NationStates Jolt Archive

While sifting the proposals I came upon this one. Proposed by "The Basilicus" is reads:

Description: WHEREAS: The United Nations guarantees the rights of almost everyone.

WHEREAS: Nations have even granted marriages between people and animals thus granting some legal status to animals.

WHEREAS:People can even leave their property and money to animals in their will.

WHEREAS: The unborn have almost no rights.

WHEREAS: The unborn are living and breathing human beings.

WHEREAS: We cannot determine the exact beginning of life.. Therefore, we must assume that it begins at conception.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the United Nations will ban the practice of abortion except if the woman's life is at stake.

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the member-states of the United Nations will treat abortionists and the mothers who breach the ban as murderers depending upon the circumstances, and consenting others will be treated as accessories to the crime.

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any miscarriages not caused by abortion such as car accidents and the like will also be treated as murders, and the participants punished according to the nation's murder laws and the circumstances of the crime

The Nation of Jackuul fully supports this proposal and asks for all support in getting approvals for its support.

That is all.

I vote against. This is not something the U.N. should be concerned with, as public opinion remains too divided.

EDIT- I don't wish to start a big fight over the pros and cons of abortion. I just think this can't be dealt with as world opinion is far too divided for the U.N. to really take a stand.

The Holy Empire of Gethamane agrees that this should not be a subject the UN should deal with.

Leaving national sovereignty aside for a moment... This proposal contains a bizarre preamble.

WHEREAS: Nations have even granted marriages between people and animals thus granting some legal status to animals.

WHEREAS:People can even leave their property and money to animals in their will.

What the UN does and what Nations do aren't exactly the same thing. I'm certain some nations have legalized marriage to an animal... But the UN didn't (unless I'm grossly mistaken?). But aside from that, what does that have to do with abortion?

Not to mention that this caught my eye:

WHEREAS: We cannot determine the exact beginning of life.. Therefore, we must assume that it begins at conception.

I presume it means the exactly moment at which it becomes human... We can determine when it's alive easily enough. But I don't follow the logic there. Why must we assume it's human at conception? Is this one of those "just in case" things? I hope not, because that wouldn't bode well for my opinion of the author.

The DSH will not be asking our regions delegate to endorse this proposal - it is our opinion that this goes against nations right to determine their own policy on this matter, and the citizens of the DSH as a whole are pro-abortion.

Secondly I have no idea how animals fit into the idea of this proposal anyway....As I read it, it talks about people and animals, then just seems to go to talk about women? It's almost as if it's two different proposals blended into one horribly misshappen lump of a proposal.

What would be more appropiate is for the UN to pass a resolution urging member states to bring about greater education in this area to increase the responsible use of contraception and abstainence.
_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

WHEREAS: The unborn are living and breathing human beings.

Living? That's up to interpretation. But breathing? The unborn certainly cannot breathe before their lungs, nose, nasal passages, throat, trachea, bronchus and probably several other organs are formed. I believe (I am not entirely sure) that this does not occur until later in pregnancy.

What would be more appropiate is for the UN to pass a resolution urging member states to bring about greater education in this area to increase the responsible use of contraception and abstainence.

ZING!

People need to know what they're doing before they make a choice like this, and they can't if they're not educated on what they can do in the situation.

The honourable member from Enn is correct. According to THIS (http://www.housatonic.net/Burbank/ChildDevelopment/01513ChDevSp04/01513classnotes0218.htm) functional development of lungs does not occur till 16-20 weeks. Thus using the definition of unborn being living an breathing human beings, this proposal completely fails to ban abortions before this time, as a foetus before this time cannot breathe, thus cannot be described as unborn under this definition.

This resolution is an example of a proposal that has not been correctly researched, and has gapping holes in the legislation.

The honourable member from Enn is correct. According to THIS functional development of lungs does not occur till 16-20 weeks.

Not to mention that for breathing one generally needs, y'know, air rather than amniotic fluid.

The government of Rehochipe, with an air of mounting ennui, reiterates for the thousandth time that this is beyond the UN's remit and that it'll never pass and that we'd leave if it did.

We recognise that although abortion is never a good thing it is sometimes a necessary thing. We will not support this proposal.

Giordano,
Assistant representative,
The Black New World
(this was a standard response)

While sifting the proposals I came upon this one. Proposed by "The Basilicus" is reads

Uh oh, "Right to life" here we go... Again... :roll:

Description: WHEREAS: The United Nations guarantees the rights of almost everyone.

Hmmm. I think there is a proposal existing to cover this. Yes, it was that human rights bill, which covers human beings, and if this is going where I think it is, what age is a clump of cells a human being? And there starts your problems. Ironically, one of the problems done to death, with no final agreement to my remembering.

WHEREAS: Nations have even granted marriages between people and animals thus granting some legal status to animals.

Thats very nice, but, exactly what does people and animals getting married have to do with "The Right to Life"? Need I say more? You certainly did not.

WHEREAS:People can even leave their property and money to animals in their will.

Oh, look, lets re-title this too: "Much a-do about nothing.". It seems more suitable if your planning to link people willing property to animals to "The Right to Life.". Which one assumes deals with, oh, abortion, as usual.

WHEREAS: The unborn have almost no rights.

Here we go.

WHEREAS: The unborn are living and breathing human beings.

Sigh. I am not even going to bother. Since you people go on constantly every week with th same argument, then here is mine:

"Nice subjective view point, nice shiny opinion you've got yourself there. Top'o'the morning to you and yours, good day and bye"

WHEREAS: We cannot determine the exact beginning of life.. Therefore, we must assume that it begins at conception.

But it does. And thus you are wrong, the problem is we don't know when it is self aware to the extent it becomes human. This is might I add, all old hat.

Lets for example assume it begins once I think it has, like you've gone and done.

Oops, from that argument, you just ceased to exist as a human beings because I say so, as you've said so here.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the United Nations will ban the practice of abortion except if the woman's life is at stake.

In the words of Annette Lu, Vice President of "Real World" South Korea, at time of this writing,

"Failure is just another chance to grow up."

I suggest you be prepared for quite alot of growing up.

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the member-states of the United Nations will treat abortionists and the mothers who breach the ban as murderers depending upon the circumstances, and consenting others will be treated as accessories to the crime.

Oh, very specific, thank-you for this vague thus time wasting blather. "Depending on circumstances", how very setting in stone of you.

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any miscarriages not caused by abortion such as car accidents and the like will also be treated as murders, and the participants punished according to the nation's murder laws and the circumstances of the crime.

Oh geeez, I've nothing to fear here, your so mixed up in "protecting" life you'd willingly condem others. Do you know what an "accident" is?

The Nation of Jackuul fully supports this proposal and asks for all support in getting approvals for its support.

None to be found here, move along.

That is all.

Good, I feel distinctly quesy by how many people find opinions and morals, both of which are extremely subjective to personal views, as facts to be used to force agendas on others. At least try to use some kind of rational argument. Please?

In conclusion: Its counter proposal time folks!

- The Rep of Komokom, who has decided not to go on into any detail, enough time here was wasted.

Not UN jurisdiction, blah de frickin blah! A Pro-Choice Resolution, if made, would probably get through the UN faster than I could blink! This resolution proposed, doesn't have a chance-not in this place. Whatever. The blood of the unborn be on your heads.

Not UN jurisdiction, blah de frickin blah! A Pro-Choice Resolution, if made, would probably get through the UN faster than I could blink! This resolution proposed, doesn't have a chance-not in this place. Whatever. The blood of the unborn be on your heads.
Make a pro-life resolution, campaign hard for it and you just might prove your theory incorrect.

I must admit, I doubt it myself, but you're welcome to try.

A Pro-Choice Resolution, if made, would probably get through the UN faster than I could blink!
No, it won't. There have been many who have tried this.

Not UN jurisdiction, blah de frickin blah! A Pro-Choice Resolution, if made, would probably get through the UN faster than I could blink! This resolution proposed, doesn't have a chance-not in this place. Whatever. The blood of the unborn be on your heads.

Yup, us pro-choice people enjoy seeing innocent babies killed! It's the only reason we're pro-choice, we rape baby-corpses and decorate our homes with their spleens! :twisted:

Yeah, and how fast do the pro-lifer's scurry, when asked if they will support welfare for said unborn that have a "right to live"?

I find it very interesting that the same people, who champion life for the unborn, often balk at the very idea of increased funding for the care of the born. Then it's all "Not my problem", "Why should I pay", ect. And we're not even talking about education, merely cost-of-living, and healthcare.

Curious food for thought.

When an emotive topic such as this comes up, it is quite clear that the UN forcing ALL nations to comply with the one side of the coin is pointless when roughly 1/2 the UN are for the flipside.

I agree with Hirota, education is the way.

If young people are properly educated in sexual matters then the need for aborting unwanted pregnacies will be greatly decreased. Then there is the topic of whether a victim of rape is allowed to terminate a resulting pregnacy - there are too many grey areas for any proposal to be fair and just for every possible situation that could possibly arise involving a woman wanting an abortion.

plug.... plug....

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=135031

Sorry.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

I propose I write a proposal that here-by and for-ever more regulates and defines that the United Nations cannot make law regarding abortion, in that it can niether allow (Pro-choice) or disallow it (Pro-life).

It would say individual nations must decide their own destiny on the subject... Any takers?

- The Rep of Komokom.

