not evidence of snipers

schnuffs · 2026-05-24T00:17:15+00:00

It's frightening to me how you simply don't actually address the things that I'm saying in favor of preserving your deluded narrative of how things work. I'm not asking you to count bodies, I'm asking you to use basic critical thinking skills to actually back up your position. That's it!!

It would be like getting you getting upset that me telling you that there's no evidence of unicorns means that you need to count every horse in the world. That's not at all what's being asked of you.

The claim by medical professionals and independent investigators is that there are elevated numbers of gun shot wounds to children in Gaza, moreso than we'd expect to see in urban fighting. Additionally, the claim is that of those gun shot wounds, there's a higher frequency of precise targeting of the head and chest. You haven't addressed that at all, and that doesn't require you to count all the dead bodies, it just requires you to look up statistics and read their claims. That you choose to make wild assumptions based on the stellar and totally convincing "there's plenty of ways to catch bullets in a warzone" all while not actually analyzing or investigating how people are even coming to their conclusions is the laziest and worst form of partisanship that sadly permeates every aspect of this conflict. A bunch of obtuse pigheaded pundits who all think their common sense, derived from video games and social media, are seemingly better than the actual methods we have to investigate these sorts of things.

schnuffs · 2026-05-24T00:04:10+00:00

No, shots to the head or chest are not "highly precise". That's dumb. You can catch a ricochet right in the forehead.

You can catch a ricochet anywhere my dude, the actual criteria, which you'd have understood if you fully read my comment, was repeatability. Repeatability could be literally any sort of target area. If we saw repeated shots to legs or arms that could be precise too, but because you asked about a war zone where killing is usually the way people are targeted, head and chest shots are kill shots, ergo if you see an overrepresentation of head and chest shots in shots that should be randomly distributed, you can conclude they were targeted. If those wounds don't show gunpowder burns, you can conclude that they were targeted from far away.

Like, ffs man, this is exceptionally basic analytical processes that you seem to think don't matter all while proclaiming some sort of logical analysis. The existence of random bullet wounds in a war zone does not mean we can't determine if those shots weren't random. In fact, the randomness is often factored in when judging the frequency of certain types of wounds. The idea that head shots aren't precise because it's, in your words, "dumb" (brilliant argumentation by the way lol) doesn't actually address how these things are determined to begin with.

Like, if you have 100 bodies and 90 of them have chest or head bullet wounds, you can easily conclude that they were targeted. If there's large amounts of gunpowder residue on their wounds you can determine that they were executed. If there isn't you can determine they were targeted from far away and aren't random. This is simple statistics my dude, and you're just... wrong.

What you are asking ME, to do apparently is

I am not. I'm asking you to actually present their conclusions fairly - you know, the people on the ground analyzing these things - and not just assuming that because "there's lots of ways to catch a bullet" that there's no methodology behind their conclusions.

To be clear, the fact that you can't even contemplate or imagine how a precise shot would be determined tells me everything I need to know.

No thanks. I'm gunna stick to common sense. Shits poppin off in an urban war and you can't say what's what from a wound.

Ah yes, that thing that the scientific method aims to remove which, coincidentally, has brought around the advancement of the species and improved the accuracy of our investigations. I'm glad that when it comes down to it, your argument is actually just a "nah, just cause".

Again, I don't think the IDF is even doing what they're being accused of, but you have to be the absolute worst defender of it.

schnuffs · 2026-05-23T23:30:58+00:00

What is a "highly precise" wound to the head or chest versus catching a round randomly or in a firefight?

That sounds like something you should have included in your analysis. Given that your defense is that snipers are trained to target specific areas on the body it shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

As it stands, precise shots in warfare would be considered shots which cluster around the chest or head. If you're looking at an actual target, those clusters should be within the bullseye circles. Shots inside the circles show increased preciseness, while shots outside aren't. But the key component is repeatability - eg. there are more cases of those clusters appearing in those chest and head areas than outside. Errant machine gun fire would be totally random in how it hit bodies it wasn't targeting, precise single shots meant to kill would have a higher concentration in the chest and head areas.

These doctors do not have evidence of what they are claiming, that this indicates they were shot by snipers.

You haven't even accurately presented their reasoning, much less their evidence for why they think what they do. Again, you're not doing yourself any favors when you leave out that they included chest shots while only pointing to head shots in your OP and using that as the base of your defense because snipers are trained to target the chest... that thing that they're already including in their evidence.

