NationStates Jolt Archive

To all UN delegates - this is a plea for support for our UN proposal to ban whaling - currently at the top of the list.

We have 58 approvals - but we need 77 more and quickly. Please consider whether you can support this proposal.

To all non-UN delegates - why not consider sending a telegram to your delegate lobbying them to support this important proposal - if they haven't already?

Let's make our oceans a better place.

Monarchical regards

Her Excellency the Minister for External Affairs
Konigreich der Nacht

Forgive this member if we have overlooked a past thread, but we don't recall seeing this proposal before the UN in this forum before.

Has the proposal been debated, or has it gone straight to await the approval of delegates?

Member for Cave Canem

Must have gone straight to delegates.

The Nifty Republic of Tzorsland supports this effort to save the whales.

Save the whales!
Collect the whole set - win valuable prizes!

The Region of Amber, of which all others are shadows, endorses the proposal.

Considering that whales may not need to be saved in some parts of NS, they may even be over populated, we do not think that The UN is the best place to handle this.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

It appears that this proposal is going to fall short of the required delegate support with the deadline looming.

Cave Canem feels this is a missed opportunity, as this is a sensibly worded and well intentioned proposal. Perhaps the outcome would have been different had a debate taken place here in the UN before the proposal was sent to the delegates for approval.

If, of course, this did in fact come before the UN here and we missed it then we apologise.

Member for Cave Canem

Considering that whales may not need to be saved in some parts of NS, they may even be over populated, we do not think that The UN is the best place to handle this.An intriguing position, Lady Desdemona. And one that raises a problem I hadn't considered, to wit:

To what extent do RL conditions apply in NS?

Quite a few proposals that find their way through the system seem to assume that RL conditions obtain. This is of course one of them. The debate over the Sexes Rights Law is another - so much heat and noise over whether or not any NS member state recognized a third sex, mainly because a great many delegates went with the presumption that RL limits of known biology, etc., were in play. Presumed scarcity of resources in many regions of the world drives a body of resolutions for dealing with poverty, water supply and so on. And an international compact on whaling, which occurs primarily in international waters? Perfectly appropriate for the UN - if we presume RL facts about the whale population that demonstrate protection is needed.

But here, we hear that whales may not be endangered after all.

All right, I'll play along, but I need to know what the facts are in the NS 'world.' Should proposal drafters include a finding of facts that sets the conditions by fiat? Do we need some kind of consensus about this?

All right, I'll play along, but I need to know what the facts are in the NS 'world.' Should proposal drafters include a finding of facts that sets the conditions by fiat? Do we need some kind of consensus about this?

I think it's alright to get ideas from the real world. I think it's alright to use real world evidence to demonstrate your point. I think that it isn't right that proposals should be made on the assumption that countries are like the real world because it alienates those countries that aren’t.

Sometimes the line is fuzzy but I would rule this proposal to RW-dependant because if conditions aren’t like the real world it could end up being harmful (ie. a country over run by whales isn't going to be helped by this legislation).

But that is just my opinion.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

An intriguing position, Lady Desdemona. And one that raises a problem I hadn't considered, to wit:

To what extent do RL conditions apply in NS?


RL names / proper nouns don't exist, but RL conditions do -- as evidenced by your daily issues.

The moderators have ruled on this one many times. There are oceans, there is a moon, mountains give way to valleys, valleys to flood plains, flood plains to esturaries, and esturaries to coast lines, and coast lines to oceans. Humans exist, grow old, and die. They have nasty social problems like crime and poverty. Pollution is invasive, and yet the most entertaining things to debate are sadly abortion, guns, and sex. ::sigh::

The moderators have ruled on this one many times.
Oh good I missed something…

Can you throw me a link?

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Yes it's a bizzare thing and not always obvious to everyone. This is true because not all nations and regions in the NS universe (and yes it's hard to call it a world) are not at the same level of technology.

Be that as it may, NationStates appears to be designed to accuentiate the consequences and encourages wild extreemes in cause and effect. My own nation, appaently has killer pet forest pelicans for instanace. Given this the correct answer to whether NS is like the real world is ... "Oh no. In some cases it's much worse!"

This is a game where you have the option to make your own national animal your number one fast food item! Given that if I were a whale I would be very afraid.

Oh good I missed something…

Can you throw me a link?


Cog posted in the middle of a thread complaining about joke proposals:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343155&page=2&pp=15

I hope that linke works. But you can find it by looking for a 3 page thread from about 3+ weeks ago. :)

Thanks.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

The People of the Commonwealth of Trimley are concerned that such a proposal should restrict the tradions of other nations and cultures. This proposal does not offer anything over than a ban on hunting whales, such as measure to track numbers.

As such the Commonwealth is unable to support such a resolution should it come to the General Assembley. We the people of the Commonwealth of Trimley could no more support this than we can could a ban on eating beef.

Secretary Katan
The Commonwealth of Trimley Office of International Affairs.

With all due respect I would suggest that the whale problem is not similiar to that of cattle. ... On second thought perhaps it might be more similiar than I first thought, but I doubt you would be satisfied with the solution cattle ranchers use.

Whales are, in one sense, international. They roam freely across national and international waters. They live in one region, feed in another region, and breed in a third region. In one sense they are the best definition of the "world citizen." Because of this they are "our" whales, and thus we have a vested interest in their protection no matter where they are, just as I would be rightly annoyed if any nation were to abuse and slaugter the citizens of Tzorsland while they traveled abroad.

Cattle on the other hand are not owned by the world, but by specific owners. In nations that support free range grazing, these cattle are all appropriately marked. You know who cattle belong to the BAR-B and whose cattle belong to the CIRCLE-W. You don't just go to the free range and shoot any old head of cattle you can find ... you will find yourself being the one shot at rather quickly.

I suppose in the best of times, one might support limited hunting using a form of lottery when populations are high, with due consideration to those smaller nations that traditionally hunted said populations, but I do not consider the resolution flawed for not having this provision.

Er... You mean to say you eat beef? Actually *eat* the stuff?

Oh well, each to their own. /shakes head/.

RL names / proper nouns don't exist, but RL conditions do -- as evidenced by your daily issues.

The moderators have ruled on this one many times. There are oceans, there is a moon, mountains give way to valleys, valleys to flood plains, flood plains to esturaries, and esturaries to coast lines, and coast lines to oceans. Humans exist, grow old, and die. They have nasty social problems like crime and poverty. Pollution is invasive, and yet the most entertaining things to debate are sadly abortion, guns, and sex. ::sigh::All righty then...inquiring minds and all that rot. Are migratory species that are endangered in RL endangered in NS? Specifically, is any nation/region in actual danger of being overrun by whales?

ooc: I think we can assume that the same species are endangered for two reasons. 1. The NS-Universe at least concerning environmental conditions is "earth-like". 2. As the players of NS are living in the "Real-World" (I assume) they act like being socialised by the "real-World". Socialisation you can not deny and therefore we are facing the same general problems in NS as on earth also concerning endangered species and also concerning Whales.

IC:

We, the Free Land of Cloudy Somewhere, would support this resolution although we would prefer people acting based on their own responsibility. This resolution might be a sign bringing us the problems of our way we deal with the nature to conscience.

- Sarah Lem for the Free Land of Cloudy Somewhere

All righty then...inquiring minds and all that rot. Are migratory species that are endangered in RL endangered in NS? Specifically, is any nation/region in actual danger of being overrun by whales?

This is something that the mods would probably want to field, but that said here is my opinion:

There are endangered species, but until they have a NS habitat (i.e. a player is willing to claim that these species are endangered in his or her nation(s)) we can neither confirm nor deny their "status".

OOC: To be honest, I've not yet developed that level of detail for my country ... though I've always felt that my nation is on the fly ways for many North Pacific migratory bird species. Though there is no "Canada", I'm more than happy to claim that Canadian Geese call my nation one of many of their homes.

vote no as this will hurt international economys!! also the whales surronding the wolfen islands are destroying our fishing grounds!!

It appears that this proposal is going to fall short of the required delegate support with the deadline looming.

The sound of the member for Cave Canem noisily munching humble pie echoes around the corridors of the UN.

The clearly not infallible member for Cave Canem

The Free Land of Arvant has voted "yes" to this resolution, as we believe that Whales are of vital importance to environment preservation.

Also, we legalised the use of anti-tank weapons and mortars, so that our populace is more able to express itself.

whale meat is disgusting. i support your proposal.
not that i have much to say about it oh well... :rolleyes:

We can only support a proposal such as this. Good job.

vote no as this will hurt international economys!! also the whales surronding the wolfen islands are destroying our fishing grounds!!

On the contrary, research by Konigreich der Nacht's most eminent scientists suggests that you are destroying your own fishing grounds by overexploiting them. You should support the formation of an international commission that will research this problem - that would help your economy, not damage it.

With monarchical regards

Minister for Science
Konigreich der Nacht

The People's Republic of Slovyania has voted no and is proposing a resoltuion that is the exact opposite of it. Be sure to support it. I say no because it will hurt my economy and I dont care for a bunch of fish no matter how "smart" they are.

The People's Republic of Slovyania has voted no and is proposing a resoltuion that is the exact opposite of it. Be sure to support it. I say no because it will hurt my economy and I dont care for a bunch of fish no matter how "smart" they are.

I would counsel extreme caution, fellow nation. In all seriousness. From the thread 'Before you submit a resolution':

"7. Repeals and Amendments
This is mentioned in the Game Mechanics section, but since people keep doing it I'm making it more emphasised - you may NOT submit proposals that seek to repeal or amend earlier resolutions."

My understanding is that if you do this, you will get a warning. Collect three such warnings and you will be expelled from the UN. Train your diplomats. Urgently. They are not currently giving you sound advice.

And urge them to invest in a dictionary: "Whale - noun (pl. same or whales) a very large marine mammal with a horizontal tail fin and a blowhole on top of the head for breathing."

We are currently travelling in the nether regions of Turnipstan and so maybe the use of another computer explains our confusion over resolutions - we have seen NO resolution relating to water, we do have a resolution asking for a vote to ban whaling...hmmmm.

We are voting yes to the whaling proposal.

Can you really say that whales are endangered? I doubt it, as they can't be traced 24/7 (a small group, maybe, but not all of them). Therefore, as this seems to be an anti-business proposal with unnecessary benefits for the enviornment (animals profiting at humans expense, in shorter terms), the government of Daiglopia cannot support this proposal.

I see that the "proposal" is now a resolution at vote.

In my opinion, this is one of the most well-worded resolutions this year. It's got an international theme (not the UN messing with domestic affairs, like in that god-awful "40 hour work week" resolution), and it leaves no-one out, even those who have whaling in their culture (the lack of consideration for cultures was why I voted against the previous resolution).

It may hurt my economy a little (I have a massive economy, so it won't affect me that much), but it should (hopefully) lead to a better world. I'm voting FOR this resolution (for a change).

Can you really say that whales are endangered? I doubt it, as they can't be traced 24/7 (a small group, maybe, but not all of them).

This is easily confirmed. Look at your governments fisheries records. The whaling fleets of most of our nations have decreased significantly less than the actual "take" of these fleets, thus suggesting that commerical fisheries are having a much harder time finding whales now than they were a hundred years ago.

That said, nations that have already put on national bans have had some effect. This of course does not mean that the whale populations have reached their estimated 1900 population levels again. They most certainly have not.

But don't take my word for this, use the resources at your disposal to confirm or deny this. (Try google and find pages like http://history.freehomepage.com/population.html.)

In any event, my government, though land locked, takes the data collected by its North Pacific neighbors to be representative of the problem and has always felt that any sustainable economy needs to measure its consumption.

Greetings to our fellow nation of Daiglopia

Can you really say that whales are not endangered? I doubt it, as they can't be traced 24/7 (a small group, maybe, but not all of them).

With kind monarchical regards

Minister of Logic
Konigreich der Nacht

I'll support this and urge my Delegate to do so.

As a non-UN whaling nation we would like to offer our support for this resolution. This is because if UN member nations choose to stop whaling the more whales there will be in the waters. We will now have to expand our whaling fleet in order to prevent the whales from destroying our fish stocks. We thank you for this as it will help our fishing and whaling industry.

Minister of Agriculture,
The Empire of Somewhere

As a non-UN whaling nation we would like to offer our support for this resolution. This is because if UN member nations choose to stop whaling the more whales there will be in the waters. We will now have to expand our whaling fleet in order to prevent the whales from destroying our fish stocks.

That is a foolish attitude to take, because if you would have actually read the resolution:


Unlicenced scientific and all commercial whaling are outlawed in international law. Nations that flout this ban are subject to economic sanctions and whalers' boats can be impounded and destroyed.

