NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Repeal 'Ban on Ritual Sacrifice'

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Kowani
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19579
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kowani » Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:13 am

“This is complete and utter nonsense, an ideal held on the baseless claptrap that religion must be respected in the first place. It is rather bad enough that the WA does not allow an outright prohibition, but to require human sacrifice, regardless of consensuality-that is several bridges too far.”
Spanish Atheist.
If an area was ours for 500 years and yours for 50 years, it should belong to us – you are merely occupiers.
If an area was yours for 500 years and ours for 50 years, it should belong to us – borders must not be changed.
If an area belonged to us 500 years ago but never since then, it should belong to us – it is the cradle of our nation.
If a majority of our people live there, it must belong to us – they must enjoy the right of self-determination.
If a minority of our people live there, it must belong to us – they must be protected against your oppression.
All of the above rules apply to us, but not to you.
Our dream of greatness is historical necessity, yours is fascism.

User avatar
Lord Dominator
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5564
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Lord Dominator » Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:17 am

Kowani wrote:“This is complete and utter nonsense, an ideal held on the baseless claptrap that religion must be respected in the first place. It is rather bad enough that the WA does not allow an outright prohibition, but to require human sacrifice, regardless of consensuality-that is several bridges too far.”

"Where ambassador, has anyone suggested it be made made mandatory?"
Dee Vytherov-Skollvaldr | Forest | TBH Major and Council Member | WA Vizier | Ambassador to the WA

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9140
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:17 pm

Cool non-responsive.

Author: 1 SC and 31 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Kowani
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19579
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kowani » Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:37 pm

Lord Dominator wrote:
Kowani wrote:“This is complete and utter nonsense, an ideal held on the baseless claptrap that religion must be respected in the first place. It is rather bad enough that the WA does not allow an outright prohibition, but to require human sacrifice, regardless of consensuality-that is several bridges too far.”

"Where ambassador, has anyone suggested it be made made mandatory?"

“If it is not prohibited, it is permitted. If the WA ceases to prohibit it, the Legislature must do so. And yet, as by G.A. 430, clause 4, which “ Asserts, furthermore, the right of all individuals in World Assembly member-states to engage in any religious practice, or to refuse to engage in said practices, without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution, except where restrictions on said practice are the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order.”

If we are to prohibit voluntary ritual sacrifice, then we stand in violation of clause 4, plain and simple.”
Last edited by Kowani on Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Spanish Atheist.
If an area was ours for 500 years and yours for 50 years, it should belong to us – you are merely occupiers.
If an area was yours for 500 years and ours for 50 years, it should belong to us – borders must not be changed.
If an area belonged to us 500 years ago but never since then, it should belong to us – it is the cradle of our nation.
If a majority of our people live there, it must belong to us – they must enjoy the right of self-determination.
If a minority of our people live there, it must belong to us – they must be protected against your oppression.
All of the above rules apply to us, but not to you.
Our dream of greatness is historical necessity, yours is fascism.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9140
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:45 pm

Also cool non-responsive. Wrong from GA 2 art 2 all the way to GA 430 s 4.

Author: 1 SC and 31 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Wayneactia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 842
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Corporate Bordello

Postby Wayneactia » Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:48 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Also cool non-responsive. Wrong from GA 2 art 2 all the way to GA 430 s 4.


What exactly is the point to repealing this? There has to be some endgame here.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9140
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:51 pm

Wayneactia wrote:What exactly is the point to repealing this? There has to be some endgame here.

We go back in time, retrieve the stones, and snap everyone back into existence. viewtopic.php?p=36515359#p36515359

Author: 1 SC and 31 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Kowani
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19579
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kowani » Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:53 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Also cool non-responsive. Wrong from GA 2 art 2 all the way to GA 430 s 4.

“It would be helpful if, instead of just throwing names, you actually explained why they supported your argument.”
Spanish Atheist.
If an area was ours for 500 years and yours for 50 years, it should belong to us – you are merely occupiers.
If an area was yours for 500 years and ours for 50 years, it should belong to us – borders must not be changed.
If an area belonged to us 500 years ago but never since then, it should belong to us – it is the cradle of our nation.
If a majority of our people live there, it must belong to us – they must enjoy the right of self-determination.
If a minority of our people live there, it must belong to us – they must be protected against your oppression.
All of the above rules apply to us, but not to you.
Our dream of greatness is historical necessity, yours is fascism.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9140
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:04 pm

To whom is your ambassador speaking? I'm not sure whether your are RP your ambassadors as practitioners of illiteracy or whether you have a misunderstanding of the resolution itself. The claim is still wrong: negative work needs doing to have the words come back to the consensus position on it.

If your nation really believes that everything that isn't banned by the WA is legal, then it shouldn't be called a nation at all: it would be an active war zone in which people can get away with murdering their neighbours and stealing their things with zero repercussions. And it last clause of the portion that you quoted seems clearly there. I don't believe that a real world interlocutor would be so unable to miss something so in front of their face.

So it must be your ambassadors playing as if they are fools. If they're just going to do that, there's no reason to engage at all. Clarify for me if there is really some kind of misunderstanding as to WA law rather than ambassadors sent too early to assignments before graduating the diplomatic academy.

Author: 1 SC and 31 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Kowani
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19579
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kowani » Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:15 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:To whom is your ambassador speaking? I'm not sure whether your are RP your ambassadors as practitioners of illiteracy or whether you have a misunderstanding of the resolution itself. The claim is still wrong: negative work needs doing to have the words come back to the consensus position on it.

If your nation really believes that everything that isn't banned by the WA is legal, then it shouldn't be called a nation at all: it would be an active war zone in which people can get away with murdering their neighbours and stealing their things with zero repercussions. And it last clause of the portion that you quoted seems clearly there. I don't believe that a real world interlocutor would be so unable to miss something so in front of their face.
No, actually. Things that neither the WA or local law prohibit are permitted. However, the last portion of clause 4 states “except where restrictions on said practice are the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling, practical interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order.” We shall note that an outright ban is, by definition, the most restrictive means of advancing any of the aforementioned causes, save for perhaps murdering all the practitioners. Furthermore, it cannot be justified under public safety, because, assuming that it is consensual, then the only members of the public in danger are the practitioners, and they have already consented to it. And considering that your argument to repeal GA285 was that individuals should have the right to end their own lives, it becomes immediately apparent that any argument that they should not have the right to let others do the same would be a spectacular case study in hypocrisy. Health can be done in much less restrictive ways than an outright ban-mandating proper cleanup and disposal, clean tools, a sanitary environment, etc. Even public order can be done rather simply-mandate that it be done in private. You see, ambassador, the keyword here is least restrictive, which mandates that everything else possible be done to achieve the listed objectives before an outright ban is considered.
Last edited by Kowani on Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Spanish Atheist.
If an area was ours for 500 years and yours for 50 years, it should belong to us – you are merely occupiers.
If an area was yours for 500 years and ours for 50 years, it should belong to us – borders must not be changed.
If an area belonged to us 500 years ago but never since then, it should belong to us – it is the cradle of our nation.
If a majority of our people live there, it must belong to us – they must enjoy the right of self-determination.
If a minority of our people live there, it must belong to us – they must be protected against your oppression.
All of the above rules apply to us, but not to you.
Our dream of greatness is historical necessity, yours is fascism.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9140
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:39 pm

Kowani wrote:No, actually. Things that neither the WA or local law prohibit are permitted. However, the last portion of clause 4 states “except where restrictions on said practice are the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling, practical interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order.” We shall note that an outright ban is, by definition, the most restrictive means of advancing any of the aforementioned causes, save for perhaps murdering all the practitioners. Furthermore, it cannot be justified under public safety, because, assuming that it is consensual, then the only members of the public in danger are the practitioners, and they have already consented to it. And considering that your argument to repeal GA285 was that individuals should have the right to end their own lives, it becomes immediately apparent that any argument that they should not have the right to let others do the same would be a spectacular case study in hypocrisy. Health can be done in much less restrictive ways than an outright ban-mandating proper cleanup and disposal, clean tools, a sanitary environment, etc. Even public order can be done rather simply-mandate that it be done in private. You see, ambassador, the keyword here is least restrictive, which mandates that everything else possible be done to achieve the listed objectives before an outright ban is considered.

So you're not arguing that per se repeal of legislation makes it legal everywhere, but rather, that repeal of legislation conditional on the religious freedom legislation makes it illegal everywhere. That's a good and much more nuanced point. My apologies on failing to interpret it from your text.

On to the substantive: So what? You have established no impact of any sort from this line of reasoning.

If people want to kill themselves, why ought categorically prohibit them from doing so? There is likely room for the same kind of checks that existed in "Dignified End of Life Choices", which would help maintain good order, safety, and health. Those means would also probably be the least restrictive means of doing that.

Author: 1 SC and 31 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14433
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:19 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:To whom is your ambassador speaking? I'm not sure whether your are RP your ambassadors

Imperium Anglorum wrote:This thread is in character.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9140
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Jan 19, 2020 1:51 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:To whom is your ambassador speaking? I'm not sure whether your are RP your ambassadors

Imperium Anglorum wrote:This thread is in character.

My signature wrote:Out-of-character unless marked otherwise

Author: 1 SC and 31 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Denathor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 551
Founded: Oct 22, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Denathor » Sun Jan 19, 2020 7:46 pm

OOC: Uhhhhh, does
Imperium Anglorum wrote:This thread is in character.

not count as "marked otherwise?
Ambassador to the World Assembly: Sir Lucas Callahan
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly: Randal Atkinson
Undersecretary to the Ambassador: Thomas Morgan

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sciongrad, The Yellow Monkey

Advertisement

Remove ads