I dunno if it's really necessary for girls. In general they tend to be less of a menace to society, and what if they are pregnant?
Yes, they are a menace to society because they can get pregnant, and that is why boot camp is even more necessary for girls!
I am confident that I did not misinterpret you in the slightest
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
If anyone wants to know the reason why Jehova's Witnesses do get a special treatment, I'll tell you. It's nothing more than the Finnish government feeling guilty.
Jehova's Witnesses have always refused to serve in the army. In the 50s and 60s, they were the only large united group of people who refused completely from serving. That's when the government decided to start special camps for Jehova's Witnesses. In these camps they would have no possessions except their one set of clothes and a few personal items. They were forced to live underground in very small quarters and they were not given enough nutricious food. By day they had to work to earn their keep. They had absolutely no idea when they would be released, as it seemed to be pretty random. One or two were released now and then, but some people had to stay at the camps for years. Sound familiar?
Anyway after all this leaked to the public, it was of course a huge scandal and Finland's president came to personally inspect the camps. He of course found that the prisoners were living in inhuman conditions, and because the government felt bad, Jehova's Witnesses were given the special right they have today.
Not even many Finnish people know that there have been concentration camps in Finland, as the matter has always been a huge shame for the government. Jehova's Witnesses' special right to not have to serve is probably going to be removed in the next 5 years. There has already been some talk of it at the parliament.
Having one friend who got conditional sentence, and an acquaintance who went to jail for refusing service, i know what a complete waste of resources conscription is. This is especially stupid in light of how I actually wanted to perform military duty, but they wouldn't let me.
My problem with conscription/civil service is in my view that
1) the state forces you to waste one year of your life to work for shit pay,
2) not everyone is forced (for example if you are equipped with ovaries), in complete contradiction with the constitution (at least where I live), and
3) refusing lands you in jail, with a criminal record that will follow you for the rest of your life.
There is another, uglier, word for this: forced labor.
Kyrsimys>It's not about the army being that bad, it's a matter of principle. I do not believe that violence solves anything, which is why I chose civilian service.
But of course it solves anything. Violence has solved more conflicts than all other methods combined. An invasion really cannot be repelled by any other means. Saying "please stop fighting" is just as ineffective in a global conflict as in a one-on-one situation, which history has showed time and time again. Diplomacy only works is when you have the potential violence to back up your words.
FODA>If it wasn't mandatory then hardly anybody would serve...
Not true at all. Many countries have voluntary-only armies and are doing fine. In times of conflict people tend to sign up. If they don't... well, perhaps the country wasn't worth defending to start with.
xebra> The only way the army would ever see battle is if Finland got invaded.
There are also international peacekeeping forces under the UN. (I think Finland are a part of those, at least.)
Okay; I signed. But wait, what does this have to do with "political prisoners"? Don't most germanic states have conscription?
FODA: The US empire is currently being run by hired soldiers, so I really don't think that conscription is necessary.
Because the civilian service is over twice as long as the minimum armed service time, Amnesty International has declared that civilian service in Finland can be considered as a punishment for not serving in the Defense Forces. Thus, people who refuse from serving in any way are protesting against the unfair system. This is what makes them political prisoners: they have been imprisoned because they protest against the government, not only because they are pacifists. In fact, some people who refuse to serve aren't pacifists at all, but are merely protesting.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
This could all be avoided if, at birth, a baby has to sign a contract stating that so long as it plans to livein a country, it agrees to serve the country for a term of 6 months. The state acknowledges that the baby theoretically has the mental capacity to comprehend the contract, of course.
In these camps they would have no possessions except their one set of clothes and a few personal items. They were forced to live underground in very small quarters and they were not given enough nutricious food. By day they had to work to earn their keep.
That's what prisons should be like. From what I've heard and seen in some documentaries, prisoners in the US (maybe other countries, as well) are treated way too nicely.
In these camps they would have no possessions except their one set of clothes and a few personal items. They were forced to live underground in very small quarters and they were not given enough nutricious food. By day they had to work to earn their keep.
That's what prisons should be like. From what I've heard and seen in some documentaries, prisoners in the US (maybe other countries, as well) are treated way too nicely.
Or, um. Prisons can be where people learn useful trades, then get government-sponsored jobs. You know, making those people useful to society instead of harmful to it. But that's just my opinion.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
Prisons can be where people learn useful trades, then get government-sponsored jobs. You know, making those people useful to society instead of harmful to it.
That's the purpose of school.
Bag of Magic Food wrote:
So it's not where you go to be made to feel like a bad person?
