this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
73 points (88.4% liked)

World News

39023 readers
2539 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] leftytighty 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If your perspective on both is consistent, more power to you, but putting that out there for others who may judge things differently in that case.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Of course my perspective on both is consistent. There is no moral justification for sending a human who's brain is as undeveloped as a child's to war. I doubt most people would say it was justified to send intellectually disabled adults to war either. I sure wouldn't want to see guys with Down's Syndrome in body armor and carrying a rifle, not having a true conception of the actual danger they're in or maybe even what they're fighting for.

[–] leftytighty 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think that's a fair perspective and one I generally agree with. But I also see a compelling argument for "self defense." Children are victims of war, maybe they need to be able to defend themselves in times of war at home.

It's one thing to use child soldiers as cannon fodder or in wars of aggression, but maybe another when they're defending their homes and themselves. I'm not sure

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Putting them on the front lines puts them on the offensive, not the defensive. Sure, let them keep weapons in their home or whatever if they are threatened. That's a different issue. Then it becomes defensive.

But that is not what is going on. What is going on is that they are being conscripted and put on the battlefield. It's just not morally defensible.

[–] leftytighty 1 points 1 month ago

Granted, I just see some grey area. Home: justified. Neighborhood? City? Country? Hard to say.