|
On July 27 2008 11:03 ahrara_ wrote:
As for the issue of consent: You're consenting to the social contract every time you take advantage of public goods, because these are only possible because everyone has consented.
Consenting to what?
On matters of national security, you can't just take yourself outside of society, because when the eastern seaboard gets nuked, so does Walden pond. Get my drift? Unless you live on a desert island, you are a part of that social contract.
The use of nuclear weapons is itself an unjust conscription of civilians.
|
You know, maybe this could make for a good debate somewhere else, but I don't want to argue the merits of military conscription here really. I'm not saying I believe any of these things, I was just giving the OP some starting points for research.
LOL
Instead of being a condescending prick, do you wanna show a little respect? People are going to value different things from you. I think debate is valuable. You don't. I don't see what entitles you to be an egregious dick about it. So fuck off. As for that comment, my meaning was that at 19-20 is when people are most open to forming new opinions, when they're the most impressionable. I would rather them form those opinions based off research than propoganda. In that light, I don't see what is so funny.
|
Instead of being a condescending prick, do you wanna show a little respect?
Because everything you say is a string argument. Your conclusions are all based on premises the person you're trying to convince obviously doesn't already agree with. It's retarded, and really shows your maturity.
|
On July 27 2008 11:35 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 11:03 ahrara_ wrote:
As for the issue of consent: You're consenting to the social contract every time you take advantage of public goods, because these are only possible because everyone has consented. Consenting to what? Show nested quote +On matters of national security, you can't just take yourself outside of society, because when the eastern seaboard gets nuked, so does Walden pond. Get my drift? Unless you live on a desert island, you are a part of that social contract. The use of nuclear weapons is itself an unjust conscription of civilians.
Consenting to the social contract. Which is exactly what I said :\. Because everybody has consented to give up some of their rights to participate in society, ie they have to pay taxes, public goods like roads and police are possible.
I'm not sure I understand your second point? I was arguing that as long as you live in any nation, take FOR EXAMPLE the united states, you MUST consent to the social contract, because no matter where you go in the country, your security and safety is still being guaranteed by the government. If someone robs you, or rapes you, or intends to nuke the area where you live, your government will defend you. that's why if you live in the US, you must give up the rights society & government demands of you -- because you are reaping the benefits of everybody else having agreed to give up THEIR rights.
|
On July 27 2008 11:37 PsycHOTemplar wrote:Because everything you say is a string argument. Your conclusions are all based on premises the person you're trying to convince obviously doesn't already agree with. It's retarded, and really shows your maturity.
Every argument is based on certain assumptions of value. I assumed education was valuable, regardless of how people were motivated to obtain it. Are you seriously telling me that when you argued you made no assumptions about my values at all? Dude, get a clue man. Take a course in rhetoric.
BTW, it's called a circular argument. WTF is a string argument? lol
|
On July 27 2008 11:40 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 11:35 Mindcrime wrote:On July 27 2008 11:03 ahrara_ wrote:
As for the issue of consent: You're consenting to the social contract every time you take advantage of public goods, because these are only possible because everyone has consented. Consenting to what? On matters of national security, you can't just take yourself outside of society, because when the eastern seaboard gets nuked, so does Walden pond. Get my drift? Unless you live on a desert island, you are a part of that social contract. The use of nuclear weapons is itself an unjust conscription of civilians. Consenting to the social contract. Which is exactly what I said :\. Because everybody has consented to give up some of their rights to participate in society, ie they have to pay taxes, public goods like roads and police are possible.
And, as I said, a social contract is an unwritten, nonverbal, and completely unexpressed thing that does not have objectively definable terms.
I'm not sure I understand your second point? I was arguing that as long as you live in any nation, take FOR EXAMPLE the united states, you MUST consent to the social contract, because no matter where you go in the country, your security and safety is still being guaranteed by the government. If someone robs you, or rapes you, or intends to nuke the area where you live, your government will defend you. that's why if you live in the US, you must give up the rights society & government demands of you -- because you are reaping the benefits of everybody else having agreed to give up THEIR rights.
If you must consent then the the contract is not free of coercion. If the contract only exists because of coercion, then it is not a valid contract.
|
If you must consent then the the contract is not free of coercion. If the contract only exists because of coercion, then it is not a valid contract.
