I just hope that when we repeal the 19th that we instate some kind of rule where only net-positive tax payers get to vote, because voting to loot the treasury should disqualify you permanently from having a say.
do you believe that rape of women is uniquely more severe in war than rape of men (the biggest feminists will say yes, even most trads will say yes, that will disqualify them)
That depends on what "severe" means, does it not? In moral terms they're equivalently bad, but in practical terms, one has a not-insignificant potential for a serious consequence that the other simply cannot carry in that a raped man cannot get pregnant but a raped woman can. Not to mention that that child is going to grow up fatherless, which we know usually produces a lower-quality offspring. Both are morally intolerable, but if we are speaking about potential for societal damage, strictly speaking, one is more severe.
This was my thought too. Its worse because of biology.
Also citizens united was about a documentary criticizing Hillary Clinton, she wanted it shut down. You can't realistically make films, documentaries that get seen by many people all on your lonesome, it requires groups, it requires corporations. And they wanted them banned. That hillary is the one wanting it banned is all I need to know that it's a good thing it didn't happen.
No, men and boys are raped far worse than women and girls in war. With women and girls it's just penetration with a penis, with men and boys it's penetration with a penis in the anus, with weapons, being castrated, being literally branded on your body, being scalped and tied down, all with lasting bodily injury and disfigurement.
I had failed to consider that. What you say makes sense, and I understand why you chose the word "severe" now. Thank you for explaining.
I just hope that when we repeal the 19th that we instate some kind of rule where only net-positive tax payers get to vote, because voting to loot the treasury should disqualify you permanently from having a say.
That depends on what "severe" means, does it not? In moral terms they're equivalently bad, but in practical terms, one has a not-insignificant potential for a serious consequence that the other simply cannot carry in that a raped man cannot get pregnant but a raped woman can. Not to mention that that child is going to grow up fatherless, which we know usually produces a lower-quality offspring. Both are morally intolerable, but if we are speaking about potential for societal damage, strictly speaking, one is more severe.
This was my thought too. Its worse because of biology.
Also citizens united was about a documentary criticizing Hillary Clinton, she wanted it shut down. You can't realistically make films, documentaries that get seen by many people all on your lonesome, it requires groups, it requires corporations. And they wanted them banned. That hillary is the one wanting it banned is all I need to know that it's a good thing it didn't happen.
There are states where a raped man can be held financially accountable for the offspring that rape produced with the threat of imprisonment.
I had failed to consider that. What you say makes sense, and I understand why you chose the word "severe" now. Thank you for explaining.