You'd see that by ignoring the ban, your nation (UN member or not) is still subject to economic sanctions by UN members.

Believe it or not, the author of this proposal already thought of what you no doubt thought was a clever loop-hole.



Second, can you to provide any evidence that whale populations pose a threat to fisheries? Personally I'm inclined to believe that your nation doesn't know what it is talking about, but if you can provide evidence I may change my mind.

we have seen NO resolution relating to water, we do have a resolution asking for a vote to ban whaling....There are, IIRC, three proposals pending addressing water supply issues. None have collected enough delegate approvals to go on to a general vote, yet.

I like this proposal... but, what happens when whale populations recover (after two hundered years or so...)? Will hunting be re-allowed?

I like this proposal... but, what happens when whale populations recover (after two hundered years or so...)? Will hunting be re-allowed?
We'll swim under that bridge when we get to it.

And urge them to invest in a dictionary: "Whale - noun (pl. same or whales) a very large marine mammal with a horizontal tail fin and a blowhole on top of the head for breathing."




Yes I realize that whales are mammals by scientific standards since they feed their offspring with milk but to me if it looks like a fish-its a fish. Animals are only there so humans can eat them or so other anmals can eat them(which in turn will be eaten by humans). I dont get why so many people try to protect whales and other animals, especially under the argument that they're smart. Animals arent smart in any way.

Yes I realize that whales are mammals by scientific standards since they feed their offspring with milk but to me if it looks like a fish-its a fish. Animals are only there so humans can eat them or so other anmals can eat them(which in turn will be eaten by humans). I dont get why so many people try to protect whales and other animals, especially under the argument that they're smart. Animals arent smart in any way.

I was under the impression that this issue was tring to protect the environment. If whales go extinct due to over-hunting... who knows what the ecological consequences might be? If we just hunted everything to extiction, the world would be a messed up place, as everything is in 'a balance'...

In the name of Ben, the Most Wise:

Fifty years ago, this would have been a resolution that Benzantium would have supported wholeheartedly. Whales of all species throughout the ocean were on the edge of extinction.

But the morotorium has clearly been a success. The Western North Pacific Bryde's numbers in the tens of thousands. There are over 700,000 Antarctice Minke whales! These stocks have recovered sufficiently that they can be both protected and eaten.

Obviously, Benzantium supports the continuing efforts to pull the Blue Whale, Western Gray Whales, Right Whales, and others back from that brink of extinction on which they still teter, and would never suggest or accept harvesting from these populations.

But we do not think that anyone can make the argument that seven hundred thousand is not a sustainable population. Banning the consumption of these whales makes as much sense as banning the consumption of cows when bison were endangered. Much depends on how aggresively hunting would be allowed, and the proposed resolution is FAR too broad to speak to this. Nothing is mentioned about licensing, or quotas; only consequences.

Thus, while the intent of this resolution is good, Benzantium finds it hopelessly misinformed, overbroad, and incomplete -- and plans to vote against it.

((ooc: might wanna read this to see where I'm getting some of this: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/science/17whale.html ))

The Commonwealth of Trimley opposes for the following reasons,

1) Do we - the non -whaling nations - have any greater right to ban the hunting of an animal, becuase we like it. What if the Hindu member states wanted to ban the slaughter of cows? Would you support that? There is no difference.

2) There is no evidence whales are endangered. Should we ban whaling what is next fishing?

3) Some smaller nations may rely on whale meat to provide food for their people.

4) Such a resolution add credence to the idea that one animal - with the exception of humans - is somehow smarter than another. There is no scientific evidence to back this up. As such we fail to see why whales should be given any more protection than any other animal.

5) For those nations following Abrahamic faiths it is clear that animals exist to serve us, and we may do as we please with them.

If the a given species of whale was endangered then the Commonwealth would support such a ban on the hunting of that species, however unless such evidence comes to light this is pointless legislation. Legistlation that exist merely to further the intrest of some groups, whilst restricting the freedoms of other nations.

Sr. Political advisor Leblanc........

I dont think im supposed to be here but i wanted to put my two cents in.....
Look, if you want to effect the growth or decline of the whale population, rather than forcing an issue to the UN howabout nation to nation do some talks discuss [between] each other how one nation can help another nation in raising the whale population. If they dont listen then stop trades with them dont send aid of any kind or since most whale fishing is done in Internation waters, board and arrest anyone killing a whale for non-coultural reasons. I dont know try working it out with some of the countries you think are over fishing them before you want to go ban, say one nations only source of food!!! To me if you bring something to the UN without first trying to work it out with other nations sounds like you really arent trying and most likely are not a good political figure for your country. If you resort to going directly to the UN before trying another form of governing then that sounds like you cant handle things on your own, maybe your people should look to another person to lead them, or just turn your nation over to the UN. Let them rule your people, your not doing a good job at it! Not that im belittling you or anything, i dont mean to attack you, its just i see so much potential for you, just try it once talking to a nation who over fishes whales and try to work it out a nation ata time. Instead of relying on the UN to do your dirty work...try it yourself first. You maybe suprised that it works sometimes!This goes for any issue brought to the UN. BEFORE YOU BRING IT, DID YOU TRY TO WORK OUT A SOLUTION ON YOUR OWN FIRST? If not then you should not consider yourself a political leader! Sorry if i offended anyone, that is not and was not my intentions, just to bring some light on on this was it!

Just a thought!

I like this proposal... but, what happens when whale populations recover (after two hundered years or so...)? Will hunting be re-allowed?

Though this is a cynical view, few of the nations posting in this thread will be around 6 months from now. But I'm sure that 200 years from now sustainable hunting practices will be allowed, assuming of course there is a need to hunt whales.

Has your country ever had to slow its ivory export because the elephants were decreasing in number? Did you ever have to set aside wildlife reserves for stupid animals that keep that land from being used for commercial purposes? Infinite Hoarding is appauled that over 3000 nations now support the yuppy liberal proposal.

Not only does it invade national sovereignty, but it also is a direct economic attack on smaller countries that rely on the oil and wax exports that they create from whaling.

Also, from Infinite Hoarding's experience, there are far too many fat worthless animals out there. Sure, whaling cuts into "Whale Watching" revenue, but whales themselves cut into fishing revenue. Infinite Hoarding's economy is in jeopardy as Pizza Delivery is its second largest industry, and if whale populations skyrocket, then anchovies will increase in price.

