Hence my stipulation regarding it being only for defense of nation.
Of course they want to fit in, and lead their lives like normal. Just not in a society where "normal" means not being accepting of gay people. The LGBT movement isn't about shutting up and accepting homophobia as a fact of life, and the parades aren't about pride in the fact you *happened* to be born gay. It's pride in the fact that you can be open about it, despite the oppression.
Granted, I'm for getting rid of the draft but that's not a strong argument against it tbh. Both World Wars were fought on foreign soil and the draft was used extensively in both conflicts. If instead you mean smaller and more limited wars in foriegn lands, then I definitely agree with you.
I prefer the title "Citizen of Earth".
One never fights for a place defensively, rather more for the defense of the status quo or at least against hostile vectors seeking to change it. Responsibility does not presuppose loyalty - one can just as easily classify domestic whims as foreign to one's own.
What one lacks in loyalty one can make up with personal integrity - not all places and states are worth defending, nor are all ways of life. Obligation has its limits, you know. National self-determination doesn't always go hand in hand with actually personal self-determination. What good is this shackling to unconditional defense of a thing when one cannot find oneself fully accommodated within it?
Maximum woke, said it better than I could
The draft should only exist for when ayy lmaos invade Earth
how long your shift damn
Chernovich, it's been 9 hours now
Interstellar travel by humans or even just travel to and colonisation of Mars, are extremely unethical.
Why
I guess you could argue it's not our place to go trash another planet considering our track record isn't great, but mere space travel doesn't really fit that argument.
Well to start with even Mars, anyone who makes even just a trip there will very likely develop cancer and die young, due to being bombarded by solar and cosmic radiation by not having the earth’s magnetic field to protect them. If a permanent colony were to be established on Mars, the Martian population would not be very well off. Along with the aforementioned cancer problem, the Martian population would inevitably suffer from severe muscle degradation. Allthough they may eventually adapt to the red planet, any Martian visiting Earth would be in excruciating pain, due to not being used to the Earth’s gravity. They would also have to live a very highly controlled and rationed lifestyle, and any child raised on Mars would most likely not have the freedoms and opportunities compared to a child raised on Earth.
As for the interstellar travel part, it depends on the method of interstellar travel. The most realistic will likely be fertilised eggs being transported, and then being grown in labs and raised by robots when they reach their destination. That first generation would not have parents, and their survival will be entirely dependent on their robotic guardians. The planet they are raised on may also be inhospitable for many reasons. The alternative of a generational ship is also unethical when you consider that generations of humans would live and die on the ship, in a state of extreme rationing and control, and without ever having stepped foot on a planet. Even if a ship with humans in stasis until it reaches its destination could be considered unethical if the destination turns out to not be habitable at all.
Whichever way you look at it, ethical problems arise in almost every facet of space travel.
Well yeah and the status quo is specific to place (nation in the large sense) and to prevent hostile vectors you must protect that place. And just because I support a draft doesn't mean domestic whims should be ignored.
And I do think our place is worth defending, not sure why that's an unpopular opinion. Just because our nation is imperfect and you don't find yourself fully accommodated doesn't mean it's not worth defending, no place is perfect, and again if you think another place would accommodate you better then go there if you wish. The"good" of shackling yourself to the defense of ones nation is that you then are dedicated to the maintenance of the systems you appreciate and also to their improvement. If you aren't willing to tie yourself to it's defense, how can you say you have the motivation to improve and better it if you may as well just leave when things get tough or scary because you aren't "fully accommodated"? There are no places where you will be fully accommodated. There are no paradises. There are no perfect societies. There is only the place you choose to call home and the efforts you make to protect and improve it as best you can.
I have loyalty to this place because I like it and I know others are also loyal and just as passionate about it's security and betterment. It's part of being a community of citizens, having each other's back because we're all in this country together.
Saying you are a "citizen of the Earth" just sounds like you have no commitment and are only out for yourself instead of your neighbors and the people that share your laws and customs, and who would skip out at the first sign of real trouble. Would anyone want a neighbor like that?
Well gee, guess I better go pack my bags an head to Canada since it's that easy.
"If you don't America you can GIT out".
I never said I'm a sovereign citizen, I said I'm a citizen of Earth. My loyalty is to the good of humanity as opposed to some lines on a map.
Okay, lets just sit on earth, do nothing and just die
Too bad, any direction you go from the start is probably unethical. That's just us as humans, but as tech and time progress, we learn to deal with the issues.
Industrialization was extremely unethical, but it got us to where we are today, by learning from our mistakes.
Sorry but "if you like another place better, just go there" has always come off as terribly out-of-touch to me. Do you not know the costs of travel and housing? If leaving is as easy for you as wishing for it, that's great, but not everyone has that amount of financial stability.
