War Czar Considers Draft.

[General Zod]

1. Again, what;s your definition of "near-future". I've seen any number of times ranging from three years to thirty.

Anything within the realm of the current administration. If you're worried about future administrations that don't even exist yet, then you're doing little more than knee-jerking.

2. So what requires justification if it's not me wanting to avoid the military?

Not wanting to be in the military isn't really the same as objecting to the draft. I've already said this. But you don't honestly think that anyone arguing in favor of a draft (not that anyone here is, but that's beside the point) will be convinced by some retard flailing their arms and screeching "I don't want anything to do with it" that it's a bad idea do you?

[Darth Wong]

What I'm trying to point out is that the people who refused to be drafted during Vietnam because they were able to get away (go to college, go to Canada, etc)-- leaving the war to be fought by those who had no means to get away. It's kicking people out of the lifeboat so you can get away from the sharks. I, personally, find this unethical.

I am growing tired of how you keep rephrasing your argument and then saying "there, I say that's unethical", without ever explaining WHY it is unethical. Let's take your scenario where it's either you or someone else in the lifeboat. Yes, it would be admirable to voluntarily give up your place in the lifeboat so someone else can get in. But that doesn't mean it is unethical to take a place in the lifeboat even if you know someone else could have gotten in. Especially since (in the case of the draft) we're talking about only a specific subset of the population here (no children, for example).

If a person opposes a draft under any circumstances, for the sake of their own comfort and convenience, leaving a less fortunate person to be drafted instead, this-- to me, anyway-- is unethical.

WHY is it unethical? You keep saying that it's unethical "to me", as if I should give a flying fuck about your personal tastes which you can't justify any other way. Do you have some kind of fucking reading comprehension problem? If you say something is unethical and someone asks why, do you honestly think it's an answer to keep repeating that it just is, in your personal opinion?

If a war is unjust, and your number comes up, it is bad to go fight-- it is (IMO) worse to buy your way out, only to have someone less fortunate go instead.

WHY?

I stated earlier that I understand why a person would not want to be drafted to fight a war they thought was unjust; remember I said that they should consider conscientious objector status before becoming fugitives.

WHY?

Where I can be said to make a mistake in my reasoning was to infer that, perhaps, all the anti-Vietnam protesters in college deferrment status were doing so for their personal comfort.

Who gives a shit whether they're doing it for "personal comfort"? You haven't yet shown that the action is unethical, so the motives for doing it are irrelevant.

I'm sure there many were, in fact, motivated by a sense of right and wrong, so for that wide-brush assumption I apologize. But that was not an intentional dishonesty.

Jesus, you really don't know how to read, do you? I accused you of dishonest because you started by talking about anti-war people but you tried to justify it by citing the need to turn people against the war, thus implicitly talking about PRO-war people: an entirely different group.

[chitoryu12]

1. Again, what;s your definition of "near-future". I've seen any number of times ranging from three years to thirty.

Anything within the realm of the current administration. If you're worried about future administrations that don't even exist yet, then you're doing little more than knee-jerking.

2. So what requires justification if it's not me wanting to avoid the military?

Not wanting to be in the military isn't really the same as objecting to the draft. I've already said this. But you don't honestly think that anyone arguing in favor of a draft (not that anyone here is, but that's beside the point) will be convinced by some retard flailing their arms and screeching "I don't want anything to do with it" that it's a bad idea do you?

1. I wasn't talking about this administration, though. In case you missed my first post, I'll be draft age in three years. It'll be a different president with a different agenda unless Bush turns dictator and decides to come up with some way to hold office.

2. You didn't answer my question: What the fuck do you want me to justify? I oppose the draft because I think that nobody should be forced into a war unless the country is in immediate danger of attack. That's the first time I've ever said that I opposed the draft. The arguement you decided to start was questioning my reasons for not wanting to be drafted, not the ethics of the draft itself.

[Coyote]

Gil, bear in mind this, which was my first big post on this subject, back on page 3:

There are so many reasoned, intelligent reasons to oppose a draft. Whining about personal safety or inconvenience is not, IMO, among them.

[...]

Protesting against a war that can seriously be questioned as unjust is understandable; so too is protesting against the concept of involuntary servitude. There are ways to avoid participation in wars, though-- being conscientious objectors is one way, long before you get to the fugitive stage. But it all boils down to one question: are your motives for avoiding any service really based on selfish reasons, or reasons that others would legitimately see as motivated by principles?

My beef is not with people who are protesting an unjust war-- indeed, I myself would refuse to participate in a war I found to be unjust. I am certain that my barometer for "unjust" is different from someone who may feel that any war where immediate national survival isn't at stake is "unjust"; and then on top of that someone who is a devoted pacifist who finds all fighting ethically indefensible will have an even lower tolerance for what makes a war "unjust".

I also feel that there is a spread of options available for someone who feels any particular war is wrong. Some people have felt so disgusted by the war in Iraq they've fled to Canada already. Others may not support it but feel that by just voting for anti-war candidates is sufficient.

[Gil Hamilton]

My beef is not with people who are protesting an unjust war-- indeed, I myself would refuse to participate in a war I found to be unjust. I am certain that my barometer for "unjust" is different from someone who may feel that any war where immediate national survival isn't at stake is "unjust"; and then on top of that someone who is a devoted pacifist who finds all fighting ethically indefensible will have an even lower tolerance for what makes a war "unjust".

I also feel that there is a spread of options available for someone who feels any particular war is wrong. Some people have felt so disgusted by the war in Iraq they've fled to Canada already. Others may not support it but feel that by just voting for anti-war candidates is sufficient.

Well, that's the thing. You said it's unethical for someone to not be drafted (even legally not be drafted because they are finishing their degree) because someone else will end up being drafted instead of you for your own personal comfort.

My point is that that just means you'll be shipped off to kill some other poor shmucks who've had a shit life too. Possibly multiple poor shmucks for whom getting blown up in Another American Foriegn Intervention is a shitty end to an already shitty life. Sure, someone else didn't have to go in your place and you don't have to go to jail, but did you really make the ethical choice there? Particularly given what you are likely to be fighting for?

[General Zod]

1. I wasn't talking about this administration, though. In case you missed my first post, I'll be draft age in three years. It'll be a different president with a different agenda unless Bush turns dictator and decides to come up with some way to hold office.

Then you're knee-jerking. If a draft does not get approved by this administration the chances of some future administration approving one are minimal.

2. You didn't answer my question: What the fuck do you want me to justify? I oppose the draft because I think that nobody should be forced into a war unless the country is in immediate danger of attack. That's the first time I've ever said that I opposed the draft. The arguement you decided to start was questioning my reasons for not wanting to be drafted, not the ethics of the draft itself.

In one of your very first posts you were screeching about how you wanted to run and hide if a draft was ever approved. I'm not sure how else to interpret that except as virulent objection to the draft itself. It's not as if you have to hop the border to simply avoid the military as things currently stand.

[Coyote]

WHY?

Basically, another person is potentially going to be placed in personal danger because you don't want your comfort disturbed.
NOT because you've thought carefully about the reasons for the war and determined them to be unjust; NOT because you have a moral sense that killing is wrong; NOT because the administration pushing the war is guilty of various crimes against its people or others, but for nothing more than personal comfort and convenience.

If a war is unjust, and your number comes up, it is bad to go fight-- it is (IMO) worse to buy your way out, only to have someone less fortunate go instead.

WHY?

Okay, a war brews up. One that is morally unjustified. John Whitebread gets a draft notice, but he whines to his Congressman that he has important frat parties to go to in Bullshit University. His family gives a campaign donation to the Congressman and the Army is told to go find another warm body. They find Jose Chicano, too poor to go to college, so they snatch him up. Off he goes, so that John Whitebread is too worried about his own sense of righteous self-indulgence to provide service to the very country that has made his family so prosperous.

You don't find this questionable?

I'm not talking about John Whitebread's fear. Any sensible person would be fearful of going to war; I was fearful going to Iraq. But why is John's fear worth more consideration than Jose's fear? John leads a life of middle-class ease; Jose has done legitimate work to get a few simple pleasures out of life. Why is John's comfort more important than Jose's?

[coyote="Coyote"]I stated earlier that I understand why a person would not want to be drafted to fight a war they thought was unjust; remember I said that they should consider conscientious objector status before becoming fugitives.

WHY? [/quote]

Uhm... isn't it obviously better for the person who seeks to avoid the draft?
Option one is to get out of the draft by living the rest of your life as a fugitive, fearing arrest, never able to go home, or being imprisoned; option two is to go to the government, declare yourself a conscientious objector, and be able to live in freedom?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Then you're knee-jerking.

Umm, not that I think Chitty is a shining beacon of intelligence or anything, but no, he's not knee-jerking. Unless I've missed something, he's said *nothing* about how likely the draft is to be re-instated. He has not been screaming "Zomfg draft is comming vry1 run awayz!" All he's said is how he would react if, and only if, the draft actually got re-instated. How actually likely it is, is just as irrelevant to that as how actually likely a zombie-invasion is is irrelevant to speculation on what you would do if one actually happened.

In other words, it's not tin-foil-hattery without an actual assertion that event-x *will* occur, it's just an exercise in speculation.

[chitoryu12]

(Fixed the right-click issue)

Then you're knee-jerking. If a draft does not get approved by this administration the chances of some future administration approving one are minimal.

Change Oni's post to the first person, because that's basically what I was going to say. Except the "I'm no shining beacon of intelligence" part.

In one of your very first posts you were screeching about how you wanted to run and hide if a draft was ever approved. I'm not sure how else to interpret that except as virulent objection to the draft itself. It's not as if you have to hop the border to simply avoid the military as things currently stand.

Do you think I'm so fucking stupid that I think hopping the border will solve all my problems? No, that's why I suggested being somewhere without any humans for miles. And I didn't say "If the draft was ever approved". I said "If I was ever drafted".

[General Zod]

Do you think I'm so fucking stupid that I think hopping the border will solve all my problems? No, that's why I suggested being somewhere without any humans for miles. And I didn't say "If the draft was ever approved". I said "If I was ever drafted".

Unless you happen to be a survivalist expert, or have enough cash to set aside several years worth of provisions, that does look to be the stupider of the options you could pick.

[chitoryu12]

Do you think I'm so fucking stupid that I think hopping the border will solve all my problems? No, that's why I suggested being somewhere without any humans for miles. And I didn't say "If the draft was ever approved". I said "If I was ever drafted".

Unless you happen to be a survivalist expert, or have enough cash to set aside several years worth of provisions, that does look to be the stupider of the options you could pick.

In other words, "I don't think you have a chance, even though I know almost nothing about your personal life".

[Ghost Rider]

Do you think I'm so fucking stupid that I think hopping the border will solve all my problems? No, that's why I suggested being somewhere without any humans for miles. And I didn't say "If the draft was ever approved". I said "If I was ever drafted".

Unless you happen to be a survivalist expert, or have enough cash to set aside several years worth of provisions, that does look to be the stupider of the options you could pick.

In other words, "I don't think you have a chance, even though I know almost nothing about your personal life".

So are you going to prove Zod wrong, or just continue to spam?

The only point you had any real correct usage, is what affected you. Now, you're just blithering.

[General Zod]

Do you think I'm so fucking stupid that I think hopping the border will solve all my problems? No, that's why I suggested being somewhere without any humans for miles. And I didn't say "If the draft was ever approved". I said "If I was ever drafted".

Unless you happen to be a survivalist expert, or have enough cash to set aside several years worth of provisions, that does look to be the stupider of the options you could pick.

In other words, "I don't think you have a chance, even though I know almost nothing about your personal life".

I somehow doubt you're fully aware of what isolating yourself from humanity to get out of a service entails given how easy you assume it is. Especially if you wind up having any type of serious medical emergency with no human contact for miles and nobody to get ahold of to save your ass.

[Wicked Pilot]

I'm not sure how this would fit into the current debate, but in the unlikely 'the Russians have landed' scenario I would have to agree that any able body who wants to remain free but not fight would be a coward. But that brings me to a point that I think should not be overlooked, and that is that it would be unjust to preemptively call that person a coward because in reality no one knows exactly how they would act in such a scenario. Maybe you're hoo-rah and will sign up immediately, but when the bullets start flying in your direction how accurate of a prediction can one really make?

[Darth Wong]

Basically, another person is potentially going to be placed in personal danger because you don't want your comfort disturbed.

No, he's going to be placed in danger because some asshole instituted a draft and started a war. Blaming the results of the draft on someone who avoids it is the height of dishonesty. 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.

[chitoryu12]

Unless you happen to be a survivalist expert, or have enough cash to set aside several years worth of provisions, that does look to be the stupider of the options you could pick.

In other words, "I don't think you have a chance, even though I know almost nothing about your personal life".

I somehow doubt you're fully aware of what isolating yourself from humanity to get out of a service entails given how easy you assume it is. Especially if you wind up having any type of serious medical emergency with no human contact for miles and nobody to get ahold of to save your ass.

Well, you got me there. I concede on the cabin thingy.

[Dark Flame]

Basically, another person is potentially going to be placed in personal danger because you don't want your comfort disturbed.

No, he's going to be placed in danger because some asshole instituted a draft and started a war. Blaming the results of the draft on someone who avoids it is the height of dishonesty. 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 don't think that this is a very good analogy at all. If you swerve out of the way of a drunk driver, it's an instinctual reaction without time to think it through, and possibly without knowing that someone else will be hit. Dodging a draft, in any way, is a reasoned decision, and if you have thought about it you damned well better know that someone else will go in your stead.

[Drooling Iguana]

Basically, another person is potentially going to be placed in personal danger because you don't want your comfort disturbed.

No, he's going to be placed in danger because some asshole instituted a draft and started a war. Blaming the results of the draft on someone who avoids it is the height of dishonesty. 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 don't think that this is a very good analogy at all. If you swerve out of the way of a drunk driver, it's an instinctual reaction without time to think it through, and possibly without knowing that someone else will be hit. Dodging a draft, in any way, is a reasoned decision, and if you have thought about it you damned well better know that someone else will go in your stead.

So if you had time to think about it, you'd just plow headlong into the drunk driver?

[Dark Flame]

Most likely not. Strike that, definitely not. But my point it that at least you would know the possible consequences beforehand, and you could decide on the best course. Maybe in some extreme situation taking the drunk driver head-on would be the best option. I don't know how, but at least you would see it coming and could decide on the best course of action.

[Darth Wong]

Basically, another person is potentially going to be placed in personal danger because you don't want your comfort disturbed.

No, he's going to be placed in danger because some asshole instituted a draft and started a war. Blaming the results of the draft on someone who avoids it is the height of dishonesty. 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 don't think that this is a very good analogy at all. If you swerve out of the way of a drunk driver, it's an instinctual reaction without time to think it through, and possibly without knowing that someone else will be hit. Dodging a draft, in any way, is a reasoned decision, and if you have thought about it you damned well better know that someone else will go in your stead.

How the fuck does that address the point of the analogy, moron? You do realize that every analogy has a point, do you not? Are you saying that if you could think super-fast and consciously make that decision, it would become unethical to swerve out of the way of the drunk driver?

[Sidewinder]

I say, leave chitoryu12 and Flagg alone. If they don't want to serve in the military, we should respect their refusal to serve.

When I was in the Army, I knew a recruit who regretted his decision to enlist-- he tried to bitch-slap a First Sergeant and was arrested by the MPs. I also knew a Private who not only regretted his decision to enlist, he was fantasizing about building a terror bomb and killing everyone at Fort Campbell.

Drafting people who don't want to be drafted will likely result in the unwilling draftees committing violence against other soldiers-- it's NOT PRETTY.

[Dark Flame]

No, he's going to be placed in danger because some asshole instituted a draft and started a war. Blaming the results of the draft on someone who avoids it is the height of dishonesty. 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 don't think that this is a very good analogy at all. If you swerve out of the way of a drunk driver, it's an instinctual reaction without time to think it through, and possibly without knowing that someone else will be hit. Dodging a draft, in any way, is a reasoned decision, and if you have thought about it you damned well better know that someone else will go in your stead.

How the fuck does that address the point of the analogy, moron? You do realize that every analogy has a point, do you not? Are you saying that if you could think super-fast and consciously make that decision, it would become unethical to swerve out of the way of the drunk driver?

They way I understood it the point of the analogy was that you are trying to save your own skin, without reasoned thought, and without knowing the possible consequences. Skipping out on a draft is not a split second decision, so it doesn't compare to the drunk driver situation. Getting out of a draft is a (hopefully) fully-thought out action, with full knowledge of the consequences.

[Darth Wong]

They way I understood it the point of the analogy was that you are trying to save your own skin, without reasoned thought, and without knowing the possible consequences.

Jesus Ass-Fucking Christ, you honestly thought that was the point of the analogy? Just how fucking stupid are you, anyway?

[Dark Flame]

Yeah, that's how it sounded to me.

Ok, on second thought, it's about responsibility for those actions. But I still think that what I said applies. If you make a reasoned decision, you should be held accountable for the actions, or should hold some measure of responsibility. If you reacted on instinct to preserve your life without knowing the danger you may be putting others in, then you shouldn't be held responsible to the same degree.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, that's how it sounded to me.

Ok, on second thought, it's about responsibility for those actions. But I still think that what I said applies. If you make a reasoned decision, you should be held accountable for the actions, or should hold some measure of responsibility. If you reacted on instinct to preserve your life without knowing the danger you may be putting others in, then you shouldn't be held responsible to the same degree.

What a moron. I even said right in the same post where I posted the original analogy that it was about blaming someone for avoiding a calamity that he did not cause. Obviously, you are too stupid to read. It doesn't even matter how he decided to avoid that calamity; it is ridiculous to blame him for it when he did not cause it.

Do you understand it now, or would you like it drawn for you in crayon?