NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: UN Resolution #8: Citizen Rule Required (Category: The Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #8 is flawed from top to bottom.

1. This resolution is grammatically incorrect, which reflects poorly on the U.N. as a whole.

2. In most civilized countries, all citizens do not have a say over how their government is ran. Minor children and convicted felons are the most notable groups of individuals who do not have rights with this issue.

3. Aside from those groups specified, the people of most U.N. nations have a right of involvement as well as noninvolvement. If a member nations people decide against involvement as a whole, then those wishes should be respected by every U.N. member nation.

4. The vilification of "rogue nations" should not be tolerated. These nations should be celebrated for their differences, not discriminated against.

*snip*

1. This resolution is grammatically incorrect, which reflects poorly on the U.N. as a whole.

2. In most civilized countries, all citizens do not have a say over how their government is ran.

*snip*

Problems with the grammar, eh? :rolleyes:

There are problems with citizen rule required, however it does only say that there must be some form of citizen participation in government. So, if a dictator institutes a scheme whereby schools have elected class presidents, then he is abiding by it.

Problems with the grammar, eh? :rolleyes:


I see nothing wrong with my statements.

Would you prefer this:

Not every citizen in a civilized country has a say over how their country is run.

Either way I worded it correctly even though it sounds funny.

I'll give this draft a go and rewrite it - I have a way with words :)

MINDFUL That Resolution #8 is fundamentally flawed.

NOTING that not all citizens within civilized nations are qualified or capable of determining how their national government is run, most notably minors.

MINDFUL that not all citizens want to participate in the running of their nation.

DETERMINED that the differences between nations and their governments should be celebrated rather than condemned.

HERBY repeals UN Resolution #8


I'm still voting against, although #8 is far from ideal, I think democracy should be practiced in nations to some degree.

4. The vilification of "rogue nations" should not be tolerated. These nations should be celebrated for their differences, not discriminated against.

I would almost agree with the first part of this, but when a nation's differences include torturing their citizens for fun, sending out raiding parties to neighbours to kill and maim people who won't convert to their religion and other such wonderful passtimes, I will resist the urge to invade and conquer them, but I am not going to celebrate their differences.

I'll give this draft a go and rewrite it - I have a way with words :)

MINDFUL That Resolution #8 is fundementally flawed.

NOTING that not all citizens within civilised nations are qualified or capable of determining how their national government is run, most notably minors.

MINDFUL that not all citizens want to participate in the running of their nation.

DETERMINED that the differences between nations and their governments should be celebrated rather than condemned.

I'm still voting against, although #8 is far from ideal, I think democracy should be practiced in nations to some degree.

Add "REPEALS UN Resolution #8" to the end of that, and the people of Cluichstan would support it. With all due respect, unlike our Hirotan friends, we do not believe the UN should be pushing for the adoption of any particular form of government.

Add "REPEALS UN Resolution #8" to the end of that, and the people of Cluichstan would support it. With all due respect, unlike our Hirotan friends, we do not believe the UN should be pushing for the adoption of any particular form of government.

I've just noticed some spelling mistakes in my redraw which need to be sorted, so I'll add that then for you :)

I'll probably abstain on this in any possible vote, mainly because I agree that #8 is not of the standard of current resolutions. If I was totally unsympathetic to a repeal I would not have redrafted the proposal :)

Besides Hirota accidentally slipped into dictatorship when we realised we had trimmed the government payroll so much there was only one person who represented the government a few years back. (oops)

And #8 does not force democracy on member states - like Cobdenia said if a dictator institutes a scheme whereby schools have elected class presidents, then he is abiding by the resolution.

It is perfectly possible to comply with the resolution in question by giving your citizens a choice between one candidate. It's still 'choice'.

Besides Hirota accidentally slipped into dictatorship when we realised we had trimmed the government payroll so much there was only one person who represented the government a few years back. (oops)


I am the only person who represents the government, and no one thinks Pallatium is a dictatorship (or at least, no one who lives there!).

