More GA Topics that Need to be Adressed

[Intellect and the Arts]

Here's an idea.... When some nation, who can't be bothered to read either the rules or previously passed resolutions submits a proposal which is either a duplicate, bloody stupid, or both... instead of vilifying them, or having an attempt at an SC "condemn", why not just whack them with a fish until they understand? Trout for thir first offense, halibut for their second and sturgeon for their third. After that, just coat them in chicken fat and toss them into the shark tank.

Hear, hear!

Our scientists have actually developed a tool specifically for this purpose. We call it the Slapping Fish. We would be happy to give you some, if you would like to employ them.

[Embolalia]

Has no one mentioned a Freedom of Religion resolution yet? I mean, one that can be drafted within the legal parameters regarding ideological bans, and avoid the complaints of nations who would misread it as a ban on theocracies, or who think dictatorships are cool? I think it would be interesting to see if that would work, possibly as a tie-in to a broader Freedom of Conscience resolution.

Tried. Pesky Prior Proposals.

[Grays Harbor]

Here's an idea.... When some nation, who can't be bothered to read either the rules or previously passed resolutions submits a proposal which is either a duplicate, bloody stupid, or both... instead of vilifying them, or having an attempt at an SC "condemn", why not just whack them with a fish until they understand? Trout for thir first offense, halibut for their second and sturgeon for their third. After that, just coat them in chicken fat and toss them into the shark tank.

Hear, hear!

Our scientists have actually developed a tool specifically for this purpose. We call it the Slapping Fish. We would be happy to give you some, if you would like to employ them.

There could very well be a market for those in our country.

[Mousebumples]

Has no one mentioned a Freedom of Religion resolution yet? I mean, one that can be drafted within the legal parameters regarding ideological bans, and avoid the complaints of nations who would misread it as a ban on theocracies, or who think dictatorships are cool? I think it would be interesting to see if that would work, possibly as a tie-in to a broader Freedom of Conscience resolution.

Tried. Pesky Prior Proposals.

Just because it's been tried before doesn't mean that a new ambassador, coming at it from perhaps a different perspective, couldn't possibly have success.

[Darenjo]

Has no one mentioned a Freedom of Religion resolution yet? I mean, one that can be drafted within the legal parameters regarding ideological bans, and avoid the complaints of nations who would misread it as a ban on theocracies, or who think dictatorships are cool? I think it would be interesting to see if that would work, possibly as a tie-in to a broader Freedom of Conscience resolution.

Tried. Pesky Prior Proposals.

Just because it's been tried before doesn't mean that a new ambassador, coming at it from perhaps a different perspective, couldn't possibly have success.

Personally i thot that either freedom of religion was already covered or that it wasn't feasible (i mean there is a national religion setting)

[Kryozerkia]

Has no one mentioned a Freedom of Religion resolution yet? I mean, one that can be drafted within the legal parameters regarding ideological bans, and avoid the complaints of nations who would misread it as a ban on theocracies, or who think dictatorships are cool? I think it would be interesting to see if that would work, possibly as a tie-in to a broader Freedom of Conscience resolution.

Tried. Pesky Prior Proposals.

Just because it's been tried before doesn't mean that a new ambassador, coming at it from perhaps a different perspective, couldn't possibly have success.

Personally i thot that either freedom of religion was already covered or that it wasn't feasible (i mean there is a national religion setting)

Having a state religion doesn't automatically bar individuals from being able to freely practice their own religion. So, in this case, it would already be covered by an existing resolution.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Which one?

[Mousebumples]

Which one?

I'm not positive, but my money's on CoCR.

[Quadrimmina]

Which one?

I'm not positive, but my money's on CoCR.

Yeah. Doesn't no discrimination based on religion = freedom of religion, at least in effect?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Not specifically, and as the co-author of that particular resolution I am sick and tired of the broad assumption of its magic powers to erase any injustice or inequity.

[Unibot]

Not specifically, and as the co-author of that particular resolution I am sick and tired of the broad assumption of its magic powers to erase any injustice or inequity.

Urgench didn't give you credit as co-author?

Anyway, most of the 'magic powers' stems from Urg's debates on the what is legal and what isn't under the CoCR.