War Czar Considers Draft.

[Dark Flame]

Ok, I think I got it now. Thanks.

[Darth Wong]

It occurs to me that another example is the classic "jumping in front of someone to take a bullet for him" scenario. Sure, it's noble as all hell, but that doesn't mean you're actually a bad person if you have a chance to do that and you don't.

Of course, that equation changes if you're a member of the Secret Service and you took an oath to do precisely that.

[Thunderfire]

It's like saying that someone who manages to swerve out of the way of a rampaging drunk driver is responsible for the guy in the car behind him who gets struck and killed.

I think this is a bad example because the other guy has the same chance to evade the drunk driver. This is not the case when "rich" people are able to evade the draft because they are able to bribe the right official and the poor guy is not able to do it because he lacks the money to do it.

[Siege]

I think this is a bad example because the other guy has the same chance to evade the drunk driver. This is not the case when "rich" people are able to evade the draft because they are able to bribe the right official and the poor guy is not able to do it because he lacks the money to do it.

But that still doesn't mean the guy dodging the draft is in any way responsible for the other guy being sent to war. Blame the fucked-up implementation of the draft system then, but not the draft-dodger: he still didn't cause the draft to happen to random people, he just got the hell out of Dodge when the chance presented itself.

[Thunderfire]

But that still doesn't mean the guy dodging the draft is in any way responsible for the other guy being sent to war.

I disagree. He is a part of the system if he uses his wealth to escape the system. People like him are responsible that the draft goes for easy targets. You think the war is unjust? Then oppose it and don't take the easy route to escape the draft.

[Medic]

Uh, no siegetank the dodger isn't directly responsible for who gets drafted but by leaving he's excluding himself from the same lottery everyone else wants to lose. ('Wants to lose' at least WRT Iraq which I would't blame anyone for dodging)

The equation changes if it's some sort of crazy Red Dawn situation or civil war. (both of which happen to be vanishingly small for the US at the moment)

In such a situation though I would think (hope?) that a draft wouldn't actually be necessary. If it was then fuck if we deserve to win.

[Siege]

Obviously he's excluding himself from the lottery- but the thing is, if the draft system is implemented in such a retarded way that people can literally buy themselves out of service, I feel you should be blaming the people who rigged the lottery in that fashion, not the people who are escaping through the loopholes.

If the dodger is only doing what the system allows him to do, isn't it a bit odd to blame him for it?

[Thunderfire]

I feel you should be blaming the people who rigged the lottery in that fashion, not the people who are escaping through the loopholes.

The holes are there because people like him opened them to escape the draft. Loopholes wont exist without people willing to use them.

[Siege]

The holes are there because people like him opened them to escape the draft. Loopholes wont exist without people willing to use them.

That only makes the my final question more pertinent: if the dodger is only doing what the system allows him to do, isn't it a bit odd to blame him for it? To paraphrase Mr. Wong: it's nice and good if you don't dodge the draft, but that doesn't mean you're a bad person if you have a chance to do skip and grab it.

You don't want rich people dodging the draft? Fix the system. In my opinion that makes a lot more sense that blaming people for doing something the system permits them to do, because I sort of fail to see how you can blame the guy who gets off for getting off when that's exactly what the system was designed to do. The guy to blame is the guy who designed the system, who in all likelihood wasn't the guy using it (although of course they might be related...)

[Thunderfire]

That only makes the my final question more pertinent: if the dodger is only doing what the system allows him to do, isn't it a bit odd to blame him for it? To paraphrase Mr. Wong: it's nice and good if you don't dodge the draft, but that doesn't mean you're a bad person if you have a chance to do skip and grab it.

He deserves a bit of the blame - not as much as the people who are not willing to close these holes. A draft dodger might not be a bad person - but he is definitly not a good person. A good person would vehemently oppose an unjust war.

[Siege]

He deserves a bit of the blame - not as much as the people who are not willing to close these holes. A draft dodger might not be a bad person - but he is definitly not a good person. A good person would vehemently oppose an unjust war.

Ah, but dodging the draft and vehemently opposing an unjust war are not mutually exclusive, are they? In fact I would imagine it's easier to oppose the war from outside the army than from within it, although this might be my (very) limited awareness of the army speaking.

[Thunderfire]

Ah, but dodging the draft and vehemently opposing an unjust war are not mutually exclusive, are they?

Yes they are not not mutually exclusive. A draft dodging war opponent might suffer Muhammad Ali fate - I don't think that many draft dodgers are willing to risk this.

[Darth Wong]

But that still doesn't mean the guy dodging the draft is in any way responsible for the other guy being sent to war.

I disagree. He is a part of the system if he uses his wealth to escape the system. People like him are responsible that the draft goes for easy targets. You think the war is unjust? Then oppose it and don't take the easy route to escape the draft.

You're full of shit. Your argument is based on 3 assumptions:

1. Everyone who avoids a draft is wealthy.
2. Everyone who avoids a draft politically supported it.
3. Everyone who avoids a draft supported the war.

All three of those assumptions are bullshit. In fact, the more educated class is more likely to oppose a war than the blue-collar class, judging by the difference in attitudes between your average university campus and your average monster truck rally.

[Thunderfire]

You're full of shit. Your argument is based on 3 assumptions:

1. Everyone who avoids a draft is wealthy.
2. Everyone who avoids a draft politically supported it.
3. Everyone who avoids a draft supported the war.

All three of those assumptions are bullshit. In fact, the more educated class is more likely to oppose a war than the blue-collar class, judging by the difference in attitudes between your average university campus and your average monster truck rally.

No my point is that the draft system is unjust because mostly poor people get drafted. A ideal drafts system has people from all education / wealth levels and dodging the system should be hard. My assumption is

1. Draft dodgers use a loophole to esape personal discomfort.
2. Using a loophole to escape personal discomfort is always unethical.

Don't want to fight in the war? Then say that you are not going fight for moral/ethical reasons.

[Darth Wong]

No my point is that the draft system is unjust because mostly poor people get drafted.

And this makes someone who avoids the draft unethical because ...?

A ideal drafts system has people from all education / wealth levels and dodging the system should be hard. My assumption is

1. Draft dodgers use a loophole to esape personal discomfort.
2. Using a loophole to escape personal discomfort is always unethical.

It is irrelevant whether they use it to escape personal discomfort. That is just you trying to lump in draft dodgers with lazy people, the idle rich, and other groups in society that you don't like. As for your second assumption, you have yet to justify it.

Don't want to fight in the war? Then say that you are not going fight for moral/ethical reasons.

Why is this morally superior to avoiding the draft? Oh wait, I know. You're just going to say that it is, because it just is.

[SirNitram]

I'm truly amazed how this is reduced to 'Personal discomfort'. Do people really think war is a mild annoyance and nothing more?

[Gil Hamilton]

I'm truly amazed how this is reduced to 'Personal discomfort'. Do people really think war is a mild annoyance and nothing more?

Didn't you know that "being extracted from your work or school so you could shoot at some other kids given guns and told to fight, all so you can risk dying so that someone vastly more wealthy than doesn't have to worry about that country nationalizing the industry they were taking advantage of" easily distills down to "personal discomfort"? It's such a piddling little thing, anyone who'd want to avoid that and has a legal means to do so is a filthy coward!

[Darth Wong]

I'm truly amazed how this is reduced to 'Personal discomfort'. Do people really think war is a mild annoyance and nothing more?

Doesn't it remind you of the way anti-abortion crusaders use the phrase "personal convenience?" There's a tendency associated with the tribal mentality whereby you make pseudo-ethical arguments which are really just thinly veiled facades covering a billboard that actually says "us vs them". It's all about demonizing your opponents by showing that they belong to a vilified social group, rather than any kind of meaningful ethics argument.

EDIT: For the anti-abortionists, it's all about attacking the "secular feminist liberal slutty whore woman" target. For the warmongers, it's all about attacking the "wealthy layabout university-educated intellectual elite effete sandal-wearing protest-marching snob" target.

[SirNitram]

I'm truly amazed how this is reduced to 'Personal discomfort'. Do people really think war is a mild annoyance and nothing more?

Doesn't it remind you of the way anti-abortion crusaders use the phrase "personal convenience?" There's a tendency associated with the tribal mentality whereby you make pseudo-ethical arguments which are really just thinly veiled facades covering a billboard that actually says "us vs them". It's all about demonizing your opponents by showing that they belong to a vilified social group, rather than any kind of meaningful ethics argument.

Of course. Then again, I try to expect more from posters here on SDN than the level of ridiculous rhetoric vomitted forth by the whackos who protest anything they don't like with such nonsense.

[Thunderfire]

No my point is that the draft system is unjust because mostly poor people get drafted.

And this makes someone who avoids the draft unethical because ...?

A ideal drafts system has people from all education / wealth levels and dodging the system should be hard. My assumption is

1. Draft dodgers use a loophole to esape personal discomfort.
2. Using a loophole to escape personal discomfort is always unethical.

It is irrelevant whether they use it to escape personal discomfort. That is just you trying to lump in draft dodgers with lazy people, the idle rich, and other groups in society that you don't like. As for your second assumption, you have yet to justify it.

Don't want to fight in the war? Then say that you are not going fight for moral/ethical reasons.

Why is this morally superior to avoiding the draft? Oh wait, I know. You're just going to say that it is, because it just is.

A draft dodger avoids the bad consequences unlike someone who is openly doesn't wants to fight in the war - even if their conscientious objection means that the might suffer leagal consequences. About assumption nr.2 - I'd like to know why do you think that using a loophole of any kind isn't unethical. I am quite sure that using loophole is unethical by pretty much anyones moral code.

[Darth Wong]

A draft dodger avoids the bad consequences unlike someone who is openly doesn't wants to fight in the war - even if their conscientious objection means that the might suffer leagal consequences.

And that makes him unethical because ...?

About assumption nr.2 - I'd like to know why do you think that using a loophole of any kind isn't unethical.

Hey dipshit, I don't have to show that it's not unethical. you have to show that it's unethical. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

I am quite sure that using loophole is unethical by pretty much anyones moral code.

Really? Why don't you explain why it's automatically immoral to use any kind of loophole?

I see this whole concept of justifying your moral judgments is totally alien to you. No doubt you will respond by simply stating yet another set of a priori moral judgments.

[SirNitram]

A draft dodger avoids the bad consequences unlike someone who is openly doesn't wants to fight in the war - even if their conscientious objection means that the might suffer leagal consequences. About assumption nr.2 - I'd like to know why do you think that using a loophole of any kind isn't unethical. I am quite sure that using loophole is unethical by pretty much anyones moral code.

What ethical codes are you lumping in there? In, say, Utilitarism, the ethical question of a loophole is who would get hurt by your usage of it.

[Thunderfire]

What ethical codes are you lumping in there? In, say, Utilitarism, the ethical question of a loophole is who would get hurt by your usage of it.

In this case Paul Poorman who gets drafted instead of me.

[chitoryu12]

What ethical codes are you lumping in there? In, say, Utilitarism, the ethical question of a loophole is who would get hurt by your usage of it.

In this case Paul Poorman who gets drafted instead of me.

And what if Paul Poorman is a military nut who always wanted to be in the army? Is it still unethical to let him go in your stead. We're assuming you don't know Paul.

[Thunderfire]

Really? Why don't you explain why it's automatically immoral to use any kind of loophole?

Let's use this example.
I am against the war, dodge the draft and do nothing help Paul Poorman who gets drafted instead - would this make me a hypocrite? Is a hypocrite a ethical person?