Please wait...
2025-08-12 11:59 from Nurb432
I think that is the angle they used for generations to keep
women from voting, especially here in the US. "you stay home and
tend the house, you don't need to contribute to important stuff,
nor have the knowledge"
( at least that is how i remember it in history class.. i'm old,
but not so old to have lived it :) )
I am knowledgeable about that, but the idea that if you don't contribute resources to public affairs you don't get to decide how you use them is a bit different.
But yeah... if you were a house wife doing house chores only you didn't have the option to contribute to public affairs. And I agree it sucks if you get forced out with no option to get in. But on the other hand I wonder how many women would op-in or opt-out if given an honest choice.
These days I think I would opt out of the system.
2025-08-11 00:16 from IGnatius T Foobar <ajc@citadel.org>
The whole "18 for responsibilities, 21 for privileges" thing is
bullshit.
Complete bullshit. I didn't know it was lowered to 18 for the draft.
That's horrible.
s/privileges/rights/
And when was the draft ever not 18? I'm no historian but I'd bet over a century ago it was even lower.
I think it was 21 up until the 1940s. It also had a cap age. Both were moved due to the war, and it never returned back to where it was.
( for a specific person around here, my disclaimer was added "I think".. not 100% sure )
Mon Aug 25 2025 01:09:46 UTC from zelgomer
And when was the draft ever not 18? I'm no historian but I'd bet over a century ago it was even lower.
I have an impopular opinion here, but I think that the people
contributing money and resources should be the people deciding how
those are used. That is the edge Athens had back in the day.
If it's "impopular" then call me impopular. I do believe voting should only be available to taxpayers. Freeloaders shouldn't get to vote for more freeloading.
Tytler observed centuries ago why that collapses societies.
In the US, voting was originally only available to white male landowners over 35. While perhaps those specific criteria may not be workable today, the point is that they wanted the important policy decisions being made by people who had some skin in the game.
And the anti-gun crowd awakens. "high capacity and assault weapons need to be banned"
No, those people need banned.
I've said it before, I've gotten in trouble for saying it, but I'll still say it again:
People who support gun control laws deserve to be shot.