demalion said:
Well, it doesn't surprise me that you so effectively missed my plainly stating that your assertion that he didn't want to join the military, or your own opinion on the matter, has anything to do with the validity of the sentiment concerning your own behavior he made.
His statement "the validity of the sentiment concerning your own behavior he made" was to piss me off, be humorous, due to our previous discussions on the topic of patriotism. I normally wouldn't care (eg. Pascal) because it was funny to an extent, but comming out of his mouth, I had to state somethign due to his beliefs.
He is of the belief that the very existence of a nation-state and/or the belief in it (eg. Patriotism) is inheriently wrong and leads to a general state of greater entropy in the geo-political landscape. This is, no doubt in my mind, due to the events of the 20th century and how they've altered the European landscape which he views on a daily basis. What I object to, is that his view of this are inheriently wrong as he's seen Patriotism used as a rallying cry used to increase the indiginous populations setiment against a foreign entity that would be conquered for purely chauvinistic means.
I happen to think thats inheriently wrong as I've seen patriotism used is a diffrent light. So, for him to make a comment like that which he stated, coming from a person who's basically broken the law to do something which is morally and ethically wrong; ticks me off. I'll explain this in detail a bit later - just hang on.
Would it help if I simply repeated the words in question verbatim, or perhaps I could just point out that you've fulfilled his expectation exactly, and so your insistence in criticizing him for making it seems a rather circular exercise?
This argument wasn't cyclical untill you spoke as I would have let it drop. Beyond that, I didn't fullfill any expectation, all I did is point out that coming from him - that comment is like the devil saying Jesus only lectures in here on good virtues. (Insert whatever other parrallel you like here where one entity breaks the status quo held and stated by the other)
By the way, I know this may be too complex for you...enlisting myself doesn't mean I believe people should be drafted and then be happy about it.
Well, while that is definatly beyond my scope of understanding, I can't seem to see how you answered my question or are even understanding why and what I said.
Nobody, myself included, questioned if you think people should be drafted and then you derive pleasure from that. Instead, I asked if you thought it was allowable that he basically broke the law (or if not due to a grey area, is morally and ethically wrong) and would allow a fellow citizen to take his place in the event that hostility ensued. In this case, he's potentially sent a fellow, law-abiding, citizen to die when it should have been him.
If you believe in the draft as being something self evident that no one should disagree with, such that they disqualify his opinion on the issues, how the hell can you talk all this trash when you haven't enlisted yourself?
While it's now appearent to me from the above comment that your mental capacity to ingest and manipulate information is vastly superior to my own, I must state that you are totally missing the fundimental argument and instead appear to be lashing out based on your want to argue. Which, hey, I'll do if you want.
But, now, back to his statement and why I said what I did:
From your earlier post, I applaud you for the reductionist method of argument (obviously to allow my comprehension), so we shall continue upon that course:
Draft - "The process or method of selecting one or more individuals from a group, as for a service or duty"
Duty - "An act or a course of action that is required of one by position, social custom, law, or religion"
Law - "The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority" Antonym: Crime
Crime - "An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction"
So, in reductionist terms, we have a guy whose taken the draft - which is a duty - commanded by law - and not followed it - thus, resulting in a crime. Which if not legally, is morally wrong.
Yet, this man has made statement with slanderous intentions towards another concerning
Patriotism.
Patriotism - "Love of country; devotion to the welfare of one's country; the virtues and actions of a patriot; the passion which inspires one to serve one's country"
Serve - "To meet the requirements of; suffice for"
Requirement - "Something obligatory; a prerequisite"
Obligatoy - "Morally or legally constraining; binding"
Which brings us back to
Crime
Thus, in the most simplistic method I can think of (which appearetly is all I can think of) I've shown of a man (eg. Humus) is, in terms you'll understand, "Bitchin' at me for supporting things (eg. law) which he, himself, doesn't at the cost of his society." Get it now?
Or did I misunderstand that bit of sophistry that went "Just wanted to clear that up... because to members of my family who are enlisted or myself who would if necessary - there is no excuse for this." ?
Sophistry implies fallacy. It's only a fallacy if I, or common knowledge, activly state a diametrically opposed situation and then move away. I, if you would have read the previous thread, openly believe that not everyone should be enlisted in times of peace as you can greater benefit the country via other means. Only during times of peril, or according to law, to the very nation and/or constitution (eg. when there's a draft) should citizens give-up their alterior paths in life and support the country at all costs. Pretty basic stuff.
Hey, I did enlist (and that's not even all my "trump cards" if we want to really dedicate ourselves to your style of debate),
Then I suggest you bring a "trump card" to the table because right now your fighting on ignorance of the previous debates and... hehe...
BTW, America doesn't have the policy you quote him as describing as far as I'm aware. Wouldn't there have to be a draft for him to be draft dodging?
BTW: He doesn't live in the US. Where he holds his citizenship, your required by law to do as I stated before. Helps to know the argument my friend.
What exactly is his hypocrisy, again? That is, assuming, you actually want to argue the merits of an issue for some reason now?
Stated above in language I can comprehend.
Do you have plans on enlisting soon, and are just inconveniently delayed for some reason? I mean, you know there is a war going on, right?
Show me a draft and I shall put my life and accomplishments on hold. Untill then, the above argument I outlines holds.
And thanks for this regurgitation of things which pretty much anyone which common sence could factor from the arguments. But, yet, some people just want to argue I suppose.
