War Czar Considers Draft.

[Thunderfire]

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.

A military nut? You don't need to draft him - he volunteers.

[chitoryu12]

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.

A military nut? You don't need to draft him - he volunteers.

What if he's so busy working several jobs that he never has time to apply? You can't assume that everyone who wants to be in the military will apply.

[Medic]

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.

A military nut? You don't need to draft him - he volunteers.

What if he's so busy working several jobs that he never has time to apply? You can't assume that everyone who wants to be in the military will apply.

... you're kidding, right? With this war going on and recruiting being so important I'd bet a month's pay (don't laugh) that a recruiter would be more than willing to get a face-to-face talk and bring all the required contracts at whatever time was convenient. Good recruiters will be awarded for it too. ("good" is defined as meeting or exceeding a certain number of recruits signed up and shipped out)

[Spyder]

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.

Well, from the lessons I'm getting from this thread the moral thing to do would be for him to get Conscientious Objector status. If not then he should probably move to Canada.

[SirNitram]

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.

I was referring to your odd claim that a loophole always is unethical under all ethical codes.

[General Zod]

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.

A military nut? You don't need to draft him - he volunteers.

What if he's so busy working several jobs that he never has time to apply? You can't assume that everyone who wants to be in the military will apply.

We're talking about a draft here numbnuts. It doesn't matter if you have a job or not. If there is a draft you will be required to sign up if you are called regardless if you have the time, which entails quitting those several jobs or face severe legal repercussions . Do you honestly think the draft board would give two shits if you were working three jobs at once?

[TheMuffinKing]

A military nut? You don't need to draft him - he volunteers.

What if he's so busy working several jobs that he never has time to apply? You can't assume that everyone who wants to be in the military will apply.

... you're kidding, right? With this war going on and recruiting being so important I'd bet a month's pay (don't laugh) that a recruiter would be more than willing to get a face-to-face talk and bring all the required contracts at whatever time was convenient. Good recruiters will be awarded for it too. ("good" is defined as meeting or exceeding a certain number of recruits signed up and shipped out)

A little off topic, but my enlistment began almost exactly as you have described! I signed my paperwork in my kitchen sharing some coffee with the recruiter.

[Spyder]

A military nut? You don't need to draft him - he volunteers.

What if he's so busy working several jobs that he never has time to apply? You can't assume that everyone who wants to be in the military will apply.

We're talking about a draft here numbnuts. It doesn't matter if you have a job or not. If there is a draft you will be required to sign up if you are called regardless if you have the time, which entails quitting those several jobs or face severe legal repercussions . Do you honestly think the draft board would give two shits if you were working three jobs at once?

Not that Chitoryu12's point makes a vast quantity of sense, but he's referring to a hypothetical situation where someone named Paul Poorman wants to join the army but doesn't because he can't find time to sign up and for whatever reason isn't getting drafted, then when someone else dodges the draft Paul gets to go instead and everyone's happy.

Oh don't look at me like that, the fact that his point's a trainwreck is no excuse for missing it!

[General Zod]

Not that Chitoryu12's point makes a vast quantity of sense, but he's referring to a hypothetical situation where someone named Paul Poorman wants to join the army but doesn't because he can't find time to sign up and for whatever reason isn't getting drafted, then when someone else dodges the draft Paul gets to go instead and everyone's happy.

Oh don't look at me like that, the fact that his point's a trainwreck is no excuse for missing it!

Thunder's point is that poor paulman gets drafted in place of the dodger, and chitty brought up the point of what if paul poorman wanted to be in the military. So I don't think your point really follows. Of course this would assume chitty is making some feeble attempt at remaining logically consistent.

[chitoryu12]

A military nut? You don't need to draft him - he volunteers.

What if he's so busy working several jobs that he never has time to apply? You can't assume that everyone who wants to be in the military will apply.

We're talking about a draft here numbnuts. It doesn't matter if you have a job or not. If there is a draft you will be required to sign up if you are called regardless if you have the time, which entails quitting those several jobs or face severe legal repercussions . Do you honestly think the draft board would give two shits if you were working three jobs at once?

Eh? I never said shit about how the draft board will ignore people working a lot of jobs. As Spyder said, we're assuming that Paul Poorman just never found time to apply for the military. The entire point of my post was that just because you avoid the draft, it doesn't mean that you will end up letting some poor bastard take your place, as has been suggested.

[General Zod]

Eh? I never said shit about how the draft board will ignore people working a lot of jobs.

As Spyder said, we're assuming that Paul Poorman just never found time to apply for the military. The entire point of my post was that just because you avoid the draft, it doesn't mean that you will end up letting some poor bastard take your place, as has been suggested.

Your nonsense about them not being able to apply was a complete red herring to the original point then. It doesn't matter if the person getting drafted in place of the dodger wanted to be in the military or not because it's irrelevant to the ethics involved, those being whether the decision of the person to dodge directly causes harm.

[chitoryu12]

Eh? I never said shit about how the draft board will ignore people working a lot of jobs.

As Spyder said, we're assuming that Paul Poorman just never found time to apply for the military. The entire point of my post was that just because you avoid the draft, it doesn't mean that you will end up letting some poor bastard take your place, as has been suggested.

Your nonsense about them not being able to apply was a complete red herring to the original point then. It doesn't matter if the person getting drafted in place of the dodger wanted to be in the military or not because it's irrelevant to the ethics involved, those being whether the decision of the person to dodge directly causes harm.

You say that the ethics involve whether or not draft dodging causes harm? Then wouldn't draft dodging to let someone who wanted to be in the military take your place indicate that it is false?

[General Zod]

You say that the ethics involve whether or not draft dodging causes harm? Then wouldn't draft dodging to let someone who wanted to be in the military take your place indicate that it is false?

Since you're clearly too inept to pay attention, I'll try using small words. I've never said it was ethical or not. In fact, it's up to the person claiming it's unethical to dodge to provide proof that it is harmful. Though the fact that you're somehow attempting to provide proof that it isn't harmful is laughable, because it requires a ridiculous level of proof as it's impossible to know whether someone who gets drafted in your place wanted to be in the military or not. Feel free to tell me if I used any words with too many syllables.

[Spyder]

Eh? I never said shit about how the draft board will ignore people working a lot of jobs.

As Spyder said, we're assuming that Paul Poorman just never found time to apply for the military. The entire point of my post was that just because you avoid the draft, it doesn't mean that you will end up letting some poor bastard take your place, as has been suggested.

Your nonsense about them not being able to apply was a complete red herring to the original point then. It doesn't matter if the person getting drafted in place of the dodger wanted to be in the military or not because it's irrelevant to the ethics involved, those being whether the decision of the person to dodge directly causes harm.

The most important thing of all is that I was correct in my analysis of this exchange.

[chitoryu12]

You say that the ethics involve whether or not draft dodging causes harm? Then wouldn't draft dodging to let someone who wanted to be in the military take your place indicate that it is false?

Since you're clearly too inept to pay attention, I'll try using small words. I've never said it was ethical or not. In fact, it's up to the person claiming it's unethical to dodge to provide proof that it is harmful. Though the fact that you're somehow attempting to provide proof that it isn't harmful is laughable, because it requires a ridiculous level of proof as it's impossible to know whether someone who gets drafted in your place wanted to be in the military or not. Feel free to tell me if I used any words with too many syllables.

Let me make this a little more fucking clear for you: Thunderfire said

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?

He says that it is hypocritical, and thus unethical, to avoid the draft to let a poorer person get drafted instead. I said "Wait. What if the person who takes your place actually wants to be in the military? Is it still unethical?". You have a pathetic ability to actually understand my point, so it's no wonder you came up with some bullshit conclusion that I meant to say "Durr! Dodge the draft to let military folk take your place! Hur hur hur!". Thunderfire basically comes to the conclusion that you are a hypocrite to dodge the draft because you let someone else take your place. I say that it is not hypocritical because you have no fucking clue who is getting drafted in your stead. The inability to understand my point is not an excuse to invent it for me.

I've never said it was ethical or not.

And I never accused you of doing so. What the fuck makes you think that?

[General Zod]

He says that it is hypocritical, and thus unethical, to avoid the draft to let a poorer person get drafted instead. I said "Wait. What if the person who takes your place actually wants to be in the military? Is it still unethical?".

The last I checked, harm was not dependent upon hypocrisy but on the direct results of the actions, since harm is used as the measuring stick for whether something is ethical or not. Since the person who gets drafted is getting drafted as a result of the draft itself, and not the person who dodged, attempting to label the blame for that person's life being disrupted on the dodger is ridiculous.

It would be like saying that if there was a shooter in a building, the person who ducked behind a table to avoid getting shot is responsible for the person who did get shot because they didn't have the same opportunity to get out of the way.

To use your example, it would be like saying the person always wanted to see what getting shot was like, so the guy who ducked behind a table was not at fault.

You have a pathetic ability to actually understand my point, so it's no wonder you came up with some bullshit conclusion that I meant to say "Durr! Dodge the draft to let military folk take your place! Hur hur hur!".

Thunderfire basically comes to the conclusion that you are a hypocrite to dodge the draft because you let someone else take your place. I say that it is not hypocritical because you have no fucking clue who is getting drafted in your stead. The inability to understand my point is not an excuse to invent it for me.

Then try learning how to articulate your points so people can make sense of them fuckwit. It would save time in having to ask what the fuck you mean every single time you make a post.

[Darth Wong]

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?

How the fuck does that answer my question, moron? Why is it automatically unethical to use any kind of loophole? Is English not your first language?

As for your completely irrelevant answer, it is fraught with its own obvious flaws, such as your assumption that it is somehow "hypocritical" to let someone else get drafted instead of you. Why the fuck is that hypocritical, dipshit? Do you even know what "hypocritical" means?

[Thunderfire]

Is English not your first language?

As for your completely irrelevant answer, it is fraught with its own obvious flaws, such as your assumption that it is somehow "hypocritical" to let someone else get drafted instead of you. Why the fuck is that hypocritical, dipshit? Do you even know what "hypocritical" means?

Yes English is not my first language. A hyprocrite is a person who takes a stance - and doesn't takes the actions associated with that stance. e.g. a Muslim who drinking beer or in this case a anti war guy who doesn't goes on anti war rallies , encouraches other would be drafties to his follow example...

[Thunderfire]

I was referring to your odd claim that a loophole always is unethical under all ethical codes.

Ok I fucked up here. Always unethical is obviously wrong under all ethical codes.

[Darth Wong]

Yes English is not my first language. A hyprocrite is a person who takes a stance - and doesn't takes the actions associated with that stance. e.g. a Muslim who drinking beer or in this case a anti war guy who doesn't goes on anti war rallies , encouraches other would be drafties to his follow example...

Your stupidity transcends mere language, fool.

There is nothing hypocritical about an anti-war person failing to attend anti-war rallies or avoiding a draft because those actions do not contradict his position.

[Stuart]

As for your completely irrelevant answer, it is fraught with its own obvious flaws, such as your assumption that it is somehow "hypocritical" to let someone else get drafted instead of you. Why is that hypocritical, dipshit? Do you even know what "hypocritical" means?

Without following this in detail, I suspect that what we're seeing here is a clash of two viewpoints on how society is organized.

**Declaration of Interest** I view conscription as an abomination.

One of the viewpoints suggests that there is a contract between a state and the members of that state by which the state grants the people certain rights and privileges and, in return, the people agree to serve in the military (by conscription) to defend the state. If people start from this basic mindset, I suppose it could be argued that if they evade military service they are behaving unethically in that they are accepting the rights and services offered by the state but reneging on their part of the agreement by refusing to defend the state.

The other viewpoint is that no such notional contract exists, that people have various rights and privileges that come to them simply as a result of them being people, that they are natural human rights and that they do not stem from or are granted by the state. Any suggestion that the State grants such rights in exchange for an agrement to defend said state is thus false on its face. Under that interpretation, the state can only conscript people into its service if those people are convinced that the need for such conscription exists. If, therefore, somebody does not agree with that consensus they have a perfect right to avoid being conscripted.

[Darth Wong]

It should be noted that the latter interpretation (that rights are innate to human beings rather than being granted by the state in exchange for service) was stated as fact in your country's Declaration of Independence, and is currently stated as fact in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

PS. And even if it wasn't, the declaration of "hypocrisy" would still be nonsensical. There is nothing about an anti-war position that intrinsically requires one to attend anti-war rallies, or to voluntarily accept a draft in order to keep someone else from being drafted.

[Thunderfire]

There is nothing hypocritical about an anti-war person failing to attend anti-war rallies or avoiding a draft because those actions do not contradict his position.

I disagree. Dodging the draft and using "I am antiwar" as an excuse is what a "I don't care and I don't want to be involved" person might do. His position is contradicted if he is unable to proof his "I am anti-war" claim.

[Darth Wong]

There is nothing hypocritical about an anti-war person failing to attend anti-war rallies or avoiding a draft because those actions do not contradict his position.

I disagree. Dodging the draft and using "I am antiwar" as an excuse is what a "I don't care and I don't want to be involved" person might do. His position is contradicted if he is unable to proof his "I am anti-war" claim.

I don't give a fuck whether you disagree, you stupid asshole. If you think that "I oppose the war" somehow intrinsically requires you to also say "I will attend anti-war rallies and voluntarily accept a draft so that someone else won't have to go instead of me", prove it.

[chitoryu12]

It would be like saying that if there was a shooter in a building, the person who ducked behind a table to avoid getting shot is responsible for the person who did get shot because they didn't have the same opportunity to get out of the way.

And how similar is the military to getting shot?

Then try learning how to articulate your points so people can make sense of them fuckwit. It would save time in having to ask what the fuck you mean every single time you make a post.

So the people who actually understood what I was saying are just super-smart? As far as I know, you were the only one who responded to the original post with something completely off the fucking mark.