NationStates Jolt Archive

Second major attempt at repealing this one. First attempt reached 120 approvals.

Approval Link: Repeal "Scientific Freedom" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=scientific)

Description: UN Resolution #2: Scientific Freedom (http://www.nationstates.net/54925/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=1) (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

COMMENDING Resolution #2 for its intent to bring forth increased freedoms,

CONSIDERING that simply stating that a country "has long stood for Scientific Freedom", as seen in this resolution, does not require anything of UN Members, nor does it urge UN Members to bring forth initiatives or commissions to promote Scientific Freedom,

ALSO CONSIDERING that Resolution #2 neither lists a clear definition or explanation as to what constitutes Scientific Freedom, nor does it provide any clear framework or plans to bring about its cause,

CONCERNED that this resolution overlooks the harmful effects of unrestricted Scientific Freedom, which would lead to numerous painful, deadly, unsafe, and unethical scientific practices being forcibly legal in all UN Member nations,

CONCLUDING that Resolution #2 does not meet the desirable standards of UN resolutions for its disregard for potentially harmful and unjustifiable scientific practices and failure to provide any clear structure in bringing about necessary Scientific Freedom,

UNDERSTANDING that the freedom of safe and ethical scientific practices should be protected for numerous purposes,

REPEALS Resolution #2: Scientific Freedom.

-------------------------------------------------

Current Resolution



Description: The people of Genius have long stood for Scientific freedom. By ensuring that peaceful and responsible scientists can research by their own accord, and in any nation they please, technology will move forward, and trade will increase.


Presented to the Assembly of the United Nations on twenty-second day of November in the year two thousand and two, Common Era. By the representative and leader of Genius:

Chris Meyers
The Aboolot
Protector of Genius
Defender of Freedom
Friend of the Free Realms

This repeal once again has the support of Wyldtree. Poorly written, ineffectual legislation such as this definetely needs to be taken off the books.

I agree fully with you!

agree

Wyldtree got the gist of it.

I support this resolution and have myself been the author of several proposals to repeal this resolution as part of a larger crusade to repeal many of the earliest resolutions because of antiquated language. I will attempt to convince my delegate to endorse it. Good luck.

Repeal. The old resolution has no actionable language.
-Office of The Beltway's Ambassador to the UN

This resolution has the support of the representative of Dancing Bananaland, as well as the nation he represents.

We support it, and those who don't are nerds.

We are amenable to a repeal, and once we actually read this proposal, we may even support it.

We are immune from the "nerds" charge, as nerds are ... erm, smart.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

I seriously think that it will stay there this time. :)

Congrats! That must have picked up a shed load overnight.

We acknowledge the repeal text, although we're sad for the spirit of #2 to see it go.

We have re-submitted "Freedom of Science" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=science) (under a brand new category, woohoo!) to see whether it can serve as an adequate replacement.

I'd make a crack about it being time for me to delete this Proposal, but...

We acknowledge the repeal text, although we're sad for the spirit of #2 to see it go.

We have re-submitted "Freedom of Science" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=science) (under a brand new category, woohoo!) to see whether it can serve as an adequate replacement.

Wow, aren't you jumping the gun? #2 is not repealed yet.

Well, firstly, this proposal won't make it anyway, as I'm not campaigning for it. I'm just finding out what interest there is for it.

Secondly, if it does come up for vote, it'll be after the repeal. If it is repealed, at least the text is correct.

I am in doubt about the category though. I've used the new one because it seemed more fitting (protection of science stimulates education), but it could also be a HR one.

And it works best with #2 repealed, so I thought I might as well post it here.

We support it, and those who don't are nerds.


Nice Effective Rich Dangerous Subjects. We are not that. Thus we find this attempt to repeal this a waste of time. As we have some concerns over what might come along and replace it.

As we have some concerns over what might come along and replace it.

Yet, we find leaving the current resolution as it is leaves an even larger concern. If this resolution accomplished its goals, completely unrestricted scientific freedom would be granted to everyone, which means that anything that could possibly have the term "scientific" before it must be legal under any and all circumstances.

The people of Tzorsland approve the repeal of this resolution. I need a viable alternative to be able to say "no" to the bizzare actions of my science advisor on occasions. My technology advisor also goes strange on me on occasion. Wait, I have a message from my military advisor.

:eek: I must obey the master. Scientific freedom is a fundamental right. Resolution #2 is your friend. I must defend the resolution. Death to all opponents of science. Resistance in a superconductor is futile. I cannot, cannot, can ...

Ah where was I? Yes I have to turn off the mind control option in the messaging system. Tzorsland votes AYE!

At Vote Bump

Good luck, Jey. As I said on the DEFCON forums (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON), you're going to be facing a lot of delegates who don't bother reading past the title of a proposal. :rolleyes:

THe Palentine votes "For". Repeals are our friends.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Ausserland has voted in favor of this repeal. NSUN Resolution #2 does absolutely nothing except clutter up the list of resolutions. We hope that this repeal will clear the way for a meaningful, reasonable replacement.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Norderia stands behind this Repeal. As has been made abundantly clear, Res #2 is a potentially dangerous Resolution to have on the books. The purpose of it is a noble one, however, and I hope to see a replacement soon after.