Imagine, a law saying the U.N. cannot make laws, well, specific ones. Could we yet buy some quiet time, :wink:

I'm going to try to pull a Komokom, and instead of looking at the intelligent arguements, or thinking about what's been said, I'll just take little snippets, which are unintelligent individually, and be an ass about them.


While sifting the proposals I came upon this one. Proposed by "The Basilicus" is reads

Uh oh, "Right to life" here we go... Again... :roll:

well, we can clearly see bias already. not in the least open minded.


Description: WHEREAS: The United Nations guarantees the rights of almost everyone.

Hmmm. I think there is a proposal existing to cover this. Yes, it was that human rights bill, which covers human beings, and if this is going where I think it is, what age is a clump of cells a human being? And there starts your problems. Ironically, one of the problems done to death, with no final agreement to my remembering.

those of us who actually read the proposal know that he decided to define the begining of life at the point of conception.

WHEREAS: Nations have even granted marriages between people and animals thus granting some legal status to animals.

Thats very nice, but, exactly what does people and animals getting married have to do with "The Right to Life"? Need I say more? You certainly did not.

here Mr. The Baslicus gave an example (an intelligent thing to do) of how we have given rights to things that will never be nearly as human as a human embryo is. I ask that you read and think before you speak. It's done wonders for the rest of us.


WHEREAS:People can even leave their property and money to animals in their will.

Oh, look, lets re-title this too: "Much a-do about nothing.". It seems more suitable if your planning to link people willing property to animals to "The Right to Life.". Which one assumes deals with, oh, abortion, as usual.

I addressed this above, but I just wanted to once again point out that Komokom is nothing but an unintelligent ass.

WHEREAS: The unborn have almost no rights.

Here we go.

WHEREAS: The unborn are living and breathing human beings.

Sigh. I am not even going to bother. Since you people go on constantly every week with th same argument, then here is mine:

"Nice subjective view point, nice shiny opinion you've got yourself there. Top'o'the morning to you and yours, good day and bye"

here we see, once again, close-mindedness and an appearent inability to actually address the issue at hand, and instead hopes that a little quote will make him seem right. I don't see Komokom offering any intelligent opinions, nor making valid arguements. Who's he to critcize someone else?

WHEREAS: We cannot determine the exact beginning of life.. Therefore, we must assume that it begins at conception.

But it does. And thus you are wrong, the problem is we don't know when it is self aware to the extent it becomes human. This is might I add, all old hat.

Lets for example assume it begins once I think it has, like you've gone and done.

Oops, from that argument, you just ceased to exist as a human beings because I say so, as you've said so here.

I shouldn't dignify such utter trash with a response, but feel that I must. Komokom has once again not addressed the issue by any stretch of the imagination, and has randomly said idiotic dribble hoping that it will make him seem right. As for self-awareness, I know pleanty of high school students that I wouldn't consider self-aware, so are they, despite some being legal adults, not human?

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the United Nations will ban the practice of abortion except if the woman's life is at stake.

In the words of Annette Lu, Vice President of "Real World" South Korea, at time of this writing,

"Failure is just another chance to grow up."

I suggest you be prepared for quite alot of growing up.

he did the whole use quotation marks and people will think you're right thing again. There was no imaturity in Basilicus', but there was some on Komokom's.

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the member-states of the United Nations will treat abortionists and the mothers who breach the ban as murderers depending upon the circumstances, and consenting others will be treated as accessories to the crime.

Oh, very specific, thank-you for this vague thus time wasting blather. "Depending on circumstances", how very setting in stone of you.

He had mentioned circumstances above this. Again, read and think before speaking. It's an art that I masted long ago. It's a good thing.

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any miscarriages not caused by abortion such as car accidents and the like will also be treated as murders, and the participants punished according to the nation's murder laws and the circumstances of the crime.

Oh geeez, I've nothing to fear here, your so mixed up in "protecting" life you'd willingly condem others. Do you know what an "accident" is?

While trying to still be an ass, Komokom doesn't realize that this legislation has already passed by the US congress.

The Nation of Jackuul fully supports this proposal and asks for all support in getting approvals for its support.

None to be found here, move along.

Imagine this: there is some support here.

That is all.

Good, I feel distinctly quesy by how many people find opinions and morals, both of which are extremely subjective to personal views, as facts to be used to force agendas on others. At least try to use some kind of rational argument. Please?

Every piece of legislation though-out all time has been based on opinions and morals. Idiot.
And as for rational arguments, I have yet to see you use a single one.
How about dropping the Hypocracy?

In conclusion: Its counter proposal time folks!

- The Rep of Komokom, who has decided not to go on into any detail, enough time here was wasted.
Indeed time was wasted. Everyone who read your idiotic garbage has wasted thier time.
I must sadly say that by taking you seriously, I have wasted my time, and thus those who read this will have also wasted there time.


