NationStates Jolt Archive

< OOC: Since Pilot's proposal looks to be the next resolution up for voting on the U.N. floor, I have started this thread in advance to allow maximum time for debate.>


NS HIV AIDS Act: A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Strong

Proposal
DECLARING that the level of HIV and AIDS infection across the world has grown to the point whereas it demands immediate action;

DEEPLY DISTURBED over the lack of attention given to the problem;

NOTING FURTHER the NationStates United Nations obligation to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of its member nations;

RECOGNIZING the advances made by the United Nations Resolution #32 "Global AIDS Initiative", as well as its limitations;

BELIEVING that through a series of early diagnosis measures, medical accessibility and education, and further research the world could advance far in eliminating the HIV and AIDS viruses;

REQUESTS the following steps be taken to curb the proliferation of this deadly ailment:

i. Expansion of the United Nations Council on AIDS (UNAIDS), allocating it sufficient and adequate budget to hire staff and management, purchase top-grade equipment and finance international operations.

ii. Expansion of the United Nations Council on AIDS (UNAIDS) mission offices to all member states of the United Nations. This project would be slotted to finish after ten yearly budget cycles and the funds will be drawn from that budget to finance it.

iii. Establishment of Know HIV/AIDS program, which will operate internationally as a media outlet for education and prevention of the virus through on-air public service messages and outdoor advertisements, television and radio programming, and free print and online content.

iv. Creation of Think HIV/AIDS program that will use a large portion of the funds to explore the following possibilities: (1) nanotechnology and biomedical developments may allow a designer virus and/or micro machine and/or bacterium to safely course through the body and destroy the virus; (2) development of alternatives to blood transfusion – an operation that has helped to spread the virus – including blood substitutes, volume expanders, or new growth factors. These possibilities are to be given priority but in no way restrict nations from expanding their research into other areas of possible cure and/or vaccine and/or treatment.

v. Establishment of public health departments, a Treat HIV/AIDS program, in developing and poor nations, with the ability to deploy the educational and research programs aforementioned, to be overseen by the IRCO until such time as sufficient and adequate budget and manpower exists to maintain the programs domestically.

vi. Creation of Eliminate HIV/AIDS program throughout member states that implore the uses of education in schools and hospitals, including seminars for children “coming of age” about the dangers of HIV and AIDS and instructions on how to protect themselves with the most current and efficient methods available in the world.

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT United Nations resolution #42, "Increased Access to Medicine”, a large portion of the funds from the “Eliminate HIV/AIDS" program will be used to teach citizens of the member states who are already infected with HIV or AIDS how to remain in compliance with their medication and therapy regimens, and to teach citizens who are not infected how to avoid coming into contact with the virus;

RECOMMENDS that all member states will adopt a law that punishes those citizens knowledgably infected with the virus that transmit it to other citizens;

DECLARES ACCORDINGLY that all member nations report full statistics of HIV and AIDS infection to the United Nations Council on AIDS (UNAIDS).

As always, we thank the 151 nations that allowed us to reach quorum with this proposal and we look forward to working with the U.N. community to get the proposal past.

Signed,
~ Pilot Ambassador to the United Nations, Nicolas Dannon

You do realize that the top-of-the-line tech is FT, right?

I'll vote in favor and try to get Tiamat's new regional delegate to vote in favor as well.

Hello,

On behalf of my I'd like to quickly address this assembly. As the sponsor of the previous HIV/AIDS related resolution, Needle Sharing Prevention, the Confederated City States of Mikitivity takes great interest in the global HIV/AIDS epidemic.

While having experienced many NS UN debates before, I'm well aware that many of you travel in space ships to the planet Earth to talk to many of our nations, and that some of you will remind us that your nations do not have a HIV/AIDS epidemic.

If that is true, did you vote yes on the many Human Rights issues, such as the Convention on Genocide or Definition of Marriage because your nation has problems with genocide or coming up with its own definition of marriage?

The answer is no. Many of our nations may have no problems with genocide or say granting homosexuals the exact same rights as heterosexuals, and yet our governments saw that even though our own populations would neither benefit nor be harmed by seeking international cooperation and agreement on those topics, we still passed many of those basic human rights resolutions with resounding majorities!

Now we are faced with a social justice program, and one that we might be tempted to say, "But this doesn't hurt me!" While it is clear that often we will vote for international issues that really don't impact our nations, I'd now like to make a case to all of the other capitalist nations like the Confederated City States of Mikitivity, that in fact, a HIV/AIDS problem in another nation, does represent an economic threat to you.

However, my time is limited ... so instead I'd encourage fellow capitalist nations to read the following international report from many private businesses:

http://www.worldbank.org/aids-econ/confront/confrontfull/chapter2/chp2sub3.html

As you read through the document, I'd like to call attention to the following written by one business executive:


There is a significant economic impact of HIV/AIDS on businesses and economies that business ignores at its own peril. AIDS imposes a day-to-day economic 'tax' that compromises business productivity. This represents sufficient motiviation in itself, but at Standard Chartered ...

in one country we observed that on any given day 10% of our staff were absent because of HIV-related matters.

In short, as you read the report, you'll see this theme echoed, not by government employees, but experienced private business executives.

For a capitalist nations, we must recognize that our economies enjoy a world devoid of many political created economic barriers, but a widespread health problem in one nation, can create a medical economic barrier that in effect limits our economic freedoms and slows the capacity of our companies. In short, AIDS is a threat many national work forces. And since our nations actively trade and interact, these work forces are something of a global asset, and must be protected.

Remember, unlike military or political conflicts, when one nations trade begins to unbalance or destablize another nation's currency, while it might be easier to purchase services and material from that other country, our own exports become more expensive to that nation.

Now perhaps a more important question is, does this resolution attempt to mitigate some of the "costs" related to HIV/AIDS. It is my government's opinion that the key of this resolution is:

iii. Establishment of Know HIV/AIDS program, which will operate internationally as a media outlet for education and prevention of the virus through on-air public service messages and outdoor advertisements, television and radio programming, and free print and online content.


There is absolutely no doubt in my government's mind that prevention has been proven to be an effective means at reducing costs -- a position my government has used when advocating for invasive species protection, natural diasaster forecasting systems, and finally adopting innovative national level medical programs such as needle exchange programs.

In short, I can assure you that my government considers the time and Spice Melange devoted to supporting the UNAIDS work suggested by this resolution to be future time, Spice Melange, and lives saved.

Our regional delegate has supported this proposal already. We are sure that this resolution will enjoy the support of nearly the entirety of our very large region when it becomes votable.
As always, we are prepared to offer any assistance required of us.

Denusia,
Senior U.N Representative,
Principality of Prachya

Hello,

this is my first time posting, so I don't know if I do everything right...
anyway, concerning the resolution, I am personally not sure yet wether I would vote in favour or against, this has to do with several points...

first of all, I think that 'coming of age' is rather vague, this is supposed to be a serious matter, but on these words you can't really depend...

2nd. The advertisement idea should be something that can only be implemented in More Economically Developed Countries where the rate of illiteracy is low and people actually understand the subject. I don't think it's realistic to start advertisement campaigns in nations that are unable to get in contact with their inhabitants...

finally, I liked the idea of research for nano-technology, but I think this is something that should be funded by the International Bank for Research and Development (IBRD), it would be pointless to have this fund by UNAIDS, seeing that UNAIDS lacks the knowledge of this matter...

For the rest I believe this is a very good resolution and I am still leaning towards voting in favour of it...

As I said in the last post, I cannot support this proposal:

1. Firstly, I think it is the countries own problem not somebody else's. If they can't sort their own country thats their prerogative.
2. Secondly, how much money and for how long have we given these third world countries again? What have they got to show for it? More diesese and death.........nice!
3. Lastly, there is no aids in the nation of The Irish Brotherhood and to be honest, we have given enough money to these third worlders! :)

I know many of you will not like me after this outburst, but hey! Believe me, my dear delegates, you are never going to sort out the AIDS/HIV problem in Africa. You cant teach them anything apart from picking up an AK-47 and shooting each other.

After a lot of consideration I voted against this resolution,

the clause that states to implement more advertisement action is probably the worst, very simple: Lesser Economically Developed Countries are unable to get in contact with their inhabitants because of a lack of media... and the inhabitants of More Economically Developed Countries can simply jump to any kind of search engine, type in: AIDS HIV, and get all the information they need, so for LEDCs this clause would be futile and for MEDCs this clause would be redundant. all in all, this clause is just a waste of money...

I still stand behind my previous statements as well and urge you all to vote against this reso...

I have a few points to raise in oposition to this resolution:

1 - the 'coming of age' is incredibly vague and pointless, AIDS and HIV can affect you at any age and from many forms other than just sexual intercourse and blood transfusions.

2 - I think the blood tansfusion solution is a good idea and should be researched into its own resolution from investigation and development of donations - the science is there it just needs more funding.

3 - The Kingdom of Gologothir will NOT support a resolution that implies that I have to implement a law against my own citizens who have HIV or AIDS. This should be up to the nations own discretion and this area of the law and the situation is to bague to catergorize as you have - it requires a lot more depth into the individual situation, the cause and effect and the people involved.

4 - Nano technology will be fully endorsed by the Kingdom of Golgothir and we submit our own private funds, scientists and other resources into this development - but a resolution against exploitation and wrongful usuage will need to be investigated and developed to prevent a dangerour tool or even weapon from being used.

In conclusion, if the issue of law is removed from the resolution then I will vote in favour, if not, I will vote against.

On the face of it I was completely in favour of this proposal but on reflection I had a few issues with it. I would vote for with a few amendments to the proposal, but as it stands I'm not in full support of the resolution. However I would never vote no for a proposal that has a fundamentally correct proposal i have therefore chosen to abstain.

Main Issues where.

RECOMMENDS that all member states will adopt a law that punishes those citizens knowledgably infected with the virus that transmit it to other citizens;

DECLARES ACCORDINGLY that all member nations report full statistics of HIV and AIDS infection to the United Nations Council on AIDS (UNAIDS).

It is conceivable that a knowingly HIV+ person has consenting sex with a partner that is fully aware of the risks and although precautions taken to ensure safety, accidental infection takes place (due to split condom etc).

If however the resolution is talking about those who knowingly infect another non-consenting or unaware partner, then yes I would agree, however the resolution as it stands does not state this.

I also believe that the statement covering "full statistics" implies that individuals be recorded and details made known to the UN as in some sort of register. I believe this contrevenes human rights to privacy and liberty. I would however support an "anonymous" presentation of statistical numbers of infections for collation.

As I said in the last post, I cannot support this proposal:

1. Firstly, I think it is the countries own problem not somebody else's. If they can't sort their own country thats their prerogative.
2. Secondly, how much money and for how long have we given these third world countries again? What have they got to show for it? More diesese and death.........nice!
3. Lastly, there is no aids in the nation of The Irish Brotherhood and to be honest, we have given enough money to these third worlders! :)

I know many of you will not like me after this outburst, but hey! Believe me, my dear delegates, you are never going to sort out the AIDS/HIV problem in Africa. You cant teach them anything apart from picking up an AK-47 and shooting each other.



Uh-oh
Nation Not Found: "Africa"

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

The Protectorate of Supremas agrees with 99% of this resolution. But, there is one little line we don't agree with.

RECOMMENDS that all member states will adopt a law that punishes those citizens knowledgably infected with the virus that transmit it to other citizens;

Supremas does not agree with that. If the infected party alerts the other party, and the other party is infected nevertheless, then the originally infected party has no liability, or responsibility, because he/she warned the other party about the risks they were going to take when partaking in a "risky" activity.

this proposal sounds like it would be for the best.
however, in reality, it would simply be a waste of government funds and/or tax payer's money. today, there are over 1 billion people that know what aids/hiv is and how to get it. however, this does not stop them from taking risks; ie: unprotected sex, sharing needles, etc.

though, it sounds as if it would make a perfect world, it would be a waste of time. that is my view on this proposal.

I am certain there will be some things about this proposal that seem a little vague, but I believe that will allow each nation to make some determinations on what it means to them, also allowing them to be in compliance and help the world by slowing down (maybe stopping) the transmission of a very deadly virus with tragic consequences.

Education is vital to the worlds fight against HIV/AIDS, as well as many other diseases and illnesses.

Slender Goddess

The Protectorate of Supremas agrees with 99% of this resolution. But, there is one little line we don't agree with.

Supremas does not agree with that. If the infected party alerts the other party, and the other party is infected nevertheless, then the originally infected party has no liability, or responsibility, because he/she warned the other party about the risks they were going to take when partaking in a "risky" activity.

I ageee with you thinking here, but couldn't there a caveat that says something about written acknowledgement by all parties?

The Protectorate of Supremas agrees with 99% of this resolution. But, there is one little line we don't agree with.

Supremas does not agree with that. If the infected party alerts the other party, and the other party is infected nevertheless, then the originally infected party has no liability, or responsibility, because he/she warned the other party about the risks they were going to take when partaking in a "risky" activity.

We would like to make it clear that that clause is a recommendation only and is not a requirement of implimenting this resolution.

Signed,
~ Pilot Ambassador to the United Nations, Nicolas Dannon

(First UN Debate.... work with me, people)
Texastein's leader, the great and honorable Jes-man, wishes that I pass along his thoughts on this matter.
1) The legality issue on punishing for knowingly infecting people needs an overhaul. I understand the intent, but lawyers will abuse it. If Dick knows or even suspects he has cooties (HIV/AIDS, now known as H/A,) then Dick is responsible for telling Jane she may be at risk BEFORE Jane gets with Dick. Yes, in writing would be nice, he could have lil business cards printed up sayin something like "I think I have cooties. How about a drink?" But let's be real, a prenup for a one-night stand or prostitues aint gonna happen.
Dick has his rights to privacy, so he should only have to show his test results to someone he may be about to hook up with. By law, the person hookin up with Dick is bound by a privacy act as well to not tell of his condition. But that's another issue.
2) Nanotech. I figure I may be in a minority here, but I, personally, am very skittish of nanotech. Perhaps it can work wonders, but the very thought of millions of microscopic robots coursing through my veins makes me shudder. So, I suppose my populace may have the same apprehensions. And the thought of pumping millions of "Tex" into med research for nanotech is a turn off. We'd rather research other things to do with nanos. So, we'd rather propose an alternative to nanos for people who feel the same way. Which goes back to the drawing board on what to do about cooties.
As of this moment, Texastein remains UNDECIDED and will further consult and consider the issue. However; we strongly recommend the legal issue to be rewritten or scrapped. A whole other proposal on medical privacy should be in order with greater detail for my afore mentioned scenario.
Texastein yeilds it's chair to the next speaker.

