Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

do we implement a draft for an alien invasion

Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 6:16:03 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Let's say that aliens invade, and we can defeat thwm by getting every man woman and child on board to fight them. What do we do? My thought is that if a volunteer army is not big enough to defeat them, we should accept our loss rather than compromise our principles. What is everyone else's thoughts?
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 6:30:26 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 6:16:03 PM, Wylted wrote:
Let's say that aliens invade, and we can defeat thwm by getting every man woman and child on board to fight them. What do we do? My thought is that if a volunteer army is not big enough to defeat them, we should accept our loss rather than compromise our principles. What is everyone else's thoughts?

If people don't stand up and fight for survival.... then we don't deserve to live.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 6:31:45 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
That being said, yes, we should enforce a draft.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 6:40:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 6:30:26 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:16:03 PM, Wylted wrote:
Let's say that aliens invade, and we can defeat thwm by getting every man woman and child on board to fight them. What do we do? My thought is that if a volunteer army is not big enough to defeat them, we should accept our loss rather than compromise our principles. What is everyone else's thoughts?

If people don't stand up and fight for survival.... then we don't deserve to live.

I'd say give me liberty or give me death. If we can't live in a free country that relies on a volunteer army, whyvlive at all?

Also where is the libe of when it is okay to draft? How do you make that perfect line? If you implement it, it can easily be abused.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 6:41:53 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Alien is an offensive and de-humanizing term. Use more progressive terminology such as "Extraterrestrial Americans"
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 6:48:18 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 6:16:03 PM, Wylted wrote:
Let's say that aliens invade, and we can defeat thwm by getting every man woman and child on board to fight them. What do we do? My thought is that if a volunteer army is not big enough to defeat them, we should accept our loss rather than compromise our principles. What is everyone else's thoughts?

It would most likely be impossible to repel any invasion. I suppose you would have to look at the nature of the invasion and see if resistance looked possible and make the call on that basis.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 6:53:45 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 6:48:18 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:16:03 PM, Wylted wrote:
Let's say that aliens invade, and we can defeat thwm by getting every man woman and child on board to fight them. What do we do? My thought is that if a volunteer army is not big enough to defeat them, we should accept our loss rather than compromise our principles. What is everyone else's thoughts?

It would most likely be impossible to repel any invasion. I suppose you would have to look at the nature of the invasion and see if resistance looked possible and make the call on that basis.

We're going to assume we know that with a one hundred percent draft we'll win, and without it, we'll lose.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 7:05:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 6:53:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:48:18 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:16:03 PM, Wylted wrote:
Let's say that aliens invade, and we can defeat thwm by getting every man woman and child on board to fight them. What do we do? My thought is that if a volunteer army is not big enough to defeat them, we should accept our loss rather than compromise our principles. What is everyone else's thoughts?

It would most likely be impossible to repel any invasion. I suppose you would have to look at the nature of the invasion and see if resistance looked possible and make the call on that basis.

We're going to assume we know that with a one hundred percent draft we'll win, and without it, we'll lose.

Ok without hesitation then i would order the draft.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 7:31:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 7:05:47 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:53:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:48:18 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:16:03 PM, Wylted wrote:
Let's say that aliens invade, and we can defeat thwm by getting every man woman and child on board to fight them. What do we do? My thought is that if a volunteer army is not big enough to defeat them, we should accept our loss rather than compromise our principles. What is everyone else's thoughts?

It would most likely be impossible to repel any invasion. I suppose you would have to look at the nature of the invasion and see if resistance looked possible and make the call on that basis.

We're going to assume we know that with a one hundred percent draft we'll win, and without it, we'll lose.

Ok without hesitation then i would order the draft.

Why is it okay to force somebody to do something against their will? Is this no different than slavery?
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 8:03:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 7:31:25 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:05:47 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:53:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:48:18 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:16:03 PM, Wylted wrote:
Let's say that aliens invade, and we can defeat thwm by getting every man woman and child on board to fight them. What do we do? My thought is that if a volunteer army is not big enough to defeat them, we should accept our loss rather than compromise our principles. What is everyone else's thoughts?

