This week in patriarchy: Ukraine expels women and children so men can have combat to themselves

[Metaphor]

Ah , more inept pedantry.

You debunked nothing. Ukraine is preventing men 18-60 from leaving its borders. This has been confirmed by multiple stories.

Irrelevant to the issue of conscription.

Ukraine is Ukraine. But even if I accepted the existence of these breakaway countries as legitimate States, that would detract nothing from my argument that the State is appropriating male bodies and it would not make me oppose the draft any less.

It is either incredibly disingenuous or fucking stupid to equate the legitimate government of Ukraine with the breakaway “republics” in order to avoid admitting a mistake about your claim about conscription for all men 18 to 60.

Your quoting is getting sloppier but you are wrong. Ukraine detaining men 18-60 is not irrelevant to the issue of conscription. They are detaining people that they may or intend to conscript.

Or may not conscript, which makes them separate..

Yes, holding the people you may want to conscript in the future, because you may want to conscript them, is indeed not the same action as conscripting them. It will be worse for the people eventually conscripted.

You are wrong that I equated the breakaway republics with Ukraine. They are part of the Ukraine, they are not the Ukraine. However, it was Ukraine that detained men and it is within Ukraine that men are being drafted to defend Ukraine.

You are the one who used the breakaway republics as the example of The legitimate gov’t of Ukraine conscription, not me.
Your excuse is disingenuous.

I did not say 'legitimate government'. Those are your words, conjured in the post above. I said 'Ukraine', which is true, and the State. The State is sometimes legitimate and sometimes it is not.

That 'breakaway republics' (which have no international recognition and as far as I can see, and no separate statehood from that of Ukraine) are actively drafting people is not the point. Ukraine detained those men in order to be able to draft them.

Also, Ukraine is drafting men. But even if it were not (it is), my OP was not about Ukraine doing it specifically, although it is obviously a timely example. My own country drafted men in the 1970s to fight a war a world away. It forced 19 year old mechanics into 19 year old killers. Your country did it, too.

Up to 15% of those from gating in Ukraine are women who volunteered.

I have said nothing about people volunteering to fight. Women have not been conscripted in the Ukraine, and no country in the world that conscripts women does not also conscript men.

I have spoken out against the State appropriating men's bodies to force those men to become killers and/or be killed.

Sigh. Sometimes, the only choice for survival is to stand and fight. And sometimes you have to force people to do so.

It's amazing to see a woman speak so blithely about the State-forced appropriation of men's bodies for her own benefit. Except when it isn't amazing.

You’re right: it is so amazing that it is absolutely fucking unbelievable.
@EmilyLake in case you wonder about poor little Met’s little fee fees getting hurt.

@Toni in case you want to read your own words endorsing the State appropriation of men's bodies for your benefit, and then dismissing criticism of your position by referring to 'poor little Met's little fee fees'.

 

[Metaphor]

Ah , more inept pedantry.

You debunked nothing. Ukraine is preventing men 18-60 from leaving its borders. This has been confirmed by multiple stories.

Irrelevant to the issue of conscription.

Ukraine is Ukraine. But even if I accepted the existence of these breakaway countries as legitimate States, that would detract nothing from my argument that the State is appropriating male bodies and it would not make me oppose the draft any less.

It is either incredibly disingenuous or fucking stupid to equate the legitimate government of Ukraine with the breakaway “republics” in order to avoid admitting a mistake about your claim about conscription for all men 18 to 60.

Your quoting is getting sloppier but you are wrong. Ukraine detaining men 18-60 is not irrelevant to the issue of conscription. They are detaining people that they may or intend to conscript.

Or may not conscript, which makes them separate..

Yes, holding the people you may want to conscript in the future, because you may want to conscript them, is indeed not the same action as conscripting them. It will be worse for the people eventually conscripted.

You are wrong that I equated the breakaway republics with Ukraine. They are part of the Ukraine, they are not the Ukraine. However, it was Ukraine that detained men and it is within Ukraine that men are being drafted to defend Ukraine.

You are the one who used the breakaway republics as the example of The legitimate gov’t of Ukraine conscription, not me.
Your excuse is disingenuous.

