Conscription

[David Floyd]

But in a way, they are VERY personal. I do believe that they apply to all.

You're changing your position again, it seems. Or if you aren't, then you certainly couldn't say that morality has nothing to do with the law.

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

And I'm asking you to tell me why - that is, justify your view of why absolute morals extend to murder, rape, racism, and slavery, but NOT to other violations of liberty. And don't try to get out of it with your theory that because you can leave, conscription isn't a violation of liberty. I've already argued at length that this isn't the case, and you have yet to give me a real answer.

[David Floyd]

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.

However, your definition of choice is obviously different from mine. If we use your definition, then there is a choice in slavery - if you refuse to toil in the fields, that's your choice, but there will be consequences.

But this isn't really "choice", is it, at least not in the sense of free choice.

[Ming]

Give it up David... you blew it...

You are have been totally incosistent in your arguments... so much so that you handed me victory on a silver platter with your slavery definition...

People that are conscripted have real choices... Slaves don't...

Conscription isn't slavery... you proved it for me.

Have a good evening. Better luck next time...

[David Floyd]

Ming, as I stated in my PM to you, we are using two different definitions of "choice". Don't try to claim victory by using your definition to apply to one, and my definition to apply to the other. That's preposterous.

As to inconsistencies in my arguments, I've been pointing out inconsistencies in yours since the beginning, so I really don't see where you get off accusing me off inconsistency.

[David Floyd]

Further, your argument that being able to leave the nation in order to avoid conscription isn't really a solution. For example, what if EVERY nation had conscription? Or what if you weren't allowed into the nations that did NOT have conscription?

For example, Jews tried to flee Germany for the US during Hitler's time. But whoops! The US didn't always let them in. So much for the "leaving" choice, right?

[Ming]

Any perceived inconsistancies in my arguments are only in your eyes. I've stayed perfectly consistent. You are the one that's been all over the place...

red tutu's... Hitler... at least I didn't try those tired old straw dog arguments. I just waited to use your own words and definition to beat you.

Again... sleep well...

[David Floyd]

Don't be an ass. You haven't had a valid response to my arguments from the get-go. You haven't justified any of your positions with anything other some vague social contract, which you also refuse to justify. And you refuse to address the point that when I say "choice" and when you say "choice", we obviously mean something different.

But if you don't want to address any of those issues, I can't make you :shrug:

[Ming]

Sore losser

[David Floyd]

Uh, you're the one who is unilaterly declaring victory, while ignoring a very valid point that I think anyone will be able to see - that is, the fact that we've been using the word "choice" differently for the past hour.

[Ben Kenobi]

David:

Re-read my argument for a more effective argument against conscription.

Under what basis are you denouncing conscription as immoral?
How is this basis universal in scope?

Ming keeps hammering you on these points because he knows that you cannot refute his argument with what you have, claiming your personal morality as absolute, applying to everyone.

[David Floyd]

By the way, I'm not asking for anyone to agree with my argument against conscription. I'd just like people to acknowledge that a)Ming is being childish, and b)he is missing the point that we define "choice" differently.

[David Floyd]

obiwan,

Under what basis are you denouncing conscription as immoral?
How is this basis universal in scope?

For you, I would use the Biblical argument of free will as a justification for God-given natural rights.

For a non-Christian, I'd use a different argument.

Ming keeps hammering you on these points because he knows that you cannot refute his argument with what you have,

But his argument is simply societal contract and nothing more, which I have repeated answered.

claiming your personal morality as absolute, applying to everyone.

He's doing the same thing, with less justification. He never asked me for a justification of my morality, but I asked repeatedly for a justification of his, and never got it.

[Ming]

Choice is Choice David...

I've ignored no point... or at least no point that is really relevant to this discussion.

You claim my support is "vague" while thinking your support is iron clad... yet you are the one that states exactly what slavery is... and conscription doesn't answer your own discription. Bummer...

So better luck next time...

[David Floyd]

Choice is Choice David...

Sure it is, but we disagree as to the definition, and are using the word differently. Acknowledge that, at least.

You claim my support is "vague" while thinking your support is iron clad...

No, there are numerous problems with my argument, I'm quite sure, just as there are numerous problems with yours.

yet you are the one that states exactly what slavery is... and conscription doesn't answer your own discription.

There is no inconsistency if you view free choice as I do.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by David Floyd
By the way, I'm not asking for anyone to agree with my argument against conscription. I'd just like people to acknowledge that a)Ming is being childish, and b)he is missing the point that we define "choice" differently.

i do acknowledge both A and B. But i DO agree with ming;s arguement