It would most likely be impossible to repel any invasion. I suppose you would have to look at the nature of the invasion and see if resistance looked possible and make the call on that basis.

We're going to assume we know that with a one hundred percent draft we'll win, and without it, we'll lose.

Ok without hesitation then i would order the draft.

Why is it okay to force somebody to do something against their will? Is this no different than slavery?

Agree its unfair and i oppose it in all other circumstances. However with the alternative of humanity potentially being entirely eliminated by aliens it would be the only option.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 8:13:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 8:03:47 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:31:25 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:05:47 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:53:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:48:18 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:16:03 PM, Wylted wrote:
Let's say that aliens invade, and we can defeat thwm by getting every man woman and child on board to fight them. What do we do? My thought is that if a volunteer army is not big enough to defeat them, we should accept our loss rather than compromise our principles. What is everyone else's thoughts?

It would most likely be impossible to repel any invasion. I suppose you would have to look at the nature of the invasion and see if resistance looked possible and make the call on that basis.

We're going to assume we know that with a one hundred percent draft we'll win, and without it, we'll lose.

Ok without hesitation then i would order the draft.

Why is it okay to force somebody to do something against their will? Is this no different than slavery?

Agree its unfair and i oppose it in all other circumstances. However with the alternative of humanity potentially being entirely eliminated by aliens it would be the only option.

So our numberbone value should be survival? I had assumed it was freedom.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 9:00:35 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 8:13:46 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 8:03:47 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:31:25 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:05:47 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:53:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:48:18 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:16:03 PM, Wylted wrote:
Let's say that aliens invade, and we can defeat thwm by getting every man woman and child on board to fight them. What do we do? My thought is that if a volunteer army is not big enough to defeat them, we should accept our loss rather than compromise our principles. What is everyone else's thoughts?

It would most likely be impossible to repel any invasion. I suppose you would have to look at the nature of the invasion and see if resistance looked possible and make the call on that basis.

We're going to assume we know that with a one hundred percent draft we'll win, and without it, we'll lose.

Ok without hesitation then i would order the draft.

Why is it okay to force somebody to do something against their will? Is this no different than slavery?

Agree its unfair and i oppose it in all other circumstances. However with the alternative of humanity potentially being entirely eliminated by aliens it would be the only option.

So our numberbone value should be survival? I had assumed it was freedom.

For most people, it's survival.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 9:28:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
For most people, it's survival.

Cowards, but lets say that survival is your number one priority, then it allows the government to outlaw any food deemed unhealthy, mandate exercise and start forcing people to walk instead of drive cars.

If survival is your guiding principle, it leads to the worst form of totalitarianism.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 9:47:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
The idea of "death is better than a life in chains" assumes just that: that you'd be living your whole life "in chains". What if it only took 5-10 years to defeat the aliens? Then you could resume your free life, right?
On the scale of a whole species, humans will be able to live on for thousands/millions/billions of years longer at the price of a few years/decades of the draft. Even if by some miracle the war against the aliens were eternal (and thus the draft lasted eternally), it's questionable whether death would really be a better choice for the species.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 10:25:43 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 9:28:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
For most people, it's survival.

Cowards, but lets say that survival is your number one priority, then it allows the government to outlaw any food deemed unhealthy, mandate exercise and start forcing people to walk instead of drive cars.

If survival is your guiding principle, it leads to the worst form of totalitarianism.

If your survival is your only principle, maybe.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 10:44:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 8:13:46 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 8:03:47 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:31:25 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:05:47 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:53:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:48:18 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:16:03 PM, Wylted wrote:
Let's say that aliens invade, and we can defeat thwm by getting every man woman and child on board to fight them. What do we do? My thought is that if a volunteer army is not big enough to defeat them, we should accept our loss rather than compromise our principles. What is everyone else's thoughts?

It would most likely be impossible to repel any invasion. I suppose you would have to look at the nature of the invasion and see if resistance looked possible and make the call on that basis.

We're going to assume we know that with a one hundred percent draft we'll win, and without it, we'll lose.

Ok without hesitation then i would order the draft.

Why is it okay to force somebody to do something against their will? Is this no different than slavery?

Agree its unfair and i oppose it in all other circumstances. However with the alternative of humanity potentially being entirely eliminated by aliens it would be the only option.

So our numberbone value should be survival? I had assumed it was freedom.

Yes I put survival before freedom. I would hate being drafted into the military but with alternative of death I would be prepared to do my best to prolong both my life and the existence of humanity.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:04:20 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 10:25:43 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/14/2016 9:28:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
For most people, it's survival.

Cowards, but lets say that survival is your number one priority, then it allows the government to outlaw any food deemed unhealthy, mandate exercise and start forcing people to walk instead of drive cars.

If survival is your guiding principle, it leads to the worst form of totalitarianism.

If your survival is your only principle, maybe.

Lets say you have two principles. Survival and freedom, how do you specifically balance them?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:05:40 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 10:44:46 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 8:13:46 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 8:03:47 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:31:25 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:05:47 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:53:45 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:48:18 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 6:16:03 PM, Wylted wrote:
Let's say that aliens invade, and we can defeat thwm by getting every man woman and child on board to fight them. What do we do? My thought is that if a volunteer army is not big enough to defeat them, we should accept our loss rather than compromise our principles. What is everyone else's thoughts?

It would most likely be impossible to repel any invasion. I suppose you would have to look at the nature of the invasion and see if resistance looked possible and make the call on that basis.

We're going to assume we know that with a one hundred percent draft we'll win, and without it, we'll lose.

Ok without hesitation then i would order the draft.

Why is it okay to force somebody to do something against their will? Is this no different than slavery?

Agree its unfair and i oppose it in all other circumstances. However with the alternative of humanity potentially being entirely eliminated by aliens it would be the only option.

So our numberbone value should be survival? I had assumed it was freedom.

Yes I put survival before freedom. I would hate being drafted into the military but with alternative of death I would be prepared to do my best to prolong both my life and the existence of humanity.

Eating big macs harm our survival, should we ban them?
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:12:40 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 12:04:20 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 10:25:43 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/14/2016 9:28:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
For most people, it's survival.

Cowards, but lets say that survival is your number one priority, then it allows the government to outlaw any food deemed unhealthy, mandate exercise and start forcing people to walk instead of drive cars.

If survival is your guiding principle, it leads to the worst form of totalitarianism.

If your survival is your only principle, maybe.

Lets say you have two principles. Survival and freedom, how do you specifically balance them?

People have far more than 2 principles, but for this hypothetical, the sanctity of life trumps everything else.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:26:09 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 12:12:40 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:04:20 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 10:25:43 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/14/2016 9:28:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
For most people, it's survival.

Cowards, but lets say that survival is your number one priority, then it allows the government to outlaw any food deemed unhealthy, mandate exercise and start forcing people to walk instead of drive cars.

If survival is your guiding principle, it leads to the worst form of totalitarianism.

If your survival is your only principle, maybe.

Lets say you have two principles. Survival and freedom, how do you specifically balance them?

People have far more than 2 principles, but for this hypothetical, the sanctity of life trumps everything else.

So it's okay to ban bigmacs? Because bigmacs shorten lifespan? Also driving is more likely to result in death than walking. Ao should we ban driving?

If you're stating other factors should be weighed, what specific factors should be weighed? To wjat degree? What system can we refer to, so that we know exactly how to weight all the factors, the precise amount to weigh them and what should be done with that information?

Hell even the communists, had a completely comprehensive philosophy for what should be done, and their philosophy sucked. Atleast they had one though, I'm just looking for what yours is. Let's try this. If you were to program a robot to rule the world for eternity and makebperfect decisions, what would that program entail?
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:29:04 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 12:26:09 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:12:40 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:04:20 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 10:25:43 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/14/2016 9:28:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
For most people, it's survival.

Cowards, but lets say that survival is your number one priority, then it allows the government to outlaw any food deemed unhealthy, mandate exercise and start forcing people to walk instead of drive cars.

If survival is your guiding principle, it leads to the worst form of totalitarianism.

If your survival is your only principle, maybe.

Lets say you have two principles. Survival and freedom, how do you specifically balance them?

People have far more than 2 principles, but for this hypothetical, the sanctity of life trumps everything else.

So it's okay to ban bigmacs? Because bigmacs shorten lifespan? Also driving is more likely to result in death than walking. Ao should we ban driving?

Nope, because now you've changed the example. You've shifted the goalposts and moved from a ridiculous analogy - the end of all humanity - to eating bigmacs.

If you're stating other factors should be weighed, what specific factors should be weighed? To wjat degree? What system can we refer to, so that we know exactly how to weight all the factors, the precise amount to weigh them and what should be done with that information?

It's up to the individual.

Hell even the communists, had a completely comprehensive philosophy for what should be done, and their philosophy sucked. Atleast they had one though, I'm just looking for what yours is. Let's try this. If you were to program a robot to rule the world for eternity and makebperfect decisions, what would that program entail?

It would have to control the very minds of the populace, and that's not possible.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:34:47 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 12:29:04 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:26:09 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:12:40 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:04:20 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 10:25:43 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/14/2016 9:28:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
For most people, it's survival.

Cowards, but lets say that survival is your number one priority, then it allows the government to outlaw any food deemed unhealthy, mandate exercise and start forcing people to walk instead of drive cars.

If survival is your guiding principle, it leads to the worst form of totalitarianism.

If your survival is your only principle, maybe.

Lets say you have two principles. Survival and freedom, how do you specifically balance them?

People have far more than 2 principles, but for this hypothetical, the sanctity of life trumps everything else.

So it's okay to ban bigmacs? Because bigmacs shorten lifespan? Also driving is more likely to result in death than walking. Ao should we ban driving?

Nope, because now you've changed the example. You've shifted the goalposts and moved from a ridiculous analogy - the end of all humanity - to eating bigmacs.

It's not shifting goal posts it's taking something to it's logical extreme. I'm asking you for a precise location for where that line is between liberty and security? You've yet to be precise. You just seem to have vague common sense feelings of where things should be, but no over arching philosophy.

If you're stating other factors should be weighed, what specific factors should be weighed? To wjat degree? What system can we refer to, so that we know exactly how to weight all the factors, the precise amount to weigh them and what should be done with that information?

It's up to the individual.

Hell even the communists, had a completely comprehensive philosophy for what should be done, and their philosophy sucked. Atleast they had one though, I'm just looking for what yours is. Let's try this. If you were to program a robot to rule the world for eternity and makebperfect decisions, what would that program entail?

It would have to control the very minds of the populace, and that's not possible.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:37:59 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 12:34:47 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:29:04 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:26:09 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:12:40 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:04:20 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/14/2016 10:25:43 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/14/2016 9:28:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
For most people, it's survival.

Cowards, but lets say that survival is your number one priority, then it allows the government to outlaw any food deemed unhealthy, mandate exercise and start forcing people to walk instead of drive cars.

If survival is your guiding principle, it leads to the worst form of totalitarianism.

If your survival is your only principle, maybe.

Lets say you have two principles. Survival and freedom, how do you specifically balance them?

People have far more than 2 principles, but for this hypothetical, the sanctity of life trumps everything else.

So it's okay to ban bigmacs? Because bigmacs shorten lifespan? Also driving is more likely to result in death than walking. Ao should we ban driving?

Nope, because now you've changed the example. You've shifted the goalposts and moved from a ridiculous analogy - the end of all humanity - to eating bigmacs.

It's not shifting goal posts it's taking something to it's logical extreme. I'm asking you for a precise location for where that line is between liberty and security? You've yet to be precise. You just seem to have vague common sense feelings of where things should be, but no over arching philosophy.

Once your life is no longer under an immediate and direct threat, then you can start looking for where the balance is.

If you're stating other factors should be weighed, what specific factors should be weighed? To wjat degree? What system can we refer to, so that we know exactly how to weight all the factors, the precise amount to weigh them and what should be done with that information?

It's up to the individual.

Hell even the communists, had a completely comprehensive philosophy for what should be done, and their philosophy sucked. Atleast they had one though, I'm just looking for what yours is. Let's try this. If you were to program a robot to rule the world for eternity and makebperfect decisions, what would that program entail?

It would have to control the very minds of the populace, and that's not possible.