What's the difference between a conscientious objector and a draft-dodger?
There are lots of differences. The main one being the a conscientious object is already in the military, where as the draft-dodger is not. From my personal experience I have several buddies who enlisted but didn't fully understand the potential brutality of the job until they'd seen it first-hand. It easy to say that you know that death happens in war, but it's hard to understand that it actually happens. A conscientious objector is one who is in the military then realizes that they are emotionally not fit to be in the military. So, they got through a long process of appointments with commanders, chaplains, supervisors, etc to see if the person really should be discharged. Normally, not always, there are mental health evaluations involved as well. This tends to be a very long process, from what I've seen it take around 2 years. I have a good friend who was watching some gruesome sniper videos of the things we do at a point in his career. This is when it finally occurred to him that each of us is a bred-killing-machine. He could no long sleep at night along with being incapable of working day shift hours. To this day he still works night shift. He was a conscientious objector. A draft-dodger, as you put it, would be a male citizen that either refused to fill out the forms for the draft or tried to get out of being drafted. In this time period that would be the neglecting of forms. This is clearly illegal because it is the law. At this point there is no good reason to avoid it, due to the the lack of a draft. It is a civil duty to serve your country if it so needs you. If by chance you are not mentally fit to serve that will be found before you'd ever be told to serve. There is a vigorous process set in place for draftees if that were to ever be needed. I hope this helped you.
Can Prozac lead one to feel less conscientious?
I have been taking fluoxetine, the generic form of Prozac, for roughly two years. I was prescribed the lowest-possible dosage of the drug by my M.D. (not a psychiatrist), who I see once every four months for a five-minute period, to treat my depression and anxiety. Now, don't get me wrong: Fluoxetine has helped me to be more outgoing and assertive in many aspects of my life, which I appreciate. My depression is virtually gone. However, I still have academic problems (note that before my depression set in seven years ago, my academic record was excellent). That is, although I enjoy my college courses, I tend not to complete written assignments and blame the missing work on anxiety. And yet I don't know if this is entirely true. I wonder if I have developed a lack of concern for my academics (a numbing to reality), and if that has resulted from my taking fluoxetine. Has anyone else experienced a lack of action (perhaps the OPPOSITE of anxiety) after taking Prozac?
How much does it cost to buy out a military contract?
just tell your commander you like to take it up the tail pipe that usually does it just be prepared to prove it
Relavism: Are we really letting people believe what they want?
There are different types of relativism. The most common type is cultural relativism which says that morality is a result of culture, therefore the punishment of murderers, pedophiles etc... is a cultural thing. I.E because the culture says it is bad it is bad. However a problem is that relativism leaves the door open to subjectivism which holds that any personal philosophical and moral system should be respected. I would reject the relativistic/subjectivist point of view because it is of little practical use. For one thing whilst a central tenet of relativism is that there is no absolute morality it ends up imposing an absolute. "respect the beliefs of others." Secondly there will always be a dominant philosophy in society because if allow subjectivsm full reign and abandon our laws because they conflict with an individuals 'right to choose' (there we go imposing a moral absolute again) their own morality then the strongest group will take charge and impose their morality and philosophy on everyone else. I would agree with you that it is possible to compare moral systems, but choosing a common standard to compare the by is difficult. For example if we take physical consequences, then we risk condemning people for performing an action which had unforeseeable consequences. For example a man takes a walk on his rooftop terrace and accidentally knocks a stone of it. The stone then plummets to the ground and kills an innocent pedestrian. Do we condemn the man or not? (unlikely situation I admit). Another problem faced with deciding which standard to take is that many religous people will insist that we should follow the rule of God as laid out in their holy book/by their preachers. I would personally agree with you that despite the objections above a morality based on consequence is preferable and to an extent alrealdy widely employed.
I'm forced to join the Egyptian military after college. What should I do?
