NationStates Jolt Archive

The Government of Habardia, in the interest of furthering the Moral Well-Being of UN member nations, has submitted the following proposal, and would appreciate the delegates' approval.

Code of Honour
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Habardia

Description: When enacted, this proposal establishes that Citizens of adult age shall follow the following Code of Conduct:

- One shall be hospitable to all.
- One shall not break an Oath.
- One shall be respectful of Parent & Elder.
- One shall be valorous.
- One shall respect and love Nation & Divinity.
- One shall act with Honour.
- One shall not engage in immoral acts.
- One shall act in favour of the weak and protect the destitute.
- One shall uphold the moral and ethical standards of one's country.
- One shall follow this Code under penalty of death or banishment.

So enacted, this code will restore good old-fashioned values to UN societies.

Thank you all for your attention and feedback.

the honourable delegate has a good idea in this proposal.

As a samurai i'm bound by a similar honour code called 'Bushido'. however it dosen't apply to everyone in Kirisubo and certainly dosen't apply to visitors.

a lot of nations won't like being told what to do and the morals of a nation are up to them, not anyone else. thats what local laws and customs are for.

if this came to a vote i would be against it

This is not an issue that transcends national boundaries

This is not an issue that transcends national boundaries

I believe it does actually. With the world in such a dire situation as it is, shouldn't we all greet one another with the same code of conduct?

If this ever gets to a vote, I'm sure the New Pictavien government will ensure you have my full backing, Habardia.

Description: When enacted, this proposal establishes that Citizens of adult age shall follow the following Code of Conduct:


I take it the "of adult age" refers to the age of majority in each nation, not a uniform "adult age"?

And how would you react if I told you the age of majority in Pallatium is 13 (end of school)


- One shall be hospitable to all.


Even those who are trying to kill you?


- One shall not break an Oath.


Sometimes my undercover agents (police/etc) are required to make promises they have no intention of keeping. How would they do that under this code?


- One shall be respectful of Parent & Elder.


You are asking children to respect parents who beat them and abuse them?

How about "elders" who abuse children, or torture animals?


- One shall be valorous.


That is so open to interpretation it has no place in UN law. (for example "discretion is the better part of valor" implies that running away, or not revealing a secret that someone else things you should, can be valorous)


- One shall respect and love Nation & Divinity.


No. There is no way I am forcing my people to respect their nation against their will. If they think their nation is engaging in crimes against humanity, they should be allowed to say so. Further more, love of country has lead to some of the most horrific acts you can imagine ("patriotism is the virtue of the vicious")


- One shall act with Honour.


Again - sometimes there is a requirement to not do that because of circumstances (blowing up the Queens Palace, and killing a lot of servents who had no choice in serving their - it was that or death - is not an honnourable thing to do, but in comparrison to letting the Queen continue her murderous reign, I think the choice would be clear)


- One shall not engage in immoral acts.


?????????????? Who gets to define immoral ?????????


- One shall act in favour of the weak and protect the destitute.


Again - no. It is pretty much the only thing I support, but not something I am willing to force people to do. Charity is only really charity when it is given, not taken by force.


- One shall uphold the moral and ethical standards of one's country.


Bugger this. I am not holding people to moral values that are not their own. And ethical standards should only be held to for professions and other things, not on a nationwide basis.


- One shall follow this Code under penalty of death or banishment.


So you fail to do a SINGLE one of these things and you are put to death? Are you kidding me with this?


So enacted, this code will restore good old-fashioned values to UN societies.


Hey - in the good old days we sent kids down the mines, beat up gay people, turned black people in to slaves, forced everyone to go to church, stoned unmarried women who had sex and people took heroin cause it was good for you.

I think there is a reason we don't do any of these any more, and it is not because we don't think our society lacks values.


Suffice to say I think you won't get my support for this.

We are of the mind that a code of conduct is a purely National thing. My society is that of a constitutional Monarchy. The code for Royalty would be not what a code for Democrats, communists, facists or dictatorships would be. Thus we believe acceptance of the different ways of the peoples of the UN is paramount. Its that very difference that makes other societies interesting.
We do not support this.
VL.

Whilst well intentioned, I'm sure this proposal goes against a couple of UN resolutions. I can't be certain, as this is pretty vague.

Hirota appreciates the effort, but rejects the content.

It is because of things such as this that the People's Socialist Republic is no longer a part of the United Nations. Besides the definition of some terms, and who gets to define them, the only way this would work is to somehow enforce the same culture on all nations.

Because of the issues addressed Pallatium, Venerable libertarians, and Hirota we will not be supporting this resolution.

On another note:
It is because of things such as this that the People's Socialist Republic is no longer a part of the United Nations
What are you talking about? Attempts like this are hardly representative of the entire UN. It's not even a resolution. The majority of posters are against Habardia's attempts at a one size fits all morality.

Giordano,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

The goverment of Cuation wonders if the Habardia goverment will answer anything placed here as it failed to do so in the Deviant thread, even trying again with the same problems in the new as in the old.

I am more in favour of educating people about diffirent peoples views in life, including honour and moral codes but I do not like seeing one for all nations and peoples, we are all diffirent. I also wonder why the attempts to clean up the morals of the world have savage punishments in all 3 attempts?

Supporting the arguments of the Pallatium goverment, the Cuation nation would vote against.

Igavan
Diplomat to the UN

The Nation of United Socialist States of Assatru agrees in principle with the ideas of the Nation of Habardia but we also find the language to hostile to our ideals. Especially about the part where it is suggested that the people be killed or banished for not following the code of honour.

What does that mean? If they miss a single thing are they taken out on the street and shot.

Needs clarification.

Unless it is clarified or stripped al together, the Nation of United Socialist States of Assatru can not support and will not support it

----

United Socialist States Assatru's representitive to the UN

Pallatium's response is largely responsive of _Myopia_'s opinion. There's no way we would support this.

Whilst we fully applaud Habardia's fixation with death and punishment, we would not be able to support this proposal at this time.

Whilst we fully applaud Habardia's fixation with death and punishment, we would not be able to support this proposal at this time.

Not to sound rude or anything, but has anyone ever told you that you are a deeply scary nation?

First, I would like to thank everyone for their comments, regardless of their opinion of gthe matter. Just the fact that the topic is being discussed is a good thing, I believe. Furthermore, allow me to explain some of your questions about my proposal.

First, on revision, I do realise it is by far too vague and would not object to working with another delegate in making it a bit more concrete. I do want to explain, however, that the reason this proposal is so vague is because of the criticism precisely of the concreteness of my last proposal "Ban Deviancies". I would also like to take this opportunity to take a step forward and attempt to end the animosity that proposal seems to have created between Habardia and other member States.

Now to the actual proposal. It seems, first of all, that the biggest problem delegates find is the punishments. My intention, as I explained in Ban Deviancie, is far from creating a world of torture and executions, but I do believe that, at least in the beginning, a new social order does require a bit of violence to make it stick. This has been proven right in various instance in the real world. However, if this will be far too much of a problem for member states, a clause could be included stating that nations that have outlawed the death penalty maybe excempt from applying such punishment in favour of one fit to their own values.

Also, one thing I would like to restore to the proposal is the stratification of deviancies present in Ban Deviancies. I believe this is the way to go. As for my appreciated delegate who suggested old-fashioned values are limited to bigotry and drug consumption, I would like to clarify that, although recognising their existence, Habardia in no way views these as the staple characteristic of the past, since they ocurred in later years. The past I speak of is that of Ancient History, when people were bound by strict social norms and appreciated Honour and Virtue more than life.

Lastly, I would again like to thank all delegates an members who have taken the time to examine my proposal. Also, I intend to explain that if I do not respond promptly to posts it is because of real world time issues, and not a lack of interest in the matter.

The past I speak of is that of Ancient History, when people were bound by strict social norms and appreciated Honour and Virtue more than life.
Like when the 'The Faerie Queen' was set? Only, you know, not fictional. Wait… that never happened.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Now to the actual proposal. It seems, first of all, that the biggest problem delegates find is the punishments. My intention, as I explained in Ban Deviancie, is far from creating a world of torture and executions, but I do believe that, at least in the beginning, a new social order does require a bit of violence to make it stick.
Ah, but the citizens of Powerhungry Chipmunks are perfectly happy, for the most part, with the social order current in place--our social status quo is democratically supported, and changed daily as the peoples of Powerhungry Chipmunks see fit. This status quo/social order, however, would be enforced against the will of my citizens, and unchangable by them. And, thus, I believe it would be an oppression of their God-given rights.

As per that, Powerhungry Chipmunks expresses its disapproval of, according to our eyes, moral universalizations such as this.

First, I would like to thank everyone for their comments, regardless of their opinion of gthe matter. Just the fact that the topic is being discussed is a good thing, I believe. Furthermore, allow me to explain some of your questions about my proposal.


I am not convinced it is a good idea, however discussion is always good.


First, on revision, I do realise it is by far too vague and would not object to working with another delegate in making it a bit more concrete. I do want to explain, however, that the reason this proposal is so vague is because of the criticism precisely of the concreteness of my last proposal "Ban Deviancies". I would also like to take this opportunity to take a step forward and attempt to end the animosity that proposal seems to have created between Habardia and other member States.


Personaly, the reason I didn't like Ban Deviancies, Ban Deviancies (new and improved) and this proposal was not cause they were too vague, or too contrete, but because they seek to take the UN back to the dark ages where everyone was straight-laced and puritanical. And that is not a place I wish to visit, let alone live in.


Now to the actual proposal. It seems, first of all, that the biggest problem delegates find is the punishments.


That is the least of my worries.


My intention, as I explained in Ban Deviancie, is far from creating a world of torture and executions, but I do believe that, at least in the beginning, a new social order does require a bit of violence to make it stick. This has been proven right in various instance in the real world.


That has also been disproven over and over again in various nations. Even our own Dark Queen (Queen Leonara) did not require torture, executions and violance to make our nation in to a vile dictatorship - she only needed persuasion.
And Queen Holly (our liberator) did not need violance, executions, torture or even corporal punishment once she had been elected - an entirely new social order was created through kindness, charity and forgiveness.

If you are going to change the world, and can only do it by force, then maybe you should consider that you are not changing it in the right way.


However, if this will be far too much of a problem for member states, a clause could be included stating that nations that have outlawed the death penalty maybe excempt from applying such punishment in favour of one fit to their own values.


You can't exempt nations from clauses in resolutions (as far as I know). You can only put in a clause about "letting the nations decide the punishments" and leaving it in the hands of the nations.


Also, one thing I would like to restore to the proposal is the stratification of deviancies present in Ban Deviancies. I believe this is the way to go.


It's the word DEVIANCES I object to. Who are you - who is anyone - to say what is deviant? Or who is a deviant.

My nation is (almost) entirely made up of women - there are no men. Consequently nearly everyone who is married is married to someone of the same sex.

There are a lot of nations who would think this the height of deviancy, and yet because of the way our nation has evolved, a few people in Pallatium would consider marrying someone of the opposite sex a deviant act.

Are we right? Or are you right? Or are we both right? Do we have the same right to call you a deviant as you do us? Or should we both accept and celebrate the idea of infinite diversity in infinite combinations?



As for my appreciated delegate who suggested old-fashioned values are limited to bigotry and drug consumption, I would like to clarify that, although recognising their existence, Habardia in no way views these as the staple characteristic of the past, since they ocurred in later years. The past I speak of is that of Ancient History, when people were bound by strict social norms and appreciated Honour and Virtue more than life.


If you appreciate anything more than life, then you are living in a very, very warped world, and one that I will do everything in my power to prevent from coming to pass.

Honour is the concept that leads to revenge killings. Virtues can easily become vices. And while I have, in my capacity as Queen, sometimes used the phrase "I would rather die before I do something like that" it is hyperbole used for effect. If you can save a life dishonourably, you should save it. If you have to give up your virtue to protect an innocent, or even a criminal, then you should give it up freely, with a song in your heart and a smile on your face.

Life is above all, and those who do not believe so tend to be those who want to look down in judgement on those they consider their inferiors for no other reason than they can look down on them.



Lastly, I would again like to thank all delegates an members who have taken the time to examine my proposal. Also, I intend to explain that if I do not respond promptly to posts it is because of real world time issues, and not a lack of interest in the matter.

Fair enough. There is no way I am supporting anything that resembles any of your drafts, but I am only one person, and my significance in the world is little.

Whilst we fully applaud Habardia's fixation with death and punishment, we would not be able to support this proposal at this time.