< OOC: I hope you all will not be offended if I am a little lax on responding to your questions. I am Catholic, I celebrate Christmas, and so does my family - so I do have to leave NS for a day or two to spend time with them. >

Bootlandia intends to vote in favor of this resolution. The only qualm we have with it is the following clause, which has already been mentioned by several other nations:

RECOMMENDS that all member states will adopt a law that punishes those citizens knowledgably infected with the virus that transmit it to other citizens;

Bootlandia does not wish to punish those citizens who have AIDS and have consensual sex with a partner who has been informed of their partner's HIV-positive status. However, we acknowledge that this is only a recommendation and as such we do not have to ban such activity. Bootlandia urges those states which have voted against or abstained from voting on this proposal to reconsider, noting that this is only a recommendation and not a requirement of UN member states should this resolution be passed.

As the representative of the People's Republic of Kusarii it is my pleasure and duty to inform the honourable appointed representatives of the United Nations that Kusarii fully endorses the articles of this resolution.

AIDS/HIV is a blight that effects all of the world, both developed and lesser developed countries to varying degrees.

Although AIDS/HIV is a lesser problem for the citizens of kusarii, the fact remains that many cases of AIDS are readily avoidable. Unfortunately, the actions of an irresponsible few spread the pain and misery that is this illness throughout our populations. Such people are a blight on society and should be punished for their lack of care for their fellow citizens and the burden they place on society by needlessly spreading this infection.

This resolution will provide the world with answer to the problem that is HIV/AIDS, both by means of education and criminalisation.

Fellow delegates, what we must remember is that the recommendation to criminalise those who knowingly spread this illness is just that, a recommendation. One which this nation agrees with and shall introduce whole-heartedly.

Finally, for LEDC's who do not have the ability or capacity to provide on air media education, outdoor notices and or leaflets could be made available in community centres.

Finally, for LEDC's who do not have the ability or capacity to provide on air media education, outdoor notices and or leaflets could be made available in community centres.

The Ambassador from Mikitivity, upon hearing the Kusarii speach stands up clapping.

"Fellow ambassadors, I must say that the arguments that the nations that are in the most in need of education don't have the means to disiminate that information is completely illogical. Clearly as Kusarii has pointed out there are many alternative means of education, but the point behind funding a UNAIDS and charging it with educational responsibilities includes developing local means that are better suited towards getting the message across.

"As for the insulting comment that we should just hand AK-47s to nations infected with HIV/AIDS, I would like to remind my capitalist partners that unless your nation is completely isolated from other nations (which is not the case if you are in the United Nations), your companies depend on the stability of the international market. This market thrives when there is a healthy and stable international work force.

"We aren't talking about a breakout of Hoof and Mouth Diesase that can be easily controlled by banning imports of select food products, we are talking about larger macroeconomic concepts such as currency exchange rates and imports and exports. The problem with HIV/AIDS is that does have the potential to reduce some nation's labor productivity. In fact, there are reports that suggest that nearly 30% of some nations' work forces have HIV/AIDS.

"Without explaining medically what this means, these same reports document a significant decrease in worker productivity. Let's pretend that you are isolationist for the most part, but still like to trade for oil or perhaps some sort of magic space dust needed to make your UFO fly across the great reaches of space. Even if your trading partner's work force is also not directly impacted by HIV/AIDS, when another productive nation falls by the wayside and is unable to produce, its currency will devalue.

"The danger here is that as its currency devalues, its ability to purchase foriegn goods diminishes to the point that it simply stops purchasing these goods. Which in turn will hurt the trade in another nation ... whos currency will adjust.

"At some point we are all interconnected, either by fairly close economic ties or even less direct military and social obligations. We simply wouldn't be in the UN if that wasn't the case.

"In any event, where Milton would say, 'No man is an island," I will would say no nation is immune to the economic problems caused by a widespread epidemic such as HIV/AIDS.

"We are not practicing Equine Medicine 101 here. The solution to a growing pandemic is not to simply shoot our labor force. In so doing we are undermining our very nations.

"As sure as there will be long-term economic costs associated with not stopping HIV/AIDS, there are short-term economic costs associated with prevention. Perhaps one of the most fundamental lessons of microeconomics is the time value of money. Spice Melange spent today is under normal market forces worth more today than it will be tomorrow. This is because wealthy nations like mine are wisely investing our money in banks and capital expansion projects, and then reinvesting that money.

"I'd ask that your governments join mine. We are already dedicated to finanicing international aid efforts like UNAIDS, but the scope of this particular problem is such that we can not do this allow. Nor should we, as my market has an equal stake in the outcome of the global market as your nations.

The Valley of the Sun is urging our regional delegate to vote AGAINST the proposal. We believe that this act is too broad; specifically, the pie-in-the-sky technology initiative will prove to be a severe drain on time and funding and divert resources from more immediatly effective education and social programs.

The Valley of the Sun is urging our regional delegate to vote AGAINST the proposal. We believe that this act is too broad; specifically, the pie-in-the-sky technology initiative will prove to be a severe drain on time and funding and divert resources from more immediatly effective education and social programs.

May we ask if you have any specific complaints about the resolution text?

The government of the Protectorate of Umbwigwi is fully prepared to support this resolution as our regional delegate has already done. However, we do share concerns with other nations present that the clause providing for the punishment of individuals who knowingly spread HIV/AIDS does leave room for a range of ethical quagmires and technicalities.

Although i believe that this act has the right train of thought behind it, i believe that it just went too far.

1). ii.Expansion of the United Nations Council on AIDS (UNAIDS) mission offices to all member states of the United Nations. This project would be slotted to finish after ten yearly budget cycles and the funds will be drawn from that budget to finance it.

-this project would be a useless waste of funds in that many nations already have similar offices run by their individual nations. If these offices were to be set up, it should be every nation's individual choice to construct them.

2). iii. Establishment of Know HIV/AIDS program, which will operate internationally as a media outlet for education and prevention of the virus through on-air public service messages and outdoor advertisements, television and radio programming, and free print and online content.

-I simply do not like the fact that such a media outlet would be established by the U.N. It seems like a Pandora's box that would simply lead to corruption among the U.N. Although I would support sponsered ads by such a program on various media outlets IF that outlet agrees to run or support them. Of course handing out panthlets in public places would be acceptable as not allowing them would be impeding on civil rights.

3) iv.(2) development of alternatives to blood transfusion – an operation that has helped to spread the virus – including blood substitutes, volume expanders, or new growth factors. These possibilities are to be given priority but in no way restrict nations from expanding their research into other areas of possible cure and/or vaccine and/or treatment.

-How can this possibility be givin priority without impeding other reasearch into the area of a cure. Developing alternatives to blood transfusions seems like a waste of funds and times that we could be using on the curing of AIDS. We should stay focused on one major task at a time.

4) vi. Creation of Eliminate HIV/AIDS program throughout member states that implore the uses of education in schools and hospitals, including seminars for children “coming of age” about the dangers of HIV and AIDS and instructions on how to protect themselves with the most current and efficient methods available in the world.

-This is simply an issue that should be dealt with on a nation to nation basis. I personally support it but others have the belief that this too would be a waste of money

I would like to see a similar act passed but this one just makes too many choices for every nation, I gives the UN much more power than what I think is neccisary.

But if too much is left to the discretion of individual nations, then we risk seeing legitimate education/relief programs being denied funding on moral grounds because of their affirmative stance on birth control.

The whole issue of funding AIDS is based on morals. I am sure that some people believe that poorer nations should be left to deal with AIDS on their own because of their moral beliefs. But yes, your right, it is true that if too much discretion is left to the individual nations it most likely would cause conflicts of morals because of all the different moral beliefs. I personally would like to see a new act written that would balance the power between individual nations and the UN but I think that the way this particular act is written that too much power would be given to the UN.

First Sarcodina understands that AIDS is a problem and must be solved, yet there have been resolutions regarding aids all ready. Resolution 32 addressed it directly (as the new resolution applies.) Resolution 33 opened up medicine production and Resolution 42 (as also stated in the new resolution) also deals with treating aids.
A new resolution will not help, it will only force more money and more wasted effort into the same organizations that has been unable to help.
I wish the UN could spend more time trying to educate and less time passing resolution after resolution about the same things. The UN needs to stop trying to police nations by passing resolutions which obviously are just for show and to go against nations with different views...
If one wants to push something then go to the issue making page and write a issue so nations can deal with a problem.
The UN has become known to many as a tyrannical force which does not respect a nations right to control itself. This is saddening because a supposedly international body is now known as just a organization were similar minded nations just start passing resolution after resolution to make themselves feel good.
Please vote against this resolution on grounds of redundcy and national sovereignty.

The Republic of die Faust completely condemns this act. It is clearly a means for the United Nations to gain more authority and lessen the sovereignty of its members. It is appalling to see how quickly some of you are willing to relinquish your own sovereignty for a meager means of population control. Education must be done locally or regionally. It is illogical to think that a body of representatives will be able to know exactly what does or does not work locally in education.

We shall petition our UN Delegate to vote against this atrocious act of power-grabbing.

The Empire of Lamura condemns this insane act. To prosecute individuals that have the virus would be to give everyone in NS a bloodtest. It makes absolutely no sense as far as this goes. Plus it would cost the economy of each individual nation being that all citizens would have to bring their businesses to a halt. If government officials were to be found that they in turn have the virus then it would be a political unrest and would possibly show that the nation has an instable government. This would in turn be cause for invasion, an overthrow of the government, or even full scale rioting and martial law which has not been passed in my nation since the times of the draft during the Great War of 1903. Each nation would fall into utter anarchy. It would make absolutely no sense, NO SENSE, to pass such an insane and wrongful act. Not to mention that it would invade the privacy of each individual citizen of all nations in NS that are members of the UN. Thus, I tell you, that there is no reason that I or any other nation vote for this act for it is down right ludacris. I propose that instead of prosecuting the infected that we should educate, rehabilitate, and even cure the infected. This would way less costly than a full, widespread bloodtest in all nations. If some subjects are found to have the virus then they would be contacted and informed on where to go to receive the vaccination. It makes more sense than to prosecute billions of citizens of a wrongful virus that no one has control of even if they were infected since child birth. Ladies and gentlemen of the United Nations. I call upon you to create instead another act that justly does so and pass it so that we still have order and also be able to control this widespread virus that infects millions of people each year. For if we were to vaccinate the said infected with the mentioned nanotechnology that may be used to hunt down the virus in their bloodstream then it would not only halt the spread of the virus but also make it extinct from the existance of mankind's most worst feared viral infection. Thank you for your time and I wish that I have changed some of your minds.

Ambassadors,

Surely objectors to this resolution on the grounds that it is un-ethical to prosecute those outlined therein are failing to understand the realities that such laws would bring.

In many nations, if one citizen knowingly infects another with a communicable disease it may be called poisoning - a criminal offence. Additionally if such a person should pass an illness on knowing that the infection of healthy parties is a death sentance is a matter that will likely been in civil courts across the world.

This resolution proposes to take such a matter out of the hands of civil courts and ensure that "infectors" are made fully responsible for their actions, as a criminal offence, under the eyes of the law.

It is not a violation of our citizens human rights to ensure that they are protected from people who spread such illnesses maliciously. Likening it to my earlier analogy, those who maliciously spread this infection could be likened to administering a slow acting poison, which is already a criminal offence, murder!

To those detractors who worry about the "control" that this resolution would give the united nations over your media outlets: I put it to you that due to differences in language from country to country, each infomercial will have to be tailoured to our specific nations. Indeed the resolution does not specify the form that such infomercials should take, it merely asks that such things should exist.

I urge you to vote yes on the HIV/AIDS Resolution both to protect our citizens from malicious infection, and to educate them as to forms of protection from it.

< OOC: I hope you all will not be offended if I am a little lax on responding to your questions. I am Catholic, I celebrate Christmas, and so does my family - so I do have to leave NS for a day or two to spend time with them. >

< OOC Not at all Pilot, merry christmas :)

The government of Telidia is in support of this resolution, though we do have some niggling little facts that we wish proposal authors would head to. There is no such thing as an AIDS virus. AIDS stands for Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, which applies only once an infected person’s immune system has suffered to the point where opportunistic illnesses develop as a result. The actual virus is called HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) and this is what people are infected with. This resolution implies they are separate and we are saddened that a resolution promoting education is in itself making the errors it seeks to eradicate.

In addition we would have preferred it to draw particular attention to the work now being carried out with CCR5 inhibitors, which will be of more immediate and significant benefit to those suffering from the virus. Searching for a cure is an ultimate goal, but we must never loose sight of the millions that are already infected. The matter of funds is to be carefully balanced between cure and treatment in our humble opinion and we feel neither should be given priority in terms of discovery.

Nevertheless we do welcome the additional resources this resolution will bring and thank the honourable member from Pilot in bringing it before us.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

The government of Telidia is in support of this resolution, though we do have some niggling little facts that we wish proposal authors would head to. There is no such thing as an AIDS virus. AIDS stands for Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, which applies only once an infected person’s immune system has suffered to the point where opportunistic illnesses develop as a result. The actual virus is called HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) and this is what people are infected with. This resolution implies they are separate and we are saddened that a resolution promoting education is in itself making the errors it seeks to eradicate.


While you are correct, do you really feel that they are being treated separately by this resolution?

iii. Establishment of Know HIV/AIDS program, which will operate internationally as a media outlet for education and prevention of the virus through on-air public service messages and outdoor advertisements, television and radio programming, and free print and online content.

