NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Fair Sentencing Act"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #180
Proposed by: Ceorana

Description: UN Resolution #180: Fair Sentencing Act (Category: The Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

NOTING that "Fair Sentencing Act" gave nations complete control over their sentencing laws, including the right to sentence criminals to cruel or irrevocable punishments,

RESPECTING the right of each nation to determine sentences for the majority of crimes committed in its jurisdiction,

BELIEVING, however, that the United Nations has legitimate interests creating sentencing standards in some cases where human rights are at stake, and that this interest should not be blocked by UN legislation,

CALLING FOR legislation that respects individual, national and global interests,

REGRETTING that Fair Sentencing Act doesn't allow for this type of moderate legislation,

REPEALS Resolution #180, Fair Sentencing Act.

Approvals: 78 (Juanas Adiccion, Leg-ends, Shorak, Illusionist, Baron Tom, Understood correctnes, Grosseschnauzer, Hngyhngyhppo, Panido, Ohrder, The OverFather, Iron Felix, WZ Forums, The Amazons Daughters, Safalra, Gunfreak, Blameworthy Bastards, Kommi, Kytheros, Scandinavian Duchies, ChrisCringle, Nullarri, Gateborg, Eldeburg, Euphobes, Nurdia, Rubina, Impertinence, Rhapthorne, Dolomeas, Huntin rednecks, Rakua, Wireisdead, Kilometre, Gortania, Lackland, Fitzgeria, Divine People, Ellenburg, The V O C, Maraccedia, Ubu-Rex, Belarum, Major Law, Aakron, Eirisle, Rodriganda, TheWarpChaos, Naughty Slave Girls, Tarmsden, The Springbrook Gang, CasinoRoyale, C3 2, Noormandy, NewTexas, Sinaasappel, Slaybackia, Nevadar, Oceanus Delphi, Halfbreed, Gwenstefani, Marjatta, Cuprica, Queso-Fromage, Eganass, Ordinis Societatis, Sowak, Chrilland, Baldamundonia, Homieville, Jourdelay, Sedgistan, Liberalstein, MCs for Illumination, Severe Pwnage, Isaadian, Pogoslavia, La Provincia di Roma)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 44 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Dec 14 2006Let's break it down:

NOTING that "Fair Sentencing Act" gave nations complete control over their sentencing laws, including the right to sentence criminals to cruel or irrevocable punishments,No, FSA does not give "complete control" to nations vis a vis sentencing laws; there are plenty of punishments the UN has already outlawed. See End Barbaric Punishments etc. The suggestion that this proposal somehow protects nations' "rights" to administer cruel and unusual punishments is patently absurd, and disingenuous, considering the true intent of this proposal is a future ban on the death penalty. Given the source, however, I'm not the least bit surprised.

RESPECTING the right of each nation to determine sentences for the majority of crimes committed in its jurisdiction,Then why repeal a resolution protecting that right?

BELIEVING, however, that the United Nations has legitimate interests creating sentencing standards in some cases where human rights are at stake, and that this interest should not be blocked by UN legislation,Well, let's see: the UN has already outlawed torture et al., so I really can't see what other "human rights" "interests" the UN might have in interfering with national sentencing laws ... wait. Is this another "cleverly" worded hint at banning the death penalty?

CALLING FOR legislation that respects individual, national and global interests,What the fuck does this even mean? You're repealing a law that already does respect individual and national interests, since it is in the best interests of the accused for their sentences to be decided and carried out by people accountable to them, namely local magistrates; and the national interests FSA protects are obvious, since it preserves nations' sentencing laws from UN interference. And what "global interests" are possibly being served by repealing FSA and banning the death penalty?

Or is this just pleasant-sounding mush/filler? Are you running out of good arguments against this thing, Ceo?

REGRETTING that Fair Sentencing Act doesn't allow for this type of moderate legislation,No, because FSA is "this type of moderate legislation." It protects the rights of national and local officials to protect their citizens' safety and assure the rights of the accused by demanding accountability in sentencing -- and since an international ban on the death penalty cannot possibly be the "moderate" choice, as every death-penalty ban to come before this body has already been consigned to the trash heap due to lack of popular appeal, FSA is the best thing we have toward assuring fair sentencing in national jurisdictions.

Status: Lacking Support (requires 44 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Dec 14 2006Praise Wena.

I split this out of Silly Proposals to avoid a floor fight in that otherwise amusing thread.

I would vote agains this garbage. The FSA is working just fine. There is no need to fix it. It protects my death penalty and allows the hippies to have their own form of punishments which to them are probably equally cruel--i mean effective, like prohibiting someone from having their share of the community marijuana stash.

Anyway it seems that it is lacking the required support and will die before it reaches the GA floor.

VK

The "arguments" in the repeal proposal are nothing more than lies, lies, and more damned lies.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

No, FSA does not give "complete control" to nations vis a vis sentencing laws; there are plenty of punishments the UN has already outlawed. See End Barbaric Punishments etc.
And yet you fail to realize that their are cruel punishments beyond "blinding, breaking bones, and bruising", which is all that EBP actually bans.

The suggestion that this proposal somehow protects nations' "rights" to administer cruel and unusual punishments is patently absurd, and disingenuous, considering the true intent of this proposal is a future ban on the death penalty. Given the source, however, I'm not the least bit surprised.
It does. It says there right in the resolution: "2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;". Some sentences are cruel, and those are the ones Ceorana will attempt to restrict when this passes. In the interest of public disclosure, I'd add that the death penalty is very cruel.

Then why repeal a resolution protecting that right?
The key word being majority. I do respect nation's rights to determine most sentences. However, there are a minority of cases where the UN must act, and therefore we can't have one-size-fits-all legislation for the UN.

Well, let's see: the UN has already outlawed torture et al.,
No it hasn't. See above.
What the fuck does this even mean? You're repealing a law that already does respect individual and national interests, since it is in the best interests of the accused for their sentences to be decided and carried out by people accountable to them, namely local magistrates;
Respect, maybe, but not protect. Are you actually saying that the Federal Republic adheres to every nonbinding clause in UN legislation? Oh... (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Creative_Solutions_Agency)
and the national interests FSA protects are obvious, since it preserves nations' sentencing laws from UN interference. And what "global interests" are possibly being served by repealing FSA and banning the death penalty?
It is in the global interest for human rights to be protected and for society as a whole to advance.
No, because FSA is "this type of moderate legislation." It protects the rights of national and local officials to protect their citizens' safety and assure the rights of the accused by demanding accountability in sentencing

Really? I've never found I got much just be demanding it.

-- and since an international ban on the death penalty cannot possibly be the "moderate" choice, as every death-penalty ban to come before this body has already been consigned to the trash heap due to lack of popular appeal, FSA is the best thing we have toward assuring fair sentencing in national jurisdictions.

And yet it doesn't actually mandate anything, so it can't really "assure" anything, can it? Besides, banning the death penalty isn't my only goal here. There are other cruel punishments that nations are still allowed to use.

Art Webster
UN Ambassador

It does. It says there right in the resolution: "2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;".
Nope, "cruel or inhuman" punishment is also prohibited by the UN.

What will be interesting is if your response is "yes, but people have different interpretations of cruel or inhuman", because that's exactly the argument we'd make too.

Nope, "cruel or inhuman" punishment is also prohibited by the UN.

What will be interesting is if your response is "yes, but people have different interpretations of cruel or inhuman", because that's exactly the argument we'd make too.

Yes, but people can say they have different interpretations of cruel and inhuman just to get around the resolution.

Yes, but people can say they have different interpretations of cruel and inhuman just to get around the resolution.
And people can actually have them; what's your point?

And people can actually have them; what's your point?

That that clause doesn't actually do anything. If someone believed and expressed that they thought those punishments were cruel and inhuman, they wouldn't use them!

That that clause doesn't actually do anything. If someone believed and expressed that they thought those punishments were cruel and inhuman, they wouldn't use them!


Oh we are dragging out the old and tired argument: "But this resolution doesnt do jack shit, and jack left town."

What utter tripe, nonsense, garbage and bold faced lie.

The NSA protects national rights reguarding the sentencing of convicted criminals provided those sentences do not violate previous UN legislation. That is clearly doing something and doing it well.

V. Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

I was talking about the clause in EBP, not in FSA.

for reference, the original.

Fair Sentencing Act
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.
Category : The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength : Mild
Proposed by : Gruenberg

Description :

Reaffirming its intent to ensure for all those accused of criminal acts fair legal proceedings,

Believing that all those tried for criminal acts deserve the right to sentencing by a competent judicial body, whether judge, jury or other, able to consider the specific conditions of the case,

Realizing that in many cases, there may be extenuating circumstances, whereby individuals with similar offences may require different sentences, and therefore full consideration of all relevant factors is needed,

Recognising that different societies treat crime and punishment in different ways, and adopt different attitudes to which sentences may be appropriate:

1. Requests that member nations ensure their legal processes are fair and just;

2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;

3. Calls for the creation of independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions;

4. Recommends that nations devolve sentencing powers to the level most capable of taking into account all relevant considerations.

Votes For : 9,597

Votes Against : 4,066

Implemented : Tue Oct 10 2006

For a change of pace and a chance at mutual comprehension:

Ceo: Why do you think that nations should not be allowed to decide upon sentencing for themselves?

I think that in the majority of cases, they should. But ultimately, not everyone makes the right decisions. All people, and nations, make mistakes, both in thought, action, and judgment. And therefore, on issues that have larger consequences if mismanaged (such as more profound criminal sentences), the larger community (the UN) must get together and hammer something out together. The more nations we have making the decision, as long most of them have the right idea (which is likely, since right ideas are generally preferable to wrong ones), the better the final decision will be. To use an old expression, 28,876 heads are better than one.

The UN democratically voted in the Fair Sentencing Act.

Therefore, you are depending on the same people that feel that nations have the right to use capital punishment to prohibit capital punishment.

I like this logic!

Also, we will now petition for Gruenberger citizens to be able to sit on Ceoranan juries, and, in the interests of a fair trial, for you to expand jury sizes from ~12 to ~25,000. After all, too many cooks make really tasty broth.

The UN democratically voted in the Fair Sentencing Act.

Therefore, you are depending on the same people that feel that nations have the right to use capital punishment to prohibit capital punishment.
Indeed I am.

Also, we will now petition for Gruenberger citizens to be able to sit on Ceoranan juries, and, in the interests of a fair trial, for you to expand jury sizes from ~12 to ~25,000. After all, too many cooks make really tasty broth.

Your petition has been received. If you'd like to submit a proposal on it, good luck.

Indeed I am.

Your petition has been received. If you'd like to submit a proposal on it, good luck.
The wit. Now all we need is the rebuttal.

I think that in the majority of cases, they should. But ultimately, not everyone makes the right decisions. All people, and nations, make mistakes, both in thought, action, and judgment. And therefore, on issues that have larger consequences if mismanaged (such as more profound criminal sentences), the larger community (the UN) must get together and hammer something out together. The more nations we have making the decision, as long most of them have the right idea (which is likely, since right ideas are generally preferable to wrong ones), the better the final decision will be. To use an old expression, 28,876 heads are better than one.

Remember how many of those heads voted in "Rights of Minorities and Women" and "Promotion of Solar Panels" and "Help Prevent Ozone Depletion"?

Remember how many have opposed good legislation on the most ridiculous and stupid grounds?

Let's not count on those heads being any more helpful than a gasoline-spraying fire-extinguisher.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

The wit. Now all we need is the rebuttal.
What is there to rebut?

Remember how many of those heads voted in "Rights of Minorities and Women" and "Promotion of Solar Panels" and "Help Prevent Ozone Depletion"?

Remember how many have opposed good legislation on the most ridiculous and stupid grounds?

The majority can be wrong. But it's generally less wrong than just one nation, selected at random from the NS multiverse.

The majority can be wrong. But it's generally less wrong than just one nation, selected at random from the NS multiverse.

The price of the majority being wrong is also a hell of a lot higher than the price of that one nation selected at random being wrong.

Just as the use of nuclear weaponry requires significantly more discretion than the use of a shotgun, so too does the use of the UN legislative mechanism require significantly more discretion than that of an individual nation's legislative mechanism.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I think that in the majority of cases, they should. But ultimately, not everyone makes the right decisions. All people, and nations, make mistakes, both in thought, action, and judgment. And therefore, on issues that have larger consequences if mismanaged (such as more profound criminal sentences), the larger community (the UN) must get together and hammer something out together. The more nations we have making the decision, as long most of them have the right idea (which is likely, since right ideas are generally preferable to wrong ones), the better the final decision will be. To use an old expression, 28,876 heads are better than one.

This is a lovely pile of rhetorical mishmash that amounts to nothing more than a desire to forcibly manage how nations choose to punish their criminals. It is an arrogant and self-important assessment based on the idea that your nation knows what the "right" decision is for every nation, and every legal system. 28,876 heads might be better than one, but that's not really what you're talking about here.....you're talking about the heads with the "right" ideas imposing their desires on every nation, and forcing the nations that have what you consider to be the "wrong" ideas to go along. With all due respect (and I mean that literally), Altanar feels that we know how to punish our criminals just fine, and don't need the "right" ideas from Ceorana or any other nation imposed on us.

What is there to rebut?
My contention that increasing the size of pool considering a decision won't necessarily ensure its fairness.

EDIT: Don't bother replying to me, actually: Altanar has it far better. Well said.

Just as the use of nuclear weaponry requires significantly more discretion than the use of a shotgun, so too does the use of the UN legislative mechanism require significantly more discretion than that of an individual nation's legislative mechanism.

Cutting off someone's ear require more discretion that keeping them in jail for a week. But sadly, many nations do not exercise that discretion: perhaps even a third or more of them. So the other 2/3 must protect the victims of that.

Cutting off someone's ear require more discretion that keeping them in jail for a week. But sadly, many nations do not exercise that discretion: perhaps even a third or more of them. So the other 2/3 must protect the victims of that.

The 2/3 that wants to protect the victims has a history of rank stupidity and massive indiscretions of its own. Why the hell would you think they're qualified to help anyone else exercise what they don't exercise themselves?

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Again with the cultural imperialism from the represenatives of Ceorana? I can't say I'm really surprised, though, we've come to expect this sort of bizarre logic and ridiculous reasoning from your nation.

Hey, I think that we should mandate the death sentence for all capital crimes- and I think that your nation should be forced to implement laws outlawing rehabilitative incarceration. Hey, why not? The death sentence works pretty well in our country, and we think it's morally wrong for you to have those laws. What a wonderful idea, don't you think?

Most courteously,

Again with the cultural imperialism from the represenatives of Ceorana? I can't say I'm really surprised, though, we've come to expect this sort of bizarre logic and ridiculous reasoning from your nation.

Hey, I think that we should mandate the death sentence for all capital crimes- and I think that your nation should be forced to implement laws outlawing rehabilitative incarceration. Hey, why not? The death sentence works pretty well in our country, and we think it's morally wrong for you to have those laws. What a wonderful idea, don't you think?

Most courteously,

If you think that way then why wouldn't you want the freedom to be able to write a resolution calling for the situation you descibe above. I think the repeal that Ceorana is proposing would give your nation the ability to mandate the death sentence in the manner you seem to desire. :p

As it is, Ceorana's position is defensible given the knowledge that there are certain issues that a majority of this body may find inexcusible and yet are blocked from acting upon.

