Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
> Opinion Polls
Party Ratings
Test: 50%
Current Government: National Party
National Issues
Health: 50% Education: 50% Economy: 50% Law & Order: 50%
Transport: 50% Social Affairs: 50% Environment: 50% Foreign Affairs: 50%
Government Reputation
Strength: 50%
Popularity: 50%
Trust: 50%

Welcome to Mock Parliament. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
PASSED: Declaration of International Neutrality; Private Member Legistlation Motion
Topic Started: Sep 7 2008, 08:51 PM (1,264 Views)
Inevitable
Member Avatar
WOBBUFFET!
Moderator
Hahahahaha!

I do enjoy being the greater of two evils.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
plqx
Member Avatar
overlord of the Solafian universe
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Commoncold0
Oct 20 2008, 01:03 AM
War, despite all its horrors, is sometimes the lesser of two evils.

In theory this could be the case...

Or it could not - as it depends on what philosophy you follow, and use to define "evil"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eriatarka1
Member Avatar
Home Secretary
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I fail to see how on earth "Not condemning is not the same as not supporting." is clear. The use of 3 negatives, at least one of which must logically be wrong to have any relevance, is frankly baffling and smacks of using rhetoric to obfuscate - which is a different matter to using rhetoric to persuade.

And I hope you realise that I have frequently had the "RAAAAGE face..." as you so eloquently put it when reading your posts. What unclarity there is comes from constantly redrafting and toning down my posts.

Regardless of whether being neutral is the right action to take (which I would dispute), being forced to be neutral is not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HRH King Zog II
Member Avatar
Waffler of the House of Boreds
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
How would this bill apply to piracy?

A joint effort between countries to stamp out piracy and protect trade would be a good idea

*Copyrights idea to stop Cieran's government stealing it*
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cieran
Member Avatar
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Pff, I would oppose something like that anyway.

What I was saying is that "Not condemning" is not the same as "Condoning".

...

I just realised where I made the mistake. I meant to say "Not condemning is not the same as supporting," minus the "not". So I was in the wrong. Does that make sense now?

Can we also stop with the personal barbs? I don't see why this needs to get personal. I picked up on a small detail of your post, you got hugely prissy so I got prissy back, etc. Let's stop here...

EDIT: I had a thought today as well. Isn't this entire bill actually incompatible with the constitution? The power to declare war lies with the civilian government. And this removes that power...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HRH King Zog II
Member Avatar
Waffler of the House of Boreds
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Cieran
Oct 20 2008, 04:36 PM
Pff, I would oppose something like that anyway.


Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cieran
Member Avatar
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I care little for piracy. If it's software piracy I don't care at all. The corporations bring it on themselves by charging such excessive prices...with software there's so many ways to justify it. Even IRL, people will only pirate if the price is too high regularly...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HRH King Zog II
Member Avatar
Waffler of the House of Boreds
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Cieran
Oct 20 2008, 05:38 PM
I care little for piracy. If it's software piracy I don't care at all. The corporations bring it on themselves by charging such excessive prices...with software there's so many ways to justify it. Even IRL, people will only pirate if the price is too high regularly...

I meant piracy with the boats and the boarding and the YARR!

e.g.Piracy in Somalia
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cieran
Member Avatar
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ohhh, pirates in boats. Yeah sure, I'm opposed to THEM. Only they themselves wouldn't be :P...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
miniyoda008
Member Avatar
Master of the Force
Community Moderator
Pirates are completely irrelevant in this, unless a country deems an attack on them to be an attack on their country (and if that is the case, we can deem an attack by pirates to be a declaration of war, so bypassing the bill).

However, most importantly Cieran has spotted the major point, which I am ashamed that I did not spot, that this goes against the constitution, and so is illegal unless it is made to be an amendment of the constitution. If it is made an amendment it'll require a two thirds majority to be passed, which is really not going to happen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Commoncold0
Member Avatar
Elder Statesman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You all have very short memories... :blink:

Me calling the bill unconstitutional: http://z9.invisionfree.com/Mock_Parliament...post&p=10187875

TTF declaring it not to be: http://z9.invisionfree.com/Mock_Parliament...post&p=10188338
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
miniyoda008
Member Avatar
Master of the Force
Community Moderator
That hardly counts as short memories - that was well over a month ago - and I still feel that this bill goes against the wording of the constitution.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eriatarka1
Member Avatar
Home Secretary
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Cieran
Oct 20 2008, 04:36 PM
What I was saying is that "Not condemning" is not the same as "Condoning".

...

I just realised where I made the mistake. I meant to say "Not condemning is not the same as supporting," minus the "not". So I was in the wrong. Does that make sense now?

Can we also stop with the personal barbs? I don't see why this needs to get personal. I picked up on a small detail of your post, you got hugely prissy so I got prissy back, etc. Let's stop here...

EDIT: I had a thought today as well. Isn't this entire bill actually incompatible with the constitution? The power to declare war lies with the civilian government. And this removes that power...

I am glad to see you realise.

And with the personal stuff - and this is going to sound childish, so don't even bother pointing it out, I am fully aware - you did make the first one; an affront on my language skills is an insult to me personally. But you may not have known, so fair do's. End of story.

Also, while I agree (and I thought it through ages ago, in one of my previous drafts of a post) that there is a difference between being neutral (not condemning) and supporting, I would also say that there is clearly also a difference between being neutral and denouncing. That is the line of argument which undermines the bill and therefore couldn't have been yours, even though that's what the phrase seemed to mean.

One last thing - you're lucky I'm feeling generous, or else you may have fallen foul of language guidelines. Just please don't do it again, there are other ways of putting it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Debates · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Mock Parliament Wiki

Looking for the posts about Democratia, Ostentia or Brian Blessed? Click here.