Is drafting people into the military a form of slavery?
Yes
60.3% (135)
60.3% (135)
No
37.9% (85)
37.9% (85)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Is drafting people into the military a form of slavery?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

BrassButtons:

Katatori-kun:
No, I don't think it's slavery. For one thing, soldiers are paid. For another, the term is limited. It's more like indentured servitude.

The defining attribute of slavery is not whether or not the person is compensated for their work (one could argue that slaves are paid in food and housing), but whether the person is being forced to work against their will. I'm not sure that limiting the term makes a difference either.

No, it pretty much is only defined by whether or not a person is paid for their work. Whether or not you are forced is a completely irrelevant issue. When I was 16 I didn't want to work a job, I wanted to study, practice my musical instrument, play video games, watch Star Trek TNG after school, and play tabletop RPGs with my friends. My parents made me get a job. I was paid, so despite working against my will I was not a slave.

No pay, no time limit = slavery
No pay, set time limit = indentured servitude
No choice = not slavery, sucks to be you.

Danyal:

But how does any of that matter? There are more robbers than non-robbers in RobberAlley - does that mean that robbers stealing half your income in RobberAlley is not theft because it represents Societal Will?

The fact that I can be one of 10 million voters once in 4 year doesn't mean I'm subject to absolute government authority.

Well, if you had voted you would have voted for taxes... regardless of your agreement. Thus negating your "theft" claim as you voted for it, it isnt other peoples will be subjected upon you... it would be yours too as no one offers "No taxes" also you have benefitted from what taxes pay for up until your countries voting age without having to pay taxes, and if you do not want to pay taxes and no party offers you that option then move somewhere that does. And no that isnt the "dont like it, get out" argument, thats the "There is no way of changing that specific part of this country at the moment so if you REALLY dont want to pay taxes, you can choose to move." argument. And you might find out that countries that dont/cant tax people arent... the best, to put it politely.

Sigh. You just don't get it, do you? I wasn't old enough to vote during the last national elections.

I dont get what? Information that was never revealed until now? No, being of the non-telepathic persuasion I wouldnt. So you arent old enough, but you are complaining... and no one is offering you "no taxes" in your country... choose a country that does. Problem = solved. If you want to benefit from the system then skip out on the bill, fine. All anyone asks is that you leave or chip in to help the nation that you willingly live in and benefit from.

ClockworkPenguin:

Shock and Awe:
I suppose by the strictest definition you could call it a form of indentured servitude. However, seeing as it can easily be seen as payment for services received from the government and it is often necessary to keep your country safe, it is often a very justifiable form of indentured servitude. Is it wrong sometimes? Oh hellz yeah. Is a volunteer force more effective? Immensely so. Is the draft still necessary? Yes.

Is it necessary? No
Can it be necessary? Yes.

None of the wars we're fighting now are the sort where its necessary. Many, like Afghanistan or especially Iraq, could be argued that conscripting people to fight would be immoral and (for the UK at least, where 3million protested and a huge number petitioned against the Iraq war) downright undemocratic

I was referring to the institution of the draft, not it being used now.

senordesol:

Mortai Gravesend:

senordesol:

Now part of being the governing body of a nation, apart from protecting the rights of your nation's peoples, is that you are trusted in the defense of your nation itself. Now I've heard arguments that 'if you can't win the war with volunteers, you don't deserve to.' That seems like a strange argument to me. First, even if you could 'win' the war with 250K troops, wouldn't you rather have 1M so you could dominate it (and likely bring about peace more quickly?)

Sure. Doesn't say anything about what lengths I think are okay to obtain those troops though.

Second (assuming this is a crisis situation) do you think any government would allow itself, the nation it governs, and the way of life it embodies be dissolved because a bunch of people thought they didn't 'deserve it'?

No. Don't really care what they would or would not allow though when it comes to judgement of whether their action in this is okay or not.

Now again, I DO NOT contend that random compulsory service (I make an exception for general compulsory service) be made a standing and indefinite policy. But are those who truly believe that conscription is down-and-out immoral/unethical regardless of circumstances?

Yes, I do. I do not think it is ever fair to put such a demand on someone without giving them a choice in the matter. It demands more than I think anyone has a right to demand of them.

