Advertisement
by Capitalism Cuba » Wed Nov 02, 2022 5:36 pm
by Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Wed Nov 02, 2022 6:08 pm
Wallenburg wrote:If you get a Nobel Prize for the time machine because you wanted to win an argument on the Internet, try to remember the little people who started you on that way.
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Our research and user feedback found different use cases of bullets, such as hunting, national defense, and murder. Typically, most bullets fired do not kill people. However, sometimes they do. We found that nearly 100% of users were not impacted by shooting one random user every 30 days, reducing the likelihood of a negative impact on the average user.
Comfed wrote:When I look around me at the state of real life politics, with culture war arguments over abortion and LGBT rights, and then I look at the WA and see the same debates about cannibalism, I have hope for the world.
by Juansonia » Wed Nov 02, 2022 6:20 pm
"This is merely a replacement for a WA resolution which Magecastle is trying to repeal. Both protect the right of people to have or lack any set of religious beliefs." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of JuansoniaCapitalism Cuba wrote:In the perspective of an agnostic, religion shouldn't be forced, but permitted.
Space Squid wrote:Each sin should get it's own month.
Right now, Pride gets June, and Greed, Envy, and Gluttony have to share Thanksgiving/Black Friday through Christmas, Sloth gets one day in September, and Lust gets one day in February.
It's not equitable at all
Gandoor wrote:Cliché: A mod making a reply that's full of swearing after someone asks if you're allowed to swear on this site.
It makes me chuckle every time it happens.
by West Barack and East Obama » Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:42 pm
by Nouvel Empire » Thu Nov 03, 2022 2:21 am
by Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:45 am
West Barack and East Obama wrote:Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: This proposal belongs in the shredder. All the "separate church and state" bullcrap you are preaching has been extensively covered by basic civil rights and freedom of expression resolutions. The "don't restrict religious practices to suppress religion" whimper of a mandate is so easily loopholed it is not even funny. There is nothing in here that is an improvement of previous legislation on the topic, and thus we oppose this repeal and "Replace" effort.
Nouvel Empire wrote:"If we are satisfied with the deletion of the section concluding clause 5, which jeopardized the whole proposal, we do not understand, on the other hand, the absence of a clause responding to the problem underlined in the draft repeal, namely the possibility for States to take more restrictive measures against religious practices, such as cannibalism."
-Ambassador Fehlaaur
A member state may only restrict a religious practice to advance an important public interest, where the scope of said restriction is substantially related to advancement of that interest. The promotion, suppression, or discouragement of a religion shall not be considered an "important public interest" in this resolution.
Wallenburg wrote:If you get a Nobel Prize for the time machine because you wanted to win an argument on the Internet, try to remember the little people who started you on that way.
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Our research and user feedback found different use cases of bullets, such as hunting, national defense, and murder. Typically, most bullets fired do not kill people. However, sometimes they do. We found that nearly 100% of users were not impacted by shooting one random user every 30 days, reducing the likelihood of a negative impact on the average user.
Comfed wrote:When I look around me at the state of real life politics, with culture war arguments over abortion and LGBT rights, and then I look at the WA and see the same debates about cannibalism, I have hope for the world.
by Nouvel Empire » Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:17 am
Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:
"Would a clearer provision vis-a-vis restrictions on religious practices, such as this, resolve your concerns?"A member state may only restrict a religious practice to advance an important public interest, where the scope of said restriction is substantially related to advancement of that interest. The promotion, suppression, or discouragement of a religion shall not be considered an "important public interest" in this resolution.
~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States
by Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:25 am
Nouvel Empire wrote:Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:
"Would a clearer provision vis-a-vis restrictions on religious practices, such as this, resolve your concerns?"
~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States
"A provision such as this is of course necessary, but in the end, how is this draft significantly different from the original resolution that you are proposing to repeal?
The added provision, even using different language from clause 3 of GAR#430, provides the same limitations as this, what difference can be made between a 'compelling public interest' and an 'important public interest'?"
-Ambassador Fehlaaur
Wallenburg wrote:If you get a Nobel Prize for the time machine because you wanted to win an argument on the Internet, try to remember the little people who started you on that way.
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Our research and user feedback found different use cases of bullets, such as hunting, national defense, and murder. Typically, most bullets fired do not kill people. However, sometimes they do. We found that nearly 100% of users were not impacted by shooting one random user every 30 days, reducing the likelihood of a negative impact on the average user.
Comfed wrote:When I look around me at the state of real life politics, with culture war arguments over abortion and LGBT rights, and then I look at the WA and see the same debates about cannibalism, I have hope for the world.
by Nouvel Empire » Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:55 am
Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:
"This proposed test is less restrictive as, unlike 430, it does not mandate that the 'least restrictive means' be used -- merely that there is a substantial relation between the intended goal and the scope of the restriction."
~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States
by Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:58 am
Nouvel Empire wrote:"Is this difference worth a repeal? To return to the example of cannibalism, wouldn't preventing or even banning it be the 'least restrictive means', in relation to its health consequences? For this example, how does the original resolution apply differently than what is offered here?"
-Ambassador Fehlaaur
Wallenburg wrote:If you get a Nobel Prize for the time machine because you wanted to win an argument on the Internet, try to remember the little people who started you on that way.
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Our research and user feedback found different use cases of bullets, such as hunting, national defense, and murder. Typically, most bullets fired do not kill people. However, sometimes they do. We found that nearly 100% of users were not impacted by shooting one random user every 30 days, reducing the likelihood of a negative impact on the average user.
Comfed wrote:When I look around me at the state of real life politics, with culture war arguments over abortion and LGBT rights, and then I look at the WA and see the same debates about cannibalism, I have hope for the world.
by Excidium Planetis » Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:38 pm
Refuge Isle wrote:Civil Rights is an outdated category, the people only want Civil Wrongs now.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Excidium Planetis » Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:40 pm
Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:"There are less restrictive means of addressing the health risks of cannibalism than prohibiting it outright, such as imposing licensing regulations. Therefore, banning cannibalism is not the 'least restrictive means', and banning the practice is illegal under 430."
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Fri Nov 04, 2022 4:32 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:"There are less restrictive means of addressing the health risks of cannibalism than prohibiting it outright, such as imposing licensing regulations. Therefore, banning cannibalism is not the 'least restrictive means', and banning the practice is illegal under 430."
"Licenses don't address the primary issues with cannibalism, however. So therefore they are not a less restrictive means of addressing the issue." Adelia retorts. "Prohibition is the least restrictive means of preventing all same-species flesh consumption for the sake of public health."
Wallenburg wrote:If you get a Nobel Prize for the time machine because you wanted to win an argument on the Internet, try to remember the little people who started you on that way.
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Our research and user feedback found different use cases of bullets, such as hunting, national defense, and murder. Typically, most bullets fired do not kill people. However, sometimes they do. We found that nearly 100% of users were not impacted by shooting one random user every 30 days, reducing the likelihood of a negative impact on the average user.
Comfed wrote:When I look around me at the state of real life politics, with culture war arguments over abortion and LGBT rights, and then I look at the WA and see the same debates about cannibalism, I have hope for the world.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Nov 04, 2022 7:45 pm
by Potted Plants United » Sat Nov 05, 2022 12:30 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant
by Juansonia » Sat Nov 05, 2022 8:04 am
OOC: This proposal protects lack of religion the same way that it protects religion - both are protected from suppression by the state. "Protection of Apostates", another GA resolution of which I forgot the number, protects those who change religious beliefs and encourages a secular approach to prosecuting religious violence.Potted Plants United wrote:OOC: Cannibals aside, whatever proposal about religious protections also protects from religions, gets my approval.
Space Squid wrote:Each sin should get it's own month.
Right now, Pride gets June, and Greed, Envy, and Gluttony have to share Thanksgiving/Black Friday through Christmas, Sloth gets one day in September, and Lust gets one day in February.
It's not equitable at all
Gandoor wrote:Cliché: A mod making a reply that's full of swearing after someone asks if you're allowed to swear on this site.
It makes me chuckle every time it happens.
by Bovad » Sat Nov 05, 2022 7:09 pm
Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:Bovad wrote:Did I read this right and see that there is nothing limiting the legality of practices being major crimes? Does that mean that a person could do anything if it is part of their religon?
"This doesn't stop you from restricting any religious practice -- it only stops you from restricting religious practice because you want to suppress a religion. How seriously does your nation take the recommendations of your GA #122 office?"
~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States
by Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Sat Nov 05, 2022 8:11 pm
Bovad wrote:Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:"This doesn't stop you from restricting any religious practice -- it only stops you from restricting religious practice because you want to suppress a religion. How seriously does your nation take the recommendations of your GA #122 office?"
~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States
I apologise for the misunderstanding. Also, how is supression legally defined? What is to stop a nation from claiming that they are not supressing a religon by making laws limiting its practices?
Wallenburg wrote:If you get a Nobel Prize for the time machine because you wanted to win an argument on the Internet, try to remember the little people who started you on that way.
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Our research and user feedback found different use cases of bullets, such as hunting, national defense, and murder. Typically, most bullets fired do not kill people. However, sometimes they do. We found that nearly 100% of users were not impacted by shooting one random user every 30 days, reducing the likelihood of a negative impact on the average user.
