Mind you, I am not speaking of any suffrage, but that of women in particular. Let's look at the history of civilization a bit.

For most of history there has been one simple, but effective trend: Men make the decissions and women are, at worst, second class citizens and, at best, little more than property.

Now, most opponents of what I have to say will point out how violent history was. However let's look at the facts a bit closer.

The first major push in the U.S. for women's suffrage was in 1848.
What happened just 13 short years latter? The civil war. Now I'm not claiming that the movement was a dirrect cause, but certainly the added political stress could not have helped the situation much. The main issue was that of state's rights. Most assuredly the conservative south would in no way welcome such a radical idea that went against centuries of international tradition.

Now then, America gets through the civil war intact and the women's suffrage movement is put down for the time being.

Enter world war one. The movement rears its ugly head again while our country is torn apart by the biggest war the world has ever seen. As it ends, women take advantage of the joy of victory to slide the issue into congress and get the issue made law by 1920. Now then, the world becomes all flowery and happy. We are infuenced by women and what happens just 9 short years latter?

The great depression. We won't even go into that as it speaks for itself.

We suffer through and in the end prevail, only to listen to the soft hearted women and ignore the next big threat that come our way: WWII

Instead of doing the manly thing and entering into the war in the begining and quickly ending it, we stay out and try to be nice. We get in touch with our feminine side and hope that everyone will just get along. In the end, we enter the war and help to finish it, but how many lives might have been spared if we had just acted as men in the begining.

My point is a simple one.
Women, while decrying violence, are the major cause of it and the rest of the hardships that the world must endure. History is full of examples of how women have led great men to their folly and thus the countries those men led. Cleopatra, Helen of Troy, etc, etc...

With each passing decade, the feminine influence grows and so do the threats facing the world. One can only be lead to believe that is it because of their growing influence in all aspects of society.

Yet, they claim they would do a better job of running the world then man would. I ask how?
Their emotions run wild with them. Most have a hard time debating without emotion. In fact they generally fall to their emotions very shortly upon entering such a realm and never manage to climb their way out that pit.

How would they prevail at running the world when once a month their hormones run rampant? They would blow up the first country that made them feel fat in those pants or said something, that was in no way ment as an insult mind you, that made them angry.
Why?
They don't know..
It was their hormones.

Bah..

Correlation does not imply causation. You've provided no causative hypothesis and not even a glimmer of substantiation.

Your premise is supported by jack shit.

Away with you.

~Raithere

Shush now Raithere, you'll ruin his fantasies of being abused and enslaved by one of us evil cunts. :)

Xev:
Shush now Raithere, you'll ruin his fantasies of being abused and enslaved by one of us evil cunts
You hush.

You assume he's not already been ensnared by one. Tee hee.. Kidding.


Mephurio- I've got a bone to pick with you. Give me a sec.

Originally posted by Raithere
Correlation does not imply causation. You've provided no causative hypothesis and not even a glimmer of substantiation.

Your premise is supported by jack shit.

Away with you.

~Raithere

So which is it? Are you a feminist, a liberal, or a tree hugging hippie?

Causation is supported by correlation.
Women's suffrage, at the time it was first mentioned, would be thought of as a very liberal idea. The south can be descrobed in no other way then conservative at that time. Right there is political headbashing. The federal government was already very liberal in which causes they chose to support then (ie. abolishing slavery). The south might well have feared other, more dramatic steps such as women's suffrage.

The depression:
Women had moved into the work place (a large foothold on their way to "equality"). With the war ending, more men returned home to jobs that where already filled...by women. Many of these females did not want to leave their new jobs (aka new found freedoms that we had to begrudgingly given them to support the war effort) and thus the we had two things upon our hands. One: A large workforce that produced items that were no longer in demand.
and two: A large populace with out enough jobs to go around.
Both of these conditions can easily be seen as leading contributors to an economic downswing. The situation could have been helped drastically if they had all been good women, forgot these silly notions of equality they had formed, and got back in the kitchens where they belonged.
Hell, we can go one step further.
Along with the new found freedoms that jobs gave these women, they also gained something else they never had before: Money.
For an economy to function well, money needs to circulate. Agressive tendancies are considered masculine for a reason; they are.
Women, being faced with the new world of finances, more than likely did one of two things: Either spent beyond their means. leaving debts that grew harder and harder to pay off in the coming years or saved agressively because they didn't know what to do with the money and they worried for the well being of their families in the future. America was not the mall filled waste land it is today. Women didn't go on shopping sprees. Either way you slice that one, its bad for the economy.

Now, World War 2:
This was the first time in the history of our nation that we behaved as we did. Until this time, America was an agressive nation, spreading out and taking what ever we could. We waged wars, invaded teritories, and conquered smaller 'nations'. We were agressive.
Suddenly, we withdrew from the world. We attacked less, took a less active role in politics, and basically kept to ourselves. Look at what was going on internally in this country. Women were taking a larger role in society and liberal causes were sweeping the political landscape. We were worried about helping people instead of conquering them. We had become more nurturing. We had become for caring. We had become more feminine.
A clear female influence.

Now, you are right. I do not have a time machine. I can't go back and ask all of the historical figures i would need to to actually prove any of this.

However, can you disprove it?

I can go a different route with all of this. It ends in the same place, though.

I can't really see anyone refuting the easy stuff first though.
Hell, I'll give you that that batch isn't very concrete. It wasn't ment to be. Consider it me testing the opponents. If you can't defend against this, how can you be expected to topple the good arguments.

Or, this is the United States of America you're talking about here.

When we can take care of our own, we can start worrying about whether issues like this are even real.

As to that, I'll give you the fast-forward: Whatever progress women have made toward being treated like human beings in the US has met stiff opposition; treating women well is the one issue that seems to make men stiffer than the women themselves do.

And perhaps there is good reason for that.

Perhaps if we weren't so busy trying, as men, to protect our god given right to rule, we would have more time to worry about fixing the existing problems instead of just prevent future ones. (read: women gaining even more power)

Tessie:
Whatever progress women have made toward being treated like human beings in the US has met stiff opposition; treating women well is the one issue that seems to make men stiffer than the women themselves do.
Hear, hear........

Gasp. That's twice I've agreed with anything Tessie's had to say around here. Must stop.

Now for Mephurio:
One:
Women, while decrying violence, are the major cause of it and the rest of the hardships that the world must endure.

Two:
Causation is supported by correlation

........allow me to ask that having seen the sun rise up in the morning, was it the nighttime just before it that caused it? B followed A yes? Causality 101. So then 'a' caused your 'b', no?

If we could brush up on some history we'll find what business the male puerco was up to when all that women wanted was a break from the sweatshops and a chance to vote for the next capitalist pig to control her country:

If I have my facts straight, shortly after that first move for sufferage come the Progressive years where left and right all kinds of opportunists were stirring up movements fueled by self-interest.
You had variants of socialist movements that were in vogue in those days becuase Marxism and fascsist pigs said so, labor movements and union strikes galore.
Capitalism was becoming a thing to frown upon and so all kinds of men were running around with their pamphlets and factions trying to nationalize America's booming industry which only weakend its might in the long run.

But yet you'd like to believe that it was a woman that led this country of ours into a depression.

Don't blame your lack of history on women my friend. Blame it on the very masculine underdogs blinded by idealism.

According to you, we could blame the Mexican war on Sally the midwife only trying to prove she's not the doormat you'd like to believe she is. And if you would like to blame it on her, prepare to be kissing her buttcheeks becuase then you'd have to 'blame' her for your country gaining Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico and those other states we won.......*oops* stole from Mexico for the spoils.

Lastly, if you'd like to blame the depression on a female, blame it on a German one. It was her fault she didn't know what the fuck she was doing in the first War and its her fucking fault to be buying American stock trying to pump the life back into her own economy when a little reasearch would show she was further demarganalizing and bankrupting not only her own country but now someone else's.

Originally posted by gendanken

........allow me to ask that having seen the sun rise up in the morning, was it the nighttime just before it that caused it? B followed A yes? Causality 101. So then 'a' caused your 'b', no?

Or nighttime was caused by the sun setting. 'A' follows 'B'. Yes.

If we could brush up on some history we'll find what business the male puerco was up to when all those poor little women wanted was a break from the sweatshops and a chance to vote for the next capitalist pig to control her country:

Just like a woman. Never satisfied. First they want out of the home, to be able to work like men, and then they complain about how hard the work is calling them sweatshops.