According to your definition of a contract. Most people are happy to obey laws and pay taxes in return for being a part of society and reaping its benefits. Of course it's not a "real" contract. It's strictly an abstract idea. I'm not arguing that we are all bound to some metaphysical contract, I'm just using the "idea" of the social contract as a way of justifying why we ought to obey laws like military conscription.
|
It's a logical fallacy... I defined it right after I brought it up, so it doesn't matter if you've heard that specific term or not before. That's what I learned it was called in school.
There's only one response to the rest of what you said...
![[image loading]](http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3817/kruemelmonsteryn0.gif)
Right or wrong, this is going no where so I'm happy to leave it here. Hope that's satisfactory for you 
|
On July 27 2008 10:43 PsycHOTemplar wrote:
Don't bring up social contract in an argument about conscription. That's actually retarded. Social theorists who consider the social contract to be real say that the only thing you can't ask a citizen to do, is kill themselves. War isn't a joke, and anyone who is aware of that fact knows that they are putting themselves in harms way. The only reason people go to war is because they believe that if they don't, life as they know it will perish anyway. Conscription has nothing to do with that.
Conscription happens when a population generally agrees that the country needs to go to war, so everyone puts their names in a hat and the unlucky people hold true to their word (or if it's mandatory military service like in South Korea, they know it's only for a few years, and also that the war isn't THAT hot right now, so they're not so worried about their lives). Otherwise you get people deserting, like in Russia during the World War.
That said, I think debate is retarded (school or otherwise). You put two people who have to argue extremely biased points to their wits end, you don't get compromise, and you get lousy solutions. It's better to have a healthy conversation with an open mind than to have your mind made up before you start talking and be forced to continue arguing a point that halfway thru you might admittedly realise is starting to sound pretty stupid, because your goal isn't a search for the truth, it's to win some dumb argument.
All right, if you were a random kid I'd ban you from my blog. But I'm fairly sure your not trying to be a moronic trouble maker so I'll explain to you why I do debate: It is fun.
Now I'm not trying to tell you that YOU have to think it's a great thing, but I find it enjoyable. I enjoy trying to figure out how to win, how to convince another person I am right. I take what I know, or what I learn, and construct an argument.
Thank you for your second paragraph that was helpful.
|
On July 27 2008 11:35 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 11:03 ahrara_ wrote:
As for the issue of consent: You're consenting to the social contract every time you take advantage of public goods, because these are only possible because everyone has consented. Consenting to what? Show nested quote +On matters of national security, you can't just take yourself outside of society, because when the eastern seaboard gets nuked, so does Walden pond. Get my drift? Unless you live on a desert island, you are a part of that social contract. The use of nuclear weapons is itself an unjust conscription of civilians.
Consenting to the social contract.
I don't understand what your second part is saying.
|
On July 27 2008 11:49 PsycHOTemplar wrote:It's a logical fallacy... I defined it right after I brought it up, so it doesn't matter if you've heard that specific term or not before. That's what I learned it was called in school. There's only one response to the rest of what you said... Right or wrong, this is going no where so I'm happy to leave it here. Hope that's satisfactory for you
you're an example of what I consider to be the worst kind of lazy: you'll put down someone you disagree with, find that you don't have reasons to back up your dickishness, then walk away before someone calls you out on it. i have my own problems with how debate is done, and i would've loved to discuss it, but you decided to go the asshole route. Go away and be depressed some more, plz kthx.
|
On July 27 2008 11:48 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +If you must consent then the the contract is not free of coercion. If the contract only exists because of coercion, then it is not a valid contract. According to your definition of a contract. Most people are happy to obey laws and pay taxes in return for being a part of society and reaping its benefits. Of course it's not a "real" contract. It's strictly an abstract idea. I'm not arguing that we are all bound to some metaphysical contract, I'm just using the "idea" of the social contract as a way of justifying why we ought to obey laws like military conscription.
You're failing miserably at it.
|
ahrara LD is a debate that is based in philosophy. I don't agree with all of your arguments, but I could use some I suppose. The point of the debate is to show whether the concept of military conscription is morally correct or not.
