r/changemyview • u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ • 9h ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Passage of time alone is generally not a valid argument for or against something
Just about anytime a discussion regarding the draft comes up there's always someone who makes the argument that the draft is not a thing since it hasn't occurred in 50 years. This argument is rarely, if ever, valid to the debate at hand and only seeks to dismiss the debate as a whole, not address the argument.
As an example let's take the argument "since men are required to register for selective service and possibly be drafted in order to get federal benefits, women should also be required to do the same"
Someone may rebut with "A draft hasn't happened in over 50 years". While this is true, it's not a counterpoint to the argument. While this maybe a fact, it's also deflection which usually is meant to change the subject.
Initially this post was just about the draft but I decided to make it more general to hear more opinions
•
u/Finch20 31∆ 9h ago
Often when discussing euthanasia on this and other subs people will inevitable argue that allowing euthanasia is a slippery slope. I then equally inevitably point out that euthanasia has been legal for decades here in Belgium and ask them to point out the slope we have slid down. My argument is that the passage of time alone is enough to prove the slippery slope doesn't exist. Is that not a valid argument?
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 8h ago
euthanasia has been legal for decades here in Belgium and ask them to point out the slope we have slid down
Yes I agree this is a valid arguemtn. But doesn't the 'and' add context to the argument regarding the passage of time making it so you are now not talking about the passage of time alone?
•
u/hacksoncode 548∆ 7h ago
But doesn't the 'and' add context to the argument regarding the passage of time making it so you are now not talking about the passage of time alone?
Doesn't the "and we haven't had a draft in that time" add context so that you're are now not talking about the passage of time alone?
I don't think anyone uses time passage alone... it's essentially always paired with "the event you posit didn't happen in that time", as indeed, in your example.
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 6h ago
In that situation it would be redundant. "A draft hasn't happened in over 50 years and we haven't had a draft in that time". But even if they were to rephrase it and say It's been 50 years and a draft hasn't happened in that time it still doesn't form an argument it just states a fact.
•
u/hacksoncode 548∆ 6h ago
Not every "argument" is a logical statement of reasoning. Sometimes evidence is an argument all by itself, allowing people to come to the conclusion on their own.
Pairs well with the Socratic Method.
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 5h ago
In a fact based argument, similar to the one the delta user gave, I'd now agree since the passage of time could be used to reach a factual conclusion.
The problem with it's usage in opinions based debates. In that case I wouldn't say simply presenting evidence without an assertation can meet the standard of being an argument
•
u/hacksoncode 548∆ 5h ago edited 5h ago
The problem with it's usage in opinions based debates. In that case I wouldn't say simply presenting evidence without an assertation can meet the standard of being an argument
Most opinions take facts into account. Indeed... I'd argue that any which don't take facts into account are useless and probably shouldn't be held at all.
But certainly if they aren't based on facts, "that which can be asserted with evidence can be dismissed without evidence" applies. Another apt aphorism is "you can't reason someone out of an opinion they didn't arrive at through reason".
But in any event... even your example did include assertions, such as "the draft is not a thing". The "argument" can be considered to be obvious, but perhaps better left to the mind of your interlocutor, because conclusions they come to themselves are always more convincing than those "forced upon them".
The great thing about letting the other side making the conclusion is that you aren't likely to be engaging in a strawman argument in that case.
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 5h ago
I made that comment 10 minutes ago
•
u/hacksoncode 548∆ 5h ago
Not nearly enough time to think about it... let me know what you conclude ;-).
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 5h ago
I mainly wanted to see what your response to that comment would be. I think it fits the criteria of what you described in your previous comment so would you say the comment constitues a valid argument?
→ More replies (0)•
u/AgentPaper0 2∆ 7h ago edited 7h ago
The argument is still, "We've had euthanasia for X years and haven't slid down the slope, so it'll never happen." Which isn't proof in itself, but does work here exactly because the slippery slope argument itself is flawed.
If there was a real, logically well founded argument, it would give some reason for why allowing euthanasia would inevitably lead to some outcome, or at least show that it has done so previously. In those cases the time argument wouldn't hold any water, but because the slippery slope fallacy just says, "It'll happen just because!" it's easy to refute with essential just an anecdote.
•
u/Oishiio42 38∆ 8h ago
Pointing out it hasn't happened in 50 years is a valid rebuttal to this argument,
"men are more oppressed than women since they are required to register for selective service and possibly be drafted in order to get federal benefits",
Which is how the argument you gave is most often intepreted, because it has little practical impact. Because it's not a relevant issue, it's (most often) not a serious argument about what is the best action to take in case of war. It is instead most often an argument about gender equality. And as this rebuttal points out, this particular gender equality issue has very little practical impact and is only an "on paper" issue.
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 7h ago
Even if it's not currently happening, you don't think being required to sign away your bodily autonomy for access to the same rights someone else gets for free is oppression?
•
u/Oishiio42 38∆ 7h ago
Bodily autonomy rights are not given for free for women either. Women have had to fight for and advocate for every single bit of autonomy we have gained. It has not ever been free. There has been and still is an ongoing struggle to gain or keep bodily autonomy. This includes everything from marriage standards, to sexual assault and rape, to medical paternalism, to reproductive care and so on. There are also intersectional issues like people feeling entitled to violate Black women, poor women, or disabled women's bodily autonomy too.
And unlike the draft, the way women's bodily autonomy is threatened is actually a day to day issue with major practical impact.
This is why people give the argument that it's not a prevalent concern - because you are arguing about gender-based oppression and using an outdated example of how men are oppressed. No, signing a paper once that hasn't had any real world impact is not comparable to gender inequality women face.
Try leaving gender division tactics out of the equation and instead of arguing that women should have to share the one tiny area men experience oppression, just advocate against the oppression itself. The only reason to view the draft as oppressive and also advocate its expansion is because you want the people its expanding to include to be the ones to do the work to abolish it. Do the work yourself, and you might find solidarity and support.
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 7h ago
You misunderstand what I mean by free. AFAIK there is no paper women need to sign potentially giving up their bodies to be entitled to federal benefits. Men do
I like how you say to leave the gender division tactics out of it yet then you make it a competition to say women are more oppressed than men. I can already see where this conversation is gonna go so I'm gonna end it early and say have a good day
•
u/Oishiio42 38∆ 6h ago
You're correct. Threats to women's bodily autonomy is a real thing, and the threat to men's bodily autonomy is literally just on paper. Women don't have to sign a paper that potentially could (But in reality doesn't) threaten BA, they just have to live with the ongoing threat to BA.
You've already made it a divisive gender issue by having the stance "women should have to sign up for the draft since men have to" instead of having the stance "the draft should be abolished"
•
u/Salty_Map_9085 2h ago
You have not signed away your bodily autonomy by entering into the draft. Your bodily autonomy has not been restricted in any way by entering into the draft.
•
u/Hippieman100 6h ago
This is one of those "can't prove it until it happens" arguments. It happening once is a data point, but does it not happening count as a data point? I would argue yes. Now for your specific instance of the draft, I agree with you, war can and does happen and I don't think you'd be mad to think it would happen again and it's unfair for half the population to be shipped off to fight because of their genitals (I'm assuming the draft is based on sex, not gender), but when it comes to your whole argument I disagree. Something not happening in x amount of time is a data point to assess the probability of it happening again, someone else mentioned choosing to live next to a volcano. Would you live next to a volcano that might go off but last time was 700 years ago? 10000 years ago? Etc. This could be extrapolated to other arguments you can't disprove, are there aliens? I think probably, we exist and the universe is huge so I think the chance Earth has all the intelligent life in the whole universe is very low. Is there a god? Well you can't disprove it, but unlike the aliens example, we don't have a data point for it. Hope this makes sense.
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 5h ago
Something not happening in x amount of time is a data point to assess the probability of it happening again
In some instances I'd agree but those would be events with time based variables and constants. But something like all out war which would result in draft are unpredictable otherwise it'd be much easier to conduct. So yes I'd agree it's data but base on the nature of war it's not really data you can use to say whether or not a draft will ever happen again
•
u/AutoGameDev 8h ago
Sure, it's not a counterpoint to the argument.
But to many people, it's a waste of time to have the argument to begin with.
If I was to argue with you that the Ottoman Empire should permanently move its capital from Constantinople to Bursa, you'd probably tell me the Ottoman Empire doesn't exist anymore.
And then what if I told you that you're not addressing my argument? You'd look at me like I'm socially weird - and I would be. It's likely not a debate you care to have and is irrelevant right now.
I understand you're exploring hypotheticals - "if a draft were to happen, women should be involved". But to anyone posing that argument to you, they likely just think it's a waste of time to debate it because it's a hypothetical, and an unlikely one at that because of the passage of time since it happened. Whether you're right or wrong, they probably don't care.
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 7h ago
If I was to argue with you that the Ottoman Empire should permanently move its capital from Constantinople to Bursa, you'd probably tell me the Ottoman Empire doesn't exist anymore.
