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

[Metaphor]

One would think that any moral judgment(s) about conscription or gender-specific conscription would also take into account the context of the conscription. Rational adults can be against conscription in general, understand that in some instances it may be the lesser evil.

Either you support Ukraine's conscription or you don't.

That is a false dichotomy caused your insistence on a black or white interpretation of the world.

Sure luv.

I believe I understand why Ukraine did it. I do not think the gov't of Ukraine should be ridiculed with moronic "satire" over such a difficult decision caused by an unprovoked invasion by a ruthless aggressor.

Unfortunately for you, I am still able to exercise my right to post opinions on message boards, unless the State forbids me doing that, too.

???????

What are you confused about?

laughing dog expressed his dislike for my OP, I countered that unfortunately for him, I still have the freedom to make such OPs.

 

[Metaphor]

Welcome to the wild and wacky world of libberpublican morality and ethics.
Everything must be black or white, wrong or right. Nuance is for pussies.

Do you support Ukraine's conscription of men 18-60?

That^ is what I’m taking about. libberpubs insist upon yes/no answers, even when they don’t apply. Nuance, schmuance!

Do you support a sovereign state’s right to conscript 18-60 males when it’s under unprovoked attack and its citizens are subjected to genocide? My answer: Maybe.
Yours? Be sure to answer yes or no, and make certain that it applies in ALL cases!

That's the big problem with libertarian thought. Or non-thought, really. It's edge cases like this that show just how shallow and unthinking the philosophy really is. If Metaphor's philosophy was used in Ukraine, a totally anti-libertarian outcome would occur.

Do you support Ukraine's conscription of men 18-60?

Yes, if needed to repel the murdeous invaders.

Thank you for answering.

I'm interested, also, in what you define as 'men'. Do you think trans women (biologically male) should be part of the conscription, or should they be exempted? Converesely, should trans men (biologically female) be part of the conscription, or should be exempted?

 

[TomC]

Welcome to the wild and wacky world of libberpublican morality and ethics.
Everything must be black or white, wrong or right. Nuance is for pussies.

Do you support Ukraine's conscription of men 18-60?

That^ is what I’m taking about. libberpubs insist upon yes/no answers, even when they don’t apply. Nuance, schmuance!

Do you support a sovereign state’s right to conscript 18-60 males when it’s under unprovoked attack and its citizens are subjected to genocide? My answer: Maybe.
Yours? Be sure to answer yes or no, and make certain that it applies in ALL cases!

That's the big problem with libertarian thought. Or non-thought, really. It's edge cases like this that show just how shallow and unthinking the philosophy really is. If Metaphor's philosophy was used in Ukraine, a totally anti-libertarian outcome would occur.

Do you support Ukraine's conscription of men 18-60?

Yes, if needed to repel the murdeous invaders.

Thank you for answering.

I'm interested, also, in what you define as 'men'. Do you think trans women (biologically male) should be part of the conscription, or should they be exempted? Converesely, should trans men (biologically female) be part of the conscription, or should be exempted?

And now you're flipping back from government requirements of service to trans gender stuff.

What is the point?
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Welcome to the wild and wacky world of libberpublican morality and ethics.
Everything must be black or white, wrong or right. Nuance is for pussies.

Do you support Ukraine's conscription of men 18-60?

That^ is what I’m taking about. libberpubs insist upon yes/no answers, even when they don’t apply. Nuance, schmuance!

Do you support a sovereign state’s right to conscript 18-60 males when it’s under unprovoked attack and its citizens are subjected to genocide? My answer: Maybe.
Yours? Be sure to answer yes or no, and make certain that it applies in ALL cases!

That's the big problem with libertarian thought. Or non-thought, really. It's edge cases like this that show just how shallow and unthinking the philosophy really is. If Metaphor's philosophy was used in Ukraine, a totally anti-libertarian outcome would occur.

Do you support Ukraine's conscription of men 18-60?

Yes, if needed to repel the murdeous invaders.

Thank you for answering.