Oh good, someone discussing something other than taxes or voting. Finally.

Alright, MS, real-world example (not going for a 'gotcha' just trying to establish your baseline) during WWII, the US government deemed it necessary to conscript soldiers to fight the Axis powers, as did the USSR.

Now with Germany in its very back yard, lacking the training and equipment to mount an effective defense immediately (note: I said immediately, I know people like to debate whether or not Germany would have been pushed back anyway) via conventional means, why exactly was it 'wrong' for Russia to direct its citizens to defend their motherland?

Alternately, with a war being waged on multiple fronts with dozens of countries calling for help, was the United States more/less/just as wrong as Russia in conscripting soldiers in fighting Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan?

Yes, they were wrong to do so. If people did not want to risk their lives they should not have been forced to. It's their lives and no one should be able to demand that they give it for a cause.

Kinguendo:

Danyal:

Kinguendo:
Ugh, fine I will put it in even simpler terms. At the time I was operating under the assumption that you voted in the first place thus your complaints (whatever they were) were legitimate, given that you didnt vote that second example should end at "You didnt vote.".

My original point was based on you having voted in the first place, and that no party offers you "No taxes" thus you must have voted for taxes. Given that you choose not to vote for or against anything then why should anyone be anything but apathetic toward you now? In the political arena, anyway. I am not advocating that everyone ignore you about everything just because we disagree on this.

But how does any of that matter? There are more robbers than non-robbers in RobberAlley - does that mean that robbers stealing half your income in RobberAlley is not theft because it represents Societal Will?

The fact that I can be one of 10 million voters once in 4 year doesn't mean I'm subject to absolute government authority.

Well, if you had voted you would have voted for taxes... regardless of your agreement. Thus negating your "theft" claim as you voted for it, it isnt other peoples will be subjected upon you... it would be yours too as no one offers "No taxes" also you have benefitted from what taxes pay for up until your countries voting age without having to pay taxes, and if you do not want to pay taxes and no party offers you that option then move somewhere that does. And no that isnt the "dont like it, get out" argument, thats the "There is no way of changing that specific part of this country at the moment so if you REALLY dont want to pay taxes, you can choose to move." argument. And you might find out that countries that dont/cant tax people arent... the best, to put it politely.

Kinguendo:
No, you chose not to vote. Nobody stopped you from casting a vote of no confidence, sitting in your house isnt anti-establishment.

Sigh. You just don't get it, do you? I wasn't old enough to vote during the last national elections.

I dont get what? Information that was never revealed until now? No, being of the non-telepathic persuasion I wouldnt. So you arent old enough, but you are complaining... and no one is offering you "no taxes" in your country... choose a country that does. Problem = solved. If you want to benefit from the system then skip out on the bill, fine. All anyone asks is that you leave or chip in to help the nation that you willingly live in and benefit from.

You could have avoided that pitfall if you hadn't jumped to conclusions. It's rather silly to act like he's at fault for not telling you earlier when you're at fault for having made the assumption given insufficient information.

Mortai Gravesend:

Is there something I can do to make you stop making wild assumptions? Some fee I can pay? Because I didn't say anything about how the politicians take it. That is not the argument at hand. How the politicians take it is not the same as consent. We are talking about consent. What the politicians think is irrelevant. So what you provided isn't proof that it doesn't matter. Because we're not talking about how they will act, we're talking about consent.

There, I can snip the rest of the crap and get back to brass tacs.

I am not making wild assumptions, you are saying nothing that you mean and expecting it to mean everything you want. Your vote is consent, it doesnt matter if you dont think it is because in the political spectrum it very much is. Consent does NOT mean that they WILL do something, it just means you have approved their doing it. That is what you vote is, your stamp of approval on that person and their entire campaign.

That is what it is, it doesnt matter if you do not agree. We arent talking opinion here, we are talking fact. A politician campaigns, you vote for a politician, a politician gets into office and begins working on promises made in the campaign because that is what was voted for. Welcome to reality.

Kinguendo:

Mortai Gravesend:

Is there something I can do to make you stop making wild assumptions? Some fee I can pay? Because I didn't say anything about how the politicians take it. That is not the argument at hand. How the politicians take it is not the same as consent. We are talking about consent. What the politicians think is irrelevant. So what you provided isn't proof that it doesn't matter. Because we're not talking about how they will act, we're talking about consent.

There, I can snip the rest of the crap and get back to brass tacs.

I am not making wild assumptions, you are saying nothing that you mean and expecting it to mean everything you want.

No, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that you're making assumptions.

Your vote is consent, it doesnt matter if you dont think it is because in the political spectrum it very much is. Consent does NOT mean that they WILL do something, it just means you have approved their doing it. That is what you vote is, your stamp of approval on that person and their entire campaign.

Prove that it is consent. Prove that it is a stamp of approval of the entire campaign.

That is what it is, it doesnt matter if you do not agree. We arent talking opinion here, we are talking fact. A politician campaigns, you vote for a politician, a politician gets into office and begins working on promises made in the campaign because that is what was voted for. Welcome to reality.

You seem to have a hard time making a real argument. In a real argument "I say so" is not the way to show something is a fact. And yet that is all you have given.

Mortai Gravesend:

You could have avoided that pitfall if you hadn't jumped to conclusions. It's rather silly to act like he's at fault for not telling you earlier when you're at fault for having made the assumption given insufficient information.

Yes, silly me for "assuming" when they said "didnt" rather than "couldnt" vote. Even when I said they chose not to vote they still said they werent provided with someone who they wanted to vote for thus they werent given a choice... I am sorry for being an honest human being and reading what is written as it is written and coming to the logical conclusion.

Mortai Gravesend:

You seem to have a hard time making a real argument. In a real argument "I say so" is not the way to show something is a fact. And yet that is all you have given.

No, try reading. Not "I say so", simply "It is". If you do not understand from your experience with the electoral process, then that is not something I can fix.

Mortai Gravesend:

Yes, they were wrong to do so. If people did not want to risk their lives they should not have been forced to. It's their lives and no one should be able to demand that they give it for a cause.

Interesting. So even if it means the certain destruction of your entire nation and culture, no one should be 'forced' to risk their lives.

I would argue -in the Russian case, at least- (to paraphrase a line from LOTR) "Your lives are already in danger, whether you would risk them or not."

I wonder if the word 'duty' is a dirty word to you (again, not trying to insult you, just an observation). It seems to me if you happen to live as a citizen (with all the rights and privileges therein) in a country that is in crisis; there are certain things that country should be able to ask you to do when it -literally- cannot wait for you to make up your mind or take 'no' for an answer. When your refusing to risk your life puts everyone else's lives in danger, I think, is one of those times.

senordesol:

Mortai Gravesend:

Yes, they were wrong to do so. If people did not want to risk their lives they should not have been forced to. It's their lives and no one should be able to demand that they give it for a cause.

Interesting. So even if it means the certain destruction of your entire nation and culture, no one should be 'forced' to risk their lives.

I would argue -in the Russian case, at least- (to paraphrase a line from LOTR) "Your lives are already in danger, whether you would risk them or not."

I wonder if the word 'duty' is a dirty word to you (again, not trying to insult you, just an observation). It seems to me if you happen to live as a citizen (with all the rights and privileges therein) in a country that is in crisis; there are certain things that country should be able to ask you to do when it -literally- cannot wait for you to make up your mind or take 'no' for an answer. When your refusing to risk your life puts everyone else's lives in danger, I think, is one of those times.

A volunteer army should be enough. If the people don't want to fight for it, its their call.

If your a country like America with over a MILLION strong army, and somehow LOSE that army, then your country is too incompetent to survive.

Drafts are only used by tyrants or idiots. Tyrants because they made their country such a shit hole no one is willing to fight anymore, and the idiot for leading the entire military to their death.

senordesol:
Interesting. So even if it means the certain destruction of your entire nation and culture, no one should be 'forced' to risk their lives.

No. I owe no allegiance to my country just because I was born here and my government can't force me to fight for its ideals if I disagree with them.

senordesol:
It seems to me if you happen to live as a citizen (with all the rights and privileges therein) in a country that is in crisis

Sorry, "rights and privileges"? You mean the same rights and privileges I created and regularly pay for to be maintained? Funny how even the most basic of human rights are considered "privileges" in your world.

senordesol:
When your refusing to risk your life puts everyone else's lives in danger, I think, is one of those times.