I don't mind other people's opinions at all, as long as they are respectful towards other people for thier opinions.
Seeing that Komokom wasn't, I felt I needed to be critical of him.
He'll probably try to insult me now, but that's ok. I wouldn't expect much maturity out of him anyway.
If you've never read anything else I've posted in the past, I'm sorry that this is the first. Just skim through the forums, and when I'm not speaking to Komokom, everything is pleanty intelligent and respectful.

We came to the conclusion that the pope is good, has good views, and overall good ideas, he supports pro-life, but we would have to say that not everyone follows the pope, so we are saying that the argument is pointless: no on e will agree on this issue. You can't make everyone happy at the same time

I propose I write a proposal that here-by and for-ever more regulates and defines that the United Nations cannot make law regarding abortion, in that it can niether allow (Pro-choice) or disallow it (Pro-life).

It would say individual nations must decide their own destiny on the subject... Any takers?

- The Rep of Komokom.

Imagine, a law saying the U.N. cannot make laws, well, specific ones. Could we yet buy some quiet time, :wink:
Would that count as game mechanics?

Squirrels in Nissans- I agree.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

It would go against game mechanics. Pro-life/pro-choice can be debated and - theoretically - passed by the UN. The chances of either sort of proposal actually getting the legs to make it to the floor, let alone further, are slim at best, though.

I'm going to try to pull a Komokom, and instead of looking at the intelligent arguements, or thinking about what's been said, I'll just take little snippets, which are unintelligent individually, and be an ass about them.

And were what you said about me true, you've done a great job. Whats the diplomatically acceptable term for "Bite me for existing you immature "nOOB" ...

Wow, I don't think I've actually said nOOb before, usual I point to the fact they have very few posts and thus probably don't know how things are done and discussed here, while also not knowing the back-ground to the issues constantly raised, fallen, and repeated.

well, we can clearly see bias already. not in the least open minded.

Well, we to can clearly see a bias here already. Not in the leadt open minded, tsk, tsk, tsk. :roll:

those of us who actually read the proposal know that he decided to define the begining of life at the point of conception.

At that time in my post that was not at all my point, sorry for not being clear enough it seems, but, follow your own advice before spouting it at me.

here Mr. The Baslicus gave an example (an intelligent thing to do) of how we have given rights to things that will never be nearly as human as a human embryo is. I ask that you read and think before you speak. It's done wonders for the rest of us.

Though he actually seemed to have reffered to sov. law, not Int. law I ask you to read before you flame.

I addressed this above, but I just wanted to once again point out that Komokom is nothing but an unintelligent ass.

And you a nasty little so and so desperate it seems to "prove" themselves by lashing out with a flame. Either come up with an argument or shut your insult hole.

Here we see, once again, close-mindedness and an appearent inability to actually address the issue at hand, and instead hopes that a little quote will make him seem right. I don't see Komokom offering any intelligent opinions, nor making valid arguements. Who's he to critcize someone else?

:roll:

The only closed mind is the one intent on flaming me rather then trying to look at my post from another view-point. But hey, since your so desperate to flame me, please go on, I might actually find something worth getting angry about.

"I don't see Komokom offering any intelligent opinions, nor making valid arguements. Who's he to critcize someone else"

Ditto to you. At least I've been around long enough to know what I am talking about. Oh, and I was criticising the prop. not the author. I save that for you. So diplomatically: Bite me.


I shouldn't dignify such utter trash with a response, but feel that I must. Komokom has once again not addressed the issue by any stretch of the imagination, and has randomly said idiotic dribble hoping that it will make him seem right. As for self-awareness, I know pleanty of high school students that I wouldn't consider self-aware, so are they, despite some being legal adults, not human?

Nor would I, but you started it. Once again? Oh, yeah, you sound like you know me so well.

"randomly said idiotic dribble hoping that it will make him seem right."

Yeah. Look in the mirror. At least I was making points against a prop. Not a person.

"As for self-awareness, I know pleanty of high school students that I wouldn't consider self-aware, so are they, despite some being legal adults, not human?"

Thats why your not running the show. We want people able to accept the differances of others, just remember, judging by the sound ogf your agnst, they probably are not aware you exist. hough by how loud and opinionated you yourself are, thats in a way hard to accept.

he did the whole use quotation marks and people will think you're right thing again. There was no imaturity in Basilicus', but there was some on Komokom's.

1) The first time, its was to denote speech, mine, to make a point.
2) That second, actual, quote, was to denote how much growing up, ergo in the reversed context of the quote how much it was unlikely to pass.
3) Yeah, and we all know theres no imaturity in flaming some one.

He had mentioned circumstances above this. Again, read and think before speaking. It's an art that I masted long ago. It's a good thing.

Quel the sarcasm sparky, simply logic dictates I can read as I can type, ergo I know letters, ergo I know how to arrange them, ergo your wrong. Need I go on?

While trying to still be an ass, Komokom doesn't realize that this legislation has already passed by the US congress.

Yep, your new.

1) If "being an ass" is the price of expressing my anger at such a re-occuring proposal idea, then prepare for a lot of "shit". There, I was very vulgar like you. Happy now?

2) US congress? Whats that. Heads Up: Most people who spend alot of time here learn that many people who make valid posts do not consider the US constitution, congress, or any kind of U.S. law on moral issues to be valid here. As a) This is nation states, and b) Such evidence is opinionated due to the morals of its makers.

Imagine this: there is some support here.

Yes, but not enough to pass it. That was my point.

Every piece of legislation though-out all time has been based on opinions and morals. Idiot.
And as for rational arguments, I have yet to see you use a single one.
How about dropping the Hypocracy?

1) Yes, and lets never let that allow us to make ones that don't rely so heavily on one groups "morals".
2) Idiot... ass... hypocrasy... Should I be annoyed with your un-originality or your illusion of grandure.

Indeed time was wasted. Everyone who read your idiotic garbage has wasted thier time.

Oh, look, a parrot: (Nod to Terran Assemblage :wink: )

"Indeed time was wasted. Everyone who read your idiotic garbage has wasted thier time"

I must sadly say that by taking you seriously, I have wasted my time, and thus those who read this will have also wasted there time.

Ditto, ditto, ditto.

I don't mind other people's opinions at all, as long as they are respectful towards other people for thier opinions.

We'll just ignore the possibility that the idea of tossing out the right to abortion my offend others. We'll just ignore the idea of flaming me not maybe being a little offending. We'll just ignore how you had no respect for me or mine.

Seeing that Komokom wasn't, I felt I needed to be critical of him.

Oh, I think I noticed.

He'll probably try to insult me now, but that's ok. I wouldn't expect much maturity out of him anyway.

Insult you, why, all I've done is defend myself. I love how people find it okay to come in and diss me, then flutter about saying "Oh no, if I get it back on equal terms, I'll cry bad man, bad man!"

In truth, though me an Mikitivity, for example. have disagreed on things, and I have said some things in anger, I did my best to edit them out within a few minutes of posting them, because I respect Mikitivity. You how ever, are loud, rude and seem to think you know me. Unless your either a) Stalking me, or b) Able to read my mind, shut up.

If you've never read anything else I've posted in the past, I'm sorry that this is the first. Just skim through the forums, and when I'm not speaking to Komokom, everything is pleanty intelligent and respectful.

Oh, so your aiming to target me personally, how... mature. I thinkwhen I personally skim through the forum, I try to block out the fact there is some one out there more then willing to say "I don't know you, but your "generic insult" and should suffer my wrath for speaking aloud cause I'm new and I say so!!!"

Apologies to my regular readers, but I've had a bad day, and when people claim to plan to persecute me personally for my views, rather then opt for friendly debate, well, you know.

- The Rep of Komokom, posting devoid of emoticons, as you may notice I do usualy when extremely miffed off.

Unnecessary hand-baggings aside, we cannot support this proposal. Put simply, abortion is not an issue where the UN member states will reach any kind of consensus. Any successful proposal seeking to clarify a universally applied pro/anti position may trigger a colossal wave of resignations from the UN.

Essentially, please steer well clear.

Maya Toitovna
Speaker for Home Affairs

Yeah, the mole on my toe doesn't have any rights at all! It should be allowed to vote. However, since the mole on my toe doesn't have the ability to fill out the card itself - I'll just have to fill it out for it.

Unless and until I get to vote multiple times because of the flap of skin between my lips and my gums - there is simply no precedent for giving special rights to any other random collection of cells.

One person, one set of rights. Your skin cancer does not have a "right to life", your staph infection does not have a "right to life" - and neither does any other explosive growth of cells in your body with a unique genetic sequence, regardless of whether the cells are human cells (like a cancer or a fetus) or not (like a bacterial infection).

If you can't do anything yourself, you don't have any rights. Rights are only that which you can take for yourself. You have no right to have anybody else not do something under any circumstances. At best, you can expect vengeance. Fetal tissue doesn't have any friends, so it is preposterous to expect it to be avenged - so naturally women have the right to abortions if they can afford them coupled with the logical expectation to get away with such an action without negative reprecussions.

Why you seem intent upon adding negative reprecussions to an act so obviously within the scope of one's personal natural rights and logical expectations is completely beyond us.

Don't make me come over there.

Yeah, the mole on my toe doesn't have any rights at all! It should be allowed to vote. However, since the mole on my toe doesn't have the ability to fill out the card itself - I'll just have to fill it out for it.

Unless and until I get to vote multiple times because of the flap of skin between my lips and my gums - there is simply no precedent for giving special rights to any other random collection of cells.

One person, one set of rights. Your skin cancer does not have a "right to life", your staph infection does not have a "right to life" - and neither does any other explosive growth of cells in your body with a unique genetic sequence, regardless of whether the cells are human cells (like a cancer or a fetus) or not (like a bacterial infection).

If you can't do anything yourself, you don't have any rights. Rights are only that which you can take for yourself. You have no right to have anybody else not do something under any circumstances. At best, you can expect vengeance. Fetal tissue doesn't have any friends, so it is preposterous to expect it to be avenged - so naturally women have the right to abortions if they can afford them coupled with the logical expectation to get away with such an action without negative reprecussions.

Why you seem intent upon adding negative reprecussions to an act so obviously within the scope of one's personal natural rights and logical expectations is completely beyond us.

Don't make me come over there.

well, Komokom responded in the manner in which I had suspected.

as for my not having any evidence for support for any of my claims in my post: You're absolutely right!
I'm just trying to imitate the great Komokom.

As for this issue not needing to be settled now: You're absolutely right again!
I know that there is too much division.

As for my post being inappropriately rude and a personal attack on you:
Dang it! You're absolutely right again.
I can't imagine that you were too happy while reading it, nor were you inteded to be.

As for you not insulting the author of the proposal:
You're absolutely wrong! You refered to the author as one of "you people" and said he needed to grow up, presumably you meant mainly intellectually.
I felt that this was in no way fair, and decided to try to give you a taste of your own medicine.
I'm nothing compared to the master, of course.

As for me being a noob (this is the first time I've heard that used outside of MOHAA): not quite. You've probably been around here longer than I.

However, I've been debating politics for quite a while now, and though I still lose my cool, mainly with professional politicians, from both parties, as neither side is nearly as honest with their employers, we the people, as I feel they should be. For example: Clinton Lied. Bush Lied. I'll not lie: I'm a conservative, and feel that maybe Bush isn't the best for us anymore, though I still feel he's better than Kerry. but that's not why I'm writing, though I'd still love to debate it.

In short:
Komokom, I merely want you to be more respectful towards people in the future, and I'll return the favor. I was upset seeing that every post I see you make is just breaking up all the lines from someone else's post and insulting them for each line. Perhaps you didn't realize you were doing this, but I'm simply not usually a fan of mud-slinging.

Anyway, I must be off.
Farewell to all, and may an abortion resolution never come to vote.

well, Komokom responded in the manner in which I had suspected.

as for my not having any evidence for support for any of my claims in my post: You're absolutely right!
I'm just trying to imitate the great Komokom.

As for this issue not needing to be settled now: You're absolutely right again!
I know that there is too much division.

As for my post being inappropriately rude and a personal attack on you:
Dang it! You're absolutely right again.
I can't imagine that you were too happy while reading it, nor were you inteded to be.

As for you not insulting the author of the proposal:
You're absolutely wrong! You refered to the author as one of "you people" and said he needed to grow up, presumably you meant mainly intellectually.
I felt that this was in no way fair, and decided to try to give you a taste of your own medicine.
I'm nothing compared to the master, of course.

As for me being a noob (this is the first time I've heard that used outside of MOHAA): not quite. You've probably been around here longer than I.

However, I've been debating politics for quite a while now, and though I still lose my cool, mainly with professional politicians, from both parties, as neither side is nearly as honest with their employers, we the people, as I feel they should be. For example: Clinton Lied. Bush Lied. I'll not lie: I'm a conservative, and feel that maybe Bush isn't the best for us anymore, though I still feel he's better than Kerry. but that's not why I'm writing, though I'd still love to debate it.

In short:
Komokom, I merely want you to be more respectful towards people in the future, and I'll return the favor. I was upset seeing that every post I see you make is just breaking up all the lines from someone else's post and insulting them for each line. Perhaps you didn't realize you were doing this, but I'm simply not usually a fan of mud-slinging.

Anyway, I must be off.
Farewell to all, and may an abortion resolution never come to vote.

down with the damn un!

All I wanted was support for this long dead proposal, I shall set about writing my own. As for you Komokom you dont seem to hold the same views I do, I accept that, but immature behavior only shows the downfall of your culture.

Aeolian thank you for your support and you will be remembered if you ever need somone to approved a proposal.

I think that a hot issue would be good to stir things up, and I will set about writing one up. Btw if your looking for a region just send me a telegram.

-That isnt all

Stop the Flaming Crap please, this issue is dead, for now.

un sucks un sucks un sucks un sucks

Jackuul: I admire your resolve in deciding to draft a proposal on this issue. While I do not believe as you do, a debate is always good.

I would suggest putting the drafts on the UN board so that people may offer constructive criticism before you submit it, rather than death threats after it has been submitted.

well, Komokom responded in the manner in which I had suspected..

I know.
I defended myself.
I should stop doing that.
I suppose its best to let people walk all over me.
I know,
I deserve it.

Uh no, the sarcasm dripped to far and now its stained the carpet...

Quite frankly Aeolian, you're the one who decided to specifically target me, and if you insist on doing so then fine, quite frankly though it is you who is an "ass" should you think I would sit and take it. :)

as for my not having any evidence for support for any of my claims in my post: You're absolutely right!
I'm just trying to imitate the great Komokom.

You think I am great, wow, you admire me, I'm touched! :)

As for this issue not needing to be settled now: You're absolutely right again!
I know that there is too much division.

Now I think of it, I would not say too much division, I would say rather too many people trying the metaphorically apply the paddles to a issue which has been clinically dead for an equal metaphorical degree of 30 minutes.

:roll:

As for my post being inappropriately rude and a personal attack on you:
Dang it! You're absolutely right again.
I can't imagine that you were too happy while reading it, nor were you inteded to be.

At first I admit I had a tinge of anger, more that you were using a debate to your own ends by flaming me for holding an opinion, maybe I did over-react in my original post, how-ever,

Had the actual thread creator voiced his concerns in a civil fashion, I would have gladly considered deleting it or re-wording it to be more impersonal/clinical.

As for you not insulting the author of the proposal:
You're absolutely wrong! You refered to the author as one of "you people" and said he needed to grow up, presumably you meant mainly intellectually.

Yes, you people, I did say that. As in:

"You people, who insit on raising this issue every week, only for it to be shot down by the exact same arguments every time, while others try to get atention for their fresh ideas."

Also, you completely mis-read the quote on growing up, I was relating the amount of "growing up" to the amount of said "failure" in other words, be prepared for this not to pass. But hey, I understand your view, you were too busy trying to flame me, rather then focusing on your publicised ability to "read". :wink:

I felt that this was in no way fair, and decided to try to give you a taste of your own medicine.
I'm nothing compared to the master, of course.

1) I felt it was not fair too, no one likes being harrassed out in the open as you seemed fit to do to me. I simply made one post, voicing my opinions on the matter. You, decided to target me it seems for your own ego inflation.

2) My own medicine? I know what it tastes like, yucky. I am sick of the flu and the requisite broad-spectrum anti-biotics. :wink:

3) I usualy consider people calling me master some kind of wierd kinky thing they have, but as your such a fore-mentioned admirer of mine, I'll take it as another compliment.

As for me being a noob (this is the first time I've heard that used outside of MOHAA): not quite. You've probably been around here longer than I.

Errrr, I think i was wrong here, its I've never said nOOb before, last time I saw it it was in the context of "newbie" so I assumed. Okay, just replace newbie for nOOb if that helps. Glad to be of assistance. :)

However, I've been debating politics for quite a while now, and though I still lose my cool, mainly with professional politicians, from both parties, as neither side is nearly as honest with their employers, we the people, as I feel they should be. For example: Clinton Lied. Bush Lied. I'll not lie: I'm a conservative, and feel that maybe Bush isn't the best for us anymore, though I still feel he's better than Kerry. but that's not why I'm writing, though I'd still love to debate it.

I'm glad to see you've such interest in the running of your country, especially a democracy, I too enjoy such debate in mine, I only wish more people were serious about it. :wink:

In short:
Komokom, I merely want you to be more respectful towards people in the future, and I'll return the favor. I was upset seeing that every post I see you make is just breaking up all the lines from someone else's post and insulting them for each line. Perhaps you didn't realize you were doing this, but I'm simply not usually a fan of mud-slinging.

I am quite respectful of people, when they are respectful of me. If they insist on flaming me to their own ends, they can how ever be to take the running jump one hears of.

I'm sorry you don't like how I make counter-arguments, and I will take your opinion on board, but quite frankly its how I personally lay out my counter arguments, it *usually* makes them easier to understand for others who read them and eliminates most confusion. Since how-ever you simply ripped into me, to "teach me a lesson" it seems. Then and I quote, "boo-hoo".

Anyway, I must be off.

Let me guess, a hipocrites work is never done?

Farewell to all, and may an abortion resolution never come to vote.

I agree with you, no pro-choice, no pro-life,cause its all a moral issue not to be placed upon as a legal burden the many, many, nations who feel strongly one way or the other.

Nice posting with you as you've been "slightly" more civil,

- The Rep of Komokom.

All I wanted was support for this long dead proposal, I shall set about writing my own. As for you Komokom you dont seem to hold the same views I do, I accept that, but immature behavior only shows the downfall of your culture.

1) Well, I find it odd despite the majority of those who did not like the proposal, you decide to write a new one, I would assume with similar politics of the old, but, if its well written, then go for it, I am always glad to see a well written proposal up for debate. Even if I and regular viewers know it will not have a snow flakes chance. :)

2) Your right, I don't hold the same views as you, and I do apologise for my original post, had you simply asked in a civil fashion for me to remove it, I would have done so, or I would have altered it along the lines of your concerns to make it more acceptable while still demonstrating my views. But, since every-one reverted to name calling. No.

Calling me immature and making a vague referance to my "cultures down-fall" makes no sense at all.

Are you being intentionally racist or simply ignorant of me and mine?

Aeolian thank you for your support and you will be remembered if you ever need somone to approved a proposal.

Ah, the old boys net goes global, Rumpole would be proud, :wink:

I think that a hot issue would be good to stir things up, and I will set about writing one up. Btw if your looking for a region just send me a telegram.

It did, because most were sick of hearing it. Its was like watching a child poke a wasp nest just to get stung. Perhaps a bad anology, but I call it as I saw it.

And don't worry, I found a good one (region), I built it myself. :D

Flaming crap? (mental image) :wink:

Yuck.

Oh, Aeolian, he may mean you too, and as you respect him so much... as do I in a way, we should both do as he says, so, truce out of respect for the good gentleman here?

Yours, as always,

- The Rep of Komokom.

Just a slight side note here....

However, I've been debating politics for quite a while now, and though I still lose my cool, mainly with professional politicians, from both parties, as neither side is nearly as honest with their employers, we the people, as I feel they should be. For example: Clinton Lied. Bush Lied. I'll not lie: I'm a conservative, and feel that maybe Bush isn't the best for us anymore, though I still feel he's better than Kerry. but that's not why I'm writing, though I'd still love to debate it.

how many times have I seen people say they are active politicians or have an interest in politics, or have been an active poster in another political board? It's three or four times now, and all have been recent applicants to the UN.

I might be cynical here, but I do have to wonder how many people are "claiming" they have a background outside of NS which makes them an authority on certain matters. I'm sure some of them might be political, but I certainly take such claims with a hefty pinch of salt.

With all due respect Hirota, I don't think that you need to have any credentials to debate political issues. Heck, I'm just a college student. All you really need is a knowledge of the issue, an opinion on it, and an open mind to other views. You do not necessarily have to agree with everyone, just accept the fact that there are others out there who do not agree with you.

Unashamed Christians

With all due respect Hirota, I don't think that you need to have any credentials to debate political issues. Heck, I'm just a college student. All you really need is a knowledge of the issue, an opinion on it, and an open mind to other views. You do not necessarily have to agree with everyone, just accept the fact that there are others out there who do not agree with you.

Unashamed Christians

WHAT? :?: :?: :?:

I didn't say you had to have credentials, I just find it disappointing that people think that because they CLAIM to have credentials they have some sort of senority. I've seen it three or four times. Twice in the last 48 hours.

I don't know where you got the idea that I think anyone needs credentials, and even though I might be half asleep at the moment, I know I didn't say that!

moreover, I'm glad we don't need credentials, as I'm sorely lacking in that regard!

I did not mean offense Hirota, the tone of your previous message made it sound like you needed credentials to debate an issue. My apologies.

Unashamed Christians

I did not mean offense Hirota, the tone of your previous message made it sound like you needed credentials to debate an issue. My apologies.

No worries.

I think I'm going to take a break from NS for today, that twice I've been confusing and vague.... :oops:

Let me guess, a hipocrites work is never done?

I had assumed you would know this almost as well as I do. :D
Then again we all know what assuming does, but it seems it's too late for both of us in that respect.

hopefully our fued can now be finished, and from here on we'll engage in more civil debating.

I can't say I'm proud of my first response, but I was very careful to word it in a way that I wouldn't regret, and while that didn't work out completely, I must confess that I offer no appologies. Nor do I expect you to.

Let's just leave this here, which will soon be the past.

Let me guess, a hipocrites work is never done?

I had assumed you would know this almost as well as I do. :D
Then again we all know what assuming does, but it seems it's too late for both of us in that respect.

hopefully our fued can now be finished, and from here on we'll engage in more civil debating.

I can't say I'm proud of my first response, but I was very careful to word it in a way that I wouldn't regret, and while that didn't work out completely, I must confess that I offer no appologies. Nor do I expect you to.

Let's just leave this here, which will soon be the past.

Indeedy.

* Meta-thing'y shaking of hands in the good sport fashion.

:)

- The Rep of Komokom.