Blanket generalisations of what is and what is not a human
rights violation(be it by the UN, US, Amnesty International or any
individual), without taking into account of the unique conditions
that exist in different countries, is not only wrong, but
obnoxiously arrogant.
Conscription was scrapped in America, mostly due to the Vietnam
War, where American (male) citizens were forced to fight and die in
a war they didn't believe in or understand.
I think you're missing the point here; I was merely trying to draw
a comparison between the situation in America when conscription was
still in practice, and the situation in Singapore. The similarity
present is that people in general do not like conscription since it
violates their "right of choice", and provokes the same emotions. I
did not at all mention that conscription in Singapore should be
scrapped, as it was in America, just because it is a violation of
human rights.
No where did I obnoxiously and arrogantly try to blanket-generalize
what is and is not a human rights violation. A human right
violation, is a human violation in any country, and in any unique
condition that may exist in said countries. A human right
violation, may however be more excusable and understandable in the
different countries, if the unique situations that exist in them
are taken into account.
For example, conscription in Singapore, though a violation of human
rights, is excusable and understandable when viewed in a local
context where the population is just too small to support a regular
(non-conscription) armed force. Same way, the lack of freedom of
speech in China, though a violation of human rights, is excusable
and understandable when viewed in China's context, where the
population is way too large to effectively control or allow dissent
and rebellion, or other forms of anarchy.
In either example stated above, a violation of human rights is
-still- a violation of human rights, just that these violations are
excusable and understandable in the unique conditions that exist in
both countries.
As a more direct comparison, giving someone a death sentence does
violate his right to life. But when taking in consideration that
person killed 10 other people when unprovoked and with malicious
intent, this violation of human rights becomes more excusable and
understandable.
I think you have misinterpreted what I have said in my earlier post
and perhaps you should re-read what I said.
Blanket generalizations of what is and what is not a blanket
generalization of human rights violation, without taking into
account the unique situation that may exist in the different
contexts of different arguments, is not only wrong, but obnoxiously
arrogant.
Chamenos, the terms "conscripted mercenary" is an oxymoron.
Again, I don't think you've taken into consideration where I
used the idea of a "conscripted mercenary"
This is what I wrote: "Also, like I said earlier, just try to
appreciate what you have instead of complaining about what you
don't have. I think NSmen in Singapore can be considered well-paid
mercenaries by conscription standards already."
From the above, I was trying to draw a comparison between well-paid
merceneries, and conscripts who aren't paid a cent. Singapore NSmen
obviously fall into the middle, where we are conscripts, but are
still paid; or given "allowance", etc. We are still given money for
serving time in the military. Like I said in the earlier post,
NSmen in Singapore can be considered well-paid mercenaries
by conscription standards already.
I was trying to put our situation in perspective of how conscripts
usually are not paid a cent, in trying to address Heartlander's
complaints that NSmen were not getting "paid" enough, since NSmen
are considered conscripts.
What I said is akin to saying, "I think cats in Singapore can be
considered well-taken care of pets by wild-animal standards
already." So yes, a "conscripted mercenary" is an oxymoron, and so
is a "well-taken care of wild animal", and neither make
sense.
However, if the context in which these terms are used is taken into
consideration, such as a comparison intended to put a situation
into perspective, then it makes sense.
To repeat myself again, blanket generalizations of what is and what
is not an oxymoron, without taking into account the unique
situation that may exist in different contexts in different
arguments, is not only wrong, but obnoxiously arrogant.
Perhaps you should read more carefully and practice what you preach
