by The American Union of Fascists » Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:19 am
by Araraukar » Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:37 am
The American Union of Fascists wrote:Edits will be made.
This is not even it's final form.
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 Jan 28, 2018 10:47 am
by The American Union of Fascists » Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:50 am
by The American Union of Fascists » Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:51 am
Kenmoria wrote:"There is no need to embolden, italicise and capitalise the first word of ever sentence, just capitals will do."
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:55 am
by The American Union of Fascists » Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:09 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:The American Union of Fascists wrote:
Can't a guy do something just for the aesthetics? Lol
OOC: It isn't really that aesthetically pleasing, and it will probably draw the ire of certain influential delegates who prefer a different stylistic approach.Araraukar wrote:OOC: I suggest making the edits and posting the final form, then.
OOC: That defeats the point of drafting on the forum...
by The American Union of Fascists » Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:09 pm
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:11 pm
The American Union of Fascists wrote:Im very curious as to an explanation of why this legislation was deemed illegal. I commented once about the perceived partisan bias and my requests as to amn explanation were unanswered
by The American Union of Fascists » Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:10 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:The American Union of Fascists wrote:Im very curious as to an explanation of why this legislation was deemed illegal. I commented once about the perceived partisan bias and my requests as to amn explanation were unanswered
If your intent is for the WA to "Affirm[...] the right of parents in consultation with a medical professional to determine when male circumcision is appropriate," then why bother repealing the resolution? The target resolution doesn't mandate circumcision for all baby boys, it mandates the legality of circumcision in all WA nations. One member of GenSec took your repeal to be based on the assertion that all boys must undergo circumcision, which is factually wrong, and therefore an illegal Honest Mistake. Given how you wrote this, I have to say I'm leaning that way myself.
As an aside, this was very much not yet ready for submission. If you withdraw and stick around here for a couple of weeks (yes, weeks), people around here can help you get it whipped into better shape. Impatience doth make fools of us all. Someone famous must have said something like that sometime, right? It's a marathon, not a sprint.
by Jebslund » Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:46 pm
The American Union of Fascists wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
If your intent is for the WA to "Affirm[...] the right of parents in consultation with a medical professional to determine when male circumcision is appropriate," then why bother repealing the resolution? The target resolution doesn't mandate circumcision for all baby boys, it mandates the legality of circumcision in all WA nations. One member of GenSec took your repeal to be based on the assertion that all boys must undergo circumcision, which is factually wrong, and therefore an illegal Honest Mistake. Given how you wrote this, I have to say I'm leaning that way myself.
As an aside, this was very much not yet ready for submission. If you withdraw and stick around here for a couple of weeks (yes, weeks), people around here can help you get it whipped into better shape. Impatience doth make fools of us all. Someone famous must have said something like that sometime, right? It's a marathon, not a sprint.
The point of DESIRING to repeal the bill is that international government overreach in matters of religious or cultural sovereignty. The bill should not be a mandate for membership in the WA. AFFIRMING the necessity is clarifying that rather than hinting at a later ban, rather, we respect the right of people to have children circumcised, but not in a way that requires it for membership.
Make more sense now? I was trying to be generous with those clauses.
by The American Union of Fascists » Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:12 pm
by Bananaistan » Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:54 am
by Attempted Socialism » Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:01 am
That is true for all WA resolutions, and all resolutions could be repealed if we simply accepted national, religious or cultural sovereignty to be an argument for repealing. That's why we don't, and the rules stipulate that NatSov only repeals are illegal.The American Union of Fascists wrote:It legislates what a nation must do, for a nation. If a religious nation desires to prohibit it by popular vote, they have to choose between being members of the WA or honoring their democratic or representative process.
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by Monetillia » Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:44 am
by House Mar » Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:03 am
The American Union of Fascists wrote:Acknowledging that the Assembly has recognized the definition of male circumcision as the removal of some or all of the foreskin from the penis as part of a medical procedure per GAR #141,
Recognizing that male circumcision is often medically necessary,
Desiring nations to maintain their sovereignty be it religiously or culturally,
Affirming the right of parents in consultation with a medical professional to determine when male circumcision is appropriate,
Fundamentally Opposing legislative overreach that may curtail the freedom of persecuted minority groups,
Hereby Repeals GAR #141
by Jebslund » Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:44 am
The American Union of Fascists wrote:It legislates what a nation must do, for a nation. If a religious nation desires to prohibit it by popular vote, they have to choose between being members of the WA or honoring their democratic or representative process.
by House Mar » Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:36 am
Jebslund wrote:The American Union of Fascists wrote:The fact that the WA *exists* as an organisation with the power to set international law throws those notions out the window. Nobody is forcing any nation to be part of the WA. If you don't like a particular law, you're free to leave, and, by joining, you agree to give up some of your NatSov for the greater good.
by Monetillia » Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:51 am
OOCJebslund wrote:OOC: You haven't answered the question. Do you have any arguments aside from cultural or national sovereignty?
by Jebslund » Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:58 am
House Mar wrote:Jebslund wrote:
OOC: Ultimately the power and authority associated with governance of a people comes from the people. Either willingly, or through coercion, or force. Whether complicit, or in revolt, a government has only the power the people allow, and in that regard the WA functions and is beholden to the societies that make up its membership.
In this regard the WA is as beholden to him as it is to you. To give a blanket "my way or the highway" retort is not an argument. It's not a meaningful statement, and does not address either the merit of the law, nor the merits of any counter position. If you'd like to engage in any form of relevant, on-topic discussion, than I invite you to do so and so assume others will happily debate points with you.
