I understand what you're getting at, but joining the Army voluntarily is not comparable to how a person is hard wired sexually.
Federal Court rules in favour of U.S. war resister
- Thread starter tay
- Start date
So what you are saying is, if the gay person went to live willingly in Iran then they would deserve to be executed for their homosexuality?
What you are trying to say is very different from what EagleSmack stated. Maybe that is what EagleSmack meant, but that is much more nuanced: Imprisonment is a justifiable punishment in a contract.
But I still disagree with that, imprisonment for failure to fulfill employment tasks makes a job contract unconscionable. It is something that by its very nature cannot be agreed to except by coercion.
Annan wasn't just UN SecGen... before that he was a lawyer specializing in international law. so he has an expert opinion. As SG, he can offer his opinions, but he has little actual power to hold war criminals accountable for their crimes.
Americans can break international laws and not violate their domestic law. Nazis and pretty much every other gang of war criminals controlling a country can do the same thing. But the fact that the Nazis didn't violate German law didn't help them much at Nuremberg. Whether or not war criminals will face justice mostly depends on the outcome of the war.
Honestly? Ya.
Maybe, but I get what he's saying. It's what I'm saying. I speak Jarhead. Almost fluently.
Military service is not a job.
You don't have to escape. Just smoke a joint before your drug test. No overseas for you. At least it worked in the Canadian army.
It is certainly not a higher calling. Not when soldiers are being sent to places like Iraq. Not when they are blowing up small children and calling them dogs.
'Did We Just Kill A Kid?'
Anyways, that is a fundamental source of disagreement that we will never agree on. I mean, you can make anything deserved if you accept knowledge of the punishment as justification for the punishment:
The woman knew she would have acid thrown in her face if she went to school, therefore she deserved it.
The black woman knew she would be arrested if she sat in the front of the bus, therefore she deserved it.
The slave knew that the punishment for trying to escape was lashes, therefore they deserved it.
These things all happened. Those peopled did not deserve the punishments. Essentially all social progress comes when people realize that, no, they don't deserve it at all. The punishment either fits or it does not. Knowing what the punishment is has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is justice.
Breaking the law is not a bad thing in and of itself.
Dehumanization is part of the program. You can't kill things you can attach yourself to.
And I long ago reserved myself to the fact that an armed combatant is an armed combatant, whether it's 12 or 24.
Dude, those aren't even comparable.
None of those scenarios involve a voluntarily entered contract, with an understanding of the ramifications of not living up top it.
I agree. But none of those people served in the military.
That depends doesn't it? Not that that is completely applicable to the whole of military service.
I agree. And in this case, it fits.
Especially since there are channels to be taken, that don't involve deserting your post.
Depends.
Depends.
taxslave; said:
Good for Canada to allow him entry just as the US govt did to refugees from the Ethiopian & Somali wars (several of my neighbors are from both countries) and from Israel & Russia.
So let's just consider what is the contract? What is the person volunteering for? they volunteer to 'DEFEND' the country....
U.S. Armed Forces Oath of Enlistment
Since it doesn't say anywhere in this oath anything about attacking another nation to effect regime change and secure resources but speaks clearly about defending the US and that Iraq was no threat to America or the constitution it would seem to most intelligent people that these soldiers were being asked to do things outside the scope of their contract. They did not enter a contract to act as mercenaries in a foreign country.
It is a tough situation for all involved. The president lied to get the military into Iraq and a lot of career brass will never say it's wrong to be there because it means their career. A lot of enlisted get there and find they are in no way, shape or form defending the US so they refuse to go back or run to Canada. Me, I found a different way to get out but I had bargaining power at the time because I had access to information that they didn't want made public.
First off Nif.... I never said this quote below...
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack
The gay knew the rules before hand what would happen if he had sex.
Deliberately misquoting a CanCon member in this fashion is a BIG TOS violation. I would suggest you make it clear to everyone here that this was you manipulating my quote. Highlighting and changing font is one this but using a homophobic slander and attributing it to someone else is quite low.
Deliberately misquoting a CanCon member in this fashion is a BIG TOS violation. I would suggest you make it clear to everyone here that this was you manipulating my quote. Highlighting and changing font is one this but using a homophobic slander and attributing it to someone else is quite low.
TS... that is surely one way to do it. It is not a bad idea if one wants out of the service.
Good post PN... here is where you are wrong
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
See how simple it is? Not just that... see how guilty the deserters are?
At the time I worked for DND this happened and when I left none of them had been discharged. They just got their peepees slapped. Seems the Canadian army isn't quite so ready to throw a million dollar investment out the window.
What is the DND?
I did some checking... Canada has a Dismissed with Disgrace discharge which is not on the level of the the US Dishonorable Discharge. You folks use the Queen's Rules and all.
What is the DND?
I did some checking... Canada has a Dismissed with Disgrace discharge which is not on the level of the the US Dishonorable Discharge. You folks use the Queen's Rules and all.
DND = Department of National Defence
What is the DND?
I did some checking... Canada has a Dismissed with Disgrace discharge which is not on the level of the the US Dishonorable Discharge. You folks use the Queen's Rules and all.
Department of National Defense. I was a civilian mechanic there.
Working there is how i know that military intelligence is an oxymoron.
So you're smarter than everyone there huh?
A prospective vendor tried using that "oxymoron" joke while doing a presentation. He went red when nobody laughed everyone looked at me and one of my colleagues as we are both vets. It was funny watching him try to back out of it. Joke was on him in the end.
These are all examples of the exact same principle I am trying to argue. I cannot even begin to deal with the actual argument that you are trying to change EagleSmack's words into until you agree to the basic principle: knowledge of a punishment does not make the punishment deserved. You say it depends, but this is the same as denying it. Knowledge of a crime can make a more lenient punishment undeserved, but it can never make an undeserved punishment deserved. That is the depends you want: that knowledge makes leniency less deserved.
If you cannot agree to that then anything, absolutely anything can be put in a contract. That is why I start with easy examples where there is no contract. It can easily be changed: Rosa Parks knew she would have to sit at the back of the bus when she bought the ticket. She voluntarily accepted those terms when she bought the ticket. Yet you say she didn't deserve it?
You want to elevate the military to something beyond the law. I know that the rule of law has been kicked around, beaten and broken for decades, but at least admit that you want a two tier justice system. Joining the military is just another contract. On a battle field, there may be extenuating circumstances, off it there are none.
No its not: Terms of Service
It doesn't even violate the rules: Canadian Content Forums -
I will now call you a liar: You are a liar, EagleSmack.
Posting something you know or ought to know is a misuse. But deliberately misquoting someone is not false, and not even what I did. Ever hear of paraphrasing? I have paraphrased you. I believe the quotes I attribute to you truthfully and logically follow from what you have stated.
You definitely said the following:
Which is can only be true if you believe that so long as it is a government making up the rule, the punishment is deserved since
You, EagleSmack, can only believe the thing you originally said if you believe this statement, it is the general thing you are trying to imply. So you are saying this statement, it is transitive. But if this is what you are saying, then you are saying all sorts of things like,
Which follows directly from the very principle you must believe. But hey, you might not believe what you were implying. So simply say that you do not think knowledge of a government punishment makes the punishment deserved. CDNBear has a much more nuanced argument for you, that the military is a special form of contract, and that the punishment is acceptable in this type, and only this type of contract.
Wrong maybe... liar... no.
It is low attributing a homophobic quote to me when they are your words not mine.
Definately a misuse. I am of the belief that being gay is hardwired. This guy signed a contract and he broke it. It has nothing to do with ANYONE having sex.
The guy signed a contract... he deserted. When or if he returns he will be punished for it and justice will be given.
Niflmir, "paraphrasing"? Really? Why bother to try to explain yourself when you can easily put words in someone else's mouth?
Somehow I thought you were a better at making an argument and didn't need to resort to changing the words of others in order to make your point? Guess I was wrong.
I'll side with Eagle on that point, quoting him and then changing his post to whatever the hell you make up makes it look as if he said the words himself. That's deceptive and that's really low.
I think you owe him an apology. Sincerely.
And by the way, do not ever "paraphrase" me.
Somehow I thought you were a better at making an argument and didn't need to resort to changing the words of others in order to make your point? Guess I was wrong.
I'll side with Eagle on that point, quoting him and then changing his post to whatever the hell you make up makes it look as if he said the words himself. That's deceptive and that's really low.
I think you owe him an apology. Sincerely.
And by the way, do not ever "paraphrase" me.
Thanks SLM. I figured I just let it go before she "paraphased" me anymore... but thanks
If what she attributed to me as my quote (below) which was actually hers it SHOULD be a TOS.
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack
If what she attributed to me as my quote (below) which was actually hers it SHOULD be a TOS.
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack
The gay knew the rules before hand what would happen if he had sex.