repeal right to self protection:the need for tigher definition
Female Leadership
02-04-2005, 22:33
in this resolution the term "reasonable force" is not defined, therefore it would be difficult for the law to be enforced! everyones definition of "reasonable force" is different....
sorry if the grammar or spelling is rubbish, i just got in from work and my brain wants to switch off
DemonLordEnigma
02-04-2005, 23:59
in this resolution the term "reasonable force" is not defined, therefore it would be difficult for the law to be enforced! everyones definition of "reasonable force" is different....
No matter how many times we state it, they always ignore it and then think they've discovered something new and powerful that hasn't been dealt with before...
The lack of a definition is the point. It is enforcible if you bother to define what is reasonable force. Reasonable force in Tekania might be to subdue someone without harming them while reasonable force in my nation allows for the use of antiaircraft guns, miniguns, grenades, and in some cases missile launchers. That huge difference alone makes it impossible to define for all of NS without running into problems getting support from people.
in this resolution the term "reasonable force" is not defined, therefore it would be difficult for the law to be enforced! everyones definition of "reasonable force" is different....
sorry if the grammar or spelling is rubbish, i just got in from work and my brain wants to switch off
You obviously missed the debates over this resolution (which did pass while you were in the game). The entire point was that the definition could be set by individual governments. This resolution actually goes out of its way to protect national sovereignty.
No matter how many times we state it, they always ignore it and then think they've discovered something new and powerful that hasn't been dealt with before...Could you be a little less rude? I mean, why do people always flame someone for a question or statement they believe is understood? You may have heard it a thousand times before, but it's the person's first post, man! You could have simple stated your case and not made them feel as if the world is against them. Really, who is "we" anyway? And what makes them so high and mighty? Does it hurt to just be nice? </rant>
The Lynx Alliance
03-04-2005, 02:02
man, not again...... how many times has this argument been used? it is a guideline, not law
Anti Pharisaism
03-04-2005, 02:08
in this resolution the term "reasonable force" is not defined, therefore it would be difficult for the law to be enforced! everyones definition of "reasonable force" is different....
sorry if the grammar or spelling is rubbish, i just got in from work and my brain wants to switch off
That is how the law operates. It remains a finding of fact for judge or jury. Lest you want an extensive list of what is to be defined as reasonable under given circumstances. For example if hit with a beer bottle it is reasonable to use force no greater than a beer bottle, and other useless text that may or may not wholly apply.
Anti Pharisaism
03-04-2005, 02:10
man, not again...... how many times has this argument been used? it is a guideline, not law
LOL, trust me, this game is the song that never ends.
The Lynx Alliance
03-04-2005, 02:16
LOL, trust me, this game is the song that never ends.
yes, quite true.
in reply to the main argument, the definition not being set, many nations have varying ideas on resonable force. for some, like us, it is deemed to be that which incapacitates the attacker, not killing them or causing death later on (ie within 24 - 48 hrs) and also the use of guns in self defence is frownd upon. for other nations, it is a headshot at close range with a bazooka. if you repeal this, and submit a proposal with a strict definition of reasonable force, it will never pass because nations wont agree to it. we wont agree that anything that causes death is reasonable, others will protect their right to kill someone in self defence
Venerable libertarians
03-04-2005, 02:26
Could you be a little less rude? I mean, why do people always flame someone for a question or statement they believe is understood? You may have heard it a thousand times before, but it's the person's first post, man! You could have simple stated your case and not made them feel as if the world is against them. Really, who is "we" anyway? And what makes them so high and mighty? Does it hurt to just be nice? </rant>
The Venerable Libertarians Agrees with Myxx here. I have asked for patience with new members before as they are just learning the ropes and one day may become such monoliths as DLE etc
IC. Agrees this has been done to death, Repeals can become so tedious!
DemonLordEnigma
03-04-2005, 02:34
Could you be a little less rude?
I've tried that option and find that it doesn't always work. Especially with cases where the arguement was tired the second time it was used.
I mean, why do people always flame someone for a question or statement they believe is understood?
That wasn't intended as a flame. Just a statement of annoyance.
As for why: Because this is a case where ignorance is no excuse. The resolution wasn't that long ago and repeal attempts have been tried, both without and with topics on the forum, since then. Finally, this is mostly annoyance that they could not be bothered to come on here and check the discussion when it was going on when, by all of the evidence I have, they were fully capable of doing so and instead decided to attempt a repeal using the most tired arguement on the subject.
So, really, I have no pity for them just because it is their first post. If they didn't know, that is their fault, as by all evidence they had the capacity to check the discussion when it was happening back in February.
You may have heard it a thousand times before, but it's the person's first post, man! You could have simple stated your case and not made them feel as if the world is against them.
And they could have checked the first discussion on the resolution back when it was happening in February. Or at least asked one of us if it had been covered before.
The Lynx Alliance
03-04-2005, 02:41
i hate to say it, but i kinda agree with DLE here. maybe a little more research should be done before submitting the repeal. ie: find out if a repeal has been tried before, find out why it was set like that in the first place.
Venerable libertarians
03-04-2005, 02:47
As for why: Because this is a case where ignorance is no excuse. The resolution wasn't that long ago and repeal attempts have been tried, both without and with topics on the forum, since then. Finally, this is mostly annoyance that they could not be bothered to come on here and check the discussion when it was going on when, by all of the evidence I have, they were fully capable of doing so and instead decided to attempt a repeal using the most tired arguement on the subject.
With respect DLE, when i was a new member at this game i spent the first month just getting to grips with the main NS Site on which i made many a mistake, in one case leading to my expulsion from a popular region. I was accused of being a "DEN" Member and i hadnt a breeze what that was.
It takes time to get the hang of the forums as it is just so massive. Only 5 days ago did i peek into the International Incident Forum for the first time! so I am still learning the ropes 236 posts later.
I understand your frustration with the repeated repeals and repeated arguements ad nausium but you have a choice! you dont have to respond to everything. i dare you not to respond to this! lol.
DemonLordEnigma
03-04-2005, 02:56
With respect DLE, when i was a new member at this game i spent the first month just getting to grips with the main NS Site on which i made many a mistake, in one case leading to my expulsion from a popular region. I was accused of being a "DEN" Member and i hadnt a breeze what that was.
And I still don't entirely know what that is, but that's because I choose not to look it up.
If they had been a Feb 2005 or later nation, I probably would have taken a different attitude on the subject. The reason why is it is entirely possible they had missed the discussion. But as it is, they're not.
It takes time to get the hang of the forums as it is just so massive. Only 5 days ago did i peek into the International Incident Forum for the first time! so I am still learning the ropes 236 posts later.
It does take time, but that's why asking is always available as an option. Especially on this forum, where mistakes can mean the difference between a resolution getting accepted or not.
I understand your frustration with the repeated repeals and repeated arguements ad nausium but you have a choice! you dont have to respond to everything. i dare you not to respond to this! lol.
I also have a choice about whether or not to use certain tactics, and that choice allows me to use the tactics appropriate to the situation. In this case, I felt the tactics employed appropriate. Nor has my feeling on that matter changed any.