NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: UN Resolution #9: Keep The World Disease-Free! (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: In submitting the removal of Proposal #9 we;

RECOGNIZE: Cleanliness is a prerequisite in disease prevention

RECOGNIZE: Every country should encourage vaccination of people to prevent world wide epidemics

RECOGNIZE: The financial burden of such programs as such building codes lead to illegal structural development in the poorest of our countries.

ATTEST: The UN currently gives no financial support to the poorest countries who struggle to enact such laws, nor the homeless such law creates when former housing is condemned.

ATTEST: The lack of sewer and water services in remote areas creates situations where enforcement of Proposal #9 is impossible or financially unrealistic.

ATTEST: Private charities and individual governments are best suited to address the issue of personal cleanliness and access to clean drinking water, but leave open the formation of a UN backed charity to address such important issues as immunization.

Herby officially repeal RESOLUTION #9 from active UN rules.

Edit: fixed spelling error, reaffirmed hatred of MS Office.

*snip*

RECONIZE: Cleanliness is a prerequisite in disease prevention

RECONIZE: Every country should encourage vaccination of people to prevent world wide epidemics

RECONIZE: The financial burden of such programs as such building codes lead to illegal structural development in the poorest of our countries.
*snip*[/I]

My only real suggestion is to fix the spelling to "recognize".

My only real suggestion is to fix the spelling to "recognize".

Ya bettah reconize!

This is a terrible argument. KTWDF only establishes a 'right'. You're then complaining about its lack of infrastructure contingency. So write a proposal which does provide for this. Your first two clauses sum up that you agree with the resolution.

Seriously, 'trimming the fat'? Why not go for some bad resolutions, with good repeals? These two haven't inspired much confidence.

This is a terrible argument. KTWDF only establishes a 'right'. You're then complaining about its lack of infrastructure contingency. So write a proposal which does provide for this. Your first two clauses sum up that you agree with the resolution.

Seriously, 'trimming the fat'? Why not go for some bad resolutions, with good repeals? These two haven't inspired much confidence.

Reread proposal #9. I know it is poorly written but:

"Every citizen in every land should have the right to:
At least one toilet in their house;
At least one washbasin in their house;
At least one of either a bathtub or a shower; in order to comply with hygiene standards and prolong life expectancy.
Furthermore, vaccinations should be made available to the public, although they don't have to be mandatory."

When taken together, the last sentance indicates that vaccinations are the ONLY part of the bill that is not mandatory. The citizens have the 'right' to: one toilet, one washbasin, and one bathtub or shower in the same way that they have the 'right' to a vote. Meaning that the goverment must provide them not the sink/washbasin/bathtub but the various sewer lines, water lines, water treatment centers and other infastructure. It is, as the law is currently written, REQUIRED that the goverment provide these for any house they allow to be built regardless of remote or inhospitable surroundings.

Did you honestly think the law was saying, "Citizens have the right to own a shower" instead of "goverments are required to provide all homes access to water lines"? Even if you did read that the final line of the proposal indicates the true meaning of the bill, "With the backing of the UN, we can GIVE even our poorest inhabitants a nice, clean, healthy life.

Furthermore, vaccinations should be made available to the public, although they don't have to be mandatory."

When taken together, the last sentance indicates that vaccinations are the ONLY part of the bill that is not mandatory.

First off, your repeal absolutely sucks. Gruenberg is one of the best repeal writers on the board, why don't you look up some of his to see what real arguments are. Now, onto your misinterpretation of what was written. The vaccinations must be made available to the public, so an example would be that your government must make flu vaccines available to the public. Continuing, the vaccine is not mandatory to recieve, therfore, if someone has a religious belief that medicine is bad, they are not required to take it, but a normal joe schmoe and grab it if they want it. You should just drop this repeal (if you can even call it that) because you will not win.

Kernwaffen, you still did not address the bulk of my post. There are only 2 ways to interpret the law. 1) The nation is required to run sewer and water lines to every living structure or 2) The goverment will not prevent the sale of kitchen sinks. The point is that a nation would be required to provide services no matter where the living structure was located, which would be impossible.

Kernwaffen, you still did not address the bulk of my post. There are only 2 ways to interpret the law. 1) The nation is required to run sewer and water lines to every living structure or 2) The goverment will not prevent the sale of kitchen sinks. The point is that a nation would be required to provide services no matter where the living structure was located, which would be impossible.

I can answer or correct whichever part of your post I wish. But since you insist... showers don't neccesarily require plumbing and a toilet does not require a sewage system. Showers can use a large basin of water which can be released through the head and toilets can se either a septic tank or be used in an outhouse like setup. And banning the sale of sinks is not in the resolution, just washbasins which, for the purpose of this response, can be a bucket or a marble and gold sink.

The citizens have the 'right' to: one toilet, one washbasin, and one bathtub or shower in the same way that they have the 'right' to a vote.
RL US Counterpoint:

All US citizens over the age of 18 (with exceptions of felons in some states, etc.) have a right to vote. This does not mean that the government must come to my house and ask what my vote is. It means that I have a right to go down to a polling place or mail in my balllot. In the same way, this resolution says that the government can't ban toilets, bathtubs, etc.

The only thing I agree with in your post is the hatred of MS Office. ;)

Alright, so we have established that this is not a law that discusses the need for individual nations to provide their citizens with access to clean drinking water but is rather a proposal to prevent the ban of toilets, sinks and immunization? :confused:

Am I to assume that in 2003 large amounts of UN countries were banning the use of chamber pots, forcing the populations to go in a corner of the living room?

Just answer me this: Is the UN nations required to uphold the letter or spirit of the law? I am currently under the assumption that since few, if any, of us are experienced in real life lawmaking, most major language nuances would be ignored but if that is not the case I think well over 90% of the laws on the books are useless.

Just answer me this: Is the UN nations required to uphold the letter or spirit of the law?
Nations are required to uphold the letter of the law. See OMGTKK's idea (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Creative Solutions Agency) of compliance in NSwiki. On the other hand, many nations do follow the spirit of the law, often because they agree with it, or feel it is the right thing to do.

Am I to assume that in 2003 large amounts of UN countries were banning the use of chamber pots, forcing the populations to go in a corner of the living room?Nope. In 2003 large amounts of UN countries submitted poorly written legislation that fuzzy-headed members passed because it said "Social Justice" or "Environmental" on it.

Nope. In 2003 large amounts of UN countries submitted poorly written legislation that fuzzy-headed members passed because it said "Social Justice" or "Environmental" on it.

And now in 2006, we're working on getting rid of that fluff. :cool: