This seems incredibly stupid on its face. Someone please give me context that makes it make sense.
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?
south Korea is a fascist police state that will use stupid excuses to force men to die for the government.
Man I can’t wait to get charged with adultery when the court finds out how much porn I watch.
If you live in the United States, depending on the state, you might get your wish.
“You say you are a concientious objector but how do you explain all the violence you commit in this video game?”
It’s not good enough to simply say you’re a conscientious objector, otherwise everyone and their brother would do it and conscription as a concept would fail.
So, if you are one, you gotta fucking prove that shit somehow. Words aren’t good enough. Go protest, join an org, donate to charities, whatever. Need some evidence though.
It’s not complicated to understand.
“I value human life and video games aren’t real”
It isn’t hard
deleted by creator
Testimony is evidence, that’s how court works. This is the reason why you swear an oath of honesty under penalty of perjury.
deleted by creator
Saying it is good enough. It’s not unreasonable to think a regular person might be against human rights abuses. You can’t demand that citizens go support your imperialist regime just because they only indirectly show support for human life.
Not good enough for a court, they have to examine more than merely the defendants words.
and conscription as a concept would fail.
Oh the horror!
While I agree with that, I don’t agree that playing violent video games is proof that you’re not opposed to violence in real conflict.
but a lower court dismissed this partially because he loves playing PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds. (emphasis mine)
I suspect that “partially” is working harder than John Henry in this sentance.
