Do you have any interesting, controversial, unsure views about the world?

Does anyone here think there is actually anything wrong with any ways of the world, and that something actually can and should be done about that? Lets discuss and debate to determine how certain you can possibly be.

We live on a flat surface.

Ok. Anything else you think about?

Shouldn't have given women the right to vote.

why so? Do you deny that there exists an amount of women more intelligent than men?

Poor people shouldn't have been given the right to vote.

What would your definition of poor people be?

Sure, on average, there are more dumb men and also more smart men than women. Smarts has little to do with my reasoning though. Men and women have different life strategies. Womens strategies, when put into a form such as the vote which can alter society, is bad for society. Good for women tho, they can make men legally enforce their strategies and we gave them.the power to do so.

Not sure if you are trying to compare that to women voting but that's a different argument. I've heard good points on both sides.

No idea now-a-days. But the control shouldn't have been taken from the aristocracy. They were the only ones bred to be rule but now those lines are pretty fuarked.

Dogs and cats should be allowed to live in the wild.

"Animal shelters" should be done away with.

Veternarians who needlessly cut off animals gonads should lose their license and be punched in the face.

I think well to do women are better voters than destitute men. You're right though I would probably restrict the franchise to a higher class of men.

And what would stop all men voting to make it legal to enslave women?

Women are individual citizens. How could you argue an individual should not have any say in how they are ruled, the laws, how their taxes are spent?

You would argue, there could be a power which certainly would never do anything that a person without the power to vote would mind?

Even now congress and senate can pass a bill which some or many people do not want to be.

Idk man, poor countries that cant control their dog populations have a big problem with wild packs.

You think it would be ok for them to vote that poor people are now their slaves? Or poor people would then revolt? And it is in the aristocracies best interest to keep the masses from revolting, so they try to find that balance of most mutual benefit and least upsetness.

Even still, the average person has very little control over what laws are passed, and how much taxes are collected and what they are spent on.

This is not controversial, this is common sense.

With an aristocracy, if things get bad enough, you know exactly who to behead. Democracy still ends up with the power centralized in a few who control the media.

With democracy, however, people think its their neighbor dicking them when it's really the ruling class. In aristocracy, if you get dicked you know where the dicking's coming from.

no taxation without representation, havent ye learned ye lesson mate?

That makes sense, I'd define well to do women as married with children. Then my next thought would be, okay so married with children is x% of women, those are reasonable voters, how many x% of women does that leave that are not going to be reasonable voters, through no fault of their own, their impulses just don't align with the societies men have made and if they're given a say it will mean the for sure change and possible downfall of that civilization. Not saying men can't make the civilizatiom fall itself by voting stupidly, just saying it's more likely when femalea vote because there prerogrative is for it to fall (not consciously).

1. As if women could stop men from enslaving them just because they have the right to vote.

2. Women have say over reproduction, unless we enslave them like you mentioned in point one, they will always have a say in how they are ruled.

2.5 taxes are immoral

3. Sorry, read it twice, couldn't wrap my head around it.

4. Congress and Senate has no repercussions which has more to do with delegating powers to executive commitees. That's a different problem, they all want power and no one wants responsability.

>In aristocracy, if you get dicked you know where the dicking's coming from.
This is not entirely true. How many wealthy, ivy league grads are in the world right now. If tomorrow 'some people' announced 'democracy is over, we are now instating an aristocracy, 5,000 or how many bureaucrats will now be deciding everything, the people are gonna demand pictures and names? Give them fake pictures and names? The people are going to demand to see and hear them speak? Send actor/representatives?

Already now, how many government agencies operate, the people who plan the school curriculum and stuff, people have complained about things about it, does anyone know whos behind it.

If congress passes a bill, and 99% of the public disagrees with it, what happens (in todays circumstances), what is the protocol, do the people have power to eliminate it? Sign a petition, and they can actually overturn?

How much power does the government really even have, in terms of voting? How different would things really be under different presidents and congress? Could we imagine daily life being that different?

They have a lot of power in that they have a monopoly on force and the greatest propoganda machine this worlds ever seen; other than that voting is bs though, a method of placation at the large level. Local voting is nice tho, could get yourself some legal weed.

>lump together several thousand years' worth of architecture
>must work out and be something aesthetic, right?
>nope.jpg

what would you think about the argument: no taxation without representation, against your 'women should not vote'?

No. More women voted Le Pen then man have. And more white women voted Trump then Hillary. Brexit wasn't much difference between man and women voting

Taxation is theft. We should own our property and not be taxed. Maybe tarrifs make sense if you're depending on the navy right, to pay for the navy to defend shipments, but internal taxes are folley.

I don't think they are the same argument but I'll try to answer your question. Civilization is a tool which men have created with the ultimate goal or supporting each other and stop in-fighting; presumabely mostly over resources and women being one of those big resources men want.

So, without civilization, men will kill eachother following their nature and the top precentages of men will repoduce and have all the resources, including all the women among them. This leads to a revolt from the less fortunate men, they, having no women to quell their lust will fight the alphas together, the alphas being more of a white wolf and the betas being more of grey wolves.

To stop this incessant fighting over women and resources, monogomy became a thing which lead to civilization. Now even the beta-ist of males could have guaranteed access to women and the alphas became the monarchy or leading class or whatever and still had access to more women and resources but they kept the betas at bay by giving them a bone.

Roll forward to overthrowing monarchies etc, becoming republic/democracies etc governments evolving into whay they are today. Theyre still basically tools to keep men from being at eachothers throats. And this tool has always been built upon the smallest unit being the family and lead by men.

Now give women equal say in gov't which they have no business being in and you have halved the smallest unit civilization was built upon from the famoly to the individual. This pits a women against her husband in the interest of her children and over time leads to the erosion of culture and ethics which we're seeing today because everyone is looking out for numero uno as opposed to thay numero being whats best for the family unit.

Continued below

> Do you deny that there exists an amount of women more intelligent than men?

no, but on average i'd bet men occupy both extremes, most dumb, the most super smart.

Last one fot me but I digressed and will now pull it around to why women shouldn't vote.

So, civilization was made by men to curb their sexual strategy in a the short version. Monogomy was created and civilizatioj built on the foundation of a family.

So mens sexual strategy is to fuck everything and spread their seed everywhere, so they created monogomy to stop the alphas from taking all the women.

But what is womens sexual strategy except to all huddle around the alpha and forget about all the betas.

So in thos olden times, women would entice or "not mind" when invaders came into their camp to foght their men. The winners would be worthy of spreading their seed. If their men lost, then they were to week, if the invaders lost then their men were strong and deserving of spreading their seed.

So their strategy is to find the best genes possible and mate with them. Back innthe day that meant huddling around the alphas. Now it means possibly cucking their hubbies but who knows thats hard to prove. Either way, women don't mind sharing men and thats bad for monogomy which is bad for civilization as men have built it


Women also have no loyalty to their native men and will fuck whoever appears to be strongest.

So giving women the vote gives invaders access to the soil without physically invading. They will be given amnesty by the women because the women don't care about shit like continuing their race etc they just care about strength and genes.

This is all generelizatioms obv people are a bit more complex and i wouldn't even say women are doing anything like this consciously.

But when you have two opposing life and sexual strategies. And our whole civilization is built upon a male sexial strategy. And the govt has the power to enforce sexual strategy. Then it makes no sense to let women, who have an oppoaing strategy, have the right to vote which is enfotced by men.

The men will enforce the strategies the women want to their own demise.

You bet right.

Women are more team players than men. Men are ultimately competing with eachother. Women are ultimataly on the same team. Also, a lot of men, enough to give their half of the vote the advantage) will cuck themselves for womens approval.

pluralism is an utter myth in america

That's a fact. Men have more low IQs but more geiuses

Women also have their own Chess league.

most western countries are pretty safe and okay; it's only really America that's such a shithole where you have to watch out for muslim terrorists or anti-fa beatdowns and shit. Europe is having problems but they are short-term.

Gun ownership is not a substitute for actual skills. Too many yankees conflate having a gun with being a Big Man when they can't even cook their own food or maintain their own house or do basically anything on their own other than browse ArfCom and fit meme optics onto meme rails.

Taxes are important to the proper functioning of any state. Just by way of economy of scale, it will usually be better (barring corruption, etc.) for a government to handle things like roadwork and irrigation and such than to leave it in the hands of the free market, who will not just bicker over territory but also charge fees that will basically be about as much as taxation would have been anyway.

Americans are the source of most of the ills of the modern world. SJWs, BLM, modern Anti-Fa, but also the general attitudes and social mores that allow those groups to exist and flourish. Americans are a foul people, and managing to get so much media presence has made the world a more foul place. The world would be better off without Americans.

Women are people too, but are usually bad people because of the woman-worshipping attitude prevalent throughout the west today. Woman are all spoiled, and dangerous to even be near because if they dislike you for whatever reason they can kill or otherwise destroy you with impunity. Probably because of yankee attitudes about women and their weird idea of "chivalry" infecting the rest of the world.

Furry stuff is hot.

Traps are gay.

>as opposed to thay numero being whats best for the family unit.
But also, different families have different interests as to what the government can and should provide them.

If you are arguing completely from taxation is theft standpoint, that is tough because your point is already quite distant from the current paradigm. Do you have any thoughts as to how the current paradigm (of give us your taxes or die) can be feasibly shifted towards your desire?

You dont agree with sales tax?

Ok, so one of your posits mainly relates to immigration, I think? Surely this wasn't entirely women's idea, or even near close?

Well, maybe I should ask instead of guessing, to list some examples of the government enforced sexual strategy. (im guessing immigration, single mother welfare, and divorce laws, interesting minutia to discuss relating each)