• gnutrino@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

    • CluelessLemmyng@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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?

        • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          9 months ago

          Would you have never mentioned this to anyone, knowing your country has mandatory service? Never protested about mandatory military service? Are you not even a member of an anti-military group? In many countries you have the option of joining. When you don’t have an option not being involved doesn’t make sense.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            No, it doesn’t come up very often, and discussing politics and morality is considered impolite. I don’t join “groups” but I don’t see how that makes a difference.

            • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              The point being that if you are a conscientious objector in a country with mandatory service and few exceptions, perhaps you should do some stuff as evidence for that. Otherwise you experience the consequences of inaction. In an ideal world armies don’t exist and if so joining would be entirely voluntary but we don’t live in an ideal world.

          • Traegert@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            The draft is still mandatory in the US for men 18 and above, by the by