I agree with much of this, but I would say that 1-5 % is a large chance, relative to how much I would get negative utils from such an experience.

Legal advice is a big component of my question, but there's another component that is best served by asking about tradeoffs between different behaviors, like donating. Maybe that doesn't overlap strongly enough with rationality to make it relatable to the extent that true optimal philanthropy posts would be, but it's still something and I feel it's fine at least for the discussion area.. certainly not a topic for a main post or anything.

I allude to this point and get -3 votes. I appreciate this point. There are many good criticisms of what I've written. But this idea that I should be worried about an "internet trail" about it is not one of them.

I guess one could just expand the question like so:

1) Avoiding combat where I cause harm or death is the first priority, so if I have to go to jail or shoot myself in the foot to avoid it, so be it and if it comes to that, it's what I'll do. This is priority number one.

2) I can do things to improve my odds of never needing to face the situation described in (1) and to the extent that the behaviors are expedient (in a cost-benefit tradeoff sense) to do in my life, I'd like to do them now to help improve odds of (1)-avoidance later. Note that this in no way conflicts with being a genuine pacifist. It's just common sense. Yes, I'll avoid combat in costly ways if I have to. But I'd also be stupid to not even explore less costly ways to invest in combat-avoidance that could be better for me.

3) To the extent that (2) is true, I'd like to examine certain options, like donating to charities that assist with legal issues in conscientious objection, or which extend mental illness help to affected veterans, for their efficacy. There is still a cost to these things and given my conscientious objection preferences, I ought to weigh that cost.

I appreciate your willingness to engage me on the actual point of my question, rather than solely looking at the signal faker aspect like other commenters. But I still think there's much to discuss here.

Yes, but my question is conditional. Assume that you already sincerely believe in conscientious objection, in the sense of personal ideology such that you could describe it to a draft board. Now that we're conditioning on that, and we assume already that your primary goal is to avoid causing harm or death... then further ask what behaviors might be best to generate the kinds of signals that will work to convince a draft board. Merely having actual pacifist beliefs is not enough. Someone could have those beliefs but then do actions that poorly communicate them to a draft board. Someone else could have those beliefs and do behaviors that more successfully communicate them to draft boards. And to whatever extent there are behaviors outside of the scope of just giving an account of one's ideology I am asking to analyze the effectiveness.

I really think my question is pretty simple. Assume your goal is genuine pacifism but that you're worried this won't convince a draft board. What should you do? Is donation a good idea? Yes, these could be questions a faker would ask. So what? They could also be questions a sincere person would ask, and I don't see any reason for all the downvoting or questions about signal faking. Why not just do the thought experiment where you assume that you are first a sincere conscientious objector and second a person concerned about draft board odds?

Yes?

Replace "serious injury or death" with "causing serious injury or death".

No. It's absurd to act like "real" conscientious objectors don't do other things like care about the probability that they would be sent to jail or sent to military service. It's as if, in your model, conscientious objectors are never allowed to speak about self interest. Which is preposterous.

That's just false. An essay needs a point, and having too many weakens the essay.

I disagree. Not every essay on the topic of conscientious objection needs to be centered on the foundational basis for the belief. It is possible to begin a discussion by saying, "assume X," and then asking what you would do about Y or Z conditional on X. The point of my post could be muddied due to poor writing, sure, but not due to missing details about my personal feelings on the reasons for conscientious objection. Those details would be totally superfluous to the questions that I'm trying to ask.

In short, anything beyond the scope of "how do I show I'm a pacifist to the draft board" really distracts the reader.

It sounds like you're saying that no one can ever broach this topic unless they conform to what you think are boundaries on acceptable conversations about conscientious objection. I don't agree with the limits you're setting on the scope of the conversation.

I am not sure that I agree, but this is at least a cogent point. You are saying that I should not have the preferences that I do have (e.g. you think I should assign less weight to the possibility of conscription against my will). I still think this is non-sequitur to the point of the post. Just because you don't see a lot of reason to place a large negative weight on that possibility doesn't mean that asking about how best to avoid it should count as evidence of faking rather than genuine tradeoff planning.

Both pacifists and fake!pacifists are interested in efficient signalling to a draft board.

I don't see how this is relevant without additional information.

That's ridiculous. I have no problem if the draft board Googles this thread. Maybe I'm a poor writer, but I think even a cursory reading of this thread reveals that (a) I am arguing from a position of sincere belief in conscientious objection, and (b) there's a difference between making an argument for conscientious objection and asking questions about behavior that will be correlated to desired outcomes conditional upon sincere belief in conscientious objection. It seems you are unwilling to examine a distinction between the two, or at least you are unwilling to speak here as if there's a distinction between the two or perhaps you think that it is impossible for draft boards to believe there is such a distinction.

And you assign a far higher prior probability to the event that this thread would negatively reflect on me if seen by a draft board than I do.