I takes my hat off to you for being so evil. I hopes one day to be half as evil as your nation Gruenberg. Or Queen Leonara

Also, I intend to explain that if I do not respond promptly to posts it is because of real world time issues, and not a lack of interest in the matter.

That is fine but in the new deviancy, you hardly dealt with any of the complaints of the orginal. It would have been better to try and explain yourself there rather then just do a new one that was pretty much the same.

Also people didn't like the punishments so why stay with them in this one?

. I do want to explain, however, that the reason this proposal is so vague is because of the criticism precisely of the concreteness of my last proposal "Ban Deviancies".

Which you have in essance brought up here again, the nasty punishments, attempt to apply universal morals when a nation may have diffrnet version of morals to your or mine. Hey, Cuation's moral standards may be diffrent to yours

I would also like to take this opportunity to take a step forward and attempt to end the animosity that proposal seems to have created between Habardia and other member States.

the other two doesn't seem to have made you popular, so I'm not really suprised. Your trying to impose a universal morals and barbaric punishments three times nown.

Now to the actual proposal. It seems, first of all, that the biggest problem delegates find is the punishments

It is a main one yes

My intention, as I explained in Ban Deviancie, is far from creating a world of torture and executions

so is it just to force some belifs onto people by beating/killing and torturing them to death?

but I do believe that, at least in the beginning, a new social order does require a bit of violence to make it stick

um yeah but what about those that have had peace and no punishment as horrible as this for a millenia? Ruthless force to keep control of a recently pacified nation yes but this to impose moral codes? How about education, tolerance, understanding and time?

This has been proven right in various instance in the real world.

OC: Real life example where that didn't work: Ireland. Peace has come through the methods I listed above. This is nationstates not the real world but please list some real life examples

IC: why you need to emphasise the real is beyond me.

However, if this will be far too much of a problem for member states, a clause could be included stating that nations that have outlawed the death penalty maybe excempt from applying such punishment in favour of one fit to their own values.

um Cuation has the death penalty so we would be forced to abide, we are still an unstable nation but we are getting more peace as time passes.

Also, one thing I would like to restore to the proposal is the stratification of deviancies present in Ban Deviancies.

uh yeah and the lack of support has not shown you that most of us disagree?

As for my appreciated delegate who suggested old-fashioned values are limited to bigotry and drug consumption

who was that? While bigoted I might agree with, I would more compare it to oppressing the people and giving power to the few. So they can wage war on each other

he past I speak of is that of Ancient History, when people were bound by strict social norms

when the simple folk where farmers and warriors due to no other choices, they where simply there to be an army for rich pompas people. The social norms where there to strike fear and to stop people from revolting

and appreciated Honour and Virtue more than life.

um uh sure, thats why so many people died for men of ambition, the generals backstabbing, seeking power, harming the people without care... there has never been a golden age of morality...

I also appluad her Majesty Queen Lilly's sentiments and support them in this case. My admiration for Queen Leonara grows, I wonder if the nation of Pallatium will allow me to study her methods so I may take the good parts of her rule?

OC: If what you suggested was the case, Richard the III would never have been overthrown for example. It was brutal times where rich men fought, without a care to the people. The common people reguarly feared for their lives, homes among other things. The only time honour and virtue should be mentioned for those lot are in novels

Example, a brutal war when the Han collapsed(China) resulted in a huge population decline to around 16 million from, what, 60 million? A novel of propganda was written about the time, the good guys, the kingdom of one warlord who had a record of betrayal. It is called the Romance of the Three Kingdoms and while virtue and honour wasn't unheard of, we have the same amount nowdays.

What are you talking about? Attempts like this are hardly representative of the entire UN. It's not even a resolution. The majority of posters are against Habardia's attempts at a one size fits all morality.

Indeed they are. I should have phrased that differently; I left quite some time ago because of similarily-minded proposals. I got very tired very quickly of watching my ThirdGeek statistics change thanks to lovely little environmentally-minded things that were not well thought out, for example. And yeah, a lot of people check the TG statistics to see if you're capable of A or B, and that was proving to be potentially detrimental to my military uparmament.

OOC: Well considering the vast majority of people who have posted in these threads do not support the proposal I don't think it's in danger of harming anyone's stats. I'm still not seeing the connection. Why come in here and complain about how we do things? Either pitch in and help muck out or go.

I don't see why you had to come in and say something that basically amounts to 'silly UN this is why the other kids don't play with you'.

That said I completely agree with the second part of your post. The first just brushed me the wrong way.

I am of course aware there was never a utopia in human history, but I believe by taking the virtues, the good things that did exist in the past, we can improve the world today. Just as there was never a utopia, the dark, evil world you think the past was never existed either.

I believe it does actually. With the world in such a dire situation as it is, shouldn't we all greet one another with the same code of conduct?
we do that already. we meet people bearing peace with peace. we also meet people bearing guns with guns. but in all, this, along with the ban deviance proposal, has just gone too far and should really belong in the silly proposals thread. i agree with the sentiment that this does not trancend national boundries. why should my people be subjected to the morals of others?

why should my people be subjected to the morals of others?
This is precisely where I have been misinterpreted. The three proposals were never meant as a final product, rather their intended function was to start discussion on the subject. Now that it is on the way, my true purpose can be revealed in that I do not wish to impose my morals on others. What I would like to see is a representative group of delegates get together and determine what the UN's morals are, and so establish a code from that. The Code proposed is simply Habardia's code. It is meant to start the UN considering what its own code should be and apply that to member nations.

This is precisely where I have been misinterpreted. The three proposals were never meant as a final product, rather their intended function was to start discussion on the subject. Now that it is on the way, my true purpose can be revealed in that I do not wish to impose my morals on others. What I would like to see is a representative group of delegates get together and determine what the UN's morals are, and so establish a code from that. The Code proposed is simply Habardia's code. It is meant to start the UN considering what its own code should be and apply that to member nations.
first of all, you should have said it was a discussion in the first place. in the form that it is, you are making a proposal. and also, in your second perpose, it is a game mechanics violation, because at the moment, anyone can join, but once you start imposing 'morals' it affects game mechanics, which is illegal. and if you were to suggest those morals, they would have to be in proposal form anyway, which leads it back to being illegal due to game mechanics.

I don't believe it affects game mechanics anymore than "Legalize Euthanasia". I do not suggest stopping people from joining, it is just meant to establish a UN Moral Code. I really don't see how this would affect game mechanics, since the UN always tells countries what they can and can't do. This is just another example of this.

the UN only tells countries what they can and cant do when it comes to an international level. morals should be left up to individual countries, not the UN. and there is not comparison between this and the 'Legalise Euthanasia' resolution, not to mention a lot of the rules that are in place as far as proposals go werent around then. people will pick this one to pieces if you seriously concidered putting it forward. not to mention the fact that you wouldnt be able to establish a moral code that everyone would agree to.

A moral code would either be 'the resolutions' or an ideological ban. I'm not wild about either.

A moral code would either be 'the resolutions' or an ideological ban. I'm not wild about either.
well, an ideological ban would in violation of a resolution anyway......

well, an ideological ban would in violation of a resolution anyway......
Not just a resolution - ideology bans are against UN proposal rules.

I am of course aware there was never a utopia in human history, but I believe by taking the virtues, the good things that did exist in the past, we can improve the world today. Just as there was never a utopia, the dark, evil world you think the past was never existed either.

Uh what good things? Blindly obeying the church? Rich people only allowed to be rich, oppression of the common people... what virtues are you talking about?

Actully the dark world I suggest was real, I even used an real world time and place to prove my point. The world I described was also England in the dark to middles ages, could even be said to continue till recent times. Certainly an go all the way to the end of the Victorian times

If you wanted a discussion, don't post it as a propasal

Uh what good things? Blindly obeying the church? Rich people only allowed to be rich, oppression of the common people... what virtues are you talking about?

Actully the dark world I suggest was real, I even used an real world time and place to prove my point. The world I described was also England in the dark to middles ages, could even be said to continue till recent times. Certainly an go all the way to the end of the Victorian times

If you wanted a discussion, don't post it as a propasal

For what it's worth, I think he's right: there was culture and family and love in the Dark Ages like there is now. There has never truly been a black pit of a dystopia in RL history. That doesn't make his rather odd attempts to construct a moral code for us all any more worthy though.

For what it's worth, I think he's right: there was culture and family and love in the Dark Ages like there is now. There has never truly been a black pit of a dystopia in RL history. That doesn't make his rather odd attempts to construct a moral code for us all any more worthy though.

Each nation had a diffrent cutlure as it built up through circumstance of their situation. Nowdays of course, such knowledge is easy enough to share(ok not a nations history, sense of pride but the food, the art, things that made anation diffirent. People also travel/move to diffrent places so taking away some of the magic of fire away places that people had before). Does today not have culture? We also don't seem to be trying to impress over other nations/belives , nor do invidual people have much money or intrest in building great buildings of old so thats one source of culture gone. Perhaps not as much as used to have but art is still around, history is still being made however for us it is harder to see. In the future, people are going to want the art of old, including our current time. I fail to see how we lack nowdays

Family, that I can agree to, though this may have more to do with long working hours and that a son can not always follow into his fathers footsteps so has to seek a seprate path. I agree with you on this point though how we change that is another matter

Love? I'm not sure what you mean as people still love, they just don't tend to see their love killed then get used by local warlords.

With each age there has been good things, good people, bad things and bad people. Sadly I fail to see how this idea would fix our problems and bring back the good things of old

I don't believe it affects game mechanics anymore than "Legalize Euthanasia". I do not suggest stopping people from joining, it is just meant to establish a UN Moral Code. I really don't see how this would affect game mechanics, since the UN always tells countries what they can and can't do. This is just another example of this.

I agree. (Not with your ideas, but with your argument)

I am of course aware there was never a utopia in human history, but I believe by taking the virtues, the good things that did exist in the past, we can improve the world today. Just as there was never a utopia, the dark, evil world you think the past was never existed either.

That's the problem - while something could have been a virtue in the past, it is now seen as a vice, or worse.

Times change, and we change with them, which is how society involves.

Taking us back to "the good old days" will not make the world better, it will just stop any future development of society and cause us to be stuck in an endless loop.

A fellow delegate suggested life should be on top of the ladder, and that dishonour should be accepted in order to save it. I cannot disagree more. See, we will all die, that is accepted. So why is life so overvalued these days. So people die, big deal, it has been happening forever and let me tell you, it will continue to happen forever. What one should value is Honour and Virtue, for these alone we retain after our death. Now, I know I am off-topic here, but I just had to respond to that comment. Comming back to the discussion at hand, I really fail to see ho a UN Code, drafted in conjunction by the member nations, is considered an imposition of other's values. After all, it is not my values I am trying to implement, but the UN's. And if I may diverge from our topic once more, why are people complaining so much about Ancient Europe? So peasants were killed, does that really matter? I don't see why people just cannot deal wioth the fact that som men are worth more than others. This has been accepted for all of human history and will continue to be true whether some like it or not. But I suppose we are living in a mob-rule, so what can be expected. Now, I apologise for my continued references to the real world in this post, it was just something I had to say. I promise to limit real world references to a minimum in the future.

Taking us back to "the good old days" will not make the world better, it will just stop any future development of society and cause us to be stuck in an endless loop.

What is development, in your view, though, that is what I wish to know. Is it giving even more power to the mob, so they can run the world into the ground, or simply giving up government altogether? I believe the height of social organisation has already been reached with early feudalism and we should try to revert to that and not the other way around, but then again, I realise countries ruled by the mob will not agree with me.

The Pure Socialist Holy Empire of Shazbotdom will not support this. This has nothing to do with the betterment of the world society. When we think of "Old Fashoned values", we think of the dark ages of our nation when the Empire wasn't around. Mass Murder, Rape, Pillaging, and Almost complete genocide occured. We do not want to go back to those times. The Society of the Pure Socialist Holy Empire is almost perfect, and we make it even more perfect with each passing day. We will not support something that will draw us back to the dark ages.


Signed,

Emperor Galen Q. Leotardia
2nd Emperor of the Pure Socialist Holy Empire
UN Deliagte to the Region of CIN Headquarters.

Where's the pack of cards for the UN forum when you really need it...

There might be link in someone's signature...

House of Cards: A Deck for the UN Forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416966)

What is development, in your view, though, that is what I wish to know. Is it giving even more power to the mob, so they can run the world into the ground, or simply giving up government altogether? I believe the height of social organisation has already been reached with early feudalism and we should try to revert to that and not the other way around, but then again, I realise countries ruled by the mob will not agree with me.

Development of society means embracing new ideas and embracing change. 200 years ago slavery was a common place thing that no one objected to. People who were not rich, white land owners had no rights at all, and the ones who had the power were not answerable to anyone.

Since then we have moved on apace - everyone is treated equally (or everyone should be treated equally). Deviants are not pointed at and laughed at for sport, but instead the fact they like sniffing shoes is accept. The gay rights movement is a clear example that society has changed - people are not (or should not be) mocked for being gay any more, and yet 50 years ago that position was unthinkable.


Further more - what is "the mob" that you mentioned? Democracy is just mob rule - I have no objection to that - but the alternative - putting the power back in the hands of those who are unelected and unrepresentative of the people - is a far worse system of government than democracy ever could be.

I rule my country, and I alone rule. But I am elected to this position - the people chose me and decided that I should have the power and responsibility over their lives. Not because I am rich, not because I own land and not because I am white (even though most of that is true), but because they handed the power to me.


I get what you are trying to do - restore what you consider to be a sense of moral decency to the world. But the thing is - the world has moved on, and applying the morals of the past to the present will never work.

- One shall be hospitable to all.
- One shall not break an Oath.
- One shall be respectful of Parent & Elder.
- One shall be valorous.
- One shall respect and love Nation & Divinity.
- One shall act with Honour.
- One shall not engage in immoral acts.
- One shall act in favour of the weak and protect the destitute.
- One shall uphold the moral and ethical standards of one's country.

.


If the above are put into place then how can the below be put into place... As it clearly goes against several above to banish or kill anyone....


-

- One shall follow this Code under penalty of death or banishment.



Also we might as well start now killing off the UN membership as... well you figure it out.... Then if we banish them all where goes the UN...

Cheers, TH.
My basic views on this proposal is

Hell NO!

I'll lead with
http://img112.echo.cx/img112/1306/natsovcard7yg.jpg
and
http://img77.echo.cx/img77/3207/theapathycard8hl.jpg
with backup from
http://img75.echo.cx/img75/2669/popularitycard0hx.jpg

A fellow delegate suggested life should be on top of the ladder, and that dishonour should be accepted in order to save it

I'm saying all this in an OC context

It is sometimes considered dishonrouble to surrender, can even make a persons name slandadered throughout history, but if it saves the lives of millions/thousands? Should he fight on and die in a lengthy war or surrender as he has no chance?

Then again it depends on the situation, if being dishonrouble and saving your own life means a great evil will be inflicted on others, I would back fighting to the death.

See, we will all die, that is accepted.

I drank from the elixar of life, I can't die:p it is what you do with your life that is important

So why is life so overvalued these days

becuase we are living beings, we are hurt when someone we love dies. Life is considered by some the most important thing as it is one thing that can not be replaced.

So people die, big deal

uh considering it is Remembrance Sunday this week, I question the timing of your statement. It is a big deal as a death hurts someone and while I accept in wars or certain outstanding situations, there is an acceptable death count, it is a big deal.

it has been happening forever and let me tell you, it will continue to happen forever.

people will forever be immoral so why you even bothering to try and change it?

that one should value is Honour and Virtue, for these alone we retain after our death

uh no that fades when we die, over time and as the person is dead, it hardly matters to them. Sometimes someone will write about the dead person and turn them into a villian, people forget the honour

t. Comming back to the discussion at hand, I really fail to see ho a UN Code, drafted in conjunction by the member nations, is considered an imposition of other's values

becuase lets say my nation considered woman marrying other woman is wrong, that would block a move. In the end we might just have "stealing unless under certain cirumstances" and murder under certain circumstances is wrong. Nor do I feel we would ever come to consenus on the punishment so it would be toothless I fear

After all, it is not my values I am trying to implement, but the UN's

what you started with was your own so you can understand why we got the wrong idea?

And if I may diverge from our topic once more, why are people complaining so much about Ancient Europe?

becuase it is the easiest thing to think off for this? I also did some bits on Achient China

So peasants were killed, does that really matter?

people being opressed, raped, having their stuff stolen by rampaging armies and so on does matter to me. I would rather have a stable land as it is nowdays then bigoted warfare, mockery/death for being diffrent and a time when it did not matter if you where an idiot or a genuis, what family you where born into matters

I don't see why people just cannot deal wioth the fact that some men are worth more than others

and when people decided to get rid of the "lesser men"?

I would argue that everyone gets the same vote, the same basic human rights as everyone else and will forever do so. Is the general more important then the private(assuming we go by being appointed on ability here) then yes, in the cold light of day, the general is more important. Doesn't mean the private should be made to suffer

ut I suppose we are living in a mob-rule, so what can be expected

better that then the strongest in arms ruled. Or a man with no brain in his head being above the greatest genuis in the world becuase the idiot is of noble blood, his great grandaddy having won a major battle. The genuis will waste his talents in living as a serf

Now, I apologise for my continued references to the real world in this post, it was just something I had to say. I promise to limit real world references to a minimum in the future.

as long as you accept my real life refrances in this post;)

A fellow delegate suggested life should be on top of the ladder, and that dishonour should be accepted in order to save it.


I didn't actually say that, but it is pretty much what I meant.


I cannot disagree more.


I bet you could if you tried.


See, we will all die, that is accepted.


Except immortals :}


So why is life so overvalued these days.


It's not overvalued. It is just valued more than outmoded, outdated and basically flawed concepts.


So people die, big deal, it has been happening forever and let me tell you, it will continue to happen forever.


Really? I had no idea.


What one should value is Honour and Virtue, for these alone we retain after our death.


After your death you are a big pile of bones and ashes that will get eaten by worms and eventually crapped back out in to the ground. If you think that has honour then good luck to you.

And - just so as there is no misunderstanding - you can not retain anything after death - only those who remain here retain their images of you. And if someone died in such a remarkably stupid way to preserve their honnour, I would happily remember them as the most stupid bastard who ever lived, and trust me - that is one honour you don't want


Now, I know I am off-topic here, but I just had to respond to that comment. Comming back to the discussion at hand, I really fail to see ho a UN Code, drafted in conjunction by the member nations, is considered an imposition of other's values.


That's because you are not looking at it from the other side. The side that says "these people are not deviants, they are just people that like different things than I do and they shouldn't be executed for that" or "that is not an elder, that is a geriatric child molester and if you think I am treating *her* with respect you better go get some more of what you are smoking and hand it round the rest of the group"


After all, it is not my values I am trying to implement, but the UN's.


Nope - it's only the UN's if it passes, otherwise it's yours.


And if I may diverge from our topic once more, why are people complaining so much about Ancient Europe? So peasants were killed, does that really matter?


And hey - what about America in the 60's? Blacks couldn't vote or get treated like normal people, but does that really matter? Or what about England in the 80's? Gay people were beaten up and no one cared, but does that really matter?

And what about America in the 1800's? Slavery was rife and blacks were hanged willy-nilly, but does that really matter?

And what about England in the middle ages? women had no rights, were routinely raped and abused and treated as objects with no free will of their own, but does that really matter?

And hey - what about, and hey - what about?

Hopefully I have made my point without overly abusing sarcasm (but probably not)

Think about your statement "So peasents were killed, does that matter?" from the point of view of a peasent, and then maybe, just maybe I will respect any future argument from you.


I don't see why people just cannot deal wioth the fact that som men are worth more than others.


Because it's bollocks. If someone works and puts them selves out in front, then yes - you could argue they have more worth. But just because someone is born in to royalty, or born in to a rich family, that doesn't make them worth more than anyone else.

My body guards are willing to give their lives for mine, because they are willing to do that. I didn't have to order them to do it - they chose to. And to some degree that makes them worth way more than me, because if I was put in the same position, I might not do the same for them. And yet clearly they think my life is worth more than theirs, otherwise why would they be willing to die for me?


This has been accepted for all of human history and will continue to be true whether some like it or not.


It's been accepted by those in power - those who are considerd to "have more worth". Ask the peasents you are happy to kill whether they accept it or not.


But I suppose we are living in a mob-rule, so what can be expected.


Some people call it democracy, as opposed to dictatorship and fascism.


I was almost beginning to accept your idea and you then proceed to write a discourse on the rights of man which - apparently - doesn't cover anyone you find remotely offensive. So that pretty much destroyed any support I might have given you.

Have a nice day now.

Some people call it democracy, as opposed to dictatorship and fascism.
Im kinda partial to leaning towards dictatorship at the moment. It seems from reading the previous posts that the mob are a bunch of idiots!:D