3 ms·

>What's the difference if you speak Swedish, Finnish or Russian? None. What's the difference if you're Orthodox, Catholic or Muslim? None. You may see yourself

>What's the difference if you speak Swedish, Finnish or Russian? None. What's the difference if you're Orthodox, Catholic or Muslim? None. You may see yourself as a non-1% with no particular ethnicity or religion, but there are poor Muslims who would rather die than be rich Catholics, and there are poor Finns who would rather die than be rich Russians. I understand that you don't fit in those categories. But there are actual human beings that do.

entropyneur 10y ago
Then let them volunteer to die for it! But the existence (or even plurality) of poor Finns preferring death over becoming Russians doesn't justify forcing those who don't share their sentiment to die with them.
- dropit_sphere 10y ago
  There are two things, one proveable and one unproveable, that I don't think you understand: 1. You are very much in the minority. The vast majority of people have some amount of ethnic, religious, or nationalist pride. They want to be ruled by one of their own. They are not eager to die for this, but are often willing to do so, as long as they're not being made chumps of. 2. They're right, and you're wrong. Or, to put it another way, their way promotes the success of their civilization, and yours does not. This seems fairly intuitive, as what we're discussing here is the willingness to die for one's civilization. Should it surprise anyone that the willingness to die for a civilization helps that civilization? I really need to make some sort of Selfish Gene type simulator for these conversations.
  - entropyneur 10y ago
    I never argued with #1. And you are wrong on #2. My way promotes our civilization, theirs is just an echo of the civilizations of the past.
    - clock_tower 10y ago
      Which sort of civilization is Donald Trump a part of, our civilization or one of those of the past?
      - entropyneur 10y ago
        We are now all a part of a single modern civilization. Some people (including Trump and his supporters) simply don't realize it yet.
  - discombobulate 10y ago
    > You are very much in the minority. The vast majority of people have some amount of ethnic, religious, or nationalist pride. 1. There's a difference between what's popular & what's ethical. 2. Since we're being intuitive here: Throwing a bunch of amateur teenagers at the problem doesn't seem like the best solution. It could be a cheap solution. A type of hidden tax which taxes the lives of people who have no way to vote. Two foxes and a hen voting what's for dinner type of thing. Edit: 'type of thing' added.
    - dropit_sphere 10y ago
      > There's a difference between what's popular & what's ethical. I can certainly agree with that. My citation of popularity was to defend conscription from exactly the kind of reasoning you describe: "No one really cares about national sovereignty and it's just a few suicidal wackjobs whose quixotic desires shouldn't impinge on the lives of us normal people." >2. Since we're being intuitive here: Throwing a bunch of amateur teenagers at the problem doesn't seem like the best solution. It could be a cheap solution. A type of hidden tax which taxes the lives of people who have no way to vote. Two foxes and a hen voting what's for dinner type of thing. Surely you're not against universal suffrage!
      - discombobulate 10y ago
        > My citation of popularity was to defend conscription from exactly the kind of reasoning you describe: "No one really cares about national sovereignty and it's just a few suicidal wackjobs whose quixotic desires shouldn't impinge on the lives of us normal people." I'm not the OP. And that 'reasoning' is a gross perversion of what was said. The OP didn't say no one cares. My reading of his comment was that no one should care. The OP also expresses his lack of care for such a situation. > it's just a few suicidal wackjobs whose quixotic desires shouldn't impinge on the lives of us normal people No one has said this, either. > Surely you're not against universal suffrage! The people who can't vote on the matter are the teenagers being conscripted. When the law was passed for their conscription, they were too young to vote. I hope that's adequately clear now.

entropyneur 10y ago

Then let them volunteer to die for it! But the existence (or even plurality) of poor Finns preferring death over becoming Russians doesn't justify forcing those who don't share their sentiment to die with them.

dropit_sphere 10y ago
There are two things, one proveable and one unproveable, that I don't think you understand: 1. You are very much in the minority. The vast majority of people have some amount of ethnic, religious, or nationalist pride. They want to be ruled by one of their own. They are not eager to die for this, but are often willing to do so, as long as they're not being made chumps of. 2. They're right, and you're wrong. Or, to put it another way, their way promotes the success of their civilization, and yours does not. This seems fairly intuitive, as what we're discussing here is the willingness to die for one's civilization. Should it surprise anyone that the willingness to die for a civilization helps that civilization? I really need to make some sort of Selfish Gene type simulator for these conversations.
- entropyneur 10y ago
  I never argued with #1. And you are wrong on #2. My way promotes our civilization, theirs is just an echo of the civilizations of the past.
  - clock_tower 10y ago
    Which sort of civilization is Donald Trump a part of, our civilization or one of those of the past?
    - entropyneur 10y ago
      We are now all a part of a single modern civilization. Some people (including Trump and his supporters) simply don't realize it yet.
- discombobulate 10y ago
  > You are very much in the minority. The vast majority of people have some amount of ethnic, religious, or nationalist pride. 1. There's a difference between what's popular & what's ethical. 2. Since we're being intuitive here: Throwing a bunch of amateur teenagers at the problem doesn't seem like the best solution. It could be a cheap solution. A type of hidden tax which taxes the lives of people who have no way to vote. Two foxes and a hen voting what's for dinner type of thing. Edit: 'type of thing' added.
  - dropit_sphere 10y ago
    > There's a difference between what's popular & what's ethical. I can certainly agree with that. My citation of popularity was to defend conscription from exactly the kind of reasoning you describe: "No one really cares about national sovereignty and it's just a few suicidal wackjobs whose quixotic desires shouldn't impinge on the lives of us normal people." >2. Since we're being intuitive here: Throwing a bunch of amateur teenagers at the problem doesn't seem like the best solution. It could be a cheap solution. A type of hidden tax which taxes the lives of people who have no way to vote. Two foxes and a hen voting what's for dinner type of thing. Surely you're not against universal suffrage!
    - discombobulate 10y ago
      > My citation of popularity was to defend conscription from exactly the kind of reasoning you describe: "No one really cares about national sovereignty and it's just a few suicidal wackjobs whose quixotic desires shouldn't impinge on the lives of us normal people." I'm not the OP. And that 'reasoning' is a gross perversion of what was said. The OP didn't say no one cares. My reading of his comment was that no one should care. The OP also expresses his lack of care for such a situation. > it's just a few suicidal wackjobs whose quixotic desires shouldn't impinge on the lives of us normal people No one has said this, either. > Surely you're not against universal suffrage! The people who can't vote on the matter are the teenagers being conscripted. When the law was passed for their conscription, they were too young to vote. I hope that's adequately clear now.