[Challenge] Repeal "Toxic Heavy Metals Act"

[Imperium Anglorum]

As agreed upon with the author of the repeal, I challenge that repeal on honest mistake grounds. The claim in the repeal that the WA Sci Programme would act like a mathematician in this way bears no relation to actual practice and misrepresents the actions of that committee.

Understanding that the definition of "Toxic Heavy Metals" is incredibly broad and problematic as the resolution does not require that toxic heavy metals actually be toxic, only "potentially toxic" (which applies to every metal) and noted as such by the World Assembly Scientific Programme,

Believing that WASP acting exactly as it is told to act would be forced to note every "relatively dense" metal as potentially toxic, and as such every "relatively dense" metal shall be a toxic heavy metal as defined by GA#371,

I argued in a short essay that WA committees should be taken to interpret their duties and also to take actions under the same framework we apply to nations. This was for three reasons (of course, explored at more length in the essay):

1. Using a different test in this case over-legalises the game;
   
   
2. the determination of the specific "canonical" interpretation that a World Assembly organisation would in fact take is unclear and likely impossible;
   
   
3. the convention that there exists some kind of executive in the World Assembly implies multiple interpreters across multiple times that provide the variation needed to permit multiple plausible interpretations.

Extending reasonable nation theory, also avoids all of the pitfalls associated with requiring the Secretariat to create two new standards for what is judged and how it is to be judged, any possible requirement to determine factual questions about the real world, and the costs to the game associated with greater rules complexity.

No reasonable nation would interpret "potentially toxic" to mean "literally anything that is relatively dense" because doing so would be self-detrimental to almost all nations. Applying the same standard means that no committee would do so. That no committee would do so means this argument bears no relation to international or national practice and is an honest mistake under Repeal "Responsibility in Transferring Arms" [2017] GAS 8.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=505487
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

[Jedinsto]

My argument for a perfect committee (one that acts exactly as they are told) and that as such reasonable nation theory does not apply to committees stems from this- viewtopic.php?f=9&t=437605#p33608466

WA committees & agencies are all automatically presumed to be honest, impartial, and efficient, so that proposals including them don’t need to use up part of the limited length available setting up ways to make them work properly. (This also means that Repeal attempts can’t legally suggest potential problems with a WA committee or agency’s actions as an argument for getting rid of the resolution which introduced that committee or agency…) You can assign new duties to an existing WA committee or agency, which would then remain in existence to carry out those new duties (despite losing its original role) if the resolution that established it gets repealed. They can interpret policy but can’t really be assigned to make it, because (apart from anything else) as no players are actually involved in running those bodies no players would have any genuine way of knowing what their decisions actually were…
Bears Armed's beginners' guide to writing proposals

While the committees can interpret policy, by being "impartial and efficient," they must interpret the policy exactly as it is written. By interpreting "potentially toxic" exactly as it is written, and everything is potentially toxic, WASP is forced to count every "relatively dense" metal as potentially toxic under the definition. Committees are not nations, and therefore RNT does not apply to them.

[Trellania]

OOC: Oxygen is potentially toxic. I must agree the phrase "potentially toxic" is problematic.

[Wallenburg]

Every substance is potentially toxic. That that potential is more or less circumstantial depending on the substance has no bearing on the matter, because all that is required of the target resolution is that a "relatively dense metal or metalloid" is potentially toxic for it to classify as a "toxic heavy metal".

The challenger misuses the precedent of [2017] GAS 8. In the attempted repeal of GAR #399, the claim which violated the Honest Mistake rule insisted that a conflict which does not qualify as conquest under GAR #399 may still be considered conquest by national entities. It was found that no reasonable nation will interpret the arms trade mandates of GAR #399 to require additional restrictions to their imports or exports beyond what the actual definition of "conquest" requires, and therefore the argument that member states would interpret non-conquest conflicts as conquest violated RNT.

The issue of potentially toxic substances as presented here has no relationship with RNT. It is not based on ignorance of the definition presented in the target, but on the only true and accurate reading possible of that definition. Again, all substances are potentially toxic. Whatever decisions the World Assembly Scientific Programme makes concerning potential toxicity must reflect reality. That the result of their objectivity and incorruptibility is not desirable policy is neither a violation of RNT (being neither unreasonable nor entangled with national self-interest) nor an unlikely interpretation of their duties. In fact, it is the only possible interpretation of their duties under the current law.

