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.
Usually I’d agree with you, but S Korea is in an unusual situation where they would actually get overrun without their army. They’re still technically at war, and N Korea does plenty of sabre rattling.
That’s not a place like the US, where the military is mainly used for overseas adventures, they face real, external threats.
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.
It is pretty safe to assume that people who claim they value human life are not lying about it. Why isn’t valuing human life accepted by the courts? That’s a fucked up society is what it is.
Because simply saying something is never good enough. People just say shit all the time, where a court has a responsibility to actually try to find the truth.
Think about a murder case. Should you release everyone that simply says they didn’t do it, or should the court look for more evidence of their innocence?
It’s a messy process because it has to be. Historically, we used to use even sillier methods, like trial by combat and such. Just your words alone has never really been good enough though, because people can just say stuff.
Even when the things they’re saying “sound” reasonable, that’s still not good enough.
Murder and being against human suffering are 2 wildly different things. I have absolutely no problem taking people at their word on matters of base humanity. Not so for murder. You can tell they’re different because one is a felony. If somebody happens to lie about being a decent person to get out of the military, great, more power to em. Whatever they do instead will be far more useful than fighting some pointless war.
The reason their word is good enough is that they’re not denying a crime, they’re claiming a positive. If everyone started claiming they’re a pacifist, things would get better, not worse.
I’m not trying to debate the values, just explain the law. But no, if everyone claimed to be a pacifist, I do not think that would improve things. Everyone would have to actually want to be one too. Conscription evasion is a crime there though, very clearly, wouldn’t you say?
The law and the values are indistinguishable. Something being the law does not in any way make it right. So the question is not what the law is, but what it should be. Otherwise you end up arguing in favor of the fugitive slave act. My point is that S Korea is doing a bad thing, not that they aren’t literally enforcing their own laws correctly.
There are better ways to get soldiers than forced conscription.
Like in Pakistan, they run 24/7 nationalist propaganda about how amazing the military is and how brave men have sacrificed their lives for General Bajwa’s 300 papa john’s locations the freedom of the nation.
Or in the USA, they run a 24/7 marketing campaign advertising minimmum wages and education in exchange for “chilling” 6 years in the infantry with no post service trauma or health issues whatsoever.
Exactly. Where a sov cit thinks they can just say things and make them true, the actual law is a lot more complicated than that. It’s the polar opposite.
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
Not evidence though
deleted by creator
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.
There’s more to it than the clickbait headline.
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.
Agreed, it is not. I think that is more the misleading, clickbaity headline than the argument the courts made though, which is in the article itself.
Oh the horror!
Usually I’d agree with you, but S Korea is in an unusual situation where they would actually get overrun without their army. They’re still technically at war, and N Korea does plenty of sabre rattling.
That’s not a place like the US, where the military is mainly used for overseas adventures, they face real, external threats.
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.
It is pretty safe to assume that people who claim they value human life are not lying about it. Why isn’t valuing human life accepted by the courts? That’s a fucked up society is what it is.
Because simply saying something is never good enough. People just say shit all the time, where a court has a responsibility to actually try to find the truth.
Think about a murder case. Should you release everyone that simply says they didn’t do it, or should the court look for more evidence of their innocence?
It’s a messy process because it has to be. Historically, we used to use even sillier methods, like trial by combat and such. Just your words alone has never really been good enough though, because people can just say stuff.
Even when the things they’re saying “sound” reasonable, that’s still not good enough.
Murder and being against human suffering are 2 wildly different things. I have absolutely no problem taking people at their word on matters of base humanity. Not so for murder. You can tell they’re different because one is a felony. If somebody happens to lie about being a decent person to get out of the military, great, more power to em. Whatever they do instead will be far more useful than fighting some pointless war.
The reason their word is good enough is that they’re not denying a crime, they’re claiming a positive. If everyone started claiming they’re a pacifist, things would get better, not worse.
I’m not trying to debate the values, just explain the law. But no, if everyone claimed to be a pacifist, I do not think that would improve things. Everyone would have to actually want to be one too. Conscription evasion is a crime there though, very clearly, wouldn’t you say?
The law and the values are indistinguishable. Something being the law does not in any way make it right. So the question is not what the law is, but what it should be. Otherwise you end up arguing in favor of the fugitive slave act. My point is that S Korea is doing a bad thing, not that they aren’t literally enforcing their own laws correctly.
There are better ways to get soldiers than forced conscription.
Like in Pakistan, they run 24/7 nationalist propaganda about how amazing the military is and how brave men have sacrificed their lives for
General Bajwa’s 300 papa john’s locationsthe freedom of the nation.Or in the USA, they run a 24/7 marketing campaign advertising minimmum wages and education in exchange for “chilling” 6 years in the infantry with no post service trauma or health issues whatsoever.
LOL this reads like a reverse Sovereign Citizen.
Exactly. Where a sov cit thinks they can just say things and make them true, the actual law is a lot more complicated than that. It’s the polar opposite.