I did not say 'legitimate government'. Those are your words, conjured in the post above. I said 'Ukraine', which is true, and the State. The State is sometimes legitimate and sometimes it is not.

That 'breakaway republics' (which have no international recognition and as far as I can see, and no separate statehood from that of Ukraine) are actively drafting people is not the point. Ukraine detained those men in order to be able to draft them.

Also, Ukraine is drafting men. But even if it were not (it is), my OP was not about Ukraine doing it specifically, although it is obviously a timely example. My own country drafted men in the 1970s to fight a war a world away. It forced 19 year old mechanics into 19 year old killers. Your country did it, too.

Up to 15% of those from gating in Ukraine are women who volunteered.

I have said nothing about people volunteering to fight. Women have not been conscripted in the Ukraine, and no country in the world that conscripts women does not also conscript men.

I have spoken out against the State appropriating men's bodies to force those men to become killers and/or be killed.

Sigh. Sometimes, the only choice for survival is to stand and fight. And sometimes you have to force people to do so.

“Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'.”
― George Orwell

This is what Metaphor is doing.

Yes, he’s being oh, so Meta.

What am I doing?

 

[laughing dog]

[

I did not say 'legitimate government'. Those are your words, conjured in the post above. I said 'Ukraine', which is true, and the State. The State is sometimes legitimate and sometimes it is not…

No one is interested in your excuses for sloppy thinking, blaming your audience for not understanding your incoherent “satire”, or your insulting straw men.

 

[Metaphor]

[

I did not say 'legitimate government'. Those are your words, conjured in the post above. I said 'Ukraine', which is true, and the State. The State is sometimes legitimate and sometimes it is not…

No one is interested in your excuses for sloppy thinking, blaming your audience for not understanding your incoherent “satire”, or your insulting straw men.

The only person who did not understand my satire was Loren.

You understood it, you just don't like it.

I'll see you next time when you wade into my OPs just to accuse me of sloppiness, vindictively join in on a pile-on with your cadre of fellow lefists, and then make ridiculous accusations of pedantry where you reveal you don't even know the denotation of the words I use.

Bye for now.

 

[Toni]

[

I did not say 'legitimate government'. Those are your words, conjured in the post above. I said 'Ukraine', which is true, and the State. The State is sometimes legitimate and sometimes it is not…

No one is interested in your excuses for sloppy thinking, blaming your audience for not understanding your incoherent “satire”, or your insulting straw men.

The only person who did not understand my satire was Loren.

You understood it, you just don't like it.

I'll see you next time when you wade into my OPs just to accuse me of sloppiness, vindictively join in on a pile-on with your cadre of fellow lefists, and then make ridiculous accusations of pedantry where you reveal you don't even know the denotation of the words I use.

Bye for now.

It’s amazing what you must tell yourself in order to post the shit that you do.

 

[Metaphor]

[

I did not say 'legitimate government'. Those are your words, conjured in the post above. I said 'Ukraine', which is true, and the State. The State is sometimes legitimate and sometimes it is not…

No one is interested in your excuses for sloppy thinking, blaming your audience for not understanding your incoherent “satire”, or your insulting straw men.

The only person who did not understand my satire was Loren.

You understood it, you just don't like it.

I'll see you next time when you wade into my OPs just to accuse me of sloppiness, vindictively join in on a pile-on with your cadre of fellow lefists, and then make ridiculous accusations of pedantry where you reveal you don't even know the denotation of the words I use.

Bye for now.

It’s amazing what you must tell yourself in order to post the shit that you do.

Sure luv.

 

[laughing dog]

[

I did not say 'legitimate government'. Those are your words, conjured in the post above. I said 'Ukraine', which is true, and the State. The State is sometimes legitimate and sometimes it is not…

No one is interested in your excuses for sloppy thinking, blaming your audience for not understanding your incoherent “satire”, or your insulting straw men.

The only person who did not understand my satire was Loren.

Wrong

You understood it, you just don't like it.

it is a poor attempt at “satire” that conflated irrational dislikes as argument. Instead if coming out with a clear point “Conscription is immoral”, the OP is littered with irrelevant swipes at your irrational bugaboos.

