NationStates Jolt Archive

It is with great sadness that I, Mark Heln, U.N. delegate from The Community of the Frozen Chosen, announce my intention to vote against this resolution on behalf of my great country. While it is painful to cast the vote with the appearance of endorsing the use of biological weapons, I see no other choice.

I wish to assure my fellow delegates and the citizens of my community, whose voices were instrumental in making this decision, that The Community of the Frozen Chosen has no intent of ever using, or encouraging the use of, bioweapons. Rather it is the troubling issues of the possible violation of the rights of citizens, under the auspices of "isolation", and other problematic interpretations that would be potentially damaging to citizens and/or alliances.

Thus while I cast this vote against the resolution, The Community of the Frozen Chosen affirms its commitment to never, as a nation, use bioweapons, and dreams of that future date where it will be able to affirm that stance through the signing of a properly worded internantional treaty or rewritten N.S.U.N. resolution.

Thank you.

Mark Heln
N.S.U.N. Delegate
The Community of the Forzen Chosen

OOC: This is one heck of a UN debate for a new user to walk in on.

biological weapons are an absolute fuckin liability i mean who wants to have some douche bag invade u cuz u have some weapons i say fuck em

An abysmal resolution. The writers evidently did not take the time to consider their actions.

Firstly, this is a gross violation of national soveriegnty

Secondly, it places UN nations at a significant disadvantage in warfare, since non-UN nations are free to use such weapons.

Thirdly, it places small nations at a significant disadvantage. Larger nations will be able to use Nuclear Weapons as deterrance, or simply have conventional military large enough to scare of any potential aggressor. However, small nations must now either undertake the very expensive process of building up a Nuclear Weapons program, or be essentially defenceless.

Fourthly, the fifth article is clearly illegal, for reasons that have already been stated by other members

The Grand Duke of Longryu expresses, through his foreign ministry, disquiet at the potential damage to legitimate medical research from the unsustainably high security levels for which this resolution calls whenever biological agents are contained in laboratories. Such military-grade security is wholly inappropriate for research on most microbes. It will, in consequence, hand the global pharmaceutical industry to non-UN members.

The Grand Duke calls on all UN members to reject this resolution.

Since it is increasingly apparent that this heinous resolution shall pass, the Rogue State of Pointless Sociopathy wishes it known that we shall eliminate our stockpiles of bio/chem warheads by firing them at any nation that votes in the resolution's favor.

That is all.

Since it is increasingly apparent that this heinous resolution shall pass, the Rogue State of Pointless Sociopathy wishes it known that we shall eliminate our stockpiles of bio/chem warheads by firing them at any nation that votes in the resolution's favor.

That is all.

the Empire of Sumgy, seconds that.

it should state that biological weapon may not be launched without a suitable reason, for example, a war, and the UN's approval.

Greater Boblandia has already made plans to come into full compliance with the resolution at vote. As we have no direct military alliances with any other nations, compliance with article 5 has already been achieved. And as we speak, all of Greater Boblandia’s biological weapons samples are either being relocated to our country’s most secure facilities or destroyed. Or sold to various high-bidding nations.

Furthermore, plans have already been made regarding the seizure and destruction of all privately owned stocks of “bioweapons,” as per designated in this resolution. The Attorney General’s office has already put forward an edict requiring that all groups in possession of bioweapons report their current stocks and surrender them to the military for destruction. This voluntary program will free our police services from actually having to do any searching for bioweapons themselves.

Likewise, a program has been set up for those “contaminated” to quarantine themselves. These people are very honest, I assure you.

The Attorney General has cautioned, however, that there is the real possibility that a black market in bioweapons could appear. It is conjectured that this criminal underworld could pervade our nation’s college campuses, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and quite possibly the government Center for Disease Control itself. It is even speculated that the office of the Surgeon General itself may already be fermenting these crime rings. Unfortunately, due to a number of shortsighted budget cuts, all of which have been made in the past 48 hours, we have been informed that few, if any, cases involving bioweapons trafficking will ever be investigated.

But we will be in full compliance.

Greetings.

We of Roathin hereby formally announce that we are in full compliance with the resolution on bioweaponry. Our biothaumaturges have been redeployed to defence science and the hortimagical arts. The thaumatophysicists assure us that the energy thus conserved will be of use in their analysis of nanobiomorphic space.

We are now the ideal business partner for any state wishing to work with the Empire of Iashadarin on the matter of alternative defence, together with our fellow Grand Dukes of the Empire, the lords Saladaar, Vancing, Iamhagask and Nenia. Although these colleagues of ours are not NSUN members, they have migrated away from bioweaponry of the kind described in this resolution and join us in declaring open the Age of Nanothaumaturgy.

The Rogue Nation of East Antarctic Company states:

We will bring ourselves into compliance with this resolution by renaming our "biological weapons research programs" as "biological weapons defense research programs". futhermore, we will increase funding to this "noble effort of curing diseases".

We will also create a new program set called the "biological and microbial gift research programs" which shall recieve double the funding of the "biological weapons defense research programs". the intent of these programs shall be to create "gifts" for all nations who voted affirmative for the biological weapons ban resolution.

:gundge: <- east antarctic company workers "gifting"
:mad: <- the recievers of the gift.

our 'biological and microbial gifts' shall be instrumental in culling those of the nations who recieve our gifts who are weak, thereby allowing thier populations to be superior. We greatly pride ourselves ont eh developemt of out 'gifts'

As of 7/23/2005 at 6:38AM GMT:

Votes For: 7,408
Votes Against: 5,938

West Pacific's delegate hasn't voted, but her 300 or so votes (should they go against the resolution) will not be enough to carry the day. All of the other Pacifics have voted (as far as we can tell), and so we're projecting passage by at least 1,000 votes (54% to 46% or so).

On that basis, Allemande will submit its resignation from the United Nations at 7:00AM GMT.

P.S. At 6:55AM GMT West Pacific's delegate voted for the Resolution. The totals are now:

Votes For: 8,071
Votes Against: 5,993

C'est la vie.

The White Dwarf Dominion has voted to support the ban on biological weapons, agreeing they cause excessive civilian casualties. None of the nations in the Dominion possess chemical or biological weapons. However, an active nuclear research program by Bunny Pancake has recently produced twelve first generation thermonuclear devices, mounted on short range ground to ground missiles and utilised for strictly defensive purposes by the White Dwarf Dominion. A further production run to arm the other member states in the Dominion is in progress, and will be completed in the following eight months. We hope that this small number of weapons will not be perceived as a threat by our neighbours, and yet provide sufficient deterrence of aggression against the White Dwarf Dominion.

Prime Minister Timothy McKenzie
Constitutional Monarchy of Bunny Pancake
UN Delegate of the White Dwarf Dominion

I am merely a new state to the UN, and relatively small but allow me to address my concerns about this proposition to you all. As a small state, I have little in the way of defense yet, and so researching and investing in bioweapons is a highly effective way to deter invasion, from the threat of them being used, and so defend the well-being of my people.

I have therefore voted against the proposition, but not because I wish to use these weapons for harmful purpose - merely to protect my citizens.

ITs is the full intention of the Republic of Lanquassia's diplomatic UN mission to work to overturn this legislation. It has been pointed out, repeatedly, that there are many gapping holes in this ban, and that it directly stops non-weapons biological research.

Should a draft of a repeal appear before we have a chance to draft one ourselves, we shall support it wholeheartedly!

As of 7/23/2005 at 6:38AM GMT:

Votes For: 7,408
Votes Against: 5,938

West Pacific's delegate hasn't voted, but her 300 or so votes (should they go against the resolution) will not be enough to carry the day. All of the other Pacifics have voted (as far as we can tell), and so we're projecting passage by at least 1,000 votes (54% to 46% or so).

On that basis, Allemande will submit its resignation from the United Nations at 7:00AM GMT.

P.S. At 6:55AM GMT West Pacific's delegate voted for the Resolution. The totals are now:

Votes For: 8,071
Votes Against: 5,993

C'est la vie.
Don't fret, the margin has been by 2000 votes for a few days (for which I feel a little responsible ;)) and I doubt it will get much larger before the voting period ends. As this is the case, the opponents of this resolution have incurred a slight victory.

All we had to do was keep the vote close. 2000 is fairly close. There are 6000-to-7000 votes out there unconvinced of the resolution's worth. By keeping the resolution a close vote we have made it fairly repeal-able. And by already inflaming some concerning the unwise military stipulations we have given ourselves a platform for its repeal. It'll be repealed. Eventually.

ITs is the full intention of the Republic of Lanquassia's diplomatic UN mission to work to overturn this legislation. It has been pointed out, repeatedly, that there are many gapping holes in this ban, and that it directly stops non-weapons biological research.

As this is now coming to a close, a few final comments (on the post above and others).

1. The resolution states the reason it is permitting nations to retains samples of research quantities of bioweapons.... that being because they are a requirement for the research of counter-agents. What the resolution does NOT contain is any restrictions whatsoever on what research may or may not be performed on those samples beyond that reason. The claim that it stops non-military research on them is simply wrong. It has no basis in the text of the legislation.

2. Even Allemande's own provided definitions for what "isolation" meant did not support his claim that this resolution required the virtual imprisonment of all sick people, or lifelong confinement of AIDS sufferers. It requires only that steps be taken to prevent the spread of the disease, which is just plain good public health policy. If you become aware of a contagion in your population you take steps to contain it, you don't just ignore it and allow it to spread unhindered.

3. Non contagious anthrax is hardly as deadly a weapon as a nuclear arsenal, nor does it present anywhere near the threat to a nations security. Since we guarantee the right for nations to possess the latter it is ridiculous to claim that the ability to possess the former represents some kind of gaping security hole in the resolution. We simply don't care about anthrax. At least not to any greater degree than we care about nukes, or chemical weapons (which we opposed the ban of), or fuel air bombs, or any other weapons that do not present the threat of a potential epidemic or pandemic upon their release. Unless you (the generalized 'you') intend to attempt a ban of all these weapons, stop whining about anthrax. It's like complaining that 9mm handguns should be illegal while supporting the legality of automatic assault rifles.

4. Contagious biological weapons are not a viable defensive technology. In order to use them even in a deterrent role you need to communicate convincingly a willingness to actually deploy them. That makes you an instant threat not only to nations naturally inclined to be hostile to you but to EVERYONE ELSE because such weapons have no definable maximum 'blast radius'. It doesn't matter where you deploy them, it doesn't matter how much of them you deploy, once they get loose the only range limit on where they're going to inflict casualties is dictated by available transmission vectors for the disease... which are completely unable to be predicted by any deploying party who would find themselves in such dire straights from a strategic standpoint that they would consider the need to resort to the deployment of a contagious biological agent in the first place. The only way to control the spread would be an ironclad enforced quarantine of the entire deployment area, and quite frankly if you have the military capability to prevent every single individual among your enemy from going anywhere you don't want them to go the conflict was already effectively over and you weren't going to be losing it.

Which means, if you even threaten the use of a biological weapon against another nation, ANY other nation, you make yourself an instant security threat to every nation on the planet. Not something that is in the defensive interests of any nation no matter how powerful a military you have... certainly not in the interests of a nation who claims not to have the military capability to defend themselves without threatening the deployment of a bioweapon.

And then there's what happens if you actually DO deploy them. As already pointed out contagious agents don't respect national borders, you can pretty much guarantee that any nation it crosses a border into you're going to be at war with in short order. Multiplying your enemies while you're at war is not exactly a highly recommended defensive strategy. And then there's the possibility that the agent follows a path of infection back into your own populace, quite possibly a mutated strain that you have no current effective treatment for any more than the nation you deployed the original variant against had a treatment for that.

You have to be near suicidal to rely on biological weaponry in a defensive role.

5. Allemande, I'm not even going to deal with some of your more entertaining twistings and turnings of the wording of the resolution. I will note however that you have simultaneously in this thread alone derided us for listening to "legalists" like DLE and Vastiva during the draft phase and been the single most active legalist in the entire discussion since DLE stopped participating before this resolution was submitted. DLE and Vastiva were doing it to try to tear open loopholes that weren't there, you're trying to do it to create restrictions that aren't there, but the tactics are the same. Over the closing phase of the discussion with those two representatives we expressed our opinion that many of their objections were getting just plain silly and were not going to be seriously considered, and you reached that point pretty much immediately when you picked up where they left off. One of your latest efforts trying to claim non UN nations could be attacked for conducting scientific medical research was a particularly shining example of exactly the type of argument YOU declared did not deserve consideration.

We recommend you get over the case of multiple personality disorder you appear to be suffering from and pick a position. Are overly legalist arguments to be ignored or to be embraced? Because you've been arguing both at the same time and it long ago reached the point where it placed you on my personal little internal ignore list on this subject.

We hope the delegate for your new UN puppet does not suffer from the same affliction.

6. The alliances restriction is NECESSARY. Without it any resolution attempting to ban biological weaponry accomplishes exactly nothing from a practical standpoint. Let's look at the effect of a biological weapons ban in a situation where the natins subject to the ban are still permitted to form military partnerships with other nations who do possess that weaponry.

Nation A, which is subject to the ban, gives up their bioweapons. Nation A goes to war against nation B. Nations A's ally nation C goes to war with them, toting along their bioweapons. Before the bioweapons ban Nation A would have deployed their own bioweapons against nation B... now with the bioweapon ban in effect they just let nation C do it for them.

End result of the resolution? It changed the identity of the finger on the trigger, and that's all. Such a resolution is a worthless waste of time. If you don't want bioweapons banned at all, fine, vote against the resolution. But don't vote against it saying you want bioweapons banned and claim you're voting that way because you want to keep your allies with bioweapons. Because that means bioweapons AREN'T banned, you're just having someone else point and fire them for you.

Should a draft of a repeal appear before we have a chance to draft one ourselves, we shall support it wholeheartedly!
What about this?
The United Nations,

MAINTAINING steadfastly, a disgust of biological weapons,

CONFIRMING the monumental risks of global pandemic should biological weapons be used,

ACKNOWLEDGING te desire in some to take a radical approach to the abolition of biological weapons,

RECALLING the great number of non-UN nations compared to the small number of UN nations,

CONCLUDING that the elimination of military partnerships between UN nations and nations which refuse to abandon biological weapons leaves UN nations at a severe military disadvantage,

CONVINCED UN nations require some military partnerships with non-UN nations to remain free and unconquered,

REPEALS UN Biological Weapons Ban.

It's rough, and I will likely not be the one to submit/push it through or what not (way too much on the docket already for that). But I think it highlights the most potent cases against the resolution. Anyone is free to use it or modify it as they wish.

What about this?

See the editted point 6 above for my opinion of any objection based on the alliances restriction in the original proposal.

...placed you on my personal little internal ignore list on this subject.

Just make sure, if and when Allemande becomes a part of your official/external ignore list, that you do not publish it (don't tell anyone about it). Publishing 'ignore data' has been ruled as flamebait/trolling by the mods multiple times.


6. The alliances restriction is NECESSARY. Without it any resolution attempting to ban biological weaponry accomplishes exactly nothing from a practical standpoint. Let's look at the effect of a biological weapons ban in a situation where the natins subject to the ban are still permitted to form military partnerships with other nations who do possess that weaponry.

I disagree that they're "NECESSARY" (the italics button is right there...), and I believe that the majority of the UN would agree that they're unwise if it were presented to them.

I disagree that they're "NECESSARY" (the italics button is right there...),

The capitalization was intentional. Consider that statement shouted from the metaphorical rooftops. And did you have a reason why it's unnecessary considering the illustration of how a biological weapons ban is rendered inneffective without its inclusion?

And quite frankly, if you're concerned about hanging on to your alliances we suggest asking your allies with bioweapons a simple question. Do they consider it more beneficial to hang on to this one single weapon system... (this unstable, unpredictable, practically as hazardous to THEM as it is to anyone they try to use it against weapon system)... or to hang on to an entire allied army? Or several depending how extensive their UN affiliations are?

Anyone who answers that they consider retaining bioweapons more important is probably strategically clueless enough they would have dragged you down with them at some point anyway.

The capitalization was intentional. Consider that statement shouted from the metaphorical rooftops.

Which from the perspective of a listener, suggests the speaker believes he knows better than the listener. Whether it is or isn't true or was the intention was irrelevant, when you take that superiority stance, people are less inclined to listen.

And did you have a reason why it's unnecessary considering the illustration of how a biological weapons ban is rendered inneffective without its inclusion?

It's not necessary - though it makes this resolution much less effective without it. Nothing that actually is there for an effect on the non-UN populace is necessary - and sometimes (as Yelda pointed out with her decision on the matter) can be counter-productive

And quite frankly, if you're concerned about hanging on to your alliances we suggest asking your allies with bioweapons a simple question. Do they consider it more beneficial to hang on to this one single weapon system... (this unstable, unpredictable, practically as hazardous to THEM as it is to anyone they try to use it against weapon system)... or to hang on to an entire allied army?

What if you're Canada and in the UN and they're the US and not in the UN? Perhaps they would prefer to lose you....

Or several depending how extensive their UN affiliations are?

Anyone who answers that they consider retaining bioweapons more important is probably strategically clueless enough they would have dragged you down with them at some point anyway.

The capitalization was intentional. Consider that statement shouted from the metaphorical rooftops. I will consider it yelled from the rooftops. And that means I'll consider it rude and juvenile. This is a forum for mature debate, not some chat room for you to stuff your views down someone else's throat. There's no reason to be yelling except to discredit yourself. If your arguments really are so convincing then you wouldn't need to yell them at me. Sorry, I just don't buy it.

And did you have a reason why it's unnecessary considering the illustration of how a biological weapons ban is rendered inneffective without its inclusion?

Yes, of course I do. It's a nice fantasy that the UN can enforce its biological weapons policy throughout the world, but it's still an unworkable and unrealistic fantasy. Non-UN nations outnumber UN nations roughly 3 to 1. I hardly think we're in a position to negotiate (with our alliances and security as collateral) their policies. If anything, we're at their mercy, rather than the other way around.

I mean look at it from a non-UN nations' perspective? What is there to gain? non-UN nations with biological weapons almost certainly have weighed the risks concerning them and has decided them important for their security. Should they give them all up for my military partnership? There are tens of thousands of nations out there which can easily fill whatever role I have as an ally, without stipulation on what weapon type they use.

If you make it harder for nations to ally themselves with UN nations, fewer nations are going to do it, it's as simple as that. UN nations are now more isolated, and less secure. I'm sorry that I'd rather not have my nation's security used as leverage to uphold the miniscule chances for an ideological fantasy.

And quite frankly, if you're concerned about hanging on to your alliances we suggest asking your allies with bioweapons a simple question. Do they consider it more beneficial to hang on to this one single weapon system... (this unstable, unpredictable, practically as hazardous to THEM as it is to anyone they try to use it against weapon system)... or to hang on to an entire allied army? Or several depending how extensive their UN affiliations are?
Deary me, that would be a disaster.

ME: You should give up your 'unstable', 'unpredictable' biological weapons which could be 'hazardous' to your citizens so you can have the privilege of being my ally!

NON-UN NATION: Screw you. I know how dangerous they are. It's my decision. Here're twenty, three-hundred-pound bombs of biological agent.

ME: Er...

I'd rather not go around patronizing the nations (well armed with biological weapons) that I'm trying to ally myself with by telling them that I know how to take care of their citizens more than they do. I guess it's just my personal preference not to be invaded or attacked or even further isolated from non-UN nations.


Anyone who answers that they consider retaining bioweapons more important is probably strategically clueless enough they would have dragged you down with them at some point anyway.
Wow, that's convincing: "anyone who disagrees with me is clueless". Yup, I believe you :(.

Yes, of course I do. It's a nice fantasy that the UN can enforce its biological weapons policy throughout the world, but it's still an unworkable and unrealistic fantasy.

Fascinating... but not answering my question. How do you institute a biological weapons ban in any effective manner without prohibitting those subject to the ban from allying themselves with other nations who can simply use the weapons on their behalf... thus resulting in the weapons being used in the same conflicts against the same nations as would have occured without the ban?

I wasn't asking for a balance of power analysis of UN vs. non UN nations. One that ignores the fact that a large contributing factor to the disparity in non UN nations vs UN nations is that any given user is only permitted to have a single UN nation while they can have multiple non UN nations. Reformentia is, for example, outnumberd 5 to 1 by it's non UN puppets. None of them are going to attack the UN however.

If you truly do find biological weapons to be so "disgusting" and if you truly are concerned about the risk their deployment causes what effective action to in any way curtail that risk by reducing their utilization do you propose be taken besides that accomplished by this resolution and it's alliance restrictions?

Propose a workable alternative. Hell, if you can come up with an option that works better than what is contained in this resolution I won't even campaign against an attempted repeal.

Fascinating... but not answering my question. How do you institute a biological weapons ban in any effective manner without prohibitting those subject to the ban from allying themselves with other nations who can simply use the weapons on their behalf... thus resulting in the weapons being used in the same conflicts against the same nations as would have occured without the ban?I'm not really going exert a lot of energy trying to answer that question. You're the resolution author. You should answer these questions; you should take a realistic eye to the parts of your resolution and consider the ramifications. All I know is that the answer you have presented is unworkable itself. It's your duty to find a replacement measure (or just to drop the idea of influencing non-UN nations altogether).

I wasn't asking for a balance of power analysis of UN vs. non UN nations. One that ignores the fact that a large contributing factor to the disparity in non UN nations vs UN nations is that any given user is only permitted to have a single UN nation while they can have multiple non UN nations. Reformentia is, for example, outnumberd 5 to 1 by it's non UN puppets. None of them are going to attack the UN however.
But the balance of power is a large part of why the stipulation against military alliances in the resolution is so destructive and unworkable, which is my point.
If you truly do find biological weapons to be so "disgusting" and if you truly are concerned about the risk their deployment causes what effective action to in any way curtail that risk by reducing their utilization do you propose be taken besides that accomplished by this resolution and it's alliance restrictions?
I think the problem is your definitions of "effective". You seem to think that just because you haven't brought the entire world into your rhetorical fold that you've failed. I think you just have to face the fact that trying to get the UN to influence non-UN nations in any aggressive manner is impractical and makes resolutions repeal-able.

There are over 100 UN resolutions, few, if any, have so brazenly attempted to enforce the UN's will on non-UN nations (and surely none have done so at so great a cost to UN nations). Yet, most of these UN-only resolutions are not looked at with disgust for being ineffective, but are seen as realistic. Alliance restrictions are unrealistic, and will likely lead to the repeal of this resolution. You need to find another way to propagate the UN's belief that biological weapons are too dangerous to harness (I suggest education campaigns).

Propose a workable alternative. Hell, if you can come up with an option that works better than what is contained in this resolution I won't even campaign against an attempted repeal.
Any option would work better than what is in the resolution, in my opinion. I find the current alliance restrictions impossibly idealistic and naive about diplomatic interactions between nations. I believe that if I were to suggest that the UN send out pamphlets educating non-UN nations on the dangers of biological weapons it would be a more workable alternative than what is in the resolution now. The result of the current text is that nations are told to choose between being nearly friendless in the UN and leaving the UN to be free to secure themselves against threats. I really don't think that's fair to UN nations. Campaign against the repeal all you want. Military alliances are necessary to nations' security. And this resolution haphazardly throws them away.

I'm not really going exert a lot of energy trying to answer that question. You're the resolution author. You should answer these questions;

I already have, when I stated that the alliance prohibition was how to accomplish the ban in an effective manner.

If you are suggesting that is not the best way to accomplish the goal, explain your alternative.

But the balance of power is a large part of why the stipulation against military alliances in the resolution is so destructive and unworkable, which is my point.

But the balance of power isn't as disparate as you presented it to be. You can't just count UN nations against non UN nations when it's an effect of game mechanics limitting UN participation that causes a significant portion of the difference in numbers. If there wasn't such a prohibition on UN multi's every single one of my nations for one would be in the UN.

I think the problem is your definitions of "effective". You seem to think that just because you haven't brought the entire world into your rhetorical fold that you've failed.

As I pointed out, my definition of "effective" is curtailing to some degree the deployment of these weapons. Without the alliance restriction that isn't accomplished. At all. We're just changing the identity of the people deploying them from a UN alliance member to a non UN alliance member and they still get used in the same conflicts against the same nations.

There are over 100 UN resolutions, few, if any, have so brazenly attempted to enforce the UN's will on non-UN nations

Consider me ambitious, but I'm actually enforcing the UNs will on UN members. Just in a manner which more noticeably effects non UN nations.

You need to find another way to propagate the UN's belief that biological weapons are too dangerous to harness (I suggest education campaigns).

And I'm saying I don't see a workable alternative, especially not an 'education campaign'... and I do believe you were the one just one short post ago saying that nations with bioweapons had "almost certainly" already considered the implications?

Prior to this they may have considered the risks on their own, now they can consider the risks with the additional tradeoff of a loss of military alliances if they elect to retain the weapons and whether that trade is worth it.

Any option would work better than what is in the resolution, in my opinion.

Then present such an option and detail how it does so.

I find the current alliance restrictions impossibly idealistic and naive about diplomatic interactions between nations. I believe that if I were to suggest that the UN send out pamphlets educating non-UN nations on the dangers of biological weapons it would be a more workable alternative than what is in the resolution now.

And accomplish exactly nothing... and don't tell me you honestly think otherwise? What are we going to do... mandate we TG every single non UN nation saying "Bioweapons are dangerous, please don't use them. - signed: The UN"?

The result of the current text is that nations are told to choose between being nearly friendless in the UN and leaving the UN to be free to secure themselves against threats.

Say again? Why exactly would the alternative to leaving the UN be to become friendless in the UN? And as I pointed out in some detail, bioweapons are extremely poorly suited to securing anyone against threats.

I already have, when I stated that the alliance prohibition was how to accomplish the ban in an effective manner.

If you are suggesting that is not the best way to accomplish the goal, explain your alternative.
There are lots of alternatives. But, so long as you're maintaining that alliance prohibition is effect then there's little use in discussion them.

But the balance of power isn't as disparate as you presented it to be. You can't just count UN nations against non UN nations when it's an effect of game mechanics limitting UN participation that causes a significant portion of the difference in numbers. If there wasn't such a prohibition on UN multi's every single one of my nations for one would be in the UN.
I'm not as sure of your data as you are. I would be interested to know what your source of information is that the one UN nations per computer rule that absolutely causes disparity between UN nations and non-UN nations.

Also, I think you're overlooking the general rule of duality. In role-play, many players play their puppets as independent entities rather than subsidiaries of their main nations. Since that's the case, no puppet to a UN nation can be assumed in exact harmony with the root UN nation on the topic of biological weapons. And, I should add lastly, that just because one UN nations is on friendly terms with its 5 or so puppets still doesn't speak for the tens of thousands of non-UN nations that are not my puppets. "Mynation" needs alliances with "Maxtopia's" puppets just as much as it needs alliances with its own.
As I pointed out, my definition of "effective" is curtailing to some degree the deployment of these weapons. Without the alliance restriction that isn't accomplished. At all. We're just changing the identity of the people deploying tham from a UN alliance member to a non UN alliance member and they still get used in the same conflicts against the same nations.
Hold on, what about your urging that UN nations use their trade and diplomatic abilities to affect non-UN nations stances of Biological weapons? Are you trying to assert that without the alliance restrictions your last two clauses have no effect, "At all"? I find that notion absurd.

There's a huge difference between have some degree of effect on non-UN nations' use of biological weapons and enforcing UN law throughout non-UN nations. Your last two clauses have plenty of your desired "some degree" of effect. You don't need to be so unrealistic as to try to force all non-UN nations to conforming to your ideological stint by blackmailing them with my nation's alliances. Taking a hard line only results in problems all around.

And I'm saying I don't see a workable alternative, especially not an 'education campaign'... and I do believe you were the one just one short post ago saying that nations with bioweapons had "almost certainly" already considered the implications?
Don't patronize me. There are diplomatic and non-diplomatic ways of going about things. Workable and unworkable. What you are suggesting--holding UN nations' alliances at the ransom of giving up biological weapons--is unworkable, undiplomatic. Education campaigns or, as is included in the resolution diplomatic urgings can be used much more suavely, politely, and workably. And without the status of "ideological policeman" that the resolution currently banishes the UN to.

Prior to this they may have considered the risks on their own, now they can consider the risks with the additional tradeoff of a loss of military alliances if they elect to retain the weapons and whether that trade is worth it.
Yeah, and you know what? It's not a fair trade off: for UN nations. Do you honestly believe that a non-UN nation will willfully give up weapons it views as necessary for its defense just so it can have the pleasure of our company? No, of course they won't. If you raise the price of goods, fewer people will buy them--which in this case puts my nation's security on the chopping block to satisfy your strange idea of "some degree" of effect on the world's use of biological weapons.

And accomplish exactly nothing... and don't tell me you honestly think otherwise? What are we going to do... mandate we TG every single non UN nation saying "Bioweapons are dangerous, please don't use them. - signed: The UN"?
No, that would be a meta-game, game mechanics violation. Like I said, there are diplomatic ways of influencing non-UN nations, and being aggressive and stick-in-the-mud-ish about whether we ally ourselves with them is not one of them.


Say again? Why exactly would the alternative to leaving the UN be to become friendless in the UN? And as I pointed out in some detail, bioweapons are extremely poorly suited to securing anyone against threats. UN nations will have a much harder time finding nations to ally themselves to after this resolution passes (since the cost of allying oneself to a UN nations has increased dramatically). The only way to alleviate that would be leaving the UN. That’s what I’m saying.

It doesn’t matter how well suited biological weapons actually are (or in this case “how well suited you believe them to be”) for security, Non-UN nations with biological weapons obviously feel there’s some security to gain from having them. They aren’t going to give them up just because we say so. And telling them that the penalty for not complying is removal from UN nation alliances is hardly a substantial threat due to the UN’s minority status in the world.

Consider me ambitious, but I'm actually enforcing the UNs will on UN members. Just in a manner which more noticeably effects non UN nations.
Your "legislation" has had no effect on our region. None. Yeldan UN Mission has no formal or written security arrangements with Yelda ~nudge nudge, wink wink~. And the Yeldan troops in our streets are simply tourists. We are in full compliancccce.

While the Principality of Synecdoche greatly desires a ban on such weapons, we cannot support this resolution due to the inclusion of Article 4.

There are lots of alternatives. But, so long as you're maintaining that alliance prohibition is effect then there's little use in discussion them.

I have asked you for an alternative to that prohibition twice now and you have avoided providing one twice while claiming that they are numerous. If there are so many alternatives then providing one should present little difficulty.

Third request. Provide an alternative to the alliance prohibition which is as effective at curtailing the use of biological weaponry as the prohibition is.

I'm not as sure of your data as you are. I would be interested to know what your source of information is that the one UN nations per computer rule that absolutely causes disparity between UN nations and non-UN nations.

Permitted: Unlimited numbers of non UN nations.
Permitted: Maximum of one UN nation.

And you're expressing any disbelief at all that if that were not the case there would be less of a disparity between non UN nations and UN nations? You are honestly telling us you doubt that the ratio of UN nations to non UN nations would be no closer to parity if UN multis were permitted?

Also, I think you're overlooking the general rule of duality. In role-play, many players play their puppets as independent entities rather than subsidiaries of their main nations.

And many don't. Nobody is saying all the non UN nations are subsidiaries of UN nations, but a good chunk of them are.

Hold on, what about your urging that UN nations use their trade and diplomatic abilities to affect non-UN nations stances of Biological weapons? Are you trying to assert that without the alliance restrictions your last two clauses have no effect, "At all"? I find that notion absurd.

Without the alliance restrictions UN nations themselves become capable of circumventing the ban without any effort whatsoever simply by having non UN allies deploy the weapons for them. As I have already explained. Multiple times. The alliance restrictions happen to also serve as additional incentive to non UN nations who want UN alliances.

Don't patronize me. There are diplomatic and non-diplomatic ways of going about things. Workable and unworkable. What you are suggesting--holding UN nations' alliances at the ransom of giving up biological weapons--is unworkable, undiplomatic. Education campaigns or, as is included in the resolution diplomatic urgings can be used much more suavely, politely, and workably.

And without any appreciable effect.

Yeah, and you know what? It's not a fair trade off: for UN nations. Do you honestly believe that a non-UN nation will willfully give up weapons it views as necessary for its defense just so it can have the pleasure of our company?

The strategic advantages of an expanded geographic theater of friendly operations for your entire military, the additional logistic support provided by a foreign ally, and the addition of an entire extra national military far more than offset any extremely questionable benefits which might possibly be derived from the possession of biological weaponry. Which, as I have pointed out quite a lot, are extremely problematic all on their own.

UN nations will have a much harder time finding nations to ally themselves to after this resolution passes (since the cost of allying oneself to a UN nations has increased dramatically).

Only for nations who insist on maintaining possession of weaponry you just finished declaring in your proposed repeal that you were "disgusted" with. I for one would choose my allies with more discretion, but to each their own.

It doesn’t matter how well suited biological weapons actually are (or in this case “how well suited you believe them to be”) for security, Non-UN nations with biological weapons obviously feel there’s some security to gain from having them.

