Svartalf wrote:I don't know how the Merkin military treated its draftees, but in France, anybody under a draft order was deprived of recourse to courts, as they were de facto put under military jurisdiction, nor could they vote (a leftover of pre 1945 regs that fobade the military from voting that never got corrected for draftees due to the fact they didn't have an effective permanent residence where to register), nor does French military have any rights to go on strike or demonstrate, even now. and you could construe the obligation to be at barracks at fixed time, or be declared AWOL, even when you are not actually on duty a form of imprisonment.
Well, we're each referring to our own experiences, then. such subjectivity would seem to erase any possibility or putting an objective label onto the entire experience of conscription. As I pointed out, it appears that conscription
can be slavery, but that it doesn't mean that it automatically
is slavery.
and the dictionary trick is nice... but can you tell me with a straight face and in good faith that there is any real difference between a bond servant and a person compelled into service?
Firstly, when dealing with the meanings of words, looking at their definitions is not "tricky"; it's common sense. Would you argue that atoms are molecules without looking at what those words mean? This objection of yours is retarded. We're discussing the meanings of words -- what they actually mean is important.
And yes, I can tell you that with a straight face. Had you been paying attention, you would have seen upthread where I, and more eloquently Gawdzilla, have done exactly that.
You're not reading what is actually written, apparently.
), a conscript is not necessarily a slave.
