this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
261 points (97.1% liked)

Not The Onion

12344 readers
550 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] detalferous@lemm.ee 50 points 9 months ago (45 children)

This seems incredibly stupid on its face. Someone please give me context that makes it make sense.

[–] gnutrino@programming.dev 77 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 36 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Can't hold a moral stance without shouting it at everyone around you!

[–] CluelessLemmyng@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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 39 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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 -5 points 9 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

How long does someone need to have a belief before it counts?

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I mean starting objecting too close to service is likely to be seen as faking it to get out. How close is too close is not something for me to determine. The length of time a belief is held has little to do with the strength of a particular belief. But that's even harder to judge.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago

It really doesn't matter because short of being in a publicallt visible leadership position it will never be enough.

Join rallies, but anonymously? Doesn't count.

Attended a rally openly but no one took a picture? Doesn't count.

Told one person? Not enough witnesses.

Told multiple friends? Just covering for you.

Decided this week based on an experience, but no rallies or groups doing scheduled stuff? Doesn't count.

Publicly attended 3 rallies over the last few months? Just doing it to avoid getting drafted, doesn't count because it wasn't long enough prior.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 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 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

Yeah but we're not under a perma draft order, haven't had one since 'Nam

load more comments (42 replies)