Enlistment (and stuff)

[sohkmj1]

Not going to be conscripted for a loong... time...

 

It's just wrong tbh, they just take 18 year olds and waste 2 years of their youth. Sure, a little training might be useful, like some arms training, but 2 YEARS in a camp, now that's just sad.

 

Anyways, I'll just laugh at you while I wait for my time.

[dragoonson]

Wait, so no more big boom guy?

 

 

 

After 3 months BMT,and some training in the field we're assigned,I hear we can go back each weekend,or every day if we're a clerk.

 

 

 

I'm opposed to the age we're taken,and that alone.We should be given an oppurtunity to complete a few levels in university before being dragged to shoot Canadian Bulls and perform armsdrills,because to my knowledge,girls are allowed to study WITHOUT military interference.

 

 

 

I hope I either become an instructer (so I can teach,and feel satisfaction that they understand),a clerk (so I can go home) or a ration party(so people can suffer the wrath of my sausage battalion).I would hate to be a PTI,since I have to perform the PT as well.

[RichieMcD]

Right now, seeing as the whole counter-terrorism thing will never happen, I'm just praying the whole Iraq thing will blow over before I am eligible to be enlisted. What's the age, anyway? (america)

 

 

 

The American army is voluntary isn't it? No conscription in place? The Iraqi situation will never be big enough for conscription (Mandatory army service) to occur unless a full blown Middle-Eastern situation occurs most likely involving Israel / America, WW3 essentially.

 

 

 

Then again we don't know how far Obama will go with his youth corps.

[Barihawk]

Right now, seeing as the whole counter-terrorism thing will never happen, I'm just praying the whole Iraq thing will blow over before I am eligible to be enlisted. What's the age, anyway? (america)

 

 

 

You are required by law to register with Selective Services at the age of 18. The military has been voluntary since Vietnam, and it is unlikely the draft will be used unless the world goes down the tubes.

[Saru Inc]

Right now, seeing as the whole counter-terrorism thing will never happen, I'm just praying the whole Iraq thing will blow over before I am eligible to be enlisted. What's the age, anyway? (america)

 

 

 

You are required by law to register with Selective Services at the age of 18. The military has been voluntary since Vietnam, and it is unlikely the draft will be used unless the world goes down the tubes.

 

 

 

Yea, I got that letter a week ago, I was pissed because my SSN was in plain sight. -.-

 

 

 

Also, I found out, I can't be drafted, EVER because of my medical history. \ \ \ (I took anti depressants)

[DaN]

I would never server my country.

 

 

 

 

 

Freedom is worth defending, but considering it my government that is attacking my freedom it would make more sense to join a terrorist group that serve a government that doesn't look out for my interests.

 

 

 

I have considered trying to start a political party that stands up for the average Aussie, but people just aren't committed unless there is a huge cash incentive to motivate them.

[ember3579]

I would never server my country.

 

 

 

 

 

Freedom is worth defending, but considering it my government that is attacking my freedom it would make more sense to join a terrorist group that serve a government that doesn't look out for my interests.

 

 

 

I have considered trying to start a political party that stands up for the average Aussie, but people just aren't committed unless there is a huge cash incentive to motivate them.

 

 

 

Just how screwed up is your country? I imagine most people wouldn't say what you are unless if it's very VERY corrupt in the national government.

[Quoi_Tu]

I would never server my country.

 

 

 

 

 

Freedom is worth defending, but considering it my government that is attacking my freedom it would make more sense to join a terrorist group that serve a government that doesn't look out for my interests.

 

 

 

I have considered trying to start a political party that stands up for the average Aussie, but people just aren't committed unless there is a huge cash incentive to motivate them.

 

 

 

I'm more or less a pacifist (or, let's say, non-aggressive), but I would defend my country if I had to. Being against war is one thing, being against the military is another; which leads to my view of pro-military, anti-war.

[Giordano]

I hate the idea of conscription...I feel its taking my right if I want to join the military or not. And most of the time for what? To do the agenda of a rich worryless leader? Seems too illogical to me.

 

 

 

Even in times of extreme justice I still find it wrong. Because, again, we're satisfying the government's plans not ours. You could say to defend the citizens of the country, but to be honest I still wouldn't do it. Unless if some nation invades California threatening my lifestyle, I'll probably never join the military: forcefully or not.

[rushrock]

Conscription is a violation of basic human sovereignty. Nobody should have to join the military if they don't want to.

 

Yep. There's not much else I can say on my opinion of conscription.

