NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings to all who read this message.

I have just proposed a repeal to the UN, aimed at taking down 'Gay Rights' on the basis of sovereignty-infringement. I humbly ask for the support of any delegates who agree with me that this is a matter to be resolved by individual nations, not the United Nations Legislative Branch.

Thank you.

Dresophila Prime
CHANGE UN Advocate

EDIT: It is posted on page 9

Of course, it should be up to individual nations to decide, but we're a lazy lot, so it's also up to the one proposing legislation to provide a link to the proposal (and preferrably a copy of the text as well).

Sovereignity arguments against human rights resolutions really sound like:

"BUAAAAAH!!! I wanna exterminate them all, but this blasted resolution is in the way... :("

If there is something you want to do in your country that is prevented by "Gay Rights," at least be open about it, and we will have something to discuss.

I do not support resolutions or repeals where the starting argument is National Sovereignty - with very few exceptions. Too often, such arguments are not stated as arguments but as opinions. An opinion is what you believe. An argument is WHY you believe that - or rather, reasons. I see no reason to grant national sovereignty on this matter - though I feel the resolution is flawed and does, eventually, need to be repealed and replaced (simultaneously along with half a dozen other discrimination resolutions).

Would you not agree, however, that since the difference of opinion on certain matters is so diverse that an international mandate one way or another is wrong?

To be frank, IMHO Human Rights are of far higher importance than national sovereignty. National borders are no excuse to deny people their rights.

To be frank, IMHO Human Rights are of far higher importance than national sovereignty. National borders are no excuse to deny people their rights.

But where are the lines drawn between what are human rights, simple privileges, and just "nice" things to do? Therein lies the crux of the disagreement on these matters.

Would you not agree, however, that since the difference of opinion on certain matters is so diverse that an international mandate one way or another is wrong?

I would not. Even if some governments are misguided enough to discriminate, torture, and silence their citizens, I believe the UN has both the right and the duty to protect those citizens against the sovereign decisions of the opressor.

If the UN could only decide on such matters where consensus is reached, then surely it would not be needed at all. And if the UN can impose democratic decisions against the will of a minority, then surely every decision it takes goes against NatSov, in some sense.

I wish people would start using the NatSov argument adequately, rather than as an omnibus objection against every proposal they dislike. It would make for a much more interesting debate.

OOC: Dammit! Near-simultaneous posts! See my comment above.

There is a certain set of human rights that almost everybody will agree with, and which irrefutibly are derived from Bible doctrine. To say that homosexual marriage is a 'human rights' issue is contradictory.

Besides, if my people's minds are made up, I will not suffer the UN coming in, reinforcing a quota, and playing favoritism with homosexuals in order to establish this law that stands against the values and traditions of the Church.

If you want to enforce homosexual marriage and sanction it in your country, feel free to. Do not force your rules into areas that oppose them.

Would you not agree, however, that since the difference of opinion on certain matters is so diverse that an international mandate one way or another is wrong?

I don't care how diverse the opinion is, if they thing homosexuals are bad, I'm still not letting them get away with punishing them, etc. I find it striking the number of people that (incorrectly) believe that we fought WWII because Hitler was killing the Jews. While the history behind it is false, it shows the belief that's behind it: some things are too important to let other nations get away with it.

Human Rights abuses, I believe, are one of those things. I shall, within reason, always support a resolution that promotes Human Rights over the argument that it violates NatSov. Yes there are things that I think shouldn't be dealt with at the UN level - even rights (Right to smoke weed, for instance), but discrimination I am totally opposed to.

But where are the lines drawn between what are human rights, simple privileges, and just "nice" things to do? Therein lies the crux of the disagreement on these matters.

With me, that line is drawn at a place far from where you would draw it. Heck, I don't even see your line drawn in the sand - I just see your sword sitting on NatSov and I can't recall ever seeing it move a millimeter.

With me, that line is drawn at a place far from where you would draw it. Heck, I don't even see your line drawn in the sand - I just see your sword sitting on NatSov and I can't recall ever seeing it move a millimeter.

Quite the contrary. Our support of the Global Food Distribution Act, as well as some draft proposals, could be seen as against the typical NatSov grain, as could the Anti-Terrorism proposal put forth a few weeks ago by our delegation.

There is a certain set of human rights that almost everybody will agree with, and which irrefutibly are derived from Bible doctrine. To say that homosexual marriage is a 'human rights' issue is contradictory.

Besides, if my people's minds are made up, I will not suffer the UN coming in, reinforcing a quota, and playing favoritism with homosexuals in order to establish this law that stands against the values and traditions of the Church.

If you want to enforce homosexual marriage and sanction it in your country, feel free to. Do not force your rules into areas that oppose them.

Thank you for clarifying your position, now I will clarify mine.

If people believe in your "values and traditions," they will refrain their homosexual tendencies. If they do not believe in your Church (a right established by another resolution), they do not need to follow your values and traditions. The only country attempting to force rules upon others is Dresophila Prime, by denying individuals their right to choose their own "values and traditions."

Now call me Satan if you must, but I shall fight your repeal with all my strength.
<Places inflatable Gandalf in this thread>

<Places inflatable Gandalf in this thread>

OOC: See the motto of Cluichstan. ;)

There is a certain set of human rights that almost everybody will agree with, and which irrefutibly are derived from Bible doctrine. To say that homosexual marriage is a 'human rights' issue is contradictory.
Okay. A few points:
1. Most of what we now refer to as the basic laws (and many basic rights)come originally from the Code of Hammurabi, c2100 BC. That predates the Exodus (during which much of the Old Testament was written), and certainly predates the New Testament.
2. Others come from the Classical Age in Greece and Rome.
3. Then there's civil law, from which we get concepts such as free trials, Habeas Corpus and marriage laws.

And none of them are Biblical. Only one of these came into being after the borth of Christ, and even then there is a firm distinction held between religious and civil law and rights.

Marriage is, IMO, a right. A civil right. Perhaps not a human right, but certainly civil. Being able to act as the next-of-kin to one you love, without having to declare power-of-attorney.

*snip*

Marriage is, IMO, a right. A civil right. Perhaps not a human right, but certainly civil. Being able to act as the next-of-kin to one you love, without having to declare power-of-attorney.

Thank you.

If people believe in your "values and traditions," they will refrain their homosexual tendencies. If they do not believe in your Church (a right established by another resolution), they do not need to follow your values and traditions. The only country attempting to force rules upon others is Dresophila Prime, by denying individuals their right to choose their own "values and traditions."

If they follow 'their own values,' then why do they insist on getting married in my Christian churches?

And let me make myself clear...again. The 'value' that I am opposing is the government sanction of homosexual marriage. I'm not allowing for torture, suppression, or anything like that.

If they follow 'their own values,' then why do they insist on getting married in my Christian churches?
You appear to be operating under the impressiopn that homosexuality and religion are mutually exclusive. Just because someone's gay doesn't mean they can't be Christian, and happen to want to get married in a Church just like anyone else.

If they follow 'their own values,' then why do they insist on getting married in my Christian churches?

And let me make myself clear...again. The 'value' that I am opposing is the government sanction of homosexual marriage. I'm not allowing for torture, suppression, or anything like that.

<sigh> Nobody is forcing the Church to marry homosexuals. All the resolution does is force gay marriages to be recognised by law, not by the Church. Civil marriages satisfy this requirement.

There is a certain set of human rights that almost everybody will agree with, and which irrefutibly are derived from Bible doctrine. To say that homosexual marriage is a 'human rights' issue is contradictory.

Besides, if my people's minds are made up, I will not suffer the UN coming in, reinforcing a quota, and playing favoritism with homosexuals in order to establish this law that stands against the values and traditions of the Church.

If you want to enforce homosexual marriage and sanction it in your country, feel free to. Do not force your rules into areas that oppose them.

Oh yes, bibles are extraordinarily unique insofar as they're universally followed. After all, the Jewish bible is the same as the Christian Bible (New Testimate?), is the same as the Ancient Greek "bibles" is the same as Buddist teachings is the same as Shintu. Bullshit.

The set of human rights is based upon what is commonly accepted to BE human rights - and that sure as heck isn't because some book said so. The Pope only speaks to 1/6 of the world, I wonder what the other 5/6 believe in.

If they follow 'their own values,' then why do they insist on getting married in my Christian churches?

And let me make myself clear...again. The 'value' that I am opposing is the government sanction of homosexual marriage. I'm not allowing for torture, suppression, or anything like that.

If you don't want them to marry in your church, you don't have to let them.

Why do you people INSIST upon making your lives harder for yourself and then call foul on us for your stupidity?

Realativly new here, but its my understanding that by joining the UN, we give up a small level of NatSov, no? If one belives the UN should not interfere in any matter, wouldn't one simply leave it?

* sigh *

that old arguement is like saying that you shouldn't join the golf club if you don't want to play by the green keepers rules.

there are international issues and there are regional ones. This is where national sovereignists disagree with the un federalists. In my book there are certain things like religion, marriage customs and schooling that the UN shouldn't even be poking its nose into yet they have done frequently.

These 3 things are what makes a nation unique otherwise we'd all be the same.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

Realativly new here, but its my understanding that by joining the UN, we give up a small level of NatSov, no? If one belives the UN should not interfere in any matter, wouldn't one simply leave it?

.....There's a lot of sides to that coin.

As was stated in the FAQ, it is a two sided coin. One the one hand, you do indeed sacrifice control of your country the way you want to run it - thus handing some of your National Sovereignty over to the larger body. However, the UN also gives you advantages that are difficult to find elsewhere

1) Power: The UN has nearly a quarter of the world participate in its halls. 30,000 nations with TRILLIANS of citizens. To just have one law, to be able to change the world for 30,000 nations - even if it's as simple as giving them a right the UN had taken away, protecting the rights of all UN citizens, or scuttling all economies of member nations, you have done something. Certainly, members can and have (and, well, Gruen does presently) influence the world without being a member of the UN, but for many this is the logical path to take

2) Protection: This is actually two fold. The UN provides an excellent forum to meet other members. Many of the powerful regions are represented here - for better or for worse. Even better, you can ask and people will tell you some of the powerful regions that exist. So you can forge new contacts, new alliances, everything.

Additionally, there is the Invader/Defender game. Having suffered a near loss from an invasion myself (smart move e-mailling the founder), I can say that this is an important aspect. The more UN members you have, the more secure your region is. On the flip side, you can also be an invader from the UN position, but without the UN seal of approval, your campaigns are over

3) OOC: Politics: dozens if not hundreds of voices are heard on the various issues. We debate both the issues of the day, the issues of tomorrow and things that we forget about that lie deeply imbedded within our own societies. We are reminded of how our cultures are formed and deliberate on whether a better system can possibly be put in place - perhaps even attempt to implement. It was only in the last half of the year that, after nearly 3 years with various marriage laws in place, we realized "hey, we don't have anything for divorce".

Thus, many prefer to remain in the UN, even if the disagree with it.

Greetings to all who read this message.

I have just proposed a repeal to the UN, aimed at taking down 'Gay Rights' on the basis of sovereignty-infringement. I humbly ask for the support of any delegates who agree with me that this is a matter to be resolved by individual nations, not the United Nations Legislative Branch.I disagree - Gay rights are something the UN should have legislated upon to prevent the supression of homosexuals.There is a certain set of human rights that almost everybody will agree with, and which irrefutibly are derived from Bible doctrine. To say that homosexual marriage is a 'human rights' issue is contradictory.Enn's dealt with the old testment, I'll have a go with the new one shortly.

UPDATE: Here we go. I'm quoting myself from old topics here, as it's easier to link than retype afresh.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=362264&page=6 (this one was a very extended and useful debate on the bible - I've linked to the page where I joined in)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7821438&postcount=267
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7821608&postcount=268
(These two were consecutvive posts on the same topic)
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
The Supremely Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/9381/englandsig4lc.jpg (http://s3.invisionfree.com/England/index.php?act=idx)
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)

I don't actually believe I'm doing this...

My new resolution is "Repeal Human Rights". After all, there are nations out there who like treating humans like dirt. We shouldn't disrespect the Sovereignty of Nations, now, should we?

And there's your major flaw. All humans should have the right to be treated in the same way. And that's a GOOD way, before you get started.

Wait, does NSUN even HAVE a Human Rights charter? Hmm... Apparently not. We have lots of vague resolutions, but no charter saying "You should NOT try and oppress your citizens". Well, I for one feel that this needs to change.

[/threadjack]

a UN charter would be nice - I've tinkered with the idea a few times, but lacked the campaigning time to get it done.

a UN charter would be nice - I've tinkered with the idea a few times, but lacked the campaigning time to get it done.

Well, wouldn't it die out of duplication? There are plenty of piecemeal resolutions around, namely the Bill of Rights.

It would be more a mission statement rather than legislation. I agree it would not be easy to accomplish, but it would be beneficial.

I think the 'UN charter' would basically be:

The general NS rules.
The rules on multis.
The proposal rules.
Plus, maybe Rights & Duties.

My vision of a U.N. charter would be, broadly speaking, an enshrinement of the U.N. to legislate (by convention) in all areas affecting:

-Fundamental Human Rights
-International Trade
-Humanitarian Aid and Considerations
-Regulations and Worker's Rights
-Industrial Practices
-War and Peace
-International Transport and Trafficking
-Scientific Matters of Significant Ethical Importance
-International Security and Crime Issues

May the blessings of our otters be upon you

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I think the 'UN charter' would basically be:

The general NS rules.
The rules on multis.
The proposal rules.
Plus, maybe Rights & Duties.

I'd be more inclined to make it less mechanical and more ideological.

But, again, that's something we already have:

The Environment
Human Rights/Moral Decency
Free Trade/Social Justice
The Furtherment Of Democracy/Political Stability
Gun Control
International Security/Global Disarmament
Gambling
Recreational Drug Use

EDIT: Hirota, the RL UN charter is all mechanics.

To ban Gay rights because of religion is a pretty poor excuse. If you have issues with gay's go see a counsellor. Optischer is pretty lax when it comes to sexual and gender equality. Gay's have done no harm to us, and so why should we do any harm to them? We'll fiercely fight against this on the grounds of
a) Religion should not take any part of an argument
b) Sexual equality is needed
c) National sovereignity suffrers nothing from this
d) Who even cares if somebody is homosexual?
e) They've done us no harm so why should we?
ooc: f) Colin and Justin's how not to decorate is a really good program
ooc: g) Elton John's a pretty good singer
ooc: h) Matt Lucas is one of my favouite comedians

ooc: f) Colin and Justin's how not to decorate is a really good program
ooc: g) Elton John's a pretty good singer
ooc: h) Matt Lucas is one of my favouite comedians

ooc: Peter Mandelson is one of my least favourite [modern British] politicians.

Yes, he's one of my least favourite one too. But he's different. He works for the labour party, for the EU and supports the European Constitution. To all my knowledge the other three are not.

Greetings to all who read this message.

I have just proposed a repeal to the UN, aimed at taking down 'Gay Rights' on the basis of sovereignty-infringement. I humbly ask for the support of any delegates who agree with me that this is a matter to be resolved by individual nations, not the United Nations Legislative Branch.

Thank you.

Dresophila Prime
CHANGE UN Advocate

EDIT: It is posted on page 9
okay, the funny thing is, Gay Rights doesnt protect only gay rights. it is actually a anti-descrimination act, due to one part:

"...hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life."

also, there are umpteen more that protect gay rights anyway, in some form or another. so, in the words of Hulk Hogan: "Whatchya gunna do, Brother?"

ooc: Peter Mandelson is one of my least favourite [modern British] politicians.

OOC: Hey! Lay off the Prince of Darkness;)

May I just add, that a repeal of an international piece of legislation is in no way a ban. It simply does not make it a requirement, and allows for regions with vastly different demographics to decide what best suits their people. Repeal = Ban??? I don't think so. Repeal = choice, which supposedly is the glorious goal of the grand liberal beast.

May I just add, that a repeal of an international piece of legislation is in no way a ban. It simply does not make it a requirement, and allows for regions with vastly different demographics to decide what best suits their people. Repeal = Ban??? I don't think so. Repeal = choice, which supposedly is the glorious goal of the grand liberal beast.

With this in mind, you need to present an argument for the repeal. The current repeal was defended with the right to religious intolerance (shortly, that a country which is mainly catholic has the right to impose catholicism on the non-catholic minority). If you agree with this argument, I have answered it before. If you disagree, you should present your own arguments for the evil nature of anti-discrimination legislation.

Just saying "Repeal = choice" does not preclude an answer of "Repeal = bad choices," both of which are rather pointless.

There is a certain set of human rights that almost everybody will agree with, and which irrefutibly are derived from Bible doctrine. To say that homosexual marriage is a 'human rights' issue is contradictory.

We're sorry, but the Jevian people have their own set of inalienable human rights that are of no connection to the bible or any other religious texts. As the bible is simply another religious text and we feel it is not to be taken any more literally then any other religious text, we see no reason to seek a human rights philoposhy from it (plus, the bible doesn't even let you wear clothes of two different fabrics :( ). As such, we unanimously agree on one thing in Jey--same-sex marriages are one of those inalienable rights.

Let us explain--when we see homosexuals, the first thing we see are people. As such, when we see black people, the first thing we see are people. Do blacks/Jews/Christians/Homosexuals/Athiests/etc. deserve the same rights as everyone else? Yes. Why? Because they are people first, members of the human race. Not a pre-historic biological sapient (though, we did vote FOR that), but rather a Homo Sapient. To use religion as a means to argue otherwise is completely irrevalent. There is a very large separation between church and state. Leave your homophobic church out of the "UN State".

As such, The Allied Empire of Jey's House of Representatives have passed their first ever "Motion of Expulsion." A "Motion of Expulsion" is a motion brought to the table about a proposal that contains the distict possibility of reaching quorum. "Motions of Expulsion" state that if said proposal is passed by the N.S.U.N., The Allied Empire of Jey will force its immediate withdraw from the N.S.U.N.

My Esteemed Colleagues:

The basic problem those who usually oppose "gay rights" legislation -- that is, those who aren't Bible-humping literalists who can't tell a law from a homily -- is that if we're all equal, why do we need special legislation to remind us that one or another segment has the same rights as everyone else. There is some legitimacy to this argument -- extraneous legislation wastes time and money and tends to muddy the picture rather than clear it up.

The proposal to repeal any "gay rights" resolution should always come with an alternative which asserts (or re-asserts, depending on one's point of view) the stance that nobody shall be denied any rights. The example for this are the Civil War Amendments to the United States' Constitution. "All men" were already (supposedly)
"created equal" -- Black men had to be "added" to that once it was determined that a large enough chunk of the country was prepared to admit that they were, in fact, men. Women were added eventually, too. This led to the model of reaffirming the rights of people who then became next in line at the Bigotry Buffet. Gays, immigrants, and most recently, non-human sapients, have all fought for this reaffirmation.

I cannot support a repeal of any "gay rights" legislation (no matter how unnecessary such legislation should be...ideally), without some kind of replacement proposal that would add gays to the long list of those who became "created equal" (after white, male land owners) in the US paradigm. Tat example is the model for the Intangelonian Constitution, along with the Eleven Commandments. We decided to shift the US's First Amendment over to the Ten Commandments and create the Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt keep thy Religion to thyself." It's worked wonders.

May I just add, that a repeal of an international piece of legislation is in no way a ban. It simply does not make it a requirement, and allows for regions with vastly different demographics to decide what best suits their people. Repeal = Ban??? I don't think so. Repeal = choice, which supposedly is the glorious goal of the grand liberal beast.

There's an important distinction you have failed to make here. We care about choice for people, not states. As far as most of the people of _Myopia_ are concerned, governments are a necessary evil, which should not be viewed as having rights or deserving freedoms - the sole justification for their existence is if they can protect and provide the freedoms and rights which all individuals deserve. Governments should only have the rights which they need to carry out this duty.

Thus, Repeal = choice for governments, which we don't care about

and No repeal = choice for individuals, which is our "glorious goal".

That's right. Because we've seen the effects of the so called "Choice for individuals" at work already. Having governments tax everyone to support these reforms of "progressiveness". People are denied personal rights of faith due to these reforms of "progressiveness". Health insurance rates are affected, government schools are forced to teach things that all do not agree on, and freedom of speech has reached a new low all in the name of "progressiveness".

That's right. Because we've seen the effects of the so called "Choice for individuals" at work already. Having governments tax everyone to support these reforms of "progressiveness". People are denied personal rights of faith due to these reforms of "progressiveness". Health insurance rates are affected, government schools are forced to teach things that all do not agree on, and freedom of speech has reached a new low all in the name of "progressiveness".

are you seriously using health insurance rates and what governments think as reasons to deny gays the inherent right to marry? That is hitting an all time low. Who cares what governments think if its wrong. Hitler and Nazi Germany believed all Jews should die, should we respect thier opinion by giving them the legislation to be able to enforce their opinion? NO. We should not. Why? Because its wrong. Likewise, no one should care if a government wants to deny gays rights. Why? Because its wrong.

Seriously: why sould governments give more rights to a man who screws women's assholes then a man who screws man's assholes. I don't really see why the homosexual people are being thrown under the bus in terms of rights in some countries. Are you just afraid of gay people? They're really not that scary, same with black people. But how dare anyone take away black people's rights?

*snip*

Way to play the Nazi/racist card. :rolleyes:

Way to play the Nazi/racist card. :rolleyes:

will do so when needed ;)

DEMOCRATIC SOVIET REPUBLIC OF KAHANISTAN
Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The Democratic Soviet Republic of Kahanistan calls upon all UN members to vote against this travesty of a resolution. Whether or not homosexuals are granted rights should not even be up for debate, they are human beings just like you and me. The UN exists to guarantee human rights, not to sit on its dreadnaught-sized ass while many nations are rounding up and executing homosexuals.

A vote to repeal the UN guarantee of human rights is a vote to reveal the UN as the sham it really is. If this absurdity passing as legislation actually receives a majority vote, I will personally point the finger at the UN and laugh, and hold the criminal UN representatives voting for the repeal personally responsible for the executions of homosexuals that are bound to increase should their guarantee of rights be stricken.

Signed,
Margaret Delray,
Minister of Foreign Affairs

The Democratic Soviet Republic of Kahanistan calls upon all UN members to vote against this travesty of a resolution. Whether or not homosexuals are granted rights should not even be up for debate, they are human beings just like you and me. The UN exists to guarantee human rights, not to sit on its dreadnaught-sized ass while many nations are rounding up and executing homosexuals.

A vote to repeal the UN guarantee of human rights is a vote to reveal the UN as the sham it really is. If this absurdity passing as legislation actually receives a majority vote, I will personally point the finger at the UN and laugh, and hold the criminal UN representatives voting for the repeal personally responsible for the executions of homosexuals that are bound to increase should their guarantee of rights be stricken..

The Allied Empire of Jey agrees 100%....in every single way possible. As stated earlier--The House of Representatives of Jey have voted unanimousely to leave the UN if this proposal is passed.

Why do you people INSIST upon making your lives harder for yourself and then call foul on us for your stupidity?
This is, quite possibly, the best statement I've ever seen, given its biting wit and accuracy. Thank you.

Whereas the legislation undermines the values of Christian nations and enforces an unjust quota for homosexual people,
this is not always true, my nation is a catholic nation, but we support gay rights, therefore that cannot be used in an argument, because the resolution actually backs up our views

To be frank, IMHO Human Rights are of far higher importance than national sovereignty. National borders are no excuse to deny people their rights.
On Gay right issues This is also the line i am taking.

VL.