It is common practice for prevention programs to target HIV, and yet the justification is avoidance of AIDS. At least many of the international publications I've seen tend to use this standard abbreviation: HIV/AIDS.

By "many international publications", I'm talking about the documents you find on UNAIDS. The report I referenced back in late July was the "2004 Report on the Global AIDS epidemic", which often focuses more on HIV itself. However, sometimes you see the literature move from prevention programs (HIV) to care based programs (AIDS).

This isn't really an easy subject, which is why the problem is so large in the first place. :(

The Great and Honorable Jes-Man, leader of the Republic of Texastein, has been in deliberation on this issue. He has authorized this press release.
"I am leaning away from this UN resolution on the UNAIDS. I am confident that it has only the best intentions at heart. But am yet to be convinced that it will be an effective means to an end.
"We DO support research into a cure for HIV/AIDS (H/A.) However; I liken everything to an education first policy.
"For example: We have no need for seat belt laws due to the fact, as opposed to stiff fines, we held a fierce campaign on the benefits of seat belts. Now, even pet duck-billed-chipmunks wear seat belts for fear of being the next statistic on the non-tollway. They even teach their little duck-munks to wear seat belts.
"Everyone knows that a fierce media or ad blitz can rouse the masses into action or reaction. Which is exactly why Texastein places large sums of "Tex" into anti-advertising bad things. Our populace responds to it in a positive fashion. People are smarter and healthier for it. We "Eat Mor Chiken" and things of the like. ;)
"Therefore, I am considering heavily, voting against this measure. There's no way Texastein will enforce criminilizing the infected, except in cases where the infected with-holds the fact and diliberately spreads disease to unsuspecting recipients.
"However, we WILL go along with SOME funding for research for cure. We will also go along with funding for mass education and advertising as the "anti-cootie," so to speak. Make people afraid of the disease to the point they will avoid it at all cost.
"It can not be considered violation of civil rights to overwhelm them with the facts. If anything, it will bring the populace into a more "family oriented" atmosphere. Meaning, they will be more afraid than usual to "mess around." Therefore, they'll find a partner and stick with them and not be interacting sexually with others which is the biggest cause of the spread. Which is a good measure in itself. Creates a stable home atmosphere.
"The message also reaches those who have yet to get involved in drugs and sharing of needles. That alone should speak for itself. Those involved in that circle will soon either clean up or die from their own poison. Which, in Texastein, when found, are locked away, dried out, and tested for disease before being released back into the populace.
"Texastein votes yes for education of the facts. Votes no to spending more money on cures than on nipping the problem in the bud. Yes, we WOULD like to see a cure and will support research for it. But, we believe a greater effort would be to stop the problem where it starts, which is with the people that have it and the people most succeptable to it.
Sincerely, Jes-Man"

Thgin wishes to express certain concerns and questions regarding this proposal.


DECLARING that the level of HIV and AIDS infection across the world has grown to the point whereas it demands immediate action;

Thgin recognizes the large and present threat posed by HIV/AIDS worldwide, but we must question the justificaiton for targeting this particular ailment over the numerous other health and welfare issues that exist worldwide. Thgin must also question what sort of effects immediate action will actually have, given the nature of HIV/AIDS. As the virus is not curable, all that can be done is inhibiting further infection. The wording of the proposal suggests that the current level (not the rate of infection) is too high, yet this level cannot be actively altered without persecuting individuals with this illness. Thgin refuses to persecute citizens for medical disability, thus must question the validity of this bill.

DEEPLY DISTURBED over the lack of attention given to the problem;

...

RECOGNIZING the advances made by the United Nations Resolution #32 "Global AIDS Initiative", as well as its limitations;

This seems somewhat self-contradictory. While Thgin supports further aid to HIV/AIDS victims, suggesting that a considerable effort is not currently being made is somewhat insulting.

BELIEVING that through a series of early diagnosis measures, medical accessibility and education, and further research the world could advance far in eliminating the HIV and AIDS viruses;

Certainly a noble idea, which Thgin supports wholeheartedly.

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT United Nations resolution #42, "Increased Access to Medicine”, a large portion of the funds from the “Eliminate HIV/AIDS" program will be used to teach citizens of the member states who are already infected with HIV or AIDS how to remain in compliance with their medication and therapy regimens, and to teach citizens who are not infected how to avoid coming into contact with the virus;

Whie Thgin supports awareness programs, we do not support the demonification of any disease. We feel that the language used in describing the programs and intent of this proposal is more strongly geared toward passive discrimination against individuals with these diseases.

RECOMMENDS that all member states will adopt a law that punishes those citizens knowledgably infected with the virus that transmit it to other citizens;

Thgin cannot support this portion of the bill under any circumstances. The purpose of this bill as stated is to promote the welfare of the citizens of our nations, and punishing individuals exercising their rights (I'll have to double check, but I'm pretty sure that the right of consenting adults to engage in coitus is protected in previous proposals, making this an illegal proposal.) is the exact opposite of this intent.

With the above stated concerns, Thgin declares support for the sentiment to aid victims of HIV/AIDS and promote awareness of this condition, but does not feel the current resolution is acceptable for this purpose.

Resolution #7

Sexual Freedom

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Armstrongonia

Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

Banning infected individuals from engaging in intercourse, providing all parties involved are aware of the infection, could be considered a violation of the above act.

The Allied States of Protagonia backs this proposal one-hundred percent. Although the epidemic has yet to reach the Island, it is felt by all citizens that it is best to stop the desease, both for the betterment of humanity, and our island nation.

We are prepared to take up leading roles in the biotechnology field to ensure that this desease will be stopped, and we will toughen immigration laws to ensure that knowingly infected people have the proper papers AND education programs to keep from infecting other people, and to ensure that no person come onto the Island with the virus, without knowing it.

Hence begins my nations' plan for the eradication of the virus.

Premier of Protagonia

We will support this great resolution pending changes to a few parts of the resolution:
1) the changing of language of "children coming of age" to read "all children in their respective education system(s)". We need to think of the children and get them to realize the debilitating affects of this disease. What better time to start teaching them the issues of life than at an early age where they are more likely to listen. 5 year olds are prime candidates for being taught these things.

2) the changing of the requirement for a law punishing the conscious spread of HIV/AIDS. This is just unfair! The poor, suffering people with this disease are under a terrible condition and should not be penalized any further!

Perhaps drugs or sex is their only joy? What right have we to tell them to stop doing the one thing that brings them happiness? We should encourage them to do all they can to live life to the full while they can.

Forced disclosure is a trangression on the right to privacy! No one should be forced to disclose anything ever. Forced disclosure will only bring awkward moments to the lives of those who already have enough to worry about. Forced disclosure is an archaic principle that doesn't have a place in a society of truly caring peoples. Just like isolation protocols in medicine. I mean, like what has those protocols ever solved? Nothing.

Peace

While you are correct, do you really feel that they are being treated separately by this resolution?



It is common practice for prevention programs to target HIV, and yet the justification is avoidance of AIDS. At least many of the international publications I've seen tend to use this standard abbreviation: HIV/AIDS.

By "many international publications", I'm talking about the documents you find on UNAIDS. The report I referenced back in late July was the "2004 Report on the Global AIDS epidemic", which often focuses more on HIV itself. However, sometimes you see the literature move from prevention programs (HIV) to care based programs (AIDS).

This isn't really an easy subject, which is why the problem is so large in the first place. :(

BELIEVING that through a series of early diagnosis measures, medical accessibility and education, and further research the world could advance far in eliminating the HIV and AIDS viruses

It is this paragraph that gave rise to my comment and as you can see the plural is used thus the suggestion of two separate viruses (plural). I just feel that resolutions seeking member states to advance education of a specific subject should in itself show a clear understanding of the subject matter.

You are of course correct in that the abbreviation HIV/AIDS are used in conjunction, though that is used when referring to a broad selection of infected individuals. Some of whom may have AIDS other only HIV positive at this time.

OOC: Sorry about the spelling of heed as head, made me giggle when I saw it reading your reply. This is what happens when you both reply in hurry and having to run off to eat mum’s best cooking! :D

IC:
One of my other concerns with this resolution is that it recommends a course of action towards a cure that is decades from any real solution (FT nations aside). Nanotechnology can have benefits, though as of now Molecular biology is by far a better approach. It’s proven and it works. Diverting funds from sources where real breakthroughs are being made to a field, which is untested, is not the best course of action in my humble opinion. Yes we need to address them, but not at cost delivering actual solutions and helping infected individuals now. We must never in our search for a cure, leave behind our responsibilities to those already suffering, balance is of the essence. Infected individuals need new drug regimes to help them cope with the disease at least until we can find a cure and for that we need just as much research.

Like we said, we welcome the additional funds and the broadening of the various organisations and as a whole we support this resolution, We just need to guard against searching for a miracle cure at the cost of noticing the obvious in front of us.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

OOC: Apologies if I come across a little passionate, it just that I have at least three friends who are HIV positive. One of whom has a CD4 count so low that he pretty much has full blown AIDS. Fortunately though he has not developed any opportunistic illness as of yet and perhaps being reminded of this fact, particularly at this time of year hits home a little. Dealing with something abstract as a resolution is well and good, but dealing with the reality of not knowing whether you will see someone again this time next year, rather focuses your attention on the now.

Id, Thgin at pp #35-36

Polyglotmadgeniusland has voted against the NS HIV AIDS Act for four central reasons, the first of which was already mentioned in a fashion:

(1) The care of individuals already suffering from full blown AIDS was not mentioned. Those suffering from this condition may well be cured with proper research as well as those who only have first stage or second stage HIV.

Also, those who suffer from the debilitating effects of full blown AIDS experience a poor quality of life in their twilight months, or twilight years as the case may be. With research into treatments which can prolong the lives of those already afflicted with full blown AIDS, time may well be bought for them to experience new advances in treatment (which have been very forthcoming in the last decade alone), and perhaps ultimately for them to survive long enough to receive any new potential cure.

(2) There was no mention of any periodic public statement which would account for the use of funds collected among UN member nations; nor was there mention of a clause allowing UN member nations to decide how well the funds are being allocated, and act accordingly. An AIDS initiative is all well and good in theory, as is the collection of funds from member nations for just such an initiative; however, if said nations have no idea how exactly the funds are being used, there is potential for secrecy and deceit the likes of which were exemplified by the Enron scandal in the United States.

(3) There was no mention of any legal mechanism that would determine the relative abilities of each member nation to pay into the very fund that is being spoken of, whilst not begrudging them for being less able to pay than other nations. Such a mechanism would be important, because otherwise more prosperous nations would potentially be able to use their larger payments as leverage to disparage the validity of access to UN services by less prosperous nations. All nations need to be allowed equal access to UN benefits, especially where it concerns the treatment of a virile plague such as the AIDS epidemic.

(4) There was neither mention of the creation of a UN treasury to store and record collected funds, nor of the creation of a specialised convertible UN currency that would be used to allocate funds for UN programmes. Cocktail currencies, as they are referred to in the financial world, are only feasible if there are a handful of currencies operating in the cocktail currency fund. With myriad currencies floating about the UN, there would be no means of telling who is paying what into the UN treasury, especially because the different currencies would obviously have different relative values. Having a proper UN currency as well as an institution in which to store it is invaluable in organising and simplifying the transference of UN funds for an AIDS initiative or any other equally important initiative.

AIDS -- Social Darwinism at its finest.

:p

looks good to me as long as only those known to carry the dessie are punished for spreading it, after all acidents happen.

Love, Peace, and Booty Grease!
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Thank you first for listening to this announcement. I, Haruka Atorp, representative to the UN from the Rogue Nation of Carkhs, believe the following to be true:

HIV/AIDS is deadly, and should be stopped. Proper medication should be given.
A daily routine that suggests the importance of routine medicine taking, and therapeutic measures.

I, and my Nation, however, do no agree that people should be punished for transmitting the disease. First, how will we know who it is? As far as our research has gone, HIV/AIDS does not pick up the carriers DNA, it merely imprints its own into the carriers DNA. If it is passed on then, there is no way to tell who it was, so how do you propose we go about finding who the perpetrator is? Shall we just be randomly punishing people who have HIV/AIDS instead of helping the? I, and my Nation, therefore, vote agianst this resolution, believing that punishment should not be induced upon infected citizens with HIV/AIDS for transmitting it, if indeed, they did transmit it.

Sincerely,
Haruka Atorp, Representative to the UN from the Rogue Nation of Carkhs

We in Gleeb have two problems with the language of this resolution. First, where it says,
Creation of Think HIV/AIDS program that will use a large portion of the funds to explore the following possibilities: (1) nanotechnology and biomedical developments may allow a designer virus and/or micro machine and/or bacterium to safely course through the body and destroy the virus;
Knowing the propensity of microbes to mutate, we are wary of encouraging purposefully destructive organisms to be created. This would not necessarily cause us to oppose this resolution, but in addition, the resolution says,
RECOMMENDS that all member states will adopt a law that punishes those citizens knowledgably infected with the virus that transmit it to other citizens;
Gleeb cannot support any tendancy to criminalize a medical status.

Gleeb would, however, support a resolution without the criminalization clause, provided the biotechnology language was not strengthened.

While agreeing with the 'spirit' of this resolution myself and my nation cannot agree with the letter - I am referring to the recommendation that new criminal offences should be created in member states to punish those who, knowing they have HIV/AIDS engage in any activity that may potentially infect others. A lot has been written in the above posts with regard to this point, and I agree with most of it and wish to add the following:

I appreciate that a recommendation will not be binding on member states, however what a recommendation does do is imply a certain legal attitude. It is this attitude that is disagreeable - and seemingly not only to me. And it is sufficiently disagreeable to make me vote against what would be a resolution with plenty of merit and good intentions. It is disagreeable because it is discriminatory; let us envisage that a national legislature passed into law an Act to the effect of the recommendation. That would create a statutory offence which only applies to a a certain class of people - namely those with the virus. One of the foundations of a democratic state is the rule of law - and equality under that law. Equality under the law means that conviction (NOT sentence) for a crime shall be decided with no regard to status, rank, religion, skin colour, disability or medical condition (the list is not exhaustive). Supporting a resolution which suggests that only a certain class of people (fulfilling the condition of having HIV/AIDS) are capable of committing a specific statutory crime flies in the face of an ideal that to my understanding the UN holds dear - that of democracy.

Most states already have in place legislation, criminal codes, or offences at common law that deal with assaults, battery, poisoning, sexual offences and in the extreme manslaughter and murder - that apply REGARDLESS of arbitrary personal factors. Let national courts decide whether the transfer of fatal viruses such as in the case of HIV, can be construed as criminal under existing law IN a specific set of circumstances (ie the unlikely but nevertheless possible suggestion that someone may consent to intercourse with someone whom they know has the virus), rather than make a certain class of people more likely to be criminals because they have a specific medical condition.

I urge the author to strike the recommendation and anticipate the edited resolution that my nation will very happily vote yes to.

But if we stopping HIV/AIDS would be but another way to contribute to our immense population growth! Let some of us die so our future generations may live

You're all fools. Don't you see? Because people that know about it have children and then the children know about it then that means that this act would not only prosecute the parents but also prosecute the children as well because that they in turn know that they inherited it from their parents. You're all fools. You have no idea what you're asking for all nations to do. You're asking them to condemn the future generations of all by prosecuting the children that have the virus. Your all going to condemn children. Have that on your mind the next time we vote on something like this. But I declare that if this act has any more support then I will vow to make another act that abolishes this one. For this is foolhearty and you all know it. Instead of trying to cure you are trying to punish those for something that they cannot control. The UN was founded to help nations and their citizens. Not destroy their lives. Change your vote now before it is too late. Vote against this resolution. Before you condemn all of our children and theirs.

The people with AIDS deserve to die. They are useless and the sooner they die, the better. What use are people who are unable to serve their governments, they waste without contributing. Vote against this poor use of funds.

Sotoria opposes this measure simply because there are more pressing medical issues at hand. Cancer and heart disease both kill more people than AIDS.

As I said in the last post, I cannot support this proposal:

1. Firstly, I think it is the countries own problem not somebody else's. If they can't sort their own country thats their prerogative.
2. Secondly, how much money and for how long have we given these third world countries again? What have they got to show for it? More diesese and death.........nice!
3. Lastly, there is no aids in the nation of The Irish Brotherhood and to be honest, we have given enough money to these third worlders! :)

I know many of you will not like me after this outburst, but hey! Believe me, my dear delegates, you are never going to sort out the AIDS/HIV problem in Africa. You cant teach them anything apart from picking up an AK-47 and shooting each other.
Not only do i second the opinion of the Irish Brotherhood, but i also think this is the wrong way to bing about change. the only way any nation from the region of AlphaOmega would vote for this is if there was an amendment adressing sexual education. AIDS is a Preventable disease and as such, it is the NATION'S responsibility, not the World Autority, nations should be the supreme law of thierselves, not this counsel, not on this case. may this have pleased the UN.

what is this AIDS and HIV thing?

I will not vote for this "resolution", an I as leader of gods faithfull, comdem you andyour blatent attemt to abuse the power given to the united nations.

The HIV virus is a punishment from god, and we will not tolerate those who steal from the faithful to aid sinners. those with AIDS have it because they sinned, as it is their rightous punishment from the lord.

let the sinners rot, they have their just reward. if you want to punish your people for what they have not done, then do it, tax your people, but not us.
we should not have to suffer for your sins.


(note: this statement does not in any way show my belifes on aids, I personaly belive all should be done to prevent the spread of the virus, and those with it should have all medical care possible.)

I will not vote for this "resolution", an I as leader of gods faithfull, comdem you andyour blatent attemt to abuse the power given to the united nations.

The HIV virus is a punishment from god, and we will not tolerate those who steal from the faithful to aid sinners. those with AIDS have it because they sinned, as it is their rightous punishment from the lord.

let the sinners rot, they have their just reward. if you want to punish your people for what they have not done, then do it, tax your people, but not us.
we should not have to suffer for your sins.

*Shiver*


(note: this statement does not in any way show my belifes on aids, I personaly belive all should be done to prevent the spread of the virus, and those with it should have all medical care possible.)

:cool:

The Kingdom of Pubiconia supports this UN proposal 100%.

Greetings and a Merry Christmas to all UN members!
King Ebros of Pubiconia

God doesnt exist you fool. He is only an illusion invented by the hundreds of lost people during the fall of the Roman Empire back in the early A.D. era. You sir are a fool for thinking that a virus like this is a smite from God and that the only ones who have it are sinners. You should be ashamed of yourself. I believe in creation. I mean we all had to come from somewhere but as far as the actual "God" goes then that's a figment made by lost Roman citizens after the fall of their nation. Not some "almighty being" that can kill us all off with the wave of his left hand being in the bible he creates with his right and destroys with his left. You sir have no need to be here. Shut your mouth and leave you Bible-thumper.

(O.O.C. sorry to disturb you but my nation is a nation of relgious fanactics, and fyi somtimes i disturb myself with this nation)

You as the leader of Lamura, are the greatist fool, how did we get this far without a god?
you have delusiond your self, the romans did not "invent" God, He made them!
He made YOU! how can you deny the existance of a great creator?
We know God, WE do HIS will, And WE will be the ones rewarded! not you!
delousion yourself, and reap the benifets of your actions!
or Repent and he will have mercy.
God punishment is here on this earth stop this madness, before it cconsumes you.

God doesnt exist you fool. He is only an illusion invented by the hundreds of lost people during the fall of the Roman Empire back in the early A.D. era. You sir are a fool for thinking that a virus like this is a smite from God and that the only ones who have it are sinners. You should be ashamed of yourself. I believe in creation. I mean we all had to come from somewhere but as far as the actual "God" goes then that's a figment made by lost Roman citizens after the fall of their nation. Not some "almighty being" that can kill us all off with the wave of his left hand being in the bible he creates with his right and destroys with his left. You sir have no need to be here. Shut your mouth and leave you Bible-thumper.

You do realize that, in reality, the idea of the Christian god is actually taken from the Hebrews, who had myths about him going back thousands of years before Rome even existed, right?

(I never said that my god was the cristian god.)

OOC: Your nation scares me, Gods Faithfull. But that's ok, provided you don't broadcast evangelical emails to my citizens. They HATE that.

Lamura, the delegate from Gods Faithfull never specified what 'God' was being cited... so your assault on judeochristian religion was a tad premature... for all you know, they may worship Ickthersgum-onmashuu, god of inconvenience.... :)

(I never said that my god was the cristian god.)

OOC: He did. I was just responding to someone who couldn't be bothered to check his bull to see if it was historically accurate.

I have to intervene here again. I agree with most of the posts above that are anti-resolution. This would be completly unlawful, and against the UN's believes, as some said before, WE ARE SACRIFICING our CHILDREN! They are all we have to carry us farther. Yes, the AIDS/HIV people may be useless, and we don't need them, but they ARE people, and they have a right to live, by their own choice. I also must add, leave God out of this. He has nothing to do with anything about this, let alone anything at all. There should be a separation of Church and Nation, and I don't see this happening. God has no power here, the people have the power, and the people of the Rogue Nation of Carkhs, all 9 million, believe against this proposal, and we all sincerely hope that everyone who has voted in agreement will revoke their vote, and vote against it. Do you people realize what you are doing? Yes the resolution has its good points, but my people are against it because of the clause that says , all HIV/AIDS infected people, who transmit the disease will be punished. The Rogue Nation of Carkhs will support this proposal IF, and ONLY if, that part is removed.

Also, we don't need to stoop so low in formal debate. No one should be called a fool. There are the people who have differing opinions, but that does not change how right or wrong they are.

Haruka Atorp, Leader of the Temporary Council of the Rogue Nation of Carkhs

Hello, everyone!

I voted against this AIDS resolution, which is apparently not what the general public did. I'd like to explain why so that I may change peoples' minds on the subject.

I am, in theory, for this AIDS resolution, but I do not think that it is strong enough to have the desired effect. While it talks much of TREATING AIDS, it does little to stop the spread of the disease.

My suggestion? Vote this one down, and then propose a new one that actually says something about preventing AIDS. Prevention, as the saying goes, is the surest cure.

~President Franz Joseph of Franz Joseph Land

I care less about what you say. God is an illusion. End of story. If he is SOOOO GREAT then why could he just not come out and stop all the madness that was consuming the world during the world wars? Hmm? If he is SOOO GREAT then why can't he just stoop down and make his presence know instead of hiding? There is no "God". Only an illusion that exists in your minds. The Bible was written by men. BY MEN. Who looked for hope while their entire race was enslaved by the Egyptians. You, Gods Faithful, cannot tell me to repent when I gave up on "God" 6 years ago when he took down one of my best friends in a car accident on the way to a service. He was killed by another "christian". Where was God then huh? Why could he not stop one of his faithful from dying when it was not his time AT ALL to go? God does not exist. He is a myth created by men for hope. If God was real then why could he not stop this virus and all others from taking countless lives. Why could he not govern the world on his own? He does not exist. OR is your "God" too afraid of his "creations" to come down and walk with us? You're full of shit you idiot. I believe in evolution. But creation is possible. But not by a "God".

Let me just make a suggestion to the member states of the UN:

Cut AIDs off at the source!

To stop any epedimic you first have to stop it from spreading. Basically cut off the source, isolate it and then treat those who have it until you've defeated it. AIDs is no different. Here, to cut off the source, you need to spread the message that actions do have consequences.

What are to largest ways for AIDs to be spread? Through homosexuality and promiscuity. If you take actions to discourage these two practices (such as no gay marriage or abortions, which doesn't actually discriminate against those who practice these activities, it just doesn't reward them, makes consequences of their actions more real, even if no STD is spread) then you are going to effectively isolate the AIDs epedimic into small groups of your societies that can then be treated more actively.

Basically, if you cut off the source of AIDs (and yes, this does involve spreading moral ideas, I know that's a foreign concept to most of you) you slow and eventually stop the spread of the AIDs virus.

Ultimately, if you do that, then you don't even need more funding to the UNAIDs program, and this resolution is null. The countries that are effected can handle it themsleves just by taking the actions you would use to stop any epedimic. The UN can step in where extra help is needed without any extra funding to the program.

Ok, so this approach is slightly different, but every disease is different. There is no other alternative to treating this effectively. If you don't change the lifestyles of those who are spreading the disease, it will keep spreading. That is the same with any epedimic spread by human-to-human contanct. AIDs is no different.

Say, you do realize that the majority of people who have AIDS are straight women, right? So targetting gays isn't actually going to hit the larger part. If you want to target the largest group and discourage them from having sex to spread it, target heterosexuals.

I care less about what you say. God is an illusion. End of story. If he is SOOOO GREAT then why could he just not come out and stop all the madness that was consuming the world during the world wars? Hmm? If he is SOOO GREAT then why can't he just stoop down and make his presence know instead of hiding? There is no "God". Only an illusion that exists in your minds. The Bible was written by men. BY MEN. Who looked for hope while their entire race was enslaved by the Egyptians. You, Gods Faithful, cannot tell me to repent when I gave up on "God" 6 years ago when he took down one of my best friends in a car accident on the way to a service. He was killed by another "christian". Where was God then huh? Why could he not stop one of his faithful from dying when it was not his time AT ALL to go? God does not exist. He is a myth created by men for hope. If God was real then why could he not stop this virus and all others from taking countless lives. Why could he not govern the world on his own? He does not exist. OR is your "God" too afraid of his "creations" to come down and walk with us? You're full of shit you idiot. I believe in evolution. But creation is possible. But not by a "God".

*yawns*

If you wanna discuss the existence of God and the Problem of Evil while saying that other posters are full of shit, I suggest you take it to the General forum, where such things belong. (And are discussed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.)

Who are you to say god does not exsist? your lack of faith shows only stupidity. God will come to earth only when it is ready for his preasance, we will build his kingdom here and you will find yourself suffering for your blasphamy!

(o.o.c. this is not the place to be arguing about belifs. personaly, I do not belive most of what I will be saying though my nation. I am just rping a toltal religuos psyco.)

<b>Lamura<b/> ... the idea of God came along long before Rome. My nation holds Christian beliefs but can humor those like yours to some extent. But as was stated by Texas Hotrodders, save the theological bashing for another forum.
Texastien has come to this conclusion on dealing with the spread of H/A and any other terminal communicable disease. It has come to be known as fact that there are many known as "bug-chasers." Bug-Chasers are people who knowingly and willingly seek out to be contaminated by terminal disease such as H/A. This is unacceptable and sick.
Many nations have mentioned how H/A affects the workforce and populace. Therefore, Texastein proposes the following COUNTER-RESLOUTION:
Once per year every citizen undergoes a mandatory health check. Those found contaminated will be isolated and checked twice more (every other week) for varification of disease.
From that point on, there will be no possible way for them to contaminate any other citizen. Especially in the case of bug chasers, we will not be forced to provide them with health care that we offer. Bug chasers cost us unneccisary dues.
Those found contaminated will be given 90 days to get their personal affairs in order, then be humanely executed. No conjugal visits will be allowed. They will be offered maximum time with family and friends, but all time supervised.
Whomever they have been known to have conjugal relations with, shall be strictly monitored to ensure they are not contaminated as well.
I recommend this for a trial period of 5 years (not to be disallowed or removed, whatever the proper term is) to see how well this method works. If new H/A cases have not decreased, then a new solution be taken into account.
However; this is the method I plan to institute in Texastein. You may disapprove, but I will see if it works in my own land first. After all, as mentioned in previous and my own posts, the primary methods of contraction are promiscuity and drug use.
My proposed methods offer education and deterrent. I vote against this resolution and ask my proposition be dabated, proposed, and passed. (There's no UN delegate in Middle America to make my proposition. We're 2 nations strong; with my partner nation has vastly differing political views.)
-Jes-Man-

Executing people just for being infected? Smart move. Hold on while I contact a certain biolab that illegally operates in DLE and have them whip up a new, and much nastier, version just for your country. We have a few strains of smallpox and ebola sitting around in storage that we are doing nothing with anyway.

