by East Kirea » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:53 pm
by Falcania » Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:53 am
by Falcania » Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:57 am
by East Kirea » Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:44 am
Falcania wrote:Just no, friend, ideologically and practically.
by Falcania » Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:56 am
by The New Nordic Union » Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:57 am
As there are?East Kirea wrote:REALISING the many hypocrisys of the Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities resolution ,
Such as?East Kirea wrote:NOTING many nations failed to understand the extremitys and implications of this resolution ,
What is 'non-traditional'?East Kirea wrote:SHOWING the issues with what the resolution described when it comes to how nations wish to treat citizens of nontraditional gender and sexuality and similarity's to the previously repealed WA resolutions; defending the rights of sexual and gender minoritys and Freedom Of Marriage Act,
Yes, it did, so?East Kirea wrote:The resolution in question:
A) DEFINED, "civil marriage" as a legally recognised union of two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony.
B) FURTHER DEFINED, for the purposes of this resolution, "marriage rights" as privileges granted to an individual solely or in part as a consequence of their civil marriage.
That is exactly what it did, yes. So? If you are that much against it and 'traditional'/'religious' (especially the latter), there is a wide open exemption from the resolution in question: Do not allow civil marriages for anyone, just religious marriages, and just as that you can discriminate all you want.East Kirea wrote:MEANING as the resolution went on to define the marriage rights as for all member nations to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualitys and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions, all nations that allowed civil marriage would have to allow civil marriage between partners of all genders and sexualitys and therefore traditionalist and religious nations would have to go against there moral code in compliance of this resolution,
Which act?East Kirea wrote:REMINDING that this act will not cause sexual and gender based discrimination but create equality between those who would want it and those who would be against it
by Samaster » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:25 am
Falcania wrote:Counterpoint: it was good.
by Bears Armed » Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:01 am
by Araraukar » Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:23 pm
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Under other resolutions now in force, people could complain (IC) to a WA tribunal, which could punish your nation by imposing trade sanctions.
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 Wittebosland » Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:29 pm
by Samaster » Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:33 pm
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
GA Resolution #2 says that member nations must interpret resolutions "in good faith".
Imposing such a preposterously long delay would not be acting in good faith.
Under other resolutions now in force, people could complain (IC) to a WA tribunal, which could punish your nation by imposing trade sanctions.
by Araraukar » Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:47 pm
Samaster wrote:Who said the WA resolution was even made in good faith?
GenSec seems to have their own agenda, so counting them as neutral doesn't work in my opinion.
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 Elyreia » Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:50 pm
by Bananaistan » Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:03 pm
Samaster wrote:Bears Armed wrote:OOC
GA Resolution #2 says that member nations must interpret resolutions "in good faith".
Imposing such a preposterously long delay would not be acting in good faith.
Under other resolutions now in force, people could complain (IC) to a WA tribunal, which could punish your nation by imposing trade sanctions.
Who said the WA resolution was even made in good faith? #2 also declares the principle of national sovereignity which was interpreted in bad faith in the other resolutions so far. GenSec seems to have their own agenda, so counting them as neutral doesn't work in my opinion.
I think the resolution is way too restrictive against conservative or theocratic nations, just because it doesn't hurt my nation and I complied to it anyways doesn't make it better in general. If we are going with leftist ideals as a world consens then let's ban corporate police states and theocracies too, right?
by East Kirea » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:01 pm
The New Nordic Union wrote:OOC:As there are?East Kirea wrote:REALISING the many hypocrisys of the Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities resolution ,Such as?East Kirea wrote:NOTING many nations failed to understand the extremitys and implications of this resolution ,What is 'non-traditional'?East Kirea wrote:SHOWING the issues with what the resolution described when it comes to how nations wish to treat citizens of nontraditional gender and sexuality and similarity's to the previously repealed WA resolutions; defending the rights of sexual and gender minoritys and Freedom Of Marriage Act,Yes, it did, so?East Kirea wrote:The resolution in question:
A) DEFINED, "civil marriage" as a legally recognised union of two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony.
B) FURTHER DEFINED, for the purposes of this resolution, "marriage rights" as privileges granted to an individual solely or in part as a consequence of their civil marriage.That is exactly what it did, yes. So? If you are that much against it and 'traditional'/'religious' (especially the latter), there is a wide open exemption from the resolution in question: Do not allow civil marriages for anyone, just religious marriages, and just as that you can discriminate all you want.East Kirea wrote:MEANING as the resolution went on to define the marriage rights as for all member nations to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualitys and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions, all nations that allowed civil marriage would have to allow civil marriage between partners of all genders and sexualitys and therefore traditionalist and religious nations would have to go against there moral code in compliance of this resolution,Which act?East Kirea wrote:REMINDING that this act will not cause sexual and gender based discrimination but create equality between those who would want it and those who would be against it
by Falcania » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:12 pm
Samaster wrote:Bears Armed wrote:OOC
GA Resolution #2 says that member nations must interpret resolutions "in good faith".
Imposing such a preposterously long delay would not be acting in good faith.
Under other resolutions now in force, people could complain (IC) to a WA tribunal, which could punish your nation by imposing trade sanctions.
Who said the WA resolution was even made in good faith? #2 also declares the principle of national sovereignity which was interpreted in bad faith in the other resolutions so far. GenSec seems to have their own agenda, so counting them as neutral doesn't work in my opinion.
