NationStates Jolt Archive

Delegates, we urge you to help out with an often overlooked inequality that has the potential to greatly reduce industrial accidents while increasing school performance.

Noting that while left-handed people make up a considerable percentage of the population, they consistently struggle with equipment specially made for right-handed people, we propose the following:

1) That all classrooms have a number of left-handed desks representative of the proportion of left-handed citizens in each country (applies only to classrooms with desks).

2) That all industrial machinery be safely operable by either a left- or right-handed person.

3) That all of the following equipment be fully ambidextrous: scissors, butter knives, computer mice, and hand-held cameras

While we at the nation of Crazed Weasles see your good intentions, we believe this would work best on a nation by nation case.

Why? This doesn't infringe on national sovereignty. We specificially left out any clauses about allowing natural lefties to continue to function that way. Manufactured products are far too global to allow nations to set standards regarding the handedness of daily products.

As a died-in-the-wool lefty, who has had to contend all his life with a right-handed world, I truly wish that my belief in national sovereignty didn't prevent me from supporting this one. The other day, I was installing a card on my computer, and I realised that the reason I was having so much difficulty was that the damn computer case was made for RIGHT-HANDED people. Couldn't somebody somewhere make one for lefties???

Could one of you please explain why you believe this act infringes on your national sovereignty? Do you systematically vote "no" for all UN resolutions?

Left-handed people are literally sinister.

Yeah, yeah, we're gauche too.

I would fully support such a proposal, we have been neglected too long :twisted: New Evil

Why not just do surgery and swap their hands over.

Problem solved.

Eredron opposes this proposal, and the misuse of the United Nations.

This is a matter for the states, not the UN.

Could one of you please explain why you believe this act infringes on your national sovereignty? Do you systematically vote "no" for all UN resolutions?

No, we voted "yes" on the last two. We don't think (alas) that providing equality for left-handed people is a matter for the United Nations. But we could be persuaded otherwise.

We did once invent an all-purpose bumper sticker, good for all elections. All it said was: "Vote No!!!"

As I said before, this is an issue for the UN because of the global market. My nation and others in my region have already enacted regulations intending to help left-handed people, but we find they are nearly impossible to enforce because we like to import goods from the best vendors in the world. Unfortunately, these vendors often charge us up to 50% more for ambidextrous products than they do for their standard right-handed products, despite the fact that ambidextrous products are easier to manufacture. Furthermore, when our students wish to enhance their cultural awareness and language skills by studying abroad, the consistently suffer in cramped, right-handed desks, unable to write comfortably. We could easily become an isolationist country, but we feel a better solution is to encourage the world to adopt better standards.

i'd support it and lobby support for it

We in Gurthark approve of the spirit of this resolution, but have a problem with requirement 3. Why require individual items to be ambidextrous? What if someone wants to have a camera custom-tailored for their right-handed or left-handed self?

My impression is that it's very hard for people to find clothing beyond a certain size; but the solution is to make such clothing available, not to mandate that all clothing be "one-size-fits all".

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

I have a better idea--let's NOT dictate how companies make their products or what type of machinery factories are allowed to buy.

no that much changes when mice/scissors/handheld cameras are made ambidextrous. Though it may be better suited to change it to mass produced items.


And there are right handed butter knives? :shock:

As a lefty i never knew...

Ithuania, you need a new standard comment--yours is getting old.

Having ambidextrous items simplifies production costs and reduces the amount of money the minoritiy group (lefties) must pay to have items that they can use. Have you ever seen a left-handed person try to use right-handed scissors? It's not pretty. The butterknives are admittedly a small issue, but we often find that butter knives made for formal occasions are slightly bent so that the butter can be easily deposited on a plate by the user. The problem with this is that the slant is on the wrong side for left-handed people to use.

If it is THAT big of a problem for you, then make the products in your country. Apparently there is a market for it and guess what, I think you are in charge of the government and ultimately what is and what is not made in the country.

1) That all classrooms have a number of left-handed desks representative of the proportion of left-handed citizens in each country (applies only to classrooms with desks).

What if there are more left-handed people in one area? And I wasn't aware of any left-handed desks... probably because out of a class of 20-30 people I've never known more than 1 or 2 left-handed people...

2) That all industrial machinery be safely operable by either a left- or right-handed person.

You're right. This doesn't infringe on national sovereignity, this infringes on property rights which are a much more fundamental right.

3) That all of the following equipment be fully ambidextrous: scissors, butter knives, computer mice, and hand-held cameras

Read above. People have the right to produce whatever the hell they want. And how would you create "ambidextrous" butter knives?

By creating "ambidextrous butter"

Having ambidextrous items simplifies production costs and reduces the amount of money the minoritiy group (lefties) must pay to have items that they can use.

Then it should be an option. We'd still like to see part 3 rewritten so that it states that the items shall *either* be ambidextrous or that companies that produce items favoring one hand must make equivalent items favoring the other at no extra cost.

If companies find it cheaper to make ambidextrous items, they're free to do so. But if there's a market for items specially tailored to a particular handedness, we find that acceptable too, so long as it's not discriminatory.

We do not feel that the rights of manufacturers to produce whatever they want are sacrosanct, but we do feel that they should not be infringed without good reason.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Having ambidextrous items simplifies production costs and reduces the amount of money the minoritiy group (lefties) must pay to have items that they can use.

Then it should be an option. We'd still like to see part 3 rewritten so that it states that the items shall *either* be ambidextrous or that companies that produce items favoring one hand must make equivalent items favoring the other at no extra cost.

This is economically and mathematically impossible. Producing things has a cost. The first rule of good government is never to violate accepted axioms of arithmetic. In addition if there are enough left-handed people there WILL be a market for them.

Having ambidextrous items simplifies production costs and reduces the amount of money the minoritiy group (lefties) must pay to have items that they can use.

Then it should be an option. We'd still like to see part 3 rewritten so that it states that the items shall *either* be ambidextrous or that companies that produce items favoring one hand must make equivalent items favoring the other at no extra cost.

This is economically and mathematically impossible. Producing things has a cost. The first rule of good government is never to violate accepted axioms of arithmetic. In addition if there are enough left-handed people there WILL be a market for them.

Sorry, TGM, I think you misunderstand me. By no *extra* cost, I mean not setting a price higher than their price for the equivalent right-handed version. I don't mean making such items *free*.

Many companies do in fact make multiple versions of the same product and sell them for the same cost. (For example, many dairies sell whole milk and skim milk for the same amount.)

Again, companies would still retain the *option* of producing a single ambidextrous line, if they preferred.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

We will happily rewrite *3 of our proposal. We had considered wording the proposal to this effect in the first place but worried about the availability of ambidextrous items in places such as schools and businesses.

Approximately 10-15% of the general populaton is left-handed.

As to #2, it is an engineer's ethical responsibilty to design equipment such that when it is used by the average citizen, that citizen will be as protected as injury as possible. This means two things. First, an engineer has to predict how a product will actually be used, and not base his calculations on intended use. Second, it means that engineers must protect users whenever possible. Many drill presses, saws, and other types of industrial machinery is often made so that a left-handed operator must choose between not being able to see what he is doing or using his non-dominant (and thus more dangerous) hand to do the work. Item #2 in our proposal merely holds engineers more accountable for the safety of their design.

Sorry, TGM, I think you misunderstand me. By no *extra* cost, I mean not setting a price higher than their price for the equivalent right-handed version. I don't mean making such items *free*.

Many companies do in fact make multiple versions of the same product and sell them for the same cost. (For example, many dairies sell whole milk and skim milk for the same amount.)

Again, companies would still retain the *option* of producing a single ambidextrous line, if they preferred.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Now of course if the market for left-handed goods is smaller, than the price will be higher...

Sorry, TGM, I think you misunderstand me. By no *extra* cost, I mean not setting a price higher than their price for the equivalent right-handed version. I don't mean making such items *free*.

Many companies do in fact make multiple versions of the same product and sell them for the same cost. (For example, many dairies sell whole milk and skim milk for the same amount.)

Again, companies would still retain the *option* of producing a single ambidextrous line, if they preferred.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Now of course if the market for left-handed goods is smaller, than the price will be higher...

I have a better idea--let's NOT dictate how companies make their products or what type of machinery factories are allowed to buy.

I will respond to this with a quote from Ithuania...

"You, the rest of the world, and the legal system are the ones refusing to accept reality. Not me."-Ithuania

:lol: :lol: :lol:

everybody knows left handed people are vastly inferior.

id suggest they be our slaves if they could do anything right.

no pun intended, but i guess it just goes to prove my poing further.

Now of course if the market for left-handed goods is smaller, than the price will be higher...
Why, exactly? Even ignoring the fact that I'm proposing to *regulate* these prices, market-clearing prices for goods that cost the same amount to make but have less demand are generally *lower*. That's why housing prices are lower in a place that nobody wants to live than in a place that everybody wants to live.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

As long as there is no manual stimulation done left handed. That should result in the death penalty. :roll: