5 ms·

"Hey I made this guy really mad go fight him for me" "No he will kill me!" "Alternatively you could have sex and let me film it" Consent.

Dylan16807 3y ago
The problem is in line 1, not line 3. There would be some serious issues with 3 if 1 was a fake threat meant to push you into 3, but it's not. The vast majority go along with 1.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  I see it as rape with a implied third party threat of violence instead of a first party one. You may feel differently if you feel that men's bodies belong to the state to be used in wars.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    The violence was already there. It's not a threat to say and honestly mean "otherwise nothing changes (99% of people pick this option)". The consent issues are all in the forced service itself, and apply to every man equally, whether or not they take the gay proof exemption.
    - godelski 3y ago
      The violence was not "already there." The violence is generated by the men who are not at risk of going to war. There's an old saying about two people of different nationalities: The difference between you and me is smaller than the difference between us and our respective leaders. Leaders must convince the public that some person in a far away land hates them and is coming to kill them, because otherwise no one gives a fuck. Because frankly, no one is going to come into contact with another. Normal people are not the ones going to invade other countries and claim territory.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        I meant that the violence is a combination of "already caused by the leaders" and "foregone conclusion". If you opt not to take the gay sex exemption, your fate is the same as if you had never been asked.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        godelski 3y ago
        > and "foregone conclusion" I'm unconvinced and be hard pressed to be. > your fate is the same as if you had never been asked. This is absolutely not true and is literally the entire reason people go to great lengths to do it. Not understanding this is probably why you're not understanding the rest. I'm not sure how you don't get it because if you're gay you're not going to military service and you're not going to jail. If you're not gay (or not faking) your choice is military service or jail. That's not "the same" no matter how you put it.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > I'm unconvinced and be hard pressed to be. The leaders do bad things whether or not a few gay people join or get exemptions. Why are you not convinced of that? > This is absolutely not true and is literally the entire reason people go to great lengths to do it. I said if you don't take the gay option, your fate is the same as if you had never been asked. You do military service or go to jail, like everyone else. You're talking about taking it. Of course it's different if you take it.
        godelski 3y ago
        > The leaders do bad things whether or not a few gay people join or get exemptions. I'm convinced of this. But this is not what you said. In fact, that's kinda the theme of this conversation and the one you're having with others

Dylan16807 3y ago

The problem is in line 1, not line 3. There would be some serious issues with 3 if 1 was a fake threat meant to push you into 3, but it's not. The vast majority go along with 1.

willcipriano 3y ago
I see it as rape with a implied third party threat of violence instead of a first party one. You may feel differently if you feel that men's bodies belong to the state to be used in wars.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  The violence was already there. It's not a threat to say and honestly mean "otherwise nothing changes (99% of people pick this option)". The consent issues are all in the forced service itself, and apply to every man equally, whether or not they take the gay proof exemption.
  - godelski 3y ago
    The violence was not "already there." The violence is generated by the men who are not at risk of going to war. There's an old saying about two people of different nationalities: The difference between you and me is smaller than the difference between us and our respective leaders. Leaders must convince the public that some person in a far away land hates them and is coming to kill them, because otherwise no one gives a fuck. Because frankly, no one is going to come into contact with another. Normal people are not the ones going to invade other countries and claim territory.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      I meant that the violence is a combination of "already caused by the leaders" and "foregone conclusion". If you opt not to take the gay sex exemption, your fate is the same as if you had never been asked.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - godelski 3y ago
        > and "foregone conclusion" I'm unconvinced and be hard pressed to be. > your fate is the same as if you had never been asked. This is absolutely not true and is literally the entire reason people go to great lengths to do it. Not understanding this is probably why you're not understanding the rest. I'm not sure how you don't get it because if you're gay you're not going to military service and you're not going to jail. If you're not gay (or not faking) your choice is military service or jail. That's not "the same" no matter how you put it.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > I'm unconvinced and be hard pressed to be. The leaders do bad things whether or not a few gay people join or get exemptions. Why are you not convinced of that? > This is absolutely not true and is literally the entire reason people go to great lengths to do it. I said if you don't take the gay option, your fate is the same as if you had never been asked. You do military service or go to jail, like everyone else. You're talking about taking it. Of course it's different if you take it.
        godelski 3y ago
        > The leaders do bad things whether or not a few gay people join or get exemptions. I'm convinced of this. But this is not what you said. In fact, that's kinda the theme of this conversation and the one you're having with others