It’s also the home of people being drafted (even more so than for political elite of the country). If some of them want to get the fuck out (yes, from their home) then those thay have elected shouldn’t have the right to force them to stay and die.
It’s a little more complicated than that (and the original post is a ridiculous oversimplifications with the intellectual level of a 5-year-old, if that much).
It’s down to how much do each of us owe to the Society we grew up in and the Society we live in (if not the same) and thus how much do we have a moral duty to pay it back when called upon it to protect said Society.
Different people will decide differently on those things and thus determine in their own minds what they think their “duty” is.
Then of course, on top of this there’s also the whole “protecting my family”, “fight alonside my friends”, plain old “warrior spirit” and such motivations on one side, as well as “having to stay to work to feed my family” and such on the other, but that’s not really to do with “duty” and “moral”.
In this specific case there is also the HUGE moral element that they’re paying to avoid the draft, and those doing so actually have money, so they’re likelly bigger beneficiaries from Society than those who can’t afford to make such payments, which brings in a massive element of injustice (one might make the case that the richer the person the more they have a duty towards the Society that made the and kept them thus).
Ultimatelly the draft itself should include some elements to make it fairer (and it does, up to a point, thinks like not drafting poor people with lots of kids - who need to earn a living for their family - or people who don’t have the local citizenship - who likely owe much less to local society than the locals) but in this specific case it absolutelly make sense to throw the book at those who are local citizens who have more money than most and yet use it to evade a duty to Society which is likely higher than that of most other people.
So society owes us nothing, but we owe society our lives? Why? I’m not sure I agree with that. I would risk my life protecting myself and my loved ones, but asking me to protect strangers and to die for them is a tall ask IMO.
Those people happily enjoyed the benefits of their society, and now try to get around the contribution part - by spending money they got trough their position in this very society.
Everyone is free to dislike this deal, but then you should find yourself a country which doesn’t have a draft. It’s as simple as that. But they didn’t. They lived in their comfort zone and now try to get around the rules.
Last, this discussion should be about the officials who took the bribes.
That you can read and write, have Internet and are alive past (I assume) the ripe old age of 20, is because of Society: anything that you cannot do with your own hands only exists because people have organised to achieve more than single individuals can by themselves and to protect what they achieved from other individuals that would take it by force.
Being outside Society would basically mean having the same rights as a wild animal: you can be killed at will by anybody, enslaved, own nothing that you cannot yourself protect, will be left to die if hurt, will likely be run over and/or killed if you enter communal spaces (such as road, parks). Forget about more complex rights than that such as the rights that come from citizenship: wild animals are not citizens.
It would be immenselly educational for people who parrot this kind of libertarian crap if there was indeed a way for them to be free of all duty to Society and Society free of all duty to them.
As there isn’t, if you want a (even partially so) place where people have little or no duty to Society, I suggest you move to a place like Somalia, though I expect that if you take such an extreme “I have no duty to the group” take as you wrote here you would be dead pretty quickly (or maybe just enslaved, who knows): even in a place like that which is pretty much an Anarchy when it comes to the power of the State, people still group up in large groups with a mutual duty of protection (a Society of tribes), and funnilly enough that is same kind of mutual duty of protection you want to evade in the “tribe” you are part of currently whilst enjoying all the benefits only made possible by that very thing you do not want to fight to protect.
Even cavemen had Societies, just very small and called tribes, only back then those who didn’t want to contribute to the defense of the group were pushed out and generally died.
Only certain political subcultures in the United States and most absolute dictatorships (like China and Russia) think the State is Society.
States are just one form of organisation that naturally emerges in Societies to manage certain aspects of it. They’re not Society, just as Legal is not the same as Moral (i.e. sometimes what’s lawfull is imoral and what’s moral is illegal).
In fact I agree that people have no duty to the State.
And in Russia that does mean that they have no duty to obey the draft, because it was the Russian State that made the war and it’s not being done for the good of Society.