So the only way they're going to get rid of them is if that is no longer the case and the disadvantages come to outweigh the advantages.

Will this proposal accomplish that throughout the non UN world? No. Is it a step in that direction? Yes.

They aren’t going to give them up just because we say so.

There goes your education campaign idea... again.

The resolution UN Biological Weapons Ban was passed 8,557 votes to 6,382, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Well, Krioval is in full compliance as well. If anybody doubts that, guided tours through non-sensitive areas can be arranged with one month's prior notice.

~ Yuri Sokolev

can be arranged with one month's prior notice.

~ Yuri Sokolev

So that you can hide these weapons?

I have asked you for an alternative to that prohibition twice now and you have avoided providing one twice while claiming that they are numerous. If there are so many alternatives then providing one should present little difficulty.

Third request. Provide an alternative to the alliance prohibition which is as effective at curtailing the use of biological weaponry as the prohibition is.
You're not in a position to make those requests. I have a suitable argument for a repeal, and am putting into motion plans to put pass that repeal. That’s what this is about--not how I can play “hindsight 20 questions”.

I should point out that each time you've made the request I've declined from granting it for the same reason: it is not the nature of the discussion. Alternatives are issues for resolutions. That this idea is unworkable is all that's needed for a repeal. If you're so interested in the UN banning biological weapons, and interested in your resolution to be the one to do it, I suggest you come up with your own alternatives, rather than asking me to arbitrarily producing them.

Besides, I know a strawman when I see it.


Permitted: Unlimited numbers of non UN nations.
Permitted: Maximum of one UN nation.

And you're expressing any disbelief at all that if that were not the case there would be less of a disparity between non UN nations and UN nations? You are honestly telling us you doubt that the ratio of UN nations to non UN nations would be no closer to parity if UN multis were permitted?

And many don't. Nobody is saying all the non UN nations are subsidiaries of UN nations, but a good chunk of them are.
And again, I would ask you to quote your source. I admit that what you say is plausible, but I have yet to see the reasons (data) for these assumptions.

There are many theories for the disparity between UN nations and non-UN nations, and, so far as I'm aware, none of them has acquired the dominance which you seem to assign your own.

Without the alliance restrictions UN nations themselves become capable of circumventing the ban without any effort whatsoever simply by having non UN allies deploy the weapons for them. As I have already explained. Multiple times. The alliance restrictions happen to also serve as additional incentive to non UN nations who want UN alliances.
And with the alliance ban, UN nations are told to become stick-in-the-mud hard liners. That's hardly a reasonable solution. Regardless how many times you've parroted your reasoning behind it.

I personally think you'd be better investing your energy in coming to grips with the fact that some nations are going to 'disobey', employ loopholes, and still find ways to use these "dastardly" biological weapons regardless of what you say, how many times you've said it, or how many times you call them 'clueless'. Every resolution author must cope with this. Your resolution (not including the alliance ban) has said its peace, and created a case against biological weapons. It has tried to get UN nations to go along with this. It should stop there instead of spreading itself so thin. Remember, "a nation convinced against its will is of the same opinion still". It's much more important to convince nations that biological weapons are too dangerous for use, than to enforce your utopia upon your [unwilling] audience.

Nations will always disagree with you and your resolutions. Well-written resolution will accept this, and react/act accordingly.


And without any appreciable effect.And upon what data are you supporting that? Personal experience?

Again, you’re not, seemingly, to be satisfied that there is an “appreciable effect” until there are ‘pledges of anti-biological weapons‘ daily recited in every school in the world. You’re going to get nations who will bend the rules and twist your resolutions, that’s inevitable. You need to address that. Alliance bans are not the way to do that.

The strategic advantages of an expanded geographic theater of friendly operations for your entire military, the additional logistic support provided by a foreign ally, and the addition of an entire extra national military far more than offset any extremely questionable benefits which might possibly be derived from the possession of biological weaponry. Which, as I have pointed out quite a lot, are extremely problematic all on their own.What you "have pointed out quite a lot", again, is irrelevant. It just doesn't matter what you have said, how often, or how you represent the risks and benefits of maintaining biological weapons. If non-UN nations disagree, your opinion stands there to the side, with its mouth open as those nations do their will and react to their own realities. Maxtopia's assertions that biological weapons are necessary for its defense are just as valid as your assertions that they aren't. And, more importantly it is Maxtopia, not Reformentia, which makes decisions in Maxtopia. Just because you’re convinced of something yourself, doesn’t mean it deserves or is justified in getting dogmatic attention. One must respect other peoples’/nations/ viewpoints.

And I'd wager that a majority of the non-UN nations are convinced of biological weapons' role in their security--whether you disagree or agree with that. Or, at least, that a majority of non-UN nations are loath to relinquish them without a fairly large reward. And, again, I'm sorry, but alliances with UN nations is simply not enticing enough, in my opinion.

And I'd wager that a majority of the non-UN nations are convinced of biological weapons' role in their security--whether you disagree or agree with that. Or, at least, that a majority of non-UN nations are loath to relinquish them without a fairly large reward. And, again, I'm sorry, but alliances with UN nations is simply not enticing enough, in my opinion.
Greetings.

We of Roathin are not in the business of enticing others or otherwise suborning them through crass material or spiritual concessions. However we suggest to your great nation that while we are an NSUN member state, we are also a worthwhile ally, possessing a detailed and comprehensive grasp of a rare technological domain. We offer to supply educational and technical staff as assistance in the development of your own thaumaturgical capacity.

We have had very few problems relinquishing the somewhat awkward bioweaponry tool, and we suspect that many states (including the more pragmatic ones) would have to admit to this as well, were it not for sabre-rattling (or autoclave-rattling). It is still far more terrifying to have fully-armed space dreadnoughts in geosynchronous orbit above your terrestrial possessions than it is to be threatened with bioweaponry.

The reason for this is that aforesaid dreadnoughts (of states whose names should only be whispered) are far larger and hence more hyperphallous than test tubes and aerosol dispensers. The fear generated by the different outcomes might vary - some fear pre-mortem pyrolysis far more than post-mortem cremation.

If we might be so frank, it is our considered opinion that the larger and more immediate the effects of a weapon are, the more terrifying it seems to the average target. This places biological weaponry far down the rankings.

That said, we have nevertheless sided with any form of bioweaponry ban because of our conclusion: that bioweaponry is used largely to intimidate (whether in offence or deterrence) and is otherwise a weak and unnecessary political and military tool. A weapon whose use is based mainly on its ability to horrify at the visceral level cannot be one which is necessary or inviting of praise.

You're not in a position to make those requests.

Anyone is in the position to make a request. Your continued refusal to provide the requested alternative speaks volumes.

I have a suitable argument for a repeal, and am putting into motion plans to put pass that repeal. That’s what this is about--not how I can play “hindsight 20 questions”.

And where exactly am I playing "hindsight twenty questions"? You have stated that numerous workable alternatives to the alliances restrictions exist and yet repeatedly fail to present a single example when presented with a simple request to do so. You said they're there. It is not an unreasonable request that you demonstrate the truth of your claim by presenting a single one of them that is effective to at least as great if not greater degree than the one you are arguing so vehemently against.

If these numerous alternatives existed and you had knowledge of them it would have been far easier for you to simply provide one that did the job as well as the alliances restriction than to expend the effort in writing these repeated extensive evasions of a very simple question. It would have demonstrated your point quickly and clearly. And yet you continue to evade.

I should point out that each time you've made the request I've declined from granting it for the same reason: it is not the nature of the discussion.

No, it is exactly the nature of the discussion.

Alternatives are issues for resolutions.

You may want to doublecheck what thread it is you are participating in.

That this idea is unworkable is all that's needed for a repeal.

And again... if you are going to claim it is unworkable AND that you want to institute a biological weapons ban that IS workable based on your claim that you are disgusted by such weaponry then it is perfectly natural to question in what workable manner you intend to accomplish such a thing that can in any way improve on the resolution already in effect that you are proposing to repeal.

And yet every time you are asked you respond with everything except an answer to the question.

If you're so interested in the UN banning biological weapons, and interested in your resolution to be the one to do it, I suggest you come up with your own alternatives, rather than asking me to arbitrarily producing them.

As I already said before, I've already settled on what I consider to be the single most effective manner in which to accomplish a ban of these weapons. And judging by the fact that this will be the fourth time I've asked you to present a superior alternative without anything being forthcoming...

And again, I would ask you to quote your source.

You would ask me to quote my source that people are allowed to have unlimited non UN nations but never more than one UN nation? That would be the game rules. Or you would ask me to quote a source that would lead one to conclude that this would introduce a strong bias towards the existence of more non UN nations than UN nations? That would be any math text with a section on statistics.

And with the alliance ban, UN nations are told to become stick-in-the-mud hard liners. That's hardly a reasonable solution.

Perhaps you could elaborate on how it's unreasonable to expect nations not to militarily ally themsleves with other nations in possession of illegal weaponry? Weaponry which you yourself have declared your disgust with.

I personally think you'd be better investing your energy in coming to grips with the fact that some nations are going to 'disobey', employ loopholes, and still find ways to use these "dastardly" biological weapons regardless of what you say, how many times you've said it, or how many times you call them 'clueless'.

I accept that they will attempt it. I also know that this resolution has been carefully crafted in such a manner that in order to do such a thing they will have to resort to rather tortuous twistings of language and logic such that their odds of getting away with it in RP when faced with anyone familiar with the resolution are drastically reduced.

And upon what data are you supporting that? Personal experience?

That. Common sense. Take your pick.

Actually, the Minister of Foreign Affiars has already found a loophole -

Would the Republic of Lanquassia be at fault if it did not know that its allies employ biological weaponry?

Would the Republic of Lanquassia be at fault if it did not know that its allies employ biological weaponry?
Greetings.

Yes, if the information had not been deliberately concealed. It is a principle of such dealings that one should investigate to a reasonable degree the attributes of one's potential partners - caveat emptor.

Greetings.

Yes, if the information had not been deliberately concealed. It is a principle of such dealings that one should investigate to a reasonable degree the attributes of one's potential partners - caveat emptor.

But it would be up to the government - in my case, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to decide what is a reasonable degree of investigation, would it not? Or would this resolution give the UN the power to tell my government how to run the details of the foreign ministry?

Anyone is in the position to make a request. Your continued refusal to provide the requested alternative speaks volumes.

Yes it does. It says that I'm not about to fall for a dirty trick. Don't play coy, Reformentia. This is a strawman. The issue here is not whether I can think of a suitable alternative. There are several which are equally suited (and I refuse to believe you lack the originality to come up with them yourself) and I would be choosing an alternative arbitrarily. Then, you would attack my arbitrarily chosen and frankly unsupported suggestion as if it were the issue. I'm not going to fall for it. That's final. You can keep whining about it if you like, but it will not get you anywhere with me.

And again... if you are going to claim it is unworkable AND that you want to institute a biological weapons ban that IS workable based on your claim that you are disgusted by such weaponry then it is perfectly natural to question in what workable manner you intend to accomplish such a thing that can in any way improve on the resolution already in effect that you are proposing to repeal.
I've told you before not to patronize me and I mean it. It's a sorely uncouth debate tactic. You know full well that I have not stated that I am disgusted by biological weapons. I stated that the United Nations was "steadfastly, disgust[ed] with biological weapons", not me. Not only is there a difference of who I was referring to, but it was in a most preliminary draft which I came up with in approximately 5 minutes. You know full well you're lying when you say "but you've said you're disgusted by biological!"

Do you honestly think I'll suggest a single alternative when you're already using strawman tactics against me with my preliminary, undrafted repeal text? Not a chance.

You would ask me to quote my source that people are allowed to have unlimited non UN nations but never more than one UN nation? That would be the game rules. Or you would ask me to quote a source that would lead one to conclude that this would introduce a strong bias towards the existence of more non UN nations than UN nations? That would be any math text with a section on statistics.
I would ask you to develop a fundamental sceintific thought: perceived reltionships, until experimented, are unreliable and deliver incorrect results much more often than one would expect. The discussion has been had, several times on the UN forum, as to why there is such a disparity. Your idea is plausible, but that does not mean it is correct. The discussions about the non-UN to UN ratio never settled on a single source for it. You would be jumping the gun if you did so yourself based simply off your own "common sense", as you say.

Besides that, I've already explained how having a large number of non-UN puppets has little to no effect on the alliance ban's ineffectiveness. Non-UN nations are non-UN nations, and a bad deal is a bad deal. You offer these non-UN nations this unequal deal, and they're likely going to--almost unanimously I'd think--turn it down. Which leaves us UN nations caught with our pants down.


Perhaps you could elaborate on how it's unreasonable to expect nations not to militarily ally themsleves with other nations in possession of illegal weaponry? Weaponry which you yourself have declared your disgust with.
Because it's not illegal for non-UN nations. However you try to paint the possession of biological weapons ("illegal", "hazardous to "citizen", "unnecessary") is irrelevant to how reasonable it is to hold UN nation national security for ransom--expecting to be paid back by some utopian ideals of world effect. I hardly feel a desire to give up my alliances with non-UN nations because you’re intolerant of viewpoints which paint biological weapons as necessary or important to security. Sorry, my nation’s a little more important to me for that.

But it would be up to the government - in my case, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to decide what is a reasonable degree of investigation, would it not? Or would this resolution give the UN the power to tell my government how to run the details of the foreign ministry?
Greetings.

It is a firm principle of national sovereignty, which we of Roathin also believe in, that all matters internal to a nation are the province of that nation alone. However, should your dealings be international, then it is obvious that international bodies should have some say in deciding if an international matter meets international standards. Else economic, legal, and political dealings would be difficult to arbitrate.

Consider this case. State A is allied with State B. State B is at war with State C. State A makes friendly overtures to State C, with intention of forming a non-aggression pact (only!). While there is nothing illegal about this, it would most likely be considered some sort of betrayal by State B. State B can then terminate the relationship with State A (whether wise or not).

Now consider this case. State D is a member of the NSUN. State E possesses items which make it an NSUN pariah state, a fact which it routinely flaunts but which has not come to the attention of the government of State D. State D is perfectly within its rights to not investigate its proposed business partner, State E.

However, it would be considered somewhat unusual for State D to do this. The real question is, what would State D do if the NSUN pointed out that State E is a pariah? The logical answer is that State D should either terminate relations with State E or with the NSUN.

In the legendary books of the Dragon Isles, the lords of Aragaine maintain that the ancient kingdom of the Francs (or Frencks, the text is unclear) did neither, but traded with both sides. You therefore have legendary precedent.

Our conclusion is that the NSUN will not tell you how to run your ministries or your life, but it does set membership standards as any club or alliance might. You are entitled to breach those standards and leave, or bend those standards until things escalate. You are even entitled to play at brinkmanship forever and a day, as the legendary traders of Franconia did.

It is not our concern. But there are other fish in these seas. Hungry ones.

Yes it does. It says that I'm not about to fall for a dirty trick.

Yes... the dirty trick of asking you to substantiate a claim you made is certainly one of the oldest dirty tricks in the book. And here we are with you failing to do so again.

Don't play coy, Reformentia. This is a strawman. The issue here is not whether I can think of a suitable alternative. There are several which are equally suited (and I refuse to believe you lack the originality to come up with them yourself) and I would be choosing an alternative arbitrarily.

Yet again you demonstrate that you have the ability to repeat the claim that there is not just one, but several of these alternatives... and yet again you fail to provide a single example.

Then, you would attack my arbitrarily chosen and frankly unsupported suggestion as if it were the issue.

If it were unsupported I most certainly would attack it. And whether there is a better way to accomplish a biological weapons ban IS the issue.

I've told you before not to patronize me and I mean it. It's a sorely uncouth debate tactic. You know full well that I have not stated that I am disgusted by biological weapons. I stated that the United Nations was "steadfastly, disgust[ed] with biological weapons", not me.

I see, so you're just advocating a position you do not actually believe in in order to get a resolution passed for completely different reasons. Deliberately misrepresenting your stance on the issue to get people to side with you on a peice of legislation.

That's so much better.

I would ask you to develop a fundamental sceintific thought: perceived reltionships, until experimented, are unreliable and deliver incorrect results much more often than one would expect.

This coming from the poster who claimed the UN was threatened by the non UN nations based entirely upon a count of the number of one vs. the other without even addressing any possible relationship between the membership of the two groups.

Besides that, I've already explained how having a large number of non-UN puppets has little to no effect on the alliance ban's ineffectiveness.

And I have already pointed out how you are wrong. I'll go ahead and do it again right down below this.

Non-UN nations are non-UN nations, and a bad deal is a bad deal. You offer these non-UN nations this unequal deal, and they're likely going to--almost unanimously I'd think--turn it down.

Which is addressing the secondary, potential effect of the alliance restriction and ignoring the primary, certain effect of the alliance restriction... which is to keep UN nations from allying themselves with nations in possession of illegal weapons so that the UN nations can have those non UN nation nations use that illegal weaponry on their behalf and thus completely circumvent the ban.

Because it's not illegal for non-UN nations.

But it's illegal for UN nations. And that's the bloody point.

Allowing alliances of this type is the same as declaring it's illegal for a group of people to commit murder... but at the same time being unable to make it illegal for another group of people outside your jurisdiction to commit murder. And then deliberately not outlawing conspiracy to commit murder... thus allowing all the people under the rule of your law to simply hand a gun to a member of that other group and say "kill those people over there, here's your payment" without any legal repercussion.

There is a reason conspiracy to commit murder has to be considered a crime if you want to curtail murders... and if you have a group of people running around for which you can't make murder illegal in the first place that reason holds doubly so. Otherwise all murders instantly become legal as long as they are performed by the right proxies.

Just as all uses of biological weapons instantly become legal if you allow UN nations to ally themselves with nations who can legally deploy biological weapons on their behalf.

It's either an alliance restriction or we don't bother trying to ban biological weapons because there would be no point.

I see, so you're just advocating a position you do not actually believe in in order to get a resolution passed for completely different reasons. Deliberately misrepresenting your stance on the issue to get people to side with you on a peice of legislation.
I never said that. I said that it was a statement in a preliminary proposal draft. There's a clear difference. Don't glaze over it. If you need me to explain the difference than you should ask.

This coming from the poster who claimed the UN was threatened by the non UN nations based entirely upon a count of the number of one vs. the other without even addressing any possible relationship between the membership of the two groups.
You're making this way too much about me and you rather that about mine and yours respective arguments. This sort of behavior is the "gateway drug" to flame/flamebait. I do hope you can kick the habit before you say something nasty.

And I have already pointed out how you are wrong. I'll go ahead and do it again right down below this.Deary me. Just because you believe something Reformentia, and an argument is "correct" in your subjective sphere doesn't mean it carries absolute weight--or that that correctness carries over to others' subjective spheres.

But it's illegal for UN nations. And that's the bloody point.

Allowing alliances of this type is the same as declaring it's illegal for a group of people to commit murder... but at the same time being unable to make it illegal for another group of people outside your jurisdiction to commit murder. And then deliberately not outlawing conspiracy to commit murder... thus allowing all the people under the rule of your law to simply hand a gun to a member of that other group and say "kill those people over there, here's your payment" without any legal repercussion.
This comparison has no validity because the alliance ban isn't about people and it isn't about murder. It's about nations and them maintaining biological weapons.

People =/= nations

and Murder =/= Keeping Biological Weapons

There is a reason conspiracy to commit murder has to be considered a crime if you want to curtail murders... and if you have a group of people running around for which you can't make murder illegal in the first place that reason holds doubly so. Otherwise all murders instantly become legal as long as they are performed by the right proxies.
Are you forgetting your resolutions addressing of 'proxy' use of biological weapons? I'm pretty sure that suffices to stop proxy use of biological weapons. If nations are not allowed to use biological weapons by proxy then they wouldn't be allowed to "transfer who pulls the trigger" as you say, and you have received the result you want. Stopping nations from allying themselves with nations that have biological weapons is much more segregation-ary than outlawing conspiracy to commit murder, and it's unnecessary. It's much more like banning people to be seen with "unsavory characters", because you're certain that such a meeting will end up in a conspiracy for murder. All in all, I feel, a somewhat silly notion.

Just as all uses of biological weapons instantly become legal if you allow UN nations to ally themselves with nations who can legally deploy biological weapons on their behalf.

It's either an alliance restriction or we don't bother trying to ban biological weapons because there would be no point.
Again, your resolution already prohibits biological weapon use by proxy. There's no need to restrict UN nations and non-UN biological weapons keeping nations from meeting each other. Alliances between these nations can be used for a lot of other things that the UN nations getting the non-UN nation to pull the trigger for them.

Just because spray paint is used for graffiti and graffiti is illegal, doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to buy spray paint.

I never said that. I said that it was a statement in a preliminary proposal draft.

Yes... your proposal draft. Which means it represents legislation YOU are presenting to the UN for consideration as being acceptable. Which implies you consider it acceptable yourself.

You're making this way too much about me and you rather that about mine and yours respective arguments.

All I have been doing is requesting you provide an argument by supplying one of these just as workable alternatives you keep claiming exist.

This comparison has no validity because the alliance ban isn't about people and it isn't about murder.

Don't pretend you don't understand how an analogy works. It's insulting to both our intelligence.


Are you forgetting your resolutions addressing of 'proxy' use of biological weapons?

Which was included to prevent the direct contracting of non national independent parties to deploy the weapons.

I'm pretty sure that suffices to stop proxy use of biological weapons.

I'm more than pretty certain it doesn't prevent allied nations from using them whn you go to war. Nations who, while militarily allied with you and fighting the same enemy sovereignly decide to use those weapons against your enemy are not acting by proxy. All that a UN nation is required to do is secure themselves such an ally. Then whenver they go to war if their ally should deploy their own weaponry against the enemy, whether that weaponry is illegal or not as far as the UN is concerned, the UN nations would be free and clear under the terms of the ban if it didn;t contain that alliance restriction.

If nations are not allowed to use biological weapons by proxy then they wouldn't be allowed to "transfer who pulls the trigger" as you say, and you have received the result you want. Stopping nations from allying themselves with nations that have biological weapons is much more segregation-ary than outlawing conspiracy to commit murder, and it's unnecessary.

Militarily allying. And it's completely necessary. And it's just about exactly as segregationary as outlawing conspiracy to commit murder. In both cases associations between two parties are not subject to a blanket ban, however in the latter they are not permitted to collaborate towards the end of the murder of another individual, and in the former they are not allowed to collaborate towards an end that would bring a nations illegal weaponry into play in a conflict whether the UN nation specifically requests it happen or not. The result would be the same. As a result of their alliance any war entered into by the UN nation would bring biological weaponry into play when their ally entered the conflict.

Yes... your proposal draft. Which means it represents legislation YOU are presenting to the UN for consideration as being acceptable. Which implies you consider it acceptable yourself.

No. Actually, as anyone familiar with my advice on proposal drafting or what not knows my advice is pretty much entirely divorced from my personal opinions and policies. I have offered my advice (for however much it is/was worth) on proposals I've completely disagreed with just as often as I've gotten really behind a proposal.

The poet is not necessarily the persona.

All I have been doing is requesting you provide an argument by supplying one of these just as workable alternatives you keep claiming exist.

Don't pretend you don't understand how an analogy works. It's insulting to both our intelligence.
Okay, fine. I'll explain why your comparison has no validity. But, before I do I'll repeat my warning: making it personal only...well, makes it personal. I'd much rather calmly discuss the issues with you than become embroiled in a character assassination contest. I really hope you'll start steering clear from personal attacks/remarks.

Analogies are metaphors. In technical terms they compare tenor to vehicle ("I am a dog"; 'dog' is the vehicle, and 'I' is the tenor). Specifically, a metaphor applies the relationship between two or more objects in the vehicle to the tenor (ie. in "I am a dog", the way a dog acts and its relationships with other ideas is compared to my actions and relationships with other ideas). In order for a metaphor to be valid there need to be common links between all objects included in the vehicle and their symbolic counterparts in the tenor. Also, there need to be parallel relationships between the objects within tenor and vehicle, respectively. Allow me to offer an example:

Valid: CAT:KITTEN is comparable to DOG:PUPPY because cats are the adult forms of kittens just as dogs are the adult forms of puppies. Both sets are animals. Both sets age. Both sets have a fairly 2-stage threshold of age (there's just puppy and dog--there's not much of a mid-stage).

Invalid: CAT:KITTEN is not comparable to HUMAN ADULT:HUMAN ADOLESCENT. Cats and humans are both animals, and both involve an older comparison to a younger. However, the problem is that KITTEN is not comparable to ADOLESCENT, because KITTEN encompasses the entirety of a youthful cat, whereas ADOLESCENT is a sub-set of youth in human life.

Invalid: CAT:KITTEN is also not comparable to 1980 BUICK:1990 BUICK. Since BUICKS are not animals and do not undergo the same effect of age, they represent two unequal sets: "Apples to Oranges" one might say.

So, there need to be commonality between both the objects being compared to one another (DOG needs to be comparable to CAT and PUPPY needs to be comparable to KITTEN--which cannot occur between CATS and BUICKS) as well as parallel relationships between within each respective set (DOG needs to be related to PUPPY in the same way that CAT is related to KITTEN). Let's scrutinize your analogy according to these rules:

PEOPLE:RESPONSIBLE FOR MURDER CONSPIRACY as NATIONS:RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLIES USING BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. Like I said, there's a non-compatibility between people and nations. NATIONS are not tried for crimes, do not serve prison sentences, etc. and PEOPLE are under the jurisdiction of national government in virtually every aspect of life, whereas national governments (UN national gov'ts anyway) have modified sovereignty under the UN.

Secondly, there's a non-parallelism between nations having allies that have biological weapons and people being tried or convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. The act of having allies with access to biological weapons is not the same as them using those weapons (which is being compared with murder). And murder is much more universally seen as a crime whereas having and using biological weapons is only a crime where nations agree together to make it so in their own lands.

The analogy is invalid.

I'm more than pretty certain it doesn't prevent allied nations from using them whn you go to war. Nations who, while militarily allied with you and fighting the same enemy sovereignly decide to use those weapons against your enemy are not acting by proxy.
And, so they should be allowed to use whatever the heck they want. The UN is not here to police any nation except in that they have agreed to be police by the UN (ie. are UN members). As much fun as it might be for one to want the UN play policeman of the world, it simply isn’t the UN’s place to tell every nation how to govern.

Militarily allying. And it's completely necessary. And it's just about exactly as segregationary as outlawing conspiracy to commit murder. In both cases associations between two parties are not subject to a blanket ban, however in the latter they are not permitted to collaborate towards the end of the murder of another individual, and in the former they are not allowed to collaborate towards an end that would bring a nations illegal weaponry into play in a conflict whether the UN nation specifically requests it happen or not. emphasis added

Hold on, that’s untrue. This resolution is like saying that “you may not have dealings with anyone with red hair because in that dealing you may conspire to commit murder.” Outlawing conspiracy to murder is simply saying “you may not conspire to commit murder”. The fact that a person has red hair does not mean they will conspire to murder someone should another have dealings with them, just as a non-UN nation having biological weapons does not mean it will become trigger-boy for a UN nation should the two enter into a military alliance. This is going a step too far. And that’s why there’s a repeal being drafted right now.

No. Actually, as anyone familiar with my advice on proposal drafting or what not knows my advice is pretty much entirely divorced from my personal opinions and policies. I have offered my advice (for however much it is/was worth) on proposals I've completely disagreed with just as often as I've gotten really behind a proposal.

The poet is not necessarily the persona.


Okay, fine. I'll explain why your comparison has no validity. But, before I do I'll repeat my warning: making it personal only...well, makes it personal. I'd much rather calmly discuss the issues with you than become embroiled in a character assassination contest. I really hope you'll start steering clear from personal attacks/remarks.

Analogies are metaphors. In technical terms they compare tenor to vehicle ("I am a dog"; 'dog' is the vehicle, and 'I' is the tenor). Specifically, a metaphor applies the relationship between two or more objects in the vehicle to the tenor (ie. in "I am a dog", the way a dog acts and its relationships with other ideas is compared to my actions and relationships with other ideas). In order for a metaphor to be valid there need to be common links between all objects included in the vehicle and their symbolic counterparts in the tenor. Also, there need to be parallel relationships between the objects within tenor and vehicle, respectively. Allow me to offer an example:

Valid: CAT:KITTEN is comparable to DOG:PUPPY because cats are the adult forms of kittens just as dogs are the adult forms of puppies. Both sets are animals. Both sets age. Both sets have a fairly 2-stage threshold of age (there's just puppy and dog--there's not much of a mid-stage).

Invalid: CAT:KITTEN is not comparable to HUMAN ADULT:HUMAN ADOLESCENT. Cats and humans are both animals, and both involve an older comparison to a younger. However, the problem is that KITTEN is not comparable to ADOLESCENT, because KITTEN encompasses the entirety of a youthful cat, whereas ADOLESCENT is a sub-set of youth in human life.

Invalid: CAT:KITTEN is also not comparable to 1980 BUICK:1990 BUICK. Since BUICKS are not animals and do not undergo the same effect of age, they represent two unequal sets: "Apples to Oranges" one might say.

So, there need to be commonality between both the objects being compared to one another (DOG needs to be comparable to CAT and PUPPY needs to be comparable to KITTEN--which cannot occur between CATS and BUICKS) as well as parallel relationships between within each respective set (DOG needs to be related to PUPPY in the same way that CAT is related to KITTEN). Let's scrutinize your analogy according to these rules:

PEOPLE:RESPONSIBLE FOR MURDER CONSPIRACY as NATIONS:RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLIES USING BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. Like I said, there's a non-compatibility between people and nations. NATIONS are not tried for crimes, do not serve prison sentences, etc. and PEOPLE are under the jurisdiction of national government in virtually every aspect of life, whereas national governments (UN national gov'ts anyway) have modified sovereignty under the UN.

Secondly, there's a non-parallelism between nations having allies that have biological weapons and people being tried or convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. The act of having allies with access to biological weapons is not the same as them using those weapons (which is being compared with murder). And murder is much more universally seen as a crime whereas having and using biological weapons is only a crime where nations agree together to make it so in their own lands.

The analogy is invalid.


And, so they should be allowed to use whatever the heck they want. The UN is not here to police any nation except in that they have agreed to be police by the UN (ie. are UN members). As much fun as it might be for one to want the UN play policeman of the world, it simply isn’t the UN’s place to tell every nation how to govern.

emphasis added

Hold on, that’s untrue. This resolution is like saying that “you may not have dealings with anyone with red hair because in that dealing you may conspire to commit murder.” Outlawing conspiracy to murder is simply saying “you may not conspire to commit murder”. The fact that a person has red hair does not mean they will conspire to murder someone should another have dealings with them, just as a non-UN nation having biological weapons does not mean it will become trigger-boy for a UN nation should the two enter into a military alliance. This is going a step too far. And that’s why there’s a repeal being drafted right now.

*claps* Thank you, PC. (Thats about the only time that me thanking the initials PC wouldn't be sarcastic. Political-Correctness...)

That was a wonderful summery ^^

Personally, I'd love to see someone claim that a government didn't look into its allies' weaponry "well enough". Krioval, for one, would demand that the accuser provide proof, counterclaim that the accusing nation is slandering an innocent nation, and then put up as many roadblocks to that investigation as possible, regardless of whether Krioval was hiding anything. If there's anything most Kriovalians detest, it's when meddlesome outsiders decide that they're going to get into Krioval's business, and that attitude pervades the bureaucracy. Basically, one can find any information one desires in the Armed Republic, but whether it takes half an hour or several years depends directly on one's relationship with the people in whom the greatest amount of power is concentrated.

In short, Krioval will not publish a list of our allies for the UN to see, we will not discuss our policies for determining their weapon stockpiles, and we will not provide an inventory of our weapons to the UN. There's this little thing called "domestic security" that we happen to like.

~ Yuri Sokolev, Ambassador

In short, Krioval will not publish a list of our allies for the UN to see, we will not discuss our policies for determining their weapon stockpiles, and we will not provide an inventory of our weapons to the UN. There's this little thing called "domestic security" that we happen to like.
Greetings.

We of Roathin are open about our allies (some of them), do not (overtly) investigate their resources and resource allocations, and provide inventories of devices and associated technologies which might be interesting to others of like mind. We love domestic security, especially when curling up with a good book and a much-loved feline.

We appreciate your position and, while we would understand if others find it somewhat inelegantly expressed, we find it agreeable to our mind.

*claps* Thank you, PC. (Thats about the only time that me thanking the initials PC wouldn't be sarcastic. Political-Correctness...)

That was a wonderful summery ^^
Heh, it's also sometimes punned with pc for personal computer. In a certain sense a post of mine can be PC, on a PC, from PC. :D

Analogies are metaphors.

No, they aren't. An analogy as employed in argument is a comparison between things which posess some relevent characteristic which helps explain a similar related concept.

Metaphors are associative descriptive statements.

They're somewhat related, they're not the same.

PEOPLE:RESPONSIBLE FOR MURDER CONSPIRACY as NATIONS:RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLIES USING BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. Like I said, there's a non-compatibility between people and nations.

Not in any way that makes the analogy invalid.

