Advertisement
by The Eternal Kawaii » Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:15 pm
by Araraukar » Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:05 am
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 Kenmoria » Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:39 am
The Eternal Kawaii wrote:In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised
We are hesitant to support this proposal, as we do not know how it would affect traditional Kawaiian funerary rites. Kawaiians neither bury nor cremate our dead; instead, we take them to a funeral tower, and there leave the body in an open crypt to be consumed by scavenger birds. The bones are allowed to bleach clean for a few years, then the crypt is swept out for reuse, and the bones of its former resident are used to decorate the tower.
We note that this could be deemed "molestation of a grave", as defined in the text of the proposal: "mutilation of interred remains, except in the requirements of an autopsy or a criminal investigation". Unless it is clear that our people's funerary practices will not be condemned by the proposal, we cannot support it.
by Capercom » Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:05 am
The Eternal Kawaii wrote:In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised
We are hesitant to support this proposal, as we do not know how it would affect traditional Kawaiian funerary rites. Kawaiians neither bury nor cremate our dead; instead, we take them to a funeral tower, and there leave the body in an open crypt to be consumed by scavenger birds. The bones are allowed to bleach clean for a few years, then the crypt is swept out for reuse, and the bones of its former resident are used to decorate the tower.
We note that this could be deemed "molestation of a grave", as defined in the text of the proposal: "mutilation of interred remains, except in the requirements of an autopsy or a criminal investigation". Unless it is clear that our people's funerary practices will not be condemned by the proposal, we cannot support it.
From the Desk of:
Nuky Bristow
Capercom World Assembly
Ambassador
by DeltaSource » Fri Jan 04, 2019 6:21 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:05 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Once you've heard the climactic tagline, actually seeing the film seems kind of redundant.
by Blueflarst » Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:01 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:By what mechanism are the dead endowed with rights?
by Blueflarst » Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:05 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Once you've heard the climactic tagline, actually seeing the film seems kind of redundant.
Lol, agreed. It's like if you wrote a mystery novel and then you've been fully spoiled on it. There's not much of a reason to watch unless they've done an excellent job simply in presentation. (For example, because this is one of the more disappointing spoilers I've had, "Dragon Age: Inquisition" definitely does a good job presenting everything that comes up in Trespasser, and trust me, if you haven't played the game, you don't want to look that up. Also, it's really cheap on Origin right now, so go get it.)
Still no mechanism here for why dead people are endowed with rights that do not also endow your skin flakes with rights and then put forward a troubling conception of consent. Still unclear on why deceased people intrinsically have rights.
by Jebslund » Mon Jan 14, 2019 5:15 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Once you've heard the climactic tagline, actually seeing the film seems kind of redundant.
Lol, agreed. It's like if you wrote a mystery novel and then you've been fully spoiled on it. There's not much of a reason to watch unless they've done an excellent job simply in presentation. (For example, because this is one of the more disappointing spoilers I've had, "Dragon Age: Inquisition" definitely does a good job presenting everything that comes up in Trespasser, and trust me, if you haven't played the game, you don't want to look that up. Also, it's really cheap on Origin right now, so go get it.)
Still no mechanism here for why dead people are endowed with rights that do not also endow your skin flakes with rights and then put forward a troubling conception of consent. Still unclear on why deceased people intrinsically have rights.
by Reploid Productions » Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:41 pm
Blueflarst wrote:You just showed us your fake liberalism and your no rights policy to deceased people which should have right to a holy tomb you are evil
Blueflarst wrote:HEAR ME WELL PEOPLE DO NOT RIGTHS AFTER DEAD BADASS THE RIGHT TO A TOMB IS SACRED AND YOU CAN NOT JUST AVOIDING THE PEOPLES DESIRES TO BE BURIED
YOU ARE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW THE TOXIC LIBERALISM ONLY CARES FOR HIS VOTERS DUE THE FACT THA DEADS DO NOT VOTE YOU WANT TO REMOVE POST MORTEM RIGHTS
IN PRACTICALLY ALL THE CULTURES THE DEAD HAD RIGHTS AND YOU WILL NOT CHANGE THA CORRUPTED LIBERAL
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
by Fecaw » Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:23 pm
Seeing as he is the President, he can probably afford it.Capercom wrote:The Eternal Kawaii wrote:In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised
We are hesitant to support this proposal, as we do not know how it would affect traditional Kawaiian funerary rites. Kawaiians neither bury nor cremate our dead; instead, we take them to a funeral tower, and there leave the body in an open crypt to be consumed by scavenger birds. The bones are allowed to bleach clean for a few years, then the crypt is swept out for reuse, and the bones of its former resident are used to decorate the tower.
We note that this could be deemed "molestation of a grave", as defined in the text of the proposal: "mutilation of interred remains, except in the requirements of an autopsy or a criminal investigation". Unless it is clear that our people's funerary practices will not be condemned by the proposal, we cannot support it.
Not quite so poetic and bird focused, Capercom's President Benz wants his body to be dropped off via small plane into the jungle and give it back to the earth that way. I fear the language of this Proposal may be interpreted to interfere with President Benz' wishes.
by Araraukar » Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:29 am
Fecaw wrote:Seeing as he is the President, he can probably afford it.
I will add a clause about cultural ways of respecting the dead.
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 Fecaw » Thu Apr 04, 2019 1:16 am
Araraukar wrote:Fecaw wrote:Seeing as he is the President, he can probably afford it.
I will add a clause about cultural ways of respecting the dead.
OOC: Affording it is besides the point, if mangling dead bodies is forbidden. What do you think will happen to a dead body when it's dropped from a plane without a parachute?
Also, you still have "scarring" in the text. Dead bodies do not scar, as scarring is part of the healing process that requires the body to be alive.
Additionally, the "dismemberment" would seem to ban harvesting the body for or transplantable organs, or in general the deceased donating their body for science.
by Kenmoria » Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:43 am
Fecaw wrote:Araraukar wrote:OOC: Affording it is besides the point, if mangling dead bodies is forbidden. What do you think will happen to a dead body when it's dropped from a plane without a parachute?
Also, you still have "scarring" in the text. Dead bodies do not scar, as scarring is part of the healing process that requires the body to be alive.
Additionally, the "dismemberment" would seem to ban harvesting the body for or transplantable organs, or in general the deceased donating their body for science.
It only prohibits the mangling of interred bodies. I will change the "scarring" sections. Isn't forced organ harvesting a bad thing?
by Araraukar » Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:53 am
Erithaca wrote:Demands that member states enforce laws that protect graves at least younger than 65 years from molestation.
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 Iciaros » Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:04 am
by Kenmoria » Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:15 am
Iciaros wrote:(OOC: In general, I don't find myself in support of this resolution, but that's beside the point.
I'm curious as to why 'unreasonable burial requests' is defined, but never used.)
by Iciaros » Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:19 am
Kenmoria wrote:Iciaros wrote:(OOC: In general, I don't find myself in support of this resolution, but that's beside the point.
I'm curious as to why 'unreasonable burial requests' is defined, but never used.)
(OOC: It was once used when it was declared that member nations must allow any requests for burial that aren’t unreasonable. On that matter, Erithaca, why was the clause removed?)
by Araraukar » Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:22 am
Iciaros wrote:I don't really see how that clause would be useful, given a member nation can just pass a law if it doesn't want people burying things
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 Iciaros » Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:24 am
Araraukar wrote:Iciaros wrote:I don't really see how that clause would be useful, given a member nation can just pass a law if it doesn't want people burying things
OOC: The proposal is about people burying dead people. And the "must be allowed any burial" was before an exception was made for national laws. I think it would be better to just remove the definition than re-introducing the clause.
by Fecaw » Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:22 am
Iciaros wrote:Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: It was once used when it was declared that member nations must allow any requests for burial that aren’t unreasonable. On that matter, Erithaca, why was the clause removed?)
(OOC: Ah, I see. I guess that clause should be either reintroduced or the definition clause removed then, I guess. Though I don't really see how that clause would be useful, given a member nation can just pass a law if it doesn't want people burying things, which would make any requests unreasonable under the current definition.)
by Kenmoria » Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:47 am
by Iciaros » Fri Apr 05, 2019 9:04 am
Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 2 now has an inordinately long time period in its clauses, since ‘fully decaying’ would take centuries for humans. Bones can last for periods of millennia if stored correctly, and an almost indefinite period if preserved. I can’t speak for other ambassadors, but this certainly wouldn’t be acceptable for Kenmoria.”
by Fecaw » Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:24 am
by Araraukar » Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:12 pm
Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 2 now has an inordinately long time period in its clauses, since ‘fully decaying’ would take centuries for humans."
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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Daphomir
Advertisement