However in Ukraine people would be fighting for Society, not the State and in fact they would be fighting against the State: the Russian State, which is trying take over their land, their things and even control their lives and impose their will on them.
On the Ukranian side this is very much a fight for Freedom from a State which does not operate for the good of people and doesn’t even want them to be free.
In fact it even makes sense for some Ukranians to be against the Ukranian State as it operates and still join to fight because the Russian State would be even worse - they’re fighting for their families, their friends, their neighbours, even themselves, not for the Ukranian State.
I’m surprised so many people read your post without holding the simple truth that Society (all of us) is not the State (just a few people, sometimes not even elected and when elected, often only through lies and rules that mathematically rig the voting systems). I suppose there are a lot of politicans that want people to confuse such things as Nationalism and Patriotism, hence people who are constantly fed that political spin also end up confusing related elements such as the State, the Nation and Society.
(Also most actual Political Thinking has been killed in the last 4 decades and replaced by techniques from Marketing, so it’s unsurprising that most people haven’t really pondered by themselves on these things which were all the rage for ideologies back in the first half or the XX century, especially in the US where politics has long ceased to be about grand visions for the future of society).
I think that when you grow up and live in a society, you owe many parts of your life to it, to the people who educated you, taught you, protected you or served you, but also the people who came before and made it possible for all those previous people to be there for you.
Therefore, you have a moral responsibility to defend that.
Yeah, we have the moral responsibility to defend our corrupted politicians and billionares who brought humanity to the brink of extinction. This system must be saved at all cost
Do you think what Putin wants to bring to Ukrain is any better? It’s what you describe multiplied by a thousand. So yes, we have the moral responsability to resist against the worse even if the current is not great.
There a huge difference between parents making a child do something, with basically no legal repercussions if they don’t, and the government forcing an adult to do something against their will at the threat of prison.
Why would I give even the slightest shit about my “culture” being erased if a landmine turns half of my body into pink mist and I bleed out in the middle of a battlefield?
It’s not just land, land is intimately related to culture. Also millions moving to a neighbor country will generally create a political and humanitarian crisis, it’s not a magical solution with no negative consequences.
Could you expand more on your definition of culture? To me, culture relating to land has no inherent value (assuming you mean shrines, temples, etc) without those that recognize their value. For example, a culturally important place of worship has little to no value if most of the people who value it died trying to defend it.
One of the foundation of culture is transforming the land, starting from agriculture. The way the natural land was shaped by the people living on is a first marker of culture. Then comes the art and the buildings, in Europe we have a very dense network of historical remains spanning thousands of years, from cave paintings to modern art museums.
If you have ever seen with your own eyes or touched with your own hands a famous remain of your place, you know the emotion is not quite the same as seeing it on the internet. It creates a feeling of belonging to a line of people who have created things bigger than them, and you reach a better understanding of how everything that allows your life today was progressively developed. It makes you want to protect this inheritance for others to access the same knowledge and emotions, and it may motivate you to produce something that could reach a similar value.
Land inspire artists and creators in general. The most evident example is how Mount Fuji inspired the creation of an insane quantity of art in Japan, such as the Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji by Hokusai. The famous Great Wave off Kanagawa from this series, which is actually about the Mount Fuji, had a massive impact on the world culture.
The end of 19th century classical guitar piece Recuerdos de la Alhambra written by Spanish composer Francisco Tárrega is an interesting example. It was inspired by the Alhambra palace in Spain, which was built during the 13th century by the Emirates who conquered Spain during the previous centuries. Nonetheless, it became part of the Spanish culture and inspired new art pieces. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjX-m4LkYk
To get back to the mountains, but with a historical scientific experiment this time (science is part of culture). Blaise Pascal did a historical experiment in 1648 at the Puy-de-Dôme (volcanic mountain in the middle of France) in order to test the “weight of air” that later led to the understanding of atmospheric pressure (immortalized by the Pascal unit of measurement). This would not have been possible in Holland (because it’s flat). https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/11/blaise-pascal-florin-p-and-puy-de-d.html
There are countless examples of how ancient Greece and Rome inspired arts and architecture at different centuries: 16th century St. Peter’s basilica, 17th century Versailles palace or Neoclassicism art in the 18th and 19th centuries.
There are many other examples about rivers, lakes, seas, cities etc…
That is to say, the land and how it is transformed and built are major sources of culture. If you take the same people but magically modify their history, so they lived on a different land, you will have a different culture. Probably not worse nor better, but different, because the land inspires the culture.
If your people are not living on its history soaked land anymore, you lose those major culture nutriments. I’m not saying people cannot carry part of their culture with them, nor that culture cannot reinvent itself and be inspired by different origins, but you have more chances to dilute or lose culturally important works of the past if they are not set in stone. Stones that you can access.
Apologies for the delayed response, I appreciate the effort you put into your reply and I felt that I could not fully parse it and form a proper response in my ill state a couple of days ago.
I understand what you’re saying! I do recognize that culture can be very important to a lot of people and that it can give them a sense of belonging, strengthen their bonds with their community, and give them a day-to-day purpose to do what they do. I strongly believe that if people choose to do so, they have the right to fight and die to protect their culture and that there’s nothing wrong with that. The issue I raise is with drafts specifically because they compel people to fight and die for a cause they may not believe in. A draft is essentially a sacrifice of unwilling innocent people in order to protect a culture, and I don’t think that such a large-scale sacrifice can be justified to protect something that is NOT human life.
The location of culture is not explicitly stated in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. I believe that aspects of it would be spread out across the hierarchy, but are at most at the level of (and are only part of) “belonging and love.” This is because as you have stated, culture can be important for giving people a sense of belonging and makes them feel like they’re part of something bigger than themselves. If you are forced to fight and die a brutal death, you are losing your safety and physiological needs in order to protect others’ belonging and love, and to me, that is unfair and wrong. This isn’t necessarily always the case - extremes like sacrificing one person to save a nation do seem right to me - but the immense scale of suffering and death of unwilling and innocent people wrought by a draft is unjustifiable for what it protects.
Even though culture as you describe it is clearly valuable, it is something that can only be experienced through the lens of people and therefore only has as much value as the people who experience it. By supporting a draft, you’re essentially making the moral judgement call that it is okay to force numerous people to die brutal and bloody deaths so that others can enrich their lives through a strong and protected culture. The cost in human lives, violations of their rights, and infliction of suffering is simply too great.
I’m gonna have to read this wall of text when I’m not as sleep deprived, so I’m saving it for later. If I haven’t responded in like 3 days, feel free to bug me again.
Better than the invaders? I agree with the general statement, but when you’re in the line of sight of an automatic rifle, they’re not going to be impressed by your ethics.
I’m all for giving the good example and building peaceful relations, but when you’re faced with extremists who immediately endanger your life, you have to defend yourself first. It’s like a violent aggression in the street, you have to defend yourself against the immediate aggression first, to protect your body, your life and maybe your relatives’, before you can find a more civilized alternative like deescalating or getting help from the police.
You are mixing up bullshit. In order to defend themself one of the best thing ukrainian people can do is to ditch their own government who is drafting them to a meat slaughter over invisible lines on the map. Does this mean they have to stop fighting another authoritarian government trying to impose their laws and drafting on them? Nope, people exists with or without a flag on top of their head and a bunch of politicians ruling on them.
There is also the case of Afghanistan, but they are a quasi-organized paramilitary fundamentalist organization of loose warlords that terrorize their citizens when left unabated.
Peace through superior firepower is something illogical that does not make much sense. There will be peace once “fighting for your country is always a good thing” propaganda is no more.
Conscripting a guy to go to war on your behalf, watching them die in your defense, and then breathing a sigh of relief because at least you didn’t lose anything.
Draft is slavery
What do you suggest doing when your home is invaded by people who want to erase your culture?
Lives are not property of the State.
Ukrainian should defend itself by violence. But human beings are not tools or weapons.
War robots to the rescue!
