Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Equal means equal for good or bad things so all get treated the same. I have 3 adult daughters and id hate it but i think it would have to be equal. " Respect  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Government is talking about Conscription in case the UK go to war against Russia. Are you for Gender Equality in the battle front line? Or do we do feminism Ukrainian style? Send the women to safety abroad and underground while mandating every man to fight? " I do not think you know what the word feminist means. Feminism is about making sure women have an equal opportunity to do what they want in life and not let society dictate that for them. So if she wants to be a stay at home mum, that's fine. If she wants to join the army in the front line, that's fine as well. Thats what the feminist movement is all about. Equality of opportunity. There will be more men in the army than women, but if women want to join the army, the men in power should not prevent them joining simply because they are women. There are Ukrainian women in the military fighting the Russians every single day. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Government is talking about Conscription in case the UK go to war against Russia. Are you for Gender Equality in the battle front line? Or do we do feminism Ukrainian style? Send the women to safety abroad and underground while mandating every man to fight? I do not think you know what the word feminist means. Feminism is about making sure women have an equal opportunity to do what they want in life and not let society dictate that for them. So if she wants to be a stay at home mum, that's fine. If she wants to join the army in the front line, that's fine as well. Thats what the feminist movement is all about. Equality of opportunity. There will be more men in the army than women, but if women want to join the army, the men in power should not prevent them joining simply because they are women. There are Ukrainian women in the military fighting the Russians every single day." He’s talking about conscription though. When people are drafted to the army without choice. If men over 18 are to be conscripted then women also? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Government is talking about Conscription in case the UK go to war against Russia. Are you for Gender Equality in the battle front line? Or do we do feminism Ukrainian style? Send the women to safety abroad and underground while mandating every man to fight? I do not think you know what the word feminist means. Feminism is about making sure women have an equal opportunity to do what they want in life and not let society dictate that for them. So if she wants to be a stay at home mum, that's fine. If she wants to join the army in the front line, that's fine as well. Thats what the feminist movement is all about. Equality of opportunity. There will be more men in the army than women, but if women want to join the army, the men in power should not prevent them joining simply because they are women. There are Ukrainian women in the military fighting the Russians every single day." Ukrainian men didn't have equal opportunity to leave the country for safety did they? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You do realize that there are also females in the politics forum right??? T" I do. What's your point? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know?" Yes they are called human shields | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know?" Only men are dying in the front line in Gaza. I haven't seen a single woman in many attacks against Israeli soldiers streamed by Hamas. Muslim Armies have females and their police too. Their dictators are very obedient to the west. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? Only men are dying in the front line in Gaza. I haven't seen a single woman in many attacks against Israeli soldiers streamed by Hamas. Muslim Armies have females and their police too. Their dictators are very obedient to the west. " I don’t understand your last comment. Which Muslim countries have women in the military? Is it a good or bad thing to have women in the military front line roles? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Government is talking about Conscription in case the UK go to war against Russia. Are you for Gender Equality in the battle front line? Or do we do feminism Ukrainian style? Send the women to safety abroad and underground while mandating every man to fight? " I wouldn’t have a problem with non-caregivers being conscripted if required (it won’t be). However I’m willing to bet that most men would prefer to be conscripted rather than perform the role of caregiver. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Government is talking about Conscription in case the UK go to war against Russia. Are you for Gender Equality in the battle front line? Or do we do feminism Ukrainian style? Send the women to safety abroad and underground while mandating every man to fight? " Besides the hugely dysfunctional example you use to position a debate on gender equality (try employment rights, sport, politics or a myriad of other day-to-day examples), if the uk government decides to legislate for conscription due to invading forces (it won’t be just Russia, think China, Iran, North Korea also) it’s end game. Europe and the uk will not be here very long nor will much of the rest of the planet…. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You do realize that there are also females in the politics forum right??? T I do. What's your point? " My point is that the politics forum is funnily enough for political subjects such as this one and the lounge is more of a forum for inane look at me faf subjects. But then as a fisherman you know this. Carry on op carry on. T | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? Only men are dying in the front line in Gaza. I haven't seen a single woman in many attacks against Israeli soldiers streamed by Hamas. Muslim Armies have females and their police too. Their dictators are very obedient to the west. I don’t understand your last comment. Which Muslim countries have women in the military? Is it a good or bad thing to have women in the military front line roles?" I am not a feminist. I believe men and women have different roles, rights and responsibilities. Men who send women to the front line are not men in my book. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You do realize that there are also females in the politics forum right??? T I do. What's your point? My point is that the politics forum is funnily enough for political subjects such as this one and the lounge is more of a forum for inane look at me faf subjects. But then as a fisherman you know this. Carry on op carry on. T" A mod will move it soon. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd want the strongest and most capable people fighting in my army. If women were replacing people who were much stronger, and possibly more capable at warfare, we'd be in deep doo doo. As a young woman I may have been able to train as a sniper, but I'd have been a shit soldier, as I'm not physically strong for a woman, and never was. Any job should be the best people for the job. Also, if we're talking probably going to be killed, we need young women to have our babies, so we shouldn't be killing them off. " I agree, but that means feminism is foolishness. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Men who send women to the front line are not men in my book. " What are they, if they are not men? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Equality op..? If only you applied it to your grossly biased thought process in relation to the war in Gaza.. " Are you saying our government should support a genocide against Israelis? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Conscription for women is not equality Maybe men should organise and challenge conscription " You are right, conscription for women is not equality. Conscription for men and women is though, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The government are not talking about conscription. There you go no need to worry about such things, you're welcome." It’s certainly being banded around the media, normalising the idea this way is a “nudge “ technique used by governments. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The government are not talking about conscription. There you go no need to worry about such things, you're welcome. It’s certainly being banded around the media, normalising the idea this way is a “nudge “ technique used by governments." An outgoing general was asked what he thought about getting into a war with the Russians, he gave a stock army answer and we now have the government are going conscript us all, we are doomed, doomed I tell you.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. " In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. " I don't think it will happen but if there is a large scale war, against a much larger enemy, then conscription may be necessary. If that's the case, every able body, of a certain age should be eligible for conscription, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? Only men are dying in the front line in Gaza. I haven't seen a single woman in many attacks against Israeli soldiers streamed by Hamas. Muslim Armies have females and their police too. Their dictators are very obedient to the west. I don’t understand your last comment. Which Muslim countries have women in the military? Is it a good or bad thing to have women in the military front line roles? I am not a feminist. I believe men and women have different roles, rights and responsibilities. Men who send women to the front line are not men in my book. " Just followed your green arrow and…wow!  You are very angry at Western society and seem very confused over women having agency. It all seems very contradictory with being on a swinger website. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am not a feminist. I believe men and women have different roles, rights and responsibilities. Men who send women to the front line are not men in my book. " Quick question: The men who send women to the front line, who aren't men, are they women? And if so, if a man sends one of the man-women to the front line, is that man also not a man? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option." Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know?" In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. " Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x" Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Equality op..? If only you applied it to your grossly biased thought process in relation to the war in Gaza.. Are you saying our government should support a genocide against Israelis?" I'm not talking about the government.. I'm talking about the sick irony of you raising the issue of equality when you support Hamas.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. " You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. " Ok, but When/if a foreign country invade the British soil. It's not a fight for Politicians anymore. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x" I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Ok, but When/if a foreign country invade the British soil. It's not a fight for Politicians anymore." Yes it is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Ok, but When/if a foreign country invade the British soil. It's not a fight for Politicians anymore. Yes it is. " What if that foreign army is committing atrocities against British civilians? You don't feel a sense of belonging to this land/people? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. " so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x" Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. " Thanks for answering, I'm going to stop asking about your beliefs as I don't want to be a part of 'harrasing' you. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. " When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. Thanks for answering, I'm going to stop asking about your beliefs as I don't want to be a part of 'harrasing' you. Mrs x" It’s not a problem. I’ve seen too many mangled bodies in my life to contemplate taking a life myself. In the event of conscription due to expected invasion I’d ensure the safety of my kids first, then attempt to get to safety myself. Failing that I’d accept jail-time or whatever other punishment was dictated. There’s no bit of land in the world worth taking a life for. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. " Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. " You or them, but not women? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? " I have. I survived a civil war | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. You or them, but not women?" I don't understand your question | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Ok, but When/if a foreign country invade the British soil. It's not a fight for Politicians anymore. Yes it is. What if that foreign army is committing atrocities against British civilians? You don't feel a sense of belonging to this land/people? " I don’t believe that one bit of land ‘belongs’ or is more important to anyone than another bit of land. I was fortunate enough to be spawned on this bit. Had circumstances been different I might have been spawned on a different bit. Funny how everyone seems to think the bit of land on which they were birthed is somehow the best bit in the world. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war" Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life." An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. " And pacifism is a legitimate stance | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. " What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question?" LOL Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war" Which one? Where? When? How long have you been in the UK? Are you happy here? Safe or at least safer than at home? Do you now consider the UK home? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question?" You asked about Muslim countries. If women can join the army. Muslim countries are Muslims first (at least for the people). And Islam is defined by what the 1st generation believed and practiced. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Which one? Where? When? How long have you been in the UK? Are you happy here? Safe or at least safer than at home? Do you now consider the UK home?" That would be too much telling all those questions lol. But I can answer your last one. Yes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question? You asked about Muslim countries. If women can join the army. Muslim countries are Muslims first (at least for the people). And Islam is defined by what the 1st generation believed and practiced. " The woman didn't fight though. They were famous for chastising their cowardly menfolk who were fleeing back to the camp, where the woman were staying. So I stand corrected they did fight but only their own husbands, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question? You asked about Muslim countries. If women can join the army. Muslim countries are Muslims first (at least for the people). And Islam is defined by what the 1st generation believed and practiced. The woman didn't fight though. They were famous for chastising their cowardly menfolk who were fleeing back to the camp, where the woman were staying. So I stand corrected they did fight but only their own husbands, Mrs x" Lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question? You asked about Muslim countries. If women can join the army. Muslim countries are Muslims first (at least for the people). And Islam is defined by what the 1st generation believed and practiced. The woman didn't fight though. They were famous for chastising their cowardly menfolk who were fleeing back to the camp, where the woman were staying. So I stand corrected they did fight but only their own husbands, Mrs x Lol "It's true Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question? You asked about Muslim countries. If women can join the army. Muslim countries are Muslims first (at least for the people). And Islam is defined by what the 1st generation believed and practiced. The woman didn't fight though. They were famous for chastising their cowardly menfolk who were fleeing back to the camp, where the woman were staying. So I stand corrected they did fight but only their own husbands, Mrs x Lol It's true Mrs x"There was a battle shortly after that one, where a woman knight was allowed to fight in the front line because her brother was taken hostage. x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question? You asked about Muslim countries. If women can join the army. Muslim countries are Muslims first (at least for the people). And Islam is defined by what the 1st generation believed and practiced. The woman didn't fight though. They were famous for chastising their cowardly menfolk who were fleeing back to the camp, where the woman were staying. So I stand corrected they did fight but only their own husbands, Mrs x Lol It's true Mrs x
There was a battle shortly after that one, where a woman knight was allowed to fight in the front line because her brother was taken hostage. x"So still not women, Muslim armies not that progressive back them, huh? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question? You asked about Muslim countries. If women can join the army. Muslim countries are Muslims first (at least for the people). And Islam is defined by what the 1st generation believed and practiced. " What a patently silly answer. We are talking about today not 14 centuries ago! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question? You asked about Muslim countries. If women can join the army. Muslim countries are Muslims first (at least for the people). And Islam is defined by what the 1st generation believed and practiced. The woman didn't fight though. They were famous for chastising their cowardly menfolk who were fleeing back to the camp, where the woman were staying. So I stand corrected they did fight but only their own husbands, Mrs x Lol It's true Mrs x
There was a battle shortly after that one, where a woman knight was allowed to fight in the front line because her brother was taken hostage. xSo still not women, Muslim armies not that progressive back them, huh?
Mrs x"The camp was just behind the army in the battle field. 100's miles away from home. If they lost any battle, the women would fight or be taken as sex sl*ves. So practically they were part of the army and risking their lives x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. And pacifism is a legitimate stance "I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views. Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in. Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them. It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question? You asked about Muslim countries. If women can join the army. Muslim countries are Muslims first (at least for the people). And Islam is defined by what the 1st generation believed and practiced. What a patently silly answer. We are talking about today not 14 centuries ago! " It was another loaded question from the start. The government are not talking about conscription and women in Ukraine are fighting in the war on the frontline and elsewhere. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question? You asked about Muslim countries. If women can join the army. Muslim countries are Muslims first (at least for the people). And Islam is defined by what the 1st generation believed and practiced. What a patently silly answer. We are talking about today not 14 centuries ago! It was another loaded question from the start. The government are not talking about conscription and women in Ukraine are fighting in the war on the frontline and elsewhere. " Indeed but when I asked using present tense the bizarre answer I got was set back in pre-medieval history! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question? You asked about Muslim countries. If women can join the army. Muslim countries are Muslims first (at least for the people). And Islam is defined by what the 1st generation believed and practiced. What a patently silly answer. We are talking about today not 14 centuries ago! It was another loaded question from the start. The government are not talking about conscription and women in Ukraine are fighting in the war on the frontline and elsewhere. " So the UK, western Europe and Golf countries weren't flooded with millions of Ukrainian women fleeing the war? And Zelinsky didn't pass laws to allow women to flee and prohibit men from doing the same? He didn't draft every man of age and not women? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. And pacifism is a legitimate stance
I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views.
Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in.
Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them.
It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with.
"No, that’s you inventing things again. Socialism and pacifism go hand in hand - workers of the world unite isn’t a call to arms, it’s an acceptance that we’re all the same. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views. Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in. Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them. It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with. " This is why some people go crazy about the softness of the decadent West. It's nice that we have the luxury of these beliefs. Until we don't. People change their tune very quickly when confronted with real threats. Until then, we cannot imagine. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question? You asked about Muslim countries. If women can join the army. Muslim countries are Muslims first (at least for the people). And Islam is defined by what the 1st generation believed and practiced. What a patently silly answer. We are talking about today not 14 centuries ago! It was another loaded question from the start. The government are not talking about conscription and women in Ukraine are fighting in the war on the frontline and elsewhere. Indeed but when I asked using present tense the bizarre answer I got was set back in pre-medieval history!" Sorry I didn't know you were this allergic to history. It's not a big deal if you can't see the connection. Move on and focuss on the topic  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views. Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in. Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them. It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with. This is why some people go crazy about the softness of the decadent West. It's nice that we have the luxury of these beliefs. Until we don't. People change their tune very quickly when confronted with real threats. Until then, we cannot imagine." You may change your principles on a whim, but not all of us would | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You may change your principles on a whim, but not all of us would "Until confronted, your really don't KNOW. But your conviction right now is laudably strong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views. Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in. Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them. It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with. This is why some people go crazy about the softness of the decadent West. It's nice that we have the luxury of these beliefs. Until we don't. People change their tune very quickly when confronted with real threats. Until then, we cannot imagine." Exactly the point of this thread. When shit hit home, nobody is a feminist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You may change your principles on a whim, but not all of us would
Until confronted, your really don't KNOW. But your conviction right now is laudably strong. "I do know that I won’t carry a weapon, regardless of the circumstance. Even in whatever training they had lined up for conscripts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question? You asked about Muslim countries. If women can join the army. Muslim countries are Muslims first (at least for the people). And Islam is defined by what the 1st generation believed and practiced. What a patently silly answer. We are talking about today not 14 centuries ago! It was another loaded question from the start. The government are not talking about conscription and women in Ukraine are fighting in the war on the frontline and elsewhere. So the UK, western Europe and Golf countries weren't flooded with millions of Ukrainian women fleeing the war? And Zelinsky didn't pass laws to allow women to flee and prohibit men from doing the same? He didn't draft every man of age and not women? " There are restrictions for men leaving the country and not women, but it doesn't mean women are not fighting or supporting the war from a military position, which they are. You are trying to wrap this up as some sort of evidence that the west are hypocritical, I guess? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question? You asked about Muslim countries. If women can join the army. Muslim countries are Muslims first (at least for the people). And Islam is defined by what the 1st generation believed and practiced. What a patently silly answer. We are talking about today not 14 centuries ago! It was another loaded question from the start. The government are not talking about conscription and women in Ukraine are fighting in the war on the frontline and elsewhere. So the UK, western Europe and Golf countries weren't flooded with millions of Ukrainian women fleeing the war? And Zelinsky didn't pass laws to allow women to flee and prohibit men from doing the same? He didn't draft every man of age and not women? There are restrictions for men leaving the country and not women, but it doesn't mean women are not fighting or supporting the war from a military position, which they are. You are trying to wrap this up as some sort of evidence that the west are hypocritical, I guess?" That can only make sense if the front line is in the UK and Dubai lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. And pacifism is a legitimate stance
I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views.
Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in.
Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them.
It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with.
No, that’s you inventing things again.
Socialism and pacifism go hand in hand - workers of the world unite isn’t a call to arms, it’s an acceptance that we’re all the same.
"I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting. These are your choices from your privilege | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. And pacifism is a legitimate stance
I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views.
Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in.
Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them.
It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with.
No, that’s you inventing things again.
Socialism and pacifism go hand in hand - workers of the world unite isn’t a call to arms, it’s an acceptance that we’re all the same.
I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting.
These are your choices from your privilege
"I know you think you understand, but seriously, you don’t (firstly I’m not socialist, I’m soc-dem, even though you don’t know the difference) There is an undeniable link between socialism (and indeed the broader left) and pacifism. Not that you’ll accept that, because you’re never wrong | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question? You asked about Muslim countries. If women can join the army. Muslim countries are Muslims first (at least for the people). And Islam is defined by what the 1st generation believed and practiced. What a patently silly answer. We are talking about today not 14 centuries ago! It was another loaded question from the start. The government are not talking about conscription and women in Ukraine are fighting in the war on the frontline and elsewhere. So the UK, western Europe and Golf countries weren't flooded with millions of Ukrainian women fleeing the war? And Zelinsky didn't pass laws to allow women to flee and prohibit men from doing the same? He didn't draft every man of age and not women? There are restrictions for men leaving the country and not women, but it doesn't mean women are not fighting or supporting the war from a military position, which they are. You are trying to wrap this up as some sort of evidence that the west are hypocritical, I guess? That can only make sense if the front line is in the UK and Dubai lol" You are coming across as not having a full understanding of the reality, which takes me back to the start, that this post is another attempt to discredit the values of the west. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting. These are your choices from your privilege " There are better ways to protect people than violence. That's the whole point. If we changed society and worked towards a world without violence, then we wouldn't need to defend ourselves with violence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. And pacifism is a legitimate stance
I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views.
Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in.
Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them.
It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with.
No, that’s you inventing things again.
Socialism and pacifism go hand in hand - workers of the world unite isn’t a call to arms, it’s an acceptance that we’re all the same.
I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting.
These are your choices from your privilege
I know you think you understand, but seriously, you don’t (firstly I’m not socialist, I’m soc-dem, even though you don’t know the difference)
There is an undeniable link between socialism (and indeed the broader left) and pacifism. Not that you’ll accept that, because you’re never wrong "apologies, you are social democrat who likes to virtue signal your support of the vulnerable. It still seems a contradiction that your virtues do not extend to protecting vulnerable people should the threat be to life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question? You asked about Muslim countries. If women can join the army. Muslim countries are Muslims first (at least for the people). And Islam is defined by what the 1st generation believed and practiced. What a patently silly answer. We are talking about today not 14 centuries ago! It was another loaded question from the start. The government are not talking about conscription and women in Ukraine are fighting in the war on the frontline and elsewhere. So the UK, western Europe and Golf countries weren't flooded with millions of Ukrainian women fleeing the war? And Zelinsky didn't pass laws to allow women to flee and prohibit men from doing the same? He didn't draft every man of age and not women? There are restrictions for men leaving the country and not women, but it doesn't mean women are not fighting or supporting the war from a military position, which they are. You are trying to wrap this up as some sort of evidence that the west are hypocritical, I guess? That can only make sense if the front line is in the UK and Dubai lol You are coming across as not having a full understanding of the reality, which takes me back to the start, that this post is another attempt to discredit the values of the west. " Where did I mention the west? The socialist view - We have conscript A on one side and conscript B on the other. Both pointing guns at each other, but neither wanting the be there (which is why they’re conscripts). Tyre both following orders handed down to them - ultimately by a faceless ‘system’. If both conscripts recognise that they’re actually the same, that they’re actually closer to each other than they ever will be to the organisation which sent them to war - they can lay down their arms. No combatants = no war. No war = No casualties. Now you can bang on about ‘the reality’ but at what point would you sacrifice principles that you hold dear? I’ve stood amongst mangled bodies. I’ve contemplated the importance of life whist smelling the excrement and blood of a human in bits. I won’t do that to another person. If you want to criticise that, it’s your prerogative, but what you won’t do is attempt to belittle my views on the subject. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. And pacifism is a legitimate stance
I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views.
Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in.
Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them.
It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with.
No, that’s you inventing things again.
Socialism and pacifism go hand in hand - workers of the world unite isn’t a call to arms, it’s an acceptance that we’re all the same.
I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting.
These are your choices from your privilege
I know you think you understand, but seriously, you don’t (firstly I’m not socialist, I’m soc-dem, even though you don’t know the difference)
There is an undeniable link between socialism (and indeed the broader left) and pacifism. Not that you’ll accept that, because you’re never wrong
apologies, you are social democrat who likes to virtue signal your support of the vulnerable. It still seems a contradiction that your virtues do not extend to protecting vulnerable people should the threat be to life.
"Did I say I wouldn’t protect vulnerable people? Or did I say I won’t kill someone? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting. These are your choices from your privilege There are better ways to protect people than violence. That's the whole point. If we changed society and worked towards a world without violence, then we wouldn't need to defend ourselves with violence." Until that day exists, what do you recommend, do nothing or protect from aggression? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting. These are your choices from your privilege There are better ways to protect people than violence. That's the whole point. If we changed society and worked towards a world without violence, then we wouldn't need to defend ourselves with violence. Until that day exists, what do you recommend, do nothing or protect from aggression?" I recommend we use a well paid and suitably trained army of volunteers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. And pacifism is a legitimate stance
I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views.
Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in.
Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them.
It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with.
No, that’s you inventing things again.
Socialism and pacifism go hand in hand - workers of the world unite isn’t a call to arms, it’s an acceptance that we’re all the same.
I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting.
These are your choices from your privilege
I know you think you understand, but seriously, you don’t (firstly I’m not socialist, I’m soc-dem, even though you don’t know the difference)
There is an undeniable link between socialism (and indeed the broader left) and pacifism. Not that you’ll accept that, because you’re never wrong
apologies, you are social democrat who likes to virtue signal your support of the vulnerable. It still seems a contradiction that your virtues do not extend to protecting vulnerable people should the threat be to life.
Did I say I wouldn’t protect vulnerable people? Or did I say I won’t kill someone?
"If you have a sliding scale, at what point do you walk away or not get involved? Surely, to get involved opens the door on needing to go to far? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting. These are your choices from your privilege There are better ways to protect people than violence. That's the whole point. If we changed society and worked towards a world without violence, then we wouldn't need to defend ourselves with violence. Until that day exists, what do you recommend, do nothing or protect from aggression? I recommend we use a well paid and suitably trained army of volunteers. " outsource the jobs you don't want to do, that works for me, but we should be investing more into the military to account for this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. And pacifism is a legitimate stance
I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views.
Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in.
Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them.
It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with.
No, that’s you inventing things again.
Socialism and pacifism go hand in hand - workers of the world unite isn’t a call to arms, it’s an acceptance that we’re all the same.
I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting.
These are your choices from your privilege
I know you think you understand, but seriously, you don’t (firstly I’m not socialist, I’m soc-dem, even though you don’t know the difference)
There is an undeniable link between socialism (and indeed the broader left) and pacifism. Not that you’ll accept that, because you’re never wrong
apologies, you are social democrat who likes to virtue signal your support of the vulnerable. It still seems a contradiction that your virtues do not extend to protecting vulnerable people should the threat be to life.
Did I say I wouldn’t protect vulnerable people? Or did I say I won’t kill someone?
If you have a sliding scale, at what point do you walk away or not get involved?
Surely, to get involved opens the door on needing to go to far?"This is where pacifists differ - some are hardline, no violence at all. Others accept violence as an absolute last resort (MLK was of that descriptor). Some will kill in the event that their life is at risk. It’s a personal decision that should be respected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting. These are your choices from your privilege There are better ways to protect people than violence. That's the whole point. If we changed society and worked towards a world without violence, then we wouldn't need to defend ourselves with violence. Until that day exists, what do you recommend, do nothing or protect from aggression? I recommend we use a well paid and suitably trained army of volunteers. outsource the jobs you don't want to do, that works for me, but we should be investing more into the military to account for this." We should be paying as much as is required (basically our NATO pledge) and not a penny more. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. And pacifism is a legitimate stance
I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views.
Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in.
Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them.
It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with.
No, that’s you inventing things again.
Socialism and pacifism go hand in hand - workers of the world unite isn’t a call to arms, it’s an acceptance that we’re all the same.
I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting.
These are your choices from your privilege
I know you think you understand, but seriously, you don’t (firstly I’m not socialist, I’m soc-dem, even though you don’t know the difference)
There is an undeniable link between socialism (and indeed the broader left) and pacifism. Not that you’ll accept that, because you’re never wrong
apologies, you are social democrat who likes to virtue signal your support of the vulnerable. It still seems a contradiction that your virtues do not extend to protecting vulnerable people should the threat be to life.
Did I say I wouldn’t protect vulnerable people? Or did I say I won’t kill someone?
If you have a sliding scale, at what point do you walk away or not get involved?
Surely, to get involved opens the door on needing to go to far?
This is where pacifists differ - some are hardline, no violence at all. Others accept violence as an absolute last resort (MLK was of that descriptor). Some will kill in the event that their life is at risk. It’s a personal decision that should be respected."Way to take a word and wrap it so that it fits just about every single person in this country  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd want the strongest and most capable people fighting in my army. If women were replacing people who were much stronger, and possibly more capable at warfare, we'd be in deep doo doo. As a young woman I may have been able to train as a sniper, but I'd have been a shit soldier, as I'm not physically strong for a woman, and never was. Any job should be the best people for the job. Also, if we're talking probably going to be killed, we need young women to have our babies, so we shouldn't be killing them off. " _____ But.. buut... some would say men can have babies too.. y'know.. these modern men we sometimes hear of. In the same way some believe women can have a penis.. y'know, these modern women.. with cocks, (the ones Ricky Gervais refers to).. should they be exempt too? Or do you mean we need young REAL women to 'have our babies'? There is no doubt some women would make fantastic soldiers. And those who seek equality (impossible IMHO) must accept that the rules should be applied equally. __________ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. And pacifism is a legitimate stance
I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views.
Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in.
Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them.
It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with.
No, that’s you inventing things again.
Socialism and pacifism go hand in hand - workers of the world unite isn’t a call to arms, it’s an acceptance that we’re all the same.
I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting.
These are your choices from your privilege
I know you think you understand, but seriously, you don’t (firstly I’m not socialist, I’m soc-dem, even though you don’t know the difference)
There is an undeniable link between socialism (and indeed the broader left) and pacifism. Not that you’ll accept that, because you’re never wrong
apologies, you are social democrat who likes to virtue signal your support of the vulnerable. It still seems a contradiction that your virtues do not extend to protecting vulnerable people should the threat be to life.
Did I say I wouldn’t protect vulnerable people? Or did I say I won’t kill someone?
If you have a sliding scale, at what point do you walk away or not get involved?
Surely, to get involved opens the door on needing to go to far?
This is where pacifists differ - some are hardline, no violence at all. Others accept violence as an absolute last resort (MLK was of that descriptor). Some will kill in the event that their life is at risk. It’s a personal decision that should be respected.
