You can take a step forward on one issue without needing to take a step backwards on another. Just because equality has been applied to the draft doesn't mean the issue of the draft has been made worse somehow. It will serve the same function as it always has. The composition of the drafted force is irrelevant to the question of whether there should be a draft to begin with.

The composition of the drafted force is irrelevant to the question of whether there should be a draft to begin with.

Which is exactly my point. . . We should stop expending political capital on issues which are comparatively irrelevant.

Quote from: Meta as Fuck on October 13, 2015, 10:39:52 PM

Quote from: Tsirist on October 13, 2015, 10:38:45 PM

The composition of the drafted force is irrelevant to the question of whether there should be a draft to begin with.

Which is exactly my point. . . We should stop expending political capital on issues which are comparatively irrelevant.

Eh, it's a huge moral problem from my point of view to make the draft exclusive to men. If we're not getting rid of the draft, making it more reasonable is no sin.

The point being it isn't reasonable when you actually take the costs of implementation into account for such an insignificant "victory".

Quote from: Kupo on October 13, 2015, 10:20:00 PM

'The draft is a problem, but we should make more people sign up for it in the meantime' is absurd. It's literally contributing to the problem.

More like, "The draft is a problem, so we should take away one of the things that makes it a problem."

I'm pretty sure the problem with the draft is that you're having the government pull king and send the peasants out to die for the crown.

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on October 13, 2015, 10:52:50 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 13, 2015, 10:37:19 PM

Quote from: Kupo on October 13, 2015, 10:20:00 PM

'The draft is a problem, but we should make more people sign up for it in the meantime' is absurd. It's literally contributing to the problem.

More like, "The draft is a problem, so we should take away one of the things that makes it a problem."

I'm pretty sure the problem with the draft is that you're having the government pull king and send the peasants out to die for the crown.

No shit.

>one of the things

Except the thing you're arguing for is like complaining one of the bricks in the Berlin Wall doesn't look pretty.

Quote from: Verbatim on October 13, 2015, 10:55:56 PM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on October 13, 2015, 10:52:50 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 13, 2015, 10:37:19 PM

Quote from: Kupo on October 13, 2015, 10:20:00 PM

'The draft is a problem, but we should make more people sign up for it in the meantime' is absurd. It's literally contributing to the problem.

More like, "The draft is a problem, so we should take away one of the things that makes it a problem."

I'm pretty sure the problem with the draft is that you're having the government pull king and send the peasants out to die for the crown.

No shit.

>one of the things

Except the thing you're arguing for is like complaining one of the bricks in the Berlin Wall doesn't look pretty.

Disgusting exaggeration.

Quote from: Verbatim on October 13, 2015, 10:37:19 PM

Quote from: Kupo on October 13, 2015, 10:20:00 PM

'The draft is a problem, but we should make more people sign up for it in the meantime' is absurd. It's literally contributing to the problem.

More like, "The draft is a problem, so we should take away one of the things that makes it a problem."

Not really. If mandatory sign-ups are part of the problem, the solution is fewer sign-ups, not more.

Duh. But that's not gonna happen any time soon. Making the system indiscriminate based on gender is a step up--there's no other way to look at it. Abolishing it would be an even bigger step up, but obviously, that's gonna take awhile.

People die because of the draft and you're advocating for a prettier, more equal variety of dead people.

Blatant strawman.

Hopefully this will get congress to actually do away with the draft.

The military doesn't even want it in place so it doesn't even serve the institution it was implemented to.

Liberal as I am, I'm all for compulsory military service for everyone at 18.

I believe the rich and powerful would be less likely to wage war if their kids could be sent

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on October 13, 2015, 11:14:28 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 13, 2015, 11:12:07 PM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on October 13, 2015, 11:10:21 PM

People die because of the draft and you're advocating for a prettier, more equal variety of dead people.

Blatant strawman.

That's the purpose of the draft, if you want equality in the draft the result is an equality of dead people that didn't consent to their fate. Please explain how I'm wrong.

Giving birth results in an equality of dead people that didn't consent to their fate. Are you an anti-natalist now?

This does not answer my question.

Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 13, 2015, 11:16:45 PM

Quote from: LC on October 13, 2015, 11:15:00 PM

Hopefully this will get congress to actually do away with the draft.

The military doesn't even want it in place so it doesn't even serve the institution it was implemented to.

Liberal as I am, I'm all for compulsory military service for everyone at 18.

I believe the rich and powerful would be less likely to wage war if their kids could be sent

Charlie pls

Even when their kids could be drafted they just made sure they'd be put in non-combat roles, in places that wouldn't see any fighting, or in positions where they wouldn't be in any danger.

Easy fix. Take away the ability to influence the assignment. No more Texas Air National Guard *cough*Georgewbush*cough*

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on October 13, 2015, 11:21:35 PM

I'm saying get rid of it rather than reorganizing how people die first. Sorry about having priorities.

No one is reorganizing how people die. Getting drafted does not ensure your death--it ensures that you will be enlisted into the military. Nothing more.

That's terrible, and I also think it should be abolished entirely.

But that doesn't mean we should discriminate against men, because of archaic patriarchal reasons.

It doesn't but the odds are not put in your favor by it.

If something is going to be pushed through the legislative hell that is the US Congress, I'd much rather them erase the system entirely than modify it so it's nicer or some bs before getting rid of it. Cut out the middle process, there's no realistic point in what you're suggesting.

Quote from: Kupo on October 13, 2015, 11:00:39 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 13, 2015, 10:37:19 PM

Quote from: Kupo on October 13, 2015, 10:20:00 PM

'The draft is a problem, but we should make more people sign up for it in the meantime' is absurd. It's literally contributing to the problem.

More like, "The draft is a problem, so we should take away one of the things that makes it a problem."

Not really. If mandatory sign-ups are part of the problem, the solution is fewer sign-ups, not more.

Duh. But that's not gonna happen any time soon. Making the system indiscriminate based on gender is a step up--there's no other way to look at it. Abolishing it would be an even bigger step up, but obviously, that's gonna take awhile.

Yeah, that's how I used to feel about it. But it's such a... questionable "improvement" that I'd kind of rather leave it the way it was. I wish everyone would save their energy and anger for abolishment, instead (what Meta is saying, but in plain English)

And it seems particularly dubious to make something worse just to improve the argument of 'it's bad, so it needs to go.'