NationStates Jolt Archive

The Eon Convention defines Genocide as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion).

We find, however, that this act interferes with UN Resolution #43 (Legalise Euthanasia), since Euthanasia is the systematic and deliberate extermination of the sick and suffering.

Furthermore, we find that the Eon Convention may interfere with UN Resolution #8 (Citizen Rule Required), in the case that a nation's citizens demand execution as a valid form of punishment, and Resolution #61 (Abortion Rights), in the case that a nation defines fetuses as a part (or potential part) of society.

Likewise, we find that the Eon Convention interferes with a goverment's ability to exercise its freewill in the methods it chooses to defend itself from potential threats, thus also potentially interferes, primarily with Resolution #49 (Rights and Duties of UN States), but also with aspects of UN Resolution #53 (Universal Freedom of Choice).

Taking note, that all the possible social benefits of the Eon Convention are already covered by a plethora of UN Resolutions, such as Resolution #16 (Elimination of Bio Weapons), Resolution #19 (Religious Tolerance), Resolution #26 (The Universal Bill of Rights), Resolution #27 (Due Process), Resolution #31 (Wolfish Convention on POW), Resolution #40 (Banning the use of Landmines), Resolution #41 (END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS), Resolution #56 (BioRights Declaration), Resolution #65 (Refugee Protection Act), Resolution #73 (Habeas Corpus), Resolution #75 (The Nuclear Terrorism Act) and more, we find that the Eon Convention on Genocide to be a superfluous document that interferes with previously established rights, and should thus be discarded.Any comments?

Illegal. You cannot amend resolutions. Read the stickies.

Aside from it being illegal I find a lot of flaws in your reasoning.

1) Euthanasia

The people who are sick are asking to die. This is not an arbitrary criteria. It is also a person doing it, rather than the state.

2) Execution

If someone is executed for committing a crime that is not an arbitary criteria.

3) Abortion

Deciding to abort a pregnancy is not the state doing it. And it is not done by arbitrary criteria.

4) Rights and Duties.

Of course it does. That is the whole point of it. No nation should have the right to defend itself by wiping out a whole other species.

5) Freedom Of Choice

You can not possibly be arguing that a nation has the right to decide to wipe out a whole other nation under Freedom Of Choice.

6) Other resolutions

Not one of these prevents a nation from going out and killing all the Jews, all the blacks, all the left-handed people, all the Christians, Muslims (etc/etc) in the world. And nothing deals with how to try and punish people for Genocide. If they did it would not have been necessary to write a new resolution.

DemonLordEnigma, I noticed that, however if you read it, I'm actually trying to get it repealed - it's just I phrased the title of the act wrong, so this thread is the same title as the proposal.

TilEnca, arbitrary, as defined by dictionary.com is:
1) Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2) Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3) Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4) Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

In other words, all criteria of 'people worthy of death' is arbitrary. Whether they're asking for it, they're executed for crimes or killing the unborn because they're unwanted, the criteria is arbitrary.

As to rights and duties, you will find that destroying a nation does not constitute 'destroying a species'. There's only one species of human.

Freedom of choice, no I'm arguing that a nation has the ability to declare war on another nation it feels threatened by - funnily enough, that counts under your act.

As to the other resolutions, the Religious Tolerance act forbids wars based on religion, the Universal Bill of Rights forbids any form of descrimination, the Wolfish Convention prevents the killing of PoWs, the Due Process act prevents vigilante-style 'justice' from being meted out, the END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS act prevents the use of violence to illicit information (information carriers being another arbitrary criteria), the BioRights act gives clones and genetically modified persons the rights of an ordinary human (the right to life is a standard in most nationstates), the Refugee Protection act protects refugees from unfair, and potentially lethal situations, and the Habeas Corpus act protects prisoners from potentially lethal situations as well. The rest deal with minimising the use of WMDs.

So to conclude, your act says that we can't kill:
- the suffering
- the unborn
- criminals found 'worthy of death'
- the soldiers of potentially dangerous nations

Because those are all arbitrary criteria. In doing so it breaks previous UN acts.

Meanwhile, the safety of:
- religious groups
- any humans
- prisoners of war
- untried criminals
- potential information sources
- artificial sentient life-forms
- refugees
- prisoners in general

Is assured.

The only thing your act does that isn't already covered by something is say that murder criminals should be tried internationally - and it's not necessary since they're tried in their own nations. Effectively, it bans killing people - big whoop. Already been done.

You can ask the mods to change the title.

I'll have a lengthy reply to this in a bit. After all, I did support the Eon Coonvention, even if with reservations about it.

The mods wouldn't be able to rename the actual act itself though, would they? Probably best to keep the titles the same.

Ok, I'll take the original act apart just to make my point:

Genocide is defined as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion).
All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.
Be it further resolved that the United Nations oppose all wars fought in the name of God and religion.
All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.
You will admit that being killed for your religion counts as being punished for them? You will admit that religious wars are a form of genocide? You will admit that killing people for having specific genetic/physical traits counts as being treated unequally? Therefore, this is covered already by two different acts.

Extermination includes, but is not limited to:- murder, torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy and familial separation.
All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Every nation has the right to interrogate witnesses. However, they do not have the right to break bones, blind and bruise people while in questioning. (The same goes for punishments for a crime. The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment.)
Again, it's covered by three different acts.

Genocide is committed or instigated by the state, or by groups acting on behalf of the state.
If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected. If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights.
Therefore, it is already a UN member's prerogative to protect all humans (the details of which are covered earlier in the act), and thus genocide by this definition is already illegal.

Genocide has no statute of limitations.
Well yes it does - it counts as murder, which is illegal under articles 4 and 5 of the Universal Bill of Rights.

If Genocide is used in self-defence, it is still considered genocide, and will be brought to TPP to confirm the validity of the action.
In other words a nation cannot defend itself, because killing soldiers is genocide. Likewise, the politicians will be arrested for instigating the deaths of any of their own soldiers, since they knew people would die as a result of their actions.

Likewise, as I stated before, the act is too broad - covering things it isn't meant to, and everything it is meant to cover has already been covered.

Deleted, but no warning given.

Edit: ACK! Posted with a puppet...

Just rename it - I've redone my proposal. Call the thread Repeal "The Eon Convention on Genocide".

You will admit that being killed for your religion counts as being punished for them? You will admit that religious wars are a form of genocide? You will admit that killing people for having specific genetic/physical traits counts as being treated unequally? Therefore, this is covered already by two different acts..

Admittedly, courts should be interpreting those previous acts you mention in a way that would make them illegal, but that requires the step of logic you took. The Eon Convention on Genocide specificaly states that mass extermination of a race is illegal. However the Eon Convention goes on to actually define what genocide is and how the U.N should handle it. It actually creates the entire Justice system on this matter.


Well yes it does - it counts as murder, which is illegal under articles 4 and 5 of the Universal Bill of Rights.

Yes, murder is illegal but genocide is not limited to murder according to the Eon Convention (OOC-- a factual statement in this world as well). Genocide is a crime against humanity. It is the deliberate act of destroying another race or culture, not the same as a bar fight in which someone happens to shoot someone.


In other words a nation cannot defend itself, because killing soldiers is genocide. Likewise, the politicians will be arrested for instigating the deaths of any of their own soldiers, since they knew people would die as a result of their actions. .

This is neither in the spirit or the wording of the Eon Convention. Genocide is the purposeful destruction of an entire race or culture. (OOC-- Lets make this simple. Nazi Germany was certainly attempting to anihilate several groups, primarily the Jews but also Poles and many others...that is genocide... the massacre in Rwanda was also an attempt at genocide. The war to liberate Europe in WWII was not genocide as the allied forces did not attempt to anihilate the German race. I can name countless examples to be mailed to you personaly if you care). War might be ugly, but it does not necessarly involve genocide.


Likewise, as I stated before, the act is too broad - covering things it isn't meant to, and everything it is meant to cover has already been covered.

It does exactly what its meant too.

Sai
Principality of Prachya

TilEnca, arbitrary, as defined by dictionary.com is:
1) Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2) Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3) Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4) Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.


And defined by someone else it might mean something else.