[assassin_696]

I despise the principle of conscription, but would probably be reasonably willing to volunteer myself. Although i'm sure it does the enlistees a lot of good, I don't like the principle of it being mandatory.

[King_Ankh]

I live in Singapore too, and even though I was a permanent resident and could've canceled my residency, I chose to do National Service because I thought it would be a good experience. And let me tell you, after going through it (I just ORDed last September!), I'm so glad I decided to go ahead with it. Please don't aim to be a clerk or storeman. It's a pathetic waste of two years. Strive to do your best so you'll get the most out of your army experience. I loved it, and I'm sure you will too.

[warri0r45]

I would never server my country.

 

 

 

 

 

Freedom is worth defending, but considering it my government that is attacking my freedom it would make more sense to join a terrorist group that serve a government that doesn't look out for my interests.

 

 

 

I have considered trying to start a political party that stands up for the average Aussie, but people just aren't committed unless there is a huge cash incentive to motivate them.

 

 

 

Really? I'd definitely defend Australia if it came down to the threat of direct invasion.

 

 

 

As for conscription, I don't support it, but perhaps I could overlook that in a time of war (as in a World War where there is a direct threat to your country). One obvious upside I can see, however, is that the army always seems to be first class in discipline for kids, so in that sense a year or so in the army could be a good thing.

[DaN]

 

Just how screwed up is your country? I imagine most people wouldn't say what you are unless if it's very VERY corrupt in the national government.

 

 

 

 

 

My government is currently planning to set-up the same Internet Censorship that is in place in China.

 

 

 

A national filter will block "Unwanted Content" (their term not mine) however unlike China we do have a small amount of democracy and people are fighting back, it is the Internet that allows us to organise our protests, petitions, letters and rally further support. Without the free-speech the internet offers us, resistance would not be possible because we simply would not have the tool to get the word out.

 

 

 

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/30/au ... -internet/

 

http://www.nocleanfeed.com/

 

 

 

We will become the first Western Democracy to have oppressive internet censorship.

[BlueLancer]

 

Just how screwed up is your country? I imagine most people wouldn't say what you are unless if it's very VERY corrupt in the national government.

 

 

 

 

 

My government is currently planning to set-up the same Internet Censorship that is in place in China.

 

 

 

A national filter will block "Unwanted Content" (their term not mine) however unlike China we do have a small amount of democracy and people are fighting back, it is the Internet that allows us to organise our protests, petitions, letters and rally further support. Without the free-speech the internet offers us, resistance would not be possible because we simply would not have the tool to get the word out.

 

 

 

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/30/au ... -internet/

 

http://www.nocleanfeed.com/

 

 

 

We will become the first Western Democracy to have oppressive internet censorship.

 

 

 

It's not a career suicide for the politicians though, because as far as I've read about the issue, the censorship has vast support amongst parents and 35+ people in Australia. There is some content online I wouldn't even personally mind being censored & I'm not even near that age.

 

 

 

China's censorship scheme is entirely different; They have threatened companies like Google to change their search results or be banned from their markets. The people get an entirely different view of the world and are not even allowed to access certain news agencies (they get a 404 error).

 

 

 

Australia is mostly looking to ban illegal content from being accessed via an ISP level filter, the main counterargument I've seen is some paranoid people fear they will ban websites of political parties or forums (which sounds ridiculous as they could never get away with it & would get serious pressure from other western countries)

[warri0r45]

 

Just how screwed up is your country? I imagine most people wouldn't say what you are unless if it's very VERY corrupt in the national government.

 

 

 

 

 

My government is currently planning to set-up the same Internet Censorship that is in place in China.

 

 

 

A national filter will block "Unwanted Content" (their term not mine) however unlike China we do have a small amount of democracy and people are fighting back, it is the Internet that allows us to organise our protests, petitions, letters and rally further support. Without the free-speech the internet offers us, resistance would not be possible because we simply would not have the tool to get the word out.

 

 

 

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/30/au ... -internet/

 

http://www.nocleanfeed.com/

 

 

 

We will become the first Western Democracy to have oppressive internet censorship.

 

 

 

I remember Steven Conroy saying that the trial (to start later this month) will also block "unwanted content", but I'm wondering if such content is merely designed to be part of the opt-out filter for children? Do you know for sure that he wants to make this "unwanted" content part of the compulsary filter along with the illegal stuff?

[Furah]

I would never server my country.

