vote conservative? LOL Mainly when conservative are anti women.


Define anti-woman.   :Smile: 

All statism either from the left or right is anti-human and authoritarian.  Left-Right unless you are for abolition of the state you are anti-woman, anti-man; anti-human.

----------


## kilgram

> Define anti-woman.  
> 
> All statism either from the left or right is anti-human and authoritarian.  Left-Right unless you are for abolition of the state you are anti-woman, anti-man; anti-human.


Traditionalist. Defense of Christian values.

----------


## Coolwalker

> MMM, better choices? What do you mean?
> 
> That according to you your ideas are the best and the rest are bad choices?
> 
> And do you really expect that young people vote conservative? LOL Mainly when conservative are anti women.


Anti-women? Maybe all you know are ugly women. I've never been anti-women and I don't know anyone other than maybe Arabs that are.

----------

Archer (07-09-2013),Perianne (07-09-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> Anti-women? Maybe all you know are ugly women. I've never been anti-women and I don't know anyone other than maybe Arabs that are.


I know many users in this forum that are clearly similar to the Arab talibans, for example the one that gave to you thanks for this post.

----------


## Coolwalker

> I know many users in this forum that are clearly similar to the Arab talibans, for example the one that gave to you thanks for this post.


I would imagine that is an opinion, right?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I would imagine that is an opinion, right?


Just out of curiosity, why do you constantly feel the need to identify everything as an opinion? I can't speak for anyone else, but when I speak, I know when I'm speaking an opinion.

----------


## kilgram

> I would imagine that is an opinion, right?


I don't know. Guess it.

----------


## Guest

> Traditionalist. Defense of Christian values.


What are "Christian" values?  Did you read the Gospels?  A bunch of women followed Jesus around preaching and teaching and caring for people--something atypical for that time in Jewish society.  He hung out with former prostitutes--something atypical for that time.  Women were the ones to go to the cross with him and a woman was the first to see him "risen".  Mary Magdalen went into Egypt teaching--something atypical for that time...I mean, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  Women were allowed choices in the early church.

I think women that want careers should have them, obviously.  Look at me.

I think women are smart, intelligent, and capable of making smart choices.

I think women are equal to men and therefore should be expected to show similar responsibility.

I also think that women are life-bringers and expect them to act accordingly with the dignity and respect that entails and if they act immature, selfish, and irresponsible as a female then they shouldn't be immune to criticism just like humans in other respects are not immune from criticism.

----------

Gemini (07-09-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> What are "Christian" values?  Did you read the Gospels?  A bunch of women followed Jesus around preaching and teaching and caring for people--something atypical for that time in Jewish society.  He hung out with former prostitutes--something atypical for that time.  Women were the ones to go to the cross with him and a woman was the first to see him "risen".  Mary Magdalen went into Egypt teaching--something atypical for that time...I mean, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  Women were allowed choices in the early church.
> 
> I think women that want careers should have them, obviously.  Look at me.
> 
> I think women are smart, intelligent, and capable of making smart choices.
> 
> I think women are equal to men and therefore should be expected to show similar responsibility.
> 
> I also think that women are life-bringers and expect them to act accordingly with the dignity and respect that entails and if they act immature, selfish, and irresponsible as a female then they shouldn't be immune to criticism just like humans in other respects are not immune from criticism.


Theory vs practice.

Christianism is based in "machista" values. At least all the things that I've seen about it. Or at least this is the image that have been selling in Spain the Catholicism and many Christian members of this forum and others.

MMM, what Gospels do you mention? Because the official ones, the ones in the bible Mary Magdalen was not well treated.

Agreed with the rest of the post, but tell this to many Christian conservative fellows that don't think the same.

----------


## Guest

> Theory vs practice.
> 
> Christianism is based in "machista" values. At least all the things that I've seen about it. Or at least this is the image that have been selling in Spain the Catholicism and many Christian members of this forum and others.
> 
> MMM, what Gospels do you mention? Because the official ones, the ones in the bible Mary Magdalen was not well treated.


Mary Magdalen was extremely well-treated by Jesus.  So much so that many historical rumors developed.

Also, I do see a lot of "macho" dogma come out of conservatives, but I'd almost rather have that than the pity and patronization that comes from progressives.

Mostly, I don't think there should be "women's rights" or "blacks rights" or "homosexual rights"...we should just all be humans.  When you group people even with the best of intentions things go amok.

----------

Coolwalker (07-09-2013),Perianne (07-09-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> Mary Magdalen was extremely well-treated by Jesus.  So much so that many historical rumors developed.
> 
> Also, I do see a lot of "macho" dogma come out of conservatives, but I'd almost rather have that than the pity and patronization that comes from progressives.
> 
> Mostly, I don't think there should be "women's rights" or "blacks rights" or "homosexual rights"...we should just all be humans.  When you group people even with the best of intentions things go amok.


Obviously there are the human rights.

But in the human rights, there are groups that are more persecuted, that suffer discrimination, basically because the society has considered them inferior until modern times, then there is an ambiental situation that goes against them. What do you do, then?

For example, the homosexual rights, what today it does is equaliting the rights of the homosexual to the rest. The same with the blacks or the women.  When it is spoken about a specific group it is because this specific group has or had less rights than other groups. Men vs women (until the XX century women didn't have right to vote, for example) even today there is discrimination between women and men, and women earn less than men just for being women...

----------


## Guest

> Obviously there are the human rights.
> 
> But in the human rights, there are groups that are more persecuted, that suffer discrimination, basically because the society has considered them inferior until modern times, then there is an ambiental situation that goes against them. What do you do, then?


What is persecution?  It is a direct result of the force of the state.  Abolish the state and use boycotts to control business "mood" and as for the rest learn to love yourself.  Sticks and stones, as they say.




> For example, the homosexual rights, what today it does is equaliting the rights of the homosexual to the rest. The same with the blacks or the women.  When it is spoken about a specific group it is because this specific group has or had less rights than other groups. Men vs women (until the XX century women didn't have right to vote, for example) even today there is discrimination between women and men, and women earn less than men just for being women...


Rights exist without government in their entirety, with government they are limited or enhanced.  As for earning power you need to look at career choices of women versus men, areas of concentration, where they live, etc.

----------


## Canadianeye

> Obviously there are the human rights.
> 
> But in the human rights, there are groups that are more persecuted, that suffer discrimination, basically because the society has considered them inferior until modern times, then there is an ambiental situation that goes against them. What do you do, then?
> 
> For example, the homosexual rights, what today it does is equaliting the rights of the homosexual to the rest. The same with the blacks or the women.  When it is spoken about a specific group it is because this specific group has or had less rights than other groups. Men vs women (until the XX century women didn't have right to vote, for example) even today there is discrimination between women and men, *and women earn less than men just for being women*...


I don't necessarily believe that. That is what the feminists propagandize, however it may not be true. More of a stat manipulation than reality.

----------

Gemini (07-09-2013)

----------


## Coolwalker

> Just out of curiosity, why do you constantly feel the need to identify everything as an opinion? I can't speak for anyone else, but when I speak, I know when I'm speaking an opinion.


I want to see that it is an admission of an opinion and not an absolute fact, because people tend to speak _(write)_ as if their opinion was an absolute fact. Everyone, yourself included, is a self-affirmed expert without credentials.

----------


## Perianne

> ... and women earn less than men just for being women...


I probably make more than anyone in my department.  Except management.

----------


## kilgram

> I probably make more than anyone in my department.  Except management.


Sorry, but it is hard to believe.

----------


## Coolwalker

> Sorry, but it is hard to believe.


_Hombre_...this is America, not Spain. You keep forgetting that.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I want to see that it is an admission of an opinion and not an absolute fact, because people tend to speak _(write)_ as if their opinion was an absolute fact. Everyone, yourself included, is a self-affirmed expert without credentials.


It's called confidence, in your principles and in yourself, and it's far better than weak attempts to keep any opinion from sticking to you.

----------


## Guest

> Sorry, but it is hard to believe.


I made more than any other attorney at my firm.

----------


## Gemini

> I don't necessarily believe that. That is what the feminists propagandize, however it may not be true. More of a stat manipulation than reality.


Women tend to earn less for a myriad of reasons, but often because the averages are what they are looking for.

I don't know many females in risky professions.  Men typically take more risks and do more dangerous professions as a whole.  Of course there is a matter of equal work vs. equal pay as well.  Simply put, few women in construction can do that which is equivalent of their male counterparts when physical labor is taken into account.

Which is why you'll often see the one girl on the team holding the 'slow down' sign and not in he pit digging the ditch or whatever task needing to be done at the time.  That there is maternity leave and other such things that really smash the true pay scale.

Feminists and their manipulation of statistics are a menace.  If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.

----------


## Perianne

> Sorry, but it is hard to believe.


And why would I state something that is not accurate?  I have been a nurse > 20 years.  Each year I get a 3-4% raise.  It adds up.  The men in our department get the same raise I get... percentage-wise.  Everyone knows about what nurses make, so I am not telling anything.  I make around $30 per hour.  No man in my department has 1/4 the experience as I do.  They do not have 20 years of raises.  They make a lot less than I do.

----------

Coolwalker (07-09-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (07-09-2013)

----------


## Canadianeye

Don't mistake that there was never a wage parity war that needed to be fought Kilgram. There was. But now it is just propaganda for feminists to attempt to stay relevant politically.

Just like the gays in Canada after, well, getting everything they wanted...still squawk at Prime Minister Harper.

----------


## Guest

I make an obscene amount of money.  I also pay for it in other ways--loss of social life being the major one.  Part of how I got started posting is that I have nothing to do but wait at the station/precinct, wait at the courts, wait for the feds who are running late, wait, wait wait and then I have to jump and move and spend the next 8 hours writing in a flurry.

There was one week when I was on arraignment/night court duty that I slept 8 hours in five days.  I was hallucinating by the end of it.

----------


## kilgram

> And why would I state something that is not accurate?  I have been a nurse > 20 years.  Each year I get a 3-4% raise.  It adds up.  The men in our department get the same raise I get... percentage-wise.  Everyone knows about what nurses make, so I am not telling anything.  I make around $30 per hour.  No man in my department has 1/4 the experience as I do.  They do not have 20 years of raises.  They make a lot less than I do.


Ok. 

I said that it is hard to believe because even today is not the normal. But obviously I recognize that it is starting to change, after years of fight to get the same rights.

But there are many sectors, many times in science that the woman is less paid than the men.

----------


## kilgram

> I make an obscene amount of money.  I also pay for it in other ways--loss of social life being the major one.  Part of how I got started posting is that I have nothing to do but wait at the station/precinct, wait at the courts, wait for the feds who are running late, wait, wait wait and then I have to jump and move and spend the next 8 hours writing in a flurry.
> 
> There was one week when I was on arraignment/night court duty that I slept 8 hours in five days.  I was hallucinating by the end of it.


That is not life.

----------


## Perianne

> I make an obscene amount of money.  I also pay for it in other ways--loss of social life being the major one.


I am happy for you that you make a lot of money.  I don't make that much, but I make a good living for a single girl.  My daughter is also a nurse and lives with me.  Together, we have a nice household income.

I think the point is that women can make just as much money as men with the same dedication and experience.  Perhaps there is a glass ceiling in some places.  I don't know.

----------


## Guest

> That is not life.


Nope.  

I have a lot of money, no time to spend it.

----------


## Gemini

> Nope.  
> 
> I have a lot of money, no time to spend it.


Sounds like a dreadful way to be.

----------


## kilgram

> Nope.  
> 
> I have a lot of money, no time to spend it.


I prefer one thousand times more having less and have time to enjoy my life.

----------


## Guest

> I prefer one thousand times more having less and have time to enjoy my life.


Well, I plan to retire in 4 years and spend the last half of my thirties (I will die before 40) just working on my farm and sipping tea on the porch.  I blame progressives for driving up the cost of living that it takes that much to retire.

----------


## Guest

> Sounds like a dreadful way to be.


Well, it's getting better and Trina will be helping.  Now that I have my own firm things will go much better.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (07-09-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> Well, I plan to retire in 4 years and spend the last half of my thirties (I will die before 40) just working on my farm and sipping tea on the porch.  I blame progressives for driving up the cost of living that it takes that much to retire.


I am progressive and also Thomas Payne, and Jefferson.

However I don't like too much this word.

And that you will die before 40, that not sounds really good. I hope to live until the 150-160 years old  :Wink:

----------


## kilgram

> Well, it's getting better and Trina will be helping.  Now that I have my own firm things will go much better.


Or you will have much more job and less time.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Or you will have much more job and less time.


Not on my watch!

----------



----------


## Trinnity

> And do you really expect that young people vote conservative?


No, they're usually too naive to realize they're voting for a party that only promises bennies for votes. The D party uses people.




> LOL Mainly when conservative are anti women.


That's simply not true.

----------


## Gemini

> Well, it's getting better and Trina will be helping.  Now that I have my own firm things will go much better.






Good for you!  Starting a business is a big deal nowadays.

----------


## Guest

> No, they're usually too naive to realize they're voting for a party that only promises bennies for votes. The D party uses people.
> 
> That's simply not true.


Who should people vote for?  Republicans?

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (07-09-2013),The XL (07-09-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Who should people vote for?  Republicans?


