Imp, on this we agree: It is inherently sexist to force men, and only men, to fight and die for their country. I'm okay with this only if men are afforded special privileges and respect commensurate with such a sacrifice -- albeit an involuntary sacrifice -- but such is not the case.
I live in Canada. If I were conscripted, I'd desert.
I’m not dying on a ship or some godless jungle island in the pacific for all the people who spent two years trying to force vaccinate me, censoring my every word and declaring me a second class citizen.
I also live in Canada and if I get pressed into service the way I’ve seen videos of in Ukraine, basically abducted at gunpoint, I will kill my commanding officer AS SOON AS I’m given a weapon. Fuck this goddamn faggot country.
You're not an individual first and foremost? Are you a cell in a macroorganism or a mindless, obedient ant in a colony? A cog in someone else's factory? What are you if not an individual?
I assume ThatsAlright always plays as Chairman Yang in Alpha Centauri.
The goals of the group and the greater race are transcendent, and to embrace them is to achieve enlightenment... It is every citizen's final duty to go into the tanks, and become one with all the people.
Individualization, specifically, occurs through people and groups of which one is a part of; they are made made, not born.
Are you saying an individual is simply the absence of group connections or affiliations and that that's unnatural or wrong or even not possible? Is it because no person can spring up out of the ether and people are always the products of the coupling of others?
If so, and I mean no disrespect, but that seems like an arbitrary perspective. Why draw the line at humans? We don't exist without 3.9 billion years of evolution, so why is "the basis of humanity... family" -- assuming human family -- and not all life? We need to eat other non-human living things to exist, after all. Why isn't the basis of humanity all non-living matter, since we're all just made up of inert fragments of different compounds?
The idea that humans are, by default, a collective, that being an individual is "wrong," but that no other branches of life (or non-life) are also part of that collective seems completely arbitrary to me. You can't have existed without other people, but... you can't exist without hydrogen either.
The other issue I have is your non-individual perspective presupposes entitlement to or from others. By not being an individual foremost, you're suggesting a moral requirement that others support you and/or you support them in some way. What fundamental physical law of nature says I owe anyone anything? If that doesn't exist, then your position is a moral one.
Imp, on this we agree: It is inherently sexist to force men, and only men, to fight and die for their country. I'm okay with this only if men are afforded special privileges and respect commensurate with such a sacrifice -- albeit an involuntary sacrifice -- but such is not the case.
I live in Canada. If I were conscripted, I'd desert.
I’m in New Zealand - likewise.
I’m not dying on a ship or some godless jungle island in the pacific for all the people who spent two years trying to force vaccinate me, censoring my every word and declaring me a second class citizen.
Get fucked 🖕
Imagine dying on the beaches of Normandy for the UK to turn into a fascist shithole in less than a generation.
https://youtu.be/uZ2q1m9lxlY
I also live in Canada and if I get pressed into service the way I’ve seen videos of in Ukraine, basically abducted at gunpoint, I will kill my commanding officer AS SOON AS I’m given a weapon. Fuck this goddamn faggot country.
The best solution would be to dodge the draft to force the government to send regressive leftists to die in Ukraine.
You're not an individual first and foremost? Are you a cell in a macroorganism or a mindless, obedient ant in a colony? A cog in someone else's factory? What are you if not an individual?
I assume ThatsAlright always plays as Chairman Yang in Alpha Centauri.
Are you saying an individual is simply the absence of group connections or affiliations and that that's unnatural or wrong or even not possible? Is it because no person can spring up out of the ether and people are always the products of the coupling of others?
If so, and I mean no disrespect, but that seems like an arbitrary perspective. Why draw the line at humans? We don't exist without 3.9 billion years of evolution, so why is "the basis of humanity... family" -- assuming human family -- and not all life? We need to eat other non-human living things to exist, after all. Why isn't the basis of humanity all non-living matter, since we're all just made up of inert fragments of different compounds?
The idea that humans are, by default, a collective, that being an individual is "wrong," but that no other branches of life (or non-life) are also part of that collective seems completely arbitrary to me. You can't have existed without other people, but... you can't exist without hydrogen either.
The other issue I have is your non-individual perspective presupposes entitlement to or from others. By not being an individual foremost, you're suggesting a moral requirement that others support you and/or you support them in some way. What fundamental physical law of nature says I owe anyone anything? If that doesn't exist, then your position is a moral one.