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.
If we want governments to respect people’s sincere beliefs, religions, and culture then they need some system to determine them. It may not be perfect but if someone is claiming to be a dedicated pacifist but has never expressed that except to get out of service it’s a little suspicious.
Edit: I removed a stupid joke about pacifist video games because that’s not at all the point
I know pacifists, and they generally don’t spend their free time playing violent games.
As a pacifist, I play the SHIT out of some violent video games because guess what? I know the difference between interactive fiction and reality. Shooting supermutants, throwing goblins at trolls and mowing down mantisaurs on a moon called Monarch is FUN. Real humans killing real humans isn’t.
That you think your childish notion of pacifist absolutism must be the norm suggests that YOUR grasp on reality isn’t too firm, though…
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 we want governments to respect people’s sincere beliefs, religions, and culture then they need some system to determine them. It may not be perfect but if someone is claiming to be a dedicated pacifist but has never expressed that except to get out of service it’s a little suspicious.
Edit: I removed a stupid joke about pacifist video games because that’s not at all the point
As a pacifist, I play the SHIT out of some violent video games because guess what? I know the difference between interactive fiction and reality. Shooting supermutants, throwing goblins at trolls and mowing down mantisaurs on a moon called Monarch is FUN. Real humans killing real humans isn’t.
That you think your childish notion of pacifist absolutism must be the norm suggests that YOUR grasp on reality isn’t too firm, though…
If you don’t join such groups, do you really believe it strong enough?