NationStates

Auralia wrote:

Oneracon wrote:It should be noted that the target resolution only requires "inclusion of peer-reviewed science in schools’ curricula". It does not mandate scientific classes.

I'm not certain I understand your point.

It's a loophole for you. You don't have to teach science classes, just have science in some way or form (info desk maybe?) in the school.

Araraukar wrote:

Auralia wrote:I'm not certain I understand your point.

It's a loophole for you. You don't have to teach science classes, just have science in some way or form (info desk maybe?) in the school.

Bear in mind Auralia and I fought for a proposal to stop that kind of compliance wank.

e: Also, I fully support this repeal. Access to Science in Schools is not only bad policy (since it includes higher education), but it's ultimately discriminatory. It forces religious families to pay for private education, while ensuring free schooling for any family that doesn't have a religious objection to whatever is included in the state's science curricula.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:

Araraukar wrote:It's a loophole for you. You don't have to teach science classes, just have science in some way or form (info desk maybe?) in the school.

Bear in mind Auralia and I fought for a proposal to stop that kind of compliance wank.

Doesn't stop that still being a loophole Auralia can take advantage of, which kinda negates that reasoning from the repeal.

Araraukar wrote:

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Bear in mind Auralia and I fought for a proposal to stop that kind of compliance wank.

Doesn't stop that still being a loophole Auralia can take advantage of, which kinda negates that reasoning from the repeal.

Of course it does. That kind of wank totally breaks immersion. Anybody can weasel out of the legal requirements of a resolution by twisting words and ignoring purposes. That's not how this game should be played.

Removed all references to religion from the proposal to make it clear that the resolution affects all institutions of higher learning, not only religious colleges.

Undecided on this, but leaning towards opposing it. The target resolution implies that it is merely concerned with schools as opposed to higher education: "ACKNOWLEDGING that international prohibition of Religious views in a school setting is contrarian to the principles stated above, therefore no nation shall ever be deprived of the freedom of exposing their young to Religious worldviews, should said nation see it fit,". In addition, "school" is not defined in the resolution, allowing states to exempt higher education institutions from the scope of the target resolution (as pointed out by the esteemed Alqanian delegation).

Discoveria wrote:... The target resolution implies that it is merely concerned with schools as opposed to higher education ...

As an Australian-English speaker, I was totally puzzled when I first saw this proposal. Here's why:
I'm not arguing for or against the idea of a repeal. Just pointing out that for me and other British-English speakers, and for European players, this one seems as if you're trying to repeal the resolution for something it doesn't do. Unless you really want to spend your debating time going "toMAYto, not toMAHto" to a string of confused delegates, I'd go for a rewrite or a re-think.

The inclusion of higher education was actually a major point in debate. The author never dismissed the idea that post-secondary schools were included in the science mandate. I think the reason most of us are interpreting it that is because Sionis Prioratus made a distinction between "public schools" and "schools that receive governmental aid." The latter is what includes public universities and arguably private universities where students receive governmental financial aid, to the understanding of most Americans. You don't typically talk about "governmental aid" when it comes to primary and secondary education.

It gets murky when considering cultural differences. In the UK, public schools actually charge fees. What Americans consider a public schools, Brits consider a state school. In the US, a state school is public university. If I remember correctly, Sionis Prioratus is from South America (Brazil, maybe?), where public school refers to any government-funded school system, including post-secondary institutions.

Either way, given that it was a big part of the debate, I think it makes sense to include it in the repeal. "Schools that receive government aid" is a very broad category. I think more people would understand it to cover post-secondary schools than think it's limited to primary schools.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:You don't typically talk about "governmental aid" when it comes to primary and secondary education.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:I think more people would understand it to cover post-secondary schools than think it's limited to primary schools.

((OOC: Except being in Ireland, I, like Ard, would understand the word school to mean every up until secondary education, not after it. And the majority of primary and secondary schooling here, and again in most places Ard mentioned, would be government funded and as such fall under the "government aid" umbrella. I think what she brings up is very valid.))

Sanctaria wrote:

Glen-Rhodes wrote:You don't typically talk about "governmental aid" when it comes to primary and secondary education.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:I think more people would understand it to cover post-secondary schools than think it's limited to primary schools.

((OOC: Except being in Ireland, I, like Ard, would understand the word school to mean every up until secondary education, not after it. And the majority of primary and secondary schooling here, and again in most places Ard mentioned, would be government funded and as such fall under the "government aid" umbrella. I think what she brings up is very valid.))

Yeah, I know about the cultural differences. But these didn't come up in the debate, and I imagine it's because NationStates isn't dominated by people from Ireland or the UK or other British English-speaking Commonwealth countries. I was tacitly rejecting the notion that the repeal has a legality problem. It doesn't, but it might have a cultural problem. I don't think the latter requires a rewrite, and given the role higher education played in the original debate and the last repeal attempt, getting rid of an entire compelling argument because of cultural difference in what "school" means is, in my opinion, poor advice.