Indeed
It’s also the home of people being drafted (even more so than for political elite of the country). If some of them want to get the fuck out (yes, from their home) then those thay have elected shouldn’t have the right to force them to stay and die.
It’s a little more complicated than that (and the original post is a ridiculous oversimplifications with the intellectual level of a 5-year-old, if that much).
It’s down to how much do each of us owe to the Society we grew up in and the Society we live in (if not the same) and thus how much do we have a moral duty to pay it back when called upon it to protect said Society.
Different people will decide differently on those things and thus determine in their own minds what they think their “duty” is.
Then of course, on top of this there’s also the whole “protecting my family”, “fight alonside my friends”, plain old “warrior spirit” and such motivations on one side, as well as “having to stay to work to feed my family” and such on the other, but that’s not really to do with “duty” and “moral”.
In this specific case there is also the HUGE moral element that they’re paying to avoid the draft, and those doing so actually have money, so they’re likelly bigger beneficiaries from Society than those who can’t afford to make such payments, which brings in a massive element of injustice (one might make the case that the richer the person the more they have a duty towards the Society that made the and kept them thus).
Ultimatelly the draft itself should include some elements to make it fairer (and it does, up to a point, thinks like not drafting poor people with lots of kids - who need to earn a living for their family - or people who don’t have the local citizenship - who likely owe much less to local society than the locals) but in this specific case it absolutelly make sense to throw the book at those who are local citizens who have more money than most and yet use it to evade a duty to Society which is likely higher than that of most other people.
So society owes us nothing, but we owe society our lives? Why? I’m not sure I agree with that. I would risk my life protecting myself and my loved ones, but asking me to protect strangers and to die for them is a tall ask IMO.
Society is the return for contributing.
Those people happily enjoyed the benefits of their society, and now try to get around the contribution part - by spending money they got trough their position in this very society.
Everyone is free to dislike this deal, but then you should find yourself a country which doesn’t have a draft. It’s as simple as that. But they didn’t. They lived in their comfort zone and now try to get around the rules.
Last, this discussion should be about the officials who took the bribes.
That’s not at all what I said.
That you can read and write, have Internet and are alive past (I assume) the ripe old age of 20, is because of Society: anything that you cannot do with your own hands only exists because people have organised to achieve more than single individuals can by themselves and to protect what they achieved from other individuals that would take it by force.
Being outside Society would basically mean having the same rights as a wild animal: you can be killed at will by anybody, enslaved, own nothing that you cannot yourself protect, will be left to die if hurt, will likely be run over and/or killed if you enter communal spaces (such as road, parks). Forget about more complex rights than that such as the rights that come from citizenship: wild animals are not citizens.
It would be immenselly educational for people who parrot this kind of libertarian crap if there was indeed a way for them to be free of all duty to Society and Society free of all duty to them.
As there isn’t, if you want a (even partially so) place where people have little or no duty to Society, I suggest you move to a place like Somalia, though I expect that if you take such an extreme “I have no duty to the group” take as you wrote here you would be dead pretty quickly (or maybe just enslaved, who knows): even in a place like that which is pretty much an Anarchy when it comes to the power of the State, people still group up in large groups with a mutual duty of protection (a Society of tribes), and funnilly enough that is same kind of mutual duty of protection you want to evade in the “tribe” you are part of currently whilst enjoying all the benefits only made possible by that very thing you do not want to fight to protect.
Even cavemen had Societies, just very small and called tribes, only back then those who didn’t want to contribute to the defense of the group were pushed out and generally died.
Just contribute your life savings to the war effort in exchange?
As corrupt and shitty the Ukrainian state is, very few people owe their life to it. Draftdodging is morally defensible in almost all wars.
Society is not the State.
Only certain political subcultures in the United States and most absolute dictatorships (like China and Russia) think the State is Society.
States are just one form of organisation that naturally emerges in Societies to manage certain aspects of it. They’re not Society, just as Legal is not the same as Moral (i.e. sometimes what’s lawfull is imoral and what’s moral is illegal).
In fact I agree that people have no duty to the State.
And in Russia that does mean that they have no duty to obey the draft, because it was the Russian State that made the war and it’s not being done for the good of Society.
However in Ukraine people would be fighting for Society, not the State and in fact they would be fighting against the State: the Russian State, which is trying take over their land, their things and even control their lives and impose their will on them.
On the Ukranian side this is very much a fight for Freedom from a State which does not operate for the good of people and doesn’t even want them to be free.
In fact it even makes sense for some Ukranians to be against the Ukranian State as it operates and still join to fight because the Russian State would be even worse - they’re fighting for their families, their friends, their neighbours, even themselves, not for the Ukranian State.
I’m surprised so many people read your post without holding the simple truth that Society (all of us) is not the State (just a few people, sometimes not even elected and when elected, often only through lies and rules that mathematically rig the voting systems). I suppose there are a lot of politicans that want people to confuse such things as Nationalism and Patriotism, hence people who are constantly fed that political spin also end up confusing related elements such as the State, the Nation and Society.
(Also most actual Political Thinking has been killed in the last 4 decades and replaced by techniques from Marketing, so it’s unsurprising that most people haven’t really pondered by themselves on these things which were all the rage for ideologies back in the first half or the XX century, especially in the US where politics has long ceased to be about grand visions for the future of society).
Draftdoging an economic or offensive war is much different than draftdoging a defensive war.
I think that when you grow up and live in a society, you owe many parts of your life to it, to the people who educated you, taught you, protected you or served you, but also the people who came before and made it possible for all those previous people to be there for you.
Therefore, you have a moral responsibility to defend that.
Yeah, we have the moral responsibility to defend our corrupted politicians and billionares who brought humanity to the brink of extinction. This system must be saved at all cost
Do you think what Putin wants to bring to Ukrain is any better? It’s what you describe multiplied by a thousand. So yes, we have the moral responsability to resist against the worse even if the current is not great.
^^ found Zelensky’s lemmy account
I’m not from Ukraine.
I mean, to be fair, slavery is slavery whether there’s a “good reason” or not
You generally don’t get paid for being a slave, nor recover your freedom after the crisis has passed.
Forced labour and servitude generally fall under the umbrella of slavery, according to the USIDHR at least
Recover your freedom? So you’re not free and are forced to work? Sounds like textbook slavery, to me. Indentured servitude is still slavery
You are forced to go to school, you are forced to work to earn your life. Are those slavery too?
deleted by creator
There a huge difference between parents making a child do something, with basically no legal repercussions if they don’t, and the government forcing an adult to do something against their will at the threat of prison.
They are all restricting your freedom because there’s a consensus that it helps the group in general.
School doesn’t kill you. I don’t even qualify for the draft anymore and I know it’s fucking vile.
Nor will you if you’re dead.
deleted by creator
Of course, it would be best if they did it willingly. But if they don’t, you just accept being invaded and erased?
I would rather do that instead of indirectly killing a bunch of unwilling people, yeah.
Even if you think that the invader will kill and destroy more than you would by preventing its invasion?
deleted by creator
The only reason they can invade another country to begin with is because they are drafting people to do it.
Russian drafts happened after the invasion, especially when they encountered unexpected resistance from the Ukrainian.
Why would I give even the slightest shit about my “culture” being erased if a landmine turns half of my body into pink mist and I bleed out in the middle of a battlefield?
If you only care about your own life, there’s indeed no reason to.
deleted by creator
Anyone else who doesn’t want to stay and fight should flee too. Land isn’t worth the blood of millions.
It’s not just land, land is intimately related to culture. Also millions moving to a neighbor country will generally create a political and humanitarian crisis, it’s not a magical solution with no negative consequences.
Could you expand more on your definition of culture? To me, culture relating to land has no inherent value (assuming you mean shrines, temples, etc) without those that recognize their value. For example, a culturally important place of worship has little to no value if most of the people who value it died trying to defend it.
There are no perfect solutions, of course.
