Advertisement
by Vrijstaat Limburg » Mon May 14, 2018 5:32 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Vrijstaat Limburg wrote:
d'Marchant et d'Ansembourg calmly replies: "It's not up to us to critique other nation's cultures, even if they are gruesome.
"Right. We should permit slavery, because it may be culturally important." Bell rolls his eyes. "Culture is a bad reason to protect bad acts."To retain good relations with upcoming nations that still allow, and in some cases even organize, ritual sacrifices, and to not enforce this assembly's might, we should drop our ban on ritual sacrifices.
"We shouldn't ban genocide for nations that still engage in it, and refuse to enforce the Assembly's decree. See how dumb that sounds?"We wouldn't want insurgents murdering ambassadors in nations that still permit the savage act.
"Why do you send your ambassadors to places they are likely to be murdered? Why is your response not sufficient to deter future attacks if you do? The last time the C.D.S.P.'s embassy was threatened, the ambassador ordered the evacuating naval craft to level the embassy property as soon as the protestors broke through the barrier. The late Ambassador Grenell's actions are well known, and he and the guards who stayed behind to secure the embassy all earned posthumous medals. Not the way I'd like to go, but to each their own."We, as a globalist organisation, cannot enforce what we deem "culturally appropriate".
"Can. Do. This line of argument is intellectual and moral cowardice."
by Sierra Lyricalia » Mon May 14, 2018 6:40 pm
Ransium wrote:...Aware that the resolution makes no exception for when the party being sacrificed are willing and legal adults;
Convinced from the comments of the drafting author of the resolution that this omission was made because it was felt that local culture would 'brainwash' its adherents;
Outraged that the World Assembly would denigrate the facilities of and try to control the decision making of sentient adults of sound mind to this extent;
Finding it distressingly ironic that the traditions of some cultures within the World Assembly would be deemed to control its adherents to the extent that they could not make rational decisions, while the traditions of other cultures would be held up as the whole and unquestioned truth for all member nations;
...
Hoping that a resolution could be put in place in the future that finds better balance between the need to prevent the unnecessary death of sentient species, while still treating the cultural traditions of all member states as valid...
by Separatist Peoples » Tue May 15, 2018 4:53 am
Vrijstaat Limburg wrote:de Marchant readjusted his goggles. "Are you accusing me of cowardice?"
"Religious sacrifice isn't slavery. As stated in the discussion about this subject before, religious sacrifice can be voluntary and consentual. Slavery is not.
I fear that you have misunderstood what I meant, ambassador. My nation is not in the interest of getting between a religious organisation and a consenting adult. These matters are too delicate, and convincing the savage populace of these countries that religious sacrifice is evil will cost us loads of time and resources. Our funds could be invested elsewhere."
He continued: "I am not in favour of sending any diplomats to places where they will be in great risk of death or injury. The region that I represent has luckily not yet seen any deaths in any diplomatic missions. I do think that, to support nations who are actively fighting tribes that still engage in religious sacrifice, we should set up diplomatic missions, if not embassies, to support them in their fight. The problem with this would be that nations who support "anti-religious regimes" will be targeted by insurgents, and nations could be pressured into supporting "anti-religious regimes" through their allies, or maybe even their WA partners.
Now, closing my statement, dear colleague, I wish to inform you that we do not have a monolopy on ethics or morals. We do not have binding ethical codes or traditions that bind us. Ambassador Bell, are you religious?
I am. The people in this hall have different philosophies considering the goal of life, humanity's destiny, and God.
In order to respect this, we should minimalize our efforts to surpress cultures that we deem "unethical" or "immoral".
We are in no position to extend our influences through cultural surpression.
We're running a world assembly, not a new world order.
by Vrijstaat Limburg » Tue May 15, 2018 5:17 am
by Separatist Peoples » Tue May 15, 2018 6:08 am
Vrijstaat Limburg wrote:"Would you stop bringing slavery into this argument? I don't support murder or genocide, ambassador. I don't support forced labour in forms such as slavery. We're strictly speaking about ritual sacrifice here, especially consensual sacrificing, which is banned by the WA right now.
You raise the argument of religious groups pressuring the populace into voluntary sacrifice, and you bring up the fact that this could only be stoppable through the entrenched presence of WA-laws.
Is it though, ambassador Bell?
I don't support cultures that sacrifice human beings.
I'm disgusted by the thought of murdering an individual in the name of God, but I just don't see this world assembly as an entity that could fix that problem.
I think the current WA law banning ritual sacrifice is too idealistic, and difficult to uphold.
I am up for stopping traditional sacrfice, but not by force, and certainly not on a globalist level.
This new world order tasked with destroying the cultural identities of smaller nations that can't resist their influence is just as immoral as ritual sacrifice.
Pushing for "progressive policies" instead of conservative or pro-cultural values is definitely not fair on nations with right-wing leadership, and the position of the World Assembly in these conservative nations is already deteriorating."
"We should put up a nuanced approached to cultural entities like those who still permit ritual sacrifice, with us using military ntervention as little as humanly possible.