You know, refusing to join the police puts everyone else's life in danger. Should police service be mandatory then? What about medicine? By not becoming a doctor you are actively putting someone else's life at risk. Being Janitor? I think that's self explanatory. Your argument falls apart once you actually spend the two seonds required to realize just how stupid it is.

Ultratwinkie:

senordesol:

Mortai Gravesend:

Yes, they were wrong to do so. If people did not want to risk their lives they should not have been forced to. It's their lives and no one should be able to demand that they give it for a cause.

Interesting. So even if it means the certain destruction of your entire nation and culture, no one should be 'forced' to risk their lives.

I would argue -in the Russian case, at least- (to paraphrase a line from LOTR) "Your lives are already in danger, whether you would risk them or not."

I wonder if the word 'duty' is a dirty word to you (again, not trying to insult you, just an observation). It seems to me if you happen to live as a citizen (with all the rights and privileges therein) in a country that is in crisis; there are certain things that country should be able to ask you to do when it -literally- cannot wait for you to make up your mind or take 'no' for an answer. When your refusing to risk your life puts everyone else's lives in danger, I think, is one of those times.

A volunteer army should be enough. If the people don't want to fight for it, its their call.

If your a country like America with over a MILLION strong army, and somehow LOSE that army, then your country is too incompetent to survive.

Drafts are only used by tyrants or idiots. Tyrants because they made their country such a shit hole no one is willing to fight anymore, and the idiot for leading the entire military to their death.

Oh? So was Abe Lincoln a tyrant or an idiot?

PercyBoleyn:

No. I owe no allegiance to my country just because I was born here and my government can't force me to fight for its ideals if I disagree with them.

I didn't say 'ideals', I said survival.

Sorry, "rights and privileges"? You mean the same rights and privileges I created and regularly pay for to be maintained? Funny how even the most basic of human rights are considered "privileges" in your world.

You created? Jesus, how old are you? Nevermind, it's not important (though get back to me on that). I said rights AND privileges (as in, they go together but are not necessarily the same) are you saying you enjoy no privileges as a citizen of your country that others do not?

You know, refusing to join the police puts everyone else's life in danger. Should police service be mandatory then? What about medicine? By not becoming a doctor you are actively putting someone else's life at risk. Being Janitor? I think that's self explanatory. Your argument falls apart once you actually spend the two seonds required to realize just how stupid it is.

The example I gave clearly demonstrated an apparent and immediate threat from an enemy force who will kill you, your family, and everyone you know unless your people stand united against them. Again, I DO NOT contend that compulsory service be trotted out for any old reason, but when your nation is in crisis and needs all hands on deck, I say that conscription is justifiable. That's slightly more compelling than a coffee spill, wouldn't you say?

Kinguendo:

Mortai Gravesend:

You could have avoided that pitfall if you hadn't jumped to conclusions. It's rather silly to act like he's at fault for not telling you earlier when you're at fault for having made the assumption given insufficient information.

Yes, silly me for "assuming" when they said "didnt" rather than "couldnt" vote. Even when I said they chose not to vote they still said they werent provided with someone who they wanted to vote for thus they werent given a choice... I am sorry for being an honest human being and reading what is written as it is written and coming to the logical conclusion.

"Didn't" doesn't preclude "couldn't".

You're not a very honest human being to portray making assumptions to be a logical conclusion. You did more than read what is written as it is written. He never said why he didn't vote, you assumed. You didn't come to the logical conclusion, you jumped to a conclusion with insufficient evidence.

Kinguendo:

Mortai Gravesend:

You seem to have a hard time making a real argument. In a real argument "I say so" is not the way to show something is a fact. And yet that is all you have given.

No, try reading. Not "I say so", simply "It is". If you do not understand from your experience with the electoral process, then that is not something I can fix.

Saying "It is" when all we have is your word is functionally the same as "I say so". Also experience with the electoral process seems to be a cop out here. Experience was not used, merely your word on matters that have nothing to do with experience. Consent is not a matter that is determined with experience, it is one that is shown by definition.

senordesol:

Mortai Gravesend:

Yes, they were wrong to do so. If people did not want to risk their lives they should not have been forced to. It's their lives and no one should be able to demand that they give it for a cause.

Interesting. So even if it means the certain destruction of your entire nation and culture, no one should be 'forced' to risk their lives.
[/quotes]

Yes. Certain destruction is no excuse to make people put themselves at risk.

I would argue -in the Russian case, at least- (to paraphrase a line from LOTR) "Your lives are already in danger, whether you would risk them or not."

Sure they may have been, but how they chose to deal with it should be up to them. Not forcing them to go out and fight, which was certainly not the same level of risk.

[quote]
I wonder if the word 'duty' is a dirty word to you (again, not trying to insult you, just an observation). It seems to me if you happen to live as a citizen (with all the rights and privileges therein) in a country that is in crisis; there are certain things that country should be able to ask you to do when it -literally- cannot wait for you to make up your mind or take 'no' for an answer. When your refusing to risk your life puts everyone else's lives in danger, I think, is one of those times.

Duty is something I think to be limited. I think that asking for someone's life is too far. Nothing can be given that warrants that much debt to another. I'd say that there are certain things that can be asked, but putting your life on the line is not one of them. And by refusing I do not put everyone else's lives in danger, they were already in danger. I just do nothing to take them out of it.

Katatori-kun:

No, it pretty much is only defined by whether or not a person is paid for their work.

This can't be true, because someone can work for free without being a slave (and if someone is given money, but is also chained up to keep them from leaving, then they probably are a slave). There's a reason why people who get out of slavery are referred to as "freed."

I will admit that it's more nuanced than simply the presence or absence of any kind of force, however the defining attribute still deals with lack of freedom, not lack of payment.

senordesol:
I didn't say 'ideals', I said survival.

Please be sure to mention that when you say "survival" you actually mean survival of the government.

senordesol:
You created? Jesus, how old are you? Nevermind, it's not important

Yes, "I" created. "I", along with numerous other people, create the laws, through a process which I deeply dislike but that's for another discussion and I, by paying my taxes, also mantain those laws. What's your point?

senordesol:
I said rights AND privileges (as in, they go together but are not necessarily the same) are you saying you enjoy no privileges as a citizen of your country that others do not?

No.

senordesol:
The example I gave clearly demonstrated an apparent and immediate threat from an enemy force who will kill you, your family, and everyone you know unless your people stand united against them.

And that's my choice to make, not yours. If I find something worth fighting for I will.

senordesol:
Again, I DO NOT contend that compulsory service be trotted out for any old reason, but when your nation is in crisis and needs all hands on deck, I say that conscription is justifiable.

It's not.

Mortai Gravesend:

Yes. Certain destruction is no excuse to make people put themselves at risk.

Well...then I guess there's nothing left to talk about. I mean...damn. Just...damn, really? I'll give you points for being consistent, but... that's pretty harsh. You'd rather have your own country - your own family - everything your ancestors built - everything you've ever loved - burn around your ears than have a few people kicked in the rear and handed a rifle.

Yikes... That's so ethical, it's unethical. :)

senordesol:

Mortai Gravesend:

Yes. Certain destruction is no excuse to make people put themselves at risk.

Well...then I guess there's nothing left to talk about. I mean...damn. Just...damn, really? I'll give you points for being consistent, but... that's pretty harsh. You'd rather have your own country - your own family - everything your ancestors built - everything you've ever loved - burn around your ears than have a few people kicked in the rear and handed a rifle.

Yikes... That's so ethical, it's unethical. :)

See, the thing is all those things you brought up, if I take those into account I'd see it as me selfishly forcing others to risk their lives for the things I care about. Who am I to demand that they protect me and what I care about? I don't feel that I should be able to ask that of others unless they can refuse.

But yeah, I can understand why people would find that position unpalatable.

PercyBoleyn:
Please be sure to mention that when you say "survival" you actually mean survival of the government.

I mean survival of the government, the nation it represents, and (most) of the people therein.

Yes, "I" created. "I", along with numerous other people, create the laws, through a process which I deeply dislike but that's for another discussion and I, by paying my taxes, also mantain those laws. What's your point?

Oh good, you quoted the part I said was unimportant.

No.

'No' what? (I made the unfortunate mistake of creating a double negative, I apologize) You DO enjoy privileges others don't, or you don't enjoy any privileges?

And that's my choice to make, not yours. If I find something worth fighting for I will.

Well, shit, I'm on pins and needles.

It's not.

So, without the venom please, can you tell me why it's not? Is individual freedom to the exclusion of all other humanity so important to you that you'd rather watch the world burn than force your neighbor to pick up a weapon?

Mortai Gravesend:

senordesol:

Mortai Gravesend:

Yes. Certain destruction is no excuse to make people put themselves at risk.

Well...then I guess there's nothing left to talk about. I mean...damn. Just...damn, really? I'll give you points for being consistent, but... that's pretty harsh. You'd rather have your own country - your own family - everything your ancestors built - everything you've ever loved - burn around your ears than have a few people kicked in the rear and handed a rifle.

Yikes... That's so ethical, it's unethical. :)

See, the thing is all those things you brought up, if I take those into account I'd see it as me selfishly forcing others to risk their lives for the things I care about. Who am I to demand that they protect me and what I care about? I don't feel that I should be able to ask that of others unless they can refuse.

But yeah, I can understand why people would find that position unpalatable.

That's fair. (Thank you for being civil) And if this were on an individual basis, I could go with you on that. But this is on a collective basis; as Russians, as Americans, as Britons, whoever - when the enemy is at the gates, I believe a government has to be able to turn to those individuals and say "This shit's bigger than you, son. This is our homeland, and you will have the decency to defend what's ours."

senordesol:
I mean survival of the government, the nation it represents, and (most) of the people therein

How can it be survival of the people if the people are out fighting? It's just the survival of the government, aka the ruling class.

senordesol:
You DO enjoy privileges others don't, or you don't enjoy any privileges?

Nope.

senordesol:
So, without the venom please, can you tell me why it's not? Is individual freedom to the exclusion of all other humanity so important to you that you'd rather watch the world burn than force your neighbor to pick up a weapon?

Because I, as a person, can decide whether I want to support my government or not.

PercyBoleyn:
How can it be survival of the people if the people are out fighting? It's just the survival of the government, aka the ruling class.

Umm...what? If everyone dies in the war, except the government, that government won't last very long when the enemy army rolls in, now will it? The point of conscription is to put forth a larger army so everyone doesn't get killed.

Nope.

I asked an 'either/or' but I guess you're set on being antagonistic.

Because I, as a person, can decide whether I want to support my government or not.

It's about more than supporting your government, it's about ensuring the survival of your people (or at least trying to).

senordesol:
Umm...what? If everyone dies in the war, except the government, that government won't last very long when the enemy army rolls in, now will it? The point of conscription is to put forth a larger army so everyone doesn't get killed.

Your idea of preventing everyone from being killed is to send a large number of people to their deaths. Wars are about ideas, and the propagation of them. I refuse to be forced to fight for a country that espouses an ideology I disagree with.

senordesol:
I asked an 'either/or' but I guess you're set on being antagonistic.

I think my answer is pretty clear in by itself. If you want me to clarify then all you need to do is ask.

senordesol:
It's about more than supporting your government, it's about ensuring the survival of your people (or at least trying to).

That would imply some sort of alien race from outer space came to Earth and started jacking people. We live in a globalized society. "My people" are the population of the planet Earth and sure, I'd fight to protect them. In fact, I could go as far as to say I'd actually die just to ensure their beliefs and ideas persist. However, that is my decision, MY ideology, and I do not have the audacity to suggest every single person on Earth has to follow and protect it. I will fight to protect my ideas and beliefs, I will not force someone else to help me in that fight unless they want too. To do so is tyranny. Each person is entitled to their own beliefs and the survival of my idelogy, because in the end that's what "fighting for survival" is all about, depends on whether or not people want it to survive.

Hardcore_gamer:

This.

