Vault101 said:
Therumancer said:
dafaq did I just read?
YES alot of problems come from lack of good parenting..HOWEVER I call bullshit that it comes from women wanting to have a career
crime and such comes from lack of education and poverty and of coarse your parents being fuck ups who get pregnat at 16, there are "traditional" familys where in fact BOTH parents stay home because they live on welfare and do nothing but fuck around providing a "wonderful" role model for their children/sarcasm
the conclusions your drawing where half the problem is from women working is (quite frankly) utter bullshit
the motavation to go out and earn ones own living (and before that have acces to education) does not breed criminals
[quote/] and have constant parental guidance, as well as someone to take them out and watch them play and so on.
next you'll be saying kids should like....go to shcool...or somthing, this is obvious stuff that I think isnt actually a problem
now I AM NOT denying that divorce, absent parents and other issues with our society are a problem
but I do reject the notion that it all stems from women being able to work
and eventhen..EVEN THEN if we were to have your little neo-50's dystopia scenario...THE VOTE is still something you can;t argue againt
and yes..you dress it up as you like, you say that your totally not agianst women rights
but saying thease are "really" good arguments?
no no no no no no no no NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO MOTHERFUCKING NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I wish to be the master of my own destiny and I do not give a FLYING FUCK how much of a "good" Idea it would be otherwise[/quote]
Then your simply wrong, that's all there is to it.
Given the tone of your response I'm not 100% sure f you even get what I'm trying to say, and really understand the points I'm trying to make. What's more you come accross as if you think I'm actually championing this cause, which I'm not. However the arguements your making actually wouldn't overcome the logic of that arguement. This would mean at best you'd wind up with enough likeminded people for a civil war, and at worst in a jail cell. You sure as heck wouldn't convince the other side, since your basiclly just dancing around going "that's BS, I'm right and your wrong".
Our founding fathers made it quite clear that people have to give up liberty for the greater good of the state and the benefit of all. The idea of the US was not unfettered freedom for all, and this is a point a lot of people miss when it comes to a lot of arguements about civil liberties and the intent of the constitution, so even arguements about fundemental human rights don't apply on a basic level here when you want to get technical given the way they put their own laws and principles into practice.
Under this hypothetical situation the correct response, and the one that would probably garnet the most support, would be to point out that for all the problems society was making it work before the law changes, and to point out all of the ways those problems have been gradually being dealt with. It becomes a lesser of evils arguement.
I agree with your fundemental position, but your reasoning isn't really especially relevent or convincing on a national level. If I didn't agree with your conclusion and was neutral or undecided on the issue, you would have just chased me to the other side, especially given how you wrote your response. In general I make a point of not siding with anything represented by those who express themselves like you did right there, and that's true of most people.