NationStates Jolt Archive

I cannot believe that those who do not agree with this resolution are now attempting to repeal it because they don't agree. Obviously most people want to see it legalised and they have made their point, why can't you accept that, you seem to have accepted all other proposals... :?:

Maybe if you cannot agree with the majority you shouldn't be a part of the UN.

Regards,
Grande

Maybe the majority is not always right.

They are allowed to try. How do you know they can't make a good case and sway people from their original vote? They are allowed to try and should be free of critism when they do. They are what make the UN work perfectly, because if everyone just accepted what the UN passed without ever trying to question their role, then you would see some horrible things passed and never questioned! Its all part of the democratic process.

~Quadellic~

Maybe the majority is not always right.

Maybe not, but that does not change this fact.

Maybe the majority is not always right.

agreed.

Maybe the majority is not always right.

Maybe not, but that does not change this fact.

what fact? the fact that it passed by majority? Let them be individual thinkers and think they can change the World or at least the NS UN. I personally hope they suceed.

Because there are some who will vote for any "good cause" without contemplating the consequences of their actions and then the vote becomes severely oppressive towards something that is perceived as just and fair, but which is not clearly just and fair. Then, by this flaw, the U.N. forces legislation that is counter to a nation's view or the leadership's position on just and fair.

Every nation reserves the right to its sovereignty. What is just and fair for my nation is what I deem, and not the contrived "whoopla" of those who do not take seriously the responsibilities of leading a nation, but would prefer to either be making noise to hear themselves making noise, or cast a vote for what ever side appears to be winning.

i really dont understand why they would go agenst the majority... it was a law it is in, thats fine, i voted yes for the law because i feel that if someone is in pain and they want to die they should have the ablity to go to a doctor or whoever and have the doctor kill them if they wanted... i dont see the big deal

Whether countries are part of the majority or the minority of this matter has nothing to do with it. What it boils down to is UN members wanting the best for their country and if they decide that this Euthanasia bill isn't best for them then ofcoarse they're going to dispute it. They're going to try to find a way to make a bill that they can live with instead of the one thats been passed.
It's politics my friend. It's the way of the world.
I do agree with this bill/law. It'd just be cruel to make some-one live in pain when we could take their pain away. Although there is one point that I don't agree with. I've forgotten the wording but baisically said that a family member could decide whether or not the patient could be euthanised. I completely disagree with this point as it turns taking away the patients pain to murder but otherwise the bill/law is ok, if the PATIENTS willingly sumbit themselves to it.

okay MOST of the people who are complaining about the issue, arn't upset about the euthanasia issue itself, but rather the wording.

If you think about real world legislature, the wording can often be twisted to create loopholes and some really nasty things can happen.

With the current wording of the legislature, it is basically permissible for anyone to kill anyone in their family, for the following quote;

In the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them on the basis of professional medical advice.

I'm sure that 90% of the people that voted 'for' didn't read all the details. This line says that someone with NO SERIOUS ILLNESS, the decision to euthanize them could be made for them. It would be quite easy for a corrupt doctor and family member to euthanize someone to take their inheritance, for example.

In other words, you're legalizing murder.

DON'T GET ME WRONG! I'm all for consentual euthanasia! someone dying in a hospital bed in pain who dosn't want to live shouldn't have to, however the current wording has loopholes as described above!

Grande, the bill passed because the masses are sheep. To most voters, this is a silly game, and they just clicked Yes out of habit.

Those of us who have given lots of thought to this proposal (and I don't include you among that number) have spoken about 95% against / 5% for the bill the way you worded it.

You've already admitted you didn't listen to anyone else's very legitimate concerns about how it was written. You had to submit it three times before you got enough sheep to approve it.

Now that it's been enacted, these fine nations are seeking a LEGAL way to dispose of a BAD law. In NationStates or the real world, ethical people follow their consciences until wrongs are righted. That's all they'ree doing here. It's not a massive plot to defame the name of Grande.*

*though that's not a bad idea, come to think of it

Grande, the bill passed because the masses are sheep. To most voters, this is a silly game, and they just clicked Yes out of habit.

Those of us who have given lots of thought to this proposal (and I don't include you among that number) have spoken about 95% against / 5% for the bill the way you worded it.

You've already admitted you didn't listen to anyone else's very legitimate concerns about how it was written. You had to submit it three times before you got enough sheep to approve it.

Now that it's been enacted, these fine nations are seeking a LEGAL way to dispose of a BAD law. In NationStates or the real world, ethical people follow their consciences until wrongs are righted. That's all they'ree doing here. It's not a massive plot to defame the name of Grande.*

*though that's not a bad idea, come to think of it

And furthermore, we here are penalized into obeying the absurd or idiotic notions voted in by the sheep. Whereas in the real world I would merely tell the UN to get stuffed until they can refrain from such flawed proposals.

Whereas in the real world I would merely tell the UN to get stuffed until they can refrain from such flawed proposals.

I just want to re-iterate again that not all of us are upset because of the euthanasia law itself. We're mostly upset because of the loopholes and very blatant problems that could arise out of the way the proposal is worded which allow just about ANYONE to be killed for virtually no reason. (The law specifically states someone without any life thretening illness could be euthanized).

(Not a direct responce to Heru, just re-itterating for those who are saying 'what a bunch of fundie whiners')

It's not a massive plot to defame the name of Grande.*

Its a conspiracy, I tell you. Truly.

:lol:

Maybe the majority is not always right.

It's not about who is right, it's about what the people want.

Maybe the majority is not always right.

It's not about who is right, it's about what the people want.

the people had better be careful, then, or they'll get more than they bargained for. that's why people hire lawyers to decipher the small print: one person alone can't see an issue out to all ends. so you go to the forums and discuss it. and those of us who did, got to see all ends, and mostly voted against it.

It's not about who is right, it's about what the people want.

While I overall agree with Euthanasia, the current legislature is unclear and allows for not-so-goodhearted people to euthanise people who would otherwise not wish such. (Either because they didn't want to pay the hospital bills anymore or the person had a lot of money and they wanted to divvy up the assets right away)

I cannot believe that those who do not agree with this resolution are now attempting to repeal it because they don't agree. Obviously most people want to see it legalised and they have made their point, why can't you accept that, you seem to have accepted all other proposals... :?:

Maybe if you cannot agree with the majority you shouldn't be a part of the UN.

Regards,
Grande

Joccia was one of the voices against your proposal, who even resigned, temporarily, from the UN because of the sheep-like vote which passed it. However, upon reflection we see that you were right and have passed laws based upon your resolution which have helped rid us of many, many problems. I give you my people's thanks, and the thanks of those, now deceased, who have benifitted from your august proposal.

We have placed a brief description of the new laws you engendered under the title "Euthanasia - the answer to mental health" in this forum. We hope that many other states will take advantage of the means you have given us to overcome so many social problems

Mac Rex

It doesn't matter. Passed resolutions can not be repealed. It's against game mechanics.

So, yes, please do get over it!

Stephanie
Game Moderator

You don't have to agree with the majority.
Just accept that what the majority says goes. :D

You've already admitted you didn't listen to anyone else's very legitimate concerns about how it was written. You had to submit it three times before you got enough sheep to approve it.

Yes, and yet Grande has still to offer any kind of explanation for his apparent inability to devote 5 minutes to fixing the problems we pointed out. Ready to give an answer yet?

*though that's not a bad idea, come to think of it

:lol: True, people need to know about anyone who disregards advice on this kind of problem without explanation, so that they can treat all future proposals from same with a more critical eye.

Having said that, and having looked at the possibility of a modifier bill (the mods tell me you can't modify resolutions either, for the same reason as you can't repeal), I will now get down to enacting the laws in as sane a manner as possbile in my own nation (ironically, I'll need to use the same loopholes I campaigned against, but for the opposite use that I objected to).

You've already admitted you didn't listen to anyone else's very legitimate concerns about how it was written. You had to submit it three times before you got enough sheep to approve it.

Yes, and yet Grande has still to offer any kind of explanation for his apparent inability to devote 5 minutes to fixing the problems we pointed out. Ready to give an answer yet?

*though that's not a bad idea, come to think of it

:lol: True, people need to know about anyone who disregards advice on this kind of problem without explanation, so that they can treat all future proposals from same with a more critical eye.

Having said that, and having looked at the possibility of a modifier bill (the mods tell me you can't modify resolutions either, for the same reason as you can't repeal), I will now get down to enacting the laws in as sane a manner as possbile in my own nation (ironically, I'll need to use the same loopholes I campaigned against, but for the opposite use that I objected to).