NATIONS are not tried for crimes,

People = Subject to the laws of a nation.
UN Nations = Subject to the laws of the UN.

We are discussing how a law should be applied and what effects it has. It is perfectly valid to draw an analogy between the former situation and the latter.

do not serve prison sentences, etc. and PEOPLE are under the jurisdiction of national government in virtually every aspect of life, whereas national governments (UN national gov'ts anyway) have modified sovereignty under the UN.

People are under the jurisdiction of their national governments in any aspects of their lives the national government in question chooses to legislate on.

UN nations are under the jurisdiction of the UN in any aspects of their affairs the UN chooses to legislate on.

Analogy still perfectly intact.

Secondly, there's a non-parallelism between nations having allies that have biological weapons and people being tried or convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. The act of having allies with access to biological weapons is not the same as them using those weapons (which is being compared with murder).

Conspiracy to commit murder does not require a murder actually be committed either.

By deliberately allying yourself with a nation in known possession of weaponry you know the UN considers illegal, and which you know the UN has prohibitted the deployment of you are taking purposeful action in cooperation with another nation to create a situation in which those weapons can be deployed in your favor in future conflicts you become involved in.

Once a military alliance exists a declaration of war by your nation is sufficient to being your ally's weapons into play on your side. By virtue of your creating that alliance you have knowingly conspired with another nation to create a situation which will allow that other nation to commit acts in your favor that are illegal for you to commit under UN law.

That analogy is still holding up pretty darn well.

And murder is much more universally seen as a crime whereas having and using biological weapons is only a crime where nations agree together to make it so in their own lands.

Irrelevent. Both are considered illegal under the laws being compared. Both are circumvented by means of one party for whom the act is illegal making arrangements with another party.

And, so they should be allowed to use whatever the heck they want.

"They" are allowed to use whatever the heck they want. UN nations just don't get to take advantage of that to get themselves around the bioweapons ban by contracting an ally who can do their dirty work for them.

The UN is not here to police any nation except in that they have agreed to be police by the UN (ie. are UN members).

Which is exactly what the resolution is doing. Nobody made it illegal for non UN nations to have and use these weapons.

Hold on, that’s untrue. This resolution is like saying that “you may not have dealings with anyone with red hair because in that dealing you may conspire to commit murder.” Outlawing conspiracy to murder is simply saying “you may not conspire to commit murder”.

Speaking of invalid analogies...

This resolution is saying it is illegal for you to form a military partnership with nations who posess military weaponry the UN considers to be illegal because it's illegal for you to possess or use that weaponry... and by creating a military alliance with someone who has it you are deliberately creating a situation in which those illegal weapons may be used in your favor in any future conflict, thus circumventing the ban.

The fact that a person has red hair does not mean they will conspire to murder someone

But the fact that a nation has biological weapons means that if they are your military allies the next time you go to war you're doing it with a biological weapons capability on your side.

Which would render the ban completely inneffective.

But the fact that a nation has biological weapons means that if they are your military allies the next time you go to war you're doing it with a biological weapons capability on your side.

Which would render the ban completely inneffective.Unless your ally agrees not to use them in any conflict where you're a participant.

Unless your ally agrees not to use them in any conflict where you're a participant.

And then if they get hard pressed and decide to break them out despite what they said? You're responsible for bringing along a bioweapons armed nation into the conflict in the first place through your military alliance with them. You created the situation in which those weapons could end up being deployed.

If non UN nations want to do that on their own, independently, there's little we can do about that. We can however prevent UN nations from contributing to the problem.

But what is a "bioweapon"? A "contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbe", right?

So your ally is a nation that is known to possess, say, a few grammes of Yersinia pestis, but hasn't weaponised its stocks of this bacteria because it only has the material in question for research. Or maybe it only has the material because it's not a U.N. member and it simply doesn't feel the need to regulate its stocks of "contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes".

Either, way, suppose you have good reason to believe that your ally not only will not use the proscribed materials, but can not use the proscribed materials (due to lack of delivery capacity or for other technical reasons). That would eliminate the argument that the purpose of the ban is to prevent the U.N. member from using a weapon its ally only "possesses" due to the technical definition of "bioweapons", right?

Isn't the real reason here to try and force the rest of the world to obey a U.N. mandate?

But now, continuning this line of thought, let's say that you want to be sure that your ally is compliant with Resolution #113 before agreeing to the alliance. What do you do? Say, "Agree to respect Resolution #113 or you can't be my ally?"

Suppose you do that, and your ally says, "OK, we'll do that." Is that really something that your ally can do, even if willing? Doesn't Resolution #113 having game engine effects? What's the non-U.N. member to do, TG the mods and say, "I want you to put my nation in compliance with U.N. Resolution #113?"

No, he can't do that. So the effects of the Resolution can't be applied to his country, which really means that you, as a U.N. member, can't honestly say that he's complying with the Resolution because his country hasn't gone through the game engine changes - and neither can he. Thus, you know that if he says that he respects Resolution #113, he's lying and you can't ally with him because you know that, somewhere in his country, he likely has more that 250mg of contagious germs, even if he doesn't know what or where they are or how to use them.

The upshot: no U.N. member may ever be in an alliance with any non-member, or provide military assistance of any kind to a non-member in any way.

But what is a "bioweapon"? A "contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbe", right?

So your ally is a nation that is known to possess, say, a few grammes of Yersinia pestis, but hasn't weaponised its stocks of this bacteria because it only has the material in question for research. Or maybe it only has the material because it's not a U.N. member and it simply doesn't feel the need to regulate its stocks of "contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes".

Either, way, suppose you have good reason to believe that your ally not only will not use the proscribed materials, but can not use the proscribed materials (due to lack of delivery capacity or for other technical reasons). That would eliminate the argument that the purpose of the ban is to prevent the U.N. member from using a weapon its ally only "possesses" due to the technical definition of "bioweapons", right?

Isn't the real reason here to try and force the rest of the world to obey a U.N. mandate?

There are a great many "real" reasons here.

1. Without the alliance proscription UN nations can use non UN allied nations as a means of circumventing the ban for themselves.

2. Without the alliance restriction UN nations who ally themselves with bioweapons armed nations are responsible for bringing those bioweapons into play in conflicts they become involved with whether theyt claim they intended for them to be used or not.

3. The alliance restriction does provide an incentive for non UN nations who do desire military partnerships with UN nations to abandon their biological weaponry in exchange, as that partnership isn't happening otherwise.

As for the scenario described above, if the nation in question truly had only research quantities of the biological agent in question and had no intention of deploying it as a weapon then it is hardly asking much to have them ensure those research quantities met the specifications outlined by resolution 113, which would mean that non UN nation in question wasn't in possession of biological weapons in any way actually proscribed by that resolution, which means they aren't subject to the alliance prohibition in that resolution. Then go ahead and ally with them.

And of course they can put themselves in compliance with the conditions listed by the resolution if they voluntarily decide to do so, it's their nation. The game engine changes enacted on UN nations upon the passage of a resolution are irrelevent to that process.

And of course they can put themselves in compliance with the conditions listed by the resolution if they voluntarily decide to do so, it's their nation. The game engine changes enacted on UN nations upon the passage of a resolution are irrelevent to that process.Can they?

You assume that Resolution #113 has no economic costs. If it does, and the non-U.N. member does not take the economic hit from compliance, how can it be said to have complied with the Resolution?

Can they?

You assume that Resolution #113 has no economic costs.

I most certainly don't... but they're never specified as a requirement of compliance.

No, they aren't. An analogy as employed in argument is a comparison between things which posess some relevent characteristic which helps explain a similar related concept.

Metaphors are associative descriptive statements.

They're somewhat related, they're not the same.


I quote Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, 3rd ed. (Voss, Sonja. 2004: Waveland Press): "metaphors are nonliteral comparisons in which a word or phrase from one domain of experience is applied to another domain. Derived from the Greek words meta, meaning “over” and phereras, meaning “to carry,” metaphor involves the process of transferring or carrying over aspects that apply to one object to a second object." (p. 299).

In other words the basic form of a metaphor is this:

<---"Data concerning Z"--||--Z--||--"Data concerning Z"--->

applied to:

<---"Data concerning Y"--||--Y--||--"Data concerning Y"--->
Z, and data related to Z, are carried over and applied to Y and data related to Y. An analogy could be termed as the following:

A---||--"Relationship between A and B"--||---B

applied to:

C---||--"Relationship between C and D"--||---D

In the case of an analogy, the relationship between A and B is "Z" and the relationship between C and D is "Y". An analogy is a metaphor.

Not in any way that makes the analogy invalid.

People = Subject to the laws of a nation.
UN Nations = Subject to the laws of the UN.

We are discussing how a law should be applied and what effects it has. It is perfectly valid to draw an analogy between the former situation and the latter.

But the relationships between citizens and their governing nations and nations and the UN are drastically different, which contributes to the failure of your analogy.

Conspiracy to commit murder does not require a murder actually be committed either.

By deliberately allying yourself with a nation in known possession of weaponry you know the UN considers illegal, and which you know the UN has prohibitted the deployment of you are taking purposeful action in cooperation with another nation to create a situation in which those weapons can be deployed in your favor in future conflicts you become involved in.
So? Deliberately meeting with someone who you know may commit murder, which you know is illegal doesn't mean that there's a conspiracy to commit murder. It's the conspiracy that's illegal, not the meeting with someone--or, to apply it more directly, the having of financial relations, legal relations, personal relations with a person who may commit murder is not illegal.

Your alliance ban is like saying that people cannot buy guns because they might be used to kill someone. Or that people cannot get drivers' licenses because they may use it to commit vehicular homicide. I think you should just be satisfied with outlawing the action of conspiring to use biological weapons, rather than the association of UN nations with those that may use biological weapons. There's too much good that can occur, and too obscure a chance of something bad happening from military alliances with non-UN nations to ban them outright--which is what your resolution does.

But the fact that a nation has biological weapons means that if they are your military allies the next time you go to war you're doing it with a biological weapons capability on your side.
No, you're going to war with a nation with biological weapon capabilities allied with you. There's a clear difference. If it's illegal for UN nations to conspire to use those weapons, then the action of an allied non-UN nation to use or not use those biological weapons is not the concern of the UN nation and stays what it belongs--the decision of a completely sovereign non-UN nation.

Which would render the ban completely inneffective.
Actually, it wouldn't. "Completely ineffective" means that your resolution has no effect. I can count many effects without the alliance ban:[list] UN nations no longer have or use biological weapons. UN nations are outlawed from conspiring to use biological weapons in a conflict. UN nations are encouraged to treat and vaccinate for biological agents. UN nations are urged to interact with non-UN nations to influence them (diplomatically) to give up their biological weapons.

That's pretty far from "completely ineffective".

I quote Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, 3rd ed.

And, having quoted it, you still haven't shown analogies are metaphors.

In the case of an analogy, the relationship between A and B is "Z" and the relationship between C and D is "Y". An analogy is a metaphor.

If analogies were metaphors you wouldn't have just required two different illustrations to show how each of those two different things operates.

But the relationships between citizens and their governing nations and nations and the UN are drastically different,

Not in any sense that concerns the subject of the analogy.

Government passes laws => Citizens subject to laws.
UN passes laws => UN nations subject to laws.

So? Deliberately meeting with someone who you know may commit murder, which you know is illegal doesn't mean that there's a conspiracy to commit murder.

Deliberately meeting with someone you know may commit murder and collaborating with them to create a state of affairs that will allow that murder to occur... does.

It's the conspiracy that's illegal, not the meeting with someone

No kidding. So meet with nations with bioweapons all you like, but no forming military partnerships which them. That's the conspiracy part.

--or, to apply it more directly, the having of financial relations, legal relations, personal relations with a person who may commit murder is not illegal.

But making an agreement that facillitates their commission of a homicide is.

Just like making an agreement that facillitates the deployment of biological weapons, is. Otherwise referred to as a military alliance with a bioweapons possessing nation.

Your alliance ban is like saying that people cannot buy guns because they might be used to kill someone.

No... my alliance ban is like saying if guns are illegal running out and hiring someone else with a gun to be your bodyguard and then saying "hey... I don't have the gun, you can't touch me!" is conspiring to try to circumvent that law.

No, you're going to war with a nation with biological weapon capabilities allied with you. There's a clear difference.

In spelling and grammar perhaps, not in real world effect. A military ally is, by definition, on your side of a military conflict. The alliance is what put them there. With their military capabilities. Including their bioweapons.

The alliance brought bioweapons into play on your side in a conflict.

Actually, it wouldn't. "Completely ineffective" means that your resolution has no effect. I can count many effects without the alliance ban:[list] UN nations no longer have or use biological weapons.

Their allies just do it instead... end result, the bioweapons are deployed in the same conflicts against the same nations. No practical effect.

UN nations are outlawed from conspiring to use biological weapons in a conflict.

No, UN nations are outlawed from directly contracting a party to act as their proxy to deploy bioweapons for them. There is a difference between an act through proxy and an act of a sovereign alliance member. The latter can still be conspired with without them ever serving in a proxy role. End result, the bioweapons are still deployed in the same conflicts agtainst the same nations. Ban has no practical effect.

UN nations are encouraged to treat and vaccinate for biological agents. UN nations are urged to interact with non-UN nations to influence them (diplomatically) to give up their biological weapons.

Those hold up.... of course without the resolution UN nations are hardly just going to ignore when they become infected by a biological weapon... and a lot of good the diplomacy alone will do here in the NSUN universe.

That's pretty far from "completely ineffective".

If you consider "directly adjacent to" to be a long way away.

And, having quoted it, you still haven't shown analogies are metaphors.

If analogies were metaphors you wouldn't have just required two different illustrations to show how each of those two different things operates.
First, I suggest you re-read the section you're quoting, I quite clearly indicate how the basic framework of an analogy is synonymous with the basic framework for a metaphor.

Second, I used two illustrations to show how the second is an iteration of the first. It's like using an anatomy text to reference parts of a patient. The patient isn't going to look exactly like the picture in the anatomy book, but the two will show themselves to have the same root and basic design. I think I've shown that fairly well. If you wish to ignore my illustration and its intent, suit yourself.

Actually, just about every comparison uses two illustrations. In comparing two pictures you always have two. In comparing two products you typically view both of them. In comparing paintings (to determine, say, if one is a forgery) you more often than not view both paintings. In order to compare two things, I'll always need to illustrate the functions of both things, so their attributes can be qualified and coded and then roughly equated.

Strangely, though, I'm pretty sure you knew that already.
No kidding. So meet with nations with bioweapons all you like, but no forming military partnerships which them. That's the conspiracy part.But you're making a very subtle leap of logic. You’re connecting military partnership to conspiracy to use biological weapons. The two are distinct and separate.


No... my alliance ban is like saying if guns are illegal running out and hiring someone else with a gun to be your bodyguard and then saying "hey... I don't have the gun, you can't touch me!" is conspiring to try to circumvent that law.
Again, you're logic is leaping over too many considerations to hold together. You're equating forming a military alliance between two nations as hiring of a bodyguard, or hitman even, to doing dirty work. Actually, military alliances are a different animal than that, they are formed differently, work differently, and have different parties involved--and they don't necessarily involve clauses in which the non-UN ally will use the illegal weapon against the UN allies enemies. There can be military partnerships without an agreement for the non-UN nation to use biological weapons.

If the UN nation Maxtopia formed a military partnership with a non-UN nation Dystopia which disallowed or discouraged Dystopia from using biological weapons in a conflict involving the Maxtopia, or on behalf of Maxtopia in any way, there'd be essentially no risk that Maxtopia could conspire to have biological weapons used on their behalf. It is the military alliance that allows or encourages Dystopia to use biological weapons on the behalf of Maxtopia that you are interested in outlawing (however realistic and necessary that may or may not be), not military alliances in general.

Your alliance ban throws out the baby with the bath water.



I think I'm done chewing fat with you here. Respond however you like. Deny the un-workableness of your alliance ban. Deny the ransom at which you've placed UN national security. I'm not sure that I'll respond. I feel I've presented more than enough explanation for you to understand my objections. So, I'm focusing my energy on the repeal, as well as other, unrelated, UN projects.

Actually, just about every comparison uses two illustrations. In comparing two pictures you always have two. In comparing two products you typically view both of them.

Only if they're different products. If they're the same product viewing two copies of it is redundant. Or, at best, you hold them up and sday "Look, identical". You don't provide seperate, different descriptions of both of them unless they're actually different.

Same goes for a genuine painting and a forgery. One of these things is not like the other.

In comparing paintings (to determine, say, if one is a forgery) you more often than not view both paintings. In order to compare two things, I'll always need to illustrate the functions of both things,

Only if they're different things. Otherwise doing it once covers both examples.

But you're making a very subtle leap of logic. You’re connecting military partnership to conspiracy to use biological weapons. The two are distinct and separate.

I'm connecting a military alliance with a bioweapons procuding nation with a circumvention of laws establishing the use or possession of biological weaponry to be illegal.

Again, you're logic is leaping over too many considerations to hold together. You're equating forming a military alliance between two nations as hiring of a bodyguard, or hitman even, to doing dirty work. Actually, military alliances are a different animal than that, they are formed differently, work differently, and have different parties involved--and they don't necessarily involve clauses in which the non-UN ally will use the illegal weapon against the UN allies enemies.

And they don't bloody well have to. A military alliance entails that the nation you are allying yourself with will side with you in future military conflicts. That means you're bringing them and all their military capabilities into play on your side. Including their bioweapons. Which are illegal to UN nations.

You are therefore circumventing the ban with the alliance.

If the UN nation Maxtopia formed a military partnership with a non-UN nation Dystopia which disallowed or discouraged Dystopia from using biological weapons in a conflict involving the Maxtopia, or on behalf of Maxtopia in any way, there'd be essentially no risk that Maxtopia could conspire to have biological weapons used on their behalf.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9316385&postcount=300

(I'm only responding to your confusion over what I'm saying about comparison (metaphor and analogy). I'm finished presenting my case against the military partenrship ban. I'm quite satisfied with the shortcomings and problems I've already elaboated upon.)


Only if they're different things. Otherwise doing it once covers both examples.

So, when I'm telling a six year old "humans are people" I don't need to use both objects? I could just say "humans are humans" and it would have the same effect?

Only if they're different products. If they're the same product viewing two copies of it is redundant. Or, at best, you hold them up and sday "Look, identical". You don't provide seperate, different descriptions of both of them unless they're actually different.

Same goes for a genuine painting and a forgery. One of these things is not like the other.
You seem to be awfully interested in this point, like the segregation of analogies and metaphors is a personal crusade to you. All right, let me restate my illustrations, and add some more explanation from Rhetorical Criticism. I quote Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, 3rd ed. (Voss, Sonja. 2004: Waveland Press): "metaphors are nonliteral comparisons in which a word or phrase from one domain of experience is applied to another domain. Derived from the Greek words meta, meaning “over” and phereras, meaning “to carry,” metaphor involves the process of transferring or carrying over aspects that apply to one object to a second object." (p. 299).

In other words the basic form of a metaphor is this:
<---"Data concerning Z"--||--Z--||--"Data concerning Z"--->

applied to:

<---"Data concerning Y"--||--Y--||--"Data concerning Y"--->
Z, and data related to Z, are carried over and applied to Y and data related to Y. An analogy could be termed as the following:

A---||--"Relationship between A and B"--||---B

applied to:

[color=red]C---||--"Relationship between C and D"--||---D

In the case of an analogy, the relationship between A and B is "Z" and the relationship between C and D is "Y". An analogy is a metaphor.

What I'm saying is that the framework of an analogy is the framework of a metaphor. A metaphor is the carrying over of meaning from one semantic locale to another (or the first illustration). The second illustration (analogy) simply sees each of the variables of the first illustration (metaphor) filled in with some sort of information (Z="Relationship between A and B"; Y="Relationship between C and D"; etc.). The framework of an analogy is an iteration of the metaphor framework.

What I did, in stating both frameworks can be said to be much like the expression of a mathematical formula:

"y=ax+b is y=2x+5"

Perhaps I haven't adequately stated how analogy fits into the definition of metaphor I presented (or, more accurately, the definition Dr. Foss presented). Lemme try to re-phrase. Put shortly, a metaphor is the carrying over of meaning from one schema to another. It's placing a lens, the vehicle, between one's self and the tenor so as to understand the tenor "in terms" of the vehicle. Analogy, according to Webster's, is "1. a similarity or likeness between things in some circumstances or effects, when the things are otherwise different. ... 3. an explaining of something by comparing it point by point with something else."

Both definitions 1 and 3 fall under the definition of metaphor (definition 2 concerned mathematics, ratios). Definition 3 is almost exactly the same as the definition of metaphor, so I will not explain how it makes analogy equal to metaphor. Definition 1 falls under metaphor, as a "similarity...between things in some circumstance or effects" is exactly what is created by metaphor. Metaphor creates a linguistic link between the semantic network of one thing with another, making them similar "in some circumstances or effects". That metaphor makes two things similar is what I'll cover next.

Perhaps you misunderstand metaphor to be strictly an embellishment in everyday speech--you know, "Joe is a pig", and so forth. Metaphor is that, but it can also be continued and persist beyond the role of mere embellishment (as is the case in an analogy). From Rhetorical Criticism again, In contrast to the view of metaphor as decoration, metaphor now is seen as a major way in which we constitute reality. We do not perceive reality and then interpret meaning. Rather we experience reality through the language by which we describe it; it is whatever we describe it as.

...The metaphor that "time is money” illustrates how the use of a particular metaphor can affect our thought and experience of reality. This metaphor, reflected in the common expressions "This gadget will save you hours," "I've invested a lot of time in her" and "You need to budget your time," leads us to experience the reality of time in a particular way. Because we conceive time as money, we understand and experience it as something that can be spent, budgeted, wasted, and saved.
So, metaphor is not "just decoration" but, in fact, the substance by which we dramatize reality in our minds--the way we experience and understand reality. Metaphors determine our reality.

Anyway, whether by dictionary definitions and the indications of sameness between analogy and metaphor, or by the understanding of how much is considered metaphor, and by what parameters it is defined in practice, I hope you now understand better why I say analogy is metaphor.