It's necessary that we send funds to nations combatting this disease of a religion,
and that we swiftly send missionaries to fill the religious threshold.
I'm up for the conversion of the people who used to believe in ritual sacrifice, but I strongly disagree in the fact that we, as a coalition of nations, should militarily intervene in the conflict or take out the religious rebels (by force).
These tasks are up to the native government,
and if we jump into the conflict, exterminate the churches that allow ritual sacrifice and pull out of the conflict shortly after, we'll only have more agression towards the WA, political regression, and extreme ideologies popping up to attack nations that align themselves with the WA.
We cannot take this chance, and we should only try to stop the sacrifice if the adult does not consent to it."
by Vrijstaat Limburg » Tue May 15, 2018 12:18 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Tue May 15, 2018 12:30 pm
Vrijstaat Limburg wrote:"I think you misunderstand, ambassador. You used the term "progressive" first. You politically coloured your argument, and arguably politicized it to now have right vs. left instead of pro vs. anti.
I think it is a grave accusation that I make arguments based on logical fallacies when the threat of anti-WA gangs after the law has been passed is a realistic thought.
It's the kind of globalist mentality that allows you to set up laws and ideals based on your perception of a perfect soceity, while that perception may not work in developing nations, like those that allow religious sacrifice."
Johannes de Marchant laughingly remarked: "If you haven't noticed yet, your excellency, I'm not defending ultra religious groups that sacrifice human beings, I'm defending the people's right to believe in their god, and to practice their religion as long as all people involved are consenting. That the WA has passed legislation on multiple issues in the past does not mean that they will easen up the conflicts in this issue, and using that as an argument is intellectually false."
"I'm sure that we don't have religious sacrifice in our nation, but if there were people who consentually killed themselves in the name of god, who are we to stop them?
If a national government isn't willing to step between a man's connection with god, then why should a globalist organisation do it?
I say it's more cowardly to strip a people of their rights in the name of your own ideology, but that is just my humble opinion, ambassador."
"I think your statement, I quote: "Ladies, gentlemen, and those who have yet to make up their minds, you heard it here first! If you want to stop ritual sacrifice, you're just as bad as the people who want to perpetrate it! Are you really willing to go there, ambassador?" is in very bad taste, and I'd say that we best stick to what we say explicitly, so that we don't start shifting eachothers sentences to suit our agendas."
This new world order tasked with destroying the cultural identities of smaller nations that can't resist their influence is just as immoral as ritual sacrifice.
"Furthermore, I think that enforcing secularism on a nation is just as bad as forcefully converting it.
Nations should keep to their own devices, and as long as they don't break any human rights, they shouldn't be tormented by international laws."
by Kenmoria » Tue May 15, 2018 12:46 pm
by Vrijstaat Limburg » Tue May 15, 2018 1:08 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Tue May 15, 2018 1:20 pm
Vrijstaat Limburg wrote:"I am here, ambassador Bell, because I represent the interests of nation, and in this case, the interests of all free nations, as we all are. That we're part of an organization doesn't mean that we have to agree that the organization is helpful, especially not if it's necessary for modern nations to be in a global assembly. I think you're either willfully misunderstanding my position or you haven't actually listened to me
"You cannot say that stripping a right from adults who want to do things with their own body without physically hurting anybody is "a wrong opinion", do you? Seems tyrranical that such things are even infringed, and by a new world order like this one? I totally could not imagine any people revolting against that. That'd be highly shocking!"
Defining "ritual sacrifice" as the intentional and ritualistic act of killing one or more other beings (a) as an offering to a god or spirit, (b) as an effort to control sapient population growth, or (c) as a method by which a ruling class or regime creates or perpetuates social hierarchy;
Clarifying that such "ritual sacrifice" does not include capital punishment, assisted suicide or euthanasia of a terminally ill patient or other medical procedures, or any acts of war including insurgency and counterinsurgency;
"Now, stop accusing me of balancing "ritual murder" and "efforts to end it". We're not talking about murder here. I am fully opposed to a man killing another man in the name of religion."
by Terra Voltera » Tue May 15, 2018 2:20 pm
by Christian Democrats » Wed May 16, 2018 1:00 am
Ransium wrote:Aware that the resolution makes no exception for when the party being sacrificed are willing and legal adults;
Convinced from the comments of the drafting author of the resolution that this omission was made because it was felt that local culture would 'brainwash' its adherents;
Outraged that the World Assembly would denigrate the facilities of and try to control the decision making of sentient adults of sound mind to this extent;
Finding it distressingly ironic that the traditions of some cultures within the World Assembly would be deemed to control its adherents to the extent that they could not make rational decisions, while the traditions of other cultures would be held up as the whole and unquestioned truth for all member nations;
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Ransium » Wed May 16, 2018 8:30 am
by Imperial Polk County » Wed May 16, 2018 9:24 am
Ransium wrote:"After listening to the debates here and getting the opinions of various other sources I have become convinced that although submitting this would make for a fun four days of debate, it would ultimately fail. I'm therefore withdrawing this legislation."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement