Posted on 02/23/2016 8:14:38 AM PST by IChing
“You’re accepting their premises and agreeing with the overall mindset.”
No. I am not. I am a realist. The reality now is that the female vote cannot be ignored. Going back in time and denying women the right to vote is a horse that has already left the barn.
...and just how is it that those we don’t allow to vote in our elections are prevented from doing so? By force.
I know, I know, next you’ll say we have to pander to illegal aliens because they’re already being allowed to vote here, more and more as time passes...and when their vote is officially approved by law, as the trend indicates it eventually will, you’ll hush people like me, telling me not to rub them the wrong way....all this why the left always gains ground, while we lose it. You accept their terms, their philosophy, their premises, and you operate as if they’re legitimate and must be accepted, appealed to and won over....never do you consider the alternative right, never even heard of it...
Exactly, you accept the egalitarianism and democracy of the Enlightenment Left.
You were just saying in effect that the country has gone down the tubes as a direct result of women being able to vote, which tells me you don’t want them to. Why?
“next you’ll say we have to pander to illegal aliens”
The two situations are not in the least equivalent. I do not support illegal aliens voting.
Why did our founders and forefathers prohibit it? Were they not wise men?
Ann Barnhart weighs in on it at the 1:06:15 mark here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8zObNw8BCw
They are equivalent, specifically in that it doesn’t matter whether you’re in favor of it or not, it’ll be rammed down your throat regardless. The natural result of increased suffrage is increasing franchise and increasing suffrage.
The natural result of “we the people” and “the consent of those governed” and “representative government” resulting from the Enlightenment is that the lowest common denominator winning out at the end is as INEVITABLE as the tide rolling in. You cannot stop it. Everything slides toward the mob running roughshod over all dissent. The fact that The Constitution can be amended means that the mob will demand, easelessly, that it be amended until it is completely unrecognizable from its original intent and form.
typo — ceaselessly, not easelessly
Ann Coulter explains why it’s better if women not be allowed to vote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmDg9t5M5dI
Excellent comment below the video:
“Men defend territory, women are what is defended. Look at the Muslim invasion of Europe. This would not occur in a Patriarchal Europe, as the men understand that allowing foreigners to invade means that their genes will be displaced by the invaders. This is the same reason chimps patrol their territories. It’s simple evolutionary psychology. So, understanding that government is cooperative defense of territory, which is a male evolved drive, women should be excluded from this task because they are not evolved to perform it. Case in point: Feminist Sweden is now the rape capital of Europe. Coulter’s argument about women voting for spending is another reason. Her argument that men vote for smaller government, because they understand that they are the primary providers of those taxes, is also valid. Allowing women to vote allows women to use the state to transfer resources from men to women. This leads to a number of social pathologies, such as single motherhood, where women can simply vote for men to support them, rather than providing what men want in exchange for money: sex and children. In essence, this wealth transfer negatively impacts family formation. Want a strong defense? Borders? Smaller government and lower taxes? Families? Then take the vote away from women. If we don’t, we will simply be invaded by men who will.”
Ann Coulter: more about how “Women Should Not Have the Right to Vote”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGMwEAgx48Y
To the point, if illegal aliens DO get the vote, you’ll be saying the same thing — that the horse is already out of the barn, we can’t rub them the wrong way, etc.
Not true. This is an oft-repeated claim, but that doesn't make it so.
We managed to raise our family with only one parent employed. And we live in a high-cost, high-tax area of the country.
Besides, for many, many women, whatever income they bring in is largely consumed by the cost of daycare.
And consider this: How much does it cost families when their children become troubled and alienated -- as a direct result of being institutionalized too early (the word "institutionalized" meaning the child is dumped in daycare and lousy public schools)?
IOW, how much is it worth for a mom to work, when it increases the chance her kids will grow up to be estranged, or even drug addicts and criminals?
NO. I will not. The two situations are not in any way equivalent. Your making them equal is fallacious.
That you think women should not have the right to vote hails back to a time when women could not inherit or own property.
Flame away.
Forget it, it’s all over your head
Yes forget it.
“False equivalence: Describing a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.”
trulyfallacious.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.