[quote/]especially given how you wrote your response.[/quote]Vault101 said:
I understand I just don't agree, and I responded as I did because I was angry...angry that anyone could even give such Ideas credit
I know your not "suporting" such Ideas but your still drawing conclusions that I find downright offensive and wrong
[quote/]However the arguements your making actually wouldn't overcome the logic of that arguement, 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". [/quote]
yes you keep telling me how I'm wrong..but I dont see any answers on your part
my post was a bit agressive but I made points and I stand by them
[quote/]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.[/quote]
and yet some of us dispute weather "benefit of all" is true or bullshit....it makes sense to give up our right to harm others for the benfit of all...but me being restricted to a life of secondclass citizenship I seriously dispute how that "benefits all"
[quote/]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.[/quote]
that hypthetical acts as though the argument holds water.......I don;t think it does
though I'm not sure its in my best interest to continue this argument because Bullshit like this is likely to make me lose my restraint and I don;t want to get banned[/quote]
Then just calm down, take some time between posts.
To explain, your wrong because everything you've said is just your opinion. "I disagree with that" (fueled by not liking something), and then basically commenting about the right to personal liberty has no real weight in of itself. Especially when your dealing with well known social issues. The issues with the "two working parents" standard are well known and covered in sociology, and they even write books on the subject giving advice on trying to deal with the problem, and a lot of women's issues revolve around exactly that problem... having a family while maintaining a career. It's not a deniable point at this stage of things because of what's said while women do have equal rights. Thus if they were hypothetically removed, the arguement that all of these problems that exist because of these rights would be dealt with holds weight, reinforced by all of these attempts to deal with the problems going back decades.
Hence why saying "it's not really a problem" or that you don't think it's one holds no weight, since everyone, including women themselves, acknowlege the problem.
It's also why I pointed out that a counter arguement is going to focus on solutions and how those problems have been being dealt with. That in the long term when we inevitably work through those problems we wind up with a stronger society from equal rights.
The thing to understand is that in the context of the US at least. civil liberties were intended to be interpeted through a very narrow lens. When you look at how the founding fathers practiced their own policies, including keeping slaves, women as pretty much socio-political non-entities, and similar thing, it paints a very differant picture. When you go back to the basics for an arguement like this you can't argue fundemental principles or intent when the intent the country was founded under and the intended interpetation of the rules and standards left behind are so clear. You can't argue the rights of women based on documents written with the assumption that they were non-entities and such a status was common sense and didn't need to be specified.
Since we're talking about what was an experimental change to the laws that expired, women reverted back to non-entities by definition and thus are not considered to be part of the "majority" to see the benefit. Your presumption about their guaranteed rights thus holds no water in the scope of an arguement. Anyone holding the other side and debating the issue isn't required to acknowlege that point as being true, because it's not.
The point here being not so much that the arguements I present would work or guarantee a success within the legal framwork. I'm merely demonstrating that an arguement could be made, and assuming the unlikely sequence of events that caused this to happen to begin with, you'd likely wind up with some pretty solid opposition.
Interestingly while it might come to violence and civil war, understand that you'd also have to evaluate the risks and rewards inherant in that as well. While I'd support it, understand that beyond a point it would be counter productive. There is a degree of irony in the thought of fighting a civil war for women's liberation only to win an find the country so decimated that everyone, including the women, are worse off than if the rights hadn't been restored. It's easy to say freedom is worth it until your starving, sick, and dying. Another Devil's advocate point (since it hasn't been mentioned) armed insurrection for principles can be a powerful thing, but understand there is a point at which you can do so much damage the victory becomes meaningless. Something the US is actually built on, the point of the right to keep and bear arms is so that the people can rebel against the goverment if nessicary, it's not so much that the people can win (especially today) so much that by the time a popular rebellion is put down the guys being rebelled againstg won't have a country anything like the one they wanted. Consider for example that New York City is perhaps the greatest city in the world (debatable), if the goverment drives tanks through all the buildings and bombs the crap out of it to stop rebels, what's left isn't going to be New York City anymore (which applies to such a conflict on any level).
On a more grim note, there are a number of sociologists predicting the US might very well collapse due to civil war soon. Albiet that's been being said for years down. Nothing to do with women's rights, so much as political polarization with the country divided almost perfectly 50-50 and both sides pretty much hating the other. A few more elections like the ones we're dealing with (with single digit resoklutions in the popular vote) and those tensions are liable to finally explode no matter who wins. Any other country probably would have fallen to infighting by now, and according to some things I've read, it's pretty much a freak occurance we haven't.
