NationStates Jolt Archive

I've made one or two changes and resubmitted.

The NationStates United Nations,

DEFINING necrophilia, for the purposes of this resolution, as any unauthorized sexual act, performed on a deceased individual,

DISTURBED by the occurrence of necrophilia within the member nations of the UN,

NOTING that a corpse is incapable of consent, and that such lack of consent is why rape is commonly considered an inappropriate act,

OBSERVING many cases of emotional damage to the families of deceased individuals in cases of necrophilia,

RECOMMENDS that member nations outlaw the desecration of corpses,

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to punish those guilty of corpse desecration to the fullest extent of the law, and,

CALLS UPON member nations to provide counseling and medical care for those engaging in acts of necrophilia.

Have at it people. Keep in mind that no changes can be made, since this has already been submitted.

Sounds good to me. I would've liked to see the 3rd clause seperated for flow, but since it's already in nothing can be done.

We support.

Landman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

The NationStates United Nations,

DEFINING necrophilia, for the purposes of this resolution, as any unauthorized sexual act, performed on a deceased individual,
Well, this is already meaningless, as in Norderia, there is no such thing as an unauthorized sexual act. For the sake of argument, I shall continue.

DISTURBED by the occurrence of necrophilia within the member nations of the UN,
Not so much, no. With all of the infinitely more worthy things to be disturbed about, people having sex is not at all one of them.

NOTING that a corpse is incapable of consent, and that such lack of consent is why rape is commonly considered an inappropriate act,
Am I the only one who reads this as suggesting that there is a rape without a lack of consent? Hair-splitting aside, many countries don't think inanimate objects (read: Not alive, not sentient, etc) don't require consent.

OBSERVING many cases of emotional damage to the families of deceased individuals in cases of necrophilia,
Except in such places where the empty husk of a person has been culturally a thing of nothingness, in which case only you sensitive people will become so emotionally damaged that the UN must rush to their aid.

RECOMMENDS that member nations outlaw the desecration of corpses,
If not for the above reasons, why? In some cultures, the empty body must be returned to the earth quickly, or it was a failing of the body that caused the soul to go away and therefore, the body must be destroyed. What's so important about corpses?

CALLS UPON member nations to provide counseling and medical care for those engaging in acts of necrophilia.
And yet, to punish them to the full extent of the law.

In short, Norderia would vote no, and with a ferocity to match our abstaining.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

in Norderia, there is no such thing as an unauthorized sexual act.And rape would be...?

And rape would be...?

Perhaps I was too quick to use the connotation of unauthorized as meaning not sanctioned by an authority (government, etc).

Nonetheless, rape is a matter of consent, and where corpses are identified as being inanimate (which they are), there is no matter of consent.

We cannot support this proposal. First and foremost, we see no reasonable justification for the NSUN to involve itself with this issue. It has absolutely no international aspect to it whatever. It is not a matter of fundamental human rights. And it can and should be addressed by individual nations as they see fit.

Also, the proposal is fundamentally flawed. It defines necrophilia, but then uses the term only in the final clause, concerning provision of care for necrophiliacs. It never defines "desecration of corpses", the activity it attempts to have outlawed.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ardchoille opposes, reiterating our previous argument: that you cannot desecrate that which is not sacred, and, in Ardchoille, corpses are not.

Further, we leap gleefully on the bandwagon driven by Norderia, viz, What's so important about corpses?

They are, of course, important if you're waiting for an organ donation. If the act of necrophilia prevented the harvesting of organs from registered donors, then we might reconsider.

However, we'd really, really prefer not to get into a detailed medical debate on the subject.

So that just leaves us wondering what is going on in Karmicaria. Where do your people go for holidays that causes so many of them to come home "DISTURBED by the occurrence of necrophilia within the member nations of the UN"?

They can't all be going to Omigodtheykilledkenny.:p

Perhaps I was too quick to use the connotation of unauthorized as meaning not sanctioned by an authority (government, etc).

Nonetheless, rape is a matter of consentSo sex without consent is still "authorized"? If not, then what on earth did you mean by "no unauthorized sex"?

I have no problem with saying that corpses are unable to withhold consent and are thus unable to be part of "unauthorized sex", but I still don't see how you could possibly say that your nation has no concept of "unauthorized sex". What is non-consensual sex but unauthorized sex?

does that encompass skull fucking?

DEFINING necrophilia, for the purposes of this resolution, as any unauthorized sexual act, performed on a deceased individual,

Won't someone please think of how much more emo the world's vampires will get if it's illegal for them to get laid?

Won't someone please think of how much more emo the world's vampires will get if it's illegal for them to get laid?

ZOINKS!

Mikitivity votes NO! Vampires are emo enough ... in fact, in Mikitivity the leading stapler company, "Hand to Forehead", uses a vampire as its mascot. Sales do extremely well ... especially around tax time (which is year-round in most cantons).



Edit: I figured I'd be helpful too ... I've suggested this before and I *still* believe that this issue is funny enough that you could make an incredible daily issue out of it. There is nothing else in the issue set that involves vampires ... GMC has already handed you one of the effects of outlawing necrophila ... "Goths become even more emo". The alternative for legalizing the practice, "morgues report increasing thefts of bodys by local goth clubs". Have fun with this!

Consider, too, the appalling effect it would have on the career prospects of entry-level necromancers.

Currently, the accepted method of gaining an apprenticeship, prac placement (aka work experience) or holiday job in the profession is to have one's aptitude, talents, etc discovered or revealed while undertaking a self-initiated project for the corporeal return of one's lost love (often, but not necessarily, named Lenore).

But if the ultimate aim of such a project -- reunion, body and soul, with the dear departed -- were declared illegal, the incentive to pursue it would be greatly reduced, particularly if the penalties attached were severe.

Thus a serious shortage of necromantic skills would develop, owing to the disastrous effect of this legislation on youth recruitment, training and retention.

The industry must not suffer the effects of such short-sighted policy. Skills must be constantly renewed and passed on, generation by generation.

We do not wish to find ourselves forced to implement a hurried and expensive program of importing possibly sub-standard necromancers from overseas to make good shortages that would never have developed had governments not succumbed to the facile lure of legislation that, though some may find it attractive in the short term, is, in fact, a recipe for disaster.

I was going to submit a comprehensive resolution outlawing necrophilia, bestiality and sadism, but that would have been beating a dead horse.

Make another pun like that and I'll sic The Prince Of Space on your ass, heh.

I was going to submit a comprehensive resolution outlawing necrophilia, bestiality and sadism, but that would have been beating a dead horse.
Oy. Oy gevalt.

A corpse is an empty husk in Intangelon, and as such hasn't got rights beyond any obsequies chosen by the next of kin of the decedent. If the next of kin wish to "get busy" with the cadaver, that's their lookout. I imagine variations on this theme either in the "empty husk" or "sacred vessel" vein will be bandied about here, but that serves to underline the absence of need for a sweeping UN resolution on this issue.

Intangelon and Greater Seattle vote no.

OOC: (42-3 after three quarters? Eli who?)

... What is non-consensual sex but unauthorized sex?Assault. Non-consensual sex isn't sex.

Assault. Non-consensual sex isn't sex.

Well, mechanically it actually is.

OOC: When I checked a little while ago, this was only a little more than 20 approvals short of reaching quorum. Keep at it, Karmi. You've got till tomorrow to get it there.

Well, mechanically it actually is.Mechanically, holding a drill to your forehead is actually surgery, too. Luckily, mechanics is seldom the sum total of definition. ;)

It needs 15 more approval now. And thanks, Cluich! :p

It needs 15 more approval now. And thanks, Cluich! :p

OOC: I'd offer to help with the TGing, but I'm going to be busy with my WHL repeal shortly and -- oh, yeah -- that silly "looking for work" thing. As much as I like hanging out on the NS forums all day and knocking back beers, I'm feeling pretty useless these days. On the upside, though, there will be kids in Massachusetts soon hearing these words: "Hi, I'm Mr. Cluich, and I'll be your substitute teacher today." :D

OOC: Don't worry about the TGing. The entire list was done on Saturday. I had some help. Good luck with the job hunt.

You? A teacher? Cool.

I remain unpersuaded that this legislation is in any way an international concern.

Benedictions,

OOC: Don't worry about the TGing. The entire list was done on Saturday. I had some help. Good luck with the job hunt.

You? A teacher? Cool.

OOC: Thanks, and yeah, I came to the conclusion, after a few seasons of coaching football (soccer for those of us here in the US), that I actually handle kids quite well. I always knew I got on with kids on a one-on-one basis very well (with six full siblings and eight half-siblings, I've got a lot of nieces and nephews, and then, of course, there's my gf's little one), but I wasn't sure about dealing with large numbers of them. Seems I can do it, though, and I really enjoy it. I'm going to use the subbing thing to get my foot in the door and some money rolling in, while I work on getting my Master's and teaching certification. :cool:

On the upside, though, there will be kids in Massachusetts soon hearing these words: "Hi, I'm Mr. Cluich, and I'll be your substitute teacher today." :DDear God. :eek:

Think of the children! Won't somebody please think of the children?!

http://www.simpsonspark.com/images/whitepages/lovejoy_helen.jpg

Dear God. :eek:

Think of the children! Won't somebody please think of the children?!

http://www.simpsonspark.com/images/whitepages/lovejoy_helen.jpg

You fail at image posting. :p

It shows up fine for me.

It shows up fine for me.

Sure, it does now... :p

Mechanically, holding a drill to your forehead is actually surgery, too. Luckily, mechanics is seldom the sum total of definition. ;)

For insurance purposes, dabbing liquid nitrogen on your skin is "surgery."

I would have never thought given the nature of the people in this group that this would be the bizzare taboo subject that it is. It's second only to copyright. Fortunately what you all do to copyright in the privacy of your own nations doesn't concern me. What you do to the dead in the privacy of your nations troubles me greatly.

Sure, it does now... :p
I must leap - leap! - to the defence of the honourable Kennyite representative. I had no trouble viewing the image in his post even before you yourself posted, good sir.

Allowing or not allowing Necrophilia is a states right and a matter on individual law, This issue doesn’t effect the international community at large or International Trade and should even be a issue address by the UN

Delegate: Phantom Reg.

Quorum!!! Yay!!!

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/WT_Rare_Breed.jpg

On the upside, though, there will be kids in Massachusetts soon hearing these words: "Hi, I'm Mr. Cluich, and I'll be your substitute teacher today." :DYet another reason to not live in Taxachusetts... :p

:eek: , you may already know about this, but Wisconsin currently has no laws prohibiting necrophilia. Three guys were arrested earlier this month, but were let off when a judge found there was no law against it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia Its near the bottom.

The Executive Council of The Most Serene Republic of Holy Persia wishes to announce its disdain for the resolution currently before the United Nations, seeking to "Outlaw Necrophilia". It is a disturbing waste of United Nations time and attention. There are many more pressing issues that the community of nations should be seeking to resolve.

Further, the resolution seeks to encompass in its language the outlawing of all "desecration of corpses". In that regard, should the resolution pass, Holy Persia will deem the traditional Zensunni practice, fundamental to the spiritual lives of the Persian people, of reclaiming the lifes water from the deceased members of their communities to fall outside the purvue of the resolution.

What you do to the dead in the privacy of your nations troubles me greatly.

Yes, evidently, but why? What can it matter to the government of Tzorsland what happens in some unremarkable spot in some unremarkable nation to the vacated hulk of some unremarkable person who, when alive, didn't even know of your -- admittedly, remarkable -- existence?

I can't help but feel that this proposal is Mrs Grundyism in full flight. Unless it's some sort of tactical exercise or learning project, it just doesn't seem to have any point.

Even if this is not a problem for the UN, i will try to make a analysis of the problem (cause i like to)

A)a corpse has no soul/life therefor it is a object. therefor it is not capable of consent/lack of consent. sexual activity with an object can not and be rape.

B) therefor the problem belongs in "sexual activity with an object" and the problem is: who is the owner of the object? until death the live person is the owner of it's body. But what happens after death? this posible situations come to mind:
1a)the person left specific instructions about what shall be done with the body after death. (cremated, burried, etc). if these instructions include the ones about sexual activity (improbable but possible) these instructions will have priority.
1b)if not the "caretaker" (the one that is intrusted to follow the burial instructions) becomes in charge with the body (because the dead person had faith in him to fulfil the arrangements and implicitly entrusted him with the ownership of the body until the arrangements are met) and decides if/who/in what conditions there will (or there will not) be any kind of sexual activity with the body until/after the desired arrangements are met

2)the person did not leave specific instructions about what will happen with the body. Therefor the body becomes property of the next of kin. (husband/kids/mother, boyfriend,friend). If there is more than one person that wants the body (for whatever reasons there may be) the battle will be similar with custody battles and it will come to court. (since the person left no instructions there will probably be witnesses and/or declarations on both sides and the judge/court of law decides who gets the body). after this the new owner of the body decides if/who/in what conditions there will (or there will not) be any kind of sexual activity with the body

This resolution defines Necrophilia as "any unauthorized sexual act, performed on a deceased individual" but it tries to ban any sexual act performed on a deceased individual (by not defining a "authorised" sexual act of this kind and therefor saying in a indirect way that all sexual acts performed on a deceased individual are "unauthorised") so i vote NO.

What a waste of time, there must be more important issues to worry about. Is necrophilia wrong and discusting, yes, but is it really a problem of the UN. This resolution seems a bit like overkill. Necrophilia is not a problem in the dominion of Liemannen and don't really think that necrophilia is that widespread in other countries either.

The Republic of Aquilonius Gloria strongly agrees with the Principality of Ausserland

This is no matter for the UN and should rather be given to each and every country´s legislators. Although necrophilia is based on sick and unchristian acts we must allow national law go its due course.

The resolution speaks of consent. Of course the dead body cannot give consent because it is dead. What rights do the dead have? When the life and soul has left the body, can you call the dead body human? And consernig that, would human rights apply for the dead body?

The Republic of Aquilonius Gloria feels that the act of necrophilia does not concern the body in itself rather the family and friends left behind. We must not forget that desecration of the body is in its profanity and sin a clear violation of all that is holy, however the UN does not have the authority to put such a proposal in action.

Another reason for voting against this proposal is that it states that governmens should "punish those guilty of corpse desecration to the fullest extent of the law". What law? What the resolution is saying is that there is no universal scale on wich to weigh the seriousness of necrophilia. The fullest extent of the law in one country might say that necrophiliacs should be put to death, while people in the next are merely fined. Such vagueness is really undermining the seriousness of the UN.

Conserning medical care, each member nation should be allowed to deside what treatment is needed. Pardon me but it is bloody unlikely that the offender will need therapy if he or she i s going to be put to death!

We vote no to this subquality resolution.

Gunnar i Krossinum
Ambassador to the UN

We're actually against this one. We don't think the issue is so urgent that such a poor resolution would be better than no resolution. In particular:

DEFINING necrophilia, for the purposes of this resolution, as any unauthorized sexual act, performed on a deceased individual,
The word 'unauthorised' makes this resolution completely ineffective - nations wanting to continue to allow necrophilia can just say any sexual act performed on a deceased individual is authorised.

NOTING that a corpse is incapable of consent, and that such lack of consent is why rape is commonly considered an inappropriate act,
Consent is only an issue for sentient (or semi-sentient) beings.

RECOMMENDS that member nations outlaw the desecration of corpses,
The resolution hasn't explicity stated that necrophilia counts as desecration of a corpse.

Plus, we don't think 'moral decency' is ever a good reason to do something (it should be rephrased as a human rights issue).

...while I am personally ...um...wierded out by this whole topic, not to mention the discussion, I do not see it as an issue of global import and will have to vote in opposition. Additionally, resolutions should be more thoughtfully and artfully crafted.

Better topics for the UN would be white slavery and the traffic of children for the purposes of exploitation.

AOG
Greater Cake

Better topics for the UN would be white slavery and the traffic of children for the purposes of exploitation.
Mmm, sad that this proposal stops you from writing proposals on these topics.























OH WAIT.

Mmm, sad that this proposal stops you from writing proposals on these topics.



OH WAIT.

You are right, it doesn't. And maybe I will. Or maybe I'll draft a resolution banning sarcasm.







OH WAIT.

An elderly man (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Aj_Ud), with a pale brown, wrinkled face, makes his way slowly to the podium, aided by a young Asian woman (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Kim_Min-Sun). The old man coughs, and stands somewhat unsteadily, leaning forward heavily on the podium.

While Prime Secretary Aj Ud’s failing health had been dutifully reported on by the media, it is now clear to the international community how frail the 84 year-old head of State (twice hospitalised in recent years) has become.

As he begins to speak, he addresses the Assembly in his native language, Wymgani, while UN translators convey his words in various languages to the numerous delegates. His voice trembles slightly, but is still strong enough to be heard.

“Your Excellencies, esteemed delegates of the international community, comrades and friends, ladies and gentlemen,

As I approach the end of my final term as Prime Secretary of the People’s Democratic Social Republic of Ariddia, I would be remiss were I not to address this august Assembly, which carries such potential for the benefit of all sentient species.

Before I comment on the proposal currently at vote, I would like to commend the United Nations on the progressive legislation it has adopted and implemented in the fields of sentient rights, social and civil rights and environmental responsability, including resolutions 6, 11, 14, 25, 26, 28, and, more recently, resolutions 146, 149 and 160. Such resolutions affirm the universal value of essential rights and priorities, and offer concrete proof of the worth of the United Nations as a vehicle for progress throughout the world.

My country cannot help but voice its concern, however, at a recent swing towards a more conservative stance in the General Assembly. Too often selfishness, insentivity and ignorance cloud the judgement and harden the hearts of the world’s leaders. We are also concerned at the lack of participation and debate by the overwhelming majority of member States, and at the presence in our midst of illiterate delegates unable to sustain a rational, informed debate. My country deplores this state of affairs, and urges all member States to ensure that their representatives to this august body are selected on the basis of their skill, intelligence, rationality and commitment to the principles and procedures of the United Nations. We must, however, thank the representatives who do contribute thoughts, suggestions and indeed proposals aimed at furthering the rights and well-being of all sentient beings.”

He pauses, coughing, and with his taut, trembling arms steadies his grip on the podium.

“Your Excellencies, my statement on the current proposal will be brief. While I fully understand the concerns expressed by the representative of Karmicaria, it is my belief that this matter is best left to the particularities of national legislation, especially in view of the fact that most member States already possess legislation on this sensitive issue. I have therefore, with the approval of the People’s Prime Parliament, the Council of Secretaries and the Esati authorities, requested that Ambassador Zyryanov should abstain from voting on this proposal.”

He pauses, seeming a little dazed for a moment, then continues.

“Your Excellencies. My country has consistently sought to balance the necessity for progressive legislation to ensure sentient rights, including essential social rights, as well as sustainable development and environmental legislation, on the one hand, and the indisputable right to national sovereignty on the other.

This is, undoubtedly, the last time I will have the opportunity to address this distinguished Assembly. The people of Ariddia will choose their next Prime Secretary when my term in office comes to an end. Whoever that may be, it is my hope Ariddia will continue to be a voice for progress, reason and sentient rights in this organisation. Above all, I would like to re-iterate my full support and confidence in Ambassador Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov), the skilled and dedicated representative of my country within this organisation.

I commend you all again on your work on behalf of all sentient beings, and encourage you to continue your efforts. It has been a privilege for my country to work with the international community on vital progressive issues.

Thank you for your kind attention.”

The elderly Ariddian leader steps cautiously off the podium, and walks away with the careful assistance of Ms. Kim (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Kim_Min-Sun).

I would like to make the following prepared statement to those who think that this resolution is a waste of time. Ah forget that, I'll just make these off the cuff remarks instead. Have you seen the resolution queue ltely? Have you? It ain't big. In fact there is only one resolution on the queue, "Freedom of Assembly."

I am so sick and tried of whimpy representatives who couldn't push a resolution to quorum never mind have the mental capacity to even write one complain about how this resolution is a waste of time. Obviously they would much prefer the previous debate about removing hemp from the reslutions. That was sure some valuable quality time spent there.

So if you don't mind, I'm going back to the stranger's bar. I need a drink, NOW!

An elderly man (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Aj_Ud), with a pale brown, wrinkled face, makes his way slowly to the podium, aided by a young Asian woman (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Kim_Min-Sun). *snip*

How much for your secretary?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Despite all personal disagreements concerning necrophilia, outlawing it would be like outlawing homosexuality. Straight illegalization would be an invasion of the people's rights to sexuality. Necrophilia should only be made illegal under the following circumstances:
1) One makes an illegal entry into a morgue or any such holding place for the dead
2) One commits murder to "make love" to the corpse

Won't someone please think of how much more emo the world's vampires will get if it's illegal for them to get laid?

Hahah, just because of that I would have to repel the notion :D

--snip--
Rono Pyandran leaned back in his chair. Boooring. This was why it was important he spent as much time as possible speaking in the UN - if he didn't, some shaky old dude with a bad haircut would start rambling on about this and that.

Still, he had to sit through it. His buddy Lennto was still in Gruenberg, and his replacement hadn't arrived yet; Hevan and Korbitz were in the communications office, frantically messaging delegates about plug plug plug the repeal (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=hearing) plug plug plug; McXiminez was in the Strangers' Bar, of course; and Jiffjeff was being even frostier than usual. He just hoped she'd written that letter (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=178&view=findpost&p=4887392) to the RSC ok. And someone had to man the desk, or else Faisano's buddies would start carving obscenities into it again.

"...cannot help but voice its concern, however, at a recent swing towards a more conservative stance..."

Huh. He remembered his reaction when he'd been briefed on the past resolutions from the earlier days of the UN. If he ran through the GA waving a red flag, turned his desk into a barricade, and belted out The Internationale through a rolled-up cone made out of a free trade agreement, it'd still be taking a more conservative stance. When were these commies going to get it? One or two raindrops still didn't make a monsoon.

"...to ensure that their representatives to this august body are selected on the basis of their skill, intelligence, rationality and commitment to the principles and procedures of the United Nations..."

The UN office currently consisted of an ambassador to the UN who couldn't spell "ambassador" or "UN" (but could crack a walnut without using her hands, according to Splork! magazine); a deputy ambassador who viewed anyone with skin darker than #12 on the Dulux scale as belonging in a zoo and the abolition of slavery as form of economic warfare, a deputy deputy who was right now drinking, vomiting, and still trying to hit on the Thessadorian ambassador; a frigid hard-nosed cold-hearted palaeoconservative bitch of a legal aide; an environmental advisor whose factory had caused the most destructive environmental disaster (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=130) in Gruenberger history; and an IP rep who was so boring they used him to carry out badger culls whenever TB was found in the cattle herds. Plus Korbitz was just a useless fuck.

The old fogey took off for a second, wheezing like a fish out of water. Pyandran knew the feeling - he got hacking coughs like that usually between the second and third can of aerosol of the morning.

Then he carried on again. Great.

"...Thank you for your kind attention."

That mean it's over? Phew. Pyandran looked around - others were standing and applauding. A woman was sobbing. The Cluichstanis were leering.

As the old guy tottered off, Pyandran reluctantly clapped a few times, and whispered to the interpreter, "So, who was that?"

"Prime Secretary of Ariddia. I think he feels that'll be his last address to the UN."

"Oh...lucky us."

The interpreter frowned.

"Alright then. Get onto our ambassador to PDSRA...have him send a fruit basket or something."

How much for your secretary?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

You old pervert... Zyryanov thought, but did not say. Instead, she smiled pleasantly.

"I'm afraid she's not for sale. She's rather useful as a secretary, you see... and somehow I don't think a career with the CPESL would particularly appeal to her."

You old pervert... Zyryanov thought, but did not say. Instead, she smiled pleasantly.

"I'm afraid she's not for sale. She's rather useful as a secretary, you see... and somehow I don't think a career with the CPESL would particularly appeal to her."


Who said anything about CPESL? I was thinking of...private employment.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Who said anything about CPESL? I was thinking of...private employment.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

A flattering offer, I'm sure, but I doubt Ms. Kim will be particularly interested. I'll... convey your offer.

Respectfully,

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I decided that a trip to Starbucks was probably better than a trip to the bar. Since coffee “gets you going” I am now ready to debates the merits of this resolution, whether anyone cares or not. Ah the joys of espresso; so small and yet so powerful. When combined with a lot of warm milk, and toasted slices of buttered Cuban bread, it becomes the breakfast of champions!

A corpse is a corpse, of course, of course. No one can talk to a corpse, of course. But in general that corpse, before it was a corpse, was generally quite alive and able to express his or her opinion in a very significant manner. And so, I will present exhibits A, B, C and D.

http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/12909456/190659642.jpg http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/12909456/190659643.jpg http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/12909456/190659639.jpg http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/12909456/190659645.jpg

Now what do all these things have in common? Well they all hold one or more corpses. Yes those inanimate objects that are the subject of this debate; those former shells of sentient beings that some would consider mere objects to be used as just another sex toy occupying prime land and forming popular tourist attractions. How many building projects have been stopped because someone found a single bone of a person from long ago in the topsoil?

Yes, a corpse is a corpse, but it is so much more. Everyone in this room will probably one day become one. Do you really want some nameless person or even worse a UN gnome having sexual relations with your now inanimate body? Somehow I don’t think so. My fellow delegates, even generals loathe waging wars over the bodies of the dead. They erect massive monuments to their legacy and give their cemeteries significant honors and ceremony. And yet there are those who feel that sexual desecration is perfectly acceptable? Dignity is a fundamental human right that extends well beyond the grave. A person is not some object to be abused in some bizarre sexual manner. Fundamental human rights are perfectly within the purview of the United Nations. Therefore I humbly request that you approve this resolution forthwith.

Oh, and do I really need to mention this? The definition of a corpse is “a dead body especially of a human being.” A vampire is not a “dead body” but an undead one. Thus a vampire is not a corpse. Please think of the language, and stop driving stakes in this issue. Oh and please get rid of the garlic, you offend the living more than the undead.

ok, as a response to some of your posts:

what if the person allowed a loved one to have sexual intercourse with it's body after death? this law says it's not right to do so

so basicly i say:
1) if a person realy cares what happens to his/her body after death he makes a will/last request wich should be followed
2) if there is no such will/last request therefor we don't know the desires of the person, the person in charge with the body (next of kin, etc) will decide.
3)IF there is no will/last request AND no next of kin/person in charge THEN the body becomes property of the state and the state decides. and again it depends on the nation's law. some wil burry it, some will colect it's organs, some will clone it, some will build monuments, whatever their beliefs may be.

EITHER WAY, IT'S NOT A PROBLEM FOR THE U.N.

but it would make a great ISSUE (with these choices: ban it, allow it in any forms, allow it only with consent of the deceased and/or next of kin/person in charge with the body)

what if the person allowed a loved one to have sexual intercourse with it's body after death?

Eariler versions of this resolution had such provisions. Earilier versions of this resolution had an impossible time getting approvals and was attacked because it had such provisions.

Considering the manure we routinely discuss here in the UN, I think this is indeed a matter for the UN to debate and discuss. If you don't like it, vote no. If you think this is a waste of your time, then why the hell are you here on the floor? The stranger's bar is over there. You can have a much better time there, and it's even got a cute shrine in it. It's real cute they say.

i didn't say it's not worth my time... it's a intresting ideea, but for a issue, not for the U.N.
oh... and i voted NO. :D from the first minute i saw it.

NOTING that a corpse is incapable of consent, and that such lack of consent is why rape is commonly considered an inappropriate act,



so... if you're underwear isn't giving consent... does that mean you're raping your clothes?

aside from that, i'm voting for the resolution, the fact is that people who are willing to have sex with a dead person are a danger to society.

Ausserland has voted NO. There is simply no rational justification for the NSUN to be legislating on this matter. It has absolutely no international implications. It is not an issue of human rights. It can and should be properly addressed at the national (or lower) level. It fails every test for an issue properly within the purview of this organization.

In Ausserland, we believe that corpses should be treated with appropriate respect. We have laws that attempt to ensure that is done. We believe that it is appropriate for the people of each nation to decide for themselves what is the best course to take in this regard. We see no possible rationale for the almighty Big Brother NSUN to meddle in those decisions.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I see what the UN is saying and my nation is in full support of it.

Just thinking about it gives me the chills.

Outlaw Morality Pandering
A resolution to restrict the imposition of morals with no valid public purpose, which seek to curtail civil freedoms while hand-waving about "decency."

DEFINING necrophilia as just one more masturbatory act with inanimate materials,

DISTURBED by the idea that the UN should concern itself with self-evidently neutral activities such as masturbation,

NOTING that a corpse is the inanimate property of the individual(s) who have inherited such, and that unauthorized taking or use of another's property is already the subject of numerous laws,

CONSIDERING the high cost of superstitious "burial rites" and of cemetary maintenance,

OBSERVING that emotional damage comes primarily from the morality panderers who try to stigmatize otherwise incidental or trivial behavior,

RECOMMENDS that member nations notice and systematically eschew morality pandering and demagoguery;

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to think broadly in encouraging the recycling, reuse, and repurposing of materials that would otherwise be discarded;

CALLS UPON member nations to identify and publish best practices for preserving corpses as sex objects considering the variations in each nation's climate, naturally available materials for preservation, cultural and aesthetic predispositions, etc., and to eliminate all barriers in the international trade of preserved corpses offered as sexual devices / toys / amusements except as required for public health and security.

That post seals it. We vote for.

It's getting really quite disturbing just how good opponents of resolutions I'm ambivalent about are at fashioning such odious arguments I'm compelled to vote in favour of them.

When I was UN delegate, the author of this resolution sent me a telegram, soliciting my endorsement of her proposal. I refused for two reasons. This is yet another example of a resolution for a resolution's sake. And, I wonder if the United Nations should really be micro-managing every little aspect of our citizens' lives. Yes, I think we can all agree that necrophilia is a bad thing, but come on, would the real United Nations even debate such an issue, much less try to pass a resolution about it? NO. So, for the reasons listed above, the good people of Phillippe are adamently and vehemently OPPOSED to this resolution.

but come on, would the real United Nations even debate such an issue

We are the real UN!! Oh…. Do you mean this “RLUN” people speak of…hmmm???
I’ve heard that they have been known to pass resolutions for the sake of passing resolutions also. I’ve also heard they are more boring yet still less efficient. Although I have never been a member of this “RLUN” I think I would still prefer NSUN. Anyway, I do agree with your point but The Fat Cats of Kethland will be abstaining.

It's getting really quite disturbing just how good opponents of resolutions I'm ambivalent about are at fashioning such odious arguments I'm compelled to vote in favour of them.

I find myself in agreement. I'm sick and tired of people bitching about how the UN could better spend it's time by dealing with some other subject. I just cast my vote FOR now as a result. Furthermore, if you think that the UN's time would be better spent on another subject, WRITE A DAMN PROPOSAL ABOUT IT AND THEN WE'LL TALK.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The Federal Republic opposes this heap of fluffy emotional claptrap masquerading as a morality initiative.

At the core of our opposition are this resolution’s patently absurd arguments justifying the illegality of necrophilia. I mean, sure, necrophilia is evil and ought to be banned -- I’m not certain the United Nations is the right body to be banning it, but this is a mild proposal with sovereignty-friendly language, so let’s examine this article’s purported reasons for the recommended prohibition instead:

First off, we have this profoundly silly definition of the central term, deeming necrophilia to be the “unauthorized” sexual desecration of a deceased, as though we need to take into account the wishes of people who will for their bodies to be mistreated after they die. We realize this language was altered for the sake of over-the-top liberals in this body who think the fate of corpses ought to be a matter of “individual choice,” but this is ridiculous.

There are also the proposal’s stated reasons for why necrophilia is bad: because a corpse can’t give “consent”? Uhh, right. That’s the most important thing; skeletons can’t say “yes.” What about the risk of spreading disease and the potentially damaging effects on community health posed by allowing such a practice? What about the high costs of public health programs instituted to fight these health risks, and the fact that it’s just cheaper to enforce a necrophilia ban? What about the fact that screwing dead guys is just plain sick and -- dare I say it? -- immoral? What’s more, this clause about the “emotional damage to the families” of diddled remains ignores the real victims of postmortem sexual assault: it ain’t the families (partly because, let’s face it, that episode of “South Park” where they dig up Stan’s grandmother is fucking hilarious); it is the state that is wronged by such crimes. In the Federal Republic, we don’t arrest criminals because the victims are sad; we arrest criminals for the sake of removing potential threats to society, and protecting the safety of law-abiding citizens. This whole concept of doing it for the sake of the “victims’ families” is just touchy-feely nonsense invented by the news media and episodes of “Law and Order.” We take necrophiliacs down because, as previously demonstrated, they pose a grave risk to public health and community safety; not because a few relatives are upset. It is a shame that this bill ignores the many good public-interest reasons for banning necrophilia in favor of a lot of feel-good psychobabble the fluffies so admire about “victim’s rights,” “emotional distress” and “consent.”

Finally, the last clause calling upon nations to provide counseling for necrophiliacs is, quite frankly, nauseating. What is this: Moral Decency or a big group hug? This business of “rehabilitating” criminals by letting them open up to licensed therapists about childhood traumas is a bunch of nonsense concocted by criminal apologists who think evil people can be “reformed” if everyone could just have an “open mind” and try to “understand” the “root causes” for criminal outbursts. We don’t need to hear about how Johnny hated his mother, and his father was unforgiving, and teacher never let him have seconds on his free federal breakfast, which is why he jerks it to zombie flicks today; in the Federal Republic, we much prefer simply arresting offenders, bringing them to justice, and carting them off to the big house, where they are raped by fellow inmates and then “accidentally” killed by corrections officials during prison riots. This added therapy bonus for corpse-lovers will do no more to reduce criminal activity than an ancient Karmicarian voodoo dance.

It is for the above-stated reasons that the Federal Republic will be casting its vote against this proposition once the roll is called.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

The Motherland of Teneur feels this resolution would hold better sway if it was simply named "Outlaw Corpse Desecration". To name it "Outlaw Necrophilia" implies it is of a very narrow scope. The Motherland of Teneur agrees with other delegates that this resolution is a case of the NSUN trying to micromanage its member nations. Secondly the Motherland of Teneur feels the individual member nations should have the juristiction regarding corpse desicration laws. The Motherland of Teneur must cote no to this resolution on the bases of its poor premise.

My personal opinion:

Frankly, this is a waste of legislation. Not only is this in a ficticious UN, but do we really need to outlaw Necrophilia? It would force all nations to conform to this standard, and there could be the hypothetical nation that regards necrophilia as an honor to the dead (regardless of how stupid that sounds). Anyways...I think necrophilia is an abhorrent practice, but regardless of that, I know some people with dark senses of humor who would think that this is a creative use of their body, simply because it is going to degrade anways. These people should at least be given an option in their wills for that.

On another level, necrophilia might lower sexual frustration and result in a drop of sex crimes. Not to mention that this would require governments to provide counsel to necrophiliacs...what a waste of tax money.

Wouldn't it be more practical to let individual nations regulate this?

Fully agree with Omigodtheykilledkenny

Not to mention that this would require governments to provide counsel to necrophiliacs...what a waste of tax money.


Okay, no where in this resolution does it require anything. It encourages, calls upon and recommends. There is nothing that says that nations are required to do anything. If read and understood, you will see that member nations have an option. There is nothing about mandating anything.

"After reviewing the arguments this far, we were kind of iffy on whether or not we'd support this, despite our support earlier on. However, the non-mandatory nature of this is the selling point, for us. You have our continued support, as we vote for." Wolfgang returns to digitally slaughtering people on his computer.

I do not want this to pass because I think blockers should only be done on major topics in which alot of people try to get passed. I understand it is a moral issue and alot of people don't really want the UN to legislate on moral issues(I don't really care on alot of them). But, don't make a blocker on every single little moral issue just in case there passed. That's a waste of time.

On the logic of submitting a blocker for all moral issues the UN would never do anything ever again because it would be continously making blockers.

We cannot support this proposal. First and foremost, we see no reasonable justification for the NSUN to involve itself with this issue. It has absolutely no international aspect to it whatever. It is not a matter of fundamental human rights. And it can and should be addressed by individual nations as they see fit.

Also, the proposal is fundamentally flawed. It defines necrophilia, but then uses the term only in the final clause, concerning provision of care for necrophiliacs. It never defines "desecration of corpses", the activity it attempts to have outlawed.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

My thoughts exactly.

I do not want this to pass because I think blockers should only be done on major topics in which alot of people try to get passed. I understand it is a moral issue and alot of people don't really want the UN to legislate on moral issues(I don't really care on alot of them). But, don't make a blocker on every single little moral issue just in case there passed. That's a waste of time.

On the logic of submitting a blocker for all moral issues the UN would never do anything ever again because it would be continously making blockers.

You don't count "making blockers" as doing something simply because they aren't doing what you want them to?

You might want to take a look at your own "logic". It leads to folks being able to say that a toaster does nothing because they don't like things toasty, and prefer their breads to be blackened piles of ashes.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Do to the philisophical diversity of 1337phr33kia, there is debate as to who owns the cadaver. We try to uphold the fact that the body has, is, and always will, so long as it can be called a body, belong to the individual. Also, someones original descision on their property remains even after the person is no longer able to give a more recent opinion.

The point is, your body is yours, dead or alive, and the government cannot tell you what you can or cannot do, or allow to be done to, your body.

The consensus of the citizens of Delphitopia is that necrophilia is a revolting act. Nonetheless, we also believe that the dead are but empty shells and care not how they are treated once the soul is departed. Furthermore, what people choose to do with their dead is their own business.

We hereby vote "nay" toward laws being placed on personal freedoms that harm no one (especially the dead).

Chairman Delphius

We're frankly appalled to see two experienced and highly respected members of this Assembly stating that they are voting for this proposal simply because they object to certain arguments made by its opponents.

We cannot speak for other nations, but the people of Ausserland would consider us derelict in our duties if we voted for or against resolutions to spite their proponents or opponents. They expect us to cast the nation's votes based on the merits and demerits of the legislation, not out of spite.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

When I was UN delegate, the author of this resolution sent me a telegram, soliciting my endorsement of her proposal. I refused for two reasons. This is yet another example of a resolution for a resolution's sake. And, I wonder if the United Nations should really be micro-managing every little aspect of our citizens' lives. Yes, I think we can all agree that necrophilia is a bad thing, but come on, would the real United Nations even debate such an issue, much less try to pass a resolution about it? NO. So, for the reasons listed above, the good people of Phillippe are adamently and vehemently OPPOSED to this resolution.

I agree this is a pointless resolution!

You don't count "making blockers" as doing something simply because they aren't doing what you want them to?

You might want to take a look at your own "logic". It leads to folks being able to say that a toaster does nothing because they don't like things toasty, and prefer their breads to be blackened piles of ashes.
Oh actualy that's not true really. Well with some blockers it is of course but I do by now belive there is a place for certain blockers. I actualy don't really think the UN should be involved in necrophilia. But I don't belive in blockers unless it is an issue in which a large amount of people make proposals on or there is serious consideration on making them.

For example the UN taxation ban(which is by now probably a rule but not taking htat into account) alot of people try to make the UN collect money. So this is serving a purpose. So is Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, ALC(which I am opposed to but that is for other reasons), UN Educational Aid Act(it is not just a blocker) and probably more.

We're frankly appalled to see two experienced and highly respected members of this Assembly stating that they are voting for this proposal simply because they object to certain arguments made by its opponents.

We cannot speak for other nations, but the people of Ausserland would consider us derelict in our duties if we voted for or against resolutions to spite their proponents or opponents. They expect us to cast the nation's votes based on the merits and demerits of the legislation, not out of spite.
We are casting our vote based on the merits of the legislation. We just don't feel strongly about it: we tentatively voted for, but we were quite willing to go against if good arguments were presented. They weren't (or haven't been, so far). Given that, we see no compelling reason to change our vote. Furthermore, some of the arguments against the resolution (only by a few, admittedly) have been so irritating and appalling that they have managed to convince us to support it.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

As our first action as a member of the United Nations, we ardently oppose said resolution. Our official address follows:

Fellow Constituants:
The resolution proposed today lacks full support of the socialist state of fultron3000. While we absolutly do not contend that said legislation is completly completly off track with our national and regional intreats, we do see a fatal flaw.

The flaw that causes us to oppose the resolution is the definition of mecrophilia. The definition supplied does not take into account consentual acts of sexual nature on a deceased being. If one approves of another's actions before they die, this action is still one of necrophilia. therefore, the definition is too narrow. It simply defines rape after death, and a resolution with the title supplied should cover all acts of necrophilia should it pass. Seeing as our nation provides the right of presumption to the defendant (innocent until proven guilty), the indicated resolution would be very hard to actually enforce in many instances. Establishing laws one cannot fully punish is dangerous, and U.S.S. Fultron3000 will not support resolutions of this nature. Furthermore, there is a difference between "corpse desecration" and necrophilia. This difference creates a broad loophole in the resolution, as the term "corpse desecration" is not defined.

Should the following issues be addressed, redefining necrophilia as '...any unauthorized sexual act...' and replacing the term "corpse desecration" with necrophilia, Fultron3000 will reconsider it's ardent and complete opposition to said resolution. As a closing note, we commend the effort of the drafters and supporters of this resolution, but do not believe it acceptable in it's current form.

Respectfully,
Che Fultron
UN Ambassador for The United Socialist States of Fultron3000

Votes For: 2,757

Votes Against: 995

Voting Ends: Sat Sep 30 2006

Currently necrophilia is not a serious problem in Mikitivity, so should this resolution pass, it would not likely have any significant impacts on our government -- which usually is a good thing. Like the honorable ambassador from the Wolf Guardians pointed out, this resolution does have several positive elements which I've noted in my first analysis of the resolution. First, the resolution takes a mild tone that is respectiful of sovereignty and domestic solutions to domestic problems. All too often resolutions attempt a one-size fits all approach, while in this case we really are debating a "mild" proposal to protect the memories and feelings of survivors of the recently deceased by prohibiting anybody from tampering with the bodies of the deceased. Second, this resolution does encourage governments to provide some degree of medical attention to those that might practice or intent to practice necrophilia.

That said, this is a new subject for the United Nations to discuss, and my government is a bit wary in adopting a resolution if it will have significant social and economic impacts on large numbers of UN members. With that in mind, I'd like to ask all amabassadors what sort of costs (social or economic) this resolution will bring to your societies?

Howie T. Katzman

There have been very few representatives that have been able to come up with valid arguments for their opposition. Out of the ones that have, I would like to address The Federal Republic first.

First off, we have this profoundly silly definition of the central term, deeming necrophilia to be the “unauthorized” sexual desecration of a deceased, as though we need to take into account the wishes of people who will for their bodies to be mistreated after they die. We realize this language was altered for the sake of over-the-top liberals in this body who think the fate of corpses ought to be a matter of “individual choice,” but this is ridiculous.

Mr. Faisano is correct. To broadly define necrophilia as involving consent in any way would be silly. This is why is it only defined thusly for the purposes of this resolution, which allows it to infringe on national legislature less than would otherwise be the case.

There are also the proposal’s stated reasons for why necrophilia is bad
....
“victim’s rights,” “emotional distress” and “consent.”

We could have listed and included every possible reason and argument against necrophilia in the preamble of this resolution, but that would have made it prohibitively long, cumbersome, tedious, boring, and superfluous. The reasons listed in the proposal are valid ones, and ones that most intelligent members can agree upon. As long as we are agreed that necrophilia should be outlawed, it should matter little whether or not every single little thing is included. The end result would remain the same.

Finally, the last clause calling upon nations to provide counseling for necrophiliacs is, quite frankly, nauseating. What is this: Moral Decency or a big group hug? This business of “rehabilitating” criminals by letting them open up to licensed therapists about childhood traumas is a bunch of nonsense concocted by criminal apologists who think evil people can be “reformed” if everyone could just have an “open mind” and try to “understand” the “root causes” for criminal outbursts.

Good thing that it's not a mandating clause, then. Don't like it? Don't do it.

in the Federal Republic, we much prefer simply arresting offenders, bringing them to justice, and carting them off to the big house, where they are raped by fellow inmates and then “accidentally” killed by corrections officials during prison riots.

Ah yes. The Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny. Where the only thing lower than governmental morality is the IQ of the citizenry. Of course you wouldn't be interested in attempting to actually rectify the problem. Much less taxing on the brain cells to simply eliminate the offenders that you can actually catch. Of course, that's probably a fairly small percentage of real offenders, as real police work does take brain-power as well.

This added therapy bonus for corpse-lovers will do no more to reduce criminal activity than an ancient Karmicarian voodoo dance.

You would be amazed what those old voodoo dancers can accomplish.

It is for the above-stated reasons that the Federal Republic will be casting its vote against this proposition once the roll is called.

That is very unfortunate. It is my sincere hope that a majority of the national delegations present are not swayed by your misled arguments.

Are we still friends?:fluffle:

We The Empire of Memnoch de Marbulia back you in this venture.
basically we vote yes

I must admit that Our first impression of this Resolution was positive, and We intended to vote For.

However, upon further Review, We have determined that this Resolution suffers from many Flaws.

Firstly, it is Not the role of the United Nations to determine the finer levels of Morality of its member Nations. The moral taboo of Necrophilia, while it is such in Our Nation, is not necessarily so in Other Nations. Cultural and Religious Reasons are what determine this Level of Morality, which differ from One Nation to the Next.

Secondly, a Corpse cannot consent because It is not a Sentient Being. It is not even a Being. A Corpse is an Object, and in some Religions and Cultures is Meaningful. In others, it is Not. The United Nations should not determine Laws infringing upon Internal Religion and Culture.

Thirdly, the Key Points refer to Corpse Desecration, not Necrophilia. If this Resolution was changed to outlawing Corpse Desecration, that would be much more sensible. The Nations which have Cultures or Religions that do not grant Importance or Meaning to Corpses cannot have their corpses Desecrated, as they are not Consecrated, Sanctified, Respected, or any similar Synonym of these terms in the First place.

Lastly, the matter of Necrophilia is not one of International Importance. If the members of One Nation accept and regularly practice sexual Activities with Corpses of their Own Dead, this does not affect the members of Other Nations.

Therefore, although Eirisle agrees that the practice of Necrophilia is Immoral and should be Illegal, We also understand that not all Nations share this View, and that their sharing it or not does Not affect Us, and We therefore have No Right to force Our Views upon Them.

If other Nations' Citizens begin to enter Our Lands and have sexual intercourse with Our Corpses, then We shall be more inclined to agree to the Appropriateness of this Resolution. This is Not, however, and Invitation to Do So in order to prove your Point.

Speaker of Eirisle

Hayal People.

What is so wrong with performing sexual acts (or acts of love, as we of Suon like to name them) on ones deceased partner of a lifetime? Obviously corpses can be desecrated, but just as obviously, corpses can be loved. Rather than rush through with this absurd prohibition, I would advise all to think on how we can learn to discern between the two forms of necrophilia (one being of a purely selfish and evil nature, and the other, as it is practiced here in Suon, of a loving and beautiful quality) - discern between the two with trials by evidence as we would when deciding if a man meant to run over his cat with his hydro-car, with good motives (to put it out of its misery), or evil motives (he wanted to hear it squish). I should not need to remind you all, almost in passing, that far more profits can be generated for a country's legal system through prohibiting only certain forms of necrophilia, as more time would be spent on discerning whether a said act would be evil or good natured, than merely discerning whether the said act took place. Think of the money my friends.

This resolution is a waste of time, and it's motives appear to be quite confused. Whilst it is attempting to enforce a moral order, it is doing so not only with blinkered eyes, not only with no reason to do so, but also with no regard to the consequences if this resolution should be passed.

We of Suon thought the United Nations was a good body (pardon the pun). Now we fear we were mistaken.

Yes, to prohibit necrophilia is by definition to prohibit part of our grieving process here in Suon. For this reason, and for others we are not of mind to disclose here, we of Suon have voted Against.

Blarkaa Suon!

There is nothing wrong with necrophilia per se.

Waste is waste, whether it is broken cars or expired bodies. Corpse is an inanimate object and no consent is needed. There is only one person engaged in necrophilia - it's a form of masturbation.

However, in some nations with full inheritance rights human corpse may be the property of its former inhabitant. As so, he should have some rights to decide what to do with it - maybe strongly religious persons could demand that their corpse is not used for spare parts, or demand it to be buried, provided they pay all expenses and buy the land (in nations where it is sold).
This is true only for nations which do not outlaw religions. Others do not even need the term "necrophilia" to leave medical institutions. Corpse has no value or rights outside religion, and secular governments do not need to bother with it.

Pressing obscure resolutions on nations without religion via UN is plain totalitarism.

We could have listed and included every possible reason and argument against necrophilia in the preamble of this resolution, but that would have made it prohibitively long, cumbersome, tedious, boring, and superfluous. The reasons listed in the proposal are valid ones, and ones that most intelligent members can agree upon. As long as we are agreed that necrophilia should be outlawed, it should matter little whether or not every single little thing is included. The end result would remain the same.My point is not that you didn't include every single argument that conceivably could be made against necrophilia, just that you chose the wrong arguments. The points you make in your preamble are by no means the most intelligent arguments this Assembly could agree upon; in fact, they are really quite odd. You had a chance to make a compelling moral case for United Nations intervention on national postmortem desecration laws, but what you instead have produced is a very strange argument about corpses' inability to consent to sexual acts, and a rather weak argument about the grief of the families. Victims' families are emotionally affected by all sorts of offenses; it doesn't mean the UN should step in and declare them all illegal.

Good thing that it's not a mandating clause, then. Don't like it? Don't do it.And again you miss my point. Or rather, you sidestepped it. However, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply missed it. I am well aware that this provision, like the entire resolution, is essentially voluntary. What I was arguing was that this proposed solution will not reduce crime, even if every nation read it as mandatory and followed it to the letter.

Ah yes. The Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny. Where the only thing lower than governmental morality is the IQ of the citizenry. Of course you wouldn't be interested in attempting to actually rectify the problem. Much less taxing on the brain cells to simply eliminate the offenders that you can actually catch. Of course, that's probably a fairly small percentage of real offenders, as real police work does take brain-power as well.OK, I'm just going to assume I understood the purpose for that attack, that I returned with an extremely witty response, to which you fell to the floor with gales of laughter and effusive praise my supreme comedic genius, and that I can move on from this.

Are we still friends? *snipped revolting smiley*Only if we're friends with benefits.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

My nation is behind this resoulution 100% Such henious acts must be outlawed.

dude i thats just nasty im definately am voting to outlaw this its just wrong i don't want it in my nation!

dude i thats just nasty im definately am voting to outlaw this its just wrong i don't want it in my nation!

You can outlaw it in you own nation then.

But others should decide for themselves. They may even be not human, but cyborg - why would they care about necrophiles?
I find this resolution unnecessary and excessively intrusive, because corpse is an inanimate object, and no consent is needed - next step would be to outlaw rubber babes as they can not prove consent. Nations with christian morality can outlaw it, but ones with necromancy as major industry or ideology would suffer for no reason.

There is nothing wrong with necrophilia per se.

:( I'm so sad there isn't a throwing up smilie. That is so sick.

And no this has nothing to do with religion. We threw out (well they actually walked out) those Frustrated Franciscans a long time ago. There is everything wrong with necrophilia. It is as wrong as wrong can get.

The UN outlawed pedophilia didn't it? Was that another example of the UN pushing values to nations without religion? Personally they are both a matter of inalienable rights, that extend beyond the grave. I don't know who is burried in Grant's Tomb, but I'll be dammed if I'm going to let you [BEEP] his corpse! And no sex with King Tut either. Tut tut for even thinking of it.

The more you try to oppose this, the more I'm going to start wearing a full body condom to this chamber.

Take a good look at the various resolutions proposed by this body. Many are far milder than the descration of a person by [BEEP]ing his corpse after he has kicked the bucket. We have banned pedophilia, child pornography, and we "urged" the nations that children be taught masturbation (United Nations Resolution # 118). Almost everyone is going to be a corpse one of these days! THINK OF THE CORPSES TO BE! Come to think of it, THINK OF ME!

Initially the Allied States of Ragusa and Derbol were inclined to support this resolution but after having studied it carefully we are going to vote against it.

In the first place because this proposal is "A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency". We think the concept of moral decency varies enormously from nation to nation and even from person to person. It is something that depends largely on personal views and beliefs and it is also strongly influenced by religion. As a lay state in which the separation of Church and State is strictly enforced we don't think that we can legislate on the grounds of moral decency.

We don't like the words "to restrict civil liberties" either. We cherish civil liberties and the rights of the individual. We don't think that's the appropriate expression here and we wouldn't like to see it enshrined in a UN resolution.

In the second place we think the last two paragraphs are ambiguous:

"STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to punish those guilty of corpse desecration to the fullest extent of the law, and,

CALLS UPON member nations to provide counseling and medical care for those engaging in acts of necrophilia."

What does exactly mean "to punish those guilty to the fullest extent of the law"? As I'll explain later, we are against necrophilia but we think that there are much serious crimes.

And doesnt this paragraph contradict the last one in which "member nations are called upon to provide counseling and medical care for those engaging in acts of necrophilia"? So should we treat these persons as criminal offenders or as persons who suffer from a pathology and need a treatment?

Ragusa and Derbol, in spite of voting against this proposal, oppose necrophilia because as you point in your proposal, it can cause suffering to the relatives of the deceased person. Taking it from a plainly legal point of view, although some states have argued that a corpse is not alive and therefore it cannot give consent and the sexual intercourse doesnt cause suffering to the corpse, we think that as an inanimated object belonging to the deceased person it is inherited by the relatives of the deceased and therefore it could be punishable on the grounds of violation of private property rights.

Summing up, the main reasons why we vote against is because we think that the UN shouldnt legislate on the grounds of moral decency and shouldnt restrict civil liberties.

We would like to note though, that the Parliament of Ragusa and Derbol, encouraged by this proposal, pledges to bring in legislation to outlaw necrophilia on the grounds of psychological suffering inflicted to the deceased relatives and violation of private property rights. The Parliament will discuss too if the State should punish those engaging in acts of necrophilia or if they should be considered mentally ill individuals.

The Ambassador or the Allied States of Ragusa and Derbol

We have no choice but to, on guidance of moral and ethical imperitives, side with the esteemed abassador from Tzorsland on this contention. religion is minimally practiced and in some cases disaproved of in Fultron3000. however, there are many reasons why . We are considering legislation to defenestrate anyone who desecrates a corpse without prior consent of the human which once resided within from a 3 story building onto a hard dirt surace. Seeing as our society generally view marriage to be a devotion for life (not just the life of one party), we view necrophilia as acceptable in some cases as a grieving process as the Suons do.


We do not, however, agree with The Ambassador of the Allied States of Ragusa and Derbol. We too cherish civil liberties, we allow people to do anything they want to their own bodies. An action that infringes upon the rights of another, such as the right to one's body (to not become a sexual playtoy after death), should not be considered a right.

Again, the syntactic limitations of this reslolution prevent us from casting an affirming ballot.

Okay, so necrophilia is eeewwww! and also yuk! We seem to have an international consensus on that.

If your nation cares about it more than that, to the extent of considering it desecration or whatever, you will have laws about it. If you don't, you won't.

But by this proposal, the UN is saying that if you don't care about it you are a Very Naughty Nation, and you will just be made care about it, so there!

Now, I can see some point in the UN doing that sort of thing, if what you are being made to care about is something that undeniably affects other nations -- pandemics, for example.

So far, though, I haven't seen anything to show that one nation's laws, or lack of them, on necrophilia will affect the other citizens of the NS world(s) in any significant way.

In fact, I haven't seen anything to convince me that necrophilia is even occurring in NS nations -- though, given the line-up we have here, it's not improbable. (Several nations have referred to their citizens' religious practices, but, as these are exempt, I don't consider them germane).

All the same, it's tempting to say that we might as well vote for, on the grounds that it doesn't mean anything to my nation, but if it will make yours happy, whatever, have it your way, then.

But this reduces the UN to the role of a nagging Super-Nanny -- eat your greens, keep your nukes tidy and, how many times do I have to tell you, don't have sex with other people's grandmothers.

That's not good for the UN's moral authority. Passing pettifogging laws managing the most minor details of our national lives will simply lead to more nations developing Ministries for Creative Solutions. More and more of us will be quite proud of being considered Very Naughty Nations.

So when Nanny wants us to do something really important, something that might actually make the world(s) better, more of us will be likely to just laugh and run away -- oh, it's just another of Nanny's silly rules.

Ardchoille won't leave the UN even if the world parliament does turn itself into such a figure of fun. But we'd rather it didn't happen. That's why we'll stick around and argue against it going that way.

And that's why we're voting against this nice, clean proposal.
_______________________________

Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.

ya but its still weird and im votin for the outlaw in the UN!

ya but its still weird and im votin for the outlaw in the UN!

My, how eloquent!

I can't support this resolution simply because it's unnecessary. Okay, yeah, we've pretty much all conceded that necrophilia is bad, disgusting, and gross (except for maybe Vault 10, and I'm DEFINITELY not going near that one.)

But, if we all agree that necrophilia=bad, why do we need the UN to legislate it? We've agreed that it is bad, which means we probably already have laws against gettin' it on with corpses. I know the Empire does.

So, let me ask the yea group in general: why should I vote for this? Why should I allow the UN to tell me what I already know?

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

Ok, so I'm in here kind of late. Big whoop. Anyways....


I really don't see the need to outlaw necrophilia. When the person is dead, the person is dead. No one is being physically harmed by the act. Sure, if someone spots them doing it, that'd be just sick. But it's essentially the same as if you were having sex with your lamp. It's an inanimate object. It has no purpose besides taking up space in the Earth. Outlawing necrophilia would essentially be the same as outlawing homosexuality.

Short and sweet.

Thank you.

Necrophilia in itself needs to be outlawed this is why The Federal Alliance and the United Alliance is FOR outlawing Necrophilia.

:( I'm so sad there isn't a throwing up smilie. That is so sick.
The UN outlawed pedophilia didn't it?
Pedophilia harms living people. It is harmful both for physical and mental health of children, and for nation's health as well.

Necrophilia doesn't harm anything, because there can be nothing below dead.

Personally they are both a matter of inalienable rights, that extend beyond the grave.
What are you talking about? Graves? Not every nation even heard about graves, cremation is a popular alternative. And what rights can be there? One can't have rights to what no longer belongs to him. And a dead body no longer belongs to its former mind, because the person no longer exists. Something can't be the property of nothing. You can't store files in /dev/null.

Certain religions, of course, may impose belief that someone exists beyoud the grave and will once rise in his rotten body to go somewhere. Nations which believe in that may place any restrictions to the bodies.

Remember: no one is denied the right to outlaw necrophilia. Nations may do as they want.


Many are far milder than the descration of a person by [BEEP]ing his corpse after he has kicked the bucket.
Desec... what? You can't desecrate what isn't sacred, and something can be only sacred in accordance with religions.


THINK OF THE CORPSES TO BE! Come to think of it, THINK OF ME!
Oh! I get it! So that's why you are against - you're an asexual puritan corpse!
Well, I think you should establish certain corpse rights. And, actually, it won't matter whether necrophilia is legal, because it would be assault and rape anyway. You can just explain to people that your corpses aren't as defenseless, and I'm sure nobody will try to rape their leader anyway. Besides that, by outlawing necrophilia you'll also lose the right to have good consensual sex with women in your country. Think of yourself!

Ardchoilleans;11738022']Okay, so necrophilia is eeewwww! and also yuk! We seem to have an international consensus on that.

If your nation cares about it more than that, to the extent of considering it desecration or whatever, you will have laws about it. If you don't, you won't.

But by this proposal, the UN is saying that if you don't care about it you are a Very Naughty Nation, and you will just be made care about it, so there!

/snip/

And that's why we're voting against this nice, clean proposal.
_______________________________

Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.

[The Ausserland delegation rises and applauds the Co-President of Ardchoille.].

It is pretty clear that this issue revolves around whether we consider the dead to have rights, and that is usually based upon whether we consider the dead sacred or an inanimate lump of flesh. Since this is mostly a question of spirituality, lets leave it to member nations, shall we? If the UN must default, than it should pick Civil Rights over Moral Decency in the everyday leaves of citizens of member nations. If you don't want somebody to touch your corpse, get buried in your own country, and outlaw it. I doubt your cadaver is in any serious risk just because the UN hasn't banned necrophilia.

I'm not really a big fan of necrophilia, but I am a fan of rights so I ask this,

Before we ban necrophilia or anything else, tell me whose rights are violated by the practice.

How is a mass of bones and rotting flesh able to have its rights violated? Does such even have rights? I say that nothing should be illegal unless it causes real identifiable harm to someone else. You cannot harm a corpse. The only way necrophilia can violate anyone's rights is if someone f**ks a corpse that belongs to you without your permission.

This is the wrong path to walk down. Who is the government to tell people what they can and cannot do?

We're frankly appalled to see two experienced and highly respected members of this Assembly stating that they are voting for this proposal simply because they object to certain arguments made by its opponents.

We cannot speak for other nations, but the people of Ausserland would consider us derelict in our duties if we voted for or against resolutions to spite their proponents or opponents. They expect us to cast the nation's votes based on the merits and demerits of the legislation, not out of spite.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Well, to be perfectly honest Minister Olembe, I was leaning towards voting for anyway, the lack of decent arguements (with a few exceptions) just pushed me further in that direction.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Informal aggreed upon response from the children of Le Sociopathica:

What about cases in where it's requested by the dead party in any amount of time before they expire? It might be sick, but hey, omgcivilrightswarcry.

Besides, zombies are sexy.

Rawr.

*tips a wink to the Ausserland delegation*

*mimes drinking*

*raises inquiring eyebrow*

I was more than happy to approve this proposal and help it reach quorum. I was planning to cast my vote for it when it came to a vote. However, It has since been pointed out to me that technically, I am a corpse. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11599123&postcount=7) Since Felix loves the ladies, I will regrettably have to vote against this attempt to force me into celibacy.

I was more than happy to approve this proposal and help it reach quorum. I was planning to cast my vote for it when it came to a vote. However, It has since been pointed out to me that technically, I am a corpse. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11599123&postcount=7) Since Felix loves the ladies, I will regrettably have to vote against this attempt to force me into celibacy.

No, you are undead. There is a difference between being dead and being undead.

Ardchoilleans;11738022']But this reduces the UN to the role of a nagging Super-Nanny -- eat your greens, keep your nukes tidy and, how many times do I have to tell you, don't have sex with other people's grandmothers.

That's not good for the UN's moral authority. Passing pettifogging laws managing the most minor details of our national lives will simply lead to more nations developing Ministries for Creative Solutions. More and more of us will be quite proud of being considered Very Naughty Nations.

So when Nanny wants us to do something really important, something that might actually make the world(s) better, more of us will be likely to just laugh and run away -- oh, it's just another of Nanny's silly rules.

Ardchoille won't leave the UN even if the world parliament does turn itself into such a figure of fun. But we'd rather it didn't happen. That's why we'll stick around and argue against it going that way.

And that's why we're voting against this nice, clean proposal.Laudable sentiments. We only hope this strident defense of national sovereignty holds true when the discussion turns once again to tying member governments' hands in the name of "protecting civil liberties."

We won't hold our breath.

Oh, it's nice when the honey draws the bear.

That wasn't a defence of national sovereignty. That was a defence of the UN.

Say the UN uses its formidable moral power to make Kennyites cut their toenails.

Say it then tries to use that same power to make your Government stop whatever fiendish plan of mass oppression you have come up with lately.

That creates a perception that the UN considers making you cut your toenails is as internationally important as making you stop oppressing whoever your wandering dictatorial eye lights on.

It's not. The UN should let you trip over your own toenails, if you want to. Its role is to deal with things that are internationally significant.

I had a rant appended here, all about what might happen if your toenails suddenly became an international threat to All We Hold Dear, but I think I'll keep it simple:

Some things are important, some things aren't.

The resolution is an absurd and stupid one. For one, it provides a definition of necrophilia, but not a definition of corpse desecration.

Therefore, there is little to prevent a member state from deciding that necrophilia does not amount to corpse desecration. That's to say that IT DOESN'T EVEN OUTLAW NECROPHILIA as per its title.

In fact, the only thing that this resolution expects of member states is the provision of medical treatment and counselling to practitioners of necrophilia.

In that regard, Holy Persia would much prefer to continue its existing cultural tradition of exiling necrophiliacs and similair perversions of nature to our nations deserts.

ok, i think the arguments can be reduced to:

voting FOR : necrphilia ie eeeeeeewwww; necrophilia is evil; necrophilia is imoral; therefor ban it! imoral stuff (that hurts no living person in a direct way, does not infringe on anyone's rights but can fulfill some desires) must be banned... because it's eeeeeewwwwww. and it's imoral. and because it's imoral for us it must be banned world wide

voting AGAINST:1) this is a law best suited for national law, not international law. it's not U.N.'s business
2)between morality and civil rights we choose civil rights. although it breaks some concepts of morality (since morality is diffrent from region to region), necrophilia "per se" doesn't necesarily break any "human rights", just as normal sexual acts don't breake any rights. some forms of necrophilia could break some civil rights (just as rape), but not all of them. so it's NOT OK for the UN to ban ALL necrophilia.

i think this about sums it up. so even if (from my point of view at least) it's obvious who makes the best argument (and who's right), most people seem to vote "for". too bad they tend to prefer to try and impose theyr view of morality to the world by infringing on other's civil rights.

well, at least the resolution is against "unauthorized" sexual acts with dead bodies, so in my country there will be a law "authorizing" necrophilia as i see fit.

well, at least the resolution is against "unauthorized" sexual acts with dead bodies, so in my country there will be a law "authorizing" necrophilia as i see fit.

Good job. You win the thread - here's a loophole making this proposal useless.

The mighty Leader of Pragda steps onto the Podium. (As his aides earlier lowered the air conditioning) A shudder travels through the auditorium.
“We in Pragda have an inaliable right to Practice sexual acts however we see fit! And as Such we shall Vote against the Resolution! However, were this Resolution to pass the Mighty state of Pragda would choose to comply with it only in an abstract sense, and rigorously abuse the Numerous Loopholes that exist, and thus Protect its Citizens from the NSUN. Thus the Outcome of this Vote does not concern the Peoples of Pragda, as it will Not Affect their Quality Of Life!”

1)i didn't won anything. we would have won if people voted against this resolution
2)i don't find anything unreasonable in using loopholes in the legislation that i don't like. it's just like in real life.

Ok, how about this. This resolution trying to be passed obviously needs major restructuring. So let's not pass it, but then create a resolution that either gives rights extending past life, or create a resolution like the previous one, but allows families of the dead person to sign off the rights of the dead person if they wish. For some reason I think either one, probably the second one mostly, would make everyone happy.

Oh how about this? This was a resolution that tried to get on the floor several times. Previous versions had a number of extra provisions that all addressed the various concerned listed. What happened? It got bogged down in moronic complaints and never got approved by the deligates. Only by stripping the resolution down to the bare bones did this get approved.

You don't like that? Fine. Throw your curses at the moronic deligates.

Votes For: 4,785
Votes Against: 2,016

I think it would have been less of a fight instead of

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


It would have said something along the lines of "A resolution in the interest of public health."

Instead you have made it a "morality" issue and we all know how subjective morals are.

As it is unenforceable, except where it says that I have to provide free medical care to necropheliacs, fortunately, we have determined that a substantial dose of potassium chloride stops all of the impulses that lead to necrophelia.

FH

Voting looks like it's too late to get this denied and redone.

Might as well just repeal it once it's done. :(

But us undead folks, we can't properly use our vocal cords, how exactly do we 'protect our rights'? We're zombies, not classified as human :(

The 'ewww' rating for this resolution, because of the subject, is so high it is off the scale, and that is the reason Witchcliff has voted for. The very thought that anyone could want to have sex with a corpse is just plain nauseating.

So far we have seen two comments of note.

First, the observance of a loophole that allows authorization of the opposed act.

Second, the comment by THE RESOLUTION'S AUTHOR that the resolution has absolutely zero legislative force.

These things are the common arguments in repeal debates. Aside from the fact that I am certain (from reading above posts) that Syndicalasia is not the only country where we simply don't care who has sex with what (sex with children and non-consensual sex [not including the consentless dead] excluded, of course), we also feel that the resolution is pointless. Not a waste of time in the sense that others have suggested, but in the sense of legislation devoid of charge. Unfortunately, it appears that this resolution will pass on its appeal to visceral reaction. We vote AGAINST. That is all.

Effluvius Falderol
Syndicalasian Representative & Regional Delegate for A Socialist Paradise

This is a terrible proposal!!! We are proud of our necromantic lovers!!! One of my favorite articles is "The Unrepentant Necrophile" wherein a necromantically inclined lady described her past shame and present acceptance for all the hot and steamy lovemaking she had with dead men who died beautiful and in their 20s.

The part I remember the fondest was how she described how a liquid that I am not sure if it was blood or embalming fluid or a mix thereof would come out of the corpse's mouth in ryhthym to her ardent thrusts and gyrations. Also, she described the "sensual death smells."

Now I cannot relate to such necromantic feelings and passions but I have watched Necromantik and Necromantik 2 and they are two of my all time favorite films.

Let us all say "no" to this moralistic resolution that protects nobody but the dead. Let us all have the freedom to lovingly embrace the lovers of the dead or to persecute them. This would make a great domestic "issue."

I would be willing to support a resolution that bans the practice of male on male necrophilia, necrophilia involving children, and necrophilia involving animals. However, let us openly support those who are only "guilty" of loving the deceased. If we cannot support them let us at least leave the various member nations to decide how these often persecuted and misunderstood lovers will be treated within their own boundaries.

Personally, I would be honored to have a lady physically love my corpse.

In support of the above positions I am donning a black ribbon in support of the often persecuted lovers of those who demonstarted their mortality. I urge you to do the same.

Personally, I would be honored to have a lady physically love my corpse.


http://www.toysrgus.com/images-speci/coinart/gargan.jpg

The Confederacy of Turkey Sausages urges our fellow UN nations to vote "No" on the resolution at vote, "Outlaw Necrophilia." The importance and/or meaning of a corpse varies widely from culture to culture, such that outlawing any particular act involving the deceased would trample the cultural rights of many nations. We would embark upon a slippery slope of legislating the treatment of the dead. If cadaver-coitus is illegal, what of cremation? If we find burning the dead to be a crime, where do organ donations stand? In summary, UN Brethren, we do not want to go there.

So far we have seen two comments of note.

First, the observance of a loophole that allows authorization of the opposed act.A UN resolution with a loophole? You gotta be fucking kidding me. Are there other resolutions with the same problem? If so, I really gotta have my nation found an agency, or something, whose sole purpose is to find loopholes. Thanks for the tip!

Second, the comment by THE RESOLUTION'S AUTHOR that the resolution has absolutely zero legislative force.That's why the proposal is classified as "Mild," smart guy.

These things are the common arguments in repeal debates.No, actually, the common repeal argument that a past resolution "does nothing" stems from the fact that such proposals are often empty rhetorical essays with no legislative impact whatsoever. This resolution, on the other hand, makes three very specific recommendations of member states. That is precisely what Mild proposals are supposed to do.

Aside from the fact that *snipped rambling* we also feel that the resolution is pointless. Not a waste of time in the sense that others have suggested, but in the sense of legislation devoid of charge.I have no idea what this means.

But us undead folks, we can't properly use our vocal cords, how exactly do we 'protect our rights'? We're zombies, not classified as human :(

Use sign language ... slowly. I realize that this is probably above the average zombie's head but undead is not dead, anymore than human is man. You're not dead, you're not a corpse. You are undead. You're not dead any more than a female human is a man.

As to how you can protecct your rights, well get in line behind the non human sentients. It's almost impossible in this assembly.

Well, to be perfectly honest Minister Olembe, I was leaning towards voting for anyway, the lack of decent arguements (with a few exceptions) just pushed me further in that direction.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I agree there hasn't been any good arguments 2 support this. Not that if there was i would support it but the only people who support it are disgusting! :rolleyes:

I agree there hasn't been any good arguments 2 support this. Not that if there was i would support it but the only people who support it are disgusting!
LANGUAGE RANT:I bloody hate it when people type "2" in place of "two". It's only TWO characters shorter, and thus only takes a minute fraction of a second longer to type. Even if you're a slow typist or something, sacrificing professionalism for speed is a bad idea in something as unhurried as an online forum. The only place doing that is even close to acceptable is in cell phone text messages, which are evil anyway, because it's not a common keyboard. For the record, they're only evil specifically because of what they're doing to the English language. That, and little kids + any IM program.

Now, on to something more relevant. I voted FOR, because it's mild, requires nothing, and that's about it. If it made requirements I would probably have withdrawn my support. HOWEVER, those who voted AGAINST did not necessarily or likely do so because they actually support necrophilia. It's more likely that they deem it unnecessary, which I do somewhat agree with. You can't simply vote based on the title, and you can't always assume that others do, AND, in the case of NSUN Resolutions, you can't assume you know what others stand for based solely on whether or not they vote for a resolution. A person's vote on the resolution is not necessarily the same as their stance on a situation or issue. If I misunderstood the gist of your short and only slightly coherant post, I'm sorry.

I'm also sorry for the long and rantish post, I'm having a long day.

Paul Ryania;11736308']I agree this is a pointless resolution!

The leadership of the Dominion of Shawnworshipers opposes the act of necrophilia, but opposes spending ANY money on social programs ie...

CALLS UPON member nations to provide counseling and medical care for those engaging in acts of necrophilia.

Why waste the money on criminals for counselling?

*snipped some flaming* The common repeal argument that a past resolution "does nothing" stems from the fact that such proposals are often empty rhetorical essays with no legislative impact whatsoever. This resolution, on the other hand, makes three very specific recommendations of member states. That is precisely what Mild proposals are supposed to do.

Could you kindly explain the difference between the following two phrases:
1. 'absolutely zero legislative force'
2. 'no legislative impact whatsoever'

Thanks.

I have no idea what this means.

Not surprising.

DEFINING necrophilia, for the purposes of this resolution, as any unauthorized sexual act, performed on a deceased individual
Who decides what is 'unauthorized'? Why, the nation. To those who are upset by the restrictions this resolution seeks to place on them, I recommend you carefully consider what is 'unauthorized' in your nation.

Once again, this resolution is of no international standing. Could we not have had a day off rather than debate something of so little consequence?

Leave the dead be. It's bad enough that they occasionally get violated without then having all this hot air around them.

Benedictions,

The delegation from the Holy Republic of Deadly Death ZOMBIES reguests an ammendment to allow sex with the undead such as ourselves. please consider the needs of the undead community

Could you kindly explain the difference between the following two phrases:
1. 'absolutely zero legislative force'
2. 'no legislative impact whatsoever'Really, nothing. You're free to phrase it any way you like, but my point is, proposals that make specific demands on nations, no matter how mild in force, are allowed. All those rambling emotive rhetorical essays you can find in the list of past resolutions do not make any demands on member states, are a waste of space, and in fact are now illegal. There is a difference between empty rhetoric and legal proposals that are simply mild. Of course you might have realized this had you bothered to skim the rules.

Not surprising.I'm sorry; was it you accusing me of flaming? What I meant was, I don't see how you can dismiss a proposal as a waste of time simply because it's mild. The UN is allowed to "recommend" rather than "require," you know, and members do have the option of introducing proposals for that purpose; they can't be a "waste of time" when there's a category for them programmed right into the game. Yet another morsel of knowledge you could have gleaned from the rules rather than spamming a discussion thread.

You're free to phrase it any way you like, but my point is, proposals that make specific demands on nations, no matter how mild in force, are allowed. All those rambling emotive rhetorical essays you can find in the list of past resolutions do not make any demands on member states, are a waste of space, and in fact are now illegal. There is a difference between empty rhetoric and legal proposals that are simply mild.

Actually the above is very well stated. The early "resolutions" rarely made specific recommendations, but instead focused on saying, "Hey there is this [specific] problem. We should do something!"

Even though the death of sex (inevitably adopted by millions) is not the sex of death, (adopted, inevitably by one or two), the right to choose how to handle such deviations is sovereign to each nation managing the welfare of its indigenous deceased. The Borderlands of Crap Gulley, renowned in all of Old Europe, chooses to keep its governmental mittens off the neck of ropohilia and votes against this resolution.

Ranking Allied Courts Chief Executive Kowalki

The NationStates United Nations,

DEFINING necrophilia, for the purposes of this resolution, as any unauthorized sexual act, performed on a deceased individual,

DISTURBED by the occurrence of necrophilia within the member nations of the UN,

NOTING that a corpse is incapable of consent, and that such lack of consent is why rape is commonly considered an inappropriate act,

OBSERVING many cases of emotional damage to the families of deceased individuals in cases of necrophilia,

RECOMMENDS that member nations outlaw the desecration of corpses,

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to punish those guilty of corpse desecration to the fullest extent of the law, and,

CALLS UPON member nations to provide counseling and medical care for those engaging in acts of necrophilia.

This proposal seeks to accomplish multiple violations of the sovereignty of those nations foolish enough to allow themselves to be dominated by the United Nations.

The first, it attempts to impose a very specific moral view on thousands of nations, most of which have very different sets of ideals. I personally find the practice in question most unhygienic, but Clan Trebare of the Crystal Desert Wastelands in my home nation, for example, believe very strongly that acts of necrophilia will infuse their souls with the power of departed warriors. As an 'enlightened' sapient, I make no claim to being able to judge Clan Trebare. In many respects I see nothing inherently wrong with their practice - the remains of the dead are, after all, nothing more than empty shells. But my opinion is nothing more than that - opinion. The author of this resolution has no such concern, and thus this resolution seeks to destroy other cultures and belief systems in order to replace them with his own system.

If this were not bad enough, it then attempts to force national governments to legislate this belief system. This is a gross violation of national sovereignty, and is no different than a church controlling a parliament. And in such a scenario, it would seem likely that necrophilia would be illegal anyway.

Finally, this resolution attempts to enforce a very specific form of criminal justice. Not only that, but it implies socialist policies at the same time. Not all countries subscribe to the idea of 'rehabilitation' and 'counselling'. Indeed, some would find the very concepts offensive. Once more, the author of this resolution has no interest in such differences of opinion. He believes in rehabilitation, and so should everybody else!

This resolution has no interest in different cultures, systems of belief, views on the dead, national sovereignty or basic tolerance. It is purely one man's moralistic judgement, one best left to individual governments to decide upon.

All of these points are moot, however, when one considers the ludicrous nature of the proposal in general. Is the time of the United Nations, the largest global organisation on this world, best spent on discussing whether people should be mating with the empty shells of the departed? This wholly racist organisation is a joke, down to its roots!

But should you intend to remain in it regardless of this - approve of this resolution, and you are misguided. I trust that national leaders can be trusted to make the right decision.

Gaaartha Bloodthorn
Special (and reluctant) Charrian Ambassador to the United Nations

I have intially approved the resolution, but our Sanhedrin has later instructed me to withdraw my approval and abstain from voting on this issue.

As much as necrophillia is abbhorrent and repulsive, we do not want the UN to interfere with religious and ritual affairs of individual nations. As much as the Lord of Hosts detests and abbhors necrophillic, bestial and other abominable corruptness and immorality in sex and other aspects of life, we do realize other religions, such as that of the Zibzigzuluastry in the Primitive Jungles of the Plaiadic Islands, see necrophillia as an essential rite to ensure the passage of the soul of the departed to Enternal Life.

Thus, while agreeing in principle with the resolution, we withdrew our approval and abstained from voting on this sensitive issue.

Only if we're friends with benefits.

Hmm...we'll talk.

I will get back to the rest of what you had to say later.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

We have voted against this proposal simply because there is no logical, rational excuse for the NSUN to be legislating on this issue. It has no international import or implications. It can and should properly be handled by individual nations, with appropriate consideration for the customs and values of their populations.

If this is the level of intrusive Big Brotherism at which this Assembly intends to operate, we'll have to get to work on our "Ban Jaywalking" proposal. Surely that's every bit as valid a subject of international concern as this.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

*snip*

You go on and on about this entire resolution being against national sovereignty. It is not. It does not infringe on National Sovereignty in the slightest. I made sure of that when I wrote the resolution. It doesn't force nations to do anything. It doesn't require you to give your criminals rehabilitation or counseling. It does call upon member nations to do so, but it is not required. This is why the resolution is Mild. It has no mandating clauses. It never did. Even in the other drafts that were submitted and failed, there were none.

If any of the other NSO members pipe up and tell me that this resolution infringes on National Sovereignty, and point out how, then I'll....I'll....I have no idea what I'll do, but I'm sure it will be something interesting. I'm pretty sure that they won't do this though. Then again, I could be completely wrong.

We have voted against this proposal simply because there is no logical, rational excuse for the NSUN to be legislating on this issue. It has no international import or implications. It can and should properly be handled by individual nations, with appropriate consideration for the customs and values of their populations.

If this is the level of intrusive Big Brotherism at which this Assembly intends to operate, we'll have to get to work on our "Ban Jaywalking" proposal. Surely that's every bit as valid a subject of international concern as this.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Everything you said = CORRECT. :cool:

I have reviewed this new resolution and find fault with the wording "that member nations outlaw the desecration of corpses."

There is no solid definition of "desecration" as it isn't related to the subject of Necrophillia anywhere in the resolution.

Also, many would consider research on corpses "desecration" even though we gain valuable scientific knowledge from such studies.

Therefore, I'll be voting against the resolution not because I support Necrophillia, but because I feel the resolution sweeps too broadly at a subject worth studying.

I bring these words, from The Nomadic Peoples of Campbellixia, whom I represent as regional delegate of Ol Bytown:

"I believe that to outlaw something outright is not fixing a problem but rather ignoring and invalidating a serious issue in our society. I believe we need to know more of this social phenomenon and through understanding maybe we can arrive at a conclusion, which, instead of sweeping a problem under the carpet of "Law and Order," shows that we as a community did not cower from a problem, but met it head on."

I urge you, vote against this resolution so we may present a more clear effort at better understanding Necrophillia and those who engage in it, so we may better understand how to deal with it. If it comes to pass, I assure you I will motion to repeal.

Amabassador for Ol Bytown,
Governor of Mindatia.

Do you people need the UN to chew your food for you too? If there's no definition provided for a term, your national government selects a definition. How complicated is this? Jesus, people. Think for yourselves for once. If you want to do research on corpses, don't call it desecration! Problem solved! Amazing!


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

I agree there hasn't been any good arguments 2 support this. Not that if there was i would support it but the only people who support it are disgusting! :rolleyes:OK, I'm confused. Are you for the resolution or not?:confused:

I think it would have been less of a fight instead of



It would have said something along the lines of "A resolution in the interest of public health."
That wouldn't have been a bad idea, however the sentence you'd like to see changed is hard coded into the game and can't be changed.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The Wolf Guardians;11740438']LANGUAGE RANT:I bloody hate it when people type "2" in place of "two". It's only TWO characters shorter, and thus only takes a minute fraction of a second longer to type. Even if you're a slow typist or something, sacrificing professionalism for speed is a bad idea in something as unhurried as an online forum. The only place doing that is even close to acceptable is in cell phone text messages, which are evil anyway, because it's not a common keyboard. For the record, they're only evil specifically because of what they're doing to the English language. That, and little kids + any IM program.OOc: I agree completely, that's one of my major pet peeves too.

Do you people need the UN to chew your food for you too? If there's no definition provided for a term, your national government selects a definition. How complicated is this? Jesus, people. Think for yourselves for once. If you want to do research on corpses, don't call it desecration! Problem solved! Amazing!


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

You know Doc, you'd think that with how long you've been around the UN you'd realize that about 50% of the UN members would like to see the UN pass a resolution telling them how to wipe their ass.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You know Doc, you'd think that with how long you've been around the UN you'd realize that about 50% of the UN members would like to see the UN pass a resolution telling them how to wipe their ass.

Bob Flibble
UN RepresentativeCall me an optimist, I guess. I keep hoping that governments will finally stand up for themselves, and not consider leeway the same thing as "bad". I mean... seriously... how did these nations function before they joined the UN?

Does it say "Check Brain Before Entering" on the doors to this joint?


Doctor Denis Leary
UN Ambassador
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

so... if you're underwear isn't giving consent... does that mean you're raping your clothes?
A brilliant statement -- completely ruined by the assertion that you're voting in favor of this trashy bill.

VOTE NAY!

Mmm... voting out of spite...

NOTING that this resolution does not take into account the significant populations of undead that may indeed be present in some member nations, we propose the following:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Undead

1. RECALLING the article in the resolution "Outlaw Necrophilia" which states: "NOTING that a corpse is incapable of consent";

2. NOTING that many nations contain a significant population of those classified as "undead";

3. DEFINING "undead" as the re-animated corpse of one that had previously ceased living;

4. PROPOSES that the UN recognise that the undead as having the same rights of "regular" beings; and

5. PROPOSES that the UN recognise that the undead are indeed capable of consent.

We urge all member nations to approve this proposal in order to bring it to a vote.

Maunanus Lyle
UN Representative for the United Territories of Spaam and Spaamanian Plijous
UN Delegate for the great region of The Heartland

NOTING that this isn't the thread for such a thing,

ALSO NOTES that since Outlaw Necrophilia hasn't passed and is thus a poor target for a Proposal,

ALSO ALSO NOTES that the language is far too weak for a 'Strong' Resolution,

ALSO ALSO AGAIN NOTES that this is likely too silly or unrealistic for a real Proposal,

DELETES Recognition of the Undead.

NOTES that this is bias against the undead!

(I was actually being serious here...)

Undead is such a dirty word - we prefer the term the "mobile deceased"

I would like to point out that the rights of those Undead who are self-aware, free-willed and of intelligence approaching/matching/surpassing Human norms would be protected (as long as those Undead accepted basic civic responsibilities, as defined by the laws of their nations) by my government's proposal on 'Rights for Intelligent Beings' which is currently in the list of those collecting approvals but not yet at quorum...

You know Doc, you'd think that with how long you've been around the UN you'd realize that about 50% of the UN members would like to see the UN pass a resolution telling them how to wipe their ass.


The biodegradable toilet paper act? Or perhaps we can sneak it in somehow into the Free Trade for Hemp resolution? We deliates and representatives only function at the bidet of our national leaders you know.

Wow...I knew this proposal was going to elicit some funny comments, but I had no idea they'd be this retarded. As I was reading over the transcripts of this debate, I can't tell you how many times I nearly spit Cluichstani whiskey all over my desk.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Okay, so it's not whiskey, but cheap piss beer. :(

The Executive Council of The Most Serene Republic of Holy Persia wishes to announce its disdain for the resolution currently before the United Nations, seeking to "Outlaw Necrophilia". It is a disturbing waste of United Nations time and attention. There are many more pressing issues that the community of nations should be seeking to resolve.


Well stated. Unfortunately this resolution is simply following the curent trend in resolutions, of deliberately wasting the UN's time. I'm thinking it's a cabal of some sort behind them.

You know Doc, you'd think that with how long you've been around the UN you'd realize that about 50% of the UN members would like to see the UN pass a resolution telling them how to wipe their ass.

Bob Flibble
UN RepresentativeHere you go, Bob...National Standards of Ass-Wiping
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Community Property

Description: NOTING that there seems to be a fair degree of confusion regarding how (or even if) asses should wiped, or when, and

BELIEVING that the widespread failure to wipe asses leads to numerous social, economic, public health, and environmental problems,

WE THE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY

MANDATE that all nations pass laws requiring asses to be wiped after defecation, and that they be wiped as much as is needed to ensure cleanliness,

RESERVE to Member nations the right to dictate methods and devices to be used for this purpose, where they choose to do so,

ESTABLISH an advisory board of scientists, clinicians, and religious scholars to assist nations beset with difficulty in determining how to wipe their (collective) asses, and

DEMAND that Member nations embargo non-Members who refuse to ensure that their citizens properly wipe their asses.

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS RESOLUTION

“ASSES” are defined as...Does it say "Check Brain Before Entering" on the doors to this joint?


Doctor Denis Leary
UN Ambassador
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious HackYes. Should we ask UN Building Mgmt (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Building_Mgmt) to take them down?

Mmm... voting out of spite...

I'm about to the same point Doc.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I decided that a trip to Starbucks was probably better than a trip to the bar. Since coffee “gets you going” I am now ready to debates the merits of this resolution, whether anyone cares or not. Ah the joys of espresso; so small and yet so powerful. When combined with a lot of warm milk, and toasted slices of buttered Cuban bread, it becomes the breakfast of champions!

A corpse is a corpse, of course, of course. No one can talk to a corpse, of course. But in general that corpse, before it was a corpse, was generally quite alive and able to express his or her opinion in a very significant manner. And so, I will present exhibits A, B, C and D.

http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/12909456/190659642.jpg http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/12909456/190659643.jpg http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/12909456/190659639.jpg http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/12909456/190659645.jpg

Now what do all these things have in common? Well they all hold one or more corpses. Yes those inanimate objects that are the subject of this debate; those former shells of sentient beings that some would consider mere objects to be used as just another sex toy occupying prime land and forming popular tourist attractions. How many building projects have been stopped because someone found a single bone of a person from long ago in the topsoil?

Yes, a corpse is a corpse, but it is so much more. Everyone in this room will probably one day become one. Do you really want some nameless person or even worse a UN gnome having sexual relations with your now inanimate body? Somehow I don’t think so. My fellow delegates, even generals loathe waging wars over the bodies of the dead. They erect massive monuments to their legacy and give their cemeteries significant honors and ceremony. And yet there are those who feel that sexual desecration is perfectly acceptable? Dignity is a fundamental human right that extends well beyond the grave. A person is not some object to be abused in some bizarre sexual manner. Fundamental human rights are perfectly within the purview of the United Nations. Therefore I humbly request that you approve this resolution forthwith.

Oh, and do I really need to mention this? The definition of a corpse is “a dead body especially of a human being.” A vampire is not a “dead body” but an undead one. Thus a vampire is not a corpse. Please think of the language, and stop driving stakes in this issue. Oh and please get rid of the garlic, you offend the living more than the undead.

Horsefeathers.

Nobody's talking about having sex with historical skeletons (is that even possible?).

We thought that we would forward a letter from one our citizens to your attention to highlight the need to reject this resolution.

Dear Hon. Francis Dashwood, Glorious Freedonian Ambassador to the UN:

Do not let them take away my bloated, cold, and silent lovers! Their scent is more intoxicating than the most exotic of perfumes. They grow their hair and nails for their loving master as an expression of their love and desire. Their lips rot away under my kiss to expose the eternal smile of their joy. You must not let the UN take them from me. That would not do. No, it would not do.

Our courtship begins as I, with shovel in hand, liberate them from the lonely grave and shower them with the caresses that they crave from their lonely rest in the clay. Only six feet from here to paradise.

I bring warmth to their cold lifeless bodies. Mmmm the worms. Ohhhh the death bloat. I cannot write any more, I am off to take a cold shower.

-Annonymous Citizen of the Booming Plutocracy of Glorious Freedonia

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4345/zyryanovunty8.jpg

I must echo the sentiment expressed earlier by the honourable representative of Gruenberg, and confess that the "arguments" and views put forward by some of the opponents to this proposal are, quite frankly... gross.

We will maintain our position and abstain, but we are beginning to believe that it might indeed be salutory to enforce legislation on some of the esteemed delegates present in this General Assembly.

Now please excuse me while I go and vomit.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Like many recent resolutions, this one is complete and utter rubbish. I will never vote in favour of any resolution that cites "moral decency" as a basis for it's validity. In point of fact it has gotten me back into the forums to lambaste the authors of UN resolutions of late.

Lately, we have had NOTHING but repeal previous resolution legislation and garbage like this. The NS world is full of problems and the resolution writer tells me we having to worry about living persons screwing corpses as one of the foremost problems of the day? Tripe and codswallop. Individual nations, for the most part need to be allowed to keep their national sovereignty on these issues, while the UN concentrates on the real problems of the day. Corpse shagging is NOT a serious problem and to lend credence to this drivel by voting for it is a surrender of any national responsibility you have.

For shame on the resolution writer. I am so incensed over this and other extraordinarily vapid resolutions that I will make it my goal to overturn and repeal such nonsense in future resolutions, even if I have to resort to a "repeal-only" resolution, another thing I really detest.

Things like this make me seriously reconsider my nation's participation in the UN.

Horsefeathers.

Nobody's talking about having sex with historical skeletons (is that even possible?).

I believe that the Representative from Tzorsland was attempting to prove a point. Some stated that no one really cares about the dead. The pictures provided shows that this is not true. Many cultures care about their dead and wouldn't want to see anything happen to the bodys of their deceased loved ones. Hence the elaborate monuments. All of which I'm sure were, at one point in time, guarded fiercely.

No one said anything about having sex with historical skeletons.

We thought that we would forward a letter from one our citizens to your attention to highlight the need to reject this resolution.

Dear Hon. Francis Dashwood, Glorious Freedonian Ambassador to the UN:

Do not let them take away my bloated, cold, and silent lovers! Their scent is more intoxicating than the most exotic of perfumes. They grow their hair and nails for their loving master as an expression of their love and desire. Their lips rot away under my kiss to expose the eternal smile of their joy. You must not let the UN take them from me. That would not do. No, it would not do.

Our courtship begins as I, with shovel in hand, liberate them from the lonely grave and shower them with the caresses that they crave from their lonely rest in the clay. Only six feet from here to paradise.

I bring warmth to their cold lifeless bodies. Mmmm the worms. Ohhhh the death bloat. I cannot write any more, I am off to take a cold shower.

-Annonymous Citizen of the Booming Plutocracy of Glorious Freedonia

Yep, Its posts like this that have caused me to change my vote from a tentative no, to a yes.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Like many recent resolutions, this one is complete and utter rubbish. I will never vote in favour of any resolution that cites "moral decency" as a basis for it's validity. In point of fact it has gotten me back into the forums to lambaste the authors of UN resolutions of late.

Lately, we have had NOTHING but repeal previous resolution legislation and garbage like this. The NS world is full of problems and the resolution writer tells me we having to worry about living persons screwing corpses as one of the foremost problems of the day? Tripe and codswallop. Individual nations, for the most part need to be allowed to keep their national sovereignty on these issues, while the UN concentrates on the real problems of the day. Corpse shagging is NOT a serious problem and to lend credence to this drivel by voting for it is a surrender of any national responsibility you have.

For shame on the resolution writer. I am so incensed over this and other extraordinarily vapid resolutions that I will make it my goal to overturn and repeal such nonsense in future resolutions, even if I have to resort to a "repeal-only" resolution, another thing I really detest.

Things like this make me seriously reconsider my nation's participation in the UN.


An alternative would be to participate in the UN more frequently than once or twice a year. The repeals and resolutions your government objects to often are presented in draft form to this body a month before they reach the UN floor. It is hardly the fault of any resolution sponsor that nations such as yours leave their chair in the UN chambers vacant most of the time.

Taking a position to only vote to repeal UN resolutions is hardly productive ... and where you would cast "shame" on resolution authors, the people of Mikitivity will cast our "shame" on the government of Schwarzchild for limiting their participation in the UN to complaints and negative votes. In essence, the quality resolutions you seek are much more likely to come forth, if your government is willing to meet the challenge of working with other nations and assign some form of permanent ambassador to just the UN. Ideally this would be an open minded individual who won't make blanket statements such as, "I will only vote on repeals", but instead judge draft proposals on the merit of their subject matter and then seek ways to help steer proposal sponsors in a direction that suits the needs of your nation. This has afterall been the way that the Mikitivity Office of International Affairs has operated since my government came out of its isolation and joined the United Nations in 2004.

I am honestly hoping that your angry remarks have more to do with the hotsauce that the ambassador from Cluichstan spiked into the coffee this morning (really he needs to stop doing that) than the current resolution before us. Dr. Leary of the Most Glorious Hack has already illustrated just how flexible this resolution (which Mikitivity has still not cast a vote for or against on) really is. It is hard to imagine that a resolution that was purposefully designed with loopholes would lead to such a charged debate ... so I'd like to formally request that the UN morning coffee pots be labeled, so we will no longer accidently drink any Cluichstani coffee.

Howie T. Katzman

[ooc. I'm just playing around here.]

The good people of my nation and, indeed, the entire Drasilian Orthodoxy, follow a strict moral code set forth in the Holy Writ of Versiver. That moral code distinctly forbids any physical contact with the dead. In recent times we have begun to be more lenient. However, necrophilia, aside from being simply and plainly disgusting, is in direct violation of our religion and laws. I do not profess to rule over any nation but my own, but we, at least, do not in any way condone necrophilia. Our vote is a yes for this resolution. If other nations do not agree, then they will vote against us. Such is the way of the world.

Signed,
Luseik Kusefora
Prime of the Holy Empire of Dachrea

Every historical skeleton was at one time a fresh corpse. The point is that these people so thought of their own bodies so as to ensure that their remains were repected even after death. If a corpse is a non entity this seems a silly and useless thing to do, because anyone could simply enter the building after day one and taken the corpse away to do what they pleased with it.

(Not that I want to nit pick, but picture 2 is a structure that contained a mummy, not a skeleton, although I'm not sure who would want to have sex with their mummy anyway.)

So let me recap. Having sex with a dead person's body is a violation of the dignity and honor of a formerly living person. It's something reasonable people would not want to have done to them. In that respect it's just like having sex with a brain dead but alive person, or a comotose person, or a really unconscious person or any person who cannot give active consent. Most people would generally not want that done to them.

Well stated. Unfortunately this resolution is simply following the curent trend in resolutions, of deliberately wasting the UN's time.

As opposed to the repeal of the UNCC perhaps? I should point out that at the time when this was approved and placed on the queue there were no other proposals that were in the queue. Is the pot calling the kettle carbon scarred? Only later did we get the following approved on the queue: "Freedom of Assembly" and "Fair Sentencing Act." You know people with one track agendas should not compain when others have a persistance with their own causes.

This vote is quite appalling from my viewpoint. My nations is a nation of zombies, my region is a zombie region. We are medically dead, therefore all sex would be considered necrophilia. Thus this vote is an outlaw of all sex within my zombie region. We're not monastic diddlers, so if we must, we'll break the law to have sex.
fi upon thee!

This vote is quite appalling from my viewpoint. My nations is a nation of zombies, my region is a zombie region. We are medically dead, therefore all sex would be considered necrophilia. Thus this vote is an outlaw of all sex within my zombie region. We're not monastic diddlers, so if we must, we'll break the law to have sex.
fi upon thee!

If you are a zombie, then you are not dead. You are undead. This would have no effect on you or your nation.

You are right, it doesn't. And maybe I will. Or maybe I'll draft a resolution banning sarcasm.

You'd have to repeal the resolution on 'Freedom of Humour' first...

It's resolutions like this that make Us proud of Our ancient tradition of carrying Our deceased to the top of funerary towers to be eaten by vultures. Really, it's much more dignified that way.

DEFINING necrophilia, for the purposes of this resolution, as any unauthorized sexual act, performed on a deceased individual,

We shudder to imagine what an "authorized" sexual act would consist of in this context.

fi upon thee!

Sort of a mild response. Y'all are a lot more tame than the zombies I've tangled with.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

A brilliant statement -- completely ruined by the assertion that you're voting in favor of this trashy bill.

VOTE NAY!

Personally, i think you're all missing the point, sexual intercourse with a maggot ridden, rotting corpse is disgusting, even if the body is freshly dead only a seriously disturbed person who is not safe to be on the street would do it,

VOTE YEA!:gundge:

I believe that the Representative from Tzorsland was attempting to prove a point. Some stated that no one really cares about the dead. The pictures provided shows that this is not true. Many cultures care about their dead and wouldn't want to see anything happen to the bodys of their deceased loved ones. Hence the elaborate monuments. All of which I'm sure were, at one point in time, guarded fiercely.

No one said anything about having sex with historical skeletons.

Point taken -- but surely the Taj Mahal, Great Pyramids, and the other national/religious monuments do not make your point well. The Pyramids were erected out of superstition and likely some fear, the Taj Mahal was a very expensive resting place built by a singularly wealthy and powerful person out of megalomaniacal grief. Surely monuments to great people do not need to double as their tombs.

"Many cultures" care about their dead out of superstitious habit.

The funniest part of this resolution the introduction of consent into the equation. Would it be legally OK if the deceased specified in a will that they consented to such sexual acts with their corpse? If so, there's one of many potential loopholes.

So I think I'm finally getting it. When the STRENGTH of a resolution is MILD, there are usually no MANDATES or REQUIREMENTS in it. As such, if anyone disagrees with it, they have but to forget it exists and live by the actual laws of their own nation. Summarizing: the bigger waste of time with a resolution like this is not the resolution itself, but the debate over its validity. Got it.

Intangelon hereby changes its vote from AGAINST to ABSTAIN.

