NationStates Jolt Archive

I have only one thing to contribute in this thread: FOR

On a side note, it is interesting that in its first day this thread has more posts than all of UN Copyright Convention did.

Keep in mind, this thread was a lot longer pre-vote than was the UNCC.

On a side note, it is interesting that in its first day this thread has more posts than all of UN Copyright Convention did.To be fair, the drafting thread for copyright was pretty massive.

To be fair, the drafting thread for copyright was pretty massive.
Yeah, and about half the posts were by Discouniverse or however you say that name.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

As far as we have being talking about this topic, we should keep our path in order to reach our goals. If any person is determined to approve this resolution, we should see what we have approved before:

""UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #26
The Universal Bill of Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights....()
Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment"

If we are going to go for this, we should not regret and modify some other resolutions.

I hope this could be taken into consideration by the UN.

Martin Labrou (President of Goldravia)

As far as we have being talking about this topic, we should keep our path in order to reach our goals. If any person is determined to approve this resolution, we should see what we have approved before:

""UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #26
The Universal Bill of Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights....()
Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment"

If we are going to go for this, we should not regret and modify some other resolutions.

I hope this could be taken into consideration by the UN.

Martin Labrou (President of Goldravia)

Are you implying that this Resolution conflicts or duplicates that?

As far as we have being talking about this topic, we should keep our path in order to reach our goals. If any person is determined to approve this resolution, we should see what we have approved before:

""UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #26
The Universal Bill of Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights....()
Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment"

If we are going to go for this, we should not regret and modify some other resolutions.

I hope this could be taken into consideration by the UN.

Martin Labrou (President of Goldravia)

As of the moment it entered the realm of the General Assembly, this proposal was legal by the very fact that it was being voted upon. The secretariat has ruled time and again that legality is granted to any proposal that passes their ranks of being removable. They had two weeks to look at this proposal and did not remove it for contradiction. Now, pray thee, what is your claim?

As far as we have being talking about this topic, we should keep our path in order to reach our goals. If any person is determined to approve this resolution, we should see what we have approved before:

""UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #26
The Universal Bill of Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights....()
Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment"

If we are going to go for this, we should not regret and modify some other resolutions.

I hope this could be taken into consideration by the UN.

Martin Labrou (President of Goldravia)The proposal at vote does make similar assertions.

"7: Methods used for right to die must be as humane, painless and fast acting as possible. Starvation, for example, is not permitted."

As this proposal deal with people refusing medical treatment, I would like to say that in most case, if they have a medical treatment in the first place, this is because they got a “disease”.

And as I hope that one would agree with me that it’s not their fault if they get this disease, so the main reason of their death is the “disease” itself and not their will to die.

So I really tend to think that one have to blame the “disease” and not the patient himself/herself in case of a personal decision to refuse medical treatment as the patient does nothing bad to other people.

Does every good cross borders? Does every service cross borders? Every unit of currency? Does every person cross borders? Does every smog particle?

No, they don't. So how does international law, even in theory, apply to those goods that are purely domestic? Services? Money? People? Pollution?



I think you're rather overstating things with the word "dependant". One nation's set of ecological systems impacts those of another nation in many cases, sometimes dramatically, sometimes marginally.

To turn the tables and ask you to deal with the consistency of your own position, let's look at what you're suggesting here.

A man crosses the border of the Tire-Burning Torque Empire of HotRodia into the Fuel-Injected Federation of Texan Hotrodders. He meets a person interested in selling an automobile he has possession of, giving his current automobile to the other person as part of the payment. The man purchases the car and drives it back to HotRodia. On the way, the exhaust from the vehicle, now the property of a HotRodian citizen operating it within the borders of Texan Hotrodders, pollutes the air of Texan Hotrodders.

To take the scenario further to account for friends and relatives in other nations and the amazing interconnectedness of the world, let's say that the increased pollution affects the overall pollution levels of the world, even that of Ecopoeia and Biotopia, to a factor resembling 0.000000000000000000000001 parts per million (probably much too large a number and too few zeros given the size and constitution of NationStates as well as the relatively negligible contribution of the one automobile in question).

In this scenario, we have money, a person, a good, and pollution crossing a border (I was really tempted to work a service in there too), as well as consequences for the wider international community.

Do you see it as appropriate, necessary, and practical to have international law that addresses all the factors in that situation? Even three of the factors? Two? One?

Or would you rather that the individuals in the situation addressed these issues themselves? If a dispute arose between the people in the scenario, would you want to write a UN resolution that detailed how they should decide the matter, or would you think it made more sense for national legal authorities to adjudicate?


Does Canada had the possibility to stop US acid rain?
Does Europe had the possibility to stop Chernobyl radioactivity?
Does any nation is the world is safe from Oil spill not related with its own trade?
In all these cases we are dependant of ecology in other nations.

Once you establish free trade, it doesn't mean that every goods will cross borders, but it means that a nation agree to lost its sovereignty over economic affairs, and then also will not have to possibility to control over national technology changes, its sovereignty over taxes and social policy will be reduced because of the implication of that international trade over national prices and national labor costs...


I just mean here, that when you mandate something over others nation , whatever the area, those nation are loosing a part of their sovereignty. And by interaction, no one knows how much sovereignty will be lost, in case of free trade by example, it's a lot (just take stock exchanges or currency crash dominos as an example). And it's not a problem for me, provided that the changes are undergo smoothly and progressively.

That said, even if I don't agree with the polictic of limiting international organisation power to "mild", I fully respect this philosophy (ie: true sovereignist), as powerhungry Chipmunks's one.

I really think that when several people want to live serenely a in common society, they have to establish some laws in order to avoid anarchy.
I think it's the same for nations, if they want to live serenely in an international environment.

/../Assuming that most national governments are run generally by the people/../Additionally, this decision can easily become religious, and the UN ruling one way or the other would infringe on people's freedom of religion./../
As for now, an individual may travel abroad for self-determination if not allowed in its own nation. It is not cheap and the poor will still suffer, but more people will suffer if the outcome ends in a bunch of nations leaving the UN, which is an important tool for world peace.

Simply put, if you support the rights of governments more than the rights of citizens, then just vote no. If you support the rights of citizens more than the rights of governments then just vote yes. Its your vote and your choice.
I wish it was that easy.

- You cannot change the world in no time -

Malkolm Dahl, minister of foreign affairs

No person may make a right to die decision for another person. Exceptions to this are medical personnel during triage

Vote against the resolution for this reason. NO one with the exception of a guardian or a power of attorney should choose when one can die.

People should not be allowed to commit suicide while the powers that be stand in apathy. Instead, the primary function should kick in, and the potential suicide should be given the chance to be convinced to do otherwise and improve the quality of their life.

Our nation is unclear of your [main]purpose here.
This is a national matter, not a global one; the people of Araenathia are governed foremost by our goverment. This is just an excersise of pushing toward a foolish world unity that is at once appealing to the weaker countries and disgusting to those who have no need.

Secondly:
On the subject of suicide, the matter of governing such a deviant behavior is laughable. Not only is it impossible, but it is wrong; it isn't an "allowance" of suicide, it is a understanding that suicidal individuals are just that, individuals. Their decision is their own, and is often made without the consultation of a goverment official.

Originally Posted by Resolution
No person may make a right to die decision for another person. Exceptions to this are medical personnel during triage

Vote against the resolution for this reason. NO one with the exception of a guardian or a power of attorney should choose when one can die.

Do you know what "triage" means? Triage is what happens when medical people in an emergency room or at a disaster scene are faced with more patients to treat than they can handle at once. They have to make decisions about who gets priority.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

To be fair, the drafting thread for copyright was pretty massive.Copyrights are one of those things were its hard to make a choice. Allow everything open or protect everything. Many including the nation of Wargoul just nulled our vote and took the vote of the interested regions.

- Wargoul Political Spokesman

The person of any nation that votes justifies the government’s actions. The governments that do not allow voting justify their actions through force.

Although I personally do believe this resolution is just it is not for me to force that decision on any other person. In some nations religion has an extreme importance in their daily life and I do not have the justification to force them to make a decision outside of their beliefs. I believe this resolution will force them to make that decision.

Prime Minister of Jacobic
Delenn Satai

I believe firmly that nations should be able to decide this issue for themselves rather than have it thrust upon them by a UN resolution. I would also point out that much of the language of this resolution is in violation of the hippocratic oath that all doctors must take; that they will not deliberately cause harm to a patient or do anything to make their condition worse. Thereby assisting a patient while they end their own lives flies in the face of the most basic foundation of modern medecine.

While I do not challenge an individuals right to self determination, I do challenge the U.N.'s right to make and or change national policy on an issue that does not have international repercussions. How is this issue even relevant to international politics, environmental concerns, or free trade between nations. Why does this august body continually work subvert the authority of it's member nations in what seems to be an attempt to turn the entire world into a homogeneous liberal society with a very Euro-Judeo mind set. While the Unknown Island States do not necessarily condone extreme fundamentalists or any other political philosophy, we do support their right to exist and govern their people according to their own belief systems and ideologies. As such I would be re-miss in supporting this resolution and also in not speaking out against it.

Premier
Unknown Island States

Why should it? It's a resolution (not a proposal) about euthanasia, not medical licensing.Thank you, the Creative Solutions Agency will be pleased.

So human rights aren't an international issue?Not divisive, unresolved social issues, no.

While I do not challenge an individuals right to self determination, I do challenge the U.N.'s right to make and or change national policy on an issue that does not have international repercussions. How is this issue even relevant to international politics, environmental concerns, or free trade between nations. Why does this august body continually work subvert the authority of it's member nations in what seems to be an attempt to turn the entire world into a homogeneous liberal society with a very Euro-Judeo mind set. While the Unknown Island States do not necessarily condone extreme fundamentalists or any other political philosophy, we do support their right to exist and govern their people according to their own belief systems and ideologies. As such I would be re-miss in supporting this resolution and also in not speaking out against it.

Premier
Unknown Island States

Archgonium agrees with Island States - While we support self-determination and allow euthanasia to take place within our bounds, this is not a matter for the United Nations. Instead the UN should focus on issues dealing with international: security, human rights, and economics. This proposal invades the sovereignty of nations, especially in this format where member nations are bound by UN resolutions.

