Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Slightly more on topic, what category was this submitted under before it was axed?
Human Rights.
Advertisement
by Mousebumples » Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:58 pm
by Unibot II » Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:08 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:15 pm
by Mousebumples » Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:15 pm
Unibot II wrote:Right, well, now that there is an opportunity for revisions, I'd recommend the word, 'person', to replace references to human beings and humans.
by Intellect and the Arts » Thu Feb 10, 2011 2:13 pm
by A mean old man » Thu Feb 10, 2011 2:14 pm
A mean old man wrote:ASSERTING its belief that the people of all nations have a right to live without unnecessary and daily fears of damage to their physical well-being,
This reads clunkily to my ears. Might I suggest something like: ASSERTING its belief that members of all nations have a right to live free from daily fear of unnecessary and avoidable harm to their physical well-being. ? I did a few wording changes and rearranging. If that's not even close to what you'd meant to say, my apologies. Still, the current version isn't as clear I think it could or should be.
A mean old man wrote:RECOGNIZING that many companies produce goods which significantly degrade or cease to function after a period of time,
Suggestion: RECOGNIZING that many companies produce goods which significantly degrade after a period of time, which can result in the product having toxic or inter properties.
Some medications (which isn't necessarily what is being targeted here) can actually become harmful after they "expire" and degrade. I think including that sort of detail in the proposal text is helpful and may win you a few more votes for those who can be bothered to read the proposal text.
A mean old man wrote:BELIEVING that the average length of time that certain goods last must be known in order to promote the safety of the consumer,
Perhaps consider changing "last" (with regards to time) to "can be expected to be safe and effective" or something along those lines?
A mean old man wrote:NOTING that this holds true for items such as medical supplies/equipment and food,
Perhaps: SPECIFYING that such details are important for a wide variety of items, including medical supplies, medical equipment, and food. (And medications? Food and Drug Standards may cover some of that - but it would also cover food, which you're specifically mentioning here.)
A mean old man wrote:DEFINES, solely for the purposes of this resolution, a "necessity" as any item which is intended for human consumption and/or an item that, if it was not in proper condition or if it was not functioning, would lead to the deprivation of a human of any sort of bodily activity that is required for the extension of the lifetime of said human,
I think you could completely excise the first mention of HUMAN, if not both from this clause.DEFINES, solely for the purposes of this resolution, a "necessity" as any item which is intended for human consumption and/or an item that, if it was not in proper condition or if it was not functioning, would lead to the deprivation of any sort of bodily activity that is required for the extension of one's lifetime,
I remain unconvinced that including dog food or catnip or ... whatever under the scope of this proposal would be damaging and/or harmful. Certainly, I'm open to argument if I'm missing some important point.
A mean old man wrote:CHARGES any distributor of any necessity to attain an accurate and average prediction of how long each and every necessity that they distribute will last until it degrades to a level of quality at which it will directly "lead to the deprivation of a human of any sort of bodily activity that is required for the extension of the lifetime of said human,"
Like above, I believe that any/all mention of HUMAN can be excised from this clause.
A mean old man wrote:MANDATES that the distributors of a necessity provide, in a readily comprehensible fashion, all of the information that they have been charged to acquire by the previous clause to any who wish to view it,
FURTHER MANDATES that any recipient(s) of a necessity be provided with the information on how long the exact necessity that they are receiving lasts by the distributer of said necessity.
Spelling error!
Also, I'd appreciate a clause along the lines of the following:
ALLOWS individual member nations to require the manufacturer of a necessity to detail all required information and to supply that information to the distributor, in accordance with all relevant international law.
Obviously, there's a number of ways to "write" that, but I would personally prefer to task the CREATOR of necessities (i.e. the manufacturer) with determining how long their product is good for rather than requiring such information to be determined by the distributor.
Additionally, it appears as if this proposal would apply to fresh fruit and vegetables, which almost seems like overkill. Maybe I'm just too much of a cook, but I can usually tell when "fresh" foods are going bad or have gone bad, so I don't know that such information is necessary. Again, I just wanted to clarify that this was something you meant to include and/or see if you have any brainstorms on the subject that I've missed.
by Unibot II » Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:35 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:"person consumption"?
"personal consumption" might work, but I never thought "human consumption" was a "speciesist" term myself. No more than "human rights".
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by Kentucky Fried Human » Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:44 pm
by Mousebumples » Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:18 pm
A mean old man wrote:People see "expiration dates" and it rings a bell. I'm leaving the title as it is.
by A mean old man » Thu Feb 10, 2011 5:02 pm
Mousebumples wrote:A mean old man wrote:People see "expiration dates" and it rings a bell. I'm leaving the title as it is.
Works for me. I just saw the "red" (and your comment regarding being uncertain/wanting alternatives for items in red) and made the suggestions. Clearly and out of date comment, so irrelevant.
Everything else:
Sounds good. I think I'll be able to approve this proposal when you resubmit - not that I didn't approve it before, either, but I think this is a stronger piece of legislation now.
by Mousebumples » Thu Feb 10, 2011 5:09 pm
A mean old man wrote:Oh, and I'll remove that red ... sorry for the confusion.
by Ardchoille » Thu Feb 10, 2011 10:43 pm
by A mean old man » Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:38 am
by Grays Harbor » Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:19 am
Intellect and the Arts wrote:People who bitch about national sovereignty shouldn't join an organization the purpose of which is to strip it from them. Granted, there is a limit beyond which lies unnecessary micromanagement, but still.
by Intellect and the Arts » Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:30 pm
Grays Harbor wrote:Intellect and the Arts wrote:People who bitch about national sovereignty shouldn't join an organization the purpose of which is to strip it from them. Granted, there is a limit beyond which lies unnecessary micromanagement, but still.
Perhaps because those of us who are more conservative and do join do so because of a belief that the purpose of the WA isn't to "strip national sovereignty away", but to enact essential legislation of an international nature, not for it to become a nanny-state world government, and try to put forth those ideals.
by Krioval » Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:37 pm
Intellect and the Arts wrote:You're joining a society the purpose of which is to impose the will of a few on the many whether they like it or not so long as most of them are moderately ok with it or at least don't know what they're doing. That's handing over national power. It's a simple fact.
by Grays Harbor » Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:51 pm
Intellect and the Arts wrote:Grays Harbor wrote:Perhaps because those of us who are more conservative and do join do so because of a belief that the purpose of the WA isn't to "strip national sovereignty away", but to enact essential legislation of an international nature, not for it to become a nanny-state world government, and try to put forth those ideals.
You're joining a society the purpose of which is to impose the will of a few on the many whether they like it or not so long as most of them are moderately ok with it or at least don't know what they're doing. That's handing over national power. It's a simple fact.
by Ardchoille » Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:04 pm
by A mean old man » Sat Feb 12, 2011 12:42 pm
by Destructor Bunnies » Sat Feb 12, 2011 1:27 pm
A mean old man wrote:". . .the extension of one's lifetime,"
This bothers me. It seems vague.
. . .the extension of any organism's lifetime?
. . .the extension of...
I don't know.
by Mousebumples » Sat Feb 12, 2011 6:40 pm
A mean old man wrote:". . .the extension of one's lifetime,"
This bothers me. It seems vague.
. . .the extension of any organism's lifetime?
. . .the extension of...
I don't know.
by Knootoss » Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:25 am
by Knootoss » Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:38 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement