JW writes again: I never mentioned a word about “heredity monarchy in Saudi Arabia”, Mr. Day. What in heaven’s name are you talking about?
My mention of the Founding Fathers and their lack of support for women’s suffrage was in response to a comment by Dr BDH, who said, predictably: “At last Vox Day has explained why everything is so great in Saudi Arabia.” JW seems to be confused as to who wrote what when, and why.
The case against women’s suffrage is by no means limited to original intent. Since you’ve now abandoned your previous “original intent” argument, may I take it then that you have tacitly conceded that argument as being totally without merit?
No, because I never made any original intent argument. As you admit in your first paragraph, you clearly have no idea what I’m talking about. I’m not surprised. Nice try for a quick win on a technicality, though.
You are the one randomly blowing hot air— first putting forward “original intent” as a justification for opposing female suffrage, and then quickly abandoning that argument as soon as its inherent absurdity is pointed out.
Sigh…he’s a slow one, this guy. Even for a libewal.
Anyway, to answer your question, Mr. Day, the women of my family are intensely involved in politics at the federal, state and local levels of government. They have run for office, held office, and supported other women who did so. They have worked on numerous issues and supported various political parties. I would personally be VERY upset if they could not vote or run for office, and I also think that their lack of political participation would be a loss to thenation as a whole.
Well, at least he’s honest. Women’s suffrage has benefited society because JW would be VERY personally upset if it didn’t exist today. A solid 8.5 on the libewal argumentation scale, ladies and gentlemen! The moderate use of all-caps shows a nice flair for the dramatic.
Secondly, the women of my family, like those of the entire nation, pay/have paid literally trillions of dollars in taxes toward the common good. I fail to see why you’d propose taxation without representation for them— and this is true regardless of the particular type of taxation, whether it be income tax (which you probably oppose as a Libertarian) or sales tax or tariffs on imported goods or whatever type of tax the human mind can devise.
He’s a real math whiz, this JW. Who wants to let him know that the annual national economy is all of $10.5 trillion. Since their taxes are in the literal trillions, they must be in the highest bracket and must have had a collective minimum income of at least $4 trillion over the past 40 years since women entered the work force en masse. So, the women of JW’s family are collectively pulling in at least $400 billion per year – say, are any of them single?
(Now, this assumes that taxes go towards the common good, not paying interest on the national debt as the Grace Commission found is actually the case.)
The fact that you are obviously irritated by the fact that women do not reliably support your favourite political or religious beliefs is, too be blunt, tough shit for you. Other people’s rights are not based upon your personal satisfaction.
I’m not irritated, I’m just observing that women’s suffrage has, as far as I can see, made American women more miserable than ever and helped tear apart our society. But perhaps I’m wrong, and we can have more divorce, more abortion, more obese single women on welfare and then society will finally reach that glorious pinnacle of self-satisfied ecstasy towards which universal suffrage is destined to bring it.
I think I’m feeling a little KG today. Anyone else feeling it? Get that weak….