I'm interested, also, in what you define as 'men'. Do you think trans women (biologically male) should be part of the conscription, or should they be exempted? Converesely, should trans men (biologically female) be part of the conscription, or should be exempted?

And now you're flipping back from government requirements of service to trans gender stuff.

What is the point?
Tom

I explained the angle of my OP multiple times and I won't do it again.

You may not think it is relevant, but since ZiprHead supports a sexed (or possibly gendered) conscription, I want to know his exact meaning. If you are not interested you are free to move on.

 

[TomC]

I explained the angle of my OP multiple times and I won't do it again.

You've also changed it multiple times.

Is your OP about government requirements for service or trans gender people?
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I explained the angle of my OP multiple times and I won't do it again.

You've also changed it multiple times.

Is your OP about government requirements for service or trans gender people?
Tom

It's about both. Specifically, I used the angle of a trans woman's story and his subjection to a male draft, as I've already explained, more than once. Later, I found a story about a trans man who avoided the male draft and added it.

However, regardless of what you consider the OP to be 'about', discussion boards often have discussion on them, and the OP can go in different directions and different aspects of it can be introduced or discussed in more detail.

If you have no interest in how a sexed draft interacts with trans issues, I suggest you move on, instead of continually harassing me about it.

 

[Elixir]

Unfortunately for you, I am still able to exercise my right to post opinions on message boards, unless the State forbids me doing that, too.

Oh, never fear. I think your freedom to post is in no danger, as it is to everyone's benefit. You put on quite a show, much appreciated in some quarters. A bit too much of a one-trick pony for me...

 

[ZiprHead]

Welcome to the wild and wacky world of libberpublican morality and ethics.
Everything must be black or white, wrong or right. Nuance is for pussies.

Do you support Ukraine's conscription of men 18-60?

That^ is what I’m taking about. libberpubs insist upon yes/no answers, even when they don’t apply. Nuance, schmuance!

Do you support a sovereign state’s right to conscript 18-60 males when it’s under unprovoked attack and its citizens are subjected to genocide? My answer: Maybe.
Yours? Be sure to answer yes or no, and make certain that it applies in ALL cases!

That's the big problem with libertarian thought. Or non-thought, really. It's edge cases like this that show just how shallow and unthinking the philosophy really is. If Metaphor's philosophy was used in Ukraine, a totally anti-libertarian outcome would occur.

Do you support Ukraine's conscription of men 18-60?

Yes, if needed to repel the murdeous invaders.

Thank you for answering.

I'm interested, also, in what you define as 'men'. Do you think trans women (biologically male) should be part of the conscription, or should they be exempted? Converesely, should trans men (biologically female) be part of the conscription, or should be exempted?

I think if needed, anyone one should be up for conscription.

 

[Toni]

One would think that any moral judgment(s) about conscription or gender-specific conscription would also take into account the context of the conscription. Rational adults can be against conscription in general, understand that in some instances it may be the lesser evil.

Either you support Ukraine's conscription or you don't.

That is a false dichotomy caused your insistence on a black or white interpretation of the world.

Sure luv.

I believe I understand why Ukraine did it. I do not think the gov't of Ukraine should be ridiculed with moronic "satire" over such a difficult decision caused by an unprovoked invasion by a ruthless aggressor.

Unfortunately for you, I am still able to exercise my right to post opinions on message boards, unless the State forbids me doing that, too.

???????

What are you confused about?

laughing dog expressed his dislike for my OP, I countered that unfortunately for him, I still have the freedom to make such OPs.

Yeah, that was pages ago. Your ‘response’ seems way off any point you might make.

Obviously your prerogative but imho, not productive.

 

[Elixir]

I'm interested, also, in what you define as 'men'.

As always...

Do you think trans women (biologically male) should be part of the conscription, or should they be exempted? Converesely, should trans men (biologically female) be part of the conscription, or should be exempted?

Nobody should be conscripted. Ever. Period.
Conscription arises from the confluence of events that should not happen.

 

[laughing dog]

Never mind

 

[Elixir]

A few incarnations back when I was a Plains Indian, warfare was a constant. There was no conscription; willingness to die for the good of the tribe was assumed.
No, wait, that was someone else...

 

[laughing dog]

One would think that any moral judgment(s) about conscription or gender-specific conscription would also take into account the context of the conscription. Rational adults can be against conscription in general, understand that in some instances it may be the lesser evil.

Either you support Ukraine's conscription or you don't.

That is a false dichotomy caused your insistence on a black or white interpretation of the world.

Sure luv.

I believe I understand why Ukraine did it. I do not think the gov't of Ukraine should be ridiculed with moronic "satire" over such a difficult decision caused by an unprovoked invasion by a ruthless aggressor.

Unfortunately for you, I am still able to exercise my right to post opinions on message boards, unless the State forbids me doing that, too.

???????

What are you confused about?

laughing dog expressed his dislike for my OP, I countered that unfortunately for him, I still have the freedom to make such OPs.

I did not express my dislike. I expressed my opinion about is quality. I had and have not doubt that nothing I write will stop those OPs.

 

[Metaphor]

Welcome to the wild and wacky world of libberpublican morality and ethics.
Everything must be black or white, wrong or right. Nuance is for pussies.

Do you support Ukraine's conscription of men 18-60?

That^ is what I’m taking about. libberpubs insist upon yes/no answers, even when they don’t apply. Nuance, schmuance!

Do you support a sovereign state’s right to conscript 18-60 males when it’s under unprovoked attack and its citizens are subjected to genocide? My answer: Maybe.
Yours? Be sure to answer yes or no, and make certain that it applies in ALL cases!

That's the big problem with libertarian thought. Or non-thought, really. It's edge cases like this that show just how shallow and unthinking the philosophy really is. If Metaphor's philosophy was used in Ukraine, a totally anti-libertarian outcome would occur.

Do you support Ukraine's conscription of men 18-60?

Yes, if needed to repel the murdeous invaders.

Thank you for answering.

I'm interested, also, in what you define as 'men'. Do you think trans women (biologically male) should be part of the conscription, or should they be exempted? Converesely, should trans men (biologically female) be part of the conscription, or should be exempted?

I think if needed, anyone one should be up for conscription.

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

Ukraine is conscripting men 18-60. You indicated support. Do you think that ought include trans women, trans men, both, or neither?

 

[Metaphor]

One would think that any moral judgment(s) about conscription or gender-specific conscription would also take into account the context of the conscription. Rational adults can be against conscription in general, understand that in some instances it may be the lesser evil.

Either you support Ukraine's conscription or you don't.

That is a false dichotomy caused your insistence on a black or white interpretation of the world.

Sure luv.

I believe I understand why Ukraine did it. I do not think the gov't of Ukraine should be ridiculed with moronic "satire" over such a difficult decision caused by an unprovoked invasion by a ruthless aggressor.

Unfortunately for you, I am still able to exercise my right to post opinions on message boards, unless the State forbids me doing that, too.

???????

What are you confused about?

laughing dog expressed his dislike for my OP, I countered that unfortunately for him, I still have the freedom to make such OPs.

I did not express my dislike. I expressed my opinion about is quality. I had and have not doubt that nothing I write will stop those OPs.

Of course you expressed your dislike, as you have often done.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm interested, also, in what you define as 'men'.

As always...

Do you think trans women (biologically male) should be part of the conscription, or should they be exempted? Converesely, should trans men (biologically female) be part of the conscription, or should be exempted?

Nobody should be conscripted. Ever. Period.
Conscription arises from the confluence of events that should not happen.

Nevertheless, you said earlier:

Do you support a sovereign state’s right to conscript 18-60 males when it’s under unprovoked attack and its citizens are subjected to genocide? My answer: Maybe.

So you have left open the possibility that you would support a State's right to conscript 18-60 males.

Do you mean all males 18-60 regardless of gender identity, or would you categorically exclude trans women?

 

[Elixir]

Thanks for bringing that "dislike" stuff up!
I gotta say I dislike the thread title, which falsely imputes motives in my opinion.
Makes good click/flamebait though, so props for that.

Nevertheless, you said earlier:

I reserve my right to say ":"

 

[Swammerdami]

@ Metaphor — I thought I showed leniency by removing the word limitation on the essay, but you used the leniency to avoid writing the essay altogether! Use 10 words or 50 words, but please show SOME understanding of the topic so we can put the matter to rest.

Or are you demonstrating "libertarianism" by exercising your liberty to keep us confused about your system of values?

I'll admit to being confused in some of these threads. In another thread I asked for a definition of "libertarian" and was refused. In this thread, as far as I can gather, I learn that a "libertarian" has at least two important liberties:

• The liberty NOT to fight for one's family and homeland.
• The liberty to have public spaces specific to one's-self and fellow travelers and not available to men pretending to be women, transsexuals pretending to be transvestites, Democrats pretending to be libertarians, and so on.

One would think that any moral judgment(s) about conscription or gender-specific conscription would also take into account the context of the conscription. Rational adults can be against conscription in general, understand that in some instances it may be the lesser evil.

Either you support Ukraine's conscription or you don't.

That is a false dichotomy caused your insistence on a black or white interpretation of the world.

Sure luv.
. . .
Unfortunately for you, I am still able to exercise my right to post opinions on message boards, unless the State forbids me doing that, too.

???????

What are you confused about?

laughing dog expressed his dislike for my OP, I countered that unfortunately for him, I still have the freedom to make such OPs.

I don't know if Toni is confused about the same thing as I, but I was confused by the "too" I've emphasized. In the context of this thread, what is the other specific thing the State has forbidden you? (Are you thinking ahead to Putin's attack on Australia where the Oz government forbids you the liberty to flee without defending hearth and home?)

Also, why is it "unfortunate" for laughing dog that you have the freedom to make such OPs? Do you think laughing dog begrudges the excitement your OP has won?

 

[Metaphor]

@ Metaphor — I thought I showed leniency by removing the word limitation on the essay, but you used the leniency to avoid writing the essay altogether! Use 10 words or 50 words, but please show SOME understanding of the topic so we can put the matter to rest.

I am not obligated to write an essay of any length to 'show SOME understanding' of the topic. I understand what conscription is and I know its history.

You did not show "leniency" with your insulting original request or its stealthily revised re-request.

Or are you demonstrating "libertarianism" by exercising your liberty to keep us confused about your system of values?

I am not a libertarian.

I'll admit to being confused in some of these threads. In another thread I asked for a definition of "libertarian" and was refused. In this thread, as far as I can gather, I learn that a "libertarian" has at least two important liberties:

• The liberty NOT to fight for one's family and homeland.
• The liberty to have public spaces specific to one's-self and fellow travelers and not available to men pretending to be women, transsexuals pretending to be transvestites, Democrats pretending to be libertarians, and so on.

I am not a libertarian, so I don't know what you are confused about or why you are bringing this up.

I don't know if Toni is confused about the same thing as I, but I was confused by the "too" I've emphasized. In the context of this thread, what is the other specific thing the State has forbidden you? (Are you thinking ahead to Putin's attack on Australia where the Oz government forbids you the liberty to flee without defending hearth and home?)

The State has forbidden me to say a number of things. The specifics are not important, but one thing I am forbidden from doing is "misgendering" another Australian (Australia has fined people and forced public apologies for "misgendering").

Also, why is it "unfortunate" for laughing dog that you have the freedom to make such OPs? Do you think laughing dog begrudges the excitement your OP has won?

laughing dog doesn't like many of my OPs, and he expresses this dislike freely. Of course, I might be wrong about his psychological reaction to seeing things he regards as poor quality being posted on a message board he frequents.

 

[Metaphor]

Thanks for bringing that "dislike" stuff up!
I gotta say I dislike the thread title, which falsely imputes motives in my opinion.
Makes good click/flamebait though, so props for that.

The thread title does not impute motives to anybody, falsely or otherwise.

I agree the thread title is deliberately enticing, and I am proud of my wordsmithing.

Nevertheless, you said earlier:

I reserve my right to say ":"

You are allowed to say 'maybe', but that conflicts with what you said later.