Why not just compare the model 3 to an 18-wheeler then? Those weigh way more. Would have made his point better.

And it's a completely meaningful comparison, as long as you throw away the fact that different vehicles are used for different things.

A model 3 to an f150 is absolutely apples and oranges.

Do you do those things because you truly get enjoyment out of them, or are they simply your drug of choice to help you cope through to the next day?

Those are all things that can be enjoyed in a healthy way certainly, but if it's just "wake up, work, binge internet, sleep," every day, then I'm afraid you have a problem. Maybe not a full blown addiction, but at least an extremely unhealthy coping mechanism for some deeper underlying issues.

This is something that you can work on though. Ideally with the help of a professional therapist who can help you identify why you feel the need to cope in this way and help you start breaking those destructive patterns in your life.

You say you don't like anything or give up on everything, but what does that look like? I assume that you don't spend 8+ hours every day staring at a blank wall. You must do something to fill your time.

But if you are truly finding it difficult/impossible to be interested in the world around you, then your issue isn't that you don't have a girlfriend my dude. It sounds like you're suffering from pretty severe depression.

And I hate to break it to you, but untreated mental illness is definitely a mood killer, and not just with the ladies. You're gonna need to get yourself into a better place, or you're gonna drive more than just romantic partners away.

But I'll tell you, you're awfully fatalistic for 35. Women tend to pretty holistically prefer guys in the 33-40 bracket. You're not past your prime in the slightest. A little self confidence and a little investment in the world around you, and I think you'll find that you will attract people no problem.

And hey, maybe I'm wildly off base. I know I'm making a lot of assumptions based off a very small paragraph. And maybe I'm reading you super wrong. If so, I apologize.

One thing to keep in mind though. The idea of a relationship and sex you have in your head? That's a fantasy. Both are great things certainly, but when I was younger I feel like I built them up to be something deifying in my head. That once I had them, all my greatest desires would be met, and that life would be finally "complete" for me.

Understand that relationships are work. Fulfilling work, but work nonetheless. They require just as much "sticking to it" as any hobby that you haven't stuck with, if not substantially more. And let me tell you, you're absolutely not going to want to do it all the time. It requires a lot of dedication and perseverance.

And don't build up sex to something more than it is. Its great, certainly, but I promise you're putting it on a higher pedestal in your head than it deserves.

But all that to say, right now, you're in love with the idea of a relationship, not the reality of one. I'm confident that you'd find the reality to not be what you've dreamed of it. And the problems and struggles you have in your life are rarely made easier by adding more work and responsibilities.

Take care of yourself and get to a point where you love yourself and the world around you as it is, and I think you'll find that the rest of this will kind of take care of itself.

My first pass reading the headline has me thinking the dead daughter was running for Congress, and I was very confused.

What about it being mandated makes it unethical?

Is it the "military" part of it? Cause I think that neither of us are proposing this as a "fight and die" thing.

If it's just the mandate in general, would you say taxes are unethical? It's the government taking a portion of the fruits of your labor for civic gain.

Is mandatory schooling unethical? It's the government mandating what you do with your life in large part between the ages of 6 and 17.

I just fail to see what makes this meaningfully different from any number of things that we already happily accept.

I mean, I still prefer my pitch to yours, but I wouldn't be sad with your idea either.

I don't think your pitch really combats the "people won't actually want to do the work" issue. I think in either example you'll have a lot of people who are "just here so I don't get fined," as it were.

But I think you're overstating that issue in either case. Will it have that issue, sure. But so does the military writ large. Does it impact efficiency, sure. But making an efficient, well oiled machine isn't exactly the point.

But other than that, reading your proposal again, I kinda think that the only thing that makes your proposal different from mine is the mandatory nature of the service.

The benefits you outlined are commensurate with the lower enlisted ranks in the military, so like, yeah, that's what I'm proposing I guess.

I think the benefits of forcing people to leave their bubbles justifies the forced nature of mandatory service. It a means of helping young people escape cycles of abuse, and exposing them to other cultures. It's also a great equalizer, in that it effects poor and rich alike, where your system ends up just admitting poor people who are desperate (not unlike the military as it stands.)

I'd also be open to having a program option where you can defer up to 5yrs to pursue a college degree if it's in a relevant field (civil engineering, etc) and do your mandatory service afterwards utilizing those skills. The program still pays for that college time but gets relevant use out of you at the end. This prevents people who know what they want to do from having to delay and gives them relevant job experience right out of the gate as a resume builder.

I was gonna post this if you didn't, lol.

I actually kinda support a mandatory civil service? Hear me out.

First, while I think structuring it like the military makes sense from an organizational standpoint, I think the focus would be on civil works projects. Maintaining national parks, infrastructure projects like federal interstate system improvements, etc.

This would serve as a way to get a big influx of money and labor into these large scale infrastructure projects in a way that's bipartisan. The Republicans would like it because it's cheap and they support mandatory military service. The Democrats would like it because it's a big public works project that creates jobs and builds out infrastructure.

I think it would also be a unifier and help build a sense of national identity and break people out of their insular bubbles. They say travel is the antidote to bigotry. This would get people from all parts of this nation travelling around and intermingling. The son of a clansman from Arkansas would be exposed to, and have to work closely with, queer people from SoCal. The young gang member from Detroit would be able to get away for a few years and perhaps reinvent themselves. The son of the billionaire will have to work hand and hand and side by side with the kid raised penniless in the foster system.

It gives people a precious few years after highschool to see the nation and not have to make huge decisions about their future careers at 16 years old. It can expose them to different fields of work, and teach them skill to best prepare them for their futures.

All in all, I think a system like this could do a lot of good, both for the people in it, and for our nations failing public works.

Had the same thought, lol. :)

Me: I'm questioning the premise of this comic. I think it's flawed.

You: Oh yeah? Did you see how it worked out for the characters in the comic? Did ya think about that?

Ideally through the civic channels that exist to accomplish change. Run for office. Campaign for reform. Pass the BAR and join a firm that does pro-bono work fighting for important issues.

But if all that fails, there is certainly a point where the people need to rise up and overthrow an unjust government.

But what I'm arguing is never justified is violence against other citizens just because they benefit from the unjust system. If the system is unjust, fix the system, don't lash out at those who just benefit from it.

I think my issue is less with the idea that property is protected with violence.

The point of the original comic though was that one is justified in using violence to take from the rich because they only have/maintain their property with violence.

But if all property is maintained by violence, am I not then justified in taking any property I see fit? If so, is it free reign to take the property of those whose ability to protect it with violence is minimal? Am I justified in stealing from children or the disabled, since they are protecting their property with the threat of violence?

The fact of the matter is that none of us want to live in that world, so we give over that threat of violence to the state. The state holds a monopoly on violence and notionally uses it to meet out it's use in an equitable and just way.

When the state is bad at that, that can be reason to work towards the restructure of the state, but it's never a reason (imo) to simply violate the law.

I mean, I think you're hugely discounting psychological barriers, if nothing else. Most people are decent and wouldn't steal the blanket, even if they wanted it.

Ownership of things is a pretty intrinsic part of human existence, and humans are deeply social creatures. There are a lot of non-physical aspects that influence people's concept of ownership.

So the blanket my grandmother knitted me when I was a baby? Am I justifying my ownership of that property via coercion and the threat of violence?

Oh, so you're just gonna ignore how Sarah treated Hagar and lay it all on Ishmael, huh? :P

All property is gained and maintained through violence?

Does this mean any property, or just land ownership?

Is there a value threshold below which it becomes immoral to take someone's property from them?

I see this position bandied about sometimes, and I'm always curious what people actually think it means.

Fun fact, whether this meme is pro-Israel or pro-Palestine is 100% decided by what date you consider the "start" of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Why not just launch it directly but background the process so it doesn't hang up your terminal?

I would think the bigger issue would be the permanent ceasefire.

I would think Israel doesn't trust Hamas not to break it, and it complicates the question of, "how do we respond if Hamas kills a bunch of people."