Page 1 of 2
Repel Cultural Heritage Protection
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:17 amby Fargoalmus
NOTING that the Cultural Heritage Protection Act states that any culturally important site or object may not be harmed regardless of its health effects or use. This could be abused and could make cultural artifacts a weapon immune to disarmament or legal responsibility.
DECLARES that such artifacts may be dismantled or destroyed if the pose a threat to the health of others.
Need one endorsement to repel the Cultural Heritage Protection Act.
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:20 amby Crabulonia
Fargoalmus wrote:NOTING that the Cultural Heritage Protection Act states that any culturally important site or object may not be harmed regardless of its health effects or use. This could be abused and could make cultural artifacts a weapon immune to disarmament or legal responsibility.
DECLARES that such artifacts may be dismantled or destroyed if the pose a threat to the health of others.
Need one endorsement to repel the
Cultural Heritage Protection Act.
Repel the act! Repel it with garlic.
and fire.
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:20 amby Bergnovinaia
OOC: LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is not a very good reason at all... please tell me when you come up with a good, respectable repeal of my resolution that's even worth me lifting a finger to stop.
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:25 amby Bergnovinaia
Furthermore, here is a copy of the legislation:
Description: The World Assembly,
APPLAUDING that certain member nations have many historical and artistic artifacts that reflect their heritage;
RECOGNIZING that several of these artifacts could be threatened during conflict;
ACKNOWLEDGES that nations should have the rights and institutions to properly preserve these artifacts;
BELIEVING that preserving these artifacts will allow citizens to further understand their heritage and expand international recognition of culture collectively;
Hereby,
DEFINES an artifact as any item of cultural, historical, or archeological interest to the member nation in question.
DEFINES a cultural heritage site as a area of interest, archeological, historical, or cultural to any member nation within its own jurdisticion.
BANS the destruction, blocking, and looting of cultural heritage sites by member states against other states during times of peace and conflict;
REQUIRES that member states enact and enforce legislation criminalizing the destruction, blocking, and looting of cultural heritage sites by member states citizens against other states;
ESTABLISHES the Cultural Heritage Preservation Committee as a non-profit organization that may assist non-governmental organizations and government agencies overseeing cultural heritage sites upon request;
ENCOURAGES member states to:
a) Make historical artifacts accessible to the public where possible
b) Ensure that where an admission fee exists for a historical monument, they are as reasonable as possible and balanced between the attraction of tourism and the preservation of such monument;
c) Pass on knowledge of the history and the functions of historical artifacts to all interested parties
Where did you even get your idea for a "repel" (as stated by you) in this piece of legislation...? Please underline it in the next post becuase I really want to know since I dont even see it.
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:30 amby Fargoalmus
BANS the destruction, blocking, and looting of cultural heritage sites by member states against other states during times of peace and conflict;
This states that regardless of any of its properties it may not be damaged in any way shape or from.
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:31 amby Bergnovinaia
Fargoalmus wrote:BANS the destruction, blocking, and looting of cultural heritage sites by member states against other states during times of peace and conflict;
This states that regardless of any of its properties it may not be damaged in any way shape or from.
"Against other states..." I think this leaves destruction of sites within ones jurdistiction up to them abmassador.
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:34 amby Philimbesi
Much as I wish the act wasn't pelled in the first place I can't support this effort to repel it.
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:38 amby Fargoalmus
"Against other states..." I think this leaves destruction of sites within ones jurdistiction up to them ambassador.
The owners may not find it harmful. [Ex: 3
rd world countries unaware of its ( Radioactivity, Pollution, Ect.)]
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:42 amby Bergnovinaia
Fargoalmus wrote:"Against other states..." I think this leaves destruction of sites within ones jurdistiction up to them ambassador.
The owners may not find it harmful. [Ex: 3
rd world countries unaware of its ( Radioactivity, Pollution, Ect.)]
OOC: Let me get this straight... you are thinking that any nation should have the right to destroy another nation's cultural sites becuase they are a "health risk?" What defines a health risk, ambassador? What is stopping nations from waging jihads on nations' relics and shrines claiming they are a "health risk?"
Let me put it in very childish terms to you:
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:45 amby Fargoalmus
DEFINES a health risk as anything that can cause disease or otherwise shorten the life span of a living organism .
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:47 amby Bergnovinaia
Fargoalmus wrote: DEFINES a health risk as anything that can cause disease or otherwise shorten the life span of a living organism .
Oh, please... name one RL referance where a nation would say "Would you please destroy our culture so some of our citizens don't die?" Name one...
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:50 amby Grays Harbor
Philimbesi wrote:Much as I wish the act wasn't pelled in the first place I can't support this effort to repel it.
damn you. I was drinking my coffee as I read that, now I have to clean my keyboard off yet again.
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:52 amby Grays Harbor
Oh, and there is no way, no how, ever, that I, as a delegate, would een consider approving this...this....thing....in order to get a very good resolution repealed, or repeled, ... whatever.
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:53 amby Fargoalmus
Name one RL referance where a nation would say "Would you please destroy our culture so some of our citizens don't die?"
I am not suggesting that is the scenario. The owning nation would be ignorant of the health effects and might believe it is helping them with there troubles refusing to listen to sense.
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:56 amby Grays Harbor
Fargoalmus wrote:Name one RL referance where a nation would say "Would you please destroy our culture so some of our citizens don't die?"
I am not suggesting that is the scenario. The owning nation would be ignorant of the health effects and might believe it is helping them with there troubles refusing to listen to sense.
As an argument in favour of a repeal, that holds little or no weight. "What If" scenarios which have a very small liklihood of happening are not a compelling argument.
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:58 amby Bergnovinaia
Fargoalmus wrote:Name one RL referance where a nation would say "Would you please destroy our culture so some of our citizens don't die?"
I am not suggesting that is the scenario. The owning nation would be ignorant of the health effects and might believe it is helping them with there troubles refusing to listen to sense.
The second sentence didn't even make "sense" (like on of your senses, LOL!). Right now, my least favorite sense is my sight becuase I have to see this dead awful attempt at a repeal of my resolution.
A few suggestions if you ever try this again in the future: 1) Learn to spell or use a spell checker. It's "repeal" not "repel." 2) Come up with a good repeal that actually counters something found in the legislation; not something that could hypothetically be a loophole depending on opinion. 3) If you are going to assume something in RL will happen in NS, have evidence from NS'ers that this will actually occur. I am not aware of any NS nation that has a cultural heritage site that poses a "health risk" to the visitors.
Good day.
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:07 amby Fargoalmus
RL instance: A statue is made out of a large amount of granite which is highly radio active. The amount of cancer cases spike causing a jump in death tolls. This statue if in the form of the virgin marry and is protected by the country's army. Dismantling and destroying this monument is out of the question because of this resolution.
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:10 amby A mean old man
How shall we "repel" it? If it's magnetic, we can use other magnets and line up sides of the same polarity to push it away.
Or do you mean "repeal?"
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:15 amby Bergnovinaia
Fargoalmus wrote:RL instance: A statue is made out of a large amount of granite which is highly radio active. The amount of cancer cases spike causing a jump in death tolls. This statue if in the form of the virgin marry and is protected by the country's army. Dismantling and destroying this monument is out of the question because of this resolution.
Grays Harbor summed it up pretty good:
Grays Harbor wrote:Fargoalmus wrote:Name one RL referance where a nation would say "Would you please destroy our culture so some of our citizens don't die?"
I am not suggesting that is the scenario. The owning nation would be ignorant of the health effects and might believe it is helping them with there troubles refusing to listen to sense.
As an argument in favour of a repeal, that holds little or no weight. "What If" scenarios which have a very small liklihood of happening are not a compelling argument.
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:21 amby Crabulonia
Fargoalmus wrote:RL instance: A statue is made out of a large amount of granite which is highly radio active. The amount of cancer cases spike causing a jump in death tolls. This statue if in the form of the virgin marry and is protected by the country's army. Dismantling and destroying this monument is out of the question because of this resolution.
Maybe if a statue was made of uranium it would cause a spike in cancer cases. I'm pretty certain granite is quite inert in terms of radiation and it would be a shame to destroy anything of historical or aestheic beauty simply because there is the smallest chance it could be radioactive.
(OOC: The City of Aberdeen in the North of Scotland is almost entirely made of granite and is not much reknowned for its cancer rate being significantly higher. Should we destroy this ancient and historically viable city so that we can stop a tiny effect from being exerted in almost no cases?)
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:24 amby Bergnovinaia
Crabulonia wrote:Fargoalmus wrote:RL instance: A statue is made out of a large amount of granite which is highly radio active. The amount of cancer cases spike causing a jump in death tolls. This statue if in the form of the virgin marry and is protected by the country's army. Dismantling and destroying this monument is out of the question because of this resolution.
Maybe if a statue was made of uranium it would cause a spike in cancer cases. I'm pretty certain granite is quite inert in terms of radiation and it would be a shame to destroy anything of historical or aestheic beauty simply because there is the smallest chance it could be radioactive.
(OOC: The City of Aberdeen in the North of Scotland is almost entirely made of granite and is not much reknowned for its cancer rate being significantly higher. Should we destroy this ancient and historically viable city so that we can stop a tiny effect from being exerted in almost no cases?)
Or perhaps we should destroy the Ka'Ba becuse it's made out of granite...
I'm pretty sure that statues aren't made out of uranium unless the sculptor is a moron. Hence, this arguement has no merit.
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:30 amby Fargoalmus
There could also be an instance in which the owner is lacking the knowledge to properly dismantle it.
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:33 amby Bergnovinaia
Fargoalmus wrote:There could also be an instance in which the owner is lacking the knowledge to properly dismantle it.
If it is a health risk to dismantle it, why dismantle it...?
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:33 amby Fargoalmus
No the owner mat need help dismantling it.
Posted:
Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:37 amby Crabulonia
Fargoalmus wrote:No the owner mat need help dismantling it.
How the hell is dismantling an entirely inert statue going to help anyone?
It seems that a statue can only be a serious health risk if it is made of some radioactive solid material but only a truly foolish patron would commission such a statue which causes serious health concern.
I feel compelled to ask, are you trolling the GA?