So, as far as I can see the ruling was that the guy hadn’t sufficiently proved through his actions (e.g. protesting, joining any anti-war movements or in this case even expressing this view to anyone beforehand) that he was an actual conscientious objector and not just a chancer who didn’t want to serve.
The fact that he played PUBG was brought up as part of the suggestion that he was just having a go but wasn’t the whole case against him. Indeed tbh I can’t really see anything suggesting it was a particularly important consideration compared to the lack of positive evidence of conscientious objection but obviously it’s the bit that’s going to get clicks.
Kinda feels like that only holds when you hold a minority opinion (from a larger societal view). There are no big, explicit groups for being anti-random murder or government-mandated molestations. Most of us are just sorta passively against certain things.
If we want governments to respect people’s sincere beliefs, religions, and culture then they need some system to determine them. It may not be perfect but if someone is claiming to be a dedicated pacifist but has never expressed that except to get out of service it’s a little suspicious.
Edit: I removed a stupid joke about pacifist video games because that’s not at all the point
I know pacifists, and they generally don’t spend their free time playing violent games.
As a pacifist, I play the SHIT out of some violent video games because guess what? I know the difference between interactive fiction and reality. Shooting supermutants, throwing goblins at trolls and mowing down mantisaurs on a moon called Monarch is FUN. Real humans killing real humans isn’t.
That you think your childish notion of pacifist absolutism must be the norm suggests that YOUR grasp on reality isn’t too firm, though…
I love horror films with terrifying vengeful spirits. I get sad when someone kills a harmless spider. I love running around the wasteland of Fallout games and blasting the baddies. I cried when a bird flew into the glass of my bedroom window and died.
Honestly, the comments show who read the article and who didn’t. It’s really not hard to see that the court was looking for a history of conscientious objection and didn’t find any proof, instead finding arguments to the contrary.
Hang on, because I’m morally opposed to war and violence, but I’m not out attending rallies or protests. While my arthritic old body isn’t what anyone wants in battle, if I were healthy, and we had a draft, I’d be a conscientious objector with no history of activism.
So, as far as I can see the ruling was that the guy hadn’t sufficiently proved through his actions (e.g. protesting, joining any anti-war movements or in this case even expressing this view to anyone beforehand) that he was an actual conscientious objector and not just a chancer who didn’t want to serve.
The fact that he played PUBG was brought up as part of the suggestion that he was just having a go but wasn’t the whole case against him. Indeed tbh I can’t really see anything suggesting it was a particularly important consideration compared to the lack of positive evidence of conscientious objection but obviously it’s the bit that’s going to get clicks.
Can’t hold a moral stance without shouting it at everyone around you!
If you don’t join such groups, do you really believe it strong enough?
Kinda feels like that only holds when you hold a minority opinion (from a larger societal view). There are no big, explicit groups for being anti-random murder or government-mandated molestations. Most of us are just sorta passively against certain things.
If we want governments to respect people’s sincere beliefs, religions, and culture then they need some system to determine them. It may not be perfect but if someone is claiming to be a dedicated pacifist but has never expressed that except to get out of service it’s a little suspicious.
Edit: I removed a stupid joke about pacifist video games because that’s not at all the point
As a pacifist, I play the SHIT out of some violent video games because guess what? I know the difference between interactive fiction and reality. Shooting supermutants, throwing goblins at trolls and mowing down mantisaurs on a moon called Monarch is FUN. Real humans killing real humans isn’t.
That you think your childish notion of pacifist absolutism must be the norm suggests that YOUR grasp on reality isn’t too firm, though…
I love horror films with terrifying vengeful spirits. I get sad when someone kills a harmless spider. I love running around the wasteland of Fallout games and blasting the baddies. I cried when a bird flew into the glass of my bedroom window and died.
Honestly, the comments show who read the article and who didn’t. It’s really not hard to see that the court was looking for a history of conscientious objection and didn’t find any proof, instead finding arguments to the contrary.
Hang on, because I’m morally opposed to war and violence, but I’m not out attending rallies or protests. While my arthritic old body isn’t what anyone wants in battle, if I were healthy, and we had a draft, I’d be a conscientious objector with no history of activism.
Would South Korea put me in jail?