I’m stating a negative. There was no just reason for the discrimination. It’s up to you to then say “no, there was a just reason for the discrimination, and here it is…”

“You were the one who initially stated the discrimination was unjust. I then asked you to explain, and am still waiting for an explanation. ”

As I said, the only explanation I need to give to prove my point is that there was no just reason given for the discrimination. Now, that’s proving a negative, which is hard to do; I already gave a few candidates for the reasons the discrimination took place, and showed that they were not just reasons. I cannot possibly consider all possible reasons; it is now up to you to come up with a new reason that *would* have been just.

“Nothing has changed since the debate began, except now you wish me to explain my position, first. I will, but not until I have heard your argument, first.”

As I said, my argument hinges on a negative claim: there was no just reason for the discrimination. There’s no other argument I could possibly give, except to list all possible reasons that could possibly have been given for the discrimination, and show that each one of them is unjust. That is an impossible task, since there are potentially infinitely many such reasons. That’s why the burden shifts to you to give *one* reason for the discrimination that *was* just.

The burden is on you because you are the one stating it is unjust.

If you, or any would-be discriminator has another reason not to let women (any women) vote, it’s up to them to give a reason that does hold up.

You were the one who initially stated the discrimination was unjust. I then asked you to explain, and am still waiting for an explanation. Nothing has changed since the debate began, except now you wish me to explain my position, first. I will, but not until I have heard your argument, first.

Yes, this is discrimination based on age.

Just like the discrimination before the 19th Amendment (in the US) was discrimination based on sex.

For each case, the burden is on those who are in favor of the discrimination to show why that discrimination is just.

In the case of age, the argument is, indeed, that people under 18 (21 in the past) are not mature enough. Is that a just reason for such discrimination? It’s a complex issue, and a slippery slope; it’s pretty clear in the case of a 0-5 year old, not so clear in the case of a 17-year-old, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

What was the argument in the case of women? Were they not considered mature enough either? Were they considered not to have the type of mind to understand political issues? Were they considered not to be affected by political decisions? I don’t know; probably a combination of these and other ideas; in any case, it’s pretty clear that none of those reasons stand up to scrutiny. If you, or any would-be discriminator has another reason not to let women (any women) vote, it’s up to them to give a reason that does hold up.

And fortunately, there’s no slippery slope in the case of women voting. Either you can discriminate based on sex in voting or you can’t.

No we don’t. We have records which will show that children have also never voted. Yet no one has claimed that they are being unjustly discriminated against because they are children. It could be that they are not mature as opposed to being children.

Ok, well even your video didn’t deny that the vote was prohibited on the basis of sex. To disprove this, you’d have to show records that women were voting before this time. Apparently there were states in the US where women could vote for short periods of time in the early years of the Republic, but they were short-lived and bans against women voting were shortly reinstated.

“Yes, but what we don’t know is if that discrimination was based on sex, and not other categories.”

We know. It’s a matter of record.

Oh ok, on the basis of sex, I mean.

It suggested that the women’s suffrage movement was misguided because many men couldn’t vote, either. That’s completely beside the point, which was that some men could vote, while no women could.

Yes, but what we don’t know is if that discrimination was based on sex, and not other categories.

What do you mean by “sex alone” again? You keep waffling about what you mean by that that I’m not going to answer any statements that use it until you clarify.

“Why was the logic flawed?”

It suggested that the women’s suffrage movement was misguided because many men couldn’t vote, either. That’s completely beside the point, which was that some men could vote, while no women could.

In Britain, it may be that women couldn’t vote because they couldn’t own property, and only property owners could vote. I don’t know the facts for Britain so well. In that case, perhaps there the movement should have focused on the idea that non-property-owners, including women, could vote, or perhaps on the fact that women should be able to own property.

However, I know that in the US, the property criterion was abolished, de facto at least in some states and de jure in all states, long before women got the vote; and I’m pretty sure women could own property in the US and still couldn’t vote.

You said it was unjust discrimination, because it was discrimination on the basis of sex alone. I disagree with that analysis, and asked you to prove it. So I’m waiting for you to prove it. The 19th amendment states that one cannot discriminate on the basis of sex alone. However, this doesn’t prove that either sex was discriminated against on the basis of sex alone prior to the 19th amendment. I think that’s what you’re trying to prove to me, that indeed that was the case. If that was the case, then it should be easy for you to prove that that was the case. We know that women could not vote prior to the 19th amendment, but we don’t know if this was on the basis of sex alone. That is what you have been attempting to prove.

What more expansion would you need, exactly?

Why was the logic flawed?