Sillytopia
19-02-2006, 19:23
This is a question about UN proposals. I know illegal proposals are reported by the GHP: yesterday, I reported several. I am referring to those which have not been deleted since, and are thus presumably legal. Yesterday, I noted, and reported, a set of proposals which concerned me, all repeals, all submitted by the same nation. My GHR wasn't very clear, but I am assuming the fact they were not deleted means they have been judged to be legal. I am also not trying to draw out a 'line in the sand statement': I understand all proposals are subject to mod discretion, and I am not trying to rules lawyer a hard-and-fast ruling which you would be stuck with. I am just trying to get a clearer understanding of what a 'false argument' is.
A while ago, Dresophila Prime submitted a repeal of "Gay Rights", which suggested that if the repeal passed, gay marriage and gay rights in general would become a national decision. This is patently false, as evidenced by the legality of Omigodtheykilledkenny's successful repeal of "Gay Rights", using a redundancy argument. The justification for that deletion was that 'false arguments' are not allowed, under the Honest Mistake section of TMG Protocols. So, I'm curious as to why Greater Roanoke's proposals are allowed.
CONCERNED that the resolution as currently worded might be so construed as to deny to any parent his right to have his children educated as he sees fit, including without limitation the right to educate his children himself, and further
The proposal contained this argument. However, the entire text of Resolution #28 is:
To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education
Quite clearly, [and putting aside the sexist assumption of 'he'] this does not deny any parent anything. How this is implemented is a national decision, and one could in fact argue states would comply by making home-schooling compulsory: that would be free. So the argument is false, but the proposal was not deleted. Why not?
Now, the repeal of UNEC contains a similar fault. It starts off by saying that:
the United Nations Educational Committee in fact violates the Principle of National Sovereignty already affirmed in an earlier Resolution,
I don't believe NatSov arguments are illegal; however, this is a false argument, because Article 11 of Rights & Duties clearly states:
Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.
So this is a false argument.
The repeal goes on to say:
EQUALLY CONCERNED that the UNEC, as currently constituted, might consider itself having full authority to dictate, apart from, above, and against the wishes and desires of any parent, the manner and content of any particular child's education, and
SPECIFICALLY CONCERNED that UNEC might forbid a parent to educate his own child or children at home or through a cooperative neighborhood arrangement of his choosing, and further
CONCERNED that UNEC might compel a parent to submit to having his child taught lessons to which he would not reasonably be expected to give consent, including without limitation instruction in the engagement of morally indecent behavior,
Given his other repeals, I suspect we know what he considers 'morally indecent behaviour', but that's beside the point. The point is UNEC clearly does not have the authority to set curricula:
THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS shall form the United Nations Educational Committee, or UNEC, which shall resolve all of these problems in our nation's educational systems by providing funding to these systems, so they may repair unsafe schools, purchase security systems to protect our students from harm, provide extra-curricular activities to help our children's mental and physical state of being, provide them with healthier school lunches, provide a better learning environment for our children by training teachers and purchasing more up-to-date materials for the students, and overall ensuring our world's future to be a prosperous one.
Nowhere in there is there mandate for setting courses. It's to do with resources, not subjects. So again, this is a false argument.
(Now, a quick diversion: what are the limits of 'grossly offensive'?
NOTING that proved effective therapies now exist to reverse any inversion or perversion of sexual orientation, including without limitation homosexuality, other gender identity disorder, and bestiality, and
Aside from the fact that this statement is essentially in contradiction to existing UN resolutions, to describe homosexuality as an 'inversion' or a 'perversion', and to suggest it requires therapy [and the same for transsexuality] seems to me the very definition of grossly offensive. Yet this was not deleted.)
Now, back to the false argument thing. I'm not going to pick on Repeal "Stem Cell Research Funding", because although I think that too is a false argument, the insinuation made about Promotion of Solar Panels was that nothing would be deleted if it was scientifically contentious. (PoSP was actually not contentious; it just appeared so.) However, his other repeal does seem to contain the same sort of false arguments.
DEEPLY DISTURBED that Resolution # 118 negates a parent's right to determine whether and in what manner to educate his own children about human sexuality
Not true; TSEA is essentially optional. (Also uses 'his', but meh.)
