Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should Women Have to Register with the SSS?

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 9:48:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In case you don't know, the SSS stands for the Selective Service System, which is used to conscript citizens into the Armed Forces in the US in case of a major crisis (basically, something on the scale of WWII, or the US being invaded). Us gents are required by law to register with the SSS at 18.

What I'm wondering is, should women have to do this, too?

My personal belief is yes, provided that women can voluntarily serve in the Armed Forces, which they can. I'm generally an ardent supporter of the rights-responsibilities exchange. If you get a right, you also get the responsibilities associated with it. Or, alternatively, if given a responsibility from the law, you also should have rights associated with that responsibility.

Of course, this is all separate from the question of whether the SSS is good, or whether a draft is appropriate, etc.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 10:09:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 10:03:41 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
Nobody should have to register with the SSS.

Drafts are inappropriate. That's like saying 150 years ago, "African americans are slaves, should we allow white americans to be slaves too?"

Conscription is unjustified and useless. If we have to draft people to fight in a time of war, then that means we've been confronted with one of two possible scenarios. Either we have run out of people who are physically able to fight, or we have people who are physically able to fight, but are unwilling to volunteer. In either case we've already lost.

Just because men have to register doesn't mean we should bring women down with us. That's a really petty thing to argue for.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 10:10:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 10:03:41 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
Nobody should have to register with the SSS.

This, so the answer is no, women should not have to register.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 10:18:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This was not taking into account whether it's appropriate. It was more of the question: if men have to register (which they do), should women also?

I think we all agree a draft is inappropriate.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 10:20:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 10:18:23 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This was not taking into account whether it's appropriate. It was more of the question: if men have to register (which they do), should women also?

I think we all agree a draft is inappropriate.

So you would have argued to expand slavery to all races and nationalities.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 10:23:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 10:18:23 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This was not taking into account whether it's appropriate. It was more of the question: if men have to register (which they do), should women also?

I think we all agree a draft is inappropriate.

Okay, following the intentions of the thread, even though I disagree with them. No, absolute equality is not really a good thing. Reality is that there are natural differences between men and women and those differences should not be ignored in order to try and force equality.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 10:23:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 10:20:04 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 12/23/2012 10:18:23 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This was not taking into account whether it's appropriate. It was more of the question: if men have to register (which they do), should women also?

I think we all agree a draft is inappropriate.

So you would have argued to expand slavery to all races and nationalities.

That's a heavily loaded question. No one should be held in slavery, no one should be drafted.

What I'm bringing up here is inequality under the law.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 10:25:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 10:23:06 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/23/2012 10:18:23 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This was not taking into account whether it's appropriate. It was more of the question: if men have to register (which they do), should women also?

I think we all agree a draft is inappropriate.

Okay, following the intentions of the thread, even though I disagree with them. No, absolute equality is not really a good thing. Reality is that there are natural differences between men and women and those differences should not be ignored in order to try and force equality.

So then would you not allow women to serve in the Armed Forces?

Because conscription still holds all conscripts to the same physical standard as enlistees.

Going off topic, again, I'm against conscription, and against war. Period.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 10:28:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 10:23:21 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
That's a heavily loaded question.

Absolutely not. If you think slavery is wrong, why would you want to expand it to harm more people? Would it be fair to enslave white americans along with african americans, perhaps. Does that mean we should allow it? No.

No one should be held in slavery, no one should be drafted.

Exactly, which is why we should limit it as much as possible. If you oppose the draft why the hell would you say it's okay to expand it to cover more people when we should be arguing to do away with it all together. Just because men have less rights in this case doesn't mean we should argue to do the same to women.

The Draft is wrong, nobody should be drafted, so we should try to exempt as many people as possible.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 10:29:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
All right, whatever. You win. I bow to an intellect clearly more loving of liberty than my own.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 10:44:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 10:25:34 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 10:23:06 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/23/2012 10:18:23 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This was not taking into account whether it's appropriate. It was more of the question: if men have to register (which they do), should women also?

I think we all agree a draft is inappropriate.

Okay, following the intentions of the thread, even though I disagree with them. No, absolute equality is not really a good thing. Reality is that there are natural differences between men and women and those differences should not be ignored in order to try and force equality.

So then would you not allow women to serve in the Armed Forces?

They can if they still wanted, but they would have their alternative ways in (just like they are not a part of the SSS right now, but can still serve). That would be like saying not allowing women to use the men's bathroom equals not letting them pee. They have their own bathroom and they have their own way into the armed forces.


Because conscription still holds all conscripts to the same physical standard as enlistees.

Going off topic, again, I'm against conscription, and against war. Period.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 3:44:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you're looking for a fierce debate on the issue there's a good one between Grape and darkkermit - http://www.debate.org...
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 12:43:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 9:48:19 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
In case you don't know, the SSS stands for the Selective Service System, which is used to conscript citizens into the Armed Forces in the US in case of a major crisis (basically, something on the scale of WWII, or the US being invaded). Us gents are required by law to register with the SSS at 18.

What I'm wondering is, should women have to do this, too?

My personal belief is yes, provided that women can voluntarily serve in the Armed Forces, which they can.
To my knowledge, women are not allowed in the infantry or on submarines.
I'm generally an ardent supporter of the rights-responsibilities exchange. If you get a right, you also get the responsibilities associated with it. Or, alternatively, if given a responsibility from the law, you also should have rights associated with that responsibility.
Women should be conscripted if one believes in equality above all else. However, since women can get pregnant, out of practicality, they should not be conscripted, as there could be issues in POW camps or fulfilling their tour of service (i.e. sending them home to bear the child means wasted training).

Additionally, this avoids sending two parents to war by having one sex not conscripted.

Of course, this is all separate from the question of whether the SSS is good, or whether a draft is appropriate, etc.
My work here is, finally, done.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 4:06:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 3:44:35 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
If you're looking for a fierce debate on the issue there's a good one between Grape and darkkermit - http://www.debate.org...

Thanks for sharing :). I lost pretty badly though
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 7:29:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 10:09:01 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 12/23/2012 10:03:41 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
Nobody should have to register with the SSS.

Drafts are inappropriate. That's like saying 150 years ago, "African americans are slaves, should we allow white americans to be slaves too?"

Notice how we don't have this problem anymore. Perhaps it is exactly because of what the OP cites.

Conscription is unjustified and useless. If we have to draft people to fight in a time of war, then that means we've been confronted with one of two possible scenarios. Either we have run out of people who are physically able to fight, or we have people who are physically able to fight, but are unwilling to volunteer. In either case we've already lost.

Drafts have been common throughout human history and for the histories of nearly every country that ever existed, including this one. Your statement unfortunately does not hold weight except for countries that have been conquered by those which instituted a draft.

Just because men have to register doesn't mean we should bring women down with us. That's a really petty thing to argue for.

I wholly disagree.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 7:32:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 10:28:16 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 12/23/2012 10:23:21 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
That's a heavily loaded question.

Absolutely not. If you think slavery is wrong, why would you want to expand it to harm more people? Would it be fair to enslave white americans along with african americans, perhaps. Does that mean we should allow it? No.

No one should be held in slavery, no one should be drafted.

Exactly, which is why we should limit it as much as possible. If you oppose the draft why the hell would you say it's okay to expand it to cover more people when we should be arguing to do away with it all together. Just because men have less rights in this case doesn't mean we should argue to do the same to women.

The Draft is wrong, nobody should be drafted, so we should try to exempt as many people as possible.

I disagree.

No one should WANT to be drafted, I think we can all agree on this principle. But there are many occasions where you do what you do not want to do, because you HAVE to do it. This applies to the draft. This does not apply to slavery.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 1:51:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 7:32:40 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/23/2012 10:28:16 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 12/23/2012 10:23:21 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
That's a heavily loaded question.

Absolutely not. If you think slavery is wrong, why would you want to expand it to harm more people? Would it be fair to enslave white americans along with african americans, perhaps. Does that mean we should allow it? No.

No one should be held in slavery, no one should be drafted.

Exactly, which is why we should limit it as much as possible. If you oppose the draft why the hell would you say it's okay to expand it to cover more people when we should be arguing to do away with it all together. Just because men have less rights in this case doesn't mean we should argue to do the same to women.

The Draft is wrong, nobody should be drafted, so we should try to exempt as many people as possible.

I disagree.

No one should WANT to be drafted, I think we can all agree on this principle. But there are many occasions where you do what you do not want to do, because you HAVE to do it. This applies to the draft. This does not apply to slavery.

You are enslaved even if you don't want to, because you have to be. How the hell is it any different?

Conscription is literally forced labor.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 2:08:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 1:51:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/29/2012 7:32:40 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/23/2012 10:28:16 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 12/23/2012 10:23:21 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
That's a heavily loaded question.

Absolutely not. If you think slavery is wrong, why would you want to expand it to harm more people? Would it be fair to enslave white americans along with african americans, perhaps. Does that mean we should allow it? No.

No one should be held in slavery, no one should be drafted.

Exactly, which is why we should limit it as much as possible. If you oppose the draft why the hell would you say it's okay to expand it to cover more people when we should be arguing to do away with it all together. Just because men have less rights in this case doesn't mean we should argue to do the same to women.

The Draft is wrong, nobody should be drafted, so we should try to exempt as many people as possible.

I disagree.

No one should WANT to be drafted, I think we can all agree on this principle. But there are many occasions where you do what you do not want to do, because you HAVE to do it. This applies to the draft. This does not apply to slavery.

You are enslaved even if you don't want to, because you have to be. How the hell is it any different?

Conscription is literally forced labor.

1) temporary

2) still a person

3) you have rights and choice (although not much of either)

4) Let's say you're working at a job that is able to pay for your rent, your food, and your clothing. Nothing else. How is your job different from conscription? If you stop working, you will become homeless, starve, and die. Is this not forced labor?

5) Slavery, you lose your personage. You become property. That is a difference. For slaves, what they want and what they need to do is irrelevant. They are chattle. If they die, get another one. If you kill one, who cares?

If you kill a conscript, that is murder.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 5:32:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 7:29:18 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Notice how we don't have this problem anymore. Perhaps it is exactly because of what the OP cites.

What does that matter? The point is that, assuming the draft is unjust, why should we want to expand it on the grounds of equality? The enslavement of African Americans was unjust and wrong, does that mean we should have expanded it to Americans in general because that would have been "fair"? Of course not.

Drafts have been common throughout human history and for the histories of nearly every country that ever existed, including this one. Your statement unfortunately does not hold weight except for countries that have been conquered by those which instituted a draft.

Yes, you got me. Drafts are useful if you want to wage wars that people would otherwise not want to fight. They are used to conquer other countries by making the invading aggressing army more powerful. In which case it's simply a waste of time, resources and lives on the aggressor's, in other words, useless and not worth it. And Drafts for the purpose of defense were simply redundant and I would argue do more harm in fighting the war effort. For example, the Soviet Union, during the Second World War had a draft for the Red Army where they got millions of soldiers killed in mass suicide attacks while the Partisan and guerrilla force were able to inflict higher casualties on the invaders with less loss of life. If the Red Army didn't suck up millions of people to be killed in brutal and insane battle tactics, the partisan forces could have used those men and put up stiffer resistance.

All in all, drafts in the name of conquest are unjust, and drafts in the name of defense are useless.

I wholly disagree.

Whatever.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 5:35:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 7:32:40 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
No one should WANT to be drafted, I think we can all agree on this principle. But there are many occasions where you do what you do not want to do, because you HAVE to do it. This applies to the draft. This does not apply to slavery.

So in other words, if cotton and tobacco ceased to exist after the capitulation of the Confederacy, you would have reinstated slavery.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 9:51:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, should women get to leave first on Titanic like disasters? For example in many disasters the say "woman and children first". I understand the children, but why do women get to be saved before men?

I think there are many issues that favor men, that men are cool with, and "feminists" don't mention. Also, guys get screwed over in divorces.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 9:57:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 9:51:22 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
Also, should women get to leave first on Titanic like disasters? For example in many disasters the say "woman and children first". I understand the children, but why do women get to be saved before men?

I think there are many issues that favor men, that men are cool with, and "feminists" don't mention. Also, guys get screwed over in divorces.

yep, congrats. you learned that feminist don't care about men. But lets go on complaining how women get paid less, even though they choose professions that are less dangerous, aren't a degree that pays off well, take less risks, and more likely to take time off work to raise the children.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 10:12:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 9:57:19 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/30/2012 9:51:22 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
Also, should women get to leave first on Titanic like disasters? For example in many disasters the say "woman and children first". I understand the children, but why do women get to be saved before men?

I think there are many issues that favor men, that men are cool with, and "feminists" don't mention. Also, guys get screwed over in divorces.

yep, congrats. you learned that feminist don't care about men. But lets go on complaining how women get paid less, even though they choose professions that are less dangerous, aren't a degree that pays off well, take less risks, and more likely to take time off work to raise the children.

Indeed sir. It seems many feminists don't care about being "equal" and having the same responsibility as a man, unless it benefits women.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 10:13:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 5:32:18 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 12/29/2012 7:29:18 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

What does that matter? The point is that, assuming the draft is unjust, why should we want to expand it on the grounds of equality? The enslavement of African Americans was unjust and wrong, does that mean we should have expanded it to Americans in general because that would have been "fair"? Of course not.

Government is a necessary evil. To the extent that necessity dictates, there will be more drafts. I honestly can't believe you've served in the military.

Women want equality. It's a just sentiment. With this equality SHOULD come things like the draft.

Yes, you got me. Drafts are useful if you want to wage wars that people would otherwise not want to fight. They are used to conquer other countries by making the invading aggressing army more powerful. In which case it's simply a waste of time, resources and lives on the aggressor's, in other words, useless and not worth it. And Drafts for the purpose of defense were simply redundant and I would argue do more harm in fighting the war effort. For example, the Soviet Union, during the Second World War had a draft for the Red Army where they got millions of soldiers killed in mass suicide attacks while the Partisan and guerrilla force were able to inflict higher casualties on the invaders with less loss of life. If the Red Army didn't suck up millions of people to be killed in brutal and insane battle tactics, the partisan forces could have used those men and put up stiffer resistance.

All in all, drafts in the name of conquest are unjust, and drafts in the name of defense are useless.

I rebutted a similar assertion about the justness of aggression in an ongoing debate about military spending:

http://debate.org...

It's very hard to defend Stalinist Russia, and I simply won't try. Thankfully I don't have to do so in this debate.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 10:16:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 5:35:01 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 12/29/2012 7:32:40 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
No one should WANT to be drafted, I think we can all agree on this principle. But there are many occasions where you do what you do not want to do, because you HAVE to do it. This applies to the draft. This does not apply to slavery.

So in other words, if cotton and tobacco ceased to exist after the capitulation of the Confederacy, you would have reinstated slavery.

No idea what you're talking about bro.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 10:49:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 2:08:17 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/30/2012 1:51:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/29/2012 7:32:40 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/23/2012 10:28:16 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 12/23/2012 10:23:21 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
That's a heavily loaded question.

Absolutely not. If you think slavery is wrong, why would you want to expand it to harm more people? Would it be fair to enslave white americans along with african americans, perhaps. Does that mean we should allow it? No.

No one should be held in slavery, no one should be drafted.

Exactly, which is why we should limit it as much as possible. If you oppose the draft why the hell would you say it's okay to expand it to cover more people when we should be arguing to do away with it all together. Just because men have less rights in this case doesn't mean we should argue to do the same to women.

The Draft is wrong, nobody should be drafted, so we should try to exempt as many people as possible.

I disagree.

No one should WANT to be drafted, I think we can all agree on this principle. But there are many occasions where you do what you do not want to do, because you HAVE to do it. This applies to the draft. This does not apply to slavery.

You are enslaved even if you don't want to, because you have to be. How the hell is it any different?

Conscription is literally forced labor.

1) temporary

So if we promise to eventually free our slave it's okay?


2) still a person
So are slaves.

3) you have rights and choice (although not much of either)
You are denied a choice and your rights are violated, exactly the same.


4) Let's say you're working at a job that is able to pay for your rent, your food, and your clothing. Nothing else. How is your job different from conscription?
You can choose a different employer or none at all if you so decide.

If you stop working, you will become homeless, starve, and die. Is this not forced labor?
No, because no one's forcing you. Nature determines that you need to produce to live, not any particular person-- on a desert island you would STILL have to labor to pick coconuts.


5) Slavery, you lose your personage. You become property. That is a difference.
It is no difference. A conscript loses exactly the same things a slave does in reality, regardless of what legal words get thrown about.

For slaves, what they want and what they need to do is irrelevant.
Same for conscripts.

If you kill a conscript, that is murder.
No, it's war.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 11:19:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Fun...:D

At 12/30/2012 10:49:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/30/2012 2:08:17 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
You are enslaved even if you don't want to, because you have to be. How the hell is it any different?