In other words, all criteria of 'people worthy of death' is arbitrary. Whether they're asking for it, they're executed for crimes or killing the unborn because they're unwanted, the criteria is arbitrary.


No it isn't. The person who is having the abortion, or executing a criminal, has a reason for doing specific to that instance. They are not just walking out on to the street, seeing the first white guy they come across and blowing his brains out just because he is white.


As to rights and duties, you will find that destroying a nation does not constitute 'destroying a species'. There's only one species of human.


But if (for example) you set about wiping out all the Elves in TilEnca, you have destroyed a part of a civilisation just because they are Elves, and for no other reason. And - to continue that - if you kill everyone in TilEnca just because they are from TilEnca, you have wiped out a whole society (around 691 million at time of posting) for no other reason than they were who they were.

(Hilter was said to have been guilty of genocide for wiping out, or trying to wipe out, all of the Jews. But he didn't kill all of humanity. So was he not guilty of it?)

How can you not see that that is different from executing someone for murder?


Freedom of choice, no I'm arguing that a nation has the ability to declare war on another nation it feels threatened by - funnily enough, that counts under your act.


And I have no problem with you declaring war. The Convention has no problem with it either. But if you use that war as a pretext to kill every single man, woman and child in the nation, then there is a problem. The Convention does not say you will be convicted of genocide, but it does say you will have to show that wiping out an entire nation was the only way to defend your nation.


As to the other resolutions, the Religious Tolerance act forbids wars based on religion


But not mass slaughters.


the Universal Bill of Rights forbids any form of descrimination


But not mass slaughters of civilians


the Wolfish Convention prevents the killing of PoWs


But not mass slaughters of civilians


the Due Process act prevents vigilante-style 'justice' from being meted out,


But not mass slaughters of cilvilans.


the END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS act prevents the use of violence to illicit information (information carriers being another arbitrary criteria),


But not mass slaughters of civilians


the BioRights act gives clones and genetically modified persons the rights of an ordinary human (the right to life is a standard in most nationstates),


But not mass slaughters of clones


the Refugee Protection act protects refugees from unfair, and potentially lethal situations,


But not (do I really need to keep typing this?) mass slaughters of civilians


and the Habeas Corpus act protects prisoners from potentially lethal situations as well.


Again - it does not cover the mass slaughter of cilvians.

Also - as it has been pointed out - I am under no illusion that the Convention will prevent genocide. It will only (attempt to) ensure that those who commit such a heinous act will be brought to justice for it.

So to conclude, your act says that we can't kill:

- the suffering


No it doesn't.


- the unborn


Ditto.


- criminals found 'worthy of death'


Ditto squared.


- the soldiers of potentially dangerous nations


Ditto cubed.


Because those are all arbitrary criteria. In doing so it breaks previous UN acts.


No they are not arbitary criteria. Because in each case you are doing it to one specific person for a specific reason. Whether it be they murdered someone, raped someone, or the mother was raped and doesn't want the child, or they realised that the invading nation had sent everyone against them and genocide was the only way to stop them.


Meanwhile, the safety of:
- religious groups
- any humans
- prisoners of war
- untried criminals
- potential information sources
- artificial sentient life-forms
- refugees
- prisoners in general

Is assured.


Really? Just because there is a law saying someone is protected doesn't mean they are. And I don't think any of those resolutions are suitable for dealing with the systematic and deliberate attempt to destroy a society.


The only thing your act does that isn't already covered by something is say that murder criminals should be tried internationally - and it's not necessary since they're tried in their own nations. Effectively, it bans killing people - big whoop. Already been done.

Where does it say murder criminals are tried internationally? It says that if someone has attempted to wipe out every single red-head in the world, that it is the worlds job to deal with that person, and not any one nation. Cause genocide does not necessarily happen within a country's borders. If it is a crime against more than one nation, who should have the jurisdiction? And - since you invoked the wonder of fair trials - the parties involved (which could be the whole nation) are not supposed to be involved in the process of justice. So someone else has to do it.

For reference - this was the thread in which the resolution was discussed when it was at vote. A lot of what you are objecting to was covered in here, and generally found to be a misunderstanding.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378437

Prachya:
Admittedly, courts should be interpreting those previous acts you mention in a way that would make them illegal, but that requires the step of logic you took. The Eon Convention on Genocide specificaly states that mass extermination of a race is illegal. However the Eon Convention goes on to actually define what genocide is and how the U.N should handle it. It actually creates the entire Justice system on this matter.
And in doing so makes abortion, euthanasia, war, executions and any number of state-approved actions which result in killings which have previously been legal, an international crime.

Yes, murder is illegal but genocide is not limited to murder according to the Eon Convention (OOC-- a factual statement in this world as well). Genocide is a crime against humanity. It is the deliberate act of destroying another race or culture, not the same as a bar fight in which someone happens to shoot someone.
Not according to the definition given by the act. The act's definition includes what you would call race (ie, genetic traits) and religion, but by using the phrase 'arbitrary criteria' any reason for killing someone becomes illegal.
Killing someone because they're suffering - defining someone as having too much suffering is arbitrary.
Killing someone for breaking the law - dividing people into criminal enough to be killing and not criminal enough to be killed is arbitrary.
Killing a fetus - attempting to define the unborn as not human enough to have to survive is arbitrary.
Killing opposing soldiers - attempting to define sides is putting an arbitrary criteria on a large group of humans, even if those definitions are self-imposed.
Pre-emptive strikes - attempting to define someone as an enemy when you're attacking before they've shown their true colours is an arbitrary definition.

Just about any form of killing can be defined as an arbitrary criteria. Therefore the act oversteps its bounds. It has already been made clear by previous acts that all sentient beings must be treated equally, and in doing so does a better job of doing what this was intended to do. It's superfluous and badly written.

This is neither in the spirit or the wording of the Eon Convention.
It may not be the spirit, but it is most definitely the wording. Defining one nation as an enemy of your nation is an arbitrary division of the human race, and therefore anyone killing those on the wrong side of that definition comes under this act. Therefore no wars can be instigated ever again.

Likewise, since it is politicians who started the war, and it is the army (again, another arbitrary division - setting up 'military' and 'citizens') that fights, any deaths of army personnel (the army being created by the government, and thus dying for being soldiers) not only causes the soldier who killed them to be tried, but the politician who sent both soldiers.

I must applaud you though - you've managed to make all forms of death other than "natural causes" illegal.

Tilenca:

And defined by someone else it might mean something else.
This however, is a dictionary's definition.

No it isn't. The person who is having the abortion, or executing a criminal, has a reason for doing specific to that instance. They are not just walking out on to the street, seeing the first white guy they come across and blowing his brains out just because he is white.
False. You just gave that person who killed that white guy a reason. Genocide according to the definition in your act has a reason - because someone has defined them as someone who must be killed. Why are people criminals? Because someone defined their actions as illegal - abitrarily. Why are fetuses fetuses and not full humans under the Universal Bill of Rights? Because someone defined them as such - abitrarily. And so on.

All murders have reasons. If they don't have a motive, it's manslaughter.

But if (for example) you set about wiping out all the Elves in TilEnca, you have destroyed a part of a civilisation just because they are Elves, and for no other reason. And - to continue that - if you kill everyone in TilEnca just because they are from TilEnca, you have wiped out a whole society (around 691 million at time of posting) for no other reason than they were who they were.

(Hilter was said to have been guilty of genocide for wiping out, or trying to wipe out, all of the Jews. But he didn't kill all of humanity. So was he not guilty of it?)

How can you not see that that is different from executing someone for murder?
You were the one accusing people of wiping out species. Wiping out elves for being elves is the same as wiping out criminals because you don't like what they did. Hitler wiped out the Jews because they didn't have blue eyes and blonde hair (meaning he didn't want them) - we wipe out fetuses because we don't want them.

There is no difference.

All of them are just people imposing their own value-sets on other people.

And I have no problem with you declaring war. The Convention has no problem with it either. But if you use that war as a pretext to kill every single man, woman and child in the nation, then there is a problem. The Convention does not say you will be convicted of genocide, but it does say you will have to show that wiping out an entire nation was the only way to defend your nation.
False. I need only kill your soldiers because they're your soldiers to be arrested under the Eon Convention.

But not mass slaughters.
Which would be defined as an act of war against that religion, and those responsible would be summarily arrested for their crimes. Don't you get it? Murder is already a crime.

But not mass slaughters of civilians
Yes, since that counts as inhuman treatment.

But not mass slaughters of clones
They count as human, and have full human rights - meaning that killing them is murder.

Also - as it has been pointed out - I am under no illusion that the Convention will prevent genocide. It will only (attempt to) ensure that those who commit such a heinous act will be brought to justice for it.
Which they would be anyway since murder is a crime in any UN nation under the Universal Declaration of Rights!

Where does it say murder criminals are tried internationally?
When your definition covered all forms of killing and murder.

It says that if someone has attempted to wipe out every single red-head in the world, that it is the worlds job to deal with that person, and not any one nation.
It also says that any society or part of society is killed because of an arbitrary criteria then they are subject to this act as well.

Cause genocide does not necessarily happen within a country's borders. If it is a crime against more than one nation, who should have the jurisdiction?
The UN would already have authority to wage war on any group that can cause genocide on that level - and that's what it would be. A war.

And - since you invoked the wonder of fair trials - the parties involved (which could be the whole nation) are not supposed to be involved in the process of justice. So someone else has to do it.
Fine - that already happens under national law, or do murderers get tried by the family of the deceased in your nation?

For reference - this was the thread in which the resolution was discussed when it was at vote. A lot of what you are objecting to was covered in here, and generally found to be a misunderstanding.
Found by whom? A majority or a lawyer? If it's by a majority then it's invalid. Someone trained in law would agree with me.

I am trying to keep my civility here, but nothing you are saying makes any kind of rational sense. You have compared one woman who has an abortion to Hitler's attempt to wipe out the Jews.

Put the repeal forward, and see if it gets approved. If it does then it can be discussed by a wider audience, including a lot of people who voted in support of it when it came up originally, and who apparently can differentiate between abortion and genocide.

Insequa, what about sentient nonhumans?

The thing you don't seem to get is all killing has a reason. You yourself stated that when you were trying to say the opposite.

Whether someone was killed for what they look like, what they believe, or because someone hated them, it's all the same under your act, because any division of human beings is arbitrary. You just find some reasons to be inadequate - but this is not conveyed, or even mentioned in the act. Fact is, all forms of killing are some form of descrimination, which I can see was the intended target of the act, but not the limit.

Your act makes genocide illegal, and defines genocide as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion).

The thing is, a single individual is a 'part of society', and any reason for killing him/her/it is an arbitrary criteria created by the murderer/doctor/politician. Everyone comes under this, hence why it is detrimental. Likewise, everything you tried to do is:
1) covered by previous UN resolutions, and,
2) taken care of on a national level.

Anything that can't be taken care of on a national level is automatically in the UN's domain of power anyway, since any violence by a single group across multiple nations constitutes war.

As I said previously, you've done a very good job of making all forms of death, excluding natural causes, illegal.

And DemonLord, sentient non-humans count as human thanks to the BioRights Declaration.

The thing you don't seem to get is all killing has a reason. You yourself stated that when you were trying to say the opposite.

Whether someone was killed for what they look like, what they believe, or because someone hated them, it's all the same under your act, because any division of human beings is arbitrary. You just find some reasons to be inadequate - but this is not conveyed, or even mentioned in the act.

You're forgetting one item: It defines what is covered for being allowed as arbitrary reasons. Let me quote it to you:

§1. Genocide is defined as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion). Those covered by this resolution are those protected by The UBR.

This is saying the arbitrary criteria are violations of the various rights the UBR gives. I would assume you can extend it to cover other resolutions as well.

Your act makes genocide illegal, and defines genocide as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion).[/quote]

See above.

The thing is, a single individual is a 'part of society', and any reason for killing him/her/it is an arbitrary criteria created by the murderer/doctor/politician. Everyone comes under this, hence why it is detrimental. Likewise, everything you tried to do is:
1) covered by previous UN resolutions, and,
2) taken care of on a national level.

#2 is really not that important, as shown by the recent repeal and a few passed resolutions.

And DemonLord, sentient non-humans count as human thanks to the BioRights Declaration.

No, they're not. It states:

The United Nations and its member states shall hereby recognize and henceforth regard the inherent rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons.

Says nothing about protecting sentient nonhumans that are naturally the way they are.

Hmm. This repeal seems to me to be born of wilful ignorance and ulterior motives.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I am trying to keep my civility here, but nothing you are saying makes any kind of rational sense. You have compared one woman who has an abortion to Hitler's attempt to wipe out the Jews.

Put the repeal forward, and see if it gets approved. If it does then it can be discussed by a wider audience, including a lot of people who voted in support of it when it came up originally, and who apparently can differentiate between abortion and genocide.

I think we agree that this discusion is verging on pointless since the honorable member from (whatever its nation is called) refuses to apply the commonly used meaning of "arbitrary". He seems to think that all things are arbitrary. Intersting philosophy for 600 B.C.E, but today.... its a bit old. Anyway, we will continue to monitor the discussion but see no need to respond further.
In light of a lack of any real politicial momentum to repeal the Eon Convention on Genocide we have concluded that this, is not a fight that needs to be fought. We consider the matter resolved.

Sai
Principality of Prachya

This is saying the arbitrary criteria are violations of the various rights the UBR gives. I would assume you can extend it to cover other resolutions as well.
In other words, it's just saying that breaking the UBR is illegal - we already knew that, since it's somewhat inherent in the function of the UBR that it be followed in the first place.

#2 is really not that important, as shown by the recent repeal and a few passed resolutions.
It's still performing a function already taken care of.

Says nothing about protecting sentient nonhumans that are naturally the way they are.
If you can find a sentient non-human who isn't genetically modified or cloned, then fine. It would, however, have been better covered by an anti-descrimination act, rather than something of this blundering magnitude.

Hmm. This repeal seems to me to be born of wilful ignorance and ulterior motives.
Willful ignorance of what? I've shown that the author of the act was the ignorant one, since his act's intended function has already been covered, and the act has accidental negative functions as well!
Likewise, what ulterior motives? The nation of Insequa has no death penalty, has commited itself to a total of 0 wars, and descriminates against nobody. The only possible thing we could be tried under would be abortion. I'm doing this because I'm an advocate of free-choice, something this act just refuses to take into account.

I think we agree that this discusion is verging on pointless since the honorable member from (whatever its nation is called) refuses to apply the commonly used meaning of "arbitrary".
I use the dictionary definition. Which do you use?

He seems to think that all things are arbitrary.
No, just all methods of dividing up people into groups, the same as the act. Any division between 'should be killed' and 'shouldn't be killed' is arbitrary, therefore the act forbids all killing. Ever. For any reason.

In light of a lack of any real politicial momentum to repeal the Eon Convention on Genocide we have concluded that this, is not a fight that needs to be fought. We consider the matter resolved.
Since the appeal to repeal the convention has only been out for a few hours, we'll wait thank you very much. Or are you attempting to rush a democratic event, thereby denying the general public its vote? 3 people agreeing does not constitute a UN decision.

So far, you've argued the dictionary, and you've ridiculed me. So in other words, you've used 2 logical fallicies to try and argue my points - firstly, creating some alternate definition of an already absolute term, and secondly an appeal to ridicule. Take a gander on wikipedia about logical fallicies.

In other words, it's just saying that breaking the UBR is illegal - we already knew that, since it's somewhat inherent in the function of the UBR that it be followed in the first place.

It's still performing a function already taken care of.

When it comes to resolutions doing what is already covered, a certain phrase comes to mind: Welcome to the UN. You'll find we do that quite a bit.

If you can find a sentient non-human who isn't genetically modified or cloned, then fine. It would, however, have been better covered by an anti-descrimination act, rather than something of this blundering magnitude.

You try getting a resolution that protects anything but humanity through the UN without tricking it. I'm honestly surprised the one about clones passed.

When it comes to resolutions doing what is already covered, a certain phrase comes to mind: Welcome to the UN. You'll find we do that quite a bit.
The problem is, as you don't seem to have disproved yet, that this act is intended to perform something that is already performed, and then steps too far and does things it shouldn't.

You try getting a resolution that protects anything but humanity through the UN without tricking it. I'm honestly surprised the one about clones passed.
Interesting.

I use the dictionary definition. Which do you use?


So far, you've argued the dictionary, and you've ridiculed me. So in other words, you've used 2 logical fallicies to try and argue my points - firstly, creating some alternate definition of an already absolute term, and secondly an appeal to ridicule. Take a gander on wikipedia about logical fallicies.

Sorry, can't resist this one: I am not disputing that you have read the dictionary, I'm just disputing your ability to understand it.

Genocide is not arbitrary... they are usually very carefuly planned. State executions are also not arbitrary as they are done under written law (in most cases, my nation of course has never executed a single human, clone and only enough animals to feed our big fat Prince).
I did not make a logical fallacy, or argue the dictionary... I however would like to accuse you of either being unable to comprehend that of which you speak, or of having some dark motif.
Well anyway, I think I've made myself clear. I will ask for another representative from my nation to handle this case.

Sai

OOC: No offence was intended. My deputy is a tactless bugger. I don't agree with your contentions, but I don't wish to mock you.

The problem is, as you don't seem to have disproved yet, that this act is intended to perform something that is already performed, and then steps too far and does things it shouldn't.

I started out opposed to it when it was first up for vote.

This resolution deals quite a bit with setting up an international court (that's pretty much what it really does), which is an area I am sadly deficient on knowledge-wise.

Ok, just to help improve the level of debate here (Demon, you're doing well, but the rest aren't), I will explain how you can logically disprove me.

If anyone can present a motive for abortion, execution or war that I cannot show to be just as abitrary, or the same as a motive for murder, racial slaughter or religious violence, then I am wrong.

If not, then I am right. Simple enough?

Even if you won that argument, and we all agreed that all death is arbitrary, then why would we want to repeal the Eon Convention and remove the international court? Hmm?

Genocide is not arbitrary... they are usually very carefuly planned.
Planning has nothing to do with arbitrariness. You're also contradicting the definition of genocide given in the act. The act states that it is systematic, but the criteria is arbitrary. Kapeesh?

State executions are also not arbitrary as they are done under written law (in most cases, my nation of course has never executed a single human, clone and only enough animals to feed our big fat Prince).
Written law is arbitrary however. Any distinction between one object and another made by a subjective mind is arbitrary. Can you tell me the difference between a criminal and a non-criminal? Wow - a criminal disagreed with a few written words. And you say that's not arbitrary?

I did not make a logical fallacy, or argue the dictionary...
Well, now you've argued both the dictionary AND the act you're supporting - take a bow!

OOC: No offence was intended. My deputy is a tactless bugger. I don't agree with your contentions, but I don't wish to mock you.
It's ok, I've proved myself to have no ulterior motives other than defending the rights of law abiding citizens everywhere.

This resolution deals quite a bit with setting up an international court (that's pretty much what it really does), which is an area I am sadly deficient on knowledge-wise.
Good idea, bad application.

Even if you won that argument, and we all agreed that all death is arbitrary, then why would we want to repeal the Eon Convention and remove the international court? Hmm?
Because I'd have proved that abortion, execution and war all fall under the Eon Convention! Half of NationStates would be arrested for the systematic killing of people defined by an arbitrary criteria! How on earth can you not get that?

Okay, well you have forgotten about the word "society". The Eon Convention refers to the destruction of a society, of a race. As much as I don't like the idea of capital punishment, murderers are not a race or a culture.... sorry, I"m sure you disagree with that. The act addresses genocide. The extermination of a race. It does not address individual killings, executions, murders or abortions. It says nothing towards those things. There is no way you can construe your argument around that.

Not meaning to antagonize you (I notice your tone with me is elavating) I just want to hear all of your best arguments and watch them all be refutted so I can know for certain that I have made the right recommendation to my government.

The Eon Convention refers to the destruction of a society, of a race.
If it merely said this, I would have no qualms, but it also has a loophole written into it that removes all the significance of the use of the word 'society'.

The act addresses genocide. The extermination of a race. It does not address individual killings, executions, murders or abortions. It says nothing towards those things. There is no way you can construe your argument around that.
I can quite easily, as I said above. I'll even quote it to you:
the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society
[emphasis mine]
And the phrase 'part of a society' can be and has been read to mean anyone.

Not meaning to antagonize you (I notice your tone with me is elavating) I just want to hear all of your best arguments and watch them all be refutted so I can know for certain that I have made the right recommendation to my government.
Sorry, I'm just getting annoyed. I'd happily rewrite the act itself. I have a knack for reading all possibilities in laws, and as a result I've figured out how to do it better. It's just that writing an amendment wouldn't cover it (it would leave the original lying around for someone to abuse), and the original has to go.

All you'd need to do is define genocide as 'the state-induced act of killing someone because of their genetic traits or religious beliefs'. This definition excludes fetuses, murderous rages (which are still a state crime), state executions and every type of war other than religious.

Also, this fills up a sadistically amusing hole in the Universal Bill of Rights:
It's illegal to make people suffer, and it's illegal to treat people unequally, but technically if you kill the entire populace in a way that kills them painlessly, you're within the letter of the law, when it comes to the UBR. Generally that's covered by national law, but this would fix it too.

Just to show all sides to the debate, a UN Delegate saw my proposal and sent me this telegram:

I am a UN Delegate and when I saw your proposal I just thought I'd point out a few things. I do not like the Legalize Euthanasia resolution (in fact, I have a repeal in the proposal list now, so if you haven't already, vote for it), but your interpretation in it is quite wrong. According to the resolution, Euthanasia can be carried out only when permission is given by the patient, or, if the patient is incapacitated, the patient's next of kin. It is not arbertary extermination of the sick. I suggest you read a little deeper next time. And again, please support my repeal of "Legalize Euthanasia."

Now I'll say here what I said to them, which is that, even voluntary killing uses an arbitrary criteria. If it weren't, we'd be killing all the suicidal teens as well. The division between those groups is most definitely arbitrary. Both want death, because of a perceived pain that they cannot bear. How can one objectively divide between the two? They're both sick. They're both in pain.

Can people please vote for the Repeal "The Eon Convention on Genocide" act? That way we can remove the dodgy original and rewrite it in a better, less detrimental form without having the original to be misused by unscrupulous UN members.

So has nobody got anything to say? Am I wrong? Am I right? Am I a strange purple penguin with a half-dozen nuclear weapons?

Am I a strange purple penguin with a half-dozen nuclear weapons?
I don't know, are you?

'the state-induced act of killing someone because of their genetic traits or religious beliefs' does not cover those that live within a geographic area, or are citizens of a geographic area. Nor does it cover instances of genocide committed by rebel or guerilla forces who are not state-sanctioned. A somewhat arbitrary definition of genocide, and not at all inclusive.

All of life is arbitrary - that is why we construct governments, enact legislation and created the UN - to reduce, as much as we are able as a group, the arbitrariness within which we exist. If all of life is arbitrary, then all decisions are arbitrary - there is no way around this, using the narrow definition we seem to be stuck on. This being the case, I suppose we'd best repeal all UN resolutions. They are, after all, arbitrary decisions. Oh wait... wouldn't repealing them be an arbitrary decision, too? Hmmm....

Anarchy has it's place - I just wouldn't have thought that place would be the UN.

'the state-induced act of killing someone because of their genetic traits or religious beliefs' does not cover those that live within a geographic area, or are citizens of a geographic area. Nor does it cover instances of genocide committed by rebel or guerilla forces who are not state-sanctioned. A somewhat arbitrary definition of genocide, and not at all inclusive.


But it does say that actions not commited by a government can be brought before the Panel to determine if they are prosecutable.

And the list is not limited to what it says. So killing everyone who lives in TilEnca, just because they live there, is pretty arbitrary. Which is in the purview of the resolution.

Also - where did you get that quote from? Cause it is not from The Convention :}


All of life is arbitrary - that is why we construct governments, enact legislation and created the UN - to reduce, as much as we are able as a group, the arbitrariness within which we exist. If all of life is arbitrary, then all decisions are arbitrary - there is no way around this, using the narrow definition we seem to be stuck on. This being the case, I suppose we'd best repeal all UN resolutions. They are, after all, arbitrary decisions. Oh wait... wouldn't repealing them be an arbitrary decision, too? Hmmm....


OK. Just to explain why this convention is not dodgy or crap.

Supposing you execute Mr Smith because he raped a five year old girl then killed her. This is not an arbitrary decision to execute him. He did something in (presumed) contravention to the laws of your nation. And so he is not being punished for being black, or jewish, or red-headed. He is being punished for his actions. HIS actions, not anything else.

Now supposing you execute Mr Smith, Mr Jones, and all the other Christians in your country, just because you don't like Christians. That is arbitrary. You are not executing each person based on their actions, but based on a common feature they all share.

Please tell me you see the difference between these two situations, and why the first one is not genocide and the second one is.


And on another note - even if (for some insane reason) you try to bring the first one before the panel because you believe the government is guilty of genocide cause they executed someone who committed a crime. The Panel can look at it and say "bwahahahaha are you crazy?" and then let him go.


Anarchy has it's place - I just wouldn't have thought that place would be the UN.

(smirk)

You misunderstand me - I'm not arguing for Insequa's repeal. I see the differences quite clearly.

Upon raising this repeal effort, the first argument was that the issues covered in the convention on genocide were actually already covered in previous resolutions. When that argument was insufficient, the basis of the argument changed from "this is superfluous" to "this is grammatically incorrect."

Insequa's main complaint appears to stem from the usage of the word arbitrary in the convention. He goes on to show how everything is arbitrary and therefore the convention has no standing. While on a purely semantic basis, I would be inclined to agree - in practical terms I do not. Since the word goes on to be defined in the convention (regardless of whether that definition is correct), then there is no confusion over the meaning of the word, Webster's notwithstanding.


Oh... and the quote was from one of Insequa's posts which I should have used the quote function for but... I'm retarded and couldn't get the damn puter to work right :)

You misunderstand me - I'm not arguing for Insequa's repeal. I see the differences quite clearly.


Yay!! (Also sorry for arguing). And also YAY!!

(smirk)


Upon raising this repeal effort, the first argument was that the issues covered in the convention on genocide were actually already covered in previous resolutions. When that argument was insufficient, the basis of the argument changed from "this is superfluous" to "this is grammatically incorrect."


Right. I do that a lot to people in my office. It really does annoy them. (I sometimes do it in other threads as well, but mostly because I tend to wander off the topic like a mountain goat with no sense of direction).


Insequa's main complaint appears to stem from the usage of the word arbitrary in the convention. He goes on to show how everything is arbitrary and therefore the convention has no standing. While on a purely semantic basis, I would be inclined to agree - in practical terms I do not. Since the word goes on to be defined in the convention (regardless of whether that definition is correct), then there is no confusion over the meaning of the word, Webster's notwithstanding.


I still disagree on the semantic basis, but since I haven't studied proper language skills since I was seven I could be wrong.


Oh... and the quote was from one of Insequa's posts which I should have used the quote function for but... I'm retarded and couldn't get the damn puter to work right :)

(smirk) But on the bright side I once managed to destroy one of the file servers at my office, so I think I can forgive you for a tiny little thing :}

I don't know, are you?
I dunno - so far I don't have the CIA or MI5 coming after me, so I don't think I'm that big a threat to the world.

'the state-induced act of killing someone because of their genetic traits or religious beliefs' does not cover those that live within a geographic area, or are citizens of a geographic area
Technically it does, because citizens of a geographical area tend to have similar genetic traits. However, I see your point - but I don't think it's too hard to add the phrase 'or due to their geographical location'.

Nor does it cover instances of genocide committed by rebel or guerilla forces who are not state-sanctioned.
Neither does the original:
§3. Genocide is committed or instigated by the state, or by groups acting on behalf of the state.

If all of life is arbitrary, then all decisions are arbitrary - there is no way around this, using the narrow definition we seem to be stuck on. This being the case, I suppose we'd best repeal all UN resolutions. They are, after all, arbitrary decisions. Oh wait... wouldn't repealing them be an arbitrary decision, too? Hmmm....
The point is that the act says that any killing for abitrary reasons are to be taken to the TPP - and that means every death that is not by natural causes will have to go through this process - and I don't believe that was the original intention of the act. It doesn't matter that all laws and resolutions and decisions are arbitrary, just that all killing is - because that's what relates to this act, and what makes it dangerous.

Supposing you execute Mr Smith because he raped a five year old girl then killed her. This is not an arbitrary decision to execute him. He did something in (presumed) contravention to the laws of your nation. And so he is not being punished for being black, or jewish, or red-headed. He is being punished for his actions. HIS actions, not anything else.
Sorry but you're wrong. Mr Smith is executed because someone subjectively said that rape was wrong - an arbitrary decision. All laws are abitrary, as Zamundaland says. When you say that Mr Smith is being punished for his actions, firstly, the choice of punishment is arbitrary, and secondly you'd kill Mr Smith for being a rapist, someone else would kill an aryan for being aryan - it's the same thing. You create a category, put someone in it, and then kill them for being in that category. One could argue that rape is in fact just sex - what goes on in one's head has little to do with the mechanics of the act - however, that's an entirely different discussion and I've made my point.

Edit: Actually, just to make the point clearer, let's look at it this way:
Mr Smith is sentenced to death, because the law of his nation says that rape is a crime punishable by death. According to your argument, this isn't arbitrary, because it's a lawful definition.

Now let's take Mr Rubin, who is a Jew, and by the law of his nation, it is illegal and punishable by death to be a Jew. If we follow the logic of your argument, Mr Rubin is not being sentenced arbitrarily, because the law defines him as a criminal to be punished by death.

You'd see a difference in those two examples, but there is none. A category defined as 'worthy of death' is created, and people are put in it. What defines that category is always arbitrary, based on the individual's subjective choice. Comes under the sociological perspective of labelling theory.

Upon raising this repeal effort, the first argument was that the issues covered in the convention on genocide were actually already covered in previous resolutions. When that argument was insufficient, the basis of the argument changed from "this is superfluous" to "this is grammatically incorrect."
Wrong actually - I held both arguments from the beginning. Look at the first post, I say that it is both superfluous and written in a way to contradict past resolutions. I also held from the beginning, even if it was not explicitly stated then (since I was quoting my repeal objection), that the Eon Convention abolishes all forms of artificial death.

Insequa's main complaint appears to stem from the usage of the word arbitrary in the convention. He goes on to show how everything is arbitrary and therefore the convention has no standing. While on a purely semantic basis, I would be inclined to agree - in practical terms I do not. Since the word goes on to be defined in the convention (regardless of whether that definition is correct), then there is no confusion over the meaning of the word, Webster's notwithstanding.
Actually the word 'arbitrary' is not defined at all in the act. An example is given, but no definition was made. A definition for genocide was given, but none for arbitrary.

I might add as a side-note, the reason I identified these points in the Eon Convention was because I've drafted something similar (not for NS), only for the express purpose of being able to catch politicians when they start wars. These sorts of legal nets are only ever designed by someone ridiculously sneaky, or someone who's very unlucky.

Technically it does, because citizens of a geographical area tend to have similar genetic traits. However, I see your point - but I don't think it's too hard to add the phrase 'or due to their geographical location'.


So what else would need to be added? A complete list of what counts as genocide? And - by the way - however complete the list is there will be something missing and a loophole to exploit. By leaving it open it can be up to the nations to decide what they consider an act of genocide, and as such what can be brought before The Panel and what can't.

It might lead to some things being brought that are not genocide, but it is better than having things that can not EVER be brought before the panel regardless of how heinous they are.


The point is that the act says that any killing for abitrary reasons are to be taken to the TPP - and that means every death that is not by natural causes will have to go through this process - and I don't believe that was the original intention of the act. It doesn't matter that all laws and resolutions and decisions are arbitrary, just that all killing is - because that's what relates to this act, and what makes it dangerous.


You are wrong. But since I don't appear to be able to get you understand that I am not going to bother.



