You must log in or register to comment.

MuvaxMk4 t1_j1w4d8i wrote

When the idea of invasion seems more casual then it should


[deleted] t1_j1vkua4 wrote



[deleted] t1_j1vu0sw wrote



Silver_Foxx t1_j1vwlgj wrote

Knowing how to operate a rifle is only one tiny little bit of the training one needs to be effective in combat.


[deleted] t1_j1vcak9 wrote



code_archeologist t1_j1vdbxv wrote

>Compulsory military service is a massive human rights violation and a form of fascism.

That is the single most ignorant thing I have read this month. Compulsory military service is not a human rights violation or a form of fascism, it is a method to make sure that your population is trained and ready to defend themselves in the event of an invasion from a larger force... You know, like China.

It is used by nearly every nation that has a belligerent on its border. For example:

  • Ukraine
  • Finland
  • South Korea
  • Germany (during the Cold War)
  • Austria
  • Georgia
  • Greece
  • Lithuania
  • Estonia
  • Norway
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • Armenia

VegetableTechnology2 t1_j1vs6pg wrote

And because a bunch of countries also have compulsory military service that suddenly makes it A-OK? I'm sure then not allowing women to have a job is also ok, since the Taliban in Afghanistan are doing it.

It is involuntary servitude and that's a fact. Now I'm not a lawyer to tell you if that is a human rights violation or not, but I can say that if it isn't, it's a gross omission.

Edit: Before downvoting it'd be best if you actually have any arguments against what I said. Would you go spend a year of your life in the barracks "to train"? In my country it is indeed compulsury to do military service for a year. It's easy to shout from the other side of the fence. Alas, this is reddit.


code_archeologist t1_j1vtjc5 wrote

What a cute straw man you have there...

But, the nations I listed are all democracies. If they no longer saw a need for compulsory military service then the people would vote to end it (the same way that Germany and US did). But the people of those nations see a societal good in it, for most of them it is because there is a belligerent nation just across their border (or in the case of Ukraine currently invading), and having a population that could be ready to take up arms in defense in a disciplined fashion is a good idea for them.


SebastianForsenFors t1_j2084du wrote

Democracies are tyranny of the majority and most voters dont serve so this issue won’t be contentious enough to be voted on


VegetableTechnology2 t1_j1vuq7z wrote

It's not remotely a strawman; you claim it's justified because other countries are doing it as well, I presented you another example of something another country does as well. So, no, claiming it's a strawman doesn't suddenly improve your poor argument.

I happen to live in one of the counties you mentioned that has compulsury military service, and as would be expected it's not as sunny and great as you describe. Democracies aren't that simple as you said "But the people of those nations see a societal good in it", that's just false. We don't directly vote whether we want compulsory military service. And if we did it's easy for it to pass when 50% of the population (women) don't have military service (so it's a sexist measure as well) and the majority of the population already has served. This isn't something new, you see this in other issues as well, it's inherent in democracy.

But also, this does not make it moral or good or not a violation of personal rights. In my country gay marriage is also illegal. We have a democracy. So it's okay according to you, since society doesn't want me to have the same rights as the majority does? Ridiculous.

Also debatable is the value this even provides to the defense of the country. Conscripts make terrible soldiers.


code_archeologist t1_j1vvxk6 wrote

Well, that is not what I said.

And I am not feeling like debating the minutiae of Rousseau and the trade offs that are made of personal liberties for the benefits of communal society. First because that is not within the scope of what I was suggesting, and second because the nuance of the social contract I feel might be lost on your misguided moral absolutism.


VegetableTechnology2 t1_j1vwwp8 wrote

Then enlighten me and explain what you said that I misunderstood/didn't answer.

I'm not a moral absolutist but there are limits to what society should expect from you. Arguing that having forced compulsury service for a year against the will of those forced, is not involuntary servitude is bizarre to me.


[deleted] t1_j1via0p wrote



code_archeologist t1_j1vmbg8 wrote

Wow... the level of privilege dripping from that statement is ridiculous. I am going to guess you have never served. And have never been in a situation where people were fighting for the survival of their home and family. And you obviously have never lived fearing what might come the next day because the people across an imaginary line have rifles, artillery, and missiles pointed at you.

How comforting it must be to live in that blissful ignorance and not having to exert any empathy towards those who live on the knife's edge.


ritzk9 t1_j1vylij wrote

Funny you talk about empathy but don't extend the same to him. It's "imaginary line" when convenient to antagonize the offending country but when someone doesn't want to risk their life for some imaginary line they're a privileged blissfully ignorant sociopath.

Home is more about your family and your people. I would very much rather have all of them moved to another country safely than risk to protect the plot of land you call "home". Even If it's privileged it's also the most understandable and normal point of view


Cold-Stock t1_j1w7xp2 wrote

I mean, the advantage of volunteers having zero training when they are most needed must be an advantage Taiwan is missing