[PASSED] Repeal GA#243 "Language Preservation"

[United Federation of Canada]

It really is amazing, what passes for shit around here you know?

A resolution full of lies, and half truths slides down the chute like a greased weasel, yet a resolution that tries to stop senseless slaughter, gets butchered on the floor?

The hypocrisy will never fail to amaze me.

[Iron Confederation]

Obviously, the Cowardly Pacifists are OPPOSED to this repeal. Language Preservation is a cultural heritage proposal that we voted against when it was up for a vote. Seeing as how a super-majority of nations supported it at the time, and considering the lack of a good argument for repeal, we must vote against repealing it now.

The trouble with coming up with a 'good argument' for repeal is that there isn't one, any more than there is a good argument supporting obsessive language preservation. It's all up to purely subjective societal values. Some think that recording the scribblings of obscure and obsolete people are somehow going to help us somehow with facing today's challenges.. like rising costs of energy, limitations in material science, researching the newest advances in organ regrowth. Oh, but wait, those dead cultures didn't even have a printing press. And if they did, they wouldn't be faced with the extinction of their language.

The only real argument is whether or not you believe the World Assembly should be involved in this linguistic archaeological exercise in the first place, which... the people of Lun Noir do not. If we were to re-write this repeal for the 'Language Preservation' resolution, it would be more directly honest: Let those that wish to, study dead languages and people on their own dime, and let WA funds go towards something more practical.

The people of the Iron Confederation agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments of the nation of Lun Noir.

I couldn't have put it better myself, sir. *doffs hat*

[Afforess]

It really is amazing, what passes for shit around here you know?

A resolution full of lies, and half truths slides down the chute like a greased weasel, yet a resolution that tries to stop senseless slaughter, gets butchered on the floor?

The hypocrisy will never fail to amaze me.

You must be new here.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

*snip*

The trouble with coming up with a 'good argument' for repeal is that there isn't one, any more than there is a good argument supporting obsessive language preservation. It's all up to purely subjective societal values. Some think that recording the scribblings of obscure and obsolete people are somehow going to help us somehow with facing today's challenges.. like rising costs of energy, limitations in material science, researching the newest advances in organ regrowth. Oh, but wait, those dead cultures didn't even have a printing press. And if they did, they wouldn't be faced with the extinction of their language.

The only real argument is whether or not you believe the World Assembly should be involved in this linguistic archaeological exercise in the first place, which... the people of Lun Noir do not. If we were to re-write this repeal for the 'Language Preservation' resolution, it would be more directly honest: Let those that wish to, study dead languages and people on their own dime, and let WA funds go towards something more practical.

First, you assume that making a cultural record of language is only valuable is if helps us "somehow with facing today's challenges.. like rising costs of energy, limitations in material science, researching the newest advances in organ regrowth." That's a narrow view; one that suggests that educational enrichment should only be a means to an end and not an end in and of itself. But that's really an aside. Your reasons for disliking the target resolution are your own.

What I'm hearing from Lun Noir is: "hey, the repeal argument is bullshit; but nevermind, down with language study because I don't think the WA should be doing it!" The fact that you don't like a resolution is NOT a reason to vote for a repeal that includes a blatant LIE about the target resolution. The correct response is to disapprove of the lying. And if you really feel cultural norms now disapprove of WA involvement in linguistic preservation you should try a new repeal with an argument that is at least truthful.

[Afforess]

The trouble with coming up with a 'good argument' for repeal is that there isn't one, any more than there is a good argument supporting obsessive language preservation. It's all up to purely subjective societal values. Some think that recording the scribblings of obscure and obsolete people are somehow going to help us somehow with facing today's challenges.. like rising costs of energy, limitations in material science, researching the newest advances in organ regrowth. Oh, but wait, those dead cultures didn't even have a printing press. And if they did, they wouldn't be faced with the extinction of their language.

The only real argument is whether or not you believe the World Assembly should be involved in this linguistic archaeological exercise in the first place, which... the people of Lun Noir do not. If we were to re-write this repeal for the 'Language Preservation' resolution, it would be more directly honest: Let those that wish to, study dead languages and people on their own dime, and let WA funds go towards something more practical.

First, you assume that making a cultural record of language is only valuable is if helps us "somehow with facing today's challenges.. like rising costs of energy, limitations in material science, researching the newest advances in organ regrowth." That's a narrow view; one that suggests that educational enrichment should only be a means to an end and not an end in and of itself. But that's really an aside. Your reasons for disliking the target resolution are your own.

What I'm hearing from Lun Noir is: "hey, the repeal argument is bullshit; but nevermind, down with language study because I don't think the WA should be doing it!" The fact that you don't like a resolution is NOT a reason to vote for a repeal that includes a blatant LIE about the target resolution. The correct response is to disapprove of the lying. And if you really feel cultural norms now disapprove of WA involvement in linguistic preservation you should try a new repeal with an argument that is at least truthful.

Repeal authors are forced to lie because NatSov arguments are not valid for repeals. This is really the mods fault for disallowing NatSov arguments, not the fault of the author. Any lie that reduces the WA's power is justified due to this

As an aside I find it amusing that NatSov is disallowed but lies, half-truths and legal cichanery is perfectly acceptable. It speaks volumes about the WA.

[The Last Homely House]

Honestly, the NatSov argument was said by someone on this repeal a few pages back, if I am correct. But, it honesty isn't. If this is NatSov, then I do not know how anyone could pass anything!

I see what Lun Noir is saying about the argument. If there was a full proof argument that no one would dissagree with, then the resolution would never had passed in the first place. There will always be someone who is against, and we just have to accept that. An argument cannot be perfect. There are people saying that they need a better argument where one just does not exsist. This is the best argument that came out of weeks of hard work. I am sorry, but this is our argument. If you do not agree with it, that is fine. It is up to you. Just know that this is the best one we have, so don't expect an even better argument. I can't pull one out of thin air.

[Saveyou Island]

Honestly, the NatSov argument was said by someone on this repeal a few pages back, if I am correct. But, it honesty isn't. If this is NatSov, then I do not know how anyone could pass anything!

I see what Lun Noir is saying about the argument. If there was a full proof argument that no one would dissagree with, then the resolution would never had passed in the first place. There will always be someone who is against, and we just have to accept that. An argument cannot be perfect. There are people saying that they need a better argument where one just does not exsist. This is the best argument that came out of weeks of hard work. I am sorry, but this is our argument. If you do not agree with it, that is fine. It is up to you. Just know that this is the best one we have, so don't expect an even better argument. I can't pull one out of thin air.

This!

[Lun Noir]

*snip*

"...because I don't think the WA should be doing it!" The fact that you don't like a resolution is NOT a reason to vote for a repeal

You almost recognized my point, but then got lost and went sideways by simply stating that I don't like the resolution.

My point is actually that this kind of research doesn't belong under the purview of the World Assembly. It ought to be an effort organized externally and only by peoples who are interested in such things.

In other words, we don't want others' 'hobbies' forced on us just because they think language is a neat side project. In our minds, this subject simply does not bear significant enough importance for the collective of leading nations to designate resources towards it.

Sure, you might say 'NavSov, irrelevant'. But let's turn this back around..

The only 'reason' most are citing for supporting Language Preservation is that they 'like' languages and cultural history. Not because of any objective reason such as 'this can measurably improve these areas of the world', because frankly, it doesn't help. Sure, you might be able to figure out how a dead people were able to do some of the things they did, but that doesn't matter to the pragmatic people of Lun Noir: We've surpassed them; They are dead. Move on.

However, I go on that tangent to attempt to explain why 'Language Preservation' has no actual concrete reason for being established in the first place. It truly is just a whimsical topic that some fancy, and others don't. And in the end, the only people who potentially benefit are ones that are a drain on resources and are slowing down progress because they won't modernize, or are too ignorant to figure out how to.

I have yet to hear an even remotely convincing argument in favor of Language Preservation. Your argument amounts to 'It passed, so we can't possibly vote to repeal it'. That doesn't make any sense to me, since the repeal process exists in the first place.

[Dellin]

There are people saying that they need a better argument where one just does not exsist. This is the best argument that came out of weeks of hard work.

If it took you weeks, and you still could only come up with imperfect arguments, that's not a badge of honor and effort. That should tell you that you have shaky grounds on which you are trying to repeal this resolution. If no "good" argument exists, then why again are we repealing this?

[The Last Homely House]

There are people saying that they need a better argument where one just does not exsist. This is the best argument that came out of weeks of hard work.

If it took you weeks, and you still could only come up with imperfect arguments, that's not a badge of honor and effort. That should tell you that you have shaky grounds on which you are trying to repeal this resolution. If no "good" argument exists, then why again are we repealing this?

There is no good argument. There is no good legislation. There is only what we have done, and none of it is perfect in the eyes of everyone. None of it. Get one that has zero votes against-there isn't one. Because no single piece ever written is that good, and can do that.

And yeah, it is a badge of honor and effort. We spent hours writing this, going through the WA archives, reading through everyone yelling at us about it, editing, revising, and yet there are so many who still think that our argument is terrible.

Its not shaky grounds. The very first one that is not even on these forums, but our regional forums, had shaky grounds. We firmed them up. We filled in the wholes, and made it stand by itself. And it is standing. Even through all of this harsh criticism, it still stands. The vote is not a runaway against it. The vote is going.

[Saveyou Island]

There are people saying that they need a better argument where one just does not exsist. This is the best argument that came out of weeks of hard work.

If it took you weeks, and you still could only come up with imperfect arguments, that's not a badge of honor and effort. That should tell you that you have shaky grounds on which you are trying to repeal this resolution. If no "good" argument exists, then why again are we repealing this?

This is the best argument we have, and in our eyes, it's pretty good.Saying we must not have Imperfect arguments is like saying a repeal needs all for it and none against. It's just impossible. We're not aiming for perfect, just for good.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I have yet to hear an even remotely convincing argument in favor of Language Preservation. Your argument amounts to 'It passed, so we can't possibly vote to repeal it'. That doesn't make any sense to me, since the repeal process exists in the first place.

This is obviously NOT my position, or my argument.

If the repeal was based on the premise that private individuals, universities, whathaveyou, and individual nations would be better suited to the task, then I would support a repeal (that's not a NatSov argument, btw: a NatSov argument would be something like "BELIEVING that individual nations should decide for themselves whether to preserve language") But that's not the argument of this repeal. The argument we find in this repeal is: (1) that the task is too hard, (2) that the assistance committee is unnecessary (even though you'd think nations would need the help if the task was so hard), and (3) that the target res could force nations to violate spiritual beliefs (stupid) or somehow pervert un-written languages (a BIG LIE).

To reiterate: I'm not saying that just because something passed it should stay on the books forever. I'm saying we should not vote in favor of bad repeals - we should seek a legitimate argument to repeal something folks no longer care for. We should not vote for shoddy repeals that lie about the facts just to reach a desired goal. That's political cowardice, and believe it or not my nation is against such behavior.

[The Last Homely House]

That is the second or third time it has been said about it thinking it violates spiritual beliefs. According to the piece of legislation, it does not say that. It says cultural, not spiritual. Cultural is a much more broader term that spiritual because it encompasses and it makes a lot more sense.

[Lun Noir]

I have yet to hear an even remotely convincing argument in favor of Language Preservation. Your argument amounts to 'It passed, so we can't possibly vote to repeal it'. That doesn't make any sense to me, since the repeal process exists in the first place.

This is obviously NOT my position, or my argument.

If the repeal was based on the premise that private individuals, universities, whathaveyou, and individual nations would be better suited to the task, then I would support a repeal (that's not a NatSov argument, btw: a NatSov argument would be something like "BELIEVING that individual nations should decide for themselves whether to preserve language") But that's not the argument of this repeal. The argument we find in this repeal is: (1) that the task is too hard, (2) that the assistance committee is unnecessary (even though you'd think nations would need the help if the task was so hard), and (3) that the target res could force nations to violate spiritual beliefs (stupid) or somehow pervert un-written languages (a BIG LIE).

To reiterate: I'm not saying that just because something passed it should stay on the books forever. I'm saying we should not vote in favor of bad repeals - we should seek a legitimate argument to repeal something folks no longer care for. We should not vote for shoddy repeals that lie about the facts just to reach a desired goal. That's political cowardice, and believe it or not my nation is against such behavior.

I understand your point.

I still am voting in favor of the repeal, but if it fails, I'm willing to draft a stronger repeal at some point in the future.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

That is the second or third time it has been said about it thinking it violates spiritual beliefs. According to the piece of legislation, it does not say that. It says cultural, not spiritual. Cultural is a much more broader term that spiritual because it encompasses and it makes a lot more sense.

Per the repeal:

CONVINCED that some cultures would not like their languages to be recorded, for it is sacred to them and any interference made by the government would go against their beliefs,

That sure as hell sounds like you're suggesting that Language Preservation would infringe on some "sacred belief" that language not be recorded.

Sacred, adj. - Worthy of religious veneration; Made or declared holy

[The Last Homely House]

The key word here is cultural. Sacred can also just mean that it is very dear to them.

For example, According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, it can mean ": highly valued and important : deserving great respect"

[Cowardly Pacifists]

The key word here is cultural. Sacred can also just mean that it is very dear to them.

For example, According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, it can mean ": highly valued and important : deserving great respect"

I highly doubt that you used the word "sacred" without intending a religious or spiritual connotation.

In any case, I don't see what difference it makes. Whether your argument derives from a religious "sacred belief" that language should not be recorded, or a cultural "sacred belief" that language should not be recorded, my point remains the same: it's a stupid reason for repeal. We shouldn't repeal things out of concern for a (completely made up) "sacred cultural belief" that language should not be recorded.

[Saveyou Island]

The key word here is cultural. Sacred can also just mean that it is very dear to them.

For example, According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, it can mean ": highly valued and important : deserving great respect"

I highly doubt that you used the word "sacred" without intending a religious or spiritual connotation.

In any case, I don't see what difference it makes. Whether your argument derives from a religious "sacred belief" that language should not be recorded, or a cultural "sacred belief" that language should not be recorded, my point remains the same: it's a stupid reason for repeal. We shouldn't repeal things out of concern for a (completely made up) "sacred cultural belief" that language should not be recorded.

We're not repealing this only based on that. We have other arguments, y'know...

[United Federation of Canada]

We're not repealing this only based on that. We have other NO arguments, y'know...

Such as??? You have yet to present anything other than a whole load of bullshit, and managed to vote stack.

I suspect this will turn around once the BIG delegates start weighing in.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

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

We are frankly surprised at the strident and occasionally vulgar displays being put on by the representatives debating this repeal. Considering the subject matter is "cultural heritage", this Assembly is acting in a remarkably UNcultured manner.

While we normally approve of weeding out deadwood legislation, we see no real need to repeal "Language Preservation". The resolution is fairly innocuous, and its repeal would do little to improve the WA's operations. And besides, our nation finds obscure languages interesting. Language preservation is a positive thing, if for no other reason than the aesthetic benefit.

[Afforess]

We're not repealing this only based on that. We have other NO arguments, y'know...

Such as??? You have yet to present anything other than a whole load of bullshit, and managed to vote stack.

I suspect this will turn around once the BIG delegates start weighing in.

The BIG delegates have already weighed in. There is no vote stacking here, get off your high horse and ditch the tin-foil hat. Just because the WA is disagreeing with your preconcieved notions of reality is no reason to throw a tantrum or threats around.

While we normally approve of weeding out deadwood legislation, we see no real need to repeal "Language Preservation". The resolution is fairly innocuous, and its repeal would do little to improve the WA's operations. And besides, our nation finds obscure languages interesting. Language preservation is a positive thing, if for no other reason than the aesthetic benefit.

Aesthetics is a horrible reason to create vast bureaucracies. I think my nation was more Aesthetically pleasing before I had to erect another massive square office building just to house more bureaucrats, and deal with the pollution from the extra population and crime. WA Reps are notorious criminals. Get off my lawn now.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Members of the General Assembly,

It is with deep regret that I cast a vote in favor of this repeal. Regret that I really cannot find anything favorable to say about either the resolution or the repeal. Really, "It's too much work" is an excuse to repeal these days? Still, trying to create a written alphabet for Alelie Penguin is exceptionally hard work, from what I'be been told. It would certainly be nice to not have to do it. Mind you, I don't do it, so I don't care; we let the Red Heads do it instead.

[The Akashic Records]

Oh, so because it's been around for a while, it's much more significant. That makes so much sense.

By that logic, the Iron Confederation would be more significant than the Akashic Records, because it's been around for longer and therefore has more heritage, therefore is more significant.

Yes, yes it is. Our nation is but a young one, yet we understand that understanding language leads to understanding, and less conflicts when one culture clashes with another. The longer you are around, the higher the probability that something important or interesting have happened in your nation; that's how history works, apart from being written mostly from a distorted view of most of the victors that is.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me in clear terms how the repeal of Language Preservation would affect the common citizens of the World Assembly. An ambiguous "loss of culture effects" reason isn't going to cut it for me.

You've never paid attention to what understanding other people can do, have you? Other than massacring other people, or right out segregating them, among other things, understanding languages work well with reducing conflicts. Sebabnya, bila saya faham apa yang anda katakan, dan anda juga faham apa yang saya katakan, tidaklah kita berasa tersinggung apabila saya melakukan sesuatu yang anda tidak suka, atau juga sebaliknya. Maaf sekiranya hujah-hujah saya kurang memuaskan, tetapi itulah yang mampu saya sampaikan.

Again, you still haven't convinced me why we need to preserve language.

You don't think different cultures are important, we do, and therein lies the differences, in which we understand the importance of preserving a means to understanding a different culture.

Though, it seems the current WA doesn't seem to care either, and I rest my case.

[Valendia]

The Valencia delegate grips his whiskey glass so tightly that cracks appear on the side, pursing his lips before speaking.

Quite frankly, I am disgusted by how apparently successful this repeal is - especially given how detailed and comprehensive the arguments against it were during the draft phase. It truly does nothing to dispel the vision of the WA as a body of incompetent drunkards willing to vote for Mickey Mouse if he was put up for election.

To those who are concerned about national sovereignty, I would ask that you consider why you are even a member of this body if you view it as such an onerous abrogation of your nation's liberty. To the rest of you that voted in favor of this resolution, did you know that gullible has been removed from the dictionary?

[Afforess]

The Valencia delegate grips his whiskey glass so tightly that cracks appear on the side, pursing his lips before speaking.

Quite frankly, I am disgusted by how apparently successful this repeal is - especially given how detailed and comprehensive the arguments against it were during the draft phase. It truly does nothing to dispel the vision of the WA as a body of incompetent drunkards willing to vote for Mickey Mouse if he was put up for election.

To those who are concerned about national sovereignty, I would ask that you consider why you are even a member of this body if you view it as such an onerous abrogation of your nation's liberty. To the rest of you that voted in favor of this resolution, did you know that gullible has been removed from the dictionary?

Us NatSov's are forced into the WA to play the R/D endorsement game.