Received: 50 minutes ago
Venerable libertarians,

Since you are a UN delegate I am sending you this telegram asking you to add your approval to a repeal effort found currently on page 5 (could possibly move to page 3 or 4 by the time you read this) called Repeal “Gay Rights” (This is the one authored by Dresophila Prime, not the one that is currently found on page 6 with the same name). The repeal observes “that homosexuals share with us the very same freedoms of life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness.” Yet it also recognizes that the additional special rights provided in this original bill are those that should be decided by individual nations, and should not be in the jurisdiction of the United Nations. This repeal is not about being “homophobic” or whatever labels people want to throw up to disparage those who disagree with them. Through this repeal, we are actually fighting for a nation’s right to have homosexual marriages even if they choose. However, through this repeal, we are saying that the United Nations should not have its finger on this issue demanding all UN nations believe and operate the same way. This is not even an issue of homosexuality, it’s an issue of a nation’s right to run their nation according to their beliefs versus being dictated how to run their nation even if contrary to their beliefs.

This repeal was written by a friend of mine, Dresophila Prime, a high council member of the region in which I reside. The repeal was drafted today and currently (at the time of this letter) has 64 approvals and needs 65 more by Sunday to reach queue. Please help this repeal reach queue so nations retain this right to decide issues like this for themselves, rather than all UN nations continuing down this same path of being made identical by the vast UN legislation that has already been passed and enforced on all UN member nations. Thank you in advance for your help in this repeal!

- The Nuclear Armed Republic of Republicans Armed



Greetings,
As a member of the National Sovereignty Organisation I am disturbed that you would approach my nation using a National Sovereignty Arguement. Yes, I do believe that too much is legislated by the UN, however in matters of Human Rights this repeal is an affront to all enlightened minds.
In your appeal for my support you wrote....
""The repeal observes “that homosexuals share with us the very same freedoms of life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness.” Yet it also recognizes that the additional special rights provided in this original bill are those that should be decided by individual nations, and should not be in the jurisdiction of the United Nations."
On this i have two issues to address.
1, If this is repealed Homosexuals loose the gauranteed right to practise their chosen sexuality even if your nation supports the resolution, and,
2, A repeal is not Law! You can write "We think Homo's are deadly and should be given free diamonds as compensation" in the repeal text but it would ultimately mean Jack. Repeals Repeal. They do not legislate.
I will not stoop to the lowest common denominator her and call you fascist, Gay basher or even Homo Phobe. I will say this.
You do not have my support and please do have a merry Christmas.
VL.

I do not take kindly to this being repealed on the basis of a National Sovereignty arguement. National sovereignty is about a nations right to self govern but not to oppress and deny human rights to its people. The resolution being repealed here is a laudible and a good resolution to my mind and does not effect the Governance of a nation. It simply reenforces a nations people to practice their homosexuality if so desired without being molested by a nations government for being who they are. Using National sovereignty as the basis for this repeal is a masked attempt by those who would be primarily "Anti Homosexual" and basing that arguement in NatSov I believe to be disengenuious.

Although Yelda is a proud member of NSO, it has always been our policy that Human Rights trumps NatSov. Everytime. So we offer no support to this repeal effort and have up to this point seen no need to post in this thread.
However, we are curious about one of your arguments:
Whereas the legislation undermines the values of Christian nations and enforces an unjust quota for homosexual people,
I'll ignore the part about "Christian nations" as it is completely irrelevant to me, but what do you mean by "enforces an unjust quota for homosexual people"?

There is a certain set of human rights that almost everybody will agree with, and which irrefutibly are derived from Bible doctrine. To say that homosexual marriage is a 'human rights' issue is contradictory.

Besides, if my people's minds are made up, I will not suffer the UN coming in, reinforcing a quota, and playing favoritism with homosexuals in order to establish this law that stands against the values and traditions of the Church.

If you want to enforce homosexual marriage and sanction it in your country, feel free to. Do not force your rules into areas that oppose them.
I personally am against the "Banning Whaling" resolution as I feel it is covered by the resolution I had hoped would Replace it and "PODA" and all subsequent single species resolutions. However after severalattempts to repeal it with failure, I have accepted the Members decision. I would still like to see it repealed. You are a member of a group of nations who, like it or not introduce Resolutions as per the majority Vote. If you dislike the fact that Homosexuality is tolerated then repeal it but do so on the grounds that your nation sees it as an affront to God. Not on a national sovereignty Issue. If you fail you may leave the UN anytime you wish.

I will not suffer the UN coming in, reinforcing a quota, and playing favoritism with homosexuals in order to establish this law that stands against the values and traditions of the Church.Tee-hee. I wasn't aware that you had a choice.

Silly humans.

Greetings to all who read this message.

I have just proposed a repeal to the UN, aimed at taking down 'Gay Rights' on the basis of sovereignty-infringement.

The NSUN is not required to respect national sovereignty. Fails.

Whereas the legislation undermines the values of Christian nations

Sweeping generalisation. Not all versions of Christianity have a problem with same-sex marriages.

The UN resolution ‘Gay Rights,’ shall be stricken from law, and the issue will be left for individual nations to decide.

Multi-repeal and false argument. The issue is still not up to individual nations to decide because, at a quick glance resolutions #7, #53, #69, #80, #81, #99 and #115 all reinforce #12, in whole or in part. Indeed, #12 is actually so well-supported by other legislature that a repeal of it would change nothing. Trying to repeal it without repealing any of these others first is rather like trying to remove a car's engine without opening the bonnet.

Proposal removed.

Multi-repeal and false argument. The issue is still not up to individual nations to decide because, at a quick glance resolutions #7, #53, #69, #80, #81, #99 and #115 all reinforce #12, in whole or in part. Indeed, #12 is actually so well-supported by other legislature that a repeal of it would change nothing. Trying to repeal it without repealing any of these others first is rather like trying to remove a car's engine without opening the bonnet.

I am not in any way supporting this repeal, but I am puzzled by your argument here. Surely the fact that one resolution is completely replicated in other legislation makes it irrelevant, and is one point in favour of a repeal. Otherwise, having two identical laws would make their mandate repeal-proof, as repealing one of them would change nothing due to presence of the other.

I am aware that duplicate legislation is now illegal, but there seems to be plenty of it still in the books.

I am not in any way supporting this repeal, but I am puzzled by your argument here. Surely the fact that one resolution is completely replicated in other legislation makes it irrelevant, and is one point in favour of a repeal.

The problem is the claim that 'the issue will be left for individual nations to decide,' which is obviously false: it goes beyond the mandate of the repeal by also acting to strike out all the other legislation that would swing into place to keep 'individual nations' from doing anything of the sort. Repealing #12 can only default back to the other laws, it can't be claimed to remove all their effects too.

In other words, the repeal text was claiming the repeal would do something it would not do.

The problem is the claim that 'the issue will be left for individual nations to decide,' which is obviously false: it goes beyond the mandate of the repeal by also acting to strike out all the other legislation that would swing into place to keep 'individual nations' from doing anything of the sort. Repealing #12 can only default back to the other laws, it can't be claimed to remove all their effects too.

In other words, the repeal text was claiming the repeal would do something it would not do.

k

*snip*
Using National sovereignty as the basis for this repeal is a masked attempt by those who would be primarily "Anti Homosexual" and basing that arguement in NatSov I believe to be disengenuious.

On the contrary, using national sovereignty as an argument for this repeal, for the people of Cluichstan, is a way of protecting the right to be anti-homosexual -- i.e., to think in a certain way -- if a nation so chooses. The people of Cluichstan themselves have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality, but we realise that there are some nations that do for whatever reason, be it religious, cultural, etc. With all due respect, the attempt by the esteemed representative of Venerable Libertarians to paint all of those who support this repeal as evil bigots smacks of cheap rhetoric aimed at simply irrationally demonising, by an appeal to emotion, a perfectly reasonable argument in favor of this proposed repeal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

On the contrary, using national sovereignty as an argument for this repeal, for the people of Cluichstan, is a way of protecting the right to be anti-homosexual -- i.e., to think in a certain way -- if a nation so chooses. The people of Cluichstan themselves have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality, but we realise that there are some nations that do for whatever reason, be it religious, cultural, etc. With all due respect, the attempt by the esteemed representative of Venerable Libertarians to paint all of those who support this repeal as evil bigots smacks of cheap rhetoric aimed at simply irrationally demonising, by an appeal to emotion, a perfectly reasonable argument in favor of this proposed repeal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala
Does the resolution limit your thought?

On the contrary, using national sovereignty as an argument for this repeal, for the people of Cluichstan, is a way of protecting the right to be anti-homosexual -- i.e., to think in a certain way -- if a nation so chooses.

For the last time (at least in this thread), let me repeat:

By allowing discrimination, you are not protecting the right to think in a certain way. Quite the contrary, you are allowing governments to prohibit individuals of thinking in a certain way.

It is quite ironic that you refer to "freedom of thought" as a right of governments and nations, which are collective entities, and as such incapable of thought. After all, freedom of thought is one of the human rights you would so readily remove from the UN mandate.

*snip*
After all, freedom of thought is one of the human rights you would so readily remove from the UN mandate.

Only insofar as the UN shouldn't interfere with that freedom.

By allowing discrimination, you are not protecting the right to think in a certain way. Quite the contrary, you are allowing governments to prohibit individuals of thinking in a certain way.

Oh, and no, we are allowing governments to prohibit individuals acting in a certain way.

Oh, and no, we are allowing governments to prohibit individuals acting in a certain way.

Only insofar as governments need a way of recognising thoughts. Since you mentioned the right to be homophobic, surely homophobic countries would discriminate against anyone who is known to think in a "deviant way." The idea of "thought crime" is not beyond those countries - in fact, it is imbedded in Christian morals.

On the contrary, using national sovereignty as an argument for this repeal, for the people of Cluichstan, is a way of protecting the right to be anti-homosexual -- i.e., to think in a certain way -- if a nation so chooses.

Why bother giving nations the right to be discriminatory? Here in a progressive soceity, there is no need for discrimination just because you dont like a particular group of people. Yet everyone here would agree that discrimination against blacks is wrong eh? Why not use the same logic with homosexuals.

Nevertheless, this proposal was deleted, and the rejoycing in the House of Jey was even louder then when we passed Resolution #125. However, there is another Repeal for this resolution up for approval, using the same national soverignty reasons, and has already received 40+ approvals.

Nevertheless, this proposal was deleted, and the rejoycing in the House of Jey was even louder then when we passed Resolution #125. However, there is another Repeal for this resolution up for approval, using the same national soverignty reasons, and has already received 40+ approvals.

This is one of the few occasions when I welcome the fluffy-biasedness of the UN. I think 'gay rights' is safe.

I personally think that infringing the rights of the gay people in your nation is utterly unacceptable, on the basis that is a gargantuous limitation of civil rights.

I see no reason for gay people to be excluded from the possibility of "marriage". You use the definition, as though you could not easily incorporate the use of another word to define same-sex marriage, and alter any benefits of "marriage" to be benefits of "same-sex marriage", with your corresponding terminology.

In other words, I much prefer marriage as an idea, as opposed to a word with one specific definition, and if you don't, I see no reason not to make a new word and use that word to define "same-sex marriage".

~ Chao Tick, President

I agree, sort of. I'm with the camp (or maybe I'm alone, whatever) who want to abolish marriage as a legal institution, replace it with non-gender-defined civil unions for everyone with all of the necessary legal benefits, and leave the socioreligious institution of marriage to the churches, families, religions, cultures, which are the things that give it its non-legal meaning, anyway.

I agree, sort of. I'm with the camp (or maybe I'm alone, whatever) who want to abolish marriage as a legal institution, replace it with non-gender-defined civil unions for everyone with all of the necessary legal benefits, and leave the socioreligious institution of marriage to the churches, families, religions, cultures, which are the things that give it its non-legal meaning, anyway.

Meh, but that is just a semantic issue. All the law recognises are civil unions, they are also called marriages because in many cases they coincide with the religious institution. In most civilised countries there is no legal difference between civil union and "marriage" (civil union + religious cerimony).

I do agree with you that a simple change in terminology would pacify some religious people (the less bigoted ones), as it would make it clearer that nobody is regulating what their church can or cannot do.

I humbly ask for the support of any delegates who agree with me that this is a matter to be resolved by individual nations, not the United Nations Legislative Branch.

EDIT: It is posted on page 9

I must agree with this point of view. the legislative programme of any democracy should be in the intrests of the MAJORITY not teh MINORITY as teh Gay rights clearly is. each nation should act according to their individual circumstances. This repeal has my backing.

Unfortunately for you, Its been deleted. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

The Socialist Republic of Andaras Prime believes very strongly that national sovereignty is infinitely more important than any amount of so called civil rights. The UN has got into a habit of pumping out ridiculous moral absolutes in respect to things which they have no right interfering in. An international authority has no right legislating on such exclusively national issues, such action will make more nations continually insular in regard to the international community. Individual national circumstances are clearly the issue hear, not hyped up idealist organisation throwing binding legislation at nations which they have no idea about governing. Talking of simple human rights, I think the most simple national right is the right to govern oneself without external interference. The imperialistic hegemony of this self righteous UN highlights a blatant invasion of national sovereignty, my nation quite simply finds this disgraceful. My arguement does not really relate to Gay Rights, I really do not care for this issue, but what I do care about is the audacity of such proposers who think they can get away with trying to govern the proletariat dictatorship of Andaras Prime.

Samuel Benson, President of Andaras Prime
Social Marxist Party

On the contrary, using national sovereignty as an argument for this repeal, for the people of Cluichstan, is a way of protecting the right to be anti-homosexual -- i.e., to think in a certain way -- if a nation so chooses. The people of Cluichstan themselves have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality, but we realise that there are some nations that do for whatever reason, be it religious, cultural, etc. With all due respect, the attempt by the esteemed representative of Venerable Libertarians to paint all of those who support this repeal as evil bigots smacks of cheap rhetoric aimed at simply irrationally demonising, by an appeal to emotion, a perfectly reasonable argument in favor of this proposed repeal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

I feel the honourable representative from Cluichistan is being unfair on the esteemed representative from Venerable Libertarians. It may be that NatSov can be construed as a legitimate argument, where it can be argued that different cultural or religious, etc, traditions lead to a dislike of homosexual activity and its practicioners. Yet this does not excuse this dislike, nor should we use NatSov to serve as a respectable cover for bigotry. Cultures may vary, but basic values of decency and humanity must remain the same, so therefore to defend the rights of a historically reviled and repressed minority is a noble cause and one to take up. I understand that Cluichistan is a reasonable nation of good-minded peoples, yet this is not the case for all nations and we should act to protect the rights of the vulnerable, whatever the cause of their vulnerability, wherever possible.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The Socialist Republic of Andaras Prime believes very strongly that national sovereignty is infinitely more important than any amount of so called civil rights.

Fair enough, you are not the only one, but fortunately most of the UN seems to disagree with you. Including notable members of the NSO.

The UN has got into a habit of pumping out ridiculous moral absolutes in respect to things which they have no right interfering in. An international authority has no right legislating on such exclusively national issues, such action will make more nations continually insular in regard to the international community. Individual national circumstances are clearly the issue hear, not hyped up idealist organisation throwing binding legislation at nations which they have no idea about governing. Talking of simple human rights, I think the most simple national right is the right to govern oneself without external interference. The imperialistic hegemony of this self righteous UN highlights a blatant invasion of national sovereignty, my nation quite simply finds this disgraceful.

Wow, how many different ways can you find to express the same point?

We are again puzzled about the speech of radical NatSov members. They seem to equate all civil and human rights of individuals to "ridiculous moral absolutes," while holding the decision power of nations sacrosanct, as an absolute value (which, naturally, is now neither ridiculous nor moral). The striking contradiction in this reasoning should be obvious.

We believe the concepts of rights, freedoms and obligations should apply first and foremost to individuals, and collective organisations above them, be it national governments or the UN itself, should be seen only as means to such ends.

My arguement does not really relate to Gay Rights, I really do not care for this issue, but what I do care about is the audacity of such proposers who think they can get away with trying to govern the proletariat dictatorship of Andaras Prime.

I can understand a dictator objecting to such decisions, which have as a main goal protecting individuals from the oppression of misguided governments. Rest assured, I will dedicate my efforts here to ensuring that the UN never reneges such worthy goals.

If this thread proves something, it is that most Primes are odd.

We believe the concepts of rights, freedoms and obligations should apply first and foremost to individuals, and collective organisations above them, be it national governments or the UN itself, should be seen only as means to such ends.
Then that is where I thoroughly disagree. You should also note that I represent a region as well as my nation.

Then that is where I thoroughly disagree. You should also note that I represent a region as well as my nation.

But would the honourable delegate from Anderas Prime not agree that citizens and peoples of nations deserve inaliable rights to practice, with consent an act or to express themselves and their feelings for others through marriage and partnership? Does he not agree that certain inablieble rights exist under these circumstances?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Then that is where I thoroughly disagree. You should also note that I represent a region as well as my nation.

Frankly, the fact that you are a delegate, the number of nations in your region, the date you joined NS, and your number of posts are all things that do not tickle me the slightest bit.

All I care about is your arguments and, to be honest, I consider your arguments dangerous, disturbing, and utterly outrageous. You believe the decision power of a leader is infinitely more important than the rights of his/her subjects. This means you are the sort of leader I would do my best to overthrow. And I would not lose one minute sleep over your dear NatSov.

Our own feelings on this are simple. It is not the place of the UN to try to dictate our subjects' rights, however 'fundamental' some feel they are. All land in Gruenberg is owned by the Sultan: what is done on that land is naturally subject to his dictates. We would not dictate the terms of actions on private property in other nations. Nonetheless, we feel a more effective argument for repealing 'Gay Rights' would be redundancy.

Our own feelings on this are simple. It is not the place of the UN to try to dictate our subjects' rights, however 'fundamental' some feel they are. All land in Gruenberg is owned by the Sultan: what is done on that land is naturally subject to his dictates. We would not dictate the terms of actions on private property in other nations. Nonetheless, we feel a more effective argument for repealing 'Gay Rights' would be redundancy.

Yes, you and Cluich are in the overthrowing list for some time now. ;) As I said before, I am glad most of the UN disagrees. Some may call it fluffyness, others humanism; I just call it common sense.

But would the honourable delegate from Anderas Prime not agree that citizens and peoples of nations deserve inaliable rights to practice, with consent an act or to express themselves and their feelings for others through marriage and partnership? Does he not agree that certain inablieble rights exist under these circumstances?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.
I should point out that I have nothing against gay rights in regard to my nation, but only to the extend of giving them equal rights as other citizens. I think proponents of this bill should recognise that UN, while it can be essential on some issues, should not dictate national policy. And when you refere to individuals, I assume you refere to private individuals, you should understand that private ownership and private individualism does not exist in my nation. My personal opinion is that the UN should only ever at the maximum be an influence of government policy, not a determinant. If a nation believes that domestically legislated bills that would result from global legislation would be beneficial to their nation, then they should approve this UN proposal. But it should ONLY happen in that kind of situation, no nation should ever be bound to follow UN legislation if they disagree with it. That will always be my uncomprimising opinion to protecting sovereignty.

Samuel Benson, President of Andaras Prime
Social Marxist Party

We are again puzzled about the speech of radical NatSov members. They seem to equate all civil and human rights of individuals to "ridiculous moral absolutes," while holding the decision power of nations sacrosanct, as an absolute value (which, naturally, is now neither ridiculous nor moral). The striking contradiction in this reasoning should be obvious.No such contradiction exists. The rights of sovereign nations are absolute.* The concept of human rights, however, differs dramatically by nation and culture. Your concept of human rights and ours may be two entirely different things. Moreover, it does not affect our nation if you protect gay rights, are indifferent toward them, oppose them, or even persecute gays. The United Nations is an international organization, and should devote its resources to international issues. It is not an instrument for certain nations to impose their own concept of rights upon all nations. We see no reason whatsoever why sovereign nations should not retain the right to decide for themselves which rights are applicable to their own citizens, therefore we support a repeal of Gay Rights.

However, we review individual repeals for this particular esolution on a case-by-case basis, as many of them we have seen have been based entirely on bigotry, something we cannot suport as the basis for a repeal. And seeing as how there is no standing proposal to review in this case, we will withhold our judgment on this question.

With warm Christmas greetings to all,

Jack Riley
Ambassador to the United Nations

* Not valid in Tiki Taki or The Eternal Kawaii.

Then that is where I thoroughly disagree. You should also note that I represent a region as well as my nation.
Does this, along with this National Sovereignty stance, strike anyone else as terribly ironic?

I don't believe The United Nations should have any say so in The Gay Rights issues. I believe if the nations do wish to do so, they can decide through legislation.

The President of The United States of Yugoslavitania,
Robert Barker

No such contradiction exists. The rights of sovereign nations are absolute.* The concept of human rights, however, differs dramatically by nation and culture. Your concept of human rights and ours may be two entirely different things. Moreover, it does not affect our nation if you protect gay rights, are indifferent toward them, oppose them, or even persecute gays. The United Nations is an international organization, and should devote its resources to international issues. It is not an instrument for certain nations to impose their own concept of rights upon all nations. We see no reason whatsoever why sovereign nations should not retain the right to decide for themselves which rights are applicable to their own citizens, therefore we support a repeal of Gay Rights.

However, we review individual repeals for this particular esolution on a case-by-case basis, as many of them we have seen have been based entirely on bigotry, something we cannot suport as the basis for a repeal. And seeing as how there is no standing proposal to review in this case, we will withhold our judgment on this question.

With warm Christmas greetings to all,

Jack Riley
Ambassador to the United Nations

* Not valid in Tiki Taki or The Eternal Kawaii.

I see. So let us separate all possible rights into two categories. Those favoured by Ambassador Riley into category "absolute," and those not favoured by said Ambassador into category "cultural." From here the rest of the argument follows easily; unfortunately Mr. Riley's premises are completely unfounded, and nothing more than a political belief.

In the spirit of Christmas, I would naively hope for Mr. Riley to accept this: The very simple fact that we are discussing the issue means that the "right to NatSov" is debatable, thus not absolute, and differing dramatically by nation, culture, and political beliefs. Now, I would never use this as an argument against such rights, as I would expect Mr. Riley not to use similar arguments against human rights.

I do not believe truth lies in consensus. Yes, I will defend what I believe to be fundamental human rights, say, freedom of expression. The fact that other nations and cultures do not accept such rights as "fundamental" does not divert me from my fight; if anything, that makes the topic more of a pressing concern. If you want to call it cultural imperialism, go ahead. I call it the plain democratic workings of the UN.

Now, before I start getting replies on tangents: This post was NOT meant to prove that my beliefs are right and Mr. Riley's are wrong. It is meant to show that everyone's position on this matter depends on fundamental political beliefs, rather than on some rights being inherently "absolute" or "cultural." It is also meant to show that NatSov arguments are, in themselves, an attempt to impose certain values on the mandate of the UN, and therefore on all member nations.

Final point: I do believe NatSov should be protected. But I do not put it on top of the priority list; I agree with
Although Yelda is a proud member of NSO, it has always been our policy that Human Rights trumps NatSov. Everytime.

Warm PC seasonal greetings to all. :)

I do not believe truth lies in consensus. Yes, I will defend what I believe to be fundamental human rights, say, freedom of expression. The fact that other nations and cultures do not accept such rights as "fundamental" does not divert me from my fight; if anything, that makes the topic more of a pressing concern. If you want to call it cultural imperialism, go ahead.

There are some matters on which a nation must take a stand, if it is to be the nation it believes itself to be. For us, this is one of them.

No doubt some rational, hard-headed nations will describe the Fonzoland delegate's speech as 'rabble-rousing' or 'sheer oratory'.

Well, consider this part of the rabble roused. I wish I'd said that.

My government believes that joining the United Nations is, in itself, a conscious agreement to cede some national rights.

But not human rights. I thank the delegate from Fonzoland for reminding us all of that over-riding commitment.

No such contradiction exists. The rights of sovereign nations are absolute.* The concept of human rights, however, differs dramatically by nation and culture. Your concept of human rights and ours may be two entirely different things. Moreover, it does not affect our nation if you protect gay rights, are indifferent toward them, oppose them, or even persecute gays. The United Nations is an international organization, and should devote its resources to international issues. It is not an instrument for certain nations to impose their own concept of rights upon all nations. We see no reason whatsoever why sovereign nations should not retain the right to decide for themselves which rights are applicable to their own citizens, therefore we support a repeal of Gay Rights.

However, we review individual repeals for this particular esolution on a case-by-case basis, as many of them we have seen have been based entirely on bigotry, something we cannot suport as the basis for a repeal. And seeing as how there is no standing proposal to review in this case, we will withhold our judgment on this question.

With warm Christmas greetings to all,

Jack Riley
Ambassador to the United Nations

* Not valid in Tiki Taki or The Eternal Kawaii.
I could not possibly agree more, the UN should be restricted to international issues, and get out of the parliaments of so many nations where it does not belong. The domestic issues of a sovereign nation should be delt with exclusively by that nation alone.

I could not possibly agree more, the UN should be restricted to international issues, and get out of the parliaments of so many nations where it does not belong. The domestic issues of a sovereign nation should be delt with exclusively by that nation alone.
You sound like you should join the National Sovereignty Organization. (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You sound like you should join the National Sovereignty Organization. (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Thanks, who would I message on the forum to request joining?

Thanks, who would I message on the forum to request joining?
All you have to do is register on the forum.

I do not believe truth lies in consensus. Yes, I will defend what I believe to be fundamental human rights, say, freedom of expression. The fact that other nations and cultures do not accept such rights as "fundamental" does not divert me from my fight; if anything, that makes the topic more of a pressing concern. If you want to call it cultural imperialism, go ahead. I call it the plain democratic workings of the UN.Very well, it's cultural imperialism. I only hope you understand that what you're fighting for are not "fundamental rights," but rather your own particular prejudices and preferences where societal governance is concerned. You believe all societies must recognize the same basic rights and freedoms you do, and in the same manner and respect that you do -- even though there are many hundreds of nations who do not share your view of human rights. So why do your values trump theirs?

We are not discussing an issue of international reach here: My nation's laws re: gay rights do not affect any other nation's, so why is this even a topic of concern in these hallowed halls? Because there is in this body a dangerous majority coalition of fluffies and so-called "international federalists" who have come to the conclusion that all issues that tug at their heartstrings merit international legislation. You heart may bleed for the rights of the citizens of Boricuastan, but I am more concerned over what precedent we are setting when we step in and tell the Boricuastanis that we have made an arbitrary judgment that their system of justice is inferior to our moral sentiments and that our values are better suited for governing their country.

I find it amusing that you continually quote NSO members in a vain attempt to bolster your own point of view. These nations you quote, I have worked with them in the past, I have great respect for them, but I do not agree with them on everything -- and their status as NSO members certainly does not make me more or less likely to agree with them. The "NSO Member" tag does not give anybody a superior moral mandate in this discussion.

Jack Riley

In fairness to the Fonzoland delegate (and by the way, I'm sorry I keep referring to you in that impersonal way, but I couldn't find your name in the UN Guide; I hope it will be in the 2006 edition) -- anyway, the delegate was aware of the point Mr Riley has made. He said,
This post was NOT meant to prove that my beliefs are right and Mr. Riley's are wrong. It is meant to show that everyone's position on this matter depends on fundamental political beliefs, rather than on some rights being inherently "absolute" or "cultural." It is also meant to show that NatSov arguments are, in themselves, an attempt to impose certain values on the mandate of the UN, and therefore on all member nations.
The UN sometimes votes to over-ride national sovereignty on matters its member nations consider universally important. It sometimes votes to uphold national sovereignty on matters that this nation might consider universally important. This is the nature of a body such as the UN. It is not a reflection of the intrinsic worth of any proposal.

There are any number of practices which, carried out by one nation, do not affect another. Nation X may very well discriminate against the left handed, the curly-haired, the blue-eyed or those with a longer second toe, without disrupting the economies, governance or morals of other nations. But if Nation X is a UN member, other UN members have a right to tell them that these practices are not sanctioned by other UN nations. We have a right to try to persuade them to stop. They have a right to try to persuade us to start.

I am glad to hear so many delegates declaring that the rights of gays are guaranteed in their nation. I can only wonder why they are not therefore trying to persuade other nations to join them in this admirable attitude. This debate is an opportunity to do so, rather than to return time and again to the philosophical NatSov versus "fluffy" spats which are diverting us from the actual topics of individual proposals.
*Dame Andrea Fraser-Fairfax, OL, resumes her seat*

Very well, it's cultural imperialism. I only hope you understand that what you're fighting for are not "fundamental rights," but rather your own particular prejudices and preferences where societal governance is concerned. You believe all societies must recognize the same basic rights and freedoms you do, and in the same manner and respect that you do -- even though there are many hundreds of nations who do not share your view of human rights. So why do your values trump theirs?

You seem to have missed my main point. You are trying to impose your own rights and freedoms, NatSov being one of them. I try to impose mine. Yet you claim your values are fundamental and absolute, while mine are not. Why do your values trump mine?

We are not discussing an issue of international reach here: My nation's laws re: gay rights do not affect any other nation's, so why is this even a topic of concern in these hallowed halls? Because there is in this body a dangerous majority coalition of fluffies and so-called "international federalists" who have come to the conclusion that all issues that tug at their heartstrings merit international legislation. You heart may bleed for the rights of the citizens of Boricuastan, but I am more concerned over what precedent we are setting when we step in and tell the Boricuastanis that we have made an arbitrary judgment that their system of justice is inferior to our moral sentiments and that our values are better suited for governing their country.

This is a fundamental divergence between us. You feel the UN has responsibilities only towards the leader of Boricuastanis. I feel we have a responsibility towards all citizens of Boricuastanis. Repeating the point you seem to have skipped: we are fighting to impose different sets of values.

I find it amusing that you continually quote NSO members in a vain attempt to bolster your own point of view. These nations you quote, I have worked with them in the past, I have great respect for them, but I do not agree with them on everything -- and their status as NSO members certainly does not make me more or less likely to agree with them. The "NSO Member" tag does not give anybody a superior moral mandate in this discussion.

I resent your words. First, it is a blatant and obvious lie that I continuously quote NSO members. I quoted Yelda in this instance, to show that others like me respect the principle of NatSov without making it the only mandate of the UN. Second, I don't give a damn if you agree with them or not: I agree with them, and I have the right to state it here. Finally, suggesting that I attribute a superior moral mandate to NSO members is ridiculous arrogance on your part. If I did, I would have joined the NSO already, don't you think so? I can quote whomever I please; and I am glad it amuses you.

You seem to have missed my main point. You are trying to impose your own rights and freedoms, NatSov being one of them. I try to impose mine. Yet you claim your values are fundamental and absolute, while mine are not. Why do your values trump mine?

Firstly, our values trump yours because we say so, and we say so louder
==> we win

Secondly, he's not forcing anyone to respect NatSov in their personal actions, or in their thoughts. He's talking about legislation, which is something very different. There is no such thing in a fundamental right: the 30,000+ cultures of the UN are too diverse, too evolutionary, for such sweeping generalizations to hold universally true. What is the case, though, is that legislation can embrace certain basic precepts, and allow nations to adapt - or not to adapt - that to suit their individual criteria (and where we talk about nations, we of course allow for, and encourage, further regional devolution). We like killing people in Gruenberg: other cultures see that as wrong. One need not consciously consider national sovereignty to realize that my attempting to force non-Gruenbergers to kill would be as racist as those who would compel us not to kill.

This is a fundamental divergence between us. You feel the UN has responsibilities only towards the leader of Boricuastanis. I feel we have a responsibility towards all citizens of Boricuastanis. Repeating the point you seem to have skipped: we are fighting to impose different sets of values.

The Boricuastanis did not necessarily choose to join the UN. They have the freedom to leave their country, and enter a non-UN nation (something we will see when we implement a Tobin Tax). They are not those who vote in the UN: this is a union of nations, not of people. So, yes, the UN's only responsibilities are to the leader (/government/council/etc.) That is not forcing any values on - perhaps I think we should be responsible for citizens - but it is merely acknowledging the absolute truth of the nature of this organization.

I should point out that I have nothing against gay rights in regard to my nation, but only to the extend of giving them equal rights as other citizens. I think proponents of this bill should recognise that UN, while it can be essential on some issues, should not dictate national policy. And when you refere to individuals, I assume you refere to private individuals, you should understand that private ownership and private individualism does not exist in my nation. My personal opinion is that the UN should only ever at the maximum be an influence of government policy, not a determinant. If a nation believes that domestically legislated bills that would result from global legislation would be beneficial to their nation, then they should approve this UN proposal. But it should ONLY happen in that kind of situation, no nation should ever be bound to follow UN legislation if they disagree with it. That will always be my uncomprimising opinion to protecting sovereignty.

Samuel Benson, President of Andaras Prime
Social Marxist Party

If you deny gay citizens the same rights as 'ordinary' citizens, then you are treating them as second-class citizens, whether intentionally or not, something that most would regard as unconsciencable.

As for your views on the relevance of the U.N., I would remind you that to refuse a U.N. legislation is impossible and to view it as only setting broad trends, being its ultimate and desirable objective, is to overlook the tremendous potential of collective international debate and action. Equally, you overlook the irrelevance of National Sovereignty when it comes to dealing with international issues and rights, which we believe are protected under this resolution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

If you deny gay citizens the same rights as 'ordinary' citizens, then you are treating them as second-class citizens, whether intentionally or not, something that most would regard as unconsciencable.

'You' - by which anti-sovereigntists in general - need, in your own interests, to drop this argument.

Long ago in Gruenberg, the practice of slavery was not just common: it was the norm. A few people campaigned against it, arguing that it was inhuman to 'own' another human. Their ideas were something that most regarded as unconsciencable. They were all killed, in a variety of colourful, inventive, and amusing ways. But today, they are hailed as heroes, and some of them have their pictures on coins, and so on. What 'most' think can a) change and b) be wrong. I accept that UN decisions are in theory decided by a majority, but it is wrong-headed to think that we should all do what you regard 'most' as thinking.

Firstly, our values trump yours because we say so, and we say so louder
==> we win

I understand you think so, and I thank you for confirming my previous point. People who base their whole arguments on moral relativism should never argue for NatSov as an absolute right.

Secondly, he's not forcing anyone to respect NatSov in their personal actions, or in their thoughts. He's talking about legislation, which is something very different. There is no such thing in a fundamental right: the 30,000+ cultures of the UN are too diverse, too evolutionary, for such sweeping generalizations to hold universally true. What is the case, though, is that legislation can embrace certain basic precepts, and allow nations to adapt - or not to adapt - that to suit their individual criteria (and where we talk about nations, we of course allow for, and encourage, further regional devolution). We like killing people in Gruenberg: other cultures see that as wrong. One need not consciously consider national sovereignty to realize that my attempting to force non-Gruenbergers to kill would be as racist as those who would compel us not to kill.

I don't want to turn this thread into ping-pong, and I have argued against such objections before, so I will just leave you with minor platitudes: Laws forbidding murder are NOT racist; killing infringes on the rights of the victim. Other than that, I will agree to disagree.

The Boricuastanis did not necessarily choose to join the UN. They have the freedom to leave their country, and enter a non-UN nation (something we will see when we implement a Tobin Tax).

The freedom to leave a country is not yet enshrined in international law. When such a proposal is submitted, you can be sure that NatSov arguments will be presented against it.

They are not those who vote in the UN: this is a union of nations, not of people. So, yes, the UN's only responsibilities are to the leader (/government/council/etc.) That is not forcing any values on - perhaps I think we should be responsible for citizens - but it is merely acknowledging the absolute truth of the nature of this organization.

As I said before, I believe the main responsibility of any collective organisation is to individuals. I believe nations are composed of citizens, not leaders. And I know which side to take when a leader oppresses citizens. I respect your opinion, I disagree with it, and again I find it bad debating style to present opinions as the "absolute truth," specially coming from people who claim that fundamental rights do not exist. I have seen you more than once attacking people who claim to know what the mandate of the UN is.

You seem to have missed my main point. You are trying to impose your own rights and freedoms, NatSov being one of them. I try to impose mine. Yet you claim your values are fundamental and absolute, while mine are not. Why do your values trump mine?I'm not pushing any one set of values: I'm saying that since the fundamental sovereignty of nations exists, the UN should respect it in its legislative mandates. Morals and values, however, are not absolute, and therefore, United Nations should not be advocating on behalf of any particular moral agenda.

This is a fundamental divergence between us. You feel the UN has responsibilities only towards the leader of Boricuastanis. I feel we have a responsibility towards all citizens of Boricuastanis. Repeating the point you seem to have skipped: we are fighting to impose different sets of values.Forcing the Boricuastanis to accept gay marriage would be imposing a set of values. Forcing the Boricuastanis to marry members of the same sex would be imposing a set of values. Forcing the Boricuastanis to have sex with someone of the same sex as least once in their lifetime in order to foster "tolerance" among the Boricuastani people would be imposing a set of values. Forcing the Boricuastanis the outlaw gay marriage would be imposing a set of values. Forcing the Boricuastanis to persecute gays would be imposing a set of values.

Keeping our filthy nose out of the Boricuastanis' business where the governance of their own society and nation are concerned is not imposing any set of values. I really don't understand this peculiar line of reasoning on your part.

I resent your words. First, it is a blatant and obvious lie that I continuously quote NSO members. I quoted Yelda in this instance, to show that others like me respect the principle of NatSov without making it the only mandate of the UN. Second, I don't give a damn if you agree with them or not: I agree with them, and I have the right to state it here. Finally, suggesting that I attribute a superior moral mandate to NSO members is ridiculous arrogance on your part. If I did, I would have joined the NSO already, don't you think so? I can quote whomever I please; and I am glad it amuses you.You're also free to flip out and overreact whenever you please. You've held up the NSO mandate twice in this debate, once with me, once with Andaras Prime.

But it should ONLY happen in that kind of situation, no nation should ever be bound to follow UN legislation if they disagree with it. That will always be my uncomprimising opinion to protecting sovereignty.

Fails at the site FAQ.

So I'm a UN member. Now what?

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

The Allied Empire of Jey will be very blunt in this explanation:

We do not feel that governments should be given the right to oppress the rights of men who screw other men's asses as opposed to men who screw women's asses.

This is not infringing on NatSov, it's being morally right.

As Such,

We do not feel that governments should be given the right to oppress the rights of men who are of black skin pigment as opposed to men who are of lighter skin pigment.

This is not infringing on NatSov, it's being morally right.

This is not infringing on NatSov, it's being morally right.

Yes, it is morally right...for you. There is no unconditional, universal morality. There should be - mine - but there's not. You will not dictate to me that what you 'feel' is 'right' is something that must be imposed upon me, just as I will not to you.

*snip*We share your views on moral rightness, but we recognize that other nations may not. Therefore, our shared values are not universal, and the question remains whether the United Nations has a mandate to legislate morality. We hold it does not.

Establishment of moral rightness is question for organized religion and other institututions to which society assigns moral authority. Determining how societal morals apply to the law is a question for national, state and local governments. But what role does the UN play?

Even though the UN may have a role as a referee where dueling national standards collide on an international scale, we hold it does not have a similar role as a referee over dueling values systems. Our values may differ from those of Boricuastan. So what? The purpose of international law is not to decide which values warrant enforcement in all member states, but to establish international standards in areas where member nations may potentially have a conflict.

Diplomatic immunity; international patent and copyright law; international trade agreements (for example, GFDA); establishing international agencies for the betterment of humanity (International Red Cross, Microcredit Bazaar, UNSBE); universal visa and passport standards; international terrorism; international treaties pertaining to war crimes, acts of war, POW status or official neutrality; even global disarmament agreements (which we always oppose) -- all are fair game where the United Nations and international law are concerned.

Whether men should be allowed to fuck each other? Not so much.

*snip*
Keeping our filthy nose out of the Boricuastanis' business where the governance of their own society and nation are concerned is not imposing any set of values. I really don't understand this peculiar line of reasoning on your part.

You are saying that morals are not absolute. You are saying that sovereignity is more important than human rights. You are saying that the UN does not have the right to impose such rights. All these are values, political beliefs, whatever you want to call them. By urging the UN to behave accordingly, you are imposing your (political) values on all the UN members who disagree with you, and happen to place more importance in human rights. It is your democratic right to do so, just don't pretend all you are defending is absolute and undebatable.

Forcing the Boricuastanis to accept gay marriage is not imposing values on any individual. Rather, it is forcing some Boricuastanis, eventually the majority, to respect the values of a minority of gay Boricuastanis.

You're also free to flip out and overreact whenever you please. You've held up the NSO mandate twice in this debate, once with me, once with Andaras Prime.

Thank you, I really like overreacting. ;)

I did not mention the NSO mandate, whatever it is. I quoted Yelda once, without special reference to his status as an NSO member, other than that in his own statement. The other time, I made reference to the existence of NSO members with different beliefs, which is NOT a quote. As such, your accusation was completely incorrect. Furthermore, my point in both occasions is valid - human rights and NatSov are not exclusive choices; many among us defend both, with different weights on each; some defenders of NatSov (NSO members are an example) occasionally abandon it when higher principles are at stake.

I hope my position is clarified. As I told Gruendberg, I happily agree to disagree.

We share your views on moral rightness, but we recognize that other nations may not. Therefore, our shared values are not universal, and the question remains whether the United Nations has a mandate to legislate morality. We hold it does not.

There are also nations that agree that all blacks should not be given the right to live, and that women are just sex objects. There are also nations that agree that we should nuke the world because humans destroy it anyway. There are also nations that agree that [insert really bad thing here].

Our question is this: why bother letting these nations practice these horrible beliefs?

Our solution: screw em, we will legislate morality so that they can't practice this unjust hate.

There are also nations that agree that all blacks should not be given the right to live, and that women are just sex objects. There are also nations that agree that we should nuke the world because humans destroy it anyway. There are also nations that agree that [insert really bad thing here].

Our question is this: why bother letting these nations practice these horrible beliefs?

Our solution: screw em, we will legislate morality so that they can't practice this unjust hate.

And they will resign from the UN, and continue to do so. Great work, soldier.

And they will resign from the UN, and continue to do so. Great work, soldier.

That is obviously a risk, but if they are in the UN, it is because they see some benefits in it. Which gives us some leverage to change their policies before they decide to leave.

That is obviously a risk, but if they are in the UN, it is because they see some benefits in it. Which gives us some leverage to change their policies before they decide to leave.

Bullshit. What's the (statistically) best resolution ever passed? Ban FGM. Does it ban what is regarded by 'most' as an abhorrent practice? No. It creates the means for it to be abolished, though, by establishing an education program, and issuing an international condemnation of the practice. I disagree with it still, but it's such a better approach. If your attitude is simply 'fuck em', then they will leave the UN, and continue to fuck their citizens. If we actually stopped acting like oppressive parents, and made the UN something which it is 'profitable' to join, then it'd have a lot more swing as an international organization.

Bullshit. What's the (statistically) best resolution ever passed? Ban FGM. Does it ban what is regarded by 'most' as an abhorrent practice? No. It creates the means for it to be abolished, though, by establishing an education program, and issuing an international condemnation of the practice. I disagree with it still, but it's such a better approach. If your attitude is simply 'fuck em', then they will leave the UN, and continue to fuck their citizens. If we actually stopped acting like oppressive parents, and made the UN something which it is 'profitable' to join, then it'd have a lot more swing as an international organization.

Bullshit. FGM treats it that way because it is a practice of people, not a practice of the state. As such, a complete ban would be innefective. If you have a resolution about genocide, freedom of expression, etc., do you really want to create an educational programme to convince Nazis that they should behave nicer?

I agree with you that 'fuck them' is not the best attitude, as you might have noticed in previous discussions on what constitutes 'diplomatic behaviour.' ;) That expression was not mine. I also accept your point on making the UN more attractive to new members. But I refuse the attitude of pretending something is acceptable just because some countries practice it.

--snip--
But I refuse the attitude of pretending something is acceptable just because some countries practice it.

I refuse the attitude of pretending something is unacceptable just because some countries don't practice it. I guess I'm just more tolerant.

I refuse the attitude of pretending something is unacceptable just because some countries don't practice it. I guess I'm just more tolerant.

Debatable. You are more tolerant towards government decisions. I am intolerant towards governments who are intolerant with their citizens.

If a government decides to kill all people of dark skin, you consider yourself tolerant because you allow them to do it, I consider myself tolerant because I try to prevent it.

Debatable. You are more tolerant towards government decisions. I am intolerant towards governments who are intolerant with their citizens.

If a government decides to kill all people of dark skin, you consider yourself tolerant because you allow them to do it, I consider myself tolerant because I try to prevent it.

It's alright. I'm so tolerant, I'll tolerate your intolerance. You don't need to justify it to me.

And they will resign from the UN, and continue to do so. Great work, soldier.
you say that like its a bad thing

you say that like its a bad thing

That would be because I do consider it a bad a thing. I'm glad my communication skills are so sharp.

If we drive everyone out of the UN, then not only are we unable to legislate on them, but we lose valuable voices and resources, weakening the organization as a whole. I don't believe the UN should be the 'Liberal Gentleman's Smoking Club': I believe it should be as all-embracing as possible, because I don't know with the certainty of some others that my culture is so superior to others. I feel international legislation benefits from having a truly international backing. That may mean embracing concepts or practices I disagree with: so long as they are not forced on my nation, we are secure enough in our morality to accept that.

It's alright. I'm so tolerant, I'll tolerate your intolerance. You don't need to justify it to me.

Thank you, I am touched.

That would be because I do consider it a bad a thing. I'm glad my communication skills are so sharp.

If we drive everyone out of the UN, then not only are we unable to legislate on them, but we lose valuable voices and resources, weakening the organization as a whole. I don't believe the UN should be the 'Liberal Gentleman's Smoking Club': I believe it should be as all-embracing as possible, because I don't know with the certainty of some others that my culture is so superior to others. I feel international legislation benefits from having a truly international backing. That may mean embracing concepts or practices I disagree with: so long as they are not forced on my nation, we are secure enough in our morality to accept that.
yeah, i could probably agree with that. the biggest thing is that there seems to be this really big NatSov divide atm. whilst i am all for NatSov, i do respect the UN and some of the legislation neccessary for human rights. the problem is a lot of nations are starting to think there is too much UN control.

the problem is a lot of nations are starting to think there is too much UN control.

Yeah, see I don't see the downtrodden rising up against their oppressive master in the name of freedom as a 'problem'.

Yeah, see I don't see the downtrodden rising up against their oppressive master in the name of freedom as a 'problem'.
i dont either. although, for some, the think they need more control over certain aspects of their nation that they see the UN as having taken away from them.

Final point: I do believe NatSov should be protected. But I do not put it on top of the priority list; I agree with

Originally Posted by Yours Truly
Although Yelda is a proud member of NSO, it has always been our policy that Human Rights trumps NatSov. Everytime.

Warm PC seasonal greetings to all.

I find it amusing that you continually quote NSO members in a vain attempt to bolster your own point of view. These nations you quote, I have worked with them in the past, I have great respect for them, but I do not agree with them on everything -- and their status as NSO members certainly does not make me more or less likely to agree with them. The "NSO Member" tag does not give anybody a superior moral mandate in this discussion.
I resent your words. First, it is a blatant and obvious lie that I continuously quote NSO members. I quoted Yelda in this instance, to show that others like me respect the principle of NatSov without making it the only mandate of the UN. Second, I don't give a damn if you agree with them or not: I agree with them, and I have the right to state it here. Finally, suggesting that I attribute a superior moral mandate to NSO members is ridiculous arrogance on your part. If I did, I would have joined the NSO already, don't you think so? I can quote whomever I please; and I am glad it amuses you.
You're also free to flip out and overreact whenever you please. You've held up the NSO mandate twice in this debate, once with me, once with Andaras Prime.
Thank you, I really like overreacting.

I did not mention the NSO mandate, whatever it is. I quoted Yelda once, without special reference to his status as an NSO member, other than that in his own statement. The other time, I made reference to the existence of NSO members with different beliefs, which is NOT a quote. As such, your accusation was completely incorrect. Furthermore, my point in both occasions is valid - human rights and NatSov are not exclusive choices; many among us defend both, with different weights on each; some defenders of NatSov (NSO members are an example) occasionally abandon it when higher principles are at stake.

~me~
<is flattered by all of the attention>

<likes hearing himself mentioned in public>

<sits back and enjoys, in eager anticipation of more fireworks>

To the NatSovs:

You're going to lose this debate. You're going to lose because, as a matter of fact, universal human rights trump an individual government's drive to ignore them. It always will. You might have a point. The UN might have too much power. The UN might have too much control at this point in time, but you're not going to get your win here. You're not going to change the UN on a hot topic like this one.

NatSov won out on banishment because it was a much fuzzier issue. There's no way it can win on a proposal entitled "Repeal Gay Rights." Again, it is clear that there is a point to be made from that side, but honestly, this is not the right place to make it.

Give up, try again, and please learn to choose your battles.

Give up, try again, and please learn to choose your battles.

No.

It is plainly not fact that 'as a matter of fact, universal human rights trump an individual government's drive to ignore them'. There are presently 80,000 nations able to do just do that. The assumption that the 30,000 in the UN must live by a completely different standard is mistaken. Granted, we do have to adhere to universal laws, and acknowledge universal rights: but ultimately, the individual government can resign from the UN, can rescind all international treaties and obligations, and can do what the fuck it likes. Up until the revolution comes, some would say. But that is not a guaranteed fact. This belief that because we are in the palm of your hand, you can squeeze as hard as you like, is not a solid basis for legislation: we can always jump off.

As to this debate, I agree it would be hard to push a NatSov line. I genuinely believe a repeal based on redundancy stands a decent chance. And, in general, 'hot topics' aren't those which are comfortably settled. They're those around which there is still room for discussion.

To the NatSovs:

You're going to lose this debate. You're going to lose because, as a matter of fact, universal human rights trump an individual government's drive to ignore them. It always will.

Sigh... In fairness to the NatSov defenders that I criticised for the same reason, I must revisit this discussion and object. Presenting your opinion as a fact is bad debating style. Even when your opinion is the same as mine.

To the NatSovs:

You're going to lose this debate. You're going to lose because, as a matter of fact, universal human rights trump an individual government's drive to ignore them. It always will. You might have a point. The UN might have too much power. The UN might have too much control at this point in time, but you're not going to get your win here. You're not going to change the UN on a hot topic like this one.

NatSov won out on banishment because it was a much fuzzier issue. There's no way it can win on a proposal entitled "Repeal Gay Rights." Again, it is clear that there is a point to be made from that side, but honestly, this is not the right place to make it.

Give up, try again, and please learn to choose your battles.

The only reason NatSov is going to lose this debate is because apparently the argument of national sovereignty has been deemed inapplicable by the moderation staff. Apparently they got nervous that this thing would actually make quorum and pass, so they stamped it out. How about letting us, the UN members, decide what's an acceptable argument and what isn't? This whole thing wreaks of corruption and bias.

The only reason NatSov is going to lose this debate is because apparently the argument of national sovereignty has been deemed inapplicable by the moderation staff. Apparently they got nervous that this thing would actually make quorum and pass, so they stamped it out. How about letting us, the UN members, decide what's an acceptable argument and what isn't? This whole thing wreaks of corruption and bias.

Your whole post smells of prejudice and ignorance. If you have a problem with a mod ruling, then debate their reasoning (presented earlier in the thread) point by point. Lauching suspicion and insult does no more than create a reputation for yourself.

'You' - by which anti-sovereigntists in general - need, in your own interests, to drop this argument.

Long ago in Gruenberg, the practice of slavery was not just common: it was the norm. A few people campaigned against it, arguing that it was inhuman to 'own' another human. Their ideas were something that most regarded as unconsciencable. They were all killed, in a variety of colourful, inventive, and amusing ways. But today, they are hailed as heroes, and some of them have their pictures on coins, and so on. What 'most' think can a) change and b) be wrong. I accept that UN decisions are in theory decided by a majority, but it is wrong-headed to think that we should all do what you regard 'most' as thinking.

As a quick side note, 'anti-sovereigntist' is not the title we prefer to use. 'U.N. Federalist, U.N. Sovereigntist, U.N. Internationalist, etc, are the prefered ones.

Perhaps most was flippant, perhaps I ought to phrase it like so: If most say we should slaughter the first-borns, it doesn't make it necessarily acceptable, it means it enjoys majority support. Yet some rights can enjoy majority support and be considered conscienable, whilst others can enjoy minority support and be considered as such. There are limits to 'relativism' in these matters. There comes a point when you have to say, this is right and this is wrong, for the benefits of moral and ethical clarity.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

No.

It is plainly not fact that 'as a matter of fact, universal human rights trump an individual government's drive to ignore them'. There are presently 80,000 nations able to do just do that. The assumption that the 30,000 in the UN must live by a completely different standard is mistaken. Granted, we do have to adhere to universal laws, and acknowledge universal rights: but ultimately, the individual government can resign from the UN, can rescind all international treaties and obligations, and can do what the fuck it likes. Up until the revolution comes, some would say. But that is not a guaranteed fact. This belief that because we are in the palm of your hand, you can squeeze as hard as you like, is not a solid basis for legislation: we can always jump off.

As to this debate, I agree it would be hard to push a NatSov line. I genuinely believe a repeal based on redundancy stands a decent chance. And, in general, 'hot topics' aren't those which are comfortably settled. They're those around which there is still room for discussion.
I was only referring to those with UN memberships. The rest of the world can interfere with or ignore its citizens as it pleases. In the case of the UN, universal, inaliable human rights will always trump national sovereignty.

And you're right. Anyone who disagrees can always jump off; but then, they wouldn't be in the UN, would they? And the rule still applies.

Sigh... In fairness to the NatSov defenders that I criticised for the same reason, I must revisit this discussion and object. Presenting your opinion as a fact is bad debating style. Even when your opinion is the same as mine.
This entire debate is more emotional than it is factual. The whole issue is.

Truth be told, Fonzo, I wasn't trying to debate anything. I wasn't making an argument for or against this proposal. I was explaining why it was pointless for the NatSov group to make its case with this issue. It's pointless because of everything I said in that post and in the first sentence of this one.

You're not going to make headway with national sovereignty on an issue dealing with human rights. The reason behind this is that the very definition of human rights are those that extend beyond national borders.

I'm not arguing like it's the truth; I'm telling the truth.

NatSov won out on banishment because it was a much fuzzier issue.
Personally I believe that National Soverignty lost on the banishment issue because, as I stated in the debate thread on that resolution, your National Soverignty ends at my nation's borders.

You can now go back to talking about repealing the Gay Rights resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

NatSov won out on banishment because it was a much fuzzier issue.

Nat Sov didn't win out on banishment, most of those arguements against it were uninformed and ignorant. It lost out mostly because of the mistakes I made when writing the resolution, especially the citizenship issue. It will be redone and back...sometime in the future.

I don't support a repeal of the Gay Rights resolution at all. Not on nat sov grounds, redundancy grounds or any other grounds. Yes, I'm one of those fluffy people who believe the rights of the individual to chose for themselves how to live their lives (as long as that doesn't hurt other people) trump any perceived rights of a government to oppress and discriminate against them.

We share your views on moral rightness, but we recognize that other nations may not. Therefore, our shared values are not universal, and the question remains whether the United Nations has a mandate to legislate morality. We hold it does not.

I think you're confusing the mandate of the real-life UN [which still has more far-reaching ability to tell nations what they can't do than you'd like, given the ICCPR, ICESC and all] with the mandate of the NS UN, which can do whatever the hell it collectively feels like doing.

The only reason NatSov is going to lose this debate is because apparently the argument of national sovereignty has been deemed inapplicable by the moderation staff. Apparently they got nervous that this thing would actually make quorum and pass, so they stamped it out. How about letting us, the UN members, decide what's an acceptable argument and what isn't? This whole thing wreaks of corruption and bias.

Not at all, NatSov was deemed inapplicable, probably due to the fact that the resolution in question was a "Human Rights" one and the very nature of "Human Rights" is that they are universal and not to be impeded or infringed by any government, therfore their universality renders them immune to national legislative perogatives.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I think you're confusing the mandate of the real-life UN ... with the mandate of the NS UN, ...Nope. Sorry.

... which can do whatever the hell it collectively feels like doing.I can also binge-drink, chain-smoke and have all the unprotected sex I want. Doesn't mean I should.

Thank you for clarifying your position, now I will clarify mine.

If people believe in your "values and traditions," they will refrain their homosexual tendencies. If they do not believe in your Church (a right established by another resolution), they do not need to follow your values and traditions. The only country attempting to force rules upon others is Dresophila Prime, by denying individuals their right to choose their own "values and traditions."

Now call me Satan if you must, but I shall fight your repeal with all my strength.
<Places inflatable Gandalf in this thread>

As a Free an Honorable Nation it is the right of the Government to decide what they feel is best for its citizens. However, It is never appropriate to to denie anyone the right of freedom. Reguardless of your beliefs and traditions a free people will always result in a happy people. Laws must always be for the benefit of the nation and its people. When you start restricting personal freedoms that have no affect on the running of the nation or safty of its citizens then you are only passing statutes that restrict and harm your citizens. Personal values are never a basis for law.

The people of Knolvania Salute you and will stand by the fight of this repeal

I am not interesting in anti-sovereigntists presenting their arguments as fact. I do not hold that my opinions are fact - I accept that they are open to interpretation and bias - and I expect you to acknowledge the same. Human rights are a legal concept: they are not concrete fact.

In any case, the mod ruling has to my mind been misinterpreted. They did not delete the proposal because it was based on sovereignty: they deleted the proposal because it was incorrect. It suggested that repealing Gay Rights would give nations certain rights: that was not true. That, however, betrays the true weakness of Gay Rights: it is no longer relevant. The UN has repeatedly protected gay rights, and as such this rather slight resolution has been rendered irrelevant. I quote from Resolution #99, Discrimination Accord (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=98):

"the “Gay Rights” document, which in practice does virtually nothing to protect citizens’ rights"

Gay Rights requires that UN member nations pass laws 'protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life'. It does not actually ban that discrimination explicitly. Further, the Discrimination Accord, in tandem with the Universal Bill of Rights, Sexual Freedom, Definition of Marriage, Rights of Minorities and Women, and Equality and Fairness, completely covers all aspects of this provision (more effectively).

It also requires that gay marriages be allowed: this is completely covered by Definition of Marriage.

Gay Rights is redundant, and it is in the interests of the UN to streamline its legislative approach by splitting off waste. If anyone wants to skin this for these reasons - and not for OMG FAGZ - then I will help as much as I can.

EDIT: However, I can't really think of a drafting approach that wouldn't be deleted for HoC.

*snip*
*snip*
There seems to be some uproar over one of my sentences. I would ask those in question to get over themselves and look at the larger point being made.

There seems to be some uproar over one of my sentences. I would ask those in question to get over themselves and look at the larger point being made.

Yeah, that you were wrong. We'd got that.

Gay Rights is redundant, and it is in the interests of the UN to streamline its legislative approach by splitting off waste. If anyone wants to skin this for these reasons - and not for OMG FAGZ - then I will help as much as I can.
That's the best argument made here in favor of the repeal, and one that most should be able to easily stand behind.

Yeah, that you were wrong. We'd got that.
Clever guy. The point was that on an issue that isn't so clearly unaffected by national sovereignty arguments, the national sovereignty arguments have a chance.

But you knew that. You'd got that.

Clever guy. The point was that on an issue that isn't so clearly unaffected by national sovereignty arguments, the national sovereignty arguments have a chance.

I'm obviously not so clever, because I don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about here.

The main problems with Banishment were with the draft. It had support from several NSO members, and furthermore, quite a few sovereigntists argued that banishment infringed more on sovereignty than a ban on such did. I don't think it was NatSov arguments that defeated Banishment: no way would 75% of the UN do that. No, I think it was genuinely that people were unhappy with the draft.

I'm obviously not so clever, because I don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about here.

The main problems with Banishment were with the draft. It had support from several NSO members, and furthermore, quite a few sovereigntists argued that banishment infringed more on sovereignty than a ban on such did. I don't think it was NatSov arguments that defeated Banishment: no way would 75% of the UN do that. No, I think it was genuinely that people were unhappy with the draft.
I feel at this point that you're just trying to be obtuse. Please, reread that post. All I can do is reword it, and if you're having trouble with the wording, I'll be glad to do so.

I feel at this point that you're just trying to be obtuse. Please, reread that post. All I can do is reword it, and if you're having trouble with the wording, I'll be glad to do so.

Yeah, I am having trouble with the wording: I don't understand. But, to be clear, I do not believe that national sovereignty arguments were the reason the Banishment resolution failed.

Yeah, I am having trouble with the wording: I don't understand. But, to be clear, I do not believe that national sovereignty arguments were the reason the Banishment resolution failed.
Okay, here's what I'm saying. It might be a little more lengthy in this explanation, we'll see. Human rights issues, by their very nature, extend beyond national borders, as "human rights" are not "only these humans over here rights." A national sovereignty argument has little to no relevance in a debate on a subject that is a decided human right. Now, it's possible to debate whether or not humans have a right to be gay, and everything that involves, but until it is decided they don't, national sovereignty takes back seat to human rights.

As far as banishment goes, it was only an example used to make my point -- national sovereignty wasn't as clearly a non-issue there. There's no need to discuss the banishment issue here (though I do have my own thoughts on it, and would be glad to discuss them in telegram form).

I hope that clears things up.

I hope that clears things up.

Yes, it does, thanks. I agree banishment was largely a parallel, so I'll leave that. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it, though.

I understand what you're saying. I disagree with it. National sovereignty is not irrelevant to a human rights debate, at all. For example, some nations regard it as a human right to own property. The UN has actually legislated this, but decided not to define 'property', rendering it useless. There are nations who do not respect this human right. So, in debating it, a very major consideration must be the sovereignty of communist nations. If we declared property a universal human right, many would suffer massive internal economic problems, or would simply resign. Gruenberg may not be favourable to communism, but we recognise neither is favourable for genuine international cooperation to continue.

Rights are bound to the societies in which they are expressed. National sovereignty should be an important consideration in this: when it is not, problems occur. Think about areas like drugs, guns, religion: UN tampering, even to bestow 'rights' and 'freedoms', can unhinge cultures. What fits one place may not fit another. Assuming that just because we call something a 'right' we should force governments to recognise or legislate it misses out that the UN has a vast - and wholly worthy - cultural diversity. We all give up national sovereignty as legislation progresses, but that does not mean we should not debate it whenever new 'rights' are proposed, so as to determine whether it's actually a workable solution for all member nations, or only for a few.

Yes, it does, thanks. I agree banishment was largely a parallel, so I'll leave that. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it, though.

I understand what you're saying. I disagree with it. National sovereignty is not irrelevant to a human rights debate, at all. For example, some nations regard it as a human right to own property. The UN has actually legislated this, but decided not to define 'property', rendering it useless. There are nations who do not respect this human right. So, in debating it, a very major consideration must be the sovereignty of communist nations. If we declared property a universal human right, many would suffer massive internal economic problems, or would simply resign. Gruenberg may not be favourable to communism, but we recognise neither is favourable for genuine international cooperation to continue.

Rights are bound to the societies in which they are expressed. National sovereignty should be an important consideration in this: when it is not, problems occur. Think about areas like drugs, guns, religion: UN tampering, even to bestow 'rights' and 'freedoms', can unhinge cultures. What fits one place may not fit another. Assuming that just because we call something a 'right' we should force governments to recognise or legislate it misses out that the UN has a vast - and wholly worthy - cultural diversity. We all give up national sovereignty as legislation progresses, but that does not mean we should not debate it whenever new 'rights' are proposed, so as to determine whether it's actually a workable solution for all member nations, or only for a few.
That's a fault of the resolution. If it does not define the "right to own property" as an inaliable human right, then it cannot be argued that it is. If it is argued, and voted into place, then it is officially recognized as an inaliable human right. To be honest, I'm glad you pointed this out. I'd support any attempt to repeal that one.

However, before you start arguing national sovereignty, the case must first be made that it isn't a human right. Is it an inaliable right to own property? Is it an inaliable right to bum another guy? You're absolutely right. We should debate these rights until a common (or at least a majority) can agree. I was surprised, as I looked through the past UN resolution at the almost complete lack of resolutions pertaining to definitions.

In this case, we need to define a "human right," if it hasn't already been done, and then we need to categorize the human rights without limiting ourselves to a list (so that it's open to debate later on, and so we can add more as we think them up).

National sovereignty should be considered in every debate, but a "human right" renders national sovereignty null and void in its specific case by its very nature. Again, it's surprising how little discussion there is before real debate begins.

--snip--

Yes, I still think you're presenting as fact what is actually just your opinion. I disagree mainly in two cases.

Firstly, let's say we identify a 'universal human right' - I'll stick with the right to property. We agree that everyone has the right to the produce of their labour. Fine. But even if we decide this is a universal right, we are under no obligation to enforce it. And, in this case, we might choose not to. We might decide that, yes, some communist countries oppress their people, and deny them the universal human right of property, but, we'd lose more by forcing all those nations out of the UN. So, we decide either not to enforce it, or to pass a 'soft' resolution which allows for the right to be respected, but does not force any nation to do anything. In this case, even though we identify a right, we still decide sovereignty matters more.

Secondly, such incidences might be rare. More often, we will have a right, which we claim is universal, but which in fact is not. There are many instances where the particular mechanics of a society render such a right worthless. Let's say we believe people have a universal human right to defend themselves using a gun. We try to enforce this is a society where the gun has not been invented. It doesn't make sense. The rights of those who live on land they own will be different to those who live on state-owned land.

In short, I am distrustful of the universality of rights, because I believe rights are cultural, and moral: I do not acknowledge one universal culture, or one universal morality, and thus goes the basis for any universal right.

I am not interesting in anti-sovereigntists presenting their arguments as fact. I do not hold that my opinions are fact - I accept that they are open to interpretation and bias - and I expect you to acknowledge the same. Human rights are a legal concept: they are not concrete fact.

In any case, the mod ruling has to my mind been misinterpreted. They did not delete the proposal because it was based on sovereignty: they deleted the proposal because it was incorrect. It suggested that repealing Gay Rights would give nations certain rights: that was not true. That, however, betrays the true weakness of Gay Rights: it is no longer relevant. The UN has repeatedly protected gay rights, and as such this rather slight resolution has been rendered irrelevant. I quote from Resolution #99, Discrimination Accord (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=98):

"the “Gay Rights” document, which in practice does virtually nothing to protect citizens’ rights"

Gay Rights requires that UN member nations pass laws 'protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life'. It does not actually ban that discrimination explicitly. Further, the Discrimination Accord, in tandem with the Universal Bill of Rights, Sexual Freedom, Definition of Marriage, Rights of Minorities and Women, and Equality and Fairness, completely covers all aspects of this provision (more effectively).

It also requires that gay marriages be allowed: this is completely covered by Definition of Marriage.

Gay Rights is redundant, and it is in the interests of the UN to streamline its legislative approach by splitting off waste. If anyone wants to skin this for these reasons - and not for OMG FAGZ - then I will help as much as I can.

EDIT: However, I can't really think of a drafting approach that wouldn't be deleted for HoC.

Gruenberg never ceases to surprise us. In the midst of a NatSov debate, they made a long post which merits our (almost) total agreement.

I do not think a repeal would ever be condemned for HoC violations, as its whole text is preambulatory.

Yes, I still think you're presenting as fact what is actually just your opinion. I disagree mainly in two cases.

Firstly, let's say we identify a 'universal human right' - I'll stick with the right to property. We agree that everyone has the right to the produce of their labour. Fine. But even if we decide this is a universal right, we are under no obligation to enforce it. And, in this case, we might choose not to. We might decide that, yes, some communist countries oppress their people, and deny them the universal human right of property, but, we'd lose more by forcing all those nations out of the UN. So, we decide either not to enforce it, or to pass a 'soft' resolution which allows for the right to be respected, but does not force any nation to do anything. In this case, even though we identify a right, we still decide sovereignty matters more.

Secondly, such incidences might be rare. More often, we will have a right, which we claim is universal, but which in fact is not. There are many instances where the particular mechanics of a society render such a right worthless. Let's say we believe people have a universal human right to defend themselves using a gun. We try to enforce this is a society where the gun has not been invented. It doesn't make sense. The rights of those who live on land they own will be different to those who live on state-owned land.

In short, I am distrustful of the universality of rights, because I believe rights are cultural, and moral: I do not acknowledge one universal culture, or one universal morality, and thus goes the basis for any universal right.
Unfortunately, I was logged out while typing my initial reply, so I'm going to try to sum up everything I tried to say.

It sounds like you're arguing a completely different issue, but I'm not sure. I'm suggesting that the UN ought to put to vote what is to be considered a human right, and what isn't. This could be done as a series of resolutions, or it could be done as a summary resolution, with future resolutions to be passed. Now, whether or not there will be dissent on what is and what isn't a human right is irrelevant, and should not be seen as a reaon not to define human rights. But until things are defined, there will continue to be debates like the ones here, which aren't helpful, and don't accomplish anything because there's no definition for us to use as a reference.

Why is this important? Because human rights trump national sovereignty, by definition. A country cannot pass a law that violates a human right. Agreed? This is the textbook definition of "human right." It's a right given to all humans, regardless of where they live, or whose taxes they pay. Until we figure out what is and what isn't a human right, we cannot adequately figure out where a government can and can't pass laws.

It sounds like you're arguing a completely different issue, but I'm not sure. I'm suggesting that the UN ought to put to vote what is to be considered a human right, and what isn't. This could be done as a series of resolutions, or it could be done as a summary resolution, with future resolutions to be passed. Now, whether or not there will be dissent on what is and what isn't a human right is irrelevant, and should not be seen as a reaon not to define human rights. But until things are defined, there will continue to be debates like the ones here, which aren't helpful, and don't accomplish anything because there's no definition for us to use as a reference.
Why is this important? Because human rights trump national sovereignty, by definition. A country cannot pass a law that violates a human right. Agreed? This is the textbook definition of "human right." It's a right given to all humans, regardless of where they live, or whose taxes they pay. Until we figure out what is and what isn't a human right, we cannot adequately figure out where a government can and can't pass laws.

I see. However, I don't think such a definition is possible, or desirable. I restate: I do not acknowledge the existence of any - or, at most, very many - universal fundamental inalienable whatever human rights. I'd rather the UN kept out of trying to dictate this, and instead worked on actually doing something.

I see. However, I don't think such a definition is possible, or desirable. I restate: I do not acknowledge the existence of any - or, at most, very many - universal fundamental inalienable whatever human rights. I'd rather the UN kept out of trying to dictate this, and instead worked on actually doing something.
Without these definitions, the UN can't effectively do anything relating to human rights.

Without these definitions, the UN can't effectively do anything relating to human rights.

Yes, it can: it can continue to work on individual human rights in isolation. Further, it is allowed to at times say, "You know, this right isn't suitable for UN legislation." Stepping back is not something we should be ashamed of. Anyway, the UN's mandate is not just human rights. There are ten or more other proposal categories, some of which have no or few resolutions in them. There's plenty else to do.

Yes, it can: it can continue to work on individual human rights in isolation. Further, it is allowed to at times say, "You know, this right isn't suitable for UN legislation." Stepping back is not something we should be ashamed of. Anyway, the UN's mandate is not just human rights. There are ten or more other proposal categories, some of which have no or few resolutions in them. There's plenty else to do.
In isolation? Then why bother working on them at all? If all the UN is going to do is sit off in its corner and comment on what all of us do, why exist?

Sure, there are other categories. Bring up some issues there. Just because there's other stuff that we can do, doesn't mean we should give up on these issues.

If the UN is going to do things in isolation, it might as well just spend all its time passing resolutions for non-compulsory world banks.

In isolation? Then why bother working on them at all? If all the UN is going to do is sit off in its corner and comment on what all of us do, why exist?

Sure, there are other categories. Bring up some issues there. Just because there's other stuff that we can do, doesn't mean we should give up on these issues.

If the UN is going to do things in isolation, it might as well just spend all its time passing resolutions for non-compulsory world banks.

My point is that the sort of rationalisation of rights you suggest is impossible. You would need to repeal every rights resolution, and pass an effective replacement before any new ones were submitted - which they would be - and prevent future ones being passed. Instead, we concentrate on isolating what definitely is a right, and getting that enshrined. Let's say we decided divorce is a right. Fine: we need to write a good resolution on that. Trying to establish a universal framework that is the alpha to omega just won't work. There are plenty of rights the UN hasn't legislated: hit those.

My point is that the sort of rationalisation of rights you suggest is impossible. You would need to repeal every rights resolution, and pass an effective replacement before any new ones were submitted - which they would be - and prevent future ones being passed. Instead, we concentrate on isolating what definitely is a right, and getting that enshrined. Let's say we decided divorce is a right. Fine: we need to write a good resolution on that. Trying to establish a universal framework that is the alpha to omega just won't work. There are plenty of rights the UN hasn't legislated: hit those.
You must have changed the topic or something, because I agree entirely.
I wasn't suggesting that we should pass a resolution that covers every human right under the sun, I merely put that out there as an option. I would suggest we debate which are and which aren't individually, and deal with them so. It appears you and I are in agreement on this.

Incidentally, I had a go at drafting a repeal. There's so little to go on, though.

The United Nations,

APPLAUDING the intentions of "Gay Rights",

AFFIRMING that nothing in this repeal will in any way allow any state to in any way discriminate against homosexuals,

RECOGNISING that it served as a useful early building block for UN legislation in establishing a commitment to fighting discrimination, against homosexuals and in general,

REAFFIRMING that nothing in this repeal will in any way allow any state to in any way discriminate against homosexuals,

ACKNOWLEDGING its effectiveness, as expressed by a variety of subsequent resolutions, which have fully superceded the original resolution,

FURTHER OBSERVING that nothing in this repeal will in any way allow any state to in any way discriminate against homosexuals,

NOTING that "Gay Rights" is now redundant, as discrimination is fully illegal and gay marriage fully legal under several other resolutions, which make the laws clearer in this regard,

REREAFFIRMING that nothing in this repeal will in any way allow any state to in any way discriminate against homosexuals,

BELIEVING it is in the interests of the UN to remove redundant legislation, whose spirit has been continued but actions overtaken in legislative effectiveness by several other resolutions,

CONTINUING TO STRESS that nothing in this repeal will in any way allow any state to in any way discriminate against homosexuals,

CITING UN Resolution #99, Discrimination Accord, which notes that "Gay Rights" 'does virtually nothing to protect citizens' rights',

FINALLY REREREAFFIRMING that nothing in this repeal will in any way allow any state to in any way discriminate against homosexuals:

NO, REALLY, nothing in this repeal will in any way allow any state to in any way discriminate against homosexuals,

REALLY:

REPEALS "Gay Rights".

You must have changed the topic or something, because I agree entirely.
I wasn't suggesting that we should pass a resolution that covers every human right under the sun, I merely put that out there as an option. I would suggest we debate which are and which aren't individually, and deal with them so. It appears you and I are in agreement on this.

Ok. I think I've probably become confused. If we're in agreement, then good.

Incidentally, I had a go at drafting a repeal. There's so little to go on, though.
Who ever said politicians aren't funny? I'd back this. Really.

Let me ask you something, nations. If you wish to retain soveriengity (sp), why did you join the UN in the first place. It's not mandatory.

Incidentally, I had a go at drafting a repeal. There's so little to go on, though.

Your text has some redundancy: you don't have to mention "Gay Rights," you can also put "said Resolution."

Let me ask you something, nations. If you wish to retain soveriengity (sp), why did you join the UN in the first place. It's not mandatory.

Free parking space.

Free parking space.
And an office/broom closet/toilet/drawer space.

Plus, look at the view! :cool:

It is an absolute slap in the face to each and every UN nation that teh mods found it necessary to remove this proposal.
Could it be that national sovereignty means they are losing control and the ability to control? Is that what they're afraid of?

OR is it that they have had some stupid resolutions repealed back-to-back-to-back and they are angry about it?

Either way, the response given to Dres was even more laughable....."the NSUS not responsible for national sovereignty.....blah, blah, blah....".

I'll go out of my way to make sure every stupid piece of legislation gets repealled.

You can't repeal repeals. So no, you won't.

I disagree - Gay rights are something the UN should have legislated upon to prevent the supression of homosexuals.Enn's dealt with the old testment, I'll have a go with the new one shortly.

UPDATE: Here we go. I'm quoting myself from old topics here, as it's easier to link than retype afresh.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=362264&page=6 (this one was a very extended and useful debate on the bible - I've linked to the page where I joined in)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7821438&postcount=267
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7821608&postcount=268
(These two were consecutvive posts on the same topic)
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
The Supremely Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/9381/englandsig4lc.jpg (http://s3.invisionfree.com/England/index.php?act=idx)
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)

Aren't the good folks of your nation smart enough to legislate on their own? Do you need the UN to do it for you? Not me! Keep their noses out of Dorksonia with their non-national-sovereignty stance !!!!

You can't repeal repeals. So no, you won't.

We've rolled back three in a row, or are you having trouble keeping count? Trust me, there will be more repeals!!

We've rolled back three in a row, or are you having trouble keeping count? Trust me, there will be more repeals!!

Sorry, I couldn't understand you. You said you'd repeal repeals (which you can't do); I now see you meant repeal resolutions.

We've rolled back three in a row, or are you having trouble keeping count? Trust me, there will be more repeals!!

Good, there are quite a few resolutions that need replacing. If the old ones are repealed, then good well written new ones, with nowhere near as many loopholes, can be passed to replace them.

Would you not agree, however, that since the difference of opinion on certain matters is so diverse that an international mandate one way or another is wrong?

The way my people understand the proposal, repealing gay rights centers around the gay marriage debate. So I propose an argument as follows.

1) Sexual acts between consenting adults are protected.
2) Sexual orientation and same-gender sexual intercourse in privacy are protected.
3) Any reference to marriage that I've seen in passed UN resolutions refers to a CIVIL institution; there is no mention of religious belief at all.
4) Since religious freedoms are also protected:

5) Marriage as a civil institution must be respected, and clergy/citizens who do not want to recognise civil marriages within their religious communities must be allowed that freedom.

6) Underlying assumption of 5): restricting religious freedom is wrong, because it restricts freedom of will and therefore the ability to take responsibility for one's own spiritual journey (i.e., one's ability to freely respond to the love of God, etc.)

Should our Republic be granted membership in the UN, we will not be supporting your proposal.

May Wisdom and Light favour you.

1) Sexual acts between consenting adults are protected.
2) Sexual orientation and same-gender sexual intercourse in privacy are protected.


Resolution #7, Sexual Freedom (amongst others)

3) Any reference to marriage that I've seen in passed UN resolutions refers to a CIVIL institution; there is no mention of religious belief at all.
4) Since religious freedoms are also protected:
5) Marriage as a civil institution must be respected, and clergy/citizens who do not want to recognise civil marriages within their religious communities must be allowed that freedom.
6) Underlying assumption of 5): restricting religious freedom is wrong, because it restricts freedom of will and therefore the ability to take responsibility for one's own spiritual journey (i.e., one's ability to freely respond to the love of God, etc.)

Resolution #81, Definition of Marriage (again, amongst others)


Et, viola, redundancy.

Wise and enlightened indeed. Thank you.

EDIT: Gruen, I think he was arguing against the original draft, not your redundancy based one.

It is an absolute slap in the face to each and every UN nation that teh mods found it necessary to remove this proposal.
Could it be that national sovereignty means they are losing control and the ability to control? Is that what they're afraid of?

Does it occur to you that if it bugged us that much what the NSUN gets up to we'd just eject everyone in the entire game from the UN? NatSov-related proposals are illegal, as outlined in the site FAQ, set down by the site admin. All proposals demanding the UN respect national sovereignty are removed, again, because the site admin says so.

More to the point, the proposal wasn't just deleted because it was using NatSov as an argument, it was also deleted because it made completely false statements about it's own effect.

The way my people understand the proposal, repealing gay rights centers around the gay marriage debate. So I propose an argument as follows.

1) Sexual acts between consenting adults are protected.
2) Sexual orientation and same-gender sexual intercourse in privacy are protected.
3) Any reference to marriage that I've seen in passed UN resolutions refers to a CIVIL institution; there is no mention of religious belief at all.
4) Since religious freedoms are also protected:

5) Marriage as a civil institution must be respected, and clergy/citizens who do not want to recognise civil marriages within their religious communities must be allowed that freedom.

6) Underlying assumption of 5): restricting religious freedom is wrong, because it restricts freedom of will and therefore the ability to take responsibility for one's own spiritual journey (i.e., one's ability to freely respond to the love of God, etc.)

Should our Republic be granted membership in the UN, we will not be supporting your proposal.

May Wisdom and Light favour you.

The repeal of the gay rights resolution is NOT, I repeat, NOT centered around the gay marriage debate.
It is all about an individual nations right to decide about gay rights in their own nations, the way they want it, without intervention from outside influence. It is, and thanks to the left-leaning mods, WAS, all about national sovereignty ONLY.
I'm growing weary of folks reading more into it just to fit their own political philosophies.
The proposal was well written, well thought out, and had alot of support. The moderators had no right to remove it. I can tell that bias definitely HAD TO HAVE been paramount in their decision making process.

Does it occur to you that if it bugged us that much what the NSUN gets up to we'd just eject everyone in the entire game from the UN? NatSov-related proposals are illegal, as outlined in the site FAQ, set down by the site admin. All proposals demanding the UN respect national sovereignty are removed, again, because the site admin says so.

More to the point, the proposal wasn't just deleted because it was using NatSov as an argument, it was also deleted because it made completely false statements about it's own effect.

Thank you, I appreciate your reply. Now sovereign nations all through NationStates truly know what the NSUN is all about, in print.

Aren't the good folks of your nation smart enough to legislate on their own? Do you need the UN to do it for you? Not me! Keep their noses out of Dorksonia with their non-national-sovereignty stance !!!!

Yes, we are. That's why we participate so much in the UN, so other nations can benefit from our vast intellect.
<smirks>

Anyway, I'm a personal soverignist - I think the UN can and should legislate above national governments for the furtherment of induvidual freedoms, whilst balancing that with the need to avoid micromanagement and excessive trampling of natsov. You might not like that, and I respect your freedom to campaign against it, just like I respect your freedom to leave the UN and preserve your natsov, but that is not going to stop me if and when I feel it is neccessary to preserve personal freedoms.

NatSov-related proposals are illegal, as outlined in the site FAQ, set down by the site admin.Hmmm ... I don't recall the FAQ saying that, and I even reread it this morning, just to make sure; it says nothing of the sort.

All proposals demanding the UN respect national sovereignty are removed, again, because the site admin says so.Really? I proposed a repeal not three months ago that made a NatSov argument; it sat in queue for at least three weeks until it was voted on. More than one mod-help request was lodged to get it removed, because some players claimed it was illegal. But it stayed in queue and got its moment on the floor. (It was defeated.)

Also, would you care to explain UNSA and Nuclear Armaments, if NatSov-based proposals are illegal?

... Well?

The repeal of Gay Rights is not about national sovereignty, because if we repeal Gay Rights, we still 'win back' no sovereignty. Why? Because Gay Rights is redundant, and has been completely covered by other resolutions. That is why we repeal it.

I think the problem is making statements like "Res #666 should be repealled because it infringes on NatSov."
The UN does have the right to infringe on NatSov if it so wishes, so a passed resolution will be perfectly legitimate, even if it does so.

As a compromise between GMC and 'Kenny's points, here's my interpretation:

Illegal: "This violates NatSov!" as the sole argument

Legal:
"This isn't a good resolution, which incidentally violates NatSov"
"This would be better off as a sovereign national decision"
"Although the UN can do this, we think it's too big a violation of NatSov"
"Nations have the sovereign right to do this"

That resolution thoroughly infringes on my nation's sovereignty.

I would vote to repeal it but I cannot see where the proposal to repeal is.


Sincerely,

King & Chief Justice of Teid.

That resolution thoroughly infringes on my nation's sovereignty.

I would vote to repeal it but I cannot see where the proposal to repeal is.

Well, being in the UN thoroughly infringes on your nation's sovereignty. And we haven't come up with a final draft yet.

I think there are so many different reasons to repeal this resolution I cannot understand why it is constantly blocked.

Apart from the obvious national sovereignty issue the main problem I have is with the Marriage part of it. In my country Civil Unions are allowed for all and the few who are religious can have their 'marriages'. I personally do not want religious references like 'marriage' on resolutions because it is intellectually offensive.

I think there are so many different reasons to repeal this resolution I cannot understand why it is constantly blocked.

Apart from the obvious national sovereignty issue the main problem I have is with the Marriage part of it. In my country Civil Unions are allowed for all and the few who are religious can have their 'marriages'. I personally do not want religious references like 'marriage' on resolutions because it is intellectually offensive.

Yeah good luck with that. Meanwhile we'll try to repeal it using an actual argument.

I'd support the repeal. The UN shouldn't have a say in such complex judical issues as gay rights. Every nation has a unique judicial system, but under this resolution, all nations are viewed in the same light; one that ignores the complex legal and moral traditions of each individual country. This is true for every resolution but even more so for gay rights, which in several nations is a severe violation of moral law. In other words, the resolution undermines the sovergienty and the moral conscience of nation states.

Yeah good luck with that. Meanwhile we'll try to repeal it using an actual argument.

Nice attitude, I was just adding further weight to the removal of a poor resolution. As I said, there are plenty of arguments for a repeal.

Nice attitude, I was just adding further weight to the removal of a poor resolution. As I said, there are plenty of arguments for a repeal.

Yes, there are. And as demonstrated in this thread, some of those will get that proposal deleted. Redundancy is a safe, true argument; sovereignty in this case is not true, however important.

Yes, there are. And as demonstrated in this thread, some of those will get that proposal deleted. Redundancy is a safe, true argument; sovereignty in this case is not true, however important.

Why has nobody put a proposal forward then? I would readily vote for a repeal on any grounds.

Why has nobody put a proposal forward then? I would readily vote for a repeal on any grounds.

Because some delegates are more discerning in what they vote for. There is a draft in this thread; getting together a final draft will take a little time though. We'd be welcome all comments: "we don't like gays" is not going to feature prominently as an argument, though, nor even "it's our right not to like gays".

Some of us would repeal on redundancy. Most of us will not repeal on NatSov/religion. Clear?

Sexual (or any) preferences should not be limited by local governments. In my opinion, individual freedom of choice trumps whichever NatSov arguments you use. Whatever other arguments you use against "Gay Rights" are likely to be prejudiced. I do not condone prejudiced arguments.

Hmmm ... I don't recall the FAQ saying that, and I even reread it this morning, just to make sure; it says nothing of the sort.

So I'm a UN member. Now what?

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

This is the phrase that explicitly bans any 'optional compliance' resolutions [either 'nations may choose to comply with this resolution or not,' or 'UN nations are sovereign and may choose whether or not to comply with any and all UN resolutions']. It's also illegal to make any statements that the UN cannot legislate on a given subject [first bolded section doesn't have 'as long as your vision isn't anything to do with...']. Carried further a repeal only consisting of 'it violates national sovereignty' is illegal, simply because it's not a concept the NSUN is in any way bound to respect to begin with.

I think we're crossing terms here: I'm more used to 'national sovereignty' with regards to UN proposals as the illegal forms of national sovereignty proposal, namely optional compliance and 'X is no longer any of the UN's business.'

Also, would you care to explain UNSA and Nuclear Armaments, if NatSov-based proposals are illegal?

UNSA and Nuclear Armaments are actually fairly dodgy-looking in terms of legality, but they don't declare that the UN can never legislate on a subject. Nuclear Armaments is legal, IIRC, because it's extremely mild, avoids making a positive statement optional would be illegal if it said 'UN nations must have nuclear arsenals / but they don't have to comply with this resolution'] and doesn't try to make itself repeal-proof or ban any future resolutions on nuclear arms [as I'm reading it, future UN legislation could still ban certain high or low tonnage ranges of bomb, given types of delivery methods which aren't mentioned at all, limit the numbers of warheads a given nation can have, ban MIRVs, etc], though I'd have to ask around for the specifics.

UNSA is so severely lacking in definitions you need only declare in a proposal that a weapon is 'not necessary for the defence of a sovereign nation' to bypass it entirely with future legislation [which is why the bioweapons ban was still legal even after it], so it's legal because in practise it doesn't actually stop anyone doing anything.

DEMOCRATIC SOVIET REPUBLIC OF KAHANISTAN
Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The Democratic Soviet Republic of Kahanistan calls upon all UN members to vote against this travesty of a resolution. Whether or not homosexuals are granted rights should not even be up for debate, they are human beings just like you and me. The UN exists to guarantee human rights, not to sit on its dreadnaught-sized ass while many nations are rounding up and executing homosexuals.

1/. Where does it say "The UN exists to guarantee human rights", rather than "to change the world one resolution at a time", in the information that's given to prospective members?
2/. The UN can't actually guarantee any rights, because any government that really objects to UN resolutions on the subject can take its nation out of the UN -- carry out whatever persecutions & purges it wants to -- and then apply to rejoin the UN again with acceptance (unless I've misread the rules) pretty much automatic regardless of whatever it has been doing during its absence...

This is the phrase that explicitly bans any 'optional compliance' resolutions [either 'nations may choose to comply with this resolution or not,' or 'UN nations are sovereign and may choose whether or not to comply with any and all UN resolutions']. It's also illegal to make any statements that the UN cannot legislate on a given subject [first bolded section doesn't have 'as long as your vision isn't anything to do with...']. Carried further a repeal only consisting of 'it violates national sovereignty' is illegal, simply because it's not a concept the NSUN is in any way bound to respect to begin with.

I think we're crossing terms here: I'm more used to 'national sovereignty' with regards to UN proposals as the illegal forms of national sovereignty proposal, namely optional compliance and 'X is no longer any of the UN's business.'Well, it's the incorrect term.

Optional compliance is "optional compliance."
Preventing future legislation is "preventing future legislation."
National sovereignty is "national sovereignty."

Three entirely different animals.

And your FAQ quote in no way justifies national sovereignty as an invalid argument. It only states that UN resolutions are not optional. Well, duh, I already knew that.

Meanwhile, Fris has since given an advisement on the matter. Your stated reasons for deletion were correct. Your implication (since modified) that national sovereignty is never a valid argument is wrong.

[EDIT: Although I see no point in beating this dead horse. I will quietly withdraw from this thread.]

I personally think that infringing the rights of the gay people in your nation is utterly unacceptable, on the basis that is a gargantuous limitation of civil rights.

ooc: The UN isn't allowed to pass any resolutions that restrict nations' forms of governments, so it can't even guarantee basic democratic rights: That seem to me to establish a line in the Human Sapient Rights / NatSov debate beyond which it shouldn't -- and maybe even wasn't originally intended to -- legislate... I'll accept it guaranteeing protection against genocide, and Sapient Rights in international matters such as warfare or the slave trade, but think that everything else along those lines should properly be left to the national governments individually no matter how disgusting some of those might be...
Or to put the argument a different way: If we not only won't but can't keep communist regimes from imposing their own standards of economic morality within the nations that they run (and maybe even sending anybody whom they catch trying to practice private enterprise there to death-camps) then what right do we have to keep religiously-minded regimes from imposing their own standards of sexual morality ditto. There seems to me to be an element of [subconscious?] hypocrisy involved here...

I understand you think so, and I thank you for confirming my previous point. People who base their whole arguments on moral relativism should never argue for NatSov as an absolute right.Of course it should. First, people are free to argue whatever they feel like, and you really aren't able to say whether they should or shouldn't argue that way. The most you can state is that you think such and such arguments are invalid, and this has no absolute bearing on whether or not they're objectively valid or invalid (something we'll likely never know).

Second, writing into a resolution "nations should decide for themselves" especially in the preamble in no practical way comprises, in my opinion, an incorrect placement of one political opinion upon those nations (and thus, as you've argued, a sort of paradox). The securing of the principle of relativism through legislation is a paradox in the way democracy would be a paradox (the idea that everyone has a right to government being "imposed" on everyone within that nation). And that paradox a lot of people find acceptable.

As I said before, I believe the main responsibility of any collective organisation is to individuals. I believe nations are composed of citizens, not leaders. And I know which side to take when a leader oppresses citizens.
Yes, but I'd rather, quite frankly, my leader oppress my citizens than foreign leaders oppress my citizens. At least with a local despot, the citizens have the recourse of revolution and revolt. With a far distant proposal author determining how they must govern themselves my citizens are largely helpless.
I respect your opinion, I disagree with it, and again I find it bad debating style to present opinions as the "absolute truth," specially coming from people who claim that fundamental rights do not exist. I have seen you more than once attacking people who claim to know what the mandate of the UN is.
Well, not to make it personal but saying "x should never be argued as being y" sounds a lot like telling an opinion as an absolute truth.

It's also illegal to make any statements that the UN cannot legislate on a given subject [first bolded section doesn't have 'as long as your vision isn't anything to do with...']. Of course it doesn't make that illegal. A resolution saying, "nations have the right to determine x issue without UN interference" is "mold the rest of the world to your vision" (which is a line used with facetiousness, anyway, and not one which logically should be leaned on for legal precedent), in that it molds the UN structure to your vision. I mean, while we're on what the FAQ doesn't say, we should point out that it doesn't say "it's your chance to enforce your national government's thoughts on other nations". "you" seems to refer to the player, meaning "the rest of the world" would mostly likely not refer strictly to 'other nations' or to ‘other member nations’. So as long as it's the player's view of the world that the proposal is molding things to, it seems the FAQ doesn’t contradict it.

Carried further a repeal [i]only consisting of 'it violates national sovereignty' is illegal, simply because it's not a concept the NSUN is in any way bound to respect to begin with.So!? Sure, I agree most in the UN don't see a need for the NSUN to respect nations' sovereignty, that's why such a resolution is likely voted down, or "scuttled" as the FAQ says. This does not empower you, however, to "scuttle" it via deletion, just because it's arguments are, in your opinion, invalid.

If it were in the mandate of mods to delete proposals which they saw as incorrect, then the only proposals that'd get through are those that the mods supported. It's simply not the mods mandate to delete based on how "invalid" or "incorrect" they see an argument as.
I think we're crossing terms here...

-snip-I'm sorry, but these arguments seem entirely contradictory to the Hack and Cogitation jurisprudence I've been raised with--they seem to come out of nowhere. I mean, there've been 100 conversations with mods about what's legal and illegal in proposals, and I've never really heard any of these lines of thought before.

Well, not to make it personal but saying "x should never be argued as being y" sounds a lot like telling an opinion as an absolute truth.

Not taken personally, but you are wrong. You are arguing against my statement because it "sounds a lot" like something. Every single one of us presents opinions without starting every single sentence with IMHO (eg, every statement in this argument is an opinion, not a fact). I was arguing against statements of the form "This is an absolute truth, that is an undebatable fact," as they were being presented by others.

Not taken personally, but you are wrong. You are arguing against my statement because it "sounds a lot" like something."Never" is an absolute. "Never" is used to denote something as a fact or a sacrosanct law--even with the softening effect of a "should" in front of it. I'll quote the section in which I was saying you seemed as if you were being absolute:I understand you think so, and I thank you for confirming my previous point. People who base their whole arguments on moral relativism should never argue for NatSov as an absolute right.Obviously, your argument is an argument, an opinion. You say so in the quoted section. But the inclusion of the word "never" makes one question if it isn't something a little more. It just seemed like you could be interpreted as making rules for debate in the forum, and trying to dictate how others could were allowed to argue things. Even though the rest of your words (like the use of "help confirm my...point" and "you think so" and "understand") clearly designate this as an opinion. I just wanted to say that there might be some who interpret the inclusion of "never" as an assertion of fact itself (which, in saying, I believe I am right in).

The fact is the part of my post you've quoted is not "arguing against your statement" at all. At least that wasn't it's intent. The point was to highlight your use of the word "never" and the confusion it caused in whether you were asserting your argument as fact or still recognizing it as opinion. Perhaps I failed to communicate that (apparently so), but it was still my intent.

"Never" is an absolute. "Never" is used to denote something as a fact or a sacrosanct law--even with the softening effect of a "should" in front of it.

"In my opinion, people should never kill bunnies." A statement with "never" is strong and absolute, but i see no contradiction in presenting an absolute statement as an opinion. I do see problems with "Killing bunnies is bad, and that is a fact." Without "never," but with an erroneous factual claim.

I'll quote the section in which I was saying you seemed as if you were being absolute:Obviously, your argument is an argument, an opinion. You say so in the quoted section. But the inclusion of the word "never" makes one question if it isn't something a little more. It just seemed like you could be interpreted as making rules for debate in the forum, and trying to dictate how others could were allowed to argue things. Even though the rest of your words (like the use of "help confirm my...point" and "you think so" and "understand") clearly designate this as an opinion. I just wanted to say that there might be some who interpret the inclusion of "never" as an assertion of fact itself (which, in saying, I believe I am right in).

As I told before, I do not feel the need to properly signal my opinions during a debate. Everything that is not explicitly stated as fact is opinion. And if I remember the context correctly, I was making an argument against claims of absolute truth. I don't think I would present something as an absolute truth at that point. Even ignoring context, you seem to agree that everything else in my reasoning indicated opinions, so I guess we just had a communication problem.

The fact is the part of my post you've quoted is not "arguing against your statement" at all. At least that wasn't it's intent. The point was to highlight your use of the word "never" and the confusion it caused in whether you were asserting your argument as fact or still recognizing it as opinion. Perhaps I failed to communicate that (apparently so), but it was still my intent.

No, that was understood.

"In my opinion, people should never kill bunnies." A statement with "never" is strong and absolute, but i see no contradiction in presenting an absolute statement as an opinion. I do see problems with "Killing bunnies is bad, and that is a fact." Without "never," but with an erroneous factual claim.That's a strawman. You didn't say "in my opinion, people should never kill bunnies." You said the following, exactly:I understand you think so, and I thank you for confirming my previous point. People who base their whole arguments on moral relativism should never argue for NatSov as an absolute right.In which "never" has more absolute qualities (the period, no explicit mention of 'opinion', etc.) than it does in your strawman.As I told before, I do not feel the need to properly signal my opinions during a debate.To which I say "Obviously". Apparently we agree there.
No, that was understood.It doesn't seem that way. Your response seemed to be "you're arguing against my opinion by trying to construe my opinion as something I was putting over as fact", which is, like I just said, not what I was trying to do. That seems to imply miscommunication. I'm not arguing against your opinion, just trying to point out that some might see you as hypocritical in you statement. Even if that interpretation is 'wrong', some might use it. I understand you weren't arguing against the use of absolutes. I understand you weren't being absolute yourself. Those aren't what I was trying to comment on.


If it helps us get back on topic, I think your opinion is wrong anyway. Absolute or not. I think people have a right to argue whatever political viewpionts they have and that national soveriegnty is an absolute right is a viable political viewpoint. I'm not certain I agree that it's an "absolute right", but I would agree that with the nation is where fundamental political power lies--simply because the nation is a conduit of the people, from whom political power originates. And I'm really unclear on what basis it's argued that holding to moral relativism precludes one from thinking national sovereingty as an absolute right, or from believing in absolute rights in general or whatever.

That's a strawman. You didn't say "in my opinion, people should never kill bunnies." You said the following, exactly:I understand you think so, and I thank you for confirming my previous point. People who base their whole arguments on moral relativism should never argue for NatSov as an absolute right.In which "never" has more absolute qualities (the period, no explicit mention of 'opinion', etc.) than it does in your strawman.To which I say "Obviously". Apparently we agree there.

I ommited the following step, because I thought it was obvious.

"In my opinion, people should never kill bunnies" is a valid opinion.
During debate, opinions need not be explicitely signalled.
---
"People should never kill bunnies" is also a valid opinion.

Now replace the bunny sentence with "x should never be argued as being y."

It doesn't seem that way. Your response seemed to be "you're arguing against my opinion by trying to construe my opinion as something I was putting over as fact", which is, like I just said, not what I was trying to do. That seems to imply miscommunication. I'm not arguing against your opinion, just trying to point out that some might see you as hypocritical in you statement. Even if that interpretation is 'wrong', some might use it. I understand you weren't arguing against the use of absolutes. I understand you weren't being absolute yourself. Those aren't what I was trying to comment on.

Yes, it was miscommunication. Yes, I did get your point initially, and I have been arguing rhetoric rather than content all along (more miscommunication?).

If it helps us get back on topic, I think your opinion is wrong anyway. Absolute or not. I think people have a right to argue whatever political viewpionts they have and that national soveriegnty is an absolute right is a viable political viewpoint. I'm not certain I agree that it's an "absolute right", but I would agree that with the nation is where fundamental political power lies--simply because the nation is a conduit of the people, from whom political power originates. And I'm really unclear on what basis it's argued that holding to moral relativism precludes one from thinking national sovereingty as an absolute right, or from believing in absolute rights in general or whatever.

The moral relativism argument presented previously went more or less like this:

Many nations disagree with what you call "fundamental human rights." Therefore, they are cultural in nature, rather than being fundamental. And cultural rights do not deserve international protection.

I transport the argument (with which I don't agree, by the way) to say

Many nations disagree with what you call "primacy of NatSov." Therefore, it is a political position, rather than an absolute truth.

Of course it is possible to make the positions compatible, but I consider it a stretch to accept the former and not the latter.

Aren't the good folks of your nation smart enough to legislate on their own? Do you need the UN to do it for you? Not me! Keep their noses out of Dorksonia with their non-national-sovereignty stance !!!!

I have to agree on this, Change can live without being told if gays deserve rights or not, I'll decide for my own country.

Of course it doesn't make that illegal. A resolution saying, "nations have the right to determine x issue without UN interference" is "mold the rest of the world to your vision" (which is a line used with facetiousness, anyway, and not one which logically should be leaned on for legal precedent), in that it molds the UN structure to your vision.Except that, as I clearly laid out in the Proposal Rules, you cannot limit the UN in such a way.

I mean, while we're on what the FAQ doesn't say, we should point out that it doesn't say "it's your chance to enforce your national government's thoughts on other nations".Do you normally argue both sides?

Sure, I agree most in the UN don't see a [i]need for the NSUN to respect nations' sovereignty, that's why such a resolution is likely voted down, or "scuttled" as the FAQ says. This does not empower you, however, to "scuttle" it via deletion, just because it's arguments are, in your opinion, invalid.Restricting the NSUN's power to legislate is against UN Proposal Rules. I state that quite clearly.

If it were in the mandate of mods to delete proposals which they saw as incorrect, then the only proposals that'd get through are those that the mods supported.Perhaps you should read the rules again, as I also state that inaccurate Proposals will be deleted. I've done so numerous times.

"We should repeal the UN Taxation Ban because the UN should be able to tax nations," will be deleted. The Ban doesn't prohibit such taxation, therefore the Repeal is wrong.

"We should repeal 'Legalize Euthanasia' because the death penalty is wrong," will be deleted. The Resolution has nothing to do with capital punishment, so the Repeal would be wrong.

"If we Repeal 'Gay Rights' nations will be able to decide for themselves if they want homosexual marriage," is wrong. Repealing Gay Rights will do nothing of the sort as there are numerous other Resolutions that enshrine that right.

Take your baseless accusations of bias and conspiracy elsewhere, as they don't hold water in this conversation. This has nothing to do with individual biases of the Moderators, it has to do with factual inaccuracy.

It's simply not the mods mandate to delete based on how "invalid" or "incorrect" they see an argument as.The Hell it isn't. We do it all the time. I specifically mentioned it in the Proposal rules because it is part of our mandate. And leave off the snear quotation marks. The Repeal was factually inaccurate, so putting incorrect in quotation marks just shows your own biases.

I'm sorry, but these arguments seem entirely contradictory to the Hack and Cogitation jurisprudence I've been raised with--they seem to come out of nowhere.Considering I agree with the deletion, perhaps the problem is with your perceptions.

I mean, there've been 100 conversations with mods about what's legal and illegal in proposals, and I've never really heard any of these lines of thought before.Deletion for factual errors is in the sticky at the top of the forum. The reason its never come up before in Moderation is because nobody's asked if a factually inaccurate Proposal was legal. Most people figure they aren't.

We firmly believe that repealing such an important piece of legislation to be wrong. Acknowledging the contributions of the gay community to our society as in any other nation, we believe as a principle that everyone should have equal rights. Repealing such a legislation is a sign of sheer intolerance and homophobia that is unacceptable for respectable nations.

I see a new proposal is lacking support at the U.N.

How can I add my support to the proposal? do I have to be a delegate?

Surely as one of the most debated resolutions even it's supporters can recognise the importance of seeing this proposal being approved.

I see a new proposal is lacking support at the U.N.

How can I add my support to the proposal? do I have to be a delegate?

Surely as one of the most debated resolutions even it's supporters can recognise the importance of seeing this proposal being approved.

This is hardly 'one of the most debated resolutions'. And, in any case, yes, you do have to be a delegate to approve.

This is hardly 'one of the most debated resolutions'. And, in any case, yes, you do have to be a delegate to approve.

It is certainly one of the most contentious issues and as a resolution was passed by one of the narrowest margins (long before many of us joined the U.N.)

I think it is a suitable proposal and cannot see why anyone wouldn't support it.

It is certainly one of the most contentious issues and as a resolution was passed by one of the narrowest margins (long before many of us joined the U.N.)

I think it is a suitable proposal and cannot see why anyone wouldn't support it.

There are almost 30 resolutions which passed with slimmer margins, not counting repeals. And I'm not in any hurry to repeal the Taxation Ban simply because it was passed a long time ago. These are - I'm sorry - crap arguments for a repeal. And if it's so contentious, why has the UN passed six or seven resolutions - by bigger margins - which restate its aims exactly?

In any case, what is this 'suitable proposal' you speak of? Not the one deleted by the moderators, I assume?

There are almost 30 resolutions which passed with slimmer margins, not counting repeals. And I'm not in any hurry to repeal the Taxation Ban simply because it was passed a long time ago. These are - I'm sorry - crap arguments for a repeal. And if it's so contentious, why has the UN passed six or seven resolutions - by bigger margins - which restate its aims exactly?

In any case, what is this 'suitable proposal' you speak of? Not the one deleted by the moderators, I assume?

What are you talking about? it has not been deleted, it is still there and needs 77 more approvals.

What are you talking about? it has not been deleted, it is still there and needs 77 more approvals.

Oh, ok. This thread isn't about that repeal, though: hence the confusion. As to Garlandistan's?

'-it establishes gay marriage where marriage may not be extablish at all.'

And he's accusing Gay Rights of being vague? Besides, there's also Def of Marr, so this doesn't really hold.

'-it assumes oppression even where it may not exist'

No, it doesn't. And if it doesn't exist, then it makes no odds anyway.

'-it does not properly define "discrimination in all parts of life"'

Quite true.

'-it does not provide any mechanism for balancing the "rights" guaranteed therein'

No idea what this means.

----

I still favour Omigodtheykilledkenny's approach.

Oh, ok. This thread isn't about that repeal, though: hence the confusion.

I still favour Omigodtheykilledkenny's approach.

We all have our favourite approach but a repeal is a repeal.

We all have our favourite approach but a repeal is a repeal.

I disagree. A repeal with no argument will be deleted. A repeal with a false argument will be deleted. A repeal with text that breaks rules will be deleted. I don't play this game in terms of Economy +2 and Civil Rights -1, and given the time I spent drafting the repeals of UCPL and RtD, I dislike that line. A repeal cannot repealed: in many ways, then, it should be held to higher standards than resolutions. I will not support any repeal of Gay Rights which implies that gays should not be given rights. Redundancy is the only acceptable argument to me. A repeal is most emphatically not just a repeal - especially in this case, in fact, where the repeal won't do anything, except clear up waste.

I disagree. A repeal with no argument will be deleted. A repeal with a false argument will be deleted. A repeal with text that breaks rules will be deleted. I don't play this game in terms of Economy +2 and Civil Rights -1, and given the time I spent drafting the repeals of UCPL and RtD, I dislike that line. A repeal cannot repealed: in many ways, then, it should be held to higher standards than resolutions. I will not support any repeal of Gay Rights which implies that gays should not be given rights. Redundancy is the only acceptable argument to me. A repeal is most emphatically not just a repeal - especially in this case, in fact, where the repeal won't do anything, except clear up waste.

Why do you have such an obsession with defining 'gays'? why should a group of people who enjoy certain activities have their 'rights' officially protected yet other groups go without having their 'rights' defined?

Many U.N. Resolutions are fundamentally flawed in this way.

Why do you have such an obsession with defining 'gays'? why should a group of people who enjoy certain activities have their 'rights' officially protected yet other groups go without having their 'rights' defined?

Many U.N. Resolutions are fundamentally flawed in this way.

I didn't try to define gays. The phrase 'pick your fights' comes to mind. I'm not interested in giving one group of people excessive rights. But Gay Rights no longer does anything. Therefore, it is redundant. Therefore, it should be repealed.

I didn't try to define gays. The phrase 'pick your fights' comes to mind. I'm not interested in giving one group of people excessive rights. But Gay Rights no longer does anything. Therefore, it is redundant. Therefore, it should be repealed.

Can you not see how the current proposal applies. At the moment it is halfway towards reaching quorum.

I would urge any delegate to go and support it as it finally gives the majority a chance to repeal this terrible resolution.

Can you not see how the current proposal applies. At the moment it is halfway towards reaching quorum.

I would urge any delegate to go and support it as it finally gives the majority a chance to repeal this terrible resolution.
Garlandistan's proposal? It's not going to make it. It'll fall off the list later tonight and I'm not convinced by it's arguments anyway. Redundancy is the only sensible argument to use in trying to repeal this resolution.

Perhaps you should read the rules again, as I also state that inaccurate Proposals will be deleted. I've done so numerous times.

"We should repeal the UN Taxation Ban because the UN should be able to tax nations," will be deleted. The Ban doesn't prohibit such taxation, therefore the Repeal is wrong.

"We should repeal 'Legalize Euthanasia' because the death penalty is wrong," will be deleted. The Resolution has nothing to do with capital punishment, so the Repeal would be wrong.

"If we Repeal 'Gay Rights' nations will be able to decide for themselves if they want homosexual marriage," is wrong. Repealing Gay Rights will do nothing of the sort as there are numerous other Resolutions that enshrine that right.
Yes, but I don't see deleting those as the deletion of "inaccurate" proposals. These three are deleted under the "Honest Mistakes" category, because in the text of the resolution being repealed is misinterpreted. I don't see that as deleting "wrong" proposals. Lemme show you what I think is the difference:
MAKING note that...
4) The burning of fossil fuels is one of the factors that depletes the Ozone Layer, which in turn melts the polar ice caps.This statement is scientifically inaccurate, as was pointed out a fair amount of time before it came to vote. Yet, there was never any mention (or, obviously, implementation) of deletion. The proposal, as scientifically inaccurate, warranted repeal but not deletion.
REVIEWING the possible increased public health risk from encouraging prostitution in member nations,

DETERMINING it a member nation’s right to allow or disallow prostitution independently, based upon that member nation’s independent medical need and standing;

ASSUMING an increase in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, as well as an increase in crime, and higher pressure on police, in a situation where prostitution is illegal,
These two state opposite things, that there is an increase in health risks when prostitution is legalized, or outlawed. I'm not here to argue which one is right, but one of them, by default, is wrong (if we believed in objective truth here in the UN). The mods made no effort to delete either in the list or while they were in queue.

This brings me to the critical point: different points of view carry with them different understandings of what is 'fact'. Which means that what the mods see as fact is determined by their point of view, which means that for them to enforce their own ideas of fact is for them to enforce their own points of view.

If the proposal said "we should repeal Gay Rights because gay marriage should be a national decision" it is not at all inaccurate. That "gay marriage should be a national decision" is a justification for the action. No, repealing Gay Rights does not make gay marriage a national issue, but making gay marriage a national issue requires the repeal of Gay Rights.

But since, instead, the repeal text implies that the repeal of Gay Rights will make gay marriage a national issue, it's guilty of any number of crimes ("Honest Mistakes", "Game Mechanics" for multiple repeals, or for legislating from a repeal). I don't disagree with the deletion. I disagree with the assertion that mods have significant power determining fact from fiction in proposals.
Deletion for factual errors is in the sticky at the top of the forum.If you'd kindly point that part out to me. I see no 'deletion for factual errors' mentioned. I see where misinterpreting past resolutions and inanity are listed as reasons for deletion, but not "factual errors" in general.

Yes, but I don't see deleting those as the deletion of "inaccurate" proposals. These three are deleted under the "Honest Mistakes" category, because in the text of the resolution being repealed is misinterpreted.When did splitting hairs become a legitimate debating tactic? Honest Mistake includes factual errors. I see I was wrong in assuming people would be able to figure that out from the text in the rules.

This brings me to the critical point: different points of view carry with them different understandings of what is 'fact'.Perception is not reality.

If the proposal said "we should repeal Gay Rights because gay marriage should be a national decision" it is not at all inaccurate.If my dog could purr, it'd be a cat. So what?

I don't disagree with the deletion. I disagree with the assertion that mods have significant power determining fact from fiction in proposals.We always have.

If you'd kindly point that part out to me. I see no 'deletion for factual errors' mentioned. I see where misinterpreting past resolutions and inanity are listed as reasons for deletion, but not "factual errors" in general.You fail at reading comprehension:
This usually happens with Repeals.See that word 'usually'? That means the examples are just that.

If the proposal said "we should repeal Gay Rights because gay marriage should be a national decision" it is not at all inaccurate.
And if it said "we should repeal Gay Rights and then gay marriage will be a national decision," then you wouldn't have a leg left to stand on.

Guess what it said?

When did splitting hairs become a legitimate debating tactic? Honest Mistake includes factual errors.Splitting hairs? All I'm doing is being specific, rather than over-generalizing, which is what I fear you are doing.

I see I was wrong in assuming people would be able to figure that out from the text in the rules.Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10199895#post10199895)
We always have.Well, then I'm asking where that is described as I've never been aware of such a power (yes, I'm aware of the right to delete repeals that have mistaken the original text, but not factual errors in general).
See that word 'usually'? That means the examples are just that.No, that only indicates the typical distribution of a certain type of error. Since your examples are the only definition of this "honest mistakes" error I'm left to define that error by your examples. Your examples only list mod powers for deletion over misinterpreted resolutions. I'm pretty sure your examples don't mean that anything you think is factually wrong is deletable. I find that a bit of a stretch. Though, if you were to explain your reasoning, perhaps I wouldn't.

And if it said "we should repeal Gay Rights and then gay marriage will be a national decision," then you wouldn't have a leg left to stand on.

Guess what it said?Is this really the way the moderators are supposed to act? I mean, I know the whole site is based on "tell it like it is" semi-snippiness. But, c'mon. You can answer my post without trying to demean me.

Is this really the way the moderators are supposed to act? I mean, I know the whole site is based on "tell it like it is" semi-snippiness. But, c'mon. You can answer my post without trying to demean me.

You made an inaccurate and misleading quote of repeal and he corrected you and managed to do so without actually saying that you were likely being intentionally misleading or even that you were just plain wrong. I see that as restraint.

So I'll say it - You're wrong and your quote was likely intentionally misleading.

From the first post of this thread:
"aimed at taking down 'Gay Rights' on the basis of sovereignty-infringement"

The entire BASIS for the argument is national sovereignty, which one explicitly allows to be abridged when joining the UN. Regardless of where it is posted or what text it's in, to allow a proposal that says that the UN can't violate national sovereignty is to allow a proposal to change the very nature of the UN which is illegal.

The entire BASIS for the argument is national sovereignty, which one explicitly allows to be abridged when joining the UN. Regardless of where it is posted or what text it's in, to allow a proposal that says that the UN can't violate national sovereignty is to allow a proposal to change the very nature of the UN which is illegal.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Click bang (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=104)
What a hang (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=108)
Your daddy just shot (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109)
Poor me (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=127)

What the fuck are you talking about?

Click bang (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=104)
What a hang (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=108)
Your daddy just shot (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109)
Poor me (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=127)

PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons.

You don't see a basic difference between that clause and "the UN can't violate national sovereignty". Also, you don't notice it's not the basis of the resolution.

VALUING member nations' right of self-determination

Again you don't see a difference there? (Also, this proposal was repealed so it's not the greatest example). Humans have a right of self-determination which many governments 'value' but that doesn't mean the government can't impose laws on them.

Again, not the basis of the appeal.

The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that warfare and violence are not acts which this body wishes to encourage.

NOTING WITH REGRET that there are certain unavoidable situations in which warfare and violence are necessary for the defense of sovereign persons and nations.

CONCERNED that many member nations are ill-equipped to conduct an effective defense of the sovereign persons and nations.

FURTHER CONCERNED that there are many nations that are not members of this body and are hostile to it and may attack the member states of this body.

ENCOURAGES all member states to ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens.

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

No one is arguing that nations aren't sovereign, however, nations are agreeing to have that sovereignity abridged when joining the UN which by it's very nature takes some decisions out of the hands of the sovereign nation and puts them up to a vote of all the sovereign nations of the UN. Do you notice that this resolution also references sovereign individuals, but those individuals are still subject to laws.

Third one and still no mention of any resolution that uses national sovereignty from the UN as its basis. In fact this proposal, mentions protecting a nation from other nations that might violate its sovereignty, not the UN.

As pointed out that last one is dodging in terms of legality and it still limits itself to a single issue that it argues is better left more local for the purposes of better representation. There are a half dozen arguments there only one of which suggests that this particular issue is a right of the nationstate. Also note the difference between a proposal that declares a right and an repeal that declares a right. Repeals should repeal law not make new law.

Do you have any examples that actually support your point?

PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons.

You don't see a basic difference between that clause and "the UN can't violate national sovereignty". Also, you don't notice it's not the basis of the resolution.

No, I don't see a difference, and yes, it is the basis of the resolution. Under Rights and Duties, UN members already have the right to possess, use, fart, paint black, throw coconut shells at, etc., nuclear weapons. Nuclear Armaments simply makes it explicit that in the area of nuclear armament, or rather, the decision of whether to possess nuclear armaments, the decision shall be a sovereign right.

VALUING member nations' right of self-determination

Again you don't see a difference there? (Also, this proposal was repealed so it's not the greatest example). Humans have a right of self-determination which many governments 'value' but that doesn't mean the government can't impose laws on them.

Again, not the basis of the appeal.

...

The whole point of NSoT was to preserve the right of nations to set taxation policies. It was repealed by its author because it didn't do that enough. NSoT was decried for its approach, and had legality queries. It is most emphatically the greatest example, because it was the first of its kind to pass, and because Nuclear Armaments and UNSA were described as being 'in the style' of NSoT

No one is arguing that nations aren't sovereign, however, nations are agreeing to have that sovereignity abridged when joining the UN which by it's very nature takes some decisions out of the hands of the sovereign nation and puts them up to a vote of all the sovereign nations of the UN. Do you notice that this resolution also references sovereign individuals, but those individuals are still subject to laws.

UN member nations are sovereign, subject to the rule of UN law. This is explicitly stated in Rs&Ds, but can be inferred anyway. There is nothing in that sense to prevent from us assessing a decision as overreaching micromanagement, and as such arguing that it breeches sovereignty excessively. 'It violates sovereignty' is, to me, just a statement of fact: however, one can always decide that in certain cases - tax policies, nuclear armament, or gay rights, as random examples - the ability to retain a sovereign decision outweighs the ability of the UN to legislate that.

Third one and still no mention of any resolution that uses national sovereignty from the UN as its basis. In fact this proposal, mentions protecting a nation from other nations that might violate its sovereignty, not the UN.

Do you understand, though, what the point of these resolutions was? They do, of course, protect the sovereignty of nations from the UN. UNSA arguably doesn't, because of the ruling that five words is enough to circumvent; nonetheless, it was intended to do so. They preserve sovereign rights for the nation, and thus require repealing before said rights can be violated. They enshrine the principle of national sovereignty.

As pointed out that last one is dodging in terms of legality and it still limits itself to a single issue that it argues is better left more local for the purposes of better representation. There are a half dozen arguments there only one of which suggests that this particular issue is a right of the nationstate.

Right, but RiT was the replacement for NSoT, and, as was discerned during the recent discussion of a 'balanced Tobin Tax', it protects taxation more fully than its predecessor. And its not for you to assess whether something is 'dodging[sic] in terms of legality'. It was ruled legal, and passed. The Law of the Sea was ruled illegal: it still passed, and still has effect. A resolution becomes legal by virtue of passage. As when we moved to Jolt, the admins/mods can of course declare anything illegal and delete it. They haven't chosen to in this case.

Do you have any examples that actually support your point?

I wasn't making a point, other than that to assert that resolutions can't protect national sovereignty was wrong.

Nonetheless, I'm not the debater of Hack, GMC or PC, so I won't get into this.

No, I don't see a difference, and yes, it is the basis of the resolution. Under Rights and Duties, UN members already have the right to possess, use, fart, paint black, throw coconut shells at, etc., nuclear weapons. Nuclear Armaments simply makes it explicit that in the area of nuclear armament, or rather, the decision of whether to possess nuclear armaments, the decision shall be a sovereign right.
...

The whole point of NSoT was to preserve the right of nations to set taxation policies. It was repealed by its author because it didn't do that enough. NSoT was decried for its approach, and had legality queries. It is most emphatically the greatest example, because it was the first of its kind to pass, and because Nuclear Armaments and UNSA were described as being 'in the style' of NSoT



UN member nations are sovereign, subject to the rule of UN law. This is explicitly stated in Rs&Ds, but can be inferred anyway. There is nothing in that sense to prevent from us assessing a decision as overreaching micromanagement, and as such arguing that it breeches sovereignty excessively. 'It violates sovereignty' is, to me, just a statement of fact: however, one can always decide that in certain cases - tax policies, nuclear armament, or gay rights, as random examples - the ability to retain a sovereign decision outweighs the ability of the UN to legislate that.



Do you understand, though, what the point of these resolutions was? They do, of course, protect the sovereignty of nations from the UN. UNSA arguably doesn't, because of the ruling that five words is enough to circumvent; nonetheless, it was intended to do so. They preserve sovereign rights for the nation, and thus require repealing before said rights can be violated. They enshrine the principle of national sovereignty.



Right, but RiT was the replacement for NSoT, and, as was discerned during the recent discussion of a 'balanced Tobin Tax', it protects taxation more fully than its predecessor. And its not for you to assess whether something is 'dodging[sic] in terms of legality'. It was ruled legal, and passed. The Law of the Sea was ruled illegal: it still passed, and still has effect. A resolution becomes legal by virtue of passage. As when we moved to Jolt, the admins/mods can of course declare anything illegal and delete it. They haven't chosen to in this case.



I wasn't making a point, other than that to assert that resolutions can't protect national sovereignty was wrong.

Nonetheless, I'm not the debater of Hack, GMC or PC, so I won't get into this.

Interesting that in EVERY case you cite you have to make more of an argument that national sovereignty. Read the proposals. NSoT gives specific reasons why there is an advantage of keeping things locally before even suggesting that sovereignity in such a case be valued.

NA makes the point that protecting the sovereignity of the nation requires decisions of how those decisions are made to remain at the national level. It doesn't argue that national sovereignty trumps UN law, just that respect for sovereignty be considered when making UN law, and it is.

Also, I pointed out that this repeal not only repeals the original resolution but declares a right that would make it a violation to propose any further legislation on the subject, certainly this is not the purpose of a repeal, is it?

Huh? I guess if I said the bolded part then I would agree that I was wrong. Too bad I didn't. Burn, strawman, burn. There is a difference between protecting or valuing national sovereignty in a particular instance and declaring that laws cannot be made that violate national sovereignty which is what a repeal that declares a right and suggesting that a violation of national sovereignty is grounds for repeal of law does.

EDIT: I'll point out that I may have been overly assertive in my initial statement however. I believe the rules as offered are abundantly clear and also believe the mods here are clearly acting in the spirit of the rules if not the letter. One might argue that past action may not match up with those rules ("he got away with it, why shouldn't I?") but the idea that you cannot amend the function of the UN is fairly clearly stated.

Interesting that in EVERY case you cite you have to make more of an argument that national sovereignty. Read the proposals. NSoT gives specific reasons why there is an advantage of keeping things locally before even suggesting that sovereignity in such a case be valued.

Did you even read the debates on these resolutions? Defending national sovereignty was the sole point of each. For you to try to use that - by questioning their legality - whilst trying to obfuscate that is duplicitous.

I accept, increasingly, that I must be wrong. It seems to me to be silly to say "this argument is fine, so long as its with others, but is not enough on its own" is a legal objection. That, to me, is a value judgement, that the GA should decide on. It seems the mods are saying they have a right to throw out weak arguments in any case. Fine. I just wish they'd done it with PoSP as well.

NA makes the point that protecting the sovereignity of the nation requires decisions of how those decisions are made to remain at the national level. It doesn't argue that national sovereignty trumps UN law, just that respect for sovereignty be considered when making UN law, and it is.

No one's saying Nuclear Armaments does say that as an absolute, NatSov trumps international law. And bear in mind Nuclear Armaments IS INTERNATIONAL LAW. It defends a sovereign right. It does so on the basis that defence of the nation is a sovereign right, that nuclear armaments are necessary therefor, and that as such, the right of the nation to defend itself outweighs the right of the UN - a right the UN undoubtedly has - to outlaw the use or possession of nuclear armaments.

Also, I pointed out that this repeal not only repeals the original resolution but declares a right that would make it a violation to propose any further legislation on the subject, certainly this is not the purpose of a repeal, is it?

Which is illegal. PC wasn't defending that. He was talking about the validity of the argument in general, not the right of this proposal to stand. How is this relevant?

It seems to me that you're jumping all over him, for something he didn't actually say. I don't understand why you're doing that, but I suppose I'd best let you get on with it.

Did you even read the debates on these resolutions? Defending national sovereignty was the sole point of each. For you to try to use that - by questioning their legality - whilst trying to obfuscate that is duplicitous.

Seriously, you don't see anything there that is different in both spirit and letter than what was quoted? Seriously?

I accept, increasingly, that I must be wrong. It seems to me to be silly to say "this argument is fine, so long as its with others, but is not enough on its own" is a legal objection. That, to me, is a value judgement, that the GA should decide on. It seems the mods are saying they have a right to throw out weak arguments in any case. Fine. I just wish they'd done it with PoSP as well.

There are many proposals that I feel violate the rules in some way, so here we agree.

No one's saying Nuclear Armaments does say that as an absolute, NatSov trumps international law. And bear in mind Nuclear Armaments IS INTERNATIONAL LAW. It defends a sovereign right. It does so on the basis that defence of the nation is a sovereign right, that nuclear armaments are necessary therefor, and that as such, the right of the nation to defend itself outweighs the right of the UN - a right the UN undoubtedly has - to outlaw the use or possession of nuclear armaments.

Yes, which is a specific point, rather than arguing that violations of NatSov are a basis for repeal as it not only suggests but asserts that the UN cannot violate NatSov. I don't know how you can't see the difference here.

Which is illegal. PC wasn't defending that. He was talking about the validity of the argument in general, not the right of this proposal to stand. How is this relevant?

Actually, PC was suggesting that the proposal was deleted due to mod bias (that the rules violations that caused the deletion of the proposals could not be found or drawn from the posted rules and FAQ and thus were arbitrary) and used an inaccurate post of the repeal as an argument and then when a mod corrected him/her claimed that they were unmodly in doing so.

It seems to me that you're jumping all over him, for something he didn't actually say. I don't understand why you're doing that, but I suppose I'd best let you get on with it.

Hmmm... he didn't suggest this proposal was deleted due to mod bias? Did you miss the part where he suggested that if this proposal could be deleted for the reasons presented then the mods might as well start throwing out proposals on a whim? (sorry, I don't feel like going back for the quote but it was quoted by Hack on the last page.)

Seriously, you don't see anything there that is different in both spirit and letter than what was quoted? Seriously?

As I've repeatedly stated in this thread, I am not defending this proposal, which was clearly illegal: I am defending the use of national sovereignty as a legal - however invalid - argument.

There are many proposals that I feel violate the rules in some way, so here we agree.

Care to name some?

Yes, which is a specific point, rather than arguing that violations of NatSov are a basis for repeal as it not only suggests but asserts that the UN cannot violate NatSov. I don't know how you can't see the difference here.

I can see a perfectly clear difference. One is a weaker argument. It is not, to my mind, a less legally valid argument; it's simply less likely to pass (and yes, to pass or fail it seems to me a right of the GA).

Actually, PC was suggesting that the proposal was deleted due to mod bias (that the rules violations that caused the deletion of the proposals could not be found or drawn from the posted rules and FAQ and thus were arbitrary) and used an inaccurate post of the repeal as an argument and then when a mod corrected him/her claimed that they were unmodly in doing so.

Hmmm... he didn't suggest this proposal was deleted due to mod bias? Did you miss the part where he suggested that if this proposal could be deleted for the reasons presented then the mods might as well start throwing out proposals on a whim? (sorry, I don't feel like going back for the quote but it was quoted by Hack on the last page.)

No, he didn't. He suggested the use of national sovereignty as the sole argument for a proposal, or repeal, was legal, and a case for the GA, not the Secretariat, to rule on. I agree with him. However, as I've mentioned, I'm not going to pursue that line, because if he feels they've treated him badly, then I've no interest in being treated badly myself. I'm happy to watch.

As I've repeatedly stated in this thread, I am not defending this proposal, which was clearly illegal: I am defending the use of national sovereignty as a legal - however invalid - argument.

The point is the spirit of that argument was different than this one. You seem to agree.

Care to name some?

Absolutely, if the name of this thread was talk about illegal proposals, but since we're merely talking about how this proposal was illegal, the fact that other illegal proposals passed by the mods really isn't pertinant. I don't believe in making "you didn't yell at Johnny when he broke the rules argument". If it's against the rules, it's against the rules, regardless of whether someone got away with breaking some other rule before. Meanwhile, you happen to know I voted recently for a repeal of an illegal proposal (though it's not our call).

I can see a perfectly clear difference. One is a weaker argument. It is not, to my mind, a less legally valid argument; it's simply less likely to pass (and yes, to pass or fail it seems to me a right of the GA).

You see nothing wrong with asserting "that the UN cannot violate NatSov" as a basis for making a law invalid? You don't notice how since nearly every law does exactly that, it would mean that the function of the UN and the game mechanics change?

No, he didn't. He suggested the use of national sovereignty as the sole argument for a proposal, or repeal, was legal, and a case for the GA, not the Secretariat, to rule on. I agree with him. However, as I've mentioned, I'm not going to pursue that line, because if he feels they've treated him badly, then I've no interest in being treated badly myself. I'm happy to watch.

This does not empower you, however, to "scuttle" it via deletion, just because it's arguments are, in your opinion, invalid.

Argument of the powermad mods and mod bias ("in your opinion, invalid") (amusing argument given the name of the rules lawyer's nation).

If it were in the mandate of mods to delete proposals which they saw as incorrect, then the only proposals that'd get through are those that the mods supported.

Argument of Mod bias.

He specifically states that if the resolution was deleted for the reasons given for deletion by a mod that it would be mod bias and overstepping their powers. To suggest he is not saying what is so clear in his statements is just silly. He constantly refers how it just mod opinion that caused the deletion and puts the reasons in quotes just to add a little extra punch to the point. It's an argument of mod bias, but I actually left that alone and merely pointed out how they were merely enforcing what I very clearly see in the rules.

OOC

Ok, the waters are well and truly muddied. Here is what I am saying:
Dresophila Prime's proposal was illegal, and they were right to delete it;
saying that "the UN cannot violate national sovereignty" is untrue;
saying that "the UN should not violate national sovereignty" is an opinion many disagree with;
incorrect facts and unpopular opinions do not seem to me to be 'illegal' - just likely to be failed by the GA;
I am stupid, clearly, because I did think Honest Mistake violations referred merely to where someone misinterpreted existing law, and not simply to saying something wrong, or contentious;
I do not believe that saying 'the moderators are wrong' is the same as 'mod bias'. He has never once suggested the moderators are 'pro-gay' (I have no idea about their OOC views on any of that, and I can't see how he would either) or 'pro-gay rights' or 'pro-"Gay Rights"'. He is suggesting that deleting proposals they happen to disagree with is overstepping their bounds. That, though, does not intimate to me what I would class as 'bias', but simply as 'a mistake'. Maybe we just define things differently;
I didn't see why it was necessary for you to jump all over him, when you hadn't previously contributed to an extensive discussion, and when he evidently felt Hack and GMC were doing a bang-up job of slapping him down, to the point where he reported them.

OOC:

Did I miss something?

You made an inaccurate and misleading quote of repeal and he corrected you and managed to do so without actually saying that you were likely being intentionally misleading or even that you were just plain wrong. I see that as restraint.

So I'll say it - You're wrong and your quote was likely intentionally misleading.

From the first post of this thread:
"aimed at taking down 'Gay Rights' on the basis of sovereignty-infringement"

The entire BASIS for the argument is national sovereignty, which one explicitly allows to be abridged when joining the UN. Regardless of where it is posted or what text it's in, to allow a proposal that says that the UN can't violate national sovereignty is to allow a proposal to change the very nature of the UN which is illegal.

This is slapping him down? I pointed out that GMC didn't actually attack him as he inferred (and argued here). Then I addressed his argument. I didn't attack him personally or call him stupid or suggest he was poor at arguing or even suggest about his ability to argue this point. I merely pointed out that I find him to be wrong and why. I thought that was debate. I didn't realize that disagreeing with someone is 'slapping someone down'. I suppose that's what PC was thinking when he reported GMC for disagreeing with him.

Is this really the way the moderators are supposed to act? I mean, I know the whole site is based on "tell it like it is" semi-snippiness. But, c'mon. You can answer my post without trying to demean me.

Way back in post #58 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10153369&postcount=58), I quoted the exact wording of the resolution. This was:

The UN resolution ‘Gay Rights,’ shall be stricken from law, and the issue will be left for individual nations to decide.

You claimed it was:

If the proposal said "we should repeal Gay Rights because gay marriage should be a national decision" it is not at all inaccurate.

The proposal did not say what you claim, and your argument is therefore totally irrelevant [and circular: there's no justification, it just says 'we should repeal this resolution because we should repeal this resolution']: we didn't delete anything that said what you posted. The proposal made was, put very simply, wrong: it claimed it would revert the issue of gay rights to national-level decisions, but other resolutions in place would prevent that from happening. A resolution that says it will do something it won't is out.

Your argument is a strawman: you are claiming that by checking proposals for serious factual errors, the moderators are also screening them for ideological 'errors.' I would like to see you produce some proof that this is the case, given that is an extremely serious allegation.

Time to unveil my new card....

http://img499.imageshack.us/img499/8607/hug3fw.jpg

OOC:

Did I miss something?

This is slapping him down? I pointed out that GMC didn't actually attack him as he inferred (and argued here). Then I addressed his argument. I didn't attack him personally or call him stupid or suggest he was poor at arguing or even suggest about his ability to argue this point. I merely pointed out that I find him to be wrong and why. I thought that was debate. I didn't realize that disagreeing with someone is 'slapping someone down'. I suppose that's what PC was thinking when he reported GMC for disagreeing with him.

OOC

You mocked his nation name.
You called him 'the rules lawyer'.
You, just now, suggested he 'reported GMC for disagreeing with him'.

PC may have been wrong - it would appear he was, in trying to defend this proposal, although I still think it's more wires getting crossed than anything else - but, regardless, he was clearly upset by the way Hack and GMC responded to him. You knew this, yet you chose to continue. In fact, in your post, you suggested he was upset because of something they hadn't actually said - and then made it explicit that you were going to emphatically say it. That doesn't strike you as unnecessary? Maybe his claim was baseless. Maybe he was wrong. Fine. But, he felt sufficiently unnerved by their debating that he reported them. Wouldn't, then, it be a bit more sensible to step back, and allow everyone to calm down, instead of dogpiling a guy when he's down? In any case, they're mods, and they're perfectly capable debaters: I don't really think they need defending from anyone.

Anyway, DP's repeal was deleted, and the topic is well and truly dead, so I doff my cap and step back.

Way back in post #58 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10153369&postcount=58), I quoted the exact wording of the resolution. This was:
The UN resolution ‘Gay Rights,’ shall be stricken from law, and the issue will be left for individual nations to decide.


You claimed it was:If the proposal said "we should repeal Gay Rights because gay marriage should be a national decision" it is not at all inaccurate.


Nope. No. Nada. A hundred times “No”. I never claimed that's what the proposal was. And in order for my argument to be a strawman, I'd have to be objecting to the deletion of the repeal. I'm not.

Apparently you missed those parts.

The proposal did not say what you claim, and your argument is therefore totally irrelevant [and circular: there's no justification, it just says 'we should repeal this resolution because we should repeal this resolution']: we didn't delete anything that said what you posted. The proposal made was, put very simply, wrong: it claimed it would revert the issue of gay rights to national-level decisions, but other resolutions in place would prevent that from happening. A resolution that says it will do something it won't is out.Again, I'm not disagreeing that that proposal should've been deleted.

Your argument is a strawman: you are claiming that by checking proposals for serious factual errors, the moderators are also screening them for ideological 'errors.' I would like to see you produce some proof that this is the case, given that is an extremely serious allegation."Extremely serious"? It's extremely accurate.

Imagine, if you will, that the mods exercized "fact-policing" in the case of "The Sex Worker Industry Act". It had already been claimed in a passed repeal that prostitution could harm health standards in a country. "Sex Industry" claims the opposite--if a mod recognized the first as a fact, the mod would have a right to delete "Sex Industry".

If a mod recognized as a "fact" that 'gays are secondary citizens', a mod would have deleted "Gay Rights", "Rights and Minorities of Women", etc. from the list. The same with if a mod recognized marriage as between a man and woman, for a fact.

If a mod recognized there being no such thing as Global Warming, that mod could have deleted "Fossil Fuel Reduction".

If a mod thought it was incorrect that legalizing recreational drugs would decrease use or harm from use, then that mod would likely delete all recreational drug proposals.

As charming as it is to think, deep down inside we all know what's really “true” and fact, it's naive and incorrect. Totally and completely. More accurate is that we all have different perceptions of reality and fact--which perceptions are deeply connected to our political biases and opinions.

If the mods have the ability to delete, absolutely, what they feel is not factual, their biases and political persuasions would be expressed through these deletions. It's a simple enough idea.

Now, I don't think mods have that power--in that way, at least. And, since the first few posts failed to get a good response, maybe I'll try it again. How is mod power to delete misrepresentations of past resolutions differentiated from mod power to delete "factually incorrect" proposals?

"Extremely serious"? It's extremely accurate.

And you absolutely failed to produce any evidence, instead resorting to more generating of pointless imaginary situations. You can't respond to a request for evidence by saying 'my claim is extremely accurate,' that's just begging the question.

Enough. We already check for factual accuracy in proposals. We always have. None of your scenarios have come true. This suggests that your scenarios [or rather, the slippery slope fallacy in your claims that they are somehow inevitable] are faulty, not our policy.

Playing around with the word 'fact' isn't going to get you anywhere. If a resolution says the biggest dam in the world is four and a half feet tall, there is no opinion involved, it is factually incorrect. These are the types of facts dealt with, not the type of 'facts' you cited that are entirely constructions of personal opinion. You have been told there is no clear line with deletion for factual inaccuracy and it is about the individual moderator's discretion. That is policy.

We are not going to change a policy that has stood us in good stead since the proposal queue began to be moderated because you can make up some hypothetical situations with no evidence to show they happen and claim they're somehow inevitable.

If the mods have the ability to delete, absolutely, what they feel is not factual, their biases and political persuasions would be expressed through these deletions.

Evidence, then? You should have mountains of proof of this from all time we've been deleting resolutions with severe factual errors. Indeed, you should be able to completely describe around four clearly deliniated people and their individual political persuasions based solely on the time of day proposals are deleted, and say which one deleted any given proposal by their showings of political bias. Can you?

OOC

You mocked his nation name.
You called him 'the rules lawyer'.
You, just now, suggested he 'reported GMC for disagreeing with him'.

PC may have been wrong - it would appear he was, in trying to defend this proposal, although I still think it's more wires getting crossed than anything else - but, regardless, he was clearly upset by the way Hack and GMC responded to him. You knew this, yet you chose to continue. In fact, in your post, you suggested he was upset because of something they hadn't actually said - and then made it explicit that you were going to emphatically say it. That doesn't strike you as unnecessary? Maybe his claim was baseless. Maybe he was wrong. Fine. But, he felt sufficiently unnerved by their debating that he reported them. Wouldn't, then, it be a bit more sensible to step back, and allow everyone to calm down, instead of dogpiling a guy when he's down? In any case, they're mods, and they're perfectly capable debaters: I don't really think they need defending from anyone.

Anyway, DP's repeal was deleted, and the topic is well and truly dead, so I doff my cap and step back.
He started a debate in this thread and I joined in. You call it dogpiling, I call it trying to explain it a different way. You guys seem to think that being clear is the same as flaming or flamebaiting, but it's not. It's simply being clear. Saying someone is wrong when they are is appropriate in a debate which I was lead to believe was occurring in this thread. Saying someone is being misleading when they are is totally appropriate in a debating thread which I was lead to believe this was. I we stopped making points simply because someone didn't like them general would become a spam fest instead of having good debates (well, come on, they sometimes happen) on important topics that many of us care about.

Those thing you're complaining I said, did I say them before or after you attacked me simply for replying. My reply to him said none of those things and did not attack him for replying. Only one person attacked another for simply posting a response and that was you attacking me for responding. You've made it clear that you think responding to this poster was off limits. You put me in a position to defend my response and about three posts explaining it, I proved my position by showing exactly what was posted, and then made a snarky comment intended to be funny. Are you actually saying you attacked my original post because you knew three posts later when defending myself that I would make a comment that was snarky?

He started a debate in this thread and I joined in. You call it dogpiling, I call it trying to explain it a different way. You guys seem to think that being clear is the same as flaming or flamebaiting, but it's not. It's simply being clear. Saying someone is wrong when they are is appropriate in a debate which I was lead to believe was occurring in this thread. Saying someone is being misleading when they are is totally appropriate in a debating thread which I was lead to believe this was. I we stopped making points simply because someone didn't like them general would become a spam fest instead of having good debates (well, come on, they sometimes happen) on important topics that many of us care about.

Those thing you're complaining I said, did I say them before or after you attacked me simply for replying. My reply to him said none of those things and did not attack him for replying. Only one person attacked another for simply posting a response and that was you attacking me for responding. You've made it clear that you think responding to this poster was off limits. You put me in a position to defend my response and about three posts explaining it, I proved my position by showing exactly what was posted, and then made a snarky comment intended to be funny. Are you actually saying you attacked my original post because you knew three posts later when defending myself that I would make a comment that was snarky?

You were addressing a debate about what constitutes a legal proposal and what does not when you are not recognized as a UN regular, challenging a well-recognized UN regular while two moderators including the author of the current UN ruleset were already addressing it. Add on that your statement was presented in a less than friendly manner as if you're temper was already flaring as part of an ENTRY into the debate makes your participation in the debate frustrating at best, out of line at worst.

(edit) The fact that you are continuing the debate with a well-recognized UN regular and claiming superiority over his opinions on the reasons behind the moderator rulings of their legality also says a lot - especially since Gruen had a noted presence during at least two of those legality debates.

You were addressing a debate about what constitutes a legal proposal and what does not when you are not recognized as a UN regular, challenging a well-recognized UN regular while two moderators including the author of the current UN ruleset were already addressing it. Add on that your statement was presented in a less than friendly manner as if you're temper was already flaring as part of an ENTRY into the debate makes your participation in the debate frustrating at best, out of line at worst.

(edit) The fact that you are continuing the debate with a well-recognized UN regular and claiming superiority over his opinions on the reasons behind the moderator rulings of their legality also says a lot - especially since Gruen had a noted presence during at least two of those legality debates.

Oh, I see. Yes, if you've been here long enough one is beyond reproach. You know what's frustrating, you didn't address the merit of my arguments, only how many posts I've put in this particular part of the forum. The fact that a non-regular as you've dubbed me can recognize what it is clearly in the rules says just that much more about how baseless the argument is.

I didn't realize that it was required to have thousands of posts to recognize a post that says nothing inappropriate, but merely points out that the poster misquoted a part of the proposal as GMC did. I didn't realize that it takes months of posting in the UN to recognize that a proposal that alters game mechanics is illegal. I thought that it was sort of basic, but I guess not.

I'll tell you what, from now on, I'll send you a TG and you can let me know when I have permission to enter into a debate on the UN forum.

Oh, I see. Yes, if you've been here long enough one is beyond reproach. You know what's frustrating, you didn't address the merit of my arguments, only how many posts I've put in this particular part of the forum. The fact that a non-regular as you've dubbed me can recognize what it is clearly in the rules says just that much more about how baseless the argument is.

I didn't realize that it was required to have thousands of posts to recognize a post that says nothing inappropriate, but merely points out that the poster misquoted a part of the proposal as GMC did. I didn't realize that it takes months of posting in the UN to recognize that a proposal that alters game mechanics is illegal. I thought that it was sort of basic, but I guess not.

I'll tell you what, from now on, I'll send you a TG and you can let me know when I have permission to enter into a debate on the UN forum.

It wasn't deleted for altering game mechanics, nor was PC even suggesting anything along the lines of Game mechanics. If we look back at your original post, your first two paragraphs were absolutely fine and I agree with them. However, then you proceed to state this:

From the first post of this thread:
"aimed at taking down 'Gay Rights' on the basis of sovereignty-infringement"

The entire BASIS for the argument is national sovereignty, which one explicitly allows to be abridged when joining the UN. Regardless of where it is posted or what text it's in, to allow a proposal that says that the UN can't violate national sovereignty is to allow a proposal to change the very nature of the UN which is illegal.

This is where I think you overstepped your knowledge. There isn't a single article in the UN resolutions that you can't use NatSov as a basis of arguments. Yes, GMC has suggested that you aren't really giving a reason to repeal the resolution then (or pass one for that matter), but that wasn't the reason this resolution was deleted. It was deleted for honest mistake - it unintentionally made a false claim and was deleted for it. An unintentional claim isn't saying "I want to repeal this because it infringes upon my nation's sovereignty". A false claim is saying that your resolution/repeal will do something it doesn't.

Further, you made claims about what reasoning Hack and Co used to determine the legality of various resolutions. However, considering that this was publicly debated, I think that those with a bit of seniority over you would actually KNOW what logic was used. Yes, you have your full right to speculate, but Gruen was telling you what was ACTUALLY used, what arguments were actually made and what fights were ACTUALLY fought, and you continued to claim something seperate as the reason for their legality. I don't care whether you know the rules backwards and forewards and can recite them by heart after you flew head first through a window, you still can't claim you know more about the rules and the reasoning behind them about specific cases to those that were actually there.

By all means, give your opinion - but you seemed to claim to have the answer. That's where we had issues

Resolutions where the clear and understood purpose was to protect national sovereignty and it was understood by both players and mods as being resolutions that protect national sovereignty and do, really, nothing else means that using National Sovereignty as a basis for a resolution, as a purpose for a resolution is entirely permitted.

It wasn't deleted for altering game mechanics, nor was PC even suggesting anything along the lines of Game mechanics. If we look back at your original post, your first two paragraphs were absolutely fine and I agree with them. However, then you proceed to state this:

PC, like you are doing now, said that it doesn't violate game mechanics when it was pointed out to him that it does. I made an argument about how it does.

This is where I think you overstepped your knowledge. There isn't a single article in the UN resolutions that you can't use NatSov as a basis of arguments. Yes, GMC has suggested that you aren't really giving a reason to repeal the resolution then (or pass one for that matter), but that wasn't the reason this resolution was deleted. It was deleted for honest mistake - it unintentionally made a false claim and was deleted for it. An unintentional claim isn't saying "I want to repeal this because it infringes upon my nation's sovereignty". A false claim is saying that your resolution/repeal will do something it doesn't.

Do you know the difference between a repeal and regular resolution? If a resolution is made citing a specific type of NatSov, GREAT. If a repeal is made simply on the basis of NatSov, bad, really, really bad. The reason is obvious. If resolutions cannot violate NatSov, then the entire game changes. The UN violates NatSov all the time. It is agree to allow it to do so when one joins the UN.

Further, you made claims about what reasoning Hack and Co used to determine the legality of various resolutions. However, considering that this was publicly debated, I think that those with a bit of seniority over you would actually KNOW what logic was used. Yes, you have your full right to speculate, but Gruen was telling you what was ACTUALLY used, what arguments were actually made and what fights were ACTUALLY fought, and you continued to claim something seperate as the reason for their legality. I don't care whether you know the rules backwards and forewards and can recite them by heart after you flew head first through a window, you still can't claim you know more about the rules and the reasoning behind them about specific cases to those that were actually there.

Seniority? Ha. I read the thread. I've read the stickies. I've read all of the resolutions. I've read many of the UN debates in the several years I've been here. I've read tons of proposals. I don't bow to anyone's seniority. If you're right, you're right. If you're wrong, you're wrong. Post counts have nothing to do with it. An opinion has the weight of the argument behind it, not the weight of how many times that person has made that particular argument.

And it was publicly debated and it was pointed out that it would alter game mechanics, something PC said it wouldn't do.

By all means, give your opinion - but you seemed to claim to have the answer. That's where we had issues

Resolutions where the clear and understood purpose was to protect national sovereignty and it was understood by both players and mods as being resolutions that protect national sovereignty and do, really, nothing else means that using National Sovereignty as a basis for a resolution, as a purpose for a resolution is entirely permitted.

What? Oh, dear, I gave my opinion like I believe it be correct. Why would anyone do that? Oh, I know... because that's kind of what debate is, isn't it? Giving what you believe to be a correct opinion and defending it?

You are missing the difference between a resolution that specifically addresses a right that it declares and reserves to the state and a repeal that makes the claim that NatSov is a reason in and of itself for repealing a resolution. The first simply limits the UN in that area and can be repealed. The second says that NatSov cannot be violated by a UN resolution.

FL, Jocabia, I'm hardly one to claim seniority over anyone. There have already been repeals which have used national sovereignty as an argument. There have already been substantive resolutions which have used national sovereignty as an argument. Both have been ruled legal. I think we all agree, actually: we're just running around in circles. Maybe we should just let this one go?

Power, it is obvious you don't understand what a 'fact' is, so your argument has no merit or purpose other than to possibly derail the thread into something silly.

FL, Jocabia, I'm hardly one to claim seniority over anyone. There have already been repeals which have used national sovereignty as an argument. There have already been substantive resolutions which have used national sovereignty as an argument. Both have been ruled legal. I think we all agree, actually: we're just running around in circles. Maybe we should just let this one go?
I agree that we're not getting anywhere and I also agree that you did not use seniority as an argument. Finally, I agree to let it go. I was making a point to PC in the first place and he's too busy with GMC so it doesn't really matter anyway.

By the way, I did find another repeal that uses very similar language so you are correct that it exists in prior repeals (Repeal "Legalize Prostitution" not coincidentally also authored by PC). However, I hold that one to be illegal as well.

Enough. We already check for factual accuracy in proposals. We always have. None of your scenarios have come true. This suggests that your scenarios [or rather, the slippery slope fallacy in your claims that they are somehow inevitable]are faulty, not our policy.[emphasis added]

Okay, let me break down my argument further, since you're not quite responding to the subtle points of my posts:

1. You say "We already check for factual accuracy in proposals...None of your scenarios have come true",

2. I say (paraphrased) "If you checked for 'factual accuracy' these scenarios would happen". Is it more likely that my scenarios are faulty or that we have different understandings of what "check for factual accuracy in proposals" means? That's my question and my argument.

Playing around with the word 'fact' isn't going to get you anywhere.If by "playing around with the word ' fact'" you mean "trying to rectify my definition of 'fact' with the mods' definitions" then, I certainly hope it does get somewhere. I mean, what good are rules if people can't wrench from those mods information about the how the rules are defined and enforced?
If a resolution says the biggest dam in the world is four and a half feet tall, there is no opinion involved, it is [i]factually incorrect. These are the types of facts dealt with, not the type of 'facts' you cited that are entirely constructions of personal opinion. You have been told there is no clear line with deletion for factual inaccuracy and it is about the individual moderator's discretion. That is policy.My questions, then:

How is that policy justified, or where in the rules is that justified?

What are the general guidelines (since there are no "clear" lines) for 'factual incorrectness' policing?

How does this fit in with Cogitation's explanation of Real World References?

That still doesn't explain Solar Panels (which misconstrued science) and why it wasn't deleted--nor does it explain how science and different understandings of reality are approached, can those be explained?
Evidence, then? You should have mountains of proof of this from all time we've been deleting resolutions with severe factual errors. Indeed, you should be able to completely describe around four clearly deliniated people and their individual political persuasions based solely on the time of day proposals are deleted, and say which one deleted any given proposal by their showings of political bias. Can you?Actually, you're making a couple of serious blunders in logic here:

#1: Information about who when and what proposals are deleted and not is not published nor and it would not be easy to publish it.

Should this not be the case and one could amass databases of deleted proposals and have that matched to the various mods that deleted them (or even pseudonyms of the mods that deleted them: Mod 1, Mod 2, etc.) then one might be able to track political ideology. And only if one were of the mindset to do so (willing to invest all the time necessary). Your argument is like saying that "If you can't drive to the supermarket then you don't own a car"--when really, I could own a car and it just be out of gas or in for repairs, etc. "Can you drive to the supermarket? Huh? Can you? No? Then you don't own a car!"

#2: If you were to read closer, the purpose of that statement is to suggest that my definition of 'fact' and the mods appear to be different.

My assertion of Mod Bias is predicated on the mods using my definition of 'fact', which, obviously, they aren't (why would the mods come to me to get a definition of 'fact'?). That was/is my point. The purpose of that assertion of mod bias given my definition of 'fact' was to persuade you, perhaps, to explain your definition of 'fact', and thus how the mod bias I've predicted from my definition of 'fact' isn't there.

Power, it is obvious you don't understand what a 'fact' is, so your argument has no merit or purpose other than to possibly derail the thread into something silly.No. But I do realize that not everyone has an identical definition of what a 'fact' is, so I'm very interested in the mods explaining theirs and how that definition is supported by the rules (and further, how "factual inaccuracy" policing itself is supported by the rules).

Should this not be the case and one could amass databases of deleted proposals and have that matched to the various mods that deleted them (or even pseudonyms of the mods that deleted them: Mod 1, Mod 2, etc.) then one might be able to track political ideology.

No, you would be able to tell who had deleted a proposal just by the time of day it was removed from the floor if you paid attention and collected data. Not by name of moderator, but you would be able to tell which of anonymous mods A, B, C or D did it.

But you can't, and you've admitted your argument was pure sophistry anyway. Did it not occur to you that since the team who moderate the proposals includes a Catholic and an atheist, according to your scenarios there should be no proposals left at all?

And only if one were of the mindset to do so (willing to invest all the time necessary).

If you are unwilling to do what it takes to gather the evidence, don't make the allegation. It really is that simple.

No. But I do realize that not everyone has an identical definition of what a 'fact' is, so I'm very interested in the mods explaining theirs and how that definition is supported by the rules (and further, how "factual inaccuracy" policing itself is supported by the rules).

And we've already said the definition is a judgement call made by individual moderators, and that we're not going to draw you a nice, conveniant line in the sand.

The fact that you don't like that answer doesn't mean that answer is not final.

No, you would be able to tell who had deleted a proposal just by the time of day it was removed from the floor if you paid attention and collected data. Not by name of moderator, but you would be able to tell which of anonymous mods A, B, C or D did it.
Wait, hold on. You're saying that I should sit by the UN page for 24 hours (or a set of 24 hour periods), refreshing it every few minutes or so just so I can prove an argument I'm not trying to prove?

Classic.

And where do you think I would make the assumption that only one moderator is on the list at a time? Do you regard me as that assuming (i.e. stupid)?

If you are unwilling to do what it takes to gather the evidence, don't make the allegation. It really is that simple.
And if you are unwilling to read my post and comprehend that I'm not making any allegations, then you shouldn't post a response.

It really is that simple.
And we've already said the definition is a judgement call made by individual moderators, and that we're not going to draw you a nice, conveniant line in the sand.
First, where has this been said before, except for your last post? In my memory of the addressing of this point, mods have been not forthcoming at all (meaning they haven't even said "we make judgment calls and we're going to withhold the basese on which we make these judgment calls", just faint, unofficial, jabs at a possible rule if certain conditions apply, under a certain obscure reading of the Hackian rules).

And more importantly: why have you chosen to completely disregard my direct questions to you to instead butt in where you aren't really concerned, in my response to ElectronX? (and "we aren't going to draw a line in the sand for you" isn't a valid response, as not all my questions would've required you do that)?

More of my questions (for you to ignore):

Why are you being belligerent (you've not answered any of my questions--even the ones which wouldn't "draw [me] a nice, conveniant line in the sand")?

What is wrong with a line in the sand (doesn't spelling out the rules help you by decreasing the number of illegal proposals you have to delete?)?

Why are you being disingenuous (you've grossly misrepresented my posts repeatedly, is there an overall motivation for this)?

The fact that you don't like that answer doesn't mean that answer is not final.It isn't a fact that I don't like that answer. It's true that I'm unaware of this being a second or third time you've told me that "answer" (it's more of a copout, really) It's true that I want information. It's true that I don't want the moderation of proposals done behind closed doors, without any accountability. It's true I'm tired of belligerence. It's true I want to understand the moderators' collective mindset.

It is not true that I "don't like the answer". That's a lie or a lapse in perception or somesuch, as anyone else reading my posts should understand my questions, and understand what answers would fit with those questions. Your answer not being one of them.

I'm beginning to think the mods aren't here to moderate, but to oppress. To enforce unknown rules, at unpublished times, without approval or review--explained with belligerence and the guise of answering questions while really only mocking mature discussion.

Now, my past experience with the openness and (general) fairness in the GHP and the Moderation forum would make me disagree with that. But only for so long.

I agree that we're not getting anywhere and I also agree that you did not use seniority as an argument. Finally, I agree to let it go. I was making a point to PC in the first place and he's too busy with GMC so it doesn't really matter anyway. No, I've been busy, but not too busy to have read you posts--in which I saw no good argument (only the same aptitude toward misunderstanding my points--without effort for clarification--as GMC is demonstrating). That's why I haven't responded.

Wait, hold on. You're saying that I should sit by the UN page for 24 hours (or a set of 24 hour periods), refreshing it every few minutes or so just so I can prove an argument I'm not trying to prove?

Classic.

And where do you think I would make the assumption that only one moderator is on the list at a time? Do you regard me as that assuming (i.e. stupid)?


And if you are unwilling to read my post and comprehend that I'm not making any allegations, then you shouldn't post a response.

It really is that simple.

First, where has this been said before, except for your last post? In my memory of the addressing of this point, mods have been not forthcoming at all (meaning they haven't even said "we make judgment calls and we're going to withhold the basese on which we make these judgment calls", just faint, unofficial, jabs at a possible rule if certain conditions apply, under a certain obscure reading of the Hackian rules).

And more importantly: why have you chosen to completely disregard my direct questions to you to instead butt in where you aren't really concerned, in my response to ElectronX? (and "we aren't going to draw a line in the sand for you" isn't a valid response, as not all my questions would've required you do that)?

More of my questions (for you to ignore):

Why are you being belligerent (you've not answered any of my questions--even the ones which wouldn't "draw [me] a nice, conveniant line in the sand")?

What is wrong with a line in the sand (doesn't spelling out the rules help you by decreasing the number of illegal proposals you have to delete?)?

Why are you being disingenuous (you've grossly misrepresented my posts repeatedly, is there an overall motivation for this)?

It isn't a fact that I don't like that answer. It's true that I'm unaware of this being a second or third time you've told me that "answer" (it's more of a copout, really) It's true that I want information. It's true that I don't want the moderation of proposals done behind closed doors, without any accountability. It's true I'm tired of belligerence. It's true I want to understand the moderators' collective mindset.

It is not true that I "don't like the answer". That's a lie or a lapse in perception or somesuch, as anyone else reading my posts should understand my questions, and understand what answers would fit with those questions. Your answer not being one of them.

I'm beginning to think the mods aren't here to moderate, but to oppress. To enforce unknown rules, at unpublished times, without approval or review--explained with belligerence and the guise of answering questions while really only mocking mature discussion.

Now, my past experience with the openness and (general) fairness in the GHP and the Moderation forum would make me disagree with that. But only for so long.

No, I've been busy, but not too busy to have read you posts--in which I saw no good argument (only the same aptitude toward misunderstanding my points--without effort for clarification--as GMC is demonstrating). That's why I haven't responded.

Everybody misunderstands me. Why, oh, why am I so misunderstood? You know if people aren't 'understanding' you, perhaps the problem is in your ability to communicate. I seem to be having no trouble at all understanding the posts of others. GMC seems to be well-known for being able to reasonably look at a post and gather the gist. So what is common about these two usually reasonable individuals who can't seem to understand you? Oh, wait, you. Also, if you can't see that you're clearly making accusations without evidence, then perhaps you should go back and reread your posts.

And if you are unwilling to read my post and comprehend that I'm not making any allegations, then you shouldn't post a response.Bullshit. Pure and utter bullshit.

If it were in the mandate of mods to delete proposals which they saw as incorrect, then the only proposals that'd get through are those that the mods supported.As charming as it is to think, deep down inside we all know what's really “true” and fact, it's naive and incorrect. Totally and completely. More accurate is that we all have different perceptions of reality and fact--which perceptions are deeply connected to our political biases and opinions.
You have, on numerous occasions, accused us of being biased and unable to do our jobs. The above are just two examples that I've pulled from the last 20 posts in this thread, not counting the hissy fit you threw in Moderation.

You continue to attempt to split hairs on the definition of fact. We aren't talking about personal opinions on homosexuals or global warming. We're talking about empirical fact. Do you comprehend the difference? Are you capable of shutting up for five minutes and realizing that you have no argument and are just continuing because you can't drop it?

If you honestly can't see the difference between two people disagreeing about the cause or existence of global warming and 2+2=4, then perhaps you need to take some rudimentary courses in logic.

Global Warming (since you seem to love bringing that Solar Panel Resolution up) is a matter of scientific debate. The facts are unknown in this case. Many people believe there is no global warming, many people believe that it's caused by the actions and inactions of people, and many people believe that it is a natural process largely unaffected by the actions of humans. Since the base reality is not presently known, there's not going to be fact-based deletions. Does this sink through your skull? Do you comprehend yet?

Claiming a repeal of Gay Rights will give nations the ability to decide on homosexual marriage is wrong. Repealing Gay Rights will do nothing of the sort because there are other Resolutions that mandate homosexual marriage. This isn't a matter of opinion, this is a matter of someone saying something that is wrong.

Now then, I'm sick of this nonsense. If you want to continue to complain that Moderators are deleting based on political ideology, then you had better bring some solid evidence or else shut up about it. I've deleted thousands of UN Proposals over the last two years and I have never been accused of bias in my actions. If you're going to accuse me of being corrupt, you had better have some fucking evidence.

And if you want to go crying to Sal or [violet] that I'm being "mean" to you, be my guest. Your refusal to understand basic concepts, your lying, your misrepresentation, and your utterly baseless accusations of corruption have long since grown tiresome.

Wait, hold on. You're saying that I should sit by the UN page for 24 hours (or a set of 24 hour periods), refreshing it every few minutes or so just so I can prove an argument I'm not trying to prove?

If you wish to suggest that a system that is already in place results in corruption, you should be prepared to gather the evidence that allegation would require. The fact that you aren't speaks volumes about your love of sophistry, and your ever-changing position on the issue at hand doesn't impress anyone except, apparently, you.

Don't troll people in your sig, next time you can expect a forumban.

And more importantly: why have you chosen to completely disregard my direct questions to you to instead butt in where you aren't really concerned, in my response to ElectronX?

Because none of your questions are worth the effort of answering, and most have already been answered anyway.

Why are you being belligerent (you've not answered any of my questions--even the ones which wouldn't "draw [me] a nice, conveniant line in the sand")?

Because we're tired of you ignoring us and dredging up the same points over and over when they've already been answered. Politeness is one of the many services you don't pay for.

What is wrong with a line in the sand (doesn't spelling out the rules help you by decreasing the number of illegal proposals you have to delete?)?

The fact that we're not prepared to draw one and have issued a final ruling saying we won't draw one.

Why are you being disingenuous (you've grossly misrepresented my posts repeatedly, is there an overall motivation for this)?

Ev-i-dence, Mr Chipmunk? Changing your stance every post might make it look like we're misrepresenting your position, but that doesn't make it true. Guerilla debating is fundamentally dishonest.

It's true I'm tired of belligerence.

Then I suggest you stop being belligerant.

I'm beginning to think the mods aren't here to moderate, but to oppress. To enforce unknown rules, at unpublished times, without approval or review--explained with belligerence and the guise of answering questions while really only mocking mature discussion.

Yes, your discussion is mature, you're smarter than us, and we should kneel before you and listen to your wisdom. Take it somewhere else, troll.

<whinging and no evidence>

You're not going to get a ruling. You're not going to get anything, since you're constantly changing your position, lying about your past positions and then accusing us of being unreasonable based on your new position. Sorry, we forgot to look into the future and figure out what you'd distort your position to next. That's obviously our fault and not yours.

You've dragged this thread way off-topic with your semantic games and distortions, you've ignored all requests for the evidence you don't have of the serious allegations you've made and then mocked us for expecting you to gather it. You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing, having been told several times over the ruling is final and will not be changed. Enough. Locked.