Etanistan
09-12-2003, 18:37
While the Most Serene Republic of Etanistan full supports the spirit of the Ban on Torture Resolution, we feel that the resolution itself is so poorly written that we have voted against it. How long will the UN be the domain of horrendous writing, improper grammar and resolutions that sound like transcriptions of discussions between drunken college freshmen?
Is it ethically or politcally acceptable to vote against a resoluion solely on the grounds that it is poorly written? Our nation would like to know the opinions of others on this very important matter.
It is fully the belief of Akuma no Ie that poorly written proposals completely defeat their own purpose. If there was a decently malevolent proposal that was poorly written, I would side against it merely because poorly written proposals do not accomplish anything, and are a waste of time. The first sentence of this proposition (ban torture) basically says "Torture does not exist, therefore we should ban it." Rather than drinking four toasts before proposing, why not propose intelligently, and toast after your victory? You would have even more reason to celebrate if it was a victory over those troublesome 'goodly' nations.
I would say that it is ethically acceptable to reject a proposal merely because it is unintelligent or badly worded, even if the intention is acceptable. Unfortunately, I am siding with an admittedly good nation, however I believe in a code of honor, albeit a small and doomed one.
The Orion Nebula
09-12-2003, 19:20
Shameless commercial:
May I recommend the well written proposal HIPPOS ARE REALLY QUITE LARGE for your consideration?
It is the position of the Whimsical Republic of the Orion Nebula that resolutions should be well written, important and funny.
Oppressed Possums
09-12-2003, 19:35
There have been tons of threads about this. Too bad we can't go and fix the wording of such proposals.
Then debating would be worth the effort.