Jacob Integrity
Ambassador to the UN from Imperfectia

And yet you fail to realize that their are cruel punishments beyond "blinding, breaking bones, and bruising", which is all that EBP actually bans.And yet, 1) the clause you read in End Barbaric Punishments only applies to "questioning," not sentencing, and there are proscriptions against certain types of sentences in EBP; and 2) End Barbaric Punishments is not the only resolution that addresses the handling of the accused and/or convicted. Let's see now: Universal Bill of Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27) flatly states, "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment."
End Barbaric Punishments (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029871&postcount=42): "Every nation has the right to interrogate witnesses. However, they do not have the right to break bones, blind and bruise people while in questioning. (The same goes for punishments for a crime. The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment.) Any information proved to be found by methods of torture will not be heard in a court of law and the nations will be punished with a substantial fine."
Definition of 'Fair Trial' (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030080&postcount=48) twice states that courts must only issue sentences "which are proportional to the infraction."
Freedom of Conscience (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9385208&postcount=116) condemns extrajudicial executions and demands that "disappeared persons" be released or accounted for.So long as Ceorana is determined to rewrite our nation's sentencing laws, would it be too much to ask that it properly learn to read applicable law already in effect?

It does. It says there right in the resolution: "2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;". Some sentences are cruel, and those are the ones Ceorana will attempt to restrict when this passes. In the interest of public disclosure, I'd add that the death penalty is very cruel.Really? Do we just have to take your word for it, or are you willing to state your case, demonstrating exactly why the death penalty is "cruel," its application poses a grave threat to international order and unity, and cries out for UN action? If not, then shut up.

Well, let's see: the UN has already outlawed torture et al.,No it hasn't. See above.Yes, it has. See above.

It is in the global interest for human rights to be protected and for society as a whole to advance.Whereas Ceorana refuses to state exactly why it wishes to save death-penalty nations from themselves, or why such salvation is even necessary, we refuse to allow Ceorana to be the international arbiter of human rights and advancement of society.

Really? I've never found I got much just be demanding it.

And yet it doesn't actually mandate anything, so it can't really "assure" anything, can it?We were so saddened when Reformentia acquiesced to eternity's iron grip, but are gratified to see that you have reawakened its spirit and taken up its crutch: that laws are immediately useless that don't actually force nations to do things. You care to know why FSA does not impose a strict regime of sentencing upon all nations? Because justice varies greatly among the 28-some thousand nations currently bearing the UN membership card. It would be impossible, for instance, to mandate sentencing for certain infractions by local and/or provincial authorities where none may even exist in a member state. Different nations also have different concepts of accountability and therefore place more faith in some officials rather than others. How can you in one breath claim "we can't have one-size-fits-all legislation for the UN," and in the next bemoan such legislation's absence? Your "logic," as usual, fails the get-a-fucking-clue test.

Besides, banning the death penalty isn't my only goal here. There are other cruel punishments that nations are still allowed to use.Like torture? Oh, wait.

You know, I am really growing tired of the cultural imperialism that seems to stem from the side of the International Federalists. I have tried and failed it seems to come to an adequate middle ground between National Sovereignty and the universal rights of all.

As such I will be withdrawing from the UIC and applying for membership in the NSO.

I would further note that too many cooks can indeed spoil a broth and would wonder if Ceoranaians would allow Elleltians onto their juries? Please say that you would if you wish to be consistent. We would love to bring you the joys of public execution.

It has become obvious to me that there is no middle ground possible when there are those in the International Federalist movement who choose to use flawed logic repeatedly. Try to ram down the throats of the Proud Elleltian Workers and Peasants their ideas of justice, with which we do not agree.

Indeed as Ellelt has aged in its tenure in the UN we have concluded that there is no option left to us but to join the National Sovereignist side in the hopes that our rights as a free and independent people not be squashed under the heal of an oppressive UN.

Vladimir Khernynko.
Elletian Ambassador to the UN.

We were so saddened when Reformentia acquiesced to eternity's iron grip, but are gratified to see that you have reawakened its spirit and taken up its crutch: that laws are immediately useless that don't actually force nations to do things.

And your nation has exemplified exactly why that is. I don't necessarily want hard and fast, one-size-fits-all mandates on everything, but I would like legislation to actually do something. If you continue to just blow off any legislation you don't like, don't complain when nations want to make the laws stricter!

And yet, 1) the clause you read in End Barbaric Punishments only applies to "questioning," not sentencing, and there are proscriptions against certain types of sentences in EBP; and 2) End Barbaric Punishments is not the only resolution that addresses the handling of the accused and/or convicted. Let's see now:

* Universal Bill of Rights flatly states, "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment."
* End Barbaric Punishments: "Every nation has the right to interrogate witnesses. However, they do not have the right to break bones, blind and bruise people while in questioning. (The same goes for punishments for a crime. The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment.) Any information proved to be found by methods of torture will not be heard in a court of law and the nations will be punished with a substantial fine."
* Definition of 'Fair Trial' twice states that courts must only issue sentences "which are proportional to the infraction."
* Freedom of Conscience condemns extrajudicial executions and demands that "disappeared persons" be released or accounted for.

So long as Ceorana is determined to rewrite our nation's sentencing laws, would it be too much to ask that it properly learn to read applicable law already in effect?

And you call me pedantic! Just substitute "punishments that probably qualify as torture" for "torture" in my statements.

I would further note that too many cooks can indeed spoil a broth and would wonder if Ceoranaians would allow Elleltians onto their juries? Please say that you would if you wish to be consistent. We would love to bring you the joys of public execution.

We believe that people are best convicted or declared innocent by a jury of their peers: fellow members of the community. We haven't got a world community yet, so I'm afraid Elleltians wouldn't qualify.

Hey, I think that we should mandate the death sentence for all capital crimes- and I think that your nation should be forced to implement laws outlawing rehabilitative incarceration. Hey, why not? The death sentence works pretty well in our country, and we think it's morally wrong for you to have those laws. What a wonderful idea, don't you think?

Cool. Ceorana will vehemently oppose it, but good luck. We're not going to oppose it on national sovereignty grounds, just that it's a bad idea.

Art Webster
Ambassador to the United Nations

Really? Do we just have to take your word for it, or are you willing to state your case, demonstrating exactly why the death penalty is "cruel," its application poses a grave threat to international order and unity, and cries out for UN action? If not, then shut up.
.

.

(OOC: Oops. Missed that one)

The death penalty is cruel because it [in order of importance] (a) is irreversible and therefore cannot be undone in case of a miscarriage of justice, which is certainly cruel (b) takes the life of someone, which is generally not a cool thing to do, and is fairly ultimate, (c) asserts the state's false infallibility, by saying that they know, without any doubt at all, someone's guilty and (d) disregards the person's chance of reentering society as a productive member and living a fulfilling life after the crime.

(OOC: Oops. Missed that one)

The death penalty is cruel because it [in order of importance] (a) is irreversible and therefore cannot be undone in case of a miscarriage of justice, which is certainly cruel

Yes, it is irreversible. If there was a miscarriage of justice, I guess that's just too bad. I think that happening is rare though.

(b) takes the life of someone, which is generally not a cool thing to do, and is fairly ultimate,

So, if someone is on death row for killing someone, it's not okay to take that persons life in return? Bull.

(c) asserts the state's false infallibility, by saying that they know, without any doubt at all, someone's guilty

Isn't that usually the way it works? As I've mentioned earlier, wrongful convictions are few and far between these days. At least in Karmicaria they are. What if the evidence against the accused is so overwhelming that there is no doubt that the person is guilty of a crime that is punishable by death?

and (d) disregards the person's chance of reentering society as a productive member and living a fulfilling life after the crime.

In cases where someone had been sentenced to death, they most likely won't be able to return to society. Not all people can be rehibilitated and reintroduced into society. A person who has killed upward of 20+ people is likely to do it again. That's not really being a productive member of society, now is it?

If there was a miscarriage of justice, I guess that's just too bad.

And there you express exactly why I won't be able to convince you on this.

Honestly, no. You won't be able to convince me. Especially with the arguments you've been presenting.

We believe that people are best convicted or declared innocent by a jury of their peers: fellow members of the community. We haven't got a world community yet, so I'm afraid Elleltians wouldn't qualify.



So Ambassador Webster. You would oppose other peoples interfering with your Judaical system. Why then do you oppose the FSA. It works well.

Please save your convoluted logic. It will not work on us. Indeed that logic and disrespect for the members of this body have driven us from the Intfed camp into the Natsov camp.

Indeed I believe you shall find that the most pro-sovereignty nations will turn out to be those that once thought that the UN as a whole was capable of dealing with international issues.

Instead it turns out that this body is being used to distort justice, and trample the rights of the very nations is says it serves.

We will Have no part of this and URGE all UN members to oppose this repeal which will be used to strip our rights to have our own fair and equitable Judaical systems in accordance with our ideologies, moralities, religions and species.

Indeed the so called progressives have no progress to offer but rather cultural imperialism.

Comrades Oppose this measure. Oppose the obvious hypocrisy of the one-worlders.

V. Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

So Ambassador Webster. You would oppose other peoples interfering with your Judaical system. Why then do you oppose the FSA. It works well.

*throws a chair at the wall*

We have nothing against interference with our or anyone else's judicial system. We do, however oppose certain interference that we don't like. Because Ceorana isn't a sovereigntist doesn't mean we'll do what any old nation tells us to. We strive for the best solutions. And if someone wants to impose a bad solution on us, of course we'll oppose it! If someone wants to impose a good solution on us, of course we'll support it! But the key is, we'll support or oppose based on the merits of the actual idea, not because it tramples or doesn't trample our "national rights".

Instead it turns out that this body is being used to distort justice, and trample the rights of the very nations is says it serves.
I'll ask this again, and I'm taking bets on whose sig it ends up in: where does a nation get those rights?

I think that in the majority of cases, they should. But ultimately, not everyone makes the right decisions. All people, and nations, make mistakes, both in thought, action, and judgment.

Then why would you presume that the UN is the right extranational organization to make these judgements? How is the UN less fallible than the individual nations which it is composed of?

And therefore, on issues that have larger consequences if mismanaged (such as more profound criminal sentences), the larger community (the UN) must get together and hammer something out together.

And they have. There are a number of laws on the books that require stricter judicial practices.

The more nations we have making the decision, as long most of them have the right idea .

And who gets to decide what the right idea is? Why is there idea any more valid than anyone else's?

The majority can be wrong.

Then why should the majority be able to rule on internal matters that are entirely encapsulated within a single nation?

But it's generally less wrong than just one nation, selected at random from the NS multiverse.

By whose standards? Where are your statistics? What evidence do you have to back this up?

I don't necessarily want hard and fast, one-size-fits-all mandates on everything,

Then why would you want a resolution in place that mandates a hard and fast one size fits all solution to something that isn't a problem for most of the participants in this debate?

And you call me pedantic!

Yes, we do. Because you are.

Just substitute "punishments that probably qualify as torture" for "torture" in my statements.

Won't change the fact that they would still be covered by those resolutions.

We believe that people are best convicted or declared innocent by a jury of their peers: fellow members of the community. We haven't got a world community yet, so I'm afraid Elleltians wouldn't qualify.

You are attempting to treat the world as a single community with your proposed ban of the DP, so Elleltians would qualify under your logic. Further, by their ideology, communism, we are all part of a greater community that should all strive for mutual gain, so they view your people as part of their community. They are amply qualified by the logic of both nations.

(a) is irreversible and therefore cannot be undone in case of a miscarriage of justice, which is certainly cruel

Aging is irreversible. I suppose it could be cruel. Miscarriages of justice are unfortunate. A purposeful miscarriage of justice would be cruel, but it has also been outlawed, so that's not an issue.

(b) takes the life of someone, which is generally not a cool thing to do, and is fairly ultimate,

So does aging, and aging can be pretty cool, if you are free to enjoy it.

(c) asserts the state's false infallibility, by saying that they know, without any doubt at all, someone's guilty

Which is different from asserting the UN's false infallibility how, exactly?

and (d) disregards the person's chance of reentering society as a productive member and living a fulfilling life after the crime.

Allow me to offer a scenario. Sex Offender Registries. You, Mr Webster go out to a bar some night, and meet a woman. She buys you a few drinks and takes you to her motel room. In the middle of the act, the police bust in and drag you off for molesting a minor. You didn't know she was a minor, but really, that's irrelevant, because the deed is done. Within weeks, the "victim" has moved on because it wasn't traumatic in any way for her, and your name is on a nation wide sex offender registry. You will be tracked wherever you go. People who live nearby will continually shun you because they're afraid you're going to snatch their children. You can't get any kind of a job anywhere near kids. Your access to your own children becomes severely restricted and thoroughly monitored. What are your odds of being a fully productive member of society, at this point?

In case you're wondering, the point of that was this: Get rid of that registry, and you will greatly increase the risk of certain people reoffending. Create stricter controls upon the use of it, and situations like the above will not occur.

*throws a chair at the wall*

That's mature.

We have nothing against interference with our or anyone else's judicial system. We do, however oppose certain interference that we don't like.

Are you listening to yourself? You only approve of interference that doesn't bother you? What makes your desires in this matter any more valid or important than anyone else's? Why should we grant your wish to remove capital punishment some supreme authority over other people's wishes to not have the UN meddle in their internal legal processes? What makes you so special? Because you know how to temper tantrum like a child and throw a chair at a wall?

Your big claim over and over and over and over and over again has been that people make mistakes and that nations aren't infallible, but you completely fail to recognize that there are situations that supercede fallibility of the courts, nor do you acknowledge that even the almighty UN can be wrong.


Because Ceorana isn't a sovereigntist doesn't mean we'll do what any old nation tells us to.

We're not talking about any old nation. We're talking about the UN community. We're talking about the nations whose laws you wish to effect wanting to have a lesser effect upon yours.

We strive for the best solutions.

You're failing. The route you have chosen is not the best one.

And if someone wants to impose a bad solution on us, of course we'll oppose it!

And yet you don't expect opposition when you attempt to impose your own bad law upon the rest of us?

If someone wants to impose a good solution on us, of course we'll support it! But the key is, we'll support or oppose based on the merits of the actual idea, not because it tramples or doesn't trample our "national rights".

This has surpassed "national rights" and gone into bounds of common sense. You seem to be lacking the latter. Capital punishment works well for many nations. They have refined their legal processes to a point where judicial error in the fashion you refer to is completely unheard of. Why do you feel justified in attempting to fix what is not broken for so many?

I'll ask this again, and I'm taking bets on whose sig it ends up in: where does a nation get those rights?

Here's another question: Why should I bother answering that when you were completely unable to properly counter the response I gave the last time you asked it?

However, because I like to hear myself talk, nations get these rights from the citizens that make up that nation. The nation grants itself the right to legislate upon itself. Kinda like how you get to decide how you want your coffee in the morning. Unless that nation's legislation or your cup of coffee have some effect on some other nation or person, then there is no rational reason why anyone else should interfere.

To save you the time of having to come up with a response to any of this, here is essentially what you are going to say over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in various different ways:

But I think that the death penalty is wrong. And if I think it's wrong, then everyone else should agree with me. And if they don't, then I'm going to throw another hissy fit like a big baby and throw another chair.

You have to be able to come up with something better than "the gov't could make a mistake" if you want to convince us that CP is something that should be blanket banned by the UN. If that's all there is to it, then draft something that mandates the highest levels of safeguards and sureties humanly possible in all criminal cases of any kind, regardless of sentence. That would be "best solution" to this one.


OOC:
C'mon Ceo, you're better than this. You have it within you to draft good legislation and make coherent arguments to back up your position. I don't know what has happened to you recently, but you are not bringing your A game to the GA these days. Frankly, it's a little insulting that you'd even think we would let someone of your calibre get away with this kind of moralistic tripe. You can do better than this. Maybe you need to take a couple of days off, get some perspective on things. Try this from a different angle, maybe. You're all over the map with these arguments and barely making any sense. I, for one, usually enjoy debating with you, but since FSA came around, you've been on a Disco-esque vendetta against it, continually attacking over and over again without being able to properly explain to anybody why, except to say that you disagree with the death penalty. If this is an IC thing, then cool, we'll run with it to see where it's going, but if for some reason it isn't.....

Consider this the advice of a fellow player and colleague without any offence intended: Take a step back. Examine your own feelings about this. As a player. What is bothering you so much about this? Why are you getting so defensive over something in a game? Relax. Come back to us when we can have our old Ceo back.

You know, I am really growing tired of the cultural imperialism that seems to stem from the side of the International Federalists. I have tried and failed it seems to come to an adequate middle ground between National Sovereignty and the universal rights of all.

As such I will be withdrawing from the UIC and applying for membership in the NSO.

Vladimir Khernynko.
Elletian Ambassador to the UN.

Finally wised up, did you?

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

I'll ask this again, and I'm taking bets on whose sig it ends up in: where does a nation get those rights?

In our case? Heaven. The Emperor's rule derives directly from the heavens, as he is the physical vessel of heavenly power. That's where the government mandate comes from.

I'll ask you the same question- where does your nation get the right to decide your laws?

So Ambassador Webster. You would oppose other peoples interfering with your Judaical system. Why then do you oppose the FSA. It works well.

Please save your convoluted logic. It will not work on us. Indeed that logic and disrespect for the members of this body have driven us from the Intfed camp into the Natsov camp.

Indeed I believe you shall find that the most pro-sovereignty nations will turn out to be those that once thought that the UN as a whole was capable of dealing with international issues.

Instead it turns out that this body is being used to distort justice, and trample the rights of the very nations is says it serves.

We will Have no part of this and URGE all UN members to oppose this repeal which will be used to strip our rights to have our own fair and equitable Judaical systems in accordance with our ideologies, moralities, religions and species.

Indeed the so called progressives have no progress to offer but rather cultural imperialism.

Comrades Oppose this measure. Oppose the obvious hypocrisy of the one-worlders.

V. Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

As an internationalist and a progressive, I take offense at these comments. While Krioval does not agree with the position of the delegation from Ceorana, I have to admire their government's tenacity in pushing forward despite harsh international rejection for their policies. While I might appreciate their backing down on this issue, I am hardly in a position to command the Ceorana delegation to abandon their defense of their proposal, especially considering that their delegation was not the one to bring said proposal to this forum for discussion. It is unfair to criticize their actions in this instance for that reason, I feel.

What I find especially galling, however, is that somehow every nation espousing progressive ideals or a desire for international cooperation is somehow advocating for a single UN-dominated government, and that we are hypocrites when our criteria for evaluating proposals and resolutions are misinterpreted. Krioval stands for expanded civil rights among all nations. Naturally, our government will authorize approval of proposals that expand such rights and withhold approval (or oppose outright) proposals that limit or void such rights. To some, it might look suspect that we would then approve a proposal to expand journalists' protections from revealing their sources in court, but vote against a proposal to impose mandatory five-year sentences on convicted burglars. Both involve judicial interference, but we would vote opposite on them - because the first expands civil rights while the second does not. There is no internal inconsistency in our decision, therefore.

In closing, bringing out the internationalism versus sovereignty argument at the blink of an eye distracts from the main issue in nearly every case, and fosters very little substantial debate beyond identifying who belongs to which camp that particular month. We should endeavor to restrict our statements to the text of a proposal or resolution without resorting to worn-out phrases that have long since become devoid of any real descriptive power.

As for the proposal, Krioval is against it, though we are phasing out capital punishment at the present time. The Fair Sentencing Act is, in our eyes, imperfect legislation, but it is the best that can be done with the collection of cultures assembled here today. The repeal, as worded currently, is likely to cause more problems than it purports to address positively.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar
Chief Serph Dekker
Republic of Krioval

OOC: Kiv's right, I have been doing something wrong. I'll be taking a bit of a break for a bit to cool off and sort out my ideas on this. I'm not abandoning the effort, just pausing the endless ping-ponging and stopping to get a clearer view of things.

I will start a new SUBMITTED thread when I come back, with some more coherent arguments, and hopefully responding to the arguments that have been presented here. In the meantime, you'll be shouting at the Ceoranan ambassador's empty chair, which is a bit broken anyway (as is the wall), so you all may want to take a break from this topic as well. Or, keep posting in it, and give me a backlog to deal with when I get back.

As for IC, imagine what you like. I'm leaning towards something involving Webster, a dictionary, three hippos, and gusts of 85mph.

OOC: Take care, Ceo. No point in having a breakdown, that wouldn't make anyone happy.

As such I will be withdrawing from the UIC and applying for membership in the NSO.
A wise choice and might I add that I applaud your decision. Tell the gang I said "hi".
:D

OOC: Take care Ceo, but don't forget to come back to us.

OOC: We look forward to seeing you again. Rest well and return strong.

OOC: Yeah, don't let this get you down Ceo. Come back soon.

Whilst there has been strong criticism of the author, those making the criticisms are far from balanced themselves on this matter.

Hirota expresses its disappointment at the lack of respect practiced by UN member states, failures by numerous members of these halls to practice sensible and intelligent discussion with dignity and maturity - many of who should know better, but repeatedly demonstrate their failings.

There are two issues at stake here:
a) whether the death penalty is ever justifiable, and
b) whether it is justifiable for the UN to outlaw it.

Yes, it is irreversible. If there was a miscarriage of justice, I guess that's just too bad. I think that happening is rare though.

And here we see the problem created by callous and inhumane leaders. You are saying, in fact, that executing a few innocent people is not a problem if it's the "price to pay" to continue executing the guilty.

The fact that it is "rare" is immaterial. It happens, and every life - especially the lives of innocent people - should be protected. There is no justification for the State to actively maintain a situation whereby it (the State) deprives innocent people of their lives. You are condoning killing the innocent because your government wants to (it does not need to) carry out revenge against the guilty.


So, if someone is on death row for killing someone, it's not okay to take that persons life in return? Bull.


No it is not. For several reasons, most notably the one stated above. There is also the little matter of it being unecessary and barbaric.

Calling it unecessary is an objective statement of fact, and surely if the United Nations can prevent unecessary, preventable deaths, it should do so.

Calling it barbaric is, admittedly, subjective. But the United Nations has already ruled that breaking someone's bones or "bruising" them to extract a confession is wrong. The precedent exists for the UN to pass laws preventing people from being harmed by their government or their country's laws. "NatSov" grounds don't hold water here.


Isn't that usually the way it works? As I've mentioned earlier, wrongful convictions are few and far between these days. At least in Karmicaria they are.

And I repeat that, as long as you are executing innocent people, which is unecessary and preventable, the United Nations is fully justified in stepping in.

Also, other nations may not be quite as discerning. Compare your petty desire to kill people with the benefits to be had from preventing dictators from massacring their own people.


What if the evidence against the accused is so overwhelming that there is no doubt that the person is guilty of a crime that is punishable by death?


The arguments against barbaric punishment remain. More importantly, it is very easy for a country to state that the evidence is "overwhelming" when it is not. I assume (and hope) that Karmicaria does not execute anyone unless its courts are firmly convinced of that person's guilt. And yet errors continue everywhere.


In cases where someone had been sentenced to death, they most likely won't be able to return to society. Not all people can be rehibilitated and reintroduced into society. A person who has killed upward of 20+ people is likely to do it again. That's not really being a productive member of society, now is it?

That's a side issue, but to reply to it anyway: Make them productive in prison. If you're not doing that already.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

OOC:

Perhaps the Elleltian delegation was overly emotional in its response. I beg the pardon of the General Assembly. I am not myself right now having a severe chest cold that could run into pneumonia if I am not careful, and have been taking some very powerful medications. This is not an excuse, nor is it an attempt to justify my overly emotional behavior on the floor, rather it is an explanation of it.

IC:

Ellelt is also a progressive nation. However we have found that the ideas of foisting a one-size-fits-all system on 29,000 unique and sovereign nations not to be progressive at all, rather it is a back door form of cultural imperialism.

Ellelt fought a revolution to end imperialism at home, Our Revolution cost the lives of Millions of my brothers and sisters. It is in their honor and to their glory that Ellelt is a Free, Independent and Communist Nation Today.

Our goals in the international area are to expand human rights without trampling on the rights of other people. Much like some people like coffee, some people like tea, and other like to have orange juice with their breakfast there is room in this world for many different political opinions and attitudes.

Indeed the Diversity of the UN is where it draws it strength. The opinions of all here should be valued and respected, not because you agree with them but rather because they are representatives of fellow sovereign independent nations.

My brothers, sisters and comrades fought a revolution to end tyranny at home. We seek to prevent tyranny here in this chamber.

The UN does not have a right to interfere with my judicial system except in cases of extradition to a foreign nation, although we would prefer to leave this to the realm of bi- or multi-lateral agreements. The business of the UN should be left to issues that are of international relevance. The death penalty is not a matter of international relevance. Indeed to say that it is, is akin to saying that what I, Vladimir Khernynko, decide to drink with my breakfast is of national relevance.

Indeed the question has arisen as to where nations derive the right to create crimes, legislation, and the punishments thereof. The Elleltian Constitution can not be more clear on this.

PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED SOCIALIST STATES OF ELLELT--27 MAY 2003

We the Workers and Peasants of Ellelt, and its surrounding subordinate states, in order to forge a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, secure the common defense, promote the general welfare, and construct socialism Do Hereby establish this Constitution for the United Socialist States of Ellelt.

In Ellelt it is the Proletariat that is the ruling class. Or as some of our more bourgeois colleagues would put it the people are the ones who grant the right to the government.

Other nations may derive their sovereignty from other places, their religion or god (in the cases of theocracies), tradition, birthrights of kings/queens/princes/etc, their military (in the case of juntas). Where they derive that sovereignty is irrelevant as far as the UN is concerned, that they have it is. It is the duty of all UN member states to respect the right of other member states to develop in the way that is best for them. This duty is as sacred as Lenin's grave-site to us, and It shall not be defiled.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

OOC:
Indeed the Diversity of the UN is where it draws it strength. The opinions of all here should be valued and respected, not because you agree with them but rather because they are representatives of fellow sovereign independent nations.

A fair point, but a matter of perspective. Obviously the UN infringes on sovereignty in some ways. If you are a member of the United Nations, you can't argue that it should never interfere with your sovereignty.


The death penalty is not a matter of international relevance. Indeed to say that it is, is akin to saying that what I, Vladimir Khernynko, decide to drink with my breakfast is of national relevance.


No, because when you drink tea (or orange juice, of coffee, or vodka or whatever) for breakfast, you're not killing people. The issue of UN member States killing their own people merits discussion, at the very least. As I explained a moment ago.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Hirota expresses its disappointment at the lack of respect practiced by UN member states, failures by numerous members of these halls to practice sensible and intelligent discussion with dignity and maturity - many of who should know better, but repeatedly demonstrate their failings.Yes, yes. You've banged this drum long enough, Hirota. You think everyone's a vile, sweary bastard and you don't much care for it. Please quit ranting on and on in every thread that crosses your radar.

A fair point, but a matter of perspective. Obviously the UN infringes on sovereignty in some ways. If you are a member of the United Nations, you can't argue that it should never interfere with your sovereignty.

It has never been the argument of Ellelt that the UN should never legislate on various topics. We do expect however that these topics be topics of international problems and not a foisting of the morality of one nation on other nations that may or may not agree with that particular set of morals. Such is the case with the death penalty, and hence the need for the FSA.

No, because when you drink tea (or orange juice, of coffee, or vodka or whatever) for breakfast, you're not killing people. The issue of UN member States killing their own people merits discussion, at the very least. As I explained a moment ago.



Please remember that these "people" as you have put it have been duly tried and convicted, often with one or more appeals to a higher court of law. Ellelt executes criminals who have demonstrated their lack of humanity by their actions. These actions as defined by our laws, and re-affirmed by a 87% majority on our recent referendum on the matter, include treason, murder and child molestation.

As to the discussion topics you brought up moments ago:

There are two issues at stake here:
a) whether the death penalty is ever justifiable, and
b) whether it is justifiable for the UN to outlaw it.


The answer is quite simple. The death penalty is justifiable according to differing sets of morality. Some may view that it is never justifiable, others may view that it is the only effective form of punishment, and still others (the vast majority we think) say that it is justifiable for certain crimes but not for other crimes. Hence the need for national rather than international legislation on the matter.

As to whether it is justifiable for the UN to outlaw the death penalty we say that it is not because with 29,000+ UN members there probably is many different opinions on the subject and it would best be dealt with on a national level.

We do believe that the UN does have the right to mandate fair and equitable trials and there are already laws on the books that do that.

Also remember that the debate is a two way street and let us pose the counter argument to your question above.

There are two issues at stake here:
a) whether the death penalty is never justifiable, and
b) whether it is justifiable for the UN to mandate that it be used as punishment for all crimes.


Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

The answer is quite simple. The death penalty is justifiable according to differing sets of morality. Some may view that it is never justifiable, others may view that it is the only effective form of punishment, and still others (the vast majority we think) say that it is justifiable for certain crimes but not for other crimes. Hence the need for national rather than international legislation on the matter.

As to whether it is justifiable for the UN to outlaw the death penalty we say that it is not because with 29,000+ UN members there probably is many different opinions on the subject and it would best be dealt with on a national level.

If that is how your nation views this issue, and would oppose an outright ban on capital punishment, would the esteemed Ambassador suggest that the small minority of instances where the death penalty is used but would not be acceptable to the vast majority of UN member nations that this body does not have a rsponsibility to offer some form of regulation? I would tend to agree that an outright ban on the death penalty will not be acceptable to a majoirty of member nations for the foreseeable future. However, as nations and social policies evolve and grow from interaction with other states through such bodies as this, a nation's views may shift either way on this subject.

Consequently, as an international body discussing issues that are of importance to every member nation, it would not be completely unreasonable to expect that some sort of international standards regading capital punishment might come forth from this body. As it stands now, FSA would not allow that kind of evolution in thought.

Jacob Integrity
UN Ambassador for Imperfectia

Ambassador Integrity:

As I have said I do not believe the majority of UN members at this time will favor a UN ban on capital punishment. If this should change in the future, which I highly doubt, the membership can always repeal and replace the FSA. Although that will be difficult to do.

As for your question on crimes that should not be punished by execution, those should be quite obvious. Petty Theft for example should not be punished with execution in our opinion, we would find that extreme. Jaywalking, should not be punished by execution. Not paying parking tickets is an other example. Graffiti-ing (our term for it is wanton destruction of the people's [or personal depending on the case] property--due to the fact that the local soviet controls the administrative functions of all means of economic production, private property being relegated to housing and consumer goods) a wall. These misdemeanors are usually dealt with by paying a fine and/or restitution in the USSE.

Grand theft, assault and battery, rape of an adult, and other felonies carry various amounts of time spent in a Hard Labor Rehabilitation Facility. Called a Gulag in Elleltian.

Murder (premeditated and not), Treason, and Child Molestation are all punishable by execution as the persons who commit these types of crimes are in the opinion of the Elleltian people (the very people that our laws are written for) to be totally unredeemable.

Persons convicted of capital crimes in Ellelt are guaranteed three appeals to a higher court, to ensure that the convict is indeed guilty prior to execution.

Further the UN already has mandates on the books as I have said previously dealing with trials, and minimum standards for justice in the opinion of the world. I suggest you read the passed proposals thread, or look at the law books that are available on the main site.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

It has never been the argument of Ellelt that the UN should never legislate on various topics. We do expect however that these topics be topics of international problems and not a foisting of the morality of one nation on other nations that may or may not agree with that particular set of morals. Such is the case with the death penalty,


That used to be our position. We now believe that matters of life and death are issues of international importance.


As to whether it is justifiable for the UN to outlaw the death penalty we say that it is not because with 29,000+ UN members there probably is many different opinions on the subject and it would best be dealt with on a national level.


But you could apply that reasoning to anything.


We do believe that the UN does have the right to mandate fair and equitable trials and there are already laws on the books that do that.


Not really. It is still possible to execute innocent people, for example.


There are two issues at stake here:
a) whether the death penalty is never justifiable, and
b) whether it is justifiable for the UN to mandate that it be used as punishment for all crimes.

a) "Never say never", I suppose, but I do believe not.
b) Now that would be absurd. Ambassador Khernynko is intelligent enough for me not to have to explain why mandating the death penalty would be entirely different to outlawing it.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Any discussion of FSA or repealing FSA always ends up focusing on the death penalty, as that is the most extreme "fair" sentence most people can imagine. Let's keep in mind though that FSA also allows nations to impose a wide array of other "fair" sentences such as judicial rape, amputation of hands or feet, stoning, etc.

Also, under FSA the punishment doesn't have to "fit the crime". A nation could, for instance, pass a law that the sentence for tax-evasion is for the primary taxpayer to be burned alive and for his/her dependents to be sent to a forced labor camp. This would be perfectly legal under FSA. So the issue with FSA is more than just that it allows the imposition of the death penalty. It allows the imposition of sentences that are cruel, excessive and wildly disproportionate to the crime committed.

Quynn Olver
Bunny Wrangler

I guess what I'm looking for here is an explanation from FSA's supporters of why gang rape is an acceptable sentence for adultery and why the UN should be protecting the right of nations to impose such a sentence.

That used to be our position. We now believe that matters of life and death are issues of international importance.

They are not matters of international importance. People die all the time and I do not see the UN mandating immortality. That quite frankly is a silly position.

But you could apply that reasoning to anything.

Indeed each and every time a resolution comes up for vote and debate this very reason must be considered. You can write a proposal, write a repeal and vote cant you. So can I. However I keep my morality to myself, most of the other members (in our opinion) are not interested in how we believe public execution is a deterrent to crime.



Not really. It is still possible to execute innocent people, for example.

Innocent people also get sent to prison too. My nations and most likely the other nations of the UN that execute take all reasonable precautions from that happening. Also that logic is flawed. People die in car crashes every day, yet I don't see a resolution to ban cars.

a) "Never say never", I suppose, but I do believe not.
b) Now that would be absurd. Ambassador Khernynko is intelligent enough for me not to have to explain why mandating the death penalty would be entirely different to outlawing it.

First off I do not believe in never saying never. I do say never, especially when we are dealing with extremes. The death penalty is an extreme punishment for an extreme crime.

As for the last part. No it isn't silly at all. Indeed it seems that the Ariddian delegation hasn't heard that opposites define each other, for example good only exists because evil does.

There are those who do indeed believe that execution is the only form of punishment acceptable. I'm quite sure that you would not appreciate having that morality foisted upon you. I know that I wouldn't. Likewise, I do not want the morality that the death penalty is always wrong foisted on me either.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

I guess what I'm looking for here is an explanation from FSA's supporters of why gang rape is an acceptable sentence for adultery and why the UN should be protecting the right of nations to impose such a sentence.

I don't know of any nation that uses that punishment.

However the UN must protect the rights of the member nations to determine for themselves the punishments that they use. Different nations have different laws based upon different needs and social constructions. Perhaps adultery is a crime in Yelda, but in Ellelt it is not. And we would not use gang rape as a punishment either, we use Hard Labor, Fines, and Execution like most other sane nations, ran by sane people.

Those types of punishments sound like they would belong to a psychotic dictatorship which typically do not join the UN.

VK.

I don't know of any nation that uses that punishment.
Just for the sake of argument, let's say they exist. Why should the UN protect their right to impose gang rape as a sentence for adultery?

Different nations have different laws based upon different needs and social constructions.
Like the "need" to pass a law that the sentence for tax-evasion is for the primary taxpayer to be burned alive and for his/her dependents to be sent to a forced labor camp? Explain.
Perhaps adultery is a crime in Yelda, but in Ellelt it is not.
Stop trying to dodge the issue. This isn't about whether or not adultery is a crime in Yelda or Ellelt. It is about sentencing.

Those types of punishments sound like they would belong to a psychotic dictatorship which typically do not join the UN.
Oh really? I suppose you have compiled a body of stats and data to back that up. Care to share it?

I guess what I'm looking for here is an explanation from FSA's supporters of why gang rape is an acceptable sentence for adultery and why the UN should be protecting the right of nations to impose such a sentence.

Just a thought, but perhaps what its supporters are looking for from those who wish to repeal it are:

1. Explanations of where these outlandish punishments are commonly practiced.
2. Explanations of why it's a widespread international problem that the UN can legitimately address.
3. Explanations of how the UN can effectively and sensitively address this problem if it does indeed warrant international attention.
4. Explanations of why certain UN member nations should impose their morality on other UN nations.

They are not matters of international importance. People die all the time and I do not see the UN mandating immortality.

Absurd argument. Executions can be prevented by legislation. Death by old age cannot.


However I keep my morality to myself

I've already addressed this point.


My nations and most likely the other nations of the UN that execute take all reasonable precautions from that happening.

I've already addressed this point.


People die in car crashes every day, yet I don't see a resolution to ban cars.


Absurd argument. The primary function of a car is not to kill its occupants.


Indeed it seems that the Ariddian delegation hasn't heard that opposites define each other, for example good only exists because evil does.


Of course we have. "Good" and "evil" are both societal constructs defined against each other. Which is beside the point.


There are those who do indeed believe that execution is the only form of punishment acceptable. I'm quite sure that you would not appreciate having that morality foisted upon you. I know that I wouldn't. Likewise, I do not want the morality that the death penalty is always wrong foisted on me either.


I've already explained why the two situations are not comparable.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Oh really? I suppose you have compiled a body of stats and data to back that up. Care to share it?

Actually that is a phenomenon that I have noticed but I suppose if i had nothing better to do all day but check the 1.6 million nations that are on NS I could come up with the statistics in a few weeks.

Ive noticed that most of the crazies stick to II and NS forums and rarely come in here as I do have information on the most prominent members that participate on the GA floor and most of them seem reasonably sane.

Like the "need" to pass a law that the sentence for tax-evasion is for the primary taxpayer to be burned alive and for his/her dependents to be sent to a forced labor camp? Explain.

Such a situation would never arise. The reason that governments impose taxes is to pay for operating expenditures, defense and various programs. If you execute someone you wont get any money from them. Here let me put it mathematical for you: Tax evasion = not paying the government the money you owe it. So Tax Evasion + Execution and dependents in labor camp = Retarded. A really absurd scenario if you ask me.

I do not know why you insist on bringing this absurdity to the floor. Further whatever you have been smoking you should stop smoking it.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say they exist. Why should the UN protect their right to impose gang rape as a sentence for adultery?


It is the business of the UN to protect the rights of all nations which are members of the UN. If a nation wants to use that as a punishment for adultery that is fine by me. In fact its more than fine, Its none of my business. However, We wont unilaterally be extraditing any person who comes to Ellelt seeking asylum from that punishment.

Stop trying to dodge the issue. This isn't about whether or not adultery is a crime in Yelda or Ellelt. It is about sentencing.


I'm not dodging the issue. There isn't an issue with the FSA in place. Nations determine sentences based on their needs and thats the end of it. An issue would have to exist before I could dodge it. That is common sense.

VK.

Just a thought, but perhaps what its supporters are looking for from those who wish to repeal it are:

1. Explanations of where these outlandish punishments are commonly practiced.
2. Explanations of why it's a widespread international problem that the UN can legitimately address.
3. Explanations of how the UN can effectively and sensitively address this problem if it does indeed warrant international attention.
4. Explanations of why certain UN member nations should impose their morality on other UN nations.I'll give it a go.

1. and 2. Given the number of nations who oppose repeal of FSA with the argument that "if we want to be cruel to our people, it's our choice so butt out", one can deduce that there is indeed a wide-spread problem. As to UN authority, protection of members' peoples human and civil rights is completely within the purview of this body as long as a majority of the body agrees so. Trying to prevent this body from voting on such issues with a legalistic shell-game (out of fear that the Assembly would vote in a manner one disagrees with perhaps?) is merely politics.

3. Since we're talking about a repeal, all the author really has to do is show that the act to be repealed is worth repealing. That FSA does not in anyway guarantee fair or non-cruel punishments (by any civilized definition) should be enough, or at least according to statements made previously by the OP of this thread.

4. Good question, but one that UN has shown it doesn't care about else we wouldn't have "Ban Paedophila", "Outlaw Necrophilia" or "Ban Child Pornography." And amusingly enough some of the people screaming the loudest about "don't challenge mah authority" were some of the biggest proponents of those pieces of morality legislation.

Leetha Talone
Acting Ambassador
Rubina

1. Explanations of where these outlandish punishments are commonly practiced.
Some of us choose not to accept the "big rock candy mountain" view that everything is ok here and unlike the mythical land of RL, nothing bad ever happens in this world. Human rights laws aren't needed because nobody would ever dream of violating human rights. Fuel conservation is absurd because "look!, we just discovered a planet made of gasoline!" Do you deny that these punishments are legal under FSA?
2. Explanations of why it's a widespread international problem that the UN can legitimately address.
So that's going to be your argument? "We say it doesn't exist here, so it doesn't exist here and therefore there is no need to address it"?
3. Explanations of how the UN can effectively and sensitively address this problem if it does indeed warrant international attention.
A good starting point might be to repeal a resolution which says nations may impose any sentence for any crime regardless of the nature of the crime and whether or not the sentence is proportionate to the crime. Right now, the problem is that any sentence can be imposed because the UN say's it can.
4. Explanations of why certain UN member nations should impose their morality on other UN nations.
Impose our morality? Before I answer that, do you deny that under FSA, nations would be allowed to impose the sentences I have used as examples? Are you going to defend their right to do that?

I'm trying to steer this away from the usual "death penalty is teh cool" vs. "no, death penalty is teh sux" argument we usually have. FSA allows for much, much more than just capital punishment.

Stuff. Completely missing the point in the tax evasion example. Not understanding the use of analogy. More stuff.
Run along and play somewhere else. The grownups are trying to talk here.

1. and 2. Given the number of nations who oppose repeal of FSA with the argument that "if we want to be cruel to our people, it's our choice so butt out", one can deduce that there is indeed a wide-spread problem.

Care to provide evidence of these many statements, and that more than a very small percentage of nations actually has cruel punishments rather than just punishments that some of our more fluffy members would see as cruel because of their sentimentality?

As to UN authority, protection of members' peoples human and civil rights is completely within the purview of this body as long as a majority of the body agrees so. Trying to prevent this body from voting on such issues with a legalistic shell-game (out of fear that the Assembly would vote in a manner one disagrees with perhaps?) is merely politics.

Your assertion that the UN can decide to legislate on this matter is true, but is not an answer to the question of why it should be doing so.

As to the assertion that trying to prevent the UN from passing legislation in this area is merely politics, you might want to keep in mind that trying to interfere in national judicial systems out of a false sense of moral superiority is "merely politics" to the same extent. I may be of a dark hue, but you sure as hell ain't no lighter.

3. Since we're talking about a repeal, all the author really has to do is show that the act to be repealed is worth repealing. That FSA does not in anyway guarantee fair or non-cruel punishments (by any civilized definition) should be enough, or at least according to statements made previously by the OP of this thread.

By any civilized definition? Why don't y'all "civilized" nations just keep your superiority complexes and pretense to enlightenment to yourselves? I don't remember political and cultural imperialism on the part of nations having particularly good effects, and doubt it'll have any better effects when the UN does it.

4. Good question, but one that UN has shown it doesn't care about else we wouldn't have "Ban Paedophila", "Outlaw Necrophilia" or "Ban Child Pornography." And amusingly enough some of the people screaming the loudest about "don't challenge mah authority" were some of the biggest proponents of those pieces of morality legislation.

So because the UN has been morally presumptuous in the past we should continue this tradition? Sorry, I'm not buying that particular cart of gator dung.

Also, I don't support banning pedophilia, necrophilia, or child pornography at either a national or international level. You can take the implications of hypocrisy and launch them at someone else.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I'll give it a go.

1. and 2. Given the number of nations who oppose repeal of FSA with the argument that "if we want to be cruel to our people, it's our choice so butt out", one can deduce that there is indeed a wide-spread problem. As to UN authority, protection of members' peoples human and civil rights is completely within the purview of this body as long as a majority of the body agrees so. Trying to prevent this body from voting on such issues with a legalistic shell-game (out of fear that the Assembly would vote in a manner one disagrees with perhaps?) is merely politics.

Utter tripe. I support the FSA because it protects my nation's right to determine its own laws and punishments for breaking those laws. As far as I can determine that is not a problem.

As far as the FSA being a blocker or whatever you are going after Rubina, that is a moot point. All legislation blocks duplicate legislation. Further NS is a political simulation. If you don't believe me check the FAQ its there in black and white for everyone to read. And in political simulations we do have politics. Why? Because if we didn't it wouldn't be a political simulation.:rolleyes:

3. Since we're talking about a repeal, all the author really has to do is show that the act to be repealed is worth repealing. That FSA does not in anyway guarantee fair or non-cruel punishments (by any civilized definition) should be enough, or at least according to statements made previously by the OP of this thread.

No it doesn't define punishments, fair or unfair, cruel or not. There are other pieces of legislation that do that and to include that in the FSA would have been considered duplication, and hence illegal (meaning that it wouldn't be on the books now and we wouldn't be debating this sham of a repeal). What the FSA does do is it mandates that the individual Sovereign Nations of the NSUN have the right to define for themselves (within the bounds set by other NSUN legislation) what is to them fair and just.

4. Good question, but one that UN has shown it doesn't care about else we wouldn't have "Ban Paedophila", "Outlaw Necrophilia" or "Ban Child Pornography." And amusingly enough some of the people screaming the loudest about "don't challenge mah authority" were some of the biggest proponents of those pieces of morality legislation.

That is because the laws were already on the books in many nations. I don't know about you but I have no desire to sleep with a child (pedophilia), nor to have sex with the dead (necrophilia) and child pornography is just plain disgusting to the minds of most normal people. That would be the reason behind nobody protesting your three examples...those are morals that almost everyone holds to be correct regardless of religion or political ideology.

Now that Ive dealt with Rubina's bankrupt Ideology.

Yelda's analogy was stupid. That analogy had no point to miss. No one is going to punish tax evasion with the death penalty. Why? because that would defeat the purpose of trying to get money from the person to start with (seeing as thats the reason there are taxes in the first place). It is relatively difficult to get money from the dead, unless the rules about being dead and alive have changed so where. It is not the fault of the Elleltian Delegation that when the Yeldans open their mouth nothing but dung comes out.

VK.

Some of us choose not to accept the "big rock candy mountain" view that everything is ok here and unlike the mythical land of RL, nothing bad ever happens in this world. Human rights laws aren't needed because nobody would ever dream of violating human rights. Fuel conservation is absurd because "look!, we just discovered a planet made of gasoline!" Do you deny that these punishments are legal under FSA?

Guess what? When operating in a reality in which certain basic facets of reality are rather different from the mythical land of RL, it makes good sense to act in a way that recognizes the quality of that reality.

Would you go to a planet with no breathable air and try to breathe normally? I certainly hope not. What would make more sense is recognizing the quality of your environment and taking that into account.

And no, I don't deny that very painful punishments are legal under the FSA.

So that's going to be your argument? "We say it doesn't exist here, so it doesn't exist here and therefore there is no need to address it"?

Nope. What I'm saying is that if the UN is going to address a problem, it needs to be a significant enough problem that UN involvement is appropriate.

A good starting point might be to repeal a resolution which says nations may impose any sentence for any crime regardless of the nature of the crime and whether or not the sentence is proportionate to the crime. Right now, the problem is that any sentence can be imposed because the UN say's it can.

Impose our morality? Before I answer that, do you deny that under FSA, nations would be allowed to impose the sentences I have used as examples? Are you going to defend their right to do that?

Sure. I've defended the rights of nations to do all sorts of outlandish things that I find disagreeable or stupid.

I'm trying to steer this away from the usual "death penalty is teh cool" vs. "no, death penalty is teh sux" argument we usually have. FSA allows for much, much more than just capital punishment.

And I'm glad you are steering it away from that. It makes arguing on this side much less challenging and much more boring when folks do that.

As far as I can determine that is not a problem.It is if you endorse punishments that are in their essence violations of human rights. Support of FSA means you also support those nations who determine that public anal rape is a fitting punishment for a rapist or that the severing of a foot is fitting punishment for trespass.
As far as the FSA being a blocker or whatever you are going afterWere you to put forth as much effort reading other's responses as you do your grand pronouncements, you wouldn't make such laughable mistakes. The political games I referenced were those currently in favor with certain delegates to run, screaming through the streets... "It's illegal!" It must not be voted on!" "It's not worthy of UN consideration because I don't like it" to paraphrase and boil down quite complex responses. It's the equivalent of assigning legislation to committees that are guaranteed to never let it see the light of day.
[Passing of moral legislation] ... is because the laws were already on the books in many nations. I don't know about you but I have no desire to sleep with a child (pedophilia), nor to have sex with the dead (necrophilia) and child pornography is just plain disgusting to the minds of most normal people. That would be the reason behind nobody protesting your three examples...those are morals that almost everyone holds to be correct regardless of religion or political ideology.By that (poor) reasoning UN legislation banning capital punishment should be instituted then. It is most definitely legislation that is already on many nations' "books", and it is considered disgusting and reprehensible in the minds of normal people.

Ah but I see, you support tyranny of the majority and imposition of your morals on others rather than a rational philosophy of policy. My mistake. It'll certainly save me the time responding to you in the future.

Care to provide evidence of these many statements, and that more than a very small percentage of nations actually has cruel punishmentsThe raw numbers of nations endorsing and using cruel punishment is irrelevant as the potential number is very large. By maintaining laws that allow one or many to legally ravage sentient beings, we are culpable for all.
Your assertion that the UN can decide to legislate on this matter is true, but is not an answer to the question of why it should be doing so. It should do so in order to provide basic human rights to the least of our brothers. It is not sentimentality that motivates "fluffies" but the realization that everyone deserves to be treated in a humane manner.
As to the assertion that trying to prevent the UN from passing legislation in this area is merely politics, you might want to keep in mind that trying to interfere in national judicial systems out of a false sense of moral superiority is "merely politics" to the same extent.You err in this regard. Whether to "interfere", as you characterize it, or not is based on differing philosophies of international law. Machinations to subvert the normal processes of this body are politics at its worst.
Why don't y'all "civilized" nations just keep your superiority complexes and pretense to enlightenment to yourselves? I don't remember political and cultural imperialism on the part of nations having particularly good effects, and doubt it'll have any better effects when the UN does it.And what, let you kill your people if you want to? And you wonder why we say this is a wide-spread problem. There is cultural imperialism, practiced quite freely by the UN actually, but more importantly there is standing for principles. Cultural integrity and self-determination is all well and good, until someone loses an eye.
So because the UN has been morally presumptuous in the past we should continue this tradition? Sorry, I'm not buying that particular cart of gator dung.The past? Surely you have an odd way to tell time. When those who oppose this repeal volunteer to repeal previous morality plays, they are free to use this argument.
Also, I don't support banning pedophilia, necrophilia, or child pornography at either a national or international level. You can take the implications of hypocrisy and launch them at someone else.Aspersions weren't cast at you, but my apologies that you thought they were. I read your questions as being asked for the group who have responded against this repeal.

--L.T.

Guess what? When operating in a reality in which certain basic facets of reality are rather different from the mythical land of RL, it makes good sense to act in a way that recognizes the quality of that reality.

Would you go to a planet with no breathable air and try to breathe normally? I certainly hope not. What would make more sense is recognizing the quality of your environment and taking that into account.

And no, I don't deny that very painful punishments are legal under the FSA.
(some of this is hard to address IC, so take this as my OOC views channeled through my UN rep. or something)

We probably have much different views of what the NS "multiverse" is and isn't. On things having to do with the physical environment, my views are probably more in line with yours. NS is BIG. Not only that, but it is diverse as well. The example of the gasoline planet was tongue in cheek, but I would accept that resources here are probably not scarce by a long shot.

On basic human behaviour though, I probably look at it a little differently. I think humans here would behave exactly as they would behave in RL and the possibilities for cruelty are limitless (as they are in RL). So I find it very easy to believe that a certain segment, or percentage, of the NSUN membership would inflict horrific punishments on their citizens. Especially if they held in their hands a UN Resolution telling them that it's OK to do so.

Nope. What I'm saying is that if the UN is going to address a problem, it needs to be a significant enough problem that UN involvement is appropriate.
And here is where our disagreement arises. I already do see it as a significant problem. Even if the governments that are guilty of using FSA to impose these punishments make up only, say, 10% of the membership, that's millions of people. Even if it's only happening in one nation, I don't want a UN Resolution on the books that allows rape, for instance, as a judicial punishment.


Sure. I've defended the rights of nations to do all sorts of outlandish things that I find disagreeable or stupid.
And I can't do that. Not with a straight face anyway. I could do it with Felix, but Felix is a known mass-murderer and lunatic.

And I'm glad you are steering it away from that. It makes arguing on this side much less challenging and much more boring when folks do that.
Yep. There's really no point in going down the death penalty trail one.....more.....time. If FSA only allowed nations to use the death penalty then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. It allows more than that though.

I'll take the Occam's Razer approach to answering Yelda's inquiry.

FSA doesn't deal with these atrocious forms of punishment because they are already covered by other resolutions. Barbaric punishments, inappropriate sentencing, holding the family accountable, etc, are all outlawed by previous resolutions. There is little need to recover those areas any more than FSA already does with the request that the courts are fair and just and the creation of impartial comittees to oversee these things.

The underlying assumption that the UN should do this because governments are flawed completely fails for me. The UN is an organization made up of many governments, and would be just as prone to flaw, if not more so. By the logic used against CP, we should abolish every UN committee because they would be prone to making mistakes that could have horrific unforeseen consequences. It just doesn't hold water for me when people say that this community should make certain decisions because that community is flawed. Why is this one better?

The raw numbers of nations endorsing and using cruel punishment is irrelevant as the potential number is very large. By maintaining laws that allow one or many to legally ravage sentient beings, we are culpable for all.

Hey, pretty good argument for opposing abortion! After all, that potential harm of killing what would grow into a person is so much more important than letting the woman carrying the fetus go about ascertaining whether harm is actually taking place and to what degree and making an informed decision based on that.

Oh, wait...that's actually a really crappy argument.

It should do so in order to provide basic human rights to the least of our brothers. It is not sentimentality that motivates "fluffies" but the realization that everyone deserves to be treated in a humane manner.

Why does everyone deserve to be treated in a "humane" manner, Leetha?

You err in this regard. Whether to "interfere", as you characterize it, or not is based on differing philosophies of international law. Machinations to subvert the normal processes of this body are politics at its worst.

"Normal" is somehow automocatically "correct" or "best" or "healthy" or "appropriate"? If I advocate not using a national government to make moral decisions for individuals, am I subverting the normal processes of the state? If so, I'm quite proud to be subverting such an inappropriate policy.

And what, let you kill your people if you want to? And you wonder why we say this is a wide-spread problem. There is cultural imperialism, practiced quite freely by the UN actually, but more importantly there is standing for principles. Cultural integrity and self-determination is all well and good, until someone loses an eye.

It's also pretty good after someone loses an eye. Would you suggest that liberty is no longer well and good once someone abuses it to steal the last bit of food another person has? Are our principles null and void once somebody makes a mistake? That doesn't sound at all like you are standing for principles.

The past? Surely you have an odd way to tell time. When those who oppose this repeal volunteer to repeal previous morality plays, they are free to use this argument.

Considering I would support a repeal of those "morality play" resolutions you previously referred to, I feel quite free to use it.

Aspersions weren't cast at you, but my apologies that you thought they were. I read your questions as being asked for the group who have responded against this repeal.

The questions were asked of a group, but we are discussing them as individuals, no?

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

It is if you endorse punishments that are in their essence violations of human rights. Support of FSA means you also support those nations who determine that public anal rape is a fitting punishment for a rapist or that the severing of a foot is fitting punishment for trespass.
Were you to put forth as much effort reading other's responses as you do your grand pronouncements, you wouldn't make such laughable mistakes. The political games I referenced were those currently in favor with certain delegates to run, screaming through the streets... "It's illegal!" It must not be voted on!" "It's not worthy of UN consideration because I don't like it" to paraphrase and boil down quite complex responses. It's the equivalent of assigning legislation to committees that are guaranteed to never let it see the light of day.

I support the rights of nations to do all sorts of things that I don't agree with. If it doesn't involve me or my people, it isn't my problem. Further I would like to point out that nations make laws all the time. They are perfectly competent to make those laws and this is not a matter of UN concern. As far as human rights are, I have yet to see any concrete definition on exactly what a human right is. It is the Opinion the Elleltian people, them being the ones who grant the government to make laws and all that...read my previous posts on where nations get the requisite sovereignty for writing and passing laws.

By that (poor) reasoning UN legislation banning capital punishment should be instituted then. It is most definitely legislation that is already on many nations' "books", and it is considered disgusting and reprehensible in the minds of normal people.

The few people with an axe to grind about capital punishment are not a vast majority of this body.

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p254/aiserpov/redherring0du-1.png

Ah but I see, you support tyranny of the majority and imposition of your morals on others rather than a rational philosophy of policy. My mistake. It'll certainly save me the time responding to you in the future.

I fail to see how that is the case. By supporting the FSA I support the rights of nations to write laws and determine punishments that are within the bounds of previously written NSUN legislation. I cant do a fucking thing about those who are not NSUN members they can do whatever they want.

As far as your silence treatment? Go right ahead sister.
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p254/aiserpov/thedebatestylecard.jpg

anyway.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

The Dominion of Steweystan maintains the position that it is the right of the Nation to determine the nature of their sentances- up to and including the Death Penalty... provided that said punishment do not cause undue harm to the punished.

We must also bear in mind that many of the cultures have based their punishments on the crime, or their Religious Scriptures. It would be a violation of a Nation's Sovereignty to say, "Your Culture/Religion is barbaric because you killed someone that stabbed 30 school children... You're now going to punish people our way... or else!". When the UN starts to force itself in such ways, it starts to become a tool to bully others... and a hinderance to the sense of Global Unity while allowing the Diversity of the Nations.

FSA doesn't deal with these atrocious forms of punishment because they are already covered by other resolutions. Barbaric punishments,
Here I'll assume that you're talking about "END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS". EBP says that you may not "break bones, blind and bruise people while in questioning". It doesn't say that you cannot convict them of a crime and then sentence them to having their bones broken, their eyesight taken from them and then a good beating. FSA says that you can sentence them to that.

inappropriate sentencing,
Not sure which resolution you're talking about here. Due Process, DFT? Neither of those are particularly effective in preventing a judge from using FSA to impose any sentence he/she wants. True, in "most" nations (like yours and mine) judges could be expected to impose fair and proportionate sentences. But with FSA in place there's nothing to stop them from deciding that having one's feet amputated for the crime of fleeing apprehension meets the standard of "fair and just" or "proportional".

holding the family accountable,
UBR? It says that "family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative". It doesn't say that they cannot be convicted of aiding and abbetting or somesuch and then sentenced as the court sees fit. FSA says that they can.

etc, are all outlawed by previous resolutions.
Are they?

There is little need to recover those areas any more than FSA already does with the request that the courts are fair and just and the creation of impartial comittees to oversee these things.
Yes, but it's only a request that the courts be fair and just. What if the court decides that rape would be a fair and just sentence? Can they impose that sentence? FSA says they can..

The underlying assumption that the UN should do this because governments are flawed completely fails for me. The UN is an organization made up of many governments, and would be just as prone to flaw, if not more so. By the logic used against CP, we should abolish every UN committee because they would be prone to making mistakes that could have horrific unforeseen consequences. It just doesn't hold water for me when people say that this community should make certain decisions because that community is flawed. Why is this one better?
Yes, like national governments, the UN General Assembly is made up of people who are capable of making mistakes. But again, where and under what circumstances is it acceptable for a court to impose rape or stoning or flaying alive as a sentence? I'm not saying that the GA is the final repository of all wisdom, but I think we can agree that there are some judicial punishments which would not be acceptable. Yet we have passed a resolution which says that anything is acceptable.

(some of this is hard to address IC, so take this as my OOC views channeled through my UN rep. or something)

We probably have much different views of what the NS "multiverse" is and isn't. On things having to do with the physical environment, my views are probably more in line with yours. NS is BIG. Not only that, but it is diverse as well. The example of the gasoline planet was tongue in cheek, but I would accept that resources here are probably not scarce by a long shot.

Yes, we're in agreement here.

On basic human behaviour though, I probably look at it a little differently. I think humans here would behave exactly as they would behave in RL and the possibilities for cruelty are limitless (as they are in RL). So I find it very easy to believe that a certain segment, or percentage, of the NSUN membership would inflict horrific punishments on their citizens. Especially if they held in their hands a UN Resolution telling them that it's OK to do so.