Sorry but you're wrong. Mr Smith is executed because someone subjectively said that rape was wrong - an arbitrary decision. All laws are abitrary, as Zamundaland says. When you say that Mr Smith is being punished for his actions, firstly, the choice of punishment is arbitrary, and secondly you'd kill Mr Smith for being a rapist, someone else would kill an aryan for being aryan - it's the same thing. You create a category, put someone in it, and then kill them for being in that category. One could argue that rape is in fact just sex - what goes on in one's head has little to do with the mechanics of the act - however, that's an entirely different discussion and I've made my point.


Ok - being a rapist requires an action. A decision to do it. Being an aryan doesn't - it is the way you are born. How can you not see a difference between the two?



Edit: Actually, just to make the point clearer, let's look at it this way:
Mr Smith is sentenced to death, because the law of his nation says that rape is a crime punishable by death. According to your argument, this isn't arbitrary, because it's a lawful definition.


It is a lawful decision to execute him because of his action - he killed someone and raped someone.
Someone who is born black, or born in to a Jewish family, or born with red hair, did not decide to be born that way.

Again - how do you not get the difference?


Now let's take Mr Rubin, who is a Jew, and by the law of his nation, it is illegal and punishable by death to be a Jew. If we follow the logic of your argument, Mr Rubin is not being sentenced arbitrarily, because the law defines him as a criminal to be punished by death.


Actually under the Universal Bill Of Rights he can't. So if you kill all the Jews you are not only guilty of genocide you are also in violation of another resolution, which is another reason to punish you.

Good example :}


You'd see a difference in those two examples, but there is none. A category defined as 'worthy of death' is created, and people are put in it. What defines that category is always arbitrary, based on the individual's subjective choice. Comes under the sociological perspective of labelling theory.


And this is the reason I decided to stop arguing with you. You appear to have no concept of what the word arbitrary actually means in real life.


Wrong actually - I held both arguments from the beginning. Look at the first post, I say that it is both superfluous and written in a way to contradict past resolutions. I also held from the beginning, even if it was not explicitly stated then (since I was quoting my repeal objection), that the Eon Convention abolishes all forms of artificial death.


It really doesn't. I don't care what you think it does not prevent people from being executed for commiting a crime, and it doesn't stop people from having an abortion, and it doesn't stop people from asking for assistance in death.


Actually the word 'arbitrary' is not defined at all in the act. An example is given, but no definition was made. A definition for genocide was given, but none for arbitrary.


Forgive me for not using the UN as a dictionary.


I might add as a side-note, the reason I identified these points in the Eon Convention was because I've drafted something similar (not for NS), only for the express purpose of being able to catch politicians when they start wars. These sorts of legal nets are only ever designed by someone ridiculously sneaky, or someone who's very unlucky.

You realise that it wasn't just put together on the fly? That a lot of people looked at it before it was submitted, after it was submitted, after it was approved and when it was being voted on. And maybe five people had the same issues you do, and after it was explained to them that while killing someone for being black was an arbitrary reason, and killing someone because he took the action of raping a child was not, they all realised they were wrong. And it passed by a large majority, making it law.

I really am done this time. Unless you can accept that arbitrary does not mean what you think it means, and that killing one person is not tantamount to genocide, I can't convince you that the Convention is actually a good thing. And since it is quite clear you don't know that arbitrary doesn't mean what you think it means I you are not going to convince me that it isn't.

So what else would need to be added? A complete list of what counts as genocide? And - by the way - however complete the list is there will be something missing and a loophole to exploit. By leaving it open it can be up to the nations to decide what they consider an act of genocide, and as such what can be brought before The Panel and what can't.

It might lead to some things being brought that are not genocide, but it is better than having things that can not EVER be brought before the panel regardless of how heinous they are.
So you're saying that a proposal which can have additions made to it is worse than one that causes women who have an abortion or judges who give the death penalty to be imprisoned? Personally I'd prefer one that can be added onto than one that causes a hell of a lot of social injustice - but that's just me.

You are wrong. But since I don't appear to be able to get you understand that I am not going to bother.
Well so far you've failed to delineate a difference, and so far I've managed to back myself up with credible sociological theory and simple logic. So long as the definition of a group is has no objective basis, any reason to kill someone for being in that group is going to be arbitrary.

Ok - being a rapist requires an action. A decision to do it. Being an aryan doesn't - it is the way you are born. How can you not see a difference between the two?
I see a difference - your act does not.
There's a difference between the workings a subjective mind, and a definition written in paper - and your definition covers every form of killing.

It is a lawful decision to execute him because of his action - he killed someone and raped someone.
Someone who is born black, or born in to a Jewish family, or born with red hair, did not decide to be born that way.

Again - how do you not get the difference?
Again, I see the difference, but your act does not. I'm guessing that right at this moment, you're hoping anyone using your act will see things the way you do, well fact is, if your act were to be used by neo-nazis, they could have people up for trying to execute them for their actions!

Actually under the Universal Bill Of Rights he can't. So if you kill all the Jews you are not only guilty of genocide you are also in violation of another resolution, which is another reason to punish you.

Good example :}
Nice call. I was, however, talking exclusively about the terms of your act.

And this is the reason I decided to stop arguing with you. You appear to have no concept of what the word arbitrary actually means in real life.
Having no objective basis. Same as the dictionary. Any method of seperating people into groups is arbitrary, since all people are people. In that light, killing rapists is the same as killing Jews. There's a difference between the two when it comes to justice maybe, but not when it comes to the arbitrary nature of the two.

It really doesn't. I don't care what you think it does not prevent people from being executed for commiting a crime, and it doesn't stop people from having an abortion, and it doesn't stop people from asking for assistance in death.
It's not what I think - it's all there in your act. What seperates a fetus from being a human being? Nothing - but we say that they are, and they're killable. What seperates a suffering old woman from being a human being? Nothing, but they're voluntarily killable. What seperates a rapist from being a human being? Nothing, but under the law they may be killable. What seperates a 10 yr old child from being a human being? Nothing - but they're not killable.

They're all human beings, but what seperates the 'killable' from the 'unkillable' is arbitrary - completely made up in our minds - and therefore anyone who kills any human being (or clone, or genetically modified human being, since they're credited with human rights) will fall under your act.

Forgive me for not using the UN as a dictionary.
Well if you want your act read how you intended it to, you'll need to define your terms.

You realise that it wasn't just put together on the fly? That a lot of people looked at it before it was submitted, after it was submitted, after it was approved and when it was being voted on. And maybe five people had the same issues you do, and after it was explained to them that while killing someone for being black was an arbitrary reason, and killing someone because he took the action of raping a child was not, they all realised they were wrong. And it passed by a large majority, making it law.
And as I've said before, a majority is not qualified to read laws, while someone trained in law is. While an argument may be convincing, it is not necessarily correct.

Under the laws delineated in this act, I can have someone in front of the TPP for 'murdering' their fetus - merely because it was a fetus they didn't want.

I really am done this time. Unless you can accept that arbitrary does not mean what you think it means, and that killing one person is not tantamount to genocide, I can't convince you that the Convention is actually a good thing. And since it is quite clear you don't know that arbitrary doesn't mean what you think it means I you are not going to convince me that it isn't.
Firstly, if you want to convince someone that they are wrong, you must define your terms, you must use simple logic and you must be able to demonstrate your points. You have done none of these (except to define genocide).

I've given you a simple outline as to how you can prove me wrong - you have failed to do so, being caught up in such subjective ideas as 'justice', which have no bearing on the terms of your act. Unfortunately, there are people who will abuse this act, because it does give free license to charge anyone who kills any human being (under whatever category they define them - all categories are arbitrary, even Zamundaland agreed with me there) with genocide.

However, my repeal will not go through this time, which is why I've redrafted it in a more eloquent, but clearer, more to-the-point, and an easier to understand manner. Perhaps you will get the point then.

I really won't. You have based your entire arguement on one fact that I totally, utterly and completely disagree with. So whatever you come up with, if it is still based on that fact, it not going to convice me otherwise.

All of your logic is flawed because of that one error in your arguement.

By the way - have you noticed that in this thread there is only you who appears to support this arguement?