Conscription is literally forced labor.

1) temporary

So if we promise to eventually free our slave it's okay?

Once a slave is freed, they gain personage and rights as a human being. Before then, their status as property is permanent. Freed slaves can be temporarily drafted.

2) still a person
So are slaves.

No, slaves are chattle.

3) you have rights and choice (although not much of either)
You are denied a choice and your rights are violated, exactly the same.

No, you still have SOME rights and choices, slaves have NO rights nor choice.

4) Let's say you're working at a job that is able to pay for your rent, your food, and your clothing. Nothing else. How is your job different from conscription?
You can choose a different employer or none at all if you so decide.

If you stop working, you will become homeless, starve, and die. Is this not forced labor?
No, because no one's forcing you. Nature determines that you need to produce to live, not any particular person-- on a desert island you would STILL have to labor to pick coconuts.

You are forced by circumstance. On the one hand, you have nature. On the other hand, you have government. Either way, the outcome is the same, you MUST WORK. Had your pay been adequate for savings, you would have CHOICE in the matter, but it is not. On a desert island, with savings and a rudimentary economy, you can hire someone to pick coconuts for you.

5) Slavery, you lose your personage. You become property. That is a difference.
It is no difference. A conscript loses exactly the same things a slave does in reality, regardless of what legal words get thrown about.

A slave has nothing to lose. A slave is a thing, it is not a person that can gain or lose possessions. For example, if a slave wears clothes, the clothes belong to the master. If the slave wears a bell, the bell belongs to the master. If a cow wears a bell, the bell belongs to the owner of the cow.

If a conscript brings a picture of his girlfriend (or her boyfriend per this thread) to the battlefield, that picture belongs to him or her.

For slaves, what they want and what they need to do is irrelevant.
Same for conscripts.

For conscripts, it is only true of the one element of the draft. For slaves it is true for EVERY element of personage.

If you kill a conscript, that is murder.
No, it's war.

No, if a US citizen kills a US conscript, it is murder. If a US citizen kills a US slave, it is destruction of private property.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 11:30:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 11:19:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Fun...:D

At 12/30/2012 10:49:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/30/2012 2:08:17 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
You are enslaved even if you don't want to, because you have to be. How the hell is it any different?

Conscription is literally forced labor.

1) temporary

So if we promise to eventually free our slave it's okay?

Once a slave is freed, they gain personage and rights as a human being. Before then, their status as property is permanent.
Observing the reality of their behavior disagrees with you about when personage forms. If they didn't have rights, it wouldn't be wrong to enslave them. It's because they have rights that it is.
2) still a person
So are slaves.

No, slaves are chattle.
Irrelevant to their status as persons, which is a metaphysical status.


3) you have rights and choice (although not much of either)
You are denied a choice and your rights are violated, exactly the same.

No, you still have SOME rights and choices, slaves have NO rights nor choice.
A slave has exactly as much choice as a slave-- none about what they are to spend the day working at. They both have choices of how much to resist.
They both have rights, those rights are just violated.

You are forced by circumstance.
Incoherent nonsense. I'd love to see you try to sue circumstance.

On the one hand, you have nature. On the other hand, you have government. Either way, the outcome is the same, you MUST WORK.
No, in the case of government you also have the option "Resist." If you win, you can do something else. In the case of nature, you must obey its laws to command it.

5) Slavery, you lose your personage. You become property. That is a difference.
It is no difference. A conscript loses exactly the same things a slave does in reality, regardless of what legal words get thrown about.

A slave has nothing to lose.
Then why has not every slave in all of history committed suicide?

A slave is a thing, it is not a person that can gain or lose possessions.
Then why have slaves historically been known to "steal" from their master? Why are masters fearful that slaves might gain possession of a gun?

If a conscript brings a picture of his girlfriend (or her boyfriend per this thread) to the battlefield, that picture belongs to him or her.
I doubt you've ever been conscripted. Many conscript armies have historically confiscated just such personal possessions if they felt a need to.

For conscripts, it is only true of the one element of the draft. For slaves it is true for EVERY element of personage.
You underestimate the near-totality of military service and overestimate just how good traditional slavemasters are at enforcement.

No, if a US citizen kills a US conscript, it is murder.
Depends on the situation.

If a US citizen kills a US slave, it is destruction of private property.
It does not have to be, however. That's a contingent legal oddity of categorization, not anything about reality you happen to be describing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 11:55:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 11:30:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/30/2012 11:19:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Fun...:D

At 12/30/2012 10:49:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/30/2012 2:08:17 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
You are enslaved even if you don't want to, because you have to be. How the hell is it any different?

Conscription is literally forced labor.

1) temporary

So if we promise to eventually free our slave it's okay?

Once a slave is freed, they gain personage and rights as a human being. Before then, their status as property is permanent.
Observing the reality of their behavior disagrees with you about when personage forms. If they didn't have rights, it wouldn't be wrong to enslave them. It's because they have rights that it is.

Cows have behavior. Dogs have behavior. Dogs are not persons, and neither are cows.

Correct about the rights. The rights freed the slaves, it outlawed the practice of slavery. If dogs or cows were given such rights, they would become persons as well. Killing a cow would then be murder. Of course this is not going to happen, since we can't communicate with dogs or cows - what would they do with their rights? Regardless, it is certainly possible.

2) still a person
So are slaves.

No, slaves are chattle.
Irrelevant to their status as persons, which is a metaphysical status.

How is "persons" metaphysical? Slaves may be homo sapien, but they are still property.

3) you have rights and choice (although not much of either)
You are denied a choice and your rights are violated, exactly the same.

No, you still have SOME rights and choices, slaves have NO rights nor choice.
A slave has exactly as much choice as a slave-- none about what they are to spend the day working at. They both have choices of how much to resist.

Cows can resist. Cows are still property. Do we worry about mad cows? Sure.

They both have rights, those rights are just violated.

Slaves have no rights as persons. They may have whatever rights are bestowed on property, but not on persons. Conscripts still have (limited) rights as persons.

You are forced by circumstance.
Incoherent nonsense. I'd love to see you try to sue circumstance.

What does a lawsuit have anything to do with this?

On the one hand, you have nature. On the other hand, you have government. Either way, the outcome is the same, you MUST WORK.
No, in the case of government you also have the option "Resist." If you win, you can do something else. In the case of nature, you must obey its laws to command it.

Why must you obey nature's laws? If you go hungry, MUST you eat? No, you can starve. Ask Gandhi about that one. Some people set themselves on fire, even though nature would tell us that doing so would not be good for us.

5) Slavery, you lose your personage. You become property. That is a difference.
It is no difference. A conscript loses exactly the same things a slave does in reality, regardless of what legal words get thrown about.

A slave has nothing to lose.
Then why has not every slave in all of history committed suicide?

Many did commit suicide. Regardless, I don't see the relevance to your question. Just because you have nothing to lose doesn't automatically equate to suicide. Cows don't "all" commit suicide.

A slave is a thing, it is not a person that can gain or lose possessions.
Then why have slaves historically been known to "steal" from their master? Why are masters fearful that slaves might gain possession of a gun?

We are fearful of bulls outside of the fence. Sometimes bears rummage through tents and take what they want. If we shoot the bears and kill them, no harm done. If we shoot a conscript doing the same thing, depending on the circumstances, it could be first degree murder.

Slaves do not "possess" their gun, they are holding the master's gun. A monkey can stab you with your knife. The knife does not belong to the monkey.

If a conscript brings a picture of his girlfriend (or her boyfriend per this thread) to the battlefield, that picture belongs to him or her.
I doubt you've ever been conscripted. Many conscript armies have historically confiscated just such personal possessions if they felt a need to.

Cite this please. I would like to see a case where ALL of someone's personal possessions were permanently confiscated as a requirement for conscription. I doubt you will be able to.

I doubt you've been conscripted either.

For conscripts, it is only true of the one element of the draft. For slaves it is true for EVERY element of personage.
You underestimate the near-totality of military service and overestimate just how good traditional slavemasters are at enforcement.

I think YOU are the one underestimating the opposite.

No, if a US citizen kills a US conscript, it is murder.
Depends on the situation.

There is no situation where killing a slave is murder.

If a US citizen kills a US slave, it is destruction of private property.
It does not have to be, however. That's a contingent legal oddity of categorization, not anything about reality you happen to be describing.

Right. I didn't cite anything to do with legality. Destruction of private property is akin to breaking a leg of a table you own.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?