NationStates

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.

OOC: This is not currently submitted and should have "DRAFT" instead of "SUBMITTED" in the thread title.

Also, Erithaca, put something in the first post about you also being Fecaw, to avoid people thinking you've put up someone else's draft. And the flag picture is unnecessarily big. And unnecessary just generally.

I'll do a better see-through after I've come back home today, but on 1.b.; scarring only happens when the body heals a wound. Dead bodies don't heal, therefore you can't scar them.

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.

“That is a good point, as traditions of sky burial, water burial and animistic burial are very common in some societies, and are left in a legal loophole by this proposal. I strongly suggest to the authoring delegation that other forms of respecting the dead are considered, even if that involves simple a clause clarifying they are not affected by this proposal.”

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.

Erithaca wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:By what mechanism are the dead endowed with rights?

Their previous state of being alive gives them the right to control their body. This proposal will also endow them with rights if passed.

Um....... yeah....... well here in DeltaSource, we dont really care about last rights that much, i would recommend that you make it legal for the authorities to have the final say

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.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:By what mechanism are the dead endowed with rights?

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

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.

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

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.

[OOC: Eh, I've always been more interested in *how* the thing happens than what the thing is, so spoilers don't usually make me less inclined to read/watch something (unless it's a really stupid twist/ending). In fact, sometimes, having a twist spoiled in a series I had started but not finished made me *more* eager to finish it, since it was something so unexpected that I *had* to see how it came about. Then there's the times when I know the ending and it gets me more invested in solving the mystery with the characters by way of looking for hints to the ending, rather than just watching the story play out.

I started watching FMA Brotherhood again with my now-ex (still friends, though) about six months ago, and there are scenes that are even more interesting to me now that I know the twists and ending and am catching bits of foreshadowing that I missed the first time watching.

As to the dead, it's mostly cultural/religious things, I'd imagine, which begs the question of why this is *international* law. Different societies have different funeral rites, after all.

EDIT: Malicious desecration. I get the reasoning, but that's still something that seems more appropriately handled on the national level, rather than international.]

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

You need to cool your jets, immediately. After reviewing several of your recent posts, it is clear that this is out-of-character flaming rather than in-character roleplaying of one unhappy ambassador addressing another.

*** Blueflarst, 1-day ban for flaming/flamebaiting. ***

You should not be posting when you are obviously this worked up. Any time you feel the urge to post an all-caps screaming fit, you need to learn to walk away from your computer and calm down before posting, as your posts become either garbled spam or outright flaming in these circumstances. Being upset does not excuse going off on flaming tirades attacking other players. Please review the site rules before you resume posting.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

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.

Seeing as he is the President, he can probably afford it.
I will add a clause about cultural ways of respecting the dead.

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.

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.

It only prohibits the mangling of interred bodies. I will change the "scarring" sections. Isn't forced organ harvesting a bad thing?

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?

(OOC: Not necessarily. Lots of countries in real-life have an opt-out system, and I think that having forced organ donations wouldn necessarily be a bad thing. It comes down to a matter of whether the right to healthcare, which would be greatly improved by having more available organs, is worth more than the right to have one’s body protected after death. I would say it is.)

Erithaca wrote:Demands that member states enforce laws that protect graves at least younger than 65 years from molestation.

OOC: Still unreasonable when it's 3 times longer than in RL.

(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.)

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?)

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?)

(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.)

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.

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.

(OOC: Yeah, sorry, I just kind of throw the word 'things' around in reference to, like, everything. I do know it's meant to be for dead people. And yeah, I echo the sentiment; the way it is now, I don't think reintroducing the clause would do much good.)

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.)

This is true. The clause will be added in again. I'm not sure why it was removed.

Araraukar wrote:

Erithaca wrote:Demands that member states enforce laws that protect graves at least younger than 65 years from molestation.

OOC: Still unreasonable when it's 3 times longer than in RL.

To prevent arguing about specific time periods, I will change it to something that depends on how long the body takes to decay fully. I will leave the issue of organ donation up to national government.

“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.”

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.”

(OOC: On the flip side, now the phrasing is a little ambiguous, and the protection could be read as expiring after the time taken to "fully decay from molestation", so maybe we can speed up the process by stomping on the corpse a bit.

That said, I second the concern. Full decay is definitely a big requirement. I'm not sure how to deal with the subjectivity of time requirements either, but this definitely isn't it.)

I think that a weaker term would be better.

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 2 now has an inordinately long time period in its clauses, since ‘fully decaying’ would take centuries for humans."

OOC: Unbalmed (embalming is a USA oddity, which, agreed, makes bodies turn into soap mummies rather than decompose naturally), about 10 years max in most drained soils available in Finland. The remains of the wooden casket can last longer, but only "remains", as the casket is crushed during and shortly after the burial. I've got a little cousin who's funeral home owner in USA, and have spoken with Finnish undertakers about our local conditions.