by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:04 am
by Kenmoria » Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:09 am
by Araraukar » Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:25 am
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 » Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:32 am
by Losthaven » Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:41 am
The whole proposal wrote:The World Assembly hereby declares that within the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, there may not be enacted or enforced any law, policy, or regulation which shall impose any legal penalty or create any right of action against the holding or belief of any thought.
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:43 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:44 am
Losthaven wrote:The idea of freedom of conscience is something Losthaven would support but could we please figure out a better (and more comprehensive way) to frame this.
by Bananaaaaa » Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:54 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The World Assembly hereby declares that within the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, there may not be enacted or enforced any law, policy, or regulation which shall impose any legal penalty or create any right of action against the holding or belief of any thought.
Human rights: Significant.
Mobile.
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:40 pm
by Munkcestrian Republic » Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:42 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:46 pm
by Blueflarst » Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:49 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The World Assembly hereby declares that within the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, there may not be enacted or enforced any law, policy, or regulation which shall impose any legal penalty or create any right of action against the holding or belief of any thought.
Human rights: Significant.
Mobile.
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:52 pm
Blueflarst wrote:Riddicously short and vague
opposition
by Sciongrad » Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:57 pm
by Bananaistan » Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:24 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:47 pm
by Munkcestrian Republic » Tue Aug 27, 2019 3:04 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Proposes requirement to have water
> Against, people have a right to water
> Pikachu face
by Losthaven » Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:02 pm
by Bananaistan » Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:38 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Legit is this a meme or something? I did make a joke once or twice saying that, but is there any proof that I have ever stomped anything for format violations? Do any of the WALL IFVs sayformat bad stomp plox? Any instances where I commented on a proposal thread saying my vote was due to poor formatting?
Also seriously, this isn't some kind of newfangled idea. Otherwise, get on the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and tell them to screw article 18.
by Araraukar » Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:46 am
Bananaistan wrote:"The People's Republic of Bananaistan is opposed. Unenforceable laws are pointless."
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 Bears Armed » Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:50 am
by Liberimery » Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:55 am
Losthaven wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:What do you recommend?
Shrug...
Haven't thought about it much. For start, I generally prefer to vote on things that have a preamble explaining why I should give a damn, or what the problem is that needs to be addressed. I am not one of the folks who thinks all proposals must look similar and I'm rather impressed with your ability to pass a nifty (if short lived) one line resolution during my long absence from the game, but I don't support this writing style as a convention. Not on formatting principles, but rather because proposals written in this way are far too susceptible to interpretation (and misinterpretation) when so sparsely written.
Would this prohibit, for instance, charging attempted bank robbery where a person legally bought a high powered rifle, a ski mask, and a one-way ticket to Tahiti, and also documented in his journal that he had thoughts about robbing a bank?
Most legal traditions do criminalize thought to some degree. Attempt and conspiracy crimes are common examples (although often it is also necessary to prove the person performed some act, lawful or otherwise, which served to further the criminal thought). Nearly every crime has an accompanying mens rea or a guilty state of mind, such as an intent to cause injury, knowledge that a check is fraudulent, driving with reckless disregard to whether someone may be hurt. There are many civil causes of action with similar standards, intentional infliction of emotional distress comes immediately to mind.
Would this proposal pose a problem for those legal standards because they effectively prohibit thoughts of bank robbery, thoughts of beating up your coworkers, or thoughts of defauding your grandmother? I don't know. It's hard for me to really know where to begin debating the merits of this proposal because it's so sparse and general.
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:03 am
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: I'm sure I've seen you demand that people format their proposals in your preferred format more than once or twice.
Bananaistan wrote:Re: UN covenant ... NS =/= RL.
Araraukar wrote:And IA, Legality Challenges aren't what you do when someone first posts a draft. They're what you do if there's no way to find any kind of agreement with the drafter and you are certain a rule has been broken. Or when it has already been submitted. Look through my challenges, point out any frivolously made ones. Go on, I'll wait.
Araraukar wrote:And if this is any kind of serious proposal, then you'll indeed run into the "conspiracy to commit X" problem - whether it's murder or treason or whatever else - and whether that can still count as criminal. Or if someone confesses to therapist/priest/whatever, that they can't stop thinking of hurting someone or raping a child or whatever. Can the authorities do nothing?
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:05 am
Bears Armed wrote:If this proposal is not supposed to cover actually expressing the thoughts, rather than just holding or believing them, then the lack [that has already been pointed out] of any reliable way for most member nations' governments to tell what people really think or believe means that this would have little or no actual effects: 'Mild', at the most.
by Pilipinas and Malaya » Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:05 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The World Assembly hereby declares that within the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, there may not be enacted or enforced any law, policy, or regulation which shall impose any legal penalty or create any right of action against the holding or belief of any thought.
Human rights: Significant.
Mobile.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement