On the matter of women and the vote

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · January 05, 2016, 08:33:29 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Turkey · January 05, 2016, 08:48:06 PM

Quote

I do not believe in the right to vote. We've all been over why I feel this way, most of you disagree with me. I don't believe humans have the right to exercise control over one another, especially not based on numerical majority.

Maybe I just haven't been paying attention, but this is the first time I've heard you express this. I know it's kind of shitty to ask someone to dig up old posts, but if you've made any threads about it I'd be down to read them. I think all of this is mostly unexplored territory for many people here, including myself. As much as I'll argue partisanship on here I haven't even considered the notion that the right to vote is anything but a boon on society.

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · January 05, 2016, 08:59:52 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Luciana · January 05, 2016, 09:00:40 PM

If you can accept women and men think different, that's perfectly fine.

But in the end if it boils down to women not being allowed to vote, or implying they have somewhat "less" of an ability to, then you lose any credibility.

In terms of the more OT issue, I don't believe everyone should vote. Why? Because so many people are uneducated in who they vote for, and what they vote for. They just listen to the masses or popular opinion without doing the research themselves and coming to their own conclusion.

Even if that conclusion was on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from my own beliefs in said law/ideology, at least that person educated themselves on the issue and came to their own decision.

Ignorance to things as important as people/laws running your country is a cancer and sadly the presidential campaigns prey on that ignorance. TV ads are useless in my opinion because of how much they lie. I get excited for the presidential race and debates, but I absolutely dread my TV and websites getting high jacked (it's only on phones I see it thanks to ad block) by blind ads.

Turkey · January 05, 2016, 09:07:31 PM

Quote from: † on January 05, 2016, 08:59:52 PM

I don't believe the ends justify the means

Just curious: how do you measure the "goodness" of a political system? Is complete freedom, absent a government, better because it allows more freedom intrinsically than would a form of organized government (be it democracy, authoritarianism, or something in between)?

Basically I'm asking if freedom is the end-all-be-all of how you judge society.

Also OT: we don't really talk about it, but democracies certainly do discriminate against voters, notably in regards to age. It doesn't seem unreasonable to prohibit certain groups of people from voting for the same justification we use to prohibit minors from doing so.

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · January 05, 2016, 09:07:45 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · January 05, 2016, 09:16:38 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · January 05, 2016, 09:44:28 PM

Quote from: † on January 05, 2016, 09:16:38 PM

is the one that engages in coercive activity as rarely as possible.

But this is just another way of saying "Shoot as many people as you like as long as things are okay". In order for your position to make any kind of moral sense to yourself, you have to draw a line somewhere and say "Okay, we're going to have to sacrifice human well-being for the sake of lessening coercion".

Which, to me, doesn't make much moral sense. For all we know, the society that promotes the most genuine human well-being is one with a significant amount of coercion. And as far as the evidence is concerned regarding past and current societies, the kinds of institutions which make a society successful and the kind of cultures and their values we've seen emerge. . . The answer appears to be that, yes, you do need quite a lot of force involved.

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · January 05, 2016, 09:46:36 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · January 05, 2016, 09:51:36 PM

Quote from: † on January 05, 2016, 09:46:36 PM

You cannot make a claim to morality while actively engaging in violence and coercion. You just can't. You might be able to say you're less of a cunt than the next guy, but you'd still be a cunt.

So what? Maybe life requires some of us to be cunts in order to function properly.

If you think that's immoral, I can kind of understand it, but saying "You just can't" without any kind of consequentialist basis isn't a very good argument. Don't get me wrong, I know where you're coming from--I used to be an anarchist after all.

But if life requires cunts, it seems to make a lot more sense to navigate in a moral space commensurate with reality, rather than some idealised one.

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · January 05, 2016, 10:01:30 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · January 05, 2016, 10:15:11 PM

Quote from: † on January 05, 2016, 10:01:30 PM

I think where we disagree here is whether there must be coercion.

I want to get a better position on your moral philosophy.

Let's say we've found a way to measure coercion and express it as a percentage. And we know, say, that anything beyond a 20pc reduction leads to significant losses in human well-being. Would you renounce your position as an anarchist, and simply advocate for that 20pc reduction?

Turkey · January 05, 2016, 10:20:12 PM

Door, can you articulate why coercion is the paramount metric of a society?

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · January 05, 2016, 10:29:42 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · January 05, 2016, 10:38:26 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

BaconShelf · January 06, 2016, 03:08:54 AM

I have sometimes wondered if most leaders having only 4 years in power actually limits what a government can do, as if there's a problem that would take several terms to solve, then whatever steps you do to try and solve it could be just undone or discontinued by the next guy so there's no point starting with some problems. Is this a valid thing to consider?I know jack all about this kind of stuff so I'd be interested in hearing what someone who actually knows something about this thinks.

