NationStates Jolt Archive

I think a few too many liberties have been taken in your interpretation of this proposal.

The proposal notes the symbiotic relationship between organisims. Apparently none of you know what that means. And you seem to like it that way.

A symbiotic relationship is one in which all organisims are in someway dependant on each other for some sort of service. Humans depend on plants for oxygen, some bacteria depend on their hosts to supply them with energy, and, most importantly, most animals depend on other amimals for food.

What this proposal suggests is that no genocides occur. Which isn't too horrible a proposition.

I also note that the proposal allows for exceptions in self-defence. So anti-viral and anti-bacterial products may still exist.

In closing, you guys have completley and entierly over-exaggerated the negative effects of this proposal, and even invented a few.

I personally find nothing wrong with it.

I think a few too many liberties have been taken in your interpretation of this proposal.

The proposal notes the symbiotic relationship between organisims. Apparently none of you know what that means. And you seem to like it that way.

A symbiotic relationship is one in which all organisims are in someway dependant on each other for some sort of service. Humans depend on plants for oxygen, some bacteria depend on their hosts to supply them with energy, and, most importantly, most animals depend on other amimals for food.

What this proposal suggests is that no genocides occur. Which isn't too horrible a proposition.

I also note that the proposal allows for exceptions in self-defence. So anti-viral and anti-bacterial products may still exist.

In closing, you guys have completley and entierly over exaggerated the negative effects of this proposal, and even invented a few.

I personally find nothing wrong with it.
God the most niave kof newbies. I'm sorry but it protects the right of all life to exist, but eating isn't self-defense is it? I will yeild to you in the self-defense part but it says nothing about eating and simple cleanliness. And since bacteria require hosts, it could be considered that they are on the defensive we must recognize their right to live. I'm sorry this policy is bad in too many ways.

Wrong. What one might consider 'mass genocides' are part of the delicate balance of nature. Humans are on top of the food chain. That's how things work.

If one removes an element from nature, or introduces a new element, it can have horrible consequences.

Unless all UN Citizens kill their food in self defense, this resolution must be defeated.

-Brian Wells, Enviromental Advisor
The Commonwealth of Cowes

You are the one misreading it my small friend, it clearly says all living things right to live must be reconized, this means no abortion, no meat eating, no euthansia, no antibiotics, no killing anything! No war, no death penalty. I give my citizens all these rights, this resolution shuts down all that and makes eating illegal!!!!

Oh look...another one.

Try to read the entire document before you rebut it. Or, mabye respond to the entire document instead of just the parts you think you can respond to.

Did you miss the part about symbiotic relationships?

Also, eating IS self-defence beacuse if you eat, you don't die.

Bacteria can be dangerous to the host, so therefore it is self-defence to bathe.

Mass genocides carried out by humans are rarley accidental.

It doesn't matter how one might interpret this resolution, as it is open to dozens of different ways of interpretation, because it is vague and unclear.

A new resolution that is clear and purely on HUMAN rights should be proposed.

-Frank Lindemann, UN Ambassador
The Commonwealth of Cowes

What about buldozing forest to mine, what about war, what about hunting for recreation. This resolution is trying to turn my proud free state inot a dictatorship, those arent symbiotic at all, so therefore illegal. This will cripple my economy and take away the peoples rights!!!!-

Oh look...another one.

Try to read the entire document before you rebut it. Or, mabye respond to the entire document instead of just the parts you think you can respond to.

Did you miss the part about symbiotic relationships?

Also, eating IS self-defence beacuse if you eat, you don't die.

Bacteria is dangerous to the host, so therefore it is self-defence to bathe.
I'm sorry it doesn't work like that and yes we all have read the entire docuement. Don't you understand eating isn't isn't defined as self-defense. Self-defense is only protection from physical harm via fighting not simply eating. You are misreading, and making assumptions.

One of the things that the resolution IS clear on is the mention of self-defence. That has already been adressed.

ummmm uranium mining isnt self defense, and war isnt always either, so you just answered absolutely none of my questions.

One of the things that the resolution IS clear on is the mention of self-defence. That has already been adressed.
Except you are misinterpreting self-defense.

Don't you get it? It's a trick to kill the entire UN.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

And eating is not considered "self-defense". If it were, then my hunting down an animal (say, a cute little rabbit) for sport is also "self-defense". I'm defending my right to have fun. It's *definitely* symbiotic. The plants now benefit from its rotting carcass and not being eaten by it, and I had my fun. :roll:

things that arent self defense, thereby illegal in this resolution: Recreational hunting, Mining, Lumber industry, euthenasia, abortion, some wars, etc

War can be self-defence, and Castivo will not condone any act that instigates war.

Uranium mining over forests shouldn't happen anyways. But I suppose it could be considered self-defence of one's economy.

Abortion is also self-defence in that it can save someone's life and it can protect a life from ruin.

Hunting for recreation I will not condone either, but in some cases governments will open hunting for recreation on species that are dominating an area, to protect other species.

under your logic i could say slavery is self defense of my economy or that genocide is the self defense of my culture. Look at things your way and anything is open :roll:

laws against Homosexuality can be interpreted as self defense of Moralism to religious fundamentalists. Why do you even bother with this resolution if it's so open to interpretation?

Riiight. The UN is going to determine what is self-defence, no?

That requires another resolution. :P

Which demonstrates again, how badly worded this resolution is, and thus, why it should not be passed.

no this resolution is supposed to do that because the resolutions are what is supposed to decide what the UN says. Unless it is written down then anything is game

The UN has full control over the enforcement of the resolution.

the resolution itself though is supposed to say what exactly the UN is enforceing, this one doesnt though. It isnt descriptive enough, anything can be assumed

Abortion is also self-defence in that it can save someone's life and it can protect a life from ruin.

Self defense is only a protection from an immediate threat. One couldn't go into a tobbaco company and kill the executives because cigarettes were slowly killing them.

Paul Lauder, Cowes Press Secretary
The Commonwealth of Cowes

The enforcement of the resolution is under the FULL control of the UN. Also, why don't you kill those cigarette executives.
Self-defence is protection from any threat.

what about killing fast food employees because they could kill you too? This resolution isnt descriptive enough

Third time,

Enforcement of the resolution is up to the UN.

One of the things that the resolution IS clear on is the mention of self-defence. That has already been adressed.

So, the eradication of another species can be deemed pre-emptive self-defense.

Or better yet, you could kill every driver on the road because they are all immdiate threats to ones life?

Fourth time,

The enforcement of the resolution is up to the UN.

Oh nooo my little friend, i am not aguring the power of the UN right now, you said why not kill the tobacco executives, I am challeging that disturbing statement

I said why not. I'm not condoning it. I happen to not like cigarette exexs.

The UN is a title, the nations are the UN so we decide how to interpet it, the UN is nothing withour its members, so it is OUR job to interpet and enforce. Thats what we are trying to do, but this isnt descriptive enough for us to do that effectivly

That was completley contradictory to your entire argument.

You are trying to interpret it? No, you were just trying show people that the resolution makes people not eat.

Sooooooo...you were trying to interpret the resolution so no one could eat?

it isnt the least bit contradictory, myself and many other nations assumed it to ban all killing, you assume it not to. How are we supposed to know what the rules are? We can both sit here and claim we are right, but it can be interpeted in many ways. I am against because it can be interpeted in ways they destroy what i am trying to make my nation, then again it could support my ways if you look at it the right way. But we do not know for sure because it doesnt clearly state what is legal and what isnt

Exactly. Which is why, for the 5th time,

The enforcement of the resolution is entierly up to the UN.

WHO IS THE UN??? We the members are! And we have no freakin clue what this means for sure, how do we know what is legal?????? FOR 2ND TIME!!!

We may define it as we like but the gamemakers ultimately are the ones who decide how it's interpreted. The real U.N.'s members are the ones who interpret. But we aren't the real U.N. thus we are under the gamemakers, plus the purposal, unless you take an incredibly loose interpretation of self-defense and a very strict intretation of the rest of the docuement it's going to be defined as no one being allowed to eat thus we all die.

You have already said that you knew how the resolution was going to be interpreted.

Several times.

You said it was going to prevent people from eating.

Ok, now you are assuming that the moderaters will kill us all.

Isn't that slightly unfair to the moderaters?

Basically my problem is it is too broad and too open for too many interprations. it could mean anything, the mods could enforce as they please, they could ban all eating, allow this ban that, WHO KNOWS?

If that was the problem behind all the rhetoric, why didn't you just ask the moderators?

Beacause I assume if they knew yet they would have said so in one of the million topics that have formed due to this resolution :lol:

The only thing that is enforced in these resolutions is the principals anyways.

You people honestly think that the moderators will kill you all?

lol no, my nation will be here in a month no matter what happens. If they banded nudity the mods wouldnt go through and force us to answer the daily issues accordinlgy. Its a matter of principle really, i mean i could claim to have chemical weps and bio weps and the mods wouldnt delete me for it.

Right. Beacuse that has no effect on political position of your nation.

I would actually want the moderators to kill all the UN nations if this passes. Of course, I would resign before the resolution passes. This way, those who voted for it would be punished for not thinking it through.

good we finally have come to an agreement here YAY! Anyways i wish the creator of this beast would come forward and state what it is supposed to do. I had question on the proposal that garuntees Union rights, and the creator immediatly addressed my concerns so that I new exactly what he ment. i wish this one would do the same and save everyone all this assuming

Wait...that doesn't explain the ongoing non-debate about declaring people's mines heritage sites. Oh well, that's not on topic.

lol damn these non descriptive resolutions!!!!!!!!!!!

Yay! (general applause)

Let us find the ambigious author.

all authors need to post what there proposal does so we can prevent these big agurements. it wouldnt take that long, then every one could know what these things actually mean

Authors should really participate in the debates about their resolutions. I imagine their arguments would be slightly more credible.

Instead, I had to defend it for him, and now we're in a rut, beacuse he hasn't explained himself.

I doubt he thought out the resolution.

There i no way for either one of us to know which assumption is right, because they are assumptions and nothing more. many proposals and resolutions are like this because many authors dont say anything, they just make it then leave it alone for the rest of time :?

I've sent the author a telegram calling him forth to this debate. I reccomend you all do the same. I won't be able to vote in good consience unless this issue is resolved.

There is an ammendment ready to limit the powers of the EFA resolution. It's called Clarification of Equality and I would urge you all to at least read it, if not support it.

good plan

Sounds interesting and does clarify the issue somewhat, but we had better let the author speak for himself.

i telegramed the dude, hopefully he will explain, i told him no one knew what he was trying to get done and i would like him to explain

OOC: We seem to be very out of character. We are not supposed to be talking about moderators etc in character. Moderators do not exist in the actual world of Nationstates.

Another point: The description means nothing to your actual country, the description is purely for roleplaying factor.

IC: The following quotes all come from Castivo.

"Bacteria is dangerous to the host, so therefore it is self-defence to bathe."

Not all bacteria is dangerous. Bacteria in our intestines help us to digest our food. There are millions of harmless bacteria on our body that die when we bathe.

"The enforcement of the resolution is under the FULL control of the UN. Also, why don't you kill those cigarette executives.
Self-defence is protection from any threat."

Cigarette smoking is a conscious choice that one makes. Therefore, you cannot kill cigarette executives for a choice that YOU made that is killing you.

"Exactly. Which is why, for the 5th time,

The enforcement of the resolution is entierly up to the UN."

Indeed, but do you know how much time that would take? THere are some 10,000ish members in the UN. Are you telling us that we need to make a tribunal to judge the individual case of each and every nation? Isn't that a waste of everybody's time? Why not just reject the ridiculous resolution.

And I agree, the creator of the resolution should defend it. There are far too many mindless supporters.

"Duh... the delegates liked it.... LEMMING MODE!"

Rad Kom (Yes, I'm back, Baron Porkonia has been cured of his psychosis.)
UN AMbassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

okay a few things here FIRST me and him have already come to the agreement that the author needs to explain, so we know what it is. SECOND You only HAVE to speak in character in the war and defense forum THIRD We already agreed that these resolutions actually have NO affect on your nation in reality
You are behind the times, please keep up

Do pardon my remark on the bacteria. I retract that statement and say that bacteria can sometimes be dangerous to the host.

I already said that I didn't condone the killing of cigarette execs, but with all the advertisement who's to say that the decision is made by the user?

The answer to the protracted UN debates is a subcommitte to handle most of the decision making.

Finally, do you realize how hard it would be to role-play in this rapid-fire debate? The whole point of the post could be lost.

Role-playing is for the international incidents sector and for personal telegrams.

My humblest apologies. And I mean that despite my next statement.

I will choose to ignore the flaming tone of that post. I refuse to be egged on by a troll.:roll:

If you really want him in here, telegram him.

we did Telegram him, and didnt mean to look like a troller. Simply wanted to control this before someone came in and still thought there was an agurement to get involved in. Many appologies good sir

The telegram has already been placed. In fact, a few telegrams have already been placed by multiple users.

I offer my condolences if my previous statement was interpreted as a flame. I did not intend that.

Gotcha :D
Stupid internet masking emotions... making it look like peeps angry when not.... er... :oops:

lol i have been on this board all night aguring about some stupid resolution, that due to its lack of details could mean the doom of my nation or more rights for the people. All because the writer of it wont come and explain it. :D

Speaking of which, look at the time. I suppose I'll check back in come morning.

lol talk to ya then I guess if anything has happened

Please visit the following forum page explaining this proposal in as much detail as possible, I stand by this word for word, and I believe that some of the cases of confusion stem from overlooking the obvious and intentional simplicity of it.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=88365&highlight=

Respectfully and Honorably,

Emperor Dalith

Haven't we already got legislation mandating everything this new proposal entails? This is a waste of time. We already have by-laws requiring us to respect individual rights and cultural heritage.

Frivolous feel-good legislation takes resources and time away from actually important issues. We've already voted to protect human rights. Let's move on. :x

This resolution goes beyond previous Human Rights rulings, it now enitles all life to the right to keep on living.

As for the "UN decides what to enforce", we are the UN, and we decide what to enforce. How do we decide? By voting on resolutions. If this joke of a resolution passes then the UN will have decided to enforce it.

What will the UN have decided to enforce?
"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."

You then assume that this means that eating would be allowed, according a balance of life. Unfortunately, this resolution does not say that. In fact, it doesn't mention the symbiotic relationships in the way mentioned earlier, only between "many different types of races and civilizations".

Why vote yes on such a badly worded piece of legislation? Why not wait for another law that actually says my people can eat? Does it take that long to get a better resolution to the vote?

The wording is intentional and correct Please visit the following forums page for understanding.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=88365

Respectfully,
Emperor Dalith

If the intention of the legislation is to prevent the taking of ANY life, whether animal, plant, fungal, bacterial, or otherwise, then I take back my accusation. This isn't frivolous legislation. It's the most incredibly stupid and poorly conceived proposal to ever be submitted.

The only part of the resolution is the protection of "ALL"! All is a very strong word, and encompasses everyone and everything in NationStates. This includes all animals, all humans, all races! If we vote yes on this resolution, we will all be forced to become vegan nations, as well as protect the tiniest creatures, including all insects, etc. As a scientist, I am all for protecting a certain amount of organisms, however, we can not take this too far! This resolution has great potential, however, there is much revision that needs to take place!! VOTE NO! on this resolution and keep your freedom of choice!

The last two resolutions that have passed have been poorly worded and, at best, ephemeral in quality. My country is now forced to "support" all humor and anyone can label parts of my country as a "heritage zone." I accept and have worked to pass laws to these effects, because that was the will of the voters.

While I support and trust the need for nations to work together for the good of all, the current resolution makes me feel that this is not currently possible.

This resolution, while obviously being submitted with good intent, is vague, childish and unworthy of our organization. There is a place where "every life form" lives in your "symbiotic" state. It's the tv show Star Trek. I choose to live in reality, where the people of Squintyville will decide who we will defend.

The honorable delegate may continue, if he or she desires, to insist that I read the entire resolution. I have read to the end, and I can tell you that if this passes, I will be forced to resign. I can not, in good faith, support this idea, or the people who would foist it upon us. In the Fifedom of Squintyville we try to be fair, open-minded and true to our goals of individual freedom. This resolution does not suport those goals.

We vote NAY!

We will not be forced to starve.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

I have voted against, because (pace Castivo's 'explanation' of symbiosis) the proposal is confused. His explanation simply adds to the muddle. Some microbes are not symbiotic but deadly, and I am unwilling to commit my citizens to a proposal which would not allow them to protect themselves by taking the occasional antibiotic.
A juicy steak now and again doesn't come amiss either, and to call the human-bullock relationship symbiotic does not negate the fact that the bullock, even if served rare, is stone cold dead before I eat it.
Kind regards,
Griselda

An excellent post, Griselda. I hope you enjoy this game.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

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

We know your true plans. Jut give it up.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Please refer to the original post you have been refering members to. There I have posted the meaning of sentient and explained how it expands the definition of "beings" to almost all life.

Alright people, does not the UN decide how the resolution is enforced?

And since we have apparently already decided that we don't want everyone to starve, what's the point of the argument?

Aren't we the UN?

I've said this before, but I guess I will have to say this once again:

It's a useless proposal

It is open to many interpretations, and some of you have alrady used the "if you don't think of it this way" reasoning. That's NOT hos a resolution should work! It should clearly outlaw certaint hings, like slavery or racial discrimination. Not this tree-hugging rhetoric.

Does Castivo want a warfleet to match UME's? We will crush them if necessary.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

I see no point in arguing anymore. We have been going around in circles for some time now, and we all come back to the same arguments anyways. Neither of us are going to change our minds anytime soon. So this thread has outlived its usefulness.

Or we could keep talking in circles until someone calls me a Nazi. THEN the thread would really be over.

people we all agree here, this resolution is open to many intepratations, and none of us are changing our veiws. Therefore debating this is moot, and flaming wont help people like myself, whom want to see this resolution fail

I hope we can stockpile enough food to last long enough to resign from the UN.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "Just say no to EFA.
Even plants will be off-limits."

I've said this before, but I guess I will have to say this once again:

It's a useless proposal

It is open to many interpretations, and some of you have alrady used the "if you don't think of it this way" reasoning. That's NOT hos a resolution should work! It should clearly outlaw certaint hings, like slavery or racial discrimination. Not this tree-hugging rhetoric.

<--- is a tree-hugger that opposes this resolution

This has been an OOC post.

Seems simple to me. If a resolution is not clear about how it should be interpreted, it is a bad resolution and should not be implemented. A resolution should have no loop holes and no realistic room for misunderstanding. All clarification and interpretation should be in the resolution itself.

I think a few too many liberties have been taken in your interpretation of this proposal.

The proposal notes the symbiotic relationship between organisims. Apparently none of you know what that means. And you seem to like it that way.

A symbiotic relationship is one in which all organisims are in someway dependant on each other for some sort of service. Humans depend on plants for oxygen, some bacteria depend on their hosts to supply them with energy, and, most importantly, most animals depend on other amimals for food.

What this proposal suggests is that no genocides occur. Which isn't too horrible a proposition.

I also note that the proposal allows for exceptions in self-defence. So anti-viral and anti-bacterial products may still exist.

In closing, you guys have completley and entierly over-exaggerated the negative effects of this proposal, and even invented a few.

I personally find nothing wrong with it.


your doing me a favor.ill resign, sit back with some popcorn n viel, watch you die of starvation, ill re signup, and dictators like me will rule! :twisted:

sorry slow computer doubled poswtididid

[ooc: mod/alert retracted]

I also note that the proposal allows for exceptions in self-defence. So anti-viral and anti-bacterial products may still exist.

-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.

I don't see the self-defense exception. Furthermore, the food issue remains.

I'm all for symbiotic relationships. But we do have to eat.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

You guys can leave now.

Seriously, this thread has ended.

I remember this part of the debate, I think we've gone over this particular part 2-3 times before.

We have reached a new level of futility.

I'm NOT voting on this resolution, beacuse 3 days isn't nearly enough time to resolve this issue.

Though it appears the people with the rhetoric are going to take the prize now.

If you really want to continue, read through the entire debate several times. It'll make you feel like the debate is still taking place.

This thread is ended when the last person posts, not when someone announces that it is (barring moderators, of course).

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Badly-drafted law is bad law. If it's absurd, boot it out.

Simple, really.

If you can rationalize that eating is necessary to live and o.k. if the resolution passes, what about over-eating?

lol, so tru though what Castivo says. The same points are now just being recycled over and over again. This is why getting a Ph.D is so hard...

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 Equality For All.

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

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

See my previous posts on the subject,



those should cover it

The problem is, when reviewing these resolutions, you must look at each plan context inside of a vaccuum. If it appears that each one contradicts itself when off by itself, then the wording was not specified like it should be. If it is not specified, then you leave yourself open to such problems as we've encountered. While you can come back later on and say, "Well, this is what was meant..." it does not good for the resolution. The resolution should very much be prima facia when delievered. Even with agreed understandings on an interpretation, it still leaves open too broad a door for individual nations to interpret it how they like. This is proven by the endless debating. While it is a decent resolution to stop genocidal acts, to put the clause in there "All living beings" and expect everyone to have the same idea on what this term could mean is simply put, ignorant. While I'm not comming down on the originator of this resolution, I am saying that the creator of this resolution should accept the fact that it is a bad resolution with terrible wording. He should accept this resolution will most likely not pass, and instead of becomming upset about this, he should instead, re-write it.

No! please don't rewite this gibberish. Do we realy want to have to debate this idiocy again, this time slightly reworded? Please pleeeeeese leave us alone!!!

I agree. It is not a ridiculous concept to have resolutions that say what they mean. In every case so far, it would only take two or thee words to clarify and relieve the controversy. I only wish that more people were voting against these weakly-worded proposals.

It's nice that you want to make the world a better place, but it's serious business making a NS-UN proposal. Take the time to do it right. If you don't - don't complain that people are being "too picky about details" when the debate flares up. Or when they make fun of you for your spelling of words like, "Defenition", "permote", and my personal favorite, "PREDIGIST".