NationStates Jolt Archive

The upcoming UN resolution, Equality for all, is so loosely worded, it is illogical and impossible to implement. I will explain:

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.

-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. 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.

That the aparthied inspired classification of sexual preference be erradicated from being used within the confines of government terminology.

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.

Not once in this proposal is there any mention of the kind of life that is to be deemed sacred. This proposal gives as much protection to mosquitoes as it does humans (or elves, dwarves, and whatever other fantasy races the author was intending to protect with it).

In simple terms, all UN nations will be required to ban the killing of all living things, including deadly bacteria, viruses, insects; not to mention lifestock and plants. All edible plants are forms of sacred life, too, so what the hell are we going to eat?

The only way for this proposal to work would be to erradicate all forms of life, as all life feeds on other forms of life, whether plant or animal, so if no life is allowed to be killed, no life is able to survive. It's the ultimate Catch 22!

I suggest this proposal be rewritten to specifically protect sentient beings, and not every last microbe in existence.

well your in luck a virus isn't considered alive, so i guess we're gonna have to find a way to eat those

Well, green plants will survive.

That is until our guru gets through with you guys and convinces you that there is even live in things that so far have been considered dead matter :P

This proposal must not be passed. Spread the word.

In simple terms, all UN nations will be required to ban the killing of all living things, including deadly bacteria, viruses, insects; not to mention lifestock and plants. All edible plants are forms of sacred life, too, so what the hell are we going to eat?

The only way for this proposal to work would be to erradicate all forms of life, as all life feeds on other forms of life, whether plant or animal, so if no life is allowed to be killed, no life is able to survive. It's the ultimate Catch 22!

I suggest this proposal be rewritten to specifically protect sentient beings, and not every last microbe in existence.

Allow me to first say that I am still sitting on the fence do to the poor wording of this law, and I will try to be unbiased. I will fail, undoubtedly, but I will attempt to capture all angles.

Although your point is valid, cutting it to sentient beings may limit the proposal to humans exclusively, possibly including a few species of 'intelligent' animals.

In all seriousness: Though but an animated cartoon, the movie The Lion King brings about an interesting point with regard to this issue. The proposal states that one must respect a being's right to live, which, in my opinion and the opinion of the 'king of beasts', does not impact hunting for food, as this is part of the food chain and the cycle of life; without these vital gears, nature could not exist.

The issues undoubtedly adressed in the proposal are those such as hunting for sport. Stripping an animal of its being only for it to be stuffed and mounted as a trophy is not only wasteful, but inhumane, and has caused the extinction of many species. Whether this could be extended to issues such as production of veal, and potentially to raising cows in captivity to be slaughtered... well, I am not sure, although I cannot rejoice enough that I am human and not the baby calf starved until finally being killed or the elephant with tusks cut past the nerve.

This is my perspective on the situation. Although loosely worded, the proposal is not altogether invalid. How I will vote, I have yet to decide - I have more reading to do.

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.

-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. 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.

That the aparthied inspired classification of sexual preference be erradicated from being used within the confines of government terminology.

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.

Greetings:

With all due respect to United Middle-Earth, this resolution, when it comes up for a vote, must not be passed. The representative of Fantasan shows very well how the wording of the proposal is problematic at best.

First, (as Fantasan has pointed out) the broad verbal strokes this proposal uses makes it impossible to enforce, unless it is believed that the police of our nations should start investigating spiders for homicide every time they catch a fly. "Life" is used so broadly as to become practically meaningless: no rightly-ordered state would make laws so lacking in specifics.

Second, United Middle-Earth, in this proposal, uses a rather odd method of interpretation. The proposal states that every life has an inherent right to existence. But two sentences later, this mere right to existence transforms into a right against slavery. A life can still exist while enslaved, and logically it is not necessary for an inherent right to life to be a free life. The Royal Commonwealth despises slavery, and certainly would like to see it eradicated. However, the proposal makes no specific claim on freedom, only life. It requires a large amount of interpretive jujitsu to find more than life in it.

Which leads to the third major problem. Continuing on in this odd way of reading the proposal, in the second-to-last sentence, United Middle-Earth has called for the end to the "aparthied inspired classification of sexual preference" in government terminology. If executions are not occurring, this has to do with a right to life in what way? Moreover, perhaps United Middle-Earth is unaware of the earlier UN resolution (fought against strongly by the Royal Commonwealth, but passed) regarding the homosexual question. Finally, the proposed resolution mentions that United Middle-Earth's peoples "respect eachother's cultures". The Royal Commonwealth is aligned with the Roman Catholic Church - we do not have a strict separation of church and state. Our culture finds homosexuality to be problematic. Homosexuals are not executed, are not jailed, but they do face social pressures. This is our way. Will United Middle-Earth not respect our culture? Or does it only respect those cultures that are like its own?

The proposed resolution is too broad and vague to be made a UN law. Moreover, as the internal interpretation by United Middle-Earth shows, it is vulnerable to being abused by any activist nation seeking to make its own values and mores those of the international community. When this proposal comes forward for a vote, the Royal Commonwealth will vote against.

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

I will be succinct. This resolution is stupid. Animals were made to be eaten. They aren't human so they don't have rights.

Animals are... hmm. People with neural dysfunction have no free will or other qualities usually considered 'human', therefore I think I will eat them! They are not sentient! They are only human on the outside, so why should laws protect them? There is more function in a cow's brain than in this person's, thereby this person is meat for the rest of us, and more conveient to slaughter. Alien races aren't human either. Honestly, that doesn't say to me, "Eat me!"

By the same logic, black people aren't white, so they don't have rights, as far as the white man - me, for example - is concerned. Great! We can eat them- or better yet, enslave them! That's the easy way to go, right? since everything was made to serve the dominant people? Humanity has been 'enlighened' in this respect, hasn't it? Kill a man without reason, you're no longer human; kill two, ten, or fifty dolphins- you're a rich businessman! Do people still believe everything is only here to serve humanity?

While there are excellent points to be made with respect to the ethical and humane treatment of animals, the simple fact is that they are not sentient. Wishful thinking and fantasy aside, when it comes down to preserving 10 cows, or feeding 100 humans, clearly the cows are gonna die.

While New Clarkhall beleives that the controls on the treatment of animals is a valid point for debate, when comparing the basic welfare of humans with the welfare of animals, there is no point for debate.

As for the resolution itself, New Clarkhall strongly opposes it based on its wording. First of all, we were under the impression that there were no 'alients' extraterrestrials and other 'fantastic' creatures in NS (which is after all supposed to be a Real world sim). Thus, the only right to existence we can respect with any degree of sanity, is that of humans.

The resolution is plainly nonsensical as it seems to ban the taking of all and any life, from man to bacterium. This is just plain lunacy. New Clarkhall stands opposed to this resolution.