by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Sonindia Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .298299300301302303304. . .309310»

Same

Hey everyone! How's it going? :D

New Montith2 wrote:Hey everyone! How's it going? :D

Hello!

Everything is fine! What about you?

Vennos wrote:Anyone else got a poll telegram?

yes, I got it!

I have divorce is illegal in our policies, I don't know how that happened! :/

Gomark wrote:I have divorce is illegal in our policies, I don't know how that happened! :/

Probably misunderstood an issue. I have had the same 2 times. These marriage issues are really misleading

Sonindia ceased to exist!
RIP i guess lol

Sorentia wrote:Sonindia ceased to exist!
RIP i guess lol

For vooperia wrote:RIP Sonindia.

He hath resurrect.

this is the republic of soviet red coats we would like to host a few nations for a meeting telegram me for date

Welcome newcomers!

I am now a "tirrany by mayority". I didn't even know that such a thing existed. Anyways, I want it go away becouse it seems to have some "dark side" now I think about it.

Kobanie wrote:I am now a "tirrany by mayority". I didn't even know that such a thing existed. Anyways, I want it go away becouse it seems to have some "dark side" now I think about it.

Thatís a really rare classification. In all three years of my NS experience I have only seen one other nation with it.

Europaterre if I may offer my ideas on the current GA proposal:

Ban on Forced Sterilisation:

This proposal is problematic, unnecessary, and a generally poor idea. The same way you can lose your inherent Right to Life if you get in the way of someone else's, you lose your right to be able to reproduce if you attempt to rape someone, or are a violent murderer. Below are my reasons the proposal should be voted firmly AGAINST.

  1. "Noting that sterilisation against an individual's will continues to be used as a method of reducing the population of minorities in some member-states and as a punishment for sexual offenders," while this is an issue in terms of minority genocide in many nations, it as a punishment for sex offenders is a good idea. It makes it impossible to reoffend. The problem clause (this one), is flawed through its presentation of the latter use of sterilisation as a negative thing.

  2. The proposal follows that up two lines later with: "Seeking to ban this method that has been, in the past, used to get rid of people that society has considered to be unwanted members, whether they were sexual or ethnic minorities or people with specific disabilities," this would be a good idea if it only barred this, but it doesn't. It assumes presumptively that if that is an issue all Sterilisation is.

  3. Then the problem lies here: "Prohibits: The sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent, unless a parent or guardian is legally able to and does consent on their behalf; The extradition of any criminal to places where they may be subject to forced sterilisation as a form of punishment;" This not only flawed in that it provides parents with power over the sterilisation of their children through adulthood, but also bans it as a method of stopping sexual assault.

The flaws with the resolution are many and it defeats its own goal by making nations more unsafe for women. I highly recommend a vote AGAINST: Ban on Forced Sterilisation.

Woah. We passed the 300th page without realising it! 0_o

nations esteemed memebers of this region please I come to tell you the date of our departure to Arkansas little rock Friday us central time 6:00

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:Europaterre if I may offer my ideas on the current GA proposal:

Ban on Forced Sterilisation:

This proposal is problematic, unnecessary, and a generally poor idea. The same way you can lose your inherent Right to Life if you get in the way of someone else's, you lose your right to be able to reproduce if you attempt to rape someone, or are a violent murderer. Below are my reasons the proposal should be voted firmly AGAINST.

  1. "Noting that sterilisation against an individual's will continues to be used as a method of reducing the population of minorities in some member-states and as a punishment for sexual offenders," while this is an issue in terms of minority genocide in many nations, it as a punishment for sex offenders is a good idea. It makes it impossible to reoffend. The problem clause (this one), is flawed through its presentation of the latter use of sterilisation as a negative thing.

  2. The proposal follows that up two lines later with: "Seeking to ban this method that has been, in the past, used to get rid of people that society has considered to be unwanted members, whether they were sexual or ethnic minorities or people with specific disabilities," this would be a good idea if it only barred this, but it doesn't. It assumes presumptively that if that is an issue all Sterilisation is.

  3. Then the problem lies here: "Prohibits: The sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent, unless a parent or guardian is legally able to and does consent on their behalf; The extradition of any criminal to places where they may be subject to forced sterilisation as a form of punishment;" This not only flawed in that it provides parents with power over the sterilisation of their children through adulthood, but also bans it as a method of stopping sexual assault.

The flaws with the resolution are many and it defeats its own goal by making nations more unsafe for women. I highly recommend a vote AGAINST: Ban on Forced Sterilisation.

I agree, sterilization is the best way to stop rapists and should be an available punishment for sexual crimes.

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:Europaterre if I may offer my ideas on the current GA proposal:

Ban on Forced Sterilisation:

This proposal is problematic, unnecessary, and a generally poor idea. The same way you can lose your inherent Right to Life if you get in the way of someone else's, you lose your right to be able to reproduce if you attempt to rape someone, or are a violent murderer. Below are my reasons the proposal should be voted firmly AGAINST.

  1. "Noting that sterilisation against an individual's will continues to be used as a method of reducing the population of minorities in some member-states and as a punishment for sexual offenders," while this is an issue in terms of minority genocide in many nations, it as a punishment for sex offenders is a good idea. It makes it impossible to reoffend. The problem clause (this one), is flawed through its presentation of the latter use of sterilisation as a negative thing.

  2. The proposal follows that up two lines later with: "Seeking to ban this method that has been, in the past, used to get rid of people that society has considered to be unwanted members, whether they were sexual or ethnic minorities or people with specific disabilities," this would be a good idea if it only barred this, but it doesn't. It assumes presumptively that if that is an issue all Sterilisation is.

  3. Then the problem lies here: "Prohibits: The sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent, unless a parent or guardian is legally able to and does consent on their behalf; The extradition of any criminal to places where they may be subject to forced sterilisation as a form of punishment;" This not only flawed in that it provides parents with power over the sterilisation of their children through adulthood, but also bans it as a method of stopping sexual assault.

The flaws with the resolution are many and it defeats its own goal by making nations more unsafe for women. I highly recommend a vote AGAINST: Ban on Forced Sterilisation.

Kobanie wrote:I agree, sterilization is the best way to stop rapists and should be an available punishment for sexual crimes.

Forced sterilization constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This is a violation of basic human rights. I agree certain crimes like rape and sexual assault may make this option seem appealing, but at the end of the human rights triumphs all.

Not only would this violate human rights codes and international law, allowing forced sterilization creates a whole new world of issues. How can we ensure the proper enforcement of these laws? What stops nations from creating laws that allow for genocide due to the mass sterilization of a certain populace? There are reasons we have designated it as a crime against humanity in real life. I encourage Europaterre to vote FOR the proposal.

My 2 cents.
I am looking at this issue as in real life and not in an imaginary world.
First, I don't really see this is an abused problem in the world.
Second, right now the planet Earth has too many people to support them all at economic level of say USA. If we be only 3 billion, we could all live very good. For example we could provide most of our energy needs mostly from hydropower. And we would not need to have expensive carbon reducing technologies. We would have enough wood to actually use it in buildings. We would have enough land to run vastly less intensive (and much cheaper) agriculture, enough fish etc. That not mean that we have to sterilize.. but we have to do something before we all live in poverty.
Third, too much (good meaning) legislation just creates legal nihilism and cast of layers. Nobody can really know the laws (even layers and judges have specializations ;-) ). People, please, Just keep a common sense in tact. And too much legislation creates "legal loopholes", when plain common sense are submitted to (replaced with) "legal arguments" and "unfortunately not enough laws". That allows offenders to exploit society. And this IS A REAL problem in many real observable ways.

Post self-deleted by Drenoc.

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:Europaterre if I may offer my ideas on the current GA proposal:

Ban on Forced Sterilisation:

This proposal is problematic, unnecessary, and a generally poor idea. The same way you can lose your inherent Right to Life if you get in the way of someone else's, you lose your right to be able to reproduce if you attempt to rape someone, or are a violent murderer. Below are my reasons the proposal should be voted firmly AGAINST.

  1. "Noting that sterilisation against an individual's will continues to be used as a method of reducing the population of minorities in some member-states and as a punishment for sexual offenders," while this is an issue in terms of minority genocide in many nations, it as a punishment for sex offenders is a good idea. It makes it impossible to reoffend. The problem clause (this one), is flawed through its presentation of the latter use of sterilisation as a negative thing.

  2. The proposal follows that up two lines later with: "Seeking to ban this method that has been, in the past, used to get rid of people that society has considered to be unwanted members, whether they were sexual or ethnic minorities or people with specific disabilities," this would be a good idea if it only barred this, but it doesn't. It assumes presumptively that if that is an issue all Sterilisation is.

  3. Then the problem lies here: "Prohibits: The sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent, unless a parent or guardian is legally able to and does consent on their behalf; The extradition of any criminal to places where they may be subject to forced sterilisation as a form of punishment;" This not only flawed in that it provides parents with power over the sterilisation of their children through adulthood, but also bans it as a method of stopping sexual assault.

The flaws with the resolution are many and it defeats its own goal by making nations more unsafe for women. I highly recommend a vote AGAINST: Ban on Forced Sterilisation.

I agree aswel.

BeatsMe wrote:
That not mean that we have to sterilize.. but we have to do something before we all live in poverty.
Just keep a common sense in tact.

First line: This argument is about sterilization, so if your suggesting something different but out until your suggestion comes a long.
Second line: I am beginning to question if you know the meaning of common sense. Meaning: "good sense and sound judgment in practical matters." You are not having a "sound judgement" nor are you having a "good sense". This is also not a practical matter. So please do not tell us we do not have common sense.

BeatsMe wrote:My 2 cents.
I am looking at this issue as in real life and not in an imaginary world.
First, I don't really see this is an abused problem in the world.
Second,  right now the planet Earth has too many people to support them all at economic level of say USA. If we be only 3 billion, we could all live very good. For example we could provide most of our energy needs mostly from hydropower. And we would not need to have expensive carbon reducing technologies. We would have enough wood to actually use it in buildings. We would have enough land to run vastly less intensive (and much cheaper) agriculture, enough fish etc. That not mean that we have to sterilize.. but we have to do something before we all live in poverty.
Third, too much (good meaning) legislation just creates legal nihilism and cast of layers. Nobody can really know  the laws (even layers and judges have specializations ;-) ). People, please, Just keep a common sense in tact. And too much legislation creates "legal loopholes", when plain common sense are submitted to (replaced with) "legal arguments" and "unfortunately not enough laws". That allows offenders to exploit society. And this IS A REAL problem in many real observable ways.

You look at this as an option for population control when better options exist. Educating women and teaching the world about contraceptives are both cheaper and more effectice at reducing the risk of overpopulation. Most overpopulated countries are thrid world, heavily religious countries that do not believe in contraceptives, and have low female enrolment in school and in the workforce.

Common sense dictates we use a cheaper, more effective way to deal with overpopulation, and oh by the way, it doesn't infringe on basic human rights.

I dont mean that in a condescending way by the way^ just friendly argument

Kobanie wrote:
I agree, sterilization is the best way to stop rapists and should be an available punishment for sexual crimes.

Also to further on Kobanie's reply here... do you believe capital punishment to be the best way to deal with murderers?

I don't agree with this because of 2 reasons:
1) Innocent people can be convicted wrongfully
2) This constitues cruel and unusual punishment

When combined, consider that an innocent person convicted of rape has been forcibly sterilised. This procedure cannot be undone, the trauma of a procedure like this when done foribly cannot be taken away. If that doesn't change your mind, imagine the person wrongfully convicted was you. It's easy to say rapists deserve to be sterilised, but these are much larger and more complicated issues

«12. . .298299300301302303304. . .309310»

Advertisement