NationStates Jolt Archive

There might be a better section for this, and if so I do apologise for posting it here, but given what is going on in the other forum (United Nations) I was just curious as to where the moderators stand.

Although the current resolution (Rights Of Women and Minorities) does not directly repeal any other resolutions, or seek to amend them (as far as I can tell) some nations are arguing that it will allow them to ignore the effects of previous resolutions, on the basis that "one belief is no better or worse than any other".

The most often cited example is that "we believe gay marriage is wrong and by the power of this resolution will ban it". Which would be in violation of the Gay Rights resolution.

Does anyone have an answer for this? Cause I am curious :}

Aside from the RP, there isnt really a way one country can use the proposal to repeal or ignore another proposal that has already passed on a national level.

However, I would love to hear a judgement on that aspect of the current resolution and its possible interference with previous resolutions.

</lurk>

That strikes me as some pretty dodgy logic. Belief does not directly translate into legislation. While belief that "them gays shouldn't git hitched" would be viewed as no better or worse than... more enlightened views, it doesn't grant one the ability to outlaw homosexual marrage.

There's no contradiction here, just a desperate grasping at straws by people who wish to rail against the UN for sovereignty reasons while failing utterly to realise that the entire point of the UN is to overrule national sovereignty in the hopes of creating a better world.

<lurk>

</lurk>

That strikes me as some pretty dodgy logic. Belief does not directly translate into legislation. While belief that "them gays shouldn't git hitched" would be viewed as no better or worse than... more enlightened views, it doesn't grant one the ability to outlaw homosexual marrage.

There's no contradiction here, just a desperate grasping at straws by people who wish to rail against the UN for sovereignty reasons while failing utterly to realise that the entire point of the UN is to overrule national sovereignty in the hopes of creating a better world.

<lurk>
[Emphasis mine.]

The molecule is correct.

--The Modified Democratic Statess of Cogitation

...

Out of curiousity, what's your CAS registry number? ...or your IUPAC name?

--The Jovial States of Cogitation

Out of curiousity, what's your CAS registry number? ...or your IUPAC name?
C17H19NO3 is the IUPAC name, you silly mod.

CAS registry is 57-27-2

CID: 132290, CHEMBANK1565
MW: 285.338 | MF: C17H19NO3

C17H19NO3 is the IUPAC name, you silly mod.
No, that's the molecular formula. :p C3H8O is the molecular formula of 1-propanol. But, there are many isomers, so a molecular formula isn't enough to uniquely identify a molecule (unless it's a small molecule with only one possible isomer). C3H8O is also the moleculr formula of: 2-propane and methyl ethyl ester. ...you silly Frisbee. :p

However, from the CAS Registry number, I was able to look it up. If I'm reading The NIST Chemistry Webbook (http://webbook.nist.gov) correctly, the IUPAC name is 4a,5,7a,8-tetrahydro-12-methyl-9H-9,9c-Iminoethanophenanthro(4,5-bcd)furan-3,5-diol... more commonly known as "morphine". [see footnote]

http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=57-27-2&Units=SI

[Footnote: ...at least, that's the only IUPAC-sounding name that doesn't contain any variant of "morph". Also, the NIST Chemistry Webbook says the name as:
9H-9,9c-Iminoethanophenanthro(4,5-bcd)furan-3,5-diol, 4a,5,7a,8-tetrahydro-12-methyl-

...but it has a tendency to reorder a name, kinda like listing Max Barry's name as "Barry, Max".]

--The Jovial States of Cogitation

...

This is getting off-topic; maybe I should split the thread.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Oh, I wouldn't worry, I'm sure the minor chemistry lecture knocked people out before any-one else could, heh. :p

Oh, I wouldn't worry, I'm sure the minor chemistry lecture knocked people out before any-one else could, heh. :p

I know it knocked me out.

This is getting off-topic; maybe I should split the thread.

And we won't ask what technique/procedure/catalyst you'll use for that...

Man, those stupid mods... :)

ARMED LOVE

(Sorry for adding to off-topic)