NationStates Jolt Archive

Following the seeming failure of the original proposal "Ban Deviant Behaviours", the government of Habardia decided to revamp this proposal and make it legal according to U.N. standards. For one, as much as I hate that, the sodomy part is gone (it will have to be dealt with separately), and some other changes have been put into place.

Ban Deviancies
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Habardia

Description: This proposal, when enacted, will provide a set of guidelines for individual countries to follow in regards to moral standards. Deviancies shall be classified into one of three categories: indecency, immorality & abomination. The punishments shall be in accordance to the deed. Thus an indecency will result in a fine; an immorality shal be punished by incarceration; and an abomination shall have as its result either corporal punishment, mutilation, exile or execution, in accordance to the crime. Each state shall decide the level of punishment for indecencies and immoralities, but the categories shall be enacted in all nations and abominations shall be punished by the described means. As for what constitutes an abomination, it shall be defined as that which goes against the nature of Man, such as slaying of a parent or elderly person, sexual abuse of a child under twelve, or sexual misbehaviours such as bestiality. These crimes shall be punished by one of the four types of correctionary procedures described above, the enactment of which should be made public in order to deter possible deviants, however this is not a requirement. Also noted must be the intent of this proposition, not of bringing back a world of executions and floggings, but of enabling states to use these methods, in as small a frequency as possible, to restore moral decency to the World.

So tell me what you think...

So tell me what you think...

I'm sorry, but as a deligate i will turn down this resolution if it comes to the foor. I believe that it is up to the Member State to decide what punishment is fit for certain offences. It shouldn't be up to the NSUN to decide how I punish civilians for crimes comited in MY nation.

This proposal oversteps the boudns of the UN, in my oppinion.

Sadly, I must say I agree with you in that it oversteps boundaries. The thing is, I believe the UN has overstepped its boundaries in many areas already, and this is my way of trying to harness that force for good and actually using it to bring about a good change for the world.

It grieves the citizens of my humble nation that our objections to corporal and capital punishment were not addressed. My failure to emphasize those aspects of our culture is also personally distressing. Should the proposal in question pass, what will become of those nations whose people have decided to forgo the brutality of murder and assault upon themselves and their neighbors? Is a world dominated by the ever shifting winds of 'morality' the best that we, the members of this great body, the best we are capable of creating?

高原由
Yoshi Takahara
United Nations Ambassador
Krioval

First of all I'd just like to say no. Really no.

it shall be defined as that which goes against the nature of Man,
Debatable. Personally I believe that there is no 'nature of Man'.

such as slaying of a parent or elderly person,
As long as this is vague enough to outlaw euthanasia I think this proposal is illegal. And I'm not sure why parents or elderly people need special protection. If the fact that murder is illegal in most member states isn't enough to put you off killing someone then someone saying it goes against 'the nature of Man' isn't going to do anything.

sexual abuse of a child under twelve,
Including sex play with other children under twelve? Paedophilia is already outlawed.

or sexual misbehaviours such as bestiality.
And sodomy, dirty phone calls, and blow jobs? No? Well it's vague enough to suggest that. Yes? Then come out with it so I can disagree with what you are actually saying and go to bed.

What about relationships between people of a different species?

Sadly, I must say I agree with you in that it oversteps boundaries. The thing is, I believe the UN has overstepped its boundaries in many areas already, and this is my way of trying to harness that force for good and actually using it to bring about a good change for the world.
See, we personally agree with you on that. We just don't see what you are doing as good. We just think you are trying to ram pointless moral standards down out throat. Some that have already been addressed.

We see good as making sure everyone is equal, making sure people are free to end their lives, and shag (consensually) whoever they choose with means to avoid having kids and STDs come from that. So maybe I'm being a little silly but I don't think you are being good.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Also noted must be the intent of this proposition, not of bringing back a world of executions and floggings, but of enabling states to use these methods, in as small a frequency as possible, to restore moral decency to the World.

Nations are already able to use these (I don't believe they've been prevented by UN legislation - we've banned torture, and "cruel and unusual punishment" which is too vague to stop much - and if they have, then this proposal is illegal until those earlier resolutions are repealed). You're forcing them to use them - and you don't even include allowances for the young and the mentally ill.

And until beastiality is defined, it could be seen to include relations between intelligent species. As long as both parties are capable of informed consent, it's none of the state's business whether humans and elves, or Sarkarasetans and Nekomimi want to engage in sexual relations.

or sexual misbehaviours such as bestiality

[hope you will forgive me for my real life reference once again]

i first want to say that Malaysia is a very interesting nation, as it's a democracy which undergo a very profound move towards more human rights, this nation is also interesting as it's a new economic dragon and because the main religion is islam. i like very much this country.

In 1999, Ibrahim Anwar the then Malaysia deputy PM was charged and jailed for sodomy!!! (political reasons). Hopefully Mr Anwar was freed in 2004.

This is one of the many exemple why i fully disagre with this proposition.

Following the seeming failure of the original proposal "Ban Deviant Behaviours", the government of Habardia decided to revamp this proposal and make it legal according to U.N. standards. For one, as much as I hate that, the sodomy part is gone (it will have to be dealt with separately), and some other changes have been put into place.


Sodomy can't be dealt with at all - "Gay Rights" and "Sexual Freedom" (this will become important later) pretty much forbid that.


Description: This proposal, when enacted, will provide a set of guidelines for individual countries to follow in regards to moral standards. Deviancies shall be classified into one of three categories: indecency, immorality & abomination.


Arguably okay...


The punishments shall be in accordance to the deed. Thus an indecency will result in a fine;


Can the fine be paid back to the person who committed the crime?


an immorality shal be punished by incarceration;


So if we were to lock them up in their own home, but insuring they are free to come and go as they please, that would be okay?


and an abomination shall have as its result either corporal punishment, mutilation, exile or execution, in accordance to the crime.


Ok - we subject them to a slap on the wrist. That's obviously corporal punishment. Further more I suspect that "mutilation" would be banned under "End Barbaric Punishments"


Each state shall decide the level of punishment for indecencies and immoralities,

Ok - everything is an abomination so we just slap peolpe on the wrist for each type.


but the categories shall be enacted in all nations and abominations shall be punished by the described means.


Fine by me.


As for what constitutes an abomination, it shall be defined as that which goes against the nature of Man, such as slaying of a parent


Does this cover self-defence? Or "diminished capacity" killings? (such as if a parent repeatedly beats you and punishes you and one night you snap and stab them with a kitchen knife)

or elderly person,

"Legalize Euthanisia" pretty much indicates that not all deaths of parents/elderly people is a crime. I take it that you would exempt those.

Further more in nations that have the death penatly, it might not be beyond reason that an elderly person is put to death for a crime. I assume that that is exempt from this as well?

And - finally - there is killing in self-defence/defence of others. If an elderly person goes a rampage with a gun then it might not be beyond reason that they have to be killed to stop them rampaging.


sexual abuse of a child under twelve,


No real arguement there, except we class pedophillia as a disease, and not a crime, so we tend to treat it rather than punish it.


or sexual misbehaviours such as bestiality.


There could be an arguement made to protect this under sexual freedom, but I admit not much of an arguement since that refers to "two or more consenting adults" and not "consenting animals". However a strict reading of "Definition Of Marriage" gives nations the right to extend marriage across Species borders, and so you would be punishing those protected under another resolution. (I don't agree with the strict reading, however I am not the only nation in the UN)


These crimes shall be punished by one of the four types of correctionary procedures described above,


A slap on the wrist? Fine.


the enactment of which should be made public in order to deter possible deviants, however this is not a requirement.


So we can ignore this part? Good. Plus an arguement could be made that "End Barbaric Punishments" outlaws "cruel and unusual punishments", and forcing people to be punished in public could be classed as cruel and unusual.


Also noted must be the intent of this proposition, not of bringing back a world of executions and floggings,


Just a happy side effect?


but of enabling states to use these methods, in as small a frequency as possible, to restore moral decency to the World.


Who's brand of moral decency? Most of the crimes listed here are already protected under UN law in one way or another (or to one degree or another) so clearly the UN believes that it is moral enough.

Further more - torturing and executing people is not a way to make the world a better place. All it will do is ensure there are less people in it.


So tell me what you think...

Hopefully you will have figured that out already.

This proposal, when enacted, will provide a set of guidelines for individual countries to follow in regards to moral standards.

Governmentally enforced Morality is tyrany. No support.


Deviancies shall be classified into one of three categories: indecency, immorality & abomination. The punishments shall be in accordance to the deed. Thus an indecency will result in a fine; an immorality shal be punished by incarceration; and an abomination shall have as its result either corporal punishment, mutilation, exile or execution, in accordance to the crime.

It's obvious, your state understands nothing of what justice actually means.


Each state shall decide the level of punishment for indecencies and immoralities, but the categories shall be enacted in all nations and abominations shall be punished by the described means.

No... And below is the perfect illustrations as to why...