While executing people infected may seem like a good idea, it isn't. You're faced with a supervirus that has managed to survive much more extreme attempts than that in certain regions or managed to get itself reintroduced multiple times. You need to find a way to combat the virus itself. No virus, no infections. Killing people just may force it to mutate into its next form sooner.

The United Postmodernist States of Melmond urge all UN members nations to vote against this act for a couple of basic reasons. First of all is the fact that no amount of government legislation can save people from their own actions. This basically takes away money from nations, some who really need the money to keep or restart a strong economy, for the indiscretions of the responsible. I have no problem with private donors wanting to donate their money to HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention charities as well as bankroll organizations looking for the cure for this disease, but taking money out of the hands of nations and people of those nations for the sake of others private indiscretions and irresponsbility I find unfair and ultimately useless and harmful for mankind in general. Please vote NO on the well meaning but ultimately ineffective resolution.

Jennifer O'Brien
Melmond's UN Representative

There are many people who procure terminal and communicable disease by either ignorace or apathy. Which is to say, some do not care if they contract disease that they spread (by "heat of passion" or "caught up in the moment" or by drug use, which inhibits the ability to make rational decisions,) and others willingly seek to be contaminated.
This being said, some contract disease because their partner is contaminated and either did not know or willingly failed to notify them.
In effort to free the world of comminicable terminal disease, this resolution will in effect, end or severely reduce the spread of communicable terminal disease (CTD) by the following means:
1) Every citizen shall undergo mandatory health screening (which will be much cheaper than health care if you procure preventable disease)
2) Anyone testing positive for CTD shall be quaritined (m/spell?) and tested every week for 6 weeks.
3) If still testing positive; shall then be humanely executed.
A) During time of isolation, the inflicted may enjoy unlimited and supervised time with family and friends. Conjugal time will be strictly prohibited.
B) The infected shall not be prevented any spiritual, legal, medical, nor personal time nor council. States may make alternative time tables and execution methods as may be desirable to persons involved and affordability to the states own technology, so long as infected does not suffer undue pain. Knowledge of impending death is severe as is. Sudden death, such as bullet to brain in ones sleep, may be acceptable.
4) Any person suspected of having intimate relations with the contaminated (such as spouse or any significant other) shall be tested and strictly monitored every three months for three years.
Reason for extermination should be rather obvious:
For one, creates the demand for education of the diseases and (2) Also a deterrent to behavior that spreads the diseases without infringing on any nations ideals of morals. It strictly works on the basis of what is effective for the common good of people and the nations workforce.
Those infected will be able to die without many years of painful suffering. The nation will not be forced into years of money spent on someone who will die no matter what they they do. The spread of the disease will be stopped right where it stands. The people will not be forced to undergo more than one test per year unless they request otherwise. Once isolated, no one else can be contaminated; the only other people they may have conjugal (or sexual) contact with are other known infected persons.
This resolution minimizes spread (by means of intrevenous drug use, promiscuity or prostitution,) encourages education, and actual consideration of concequence, health, and is safer on the general populace and workforce.
I understand this may not fall into the realm of "Human Rights," but I did not see a choice of "Health Care." Therefore; I selected Human Rights on grounds that it prevents the infringment of people becoming infected by those who may be infected. Some of whom infect without knowledge that they, themselves, are contaminated, and the others who contaminate intentionally to "get even with life."
We are all offered healthcare, we do not want to see that freedom abused by people who spread disease simply because "they can."

Executing people just for being infected? Smart move. Hold on while I contact a certain biolab that illegally operates in DLE and have them whip up a new, and much nastier, version just for your country. We have a few strains of smallpox and ebola sitting around in storage that we are doing nothing with anyway.

While executing people infected may seem like a good idea, it isn't. You're faced with a supervirus that has managed to survive much more extreme attempts than that in certain regions or managed to get itself reintroduced multiple times. You need to find a way to combat the virus itself. No virus, no infections. Killing people just may force it to mutate into its next form sooner.

..... My fellow global lowlife..... killing the infected and cremating them BEFORE the virus mutates has a tendency to stop the disease BEFORE it mutates or spreads. (See what they did to stop the Black Plague, burning infected bodies and dwellings. Also look at the history of the poem "Ring Around the Rosy.) Note, the many so called "cures" they have already come up with for H/A that have failed because it mutated. At least my method allows infected people time to face the inevitable without a false hope of salvation, disallows the disease time to mutate, as well as gives the uninfected food for thought on what they should be doing to NOT become infected.

..... My fellow global lowlife..... killing the infected and cremating them BEFORE the virus mutates has a tendency to stop the disease BEFORE it mutates or spreads. (See what they did to stop the Black Plague, burning infected bodies and dwellings. Also look at the history of the poem "Ring Around the Rosy.)

Actually, the Black Plague is still around and still infects people on a regular basis. It's recently gained a couple of areas in the US where it is beginning to spread once again. The reason it was stopped was not because of the actions taken against it, but because the people adapted to resist it and, once it ran out of hosts it could infect, it was forced to retreat. Now, centuries later, it's beginning to spread once more and is even showing signs of developping a resistance to the drugs used to treat it.

If you wish an example of a disease human efforts have mostly wiped out, look at smallpox. It's actually quite rare in being one human methods were actually effective against.

Note, the many so called "cures" they have already come up with for H/A that have failed because it mutated. At least my method allows infected people time to face the inevitable without a false hope of salvation, disallows the disease time to mutate, as well as gives the uninfected food for thought on what they should be doing to NOT become infected.

Considering the fact the disease mutates from person to person, I would say you're too late to prevent it from mutating by that point. You're doing nothing to prevent it from mixing with another disease and mutating to become spread by another medium or continually being reintroduced to your nation. All you have is people dying for catching a disease when the rest of us are working on a way to actually eliminate the disease itself.

You want to know why all attempts at a cure have failed? They focus on drugs or vaccines. You don't vaccinate against supermutagens. What you do is develop a specialized microbe, such as another virus, that is specifically designed to target that one. It may take years to get one with a low risk of mutating into something horribly deadly, but I would rather wipe out the virus all at once instead of killing off portions of my population every year in a futile attempt to stop it.

RECOMMENDS that all member states will adopt a law that punishes those citizens knowledgably infected with the virus that transmit it to other citizens

Could we take that out? I know that RECCOMENDS isnt as strong as other operative clauses....but tahts all the UN can actually do is RECCOMEND nations do things anyways.

I really like your proposal.I did not vote for it because of one little sentence.That we should punish people who other people get HIV and ADs from.That is wrong! It's like punishing a child who get's 2+2 wrong! Some people don't know they have ADs! Once again I liked your proposal but that one line kept me from votiong for it. ;)

RECOMMENDS that all member states will adopt a law that punishes those citizens knowledgably infected with the virus that transmit it to other citizens

Could we take that out? I know that RECCOMENDS isnt as strong as other operative clauses....but tahts all the UN can actually do is RECCOMEND nations do things anyways.

Vastiva, add another name to the list of people who did not bother to read the FAQ.

The NSUN has much more power than that. It actually overrides the laws of a nation and forces it to comply. There is nothing to the contrary you can do while in the UN. You want to defy it? Leave.

Why take it out? The sick people who have aids don't wait long untill they notice it! Thats the reason we should punish them. It's pre-meditated MURDER. The hell with this, I am sick of listening to the people who act so damn understanding, we need to protect the people of the world and this is one good way to do it, execute them if you will or send them to prisons and let them poison the inmates (who cares about that scum anyway). If we put it into our laws that it is illegal to poison another human the number will be lower and that means less money we flush down to save the poor aids countrys. Just saying what many are thinking.

What are to largest ways for AIDs to be spread? Through homosexuality and promiscuity. If you take actions to discourage these two practices (such as no gay marriage or abortions, which doesn't actually discriminate against those who practice these activities, it just doesn't reward them, makes consequences of their actions more real, even if no STD is spread) then you are going to effectively isolate the AIDs epedimic into small groups of your societies that can then be treated more actively.

Basically, if you cut off the source of AIDs (and yes, this does involve spreading moral ideas, I know that's a foreign concept to most of you) you slow and eventually stop the spread of the AIDs virus.

Upon hearing the words of the Anglo-Saxon American delegate, the aged ambassador from Mikitivity stood up.

"I have little to add to my earlier remarks, but I'd first like to reiterate that AIDs is not a virus. HIV is the virus. I think it is important to make this distinction and the Anglo-Saxon American's failure to do so in this case, seriously calls into question their opinion on this subject.

"Furthermore, I'd like to call everybody's attention to the following UN AIDS factsheet:


HTML version:
http://www.unaids.org/html/pub/publications/fact-sheets04/fs_women_en_pdf.htm

Original version:
http://www.unaids.org/html/pub/publications/fact-sheets04/fs_women_en_pdf.pdf

Type: FactSheet
Topic(s): Estimates and projections - epidemiology, Gender and HIV/AIDS

Information provided by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) http://www.unaids.org


"The above information, which I've had transmitted to each of you shows no correlation between abortion and HIV/AIDS whatsoever. Furthermore, in some parts of the world (Africa) up to 60% of the adults living with HIV/AIDS are in fact women!

"HIV is not being spread only through homosexual intercourse nor injecting drug use. Heterosexual intercourse is likely to be just as an important vector as anything else.

"I'd like to quote a portion of the report:

In many parts of the world, marriage and long-term monogamous
relationships do not protect women from HIV. In a study in Zambia, for
example, only 11% of women believed that they had the right to ask their
husbands to use a condom -- even if he had proven himself to be unfaithful
and was HIV-positive.

"The point behind this resolution is to increase the ability of the UNAIDS program to educate both private citizens or even governments. While it is true that the primary vectors and affected populations will vary from country to country, I'd like to borrow from John Donne's famous poem Meditation XVII and suggest:

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind...

"But where Donne speaks of men, I saw speak of nations. For is this not the point behind joining a United Nations? To seek to work together to solve global problems?

"While it saddens me to see a lack of understanding of the scope and dimension of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, it is not surprising. If anything, remarks claiming that abortion is the cause of HIV/AIDS strongly support the idea that education is needed. And that this education effort needs to come from a neutral organization such as UNAIDS.

OOC: Apologies if I come across a little passionate, it just that I have at least three friends who are HIV positive. One of whom has a CD4 count so low that he pretty much has full blown AIDS. Fortunately though he has not developed any opportunistic illness as of yet and perhaps being reminded of this fact, particularly at this time of year hits home a little. Dealing with something abstract as a resolution is well and good, but dealing with the reality of not knowing whether you will see someone again this time next year, rather focuses your attention on the now.

OOC: I think it is OK to become passionate about subjects, though I'm sorry to hear about your friends.

Do bear in mind that the oft frequent gay marriage and abortion issues probably hit home with a few other players as well.

I think the real focus / point behind this resolution is to really promote awareness again. While you are right about that plural form issue, I'd rather see this resolution pass, especially in light of the "opinions" expressed endorsing incineration and outlawing abortion. However, solutions geared at modern medical techniques could also be considered and IMHO would prove an interesting debate in three months time.

We the nations of The Vile Stewing Ground strongly oppose such an outrageous issue. It is our contention that if the people are not able to support themselves then they should not be supported by the Government. It is the peoples will to server their Government and be thankful for what few if any civil liberties given to them.

Bring income equality will only cause those that are weaker and less meaningful to mingle and socialize with those that are far more deserving. If somene is in the position to become infected with a life threatening disease, then they should be more careful with their lifestyles and chose more wisely.

The Kingdom of Zukowski

Why take it out? The sick people who have aids don't wait long untill they notice it! Thats the reason we should punish them. It's pre-meditated MURDER. The hell with this, I am sick of listening to the people who act so damn understanding, we need to protect the people of the world and this is one good way to do it, execute them if you will or send them to prisons and let them poison the inmates (who cares about that scum anyway). If we put it into our laws that it is illegal to poison another human the number will be lower and that means less money we flush down to save the poor aids countrys. Just saying what many are thinking.

Okay lets take for example someone has AIDs.They know it.They get raped and the person who raped them gets AIDs are we going to punish this rape victim? :confused:

Okay lets take for example someone has AIDs.They know it.They get raped and the person who raped them gets AIDs are we going to punish this rape victim? :confused:

I wouldn't. The mejnot who committed the rape shouldn't be raping people anyway. The victim of the rape was not out knowingly spreading the infection, thus the victim of the rape is guilty of nothing. The mejnot who caught the virus for forcing himself on someone unwilling will also get to enjoy a twenty-year sentence on the orbital platforms about Terran, doing hard labor and hoping the radiation from the red giant Terran orbits doesn't kill him.

As a representative of The Holy Empire of West Antartica, I would like to say that our populace is adamantly opposed to this proposal. We fail to see why moral people should have to pay for the sins of the damned. Aids and HIV are a consequence of acts sacrilegious. Furthermore, the proposal aims reallocate funds to those in need of treatment. This idea is preposterous, as this would be moving wealth from productive individuals to sickly unproductive individuals. West Antartica is a pious nation, and as such believe that those who succumb to these ailments are only paying for their sins.
The Holy Empire of West Antartica

Ok good. In that case people know it is illegal to rape another person and if the victim has aids it's clearly not his or her fault.
I am talking about premeditated murder. The rapist should go to prison for rape and it will be a bonus too for he or she will probably rape again but he or she will be infected. This way we secure the people from this scum.
In the case of the victim, well strange as it may seem has done the country well for one rape he or she has given the criminal death and thats what we want.

In short- the victim does not go to jail.

PLEASE READ, CURRENTLY BEING SENT TO AS MANY DELEGATES AS POSSIBLE:

I'd like to ask UN delegates who supported the current UN resolution about AIDS to change their votes not based on politics or ethics but LAW. The end of the resolution 'recommends' criminalizing people who have AIDS and give it to others. This violates Resolution 7 (sexual freedom) stating that (paraphasing) what goes on in the bedroom stays in the bedroom and cannot be checked by the government unless a situation like blood donating occurs.
This makes the new resolution illegal since it prosecutes people for activities in the privacy of the home (and goes against UN law).

Not to mention that in some countries there are millions and millions of people with AIDS...and many of them give it to other people for nonmalicious reasons. As anyone who plays nationstates knows there are countries (many of them) that kill and torture their citizens for minor reasons, thus this ending of the proposal ruins a well meaning proposal by threatning the lives of millions. Please vote against this proposal in support of human rights and UN LAW!!!...there are all ready resolutions passed about AIDS and medical support for victims of AIDS too so the cause to fix this terrible epidemic are being worked on by the UN.

Thank You for Your Consideration

Actually, the resolution you are talking about mentions medical reasons as a reason to interfere. I honestly thought AIDS was a medical reason.

Alright, I've noticed that the debate over this proposal has switched to that one line about the punishment of those who knowlegebly transmit the disease. I believe that this is one of the most relavent parts to the whole proposal. I you want to stop the spread of the disease, isolate those who have it; am I the only one who sees the logic in that? People WILL NOT die if they don't have sex so if they have AIDS (and know it) they SHOULD NOT be having transmitting the disease to others! And as we all know, to get most people to do something we must punish or reward them, since reward is expensive, we punish correct? Some people not being able to make love is a small price to pay so that other people won't DIE! With that obvious argument I must still say, however, that I can not support this PARTICULAR proposal to stop AIDS for various other reasons (most related to individual nations rights) [see http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7784912&postcount=24]

Well I just wanted to let my opinion be known in the hopes that this resolution will someday be modified (as we already know it will be passed by now)

In response to my previous post's faults, medical reasons mean for the purpose of medical situations (ie blood donations) for the purpose of medicinal reasons not PUNISHMENT as the new proposal states. If I were to punch someone in the face then it is medically changing the cellular component of their face but it is not a medical reason to jail me. Punishing people like killing them for a transferring a virus is not what the Sexual Freedom Resolution means by 'medical reasons'...or else then anything 'in the privacy of the home' is up for prosecution because it involves the body which means it is medical.

I enjoy the whickey banter that seems to be going on in this thread, where everyone is up in arms about one line of the resolution that is just a suggestion, not a requirement of implimenting it.

And Sarcodina, thanks for trying, but there it is, passing by the biggest margin ever in U.N. history anyways. I'm Nicolas Dannon and let's play our game.

Signed,
~ Pilot Ambassador to the United Nations, Nicolas Dannon

Hey it was resolution that sounded nice and made everyone feel all gooey inside, obviously it was going to pass...it seems real debate and UN violation talks are usually left for those that lack that scrumptious gooeyiness inside. Congrats Pilot and may your resolution do what it was destined to do that being a sign that not only gay marriage resolutions can pass over and over again.

Upon hearing the words of the Anglo-Saxon American delegate, the aged ambassador from Mikitivity stood up.

"I have little to add to my earlier remarks, but I'd first like to reiterate that AIDs is not a virus. HIV is the virus. I think it is important to make this distinction and the Anglo-Saxon American's failure to do so in this case, seriously calls into question their opinion on this subject.


"The above information, which I've had transmitted to each of you shows no correlation between abortion and HIV/AIDS whatsoever. Furthermore, in some parts of the world (Africa) up to 60% of the adults living with HIV/AIDS are in fact women!

"HIV is not being spread only through homosexual intercourse nor injecting drug use. Heterosexual intercourse is likely to be just as an important vector as anything else.

Apparently clarification is in order: first, yes, there is a difference between AIDs and HIV, HIV being the actual virus, and AIDs being the severe form of infection. However, they are ultimately the same in the sense that the AIDs epedimic is ultimately an epedimic of the HIV virus. The difference is not great enough to create clouded understanding.

Secondly, I am not saying abortion is a cause of AIDs. I am merely stating that the lifestyle which causes both is the same. Thus, by removing abortion you are, in essence, punishing that lifestyle which will result in isolating those who are HIV positive or have AIDs.

Thirdly, I am discussing both the homosexual and heterosexual community (thus abortion being brought in to the issue here).

I am not trying to be moralistic here. I am merely stating that, as with all other epedimics, you have to cut off the source if you want to isolate and treat it, otherwise it gets out of hand, as is becoming the case with AIDs. To cut off the source of this virus (HIV), we need to use measures that discourage the lifestyle that spreads it, and the two that are probably the most prominent and would have the most immediate impact are removing abortion and gay marriage, which targets both the hetero and homosexual communities. This will lead to isolation of the virus and the disease to within certain communities, making it easier to contain and treat. Obviously, there are other measures that can be taken as well, this should be left to the individual nations to deal with.

If these kind of measures are not taken, you will never get this epedimic under control, no matter how much money you pump into education and medical research. It will simply run rampant.

If these kind of measures where taken, then extra funding into research and education would, in essence, be uneccessary because the spread of the epedimic would be slowed and eventually stopped.

Irony: HIV is spreading faster in regions that do not legalize gay marriage or have abortions as an option.

Can you not see it? this virus is ravishing nations because they have sinned!
the virus is spread by acts that are vile and unholy, do what we, the buiders of gods kingdom on earth, have done! do not waste money to try to cure this epademic, but kill them who, by their vile acts,(it is true that HIV is spread mainly though lose sex and drug use. and to me both are sins.) spread it. HIV is now almost unkown to our nation, we have not had an AIDS case in decades! follow the example of the rightous! dismiss this foolish act and stomp out ADIS your self!

My nation is full of what you call "sinners" and yet AIDS does not exist here either. Point disproven.

Who are you to say god does not exsist? your lack of faith shows only stupidity. God will come to earth only when it is ready for his preasance, we will build his kingdom here and you will find yourself suffering for your blasphamy!

(o.o.c. this is not the place to be arguing about belifs. personaly, I do not belive most of what I will be saying though my nation. I am just rping a toltal religuos psyco.)

I for one think that Anglo-Saxon America is right. We schould cut AIDS and other STDs off at the source: premarital sex and promiscuity.
I also thought that this thread was to talk about this new resolution not discuss whether or not God exists (which He does by the way & I'm not going to take that back whomever it may offend).

disprove my point?, maybe, but god is mercyful, perhaps to only reason your nation is unaffected is that you have yet to sin so badly as to force god to take action! but do not take this statement to mean that ye may continue sinning! Gods wrath will be visited upon this earth!
and only the faithfull shall be spared!

as I have said repeditly, This Resolution is a waste of time, money, and resources. the answer is not "magic medical cures" but faith! beg god for mercy and end your vile, sinful ways, and embrace gods light!
only by ending the very act that angered god in the first placed will his plauge end! do not waste our time! or our money in an act that is bound to fail!


(disclaimer: I am no ware near this relegous, fanitics scare me, I do not intend to upset, anger, or convert anyone. I am merly playing a role. I am not even christian.)

Apparently clarification is in order: first, yes, there is a difference between AIDs and HIV, HIV being the actual virus, and AIDs being the severe form of infection. However, they are ultimately the same in the sense that the AIDs epedimic is ultimately an epedimic of the HIV virus. The difference is not great enough to create clouded understanding.

Secondly, I am not saying abortion is a cause of AIDs. I am merely stating that the lifestyle which causes both is the same. Thus, by removing abortion you are, in essence, punishing that lifestyle which will result in isolating those who are HIV positive or have AIDs.

Thirdly, I am discussing both the homosexual and heterosexual community (thus abortion being brought in to the issue here).

I am not trying to be moralistic here. I am merely stating that, as with all other epedimics, you have to cut off the source if you want to isolate and treat it, otherwise it gets out of hand, as is becoming the case with AIDs. To cut off the source of this virus (HIV), we need to use measures that discourage the lifestyle that spreads it, and the two that are probably the most prominent and would have the most immediate impact are removing abortion and gay marriage, which targets both the hetero and homosexual communities. This will lead to isolation of the virus and the disease to within certain communities, making it easier to contain and treat. Obviously, there are other measures that can be taken as well, this should be left to the individual nations to deal with.

If these kind of measures are not taken, you will never get this epedimic under control, no matter how much money you pump into education and medical research. It will simply run rampant.

If these kind of measures where taken, then extra funding into research and education would, in essence, be uneccessary because the spread of the epedimic would be slowed and eventually stopped.

With due respect to the delegate from Anglo-Saxon America, I don’t feel your analysis of situation or your potential solution is correct. In order for your proposed model to work there must a causal link between gay marriage and abortion and there is none. The largest commonality of infection lies with sexual intercourse and unless the honourable member is proposing to outlaw sexual intercourse, I doubt their proposals make any sense whatsoever.

It is true however that for certain cultural reasons the virus does spread quicker amongst certain societies. The only method here however is to try and educate the populace to the best of our ability. Only through solid understanding of a subject can anyone hope to make an informed judgement. It is my humble opinion that criminalisation of certain acts will in no way help ‘contain’ the virus at all. Instead the state will foster an environment of silence, where individuals would rather keep quiet than to undergo testing if they fear they may have been infected. To make matters worse these individuals will continue to have sex regardless of their feelings, since it is the most primordial of our basic instincts, thus only adding to an already escalating situation.

The only way for governments to ever hope to contain this epidemic is to ultimately find a cure or a method of immunisation. I respectfully request the honourable member consider this thought. In order the beat this virus we need co-operation from every part of our societies. We need our peoples to feel comfortable in talking to their physicians and open to receiving information. The ultimate irony is, these individuals are our soldiers on the ground, from the scientists searching for medicines to families coping with the disease, to the numerous doctors and carers in all parts of the world. Every single one of us makes a difference, everyday.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

1) Not on Earth.

2) We've had people commit every sin you can imagine multiple times.

3) People are allowed as many wives and husbands as they think they can get away with.

4) 95% of my nation are athiests.

I think that if wrath of any deity were to be visited upon us, it would have been here by now.

(o.o.c. I never intended to start a discusion on religion, I am merly playing to role of a zealous nutcase. I do not intend to offend any one. I do not want to bash bibles, I am just roleplaying, end of story. if you want to bash bibles bash them with someone else.)

OOC: Don't worry. You have not offended anyone. You've gone almost too far out of your way to make sure it is understood you are roleplaying. I'm roleplaying how my nation responds to it.

To really do a good job, throw in random quotes from the religious book of your nation.

Have you ever considered that the reason your island of sin still exsists is that god is so disgusted, that he has abandaned you? perhapse god has given you up, given you the worst punishment, oh how the souls of your people will cry out in the darkness of death! when the truth is reveled and they know how they were betrayed by their leaders who told them the ultimite lie, they knew no better, but they are still condemmed, because of you! and they will turn on you, ther sorce of thier missery, only god could save, you, but you turned your back on him, no one will save you. you have ensured that.

To cut off the source of this virus (HIV), we need to use measures that discourage the lifestyle that spreads it, and the two that are probably the most prominent and would have the most immediate impact are removing abortion and gay marriage, which targets both the hetero and homosexual communities.

Can you show us a single report suggesting that gay marriage and abortion are correlated to HIV/AIDS?

If not, I highly suggest you read some of the following for evidence that the problem has nothing to do with homosexuality or abortion:

http://www.avert.org/aafrica.htm

However, much of the progress is still occurring in localised settings. One new study in Zambia has shown success in prevention efforts. The study reported that urban men and women are less sexually active, that fewer had multiple partners and that condoms were used more consistently. This is in line with findings that HIV prevalence has declined significantly among 15-29 year-old urban women (down to 24.1% in 1999 from 28.3% in 1996), as well as amongst rural women aged 15-24 (down from 16.1% to 12.2% in the same period). Although these rates are still unacceptably high, this drop has prompted a hope that, if Zambia continues this response, it could become the second African country (after Uganda) to reverse a devastating epidemic. However, many hurdles still separate the country from such a milestone. For example, condom use amongst rural men remains very low (reported as 15% in 2001 compared to 68% for urban men when they last had sex with a casual or paid partner).


The points I'd ask you to take home from the above, is that the method of prevention being practiced here is about condom use. This paragraph also points to prostitution as a possible problem -- and yet your religious zealotry immediately took to gay bashing and abortion scape goating without considering that perhaps existing education efforts could be redoubled in order to promote further increases.

The idea of promoting safe sex was further defended here:

In Côte d'Ivoire the prevalence amongst female sex workers fell from 89% to 32% in the period 1991 to 1998. Partly explaining this positive development is the fact that the number of workers who said they had used condoms in their most recent working day, increased from 20% in 1992 to 78% in 1998. Sustained prevention efforts, built around local initiatives, have been central to this shift.

Overall a massive expansion in prevention efforts is needed, and although there is not one proven way to prevent new infections, the major components of a successful prevention programme are now known.


I'd like to now call your attention to the bold faced sentence. The major components of successful prevention are in fact known. I've yet to see a SINGLE report, as in like EVER, that remotely has suggested that going on a witch hunt for gays and/or girls whom have had abortions will have any impact on HIV prevalance. Your idea will only further alienate the people we want to reach out too, and is part of the problem here!

But since you are so convinced this is the case, I'm assuming that you have access to dozens of reports that will defend your "opinion". Please provide one. Just one.

Naturally I'll be happy to provide DOZENS of more similar reports.

Is everyone having too nice a Christmas? Is that why everyone seems to be misunderstanding one line of the proposal and getting up in arms about it?

I can't remember the exact line, but it says basically if you knowingly infect someone with aids, you should be punished.

I can think of some situations that could be covered by this.

(These are all hypothetical btw)

1) I have Aids, but I don't know it. I sleep with someone and they get infected.

This would not be covered, as I did not knowingly do it. If I later found out then, as a matter of concience, I would be duty bound to tell anyone I might have infected, but this would not mean I did it knowingly.
Also, this is not in violation of Resolution 7 (Sexual, Freedom)

2) I have Aids, and I do know. I sleep with someone and don't tell them. They get infected.

This would be covered, and quite honestly it should be. Resolution 7 was designed to stop the government limiting what went on in people's bedrooms, so they could have whatever type of sex they wanted. But the right of the two people to know about the background of the other is not covered by #7 at all - if I were to have sex with someone I would either want it to be protected or want some evidence they were medically safe (for want of a better phrase). And since #7 does have exclusions for medical grounds, finding out if a person is spreading a disease or not is one of those exemptions. If a side effect is that they get prosecuted that is just a side effect - the fact that the government now knows someone is doing this is way more important.

3) I have Aids. I know I do. I use a hyperdermic needle to extract some of my blood, and I go round injecting it in to other people.

I think this should be obvious. And don't say it could never happen, because clearly it could.

4) I run a hospital. I screen all the blood I receive in transfusions and so forth, but one bag slips through. I use this bag and someone gets infected.

I don't believe this is covered. I did not knowingly infect anyone. Whether I am guilty of serious negligance and malpractice is a whole other issue.

5) I run a hospital, and don't screen transfusions. I infect someone with one of the blood bags.

Again - this would not be covered. I did not do it knowingly. However I should be shut down and beaten with a sharp stick for not screening blood. (But again, that is another matter)

6) I decide to infect as many people as possible, so I use only blood bags that are infected.

Again, this should be obvious.


Anyway - you get the idea. The person who is doing the infected is the one who gets punished under this resolution, not the person who is infected by them. No children will be punished (unless they do it on purpose - see example 3) and no rape victims will be punished. (If the victim has Aids, and the rapist doesn't, then the victim might infect the rapist, but I would hope the proposal relates to deliberate infection, and not accidental - being held down and raped probably does not indicate you are attempting to infect someone).

So stop worrying about it and pass the damn proposal already!! (I am unable to vote as I am out of the country and away from the voting system. If I attempted to use the system I have to vote, then it could lead to the UN gnomes coming round and poking me with sharp pointy sticks!)

Is everyone having too nice a Christmas? Is that why everyone seems to be misunderstanding one line of the proposal and getting up in arms about it?

I can't remember the exact line, but it says basically if you knowingly infect someone with aids, you should be punished.

I can think of some situations that could be covered by this.

(These are all hypothetical btw)

1) I have Aids, but I don't know it. I sleep with someone and they get infected.

This would not be covered, as I did not knowingly do it. If I later found out then, as a matter of concience, I would be duty bound to tell anyone I might have infected, but this would not mean I did it knowingly.
Also, this is not in violation of Resolution 7 (Sexual, Freedom)

2) I have Aids, and I do know. I sleep with someone and don't tell them. They get infected.

This would be covered, and quite honestly it should be. Resolution 7 was designed to stop the government limiting what went on in people's bedrooms, so they could have whatever type of sex they wanted. But the right of the two people to know about the background of the other is not covered by #7 at all - if I were to have sex with someone I would either want it to be protected or want some evidence they were medically safe (for want of a better phrase). And since #7 does have exclusions for medical grounds, finding out if a person is spreading a disease or not is one of those exemptions. If a side effect is that they get prosecuted that is just a side effect - the fact that the government now knows someone is doing this is way more important.

3) I have Aids. I know I do. I use a hyperdermic needle to extract some of my blood, and I go round injecting it in to other people.

I think this should be obvious. And don't say it could never happen, because clearly it could.

4) I run a hospital. I screen all the blood I receive in transfusions and so forth, but one bag slips through. I use this bag and someone gets infected.

I don't believe this is covered. I did not knowingly infect anyone. Whether I am guilty of serious negligance and malpractice is a whole other issue.

5) I run a hospital, and don't screen transfusions. I infect someone with one of the blood bags.

Again - this would not be covered. I did not do it knowingly. However I should be shut down and beaten with a sharp stick for not screening blood. (But again, that is another matter)

6) I decide to infect as many people as possible, so I use only blood bags that are infected.

Again, this should be obvious.


Anyway - you get the idea. The person who is doing the infected is the one who gets punished under this resolution, not the person who is infected by them. No children will be punished (unless they do it on purpose - see example 3) and no rape victims will be punished. (If the victim has Aids, and the rapist doesn't, then the victim might infect the rapist, but I would hope the proposal relates to deliberate infection, and not accidental - being held down and raped probably does not indicate you are attempting to infect someone).

So stop worrying about it and pass the damn proposal already!! (I am unable to vote as I am out of the country and away from the voting system. If I attempted to use the system I have to vote, then it could lead to the UN gnomes coming round and poking me with sharp pointy sticks!)
You brought up good points but you forgot the most important one. That clause is only a recommendation nations don't have to implement it if they don't want to.

The Constitutional Republic of Tekania is pleased to announce that per Futura Regional vote, this Republic, in her capacity as delegate, has voted for this resolution....

Pilot, congrats on the passing of this resolution.

Pilot, congrats on the passing of this resolution.

I object on the grounds the vote is not over yet.

I agree on the grounds that it seems highly unlikely that the opposition will gather 9,324 votes before the end!

Congrats Pilot.

I object on the grounds the vote is not over yet.

I agree on the grounds that it seems highly unlikely that the opposition will gather 9,324 votes before the end!

Congrats Pilot.

I've paid attention to 20 of these. At this point, it's over. A few votes may switch sides, but in the end I doubt even the percentages will change.

Congratulations for almost certainly being able to pass what is for the most part a good resolution. I suppose all that is left for people like me in the minority who voted against is to hope that member states will recognise the unsavoury implications of the much-debated 'recommendation' and not implement it. If I thought it was a good resolution but for an article that is only persuasive, you may ask why I voted against?

I would hope people's intuitions as to how their legal systems work would tell them why, but failing that please see my comments at the beginning of page 4 (I think - it's the only other post I've ever written anyway).

((Apologies if this is a question with an obvious answer, or which ought to be directed to a different forum, but is there any sort of amendment/negotiation procedure for these NSUN resolutions or is it just informal, ie on the forum or in telegrams? I do think this particular resolution could well have been almost totally unanimous, or at least much less contentious if the recommendation had been struck or re-worded somehow.))

No resolution can be totally unanimous. Not even the first was. Someone is always going to vote for it and someone is always going to vote against it.

Quite frankly, this resolution sucks. It's a pityful excuse for a resolution and wouldn't even pass at the weakest Model United Nations.

Let's guide you through it:

DEEPLY DISTURBED over the lack of attention given to the problem;
Oh REALLY?
ii. Expansion of the United Nations Council on AIDS (UNAIDS) mission offices to all member states of the United Nations. This project would be slotted to finish after ten yearly budget cycles and the funds will be drawn from that budget to finance it.
That's totally redundant. Where do they come up with the 10 years?
iii. Establishment of Know HIV/AIDS program, which will operate internationally as a media outlet for education and prevention of the virus through on-air public service messages and outdoor advertisements, television and radio programming, and free print and online content.
That's a PERFECT way of MISSING the target audience...
nanotechnology and biomedical developments may allow a designer virus and/or micro machine and/or bacterium to safely course through the body and destroy the virus;
This might be the most stupid part of the resolution! There already is a UN body working on nanotechnology and there's no way that the UNAIDS taking over will speed up the process. Nanotechnology won't be available for another 50 years, DEAL WITH IT!!!
including seminars for children “coming of age”
In my country the children are coming of age when being 5 years old, or 31 y/o for that matter.
RECOMMENDS that all member states will adopt a law that punishes those citizens knowledgably infected with the virus that transmit it to other citizens;
AND I BLAME MY GRANDMA FOR DYING! LET'S SUE!!!
That's the funniest part of the whole resolution, which proves the reso sucks and is made by someone not able to study politics EVER.
I think everyone is able to think for one-self and therefore making sure the other one gets tested before going to bed with him/her.

So if you think your people cannot think for himself, not even a little bit, VOTE IN FAVOUR OF THIS RESO.
If you have any moral/brains in you, VOTE AGAINST
The UN doesn't want halfly-proper resolutions.

Yours truthfully,

Tom Spaans
Netherlands

Region: USA (United Sick Alliances)

I am all in favour of the Proposal, but why does s/he keep on having to put capital letters at the beginning of each paragraph. It just annoy me, and often leads me to voting against the proposal.

I am all in favour of the Proposal, but why does s/he keep on having to put capital letters at the beginning of each paragraph. It just annoy me, and often leads me to voting against the proposal.

you are SUCH A NEWBIE when it comes to the UN, aren't you?

It's ignorance like that, screwing up this website and making stupid reso's like this pass.....

Tom Spaans
Netherlands

United Sick Alliances

I am all in favour of the Proposal, but why does s/he keep on having to put capital letters at the beginning of each paragraph. It just annoy me, and often leads me to voting against the proposal.

That is a standard format, in accordance with the "Resolution Writing Guide".

If you voted against resolutions based on that; you would be voting against the proper resolution format. Nothing worthwhile would ever pass.

we, the population of Dzjennick, would also like to know where the 10 year cycles come from? is there any real reason for that? or is it just put in because that looks cool... if it is, I would say: why not give them a 2 year cycle, or a 2-month cycle for that matter... I mean, this is a NGO that is specialized in AIDS, and now needs to specialize in Nanotechnology as well... Are they even allowed to research that?

Furthermore I would like to know where the funding for the media-outlet comes from? My state will deny they have inhabitants with AIDS, so why should I have to pay for something I don't need? And seeing that UNAIDS is all of a sudden capable of spending billions of dollars, why don't they fund it... and another thing, who is gonna fund UNAIDS, because UNAIDS cannot make so much money collecting from people on the street... It simply not possible, and I don't even want collectors of UNAIDS on my street because it seems to me that if they can fund all those things, there is no need for them to get any more money...

And then there is the recommendation for the punishment law, I heard several people say: but it's merely a recommendation... well guess what, my country doesn't only care about themselves and seeing that there are a huge number of countries on this world, the possibility of several countries implementing such a law is quite big... So all those who voted in favor of this resolution might have punished millions for just being born with AIDS... And I know it might not be your own population, but those people are still human beings or whatever roams in your 'countries'...

Yannick
United Sick Alliances

Simon und Tom: Decent arguments, arrogant delivery. I've been to loads of MUN things, twice in your real(?) home country, and I'm not sure any of the resolutions on NS would suceed if they were judged against MUN standards for format and realism. But then again, should they be? NSUN isn't MUN - I really do think NSUN resolutions ought to be judged as to their substance, and not so much their manner and form (besides an average decent MUN resolution takes weeks of research and days of negotiation - what can you realistically expect?)
If things were any other way, this place would be no fun at all.

DemonLord: I totally agree, that's why I wrote 'almost' before 'totally unanimous'.

Ok now that I've cleared that up (aka thrown the cat in amongst the pigeons) I'll bugger off.

Mickey.

Yes, we're both Dutchies.
Please don't underestimate the reply from our dearest friend Yannick either.

Seeing as all 3 of us (Simon and Yannick the most) have been Student officers at MUN we agree with you that substance goes over style. But if a resolution has neither, it's not even worthy of a NSUN approved stamp, issit?

So I hereby urge everyone to vote AGAINST this resolution

Tom
United Sick Alliances

If it has neither I'd definitely agree. As it were, I voted against the resolution on the 'recommendation' article alone and thought the rest of it was at least well-meaning, and deserving of a (small) stamp of approval. But we don't all have to agree and at least you have a strong opinion! (I worry the most about people who don't have them at all).

((Hats off to the student officers, I was a mere GA delegate - the Hague's a cool city!))

Seeing as all 3 of us (Simon and Yannick the most) have been Student officers at MUN we agree with you that substance goes over style. But if a resolution has neither, it's not even worthy of a NSUN approved stamp, issit?


OOC:
Hello,

FYI a number of us also were involved at MUNs (myself back in the 1980s when you had to actually write letters to various embassies and were required to submit position statements that would then be printed and distributed to other roleplaying nations in order to find out where our nations' opinions rested), but I have to disagree with you ... this resolution beats the quality of many MUN resolutions that I reviewed as a "college student officer" back in the 1980s and early 1990s. I've seen a few good MUN resolutions over the years and many bad ones, but I honestly like this resolution.

You also may want to note that unlike a MUN, NationStates doesn't really use parliamentry procedure nor does it grant any decision making authority to a "chair" or even a "UN Secretariat". The NationStates moderators will at times (as in frequently) delete proposals that violate the game rules ...

And thus it is extremely important to understand that unlike the RL UN or any Model UN, that the NS US really isn't a "United Nations". It has its own rules. There is no charter. There is no official format (though many of us promote the use of a UN resolution format) for resolutions. The resolution categories do not yet include any category for international research or humanitarian aid!!! The concept of writing resolutions that target individual nations (which the UN and MUN have) is specifically illegal here.

That said, if you don't like the content of this resolution, that is fine ... but please don't vote against a NS UN resolution just because it isn't like the MUN(s) you've participated in. (Or for those of you that have participated in other mock international societies like the Model Arab League or whatever ... same basic idea here: NationStates is its own thing.)

What is helpful, is when you are opposed to something, to actually citing exactly what you don't like. It would give resolution authors or repeal authors a chance to build upon that idea. Unlike Model UNs where people get up and talk, these written posts are not just recorded, but easily referenced in the future.

I myself watched a resolution die here once, and then looked over what I felt were the reasonable objections to the resolution and wrote my own resolution (Tracking Near Earth Objects) that I felt represented a compromise.

MUNs do not really have continuity nor are there consequences to roleplayers actions ... here our countries and our interactions with each other do have a history. For example, if you piss off a player, that nation might ask his / her delegate to vote against your future proposals. OTOH, helping a nation in need, sometimes means they may return the favour. This is largely possible because some of us have been playing for months, instead of the few days that MUNs tend to run.

I do not know if there are any online MUNs, but if you know of any, I'd love to check them out and see how they different from NationStates.

Thanks,
10kMichael

I've looked over the resolution. I must admit it is one of the best ones that I have read so far. While I am glad that the UN had decided to make a move to improve the wefare of its nations, and I do agree with the resolution, however there is a part of the resolution that I'm not so sure about. I have read the resolution, and will end up reading it again, and believe that the measures are adequate enough to make a significant difference. The part about punishing individuals who knowing expose others to the disease, while it is valid, does not sit well. I do believe that there should be measures taken to prevent the further spreading of the disease, I do not believe that punishment is part of the answer we are looking for. It is upsetting, and very frustrating, that someone would willing expose someone to a deadly virus it is, in the end, still their decision. The best that we can do is educate our people, care for them, and improve their treatments. Maybe one day we will be able to find a cure. :)

Yes, we're both Dutchies.
Please don't underestimate the reply from our dearest friend Yannick either.

Seeing as all 3 of us (Simon and Yannick the most) have been Student officers at MUN we agree with you that substance goes over style. But if a resolution has neither, it's not even worthy of a NSUN approved stamp, issit?

So I hereby urge everyone to vote AGAINST this resolution

Tom
United Sick Alliances

Actually, I have been to six MUNs in the past year. This proposal, in a much more expansive and modified form, passed through five of them: Yale, Harvard, Princeton, United Nations and UMass. Not only that, but it earned me two Best Delegate awards in the SOCHUM committees. Because there is a character limit and just under 30,000 nations to please without any specifics on real-life restrictions, I can't include everything that I would be able to if we were in a real Model United Nations.

So, next time you decide that you should take an Holier-Than-Thou approach to a online webgame, you should remember that this is just that, a game, and I am about fifty times smarter than you could ever hope to be. Vote for the resolution, vote against it, it's going to pass anyways and I assure you that no one here is going to stop writing resolutions because you and your gang of elitist MUN conference goers say that it can't live up to everything you think it should.

Have a wonderful day.

I'm still trying to figure out what MUN has to do with NSUN.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I'm still trying to figure out what MUN has to do with NSUN.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

It has absolutely nothing to do with the NationStates United Nations. I think that, because everyone knew this resolution was going to pass even before it reached the floor, people have come up with interesting and much more offensive ways to criticize it.

All that wasted energy...

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

To: Interested Parties
Re: NS HIV AIDS Act

As of 2:15 P.M. EST, the United Nations concluded voting on Resolution #84, the NationStates HIV/AIDS Act. It passed by a vote of 12,476 in favor to 2,279 against, a margin of 10,197 votes. We thank all the delegates that endorsed the proposal to allow it to reach quorum and we thank all nations that aided in the passing of this resolution by voting in favor of it.

There is a reception in the Pilotan White House on Sunday, 8 P.M. to celebrate the accomplishment.

well congatulations, your resoltuion passed, now we all have to throw money into to fire, funding a orgaization that has little chance of susscess, to "cure" a virus that could be elemitated by much simpler, and cheaper methods, It is odd though, 12,000 nations, voted for this, unabe to see past their own noses. I gave you the word of god, and for you who are too far lost to hear it, I gave reason, and yet, no one had the intelagence to see it, your folly.
all I can say is, shame on you, and enjoy your shallow pockets and empty hearts.

It is odd though, 12,000 nations, voted for this, unabe to see past their own noses.

I understand your nation is new here, but chances are that 12,000 nations did not vote for this.

Votes != Number of Nations

Delegates can and do cast votes that sometimes run counter to the wishes of individual nations.

For example, recently Adam Island voted in favour of the repeal of the 40 Hour Workweek proposed resolution. Adam Island had endorsed Groot Gouda (as have I). Groot Gouda and my nation both voted against the repeal.

Adam Island added 1 vote for.
Mikitivity added 1 vote against.
Groot Gouda added at least 3 votes against.

That is a 5 votes cast, but only 3 nations voting.

And while I'm nitpicking you over semantics, I hope that you'll consider that in addition to not correctly describing how the UN votes and works, that your assumptions of what is right and wrong, more importantly when it comes to the opinions expressed by others, are really based on your belief system and experiences -- something which is ultimately unique to you.

I gave you the word of god, and for you who are too far lost to hear it, I gave reason, and yet, no one had the intelagence to see it, your folly.
...
My congratulations to you on being able to hear the word of God. Of course, those of us who live in atheistic states (such as Squirrelmania) don't put much credence in it.

As far as reason, Squirrelmania generally expects people who want to be taken seriously in a reasoned argument to, at the very least, be able to come within a typo of correctly spelling "intelligence."

My folly? Certainly not voting for the resolution, which I and my region supported. Probably replying to this post.

Asshelmets you are out of line. Take a second, calm down, and just remember this is a game and has no bearing on real life. The events occuring in NS are trivial compared to those of real life.

Threats like that have no place in this game. It is out of line. I hope you will see reason, and understand this.

I am not trying to egg you on, but help you to see reason, and that there is no point in getting this worked up.

Hope everyone else is having a goodnight. :)

Asshelmets you are out of line. Take a second, calm down, and just remember this is a game and has no bearing on real life. The events occuring in NS are trivial compared to those of real life.

Threats like that have no place in this game. It is out of line. I hope you will see reason, and understand this.

I am not trying to egg you on, but help you to see reason, and that there is no point in getting this worked up.

Hope everyone else is having a goodnight. :)

heh. Never occurred to me anyone could see that as anything but RPing. That was supposed to be my ambassador screaming at Pilot's ambassador.

heh. Never occurred to me anyone could see that as anything but RPing. That was supposed to be my ambassador screaming at Pilot's ambassador.
OOC:You might want to keep in mind that the UN forum is not really an RP forum, sure some of post in character but it's not a requirement.

iv. Creation of Think HIV/AIDS program that will use a large portion of the funds to explore the following possibilities: (1) nanotechnology and biomedical developments may allow a designer virus and/or micro machine and/or bacterium to safely course through the body and destroy the virus; (2) development of alternatives to blood transfusion – an operation that has helped to spread the virus – including blood substitutes, volume expanders, or new growth factors. These possibilities are to be given priority but in no way restrict nations from expanding their research into other areas of possible cure and/or vaccine and/or treatment.

This part of the resolution disturbs me to a high extreme. I'm a biomedical engineer in real life and for someone to think that biomedical developments and nanotechnology could even possibly be a cure for AIDS/HIV is disturbing. You cannot cure a virus with all of the biomedical principles in the world, it just can't be done. The idea of a designer virus going through the body and destroying the virus is also flawed in that the HIV/AIDS virus invades cells and you would HAVE to destroy the cell in order to destroy the virus due to the way the two interact. This would result in a designer virus basically killing a person because the production rate of HIV/AIDS is extremely high and would result in the elimination of far too much cellular matter. I currently attend one of the leading nanotechnology research centers in the world and the idea that nanotechnology is going to help with this is also flawed. It's just not happening any time in the near future... or ever. If anything should be given more money or research, it's cancer, which is curable. AIDS/HIV is not.

Perhaps you'll explain in detail why AIDS is "not curable".

This part of the resolution disturbs me to a high extreme. I'm a biomedical engineer in real life and for someone to think that biomedical developments and nanotechnology could even possibly be a cure for AIDS/HIV is disturbing. You cannot cure a virus with all of the biomedical principles in the world, it just can't be done.

People also used to believe that you cannot clone using biomedical principles in the real world. Using current tech in the real world, you can't. But you have to remember that tech doesn't stand still.

It can be done, but you have to get over that attitude of being unable to do it and actually work on it. Scientific negatism is what led to the embarassment of it being proven wrong about the giant squid.

The idea of a designer virus going through the body and destroying the virus is also flawed in that the HIV/AIDS virus invades cells and you would HAVE to destroy the cell in order to destroy the virus due to the way the two interact.

Actually, no. You program the virus targetting HIV to attack it and infect it with genetic data that causes it to become dormant and unable to respond to stimuli. Then, the body's defenses go in and destroy the virus. It's the same principle behine how viruses work, only you're changing the target.

DLE scientists have been doing it for decades, only this is the first time they've targetted a supervirus.

This would result in a designer virus basically killing a person because the production rate of HIV/AIDS is extremely high and would result in the elimination of far too much cellular matter.

See above.

I currently attend one of the leading nanotechnology research centers in the world and the idea that nanotechnology is going to help with this is also flawed. It's just not happening any time in the near future... or ever.

"Flight is not going to happen any time in the near future... or ever."
"Walking on the moon is not going to happen any time in the near future... or ever"
"Cloning is not going to happen any time in the near future... or ever."
"The giant squid will not be discovered any time in the near future... or ever."

Unless you have the psychic ability to tell the future, you cannot back up that claim with anything resembling facts. All you have is the fact you cannot see how it can happen now. That doesn't stop people in future who have better vision and the ability to see past their own version of reality from actually doing it.

Just because we can't do it now doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means we can't do it now.

If anything should be given more money or research, it's cancer, which is curable. AIDS/HIV is not.

Cancer isn't curable without genetic modification of the entire species. Until we modify out the possibility of a mutation that leads to cancer, it will always be around and will always be a danger.

Keep in mind what you are saying about HIV is what some people used to say about smallpox. Where is smallpox now?

You also have no scientific evidence to back up that claim. You cannot prove it is incurable, only that we have yet to find a way to cure it.

For someone who claims to be a scientist, you certainly don't rely much on science.

OOC:
DemonLordEnigma, knowing that he claims to be a biomedical engineer, the quote above is flamebaiting. You have no way of knowing what he knows and used to base his opinion on. He could easily have relied on science.

If the rest of your post had any merit surely it could stand without you resorting to personal attacks.

Perhaps you'll explain in detail why AIDS is "not curable".

Perhaps because it is a scientific fact that a virus cannot be cured?

OOC:
DemonLordEnigma, knowing that he claims to be a biomedical engineer, the quote above is flamebaiting. You have no way of knowing what he knows and used to base his opinion on. He could easily have relied on science.

If the rest of your post had any merit surely it could stand without you resorting to personal attacks.

Editted out.

My problem is I have dealt with a type of people who claim to be scientists to back up a claim when, in fact, they usually have no scientific training, are not relying on science at all, and are using the claim to try to give weight to arguements that should be dismissed outright.

And you would think that someone who works in a field of science based on technologies and discoveries that people used to say would never happen would at least realize that just because we can't do it now is no reason to say we will never be able to do it. That is what gave me my hint that he is not who he claims to be.

Perhaps because it is a scientific fact that a virus cannot be cured?

And where is your evidence to back this? It seems the medical community disagrees with you.

Also, look at smallpox.

Perhaps because it is a scientific fact that a virus cannot be cured?

See also "vaccine". :rolleyes:

I'm not seeking to cure a virus - I'm seeking to give its human hosts a granted immunity to the virus.

And where is your evidence to back this? It seems the medical community disagrees with you.

Also, look at smallpox.

Smallpox was cured? Just...wow. I can't believe I read that without my head exploding.

Also, it may shock you to realize a vaccine does NOT = a cure.

A vaccine (named after vaccinia, the infectious agent of cowpox, which, when inoculated, provides protection against smallpox) is used to prepare a human or animal's immune system to defend the body against a specific pathogen, usually a bacterium, a virus or a toxin.

Many diseases such as polio have been largely controlled in developed nations through mass use of vaccines (indeed, smallpox appears to have been completely eliminated in the wild).

As long as the vast majority of people are vaccinated it is difficult for an outbreak of disease to spread. This effect is called herd immunity.

Research supports the contention that a safe and effective vaccine against HIV - the causitive agent of AIDS - is possible.

Or in short - remove the existance of the virus, and you have "cured" it.

Smallpox was cured? Just...wow. I can't believe I read that without my head exploding.

Also, it may shock you to realize a vaccine does NOT = a cure.

A cure can be preventative, such as vaccines, or after infection, such as the many antibacterial meds that are breeding the new superbugs.

So, yes, vaccine = cure.

A vaccine is possible against most virueses Iwould think, But, from what I have heard HIV can mutate very easily, so it would be difficult to come up with one comprehensive vaccine to help eliminate AIDS. Also, a vaccine will not cure people with HIV already.

Research supports the contention that a safe and effective vaccine against HIV - the causitive agent of AIDS - is possible.

And naturally since you asked for proof from others, you'll be posting this shortly, right?

A vaccine is possible against most virueses Iwould think, But, from what I have heard HIV can mutate very easily, so it would be difficult to come up with one comprehensive vaccine to help eliminate AIDS. Also, a vaccine will not cure people with HIV already.

Due to HIV being a supermutagen, a vaccine is pretty close to impossible at this point. However, the best path is not to attempt one. Rather than taking a defensive roll and having the danger of it mutating to where the vaccine is not as effective, such as has been becomming increasingly observed with the flu virus, we should fight the virus on its level. Engineer something that actively seeks it with intentions of destroying it.

Didn't this resolution already pass and decimate our economies?

Why are we still debating it?

Didn't this resolution already pass and decimate our economies?

Why are we still debating it?

Because people are trying to repeal it and trying to get up steam for arguements behind repeals.

Ah. Count me in, then.

Of course.

A vaccine is possible against most virueses Iwould think, But, from what I have heard HIV can mutate very easily, so it would be difficult to come up with one comprehensive vaccine to help eliminate AIDS. Also, a vaccine will not cure people with HIV already.

No, a vaccine will not cure someone with the disease already. However, it prevents its spread. If you cut the spread to 0%, once it kills the current hosts, the virus dies out completely. We consider that a "cure".

You might want to read up on progress in defeating AIDS. Your question has been well addressed.

So, how do we start a repeal effort?

OOC

I privately look over your complaints and laugh in the face of all those who are trying to repeal it.

Productive comment, Pilot. Had it been in character it would have made more sense...

Genuine bile is always a useful addition to a sensible debate. Especially from the individual who authored the resolution.

Productive comment, Pilot. Had it been in character it would have made more sense...

Genuine bile is always a useful addition to a sensible debate. Especially from the individual who authored the resolution.

The debate is over. The resolution has passed and I'm obviously not going to make it easier for the people trying to repeal a proposal that I worked very hard on.

So, have a Happy New Year.

You're right to take pride in the product of your hard work. And you're also right in that the debate probably doesn't belong on this thread any more. I wish the repeal efforts (and the no doubt 'sensible' debate to accompany it) the best of luck and will probably support it.

I should hope that 'not making it easier' would not involve provoking them by laughing in their face, but hey, that's just me.. Everyone's entitled to what they bloody well please, especially on internet forums.

Thanks for the new year's greeting, likewise to you.

Mickey

You're right to take pride in the product of your hard work. And you're also right in that the debate probably doesn't belong on this thread any more.

But... but... he said Please Don't Start Another One! right in the title of the thread.