Conscription

[Ben Kenobi]

You have the FREEDOM to choose not to be one.

Even better, you have the freedom to endure the punishment of the state. You don't need to renounce your birthright.

[Ming]

You have given no justification beyond your opinion.

Like you, I'm stating an opinion. And I have supported that opinion far better than you have

[David Floyd]

Because it's the law of the land... and our constitution allows laws to be passed...

Sure, but only laws that fit within the framework of the Constitution.

Further, would you finally, at long last, admit that a law can be immoral?

from the beginning the founding fathers knew that change would happen, and that additional laws would be required.

Certainly, and in major cases, they included a method for changing the Constitution to allow for many laws not originally authorized.

Nope... as a citizen... you follow the rules, as they change.

Then this by itself means that your supposed "contract" isn't a contract at all, because contracts lay out specific behaviors, expectations, etc., etc., that are agreed to by both parties, and cannot be uniliaterally changed. So either there is no contract, or the contract isn't what you say it is, or the contract was never legitimately changed.

[David Floyd]

Like you, I'm stating an opinion. And I have supported that opinion far better than you have

You certainly didn't support your opinion about absolute morals, which is an absolutely vital element of this debate.

[Berzerker]

If the government changed the rules midstream, didn't the government, then, violate IT'S contract with ME?

That would be the case IF conscription is unconstitutional, but I don't see why the Constitution matters since it too is a contract signed onto by others, not the rest of us.

[David Floyd]

That would be the case IF conscription is unconstitutional,

We aren't talking about conscription here in particular, but rather the existence or non-existence of a social contract requiring me to do whatever the government says. Surely you don't believe that originally existed?

Further, the Constitution also isn't really a contract, and when Ming says "social contract", I seriously doubt he is referring to the Constitution. If he is, then he has the mechanism for change severely screwed up.

[David Floyd]

By the way, Ming,

My arugment is simple... You agree as a member of society/country to follow the rules to remain a member.

This is saying that if society allows certain citizens to be enslaved, then those citizens have a duty to be slaves. But this can't be your opinion, since you already said that slavery is an absolute moral wrong. So I think you need to either clarify your position on morality, or make another argument that is logically consistent.

[Ming]

Originally posted by David Floyd
You certainly didn't support your opinion about absolute morals, which is an absolutely vital element of this debate.

Absolute morals are a matter of opinion. You say you believe one thing, and I say another... There is no possible support that makes one opinon better than another... because absolute morals are personal.

As far as conscription... you claim that it is immoral based on YOUR absolute morals.. and call it slavery and a loss of freedom.

I claim it's not, because I don't view it as slavery or as a loss of personal freedom since people have the CHOICE not to be conscripted if they don't want to. They have options... remain an American, live up to their duty to the state by following the laws of the land or accepting the punishment for their choice, or choosing not to be an American.

In my opinion... that's far more support than you just making a claim that isn't really valid.

[Ming]

Originally posted by David Floyd
By the way, Ming,
This is saying that if society allows certain citizens to be enslaved, then those citizens have a duty to be slaves. But this can't be your opinion, since you already said that slavery is an absolute moral wrong. So I think you need to either clarify your position on morality, or make another argument that is logically consistent.

Again... you aren't listening very well... If I was in a society that enslaved citizens, which I do believe is wrong, I would leave that society/country, and find one that didn't. That would be my choice...

Which is very consistant with EVERYTHING I've been saying

[David Floyd]

Absolute morals are a matter of opinion. You say you believe one thing, and I say another... There is no possible support that makes one opinon better than another... because absolute morals are personal.

No, absolute morals are by definition NOT personal, but apply to everyone. They are by definition universal. Otherwise, you are saying that it is absolutely wrong for me to murder you, but on the other hand it's not necessarily absolutely wrong for me to murder Bob - it would depend on what Bob thinks. Even worse, you can't actually say that it is absolutely wrong for me to murder you, unless I agree murder is wrong. So what you are actually proposing is moral relativism.

I claim it's not, because I don't view it as slavery or as a loss of personal freedom since people have the CHOICE not to be conscripted if they don't want to.

So, then, a law saying I couldn't be a Muslim wouldn't result in a loss of freedom, because I could still choose to ignore the law?

I suppose you'd be right, up until the point when you punished me for violating the law. Then my freedom would certainly be infringed.

that's far more support...

No, it isn't, because your claim is rife with inconsistencies and illogical claims/conclusions. You are making claims that you don't even agree with, if you actually believe that slavery is an absolute wrong.

[David Floyd]

Again... you aren't listening very well... If I was in a society that enslaved citizens, which I do believe is wrong, I would leave that society/country, and find one that didn't. That would be my choice...

That's nice, but obviously the people who were enslaved wouldn't have that choice, would they? The very definition of slavery does not include the element of choosing to leave rather than be a slave. I rather suspect that if it did, slavery would have died out much, much earlier.

Furthermore, what you would do in the case of OTHER people being enslaved is irrelevant, as we are discussing your options should something happen to YOU.

[David Floyd]

And further, WHY do you think slavery is wrong? On what grounds do you condemn it?

[David Floyd]

And I note that you STILL haven't answered me re: Conscientious Objectors.

[Ming]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, absolute morals are by definition NOT personal, but apply to everyone. They are by definition universal.

But in a way, they are VERY personal. I do believe that they apply to all. Where we disagree is what those absoute morals actually are.

You seem to think the conscription violates one... My view is that it doesn't.

[Ming]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's nice, but obviously the people who were enslaved wouldn't have that choice, would they? The very definition of slavery does not include the element of choosing to leave rather than be a slave.

Thanks David for proving my point in this discussion.

I knew I could eventually bait you into saying that.

Conscription isn't slavery based on your above definition. Conscription comes with a choice, while slavery doesn't. While slavery is indeed immoral, conscription isn't.

Have a nice day