One of the foundation of culture is transforming the land, starting from agriculture. The way the natural land was shaped by the people living on is a first marker of culture. Then comes the art and the buildings, in Europe we have a very dense network of historical remains spanning thousands of years, from cave paintings to modern art museums. If you have ever seen with your own eyes or touched with your own hands a famous remain of your place, you know the emotion is not quite the same as seeing it on the internet. It creates a feeling of belonging to a line of people who have created things bigger than them, and you reach a better understanding of how everything that allows your life today was progressively developed. It makes you want to protect this inheritance for others to access the same knowledge and emotions, and it may motivate you to produce something that could reach a similar value.
Land inspire artists and creators in general. The most evident example is how Mount Fuji inspired the creation of an insane quantity of art in Japan, such as the Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji by Hokusai. The famous Great Wave off Kanagawa from this series, which is actually about the Mount Fuji, had a massive impact on the world culture.
Similarly, post-impressionist painter Paul Cézanne painted multiple views of mount Sainte-Victoire https://drawpaintacademy.com/mont-sainte-victoire/
The end of 19th century classical guitar piece Recuerdos de la Alhambra written by Spanish composer Francisco Tárrega is an interesting example. It was inspired by the Alhambra palace in Spain, which was built during the 13th century by the Emirates who conquered Spain during the previous centuries. Nonetheless, it became part of the Spanish culture and inspired new art pieces.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjX-m4LkYk
To get back to the mountains, but with a historical scientific experiment this time (science is part of culture). Blaise Pascal did a historical experiment in 1648 at the Puy-de-Dôme (volcanic mountain in the middle of France) in order to test the “weight of air” that later led to the understanding of atmospheric pressure (immortalized by the Pascal unit of measurement). This would not have been possible in Holland (because it’s flat). https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/11/blaise-pascal-florin-p-and-puy-de-d.html
There are countless examples of how ancient Greece and Rome inspired arts and architecture at different centuries: 16th century St. Peter’s basilica, 17th century Versailles palace or Neoclassicism art in the 18th and 19th centuries.
There are many other examples about rivers, lakes, seas, cities etc…
That is to say, the land and how it is transformed and built are major sources of culture. If you take the same people but magically modify their history, so they lived on a different land, you will have a different culture. Probably not worse nor better, but different, because the land inspires the culture.
If your people are not living on its history soaked land anymore, you lose those major culture nutriments. I’m not saying people cannot carry part of their culture with them, nor that culture cannot reinvent itself and be inspired by different origins, but you have more chances to dilute or lose culturally important works of the past if they are not set in stone. Stones that you can access.
It may even get physically destroyed and erased, like what ISIL terrorists did of the ancient temples in Iraq and Syria. To be fair, it also happens from “democratic” movements, such as how the French Revolution destroyed many pieces of arts because it represented the Nobility and the Church. https://www.nytimes.com/1977/05/04/archives/notre-dame-statuary-lost-in-1793-unearthed-in-paris.html
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/12/video-islamic-state-nimrud/25667399/
Given that Putin negates Ukrainian’s history and culture as a justification to invade it, we can expect that he would continue on his pathway of destruction to erase any reminder of it.
https://theconversation.com/we-should-all-be-concerned-that-putin-is-trying-to-destroy-ukrainian-culture-179351
So that’s a couple of elements that came to my mind about why defending your land is important for your culture.
Apologies for the delayed response, I appreciate the effort you put into your reply and I felt that I could not fully parse it and form a proper response in my ill state a couple of days ago.
I understand what you’re saying! I do recognize that culture can be very important to a lot of people and that it can give them a sense of belonging, strengthen their bonds with their community, and give them a day-to-day purpose to do what they do. I strongly believe that if people choose to do so, they have the right to fight and die to protect their culture and that there’s nothing wrong with that. The issue I raise is with drafts specifically because they compel people to fight and die for a cause they may not believe in. A draft is essentially a sacrifice of unwilling innocent people in order to protect a culture, and I don’t think that such a large-scale sacrifice can be justified to protect something that is NOT human life.