I believe firmly that nations should be able to decide this issue for themselves rather than have it thrust upon them by a UN resolution. I would also point out that much of the language of this resolution is in violation of the hippocratic oath that all doctors must take; that they will not deliberately cause harm to a patient or do anything to make their condition worse. Thereby assisting a patient while they end their own lives flies in the face of the most basic foundation of modern medecine.

Sorry, but this is wrong on several counts.

(1) The statement that all doctors must take the Hippocratic oath is false. In RL, many doctors make an alternative pledge, like the Declaration of Geneva or the Oath and Prayer of Maimonides. Who knows what sort of oath (if any) they take in the 30,000 nations of the NSUN?

(2) Not all versions of the Hippocratic Oath include the business about not doing harm. Modern versions have been crafted to conform to modern views on medical ethics (e.g., the Louis Lasagna version).

(3) Assisting a patient to end his or her life -- when that is the patient's wish -- may not be seen by the physician as "doing harm." He or she may honestly and ethically see it as in the patient's best interest.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

Sorry, but this is wrong on several counts.

(1) The statement that all doctors must take the Hippocratic oath is false. In RL, many doctors make an alternative pledge, like the Declaration of Geneva or the Oath and Prayer of Maimonides. Who knows what sort of oath (if any) they take in the 30,000 nations of the NSUN?

(2) Not all versions of the Hippocratic Oath include the business about not doing harm. Modern versions have been crafted to conform to modern views on medical ethics (e.g., the Louis Lasagna version).

(3) Assisting a patient to end his or her life -- when that is the patient's wish -- may not be seen by the physician as "doing harm." He or she may honestly and ethically see it as in the patient's best interest.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

True. However, the resolution is beyond the scope of issues with international repercussions and should be dismissed. If someone believes (as I do) that choosing death as an alternative to becoming a vegetable is ethical then they will implement that in their own nation. There are issues of more international concern than this.

So human rights aren't an international issue?

Not divisive, unresolved social issues, no.

So we should only stick to resolved social issues? The ones everybody agrees on anyway and has already taken care of? Sorry, but that doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Should make for really short debate threads, though.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

True. However, the resolution is beyond the scope of issues with international repercussions and should be dismissed. If someone believes (as I do) that choosing death as an alternative to becoming a vegetable is ethical then they will implement that in their own nation. There are issues of more international concern than this.
But what if that person doesn't have control of their nation? I can't just go out and make the Ceoranan Congress raise the pay for everyone in the Diplomatic Corps, as much as I'd like a bigger paycheck.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Not divisive, unresolved social issues, no.
If Human Rights is an international issue (and it is) then the fact that something is "divisive" or "unresolved" doesn't change that. The only reason certain subjects are divisive and unresolved is that certain governments are determined not to grant full human rights to their citizens.

The government of Yelda has studied this matter carefully. We have always had concerns about the matter of euthanasia but we feel that this resolution addresses those concerns quite adequately. Yelda fully supports the passage of Individual Self-Determination and encourages all UN members to vote FOR.

But what if that person doesn't have control of their nation? I can't just go out and make the Ceoranan Congress raise the pay for everyone in the Diplomatic Corps, as much as I'd like a bigger paycheck.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Either way its forcing a nation (with or without a majority in favor) to engage in a practice that has literally no international repercussions. If that person doesn't have control of their nation, they should rally others of the same interest and move forward with a special interest group. Majority rules - thats how democracy works, and if you don't have a democracy...then you probably have bigger problems to worry about.

For at least the third time in this debate, someone has indicated that this will force a person and/or government to make a DECISION that goes against their beliefs. I don't know how many times I have to flog this horse because for some reason, people keep fucking this one up.

1) The individual is NOT BEING FORCED TO MAKE ANY DECISIONS. They are given the option of a different possible decision for themselves to make. They can decide, based upon their own beliefs, what decision they will make, what path they will follow. How do I know they aren't going to be forced to make a decision they disagree with? Well there's the actual wording of the proposal and the various uses of terms such as:
may make the decision (y'know, as in it is something they have permission to do. If it was a forced decision, I think the term "shall" or "must" might've been used)
may write a living will (again with the may's. You'd almost think they weren't being forced to do something)
can at any time invoke (this time it's can - as in, they have the ability to do it. Again, doesn't say they have to, isn't forcing them, just giving them an option)

The above three being, really, the only areas where patients must make a decision. And then, of course, there's the doctors. Well....

No medical professionals may be forced to participate

Oh look, it's as if we want to ensure that no doctor is going to be forced to do something they don't believe in.

But hey, if that's all beyond you and you really can't understand how the individual isn't being forced to do something they object to, there's always the fact that this resolution is.....IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS CATEGORY

2) The government is not being forced to make any decisions they morally disagree with. Why? Because if they disagree with this proposal, they can vote against it. If it passes, the decisions that they might disagree with have already been made. Oh yes, they have plenty of chances to make a decision they disagree with.

3) I don't give a shit if religion is a major part of Joe Schmoes life. How does Joe Schmoe get to decide what Bob Blow does with his life?

Our nation is unclear of your [main]purpose here.
Allow me to explain, rebut, and put my words back into the context they were taken out of.

This is a national matter, not a global one; the people of Araenathia are governed foremost by our goverment.
First, it is an international matter, unless somehow we all regret the myriad other Human Rights Resolutions that this body has passed.

This is just an excersise of pushing toward a foolish world unity that is at once appealing to the weaker countries and disgusting to those who have no need.
If world unity is foolish, then why are you in the United Nations? Go away if you don't like world unity. Everything after the word unity there is lost on me, so I'll assume you're trying to elaborate on how it isn't an international issue, since it is in the same paragraph. So whatever it is, it's wrong.

Secondly:
On the subject of suicide, the matter of governing such a deviant behavior is laughable.
Suicide isn't deviant (insofar as deviant being abnormal), and anyone who has seriously considered it at some point in their life would slap you for saying so.
And if you were unclear about the point I was making, then why did you respond? Let me first clarify what I was speaking of, and then I'll work on the rest.
Must have been a week or two ago when I first said that. If the government has a purpose, then its purpuse is first to improve the quality of its people's lives. If it is unsuccessful in doing that, then its secondary purpose is to end suffering. In layman's terms, the first purpose is to make additions, second is to break even.

Not only is it impossible, but it is wrong; it isn't an "allowance" of suicide, it is a understanding that suicidal individuals are just that, individuals. Their decision is their own, and is often made without the consultation of a goverment official.
Isn't impossible. It also isn't wrong. A government employed social worker changed my mind. If you think that people desperate for help should be denied help because they aren't seeking it, then allow me to explain how a desperately pained person thinks.

THEY DON'T! They're so overwhelmed with whatever kind of pain -- emotional, physical, mental, what have you -- that they are not in the kind of frame of mind to be independent. Like a turtle who's rolled onto his back, they need some help, and cannot communicate it properly. Longevity of self and more often, longevity of the species is encoded into the instincts of all animals. So there is never a case where someone who is entirely right of mind and cogent and rational wants to kill themselves. So if there is nobody to help, then it is the government's job (or it ought to be) because the government's job is to take care of its people. If a government is not the height of humanism, then there is something wrong with that government.

So no, people should not be left to their own devices when they cannot cognicize (I probably invented that word) as a rational person. It is not impossible, and it is not wrong for a government to first make attempts at improving the quality of life. Now, getting back to self-determination in regards to euthanasia, the government (or powers that be where governments don't control the medical system) is performing the first function by providing health care to try to fix the person's ailment. Failing that, their second function should be to end the suffering of a person's whose life cannot be improved.

Does a patient have to choose euthanasia? No. But there should damn well be the option.



And I just want to reiterate (again, I think?) what Forgottenlord said.

[Lewis Black]THIS Resolution does NOT force shit on anybody! Nobody HAS to pull their own damn plug! It just lets people say, "OWWWW SHIT! This FUCKING hurts! Somebody DOOOOOOOO something! Gimme a big shot of Potassium God DAMNIT!" Learn to read words.[/Lewis Black]


Tommo the Stout
UN Ambassador of Norderia

It is apparent that there are those here who think what they believe is good and what anyone else here beleives is crap.

The response I received tells all: the person in question actually made it clear that the UN has total, unlimited power, and he bragged about how liberals here have sway and can dictate anything they want to the rest of us.

If this resolution passes I will leave and UN and do my best to launch an anti-Un alliance. No nation should be dictated to from outside by liberals or conservatives.

For some reason my laptop is not working to get into these forums, so I am using another computer, and that is why I proposed "silly" resolutions. It was my only means of getting info out.

The one worlders are winning, how and why I do not know. WHy anyone would play a nation-states game and then go ahead and allow a UN org to basically strip their nation of the right to decide these very sensitive issues is beyond me. IN this case it is the jackbooted left, but when will it be the jackbooted right?

Anyone who thinks ANY government shoud have unlimited power is a fascist and anyone who thinks the UN should be that government is an uber-fascist, regardless of their ideology.

As for the elitist rub that we should not be in the UN unless we beleive it should have unlimited pwoer, where is the tolerance and understanding there?

Does world unity mean world unfiromity? Do you propose that the only possible views are yours, e.g. for unlimited UN powers and for euthanasia?

I can debate those points, but you folks don;t want to debate, you say "if you don't want a fascist UN, get out of the UN."

Is this a power grab? You realize that one loses much of the functionality of this game outside being a UN member, so it is set up to pressure you into the UN. Now you pretend that it is a simple matter to leave the UN?

I amazed whenever fascism rears its ugly head.

Anyone who thinks any government should have unlimited power is a fascist, Anyone who denies that certain issues are not agreed upon by all and must be left to states is a fascist.

There are two camps here: liberals in the classic sense who see in decentralzied power the only path to true freedom and fascists who wrap themselves in the banner of human rights in an effort to destory the nations and rener them and their UN the new gods.

The US Southern States used "states rights" to deny the right to life itself to black people and now these modern day plantation owners use their idea of human rights to deny nation-states the right to govern themselves.

My friends DO NOT VOTE TO SURRENDER! Oppose this "UN as God" resolution.

BC
Upadaria

Nat Sov inspired rant snipped

Yawn!!!!!

Do you really think no-one has stormed in here and posted that sort of childish rant before?

Over and over and over again?

We've heard in right side round, backwards, diagonally, upside, downside, pasted on a goats back, tied around an old oak tree, pasted up on billboards, printed on parking metre girls bikini bottoms. Get the message? it's been done!

