No plans for conscription in the US, huh?

[Daeval]

I was NOT implying that it was your "opinion" that SS service is mandatory. And besides which, it very much isn't mandatory. If it was mandatory then the kids of all the rich, or the kids of congressmen, would be forced to sign up, and we both know that the rich and congressmen's children very very rarely go to war (look at Bush Jr for example).

 

It's sounds like you're not clear on something. When you sign up for Selective Service, as ALL american men, rich or poor do, you are NOT SENT TO WAR. Your name goes into a pool of people, which includes EVERY male 18 to whatever the limit is (27-ish?), even the sons of congressmen. This is the pool that the government draws from IF it issues a draft.

 

Even the kids of congressmen are FORCED TO SIGN UP for selective service. In fact, I'm sure if one of them wasn't, it would be used against them in one of this country's ridiculous political mud-slinging contests. Where the rich MIGHT be able to get out of their obligation is in the case of an actual draft, where people are actually called on to serve. In that case, the rich or powerful might be able to pull some strings to ensure that their kid stays home (faking a medical condition, etc). However, we have no idea if this would work in this day and age because no one has been forced to serve as a result of registering for selective service since the 70's.

 

 

Your country can't have it both ways, but that's what the people of influence are trying to do - it's "Selective Service" because they want a way so that the poor kids all have to sign up for military service, but the rich still won't have to.  THAT'S why it's not "mandatory", THAT'S why the government resorts to using ice-cream lists, THAT'S why they're using DMV lists - because that way they can "Selectively" choose people from only low-income areas to "mandatorily" sign up.

Again, I can't believe that ANYONE thinks this is okay!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Again, you apparently aren't clear on how the system works. Registering for selective service is not the same as registering for military duty. Our army has been entirely a volunteer force for over 20 years, and registering for SS has been a legal requirement of every male citizen for that entire time. Furthermore, it is not meant to target just the poor. They do not dismiss people of ANY class from registering, and the system does not pull from a particular class of people first.

 

To say that they are targetting the poor is a baseless argument, as everyone goes to the DMV for their license.

 

To say that there is a bias towards the rich is a baseless argument, becuase everyone gets equal treatment in having to register.

 

To say that they are "selectively" choosing people to sign up is a baseless argument, as no one has been "selected" for anything in over 20 years.

 

Furthermore, what the hell does any of this have to do with an ice cream list? Do you think that only poor kids want free ice cream or something? The dad whose kid made the "fake kid" up for free ice cream was a freaking lawyer. It's been a while since I've seen an impoverished person with enough money to visit Farrels with any frequency, as it's rather pricey for an ice cream shop, let alone enough money to get them through law school. And rich or poor, the kid would have been legally obligated to submit his name anyway. The ice-cream is completely immaterial in all this, and is just an emotional device to get people angry at the "eeeviiill" government, when their time would be better spent arguing reasonably against an obsolete government service that absorbs tons of tax money for absolutely no return. How can any man or group expect their opinions to be taken seriously when they can't see the real issues past a bowl of ice cream?

Edited December 18, 2004 by Daeval

[random guy]

The ice-cream is completely immaterial in all this, and is just an emotional device to get people angry at the "eeeviiill" government, when their time would be better spent arguing reasonably against an obsolete government service that absorbs tons of tax money for absolutely no return.  How can any man or group expect their opinions to be taken seriously when they can't see the real issues past a bowl of ice cream?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, the ice-cream list is very much NOT immaterial. Nor is it an emotional device to get people angry - not the way it was presented in that site anyway. In case you don't know, that is a site dedicated to proving or disproving urban legends, and every detail on that site is treated in an objective way. The FACT that the army used a free ice-cream list to get them to sign up for the SS is therefore presented and shown to be 100% true.

And why, if the SS is such an obsolete and never-to-be-used-again system, have states just RECENTLY started forcing people to sign up for it when they sign up for their driver's license? If the system never gets used, why are they devoting such a comprehensive effort to get people to sign up for it?

The only possible answer I can think of is that they either know that a draft will be reinstated, or they know that reinstating the draft will be a distinct possibility.

Edited December 18, 2004 by random guy

[Jiggs]

None of this directly phases me, because I registered like I was supposed to, even though I wouldn't be drafted because I'm an only child (Although my mom had some other kids after her and my dad split up, I am still the only son, so if she has another kid I'm going to kill her).

[Daeval]

The ice-cream is completely immaterial in all this, and is just an emotional device to get people angry at the "eeeviiill" government, when their time would be better spent arguing reasonably against an obsolete government service that absorbs tons of tax money for absolutely no return.  How can any man or group expect their opinions to be taken seriously when they can't see the real issues past a bowl of ice cream?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, the ice-cream list is very much NOT immaterial. Nor is it an emotional device to get people angry - not the way it was presented in that site anyway. In case you don't know, that is a site dedicated to proving or disproving urban legends, and every detail on that site is treated in an objective way. The FACT that the army used a free ice-cream list to get them to sign up for the SS is therefore presented and shown to be 100% true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1) Yes the site attempts to approve or disprove urban legends, but

2) No, this particular urban legend is NOT presented in an objective way and

3) Since when is an internet site a valid authority on this kind of thing? However,

4) None of that really matters because true or not, the ice cream list is, as I have stated earlier, NOT THE REAL ISSUE HERE.

 

For the last time, the ice cream list had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on anyone being required to register for selective service. Registering is expected as a legal requirement of ALL male resident citizens in the United States.

 

These people were sent reminders to register not because they signed up for ice cream, but because they were nearing the age at which they must legally register. The issue is one of privacy violation - which is what the legal situation in this story was about - NOT ice cream or selective services. It could have been ANYTHING that the people had signed up for, and ANY letter they recieved, and the case should have proceeded EXACTLY the same. However, since people (rightfully) don't like selective services, and since this case, by coincidence only, has the childhood image of an ice cream parlor attached to it, it is used by people to attack the Selective Services by emphasizing a coincidental connection, while de-emphasizing the nature and reality of the situation, which appeals to the emotion of the reader in order to make it seem like selective services was somehow victimizing kids through an ice cream parlor.

 

That is why and how it is a spun story, and why and how the ice cream is an immaterial emotional device in this case. It's an effective one, and this kind of trap is one that people frequently fall in to, but if one thinks critically about it, rather than letting their (justified) hatred think first, it becomes clear. It's a basic logic 101 kind of fallacy that is unfortunately used all the time to invoke or capitalize on a mob-mentality.

 

 

 

And why, if the SS is such an obsolete and never-to-be-used-again system, have states just RECENTLY started forcing people to sign up for it when they sign up for their driver's license? If the system never gets used, why are they devoting such a comprehensive effort to get people to sign up for it?

The only possible answer I can think of is that they either know that a draft will be reinstated, or they know that reinstating the draft will be a distinct possibility.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can see my previous posts or do some searches on the web to find answers on this. It is not a forgone conclusion that they are doing a draft soon.

 

For one, the DMV thing is unlikely to have an effect on a near-future draft because the youngest group, which would be the ones who had most recently gone in for thier licenses, are the LAST people to be called on in the case of a draft. Selective Services would have to go through everyone between 20 and 27(is it 27?) before they could even start pulling names from the youngest group.

 

In addition, such a system is far from an extensive new effort - in fact, it's probably a lot easier on the country's resources (and therefore the taxpayers) than searching through mailing lists and sending out millions of reminder notices. People going through the DMV for their licenses are really close to the age when they'd have to register anyway, and just about every kid around that age goes through the DMV. In addition, no one has to worry about anyone calling favoritism for or against people of a certain background, because everyone goes through the DMV. From an operational standpoint, it only makes sense to combine the two processes. If you set aside the blinding anger for a second, it's obvious - the government wastes a lot less effort on the system, and 18 year olds no longer have to go out of their way either. It's a streamlining of the system.

 

That's not the end of it, but that's where I'll stop. Basically, people need to stop to think once in a while and quit the knee-jerking. Something as old and bureaucraticly rooted as Selective Services isn't going to go away in response to some brash emotional reaction - if that was the way to do it, it would have ended with Vietnam. It's also not going to spring to life on a whim - it's tied to too much to do that either. It needs to be looked at with an intellectual eye, disected, and destroyed with the voice of reason.

 

Pending your final response, our argument ends here, because I've made my point several times. I realize it's futile because people like to let their emotions rule them, but the importance of critical thinking has to be emphasized once in a while.

Edited December 18, 2004 by Daeval

[random guy]

How was the ice-cream a coincidence? Although they didn't buy the list directly from the ice-cream company, they HAD to know where the list was coming from, a free ice-cream promotion! It wasn't a coincidence.

Also, I suppose you could boil this down merely to the privacy issue, but unless the people who signed up for the free ice-cream promotion KNEW SPECIFICALLY that signing that promotion would mean getting on the army's mailing list, then the army behaved EXTREMELY unethically, on the privacy issue alone.

Edited December 18, 2004 by random guy

[Robert]

What an over-complicated topic !!

 

Earlier someone asked how the Australian govt got the list.

 

That's easy - anyone born here goes into a database kept by the dept of births, deaths and marriages. You cannot get anywhere here without proof of who you are, and a copy of your birth certificate is proof. Further, should your name appear in tax records, credit card applications, bank records, drivers licence application or anything to do with any govt, you get on the list. Our govt bodies use data matching technology to track down everything about everyone. So far, at least, there appears to have been no abuse of this power.

 

As for conscription, it was scrapped in 1972 and will never return. Anyone who wants to join the armed services can apply, so long as they are not criminals and pass certain criteria.

 

I cannot understand why Americans are required to sign up for this "Selective Service" (i've never heard of it before). Surely you have the constitution and its amendments to protect you ?? Or is this another face of this "Patriot Act" that I've heard a little about?

 

Comments?

[Sturmvogel]

I see your point Daeval. But you're missing something. Your reasoning is along the lines of "hey the're supposed to register anyway, no harm no foul." That's true...but does that mean hypothetically, that the govt, if it chooses to, can use tactics that are deceptive in nature in order to further some goal. This goes beyond just "getting names". What if the govt decides to listen in on your conversations, or bug your home with no probable cause, but just because they deem it neccessary for national security reasons. They can argue as you have, and say "hey, if you're not a terrorist , or breaking any laws, you don't have to worry".

 

But getting back to this issue of SS, I don't see the point of the govt. putting up a stand to get names. You'd have a hard time living and functioning in the U.S. if you didn't register with SS. And for the third time, SS is not a "draft". It was created in case the country faced a national emergency, and able bodied males would be needed. Even if the govt. did use it as a draft, it would take years to train a soldier, at 1 million a piece. If they didn't train us, no point in drafting us.

[Daeval]

Alright, I'll throw in one more...

 

 

Also, I suppose you could boil this down merely to the privacy issue, but unless the people who signed up for the free ice-cream promotion KNEW SPECIFICALLY that signing that promotion would mean getting on the army's mailing list, then the army behaved EXTREMELY unethically, on the privacy issue alone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well.. See, you've just described why this issue isn't about ss and ice cream. You could say exactly the same thing about ANY TWO ENTITIES and have the exact same amount of validity. IE, "Unless the kids who signed up for the baseball team KNEW SPECIFICALLY that it would mean getting on the magazine company's advertising list, then the magazine company behaved EXTREMELY unethically." It's the same thing, but people aren't politically charged about magazine advertisements, so it wouldn't have been a big deal. Furthermore, companies do this exact same thing ALL THE TIME, but you never hear anything about it beyond the occasional anti-junk-mail movement. In this case, it is actually the Information Broker who stepped out of line by selling the list to the army without the ice cream shop's permission.

 

How was the ice-cream a coincidence? Although they didn't buy the list directly from the ice-cream company, they HAD to know where the list was coming from, a free ice-cream promotion! It wasn't a coincidence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is coincidental to the argument because the list could have been from ANYTHING, as explained above. The government could have gotten the list from a sporting goods shop, or a fast food restauraunt, or a gun shop, and the issue would have been exactly the same, except that there wouldn't be nearly as much emotional sentiment for them to spin on.

