Siro goes to to pre-military training

[notyoueither]

ME threads. I was warned to steer clear. Or at least I should've been.

Berzerker: I will grant you this. You could probably argue the paint off a wall, or at least you might try. However, leaping to ridiculous conclusions from other people's words to make your own argument is more like making straw men. I choose not to engage in debate based on straw men.

I will leave you with this.

I have never said that rights do not exist. I have tried to indicate that rights spring from agreements between people as to what are good and just and ethical ways to live. That is all.

To cut it all short. I believe that conscription does not violate the fundamental right to life that most societies recognize. The state is not killing it's own soldiers. The state is compelling its citizens to defend it and themselves. Most all of its citizens are potentially subject to this obligation as they mature and grow to be fit for the role. All age to the point where they would be of little assistance and therefore are exempt. It is an obligation of citizenship in any society from time to time due to circumstances.

Is it possible for you to imagine a situation where more people would die due to a state being overrun by its enemies than would have been killed as combatants on both sides if the state survived? Where do the rights to life for the dead figure into your equation?

You may answer or not, your choice. It is unlikely I will respond. I have enough things to argue endlessly. I am Canadian.

[David Floyd]

GP-

If he wanted to make a stand on priniciple, he should have done so directly. lying to make things easier is kind of a wormy, little kid thing to do...DAVID. (And please spare me your bluster in response...you little baby.)

And go to prison? Some option - either have your right to liberty violated and your right to life threatened, OR have your right to liberty violated and your right to life threatened

No, he did the right thing to effect his own self-preservation. I'd do the same, but I'd also be quite willing to take up arms against the US government in defense of my rights. Come to think of it, I might even take more drastic measures, which may or may not include assassination and blowing stuff up. Yes, I feel THAT strongly about it.

notyoueither-

I believe that conscription does not violate the fundamental right to life that most societies recognize.

More directly it violates the natural right to liberty, but if the person dies then it can easily be said that the government violated their right to life as well.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Floyd
More directly it violates the natural right to liberty, but if the person dies then it can easily be said that the government violated their right to life as well.

I didn't recall reading about the right to live 96 years while never lifting a finger to help anyone other than oneself except as one sees fit. Must have missed that part. Which states have enshrined that right?

Honestly. I do not know from whence this concept of freedom from obligations comes from. I'm curious though.

BTW. About the responding bit... I lied. Canada is boring lately. And besides, you aren't harvesting straw men.

[David Floyd]

Which states have enshrined that right?

The US, for one, in the US Constitution. You should read it sometime.

[Shi Huangdi]

You people are too harsh on David Floyd. He may have some really unpopular opinions, but he is a nice guy and doesn't deserve all the flames he get.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
You people are too harsh on David Floyd. He may have some really unpopular opinions, but he is a nice guy and doesn't deserve all the flames he get.

You sound like Devilmunchkin defending Logical Realist.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, he did the right thing to effect his own self-preservation.

No one is claiming that what he did wasn't an attempt to save his own skin from his POV. What is making people (me) take a critical stand of his action is his quite nationalistic support for the IDF and its actions along with conscription. I saw his fraud when he was signing up as a betrayal of his stated principles.

[David Floyd]

Thanks BD

You sound like Devilmunchkin defending Logical Realist.

DD,

No one is claiming that what he did wasn't an attempt to save his own skin from his POV. What is making people (me) take a critical stand of his action is his quite nationalistic support for the IDF and its actions along with conscription. I saw his fraud when he was signing up as a betrayal of his stated principles.

That I certainly agree with.
I still think his action was correct, even though his attitude isn't - fair enough?

[Sprayber]

David: I'm curious. Are you registered with the Selective Service?



For those not aware of the Selevtive Service.

http://www.sss.gov/

Here is a better link further in the site.

http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sprayber
David: I'm curious. Are you registered with the Selective Service?

He's in college. What do you think? I'm willing to bet he also recieves federal & state aid for school.

[David Floyd]

Yes, I wasn't going to register before I realized I'd be ****ed in terms of college, scholarships, etc., without registering.

Rest assured I have every intention of dodging any draft, whether in peace or wartime.

[Ramo]

Not nature per se, but existence.

Can you elaborate?

A natural right - as opposed to a civil right (which is created thru government) - is a moral or just claim to act.

If the claim to act is tied to morality, how can it be natural?

The natural right to live derives from the fact we didn't create each other, but were created by someone or something else. Some would call this "creator" "God", others call it "nature", but it doesn't matter who or what created us, only that we didn't create each other.

AFAIK, my "creators" were my parents.

But I don't see your logic. Why should this have to do with anything?

Those who claim these natural rights don't exist but that rights were created by government must explain why you would condemn the Nazis for murdering people.

Because murder (more generally, coercion) is contrary to my moral code.

Sirotnikov says he condemns the Nazis because they violated international agreements but can't produce the contracts.

Sounds fairly silly to me.

If you have a right to live only because your government says you have this right, then what if the government says you don't have the right to live and murders you? I'd condemn this government for violating your natural right to live.

I would condemn this government for coercing an individual.

Why would you condemn the government for murdering people if the culprit claimed the victims had no right to live? Why would you condemn me and my friends for murdering others? If "government" says you have no right to live, why can't we? Is not "government" nothing more than a group of people? If a group of people can decide if you have a right to live, why not any group?

Why should asserting the lack of a natural right to life imply that I wouldn't condemn murderers?

[KrazyHorse]

David: I'm curious. Are you registered with the Selective Service?

I'm glad my gov doesn't make me do that. It's got a slightly creepy feeling...

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, I wasn't going to register before I realized I'd be ****ed in terms of college, scholarships, etc., without registering.

Rest assured I have every intention of dodging any draft, whether in peace or wartime.

You let money interfer with your principles

[David Floyd]

Ramo (Drunk-boy ),

I'm not sure how you can say coercion is wrong, unless coercion violates a pre-existing right.