I think the resolution is way too restrictive against conservative or theocratic nations, just because it doesn't hurt my nation and I complied to it anyways doesn't make it better in general. If we are going with leftist ideals as a world consens then let's ban corporate police states and theocracies too, right?
by East Kirea » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:18 pm
Falcania wrote:Samaster wrote:
Who said the WA resolution was even made in good faith? #2 also declares the principle of national sovereignity which was interpreted in bad faith in the other resolutions so far. GenSec seems to have their own agenda, so counting them as neutral doesn't work in my opinion.
I think the resolution is way too restrictive against conservative or theocratic nations, just because it doesn't hurt my nation and I complied to it anyways doesn't make it better in general. If we are going with leftist ideals as a world consens then let's ban corporate police states and theocracies too, right?
The purpose of the World Assembly is to make the world better, one resolution at a time. That goal is very much at odds with conservative ideology.
by Kenmoria » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:26 pm
East Kirea wrote:REALISING the many hypocrisys of the Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities resolution , That isn’t how ‘hypocrisies’ is spelt. Also, you need to clarify exactly what hypocrisies you are referring to, otherwise this is just a platitude with no evidence,
NOTING many nations failed to understand the extremitys and implications of this resolution , and Many nations failing to understand something isn’t grounds for a repeal; a much better argument would be that the target resolution is ambiguous or subject to multiple interpretations. Also, ‘extremities’ is the correct spelling.
SHOWING the issues with what the resolution described when it comes to how nations wish to treat citizens of nontraditional gender and sexuality and similarity's to the previously repealed WA resolutions; defending the rights of sexual and gender minoritys and Freedom Of Marriage Act, What issues? You need to be more specific in your clauses, ideally with reference to specific elements of the target resolution. This clause as a whole is quite unclear due to its length without any breaks, so I recommend rephrasing it.
The resolution in question:
A) DEFINED, "civil marriage" as a legally recognised union of two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony. What is bad about this? Just including sections of the target is meaningless unless they link to a flaw you have found.
B) FURTHER DEFINED, for the purposes of this resolution, "marriage rights" as privileges granted to an individual solely or in part as a consequence of their civil marriage. You should use ‘that’ rather than ‘this’, since you are not writing the target resolution. The comment on the above clause also applies here.
MEANING as the resolution went on to define the marriage rights as for all member nations to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualitys and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions, all nations that allowed civil marriage would have to allow civil marriage between partners of all genders and sexualitys and therefore traditionalist and religious nations would have to go against there moral code in compliance of this resolution, This isn’t a very good argument - the WA has a lot of business in interfering with traditionalist and religious nations in the cause of human rights. Here, you need to argue why their right to national sovereignty, which is by the way generally seen as a poor concept, should trump the civil rights of sexual and gender minorities. Because that would be quite hard to do, I recommend re-focusing this on possible negative effects on the inhabitants of those member states or the WA itself.
REMINDING that this act will not cause sexual and gender based discrimination but create equality between those who would want it and those who would be against it I don’t believe you need this final clause, as it is implied by the protocols of this assembly.
by East Kirea » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:29 pm
Kenmoria wrote:“I’ve our some feedback in my traditional shade of red.”East Kirea wrote:REALISING the many hypocrisys of the Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities resolution , That isn’t how ‘hypocrisies’ is spelt. Also, you need to clarify exactly what hypocrisies you are referring to, otherwise this is just a platitude with no evidence,
NOTING many nations failed to understand the extremitys and implications of this resolution , and Many nations failing to understand something isn’t grounds for a repeal; a much better argument would be that the target resolution is ambiguous or subject to multiple interpretations. Also, ‘extremities’ is the correct spelling.
SHOWING the issues with what the resolution described when it comes to how nations wish to treat citizens of nontraditional gender and sexuality and similarity's to the previously repealed WA resolutions; defending the rights of sexual and gender minoritys and Freedom Of Marriage Act, What issues? You need to be more specific in your clauses, ideally with reference to specific elements of the target resolution. This clause as a whole is quite unclear due to its length without any breaks, so I recommend rephrasing it.
The resolution in question:
A) DEFINED, "civil marriage" as a legally recognised union of two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony. What is bad about this? Just including sections of the target is meaningless unless they link to a flaw you have found.
B) FURTHER DEFINED, for the purposes of this resolution, "marriage rights" as privileges granted to an individual solely or in part as a consequence of their civil marriage. You should use ‘that’ rather than ‘this’, since you are not writing the target resolution. The comment on the above clause also applies here.
MEANING as the resolution went on to define the marriage rights as for all member nations to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualitys and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions, all nations that allowed civil marriage would have to allow civil marriage between partners of all genders and sexualitys and therefore traditionalist and religious nations would have to go against there moral code in compliance of this resolution, This isn’t a very good argument - the WA has a lot of business in interfering with traditionalist and religious nations in the cause of human rights. Here, you need to argue why their right to national sovereignty, which is by the way generally seen as a poor concept, should trump the civil rights of sexual and gender minorities. Because that would be quite hard to do, I recommend re-focusing this on possible negative effects on the inhabitants of those member states or the WA itself.
REMINDING that this act will not cause sexual and gender based discrimination but create equality between those who would want it and those who would be against it I don’t believe you need this final clause, as it is implied by the protocols of this assembly.
by East Kirea » Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:28 pm
by Maowi » Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:33 pm
by East Kirea » Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:02 pm
Maowi wrote:First of all, the game mechanics thing is wrong. Issues and the WA are entirely separate. GA resolutions only affect role playing on the forums and nation stats.
Also why have you made a new thread for a new draft of the same proposal?
by Maowi » Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:04 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement