by Nueva Rico » Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:20 pm
by Grays Harbor » Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:22 pm
by Araraukar » Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:52 pm
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Nueva Rico » Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:11 pm
Araraukar wrote:"The saying "your right to swing your fist ends where the other person's face begins" comes to mind. How is this a human rights issue?"
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:42 pm
by Grays Harbor » Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:46 pm
by Grays Harbor » Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:52 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:And there should be an obligation on people not to stand their ground unless they lack alternative options. Immunising people from prosecution for killing people requires a higher standard.
by Araraukar » Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:06 am
Grays Harbor wrote:You prefer people be victims instead.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Aclion » Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:19 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:And there should be an obligation on people not to stand their ground unless they lack alternative options.
by Nueva Rico » Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:26 am
Araraukar wrote:”Police forces exist for a reason.
Araraukar wrote:"Though that reminds me that defining "arms" seems unnecessary if the word is only used to say that this proposal has nothing to do with regulating them."
by Christian Democrats » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:15 am
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Frankrussenstein » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:38 am
by Araraukar » Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:03 pm
Nueva Rico wrote:Defer to the section about how police forces are not always readily available in every country.
It’s more as a clarification for the second part of the clause, prohibiting any classification of a use of a common object, i.e. a chair, or fists to be classified as weapons, and thus, not a charge against using defensive force, but an attempted claim that the individual assaulted with a weapon.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Nueva Rico » Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:42 pm
Araraukar wrote:"If a chair is used as a weapon, it should certainly count as a weapon for prosecuting the use of "unnecessary force". Also, you should specify if you are trying to mandate that people be allowed to use arms for this kind of self-defence. And if so, please be aware of the existing resolutions that limit people's access to or use of lethal weaponry."
(OOC: Especially as you include explosives into your "arms" list. They aren't normally used for self-defence outside of action movies.)
by Aclion » Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:08 pm
by Aclion » Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:25 am
Mentoka wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:We support this proposal. The international community ought to protect, by resolution, the inherent and fundamental right of individuals to defend their persons, liberties, properties, families, and reputations by means of reasonable force.
No the international community should not. This is not an international matter at all, this is a sovereign matter which national governments should legislate upon. Mentoka stands opposed wholeheartedly.
Larry Chaffee
World Assembly Representative
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:39 am
Christian Democrats wrote:We support this proposal. The international community ought to protect, by resolution, the inherent and fundamental right of individuals to defend their persons, liberties, properties, families, and reputations by means of reasonable force.
by Aclion » Fri Jun 29, 2018 11:16 am
by Christian Democrats » Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:33 pm
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:44 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
It's perfectly reasonable to use persuasive force and the force of the law to defend one's reputation against an unjust attack. If someone is attempting to kill you, on the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable to use deadly force in self-defense. The kind and amount of force that is reasonable to defend oneself obviously varies depending on the circumstances.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:14 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Of course. It's just that including "reputation" in a list of important things worthy of being defended with physical force, in a discussion about a resolution mandating the legality of deadly force in defense of same, might give someone the wrong idea. Context is everything.
by Grays Harbor » Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:31 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Of course. It's just that including "reputation" in a list of important things worthy of being defended with physical force, in a discussion about a resolution mandating the legality of deadly force in defense of same, might give someone the wrong idea. Context is everything.
How dare you insult me in such a fashion! My honour demands that we might with swords, tomorrow at dawn!
by Bananaistan » Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:00 am
by Nueva Rico » Sat Jun 30, 2018 7:44 am
Bananaistan wrote:"I also recommend that you would delete the "assured absolution" part from clause 3. This contradicts the right to member states to use a court of law to assess the legality of claims in clause 4."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement