If women didn't get the vote...

Post questions or suggestions here.
jupta
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:56 am

Re: If women didn't get the vote...

Post by jupta »

Unidian wrote:It seems anything you don't like a "leftist technique" employed by "liberals." In addition, anything you don't like is also controlled by women and sinister feminists.

Are you Rush Limbaugh?
Well, anything you guys don't like seems to be misogynistic, republican, rightist and religious.

Nice try though.
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: If women didn't get the vote...

Post by Shahrazad »

Nat,
Are you Rush Limbaugh?
Worse. He's a Rush Limbaugh wannabe.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: If women didn't get the vote...

Post by brokenhead »

jupta wrote:I don't care about the women you know, and either way it's the same thing whether they want it [abortion] on demand, or just 'available'.
You sound like you don't care about the women anybody knows. And no, it is not the same thing. "On demand" means "paid for." "Available" means "can be performed in a legal and clinically safe manner."
Single motherhood is supported throughout America, whereas it should be discouraged. That has nothing to do with whether people you know think that it is ideal.
Yes, in America, OctoMom gets headlines and million dollar offers from morally bankrupt people. I blame Oprah Winfrey, too.
Straw man.
Blaming women's voting for what's wrong with society is a straw argument.
How did you come up with that? The women's vote in the US always favored the left.
There are too many Sarah Palins out there.
Besides, you are addressing a small part of my post, conveniently ignoring the rest of even that small part. That is a leftist technique if I ever saw one.
All right, if you insist:
The WWs would have happened anyway. But without the woman vote the US would have been out of Europe much earlier.
That is idiotic as well as baseless.
My point is this activism and centralization is a decidedly feminine point of view. That is not to say men are not prone to concentrations of power. They are, but with a different focus. A man will concentrate to produce, while a woman will concentrate to consume.
So is this. You make these broad characterizations and offer nothing to back up the point. You are blaming wars on women. I say women and men vote largely alike, and that socioeconomic factors determine which levers we pull rather than gender issues.
jupta
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:56 am

Re: If women didn't get the vote...

Post by jupta »

brokenhead wrote:You sound like you don't care about the women anybody knows. And no, it is not the same thing. "On demand" means "paid for." "Available" means "can be performed in a legal and clinically safe manner."
I care about the women I know, as do you, and everyone else. Citing personal experience and/or examples is foolish.

And I don't know how abortion that is 'paid for' and that 'can be performed in a legal and clinically safe manner' is in any way contradictory to each other. The fact remains that abortion on demand has already been legalised in 4 or 5 states, and pressure is mounting on the others to do the same. It is reasonable to assume that many women would have a part in this.
Blaming women's voting for what's wrong with society is a straw argument.
This is itself another straw man. I blamed women's voting exclusively for a portion of what is wrong with society.
There are too many Sarah Palins out there.
And that is why she was mocked and ridiculed by women throughout the US. Also, define 'too many.'
jupta wrote:The WWs would have happened anyway. But without the woman vote the US would have been out of Europe much earlier.
That is idiotic as well as baseless.

Why?
jupta wrote:My point is this activism and centralization is a decidedly feminine point of view. That is not to say men are not prone to concentrations of power. They are, but with a different focus. A man will concentrate to produce, while a woman will concentrate to consume.
So is this. You make these broad characterizations and offer nothing to back up the point. You are blaming wars on women. I say women and men vote largely alike, and that socioeconomic factors determine which levers we pull rather than gender issues.
I backed up my points pretty well. I can't help if you don't read what I said.

Women and men do NOT vote largely alike, because they are NOT largely alike. A recent poll found that 62% of moderates were women, and this is in the context of 57% overall calling themselves liberal.

I did not once deny that other issues are responsible for what is wrong with society. What are you attacking - my claim that the women's vote caused some problems, or my claim that the women's vote caused all problems? I never made the latter claim, fyi.
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Re: If women didn't get the vote...

Post by vicdan »

jupta wrote:Women and men do NOT vote largely alike, because they are NOT largely alike. A recent poll found that 62% of moderates were women, and this is in the context of 57% overall calling themselves liberal.
So if your problem is with liberals and moderates (i.e. with anyone not aligned with the right), what's your bizarre fetish with blaming women? Why not just come out and say that liberals and moderates are ruining this country?

Though given your impassioned (though sadly ignorant and idiotic) defense of USSR, this might be somewhat difficult. :D
I did not once deny that other issues are responsible for what is wrong with society. What are you attacking - my claim that the women's vote caused some problems, or my claim that the women's vote caused all problems? I never made the latter claim, fyi.
Kiddo, pointing out that women's votes caused some problems makes no sense unless you can point out that men's votes caused fewer problems (or problems smaller in scope, or both). Otherwise, if women and men both caused some problems (or perhaps even men caused more), what's the point of focusing on problems caused by women, other than sheer misogyny?

For comparison, let's imagine two people, Yankel the Jew (or Jose the Mexican, or Tyrese the Black, or Christine the Woman) and John the Wasp. Yankel is a medical researcher who invented a drug which benefits a whole lot of people. However, he has a personal flaw -- he is arrogant. John the Wasp is a janitor, and he is an alcoholic and wife abuser to boot. You know what kind of person, while comparing the two, would focus on the damned arrogance of that jew, Yankel?

You are that kind of person. A stupid, ignorant, irrational bigot.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
jupta
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:56 am

Re: If women didn't get the vote...

Post by jupta »

vicdan wrote:So if your problem is with liberals and moderates (i.e. with anyone not aligned with the right), what's your bizarre fetish with blaming women? Why not just come out and say that liberals and moderates are ruining this country?

I never blamed women singularly, I said that they were mostly to blame. Read everything I wrote, and then say this.
Though given your impassioned (though sadly ignorant and idiotic) defense of USSR, this might be somewhat difficult. :D
'Impassioned' defense eh? I'd rather say that it was an impassioned defense of facts, which you seemed to have no idea about.
Kiddo, pointing out that women's votes caused some problems makes no sense unless you can point out that men's votes caused fewer problems (or problems smaller in scope, or both). Otherwise, if women and men both caused some problems (or perhaps even men caused more), what's the point of focusing on problems caused by women, other than sheer misogyny?
I claimed that an exclusively male vote would have caused fewer problems. Now, if you've got a problem with that claim, state why.

For the record, I admit that making these threads on a philosophy forum was a bad idea, but I expected a bit more tolerance and intelligence from the posters.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: If women didn't get the vote...

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

jupta wrote:I expected a bit more tolerance and intelligence from the posters.
Oh, the irony.
jupta wrote:I never blamed women singularly, I said that they were mostly to blame.
jupta wrote:I claimed that an exclusively male vote would have caused fewer problems.
In the 2000 US Presidential election, Al Gore won the popular vote (which included a significant female vote) but the electoral college elected George Bush, and that decision was ratified by the Supreme Court - hence the female vote was ultimatly inconsequential. Do you think that Bush caused fewer problems than Gore would have? Have you read Al Gore's book The Assault on Reason?
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: If women didn't get the vote...

Post by brokenhead »

JUPTA wrote:I claimed that an exclusively male vote would have caused fewer problems. Now, if you've got a problem with that claim, state why.
We have been stating why. It is an opinion, and one which you make without any argument that is remotely convincing or factual.
For the record, I admit that making these threads on a philosophy forum was a bad idea, but I expected a bit more tolerance and intelligence from the posters.
Well, we are reading your posts. That is something. I think what you really expected is agreement because this often seems like a place where women get bashed.

Blaming the suffragettes was popular among the upper classes in the UK over a century ago. Your arguments sound imperialistic and outmoded. You might as well limit the vote to those males in a certain socioeconomic class, since this is what you are talking about. You do not want to see differing opinions in the electorate - you want to see a larger portion of it agreeing with your views. There really is no argument against something like that, jupta.

But it is a rather meaningless stance. The vote will not be taken from women or minorities. You do not prove your claim largely because you cannot. It is baseless.

The world does turn on historical facts. There are political ties and animosities, there is modernization and post modernization, there was industrialization and there still is in the third world, there are limited natural resources, there are advancements in weaponry, there are all sorts of decisions made every day which shape the world we live in and the direction it goes. You are isolating the ills and blaming them on the suffragettes. It is a silly proposition when you think about it. I encourage you to think about it.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: If women didn't get the vote...

Post by Dan Rowden »

The main problem with this discussion is that "productivity" is a very slippery socio-economic concept. You essentially have you argue against Government itself to make a case that some jobs are unproductive or unnecessary. I've never seen that case made well.
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Re: If women didn't get the vote...

Post by vicdan »

jupta wrote:'Impassioned' defense eh? I'd rather say that it was an impassioned defense of facts, which you seemed to have no idea about.
having both studied economics and lived in USSR, i can say with certainty that you are totally off your fucking rocker about USSR if you think it was a stable, efficient economy. And you are a liar to boot.

That's an objective fact. :D
I claimed that an exclusively male vote would have caused fewer problems. Now, if you've got a problem with that claim, state why.
OK. Your claim completely lacks any and all actual supporting evidence and argument.
For the record, I admit that making these threads on a philosophy forum was a bad idea, but I expected a bit more tolerance and intelligence from the posters.
Sorry, cretin, I don't tolerate brazen stupidity and in-your-face dishonesty, so say nothing of dumb, knuckle-dragging prejudice.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Re: If women didn't get the vote...

Post by vicdan »

Dan Rowden wrote:The main problem with this discussion is that "productivity" is a very slippery socio-economic concept. You essentially have you argue against Government itself to make a case that some jobs are unproductive or unnecessary. I've never seen that case made well.
Indeed. There are things free market does well, and those should be left to the free market; and then there are things that it cannot do well (or at all) but which still need to be done, and those should be left up to the government.

Jupta is simply too dumb to think of more than one thing at a time, so he can't manage to fit such subtleties into his head.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
jupta
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:56 am

Re: If women didn't get the vote...

Post by jupta »

brokenhead wrote:We have been stating why. It is an opinion, and one which you make without any argument that is remotely convincing or factual.
That's strange.
Blaming the suffragettes was popular among the upper classes in the UK over a century ago.

Many, or indeed most of the suffragettes belonged to the upper classes. The whole women's lib movement was funded by the upper classes in the UK.
You do not want to see differing opinions in the electorate
Nobody does. Everybody has an opinion, and the most popular one wins.
But it is a rather meaningless stance. The vote will not be taken from women or minorities. You do not prove your claim largely because you cannot. It is baseless.
It's not a stance. I mentioned beforehand that it is an observation.
The world does turn on historical facts. There are political ties and animosities, there is modernization and post modernization, there was industrialization and there still is in the third world, there are limited natural resources, there are advancements in weaponry, there are all sorts of decisions made every day which shape the world we live in and the direction it goes. You are isolating the ills and blaming them on the suffragettes. It is a silly proposition when you think about it. I encourage you to think about it.

I am isolating some ills and blaming them largely on the suffragettes.
Dan Rowden wrote:The main problem with this discussion is that "productivity" is a very slippery socio-economic concept. You essentially have you argue against Government itself to make a case that some jobs are unproductive or unnecessary. I've never seen that case made well.

I was making a case for a reduced government, not a non-existent one.
vicdan wrote:having both studied economics and lived in USSR, i can say with certainty that you are totally off your fucking rocker about USSR if you think it was a stable, efficient economy. And you are a liar to boot.
Well...I can't understand why it remained a superpower for so long. Explain that, and I'll accept that I was wrong.
OK. Your claim completely lacks any and all actual supporting evidence and argument.
On the contrary, i think that it did.
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Re: If women didn't get the vote...

Post by vicdan »

jupta wrote:
vicdan wrote:having both studied economics and lived in USSR, i can say with certainty that you are totally off your fucking rocker about USSR if you think it was a stable, efficient economy. And you are a liar to boot.
Well...I can't understand why it remained a superpower for so long. Explain that, and I'll accept that I was wrong.
it was big and it had nukes. That's all.

Its economy was never stable or productive. Its economic efficiency never came close to that of western democracies. However, it had a big army and lots of nukes -- which were bleeding the country dry, precisely because it simply didn't have a powerful enough economy to sustain such a commitment. Soviet military ate up as much as a quarter of USSR's entire GDP. In contrast, in USA it was more like 5% of the GDP, while maintaining parity with USSR. That is the difference between a stable and efficient economy (USA) and a basket case country which bit off more than it could chew (USSR). That, ultimately, was why USSR collapsed: it imploded under its own weight, under weight of its commitments being too big for its economic capabilities. USSR fell apart simply because Soviet economic system -- planned economy -- was not able to deliver the economic growth that the free-market-based countries had experienced.

But the salient point here is that, just like in the case with China and its supposedly lower female employment, you are simply a clueless liar who made up 'facts' on the spot, and tried to use them in an argument as if they were real. You are a deluded fool living in a world you invented for yourself.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
jupta
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:56 am

Re: If women didn't get the vote...

Post by jupta »

vicdan wrote:Its economy was never stable or productive. Its economic efficiency never came close to that of western democracies.
A lot of western free market democracies had less efficient economies than the USSR. In the time that I'm talking about(70s) the USSR had a very efficient economy.
However, it had a big army and lots of nukes -- which were bleeding the country dry, precisely because it simply didn't have a powerful enough economy to sustain such a commitment.
Agreed.
Soviet military ate up as much as a quarter of USSR's entire GDP. In contrast, in USA it was more like 5% of the GDP, while maintaining parity with USSR. That is the difference between a stable and efficient economy (USA) and a basket case country which bit off more than it could chew (USSR). That, ultimately, was why USSR collapsed: it imploded under its own weight, under weight of its commitments being too big for its economic capabilities. USSR fell apart simply because Soviet economic system -- planned economy -- was not able to deliver the economic growth that the free-market-based countries had experienced.
Yes, the USSR collapsed because it had a war machine it could not support, and because of general public dissatisfaction. But that does not imply that the USSR had a less efficient economy. If its economic needs were not so high(in a hypothetical US-free world), it would have survived. One has to consider that it was considerably less populous than the US, and had to rebuild its industry to a larger extent.
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Re: If women didn't get the vote...

Post by vicdan »

jupta wrote:A lot of western free market democracies had less efficient economies than the USSR. In the time that I'm talking about(70s) the USSR had a very efficient economy.
Cretin, that was the very worst era for Soviet economy. That was the Brezhnevian stagnation ('zastoy'). Soviet economy sucked ass through a bendy straw during that era. 1970 was the high point of Soviet economy precisely because it was all downhill from there.

Man, why do you make loud proclamations about things you know absolutely nothing of?!.
Yes, the USSR collapsed because it had a war machine it could not support, and because of general public dissatisfaction. But that does not imply that the USSR had a less efficient economy. If its economic needs were not so high(in a hypothetical US-free world), it would have survived. One has to consider that it was considerably less populous than the US, and had to rebuild its industry to a larger extent.
No, moron, it was not considerably less populous. it had a greater population level, and by 70ies it returned to curve on economic growth after WWII (european democracies returned to curve, i.e. recovered, faster, BTW). Why the bloody fuck do you keep brazenly lying?!

USSR population in 1970: 241mln
USA population in 1970: 203 mln

USSR was more populous that USA at that time, and yet it took about 5 times the percentage of GDP to maintain military parity with USA. All of this despite the fact that USSR's GDP was about half the USA's GDP! Why didn't it take only twice the percentage t maintain parity? precisely because USSR was horribly inefficient.

USSR simply wasn't efficient enough to make effective use of its resources -- either of its economic output, or of its quantitatively superior human and natural resources.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
jupta
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:56 am

Re: If women didn't get the vote...

Post by jupta »

vicdan wrote:
jupta wrote:A lot of western free market democracies had less efficient economies than the USSR. In the time that I'm talking about(70s) the USSR had a very efficient economy.
Cretin, that was the very worst era for Soviet economy. That was the Brezhnevian stagnation ('zastoy'). Soviet economy sucked ass through a bendy straw during that era.

Man, why do you make loud proclamations about things you know absolutely nothing of?!.
Yes, the USSR collapsed because it had a war machine it could not support, and because of general public dissatisfaction. But that does not imply that the USSR had a less efficient economy. If its economic needs were not so high(in a hypothetical US-free world), it would have survived. One has to consider that it was considerably less populous than the US, and had to rebuild its industry to a larger extent.
No, moron, it was not considerably less populous. it had a greater population level, and by 70ies it returned to curve on economic growth after WWII (european democracies returned to curve, i.e. recovered, faster, BTW). Why the bloody fuck do you keep brazenly lying?!

USSR population in 1970: 241mln
USA population in 1970: 203 mln

USSR was more populous that USA at that time, and yet it took about 5 times the percentage of GDP to maintain military parity with USA. All of this despite the fact that USSR's GDP was about half the USA's GDP! Why didn't it take only twice the percentage t maintain parity? precisely because USSR was horribly inefficient.

USSR simply wasn't efficient enough to make effective use of its resources -- either of its economic output, or of its quantitatively superior human and natural resources.
Alright, I was wrong.
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Re: If women didn't get the vote...

Post by vicdan »

jupta wrote:Alright, I was wrong.
No, cretin, you LIED. You loudly proclaimed as fact that which was absolutely nothing of the sort. You simply keep lying, over and over, hoping that nobody will catch you, that nobody will check.

Haven't you understood yet? As I already told you, dimwit, you cannot bullshit me.

Go play in traffic.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
Locked