Clarification of Equallity
In the list of current proposals is one that will ammend the "Equality for All" resolution. This proposal is called Clarification of Equality and will limit the current resolution to protecting only sentient species, though nations who want to extend thos protections within their own borders would be allowed to do so.
While I admit the Equality for All resolution is flawed, our best chance is to pass it, and the Clarification of Equality proposal as quickly as possible.
I'm currently doing all I can to alert other nations to the Clarification of Equality proposal, but I have limits. If you want equality for sentient species, help me spread the word, please.
Heathvillia
16-11-2003, 05:31
excellent
While I have approved this proposal, I am still voting against the current resolution. There is no guarantee that the Clarification of Equality resolution will pass. It would be better that the current proposal be defeated, and a new proposal that is properly worded be passed.
As a delegate with 14 votes, I urge you to switch your vote to defeat the current resolution.
I will not vote against the current resolution, there is no need to. An amendment is ready, it just needs support, and I intend to drum up that support.
And if the amendment fails to pass? What then?
Given the current opposition to the Equality for All resolution, there is little chance it will not pass.
On the off chace it doesn't, then I will make another simmilar amendment, and I will fight to get it passed untill the loopholes are closed.
Everkire
16-11-2003, 05:45
This resolution has many flaws. The number 1 flaw is when it states "..-All living beings no matter who or what they may be, have the inherent right of existence..."
That means every plant and animal are equal to humans, which means eating fruits/vegetables would be murder. it also means many things so vote NO for this resolution and i hope the author of this resoultion sees his errors and revises a new resolution
And if you had read anything I've said till now, you would see that there's an ammendment ready to fix that!
I do believe that the problem people have with the amendment is that they worry that their people will starve while waiting for the UN machine to pass the amended resolution. There is no need for either side to be belligerent, just clear.
Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
THe Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia
Look, voting on CoE ends a day before the voting on EFA will end. If we don't support it now then there won't be an ammendment ready in time.
And sorry if I came off like a jerk. I'm typing this as fast as I can and without stoping to think about it, I'm being a little impulsive with my words. It's no excuse, I just want you to understand there was no intent to offend.
Gotcha!
Stupid internet masking emotions... er.,, :oops:
*woah... deja vu... I think this same thing happened before. :lol:*
I'll vote for your amendment when it comes up.
United Middle-Earth
16-11-2003, 07:48
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
New Anvilania
16-11-2003, 08:58
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
I beg to differ, the wording is flawed for all nations who do not have non-human sentients. We will be held to the wording in the proposal, not to the explanation you post on another discussion thread.
I am voting against the current resolution. My reason being that we cannot be positive that the amendment will be passed. As someone said, it would be better to not pass this proposal and then have a new proposal with a better choice of words, or a proposal that contains that ammendment in the original proposal. Because, as it stands, if the proposal is passed, people will not be able to eat because they will be violating the newest UN proposal.
Look, you can't give up on what's right just because the odds are against you. You've admitted that this proposal is flawed. If clarification proposals were not allowed by the moderators, would you agree that a flawed proposal, which could prove detrimental, should be voted against? I think you would. Assuming you would, I have to tell you that it is a bad idea to vote in a flawed proposal because you think it will get fixed later. Not only is there no guarantee of that, it also sets a bad precedent, and it's just plain wrong. Also consider this, if you believe that we can't vote this proposal down, voting for it is just a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe in doing what is right, you should vote against this proposal and create a better worded one or vote in the Clarification of Equality proposal as a stand-alone proposal.
The Lowcountry
16-11-2003, 15:56
And if you had read anything I've said till now, you would see that there's an ammendment ready to fix that!
So we should starve until an amendment can be passes to fix the obvoius flaws in this VERY BAD resolution?