User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
IN, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:38:43 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: So some women have more rights than you because they can beat you up and rights are directly correlated with the ability of someone to beat someone else up? What about the women who would simply shoot you with a gun? They have more rights than you. So far no one has convinced me that OP's thought exercise is logical and OP didn't start this thread to troll people into women-hating. No, it proves that society as a whole needs people willing to protect each other's rights. You could replace the word "women" with any other demographic and the idea would hold true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:38:46 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Here's an equally idiotic thought exercise. What if all women decided to ambush, physically incapacitate all men, and enslave them? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By zhass: I guess this begs the question. How many men here would stand with other men, or with the wives, daughters and women they love and would protect with their lives? OP and others are being disingenuous with regard to the purpose of this thread. They are the "weak men" people keep referring to. Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: RustedAce already did that thread. So what's the purpose of this thread? Parady? OP thought there were already too many "women shouldn't be able to vote threads"? Why are you asking me? I'm not OP There are very few women that can kick my ass, therefore he has a valid point. There's lots of dudes that could kick my ass. So some women have more rights than you because they can beat you up and rights are directly correlated with the ability of someone to beat someone else up? What about the women who would simply shoot you with a gun? They have more rights than you. So far no one has convinced me that OP's thought exercise is logical and OP didn't start this thread to troll people into women-hating. Decent question but I'm a better shot. I suppose if I were a woman I would use ambush tactics to gain an advantage. Here's an equally idiotic thought exercise. What if all women decided to ambush, physically incapacitate all men, and enslave them? It's theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. They would need to war game that A LOT. Plus women don't really think that way. The most deranged and retarded people on earth are men. The smartest and most brave are men. Women fluctuate but don't operate in the extremes of the spectrum like men do. Men legit flay people alive and make lamps, as well as invent the theory of relativity. So I'm not sure they have the Constitution for enslaving us. I mean I could help command them as I would have inside knowledge on how to wage war against men, but then they would be using men and the OP would be right again |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:38:59 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: If that was truly OP's point he could have picked any demographic to make it. He could have said, "None of us have any rights because the rest of society could gang up to physically suppress us." Instead, he chose women to be edgy and because he knew he could predictably sucker in some people here to defend his point. So this thread is actually about hating on women instead of any kind of any logical debate. Thanks for confirming what I already knew. Stay classy GD. Did you read where OP told me women wouldn't have any bodily autonomy concerning bearing children? Is that not forcing someone to do something?  Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: My argument is to enslave women? That's a new one! Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Oh look, another women-hating thread in GD. Say all men decide to revoke the "rights" of women. What would happen if women decided they were no longer going to give birth? Suddenly people wouldn't have the right to even exist. It's as equally retarded/plausible as OP's scenario. Again, women wouldn't be able to enforce their body autonomy. So your thought experiment fails. In your new dystopian world, where women don't have rights, how do you plan on forcing them to produce children and not allowing them to have body autonomy? Through physical force? That's his whole point. It is the same as you pointing to words on a page of the Constitution as you're arrested for hate speech. Whoever has physical power makes the rules. Using your's and OP's logic then 30yo males (or any other demographic) don't have any rights because if the rest of society decided to physically oppress them could. So in reality no one has any rights because anyone else can gang up on them to physically opress them. Interesting OP decided to choose women as the oppressed group in his thought experiment. You are 100% accurate. Exactly. If that was truly OP's point he could have picked any demographic to make it. He could have said, "None of us have any rights because the rest of society could gang up to physically suppress us." Instead, he chose women to be edgy and because he knew he could predictably sucker in some people here to defend his point. So this thread is actually about hating on women instead of any kind of any logical debate. Thanks for confirming what I already knew. Stay classy GD. Originally Posted By JamPo: No one suggested enslaving or forcing anyone to do anything. The premise of the conversation is do you have a right if someone can take it. Example, I was just talking to my son over lunch. His phone was beside me. I ask him "son, do you have a right to this phone." He thought for a second and said yes. I took the phone. Then I said, "can you take it back." He said no. I ask him what happened to his rights? Thought provoking. Did you read where OP told me women wouldn't have any bodily autonomy concerning bearing children? Is that not forcing someone to do something? You are misrepresenting what I said, or misunderstanding. I said that all rights are governed by force. Force is enforced by men. You said something to the effect, “well what if women just said we will stop bearing children?” I’ve already stated that men have a monopoly on force. So then, how could a women stop bearing children? If men wanted them to bear children, they could force them to. I’m not advocating for that, it’s just reality. Just as it’s reality that men enforce law. You can deny it, you can choose to not agree with it, or even like it. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:39:52 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sixnine: It wasn't until the last 100 years or so that an effort has been made to stop slapping women around and treat them as equals, and that's in the civilized countries. Much of the world still hasn't even started working on it or even believes it should be pursued. If women could assert their own rights there wouldn't be a couple thousand years of them not having rights. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sixnine: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: So some women have more rights than you because they can beat you up and rights are directly correlated with the ability of someone to beat someone else up? What about the women who would simply shoot you with a gun? They have more rights than you. So far no one has convinced me that OP's thought exercise is logical and OP didn't start this thread to troll people into women-hating. No, it proves that society as a whole needs people willing to protect each other's rights. You could replace the word "women" with any other demographic and the idea would hold true. We legit thought of slaves as subhuman and they were 3/5ths of a man. But 3/5ths of a man got to vote 5 decades before women. Wew |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:42:37 PM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:44:29 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Here's an equally idiotic thought exercise. What if all women decided to ambush, physically incapacitate all men, and enslave them? Come on, this is simply a thought exercise to point out how rights aren't real because men can beat up women. But this thread is totally not about women. Don't forget women should be allowed to have abortions or vote Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By zhass: I guess this begs the question. How many men here would stand with other men, or with the wives, daughters and women they love and would protect with their lives? OP and others are being disingenuous with regard to the purpose of this thread. They are the "weak men" people keep referring to. Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: RustedAce already did that thread. So what's the purpose of this thread? Parady? OP thought there were already too many "women shouldn't be able to vote threads"? Why are you asking me? I'm not OP There are very few women that can kick my ass, therefore he has a valid point. There's lots of dudes that could kick my ass. So some women have more rights than you because they can beat you up and rights are directly correlated with the ability of someone to beat someone else up? What about the women who would simply shoot you with a gun? They have more rights than you. So far no one has convinced me that OP's thought exercise is logical and OP didn't start this thread to troll people into women-hating. Decent question but I'm a better shot. I suppose if I were a woman I would use ambush tactics to gain an advantage. Here's an equally idiotic thought exercise. What if all women decided to ambush, physically incapacitate all men, and enslave them? Originally Posted By 7empest: Gosh I just can't understand why lots of women won't vote Republican.. Come on, this is simply a thought exercise to point out how rights aren't real because men can beat up women. But this thread is totally not about women. Don't forget women should be allowed to have abortions or vote Women are like the intelligence communities. They operate and gain power through subterfuge not overwhelming force. Mind games, coy smiles, etc. Actually there's a LOT of women at the CIA HQ. Like A LOT |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:46:07 PM EDT
[#7]
So I suppose women could develop psyops to control the men, but they already do this.
Might be pretty terrifying as an institutional project though. Wew |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:50:51 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By QueenDeNile: That's a good question. I believe the majority of men are not offensive and support that women deserve equal pay for equal work and to their own self determination (ie paychecks, vote, a toxic free work place) and the shame of the bad behavior exposed from the Anita Hill scandal was the catalyst for that change. As stated in the first post, all rights are illusionary. We are an intelligent herd animal and learned eventually that the survival of the strongest comes with great cost. We are still learning to (or haven't learned) to protect ourselves from those stronger in mind-though weaker collectively. We are very much influenced by propaganda and the hope for justice. You don't have to look around the world very hard to find examples where bad men are allowed to rule, women universally suffer in the extreme. There is no society where women oppress men, never has been that I'm aware of. Is that because women aren't despotic by nature or is it because of the inherent inequality of the ability to express physical violence? Why do trans "women" dominate women's sports? Therefor, any increase in women's access to their natural rights, must have at least the tacit support of the men, that up to that point were in charge of society....right? Those men being at least partially "good". Conversely, did Afgan women not want to retain the increased freedoms and rights they had come to enjoy during the US occupation? Or did bad men dominate society using violence because the good men and women left? I don't believe all rights are illusions, I believe natural rights are possessed by all humans inherently. That doesn't mean you won't have to fight for them on occasion. If you cannot, through physical violence, or collective coercion or whispers in someones ear...you may be denied those rights, but they don't cease to exist. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:51:02 PM EDT
[#9]
The Greeks got tired of women so they just decided to be gay and go other places to oppress people.
"Gents if we become gay we can just enforce our will on lots of other countries instead of wasting time with women" - The Greeks This shows you that the idea can definitely be taken too far |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:51:56 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PlaneJane:  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:52:10 PM EDT
[#11]
Is this the same OP that makes the creepy church teenaged girl threads? If not it seems like him and that other guy would get along well.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:52:43 PM EDT
[#12]
I don't think women could compete with a gay on purpose all male war culture.
The downside of course would be we'd all have to be gay. Which is pretty gay |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:54:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Boom_Stick]
[#13]
Men are even better at being women. Thats what GD told me
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:56:49 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Boom_Stick: Men are even better at being women. Thats what GD told me Dude we're not doing the gay on purpose war culture, stop |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:58:19 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: You are misrepresenting what I said, or misunderstanding. I said that all rights are governed by force. Force is enforced by men. You said something to the effect, "well what if women just said we will stop bearing children?" I've already stated that men have a monopoly on force. So then, how could a women stop bearing children? If men wanted them to bear children, they could force them to. I'm not advocating for that, it's just reality. Just as it's reality that men enforce law. You can deny it, you can choose to not agree with it, or even like it. It doesn't change the fact that it's true. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: My argument is to enslave women? That's a new one! Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Oh look, another women-hating thread in GD. Say all men decide to revoke the "rights" of women. What would happen if women decided they were no longer going to give birth? Suddenly people wouldn't have the right to even exist. It's as equally retarded/plausible as OP's scenario. Again, women wouldn't be able to enforce their body autonomy. So your thought experiment fails. In your new dystopian world, where women don't have rights, how do you plan on forcing them to produce children and not allowing them to have body autonomy? Through physical force? That's his whole point. It is the same as you pointing to words on a page of the Constitution as you're arrested for hate speech. Whoever has physical power makes the rules. Using your's and OP's logic then 30yo males (or any other demographic) don't have any rights because if the rest of society decided to physically oppress them could. So in reality no one has any rights because anyone else can gang up on them to physically opress them. Interesting OP decided to choose women as the oppressed group in his thought experiment. You are 100% accurate. Exactly. If that was truly OP's point he could have picked any demographic to make it. He could have said, "None of us have any rights because the rest of society could gang up to physically suppress us." Instead, he chose women to be edgy and because he knew he could predictably sucker in some people here to defend his point. So this thread is actually about hating on women instead of any kind of any logical debate. Thanks for confirming what I already knew. Stay classy GD. Originally Posted By JamPo: No one suggested enslaving or forcing anyone to do anything. The premise of the conversation is do you have a right if someone can take it. Example, I was just talking to my son over lunch. His phone was beside me. I ask him "son, do you have a right to this phone." He thought for a second and said yes. I took the phone. Then I said, "can you take it back." He said no. I ask him what happened to his rights? Thought provoking. Did you read where OP told me women wouldn't have any bodily autonomy concerning bearing children? Is that not forcing someone to do something? You are misrepresenting what I said, or misunderstanding. I said that all rights are governed by force. Force is enforced by men. You said something to the effect, "well what if women just said we will stop bearing children?" I've already stated that men have a monopoly on force. So then, how could a women stop bearing children? If men wanted them to bear children, they could force them to. I'm not advocating for that, it's just reality. Just as it's reality that men enforce law. You can deny it, you can choose to not agree with it, or even like it. It doesn't change the fact that it's true. Except it's not the reality, what you're trying to say would be true for every human being. For something to be "reality" it needs to be real. Your scenario has zero chance of happening. If your point is that "rights are governed by force" you could have used any demographic. ""Insert age/race" males have no rights because everyone else could use force to deny them their rights." Yet you picked one of GD's favorite demographics to hate on. Why is that? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:59:04 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Except it's not the reality, what you're trying to say would be true for every human being. For something to be "reality" it needs to be real. Your scenario has zero chance of happening. If your point is that "rights are governed by force" you could have used any demographic. ""Insert age/race" males have no rights because everyone else could use force to deny them their rights." Yet you picked one of GD's favorite demographics to hate on. Why is that? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: My argument is to enslave women? That's a new one! Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Oh look, another women-hating thread in GD. Say all men decide to revoke the "rights" of women. What would happen if women decided they were no longer going to give birth? Suddenly people wouldn't have the right to even exist. It's as equally retarded/plausible as OP's scenario. Again, women wouldn't be able to enforce their body autonomy. So your thought experiment fails. In your new dystopian world, where women don't have rights, how do you plan on forcing them to produce children and not allowing them to have body autonomy? Through physical force? That's his whole point. It is the same as you pointing to words on a page of the Constitution as you're arrested for hate speech. Whoever has physical power makes the rules. Using your's and OP's logic then 30yo males (or any other demographic) don't have any rights because if the rest of society decided to physically oppress them could. So in reality no one has any rights because anyone else can gang up on them to physically opress them. Interesting OP decided to choose women as the oppressed group in his thought experiment. You are 100% accurate. Exactly. If that was truly OP's point he could have picked any demographic to make it. He could have said, "None of us have any rights because the rest of society could gang up to physically suppress us." Instead, he chose women to be edgy and because he knew he could predictably sucker in some people here to defend his point. So this thread is actually about hating on women instead of any kind of any logical debate. Thanks for confirming what I already knew. Stay classy GD. Originally Posted By JamPo: No one suggested enslaving or forcing anyone to do anything. The premise of the conversation is do you have a right if someone can take it. Example, I was just talking to my son over lunch. His phone was beside me. I ask him "son, do you have a right to this phone." He thought for a second and said yes. I took the phone. Then I said, "can you take it back." He said no. I ask him what happened to his rights? Thought provoking. Did you read where OP told me women wouldn't have any bodily autonomy concerning bearing children? Is that not forcing someone to do something? You are misrepresenting what I said, or misunderstanding. I said that all rights are governed by force. Force is enforced by men. You said something to the effect, "well what if women just said we will stop bearing children?" I've already stated that men have a monopoly on force. So then, how could a women stop bearing children? If men wanted them to bear children, they could force them to. I'm not advocating for that, it's just reality. Just as it's reality that men enforce law. You can deny it, you can choose to not agree with it, or even like it. It doesn't change the fact that it's true. Except it's not the reality, what you're trying to say would be true for every human being. For something to be "reality" it needs to be real. Your scenario has zero chance of happening. If your point is that "rights are governed by force" you could have used any demographic. ""Insert age/race" males have no rights because everyone else could use force to deny them their rights." Yet you picked one of GD's favorite demographics to hate on. Why is that? Women did 9/11 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:05:42 PM EDT
[#17]
Originally Posted By thepantydropper: ... Let’s think this through logically. In order for a right to exist, it must be enforced. To enforce a right, you must use force. ... Can you answer this question: Why is the bold red part true? @thepantydropper |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:08:12 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Can you answer this question: Why is the bold red part true? @thepantydropper Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: ... Let’s think this through logically. In order for a right to exist, it must be enforced. To enforce a right, you must use force. ... Can you answer this question: Why is the bold red part true? @thepantydropper Rights do not exist magically, they must be fought for to be secured and fought for to be retained. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:08:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Bat15]
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: He who controls the power controls the ass. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By HangfiresGhost: You'd be trading your weapon for a piece of ass on day two. He who controls the power controls the ass. Tell us the truth. Do you think we live in the state of nature? You are talking like a caveman. The might makes right idea died man moved from the state of nature to civilized society. A given person maybe the strongest man the tribe but he is not stronger than the majority of the tribe. Sure we have criminals who do what they want until society stops them. Don’t count on a Soros DA or some liberal governor saving you. Even sheep have teeth. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:09:53 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By QueenDeNile: love is a choice those who have successful marriages chose to make daily. Women were designed to compliment men and do what men can't. It is equally important. Yes we need men - just as you need us. Why do you value your strength more than my compassion? Why is your strength more important than my ability to nurture? Don't we need both? @Chasim as you define feminism you are correct but my definition is different. Safety in the work place, equal rights to educational opportunity, equal pay for equal work, respect is feminism to me. I don't believe I have any rights that are not basic human decency-and this should be true for all humans. That might be seen as misogynist, and if so, so be it. We need more of it, not less, because I care about "my" women, I want more men like me out there so that the world is better for them. Because if men that don't share my view are in charge, women won't be able to physically defend themselves. My family just had this discussion last night, men think about Rome, women think about getting attacked. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:11:38 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By QueenDeNile: It is amazing what we are able to endure. I am pretty old fashion but I would balk if I was sent back in time. Probably most of would. I also think the responsibility of dictatorship over women would be a burden. There are dystopian fiction to this extent--imagine if you had to drive your wife everywhere you needed her to go? It would be a burden. There's a reason the Saudi's rely upon the US for so much, half their time is spent doing what soccer moms do. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:12:03 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Women could in theory just set up L shaped ambushes everywhere but then men would fight through them as doctrine states so I'm still not really sure they'd win. Men would also probably have ISR |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:12:54 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: You are misrepresenting what I said, or misunderstanding. I said that all rights are governed by force. Force is enforced by men. You said something to the effect, "well what if women just said we will stop bearing children?" I've already stated that men have a monopoly on force. So then, how could a women stop bearing children? If men wanted them to bear children, they could force them to. I'm not advocating for that, it's just reality. Just as it's reality that men enforce law. You can deny it, you can choose to not agree with it, or even like it. It doesn't change the fact that it's true. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:13:56 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Except it's not the reality, what you're trying to say would be true for every human being. For something to be "reality" it needs to be real. Your scenario has zero chance of happening. If your point is that "rights are governed by force" you could have used any demographic. ""Insert age/race" males have no rights because everyone else could use force to deny them their rights." Yet you picked one of GD's favorite demographics to hate on. Why is that? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: My argument is to enslave women? That's a new one! Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Oh look, another women-hating thread in GD. Say all men decide to revoke the "rights" of women. What would happen if women decided they were no longer going to give birth? Suddenly people wouldn't have the right to even exist. It's as equally retarded/plausible as OP's scenario. Again, women wouldn't be able to enforce their body autonomy. So your thought experiment fails. In your new dystopian world, where women don't have rights, how do you plan on forcing them to produce children and not allowing them to have body autonomy? Through physical force? That's his whole point. It is the same as you pointing to words on a page of the Constitution as you're arrested for hate speech. Whoever has physical power makes the rules. Using your's and OP's logic then 30yo males (or any other demographic) don't have any rights because if the rest of society decided to physically oppress them could. So in reality no one has any rights because anyone else can gang up on them to physically opress them. Interesting OP decided to choose women as the oppressed group in his thought experiment. You are 100% accurate. Exactly. If that was truly OP's point he could have picked any demographic to make it. He could have said, "None of us have any rights because the rest of society could gang up to physically suppress us." Instead, he chose women to be edgy and because he knew he could predictably sucker in some people here to defend his point. So this thread is actually about hating on women instead of any kind of any logical debate. Thanks for confirming what I already knew. Stay classy GD. Originally Posted By JamPo: No one suggested enslaving or forcing anyone to do anything. The premise of the conversation is do you have a right if someone can take it. Example, I was just talking to my son over lunch. His phone was beside me. I ask him "son, do you have a right to this phone." He thought for a second and said yes. I took the phone. Then I said, "can you take it back." He said no. I ask him what happened to his rights? Thought provoking. Did you read where OP told me women wouldn't have any bodily autonomy concerning bearing children? Is that not forcing someone to do something? You are misrepresenting what I said, or misunderstanding. I said that all rights are governed by force. Force is enforced by men. You said something to the effect, "well what if women just said we will stop bearing children?" I've already stated that men have a monopoly on force. So then, how could a women stop bearing children? If men wanted them to bear children, they could force them to. I'm not advocating for that, it's just reality. Just as it's reality that men enforce law. You can deny it, you can choose to not agree with it, or even like it. It doesn't change the fact that it's true. Except it's not the reality, what you're trying to say would be true for every human being. For something to be "reality" it needs to be real. Your scenario has zero chance of happening. If your point is that "rights are governed by force" you could have used any demographic. ""Insert age/race" males have no rights because everyone else could use force to deny them their rights." Yet you picked one of GD's favorite demographics to hate on. Why is that? I’m not sure if you are obtuse or just so politically entrenched you cannot do logic. Is there a difference between men and women? If yes, then we are talking about two groups. One that cannot enforce law, AKA women, so they are at the mercy of men. And men… who enforce law and yes, other men would be subjugated to that law in a large society, but not necessarily so in a small communal society. Either way, what we are distinguishing is that ultimately men create and form societal laws which is a distinction from women who rely on men to do it for them. It’s not a hard concept to grasp. Stating that other men are subjugated to it like women, does not dismiss the fact that men created it to begin with so that it could be enforced. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:14:57 PM EDT
[#25]
One of the foundations of this country is the enlightenment idea of God given or natural rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In other words, the rights exist whether or not you have the force to enforce them because God is the highest power, and God grants them to all men (and women). If you want to go down the road of "might makes right," then all rights are illusory.