When numerous readers “misinterpret” your “satires” over time, instead of entertaining the
realistic thought that your “ satiric” skills are abysmal, you fling insulting straw men and ad homs. I find them unpleasant, tedious and ignorant. I doubt I will bother with such OPs in future.

 

[Metaphor]

[

I did not say 'legitimate government'. Those are your words, conjured in the post above. I said 'Ukraine', which is true, and the State. The State is sometimes legitimate and sometimes it is not…

No one is interested in your excuses for sloppy thinking, blaming your audience for not understanding your incoherent “satire”, or your insulting straw men.

The only person who did not understand my satire was Loren.

Wrong

You understood it, you just don't like it.

it is a poor attempt at “satire” that conflated irrational dislikes as argument. Instead if coming out with a clear point “Conscription is immoral”, the OP is littered with irrelevant swipes at your irrational bugaboos.

When numerous readers “misinterpret” your “satires” over time, instead of entertaining the
realistic thought that your “ satiric” skills are abysmal, you fling insulting straw men and ad homs. I find them unpleasant, tedious and ignorant. I doubt I will bother with such OPs in future.

I hope you can lead by example to help others like you--others who are purposely obtuse, don't understand the denotations of commonly used words, and enter my threads solely to flog their hate boners against me--to also avoid my OPs.

 

[Patooka]

I hope you can lead by example to help others like you--others who are purposely obtuse, don't understand the denotations of commonly used words, and enter my threads solely to flog their hate boners against me--to also avoid my OPs.

The reaction you got for the asinine premise you stated in the OP is completely warranted. Ironically, I am of the opinion that your rage boner for what you perceive to be men's rights can fuck all the way off.

 

[Metaphor]

I hope you can lead by example to help others like you--others who are purposely obtuse, don't understand the denotations of commonly used words, and enter my threads solely to flog their hate boners against me--to also avoid my OPs.

The reaction you got for the asinine premise you stated in the OP is completely warranted. Ironically, I am of the opinion that your rage boner for what you perceive to be men's rights can fuck all the way off.

So you don't support men having rights?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Also, being single sex is not the draft's main problem. The main problem with the draft is that it is immoral.

Meh. I don't necessarily ascribe morality to it. It think it's a violation of some basic freedom of belief, sure. Mostly, I think it's a bad idea for more pragmatic reasons: People who are forced or coerced into fighting for a cause aren't particularly dedicated. I'd much rather have a force comprised of volunteers, people who are fighting for something they believe in.

In the event that a draft or conscription is actually occurring, however, I have an objection to it being single sex. I get that it's an easy shorthand sorter - one way or another, the conscripts need to be people who are moderately expendable, they need to not be leaving children uncared for. The simplistic assumption that women are care-givers and men are expendable is easy to put in place, and is probably good enough for a fast response.

I'd prefer something a bit more purpose driven. Say, a policy that stipulates that a draft/conscription cannot leave a child or a dependent without a caregiver, with no consideration to the sex of the caregiver - leave that up to the individuals involved. But that's also going to be a lot more complicated to administer. You'd have to look at families, identify single-parent households for exclusion, and for two-parent households, you'd have to put some method in place to allow the parents to select who stays with the kids and who goes to fight.

That's the kind of thing that would probably work better if it's a formalized draft registration policy that is set up and maintained during peacetime, to be enacted during wartime. But trying to do that on the fly just isn't feasible.

Perhaps a more hammer-and-nail approach: if a person doesn't have children, they get conscripted.

At the end of the day, it's all academic for us to discuss in this thread. But I do think it's worthy of some discussion, it guides thoughts on how to alter draft eligibility rules for future conflicts so as to make them reasonable and appropriate.

I'd disagree with you here. I agree that in wars of choice (Russia invading Ukraine, US invading Iraq) having sufficient morale is critically important. Russian soldiers are drafted, and their morale is very low reportedly. They are sabotaging their own tanks, begging for food, just not as effective as Ukrainians (although far better weapons and training). US soldiers invading Iraq were motivated despite being war of choice, but they were all volunteers.