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
Bag of Magic Food wrote:
So it's not where you go to be made to feel like a bad person?
That's church, not prison.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
FODA>If it wasn't mandatory then hardly anybody would serve...
Not true at all. Many countries have voluntary-only armies and are doing fine. In times of conflict people tend to sign up. If they don't... well, perhaps the country wasn't worth defending to start with.
xebra> The only way the army would ever see battle is if Finland got invaded.
There are also international peacekeeping forces under the UN. (I think Finland are a part of those, at least.)
Now this is not quite correct.
The history of military service was to ensure that if the country gets invaded there are enough people who had their basic military training, so that it takes less time and effort to raise a defense army. In that case xebra is right, military service is meant for defense. I don't know how finland handles it, but here in germany all international troups are voluntary, and only for full time soldiers (service is 10 months here). Defense OTOH never was voluntary and will never be. If the shit comes down noone will ask the soldier for his opinion.
I do know the arguments against it: At present time every nation has a time of about a year before a confict to build up their defense. With modern surveillance techniques an aggressor can't build up attacking forces without anyone noticing it soon. Also military service is proven to be of very low effect in the long term while costing the state a bunch, we're having the same argument here too.
But.
You have to decide against what you are. I for my part see nothing wrong in forcing people who don't what to serve in military for whatever reason to work their share or even more if motivation is needed. It's not like there's a human right against getting attacked. Now the excecution might be flawed (or even downright crap seeing that jehova's witness rule) under current circumstances, but the basic statement of someone who refuses military service out of whatever reason and then civil service (because it's longer) is: "I don't care, I don't want to".
but the basic statement of someone who refuses military service out of whatever reason and then civil service (because it's longer) is: "I don't care, I don't want to".
You have to decide against what you are. I for my part see nothing wrong in forcing people who don't what to serve in military for whatever reason to work their share or even more if motivation is needed. It's not like there's a human right against getting attacked. Now the excecution might be flawed (or even downright crap seeing that jehova's witness rule) under current circumstances, but the basic statement of someone who refuses military service out of whatever reason and then civil service (because it's longer) is: "I don't care, I don't want to".
I don't see anything wrong with requiring an alternate kind of service when someone does not want to or cannot (let's not forget, after all, that for many people, it's not just that they don't feel like it, but rather that they can't because of religious or ethical convictions) serve in the military, but there definitely is something wrong with forcing people who don't want to to work for a longer time - that reeks of punishment for exercising a legal right.
Also, there are other objections that many people in Germany (myself included) share: for example, the fact that women never have to do *anything* at all, that men who have two older brothers who served in the military never have to do anything (and interestingly enough, unless things changed since I had to deal with this, he same does not apply when your two older brothers did civil service - coincidence?), that everyone who is open about not wanting to join the military will *automatically* be considered "fit for service", and so on.
You cannot deny that people doing civil service are being treated much worse than soldiers, simply for exercising their legal rights, and that is what many people who refuse to do either kind of service - those I talked to, at least, when I prepared for my civil service application - seem to take offence at.
And it's certainly something I at least can understand. Apart from the fact that conscription is anachronistic and useless, people are regularly treated like shit by the state for being conscientious objecters.
I don't see it as punishment. You have the right to choose military service, and you have the right to choose twice the time in civil service. Everyone has the same right to choose. If you choose to not join the military because of religion or ethics, it is still your choice. The government does not choose for you. You are not being punished, you are exercising your right to choose twice the length of civil service by choosing a religion or ethics that prevent military service. If you do neither, then you have chosen to go to jail.
I do agree that women should have to do something, and the two older brothers rule is unfair. I see this as unequal rights because a person can not choose to have two older brothers.
That's how I see it.
Sorry if I'm being blunt but what if you had to choose between having sex with a big hairy man or doing community service for a year? It's a free choice too but how many straight men would go for it? I'm certain they would see it as quite unfair.
Kyrsimys: I think that's a bad analogy. We're talking about serving your country in some way. If you don't want to do that, why should you be allowed to remain there?
Serving your country, HAH! The soldiers are only consuming our contry's resources, not serving it. If you want to serve your country you should do civilian service which is basically a year of free labour for the country.
The civilian service is over twice as long as the armed service! That's the problem. It is not fair that people who are against guns or violence have to suffer because of their conviction.
EDIT: And the analogy may be a bit over the top but it makes you think about things from the other perspective. You can think anything that goes against your principles instead of having sex with a man. Would you kill a man? Throw nuclear waste into a river? Torture an animal? Harm an innocent person? Wouldn't you feel like you had been punished for having a certain opinion if you chose the community service?
