Military Draft

[pogo_<3]

Wow, you really twisted that, didn't you? Good job. And that was a nice little jab at my husband. I wonder, would you have the balls to say that to my face? Anonymity on the internet is lovely, isn't it?

Uh no, I did not say it's the "only thing" we are good at. I said it's ONE THING we're really good at. I'm sorry you read it wrong (or how you wanted to read it so you could form some kind of baseless argument against me). We are animals, we have instincts, and on a purely instinctual level, we like POWER. Power makes you the 'most likely species to survive.' I realize that you are religious and may not agree that we are indeed animals, but we are. And I am a firm believer in the fact that fighting has been and always will be inherent human nature. It's certainly not pleasant, but plenty of things we deal with as human beings are not pleasant. I'm saying this because while there will always be people opposed to war, wars will continue to happen. I didn't say I like it. Do you think I'm happy my husband is gone? Do you think I'm happy that something could happen to him? Do you think he's running around over there going "I can't wait to kill me some Iraqis"? I mean, I feel sorry for anyone who allows themselves to be spoonfed their opinions by the media. Really.

My husband is a freedom loving INTP. He cannot stand being in the military. He came from a poor family. He didn't join the military to kill. He specifically joined to be a photographer because he couldn't afford art school and therefore chose the only artistic field in the military. He joined at the urging of his mother, because he didn't want to be a financial burden by living with his parents anymore. Many of you have an outdated, skewed view of military personnel. You need to keep your political views focused on the politicians and their policies, NOT the people who are in the military. I'm not saying there aren't racists and idiots in the military, because there are (and to me and many people I know they are an embarrassment to any branch of service, and are not a true representation of the military as a whole). There are plenty of idiots and racists outside of the military as well. There are very few people in the military who fancy the idea of deploying and killing anyone (I have personally met NONE, and I have been around the military since BIRTH). I mean, you are disillusioned if you believe everyone is going over there eager to kill anyone. In fact, PTSD is very real. VERY real. Do you even realize why people are suffering from PTSD? If they were so enjoying themselves over there, do you think they'd be suffering like that?

Honestly, much of what I'm reading here sickens me. I really have no problem saying that.



You're not trying to stir trouble? Well sorry, but you did.

"I wonder, would you have the balls to say that to my face? Anonymity on the internet is lovely, isn't it? " <-----Your exact words
Would I have the balls to do something that I, as an ENFP, is not a question that I am frequently asked. Yes. I would have the balls. I am by no means shy when it comes to my opinions. ANd no, I don't think anonymity on the internet is "lovely".Have you seen the statistics of child rape and molestation because of the "lovely" anonymity? If you have children, I'm sure just one episode of Dateline's "How To Catch A Predator" would permanently sway your decision. I don't tend to use said anonymity to my advantage either, I'm afraid. I am not the type of person who will let someone else, regardless of age, size, occupation, history, or anthing else, intimidate me away from proving a point that whole-heartedly believe in.

I noticed that you cut off my quote rather conveniently for your argument. THIS is what was meant to be read:
"I read earlier in the argument that you had said that war was inevitable, and the only thing we were good at. While that may be the case of your husband, I can surely tell you right now that I personally am no good at war, but I sure like to write and read. I consider myself to be a remotely religious person, and I would like to believe that God didn't put us on this Earth to be good at war. If that was the case, why aren't swords and guns developed with the fetus?"

THAT is my point. It has nothing to do with the possible lack of competance your husband may or may not have achieved. Do I know your husband? No. Therefore I am unable to judge him. I actually applaude him for making the decision to go into a feild of work that he didn't want to in the first place, simply for the good of his family.

And back to the original debate of the draft, it seems to me that the government is making joining the military necessary for lower class families to survive. It's becoming the only option to support their families and dreams as well apparently. If secretsmile's husband wants to be a photographer, and is good at it, then why should he, and the millions of other photographers have to spend their time trying not to die so we can "see what war looks like."? They should be able to stay in their homes, and take pictures of what war SHOULD look like--> a blank wall.
Yet again, I have to disagree with your "fact" saying that war is inevitable, and will always be. A fact is a proven statement; where is your proof?
When you build that time machine and travel to the future to get said proof, will you bring back a newspaper for me?

 

[chaotic_lion]

Wow, you really twisted that, didn't you? Good job. And that was a nice little jab at my husband. I wonder, would you have the balls to say that to my face? Anonymity on the internet is lovely, isn't it?

Pogo_<3's my sister, but I don't have a serious opinion on this subject, so I'm watching everyone's opinion and points to form my own. I will say one thing though....she's REALLY not lying about saying it to your face. My sister actually does "have the balls". I mean, I should probably be calling her my brother. But jokes aside, she truely believes in this, and I support her even if my feelings slightly differ from hers.

 

[Duty]

Ok, first, I'm going to take the first opportunity to chill this out a bit. It's way too emotional on both sides. I feel I'm just being shot at (pun intended) and my points are not even being addressed. I'm sure others feel the same way, so...

I'm going to start over.


Lets start with a very reasonable assumption:

Human beings have a certain list of basic rights, and one of them is the right to life.

Article 1 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to life...

United States Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

As a human being, I have a right to my own life...as in my biological existence. Simply: I don't have the right to take anyone's life, and no one has the right to take mine...we are endowed with the right to our own life.

Military service is a violation of this right. Part of being military personnel is you either are instructed to take the lives of others are you are directly supporting those that do.

It is the first job of the military to physically subdue those that threaten us. This is unfortunately necessary as there are others that would violate our right to life.

Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights goes further:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Now, the original intent of this clause was actually referring to the unlawfulness of torture, cruel punishment for crimes, and the like, but one can make the argument that it can be used to justify military matters. I can grant that.

So we do need a military to keep our security of person from those that would attempt to break our right to life.

Here's my beef though: why are we still building and developing extremely lethal weaponry? We still use bombs, bullets, and the like to fight our wars. Very very soon the Air Force will have a commercial jet with a full blown laser mounted on it. Not only are we fighting with lethal weapons, but the military doesn't care to develop non-lethal weapons that will be put to wide spread use. Military non-lethal weapons are only used to capture someone when it's inconvenient to kill them...but not for normal use.


Our military is supposed to protect us, but in my opinion we are the ones people need protection from anymore. Iraq I highly suspect was for economic gain. I remember watching the United States presentation to the UN about justifying military action against Iraq. Their arguments were poorly thought out, completely unjustified, and mostly just propaganda. I can't see a good reason we went to Iraq other then economic gain.

And here is where I do blame politicians. I don't get caught up into the system because the system is so corrupt. Politicians are voted in by the people...but the vast majority people really really really just don't know what they're voting for. Many people vote for a politician just because he is part of the party they always vote for. Others are like my mother...they vote because the like his personality...which is all about presentation and nothing about how good this guy is for the job.

"Democracy is the fear of intelligence: ideas are not acceptable until the majority of those that don't understand them approve them." This sums it up sooo nicely. I just find it hard to believe that politicians are put there based on the "wisdom" of their constituents. Politicians are put there because they advertised better...whether they are corrupt or well intentioned they know how to advertise. The first rule of this advertisement game is to join the Republicans or join the Democrats. The second is to wear a nice suit. The third is to never admit your weaknesses or any shady thing in your past...you must of had an all-American childhood, you must of had a stand-up school record, etc, or you must conceal it. Most people aren't voting for you based on your stances, your intelligence, or the like...they're voting for you because you're charismatic, or they're so pissed off at the previous party in office that they will vote for what they think is the only other alternative, or because they think your opponent "looks like a shady guy." It's advertising at its most ruthless.

So, with that said, I do think the military is just the violent part of the will of these advertisers. The military goes where they are sent. This is why I think the military's job is pretty much to kill people that our politicians don't like atm.


Now, about compulsory military service/community service...

Article 20, United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:

No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

The values the military teaches are a mixed bag, but I think the greatest negative it tends to instill trumps any good ones it may teach, and that's the opposite of metta/agape/loving-kindness/brotherly love. Respect and dignity should be given to human beings on account of them being human beings.

I quote once again Article 1 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

The military promotes brotherhood for those that are "on our side." Duty, honor, respect...they are good things, but when only applied to "our side" and not "all humans," then they are sadly misplaced. All human beings should act toward each other in a spirit of brotherhood, not just those on our side of the fence.

 

[bamf]

I apologize in advance for my apparent "ignorance", but what exactly is the point of a --debate (I believe that would consitute as an appropriate word for the context) if you ignore the other parties? Is that close-minded? Or just shallow? That to me just seems like your only purpose on here is to tell people what to think, and if they disagree in the slightest, "ignore them". Why bother? All I'm trying to do is get my point across, so that you and your fellow ignorers will stop lashing out. People have opinions-->EVERYONE HAS OPINIONS. Therefore conflicting opinions, unlike war, are inevitable.

I never called you ignorant and this thread didn't start as a debate. I have not once lashed out at you, you are victimizing yourself. Some people in this thread are very emotionally attached and are obviously angered and hurt by what other people are saying. This thread is also chop full of illogical arguments and fallacies from BOTH sides. All I was doing was recommending they take a step back because it has become very obvious that you do not mince your words (I don't say that in a judging standpoint) and to continue fighting and arguing will get this thread nowhere.

If you want to debate, then by all means I will gladly debate you but please lets do it right. When both sides turn this into an internet shouting match nothing but anger will come out of it.

 

[bamf]

"I wonder, would you have the balls to say that to my face? Anonymity on the internet is lovely, isn't it? " <-----Your exact words
Would I have the balls to do something that I, as an ENFP, is not a question that I am frequently asked. Yes. I would have the balls. I am by no means shy when it comes to my opinions. ANd no, I don't think anonymity on the internet is "lovely".Have you seen the statistics of child rape and molestation because of the "lovely" anonymity? If you have children, I'm sure just one episode of Dateline's "How To Catch A Predator" would permanently sway your decision. I don't tend to use said anonymity to my advantage either, I'm afraid. I am not the type of person who will let someone else, regardless of age, size, occupation, history, or anthing else, intimidate me away from proving a point that whole-heartedly believe in.

I noticed that you cut off my quote rather conveniently for your argument. THIS is what was meant to be read:
"I read earlier in the argument that you had said that war was inevitable, and the only thing we were good at. While that may be the case of your husband, I can surely tell you right now that I personally am no good at war, but I sure like to write and read. I consider myself to be a remotely religious person, and I would like to believe that God didn't put us on this Earth to be good at war. If that was the case, why aren't swords and guns developed with the fetus?"

THAT is my point. It has nothing to do with the possible lack of competance your husband may or may not have achieved. Do I know your husband? No. Therefore I am unable to judge him. I actually applaude him for making the decision to go into a feild of work that he didn't want to in the first place, simply for the good of his family.

And back to the original debate of the draft, it seems to me that the government is making joining the military necessary for lower class families to survive. It's becoming the only option to support their families and dreams as well apparently. If secretsmile's husband wants to be a photographer, and is good at it, then why should he, and the millions of other photographers have to spend their time trying not to die so we can "see what war looks like."? They should be able to stay in their homes, and take pictures of what war SHOULD look like--> a blank wall.
Yet again, I have to disagree with your "fact" saying that war is inevitable, and will always be. A fact is a proven statement; where is your proof?
When you build that time machine and travel to the future to get said proof, will you bring back a newspaper for me?

I think you missed the sarcasm in the first paragraph, and while she has the burden of proof that war is inevitable, you have brought in negative proof by implying that since her statement can't be proven it must be wrong.

While I like the idea of people not being sent to war, using a volunteer in this example doesn't do the arguement justice. The military does provide people opportunities that they wouldn't have otherwise (ex: the monetary support for school and/or insurance). If you want to have another option of the government offering support (and there are many civil service programs) to the people, there must be some way to support it. This usually means taxing citizens because the government does not actually have any money of its own.

I am curious on what you propose as an alternative for the military to help photographers for example.

 

[pogo_<3]

I never called you ignorant and this thread didn't start as a debate. I have not once lashed out at you, you are victimizing yourself. Some people in this thread are very emotionally attached and are obviously angered and hurt by what other people are saying. This thread is also chop full of illogical arguments and fallacies from BOTH sides. All I was doing was recommending they take a step back because it has become very obvious that you do not mince your words (I don't say that in a judging standpoint) and to continue fighting and arguing will get this thread nowhere.

If you want to debate, then by all means I will gladly debate you but please lets do it right. When both sides turn this into an internet shouting match nothing but anger will come out of it.

I apologize for the misconception. In regards to the "ignorant" remark, it was not directed towards our disussion, but the suggestions of others. However, I do not appreciateyour claims of my "self-victimiztion". Nor do I consider myself to be "emotionally attached" to what I say, or "angered" or "hurt" by what you and others say. I have said this before, but I guess I'll say it again- I understand that everyone has, and in entitled to their own opinion. I also know that people have a right to freedom of speech. But a lot of people have been taking advantage of that on this website, and have spent their time ridiculing and belittling others for the sake of their opinion; which is wrong.
On another note, there is too much information in the world for everyone to know everything. So logical fallicies are impossible to avoid. Everyone will miscomunicate something, and eventually be miscommunicated to. But it seems as though one particular side of the argument is portraying the other side to be simply based on fallicies entirely, which is false. Both sides have successfully proved valid and debatable points.

And the part about not mincing my words
-I appreciate that you recognize that.

 

[pogo_<3]

I think you missed the sarcasm in the first paragraph, and while she has the burden of proof that war is inevitable, you have brought in negative proof by implying that since her statement can't be proven it must be wrong.

While I like the idea of people not being sent to war, using a volunteer in this example doesn't do the arguement justice. The military does provide people opportunities that they wouldn't have otherwise (ex: the monetary support for school and/or insurance). If you want to have another option of the government offering support (and there are many civil service programs) to the people, there must be some way to support it. This usually means taxing citizens because the government does not actually have any money of its own.

I am curious on what you propose as an alternative for the military to help photographers for example.

Unfortunately, not being intellectually superior (no sarcasm intended) to the people in charge now, I dont have an alternative to provide. I just regret how unfortunate it is that people who aspire to be something, like a photographer, have to start out by risking their lives. It shouldn't have to be that way, but it is a sad reality.

 

[pogo_<3]

I think you missed the sarcasm in the first paragraph, and while she has the burden of proof that war is inevitable, you have brought in negative proof by implying that since her statement can't be proven it must be wrong.

QUOTE]

I am not claiming that her statement is wrong because she has no proof, I am saying that her statement is not a fact because she has no proof.
I am saying that her statement is wrong, because it isnt true. She believes that war is inevitable.But it can be stopped, and prevented. We , as a planet, not just a nation, just have not come up with the solution yet. That does not mean that its impossible, and that war will always exist, it just means that we're temporarily out of order.

 

[bamf]

I think you missed the sarcasm in the first paragraph, and while she has the burden of proof that war is inevitable, you have brought in negative proof by implying that since her statement can't be proven it must be wrong.

QUOTE]

I am not claiming that her statement is wrong because she has no proof, I am saying that her statement is not a fact because she has no proof.
I am saying that her statement is wrong, because it isnt true. She believes that war is inevitable.But it can be stopped, and prevented. We , as a planet, not just a nation, just have not come up with the solution yet. That does not mean that its impossible, and that war will always exist, it just means that we're temporarily out of order.

It also doesn't mean we will ever figure it out. We could very easily destroy ourselves in the near future or we could continue waring until the end of times. We could live in peace as a unified people, or we could live in fear of the government without war.

War will exist as long as people are suppressed; fighting for what we feel is right will always be human nature. I personally do not think we will ever all get along and as long as one member of the community wants violence, there will be violence. IMO, you are creating a perfect world (meaning without war) which will never exist.

I apologize for the misconception. In regards to the "ignorant" remark, it was not directed towards our disussion, but the suggestions of others. However, I do not appreciateyour claims of my "self-victimiztion". Nor do I consider myself to be "emotionally attached" to what I say, or "angered" or "hurt" by what you and others say. I have said this before, but I guess I'll say it again- I understand that everyone has, and in entitled to their own opinion. I also know that people have a right to freedom of speech. But a lot of people have been taking advantage of that on this website, and have spent their time ridiculing and belittling others for the sake of their opinion; which is wrong.
On another note, there is too much information in the world for everyone to know everything. So logical fallicies are impossible to avoid. Everyone will miscomunicate something, and eventually be miscommunicated to. But it seems as though one particular side of the argument is portraying the other side to be simply based on fallicies entirely, which is false. Both sides have successfully proved valid and debatable points.

And the part about not mincing my words
-I appreciate that you recognize that.

And I find it wrong to package one's opinions as fact. Logical fallacies are definitely not impossible to avoid, just a very hard thing to do. Feel free to point out any and all of my loopholes and logical mishaps. It will only help me for future debates.

And I find your assumptions to be surprising to say the least. There are other people who are emotionally attached to this arguement, and I don't mean you or me.

 

[Eniko]

This will probably fan the flames but I hardly think the majority, or even a large percentage, of people who volunteer for the military are doing it to be of service to their country or because they're willing to lay down their lives to protect the freedoms of others.

Of course my experiences are purely anecdotal but of the 20 or so people I have met on and offline who were in the process of or did join the military across various nationalities were doing so because they had no other prospects. Couldn't find a job, couldn't afford to go to school without the incentives, didn't have the required discipline in their lives to make their lives work without babysitting, etcetera.

Not saying that there aren't truly marvellous people who join the military for selfless reasons and great ideals, but I do believe most people join it cause uh... it's the kind of job that will take pretty much anyone and offers a lot of great incentives. As such I respect your run of the mill non-profit organizational volunteer a lot more than your run of the mill person-who-joined-the-military.

Just sayin'.

 

[secretsmile]

Pogo, you're arguing the point that people don't have to argue. Irony? Hypocrisy? I've read what has essentially boiled down to "hell yeah, I will say it to your face." Frankly, you've touted yourself as an abrasive individual who "doesn't mince words," and yet you're trying to tell us that it is not human nature to fight? That it is not inevitable? Why don't you take a look at yourself? As long as people are disrespectful and impolite (and apparently proud of it), there will be wars. You are proof of that, pogo.

And minority funk was talking about me - I have a vested emotional interest in this subject. I'm not going to pretend that I don't. I can discuss anything peacefully, but the second I detect insensitivity, impoliteness, lack of courtesy for what others are going through, abrasive ranting...guess what? I'm not going to sit back and play nice. Why? Because if you're not going to, neither will I. You want to discuss the draft and why it's wrong? Fine, but realize how very little you know about those who are actually serving in the military. As long as you can have some sense of humility about yourself and admit that your opinions are formed with little to no experience with that of which you speak, then fine. But don't tout your opinions as if you are all-knowing. If you want to have a true debate, you must learn to respect when someone simply has more experience with the subject at hand than you do. I am being offended by what I've read here for a reason, do you not realize that? Do you realize this is how FIGHTING and VIOLENCE begins? Because to be perfectly honest with you, if you came into my town and spouted off at the mouth like you are here, you can bet you'd be met with violence. Your opinions are no problem until you present them with such malice...at that point, sweetie, all bets are off.

And there you have it. That's why wars are inevitable.

 

[just me]

Duty, I read your enlightening post. I like reading your posts. The way I have looked at life through the years, I have found there are givers and there are takers. Some takers take via violence and force. Feeding off the rest of humanity, they seem to create a need for force and resistance. While acknowledging an ideal world could possibly not need the military and police, I also acknowledge the world to be made up of people that have a tendency to be people and err.
I have also found there to be that same evidence in the military, the police, the teachers, the scientists, the executives, and even religious folk. To err is human. Mere human frailties exist anywhere humans exist. I greatly value our military and police. Without them, it would be almost like, but worse than, the old days of the west with sixshooters, stagecoaches, and bankrobbers. The Hole in the Wall Gang and such. There are many
qualities instilled into our military personnel I wish a lot of the folk that cause our police so many problems had a taste of when they were growing up. If it weren't for gun weilding, it would be knife weilding. If it weren't the knives, it would be bricks or baseball bats. CBW tactics may even develope into something more readily used in street violence. I am thankful for our military and police and my hat is off to them tonight!

 

[pogo_<3]

Pogo, you're arguing the point that people don't have to argue. Irony? Hypocrisy? I've read what has essentially boiled down to "hell yeah, I will say it to your face." Frankly, you've touted yourself as an abrasive individual who "doesn't mince words," and yet you're trying to tell us that it is not human nature to fight? That it is not inevitable? Why don't you take a look at yourself? As long as people are disrespectful and impolite (and apparently proud of it), there will be wars. You are proof of that, pogo.
And minority funk was talking about me - I have a vested emotional interest in this subject. I'm not going to pretend that I don't. I can discuss anything peacefully, but the second I detect insensitivity, impoliteness, lack of courtesy for what others are going through, abrasive ranting...guess what? I'm not going to sit back and play nice. Why? Because if you're not going to, neither will I. You want to discuss the draft and why it's wrong? Fine, but realize how very little you know about those who are actually serving in the military. As long as you can have some sense of humility about yourself and admit that your opinions are formed with little to no experience with that of which you speak, then fine. But don't tout your opinions as if you are all-knowing. If you want to have a true debate, you must learn to respect when someone simply has more experience with the subject at hand than you do. I am being offended by what I've read here for a reason, do you not realize that? Do you realize this is how FIGHTING and VIOLENCE begins? Because to be perfectly honest with you, if you came into my town and spouted off at the mouth like you are here, you can bet you'd be met with violence. Your opinions are no problem until you present them with such malice...at that point, sweetie, all bets are off.
And there you have it. That's why wars are inevitable.