Infinite Hoarding asks that a more economical approach be taken; repealing all whaling laws and add restrictions to the usefull whales like the Great Blue, which feeds on useless plankton and miniscule fish, which would allow whalers to hunt any whales like anything that looks like "Free Willy". This would allow fish populations to grow with their natural predator gone, and the Great Blue can be hunted sporadically for its oil to sustain the dependant countries.

If useless whale populations are decreased enough, there might be fewer issues when considering to build trans atlantic and trans pacific underwater monorail tunnels.

The Commonwealth of Trimley opposes for the following reasons,

2) There is no evidence whales are endangered.

Trimley, that is a stupid thing to say. A 10-minute search on google would quickly prove your "fact" wrong:

http://www.ecokidsonline.com/pub/eco_info/topics/whales/endangered_whales.cfm

I picked a "childrens" web site, since you insist on passing off your ignorance as some sort of fact. I figured this might be more to your "speed".

Here is what you are basically claiming is false:


Unregulated whaling continued for centuries and over the years the industry was strengthened with new technologies. Technology allowed whalers to hunt faster whales and to conduct their hunts throughout the world’s oceans. New technologies and the high demand for whale products decreased many whale populations. Some populations became so small that whalers realized some sort of resource management was needed. The result was the formation of The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling in 1946. Canada was one of many countries to sign the agreement. The original purpose of the Convention was to have rules to help conserve whale populations so that the whaling industry could continue.

This really is simple enough for a child to understand. Care to make up some other "facts" for me to debunk?

Of course "Canada" doesn't exist in our NationStates and though none of our nations signed this "fictional" International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling ... this resolution is essentially NationStates version of the 1946 Convention. I'd say it is a good idea!

On the off chance that somebody else is still reading, here are some government sites that also include evidence of the decline of the global whale population in the 19th century.

http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm

(NOTE: look at the "format" of the convention ... you'll see why Sophista and myself are always encouraging a certain type of proposal format.)

As for a direct link to whale population tables, try:

http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm#table

You'll notice that the population rates are increasing. Why is that? Simple, because of the individual efforts / bans of some of our nations we are slowly recovering from the damage done in the 18th and 19th centuries. [OOC: But since NS doesn't have this convention, it is reasonable / logical to assume that without such a protection that the rates would decrease.]

If anything, this underscores the importance of the current resolution.

Again, the author of this proposal actually had something of a clue, which is more than I can say for Trimely. The reason I say this is because the author actually made provisions for aboriginal populations, which is such a good idea, that some of our nations have already done this, as evidenced by:

http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/catches.htm#aborig

Other links that justify a YES vote:

http://www.enn.com/news/2003-11-18/s_10510.asp
http://www.seaweb.org/resources/16update/gala.html
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allweb/0D57B4A8F876E318802568EF003B2C8B
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1446385

I could go and ... in fact, if other morons continue to post baseless and untrue statements, I will.


I was actually planning on abstaining, because while I feel this is an international issue, as a landlocked nation, I felt I should have stayed out. But when I see no votes being cast by idiots, I figure it is about time for me to just cancel their ignorance by casting an informed vote.

The Confederated City States of Mikitivity has actually researched the issue, something which it is clear that Trimely and others have not done so. My government is voting in favour of this resolution based on its research and concludes that whale populations are in fact endangered by commerical fishing, and that since whale populations exist in international waters, the United Nations does have a legal standing in this issue.

Infinite Hoarding would like to reiterate that whales are fat, worthless mamals that get in the way of more importaint issues, such as the economy. Infinite Hoarding demands that this resolution be voted against, because whales are only what could be called a huge inconvenience.

And in response to The Confederate States of Mitkivi, i would like to define "justify" for you: to demonstrate or prove to be right (www,dictionary.com). Your "justification" merely states that seals, sea lions and sea otters decrease in numbers because the great whale is dying off. Well, if you care so much about seals, sea lions and sea otters, then just lower all restrictions off the whaling of killer whales. But personally, seals, sea lions and sea otters are just as worthless animals as whales, especially killer whales. Seals, sea lions and sea otters's use only extend to being used in "Lisa Frank" picture books and personally, I think "Free Willy" and "Sea World" are mutually stupid and need to be stopped from putting on performances.

But personally, seals, sea lions and sea otters are just as worthless animals as whales, especially killer whales. Seals, sea lions and sea otters's use only extend to being used in "Lisa Frank" picture books and personally, I think "Free Willy" and "Sea World" are mutually stupid and need to be stopped from putting on performances.
Ah. Illogical declarations of personal distaste now officially trump well researched and logical presentations.

Must remember to add that to my diplomatic dossier.

Infinite Hoarding would like to reiterate that whales are fat, worthless mamals that get in the way of more importaint issues, such as the economy. Infinite Hoarding demands that this resolution be voted against, because whales are only what could be called a huge inconvenience.

The same lame justification has been used when nations want to market products like Wayland-Yutani Corp's, Soylent Green Energy Drink, also known as Wumpscut Cola, :W:, but this doesn't make their arguments logical. ::rolls eyes::

As for my justifications, it is clear you only glanced at the last link I provided, which was about an NPR broadcast about the theory about the interconnectivity of various marine life.

I could easily find more links supporting the link between whales and other marine species:

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/1999/6/alaskaotter.cfm

In this Smithsonian article, the decline in Alaskan Sea Otter populations is basically attributed to a decrease in fisheries in the Aleutians. In this particular case, Killer Whales are now hunting increasing numbers of Sea Otters, because they have fewer fish to eat.

The point of course isn't to make this be an argument against Sea Otters (though if you are so stupid as to honestly believe their is no value in Sea Otters or harbor seals, then your nation actually should support a banning on whaling in order to increase the otter take by Killer Whales), but to merely point out that there are a number of theories amongst North Pacific nations (which tend to have excellent marine science programs) illustrating that fisheries are in fact all interconnected.

I've already provided many other links (which you didn't respond to) which state conclusively that there have been huge losses in global whale populations (and other fisheries as well) since the 18th century. Essentially as the human race needs to find more and more food, the oceans are not a limit less source of food. Clearly the extinction of one species has significant impacts on others.

Don't believe me? Find a marine biologist. My nation regularly reviews reports from the marine biologists from Thel D'Ran or Sydia, and we've found that their marine biologists are convincing. They have warned our nations about the dangers of unrestricted hunting. (You can view their nation's points of view in the North Pacific forum.)