Technically it does, because citizens of a geographical area tend to have similar genetic traits. However, I see your point - but I don't think it's too hard to add the phrase 'or due to their geographical location'.

We accept immigrants. :) I think any definition is going to leave loopholes. Such is the nature of language.

The point is that the act says that any killing for abitrary reasons are to be taken to the TPP - and that means every death that is not by natural causes will have to go through this process - and I don't believe that was the original intention of the act. It doesn't matter that all laws and resolutions and decisions are arbitrary, just that all killing is - because that's what relates to this act, and what makes it dangerous.

Actually, no it does not. Genocide is, by definition, directed at a group or class of people based on a specific set of criteria. Unless a killing is part of the systematic extermination of a group, how could it possibly be classified as genocide? You gave the example of euthenasia. Unless a government or quasi-governmental agency were exterminating ALL the sick and elderly, this example is off the mark.

Edit: Actually, just to make the point clearer, let's look at it this way:
Mr Smith is sentenced to death, because the law of his nation says that rape is a crime punishable by death. According to your argument, this isn't arbitrary, because it's a lawful definition.

According to the dictionary, if something is law, as opposed to judicial fiat, it is, by definition, NOT arbitrary.

Wrong actually - I held both arguments from the beginning. Look at the first post, I say that it is both superfluous and written in a way to contradict past resolutions. I also held from the beginning, even if it was not explicitly stated then (since I was quoting my repeal objection), that the Eon Convention abolishes all forms of artificial death.

No. Only those artificial deaths that are based on the extermination of a class of people. The argument you are making might work if the word arbitrary was not used in conjunction with the word genocide. Genocide, by definition, cannot refer to a single death. Arbitrary, by definition, cannot refer to any death that is caused because of (a) law or (b) the request of the person whose death is being discussed.

Actually the word 'arbitrary' is not defined at all in the act. An example is given, but no definition was made. A definition for genocide was given, but none for arbitrary.

I stand corrected; it *is* an example, not a definition.

I might add as a side-note, the reason I identified these points in the Eon Convention was because I've drafted something similar (not for NS), only for the express purpose of being able to catch politicians when they start wars. These sorts of legal nets are only ever designed by someone ridiculously sneaky, or someone who's very unlucky.

I do understand the point you are making. I think it is a minor point, but a point nonetheless. However, I'm not certain that repealing a resolution and going through the process of drafting and voting on another one to be truly necessary based on the unfortunate usage of the word arbitrary. While yes, a disingenuous political leader could attempt to slide under the radar using this argument, I find it highly unlikely that anyone would truly buy said argument.

Esoteric word meanings aside, it is my feeling that the resolution is fine the way it stands.

I really won't. You have based your entire arguement on one fact that I totally, utterly and completely disagree with. So whatever you come up with, if it is still based on that fact, it not going to convice me otherwise.

All of your logic is flawed because of that one error in your arguement.

By the way - have you noticed that in this thread there is only you who appears to support this arguement?
By the way, have you noticed that the Repeal has 13 people supporting it?
Means nothing in the scheme of things - you emphasis numbers too much, and any form of appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) is a logical fallicy.
I might add that Zamundaland agrees with me on my 'one error'. You so far have not proven it an error - and a statement that boils down to "no! you're wrong!" isn't an argument.

Can you honestly state that putting people into different categories is not subjective?

We accept immigrants. I think any definition is going to leave loopholes. Such is the nature of language.
You'd have to agree though, that a loophole is better than an indescriminate catch-all? After all, a loophole can be filled - a catch-all can't be cut back.

Actually, no it does not. Genocide is, by definition, directed at a group or class of people based on a specific set of criteria. Unless a killing is part of the systematic extermination of a group, how could it possibly be classified as genocide? You gave the example of euthenasia. Unless a government or quasi-governmental agency were exterminating ALL the sick and elderly, this example is off the mark.
Not necessarily - they need only to be killing off all the sick and elderly who want to be killed off. Remember, all categories are subjective. Likewise, we're following the act's definition, which is the cause of the problem in the first place.

According to the dictionary, if something is law, as opposed to judicial fiat, it is, by definition, NOT arbitrary.True, but punishments aren't measured by law anymore - unlike back in Hammurabi's time. I seem to recall that judges now make those decisions? They are, therefore, subjective and... dare I say it - arbitrary.

No. Only those artificial deaths that are based on the extermination of a class of people. The argument you are making might work if the word arbitrary was not used in conjunction with the word genocide. Genocide, by definition, cannot refer to a single death. Arbitrary, by definition, cannot refer to any death that is caused because of (a) law or (b) the request of the person whose death is being discussed.
I would agree with you, if the definition we were using said that, but unfortunately, genius wrote it to say 'a society or a part of society', and unfortunately, a single person is a part of society. One of the reasons I really think this is a dodgy piece of work - no matter how many people TilEnc says went over it.

I stand corrected; it *is* an example, not a definition.
*takes a bow* I have to be right some time - even if it's not always acknowledged. Thanks for that. ;)

I do understand the point you are making. I think it is a minor point, but a point nonetheless. However, I'm not certain that repealing a resolution and going through the process of drafting and voting on another one to be truly necessary based on the unfortunate usage of the word arbitrary. While yes, a disingenuous political leader could attempt to slide under the radar using this argument, I find it highly unlikely that anyone would truly buy said argument.

Esoteric word meanings aside, it is my feeling that the resolution is fine the way it stands.
Unfortunately, those who carry out the law (or in this case, have to implement the law) must stick by the letter of the law - and an unscrupulous politician can get by what I say he can while maintaining the letter of the law.

all categories are arbitrary, even Zamundaland agreed with me there) with genocide.


Just a little fast on the draw there, Tex. That isn't exactly what I said. I said that *purely* from a semantics standpoint I might agree. But from a practical viewpoint I did not. I also did not say that all laws are arbitrary. I said using the narrow definition of the word that you are employing, EVERYTHING is arbitrary. This is based on the esoteric meaning you are employing - not the meaning of the word as it is used in everyday language, nor as it is defined in the dictionary.

Just a little fast on the draw there, Tex. That isn't exactly what I said. I said that *purely* from a semantics standpoint I might agree. But from a practical viewpoint I did not. I also did not say that all laws are arbitrary. I said using the narrow definition of the word that you are employing, EVERYTHING is arbitrary. This is based on the esoteric meaning you are employing - not the meaning of the word as it is used in everyday language, nor as it is defined in the dictionary.
Ok, ok. But you will admit that all categorisation of human beings is subjective, and therefore arbitrary?

You'd have to agree though, that a loophole is better than an indescriminate catch-all? After all, a loophole can be filled - a catch-all can't be cut back.

Unfortunately, under this system a loophole cannot be filled. No amendments are allowed.

Not necessarily - they need only to be killing off all the sick and elderly who want to be killed off. Remember, all categories are subjective. Likewise, we're following the act's definition, which is the cause of the problem in the first place.

Which is probably why the term arbitrary was used as one of the meanings of arbitrary is without the consent of the person or without their wishes being taken into consideration.

True, but punishments aren't measured by law anymore - unlike back in Hammurabi's time. I seem to recall that judges now make those decisions? They are, therefore, subjective and... dare I say it - arbitrary.

That depends on the nation. Not all nations give their judges ultimate authority on the issue of sentencing. Let's not allow RL to intrude here.

*takes a bow* I have to be right some time - even if it's not always acknowledged. Thanks for that. ;)

No problem. :)

Unfortunately, those who carry out the law (or in this case, have to implement the law) must stick by the letter of the law - and an unscrupulous politician can get by what I say he can while maintaining the letter of the law.

It might be a better idea to write up a better proposal and let everyone get a good look at the differences. On that basis, you could probably drum up enough support to repeal what is already on the books. While there are a couple areas that could be improved on, unless others get a look at something better, I doubt they'll be inclined to repeal legislation that, while having a loophole or two, seems to fulfill their wishes.

Look TilEnca, I'll take all the examples for you:

Why would you kill a rapist? Because they raped someone? What is rape? Rape is forced sex, is it not? How is that physically different to normal sex? The difference is in the mind, and thus, being a subjective definition, becomes arbitrary (we have enough troubles with people claiming to have said no half-way through, and what constitutes a no, and so-on and so forth).

Why would you kill a murderer? Because they killed someone? Doesn't that make you a murderer? Your action is physically the same then - yet you somehow make out some difference, when there is in fact, objectively no difference. Yet you arbitrarily place him in a different category to yourself.

Why would you kill a fetus? Because they're unwanted? How is this any different then, to killing an unwanted child? It has the same reasoning. It is the same physical action. The only difference exists in the minds (or lack of minds) of those being killed, and thus being a subjective experience, the difference is arbitrary - you've categorised them differently, yet the action is the same.

Why would a nazi kill a Jew? Because they have unwanted physical characteristics? How then, is this any different to allowing an old person euthanasia? The difference of course, lies inside the minds of those destined to die - but being subjective, is arbitrary, since the action is the same.

Why would a politician send a soldier into a suicide mission? Is this not comparable to a Mafia boss directing a hit on someone? Both are someone orchestrating someone else's death from afar, yet the politician won't be charged - because for some arbitrary reason, he's not placed in the same category as the Mafia boss, even though he does the same thing.

All categories are arbitrary. All motives for killing are arbitrary, because they're always based on categories.

Unfortunately, under this system a loophole cannot be filled. No amendments are allowed.
Really? But... I've seen amendments go through - they're just not allowed on the forums, right?

Which is probably why the term arbitrary was used as one of the meanings of arbitrary is without the consent of the person or without their wishes being taken into consideration.
Perhaps. The english language is a very tricky thing.

That depends on the nation. Not all nations give their judges ultimate authority on the issue of sentencing. Let's not allow RL to intrude here.
Sorry, but you get the idea...

It might be a better idea to write up a better proposal and let everyone get a good look at the differences. On that basis, you could probably drum up enough support to repeal what is already on the books. While there are a couple areas that could be improved on, unless others get a look at something better, I doubt they'll be inclined to repeal legislation that, while having a loophole or two, seems to fulfill their wishes.
True true... I'll do that, along with my better repeal.

From a sociological standpoint? Yes. From a legal standpoint? No.
The law doesn't take into account subjectivity anymore? Wow.

Ok, ok. But you will admit that all categorisation of human beings is subjective, and therefore arbitrary?

From a sociological standpoint? Yes. From a legal standpoint? No.

Zamundaland, would you mind giving me a hand on the redraft?

Edit: Nevermind, I like dictionary.com's version of genocide - much better:

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

(OOC) Al-Quada are a political group. So was the Nazi party. You telling me they should be protected under international law?

Disbanding is different to extermination, so might I add, is 'jail time'. Anywho - I've started a new thread for both my new repeal attempt (which I will start tomorrow) and a possible redraft. Take a look - I've removed the problem, and fixed a few other small things as well.

Can I point out that if you wanted those people dead, then you've got the exact same motives they do, which in turn, makes you want to commit the same attrocities they have?

So yes - they should be protected by this act.

The law doesn't take into account subjectivity anymore? Wow.

From a legal standpoint, if a law has been passed, then the subject matter is no longer arbitrary. Using your definition of the word, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, there is no point in created ANY laws as they would all be arbitrary. You can't have it both ways. Although it's a nice try. ;)

Insequa's whole argument is based upon his understanding of arbitrary. This is indeed all semantics. U.N judges are not idiots, they are where they are because of an astute ability to differenciate between absolute B.S and cold hard percieved fact (please note hte word percieved).
I wish I had my Albert Camus books with me now as I'd like to make a little quotation, I'll settle for a paraphrase. Camus talks about Sisyphus rolling the mountain up the hill endlessly, only to watch it role back down the hill and then have to start his labourios task again. Camus gives us this image as a mirror of the absurdity of our existence. Camus tells us that we must face the absurdity and live as if what we see is true, its the only way we can live. He maintains that existence is not actually absurd, but our comprehension of it is so limited that to us it appears absurd. The absurdity lies between reality and our experience.
Camus tells us that we have to live like we are living with truth.

Therefore I'd like to say that we, in the U.N need to carry on, doing what we suppose is right and using common definations of words as our society understands itself and its place in existance. We can't get bogged down in semantics and worry about some minor philosophical discussion when doing the worlds business.
This is intersting, but certainly not the real business of the day.

Denai
Spokesperson
Army of Prachya's foreign ministry
on behalf of
The Principality of Prachya and HRH Prachya II

From a legal standpoint, if a law has been passed, then the subject matter is no longer arbitrary. Using your definition of the word, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, there is no point in created ANY laws as they would all be arbitrary. You can't have it both ways. Although it's a nice try.
It doesn't actually matter if the laws themselves are arbitrary - that's not what I'm arguing against. I'm arguing against the use of the word arbitrary in this case - because it's indescriminate.

Therefore I'd like to say that we, in the U.N need to carry on, doing what we suppose is right and using common definations of words as our society understands itself and its place in existance. We can't get bogged down in semantics and worry about some minor philosophical discussion when doing the worlds business.
This is intersting, but certainly not the real business of the day.
I got 33 supporting votes for it - and I've put out a better worded version of my repeal this time, and hopefully (I'm going to be away for this week), it'll go through, with the help of some of the people in my region. Currently page 18 in the UN proposal lists - you'd find it interesting.

Oh, and it is somewhat amusing that nobody has actually bothered with the method of disproving me that I laid out (which is really the only logical method of disproving my argument).

It is actually rather impossible to prove or disprove anything when the terms of reference are not consistent. Insequa, You are really not making much sense here, you obviously have not studied your philosophy lately.

It's actually that I've been studying my philosophy quite consistantly that makes me do this in the first place.

I'll quote something I said earlier:
Ok, just to help improve the level of debate here (Demon, you're doing well, but the rest aren't), I will explain how you can logically disprove me.

If anyone can present a motive for abortion, execution or war that I cannot show to be just as abitrary, or the same as a motive for murder, racial slaughter or religious violence, then I am wrong.

If not, then I am right. Simple enough?

I'll show you why I'm making this argument in a dialogue between myself:

1: What is the difference between killing a rapist and killing a black?

2: Well, a rapist did something illegal and the black is just being how he is.

1: Well if the black was illegal for being black, then they're both being killed for being illegal.

2: But the black has no choice!

1: So why does the rapist deserve to die, and the black not?

2: Well the rapist raped someone.

1: Congratulations - you've pointed out why they're called a rapist. That isn't, however, any reason to kill them. In fact, to say that it is, is to support killing someone for being labelled something - the exact thing that you're arguing against in the case of the black. Both are humans - you're just using subjective criteria to seperate them from that category into a smaller category that you can deal with more simply, and saying one category is ok to kill while another is not.

2: But the rapist did something illegal while the black guy didn't!

1: Subjectively yes. Objectively however, all he did was have sex - the difference lies in the mind of the beholder, and sex itself isn't illegal.

2: But he had sex without the other person's consent - he acted in a manner which breached their rights!

1: If the black is illegal, he's acting in a manner which breaches the law.

2: So you're saying that blacks should bleach their skin, or wear bodypaint?

1: No, I'm saying that everyone is killed for being in a subjectively created category. In that light, the reason for killing anyone is the exact same as the reason for killing anyone else, barring manslaughter.

2: So what you're saying, is that no matter what we do, if anyone is intentionally killed, they're killed for being in the box we stick them in?

1: Precisely. What this means then, is that what we would term 'justice' is nothing more than a collectively held whim. Given a state run by the KKK, justice there would be entirely different, but not necessarily any less valid, than say the justice in Insequa, where there are no jails or no death penalty and all criminals are rehabilitated.

2: So in reference to the Eon Convention then, specifically using the definition of genocide in it, anyone killing anyone else is doing so under their own devised, or perhaps a collectively held 'arbitrary criteria', and thus would have to go in front of the TPP?

1: Exactly. The Eon Convention seems to be written in the hope that whoever reads it has the exact same philosophical and political outlook as the reader - and that 'justice' will prevail through it. However, while it would arrest the leaders of a KKK-state, it would also arrest the leaders of any nation that advocates capital punishment.