While I don't think there should be drafts unless there is some real good reason to do so (see world war 2) it sickens me when I hear people call it slavery. Its just an excuse to only care about yourself and make everyone else do the fighting for you. History has proven that during times when lots of soldiers were needed using only volunteers isn't enough. Just look at World war 2, where the majority of the soldiers on all sides were drafted.

I'm 17, I am terrified at the mere prospect of pain. I am not the most "physically fit" (I may be tall, but have very poor upper body strength. I still have trouble doing a single push-up properly), I get nervous of recoil when I fire a gun. Next year, I have to sign up for "The Draft" (although chances are I'd never be picked for it, it's mostly just something everyone has to sign up for now), and if America somehow get's invaded (unlikely as it is) and we have to draft people for whatever reason and I'm chosen. I'm supposed to go for months of military training, with a drill sergeant screaming at me, then I'm supposed to be given a gun and told "Go murder that person there!"

Some people like to hide their reasons for "Dodging the draft" behind noble ideals. "I'm a pacifist" or "I don't believe in this unjust war." But you know what, I'm not going to lie... I'm cowardly. Why should I be dragged, kicking and screaming, into an army recruitment center? Why should I be forced into a combat zone, where people are trying to murder me and have no say in it? I don't see being forced into a war as something to be "proud" of. I have respect for the armed forces, people who willingly volunteer to lay down their lives, but I would not be "proud" nor would I "boast" about the fact that my government is forcing me to kill or be killed. You say it's wrong to call it slavery, but I don't want to join a war, I don't want to kill, I don't want to be hurt, I don't want to die, I don't want to be screamed at berated, I don't want any of those things. Yet, if my government takes me, makes me sign up despite my protests, makes me fight, let's me be stabbed, crippled, or shot and suffer all the agonies that accompany those things; that isn't supposed to be slavery? I would never have even the slightest inkling to join the military otherwise, but that doesn't matter, my choice, my free will, all of that doesn't matter anymore, I've been told what to do and I have no ability to object.

I could get shot, stabbed, hurt, I could have my leg blown off, I'd have each and every one of my fears of pain thrown at me and forced down my throat, and I have no right to object. Tell me, how would you like to be stabbed? How would you like having to have your leg removed because it was too badly injured or infected? Would you honestly say that someone with terrible fears of all those things should just "Suck it up" and go to war?

senordesol:

Mortai Gravesend:

senordesol:

Well...then I guess there's nothing left to talk about. I mean...damn. Just...damn, really? I'll give you points for being consistent, but... that's pretty harsh. You'd rather have your own country - your own family - everything your ancestors built - everything you've ever loved - burn around your ears than have a few people kicked in the rear and handed a rifle.

Yikes... That's so ethical, it's unethical. :)

See, the thing is all those things you brought up, if I take those into account I'd see it as me selfishly forcing others to risk their lives for the things I care about. Who am I to demand that they protect me and what I care about? I don't feel that I should be able to ask that of others unless they can refuse.

But yeah, I can understand why people would find that position unpalatable.

That's fair. (Thank you for being civil) And if this were on an individual basis, I could go with you on that. But this is on a collective basis; as Russians, as Americans, as Britons, whoever - when the enemy is at the gates, I believe a government has to be able to turn to those individuals and say "This shit's bigger than you, son. This is our homeland, and you will have the decency to defend what's ours."

Well I think you're approaching it quite reasonably so I don't feel like being anything but civil =D. Even if you don't agree with me you acknowledge what I say and give why you think differently.

As for the collective basis, I know people tend to disagree with me on this it seems, but I think that individuals are more important. At least their rights that is. That's what I think a collective is good for, protecting the rights of the individuals. If it sacrifices them then I think it isn't doing what I think it is good for. It would be for all individuals, not just some. As I see it, forcing people not to risk their lives is a principle that doesn't change despite the number of people who want it done. But I'm not unused to the idea that the collective is more important than the individual and that the individual has a duty to it. I just disagree at a certain point.

senordesol:

Ultratwinkie:

senordesol:

Interesting. So even if it means the certain destruction of your entire nation and culture, no one should be 'forced' to risk their lives.

I would argue -in the Russian case, at least- (to paraphrase a line from LOTR) "Your lives are already in danger, whether you would risk them or not."

I wonder if the word 'duty' is a dirty word to you (again, not trying to insult you, just an observation). It seems to me if you happen to live as a citizen (with all the rights and privileges therein) in a country that is in crisis; there are certain things that country should be able to ask you to do when it -literally- cannot wait for you to make up your mind or take 'no' for an answer. When your refusing to risk your life puts everyone else's lives in danger, I think, is one of those times.

A volunteer army should be enough. If the people don't want to fight for it, its their call.

If your a country like America with over a MILLION strong army, and somehow LOSE that army, then your country is too incompetent to survive.

Drafts are only used by tyrants or idiots. Tyrants because they made their country such a shit hole no one is willing to fight anymore, and the idiot for leading the entire military to their death.

Oh? So was Abe Lincoln a tyrant or an idiot?

Considering both sides printed massive amounts of money (that later turned out to be utterly useless) to pay for the war, and had many other rash decisions I would say both sides would be.

Both sides were guilty of the same rash tactics, without looking at the long term consequences.

Especially since there were battles in the Civil war where generals just threw their men at an impervious enemy forces (regardless of actual strategic value) hoping to overwhelm them. A good strategist would NEVER throw their men at the enemy war machine so that MAYBE it would jam with corpses.

PercyBoleyn:

Your idea of preventing everyone from being killed is to send a large number of people to their deaths. Wars are about ideas, and the propagation of them. I refuse to be forced to fight for a country that espouses an ideology I disagree with.

So, logically, you wouldn't live in a country that espouses an ideology you disagree with, right?

LetalisK:

PercyBoleyn:

Your idea of preventing everyone from being killed is to send a large number of people to their deaths. Wars are about ideas, and the propagation of them. I refuse to be forced to fight for a country that espouses an ideology I disagree with.

So, logically, you wouldn't live in a country that espouses an ideology you disagree with, right?

That doesn't seem to logically follow. It isn't a given that he would fight for a country that he lives in.

Agema:
If army conscripts are slaves, then army volunteers are mercenaries.

The only reason we have the label mercenaries is to distinguish soldiers who work for the U.S. Army vs. an independent contractor.

Hmm I don't know let's ask Andrew Ryan

Andrew?

"A man chooses, a slave obeys."

Well I think that settles it.

Seriously it is slavery as it is forcing people to work for you.

It shouldn't even be around if we're actually defending ourselves, because if the citizens would rather have this enemy take over than fight it that should be their right.

Katatori-kun:

BrassButtons:

Katatori-kun:
No, I don't think it's slavery. For one thing, soldiers are paid. For another, the term is limited. It's more like indentured servitude.

The defining attribute of slavery is not whether or not the person is compensated for their work (one could argue that slaves are paid in food and housing), but whether the person is being forced to work against their will. I'm not sure that limiting the term makes a difference either.

No, it pretty much is only defined by whether or not a person is paid for their work. Whether or not you are forced is a completely irrelevant issue. When I was 16 I didn't want to work a job, I wanted to study, practice my musical instrument, play video games, watch Star Trek TNG after school, and play tabletop RPGs with my friends. My parents made me get a job. I was paid, so despite working against my will I was not a slave.

You're going to compare that to the government forcing adults to work for them?

Mortai Gravesend:

LetalisK:

PercyBoleyn:

Your idea of preventing everyone from being killed is to send a large number of people to their deaths. Wars are about ideas, and the propagation of them. I refuse to be forced to fight for a country that espouses an ideology I disagree with.

So, logically, you wouldn't live in a country that espouses an ideology you disagree with, right?

That doesn't seem to logically follow. It isn't a given that he would fight for a country that he lives in.

If a country is repugnant enough not to fight for, then why is it not repugnant enough to live in?

LetalisK:

Mortai Gravesend:

LetalisK:
So, logically, you wouldn't live in a country that espouses an ideology you disagree with, right?

That doesn't seem to logically follow. It isn't a given that he would fight for a country that he lives in.

If a country is repugnant enough not to fight for, then why is it not repugnant enough to live in?

That's not a very good argument. If you want to say that one should lead to the other you should demonstrate they are, not ask anyone who doesn't buy it why you aren't right.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked