NationStates Jolt Archive

Please support my proposal, the Animal Rights Act. Search for animal in the list of proposals and you should get this one:

Animal Rights Act

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

It is becoming increasingly common for animals to be treated unfairly in our world. Nations in the UN are not forced to give animals any rights. Animals do deserve some basic rights. 1. No animal is to be used in military service. Unless that service is search and rescue. 2. All animals to be raised for food must be treated humanely. They must be given adequate ammounts of food and space. When animals are to be killed it must as quick and painless as possible. 3. Hunting for sport is to made illegal in all UN member nations.

well would support your ideas to a point but lets keep the UN looking at human rights first and foremost, finally on point 3 who defines sport? is fishing hunting and is it a sport?

Hunting for sport is just killing the animal and not using it at all. Fishing isn't sport because you eat the fish.

"They must be given adequate ammounts of food and space."

can you give numbers because i'm sure that nation will not agtee on the definition of "adequate amout of food and space"

The proposal is miscategorized. It should be moral decency proposal (to reduce civil rights in the interests of moral decency).

I would support your proposal but I agree with others who say "adequate food and space" and "hunting for sport" need to be more clearly defined. If you eat the animals you hunt, would that be legal?

I agree with this...hunting for food is not hunting for sport. And yes, adeqate amounts of space need to be defined. It shouldn't be an actual measure, but proportionate to the size of the animal.

It should be at least ten times as wide, long and tall as the animal.

Please support my proposal, the Animal Rights Act. Search for animal in the list of proposals and you should get this one:

Animal Rights Act

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

It is becoming increasingly common for animals to be treated unfairly in our world. Nations in the UN are not forced to give animals any rights. Animals do deserve some basic rights. 1. No animal is to be used in military service. Unless that service is search and rescue. 2. All animals to be raised for food must be treated humanely. They must be given adequate ammounts of food and space. When animals are to be killed it must as quick and painless as possible. 3. Hunting for sport is to made illegal in all UN member nations.

I didn't know animals had rights....

I didn't know animals had rights....

We want to eat meat! Keep it legal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

I have always believed in supporting the little guy, be it the poor, labor, the discriminated, and even the environment. This extends to animals too.

We have approved this proposal and will vote for it if it reaches the floor.

So what we're establishing here is that it is not okay to hit an animal in the face, because doing so would violate its inherent rights, but that eating it is perfectly fine? That my problem with the animal rights movement; it's logical end -- banning carnivorous eating -- does not appeal to me.

Animal rights activists are also usually rather dualistic in their interpretations of an animal's "rights." If an animal kills another animal for no apparent reason, has it violated that animal's rights? If a human does the same, has that person violated that animal's rights? Will both parties receive the same punishment for the same crime? The usual answer to that last question is some variation of, "Of course not, the animals just do that. They can't be held to the same standards as humans. Animals that are not sentient creatures should not be treated as such."

And I agree. Animals that are not sentient should not be treated as such.

Are we really arguing here to get rights for animals or to place limitations on the rights and behavior of humans?

And why are we trying to give animals rights which haven't even been given to humans yet?

I have always believed in supporting the little guy, be it the poor, labor, the discriminated, and even the environment. This extends to animals too.

We have approved this proposal and will vote for it if it reaches the floor.

A nice philosophy.... until the little guy rapes your wife.

huh. well the way i see it is: Point 1 problems, what if the animal wants to join military service? It would be banned, because they are a "animal" that sounds like discrimination to me!

2. Many humans don't get enough food or space, surely if we kill more animals that will increase food and space cuz we wont have to worry about destroying the natural habitats of something that is already dead! lol im joking i aint tht sadistic!

3. Well i have no problems with three, except humans hve the right to kill animals if they eat what they kill, right? yet humans cannot kill other humans and eat what they kill, surely this will also help improve relations with animals and humans as they get toghether in hunting groups, also it will help with the problems addressed in No. 2 :twisted:

Please support my proposal, the Animal Rights Act. Search for animal in the list of proposals and you should get this one:

Animal Rights Act

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

It is becoming increasingly common for animals to be treated unfairly in our world. Nations in the UN are not forced to give animals any rights. Animals do deserve some basic rights. 1. No animal is to be used in military service. Unless that service is search and rescue. 2. All animals to be raised for food must be treated humanely. They must be given adequate ammounts of food and space. When animals are to be killed it must as quick and painless as possible. 3. Hunting for sport is to made illegal in all UN member nations.

I didn't know animals had rights....

They don't...

Animal rights activists are also usually rather dualistic in their interpretations of an animal's "rights." If an animal kills another animal for no apparent reason, has it violated that animal's rights? If a human does the same, has that person violated that animal's rights? Will both parties receive the same punishment for the same crime? The usual answer to that last question is some variation of, "Of course not, the animals just do that. They can't be held to the same standards as humans. Animals that are not sentient creatures should not be treated as such."

And I agree. Animals that are not sentient should not be treated as such.
Excellent point. we totally agree, except that we would like to add that animal rights activists are clearly not sentient either, and therefore do not have rights.

You idiot :P. If they are used for military service they have a use and reduces the chance that they will be exterminated.

I vote for disallowing people who have no idea what the animal wants dictate to the rest of the world and forces on the animal what the animal desires. :P

Catholic Europe supports any proposal that seeks to promote and enforce the rights of animals.

We believe that hunting should be illegal, except if the food will be eaten, experiments on animals should be illegal and abuse of animals should be illegal.

You idiot :P. If they are used for military service they have a use and reduces the chance that they will be exterminated.

I vote for disallowing people who have no idea what the animal wants dictate to the rest of the world and forces on the animal what the animal desires. :P

Military service with animals involves things like strapping explosives to dogs, sending them under tanks and then detonating them.


And for those of who who say you want to carry on eating meat: so do I.n If you actually BOTHER TO READ THE TEXT you will see that you are allowed to hunt for meat. And somebody said that you are not allowed to hit an animal in the face, but you are allowed to eat it...well, how is hunting and killing an animal for sport anything less than barbaric?

Barbarism is in the eye of the beholder. If you can't come up with any better reason to support your proposal than emotive rhetoric, don't be surprised if no one is impressed by your non-logic.

Barbarism is in the eye of the beholder. If you can't come up with any better reason to support your proposal than emotive rhetoric, don't be surprised if no one is impressed by your non-logic.

Well you know what Aristotle says, Ethos beats Logos nine times out of ten