On the other hand, the Ukrainians have been invaded by a madman because someone named a street after a Nazi (or something like that). They have no choice. One side is trying to kill their family members, destroy their neighborhood, steal their land. They are motivated. They have no choice.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I hope you can lead by example to help others like you--others who are purposely obtuse, don't understand the denotations of commonly used words, and enter my threads solely to flog their hate boners against me--to also avoid my OPs.

The reaction you got for the asinine premise you stated in the OP is completely warranted. Ironically, I am of the opinion that your rage boner for what you perceive to be men's rights can fuck all the way off.

So you don't support men having rights?

In desperate war times, there are no rights. The age of chivalry is long gone.

 

[Patooka]

I hope you can lead by example to help others like you--others who are purposely obtuse, don't understand the denotations of commonly used words, and enter my threads solely to flog their hate boners against me--to also avoid my OPs.

The reaction you got for the asinine premise you stated in the OP is completely warranted. Ironically, I am of the opinion that your rage boner for what you perceive to be men's rights can fuck all the way off.

So you don't support men having rights?

The more I read your threads, the more I feel that's a safe way to bet. I didn't before.

 

[laughing dog]

[

I did not say 'legitimate government'. Those are your words, conjured in the post above. I said 'Ukraine', which is true, and the State. The State is sometimes legitimate and sometimes it is not…

No one is interested in your excuses for sloppy thinking, blaming your audience for not understanding your incoherent “satire”, or your insulting straw men.

The only person who did not understand my satire was Loren.

Wrong

You understood it, you just don't like it.

it is a poor attempt at “satire” that conflated irrational dislikes as argument. Instead if coming out with a clear point “Conscription is immoral”, the OP is littered with irrelevant swipes at your irrational bugaboos.

When numerous readers “misinterpret” your “satires” over time, instead of entertaining the
realistic thought that your “ satiric” skills are abysmal, you fling insulting straw men and ad homs. I find them unpleasant, tedious and ignorant. I doubt I will bother with such OPs in future.

I hope you can lead by example to help others like you--others who are purposely obtuse, don't understand the denotations of commonly used words, and enter my threads solely to flog their hate boners against me--to also avoid my OPs.

I have become inured to your content-free responses filled with insulting false accusations and ad homs. I guess optimism triumphed over experience with your OPs. Not any more.

One would expect that an intellectually honest and intelligent writer who found they had to constantly explain their "satire" to their audience would realize that perhaps the problem was not with audience.

 

[Metaphor]

[

I did not say 'legitimate government'. Those are your words, conjured in the post above. I said 'Ukraine', which is true, and the State. The State is sometimes legitimate and sometimes it is not…

No one is interested in your excuses for sloppy thinking, blaming your audience for not understanding your incoherent “satire”, or your insulting straw men.

The only person who did not understand my satire was Loren.

Wrong

You understood it, you just don't like it.

it is a poor attempt at “satire” that conflated irrational dislikes as argument. Instead if coming out with a clear point “Conscription is immoral”, the OP is littered with irrelevant swipes at your irrational bugaboos.

When numerous readers “misinterpret” your “satires” over time, instead of entertaining the
realistic thought that your “ satiric” skills are abysmal, you fling insulting straw men and ad homs. I find them unpleasant, tedious and ignorant. I doubt I will bother with such OPs in future.

I hope you can lead by example to help others like you--others who are purposely obtuse, don't understand the denotations of commonly used words, and enter my threads solely to flog their hate boners against me--to also avoid my OPs.

I have become inured to your content-free responses filled with insulting false accusations and ad homs. I guess optimism triumphed over experience with your OPs. Not any more.

One would expect that an intellectually honest and intelligent writer who found they had to constantly explain their "satire" to their audience would realize that perhaps the problem was not with audience.

If my audience were the general public who had an objective perspective on a neutral subject (or at least had a neutral response to me as author), you might have a point.

However, this is not the only forum I post on, so I have other perspectives on my writing. I'm not nearly so "misunderstood" on other fora, and it's not because my writing is any different.

 

[laughing dog]

If my audience were the general public who had an objective perspective on a neutral subject (or at least had a neutral response to me as author), you might have a point.

However, this is not the only forum I post on, so I have other perspectives on my writing. I'm not nearly so "misunderstood" on other fora, and it's not because my writing is any different.

Assuming your assessment of the other audiences is accurate (a big assumption), it misses the point. When you post here, the participants here are your audience.

One would expect that an intellectually honest and intelligent writer who found they had to constantly explain their "satire" to their audience would realize that perhaps the problem was not with audience.

 

[Metaphor]

If my audience were the general public who had an objective perspective on a neutral subject (or at least had a neutral response to me as author), you might have a point.

However, this is not the only forum I post on, so I have other perspectives on my writing. I'm not nearly so "misunderstood" on other fora, and it's not because my writing is any different.

Assuming your assessment of the other audiences is accurate (a big assumption), it misses the point. When you post here, the participants here are your audience.

One would expect that an intellectually honest and intelligent writer who found they had to constantly explain their "satire" to their audience would realize that perhaps the problem was not with audience.

Non. It might be practical to abandon my rhetorical style in the face of a hostile audience determined to miss the point, but there is nothing intellectually honest about it.

 

[laughing dog]

If my audience were the general public who had an objective perspective on a neutral subject (or at least had a neutral response to me as author), you might have a point.

However, this is not the only forum I post on, so I have other perspectives on my writing. I'm not nearly so "misunderstood" on other fora, and it's not because my writing is any different.

Assuming your assessment of the other audiences is accurate (a big assumption), it misses the point. When you post here, the participants here are your audience.

One would expect that an intellectually honest and intelligent writer who found they had to constantly explain their "satire" to their audience would realize that perhaps the problem was not with audience.

Non. It might be practical to abandon my rhetorical style in the face of a hostile audience determined to miss the point, but there is nothing intellectually honest about it.

Blaming your audience for your inability to present your ideas in a manner that fosters fruitful discussion is a horseshit excuse even for you.

Someone who is truly interested in honest discussion would want to present their ideas as clearly as possible. Apparently you are not interested in intellectually honest discussion.

 

[Toni]

The older one becomes, the more shades of gray one can discern. I wish I were a good enough person to 100% embrace non-violence as the only solution. I do, in theory. But I also know that sometimes, evil must be stopped before all is destroyed.

How does being opposed to the draft mean you are opposed to a country defending itself?

I am not understanding your question.

You said:

I wish I were a good enough person to 100% embrace non-violence as the only solution.

I disagree that defending your country against violence with violence makes you a less good person than being a pacifist.

Or did you mean "I wish I did not have to endorse the draft" (which is State violence against its own citizens) as the "only solution"?

“Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accept the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay-and claims a halo for his dishonesty.”
― Robert Heinlein

With apologies to his many fans, Robert Heinlein is not my role model for personal philosophy.

 

[Toni]

If my audience were the general public who had an objective perspective on a neutral subject (or at least had a neutral response to me as author), you might have a point.

However, this is not the only forum I post on, so I have other perspectives on my writing. I'm not nearly so "misunderstood" on other fora, and it's not because my writing is any different.

Assuming your assessment of the other audiences is accurate (a big assumption), it misses the point. When you post here, the participants here are your audience.

One would expect that an intellectually honest and intelligent writer who found they had to constantly explain their "satire" to their audience would realize that perhaps the problem was not with audience.

Non. It might be practical to abandon my rhetorical style in the face of a hostile audience determined to miss the point, but there is nothing intellectually honest about it.

I see your point. If you abandoned your—what did you call it? ‘Rhetorical style?’ You might have to do something other than fall back on attempts to distract, obfuscate, cry gotcha, etc. I agree that you generally seem uninterested in a straight forward discussion. And if someone misunderstands, you do not offer a simple clarification. Nope. You become insulting and add further distractions and obfuscation. Or have a temper tantrum.

Whether this is simply an extension of the ‘style’ that leads to misunderstanding or there is some other aspect that is not obvious to me, it comes across as you not actually being willing or perhaps able to engage in honest discourse.

But I don’t know your life.

I am making a very honest attempt to explain to you how your ‘style’ is not as effective as you may think here. If it works fir you other places, then great. But here: if you like what is happening in these threads, please feel free to continue. But if you’d like a different type of discussion, or a different type of response, maybe adjust your style a bit. You know: be more flexible. Be more direct when someone asks for clarification cation or if you think they misunderstood you.

My 2 cents.