As for what constitutes an abomination, it shall be defined as that which goes against the nature of Man, such as slaying of a parent or elderly person, sexual abuse of a child under twelve, or sexual misbehaviours such as bestiality.

Nature of "Man"? What the hell does the Nature of you barely out of the trees terran monkies, have to do with the Tekaniou, Pyretikos or the Kataskeusma of the Tekanian planetary systems?


These crimes shall be punished by one of the four types of correctionary procedures described above, the enactment of which should be made public in order to deter possible deviants, however this is not a requirement. Also noted must be the intent of this proposition, not of bringing back a world of executions and floggings, but of enabling states to use these methods, in as small a frequency as possible, to restore moral decency to the World.

We, honestly, care little about your backward planet...


So tell me what you think...

I think... Or rather, I know, you know little about many of us UN Member-States.

Governmentally enforced Morality is tyrany. No support.


While this in NO WAY should be read as support of this proposal, the UN has happily enforced morallity on people for decades (ok - three years). A lot of it's resolutions lay down moral laws in one way or another. The only reason this proposal is causing so much dislike is that it tries to enforce morals to a degree people don't like.

So tell me what you think...
I hate it.

*applause*

No support here...for more reasons than we have the time or energy to list.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

No no no no no no no

Putting aside the bizarre imposition of forms of punishment, the total redundancy of the resolution (if anything is that bad, it will ALREADY BE ILLEGAL), and the vague definition, would you at least consider turning it into a more formal format? I mean:

BELIEVING that eating carrots is an abomination

DECLARES that eating carrots shall be punishable by flogging

It just makes it easier to discuss and implement than a rambling essay. Sorry to be so negative...but we're unlikely to support proposals written like or saying this.

BELIEVING that eating carrots is an abomination

DECLARES that eating carrots shall be punishable by flogging

OOC: You've been quoterised!

Your original proposal was universally despised, not because it was a badly written proposal, but because it's just a stupid idea. As such it will recieve no support from us.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Before replying I enquired with my Department of Welfare, Pensions and Human Rights minister the Rt Hon Chris P. Bacon.

He read this proposal, began laughing, then threw his brandy glass at my head before saying something along the lines of "We're PRO-human rights you dumb-ass! Where's my brandy?" Then running round his office and doing cartwheels down the corridor.

Therefore Caersws has decided that it will not follow this imposition of one person's moral code on other human beings, it is up to the nations involved to decide if they wish to implement the whackjob ideas it puts forward.

While this in NO WAY should be read as support of this proposal, the UN has happily enforced morallity on people for decades (ok - three years). A lot of it's resolutions lay down moral laws in one way or another. The only reason this proposal is causing so much dislike is that it tries to enforce morals to a degree people don't like.

Actually, most UN resolutions are based in a realm of ethics, as opposed to morals.

Actually, most UN resolutions are based in a realm of ethics, as opposed to morals.

I would disagree, but I guess it is a matter of perspective :}

I find it amusing that you believe moral decency can be restored to the world through punishments such as mutilation and execution. Even exile seems a little weird - sending someone you think is amoral to another nation? And punishment is so vague it can be used in any number of disgusting manners. Your proposal is essentially hypocritical in that respect.

Definitely overextending the U.Ns bounds, as well. Let them decide how to best deal with their own criminals - there are too many special cases.

Definitely overextending the U.Ns bounds, as well. Let them decide how to best deal with their own criminals - there are too many special cases.Would you be saying that if this was a proposal to abolish the death penalty?

Would you be saying that if this was a proposal to abolish the death penalty?

I would.

I'm guessing you didn't read my rather extensive post on your proposal - it deals with a lot of things beyond sodomy.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9882392&postcount=30

BTW, resolution is still illegal... due to resolution 41: End Barbaric Punishments. I also think you might have issues with.....say.....freedom of Conscience (117)

Sadly, I must say I agree with you in that it oversteps boundaries. The thing is, I believe the UN has overstepped its boundaries in many areas already, and this is my way of trying to harness that force for good and actually using it to bring about a good change for the world.

:rolleyes:

Last time that was attempted, the resolution was repealed by 20% greater force than it was passed by in less than a week - though I note that the people that were doing it weren't the people who made the resolution

I honestly don't care about NatSov.

Ban Deviancies- new and improved
From what i have read I have found it may be NEW but is far from Improved.

Would you be saying that if this was a proposal to abolish the death penalty?

Abolishing the death penalty would mean ensuring that all special cases are protected from unnecessary death. That's a bit different from ensuring that special cases are brutally mutilated or killed. Either way you're weirdly off-topic and not responding to my argument.

I do believe, and I might be wrong here, that what Ohmygodtheykilledkenny was hinting at was the hypocrisy of the UN in saying it will not violate national sovereignty when asked to enforce unpopular resolutions, then going around and very happily imposing on nations with liberal lawmaking, such as Gay Rights or Ban Barbaric Punishments, an many more.

I do believe, and I might be wrong here, that what Ohmygodtheykilledkenny was hinting at was the hypocrisy of the UN in saying it will not violate national sovereignty when asked to enforce unpopular resolutions, then going around and very happily imposing on nations with liberal lawmaking, such as Gay Rights or Ban Barbaric Punishments, an many more.

Yep. That's pretty much the size of it. When anti-sovereigntists want their views made law, they're doing it for the good of all nations despite the objections of those who disagree. But when a proposal comes up that the anti-sovereigntists object to, suddenly it's not allowed for folks to impose laws on them that violate their ideology.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Yep. That's pretty much the size of it. When anti-sovereigntists want their views made law, they're doing it for the good of all nations despite the objections of those who disagree. But when a proposal comes up that the anti-sovereigntists object to, suddenly it's not allowed for folks to impose laws on them that violate their ideology.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Damn. I had a 'that's not hypocrisy...that's international federalism' all juiced up. But I guess this pretty much covers it.

Yep. That's pretty much the size of it. When anti-sovereigntists want their views made law, they're doing it for the good of all nations despite the objections of those who disagree. But when a proposal comes up that the anti-sovereigntists object to, suddenly it's not allowed for folks to impose laws on them that violate their ideology.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

To be fair, I have never made any bones of the issue that I have limits. I am almost certainly what you would call an anti-sovereigntist (I support gay rights, abortion rights, euthanasia, sexual freedom and so forth), but I have never supported the idea that I will hand over my entire government to the UN. Gun control, capital punishment, drug control and so forth - all issues that are best decided by my nation, not by the UN. And I have never deviated from that position.

I do believe, and I might be wrong here, that what Ohmygodtheykilledkenny was hinting at was the hypocrisy of the UN in saying it will not violate national sovereignty when asked to enforce unpopular resolutions, then going around and very happily imposing on nations with liberal lawmaking, such as Gay Rights or Ban Barbaric Punishments, an many more.

I think the hipocracy you are talking about is from people like me who only respect national soverignty in certain circumstances, such as those Pallatium metioned like guns and drugs, and when that soveringty won't impact in a negative way on the lives of the people of a nation.

If a proposal gives or extends civil rights for the individual citizens of nations, like the two you mentioned, then I support it. If, like your ideas, a proposal takes away civil rights from the individual citizens of a nation, I oppose it. Simple really.

I think the hipocracy you are talking about is from people like me who only respect national soverignty in certain circumstances, such as those Pallatium metioned like guns and drugs, and when that soveringty won't impact in a negative way on the lives of the people of a nation.

If a proposal gives or extends civil rights for the individual citizens of nations, like the two you mentioned, then I support it. If, like your ideas, a proposal takes away civil rights from the individual citizens of a nation, I oppose it. Simple really.
How are the rights to bear arms or use drugs somehow distinct? Your objection seems to be less about 'exten[sion of] civil rights' and more about picking and choosing when it's ok to enforce your beliefs and others, whilst they can't respond in kind.

How are the rights to bear arms or use drugs somehow distinct? Your objection seems to be less about 'exten[sion of] civil rights' and more about picking and choosing when it's ok to enforce your beliefs and others, whilst they can't respond in kind.

(OOC) I'm not American, so I've never ever seen ownership of a gun as a "right".

(OC) Guns and drugs affect other citizens in a negative way so need to be dealt with differently than say Gay rights. A person having a bad trip after using the wrong drug, or using a gun to solve an arguement is a lot different than what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom or the private decision a woman makes with her doctor about an unwanted pregnacy.

People using guns and drugs usually aren't discriminated against by governments in the same way gays, women or other minority groups are. Thats the difference. As I've said before, in this thread I think, if my views make me a hypocrite, so be it, I don't care.

I don't care if you're liberal, conservative, or anything else. Law in the U.N. is made by the unapathetic majority. The voting majority in the U.N. happens to be liberal. That's just the way it is. That's not to say I condemn disagreement; far from it. However, conservatives complaining about the NSUN passing liberal resolutions is like liberals complaining about the people of the United States electing George Bush. They/he might be stupid, but the people have spoken for better or worse and the other side bitching isn't going to change anything. Look on the bright side: it's a hell of a lot easier to leave the NSUN if you disagree with it than it is to leave your country in real life. I'm all for a diverse membership in the NSUN, but conservative members should be comfortable with the fact that they are a minority there, because that's the way it is.

Ok, well, I'm not going to press this, because I sense we're clashing slightly too often over what are in all probability trivialities, all because of disagreement in one thread, so I'll make this my last one.

(OOC) I'm not American, so I've never ever seen ownership of a gun as a "right".

OOC: Nor am I.

IC: Right, but then you're either acknowledging that there is no such thing as a right to private property, or that we should make exceptions for certain things based on criteria that we skip over in other areas (unless you're in favour of banning knives and bleach).

(OC) Guns and drugs affect other citizens in a negative way so need to be dealth with differently than say Gay rights. A person having a bad trip after using the wrong drug, or using a gun to solve an arguement is a lot different than what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom or the private decision a woman makes with her doctor about an unwanted pregnacy.

How about Freedom of Speech? If you don't agree with it, fine. But I suspect you do. And this clearly has the ability to affect other citizens in a negative way. Many free speech advocates actively defend their right to offend. And what about driving a car alone? It benefits one person; it clogs the lungs of millions.

People using guns and drugs usually aren't discriminated against by governments in the same way gays, women or other minority groups are. Thats the difference.

I'm confused. This was about civil rights, and now it's moved into minority discrimination; besides in the RL world, women don't constitute a minority. I don't believe that means they should be any more oppressed. People using guns and drugs, in general, are far more discriminated against these days, as they are actively prohibited from possession and public activity under some regimes, whereas all UN nations by law must not discriminate in similar ways against gays or women.

As I've said before, in this thread I think, if my views make me a hypocrite, so be it, I don't care.

Ok. That's a fair enough opt out.

I'm only going to comment on one thing because we are getting way off topic and are severly risking getting our butts kicked for it :).

The right to own property question.

I do believe there are limits to property ownership. We are a socialist nation after all.

The fact different nations believe in and have different limits is another reason I am for nat sov in the case of guns. The people of my nation don't have the right to own a gun, just as they don't have the right to own kiddy porn or a slave.

Abolishing the death penalty would mean ensuring that all special cases are protected from unnecessary death. That's a bit different from ensuring that special cases are brutally mutilated or killed. Either way you're weirdly off-topic and not responding to my argument.Look, I don't give a damn about your argument, because I mostly agree with it: Nations are best equipped to make their own decisions where criminal justice is concerned. My only concern is your glaring inconsistency on this matter, which you vainly attempt to justify with a rather lame protest about "unnecessary death" (which is entirely a matter of opinion). As it is, however, I am withdrawing from this discussion, as it never really interested me much to begin with.

I too think property ownership is something too complex and distinct to legislate on an internationally federal level.

And you're right, we are semi-hijacking...but I think it's still relevant, in two regards:

1. what constitutes a deviancy?
2. should deviances be punishable under UN law?

As I've stated, I'm less concerned with punishments, although would prefer Gruenberg retained sovereign control of criminal sentencing, and more with what the proposal is actually trying to do. I consider 'deviancy' a social concept, and as such consider it so diverse that it becomes very hard - even in the case of paedophilia, for example - to legislate internationally. Hell, in Gruenberg, we have different ages of consent on a regional level (those mountain girls sure know how to have a good time). As such, I dislike most moral decency proposals...but also many human rights ones, as I don't believe all states acknowledge or should acknowledge the same rights.

That, more than my objection to flogging, or the presentation, is why I oppose this proposal.

i know this argument has probably gone through, but to me, a lot of nations would be against this soley on the principle of 'you forcing your laws on us'. to me, we would prefer to determin what we belive is 'moral' and 'immoral' without interference from other nations.

How are the rights to bear arms or use drugs somehow distinct? Your objection seems to be less about 'exten[sion of] civil rights' and more about picking and choosing when it's ok to enforce your beliefs and others, whilst they can't respond in kind.

To me (at least) it is a matter of "what works for a nation" on somethings, but there has to be a minimum.

If a nation wants the death penalty, because they think they need it, or because it works in their nation, they should have it.

If they want guns - ditto.

But everyone should have the right to love and control over their own body regardless of whether or not the majority of the nation agree.

That's why guns, drugs, capital punishment are local issues, while gay rights, abortion, euthaniasia are UN issues.

In my opinion :}

So, in your point of view, it is the UN's job to grant people freedom after freedom without worrying what they imply and then it is the Nations' job to clean up the mess?

So, in your point of view, it is the UN's job to grant people freedom after freedom without worrying what they imply and then it is the Nations' job to clean up the mess?

What mess?

By mess I mean that the UN sees it fit to hand out freedoms while it seems to be the Governments' job to enforce social order after UN resolutions have made it legal to do this and that.

By mess I mean that the UN sees it fit to hand out freedoms while it seems to be the Governments' job to enforce social order after UN resolutions have made it legal to do this and that.
one word: yes

What do you mean by "social order"?

Why does a nation have to enforce it?

I am trying to understand where you are coming from with this but just don't get it. Either I'm an idiot (probably the answer) or our views are just so different that I can't see what your problem is.

By mess I mean that the UN sees it fit to hand out freedoms while it seems to be the Governments' job to enforce social order after UN resolutions have made it legal to do this and that.
If social order must be enforced, then it is not orderly.

Yep. That's pretty much the size of it. When anti-sovereigntists want their views made law, they're doing it for the good of all nations despite the objections of those who disagree. But when a proposal comes up that the anti-sovereigntists object to, suddenly it's not allowed for folks to impose laws on them that violate their ideology.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Please

Certainly, the vast majority (aka: the fluffies) have this issue, but that doesn't mean that all International Federalists have this issue. If we have an abortion debate where someone is trying to tell us that abortion should be made illegal - I don't just flaunt legalities and NatSov arguments (actually, I don't ever flaunt NatSov arguments in those cases), I'll debate it at that level. Certainly, there are things that I think are better suited at a different level of government (for example, tax policy should be left to the individual governments as I see it normal for each level of government to be able to control their own tax policies - no matter how many layers are above them). However, that doesn't mean I'm being any more of a hypocrite. To take the discussion of guns, I think it is absolutely ridiculous not to have all guns registered, but there are certainly good reasons both for and against ownership of guns or specific types of guns and whatnot, so I can't support a resolution that bans or prevents the ban of guns (well....I might support bans of ownership for certain types of guns).

When I say I'm an International Federalist, I'm saying I think there are some things that are indeed fair for the UN to legislate on - normally Human Rights though certain aspects of economic, environmental, social justice, etc policies I'd also see under our scope. If the UN legislates against what I believe on that scope, fine. I made my arguments, I explained my beliefs, and if the UN doesn't agree, then I don't have the right to tell them I'm wrong. Plain and simple. If its something that I see as belonging at a different level of government, then I'll explain why - just as NatSov's do. However, I also have reason on why I think something does belong at the International level.

This doesn't make me a hypocrite. To claim that you either be for NatSov on everything or against NatSov on everything is to claim black and white. To claim we can't believe otherwise, that's the ultimate hypocracy - as you argue for NatSov because governments might believe otherwise.

By mess I mean that the UN sees it fit to hand out freedoms while it seems to be the Governments' job to enforce social order after UN resolutions have made it legal to do this and that.

We say what they absolutely have the right to do. The rest is up to you to decide.

Please

Certainly, the vast majority (aka: the fluffies) have this issue, but that doesn't mean that all International Federalists have this issue. If we have an abortion debate where someone is trying to tell us that abortion should be made illegal - I don't just flaunt legalities and NatSov arguments (actually, I don't ever flaunt NatSov arguments in those cases), I'll debate it at that level.

I wasn't referring to you or anyone else using national sovereignty as an argument. Nonetheless, you wish others to respect your beliefs about what's best for your own nation, and understandably would not be inclined to comply with a resolution that you saw as destroying what you believe are human rights under your system of thought. Many UN nations feel the same way. Some choose not to subject others to the frustration of having their domestic policies overridden, but your nation does. That's hypocrisy. Fortunately for a rational creature like yourself Forgottenlord, hypocrisy is not a fallacy, just bad form.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I wasn't referring to you or anyone else using national sovereignty as an argument.

No, you were just making a blanket statement about the entire movement and those who are within it. The opinion was held about all equally.

Nonetheless, you wish others to respect your beliefs about what's best for your own nation,

Not entirely, but I'll get to this in a second

and understandably would not be inclined to comply with a resolution that you saw as destroying what you believe are human rights under your system of thought.

My nation I hold generally distinct from my UN policy. If my nation's interests were in the best interest of all my actions, then I wouldn't even be a part of the UN, as the nation's best interests do not necessarily coincide with the best interests of MANY factors in this world. In many ways, the Iraqi war is in the best interests of the US - but that doesn't mean it's right, and it certainly doesn't mean that, in Pres. Bush's position I would've started it.

The best interests of mankind, of the environments, the individual, the government, the nation and probably a dozen other things lie in the balance of actions that are taken, and I govern based upon those and my actions within the UN work on a likewise scenario. Certainly, I would be uninclined to welcome a policy I oppose, but that alone does not create the hypocracy. Nor is my claim that I believe my beliefs to be greater than your own. The hypocracy exists when on a single issue, where you would completely trump in one direction, to start criticizing someone for trying to overthrow your belief in completely the other direction. It is a hypocracy to slam someone's proposal because it shows they believe their belief to be above yours when you did the same thing two proposals earlier.

Many UN nations feel the same way. Some choose not to subject others to the frustration of having their domestic policies overridden, but your nation does.

Yes I do

That's hypocrisy.

No it's not. A hypocracy requires that, should I be put in the alternate position, I do what anyone else who I blasted for those same actions earlier when they disagreed with me. It is not hypocritical to believe something different than someone else, or act contrary to what anyone else does. It is hypocritical to perform actions that you have criticized. THAT is the difference.

Fortunately for a rational creature like yourself Forgottenlord, hypocrisy is not a fallacy, just bad form.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

How is "bad form" not a fallacy? Obviously you feel that there is a flaw in there if you consider it to be "bad", so therefore, it is a fallacy.

No, you were just making a blanket statement about the entire movement and those who are within it. The opinion was held about all equally.

Would you prefer that I said "many anti-sovereigntists tend to do" those things rather than issuing a blanket statement? I'm certainly willing to do that for the sake of accuracy.

<snipped OOC example from presumably IC post>

The best interests of mankind, of the environments, the individual, the government, the nation and probably a dozen other things lie in the balance of actions that are taken, and I govern based upon those and my actions within the UN work on a likewise scenario. Certainly, I would be uninclined to welcome a policy I oppose, but that alone does not create the hypocracy. Nor is my claim that I believe my beliefs to be greater than your own. The hypocracy exists when on a single issue, where you would completely trump in one direction, to start criticizing someone for trying to overthrow your belief in completely the other direction. It is a hypocracy to slam someone's proposal because it shows they believe their belief to be above yours when you did the same thing two proposals earlier.

Are you implying hypocrisy on my part, sir? I do not recall forcing my beliefs on others in violation of the right to self-determination. I do not recall slamming any proposal because of faults I perceive in the author. Perhaps this is merely a trick of memory, but the memories do not come forward.

I do recall upholding the right of self-determination of all nations and individuals to the greatest extent that my limited powers can do so. I recall giving every nation the same courtesy the Federation would like to receive by upholding their right to self-determination via the United Nations Security Act. I also recall giving every individual the same courtesy I would like to receive by promoting individual liberty and responsibility via "Right to Self-Protection" while not infringing on the right of nations that do not believe as the Federation does.

No it's not. A hypocracy requires that, should I be put in the alternate position, I do what anyone else who I blasted for those same actions earlier when they disagreed with me.

Hypocrisy simply means--at least in the common Hotrodder understanding of the term--that you violate your own principles. Have you not supported tyranny (whether you used that particular word or not) by the UN in supporting anti-sovereignty legislation that destroys many a nation's right to self-determination? Have you not condemned said tyranny in many cases where the right of self-determination of individuals were involved? Does not a woman own her own body? Does she not appropriately have a large degree of sovereignty in her own affairs? Does not a nation own it's own body? Does not a nation appropriately have a large degree of sovereignty in its own affairs? Indeed, you support tyranny over entire nations while choosing to grant liberty to individuals. In short, you often try to destroy liberty in the name of liberty, propping up a certain kind of tyranny in order to prevent another kind of tyranny. This is a fact. You may, of course, feel that tyranny is justified to prevent tyranny in many cases (though you have admitted that in some cases such as taxation you feel differently). Perhaps it is so. Perhaps the hypocrisy is justified by something I do not yet understand. If so, please explain why this destruction of liberty in the interest of liberty is justified.

How is "bad form" not a fallacy? Obviously you feel that there is a flaw in there if you consider it to be "bad", so therefore, it is a fallacy.

A fallacy, in the context which I mentioned it, is an error in reasoning. It does not necessarily have anything to do with a social perception of bad form. My apologies for not making that clear previously.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Would you prefer that I said "many anti-sovereigntists tend to do" those things rather than issuing a blanket statement? I'm certainly willing to do that for the sake of accuracy.

I'll have to get back to this at some point. I have....mixed feelings on the matter.

Are you implying hypocrisy on my part, sir?

The thought of doing so had, I admit, occurred to me. However, I realized the fallacy of the argument and the ridiculousness of it and thus I tried to refrain from doing so, so if you do read it in there, it was unintentional

I do not recall forcing my beliefs on others in violation of the right to self-determination. I do not recall slamming any proposal because of faults I perceive in the author. Perhaps this is merely a trick of memory, but the memories do not come forward.

I am not trying to claim you do. I am stating that your comment about my actions and beliefs being hypocritical is flawed. That doesn't make you hypocritical, though it may make you wrong.

Hypocrisy simply means--at least in the common Hotrodder understanding of the term--that you violate your own principles. Have you not supported tyranny (whether you used that particular word or not) by the UN in supporting anti-sovereignty legislation that destroys many a nation's right to self-determination?

Yes

Have you not condemned said tyranny in many cases where the right of self-determination of individuals were involved?

I have not. I have stated my belief, I have explained it, I have argued it, I have attacked the belief, not what one does with it. I have welcomed and even aided in the editing of many proposals which I vehemetely disagreed with. This does not make my actions hypocritical.

Does not a woman own her own body? Does she not appropriately have a large degree of sovereignty in her own affairs?

She has full thought control of her own body, therefore she owns it, yes. The sovereignty of her affairs only goes as far as others let her.

Does not a nation own it's own body?[/QUOTE]

A nation's territory and government are recognized by other nations, just as the rules and regulations that some claim to have at the roleplay may or may not be recognized under the concept of "godmodding". A nation owns its own body insofar as what we let it own its own body.

Does not a nation appropriately have a large degree of sovereignty in its own affairs?

We, as an International community, decide whether we recognize that sovereignty, and that sovereignty is limited as we see fit, just as nations grant the sovereignty to their people as they see fit.

Indeed, you support tyranny over entire nations while choosing to grant liberty to individuals. In short, you often try to destroy liberty in the name of liberty, propping up a certain kind of tyranny in order to prevent another kind of tyranny.

The individual I hold above the state. As such, I bind the state's rights to protect those of the individual.

It is an interesting claim that such a thing is in fact a hypocracy, but one must first prove the contradiction. The government, I believe, is to serve and protect its citizens. It is a job, not a being. It is an organization. Its rights are granted to it through its citizens and its fellow nations. This is true of both democracies and dictatorships - and everything in between and beyond (and history has proven it over and over again). How is this different than a human? A human does not need to ask its organs or cells whether it can govern its own body, thought it does need to ask fellow humans.

You may claim that I am promoting the tyranny by forcing a creation of freedom, but I could equally argue that you are creating tyranny while forcing freedom. If such a thing is hypocritical, then it isn't "bad form", it's plain and simple "life".

This is a fact. You may, of course, feel that tyranny is justified to prevent tyranny in many cases (though you have admitted that in some cases such as taxation you feel differently). Perhaps it is so. Perhaps the hypocrisy is justified by something I do not yet understand. If so, please explain why this destruction of liberty in the interest of liberty is justified.

You see nations as sovereign entities. I see them as no more sovereign than individual businesses or say a State government. Certainly, there are places where State governments have less or more rights and areas of perview, but this is decided by the government that's above them, and the rules that govern it. My entire belief of International Federalism is we are yet another level of government that sits above both the national and regional governments. There are items to legislate on that belong in the scope of an International Government - environmental and human rights I definately believe belong there. Other things belong at a national government (unfortunately, for fairly obvious reasons, military is at the National level. Trade agreements, alliances, etc I also think belong at the national level as a result of the military component being there). Even others belong at State/Provincial governments (major infrastructure projects - eg: highways, etc) or at the civil level (zoning, utilities, etc). Each also, I feel, has sovereignty in certain other fields as well simultaneously (taxes). In a similar manner, specifics of many of our resolutions DO belong to lower levels of government. I see this and want to believe it to be an International government - and I actually would love the RL UN to be put into a position where it can do the same thing (fat chance though).

Of course, even other areas should, IMO, be governed by the individual - and I remove the nation's right to interfere with that level of governance, just as you put in resolutions that stop our own attempts to govern other levels of governance.

A fallacy, in the context which I mentioned it, is an error in reasoning. It does not necessarily have anything to do with a social perception of bad form. My apologies for not making that clear previously.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Perhaps you should define bad form, for I fail to see the distinction between it and fallacy.

I hate it.
It's like a McDonalds advert in bizzaro backwards land :D

I agree though this is an awful proposal, its not going to get quorum no matter how many times you propose it. NEXT!

If this was passed, I would leave the UN to avoid this terrible law