NationStates Jolt Archive

Please! For all our sakes, do not vote FOR this resolution! Vote AGAINST!

As pleasurable as it may be to 14 year old, horny boys playing this game to view uninebriated, bare breasts, it is NOT something that falls within UN jurisdiction. Some seem confused. It's the issue page which controls thing in your own country. Don't force your nudism on the rest of us. It is not a verifiable right for all in the world.

I really don't know why I waste my breath...

Hopeless!

Agreed. Whole-heartedly. The resolution is not even a real "resolution." Two, misspelled, unintelligent sentences do not a law make. Could a mod please delete this on the grounds of unworthiness, before it's too late.

BTW, in case people are wondering as to what we are referring to, this proposal has just reached quorum. Unbelievably.

Bare Breast Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Evil Dragons Breath (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=evil_dragons_breath)

Description: This act will make it legal for women to bare brest in public. If it's legal for men to do it, it shall be legal for all.

Approvals: 146 (WTF???)

Actually, it is legal in many nations for anyone to view uninebriated bare breasts. They just happen to be on guys, not girls. So, whether or not it is voted for changes nothing about that. This is just some person's attempt at leveling the field in that area.

But, I agree on the grounds of wording. It is very bad. However, if it did pass it wouldn't be the first badly-worded UN resolution to pass.

It is possible that if the proposal ahead of this reaches the queue first that we won't have to "bare" the brunt of this resolution for a few more days.

Think positive thoughts: this resolution will be an interesting test of the voting behavior of the UN. It could be the second Human Rights resolution to fail (and I would love to see a single poorly written resolution fall below the 40% approval rating -- which is the current low-point).

So what is the intel on its author?

The author is a young nation, high on civil rights, low on political, and has a rather powerful economy for its age. The country stole from Trogdor for its slogan. Otherwise, the country is an unknown and someone who never played in the international field before.

Population 16 million. I'm not surprised.

Not to play Lucy's advocate but why should this not be law? It doesn't force toplessness on women, it just permits them to do it if they want to.

I don't think it should pass, and quite honestly I can't see how it made it this far, and I think whether people can be naked or not should be up to the individual, not the state and certainly not the UN.

Could a mod please delete this on the grounds of unworthiness, before it's too late..Not gonna happen. From #themodcave:

<Frisbeeteria> Bare Breast Act
<Frisbeeteria> front page, in queue
<SalusaSecondus> Yeah, looks valid
<Frisbeeteria> damn
<SalusaSecondus> That exact logic is behind laws in several US states and portions of Canada
* SalusaSecondus sees nothing inappropriate or sexual behind it
<Frisbeeteria> we sure have some bored players, though
<Frisbeeteria> all righty then - appreciate the ruling

Not to play Lucy's advocate but why should this not be law? It doesn't force toplessness on women, it just permits them to do it if they want to.

It does, though, force the issue of toplessness upon nations. Nations now "must" define as decent exposure in public the topless woman.

I don't think it should pass, and quite honestly I can't see how it made it this far, and I think whether people can be naked or not should be up to the individual, not the state and certainly not the UN.

I hope it doesn't pass, though I don't have a lot of faith in the general UN population (judging from some of the lack of quality in discussion on resolutions in the past--not all, but some---was quite embarrassing).

And I agree. This is at best a national issue, I feel. This is the governing of people's own bodies. Any government involvement in it should be kept to as local of levels as possible. I believe the spirit of this idea ("the localest representation possible is the bestest"), is shown in "Sexual Freedom"

The UN, also, Has legislated in the past to prevent indecent exposure ("outaw pedophilia"), and this would seem be contradictory to that precedent IMHO. As a parent, I'd want to protect my young children from witnessing sights which could produce sexually explicit results. Or, at least, let countries in the UN have the option of doing so, making people in public places keep their shirts on.

Public areas are areas all citizens must share. And through this the UN is stating that the young either do not require protection from such "adult motifs", or that they do not share in the public stock of property in our countries.

If it's truly about levelling the playing field, should we install urinals in ladies bathrooms? The playing field seems unlevel because there are no sexual organs (if the mammory gland can be defined as a sexual organ, which I believe it can) on males above the waist. The UN still allows member nations to make laws to keep men from unzupping in public. It cannot, with any form of legitimate consensus in the UN, be proven that the above-waist sexual organs of females must be shown, simply because men can show their un-be-organed chests. IF they can do that in the member nations.

That's the biggest problem I have with that resolution. Each nation thus far has been allowed to legislate on its own regarding publid indecency and nudity. There are too many "If this nation has this law" or "If this nation allows this or that" for me to feel there's any good reason for this to be here.

No reason at all, actually. Expect for a hormone starting with the letter "T". One that's been gaining in popularity amongst some sects of teenage boys ever since February 2nd, when "a boob let her boob out".

I'm disgraced.

If anything else, consider the economic impacts! If this goes through, the resulting business lost from strip clubs will be enormous! That is, IF your nation isn't already one giant strip club...

Not to play Lucy's advocate but why should this not be law? It doesn't force toplessness on women, it just permits them to do it if they want to.

I don't think it should pass, and quite honestly I can't see how it made it this far, and I think whether people can be naked or not should be up to the individual, not the state and certainly not the UN.

Simple answer:
No display of international standing.

The reply to which might be:
It is a basic human right to run around topless.

The response is:
And people have that right, at home. But public nudity or state of dress, is a cultural issue, best left up to local laws. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there were a few complusory nudist states too, but I don't think that a "human rights" law repealing those laws would fly either.


Frankly, I agree that the proposal should be brought before us as a resolution. But my government will most likely be voting this one down (huge donations to the Klatuu Children's Relief Fund might change that opinion). ;)

But in all fairness, a month or two ago this proposal could easily have been zapped on the "not worthy of the UN's time". The Zombie Familiarization Act I felt was worth bringing forward but feel prey to the same standard. What I'd like is a mod ruling on if the difference is as SS put it, being able to point to real examples ... or if this is a bias against Tech Level: Arcane Magic socities. (Reanimination is one of the many fields of Necromancy.)

I'd say it was bias against tech level... But then again, if they have "bigtopians" and "lilliputians" in the issues, we should be able to have aliens and the undead in proposals...

I'd say it was bias against tech level... But then again, if they have "bigtopians" and "lilliputians" in the issues, we should be able to have aliens and the undead in proposals...

Bigtopians? Lilliputians? Sorry got a really funny mental image there, for a sec.

*laughs crazily*

Aw, poop. I think I need to change my pants, now.

Oh well, what better place than...[drumroll]...Main street?!

*walks out to Main st.*

ZIP!

RUFFLE, RUFFLE!

ZIP!

*walks back to house...*

*votes AGAINST*

Bigtopians? Lilliputians? Sorry got a really funny mental image there, for a sec.

*laughs crazily*

Aw, poop. I think I need to change my pants, now.

Oh well, what better place than...[drumroll]...Main street?!

*walks out to Main st.*

ZIP!

RUFFLE, RUFFLE!

ZIP!

*walks back to house...*

*votes AGAINST*

Being from Virginia Beach, I always used to enjoy going to the ocean-front to play monopoly.... you know... Mediterranean Ave., Baltic Ave. Artic Ave. Pacific Ave. Atlantic Ave. Boardwalk....

Considering I'm a ruler that once forced his people to be publically nude in response to decency complaints about clothes, I really don't see how this is a problem. I only object to the wording level.

*THIS* made quorum, and I'm still scrambling for votes on "Definition of Marriage"????

*shakes head*

I thought for maybe a few days that the UN had finally turned around with some quality proposals and even resolutions making it to the floor... how very wrong I was! :mad:

I thought for maybe a few days that the UN had finally turned around with some quality proposals and even resolutions making it to the floor... how very wrong I was! :mad:

As much as things change, they always stay the same...

I don't suppose this would make any difference:

Merriam-Webster Online: http://www.m-w.com/

One entry found for Brest.