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:15:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: thepantydropper]
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Can you answer this question: Why is the bold red part true? @thepantydropper Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: ... Let’s think this through logically. In order for a right to exist, it must be enforced. To enforce a right, you must use force. ... Can you answer this question: Why is the bold red part true? @thepantydropper Rights are social constructs. They only exist so far in how we enforce them through force. That’s why when law and order break down, you are left with anarchy, or a society without laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:16:20 PM EDT
[#27]
Originally Posted By xd341: I don't. I value the women I love over my own life because I have the strength, it's my role, my promise. I couldn't change that if I wanted to, it's in the DNA. You are correct that we are complimentary and very different but equally important. I love the women in my life because of the compassion and nurturing and honestly the types of strength I don't always have. That might be seen as misogynist, and if so, so be it. We need more of it, not less, because I care about "my" women, I want more men like me out there so that the world is better for them. Because if men that don't share my view are in charge, women won't be able to physically defend themselves. My family just had this discussion last night, men think about Rome, women think about getting attacked. Originally Posted By xd341: Get off the X! Originally Posted By xd341: I think everyone in this thread dislikes it. If we have a gender war I'm only joining if the men's side is basically entirely based on Rome. I mean I'm 90% sure it would be anyways but that's a requirement for me. Also whatever pistol is issued we're naming it Gladius |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:16:31 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDDDCheapAF: It really is an illusion. Take away electricity, who is in charge? Men . Put 100 men and 100 women on an island, whos in charge? Men . Put 50 men and 50 women on a boat in the ocean, who is in charge? Men . Snap your fingers and everyone on the planet suddenly is transported to an uninhabited planet . Who is going to run the show . Men . Every fucking time . Men have always run the show and always will . This little blip on our current timeline is just that . A blip . In the grand scheme, the long run , any deviation from western culture or modern conveniences results in a transition back to the default. Men running the show . This is small consolation for the men in today's world who are forced to pretend to believe that "muh strong woman" is an equal to a man in all things, and put their own capabilities aside to assist in the illusion. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:16:57 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bat15: Tell us the truth. Do you think we live in the state of nature? You are talking like a caveman. The might makes right idea died man moved from the state of nature to civilized society. A given person maybe the strongest man the tribe but he is not stronger than the majority of the tribe. Sure we have criminals who do what they want until society stops them. Don’t count on a Soros DA or some liberal governor saving you. Even sheep have teeth. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bat15: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By HangfiresGhost: You'd be trading your weapon for a piece of ass on day two. He who controls the power controls the ass. Tell us the truth. Do you think we live in the state of nature? You are talking like a caveman. The might makes right idea died man moved from the state of nature to civilized society. A given person maybe the strongest man the tribe but he is not stronger than the majority of the tribe. Sure we have criminals who do what they want until society stops them. Don’t count on a Soros DA or some liberal governor saving you. Even sheep have teeth. I think we live in a societal illusion. It works in so long as men continue to play the game. The minute that men refuse to enforce those laws, society breaks down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:18:41 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By switchtanks: Came in to post something similar to this  This pernicious idea is false, and destructive, in the same way that the communist ignorance of the fact that humans aren't going to change is destructive. Simply: force - power - (especially human force) is not what makes something real or not real. If it did, the person with the most force would define reality. That means if you could be coerced into saying males are females, that would mean reality itself would change for you, and males WOULD be females. When people try and put forward this idea that force creates a thing or can remove a thing, they're directly propagating clown world, even if they intend to do the exact opposite. Being able to implement a thing or not able to implement a thing does not touch on the existence or reality of that thing. This is a basic fact about reality that must be grasped and applied. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:19:00 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: I think we live in a societal illusion. It works in so long as men continue to play the game. The minute that men refuse to enforce those laws, society breaks down. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Bat15: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By HangfiresGhost: You'd be trading your weapon for a piece of ass on day two. He who controls the power controls the ass. Tell us the truth. Do you think we live in the state of nature? You are talking like a caveman. The might makes right idea died man moved from the state of nature to civilized society. A given person maybe the strongest man the tribe but he is not stronger than the majority of the tribe. Sure we have criminals who do what they want until society stops them. Don’t count on a Soros DA or some liberal governor saving you. Even sheep have teeth. I think we live in a societal illusion. It works in so long as men continue to play the game. The minute that men refuse to enforce those laws, society breaks down. Xd341 and I are forming a breakaway society modeled after ancient Rome. I don't even want to be emperor. It's going to be pretty cool |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:19:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: Rights are social constructs. They only exist so far in how we enforce them through force. That's why law and order break down, you are left with anarchy, or a society without laws. The concept of natural rights as enumerated in our founding documents presupposes that these rights are inherent or God given. They can be denied by force but they don't cease to be. Minor but important difference. A lack of laws and a lack of rights isn't the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:20:25 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: Rights are social constructs. They only exist so far in how we enforce them through force. That’s why when law and order break down, you are left with anarchy, or a society without laws. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: ... Let’s think this through logically. In order for a right to exist, it must be enforced. To enforce a right, you must use force. ... Can you answer this question: Why is the bold red part true? @thepantydropper Rights are social constructs. They only exist so far in how we enforce them through force. That’s why when law and order break down, you are left with anarchy, or a society without laws. So, if you can't see the right, and it's in the parents hand behind their back, the right doesn't exist? Object persistence applies. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:21:32 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Xd341 and I are forming a breakaway society modeled after ancient Rome. I don't even want to be emperor. It's going to be pretty cool Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Bat15: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By HangfiresGhost: You'd be trading your weapon for a piece of ass on day two. He who controls the power controls the ass. Tell us the truth. Do you think we live in the state of nature? You are talking like a caveman. The might makes right idea died man moved from the state of nature to civilized society. A given person maybe the strongest man the tribe but he is not stronger than the majority of the tribe. Sure we have criminals who do what they want until society stops them. Don’t count on a Soros DA or some liberal governor saving you. Even sheep have teeth. I think we live in a societal illusion. It works in so long as men continue to play the game. The minute that men refuse to enforce those laws, society breaks down. Xd341 and I are forming a breakaway society modeled after ancient Rome. I don't even want to be emperor. It's going to be pretty cool Heh. Augustine's city of God exposes the failings of rome even in its pre-empire "good" stages. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:21:39 PM EDT
[#35]
All rights are illusory, or "nonsense upon stilts" as Bentham famously put it.
