NationStates Jolt Archive

THE UNITED NATIONS,

RECALLING Article 4 of the Universal Bill of Rights, United Nations Resolution No. 26, which states that "All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation;"

FURTHER RECALLING the spirit of due process which grants any person the right to be heard in court;

HAVING EXAMINED United Nations Resolution No. 30, entitled "Common Sense Act II;"

NOTING that the foregoing Resolution No. 30 is poorly written and merits a denial of due process by virtue of its summary dismissal of cases without affording the concerned plaintiffs their right to be reasonably heard by themselves and counsel in an impartial and unbiased court or tribunal;

NOTING that the problem of "idiotic negligence" is not entirely the fault of the victims but by deeper problems in society such as lack of education and instruction and the like;

FURTHER NOTING that said Resolution No. 30 is not the correct solution to the problem of "idotic negligence;"

FURTHER NOTING that "common sense" is a vague term that cannot be measured nor standardized in the world;

EXPRESSING its concern that the aforementioned Resolution No. 30 is a means of promoting injustice in the guise of judicial convenience;

Hereby REPEALS United Nations Resolution No. 30, "Common Sense Act II."

Why, which one of your four submissions of this repeal shall I endorse? :rolleyes:

Common Sense Act II
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Fantasan

Description: : Far too many civil injustices occur each and every day in courts around the world. Frivolous lawsuits plague innocent homeowners and businessmen, who have done nothing wrong but earn enough money to become a target of an opportunist.

Lawsuits on the basis of idiotic negligence on the part of the victim shall henceforth be dismissed in the courts of UN member nations, as they violate the civil liberties of those being sued.

Idiotic neglegence shall be defined as such:
1:Burning oneself with a hot beverage, such as coffee.
2:Injuring oneself while using a tool in a reckless or improper manner, such as without safety gear or for a purpose the tool is obviously not supposed to do.
3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.
4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home.

This proposal will lower the tax burden on all citizens, it will make the jobs of Judges and Juries easier, and will help restore a modicum of common sense to the world.


I believe the resolution defines 'idiotic neglegence' clearly enough.. that most understand the intent of this resolution.

NOTING that the problem of "idiotic negligence" is not entirely the fault of the victims but by deeper problems in society such as lack of education and instruction and the like;So what now we sue the eduction system for not teaching them that coffee is hot and if you don't use caution you can get burned by it? In many incidents where folks get hurt then sue it's their own fault because they failed to follow posted warnings and got hurt not doing things right. Then they want to sue.. because some lawyer needs to make a car or house payment.

Even if we do educate people this does not mean they will be safe doing things as many get to busy and simply screw up thus get hurt rushing. Thus again a lawyer comes along needs to make a boat or plane payment and.. lawsuit.

i've already informed the moderators about it. it's already been fixed.

thanks for your endorsement.:D

So what now we sue the eduction system for not teaching them that coffee is hot and if you don't use caution you can get burned by it? In many incidents where folks get hurt then sue it's their own fault because they failed to follow posted warnings and got hurt not doing things right. Then they want to sue.. because some lawyer needs to make a car or house payment.


The education system is not the only target of my proposal. It also targets companies that fails to provide adequate instruction on how to use the most "simple" tools or materials that are being used everyday. Let's face it: not every person possesses the "common intelligence" that is expected of a common man. Ignorance does not equate with the so-called "idiotic negligence." So what now, are you going to let ignorant people face judicial bias even before they file a case in court? Due process affords them the right to an impartial trial - one that is not clouded with the judicial bias espoused by the Common Sense Act II. Under this ill-conceived Common Sense Act, their cases have already been pre-judged even before they properly present them.



Even if we do educate people this does not mean they will be safe doing things as many get to busy and simply screw up thus get hurt rushing.

True, but that is only a possibility. Would you deny them adequate instruction and due process just because you think that education wouldn't guarantee their safety anyway?

Common Sense Act II gave me a laugh... but it really shouldn't be a UN resolution, with its "summary dismissal of cases". Endorsed.

