Advertisement
by Wallenburg » Sat Aug 11, 2018 10:34 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Egoplis wrote:Justice is not merciful, and it never should be. I can get what you are thinking, but perhaps limitations may be imposed if you feel so strongly.
"Justice has to be merciful to be justice. Punishment in excess of what is necessary to accomplish a goal is itself unjust."
by Bananaistan » Sun Aug 12, 2018 1:27 am
by Jocospor » Sun Aug 12, 2018 2:35 am
by Kenmoria » Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:40 am
by Xanthal » Sun Aug 12, 2018 1:29 pm
by Lammas » Sun Aug 12, 2018 1:33 pm
by Quebecshire » Sun Aug 12, 2018 2:50 pm
Benevolent Thomas wrote:I founded a defender organization out of my dislike of invaders, what invading represents, and my desire to see them suffer.
Pergamon wrote:I must say, you are truly what they deserve.
by Uan aa Boa » Sun Aug 12, 2018 3:16 pm
Kor Tele wrote:Has anybody here who voted for this resolution actually bothered to go back and read the very measure it's repealing?
by Silverfalls » Sun Aug 12, 2018 3:24 pm
by SchutteGod » Sun Aug 12, 2018 3:34 pm
by Ru- » Sun Aug 12, 2018 3:37 pm
by Riverwinde » Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:23 pm
by Santaenia » Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:51 pm
by Xanthal » Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:49 pm
Santaenia wrote:The Dictatorship of Santaenia agrees that banning capital punishment amounts to an unsolicited interference in our internal affairs. However, Santaenia does not object to the ban on that basis. We instead argue that the arguments for the ban presented in this resolution are predicated on highly subjective standards. Part e. of the resolution, for example, argues that “permitting the death penalty represents a rejection of the notion that life has intrinsic worth merely by virtue of its existence”, as if that were a reason to affirm in of itself rather than an imposition of a value upon other unwilling nations. Whether that value is shared depends on your nation’s societal values. Santaenians highly object to the idea that life carries intrinsic value by virtue of existence. We instead gauge the value of life based on whether preserving life in any given instance is beneficial to our society. Our morality system holds that preserving life for the sake of preserving life is a human attempt to combat against our natural instinct as animals to preserve ourselves when it is not in our collective interest to preserve a life.
I could continue demonstrating the subjective nature of each argument, but for the sake of efficiency, Santaenia makes this declaration: Rather than compile a list of subjective reasons why nations should adopt the repeal and a consecutive resolution afterwards (with no assurance of passage after the repeal is passed, a serious problem in of itself), argue instead why it is in the collective interest of World Assembly nations to adopt this resolution, irrespective of economic, cultural, and social differences.
by The Palentine » Sun Aug 12, 2018 7:46 pm
by Indo States » Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:08 pm
by Silverfalls » Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:11 pm
by The Palentine » Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:53 am
Silverfalls wrote:This is not something the WA should decide. It breaks our sovereignty. Next you'll be telling us how to dress and think.
by Gluebucket » Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:19 am
Silverfalls wrote:This is not something the WA should decide. It breaks our sovereignty. Next you'll be telling us how to dress and think.
by Lisa » Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:01 am
by Hessere » Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:57 am
Lisa wrote:With respect to the Author who made a very excellent proposal I would vote No because this proposition is only speaking about clause one of the resolution at question and if it is repealed would allow nations to pass the death penalty on misdemeanors and a few other points that I don't remember at this point.
Of there is some way to make an amendment to it repealing the clause at question I would gladly vote yes.
Unless this is that resolution in that case I am an idiot!!
by New Bremerton » Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:08 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement