NationStates Jolt Archive

This resolution places an undue burden upon industry and is frivolous. Sure, the environment is a resource we must both guard and protect. However, as a resource, we must also make sure that environmental laws are acted on as common sense, not some radical ploy by extremists. Therefore, I ask for the help of the fellow delegates of the United Nations to support this measure to repeal an overstretching, burdening resolution forced on the private industries of sovereign nations.

With Regards,
The Holy Republic of Demetriopolis
UN Delegate and Founder of the Peaceful Land of Lambada

Suggestion: Don't use resolution numbers, use their full names. You looked it up already, don't make us look it up to understand what you're talking about.

Second, put something together using the Rules for UN proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) guidelines so we can see your ideas. We can't "support this measure" until we have some idea of what "this measure" actually is.

REPEAL UN Resolution #11: Ban Single-Hulled Tanker

Description: UN Resolution #11: Ban Single-Hulled Tankers (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: RECOGNIZING the need for environmental laws that are made from common sense;

CONDEMNING the use of environmental resolutions that cause undue burden to industries;

ALARMED at the United Nation's requirements on private industry, thereby undermining the rights of sovereign nations

Calls For:
The Repealing of UN Resolution # 11


Here is the text of UN Resolution #11
Description: Ban Single-Hulled Tankers!

Leaky single-hulled tanker ships can cause enormous environmental damage and cost millions of dollars to clean up. Millions of barrels of crude oil are lost to the oil-hungry nations of the world. We must unite to ban single-hulled tankers and endorse the use of double-hulled tankers. This would prevent environmental disasters like the one caused by the damaged tanker off the coast of Spain in 2002 and help lower the cost of fuel as more would be reliably available to every nation. It would also be a boon to fishing, tourism, and shipbuilding industries.

[QUOTE=Demetriopolis;12087587]REPEAL UN Resolution #11: Ban Single-Hulled Tanker

Description: UN Resolution #11: Ban Single-Hulled Tankers (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: RECOGNIZING the need for environmental laws that are made from common sense;

CONDEMNING the use of environmental resolutions that cause undue burden to industries;

ALARMED at the United Nation's requirements on private industry, thereby undermining the rights of sovereign nations

Calls For:
The Repealing of UN Resolution # 11

That needs more argument. Especially since "Ban Single Hulled Tankers" argues that its effects will help industry in the long run.

ALARMED at the United Nation's requirements on private industry, thereby undermining the rights of sovereign nationsSorry, but I can't see why A links to B.

I dont see enough of an argument here to refute.
Single hulled tankers put an undue burden on the environment of a great many nations. Single hulled tankers have put an undue burden on the lives and livelyhoods of a great many people who rely on the ocean for there finacial well being. Oil companies (such as Exon Mobile, who has owed people of Alaska several billion dollars for more than 20 years) have proved incredibly reluctant to pay up court settlements that have been taken to trial multiple times, so preventing any more spills seems paramount.

Find some good reasons for your repeal, and refute the good reasons for which the resolution was instated.

Private corporations should not be regulated by the United Nations. This gives the UN control over the economies of every nation, a power almost equal to that of taxation.

RECOGNIZING the need for environmental laws that are made from common sense;

This isn't saying anything whatsoever, other than an opinion.

CONDEMNING the use of environmental resolutions that cause undue burden to industries;

Please explain what "undue burden" you think the existing resolution poses to industry, and how that trumps the environmental concern posed by the original legislation.

ALARMED at the United Nation's requirements on private industry, thereby undermining the rights of sovereign nations

So, basically, you want no legislation at all that might infringe on industry, even the slightest bit?

If you don't like Resolution #11, fine. But you really need a better argument than "I don't like it, and I don't like anti-industry legislation, so let's repeal it".

The point is, the only reason Resolution 11 was passed was a matter of incorrect opinion. The UN has increased the costs of transporting oil by requiring industries to build a frivolous "safeguard" on the tanks. An accident that causes a spill with a single-hulled tank is most likely(if not all the time) going to cause a spill with a double-hulled tank. Furthermore, these spills are extremely rare and the overall cost to the industries outweighs the economic impact of a single spill.

Who is the UN to tell any industry how they should transport their materials?

An accident that causes a spill with a single-hulled tank is most likely(if not all the time) going to cause a spill with a double-hulled tank.
evidence
Furthermore, these spills are extremely rare
evidence
and the overall cost to the industries outweighs the economic impact of a single spill.
evidence
Who is the UN to tell any industry how they should transport their materials?
The world's governing body.

Thing is, I agree with repealing #11. But you need a better argument than "get away from my corporations", not because it's completely flawed, but because most people won't agree with it. With any repeal, you need to change minds.

Thing is, I agree with repealing #11.O.K., I'm curious. Why?

Even leaving aside my country's standard support for environmental causes, there is a real prospect for genuine damage from oil spills - and not just for the nation that suffers a wreck, but for other nations who may well be taking every precaution to prevents such things on their own. And this may not just be environmental damage: it could be economic damage, Imagine a resort area fouled to the point where they're put out of business; worse, imagine damage of a sort where cleanup can't put things back the way they were for decades (maybe it's a pristine coast where the nation is making a bundle off sightseeing cruises, for example). Would it be enough to allow damaged nations to sue? Or should we demand that prophylactic measures be taken?

If there are no rules, then we have a classic case of economic externalities: it's not my beach getting fouled, it's not my tourist industry going bust, so why should I pay good money to prevent damage to someone else's coastline. What are they going to do to me if I refuse to pay? Go to war? The cost of even a minor war will dwarf any compensation that I could pay then, so the sensible nation will just rant and shake their fist; there's not much downside in being irresponsible. It's a classic race to the bottom.

Granted, we can't get non-U.N. nations to adhere to UNR #11 (although we could replace it with a resolution demanding the embargo of any nation that doesn't comply). But I would think that anything we could do to protect each other's beaches would be better than nothing at all.

I'm not challenging you, Rono: I'd just like to see what it is that makes you think this is not a serious economic problem (remember that issue we all have to answer about keeping beaches clean by privatizing them?).

If there are no rules, then we have a classic case of economic externalities: it's not my beach getting fouled, it's not my tourist industry going bust, so why should I pay good money to prevent damage to someone else's coastline.
Because all your produce will be spilled. Oil companies don't make a great return if they don't have anything to sell because it's too busy clogging up some seagulls. It's in their interests to prevent spills because what they are spilling is the commodity they trade in. So it's a singularly pointless resolution.

Okay, I'm not a tree hugging hippie by any stretch of the imagination. However, Having double-hulled or multiple hulled tankers is a common sense approach to preventing dangerous ecological catastrophes.

Perhaps there is a problem with the ban that I don't foresee but I do not think that repealing it is the way to go without a replacement. (Wow, I cant believe I just said that).

Petroleum tankers in particular when they are single hulled have a tendency to leak. Hell they have a tendency to leak when they are double-hulled, just not as badly.

The main reason I do not outright object to this resolution (UNR 11) is because rather than placing a burden on industry it promotes the prevention of waste...particularly when transporting a liquid.

This repeal effort is poorly worded, poorly formated and based on poor argument.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

The thing is that it is in a company's best interest to prevent leaks for its own profits. This resolution should have never existed because the companies will rectify any leaking issues. Leaking tankers equal lost profit. All this resolution does is limit the way the problem can be fixed.

The thing is that it is in a company's best interest to prevent leaks for its own profits. This resolution should have never existed because the companies will rectify any leaking issues. Leaking tankers equal lost profit. All this resolution does is limit the way the problem can be fixed.

And there have never been examples of companies who've cut corners to maximize their profits? Right.

We admire your strong (if misbegotten) conviction that ANY entity run by sentient beings (including but not limited to corporations) will always do the right thing. But we're not content to leave something as important as avoiding oil spills completely in the hands of that blind faith. Altanar is opposed to this repeal.

And there have never been examples of companies who've cut corners to maximize their profits? Right.

OOC: Not if the corners they cut blatantly reduce their profits. As is the case with oil(what they need to make a profit) leaking out(thus reducing the amount of profit they can make).

OOC: Not if the corners they cut blatantly reduce their profits. As is the case with oil(what they need to make a profit) leaking out(thus reducing the amount of profit they can make).

OOC: True, but there's always some fly-by-night outfit out there that's dumb enough to cut corners to save money, in all defiance of logic, that could cause exactly this kind of problem (in this case, loss of product due to leakage) because they're greedy and stupid. I'd rather it be illegal for them to do so, both RL and in NS.

OOC: True, but there's always some fly-by-night outfit out there that's dumb enough to cut corners to save money, in all defiance of logic, that could cause exactly this kind of problem (in this case, loss of product due to leakage) because they're greedy and stupid. I'd rather it be illegal for them to do so, both RL and in NS.Uh-huh. And then they spill all their oil all over the coastline and go out of business.

Uh-huh. And then they spill all their oil all over the coastline and go out of business.

Might go out of business; that's not guaranteed. I feel that having legislation in place to block single-hulled tankers adds a stronger level of protection for the environment than just relying on fate and luck. And I find it really hard to believe that mandating stronger tankers is a burden that oil companies can't support......it's not like oil isn't profitable.

it's not like oil isn't profitable.Again, you make the mistake of confusing NS with the real world. Transplanting RL scarcities is a dubious proposition. Again, some of us remember when other players crashed the oil market, and continue to operate under that situation.

Uh-huh. And then they spill all their oil all over the coastline and go out of business.Ah, but you see, they spill oil all over someone else's coastline, ruining someone else's resorts and tourism and coastal fisheries and environment. Further, if the stupid oil company goes out of business, there's nobody left to the victims to sue.

I don't know, the whole argument seems too much like saying that we don't need laws against drunk driving, because the drunks will all kill or maim themselves sooner or later anyway. Hence, why do we even bother to save them from themselves?

Or, to take the analogy further, since drunk driving is bloody dangerous and has few if any tangible benefits, rational choice dictates that people won't drive drunk. I mean, who's stupid enough to want to risk killing or maiming themselves? Consequently, laws prohibiting it are unnecessary.

No, I keep coming back to the question of why we're not thinking about the harm poor petroleum handling practices inflict on innocent people. Why doesn't that matter?

Or, to take the analogy further, since drunk driving is bloody dangerous and has few if any tangible benefits, rational choice dictates that people won't drive drunk. I mean, who's stupid enough to want to risk killing or maiming themselves? Consequently, laws prohibiting it are unnecessary.Ah, that explains why there's a UN law banning drunk driving.

Oh, wait...

Again, you make the mistake of confusing NS with the real world. Transplanting RL scarcities is a dubious proposition. Again, some of us remember when other players crashed the oil market, and continue to operate under that situation.

OOC: If the circumstances are different for oil companies in NS as opposed to the real world, I apologize for my misconception. But that raises an interesting question: did things worsen economically once #11 passed? Honestly, I would probably still oppose the repeal on environmental grounds, but it's good to know where things stand.

Well, as an Environmental Resolution, then yes, all member economies took a hit.

Ah, that explains why there's a UN law banning drunk driving.

Oh, wait...Hack, that glib non-answer is beneath you.

If we were talking about oil tanker spills on domestic waterways, you might have a point (ignoring the possible discharge of oil into the oceans at river estuaries). But we're not: we're talking about oil spills in international waters, where one nation's property owners, through their irresponsibility damage or place at risk another nation's property owners.

Forget tree hugging for a minute, and scr_w the whales; this is a property rights issue: why should one person have the right to jeopardize or destroy another person's property?

Both you and Gruenberg have argued that nobody will act stupidly in the handling of oil because they'd go out of business; that's tantamount to saying that nobody will ever act stupidly behind the wheel because it could get them killed. That and that alone is the basis for my drunk driving analogy, and any attempt to divert attention from the core issue - whether or not we can always assume rational actors in crafting law - does nothing to advance this debate.

Besides, you're both ignoring the fundamentals of risk management: if the expected cost of losing product due to faulty handling is less than the expected cost of better product handling, then the profit-maximizing business will choose the less expensive option of poor product handling.

Unfortunately, that decision is based on the existence of an externality: the greater part of the cost of poor oil handling is paid by people other than the shipper.

In RL, your attitude is one that baffles me: how can people who want property rights to be supreme not understand that people can not be allowed to endanger or destroy other peoples' property? In America, anyway, the phrase used in asserting property rights is “the quiet enjoyment of one's own property”. Note the word “quiet”: it's the basis for noise abatement laws and laws against disturbing the peace, and underscores the notion that, in “enjoying” my property, I must not take away your right to “enjoy” your property.

Issues of air and water cleanliness have only arisen in recent years, and so our law is still immature; yet the principal still applies. Should I be allowed to dump sewage in the river if it harms property owners downstream? Should I be allowed to foul the air? To me, the issue here is identical to the issue at hand in charges “disturbing the peace”: yes, it's my home - so why can't I enjoy the 1812 Overture (at maximum volume) at 4:00 AM?

The classical libertarian solution is to make polluters pay the cost of damages they inflict on other people's property; yet I don't even see any lip service given to that. If we can't demand reasonable shipping practices, can we at least sue their _ss_s off when they foul our beaches?

Our love of the environment aside, Community Property makes a fair amount of money off eco-tourism. Is it fair to allow other countries to wreck our economy because it's not worth their time to take care not to?

As strange as this may sound I agree with CP on this one. The Elleltian Workers and Peasants own all the means of production in our country and we try to not foul up the water and air that are also shared by other people around the world.

I am not sure if anyone can claim to own an ocean...parts of it around their territory maybe but not the whole damn thing. That would make it the property of the world at large, hence why there needs to be common sense approaches to preventing its contamination.

Further I do not know why Hack and Gruen are underestimating the power of stupidity. Capitalist economics needs profits to continue. Indeed that very system of economics is geared toward maximizing profits. True there will be some companies that will take the appropriate steps to ensure that their liquid products are handled in an environmentally friendly way. However that also depends on the product in question.

Lets just say that the price of oil is floating on the world market between 0.10 USD (using USD as it is the currency used on NSE) and 0.15 USD. One way to increase the price and therefore the profit from that oil is to spill some. That might raise the price by as much as 5 or even 10 USD depending on how much is spilled.

Ellelt prior to the revolution had a capitalist economy and the price of pork fell drastically one year when I was still a boy. Farmers slaughtered their hogs and left them to rot so the price of meat would go up and they could make a profit. That was most interesting to me and eventually lead me to join the Leninist Youth Brigade at a young age because all those hogs were slaughtered and left to rot yet many people were dieing of starvation.

Capitalism can be the most efficient system of economic organization but it is by no means always the most efficient.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

As Eric Lattener is currently too drunk to string together an argument, I would like on his behalf to applaud the statements of the representatives of Community Property and Ellelt. It is naive to assume that the market, or capitalism, will make everything work fine when in fact that is not the case. Even as we disagree on the absolutism of property rights it is clear that it is simply unfair to inflict external costs onto third parties.

Patricia O'Connor
First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Kelssek to the UN

Hack, that glib non-answer is beneath you.Don't blame me for using your weak analogy.

Economic concerns notwithstanding, this is one case where we still feel the environmental concerns trump those. Altanar remains opposed.

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

Why must we shoot this down everytime it comes up. I'm getting Sick of seeing people try to repeal a resolution that helps the planet out. I have advice for ya Demetriopolis.

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

So in closing

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

Also don't make a tirrger happy catgirl that is controler of the black materia angry at you ^_~

I'm getting Sick of seeing people try to repeal a resolution that helps the planet outHelps the planet? You must have the wrong thread. This is about Resolution #11...

Why must we shoot this down everytime it comes up. I'm getting Sick of seeing people try to repeal a resolution that helps the planet out. I have advice for ya Demetriopolis.

OOC: What was your vote on the repeal of world heritage list?

OOC: What was your vote on the repeal of world heritage list?

The World Heritage List did nothing to "help the planet out." It was a steaming pile of bantha dung. Bringing it up here is irrelevant.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The World Heritage List did nothing to "help the planet out." It was a steaming pile of bantha dung. Bringing it up here is irrelevant.

OOC: It did protect the environment, it may have been over-intrucive about it, but it protected the environment.