 

 

I see your point Daeval. But you're missing something. Your reasoning is along the lines of "hey the're supposed to register anyway, no harm no foul." That's true...but does that mean hypothetically, that the govt, if it chooses to, can use tactics that are deceptive in nature in order to further some goal. This goes beyond just "getting names". What if the govt decides to listen in on your conversations, or bug your home with no probable cause, but just because they deem it neccessary for national security reasons. They can argue as you have, and say "hey, if you're not a terrorist , or breaking any laws, you don't have to worry".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I see what you're getting at, but I don't think it's correct, and here's why. Let's break it down to this line:

 

but does that mean hypothetically, that the govt, if it chooses to, can use tactics that are deceptive in nature in order to further some goal.

The problem with this is that these tactics weren't really secret. All they did was buy a publicly traded list to send out reminder notices. Doing something like bugging your phone is a blatant violation of privacy rights, whereas a publicly traded list is, under our current system, fair game. Nobody knew they were doing it, but it's no more a deceptive violation of privacy than when the advertising companies do it every day. Being able to buy a legally traded list certainly would not excuse anyone from illegal wiretapping or similar privacy violations in a court of law.

 

Now, I do agree that it's unethical, but not because it was the government or selective services doing it. I think publicly traded advertising lists like that are a massive violation of privacy rights all on their own.

 

But getting back to this issue of SS, I don't see the point of the govt. putting up a stand to get names. You'd have a hard time living and functioning in the U.S. if you didn't register with SS. And for the third time, SS is not a "draft". It was created in case the country faced a national emergency, and able bodied males would be needed. Even if the govt. did use it as a draft, it would take years to train a soldier, at 1 million a piece. If they didn't train us, no point in drafting us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly. I like you, you think about stuff.

[Cominus]

What an over-complicated topic !!

 

Earlier someone asked how the Australian govt got the list.

 

That's easy - anyone born here goes into a database kept by the dept of births, deaths and marriages. You cannot get anywhere here without proof of who you are, and a copy of your birth certificate is proof. Further, should your name appear in tax records, credit card applications, bank records, drivers licence application or anything to do with any govt, you get on the list. Our govt bodies use data matching technology to track down everything about everyone. So far, at least, there appears to have been no abuse of this power.

 

As for conscription, it was scrapped in 1972 and will never return. Anyone who wants to join the armed services can apply, so long as they are not criminals and pass certain criteria.

 

I cannot understand why Americans are required to sign up for this "Selective Service" (i've never heard of it before). Surely you have the constitution and its amendments to protect you ?? Or is this another face of this "Patriot Act" that I've heard a little about?

 

Comments?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not serving...well going against the selective service act is unconstituional becuase of such and such. There was a descusion about this in my J.R.O.T.C. class and the major was telling us about this and he said something about that we have to do this or it would be against the constituion becuase it is what preotects us and if there's nobody to protect it then how can it protect us. Some of his stuff got mixed in with some of mine.

[random guy]

I disagree Daeval - the people who signed up for the ice-cream promotion were no doubt aware of the possibility that signing up for the promotion would mean they'd recieve junk-mail (the free ice-cream has to be paid for somehow). Where I take issue is with the ARMY using these lists, as that is an eventuality that neither the proprietor of the store or the people who signed up to the list would be prepared for.

[Daeval]

I disagree Daeval - the people who signed up for the ice-cream promotion were no doubt aware of the possibility that signing up for the promotion would mean they'd recieve junk-mail (the free ice-cream has to be paid for somehow). Where I take issue is with the ARMY using these lists, as that is an eventuality that neither the proprietor of the store or the people who signed up to the list would be prepared for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, if the Information Broker had done what it was supposed to, then the proprietor of the store would have had the chance to decline the offer... But, and I re-iterate now...

 

How is a simple reminder letter from the army any different from an advertisement from another company to the end recipient?... Well...

 

The only difference I can see, and the same one you have paraphrased, is that people have an emotional attachment - in the form of hatred - that causes them to react violently to the words "selective service," regardless of context. My point all along has been that that kind of emotional reaction alone is not good reasoning, and using it to further demonize things is a form of deceptive rhetoric, plain and simple.