243
Kim Jong-un orders divorcing couples to labour camps under tough new rules
(uk.news.yahoo.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2024
243 points (100.0% liked)
World News
960 readers
964 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person, don't post hate.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"reports Radio Free Asia (RFA)."
can we ban radio free asia sources pls, thank you.
If this was real why wouldn't they just ban divorce?
Are we expected to believe you go to the divorce office and they're like "okay, and once you sign the divorce papers, we'll get you going off to the labor camps"
Are you saying it's not true based solely on the source?
What if it is true? Then can we keep them around?
The only time RFA tells the truth is because they are lying twice
RFA is expressly anti communist propaganda run by the USA government. Their source for this piece is "a guy told us".
It's hard to prove a negative, but I mean it does seem absolutely stupid.
Yes, that source has been caught lying countless times, even if was true I wouldn't trust this source, and they provided no evidence.
If it ends up being true, it's a broken clock situation, and the source should STILL be banned.
If one of the parties is at fault in all cases of divorce why are they both being punished?
This information makes it much more plausible, sure, but it still doesn't prove anything.
Considering the source, i'd need actual evidence that this has been said by the party, any physical evidence of this at all is necessary in my eyes. Legal documents shouldn't be that hard to comeby, the claim is that kim jong un himself said it, is there no recording of this? Why not?
Was this not on their news? Why not?
Considering this source often tells plausible lies, I don't believe them without a shred of evidence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BO83Ig-E8E
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/korea/haircut-03262014163017.html
this is the level of lies that source spews out, this being somewhat plausible really just isn't enough when we factor in the source knowingly lies regularly. To me that just means they did their due diligence to make the lie believable.
If the source regularly knowingly lies, plausibility just isn't enough.
There's also the fact that this source does that systematically for funding, there is no less reliable of a source, if radio free asia told me the sky is blue in NK I wouldn't buy it.