War Czar Considers Draft.

[Thunderfire]

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.

Attending war rallies, refusing and not dodging the draft that is what a "I oppose the war person" should do- voluntarily accept a draft is not neccessary. Claiming "I am anti-war" is not enough.

[Ghost Rider]

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.

Attending war rallies, refusing and not dodging the draft that is what a "I oppose the war person" should do- voluntarily accept a draft is not neccessary. Claiming "I am anti-war" is not enough.

The point before you rile Mike enough to ban your evading ass is this.

Why not? Prove that saying "I am anti War!" is not enough. Demonstrate through some progression of thought that this is not enough and present your points throughout.

[chitoryu12]

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.

Attending war rallies, refusing and not dodging the draft that is what a "I oppose the war person" should do- voluntarily accept a draft is not neccessary. Claiming "I am anti-war" is not enough.

Wait. "Refusing and not dodging the draft"? Do you mean that as "Refusing to let it be implemented and not dodging it"?

If you do mean that, then why the fuck should someone who opposes the war accept that he has been drafted and go to war in the first place?

[General Zod]

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?

That's not the point of the analogy dumbass. The point is to demonstrate responsibility, the exact circumstances of the situations are irrelevant.

[Darth Wong]

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.

Attending war rallies, refusing and not dodging the draft that is what a "I oppose the war person" should do- voluntarily accept a draft is not neccessary. Claiming "I am anti-war" is not enough.

WHY NOT, ASSHOLE?

What part of "prove it" do you not understand, you little shit? Do you honestly think that if you keep saying it over and over, then you are somehow proving it?

[Stuart]

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.

I agree absolutely. The "social contract" model is very Victorian in its outlook and reflects an understanding of the relationship between ruler and ruled which is distinctly out of fashion these days. In enlightened countries anyway. However, I think that residuals of its influence still linger, especially in groups that have a tendancy to believe in the centralization of power.

And even if it wasn't, the declaration of "hypocrisy" would still be nonsensical.

Under the social contract model it could be argued that accepting the benefits of the state while reneging on the duty to defend it is hypocritical. So, if one accepted that model (which I don't) the use of "hypocritical" could be justified although, as far as I can make out, that isn't the argument actually used.

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.

Agreed. No question on that. Being "anti-war" (by the way, any sane human being is anti-war) absolutely does not require anybody to do anything. People have a democratic right to express their opinions and they have an equal right to refrain from commenting if their opinions and judgements on an issue are such that they decide refraining is a better course of action. The right of free speech means that people also have teh right to remain silent if they so desire. The right of free practice of religion means that people also have a right not to practice a religion if they so desire. The right of freedom of assembly also means that people have the right to stay at home and watch television if they wish.

This idea that to hold an opinion means that one should immediately go out into the street and start demonstrating is fundamentally flawed. It's denying people the right to make their decisions in what they consider to be their best interests.

[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?

That's not the point of the analogy dumbass. The point is to demonstrate responsibility, the exact circumstances of the situations are irrelevant.

If you are comparing a somewhat plausible event to a totally unplausible event, then it's a bad analogy.

[General Zod]

And how similar is the military to getting shot?

That's not the point of the analogy dumbass. The point is to demonstrate responsibility, the exact circumstances of the situations are irrelevant.

If you are comparing a somewhat plausible event to a totally unplausible event, then it's a bad analogy.

You're still missing the point dumbass. You can replace any consequential situation with similar actions where one person is harmed and the other avoids it in my analogy and the results are the same. How about you actually point out the flaws in my analogy instead of simply saying it's wrong?

[Darth Wong]

If you are comparing a somewhat plausible event to a totally unplausible event, then it's a bad analogy.

Don't be a fool. Every analogy is designed to address a particular point of logic. Saying that it doesn't match on some other aspect is totally irrelevant.

[chitoryu12]

That's not the point of the analogy dumbass. The point is to demonstrate responsibility, the exact circumstances of the situations are irrelevant.

If you are comparing a somewhat plausible event to a totally unplausible event, then it's a bad analogy.

You're still missing the point dumbass. You can replace any consequential situation with similar actions where one person is harmed and the other avoids it in my analogy and the results are the same. How about you actually point out the flaws in my analogy instead of simply saying it's wrong?

If you draft dodged to let someone who wanted to be in the military take your spot, you would say "Well, at least I made someone's day." If you dodged a bullet to let someone who wanted to get shot take it for you, you would say "What kind of fucking psycho was he?" You would also feel remorseful for letting someone get killed instead of you. It brings in a whole new system of ethics.

[Darth Wong]

If you draft dodged to let someone who wanted to be in the military take your spot, you would say "Well, at least I made someone's day." If you dodged a bullet to let someone who wanted to get shot take it for you, you would say "What kind of fucking psycho was he?" You would also feel remorseful for letting someone get killed instead of you. It brings in a whole new system of ethics.

Are you mentally retarded? Nobody ever said that the person behind you must want to be there.

PS. Stop quoting the entire fucking exchange. It's really annoying and lengthens the page.

