NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/92007/page=display_nation/page=UN_proposal1

VOTE TODAY

Large women are beautiful. They have curves.
Look at Queen Latifah, she's marvelous.
Catherine Zeta Jones is elegantly sensual.
Did you know that Marilyn Monroe wore a size 10; sometimes a 12?

Besides, this is a gynephobic proposal which imposes an artificial standard upon only one half of the population.

It's too subjective

We of the Grand Atoll love children, and allowing them to UN conferences is both a learning experienc for the children and a refreshing change for the adults.

*trying to keep a straight face* :?

The proposed "ban on fat chicks" is a fine attempt at a Un proposal. We of the Grand Atoll have some comments, however:

Our population numbers 40 million, of whom 27.5 million are female.
Our people, male and female, all tend toward large size, partly because of an inherited glandular effect, partly because of our rich diet.
Our people nevertheless are an exporter of food to other nations.
Our people enjoy active sex lives, resulting in many healthy children.

We feel that the proposed proposal may inconvenience other nations, and would certainly meet with disapproval within Grand Atoll.

Now perhaps if you would develop a proposed "Ban on Thin Chicks," whereby the UN will endeavor to increase poultry size, to better meet global nutrition needs, we may find that worthy of support. :)

I'm sorry, what's the exact name of this proposal? I need to go hunt it down and delete it.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Dear Doomhouse,

Bahgum is interested but feels that lareg blokes also need some help in the right direction, as such we already have a proposal aimed at tackling weight related problems in the UN. See V A T (resolution on volume added tax), or the VAT for health thread on this forum.
May bountiful sunlight and sweet rain fall down upon your resolutions....

While huge-butted women are common, Letilans aren't really obese, just curvy. We should target the real problem: capitalism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

I'd rather just see a ban on spandex.

How in the blue hell can you ban fat people? I'd rather see Doomsday banned.

I say we should make a nation of fat people. No one under 175lbs allowed, and everyone else has to be force-fed McDonald's food 24 hours a day.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

While huge-butted women are common, Letilans aren't really obese, just curvy. We should target the real problem: capitalism.


I'd rather have obesity with capitalism than starvation under anarchy.

We don't starve under anarchism, the poor starve under capitalism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

I would vote for it... :D

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

We don't starve under anarchism, the poor starve under capitalism.

Under unrestrained capitalism, yes. Under capitalism with limited welfare, no.

So far, every anarchic state- every state in which a lack of functional government exists- has been absolutely plagued by starvation, death, mass murder, and plague.

Anarchism is a lovely idea until one realizes that it can't bloody work.

Anarchism is a lovely idea until one realizes that it can't bloody work.
[NS Anarchist mode]"Oh yes it can. So there. Go read the definition." [/utterly divorved from reality sillyness mode]

Creating the institution of Mcdonalds is one of America's most horrible war crimes in the modern world.

A crime against humanity indeed.

People just have to learn to stop stuffing their fat faces at McDonalds!

Although unattractive, fat chicks exist.
Prehaps a better idea would be to introduce a UN resolution that encourages all nations to implement a sustainable obesity prevention and reversal program.

Yeah, that sounds like a nice way to say no fat chicks.

We don't starve under anarchism, the poor starve under capitalism.



people starve under both

Anarchism may seem on the surface as the true form of democracy, in truth, if there is no central body overseeing law and order, someone will come along to fill that vacuum. Much as it is impossible to truly equally distribute wealth and holdings (communism) someone will take charge, through sheer charisma, by being the biggest bully, whatever. Democracy with a monitored free market (an oxymoron, I know) does have it's disadvantages, but it's the best we as a world have done so far.

Anarchy, like many things, work in theory.

However; Communism, Time Travel, and 5th dimensional movement also work in theory.

There is a very large difference between a practical theory and a practical application.

When you add human nature into the equation, it unbalances every side of any equation. Humans could never create utopian society from complete chaos, despite what you may want to think. Perhaps one day when we are more evolved, but not now.

