NationStates Jolt Archive

"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

the problem is that this is open to soooo many interpratations. At least thats my problem with it

Nothing?
yeah that is pretty much what will be left of the planet when all the people are dead from disease and starvation.

"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
Granting, however-this resolution covers ground poorly that has already been covered by previous resolutions, and violates an early resolution. The Oppressed People of Cannot think of a name are all in favor of human rights, however we desire the UN and it's members to have agency. We cannot simply vote for resolutions based on the 'cherries' that it will give our standings but must regard the resolutions that have been past before and how they effect current resolutions.

By voting for a poorly considered retread of previous, already accepted resolutions and ignoring this ones violation, we have reduced the UN's signifigance to nothingness.

These charges of imprecise wording still do not account for the rabidly active TG opposition to it. Never in my experiance as regional delegate have I ever recieved nearly as many TGs regarding a resolution.

These charges of imprecise wording still do not account for the rabidly active TG opposition to it. Never in my experiance as regional delegate have I ever recieved nearly as many TGs regarding a resolution.
Far too often poorly considered resolutions pass with little regard. While I agree that the bulk of the opposition has been hysteric, they have been successful in getting UN nations to regard the issue instead of simply passing it out of hand.

If a telegram campaign is what it takes to have UN nations take agency, then that seems worth it to raise the level of discourse.

Please vote against this redundancy, bring relevancy to the UN. Perhaps TG campaigns won't be as neccisary.

You view this activism as a bad thing? Maybe you shouldn't be a delegate then.

I find this activism encouraging for the blind passing of resolutions in the past seems to be something that has been quite a problem in this body. If it takes a telegram campaign to inform everyone about the issue and get them to actually think before voting, all the power to the lobbyers [this has, of course, nothing to do with my being on the side of the activists.... 8) )

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

this is the first time I have ever seens such activity when it comes to the UN, it is kinda nice to see people thinking about these things

Far too often poorly considered resolutions pass with little regard. While I agree that the bulk of the opposition has been hysteric, they have been successful in getting UN nations to regard the issue instead of simply passing it out of hand.

If a telegram campaign is what it takes to have UN nations take agency, then that seems worth it to raise the level of discourse.
To assume as you seem to that any nation that does not share your outlook on a particular resolution is thus nesseserilly intelectually lazy is the hieght of arrogance.

True perhaps, but can you deny that this happens?

I have fallen into this trap. I skim the resolution. "Sounds good" I say. Then I vote for, not realizing the wording. Got to think about it before you vote we say (man, my grammer is terrible, but just because I'm trying to respond to the rapid fire chat style forum messaging...)

Far too often poorly considered resolutions pass with little regard. While I agree that the bulk of the opposition has been hysteric, they have been successful in getting UN nations to regard the issue instead of simply passing it out of hand.

If a telegram campaign is what it takes to have UN nations take agency, then that seems worth it to raise the level of discourse.
To assume as you seem to that any nation that does not share your outlook on a particular resolution is thus nesseserilly intelectually lazy is the hieght of arrogance.
Staw man, but that's another issue.

There are already several resolutions that have already been passed that deal with the issues that the current proposal does. Furthermore, this proposal is in violation of an early UN resolution. I do happen to agree that human rights are important, but they have been dealt with in all the ways that this proposal attempts, and in a clearer way.

It is not that I do not agree with the proposal, I disagree with the level of consideration it is given in light of the UN's past resolutions. If we pass resolutions that 'sound good' without consideration towards already established UN resolutions than it is safe to say we are not giving them proper consideration. That, it appears to me, is the hieght of arrogance.

The reason I became so active with this resolution is that, over time, I've seen the quality of the resolutions degenerate while getting passed more and more frequently, and frankly, I'm fed up with the lemming effect. So if this is what it takes to get people to sit up and take notice and think about the resolutions before voting, then this is what will be done.

Of course, there are those who have thought about it and see nothing wrong (as seen by some responses I've received), but at the same time, I have gotten responses from others who have admitted that they didn't read it carefully enough and just clicked yes.

It is not that I do not agree with the proposal, I disagree with the level of consideration it is given in light of the UN's past resolutions. If we pass resolutions that 'sound good' without consideration towards already established UN resolutions than it is safe to say we are not giving them proper consideration. That, it appears to me, is the hieght of arrogance. Do you realize that most of the nations that passed some of the 'earlier' resolutions no longer exist? Are you going to commit Argentina to a pact signed by a couple of babylonian city states thousands of years ago?

It is not that I do not agree with the proposal, I disagree with the level of consideration it is given in light of the UN's past resolutions. If we pass resolutions that 'sound good' without consideration towards already established UN resolutions than it is safe to say we are not giving them proper consideration. That, it appears to me, is the hieght of arrogance. Do you realize that most of the nations that passed some of the 'earlier' resolutions no longer exist? Are you going to commit Argentina to a pact signed by a couple of babylonian city states thousands of years ago?
Presuming that babylonia had been part of the UN and as such had passed resolutions that then existed when argentina joined the same governing body, then yes. Much in the same way new members of the physical UN are expected to follow the edicts formed by UN members that may no longer exist.

Alternatively, it would appear that a mechanism exists for argentina to reverse the decisions of babylonia by making proposals of their own.

It is not that I do not agree with the proposal, I disagree with the level of consideration it is given in light of the UN's past resolutions. If we pass resolutions that 'sound good' without consideration towards already established UN resolutions than it is safe to say we are not giving them proper consideration. That, it appears to me, is the hieght of arrogance. Do you realize that most of the nations that passed some of the 'earlier' resolutions no longer exist? Are you going to commit Argentina to a pact signed by a couple of babylonian city states thousands of years ago?
Presuming that babylonia had been part of the UN and as such had passed resolutions that then existed when argentina joined the same governing body, then yes. Much in the same way new members of the physical UN are expected to follow the edicts formed by UN members that may no longer exist.

Alternatively, it would appear that a mechanism exists for argentina to reverse the decisions of babylonia by making proposals of their own. Wait- I read that silly thread of yours- the typo?! The lack of a SPACE BETWEEN TWO WORDS?!

Seriously- that is just pathatic. Where is your crusade to repeal the resolution passed right after it for its spelling of the word 'ammusing?' :roll:

It is not that I do not agree with the proposal, I disagree with the level of consideration it is given in light of the UN's past resolutions. If we pass resolutions that 'sound good' without consideration towards already established UN resolutions than it is safe to say we are not giving them proper consideration. That, it appears to me, is the hieght of arrogance. Do you realize that most of the nations that passed some of the 'earlier' resolutions no longer exist? Are you going to commit Argentina to a pact signed by a couple of babylonian city states thousands of years ago?
Presuming that babylonia had been part of the UN and as such had passed resolutions that then existed when argentina joined the same governing body, then yes. Much in the same way new members of the physical UN are expected to follow the edicts formed by UN members that may no longer exist.

Alternatively, it would appear that a mechanism exists for argentina to reverse the decisions of babylonia by making proposals of their own. Wait- I read that silly thread of yours- the typo?! The lack of a SPACE BETWEEN TWO WORDS?!

Seriously- that is just pathatic. Where is your crusade to repeal the resolution passed right after it for its spelling of the word 'ammusing?' :roll:
I wasn't active then. I am now, so now is when I campaign for a return to the standard the UN agreed upon with a 'no' vote. The UN has only the UN to blame, and we can take it back to the standard we proposed.

I mean, you wouldn't demand that argentina get in a Way-Back Machine to argue the issues of babylonia.......

this is the first time I have ever seens such activity when it comes to the UN, it is kinda nice to see people thinking about these things

I agree completely!

Free Outer Eugenia, you have enough sense to fill every forum in here. I appreciate you trying to enlighten these folks.

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

Hail and greetings.

How I tire of this debate, can we go back to something interlectually stimulating like sexism in the modern world, or abortion, or religion, yes, even religion, and all the bible thumping, preaching fools who shield themselves behind it...

The simple problem with the EFA proposal was its ambiguos nature in regard to its statements on life, etc, etc, etc. and how it should be protected, while leaving so many different interpretations, many of them quite valid. and not being conclusive, while we may be against it for this reason, we yet must repect it in its intent... not to lead to mass starvation, or panic or interpretations that would result in terrible consequences if it was instituted incorrectly, but for how it valiantly tries to defend life in human beings.

However it has been damned by its prose and statements and will wither under the righteous condemnation of the sharp witted and intelligent people in the U.N. who cut it down smartly, not for its content, in essance, but for the way it was written.

It is a warning to research and investigate before you cast that vote or throw that stone.

Good day, good night, and god bless.

The Elected U.N. Speaker for the National Parliment of Komokom

A little lesson for you all.

The loudest voice in the U.N. is not to be found in the forum, but in the vote you cast.

Bless and double bless you all, good fortune to you.

Speaker for Komokom.

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

A little lesson for you all.

The loudest voice in the U.N. is not to be found in the forum, but in the vote you cast.

Bless and double bless you all, good fortune to you.

Speaker for Komokom.Nonsense. The loudest voice in the UN can be found in the TG boxes of harassed delegates :roll:

Not the most sane or reasonable voice, but surely the loudest!