Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 01:34 UTC

Re: Discussion of the Declaration of Unity  

@yovy

The wording of the original document is awkward and makes it difficult to work out what intent/meaning the writers were looking for.
As would be expected, people read it and take it on face value. Some of the phrasing is specific (such as "the principle of reciprocity") and the origins of those phrasings might be missed by the casual reader, leading to misunderstanding and/or restatement of previously posted thoughts.

I found it helpful in reading the original declaration to realise that a lot of that specific phrasing can be found in the documents that the writers would be familiar with from their day to day work. Even though the English is not structured very well, knowledge of those documents might help make the intent/meaning of the original document a little clearer, which it is not at the moment.



by the way and off topic - I think you got the best of his work in HEX. well done :-D

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 01:48 UTC

When you say that Earth history has no place here, that doesn't mean that Earth history won't be taught in Asgardia, correct?

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 05:00 UTC

@AlexTheViolinist, I believe they mean to say that the history of the Earth shall not have any influence on the life within Asgardia, i.e. a Russian on Earth would not have any issues with an American, or a person from Pakistan wouldn't have any issues with a person from India; and so on & so forth.

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 08:24 UTC

Hello fellow Asgardians,

I think some Decree items has to be clarified. For example, I don't understand what is exactly meant by no. 12 (and I see I'm not alone). Does it mean that we should forget division and conflict from the past and turn ourselves to the future, or it means that we should forget the whole Earth history (I believe it is not the case)? There is too much space for various interpretations.

Regarding no. 9. It is whether naive or wrong formulated. The first part, we are already deep in politics. This forum is all about politics. Where is a community there is politics, where is more human brains there is politics - that's reality, we can't avoid it. And consequently, I think it is not the good idea to forbid political parties (which represent different opinions and attitudes toward various topics). I don't see any sense in elections if we can't elect between something. Or we should change vocabulary, therefore, there would not be elections, but only confirmations.(?)

Please clarify what is meant by those problematic items and then, when the meaning will be clear, then we will talk about whether the items are good or bad. Thank you.

  Last edited by:  Josip Pavic (Translator, Asgardian)  on Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 08:25 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: grammar

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 10:43 UTC

Guzlomi: I really love your rewrite of the document. I would sign that one, it's much easier to understand, clearifies points that were too vague, and leaves out details that were unnecessary. Thumbs up.

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 10:44 UTC

Guzlomi: I really love your rewrite of the document. I would sign that one, it's much easier to understand, clearifies points that were too vague, and leaves out details that were unnecessary. Thumbs up.

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 13:41 UTC

While I love what @Guzlomi has presented here:

My option:

"the main objectives of Asgardia are to: a) Develop a prosperous space nation. b) Ensure peaceful relationships in Space among all intelligent living forms. c) Ensure the protection of planet Earth and humankind from threats from Space d) Ensure equal opportunities in Space for all Asgardians living on Earth, without any discrimination of any kind".

I have an objection on Ensure the protection of planet Earth... I believe it is not only sufficient to state Ensure the protection of humankind from Space-born threats but we should not need to define the planet for which we become obligated to protect until infinity.

If we are founding Asgardia with the premise to become a space bound and ferrying nation, then we should not be shackled to the Planet of our roots. We should remove "planet Earth" from this declaration.

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 13:44 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 16:40 UTC

I have concerns about point 12. If we don't remember where we came from we will lose sight of where we are going.

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 19:04 UTC

@LoreZyra, although I too agree with the necessity of not being chained to our heritage, we can't just avoid the word "Earth" out of spite - as if it's a swear word - at every chance we get. Replacing "Earth" with "humankind" makes it all-encompassing, but it wouldn't be a significant change, as virtually all of the humanity that we would wish to protect would be on the surface. Moreover, we should not get too ahead of ourselves as there is no practical way the Asgardian vessel could mitigate space based threats unless we have the ordnance to do so - and I don't see any way that's possible without bypassing the Outer Space Treaty.

I believe the more important thing would be to contemplate on whether or not Earth would reciprocate our feelings of wanting to protect it, and also whether they would be willing to help Asgardia when the need arises.

And yes, we are obliged to protect Earth for posterity. Space nation or not, we are still one collective species, perhaps the only one intelligent enough to ever exist. It would do well for us to keep it that way.

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 19:07 UTC

@guzlomi all of your replies are well thought out and well researched. I read your version of the declaration and it's excellent. Good job friend.

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 20:42 UTC

@bigred

Gotcha. I though you meant there were points that needed to be split withing the document itself. I just wanted to clarify. I agree with your assesment.

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 21:49 UTC

Oh my God, no political parties!? I can't tell you how happy I am! Mother Earth may extend its roots through Asgardia <3

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 21:59 UTC

^So long as we are talking about not political parties while still maintaining a democracy...

Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 13:37 UTC

Hi everyone,


In case you were unaware, there are forum formatting text available. Until the forum has a fully fleshed out Tiny Text Editor, you can follow the guildelines here: [Formatting Guide](https://asgardia.space/en/forum/forum/welcome-127/topic/formatting-guide-56/)

Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 13:48 UTC

By: UtkarshC99(Asgardian) on 31 March 2017, 7:04 p.m.

@LoreZyra, although I too agree with the necessity of not being chained to our heritage, we can't just avoid the word "Earth" out of spite - as if it's a swear word - at every chance we get. Replacing "Earth" with "humankind" makes it all-encompassing, but it wouldn't be a significant change, as virtually all of the humanity that we would wish to protect would be on the surface. Moreover, we should not get too ahead of ourselves as there is no practical way the Asgardian vessel could mitigate space based threats unless we have the ordnance to do so - and I don't see any way that's possible without bypassing the Outer Space Treaty.

I believe the more important thing would be to contemplate on whether or not Earth would reciprocate our feelings of wanting to protect it, and also whether they would be willing to help Asgardia when the need arises.

And yes, we are obliged to protect Earth for posterity. Space nation or not, we are still one collective species, perhaps the only one intelligent enough to ever exist. It would do well for us to keep it that way.

Hi UtkarshC99,

I would argue that while we can provide protection over Planet Earth, I don't see the necessity of it to be a full declaration (much less in a dedicated Constitutional Article)! It can be provided under Article 24: Security Services and Systems

I'm not saying that (like a teenager) we are to abandon our birth world. Rather, I'm stating for the Constitution to be held valid for generations (e.g. your grand-kids' grand-kids), it should not spell certain details out. Those can be later amended, but only if absolutely needed.