that’s admirable, (if you sideline the fact that US isn’t a terribly high bar to overcome in terms of non-involvement in military conflict) but that’s not my point
just because one’s goals happen to be “good” or “bad” doesn’t change the fact that mandatory military service is a violation of human rights; the precursor, justification, consequences, economic system, surrounding rhetoric are not relevant, because we’re discussing the semantics of “violation of human rights”, not whether its consequences lead to more or less peaceful outcomes
Huh, I’ll look into it more on why one might consider mandatory military service to always be a violation of human rights as that is an interesting position seeing how despite any and all material conditions you take it as static. It’s a very interesting position, as you said it’s mostly around the semantics of what human rights constitute as. And you may be correct.
that’s admirable, (if you sideline the fact that US isn’t a terribly high bar to overcome in terms of non-involvement in military conflict) but that’s not my point
just because one’s goals happen to be “good” or “bad” doesn’t change the fact that mandatory military service is a violation of human rights; the precursor, justification, consequences, economic system, surrounding rhetoric are not relevant, because we’re discussing the semantics of “violation of human rights”, not whether its consequences lead to more or less peaceful outcomes
Huh, I’ll look into it more on why one might consider mandatory military service to always be a violation of human rights as that is an interesting position seeing how despite any and all material conditions you take it as static. It’s a very interesting position, as you said it’s mostly around the semantics of what human rights constitute as. And you may be correct.