NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello can anyone explain to me the need of article 2 in this proposal? The thing in itself gets my approval, but why this "small amount-article"?

who comes up with these proposals? isn't there something else we can vote on? this is getting very redundant. this is getting very redundant.

Will this mean we have to put people with AIDS in camps???

It seems to read that way.

Hello can anyone explain to me the need of article 2 in this proposal? The thing in itself gets my approval, but why this "small amount-article"?

It's impossible to develop cures/vaccines to bioological weapons if you don't permit a nation to possess at least some small amount of the weapon in question to perform research on.

Will this mean we have to put people with AIDS in camps???

AIDS isn't contagious except through direct blood or semen transfer... so isolation in such a case would constitute preventing people with AIDS from doing either of those things with non-infected individuals. That contains the risk of the spread of the disease, so that's all you need to acheive isolation.

The point is that this resolution, while being more specific than the prior Ban on Biological Weapons, leaves an opening which effectively takes rights away from those people who are unlucky enough to contract a contagious diesease. It was well written other than that, but I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a resolution that can be used as justification for imprisoning a majority of ones political enemies during flu season.

The point is that this resolution, while being more specific than the prior Ban on Biological Weapons, leaves an opening which effectively takes rights away from those people who are unlucky enough to contract a contagious diesease. It was well written other than that, but I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a resolution that can be used as justification for imprisoning a majority of ones political enemies during flu season.

The only right the proposal takes away from an infected person is the right to infect other people. Nothing in this resolution authorizes the imprisonment of infected individuals, and it specifically says that being infected is not a crime. The only thing it requires is that the necessary precautions are taken to prevent the spread of a contagion.

The way the word "isolation" is used, one can easily interpret it differently.

UN Biological Weapons Ban already has its own discussion thread. Perhaps this could be merged?

Will this mean we have to put people with AIDS in camps???

It seems to read that way.AIDS isn't contagious except through direct blood or semen transfer... so isolation in such a case would constitute preventing people with AIDS from doing either of those things with non-infected individuals. That contains the risk of the spread of the disease, so that's all you need to acheive isolation.The point is that this resolution, while being more specific than the prior Ban on Biological Weapons, leaves an opening which effectively takes rights away from those people who are unlucky enough to contract a contagious diesease. It was well written other than that, but I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a resolution that can be used as justification for imprisoning a majority of ones political enemies during flu season.The only right the proposal takes away from an infected person is the right to infect other people. Nothing in this resolution authorizes the imprisonment of infected individuals, and it specifically says that being infected is not a crime. The only thing it requires is that the necessary precautions are taken to prevent the spread of a contagion.The way the word "isolation" is used, one can easily interpret it differently.Though being infected is not illegal, if a proscribed agent is present in an infected individual they must undergo immediate isolation and treatment.Reformentia's interpretation of this clause to mean that AIDS (or VODAIS) victims could simply be proscribed from having sexual intercourse with or giving blood or organs to uninfected individuals is simply not supported by his own words...if a proscribed agent is present in an infected individual they must undergo immediate isolation and treatmentMust permits no leeway, and the common English meaning of the word “isolation” is not so vague as to guarantee that forced abstinence and a ban on blood or organ donotion would be enough.Main Entry: 1iso·late
Pronunciation: 'I-s&-"lAt also 'i-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: back-formation from isolated set apart, from French isolé, from Italian isolato, from isola island, from Latin insula
1 : to set apart from others; also : QUARANTINE
2 : to select from among others; especially : to separate from another substance so as to obtain pure or in a free state
3 : INSULATE
- iso·la·tor /-"lA-t&r/ noun

Main Entry: in·su·late
Pronunciation: 'in(t)-s&-"lAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Latin insula
: to place in a detached situation : ISOLATE; especially : to separate from conducting bodies by means of nonconductors so as to prevent transfer of electricity, heat, or sound

Main Entry: 1quar·an·tine
Pronunciation: 'kwor-&n-"tEn, 'kwär-
Function: noun
Etymology: partly modification of French quarantaine, from Old French, from quarante forty, from Latin quadraginta, from quadra- (akin to quattuor four) + -ginta (akin to viginti twenty); partly modification of Italian quarantena quarantine of a ship, from quaranta forty, from Latin quadraginta -- more at FOUR, VIGESIMAL
1 : a period of 40 days
2 a : a term during which a ship arriving in port and suspected of carrying contagious disease is held in isolation from the shore b : a regulation placing a ship in quarantine c : a place where a ship is detained during quarantine
3 a : a restraint upon the activities or communication of persons or the transport of goods designed to prevent the spread of disease or pests b : a place in which those under quarantine are kept
4 : a state of enforced isolationOf the three possible meanings of “isolate”, only one allows for a mere “restraint upon ... activities”, and that is not the most common use of the term in question. More frequently “quarantine” is interpreted to mean “(to place in) a state of enforced isolation”.

So Kall Discordium's concern would appear to be very, very real. Even if no one uses this for political ends, as Kall Discordium fears, it would still represent an assault of the civil rights of persons suffering from diseases like AIDS and VODAIS.

Reformentia's interpretation of this clause to mean that AIDS (or VODAIS) victims could simply be proscribed from having sexual intercourse with or giving blood or organs to uninfected individuals is simply not supported by his own words...if a proscribed agent is present in an infected individual they must undergo immediate isolation and treatmentMust permits no leeway, and the common English meaning of the word “isolation” is not so vague as to guarantee that forced abstinence and a ban on blood or organ donotion would be enough.Of the three possible meanings of “isolate”, only one allows for a mere “restraint upon ... activities”, and that is not the most common use of the term in question.

It's just the one that fits the context... and how do we determine usage of a word with multiple definitions in English?

Context.

It's just the one that fits the context... and how do we determine usage of a word with multiple definitions in English?

Context.The simple English interpretation of the clause is that AIDS and VODAIS victims would have to be placed in isolation - quarantine - from the rest of the world. You allow for no more merciful handling.

The simple English interpretation of the clause is that AIDS and VODAIS victims would have to be placed in isolation - quarantine - from the rest of the world. You allow for no more merciful handling.

Did the representative from Allemande by any chance read the entirety of the definitions they so thoughtfully provided for us all just one post ago? I'll proivide a slightly different emphasis than you elected to employ the first time.


3 a : a restraint upon the activities or communication of persons or the transport of goods designed to prevent the spread of disease or pests.

Yes... we can certainly see how a simple English interpretation of the proposal that is dealing with contagious diseases simply does not allow for the possibility that the definition of the word it is employing is the one in which the very definition of the word itself specifies it's relevance to situations dealing with diseases.

We also caution the delegate from Allemande to be careful not to choke on the sarcasm... it may have been a tad thick.

The Empire of Armed Military States is highly against this proposal to Ban Biological weapons. We ourselves use them and employ them within our own means of protection, and regulate VERY CAREFULLY who, what, where, when, and why they are used. We shall not give up our biological weapons if this proposal is to pass. Every nation should be entitled to protect themselves as they see fit, and this should be no exception. Even if this Proposal passes, it will not mean that everyone will give them up. It is against these people whom we choose to keep ours.

We therefore, encourage everyone to rise up against this proposal and protect yourselves by any means necessary. When it comes to your citizens, thier safety is all that matters.

-Field Marshall Dameon von Howitzer
UN Representative; The Empire of Armed Military States.

The Empire of Armed Military States is highly against this proposal to Ban Biological weapons. We ourselves use them and employ them within our own means of protection, and regulate VERY CAREFULLY who, what, where, when, and why they are used. We shall not give up our biological weapons if this proposal is to pass.

You will if you're a UN member.

And you can VERY CAREFULLY regulate how you use them all you like, you can't control how a biological agent such as the ones this proposal is banning will mutate once deployed, that's a random process... and if you're in the position to enforce such an effective quarantine on the target zone you are deploying such a weapon in that you can state with certainty it won't break out and spread, guess what? You're WAY past the point where you have any need whatsoever to use bioweapons to ensure your defense if you have that kind of control over the movements of your enemy.