It cancels out the bad karma of killing kids if you send kids to do it.
Comment on Need to yak? Skip emetics, hear about what the world's Most Moral Army's up to
joyjoy@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
Why is Israel sending children to fight?
Rampsquatch@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The shitshow that is the IDF aside, 19 year olds are perfectly capable of being soldiers. Call me old-fashioned, but I honestly believe that being an adult with rights (e.g. to vote) in a democratic society also implies obligations to that society, and that the two (rights and obligations) should follow each other.
To be clear, what I mean is this: I live in a society that provides me with a solid social safety net, as well as a right to protection if shit hits the fan. I then think it’s reasonable that I’m obliged to contribute to that safety net for others (in the form of taxes or community service), and protection (in the form of military service if shit hits the fan). Basically, it’s an “all for one, one for all” mentality. We’re all better off standing together, which means that we all take care of each other (via taxes etc.) in peacetime, and protect each other (in the form of military service) if necessary.
Since I believe that these rights and obligations should be balanced, I think it’s reasonable that an 18 year old (which has all the rights of any other adult in my country) carries the same obligation as everyone else. It would be unfair if, say, 18-26 year olds got all the rights but none (or fewer of) the obligations. That immediately also opens the door to the question of which groups should bear the burden of the obligations, and which groups get only the rights.
Full disclaimer: I think the IDF deserves to be burnt to the ground. I also think (in general) that invading another country is, almost^1^ without exception, abhorrent.
^1^The exception being when you invade a country in defence of another country that has already been attacked, like when the UK attacked Germany in WWII, in defence of Poland, France, etc. without having been attacked themselves first.
DmMacniel@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
Damn, are you a citizen in Starship Troopers?
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I would honestly like to hear a better alternative. Is it fair, reasonable, or just, that some subset of society is tasked with putting their life on the line to defend everyone else? That very quickly devolves into something like the US system where people with less resources and options end up signing up out of economic necessity. Then they end up fighting and dying for a richer elite that doesn’t have a skin in the game.
It’s a pretty simple concept really: I’ll protect my neighbours if necessary, and they’ll protect me. We’re in this together. The only incentive anyone should have to be in the military is to defend themselves and their (extended) neighbours.
You can make the exact same argument for taxes: Should some subset of society be taxed, while everyone gets the same social safety net and general rights? I think not: I think everyone should contribute, and that everyone should get the benefits.
As for the starship troopers comment: That society is fundamentally segregated into people with rights, and people without them. It also happens to be a heavily militaristic society. Starship Troopers shows exactly the kind of society I think looks terrible, because most soldiers there effectively sign up out of necessity, while those with resources can live peacefully. I’m advocating for equality, not segregation. I’m also trying to be explicit about saying that the only use of a military should be defensive. You could summarise this by saying that, in peacetime, we should have an absolutely minimal military, and everyone has equal rights. If the need arises, everyone has the same obligation to defend each other.
TheMuffinMan@piefed.world 3 weeks ago
Tried to balance out some of the downvotes! Obligatory fuck the IDF, but I otherwise agree.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Thanks! I’m honestly surprised by how controversial it was to state that we should all have the same rights, and the same obligation to defend/uphold those rights for each other.
Doomsider@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
None of what you makes any sense in modern society.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
How so? Do you not think that the right of social benefits should be coupled with the obligation to pay taxes if you’re capable? Do you actually believe that, if a neighbouring country invaded, you have some kind of right to hide in the basement while someone else mans the AA protecting your house?
If the answer to either is “no”, then you probably agree with me.
Doomsider@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
In the context of Modern US the majority of people pay the taxes and the minority of people who have the majority of wealth do not. Do you think the Social contract is already broken?
Do you actually believe any modern war was actually for its stated purpose. Do you think it is wrong sending young men to die in the Middle East for oil profits?
If you answer no to either of these then perhaps you are just simping for an abusive government.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
What rights? What protections?
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
This is an implicit part of my point: If the state doesn’t provide a social safety net, or protection from violence, then you’re also (in the moral framework I’m advocating for) absolved of your obligation to support said state through taxes and military service.
I’m lucky enough to live in a state that provides both, so I think it’s completely fair that I’m obligated to support that system as long as I also get the benefits of it. At its core, a state is a social contract regarding what you can expect of others (via the state), and what others can expect of you. If you’re seeing only obligations and no benefits, then the state (social contract) is dysfunctional and/or unfair.
Doomsider@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Unless you are wealthy and connected the system will run you over and never look back. I know some many adults just like you that have caught charges for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
You argument is a wealth version of I got mine pretending a system that only cares about capital actually gives a fuck about you.
HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub 3 weeks ago
In medieval times 16 was considered an adult. Can get married, sent to war, still listens to authority and doesn’t know better. Just perfect.
And I guess pedo-states think of anything above 16 as adult
Nalivai@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Everyone does. Perfect age for a war, brain is practically non-developed, but body pretty much is. Closest thing to a mindless drone that we can get without lobotomy, just with some propaganda.