3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoWhat is your proposal for staffing a national defense force?
- discombobulate 10y agoIn 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.
- dropit_sphere 10y agoSounds reasonable, guess you're right.
- discombobulate 10y agoKudos.