NationStates Jolt Archive

Please visit the proposals page and review the Equality for all proposal. I hope that the many intelligent nation states of the United Nations can agree on such basic recognition for the rights of all.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/start=10

The concept is supportable, but the term "harm" needs more definition. We, for instance, do not regard mental distress as a "harm"; we would restrict the term to physical injury or death, or loss of property or income.

Pleas visit the proposals page and review the Equality for all proposal. I hope that the many intelligent nation states of the United Nations can agree on such basic recognition for the rights of all.

PS: There was an error while submitting the proposal, which caused it NOT to appear the first time I submitted it, so I did it again...and now of course there are two. They are exactly the same but I encourage you to vote on the one marked as "Strong" not the "Mild". Strange that it came out that way.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/start=50


We propose that all nations under the UN charter respect the very essence of life and vow to preserve and protect it, in all its many forms whether human, or otherwise.


The AIDS virus doesn't have rights. Sorry.

Pleas visit the proposals page and review the Equality for all proposal. I hope that the many intelligent nation states of the United Nations can agree on such basic recognition for the rights of all.

PS: There was an error while submitting the proposal, which caused it NOT to appear the first time I submitted it, so I did it again...and now of course there are two. They are exactly the same but I encourage you to vote on the one marked as "Strong" not the "Mild". Strange that it came out that way.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/start=50


We propose that all nations under the UN charter respect the very essence of life and vow to preserve and protect it, in all its many forms whether human, or otherwise.


The AIDS virus doesn't have rights. Sorry.

You have to make exceptions for equality. Equality is a nice thought but if I kill a million people, should I have the same equality that the million people I killed and their family and non-criminals have?

The concept is supportable, but the term "harm" needs more definition. We, for instance, do not regard mental distress as a "harm"; we would restrict the term to physical injury or death, or loss of property or income.

Correct.

I am confused. Is this resolution actually calling for equality or is it just saying that 'every living thing has a right to exist'?

Also, we have effectively ended slavery and discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual preference in past resolutions. No need to rehash that again.

I am confused. Is this resolution actually calling for equality or is it just saying that 'every living thing has a right to exist'?

Also, we have effectively ended slavery and discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual preference in past resolutions. No need to rehash that again.

Actually you are correct but not completely, you must not look into this resolution that deeply it means exactly what it says...

Equality for all

The End Slavery resolution had been specific to declare the following:
..."I propose that the following human rights "...

I'm sure you have noticed that more then just some nations in this cyber-created world aren't even human...We feel that our nation is not under the protection of the past resolution and this is an amendment to that.

Also,

There are two more resolutions that are being Retro-Amended of a sort to include ALL (Key word), that is the Sexual Freedom resolution, and the Gay Rights resolution. The former resolution asks for sexual privacy within one's home out of reach of the state...and the latter asks for recognition of marriages and unions from the government. Don't get me wrong these were very VERY good resolutions that were much needed.

But, I do have to say that our simply stated yet very effective proposal, asks for the banishment of the archaic Government usage and practice of sexual categorization based on bias. The government should not have to recognize a gay marriage for example, because with the passage of our proposal such a thing would not be allowed a categorization, marriages between to life energies is all it should be considered...a union, a marriage, that's all. Not a gay marriage, or straight marriage. The bi-lateral recognition only breeds hatred, prejudice, bigotry and is only good for creating a schism between people.

I have brought this to the floor now, because looking at the proposals that are pending approval from MEMBER Nations, and Regional Delegates alike, the sense of this attitude of hatred and inequality is the norm for these nations, and if they feel that way great, but they should be asked to step down from UN member status.

Our great nation, like many that you would find congregating in many regions, have more then just a human populace if any inhabit them at all, and we are member states of the Un, and wish to be recognized as well. Even the category of the proposal staes Human Rights...well those rights need to extent to ALL...human or otherwise.

You have to make exceptions for equality. Equality is a nice thought but if I kill a million people, should I have the same equality that the million people I killed and their family and non-criminals have?


Well, my friend...I believe you answered your own question....
the proposal states:

..."That they may live as they see fit as long as they do not cause harm to another"...

Your definition of harm may differ than mine. "It's for their own good"

My nation is host to many different types of races and civilizations, all of whom live symbioticaly and respect eachother's cultures and right of existence. We ask that all member states of the UN adhere to that policy as well.
The same could be said about the nation of Ganymerica.

-All living beings no matter who or what they may be, have the inherent right of existence.
While we support the nation, the people of Ganymerica are a little concerned.
As much as we love our national animal, the cow, we're a bit worried about the UN restricting our right to eat hamburgers.
We propose the language be changed to "All living, intelligent beings/species" and so on.

That they may live as they see fit as long as they do not cause harm to another. In simpler terms "Live and let live." If a nation employs slaves for labor for example, we submit that they must end the practice or leave the UN voluntarily.
This is very sketchy.
What is "harm" excactly? Is it categorized by physical injury? Loss of property? Mental distress? All of the above? To use an example from another proposal, would this allow people to have sex in the streets?

That the aparthied inspired classification of sexual preference be erradicated from being used within the confines of government terminology.
What does this actually mean? What does it do? If I understand it right it says that the goverment shouldn't classify people as heterosexuals and/or homosexuals. If that's the case, we support it.

We propose that all nations under the UN charter respect the very essence of life and vow to preserve and protect it, in all its many forms whether human, or otherwise.
Again, we're concerned this will be used by animal rights activists as a reason to ban meat-consumption.
Also, doesn't this proposal, without it being it's expressed intention, actually pretty much outlaw abortion?