Way to take a word and wrap it so that it fits just about every single person in this country "No, I don’t think it describes those who would accept conscription willingly. I don’t think it describes anyone who would choose to serve in the military, and I don’t think it describes anyone who would accept conscription and go through training and shoot at other soldiers without being directly threatened. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The socialist view - We have conscript A on one side and conscript B on the other. Both pointing guns at each other, but neither wanting the be there (which is why they’re conscripts). Tyre both following orders handed down to them - ultimately by a faceless ‘system’. If both conscripts recognise that they’re actually the same, that they’re actually closer to each other than they ever will be to the organisation which sent them to war - they can lay down their arms. No combatants = no war. No war = No casualties." But if one of those combatants is not a socialist, he'll raise his rifle and kill the other one. It sounds like socialism isn't likely to survive an encounter with any other system of social organisation. "I recommend we use a well paid and suitably trained army of volunteers." So your principles won't allow you to kill another human, but they will allow you to pay someone else to do it for you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The socialist view - We have conscript A on one side and conscript B on the other. Both pointing guns at each other, but neither wanting the be there (which is why they’re conscripts). Tyre both following orders handed down to them - ultimately by a faceless ‘system’. If both conscripts recognise that they’re actually the same, that they’re actually closer to each other than they ever will be to the organisation which sent them to war - they can lay down their arms. No combatants = no war. No war = No casualties. But if one of those combatants is not a socialist, he'll raise his rifle and kill the other one. It sounds like socialism isn't likely to survive an encounter with any other system of social organisation. I recommend we use a well paid and suitably trained army of volunteers. So your principles won't allow you to kill another human, but they will allow you to pay someone else to do it for you?" I don’t have a choice in where my taxes go, nor am I naive enough to think the human race is advanced enough to live in a military free world just yet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Government is talking about Conscription in case the UK go to war against Russia. Are you for Gender Equality in the battle front line? Or do we do feminism Ukrainian style? Send the women to safety abroad and underground while mandating every man to fight? " Moving back to the OP, which is quite interesting given the background of anti-feminism and (by general Western standards, misogyny) of the originating account... Why are there only extreme options given? Either (a) send everyone to the front lines, or (b) send the women abroad and the men to the front line? Neither option seems particularly sensible. Rather, pull everyone into a national emergency war machine where each person contributes according to their ability. Prioritise tasks and fit the best person to the job, irrespective of sex. So the fittest and strongest, with the most evidence and fighting skills do front line work. Gamers fly drones. Engineers build drones. IT specialists work on cyber warfare. Etcetera. Caregiving and child rearing is also a major (if not the biggest) priority, so obviously pregnant women are protected, as are children and their carers. War is so much more than the front line. In this manner, the question is almost moot. Send the best fit for the job to wherever they need to go, based on all objectives (not just the military ones). Posing the question as a binary choice between extremes, whilst in keeping with the OP's black and white view of the world, it's just a clumsy attempt at a "gotcha" aimed at feminists. A bit like necro-posting on a thread about feminist literature to ignite a discussion about why feminism is at the root of all the woes of the effeminate and decadent West. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I recommend we use a well paid and suitably trained army of volunteers." "So your principles won't allow you to kill another human, but they will allow you to pay someone else to do it for you?" "I don’t have a choice in where my taxes go" Of course you do. You could simply refuse to pay them and accept the outcome, even if that means prison. Just like you said you would with conscription. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Government is talking about Conscription in case the UK go to war against Russia. Are you for Gender Equality in the battle front line? Or do we do feminism Ukrainian style? Send the women to safety abroad and underground while mandating every man to fight? Moving back to the OP, which is quite interesting given the background of anti-feminism and (by general Western standards, misogyny) of the originating account... Why are there only extreme options given? Either (a) send everyone to the front lines, or (b) send the women abroad and the men to the front line? Neither option seems particularly sensible. Rather, pull everyone into a national emergency war machine where each person contributes according to their ability. Prioritise tasks and fit the best person to the job, irrespective of sex. So the fittest and strongest, with the most evidence and fighting skills do front line work. Gamers fly drones. Engineers build drones. IT specialists work on cyber warfare. Etcetera. Caregiving and child rearing is also a major (if not the biggest) priority, so obviously pregnant women are protected, as are children and their carers. War is so much more than the front line. In this manner, the question is almost moot. Send the best fit for the job to wherever they need to go, based on all objectives (not just the military ones). Posing the question as a binary choice between extremes, whilst in keeping with the OP's black and white view of the world, it's just a clumsy attempt at a "gotcha" aimed at feminists. A bit like necro-posting on a thread about feminist literature to ignite a discussion about why feminism is at the root of all the woes of the effeminate and decadent West. " Oh well-played. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I recommend we use a well paid and suitably trained army of volunteers. So your principles won't allow you to kill another human, but they will allow you to pay someone else to do it for you? I don’t have a choice in where my taxes go Of course you do. You could simply refuse to pay them and accept the outcome, even if that means prison. Just like you said you would with conscription." But taxes aren’t exclusive to military spending, as you well know. I’m happy for my taxes to be spent on other services. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I recommend we use a well paid and suitably trained army of volunteers." "So your principles won't allow you to kill another human, but they will allow you to pay someone else to do it for you?" "I don’t have a choice in where my taxes go" "Of course you do. You could simply refuse to pay them and accept the outcome, even if that means prison. Just like you said you would with conscription." "But taxes aren’t exclusive to military spending, as you well know. I’m happy for my taxes to be spent on other services." So the amount of your taxes that gets spent on social services, justifies the smaller amount of your taxes that gets spent on killing people. Is that right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I recommend we use a well paid and suitably trained army of volunteers. So your principles won't allow you to kill another human, but they will allow you to pay someone else to do it for you? I don’t have a choice in where my taxes go Of course you do. You could simply refuse to pay them and accept the outcome, even if that means prison. Just like you said you would with conscription. But taxes aren’t exclusive to military spending, as you well know. I’m happy for my taxes to be spent on other services. So the amount of your taxes that gets spent on social services, justifies the smaller amount of your taxes that gets spent on killing people. Is that right?" I know you think you’re making a smart point here, but you’re really not. Paying taxes (via PAYE, obvs) and being forced to willingly taking part in the ultimate capitalist willy-waving contest are incomparable. I suspect you’re smart enough to recognise that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. And pacifism is a legitimate stance
I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views.
Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in.
Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them.
It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with.
No, that’s you inventing things again.
Socialism and pacifism go hand in hand - workers of the world unite isn’t a call to arms, it’s an acceptance that we’re all the same.
I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting.
These are your choices from your privilege
I know you think you understand, but seriously, you don’t (firstly I’m not socialist, I’m soc-dem, even though you don’t know the difference)
There is an undeniable link between socialism (and indeed the broader left) and pacifism. Not that you’ll accept that, because you’re never wrong
apologies, you are social democrat who likes to virtue signal your support of the vulnerable. It still seems a contradiction that your virtues do not extend to protecting vulnerable people should the threat be to life.
Did I say I wouldn’t protect vulnerable people? Or did I say I won’t kill someone?
If you have a sliding scale, at what point do you walk away or not get involved?
Surely, to get involved opens the door on needing to go to far?
This is where pacifists differ - some are hardline, no violence at all. Others accept violence as an absolute last resort (MLK was of that descriptor). Some will kill in the event that their life is at risk. It’s a personal decision that should be respected.
Way to take a word and wrap it so that it fits just about every single person in this country
No, I don’t think it describes those who would accept conscription willingly. I don’t think it describes anyone who would choose to serve in the military, and I don’t think it describes anyone who would accept conscription and go through training and shoot at other soldiers without being directly threatened.
"Of which, you're speaking about a tiny minority. There are different types of pacifism. Someone who is conscripted could still be a 'pacifist' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I recommend we use a well paid and suitably trained army of volunteers. So your principles won't allow you to kill another human, but they will allow you to pay someone else to do it for you? I don’t have a choice in where my taxes go Of course you do. You could simply refuse to pay them and accept the outcome, even if that means prison. Just like you said you would with conscription. But taxes aren’t exclusive to military spending, as you well know. I’m happy for my taxes to be spent on other services. So the amount of your taxes that gets spent on social services, justifies the smaller amount of your taxes that gets spent on killing people. Is that right?" Let me put the moral question to you - if conscription was introduced, as there was a threat to the bit of rock on which your family were living - but one of your kids says that they’re morally aghast at the idea of carrying a weapon and killing someone - how would you respond? Tell them to suck it up and hope they don’t die? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. And pacifism is a legitimate stance
I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views.
Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in.
Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them.
It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with.
No, that’s you inventing things again.
Socialism and pacifism go hand in hand - workers of the world unite isn’t a call to arms, it’s an acceptance that we’re all the same.
I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting.
These are your choices from your privilege
I know you think you understand, but seriously, you don’t (firstly I’m not socialist, I’m soc-dem, even though you don’t know the difference)
There is an undeniable link between socialism (and indeed the broader left) and pacifism. Not that you’ll accept that, because you’re never wrong
apologies, you are social democrat who likes to virtue signal your support of the vulnerable. It still seems a contradiction that your virtues do not extend to protecting vulnerable people should the threat be to life.
Did I say I wouldn’t protect vulnerable people? Or did I say I won’t kill someone?
If you have a sliding scale, at what point do you walk away or not get involved?
Surely, to get involved opens the door on needing to go to far?
This is where pacifists differ - some are hardline, no violence at all. Others accept violence as an absolute last resort (MLK was of that descriptor). Some will kill in the event that their life is at risk. It’s a personal decision that should be respected.
Way to take a word and wrap it so that it fits just about every single person in this country
No, I don’t think it describes those who would accept conscription willingly. I don’t think it describes anyone who would choose to serve in the military, and I don’t think it describes anyone who would accept conscription and go through training and shoot at other soldiers without being directly threatened.
Of which, you're speaking about a tiny minority.
There are different types of pacifism.
Someone who is conscripted could still be a 'pacifist'"I never said they couldn’t, did I? I said I wouldn’t, and I also said that there’s varying degrees to pacifism which are all personal choice. However if a ‘Pacifist’ killed some one who wasn’t an immediate threat to them, I’d argue that they’re not a pacifist at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. And pacifism is a legitimate stance
I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views.
Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in.
Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them.
It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with.
No, that’s you inventing things again.
Socialism and pacifism go hand in hand - workers of the world unite isn’t a call to arms, it’s an acceptance that we’re all the same.
I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting.
These are your choices from your privilege
I know you think you understand, but seriously, you don’t (firstly I’m not socialist, I’m soc-dem, even though you don’t know the difference)
There is an undeniable link between socialism (and indeed the broader left) and pacifism. Not that you’ll accept that, because you’re never wrong
apologies, you are social democrat who likes to virtue signal your support of the vulnerable. It still seems a contradiction that your virtues do not extend to protecting vulnerable people should the threat be to life.
Did I say I wouldn’t protect vulnerable people? Or did I say I won’t kill someone?
If you have a sliding scale, at what point do you walk away or not get involved?
Surely, to get involved opens the door on needing to go to far?
This is where pacifists differ - some are hardline, no violence at all. Others accept violence as an absolute last resort (MLK was of that descriptor). Some will kill in the event that their life is at risk. It’s a personal decision that should be respected.
Way to take a word and wrap it so that it fits just about every single person in this country
No, I don’t think it describes those who would accept conscription willingly. I don’t think it describes anyone who would choose to serve in the military, and I don’t think it describes anyone who would accept conscription and go through training and shoot at other soldiers without being directly threatened.
Of which, you're speaking about a tiny minority.
There are different types of pacifism.
Someone who is conscripted could still be a 'pacifist'
I never said they couldn’t, did I? I said I wouldn’t, and I also said that there’s varying degrees to pacifism which are all personal choice.
However if a ‘Pacifist’ killed some one who wasn’t an immediate threat to them, I’d argue that they’re not a pacifist at all."So you took a word and wrapped it into most of the country, which is what I said. You were asked if you would kill if there was an immediate threat to you, you said no. You said you'd hope to run off to Aus, what's stopping you doing that now? You hate this country anyway. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. And pacifism is a legitimate stance
I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views.
Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in.
Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them.
It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with.
No, that’s you inventing things again.
Socialism and pacifism go hand in hand - workers of the world unite isn’t a call to arms, it’s an acceptance that we’re all the same.
I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting.
These are your choices from your privilege
I know you think you understand, but seriously, you don’t (firstly I’m not socialist, I’m soc-dem, even though you don’t know the difference)
There is an undeniable link between socialism (and indeed the broader left) and pacifism. Not that you’ll accept that, because you’re never wrong
apologies, you are social democrat who likes to virtue signal your support of the vulnerable. It still seems a contradiction that your virtues do not extend to protecting vulnerable people should the threat be to life.
Did I say I wouldn’t protect vulnerable people? Or did I say I won’t kill someone?
If you have a sliding scale, at what point do you walk away or not get involved?
Surely, to get involved opens the door on needing to go to far?
This is where pacifists differ - some are hardline, no violence at all. Others accept violence as an absolute last resort (MLK was of that descriptor). Some will kill in the event that their life is at risk. It’s a personal decision that should be respected.
Way to take a word and wrap it so that it fits just about every single person in this country
No, I don’t think it describes those who would accept conscription willingly. I don’t think it describes anyone who would choose to serve in the military, and I don’t think it describes anyone who would accept conscription and go through training and shoot at other soldiers without being directly threatened.
Of which, you're speaking about a tiny minority.
There are different types of pacifism.
Someone who is conscripted could still be a 'pacifist'
I never said they couldn’t, did I? I said I wouldn’t, and I also said that there’s varying degrees to pacifism which are all personal choice.
However if a ‘Pacifist’ killed some one who wasn’t an immediate threat to them, I’d argue that they’re not a pacifist at all.
So you took a word and wrapped it into most of the country, which is what I said.
You were asked if you would kill if there was an immediate threat to you, you said no. You said you'd hope to run off to Aus, what's stopping you doing that now? You hate this country anyway. "I hate this country? That’s news to me. You’re very fond of inventing things, aren’t you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. And pacifism is a legitimate stance
I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views.
Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in.
Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them.
It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with.
No, that’s you inventing things again.
Socialism and pacifism go hand in hand - workers of the world unite isn’t a call to arms, it’s an acceptance that we’re all the same.
I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting.
These are your choices from your privilege
I know you think you understand, but seriously, you don’t (firstly I’m not socialist, I’m soc-dem, even though you don’t know the difference)
There is an undeniable link between socialism (and indeed the broader left) and pacifism. Not that you’ll accept that, because you’re never wrong
apologies, you are social democrat who likes to virtue signal your support of the vulnerable. It still seems a contradiction that your virtues do not extend to protecting vulnerable people should the threat be to life.
Did I say I wouldn’t protect vulnerable people? Or did I say I won’t kill someone?
If you have a sliding scale, at what point do you walk away or not get involved?
Surely, to get involved opens the door on needing to go to far?
This is where pacifists differ - some are hardline, no violence at all. Others accept violence as an absolute last resort (MLK was of that descriptor). Some will kill in the event that their life is at risk. It’s a personal decision that should be respected.
Way to take a word and wrap it so that it fits just about every single person in this country
No, I don’t think it describes those who would accept conscription willingly. I don’t think it describes anyone who would choose to serve in the military, and I don’t think it describes anyone who would accept conscription and go through training and shoot at other soldiers without being directly threatened.
Of which, you're speaking about a tiny minority.
There are different types of pacifism.
Someone who is conscripted could still be a 'pacifist'
I never said they couldn’t, did I? I said I wouldn’t, and I also said that there’s varying degrees to pacifism which are all personal choice.
However if a ‘Pacifist’ killed some one who wasn’t an immediate threat to them, I’d argue that they’re not a pacifist at all.
So you took a word and wrapped it into most of the country, which is what I said.
You were asked if you would kill if there was an immediate threat to you, you said no. You said you'd hope to run off to Aus, what's stopping you doing that now? You hate this country anyway.
I hate this country? That’s news to me. You’re very fond of inventing things, aren’t you?
"Why is it that almost everyone who opposes your views on this forum 'invents' things? You really do not like being opposed do you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. And pacifism is a legitimate stance
I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views.
Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in.
Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them.
It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with.
No, that’s you inventing things again.
Socialism and pacifism go hand in hand - workers of the world unite isn’t a call to arms, it’s an acceptance that we’re all the same.
I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting.
These are your choices from your privilege
I know you think you understand, but seriously, you don’t (firstly I’m not socialist, I’m soc-dem, even though you don’t know the difference)
There is an undeniable link between socialism (and indeed the broader left) and pacifism. Not that you’ll accept that, because you’re never wrong
apologies, you are social democrat who likes to virtue signal your support of the vulnerable. It still seems a contradiction that your virtues do not extend to protecting vulnerable people should the threat be to life.
Did I say I wouldn’t protect vulnerable people? Or did I say I won’t kill someone?
If you have a sliding scale, at what point do you walk away or not get involved?
Surely, to get involved opens the door on needing to go to far?
This is where pacifists differ - some are hardline, no violence at all. Others accept violence as an absolute last resort (MLK was of that descriptor). Some will kill in the event that their life is at risk. It’s a personal decision that should be respected.
Way to take a word and wrap it so that it fits just about every single person in this country
No, I don’t think it describes those who would accept conscription willingly. I don’t think it describes anyone who would choose to serve in the military, and I don’t think it describes anyone who would accept conscription and go through training and shoot at other soldiers without being directly threatened.
Of which, you're speaking about a tiny minority.
There are different types of pacifism.
Someone who is conscripted could still be a 'pacifist'
I never said they couldn’t, did I? I said I wouldn’t, and I also said that there’s varying degrees to pacifism which are all personal choice.
However if a ‘Pacifist’ killed some one who wasn’t an immediate threat to them, I’d argue that they’re not a pacifist at all.
So you took a word and wrapped it into most of the country, which is what I said.
You were asked if you would kill if there was an immediate threat to you, you said no. You said you'd hope to run off to Aus, what's stopping you doing that now? You hate this country anyway.
I hate this country? That’s news to me. You’re very fond of inventing things, aren’t you?
Why is it that almost everyone who opposes your views on this forum 'invents' things?
You really do not like being opposed do you "I mean, you just said I hate this country. And since I know how I feel about this country, I know that you invented it. That’s not opposing something, that’s bullshitting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. And pacifism is a legitimate stance
I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views.
Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in.
Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them.
It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with.
No, that’s you inventing things again.
Socialism and pacifism go hand in hand - workers of the world unite isn’t a call to arms, it’s an acceptance that we’re all the same.
I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting.
These are your choices from your privilege
I know you think you understand, but seriously, you don’t (firstly I’m not socialist, I’m soc-dem, even though you don’t know the difference)
There is an undeniable link between socialism (and indeed the broader left) and pacifism. Not that you’ll accept that, because you’re never wrong
apologies, you are social democrat who likes to virtue signal your support of the vulnerable. It still seems a contradiction that your virtues do not extend to protecting vulnerable people should the threat be to life.
Did I say I wouldn’t protect vulnerable people? Or did I say I won’t kill someone?
If you have a sliding scale, at what point do you walk away or not get involved?
Surely, to get involved opens the door on needing to go to far?
This is where pacifists differ - some are hardline, no violence at all. Others accept violence as an absolute last resort (MLK was of that descriptor). Some will kill in the event that their life is at risk. It’s a personal decision that should be respected.
Way to take a word and wrap it so that it fits just about every single person in this country
No, I don’t think it describes those who would accept conscription willingly. I don’t think it describes anyone who would choose to serve in the military, and I don’t think it describes anyone who would accept conscription and go through training and shoot at other soldiers without being directly threatened.
Of which, you're speaking about a tiny minority.
There are different types of pacifism.
Someone who is conscripted could still be a 'pacifist'
I never said they couldn’t, did I? I said I wouldn’t, and I also said that there’s varying degrees to pacifism which are all personal choice.
However if a ‘Pacifist’ killed some one who wasn’t an immediate threat to them, I’d argue that they’re not a pacifist at all.
So you took a word and wrapped it into most of the country, which is what I said.
You were asked if you would kill if there was an immediate threat to you, you said no. You said you'd hope to run off to Aus, what's stopping you doing that now? You hate this country anyway.
I hate this country? That’s news to me. You’re very fond of inventing things, aren’t you?
Why is it that almost everyone who opposes your views on this forum 'invents' things?
You really do not like being opposed do you
I mean, you just said I hate this country. And since I know how I feel about this country, I know that you invented it.
That’s not opposing something, that’s bullshitting. "I am a person who regularly opposes your view, myself and others who have opposed you have been accused of inventing things, by yourself. I can use the views you espouse regards the UK to make a judgement and decide how I see things, that's not inventing something. It's like me saying I like someone whilst calling them a c*nt. Maybe you're in the Fani Willis camp of 'if I say something then that's the only evidence you need' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I can use the views you espouse regards the UK to make a judgement and decide how I see things, that's not inventing something. It's like me saying I like someone whilst calling them a c*nt. Maybe you're in the Fani Willis camp of 'if I say something then that's the only evidence you need' "If you think that people who oppose violence all 'hate' their country, then I think you have some absolutely *wild* comprehension and reasoning skills. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone who wishes to fight in the army should be allowed to do so. Anyone who does not wish to fight in the army should not be made to do so. There’s no need to complicate it further than that. In the case of a WW3 or a ground invasion like Ukraine, you don't have that luxury option. Everyone has that option. I’m a pacifist. I *will not* kill on the whim of a politician. Would you kill if a foreign soldier was pointing the action end of a rifle at you? Mrs x Unlikely, since I’ll not be holding a rifle myself. You don't need a gun to kill, so you wouldn't defend yourself? What about your loved ones, children if they were in mortal danger? Mrs x I’ve said several times on here that I would ensure my family are safe as a priority (we have family in Tasmania - that would be the first port of call). Hopefully I’d follow them. If I couldn’t follow them I would stay, refuse to fight and accept the outcome. If that means prison, so be it. so you would kill, in a them or us situation Mrs x Some pacifists would - this is known as conditional pacifism. I wouldn’t kill in a war in the same way that wouldn’t kill in day to day life. I would attempt to defend myself, but not with the intent of killing. When your enemy has shown intent to kill you or your people, you don't wait until they knock at your door and ask you if you're ready to defend yourself. Once the war starts, it's either you or them. And attack is the best defense. Have you seen many mutilated corpses? Have you smelt it? Have you stared at a body and wondered about their family? Their kids? I have. I survived a civil war Then you should understand the severity of taking a life. An enemy combatant heading towards my community to commit atrocities, is a legitimate target. And pacifism is a legitimate stance
I find this to be a strange stance for someone with such socialist views.
Your pacifism comes from a privileged position you find yourself in.
Moral responsibility for the vulnerable is something you appeared to hold dear to you, but not seemingly when you need to take action to defend them.
It must be difficult having such strong socially progressive views that you find yourself in conflict with.
No, that’s you inventing things again.
