Court finds his affinity for the military shooter evidence he isn’t morally opposed to war
  • detalferous@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    5 months ago

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

    • gnutrino@programming.devEnglish
      0·
      5 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.

    • Candelestine@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      5 months ago

      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.

          • SLaSZT@kbin.social
            0·
            5 months ago

            Testimony is evidence, that’s how court works. This is the reason why you swear an oath of honesty under penalty of perjury.

            • Woht24@lemmy.worldEnglish
              01·
              5 months ago

              No mate.

              Testimony of what you witnessed, did first hand or was told first hand is evidence.

              ‘I value human life over video games’ is a statement or opinion on your thoughts/intent.

              That is not evidence.

      • Thief_of_Crows@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        5 months ago

        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.