I fully support a repeal of UNR #30, but not this one. It is clear to me that the author of this repeal has not spent enough time reading the resolution with this statement:

FURTHER NOTING that "common sense" is a vague term that cannot be measured nor standardized in the world;

When common sense is not once used as a gauge in the entire resolution. Further, the fact that the author so explicitly leaves idiotic negligence to the 4 examples given to the exclusion of all other possible answers shows that the author did not spend due time drafting the resolution. In many ways, it is the opinion of our government that the resolution was drafted out of frustration and this lead to a poorly thought out resolution.

Further, we disagree with the concept that idiotic negligence is due to the society we live in. Lawsuits based upon idiotic negligence is certainly a result of the societies we live in - primarily, the greed endorsed by such societies. However, extremely intelligent people are often victims of idiotic negligence and some of the finest scientists to have ever roamed the planet have shown failings in the areas of common sense (OOC: I'm REALLY not kidding here. Neils Bohr is one of my favorites when it comes to stupid stuff). If our most educated are showing a failing in common sense, how can we say it is because of our education systems?

Further, the fact that the author so explicitly leaves idiotic negligence to the 4 examples given to the exclusion of all other possible answers shows that the author did not spend due time drafting the resolution. In many ways, it is the opinion of our government that the resolution was drafted out of frustration and this lead to a poorly thought out resolution.


I believe that you are talking about Resolution No. 30, which I am espousing to repeal. Surely you have read my proposal and seen that the four examples of idiotic negligence that you have criticized are not there.

THE UNITED NATIONS,
RECALLING Article 4 of the Universal Bill of Rights, United Nations Resolution No. 26, which states that "All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation;" ."


Thus since R30 has been applied across all UN member nations equally then how does this come into it? As R30 effects them all the same thus they are treated by it the same.

Also see a flaw in even this one as not all citizens of UN member nations are human thus this has no effect on them.. as only 'All humans beings have the right to be treated equaly under the law of any member nation'.

However, extremely intelligent people are often victims of idiotic negligence and some of the finest scientists to have ever roamed the planet have shown failings in the areas of common sense (OOC: I'm REALLY not kidding here. Neils Bohr is one of my favorites when it comes to stupid stuff). If our most educated are showing a failing in common sense, how can we say it is because of our education systems?

To be able to qualify your claim that most intelligent people have shown themselves failing in common sense, could you name some other that Neils Bohr? Or is this a mere sweeping generalization based on the experience of one intelligent man?

When common sense is not once used as a gauge in the entire resolution.

That's the point! Common sense cannot be measured. Why would you use it as a gauge in the first place?

Thus since R30 has been applied across all UN member nations equally then how does this come into it? As R30 effects them all the same thus they are treated by it the same.


I'm sorry, but I'd appreciate it if you'd rephrase this. Thanks.

To be able to qualify your claim that most intelligent people have shown themselves failing in common sense, could you name some other that Neils Bohr? Or is this a mere sweeping generalization based on the experience of one intelligent man?

Bohr is famous merely because he presented as much a security hazard as he did a benefit to America's cause in WWII. However, there are many examples. Einstein, apparently, had a hard time remembering where his house was according to some reports. Some of my professers at universities have shown rather eccentric traits at times and, indeed, a lack of common sense. While you could argue this falls under ethical practices as well, it is a well known fact that many doctors prescribe drugs for issues well outside their field - the worst being ADD. The absent-minded professer stereotype is actually based upon the entire concept of idiotic negligence.

Can you honestly tell me that you have, not once, had a lapse in common sense and done something horrendously stupid, inefficient or downright dangerous? Most issues of common sense comes to not taking the time to think things through or being distracted.

Regardless, what part of our education was missing when people started coming up with the idea that McD's food not carrying warning signs about obbesity made them fat or hot coffee stuck between your legs when you jerk the acceleration might spill coffee and burn you (and I note, the stupid lawsuits - yes, there were two - in that case was that there was no warning saying that the coffee was hot). How is that due to a lack of education? Stopping a chain saw that can cut through wood with ones own testicles?

It really isn't about education.

That's the point! Common sense cannot be measured. Why would you use it as a gauge in the first place?

