Not dismissing anyone’s opinions. Merely answering a question. I too believe that we need a military, and a “perfect” universe would not. Maybe someday, but not today. You are right that healing is needed far more often, and the impact on any one is usually more profound at the individual level from the latter. The key though is what we choose to compare, and the words we use. The comparison we make in such examples is conciously or not deliberate. The choice to compare a public servant to a private for profit entity working in a for profit health care system is deliberate. The military is far removed from offering free health care, but the for profit healthcare system and education system both are direct comparisons that feed into and off of the cost to become a doctor. Doctors are not public servants. They are well paid professionals. How does one weight indenturing and risking your own life for $20k against saving the life of another for $150k? I suggest one doesn’t.

There is a strong anti military tone to this post. Look at the details. The military is reduced to “teaching to kill” not only (wrongly) implying one learns to kill in basic training, but that the primary function of the military is to kill. “But” compares saving lives to killing. Doctors save lives, the military takes them. That is the message- and by extension, that doctor is a more noble profession. The next logical course the discussion takes given what we can infer on this persons views, would be the suggestion one divert military funding, or possibly eliminate it entirely. It’s jumping ahead a bit as maybe this person 100% supports the military. Tell me honestly though- do you believe they do based on what you see here? So maybe an extreme reaction, but the reasoning behind it is at least clear.

Most places won’t arrest homeless people for minor crimes or repeat crimes simply for this reason- if they arrest them they must provide them care. Most law enforcement efforts with the homeless tend to be directed at either keeping them away from the public and out of open view, or in forcing them to migrate out of that jurisdiction so as to make them the problem of other people. Of course even arresting the homeless isn’t “better” as in addition to loss of freedom- the charges are light and carry minimal jail time (several days at most-) and so when they are let back out, they return to find any possessions they did have and necessities to likely have been scavenged by other homeless. It’s been shown cheaper for society to provide homes but people can’t get over the idea “I have to work for my home and they get it free?!! I’ll just stop paying rent and get a free house!!” In the end the current system hurts these people as well as society, one day our decedents will be ashamed of us.

Why would someone down vote this? It’s literally and factually true. The only alternative left out is where punishment exists purely for the sake of spite. Prisons exist to protect a society, population, or its interests. Those who control that system determine the interests and members of society most in need of protection to them. Capitalism makes money and protects commerce through incarceration, socialism tries to “banish” criminals (look at most successful “socialist” countries and see their laws on immigration of former criminals as well as laws about deportation of criminals), and communism tends to convert human beings to work units- and treat them as such.

It’s ok. In fairness “it’s just comedy” isn’t a free pass. Comedy provokes thought and shapes ideas. Steven Colbert was “just comedy” and still a managed to make a huge impact on the politics and views of many. The fact something is comedy doesn’t mean that we can’t discuss where it contains things worth discussing. That’s part of the point of political humor. It is more easily absorbed and tends to bypass our natural defenses. In that way it can be a good tool to start conversations on a less hostile tone than addressing contentious issues directly. However by the same token if one has an agenda it can be used subversively. So don’t feel too bad- if we discuss the questions raised by topical comedy in a meaningful way there’s nothing to apologize for.

It would be nice. That world exists. It’s called: “Star Trek.” In our world being a scientist is expensive. Science isn’t free nor are particle accelerators and cutting edge materials. So science beyond basic “fun” popular science seldom gets done for science sake- there is almost always a motivation, and that motivation is almost always power- most often in the form of political currency, or hard cash. Profitable science is funded, the rest fights for scraps. Science without funds cannot pay scientists. We are back to square one. It’s easy to blame a system or “an elite” for it- but few people truly live for science or even work for it- most like pay checks, and many like those to be larger than minimum wage. So it’s really a problem of society more than anything. The desire for comfort, status, and choice in our lives tends to drive us all. It’s really about choosing how we’d like the system to be messed up or making huge social and personal changes and sacrifice for the abstract.

It’s a valid startaegy in the “human rights are less important than industrial progress” tool kit.

True. Nothing is ever free. Someone pays the price. “Free” college isn’t free either. The burden is carried through some other means. People are usually fine when someone else pays a price and they see a direct benefit, but they often balk at paying a direct price to benefit another or an abstract like “society” where they don’t see an immediate or any meaningful return in their own life.

Sorry. Didn’t mean to imply one shouldn’t if that’s their passion or goal. Many people think so due to youth and having never had deployment or combat experience- and some actually take to it like a fish to water. What I meant was that if one isn’t planning to make the military a career, when getting back to civilian life certain things like rifle marksman aren’t as highly marketable as electrician, treaded vehicle mechanic, ground or flight crew, etc. While at the same time, having skills and training that make you well suited for these non marketable tasks makes you more likely to get those and less likely to be made a telecom expert. The world needs combat medics. No part of me now or ever envies them. It’s not the job I’d choose if it was mine to make, but if the job chose me I’d give it 110%. The military isn’t great about what happens after the military though. That’s the part they leave you to figure out. I’d try to make sure you land on your feet.

Yeah. People also like to ignore the differences in things like tax rates. Sweden is an awesome country, but like any country it has good and bad. There is no such thing as “free” by the laws of physics themselves.

Actually it does make sense @silvermyth. Consider the facts. What is a common complaint? Educated specialists with loans unable to get jobs, working for minimum wage. Consider the US produces the most, and some of the highest quality technical professionals in the world. We have more scientists than anyone. We don’t lack skilled people- they lack jobs. Scientists don’t have enough labs to employ them, enough funds for research. The military is the largest employer in the world. Contractors, cleaning staff, logistics pros, caterers, construction, welders, machinists, defense suppliers. That’s engineers and blue collar workers as well as managers. That’s enlisted personnel and foreign companies. The US military in part acts as disguised unemployment. It gets money to “the bottom” as opposed to for profit private health which sucks money to the top. If we changed the system and had public health care it may then not make sense. As is though it’s socialism and public welfare in Disguise.

Nicely said.

Never trust a recruiter. Never buy promises from the military. Nothing a recruiter says is legally binding. All that is binding is what it says in the contract and the contract says you are theirs to do with as they please. That said the army does have lots of opportunities for specialist MOCs. You need to stand out, and you need to fight for it and slog through plenty of “lost” paperwork, delays, and re submitting forms because someone else made a mistake and put the stamp at a 46 degree angle instead of 45. If you’re persistent you can get what you want. Don’t qualify marksman, jump training, all the fun “cool” stuff. If they invest hundreds of thousands into making you good at combat- combat is what you’ll do. Don’t get tempted into some REMF desk job to ride out your time. You an still end up in rotation and soft. Look for opportunities to do “smart” work. They try to keep smart people alive, and smart people who follow orders and get results without making waves can work up.

We pay them to be trained in trade for a pledge of 4 years of service to their country. To eat sleep and travel where and when needed. To put their lives in danger for less than many fast food workers salaries. That at any point in the future after being retired they can be brought back to mandatory service as deemed needed. Those who only “learn to kill” don’t have very good prospects on leaving service. Those who are trained to do more complex things must pledge a minimum 8 years to the military. Compare that to doctors who have total freedom and while performing a service are not bound to serve and are free to do what they feel best serves them. Who make a salary after 4 years akin to a General with 30+ years of military service. This isn’t about military spending it’s about for profit health care. Being a doctor costs because being a doctor is very personally profitable in a system built on profit. Pay doctors $30k a year and make them sign service contracts and see who lines up.

The thing about satire is there is a message there. By its nature satire uses humor and exaggeration to point things out to an audience and highlight flaws in a context other than dry logical deconstruction, that allows one to make a statement without just saying what they mean. Traditionally satire is used to mock or criticize by definition. With all available context the obvious message here, done in humor or not, is that modern parenting is more challenging than in the past. If one wanted to highlight the challenges to a modern parent they can do it, using humor, without insulting parents of the pasts struggles. If this is meant to lampoon modern parents, or their worries, it is poorly done at least in snap shot. So I’m going to give the point to @serosenpai. This joke fails on analysis on only its own merits. Maybe as part of a routine, but alone it flunks the test.

Throw me to the wolves and receive a large fine and several felony charges- as wolves are classified as endangered or protected in my area and feeding, attempting to feed, or otherwise disturbing them carries penalties and fines in addition to the criminal charges of assault simply for throwing me, as well as the additional modifiers that I could easily be killed by the wolves.

The current system is broken and flawed, but the answer isn’t to require a signed affidavit or several eye witnesses to confirm your uncle said to give him a BJ or he’d kill your dog or your boss said to show your genitals or be fired for some unrelated reason etc. crimes like sexual assault tend to exist in the dark, they tend to happen when people aren’t looking, and even when they are and abuses are rampant- the Harvey’s and Bills of the world can avoid consequences for decades, even life, and leave a trail of damaged humans in their wake with a secret in the open and still often not have the evidence required for serious criminal charges. The logic of not making accused into victims is sound- but what about actual victims? Where law doesn’t protect actual victims why even have law?

There’s a middle ground I’m sure. No matter what we do some innocents will be punished by the system, and some guilty will go free. The point is to minimize one while maximizing the other. Rape and sexual assault are relatively unique crimes in this regard as they are crimes involving an emotion. One must feel forced, or feel violated. It isn’t as simple as theft or murder where the crime itself is the evidence. Take this example of complexity- if we say that any drunk person having sex by default can’t give consent- and two drunk people have sex- who is the rapist? But if we say it can’t be rape of both people were drunk- all a rapist must do is claim to be drunk and then have sex with a drunk person. How do you prove beyond reasonable doubt a day or days later if a person was or wasn’t drunk? If proof must be beyond reasonable doubt- any two people alone are still at risk of assault. It becomes very easy to game the system and get away with rape.

It is sadly not so simple. If you set the burden of proof too low on a crime, innocent people can become victims of false accusations. If you set it too high though- rape becomes almost impossible to prosecute. How do you prove beyond all doubt something like a verbal or non spoken threat? How do you prove when two people were alone and one says they both said yes at the time, and the other says they didn’t- who is lying? If force or traceable drugs weren’t used and a medical examination wasn’t done immediately- how do you prove rape? What of sexual assault which doesn’t require penetration and may leave no traces and have no witnesses save for the accused and accuser? In a system where one has little to fear even if they commit blatant sexual assault- how do you penalize said assault and have it not be on the “honor system”?

Yes. The number of African Americans and other people of color is highly disproportionate in US prisons. The US prison population in general is highly disproportionate to the world at large. It’s a mess. While I don’t believe that every solution that works in every country can just be used in another due to cultural, geographic, economic, and other differences- I do believe that US prisons could adapt many techniques from other countries and that our justice system could be improved. We have a punitive model in which our prisons are designed either as life long homes or to make prisoners stays unpleasant, but we need to put asides the primitive desire for revenge and look at how to create a system designed to prevent crime through fixing its simplest causes, and rehabilitate prisoners into productive citizens capable of integration to society and not institutionalized career criminals for life. The moment we made prison a profitable business we ensured abuse.