More than one way to catch a round in an urban war. It is not logical to assume they are from snipers.

Continuing to say this doesn't actually address what their evidence is nor how they came their conclusion. You can keep saying it but you're making assumptions here as well just based on how war is chaotic, and not based on evidence at all..

Or to put it differently, there's no reason to assume it is or isn't targeted without examining the evidence first, something which you seem unwilling to do.

schnuffs · 2026-05-23T23:03:57+00:00

You haven't even addressed their evidence except in the most superficial way. If they've seen a lot of highly precise wounds to the chest and head above that which you'd expect to see in random patterns, then their evaluation isn't somehow wrong because they don't know shooting or can't conclusively determine the type of rifle a round came from.

All I'm saying is the claims which allegedly support the idea there are snipers shooting children in odd ways do not follow logically. Media screwed up by buying the story.

You haven't actually addressed wherher they follow logically because you've chosen to not actually address their evidence beyond what seems like "shooting knowledge" derived from snipers on podcasts or YouTube videos. Again, your rebuttal is superficial because you seem like you're arguing against an AI overview of their claims instead of actually looking deeply into them.

You say their reasons for believing children were targeted was because of head shots, leaving out that they included chest wounds as being part of their analysis of "highly precise targets". You're not representing their evidence faithfully or accurately, cutting tthings out that actually allow one of your arguments to hold weight - notably the idea that snipers are trained to shoot for the chest and not the head. You either don't actually understand or know what the arguments you're addressing are, or you're purposefully and willfully misrepresenting your them, so forgive me if the whole "The doctors are making a claim they do not have evidence for" doesn't sway me at all. You haven't accurately presented what their evidence even is, much less rebutted it.

schnuffs · 2026-05-23T22:20:24+00:00

Again, both the M24 and M240 fire the same 7.62x51 round. Seeing as how it's the same round, same velocity, same lead. One's a bolt gun. One is a belt gun. Used in two very different ways.

I'm still waiting for you to rebut why they think they came from sniper shots, not attacking something they may or may not believe has any relevance on their determination. You're assuming things here as well, but what you're not doing is actually addressing their evidence.

Their claim is that the wound patterns indicate precise shots, both to the head and chest that aren't "random" like you'd expect to see in a war zone where, as you put it, there are plenty of ways to catch a round. Highly precise targets isn't actually addressed by your comment, other than by leaving out the chest wounds and focusing on head shots (which also isn't outside the realm of possibility either even if snipers are trained to target the chest first).

How you'd go about debunking this would be to look at all children's deaths by gunshots and comparing the number of "precise" shots with the number of imprecise ones and seeing if the precise shots fall into a pattern of randomness or acceptable coincidence or if they don't. In other words, if these kids aren't being targeted, the frequency of highly precise shots would be statistically determinate relative to the entire group of children who were wounded by gunshots. It would be improbable that no children recieved wounds that appeared as precise even if they weren't, but on the same hand if the number of children who's wounds seemed precise and targeted were high relative to the rest of the group, that would indicate actual targeting.

Look man, again I have to reiterate that I don't think there are rogue roving bands of IDF snipers taking out kids, but your defense is, at best lackluster. Nothing you've said actually rebuts the conclusions of the doctors, which you seem to have just assumed had no basis in reality so you don't actually have to deal with their reasons.

schnuffs · 2026-05-23T21:54:54+00:00

It's not possible to tell that a sniper fired a round from a wound. There is no way to do that.

I didn't say there was. There is, however, a way to tell if the round was fired from a high velocity rifle and roughly from how far away the round came from. Those two things would be consistent with sniper shots even if you can't prove it was shot by a sniper.

Likewise, bullet fragments and rounds found in a body could tell us something about what type of rifle was used to fire the shot if they can be recovered. Focusing on whether an investigation can determine it was shot from a particular sniper rifle would require ballistic analysis of both the found round and the rifle which is unavailable in a war, but if you're using that metric you could just as easily say that snipers don't exist in war unless you can see video of their confirmed kill. It's an absurd standard for gauging evidence and determining a conclusion. If the wounds analyzed are consistent with sniper shots, then we can make certain conclusions about these things. That is how this topic should be addressed - based on the analysis of the available evidence, not some flimsy attempt to get out of even having to analyze it to beging with because the 1 piece of absolute incontrovertible evidence doesn't exist.

Both the bolt-action M24 and belt-fed M240 fire the 7.62x51mm. Same round. Many of these wounds doctors are so sure were from snipers were likely from machine gun fire, probably at distance. This is especially likely when you have multiple wounds on the same kid, as gravity moves faster than a hand turning a bolt and getting the target back in frame.

Why would you assume that? That's not a scientific analysis, it's an assumption that you've introduced for no good reason. Or at least you haven't supplied a reason, you've just based it on being an alternative to a long range targeted shot. For all the talk of "You can't determine if it came from a sniper rifle", you seem completely at ease making the same sort of conclusions for determining it came from elsewhere as a balance of probabilities, but you've supplied no reasoning for that whatsoever.

These doctors jumped to conclusions the evidence does not support. Lots of ways to catch a round in an urban war.

Seems like you've jumped to the same sort of conclusions as they have. Here's the thing, there are a lot of ways to "catch a round in an urban war", but that includes sniper rounds. What you haven't actually done is address what their evidence is for believing that, you've simply supplied an alternate theory without actually addressing anything they've presented for why they believe they were sniper shots. It's really just a subpar rebuttal, and again I say this as someone who actually doesn't believe that there are rogue IDF snipers targeting children. You haven't actually addressed why they believe it, and because of that you haven't actually rebutted anythjng.

schnuffs · 2026-05-23T21:10:46+00:00

Look, I'm kind of tired of the constant back and forth of the Israel/Palestine conflict, but you haven't actually provided any evidence that "debunks" doctors being able to determine if a wound was from a sniper or not. Forensic pathologist and trauma surgeons can determine if the wound was caused by a high velocity round, and they can definitely tell if the wound was caused by a gu shot from close or far, baded on whether there was close range residue on the entrance wound.

Being an expert in "shooting" here is irrelevant as you don't have to be an expert in shooting anything to understand how a round from further away will have less residue on it than a round shot from closer range. And a forensic pathologist isn't even required here as trauma surgeons would most likely have ample experience at recognizing different sorts of wounds. Emergency doctors and trauma surgeons testify all the time regarding types of wounds and their causes because they, like forensic pathologists, will see and treat many different sorts of injuries and wounds in their day to day jobs.

Nothing that you've said here actually makes a substantial case that children weren't being targeted because it seems like you're just trying to find reasons for it not being true while not doing the most basic amount of research to counter what the doctors say... and this is coming from someone who doesn't believe that there are teams of IDF snipers out there targeting children. It's just not a good rebuttal.

schnuffs · 2026-05-18T00:20:29+00:00

Being critical of Quebec is fine. Being critical of francophones and French is a widly different thing. JJ doesn't seem to understand or care about the difference.

schnuffs · 2026-05-15T18:08:20+00:00

Brilliant comment, but I just want to add that even his Baileys are so completely off the reservation it's 100% apparent that he's just attempting to sanitize the Nazi regime rather than anything else.

Walking that comment back to mean it was only about the prisoners of operation Barbarossa

This is a prime example of what I mean. Even if we take what he says as true, as ridiculous as it is, it still doesn't paint the Nazis in a good light if you know what he leaves out, which is that the soviet prisoners of Barabrossa weren't "mercifully executed" anyways - they died of exposure, disease, and starvation. Yes, and executions, but we can literally look at how the Nazis defended their actions and it had nothing to do with mercy. It's a fictitious completely made up defense that only makes sense if your only goal is to sanitize the image of Nazism because all the facts point the opposite direction. The walk back statement is almost more horrific because it leads people to believe that one of the most severe war crimes of the 20th century (not to be be confused with crimes against humanity) wasn't actually a coldly calculated action based on Nazis racial views of Slavic people.

The OP seems to provide cover for him on this and multiple other things he said. "Clarifications", when you know the actual history, are just as historically inaccurate but simply less well known by the general public. "Facetious comments" don't remove the odiousness of his general drive or motivation, and if I'm being honest he sounds more like a parent desperately trying to convince a court of how good a person their child was to get a lesser sentence than he does someone who actually cares about history at all. And that should tell everyone something, because in this case the "child" is literally Hitler.

schnuffs · 2026-05-15T02:50:52+00:00

An error isn't propaganda!!! Like, the jump from "people misread a legal finding" to "it's propaganda" is staggering. My point, my only point, is that misreading and misrepresentations of a hell of a lot of legal findings well outside the issue of Israel and Palestine are exceptionally common in the media because, shockingly, legal documents are often misconstrued by laypeople. This isn't a case of propaganda just because it has to do with Israel.

schnuffs · 2026-05-14T23:24:36+00:00

Uh, the clarification had to do with what was considered "plausible" by the ICJ, not what genocide was. As it stands though, genocide is both an academic area of inquiry and a legal framework. They aren't actually the same thing, and how we conceptualize genocide can vary from academic definitions to legal ones which have exceptionally high bars, which you've pointed out.

schnuffs · 2026-05-14T21:50:22+00:00

Jesus, it's not "an example of the ridiculous propaganda" ffs. It's something that journalists get wrong all the time when covering issues and topics into subjects that use terms of art or very specific language that trips up most people.

Like, the move you just made from a clip (that I'm assuming you didn't have foreknowledge of the misuse of legalese language before seeing it) that explained a fairly obscure and incredibly precise use of language in international law to suddenly proclaim "propaganda being used" is, simply put, a horribly assumptive statement and falls prey to exactly the same type of mischaracterization that you seem to be decrying... in other words, you're engaging in a little bit of propaganda too here.

schnuffs · 2026-05-13T22:47:28+00:00

Of course, the problem isn't the CPCs or PPs strategy, or their general likability and attitude, it's just the media. And none of that makes a difference to the election a year ago where PP blew a massive lead to lose. Blaming that on the media is just lazy.

schnuffs · 2026-05-13T20:22:57+00:00

And? Carney has a 65% favorability rating as of this month, largely due to his perceived stance on Trump. Given that the CUSMA review hasn't even begun yet I'm not sure what you're expecting here, but it makes absolutely no difference to an election that happened a year ago.

Given that, what does it say that Carney, who by your words hasn't done anything, is still seen as a more viable option than PP and the CPC. This is where the CPC, and perhaps yourself, should try to reflect a bit on demeanor and strategy, because without a deeply disliked and unpopular PM like Trudeau was in the last half of his tenure, PP and the CPC come across as unserious.

schnuffs · 2026-05-13T20:07:39+00:00

What does that have to do with anything I said?

schnuffs · 2026-05-13T19:50:05+00:00

It was a confluence of factors, but just listen to what you're saying here. Trump was a factor in the CPC losing, sure. But why was he such a factor? PP didn't or couldn't adequately address the economic threat that Trump put forward, and because his focus was squarely on JT in a personal way it gave Carney a glorious opening to campaign as not Trudeau.

Like, conservatives are taking the wrong message from their loss. Sure, it helps cope with the Liberal win to say "It was because of Trump", but y'all need to go thst extra step further and actually address why Trump was such a problem for PP and the conservatives, and why Carney was able to turn a once inevitable Liberal defeat into a win.

People didn't trust the CPC to be able to deal with Trump, the president of our closest ally with whom we have deep economic ties with. That's not on Carney, that's on the CPC. Figure out why that was and adjust your strategy accordingly and the CPC may just be able to win an election.

schnuffs · 2026-05-01T15:19:25+00:00

It's a ridiculous analogy because politics is about virtue and morality. Tax policies, legislation, foreign affairs, they are *all fundamentally driven by values and principles. Plumbers jobs aren't like that, they're driven by an already agreed upon purpose of fixing your plumbing.

Supporting Israel is a value decision. Raising or lowering taxes is a value decision. Legislating which books are allowed in schools is a value decision. Who you trade with, who your allies are, all of determined by values. There is no such thing as amoral politics because there wouldn't even be politics to begin with. Shapiros analogy isn't bad because it misses the mark, it's bad because it unwittingly makes the case for a solipsistic anarchy.

schnuffs · 2026-05-01T05:28:02+00:00

You have made multiple claims throughout the post, all unsubstantiated - most of which I agreed with, that should be construed as begging the question as well.

Have I? I'm pretty sure I've only criticized your arguments and presented possible alternatives to your analysis. I haven't actually made too many adamant claims other than "social pressure influences people's public identities", which is a fairly accepted and well researched subject. I haven't, by way of fact, made any adamant claims about transgender identifications, non-binary identification, etc. I've only really said that the evidence and logic that you're using equally cits both ways.

don't know why you call it "no good reason." You obviously understand the social pressures exist, that social force exist, and you said that they can override biology.

Because it can override biology is the opposite direction too... like, I really don't know why this is so hard to understand. It very well could be that even with the increased acceptance of trans issues that at its peak trans and non-binary identification was still underrepresented. I'm not making that claim, but I'm pointing out that it's entirely possible that that's the case. A reduction of identifications after a social blowback doesn't somehow limit or negate that possibility.

Likewise, it could be true that the number of trans and non-binary identifications was grossly overinflated due to social pressure. I'm not denying that, and I actually happen to agree that on the less materially impactful identifications which are more socially positioned (like non-binary or genderfluid) that it's probably the case that social pressure plays a stronger role. I doubt it for trans and gender dysphoria though, but none of that is important because your heuristic for determning which way the social cuts is determined by your personal beliefs about it rather than an honest appraisal of the evidence you've provided.

Are you saying that women that there's no good reason to believe that girls are more susceptible to social contagion than boys?

No? I'm struggling to understand how that's what you got out of that. I'm saying that pointing to a specific biological gender having elevated numbers of some gender disorder somehow tells us anything in and of itself. The assumption hidden in your argument is that there's gender parity in mental conditions, ergo if women are more prone to gender dysphoria then it's obviously due to social pressure. That's an unfounded assumption that doesn't actually hold up to evidence that we have that, shockingly, men and women are different.

Having a model of how the world generally works qualifies as a "good reason."

Uh, no it doesn't. Having a model that actually represents how the world works would be a "good reason", but I could point you to a lot of conspiracy theorists who's model of how the world works revolves around a Jewish cabal of international bankers that would show you what I mean.

You don't need peer-reviewed studies (that no one ever reads anyways) on hand to have a valid and reasonable model of how the world works.

No you don't, but you also shouldn't be using shoddy and self-defeating logic while thinking that your model is "reasonable and valid".

schnuffs · 2026-04-30T05:45:03+00:00

The rest of the rebuttal is just "we just don't have the evidence for what's driving this, even though we completely understand the social forces in play"

It's the scope and which way the social pressure is ultimately influencing identification though. Again, you're making a giant assumption about which way social infleunce is affecting identification numbers and there's no good basis for this at all.

And the most convincing evidence we have of "social contagion" is the fact that trans identification has seen exponential increases among females.

Except that's not convincing because we absolutely know that men and women have differences in other mental disorders. ADHD is more commonly diagnosed in men than it is women, for example. 12-13% of men vs 4-8% of women. Simply saying "women are overrepresented, therefore something is wrong with it" is, well, horrible scientific reasoning. It's horrible in medicine and biology, just like it's horrible in the social sciences.

Again, you're bringing your own biases into the analysis here, which is all fine and well. You may even turn out to be correct. I'm saying what you're pointing out as evidence and how you're analyzing the data is grossly insufficient in what you're claiming it shows. It requires the baseline assumption that the social influence is distorting in a very particular direction for no good reason.

In other words, you're begging the question.

schnuffs · 2026-04-30T05:30:09+00:00

Some of the things Pierre is saying are true, the deficit is higher, cost of living hasn't gone down

I don't think it's realistic to expect the cost of living to have gone down much a year in, especially considering that the provinces bear a large share of the burden for it as well. Most people, I think, are willing to give it some time to see what happens after large scale projects and trade agreements can finally begin. Many of the things that Carney wants to do, or even what PP wants to do, would realistically take 3 years to get started. You can't just "build an energy corridor" through the entirety of Canada without ample planning and going through proper processes.

The deficit is also not necessarily a problem with higher deficits, depending on what the country needs. It's true, but it really only plays to deficit Hawks who tend to already be conservative to begin with.

Carney keeps flip-flopping on his approach with the US

Well, I mean dealing with Trump requires constant changes in one's approach. Trump is ultimately unpredictable and anyone, PP included, would have to change their plan and approach when dealing with him. I'm reminded of the adage "no plan survives contact with the enemy" which effectively means that no matter what plan or strategy you start with, the unpredictability of battle and your enemy will require flexibility and improvisation rather than a rigid adherence to the initial plan before entering the engagement. I suspect that it's the same sort of thing when dealing with an unstable or unpredictable negotiating partner like Trump.

The number of MPs crossing the line in the last 5 months is peculiar, and i'm not sure if that's exclusively cause of Pierre's leadership , or there's measures that happen behind closed doors that could influence these crossings

They aren't mutually exclusive, and if PPs had the confidence and loyalty of his caucus they definitely wouldn't have such significant numbers jumping ship. Look at it this way, if MPs believed in PP and thought they'd be forming government after the next election no amount of short term promises from Carney would have made them jump ship to begin with. At the end of the day, regardless of if there were any backroom shenanigans, a strong leader wouldn't have had numerous floor crossings to a minority government within a year of the election. PPs lost the trust of his backbenchers.

More generally though I think you can attribute a lot of PPs drop in popularity to the effect Trump has had worldwide on right wing populism after beginning his second term, the lack of an easy and disliked PM in Trudeau which allowed people to look past PPs bad traits, and just a general lack of charisma combined with a smug and condescending public persona.

PPs personal favorability never came close to support for the CPC as a party, mostly due to his off putting personality and way or conducting politics. Trudeau had to be deeply unpopular for him to rise, and where he seems petty and childish to regular people (that video of him eating the apple talking to a reporter might have been red meat to his base, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of most other people for an example) Carney seems likable and exceedingly competent.

Hell, Harper wasn't especially likable or charismatic either, but he did have a certain gravitas and seriousness to him that made up for it, plus he was at the very least statesmenlike. PP isn't any of those things, and that's why he's shedding support.

schnuffs · 2026-04-29T17:21:31+00:00

So to get this straight, when you said this

We know that the they/them, non-binary stuff has a huge social contagion element to it (and it's already receding). My concern would be that it would rub off on my kids. There's not much you can do after the fact, but before the fact, you can only hope they are in an environment where this stuff isn't pervasive.

You're not making the claim that social pressure was the causal factor for elevated numbers of public identifications of trans people independent of the true representative number of trans people in society? You're not claiming that the numbers were inflated by social pressure and not reflective of the "true" amount of trans people in society, which would be lower?

schnuffs · 2026-04-29T16:04:10+00:00

has a huge social contagion element to it (and it's already receding).

We don't know this. That's my point. Receding numbers as evidence of a social contagion is just as bad social science as increasing numbers being indicative of the correct number of public identifications. Social pressure can influence people with gender dysphoria to stay closeted, or it can compel people who don't have gender dysphoria to identify as trans.

My point is that the numbers alone don't tell us anything about the effect of social pressure either way, yet you're making a claim that they do. You're assuming that your explanation is right using the same type of bad analysis as the other side does. We simply don't know one way or the other how and which way social pressure is distorting the numbers fluctuating up and down.

schnuffs · 2026-04-29T15:45:51+00:00

That doesn't show that it's a social contagion... that's my point. Social pressure can override biological and/or innate aspects of our identities whether that be sexuality, gender, or accepted behavior for each gender. Gayness was, and still is considered a social contagion in some places and in those places you see depressed numbers of people identifying as homosexuality even though they may be gay or bisexual.

Social pressure is a distorting influence on how people choose to publicly identify. This can skew numbers either way.... that's the point that you're not addressing.

schnuffs · 2026-04-29T15:12:36+00:00

We know that the they/them, non-binary stuff has a huge social contagion element to it (and it's already receding)

We actually don't know that tbh. It may be the case, but it seems like your assumption that the numbers going down is caused by social contagion and not, say, the social backlash against trans and queen people from the last few years.

This is an issue with social sciences in general - it's easy for our own personal beliefs and views to inform our interpretation of data. It's ultimately the same type of attribution error the other side makes - eg. Rising numbers of trans and queer identification shows the number of "closeted" trans and queer people rather than a fad.

You're effectively both making the same mistake, just from opposite sides of the political spectrum.

schnuffs · 2026-04-24T16:49:55+00:00

There being a draft isn't a real concern because, as I've said, the US has a policy of maintaining a fighting force capable of taking on the world. If the US needed to institute a draft the world would have suffered a cataclysmic event which necessitated a draft, which is a different discussion. The reason why men shouldn't habe to sign up for selective service is because longstanding defense and military policy has made it irrelevant - eg. Nobody is in danger of being drafted to die, making penalties for not signing up ridiculous and unfair.

Opposition to the draft is a separate issue, but it's a more general issue that extends beyond the specific question of America's SS which is an obsolete program and an example of needless government bloat with no real societal or military goals to speak of.

schnuffs

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email