I am getting a bit fed up with other people telling me what I can and can't write based only on their own opinions of what the NSUN should or shouldn't be dealing with. The only two restrictions on proposal writers are the rules, and what the members will or won't support. Respecting national soverignty is not, and I hope never will be, a proposal rule.

In short, as long as I follow the rules set out in a thread not too far under this one, I can write whatever I bloody well please, and do the work required to get it to vote. You can support it or not, that choice is yours.

If you think there is too much "socialist" stuff in the UN, write your own stuff up and get it passed. Legal stuff I mean. Instead of bursting in here and blasting us, do the bloody hard work yourself, pass your own legislation, and make the UN reflect your views instead. There are more than a few nat sov supporting regulars here who have done just that.

What "childish rant". Is it now childish to say one beleives in decentralzied pwoer as opposed to centralzied pwoer, is that how you treat people?

You are rude, to say the least, and you demonstrate exactly why this resolution is so harmful.

If we allow people like you to rule the world will be a prison.

Yawn!!!!!

Do you really think no-one has stormed in here and posted that sort of childish rant before?

Over and over and over again?

We've heard in right side round, backwards, diagonally, upside, downside, pasted on a goats back, tied around an old oak tree, pasted up on billboards, printed on parking metre girls bikini bottoms. Get the message? it's been done!

I am getting a bit fed up with other people telling me what I can and can't write based only on their own opinions of what the NSUN should or shouldn't be dealing with. The only two restrictions on proposal writers are the rules, and what the members will or won't support. Respecting national soverignty is not, and I hope never will be, a proposal rule.

AND I AM GETTING FED UP WITH FASCIST PEOPLE LIKE YOU TELLING ME WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT SAY ABOUT HOW THE UN SHOULD OPERATE, OR ARE ONLY YOUR VIEWS VALID, YOU ONE WORLDER FACIST?

In short, as long as I follow the rules set out in a thread not too far under this one, I can write whatever I bloody well please, and do the work required to get it to vote. You can support it or not, that choice is yours.

SO IN SHORT YOU SAY "ANYTHING I CAN WIN VOTES FOR IS OK", SO LET'S PASS A LAW TO HAVE FASCISTS LIKE YOU SHOT

If you think there is too much "socialist" stuff in the UN, write your own stuff up and get it passed. Legal stuff I mean. Instead of bursting in here and blasting us, do the bloody hard work yourself, pass your own legislation, and make the UN reflect your views instead. There are more than a few nat sov supporting regulars here who have done just that.

YOU USE THIS ABBREVIATION NAT SOV AS AN INSULT, WHAT YOU SEEK IS A ONE WORLD FACIST STATE RULED BY YOU AND EVERYBODY CAN SEE THAT.

I have lobbied against your one world fascist tripe, and I will do my post to start an alliance that targets that tripe. I have sent many telegrams, proposed my own proposals, and waded through your one worlkder lies until I am sick in the stomach.

I don't care about your politcs, I opose liberal or conservaitve fascism.

You are a worthless, one worlder fascist and an enemy of humanity.

Those "natsovs" who wish to ought to organzie an alliance against these one worlder fascists and I am prepared to join any such alliance fortwith.

BC
Upadaria

What "childish rant". Is it now childish to say one beleives in decentralzied pwoer as opposed to centralzied pwoer, is that how you treat people?

You are rude, to say the least, and you demonstrate exactly why this resolution is so harmful.

If we allow people like you to rule the world will be a prison.

Refrain from insults? Okay Mr. "Everyone-but-me-is-a-one-world-fascist."

You've got a strange logic.

Letting individuals choose Right to Die = fascism
Denying everyone the Right to Die = Not a prison

You spew more hot air than my ass. And I have long prided myself on my ability to break wind.

Go start your sandbox organization. You're a crap public speaker and have no 1337ness in logical discussion. A hex be upon your mustache.

Yawn!!!!!

Do you really think no-one has stormed in here and posted that sort of childish rant before?

Over and over and over again?

We've heard in right side round, backwards, diagonally, upside, downside, pasted on a goats back, tied around an old oak tree, pasted up on billboards, printed on parking metre girls bikini bottoms. Get the message? it's been done!

I am getting a bit fed up with other people telling me what I can and can't write based only on their own opinions of what the NSUN should or shouldn't be dealing with. The only two restrictions on proposal writers are the rules, and what the members will or won't support. Respecting national soverignty is not, and I hope never will be, a proposal rule.

In short, as long as I follow the rules set out in a thread not too far under this one, I can write whatever I bloody well please, and do the work required to get it to vote. You can support it or not, that choice is yours.

If you think there is too much "socialist" stuff in the UN, write your own stuff up and get it passed. Legal stuff I mean. Instead of bursting in here and blasting us, do the bloody hard work yourself, pass your own legislation, and make the UN reflect your views instead. There are more than a few nat sov supporting regulars here who have done just that.


For crap's sake, why do people think there are like, 5 people forcing everything on the UN? Isn't there some whole voting thing going on? You know, where people say, "Gee, I will vote for this Resolution," or "Gee, I will not vote for this Resolution."

Something brings to mind "sore loser" doesn't it?

YOU USE THIS ABBREVIATION NAT SOV AS AN INSULT, WHAT YOU SEEK IS A ONE WORLD FACIST STATE RULED BY YOU AND EVERYBODY CAN SEE THAT.

I have lobbied against your one world fascist tripe, and I will do my post to start an alliance that targets that tripe. I have sent many telegrams, proposed my own proposals, and waded through your one worlkder lies until I am sick in the stomach.

I don't care about your politcs, I opose liberal or conservaitve fascism.

You are a worthless, one worlder fascist and an enemy of humanity.

I don't use nat sov as an insult, I use it as a shortened form of those two words to save myself typing, and have been doing so for over a year. You are the first person to whinge about it.

I've written 6 public UN proposals over the past 12 months or so, one of which has passed as a resolution, 3 are nat sov friendly and 3 not nat sov friendly, including this one. When I write something it is because the subject is something I believe in and want to see as UN legislation, and nat sov very rarely comes into it. The 3 nat sov friendly ones were written that way because it was the best way to present the subject, not because I care that some people can't stand the thought of a UN resolution acutally affecting their nation.

If you want to campaign against this resolution, go for it. That is just a part of playing politics and happens all the time here.

For crap's sake, why do people think there are like, 5 people forcing everything on the UN? Isn't there some whole voting thing going on? You know, where people say, "Gee, I will vote for this Resolution," or "Gee, I will not vote for this Resolution."

Something brings to mind "sore loser" doesn't it?

Thing is, the against side hasn't lost yet. There are still a few days of voting left at least.

Thing is, the against side hasn't lost yet. There are still a few days of voting left at least.

I amend that.

Sore losinger.

Pretend it makes sense for me, will ya?

I whinged at it, as you say, because of your general immaturity within reference to people who do not agree with you.

You act as if anyone who doesn;t see it your way is an idiot, and I for one do not like that.

I am open to genuine debate about your position as opposed to mine, but what I see here and have experienced is an arrogant, mean, and immature dismissal of those who really don't want the UN involved in such matters.

Rather than present a case as to why this is good and why your positions, that the UN should have unlimited power, are superior you simply speak rudley.

I shall take your use of natsov simply as a what you say it means, but I shall not take your general tone of late as anyting but an needless insult for whcih you should be embarrassed.

For crap's sake, why do people think there are like, 5 people forcing everything on the UN? Isn't there some whole voting thing going on? You know, where people say, "Gee, I will vote for this Resolution," or "Gee, I will not vote for this Resolution."

Something brings to mind "sore loser" doesn't it?

what are you saying? Who has said that 5 people rule the UN?

A "majority vote" is not the holy grail, IMHO, I believe each nation ought to shift for itself.

If you were a truly tolerant person you could say "gee, I think euthanasia is good but I can see how some people would disagree, so why not let's let the nations decide through their own voting processes." Instead you say "I am right and if you don't agree you are against human rights, so we need the UN to tell your nation what its laws should be whenever people like me get a wild hair up our asses."

For you to call people sore losers because they are unhappy, that is also a mindless insult, but mindless insults seem to be winning the votes amongst the mindless masses.

Those "natsovs" who wish to ought to organzie an alliance against these one worlder fascists and I am prepared to join any such alliance fortwith.

BC
Upadaria
Well here ya go then:
http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg
I'm sure they'll be thrilled to have you.

I whinged at it, as you say, because of your general immaturity within reference to people who do not agree with you.

You act as if anyone who doesn;t see it your way is an idiot, and I for one do not like that.

I am open to genuine debate about your position as opposed to mine, but what I see here and have experienced is an arrogant, mean, and immature dismissal of those who really don't want the UN involved in such matters.

Rather than present a case as to why this is good and why your positions, that the UN should have unlimited power, are superior you simply speak rudley.

I shall take your use of natsov simply as a what you say it means, but I shall not take your general tone of late as anyting but an needless insult for whcih you should be embarrassed.

Acutally, I very rarely respond to a poster like I did to you, but the hostility and belligirant manner of your posts made me see red. I do have respect for those nat sov supporters who come in and discuss it calmly, but your posts come across as bull in a china shop, and I responded in kind. You insulted the crap out of me, and a resolution I spent a lot of hours writing, fine tuning and getting to quorum. I can accept you disagree and disapprove of what I wrote, but the insults were un-necessary.

Believe it or not, I do understand the nat sov stance, but just don't agree with it in the case of human rights. I do support it in things like gun control, drugs and the death penalty because those sort of things aren't human rights issues and are strictly internal. The current resolution is a human rights issue to me, and a lot of others, who see the right to die as fundamental as some see right to life.

So we should only stick to resolved social issues? The ones everybody agrees on anyway and has already taken care of? Sorry, but that doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Should make for really short debate threads, though.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

You seem to think that issues of great moral conflict can and should be solved by the UN, yes?

I for one do not shrink from these issues, but I am a big fan of local democracies, better yet consensual demcoracies, deciding these matters on the smallest possible scale.

Whenever power is concentrated the people stop being relevant. If the UN today defends a right, tommorow it can take it away once we say "the UN has no limitations on its power."

I am totally amazed that your side, the one worlders, even thinks its ok to say such things, but there it is.

You may not believe the people, the real people at the local, can or should determine the type of socety they havem ebcause you think YOUR concept of human rights is nigh unto an a priori fact. but I have faith that with freedom and the right amount of open information the people will grow and learn and develop and eventuially, if not right away, get to enlightenment. YOU DO NOT

Well here ya go then:
http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg
I'm sure they'll be thrilled to have you.

Please be specific, what do you mean "here ya go again?"

Are you still using immature insults rather than defending your one worlder faith?

Well here ya go then:
http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg
I'm sure they'll be thrilled to have you.

Don't bet your next paycheck on it.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

what are you saying? Who has said that 5 people rule the UN?
You seem to think that it doesn't matter that the majority is voting for the Resolutions you despise.

A "majority vote" is not the holy grail, IMHO, I believe each nation ought to shift for itself.

If you were a truly tolerant person you could say "gee, I think euthanasia is good but I can see how some people would disagree, so why not let's let the nations decide through their own voting processes." Instead you say "I am right and if you don't agree you are against human rights, so we need the UN to tell your nation what its laws should be whenever people like me get a wild hair up our asses."

I refer you to Forgottenlands myriad posts about how THIS BLOODY FREAKIN RESOLUTION DOESN'T FORCE PEOPLE TO DO ANYTHING. It says, "You have door number one, two, and now three," not, "PICK THREE DAMNIT!"

[/quote]For you to call people sore losers because they are unhappy, that is also a mindless insult, but mindless insults seem to be winning the votes amongst the mindless masses.[/QUOTE]

At least we can put together reasonable arguments.

Acutally, I very rarely respond to a poster like I did to you, but the hostility and belligirant manner of your posts made me see red. I do have respect for those nat sov supporters who come in and discuss it calmly, but your posts come across as bull in a china shop, and I responded in kind. You insulted the crap out of me, and a resolution I spent a lot of hours writing, fine tuning and getting to quorum. I can accept you disagree and disapprove of what I wrote, but the insults were un-necessary.

Believe it or not, I do understand the nat sov stance, but just don't agree with it in the case of human rights. I do support it in things like gun control, drugs and the death penalty because those sort of things aren't human rights issues and are strictly internal. The current resolution is a human rights issue to me, and a lot of others, who see the right to die as fundamental as some see right to life.

So I made you mad?

I was angry at an idea, you were just insulting and childish.

You are also against abortion then, no? Or is it only killing people or suicides that excite you?

For me the isssue of national sovereignty IS a human rights issue, If people have no power or right to rule in their own communities and decide, within reason of course, what kind of society they are going to have then what freedom do they have?

Politcal freedom trumps all others, for by it are all others secured.

If you want to make sure the PEOPLE in each nation can vote by referendum on whether or not to adhere to this resolution then sign me up! If you want unlected "delegates" to the UN to decide the policy of ALL member nations so that a simple majority of VOTES trumps the will of the people of that nation then come right out and tell us why you don't trust the people.

Please be specific, what do you mean "here ya go again?"

Are you still using immature insults rather than defending your one worlder faith?

You suck at life and fail at reading.

Am I using immature insults now? Sure am. I took you seriously for about 1 post. Now, I just can't do it anymore. The way you act, the complete lack of cogent arguments, the name-calling, all of it. You do not invite polite discussion. You're almost as bad as Mesatecala in General.

Edit: Stupid people are the reason my attempts at lowering my blood pressure aren't working. I'm done here with Upadoopa. If anyone wants honest, reasonable arguments, I'd be more than happy to have them.

Please be specific, what do you mean "here ya go again?"
You expressed interest in joining a group dedicated to advancing the cause of National Sovereignty. I provided a link. Click it.

Are you still using immature insults rather than defending your one worlder faith?
Hmmm. I've decided that you are most likely a Troll, therefore I'm not going to bother defending my beliefs to you because I honestly don't give a flying fuck what you think.

Don't bet your next paycheck on it.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations
Heh, sorry. I couldn't resist.:p

Hmmm. I've decided that you are most likely a Troll, therefore I'm not going to bother defending my beliefs to you because I honestly don't give a flying fuck what you think.

Ditto, think I'll join you in not bothering anymore.

Being kicked off this forum for flameing isn't one of my life ambitions :p.

You seem to think that it doesn't matter that the majority is voting for the Resolutions you despise.

_the majroity of Upadarians? If they want this they can have it, but the UN can;t tell them that this will be THEIR national policy, That is a violation of their personal right to politcal self determination._

I refer you to Forgottenlands myriad posts about how THIS BLOODY FREAKIN RESOLUTION DOESN'T FORCE PEOPLE TO DO ANYTHING. It says, "You have door number one, two, and now three," not, "PICK THREE DAMNIT!"

_again you are insulting. this is a matter of POLICY and a it is a POLICY based on what the people of a nation want or approve. I deny, right off the bat, that any international "majority" trumps the will of the Upadarian people within the borders of Upadaria. This is an internal issue. Your statement here belies the fact that you tend to think an unlimited global government is preferable to a democratic local one.-

For you to call people sore losers because they are unhappy, that is also a mindless insult, but mindless insults seem to be winning the votes amongst the mindless masses.[/QUOTE]

At least we can put together reasonable arguments.[/QUOTE]

_ more insults, My arguments will never be reasonable to you because you tend to be an elitist; you think anything you agree with is reasonable and anything you don't agree with is not._


It is not reasomable, IMHO, for you to act as if the argument that this ought to eb a national issue is itself unreasonable. You are placing your values and beliefs over mine, and that my friend is intolerance and intolerance is where fascism starts.

Tell me how you can defend the notion that a UN that can pretty much do ANYTHING is good for anybody and is not dangerous?

Ditto, think I'll join you in not bothering anymore.

Being kicked off this forum for flameing isn't one of my life ambitions :p.

Interesting, so when I do get a chance to come in here and speak my mind I am a troll, but before I did I was insulted for not having doen so.

You both seem to think I don;t care about your opinions, I genuinely do, as long as you are not judging me for my opinions. Is there something inherently wrong with believing that the UN in this world ought to have a limit on its powers and that nations need to take responsbility for their own polcies?

Is not the premise of this game that you can create a nation that reflects your beliefs and values and that in doing that you simulate that the people more or less have your same beliefs?

Instead of dealing with the issue you offer insults and then you say "he's a troll, I donlt have to speak", this revealing, IMHO, the paucity of your position. I do request that you withdraw the troll remark.

Don't bet your next paycheck on it.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

This is more mindlesslness for which you should truly be proud

You suck at life and fail at reading.

Am I using immature insults now? Sure am. I took you seriously for about 1 post. Now, I just can't do it anymore. The way you act, the complete lack of cogent arguments, the name-calling, all of it. You do not invite polite discussion. You're almost as bad as Mesatecala in General.

Edit: Stupid people are the reason my attempts at lowering my blood pressure aren't working. I'm done here with Upadoopa. If anyone wants honest, reasonable arguments, I'd be more than happy to have them.

I did fail at reading that and I apologize, but calling me stupid and saying I suck at life, well, that just shows what kind of person you really are.

Admit it then, you have no logic. Sure you talk about human rights, but it seems to me that you end up with a big, one world government that can ride roughshod over everyone else.

As soon as one enters into serious debate (of course you will SAY it isn't serious, but what does that mean, just that you can't say anything else) you start the insults and then slink off to congratulate yourself with all the rest of your one worlder cronies.

You expressed interest in joining a group dedicated to advancing the cause of National Sovereignty. I provided a link. Click it.

I see that now and I thank you.

I also apologize for my being wrong about what you said.

Hmmm. I've decided that you are most likely a Troll, therefore I'm not going to bother defending my beliefs to you because I honestly don't give a flying fuck what you think.

Calling me a troll is not acceptable. Please retract that.

Is not the premise of this game that you can create a nation that reflects your beliefs and values and that in doing that you simulate that the people more or less have your same beliefs?
No.

The initial premise of this game was to sell a work of political satirical fiction.

The secondary effect was to give people a sample of the unintended consequences of what appeared to be reasonable decisions.

Additionally, this game includes an incredibly powerful and overreaching UN that forces all its resolutions down the throats of its membership, without exception.

Now, aren't we glad that's cleared up?

The Democratic States of Bevatt vote against this resolution for one reason and one reason only. We take issue with Article 1 of this resolution.

"1: All persons of adult age or over may make the decision to refuse medical treatment for any reason, even if that decision will result in their own death. This includes the signing of DNR (do not resuscitate) orders. The state retains the right to quarantine any person carrying a dangerous communicable disease, and who refuses treatment until that person recovers, accepts treatment, dies naturally, or invokes right to die. "

ALL persons? What about the mentally ill? Should someone with depression or schizophrenia, or a similar mental affliction be allowed to decide whether they live or die in the case they get a terminal disease?

The Democratic States of Bevatt may well be willing to back a similar resolution with this issue cleared up, but until it is we cannot support this resolution.

The Protectorate of Badobras Vasava's vote shall be cast against this resolution. It directly contradicts the Protectorate's official religion, hence it shall not have our support.

In my opinion,it's one of the responsibilities of any governing body to ensure that it's citizens be allowed to enjoy as good a quality of life as they can attain to.
This also means that if that quality of life is taken away or becomes impossible due to illness or some other obstacle,the citizen(s) should be allowed to remove themselves,either by their own hand or assisted by,perhaps,an agency that is either associated with the UN or individual governments.
I,for one,would rather believe that somebody would have the mercy,intestinal fortitude and compassion to put me out of my misery if I were in such a state as a terminal or disabilitating illness.
I don't believe that this proposal is aimed towards anything that is curable,it refers only to those things that are incurable.
This proposal has my support

The Dominion of Warp and Woof rejects the proposal at hand as it believes that as human population increases thought density will increase with it. Our position is that suicide is merely a stop gap in intellectual development, a cowardice that must be overcome on one's own. The Dominion of Warp and Woof recommends that persons wishing to kill themselves be isolated in null chambers until they die a million deaths inside their mind. Once they experience death they will be ready to live again. We recognize the sovereignty of consciousness and as such seek to vaccinate it against grand collective suicide. Once we have a sufficient number of persons who are immune to the effects of despair we hope to interconnect them via a mental internet and slowly introduce the suicides into it until they cease to desire or need to run and fear. We hope that the ensuing cacophany of voices seeking to be recognized will generate new levels of consciousness in our collective Hive Mind.

I think this proposal only applies when there is a terminal illness anyway.

Robert Bobson
UN Officer
:upyours: I don't think that people should die themselves. It is kind of stupid.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised.

We rise in vehement opposition to this proposal as an affront to the deeply held beliefs of Our people and indeed, to all peoples who hold that life is a Divine gift, to be bestowed and withdrawn by Divine approval alone. This proposal makes a mockery of that principle, and sets Man up in the place of the Divine, making decisions that he has not the wisdom nor judgment to make.

We take special offense at article five:

5: No person may make a right to die decision for another person. Exceptions to this are medical personnel during triage, and parents/guardians of children or adults mentally incapable of making such decisions. In the case of parents/guardians, a nation is strongly encouraged to require that the right to die request go through their legal system to ensure the decision is being made in the best interests of the patient only.

Esteemed representatives: Is this nothing less than a license to allow doctors to kill the mentally incapacitated "for their own good", or to allow parents to commit infanticide under the ruse of "deciding what's best for the child"? At best, this resolution "strongly encourages" that the rule of law be applied in such cases. But what is to prevent a nation that believes in exterminating the unfit from passing laws permitting such wholesale slaughter?

This is an anti-human piece of legislation that offends the basic dignity of the individual under a false pretext of "self determination". Self-determination does not equate a right to self-destruction.

The Democratic States of Bevatt vote against this resolution for one reason and one reason only. We take issue with Article 1 of this resolution.

"1: All persons of adult age or over may make the decision to refuse medical treatment for any reason, even if that decision will result in their own death. This includes the signing of DNR (do not resuscitate) orders. The state retains the right to quarantine any person carrying a dangerous communicable disease, and who refuses treatment until that person recovers, accepts treatment, dies naturally, or invokes right to die. "

ALL persons? What about the mentally ill? Should someone with depression or schizophrenia, or a similar mental affliction be allowed to decide whether they live or die in the case they get a terminal disease?

The Democratic States of Bevatt may well be willing to back a similar resolution with this issue cleared up, but until it is we cannot support this resolution.
I believe it says later in the resolution that people who are not sane don't have to be able to make the decision.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

It is apparent that there are those here who think what they believe is good and what anyone else here beleives is crap.

The irony flows freely in this thread

We're not the ones calling people elitist fascists.

The response I received tells all: the person in question actually made it clear that the UN has total, unlimited power, and he bragged about how liberals here have sway and can dictate anything they want to the rest of us.

Yes. So?

If this resolution passes I will leave and UN and do my best to launch an anti-Un alliance. No nation should be dictated to from outside by liberals or conservatives.

Well, you're gone already and the anti-UN thing has been tried and failed miserably several times

For some reason my laptop is not working to get into these forums, so I am using another computer, and that is why I proposed "silly" resolutions. It was my only means of getting info out.

Or.....y'know.....you could be a bit more patient

The one worlders are winning, how and why I do not know. WHy anyone would play a nation-states game and then go ahead and allow a UN org to basically strip their nation of the right to decide these very sensitive issues is beyond me. IN this case it is the jackbooted left, but when will it be the jackbooted right?

I've already addressed this point in Post 221

Anyone who thinks ANY government shoud have unlimited power is a fascist and anyone who thinks the UN should be that government is an uber-fascist, regardless of their ideology.

I didn't say it should. I said it did. There's a big difference between what something CAN do and what something WILL do. For example, the moderators CAN delete every player's account if they felt like it. However, I don't think there's a person here who believes they WILL exercise that power. Know the difference.

As for the elitist rub that we should not be in the UN unless we beleive it should have unlimited pwoer, where is the tolerance and understanding there?

I didn't say that. I actually don't know where you get this idea from.

Does world unity mean world unfiromity? Do you propose that the only possible views are yours, e.g. for unlimited UN powers and for euthanasia?

Well, seeing as we've already lost universal membership by the time I got here, I guess uniformity is a good place to work from.

I can debate those points, but you folks don;t want to debate, you say "if you don't want a fascist UN, get out of the UN."

Actually, we just simply don't like you. You aren't exactly the friendly type of person.

Is this a power grab? You realize that one loses much of the functionality of this game outside being a UN member, so it is set up to pressure you into the UN. Now you pretend that it is a simple matter to leave the UN?

It takes a click of a button. I think that's fairly simple.

Hardly a power grab. It's been going on for three years straight

I amazed whenever fascism rears its ugly head.

I'm amazed you're still using the word fascism. It's almost as if you are incapable of thinking up a more creative insult and don't know any other words to use. Hey! We should start a "fascist" count. Every time he says fascist is 1 point. Every time he actually identifies a true fascist, he loses 10 points.

Anyone who thinks any government should have unlimited power is a fascist, Anyone who denies that certain issues are not agreed upon by all and must be left to states is a fascist.

Anyone who thinks there is a single issue we can get universal agreement on is a moron. Considering that 6% of the UN protected the rights of pediophiles.....

There are two camps here: liberals in the classic sense who see in decentralzied power the only path to true freedom and fascists who wrap themselves in the banner of human rights in an effort to destory the nations and rener them and their UN the new gods.

"You're either with us or against us"

Wake up. There are dozens of camps and it wasn't that long ago that when I identified only 5 camps that I thought had the biggest influence over one proposal, I got bitched at by the representative from Gruenberg for being overly simplistic.

The US Southern States used "states rights" to deny the right to life itself to black people and now these modern day plantation owners use their idea of human rights to deny nation-states the right to govern themselves.

Those southern states....yeah, they're the ones that would be supporting National Sovereignty so that they can deny the right to life.

Get a grip on reality and you just might learn something.

My friends DO NOT VOTE TO SURRENDER! Oppose this "UN as God" resolution.

Yes.....it certainly dictates the nation's choices in all areas of possible decision making. Get a grip.

BC
Upadaria

What "childish rant". Is it now childish to say one beleives in decentralzied pwoer as opposed to centralzied pwoer, is that how you treat people?

No. It's childish to call everyone fascist.

You are rude, to say the least, and you demonstrate exactly why this resolution is so harmful.

And calling people fascists isn't?

If we allow people like you to rule the world will be a prison.

If we allowed people like you to rule the world, we'd see more namecalling and less intelligence.

Oh wait....we already do see that.

YOU USE THIS ABBREVIATION NAT SOV AS AN INSULT, WHAT YOU SEEK IS A ONE WORLD FACIST STATE RULED BY YOU AND EVERYBODY CAN SEE THAT.

NatSov is an abbreviation that is widely used by the entire community. It's no more an insult than calling your mother your mom.

I have lobbied against your one world fascist tripe, and I will do my post to start an alliance that targets that tripe. I have sent many telegrams, proposed my own proposals, and waded through your one worlkder lies until I am sick in the stomach.

Yeah, I've seen those telegrams. I found them humorous.

I don't care about your politcs, I opose liberal or conservaitve fascism.

There's liberal fascism? Anyone got a source for its existance?

You are a worthless, one worlder fascist and an enemy of humanity.

You're the one that's opposing a human rights resolution, so we'll cross of enemy of humanity. You're the one complaining about losing your ability to be dictator of your own nation, so we'll cross off fascist. You're the one who's provided little value to this conversation, so we'll cross off worthless.

NEXT

Those "natsovs" who wish to ought to organzie an alliance against these one worlder fascists and I am prepared to join any such alliance fortwith.

BC
Upadaria

Already done.

I whinged at it, as you say, because of your general immaturity within reference to people who do not agree with you.

Immaturity? The irony is delicious. Can I have your autograph - somehow I think you'll be an instant hit when we start selling your stuff as "comedy hour".

You act as if anyone who doesn;t see it your way is an idiot, and I for one do not like that.

And you do....what? Oh right, call them a fascist.

I am open to genuine debate about your position as opposed to mine, but what I see here and have experienced is an arrogant, mean, and immature dismissal of those who really don't want the UN involved in such matters.

No. We just dismiss you. What could be the connection?

Rather than present a case as to why this is good and why your positions, that the UN should have unlimited power, are superior you simply speak rudley.

And you did....what?

I shall take your use of natsov simply as a what you say it means, but I shall not take your general tone of late as anyting but an needless insult for whcih you should be embarrassed.

Your tone is rather embarassing and insulting and entirely needless. Shall we move on?

what are you saying? Who has said that 5 people rule the UN?

Well, fascism requires a dictatorial government, doesn't it? Well......you lack dictators unless there's only 5 people ruling the UN.

A "majority vote" is not the holy grail, IMHO, I believe each nation ought to shift for itself.

Well, they are more than welcome to when they aren't members. In the meantime.....meh.

If you were a truly tolerant person you could say "gee, I think euthanasia is good but I can see how some people would disagree, so why not let's let the nations decide through their own voting processes." Instead you say "I am right and if you don't agree you are against human rights, so we need the UN to tell your nation what its laws should be whenever people like me get a wild hair up our asses."

No. We leave it to the individual to decide because the intolerant nations keep trying to make it illegal.

For you to call people sore losers because they are unhappy, that is also a mindless insult, but mindless insults seem to be winning the votes amongst the mindless masses.

The only thing mindless here is a poster that keeps throwing insults while bitching about the insults he receives.

You seem to think that issues of great moral conflict can and should be solved by the UN, yes?

I for one do not shrink from these issues, but I am a big fan of local democracies, better yet consensual demcoracies, deciding these matters on the smallest possible scale.

Whenever power is concentrated the people stop being relevant.

*blinks* Did you hear that everyone? He actually made an argument. I'll let others discuss it, I've said it too many times.

On a side note, thank you for actually giving a level argument here.

If the UN today defends a right, tommorow it can take it away once we say "the UN has no limitations on its power."

Slippery slope argument. Don't buy it. What it can do and what it will do are unquestionably different - and I've already said it is a risk I take.

I am totally amazed that your side, the one worlders, even thinks its ok to say such things, but there it is.

You seem to be amazed about many things

You may not believe the people, the real people at the local, can or should determine the type of socety they havem ebcause you think YOUR concept of human rights is nigh unto an a priori fact. but I have faith that with freedom and the right amount of open information the people will grow and learn and develop and eventuially, if not right away, get to enlightenment. YOU DO NOT

Huh?

Please be specific, what do you mean "here ya go again?"

Yelda didn't say "again", but used the term "then". If it doesn't make sense, read it a second time to make sure you didn't get confused.

Are you still using immature insults rather than defending your one worlder faith?

And another insult.

So I made you mad?

Says the mad little boy who lost his fireengine.

I was angry at an idea, you were just insulting and childish.

And you were.....oh right, calling everyone a fascist.

You are also against abortion then, no? Or is it only killing people or suicides that excite you?

WTF? Witchcliff is probably the biggest supporter of abortion on these forums and was extremely upset when the Abortion Legality Convention was passed.

For me the isssue of national sovereignty IS a human rights issue, If people have no power or right to rule in their own communities and decide, within reason of course, what kind of society they are going to have then what freedom do they have?

Notice how the game differentiates between civil and political rights?

Politcal freedom trumps all others, for by it are all others secured.

I disagree. I'll leave it at that

If you want to make sure the PEOPLE in each nation can vote by referendum on whether or not to adhere to this resolution then sign me up! If you want unlected "delegates" to the UN to decide the policy of ALL member nations so that a simple majority of VOTES trumps the will of the people of that nation then come right out and tell us why you don't trust the people.

Because the world is dominated by idiots. I need only visit this forum and read the At Vote topic (no matter what proposal is being debated) to prove that.

_ more insults, My arguments will never be reasonable to you because you tend to be an elitist; you think anything you agree with is reasonable and anything you don't agree with is not._

Dude, you have made one reasonable argument in this entire thread and laid nothing but insults at everything from the moderators and players to the paint job on your desk. Take a tranquilizer - elephant strength

It is not reasomable, IMHO, for you to act as if the argument that this ought to eb a national issue is itself unreasonable. You are placing your values and beliefs over mine, and that my friend is intolerance and intolerance is where fascism starts.

We place it above yours so that your people are free from your beliefs. We prevent intolerance to one's citizens by being intolerant of governments that are intolerant of their citizens.

Tell me how you can defend the notion that a UN that can pretty much do ANYTHING is good for anybody and is not dangerous?

Simple. It hasn't exercise the full scope of that power in 3 years.

:rolleyes:In humility is the greatest freedom.:rolleyes:

As long as you have to defend the imaginary self
that you think is important, you lose your peace of heart.
As soon as you compare that shadow
with the shadows of other people, you lose all joy,
because you have begun to trade in unrealities
and there is no joy in things that do not exist.

thomas merton

We rise in vehement opposition to this proposal as an affront to the deeply held beliefs of Our people and indeed, to all peoples who hold that life is a Divine gift, to be bestowed and withdrawn by Divine approval alone. This proposal makes a mockery of that principle, and sets Man up in the place of the Divine, making decisions that he has not the wisdom nor judgment to make.
A person only needs euthanasia where they are on a life support system, or being pumped full of drugs that aren't working. Now, if it is up to your Divinity to choose when people die, then why are you fighting illnesses? Isn't it an affront to your Deity to place a terminally ill person on life support in the first place?


Esteemed representatives: Is this nothing less than a license to allow doctors to kill the mentally incapacitated "for their own good", or to allow parents to commit infanticide under the ruse of "deciding what's best for the child"? At best, this resolution "strongly encourages" that the rule of law be applied in such cases. But what is to prevent a nation that believes in exterminating the unfit from passing laws permitting such wholesale slaughter?
Do you really believe that anyone who would permit such wholesale slaughter would allow themselves to be under the purview of the United Nations in the first place? This Resolution is not about allowing doctors to do something -- it is about allowing people to say, "Stick a fork in me, I'm finished" and to let them make that decision, instead of stifling it, saying, "No no, you gotta stay in that there oven."

This is an anti-human piece of legislation that offends the basic dignity of the individual...
Lemme whip out a cool analogy here. Tell me what you think is more dignified. Tipping the king at check-mate, or sitting there looking again and again at any moves you might possibly make to get out of a check-mate, indefinitly. There comes a point where when a person knows the game is over, they call it quits. Not granting self-determination is like saying to them, "Well, sorry there, you can't. No matter how horribly you're suffering, how dead your brain is. You just can't." Either because a deity said so, or because someone thinks its more dignified to rot while alive (as opposed to rotting like normal).

... under a false pretext of "self determination". Self-determination does not equate a right to self-destruction.
One cannot destroy something that has already been destroyed. Including one's self. You're right. Self-determination does not equate to self-destruction. Self-destruction requires potential to be ruined. When a person no longer has a potential, they cannot be any further destroyed.

:rolleyes:In humility is the greatest freedom.:rolleyes:

As long as you have to defend the imaginary self
that you think is important, you lose your peace of heart.
As soon as you compare that shadow
with the shadows of other people, you lose all joy,
because you have begun to trade in unrealities
and there is no joy in things that do not exist.

thomas merton

Nice, now you mind telling us what exactly this has to do with the resolution at vote.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised.

We rise in vehement opposition to this proposal as an affront to the deeply held beliefs of Our people and indeed, to all peoples who hold that life is a Divine gift, to be bestowed and withdrawn by Divine approval alone. This proposal makes a mockery of that principle, and sets Man up in the place of the Divine, making decisions that he has not the wisdom nor judgment to make.

*sighs*

It is my understanding that not all of your people worship the cute one. Those that follow, truthfully, the teachings of the Eternal Kawaii will not make a decision for the cute one. Those, however, that don't are more than free to make their own decisions. Certainly, it may mean they are condemned by the cute one, but seeing as they obviously aren't following the Eternal Kawaii's teachings to begin with, I think their soul is already damned.

We take special offense at article five:



Esteemed representatives: Is this nothing less than a license to allow doctors to kill the mentally incapacitated "for their own good", or to allow parents to commit infanticide under the ruse of "deciding what's best for the child"? At best, this resolution "strongly encourages" that the rule of law be applied in such cases. But what is to prevent a nation that believes in exterminating the unfit from passing laws permitting such wholesale slaughter?

The fact that it doesn't tell you to protect those abilities but merely permits you to do so if you so feel like it. Point to me the line that says you have to actually implement those clauses. It merely leaves a hole open for nations to use should they deem it worthy of attention.

This is an anti-human piece of legislation that offends the basic dignity of the individual under a false pretext of "self determination". Self-determination does not equate a right to self-destruction.

Is self-destruction not a form of self-determination? How is it not?

The Empyrean Citadel of Lydania rejects this proposal on the sole basis that it does not specifically include spouses in making decisions in the health of a disabled or comatose loved one.

Excluding that presumed oversight, Lydania supports it in full.

Rain Beechwood
Magistrate of the Empyean Citadel of Lydania

The Empyrean Citadel of Lydania rejects this proposal on the sole basis that it does not specifically include spouses in making decisions in the health of a disabled or comatose loved one.

Excluding that presumed oversight, Lydania supports it in full.

Rain Beechwood
Magistrate of the Empyean Citadel of Lydania

It isn't an oversight, while I did consider including spouses in the exclusions, I didn't for the following reason. Every person can write a living will if they decide they want to invoke right to die in case of terminal illness or accident that makes them unable to articulate that wish at the time. Those that don't have living wills automatically default to not wanting to be subjected to right to die, and should always have that wish honoured. The choice here works both ways, and those that choose to live, no matter what happens to them, must be allowed to.

A hypothetical example...

My husband is involved in a serious car accident that leaves him little better off than a semi-concious vegetable. He is a catholic, and while not rabid about it, does believe that euthenasia (among other things) is totally wrong, so never wrote a living will because he believes right to die would send him straight to hell. I'm an athiest and don't believe any of that, but I am his spouse. Question is should I have the right to over-ride his beliefs and wishes?

My own answer to that, spouse or not, is no.

The fact that it doesn't tell you to protect those abilities but merely permits you to do so if you so feel like it. Point to me the line that says you have to actually implement those clauses. It merely leaves a hole open for nations to use should they deem it worthy of attention.And $9.95 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Of course nations can make their own determination on this point. Now answer the Nuncio's actual question:

At best, this resolution "strongly encourages" that the rule of law be applied in such cases. But what is to prevent a nation that believes in exterminating the unfit from passing laws permitting such wholesale slaughter?

I am against this resolution.
The UN is trying to enforce a moral/immoral (depending on your point of view) judgement on member nations that it has no right to enforce.
I am appalled that this resolution even made it passed the proposal satatus and into the queue.
This abomination of a resolution is not about individual self determination, since it does allow others to make the decision on their behalf (see point #5). Unbelievably, it allows parent to make the decision for their children to die. The circumstances under which such an action may be allowed are not outlined anywhere... this could allow parents to kill handicapped or retarded children saying it would put them out of their misery.
The mods should have given this piece of crap the blam a long time ago. It is a misleading resolution intending to sneak through something that is an obviously controversial topic. The title does not in anyway present an accurate picture of what the resolution is actually about, and is yet another attempt to force through euthanasia legislation. If you want a resolution on euthanasia, then at least have the balls to call it what it is

--Rooty
PS: Whoever it was that said most people don't read proposals and vote based on the title is absolutely correct.

Dashanzi abstains.

Ignoring the fact that this is an issue for the "states" or each individual nation, I do have one question:
Are nations now prohibited from making suicide illegal? The resolution starts out with "Believing every individual has the right to decide their own fate," so it appears to me that suicide will now be legal in all UN nations should this proposal pass. After all, making it illegal would violate that "right".

And $9.95 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Of course nations can make their own determination on this point. Now answer the Nuncio's actual question:

Ah, my mistake.

What stopped them before? No law is perfect, everything has deficiencies, so does this one. I have a hard time believing you'll see an increase in the number of mentally handicapped that will be killed due to this law passing.

Can this august body bestowe life? Then it should not be so quick to advocate its end. This body makes much of being the defender of peoples rights around the world. Since when did the taking of a life become a "right". There are countless nations that are members of this wise and learned assembly that will find this act offensive. Since when did we assign anyone the right to legislate our morals to us. And when was it decided that you are so morally superior to us that we must bow down and turn our backs on the customs, values and beliefs of our forefathers the very beliefs that define who we are?

Draconian Daffiness finds this act morally reprehensible and urges all to stand againt this vile attemp to legislate secular humanist ideals to those who hold to a higher and more nobel view of human life.

I have a hard time believing you'll see an increase in the number of mentally handicapped that will be killed due to this law passing.
Yeah...

:cool:
~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

This abomination of a resolution is not about individual self determination, since it does allow others to make the decision on their behalf (see point #5). Unbelievably, it allows parent to make the decision for their children to die. The circumstances under which such an action may be allowed are not outlined anywhere... this could allow parents to kill handicapped or retarded children saying it would put them out of their misery.
PS: Whoever it was that said most people don't read proposals and vote based on the title is absolutely correct.

4: Any person who is incapable of making a right to die decision due to their medical condition, but has a living will, must have that will honoured if the conditions in the will match their medical situation. Nations retain the right, and are encouraged to require, that several independent medical assessments by qualified doctors are made of the patient medical state before right to die is carried out.

5: No person may make a right to die decision for another person. Exceptions to this are medical personnel during triage, and parents/guardians of children or adults mentally incapable of making such decisions. In the case of parents/guardians, a nation is strongly encouraged to require that the right to die request go through their legal system to ensure the decision is being made in the best interests of the patient only.

I agree,people should read the proposals.

AKASA,Caribis Kalne

These is a matter that is better left to the states to decide! I don't want the UN telling me that it is compulsory for my doctors to allow patients to kill themselves. This is not what the medical field is for! Vote no for this resolution.

I am against this resolution.
The UN is trying to enforce a moral/immoral (depending on your point of view) judgement on member nations that it has no right to enforce.
I am appalled that this resolution even made it passed the proposal satatus and into the queue.
Because around 200 UN delegates don't agree with your view on this issue, and/or felt it was worthy enough to go to vote.

This abomination of a resolution is not about individual self determination, since it does allow others to make the decision on their behalf (see point #5). Unbelievably, it allows parent to make the decision for their children to die. The circumstances under which such an action may be allowed are not outlined anywhere... this could allow parents to kill handicapped or retarded children saying it would put them out of their misery.
The circumstances under which an action may be taken are outlined in the whole resolution. Terminal illness/severe accident that results long term use of strong pain killers and/or dependence on others for personal care. I didn't want to include any exceptions, but had to concede the two I did. Medical triage is a given, and happens everyday in every RL nations of the world in hospital A&E departments, warzones and disaster areas. Children and the mentally unfit were never in the position to write a living will stating their own wishes, and have parent/guardians that make their life decisions. I had to awknowledge that.

The mods should have given this piece of crap the blam a long time ago. It is a misleading resolution intending to sneak through something that is an obviously controversial topic. The title does not in anyway present an accurate picture of what the resolution is actually about, and is yet another attempt to force through euthanasia legislation. If you want a resolution on euthanasia, then at least have the balls to call it what it is

--Rooty
PS: Whoever it was that said most people don't read proposals and vote based on the title is absolutely correct.

The mods would only give this the "blam" if it was illegal under the proposal rules, which it isn't. The title describes perfectly what I am trying to achieve with it, give the individual the right to self determination on this issue. It isn't trying to sneak through anything. The whole resolution is about right to die. If some don't read the whole thing and vote based on the title instead of the content, that is not my fault or problem.

Why not use the word "euthenasia"? Simple, that is being tossed around the real world as a buzz word, and has many different meanings. I think someone here in another thread listed about six different interpretations of it. My resolution covers right to die only under certain cirucmstances, and does one thing, gives people a right to die if they are suffering under those circumstances. I didn't see the need to use a confusing buzz word when the term I have used is straight to the point.

Nice, now you mind telling us what exactly this has to do with the resolution at vote.
This topic has become a breeding ground in favor for a few nations utterly defending the imaginary self to the point where at least I stops listening. Perhaps other nations hold on their opinions because they do not want those defenders to get a chance to pick, or because of the great number of contributions those few nations have given rise to which makes the topic harder to grasp than necessary. That is not democracy and surely not welcoming. It will only result in a bad atmosphere.
As long as you have to defend the imaginary self that you think is important, you lose your peace of heart.:
Allow yourself to write something that might be rash. It does not matter - on the contrary - it may develop in interresting responses.
Allow others to correct you and try not to respond even though you think they are wrong. If you think they are - well then you have already made your point. If you continue clarifying your point you will wake up those who did not read your contribute thoroughly and then you can expect many empty words leading nowhere.

This, off course, has nothing to do with the resolution at vote. Neither has this:

The initial premise of this game was to sell a work of political satirical fiction.

The secondary effect was to give people a sample of the unintended consequences of what appeared to be reasonable decisions.

Additionally, this game includes an incredibly powerful and overreaching UN that forces all its resolutions down the throats of its membership, without exception.
Nail me if you must, because I honestly admit my both contributions are off topic.:rolleyes:

Malcolm Clink, Minister of foreign affairs

As long as you have to defend the imaginary self that you think is important, you lose your peace of heart.
I admire the Zen-like quality of your posts. Please, would you elaborate in the form of a poem?

I originally had some qualms about the omission of spousal power, but i agree with the clarification provided on the previous page. Although it's never a black-and-white situation, I would prefer to encourage citizens to consider their options and made their desires known, and hope that will remove any necessity for spousal interference.

The Fifedom of Supremacy is fully in favour!

This topic has become a breeding ground in favor for a few nations utterly defending the imaginary self to the point where at least I stops listening. Perhaps other nations hold on their opinions because they do not want those defenders to get a chance to pick, or because of the great number of contributions those few nations have given rise to which makes the topic harder to grasp than necessary. That is not democracy and surely not welcoming. It will only result in a bad atmosphere.
As long as you have to defend the imaginary self that you think is important, you lose your peace of heart.:
Allow yourself to write something that might be rash. It does not matter - on the contrary - it may develop in interresting responses.
Allow others to correct you and try not to respond even though you think they are wrong. If you think they are - well then you have already made your point. If you continue clarifying your point you will wake up those who did not read your contribute thoroughly and then you can expect many empty words leading nowhere.

This, off course, has nothing to do with the resolution at vote. Neither has this:

Nail me if you must, because I honestly admit my both contributions are off topic.:rolleyes:

Malcolm Clink, Minister of foreign affairs

1) Fris was dismantling an argument by Umpadaria saying that we should be protecting National Sovereignty because the game was created so that people could choose their own destinies with their nations by indicating the official purpose of the game as noted by Max Barry, its creator. Not off topic and not even a hijack

2) By what justification do those nations restrict those rights? Because some God that not all of their citizens believe in says they should? *sighs*

Can this august body bestowe life? Then it should not be so quick to advocate its end.
Can this body make war? No. So I suppose we shouldn't try stopping it either. Can it create pollution? No. Better stop trying to stop that too... Beyond that, it isn't advocating the end of life. It's advocating the personal freedom to make that choice, because there are those that feel that the number of lives is more important than the quality of those lives. And so far, this august body has decided that that kind of mentality is ill-befitting an organization of progression and advancement of the human condition.

This body makes much of being the defender of peoples rights around the world. Since when did the taking of a life become a "right".
When that life was quite irretrievably destroyed by debilitating illness or injury.

There are countless nations that are members of this wise and learned assembly that will find this act offensive.
Such is the case with every Resolution and Repeal on the books. That's just how it goes in an organization of compromise. Someday it will be my turn to be offended by a Resolution again.

Since when did we assign anyone the right to legislate our morals to us.
Since the morals came into conflict with what is being seen more and more as a human right.

And when was it decided that you are so morally superior to us that we must bow down and turn our backs on the customs, values and beliefs of our forefathers the very beliefs that define who we are?
A lot of people like forefathers. Sure, it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but humans advance. Look at most of the histories of most countries, in RL and in NS. Killing opposition, Hamurabi type punishments for crime, slavery, crusades, assimilation... Some of these are still around today, but they were commonplace with most people's forefathers. I heard a judge say once, "To dwell in the past is foolish. To forget the past is a disgrace." Remeber your forefathers, but don't emulate them. It is the nature of mankind to move beyond what it once had, so unless you're fighting that innate instinct of humanity to move on, you have already moved on from your forefathers, so it's really quite inconsistent to suggest that you are cast from the same mold.

Draconian Daffiness finds this act morally reprehensible and urges all to stand againt this vile attemp to legislate secular humanist ideals to those who hold to a higher and more nobel view of human life.
Oh. Yeah. Secular humanism is just the... Worst thing since sliced bread... I mean... Curse those Secular Humanists for looking beyond the boundaries that individual faiths have to advocate humanism.

Seriously, disliking secular humanists is like disliking the Pilsbury Doughboy.

Frankly, I think it's higher and more noble to trust a person when they say, "I've had enough," and let them have peace. If you think it more noble and dignified to let someone stay in their pained and/or vegetative state kept company by a steadily beeping machine in an impersonal hospital, then I think you oughta visit a hospice center for yourself and spend a day with someone. Just sit down in the corner and don't say a word. Watch them for a full day.

Or better yet, try it yourself. You don't even have to hurt yourself first, it'll be torture enough just laying there, I guarantee it.

What's immoral (or oughta be) is prolonging the suffering of an individual. THAT'S reprehensible.

Can this august body bestowe life?

Humanity seems to be able to do quite well at bestowing life

Then it should not be so quick to advocate its end.

Uh huh. Define quick. While you're at it, define advocate, because I don't think you actually mean advocate. We are not promoting the death of people, rather we are saying they have the full right to choose death. We aren't calling for the execution of people against their will, we are calling for them to be able to decide their fate.

We don't advocate anything. We protect.

This body makes much of being the defender of peoples rights around the world.

We try, but there seems to be a lot of individuals that disagree that this should be a purpose

Since when did the taking of a life become a "right".

WHERE ARE WE LEGISLATING THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING THE RIGHT TO TAKE A LIFE?

We are saying people have the right to remove their own life. We legislate nothing on the matter of people taking other's lives - or at least, without consent of the one who is dieing.

There are countless nations that are members of this wise and learned assembly that will find this act offensive.

And you can still see the spittle that came out of my mouth when ALC was passed. If you find it too offensive, there's the door. If you can live with it, give me a reason other than the need to appease those who would otherwise deny these people their right to choose their own destiny. I find them unworthy of my consideration and I'm more interested in real arguments on the matter. There seems to be a rather lack of them (not to be confused with none).

Since when did we assign anyone the right to legislate our morals to us.

When you hit the "apply" button. Look at the passed resolutions, we rather make a habit of legislating morals on the subject of human rights. It is our number 1 past time. If you weren't aware that we have a tendancy to do that, well, ignorance is bliss.