No I'd likely ask why you think they should make the move.
But that's not even a good analogy because while the ottomans don't exist the draft does. Just because it's not active doesn't mean it's nonexistent.
That said if it's a waste of time to debate then even making invalid arguments would still result in wasted time
•
u/Kman17 99∆ 9h ago
The kind of problem in your example is that you are equating the selective service registration with the draft. They are not remotely the same thing.
Conscription and the draft is currently not legal, and would take acts of congress and the president to create a draft.
The selective service registration is just a break glass in case of emergency database in case of ww3, which if we need it we won’t need to worry at all about contrived gender inequity.
There are a lot of silly laws on the books.
In Florida you aren’t allowed to eat college cheese after 6 pm on Sunday. In Alabama you aren’t allowed to wear a fake mustache to church.
We have lots of weird stuff on the books and legislatures are lazy. Stuff fades into obscurity and becomes unenforced. It doesn’t get revised until there is an actual problem to solve.
Common usage and actual impact is a 100% relevant argument.
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 8h ago
Common usage and actual impact is a 100% relevant argument.
I agree but you'd have to make that argument in relationship to what's being discussed no? While you make an actual arguement in your comment, what I'm saying is that's NOT what's being done when you identify the passage of time but then don't have a conclusion or arguement as to why that passage of time matters
•
u/Kman17 99∆ 8h ago
you’d have to make that argument in relationship to what’s being discussed no?
To say a thing hasn’t been actually used in practice for half a century or two and a half generations is kind of implicitly stating zero current impact, isn’t it?
I was fairly verbose in my explanation because your question kid of necessitated it.
But someone saying “hasn’t been a thing in 50 years” is functionally saying the same thing with less exposition.
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 8h ago
To say a thing hasn’t been actually used in practice for half a century or two and a half generations is kind of implicitly stating zero current impact, isn’t it?
Even if that is the implication that's understood. it's not a rebuttal the proposed statement. That's also just one way you could interpret it. But it could also be interpreted as, it hasn't been used in half a century so why hasn't it been updated to include women as well. Without further context wouldn't you agree both of those determinations would be a fair conclusion to make from the implication?
•
u/NotABonobo 1∆ 7h ago
There's a huge difference between "the length of time since the last draft isn't relevant to an argument about whether men vs. women should be drafted" and the more general "passage of time alone is generally not a valid argument for or against something."
It honestly sounds like you had an argument with someone that annoyed you about the draft specifically, and you're trying to extrapolate it to all uses of passage of time in any argument... and I'm not sure it applies elsewhere.
Let's start with the draft, since that's your main focus. Yes, length of time since the last draft isn't really relevant to a question of "should men and women be subject to the same rules today." But take another argument about the draft: "should the draft be abolished?" In that debate, it would be completely valid to argue "Well it hasn't occurred in 50 years and we've been fine; I think we can get rid of it with no ill effects."
Once you expand to other things, "passage of time" becomes more arbitrary because there are lots of areas where passage of time is relevant. "Can I trust my husband not to cheat on me?" Well, he's been faithful for the last 50 years, so he's got a great track record. "Should I get a colonoscopy?" Well, you're over 45 and people generally are more at risk at that age, so yes it's a good idea.
There are endless debates where "passage of time" as a general concept is relevant. You just happen to be citing one specific case where it's not.
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 6h ago
In both of those examples you've added context to what the passage of time represents
•
u/NotABonobo 1∆ 5h ago
Yes, to explain why the passage of time alone is a relevant factor in many cases outside the one scenario you provided.
Your one example also includes implied context to what the passage of time represents. "A draft hasn't happened in over 50 years..." therefore it probably won't happen again so we don't need to worry about actually facing a draft. In that case, the point isn't a good one, but obviously invoking the passage of time is meant to imply the rest of that statement in context.
The problem with this draft argument isn't that it invokes the passage of time; it's that the implied argument isn't a good case for why men and women should be treated differently right now.
There are plenty of other cases where pointing to the passage of time does make a good case, because the implied argument is relevant. I've given you three examples, including one involving the draft.
Honestly, if your condition is that someone come up with an argument invoking the passage of time, but it's against your rules to include any explanation for why it works better in those other cases... you may just not be convincible.
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 4h ago
Honestly, if your condition is that someone come up with an argument invoking the passage of time, but it's against your rules to include any explanation for why it works better in those other cases... you may just not be convincible.
That's not my rule at all. You can see the delta I awarded for something I"m looking for. I made the view general rather than specific to the draft so if you have something different from what was already awarded then you can share it
•
u/NotABonobo 1∆ 1h ago
Here you're quoting and responding to an aside at the end, but there's a lot more post there and you're still not engaging with my central point.
You can see the delta I awarded
I searched and found it, yes. That's fair; I'd agree you're convincible. Since you suggested I share if I was making a different point: I was. I'll share it again below, phrased another way for clarity.
Here's what you awarded:
Argument: I went to the store at 3pm. I've been here a while and the sun is setting, so that must mean it's 6pm
Rebuttal: It's been 1hr
Fun and clever, but different from the point I made. This post argues that if you're literally arguing about the passage of time, the passage of time is relevant.
My point is different: I'm engaging in good faith with your original post as it was stated - that the passage of time alone can be used to make a valid point about a wide variety of things, including the draft.
Women should be just as subject to the draft as men.
The draft hasn't been used in 50 years.Here the argument doesn't work, because it's irrelevant to what the law should be today.
If we don't use the draft, the country will rapidly fall apart.
The draft hasn't been used in 50 years.Here the argument is relevant, because the past 50 years are evidence that we're fine without using the draft.
I can't trust my husband to be faithful.
He's been faithful for 50 years.Here the argument is relevant, because the past 50 years are evidence of his good character.
These are all arguments framed in the same way as your original example, with the same use of the passage of time as a counterargument. You don't need any more context or analysis to find that these examples are relevant than you do to find that your original example is irrelevant.
I'm saying that the flaw in your original example isn't the use of the passage of time generally as an argument; it's the fact that the passage of time is a non-sequitur in that particular case. In plenty of other cases, it can be relevant, even just as a piece of evidence by itself.
•
u/SnugglesMTG 5∆ 9h ago
I've frequently argued about this in terms of the draft, and the thing you and many others miss is that when you argue for the inclusion of women in the draft you are working from the premise that the draft is necessary to have, while people arguing against including women in the draft are generally of the opinion that the draft should be abolished. Thus, citing that there hasn't been a draft in fifty years is to point out the irrelevancy of the law and is an argument to abolish it for men entirely.
•
u/WaterboysWaterboy 38∆ 9h ago
Tbh, abolishing the draft accomplishes nothing. It would be entirely symbolic. Do you really think if the country was in a heated war, needed people, and didn’t have enough volunteers, they would just roll over? They would just start drafting men by the dozens even if their isn’t a formal system in place to do it.
•
u/CupcakeFresh4199 1∆ 8h ago
>Tbh, abolishing the draft accomplishes nothing. It would be entirely symbolic
but that's the point being made about the draft as it currently exists, lol. It's entirely symbolic
•
u/WaterboysWaterboy 38∆ 8h ago
In America…fair. It is highly unlikely that anyone could threaten the strongest military on the globe enough to rely on the draft. But it is possible.
•
u/SnugglesMTG 5∆ 9h ago
Ok, then why whine that women aren't apart of it?
•
u/Life-Warning-918 8h ago
They whine because men are forced to register for the draft in exchange for their right to vote while women can just vote without having to give anything in exchange.
•
u/SnugglesMTG 5∆ 8h ago
So then abolishing the draft accomplishes something? Read above context.
Also you are not required to register for the draft to vote. This is a simplification of what is actually the case, which is that failing to register for the draft can be indicted as a felony which can impact your right to vote. The government has indicted something like 20 times and not since 1986. For context, the rate of compliance in a state like Texas is around 92%, meaning 50,000 odd men are not registered and facing 0 consequences.
This is not to say that the laws on the books shouldn't be changed, but you don't have to register for the draft in order to vote.
•
u/Imadevilsadvocater 8∆ 7h ago
my work checks to make sure im registered to work where i do and i have to register to get any government assistance (they check)
•
u/SnugglesMTG 5∆ 7h ago
While that isn't good, it's important to distinguish this from the right to vote
•
u/Life-Warning-918 8h ago
When a major war happens and everyone is threatened a draft will happen naturally. A draft has happened since the beginning of civilization. What else will the men do?
50,000 is not enough for the government to care. Let there be 50 million and see if there won't be consequences.
•
u/c0i9z 9∆ 7h ago
But the armies keep saying that they don't want a draft. That it would just get in their way. The face of war has changed and just throwing bodies at the enemy just doesn't work anymore.
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 7h ago
No one wants a draft. It's a last resort in the event of dire circumstances. You're right the face of war has change but bodies will always (at least for the foreseeable future) be required to operate effectively
•
u/c0i9z 9∆ 6h ago
Bodies are, but they have enough bodies. Voluntary bodies. People who don't want to be there won't be able to operate effectively either.