They should write in Hulk Hogan.

----------



----------


## Perianne

> They should write in Hulk Hogan.


Or Howard Stern.

----------


## kilgram

> No, they're usually too naive to realize they're voting for a party that only promises bennies for votes. The D party uses people.
> 
> That's simply not true.


Ir just the Republican ideas are opposite to many people want.

----------


## The XL

The smartest person on this board is female.  

The fact that people like Dante, Kabuki Joe, and others here feel that females shouldn't be able to vote is absurd and illogical.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (07-10-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> The smartest person on this board is female.  
> 
> The fact that people like Dante, Kabuki Joe, and others here feel that females shouldn't be able to vote is absurd and illogical.


It is not. They are the typical fascist machist conservative.

----------


## Gemini

> Well, I plan to retire in 4 years and spend the last half of my thirties (*I will die before 40*) just working on my farm and sipping tea on the porch.  I blame progressives for driving up the cost of living that it takes that much to retire.


You're going to perish prior to 40?

...Causation or declaration?

----------


## Gemini

> They should write in Hulk Hogan.


His VP should be the Ham Sandwich.

----------


## The XL

> His VP should be the Ham Sandwich.


Or maybe Randy Savage.  Wait he's dead.  Kevin Nash.

If Hulk Hogan was President, that would be the ultimate conspiracy, seeing as how he ran the NWO in WCW.

----------

TheTemporaryBG (07-10-2013)

----------


## Guest

> You're going to perish prior to 40?
> 
> ...Causation or declaration?


A duchovish woman said so.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> A duchovish woman said so.


Okay, I'll bite. Only result for "duchovish" or "duchovish woman" Google gave me was this post (NEVER happens), my translator had nothing in any language, and Wikipedia doesn't have a clue. So what's it mean?  :Tongue:

----------


## Gemini

> A duchovish woman said so.


Find a more optimistic Diviner, get a second opinion, or simply ignore it altogether.

----------


## usfan

> Find a more optimistic Diviner, get a second opinion, or simply ignore it altogether.


+1
A clever girl like rina should look past 40.  Sure, we never know, but to be influenced by superstition does not reflect well on 'the smartest person on the board'.  She should enjoy her work, fall in love, make some babies with a handsome guy, & live her life to the fullest... oh, and bitch about politics on the forums, too, for fun.  But counting on death to be the point of her life is something a brooding existentialist like me would do, not a vibrant young woman with a sharp mind, who is also rich & beautiful!   :Smile:

----------


## Belazure

> Anybody ever think that women being able to vote was a bad idea?  Because I've wondered a few times in my life, just wondering what others thoughts were on the topic.  
> 
> For the most part, women are plenty bright, actually brighter on average but the IQ of men tends to have higher range of variation.  Meaning the dumbest person in the world is probably a man, and the smartest person in the world is also probably a man.
> 
> Women also tend to be more emotionally reactive, with exceptions.  Why this is?  Not a shrink.  I suspect it is largely societal, but also having biological factors as well as well as a few aspects of gender we've yet to codify.  Whereas men are more prone to a 'fix it' mind set when confronted with a problem - with exceptions.
> 
> So... In your opinions-
> 
> Should they be able to vote? Yes or no.
> ...


Legally yeah they should have the right.

Plus if they didn't, it'd just encourage more women to have 'sex changes' just so they could vote. Kind of like how in Iran if a gay person has a sex change they're legally recognized as straight and exempt from being jailed for it.

I'd say if there should be any qualification, it should be an IQ or general education test. If a person is so dumb that they don't even know who George Washington is for example I'd be fine with them not being able to vote.

----------


## Gemini

> Legally yeah they should have the right.
> 
> Plus if they didn't, it'd just encourage more women to have 'sex changes' just so they could vote. Kind of like how in Iran if a gay person has a sex change they're legally recognized as straight and exempt from being jailed for it.


Pretty sure this would not significantly influence elections.  Not many are willing to part with their organs, or add alien ones just to vote.  Many people have the ability to vote and never use it.




> I'd say if there should be any qualification, it should be an IQ or general education test. If a person is so dumb that they don't even know who George Washington is for example I'd be fine with them not being able to vote.


Scariest response yet.

But thanks for you answers.

----------


## Perianne

> Plus if they didn't, it'd just encourage more women to have 'sex changes' just so they could vote.


I don't have and don't want a pecker.  But I already have more balls than a lot of liberal men.

----------


## RushForHillsdale

46 pages I ain't got time to read all that shit.

----------