Pogo, you're arguing the point that people don't have to argue. Irony? Hypocrisy?.

I will begin by stating that yes, I am arguing the point that people don't have to argue. Irony? Of course. What is life without irony? Hypocrisy? No. Only tactic and response. When I am presented with a situation where I am being told that regardless of my reasons I am wrong, even if the points I mention are valid, then am I going to get defensive? Yes. In the same way you are, and a lot of the other people presenting their opinions.

I've read what has essentially boiled down to "hell yeah, I will say it to your face.".

First of all, that is by no means what I said. Feel free to go back through the conversation and read for yourself. This is the first of any of my posts where there has been profanity, or anything close, (depending on your views of the word "hell") and its only in here because it's your quote. I did NOT state the point I was getting across in as rude of a way as your portraying. I only said that whether or not I'm in your presence has no effect on my opinion. How I feel wouldn't sway a bit if we were standing face to face. I'd actually prefer having this conversation in person. That way maybe my rebuttals could be taken serioulsy.

Why don't you take a look at yourself? As long as people are disrespectful and impolite (and apparently proud of it), there will be wars. You are proof of that, pogo.

Looking back over this whole conversation, I have not found a single instance where I have been disrespectful and/or impolite. Bluntly honest, yes, but never either of the accusations you're putting on me. All you have been doing it seems, is lashing out every time someone disagrees with you in any way shape or form. Name calling isn't some last resort you or anyone else can use to make sure your voice is being heard. All it is doing is offending people, and getting everyone fired up. Its simply unnecessary. Has anyone called you anything rude in this conversation even once? I certainly haven't. If you want people to understand how you feel about this, then I personally would advise that you stop demanding all of the respect in the world, and give some to others instead.

I can discuss anything peacefully, but the second I detect insensitivity, impoliteness, lack of courtesy for what others are going through, abrasive ranting...guess what? I'm not going to sit back and play nice..

Rereading from the very beginning of this entire thread to where we are now, I realized that by your second or third post on the matter, you needlessly began to get defensive after seeing how many people were disagreeing with your opinions. You said that you get defensive when you detect insensitivity, impoliteness, ranting, and lack of courtesy, but those were all coming from you to being with.

You want to discuss the draft and why it's wrong? Fine, but realize how very little you know about those who are actually serving in the military. As long as you can have some sense of humility about yourself and admit that your opinions are formed with little to no experience with that of which you speak, then fine. But don't tout your opinions as if you are all-knowing. If you want to have a true debate, you must learn to respect when someone simply has more experience with the subject at hand than you do..

When exactly have I said that made you believe that I know little to nothing abot those serving in the military. I have friends enlisted, and enlisting, two of which are in training right now, my grandfather served, and several of my uncles. I'm not as uninformed as you would like to believe. And what examples of my apparent "touting" do you have? I don't by any means think that I am smarter than you, any more than I think you are than me, so the "all-knowing" thing is absurd, and unjustified.

Do you realize this is how FIGHTING and VIOLENCE begins?.

This is not how fighting and violence begin. Fighting and violence begin when one or more of the parties involved in a conflict refuse to see things from a different perspective, and decide to eliminate the other, or force them into agreeance. Similar to your approach of the topic at hand.

Because to be perfectly honest with you, if you came into my town and spouted off at the mouth like you are here, you can bet you'd be met with violence..

First of all, remind me to never visit where ever you live. I wouldn't want to surround myself with people who you've claimed to be as closeminded as yourself on a topic like this, and then would argue their point by murdering or injuring me. And spouting? Since when is defending yourself and your opinons vocally, considered to be spouting? If I'm spouting, it's only to match the spouting aimed in my direction, coming from you.

Your opinions are no problem until you present them with such malice...at that point, sweetie, all bets are off..

Malice? WHEN???!!!

 

[bamf]

This has officially become a shouting match with nothing to do with the draft.

 

[IndigoSensor]

That is why I have resigned from making comments. Besides, if it does get bad enough, the thread will just get closed and that will be the end of it.

 

[Shai Gar]

yeah, that's probably a good idea until enough people complain about it.