Daarwyrth wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:Lol then I'll ought just to direct you to what I tell Tinhampton when she throws a pile of irrelevant 'but in the past the WA did X' bin room arguments. This is especially not an argument that would convince me, given that I'm a (decently large) voter, when I voted in favour of the repeal you are now disavowing on the exact basis you are now disavowing.
OOC: I am just putting forward the reasoning why my own perspectives changed. If it apparently is an acceptable approach in the WA, then who am I to argue with that? I am not saying that you are wrong either however, I see the point you are making and the perspective you are advocating. For the future I will keep in mind to try to expand a term like "reasonable" or simply use different wording. But for a case like "reasonable conversation", personally, I believe the definition of that is not that ambiguous or unclear.
There are basically two dispositive ways your arguments fail.
The first is the generally accepted view on GA 35's "compelling practical purposes" clause. It is generally accepted that a CPP is whatever a member nation thinks it is. If that is the case, then we also have to accept that a "reasonable conversation" is whatever a member nation thinks it is. Both are limited to the extent to which an activity is self-detrimental, but the way that previous precedent views detriment is only in the short term. The scope of that detriment also can be reduced only to the actual people in power, rather than people writ large. This generally accepted view is the source of why this legislation is not illegal for duplicating GA 35. And it also is the source of my complaints in "Just saying ‘reasonable’ is not a standard":
Second is the fact that your views on reasonable nations, which Ara brings to mind astutely, are not accepted under mainstream views of reasonable nation theory. I don't know what the main argument related to this 'humiliation' is and I'm not particularly involved or interested in it. But the common theme that I keep seeing in your applications of RNT is that reasonable nations all do what you want. I noted this already as well:
Those previously referenced "rational inevitability terms" were previously rejected as honest mistakes. Repeal "Pesticide Regulations" [2017] GAS 7. I disagree with Ara's seeming claim that various nations are not RNT because they do not do "reasonable" things. Instead, I would support the stronger claim – which, notably, is what was actually held in [2017] GAS 7 – that reasonable nations do not always do what is best for them or their people.