If it does get Repealed. I see the vote is entirely too close at the moment. Evidence of judging a book by its -- Or, rather, a Resolution by its title?

I urge those who have not read both Res #2 and this Repeal to do so. Res #2 can be found earlier in this thread.

Well, firstly, this proposal won't make it anyway, as I'm not campaigning for it. I'm just finding out what interest there is for it.

Secondly, if it does come up for vote, it'll be after the repeal. If it is repealed, at least the text is correct.

I am in doubt about the category though. I've used the new one because it seemed more fitting (protection of science stimulates education), but it could also be a HR one.

And it works best with #2 repealed, so I thought I might as well post it here.

Haven't yet looked at a copy of your proposed repeal, my government is actually supportative of an educational based replacement.

OOC: I think your two points are completely logical, though it does put the moderators more in the position of judging if a replacement is likely to be accepted or not. I'd rather (my opinion alone) we not submit replacements until a resolution is replaced. Why? It would be possible to campaign for a replacement using the Delegate endorsement lists ... risky, but very likely to quickly jump into the queue. I'd rather not place Hack and Fris in a position where they'll have to use their judgement on this particular issue ... I'd rather they act as drones with respect to this. ;)

Early voting has the repeal down by about 300 votes, although it has gained ground since voting opened this morning. Good luck!

We are thoroughly dissappointed with the initial results of this proposal. Such a simple matter--this resolution does absolutely nothing and yet the repeal is down by nearly 400 votes? What is so tough about reading an at vote proposal? If your not prepared to do so, we humbly ask you to abstain from voting. As I said in the previous topics over this repeal, misinterpretations from the title are going to result in every single against vote for this proposal, and so far my theory is correct.

Judging by the poll in this thread, it appears that people who take the time to come to the debate forum are far more likely to vote in favor of removing the Resolution. Correlation with effort put into reading the Resolution and the repeal?

Correlation with effort put into reading the Resolution and the repeal?

Indeed, my good sir. :)

This Resolution is Totally Correct, Because Resoultion 2 Is poorly written and has no active parts, just passive, which are of little importance. Vote For This Resolultion, its got mine.

Judging by the poll in this thread, it appears that people who take the time to come to the debate forum are far more likely to vote in favor of removing the Resolution. Correlation with effort put into reading the Resolution and the repeal?

I've yet to see a serious poll on this forum that wasn't more likely to:

A) Oppose a resolution, or
B) Support a repeal.

Though I wouldn't contribute this to a Republic/Democrat (Conservative/Liberal) mentality, I do think those that come to the forum are a bit more critical (which is OK) of resolutions.

I've yet to see a serious poll on this forum that wasn't more likely to:

A) Oppose a resolution, or
B) Support a repeal.

Which is why its sad to see this proposal losing at the moment. This proposal would be passing by at least a supermajority if everyone would read past the title and perhaps even "Debate this issue in the UN Forum" as the game says.

Res. Two has no actionable language; it is simply rhetoric. With it repealed, a proper resolution defending the right to scientific research can be written. Thus, we vote in favor of the repeal of Res. Two.
-Office of The Beltway's Ambassador to the UN

OOC - Maybe you should have titled it "Repeal Resolution Two." That way, people would be more likely to look beyond the title.

OOC - Maybe you should have titled it "Repeal Resolution Two." That way, people would be more likely to look beyond the title.
You can't... it automatically titles it Repeal "(Resolution Name)".

My one problem with this repeal is that I don't see the resolution as acting as a blocker in the UN. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I think there are regulations that can be written that can work within the framework set out in #2 (without amending it). Thus, I wouldn't mind seeing a replacement/expansion (such as Groot's, which I've seen elsewhere) in place before the repeal goes through.

Ausserland has voted in favor of this repeal. NSUN Resolution #2 does absolutely nothing except clutter up the list of resolutions. We hope that this repeal will clear the way for a meaningful, reasonable replacement.

We fully concur.

We are FOR as well, but will however ultimately cast our vote according to the majority opinion in our region.

So if you see us switch sides before the voting deadline, it is not of our own volition. At the moment however, the regional majority is also FOR.

/The Frestonian UN Delegation

Ehlana will be voting in favour of having the resolution repealed.

Though we do hope that it will be replaced by a fair and balanced resolution where science is not hindered by unnecessary regulations created by people who are unfamiliar with the area or muddled with religious beliefs.

Sephrenia
Minister for Science
The Everchanging Equilibria of Ehlana

Compadria votes FOR

We would be much happier with a more comprehensive, detailled and correct resolution concerning scientific freedom on the statute books, rather than this poorly written stub that achieves absolutely nothing but confusion.

We also like Great Gouda's suggested replacement proposal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

We [Guendiilow] agree fully with the Head Office of Wyldtree on the matter of the repeal of "Scientific Freedom".

Ecopoeia supports this resolution.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Gosh, I'm surprised so many people for repeal.

I didn't, I like destroying things with acid :gundge:

AND SORRY IF I MADE A MISTAKE

(yelling at me cause you to be shot) :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Gosh, I'm surprised so many people for repeal.

I didn't, I like destroying things with acid :gundge:

Thank you for that astute statement concerning your vote on this matter. We sincerely hope that you do not represent the thoughts of all the against votes on this issue, as you are the first person in this thread to be against the repeal.

AND SORRY IF I MADE A MISTAKE

(yelling at me cause you to be shot) :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
Oy gevalt -- the n00b / gun smilies conspiracy continues.

I would venture that this repeal is down in votes because, as previously stated, the title is as far as the middle-minded go with regard to reading. Any way to petition for a change to the automatic language on repeals? "Repeal Resolution #___" would force at least SOME of these middle-minded (see the book The Middle Mind by Curtis White) to at least skim the body text.

Then again, that's me, eternal optimist.:rolleyes:

I didn't, I like destroying things with acid :gundge:

I really should remark with a defense that is exceptionally base. :p

Only I fear this might merely contribute to global warming. :eek:

DO WE HAVE TO SAY THIS FOR THE ONE MILLIONTH TIME. REPEAL OF RESOLUTION #X DOES NOT IN AND OF ITSELF CAUSE THE OPPOSITE OF RESOLUTION #X. THE REPEAL MERELY GIVES CONTROL BACK TO THE NATIONSTATES WHO COULD JUST AS EASILY CONTiNUE WITH THE RESOLUTION ON A LOCAL BASIS.

Repeat this mantra again and again every time a repeal notion comes up and you will do well. And now, our new para military force of were-penguins will do a strip tease in support of this repeal. Common girls, take off them tuxes!

Is it time to use some Strong Arm Tacti...err Negative Reinforcement Methods to get some people to change their votes? My deputy,Texas Jack Funk (http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/terry-funk.jpg), loves such methods.

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

And now, our new para military force of were-penguins will do a strip tease in support of this repeal. Common girls, take off them tuxes!


A group of Palentine Naval Dolphins sees the Were-Penguins and shouts some ecouragement...
"Yeah Baby, Show us them *Censored*! Oh baby! Lets go *CENSORED*BLEEP*FOUL WORD*BLEEP!* our*EXTREMELY VILE EXPLITVE* off! Take it off you *VILE WORD*CENSORED* vixens!"

Upon hearing the words 'strip tease,' Ambassador Clinton got up to leave. Upon hearing the word 'tuxes,' Ambassador Clinton sat back down and sent off a message to another regional delegate.

Two points, one minor, one major.

Minor: Whyyyyy is this Repeal failing?

Major: I have never used a gun smiley. Even as a noob.

Minor: Whyyyyy is this Repeal failing?

Probably because the same sort of people who voted for the infamous Solar Panel Act (or whatever its official title was, NSwiki's down so I can't check) are voting against this proposal. Legislative stupidity rarely goes away without a prolonged struggle.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I'm sick of all these repeals!
If you didn't like the motion in th first place, why on earth did you vote for it?
For the motion to be accepted, it needs a majority, which means most UN nations agreed to it. Now I ask you, how does stivking a little word 'repeal' in front of it change it?
well, somehow it does, because they always get repealed. I'm now firmly of the believe that most ppl just vote "yes" because they can't be bothered reading it or working out what's it about.
Howabout using your eyes first for once people and then maybe we wouldn't have to waste so much time deciding about repeals
*steps down off soap box*

How about using your eyes -- and your brain -- and actually reading the proposed repeal?

I'm sick of all these repeals!
If you didn't like the motion in th first place, why on earth did you vote for it?
For the motion to be accepted, it needs a majority, which means most UN nations agreed to it. Now I ask you, how does stivking a little word 'repeal' in front of it change it?
well, somehow it does, because they always get repealed. I'm now firmly of the believe that most ppl just vote "yes" because they can't be bothered reading it or working out what's it about.
Howabout using your eyes first for once people and then maybe we wouldn't have to waste so much time deciding about repeals
*steps down off soap box*

Stufu, when was the last time you wrote a proposal? Or a repeal? Or a shopping list? I thought so. If you have something to say, please do. But don't come here accusing other delegates of not reading the text, especially since you give no hint of having read it past the word 'repeal.'

Stufu, nations change, opinions change. Perhaps what the majority thought was an able policy then is now void.

Not to mention that the resolution is so old that I find it doubtful even most of the people who voted on it originally are still playing the game.

We find it strange that only two of the supposed 20 against votes in this thread have actually said anything. Where are all the against opinions? I'd love to hear these reasonings. Are they all the same 2 nations but just under different puppets? How about you contribute to the conversation and defend against our assumptions that your all just too lazy to read past the title?

Not to mention that the resolution is so old that I find it doubtful even most of the people who voted on it originally are still playing the game.

I've seen one nation that's almost certainly old enough to have been around in those days listed amongst the delegates who've voted FOR the repeal: Rlyeh, delegate for the 'Alliance of the Elder Gods', whose population being in excess of 7 billion would seem to suggest a reasonable degree of antiquity...

I've seen one nation that's almost certainly old enough to have been around in those days listed amongst the delegates who've voted FOR the repeal: Rlyeh, delegate for the 'Alliance of the Elder Gods', whose population being in excess of 7 billion would seem to suggest a reasonable degree of antiquity...

And the fact that R'lyeh is where Great Cthulhu sleeps...and waits...

OOC: The largest nation in NS is Praetor, but I'm not sure if that means they're the oldest (there was a population bug back in the Dark Ages).

Ahem. As you were.

And the fact that R'lyeh is where Great Cthulhu sleeps...and waits...

And hopefully, as he is sleeping, doesn't participate in their UN embassy... ;)

And hopefully, as he is sleeping, doesn't participate in their UN embassy... ;)

No, I believe that's staffed entirely by night-gaunts.

Although we appriciate the ideas behind Resolution #2 we recocognize that is does not in fact promise anything. Therefore our vote is going to repeal the resolution, however we hope to see a well documented replacement in the near future.

We will also use our contacts with UN members of other regions to vote for this repeal. And we will make contacts with new regions in an attempt to convince them to at least read the resolution and make an informed decision.

Although we appriciate the ideas behind Resolution #2 we recocognize that is does not in fact promise anything. Therefore our vote is going to repeal the resolution, however we hope to see a well documented replacement in the near future.

We will also use our contacts with UN members of other regions to vote for this repeal. And we will make contacts with new regions in an attempt to convince them to at least read the resolution and make an informed decision.

I like your attitude. Welcome to the UN, and good luck with your diplomatic efforts. :)

I'm sick of all these repeals!
If you didn't like the motion in th first place, why on earth did you vote for it?
For the motion to be accepted, it needs a majority, which means most UN nations agreed to it. Now I ask you, how does stivking a little word 'repeal' in front of it change it?
well, somehow it does, because they always get repealed. I'm now firmly of the believe that most ppl just vote "yes" because they can't be bothered reading it or working out what's it about.
Howabout using your eyes first for once people and then maybe we wouldn't have to waste so much time deciding about repeals
*steps down off soap box*

One may also point out that there were only 4411 votes cast in that second Resolution, a majority of the UN in those days.

And I don't get this animosity towards repeals. They are very important to the game. Repeals reveal flaws in legislation and raise the standards for Resolutions. Repeals are like the proofreaders of UN proposals. The last Repeal attempt was several weeks ago.

Once all of the poorly written Resolutions are written off and replaced with higher quality legislation, I guaruntee you will see a large decrease in the amount of Repeals being proposed.

One may also point out that there were only 4411 votes cast in that second Resolution, a majority of the UN in those days.

And I don't get this animosity towards repeals. They are very important to the game. Repeals reveal flaws in legislation and raise the standards for Resolutions. Repeals are like the proofreaders of UN proposals. The last Repeal attempt was several weeks ago.

Once all of the poorly written Resolutions are written off and replaced with higher quality legislation, I guaruntee you will see a large decrease in the amount of Repeals being proposed.

True. As is, the original resolution has no effect, promising nothing, and can only confuse any further issues raised about scientific freedom. By repealing the old resolution, we pave the way for a piece of legislation that would actually define protective limits for how far scientific freedoms extend
(cutting down on biological, chemical, or nuclear weaponry for example) and could possibly increase the amount of effort in useful research.

Although we appriciate the ideas behind Resolution #2 we recocognize that is does not in fact promise anything. Therefore our vote is going to repeal the resolution, however we hope to see a well documented replacement in the near future.

We will also use our contacts with UN members of other regions to vote for this repeal. And we will make contacts with new regions in an attempt to convince them to at least read the resolution and make an informed decision.

It's always a pleasure to welcome a new member with a positive and thoughtful attitude.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Stufu, when was the last time you wrote a proposal? Or a repeal? Or a shopping list? I thought so........... word 'repeal.'
I take offence at that.
I would suggest you find out a little about the person you are flaming BEFORE you insult them.
You have no idea of my gender, my age or my occupation, yet you have the audacity to insinuate I have no clue as to how to write anything.
I normally wouldn't even lower myself to a reply, but I think you need a lesson in thinking before you put your foot in it.
I'm a professional whose job includes writing submissions, making proposals amongst other things.
As a married woman with children and grandchildren I've had more than one opportunity to whip together a shopping list, and I certainly read beyond the first word.
My comments, however, were not about the content of the motion BUT the fact it was an appeal.
I shall refrain from posting here again!

Scientific research can be very dangerous, and leads all too easily towards the Heresy of the Night. As such, Darsomir votes to repeal this resolution.

Acolyte Gaeblyn of the Flame,
Representing His Holiness Berenon

*snip*

By repealing the old resolution, we pave the way for a piece of legislation that would actually define protective limits for how far scientific freedoms extend (cutting down on biological, chemical, or nuclear weaponry for example)... [bold added]

*tiny snip*

I hope not.

Yet, we find leaving the current resolution as it is leaves an even larger concern. If this resolution accomplished its goals, completely unrestricted scientific freedom would be granted to everyone, which means that anything that could possibly have the term "scientific" before it must be legal under any and all circumstances.

This is the problem as anything that says FREEDOM to do it.... to most mean one has just that FREEDOM to do it anywhere, anytime, anyplace, or anyway they prefer to do in the name of whatever they are doing.

Thus they forget that say FREEDOM to use certain drugs may be considered 'scientific' as one would want to test their effects on people thus must have the FREEDOM to test those drugs. However if you don't control what people they can use it on then you run into abuse... as they drag kids off the streets dope them up and call it 'scientific' testing of the drug. Thus where does one so called FREEDOM end and another begin. As those kids should have the choice not to be doped up or hooked on those drugs... Who protects what FREEDOM over the other? When does ones FREEDOM abuse anothers FREEDOMs?

Only one person has a FREEDOM when that person uses it to abuse another and take away that other persons FREEDOM then somebody has to step in and deal with it. Thus if you want to test say drugs, under scientific FREEDOM, then one can do that provided they follow whatever rules are set for such FREEDOMs. As to not have rules set up would mean 'bang' you're dead because I exercised my FREEDOM/right of privacy and you were invading it so I put an end to that. Also I wanted to test out a new bit of ammo for my pistol.. under scientific FREEDOM...

This is the problem as anything that says FREEDOM to do it.... to most mean one has just that FREEDOM to do it anywhere, anytime, anyplace, or anyway they prefer to do in the name of whatever they are doing...

OOC: Or like the RL Japanese practice of whaling for "scientific research"...

I take offence at that.
Your problem. You didn't answer my question. What was the last time you wrote a proposal? (I will not mention shopping lists again, since some of us cannot take jokes very well.)

I would suggest you find out a little about the person you are flaming BEFORE you insult them.
Flaming??? Stick around for a while, I can show you flaming later. Right now, if anything, what I did is called troll-feeding. You suggested that delegates cannot read; I asked you to show a sign, any sign, of actually understanding the texts under discussion beyond the word 'repeal.' You still have not done so.

A suggestion: state the points that you agree with in the original SF, and what you disagree in the Repeal. This way we can have a debate instead of threadjacking.

You have no idea of my gender, my age or my occupation, yet you have the audacity to insinuate I have no clue as to how to write anything.
Gender: Irrelevant for the discussion.
Age: Irrelevant for the discussion.
Occupation: Irrelevant for the discussion.
Did I guess right? (I have my sources, you know.)
I make my insinuations based on your posts, and on the fact that you whine about what people submit or fail to submit, without ever proposing alternatives.

I normally wouldn't even lower myself to a reply, but I think you need a lesson in thinking before you put your foot in it.
Ooooooh, a lesson. (By the way, this one is flaming.)

I'm a professional whose job includes writing submissions, making proposals amongst other things.
Good for you. Irrelevant for the discussion.

As a married woman with children and grandchildren I've had more than one opportunity to whip together a shopping list, and I certainly read beyond the first word.
I am sure you can read after the first word. So comment on the effects of the proposal. Please? And please, please, please, keep your RL activities out of this. I am not impressed and couldn't care less.

My comments, however, were not about the content of the motion BUT the fact it was an appeal.
Nonono, it was a repeal. Anyway, you seem to have found the crux of the argument. Your comments were irrelevant for the debate.

I shall refrain from posting here again!
Sad.

I'm sick of all these repeals!
If you didn't like the motion in th first place, why on earth did you vote for it?

We did not vote for it. The resolution was adopted in 2002. Ausserland joined the NSUN in 2005.

For the motion to be accepted, it needs a majority, which means most UN nations agreed to it. Now I ask you, how does stivking a little word 'repeal' in front of it change it?

What changed is the membership of the NSUN. There were 4,411 votes cast on the resolution. There are now 30,284 NSUN member nations. The logic of the notion that 30,284 nations should be irrevocably bound by a decision of 4,411 nations made more than three years ago escapes us. Another thing that has changed is the willingness of the NSUN membership to accept resolutions that, while well-intentioned, are so poorly devised that they do absolutely nothing.

well, somehow it does, because they always get repealed. I'm now firmly of the believe that most ppl just vote "yes" because they can't be bothered reading it or working out what's it about.

Repeals do not always succeed. And there are dozens of resolutions that have never been subject to a repeal effort. We can't imagine what "they" refers to.

Howabout using your eyes first for once people and then maybe we wouldn't have to waste so much time deciding about repeals
*steps down off soap box*

The eyes and the brain should both be used -- before voting and before posting in this forum, we believe.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

You have no idea of my gender, my age or my occupation

OOC: Your nation's name looks (at least in English) like one that a teenager would be more likely than an older & [hopefully] more mature person to choose...

It looks as though the majority want to kepp resolution #2.

The NS-UN has a lot of inane resolutions that actually serve little purpose, sadly here to stay.

Why have so many voted against this? It seems like a no-brainer.

Its scary how the voting in the UN fails to reflect the voting amongst people who actually post here. Many un-thoughtout votes seem to be being made.

It's a shame to see these much needed repeals losing.

Well I am undecided at the current point. I will have to take all of this into consideration. ;)

I decided to vote for the repeal. The Scientific Freedom Act wasn't written as good. Also, if you give too much freedom to the people, things will be chaotic.

I am pleased to announce that today the Federation of United Planets c2161 has received several telegrams in response to our campaign for the Repeal of Resolution 2: Scientific Freedom.

We have received 3 messages for nations who have indicated that they will vote for this repeal, including 1 UN Delegate.

We have also received several message for nations who, although they are currently undecided, have informed me that they have read the resolution and are carefully weighing their options before reaching they're final decision.

Unfortunately we have also received a few messages saying that they will vote against the repeal. I have asked them for their reasons, and if they are received prior to the completion of the vote I will post them here to give their side some representation in this forum.

I am pleased to announce that today the Federation of United Planets c2161 has received several telegrams in response to our campaign for the Repeal of Resolution 2: Scientific Freedom.

We have received 3 messages for nations who have indicated that they will vote for this repeal, including 1 UN Delegate.

We have also received several message for nations who, although they are currently undecided, have informed me that they have read the resolution and are carefully weighing their options before reaching they're final decision.

Unfortunately we have also received a few messages saying that they will vote against the repeal. I have asked them for their reasons, and if they are received prior to the completion of the vote I will post them here to give their side some representation in this forum.


At my last count, midnight Greenwich Mean time (since we're all over the place on this forum [Chicago, myself]) the repeal was ahead by about 250 votes. This is good news.

I also want to welcome you to the NSUN forum. If you do get the chance, we're eager for a Devil's Advocate to tell us why on NSEarth people are voting against this Repeal. If there is some rational reason why, I haven't yet thought of it. My best hypothesis is that the happy name of Res #2 has left people thinking that the Resolution itself is a good one.

My thinking is that people feel scientific freedom should be encouraged. At least, this is the opinions of a couple of nations I've conversed with. I am personally all for scientific freedom. My policy stands: repeal Res. #2 and replace it with a more fluently worded application. One that sets clearer boundaries, etc.

One that sets clearer boundaries, etc.
This is my concern here is just what are or would those 'clearer boundaries' be in regards to scientific freedoms. As we have yet to see what will replace this and just how 'wide' those boundaries might be or how tight they might be.

As the passage of Resolution 151 on nukes has already restricted members from passing on information, materials, and even nukes... to other nations... we are slowly cutting our own throats in regards to defending our hides. Setting too tight a boundary in 'scientific freedom' could cut a little more into our throats. Thus I for one want to see what might come down the road in regards to a new resolution on 'scientific freedom'.. before we pull the current resolution off the table.

It is important that "Scientific Freedom" is not repealed. Recently there has been a wave of conservatism that is driving the progress of our worl backwards. This must stop immediately and effectively NOW! It is time to move forward into the dawning of a new age and not backward to a time of tyranny, ignorance, and indifference.

This is my concern here is just what are or would those 'clearer boundaries' be in regards to scientific freedoms. As we have yet to see what will replace this and just how 'wide' those boundaries might be or how tight they might be.

As the passage of Resolution 151 on nukes has already restricted members from passing on information, materials, and even nukes... to other nations... we are slowly cutting our own throats in regards to defending our hides. Setting too tight a boundary in 'scientific freedom' could cut a little more into our throats. Thus I for one want to see what might come down the road in regards to a new resolution on 'scientific freedom'.. before we pull the current resolution off the table.

For the most part, I agree. I'm not saying we should trash the whole concept of freedom, I'm just saying perhaps some guidelines that weren't part of the original could be implemented, maybe for our own safety, maybe for others'. I'm sure someone will come up with these. Who knows.

It is important that "Scientific Freedom" is not repealed. Recently there has been a wave of conservatism that is driving the progress of our worl backwards. This must stop immediately and effectively NOW! It is time to move forward into the dawning of a new age and not backward to a time of tyranny, ignorance, and indifference.

We would ask the representative of Greeceila and others who oppose this repeal to please take a moment and read Resolution #2 again....

What does the Resolution require nations to do? Nothing.

What does the Resolution prohibit nations from doing? Nothing.

In other words, Resolution #2 is completely meaningless. It does nothing to promote or protect scientific freedom. It simply clutters up the list of NSUN resolutions. Repealing it will change nothing in the world of NationStates except to get a worthless piece of legislation off the books.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

This is my concern here is just what are or would those 'clearer boundaries' be in regards to scientific freedoms. As we have yet to see what will replace this and just how 'wide' those boundaries might be or how tight they might be.