BUT IT DIDN'T USE COMMON SENSE AS A GAUGE! Why are you complaining about it being used as a gauge when it WASN'T used as a gauge? There's no sense in doing that!

I believe that you are talking about Resolution No. 30, which I am espousing to repeal. Surely you have read my proposal and seen that the four examples of idiotic negligence that you have criticized are not there.

Yes I am. Apologies for the confusion.

OOC: I'd completely forgotten this resolution. Christ, it's bad.

OOC: I'd completely forgotten this resolution. Christ, it's bad.
Thanks for your feedback. I hope that you'd support my proposal for its repeal.

NOTING that the foregoing Resolution No. 30 is poorly written and merits a denial of due processNo, not really.

Due Process is a pretty vague legal term as well. Under CSII, plantifs still have access to courts, they just run the risk of having the case thrown out. Which could happen before this Resolution. All CSII did was codify what caused a case to be tossed.

Due Process is a pretty vague legal term as well. Under CSII, plantifs still have access to courts, they just run the risk of having the case thrown out. Which could happen before this Resolution. All CSII did was codify what caused a case to be tossed.

Actually, the "framers" or "inventors" of the term "due process" intended such term to be vague so as to avoid its denial by the authorities. They belived that limiting the term could result in the authorities having much leeway in finding ways to deny it. CSII denies due process in the sense that there is already a cloud of bias against the victims. In other words, once the incident is classified as resulting from "idiotic negligence," the case is summarily dismissed without further exploration or investigation of the other circumstances surrounding the case.

Actually, the "framers" or "inventors" of the term "due process" intended such term to be vague so as to avoid its denial by the authorities.Which makes it utterly worthless for modern law. Besides, if a word has no true definition, it can be just as easily denied.

CSII denies due process in the sense that there is already a cloud of bias against the victims.Nonsense. There is a bias against idiots. Again, courts have always had the ability to dismiss cases. For a real world example, look at the guy who sued McDonald's for making him fat. The court tossed it out without hearing it.

Courts have always had the ability to dismiss frivolous lawsuits. This simply gives a (poor) definition to 'frivolous'.

In other words, once the incident is classified as resulting from "idiotic negligence," the case is summarily dismissed without further exploration or investigation of the other circumstances surrounding the case.Which could happen before. Furthermore, since the plantif is still allowed before a court (as it is the court that must declare it 'idiotic negligence') they are not denied due process.

Again, it's impossible to deny something that has no definition.

Actually, eventhough it's not within the purview of the UN, I am totally for the Common Sense Act.
I love that we have a law against idiots wasting our valuable time.
Too bad the real world doesn't have this.
It's be a better place, this world of ourse.
Cheaper, too.

--Rooty

Actually, eventhough it's not within the purview of the UN, I am totally for the Common Sense Act.
I love that we have a law against idiots wasting our valuable time.
Too bad the real world doesn't have this.
It's be a better place, this world of ourse.
Cheaper, too.

--Rooty

Actually - as was said, there is a question about whether there was true negligence on behalf of the plaintiff or perhaps there are other claims. Let's say McD's is publishing ads saying that you should eat their food because it makes you thin. However, someone sues them because it made them fat and thus the charge is, effectively, false advertising.

One equivelent you find in the real world is cigarettes - but I don't know enough specifics to go into details on the matter.

On a seperate note:

What does happen in most industrialized nations (I think the US is an exception) is that if a frivolous lawsuit was filed against you and it was tossed out, you have the right to counter-sue for your legal costs over that lawsuit and the follow up. As such, one has to think twice about making a frivolous lawsuit as they may find they are paying even more than they asked for.

Still won't change anything in Texas because you'd still have to lose a lawsuit to be counter-sued.

Too bad the NSUN doesn't have this.


;)

Man, this is the funniest thing I've read in a while! "Denial of due process"? "Promoting injustice"? Idiots spilling coffee on themselves or stabbing themselves in the eye is the result of "deeper problems in society such as lack of education"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hehehe ... I like writing funny stuff too. Funny stuff is fun.

I'm assuming the national sovereignty crowd will rally behind a quality repeal. Am I right?