Main Entry: Brest
Pronunciation: 'brest
Usage: geographical name
1 or formerly Brest Li·tovsk /li-'tofsk/ city SW Belarus on Bug River population 277,000
2 commune & port NW France in Brittany population 153,099

We appear to have both a France and Belarus region in Nationstates.

Oh, wait, it's lower case, rats.... :P

I don't suppose this would make any difference:

Merriam-Webster Online: http://www.m-w.com/

One entry found for Brest.

Main Entry: Brest
Pronunciation: 'brest
Usage: geographical name
1 or formerly Brest Li·tovsk /li-'tofsk/ city SW Belarus on Bug River population 277,000
2 commune & port NW France in Brittany population 153,099

We appear to have both a France and Belarus region in Nationstates.

Oh, wait, it's lower case, rats.... :P

If you're into Elizabethian, it's also the 3rd person singular of bursteth... These people should be held accountable for poor language.

As much as things change, they always stay the same...

Yeah, I know, I should tell myself that, but I have just a shred of hope left I keep clinging to in the UN forum! Ah, the agony!

>These people should be held accountable for poor language.

*nodding in agreement*

Would this not be covered by the human rights initiative?

Are there any legitimate counters that haven't already been discussed?

:headbang:

I'm with you, Hack.

:headbang:

And that makes three.
:headbang:

It's gone!!!!

The "Rights of Women and Minorities" proposal is up, and the brest proposal is not in the list, where it should be the very first one.

So whatever happened to Sal's ruling?

It's gone!!!!

The "Rights of Women and Minorities" proposal is up, and the brest proposal is not in the list, where it should be the very first one.

Thank the mods! I was afraid we were going to have to debate this thing seriously.

The mods were smart enough to know we should be allowed to bursteth in public ("brest", elizabethian english, 3rd person singular of bursteth)

*THIS* made quorum, and I'm still scrambling for votes on "Definition of Marriage"????

*shakes head*

It's sad, isn't it? Oh well, I have a list of the delegates that approved it (at home, actually) so maybe they can be suckered into other proposals. I'm trying to start lists or databases of probable approving delegates to telegram, but I just find myself lacking time. I'll try to get this one out if anyone would like. maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow.

It's sad, isn't it? Oh well, I have a list of the delegates that approved it (at home, actually) so maybe they can be suckered into other proposals. I'm trying to start lists or databases of probable approving delegates to telegram, but I just find myself lacking time. I'll try to get this one out if anyone would like. maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow.

The IDU forum (link in my signature) has a list of UN Delegates from October that all said they would be happy to receive telegrams and look at proposals. It also has a do not call list.

Anybody interested in finding some friendly and receptive endorsements should feel free to use the list.



As for the reason for this proposal making it in the queue instead of definition of marriage, folks ... not everybody shares the inner clique's opinions on what is important and pressing. I think that the Chipmunks have the right idea. We now have a shopping list of UN Delegates that at some level support basic human rights. (And I've actually worked with a few of those delegates before ... they are very friendly and should be respected just the same as anybody else.)

I've campaigned for *many* proposals, and I've found that it is very rare that one makes it into the queue without either help from allies or a few tries in the queue. The Epidemic Prevention Protocol was the fastest I've seen a proposal run through the proposal queue on its way to the UN floor. Hui Bei and his ally (was tht Slackerness???) worked really hard. I'm guessing many of you who are delegates got a message from their team.

Definition of Marriage will get up there. No need to worry about that.


As for the reason for this one being deleted, I think if the Zombie Familiarization Act can be deleted for being "Not worthy of the UNs consideration", then perhaps one of the moderators gave this one a second look. I still would appreciate a ruling and will go to the moderation forum to find out why, because I suspect that a bit of googling might turn up similar real-world laws. *shrug*

Dur, whats your signature?

(as you may have guessed, I'm not that good with forums)

:rolleyes: Yeah, kinda figured that. Signatures are placed at the very bottom of posts automatically. Mik's starts with "The Confederated City States of Mikitivity"

I will accept telegrams and review proposals...

Generally I scan through the queue every 2-4 days, but I will generally look at specific ones if telegramed ASAP.

In my real world life it may take a day or so, because of the contract I'm out on now.

I think the problem you're having, Grand Teton, is signatures are turned off in your forum preferences. I think sigs being off is the default setting (since some have fairly long sigs and that can be annoying to some people). If you mess around with your profile, somewhere in there it should give you the option of viewing sigs.

Then again, this might not be the problem. Oh well. At least we're all still sailors :D

I will accept telegrams and review proposals...

Generally I scan through the queue every 2-4 days, but I will generally look at specific ones if telegramed ASAP.

In my real world life it may take a day or so, because of the contract I'm out on now.


Thanks Hersfold.

For those of you that don't have your forum settings set up to view other people's signature files, you can find the International Democratic Union's "Call List" at:

http://s4.invisionfree.com/The_IDU/index.php?showtopic=38

The list was started in late Sept. 2004, so some of the nations may be inactive. My plan is to update the list about once a quarter ... meaning I wasn't planning on checking names until Jan. But I'm always happy to add nations (at their request). Hersfold messaged my government with the categories they would be most interested in.

I would like to ask all UN Delegates to view the lists. They are divided into UN Resolution Categories, which should make it easy for nations that say do not support "Gambling" to simply ask to not be included on that list.

If you are not a UN member, but would like to act as a point of contact (meaning you'd still like to receive telegrams and would be happy to forward them onto your delegate if you feel the proposals are worth your region's time) I'll still add you to that list.

When a nation telegrams my nation (which is not a UN Delegate), we always forward the request on to the current IDU Delegate. Other IDU members do the same.

Tekania, would you specifically like to be added to any of these lists?

Thanks Hersfold.

For those of you that don't have your forum settings set up to view other people's signature files, you can find the International Democratic Union's "Call List" at:

http://s4.invisionfree.com/The_IDU/index.php?showtopic=38

The list was started in late Sept. 2004, so some of the nations may be inactive. My plan is to update the list about once a quarter ... meaning I wasn't planning on checking names until Jan. But I'm always happy to add nations (at their request). Hersfold messaged my government with the categories they would be most interested in.

I would like to ask all UN Delegates to view the lists. They are divided into UN Resolution Categories, which should make it easy for nations that say do not support "Gambling" to simply ask to not be included on that list.

If you are not a UN member, but would like to act as a point of contact (meaning you'd still like to receive telegrams and would be happy to forward them onto your delegate if you feel the proposals are worth your region's time) I'll still add you to that list.

When a nation telegrams my nation (which is not a UN Delegate), we always forward the request on to the current IDU Delegate. Other IDU members do the same.

Tekania, would you specifically like to be added to any of these lists?

Yes...

I will support most gun control (relaxing), recreational drugs resolutions... And I will consider most Human Rights and Social Justice resolutions... On rare occations I may back a moral decency (though extreamly unlikely), and I have a policy not to touch any resolutions involving Commerce.

As you will see if you look at the list above, I will also gladly accept telegrams about the following categories:


Moral Decency
Human Rights
Political Stability
Social Justice
Gun Control proposals that tighten the laws


As his lists say, I do not promise to approve these proposals, but I will at least look at them and give you some pointers.

Please do not send me any stupid proposals, however. I will not approve anything that is simply too idiotic to darken the UN's door. ;)

This resolution is a sad waste of time. Maybe I don't want to see everyone's breasts. :eek:

While I agree the wording is stupid, and it was probably started as a chauvinistic joke, I don't see a problem with the idea.

The supreme court in the us made it clear in its decisions on obscenity (supporting laws limiting it), that it should be remembered that there is no evidence that any harm is caused simply by seeing breasts, or body parts, or whatever.

It's not gone.

It's in the Queue.


....shudder....

It's not gone.

It's in the Queue.


....shudder....

Nope. It's gone. If it were in the queue, it would remain until it came time to vote on it. Remember how, with the last nukes one, we had one in queue after it for a few days until someone deleted it?

Arr, it be hot an' muggy in our Caribbees!
Think o' tha poor sufferin womenfolk all gussied up.
Nothin' like some good AC ("ample chests") on a sultry day!