You do policy? Don't you talk hella fast in that?
|
On July 27 2008 11:48 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +If you must consent then the the contract is not free of coercion. If the contract only exists because of coercion, then it is not a valid contract. According to your definition of a contract. Most people are happy to obey laws and pay taxes in return for being a part of society and reaping its benefits. Of course it's not a "real" contract. It's strictly an abstract idea. I'm not arguing that we are all bound to some metaphysical contract, I'm just using the "idea" of the social contract as a way of justifying why we ought to obey laws like military conscription.
This is pretty much value structure. I have a value (I am running Justice) which is an ideal we hold everything to.
The value criterion, a way we reach the value.
Then the case, which is supported by our value criterion.
|
you decided to go the asshole route.
If you reread my posts and opinions, I'm actually being very consistent lol
|
On July 27 2008 10:43 PsycHOTemplar wrote:
Don't bring up social contract in an argument about conscription. That's actually retarded. Social theorists who consider the social contract to be real say that the only thing you can't ask a citizen to do, is kill themselves. War isn't a joke, and anyone who is aware of that fact knows that they are putting themselves in harms way. The only reason people go to war is because they believe that if they don't, life as they know it will perish anyway. Conscription has nothing to do with that.
Conscription happens when a population generally agrees that the country needs to go to war, so everyone puts their names in a hat and the unlucky people hold true to their word (or if it's mandatory military service like in South Korea, they know it's only for a few years, and also that the war isn't THAT hot right now, so they're not so worried about their lives). Otherwise you get people deserting, like in Russia during the World War.
Ok so if that is what conscription is why can't i use the social contract. I'm asking them to protect their country, because society needs them to run the war. '
People also go to war for GAIN which I think your ignoring. Think WWII, the Axis.
|
I don't think anyone is contracted by birth in society to go to war for their country. In WWII Germans went to war because they believed they're the superior race destined to bring justice upon the world. That's not social contract, that's of their own free will and desire. Conscription is used when people don't particularly want to go to war, but thru propaganda and threats of imprisonment, they decide it's worth it... I don't see how social contract (a group of people deciding to live with each other in harmony) has anything to do with that.
The distinction I'm trying to make, is that social contract is the sacrifice of some freedoms in agreement that other people will sacrifice the same freedoms and live in harmony. Don't steal, don't kill, respect private property, etc. It's certainly an argument for war, but I don't see how it is for conscription... It's no one's natural duty to fight a war, it's their natural inclination to want to fight for their way of life in a war. IE: If it were social contract, you wouldn't need conscription. You'll go to jail for stealing and killing too, but it's not social contract. Social contract are the things you do without coercion because of a mutual understanding that you want to live in harmony. That is... it's separate from written law. Anything you have to force someone to do, is flowing away from social contract and towards "Do it, or I'll take away your life."
EDIT: To be honest, it's actually becoming more and more grey that I think about it... I was just immediately offended and shocked when I first saw something pro-conscription using the social contract as a basis of reasoning... I guess in reality it makes sense in the sense that if a lifestyle is in danger, a citizen is essentially responsible to fight for it if they want to keep it, but this only applies if the citizen already believes in war. If the citizen is a pacifist (which is a whole other argument), then they don't believe a war protects their lifestyle in the first place, and thus are not contracted (and of course, would be offended by the idea of conscription, and governments know they would make ineffective soldiers, and couldn't properly conscript them.
EDIT 2: Yeah, I think because initially I thought conscription = getting people who don't want to go to war to go to way anyway, applying social contract to that seemed ludicrous. But of course there are a lot of nations where they just consider it a constant requirement for defence of the country, and everyone generally agrees with that... However, in America, you've got the volunteers who want to help out, and applying conscription would not have the same meaning it does in other countries, which is what I was thinking of when I first commented... Conscription in America would mean "we don't have enough soldiers right now... so let's force a bunch of people arbitrarily out of no where to go to war.." which as it hasn't been tradition for a long time, I think collectively people would feel like they didn't agree to this when they started living in America... How confusing, but yeah... If you can make some sense of that mess, I'm basically saying conscription has different meaning in different places. You're obligated to protect your country from danger, but not obligated to fight wars for the wealth of a few in your country, which is how a lot of people feel about America's wars today. There's a lot of ways to look at it, and I would suggest in your debate, you very rigidly describe your example, and avoid America in that sample.
|
On July 27 2008 12:17 PsycHOTemplar wrote:
I don't think anyone is contracted by birth in society to go to war for their country. In WWII Germans went to war because they believed they're the superior race destined to bring justice upon the world. That's not social contract, that's of their own free will and desire. Conscription is used when people don't particularly want to go to war, but thru propaganda and threats of imprisonment, they decide it's worth it... I don't see how social contract (a group of people deciding to live with each other in harmony) has anything to do with that.