OP may be retarded, but he is correct. History and plenty of current third-world shitholes, where women and children are afforded few (if any) rights, bear this out. That's not the sort of world most of us prefer to live in though, hence the evolution of "rights". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:21:39 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: I am of an age where the Anita Hill incident is something I'm aware of historically, I don't remember it vividly. I was taught to respect women long before that occurred and not in an explicit way, I was shown how to be a good man by a good man, multiple good men actually. You don't have to look around the world very hard to find examples where bad men are allowed to rule, women universally suffer in the extreme. There is no society where women oppress men, never has been that I'm aware of. Is that because women aren't despotic by nature or is it because of the inherent inequality of the ability to express physical violence? Why do trans "women" dominate women's sports? Therefor, any increase in women's access to their natural rights, must have at least the tacit support of the men, that up to that point were in charge of society....right? Those men being at least partially "good". Conversely, did Afgan women not want to retain the increased freedoms and rights they had come to enjoy during the US occupation? Or did bad men dominate society using violence because the good men and women left? I don't believe all rights are illusions, I believe natural rights are possessed by all humans inherently. That doesn't mean you won't have to fight for them on occasion. If you cannot, through physical violence, or collective coercion or whispers in someones ear...you may be denied those rights, but they don't cease to exist. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By QueenDeNile: That's a good question. I believe the majority of men are not offensive and support that women deserve equal pay for equal work and to their own self determination (ie paychecks, vote, a toxic free work place) and the shame of the bad behavior exposed from the Anita Hill scandal was the catalyst for that change. As stated in the first post, all rights are illusionary. We are an intelligent herd animal and learned eventually that the survival of the strongest comes with great cost. We are still learning to (or haven't learned) to protect ourselves from those stronger in mind-though weaker collectively. We are very much influenced by propaganda and the hope for justice. You don't have to look around the world very hard to find examples where bad men are allowed to rule, women universally suffer in the extreme. There is no society where women oppress men, never has been that I'm aware of. Is that because women aren't despotic by nature or is it because of the inherent inequality of the ability to express physical violence? Why do trans "women" dominate women's sports? Therefor, any increase in women's access to their natural rights, must have at least the tacit support of the men, that up to that point were in charge of society....right? Those men being at least partially "good". Conversely, did Afgan women not want to retain the increased freedoms and rights they had come to enjoy during the US occupation? Or did bad men dominate society using violence because the good men and women left? I don't believe all rights are illusions, I believe natural rights are possessed by all humans inherently. That doesn't mean you won't have to fight for them on occasion. If you cannot, through physical violence, or collective coercion or whispers in someones ear...you may be denied those rights, but they don't cease to exist. I watched the Anita Hill questioning during Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings. I believed her but I also believed CT should be confirmed. It is somewhat of an irony of sorts to say those two things but at that time, what Hill accused Thomas of doing was status quo and there really weren't any laws against it. I was happy to see the change that followed but disgusted by the over zealots. The work place is a better place for women now than it was in my earlier employment. With that said most men treated me very respectfully. There were just a small few who did not. Women are also women's worst enemies. It is often women who defend sexual predator for strategic purposes. It is often women who yell rape or abuse who are actually the predators. We have a lot of dysfunction in the world. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:21:40 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlashMan-7k: This pernicious idea is false, and destructive, in the same way that the communist ignorance of the fact that humans aren't going to change is destructive. Simply: force - power - (especially human force) is not what makes something real or not real. If it did, the person with the most force would define reality. That means if you could be coerced into saying males are females, that would mean reality itself would change for you, and males WOULD be females. When people try and put forward this idea that force creates a thing or can remove a thing, they're directly propagating clown world, even if they intend to do the exact opposite. Being able to implement a thing or not able to implement a thing does not touch on the existence or reality of that thing. This is a basic fact about reality that must be grasped and applied. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By switchtanks: Came in to post something similar to this https://mediaproxy.snopes.com/width/1200/https://media.snopes.com/2022/06/george-carlin-quote.png This pernicious idea is false, and destructive, in the same way that the communist ignorance of the fact that humans aren't going to change is destructive. Simply: force - power - (especially human force) is not what makes something real or not real. If it did, the person with the most force would define reality. That means if you could be coerced into saying males are females, that would mean reality itself would change for you, and males WOULD be females. When people try and put forward this idea that force creates a thing or can remove a thing, they're directly propagating clown world, even if they intend to do the exact opposite. Being able to implement a thing or not able to implement a thing does not touch on the existence or reality of that thing. This is a basic fact about reality that must be grasped and applied. The government is legit doing that right now bro. I can tell you there's only two genders but if I say a truth at the wrong place and the wrong time then it's made up and straight to jail. What you're advocating for (smartly) is that the enforcement, the physical violence, should come from a moral and objective foundation. Which I totally agree with. However, when it isn't, you should recognize it. For example I can't drink beer in some Arab countries. I could pretend I can, but if they catch me I'm going to get horse whipped. That's the reality. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:22:35 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Women did 9/11 Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: My argument is to enslave women? That's a new one! Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Oh look, another women-hating thread in GD. Say all men decide to revoke the "rights" of women. What would happen if women decided they were no longer going to give birth? Suddenly people wouldn't have the right to even exist. It's as equally retarded/plausible as OP's scenario. Again, women wouldn't be able to enforce their body autonomy. So your thought experiment fails. In your new dystopian world, where women don't have rights, how do you plan on forcing them to produce children and not allowing them to have body autonomy? Through physical force? That's his whole point. It is the same as you pointing to words on a page of the Constitution as you're arrested for hate speech. Whoever has physical power makes the rules. Using your's and OP's logic then 30yo males (or any other demographic) don't have any rights because if the rest of society decided to physically oppress them could. So in reality no one has any rights because anyone else can gang up on them to physically opress them. Interesting OP decided to choose women as the oppressed group in his thought experiment. You are 100% accurate. Exactly. If that was truly OP's point he could have picked any demographic to make it. He could have said, "None of us have any rights because the rest of society could gang up to physically suppress us." Instead, he chose women to be edgy and because he knew he could predictably sucker in some people here to defend his point. So this thread is actually about hating on women instead of any kind of any logical debate. Thanks for confirming what I already knew. Stay classy GD. Originally Posted By JamPo: No one suggested enslaving or forcing anyone to do anything. The premise of the conversation is do you have a right if someone can take it. Example, I was just talking to my son over lunch. His phone was beside me. I ask him "son, do you have a right to this phone." He thought for a second and said yes. I took the phone. Then I said, "can you take it back." He said no. I ask him what happened to his rights? Thought provoking. Did you read where OP told me women wouldn't have any bodily autonomy concerning bearing children? Is that not forcing someone to do something? You are misrepresenting what I said, or misunderstanding. I said that all rights are governed by force. Force is enforced by men. You said something to the effect, "well what if women just said we will stop bearing children?" I've already stated that men have a monopoly on force. So then, how could a women stop bearing children? If men wanted them to bear children, they could force them to. I'm not advocating for that, it's just reality. Just as it's reality that men enforce law. You can deny it, you can choose to not agree with it, or even like it. It doesn't change the fact that it's true. Except it's not the reality, what you're trying to say would be true for every human being. For something to be "reality" it needs to be real. Your scenario has zero chance of happening. If your point is that "rights are governed by force" you could have used any demographic. ""Insert age/race" males have no rights because everyone else could use force to deny them their rights." Yet you picked one of GD's favorite demographics to hate on. Why is that? Women did 9/11 Go on I'm listening |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:22:45 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Xd341 and I are forming a breakaway society modeled after ancient Rome. I don't even want to be emperor. It's going to be pretty cool  |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:23:21 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlashMan-7k: This pernicious idea is false, and destructive, in the same way that the communist ignorance of the fact that humans aren't going to change is destructive. Simply: force - power - (especially human force) is not what makes something real or not real. If it did, the person with the most force would define reality. That means if you could be coerced into saying males are females, that would mean reality itself would change for you, and males WOULD be females. When people try and put forward this idea that force creates a thing or can remove a thing, they're directly propagating clown world, even if they intend to do the exact opposite. Being able to implement a thing or not able to implement a thing does not touch on the existence or reality of that thing. This is a basic fact about reality that must be grasped and applied. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By switchtanks: Came in to post something similar to this https://mediaproxy.snopes.com/width/1200/https://media.snopes.com/2022/06/george-carlin-quote.png This pernicious idea is false, and destructive, in the same way that the communist ignorance of the fact that humans aren't going to change is destructive. Simply: force - power - (especially human force) is not what makes something real or not real. If it did, the person with the most force would define reality. That means if you could be coerced into saying males are females, that would mean reality itself would change for you, and males WOULD be females. When people try and put forward this idea that force creates a thing or can remove a thing, they're directly propagating clown world, even if they intend to do the exact opposite. Being able to implement a thing or not able to implement a thing does not touch on the existence or reality of that thing. This is a basic fact about reality that must be grasped and applied. So if someone forced you to drink your own urine, that wouldn’t be real? Society’s insistence and putting trans/LGBTQ propaganda in all forms of media isn’t real? I don’t believe a trans female is a female, it doesn’t make it any less real that it’s happening because the powers that be have decided to use “political and social” force to push their narrative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:24:42 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By QueenDeNile: Go on I'm listening Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By QueenDeNile: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: My argument is to enslave women? That's a new one! Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Oh look, another women-hating thread in GD. Say all men decide to revoke the "rights" of women. What would happen if women decided they were no longer going to give birth? Suddenly people wouldn't have the right to even exist. It's as equally retarded/plausible as OP's scenario. Again, women wouldn't be able to enforce their body autonomy. So your thought experiment fails. In your new dystopian world, where women don't have rights, how do you plan on forcing them to produce children and not allowing them to have body autonomy? Through physical force? That's his whole point. It is the same as you pointing to words on a page of the Constitution as you're arrested for hate speech. Whoever has physical power makes the rules. Using your's and OP's logic then 30yo males (or any other demographic) don't have any rights because if the rest of society decided to physically oppress them could. So in reality no one has any rights because anyone else can gang up on them to physically opress them. Interesting OP decided to choose women as the oppressed group in his thought experiment. You are 100% accurate. Exactly. If that was truly OP's point he could have picked any demographic to make it. He could have said, "None of us have any rights because the rest of society could gang up to physically suppress us." Instead, he chose women to be edgy and because he knew he could predictably sucker in some people here to defend his point. So this thread is actually about hating on women instead of any kind of any logical debate. Thanks for confirming what I already knew. Stay classy GD. Originally Posted By JamPo: No one suggested enslaving or forcing anyone to do anything. The premise of the conversation is do you have a right if someone can take it. Example, I was just talking to my son over lunch. His phone was beside me. I ask him "son, do you have a right to this phone." He thought for a second and said yes. I took the phone. Then I said, "can you take it back." He said no. I ask him what happened to his rights? Thought provoking. Did you read where OP told me women wouldn't have any bodily autonomy concerning bearing children? Is that not forcing someone to do something? You are misrepresenting what I said, or misunderstanding. I said that all rights are governed by force. Force is enforced by men. You said something to the effect, "well what if women just said we will stop bearing children?" I've already stated that men have a monopoly on force. So then, how could a women stop bearing children? If men wanted them to bear children, they could force them to. I'm not advocating for that, it's just reality. Just as it's reality that men enforce law. You can deny it, you can choose to not agree with it, or even like it. It doesn't change the fact that it's true. Except it's not the reality, what you're trying to say would be true for every human being. For something to be "reality" it needs to be real. Your scenario has zero chance of happening. If your point is that "rights are governed by force" you could have used any demographic. ""Insert age/race" males have no rights because everyone else could use force to deny them their rights." Yet you picked one of GD's favorite demographics to hate on. Why is that? Women did 9/11 Go on I'm listening Women are a psyop created by women to make more women |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:24:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: thepantydropper]