 

 

 

 

 

Freedom is worth defending, but considering it my government that is attacking my freedom it would make more sense to join a terrorist group that serve a government that doesn't look out for my interests.

 

 

 

I have considered trying to start a political party that stands up for the average Aussie, but people just aren't committed unless there is a huge cash incentive to motivate them.

 

 

 

Just how screwed up is your country? I imagine most people wouldn't say what you are unless if it's very VERY corrupt in the national government.

 

 

 

At the moment, very. I mean we already have aweful internet, and they are bringing in this manatory filter which will do very little for anyone who is over 10 and aren't computer illiterate. Plus the PM won't lower the Super so there will be more money to ease the ecconomic stress. Not to mention our dollar went down alot due to it too.

[warri0r45]

 

Just how screwed up is your country? I imagine most people wouldn't say what you are unless if it's very VERY corrupt in the national government.

 

 

 

 

 

My government is currently planning to set-up the same Internet Censorship that is in place in China.

 

 

 

A national filter will block "Unwanted Content" (their term not mine) however unlike China we do have a small amount of democracy and people are fighting back, it is the Internet that allows us to organise our protests, petitions, letters and rally further support. Without the free-speech the internet offers us, resistance would not be possible because we simply would not have the tool to get the word out.

 

 

 

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/30/au ... -internet/

 

http://www.nocleanfeed.com/

 

 

 

We will become the first Western Democracy to have oppressive internet censorship.

 

 

 

I remember Steven Conroy saying that the trial (to start later this month) will also block "unwanted content", but I'm wondering if such content is merely designed to be part of the opt-out filter for children? Do you know for sure that he wants to make this "unwanted" content part of the compulsary filter along with the illegal stuff?

 

 

 

Just to add, it looks like the trial will extend the blacklist to 10,000 URLs, yet this doesn't mean that the government wants to add this extra "unwanted content" to the blacklist which is to be filtered by ISPs when the plan is implemented for real. The rationale behind filtering more URLs in the trial is that it may have performance implications that need to be tested.

 

 

 

Check out the FAQs published by the department (Q #13): [1]

 

 

 

I can understand the confustion when the media doesn't clear up the distinction between the trial and the actual policy.

[eggzs]

Do you need perfect eyesight for the military (dunno if it varies for country to country), I think you need something like 20/20 to be a pilot but not sure for infantry and the like. On my driver license it says I need to have "correcting lenses" at all times if that helps.

[DaN]

 

Just how screwed up is your country? I imagine most people wouldn't say what you are unless if it's very VERY corrupt in the national government.

 

 

 

 

 

My government is currently planning to set-up the same Internet Censorship that is in place in China.

 

 

 

A national filter will block "Unwanted Content" (their term not mine) however unlike China we do have a small amount of democracy and people are fighting back, it is the Internet that allows us to organise our protests, petitions, letters and rally further support. Without the free-speech the internet offers us, resistance would not be possible because we simply would not have the tool to get the word out.

 

 

 

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/30/au ... -internet/

 

http://www.nocleanfeed.com/

 

 

 

We will become the first Western Democracy to have oppressive internet censorship.

 

 

 

I remember Steven Conroy saying that the trial (to start later this month) will also block "unwanted content", but I'm wondering if such content is merely designed to be part of the opt-out filter for children? Do you know for sure that he wants to make this "unwanted" content part of the compulsary filter along with the illegal stuff?

 

 

 

Special interest groups are already lining up to have their personal grievances blacklisted. I have tried to obtain this list of illegal websites myself but it is exempt from freedom of information requests, the fact that it's not open to public audit speaks volumes. We lose free-speech if the ability to block content even exists, because such a system will always be abused by extreme pro-censorship groups.

 

 

 

The biggest argument against free-speech is "Think of the Children" which is ironic because that's exactly what I am doing.

 

I want future generations to enjoy the freedoms I did, and live in a democracy like I do/did.

 

 

 

The minister has suggested that people against the censorship, are supporting child pornography. When nothing could be further from the truth.

 

 

 

Humans are stupid by nature and simply suggesting a link between anti-censorship and child pornography causes the uneducated majority to really behind the censorship scheme. However if you ask those same people whether they think they should have free speech, the general response is the exact opposite.

 

 

 

This highlights a drastic shortage of intelligence in today's society.

[warri0r45]

 

Just how screwed up is your country? I imagine most people wouldn't say what you are unless if it's very VERY corrupt in the national government.

 

 

 

 

 

My government is currently planning to set-up the same Internet Censorship that is in place in China.

 

 

 

A national filter will block "Unwanted Content" (their term not mine) however unlike China we do have a small amount of democracy and people are fighting back, it is the Internet that allows us to organise our protests, petitions, letters and rally further support. Without the free-speech the internet offers us, resistance would not be possible because we simply would not have the tool to get the word out.

 

 

 

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/30/au ... -internet/

 

http://www.nocleanfeed.com/

 

 

 

We will become the first Western Democracy to have oppressive internet censorship.

 

 

 

I remember Steven Conroy saying that the trial (to start later this month) will also block "unwanted content", but I'm wondering if such content is merely designed to be part of the opt-out filter for children? Do you know for sure that he wants to make this "unwanted" content part of the compulsary filter along with the illegal stuff?

 

 

 

Special interest groups are already lining up to have their personal grievances blacklisted. I have tried to obtain this list of illegal websites myself but it is exempt from freedom of information requests, the fact that it's not open to public audit speaks volumes. We lose free-speech if the ability to block content even exists, because such a system will always be abused by extreme pro-censorship groups.

 

 

 

The biggest argument against free-speech is "Think of the Children" which is ironic because that's exactly what I am doing.

 

I want future generations to enjoy the freedoms I did, and live in a democracy like I do/did.

 

 

 

The minister has suggested that people against the censorship, are supporting child pornography. When nothing could be further from the truth.

 

 

 

Humans are stupid by nature and simply suggesting a link between anti-censorship and child pornography causes the uneducated majority to really behind the censorship scheme. However if you ask those same people whether they think they should have free speech, the general response is the exact opposite.

 

 

 

This highlights a drastic shortage of intelligence in today's society.

 

 

 

I can understand why they wouldn't release the list - they can't exactly go around promoting child porn links.

 

 

 

Anyway, here's the official response, from the government link I provided above:

22. Why is the ACMA blacklist confidential?

 

 

 

The blacklist is comprised predominantly of URLs relating to child sexual abuse images. Many countries including Australia have laws against online distribution of child sexual abuse images. The list also includes URLs relating to other categories of material which would be refused classification under Australian law. Such material may not be legally imported, distributed or exhibited.

 

 

 

ACMA is exempted from the Freedom of Information Act 1982 in relation to internet content documents related to its internet content regulatory functions under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, on the basis that disclosure of the information would likely jeopardise the regulatory objective of preventing access to harmful and offensive online material, and would also likely compromise ACMA's ability to efficiently refer online child sexual abuse material to overseas law enforcement agencies.

 

 

 

 

Of course I don't agree with pro-censorship lobbyists that want porn banned for example, but I'm pretty sure there is a distinction between the 10,000 URLs being blocked for the trial ("unwanted content") and the blacklist that will be implemented for real (illegal content). The department has said that it has no plans to expand the types of material that can be on the blacklist, and such an expansion requires an act of Parliament (see Q #24 of my previous link). Respond to what I said if you could please, bearing in mind my post before this one.

[DaN]

If child porn is blocked paedophiles will simply get it via another means, it should be kept available via the web.

 

Blocking child porn is nothing more than a sweep under the rug approach.

 

 

 

Some British ISPs have just blocked wikipedia. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07 ... wikipedia/

[warri0r45]

You know you have an incredible ability to completely sidestep what I'm saying and throw around red herrings. It was nice talking to you myself.

[RichieMcD]

If child porn is blocked paedophiles will simply get it via another means, it should be kept available via the web.

 

Blocking child porn is nothing more than a sweep under the rug approach.

 

 

 

Some British ISPs have just blocked wikipedia. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07 ... wikipedia/

 

 

 

How do you suppose child porn is created, minors willingly go along to porn shoots ye? :|

 

 

 

Commonly enough most Child porn is actually just videos and pictures taken by child molesters / rapists of their various victims. There's a reason why it's illegal, most commonly because it is produced in a disgusting manner.

[DaN]

If child porn is blocked paedophiles will simply get it via another means, it should be kept available via the web.

 

Blocking child porn is nothing more than a sweep under the rug approach.

 

 

 

Some British ISPs have just blocked wikipedia. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07 ... wikipedia/

 

 

 

How do you suppose child porn is created, minors willingly go along to porn shoots ye? :|

 

 

I don't see what this has to do with my post.

 

 

 

Anyway reducing supply will only increase demand, meaning more innocent victims could be taken as a result. I can't speak for others, but I would rather stop paedophiles than move them to another medium.