Anyway, what is your idea of anarchy? Everyone fending for themselves in complete and utter chaos? OR, People create a utopian, perfect society where everyone lives peacefully and no government is needed?

If the former, youd probably have what would probably happen in real life. If the latter, your sorrowly disillusioned.

The previous post was so mind-crushingly wrong, my brain has been thrown into confusion.

I see no choice but to support the fat chick ban!

Oh goodness, we've never ever ever seen a ban fat chicks propsoal on NS before. What pearls of originality and split my sides humour have you got up your sleeves? Nuke the French? Kill Osama Bin Laden? Get rid of Saddam? I'm sure glad I came back to Nation states after 6 months, things sure have changed!

Hey, here's a news flash, Kitsylvania is actually a guy? :o Hey, I have a great idea, why not make your next resolution about 'dissolve the UN and give all your money to me!' And then make posts about 'all you base are belong to us'. My god how we would laugh.

Anarchy, like many things, work in theory.

However; Communism, Time Travel, and 5th dimensional movement also work in theory.

There is a very large difference between a practical theory and a practical application.

When you add human nature into the equation, it unbalances every side of any equation. Humans could never create utopian society from complete chaos, despite what you may want to think. Perhaps one day when we are more evolved, but not now.

Anyway, what is your idea of anarchy? Everyone fending for themselves in complete and utter chaos? OR, People create a utopian, perfect society where everyone lives peacefully and no government is needed?

If the former, youd probably have what would probably happen in real life. If the latter, your sorrowly disillusioned.

do more research. the vast majority of your doubts will be proven wrong...

I'd also note to Almighty Ninjas that democracy works, in theory.

In practice, someone always gets more power than someone else, and then you have an oligarchy.

Oh, and before you pull out the cliché Winston Churchill quote on me, remember, his is a biased opinion.

I'd also note to Almighty Ninjas that democracy works, in theory.

ha, good point.

I'm sorry, what's the exact name of this proposal? I need to go hunt it down and delete it.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

If it's being deleted, maybe this thread could be locked too?

I'm sorry, what's the exact name of this proposal? I need to go hunt it down and delete it.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
Petition to ban fat chicks

We of Apistan despise fat chicks, and rightfully so. For many a year our Apistani children have been late for classes in school because of a school of whales clogging the hallways. Fat chicks are rightiously despised by the hotter, thinner Apistani women, and and so they tend to travel in wolfpacks. Fat chicks are an eyesore to our Apistani people, and we do not tolerate such an inconvenience.

Apistan has numerous government fat camps located across the country. Fat chicks are trucked to these camps in those trucks like they had in Free Willy for transporting the whales. They go through a rigorous two year subway diet and exercise program that will convert them into productive, non-fat members of Apistani society. Those who can not, for genetic reasons, lose the weight, or are left with ugly excess skin, are shot and shipped to a spam or dog food factory.

Apistan has spoken.

How about we dont ban fat people, just fat looking people....oh I guess we cant then we'd ban half the planet.

The Armed republic of Von Klompen supports this petition.

The country is only as strong as it's weakest link, and in this case, the weakest link is fat people.

First of all I have done my research, and I've also been a very heavy anarchist myself at certain points in my life.

Second, your right, democracy does only work in theory. My post was not in support of democracy, hell it wasnt in support of anything except NOT supporting anarchy.

Though, as history dictates, any system is better than no system.

Now, if there were no government and no laws, (and, if youve read the religion ban post, no religion), whats to stop people from running amok and killing everything and everybody? What motive do people have to be good?

Its like Communism in this sense, where the economy fails because the people have no motive to work harder (they all get the same pay, so whats the difference), only with Anarchy, the failure comes from the lack of motivation to live a morally righteous life, as opposed to economically sound one.

Everybody thought Communism would work, and it did in theory. Human nature destroyed it (at least what it became anyway).

So too, would anarchy fail. No doubt it IS a fantastic theory, but the reality is that people arent just going to sing and hold hands just because you get rid of the government.

First of all I have done my research, and I've also been a very heavy anarchist myself at certain points in my life.