[General Zod]

If you draft dodged to let someone who wanted to be in the military take your spot, you would say "Well, at least I made someone's day." If you dodged a bullet to let someone who wanted to get shot take it for you, you would say "What kind of fucking psycho was he?" You would also feel remorseful for letting someone get killed instead of you. It brings in a whole new system of ethics.

You're still not getting it dipshit. The whole point of consequences based ethics is that harm is not caused by the person who's avoiding it. Do I have to use fingerpaint to illustrate this?

[Thunderfire]

What part of "prove it" do you not understand, you little shit? Do you honestly think that if you keep saying it over and over, then you are somehow proving it?

I am a bit confused here - what I am supposed to prove?
The loophole thing - I conceded that point.
About the "I am anti-war" thing - I added to much personal opinion to this matter because I don't belive him is the only proof I have.

[Darth Wong]

I am a bit confused here - what I am supposed to prove?

You're supposed to prove your brain-damaged claim that the statement "I oppose the war" is somehow contradicted by failing to go out and protest to that effect, or by evading a draft.

[Stuart]

And how similar is the military to getting shot?

Sometimes identical

[SirNitram]

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.

Now you just have to explain to me how getting drafted is nothing more than 'Personal Discomfort'. After all, being Drafted means being put in a military, and usually the Draft is in effect during a war. Wars have these things called weapons, yes? That are used on soldiers. Who are drafted.

This is compounded by the fact that, if one uses a conscript army(AKA, one built by the draft) they are necessarily less motivated, less well trained, and less well equipped than a volunteer force. As a result, casualties and fatalities will increase, and most likely, so will mental disorders.

(For those wondering; less well equipped is because it costs more to get the shiny new shinies to this larger, conscript army.)

[chitoryu12]

I'll concede on the analogy thing.

[Thunderfire]

You're supposed to prove your brain-damaged claim that the statement "I oppose the war" is somehow contradicted by failing to go out and protest to that effect, or by evading a draft.

I added to many personal oppinions to this discussion.

What I think about this matter:

1. Doding the draft is bad because Paul Poormans go to Iraq instead.

2. Doding the draft and saying "I am antiwar" changes nothing - Your are still dodging the draft and Paul Poorman will go to Iraq instead.


3. Refusing the draft and going to war rallies to put so much preasure on the government that neither you nor Paul Poorman goes to Iraq. This is the idea solution.

I tried to proove that nr. 3 is the only ethically correct solution for a antiway guy. You are right this is a brain damaged claim and I concede the argument.

[Darth Wong]

You're supposed to prove your brain-damaged claim that the statement "I oppose the war" is somehow contradicted by failing to go out and protest to that effect, or by evading a draft.

I added to many personal oppinions to this discussion.

Indeed, and you pretended that they were all necessary for every anti-war person to believe, hence you assumed that any anti-war person who does not share them is a "hypocrite": a completely false accusation.

What I think about this matter:

1. Doding the draft is bad because Paul Poormans go to Iraq instead.

Ethically speaking, that is neutral at worst. One of you has to go either way, and neither of you deserves to go any more than the other. So why are you obligated to go in his place? Let's turn this on his head: is Paul Poorman unethical because you went in his place?

2. Doding the draft and saying "I am antiwar" changes nothing - Your are still dodging the draft and Paul Poorman will go to Iraq instead.

See above.

3. Refusing the draft and going to war rallies to put so much preasure on the government that neither you nor Paul Poorman goes to Iraq. This is the idea solution.

Since when is anything but "ideal" therefore "unethical"?

I tried to proove that nr. 3 is the only ethically correct solution for a antiway guy. You are right this is a brain damaged claim and I concede the argument.

Your problem is that you have obviously never given serious thought to what "ethical" means. You think it just means "what I think people should ideally do".

[Drooling Iguana]

The way I see it, if someone dodges the draft, which causes the next person in line to be drafted when they wouldn't have been otherwise, there are four possible scenarios that can occur:

1) The draftee is even more reluctant to serve in the military than you are.

2) The draftee is exactly as reluctant to serve in the military as you are.

3) The draftee was on the fence about whether or not to enlist before they were drafted.

4) The draftee was already planning to join the military but hadn't gotten around to going through the enlistment process yet.

Of these, scenarios 3 and 4 would have a net positive effect, since not only is the draftee more inclined to serve than you are, he/she would also likely make a better soldier and thus reduce the amount of people that would need to be drafted to do the same job.

Scenario 2 appears to be ethically neutral, except for the fact that having to go to the next person in line means that the government will have to do more work in order to get their necessary number of military personnel, slightly increasing the chances that they'll decide that this whole conscription thing isn't worth the effort in the first place.

Of these, only scenario 1 has a net negative effect, but as it requires that the draftee would be even more disinclined to serve than the the person who went through all the trouble and possible legal repercussions of dodging yet hadn't dodged themselves it's not particularly likely when compared to the other scenarios.

Really, when you look at it this way, I'd say that the only ethical thing to do in the even of a draft is to make every effort to dodge.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I second Drooling Iquana's view:

Without making any assumptions as to how you can use any hypothetical wealth or education to your advantage, Joe Poorman has the same options you do in regards to the draft. If you illegally dodge it, so can he. Thus your actions change none of his possible options, it just has the slight possibility of bring the moment of truth to him that much quicker.

