I hope there's a good, long, public court record of this man standing against the forced sterilization of his children without his consent (and of course, children cannot consent if underage, that's kind of a cornerstone of all western laws). He should be remembered as a hero.
What government could not only endorse, but enforce, the forced sterilization of youth except a genocidal one? Honest question. Canada's had a lot of problems with sterilizing youths of undesirable races, creeds, and skin colors in the past. A LOT of problems. Saying Canada had a mild genocide problem is like saying Scarface had a minor drug addiction, the genocide practices and re-education schools were open as late as 1989. And 30-odd years is well within living memory, especially since it was against children.
It's hard to measure. You'd have to work how many abortions have been committed globally in the last 100 years or so. I'd hazard a guess that said poster isn't too far off in their estimate though.
Abortion in the US the past 50 years alone has killed more than war and homicide combined through the entire US history, the US abortion rates alone are equal to/ greater than Maos Great Leap Forward. Add in Europe who makes the US pale in comparison and the 150 million mark over the past century is easily beaten. Take into account the global abortion numbers and well, there’s a higher number than the Great Leap Forward every year. Fun fact, 1 in 4 babies are aborted globally.
Our ancestors really screwed up allowing everybody to vote. This isn't just a woman thing, but many people are too oblivious, dumb, and misinformed to have the right to determine the fate of our civilizations. Unfortunately this isn't going to get fixed until the current system crashes and burns. Hopefully when the next civilization is built, people in the future will learn from our mistakes.
Almost all the "letting everyone vote" stuff happened after 1850, it wasn't ancestors level long ago.
The founding fathers had this shit set up right. Only around 6% of the population could actually vote for Washington when he was elected and it was as simple as "land owners."
Then Frederick Douglass showed up and demanded blacks AND women get the right to vote, and it started going downhill fast from there.
I mean, almost everyone pays some form of taxes so all that would stop would be illegals who already can't vote (not that that stops them).
Logically, I think anyone on government assistance of any form (which I assume is what you were getting at) should be excluded until they aren't, but that would just remove most women and minorities again anyway.
Would never happen but you are on the right path. It could encourage people to get out of their situations. I would not count the benefits you pay into like social security or VA and maybe those on assistance after a certain time period. But another benefit would be an end to the free stuff politicians.
I think I'm with Plato when it comes to being ruled from the top solely. If we're to be ruled by one man, the man needs to be reluctant ruler, someone who rules because he fears that a worse man could rule if he doesn't. As we all know now, power hungry rulers are the worst rulers, regardless of their ideological strain. You can see the microcosm of this with internet moderators alone, where the worst people rule out of lust for power, and do their jobs terribly because of that need.
Fun fact, women got the right to vote basically a single voting cycle after men did. People like to imagine some long, drawn-out battle, but it took less time than the length of terms some people were President.
So unfortunately, we can't really pin anything on women being given the vote, because they were basically handed it at the same time men were.
I hope there's a good, long, public court record of this man standing against the forced sterilization of his children without his consent (and of course, children cannot consent if underage, that's kind of a cornerstone of all western laws). He should be remembered as a hero.
What government could not only endorse, but enforce, the forced sterilization of youth except a genocidal one? Honest question. Canada's had a lot of problems with sterilizing youths of undesirable races, creeds, and skin colors in the past. A LOT of problems. Saying Canada had a mild genocide problem is like saying Scarface had a minor drug addiction, the genocide practices and re-education schools were open as late as 1989. And 30-odd years is well within living memory, especially since it was against children.
Lol downvoters go white knight somewhere else. Woman’s suffrages have killed more humans than communism.
I agree with the general stance that feminism is bad for society, but is this actually true?
It's hard to measure. You'd have to work how many abortions have been committed globally in the last 100 years or so. I'd hazard a guess that said poster isn't too far off in their estimate though.
Oh, I didn't think of that. But yes when factoring in abortions, that comparison is probably accurate.
Abortion in the US the past 50 years alone has killed more than war and homicide combined through the entire US history, the US abortion rates alone are equal to/ greater than Maos Great Leap Forward. Add in Europe who makes the US pale in comparison and the 150 million mark over the past century is easily beaten. Take into account the global abortion numbers and well, there’s a higher number than the Great Leap Forward every year. Fun fact, 1 in 4 babies are aborted globally.
Our ancestors really screwed up allowing everybody to vote. This isn't just a woman thing, but many people are too oblivious, dumb, and misinformed to have the right to determine the fate of our civilizations. Unfortunately this isn't going to get fixed until the current system crashes and burns. Hopefully when the next civilization is built, people in the future will learn from our mistakes.
Almost all the "letting everyone vote" stuff happened after 1850, it wasn't ancestors level long ago.
The founding fathers had this shit set up right. Only around 6% of the population could actually vote for Washington when he was elected and it was as simple as "land owners."
Then Frederick Douglass showed up and demanded blacks AND women get the right to vote, and it started going downhill fast from there.
I think if they did something like only taxpayers could vote that would help
I mean, almost everyone pays some form of taxes so all that would stop would be illegals who already can't vote (not that that stops them).
Logically, I think anyone on government assistance of any form (which I assume is what you were getting at) should be excluded until they aren't, but that would just remove most women and minorities again anyway.
Would never happen but you are on the right path. It could encourage people to get out of their situations. I would not count the benefits you pay into like social security or VA and maybe those on assistance after a certain time period. But another benefit would be an end to the free stuff politicians.
Service Guarantees Citizenship! Earn your right to vote!
That was an interesting in Starship Troopers
I think I'm with Plato when it comes to being ruled from the top solely. If we're to be ruled by one man, the man needs to be reluctant ruler, someone who rules because he fears that a worse man could rule if he doesn't. As we all know now, power hungry rulers are the worst rulers, regardless of their ideological strain. You can see the microcosm of this with internet moderators alone, where the worst people rule out of lust for power, and do their jobs terribly because of that need.
Fun fact, women got the right to vote basically a single voting cycle after men did. People like to imagine some long, drawn-out battle, but it took less time than the length of terms some people were President.
So unfortunately, we can't really pin anything on women being given the vote, because they were basically handed it at the same time men were.