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

Idiots spilling coffee on themselves or stabbing themselves in the eye is the result of "deeper problems in society such as lack of education"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See?
How can you not appreciate a law like this?
It's awesome

--Rooty

I'm assuming the national sovereignty crowd will rally behind a quality repeal. Am I right?Only if it's funny!The United Nations,

AFFIRMING that idiotic negligence is the right of every human being;

DECLARING idiots to be cute, cuddly and beloved of children everywhere;

CONDEMNING society for creating idiots, then mocking them;

TWISTING AGAIN, like we did last summer;

TWISTING AGAIN, like we did last year;

INQUIRING, "Do you remember when things were really hummin'?"... And so forth.

Man, this is the funniest thing I've read in a while! "Denial of due process"? "Promoting injustice"? Idiots spilling coffee on themselves or stabbing themselves in the eye is the result of "deeper problems in society such as lack of education"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hehehe ... I like writing funny stuff too. Funny stuff is fun.

OOC: Did you hear about the man (from somewhere or other in the USA) who bought one of those large road vehicles -- whatever you call them -- that has an accomodation section (including a small kitchen) included, assumed that the "cruise-control" option with which it came equipped was an autopilot, left the wheel while the vehicle was in motion to go and make himself some coffee back in its kitchen, and then tried to sue the manufacturer after it (quite understandably) crashed?

OOC: Did you hear about the man (from somewhere or other in the USA) who bought one of those large road vehicles -- whatever you call them -- that has an accomodation section (including a small kitchen) included, assumed that the "cruise-control" option with which it came equipped was an autopilot, left the wheel while the vehicle was in motion to go and make himself some coffee back in its kitchen, and then tried to sue the manufacturer after it (quite understandably) crashed?

I heard that story when I was 8 because I asked my Dad why he was still holding onto the wheel while on Cruise Control.

The Confederacy of Reidalia supports the repeal of the "Common Sense Act II". We believe the CSAII to be both judicially unecessary and overly intrusive into a nations judicial ethics and system.

Cheers,
vonKreedon, Not We Regional Delegate

But what about the replacement?! We neeeeed a replacement!! :rolleyes:

I am coming to a clearer understanding of what I've been told about the Kennyite mental capacities.

I am coming to a clearer understanding of what I've been told about the Kennyite mental capacities.

Ouch. :p

And so terribly original.

I am coming to a clearer understanding of what I've been told about the Kennyite mental capacities.


*A large man wearing a cowboy hat, Funk-U Shirt, and carrying a flaming barbed wire baseball bat comes in and says*
"Sounds like someones been spreading ugly stories about Riley again. Hey Riley, do you want me to waffle them?"
Happy Trails,
Texas Jack Funk
Deputy UN Ambassador
Palentine UN Office

Here's one I never thought I'd get to say.

"This repeal won't do a damn thing."

As was previously mentioned by Hack, all that CSAII did was codify what the courts could have done anyways before it came into effect, and what they could continue to do even if it gets repealed.

The existence of the resolution is essentially a statement that UN member nations don't have to coddle the spectacularly unintelligent or those whom the wisdom fairies skipped in their journeys.

I'm neither for nor against this repeal in any meaningful sense. I could be swayed either way, I suppose, if it gets to vote.

I'm assuming the national sovereignty crowd will rally behind a quality repeal. Am I right?

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

This member of the "national sovereignty crowd" probably would not. And we definitely would not support a repeal based on completely spurious arguments, as this one is.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Hmm, burned by hot coffee, injured using tools without safety gear. Sounds like evolution in progress. The person who tries to use a hacksaw as a fingernail cutter has a smaller chance of creating offspring than others, making the gene pool that much better. We are against this repeal as we believe anyone stupid enough to fall victim to this type of injury do not deserve our compassion. The Darwin Awards are a fully funded and televised event in my nation and will continue to be until people stop killing themselves in idiotic ways. Besides in order for a case to be dismissed it needs to be looked at anyways, so if there is some merit to the case it won't be dismissed. Simple enough.

Actually - as was said, there is a question about whether there was true negligence on behalf of the plaintiff or perhaps there are other claims. Let's say McD's is publishing ads saying that you should eat their food because it makes you thin. However, someone sues them because it made them fat and thus the charge is, effectively, false advertising.

One equivelent you find in the real world is cigarettes - but I don't know enough specifics to go into details on the matter.

On a seperate note:

What does happen in most industrialized nations (I think the US is an exception) is that if a frivolous lawsuit was filed against you and it was tossed out, you have the right to counter-sue for your legal costs over that lawsuit and the follow up. As such, one has to think twice about making a frivolous lawsuit as they may find they are paying even more than they asked for.

Still won't change anything in Texas because you'd still have to lose a lawsuit to be counter-sued.
That would then be false advertising, and although you still have to be an idiot to believe that eating deep fried food will make you thin, the case would be one of fraud, not idiotic negligence.
Tobacco companies are not on the line for that type of case because they're smart enough not to say "Smoke our cigarettes, they're make you healthy and protect you from cancer."

How could a national sovereigntist not support repeal? This resolution seeks to interfere in national judicial systems on spurious grounds. It's a farce.

OOC: seriously, this is bullshit. What business is it of the UN to legislate on the suitability of compensation claims? I'm a far better sovereigntist than your sorry shower...

How could a national sovereigntist not support repeal? This resolution seeks to interfere in national judicial systems on spurious grounds. It's a farce.My guess? Because it's a "blocker". It doesn't do a damn thing, but it keeps people from doing anything. You can't have some kind of law mandating that all cases get a full trial, or banning the ability of judges to dismiss frivolous cases as long as this is still around.

Also, the thought of the UN calling people who spill coffee on themselves warms the cockles of my heart. Or maybe it's a little lower; maybe the sub-cockle area. Maybe the kidneys. Maybe even the colon.

Er... I seem to have lost my train of thought here, but you get the point.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

How could a national sovereigntist not support repeal? This resolution seeks to interfere in national judicial systems on spurious grounds. It's a farce.

OOC: seriously, this is bullshit. What business is it of the UN to legislate on the suitability of compensation claims? I'm a far better sovereigntist than your sorry shower...

We believe the distinguished representative of Ecopoeia may have fallen into the trap of believing that all of us who have concern for national sovereignty believe that to be the overriding -- perhaps sole -- consideration in evaluating legislation. It is not for us. We look carefully at the merits of legislation, with the issue of the propriety and (most importantly) practicality of NSUN action being one of several considerations. In the instant case, we find the resolution lacking in several respects, but believe it does no harm and is better than nothing.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

OOC: You're right: the resolution is crap. But I've seen so many ridiculous lawsuits I probably couldn't bring myself to repeal it. ;)

OOC: yeah, understood. Still, should I submit an application for the NSO? *chuckle*

Funny, I thought you already had. :confused:

Funny, I thought you already had. :confused:
Not that I remember... unless I was drunk while browsing the net. Which never happens, obviously.

Not that I remember... unless I was drunk while browsing the net. Which never happens, obviously.

Of course not. Never happens with me either. :p

I must agree with Palanee on this, it's bad enough that this mentioned "burning oneself with a hot beverage" it makes some feel like they are being called stupid and even more with "idiotic neglegance" mentioned also...but I am just expressing my opinions.

I must agree with Palanee on this, it's bad enough that this mentioned "burning oneself with a hot beverage" it makes some feel like they are being called stupid and even more with "idiotic neglegance" mentioned also...but I am just expressing my opinions.
I believe that the intent was not to say that people who burn themselves with hot beverages are stupid, but to say that those who burn themselves with hot beverages and then try to sue the company that made the beverage are stupid. If you can't tell that the coffee you just bought is hot, then the company shouldn't have to pay you for your stupidity. Now if the cup is faulty, then that's a whole other matter.

Man, this is the funniest thing I've read in a while! "Denial of due process"? "Promoting injustice"? Idiots spilling coffee on themselves or stabbing themselves in the eye is the result of "deeper problems in society such as lack of education"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!


For once, I find myself in agreement with the honourable (*cough*) representative of OMGTKK. We will not support a repeal which will encourage frivolous lawsuits and encourage people to claim compensation for their own stupidity or greed.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA