[ceejayoz]

> A violation of human dignity.

A dodge, but we can work with that.

A yes or no question, now:

Would the citizens of a sovereign nation being forced to violate their Constitution by Putin and Trump be a “violation of human dignity” too?

[lurk2]

> Would the citizens of a sovereign nation being forced to violate their Constitution by Putin and Trump be a “violation of human dignity” too?

If Ukraine was worth defending they would have no trouble finding men willing to die to defend it. It’s one of the most corrupt countries in the Western world, its women are being allowed to flee so that they can prostitute themselves to Arabs and Europeans, and it hasn’t had an election in 7 years. Zelensky attempted to take control of the country’s anticorruption bureau in July of 2025: “Many suggest the attempted purges are payback for NABU pursuing charges of illicit enrichment and abuse of office against former deputy prime minister Oleksiy Chernyshov, a key ally for the Office of the President.”[1] In November of 2025, Timur Mindich, a former business partner and close friend of Zelensky, fled to Israel after being accused of orchestrating a kickback operation in cooperation with ministers of Zelensky’s own government. [2][3].

You have the opportunity to go die for these people right now. An increasing number of men in Ukraine have decided they would prefer not to.

[1] - https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-r...

[2] - https://www.timesofisrael.com/zelensky-associate-at-crux-of-...

[3] - https://www.uawire.org/ukraine-s-anti-corruption-bureau-to-s...

[ceejayoz]

Well, another dodge. I tried; it's a yes/no question.

> If Ukraine was worth defending they would have no trouble finding men willing to die to defend it.

So defeating the Nazis wasn't worth doing, because we had to draft to accomplish it?

> its women are being allowed to flee

Wouldn't the alternative be "A violation of human dignity"? Forced confinement in a war zone? You really should make up your mind here.

[lurk2]

> Well, another dodge.

I stated my position plainly.

> So defeating the Nazis wasn't worth doing, because we had to draft to accomplish it?

What you are implying is that condemning conscription as a violation of human dignity would necessarily lead me to condemn the actions that led to the downfall of a regime that itself engaged in conscription. Your mistake is in thinking that one necessarily follows from the other. I could condemn the specific act of conscription while considering the acts of the Allies in general as morally desirable, I could take a utilitarian approach and say that conscription is infinitely undesirable but the Nazis were infinitely undesirable + 1, or (as is my actual position), I can simply say that both regimes engaged in acts of evil that I am unwilling to dignify by calling “necessary.”

Issues of moral judgement are pass-fail. An act is good or it isn’t. This manner of thinking does not require you to create a gradation between the stranger who tries to rape you and the stranger that tries to kill you; they are both simply behaving immorally. The Rape of Nanjing was wrong; it did not justify the civilian deaths that occurred during the nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

> Wouldn't the alternative be "A violation of human dignity"? Forced confinement in a war zone?

The discussion we are having is operating from the reality that Ukrainian men are being conscripted. If a man can be compelled to serve his country (I reject this premise), it follows that a woman ought to be compelled to serve as well. The conventional justification for exempting women from conscription has been that they are necessary for the nation to reproduce itself. But the majority of these women are not likely to return to Ukraine, so what is the point of treating them any differently from the men if they are already a guaranteed loss?

This is all tangential to the point I was making; you completely ignored the corruption scandals I mentioned.

> You really should make up your mind here.

You’ve been posting here too long to think that this sort of behavior conforms to the site guidelines. I have showed great restraint in writing this reply despite your inconsiderate behavior. My next reminder will not be polite.

[ceejayoz]

> I stated my position plainly.

I stated my question plainly.

> Would the citizens of a sovereign nation being forced to violate their Constitution by Putin and Trump be a “violation of human dignity” too?

You've yet to answer it.

> This is all tangential to the point I was making; you completely ignored the corruption scandals I mentioned.

Yes, I ignored the blatant dodge attempt to drag things off-topic.

> You’ve been posting here too long to think that this sort of behavior conforms to the site guidelines. I have showed great restraint in writing this reply despite your inconsiderate behavior. My next reminder will not be polite.

Pick "tutting schoolmarm" or "internet tough guy". Both in one paragraph just looks silly.

[lurk2]

> You've yet to answer it.

And I won’t. You’re a disingenuous interlocutor. You aren’t asking questions as an inquirer, they are snares intended to serve as rhetorical gotchas.

> Pick "tutting schoolmarm" or "internet tough guy". Both in one paragraph just looks silly.

I think it looks silly when an autistic 45 year man who weighs all of 110 pounds has serious opinions about a war he isn’t qualified to fight in.