Regarding your itemized "reasons" to apply RNT to committees:

1. Using a different test in this case over-legalises the game; The behavior of nations and the behavior of committees are fundamentally different. Using a different test is not "over-legalizing the game", but a necessary consequence of differences which make committee behavior unpredictable by RNT. Nations will pursue their own interests at every opportunity, to the fullest extent permitted by the language of the law. Committees don't have interests beyond the tasks assigned to them. Their interaction with reality can be accurately predicted based on the combination of fact and the tasks assigned to them.
2. the determination of the specific "canonical" interpretation that a World Assembly organisation would in fact take is unclear and likely impossible; You are contradicting yourself. You wish to apply RNT to predict the interpretation that a committee would adopt, but also wish to argue that no prediction can be made of how a committee interprets the law. I can only assume based on this obvious self-contradiction that you know that applying RNT to committees is bogus and you want to cover your bases such that if you can't make GenSec apply RNT to committees, at least they cannot apply another standard to them.
3. the convention that there exists some kind of executive in the World Assembly implies multiple interpreters across multiple times that provide the variation needed to permit multiple plausible interpretations. It does not necessarily mean that, although I am more interested in what sort of WA executive interprets "potentially toxic" in a manner other than the single option permitted by reality.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The challenger misuses the precedent of [2017] GAS 8. In the attempted repeal of GAR #399, the claim which violated the Honest Mistake rule insisted that a conflict which does not qualify as conquest under GAR #399 may still be considered conquest by national entities. It was found that no reasonable nation will interpret the arms trade mandates of GAR #399 to require additional restrictions to their imports or exports beyond what the actual definition of "conquest" requires, and therefore the argument that member states would interpret non-conquest conflicts as conquest violated RNT.

The portion I am mentioning relates not to the actual facts of the issue, but rather, the reasoning employed here:

If the premise is not an Honest Mistake, it's gibberish because it bears no relation to actual national practice, and therefore doesn't belong in a repeal argument, while if it does claim relevance to national practice it is false and therefore an Honest Mistake.

If there is no relevance to national practice under the OP argument, accepted arguendo, it is an honest mistake. Your burdens argumentation is behind another door.

Regarding your itemized "reasons" to apply RNT to committees:

1. Using a different test in this case over-legalises the game; The behavior of nations and the behavior of committees are fundamentally different. Using a different test is not "over-legalizing the game", but a necessary consequence of differences which make committee behavior unpredictable by RNT. Nations will pursue their own interests at every opportunity, to the fullest extent permitted by the language of the law. Committees don't have interests beyond the tasks assigned to them. Their interaction with reality can be accurately predicted based on the combination of fact and the tasks assigned to them.

If you read the committee paper, you would see this obviously isn't the case. It basically isn't the case any time a committee has any choice between policies or definitions. If a resolution were to say that a committee would institute policies to improve growth in a member nation, and I claimed that this leads to export-oriented industrialisation, is this true or not?

the determination of the specific "canonical" interpretation that a World Assembly organisation would in fact take is unclear and likely impossible; You are contradicting yourself. You wish to apply RNT to predict the interpretation that a committee would adopt, but also wish to argue that no prediction can be made of how a committee interprets the law. I can only assume based on this obvious self-contradiction that you know that applying RNT to committees is bogus and you want to cover your bases such that if you can't make GenSec apply RNT to committees, at least they cannot apply another standard to them.

You clearly don't understand this point if you got that out of it. The argument in the paper has to do with a discussion I had with Sciongrad in which he argued that only one interpretation could be taken by a committee. This too is clear from real world life: the EPA only approves or denies some pipeline, it does not do both. Yet, suddenly, with some change in administration, the pipeline's approval can be revoked and changes made in the last months of the previous administration reversed? How could this be? The decisions of the EPA can both be predicted and not pinned down with precision.

the convention that there exists some kind of executive in the World Assembly implies multiple interpreters across multiple times that provide the variation needed to permit multiple plausible interpretations. It does not necessarily mean that, although I am more interested in what sort of WA executive interprets "potentially toxic" in a manner other than the single option permitted by reality.

Would a reasonable person interpret 'potentially toxic' to include all metals? No? Then welcome back to my point.

[Bananaistan]

IMO moving away from the law does what the law says is over legalising the game. Perhaps if there was a question of interpretation there might be a discussion but I can’t see how the claim in the repeal is not supported by the text.

Edit: On a closer look, without getting involved in RL fact checking. Is there a particular reason why the committee is forced to note all such materials as potentially toxic? The target does not actually appear to oblige them to do so.

[Wallenburg]

[*]the convention that there exists some kind of executive in the World Assembly implies multiple interpreters across multiple times that provide the variation needed to permit multiple plausible interpretations. It does not necessarily mean that, although I am more interested in what sort of WA executive interprets "potentially toxic" in a manner other than the single option permitted by reality.[/list]

Would a reasonable person interpret 'potentially toxic' to include all metals? No? Then welcome back to my point.

Yes, they would. Please, name me a metal that isn't potentially toxic.

[Trellania]

Would a reasonable person interpret 'potentially toxic' to include all metals? No? Then welcome back to my point.

"Given metal poisoning is a known consequence of ingesting too much of any metal, I fully believe they would."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

IMO moving away from the law does what the law says is over legalising the game. Perhaps if there was a question of interpretation there might be a discussion but I can’t see how the claim in the repeal is not supported by the text.

Edit: On a closer look, without getting involved in RL fact checking. Is there a particular reason why the committee is forced to note all such materials as potentially toxic? The target does not actually appear to oblige them to do so.

That was my note. How is the committee notating anything as potentially toxic? The enabling legislation for WASP simply compels it to archive and disseminate what it receives, not engage in editorial oversight. So what would it mean for WASP to note something as potentially toxic? Is it sufficient for a publication that on file to say so?

[Jedinsto]

IMO moving away from the law does what the law says is over legalising the game. Perhaps if there was a question of interpretation there might be a discussion but I can’t see how the claim in the repeal is not supported by the text.

Edit: On a closer look, without getting involved in RL fact checking. Is there a particular reason why the committee is forced to note all such materials as potentially toxic? The target does not actually appear to oblige them to do so.

It is never explicitly stated that all metals must be noted as potentially toxic, but again, everything is potentially toxic. Committees must interpret the policy as written, and if all metals fall under the category of "potentially toxic," how would a committee be able to distinguish whether or not to count two different metals as potentially toxic, when both metals meet that criteria the same way? What I'm trying to say is that by enforcing the policy at all, and without reasonable nation theory applying to committees, committees would have to count all metals as potentially toxic. The "reasonably dense" part is definitely up for interpretation, though.

[WayNeacTia]

Would a reasonable person interpret 'potentially toxic' to include all metals? No? Then welcome back to my point.

Yes, they would. Please, name me a metal that isn't potentially toxic.

Gold for one is completely inert. Pretty sure most people aren't allergic to lithium either. Now here is a better question. How are we defining a metal? In stellar physics, anything heavier than helium is considered a metal. Opens up a large can of worms here doesn't it?

[Daarwyrth]

Yes, they would. Please, name me a metal that isn't potentially toxic.

Gold for one is completely inert. Pretty sure most people aren't allergic to lithium either. Now here is a better question. How are we defining a metal? In stellar physics, anything heavier than helium is considered a metal. Opens up a large can of worms here doesn't it?

Water is "potentially toxic" when consumed in the right amount. Drink too much water and you can get water intoxication. The same goes for metals, have too high a concentration of a metal in a water supply, or in other words, have a high enough concentration of a metal in something and it can become toxic because of the concentration. As such, it can be potentially toxic. Anything can be "potentially toxic" if you use high enough concentrations of it.

[Trellania]

Yes, they would. Please, name me a metal that isn't potentially toxic.

Gold for one is completely inert. Pretty sure most people aren't allergic to lithium either. Now here is a better question. How are we defining a metal? In stellar physics, anything heavier than helium is considered a metal. Opens up a large can of worms here doesn't it?

Dame Allania frowns, then searches among the ever-present pile of scrolls that is always with her before pulling out a particular one and unrolling it.

"According to our physics and alchemists, gold poisoning causes skin rashes, bone marrow depression, stomach and intestinal bleeding, headaches, vomiting, myokymia, and jaundice. Lithium is definitely toxic when taken above recommended levels, with a whole range of unpleasant symptoms. Things like stomach pains, seizures, kidney failure, agitation, slurred speech, delirium, confusion, tremors, fatigue..." She stops and looks at the delegate from Wayneactia. "Have you been checked for lithium poisoning recently? Just curious, not meaning to imply anything..."

[Herby]

Legality challenges are out of character.

Gold can absolutely be toxic. A simple Google search will yield information on the effects of ingesting gold over long periods of time. Here’s just one link.

https://www.dovemed.com/diseases-conditions/gold-toxicity/

[Trellania]

Bah. I was having too much fun writing Allania.

And lithium is lethal at 20mg/L. It's also considered a hazardous substance, as this warning from New Jersey shows: https://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/1119.pdf

[Jedinsto]

I don't think the fact that everything is potentially toxic is in question, rather whether or not the committees would note everything that is "reasonably dense" as such.

[Trellania]

For weights, the typical standard of "reasonably dense" is steel. If it's about as dense or more as steel, it would qualify I think.

[Wallenburg]

Yes, they would. Please, name me a metal that isn't potentially toxic.

Gold for one is completely inert. Pretty sure most people aren't allergic to lithium either. Now here is a better question. How are we defining a metal? In stellar physics, anything heavier than helium is considered a metal. Opens up a large can of worms here doesn't it?

Never mind what I said before in IA's titles proposal, this is the most batshit thing I've read in the last 12 months.

For weights, the typical standard of "reasonably dense" is steel. If it's about as dense or more as steel, it would qualify I think.

Where is that written, and what kind of steel? Steel density varies based on composition.

[WayNeacTia]

Legality challenges are out of character.

Gold can absolutely be toxic. A simple Google search will yield information on the effects of ingesting gold over long periods of time. Here’s just one link.

https://www.dovemed.com/diseases-conditions/gold-toxicity/

Did you actually bother to read the whole article? "Gold Toxicity can affect individuals of any age including children and adults. It is a rare condition". The key word there being, RARE.

Gold for one is completely inert. Pretty sure most people aren't allergic to lithium either. Now here is a better question. How are we defining a metal? In stellar physics, anything heavier than helium is considered a metal. Opens up a large can of worms here doesn't it?

Never mind what I said before in IA's titles proposal, this is the most batshit thing I've read in the last 12 months.

Amazing how you can simply dismiss an argument without any reasoning whatsoever. I see you haven't changed a bit. Anything you agree with has a strict narrow interpretation. Anything you are trying to pass has the most broad definitions possible.

For weights, the typical standard of "reasonably dense" is steel. If it's about as dense or more as steel, it would qualify I think.

Where is that written, and what kind of steel? Steel density varies based on composition.

If we are talking about toxic heavy metals, then we are discussing atomic density, not chemical density. As I said, strict narrow definitions for you.

[Trellania]

For weights, the typical standard of "reasonably dense" is steel. If it's about as dense or more as steel, it would qualify I think.

Where is that written, and what kind of steel? Steel density varies based on composition.

Would you believe how nearly impossible it is to find a source that isn't a fitness journal or site on this topic at all?

Legality challenges are out of character.

Gold can absolutely be toxic. A simple Google search will yield information on the effects of ingesting gold over long periods of time. Here’s just one link.

https://www.dovemed.com/diseases-conditions/gold-toxicity/

Did you actually bother to read the whole article? "Gold Toxicity can affect individuals of any age including children and adults. It is a rare condition". The key word there being, RARE.

Dying of radiation poisoning is also incredibly rare. We have laws and regulations to prevent it anyway. And the WA has regulated radiologicals anyway.

[Wallenburg]

Did you actually bother to read the whole article? "Gold Toxicity can affect individuals of any age including children and adults. It is a rare condition". The key word there being, RARE.

It's rare because people don't usually ingest enough gold to be toxic. Cyanide poisoning is rare, that doesn't make it non-toxic. Christ.

Never mind what I said before in IA's titles proposal, this is the most batshit thing I've read in the last 12 months.

Amazing how you can simply dismiss an argument without any reasoning whatsoever. I see you haven't changed a bit. Anything you agree with has a strict narrow interpretation. Anything you are trying to pass has the most broad definitions possible.

I'm dismissing your argument because you are lying. In fact, you have been proven wrong and yet insist that you are actually right anyway.

Where is that written, and what kind of steel? Steel density varies based on composition.

If we are talking about toxic heavy metals, then we are discussing atomic density, not chemical density. As I said, strict narrow definitions for you.

The target resolution defines toxic heavy metals as:

as any relatively dense metal or metalloid, or any compound thereof, that is noted for its potential toxicity by the World Assembly Scientific Programme;

"Compound thereof". You can't measure atomic density of a chemical compound. Additionally, it never specifies atomic density, and atomic density is not the normal sense of the word in most scientific environments. You should take a little while to actually read the target resolution and the repeal text so you can understand the subject of this challenge, instead of applying snark to things you have made no effort to understand.

[WayNeacTia]

Did you actually bother to read the whole article? "Gold Toxicity can affect individuals of any age including children and adults. It is a rare condition". The key word there being, RARE.

It's rare because people don't usually ingest enough gold to be toxic. Cyanide poisoning is rare, that doesn't make it non-toxic. Christ.

People ingest gold all the fucking time. It is called gold leaf. Cyanide on the other hand is a proven toxic compound. Try harder next time.

I'm dismissing your argument because you are lying. In fact, you have been proven wrong and yet insist that you are actually right anyway.

Really? I have been proven wrong huh? You have presented zero evidence here, yet you are somehow magically right?

as any relatively dense metal or metalloid, or any compound thereof, that is noted for its potential toxicity by the World Assembly Scientific Programme;
"Compound thereof". You can't measure atomic density of a chemical compound. Additionally, it never specifies atomic density, and atomic density is not the normal sense of the word in most scientific environments. You should take a little while to actually read the target resolution and the repeal text so you can understand the subject of this challenge, instead of applying snark to things you have made no effort to understand.

Do you go out of your way to be as wrong as possible, or is it a gift? An alloy is a compound and you can very much measure it's atomic density. As for snark? You are the king of it. I couldn't hope to match your prowess.

[Wallenburg]

It's rare because people don't usually ingest enough gold to be toxic. Cyanide poisoning is rare, that doesn't make it non-toxic. Christ.

People ingest gold all the fucking time. It is called gold leaf. Cyanide on the other hand is a proven toxic compound. Try harder next time.

So, what, gold poisoning just doesn't happen? Despite Herby linking you to a medical article that proves otherwise? Are they in on the conspiracy to repeal "Toxic Heavy Metals Act"? Who knows, maybe Jedinsto has a controlling interest in DoveMed Ltd. or hacked their servers to plant the evidence that gold toxicity specifically is real.

I'm dismissing your argument because you are lying. In fact, you have been proven wrong and yet insist that you are actually right anyway.

Really? I have been proven wrong huh? You have presented zero evidence here, yet you are somehow magically right?

Herby's provided the evidence regarding gold. I refuse to believe you actually think lithium is non-toxic, nor that you believe it qualifies as a "relatively dense metal". A five second Google search will show you otherwise.

Do you go out of your way to be as wrong as possible, or is it a gift? An alloy is a compound and you can very much measure it's atomic density. As for snark? You are the king of it. I couldn't hope to match your prowess.

Ah, you're right, you can measure the atomic density of a compound. It's just not particularly useful for anything related to the resolution in question, since atoms in a compound are of variable mass and volume. You get a gold star. Don't swallow it.

[WayNeacTia]

Herby's provided the evidence regarding gold. I refuse to believe you actually think lithium is non-toxic, nor that you believe it qualifies as a "relatively dense metal". A five second Google search will show you otherwise.

There is a five second google search. And yes, lithium is a relatively dense metal. All atoms heavier than helium are metals. The resolution clearly states "Defines "toxic heavy metals" as any relatively dense metal or metalloid, or any compound thereof, that is noted for its potential toxicity by the World Assembly Scientific Programme'. It never defines what the definition of a meatal is. Are calcium, potassium, magnesium, and phosphorus all toxic as well? If so we had better outlaw life as we know it as those are four of the most basic "metals" in DNA. You see? Broad definitions work both ways. As I stated in the repeal thread, this is repeal based upon lack of dictionary definitions and that is all. Should it be repealed? Probably, but not based upon a lack of definitions.

[Trellania]

Herby's provided the evidence regarding gold. I refuse to believe you actually think lithium is non-toxic, nor that you believe it qualifies as a "relatively dense metal". A five second Google search will show you otherwise.

There is a five second google search.

So now I know you did not read the link posted by me: viewtopic.php?p=38725025#p38725025

And yes, lithium is a relatively dense metal. All atoms heavier than helium are metals.

Hold on! So oxygen is a metal?

Are calcium, potassium, magnesium, and phosphorus all toxic as well?

Yes! And at least one of those is particularly explosive. As, uh, my chemistry teacher knew all too well...

If so we had better outlaw life as we know it as those are four of the most basic "metals" in DNA.

Which is the whole point of the repeal. Removing a resolution that, as worded, potentially makes everything illegal.