|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 166 responses total. |
lk
|
|
response 110 of 166:
| 
Aug 23 15:38 UTC 2003 |
Back to the subject, see #96.
|
scott
|
|
response 111 of 166:
|
Aug 23 18:15 UTC 2003 |
Sorry Leeron, you can't pretend 97-108 never happened. Subject resumes at
#108.
|
tod
|
|
response 112 of 166:
|
Aug 24 13:44 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
lk
|
|
response 113 of 166:
|
Aug 24 15:53 UTC 2003 |
Well, let's ask Oval directly:
1. If one woman opposes feminism is that "proof" that it's wrong?
2. Is Clarence Thomas "proof" that affirmative action is wrong?
3. Is a "cured" homosexual "proof" that homosexuality is a disease?
4. What's up with being critical of an 80-line cut-and-paste, entered
by Dan to support what he said, when you entered a 240-line
cut-and-paste (see response #6) with no additional comment?
To refresh your memory, after Dan's cut-and-paste Scott said:
> Imagine trying that in a face-to-face argument, and you'll see my point.
And oval added:
> the point you'll see will be the way the person is looking at you like
> you're insane.
Not that I'm saying we should buy into Oval's "logic" (for then it would
be OK to pre-judge and dislike all members of a group because you dislike
one member of said group -- or perhaps that it's ok to try to silence
someone by invoking such hatist/racist arguments), but I do wonder if
Oval looks at herself as if she is insane.
Experienced BBSers will of course realize that contrary to Scott's assertion,
an on-line discussion is not like a FTF discussion in that no one has to
read what others post, one can skim or skip right past it. I suspect that
most also realize that Scott's response was meant to attack Dan rather
than to respond to what he had said.
|
scott
|
|
response 114 of 166:
|
Aug 24 16:11 UTC 2003 |
Actually, the bit you were trying to (once again) ignore was the question of
whether you'd been in the IDF. As before, i guess we can all assume the
answer is "no".
|
oval
|
|
response 115 of 166:
|
Aug 24 19:32 UTC 2003 |
mt friend spent a year in prison for refusing to serve in the IDF
|
lk
|
|
response 116 of 166:
|
Aug 25 00:40 UTC 2003 |
What an ironic juxtapostioning of arguments.
Scott would have us believe that I'm wrong because (allegedly) I
did not serve in the IDF.
Oval would have us believe that her (alleged) friend is right because he
did not serve in the IDF.
Come on, Oval. Can't you address the 4 questions? Are you that duplicitous?
|
scott
|
|
response 117 of 166:
|
Aug 25 01:36 UTC 2003 |
Don't fall for it, oval - Leeron has much more free time than normal people,
so he typically wins through attrition.
|
pvn
|
|
response 118 of 166:
|
Aug 25 05:11 UTC 2003 |
So, lk, did you serve in the IDF? And lets not play games like "yes"
because you attended summer camp as a child. Did you, lk, serve in the
IDF the same term of service as the majority of Israeli citizens?
|
tod
|
|
response 119 of 166:
|
Aug 25 17:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
oval
|
|
response 120 of 166:
|
Aug 26 16:04 UTC 2003 |
well i don't see any of lk's responses. he's the only one on my
fascist-filter.
my friend refused because he is opposed to war and military, and does not
support his country's actions against the palestinian people. even the US
doesn't REQUIRE military service. i have another israeli female friend who
did serve, doing a desk job. she had to interview draftees and decide where
they will be serving. this was disturbing for her and after she served her
time she left the country. i personally would take a year in prison over a
year or more in the military also. at one point he realized that even by being
in prison and doing work required there was also serving the military state
and refused to do that too. he was repeatedly put in solitary confinement
until after a year they just got fed up and let him go.
|
tod
|
|
response 121 of 166:
|
Aug 26 18:14 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 122 of 166:
|
Aug 26 18:19 UTC 2003 |
i think it's ness. for israel to have compulsory military
servitude, after all they need all the soldiers they can get,
being in the early stages of colonialisation of palestine
and all.
like in the u.s, in a few generations the pesky natives
will have died off, or become so broken culturally that they
will no longer be a threat, then they can end the practice
of military servitude...hell, your friend should be GRATEFUL
to serve in order to earn the privelege of living in that
wonderful nevada-like environment!
|
happyboy
|
|
response 123 of 166:
|
Aug 26 18:20 UTC 2003 |
tod slipped.
|
tod
|
|
response 124 of 166:
|
Aug 26 18:44 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 125 of 166:
|
Aug 26 19:38 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 126 of 166:
|
Aug 26 21:27 UTC 2003 |
How is signing up for the military different from being a plain old hired
gun? You are promising to go anywhere and kill on command, no questions
asked. You don't get to question the agenda or morality of the person
ordering up the troops. You're a killer contracted out in exchange for a
steady paycheck or tuition or both.
Sorry, I see people willing to sign such contracts as drones. And if they
end up killing innocent people over, say, our oil jones, then they are
immoral drones.
Enlisting to fight for a specific cause you believe in is a different
story.
|
tod
|
|
response 127 of 166:
|
Aug 26 23:16 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 128 of 166:
|
Aug 26 23:30 UTC 2003 |
We thank with all our heart all of the "drones" who have served in the
U.S. military forces and to whom we owe the blessings of living in this
great country.
|
gull
|
|
response 129 of 166:
|
Aug 27 01:16 UTC 2003 |
Re #127: In the military, questioning the morals of your superior's
decisions is called 'insubordination'. I understand under certain
circumstances it carries the death penalty.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 130 of 166:
|
Aug 27 04:18 UTC 2003 |
Not quite, gull. Disobeying _lawful_ orders can be punished by death.
Obeying unlawful orders is punished by at least imprisonment: consider Lt.
Calley.
|
pvn
|
|
response 131 of 166:
|
Aug 27 04:23 UTC 2003 |
re#129 and #126: Perhaps in some other country's militaries, but not in
the US.
Even in basic training for enlisted grunts there is training on the
concept of lawful orders. FOr anyone who is going to be in a position
to give orders and this includes NCOs and up there is very strict
training. THe professional soldier - remember, these are not draftees,
they actually want to be there - is well versed in the Geneva
Conventions as well as the lessons of the past. "I was just following
orders" does't wash - and the penalty for the issuer of the order might
even be harsher than the follower of an illegal order. These are not
mindless drones and they are enlisting in a specific cause they believe
in - the defense of the US - definding your right to post what you do
here for one thing.
|
pvn
|
|
response 132 of 166:
|
Aug 27 04:25 UTC 2003 |
re#130 - slipped in: Note that Lt. Calley went to prison, not his
entire platoon.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 133 of 166:
|
Aug 27 05:50 UTC 2003 |
didn;t he end up owning a pizzeria?
|
cross
|
|
response 134 of 166:
|
Aug 27 19:22 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|