----
So, in conclusion, do these not qualify as the sort of 'false arguments' for which a repeal can be justifiably deleted? Again, this is not [well, it's not intended as] me trying to make some point, or draw out a more explicit ruling. I'm just trying to get a better sense of where a false argument is a point of debate in the UN forum, and where it is a moderation issue.
Thanks.
A while ago, Dresophila Prime submitted a repeal of "Gay Rights", which suggested that if the repeal passed, gay marriage and gay rights in general would become a national decision. This is patently false, as evidenced by the legality of Omigodtheykilledkenny's successful repeal of "Gay Rights", using a redundancy argument. The justification for that deletion was that 'false arguments' are not allowed, under the Honest Mistake section of TMG Protocols. So, I'm curious as to why Greater Roanoke's proposals are allowed.
CONCERNED that the resolution as currently worded might be so construed as to deny to any parent his right to have his children educated as he sees fit, including without limitation the right to educate his children himself, and further
The proposal contained this argument. However, the entire text of Resolution #28 is:
To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education
Quite clearly, [and putting aside the sexist assumption of 'he'] this does not deny any parent anything. How this is implemented is a national decision, and one could in fact argue states would comply by making home-schooling compulsory: that would be free. So the argument is false, but the proposal was not deleted. Why not?
Now, the repeal of UNEC contains a similar fault. It starts off by saying that:
the United Nations Educational Committee in fact violates the Principle of National Sovereignty already affirmed in an earlier Resolution,
I don't believe NatSov arguments are illegal; however, this is a false argument, because Article 11 of Rights & Duties clearly states:
Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.
So this is a false argument.
The repeal goes on to say:
EQUALLY CONCERNED that the UNEC, as currently constituted, might consider itself having full authority to dictate, apart from, above, and against the wishes and desires of any parent, the manner and content of any particular child's education, and
SPECIFICALLY CONCERNED that UNEC might forbid a parent to educate his own child or children at home or through a cooperative neighborhood arrangement of his choosing, and further
CONCERNED that UNEC might compel a parent to submit to having his child taught lessons to which he would not reasonably be expected to give consent, including without limitation instruction in the engagement of morally indecent behavior,
Given his other repeals, I suspect we know what he considers 'morally indecent behaviour', but that's beside the point. The point is UNEC clearly does not have the authority to set curricula:
THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS shall form the United Nations Educational Committee, or UNEC, which shall resolve all of these problems in our nation's educational systems by providing funding to these systems, so they may repair unsafe schools, purchase security systems to protect our students from harm, provide extra-curricular activities to help our children's mental and physical state of being, provide them with healthier school lunches, provide a better learning environment for our children by training teachers and purchasing more up-to-date materials for the students, and overall ensuring our world's future to be a prosperous one.
Nowhere in there is there mandate for setting courses. It's to do with resources, not subjects. So again, this is a false argument.
(Now, a quick diversion: what are the limits of 'grossly offensive'?
NOTING that proved effective therapies now exist to reverse any inversion or perversion of sexual orientation, including without limitation homosexuality, other gender identity disorder, and bestiality, and
Aside from the fact that this statement is essentially in contradiction to existing UN resolutions, to describe homosexuality as an 'inversion' or a 'perversion', and to suggest it requires therapy [and the same for transsexuality] seems to me the very definition of grossly offensive. Yet this was not deleted.)
Now, back to the false argument thing. I'm not going to pick on Repeal "Stem Cell Research Funding", because although I think that too is a false argument, the insinuation made about Promotion of Solar Panels was that nothing would be deleted if it was scientifically contentious. (PoSP was actually not contentious; it just appeared so.) However, his other repeal does seem to contain the same sort of false arguments.
DEEPLY DISTURBED that Resolution # 118 negates a parent's right to determine whether and in what manner to educate his own children about human sexuality
Not true; TSEA is essentially optional. (Also uses 'his', but meh.)
----
So, in conclusion, do these not qualify as the sort of 'false arguments' for which a repeal can be justifiably deleted? Again, this is not [well, it's not intended as] me trying to make some point, or draw out a more explicit ruling. I'm just trying to get a better sense of where a false argument is a point of debate in the UN forum, and where it is a moderation issue.
Thanks.