And when was it decided that you are so morally superior to us that we must bow down and turn our backs on the customs, values and beliefs of our forefathers the very beliefs that define who we are?

You use your ancestors to define who you are? I prefer my personality. I think Forgottenlands is often defined more by my frequent clashes with Ambassador Jiffjeff than it is by any custom it holds. It is defined more by the Forgottenlord's popularization of the term "International Federalism" than by the history and forefathers that we define for ourselves. Our nation, our history, they have a distinction of relative importance. But to follow what our long-forgotten founders believed blindly is foolhardy. I ask why my forefathers believed rather than what they believed in. Do you follow your boss faithfully? Or the founders of your company? Sometimes, you do. However, sometimes you'll find that some of those ideas are rather obsolete due to the way the world has changed.

Draconian Daffiness finds this act morally reprehensible and urges all to stand againt this vile attemp to legislate secular humanist ideals to those who hold to a higher and more nobel view of human life.

"Vile" and "humanist" are rather humorous in the same sentence.

And nobility is a rather interesting term to use. I tend to find claims that "my belief is nobel" are made by the highhanded people who know nothing of nobility - just inheritance. Perhaps that's why you put such value in your forefathers - they handed you everything.

*groans*

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/untitled.jpg
Antarctic Oasis (s11.invisionfree.com/antarctic_oasis) Dept. of UN Affairs
"We will bury you."

As regional secretary for UN Affairs, it is my duty to inform you that the general feeling of our region and its UN contingent of late is that of disappointment, mostly at the imminent passage of this misguided legislation. Out of the Sovereigntist Saloon this night could be heard the terrifying hiss from some disgruntled ambassador: "You win this round, Fluffies, but we'll be back!" Indeed. International Federalists need not get too cocky with the adoption of this resolution, for the rising tide of veritible evil certain to follow does not bode in your favor: upcoming anti-terror legislation, a global security initiative, a repeal of the 40-Hour Work Week, a bill to limit the ability of liberal child-haters to exploit children, the Federal Republic's Creative Solutions Agency and the advisory it has been issuing to friendly governments about this bill (this don't protect all the "individual self-determination" you think it does, folks), and finally, the accession to the Antarctic Oasis delegacy the one nation that can eviscerate entire UN proposals in single ping-ponged posts, throw down aspiring UN legislators, twist their arms and make them cry "uncle" before they even think of hitting the "submit" button, Gruenberg (www.nationstates.net/gruenberg), who by the way has voted AGAINST this resolution. Thank you.VICTORY IS MINE!!

If Ambassador Jiffjeff is the indicator of the compotence of Gruenberg representatives, I have a hard time believing your delegate can even move an arm let alone twist it enough to make us consider the notion of admitting defeat.

for the rising tide of veritible evil certain to follow does not bode in your favor:
True evil, eh? Well, at least you're being honest. ;)

upcoming anti-terror legislation,
If it's Cluich's piece that was attempted before, I'm not so concerned about its passage. It doesn't trample on my ideological toes much.

a global security initiative,
Neh.

a repeal of the 40-Hour Work Week,
Oh yeah. ACCEL's brain-child. We're all very excited.

a bill to limit the ability of liberal child-haters to exploit children
So far as I know, there ain't much of any liberal resistence to a ban on child pr0nography. Kinda makes me giggle that you're looking to demonize liberals for something quite a few would be willing to support. Or don't you need their help? Muah ha ha.

and finally, the accession to the Antarctic Oasis delegacy the one nation that can eviscerate entire UN proposals in single ping-ponged posts, throw down aspiring UN legislators, twist their arms and make them cry "uncle" before they even think of hitting the "submit" button, Gruenberg (www.nationstates.net/gruenberg)....
.... So long as Jiffjeff isn't talking.

Yeaaaah. Bringeth it on.

Yeaaaah. Bringeth it on.

I think I'll do just that. As a personal favor to you. :)

I think I'll do just that. As a personal favor to you. :)

Prepare to be pwned, burninated, and have all your base are belong to us.





Or to just have a debate in the forum... I mean, whichever...

RESPECT OUR AUTHORITAH!!

http://www.happy100.freeserve.co.uk/images6/cartman.GIF

Get your ass in jail!

[I'll pit the sultan's hot daughter (http://s11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=52&view=findpost&p=2425106) against Jamie "ALC causes sunspots" Mcdougall and Tommo the Sprout, er "Stout," any day of the week...

[Lady Vanessa too, but that's a separate matter entirely.]

Prepare to be pwned, burninated, and have all your base are belong to us.





Or to just have a debate in the forum... I mean, whichever...

Yeah. Whichever.

Tommo the Sprout

Man... Stunning insult.

The chestally gifted do not distractions for Tommo the Stout make.

RESPECT OUR AUTHORITAH!!

http://www.happy100.freeserve.co.uk/images6/cartman.GIF

Get your ass in jail!

[I'll pit the sultan's hot daughter (http://s11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=52&view=findpost&p=2425106) against Jamie "ALC causes sunspots" Mcdougall and Tommo the Sprout, er "Stout," any day of the week...

[Lady Vanessa too, but that's a separate matter entirely.]

The sultan's daughter couldn't find her way out of her bed without two alka seltzer tablets, a litre of water and a full set of directions as she's trying to fight those pesky covers. The sad thing is, I do believe that makes her the brightest of the Gruenberg entourage.

Man... Stunning insult.

The chestally gifted do not distractions for Tommo the Stout make.Meh. I was trying to find something that rhymed with Stout, and failed miserably. :p

The sultan's daughter couldn't find her way out of her bed without two alka seltzer tablets, a litre of water and a full set of directions as she's trying to fight those pesky covers. The sad thing is, I do believe that makes her the brightest of the Gruenberg entourage.

Ouch. Forgottenlord, ftw!


Meh. I was trying to find something that rhymed with Stout, and failed miserably.:D

Tommo the unalterable Stout ftw!

I almost feel like I've got street cred for stumping OMGTKK... I deserve a merit badge from the UN gnomes or something. Something without "Scout's Honor" written on it... Cuz that's kinda queer.

Antarctic for the rising tide of veritible evil certain to follow does not bode in your favor: upcoming anti-terror legislation, a global security initiative, a repeal of the 40-Hour Work Week, a bill to limit the ability of liberal child-haters to exploit children, All sounds pretty dandy to me, especially since I helped out on the original anti-terror legislation. As for 40 hour work week.....well, it has it's faults.

Hardly as evil as you would have us believe. You guys are just cuddly oversized bunny wabbits pretending to be all mean and evil, when I know you just need a hug, a carrot, and a luxury rabbit hutch to play in and you'd be happier than a pig in mud.

"To dwell in the past is foolish. To forget the past is a disgrace." Remeber your forefathers, but don't emulate them. It is the nature of mankind to move beyond what it once had, so unless you're fighting that innate instinct of humanity to move on, you have already moved on from your forefathers, so it's really quite inconsistent to suggest that you are cast from the same mold.

So, by your reckoning, when should democratic nations "move on" from democracy? For how much longer should your own nation be bound by your own current views? Or would you only apply this pproclaimed belief that one must keep "moving on" when the old principles are ones that you personally dislike, and not when they're ones that you yourself favour?

So, by your reckoning, when should democratic nations "move on" from democracy? For how much longer should your own nation be bound by your own current views? Or would you only apply this pproclaimed belief that one must keep "moving on" when the old principles are ones that you personally dislike, and not when they're ones that you yourself favour?

Huh, interesting. Considering democracy is really rated on a scale rather than a yes/no answer (represented by the term "political rights"), an area that shifts continually in just about any nation, I'd say it would be a hard claim to say we aren't "moving on". You can be more or less democratic, but the amount of wiggle room around those points is rather thin.

Besides, moving on requires that you have some form of destination. What destination is there but the days of old when dictatorships ruled (and some would argue, we're slipping back to). Adapting requires attempts to improve upon the system without really a clear concept of the final result. Adapting is taking ideas others have given you and applying them to your system to see what might happen and if it'll make things better.

I'll be damned if there is a single government in this world that isn't continually adapting.

Besides, moving on requires that you have some form of destination. What destination is there but the days of old when dictatorships ruled (and some would argue, we're slipping back to).

Who knows?

Adapting requires attempts to improve upon the system without really a clear concept of the final result. Adapting is taking ideas others have given you and applying them to your system to see what might happen and if it'll make things better.

I would classify a wholesale change from basing a nation's public morality on the traditions of a religion (which has widespread support within that nation) to basing it on secular humanism (which hasn't...) as a much bigger sort of change than just "adapting" a single system of government like that, and as more comparable to changing systems of government completely (from genuine multi-party democracy to a single-party state, for example, or from oligarchy to anarchy) in scale...

I'll be damned if there is a single government in this world that isn't continually adapting.

Your damnation (or otherwise) is probably more likely to depend on how you live your life, unless any deity that's involved really dislikes the idea of people wagering like that, but considering how many different nations there are in the NS worlds... and how resistant to change even some of those that bother to send ambassadors here are... I really wouldn't consider that a very safe bet at all...

I don't even know what the fuck you two are talking about anymore. I'm glad this vote is done:

The resolution Individual Self-Determination was passed 7,586 votes to 4,647, and implemented in all UN member nations.

So, by your reckoning, when should democratic nations "move on" from democracy?
The pendulum is always swinging. When my notions are old and dusty, people will do what they do. But there's a pretty big disconnect from abstract ideas like morals and concrete systems like government. So you're making a big jump from changing an idea to changing a system. It can happen, but governments don't change as quickly as ideas.

For how much longer should your own nation be bound by your own current views?
So long as the people continue to vote for the people sitting in Parliament right now. When the people change, our government changes.

Or would you only apply this pproclaimed belief that one must keep "moving on" when the old principles are ones that you personally dislike, and not when they're ones that you yourself favour?
Certainly not. But I ain't never said that I get my morals and ethics from centuries dead forefathers, have I?

Congratulations to the representative of Witchcliff on the passage of this fine resolution.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

Woohoo, it passed, and passed comfortably. By more votes than I expected to be honest.

Thanks to everyone who helped me on this resolution during its drafting, the delegates who supported it to quorum, all those who supported it with votes on the floor, and by argueing for it in this thread, especially Norderia and Forgottenlands. Last but not least, a big special thanks to Hirota for submitting it for me :).

Congrateelations.