The location of culture is not explicitly stated in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. I believe that aspects of it would be spread out across the hierarchy, but are at most at the level of (and are only part of) “belonging and love.” This is because as you have stated, culture can be important for giving people a sense of belonging and makes them feel like they’re part of something bigger than themselves. If you are forced to fight and die a brutal death, you are losing your safety and physiological needs in order to protect others’ belonging and love, and to me, that is unfair and wrong. This isn’t necessarily always the case - extremes like sacrificing one person to save a nation do seem right to me - but the immense scale of suffering and death of unwilling and innocent people wrought by a draft is unjustifiable for what it protects.
Even though culture as you describe it is clearly valuable, it is something that can only be experienced through the lens of people and therefore only has as much value as the people who experience it. By supporting a draft, you’re essentially making the moral judgement call that it is okay to force numerous people to die brutal and bloody deaths so that others can enrich their lives through a strong and protected culture. The cost in human lives, violations of their rights, and infliction of suffering is simply too great.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=fwjX-m4LkYk
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I’m gonna have to read this wall of text when I’m not as sleep deprived, so I’m saving it for later. If I haven’t responded in like 3 days, feel free to bug me again.
The really first thing you want to do is to try to be better than them
Better than the invaders? I agree with the general statement, but when you’re in the line of sight of an automatic rifle, they’re not going to be impressed by your ethics.
It reminds me of Gandhi, who recommended his Jewish friends who were facing Nazism to just peacefully protest and wrote a nice letter to Hitler in 1939 to politely ask him to reconsider going to war. 6 million Jews were assassinated nonetheless.
https://apnews.com/general-news-f40d8c2c7d8d4ffeadd576ded89acc0c
https://time.com/5685122/gandhi-hitler-letter/
I’m all for giving the good example and building peaceful relations, but when you’re faced with extremists who immediately endanger your life, you have to defend yourself first. It’s like a violent aggression in the street, you have to defend yourself against the immediate aggression first, to protect your body, your life and maybe your relatives’, before you can find a more civilized alternative like deescalating or getting help from the police.
You are mixing up bullshit. In order to defend themself one of the best thing ukrainian people can do is to ditch their own government who is drafting them to a meat slaughter over invisible lines on the map. Does this mean they have to stop fighting another authoritarian government trying to impose their laws and drafting on them? Nope, people exists with or without a flag on top of their head and a bunch of politicians ruling on them.
Ah yes, I’m sure the new laissez faire Ukrainian army will be able to stand up to a united Russian military machine!
No military can stand up to angry people
There’s quite a history of military rolling over angry civilians.
There is also the case of Afghanistan, but they are a quasi-organized paramilitary fundamentalist organization of loose warlords that terrorize their citizens when left unabated.
Do we really wanna be like Afghanistan?
Deconstruction is not an argument.
Lol your house is just a collection of bricks what do you mean I cant live there?
Lmaoo money is literally just numbers why do you give a shit if I take a few numbers from you?
Fighting for your country is always a good thing. Its your country, your land and your people and they deserve to be protected.
Russia propaganda.
Drafting is there to protect the state and its government at the expenses of people.
Projection + fixed the grammar for you Vlad
Drafting is used in Ukraine to protect the people from invasive forces. The ONLY way to peace in Ukraine is through superior firepower, nothing less.
Please continue dodging the arguments I make though.
Peace through superior firepower is something illogical that does not make much sense. There will be peace once “fighting for your country is always a good thing” propaganda is no more.
War is death.
In a situation where losing means you lose everything… It’s a small price to pay.
Sorry somepeople don`t want to do for a country. If you want to do die. go for It. I wouldnt
Conscripting a guy to go to war on your behalf, watching them die in your defense, and then breathing a sigh of relief because at least you didn’t lose anything.
Apple is truck.
See? I can also spew nonsense.
Words do mean things. Conscription is involuntary labor. Slavery is… involuntary labor. A=A.