Thank you,

Magister Jubal Harshaw
Intangelon
Greater Seattle's Delegate for Quite A While Now

This resolution requires nothing, and presumeably nations who want necrophilia outlawed will already have it outlawed.

This is a flimsy, redundant resolution and should not be passed.

It's as simple as that.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

This resolution requires nothing, and presumeably nations who want necrophilia outlawed will already have it outlawed.

This is a flimsy, redundant resolution and should not be passed.

It's as simple as that.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

Agreed. This Resolution does not deserve to be on the books, for more than that reason, but that reason alone is enough.

I could not express how much distaste the Norderians in the office upstairs feel towards the proponents of this Resolution. Much of the comments involve "getting over it." When the Norderians call someone overly sensitive, that's saying something. I can see no reason why such a Resolution is needed on the books, and I am inclined to agree when my aides scoff at the motivation for it.

For shame. For shame, for shame, for shame.

Edit:

One more note. I've just read my telegrams. I must say for shame again, for after my protestations, the author still sent me the TG asking for support. I later received a telegram from a non-regular telling me they have my support should this pass and I formulate a repeal (as I suspect other opponents have received). I would like to thank those who were paying attention.

To nations voting against this resolution, my government is still undecided. However, we've noted that the Outlaw Pedophilia resolution is essentially similar to this one.

To those nations that are talking about repealing this resolution, to be fair are you also going to repeal Goobergunchia's resolution on pedophilia? If not, why not? In other words, how is this resolution different from that one.

To nations voting against this resolution, my government is still undecided. However, we've noted that the Outlaw Pedophilia resolution is essentially similar to this one.

To those nations that are talking about repealing this resolution, to be fair are you also going to repeal Goobergunchia's resolution on pedophilia? If not, why not? In other words, how is this resolution different from that one.

I would support a repeal of outlaw pedophilia. I have always taken umbrage to the equation of pedophilia with child molestation, as the seemingly endless debate of Prohibition of Child Pornography illustrated.


One more point about this Resolution:
The strongest argument for outlawing necrophilia would be the fact that one could catch a disease and then spread it to the rest of the whole city.

And I think that's sad. Considering the number of diseases that people in this forum can name that come from having sex with living people far exceeds the number of diseases that people in this forum can name that come from having sex with dead people. "Having sex with dead people will kill a lot of people with diseases!" Fine. So will allowing people to drink mercury and/or cadmium 6 contaminated drinking water, but I haven't seen a whole hell of a lot of fuss being kicked up over that.

The Ardchoillean and Ausserlander delegations have put it the best.

This is not a matter for the UN. Norderia, being a well-known Internationalist doesn't think there is much that the UN should not, or cannot do. But this... For gods' sakes, this is pure micromanaging moral breast feeding. And Ardchoille was correct in the prediction that it will cause more Creative Solutions agencies to pop up. One nation has already stated that it will broaden the definition of "authorized sexual acts" itself.

Not only is this Resolution pandering to overly sensitive, easily disturbed delegates, but it is harmful to the purpose of the UN. It might not be the end-all of anyone taking this body seriously, but it will add just a little more to those that don't.

It doesn't belong here.

My goverment voted for outlawing necrophilia.
To allow this would lead to a social breakdown..imagine people willing to have realations with a corpse instead of a living partner. The population of the nation would go down..no births.
Although there is as in any nation the kind of person who would in enjoy this type of thing, if should be discouraged.
At the end of the day..what is the point of this kind of activity? :rolleyes:

Reading through the debate transcripts, it is painfully clear to me that the majority of the proponents of this resolution have no comprehension of what it is that they are supporting. It is universally agreed that necrophilia is bad. Unfortunately, noone seems to look past this and grasp that this resolution is completely unnecessary and will undermine much of the credibility of the UN.

(did I really just right "crediblity of the UN???)

I echo the statements of the Ardchoillean and Norderian represenatives warning of a new rash of Create Solutions agencies. Should this resolution pass, and unfortunately I believe it will, the Empire will be forced to find some way to prevent further UN meddling in affairs which are the sovereign domain of the state.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

To those nations that are talking about repealing this resolution, to be fair are you also going to repeal Goobergunchia's resolution on pedophilia? If not, why not? In other words, how is this resolution different from that one.

You mean aside from the fact that you cannot psychologically damage a corpse?

You can't get a corpse pregnant? When you get in trouble, you don't try and sneak your corpse across state lines to get an abortion?

Aside from corpses don't decompose and perpetuate that problem on fresher corpses as they get older?

My goverment voted for outlawing necrophilia.
To allow this would lead to a social breakdown..imagine people willing to have realations with a corpse instead of a living partner. The population of the nation would go down..no births.
Although there is as in any nation the kind of person who would in enjoy this type of thing, if should be discouraged.
At the end of the day..what is the point of this kind of activity? :rolleyes:

I think we've just seen a new logical fallacy born.

Forget Slippery Slope -- this is Slippery Undefined. (Math nerds will understand this)

Imagine all the people choosing to Overdose on heroin. We don't have a Resolution banning it, so that can only mean every single person in the world is going to start tomorrow! There will be chaos in the streets as babies all around the world are going to die from sleeping on their stomachs after birth, since there's no Resolution banning that either!

Tommo the Stout leaps from his hammock.

Good GOD! The aliens are going to pop out from underground and slaughter us all, since we never banned burying alien ships in the earth while they researched us and found out how to kill us!

The Stout bolts for the door.

I HAVE TO WARN THE PRIME MINISTER! THE HOMOSEXUALS ARE GOING TO CONVERT US ALL UNTIL WE CAN'T MAKE BABIES! WE'RE DOOOOMED!

Juhani Viljakainen waits several quiet, awkward seconds, before standing up and calmly following Tommo the Stout, who is by now, screaming through the halls about campfires wreaking havoc through the forests of the world. His chair scraping along the floor and his footsteps echo through the GA. Someone coughs.

"I... I just... really don't care anymore! Whether or not this passes, NOTHING will change in the Commonwealth, so it's really irrelevant to us, and I'm tired of dealing with silliness here. Sorry, Karmicaria." Wolfgang, tired of the blasted debate, has decided to withdraw his "yes" vote, abstain, blast his head off with the holographic simulated destruction gun, and then go sleep on his bench out in the bloody hall, since Management has as yet to finalize his office in the building.

OOC: Was that a computer fluke that led to the double post nearly 10 minutes apart? Because if so, that tops Disco's quintuple post...

Forget Slippery Slope -- this is Slippery Undefined.

Good GOD! The aliens are going to pop out from underground and slaughter us all, since we never banned burying alien ships in the earth while they researched us and found out how to kill us!

I HAVE TO WARN THE PRIME MINISTER! THE HOMOSEXUALS ARE GOING TO CONVERT US ALL UNTIL WE CAN'T MAKE BABIES! WE'RE DOOOOMED!


Note to self: Must email the homosexual alien that now is not the time to invade Norderia. The Nestine intelligence will not be pleased. It's a good thing I don't have to make a personal appearance.

To allow this would lead to a social breakdown..imagine people willing to have realations with a corpse instead of a living partner. The population of the nation would go down..no births.


I rather strongly doubt this, and I would encourage the delegate of Terangreal to think about what he's just said.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

To allow this would lead to a social breakdown..imagine people willing to have realations with a corpse instead of a living partner. The population of the nation would go down..no births.

Personally, I'm entirely in favor of allowing necrophiliacs the opportunity to not procreate. I'm hardly saddened by those folks being unable to pass on their genes.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

An alternative would be to participate in the UN more frequently than once or twice a year. The repeals and resolutions your government objects to often are presented in draft form to this body a month before they reach the UN floor. It is hardly the fault of any resolution sponsor that nations such as yours leave their chair in the UN chambers vacant most of the time.

I consider my activity (or lack thereof) in the UN chambers a direct reflection on the drivel I have lately seen. And I do beg to differ with you, if a resolution writer writes a garbage resolution it is very much their fault. I started out quite interested in participating directly in the UN and was basically driven away by the seeming endless parade of resolutions not only unfit to be considered by a world body, but a waste of time that could be better spent by me directly participating in the determination of my Regional policies. Which I do, btw.


Taking a position to only vote to repeal UN resolutions is hardly productive ... and where you would cast "shame" on resolution authors, the people of Mikitivity will cast our "shame" on the government of Schwarzchild for limiting their participation in the UN to complaints and negative votes. In essence, the quality resolutions you seek are much more likely to come forth, if your government is willing to meet the challenge of working with other nations and assign some form of permanent ambassador to just the UN.

I detest repeal only resolutions, I view them as thoroughly unproductive. But with the "all or nothing" rules drawn by this body as to the writing of resolutions, there is precious little choice for a nation who does not have oodles of free time to spend debating in this chamber. I have voted against the vast majority of repeal only resolutions, except in extreme cases. As for the rest, this body must demonstrate to my nation the ability to craft decent resolutions before it will send an Ambassador to this body. The UN bears responsibility to demonstrate it's ability to do something other than repealing legislation it does not like and writing utterly stupid "moral decency" mandates when nation states should be allowed to maintain their sovereignty and make those decisions within the borders of their nations. Until such time as the UN starts crafting decent resolutions the Commonwealth of Schwarzchild will not send an Ambassador to this chamber, although I as Prime Minister will monitor this body closely.


Ideally this would be an open minded individual who won't make blanket statements such as, "I will only vote on repeals", but instead judge draft proposals on the merit of their subject matter and then seek ways to help steer proposal sponsors in a direction that suits the needs of your nation. This has afterall been the way that the Mikitivity Office of International Affairs has operated since my government came out of its isolation and joined the United Nations in 2004.

I judge resolutions upon their merit, until such time as this body demonstrates the ability to draft resolutions that are worthy of world attention, the Commonwealth of Schwarzchild will fulfill it's mandate to participate by voting only. Plainly put, show your chops to me that you are worth my nation's valuable time, then I will send an Ambassador here.


I am honestly hoping that your angry remarks have more to do with the hotsauce that the ambassador from Cluichstan spiked into the coffee this morning (really he needs to stop doing that) than the current resolution before us. Dr. Leary of the Most Glorious Hack has already illustrated just how flexible this resolution (which Mikitivity has still not cast a vote for or against on) really is. It is hard to imagine that a resolution that was purposefully designed with loopholes would lead to such a charged debate ... so I'd like to formally request that the UN morning coffee pots be labeled, so we will no longer accidently drink any Cluichstani coffee.

My angry remarks have to do with frustration directed at this august body which has demonstrated very little ability, if any, to craft consistent resolutions that respect national and regional sovereignty. This resolution is codswallop and a waste of time, it should be voted down just on general principle, but the vast majority of nations out there simply think "Oh, vote against necrophilia...wonderful", and promptly forget that they have the responsibility as nations to set such standards internally without nosey parkers fiddling about in sovereign national matters. My vote against this resolution does not reflect my view upon how disgusting I personally feel necrophilia is, it is that nations such as yours have the nerve to tell my nation how to conduct it's internal moral affairs. Bluntly put, keep your moral judgements away from my national borders. The UN is better suited to large problems rather than micromanaging internal national matters of morals and ethics.

Sir Geoffrey Gosford
Prime Minister of Schwarzchild
Associate Justice-Court of the West Pacific


[ooc. I'm just playing around here.]

ooc: It's good roleplay.

You mean aside from the fact that you cannot psychologically damage a corpse?

You can't get a corpse pregnant? When you get in trouble, you don't try and sneak your corpse across state lines to get an abortion?

Aside from corpses don't decompose and perpetuate that problem on fresher corpses as they get older?


You can't get male children pregnant either ... I find it disturbing that any ambassador would use that as a justification to differentiate between the two moral decisions.

That said all I'm asking is that if you oppose the resolution Outlaw Necrophilia, that you ultimately recognize that it is essentially sharing the same justification as the Outlaw Pedophilia resolution. Both resolutions are seminal examples of the UN taking a moral stance with little of their preambles devoted to talking about the international scope of a problem.

And yet the Outlaw Pedophilia resolution clearly wasn't based on preventing young boys from getting pregnant. It was based on a social belief (which I'm not questioning) that people (vicitims and their families) have certain rights. I'll highlight that I mentioned families, as this is a point that is often neglected in the debates.

That said, I'm not attempting to encourage nations to vote on this issue, but rather to tone their rhetoric down a bit and develop a consistent position on these similar moral issues.

(Not that I want to nit pick, but picture 2 is a structure that contained a mummy, not a skeleton, although I'm not sure who would want to have sex with their mummy anyway.)

*rimshot*

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

Well, sick and disturbing as this topic is, The Skitz will have to vote against this resolution, as it did not include the clause that some individuals may consent, before death, or state in will that is what they want* (Much like the soylent issue).

*Really, I'm sure that no one would actually do this, but...I guess there are odd people out there.

Well, sick and disturbing as this topic is, The Skitz will have to vote against this resolution, as it did not include the clause that some individuals may consent, before death, or state in will that is what they want* (Much like the soylent issue).

*Really, I'm sure that no one would actually do this, but...I guess there are odd people out there.OOC: and I guess you missed the whole bit about "authorization" in the first clause.

You're right, I did.

But I still think that should be made a seperate clause, stating that it is permissable in extenuating circumstances, eg- permission.

Also, I think medical care and counciling should be optional, if not for the people/persons, then for the nations involved.

You're right, I did.

But I still think that should be made a separate clause, stating that it is permissible in extenuating circumstances, eg- permission.

Also, I think medical care and counseling should be optional, if not for the people/persons, then for the nations involved.

Okay, this is the last time I'm going to say this. The medical care/counseling is optional! This resolution does not require you to do this. It recommends, calls upon or whatever. Yeesh!

All I have to say is, pathetic resolutions like these are why I am becoming less interested in voting in the UN.

Necrophilia? Geez. Ridiculous. How did this even make it to the floor? Maybe I should think about resigning from the UN if this nonsense continues.

Have we lost touch with what's really important???????

Have we lost touch with what's really important???????We must have. Why don't you educate us?

All I have to say is, pathetic resolutions like these are why I am becoming less interested in voting in the UN.

Necrophilia? Geez. Ridiculous. How did this even make it to the floor? Maybe I should think about resigning from the UN if this nonsense continues.

Have we lost touch with what's really important???????

I thought my floor speech made that very clear. But it is a REGIONAL participation requirement that I be a member of this august body, else I would I have left this sad excuse for a representative world body long ago.

Gosford, PM Schwarzchild

If you are a zombie, then you are not dead. You are undead. This would have no effect on you or your nation.
Does your resolution define the undead? No.


We welcome and encourage the nations to Exploit one or more of the Obvious Loopholes:
- "DEFINING necrophilia, for the purposes of this resolution, as any unauthorized sexual act, performed on a deceased individual, " - Authorize the sexual acts with the Deceased;
- "RECOMMENDS that member nations outlaw the desecration of corpses, " - Redefine Desecration not to include sexual intercourse;
- STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to punish those guilty of corpse desecration to the fullest extent of the law, - Introduce the Law to punish necrophilia with a Fine of one cent only;
- CALLS UPON member nations to provide counseling and medical care for those engaging in acts of necrophilia. - For pro-necrophilic Nations to provide Counseling and Care in overcoming Sexual Problems, possible with nonfunctional Partners; and for counter-necrophilic Nations to limit the free Medical Care to the time of Engagement;
- And ask all the nations to provide other Creative Solutions and explain the Less obvious Loopholes, in the interests of freedom and soverignity.


Our nation is looking forward to long-term cooperation with Creative Solutions Departments of all other Nations; we are fully ready to Cooperate with the department of Omigodtheykilledkenny, and would Suggest establishing two-way relationship via the NSWiki Medium.

We welcome and encourage the nations to Exploit one or more of the Obvious Loopholes:
- "DEFINING necrophilia, for the purposes of this resolution, as any unauthorized sexual act, performed on a deceased individual, " - Authorize the sexual acts with the Deceased;
- "RECOMMENDS that member nations outlaw the desecration of corpses, " - Redefine Desecration not to include sexual intercourse;
- STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to punish those guilty of corpse desecration to the fullest extent of the law, - Introduce the Law to punish necrophilia with a Fine of one cent only;
- CALLS UPON member nations to provide counseling and medical care for those engaging in acts of necrophilia. - For pro-necrophilic Nations to provide Counseling and Care in overcoming Sexual Problems, possible with nonfunctional Partners; and for counter-necrophilic Nations to limit the free Medical Care to the time of Engagement;
- And ask all the nations to provide other Creative Solutions and explain the Less obvious Loopholes, in the interests of freedom and soverignity.
Or you could just see that none of the clauses are mandatory anyway, so you can just not do any of it.

Ellen Perionas
Director, Suboffice of Technical Legislative and Legal Matters, Ceorana UN Office

Our nation is looking forward to long-term cooperation with Creative Solutions Departments of all other Nations; we are fully ready to Cooperate with the department of Omigodtheykilledkenny, and would Suggest establishing two-way relationship via the NSWiki Medium.

[NSwiki-sysop-hat]Please don't. NSwiki is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Thank you, and have a nice day.[/NSwiki-sysop-hat]

"Outlaw necrophilia...

...NOTING that a corpse is incapable of consent, and that such lack of consent is why rape is commonly considered an inappropriate act,..."

I am surprised that people are seriously debating this ridiculous resolution. It is either a very bad joke, or the product of incredible idiocy. Seriously now, the connection of necrophilia with rape via consent is such a moronic construction, it convinces me that the author of the resolution just wanted to make a point about rape in a very very weird way.

A corpse is incapable of consent because it is not a person anymore. Consent as far as I know is a legal concept, and applies by definition to living people. But forget the legal stuff. The connection attempted here defies plain common sense: imagine you are catching a necrophile in the act, do you shout, `stop, you bloody rapist' ???

All of us (I presume) are emotional about our dead people. How a society and its members treat their dead is indeed a moral issue, and necrophilia is shocking and should be outlawed, by any standard of decency. If somebody thinks it is an issue for this forum, it's fine by me, but at least make it an issue in a way that does not insult everybody else's intelligence. Please.

"Outlaw necrophilia...

...NOTING that a corpse is incapable of consent, and that such lack of consent is why rape is commonly considered an inappropriate act,..."

I am surprised that people are seriously debating this ridiculous resolution. It is either a very bad joke, or the product of incredible idiocy. Seriously now, the connection of necrophilia with rape via consent is such a moronic construction, it convinces me that the author of the resolution just wanted to make a point about rape in a very very weird way.

A corpse is incapable of consent because it is not a person anymore. Consent as far as I know is a legal concept, and applies by definition to living people. But forget the legal stuff. The connection attempted here defies plain common sense: imagine you are catching a necrophile in the act, do you shout, `stop, you bloody rapist' ???

All of us (I presume) are emotional about our dead people. How a society and its members treat their dead is indeed a moral issue, and necrophilia is shocking and should be outlawed, by any standard of decency. If somebody thinks it is an issue for this forum, it's fine by me, but at least make it an issue in a way that does not insult everybody else's intelligence. Please.

The resolution doesn't say necrophilia is rape. It says that a corpse is incapable of consent, and a rape victim does not give consent, so necrophilia and rape are alike [only] in the sense that neither of them have consent of both bodies involved.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

The resolution doesn't say necrophilia is rape. It says that a corpse is incapable of consent, and a rape victim does not give consent, so necrophilia and rape are alike [only] in the sense that neither of them have consent of both bodies involved.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

And this, your excellency, makes perfect sense in the text of a resolution about necrophilia. Right.

EDIT: and to think that I didn't say anything about the defintion of necrophilia as `any unauthorized sexual act, performed on a deceased individual'...

My goverment voted for outlawing necrophilia.
To allow this would lead to a social breakdown..imagine people willing to have realations with a corpse instead of a living partner. The population of the nation would go down..no births. Oh, well, there you have it. What red-blooded man or woman would settle for a living partner when they could have a cadaver. Why, we simply can't imagine how any nation would survive if necrophilia were permitted, because nobody would want to breed.

<pause>

Sounds a lot like the argument against gay marriage: if we permitted it, nobody would be straight, right?

<pause>

There are many reasonable arguments against necrophilia. This ain't one of them.

We must have. Why don't you educate us?One word: Hooters.

Seriously, we wonder if some of these resolutions are intended to simply give the author the thrill of having authored a successful resolution (pick a hot button, push it). Why is this an international issue? Is there a genuine risk of cross-border corpse raiding or something?

Or you could just see that none of the clauses are mandatory anyway, so you can just not do any of it.

This would be a kind of ignoring resolutions; by simply issuing an act authorising all activity with corpses nation could be full compliant with this resolution.

And what is the point of it, after all? It simply equals to UN saying: "Necrophilia is ewww!".


[NSwiki-sysop-hat]Please don't. NSwiki is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Thank you, and have a nice day.[/NSwiki-sysop-hat]
That's why I'm asking here; the proposed relationship is simply including Vault 10 into the article as a partner, as well as us declaring partnership with Creative Solutions.

I am honestly hoping that your angry remarks have more to do with the hotsauce that the ambassador from Cluichstan spiked into the coffee this morning (really he needs to stop doing that) than the current resolution before us. Dr. Leary of the Most Glorious Hack has already illustrated just how flexible this resolution (which Mikitivity has still not cast a vote for or against on) really is. It is hard to imagine that a resolution that was purposefully designed with loopholes would lead to such a charged debate ... so I'd like to formally request that the UN morning coffee pots be labeled, so we will no longer accidently drink any Cluichstani coffee.

Howie T. Katzman


I had nothing to do with that, although I cannot speak for my assistant, Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel.

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

Honestly, I think he's holding a bottle of Ass In The Tub behind his back.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I thought my floor speech made that very clear. But it is a REGIONAL participation requirement that I be a member of this august body, else I would I have left this sad excuse for a representative world body long ago.

Gosford, PM Schwarzchild

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/wtf7an.jpg

Hayal People

This is just a notification of The Rogue Nation of Suon's decision to form its own 'Creative Solutions' body.

Also, we would like to make clear that we had no problem with the call to provide counselling and healthcare to those who practice necrophillia, as this practice is already done with our national healthcare system. It is a shame that 2% of our population [1% - The Church of Celibacy & 1% - The unable] will not be receiving said benefits due to this request, though they will receive counselling and healthcare where necessary anyway, due to their citizenship.

I would like to thank those speakers who have highlighted the 'loopholes' in this resolution on behalf of the people of Suon, and also those that have highlighted the total lack of need to comply with anything this resolution says. It is reassuring to know that the UN is not filled with 'eww-mongers' and 'eww-ers'.

Once again, we thank you.

One more thing to mention before I leave for the annual orgy in Suon's Capital Square, tourists, ambassadors, in fact, any foreigners visiting our nation [with the exception of invading armies and death squads] are protected under law from necrophillic acts, though we do have an active opt-in scheme. We just felt that we had to make this clear.

Fare you well.

This is just a notification of The Rogue Nation of Suon's decision to form its own 'Creative Solutions' body.



OOC: Great, Kenny- look what you've started!

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has voted AGAINST the resolution "Outlaw Necrophilia" after reviewing the opinions of the members of the region.

Hellar Gray

The Dominion of Evermoreistan would like to express its shared sentiments with those who have noted some concern with the resolution as it stands. As it is, the proposed resolution is too far-reaching and is equally vague in its goals. Many cultures engage in post-life activities which other nations would consider corpse desecration and to ban these activities would be tantamount to violating the principles under which the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights was drafted. To this end, Evermoreistan believes that there needs to be some sort of definition of what desecrating a corpse is for debate to continue on the matter.

Evermoreistan has cast her vote against this resolution and encourages all other member states to do so.

Respectfully Submitted,
The Royal Peking Pooh, Evermoreistani Delegate to the United Nations.

I'm not as eloquest as some of my esteemed collegues. SO, I'll be blunt. You lot are not going to infringe on my nations recreational shaggin' of corpses. It's a victimless past time, and I don't see why the UN needs to be sticking it's nose into this matter. Pack of wankers anyway. :upyours:

Impolitely yours,

His imperious lord Brad of Lordbrad1

Rubina long ago cast a 'nay' vote on this execrable piece of legislation. That is not why we now address the assembly.

Corpses in Rubina are hereby designated a national resource. We will be supplying well-preserved recently deceased love objects internationally through our new state industry NecroLove Inc. Nations are encouraged to contact Frankie Ghould of that agency for prices and group discounts for tourist packages.

We look forward to serving those interested and in the long run giving our populace a bit of relief from that 100% tax rate.

I yield the floor.

Jim Jones
UN Mouthpiece
Rubina

If you are a zombie, then you are not dead. You are undead. This would have no effect on you or your nation.

I was speaking strictly from a medical viewpoint. Of course we're undead.

Send more paramedics! Send more cops!:sniper:

All OOC.

Okay, I understand the reasonable objections to this resolution. As I've said before there have been few who have had these. As for the rest of you, stop with the stupid, unreasonable and illogical objections. It's pissing people off.

OMGTKK, Rubina, Norderia and a few others have stated their objections very well and I can understand where they are coming from. Most of you are just trolling and it's annoying. Stop it.


http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g93/JamieNesci/Buttons/image23.jpg

OMGTKK, Rubina, Norderia and a few others have stated their objections very well and I can understand where they are coming from.Really?

Corpses in Rubina are hereby designated a national resource. We will be supplying well-preserved recently deceased love objects internationally through our new state industry NecroLove Inc. Nations are encouraged to contact Frankie Ghould of that agency for prices and group discounts for tourist packages.

We look forward to serving those interested and in the long run giving our populace a bit of relief from that 100% tax rate.

Oops! Okay, so not Rubina......

Ausserland et Ardchoille.

Ardchoille's stuff is pretty good, especially their assertions about us running a military dictatorship ... or whatever it is.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/wtf7an.jpg

Nadnerb bin Cluich for Pope!

Okay, I'm not going to sit here and list off every single person who has had valid arguments.

Let me just say I commend those who have.

I'm not as eloquest as some of my esteemed collegues. SO, I'll be blunt. You lot are not going to infringe on my nations recreational shaggin' of corpses. It's a victimless past time, and I don't see why the UN needs to be sticking it's nose into this matter. Pack of wankers anyway. :upyours:

Impolitely yours,

His imperious lord Brad of Lordbrad1

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad0iy.png

I wonder how many will resign from the UN if this proposal passes.

This is clearly not a matter of international scope. Mild in strength or not, this proposal's logic is one knee-jerk word: DECENCY. It is demagoguery, pure and simple.

Mild in consequence or not, this proposal disrespects the diversity of cultures, of the possibility that ethical or moral viewpoints are NOT always in sync, even when you consider something on the "ewww" or "yeccch" emotive level.

This proposal is a cultural act of violence -- with a suit of the emperor's new clothes (the 'be kind and provide medical care and counselling to necrophiliacs' clause) as a bit of saccharine camouflage to prettify the ethnocentricism.

No matter how much you hate necrophilia, STOP AND THINK -- this proposal should be overwhelmingly rejected by the UN because it is NOT a "universal human rights" issue, which pedophilia and trade in juvenile pornography is.

Demonstrate your abillity to think scientifically, politically ... and to leave emotionality for election rallies. Change your vote to NAY while you have time.

Moksha Basileus
The Doge, Chief Magistrate, Ombudsman, First Among Equals, Poet Laureate, Speaker and Spanker, The Realm of The Realm

All OOC.

Okay, I understand the reasonable objections to this resolution. As I've said before there have been few who have had these. As for the rest of you, stop with the stupid, unreasonable and illogical objections. It's pissing people off.

OMGTKK, Rubina, Norderia and a few others have stated their objections very well and I can understand where they are coming from. Most of you are just trolling and it's annoying. Stop it. <img snipped>

Also ooc: We suggest that Karmicaria take a chill pill. One should realize that the submission of idiotic proposals are going to result in idiotic debate. This proposal is no better and in many ways worse than the proposals that your little cadre bemoan and constantly attempt to repeal. Grow up a little sweetie. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make it trolling.

IC: We highly resent OMGTKK's implication that our address to the assembly was not made in all seriousness.

I wonder how many will resign from the UN if this proposal passes.Who really cares?

This is clearly not a matter of international scope. Mild in strength or not, this proposal's logic is one knee-jerk word: DECENCY. It is demagoguery, pure and simple.Yeah, kinda like the knee-jerk reaction many delegates present have demonstrated to the words "Moral Decency."

Mild in consequence or not, this proposal disrespects the diversity of cultures, of the possibility that ethical or moral viewpoints are NOT always in sync, even when you consider something on the "ewww" or "yeccch" emotive level.I really hope this respecting the "diversity of cultures" business of yours holds true when the fluffies roll out their next "Human Rights" proposal.

This proposal is a cultural act of violence -- with a suit of the emperor's new clothes (the 'be kind and provide medical care and counselling to necrophiliacs' clause) as a bit of saccharine camouflage to prettify the ethnocentricism.

No matter how much you hate necrophilia, STOP AND THINK -- this proposal should be overwhelmingly rejected by the UN because it is NOT a "universal human rights" issue, which pedophilia and trade in juvenile pornography is.

Demonstrate your abillity to think scientifically, politically ... and to leave emotionality for election rallies. Change your vote to NAY while you have time.What was it you were saying before about "demagoguery"?

It's official. People that aren't-people-anymore now have more rights than those that are-people-but-some-think-not-quite yet. :(

Also ooc: We suggest that Karmicaria take a chill pill. One should realize that the submission of idiotic proposals are going to result in idiotic debate.

Doing a great job of not seeming the troll there, aren't ya?

This proposal is no better and in many ways worse than the proposals that your little cadre bemoan and constantly attempt to repeal.

We're going to assume that you're referring to The Antarctic Oasis, DEFCON, the NSO, as well as a few unaligned others. That's special. You've just included almost everyone that has managed to get anything to vote in the last six months. Yes, we continually prate on and on about crap on the floor. There are times that I feel I need a mask and a shovel just to get through the debates. As for this particular piece, can you offer any reasons as to why it is no better or will you simply continue to troll.

Grow up a little sweetie.

That sort of disrespect towards your fellow ambassadors is hardly likely to gain you anything in these quarters. Trust me, I know.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make it trolling.

You fail at reading comprehension. She clearly indicated that the ones she was considering trolls were those with no real reason for opposition to this proposal. Simply put, if all you are capable of is: dis law iz teh krapfaktorrry, then you are considered to be trolling. She explained herself rather well. You, pn the other hand are doing nothing but demonstrate your complete lack of logical reasoning skills.

Have a nice day.

Oskar Feldstein
Ambassador for Kivisto
Replenishing The Master's Fluids

Fellow members of the United Nations, and Non-Member Country Ammbassadors that frequent this forum of comminication, I would propose that this resolution has no merit whatso ever, other than needlessly limiting freedom, and leads the way to no more than other resolutions that in seemingly in good taste, destroy the freedoms of human beings that this UN should stand for.

My case in point does not attempt to argue the morality or lack of morality of necrophilia, nor does it believe most nations would argue that necrophilia is a desired act. The case in point is not that whether necrophilia makes you feel ill, or you think that said act is good or bad, because from an objective standpoint, nobody other than the practitioner of necrophilia stands to get hurt or ill from sexual interaction with rotting meat or flesh, and that, as sole owner of his or her life, is his or her choice.

Implying that a corpse can not concent is a non-sequenter. Corpse consent is not an issue. You do not require other inanimate objects consent for sexual or any other issue; why start with a cadaver? Does the UN require member nations to ask its citizenship to gather consent from sexual toys before use? Does it ask its member nations to ask for consent from its hammers before they work? Does it ask for member nations to ask consent from shoes before they are worn? No. Why? Because doing so is, in all honesty, ridiculous and impractical. A corpse, in a culture, can be considered a person, and in said culture, can be protected by its own laws, but from the UN's objective stand point, it shouldn't be given special consideration over other innanimate objects.

When you pass a resolution on moral decency, no matter how much good you think you are doing, you are mearly harming freedom for no reason. Everybody and every culture has different standards of moral decency. At first, you might think you are banning 'bad' things, such as necrophilia, then it moves on to other cultural taboos, such as same sex marriages, non-procreative sexual positions, and other such rituals the UN should not concern itself with, until it's a quagmire of uselss and freedom infringing laws. There are always people with less and less tolerance for non-outside party harmful activities that the only way to appease them all is to outlaw everything.

If you believe in freedom of speech, or freedom of non-harmful actions, you have to take a stand and defend them all, or else you are claiming "I have a monopoly on moral decency, and this is where its line is, and I am also willing to enforce it over the values of others.".

The Dominion of Jradal, by the decision of our ruler and in agreement with our regional delegate, has voted against this resolution.

Our ruler has made these statements:

"The case made about emotional damage is wholly irrelevent. In any society where necrophillia is taboo, there are already laws to prevent it and damages brought about from it. In a society where necrophillia is not taboo, no emotional damage can occur to the members of that society, since such acts are accepted. Anyone outside of a society practicing necrophillia can feel free to ignore it to the best of their ability."

At our ruler's behest, our ruler's advisors present their opinions:

"Quite simply, this resolution can do only harm. Nations that take issue with necrophillia can make laws against such, if they have not already, which they most likely have. The only effect this resolution can have is on societies that have no concievable reason to outlaw necrophillia, which means that this resolution is discrimitory in nature. I support our ruler's decision."

"None of the arguements presented in this resolution at all justify a universal ban on necrophillia. The only reason for a universal ban is if a major health issue related to necrophillia is discovered, in which case it can be presented to the scientific community, or submitted as a proposal if the danger is on a global scale. All the arguements in this proposal are based on postulates and ideas of the society in which the proposal was drafted, which have no relavence on a global scale."

"Some of comments made by those at this discussion suggest that this resolution has little actual obligation on the part of the nations it affects. If the proposal has no effect, then toss it out. If it has an effect, toss it out anyways. Tying up the world's governments in this miniscule issue is irresponsible and tarnishes the UN's reputation as a sensible, effective forum for international relations."

Our ruler would also like to apologize to Karmicaria for the statements made by one of his more brash advisors. He respects Karmicaria's decision to bring their points to the UN for debate, but advises they consider carefully their arguements at a lower level before bringing them to this assembly's attention.

Implying that a corpse can not concent is a non-sequenter. Corpse consent is not an issue. You do not require other inanimate objects consent for sexual or any other issue; why start with a cadaver? Does the UN require member nations to ask its citizenship to gather consent from sexual toys before use? Does it ask its member nations to ask for consent from its hammers before they work? Does it ask for member nations to ask consent from shoes before they are worn? No. Why? Because doing so is, in all honesty, ridiculous and impractical. A corpse, in a culture, can be considered a person, and in said culture, can be protected by its own laws, but from the UN's objective stand point, it shouldn't be given special consideration over other innanimate objects.

I'm awfully curious as to why you think folks should have the right to use someone else's property as a sex toy.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Once more, the vast majority of written opinion is on one side of a resolution, the votes are on the other. It's a very good thing the resolution has no teeth and more loopholes than the tax laws of Ursa Minor Beta.

Aw, Belgium.

The idea that someone can own something post mortum is ridiculous. By that logic, your entire body isn't your property, but rather the property of whatever it was you ate (or that your mother ate, during her pregancy of you) that your body built its protiens out of, excluding the two proto-cells that started you out as, which was donated by them, on lease from whatever they ate to build it. You don't 'own' the mass of your body, so much as you 'borrow' it for a while. After it decays long enough, there is no way to be able to tell which partical used to be somoene, and which partical was a potato, and which partical is that of grass. Even your skeleton dissolves, often leaving behind a shell of minerals in the shape of your skeleton.

By your logic, you are owned by whatever organisms that make up your biological body, after all, even if you ate them, it's still their property.

Edit: The ownership of corpses isn't in debate, so much as the action of sex with them is. If you want, make a proposial or a thread about who owns a corpse after death. You could argue that the family owns the corpse so long as it still resembles a corpse, but that doesn't mean they can or can't masturbate with it.

Fellow members of the United Nations, and Non-Member Country Ammbassadors that frequent this forum of comminication, I would propose that this resolution has no merit whatso ever, other than needlessly limiting freedom, and leads the way to no more than other resolutions that in seemingly in good taste, destroy the freedoms of human beings that this UN should stand for.

Limiting freedom in the interest of moral decency. Isn't that fairly self explanatory?

My case in point does not attempt to argue the morality or lack of morality of necrophilia, nor does it believe most nations would argue that necrophilia is a desired act.

Some have, but that's irrelevant.

The case in point is not that whether necrophilia makes you feel ill, or you think that said act is good or bad, because from an objective standpoint, nobody other than the practitioner of necrophilia stands to get hurt or ill from sexual interaction with rotting meat or flesh, and that, as sole owner of his or her life, is his or her choice.

Sure. As long as you ignore the legally binding wishes of the deceased, the emotional trauma of their families, everyone that the practitioner comes in contact with after potentially infecting themselves through such unsanitary games. Yeah. Nobody except them. Oh yeah, and the gravediggers that will have to rebury them. Or the ME's that will have their autopsies completely fouled. Yeah. Nobody at all. Idiot.

Implying that a corpse can not concent is a non-sequenter. Corpse consent is not an issue.

Non-sequitor. /grammar nazi

Corpse consent is an issue. Moving along.

You do not require other inanimate objects consent for sexual or any other issue;

The key word here is inanimate. Let's add on to that the fact that such object have never been animate. Nor have they ever been in a position to make their wishes about such matters known. Nor are they recognized as creatures that are deserving of protection by the UN or most national governments.

why start with a cadaver? Does the UN require member nations to ask its citizenship to gather consent from sexual toys before use? Does it ask its member nations to ask for consent from its hammers before they work? Does it ask for member nations to ask consent from shoes before they are worn? No. Why? Because doing so is, in all honesty, ridiculous and impractical. A corpse, in a culture, can be considered a person, and in said culture, can be protected by its own laws, but from the UN's objective stand point, it shouldn't be given special consideration over other innanimate objects.

I applaud the incredibly callous viewpoint here. Honestly, I do. However, there are a great many peoples who care about such things. People who do not wish their bodies to be desecrated in such a way after death. People who do not want the bodies of their loved ones to be manhandled. You claim that the concerns of these people are ridiculous. That's unfortunate.

When you pass a resolution on moral decency, no matter how much good you think you are doing, you are mearly harming freedom for no reason.

Haven't we been over this one. In the interests of moral decency. You may not like the reason, but a reason it is, and a valid one.

Everybody and every culture has different standards of moral decency. At first, you might think you are banning 'bad' things, such as necrophilia, then it moves on to other cultural taboos, such as same sex marriages, non-procreative sexual positions, and other such rituals the UN should not concern itself with, until it's a quagmire of uselss and freedom infringing laws. There are always people with less and less tolerance for non-outside party harmful activities that the only way to appease them all is to outlaw everything.

You may have noticed that, with this particular resolution, nations aren't forced to do anything. If they believe that it runs counter to their desires, they can ignore it. Seems weak, I know, but that's why it is only classified as a mild proposal.

If you believe in freedom of speech, or freedom of non-harmful actions, you have to take a stand and defend them all, or else you are claiming "I have a monopoly on moral decency, and this is where its line is, and I am also willing to enforce it over the values of others.".

No. Second person in as many pages to fail at reading. This is a statement of "This is gross, bad for you, and immoral. Feel free to do it, but we'll look down on you for it." More or less.

The Wolf Guardians;11740438']LANGUAGE RANT:I bloody hate it when people type "2" in place of "two". It's only TWO characters shorter, and thus only takes a minute fraction of a second longer to type. Even if you're a slow typist or something, sacrificing professionalism for speed is a bad idea in something as unhurried as an online forum. The only place doing that is even close to acceptable is in cell phone text messages, which are evil anyway, because it's not a common keyboard. For the record, they're only evil specifically because of what they're doing to the English language. That, and little kids + any IM program.

Now, on to something more relevant. I voted FOR, because it's mild, requires nothing, and that's about it. If it made requirements I would probably have withdrawn my support. HOWEVER, those who voted AGAINST did not necessarily or likely do so because they actually support necrophilia. It's more likely that they deem it unnecessary, which I do somewhat agree with. You can't simply vote based on the title, and you can't always assume that others do, AND, in the case of NSUN Resolutions, you can't assume you know what others stand for based solely on whether or not they vote for a resolution. A person's vote on the resolution is not necessarily the same as their stance on a situation or issue. If I misunderstood the gist of your short and only slightly coherant post, I'm sorry.

I'm also sorry for the long and rantish post, I'm having a long day.

Yes I agree on abbreviating but that day I was tired and felt lazy!

I guess I can agree on your points ,but from what I'm seeing even the people who say its pointless still vote for it because it's just flat out freaking weird and wrong! Even if it is a dumb resolution just vote for it for the sake of dignity and respect for the dead.

I guess I can agree on your points ,but from what I'm seeing even the people who say its pointless still vote for it because it's just flat out freaking weird and wrong! Even if it is a dumb resolution just vote for it for the sake of dignity and respect for the dead.

I respect the dead enough to leave the UN out of their affairs.

The leader of the Jradalan Dominion, who has grown increasingly irate, has decided to speak again, to append his earlier statement. I present his statements to you here:

"What I, and some others here have been trying to get across is that whatever your personal feelings on the subject, moral decency is extremely subjective and one cannot in good concience impose their irrational, emotional opinions on others simply because they think they should. Such arrogance is detestable. Societies need not all function in exactly the same way with exactly the same set of values and beliefs."

Nothing about a lack of this resolution says that one can't have legally binding effects banning said act to their corpse. Again, this isn't a debate on who owns the corpse, so much as if sexual acts with it are banned or not. Under this, you couldn't even legally make a will saying "Frank will have his way with my body" because it would be outlawed for no reason other than "it's gross". Nor does it imply that such acts will be carried out in the street for all to see.

I mean, the fact that sex or masturbation isn't banned doesn't mean that people can have it with whoever they want for any reason, wherever they want at any time. That's the difference between 'public' and 'private'.

Whoever has an autopsy after the corpse is buried is an idiot, so that's not an issue.

Correcting a spelling mistake is not a grammar issue. That's a spelling issue.

Also, almost all objects you use, gasoline, plastic (from oil), wood were once alive, but you don't protect them specifically? Why? Because you don't look far enough back to see when they were alive? That's your oversight, not a problem with my point.

I do not claim that the concerns for family members of their own corpses be manhandled, but in the same way a person has the right to say "Hey, don't use my screwdriver". Not because using it is morally wrong, but because they have ownership of it.

Again, this is not a debate over who owns corpses, but what you can or can't do with them.

Censureship is only a step away from censorship. Making something seem wrong is just a step towards actually declaring it wrong. Censuring something (that is, making it seem wrong without actually acting against it) is still limiting freedom, by creating cultural imperitives.

I frankly don't think one member or person or group of people's ideals on 'decency' (moreover in a topic where, there is no data that anyone but the practicioner is phyically harmed) are so grand and perfect they need to take place in the UN as a standard for everyone else. Sorry.

If your people agree to ban necrophila, go ahead. It just isn't something that is the job of the entire UN to do.

Nothing about a lack of this resolution says that one can't have legally binding effects banning said act to their corpse. Again, this isn't a debate on who owns the corpse, so much as if sexual acts with it are banned or not. Under this, you couldn't even legally make a will saying "Frank will have his way with my body" because it would be outlawed for no reason other than "it's gross". Nor does it imply that such acts will be carried out in the street for all to see.

I never mentioned anything about ownership.

Making a will that allows for certain individual to do whatever to your corpse would be render the act authorized.

Carrying out the act in public was nowhere even implied in my statements.

The fact that "it's gross" is hardly the only issue at hand. There are other societal issues, as well as public health and safety.

I mean, the fact that sex or masturbation isn't banned doesn't mean that people can have it with whoever they want for any reason, wherever they want at any time. That's the difference between 'public' and 'private'.

What the hell does this have to do with anything being discussed?

Whoever has an autopsy after the corpse is buried is an idiot, so that's not an issue.

Now it is simple comprehension that eludes you. That was a new statement. The gravediggers were associated with a scenario about a body that had been exhumed. The autopsy was relating to a body that has not undergone one as yet. That, to me, should have been readily apparent.

Correcting a spelling mistake is not a grammar issue. That's a spelling issue.

Just looking for anything to gripe about, or do you have a point with this? I was being helpful, by correcting a rather nasty error in your post.

Also, almost all objects you use, gasoline, plastic (from oil), wood were once alive, but you don't protect them specifically? Why? Because you don't look far enough back to see when they were alive? That's your oversight, not a problem with my point.

That bunny did not deserve such brutal treatment with an ax. Oh wait, I forgot, you're an idiot. That means splitting hairs isn't necessary.

I do not claim that the concerns for family members of their own corpses be manhandled, but in the same way a person has the right to say "Hey, don't use my screwdriver". Not because using it is morally wrong, but because they have ownership of it.

Your opening to this statement was relevant. Too bad you left it hanging. IO have no idea where you were going with it. I have made, nor will I make, any arguments about ownership of a corpse. If anything, it belongs to the earth in which it now resides.

Again, this is not a debate over who owns corpses, but what you can or can't do with them.

Sweet Jesus! I think you're catching on.

Censureship is only a step away from censorship. Making something seem wrong is just a step towards actually declaring it wrong. Censuring something (that is, making it seem wrong without actually acting against it) is still limiting freedom, by creating cultural imperitives.

What this resolution does is the middle ground. It does declare it as wrong. It just doesn't do anything about it. Realistically, looking down on terrorists limits their freedom. We do it to protect society as a whole, though. Just because someone decides that they want to do nasty things to a nasty thing doesn;t mean that we must let them do it. Sure it's dead. It won't really mind. Eveyone else that could be physically, psychologically, or emotionally scarred either directly or indirectly might mind.

I frankly don't think one member or person or group of people's ideals on 'decency' (moreover in a topic where, there is no data that anyone but the practicioner is phyically harmed) are so grand and perfect they need to take place in the UN as a standard for everyone else. Sorry.

Provide some proof that there is no possibility of anyone else getting hurt by this (remembering that more than physicality is at issue), and you might have something. As it stands, it is reasonable to assume that whatever diseases or infections that the practitioner might contract from such activities are communicable to others.

If your people agree to ban necrophila, go ahead. It just isn't something that is the job of the entire UN to do.

Sorry to hear that you feel that way.

This, in Teranica's point of view, is completely beyond the UN's power. Setting aside that many people find the practice appalling, the UN can't be used to regulate the morality and culture of the world. It is up to each individual nation to decide such a thing, not the UN to act like, as someone said, a nanny.

If this is passed, what would stop the UN from banning the consumption of animals, under the pretense that the animals are being unconsentually slaughtered for our benefit? The UN does not have the authority in society to cease such an act, nor does it have the authority to ban necrophilia, no matter how many of us feel that it is an abhorrant practice.

This, in Teranica's point of view, is completely beyond the UN's power.

Nothing is outside of the UN's power. It has whatever authority the member nations grant it.

Setting aside that many people find the practice appalling, the UN can't be used to regulate the morality and culture of the world.

Sure it can. Whether it should be or not is another debate.

It is up to each individual nation to decide such a thing, not the UN to act like, as someone said, a nanny.

You mean someone who tells you what you can and cannot do, and makes sure you play nice with the other kids? That's what it does, friend.

If this is passed, what would stop the UN from banning the consumption of animals, under the pretense that the animals are being unconsentually slaughtered for our benefit?

The fact that any such law would have to pass though the GA for vote to pass into law is the only thing keeping such legislature from being passed. If a majority decide to vote for a law that bans the eating of meat, then meat-eating will be banned. If a majority decides to vote in favour of a resolution that grants every third person (chosen at random) the right to kill the other two, then such will become law.

The member nations themselves, and the organizations, alliances, and the like amongst the members, are the only checks on UN authority.

The UN does not have the authority in society to cease such an act, nor does it have the authority to ban necrophilia, no matter how many of us feel that it is an abhorrant practice.

The UN does have the authority. We can grant the UN the authority to abolish the use of the internal combustion engine. The UN could set speed limits for every single road in every single member nation. Such is incredibly silly to do, and is micromanagement to a level most would laugh at, but such could become law if we passed it.

Doing a great job of not seeming the troll there, aren't ya?You seem to have missed something, to wit: "Also ooc:"

Had legislative analysis been my intent, I would not have designated it as ooc. I have indicated my objections to this piece of legislation prior to the latest set of postings (perhaps Karmicaria was thinking of those posts when including Rubina in with those with rational arguments, who can tell?) and felt no need to repeat myself or others. My objection was with the attempt to control and cut off others' contributions to the thread with the troll insult.

We're going to assume that you're referring to The Antarctic Oasis, DEFCON, the NSOI select my words carefully. Had I meant to refer to those organizations as a whole I would have named them.

You've just included almost everyone that has managed to get anything to vote in the last six months.Congratulations. We'll leave it to history whether that accomplishment should be celebrated or lamented.


As for this particular piece, can you offer any reasons as to why it is no betterAs has been well covered by others, but to answer your question, this legislation should fail for the following reasons:
1) The subject of the legislation lacks international scope
2) The legislation ignores the varying cultural traditions vis a vis the dead and their remains
3) The legislation contains a major disconnect between its stated goal of eliminating necrophilia and its inclusion of provisions addressing desecration of corpses without defining said desecration
4) Ultimately, the legislation does nothing. And the galloping horses of Frendig can attest that we've seen buttloads of repeals whose primary rationale is that the legislation doesn't actually do what it claims it attempts to. Why add to the crap pile of legislation?

That sort of disrespect towards your fellow ambassadors is hardly likely to gain you anything in these quarters. Trust me, I know.Again, I responded out of character to an out of character post. The ambassadors of this august body were not addressed. As for disrespect, it was in proportion to the disrespect that the resolution's author displayed to others in the thread.

She clearly indicated that the ones she was considering trolls were those with no real reason for opposition to this proposal.And my point, which you seem unable to comprehend as well, is that neither she, nor any single ambassador (with the exception of Dr. Leary, of course) is in a position to determine whether others' opposition to a proposal is sufficiently rational. The Karmicarian ambassador is certainly welcome to ignore posts she does not wish to answer (and suffer the consequences in public opinion thereof), but an out of character attack on other players is objectionable.

Jim Jones
Rubina

I have a small suggestion, if no one else has already stated it that is.

Instead of completely outlawing necrophilia, why not make it legalized with consent before you die? Sort of like donating organs, but instead, your body would be kept fresh (contained somehow) and used for sexual acts. Sure, after awhile the body would start to decompose, but that's why you'd be able to call for someone to return and get it, and it can be properly disposed of.

Sure, it may be horrible for families to have to deal with this, but it could be kept secret from them (as bad as that sounds), and it might even please some others!

Sammy sighed heavily and looked forlornly down on his notes, knowing that anything he said now wouldn't matter a bit. The last few days had been rough; already he'd been swiped repeatedly by handbags belonging to militant old-lady lobbyists from Kennyite Orthodox Puritans for Ending Excessive Libertinism (KOP-a-FEEL), who were insistent upon the Federal Republic's vote AGAINST "this abhorrent, toothless and overall really sucky kneefall to necros and criminal apologists." Then, when he had the gall to call the president to brief him on the vote, the Destructor had berated him for interrupting his "training session" with his CPESL "fitness instructor"; then he asked who was calling; then he asked who the fuck Sammy Faisano was; then he asked why the hell they still had an ambassador to the United Nations: "Didn't we resign from that pisshole?" After hearing a few details about the incredibly frustrating debate, the president told Sammy, "You're Xt'Tapolopaquetl, aren't you? Just blow the bitch up!" The ambassador wasn't sure about being Xt'Tapolopaquetl; he didn't know what he was, really. All he knew was he was sufficiently dark for the KOP-a-FEEL ladies to eye him evilly and guard their purses whenever they saw him -- and to elicit infernal hissings from the Sub-Vizier whenever he visited the Gruenberger offices. Speaking of whom, he'd also released a draft on a UN disarmament accord to select UN organizations that week, and the goat-fellaters were the only ones to express any support for it; he was sure it was only because they'd spotted a hidden loophole allowing them to continue their ethnic cleansing campaigns. And just last night, his lawyer called, informing him that the Federal Senate Select Committee for Wasting Everybody's Time had issued a report casting doubt upon his testimony regarding the Strangers' Bar photos of him dancing with Vice President Morgan, his contention that it was just "innocent dancing," and his claim that a "wardrobe malfunction" had caused Morgan's dress to fall off when he grabbed her hips. The report had been deemed classified, meaning it was only a matter of time before it was leaked to the New York Times.

And that wasn't even the cherry on top of this fantastic week, for he also had to sit through this awful, brain-cell-consuming "debate," finding himself on the same side with incredibly dense zombie delegations and loophole-wankers, not to mention the disgusting necrophiliacs themselves, and the Ardchoilleans, accusing the Kennyites of war crimes and all sorts of horrid misdeeds. He had pondered switching his vote so many times, but the KOP-a-FEEL ladies hadn't let him out of their sight all week, poised to strike him again with their handbags if he stepped out of line. And now they were seated behind him (along with his deputy, discharging her official duties (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Kenny_UN_Mission#Kenny_UN_Delegation) for once, and looking bored out of her skull), expecting a dramatic closing oration to convince the Feeders to reject this poison pill so that a real necrophilia ban, complete with provisions for stoning the offenders and cursing their families, could be introduced. He looked at his notes again; he had nothing. What the hell; he could just wing it. Tentatively he leaned forward into the microphone to request recognition, and once getting it, stammered a moment, sighed, and, not knowing what else to do, shrugged, and shouted angrily into the mike:

"Karmicaria SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111"

He sat back in his chair as tremendous cheers broke out from the necrophilia-apologist delegations; he turned to the old ladies, expecting a real pummeling -- but to his surprise they were applauding too, some were weeping, and the one seated next to him kissed his cheek. He smiled. At least that was one wrong thing that week he had managed to do right.

You seem to have missed something, to wit: "Also ooc:"

Had legislative analysis been my intent, I would not have designated it as ooc. As trolling is an offense comitted by the player and not the character, I don't think pointing out the OOC nature of your comments is the best course of action...

My objection was with the attempt to control and cut off others' contributions to the thread with the troll insult.To be honest? Yammering about selling corpses internationally in an attempt to skirt the Resolution is trolling. By all means, object if you feel the urge, but don't be a jackass about about.

1) The subject of the legislation lacks international scope
2) The legislation ignores the varying cultural traditions...Heh... amusingly enough, the same could be said for the 40 Hour Workweek and Right To Form Unions, which many of the people arguing against this Proposal supported.

And my point, which you seem unable to comprehend as well, is that neither she, nor any single ambassador (with the exception of Dr. Leary, of course) is in a position to determine whether others' opposition to a proposal is sufficiently rational."Dr. Leary" is a character with no more power than any other character. Indeed, being from a non-member nation, he's really not an ambassador. "Observer" would be more accurate.

Ambassadors are fully within their rights to call other ambassadors irrational. Furthermore, players are well within their rights to think other players are being irrational.

I don't put on the Mod Hat until that irrationality branches off into rule-breaking areas. Luckily for some (or, unluckily, depending on your viewpoint), being a mind-staggeringly dense moron isn't against the rules.

You seem to have missed something, to wit: "Also ooc:"

Had legislative analysis been my intent, I would not have designated it as ooc. I have indicated my objections to this piece of legislation prior to the latest set of postings (perhaps Karmicaria was thinking of those posts when including Rubina in with those with rational arguments, who can tell?) and felt no need to repeat myself or others. My objection was with the attempt to control and cut off others' contributions to the thread with the troll insult.

If all they can come up with is "Dis iz teh 5uxxors!" with no rationale behind it, then they are not contributing, they are trolling. Trolling gets in the way and makes it more difficult for those with actual arguments to make, yourself included, to be heard.

I select my words carefully. Had I meant to refer to those organizations as a whole I would have named them.

Seeing as those are some of the organizations with whom she affiliates herself, they would readily count as her "cadre", as you so delightfully put it.

Congratulations. We'll leave it to history whether that accomplishment should be celebrated or lamented.

Irrelevant. You claimed that all we did was moan and repeal. Such is, obviously, not the case.

As has been well covered by others, but to answer your question, this legislation should fail for the following reasons:
1) The subject of the legislation lacks international scope

It is as international in scope as any Human Rights legislation that we have on the books regarding slavery, working conditions, treatment of prisoners, education, euthanasia, abortion, medical treatment, and any number of other resolutions already on the books.

2) The legislation ignores the varying cultural traditions vis a vis the dead and their remains

If cultural traditions allow for such activities, then there exists leeway for authorized actions, which are unaffected by this bill.

3) The legislation contains a major disconnect between its stated goal of eliminating necrophilia and its inclusion of provisions addressing desecration of corpses without defining said desecration

In the spirit of Sexual Freedom, the answer is in the title. Lacking internal definition, look to the name "Outlaw Necrophilia", to see what is meant by desecration.

4) Ultimately, the legislation does nothing. And the galloping horses of Frendig can attest that we've seen buttloads of repeals whose primary rationale is that the legislation doesn't actually do what it claims it attempts to. Why add to the crap pile of legislation?

This resolutions accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do. It makes suggestions and recommendations to member nations. As it is categorized as Mild, that is all it need do.

Again, I responded out of character to an out of character post. The ambassadors of this august body were not addressed. As for disrespect, it was in proportion to the disrespect that the resolution's author displayed to others in the thread.

Which, I assume, is in reference to the trolling comment, again. This has already been covered by myself and others.

And my point, which you seem unable to comprehend as well, is that neither she, nor any single ambassador (with the exception of Dr. Leary, of course) is in a position to determine whether others' opposition to a proposal is sufficiently rational. The Karmicarian ambassador is certainly welcome to ignore posts she does not wish to answer (and suffer the consequences in public opinion thereof), but an out of character attack on other players is objectionable.

Out of curiousity, why is Dr. Leary's opinion any more important than anyone else's? He isn't even a real doctor.

The "attack on other players" was simply an attempt to dissuade further trolling. In the hopes of actually allowing an intelligent discourse to continue, the fools who had nothing to add were asked to kindly shut up.\

I have a small suggestion, if no one else has already stated it that is.

Instead of completely outlawing necrophilia, why not make it legalized with consent before you die? Sort of like donating organs, but instead, your body would be kept fresh (contained somehow) and used for sexual acts. Sure, after awhile the body would start to decompose, but that's why you'd be able to call for someone to return and get it, and it can be properly disposed of.

Sure, it may be horrible for families to have to deal with this, but it could be kept secret from them (as bad as that sounds), and it might even please some others!

The resolution only targets unauthorized acts towards the corpse, so it's covered. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

All OOC.

Okay, I understand the reasonable objections to this resolution. As I've said before there have been few who have had these. As for the rest of you, stop with the stupid, unreasonable and illogical objections. It's pissing people off.

OMGTKK, Rubina, Norderia and a few others have stated their objections very well and I can understand where they are coming from. Most of you are just trolling and it's annoying. Stop it.


http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g93/JamieNesci/Buttons/image23.jpg

To be perfectly honest the proposal itself is pretty annoying, and pointless. When I read the things required to join the UN, and the requirements for posting proposals I certainly didn't expect to see shite like this make it to a vote.

So if it seems like I'm not taking it seriously or I'm "trolling" (which I'm not), it's because the matter up for vote is rather idiotic and not worth the time for me to take seriously.

So if it seems like I'm not taking it seriously or I'm "trolling" (which I'm not), it's because the matter up for vote is rather idiotic and not worth the time for me to take seriously.

If you feel that this is a waste of your time, then just stay away from the debate. There is nothing in the rules that say you must contribute.

If you feel that this is a waste of your time, then just stay away from the debate. There is nothing in the rules that say you must contribute.

There's also nothing that says you have to comment on what I post.

Whoever has an autopsy after the corpse is buried is an idiot, so that's not an issue.

Tell that to the DA's, cops, and ME's investigating a suspicious death after new evidence comes forward. Happens every now and again, mate.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

There's also nothing that says you have to comment on what I post.

"Begone, Troll! I banish thee to Heck!"
-Phil, Prince of Insufficient Light

I had determined to stay out of this debate, if for no other reason then the sheer irrelevance of the resolution, not with standing the lopsided nature of the vote, and the complete waste of time this debate was taking away from more urgent matters, but I was heartened to see the rally of rationality the votes were taking. With that said, and completely cognizant that there is nothing more that can be said on this resolution, I would like to thank all the delegates who have vote nay to this superfluous endeavor. It has restored, only faintly, my hopes for this grand institution, and rekindled my desire to see this body move on to more pressing matters.

Hans Taylor Gastorp, HCBM
Senior Arbitrator, Old Europe