Null is out of touch with women

Sure. Against all logic and reason, I believe in abstract concepts like unalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Even for women. Even for the likes of you. Ideals are not a bad thing. They are what separate us from the chimpanzees and gorillas.
Well your beliefs are provably wrong and false. It's beyond obvious that humans do not have any unalienable rights whatsoever, and they can be killed, in massive numbers, without many shedding a single tear. Like Palestinians or Ukrainians. Even Russians as they also die in thousands.
Ideals are fine.
Legislating your fictions is not.
Pursuit of happiness lmao.
Can we get some of the local lonely dudes let us know how the state could make sure their unalienable right to pursue happiness is to be enforced?
I'm all ears!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: m1ddl3m4rch
Well your beliefs are provably wrong and false. It's beyond obvious that humans do not have any unalienable rights whatsoever, and they can be killed, in massive numbers, without many shedding a single tear. Like Palestinians or Ukrainians. Even Russians as they also die in thousands.
Ideals are fine.
Legislating your fictions is not.

Yes. Russia, Ukraine, and Palestine were all well-known bastions of women's rights & civil liberties before the bombings started.

I can shed many tears for them but I cannot legally do a single thing for them.
 
User @AgendaPoster channeling the spirit of Robert A. Heinlein in this thread.
"Ah, yes, the `unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What `right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries.

What `right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of `right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is `unalienable'? And is it `right'?

As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called `natural human rights' that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

"The third `right'? -- the `pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can `pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives -- but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."
 
Yes. Russia, Ukraine, and Palestine were all well-known bastions of women's rights & civil liberties before the bombings started.

I can shed many tears for them but I cannot legally do a single thing for them.
That proves that human rights are a fiction.
Even in the US.
Fairly sure Obama droned American citizens to death for wrongthink and the CIA propped up terrorism and fascist militias.
And tortured people without a trial.
You live into a world of privileged naivete miss.
Hell, the USA is literally funding the Israeli genocide right now.
 
Against all logic and reason, I believe in abstract concepts like unalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Don't all rape victims believe they have an unalienable right not to be raped? And then they're raped. Maybe words on paper doesn't mean anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: derpherp2
That proves that human rights are a fiction.

No, they're just harder to enforce in Eastern European countries that do not recognize them as legitimate to begin with.

Don't all rape victims believe they have a right not to be raped? And then they're raped. Maybe words on paper doesn't mean anything.

Yet I would much prefer to live in a country where rapists face actual legal consequences for violating women's rights.
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: derpherp2
No, they're just harder to enforce in Eastern European countries that do not recognize them as legitimate to begin with.
Yes, when countries disagree they don't enforce the same standards. Because they don't agree.
Yet I would much prefer to live in a country where rapists face actual legal consequences for violating women's rights.
Rape isn't a violation of women's rights. It's just a crime you fuckin retard.
 
Women- this is what conservative men are thinking when they argue that women shouldn't vote. They do not think that rape is a violation of our rights & they want to legally enforce that viewpoint.
That's a lot of words for "I'm ungrateful for the men who keep me safe from rape and murder."
 
That's a lot of words for "I'm ungrateful for the men who keep me safe from rape and murder."

Hm? I never implied any of that. I am very grateful for the laws which protect women from rape and murder, as well as the men & women who enforce those laws.

You are the one that implied that rape was not a violation of women's rights, as if raping a woman is on the same moral & ethical ground as lighting a joint.
 
Hm? I never implied any of that. I am very grateful for the laws which protect women from rape and murder, as well as the men & women who enforce those laws.

You are the one that implied that rape was not a violation of women's rights, as if raping a woman is on the same moral & ethical ground as lighting a joint.
Rape as a crime predates women's rights, hole. Try again.
 
Yes vote Liberal, who think men in skirts are women, and at the same time can't even answer the question "What is a woman?" Because someone on the Internet called you a name.

The name was "hole" after they asserted that raping a woman is not a violation of her rights.

"What is a woman?"
Liberal: -shrug-
Conservative: A hole with no human rights!

Anyway, make sure to vote, ladies
 
  • Autistic
  • Like
Reactions: Perun and derpherp2
The best part about this is @m1ddl3m4rch isn't even conservative, he's a self admitted homosexual, I'm sure he has a a ton of disagreements with conservatives when it comes to topic of homosexuality who think he's a victim child abuse and wants to touch kids.
 
The best part about this is @m1ddl3m4rch isn't even conservative, he's a self admitted homosexual, I'm sure he has a a ton of disagreements with conservatives when it comes to topic of homosexuality who think he's a victim child abuse and wants to touch kids.
I support homosexual monogamous marriage. Oddly enough, if we're liberal enough to include it as a family unit in society, when we have to defend homosexuals from transgenderism, we're conservative, because we are conserving the expansion we endorsed.
 
Last edited:
This is not true. Here is the full text of the 19th Amendment:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

This only applies to women, because no states at that time were denying men the right to vote on account of being male.

In the United States, all white men who did not own property had the right to vote by 1856, regardless of which state they lived in. The 15th Amendment (ratified in 1870) extended that right to all men, regardless of race. The 19th Amendment (ratified in 1920) extended that right to women.
Sorry, you're right about the fifteenth amendment. There's myths to dispel concerning what the amendments do or do not do, and in this case, the nineteenth is a bit more complicated. For all intents and purposes, women actually benefit more from the fifteenth in conjunction with the nineteenth. But all of that is due the way these are worded.

Let me break this down...

The text of the document reads, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Straightforward, right? But then you have to realize, this is law and laws need to be interpreted. Based on the language in the nineteenth amendment itself, you can see that it does not give women the right to vote, but rather took away sex as a barrier to voting for U.S. citizens. This difference is crucial to understand.

During that time, states and localities could still prevent women—and men—from voting through other means such as poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, or other discriminatory practices under Jim Crow. Native American women also did not receive the vote because were not considered U.S. citizens until the passage of the Snyder Act in 1924. Immigrant women could also not vote because they were not citizens of the U.S. For example, Chinese-American women did not receive the vote with the Nineteenth Amendment because the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act barred them from becoming U.S. citizens.

It was not until the 1965 Voting Rights Act that many of these limitations set up women (and men) across the country were lifted. Also, look into the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby V. Holder. This decision has invalidated a key provision in the 1965 Act, making it far easier to change election and voting laws at the local level to discriminate against or suppress the vote of certain groups. Despite the 19th amendment, there are still many women (and men) who are citizens of the United States still find their right to vote denied or made practically impossible to exercise.

All this is to say is the nineteenth amendment isn't what you really think it is and men and women alike probably owe more to the fifteenth amendment to our right to vote. Without the fifteenth in place, I know for sure I wouldn't have had the right to vote for a good portion of my life.
 
Last edited:
Back