3 ms·

It is agreed upon in every election. In Sweden, I've never seen any serious opposition to conscription on ethical grounds. My impression is that it is the same

by fl7305 3y ago

It is agreed upon in every election. In Sweden, I've never seen any serious opposition to conscription on ethical grounds. My impression is that it is the same in the other nordic countries.

mistermann 3y ago
If I am offered 5 different bundles of thousands of items, and my only choice is one of the 5 bundles or no choice, am I agreeing to each item, or does it only appear like I am agreeing?
- fl7305 3y ago
  > am I agreeing to each item No, not for 100% of the voters. But you can still say that the issue is "well agreed upon". If there was a "huge opposition to conscription because it is slavery", then one or more of the political parties in Sweden would be opposed to it. And those parties would get a majority of the votes if people thought that the issue was the most important one. Instead there is no political party against conscription in Sweden. Not even the left party or the green party, which really surprised me since they are normally against that sort of thing. There is also no political debate about conscription in Sweden on ethical grounds. Compare this with the monarchy and the king in Sweden. Here, there is definitely a vocal opposition, and several large parties are against it. It is far less "well agreed upon" than conscription, and it is harder to say that people voting for a party that is not against the monarchy actually agree with that.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    >No, not for 100% of the voters. What about 5%? >But you can still say that the issue is "well agreed upon". You can say whatever you like, but whether what one says is true is an important but often ~uncomfortable detail. > If there was a "huge opposition to conscription because it is slavery", then one or more of the political parties in Sweden would be opposed to it. Reality necessarily resolves this way, without exception? And, this is knowable, and known, necessarily? Incorrect belief is not possible here? > There is also no political debate about conscription in Sweden on ethical grounds. Are you describing your knowledge of mainstream debate, or the fact of the matter of all debate in existence, however "serious" it appears (aka: is)? > Compare this with the monarchy and the king in Sweden. The thing itself, or some memetic cultural narrative of it, like what one reads in the newspaper or on internet forums? If the former: how? If the latter: why? To what end?

by fl7305 3y ago

It is agreed upon in every election. In Sweden, I've never seen any serious opposition to conscription on ethical grounds. My impression is that it is the same in the other nordic countries.

mistermann 3y ago

If I am offered 5 different bundles of thousands of items, and my only choice is one of the 5 bundles or no choice, am I agreeing to each item, or does it only appear like I am agreeing?

fl7305 3y ago
> am I agreeing to each item No, not for 100% of the voters. But you can still say that the issue is "well agreed upon". If there was a "huge opposition to conscription because it is slavery", then one or more of the political parties in Sweden would be opposed to it. And those parties would get a majority of the votes if people thought that the issue was the most important one. Instead there is no political party against conscription in Sweden. Not even the left party or the green party, which really surprised me since they are normally against that sort of thing. There is also no political debate about conscription in Sweden on ethical grounds. Compare this with the monarchy and the king in Sweden. Here, there is definitely a vocal opposition, and several large parties are against it. It is far less "well agreed upon" than conscription, and it is harder to say that people voting for a party that is not against the monarchy actually agree with that.
- mistermann 3y ago
  >No, not for 100% of the voters. What about 5%? >But you can still say that the issue is "well agreed upon". You can say whatever you like, but whether what one says is true is an important but often ~uncomfortable detail. > If there was a "huge opposition to conscription because it is slavery", then one or more of the political parties in Sweden would be opposed to it. Reality necessarily resolves this way, without exception? And, this is knowable, and known, necessarily? Incorrect belief is not possible here? > There is also no political debate about conscription in Sweden on ethical grounds. Are you describing your knowledge of mainstream debate, or the fact of the matter of all debate in existence, however "serious" it appears (aka: is)? > Compare this with the monarchy and the king in Sweden. The thing itself, or some memetic cultural narrative of it, like what one reads in the newspaper or on internet forums? If the former: how? If the latter: why? To what end?