Mordo · January 06, 2016, 03:20:25 AM

I don't know why it became so controversial to say that men and women are psychologically and anatomically different. We have different hormones and chemicals that begin during puberty which affect our behaviour. It's reasonable to assume we should have different voting patterns. This isn't particularly contestable.

Luciana · January 06, 2016, 03:40:35 AM

Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 03:08:54 AM

I have sometimes wondered if most leaders having only 4 years in power actually limits what a government can do, as if there's a problem that would take several terms to solve, then whatever steps you do to try and solve it could be just undone or discontinued by the next guy so there's no point starting with some problems. Is this a valid thing to consider?I know jack all about this kind of stuff so I'd be interested in hearing what someone who actually knows something about this thinks.

It does make it less effective. A one term president could have all of his stuff undone by the next president. That's why you see a lot of democracies go an extra year or so with their leaders. Some at least.

BaconShelf · January 06, 2016, 03:42:16 AM

Quote from: Luciana on January 06, 2016, 03:40:35 AM

Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 03:08:54 AM
I have sometimes wondered if most leaders having only 4 years in power actually limits what a government can do, as if there's a problem that would take several terms to solve, then whatever steps you do to try and solve it could be just undone or discontinued by the next guy so there's no point starting with some problems. Is this a valid thing to consider?I know jack all about this kind of stuff so I'd be interested in hearing what someone who actually knows something about this thinks.
It does make it less effective. A one term president could have all of his stuff undone by the next president. That's why you see a lot of democracies go an extra year or so with their leaders. Some at least.

Huh. So another advantage of (a specific part of) OPs point, if there wasn't a leader change every few years, a government could actually be more effective? That's interesting.

Super Irish · January 06, 2016, 04:24:48 AM

Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 03:42:16 AM

Quote from: Luciana on January 06, 2016, 03:40:35 AM
Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 03:08:54 AM
I have sometimes wondered if most leaders having only 4 years in power actually limits what a government can do, as if there's a problem that would take several terms to solve, then whatever steps you do to try and solve it could be just undone or discontinued by the next guy so there's no point starting with some problems. Is this a valid thing to consider?I know jack all about this kind of stuff so I'd be interested in hearing what someone who actually knows something about this thinks.
It does make it less effective. A one term president could have all of his stuff undone by the next president. That's why you see a lot of democracies go an extra year or so with their leaders. Some at least.

Huh. So another advantage of (a specific part of) OPs point, if there wasn't a leader change every few years, a government could actually be more effective? That's interesting.

Yup. Only downside to that is if you or even a majority don't agree with a lifetime leader's decisions, tough shit.

Think how fast policies were created in post-Weimar Republic Germany. Shame it was by Hitler...

BaconShelf · January 06, 2016, 04:42:22 AM

Quote from: NukaKV on January 06, 2016, 04:36:02 AM

Quote from: Brian Butterfield on January 06, 2016, 04:24:48 AM
Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 03:42:16 AM
Quote from: Luciana on January 06, 2016, 03:40:35 AM
Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 03:08:54 AM
I have sometimes wondered if most leaders having only 4 years in power actually limits what a government can do, as if there's a problem that would take several terms to solve, then whatever steps you do to try and solve it could be just undone or discontinued by the next guy so there's no point starting with some problems. Is this a valid thing to consider?I know jack all about this kind of stuff so I'd be interested in hearing what someone who actually knows something about this thinks.
It does make it less effective. A one term president could have all of his stuff undone by the next president. That's why you see a lot of democracies go an extra year or so with their leaders. Some at least.

Huh. So another advantage of (a specific part of) OPs point, if there wasn't a leader change every few years, a government could actually be more effective? That's interesting.

Yup. Only downside to that is if you or even a majority don't agree with a lifetime leader's decisions, tough shit.

Think how fast policies were created in post-Weimar Republic Germany. Shame it was by Hitler...
This is probably going to sound weird coming from me, but from a government standpoint, Hitler really wasn't all that bad.

Yeah. He pretty much turned germany around from depression to superpower in a fairly short amount of time. It's pretty incredible.

Super Irish · January 06, 2016, 04:48:48 AM

Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 04:42:22 AM

Quote from: NukaKV on January 06, 2016, 04:36:02 AM
Quote from: Brian Butterfield on January 06, 2016, 04:24:48 AM
Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 03:42:16 AM
Quote from: Luciana on January 06, 2016, 03:40:35 AM
Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 03:08:54 AM
I have sometimes wondered if most leaders having only 4 years in power actually limits what a government can do, as if there's a problem that would take several terms to solve, then whatever steps you do to try and solve it could be just undone or discontinued by the next guy so there's no point starting with some problems. Is this a valid thing to consider?I know jack all about this kind of stuff so I'd be interested in hearing what someone who actually knows something about this thinks.
It does make it less effective. A one term president could have all of his stuff undone by the next president. That's why you see a lot of democracies go an extra year or so with their leaders. Some at least.

Huh. So another advantage of (a specific part of) OPs point, if there wasn't a leader change every few years, a government could actually be more effective? That's interesting.

Yup. Only downside to that is if you or even a majority don't agree with a lifetime leader's decisions, tough shit.

Think how fast policies were created in post-Weimar Republic Germany. Shame it was by Hitler...
This is probably going to sound weird coming from me, but from a government standpoint, Hitler really wasn't all that bad.

Yeah. He pretty much turned germany around from depression to superpower in a fairly short amount of time. It's pretty incredible.

It was short term recovery and relied on resources from other countries, first by trade and then by invading and taking the resources themselves or by slave labour.

In 19 years of Hitler's reign he was running a total war economy despite being in control of all of Western Europe, North Africa and a large chunk of Western Russia.

BaconShelf · January 06, 2016, 04:58:26 AM

Quote from: Brian Butterfield on January 06, 2016, 04:48:48 AM

Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 04:42:22 AM
Quote from: NukaKV on January 06, 2016, 04:36:02 AM
Quote from: Brian Butterfield on January 06, 2016, 04:24:48 AM
Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 03:42:16 AM
Quote from: Luciana on January 06, 2016, 03:40:35 AM
Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 03:08:54 AM
I have sometimes wondered if most leaders having only 4 years in power actually limits what a government can do, as if there's a problem that would take several terms to solve, then whatever steps you do to try and solve it could be just undone or discontinued by the next guy so there's no point starting with some problems. Is this a valid thing to consider?I know jack all about this kind of stuff so I'd be interested in hearing what someone who actually knows something about this thinks.
It does make it less effective. A one term president could have all of his stuff undone by the next president. That's why you see a lot of democracies go an extra year or so with their leaders. Some at least.

Huh. So another advantage of (a specific part of) OPs point, if there wasn't a leader change every few years, a government could actually be more effective? That's interesting.

Yup. Only downside to that is if you or even a majority don't agree with a lifetime leader's decisions, tough shit.

Think how fast policies were created in post-Weimar Republic Germany. Shame it was by Hitler...
This is probably going to sound weird coming from me, but from a government standpoint, Hitler really wasn't all that bad.

Yeah. He pretty much turned germany around from depression to superpower in a fairly short amount of time. It's pretty incredible.

It was short term recovery and relied on resources from other countries, first by trade and then by invading and taking the resources themselves or by slave labour.

In 19 years of Hitler's reign he was running a total war economy despite being in control of all of Western Europe, North Africa and a large chunk of Western Russia.

Wasn't he doing pretty good even before he started invading Czechoslovakia and making concentration camps? It's been a while since I did this topic, so I'm a bit rusty on it.

Super Irish · January 06, 2016, 05:05:58 AM

Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 04:58:26 AM

Quote from: Brian Butterfield on January 06, 2016, 04:48:48 AM
Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 04:42:22 AM
Quote from: NukaKV on January 06, 2016, 04:36:02 AM
Quote from: Brian Butterfield on January 06, 2016, 04:24:48 AM
Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 03:42:16 AM
Quote from: Luciana on January 06, 2016, 03:40:35 AM
Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 03:08:54 AM
I have sometimes wondered if most leaders having only 4 years in power actually limits what a government can do, as if there's a problem that would take several terms to solve, then whatever steps you do to try and solve it could be just undone or discontinued by the next guy so there's no point starting with some problems. Is this a valid thing to consider?I know jack all about this kind of stuff so I'd be interested in hearing what someone who actually knows something about this thinks.
It does make it less effective. A one term president could have all of his stuff undone by the next president. That's why you see a lot of democracies go an extra year or so with their leaders. Some at least.

Huh. So another advantage of (a specific part of) OPs point, if there wasn't a leader change every few years, a government could actually be more effective? That's interesting.

Yup. Only downside to that is if you or even a majority don't agree with a lifetime leader's decisions, tough shit.

Think how fast policies were created in post-Weimar Republic Germany. Shame it was by Hitler...
This is probably going to sound weird coming from me, but from a government standpoint, Hitler really wasn't all that bad.

Yeah. He pretty much turned germany around from depression to superpower in a fairly short amount of time. It's pretty incredible.

It was short term recovery and relied on resources from other countries, first by trade and then by invading and taking the resources themselves or by slave labour.

In 19 years of Hitler's reign he was running a total war economy despite being in control of all of Western Europe, North Africa and a large chunk of Western Russia.

Wasn't he doing pretty good even before he started invading Czechoslovakia and making concentration camps? It's been a while since I did this topic, so I'm a bit rusty on it.

Well he lowered male unemployment, but did that by not taking into account the Jews that were sacked from the public sector and strongly encouraging women to leave their jobs for men to fill their place.

He created public work programs to cover the rest, but things like the Autobahn and forest clearings were one-time jobs that after completion would leave many jobless with little prospects other than the military.

Sorry OP, waaaay off topic.

BaconShelf · January 06, 2016, 05:19:10 AM

Quote from: Brian Butterfield on January 06, 2016, 05:05:58 AM

Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 04:58:26 AM
Quote from: Brian Butterfield on January 06, 2016, 04:48:48 AM
Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 04:42:22 AM
Quote from: NukaKV on January 06, 2016, 04:36:02 AM
Quote from: Brian Butterfield on January 06, 2016, 04:24:48 AM
Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 03:42:16 AM
Quote from: Luciana on January 06, 2016, 03:40:35 AM
Quote from: TR8Rshelf on January 06, 2016, 03:08:54 AM
I have sometimes wondered if most leaders having only 4 years in power actually limits what a government can do, as if there's a problem that would take several terms to solve, then whatever steps you do to try and solve it could be just undone or discontinued by the next guy so there's no point starting with some problems. Is this a valid thing to consider?I know jack all about this kind of stuff so I'd be interested in hearing what someone who actually knows something about this thinks.
It does make it less effective. A one term president could have all of his stuff undone by the next president. That's why you see a lot of democracies go an extra year or so with their leaders. Some at least.

Huh. So another advantage of (a specific part of) OPs point, if there wasn't a leader change every few years, a government could actually be more effective? That's interesting.

Yup. Only downside to that is if you or even a majority don't agree with a lifetime leader's decisions, tough shit.

Think how fast policies were created in post-Weimar Republic Germany. Shame it was by Hitler...
This is probably going to sound weird coming from me, but from a government standpoint, Hitler really wasn't all that bad.

Yeah. He pretty much turned germany around from depression to superpower in a fairly short amount of time. It's pretty incredible.

It was short term recovery and relied on resources from other countries, first by trade and then by invading and taking the resources themselves or by slave labour.

In 19 years of Hitler's reign he was running a total war economy despite being in control of all of Western Europe, North Africa and a large chunk of Western Russia.

Wasn't he doing pretty good even before he started invading Czechoslovakia and making concentration camps? It's been a while since I did this topic, so I'm a bit rusty on it.

Well he lowered male unemployment, but did that by not taking into account the Jews that were sacked from the public sector and strongly encouraging women to leave their jobs for men to fill their place.

He created public work programs to cover the rest, but things like the Autobahn and forest clearings were one-time jobs that after completion would leave many jobless with little prospects other than the military.

Sorry OP, waaaay off topic.

Ah, yeah. I'd forgot a lot of stuff like that.

Fair enough then.

🍁 Aria 🔮 · January 06, 2016, 09:14:17 AM

It's basically a political fact that the female vote has a liberal leaning, if I understand the question. It can also make a good difference between a win or a loss, too; something like 5-20pc difference in the polls iirc. It's why McCain took Palin as his running mate, to try and win over that vote. It's one of the reasons Clinton did so well.

If you're talking about psychology, then yeah, there is a difference between how men and women generally process and prioritize information. I don't think that's a reason to support unequal legislation, though.

challengerX · January 06, 2016, 10:16:21 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Mordo · January 06, 2016, 10:20:56 AM

Quote from: challengerX on January 06, 2016, 10:16:21 AM

Democracy is a cancer.

Real Fascist hours

Smash dat MF commie in the face with a baseball bat if U up!

challengerX · January 06, 2016, 10:33:40 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Turkey · January 06, 2016, 10:46:15 AM

Quote from: Mordo on January 06, 2016, 03:20:25 AM

I don't know why it became so controversial to say that men and women are psychologically and anatomically different.

It never has been. It is controversial to say that because of these differences some people don't have a right to something as basic as voting.