If you could prevent 90% of all crime by limiting men’s rights would you?

[VanillaSalt]

Even as a man Ide have to consider it but I’m asking if you would.

Yes

No

Updates

+1 y

Keep to the question guys. If a then b does happen. I’m not interested in variable x y or z. I know taking the rights of men won’t stop crime.

[Anonymous]

Here's the problem with this question, and it's the same problem with feminism. While it's a fact that the majority of crimes are committed by men, the majority of men are not the ones committing those crimes. It's a minority if shitty men doing it. But by limiting men's rights to prevent the minority of men from committing crimes, we hurt the majority of men, who are no more responsible for or guilty of those crimes than women are.

What feminism does is divide humans on gender lines even though most men are no more guilty than most women. In fact, men are victims of violence far more often that women are.

And to that, most feminists will respond "yeah but it is men committing those violent crimes against other men". True, but should the gender of an innocent victim matter? Is an innocent man who is the victim of violence somehow less of a victim than a female victim?

This is how feminism has driven a wedge between men and women. Feminists divide men and women in an attempt to support their narrative of women as victims and men as perpetrators. They go so far as to call it "femicide" when a man murders a woman.

This is how feminism has divided men and women and alienated men who might otherwise be more supportive of their cause. It's why no man in his right mind believes it when women say feminism is just about equality. Its why men hate feminism, and rightly so. And it's why most women don't support feminism anymore.

The problem with feminism is not "feminiazis". The problem is mainstream feminism itself.

[Medhat-M]

Yeah... prevent 90% of all crime? That's a great deal

[VanillaSalt]

I agree. Now I’m curious. If you could prevent 99% of all crime by taking all rights from everyone, Is that equally a great deal?

[Medhat-M]

Nope I think that's harsh

[Ez-Bri-Z]

Why are men committing 90% of crime in the first place in this scenario?


Yes, I know I'm being stubborn..

No, I refuse to stop.

Yes, we are still going to be friends after this.

No, I dont believe men commit 90% of crime. Like 87.8% maybe.

[VanillaSalt]

Men are a majority of crime especially violent between the ages of 16 and 45. That numbers in the 70-90%. Irrelevant the question is the question very simple.

[Ez-Bri-Z]

Question is super simple. No.

I'm not punishing the whole for the few.

[VanillaSalt]

What about punishing 100 people for what 90 did? 1,000,000 for what 990,000 did? What about 3.4 billion for what 3 billion have done? Again it’s 90% of all crime. What about 10 for what 9 did. Only one innocent suffers while 90% off crime disappears… is that acceptable?

[Ez-Bri-Z]

Nope. I'll punish the 9 and give them a chance to not screw it up. Maybe we get 1 more to not do bad and get it to 80. You know me, the optimist until it comes to myself.

[Xoxocutekitty]

Lol like keeping all men housebound, take away their ability to drive or hold bank accounts? Make them cover their bodies and unable to go out in public without a female escort?

[VanillaSalt]

Yes exactly.

[VanillaSalt]

I’m curious to what degree society would oppress someone to maintain a safe society and used men as the base due to most crime being committed by men and the fact so much fewer people seem to care about them as opposed to women.

[Xoxocutekitty]

To be honest I don't ever see that happening unless there's an apocalypse or disease that targets distinctly the y chromosome and most of the men have literally died off.

In certain countries, a man can rape a woman, and that woman's own family will kill her in the name of honor/repureputation. Talk about victim blaming.

Pretty sure the majority of shootings or terrorist groups are male but the news never genders them. Society has accepted male as default so if a 'sucessful' terrorist group is unveiled to be women, it will be forever gendered in the history of men.

I don't think the majority will ever see men as lesser group until it IS the minority. Men pick on women because they ARE stronger. If women were entitled to guns at birth and men weren't, then I'm sure you'd see women stealing and assaulting men. Why? Because they can. The same way some men feel entitled to grab women with small outfits, because they can.

In reality, women don't have the social capital of political votes (government is even close not equally gendered, let alone a distinct majority to 'achieve' anything). Women aren't physically stronger or having better access to weapons.

[VanillaSalt]

Ok look…yes Muslim women can be raped and punished… have you ever heard of a bachelor tax? There’s inequalities in everything. But why does the suffering of women on the other side of the world bother you?

To your second point what your saying is terrorists are assumed to be men but women have to be proven to be terrorists?

Women control sex and reproduction and everything children related. Society supports women over men with just he said she said and no evidence.

I wanna remind you of the boys scouts. Women took that from us. And men took women’s sports in the form of trans.

We are living in a gynocentric patriarchy in the states.

[VanillaSalt]

Somebodies watched worlds end harem lol.

[Lionman95]

No because limiting men's right wouldn't solve the problem. It would lead to more problems like male suicides, it would make guys even more aggressive because if you're already by association and could go to prison for that actually doing it just because easier.

[globetrotter22]

Can you give me some examples of how this would work? What kind of crime are we talking about? Violent crime? Sexual crime?

Anyway this might be effective for a while. But this would eventually backfire catastrophically. Would be non violet men would feel oppressed and they would turn to violence out of rebellion. This would start a bloody revolution.

[VanillaSalt]

Sorry I got hard for a moment when you said “revolution”. Honestly I hate this country and what is becoming and feel oppressed in our so-called free country. I know war is the most inefficient method of change but it is the most expedient.

That being said I’m talking on a general near utilitarian level. Also I did suggest “all” crime.

[globetrotter22]

It’s going to get worse before it gets better. But the thing is women are getting what they want and are miserable about it. It’s going to change when women universally condemn modern feminism. Some are already speaking out against that crap. But more need to get vocal about it.

[VanillaSalt]

I’m pretty much screwed as it is. I take tremendous risk for children. I can avoid marriage easy but children is different. MGTOWS might have the right idea with the state of divorce and marriage but Ide at least like to try.

If it came to revolution I can at least watch society fall and know women will suffer far more then men.

[globetrotter22]

If men fail women fail. Many feminists want men to fail.

[InYourHead]

It's impossible. Limiting rights doesn't ever prevent crime. It makes criminals out of innocent people.

So no I wouldn't ever limit someone's rights.

[VanillaSalt]

Want the question was it… don’t corrupt my data with your twisted way of looking at it… I specifically said if you could… not would it…

[VanillaSalt]

Wasn’t the question… ducking auto correct lately.

[Sargentcaptain]

I don't subscribe to the guilty before being proved innocent logic, nor do I have a submission fetish, and I'd rather be actually free than 'safe'*.

* terms and conditions may apply

[exitseven]

no, people need to be freee. I would just hire more cops and build more prisons.

[VanillaSalt]

I don’t like prisons. We need help for some of these people not prison. Druggies need help not prison. Thief’s need to be controlled not imprisoned.

[exitseven]

You control them by locking them up. Prison is supposed to be punishment, not a vacation.

[VanillaSalt]

Often they come out worse then better. We can’t indefinitely lockup people or eventually the whole world will be a prison.

[exitseven]

@VanillaSalt or else these dirtbags will not commit crimes anymore.

[jahaims]

Would obviously depend on what rights are being limited. Society already has limited rights with the assumption that it is improving society.

[bolverk]

It would be imposing the punishment accrued by the few on the many

[Juxtapose]

No, I value personal freedom more than security up until a point.

[HeartFullOfGlue]

Yeah, for like a week to see what would happen.

[VanillaSalt]

I like your answer. I think we’d be foolish to not always consider an option with such potential.

[HeartFullOfGlue]

What rights would be limited tho?

[VanillaSalt]

I mean taking the right to breathe would be very different to taking their right to leave the house wouldn’t it lol

I just wondered who would be willing to limit an entire groups freedoms (none in particular) for the sake of society.

I find myself questioning which is more important society or the individual. If society is truly more important, which I believe it is, then limiting individuals for its benefit would have to be considered. If not then why do we limit people’s ability to lie, cheat, and steal? If freedom is truly the important part then why have society at all? Is it a balance? If so at what point is too far too far?

[Snakeyes7]

At most you'd be limiting it by half and if you trade freedom for safety you will get neither.

[BillyBalls]

Men's rights are already limited.

It is known as the legal code.

[supercutebutt]

Sure. Let's do this! :)

[Dargil]

What rights would you limit (betcha I can guess).

[SmokinAces2000]

What “mens rights” would be limited