Conscription: State sponsored slavery?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Have your own definition, Cunt, and enjoy it.

[Cunt]

Thumpalumpacus was suggesting that the readership was convinced in one direction. I was simply pointing out that he had it wrong. If I force someone to do my will with violent threats, I would call that slavery. It may have other, more appropriate names, but it is still disgusting, cowardly and ugly.

If there aren't enough volunteers, there really is not anything worth defending, is there?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Thumpalumpacus was suggesting that the readership was convinced in one direction. I was simply pointing out that he had it wrong. If I force someone to do my will with violent threats, I would call that slavery. It may have other, more appropriate names, but it is still disgusting, cowardly and ugly.

If there aren't enough volunteers, there really is not anything worth defending, is there?

All sides drafted during WWII. Was there nothing worth defending?

Conscription is also used as an orderly way to bring troops into the military. The day after Pearl Harbor there were long lines at most US recruiting stations, but if we'd taken all of them in at once there would have been not enough facilities to house them, train them, feed them, clothe them, arm them, etc. We needed to know that we would be getting X new men in each month for planning purposes.

[Cunt]

Thumpalumpacus was suggesting that the readership was convinced in one direction. I was simply pointing out that he had it wrong. If I force someone to do my will with violent threats, I would call that slavery. It may have other, more appropriate names, but it is still disgusting, cowardly and ugly.

If there aren't enough volunteers, there really is not anything worth defending, is there?

All sides drafted during WWII. Was there nothing worth defending?

No.

It's pretty plain, too, since there were not enough people convinced that their way of life was worth defending. (at least not convinced enough to take up a military career)

Conscription is also used as an orderly way to bring troops into the military. The day after Pearl Harbor there were long lines at most US recruiting stations, but if we'd taken all of them in at once there would have been not enough facilities to house them, train them, feed them, clothe them, arm them, etc. We needed to know that we would be getting X new men in each month for planning purposes.

So issue them a number and bring them in all orderly later. This still gives no good reason to recruit young impressionable boys against their will.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Thumpalumpacus was suggesting that the readership was convinced in one direction. I was simply pointing out that he had it wrong. If I force someone to do my will with violent threats, I would call that slavery. It may have other, more appropriate names, but it is still disgusting, cowardly and ugly.

If there aren't enough volunteers, there really is not anything worth defending, is there?

All sides drafted during WWII. Was there nothing worth defending?

No.

It's pretty plain, too, since there were not enough people convinced that their way of life was worth defending. (at least not convinced enough to take up a military career)

I'll defend my home, Cunt. If you have nothing worth fighting for I really feel bad for you.

Conscription is also used as an orderly way to bring troops into the military. The day after Pearl Harbor there were long lines at most US recruiting stations, but if we'd taken all of them in at once there would have been not enough facilities to house them, train them, feed them, clothe them, arm them, etc. We needed to know that we would be getting X new men in each month for planning purposes.

So issue them a number and bring them in all orderly later. This still gives no good reason to recruit young impressionable boys against their will.

That's the draft, that's conscription. Thanks for the confirmation of principle. As for their attitude before being drafted, most men in the US were willing to "wait for their number to come up".

[Cunt]

Thumpalumpacus was suggesting that the readership was convinced in one direction. I was simply pointing out that he had it wrong. If I force someone to do my will with violent threats, I would call that slavery. It may have other, more appropriate names, but it is still disgusting, cowardly and ugly.

If there aren't enough volunteers, there really is not anything worth defending, is there?

All sides drafted during WWII. Was there nothing worth defending?

No.

It's pretty plain, too, since there were not enough people convinced that their way of life was worth defending. (at least not convinced enough to take up a military career)

I'll defend my home, Cunt. If you have nothing worth fighting for I really feel bad for you.

I do, but many during WWII did not think they had something worth fighting for.

So they didn't.

Conscription is also used as an orderly way to bring troops into the military. The day after Pearl Harbor there were long lines at most US recruiting stations, but if we'd taken all of them in at once there would have been not enough facilities to house them, train them, feed them, clothe them, arm them, etc. We needed to know that we would be getting X new men in each month for planning purposes.

So issue them a number and bring them in all orderly later. This still gives no good reason to recruit young impressionable boys against their will.

That's the draft, that's conscription. Thanks for the confirmation of principle. As for their attitude before being drafted, most men in the US were willing to "wait for their number to come up".

Volunteers would volunteer. Those who did not want to volunteer, and were compelled by threats from their government, are what I would call slaves.

What would you call it when someone threatens you to get you to do their killing?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You can't call them anything you like, Cunt.

[Cunt]

Then you can't either.


Conscription is forced soldiering. I call it slavery, you call it providing minesweepers. Tomato/tomato.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My bad. That should have been "You can call them anything you like."

[Hermit]

Cool. I'll call them conscripts then. They are forced into military duty because they are part of a society that deems it necessary to have conscription. My oldest sister was married to a man who left the USA because of his fear of getting drafted. Nobody tried to prevent him from leaving the country.

Unlike conscripts, slaves are bought and sold.

[Cunt]

So if i point a gun at you and order you to do my bidding, it's slavery. If i give you the option of fleeing your home, Ithat's conscription. I get it. Very noble.

[Hermit]

So if i point a gun at you and order you to do my bidding, it's slavery. If i give you the option of fleeing your home, Ithat's conscription. I get it. Very noble.

You're not quite getting it. If you get forced into the military via conscription, it is because you are a part of a society that has decided on having conscription. You are a conscript. If you can be sold and bought at a market as if you were a cow, you are a slave.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I am quite convinced that conscripting men to kill against their will is a form of slavery, Thumpalumpacus. You are going to have to go further to convince me otherwise.

I'm not interested in convincing you. Also, you're packing several assumptions in there which have already been addressed.

Just because you were in the service doesn't mean you have special knowledge. Any are able to understand that a government which needs conscripts is ordering a slave army.

No, you're wrong. I'll let you think a little, to find the flaw in your reasoning yourself first.

I also understand that being a slave was a bit bleaker than being a conscript for a few years. I don't want to diminish that, but as there are degrees of rape, there are degrees of slavery.

Is undergoing emergency surgery slavery? Is eating slavery? Is working for a living slavery?

As Gawdzilla pointed out upthread, when you maintain your own definitions for words, you have no cause to complain when you're misunderstood. Since your definition of slavery seems at odds with that used in the English language, tell us: how do you define "slavery"?

Heck, it even sounds like those who served in the military, and were 'conditioned' early enough, are still largely slaves to the idea that conscripts are not slaves.

When reason doesn't support your views, the personal attack is always there as a fallback. Not to mention that fact that you're begging the question here.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So if i point a gun at you and order you to do my bidding, it's slavery. If i give you the option of fleeing your home, Ithat's conscription. I get it. Very noble.

If you would rather flee than contribute, then all parties are probably better off -- you for leaving a country you consider unworthy of your service, and the country, for being rid of a person who wishes to enjoy its benefits without paying for them.

What, exactly, is your complaint with the arrangement?

[Svartalf]

Not to mention that slavehood is not necessarily a bad thing for the slave... to rehash a point that I don't think got any response, let's remember that the Ghulam/Ghilman, Mamluks and Janissaries were unfree, yet enjoyed a higher lifestyle, and more rights and freedoms than many free men in the states where they lived, when they weren't actual kingmakers and powers behind the throne... same can be said about the eunuchs that were the top civil servants and palace personnel in any number of kingdoms from Byzantium and the Ottoman Empire to China. Or for that matter, the fact that in the early Roman Empire, the Emperor's Freedmen, while technically not citizens, still were usually among the wealthiest class of the empire, and among its most powerful inhabitants.