The distinction I'm trying to make, is that social contract is the sacrifice of some freedoms in agreement that other people will sacrifice the same freedoms and live in harmony. Don't steal, don't kill, respect private property, etc. It's certainly an argument for war, but I don't see how it is for conscription... It's no one's natural duty to fight a war, it's their natural inclination to want to fight for their way of life in a war. IE: If it were social contract, you wouldn't need conscription. You'll go to jail for stealing and killing too, but it's not social contract. Social contract are the things you do without coercion because of a mutual understanding that you want to live in harmony. That is... it's separate from written law. Anything you have to force someone to do, is flowing away from social contract and towards "Do it, or I'll take away your life."
The social contract is created so people join a group (society) for protection. They might have to use conscription in order to ensure protection for the society as a whole. Conscription is sometimes necessary. There were drafts in the World Wars, and they were necessary. It is not pleasant to force people to go to war, but it is often necessary.
Your second paragraph is interesting. When can a country no longer ask a person to do something? People generally know that they may have to enlist. So when society asks you to keep your word, you cannot leave at this point.
|
The idea of justice must first be defined. Trivial? I don't think so. I don't know what the term means, myself. But it's pretty strongly tied to the idea of "fairness" which somehow involves the concept of "equality" and "reciprocation." How? Define it very clearly. Or completely ignore the definition if doing so ends up hurting your argument, and hope that the affirmative team doesn't bring it up.
Social contracts aren't the only way to justify conscription, as mentioned before. The utility of a larger military may, depending on what "just" is, justify a draft.
|
On July 27 2008 12:17 PsycHOTemplar wrote:
EDIT: To be honest, it's actually becoming more and more grey that I think about it... I was just immediately offended and shocked when I first saw something pro-conscription using the social contract as a basis of reasoning... I guess in reality it makes sense in the sense that if a lifestyle is in danger, a citizen is essentially responsible to fight for it if they want to keep it, but this only applies if the citizen already believes in war. If the citizen is a pacifist (which is a whole other argument), then they don't believe a war protects their lifestyle in the first place, and thus are not contracted (and of course, would be offended by the idea of conscription, and governments know they would make ineffective soldiers, and couldn't properly conscript them.
EDIT 2: Yeah, I think because initially I thought conscription = getting people who don't want to go to war to go to way anyway, applying social contract to that seemed ludicrous. But of course there are a lot of nations where they just consider it a constant requirement for defence of the country, and everyone generally agrees with that... However, in America, you've got the volunteers who want to help out, and applying conscription would not have the same meaning it does in other countries, which is what I was thinking of when I first commented... Conscription in America would mean "we don't have enough soldiers right now... so let's force a bunch of people arbitrarily out of no where to go to war.." which as it hasn't been tradition for a long time, I think collectively people would feel like they didn't agree to this when they started living in America... How confusing, but yeah... If you can make some sense of that mess, I'm basically saying conscription has different meaning in different places. You're obligated to protect your country from danger, but not obligated to fight wars for the wealth of a few in your country, which is how a lot of people feel about America's wars today. There's a lot of ways to look at it, and I would suggest in your debate, you very rigidly describe your example, and avoid America in that sample.
EDIT 1:Yeah I'm not sure about a pacifist, but most of the time people are fine letting OTHERS die for them in protection, but eventually your country needs you.
EDIT 2: The thing about America is, with the exception of viet nam, we NEEDED the drafts, as horrible as it is. Sometimes numbers win the war, and in the end protect our way of life. I think when this happens people acknowledge it. In the world wars there wasn't the kind of protests there were in Viet Nam. But its still conscription, because they go if there called but not before.
EDIT OF MY OWN: I completely understand your original revulsion at the topic I am arguing. We in the US generall hear conscription with a very negative connotation and indeed, at first I too was greatly horrified by the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