As the passage of Resolution 151 on nukes has already restricted members from passing on information, materials, and even nukes... to other nations... we are slowly cutting our own throats in regards to defending our hides. Setting too tight a boundary in 'scientific freedom' could cut a little more into our throats. Thus I for one want to see what might come down the road in regards to a new resolution on 'scientific freedom'.. before we pull the current resolution off the table.

We understand the concern of the representative from Seldon 6229 Nodlez, but we do not share it. Since Resolution #2 has no operative language, it is completely worthless, even as a "blocker" to proposals. We can write just about anything we want restricting scientific freedom into a proposal and will not be in violation of the Contradiction rule.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

In the event that this resolution passes, I would be willing to draft a replacement resolution. I would value your input, and I'll be putting up a threat if and when that comes to pass. Please look for a thread titled something along the lines of 'Scientific Freedom II'.

As for the resolution at vote: I'm sure that some of the voters read the text of #2, but still choose to vote against the repeal for the rather unfortunate language therein.
To quote:
CONCERNED that this resolution overlooks the harmful effects of unrestricted Scientific Freedom, which would lead to numerous painful, deadly, unsafe, and unethical scientific practices being forcibly legal in all UN Member nations...

That gave me pause, only because 'unethical' is never defined. Therefore, it is possible that nations could interpret it to ban practices such as abortion, stem cell research, or any number of other controversial but valuable sciences. Granted, #2 is broken. But when we call for restrictions on scientific freedom, ought people not worry a little?

I grow weary of the concern of people defending themselves.

"Dear jebus, we don't have nukes, chemical weapons, biological agents, how EVER will we be safe!?"

Scientific Freedom is necessary in the modern world. The standard of living can be progressively improved through a greater understanding of science. The converse is true as well. Science can be used in a very malignant way as well. There are several examples of this. Unethical scientific behavior is a great danger to humanity, and even the animal kingdom (animal testing and such).

So for those who are afraid of boundaries, I ask, why? Have you something to gain by the unethical scientific behavior? Scientific freedom is important, yes. But unregulated research is problematic.

Problematic enough to necessitate a Resolution to prevent it. Resolution #2, if it even DOES anything (which is debatable), allows unethical research.

Remove Res #2 to clean up the NSUN books.
Remove Res #2 to make room for a Resolution that protects ethical scientific progress, and bans unethical scientific progress.

In the event that this resolution passes, I would be willing to draft a replacement resolution. I would value your input, and I'll be putting up a threat if and when that comes to pass. Please look for a thread titled something along the lines of 'Scientific Freedom II'.

As for the resolution at vote: I'm sure that some of the voters read the text of #2, but still choose to vote against the repeal for the rather unfortunate language therein.
To quote:
CONCERNED that this resolution overlooks the harmful effects of unrestricted Scientific Freedom, which would lead to numerous painful, deadly, unsafe, and unethical scientific practices being forcibly legal in all UN Member nations...

That gave me pause, only because 'unethical' is never defined. Therefore, it is possible that nations could interpret it to ban practices such as abortion, stem cell research, or any number of other controversial but valuable sciences. Granted, #2 is broken. But when we call for restrictions on scientific freedom, ought people not worry a little?

I suggest that the word Freedom be left out of the Resolution. Too nasty a buzzword.

As for unethical, there is a difference (in logic, if not casual speech) between ethical and moral.

I don't believe I'm the one to set out the definition for ethical, at the moment. I'm sleepy. But it is definable, lexically.

But one step at a time. Let's see the cruddy Res #2 struck out first.

That gave me pause, only because 'unethical' is never defined. Therefore, it is possible that nations could interpret it to ban practices such as abortion, stem cell research, or any number of other controversial but valuable sciences. Granted, #2 is broken. But when we call for restrictions on scientific freedom, ought people not worry a little?Not really; repeals don't introduce new law. Just because the UN expresses concern as a body about "unethical" research, member nations ought not "interpret it to ban" anything. Are you honestly of the mind that there shouldn't be any reasonable restrictions on scientific research? If any such replacement proposal intends to codify that sentiment into NSUN law, it is very unlikely I will support it.

I grow weary of the concern of people defending themselves.

Self-defense must always be the primary concern of any nation. I grow weary of people who don't get that.

Hi all!

I'm a newbie here, and its my first UN voting:)
I voted for repealing.
Why?
I'm all for scientific freedom, but I think resolution#2 is just useless, because it don't require of UN members to do anything. So I think we need to repeal this, and then make... well, more clear decision on scientific freedom.

P.S. Sorry for my bad English, I'm not a native speaker and just learning:)

Hi all!

I'm a newbie here, and its my first UN voting:)
I voted for repealing.
Why?
I'm all for scientific freedom, but I think resolution#2 is just useless, because it don't require of UN members to do anything. So I think we need to repeal this, and then make... well, more clear decision on scientific freedom.


From the mouths of noobs. They even went so far as to read the repeal. There are some here who could learn from the example.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

It is important that "Scientific Freedom" is not repealed. Recently there has been a wave of conservatism that is driving the progress of our worl backwards. This must stop immediately and effectively NOW! It is time to move forward into the dawning of a new age and not backward to a time of tyranny, ignorance, and indifference.
By no stretch of the imagination is Ecopoeia, former delegate of the Anticapitalist Alliance and a supporter of this repeal, conservative.

By no stretch of the imagination is Ecopoeia, former delegate of the Anticapitalist Alliance and a supporter of this repeal, conservative.

Certainly not. Far from it, in fact. ;)

Self-defense must always be the primary concern of any nation. I grow weary of people who don't get that.
But does self-defence require biological, chemical and nuclear weaponry? Ah, well - a discussion for another time and place.

But does self-defence require biological, chemical and nuclear weaponry? Ah, well - a discussion for another time and place.

If one's potential adversaries may have them, yes.

From the mouths of noobs. They even went so far as to read the repeal. There are some here who could learn from the example.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

Well... if you are against the repeal (I suppose so), then what's your arguments?
Besides that strange tiny picture?
Second, I've read the topic and here are people who think the same way as I. You think they are noobs too?

Well... if you are against the repeal (I suppose so), then what's your arguments?
Besides that strange tiny picture?
Second, I've read the topic and here are people who think the same way as I. You think they are noobs too?

Congratulations on completely missing the point being made by the representative of Kivisto.

Well... if you are against the repeal (I suppose so), then what's your arguments?
Besides that strange tiny picture?
Second, I've read the topic and here are people who think the same way as I. You think they are noobs too?

Relax. He was complimenting you, and using the opportunity to attack less sensible posters.

Well... if you are against the repeal (I suppose so), then what's your arguments?
Besides that strange tiny picture?
Second, I've read the topic and here are people who think the same way as I. You think they are noobs too?

The representative of Rictubamba should take another look at the posting by the honorable representative of Kivisto. He was complimenting you on the wisdom of your first post in this forum. We echo the compliment. It's nice to see a new member of this Assembly take the time to carefully look into an issue and post a reasonable comment.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich's newly appointed assistant, Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel, rises in agreement with the Ausserldaner representative.

http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg

Don't listen to that ol' spammer, Olembe.

In all seriousness, we congratulate the representative of Jey for chalking up another repeal of a bad old resolution. However, we are concerned that the arguments used may have been false. Resolution #2 had the title of "Scientific Freedom". Given that it has not been officially designated "staggeringly useless" by the Secretariat, this means it actually did bestow scientific freedom.

Don't listen to that ol' spammer, Olembe.

In all seriousness, we congratulate the representative of Jey for chalking up another repeal of a bad old resolution. However, we are concerned that the arguments used may have been false. Resolution #2 had the title of "Scientific Freedom". Given that it has not been officially designated "staggeringly useless" by the Secretariat, this means it actually did bestow scientific freedom.

:D That is the funniest thi... err ... wait ... :confused: Does that mean I have singlehandedly destroyed all the forests of the World? :(

EDIT: ALSO CONSIDERING that Resolution #2 neither lists a clear definition or explanation as to what constitutes Scientific Freedom, nor does it provide any clear framework or plans to bring about its cause,
Illegal. Metagaming.

Do not listen to this Mr. Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel. He is vile Fonzolander scum, posing as a Cluichstani envoy. He has been added to the Federal Republic's Interior Department Terror Watch List, incidentally, along with the members of the UN Secretariat. 'Twas excessive nitpicking on our part: We discovered that by accepting the visa application of one of their number, we would also have to let his entourage of suspected heroin smugglers into our nation, and when we vetoed the request, the applicant indignantly pointed out that the top of his visa application contained his name only, so we were obliged to accept it. We do realize that the Secretariat must therefore strike our announcement from the record for pointing this out, but we are fully prepared to accept the consequences for our spam.

As to the honorable Jevian consul, we hereby confer upon him the prestigious Mama Boucher (http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/touchstone_pictures/the_waterboy/kathy_bates/kathybates.jpg) "Ben Franklin is the Devil!!" Award for Scientific "Advancement," for his tireless efforts on behalf of this excellent repeal, bearing Secretariat approval or naught.

Now bring on AFTA, then (hopefully) the repeal of the landmine ban, which we are certain is to be removed from the floor out of pure spite.

Whew.

The resolution Repeal "Scientific Freedom" was passed 6,512 votes to 5,592.

Thank you all for your help, and we gladly accept the prestigious "Ben Franklin is the Devil!!" Waterboyan award for Scientific Advancement from kenny.

Do not listen to this Mr. Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel. He is vile Fonzolander scum, posing as a Cluichstani envoy.

Lies, lies, and damned lies!

...and statistics?

...and statistics?

No more statistics. Haven't you heard? They repealed Scientific Freedom. Statistics is in jail.

OOC: Hey, The Most Glorious Slack, this already passed! It's not at vote anymore. :p (Gawd, I love yanking your chain, Hack. :D )

What effect does the repeal have on official nation statistics (Civil rights, economy, political rights, industry, rankings, etc.)

Check this part (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913218&postcount=2) of the proposal rules. A repeal has the opposite effect to the original category, only milder.

So there'll be a marginal decrease in economic freedoms.