Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:35 pm
Wasn't there a ruling somewhere, that a proposal had to actually had to do what the title says? And if so, how much of said proposal had to do what the title says?
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Tinhampton wrote:This is a self-defence proposal slightly interwoven with PE
Tinhampton wrote:This is a self-defence proposal slightly interwoven with PE
Tinhampton wrote:Anderson: The real proposal "that blocks further self defence regulation" is Ambassador Bell's Self-Defense Compact. Does anybody else have any comments about the actual content of our delegation's proposal?
Xanthorrhoea wrote:A more effective proposal in my mind would require training on how to recognise and avoid dangerous situations, and how to de-escalate and escape, rather than how to fight. If you’re in a fight, you’ve already lost.
Seppen wrote:Xanthorrhoea wrote:A more effective proposal in my mind would require training on how to recognise and avoid dangerous situations, and how to de-escalate and escape, rather than how to fight. If you’re in a fight, you’ve already lost.
This is what I think it should be taught in schools. That proposal, no matter how noble your intentions are, will encourage school to teach "violence as a solution".
Tinhampton wrote:mandates that schools, as part of their physical education curriculum, deliver practical lessons to all of their students on the importance and safe execution of basic unarmed self-defence
Seppen wrote:Tinhampton wrote:mandates that schools, as part of their physical education curriculum, deliver practical lessons to all of their students on the importance and safe execution of basic unarmed self-defence
I was talking about that above. As conviced pacifist and antimilitarist, I think that schools should never teach violence (both physical or other forms), not even as defensive solution.
Tinhampton wrote:Does anybody else have any comments about the actual content of our delegation's proposal?
Understanding that this resolution has good intentions on lecturing about self-defence, it fails to realize that such teachings would be ineffective for those unwilling to use force, this also advocates the use of arms which would, although help victims in situations of harm, would just enable people to hurt other people as well. For such reasons, we vote against the resolution.
Croanique wrote:As a nation which has outlawed guns (and encourages all others to do the same), we take issue with the implications of Article d.
Tinhampton wrote:Non-binding article.
For the 4,384,028,506th time - SDEC does not in principle require or prescribe that any form of self-defence be taught by schools.