Saveyou Island wrote:Strongly opposed. Science is a fundamental school subject, and it is a subject that will be applied in the real world, therefore students should be able to understand it:and religion should not be used as a reason to oppose such a fine piece of legislation.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

The representative from Saveyou Island speaks solely for themselves. Kawaiian schools are all church-run, and our educators offer the full gamut of scientific instruction. Kawaiian religious teachings hold that the natural world is a manifestation of the Eternal Kawaii. Understanding the mechanisms by which the Cute One brings the world into being is therefore a religious obligation among our people.

Whether the resolution stands or falls will have no effect on our nation. We are inclined to support the repeal, though, if for nothing else than to remove more WA busybodiness.

players' NS-political opinions wrote:.... (whatever) ...

Righto, I've provided non-NS evidence that the current text can be problematic for players, including repeal supporters, who don't speak US-based English. That was a courtesy to a player who may have overlooked a significant practical issue, and Auralia will make what use of it he chooses. Author intent and text interpretation are GA political questions. Mod awaaaaay! *flies*

Regional definitions aside, the general definition of the term "school" would include any educational institution, including universities and colleges. I have added a clause to clarify this:

Recognizing that the term "school" includes institutions of higher learning,

We strongly oppose.

Our Education System has outlawed religious schools a long time ago due to the fact that basic mathemetics, basic biology, and anything else in this area was not taught.

now children, teens and young adults learn what science does,

WE oppose this law.

Legendardisch wrote:We strongly oppose.

Our Education System has outlawed religious schools a long time ago due to the fact that basic mathemetics, basic biology, and anything else in this area was not taught.

now children, teens and young adults learn what science does,

WE oppose this law.

You clearly didn't read the actual repeal proposal.

i did

We are still against it, we think acces to Science should be mandatory.

Legendardisch wrote:i did

We are still against it, we think acces to Science should be mandatory.

Even for vocational schools or graduate schools that teach a particular trade or profession that has nothing to do with science?

Ardchoille wrote:As an Australian-English speaker, I was totally puzzled when I first saw this proposal.

As an American speaker I was also totally puzzled. While "School" has an application in higher education, it has a completely different and highly specialized meaning in higher education, as opposed to its use in general at the lower levels of education.


So it is clear that at higher levels "school" does not imply the entire institution. One would not expect to teach science at the "School of Humanities and Social Studies at Froglegs University." More important, at higher levels (post graduate) it is assumed these degrees are specialized in the fields they are designed for. Trade schools, for example, teach a trade, not the liberal arts. The resolution doesn't make sense that it would or could be applied as the author insisted even when using the American understanding of the term.

Don Quixote needs to stop poking at this windmill with his lance. It is most unbecoming and silly, especially as he seems to constantly miss the stationary target.

Retired WerePenguins wrote:snip

I'm not sure what your point is.

Lillitania wrote:Because, for instance, if a child is taught basic mathematics it doesn't prepare them for the outside world, they must continue taking classes in mathematics to further their education.

But why must a person who has already gone through their nation's standard schooling process have to continue including science amongst their fields of study when they have then gone on to attend [for example] a musical academy, a law school, or a stage school... and why should those specialised educational establishments have to include sciences in their curriculums?

Bears Armed wrote:[for example] a musical academy, a law school, or a stage school... and why should those specialised educational establishments have to include sciences in their curriculums?

Because science isn't just "hard sciences" like math, physics, chemistry and biology. It's an all-encompassing concept of the world around us. History is a science, psychology is a science, even music and other forms of art have scientific elements.

We in Dellin agree with such sentiments expressed by the last two ambassadors.

We also want to add to this idea about vocational schools by reassessing the second area this seems to be targeting, graduate schools.

I have read the debate transcripts, and have seen the idea that "some schools only offer graduate courses." While this seems to be rare, I think it is also even more rare for a graduate school to only offer a very narrow set of disciplines. (Say, a graduate school that is only English and Art, where science may not seem applicable. Though, social sciences still may be applicable). I don't see many exclusive English graduate schools. Science would probably be there somewhere.

Araraukar wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:[for example] a musical academy, a law school, or a stage school... and why should those specialised educational establishments have to include sciences in their curriculums?

Because science isn't just "hard sciences" like math, physics, chemistry and biology. It's an all-encompassing concept of the world around us. History is a science, psychology is a science, even music and other forms of art have scientific elements.

The resolution is clearly about hard sciences. It specifically names the theories of gravity and evolution.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:

Araraukar wrote:Because science isn't just "hard sciences" like math, physics, chemistry and biology. It's an all-encompassing concept of the world around us. History is a science, psychology is a science, even music and other forms of art have scientific elements.

The resolution is clearly about hard sciences. It specifically names the theories of gravity and evolution.

But it certainly isn't suggesting that it only applies to "hard sciences." It uses those two theories as examples, not as "This only applies to hard science, such as gravity and evolution." It says "peer reviewed science" is the applicable area, which is much broader than the hard sciences.