And just because there hasn't been an election since I was put in power, doesn't make it a dictatorship.

True democracy is over-rated and liable to lead to chaos - this way is much, much better :}

Description: UN Resolution #8: Citizen Rule Required (Category: The Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #8 is flawed from top to bottom.

1. This resolution is grammatically incorrect, which reflects poorly on the U.N. as a whole.

2. In most civilized countries, all citizens do not have a say over how their government is ran. Minor children and convicted felons are the most notable groups of individuals who do not have rights with this issue.

3. Aside from those groups specified, the people of most U.N. nations have a right of involvement as well as noninvolvement. If a member nations people decide against involvement as a whole, then those wishes should be respected by every U.N. member nation.

4. The vilification of "rogue nations" should not be tolerated. These nations should be celebrated for their differences, not discriminated against.
Grammatically incorrect heh
Yeah i argre with you with this

I'll give this draft a go and rewrite it - I have a way with words :)

MINDFUL That Resolution #8 is fundamentally flawed.

NOTING that not all citizens within civilized nations are qualified or capable of determining how their national government is run, most notably minors.

MINDFUL that not all citizens want to participate in the running of their nation.

DETERMINED that the differences between nations and their governments should be celebrated rather than condemned.

HERBY repeals UN Resolution #8


I'm still voting against, although #8 is far from ideal, I think democracy should be practiced in nations to some degree.


First of all, I went against using the "MINDFUL" bit because I think it's boring, over used, and arrogant.

Second. Why must you people be so closed minded? I am a dictatorship but my people HAVE civil rights. Get over yourselves.

Second. Why must you people be so closed minded? I am a dictatorship but my people HAVE civil rights. Get over yourselves.
Technically, so is Enn. There's no problem there.

I would almost agree with the first part of this, but when a nation's differences include torturing their citizens for fun, sending out raiding parties to neighbours to kill and maim people who won't convert to their religion and other such wonderful passtimes, I will resist the urge to invade and conquer them, but I am not going to celebrate their differences.


Just shows me that you're unwilling to purge yourself of stereotypes.

I support the repeal, mostly because it was so poorly written. It does not really harm anything.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

First of all, I went against using the "MINDFUL" bit because I think it's boring, over used, and arrogant.Boring? No. Overused? No. Arrogant? No. Is it in line with good practice? Yes. Is it an appropiate word? yes.

Second. Why must you people be so closed minded? I am a dictatorship but my people HAVE civil rights. Get over yourselves.Close minded? No - otherwise there would be no dictatorships in the UN at all. Indeed, if you read previous posts, I said "Besides Hirota accidentally slipped into dictatorship when we realised we had trimmed the government payroll so much there was only one person who represented the government a few years back. (oops)"

Oh, and if you are going to carry on being so offensive - I'll be directing my efforts towards voting against this repeal. Your attitude stinks my friend, and if another nations proposes this, I'll vote for it. But if you propose this? No chance at the moment.

Just shows me that you're unwilling to purge yourself of stereotypes.

No where did I state whether the nation doing the killin' and maimin' was a dictatorship or a democracy. So what stereotypes am I supposedly not purging myself of exactly?

Also you know that I am Queen, and sole ruler of my nation, right?

And thirdly - I know a fair number of non-UN democracies that do this as well.

Seriously - I was on your side in this debate, but now I am rethinking the whole support for the repeal thing based on this comment alone.

I would like to address the issues raised individually.

1. This resolution is grammatically incorrect, which reflects poorly on the U.N. as a whole.

Bad grammer does reflect poorly on the UN. But it has already reflected poorly on the UN. Bag grammar with strikeout marks equally reflects poorly on the UN. Repealing the resolution isn't going to make bad grammar go away, only make it more obvious because it now has strikeout marks over it. Once a resolution passes, it's in the history queue, and becomes our communial shame for generations.

2. In most civilized countries, all citizens do not have a say over how their government is ran. Minor children and convicted felons are the most notable groups of individuals who do not have rights with this issue.