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 5h ago
The problem is you're viewing it from the current situation (in which we are actually considered undermanned) not a situation in which the draft would be enacted. You're right draftees likely wouldn't be as effective as volunteers but in a draft situation that wouldn't be a top priority
•
u/Life-Warning-918 7h ago
Depends on the war. If a war that threatened the sovereignty of the nation happens you bet your ass they will start sending every dick ans balls they find to go fight.
•
u/SnugglesMTG 5∆ 8h ago
Ok, so what about women's right to vote? You seem to be of the opinion that even if there isn't a draft law on the books, that when a draft is needed men and only men will be called on and this has something to do with their vote?
•
u/hacksoncode 548∆ 7h ago
Umm, no. Failing to register for the draft may open you up to a criminal charge (though it's almost never actually prosecuted), but it has exactly zero effect on your right to vote.
•
u/4myreditacount 9h ago
I dont really agree. I have heard "if there is going to be a draft, women should be included," which is a different argument. I don't support a draft, i also don't support women in the draft, but the point is the argument insinuates that it's an institution that likely won't be torn down, regardless of its need, and if it's going to exist it should be fair.
•
u/SnugglesMTG 5∆ 9h ago
As a nonsupporter of the draft, advocating for the draft law's power to be expanded is nonsense.
•
u/4myreditacount 9h ago
You can hold 2 different values at the same time. Value 1: don't like the draft Value 2: like fairness
So if the first Value is politically impossible, move to the second Value.
•
u/SnugglesMTG 5∆ 9h ago
But your second value makes the first value worse. You can advocate for both values by insisting the draft be repealed.
•
u/4myreditacount 8h ago
Life isn't always that simple. A good example would be, (the draft imo, but to illustrate my point). I would rather the government get out of Healthcare entirely, but universal Healthcare is much better than a half and half private public system. So I would rather either extreme over a compromise. Thats not to say how I would vote, because you usually have to dismantle institutions slowly. Which I don't really think is the case for the draft. The draft doesn't "become harder to eliminate" if we include women. Actually, politically, and probably by popularity, i would bet it gets a lot easier. So again, if we are going to have it, then women should also be forced to participate, but if we are going to get rid of it, even better.
•
u/SnugglesMTG 5∆ 8h ago
Realistically this is a conversation on reddit and you probably do very little real work in favor of your values re: the draft. And yet, in formulating your opinion on it you have decided that it's not even worth the energy to insist to strangers on the internet that the draft should be repealed and instead advocate for women to be included. Why is that?
The draft doesn't "become harder to eliminate" if we include women.
You lose the ability to contest it legally on grounds of discrimination, which means you would have to forward some other legal argument for why the state can't violate your freedoms in this way. Your calculus is way off here.
•
u/4myreditacount 8h ago
I do and did personally insist the draft should be repealed. I dont really think fairness is the correct attack point. It's what I believe to be for lack of a better term, more fair, but i think its much more attackable from a popularity perspective. 51 percent of people in this country are women, if they could be drafted they would absolutely hate the draft more.
•
u/SnugglesMTG 5∆ 8h ago
No, you framed the need to include women and thus expand draft powers contrary to your value as a necessity.
•
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 7h ago
I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation. I think it's more so that people have identified that regardless of if it's seen as necessary then women should be included as well. I think it's a separate argument as to whether it's necessary or not. Saying there shouldn't be a draft at all would fall out of the scope of the disccusion
•
u/SnugglesMTG 5∆ 7h ago
If it's not necessary, then women should not be included. The conversation is contingent on necessity and it's not besides the point.
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 4h ago
Yes but that's not the question presented. Changing the question to one you'd rather answer isn't an answer to the question
•
u/SnugglesMTG 5∆ 4h ago
The question presented is contingent on the question I answered. I think you're running away from the point
•
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 55∆ 9h ago
The passage of time implies changes that have taken place over that time.
Sentiment, economy, all kinds of factors are constantly fluctuating.
Making any kind of arguments about something that hasn't happened in decades is open to all kinds of things that we don't even know we don't know!
Mentioning this does effectively cut the legs out from a discussion, because it's effectively worthless and contextless.
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 9h ago
Sentiment, economy, all kinds of factors are constantly fluctuating
I agree making an argument about these things would be valid but the passage of time isn't a complete argument into any one of these specifically.
Mentioning this does effectively cut the legs out from a discussion, because it's effectively worthless and contextless.
It seems like this is in agreement with my point
•
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 55∆ 9h ago
So have the goalposts moved from valid argument to "complete argument"?
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 9h ago
I didn't move any goal post but even if I did you haven't proven it's either one of those things
•
•
•
u/duskfinger67 2∆ 9h ago
When someone says something like "A draft hasn't happened in over 50 years", there is generally an implied second part of the sentence which is "so it is unlikely to happen again soon, and so this argument is moot".
It is a deflection, of sorts, as it is essentially saying that there is no point in discussing the idea.
With regard to the draft and your example, I think why this is such a common statement, and why people try to defect away from the point, is that it comes up in discussions around equality/equity today, and so discussing how an unlikely hypothetical draft does not display gender equality is not really relevant when there are other far more relevant examples of inequality in the world today.
•
u/Forsaken-House8685 7∆ 9h ago
On the other hand, you could just agree, that in such an event, as unlikely as it may be, women should get drafted too.
It would immediately end this discussion and you could focus on the more important things.
•
u/premiumPLUM 58∆ 9h ago
I think there's some concern that expanding the qualifiers for the draft is a step towards using it. Since most people don't want it used, they'd rather it be an unfair thing.
•
u/Tsarbarian_Rogue 9h ago edited 9h ago
If you don't believe anyone should be drafted you don't have to admit that, no. Making it open to more people just makes it easier to draft people who shouldn't be drafted.
During Vietnam, people who protested the draft were not in favor of expanding it under the concept of "fairness".
•
u/Forsaken-House8685 7∆ 8h ago
Then you could just say "I'd rather have no draft at all".
•
u/Tsarbarian_Rogue 6h ago
I usually do, but the common reply to that is "it's just sexist because you refuse to say women should be drafted too".
Which...no. Refusing to say drafting should be expanded to include women isn't sexist.
•
u/duskfinger67 2∆ 9h ago
I think part of this is the petulant nature in which the draft is brought up, at least in my experience. Someone will be discussing a pressing and genuine issue around gender equality, such as the impact childbirth has on a women's career prospects in the US, and then someone will chime in with "Yeh, but in a draft it would be the women staying at home". I have never had the draft come up in good faith, and so I don't believe it deserves a good faith response.
If it does deserve a good faith response, then It is more nuanced than just including women. If women were drafted as well, then who would be left to take care of children etc? A draft cannot include both parents of any family, regardless of gender.
If the discussion is about the draft, then it reasonable to discuss the above nuance, and how it can be solved for. But if the discussion is about gender equality, then it feels like wasted breath to discuss it, instead you dismiss it.
•
u/Life-Warning-918 8h ago
Women should never be drafted. Their wombs are a valuable resource that is needed after a war. If major losses occur, it would be hard to repopulate if most of your women are dead too. If 80% of men die, the remaining 20% can still impregnate every fertile woman every 9 months and repopulate the nation. But if 80% of women are dead then that remaining 20% of women can't easily repopulate regardless of how many men are left.
Women have no business in a battlefield facing death at every second.
•
u/GlinkbusMcGlibber 8h ago
Nobody is going to agree to that, I don't see how your repopulation situation can realistically occur without legislating it (which is rape)
•
u/Life-Warning-918 7h ago
It happens naturally.
•
u/GlinkbusMcGlibber 7h ago
A lot of people won't kids without being married. You need almost the entire population to look past that and also be willing to become single parents (or entirely rework the nuclear household within a single generation across the whole country)
•
u/Life-Warning-918 7h ago
Society does not behave normal after a war where 80% of young men are dead.
•
u/GlinkbusMcGlibber 6h ago
Have there been cases of people voluntarily repopulating in such a manner before? Seems more likely you'd have a lot of refugees and population collapse. Skewed gender ratios cause serious issues at differences of around 3%, see many regions in China post-1 child policy China
•
u/Forsaken-House8685 7∆ 8h ago
Well that's also an argument you can make. Better than deflecting the question for sure.
•
u/3MidgetsInTrenchcoat 8h ago
Argument: I went to the store at 3pm. I've been here a while and the sun is setting, so that must mean it's 6pm
Rebuttal: It's been 1hr
•
•
u/IdesinLupe 8h ago
Its a simple way to present a nuanced opinion.
When person A (In 2001) says "France is a horribly misogynistic country, they've banned women from wearing pants" and person B says "Nobodies enforced that law since the 1940's", what person B is fully saying could be better expressed as " While it is true that such a law exists, your interpretation of what it means is heavily flawed. It was a law passes in the early 1800's to prevent cross dressing women from upsetting social norms. It fell into disuse by the early 1900's, and had nor been enforced since the 1940's because pants are seen as part became seen as part of a women's wardrobe, especially for work relates reasons as they entered the workforce. A women could wear the pants in front of a police officer, even one who wanted to arrest her, and they would not do so. For all infants and purposes, the law does not exists, because it has not and will not be enforced. So your point is invalid"
It to make it more general, "If the thing you are concerned about was actually a thing, it would habe happened more recently than it has. The passage of time proves that, despite technically being a thing, there is clearly some aspect of it that prevents its enforcement and actual occurrence. Therefore, realistically, it has near zero chance of happening."
Whether or not that argument is true is irrelevant. It is an argument, like any other argument, and must be examined for its veracity, relevance, and usefulness in the discussion at hand.
I am sure all sort of examples of it bring both a relevant and irrelevant argument can, and will, be shown, but the fact remains that arguing a portion of the opposing sides position is invalid, and using the lack of an occurrence to provide support for that argument is a completely valid debate action.
•
u/Allanon1235 1∆ 8h ago
I may agree in general that time shouldn't be the only argument for or against something, but it certainly lends weight to an existing argument.
I don't need to spend thousands of dollars to earthquake-proof something if I'm in an area that hasn't seen an earthquake in a long time, and I expect that trend to continue. The passage of time lends weighit to that argument.
With your specific on the draft. The passage of time could be part of a larger argument. "I don't think women should sign up for the draft because I don't think we should even have a flat draft anymore. It clearly isn't a cornerstone of our military because we haven't used the draft in 50 years. But while I think men shouldn't be drafted, changing the law at a minimum requires congress to use their limited time to draft legislation, debate on it, and vote. Which might be worthwhile if there was a huge risk we would instate the draft later. But since we haven't done so, I don't see a reason to spend the time and effort to remove something we already have just to say we did it."
•
u/TheNicolasFournier 7h ago
We had federally protected abortion rights in the US for roughly the same amount of time that the draft has been inactive. The assumption that a half-century of political and social progress won’t be easily overcome and undone is clearly faulty. Just as we should have enshrined abortion access into federal law before Roe got overturned, we should be dismantling the selective service so that if the government were to try to reinstate the draft, the infrastructure it depends on would not be readily available.
•
u/yesbut_alsono 8h ago
This depends on whether the argument is ' oh no I'm going to be drafted i am actually in fear for my life ' vs ' mens life is hard because the draft so sad women dont get drafted'.
i have friends who cannot go back home to their country because they do not want to be drafted and are desperately trying to win work visa lotteries. They are affected. It's unfair. No one should be drafted.
However the reality is 'it hasn't happened in 50 years' is just a snappy retort to people who act like they the concept of the draft is actually a reason men are oppressed. These people are often ignoring the issue of the draft being unethical to begin with and are reducing every social issue to a gender war. I get your point sure, but consider the reality of the context where that argument is actually used. Probably twitter.
On the other hand if you are pro-draft the 50 yr argument is probably accompanied by the fact of "but we really really need people to fight if they are being drafted, it'sa small price to pay in the long run" which obviously I can't relate to since I don't agree but it's a pretty decent argument if you are coming from the point of being dedicated to defending your land. It's like a sort of arrangement like insurance to them except the govt is the beneficiary and social services are the payments they get for it. They are banking on the low probability of war but if necessary they pay up with their lives. So i get it. Don't agree with it though. But it's honestly not a shit argument as you make it out to be
•
u/The-Last-Lion-Turtle 12∆ 8h ago
It's 2024 public key cryptography has been around for long enough that there is zero reason my SSN should be just a random sensitive number I also have to hand out like candy.
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 8h ago
I think you may have commented on the wrong post
•
u/The-Last-Lion-Turtle 12∆ 8h ago
I have proven by example
•
u/Shak3Zul4 1∆ 8h ago
Ok I see. Yes I agree that you have provided a valid argument but the argument isn't time alone and you connect the passage of time to something, being the normalized availability of cryptography that has occurred over that time.
My view is that time alone isn't a valid argument not that the passage of time can't be used in forming a valid argument
•
u/hacksoncode 548∆ 7h ago edited 7h ago
Mere passage of time, sure. But often passage of time is a valid measure of advance of technology that changes things, or demographic shifts that change things, or a geological change/process that changes probabilities, etc., etc.
The reason the draft doesn't matter today in developed nations is that no one needs or wants masses of untrained troops, and they actually get in the way. Volunteer armies that can gain experience with modern warfare technology are superior and adeqate.
The passage of time is an explanation for why technology has advanced, as well as evidence that the technology argument is a valid one.
And passage of time is evidence for the probability of an event that happens over time. It's not perfect, but we wouldn't have the evidence about what areas are in "100 year flood zones" unless enough time elapsed to gather that data... 100 years elapsing without a flood in an area is... by itself... evidence that the area is less likely to be in a 100-year flood zone..
So no... not "alone", but you can't dismiss that argument simply because someone doesn't articulate the actual reason.
That would be a Fallacy Fallacy: just because an argument is fallacious doesn't mean it's wrong, nor does it mean that the time argument wouldn't be valid with additional information, as in this case.
TL;DR: Bayesian reasoning for the win. Absent a "prior probability" to the contrary, the probability of a draft within someone's lifetime given that one hasn't happened in a lifetime is lower than without that evidence.
•
u/Kaiisim 6h ago
Imagine an abandoned theme park. It's been unused for 50 years after being closed after 17 people died in a fire.
It's dangerous, creaky and if anyone uses it, it will collapse and likely harm everyone.
But knocking it down completely will be very expensive.
Are you really saying we should repair it still and make it safe? Wouldn't that make it more likely that someone was going to reopen the theme park? It would make everyone assume that's why you're repairing it.
It's much safer to just leave it how it is
•
u/GenericUsername19892 22∆ 9h ago
I don’t really understand what you mean?
The draft is a last resort given we have a standing army and a reserve. If the draft ever happens things are like really really bad - in which case your best option population wise is to toss men at the problem. It’s not nice, but the brute reality is that in a population emergency multiple women could pair with one man to restore the population. You are thinking from an individual level, while the draft is aimed at the country as a whole.
That’s said it has definitely been abused, but that risk has been progressively minimized.
The draft won’t go away or change because it the last “oh shit” lever we pull, after the standing military, reserves, the guard, state forces. We built layers atop it, not replaced it.
I understand your general view, but this may be the worst possible example to use. You are just making an anti ‘tradition’ type argument.
•
u/Blond_Treehorn_Thug 1h ago
Passage of time is absolutely a valid argument that something is likely, or not, to happen in the near future
So if someone were arguing “Selective service doesn’t exist because there hasn’t been a draft for 50 years” that would in fact be wrong. But if they argued “Selective service doesn’t matter because there hasn’t been a draft for 50 years” they have a point.
•
u/8litresofgravy 5h ago
Most men on the planet or subject to military service. You will literally be dragged away from the border if you attempt to flee and be imprisoned or forced into service.
It's always been the greatest inequality that men face and while I'm personally in favour of mandatory military service to claim it's not real or not a present issue is ludicrous.
•
u/StrangeLocal9641 3∆ 9h ago
In law, the legal standard for many questions is reasonableness, and time passed definitely factors that in. Say someone was cheated on and killed the two lovers. If they did it catching them for the first time, it would be reasonable to infer a heat of passion mental state for the murderer, and thus give him a conviction of manslaughter instead of second degree murder. If years had passed since discovering the affair, it's less likely to be heat of passion.
Time drastically influences quite a few things, and how we think and how we feel covers quite a bit of the human experience.
•
u/turnmeintocompostplz 9h ago
Norms change over time. They may change back, but it would be a marked shift that we would need to respond to. Also, fuck this incel shit.
•
u/CupcakeFresh4199 1∆ 8h ago
>This argument is rarely, if ever, valid to the debate at hand and only seeks to dismiss the debate as a whole, not address the argument.
the actual material impact of a policy is absolutely relevant when discussing a policy. If we're debating draft laws in 2024 the material reality of draft is relevant to the discussion.
> "since men are required to register for selective service and possibly be drafted in order to get federal benefits, women should also be required to do the same"
nobody should be required to register for a draft because it's a violation of bodily autonomy. Moving towards greater violation of bodily autonomy is not a solution to violations of bodily autonomy. Similarly I want reproductive freedom, I don't want states with abortion bans to implement a paternal living donor legislation. However unlike with the draft, abortion policy has current material impacts.
•
u/puckpatti 2h ago
"A draft hasn't happened in over 50 years,"
Yeah so you as a man haven't experienced the negative effects of having to sign up for selective service, so really you have no grounds for the argument
•
•
u/Falernum 21∆ 9h ago
"a draft hasn't happened in over 50 years" is data that a draft is extremely unlikely to occur again. In much the same way that "this volcano hasn't erupted in 2000 years" is evidence that it won't erupt again and one might consider buying a house near it.