If I have my facts straight, shortly after that first move for sufferage come the Progressive years where left and right all kinds of opportunists were stirring up movements fueled by self-interest.
You had variants of socialist movements that were in vogue in those days becuase Marxism and fascsist pigs said so, labor movements and union strikes galore.
Capitalism was becoming a thing to frown upon and so all kinds of men were running around with their pamphlets and factions trying to nationalize America's booming industry which only weakend its might in the long run.

Or, if we check your history, we'll find that the first movement came in 1848, the same year the manifesto was published. Hardly time enough for the ideas of the book to influence europe much let alone the america's. That came closer to the second major movement, in the early 1900's.

But yet you'd like to believe that it was a woman that led this country of ours into a depression.

Not a woman. Women. They were major contributors to the economic downfall, and social instability.

Don't blame your lack of history on women my friend. Blame it on the very masculine underdogs blinded by idealism.

My lack of history? I never said anythign about my lack of history, though we just saw how lacking your's was.

According to you, we could blame the Mexican war on Sally the midwife only trying to prove she's not the doormat you'd like to believe she is. And if you would like to blame it on her, prepare to be kissing her buttcheeks becuase then you'd have to 'blame' her for your country gaining Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico and those other states we won.......*oops* stole from Mexico for the spoils.

I never said anything about ending all warfare. In fact, i said it was women's soft sensitive side that stopped us from entering them, and thus ending them, sooner. This just shows how little women know about warfare and the propper way to eliminate threats.

Lastly, if you'd like to blame the depression on a female, blame it on a German one. It was her fault she didn't know what the fuck she was doing in the first War and its her fucking fault to be buying American stock trying to pump the life back into her own economy when a little reasearch would show she was further demarganalizing and bankrupting not only her own country but now someone else's.

Oh yes! Make my point for me. Show how little women knew about economics and how they ruin their country's because of that ignorance.

What you have just said is that woman aren't blame. Women are.

Thanks. I thought you were arguing the other side though.

Many early Native American tribes were actually led by women and they made most of the decisions that made the tribe they were in work well together. They let the men dress up and become chiefs that were in charge of ceromonies and hunting though.

Originally posted by cosmictraveler
Many early Native American tribes were actually led by women and they made most of the decisions that made the tribe they were in work well together. They let the men dress up and become chiefs that were in charge of ceromonies and hunting though.

Perhaps true. I honestly don't know, though I wouldn't doubt it.
However, the natives mind set and way of thinking is unlike the western man's. Unlike us they also had no concept of owning land. If all women adn men thought their way, it might work. However, not many do anymore, if any.
That being the case, we are comparing apples and oranges.
If we could all suddenly believe and think as they did, it might work, but i don't see that happening.

Women do not mix well with modern governments and capatalism.

I smell Quinzubro. Anyway.

Let's be serious here.
You can shut up on two fronts:
Or nighttime was caused by the sun setting. 'A' follows 'B'. Yes.

That's the first front.
Just like a woman. Never satisfied. First they want out of the home, to be able to work like men, and then they complain about how hard the work is calling them sweatshops
This is the second front.

She's led a miserable life since she gave birth to a fucking man.This country did not start getting its act together until the 60's with laws passed requiring that both men and women get equal pay. That's absurd.


Or, if we check your history, we'll find that the first movement came in 1848, the same year the manifesto was published. Hardly time enough for the ideas of the book to influence europe much let alone the america's. That came closer to the second major movement, in the early 1900's.

So? I'm getting serious here. Screw devil's advocacy, mon cheri.

The Manifesto may have been down on paper years before.
It may have been circulating among Marxist circles sprouting in basements and backwater parlours- but the point of it is that nothing came of it until men jumped the bandwagon and took it as truth. It was their trying to legitimize a dogma and ramming their countries with idealism that was their nation's downfall- depression, soup kitchens, progroms, despotism, Stalin, Lenin and Hitler. It was the noble cause of the intellectual coward that kept this country from entering war.

Not a goddamned woman.

Lastly:
I never said anything about ending all warfare. In fact, i said it was women's soft sensitive side that stopped us from entering them, and thus ending them, sooner. This just shows how little women know about warfare and the propper way to eliminate threats.


You didn't have to. You missed that I was playing your own card against you.
You start you a thread trying to equate the female influence with shooting onself in the foot (sufferage-> civil war. Labor movements-> depression, global war).

Tagging an 'a' with a 'b'.

I'm saying if that is your game then in 1848 there was a bloody war going on also, the Mexican war, the same year these ladies got together to push through the legislature.

Yet in that war we stomped the Mexicans to jelly and came out the richest motherfuckers I've seen in a while.
So, if you'd like to keep playing accordingly you'd have to put the finger down and smack those lips because then you would not be 'blaming' her for your victory but kissing her ass for it.

Meph:
Women do not mix well with modern governments and capatalism.
Ok. I'm known for misogyny..........but says who? You?

I don't care much for governemnt.........but capitalism. Englighten me.

Originally posted by gendanken
That's the first front.

This is the second front.

Good. I take it You see the error in those paths then.

She's led a miserable life since she gave birth to a fucking mah.This country did not start getting their act together until the 60's with laws passed requiring that both men and women get equal pay. That's absurd.

I don't know who this Mah is you speak of, but I will respond to this as best I can. Women were never equal. It is only in fooling ourselves that we could ever believe so. The sexes are different in more ways than the obvious, and you with your love of the sciences should know this. You want to talk about where this whole equality thing has gotten us?
How about the lowering of firefighter standards because most women couldn't meet them. According to law, that is sexist and they were changed. How about all the reverse descrimination that goes on in the name of equal rights. How about the federal laws that require companies to hire people less qualified than other candidates simply because of race or sex.

If you see lowering of standards across the board as getting its act together then i guess i would have to agree.

The Manifesto may have been down on paper years before. It may have been circulating among Marxist circles sprouting in basements and backwater parlours- but the point of it is that nothing came of it until men jumped the bandwagon and took it as truth. It was their trying to legitimize a dogma and ramming ram their countries with idealism that was their coutrie's downfall-depression, soup kitchens, progroms, despotism, Stalin, Lenin and Hitler. It was the noble cause of the intellectual coward that kept this country from entering war.

Actually, it was written in 1848, as I have said. Marx was in his mid to late 30's i believe. SO how there would have been marxist circles prior...well, I've no clue. But, as for the rest of this, I will say this:
Communism is a try at a utopia. It's a fantasy and any sane man would recognize that. In fact, whole idea is based on helping each other and getting along. Nurturing and caring. Female traits.
There is nothing classically masculin in his theories. As such, it makes me wonder about marx.
I'm sure the root cause is

...a goddammned woman.

heheh


You didn't have to. You missed that I playing your own card against you.
You start you a thread trying to equate the female influence with shooting onself in the foot (sufferage- civil war. Labor movements- depressiong, global war).
Tagging an 'a' with a 'b'.

I'm saying if that is your game then in 1848 there was a bloody war going on also, the Mexican war, the same year these ladies got together to push through the legislature.

Yet in that war we stomped the Mexicans to jelly and came out the richest motherfuckers I've seen in a while. So, if you'd like to keep playing accordingly you'd have to put the finger down and smack those lips because then you woulnd't be 'blaming' her for your victory but kissing her ass for it.

So you are saying that women caused political unrest in mexico and the, at the time, very aggressive (masculine) U.S. came in and cleaned up?
So women caused the problem and man fixed them.
Alright, works for me.

Originally posted by gendanken
Meph:

Ok. I'm known for misogyny..........but says who? You?

I don't care much for governemnt.........but capitalism. Englighten me.

Oh, I'm not a misogynist by any means. You should know that by now.
I'm a realist.

Economics and governments are too things that, while perhaps not in practical application, are, nevertheless, based on fact and logic.
Women's strong suits tend to be more intuitive and emotional.

An emotional bag of hormones isn't what i want with power over nukes or the bank accout.

its that simple.

Meph:
An emotional bag of hormones isn't what i want with power over nukes or the bank accout.

And its really quite funny to find that the last administration had just that governing all those powerful possobilites that come with nukes and finance....

And its really quite funnier that there's another old hot sack of hormones relegating just how advisable it would be to use them and how in this administration.

Not only that but her task is to know her enemy and boy does she- a college professor that can teach you all there is to the Eastern countries, especially Russia. She speaks French, Russian, and I think some other kind of Serbian tounge, I'm not sure. She can even play a whole Beethoven concerto and I've heard it. Beautifully.

But you'd like to believe she was bawling her eyes out and somewhat clueless when the towers came crumbling down on 9/11.

I don't think I have to give you her name, do I?


I'll give you this though:
Women's strong suits tend to be more intuitive and emotional.

Its true.

But who better than a cold, calculating anybody to rule the world and snuff out traditions, regardless of sex?

Originally posted by gendanken
Meph:

And its really quite funny to find that the last administration had just that governing all those powerful possobilites come through nukes and finance....

And its really quite funnier that there's another old hot sack of hormones relegating just how advisable it'd be to use them and how in this administration.

Not only that but her task is to know her enemy and boy does she- a college professor that can teach you all there is to the Eastern countries, especially Russia. Shespeaks French, Russian, and I think some other kind of Serbian tounge, I'm not sure. She can even play a whole Beethoven concerto and I've heard it. Beautuifully.

But you'd like to believe she was bawling her eyes out and somewhat clueless when the towers came crumbling down on 9/11.

I don't think I have to give you her name, do I?


I'll give you this though:

Its true.

But who better than a cold, calculating anybody to rule the world and snuff out traditions, regardless of sex?

Actually, greenspan still holds the economy. Bank and government being seperate and all. She might hold the governments finances, but a man is still in charge of the economy as a whole. (thank god)

Also, notice I said tend.
You are trying to take an argument over a general condition and showing it to be false by pointing out specific examples. That is like arguing that a certain brand of cars is inferior because you know one person who owns one that doesn't run. It doesn't quite work.


As for the languages and music: While being impressive, it says nothing about economic ability or military ability. Then we have the fact that the military is run by the joint cheifs, and not an elected position. What you have given us is advisors, not people in charge.
Is this what you would call a straw man? (or in this case woman?)

Seeing as you've decided to skip the other replies, we will skip to the other ways in which women are the bane of humanity.

This country was founded by puritans. Think of their ways, moral, and values. Look at america now.

We can almost trace the crumbling of americas value by the hemlines of women's skirts. The more make up that comes out the farther down hill we slide.

As women pushed for equal rights and suffrage and whatnnot, other things came with it. If those issues so important to women were allowable, why not all the other liberal evils. Homosexuality, peircings, vulgarity in both language and behavior, violence flooding our every sense. "Why not?" cry the morally defunct minorities, "the women got there way."

So where will we bottom out? When will the women finally be happy? Never, I say.
Men were content with the statis quo.
Women started rocking the boat, and now we are all either drowning in the moral decay that has resulted or at least extremely sea sick.

Ok Mephura, your argument is illogical and idiotic. Why? Let's see.

Premise: For most of history there has been one simple, but effective trend: Men make the decissions and women are, at worst, second class citizens and, at best, little more than property

Your premise itself is flawed as it works from a "most". This is a 'percentage' that is subjective and unscientific. Considering also matrilineal societies, and the nature of decision making, I am not sure you can make this argument either... But, here let's proceed.

You said we should look at history, but your argument only operates from a western viewpoint...

The first major push in the U.S. for women's suffrage was in 1848.
What happened just 13 short years latter? The civil war. Now I'm not claiming that the movement was a dirrect cause, but certainly the added political stress could not have helped the situation much. The main issue was that of state's rights. Most assuredly the conservative south would in no way welcome such a radical idea that went against centuries of international tradition.
This is merely consequential. Provide a linkage between women's suffrage and the civil war... Also how about the effects outside the USA? Besides, there are political explanations for the war that have absolutely shit to do with human suffarge...

Enter world war one. The movement rears its ugly head again while our country is torn apart by the biggest war the world has ever seen. As it ends, women take advantage of the joy of victory to slide the issue into congress and get the issue made law by 1920. Now then, the world becomes all flowery and happy. We are infuenced by women and what happens just 9 short years latter?The great depression. We won't even go into that as it speaks for itself.
I believe I detect a contradiction or an absolutely pathetic attempt at a correlation. WW1 was violent and you assert that the cause of the war had nothing to do with women suffrage as the movement was dormant. How then can you make the conclusion you make about women being the cause of violence when they did not cause the war? Also the linkage bewteen the great depression and women suffrage is consequential. Do you propose that the war had nothing to do with the depression or that other factors,...fuck it..

We suffer through and in the end prevail, only to listen to the soft hearted women and ignore the next big threat that come our way: WWII
This is nonsense.

Instead of doing the manly thing and entering into the war in the begining and quickly ending it, we stay out and try to be nice. We get in touch with our feminine side and hope that everyone will just get along. In the end, we enter the war and help to finish it, but how many lives might have been spared if we had just acted as men in the begining.
So women made the decision to not go to war? I thought the people making the decisions were men. Or am I mistaken?

My point is a simple one.
You have no point.

Women, while decrying violence, are the major cause of it and the rest of the hardships that the world must endure. History is full of examples of how women have led great men to their folly and thus the countries those men led. Cleopatra, Helen of Troy, etc, etc...
And history is full of men(1000%+) who have led their countries astray. Either way, how do you go from these few examples of women who have supposedly led great men to folly...Was Cleopatra not protecting her own country? This is stupid...

With each passing decade, the feminine influence grows and so do the threats facing the world. One can only be lead to believe that is it because of their growing influence in all aspects of society.
Considering the nature of the current world and the nature of male/female interrelations in locales with conflict, this statement is stupid. It is even more so when one compares past events to current events.

Yet, they claim they would do a better job of running the world then man would. I ask how?
Who amongst the billions of females in the world claimed such to you?

Their emotions run wild with them.
I believe you are suffering from such emotions right now....

Most have a hard time debating without emotion.
You cannot prove this nonsensical statement. Men also have a hard time debating without emotion...this would include you.

In fact they generally fall to their emotions very shortly upon entering such a realm and never manage to climb their way out that pit.
This is boring me...you are making assertions without providing proof or any support. Besides, what has this to do with your position about violence?

How would they prevail at running the world when once a month their hormones run rampant?
This is also stupid. I donot envision women running the world by themselves. Also how about idiotic men who cannot think past their balls? How about idiotic men who cannot reason--You. It is not about gender but rather individuals.

I am tired of this stupidity. Mephura, I have never seen you sink this low, nor did I expect this kind of irrationality from you. Pathetic, contemptuous....

I am tired of this stupidity. Mephura, I have never seen you sink this low, nor did I expect this kind of irrationality from you. Pathetic, contemptuous....

*Cough*
Someone's been had.

*Cough*
Someone's been had.

:cool: Not so quick...

Originally posted by gendanken
........allow me to ask that having seen the sun rise up in the morning, was it the nighttime just before it that caused it? B followed A yes? Causality 101. So then 'a' caused your 'b', no?


Originally posted by Mephura
Causation is supported by correlation.

I'm not saying I agree with him, but just to be fair, he said that correlation supports causation, not that correlation proves causation.

Originally posted by thefountainhed
Your premise itself is flawed as it works from a "most". This is a 'percentage' that is subjective and unscientific. Considering also matrilineal societies, and the nature of decision making, I am not sure you can make this argument either... But, here let's proceed.

Considering we are talking about a matter of oppinion, history, and politics, I really don't see much of a problem in working off of a most.It seems kin of silly of you to try to b objective about a matter of oppinion, but...

You said we should look at history, but your argument only operates from a western viewpoint...

Could be because I am western and living in the western word and the western influence is what dominates most of the world today. That would, some would say, make it the most relevant area to focus on.


This is merely consequential. Provide a linkage between women's suffrage and the civil war... Also how about the effects outside the USA? Besides, there are political explanations for the war that have absolutely shit to do with human suffarge...

Suffrage is a political thing. This was already covered. Did you base all this off the first post only? If you read a bit father down, I go into more detail in a different post.


I believe I detect a contradiction or an absolutely pathetic attempt at a correlation. WW1 was violent and you assert that the cause of the war had nothing to do with women suffrage as the movement was dormant. How then can you make the conclusion you make about women being the cause of violence when they did not cause the war? Also the linkage bewteen the great depression and women suffrage is consequential. Do you propose that the war had nothing to do with the depression or that other factors,...fuck it..

Firstly, If you look really hard, I never once said that women were the cause of all the violence. I was showing that women are equally to blame for the pit falls of humanity as men are, and
thus being no better qualfied to lead. If they can screw us this much from the passenger seat imagine them at the wheel.

So women made the decision to not go to war? I thought the people making the decisions were men. Or am I mistaken?

You do like to try and put words in my mouth, don't you..
Men where at the helm, however sentiments of a more feminine origin where becoming more prevalent. The more rope we gave them, the more they hung us with it. Compassion and charity are feminine (classically) vitues, not masculine ones. Thus the whole section becomes almost a metaphore (though one with very real translations) for how women invaded the government and destroyed it. Much like the point on morality i make later.


You have no point.

You've yet to show that really.


And history is full of men(1000%+) who have led their countries astray. Either way, how do you go from these few examples of women who have supposedly led great men to folly...Was Cleopatra not protecting her own country? This is stupid...

Led astray?? Let's look at this. Males ruling was the way things were done. Males ruling somehow led their country away from male ruling (the only thing astray could be relevant to), and thus astray. Well, I guess in this case you have one good example. That being the U.S. and also my point. That the way of women in power is astray of the way things were ment to be.


Who amongst the billions of females in the world claimed such to you?

Billions? I never made such a claim. Your words..not mine. (again)
I've heard it several times. In fact if you go to the thread I put up a while ago about leading a country:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29663

riverline i believe the name wa.


I believe you are suffering from such emotions right now....

Well, you would believe wrong. Not surprising really.
Perhaps you would perfer it more if I said this more like you would:
Lies! Lies! You can't prove it! Lies!

You cannot prove this nonsensical statement. Men also have a hard time debating without emotion...this would include you.

Well, I can only judge by myself and my experiences. So, I give most men the benefit of the doubt when it comes to remaining unemotional over things unimportant. Attempting to sway my oppinion? You're doing a good job so far.


This is boring me...you are making assertions without providing proof or any support. Besides, what has this to do with your position about violence?

It has nothign to do with my position on violence as it was never voiced in this thread. I support my claims enough, considering no one is bothering to defend the opposite.

This is also stupid. I donot envision women running the world by themselves. Also how about idiotic men who cannot think past their balls? How about idiotic men who cannot reason--You. It is not about gender but rather individuals.

I don't envision myself waisting so much time on mindless tripe, but in your case i've been making an exception alot lately.
True enough, your point on individuals vs. gender. Though the more up to date studies on the physiological differences, especially in the brain, between the sexes would support the notion that one could make some generalities about them.

I am tired of this stupidity. Mephura, I have never seen you sink this low, nor did I expect this kind of irrationality from you. Pathetic, contemptuous....

Who is more foolish;
The fool or the fool that follows him?
Or in this case
The man lays traps or the man that falls for his own?

Hey, I've got the best correlation/ causation one of all:

The increasing suffrage has gotten us to our successful and less dangerous societies that we have today. Compared to say 300 years ago, autocratic monarchies, starvation, etc, now we have plenty of all we need, and thanks to democracy!

Originally posted by Mephura
So which is it? Are you a feminist, a liberal, or a tree hugging hippie?Name calling already? Tsk, tsk. We degenerate our arguments rather quickly don't we? Sorry, Mephura but you purview on politics is far too limited to encompass my political POV. For your purposes you might call me a Libertarian however.

Causation is supported by correlation.Actually, no it isn't. Correlation is only indicates that there may be some relationship between the two things. More often than not this is not a causative relationship. One might note, for instance, that children with larger feet are better at spelling (this is, in fact, true). I'll leave it to you to attempt to define the causative relationship.

Women's suffrage, at the time it was first mentioned, would be thought of as a very liberal idea. The south can be descrobed in no other way then conservative at that time.Sounds to me like you're suggesting that the Civil War was due to the conservative Southern states reaction to the Northern states progressively liberal politics. You've yet to show a causative link to women's suffrage.

Women had moved into the work place (a large foothold on their way to "equality").
...
The situation could have been helped drastically if they had all been good women, forgot these silly notions of equality they had formed, and got back in the kitchens where they belonged.Even given that your simplistic description of the economic situation at the time was true you have yet again failed to establish a causative link to suffrage. Might we assume that at some point you will indeed attempt to establish such a link?

Either spent beyond their means. leaving debts that grew harder and harder to pay off in the coming years or saved agressively because they didn't know what to do with the money and they worried for the well being of their families in the future.Can you establish this as anything beyond misogynistic presumption? What was the relative debt and savings carried by women vs. men during this period? Again, I note your failure to establish any causative relationship to suffrage.

Until this time, America was an agressive nation, spreading out and taking what ever we could.Subjective. We certainly were never as imperialist as say England and France. We pretty much stuck to our immediate 'neighborhood'. Most acquisitions were viewed as defensive moves.

Suddenly, we withdrew from the world. We attacked less, took a less active role in politics, and basically kept to ourselves.Indeed, it was all the way until 1946 until we decided that Russia was an 'intractable foe' and decided to support Iran against Russia. 1947 until we decided to likewise support Turkey and Greece. And five whole years to 1950 when we entered the Korean War.

However, can you disprove it?The onus is not upon me, it's your failed assertion.

~Raithere

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

Originally posted by Raithere
Name calling already? Tsk, tsk. We degenerate our arguments rather quickly don't we? Sorry, Mephura but you purview on politics is far too limited to encompass my political POV. For your purposes you might call me a Libertarian however.
Yes. The insults were intended to rise your ire and hopefully lower your reasoning. How else do you expect me win this bullshit?
Curses.

Actually, no it isn't. Correlation is only indicates that there may be some relationship between the two things. More often than not this is not a causative relationship. One might note, for instance, that children with larger feet are better at spelling (this is, in fact, true). I'll leave it to you to attempt to define the causative relationship.

If a correlation indicates there may be a relationship, and the relationship is later found and proven, then the correlation supports the causation.
As for the feet, my best guess would be that the genetics that play a role in foot size might also play a role in the development of that area of the brain.

Sounds to me like you're suggesting that the Civil War was due to the conservative Southern states reaction to the Northern states progressively liberal politics. You've yet to show a causative link to women's suffrage.
Too true...
As I'm not that big on politics, I couldn't even tell you which side (left or right wing) is for more federal control. I think I'm actually shooting my self in the foot here. Are the liberals for less government?

Even given that your simplistic description of the economic situation at the time was true you have yet again failed to establish a causative link to suffrage. Might we assume that at some point you will indeed attempt to establish such a link?
Nope. It was hard enough to come up with this bullshit the first time round. I was laughing my ass off when I typed it to be honest.

Can you establish this as anything beyond misogynistic presumption? What was the relative debt and savings carried by women vs. men during this period? Again, I note your failure to establish any causative relationship to suffrage.
Nice. Hit me where I am weakest. Make me dig for details, especially ones that would be hard to find. And for the record, I'm not a mysognist.

Subjective. We certainly were never as imperialist as say England and France. We pretty much stuck to our immediate 'neighborhood'. Most acquisitions were viewed as defensive moves.
If only the rest was this bad. I never claimed we were imperial, though we did claim some territories. We were, aggressive and held a large chunk of mexico for a while. Self fulfilling destiny and that shit. We were expanding. However, you trying to compare us to England and France is also subjective. Trying to claim I said we were imperialist is also not very nice. I do so hate having words put in my mouth.

Indeed, it was all the way until 1946 until we decided that Russia was an 'intractable foe' and decided to support Iran against Russia. 1947 until we decided to likewise support Turkey and Greece. And five whole years to 1950 when we entered the Korean War.

Tou-fucking-ché.
Nicely played.

The onus is not upon me, it's your failed assertion.

~Raithere

Onus or no, you've won the match. Thank you for doing so so quickly. It was getting tiresome. However, if you read the last line of my reply to F-Hed, you'll notice I already admitted this was nothing but a ruse.

In recognition of your superb debating skill, we'd like to award you this honorary title.

I dub thee
Sir Raithere, Slayer of Bullshit Arguments.

Congratulations..

Originally posted by Mephura
If a correlation indicates there may be a relationship, and the relationship is later found and proven, then the correlation supports the causation.Not unless the relationship is causal. Many things are related but are not causal to each other.

As for the feet, my best guess would be that the genetics that play a role in foot size might also play a role in the development of that area of the brain.It's a tricky question but an illuminating one; the answer is age. The older the child is the larger their feet are. They also learn how to spell better. Foot size and spelling ability have no causal relationship to each other but instead share a common causal relationship with age.

As I'm not that big on politics, I couldn't even tell you which side (left or right wing) is for more federal control.From the libertarian POV both sides are.

And for the record, I'm not a mysognist.Good to know.

If only the rest was this bad. I never claimed we were imperial,Yes, you did:

"Until this time, America was an agressive nation, spreading out and taking what ever we could." - Mephura

"imperialism n. The policy, practice, or advocacy of seeking, or acquiescing in, the extension of the control, dominion, or empire of a nation, as by the acquirement of new, esp. distant, territory or dependencies..." - Websters Unabridged
However, if you read the last line of my reply to F-Hed, you'll notice I already admitted this was nothing but a ruse.I noticed that after I posted... one never knows around here. Thanks for the fun... :)

~Raithere