Comfed wrote:When I look around me at the state of real life politics, with culture war arguments over abortion and LGBT rights, and then I look at the WA and see the same debates about cannibalism, I have hope for the world.
by Excidium Planetis » Tue Nov 08, 2022 11:30 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:OOC. In my view, the least restrictive means would be to have licences which test the cannibal food for prion contamination, in the same way that food is today normally tested for bacterial contamination etc. In countries without the ability to test for prions in meat en masse, I think the closest would probably be bans on the most dangerous portions with a probabilistic assessment of whether the source could have been diseased at the time of death.
Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:Excidium Planetis wrote:"Licenses don't address the primary issues with cannibalism, however. So therefore they are not a less restrictive means of addressing the issue." Adelia retorts. "Prohibition is the least restrictive means of preventing all same-species flesh consumption for the sake of public health."
"Licensing regulations that, for example, prohibit the sale of the most dangerous kinds of person-sourced meats (such as sapient brain, or meat sourced from an individual who tested positive for a disease that can be transmitted by cannibalism), can address the issue of the health risks of cannibalism. While a full ban on person-sourced meats would be the most effective manner to minimise the spread of such diseases through cannibalism, licensing regulations are still the least restrictive means of addressing the health risks of cannibalism. A full ban is therefore prohibited by 430."
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Nov 08, 2022 10:00 pm
by Rubenfieldd » Tue Nov 08, 2022 10:09 pm
by Aelyria » Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:06 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:OOC. In my view, the least restrictive means would be to have licences which test the cannibal food for prion contamination, in the same way that food is today normally tested for bacterial contamination etc. In countries without the ability to test for prions in meat en masse, I think the closest would probably be bans on the most dangerous portions with a probabilistic assessment of whether the source could have been diseased at the time of death.
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Nov 09, 2022 7:26 am
Aelyria wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:OOC. In my view, the least restrictive means would be to have licences which test the cannibal food for prion contamination, in the same way that food is today normally tested for bacterial contamination etc. In countries without the ability to test for prions in meat en masse, I think the closest would probably be bans on the most dangerous portions with a probabilistic assessment of whether the source could have been diseased at the time of death.
OOC: Then you are simply mistaken with regard to what the "least restrictive means" test does. Murder is, by definition, illegal. The "least restrictive means" to preventing cannibalism is to properly enforce laws against murder, assault, and battery. No amount of cannibalism is acceptable under the law, because even "consensual homicide" is still murder, in like fashion to how no amount of slavery is acceptable, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof. The "least restrictive means" for dealing with cannibalism is to not permit it to occur, because the compelling interest is literally saving the lives of the victims thereof; the one and only form of "consensual homicide" that is valid is physician-assisted suicide, and even that is highly controversial and not legal in many jurisdictions. Likewise, the least restrictive means for preventing religious slavery is to ban it completely, as one does with all forms of slavery, because no other means can possibly achieve the goal of actually stopping slavery from occurring.
No wonder people are trying to repeal the original law. They literally don't understand the standard being used, and twist it into something idiotic! Even the broadest definition of the "least restrictive means" test (and the related doctrines of vagueness and over-broadness) specifically indicates that the end result should be achievable so long as it is a valid thing to restrict.
Of course, the fact that the new legislation permits all sorts of restrictions, against any person for whatever reason, regardless of what they do or don't believe, simply because the government would like the end result, is a whole other issue.
by Aelyria » Wed Nov 09, 2022 9:39 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:You spend all this time establishing that the only way to prevent murders is to stop people from being killed. Yet at the same time fail to comprehend that cannibalism itself isn't murder. If someone ate, for example, from another person's body that previously died a natural death, this is not the same as killing someone for the purpose of getting to their meat. There is an ongoing debate as to the extent to which a policy has to be "advanced". I've checked four dictionaries; none of them use the word to mean the same thing as "achieved".
"However, not all burdens placed on religious exercise are constitutionally prohibited under the test. If the first prong is passed, the government may still constitutionally impose the burden on the individual's free exercise if the government can show
- it possesses some compelling state interest that justifies the infringement (the compelling interest prong) and
- no alternative form of regulation can avoid the infringement and still achieve the state's end (the narrow tailoring prong).
by Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:49 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:OOC. True religions should be exempted from these requirements. If the world actually ends because you stop doing some ritual, you should do that ritual.
Wallenburg wrote:If you get a Nobel Prize for the time machine because you wanted to win an argument on the Internet, try to remember the little people who started you on that way.
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Our research and user feedback found different use cases of bullets, such as hunting, national defense, and murder. Typically, most bullets fired do not kill people. However, sometimes they do. We found that nearly 100% of users were not impacted by shooting one random user every 30 days, reducing the likelihood of a negative impact on the average user.
Comfed wrote:When I look around me at the state of real life politics, with culture war arguments over abortion and LGBT rights, and then I look at the WA and see the same debates about cannibalism, I have hope for the world.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement