What party am I?

[Jon Miller]

yep...

and I went on to expound upon my statement (and note that I am ok with a draft if it is part of the agreed upon social contract, which it is in these Unites States)

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Guess what, Jon, YOU ARE A UTILITARIAN WITH HUMAN LIFE! You are "ok in some circumstances" with the draft! You said WW2 was ok because it was to save the lives of innocents.

I don't know how you can't see it. Oh, I know, you've blinded yourself. I mean you say it is ok (even if you have problems, yadda, yadda, whatever) because it was to save the lives of innocents, but you are sacrificing soliders on the alter of saving innocents. And while some Americans volunteered, most came because of the draft, which you said was ok because it is part of the social contract.

Even with defense, you said it was in the social contract, and thus when threatened, the country should be allowed to draft individuals, even though who may believe the country wouldn't be worse off with the other guys in charge. Sacrifcing them on the alter of governmental soveriegnty.

You've made a cost/benefit decision. X deaths are ok because of Y. Y being saving innocents from dying or defending the homeland.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

I am not a utilitarian

I am ok with the draft when it is agreed upon part of the social contract (it is in our laws.. if someone is not ok with that then they can leave/try and change them)

so no, I am not saying (here) that it should be in the social contract

I am saying that it is defacto in ours, and that by remaining an american citizen past the age of 18 means that you have agreed to be drafted... if your nation calls

so it is still a choice you make... you can leave, you can rebel, etc..

you still have a choice

the baby does not have a choice..

understand the difference now?

deaths are ok if the people who are dying are choosing to die, for whatever the benefit is...

if it farts like an ******* and creates crap like an *******...

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
yep...

and I went on to expound upon my statement (and note that I am ok with a draft if it is part of the agreed upon social contract, which it is in these Unites States)

JM

Social contract! That makes it ok? That makes sacrificing young men alright? Why because there was an assumed contract? Registration for the Selective Service is a coerced contract. It is a crime to not do so and you can't vote until you do either. I wouldn't call that voluntarily submitting and saying you can leave if you don't like it is also coercive.

So men should die because they live in a country which comes under attack, for, I assume, the greater good?

[Imran Siddiqui]

the baby does not have a choice..

understand the difference now?

deaths are ok if the people who are dying are choosing to die, for whatever the benefit is...

Putting aside the discussion of coerced choice (not really voluntary), you said you approved of the death penalty in some cases. I don't think those on death row are choosing to die. Unless, you want add a corollary to your statement there.

And with the baby's choice, I go back to an example of a homeless man that camps out in your home when it is -40 F outside. Can you throw him out to freeze to death? After all, Mr. Homeless had a choice to die in the street or die in your yard.

[Jon Miller]

you are right.. some things should change

youth should be able to vote before they are able to be drafted

I am in favor of OzzyKP on that one (I would put the age at 16 or something)

but if you live in a country, and get benefited by the country, then it makes sense to me that you owe the country, and might be requested to fight for it..

the draft, at its most basic, is just an enforcement of a choice already made...

Jon Miller

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Once again, both sides are not addressing the critical underlying question: Is a fetus human life?

No, the critical question is when does human life becomes a human being. That leads to the more fundimental question of what defines a human being, what is the nature of a human being.

The pro-life stance is that living human tissue is human, from stem cells, to fetuses, to the brain dead.

My position is that what makes us human is our awareness of self and our relationships with others. Self-awareness is something that doesn't occur for several months after birth, but the other key factor is our interrelationships.

An infant has relationships, even if it isn't consciously aware of them yet. A fetus in the mother's womb has only one relationship, and since that relationship is defined by the mother, whether or not a fetus is a human being is entirely up to her. Once the infant is born into the world, it has joined a complex web of relationships.

Yes, it's inconsistent from one standpoint, since a fetus may or may not be human depending on the opinion of one person. There's no hard and fast rule, it's a decision made ad hoc. And yet, it works, and is very human.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

the baby does not have a choice..

understand the difference now?

deaths are ok if the people who are dying are choosing to die, for whatever the benefit is...

Putting aside the discussion of coerced choice (not really voluntary), you said you approved of the death penalty in some cases. I don't think those on death row are choosing to die. Unless, you want add a corollary to your statement there.

And with the baby's choice, I go back to an example of a homeless man that camps out in your home when it is -40 F outside. Can you throw him out to freeze to death? After all, Mr. Homeless had a choice to die in the street or die in your yard.

for the death penalty.. that person made the choice to engage in the activities that could be punishable by death..

now you can argue it is often misapplied, in which case I admit that might be true, and so admit that the death penalty maybe should be eliminated...

and yes, you shouldn't throw him out to freeze to death..

and some of the reason I dislike the capitialist system, is that it allows things like that (where there is no choice to live able to be made)

it is a crime

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

but if you live in a country, and get benefited by the country, then it makes sense to me that you owe the country, and might be requested to fight for it..

the draft, at its most basic, is just an enforcement of a choice already made...

If someone puts a bulldozer in front of your house and says sign this contract or your house is gone and then tries to enforce it later, is that an enforcement of a choice already made?

Interesting to see how cavalier you actually are with human life, Jon.

[Imran Siddiqui]

and yes, you shouldn't throw him out to freeze to death..

So you should allow the homeless guy free housing when he broke into your home? Now you may argue that you can send him to jail, but what if they won't take him? Are you obligated to be his keeper?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, the critical question is when does human life becomes a human being. That leads to the more fundimental question of what defines a human being, what is the nature of a human being.

The pro-life stance is that living human tissue is human, from stem cells, to fetuses, to the brain dead.

My position is that what makes us human is our awareness of self and our relationships with others. Self-awareness is something that doesn't occur for several months after birth, but the other key factor is our interrelationships.

An infant has relationships, even if it isn't consciously aware of them yet. A fetus in the mother's womb has only one relationship, and since that relationship is defined by the mother, whether or not a fetus is a human being is entirely up to her. Once the infant is born into the world, it has joined a complex web of relationships.

Yes, it's inconsistent from one standpoint, since a fetus may or may not be human depending on the opinion of one person. There's no hard and fast rule, it's a decision made ad hoc. And yet, it works, and is very human.

I may have included you with Imran wrongly

if so I apologise

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

but if you live in a country, and get benefited by the country, then it makes sense to me that you owe the country, and might be requested to fight for it..

the draft, at its most basic, is just an enforcement of a choice already made...

If someone puts a bulldozer in front of your house and says sign this contract or your house is gone and then tries to enforce it later, is that an enforcement of a choice already made?

Interesting to see how cavalier you actually are with human life, Jon.

I am cavalier about material goods..

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

and yes, you shouldn't throw him out to freeze to death..

So you should allow the homeless guy free housing when he broke into your home? Now you may argue that you can send him to jail, but what if they won't take him? Are you obligated to be his keeper?

note, I don't believe there should be any homeless guy

but yes, I think that if you put him out into the cold to die, you have commited murder

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am cavalier about material goods..

Jon Miller

But you want to force people to die for their 'country' when it may be attacked.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


But you want to force people to die for their 'country' when it may be attacked.

if people get the benefits by living there, and it is part of their social contract (which it is in most nations), then yes..

it is a choice they have made

note, the house and all the goods are the benefit of living in the country..

it is not the forcing of the will, it is a enforcemnt of a choice already made

Jon Miller

[GePap]

Well, I am a registered democrat, mainly because I support the notion of affirmative rights, as opposed to solely negative rights. If a society is wealthy enough to provide everyone with a minimum standard of living while allowing people to go as high as they want to, I fail to see the morality of not doing so. I hold very little regard for the notiont that the market will solve anything, because the market is simply a tool, and the market will only give you an outcome based on your aims with it.

That said, as Drake's sig shows, I am hardly a touchy feely guy. On many issues my attitude can be quite...ruthless.