Now different people have different access to being able to purchase those things. That doesn't mean they have "less rights."

Putting words into someone's mouth is both intellectually dishonest and a lazy way to debate.

I am going to bow out if we are getting lost in discussing the most basic terms again.

Do better @Beef Taquitos

Have you read anything I said.

I said having access to something within the free market is not the same thing as having a right to do something.

Voting doesn't exist within the free market.

Lawyers do.

Rich people affording better lawyers is not a "superior right."

It's like talking to a wall.

Do you lack basic comprehension?

am i witnessing an NPC battle

Taquitos . . . why are you labeling voting like having access?

to me, voting was explained as you owning your vote

```diff
+a wild npc has appeared.
-data input not compatible with programing
-unable to comprehend inputted responses

-Engage target```

i'm not sure how it can be seen as somehow 'borrowing' a vote

@Beef Taquitos I think the point he is making is like - You have the "right" to healthcare but the level of care and access is different for each person and not a "right"

It's equal rights however it's not equal responsibility.

yeah sorry my words can't reach your programming

god forbid

Voting requirements were trucated to allow women as it previously required signing up for the draft. The problem here, is that women should have the right to vote, but I also don't think the requirements should have been lowered. Not helpful for a good decision

>>>
If men have to sign up for selective service to be allowed to vote and women don't, that isn't equal rights. End of story.
<<<

100% agree.

It's only not an equal right to men who don't sign up for selective service.

It really should be that cut and dry. I find it baffling what kind of mental gymnastics we engage in, be it left or right, for the sake of avoiding the cognitive dissonance of our gynocentrism.

However it does expand the right to women, with less responsibility on them.

no theyre not.
Today a women can sleep with a man and in retrospect declare it rape because she was drunk. The fact the man was drunk as well is considered irrelevant.
Even when these cases get declared as BS, its the man that gets his entire social & professional life ruined whilst the women is hailed as a hero for bringing this forward.

That is called an unequal situation because society is so deeply gynocentric that they would rather put a thousand innocent men in prison than to lock 1 women up for lying her ass off to save face.

That is called having equal rights but not taking on equal responsibilities.
Her own responsibility of getting herself that drunk is put aside on the guy, because in the end he shouldve known better regardless of his own mental state at the time.
What paglia argued for is for it to be able to get drunk as a women AND take responsibility for any actions taken with it.

We dont suddenly declare a women driving drunk as the fault of the man, but in interactions it always is the presumption being made.

I am so glad I don't have to fight this uphill battle today, in order to show the staggering, blatant bias in favor of women.

Thats where im coming from and why paglia gets it right.

Look. Two people can have the equal right to do something while accepting different responsibilities. The right to vote is the right to vote. The unequal responsibilities behind it are unequal responsibilities.

Yeah and look what its bringing us.

Did I choose the wrong time to go take a shower?

I missed some drama XD

maybe?

@Undead Mockingbird I don't dispute for one minute that there is anything but bias towards women

Title 9

Yes, of course people can be treated equally in one regard and unequal in another.

I do not know who is denying that.

Any recap?

Alright well I'm not denying that.

loads of men being dragged through the mud in courts and the court of public opinion

Yeah I'm not against that either Tritrium.