Advertisement
by The Mountains Of Alba » Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:39 pm
by Ilharessa » Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:47 pm
by Central Slavia » Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:40 pm
New Olwe wrote:
Whereas my nation, ironically enough one that is viewed as good, realizes that a proper execution should take weeks and be broadcast publicly? He's not as evil as me, I tell you.
Glorious Homeland wrote:
You would be wrong. There's something wrong with the Americans, the Japanese are actually insane, the Chinese don't seem capable of free-thought and just defer judgement to the most powerful strong man, the Russians are quite like that, only more aggressive and mad, and Belarus? Hah.
Omnicracy wrote:The Soviet Union did not support pro-Soviet governments, it compleatly controled them. The U.S. did not controle the corrupt regiems it set up against the Soviet Union, it just sugested things and changed leaders if they weer not takeing enough sugestions
Great Nepal wrote:Please stick to OFFICIAL numbers. Why to go to scholars,[cut]
by Linux and the X » Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:02 pm
Ilharessa wrote:Velnayanis just grinned viciously. "Well, since we now know that the Mountains of Alba have outlawed their people going to war, since war outright requires 'premeditated taking of a known individual's life' when it comes to the enemy, and often the taking of a vast number of lives, we shall enjoy watching them writhe feeblely as some nation utterly dominates them. And, as such, we also hereby claim the Mountains of Alba as a annexed colony of the Queendom of Ilharessa. If they wish to protest, they can note that the only protest that will do them any good requires their soldiers to violate their own law.
We will now begin to auction off the nation to anyone who wants to go in and have, as the saying goes, a 'good old-fashioned skeet shoot.'"
by Ilharessa » Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:44 pm
Linux and the X wrote:Ilharessa wrote:Velnayanis just grinned viciously. "Well, since we now know that the Mountains of Alba have outlawed their people going to war, since war outright requires 'premeditated taking of a known individual's life' when it comes to the enemy, and often the taking of a vast number of lives, we shall enjoy watching them writhe feeblely as some nation utterly dominates them. And, as such, we also hereby claim the Mountains of Alba as a annexed colony of the Queendom of Ilharessa. If they wish to protest, they can note that the only protest that will do them any good requires their soldiers to violate their own law.
We will now begin to auction off the nation to anyone who wants to go in and have, as the saying goes, a 'good old-fashioned skeet shoot.'"
War does not require the premeditated taking of a known individual's life. It requires premeditation of killing someone, but who that is is unknown until it happens.
by Linux and the X » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:30 pm
by Ilharessa » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:45 pm
by Grays Harbor » Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:23 pm
Ambridge County wrote:Again, I don't intend on submitting it. I would have appreciated feedback other than yea or nay -- suggestions as to how it can be improved and how any improvements could help change your mind, etc. But I guess I was asking for a bit much.
by Flibbleites » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:11 pm
The Mountains Of Alba wrote:Some people will view my use of the word murder as wrong but the law in my nation is that the "premeditated taking of a known individual's life" is murder.
by New Olwe » Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:02 am
Ilharessa wrote:Velnayanis just grinned viciously. "Well, since we now know that the Mountains of Alba have outlawed their people going to war, since war outright requires 'premeditated taking of a known individual's life' when it comes to the enemy...
by BrightonBurg » Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:07 am
Grays Harbor wrote:opposed. drop it. Do not push your personal morals onto other nations.
by Quelesh » Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:43 am
Ambridge County wrote:NOTING that capital punishment is an abuse of human rights,
RECOGNIZING that discrepancies exist within the capital punishment system to the point where innocent individuals are executed,
RECOGNIZING that capital punishment has not been proven to deter crime,
HEREBY abolishes the act of capital punishment.
It's a bit weak now, but input would be appreciated. I probably won't submit it; it's more of a run-through than anything else.
The World Assembly,
DEFINING "capital punishment" as the deliberate killing of a prisoner by an agent or agents of the state, and "execution" as the act of capital punishment;
RECOGNIZING that some crimes are heinous enough to produce as a natural reaction in others the desire to kill the perpetrator;
CONVINCED, however, that the deliberate killing of one person by another should be done only when absolutely necessary for the defense of self or others, and that unnecessary killing by the state is an abuse of human rights;
ASSERTING that the killing of an unarmed, unresisting prisoner by state agents is not necessary for the defense of self or others by any reasonable definition;
FURTHER ASSERTING that no nation that practices capital punishment can be certain that it has not executed innocent persons;
NOTING WITH DISMAY that many individuals have been proven to be innocent after their executions, and that many others have been exonorated while awaiting execution;
NOTING FURTHER that capital punishment has never been proven to be a more effective deterrent from crime than a sentence of life imprisonment;
hereby REQUIRES all member states to immediately cease all capital punishment and to prohibit capital punishment within their jurisdictions.
New Olwe wrote:Whereas my nation, ironically enough one that is viewed as good, realizes that a proper execution should take weeks and be broadcast publicly? He's not as evil as me, I tell you.
by EvilDarkMagicians » Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:18 am
by EvilDarkMagicians » Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:21 am
by Ilharessa » Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:02 am
New Olwe wrote:Ilharessa wrote:Velnayanis just grinned viciously. "Well, since we now know that the Mountains of Alba have outlawed their people going to war, since war outright requires 'premeditated taking of a known individual's life' when it comes to the enemy...
Not true. Biological, chemical, and nuclear warfare deal with numbers far greater than "individual"... you probably just attempted to annex a nation with a mass-destruction arsenal larger than your entire population.
by Central Slavia » Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:44 am
EvilDarkMagicians wrote:
You fail to see that execution is NOT evil.
Why execute a criminal when you can let them rot in a castle dungeon for all eternity?
Execution frees the prisoner from all pain and suffering.
Glorious Homeland wrote:
You would be wrong. There's something wrong with the Americans, the Japanese are actually insane, the Chinese don't seem capable of free-thought and just defer judgement to the most powerful strong man, the Russians are quite like that, only more aggressive and mad, and Belarus? Hah.
Omnicracy wrote:The Soviet Union did not support pro-Soviet governments, it compleatly controled them. The U.S. did not controle the corrupt regiems it set up against the Soviet Union, it just sugested things and changed leaders if they weer not takeing enough sugestions
Great Nepal wrote:Please stick to OFFICIAL numbers. Why to go to scholars,[cut]
by Grays Harbor » Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:22 am
by All Things People » Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:46 am
by EvilDarkMagicians » Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:49 am
Grays Harbor wrote:
Oh, I was wondering how long it would be before this tired old twaddle came up. Being a Yes-Lemming is NOT a requirement of membership in the WA. WA members are permitted, in case you had not noticed, to disagree with drafts and proposals, and are permitted to voice that opinion, and to vote "no" on those resolutions they disagree with or that they believe would adversely effect their nation. "If you don't like it, leave" is about as ignorant a statement any ambassador could make.
by Provisional Ireland » Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:09 am
by Ambridge County » Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:41 pm
Provisional Ireland wrote:A government should be better than those they deem criminal. Just because they kill someone doesn't mean you have to kill them back. General population prison is usually a worse punishment, anyway. And to all the nations who are saying "you're just not doing it right, it deters when we [insert intentionally grizzly means of killing someone]", go ahead and keep up your fantasy. Anyway, human rights mandates don't violate national sovereignty. To any nations saying that the right to life is no human (or sentient, if that helps) right, then make your case when there's an argument over the resolution, and vote against it. Anyway, this post is for no desire to argue, just to try to help out the nation who is drafting this resolution.
Laos Refugees wrote:Hey there!
I got a simple, easy to read answer to your question that made TONS of sense!
Here comes your answer!
See it yet?
Oh no, that's not it.
Oh wait, is that it?
Yes it is!
Your answer is!
Shut the fuck up!
by Enn » Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:49 pm
EvilDarkMagicians wrote:He said he doesn't want any trans national body trying to change our laws, being part of the WA means your laws may be changed by a trans national body. I never said ONCE that you have to say yes OR no.
by Flibbleites » Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:21 pm
Ambridge County wrote:Provisional Ireland wrote:A government should be better than those they deem criminal. Just because they kill someone doesn't mean you have to kill them back. General population prison is usually a worse punishment, anyway. And to all the nations who are saying "you're just not doing it right, it deters when we [insert intentionally grizzly means of killing someone]", go ahead and keep up your fantasy. Anyway, human rights mandates don't violate national sovereignty. To any nations saying that the right to life is no human (or sentient, if that helps) right, then make your case when there's an argument over the resolution, and vote against it. Anyway, this post is for no desire to argue, just to try to help out the nation who is drafting this resolution.
I think you stated my beliefs on the issue wonderfully. I believe that human rights come over sovereignty. If a nation does not want to be subject to the resolutions of the WA, they are free to resign. Genocide is prohibited, slavery is prohibited; people complained when those resolutions were put up to a vote. But good always trumped evil.
by Ilharessa » Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:09 pm
Provisional Ireland wrote:A government should be better than those they deem criminal. Just because they kill someone doesn't mean you have to kill them back. General population prison is usually a worse punishment, anyway. And to all the nations who are saying "you're just not doing it right, it deters when we [insert intentionally grizzly means of killing someone]", go ahead and keep up your fantasy. Anyway, human rights mandates don't violate national sovereignty. To any nations saying that the right to life is no human (or sentient, if that helps) right, then make your case when there's an argument over the resolution, and vote against it. Anyway, this post is for no desire to argue, just to try to help out the nation who is drafting this resolution.
by Grays Harbor » Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:23 pm
EvilDarkMagicians wrote:Grays Harbor wrote:
Oh, I was wondering how long it would be before this tired old twaddle came up. Being a Yes-Lemming is NOT a requirement of membership in the WA. WA members are permitted, in case you had not noticed, to disagree with drafts and proposals, and are permitted to voice that opinion, and to vote "no" on those resolutions they disagree with or that they believe would adversely effect their nation. "If you don't like it, leave" is about as ignorant a statement any ambassador could make.
He said he doesn't want any trans national body trying to change our laws, being part of the WA means your laws may be changed by a trans national body. I never said ONCE that you have to say yes OR no.
God jumping to conclusions much.
READ the posts...
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Simone Republic, The Ice States
Advertisement