This "we do things this way and if you don't like it you can GTFO" mentality is generally non-conducive to discussion.
Monetillia wrote:OOCJebslund wrote:OOC: You haven't answered the question. Do you have any arguments aside from cultural or national sovereignty?
Even if he doesn't, there are others here who have taken the time to proffer them... like me... and I even took the time to participate in the discussion in character. I'm a helper, so I'll give you this link for ease of reference: {https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=9&t=434891&p=33369906#p33369694}. Would you care to respond to them in character? I'd like to see if your nation's leader can offer a more compelling argument than the idea that participation is blanket consent. The post I've quoted left me feeling like there were no more in character responses sufficient to the task within reach.
by House Mar » Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:24 am
Jebslund wrote:OOC: First off, I have not attempted to argue one way or another with regards to this repeal.
by Jebslund » Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:33 am
House Mar wrote:Jebslund wrote:OOC: First off, I have not attempted to argue one way or another with regards to this repeal.
OOC: I have no desire to continue an OOC debate when I have gone through all the trouble of presenting my argument in character. I expect you to respect that and engage me accordingly. The fact that we even say "OOC" is an acknowledgement that cross-talk like this is a fundamental disrespect of the established system, and I am not going to continue engaging in OOC, especially when it can be discussed IC.
by Monetillia » Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:35 am
The arguments I've provided IC are grounds other than NatSov, and I was looking forward to a productive and intelligent discussion (debate would have been excellent!) on the points I raised; however, as the next quote highlights for me...Jebslund wrote:...must be done on grounds other than National Sovereignty.
...you're more concerned with the brute force underscoring that the OP violated OOC rules. I will not debate with you that the original draft of the repeal itself violates rules. Before I walked in here to offer my support to what I think is a necessary repeal, I took the time to review why NatSov is an insufficient argument, and that was preceded by seeing that this draft was in the "illegal" section of the proposals. In fact, that's how I found this issue at the outset. I'm working to bring this into a legal drafting, and in the process of doing so, I'm looking for feedback on the points I raised. That way, when I assist the drafter in creating a proposal, it can have languaging that considers the views of all in the discussion. If you are keen to lend assistance beyond overemphasizing the illegality of the draft, I am keen to have it. Until then, thank you for showing us all that this is illegal... something we could see from the section of proposals in which the draft is documented and stored.Jebslund wrote:...but arguments regarding mechanics and legalities are done OOC
I edited my post five times. My tone was duly considered.Jebslund wrote:I'm also going to ask that you reconsider your tone.
by Jebslund » Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:43 am
Monetillia wrote:The arguments I've provided IC are grounds other than NatSov, and I was looking forward to a productive and intelligent discussion (debate would have been excellent!) on the points I raised, however, as the next quote highlights for me...Jebslund wrote:...must be done on grounds other than National Sovereignty....you're more concerned with the brute force underscoring that the OP violated OOC rules. I will not debate with you that the original draft of the repeal itself violates rules. Before I walked in here to offer my support to what I think is a necessary repeal, I took the time to review why NatSov is an insufficient argument, and that was preceded by seeing that this draft was in the "illegal" section of the proposals. In fact, that's how I found this issue at the outset. I'm working to bring this into a legal drafting, and in the process of doing so, I'm looking for feedback on the points I raised. That way, when I assist the drafter in creating a proposal, it can have languaging that considers the views of all in the discussion. If you are keen to lend assistance beyond overemphasizing the illegality of the draft, I am keen to have it. Until then, thank you for showing us all that this is illegal... something we could see from the section of proposals in which the draft is documented and stored.Jebslund wrote:...but arguments regarding mechanics and legalities are done OOCI edited my post five times. My tone was duly considered.Jebslund wrote:I'm also going to ask that you reconsider your tone.
by Monetillia » Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:00 am
Here, I feel I've found the miscommunication. It seems like you perceive my initial reply to be doing all the heavy lifting for him in the thinking department when, in fact, I am very passionate in character about seeing this repealed. My participation here is not intended to be a crutch; it is borne of my nation's leader's interest in seeing the repeal succeed. Please, don't misunderstand my intent. You're here in an effort to lend OOC assistance while I'm here with in-character discussion toward the same end. Also, thank you for clarifying your goal here.Jebslund wrote:...you prefer to say, "Hey, add this, this, and this to your arguments!" [...] The main thing is that I'm asking what other arguments The American Union of Fascists can come up with as a way of getting them to think about why they want to propose this repeal beyond, "People should be able to do what they want!"
I would have valued that greatly, and I am moderately disappointed to not have experienced it, sarcasm and all (because perceived tone over the internet between strangers does not offend me). I look forward to enjoying your sarcasm in the event that we disagree about something in character.Jebslund wrote:As to a debate, if my nation disagreed with you, you'd get that. Probably with a dose of sarcasm, but you'd get your intelligent debate.
I appreciate the validation. It wasn't my goal, but I'm glad you found my arguments edifying. Thank you.Jebslund wrote:...you've explained them decently and effectively enough that I saw no reason to reinvent the wheel.
Both IRL and over text-based communications, I have a bad case of resting bitch face. I've had to make peace with the fact that very little of what I say will be taken for its face value because I am just a very Seven-of-Nine kind of communicator. I will ask that you not perceive condescension where none was intended. Rest assured that when I want to be... rude... the intent will be in no way ambiguous, and I will not stoop to petty condescension — I will be downright inflammatory.Jebslund wrote:As to your tone, I asked you to reconsider because your reply was rather condescending.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: The Ambis
Advertisement