I am not familiar with Egypt. But I know that conscription is immoral and is involuntary servitude.Does Egypt have any laws against forced labor or involuntary servitude? If so, you may bring it up in court and say that conscription is forced labor. Even if there is a law against slavery/forced labor, they court may have its own interpretation of the law and still declare you a criminal.In the US, the 13th Amendment forbids slavery and involuntary servitude. But during the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court rules that the 13th Amendment does not apply to conscription (the military draft/forced military service) because citizens “owe” such service to the state. This interpretation is both wrong and hypocritical.You could also fake a mental illness, like pretending to be suicidal. I know that in Singapore you can be exempted from National Service (forced military service) if you have a mental illness that is serious. Faking a mental illness is easier and more effective than faking an injury.Also, does you country allow you to apply for conscientious objector status? If so you may want to find out what qualifies you as a conscientious objector and try to fulfill the criteria.You can also try faking having a religion or ideology that is opposed to your country’s system. If your military and government is Islamic, then fake being a Christian who is against Islamic values or vice versa. If your country is communist then fake being a capitalist or vice versa. Give them something to worry about in terms of security (that maybe you might start sabotaging your own army or side with the enemy). I have heard of a guy in Australia who faked being an communist during the Vietnam War and was not allowed to serve in the army.Also, are there any societies in Egypt that provide support for people who are against forced military service? If so, you may want to consider what advice they have for you.I wish you well and will pray for you. I hope I have provided you with some viable suggestions for you to dodge slavery. May God bring justice to your country!(I’m a Christian and I know God is against conscription. It is also against my conscience. God bless you.)
With regards to the right to bear arms, are gun control people too naive or is there another agenda at play?
Now let us not be naive, either.There are many reasons that people favor gun control. Some examples:Some have had a friend or family member hurt or killed by improper or illegal use of firearms. [Some deservedly so. No one believes that their “gangster son or daughter” is a danger to society, nor do they care.]Some fear that “Children will get a hold of them.” [(Check out George Carlin’s routine on “For the children…Leave the kids the fuck alone!”]Some people are against hunting and think animals have the same rights and feelings as humans. [Thank you, Walt Disney]Some oppose firearms on religious grounds [ie. Conscientious Objectors]Some believe that they can band together and have “their” police or military forces impose their will on others [Most dictators enforce strict gun control]Some people are just plain afraid of guns {I was shaking when I first fired a handgun; now I am an instructor]Some believe that the individual has no rights and it is the “Collective” that is superior and guns are an impediment to that. [The “Militia” argument.]Some are incredibly naive and believe that the “Police” will protect them. [Ever notice that in the first five minutes of a TV crime show someone dies and by the end of the hour the police catch the criminal? However, the person killed in the first five minutes is still dead.]Some are criminals and want the public (their victims) disarmed. [It is not unusual in the UK to find criminals who have been arrested more than 50 times for felony offenses and then released, but you better not shoot one of them breaking into your house there.]SO, the short answer is: “Yes, they are incredibly naive.” The genie is out of the bottle and you can’t shove him back in. Criminals and bad people will always get guns and taking them away from law-abiding citizens is silly. Increased spending on mental health is the key to lowering the number of mass shootings.Let’s get the AMA and the APA to report mental patients to the police and the FBI National Firearms Database, so mentally impaired people do not gain access. They won’t do it because it will hurt their businesses (Medical care is Big Business). Hell, Shrinks don’t even indicate that they are psychologists or psychiatrists anymore for fear of alienating their patients. They just list themselves as “doctors.”
Should everyone be required to join the military?
That there is a trick question.I think that for the sheer discipline, responsibility, and the core values that each branch of the military instills it would be a great idea. But there are caveats to that.The severely mentally ill should not serve in the military. People that lack the cognitive capabilities to understand basic directions should not join. People with certain medical conditions should not join. I don’t think Psychopaths should join, or people that have committed certain crimes that put other people’s information or the security of the nation in jeopardy. The last of a lineage should not be forced to join. A person responsible for children that has no one to take care of the children while they are in training and if they get deployed to a combat zone.Then there is the conscientious objector. I can flip flop with that one. Yes joining would instill some great attributes in a person but at the same time they may reduce moral. Also you have spent all this money on training them and you cannot send them into a combat zone to perform their mission. Here is an example of what can happen with a conscientious objector: Army Charges War-Objecting Soldier Who Refused to Serve in Iraq this was going on while I was in. Everyone was talking about it and new he was a dead man if he were to back out of his position because he had lost faith in the troops he led. (The outcome ended up being that on 2 October 2009, the Army discharged Watada "Under Other-Than-Honorable-Conditions.” Watada's defense attorney stated that in his opinion, "the Army came to the conclusion that it was not going to be able to prevail in a prosecution, and when the new solicitor general came in, her office had a fresh look at it, and as it was not bound by any of the decisions that had been made previously, they saw fit to put a stop to the appellate process." An administrative discharge, “Under Other than Honorable Conditions” Discharge is the least favorable type of administrative discharge from any branch of service. According to AR 635-200, an Other Than Honorable Discharge is reserved for a “pattern of behavior that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers of the Army.”)So I guess the short answer is no.