NationStates

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2020 5:21 am**

Honeydewistania wrote:If we’re going into OOC bad of the nominee, there plenty of examples

...

You know you can’t just make assertions of having evidence and expect people to accept them without presenting said evidence, right?

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2020 7:24 am**

Honeydewistania wrote:If we’re going into OOC bad of the nominee, there plenty of examples

This is a dangerous path to continue down.

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2020 7:27 am**

Sedgistan wrote:
Honeydewistania wrote:If we’re going into OOC bad of the nominee, there plenty of examples

This is a dangerous path to continue down.

I see. I won’t continue down it, thanks.

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2020 8:14 am**

Sedgistan wrote:
Honeydewistania wrote:If we’re going into OOC bad of the nominee, there plenty of examples

This is a dangerous path to continue down.

Ever the buzzkill, Sedge.

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:56 pm**

SkyDip wrote:
Sedgistan wrote:This is a dangerous path to continue down.

Ever the buzzkill, Sedge.

He's right though. This is a game, and a player who is up for either a commendation or a condemnation should be judged upon the merits of their nation, not their OOC beliefs.

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2020 7:50 pm**

Attempted Socialism wrote:I appreciate how dishonest you have to be to cut the quote there, exactly. There was a preceding paragraph that may interest you, if the thing about bearing false witness is something you try to take serious.

Were you not distinguishing between "non-compliance" and "LGBT opinions"? (Setting aside the fact that CD hasn't engaged in non-compliance, with the possible exception of the recently passed Access to Abortion, so I don't really understand what you're talking about.)

Attempted Socialism wrote:Furthermore, it is not "anti-Catholicism" to oppose sexism, homophobia, transphobia and the degradation of women's rights. You can do that without ever hearing about religion. If you try to shield yourself behind a religion that mandates sexism, homophobia, transphobia and the degradation of women's rights, be prepared to be called out if you try to act from behind that flimsy shield. This martyr complex is frankly pathetic; you're not the victim of intolerance or repression.

To deprive someone of a benefit they otherwise would have received, because they adhere to Catholic teaching on sexuality, is anti-Catholic. Sounds like you don't the stigma attached to that term. Tough.

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2020 8:14 pm**

Anti-Bigotry, you mean. Not all Catholics discriminate against those of a different sexual/gender identity.

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:18 pm**

Auralia wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:I appreciate how dishonest you have to be to cut the quote there, exactly. There was a preceding paragraph that may interest you, if the thing about bearing false witness is something you try to take serious.

Were you not distinguishing between "non-compliance" and "LGBT opinions"? (Setting aside the fact that CD hasn't engaged in non-compliance, with the possible exception of the recently passed Access to Abortion, so I don't really understand what you're talking about.)

And with the exception of Reproductive Freedoms, On Abortion, World Assembly Justice Accord, Administrative Compliance Act, and Rights and Duties of WA States.

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:10 pm**

Auralia wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:Furthermore, it is not "anti-Catholicism" to oppose sexism, homophobia, transphobia and the degradation of women's rights. You can do that without ever hearing about religion. If you try to shield yourself behind a religion that mandates sexism, homophobia, transphobia and the degradation of women's rights, be prepared to be called out if you try to act from behind that flimsy shield. This martyr complex is frankly pathetic; you're not the victim of intolerance or repression.

To deprive someone of a benefit they otherwise would have received, because they adhere to Catholic teaching on sexuality, is anti-Catholic. Sounds like you don't the stigma attached to that term. Tough.

There are plenty of Catholics who not only do not "adhere to Catholic teaching on sexuality" but actively oppose it. Are they "anti-Catholic"? You're conflating opposition to individual acts and beliefs with anti-religious intolerance, when they are two fundamentally different things. While one can be used as a shield or cloak for the other, that is not what's happening here. What's happening here is that people are reacting to things an individual has freely chosen to write; that he wrote them because of his Catholicism does not mean those people are trying to tear down churches or stop others from exercising their freedom of religion or conscience. There is not a 'right' to be commended in this game; so denying someone a commendation because of opinions they openly hold is not abuse or categorical intolerance, it's a reasoned decision.

I get that it makes you angry that people are taking CD's opinions as reason not to commend, but that doesn't transform them into bigots.

edit: fixed quote tags

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2020 11:25 pm**

Auralia wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:I appreciate how dishonest you have to be to cut the quote there, exactly. There was a preceding paragraph that may interest you, if the thing about bearing false witness is something you try to take serious.

Were you not distinguishing between "non-compliance" and "LGBT opinions"? (Setting aside the fact that CD hasn't engaged in non-compliance, with the possible exception of the recently passed Access to Abortion, so I don't really understand what you're talking about.)

No, I wasn't. Go through the thread, those two reasons are easily the major ones people mention for voting against. It's also not true that CD hasn't engaged in non-compliance, even with your qualifier.

Attempted Socialism wrote:Furthermore, it is not "anti-Catholicism" to oppose sexism, homophobia, transphobia and the degradation of women's rights. You can do that without ever hearing about religion. If you try to shield yourself behind a religion that mandates sexism, homophobia, transphobia and the degradation of women's rights, be prepared to be called out if you try to act from behind that flimsy shield. This martyr complex is frankly pathetic; you're not the victim of intolerance or repression.

To deprive someone of a benefit they otherwise would have received, because they adhere to Catholic teaching on sexuality, is anti-Catholic. Sounds like you don't the stigma attached to that term. Tough.

I don't think there's any stigma in being anti-Catholic Church (I think of it kind of like anti-fascist, anti-racist or non-homophobic; something that all people should be). It's just not applicable here, because we're talking about a person who has chosen to shout certain beliefs from the rooftops. As I said, I wouldn't need to know anything about the Catholic Church or CD's religion to oppose a commendation on those grounds. But hey, if the fight against bigotry is automatically anti-Catholic in your mind, I guess we don't have to argue. I'll simply cede to your point and acknowledge that the Catholic Church is inherently bigoted and should be resisted. What I won't concede to is your fallacious claim that not rewarding someone for the bigotry they have chosen to advance (For whatever reason) is itself bigoted towards all who shares some group with the original offender.

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:46 am**

Auralia wrote:Were you not distinguishing between "non-compliance" and "LGBT opinions"? (Setting aside the fact that CD hasn't engaged in non-compliance, with the possible exception of the recently passed Access to Abortion, so I don't really understand what you're talking about.)

Well that's just a lie. http://archive.today/2020.07.18-111431/ ... id=1402826. And also an untruth that you ought to know... you were the second person to sign on to UM's non-compliance parade.

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:01 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Auralia wrote:Were you not distinguishing between "non-compliance" and "LGBT opinions"? (Setting aside the fact that CD hasn't engaged in non-compliance, with the possible exception of the recently passed Access to Abortion, so I don't really understand what you're talking about.)

Well that's just a lie. http://archive.today/2020.07.18-111431/ ... id=1402826. And also an untruth that you ought to know... you were the second person to sign on to UM's non-compliance parade.

For reference, I was going off of this dispatch, which indicates compliance with GA law generally, including GA law relating to abortion. For example:

Abortion: Legalized by General Assembly Resolution 286.

CD is a signatory of UM's dispatch, though. I did know that, which is why I mentioned Access to Abortion. However, I forgot that the dispatch calls for broad non-compliance with all GA law relating to abortion, not just Access to Abortion.

I guess CD should update his dispatch, then.

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:06 pm**

Wallenburg wrote:
Auralia wrote:Were you not distinguishing between "non-compliance" and "LGBT opinions"? (Setting aside the fact that CD hasn't engaged in non-compliance, with the possible exception of the recently passed Access to Abortion, so I don't really understand what you're talking about.)

And with the exception of Reproductive Freedoms, On Abortion, World Assembly Justice Accord, Administrative Compliance Act, and Rights and Duties of WA States.

21st Century Peronia will vote against this resolution on the understanding that The Most Holy and Grand Empire of Christian Democrats (CD) is currently in breach of the General Assembly resolutions mentioned by the Chief Minister of World Assembly Affairs of the region to which we belong (TEP).

The above, since CD has signed the Charter of International Alliance for the Preborn with other nations, where they express their will not to abide by the commands of “Access to Abortion” (among others related to that Resolution): https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1402826.

This situation of non-compliance with a General Assembly Resolution is sufficient reason for our State to reject the proposed nomination, since otherwise a State would be being praised for its contributions to the international community (which in no way we dispute in relation to CD) at the same time that it would be endorsing (at least implicitly) the non-compliance of that same State with obligations that it has vis-à-vis the international community.

Finally, we consider it pertinent to quote the first sentences of General Assembly Resolution No. 2 (Rights and Duties of WA States): "World Assembly membership in NationStates is a choice, not a requirement. Those of us who chose to participate have certain responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and the entire NationStates community. At the same time, we as NationStates have certain rights and responsibilities that we do not willingly relinquish when we chose to join the World Assembly". We do not deny the right of each State not to be subject to the Resolutions of the General Assembly, as long as it decides, for this, not to be part of this international body, its affiliation being optional, after which it will be bound by its resolutions, whether have voted for or against them.

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:38 pm**

Apparently there's a lot of players here that are either being willfully ignorant or need a reality check about how the Security Council works.

The proposals to recognize Cormac's contributions to the game were shot down thanks to OOC matters. Solorni's commend was repealed entirely due to OOC matters. The Condemns of quite a few raiders were repealed based on OOC matters. Countless other proposals have been affected in the drafting stage, the approval stage, and the voting stage thanks to OOC matters. As Wallenburg put it...

Wallenburg wrote:C&Cs and repeals of the same have on several occasions passed for OOC reasons. This is not new, and this is not exceptional.

The SC being a "purely IC entity" or whatever people are saying has always been an ideal, not reality.

Unfortunately...

Wallenburg wrote:This is, among other reasons, the consequence of GP taking over the SC.

... we're back to ignorance with this comment. The idea that NS players didn't let OOC matters influence their votes in the SC before "GP took over" is laughable. OOC has always been a factor in whether proposals pass or not.

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:40 pm**

Yokiria wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:This is, among other reasons, the consequence of GP taking over the SC.
... we're back to ignorance with this comment. The idea that NS players didn't let OOC matters influence their votes in the SC before "GP took over" is laughable. OOC has always been a factor in whether proposals pass or not.

Wallenburg wrote:among other reasons

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:09 pm**

Support, though it seems like this resolution will not come to pass. Considering the political bias of the WA, this is fairly unsurprising.

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:20 pm**

Auze wrote:Support, though it seems like this resolution will not come to pass. Considering the political bias of the WA, this is fairly unsurprising.

OOC: This isn't about political bias, its about flaunting non-compliance with GA resolutions and homophobic statements.

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:04 pm**

"Quick! Someone commend this guy!"

Edit: For posterity's sake.

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:13 pm**

Cretox State wrote:"Quick! Someone commend this guy!"

Lol. "No one is gay" > Liked by Christian Democrats.

:roll:

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:17 pm**

Cretox State wrote:"Quick! Someone commend this guy!"

Big yikes, at this point I think we should condemn CD.

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:18 pm**

Alcala-Cordel wrote:
Cretox State wrote:"Quick! Someone commend this guy!"

Big yikes, at this point I think we should condemn CD.

No, condemns are for cool players that just RP an evil nation.

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:31 pm**

Wallenburg wrote:
Yokiria wrote:... we're back to ignorance with this comment. The idea that NS players didn't let OOC matters influence their votes in the SC before "GP took over" is laughable. OOC has always been a factor in whether proposals pass or not.

Wallenburg wrote:among other reasons

GP is not among other reasons that OOC matters affect the passage of WA proposals, because GP is not part of the reason that OOC matters affect the passage of WA proposals. OOC matters affecting the passage of WA proposals has been a thing for ages.

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:04 pm**

Wallenburg wrote:
Alcala-Cordel wrote:Big yikes, at this point I think we should condemn CD.

No, condemns are for cool players that just RP an evil nation.

You're right, give them no special designation

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:59 pm**

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:There are plenty of Catholics who not only do not "adhere to Catholic teaching on sexuality" but actively oppose it. Are they "anti-Catholic"?

Yes -- obviously! How can a person oppose the core moral teachings of the Catholic Church without thereby setting themselves in opposition to it? Baptism does not categorically protect them from heresy or apostasy.

Their opposition may be completely irrational, or it may be based on what they believe to be legitimate reasons. Either way, it's still anti-Catholicism.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:You're conflating opposition to individual acts and beliefs with anti-religious intolerance, when they are two fundamentally different things.

We're not talking about "anti-religious intolerance" -- a concept that you and I probably understand very differently, incidentally -- we're talking about anti-Catholicism.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:...that he wrote them because of his Catholicism does not mean those people are trying to tear down churches or stop others from exercising their freedom of religion or conscience.

Your position is that anything short of literally tearing down churches does not constitute anti-Catholicism?

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:42 pm**

Auralia wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:There are plenty of Catholics who not only do not "adhere to Catholic teaching on sexuality" but actively oppose it. Are they "anti-Catholic"?

Yes -- obviously! How can a person oppose the core moral teachings of the Catholic Church without thereby setting themselves in opposition to it? Baptism does not categorically protect them from heresy or apostasy.

Their opposition may be completely irrational, or it may be based on what they believe to be legitimate reasons. Either way, it's still anti-Catholicism.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:You're conflating opposition to individual acts and beliefs with anti-religious intolerance, when they are two fundamentally different things.

We're not talking about "anti-religious intolerance"

Your rhetoric on this thread has suggested otherwise.

... -- a concept that you and I probably understand very differently, incidentally -- we're talking about anti-Catholicism.

If "anti-Catholicism" is defined simply by disagreement with some subset of Church teachings, as you seem to be saying above, then the label is essentially useless. Literally the entire universe of people who are not 100%-doctrinaire, devout Catholics are "anti-Catholic" in this sense, and you railing against people for acting accordingly is farcical.

If, on the other hand, you are willing to accept the nuances of reality here - that people can disagree with a doctrine ("set themselves in opposition" if you insist on that phrasing) without desiring anything more destructive than that the institution issuing that doctrine should alter or abolish it - then language like "anti-Catholic" is counterproductive (as well as false).

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:...that he wrote them because of his Catholicism does not mean those people are trying to tear down churches or stop others from exercising their freedom of religion or conscience.

Your position is that anything short of literally tearing down churches does not constitute anti-Catholicism?

No, but your position has seemed to be that anything more confrontational than politely asking what people should believe, constitutes an illegitimate attack against the Church and everyone in it. As I have tried to indicate, there are multiple more reasonable positions to take.

To bring this back around to the topic, it's not an attack against Catholic faith to disagree with or be offended by CD's statements and vote accordingly.

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Commend Christian Democrats