As far as the NS populace goes, I have a hard time looking at it in terms of typical human behavior IRL, considering how many non-human nations we have here. I also tend to see even larger possibilities for the behavior of our "normal" humans than would normally be found IRL, because there are so many more methods of altering human behavior. Nations have advanced medical technologies that can alter behavior through chemical manipulation, advanced brainwashing and behavioral conditioning methods, the implantation of cybernetic enhancements, divergent evolutionary lines that lead to dramatically genetically different humans, magical spells that can be cast on large groups of people to make them do what the magician wants, and so on.

I also take into account that most of the players are young, compassionate, liberal types who are all about human rights, and that their nations will often reflect that. And that those who are opposed to human rights often don't join the UN either because they hate it IRL or they hate the NSUN, or both.

So I do tend to think that our major human rights violations are coming from a very small portion of the membership, probably around the 10% you mention shortly. I also tend to think that only a small portion of the citizens within that 10% of member nations are going to be subjected to a fantastically horrible punishment. Not because the governments are necessarily reasonable and use a punishment that fits the crime (though even most oppressive governments tend to have a good sense of what crimes are really bad and should be punished more harshly), but because if the citizens know that such punishments are in the offing, they'll likely do whatever the government tells them to and not bring that punishment upon themselves. So while extreme punishments are happening, I think they're happening at a very, very low number relative to the total population of UN member nations.

And here is where our disagreement arises. I already do see it as a significant problem. Even if the governments that are guilty of using FSA to impose these punishments make up only, say, 10% of the membership, that's millions of people. Even if it's only happening in one nation, I don't want a UN Resolution on the books that allows rape, for instance, as a judicial punishment.

But we already have resolutions that say it's not okay to do that. "End Barbaric Punishments" is a good example of this. Why would we have to have a "cruel and unusual punishments are bad" rider in FSA when we already have legislation on the books that says that?

And I can't do that. Not with a straight face anyway. I could do it with Felix, but Felix is a known mass-murderer and lunatic.

Fortunately, Mr. Dioce is a well-educated anarchist and lunatic, so he manages just fine. I get your point, though. It's extremists who tend to allow for that sort of thing.

Is it just me or is this debate going around and around in circles?


I will Ask the Yeldan Ambassador to read the stickies for himself. I'm pretty sure he can find them.

And that request in the FSA is just as good as a mandate. Unless the rules have suddenly changed and no body was informed UN members must conform to the resolutions. Is is "weaker" more polite language? Yes it is, but it is still there, and still has the de facto force of a mandate.

Further. The repeal of the FSA is no longer on the submitted proposals list. Obviously it couldn't get 6% of the delegates. Hell I would have endorsed it just to vote against it.

Anyway I am convinced that this horse is throughly dead now.

VK.

Anyway I am convinced that this horse is throughly dead now.
Sorry, you don't get to make that determination. I'm still talking to HotRodia. You be quiet.

He may not be the one to make that determination... but as this is supposedly an open debate, he should be entitled to state his opinion that this topic should be sent to the glue factory for recycling into something more productive... or have I intruded into an "invite only if you agree" party?

Grand Utoy, Pay no mind to the Yeldans...they think they know whats best for everyone regardless of if they do or not. And that is the Very reason I left the UIC and the Int Fed movement. They are too busy minding everyone else's business and pressing their values on other people, and if you disagree with them then "your an evil dictator" or whatever.

I learned the hard way that if you want a better world in NS you need to do it by convincing people that it is the right thing to do. Or you can try to cram a one-size-fits-all solution on 29,000+ members who may or may not agree or even need the solution proposed.

VK.

As far as the NS populace goes, I have a hard time looking at it in terms of typical human behavior IRL, considering how many non-human nations we have here. I also tend to see even larger possibilities for the behavior of our "normal" humans than would normally be found IRL, because there are so many more methods of altering human behavior. Nations have advanced medical technologies that can alter behavior through chemical manipulation, advanced brainwashing and behavioral conditioning methods, the implantation of cybernetic enhancements, divergent evolutionary lines that lead to dramatically genetically different humans, magical spells that can be cast on large groups of people to make them do what the magician wants, and so on.
Yeah, the existence of FT, "majick-tech" and non-human nations does skew the data a bit. I would be willing to accept, for example, an Elvish nation stating that they have no crime because Elves are not prone to committing crimes. Also, an FT nation stating that they give their citizens neural implants to reduce (or eliminate?) the incidence of crime is something I would be willing to consider. The divergent evolutionary lines is something that I haven't given much thought to honestly, but it could lead to some interesting possibilities. Of course it could lead to a sort of pandoras box too. There might be "humans" who are more docile and peaceful than "normal humans", but there also might be "humans" who behave more like Klingons. Or worse.

I also take into account that most of the players are young, compassionate, liberal types who are all about human rights, and that their nations will often reflect that.
I'm not sure I agree with this. True, many players are young. But where I live (in RL) that doesn't necessarily translate into "liberal", especially among young males.
And that those who are opposed to human rights often don't join the UN either because they hate it IRL or they hate the NSUN, or both.
Again, I'm not so sure. While there are certainly some players who don't take part in the UN at all, I think most people do have a UN nation. At the very least they have a puppet if their main nation isn't UN. Honestly, at this point everybody I know has a UN nation, but a LOT of them use a puppet.


So I do tend to think that our major human rights violations are coming from a very small portion of the membership, probably around the 10% you mention shortly. I also tend to think that only a small portion of the citizens within that 10% of member nations are going to be subjected to a fantastically horrible punishment. Not because the governments are necessarily reasonable and use a punishment that fits the crime (though even most oppressive governments tend to have a good sense of what crimes are really bad and should be punished more harshly), but because if the citizens know that such punishments are in the offing, they'll likely do whatever the government tells them to and not bring that punishment upon themselves. So while extreme punishments are happening, I think they're happening at a very, very low number relative to the total population of UN member nations.
I just threw that 10% out there, none of us really know. It could be 20% or it could be less than 5%. I don't think we should quibble over the percentages, or the numbers of people subjected to these punishments. What I'm asking is, is any amount of this acceptable when they are using a UN Resolution to justify their acts? Let's say the Yeldan Ambassador to "Whatevertheheckistan" learns that the local courts are doling out some sort of horrific punishment (I'm tired of giving examples) for a relatively minor offence and he says to them "hey, you can't do that". They reply, "Oh hell yes we can. This document with a UN seal on it says so." Then they wave a copy of FSA in his face. That is one of the biggest things that is bugging me about this. They aren't just doing these things. They are doing them with our blessing.


But we already have resolutions that say it's not okay to do that. "End Barbaric Punishments" is a good example of this. Why would we have to have a "cruel and unusual punishments are bad" rider in FSA when we already have legislation on the books that says that?
See my earlier post on EBR. "End Barbaric Punishments" covers interrogation techniques, not sentencing.

Fortunately, Mr. Dioce is a well-educated anarchist and lunatic, so he manages just fine. I get your point, though. It's extremists who tend to allow for that sort of thing.
This is one of those times where I wish I had locked Felix in a closet and debated the resolution as Yelda.

He may not be the one to make that determination... but as this is supposedly an open debate, he should be entitled to state his opinion that this topic should be sent to the glue factory for recycling into something more productive... or have I intruded into an "invite only if you agree" party?

Grand Utoy, Pay no mind to the Yeldans...they think they know whats best for everyone regardless of if they do or not. And that is the Very reason I left the UIC and the Int Fed movement. They are too busy minding everyone else's business and pressing their values on other people, and if you disagree with them then "your an evil dictator" or whatever.

I learned the hard way that if you want a better world in NS you need to do it by convincing people that it is the right thing to do. Or you can try to cram a one-size-fits-all solution on 29,000+ members who may or may not agree or even need the solution proposed.

VK.
I am so terribly sorry that the two of you were dragged in here against your will and forced to not only read this exchange, but comment on it as well. Please, in the future feel free to refrain from commenting in discussions which are so plainly beneath your station. We're still trying to figure out how to play this game and while your brilliance would no doubt be helpful to us, we'll manage to muddle through without you. Somehow.

He may not be the one to make that determination... but as this is supposedly an open debate, he should be entitled to state his opinion that this topic should be sent to the glue factory for recycling into something more productive... or have I intruded into an "invite only if you agree" party?

OOC: Respectfully, if one has nothing of substance to add to a debate already underway, especially when said debate is not hinging on a resolution or proposal about to see passage (or not), such opinions are not needed. It has nothing to do with whether there is an "invite only if you agree" in place - there isn't given that Yelda and HotRodia are on opposite sides - but whether, as a NationStates player, one can be civilized enough to not continue to obstruct the debate over and over and over...without having anything substantial to say.

Comments ignored are not always ignored because their brilliance dazzles everybody into submission - repetition is not always necessary, or even advisable. The Ellelt delegation (IC) and the Ellelt player (OOC) have both made their objections public. Doing so repeatedly undermines this thread, in my non-modly opinion.

On a lighter note, happy holidays! :D

I'm not sure I agree with this. True, many players are young. But where I live (in RL) that doesn't necessarily translate into "liberal", especially among young males.

Well considering where you live... ;) Anyway, even most of the young American players on here that are from traditionally conservative states are liberal. I've flown in RP circles, General, the invading/defending crowd, the UN, and in all of those areas liberals tend to be much more common. Just look at any of the political compasses that have been done in General. There's a freaking massive slant to the liberal left. Which is probably a good thing for some of the US conservatives who visit and finally get a taste of what it's like to have to actually argue coherently for their views, but it's definitely there.

Again, I'm not so sure. While there are certainly some players who don't take part in the UN at all, I think most people do have a UN nation. At the very least they have a puppet if their main nation isn't UN. Honestly, at this point everybody I know has a UN nation, but a LOT of them use a puppet.

Sure. It's a relatively minor factor, but it should be taken into account.

I just threw that 10% out there, none of us really know. It could be 20% or it could be less than 5%. I don't think we should quibble over the percentages, or the numbers of people subjected to these punishments.

Nor do I. It's just interesting to me.

What I'm asking is, is any amount of this acceptable when they are using a UN Resolution to justify their acts? Let's say the Yeldan Ambassador to "Whatevertheheckistan" learns that the local courts are doling out some sort of horrific punishment (I'm tired of giving examples) for a relatively minor offence and he says to them "hey, you can't do that". They reply, "Oh hell yes we can. This document with a UN seal on it says so." Then they wave a copy of FSA in his face. That is one of the biggest things that is bugging me about this. They aren't just doing these things. They are doing them with our blessing.

There's a difference between allowing folks to do something and saying, "Yes, please do that. Yay!" Since we're well OOC here, let's take a common RL example.

Most people who are in favor of legalizing abortion aren't cheering for every abortion that's performed because they just love abortion and think every woman should have one. Often, they just think that it makes more sense for the woman to make her own decisions concerning her health and medical care, regardless of the fact that some women will no doubt make incorrect decisions.

Similarly, the FSA just recognizes that it makes more sense for the nation to make decisions concerning its criminal justice system, regardless of the fact that some nations will no doubt make an incorrect decision.

See my earlier post on EBR. "End Barbaric Punishments" covers interrogation techniques, not sentencing.

Well in that case you should just do a repeal and replace on the EBR, and make it clear in the replacement that we CONDEMN horrific punishments.

This is one of those times where I wish I had locked Felix in a closet and debated the resolution as Yelda.

I know the feeling. Sometimes I have strong views on things OOCly that conflict with my nation's policies.

Actually, I was simply responding to the somewhat rude response to the Ellelt Delegate, since they were in essence telling him to shut up. I never once said the discussion was beneath my station... it was the attitude shown towards a fellow UN Member that was uncalled for.

Part of "playing" this game is to show the other delegates at least some respect... after all, they'd like to be friendly enough with us so that we might be more willing to vote for any proposals they wish to put forth, correct?

If you look at my join date, you'll find that I'm pretty new here... and still learning as well... but I don't consider that an acceptable reason to act in a rude fashion towards others.

The Ellelt Delegaton was simply stating his opinion that the debate was not covering new ground. I may not necessarily agree... but I will defend his right to voice his opininion without the threat of him behind told to sit down and shut up.

If I'm wrong for standing up for such a right, then maybe I'm in the wrong Organization...

Like Yelda, I think it's a bad idea to approve a proposal, or vote for a resolution, that engenders national rights that are distasteful because hypothetically, a nation could be restricted in some way down the road. I'm not sure that the FSA is that big of a problem given past resolutions that condemn cruel and barbaric punishments for criminals, and I'm not about to undermine my own position by doing the Little Red Hen-esque "but what if they're repealed?" argument the sentence after decrying such arguments behind passing blockers.

I find that blocker resolutions often masquerade as compromises to a thorny problem, though I feel that they usually just gloss over the issue in order to banish it from discussion. And if that is the author's/the author's supporters' intent, so be it. But if the idea is to actually achieve a compromise between opposites, just dumping the issue out the window with a "leave it to individual nations to decide" and adding a weak operative clause to vault the ruling on national sovereignty resolutions leaves me unsatisfied.

I see where Ceorana was coming from on this, as a player (as a nation, it was more difficult to generate IC justification). Blockers and legalism go hand in hand, and hyperlegalism is not something that makes the UN aspect of NS fun in the long term. Also not fun (I've been on this a lot, so bear with me please) are the debates that devolve into blasting internationalism or national sovereignty by flinging plague-infested stereotypes from the Catapult of Conflated Bullshit. Hence an anti-blocker mentality is brewing among some forum regulars.

FSA and earlier resolutions do leave potential loopholes exposed for abuse, in my finding, and creative people are going to say "well, [nasty brutish punishment] isn't *really* banned here, and FSA says I can do whatever I deem appropriate". It's an argument I'd like to not see frequently, so I tentatively support efforts of Ceorana and Yelda to at least draw attention to these issues.

Apologies if I've taken this somewhere it wasn't intended to go.

See my earlier post on EBR. "End Barbaric Punishments" covers interrogation techniques, not sentencing.As has been pointed out before, you really should read the parentheticals: Every nation has the right to interrogate witnesses. However, they do not have the right to break bones, blind and bruise people while in questioning. (The same goes for punishments for a crime. The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment.)

As has been pointed out before, you really should read the parentheticals:
Grrrrr...point taken. I've actually read the parenthetical but interpreted it as the punishments having to fit the crime and not be cruel or unusual. That part about "the same goes for" seems out of place in a resolution text and could probably be loopholed around. But still, outside of bone-breaking, blinding and bruising there is a lot of room for abuse. Further, EBR contains no definitions of "torture" or "cruel and unusual", and "fit the crime" is left open to interpretation. I hate to keep bringing this up, but rape, skinning, scalding and many other things would still be allowed under FSA.

Further, EBR contains no definitions of "torture" or "cruel and unusual", and "fit the crime" is left open to interpretation. I hate to keep bringing this up, but rape, skinning, scalding and many other things would still be allowed under FSA.Yes, the definitions are lacking, but it's an old Resolution, and there's only so many words you can cram in there. I would wager, though, that most would consider rape, skinning, etc. to be "cruel and unusual", as well as punishments that don't "fit the crime". While FSA may allow them, it can't be taken in a vacuum.

Well, legally, it needs to be taken in a vacuum (ie: to protect against HoC), but when running our lil' countries, the others need to be considered. I mean, sure, we can be loophole exploiting fuckos, but that's true for pretty much any Resolution, especially if you're determined.

I'd care to know where Yelda and its moralistic sermonizing were when Iron Felix was voting for the FSA? Also, when exactly it was we all decided that proposals needed to contain glossaries for all relevant terms? It's not exactly rocket science to determine that "cruel and unusual punishments" (UBR), "cruel and inhuman punishments" (EBP), and the ban on disproportionate sentencing (DFT) also mean stuff like gang rape, amputations, etc. etc. And if you're a dictatorship that's actually trying to wank its way around such terms by saying "It doesn't actually define 'cruel and unusual' I can do whatever I want RAWR!", well then, I pity you.

Demagaguery and scaremongering over "judicial rape" and forced labor camps is one thing; demagoguery and scaremongering over a proposal your ambassador voted into place is quite another. Get a bleeding grip, will ya?

~Cmdr. Chiang

I'd care to know where Yelda and its moralistic sermonizing were when Iron Felix was voting for the FSA?
Felix's contribution to that thread amounted to:
1. Saying that he liked article 2
2. Saying that he didn't like FoD proposals
3. Telling IF to fuck off

And yes, he did vote for it, but I was RPing him pretty much running the show then and Yelda was staying in the background. There's always plenty of time for moralistic sermonizing after the fact. Like now.
Also, when exactly it was we all decided that proposals needed to contain glossaries for all relevant terms? It's not exactly rocket science to determine that "cruel and unusual punishments" (UBR), "cruel and inhuman punishments" (EBP), and the ban on disproportionate sentencing (DFT) also mean stuff like gang rape, amputations, etc. etc. And if you're a dictatorship that's actually trying to wank its way around such terms by saying "It doesn't actually define 'cruel and unusual' I can do whatever I want RAWR!", well then, I pity you.

Demagaguery and scaremongering over "judicial rape" and forced labor camps is one thing;
But, but, but...what about that Creative Solutions Agency of yours? Why is ok for you to wank around proposals and not others? Or for me to suggest that others might?
demagoguery and scaremongering over a proposal your ambassador voted into place is quite another.


Get a bleeding grip, will ya?

~Cmdr. Chiang
Make me.

Quynn Olver
Minister of Demagoguery, Scaremongering and Moralistic Sermonizing

Sorry about the tardy response. I had company and got sidetracked.
Well considering where you live... ;)
Takes one to know one...;)

There's a difference between allowing folks to do something and saying, "Yes, please do that. Yay!"
Agreed. But then, allowing "folks" to do something and allowing national governments and judiciaries that hold the power of life and death over people is not exactly the same thing.
Since we're well OOC here, let's take a common RL example.

Most people who are in favor of legalizing abortion aren't cheering for every abortion that's performed because they just love abortion and think every woman should have one. Often, they just think that it makes more sense for the woman to make her own decisions concerning her health and medical care, regardless of the fact that some women will no doubt make incorrect decisions.

Similarly, the FSA just recognizes that it makes more sense for the nation to make decisions concerning its criminal justice system, regardless of the fact that some nations will no doubt make an incorrect decision.
Here we're just going to have to agree to disagree I think. In my view, saying that an individual can do (or not do) something that only affects his/her own health is not the same as saying that courts can impose any sentence they like, at their discretion. Courts have the power to impose their decisions on other people and an "incorrect decision" carries slightly greater ramifications.

Well in that case you should just do a repeal and replace on the EBR, and make it clear in the replacement that we CONDEMN horrific punishments.
It's on the "to do" list.

Yes, the definitions are lacking, but it's an old Resolution, and there's only so many words you can cram in there. I would wager, though, that most would consider rape, skinning, etc. to be "cruel and unusual", as well as punishments that don't "fit the crime". While FSA may allow them, it can't be taken in a vacuum.

Well, legally, it needs to be taken in a vacuum (ie: to protect against HoC), but when running our lil' countries, the others need to be considered. I mean, sure, we can be loophole exploiting fuckos, but that's true for pretty much any Resolution, especially if you're determined.
True. Reasonable nations (which make up the vast majority) would interpret "cruel and unusual" and "fit the crime" in that way.

I'd care to know where Yelda and its moralistic sermonizing were when Iron Felix was voting for the FSA?
And while I'm thinking of it, why the hell would you want to draw peoples attention to the fact that Felix Dzerzhinsky voted for this? That's not exactly a savvy PR move. I wonder if Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler and Nicolae Ceausescu supported it too? I bet Pinochet liked it.

OOC: I was going to try to respond to a bunch of stuff, but I just didn't have the time to do it properly yesterday, and now those points have been answered. Sorry. :( Meanwhile, back in character-ish (for some of it, anyways)

Yes, like national governments, the UN General Assembly is made up of people who are capable of making mistakes. But again, where and under what circumstances is it acceptable for a court to impose rape or stoning or flaying alive as a sentence? I'm not saying that the GA is the final repository of all wisdom, but I think we can agree that there are some judicial punishments which would not be acceptable. Yet we have passed a resolution which says that anything is acceptable.

While I don't agree that FSA allows anything, referring back to previous responses, I can definitely agree that there exist unacceptable situations within the area of judicial punishments. We run into problems where there are a multitude of nations with nearly as many different forms of morality and ethics, different views of right and wrong, or good and evil. There are those that espouse racial cleansing and yet still believe that capital punishment is immoral. There are others that are practical love ins of good will, education, culture and enlightenment that will utilize the death penalty against anyone who disturbs national tranquility. An extreme society without CP, or the friendly happy land with extreme punishment. For the sake of discussion, other forms of punishment, including the barbaric acts you have previously mentioned, could be substituted in those scenarios. The mass morality arguments that occur over such things are declarations that one of these societies is right, and the other isn't. People in the neo-nazi fascist state live in perpetual fear, even though they don't fear the courts, while the people in the Smurf Village are eternally happy with the knowledge that despair and darkness will never be allowed into their lives, and when it does appear, the gov't carts it away, never to be heard from again. While I may not approve of the Smurfs methodology, their results seems readily apparent and who are we to say that their people are wrong for wanting to be happy, and their gov't is wrong for wanting to grant them that happiness in the most permanent way possible?

He may not be the one to make that determination... but as this is supposedly an open debate, he should be entitled to state his opinion that this topic should be sent to the glue factory for recycling into something more productive... or have I intruded into an "invite only if you agree" party?

Grand Utoy, Pay no mind to the Yeldans...they think they know whats best for everyone regardless of if they do or not. And that is the Very reason I left the UIC and the Int Fed movement. They are too busy minding everyone else's business and pressing their values on other people, and if you disagree with them then "your an evil dictator" or whatever.

I learned the hard way that if you want a better world in NS you need to do it by convincing people that it is the right thing to do. Or you can try to cram a one-size-fits-all solution on 29,000+ members who may or may not agree or even need the solution proposed.

VK.

Actually, I was simply responding to the somewhat rude response to the Ellelt Delegate, since they were in essence telling him to shut up. I never once said the discussion was beneath my station... it was the attitude shown towards a fellow UN Member that was uncalled for.

Part of "playing" this game is to show the other delegates at least some respect... after all, they'd like to be friendly enough with us so that we might be more willing to vote for any proposals they wish to put forth, correct?

If you look at my join date, you'll find that I'm pretty new here... and still learning as well... but I don't consider that an acceptable reason to act in a rude fashion towards others.

The Ellelt Delegaton was simply stating his opinion that the debate was not covering new ground. I may not necessarily agree... but I will defend his right to voice his opininion without the threat of him behind told to sit down and shut up.

If I'm wrong for standing up for such a right, then maybe I'm in the wrong Organization...


OOC:
To the both of you: An IC remark was made referring to this thread as dead. An IC response was granted stating that it isn't. Your further comments are threadjacking. It's annoying. Stop it. Some of us are actually enjoying the discussion, and would prefer that those without any actual comments to make don't try to fill up the space with complaints about how the conversation is goin on without them.

OOC:

Thanks Kivisto for taking Steweystan's and My comments out of context. I was told to shut up in character, and I responded in character. Hardly threadjacking.

While I don't agree that FSA allows anything, referring back to previous responses, I can definitely agree that there exist unacceptable situations within the area of judicial punishments. We run into problems where there are a multitude of nations with nearly as many different forms of morality and ethics, different views of right and wrong, or good and evil. There are those that espouse racial cleansing and yet still believe that capital punishment is immoral. There are others that are practical love ins of good will, education, culture and enlightenment that will utilize the death penalty against anyone who disturbs national tranquility. An extreme society without CP, or the friendly happy land with extreme punishment. For the sake of discussion, other forms of punishment, including the barbaric acts you have previously mentioned, could be substituted in those scenarios. The mass morality arguments that occur over such things are declarations that one of these societies is right, and the other isn't. People in the neo-nazi fascist state live in perpetual fear, even though they don't fear the courts, while the people in the Smurf Village are eternally happy with the knowledge that despair and darkness will never be allowed into their lives, and when it does appear, the gov't carts it away, never to be heard from again. While I may not approve of the Smurfs methodology, their results seems readily apparent and who are we to say that their people are wrong for wanting to be happy, and their gov't is wrong for wanting to grant them that happiness in the most permanent way possible?

Yes, it does make the situation more complicated when there is no shared, NS-wide concept of "ethics". It's a bit like the problems that can arise in RL when those who practice moral relativism come into conflict with religious fundamentalists. There really is no way to conclude which side is "right", although both sides believe that they are right. But the views of one side will usually win out over the views of the other.

In NS, there may be cultures (or species) who have no common frame of reference with you and I in the area of ethics, and I don't know what the answer is when it comes to whose ethics are "better". What I'm trying to address here though, is nations that do share our frame of reference. They have the same general concept of "right" and "wrong" as you and I, but they choose to do wrong. In RL, the 20th century is full of examples of governments that acted in this manner. I'm sure all of them said that they were "right". but the rest of the world said "no, that's wrong. You can't do that and furthermore we're going to make you stop doing it".

So how do we differentiate between "alien" governments who genuinely do have a different "ethics" than us and "normal human" governments that practice abominable acts even though thay should know better? I don't know (and we're really straying off into the realm of RP here).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while FSA allows the "non-typical" governments to practice their "non-typical" ethics, it also allows "normal" governments to practice good old fashioned evil. And that's what's bothering me.

*snip to the meat of the argument*
I guess what I'm trying to say is that while FSA allows the "non-typical" governments to practice their "non-typical" ethics, it also allows "normal" governments to practice good old fashioned evil. And that's what's bothering me.

Well, as long as there is evil there will be good. It is my philosophy that the two are required to define the other. It is also my philosophy that good and evil are determined by the situation as well as the ideological (be that religious, or secular) setting of the event in question.

However, in order to protect the rights of the "non-typical" governments with "non-typical" ethics to practice legally what they believe to be just and good, which you and I may or may not agree with; we shall have to put up with from time to time the abuse of these rights by so-called "normal" governments.

Its akin to saying that in the Mythical Land of the United States of America, in order to protect the right of free speech one must put up with speech one does not necessarily agree with. Lets say for instance that you and I live in that Mythical land (USA) and the question is about flag burning; and for the sake of argument I oppose flag burning saying its "un-patriotic, and immoral and isn't protected by the first amendment as the first amendment only protects speech as defined as verbal, printed, electronic, sign communication--not actions like flag burning" or some other such argument; and you support it saying "the first amendment protects flag burning as a right...it is a form of expression and therefore speech".

In this instance we are dealing with an individual's civil right. Could you then say that because you believe my statement to be evil that I am not allowed to say it?

Likewise nations have rights, as they are sovereign entities just like individual people are. And before we go off on a tangent I wish to state that it is my understanding that the acronym NSUN stands for the Nation States United Nations, not the the Nation States United Sentient Beings (and No Yeldan representative, I'm not necessarily directing that to you...rather I'm nipping an opposition post in the bud as I realize that we are having this discussion/debate in a public area). Where they get that sovereignty is irrelevant. (see previous post by Ellelt in thread about where nations get sovereignty). One of the rights that nations have is self-determination. This right includes the choice to join or not join the UN naturally, but also includes their judicial structure, the writing of criminal codes and other legislation, etc. And all nations have this right both "normal" and "non-typical".

That some nations will use the FSA as an excuse to do things that both you and I may or may not agree are wrong, is irrelevant from a legal standpoint. Much like my example above with an individual's right to free speech, nations have a right to make their own laws (I place this in my ideology about self-determination). I support the FSA like I would the Mythical First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA, because I feel that without it we would be subject to seeing even more abuse...possibly even the usurpation by the NSUN of one segment of nations rights to self-determination.

Further, and finally, I would not even consider repealing the FSA without first seeing a replacement proposal which would end the abuse, or potential for abuse which it is argued, is in the FSA removed and yet preserves the rights of nations to write their own criminal codes and punishments for violating those criminal codes.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

OOC: I do support the rights of people to burn their national flags in RL regardless of where they live. I was merely using that as an example.

OOC:

The problem with worrying about the rights of "non-typical" nations is that they will form an extreme minority in every circumstance. Granted, it will be a different extreme minority most times, but it is still a silly thing to try to legislate something that promises to be completely one-hundred-percent fair to all nations. The main reason "Krioval" has a UN puppet is because, as a future-tech nation, it is going to fall into a strange position concerning the implementation of UN resolutions. And to be honest, it gets old to bitch about things like mitigating the effects of reservoirs on space stations, let alone attempting to determine how major planetary events like full-scale terraforming would fit with each environmental resolution ever passed.

So I bit the bullet and pulled a 13-nation UN delegate (Krioval) out of the NSUN and created an IC reason to still be involved in NSUN business - namely that individual cities and districts within Krioval can vote to be subject to NSUN authority in addition to Krioval's government.

Thus, worrying about how a "non-typical" ethical system would process bans on cruel punishment strikes me as unnecessary. If nation in the NSUN does not operate within the parameters of the other 99% of NSUN members, that nation cannot expect that its special circumstances merit not touching a certain area of legislation. If that was the expectation, there would be no resolutions passed - they all have garnered at least 1% of the vote in opposition.

The reason we don't try to legislate technology into existence, or mandate that specific technologies need to be used in a resolution is that a great number of nations are going to fall outside the specifications needed for proper implementation. On the other hand, suggesting that there are some nations with unusual ethics that demand the use of punishments nearly everybody (as a player, at least) would consider cruel or inhumane is (from my perspective as a player) stupid. So, yes, it's a form of metagaming, but it's a useful one for considering proposals in my experience.

snip
OK I just finished struggling through that for the third time. How do you take flag burning and the first amendment of the US constitution and extrapolate that into support for FSA?

Please don't explain.

OK I just finished struggling through that for the third time. How do you take flag burning and the first amendment of the US constitution and extrapolate that into support for FSA?

Please don't explain.

OOC:

I will be ignoring you. Not because I think you might fail to understand where I'm coming from but rather for other persons who might be reading the thread.

There are in my opinion, and according to my ideology various levels of sovereignty.

Individual, local, national and international.

The Individual obviously is about individual choices...i.e. to burn a flag or to not burn a flag...and the right to do so or not.

Local...deals with local concerns obviously. Areas that affect other people but are not of national concern, like curfew for minors as an example. Or a noise pollution law as an other. Local and national sovereignty may or may not over lap depending on the method of government, as in is the nation unitary (like the UK), Confederation (Switzerland) or a Federation (the USA, or Germany).

National would effect things like constitutional law, Political rights, Social rights as necessary for the nation to determine for itself according to its needs.

International...in other words things that effect two or more nations like war, peace, etc. That does not mean that I think that on the international level the UN always needs to have a resolution on an issue. I think that many times its best for bi- or multi-lateral agreements to take place, and of course regions play a part. International issues aren't just about the NSUN. In fact sometimes it best for regions to do the work its easier for 5, 10, 15, or 100 nations to decide to do something together on their own with or without UN sanction.

The ACS is already following policies arrived at by democratic centrism.

Yes, yes. You've banged this drum long enough, Hirota. You think everyone's a vile, sweary bastard and you don't much care for it. Please quit ranting on and on in every thread that crosses your radar.Perhaps if something was done to curb the excessive examples, then perhaps I wouldn't feel a need to.

Edit: It's hardly everyone.

Edit again: Just read it again to myself - it's not meant to be a dig at anyone in particular.

OOC: *snip*

OOC:

I am not sure if that response was directed at me or Yelda. However I realize that we cannot forgo the rights of the overwhelming majority in the interests of tiny (microscopic even) minority. For this reason Ellelt too has a UN puppet. The USSE being outside the UN and follows the resolutions it likes and doesn't the ones it doesn't like...just like a RL nation would.

However, one should try to include as many of the nations as possible. It only takes a simple majority to pass a resolution. And a lot of the smarter UN players probably use a puppet their UN stuff anyway. A few don't I'm sure, but those nations are probably a small minority of the UN due to compliance being mandatory. Please note that I am guessing at this and that is not a hard statistic.

My main concern as a player is due to the RP factor. I think that if someone wants to be off the wall in their punishments for crimes and be a participating UN member they have the right to do so. That is the main reason I support the FSA. It acts like a bill of right for the nations in this case.

Further, I doubt a better resolution could be crafted and would oppose any repeal of the FSA based upon the argument "but the court could make a mistake". Which is a very stupid argument and that is my opinion as a player. Of course courts in nations could make mistakes, hell I could make a mistake tomorrow and drink egg nog that had lactose (dairy) in it (and that could be fatal to me) so would the egg nog manufacturer be at blame for me drinking that stuff and dieing? No.

As I said IC before in a previous post I would not wish to repeal the FSA until I saw a better resolution to replace it. Mainly because in the tug of war between self-determination for the nations (and naturally their RP as players) and the protection of electron based citizenry (which is what the citizens of the NSUN member states are) from their own "psychotic dictator" (I.E. the player who will be playing as that nation) I err on the side of self-determination.

That does not mean that I will be opposed to every single resolution or supporting every single repeal. For me as a player a lot of that has to do with the resolution or repeal in and of itself. Does the resolution address an international concern, according to my ideology, and does that resolution address it effectively, in other words does it do what it is trying to do, and what is the effect of the resolution on my UN state and my RP.

I'm not asking for 100% agreement either. Hell I'm not even asking for 60% agreement. It takes a simple majority to make a resolution international law, and if the resolution is so bad that it must be gotten rid of, I know how to write a repeal.

I would wager, though, that most would consider rape, skinning, etc. to be "cruel and unusual", as well as punishments that don't "fit the crime".True. Reasonable nations (which make up the vast majority) would interpret "cruel and unusual" and "fit the crime" in that way.I guess what I'm trying to say is that while FSA allows the "non-typical" governments to practice their "non-typical" ethics, it also allows "normal" governments to practice good old fashioned evil. And that's what's bothering me.So, on the one hand, reasonable nations will take the UN's previous proscriptions against unreasonable punishments seriously, but on the other hand they won't.

Which is it, Yelda?

Actually, the word used in that second quote is "allows." I do not think he was saying they "would" both times, simply that they are able. And I would tend to agree that its the allowing part that bothers me as well.

How could FSA "allow" such things if past legislation already disallows it? Yelda's already stated most reasonable interpretations of past law would outlaw such things, and FSA can hardly be construed as a repeal of those restrictions.

As has also been stated in this thread, a small minority of governments may not interpret past UN legislation the same way you or i might. Unless something is expressly spelled out, there is always room for a loophole (and even then a nation might be able to find a way around it). "Normal (reverting to Yelda's term)" governments may then cite international precedence for evading the "restrictions" placed on them by the UN, to then hand down sentences that formerly their populace considered "cruel and inhumane."

The purpose of UN legislation is to issue mandates most reasonable nations can agree upon, not to sew up every possible loophole any wanker can spot in the text. With the character limit for proposals, and the wide varieties of nation roleplay existent in the NSUN, that would be impossible.

I'd simply like to know if Yelda thinks reasonable nations can agree that past UN legislation amounts to a total ban on cruel and unusual/disproportionate punishments, because if this is so, then there really can't be a problem here.

So, on the one hand, reasonable nations will take the UN's previous proscriptions against unreasonable punishments seriously, but on the other hand they won't.

Which is it, Yelda?
Do you do much reading? In the first quote, I say that reasonable nations would interpret "cruel and unusual" and "fit the crime" in that way. Would. Interpret.

In the second, I say "it also allows "normal" governments to practice good old fashioned evil". Allows. To practice.

Additionally, the subset (reasonable nations) and the subset (normal governments) ar distinct, although they can overlap. You took these quotes out of context. In the first quote, I was talking about reasonable nations as in "nations that are reasonable". In the second, I was talking about normal governments as in "governments made up of normal humans", as opposed to non-humans.

Please try to keep up with the discussion.

Right. And if most "normal" governments are also "reasonable," then they would, as you said, interpret past laws properly and not practice "good old-fashioned evil." We only write laws that apply to reasonable nations here, not the other.

Right. And if most "normal" governments are also "reasonable," then they would, as you said, interpret past laws properly and not practice "good old-fashioned evil." We only write laws that apply to reasonable nations here, not the other.
Ok, ye of the Creative Solutions Agency, are we talking about roleplayed compliance, or iron-fisted gnomish forced compliance here? If the gnomish variety, then obviously all of us are being good and there are no abuses of any kind anywhere. But if you're talking about roleplayed compliance, then "reasonable" nations could interpret a resolution as meaning "x" and then make a "reasonable" decision to wank around it and do "y". You've chosen a very poor line of argument here, but I'll be happy to play along with it.

And I hate to keep bringing up the subject of judicial rape (and I think there are many other barbaric sentences that would be allowed under FSA), but there is nothing in FSA or in past UN law to prevent it's being used.

And while we're at it, you (Kenny) have always said that it is possible, desirable even, to wank and loophole around resolutions that you don't agree with. Now you're saying that it either cannot be or shouldn't be done. Why do you want to deny this simple pleasure to your fellow players?

Not that I'm saying that much wanking or loopholing would be required to get around FSA.

IF "reasonable" = {proper interpretation}
AND $resolution_target = {reasonable + nation}
THEN {barbaric punishments} != allowed
AND "argument" == "moot"

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int count;

for (count = 1; count <= 500; count ++)
printf('I will not introduce terms like "subset" or "x" and "y" into a forum discussion ever again.');

return 0;

}

Hey, pretty good argument for opposing abortion! ...Oh, wait...that's actually a really crappy argument.An irrelevant, appeal to emotion.Why does everyone deserve to be treated in a "humane" manner, Leetha?Extending that basic respect, that is neither earned nor capable of being lost, elevates us above the law of the jungle. Everyone deserves to be treated humanely, because we owe it to our selves to do so, to remain human*. (*Not to use human to refer only to members of homo sapiens, but inclusively for all sapient beings.)"Normal" is somehow automocatically "correct" or "best" or "healthy" or "appropriate"? If I advocate not using a national government to make moral decisions for individuals, am I subverting the normal processes of the state? If so, I'm quite proud to be subverting such an inappropriate policy.Normal is normal, neither automatically correct or best. We're speaking only of the procedures of the UN, procedures that have come to be accepted as the way to conduct ourselves. Your analogy is not relevant.It's also pretty good after someone loses an eye. Would you suggest that liberty is no longer well and good once someone abuses it to steal the last bit of food another person has? Are our principles null and void once somebody makes a mistake? That doesn't sound at all like you are standing for principles.Liberty that can be so completely manipulated for an individual's ill-gotten gain is hardly liberty for the one taken advantage of. Would you advocate that such a person be rewarded a medal of state for being an outstanding example of liberty and self-opportunity? Since when is stealing a "mistake"? More to the point, since when is intentionally killing someone a "mistake"? If a principle is distorted and abused such that it allows for travesties, is it still the principle you once that it was?

--L.T.

An irrelevant, appeal to emotion.

It had nothing to do with emotion, nor was there any attempt to appeal to your emotions. If it appealed to your emotions, that's your own damn fault.

Extending that basic respect, that is neither earned nor capable of being lost, elevates us above the law of the jungle. Everyone deserves to be treated humanely, because we owe it to our selves to do so, to remain human*. (*Not to use human to refer only to members of homo sapiens, but inclusively for all sapient beings.)

I'm a big fan of the law of the jungle, personally, but I can see where you're coming from. I happen to really like the idea of humane treatment for everyone. I just don't see "humane treatment" as being the same thing as "coddling", which seems to be a common equation around these parts.

Normal is normal, neither automatically correct or best. We're speaking only of the procedures of the UN, procedures that have come to be accepted as the way to conduct ourselves. Your analogy is not relevant.

Guess what? You repeating the same mantra of "normal is good" couched in different words is not an effective argument, and claiming the analogy irrelevant with no explanation or evidence is a nice cop-out, but hardly a counter-argument.

Liberty that can be so completely manipulated for an individual's ill-gotten gain is hardly liberty for the one taken advantage of. Would you advocate that such a person be rewarded a medal of state for being an outstanding example of liberty and self-opportunity? Since when is stealing a "mistake"? More to the point, since when is intentionally killing someone a "mistake"? If a principle is distorted and abused such that it allows for travesties, is it still the principle you once that it was?

Now this is a fun line of argument. Leetha, let me know when you find a set of legal rights or privileges which cannot be abused. Then we can talk about holding to principles because they cannot be abused rather than in spite of fact that they are.

Also, let's not go around putting up straw men. I'm not advocating awarding people medals of state for violating another person's liberty. Not even close. What I'm suggesting is that your nation treat other nations with respect for their unique cultures, their ethics, their political and economic systems, their technologies, and their ecologies. I'm suggesting that your nation not abuse the power of the UN to force other nations to do what your nation wants them to. You want to be above the law of the jungle? Well in the context of the UN, treating other nations with respect (rather than trying to re-make them in your image) would be a great way to do that.

HotRodia UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Perhaps if something was done to curb the excessive examples, then perhaps I wouldn't feel a need to.Dude, seriously, shut up already.

Dude, seriously, shut up already.I could say the same to you, on occassion. I'm just too civil to do so.I'm a big fan of the law of the jungle, personally, but I can see where you're coming from. I happen to really like the idea of humane treatment for everyone. I just don't see "humane treatment" as being the same thing as "coddling", which seems to be a common equation around these parts.I agree, to an extent. There are benfits from people learning from their own mistakes. However, my government feels that these lessons should be neither excessive or so permanent as to ensure these lessons cannot be put to good use in later life.

I could say the same to you, on occassion. I'm just too civil to do so.

There is much to be said for civility, but there is also much to be said for spirited debate. Sometimes, that can become impolite. But we'd rather have a spirited (if impolite) debate than one composed entirely of polite and passionless people. All that really matters in this regard, in our opinion, is to not take anything said too personally...a concept that we believe all individuals, and nations, represented here are hopefully mature enough to adhere to.

I could say the same to you, on occassion. I'm just too civil to do so.I agree, to an extent.


Ahh, here comes the sanctimony.

Apparently I was too subtle.

Knock it off. If you have a problem with how people are acting here, take it to Moderation, where it belongs. Quit playing Moral Majority in here.


-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

The purpose of UN legislation is to issue mandates most reasonable nations can agree upon, not to sew up every possible loophole any wanker can spot in the text. With the character limit for proposals, and the wide varieties of nation roleplay existent in the NSUN, that would be impossible.

For the record, Mikitivity generally holds the opinion that UN resolutions are but statements of international will and we agree with the opinion that they need not address everybody loophole that a minority of nations might use as an excuse for non-compliance.



[OOC/SPAM]
On other news, in less than a month and a half, Mikitivity will be hosting the International Democratic Union's Cheese Festival. The festival had a fair number of participants last year, and since I interact with a number of you here, I would love to RP that your nations import cheese (the food you sickos) to Mikitivity. I would also love to encourage you to start thinking of a NSWiki type of article describing a cheese from your nation that you might want to enter into the festival. I say this hear as it is a chance to do something other than UN business, but *with* a number of UN active nations. :)

If it goes well, then I'll start to organization beer festivals too! :9

I would love to RP that your nations import cheese (the food you sickos)Pity; I was hoping you were talking about Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058548/).


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int count;

for (count = 1; count <= 500; count ++)
printf('I will not introduce terms like "subset" or "x" and "y" into a forum discussion ever again.');

return 0;

}

OOC: FAIL! The proper writing for that would be:

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int count;

for (count = 1; count <= 500; count ++)
printf('I will not introduce terms like "subset" or "%s" and "%s" into a forum discussion ever again.', Fallacy 1, Fallacy 2);

return 0;

}

OOC: FAIL! The proper writing for that would be:

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int count;

for (count = 1; count <= 500; count ++)
printf('I will not introduce terms like "subset" or "%s" and "%s" into a forum discussion ever again.', Fallacy 1, Fallacy 2);

return 0;

}

I thought it would be more like


#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int count;

for (count = 1; count <= 500; count ++)
printf('I will not introduce terms like \"subset\" or \"%s\" and \"%s\" into a forum discussion ever again.', Fallacy1, Fallacy2);

return 0;


First... Gotta escape those Quotation marks
Second... C variable names can't have spaces in them! Assuming Falacy 1 and Falacy 2 are variables

But as Falacy1 and Falacy2 aren't defined we'll assumed they are defined in a header file somewhere or when compiling.

OOC: Ah you're correct, they typically use underscores. And we can assume we augmented stdio.h.

OOC: FAIL! The proper writing for that would be:

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int count;

for (count = 1; count <= 500; count ++)
printf('I will not introduce terms like "subset" or "%s" and "%s" into a forum discussion ever again.', Fallacy 1, Fallacy 2);

return 0;

}
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int count;

for (count = 1; count <= 500; count ++)
printf('I will not introduce terms like \"subset\" or \"%s\" and \"%s\" into a forum discussion ever again.', Fallacy1, Fallacy2);

return 0;
Fallacy 1, Fallacy 2? Cute. Can you prove that?

Fallacy 1, Fallacy 2? Cute. Can you prove that?Bazalonia and Mindless UN drones, feel free to ignore this. The Yeldan Foreign Ministry is filled with namby-pamby's, hand wringers, mindless do-gooders, International Federalists and worse. I am happy to announce that they won't be troubling us anymore.

Bazalonia and Mindless UN drones, feel free to ignore this. The Yeldan Foreign Ministry is filled with namby-pamby's, hand wringers, mindless do-gooders, International Federalists and worse. I am happy to announce that they won't be troubling us anymore.

That makes us very happy as well.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Sorry, you know I couldn't resist. ;)

Fallacy 1, Fallacy 2? Cute. Can you prove that?

OOC: Just giving a nod to fellow technophiles. not trying to insult anyone or argue on this one way or the other.

Pity; I was hoping you were talking about Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058548/).

OOC: I'm giving myself that DVD for Christmas (we give ourselves gifts, so the little one thinks Santa brought us stuff, too). I love that freakin' awful movie! :D