A question for the opponents of women voting

That’s correct. The separate but equal analogy doesn’t hold up. Once the two things are equal, the analogy is inapt.

But what some referencing a point I’ve made numerous times, and getting it wrong. Blacks and whites now access the same water at the same drinking fountain. Let’s say there is a park with two fountains, one for each race. Blacks drink from the Blacks fountain and whites drink from the Whites fountain. Then, a law gets passed saying that you can’t do that. That everyone has to be able to enjoy the same quality of water. One way to do that is to just have one fountain. Everybody drinks from it, blacks, whites, browns, greens, blues, yellows, what have you. We have equality, yes? Yes.

Now, in the analogy, the water is our laws. More specifically, our laws outlining the rights and privileges afforded voters. It used to be, that only men we’re able to enjoy those laws. But now we pass another law stating that both Men (with Voting) and women (through FemVoting) can both drink from that same fountain. They can both enjoy the same cool water. Or set of laws.

Part of the confusion that some insist upon is in confusing the two groups we seek to treat equally with the two things (water fountains, schools, set of laws) that the two groups are allowed to use. “Separate but equal” talks to the latter. It says that since we cannot make two things equal—schools, for instance—so we won’t have one group going to School A and the other group going to School B. We’ll send both groups to both schools.

This has been done. Black kids and white kids now attend the same schools. Notice the “and” there? Two groups now both tap into one system.

Now we go back and substitute Blacks and Whites with Men voting and Women voting. Theses two groups would both tap into one set of laws. One, not two. There is no question of whether two things are equal because there is only one thing. One set of laws.

Two groups. Tapping into one thing. Blacks and whites enjoy the same water coming out of the same, single fountain. And Men and Women voters enjoying the sam benefits and privileges coming from the same, single set of laws.

Don’t get me wrong, I love this, but thought GD isn’t where lampoon threads dwell.

It’s argument by analogy.

It’s not our fault that the original ‘arguments’ are their own parody.

If I may hijack the thread a bit:

What exactly would be the negative consequences of allowing women to show off their ankles in public?

What? A lampoon thread? Darn it, I’ve been whooshed.

Next, you’ll tell me that blacks and whites can marry. Crazy.

I believe the legal term would be “asking for it”.
:smiley:

Since it’s really a running joke, I’d call it satire.

Satire isn’t argument by analogy?

And for being a joke, there are elements of this thread that are adhering quite closely in form and/or structure to the anti-gay arguments in the A question for opponents of gay marriage thread - right down to exact wording, in cases.

Our precious youngsters would have their minds filled with impure thoughts, and they would neglect to do their chores.

How do you expect men to control themselves under such provocation. God made us that way. It’s in the Bible - think about King David.

Valteron, you have been admirably coherent in the thread that prompted you to post this one and the other silly one. (I hope I have not missed more and that you do not have more than two silly threads cluttering up the board.)

Stick to behaving in an intelligent and coherent fashion in the original thread and stop reverting to this sort of nonsense.

Thread closed.

[ /Modding ]