NationStates Jolt Archive

The newly admitted member of the UN:The Democratic States of Schezophrenia is appalled by number of UN Resolutions that have the audacity of forcing Some Human Rights without mentioning the cost of implementing them and the further impact this "rights" will have on all the nations participating in the UN. How can the economy of these rights are not even examined?

For examples of resolutions within this criteria:
Resolution #28 [Free Education]
Resolution #3 [Education for All]
Resolution #9 [Keep The World Disease-Free!]


and the list goes on. It is frustrating to see these resolutions being approved there is zero consideration on the economic burden this resolutions bring and how realistically they can be implemented. Not to mention the costs that would bring to examine and award any complaints regarding these rights.

These details are very important to be taken in consideration not only in the current resolutions, but in future one as well.

We will take more time to develop a better argument on this matter, we encourage other nations to discuss this further and even repeal these resolutions.


The Democratic States of Schezophrenia

so em... aint that a statement!! What exactly do you Propose??

Apparently a repeal of all those resolutions is in order, if the first post is to be believed.

so em... aint that a statement!! What exactly do you Propose??

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia proposes to all members of the UN to examine the content of all resolutions within the "Human Rights" and aid us in the process of repealing these resolutions by endorsing us and/or repealing the resolutions by yourselves.

Since we have been newly admitted to the UN we at this moment don't have the resources necessary to start a repeal on any of the resolutions in questions without the mandatory 2 endorsements. We definitely require assistance from other members in order to do this.

Also we are still preparing a full argument on the matter since we are not focusing on a specific issue but on the a possibly numerous list of resolution that have ZERO economic consideration on its implementation. It will take a while for us to produce such argument that is why we plead other nations to join in on this argument as well.

We hope this answers your question.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia

oh goody.... more repeals! Isn't there any one out there with a new and novel idea?? Don't make me bring back the UNWODC! :D

oh goody.... more repeals! Isn't there any one out there with a new and novel idea?? Don't make me bring back the UNWODC! :D
I'll help some with spamming if you submit after 2/28.
I'll be away until then.

The newly admitted member of the UN:The Democratic States of Schezophrenia is appalled by number of UN Resolutions that have the audacity of forcing Some Human Rights without mentioning the cost of implementing them and the further impact this "rights" will have on all the nations participating in the UN. How can the economy of these rights are not even examined?

It is frustrating to see these resolutions being approved there is zero consideration on the economic burden this resolutions bring and how realistically they can be implemented. Not to mention the costs that would bring to examine and award any complaints regarding these rights.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia
The Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta are also extremely frustrated by this.

Powerhungry Chipmunks seems to be going through the passed resolutions, prioritizing the worst ones, and getting them repealed. Perhaps you should offer your assistance and perhaps PC will bump some of your most hated ones to the top of the list.

I will be taking it back in March asshelmetta and thanks again for the offer. When i do finally submit it I am gonna spam just about every delegate there is.

The Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta are also extremely frustrated by this.

Powerhungry Chipmunks seems to be going through the passed resolutions, prioritizing the worst ones, and getting them repealed. Perhaps you should offer your assistance and perhaps PC will bump some of your most hated ones to the top of the list.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia thanks The Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta for their support on this matter and their suggestion. We will contact The Mislabelled Unlicensed Trunk of Powerhungry Chipmunks in order to plead assistance in this matter and also offer whatever we can do to aid any related topic as well.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia

Let's see, Human Rights Resolutions.

Note: This is just my view of these resolutions in terms of what Schezophrenia claimed.

Education for all: not Human Rights, instead Social Justice - intended to affect economies of member states.
End Slavery: Well, I suppose you copuld argue that this could damage economies, but only those that rely on the slave trade. Not sure I'd support a repeal on those, or any, grounds.
Sexual Freedom: don't think this has much to do with the economy
Keep the World Disease Free!: Are you seriously suggesting that keeping people in dangerous circumstances is preferable to having to give them basic hygeine?
Stop privacy intrusion: Unless you think corporations should have the right to spy on their employees, this does not relate to your argument.
Gay Rights: does not relate
CHILD LABOR: similar to End Slavery, unless you really think that a child should be doing manual labour, I don't see any conflict with the economy.
Religious Tolerance: does not relate
Fair Trial: I don't think this relates.
The Child Protection Act: see Child Labor, above
Universal Bill of Rights: I sincerely hope this is not one of your targets.
Free Education: Well, you may have a point with this one. But on the other hand, wouldn't an educated workforce produce higher-quality goods, thus bettering the economy?
The IRCO: I don't believe this relates.
Common Sense Act II: ditto
Wolfish Convention on POW: shouldn't relate
No Embargoes on Medicine: Hey, this would allow your pharmaceutical corporations access to more people! Better for the economy!
Freedom of Humor: does not relate.
END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS: Unless you have torturers as a significant industry, this will not create any economic problems.
Increased Access to Medicine: See No Embargoes on Medicine, above.
Legalise Euthanasia: Does not relate - people who are already terminally ill won't be working, will they?
Fair Treatment of Mentally Ill: I sincerely hope this is not a target.
Children in War: ditto
Universal Freedom of Choice: shouldn't relate
UNEC: See Free Education above.
BioRights Declaration: shouldn't relate, unless you are using clones as serfs.
Abortion Rights: shouldn't relate.
Female Genital Mutilation: Unless you have mutilators as a significant part of your workforce, will not affect your economy.
Freedom of Press: I don't think this relates.
Ban Trafficking in Persons: See End Slavery above.
Habeas Corpus: does not relate.
Rights of Minorities and Women: shouldn't relate, but don't feel like you can't repeal this one.
Definition of Marriage: shouldn't relate.
Stem Cell Funding: I don't think this relates.
The Eon Convention on Genocide: shouldn't relate
Fairness and Equality: shouldn't relate
Rights of indigenous peoples: ditto.
Humanitarian Intervention: ditto.

In conclusion, no, I do not agree with your claim.

Let's see, Human Rights Resolutions.

Note: This is just my view of these resolutions in terms of what Schezophrenia claimed.

Education for all: not Human Rights, instead Social Justice - intended to affect economies of member states.
End Slavery: Well, I suppose you copuld argue that this could damage economies, but only those that rely on the slave trade. Not sure I'd support a repeal on those, or any, grounds.
Sexual Freedom: don't think this has much to do with the economy
Keep the World Disease Free!: Are you seriously suggesting that keeping people in dangerous circumstances is preferable to having to give them basic hygeine?
Stop privacy intrusion: Unless you think corporations should have the right to spy on their employees, this does not relate to your argument.
Gay Rights: does not relate
CHILD LABOR: similar to End Slavery, unless you really think that a child should be doing manual labour, I don't see any conflict with the economy.
Religious Tolerance: does not relate
Fair Trial: I don't think this relates.
The Child Protection Act: see Child Labor, above
Universal Bill of Rights: I sincerely hope this is not one of your targets.
Free Education: Well, you may have a point with this one. But on the other hand, wouldn't an educated workforce produce higher-quality goods, thus bettering the economy?
The IRCO: I don't believe this relates.
Common Sense Act II: ditto
Wolfish Convention on POW: shouldn't relate
No Embargoes on Medicine: Hey, this would allow your pharmaceutical corporations access to more people! Better for the economy!
Freedom of Humor: does not relate.
END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS: Unless you have torturers as a significant industry, this will not create any economic problems.
Increased Access to Medicine: See No Embargoes on Medicine, above.
Legalise Euthanasia: Does not relate - people who are already terminally ill won't be working, will they?
Fair Treatment of Mentally Ill: I sincerely hope this is not a target.
Children in War: ditto
Universal Freedom of Choice: shouldn't relate
UNEC: See Free Education above.
BioRights Declaration: shouldn't relate, unless you are using clones as serfs.
Abortion Rights: shouldn't relate.
Female Genital Mutilation: Unless you have mutilators as a significant part of your workforce, will not affect your economy.
Freedom of Press: I don't think this relates.
Ban Trafficking in Persons: See End Slavery above.
Habeas Corpus: does not relate.
Rights of Minorities and Women: shouldn't relate, but don't feel like you can't repeal this one.
Definition of Marriage: shouldn't relate.
Stem Cell Funding: I don't think this relates.
The Eon Convention on Genocide: shouldn't relate
Fairness and Equality: shouldn't relate
Rights of indigenous peoples: ditto.
Humanitarian Intervention: ditto.

In conclusion, no, I do not agree with your claim.



The Democratic States of Schezophrenia in response to The Chaos-wracked Bizarre Land of Enn states:

Resolition #3 -Education for All-, altought not billed as "Civil Right" it does states:

"To give every child under the age of 16 the RIGHT to a free education"

Also it overlaps Resolution #28 - Free Education -

Since it is implied that you not only have a right for a FREE education, but also you have a right to A education.

RESOLUTION #6 -End slavery-

Is at this moment not under those resolutions considered to repeal unders the basis that it doesn't force any nation to provide anything, altought it doesn't provide any economic consideration on the impact the goverment might have in receiving/resolving slavery issues within the goverment. Since there are more like these we are going to refer to them from now on as: Not under examination on the current argument.

RESOLUTION #7 -Sexual Freedom- Not under examination on the current argument.

RESOLUTION #9 - Keep The World Disease-Free! - The resolution forces the members to implement this without examing its cost and if the country is able to provide EVERY citizen ONE of EACH of the list. Even implying the ownership of a house for EACH citizen. This is clearly unacceptable. There are other cost effective and communitary devices that can cover this.

RESOLUTION #10 - Stop privacy intrusion - Not under examination on the current argument.

RESOLUTION #12 - Gay Rights - Not under examination on the current argument. Altought there is reason to examine the economic burden it may place on the Judicial System.

RESOLUTION #14 - CHILD LABOR - Not under examination on the current argument. Althought it makes reference to one that is relevant and further more it doesn't certainly describe what is child labor. You could even argue that forcing an education on a child can be considered child labor. So this resolution can also be examined for other reasons non-related.

RESOLUTION #19 - Religious Tolerance - Not under examination on the current argument.

RESOLUTION #21 - Fair trial - Does fall within our examination due it doesn't provide the costs on how to implement this, and the economic burden that it will bring to provide a fair trial: be it jury duty, hotels for the jury, etc. It also fails to provide a good description of what is to be considered a "Fair Trial".

RESOLUTION #25 - The Child Protection Act - It doesn't measure the cost to: "States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect.."

RESOLUTION #26 - The Universal Bill of Rights - It doesn't as well examine the costs of protecting these rights.

RESOLUTION #28 - Free education - Again a forced resolution that doesn't examine the costs to implement it. Also i wonder how this would come to be since the illusion of it being "Free" is not real. If the State provides the education, and the citizen pay the state, then therefore it is not "Free". So again, we are simply intrigued on how this even got approved.

RESOLUTION #29 - The IRCO - Not under examination on the current argument.

RESOLUTION #30 - Common Sense Act II - Possible the only "Civil Rights" resolution that we not only approved but favor more like these. However we question how this indeed is a right?

... to be continued on another post.

Of course, you may also encounter a large amount of resistance to some of your ideas, due to the fact that some of us simply believe that proper human rights are more important than economic considerations.

I haven't looked in a few days, and my memory may be sketchy, but isn't there a resolution called "Definition of a Fair Trial"?

Of course, you may also encounter a large amount of resistance to some of your ideas, due to the fact that some of us simply believe that proper human rights are more important than economic considerations.
I do too.

That doesn't mean we have to be sloppy about implementation and refuse to consider more efficient implementations.

I haven't looked in a few days, and my memory may be sketchy, but isn't there a resolution called "Definition of a Fair Trial"?
There is, but it's down as being a 'Furtherment of Democracy' resolution. I was only listing the ones actually labelled 'Human Rights'

RESOLUTION #31 - Wolfish Convention on POW - It doesn't provide with a full examination of who will carry with the costs of these camps, transportation, etc.

RESOLUTION #33
No Embargoes on Medicine - Not under examination on the current argument.

RESOLUTION #36 - Freedom of Humor - Not under examination on the current argument. Althought it might require a definition of "Humor" in cases involving damages, and since this resolution doesn't provide any we see it as another economic burden. Again we are forced as a member of the UN to protect "Humor"?

RESOLUTION #41 - END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS - Not under examination on the current argument. However it doesn't provide an examination on how are we to "protect" and enforce this law and its costs.

RESOLUTION #43 - Legalise Euthanasia - Who is covering the costs of Euthanasia? Were is the examination of this.

RESOLUTION #44 - Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill - What is considered "Fair"? And what does the state has to provide for it to be "fair"? Who will cover the "Basic Services"?

RESOLUTION #51 - Children in War - Again no examination on where the economic burden will be placed in implementation and it overlaps with other resolutions.

RESOLUTION #53 - Universal Freedom of Choice - Not under examination on the current argument.

RESOLUTION #54 - UN Educational Committee - This resolution agrees in the failure of examining the economic impact of a prior resolution and even makes the boldest mistake of further burdening the UN and its members with even more forced "funding".

... to be continued

I haven't looked in a few days, and my memory may be sketchy, but isn't there a resolution called "Definition of a Fair Trial"?
Yes, there is a resolution that attempts to define it. However it falls short on describing how exactly are the costs to be distributed to enforce this, and also fails to examine all the costs involved on how to execute a fair trial, which might involved the housing of a jury, and its impact on the companies that employ them. If you count this on a grander scale of all the trials that may take daily you could see it can be quite a sum. Which is totally ignored in this resolution.

Of course, you may also encounter a large amount of resistance to some of your ideas, due to the fact that some of us simply believe that proper human rights are more important than economic considerations.
However, civil rights only exist when they are enforced. Enforcing them require economic considerations. If you take time to examine a situation in order to create a "Civil Right" and you don't consider the economy of it, then you aren't really making the "Civil Right" any truer than just a pile of paper, and that by itself has a costs. So we have to ask: Why have it at all then?

We suggest further examination of these resolutions.

RESOLUTION #61 - Abortion Rights - Not under examination on the current argument. However it may be if its implied that the Sate will cover the costs of such Abortion.

RESOLUTION #62 - Female Genital Mutilation - Why does the State has to fund this? Also it is unclear the distinction between this and Male circumcision, and the possible disputes since this comes into conflict with other rights (Freedom of Religion, etc.)

RESOLUTION #63 - Freedom of Press - Not under examination on the current argument.

RESOLUTION #68 - Ban Trafficking in Persons - Not under examination on the current argument.

RESOLUTION #73 - Habeas Corpus - Not under examination on the current argument.

RESOLUTION #80 - Rights of Minorities and Women - Not under examination on the current argument.

RESOLUTION #81 - Definition of Marriage - Not under examination on the current argument.

RESOLUTION #83 - The Eon Convention on Genocide - Does not provide an examination of possible costs, and on who they fall, of all procedures to implement this.

RESOLUTION #88 - Fairness and Equality - Not under examination on the current argument.

RESOLUTION #89 - Rights of indigenous peoples - Not under examination on the current argument.

RESOLUTION #92 - Humanitarian Intervention - Not under examination on the current argument.

Again we ,The Democratic States of Schezophrenia, cannot conceived the approval of such resolutions, that do put a heavy burden on every member of the UN, without a carefull examination of its costs.

We have to strongly advise for a repeal of any and all of the ones we have mentioned for further examination mainly because this "blind" resolution carries an big amount of funding on the legal system alone to implement any of these resolutions. We feel that the forced illusion that these "Rights" exist universally is costing a lot out of the members of the UN.

We continue to plea for further examination and assistance.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia

*sits back and counts his fortune*

Oh, sorry, were you discussing something?

We're too rich to care. If the UN requires our funding a program which benefits our people, we are all for it.

*sits back and counts his fortune*

Oh, sorry, were you discussing something?

We're too rich to care. If the UN requires our funding a program which benefits our people, we are all for it.

Very well. We can see that you would blindly dispatch your funds to resolutions that make little sense and make little effect,plus are forced, by the UN. Consider yourself lucky on on having such funds, however We are more interested in debating valid points. Not discussing the extent on how empathically you spend your funds.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia

The Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta are also extremely frustrated by this.

Powerhungry Chipmunks seems to be going through the passed resolutions, prioritizing the worst ones, and getting them repealed. Perhaps you should offer your assistance and perhaps PC will bump some of your most hated ones to the top of the list.

Well, more or less, I guess that's accurate. There are some past resolutions, or sets of past resolutions which are blatantly out-of-sync with convetional rules and expectations. I guess I look for the most out-of-sync, the most universally agreed upon as 'repeal-able' and try to repeal them. I'm not sure I've put it to conscious thought as clearly expressed as that, yet. But now that mention it, I guess that's what I'm doing.

I'm not sure what I can do as far as bumping any resolutions to the top of my list, though. Right now, my definite, "get 'er done" list consists of "Education For All" and "Required Basic Healthcare". These are repeals I either have in quorum, ready for vote, or which I feel have good chances to reach quorum.

Resolutions "Under review" are "DVD Region Removal", "Scientific Freedom", "Public Domain", "Legalize Euthanasia", and one or two more. Most of these would need an replacement proposal in the wings to even be considered for passage (as oppossed to "Education For All" and "Required Basic Healthcare" which are contradictary or double legislation due to later resolutions and thus don't warrant replacement).

Much of the reason I consider the second list "under review" is that I'm not sure they can be repealed. I think there simply won't be enough support for them--unless, of course, there's a guarantee of a replacement.

However, Schezephrenia, I'll re-evaluate some of your examples based on your arguments, such as "Legalize Euthanasia" and "Keep The World Disease-Free!". This may result in either of these moving from my "under review" list to my "get 'er done" list. I'm mainly looking at support I think could be enlisted for the repeals and what the opposition's argument is.

If you, though, wish to spearhead any specific repeals, I'd be happy to tell you everything I know about making proposals into resolutions.

We're too rich to care. If the UN requires our funding a program which benefits our people, we are all for it.

Ditto for us :)

Schezophrenia, from your posts it seems you can't understand why people voted these resolutions in without panicking about the costs.

Well, in my case, its because when I look at a proposal/resolution, I look at what it can do for my nation and region, and the impact it will have on my people. What it will give/benefit them. The cost is a low to non-existant factor in whether I end up voting for a resolution or not.

Most of the resolutions you have a problem with are what I privately call "protection" resolutions, because they protect my people from exploitation, discrimination, and abuse etc. I'm afraid there is no way I'd consider supporting a repeal of any of them (except the first education for all one, which I agree is redundant), without a much, much stronger reason than just cost.

Ditto for us :)

Schezophrenia, from your posts it seems you can't understand why people voted these resolutions in without panicking about the costs.

Well, in my case, its because when I look at a proposal/resolution, I look at what it can do for my nation and region, and the impact it will have on my people. What it will give/benefit them. The cost is a low to non-existant factor in whether I end up voting for a resolution or not.

Most of the resolutions you have a problem with are what I privately call "protection" resolutions, because they protect my people from exploitation, discrimination, and abuse etc. I'm afraid there is no way I'd consider supporting a repeal of any of them (except the first education for all one, which I agree is redundant), without a much, much stronger reason than just cost.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia can't believe this statement. That would mean you would indeed invest in RESOLUTION #62 - Female Genital Mutilation- resolution just because you are protecting your citizen out of their own "free choice". Furthermore a resolution like this pretends the state to "Educate" against this. Funds will be spent in that.

Again, what you call "Protection" covers lots of ground, and there is room for nonsense to be covered as such, and forced upon by the UN.

Also i must note that i may have emphisized on the economic side of things, and giving the perspective it being the only that mattered.

My major point being, these faulty resolutions built upon a global right that don't have a solid economic structure to back them, not only protect nothing in the long run, and cost money, but also some of them contradict themselves and/ or make no sense (and cost money in the process).

We can seriously doubt how much of an impact you claim these resolutions have on your people given the "detailed" description of some. Most of them are a loophole of empathy, kind of the same thing you are describing you give to your people.

Again valid points, it is much more than costs (althought that is a key element.)

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia

Well, more or less, I guess that's accurate. There are some past resolutions, or sets of past resolutions which are blatantly out-of-sync with convetional rules and expectations. I guess I look for the most out-of-sync, the most universally agreed upon as 'repeal-able' and try to repeal them. I'm not sure I've put it to conscious thought as clearly expressed as that, yet. But now that mention it, I guess that's what I'm doing.

I'm not sure what I can do as far as bumping any resolutions to the top of my list, though. Right now, my definite, "get 'er done" list consists of "Education For All" and "Required Basic Healthcare". These are repeals I either have in quorum, ready for vote, or which I feel have good chances to reach quorum.

Resolutions "Under review" are "DVD Region Removal", "Scientific Freedom", "Public Domain", "Legalize Euthanasia", and one or two more. Most of these would need an replacement proposal in the wings to even be considered for passage (as oppossed to "Education For All" and "Required Basic Healthcare" which are contradictary or double legislation due to later resolutions and thus don't warrant replacement).

Much of the reason I consider the second list "under review" is that I'm not sure they can be repealed. I think there simply won't be enough support for them--unless, of course, there's a guarantee of a replacement.

However, Schezephrenia, I'll re-evaluate some of your examples based on your arguments, such as "Legalize Euthanasia" and "Keep The World Disease-Free!". This may result in either of these moving from my "under review" list to my "get 'er done" list. I'm mainly looking at support I think could be enlisted for the repeals and what the opposition's argument is.

If you, though, wish to spearhead any specific repeals, I'd be happy to tell you everything I know about making proposals into resolutions.

Once we get our full argument togheter, and get prepared for a massive repealing process we will indeed contact you for any adivce, or any you could give now would be appreciated. We are indeed going to go forward with this since there are plenty of irresponsible resolutions. We will also bring forth some replacements for some of them, as we may have noted on some that there are other ways of covering this.

This is just the beginning.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia

Very well. We can see that you would blindly dispatch your funds to resolutions that make little sense and make little effect,plus are forced, by the UN. Consider yourself lucky on on having such funds, however We are more interested in debating valid points. Not discussing the extent on how empathically you spend your funds.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia
I think you got problem with your claim.
most of the rights aren't enforced by the countrey, the countrey just give them.
however if the right isn't exist, police and judges have to get funding for taking down the "criminals".
for example "right for prostitution" remove the police forces that fought the prostitutes.
also we think that human (or every other species) rights can't counted by money, just like life and freedom (that are human rights themselves).
in "free education"- you improve the economy by educated workers.
in "legalize entuasia" you get the money from all the sicks you havn't support anymore.
in all those resolutions the economical aspect aren't important, or even improve.
btw, ther is no way you could repeal all the human right resolution (especially in this mostly liberal UN).

Of course, Schezophrenia, you could just be opening that other can of worms - UN micro-management of national economies. I'm of the opinion that something is under national control until and unless the UN has specifically ruled on that matter. Hanec, if a resolution requires monetary involvement but neglects to state how that is carried out, then it is entirely up to the nation to decide.

I had assumed some of these resolutions were made in the same spirit as the "ambit claims" unions make in industrial negotiations -- that is, as a notification that at some date in the future this will come up for serious discussion, but right now we're just preparing the ground, giving everyone a chance to think about how it would apply, etc.

So repealing some of the good-natured, well-intentioned resolutions (no matter how sloppily they're worded) might well give Evil Dictators, Religious Fanatics, Oppressive Regimes and other such bad guys the impression that they have a licence to continue in their wicked ways. I mean, if the NS UN was once in favour of these ideas, but now they've repealed them, that must mean even the UN thinks they're bad ideas, rather than bad resolutions ...

Example: maternity leave wouldn't be available in Australian workplaces if loads of people hadn't hopped up for years at every little conference, convention, meeting or free-for-all and proposed resolutions supporting it. Gradually, despite frequent individual defeats, the idea percolated into even our largely apathetic society until it reached the stage of majority acceptance.

(Note: I'm just saying maternity leave is a good idea. I'm not saying the Paternalistic Theocracy of Whatever has to introduce it NOW, this minute, or face expulsion.)

Anyway, I'm not entering this debate to urge support or repeal of any specific resolution. I'm just saying that some of the harmless warm fuzzies should be left alone until someone comes along with a great, big, grown-up resolution that would achieve the same effect faster and better.

I think you got problem with your claim.
most of the rights aren't enforced by the countrey, the countrey just give them.
however if the right isn't exist, police and judges have to get funding for taking down the "criminals".
for example "right for prostitution" remove the police forces that fought the prostitutes.
also we think that human (or every other species) rights can't counted by money, just like life and freedom (that are human rights themselves).
in "free education"- you improve the economy by educated workers.
in "legalize entuasia" you get the money from all the sicks you havn't support anymore.
in all those resolutions the economical aspect aren't important, or even improve.
btw, ther is no way you could repeal all the human right resolution (especially in this mostly liberal UN).

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia can't see logic on your response. It might be that it simply doesn't make sense, but we are going to give you the benefit of a doubt and that you are giving a valid point.

Country don't just go giving "Rights", haven't you heard of a thing called disputes or trials for violation of civil rights? Furthermore it is within this disputes that most of these "Rights" are defined, based upon these disputes. So even after the politicians waste time jotting down their "elaborate" rights, it is in the "implementation" of this rights, were such rights are truly born.

Also the legislative system doesn't rely solely on "Civil Rights", there are other laws that not only precede them, and have been longer in existance. Entire civilizations have existed and lived peacefully without them. There are worst crimes than violating "Civil Rights" and even more, so again there is little importance to them and a society as a whole can exist without them.

Again we fail to see your logic. Life and Freedom aren't free. Your countries can pretend you don't see the money issue in all this, but it is a key element for ensuring both Life and Freedom, otherwise they wouldn't exits. The Democratic States of Schezophrenia can't be the only nation that is not hypocritical in this United Nations regarding this issue.

Also you begin on a logic with RESOLUTION #43 - Legalise Euthanasia - that i wish i could debate further, however the resolution as its stand and it was passed doesn't provide responsabilty of who will cover the costs of Euthanasia, as well who will pay for the healthcare to determine this important action. Also the cost of any case that is involved in any dispute because of approving this resolution.

Also how is not the economic aspect not important or improve in such resolutions such as Resolution #28 Free Education?
It is obvious that depending the economy of the nation and its strenght of its judicial system that you can enforce this issues. That is the only way you can do it.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia invites to you firmly to not imply that we can't very well question any resolution, including "Civil Rights". Especially resolutions that don't even pretend to work as a law or a right, and more like an empathic "Save the whales" speech with no valid fundaments and elaborate way of implementation for it to exist.

We will get prepared to do just that, and repeal any and all resolutions we deem that are at a fault with logic and have poor implementation procedures.


The Democratic States of Schezophrenia

Of course, Schezophrenia, you could just be opening that other can of worms - UN micro-management of national economies. I'm of the opinion that something is under national control until and unless the UN has specifically ruled on that matter. Hanec, if a resolution requires monetary involvement but neglects to state how that is carried out, then it is entirely up to the nation to decide.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia is not "opening that other can of worms" we are even appaled that these resolutions passed, and are not only faulty in the implementation if the UN expects it to be managed at a national level (with poor elaboration on its method or not even suggestion of it). If the UN intends for these nations to carry out these resolution on such a poor elaborated system, then the UN has failed as a governing body.

Otherwise there is little difference in offering a "Free Pizza on Wendnesdays" resolution. Or a "Every citizen has a right for a Bentley" because it improves a country and other such nonsense.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia

I had assumed some of these resolutions were made in the same spirit as the "ambit claims" unions make in industrial negotiations -- that is, as a notification that at some date in the future this will come up for serious discussion, but right now we're just preparing the ground, giving everyone a chance to think about how it would apply, etc.

So repealing some of the good-natured, well-intentioned resolutions (no matter how sloppily they're worded) might well give Evil Dictators, Religious Fanatics, Oppressive Regimes and other such bad guys the impression that they have a licence to continue in their wicked ways. I mean, if the NS UN was once in favour of these ideas, but now they've repealed them, that must mean even the UN thinks they're bad ideas, rather than bad resolutions ...

Example: maternity leave wouldn't be available in Australian workplaces if loads of people hadn't hopped up for years at every little conference, convention, meeting or free-for-all and proposed resolutions supporting it. Gradually, despite frequent individual defeats, the idea percolated into even our largely apathetic society until it reached the stage of majority acceptance.

(Note: I'm just saying maternity leave is a good idea. I'm not saying the Paternalistic Theocracy of Whatever has to introduce it NOW, this minute, or face expulsion.)

Anyway, I'm not entering this debate to urge support or repeal of any specific resolution. I'm just saying that some of the harmless warm fuzzies should be left alone until someone comes along with a great, big, grown-up resolution that would achieve the same effect faster and better.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia is doesn't really care if you are happy with your assumption on a resolution, furthermores since it is described poorly and this is what you are forced to do. We care of being part of the UN with the interest that is resolutions are well documented and suggest a way of implementing it. Otherwise it is a waste of funds all around to have them.

Also having a faulty resolution does little to non-complying nation, and non-UN nations. So again, we fear we don't know what the hell you are talking about with the "Evil Dictators" routine.

Also please stick to resolutions that are covered in "Civil Rights". We fail to see how "maternity leave" is related to this, other than it being another pointless expenditure (that we are not addressing at this time).

Finally, we intend to bring forth a replacement to some of the resolutions, and we intend to do so in a better and/or proper manner of how these issues were dealth with in the first place. However "leaving them alone" only promotes the issue of future poorly elaborated resolutions.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia is doesn't really care if you are happy with your assumption on a resolution, furthermores since it is described poorly and this is what you are forced to do.

Awww ... you don't really care? It's all over between us? :(

Sorry, Schez, I was trying to make a fairly serious point fairly lightly. I keep forgetting the clunking effect of the written word.

Writes on blackboard: I must not tease serious people. I must not ...

Awww ... you don't really care? It's all over between us? :(

Sorry, Schez, I was trying to make a fairly serious point fairly lightly. I keep forgetting the clunking effect of the written word.

Writes on blackboard: I must not tease serious people. I must not ...

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia fails to see any relevance with the matter at hand, and further suggest to take any personal attention seeking or gratification through teasing elsewhere, there are plenty of spaces to waste time and resources.

We fail to see any point in any way. We sincerely hope your teasing business suceeds elsewhere because your valid point making here is near awful.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia can't see logic on your response. It might be that it simply doesn't make sense, but we are going to give you the benefit of a doubt and that you are giving a valid point.actually as you already see, the majority here see my logic as well. your logic is weird, but debate is debate.

Country don't just go giving "Rights", haven't you heard of a thing called disputes or trials for violation of civil rights? Furthermore it is within this disputes that most of these "Rights" are defined, based upon these disputes. So even after the politicians waste time jotting down their "elaborate" rights, it is in the "implementation" of this rights, were such rights are truly born. [quote]you right, countrey can't give right. she only can take them since the rights are greater than she is (and for staying in this situation the UN promote those rights). there is not enforcement of the rights, there is just judging of the rights criminal (do you think life is important enough for spending some cash and judge the murderers?)

[quote]Also the legislative system doesn't rely solely on "Civil Rights", there are other laws that not only precede them, and have been longer in existance. Entire civilizations have existed and lived peacefully without them. There are worst crimes than violating "Civil Rights" and even more, so again there is little importance to them and a society as a whole can exist without them.
civil rights are the basis for legalisation and constitutions in every modern democratic nation. the UN who is controlled by the majority decide to promote those rights.
tell me every worst crime you want, and I tell you what human rights this is harm.
Again we fail to see your logic. Life and Freedom aren't free. Your countries can pretend you don't see the money issue in all this, but it is a key element for ensuring both Life and Freedom, otherwise they wouldn't exits. The Democratic States of Schezophrenia can't be the only nation that is not hypocritical in this United Nations regarding this issue.every see the money issue here. but most of us think that there is thing that iare important than money. if you think that some policemen in the street who prevent rape, murder and other harms in human right, are less important than money you're the hypocritical. if you can't see the harmful effect on your economy when you send those same policemen to ban human rights from your people you are the most hypocritical I ever know.
check yourself before you call us hypocriticals.
Also you begin on a logic with RESOLUTION #43 - Legalise Euthanasia - that i wish i could debate further, however the resolution as its stand and it was passed doesn't provide responsabilty of who will cover the costs of Euthanasia, as well who will pay for the healthcare to determine this important action. Also the cost of any case that is involved in any dispute because of approving this resolution.you know you could add regulation in your countrey, right?
you don't want to pay for that? put the price on the family. that's simple.
again, you forgot the part of the price to keep them alive against their will. fully hypocrity

Also how is not the economic aspect not important or improve in such resolutions such as Resolution #28 Free Education?
It is obvious that depending the economy of the nation and its strenght of its judicial system that you can enforce this issues. That is the only way you can do it. free education is not human right. this is social right, and therfore supposed to be in "social justice". maybe they had mistakes in the past, but still it isn't part of the debate.
anyway, you must be hypocitical to ignore the great effects educated population had on your economy, and the decreasing in youth-crime while the kids are in school.
The Democratic States of Schezophrenia invites to you firmly to not imply that we can't very well question any resolution, including "Civil Rights". Especially resolutions that don't even pretend to work as a law or a right, and more like an empathic "Save the whales" speech with no valid fundaments and elaborate way of implementation for it to exist.if you have good arguments this is the time you show them.
anyway, save the whales is environmental issue, and not human rights. don't related to the debate.

We will get prepared to do just that, and repeal any and all resolutions we deem that are at a fault with logic and have poor implementation procedures.


The Democratic States of Schezophrenia
you will had some problem in that.
the mainly one is you need majority for repealing those rights. in the present situation you can't get even 1% when you base your repeals on that argument.

actually as you already see, the majority here see my logic as well. your logic is weird, but debate is debate.

you right, countrey can't give right. she only can take them since the rights are greater than she is (and for staying in this situation the UN promote those rights). there is not enforcement of the rights, there is just judging of the rights criminal (do you think life is important enough for spending some cash and judge the murderers?)


civil rights are the basis for legalisation and constitutions in every modern democratic nation. the UN who is controlled by the majority decide to promote those rights.
tell me every worst crime you want, and I tell you what human rights this is harm.
every see the money issue here. but most of us think that there is thing that iare important than money. if you think that some policemen in the street who prevent rape, murder and other harms in human right, are less important than money you're the hypocritical. if you can't see the harmful effect on your economy when you send those same policemen to ban human rights from your people you are the most hypocritical I ever know.
check yourself before you call us hypocriticals.
you know you could add regulation in your countrey, right?
you don't want to pay for that? put the price on the family. that's simple.
again, you forgot the part of the price to keep them alive against their will. fully hypocrity

free education is not human right. this is social right, and therfore supposed to be in "social justice". maybe they had mistakes in the past, but still it isn't part of the debate.
anyway, you must be hypocitical to ignore the great effects educated population had on your economy, and the decreasing in youth-crime while the kids are in school.
if you have good arguments this is the time you show them.
anyway, save the whales is environmental issue, and not human rights. don't related to the debate.


you will had some problem in that.
the mainly one is you need majority for repealing those rights. in the present situation you can't get even 1% when you base your repeals on that argument.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia is displeased with entering in such a rethoric debate.

As we already see what?
We already see a bunch of resolutions that some, as we stated above, fail to even make sense in their existance.
We see a majority of countries that voted on such of resolutions that we are certain didn't question their validity and its methods of implementation, and were little more than a empathic response to issues without really questioning them.

For example of this lets examine the rethoric of what is: RESOLUTION #28
Free education

"To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education"

What is the definition of this "Education"?
Are this individuals forced to have this "Education"?
and if they are forced wouldn't that constitute a violation of freedom of choice?

You define to me those three points, and why you voted for them (Even thought the resolution doesn't even attempt to define them) and then we can continue this argument properly.

Don't pretend to question our "weird" logic, if you (and your claimed mayority) keep voting on single sentence resolutions.

As for your thoughts on the UN being:

"civil rights are the basis for legalisation and constitutions in every modern democratic nation. the UN who is controlled by the majority decide to promote those rights.
tell me every worst crime you want, and I tell you what human rights this is harm."

We would already be fearful of being in this United Nations, with resolutions that are passed by a majority who don't question or even demand a better description of its use and implementation with resolution as the one stated above. And this poorly written resolutions are your country's basis for legislation?
We fear the definition of "Education" that is followed in your country is very poor indeed.

As for other crimes, citing examples such as: Rape, murder,etc. Don't need to fall under "Civil Rights" to be found in violations of other laws. Most certainly we wouldn't use the descriptions given in the resolutions of the UN for our legislature at all, because any citizen in The Democratic States of Schezophrenia would question of their logic, and that alone would take a legislative system for itself, hence more money would be spent for us to agree upon what is what since the lack of elaboration in the resolutions themselves.


Also What is a "Social Right"?
Could you elaborate on this?
Again if RESOLUTION #28
Free education is wrongly misplaced, and there have been errors in the past. How can we not feel displeased at a "majority" of nations that simple pass resolutions blindly and feel content on let them sit as they were first proposed?

As for how the system within the UN works, and how "will had some problem in that". We can clearly see that it is a very flawed system and clearly someone got the "power" to submit a single sentece resolution and are currently unable to have the "power" to repeal such resolutions, as well as others. It is a sad state that the system of the UN is, and we plead for those out there who see a fault in this to give us the power to do so.

However we are getting prepared regardless, and will bring forth a full argument that any country with that "power" will be able to submitt in order to correct the atrocity at hand.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia

What is the definition of this "Education"?
Are this individuals forced to have this "Education"?
and if they are forced wouldn't that constitute a violation of freedom of choice?

I can answer #2 from my point of view here for you.
I only looked at how the resolution was specifically worded, saying it was a right, not that it would be forced.

Well, my opinion in my last post has been dismissed with a wave of your hand as an "empathic loophole", and anyone else in this thread who has dared to disagree with your obviously superior views have been similarly delt wiith. The arrogant tone you answer your critics in, is'nt helping your cause much.

(OCC) I'm not an economist, uni student or politician, just a 41 year old housewife. I don't cough up textbooks if you slap me on the back on the head. I do read the proposals/resolutions carefully, and try to use my endorsement/vote to my nations and regions best advantage. That, I feel, is my job as UN delegate and member.

(back IC)
Yes, some of these resolutions are bad, and yes, some of them should be repealed and replaced with better aternatives (as was recently done with "legal prostitution"). To answer your question in your answer to my last post, yes my nation does fund education campaigns against female mutilation, because a passed UN resolution requires we do so. I did'nt however have any say in the vote for that one, or most of the others you cited, because I was'nt in the UN (in fact was'nt in the game at all) at the time. If you feel so strongly about this, start writing the repeals and put them up. If I feel your arguments are sound and have merit, I'll happily endorse them.

We're too rich to care.
Um, isn't your economy "Frightening?" And yet you continue to boast about your wealth...

Um, isn't your economy "Frightening?" And yet you continue to boast about your wealth...
"Frightening" is the highest possible rank.
It's in here. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392208)

Thanks, Crydonia. Couldn't have put it better myself. In fact, didn't put it as well myself.

So, as for me ...

"(Sigh). Very well, Schezophrenia, if that's the way it has to be. I'll always remember our time together, but I guess this is .... goodbye!"


(Exits, right, as screen fades to black and credits roll. Voice of Edith Piaf, heard in the background singing Milord, swells to full, glorious, throaty volume:

<<Je vous attends, Milord, a l'ombre de la rue ...>>)

Well, my opinion in my last post has been dismissed with a wave of your hand as an "empathic loophole", and anyone else in this thread who has dared to disagree with your obviously superior views have been similarly delt wiith. The arrogant tone you answer your critics in, is'nt helping your cause much.

(OCC) I'm not an economist, uni student or politician, just a 41 year old housewife. I don't cough up textbooks if you slap me on the back on the head. I do read the proposals/resolutions carefully, and try to use my endorsement/vote to my nations and regions best advantage. That, I feel, is my job as UN delegate and member.

(back IC)
Yes, some of these resolutions are bad, and yes, some of them should be repealed and replaced with better aternatives (as was recently done with "legal prostitution"). To answer your question in your answer to my last post, yes my nation does fund education campaigns against female mutilation, because a passed UN resolution requires we do so. I did'nt however have any say in the vote for that one, or most of the others you cited, because I was'nt in the UN (in fact was'nt in the game at all) at the time. If you feel so strongly about this, start writing the repeals and put them up. If I feel your arguments are sound and have merit, I'll happily endorse them.


The Democratic States of Schezophrenia feels horrible again to answer in a repeated way.

"Well, my opinion in my last post has been dismissed with a wave of your hand as an "empathic loophole", and anyone else in this thread who has dared to disagree with your obviously superior views have been similarly delt wiith."

We have to assume your actions in support of such poorly word and thought of resolutions can't come out of anything else other than empathic or lower "education" levels. There is little room there that suggest that any nation supporting these resolutions can do so in an elaborate way, since the resolutions themselves were not elaborate. We wonder how then such resolutions came to be and are implemented in each nation with ZERO economic consideration from the resolution and the members who proposed them.

Our views are only superior in the manner that we dare to question what others have not, and that we feel that the economy of such resolutions are key for the success of the resolutions otherwise we can see another resolution trying to fix a prior resolution, as there is one case of that in this thread. Also that some of these resolution contradict themselves and until this moment not a lot of members have come forth with a solution.

We also can't take for an excuse that your nation couldn't do anything about it, because of not being present in the UN at the moment of the voting. Because we weren't at any of these as well, yet we will bring forth further arguments to make it possible for any member to repeal this, in any case we are not able to do so.

Also i would have to say that may tone, whatever it may be, won't make the points any more true or false, and if a nation can't discern properly what is what, then so be it. Neither it will make the resolutions in discussion any better written either. We request any further spotlight on our behavior, rather than the arguments at hand, to stop.

We are indeed working as of now on what would be the repeals of each of the ones in discussions. As you can observe it is not 1 or 2 the matters at hand, so it will take time, and you can be sure it won't be a single sentence.

Um, isn't your economy "Frightening?" And yet you continue to boast about your wealth...

As we're on the top of the heap - YES, WE ARE BRAGGING.

WE HAVE MORE MONEY THEN YOU, NYAH NYAH NYAH!

Now, once you have realized your place in the order of the universe, please remove your foot from your mouth.

I apologize Vastiva. I submit myself for execution for the heinous crime of thinking that a "Frightening" economy was a bad thing.

*Commits said execution by "Tossing the bugger who didn't read the FAQ down the elevator shaft which doesn't have an elevator in it in the first place"*

A DLE oldie but a goodie.

Do you honestly expect every nation to read every FAQ from every different forum?

Do you honestly expect every nation to read every FAQ from every different forum?

The Caliph makes a note to hire an exorcist later.


OOC: Gee, its a game, it has rules. The three charts are central to the game pages. It would seem such information would be basic. Particularly when one is shooting one's mouth off about a rating on said charts.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia is displeased with entering in such a rethoric debate.you failed to show your arguments or debate with all the others in reasonable way. I don't see such a problem in other threads.

As we already see what?
We already see a bunch of resolutions that some, as we stated above, fail to even make sense in their existance.
We see a majority of countries that voted on such of resolutions that we are certain didn't question their validity and its methods of implementation, and were little more than a empathic response to issues without really questioning them.if any one could easily see the sense in their existance , you better choose yourself despite bleme the others.

For example of this lets examine the rethoric of what is: RESOLUTION #28
Free education

"To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education"now you take one resolution (that I told you isn't coonected to "human rights")with one simple sentence, and give it as example for the whole human right resolutions? you had to be blind not to see the hipocrity in that when you tell we have bad rethoric.

What is the definition of this "Education"?
Are this individuals forced to have this "Education"?
and if they are forced wouldn't that constitute a violation of freedom of choice?education is knowledge and abilities that the person get while his life. the resolution let you decide what knowledge you will give to your youth (by teachers, parents, or others), and supposed to care for reasonable preapering for the independent life and equality in chances, as it free to everyone (and that why I think this is "social justice")
as it right, the children can choose to remain un-educated if they wish, but that put them in lower start point (although the goverment could make them do it, or support the education).
You define to me those three points, and why you voted for them (Even thought the resolution doesn't even attempt to define them) and then we can continue this argument properly.I wasn't in the UN when this resolution passed. however, I think that social equality is important, just as the right to choose, and I'm in favor of this 2 things.

Don't pretend to question our "weird" logic, if you (and your claimed mayority) keep voting on single sentence resolutions.sometimes one sentence could say more than full book. anyway, this resolution came in the start of the UN, and maybe then they prefer clear resolution than long one.
I even add that this resolution is about principal, more than about acts you need to make.
As for your thoughts on the UN being:

"civil rights are the basis for legalisation and constitutions in every modern democratic nation. the UN who is controlled by the majority decide to promote those rights.
tell me every worst crime you want, and I tell you what human rights this is harm."

We would already be fearful of being in this United Nations, with resolutions that are passed by a majority who don't question or even demand a better description of its use and implementation with resolution as the one stated above. And this poorly written resolutions are your country's basis for legislation?
We fear the definition of "Education" that is followed in your country is very poor indeed.again you ignore all my argument because one resolution (that isn't connected), and you blame my logic.
don't bother with my education system. I had no problem as I used the morals behind the UN resolution, despite make it "just as written" like you think.

As for other crimes, citing examples such as: Rape, murder,etc. Don't need to fall under "Civil Rights" to be found in violations of other laws. Most certainly we wouldn't use the descriptions given in the resolutions of the UN for our legislature at all, because any citizen in The Democratic States of Schezophrenia would question of their logic, and that alone would take a legislative system for itself, hence more money would be spent for us to agree upon what is what since the lack of elaboration in the resolutions themselves.
murder harm the right for life and security. rape also harm the right of the person on his body (one of the parts in the right for freedom). every base to this laws come from "human rights", and when you ignore the "human rights" you lose the base for this laws.
you have understanding problem if you think it related to "civil rights". "civil right" is right as voting that person can get only in his countrey (although as modern democratic countrey I see them important as same). on the other hand, human rights are right that should be provided to every person everywhere, and that give the UN basis for legalisature on this subject.
as I said before the basis of the laws is mostly the "human right", and therefore you already used them although you are against them.
Also What is a "Social Right"?
Could you elaborate on this?social right are rights as "free education", "free health care" and "minimum wage" that are open to decision in every countrey for themselves. it connected to the way the goverment choose (liberal or social minded). the goverment aren't supposed to give it unless she wish for, and those right are in lower priority.
however, when you are part of the UN you have to obey to the social decisions in any case.
Again if RESOLUTION #28
Free education is wrongly misplaced, and there have been errors in the past. How can we not feel displeased at a "majority" of nations that simple pass resolutions blindly and feel content on let them sit as they were first proposed?you can be sure that almost noone here vote blindly or without consideration. however, you can't say we are blind, just because we have different opinions.
again, you base your arguments on resolution, I sho you can't be example in that debate.
As for how the system within the UN works, and how "will had some problem in that". We can clearly see that it is a very flawed system and clearly someone got the "power" to submit a single sentece resolution and are currently unable to have the "power" to repeal such resolutions, as well as others. It is a sad state that the system of the UN is, and we plead for those out there who see a fault in this to give us the power to do so.
un-relevant for the reasons I said above.
However we are getting prepared regardless, and will bring forth a full argument that any country with that "power" will be able to submitt in order to correct the atrocity at hand.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia
if you had good arguments show them, or at least try to debate with the opposite arguments.
btw, did you realize that you forget your original argument about the economical worth of the human rights? I guess even you had to put up with the fact this is bad one.

Resolution #28 [Free Education]
Resolution #3 [Education for All]
Resolution #9 [Keep The World Disease-Free!]

There is no cost the people of Integrated America won't pay to be one of the most well educated countries in the UN. There is no cost we won't pay in order to treat our fellow citizens with the care they deserve.

The members of the UN know that Protection of Human Beings is our first and foremost goal. If we do not protect the weak, we cannot call ourselves correct, if everyone is not guaranteed the right to education and health care, then we cannot live in this world of ours. Capitalism has shattered the world, and my country is Socialist with a legislature, that is elected by the people.

The cost cannot outweigh the benefits of Human Rights.

Prince Wilhelm
Foreign Minister to the United Nations.

We Vastivans believe in "survival of the most adaptable". Those who do not and can not adapt are usually victims of the social Darwin practices of our nation in short order.

"Protection of Human Beings" is NOT our foremost goal - our foremost goal is "Protection of Vastivan Interests". The rest of the world can throw itself into a handcart if it likes.

As to Capitalism - everywhere capitalism has flourished, so has wealth, power, and plenty. Everywhere it has been held back, so has come sickness, poverty, and weakness. We see no arguement in favor of Communism or Socialism.

you failed to show your arguments or debate with all the others in reasonable way. I don't see such a problem in other threads.

if any one could easily see the sense in their existance , you better choose yourself despite bleme the others.

now you take one resolution (that I told you isn't coonected to "human rights")with one simple sentence, and give it as example for the whole human right resolutions? you had to be blind not to see the hipocrity in that when you tell we have bad rethoric.

education is knowledge and abilities that the person get while his life. the resolution let you decide what knowledge you will give to your youth (by teachers, parents, or others), and supposed to care for reasonable preapering for the independent life and equality in chances, as it free to everyone (and that why I think this is "social justice")
as it right, the children can choose to remain un-educated if they wish, but that put them in lower start point (although the goverment could make them do it, or support the education).
I wasn't in the UN when this resolution passed. however, I think that social equality is important, just as the right to choose, and I'm in favor of this 2 things.

sometimes one sentence could say more than full book. anyway, this resolution came in the start of the UN, and maybe then they prefer clear resolution than long one.
I even add that this resolution is about principal, more than about acts you need to make.
again you ignore all my argument because one resolution (that isn't connected), and you blame my logic.
don't bother with my education system. I had no problem as I used the morals behind the UN resolution, despite make it "just as written" like you think.


murder harm the right for life and security. rape also harm the right of the person on his body (one of the parts in the right for freedom). every base to this laws come from "human rights", and when you ignore the "human rights" you lose the base for this laws.
you have understanding problem if you think it related to "civil rights". "civil right" is right as voting that person can get only in his countrey (although as modern democratic countrey I see them important as same). on the other hand, human rights are right that should be provided to every person everywhere, and that give the UN basis for legalisature on this subject.
as I said before the basis of the laws is mostly the "human right", and therefore you already used them although you are against them.
social right are rights as "free education", "free health care" and "minimum wage" that are open to decision in every countrey for themselves. it connected to the way the goverment choose (liberal or social minded). the goverment aren't supposed to give it unless she wish for, and those right are in lower priority.
however, when you are part of the UN you have to obey to the social decisions in any case.
you can be sure that almost noone here vote blindly or without consideration. however, you can't say we are blind, just because we have different opinions.
again, you base your arguments on resolution, I sho you can't be example in that debate.

un-relevant for the reasons I said above.

if you had good arguments show them, or at least try to debate with the opposite arguments.
btw, did you realize that you forget your original argument about the economical worth of the human rights? I guess even you had to put up with the fact this is bad one.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia feels akward with the low level of valid points, it is sincerely a reply for your nation sake not really for the argument. Since you contribute little to it.

First of you continue your rethoric by pointing at us by being rethoric in picking Resolution #28 - Free Education as an example, because quite simply your nation doesn't defines it as a "Civil Right". Yet not a while ago this was: "to ignore the great effects educated population had on your economy, and the decreasing in youth-crime while the kids are in school."

Meaning that you indeed approved of such resolution, regardless wether it is a "Social Right" or a "Civil Right". You still considered this "one sentence resolution" apt for approval. Why are we being hypocritical and rethoric?
In any case, does our "Rethoric" make your approval of such absent minded resolution any better?

Again more of observation on our behaviour rather than the arguments and making valid points. A Waste.

also your Definition of Education might be vary different from any other members, that is why the resolution needs to be elaborate on the use of such terms, otherwise anyone can come up with anything and name it education and then the resolution will not make any effect whatsoever. Why have it then?

Also, the resolution doesn't let you decide anything, there is no such reference in the resolution itself, your nation is being very creative with a single sentence. We foresee a future in arts and crafts rather than politics.

It also doesn't make reference wether or not the people under 18 have a right to pursue or not said education, it only states that they have it. You continue to expand meaning into this single sentence that it doesn't have.

You weren't in the UN when the resolution passed, good for you. We can clearly see that resolutions aquire special meanings in your mind, so we tread carefully in trying to mantain a sane debate. You might be in favor of social equality, and the right to chose. We are in favor of lousy resolutions that do little to promote this two things in an elaborate way and have common sense in implementing them, to be eradicated of the halls of the UN. Especially ones that contradict other rights. Especially ones made by people too lazy to think and type.

Let's see. "sometimes one sentence could say more than full book." and the other comments below it, do little more than justify the reason there is a one sentence resolution, without really bringing any valid points as to why this thing should have been explained better. Because we don't know about your country but one sentence doesn't not make things clearer. Simpler, yes. Effortless, yes. Clearer, no.

I blame your logic, because you have still not explained how the economic factor is not important at all, and it doesn't not improve yet the economy is the main reason you can enforce this rights, by them being subject to how well the legislative system is, and for this you need economy.

Any questions?
Morals don't pay judges. Unless you have a way exchanging them with your currency, like you make appear things in one sentence resolutions, maybe then you can validate your claim.

Actually the base for this laws comes from acting upon someone else's property be it "your body" or "your computer". If i rape your computer it is not based on "Civil rights". You don't need them to have these laws, and these laws don't need to be based on them to exist, becuase they existed without them.

Also We are not fully against the "Rights" themselves. We are fully against the overall portrayal of some (As noted) resolutions that pretend to contain the basis to enforce them or defend them.

When we say any nation is "blind", it is because they do not see or even consider the implementation of such resolutions. On a single sentenced resolution or on other resolutions that contradict themselves, How are the UN members considering the matter to its full extent?

Unless you have indeed gone one by one of the observations we noted (above) of each resolution and commented on them, and invalidated them, we don't see how you count us out like we haven't showed any argument at all.

As for: "did you realize that you forget your original argument about the economical worth of the human rights?"

The economical worth or the Costs of human rights?

Are you "seeing" more things to a text again?

Threading carefully in this debate with a not very sane representative as it seems.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia feels akward with the low level of valid points, it is sincerely a reply for your nation sake not really for the argument. Since you contribute little to it.
I already had good debates with others. the problem is you failed to acheive sane debate.
First of you continue your rethoric by pointing at us by being rethoric in picking Resolution #28 - Free Education as an example, because quite simply your nation doesn't defines it as a "Civil Right". Yet not a while ago this was: "to ignore the great effects educated population had on your economy, and the decreasing in youth-crime while the kids are in school."I alread define what is the deifference between "civil rights", "human rights" and "social rights". this is deifinition who are accaptable all over the world. you failed to understand simple and short sentences, and you blame my logic? hypocritical, aren't you think?
as for my previous argument, I still stand behind him, but I think that good debate shouldn't repeat only on the same old arguments (as some of us do, while they can't understand simple arguments, and clear logic).
Meaning that you indeed approved of such resolution, regardless wether it is a "Social Right" or a "Civil Right". You still considered this "one sentence resolution" apt for approval. Why are we being hypocritical and rethoric?
In any case, does our "Rethoric" make your approval of such absent minded resolution any better?you are hypocritical because you can't get simple arguments that clearified the advantages of the resolution and deifne this proposal as basis for legalisature, and you think your logic is better.
you are rethoric, because from the start of the debate you failed to give arguments, but you aim to attack my arguments (without understood them).
I has no reason to repeat on my arguments, when you cab't debate as well.
Again more of observation on our behaviour rather than the arguments and making valid points. A Waste.
that sentence clearified your debating skills in all the thread.
also your Definition of Education might be vary different from any other members, that is why the resolution needs to be elaborate on the use of such terms, otherwise anyone can come up with anything and name it education and then the resolution will not make any effect whatsoever. Why have it then?just because you have problem in definition of simple word as education, dosen't mean every body can'd find definitions by theme selves.
the fact there is different deifinition of educations, is exactly the reason why the proposal shouldn't define it. if they want they could give military education and make her youth soldiers. this is in the limits of the resolution and it is one of the good things in it.
Also, the resolution doesn't let you decide anything, there is no such reference in the resolution itself, your nation is being very creative with a single sentence. We foresee a future in arts and crafts rather than politics.
the unwritten law of the UN said that "every issue without UN decision is for the nation to decide". until you everybody undersood it. are you sure you had no logical problems?
in addition many resolution draw you the goals and let you acheive them as you wish. that is things have to be. if you can't see anything different than written text (and you can't understand even it), I advise you cure yourself, because you supposed to know it in elementary school.
It also doesn't make reference wether or not the people under 18 have a right to pursue or not said education, it only states that they have it. You continue to expand meaning into this single sentence that it doesn't have.you continue don't get simple ideas. if you see this resolution "give right to free education", you supposed to understand that it isn't "enforce obligation of education".

You weren't in the UN when the resolution passed, good for you. We can clearly see that resolutions aquire special meanings in your mind, so we tread carefully in trying to mantain a sane debate. You might be in favor of social equality, and the right to chose. We are in favor of lousy resolutions that do little to promote this two things in an elaborate way and have common sense in implementing them, to be eradicated of the halls of the UN. Especially ones that contradict other rights. Especially ones made by people too lazy to think and type.
bad using of the term "in favour". if you are in favour of that kind of resolution it mean you support them and the debate is useless.
however, because I have little imagination I could easily see you pick the wrong word and you mean you are against that (as you certainly can't do). anyway, you had no argument here because you keep atack resolution that isn't related to the debate, in words like lousy and lazy, that aren't good words for achiving mature debate. I had no reaon to repeat my argument, for someone who had no arguments.
Let's see. "sometimes one sentence could say more than full book." and the other comments below it, do little more than justify the reason there is a one sentence resolution, without really bringing any valid points as to why this thing should have been explained better. Because we don't know about your country but one sentence doesn't not make things clearer. Simpler, yes. Effortless, yes. Clearer, no.definitions are by the countries as I already said, and I think that much words almost always leading to large amount of loop holes that harm the clearness of the proposal.
btw, you failed again in explanation why it bad that resolution is short and simple, or why you keep attack this resolution than find better example that related to the debate.
I blame your logic, because you have still not explained how the economic factor is not important at all, and it doesn't not improve yet the economy is the main reason you can enforce this rights, by them being subject to how well the legislative system is, and for this you need economy.I already said it many times (just as everybody else in this debate). you failed to say why money is more important than human rights (and remember this isn't civil rights or social rights), and why you ignore the benefits this rights could give to the economy.
Any questions?
Morals don't pay judges. Unless you have a way exchanging them with your currency, like you make appear things in one sentence resolutions, maybe then you can validate your claim.as I already said you already paid to the judges. give someone right to make something reduce the amount of crimes and let you pay less to the judges. beside (as you claim), you already judge people on harmness in the human right (even if you give it different name).

Actually the base for this laws comes from acting upon someone else's property be it "your body" or "your computer". If i rape your computer it is not based on "Civil rights". You don't need them to have these laws, and these laws don't need to be based on them to exist, becuase they existed without them.
it isn't civil rights- it is human rights.
anyway, now I clearified you it in the last time (hope you get it). your body is guarded by the "right to life and security". your computer is guarded by "the right to enterprise". the 6 rights:free trial, life and security, enterprise, equality, honor, and freedom. this rights developed by the years and were the basis to the modern domocracies (if you want it or not). your laws based on this rights even if you don't say you based on this rights. now, the UN decide (in democratic way) that this rights are important enough to guard them all over the UN. as such, your laws has been change to guard the right, or recive universal legitimacy (depend your laws before the legalisation). maybe you has no need to this rights, but in dictatorships the laws of the UN give the popolution the basic human rights. are we clear with that?
Also We are not fully against the "Rights" themselves. We are fully against the overall portrayal of some (As noted) resolutions that pretend to contain the basis to enforce them or defend them. if you aren't the right themeselves, why you think that some cash to the judges is reason to repeal them?
as I see you note only 1 resolution (who aren't related) as example, you ignore every arguments against your opinion, and you failed to clearified why you think that all the other longer resolutions should repeal.
When we say any nation is "blind", it is because they do not see or even consider the implementation of such resolutions. On a single sentenced resolution or on other resolutions that contradict themselves, How are the UN members considering the matter to its full extent?as I told you they consider and see it, but they think differently. everybody (unlike you) could understand the principals of the resolution, despite based only on the wording. and again, whole your argument based solely on one resolution.

Unless you have indeed gone one by one of the observations we noted (above) of each resolution and commented on them, and invalidated them, we don't see how you count us out like we haven't showed any argument at all.I think someone already make it, but I will had no problem.

As for: "did you realize that you forget your original argument about the economical worth of the human rights?"

The economical worth or the Costs of human rights?

Are you "seeing" more things to a text again?as you aim on the costs (of money) of human right, I think economical worth reflect close things.

Threading carefully in this debate with a not very sane representative as it seems.

The Democratic States of Schezophrenia[/QUOTE]
you have to be total hypocritical to call my argument insane.

Resolition #3 -Education for All-, altought not billed as "Civil Right" it does states:

"To give every child under the age of 16 the RIGHT to a free education"

Also it overlaps Resolution #28 - Free Education -

Since it is implied that you not only have a right for a FREE education, but also you have a right to A education.both aren't related as it has to be social rights.

RESOLUTION #6 -End slavery-

Is at this moment not under those resolutions considered to repeal unders the basis that it doesn't force any nation to provide anything, altought it doesn't provide any economic consideration on the impact the goverment might have in receiving/resolving slavery issues within the goverment. Since there are more like these we are going to refer to them from now on as: Not under examination on the current argument.as you said it dosen't related. the next resolutions who aren't related will remain out of my answer.

RESOLUTION #9 - Keep The World Disease-Free! - The resolution forces the members to implement this without examing its cost and if the country is able to provide EVERY citizen ONE of EACH of the list. Even implying the ownership of a house for EACH citizen. This is clearly unacceptable. There are other cost effective and communitary devices that can cover this.and you get healthy citizens. that make you pay less money to sickness days. you GP increase because people could work more, than be sick in their home, and you aren't had to worry about more expensive cures for this disseas. there isn't costs.

RESOLUTION #21 - Fair trial - Does fall within our examination due it doesn't provide the costs on how to implement this, and the economic burden that it will bring to provide a fair trial: be it jury duty, hotels for the jury, etc. It also fails to provide a good description of what is to be considered a "Fair Trial".the descriptions of fair trials will come only in next resolutions. in the cuurent wording there isn't costs, because you aren't need to do anything.

RESOLUTION #25 - The Child Protection Act - It doesn't measure the cost to: "States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect.."invetegates on the childrens are investigations on your countrey future. did you failed to understood if you abuse childs you will lost future workers (useless to remind the therapies you will had to care for, and as psichlogical reserches show, increasing the police force to prevent youth crime).

RESOLUTION #26 - The Universal Bill of Rights - It doesn't as well examine the costs of protecting these rights. most of the right ther give you money as they say things you can't expend your money on anymore, or has no costs. besides, it states it will be effective only if you aren't had this rights already.

RESOLUTION #30 - Common Sense Act II - Possible the only "Civil Rights" resolution that we not only approved but favor more like these. However we question how this indeed is a right?[/QUOTE]
I think it isn't, but I'm no moderator. anyway, it isn't related.

RESOLUTION #31 - Wolfish Convention on POW - It doesn't provide with a full examination of who will carry with the costs of these camps, transportation, etc.important right. maybe it isn't state from where the money will be, but if you aren't intended to expend this money, don't go to wars. war is expensive act.

RESOLUTION #43 - Legalise Euthanasia - Who is covering the costs of Euthanasia? Were is the examination of this.euthansia is less expensive than keep the sicks alive. bad argument. anyway it is obious that the costs are on the family.

RESOLUTION #44 - Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill - What is considered "Fair"? And what does the state has to provide for it to be "fair"? Who will cover the "Basic Services"?fair mean equal, and this is global definition. basic services should be "offered", but that don't mean you had to pay for them on those sevices.

RESOLUTION #51 - Children in War - Again no examination on where the economic burden will be placed in implementation and it overlaps with other resolutions.
the fact this resolution only said what you can't do, there isn't costs.
RESOLUTION #54 - UN Educational Committee - This resolution agrees in the failure of examining the economic impact of a prior resolution and even makes the boldest mistake of further burdening the UN and its members with even more forced "funding".I already tell you what I think about the education resolutions.

Schezophrenia, you make a host of assumptions that are not warranted.

Most UN resolutions -- particularly those establishing human/civil rights -- puposefully do not detail implementation or definitions. The idea is that individual nations will implement and define in different ways within the broad parameters allowed by the resolution. To many, this is an important concession to national sovereignty.

There is nothing inherently stupid or wrong about concise declarations of rights. I assume you would not dismiss the U.S. Bill of Rights (or other constitutional amendments) as the products of emotional voting or poor education.

Both implicitly and expressly, you have insulted the intelligence of those who support many of these resolutions and/or disagree with your views. I won't respond in kind. I will note that such tactics do not win friends or influence people. No one you call stupid is likely to support your repeals.

As I understand it you have two main concerns: (a) that resolutions have no structure for implementation and (b) resolutions have hidden costs that were not considered. It also appears you simply do not agree with many resolutions, but are not arguing that directly. Anyway, I have addressed your first concern above.

As to your second concern, you actually have no idea historically if the economic impact of any resolution was considered or not, but you are probably at least partially correct. Nonetheless, your concern is unwarranted as to most of the resolutions you target. Are you really saying that you disagree with the right to a fair trial because fair trials cost too much (as opposed to unfair trials)? If so, you are wrong and I am sure a majority of UN states will disagree with you. This is just an example of a number of resolutions that you claim are objectionable because a fundamental human right has a de minimus cost. Your views are simply contrary to the concept of civil rights and UN resolutions in general.

As to the handful of resolutions where their is a significant economic impact/cost -- such as Free Education for All -- members undoubtedly considered the obvious economic cost in approving the resolution. You may disagree. You may think they majority's thinking was utopian and unrealistic. Seek a repeal if you like. But do not assume everyone (including the delegates that approved the resolution for vote) voted blindly.

Your ideas are welcome, even if some of us may disagree. Focus on specific resolutions and seek repeal, perhaps with replacements you think are better. This broad, insulting diatribe against all and everything is not productive.

RESOLUTION #62 - Female Genital Mutilation - Why does the State has to fund this? Also it is unclear the distinction between this and Male circumcision, and the possible disputes since this comes into conflict with other rights (Freedom of Religion, etc.)I don't know much about this issue, but right always clash one with another. as example take the right to freedom of the prisoner and the right for lif and security to the others.
as this guard the health of the public you get benefits as I said above.
RESOLUTION #83 - The Eon Convention on Genocide - Does not provide an examination of possible costs, and on who they fall, of all procedures to implement this.it is obious that the nations that decide to make it will had to care for the costs (as the UN can't tax nations).