Men should be banned from (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 02, 2024, 10:42:25 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Men should be banned from (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: proposing or voting on laws relating to abortion
#1
Agree
 
#2
Disagree
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 56

Author Topic: Men should be banned from  (Read 2943 times)
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,528


« on: November 05, 2011, 10:39:52 PM »
« edited: November 05, 2011, 10:42:22 PM by Nathan »

If "men" is meant in the "mankind" sense and you get rid of the last three words, then I'm all on board.

I'll amend my usual 'why do you hate representative democracy?' question.

Why do you hate civilization?

I would go along with this as long as women were banned from voting on issues relating to prostitution.

But women are the ones who actually are prostitutes, opebo-chan.
Logged
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,528


« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2011, 10:43:10 PM »

If "men" is meant in the "mankind" sense and you get rid of the last three words, then I'm all on board.

I'll amend my usual 'why do you hate representative democracy?' question.

Why do you hate civilization?

I love civilization and hate the opposite of civilization, which is unprovoked force.

I agree. Which is why there are laws. To prevent human existence from being characterized by brute force.
Logged
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,528


« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2011, 02:03:24 AM »

If "men" is meant in the "mankind" sense and you get rid of the last three words, then I'm all on board.

I'll amend my usual 'why do you hate representative democracy?' question.

Why do you hate civilization?

I love civilization and hate the opposite of civilization, which is unprovoked force.

I agree. Which is why there are laws. To prevent human existence from being characterized by brute force.

So you agree that there is no situation in which unprovoked force is appropriate?

Yes but I'm almost positive we would have very different definitions of both force and provocation.
Logged
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,528


« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2011, 10:22:17 AM »

If "men" is meant in the "mankind" sense and you get rid of the last three words, then I'm all on board.

I'll amend my usual 'why do you hate representative democracy?' question.

Why do you hate civilization?

I love civilization and hate the opposite of civilization, which is unprovoked force.

I agree. Which is why there are laws. To prevent human existence from being characterized by brute force.

So you agree that there is no situation in which unprovoked force is appropriate?

Yes but I'm almost positive we would have very different definitions of both force and provocation.

Provocation: The use of force against another person.

Force: Threatening to cause or causing harm to another person, including bodily harm and/or confiscation/destruction of property.  (The second part is only for clarification, confiscation or destruction of a person's property obviously can only occur under the threat of bodily harm).

Hm. I suppose I have a some woolly conception of 'property' (or rather, I'm highly pessimistic about the usual ways in which large amounts of personal property are accumulated). I'd also add 'interrupting one's ability to lead a peaceful life/livelihood for one's personal gain beyond the same ability' to the definition of what constitutes 'force'.
Logged
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,528


« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2011, 08:46:43 PM »
« Edited: November 08, 2011, 01:40:39 AM by Nathan »

I would go along with this as long as women were banned from voting on issues relating to prostitution.
lolwut

Obviously 'nice' females want to ban prostitution as it removes their leverage over men.  They should be disqualified from voting on the issue.

Does the fact that the actual prostitutes are also female have any relevance to your thinking on the subject?

Also, what's wrong with having one area, just one, in which women have 'leverage' over men rather than the other way around, anyway? (Not to say that I agree with you that banning prostitution inherently constitutes that.)
Logged
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,528


« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2011, 03:08:28 AM »


Yes.
Logged
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,528


« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2011, 12:31:43 PM »

Does the fact that the actual prostitutes are also female have any relevance to your thinking on the subject?

Yes - because they are the victims of the hate coming from the 'nice' women.  Nobody hates a ho like a 'good girl'.

Okay, whatever, but my question is, should the prostitutes also not get to vote on anything related to prostitution?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, alas, given the power of the sex drive in the human psyche, Nathan, this particularly leverage - the dictatorship of the poonanny - is akin to an absolute enslavement.
[/quote]

For you, perhaps.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 12 queries.