If Joe Poorman falls into category 1 or 2, he's most likely to follow in your footsteps and dodge as well. If he's in 3 or 4, you've done a good thing by allowing the army to turn their attention to someone who is much more likely to provide a valuable service to them.

So yeah, dodging the draft is actually the more ethical thing to do.

[Spyder]

You'd think allowing yourself to be deployed to assist with killing foreigners in a war you don't believe in would be vastly less ethical then dodging the draft.

Incidentally, a question for anti-draft dodging people, are you also anti-taxation and socialism?

[Medic]

I'd say my own views on the matter are that while conscription is a pretty shitty idea in general and that I don't actively believe in a sort of contract between citizen and state necessitating service, there are extreme situations where a draft might be needed and that at the least a willingness to serve or a keen sense of duty / owing back should count very strong in favor of someone's character.

I wouldn't go so far to say that an unwillingness to volunteer in peace time is "strike" against someone but it definitely is a pale comparison to someone willing to put up with the BS involved in military service. (like painting, moving or cleaning huge-ass rocks ) Especially in a volunteer Army and especially these days I'm sure most (at least) Marine and Army recruits get asked by more than one friend, relative or significant other "but why (sign up)?" I was probably asked by, oh, all my aunts, my sister, my mother and most of my female cousins and by 1 of my relatively few uncles. (my family's almost overwhelmingly female) Oh yeah, my best friend, more than a few high school peers and teachers and along the way, more than a few fellow recruits balking at my diminutive stature.

In favor or leaning towards it I would count... my brother, a teacher in my high school who was as much a friend and mentor to me, my recruiter... seriously, that's. The break down would be something like %10 in favor (upper limit), %33 indifferent (also an upper limit) and over half probably lose to 3/4 opposed or at a loss.

My own example is only one -- and possibly typical for a not-poor suburbanite from the west coast -- but between all that 2nd guessing, the expected lifestyle and salary and , I'll call it "duty-related risks" and consequences of backing out, (going AWOL, missing movement, being a total shitbag) it seems almost a miracle we have any volunteers at all. I just think that should count for something.

[Coyote]

I could be wrong, but it seems like there is a very, very different point of view at work. I, too, abhor the idea of a draft but at the same time reconcile myself to the possibility that they are needed at times. A lot of the discussion and rancor here seems to center on the idea of being "scooped up and sent off" to a specifically unjust war-- Vietnam, or if you feel so, Iraq. The idea may be that if a war is perceived as a just cause, there'll be plenty of volunteers, so why bother-- the only reason for a draft is to force participation in a war that is inherently unjust.

One of the few wars where we like to think things were pretty black-and-white, though, was World War Two and that was fought with a draft army. But that war is fading from living memory, and we are left instead with living memory of Vietnam, and the perception that brings with it.

DW puts on a miner's helmet and goes right up my ass demanding to know why I think dodging the draft for cowardly reasons is unethical. I realize that a lot of this stems from my idea that service is not a descent into hell, contrary to popular belief, that you're not destroyed by the experience, it's not some soul-corrupting thing and quite frankly I think that someone who avoids a call of responsibility for the sake of the comfort of their own pampered ass to be contemptible. I say again-- our society gives a lot and rarely asks for much in return, and even more rarely these days do we ask this much. But sometimes we do-- and it behooves people to remember that I am talking about a draft in general, not a draft for George Bush, or Iraq, or to refight Vietnam.

This does not include the people who refuse to serve and are willing to take the consequences for their actions-- to become a conscientious objector or even more so to go to jail for their beliefs (a great many good people went to jail for their beliefs)-- that also takes a kind of moral courage that I can respect if not fully agree with.

Running away from your responsibility and whining about it is not, IMO, the way to face a responsibility, even a responsibility that is hard. It takes some courage to either shoulder that responsibility or face the consequences of your refusal. Running away like a craven bitch is being "too pretty to go to jail". Or, to jump on the analogy bandwagon, two college guys partying down, having a great time, screwing girls left and right-- until the girls get pregnant. One guy accepts his responsibility no matter how hard it may be of him because that's what you do; the other guy goes out for pizza and is never seen again.

I see the occasional draft as a part of overall social responsibility. If it comes up, you deal with it in a way that shows some willingness to be accountable for who you are.

[Stark]

But why is it citizen x's responsibility to fight in George Bush's Ridiculous War? Because Bush says it is? Because we should serve the state? I realise this is a specific example, but you compare a war your idiot politicians start and then herd people into to someone getting a girl pregnant. Sorry, fighting in random unpopular wars is NOT my responsibility just because my country is involved.

Actually, since Bush was heavily supported at the time, I guess you could argue that random people were responsible. In this way, perhaps the remoteness of the draft as an option is a bad thing: I'm sure much of the resistance to entering WW2 was due to the knowledge that heaps of people were going to be shipped off to fight it. These days, everyone knows the option isn't really on the table, so they can be Angry White Republicans all they want and nobody they know will have to fight.