Who voting rights should be restricted too and why

What about people who don't know the difference between "too" and to. (Which don't equal 4 by the way).

And there are plenty of women out there who are quite capable of rendering you unconscious with a single punch.

And also plenty of testosterone induced post pubescents who couldn't or wouldn't want to.

Why is this relevant? It's because being physically stronger means men have to think more logically than woman and act less on their emotions.

Ah, so logical abilities are dictated by one’s strength. That’s news to the entire world of academia, science, law, medicine, and sports…

Ah, so logical abilities are dictated by one’s strength

thats not what he said lol

If you want to actually steelman his argument, it is that having strength presents a logical challenge, which most women dont face.

So because men face more logical challenges than women, men are smarter on average.

Now, of course, if we are going to base it on who is smart, some intelligence test would probably be more efficient, because not all men are smart, and not all women are dumb.

Were you rejected by a bunch of white women or something? This is a serious hangup.

Men arent smarter than women on average. Women have more midwits, with less morons and geniuses. The IQ distribution for men has fatter tails, with more geniuses but also more total retards. But the average is the same. There are way, way better ways to select for intelligence than gender. And its debateable if intelligence is even the metric you want - a group or person with high IQs and bad character can simply use that intelligence to cause greater collective harm for their personal benefit.

I also think that stat is outdated because men are more competitive than women and they know that a high IQ means you're respected more than 60 years ago, so men I think now have higher IQs than women because they put in more effort and women simply do not want to put that amount of effort in. Anytime a woman writes a very long response, I assume she just went to Chat GPT. I don't use Chat GPT to argue.

This is nonsensical. IQ is largely genetic; it's not something that you can exercise like a muscle. The most effective way to increase it is through proper nutrition during childhood, and that has a ceiling. Since you need a man and a woman to reproduce, the IQ of their children will always necessarily fall to the same average, due to each man and woman having DNA from both parents, one a man and the other a woman. Male and female IQ are biologically coupled, necessarily.

Women have caught up with men.

Data from 2025 indicates a significant shift in ChatGPT usage, with 

women now slightly outnumbering men(52% of users) after previously being dominated by a male majority (nearly 80%) in early 2024. 

Key Findings on ChatGPT Usage & Gender (2024-2025):

1. Shift to Majority Female Users: By July 2025, messages from users with typically feminine names increased to 52%, a dramatic increase from 37% in January 2024.
2. Previous Male Dominance: In early stages, up to 80% of users were men. As recently as March 2025, some reports indicated that 75% of mobile users were men.
3. Usage Context: Women are increasingly using ChatGPT for both personal and work-related tasks, with 70% of usage reported as personal and 30% for work.
4. Adoption Barriers: Despite the rise, studies from early 2025 indicated that women were still 20 percentage points less likely to use ChatGPT than men in the same occupation, often citing a need for more training (48% of women) or restrictions on usage (30% of women). 

While the overall user base has shifted to being slightly more female, some sectors still show a gap. For instance, in Human Resources, 52% of women reported using ChatGPT compared to 74% of men. 

Well, if women are now adopting ChatGPT at higher rates you're kind of helping his point, because only knuckle-dragging mongoloids outsource their thinking to an LLM.

If you want to actually steelman his argument, it is that having strength presents a logical challenge, which most women dont face.

The whole point of his op is to justify why men should be allowed to vote while women shouldn’t. He’s not merely pointing out a logical challenge experienced by only one gender, he’s using it to argue that that gender is in fact smarter, or if you prefer, “better equipped” to make difficult while important decisions.

My sarcasm points to the stupidity of this idea. Intelligence isn’t formed by restraining yourself from punching walls or the annoying kid sitting behind you.

Academics and scientists don't think about political ideas;

So the smartest groups of people in our society do not think about political ideas, but people like Billy Bob working over at the factory do?

Sports you are told to use your physical advantages to dominate others.

…while you are playing the sport. You don’t get to go out to the grocery store and tackle the manager because he won’t give you a refund. So by your logic, athletes face the greatest level of “logical challenges” among us, therefore it would be an even better idea to restrict voting to athletes only.

The idea that athletes face the greatest "logical challenges" refers to the intense, split-second decision-making, strategic planning, and mental resilience required in high-stakes competition [1, 2].

However, restricting voting rights to a single profession or group based on one specific type of ability raises several issues regarding democratic principles:

1. Diverse Types of Intelligence: The challenges faced by athletes—physical execution, tactical awareness, and split-second reactivity—are distinct from other necessary skills, such as economic analysis, social policy evaluation, or long-term community planning [1].
2. Representation: A functional democracy relies on representing a broad spectrum of perspectives, experiences, and expertise from all facets of life, not just one field [2].
3. Democratic Principle: The core idea of universal suffrage is that every citizen is affected by policy decisions and should therefore have a voice, regardless of their profession or specific skill set [2]. 