Too bad. This should have been brought up during the debate of the resolution. In and of itself it is no valid argument for repeal.

3. Aside from those groups specified, the people of most U.N. nations have a right of involvement as well as noninvolvement. If a member nations people decide against involvement as a whole, then those wishes should be respected by every U.N. member nation.

Again this is an issue that should have been brought up during the debate of the resolution. You really need a better argument for repeal than this.

4. The vilification of "rogue nations" should not be tolerated. These nations should be celebrated for their differences, not discriminated against.

Once more I have to say that a resolution should not be "repealed" because it hurt some other nation's feelings. It shouldn't have passed in the first place. Perhaps if you wrote "It's my fault the resolution passed in the first place. I should have tried harder back then." one thousand times on the blackboard you might begin to understand that repeal is not the best method for getting people not to pass dumb resolutions in the first place. It's been passed. GET OVER IT!

This is an outrage! How, will my people drive to work if they cannot get enough gas! Sure, usually their work is right next door. I want this dropped if it is not dropped my people will be stuck in there homes thinking! What if they realize, I am really a evil dictator and revolt. Please do not pass this law, If not for me, then all the children that are force to go to my army.

A blind man may have written this note with a gun held to his head.

Your choosen one:
Tyrant

This is an outrage! How, will my people drive to work if they cannot get enough gas! Sure, usually their work is right next door. I want this dropped if it is not dropped my people will be stuck in there homes thinking! What if they realize, I am really a evil dictator and revolt. Please do not pass this law, If not for me, then all the children that are force to go to my army.

You're in violation of UN law. And I think you have the wrong thread. This is about Citizen Rule, not gas.

I would like to address the issues raised individually.
1. This resolution is grammatically incorrect, which reflects poorly on the U.N. as a whole.
Bad grammer does reflect poorly on the UN. But it has already reflected poorly on the UN. Bag grammar with strikeout marks equally reflects poorly on the UN. Repealing the resolution isn't going to make bad grammar go away, only make it more obvious because it now has strikeout marks over it. Once a resolution passes, it's in the history queue, and becomes our communial shame for generations.At least if it's repealed we won't have to try to figure out what the resolution says in order to be in compliance.
2. In most civilized countries, all citizens do not have a say over how their government is ran. Minor children and convicted felons are the most notable groups of individuals who do not have rights with this issue.
Too bad. This should have been brought up during the debate of the resolution. In and of itself it is no valid argument for repeal.All right, show of hands. How many of us were actually here when this resolution was being debated?
3. Aside from those groups specified, the people of most U.N. nations have a right of involvement as well as noninvolvement. If a member nations people decide against involvement as a whole, then those wishes should be respected by every U.N. member nation.
Again this is an issue that should have been brought up during the debate of the resolution. You really need a better argument for repeal than this.Again, most of us playing weren't playing when this one passed.
4. The vilification of "rogue nations" should not be tolerated. These nations should be celebrated for their differences, not discriminated against.
Once more I have to say that a resolution should not be "repealed" because it hurt some other nation's feelings. It shouldn't have passed in the first place. Perhaps if you wrote "It's my fault the resolution passed in the first place. I should have tried harder back then." one thousand times on the blackboard you might begin to understand that repeal is not the best method for getting people not to pass dumb resolutions in the first place. It's been passed. GET OVER IT!
You know Tzorsland, judging from your comments in this thread and the one about the current resolution at vote, I'm beginning to get the impression that you don't like the idea of repeals at all. Well I've got news for you, repeals are not a method for preventing bad resolutions from being passed, they're a way to get rid of bad resolutions after they've been passed.

Bob Flibble
UN Representstive

You know Tzorsland, judging from your comments in this thread and the one about the current resolution at vote, I'm beginning to get the impression that you don't like the idea of repeals at all. Well I've got news for you, repeals are not a method for preventing bad resolutions from being passed, they're a way to get rid of bad resolutions after they've been passed.

Bob Flibble
UN Representstive

(ooc/grin) I was just thinking it's a good job he wasn't around when "Axis Of Evil" was repealed, or who knows what might have happened :}

I really am in two minds about this.

First - I don't think it is the position of the UN to be pushing governmental types on unwilling nations - it can only lead to disaster, chaos and mayhem, and that's not something the UN should be doing. So for that I would support the repeal

Second - the last clause of the repeal wants me to celebrate the differences in nations. But when that includes things I find abominable, then I refuse to celebrate them, even if I don't actively condem them (eg - the death penatly. I am not a big fan of it, and it is not permitted in Pallatium, but that doesn't mean I think it should be banned throughout the UN as I see that other nations might want it. But just cause they want it doesn't mean I should glorify that fact. And yes - this is turning in to a ramble). So on that basis I oppose the repeal, just cause of the way it's written.


However, on the balance of things and for the good of the future of the UN and it's members, I do tend to support the repeal. Democracy is not a human right, and should not be forced on people who either don't want it or are not ready for it.

See? This is the close minded thought process that I'm talking about!

I would hope that a U.N. member nation could look at my dictatorship and not see everything that is wrong with it, but maybe, just maybe look at the positive things my nation is trying to do. Celebrate the fact that we are different, but we also have common goals. But, alas, it seems as though we're stuck in this mind set that what is different must surely be bad and evil. Screw you guys, I'm out of this crap.

I'm a dictatorship. A lot of evil shit goes on in my nation, according to some people. But I still think of myself as a 'good' country, and am sure I would do the same to yours. I still support your repeal.

Thank you.

See? This is the close minded thought process that I'm talking about!

I would hope that a U.N. member nation could look at my dictatorship and not see everything that is wrong with it, but maybe, just maybe look at the positive things my nation is trying to do. Celebrate the fact that we are different, but we also have common goals. But, alas, it seems as though we're stuck in this mind set that what is different must be surely bad and evil. Screw you guys, I'm out of this crap.

Ok - seriously - this is not the way to garner support.

I have already said that I am (more or less) a dictatorship, and have no problems with. What I have problems with it being told I must celebrate the differences in a nation that I find contemptable. I have no desire to overthrow it, or rule it, or change how it works, but I will not glorfiy the goodness of a nation if it is racist, homophobic or likes bunny rabbits (don't ask)

I don't automatically assume that "what is different is bad and evil" - but if I know it is bad and evil then I am damned if I am going to make friends with it and celebrate it. And I think that I was pretty clear on that.

So - you know what? I am going to vote against any repeal just to piss you off. I don't like the resolution - I don't think the UN should be forcing democracy on people at all. But if it means that you might actually pay attention to what people are writing, then I think the repeal should be voted down and the resolution should stay.

My thoughts: I would drop the bit about grammar, or bump it down to 'a generally poorly composed' resolution, or something. And I feel you should be leading with the idea that the UN should not be enforcing a particular political system.

Devil's Advocate: the UN practices democracy in its voting procedures. How does this affect your stance?

My thoughts: I would drop the bit about grammar, or bump it down to 'a generally poorly composed' resolution, or something. And I feel you should be leading with the idea that the UN should not be enforcing a particular political system.

Devil's Advocate: the UN practices democracy in its voting procedures. How does this affect your stance?


Oh that's funny. The UN is the most corrupt system of "democracy" this side of the White House.

That being said, I have no issue with democracy as a whole. I have no issue taking part in the U.N.'s version of democracy. I just think it's rather ignorant, not to mention arrogant, to discriminate against "rogue nations" within a resolution.

Ok - seriously - this is not the way to garner support.

I have already said that I am (more or less) a dictatorship, and have no problems with. What I have problems with it being told I must celebrate the differences in a nation that I find contemptable. I have no desire to overthrow it, or rule it, or change how it works, but I will not glorfiy the goodness of a nation if it is racist, homophobic or likes bunny rabbits (don't ask)

I don't automatically assume that "what is different is bad and evil" - but if I know it is bad and evil then I am damned if I am going to make friends with it and celebrate it. And I think that I was pretty clear on that.

So - you know what? I am going to vote against any repeal just to piss you off. I don't like the resolution - I don't think the UN should be forcing democracy on people at all. But if it means that you might actually pay attention to what people are writing, then I think the repeal should be voted down and the resolution should stay.


Wow. I'm glad to see that you've totally closed your mind to what you view as "wrong". Good for you. You see things as black and white. AGAIN, what I wanted was for you people to look at a nation and see the positive. Then perhaps through understanding you can maybe get a nation to see that racism, or homophobia, or whatever, is wrong, or just, or however you feel. That's a good way to UNITE a group of people. But I guess silly squabbling between different factions is what you want. So be it.

Also, if you wish to vote against such repeals then be my guest. If voting for personal vendettas is your thing then I accept that.

Wow. I'm glad to see that you've totally closed your mind to what you view as "wrong". Good for you. You see things as black and white. AGAIN, what I wanted was for you people to look at a nation and see the positive. Then perhaps through understanding you can maybe get a nation to see that racism, or homophobia, or whatever, is wrong, or just, or however you feel. That's a good way to UNITE a group of people. But I guess silly squabbling between different factions is what you want. So be it.


Sorry to break this to you, but there are some things that are right, and some that are wrong. If the nation was full of pedophiles who raped children all day, why in the name of The Three would I want to have anything to do with them? Sanctions, ignoring them and - if necessary - invading and destroying them.

But please note - no where have I indicated whether the racist, homophobic nations are democracies or dictatorships. I have no default view about government types - democracies can be pits of evil and dictatorships can be the summit of heaven for all I know- it is what the government does, not what type it is that matters.

I get what you are saying, but sometimes looking for the good in someone is not possible when there is an apparent evil. A nation can be nice to children, nice to pets, nice to it's elderly and so forth, but if it discriminates against homosexuals to the point where they are not allowed to hold jobs, to stay out of prison, to not be executed then that is something I can NOT forgive, and however good they are there is that evil to deal with.

Sorry - but that's the way it is - the whole world is not black and white, but when there is a HUGE spot of one, you can't help but not notice the other.


Also, if you wish to vote against such repeals then be my guest. If voting for personal vendettas is your thing then I accept that.

It's not. Normally I vote based on the actual text of the proposal (be it resolution or repeal), and normally it is entirely based on logic, or at the very least morals.

But you deciding to BLANKETLY assult my nation, and my judgement by deciding that I am a bad person just for not liking racist nations? What happened to celebrating the differences?

Further more the actual text of the repeal is bad, and despite the fact I agree with it, and would normally support it, I have to believe in the repeal, cause the ends do not justify the means.

Sorry.

You see things as black and white.Except that is exactly what you are doing. You cannot accept constructive critism for example.
AGAIN, what I wanted was for you people to look at a nation and see the positive. In context with the negative. Balance must be sought. Of course, it's hard to find a balance sometimes - "nations might be drowning babies, but they have nice zoo's, so that's ok"
Then perhaps through understanding you can maybe get a nation to see that racism, or homophobia, or whatever, is wrong, or just, or however you feel. Last time I heard of appeasement being used as policy against a facist state, we had a few people killed in a big war. Very bad mess. Anyway, point is we can recognise the good in some systems, but haev to recognise that when a nation is bad, it's bad.That's a good way to UNITE a group of people. Meh, I can't count the number of anti-UN organisations - but I'm still here, the UN is still here. But I guess silly squabbling between different factions is what you want. So be it.I think Pallatium would prefer positive constructive debate. Sadly, you don't appear to understand the meaning.
If voting for personal vendettas is your thing then I accept that.It's not a vendetta, you are just so damned offensive, you put people off voting for you. Right now, you could write the greatest proposal in the history of the UN, and I'd still not like it, because you'd probably be downright rude, abusive, uncooperative, dismissive & generally obnoxious whilst discussing it. In fact, you probably had more support before you started talking in this topic. I was even willing to tweak your proposal. Now, I wish I never bothered. You've turned a symathetic nation to one outright opposed to the proposal, simply because of how you have spoken to member states on here.

Play nicely, and that position will change. Stop being so eager to start on the insults, and that position will change. Stop being so damned obnoxious and that position will change.

[QUOTE=Pallatium]Sorry to break this to you, but there are some things that are right, and some that are wrong. If the nation was full of pedophiles who raped children all day, why in the name of The Three would I want to have anything to do with them? Sanctions, ignoring them and - if necessary - invading and destroying them. QUOTE]


It's funny you should mention pedophiles raping children. You just described the Catholic Church, and yet people still flock through their doors everyday. I see no one lifting a finger to sanction, or ignore, or destroy them.

Except that is exactly what you are doing. You cannot accept constructive critism for example.
In context with the negative. Balance must be sought. Of course, it's hard to find a balance sometimes - "nations might be drowning babies, but they have nice zoo's, so that's ok"
Last time I heard of appeasement being used as policy against a facist state, we had a few people killed in a big war. Very bad mess. Anyway, point is we can recognise the good in some systems, but haev to recognise that when a nation is bad, it's bad. Meh, I can't count the number of anti-UN organisations - but I'm still here, the UN is still here. I think Pallatium would prefer positive constructive debate. Sadly, you don't appear to understand the meaning.
It's not a vendetta, you are just so damned offensive, you put people off voting for you. Right now, you could write the greatest proposal in the history of the UN, and I'd still not like it, because you'd probably be downright rude, abusive, uncooperative, dismissive & generally obnoxious whilst discussing it. In fact, you probably had more support before you started talking in this topic. I was even willing to tweak your proposal. Now, I wish I never bothered. You've turned a symathetic nation to one outright opposed to the proposal, simply because of how you have spoken to member states on here.

Play nicely, and that position will change. Stop being so eager to start on the insults, and that position will change. Stop being so damned obnoxious and that position will change.

Heh.

Your "tweak" of my proposal made me want to barf. I happen to be:

AGAINST submitting proposals using the one word all caps system.

Please, please, please stop telling me that you won't support my proposal. Show some self respect for a change. If you don't wish to vote for my proposal then don't. Stop acting as if your vote is the difference maker. My proposal sunk. It would have sunk regardless. I'm okay with that. I didn't sumbit it with high hopes that you guys would take a stand for something that was right.

It's funny you should mention pedophiles raping children. You just described the Catholic Church, and yet people still flock through their doors everyday. I see no one lifting a finger to sanction, or ignore, or destroy them.

Way to go - you are basically saying that cause the CC is evil, people should destroy it. And yet your resolution says the opposite - you are saying we should find the good in it and try to change the bad. Yet you are asking for it to be destroyed.

Way to go - you are basically saying that cause the CC is evil, people should destroy it. And yet your resolution says the opposite - you are saying we should find the good in it and try to change the bad. Yet you are asking for it to be destroyed.


Hey, thanks for twisting my words.

First of all, I never said that people should destroy the Catholic Church. I was merely saying that according to your beliefs, the Catholic Church should be sanctioned, ignored, or destroyed. Those aren't my beliefs, they're yours. Regarding the Catholic Church I stick with what I said. Even though it is "evil" I believe that those within the church can change for the better if shown the proper way.

Second, why is it that you choose the worst possible fights?

Hey, thanks for twisting my words.

First of all, I never said that people should destroy the Catholic Church. I was merely saying that according to your beliefs, the Catholic Church should be sanctioned, ignored, or destroyed. Those aren't my beliefs, they're yours. Regarding the Catholic Church I stick with what I said. Even though it is "evil" I believe that those within the church can change for the better if shown the proper way.

Second, why is it that you choose the worst possible fights?

Holy crap (bad choice of words).

All I said was - originally - I am not going to glorify a nation when I find it to be so contemptable. Which is what you repeal would require me to accept that I have to do.

I didn't say that said nation should be destroyed - just that that was an option.


And - why am I chosing the worst fights? I am saying that to support a repeal, I have to not only agree that the resolution needs repealing, but that I have to agree with the reasons for the repeal as well - and in this case asking me to rejoice in the actions of a nation I find contemptable is not something I can do.

I fight the fights that need fighting, otherwise I how can I live with myself?

What you don't seem to understand is that I'm talking about U.N. member nations. Seeing how this was proposed in the U.N., then it would only effect U.N. nations. Are you still with me? Good. Is pedophilia legal according to U.N. resolutions? No! Of course not! So by accepting and celebrating the differences of fellow U.N. member nations you wouldn't be forced to embrace ideals that you find so contemptible. I think that you just don't want to encourage understanding and tolerance. I think you want to safely discriminate against so-called "rogue nations". Otherwise why would you be making such a big deal over nothing? Either that or you lack the basic comprehension of a third grader.

What you don't seem to understand is that I'm talking about U.N. member nations. Seeing how this was proposed in the U.N., then it would only effect U.N. nations. Are you still with me? Good. Is pedophilia legal according to U.N. resolutions? No! Of course not! So by accepting and celebrating the differences of fellow U.N. member nations you wouldn't be forced to embrace ideals that you find so contemptible. I think that you just don't want to encourage understanding and tolerance. I think you want to safely discriminate against so-called "rogue nations". Otherwise why would you be making such a big deal over nothing? Either that or you lack the basic comprehension of a third grader.

Ok - just because pedophilia is illegal doesn't mean it won't happen. Further more the resolution makes NO mention of the punishment for it - it could just be a slap on the wrist or it could be a nice house in the country. So while it is illegal, it doesn't mean that a UN member nation can't found it's society on it.

Secondly - the death penalty. The UN hasn't ruled on that either way, so nations are free to execute people, and that is something I find totally contemptable - no one should be put to death for their crimes, no matter what the crime is.

Thirdly - you really have no idea about my nation. Given some of my other debates (both as my past and present nation) I think I am one of the most liberal and tolerant people I know (smirk - way to blow my own trumpet hey?). And a few others have accussed me of being way too liberal and tolerant in a great number of areas. I have spent a good portion of this week arguing that gay marriage, abortion and euthansia should remain legal within the UN, despite the fact a lot of other nations want each or all of them banned. Further more I am open to people of all religions, political ideals, races and societies.

But my tolerance is not infinite - if someone is doing something I find contemptable I will not rejoice in that fact and I will not celebrate their culture - cause to do so would be hypocritical at best and a huge betrayal of my people at worst. So (if the above repeals go through) if a nation bans abortion, but makes good coffee, I am not going to celebrate the coffee while abortion is still banned. It would just be *wrong*

I have no issues with dictatorships or democracies - no problem with any type of government (even theocracies). But celebrating the good points of a nation that is almost entirely evil - NEVER going to happen.

You know Tzorsland, judging from your comments in this thread and the one about the current resolution at vote, I'm beginning to get the impression that you don't like the idea of repeals at all. Well I've got news for you, repeals are not a method for preventing bad resolutions from being passed, they're a way to get rid of bad resolutions after they've been passed.

I want this to be very clear here. Ah. OOPS, SORRY. I APPOLOGISE.

Apparently these forums makes me trigger happy. I confused resolution #8 "Citizen's Rule Required" with #128 "Representation in Taxation." I withdraw my objection. I would support the repeal.

I am in favor of repeals under the right circumstances. This is what I would call an administrative or cosmetic repeal. UN resolutions, for all practical purposes only apply at the point of resolution passage, so for all practical purposes, any resolutions passed before you become a member is only a matter of your own personal role play. Repeals are never equal to resolutions. Thus the notion of repeal/resolution is idiotic, and the thought that a resolution can be approved one week and repealed the next is more so.

Repeals of resolutions that really had no impact on most of the nations in the first place might have a minor negative backwash on those nations. If those effects are minor and the impact of such cosmetic revisions promote a better attitude towards UN resolution writing, then I am for it.

Well I would be for it ... but at the monent I can't find it. :(