How accuarate is this picture?

That left hand is fucked up.

Expanding voting rights is retarded(specially to uneducated people) So doubling the people that are allowed to vote is as retarded as it gets,as there are more uneducated than educated people

Stefan Memeneux explained it pretty well, about the only video of his I actually enjoyed without cringing.

youtube.com/watch?v=0MejkH61o_U

Only white men can vote for their own interests

So would you support ending men's suffrage then?

Sure is a good thing that Veeky Forums hasn't just become /pol/ with dates.

>Less

Read about the foley trial.

No one on Veeky Forums deserves the vote then. Most of them (including you) are mentally and philosophically a hundred years behind.

I don't have voting rights and don't mind, I'm not qualified enough to make all those decisions anyway. And women sure as fuck are not.

Yes. Universal suffrage is a huge meme. Only few selected people should be allowed to vote about things like economic matters.

voting to be raped by muslims sure is voting in their own interest, it's not like women are overly emotional and easily manipulated by social pressure and sentimentality

Double cringe right there.
>Itsabigone.jpg

Lol then they would vote up shit that only benefits them an enact laws to cement their position while denying it to others.

>Most of them (including you) are mentally and philosophically a hundred years behind.
What do you mean Trudeau? If you dont like democracy,then your opinion is invalid,beacuse it is the current year? I am still waiting for an argument

I wasn't serious.

I doubt you watched the 30 minute video in 4 minutes user.

>there are people on Veeky Forums RIGHT NOW who think voting changes anything
Where did we go wrong?

No one is being raped you faggot. Go back to >>>>Int.

>Emma Goldman

Her and Roza Luxemjew are proof why women shouldn't have a say.

You dont have to be rich to be knowledgeable about economic matters. As a matter of fact most intelectuals arent that wealthy. Everyone has access to education nowadays,if they dont bother to inform themselfs about staff,and have 0 knowledge about it,why should they be able to have a vote as valueable as others,that have informed themselfs better?

if that's true that women are overly emotional, why does trump score higher with men than women?

Most people on Veeky Forums are around 100 years in the past, mentally and physically.
Look at how Veeky Forums dresses.
Already watched it.
Are you honestly an anarchist?

Yes

Rosa is fucked based.

>why does trump score higher with men than women?
Because Hillary is:
1) Potentially the first woman president,lots of woman and nu males will just vote her because of this
2) Panders all the time to hoaxes like the wage gap that is mostly based on emotions.
Trump is more like the rogue,something that attracks lots of people,and says things without any filter,or a very small one.

Coming from Somalia this feels very weird.
What's your opinion on Ian Welsh's blog?

Roza is fucking dead, thank G-d.

>It is 2016
Fuck off. That is not an argument. The ideology of 100 years ago brought the biggest period of prosperity to the world btw.

All of that is emotions m8. Trump is an idiot.
Hillary is bringing Rubin back.

> Create a poorly educated underclass
> Deny underclass the right to vote for being poorly educated

well, there's no logical choice in the current election so i guess the winning move is not to play

What year and what ideology?

>Someone born in 1871 is dead
Fucking nothing gets past this guy.

Haven't read it.

Women are our enemy, giving them any sort of rights is enabling male genocide. Literally millions of unborn boys get slaughtered every year by the eternal female and the bitches get off scot free. The only answer to this madness is gynocide.

How she died is the best part, still getting a kick out of it.

You still have 3rd parties. Which may breakthrough in this election.

Have fun.

>abortion is wrong because it's large-scale, indiscriminate murder
>the solution is large-scale, indiscriminate murder

>What year
What are you taking about
>what ideology
Classical liberalism

It is firmly my conviction that the right to vote should go only to:
>Men
>Age over 30
>Having had some military or political official experience
>Having taken an IQ test and scored well
>Having taken some form of geopolitical test to make sure they know about different nations, capitals, political leaders, wars, world issues, etc.
>Clean criminal record
>No allegience other than to the nation, i.e. no dual citizenships, no big commercial ventures.

Giving the right to vote to everyone above age 18 is utter madness in my opinion. That's just like, my opinion though.

Si vis pacem para bellum nigga. It's a preventative measure. The fact something as heinous and evil as women control reproduction is beyond sickening.

Testing, wealth, property, education and so much requirements can be used to bar a ton of people from the vote even if they would've been qualified and failed one thing.

>Tell me Jehoahaz was it a mistake to abolish child sacrifice?

>Tell me Publicus Nuditus was it a mistake to abolish debt-slavery?

>Tell me Saint Louis was it a mistake to abolish serfdom?

t. historical Veeky Forums

> classical liberalism was 100 years ago
> implying the ideologies of 100 years ago weren't imperialism, communism and rampant nationalism, almost entirely male ballgames, and that they didn't lead to two world wars and an economic depression

>can be used to bar a ton of people
Nothing wrong with this.

Great way to Fuck up a nation Poindexter.

>child sacrifice

Only wrong if the children are male, and they mostly were.

And grown makes agreed to that.

>> classical liberalism was 100 years ago
>> implying the ideologies of 100 years ago weren't imperialism, communism and rampant nationalism, almost entirely male ballgames, and that they didn't lead to two world wars and
Classical liberalism was still around in the XX century. The swift to social democracy is a post WW2 thing. In the XX century things like income taxes still didnt exist in some countries.

Not the guy you are replying too but are you suggesting classical liberalism is incompatible with imperialism?

What?

>muh women

90% of the arguments people make against women are more typically directed towards *younger* women, ie women under 30 without children.

At any rate, "western civilization" is having problems in large part because BOTH older men and women don't want to share their wealth with their children. For example, look at California's Prop 13. It's fucking amazing if you bought a home before the millennial, as you now have a low-tax retirement fund in your home, but your children will never be able to afford homes of their own in their own hometowns (or even rent, for that matter). Things like NIMBYism compound this problem. And, one thing is clear: NIMBYism is genderless (and also typically raceless as well).

The fact is, pic related was not indefinably reproduceable across multiple generations. The Greats and Boomers both got lucky, Millenials get fucked. There's just no more room to grow unless birthrates increase, but that can't happen unless there's economic growth allowing gentrified families to have children. Immigration was a stop gap solution for this, which has clearly run it's course as well.

But ultimately women themselves aren't to blame as the core problem, keeping up growth, is not their problem. In fact their suffrage kept the system going a century longer.

forgot pic

>90% of the arguments people make against women are more typically directed towards *younger* women, ie women under 30 without children.

Not true, I hate my mother the most and she's in her 50s and obviously not childless.

Are you asking if I think that an ideology that advocates the subjugation of entire groups of people and the establishment of a considerable bureaucratic and military administration for this purpose is incompatible with an ideology that espouses civil liberties, economic freedom and and representative democracy?

What do you think?

In what country was it still around?

Besides, I'd take the massive wealth and comparable peace of post-ww2 society over geing sent to the east to die for some social construction any day, but maybe I'm just a faggot nu male.

Well most classical liberal writers said their doctrine of civil liberties only applies to nations civilized and advanced enough for it to benefit the society.

J.S. Mill worked for the East India company nearly his entire life and was very much in favor of colonial rule to civilize them enough for liberalism to work for them, but until then...

That led to mass oppression of the polis. If anything we should go full Athens.

>In what country was it still around?
Early XX america,Canada or Hong Kong.
> I'd take the massive wealth and comparable peace of post-ww2 society over geing sent to the east to die for some social construction any day, but maybe I'm just a faggot nu male.
The XIX century was one of the most peaceful centuries in history. The post WW2 peace came after 2 WWs,not beacuse of social democracy

>If anything we should go full Athens.
Kek. Direct democracy is the biggest meme in history. I dont know how anyone can take it seriously.

I'm talking about the ideology as a generalized subject, if we are going to specify the opinions of each philosopher attached to it we'll end up nitpicking until we invariably find out that there is no such thing as classical liberalism in the first place.

Besides, the massive state investment required to run an empire is still contrary to liberalism in any form.

> we should go full Athens
History of Athens is the best argument against any kind of democracy.

> Early XX America and Hong Kong were classical Liberal

You are literally talking about colonial powers.

> the post peace wasn't because of social democracy.

How do you know? Seems plenty of European countries became a whole lot more peaceful after that ideology came around.

Perhaps, then again America seems to be doing alright.

Do you have the whole picture

It worked for the Roman republic.

>colonial powers
>Hong kong
Can you enlight me about the glorious history of the Hong Kongnese empire?
>How do you know? Seems plenty of European countries became a whole lot more peaceful after that ideology came around
They became more peaceful as:
A) they enter in the US influence of power,becoming puppet states
B)After 2 WW Europeans became very anti militaristic.
It is quite simple. Social democracy had nothing to do with it

America is neither classically liberalist nor running an empire, though

I'd say the latter is debatable.

> Hong Kongnese empire
Ever heard of Britain?
> After 2 WW Europeans became pacifist - Social Democracy had nothing to do with it

Chicken or egg

its relation to the textbook definition is flimsy at best. Besides, this is never the argument I was making, the discussion was whether or not an empire could be considered classically liberalist.

Disregarding the whole "lol wimmin amirite" meme, I find that depending on the situation, the best any government can be is somewhat efficient. Until we are able to create a government in which a class of individuals with certifiably the best qualification and most knowledge to what theyre governing while having unfettered power, all governmental systems will fuck up sooner or later.

>Ever heard of Britain?
So you are telling me that Kenya was an emperial force too? That is some messed up terminology. Another example would be Switzerland,do you like that better?

I have no idea what you are arguing right now, I'll concede that the clearity of my language could have been better if you admit that you clearly have no grasp of pragmatics whatsoever.

>no grasp of pragmatics
How?

>Leftist
Filtered ;)

Do the non-/pol/ lurkers of Veeky Forums at least have views on women that don't end in "All women are whores"?

Yes. But how am I supposed to seriously respond to a blatant shitpost thread like this one?

I do.
no bulling plz

>"All women are whores"
This wasnt the point of the thread. We are discussing about voting rights

I'm more of the "all women are evil" crowd, whoredom is only an insignificant part of it.

I don't know. I guess you can't. Or shouldn't.

Maybe that's what I've been doing wrong.

Show us on the doll where the women didn't touch you

Don't you have some children to murder you pathetic cunt?

...

Then why even have a democratic system? That pool of people is so small and already includes the politically active, what you're advocating is essentially just a despotic oligarchy.

>Tell me one (1) downside of women having the vote.
They for policies that are overall harmful for the society they're in
Voting is a meme and nobody should be allowed to vote tbqh

lol
my gf (shown) laughed too

kys redditor

*vote for

Not at all accurate...