Second, your right, democracy does only work in theory. My post was not in support of democracy, hell it wasnt in support of anything except NOT supporting anarchy.

Though, as history dictates, any system is better than no system.

Now, if there were no government and no laws, (and, if youve read the religion ban post, no religion), whats to stop people from running amok and killing everything and everybody? What motive do people have to be good?

Its like Communism in this sense, where the economy fails because the people have no motive to work harder (they all get the same pay, so whats the difference), only with Anarchy, the failure comes from the lack of motivation to live a morally righteous life, as opposed to economically sound one.

Everybody thought Communism would work, and it did in theory. Human nature destroyed it (at least what it became anyway).

So too, would anarchy fail. No doubt it IS a fantastic theory, but the reality is that people arent just going to sing and hold hands just because you get rid of the government.

You know you write some absolute toss. Unless one counts the utopian socialists there is no theory of communism. If one equates communism with Marxism, all one has is a few fragmentary notes. Marx deliberately witheld from imagning what a communist society would look like, He had ideas about what a workers' dictatorship would be like because he'd seen one-- the Paris Commune. I have an idea of what a workesr' state will look like because the early soviets give us an idea. Communism? Haven't the first clue. It doesn't exist as a blueprint or a checklist to see if they're getting it right.

You trot out this stupid ill thought cliche as though society had bought a bookcase, followed the instructions and then found it didnt look like the way it did on the box. Its nonsense.

see look, its here:


Everybody thought Communism would work, and it did in theory. Human nature destroyed it (at least what it became anyway)

So ecomomic and social backwardness in an already backward nation with a tiny working class and a huge peasantry, the defeat of the German revolution, a civil war....etc, etc, in short historical processes didnt destroy "communism". No, it was this pesky human nature, Just like that. And that was because people didn't work hard enough. And yet everyone thought it would work. The fact that the white armies and European imperialism tried everything in their power to make sure it didn't work is entirely beside the point. I assume that they were just having a laugh. They were obviously part of the evrybody who would thought it would work. When they saw that pesky human nature destroyed it, they all said "aww, that's a shame, who'd have thought it?"

Now, frankly, your grasp of anarchism seems to be tenous at best so a debate on that is fruitless, not least because you think its only the law and god bothering that prevents people (and you must include yourself, being a person) from killiing each other. Well if that is the case, remind me not to get in your way as you seem to have such little faith in your ability not to top someone without a copper or a priest around.

For the rest of you, no state does not mean no self rule. I think that the soviets in Russia and simialr organs elsewhere showed how workers could organise society without a central organ of suppression. their existence did not mean the absence of rules, or of moral or physical force. Workers councils are a governing body. they are in effect, a government. What they are not is a state-- that is, a body which stands above society as a whole. Or at least that is my understanding. I am but a lowly Marxist, not an anarchist so I'm maybe not one to talk. But at least I'm trying to look at the thing itself, rather than making abstract and rather dour assertions about human nature.

P.s. In case some bright spark points out what they think is a contradiction-- that is I spoke of the soviets as a state on the one hand and then argue that the soviets weren't a state on the other-- the soviets did have a central organ which was orginally controlled by a coalition. the central soviet oversaw the activities of the others. Thus it was a state. I believe that is entirely possible (though imo unlikely, for better or worse) that it is possible for soviets to organise without the central organ, which I believe was what many anarchists in Russia at teh time wanted. but then, as I said, Im not an anarchist and I'm reasy to stand corrected.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/92007/page=display_nation/page=UN_proposal1

VOTE TODAY

You, Doomhouse, are a womanizer! and though I am a man, this will only force women to strive for that so-called 'ideal' body. And then some already thin women might get the idea they are fat, and become anorexic!!!

VOTE NO ON THIS!

Mataradesh asks DOOMHOUSE to define 'fat'. Does this mean overweight for her age? Dangerously obese?

If the former, Mataradesh will remind DOOMHOUSE that if all women were average, then they would all be the same, while if all women were average or below average in weight, the new average would be lower.

If the latter, it asks why you have not included fat men in the resolution.