Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jackrabbit]

This isn't the UN supporting killing of homosexuals. As much, as its just not discriminatory any more. And the vote was rather close.

I would assume you're referring to the title of the thread, but it doesn't say that they support it, only that they will allow it. Except you're not.

As if they could actually stop it if they wanted.

[Derekristow]

What the hell. Just happend. I think the UN just ran over their own human equality decleration, then proceeded to burn it...
 

What the hell is this?

The UN says it's not discrimination to kill a gay person for being gay.  While not quite as bad as saying killing gay people is ok, it's still pretty horrible.  I don't know enough about the UN's stance on capital punishment and what they consider to be a crime to know whether or not this makes it ok to actually kill a gay person for being gay.

[Aqizzar]

What the hell. Just happend. I think the UN just ran over their own human equality decleration, then proceeded to burn it...

This isn't the UN supporting killing of homosexuals. As much, as its just not discriminatory any more. And the vote was rather close.

That's the thing to remember.  The U.N. is not a unified body, and it does not have an actual leader.  The Secretary General is little more than a parliamentarian, with no real power over what propositions come to the floor or what is voted or acted on.  What happened was an amendment to a bill listing stuff that people could petition the U.N. about, and discrimination against gays was removed from that list.  By no means is it an endorsement of executing gays or anything, and another vote could come up next week to reinstate it.  I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a hot political topic for a little while, with nations falling over each other to get in line to condemn the vote and insist on another motion.

[nuker w]

So they have removed the ability for someone to complain that killing gays for being gay is discrimination?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's as good as outright endorsement, as far as the UN goes.

[Derekristow]

Since it isn't discrimination anymore, can being gay be considered a perfectly valid crime without the UN frowning on it?  Not having the UN's blessing wouldn't have stopped anyone before, but this passing seems like it could be taken as a sign that the international community at large doesn't care.  It didn't stop anyone, but now that it's gone some countries may decide to start.

Edit: Tangent thought:  This is sort-of why many countries have a two house system, with one being population based.

[Aqizzar]

Edit: Tangent thought:  This is sort-of why many countries have a two house system, with one being population based.

Yes, this is exactly why "one territory, one vote" is a terrible idea, because they are not equal in any capacity except their recognized existence.  When you give every group of land an equal voice, you get blocs of relatively similar states from fractured areas, or who just don't have many people by virtue of there being so many states in a given area, running their votes over everything else that comes up.  I.E. Africa, in this case.  U.N. has been a terribly broken institution since its inception for exactly that reason (and for enshrining five specific countries with the power to table any security-related matters any one of them doesn't like).

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Edit: Tangent thought:  This is sort-of why many countries have a two house system, with one being population based.

That wouldn't fix anything, since population isn't an indicator of power. Were that to be implemented India and China would hold the most power, in which case this wouldn't have been a vote on whether or not killing gays was discrimination, it would have been a vote declaring that not killing them is.

[Derekristow]

Edit: Tangent thought:  This is sort-of why many countries have a two house system, with one being population based.

That wouldn't fix anything, since population isn't an indicator of power. Were that to be implemented India and China would hold the most power, in which case this wouldn't have been a vote on whether or not killing gays was discrimination, it would have been a vote declaring that not killing them is.

That's why it was mostly a tangent thought.  Democratic government on a global scale has serious problems due to the extreme fracturing of opinions.  I'm not actually sure there are many laws you could set up on such a scale that would be upheld everywhere.

[Lordinquisitor]

Hmm, By their logic, it would be legal for a country to ban heterosexuality and execute people for being straight. Time to found a new land I believe!

But that land had to rely on immigrants alone.

/Horrible. Makes we want to kill some people.

[PenguinOverlord]

I am going to write a letter to dissolve the U.N. and a better system to use.
Not that it'll work.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Edit: Tangent thought:  This is sort-of why many countries have a two house system, with one being population based.

That wouldn't fix anything, since population isn't an indicator of power. Were that to be implemented India and China would hold the most power, in which case this wouldn't have been a vote on whether or not killing gays was discrimination, it would have been a vote declaring that not killing them is.

That's why it was mostly a tangent thought.  Democratic government on a global scale has serious problems due to the extreme fracturing of opinions.  I'm not actually sure there are many laws you could set up on such a scale that would be upheld everywhere.

Honestly, the world would be much better if the US had pressed the advantage that nuclear weapons gave it to establish a global hegemony before any other nation could develop their own, and thus prevented the proliferation of nuclear weapons amongst opposing powers. China would have wound up more like Japan, a castrated, semi-westernized minor power, Russia and the rest of eastern europe would have wound up like the rest of europe, Africa and the middle east would have been... well, that's all an idle fantasy, because we didn't press the advantage, and who knows what bullshit would have resulted from a lack of conflict, but it would have neatly solved the problem of international power distribution, in that it would have placed all the power in the hands of liberal, western civilization (there's another nice thought: without the bogeyman of COMMINIZMZ, the US may very well returned to its roots of not fucking the poor for shits and giggles, since the handling of reconstruction after WWII in Europe is one of the driving reasons they have more socialist attitudes).

[Il Palazzo]

Oh, my. You're seriously thinking that the US would be able to conquer the world after IIWW because it had nukes?
The patriotism is strong within you.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Directly after WWII, I could see the US going nuke hegeomony crazy and making major gains, but not world domination. The UK and USSR both worked on the Manhattan Project, the Axis had a fledgling nuclear research program of their own before getting crushed, and the cat was out of the bag in the most violent manner ever after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All of this would mean that someone would have gotten nukes of their own before the US could have crushed them, not to mention how the toll on US military numbers would have slowed things down.

[ChairmanPoo]

Doubtful. For crying out loud, look at the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. It's not a viable plan, and things simply don't work like that even if it was (meaning: multiple, worse, quagmires around)