NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTING the good intentions of resolution #80.

REALIZING that, many other resolutions already protect the rights of women and other minorities, such as The Sexes Rights Law and the Universal Bill of Rights, among others.

THUS declaring Resolution #80 as a useless resolution as it does absolutly nothing.

REPEALS Resolution #80.

This resolution is unneeded, though I do not agree with your reasoning. To declare all religions and beliefs as equal is blasphemous to the Flame. That shall not be stood for, as long as the Exarchs continue to have Darsomir within the UN.

Acolyte Gaeblyn

This resolution is unneeded, though I do not agree with your reasoning. To declare all religions and beliefs as equal is blasphemous to the Flame. That shall not be stood for, as long as the Exarchs continue to have Darsomir within the UN.

Acolyte Gaeblyn
*Reads past resolutions*
*Points to the resign button*

NOTING the good intentions of resolution #80.

REALIZING that, many other resolutions already protect the rights of women and other minorities, such as The Sexes Rights Law and the Universal Bill of Rights, among others.

THUS declaring Resolution #80 as a useless resolution as it does absolutly nothing.

REPEALS Resolution #80.

If proposals based solely on the national-sovereignty argument are now illegal, can we make the same rule for the "it doesn't do anything" argument?

If proposals based solely on the national-sovereignty argument are now illegal, can we make the same rule for the "it doesn't do anything" argument?
Why? REPEAL Gay Rights passed.

I have the same objection to this as I had to Repeal "Gay Rights": why? Is it really a problem that we have one more resolution protecting a group? Why don't we do something productive, like repealing a resolution that actually does something or writing a new one?

Well its the argument, a redundant but confusing set of laws, vs. a streamlined but potentially loopholed set of laws.

e.g.

A redundant system will more easily protect laws from loopholes, but if someone works really hard and finds those loopholes, those loopholes are harder to remove or even find. Plus it makes the system confusing and difficult to use, a big confusing mess.

A streamlined system is more straightforward, this is illigal, this is not, these are the laws. However, lacking redundancy it is easier to find loopholes and dismantle laws we want to protect (eg, with lots of laws protecting, say, gay rights, you'd have to repeal them all, with just one law, it can be quickly repealed).

Its hard to decide really, I prefer a halfway point, controlled and designed redundancy, to protect laws and weed out loopholes without creating a confusing mess.

Whether this repeal seeks to do that, or the author is simply trying to remove civil rights is yet to be seen. however, given the lack of reasoning behind the repeal i'm inclined to vote against it.

WHEREAS Resolution #80 as a useless resolution as it does absolutly nothing.

WHEREAS Repealing this resolution would so slighly less than "absolutly nothing" in the opposite direction.

WHEREAS Absolutely nothing (or eve slightly less than Absolutely nothing) isn't much to speak of.

RESOLVED Quaon owes me a tall white chocolate mocha for having wasted my time typing this reaponse.

I'll be in the UN Starbucks. You can't miss me.

Well its the argument, a redundant but confusing set of laws, vs. a streamlined but potentially loopholed set of laws.

e.g.

A redundant system will more easily protect laws from loopholes, but if someone works really hard and finds those loopholes, those loopholes are harder to remove or even find. Plus it makes the system confusing and difficult to use, a big confusing mess.

A streamlined system is more straightforward, this is illigal, this is not, these are the laws. However, lacking redundancy it is easier to find loopholes and dismantle laws we want to protect (eg, with lots of laws protecting, say, gay rights, you'd have to repeal them all, with just one law, it can be quickly repealed).

Its hard to decide really, I prefer a halfway point, controlled and designed redundancy, to protect laws and weed out loopholes without creating a confusing mess.

Whether this repeal seeks to do that, or the author is simply trying to remove civil rights is yet to be seen. however, given the lack of reasoning behind the repeal i'm inclined to vote against it.If you read my Factbook, I think you'll see that I am not a tyrant. I am not trying to remove civil rights. Just remove redundant laws.

Redundant laws are good for things like this where people would get rid of them to oppress people. Thats why I was also against the repeal of Gay Rights.

I'll be in the UN Starbucks.

I thought that the Strangers' Bar had a monopoloy on providing refreshments within the UN Building...

I thought that the Strangers' Bar had a monopoloy on providing refreshments within the UN Building...

I hope the Delegate from St Edmund will not be offende if I correct him on this matter. There is, in fact, a Cigar Lounge and Smoking Room on the 9th floor, a Karaoke bar on the 17th, MacDonalds on the 25th, an All-Nite Discoteque on the 27th, a Seafood Restaurent on the 28th, a shopping centre on the 31st and 32nd (where I assume the starbucks is), and a French Restaurent on the 38th. http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Building

Or, possibly the Strangers' Bar outsourced its coffee sales to Starbucks...

I hope the Delegate from St Edmund will not be offende if I correct him on this matter. There is, in fact, a Cigar Lounge and Smoking Room on the 9th floor, a Karaoke bar on the 17th, MacDonalds on the 25th, an All-Nite Discoteque on the 27th, a Seafood Restaurent on the 28th, a shopping centre on the 31st and 32nd (where I assume the starbucks is), and a French Restaurent on the 38th. http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Building

Ah. I sit corrected...


_______________________________________________________

OOC: I thought that I'd seen some nation's request that it be allowed to set up a restaurant vetoed on the grounds of the Bar having a monopoly...

I beleive they are all owned by Stranger's Bar PLC...

I beleive they are all owned by Stranger's Bar PLC...

Okay, that would explain the apparent discrepancy...