Therefore, while athletes possess impressive specialized skills, arguments for restricting voting to them often overlook the necessity of diverse expertise in governance. 

If you’re going to post ChatGPT responses the least you could do is feed it the proper context first.

My point was to take RemyBrown’s demented logic - that the possession of greater strength presents greater logical challenges, which leads to the conclusion that the group possessing said trait is generally more capable of making difficult and complex decisions - would mean that we’d be better off only allowing athletes to vote.

It’s not my argument, it’s a byproduct of his, so tag him.

Allowing only athletes to vote based on superior physical health is a concept that conflicts with core democratic principles of universal suffrage, equality, and inclusivity. While it is true that physical health is a factor in voter turnout—as healthier individuals tend to vote more consistently

—restricting the ballot to a specific physical demographic is not supported by public health or legal experts. 

Here are the key considerations regarding this perspective:

1. Democratic Principles of Equality: Modern democracy is based on the principle that all citizens have an equal right to a voice in governance, regardless of physical or mental ability. Restricting voting to the healthiest individuals would systematically disenfranchise the elderly, people with disabilities, and those with chronic illnesses.
2. Voting as a Driver of Health: Research indicates a bidirectional relationship between voting and health. Voting is not just for the healthy; rather, active civic engagement is associated with better overall well-being, as it improves social capital and inclusion. Furthermore, 2022 guidelines from the American Medical Association classify voting as a social determinant of health.
3. Risk of Bias in Policy: Restricting the vote to athletes could lead to a "health bias" in public policy, where the needs of less healthy, vulnerable, or disabled populations are ignored by representatives. This can create a cycle where poor health leads to lower voting rates, resulting in policies that further disadvantage those groups.
4. Alternatives to Restriction: Rather than limiting who can vote, public health perspectives emphasize making voting more accessible. Strategies include mobile voting, improved transportation, and absentee ballots to help people with disabilities or health challenges participate in elections.
5. Athletes as Civic Leaders: While athletes do play a significant role in civic mobilization and leveraging their platforms for social justice, this is typically viewed as a way to encourage broader participation, rather than to replace the general electorate. 

In summary, while physical health influences the likelihood of voting, restricting the right to vote based on fitness runs counter to established ethical, legal, and social standards of a fair, representative democracy. 

Ok Chat

Good to see you agree.

Restricting the right to vote based on race, gender, or IQ is contrary to the principles of democratic equality and fundamental human rights, as recognized by international law and modern democratic constitutions [1].

1. Universal Suffrage: International human rights agreements, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, assert that all individuals are entitled to vote regardless of race, gender, or other distinctions [1].
2. Democratic Equality: The principle of "one person, one vote" is foundational to representative democracy, ensuring equal participation and preventing the concentration of power in the hands of a specific group [2].
3. Inclusivity: Restricting voting rights historically leads to the marginalization of groups and does not necessarily guarantee better governance or representation of the population's interests [2]. 

Democracies rely on the inclusive participation of their citizens to ensure legitimacy and accountability. 

Modern Democracy is just a euphemism for late-stage Roman democracy, where the government became so corrupt, and the Roman people grew so complacent with the corruption that external barbarians had to intervene to save them. America is far into this late stage, importing people who care more about America than home-grown Americans do.

This is evident with Venezuelan refugees cheering for America while actual Americans cheer for Maduro.

Actual Americans were cheering at the oil potential.

As of January 2026, Democrats are generally 

not defending Nicolás Maduro, but they are strongly condemning the U.S. military operation that led to his capture. While they describe Maduro as a dictator and a "horrible person," they have focused their opposition on the legality and unilateral nature of President Trump's actions. 

Key points regarding the Democratic stance include:

1. Opposition to the Operation's Legality: Leading Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, have labeled the capture of Maduro as "illegal" and "lawless," arguing it violates both international law and the U.S. Constitution because it was conducted without congressional authorization.
2. Criticism of Process: Democrats have expressed outrage that the administration did not notify or brief Congress before the strike. Some lawmakers, such as Senator Tim Kaine and Senator Mark Warner, warned that this unilateral action sets a dangerous global precedent that could be exploited by other nations like Russia or China.
3. Rejection of "Regime Change": Many Democrats, including New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Representative Jim Himes, have specifically voiced opposition to the pursuit of regime change and the idea of the U.S. "running" Venezuela, citing concerns about regional stability and comparisons to past long-term military engagements like Iraq and Afghanistan.
4. Democratic Transition vs. Military Force: Most Democratic officials maintain that any solution for Venezuela must involve a "peaceful and democratic transition" and respect for international law rather than military decapitation strikes.
5. Political Framing: Some Democratic strategists view the focus on Venezuela as a distraction from domestic issues like healthcare and affordability, accusing the administration of prioritizing warfare over fixing domestic problems.