OOC: It did protect the environment, it may have been over-intrucive about it, but it protected the environment.

OOC: And when did "Bob Flibble's genetic jackhammer" become something that was a site of environmental importance? Oh yeah, when someone said it was. The WHL was a bleedin' mess.

OOC: And when did "Bob Flibble's genetic jackhammer" become something that was a site of environmental importance? Oh yeah, when someone said it was. The WHL was a bleedin' mess.

OOC: I don't disagree, however WHL did in fact help the environment.

i don't recall that vote i think i was away on vaction at that time

OOC: I don't disagree, however WHL did in fact help the environment.

OOC: Um...how?

The World Heritage List did nothing to "help the planet out." It was a steaming pile of bantha dung. Bringing it up here is irrelevant.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: It did protect the environment, it may have been over-intrucive about it, but it protected the environment.

OOC: And when did "Bob Flibble's genetic jackhammer" become something that was a site of environmental importance? Oh yeah, when someone said it was. The WHL was a bleedin' mess.

OOC: I don't disagree, however WHL did in fact help the environment.

OOC: Um...how?

Indeed! I'm eagerly awaiting this explanation myself.

Perhaps I can end this silly and irrelevant dispute on a repealed resolution.

The WHL did in fact protect the environment by preventing development of certain areas which were listed on it. However, since there was no committee to determine what was and was not an environmentally sensitive area requiring international protection, and because it was used with great abuse, it was repealed. Add to that all the other arguments against the WHL and it becomes clear that:

In effect the WHL did do what it said it did, but did it in the wrong way...therefore making it a bad law, which needed to be repealed.

What this has to do with the repeal of the ban on single hulled tankers I have no idea, so it is irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

What this has to do with the repeal of the ban on single hulled tankers I have no idea, so it is irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

OOC: Anyone who had voted for the repeal would not be able to argue that environmental protection is always a good thing.

Bringing up WHL here is a distraction from the main point, namely this repeal. It has little to no relevance to the matter at hand.

What does have relevance to the matter at hand is that we have yet to see a concrete argument as to why the original proposal should be repealed. The point has been raised repeatedly that it is unacceptable to dump one's problems onto the shores of other nations, when an acceptable remedy to prevent that exists. It has not been demonstrated clearly that banning the use of single-hulled tankers presents an intolerable economic burden to member states. And no one yet has refuted the point conclusively that it is naive in the extreme to rely on the marketplace and the goodwill of companies to prevent oil spills.

What has become clear, through every proposal they have offered to date, is the intent of the author of this proposal to gut every single piece of environmental legislation there is.

What has become clear, through every proposal they have offered to date, is the intent of the author of this proposal to gut every single piece of environmental legislation there is.

OOC: Ad hominem, circumstantial is not a reason to shoot the proposal down. The person may or may not have an anti-environmental agenda, but that doesn't mean that their automatically wrong about resolution 11 by default. Just the same, pro-environmentalists can't be dismissed.

OOC: Anyone who had voted for the repeal would not be able to argue that environmental protection is always a good thing.

OOC:
I voted for the repeal of the WHL because it was a bad law. Bad laws are bad because they don't do what they are intended to do, or do what they are intended to do in the wrong way. The WHL is a prime example of that. Also the WHL had a very serious unintended (i believe) consequence...namely that it could be used as a form of economic warfare against a nation or nations. Yet again an other reason that it was repealed.

My point was, if you had read my post at all instead of just re ponding randomly was that bring up the WHL in this thread is IRRELEVANT.

Here let me define that for you....what the WHL did or did not do, or why it was repealed DOES NOT MATTER to the discussion at hand, namely the repeal of UNR 11.

Further, bringing up the repeal of the WHL can be considered thread-jacking. I suggest that if anyone wants to cry about the repeal of the WHL they create their own thread. Hell, I'm such a nice guy I'll give them a title for it: "Repealing the WHL was wrong, boo hoo hoo :'( "

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

My point was, if you had read my post at all instead of just re ponding randomly was that bring up the WHL in this thread is IRRELEVANT.

OOC: And if you had read my posts at all, you'd know what I said was perfectly relevant to what windurst11 was saying. It doesn't matter if WHL had unintended consequences or not. Blind support for any enviornmental help would mean supporting resolutions like it, and so someone who voted against it(or for it's repeal) could not argue that a resolution was good only on the basis of it helping the environment, because they'd be contradicting themselves. You however, missed that point. But it doesn't matter because the only person who needed to address me was windurst11, and not you. And it seems he's saying he didn't vote one way or the other anyway. In other words, your arguement is not only irrelevant and spoken from ignorance, but you are also beating a dead horse.

OOC: Ad hominem, circumstantial is not a reason to shoot the proposal down. The person may or may not have an anti-environmental agenda, but that doesn't mean that their automatically wrong about resolution 11 by default. Just the same, pro-environmentalists can't be dismissed.


OOC:

Had you read the argument of the Altanarians you would have seen that the statements were not circumstantial nor ad hominem.

Do you even know what those two words mean?

The argument: "But, but, we don't like it! :( :( " is not an acceptable argument for a repeal. There has to be actual substance to the repeal. And that substance has to backed up by something. Does it hurt UN nations economies? Undoubtedly, it is an environmental protection resolution after all...they all have that effect. The argument used by this repeal is that it unduly harms the profitability of the oil companies by forcing them to use double hulled tankers at the least.

I have yet to see any evidence to support that, but I do have evidence that spilling oil all over a beach that might be a tourist attraction in an other country can be profitable if the loss is enough to raise the world market price for oil to a more profitable level. That is hardly circumstantial, the word I would call it is criminal (of course that is based upon my political and economic ideology which is Marxism-Leninism).

There has yet to be any evidence that this minute Environmental Protection resolution places undue stress on the shipping and/or oil companies of NS.

Seeing that the proponents of this repeal can not prove their argument, but rather the potential, even desirability for causing the very thing UNR 11 aims at preventing with the repeal is very very very evident. One only need read my post on the subject.

OOC: What was your vote on the repeal of world heritage list?

OOC:
Considering this was the following post to Windurst1 (you didn't even get his name right!) the one with the various UN Cards in it. And that that post was the first post in this Entire Tread to even mention the WHL (which incidental is UNR 37, not UNR 11) Logic would dictate that you brought up the WHL not him.

It is funny that someone who fails to use elementary logic calls me ignorant. At least I managed to be able to determine that UNR 11 was not the WHL (UNR 37). Hardly a sign of ignorance.

Further, Informing you that you were thread jacking is hardly irrelevant. It is necessary. Thread Jacking is a serious breach of proper conduct, and can get you into very serious trouble with the mods.

Ellelt, it's probably best to let the mods deal with rule enforcement. I know several that read this forum, and if any rules get broken, they can take care of it.

This has been an OOC post.

Couldn't give a monkey's whichever way, frankly, my dear fellow. Why, our army has for years been perfecting ways of beaching and breaching the hulls of a variety of different tankers so that, should we ever go to war with one of the hippy enviro-bolshevik nations, we can leak oil onto their beaches, causing their army to be tied up sponging guillemots, and allowing us to invade!

Single hulled tankers make this easier, I must admit...

Field Marshal Sir Brian "Pointy" Blatherstock (ret)
Cobdenian Military Attache and Idiot

Ellelt, it's probably best to let the mods deal with rule enforcement. I know several that read this forum, and if any rules get broken, they can take care of it.

This has been an OOC post.

OOC

True true. The cliché is true of course, no good deed goes unpunished. My punishment it seems is having been called ignorant, by Mindless UN Drones.

Not that I'm disagreeing with your point.

I was just trying to maneuver the conversation back toward the actual repeal proposal concerning UNR 11. For some reason I think I will have to fire some Lenin III rockets at him the next time he tries to drag everyone off on a tangent. I'm glad my military has perfected the new Ignore Missile Warhead.

OOC: Ad hominem, circumstantial is not a reason to shoot the proposal down. The person may or may not have an anti-environmental agenda, but that doesn't mean that their automatically wrong about resolution 11 by default. Just the same, pro-environmentalists can't be dismissed.

What was ad hominem about my remarks? Every proposal I have seen from Demetriopolis has been blatantly anti-environmental. More to the point, I never said that made their proposal wrong. I simply stated my belief that it is part of a questionable agenda. My argument about why this proposal is wrong revolves a lot more around the belief that it places the economic interests involved over the environmental interests, without justifiable reason.

I simply stated my belief that it is part of a questionable agenda....which is textbook ad hominem:

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

*tantrum*

OOC: Right. Like it or not, WHL did in fact help the planet, so my responce to him was relevant, no matter how much you deny it.

I was just trying to maneuver the conversation back toward the actual repeal proposal concerning UNR 11.

OOC: Then quit talking about it, duh. The person I was addressing it with is gone and so is the point I was making against him. The only thing keeping it within the topic, is your repeated attacks on me.

What was ad hominem about my remarks? Every proposal I have seen from Demetriopolis has been blatantly anti-environmental.

OOC: It's specifically Ad Hominem: Circumstantial. He may be anti-environment, but that's not a reason to dismiss this resolution. It's considered a fallacy because you are attacking something other than the resolution's merits. It doesn't matter if it was written by a Ph.D economist or a deranged lab chimp, either way it is in it's current form. How it got there, and the motives behind it aren't relevant. What is relevant, is how much good UN resolution 11 is actually doing.

Jesus Fucking Christ would you all just let it go already? The OP's not even in the UN anymore.

OOC: There's nothing wrong with debating the merits of repealing resolution 11, regardless of wether said proposal is still online or not. There could certainly be a better written one proposed.

OOC: Right. Like it or not, WHL did in fact help the planet, so my responce to him was relevant, no matter how much you deny it.

You've yet to say how the WHL, "in fact," helped the planet. The reason? You can't, because it didn't. You've got no facts whatsoever to back up such a claim, so stop making it.

OOC: There's nothing wrong with debating the merits of repealing resolution 11, regardless of wether said proposal is still online or not. There could certainly be a better written one proposed.That being the case, can I suggest such a conversation is taken elsewhere?

IS the green think tank still going?

IS the green think tank still going?
No, not really.

OOC: Right. Like it or not, WHL did in fact help the planet, so my responce to him was relevant, no matter how much you deny it.OOC: How the hell does making Bob Flibble go to court to find out if he could have sex help the planet?

I obviously misunderstood ad hominem; I apologize for bringing that into the discussion. I think I was just extremely irked at what I perceived the intent of the author to be, and didn't stop to think for a second. I'm just glad, frankly, that this idea is going nowhere.

You've yet to say how the WHL, "in fact," helped the planet. The reason? You can't, because it didn't. You've got no facts whatsoever to back up such a claim, so stop making it.

OOC: Right, because we all know that preventing deforestation and anti-environmental industrial development does not help the planet, what was I thinking. :roll:

OOC: Right, because we all know that preventing deforestation and anti-environmental industrial development does not help the planet, what was I thinking. :roll:

OOC: That would be a pretty damn good argument, if that's what the WHL did. But it didn't.

OOC: Yes it did:

Listed sites would be protected from logging, mining and other environmentally-damaging activities.

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic has two main objections to Resolution #11: It didn't give nations that formerly relied on single-hulled tankers any time in which to make the changeover, meaning that they could have faced significant economic problems when they initially became subject to its terms, and it didn't mandate that the single-hulled tankers whose use was being discontinued must be disposed of in an environmentall-friendly manner rather than (for example) scuttled just off of its author's national coastline... We would support a repeal that was to be followed by a replacement addressing both of these points, but not a repeal with no prospect of a replacement.
Yes, before any of you raises the point (again), I do realise that my government could draft & submit a replacement if the repeal's author doesn't produce one: In the unlikely event of this repeal getting to quorum and being passed, we may well do so...

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the UN
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this bloody penguin costume!)

OOC: Yes it did:Listed sites would be protected from logging, mining and other environmentally-damaging activities.

OOC: Right, and exactly what "environmentally damaging activities" could be done with the following items taken from the WHL (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List)?

Sir Cyril MacLehose-Strangways-Jones, KCRC, LOG, Senior Cobdenian delegate to the United Nations (he needs to quit smoking)
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich's outstanding record collection
Kenny
Bob Flibble's "genetic jackhammer"
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich's testicles
Accelerus Dioce's "natural sausage".
Norderia's Noodle

OOC: I know it's bad form to reply to OOC posts IC, but I just can't help myself.

IC:

Even though the WHL is no more, please don't mine my testicles.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: I know it's bad form to reply to OOC posts IC, but I just can't help myself.

IC:

Even though the WHL is no more, please don't mine my testicles.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Or my "genetic jackhammer."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

* ooc: Regarding WHL, why should the vast majority of players be remotely concerned with what gets put on an unoffical list on an offsite resource? *

* ooc: Regarding WHL, why should the vast majority of players be remotely concerned with what gets put on an unoffical list on an offsite resource? *

OOC: And next I guess you're going to point out that we're not actually running nations. It's called RPing.

OOC: Right, and exactly what "environmentally damaging activities" could be done with the following items taken from the WHL (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List)?

Sir Cyril MacLehose-Strangways-Jones, KCRC, LOG, Senior Cobdenian delegate to the United Nations (he needs to quit smoking)
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich's outstanding record collection
Kenny
Bob Flibble's "genetic jackhammer"
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich's testicles
Accelerus Dioce's "natural sausage".
Norderia's Noodle

OOC: Composition fallacy (http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/compos.htm). The fact that some of the items listed had nothing that could be enviromentally protected certainly doesn't mean all of them did. A few that definitely had potential damage they where protected from are:

The entire nation of Sillytopia
All trees and bunnies
All forested areas of 5 acres or more in all member nations of the UN, except where laws exist ensuring that a tree is replanted for each tree that is cut down.
Any area that has logging, mining or other "environmentally-damaging" activities in it except for in the nation of Newfoundcanada.
The nation of Newfoundcanada.
The entire nation of Community Property
The entire nation, national waters, music recording facilities, and other media production facilities of Discoraversalism
The entire nation of, and anything even remotely related to, Pushistymistan
The pristine beaches of Havvy

So yes, it helped the environment. Both from a gameplay and a roleplay standpoint, wether you like it or not.

Simply because you say it did. Interesting. :rolleyes:

Simply because you say it did. Interesting. :rolleyes:

OOC: If you'd like to debate this, you may try not using strawman. Protecting "pristine beaches" and "all trees and bunnies" somehow translates to just it being me saying so? No, I'm afraid you fail.

OOC: If you'd like to debate this, you may try not using strawman. Protecting "pristine beaches" and "all trees and bunnies" somehow translates to just it being me saying so? No, I'm afraid you fail.

OOC: No, it was the WHL that failed.

OOC: No, it was the WHL that failed.

OOC: More strawman I see, got anything other than "no it didn't"?

OOC: More strawman I see, got anything other than "no it didn't"?

OOC: Do you even know what a strawman is? You're truly living up to your user name here (and lemme guess the next response: "Boohoo, blah blah, ad hominem"). :rolleyes:

OOC: Do you even know what a strawman is?

OOC: Yes, I know exactly what it is. Attacking your opponents arguement with either irrelevant or just generally weak arguements. Although I suppose an outright, "No it isn't, blah blah blah, no it isn't" is more Ad nauseum than it is strawman, but that's not helping you. I take it your responce to this question:

got anything other than "no it didn't"?


Is a big NO, so thus you have indeed failed.

OOC: Yes, I know exactly what it is. Attacking your opponents arguement with either irrelevant or just generally weak arguements.Not exactly, no. They're dismissing your relevance, not creating straw man arguments.

OOC: And next I guess you're going to point out that we're not actually running nations. It's called RPing.
* ooc: the problem here is that you're taking something that applies to everyone - a resolution - and shooting it down on the basis of something that a vanishingly small number of players recognise - the NSWiki WHL. *

* ooc: the problem here is that you're taking something that applies to everyone - a resolution - and shooting it down on the basis of something that a vanishingly small number of players recognise - the NSWiki WHL. *

OOC: Even if one doesn't consider the NSwiki list to be the "real" one, it's still a valid example of how the "real" one could have been misused under the wording of the WHL...