While we support the notion of this bill, we're a little bit concerned about the language, and look forward to a positive response.

Would implementation of this proposal require adopting a philosophy of the sanctity of all life, such as that espoused by the Jain sect of India?
Implications are: enforced vegetarianism, not killing any insects or vermin, and not even bathing; the jains went so far as to pull out all their body hair.

I think this is all new age, PC hogwash. People are not born equal so they shouldn't have equal rights. People who are more intelligent and more talented deserve more than normal or mediocre people. That's why we have scholarships and a capitalist world that rewards hard work. People should only get what thye work for. If we just give people rights to start of, then lazy people could easily abuse the system.

I think this is all new age, PC hogwash. People are not born equal so they shouldn't have equal rights. People who are more intelligent and more talented deserve more than normal or mediocre people. That's why we have scholarships and a capitalist world that rewards hard work. People should only get what thye work for. If we just give people rights to start of, then lazy people could easily abuse the system.

I think you are confusing rights with opportunity. People who excel in different things are offered keys to lifestyles that others can only dream of being included in. It's pathetic really anyone with true knowlegde should just be happy with his/her ability and not take pleasure in knowing that they can be afforded a lifestyle that is alien to others.

Anyway I digress, the point is rights aren't given, they aren't appointed, and they aren't reserved. Rights are simple a fact of life, they sometimes need to be recognized, or reminded of that simple fact sometimes and that is the real shame.

All living beings no matter who or what they may be, have the inherent right of existence.
While we support the nation, the people of Ganymerica are a little concerned.
As much as we love our national animal, the cow, we're a bit worried about the UN restricting our right to eat hamburgers.
We propose the language be changed to "All living, intelligent beings/species" and so on.
We understand your confusion, and to clarify, the languge need not be changed. For the simplicity of the original wording is exactly what you want it to say. The key word is BEINGS. The choice of that word is not accidental, it was used after I researched the many definitions of the word and the following best commutes that meaning:

Being (Be"ing), n.
2. That which exists in any form, whether it be corporeal or spiritual, actual or ideal that understands and has a sense of "being v." acknowledges its existence and that of others; living existence, as distinguished from a thing without life; as, a human being; spiritual beings.
2a.Sentient

That they may live as they see fit as long as they do not cause harm to another. In simpler terms "Live and let live." If a nation employs slaves for labor for example, we submit that they must end the practice or leave the UN voluntarily.
This is very sketchy.
What is "harm" excactly? Is it categorized by physical injury? Loss of property? Mental distress? All of the above? To use an example from another proposal, would this allow people to have sex in the streets?

I believe also that the meaning of harm is simple. Every nation has it's own moral beliefs and if sex in the streets is not harming anyone then so it may be. However, if your government is ruled by a religous leader or follow a religous doctrine, well then sex in the streets may be viewed as someone infringing on the rights of those who do not wish to see that sort of thing and can be viewed as harmful to them. Such things are up to the individual government. Harm is again a word that was researched and the following definition was common from many different sources.

Harm (härm), n.
1. any physical damage to the body caused by violence or accident or fracture etc.
5. mental destress with measurable results such as psychological and or physical apparitions.

That the aparthied inspired classification of sexual preference be erradicated from being used within the confines of government terminology.
What does this actually mean? What does it do? If I understand it right it says that the goverment shouldn't classify people as heterosexuals and/or homosexuals. If that's the case, we support it.

Yes you understand it correctly. :)

We propose that all nations under the UN charter respect the very essence of life and vow to preserve and protect it, in all its many forms whether human, or otherwise.
Again, we're concerned this will be used by animal rights activists as a reason to ban meat-consumption.
Also, doesn't this proposal, without it being it's expressed intention, actually pretty much outlaw abortion?

Again, the definition was explained above, and unless the nation is inhabited by or ruled by a species that is sentient (ie., talking cows, bats, or insert creature here) then I don't see how animal rights activists can use this proposal for meat consumption bannining. In fact I personally find animal activists to be hypocrites in the sense that they ask to ban meat eating but some species are carnivorous by NATURE, and is needed for their survival including most animals, and being that sentient species such as the human race for example, are technically animals... then they must respect that fact of NATURE. Human beings are also not by nature canibals, although some societies live and thrive as such so the killing of their own species is immoral, but that is not what I should be getting into.

As to the second part of your question, this cannot be used to abolish or outlaw abortion. For one thing it is not proven scientifically when the fetus gains the conciousness needed to be considered a sentient being, and although it is a lifeforce, it's a lifeforce created by the mother and father, and as such can be reabsorbed into the maternal lifeforce, in fact all life can be said to return or be absorbed into the metaphysical cycle. Therefore again the answer to your question is no.

I hope to have answered all your questions in a courteous manner. Feel free to contact me directly if you wish me to address any other concerns.

Oh, holy crap. Equality for all? What is man becoming, the Borg? Noncoercion has so many problems with this, it is hard to know where to begin. How about equality for all in sovereignty? Why should Senator Fatcat have any authority over Joe Blow?

Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.

According to Webster's dictionary, the meaning of sentient is "responsive to or conscious of sense impressions". That would classify all things that are alive and respond to external stimuli as "beings". In the future, you might consider using an Unabridged dictionary in your research.

According to Webster's dictionary, the meaning of sentient is "responsive to or conscious of sense impressions". That would classify all things that are alive and respond to external stimuli as "beings". In the future, you might consider using an Unabridged dictionary in your research.

Well then, that means my country must lie still and hold its breath, because they could be harming bacterium by crushing them by movement or by breathing them in. the bacterium would be feel the pain of getting sat on or getting attacked by my own white blood cells.

or if you lowered the tempature in the room, they wouldn't reproduce. They would notice the temperature difference, and respond accordingly.

Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.

Amen.

This resolution is simply not realistic, so that's still a big NO against this resolution.

I, in my infinite DIVINITY, have broken down the re-re-resolution proposed by you INSECTSSS...

All living beings no matter who or what they may be, have the inherent right of existence.

The following is what you HUMANNSSSS define as "BEING" from your DICTIONARY.COM...

To exist in actuality; have life or reality: I think, therefore I am.

To occupy a specified position: The food is on the table.
To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched, or unmolested: Let the children be.
To take place; occur: The test was yesterday.
To go or come: Have you ever been to Italy? Have you been home recently?
Used as a copula in such senses as:
To equal in identity: “To be a Christian was to be a Roman” (James Bryce).
To have a specified significance: A is excellent, C is passing. Let n be the unknown quantity.
To belong to a specified class or group: The human being is a primate.
To have or show a specified quality or characteristic: She is witty. All humans are mortal.
To seem to consist or be made of: The yard is all snow. He is all bluff and no bite.
To belong; befall: Peace be unto you. Woe is me.

All things exist in actuality....This alone makes the resolution apply to everything with LI-LIFEEEE.

That they may live as they see fit as long as they do not cause harm to another. In simpler terms "Live and let live."

At first ggglance, this makes "germs" as you humans call them FAIR PLAY....However it does not say that one can attack back.....And therefore limits your ability to gather MEATS and ANTIBIOTICS.....
The next paragraph is IRRELEVANT...

We propose that all nations under the UN charter respect the very essence of life and vow to preserve and protect it, in all its many forms whether human, or otherwise.

"The very essence of life" describes ATOMS.......And therefore all UN MEMMBERRSSS would be in violation immediately after this resolution passes.
"in all its many forms whether human, or otherwise" simply SOLIDIFIES the protection of meats....plants...antibiotics....

I have no use for you insects....howweevveerrr, you make FITTING HANDMAIDENS to my gggglorrryyy......

Forget the namby pamby, feel good talk. There is nothing in nature or about humankind that is equal. NOTHING. You are not equal to your neighbor, or even your spouse. That is just nature.

Had the saber tooth cats been equal to us, we would not be. If influenza virus deserved the same equality, we would be dead. If we were equal to ground hogs or possums we would all be killed by being run over or by predators. I do not deserve the same fate as a smoker or a suicide bomber. Cows and not equal to us, fish are not equal to us, and we are not equal to each other.

The stiving to be better is what made us and keeps us alive and growing. It is what sets EVERYTHING apart from the other, and thank goodness it is so.

How boring if we were like each other, only earned what someone else did, only learned what someone else did, or only was able to do anything as good as someone --- or something else did. How limiting and stupid would that be.

Revel in the differences. Revel in the glory of being able to excel at what ever you can. I for on do not want to need to be equal to a pet that needs to be kept, and therefore at the whim of the owner for life, comfort, and happiness.

Even the founders of the USA in their enlightened wisdom did not promise equality, only the OPPORTUNITY to have an equal chance to excel. What we do with that opportunity is our own choice. That is the only equality needed. The ability to go our own way and make our own individual lives.

Want to be equal to a herd animal, or be smart and make your own way what ever that may be? Part of the glory of living is the adventure of being different. Communism tried the equality route and it FAILED everywhere it was tried.

Everywhere it was tried there was still the elite that got FAR more than the other equals in society. Everywhere it was tried hundreds of thousands, actually tens of millions DIED.

I don't want to have the same chance one of those victims had, and I for one do not want to be the equal of a Darwin Award candidate or winner. Do you?

There is NO EQUALITY in ANYTHING and legislating it is, well, stupid and silly.

oh I understand it, our People will die of starvation, unless we find a way to make replacement food and only those older naitons will even ba able to do so, I also understand that it will protect the rights of Cancer cells, HIV virus cells, Polio Cells, harmful bacterium such as the flesh eating bacteria, out people who do manage to find ways to survive in teh Pill food and recycled past diet world, will most l ikely die of infection or disease, I forsee probably two or three more generations left for humanity, and propose we begin ,while we still have people abel to do so , make a huge monument to tell future visitiors from space, or what ever race ends up acquiring sentience after we are long gone of our mistakes so they will be not foolish enough to make such silly laws dooming themselves to slow torturous death.

=-=-=
:cry:
"I weep for foolish Humanity and the Red tape that we use to strangle our children."
Ambassador Hikaru Motenai of 1 Infinite Loop, in his last address before the United Nations
as starvation and disease ravaged the world 20X6

Greetings,
If I may I would like to quote portions of this proposal which appear to be of the most concern to this assembly:

"All living beings no matter who or what they may be, have the inherent right of existence."

"We propose that all nations under the UN charter respect the very essence of life and vow to preserve and protect it, in all its many forms whether human, or otherwise."

It has been noted by that the proposer of this bit of legislation intended to include the non-human sentients of some nations under the umbrella of human rights protection. I would like to remind everyone that the vast majority of nations do not have a non-human sentient population and the wording of this proposal affects us quite differently: It leaves us watching our every step for fear of stepping on an ant, it forbids us from cleaning our refrigerators and it condems all without photosynthetic capabilities to starvation.

It is all well and good to explain what was meant when these words were written, but if this proposal is enforced we will be held to the wording of this document and not to the intentions behind it.

However, since this proposal will probably pass due to the touchy-feely niceness it projects to the casual reader (who will not actually think before exercising their franchise) I have a simple request for the next proposal:
Please do not give my goldfish the right to vote - if the cat gets him I may be accused of election tampering.

oh I understand it,
"I weep for foolish Humanity and the Red tape that we use to strangle our children."
Ambassador Hikaru Motenai of 1 Infinite Loop, in his last address before the United Nations
as starvation and disease ravaged the world 20X6

You give yourself too much credit, cancer and many other examples of your post DO harm, try not too be too hasty when you want to be critical.

Do Not Over-Analyze this, you must not look into this resolution too deeply it means exactly what it says...

Some have mentioned that there are resolutions that have been put in place that address some of the issues, I disagree.

The End Slavery resolution had been specific to declare the following:
..."I propose that the following human rights "...

I'm sure you have noticed that more then just some nations in this cyber-created world aren't even human fiction or non, real or imaginary who’s to say here? I have seen nations inhabited by talking beasts, vampires, elves, dwarves, (such as ours)...We feel that our nation is not under the protection of the past resolution and this is an amendment to that.

Also,

There are two more resolutions that are being Retro-Amended of a sort to include ALL (Key word), that is the Sexual Freedom resolution, and the Gay Rights resolution. The former resolution asks for sexual privacy within one's home out of reach of the state...and the latter asks for recognition of marriages and unions from the government. Don't get me wrong these were very VERY good resolutions that were much needed, but, I do have to say that our simply stated yet very effective proposal, asks for the banishment of the archaic Government usage and practice of sexual categorization based on bias. The government should not have to recognize a gay marriage for example, because with the passage of our proposal such a thing would not be allowed a categorization, marriages between two (in some cultures more) life energies is all it should be considered...a union, a marriage, that's all. Not a gay marriage or straight marriage. This bi-lateral recognition only breeds hatred, prejudice, bigotry and is only good for creating a schism between people.

I have brought this to the floor now, because looking at the proposals that are pending approval from MEMBER Nations, and Regional Delegates alike, the sense of this attitude of hatred and inequality is the norm for these nations, and if they feel that way great, but they should be asked to step down from UN member status.

Our great nation, like many that you would find congregating in many regions, have more then just a human populace if any inhabit them at all, and we are member states of the UN, and wish to be recognized as well. Even the category of the proposal states Human Rights...well those rights need to extend to ALL...human or otherwise.

For those nations that think that the wording is incorrect, first I ask again do not over-analyze this proposal. The individual governments have the rights to a degree of flexible interpretations and the UN therefore must be careful not to become too specific in details and not allow for such interpretive rights.

However, we understand your confusion, and to clarify, the language need not be changed. For the simplicity of the original wording is exactly what you want it to say. The key word is BEINGS. The choice of that word is not accidental, it was used after I researched the many definitions of the word and the following best commutes that meaning:

Being (Be"ing), n.
2. That which exists in any form, whether it be corporeal or spiritual, actual or ideal that understands and has a sense of "being v." acknowledges its existence and that of others; living existence, as distinguished from a thing without life; as, a human being; spiritual beings.
2a.Sentient

I believe also that the meaning of harm is simple. Every nation has it's own moral beliefs and if sex in the streets is not harming anyone then so it may be. However, if your government is ruled by a religous leader or follow a religous doctrine, well then sex in the streets may be viewed as someone infringing on the rights of those who do not wish to see that sort of thing and can be viewed as harmful to them. Such things are up to the individual government. Harm is again a word that was researched and the following definition was common from many different sources.

Harm (härm), n.
1. Any physical damage to the body caused by violence or accident or fracture etc.
5. Inflicted mental distress with measurable results such as psychological and or physical apparitions.

Again, the definition was explained above, and unless the nation is inhabited by or ruled by a species that is sentient (ie., talking cows, vampires that become bats, or insert creature here) then I don't see how animal rights activists can use this proposal for meat consumption banning. In fact I personally find animal activists to be hypocrites in the sense that they ask to ban meat eating but some species are carnivorous by NATURE, and is needed for their survival including most animals, and being that sentient species such as the human race for example, are technically animals... then they must respect that fact of NATURE. Human beings, on the other hand, are NOT by nature cannibals, although some societies live and thrive as such the killing of their own species is widely considered immoral, but that is not what I should be getting into.

As to the concern of anti-abortion activism, this cannot be used to abolish or outlaw abortion. For one thing it is not proven scientifically when the fetus gains the consciousness needed to be considered a sentient being, and although it is a life force, it's a life force created by the mother and father, and as such can be reabsorbed into the maternal life force, in fact all life can be said to return or be absorbed into the metaphysical cycle. Therefore again the answer to your question is no.

I hope to have answered all your questions in a courteous manner. Feel free to contact me directly if you wish me to address any other concerns.




Respectfully,
Emperor Dalith

oh I understand it,
"I weep for foolish Humanity and the Red tape that we use to strangle our children."
Ambassador Hikaru Motenai of 1 Infinite Loop, in his last address before the United Nations
as starvation and disease ravaged the world 20X6

You give yourself too much credit, cancer and many other examples of your post DO harm, try not too be too hasty when you want to be critical.

they harm alright but under your proposal we cannot prevent or treat them, and they will ravage the poor persons ifected with them as while we cannot treat them, the diseases do not obey the law, and any attempt to enforce the law would violate thier right to life.

Plague bombs at the ready.

According to Webster's dictionary, the meaning of sentient is "responsive to or conscious of sense impressions". That would classify all things that are alive and respond to external stimuli as "beings". In the future, you might consider using an Unabridged dictionary in your research.

You obviously skipped my above post. Your use of "beings" in the proposal did nothing but confuse you. "beings" refers, by definition, to any life form that reacts to stimuli. By relying on such an unclear method of conveying meaning you ended up saying something you did not mean.

I suggest you vote against this proposal and come back with a revision that clearly and completely says what you intend, instead of simply saying the wrong thing.

Does harming a being include aborting a foetus? I think the wording of this resolution needs to be far more specific about what is included before I can vote. I like the concept of the resolution, but I agree with the right to choose to abort, and I am concerned that supporting this resolution may end that right.

While the current resolution of "Equality for All" is a noble one... it is nothing that can be enforced. Life is suffering -- each moment, we should not be apologizing for any repercussions we impose on others.

Representative from United Middle-Earth,

In your arguments in favor of your proposal, you often rely on definitions of words. The Federation of the 510 Techcropolis finds it highly suspicious that within your own arguments you gloss over many other definitions, for example going from 1 to 5 for harm, and omitting 2-4. More importantly, other nations have pointed out that other definitions do indeed suggest a different manifestation of the resolution than you intended.

You have asked us to not examine your resolution in depth, or as you put it, "Do Not Over-Analyze this, you must not look into this resolution too deeply[. It] means exactly what it says[.] ". Representing a state that staunchly supports freedom of speech, I will not let my nation's views be suppressed. Although you presumably intended well, the wording is dangerous, and will be invoked in courts of law around the world by those who do not choose to entertain your request over their own self interest.

Verily, this resolution threatens to move the world closer to a disutopia, and certainly has caused dozens, if not closer to a three digit figure of nations to leave the UN, thereby escaping all UN laws. If the resolution passes, those that remain in the UN will have major political battles over the following issues, whether you want them to or not: food, meat (separate, as there have been arguments for all food, including plants, besides just meat), medicine, abortion, euthanasia, as well as a plethora of more complex issues created by the following section in the resolution:
-----
"-All living beings no matter who or what they may be, have the inherent right of existence.

That they may live as they see fit as long as they do not cause harm to another."
----
This prevents the government from interfering with however an individual has chosen to live, until such a time as the individual has "[caused] harm to another." This allows for individuals to: conspire against the government and each other; to refuse to pay taxes; to drive their vehicles however they want, including going 80 mph next to an elementary school, which only becomes a crime upon running over a child; for that matter, to discount all traffic regulations, which would result in massive traffic jams and accidents; to ignore leash laws, requests for information/identification, obeying the police, and thousands of minor laws, ordinances, and regulations designed to allow for a necessary amount of order in societies. The potentially worst impact will be on crime prevention, as nothing can be done until after the crime has been committed, such as in the case of a person trespassing with a loaded shotgun, but without damaging any property in the process, and entering a household, still without causing any harm to the property, and then finds the family, and shoots them. Yes, the criminal would have harmed them, certainly in a physical way, but not necessarily in a mental way, if he were to have snuck up on the first one without having been seen. By the time the first bit of physical harm has been done, and the police can be summoned, it will be too late for the rest of the family.

Several of the afforementioned examples I suspect you will try to defend with the concept of mental harm, but I remind you of two ways that make your argument poor. The first is that many of these things can be done without being detected, in which case there is no mental harm done. The second is that mental harm is a very subjective concept, as different people will respond differently. Indeed, there will be people claiming mental harm from nearly every sort of event. It is conceivable that a spiritual person who sadly looses their faith in God due to a combination of circumstance and the arguments of an athiest could indeed make a legal claim that the athiest has mentally harmed him or her, that he or she has lost her faith in God without wishing to. Your resolution, despite what you intend, would make the converted person legally right, and suddenly societies would find their freedom of speech and religion severely impacted, as arguing one's beliefs could get one sent to prison.

Therefore, I implore you to act to withdraw your resolution until such a time as you can re-word it in such a way as to soundly guard against the serious technical issues it currently would create. I recommend circulating a proposed wording before even re-submitting. For an edit, send it to your wisest objectors, for they are the ones who can give you the greatest perspective on what needs an alteration so as to only result in the desired effect, if passed. The vast majority of those who are voting against your resolution are not against your general intent, but to the situations that would arise due to its actual wording.

If you label a cat as a dog, it is still just a cat.

-Speaker of the Federation

"-All living beings no matter who or what they may be, have the inherent right of existence. "

(And before you ask, yes I DO participate in Student Congress in debate.)

The term being is very loose because you did not define it in your resolution. What you should have done is:

Whereas a living being is defined as sentient human life...

But because you didn't this resolution is fatally flawed and far too open for interpretation. Being can be defined outside of the "I Think therefor I am" classification, because everything in the universe has a state of being and therefor anything alive (paramecium for example), is a living being.

So that's why I voted against it. If passed, this resolution would give cows, rats, viruses, ameobas, etc. rights and that doesn't work at all.

Another problem has just popped into my mind. Not only does this resolution cover the banning of meat eating, he also brings in gay rights. The plan (by his own words) is to abolish words from the language so that their would be no opportunity to oppose them because a word to classify them no longer exists.

Why not also banish terms that distinguish each race from the other to prevent racism? Why not banish terms that distinguish animals from humans to prevent animal cruelty? Why do it in favour of homosexuals?

Why not? Because its a bad idea.

This seems very Orwellian to me. The destruction of language leads to the destruction of thought and therefore leads to oppression and shepherding of the masses. Now, you seem to be someone in favour of ideal government, does this sound ideal to you? 1984 hardly described an ideal government.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

Main Entry: [1]be·ing
Pronunciation: 'bE(-i)[ng]
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : LIFE
2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : ESSENCE; especially : PERSONALITY
3 : a living thing; especially : PERSON

Pronunciation Key

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

Daishin's vote against Equality For All has been noted.
^That makes me feel so bad...but I'm not giving up use of Anti-biotics, and such, especially meat eating which my country seems to have frowned upon /:

So what? Is this resolution coming out against abortion and stem cell research? Technically a human fetus is a part of life, but I don't want to deny the people of my country the right to make their own decisions about their body. I think this needs to be clarified above all else.

So what? Is this resolution coming out against abortion and stem cell research? Technically a human fetus is a part of life, but I don't want to deny the people of my country the right to make their own decisions about their body. I think this needs to be clarified above all else.

Yes, it would eliminate abortion and stem cell research. The creator's argument against it employs the use of arguments based on his religious beliefs (metaphysical cycles).

He quotes only parts of definitions here, but the definitions are not in the resolution, making his definitions worthless.

That the aparthied inspired classification of sexual preference be erradicated from being used within the confines of government terminology.
What does this actually mean? What does it do? If I understand it right it says that the goverment shouldn't classify people as heterosexuals and/or homosexuals. If that's the case, we support it.


Agreed -- if it is limited to classification issues. Dendrys holds that forcing people to identify as either heterosexual or homosexual, or for that matter either male or female, is a form of discrimination in that it does not permit true self-expression and relies on very shaky assumptions about how much of a person's identity is shaped by chromosomes, organs and sexuality.

However, not permitting the government to collect data about (for example) where homosexual people prefer to live and where there are very few of them, or about how many of them are employed as opposed to heterosexuals, or how many crimes are being committed against homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals in a particular area, is simply opening the door for discrimination to occur unchecked.

"Very essence of life and vow to preserve and protect it, in all its many forms whether human, or otherwise."

Unless you define life as something that can only belong to intelligent beings than you definitely need to clarify your diction.

We agree with the previously articulated positions in opposition. In the interests of further civilization and the continuance of life as we know it, Goobergunchia casts its 17 votes AGAINST this resolution.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

So let me get this straight. Even though you KNOW that your people wont be able to eat anything--this being animal, plant, and fungi, and you KNOW that this resolution is all-encompassing to the extent that even bacteria are going to be protected and thus if one gets an infection he, she, or it will not be able to receive treatment, you are still adamant in your "pro-stance?!" This is complete idiocy! In voting yes you are also condeming all the other UN Members to death! How can you justify yourself? You, sirs, are completely ignorant to your country and the world!


~The Premier of Girtopia

Does any other intelligent person here find it interesting that even though we've been told to take the resoultion as it means, the wording of the resolution here has been changed from what it says on the docket?

Per the docket it states, and I quote...
We propose that all nations under the UN charter respect the very essence of life and vow to preserve and protect it, in all its many forms whether human, or otherwise.

Nowhere does it says sentient, or 'beings', it says 'life', as well as 'in all its many forms whether human, or otherwise.'

Now my fellow members have brought to the discussion the facts that viruses, and bacteria are recognized forms of life. Ok, so if someone takes some cold medicine after this resoultion is passed, they get kicked out of the UN? Have a Trade Embargo employed on them? Punished?

How about this...what about fire?

As I have stated at another discussion, fire is considered alive and by defination of 'alive' it is. Here's why :

-It is born : a spark on tinder makes a flame
-It grows : a small fire speards and becomes larger. Size depends on available material for it to ignite.
-It consumes : fire needs oxygen. It consumes oxygen akin to an American eating fast food..quickly and wanting more.
-It reproduces : fires can and do create smaller fires that can and do grow and creat smaller fires of their own. Ask the people of California.
-It dies : as all living things, it dies.

Now each member of the UN will get ejected from the UN. How? Easy, how do you cook things? Most people do not use microwaves. They uses stoves. Some are propane stoves. Some people cook over an open fire or grill. Therefore, knowingly using fire to do one's bidding without giving equal payment for services rendered, the fire falls under 'slave labor' and thus violates the resoultion.

I feel that the resolution be removed and worded properly. Make it clear and not so freely open for different interpitations.This way, it can be properly voted on.

If not, then all parties knowingly involved in it's creation should be brought before the UN Security Council for questioning, because as it stands, this resolution can, could and will more than likely be used to topple the UN.

For the record, my country voted NO.

-Jon McKenna
Chairman of The Republic of Necrotasia

We agree with the previously articulated positions in opposition. In the interests of further civilization and the continuance of life as we know it, Goobergunchia casts its 17 votes AGAINST this resolution.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

in response to Goobergnuchia's post i will state that Infinite Loop, casts 332 votes Against theis resolution

=-=
Hikaru Motenai
UN Ambassadorial representative to the UN
Infinite Loop

The resolution is losing now!

Praise be to Moses!

Something exists that I can agree with Francos Spain on! It's a sign of the apocalypse!

*ducks under his desk* :D

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

"We propose that all nations under the UN charter respect the very essence of life and vow to preserve and protect it, in all its many forms whether human, or otherwise. "

There has been a good deal of opportunistic propaganda and mindless panic about this simple sentence. Our regional UN headquarters has in fact received so many hair-brained telegrams (from nations outside of our region we might add) to the effect that this is some fiendish plot to eradicate all life in the universe that we have taken to sending them back unread.

First things first: The UN does not have the authority to eradicate all life in the universe.

Now on to the matter of the import of these thirty-one simple words. What fool would interpret a ban on all life propagating processes as a fulfillment of a "vow to preserve and protect [life], in all its many forms whether human, or otherwise?"

The fools who have been swamping us with mindless gibberish apparently. To fulfill this 'vow', the nations of the world would certainly have to look at more environmentally sustainable paradigms for industry and agriculture, protect endangered species and commit to safe renewable energy sources. But outlaw eating? How would this "preserve and protect [life], in all its many forms whether human, or otherwise?"

Folks such as the author of the ironically named 'common sense' resolution seem to lack this crucial faculty.

Eugene V. Debs Lerner,
of the University at Port Bakunin

Your repetition is boring me Eugene.

However, I feel this requires a response. UN resolutions have the power of legislation. Now, knowing the lawyer's amazing propensity for finding loopholes and then blowing them wide open into gaping chasms causes governments to make sure that the wording of their laws are precise and with as few loopholes as possible.

Unfortunately, this resolution has no loopholes. They're just Grand Canyons. There are so many different interpretations from the extreme case of fire as a living being to assuming that all will understand the creator's original intentions. The fact that so many different interpretations exist in the first place is what makes this resolution unacceptable.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

exactly, way too many intepretations

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

"We propose that all nations under the UN charter respect the very essence of life and vow to preserve and protect it, in all its many forms whether human, or otherwise. "

There has been a good deal of opportunistic propaganda and mindless panic about this simple sentence. Our regional UN headquarters has in fact received so many hair-brained telegrams (from nations outside of our region we might add) to the effect that this is some fiendish plot to eradicate all life in the universe that we have taken to sending them back unread.

First things first: The UN does not have the authority to eradicate all life in the universe.

Now on to the matter of the import of these thirty-one simple words. What fool would interpret a ban on all life propagating processes as a fulfillment of a "vow to preserve and protect [life], in all its many forms whether human, or otherwise?"

The fools who have been swamping us with mindless gibberish apparently. To fulfill this 'vow', the nations of the world would certainly have to look at more environmentally sustainable paradigms for industry and agriculture, protect endangered species and commit to safe renewable energy sources. But outlaw eating? How would this "preserve and protect [life], in all its many forms whether human, or otherwise?"

Folks such as the author of the ironically named 'common sense' resolution seem to lack this crucial faculty.

Eugene V. Debs Lerner,
of the University at Port Bakunin

31 simple words, the Neo Nazis base their entire existance upon 14 simple words, simple words can lead to complicated problems,
and these 31 will lead to the nothing of which you speak, Nothing left on the planet as the entire populace dies of starvation and diesese.

Your repetition is boring me Eugene.

However, I feel this requires a response. UN resolutions have the power of legislation. Now, knowing the lawyer's amazing propensity for finding loopholes and then blowing them wide open into gaping chasms causes governments to make sure that the wording of their laws are precise and with as few loopholes as possible.

Unfortunately, this resolution has no loopholes. They're just Grand Canyons. There are so many different interpretations from the extreme case of fire as a living being to assuming that all will understand the creator's original intentions. The fact that so many different interpretations exist in the first place is what makes this resolution unacceptable.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

Why does everyone have a fixation on Loop's Holes!

er... loop's holes my friend?

-_-;; me thinks 1 Infinite loop has gone crazy....

What are you people arguing about, you have taken this issue and spun it so many ways that you are arguing your own creations. I state symbiosis, the life cycle which includes death, and more importantly the word being, an amoeba is not a being contrary to the belief of those riding the chariots screaming death and destruction! This has nothing to do with vegans and eating habits, it says quite clearly LIVE AND LET LIVE. Those who have said that we can't protect ourselves from diseases and such are you serious...listen to yourselves. You argue the points of this proposal stating that if this were the real UN, it would never have been worded in such a way. It isn't if this were the UN the proposal would have consisted of taking the floor and addressing everyone with the proposal, and the resolution when signed has an attached agreement/decree of the understood provisions and interpretations of such. This can not be done here, that is why when the proposal was first submitted, there were a couple of forum pages devoted to the topic, which explained and answered anyones questions. There were few because the delegates were asked personally by me, to visit those pages before voting on the topic...that is why it was passed because people did their homework. The UN members had the responsibility, and obligation to do the same, but some nations, instead of getting their "homework" done...or maybe for whatever hidden agenda decided to create mass-hysteria, and scream the "end of the world". Do your research seek out the agreed understanding of this proposal without falling victim to this nonesense of hysterics. Search the chat strings for my nations' name if you have to, but be informed!!!!

Emperor Dalith

Please join me in this chat portal on real discussion, truth, and perhaps enlightenment for all (including myself) on this proposal.

http://pub42.bravenet.com/chat/show.php/3557937850

Respectfully,
Emperor Dalith

Excuse me,

I think the simple sum up of this resolution is that it is far to ambiguos in its terminology and definitions, and allthough I am all sure we respect what its creator set out to do, create a resolution that surely effects HUMAN BEINGS, IN A SENSIBLE AND REALISTIC AND PURPOSEFUL WAY, AND SO AID COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN NATIONS WHICH WAS WHAT THE ORIGINAL U.N. WAS FOUNDED FOR, NOT TO HOP ABOUT PLACATING THE SAD LITTLE EGO'S OF NATIONS LEADERS, WHO ARE SO EAGER TO CREATE THEIR OWN, WELL, TEMPORARY IMMORTALITY ON THE HISTRY BOOKS OF THE PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED RESOLUTIONS, BEACUSE THAT ! THAT ! IS WHAT THIS APPEARS TO BE, AND IT IS A SAD DAY FOR THE U.N. AND ITS MEMBERS WHAEN SUCH A SAD EXCUSE FOR A PROPOSAL CAN BE ALLOWED ONTO THE FLOOR, AND *NEARLY* SLIP PAST US, WHEN WE CAN ONLY THANK THE STARS THAT THERE ARE SHARP WITTED PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO READ IT FOR WHAT IT WAS.

And with that, the Rep of Komokom realises he left CAPS on for all that, heh, heh, heh . . . :oops:

A slightly embarassed Rep of Komokom thanks you for your time.

Please join me in this chat portal on real discussion, truth, and perhaps enlightenment for all (including myself) on this proposal Equality For All.

Monday November 17th, 2003...7pm EST (12am GMT)

http://pub42.bravenet.com/chat/show.php/3557937850

Please join me in this chat portal on real discussion...

You've posted this EIGHTEEN TIMES and even started threads with it. I'm going to go DoS the hell out of your board and get it shut down. If you want to inspire rage and get everyone to vote against your proposal, this is a great start. Not to mention you've re-posted many other things more than five times each. You are spamming the UN boards, and nobody appreciates it.

Anyway, your proposal states more than once that it protects all living things - "human or otherwise". Taking the extra three or four words to describe the protected as sentient beings would not have required a "decree of the understood provisions". You blew it, and that's why it's getting voted down now.

the cataogory says "human rights" so whatever is stated in this resolution just effects human beings...if it says "human, or otherwise.." it just means that there is a need to protect any living being as a race not every single life form out there. i just can not understand why everyone panics and spams everyone elses inbox...just think before you start a polemical debate.

many thanks in advance,
HQ of Wedontcare

It all depends on which bit of the definition you use. The author has made it clear that the definition to which the resolution refers is the one i've bolded here (this same dictionary quote was used earlier to argue against the resolution):

Main Entry: [1]be·ing
Pronunciation: 'bE(-i)[ng]
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : LIFE
2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : ESSENCE; especially : PERSONALITY
3 : a living thing; especially : PERSON

Pronunciation Key

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

No doubt someone will dredge up another dictionary definition to prove that conscious covers everything, but come on people, this isn't real life, we all know what the author means why can't we just accept that interpretation?

As I have stated at another discussion, fire is considered alive and by defination of 'alive' it is. Here's why :

-It is born : a spark on tinder makes a flame
-It grows : a small fire speards and becomes larger. Size depends on available material for it to ignite.
-It consumes : fire needs oxygen. It consumes oxygen akin to an American eating fast food..quickly and wanting more.
-It reproduces : fires can and do create smaller fires that can and do grow and creat smaller fires of their own. Ask the people of California.
-It dies : as all living things, it dies.

Now each member of the UN will get ejected from the UN. How? Easy, how do you cook things? Most people do not use microwaves. They uses stoves. Some are propane stoves. Some people cook over an open fire or grill. Therefore, knowingly using fire to do one's bidding without giving equal payment for services rendered, the fire falls under 'slave labor' and thus violates the resoultion.

One of the criteria for the scientific definition of life is sensitivity - in this context, this means reacting to stimuli according to some kind of behavioural pattern, and although you might claim that fire reacts to water by going out, you could just as easily say that paper reacts to scissors by being cut.

Once again, however, "interpretation" is the issue. Even looking internally at the resolution, United Middle-Earth seems to interpret the resolution in no obviously consistent way. To understand what the resolution "truly" means, and how it "ought" to be interpreted, would in effect require United Middle-Earth to be the arbiter of interpretation for it. The RCO does not like the idea of one nation having that much power in the UN. If that option isn't taken, then the interpretation issue becomes intense again. What United Middle-Earth intends the resolution to mean should be clear. Rhetoric and poetry can afford to be vague and broad. Resolutions and legal documents cannot.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

United Middle-Earth, you're just denying reality. You're denying the reality of your failure at creating a viable UN resolution, you're denying the fact that your resolution would result in the end of civilization (at least for UN nations), you're denying the fact that the resolution is far too vague to be instituted, and you're denying the fact that the late surge of "against" votes have saved the world for us all.

Submit your resolution again once you clarify it so that it can't be misinterpreted and so it does what you want it to do. Of course I still wouldn't vote for it simply because of the lack of necessity for it, but that's just me.

One of the criteria for the scientific definition of life is sensitivity - in this context, this means reacting to stimuli according to some kind of behavioural pattern, and although you might claim that fire reacts to water by going out, you could just as easily say that paper reacts to scissors by being cut.

Well the point of my post was to show that there are different definations per person when no set defination is used. Firemen worldwide refer to fire as "the beast".

An better example is religion. 1000s of different ones, few are alike. All have their own opinions. Even in religion there are differences of definations like what is moral and what isnt, what can be forgiven and what cant. Trying to make everyone equal would in fact also lead to religious wars because how can you justify, say, making jews and islams eat pork because Catholics and Shinto-taoists do?

See the point?

Clarification was needed prior to the proposal even being thought of sent to the floor for a vote.

By it's own wording and even the so called 'amended' wording, UME's region would have to be torn apart since 6 of the 15 nations show un-equality in their ideals about their own nations.

Clarification was needed prior to the proposal even being thought of sent to the floor for a vote.


And this, quite frankly, is the only issue. Whether the writer of this proposal had benevolent intentions or no, if he/she truly wanted to pass, he/she should have put forth the effort beforehand to make the proposal unambiguous.

What the United Middle-Earth proposes is admirable but I'd rather not have others who've never been to my country nor seen my culture make decisions about the kingdom I control. I'm all for the UN but in the end I rule my country, not the UN.