Post: #26

(05-29-2015 11:45 AM)FuckTheDecline Wrote:  If a significant amount of men on this forum do think women should vote, I take time to list up the reasons why they are wrong.

Oh thank the lords you're here to lecture me. I almost had a reasonable opinion backed by my own experiences, knowledge and judgement. But you've come just in time to save me from my wrongness.

Verdict: Troll

Post: #27

The less democracy a state has the more traditional are the females..

Post: #28

In 100 years from now the question will be if animals should be allowed to vote.

Post: #29

(05-29-2015 03:36 PM)younggun Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 11:45 AM)FuckTheDecline Wrote:  If a significant amount of men on this forum do think women should vote, I take time to list up the reasons why they are wrong.

Oh thank the lords you're here to lecture me. I almost had a reasonable opinion backed by my own experiences, knowledge and judgement. But you've come just in time to save me from my wrongness.

Verdict: Troll

read the entire thread. If your verdict is still the same, then read the entire thread again but slower this time.

Post: #30

We're here for enlightening, logic driven debate, not condescending drivel.

Whilst many here would agree with some of your points, you're alientating yourself by being a twat.

It flew right past your head that younggun was making a sarcastic joke about your lack of debate skills rather than disagreeing explicitlty with any particular point you made.

Post: #31

(05-29-2015 03:52 PM)roberto Wrote:  We're here for enlightening, logic driven debate, not condescending drivel.

Whilst many here would agree with some of your points, you're alientating yourself by being a twat.

It flew right past your head that younggun was making a sarcastic joke about your lack of debate skills rather than disagreeing explicitlty with any particular point you made.

I don't mind his sarcasm, i thought it was funny and well deserved. But since i'm right about this and everyone who disagrees with me are wrong i'm gonna continue to be condescending with this specific topic

It's tiresome that people call me troll for an opinion that is the dominant one in the manosphere. And they do it in a forum that is created and run by a man who completely agrees with me in everything I said in my first post. I will try and make a ROK article where I list all the science that backs up my point. But being called a troll for not thinking women should be allowed to vote shows a lack of insight in the manosphere and this forum.

It's gonna take me about a month since i suck at writing in general and english is not my native language.

Post: #32

(05-29-2015 04:07 PM)FuckTheDecline Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 03:52 PM)roberto Wrote:  We're here for enlightening, logic driven debate, not condescending drivel.

Whilst many here would agree with some of your points, you're alientating yourself by being a twat.

It flew right past your head that younggun was making a sarcastic joke about your lack of debate skills rather than disagreeing explicitlty with any particular point you made.

I don't mind his sarcasm, i thought it was funny and well deserved. But since i'm right about this and everyone who disagrees with me are wrong i'm gonna continue to be condescending with this specific topic

It's tiresome that people call me troll for an opinion that is the dominant one in the manosphere. And they do it in a forum that is created and run by a man who completely agrees with me in everything I said in my first post. I will try and make a ROK article where I list all the science that backs up my point. But being called a troll for not thinking women should be allowed to vote shows a lack of insight in the manosphere and this forum.

It's gonna take me about a month since i suck at writing in general and english is not my native language.

We're calling you a troll because you're a new poster coming in guns blazing with all sorts of manosphere tropes including your username.

I got dinged quite a bit on my first few posts. It's called vetting. Chill out and turn your twat meter down from 10db to 5db.

Post: #33

Im actually surprised by how many people suggest that they dont vote. I agree with an earlier comment that everybody should be able to prove themselves.

A woman's issues are still important but i do believe a certain IQ or history in the country should be taken into account.

I'm in canada and really no matter who you vote for youre fucked so not much harm the female vote could do anways

Post: #34

(05-29-2015 05:06 PM)Carboneraser Wrote:  Im actually surprised by how many people suggest that they dont vote. I agree with an earlier comment that everybody should be able to prove themselves.

A woman's issues are still important but i do believe a certain IQ or history in the country should be taken into account.

I'm in canada and really no matter who you vote for youre fucked so not much harm the female vote could do anways

Your making the assumption that a woman thinks like a man. I write this again, what animal is more intelligent. A zebra or a lion? They are most likely equal in iq, but they are evolved in using their iq for different tasks.

A high iq woman is still a woman. Being able to vote requires one import mentality. The ability for self-sacrifice. When the Titanic sank men stayed on the ship while women and children got on the lifeboats. If even a single woman had stayed on the ship we would know about it cause they would make a movie about her. Not a single woman showed the ability for self sacrifice.

Women can show self sacrifice under the guidance of a man they respect and admire, sure. But in this day and age with increasing amount of spinsters and lack of fatherhood women will show increasing egotistical behavior, also in what they vote.

Men on the other hand have evolved a disregard for their personal safety, this ability can be transferred in how they vote. A high iq woman needs a mans guidance to do the same, and it's not fair that a man gets 2 votes just because he has a woman under his control. And what about the spinsters.

I'm all for women being able to prove themselves. If you can find a 5 floor building anywhere in the world constructed by only females, they would prove they have the ability for teamwork and self sacrifice that should allow them to vote. As it is right now you have a Western world that for the past 60 years have had several billions women with full freedom. And not once have it happened that some of them gathered and showed teamwork and self sacrifice to build or invent something greater then themselves.

Understand this. If we removed womens right to vote and said. You get the right to vote back only when you build a building that is 5 floors high and with a big neon-sign saying "anything a man can do a woman can do better". Then that building would not be constructed. Does not matter how many strong and high iq women you gather to help construct the building. Without the guidance of a man they are incapable of showing the teamwork and self sacrifice to get it done.

Post: #35

Poll: Should newbie members be allowed to conduct polls?

Post: #36

(05-29-2015 12:55 PM)FuckTheDecline Wrote:  Libertas please think about this. If voting is not a right but a power, why should women have the power to control men? Women only contribution to civilization is giving birth, they invent nothing, build nothing and maintain nothing that has to do with civilization. And with regards to giving birth, in Denmark the last time the birthrate was over 2.0 per woman was in 1968!

I'd like to see you debate GMShivers on something.

But she's a woman!

Yes, but she is an extremely red pill intelligent woman who has her ducks in a row, owns a business and is vastly more aware than most men. I would rather have her voting than most men I encounter. Yet you'd exclude her and potentially include male feminists (an extreme example, but used to illustrate the point)? C'mon.

Same thing goes with a couple of other high quality women I know, although they haven't taken all their red pills yet like she has. We want high quality people at the polls. We shouldn't exclude the potential for high quality just because of something they didn't choose.

(05-29-2015 02:23 PM)roberto Wrote:  Gotta pull you up on that. Not a clue as to reasoning, history etc, but it's the South that's Tory blue. North is where most of the Labour strongholds apart from those in London are.

I was looking at this map from the 2015 election. Most of the districts in Northern England are blue (Conservative) here, which makes sense to me since it was historically the south of England that was less conservative.

Post: #37

Libertas have you considered that she might agree with me? Several high iq women both in the past and present would agree with me that women should not be allowed to vote. You are making the assumption that all women want the right to vote, that is just not true.

With regards to what you write under this post. If her opinion does not matter to you, then why should i care what she thinks? lol

And if there is one thing beta males have plenty of it is the ability to sacrifice themselves for the greater good and to teamwork. I'd rather have a low iq beta male being able to vote, who can vote against his own interest for the greater good, then a high iq egotistical woman.

Her companies and what not are all created on the foundation of civilization. Roads, houses, railways, oil, electricity and the list goes on and on. All of which are invented, build and maintained by men.

And just to make it clear. You can gather all the Gmshivers in the world. Have them come together in a construction site. Provide all the materials they need for building a 5 floor building. Without a male in a miles radius, they would not be able to construct. They could have the iq to build it. They could have the strength and machinery to build it. But they would lack the mentality to actually get it done

Post: #38

I haven't asked her, but what she has to say really doesn't mean much to my position.

I would rather have a high quality female voter than a low quality male voter. Sure, the latter would likely significantly outnumber the former, but it is what it is. Currently the system caters to the lowest quality of both sexes, so blaming our situation on women voting by itself is erroneous.

Post: #39

(05-29-2015 06:14 PM)Libertas Wrote:  I haven't asked her, but what she has to say really doesn't mean much to my position.

I would rather have a high quality female voter than a low quality male voter. Sure, the latter would likely significantly outnumber the former, but it is what it is. Currently the system caters to the lowest quality of both sexes, so blaming our situation on women voting by itself is erroneous.

Dude, all the high IQ females were raging feminists in the 1960's. You should check your assumptions.

There is zero value in giving women the vote. They don't do the vital work nor are they called to die for the state. It's obvious voting is a privilege and not a right, and part of having that privilege means being male.

Then you can add more qualifications, such as age, military, tax payments, etc.

Post: #40

Not only should women not be allowed to vote, most men shouldn't be allowed to vote either. I think the franchise should be limited strictly to:

1) Men
2) Aged 25-75
3) No felonies/bankruptcies/welfare claims in the prior 10 years
4) Father of two or more children
5) Property owning (or some minimal asset threshold)

These are the men who are the backbone of society, and the men who are the most personally invested in ensuring a good future for the country.

Women voting is, historically, literally as laughable as children voting. Despite his poor communication skills, the OP is entirely right in what he's been saying. Our ancestors would consider us absolutely retarded for even debating this topic.

Post: #41

I'm surprised that so many men here still take voting seriously.

As if restricting voting allowances would somehow produce better candidates.

As if those candidates would be any different than the bozos we have now.

As if the quality of your life has anything to do with politicians.

This whole thread is mental masturbation and male hamster on full speed.

Want a better life? Go and get it. Blaming women's suffrage and politicians for your problems is how unsuccessful people rationalize their shortcomings and failures.

Post: #42

(05-29-2015 05:06 PM)Carboneraser Wrote:  Im actually surprised by how many people suggest that they dont vote...

(05-29-2015 09:47 PM)BlurredSevens Wrote:  I'm surprised that so many men here still take voting seriously...

Post: #43

Imagine as some are saying, voting is restricted to men and there are further qualifications, age, income, whatever you desire.

This is the system we used to have. Property owning males would vote. That system turned into what we have today.

So why do you think that this admittedly unlikely system wouldn't again do the same thing?

Now nearly the whole world has, at least nominally, voting rights for all men and women over 18.

I wonder how much the U.S. really influenced this. Like if the U.S. never went for women's right to vote or universal male suffrage, would that be the norm in the rest of the world, or did the U.S. sort of guide the world towards that?

Post: #44

Of course they should be able to vote, and the men in their lives should exercise enough influence over them to determine the outcome. Men not thinking it's their place to guide their women is half the problem in this country...they are refusing to be leaders so their wives and daughters look to others or, even worse, themselves for answers.

Post: #45

Is voting in of itself a good idea?

Post: #46

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Franklin

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." Alexis de Tocqueville

Post: #47

^The only problem with that rule is that the elite billionaires and millionaires would just be able to vote in who they wanted each time, with policies that only benefit them.

It's a reasonable idea, perhaps there could be a cap at the amount of votes an individual could have.

Post: #48

(05-29-2015 05:36 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Poll: Should newbie members be allowed to conduct polls?

Should noobs be allowed to start threads?

Post: #49

The main problem is, you still think voting means anything at all....

Post: #50

The IQ tests, poll taxes, and disproportionate votes based on income have been tried in numerous places around the world, and have failed time and time again. Usually violently.

The love for dictatorships here is irrational. They're great if you're part of a privileged few, or to just visit for some tail, but for most living in a dictatorship its not all its hyped to be. Even the Chinese and Russians of privilege consistently park their wealth in safe haven democracies like the UK, Canada, US and Australia.

Wishing for poverty or dictatorship at home to put women in their place is cutting off your nose to spite your face.