No, my country isn't perfect. It's Brazil, and it's fucking awful. Corruption, violence and crime, old infrastructure, homelessness on the rise, unemployment everywhere, and this is what we call normal. The massive crisis is just the cherry on top. It is objectively worse than the US in almost every measurable way. Americans parading patriotism around with some feel-good, "nobody's perfect" bullshit to support it always brings this image to mind
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/172/41cfe381-3bdf-434b-8611-b7196acaa895/image.png
Ah, but a draft is done regardless of the will of the person getting drafted or their beliefs in the justness of the cause they are called to protect. If it is in the interest of people to defend their way of life and the status quo from such hostile vectors, would they not, by virtue of grave necessity, volunteer to help such a cause if it is indeed in danger? One can be quite dedicated towards one's nation out of personal responsibility, without recourse to measures such as legally mandating them to serve in positions out of their choosing in a conflict they have little to do with.
You misunderstand what I meant when I spoke of self interest, namely, that one's wants and needs can see domestic whims (those on "our side") just as foreign as ones from without (those on the side of "the enemy" - what you term "foreign whims"). Just because I pay taxes to one state does not mean it somehow automatically serves my interests as well as another. This however is not as important to my main point.
One does not require loyalty to a nation or a governing body in order to care about the specific circumstances which enable them to live the life they do now, and blanket loyalty to the state is in fact detrimental towards improving its conduct as a political (and arguably military) entity - indeed, slowing (or halting) its improvement. Improvement and maintenance of systems of governance has quite little to do with a mandatory draft topically, one does not need such shackles to possess a will to maintain and improve the house of a would-be-master. Personally, I've done three years of service in the IDF and I can assure you that despite what you might believe drafts can be quite useless when it comes to wasting manpower. Military service as cannon fodder is not the only way one can serve one's nation, if one wishes to do so.
I cannot say I possess any loyalty to either my country or my fellow citizens just by virtue of one governing me and the others occupying adjacent spaces and likewise being governed. This does not make me an untrustworthy neighbor as you can bet that I will help those that I consider my own and which are close to me when push comes to shove, not out of loyalty to an authority, but because their well being is in my personal interest - that is, because I care, not because I am mandated to do so by some authority or society or moral system. I am loyal to myself and my own.
Do I not pay my taxes like every other citizen? Do I not vote and take part in the economy? Do I not have friends and family and colleagues I care about in this land? If so, why would I suddenly abandon them in the absence of a mandatory draft in their time of need? Do I not already have skin in the game? Don't I already defend, in my own way, my way of life by virtue of staying at all?
You forget the difficulty in just moving away from a country: we are already shackled to a place by socio-economic circumstance and connections, why would I add another chain?
Have you ever heard of radiation shielding
There needs to be an increased awareness about the distinction between Elliot Rodger-type psychopaths and just normal "incels", of which like 10% of the population is at any given moment. As it stands now, the media is demonizing incels as misogynistic potential killers which is enabling a dangerous culture of fear, since in reality, most incels are simply socially inept dudes who are shrouded in anxiety and self-loathing. And the mindset of "ew he's a virgin? He probably wants to shoot up the office lol" is in all likelihood just causing incels who are actually teetering towards violence to actually end up hurting others, while driving the normal ones further into depression and loneliness. Incels needs help, not ostracization.
I think the numerous incel communities and how violently toxic they get might disagree with you.
The Star wars fandom is the worst one to center around a movie franchise.
I love RLM, but I will forever hate that they have unintentionally spawned a mirriad of half-assed clones in their wake. I can't look at my recommended vids without being bombarded with videos on how the Last Jedi or whatever is the latest thing is the biggest sin to be committed to anything. Every single one of those videos is the exact same thing over and over again, repeated an nasium and it's just the same points that are either inconsequential to anything or have been seen by everyone and talked to death. With 'oh I'm so witty' and 'fuck the SJW' takes to fill a Bill Mahrer script.
If I wanted to watch an organized group attempt the world record for circle-jerking, I would have PornHub open.
Yeah those are the dangerous Elliot Rodger types who are a vocal minority, not the vast majority of dudes who just can't get sex. I'm saying that there needs to be a distinction between the two. And even then, telling those guys to kill themselves will only increase their chances of shooting up a place.
Incels don't want help. It's a common theme among them. Take a look at their subreddits and you'll see what I mean. Their ideal scenario is one where the world's entire societal structure is bent to their favor. They don't see changing themselves to suit the world as an acceptable course of action.
no, incels are a radical group of lunatics. have you read what they're about? it's an actual life philosophy, not a term for any regular dude who happens to be socially inept. don't normalize them like this
I think we have different definitions for incels. Lumping the crazies that are associated with misogynistic online communities with the others who are just bad at talking to girls seems harmful to me. And like I said, the crazies who want to "kill and chads" etc need professional help, not people on the internet further entrenching them in their own delusional views.
I define incels as "people who describe themselves as incels" and I think my previous statement is consistent with that.
I see what you mean and agree, I just think it's dumb to use the umbrella term "incel" which in my mind seems to encompass a larger group of more normal people than the small online communities imply
i've just never heard anyone use 'incel' to refer to normal dudes like this, i don't think you'll find many people who use that definition. are you saying it had a different meaning? because i thought the misogynistic communities were the ones who coined the term
Not really. There was an incel community in the 90s but other than that, it's pretty much been taken over by the absolute scum we know today.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
Unpopular opinions V8 Flat IS NOTHING