Socialism and pacifism go hand in hand - workers of the world unite isn’t a call to arms, it’s an acceptance that we’re all the same.
I have invented nothing, you are socialist, you show us your virtue towards supporting the vulnerable at every opportunity given, but then go onto contradict your virtue signalling in terms of not not getting involved should the vulnerable need protecting.
These are your choices from your privilege
I know you think you understand, but seriously, you don’t (firstly I’m not socialist, I’m soc-dem, even though you don’t know the difference)
There is an undeniable link between socialism (and indeed the broader left) and pacifism. Not that you’ll accept that, because you’re never wrong
apologies, you are social democrat who likes to virtue signal your support of the vulnerable. It still seems a contradiction that your virtues do not extend to protecting vulnerable people should the threat be to life.
Did I say I wouldn’t protect vulnerable people? Or did I say I won’t kill someone?
If you have a sliding scale, at what point do you walk away or not get involved?
Surely, to get involved opens the door on needing to go to far?
This is where pacifists differ - some are hardline, no violence at all. Others accept violence as an absolute last resort (MLK was of that descriptor). Some will kill in the event that their life is at risk. It’s a personal decision that should be respected.
Way to take a word and wrap it so that it fits just about every single person in this country
No, I don’t think it describes those who would accept conscription willingly. I don’t think it describes anyone who would choose to serve in the military, and I don’t think it describes anyone who would accept conscription and go through training and shoot at other soldiers without being directly threatened.
Of which, you're speaking about a tiny minority.
There are different types of pacifism.
Someone who is conscripted could still be a 'pacifist'
I never said they couldn’t, did I? I said I wouldn’t, and I also said that there’s varying degrees to pacifism which are all personal choice.
However if a ‘Pacifist’ killed some one who wasn’t an immediate threat to them, I’d argue that they’re not a pacifist at all.
So you took a word and wrapped it into most of the country, which is what I said.
You were asked if you would kill if there was an immediate threat to you, you said no. You said you'd hope to run off to Aus, what's stopping you doing that now? You hate this country anyway.
I hate this country? That’s news to me. You’re very fond of inventing things, aren’t you?
Why is it that almost everyone who opposes your views on this forum 'invents' things?
You really do not like being opposed do you
I mean, you just said I hate this country. And since I know how I feel about this country, I know that you invented it.
That’s not opposing something, that’s bullshitting.
I am a person who regularly opposes your view, myself and others who have opposed you have been accused of inventing things, by yourself.
I can use the views you espouse regards the UK to make a judgement and decide how I see things, that's not inventing something.
It's like me saying I like someone whilst calling them a c*nt. Maybe you're in the Fani Willis camp of 'if I say something then that's the only evidence you need' "Making a judgement on something and making a blanket incorrect statement on a subject that you have no way of knowing are not the same thing, but sure, keep peddling. You invented some bollocks and can’t even bring yourself to admit you were wrong | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I can use the views you espouse regards the UK to make a judgement and decide how I see things, that's not inventing something. It's like me saying I like someone whilst calling them a c*nt. Maybe you're in the Fani Willis camp of 'if I say something then that's the only evidence you need'
If you think that people who oppose violence all 'hate' their country, then I think you have some absolutely *wild* comprehension and reasoning skills."I'm adding 'I'd run away to Aus' to a long list of other things to get to my conclusion. My comprehension and reading skills are just fine, thanks for caring though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I can use the views you espouse regards the UK to make a judgement and decide how I see things, that's not inventing something. It's like me saying I like someone whilst calling them a c*nt. Maybe you're in the Fani Willis camp of 'if I say something then that's the only evidence you need'
If you think that people who oppose violence all 'hate' their country, then I think you have some absolutely *wild* comprehension and reasoning skills.
I'm adding 'I'd run away to Aus' to a long list of other things to get to my conclusion. My comprehension and reading skills are just fine, thanks for caring though "So do refugees hate their country? By your logic, they do. Mate, you’re struggling here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I can use the views you espouse regards the UK to make a judgement and decide how I see things, that's not inventing something. It's like me saying I like someone whilst calling them a c*nt. Maybe you're in the Fani Willis camp of 'if I say something then that's the only evidence you need'
If you think that people who oppose violence all 'hate' their country, then I think you have some absolutely *wild* comprehension and reasoning skills.
I'm adding 'I'd run away to Aus' to a long list of other things to get to my conclusion. My comprehension and reading skills are just fine, thanks for caring though "I'd happily 'run away' to another country if war broke out here. I have no particular ties to this island. That doesn't mean that I 'hate' where I live. Quite the opposite actually, I really like it here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I can use the views you espouse regards the UK to make a judgement and decide how I see things, that's not inventing something. It's like me saying I like someone whilst calling them a c*nt. Maybe you're in the Fani Willis camp of 'if I say something then that's the only evidence you need'
If you think that people who oppose violence all 'hate' their country, then I think you have some absolutely *wild* comprehension and reasoning skills.
I'm adding 'I'd run away to Aus' to a long list of other things to get to my conclusion. My comprehension and reading skills are just fine, thanks for caring though
I'd happily 'run away' to another country if war broke out here. I have no particular ties to this island. That doesn't mean that I 'hate' where I live. Quite the opposite actually, I really like it here."You tried to pick up on my comprehension and reading skills whilst completely ignoring (or maybe struggling to read) what I said | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I can use the views you espouse regards the UK to make a judgement and decide how I see things, that's not inventing something. It's like me saying I like someone whilst calling them a c*nt. Maybe you're in the Fani Willis camp of 'if I say something then that's the only evidence you need'
If you think that people who oppose violence all 'hate' their country, then I think you have some absolutely *wild* comprehension and reasoning skills.
I'm adding 'I'd run away to Aus' to a long list of other things to get to my conclusion. My comprehension and reading skills are just fine, thanks for caring though
So do refugees hate their country? By your logic, they do.
Mate, you’re struggling here."Seems like you're also struggling to read, there's a surprise  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I can use the views you espouse regards the UK to make a judgement and decide how I see things, that's not inventing something. It's like me saying I like someone whilst calling them a c*nt. Maybe you're in the Fani Willis camp of 'if I say something then that's the only evidence you need'
If you think that people who oppose violence all 'hate' their country, then I think you have some absolutely *wild* comprehension and reasoning skills.
I'm adding 'I'd run away to Aus' to a long list of other things to get to my conclusion. My comprehension and reading skills are just fine, thanks for caring though
So do refugees hate their country? By your logic, they do.
Mate, you’re struggling here.
Seems like you're also struggling to read, there's a surprise "Still not gonna accept that you shit the bed, eh? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We’re way off topic here, but there we go. Speaking critically of the government or certain aspects of your country is not the same as hating your country. Being a pacifist does not mean you hate your country. Suggesting that there are better ways of doing things does not mean you hate your country. That’s just for the hard of thinking around here." Why don't you quit insulting people? Or maybe that's just your socialistic nature | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We’re way off topic here, but there we go. Speaking critically of the government or certain aspects of your country is not the same as hating your country. Being a pacifist does not mean you hate your country. Suggesting that there are better ways of doing things does not mean you hate your country. That’s just for the hard of thinking around here. Why don't you quit insulting people? Or maybe that's just your socialistic nature "Didn’t you claim that I hate my country? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I can use the views you espouse regards the UK to make a judgement and decide how I see things, that's not inventing something. It's like me saying I like someone whilst calling them a c*nt. Maybe you're in the Fani Willis camp of 'if I say something then that's the only evidence you need'
If you think that people who oppose violence all 'hate' their country, then I think you have some absolutely *wild* comprehension and reasoning skills.
I'm adding 'I'd run away to Aus' to a long list of other things to get to my conclusion. My comprehension and reading skills are just fine, thanks for caring though
So do refugees hate their country? By your logic, they do.
Mate, you’re struggling here.
Seems like you're also struggling to read, there's a surprise
Still not gonna accept that you shit the bed, eh? "Shit the bed? No, I've never done that mate. Are you projecting? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We’re way off topic here, but there we go. Speaking critically of the government or certain aspects of your country is not the same as hating your country. Being a pacifist does not mean you hate your country. Suggesting that there are better ways of doing things does not mean you hate your country. That’s just for the hard of thinking around here. Why don't you quit insulting people? Or maybe that's just your socialistic nature
Didn’t you claim that I hate my country? "Yes I did. I believe you hate the UK. Why are you calling it 'your country' when you believe its just a piece of rock? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I can use the views you espouse regards the UK to make a judgement and decide how I see things, that's not inventing something. It's like me saying I like someone whilst calling them a c*nt. Maybe you're in the Fani Willis camp of 'if I say something then that's the only evidence you need'
If you think that people who oppose violence all 'hate' their country, then I think you have some absolutely *wild* comprehension and reasoning skills.
I'm adding 'I'd run away to Aus' to a long list of other things to get to my conclusion. My comprehension and reading skills are just fine, thanks for caring though
I'd happily 'run away' to another country if war broke out here. I have no particular ties to this island. That doesn't mean that I 'hate' where I live. Quite the opposite actually, I really like it here.
You tried to pick up on my comprehension and reading skills whilst completely ignoring (or maybe struggling to read) what I said "I read everything you said just fine. It's you that's talking nonsense and making stuff up by suggesting that people who are critical of society/government hate their country. Mind you, must be nice to live a life where you agree with everything done by the government on your behalf. Doubt I'll see that in my lifetime for myself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We’re way off topic here, but there we go. Speaking critically of the government or certain aspects of your country is not the same as hating your country. Being a pacifist does not mean you hate your country. Suggesting that there are better ways of doing things does not mean you hate your country. That’s just for the hard of thinking around here. Why don't you quit insulting people? Or maybe that's just your socialistic nature
Didn’t you claim that I hate my country?
Yes I did. I believe you hate the UK. Why are you calling it 'your country' when you believe its just a piece of rock?"It literally is a bit of rock, same as any other island. And I couldn’t give two fucks what you believe. You’re wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We’re way off topic here, but there we go. Speaking critically of the government or certain aspects of your country is not the same as hating your country. Being a pacifist does not mean you hate your country. Suggesting that there are better ways of doing things does not mean you hate your country. That’s just for the hard of thinking around here. Why don't you quit insulting people? Or maybe that's just your socialistic nature
Didn’t you claim that I hate my country?
Yes I did. I believe you hate the UK. Why are you calling it 'your country' when you believe its just a piece of rock?
It literally is a bit of rock, same as any other island.
And I couldn’t give two fucks what you believe. You’re wrong. "Why so angry bro? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I can use the views you espouse regards the UK to make a judgement and decide how I see things, that's not inventing something. It's like me saying I like someone whilst calling them a c*nt. Maybe you're in the Fani Willis camp of 'if I say something then that's the only evidence you need'
If you think that people who oppose violence all 'hate' their country, then I think you have some absolutely *wild* comprehension and reasoning skills.
I'm adding 'I'd run away to Aus' to a long list of other things to get to my conclusion. My comprehension and reading skills are just fine, thanks for caring though
I'd happily 'run away' to another country if war broke out here. I have no particular ties to this island. That doesn't mean that I 'hate' where I live. Quite the opposite actually, I really like it here.
You tried to pick up on my comprehension and reading skills whilst completely ignoring (or maybe struggling to read) what I said
I read everything you said just fine. It's you that's talking nonsense and making stuff up by suggesting that people who are critical of society/government hate their country.
Mind you, must be nice to live a life where you agree with everything done by the government on your behalf. Doubt I'll see that in my lifetime for myself."Now you're making things up. You're definitely projecting | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We’re way off topic here, but there we go. Speaking critically of the government or certain aspects of your country is not the same as hating your country. Being a pacifist does not mean you hate your country. Suggesting that there are better ways of doing things does not mean you hate your country. That’s just for the hard of thinking around here. Why don't you quit insulting people? Or maybe that's just your socialistic nature
Didn’t you claim that I hate my country?
Yes I did. I believe you hate the UK. Why are you calling it 'your country' when you believe its just a piece of rock?
It literally is a bit of rock, same as any other island.
And I couldn’t give two fucks what you believe. You’re wrong.
Why so angry bro? "I’m not angry, that’s just how I talk. I’m actually chuckling at your ludicrous input on this thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We’re way off topic here, but there we go. Speaking critically of the government or certain aspects of your country is not the same as hating your country. Being a pacifist does not mean you hate your country. Suggesting that there are better ways of doing things does not mean you hate your country. That’s just for the hard of thinking around here. Why don't you quit insulting people? Or maybe that's just your socialistic nature
Didn’t you claim that I hate my country?
Yes I did. I believe you hate the UK. Why are you calling it 'your country' when you believe its just a piece of rock?
It literally is a bit of rock, same as any other island.
And I couldn’t give two fucks what you believe. You’re wrong.
Why so angry bro?
I’m not angry, that’s just how I talk. I’m actually chuckling at your ludicrous input on this thread. "You're defintely angry, grab yourself a coffee and smoke, it'll help | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We’re way off topic here, but there we go. Speaking critically of the government or certain aspects of your country is not the same as hating your country. Being a pacifist does not mean you hate your country. Suggesting that there are better ways of doing things does not mean you hate your country. That’s just for the hard of thinking around here. Why don't you quit insulting people? Or maybe that's just your socialistic nature
Didn’t you claim that I hate my country?
Yes I did. I believe you hate the UK. Why are you calling it 'your country' when you believe its just a piece of rock?
It literally is a bit of rock, same as any other island.
And I couldn’t give two fucks what you believe. You’re wrong.
Why so angry bro?
I’m not angry, that’s just how I talk. I’m actually chuckling at your ludicrous input on this thread.
You're defintely angry, grab yourself a coffee and smoke, it'll help "I’m angry in the same way that I hate my country. That is, only in your head. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I recommend we use a well paid and suitably trained army of volunteers." "So your principles won't allow you to kill another human, but they will allow you to pay someone else to do it for you?" "I don’t have a choice in where my taxes go" "Of course you do. You could simply refuse to pay them and accept the outcome, even if that means prison. Just like you said you would with conscription." "But taxes aren’t exclusive to military spending, as you well know. I’m happy for my taxes to be spent on other services." "So the amount of your taxes that gets spent on social services, justifies the smaller amount of your taxes that gets spent on killing people. Is that right?" "I know you think you’re making a smart point here, but you’re really not." I think you'll find I am. Or at least, everyone else reading will find that I am. I'm demonstrating that you claim to have strong principles, principles that you are willing to die to defend, but when it becomes inconvenient to you, those principles suddenly aren't so rock solid. "Paying taxes (via PAYE, obvs) and being forced to willingly taking part in the ultimate capitalist willy-waving contest are incomparable. I suspect you’re smart enough to recognise that." I do recognise that, but you also said that you'd be happy for your taxes to pay (and pay well) for a volunteer army to defend the country for you in the event of a war. That would definitely be you taking part in the willy-waving contest. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I recommend we use a well paid and suitably trained army of volunteers. So your principles won't allow you to kill another human, but they will allow you to pay someone else to do it for you? I don’t have a choice in where my taxes go Of course you do. You could simply refuse to pay them and accept the outcome, even if that means prison. Just like you said you would with conscription. But taxes aren’t exclusive to military spending, as you well know. I’m happy for my taxes to be spent on other services. So the amount of your taxes that gets spent on social services, justifies the smaller amount of your taxes that gets spent on killing people. Is that right? I know you think you’re making a smart point here, but you’re really not. I think you'll find I am. Or at least, everyone else reading will find that I am. I'm demonstrating that you claim to have strong principles, principles that you are willing to die to defend, but when it becomes inconvenient to you, those principles suddenly aren't so rock solid. Paying taxes (via PAYE, obvs) and being forced to willingly taking part in the ultimate capitalist willy-waving contest are incomparable. I suspect you’re smart enough to recognise that. I do recognise that, but you also said that you'd be happy for your taxes to pay (and pay well) for a volunteer army to defend the country for you in the event of a war. That would definitely be you taking part in the willy-waving contest." I don’t use the word happy, did I? I thought that I quite clearly pointed out that the military is an unfortunate necessity such is the rudimentary nature of the human race at present. If I could choose which sectors to remove my taxes from I would contribute to the military for the reasons I’ve explained throughout this thread - that is a fundamental objection to violence and war. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Imagine the outcry if the answer to levelling the playing field for women was to make men experience the same equalities as women " ______ That is precisely why 'equality' is impossible.. men cannot and never will experience the same 'equalities'? as women.. because men and women are different. Not my fault, not your fault, nature made it that way. Equal opportunities is a great idea, but equality is impossible IMHO. They are 2 separate things, often confused. __________ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I believe you hate the UK. Why are you calling it 'your country' when you believe its just a piece of rock?" "It literally is a bit of rock, same as any other island." It seems fair to conclude that, at best, you're indifferent to your country. Given the amount of criticism you use in other threads, it's clear that you hate the government. It's not unreasonable to suggest that you don't like your country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I believe you hate the UK. Why are you calling it 'your country' when you believe its just a piece of rock? It literally is a bit of rock, same as any other island. It seems fair to conclude that, at best, you're indifferent to your country. Given the amount of criticism you use in other threads, it's clear that you hate the government. It's not unreasonable to suggest that you don't like your country." I do hate this government, you’re quite right. And I do think it’s a worse place to live than it was 15 years ago. But that doesn’t equal ‘hate’ or even dislike. I may not like the way a football team is run. I may not like the actions of some of the fans after a few pints, but I can still love the club. So like Feisty, you’re inventing stuff that just isn’t true, based upon nothing except your own interpretation of matters. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I recommend we use a well paid and suitably trained army of volunteers." "So your principles won't allow you to kill another human, but they will allow you to pay someone else to do it for you?" "I don’t have a choice in where my taxes go" "Of course you do. You could simply refuse to pay them and accept the outcome, even if that means prison. Just like you said you would with conscription." "But taxes aren’t exclusive to military spending, as you well know. I’m happy for my taxes to be spent on other services." "So the amount of your taxes that gets spent on social services, justifies the smaller amount of your taxes that gets spent on killing people. Is that right?" "I know you think you’re making a smart point here, but you’re really not." "I think you'll find I am. Or at least, everyone else reading will find that I am. I'm demonstrating that you claim to have strong principles, principles that you are willing to die to defend, but when it becomes inconvenient to you, those principles suddenly aren't so rock solid." "Paying taxes (via PAYE, obvs) and being forced to willingly taking part in the ultimate capitalist willy-waving contest are incomparable. I suspect you’re smart enough to recognise that." "I do recognise that, but you also said that you'd be happy for your taxes to pay (and pay well) for a volunteer army to defend the country for you in the event of a war. That would definitely be you taking part in the willy-waving contest." "I don’t use the word happy, did I? I thought that I quite clearly pointed out that the military is an unfortunate necessity such is the rudimentary nature of the human race at present. If I could choose which sectors to remove my taxes from I would contribute to the military for the reasons I’ve explained throughout this thread - that is a fundamental objection to violence and war." No you didn't use the word 'happy'. But you were asked if you would prefer no military at all, or something else of your choice, and you chose to recommend that we use a well paid and suitably trained professional army. I think it's reasonable to suggest that if that's what you would recommend for this country, you'll probably be 'happy' with it happening. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I recommend we use a well paid and suitably trained army of volunteers. So your principles won't allow you to kill another human, but they will allow you to pay someone else to do it for you? I don’t have a choice in where my taxes go Of course you do. You could simply refuse to pay them and accept the outcome, even if that means prison. Just like you said you would with conscription. But taxes aren’t exclusive to military spending, as you well know. I’m happy for my taxes to be spent on other services. So the amount of your taxes that gets spent on social services, justifies the smaller amount of your taxes that gets spent on killing people. Is that right? I know you think you’re making a smart point here, but you’re really not. I think you'll find I am. Or at least, everyone else reading will find that I am. I'm demonstrating that you claim to have strong principles, principles that you are willing to die to defend, but when it becomes inconvenient to you, those principles suddenly aren't so rock solid. Paying taxes (via PAYE, obvs) and being forced to willingly taking part in the ultimate capitalist willy-waving contest are incomparable. I suspect you’re smart enough to recognise that. I do recognise that, but you also said that you'd be happy for your taxes to pay (and pay well) for a volunteer army to defend the country for you in the event of a war. That would definitely be you taking part in the willy-waving contest. I don’t use the word happy, did I? I thought that I quite clearly pointed out that the military is an unfortunate necessity such is the rudimentary nature of the human race at present. If I could choose which sectors to remove my taxes from I would contribute to the military for the reasons I’ve explained throughout this thread - that is a fundamental objection to violence and war. No you didn't use the word 'happy'. But you were asked if you would prefer no military at all, or something else of your choice, and you chose to recommend that we use a well paid and suitably trained professional army. I think it's reasonable to suggest that if that's what you would recommend for this country, you'll probably be 'happy' with it happening." ‘Accepting’ would be a better term, because once again, the world isn’t ready for widespread demilitarisation, sadly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I may not like the way a football team is run. I may not like the actions of some of the fans after a few pints, but I can still love the club." What has your love of your football team got to do with whether you love or hate your country? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I may not like the way a football team is run. I may not like the actions of some of the fans after a few pints, but I can still love the club. What has your love of your football team got to do with whether you love or hate your country?" I thought my point was quite clear (Well, I don’t think it was clear - it was clear) You can love something without likening every single facet of that thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"but you also said that you'd be happy for your taxes to pay (and pay well) for a volunteer army to defend the country for you in the event of a war. That would definitely be you taking part in the willy-waving contest." "I don’t use the word happy, did I?" If I could choose which sectors to remove my taxes from I would contribute to the military for the reasons I’ve explained throughout this thread - that is a fundamental objection to violence and war. "No you didn't use the word 'happy'. But you were asked if you would prefer no military at all, or something else of your choice, and you chose to recommend that we use a well paid and suitably trained professional army. I think it's reasonable to suggest that if that's what you would recommend for this country, you'll probably be 'happy' with it happening." "‘Accepting’ would be a better term, because once again, the world isn’t ready for widespread demilitarisation, sadly." Fine. So you 'accept' that a chunk of your taxes goes towards funding the military, and that in the event of a conflict, people will be killed by that military. How do you square that up with your original statement that you're a pacifist and would not take part in a conflict? Why did you make so many posts about the horrors of "mutilated human bodies" if you're willing to fund the organisation that does that mutilation? And why are you willing to refuse conscription and take the consequences even if they include jail, but those principles go out the window when it comes to funding the military? Is it because one if those possibilities is remote and unlikely, where the other would land you in jail pretty sharpish? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I may not like the way a football team is run. I may not like the actions of some of the fans after a few pints, but I can still love the club." "What has your love of your football team got to do with whether you love or hate your country?" "I thought my point was quite clear (Well, I don’t think it was clear - it was clear) You can love something without likening every single facet of that thing." So you believe that your football team is a part of your country? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s an interesting question but I think the answer is not straightforward. 1. Equality should apply so women should be conscripted same as men. 2. While much of modern war is theoretically fought at distance, there will ultimately still be plenty of close quarters / hand-to-hand combat. Men are generally physically stronger than women (of course there are exceptions). So this would put female soldiers at a disadvantage. The Israeli’s obviously do not think it is an issue as the IDF calls equally on men and women as the whole adult population are reservists and everyone does national service. Do Muslim countries have women in the military? Genuine question as I do not know? In the Battle of Yarmuk Between the Roman army and 1st generation Muslims, Muslim women did fight in the battle. But they weren't in the front line. What’s a battle that took place almost 1400 years ago got to do with the question? You asked about Muslim countries. If women can join the army. Muslim countries are Muslims first (at least for the people). And Islam is defined by what the 1st generation believed and practiced. The woman didn't fight though. They were famous for chastising their cowardly menfolk who were fleeing back to the camp, where the woman were staying. So I stand corrected they did fight but only their own husbands, Mrs x Lol It's true Mrs x
There was a battle shortly after that one, where a woman knight was allowed to fight in the front line because her brother was taken hostage. xSo still not women, Muslim armies not that progressive back them, huh?
Mrs x
The camp was just behind the army in the battle field. 100's miles away from home. If they lost any battle, the women would fight or be taken as sex sl*ves. So practically they were part of the army and risking their lives x"But why lie and say they fought in the battle when they did not? Its not just to suit your agenda is it? If you don't like the West why settle here after you fled the civil war you mentioned, Iran takes imigrants if you prefer an Islamic state? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"but you also said that you'd be happy for your taxes to pay (and pay well) for a volunteer army to defend the country for you in the event of a war. That would definitely be you taking part in the willy-waving contest. I don’t use the word happy, did I? If I could choose which sectors to remove my taxes from I would contribute to the military for the reasons I’ve explained throughout this thread - that is a fundamental objection to violence and war. No you didn't use the word 'happy'. But you were asked if you would prefer no military at all, or something else of your choice, and you chose to recommend that we use a well paid and suitably trained professional army. I think it's reasonable to suggest that if that's what you would recommend for this country, you'll probably be 'happy' with it happening. ‘Accepting’ would be a better term, because once again, the world isn’t ready for widespread demilitarisation, sadly. Fine. So you 'accept' that a chunk of your taxes goes towards funding the military, and that in the event of a conflict, people will be killed by that military. How do you square that up with your original statement that you're a pacifist and would not take part in a conflict? Why did you make so many posts about the horrors of "mutilated human bodies" if you're willing to fund the organisation that does that mutilation? And why are you willing to refuse conscription and take the consequences even if they include jail, but those principles go out the window when it comes to funding the military? Is it because one if those possibilities is remote and unlikely, where the other would land you in jail pretty sharpish?" Ah, we’re back on this point now that we’re agreed that I don’t hate my country? Good stuff. Once again, because I’m not sure you’ve understood correctly. I cannot choose where my taxes go, or even whether I pay them (PAYE). I also am not naive enough to believe that we can exist in a world without military just yet (maybe one day, I’d hope we all desire that). As such it is one of those annoying things that we have to accept. Paying taxes (which provide myriad services including health and pensions) is not equal to fighting a conscripted war, no matter how much you want to conflate the two. Now would you like to go around again? Or shall we call it a day? Or would you like to respond to the moral question i posed you earlier in the thread which you’ve not answered | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I may not like the way a football team is run. I may not like the actions of some of the fans after a few pints, but I can still love the club. What has your love of your football team got to do with whether you love or hate your country? I thought my point was quite clear (Well, I don’t think it was clear - it was clear) You can love something without likening every single facet of that thing. So you believe that your football team is a part of your country?" Sorry man, I had no idea you’d struggle so much with a really basic concept. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Or would you like to respond to the moral question i posed you earlier in the thread which you’ve not answered " I must have missed it. What was it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I may not like the way a football team is run. I may not like the actions of some of the fans after a few pints, but I can still love the club." "What has your love of your football team got to do with whether you love or hate your country?" "I thought my point was quite clear (Well, I don’t think it was clear - it was clear) You can love something without likening every single facet of that thing." "So you believe that your football team is a part of your country?" "Sorry man, I had no idea you’d struggle so much with a really basic concept." Is that a 'yes', or a 'no'? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We’re way off topic here, but there we go. Speaking critically of the government or certain aspects of your country is not the same as hating your country. Being a pacifist does not mean you hate your country. Suggesting that there are better ways of doing things does not mean you hate your country. That’s just for the hard of thinking around here. Why don't you quit insulting people? Or maybe that's just your socialistic nature
Didn’t you claim that I hate my country?
Yes I did. I believe you hate the UK. Why are you calling it 'your country' when you believe its just a piece of rock?
It literally is a bit of rock, same as any other island.
And I couldn’t give two fucks what you believe. You’re wrong. "Where do you call home? Do you feel safe there? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Damn, I thought this was going to be a thread about feminism. Turns out, once again, that the thread's originator isn't actually interested in feminism, and is only interested in the sound of his own fingers clacking on the keyboard." The thread was loaded in an attempt to condone the wests support of feminism. I mentioned in an earlier post the government haven't spoken about conscription and Ukrainian females are fighting on the frontline, contrary to the OP. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Damn, I thought this was going to be a thread about feminism. Turns out, once again, that the thread's originator isn't actually interested in feminism, and is only interested in the sound of his own fingers clacking on the keyboard. The thread was loaded in an attempt to condone the wests support of feminism. I mentioned in an earlier post the government haven't spoken about conscription and Ukrainian females are fighting on the frontline, contrary to the OP. " I don't know why people kick the ball back. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The thread was loaded in an attempt to condone the wests support of feminism." I'm sure you mean 'condemn'. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The thread was loaded in an attempt to condone the wests support of feminism. I'm sure you mean 'condemn'." I did  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Damn, I thought this was going to be a thread about feminism. Turns out, once again, that the thread's originator isn't actually interested in feminism, and is only interested in the sound of his own fingers clacking on the keyboard. The thread was loaded in an attempt to condone the wests support of feminism. I mentioned in an earlier post the government haven't spoken about conscription and Ukrainian females are fighting on the frontline, contrary to the OP. I don't know why people kick the ball back. " Loaded for emotional responses seems to be a knack to hitting all the right triggers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We’re way off topic here, but there we go. Speaking critically of the government or certain aspects of your country is not the same as hating your country. Being a pacifist does not mean you hate your country. Suggesting that there are better ways of doing things does not mean you hate your country. That’s just for the hard of thinking around here. Why don't you quit insulting people? Or maybe that's just your socialistic nature
Didn’t you claim that I hate my country?
Yes I did. I believe you hate the UK. Why are you calling it 'your country' when you believe its just a piece of rock?
It literally is a bit of rock, same as any other island.
And I couldn’t give two fucks what you believe. You’re wrong.
Where do you call home? Do you feel safe there?"I call Essex home. When I moved away from Essex, I called that place home. When I came back (half-unwilling, ex-wife reasons) Essex was home once again. And I’ve never felt ‘unsafe’ wherever I’ve lived. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The thread was loaded in an attempt to condone the wests support of feminism. I'm sure you mean 'condemn'." Valid point.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Damn, I thought this was going to be a thread about feminism. Turns out, once again, that the thread's originator isn't actually interested in feminism, and is only interested in the sound of his own fingers clacking on the keyboard. The thread was loaded in an attempt to condone the wests support of feminism. I mentioned in an earlier post the government haven't spoken about conscription and Ukrainian females are fighting on the frontline, contrary to the OP. " Might it have been yet more deflection.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The thread was loaded in an attempt to condone the wests support of feminism. I'm sure you mean 'condemn'. Valid point.." Rub it in, I've already done a reply..
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
