3 ms·

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

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.
    - dropit_sphere 10y ago
      What is your proposal for staffing a national defense force?
      - discombobulate 10y ago
        In my country, we have a professional military. It's more expensive than turning teenagers into combat slaves (The Hunger Games?), but the people in the forces choose to be there. It seems intuitive to me that highly trained individuals with combat experience and a mind for controlled violence would be better than amateur teenagers at defending a country. The military professionals I've meet are fearless under combat (so I've heard), don't panic when they've been shot, and can endure physical discomfort that would crush the average person. Not that I'm particularly stuck on the above idea. It's the first off the top of my head.

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.
  - dropit_sphere 10y ago
    What is your proposal for staffing a national defense force?
    - discombobulate 10y ago
      In my country, we have a professional military. It's more expensive than turning teenagers into combat slaves (The Hunger Games?), but the people in the forces choose to be there. It seems intuitive to me that highly trained individuals with combat experience and a mind for controlled violence would be better than amateur teenagers at defending a country. The military professionals I've meet are fearless under combat (so I've heard), don't panic when they've been shot, and can endure physical discomfort that would crush the average person. Not that I'm particularly stuck on the above idea. It's the first off the top of my head.