<p>
[quote]
I don't believe its far from libertarian at all. Libertarianism accepts a minimal government, The Us constitution out of the constitutional convention, is widely accepted by the vast majority of Libertarians as acceptable. Whereas the constitution of today is not, this is due to restrictions and regulations seen in the subsequent amendments. An example of such is the 13th amendment, well that makes government bigger as it need to enforce the idea of no slavery. So it is not accepted, and I don't accept it either. Minimalist.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, another one of these "I only like the amendments that I agree with" quasi-libertarians. Hate to break it to you, champ, but Article 5 of the US Constitution clearly states that:</p>
<p>* The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.*</p>
<p>So you either accept the fact that amendments are a legitimate part of the US constitutional canon, or you invalidate the constitution itself. Sucks, don't it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I mean simply look at the woman's liberation movement and see the destruction done by it. Look at the current state of America and other westernised society's with woman's rights, and this state can be derived from woman's liberation. Its almost pathetic what has happened to the nuclear family, and on top of that with liberated woman the rates of divorce, std's, suicide, mental and physical health compilations and sexual disorders are all up drastically.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let's look at two STDs and see if they have indeed gone up because of "feminism:"</p>
<p>[url=<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-2.gif%5DGonohrrea%5B/url">http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-2.gif]Gonohrrea[/url</a>]</p>
![http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-2.gif%5DGonohrrea%5B/url">http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-2.gif]Gonohrrea[/url</a>]</p](http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-2.gif%5DGonohrrea%5B/url%22>http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-2.gif%5DGonohrrea%5B/url</a>%5D</p){kind=link}
<p>[url=<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-3.gif%5DSyphilis%5B/url">http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-3.gif]Syphilis[/url</a>]</p>
![http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-3.gif%5DSyphilis%5B/url">http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-3.gif]Syphilis[/url</a>]</p](http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-3.gif%5DSyphilis%5B/url%22>http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-3.gif%5DSyphilis%5B/url</a>%5D</p){kind=link}
<p>Gonorrhea is particularly interesting. The WW2 jump in rates is pretty easy to explain, and I'd assume the late 1960s-1980s peak is probably due to the "free love/party"-era thinking. But feminism? Hard to argue that for two reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>How do you measure "feminism" as a trend? Do you measure per capita income of women? Number of never-married women? Number of papers published on the topic? Hard to say.</p></li>
<li><p>Even if we do find a way to measure feminism, we are going to have a lot of "unobserved heterogeneity" in the model-- in other words, lots of other variables we can't measure. In the case of feminism as an x variable to explain the y variable of STD incidence rate, there are a lot of other factors that come into play that may be as powerful in explaining this phenomenon.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>In any case, let's assume that feminism can be measured: then how do we explain the peaks and drops in various eras? How do we explain that current STD rates (using gonorrhea as a proxy) are lower than they were in the "traditional 1950s?"</p>
<p>Your explanation is lacking. </p>
<p>Also, which "sexual disorders" are on the rise? </p>
<p>Finally, suicide rates are an interesting statistic. Japan, which has probably the lowest rate of divorce in the developed world, also has the highest suicide rate. There appears to be no correlation between divorce and suicide as far as the data I've seen goes, so I do look forward to you explaining this one. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The rates of children growing up healthy and unbroken are quite low, and I can go forever. There's a simple reason why Children who come from a tight Nuclear Family tend to be healthier, happier, smarter and more successful then from those who don't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What the hell is a "broken" child? This is rather offensive to people who grew up in single-parent households (myself included.)</p>
<p>I also note that the nuclear family is only one of many family constructions, and that much of history has found the extended family to be just as, if not more, common. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Everybody can admit those that the majority of the Jewish population are quite successful, they pretty much run every sector world wide.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh how I love the "THEM JEWZORZ RULEZ DA WORLDZ" fallacy. Just adore it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The founding fathers foresaw this problem and made sure it was in check when the constitution was created. Americas more prosperous time were way before woman's liberation and they are gone as we can see on a global scale. It all comes down to how children are raised.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right. Because we all know that Americans were doing way better before the 1950s. Y'know, when small pox, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella were rampant. When many people lacked electricity, access to running water, and the most basic amenities.</p>
<p>Y'know, the "good old days." </p>
<p>
[quote]
Well Cali, on the numerous IQ tests I've taken, my score has always been 156 +/- 3. To be a retard id need a 70. So I'm sorry to say that im 88 points above what you claim. A retard from a public university that can pretty much out debate anybody on this forum, including those from the top schools. Something is wrong here, no?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You have yet to provide any firm evidence for most of your claims. I wouldn't call that "out debating." Perhaps you are more skilled in sophistry, but I don't know that that's something to trumpet. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Those Jewish mothers may be very successful, which is fine. But the trick is, is that they became successful before or after they raised their children. When the Children were born either the woman or man seized their careers in the interest of the family, in most cases it was the woman, as it is only nature, that women are more nurturing then men. These women follow their religion which is quite strict on the raising of Children. The westernised cultures, don't have or do this, this we see all the problems.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I call BS on this, being Jewish myself. I know many Jewish mothers who continued their careers even while raising a child. Those children almost all did well for themselves.</p>
<p>I also find it funny that you implicitly blame Westernization yet you argue that the US was at its most successful when it was arguably its most "Western" in ideals. Want your cake and want to eat it, huh?</p>