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: ehh...kinda. The concept of natural rights as enumerated in our founding documents presupposes that these rights are inherent or God given. They can be denied by force but they don't cease to be. Minor but important difference. A lack of laws and a lack of rights isn't the same thing. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Rights are social constructs. They only exist so far in how we enforce them through force. That's why law and order break down, you are left with anarchy, or a society without laws. The concept of natural rights as enumerated in our founding documents presupposes that these rights are inherent or God given. They can be denied by force but they don't cease to be. Minor but important difference. A lack of laws and a lack of rights isn't the same thing. I am Christian, but that’s an authoritative argument. To the atheist, their rights are not God given but Man created and given. |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:26:45 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlashMan-7k: So, if you can't see the right, and it's in the parents hand behind their back, the right doesn't exist? Object persistence applies. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: ... Let’s think this through logically. In order for a right to exist, it must be enforced. To enforce a right, you must use force. ... Can you answer this question: Why is the bold red part true? @thepantydropper Rights are social constructs. They only exist so far in how we enforce them through force. That’s why when law and order break down, you are left with anarchy, or a society without laws. So, if you can't see the right, and it's in the parents hand behind their back, the right doesn't exist? Object persistence applies. Did the right to bear arms exist 5000 years ago? Or did it only come into existence when it was conceived as a right and therefore protected by the use of force? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:27:08 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/312716/cc40cc_4769b274b09e4e0d8f7d0cf5aae2cc2a_-3199383.gif Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Xd341 and I are forming a breakaway society modeled after ancient Rome. I don't even want to be emperor. It's going to be pretty cool I want to be some respected farmer that just does his own things but everyone knows me because when I go to defend Rome there's a lot of war crimes. That's the position I want in your Rome breakaway society. Of course I will require land, but I will give Rome service. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:28:07 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: Did the right to bear arms exist 5000 years ago? Or did it only come into existence when it was conceived as a right and therefore protected by the use of force? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: ... Let’s think this through logically. In order for a right to exist, it must be enforced. To enforce a right, you must use force. ... Can you answer this question: Why is the bold red part true? @thepantydropper Rights are social constructs. They only exist so far in how we enforce them through force. That’s why when law and order break down, you are left with anarchy, or a society without laws. So, if you can't see the right, and it's in the parents hand behind their back, the right doesn't exist? Object persistence applies. Did the right to bear arms exist 5000 years ago? Or did it only come into existence when it was conceived as a right and therefore protected by the use of force? The Assize of Arms of 1181 was a proclamation of King Henry II of England concerning the obligation of all freemen of England to possess and bear arms in the service of king and realm and to swear allegiance to the king, on pain of "vengeance, not merely on their lands or chattels, but on their limbs". The assize stipulated precisely the military equipment that each man should have according to his rank and wealth. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:28:27 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: I am Christian, but that's an authoritative argument. To the atheist, their rights now not God given but Man created and given. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:28:27 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: I think we live in a societal illusion. It works in so long as men continue to play the game. The minute that men refuse to enforce those laws, society breaks down. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By Bat15: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By HangfiresGhost: You'd be trading your weapon for a piece of ass on day two. He who controls the power controls the ass. Tell us the truth. Do you think we live in the state of nature? You are talking like a caveman. The might makes right idea died man moved from the state of nature to civilized society. A given person maybe the strongest man the tribe but he is not stronger than the majority of the tribe. Sure we have criminals who do what they want until society stops them. Don’t count on a Soros DA or some liberal governor saving you. Even sheep have teeth. I think we live in a societal illusion. It works in so long as men continue to play the game. The minute that men refuse to enforce those laws, society breaks down. Tell us what happens when the wife tells her husband to sleep in the garage? Keep in mind that the courts will back her. She goes to the cops, he gets to pay child support until the kids are 18 and see them every other week if he is lucky. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:28:31 PM EDT
[#48]
OP BTFO
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:29:42 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: That's why I use the term natural rights. Atheist get all wrapped around the axle when you start talking about sky friends and they miss the point. Even atheists can recognize universal and fundamental principals if you don't invoke a deity. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: I am Christian, but that's an authoritative argument. To the atheist, their rights now not God given but Man created and given. Natural rights were written about by Aquinas first, then Locke |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:29:42 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: The Assize of Arms of 1181 was a proclamation of King Henry II of England concerning the obligation of all freemen of England to possess and bear arms in the service of king and realm and to swear allegiance to the king, on pain of "vengeance, not merely on their lands or chattels, but on their limbs". The assize stipulated precisely the military equipment that each man should have according to his rank and wealth. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By thepantydropper: ... Let’s think this through logically. In order for a right to exist, it must be enforced. To enforce a right, you must use force. ... Can you answer this question: Why is the bold red part true? @thepantydropper Rights are social constructs. They only exist so far in how we enforce them through force. That’s why when law and order break down, you are left with anarchy, or a society without laws. So, if you can't see the right, and it's in the parents hand behind their back, the right doesn't exist? Object persistence applies. Did the right to bear arms exist 5000 years ago? Or did it only come into existence when it was conceived as a right and therefore protected by the use of force? The Assize of Arms of 1181 was a proclamation of King Henry II of England concerning the obligation of all freemen of England to possess and bear arms in the service of king and realm and to swear allegiance to the king, on pain of "vengeance, not merely on their lands or chattels, but on their limbs". The assize stipulated precisely the military equipment that each man should have according to his rank and wealth. Is that 5000 year though? 🤡 |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