Do us all a favour. Find some research supporting your position. Believe it or not, I was actually hoping that this resolution might prompt something of a meaningful debate ... but at present only the nut cases have come out with some incredibly pathetic arguments. ::sigh::

The Empire of Traian is saddened and horrified that the UN have put such a resulution to the vote. And it is even worse, that it looks like it will pass. This resolution has only to do with irrational feelings, and nothing to do with saving the environment. Pollution of the oceans, from industry and dumping, is a much worse problem. Of course garbage is neither cute nor sexy, so this don't attract celebreties.

There should not be any ban on harvesting a viable population of any animal. Not even cute ones. The costal Grinde-whale population of Train is at about 400. The only place they are hunted, is around the fishing-village of Claudiana. About 5 families are stil operating whaling-boats, and their quota is for 10-20 animals each year. The local cult burns whale-oil as sacrefices to the lares and penates. And they of course it the whale's meat.

As it has been proven, that whale-meat is very healty, reducing heart-disease, we can see no reason for banning this tradition.

There fore, we have voted no, and the Empire of Traian will have to reconsider its UN-membership.

Traian.

What good do whales do? That was my question. Your answer; killer whales don't eat great whales so they instead eat sea otters.

And you say that I'm pathetic.

I mean, what good do sea otters, seals, and sea lions do? I think you should justify that all the above parties (great whales, killer whales, sea lions, sea otters, seals) deserve to live instead of die under the great, unrelenting hand of our mother capitalism.

Dibbs to getting 1/5th of the way, but its no good protecting great whales if killer whales are going to eat them anyways and then they'll be less sea lions, sea otters, and seals; other worthless mammals that cut into the supply of fish for PEOPLE. I can see if you're FOR worthless sea creatures, but not if that goes AGAINST human beings.

The Empire of Traian is saddened and horrified that the UN have put such a resulution to the vote. And it is even worse, that it looks like it will pass. This resolution has only to do with irrational feelings, and nothing to do with saving the environment. Pollution of the oceans, from industry and dumping, is a much worse problem. Of course garbage is neither cute nor sexy, so this don't attract celebreties.

As it has been proven, that whale-meat is very healty, reducing heart-disease, we can see no reason for banning this tradition.


Have you written any pollution proposals? I looked and didn't see your nation's name associated with any prior anti-pollution resolutions, so really you shouldn't be one to talk. You've done nothing on this subject.

But are you aware that the UN already based a ban on pollution in the oceans?

Oceanic Wate Dumping, adopted on 2003.10.30 by a vote of 12,645 to 2,286. In fact, since this resolution (which you claim hasn't happened) is already in effect, it really is logical to address other concerns for a bit. Whaling and over fishing are in fact major international concerns.

Furthermore, where do you think some of this pollution comes from? It couldn't be the fishing fleets, since they are simple cave men in canoes, right?

Now your statement that whale meat is healthy for humans is false:

http://www.hsus.org/ace/14438


Pro-whaling nations insist that whale meat is healthier than beef. But the truth is that whales are particularly vulnerable to environmental contaminants, including organochlorines—such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and dioxin—and heavy metals, such as methylmercury.


You were half right. The oceans are polluted and we should do something about this. Though we already have, I would support additional resolutions about oceanic waste as well.

But in the mean time, whales and fish, live and breathe (well fish at least) in our human waste. Many of these contaminants end up in the fat and tissues of whales. So like they say, you are what you eat. If you eat whale meat, and if whales drink nasty sea water ... you are in effect eating human sewage.


Although not dependent on it as a source of protein, the Japanese are one of the world's largest consumers of whale meat. In Japanese markets, generic whale meat or "kujira" is said to come from the minke whales killed as part of the so-called scientific whaling program. This meat should contain relatively low levels of contaminants. However, tests have shown that not all kujira is minke whale meat. Some of it is dolphin, porpoise, or beaked whale meat. People who eat kujira, thinking they are avoiding unsafe levels of contaminants, may in fact be eating meat that contains very high levels of toxic substances.


That site isn't enough to convince you that maybe whale meat is not the next Soylent Green?

Then try reading:

http://www.eurocbc.org/page658.html
http://www.ems.org/rls/2004/02/16/consumption_of_w.html
http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/07/26/toxic.whalemeat.enn/
http://members.surfeu.fi/whale/now/stopwhaling/part4_6.htm

This last link is very important, because it underscores again the need for international action:


In January, 2001, the Norwegian Government announced that it intended to resume export of whale products in spite of the ban on international commercial trade in whale products adopted by CITES in 1986. There is no market for whale blubber in Norway, and hundreds of tonnes have been stockpiled. The Government now intends to permit this unwanted blubber to be sold to Japan where it is worth five times more. Japanese consumer groups strongly protested against the planned export, because Norwegian blubber is highly contaminated with PCBs. In fact it is so contaminated (on average over seven times the maximum levels set for human food in Japan), that it would actually be illegal for the Japanese authorities to permit the import or for Japanese retailers to sell it.

What good do whales do?

I mean, what good do sea otters, seals, and sea lions do? I think you should justify that all the above parties (great whales, killer whales, sea lions, sea otters, seals) deserve to live instead of die under the great, unrelenting hand of our mother capitalism.

The value of any species lies in bio-diversity and a little something called "the food chain".

Look it up, I'm tired of explaining things most elementry school children understand.

Ah. Illogical declarations of personal distaste now officially trump well researched and logical presentations.

Must remember to add that to my diplomatic dossier.

So personal distaste now offically trump well-researched data? What well researched data? Just because there are links there that you don't bother to go to that have conclusive results unrelated to REAL negative effects that accompany whaling, then I think illogical declarations do win in the end.

Lets hear some effects of the banning of whaling: Food sources in the sea will dwendle. We eat, but so do whales. Some whales eat the same thing we eat. We are competing with wales for food. If we allow the whale population unrestriced growth, then fishermen will be at risk economically, and whales can be violent at times. Nations that rely on fish products will have to pay higher prices for fish because fishing will have to be restriced because whales need to eat so in protecting them, you should guarentee them food.Related businesses such as restraunts, pizza delivery, some lubrication industries, and biomedical will face shortages in the recources they need to contine to function as businesses.

Now lets here some "pro"s for keeping whales: um, something about animal cruelty and harpoons, sea lions, and well, whales are going extinct and its bad and stuff.

Look, the balance between species is well known in something called the "Food Chain". If a predator dies, the food chain is disrupted because the natural prey can reproduce with its only limitation being the food supply. If the food supply is over hunted by the ex-prey, then the ex-prey and the food supply are doomed to possible extinction because the tip of ballance. But, if another predator kicks in to pick up the slack of the old predator (i.e. human beings) then equilibrium is maintained.

The value of any species lies in bio-diversity and a little something called "the food chain".

Look it up, I'm tired of explaining things most elementry school children understand.

And "oooooooo big word: biodiversity"

I'm tired of explaining things to the unwashed masses but that didn't stop any bearers of the future from talking. Is "oooooo more animals so I can see them in pretty picture books" and "oooooo, more useless mamals that we fight with for this earth's limited resources" your best defense?

Sometimes the only way to speak at an elementary school is to attend one.

Look, the balance between species is well known in something called the "Food Chain". If a predator dies, the food chain is disrupted because the natural prey can reproduce with its only limitation being the food supply. If the food supply is over hunted by the ex-prey, then the ex-prey and the food supply are doomed to possible extinction because the tip of ballance. But, if another predator kicks in to pick up the slack of the old predator (i.e. human beings) then equilibrium is maintained.

While I'm sure that Beavis and Butthead might agree with that theory, how many human beings (your new predators) do you know that eat half of the things whales consume? Furthermore, are you prepared to "beach" the right tonage of humans to account for the loss of whales that are the food source for so many other coastal creatures?

The problem about your "Food Chain" argument isn't that the food chain isn't important. It is. The problem is that you've simplified it. It takes it years to reach a new dynamic, and other species are impacted when a link is broken. While you might feel more qualified than real life ocean biologists, I'm sorry but the rest of us trust the opinions that are out there (and to which I linked to already).

Frisbeeteria's comment about your position having no basis still holds true. I shouldn't have to hand old an "international diplomat" and explain basic biology 101. The links established that there are in fact organizations that have a scientific basis in favour of limiting human consumption, be it fishing, whaling, logging, mining, you name it.

The problem is, and will remain, humans have the ability through technology to harvest natural resources at an unsustainable rate. In the case of logging, forests were cut down thousands of years ago. Only now are places like Eastern Europe being reforested, and even so at the peril of poor air and water quality. The story of the overdraft of whales and marrine mammals is a younger problem, only dating back to the 18th century.

There is a reason why existing whaling laws aren't as strict on tribal communities. Point blank, they ain't the real source of the problem, thus the laws are "tiered".

OOC: What is amazing (and still pathetic) is that there are countless holes in this resolution. I pointed out that originally I was planning to abstain, but when a bunch of idiots started spouting off crap ... because to date you and others have demonstrated ZERO facts to support your claims ... I figured that my nation would just counter what is really bad roleplaying.

I'm just waiting for which one of you kids is gonna talk about why we should kill the whales so that James T. Kirk will have a reason to fly back to 1986 in search of Humpbacks. I certainly feel no need to point out obvious problems in a resolution when the people who are arguing against it can't get off their butts and do their own 15-minute google searches.

I'm thankful I'm not the only NS player who finds your arguments pretty lazy ... kinda like those fat seals you think should be slaughtered because in your opinion they are "worthless", huh? I wonder if maybe that theory shouldn't be extended into Soylent products as well ... Hmmmm? I'd say a diplomat who can't find science to support his own opinions fits in the "fat lazy sea lion" category.

We could discuss science for a long time. We could discuss the enviromental effects on the food chain, the effects of whales on sea lions, and all the other animals that you find "cute" and "cuddly".

MY issue is the economical impact. MY issue is the jobs lost by banning whaling. MY issue is MY people and their well-being. Would you trade one human family that will starve tuesday, or wednesday, because there's no more source for income? Will you regulate fishers and force them to find expensive means of avoiding the accidental deaths of whales? Is the death of the innocent worth another Great Whale that'll be eaten by killer whales anyways?

I call you justify that you can trade the lives of whales for the lives and well-being of humans.

And Bevis and Butthead stand for humans instead of fat, worthless sea animals, then I will proudly stand next to them.

Why Support Whaling?
All it does is decline economy not increase it.

Don't ban something because of moral issues, theres more than morality! :headbang:

Get Your Country's Ready for a economic downfall

it's like jackie chan and a cow, jackie chan's more important than the cow becuase jackie chan can do karate, all the cow can do is moo and eat grass and give milk. Karate is better than the actions of a cow.

We could discuss science for a long time. We could discuss the enviromental effects on the food chain, the effects of whales on sea lions, and all the other animals that you find "cute" and "cuddly".

MY issue is the economical impact. MY issue is the jobs lost by banning whaling. MY issue is MY people and their well-being. Would you trade one human family that will starve tuesday, or wednesday, because there's no more source for income? Will you regulate fishers and force them to find expensive means of avoiding the accidental deaths of whales? Is the death of the innocent worth another Great Whale that'll be eaten by killer whales anyways?



Christ on a Stick!

The only person to talk about how "cute" and "cuddly" whales and sea lions are has been you.

You've not discussed ANY science yet. You've yet to provide a SINGLE figure or fact supporting any of your claims. You haven't posted any economic data yet. Personally I think you're full of crap.

I've already posted about the lies that whale meat is healthy for people. It isn't. [OOC: The Nowergian government won't even allow Nowergians to eat much of the whale meat they harvest!]

People are not going to starve if they don't eat whale meat. Hell, they'll likely be at a lesser health risk (see above posts). And people certainly aren't going to die because they can't "hunt for whales" like you are implying above.

Besides, the few cases where a tribal community might depend upon whaling, for a lack of any other resources, are already protected by the resolution.

Let's try and be realistic here: as technology increases, our ability to over harvest will only be easier. Eventually there will be no whales, and other species will be impacted. Or are you going to repeat those idiotic lies that whales aren't endangered?

If you are so concerned about protecting people, why don't you start adopting some long-term sustainable economic practices. The first sustainable economic practice any society can engage in is to simply control its resource consumption.

The whale population has been overharvested. If fishing is left unrestricted, there will be no whales whatsoever to "harvest". What happens to these people then?

Christ on a Stick!
Settle down, 10K. ::grin::

The only way to stop a troll is to stop feeding the troll. Let it go. Just let it go ....

Settle down, 10K. ::grin::

The only way to stop a troll is to stop feeding the troll. Let it go. Just let it go ....

I think I just got a Yellow Card! ;)

Personally, I'd like to see you predict future numbers of economic losses, ranging from job losses to material losses. I'm Infinite Hoarding, not Miss Cleo.

Secondly, you are using the same arguing tactics as me; you say that the environment will be "effected in dynamically changing years" or whatever you said, but you, as well as I know that we can't predict future numbers, so we're left to discuss with qualitative data, and not quanititative.

Speaking of numbers, you said that you had "facts and data" does "Whaling has effected whales since the 1800s" count as your data? You as well as I know that jobs will be effected. The economy will be effected. By "long term economic practices", do you mean "miraculously stop all whaling jobs and replace them with similar jobs that use the same limited skill set of that of a whaler in 4 years" then I certainly DARE you to come up with a smooth fiscal plan that can save all those currently hard-working people.

And what if we STOPPED hunting whales, wouldn't that have just as much an environmental impact as killing them all off? I mean, if you start out with 5,000 whales, going to either 0 or 10,000 whales has just as much an impact.

And back to your science and facts. YOUR scientific data is limited to sea otters being effected and that something will happen. Oh, and good for the dates; thats some really interesting stuff there. The 1800s, eh?

You said earlier to think realistically. Here's a collection of the future based on thing's you've said, if you really had all those scientific facts down.

1)My government is voting in favour of this resolution based on its research and concludes that whale populations are in fact endangered by commerical fishing
A)Yeah, so what they're all going to die?

2)As for my justifications, it is clear you only glanced at the last link I provided, which was about an NPR broadcast about the theory about the interconnectivity of various marine life.
I could easily find more links supporting the link between whales and other marine species:
In this Smithsonian article, the decline in Alaskan Sea Otter populations is basically attributed to a decrease in fisheries in the Aleutians. In this particular case, Killer Whales are now hunting increasing numbers of Sea Otters, because they have fewer fish to eat.
(This last part is kinda stupid because if there were more great whales to eat, killer whales wouldn't eat otters)
The point of course isn't to make this be an argument against Sea Otters (though if you are so stupid as to honestly believe their is no value in Sea Otters or harbor seals, then your nation actually should support a banning on whaling in order to increase the otter take by Killer Whales), but to merely point out that there are a number of theories amongst North Pacific nations (which tend to have excellent marine science programs) illustrating that fisheries are in fact all interconnected.
B) oh, so they're all interconnected, but I couldn't give up a piece of my economy for stupid sea otters.

3)It takes it years to reach a new dynamic, and other species are impacted when a link is broken.
C)Oh, so it will reach a new equilibrium later on because in the absence of whales, new predators will move in and take their place anyways so it doesn't matter

4)Let's try and be realistic here: as technology increases, our ability to over harvest will only be easier
D) Oh, so we can make more money, quicker. Good point.

5)The problem is, and will remain, humans have the ability through technology to harvest natural resources at an unsustainable rate. In the case of logging, forests were cut down thousands of years ago. Only now are places like Eastern Europe being reforested, and even so at the peril of poor air and water quality. The story of the overdraft of whales and marrine mammals is a younger problem, only dating back to the 18th century.
E) oh, so if something is IMPORTAINT, then it will be protected and rebuilt because trees make paper and whales make oil and lubricant so in the future, there will be limitations but still the allowing of hunting

6)While I'm sure that Beavis and Butthead might agree with that theory, how many human beings (your new predators) do you know that eat half of the things whales consume?
F) Well, I hear there are some countries where people eat people so we got you covered there!

So, in conclusion, time to get some useful facts and data, or find a way to time travel to get your data of the FUTURE, because Infinite Hoarding is much to poor to time travel. And much too poor to afford the economic loss associated with the ban of whale hunting.

And if you want Scientific data for part F, watch "When Animals Attack", "Free Willy", and "Real TV".

and here's your science. Maybe you should've googled this for 5 minutes

Economic impacts of ban of whaling:Japan 57% left unemployed (http://luna.pos.to/whale/iwc_chair80_7.html)

and you can try to find the article in the "Canberra Times" August 19, A19. 2001. that clearly stated that the recession of antartic ice has reduced whale populations by 50%, thus if you love your precious whales so much, patch the ozone layer.

any bans on whaling would cause possibly un-reversable damage to the enviornment that would include the following: fish shortages, lack of crabs and other shellfish that are hot items in draganovian street markets. do you have any idea what you are doing to our country by banning whaling?! we will personally hold the countrys who voted yes responsible for any ecological damage done to draganovia!!

Economic impacts of ban of whaling:Japan 57% left unemployed (http://luna.pos.to/whale/iwc_chair80_7.html)


You've completely twisted that article, because the sentence you are misquoting read:


Recent Japanese experience indicated that 57% of personnel displaced have, so far, remained wholly or partly unemployed.

That single sentence reads, that half of the personnel put out of work due to ban in whaling would completely or partially unemployed.

What you are suggesting is that 1 out of 2 Japanese workers would be unemployed without whaling. Do you really think half of the Japanese work force is that tied to whaling???

Next, that report you quoted, was edited and dates from 1980. The author even calls them extracts, and was honest that he was not quoting the entire report (though you were less honest):

http://luna.pos.to/whale/iwc_1980s.html


Unfortunately, the IWC does not keep reports prior to 2000 in electronic format yet (which is understandible, rarely would somebody deliberately take parts of a report about whales of all things and misrepresent those reports as you've done here).

But to be fair, let's look at the "similar" chapter of a more recent Chair's Report from the same organization:

http://www.iwcoffice.org/meetings/chair2003.htm#table

From Page 32 (34 in the pdf) of the 2003 Chair's Report:


As background, Japan recalled that it had been sixteen years since the imposition of the moratorium on commercial whaling in Japanese coastal water and that during this time, it had repeatedly requested an interim relief allocation of 50 minke whales to alleviate the hardships of its small-type coastal whaling communities. It noted that even though the Commission had recognised the severe impacts of the moratorium on four small-type whaling communities and had agreed to work expeditiously to alleviate their distress, while its coastal fisheries have become improverished, leading to considerable discontent among fisherman over the competition between fisheries and whales.

I can continue quoting from the report, but the point I wanted to illustrate that that in the 23 years since your quoted report, Japan has agreed to follow and adhere to the IWC provisions. Furthermore, the report does not report about 57% of the Japanese being unemployed. That frankly is you just fear mongering this assembly and frankly very manipulative on your part! :(

Furthermore, what you painted as an entire country is 4 small villages.

While I think it is great that you brought some discussion into this thread, I find it deplorable that you are misrepresenting the facts. Read the 148+ page 2003 report. I think you will find yourself better able to defend your position.

Having researched the IWC, I can safely say that the author of this resolution has a much better understanding of the global whale issue than you have displayed thus far.


Finally, I'd like to call into question the quality of page quoted:

http://luna.pos.to/

On the main index there is a picture of a rifle. Look at some of the other links from this page:

http://luna.pos.to/s006.html
http://luna.pos.to/s009.html
http://luna.pos.to/s012.html

These are all links (not in English) to more rifle instructions.

Basically this "source" is just some guy's collection of mostly Japanese articles about how important whaling is. It is a homepage. If you want something a bit more reputable, try reading the links he has on his homepage. In particular focus on the IWC and Nowergian Govt page. The IWC will be anti-whaling. The Nowergian Govt will be pro whaling.

It might not have any advantages and it might have some to protect whales. In fact it does not matter as we consider preventing endangered animals from dying out to be desireable even if it does not get us any economical or whatsoever advantages.

- Carl L. Schwarzer for the Free Land of Cloudy Somewhere

----------------------------
Unlicenced scientific and all commercial whaling are outlawed in international law. Nations that flout this ban are subject to economic sanctions and whalers' boats can be impounded and destroyed.
-----------------------------
Interesting. Does this mean that whaling vessels can be hunted for sport?
(hey, it's another potential issue)

:mad:

The member for Cave Canem apologises to Mikivity for paraphrasing so severely, however we feel the tone of our friend's debate with Infinite Hoarding is captured.

Cave Canem only wishes to remind Mikivity that this is one of those occasions when ones opponent in a debate is quite capable of scuppering their own argument, without the need of opposition.

Member for Cave Canem

Have you written any pollution proposals? I looked and didn't see your nation's name associated with any prior anti-pollution resolutions, so really you shouldn't be one to talk. You've done nothing on this subject.

But are you aware that the UN already based a ban on pollution in the oceans?

Yes, we are. We also took it as a matter of fact, that all nations knew of prior UN decisions.

And as Traian has only been a UN-member for a short time, and is a small nation, it does not see it self in a position to make any new drafts. There has not been any enviromentally orientaded resolutions up for consideration during our membership.


Oceanic Wate Dumping, adopted on 2003.10.30 by a vote of 12,645 to 2,286. In fact, since this resolution (which you claim hasn't happened) is already in effect

Where did I claim that this? I never did, and it migth be some non-UN nations that does not abide by this.




Now your statement that whale meat is healthy for humans is false:

http://www.hsus.org/ace/14438


"The Humane Society". Like they would make a sientifically based article. The best that can be said of them, is that they are not PETA. Also, They don't take in to consideration, the amount eaten.



Then try reading:
http://www.eurocbc.org/page658.html

Propaganda. Look who wrote it.

http://www.ems.org/rls/2004/02/16/consumption_of_w.html

At least a site that look like it has something to it.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/07/26/toxic.whalemeat.enn/

This is writen by the media, and thus has to be confirmed before it can be belived.

http://members.surfeu.fi/whale/now/stopwhaling/part4_6.htm

Anti-whaling propaganda.

Of course, the only argument for not eating whale-meat, is that it is contaminated. But so is farmed salmon, and many other food-stuffs. Uncontaminated whale-meat, would thus be healty. Also it is very tasty. Also the average Traianian eat less than 100g a year.

Some would say that our small (5 ship) whaling fleet migth get away with beeng classed as "traditional". However this is more a matter of principle.

Traian.

The Democratic States of Hirota do not have any interest in whaling - however, we appreciate there might be nations who do have a substantial interest in the industry.

However, if this proposal was to come to pass, any sensible nation would be able to make the most of the situation.

Whales are quite popular eco-tourist resources - instead of a whaler armed with a harpoon, give them a camera. Remove the traditional tools of whaling, and put tourists on instead. Any nation can tell you tourism is big business, and will easily make as much as whaling ever did, is a sustainable source of income, and is far more satisfying for the whole of humanity. Few people can be unmoved by the movement and grace of these creatures.

In response to some interesting points raised by various governments, we make the following observations.

1) Is whale meat healthy?
Whilst the sources presented by the honourable representative from Miktivity may be described as bias by some, I would refer members to consult the report made by Ecotoxicologist Shinsuke Tanabe Here (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20020517b4.htm). It does provide a more....balanced perspective than any I have seen so far presented.

2) The only reason not to eat whale meat is because it is contaminated?
Contamination does provide a strong argument in this debate - it seems foolish to willingly pollute your own body. However, it is not the only factor, although Traian may suggest otherwise.
Borrowing the analogy made by Traian, observing that salmon is also potentially contaminated (although noting that salmon is more contaminated when raised in captivity, and that efforts can be made to correct this, whilst the problem with whale meat contamination is more difficult to resolve), the DSH observes that Whales -as a species- are becoming increasingly endangered to the brink of extinction, whilst Salmon are in no such danger as far as the DSH is aware.

3) We would hope that Traian's small fishing fleet would also be employing non-industrial methods of whaling if they hoped to be exempt from the potential resolution.

4) Observing Infinite Hoarding's efforts to research this matter on Google. We note that 5 minutes on Google is not enough time to build a strong argument on this subject - as proven aptly by Mikitivity. We are disappointed some nations continue to shoot themselves in the ideological foot.

The DSH votes in favor of this resolution and will lobby for continued support on this matter.

This is a stupid resolution. My nation is large island in the Mediterranean and we are completely surrounded by water, if this resolution were to pass.... our country is pretty much screwed. We're an maritime nation and this would kill our economy, theorically. I 100% VOTE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION... Stupid vegans....

Traian, you asked where you implied that the UN has not addressed pollution of the oceans ...

Try yesterday around 2:25 PM PDT:

This resolution has only to do with irrational feelings, and nothing to do with saving the environment. Pollution of the oceans, from industry and dumping, is a much worse problem. Of course garbage is neither cute nor sexy, so this don't attract celebreties.


You are stating that this resolution does nothing to protect the environment, which is false. Protecting wildlife is protecting the environment.

Furthermore, you are implying that nothing has been done about polluting the oceans.

Anybody who actually read through the prior UN resolutions wouldn't have implied that the UN hasn't already dealth with ocean pollution. I don't appreciate people misleading this assembly.

For future reference, if you want to claim that this body has or has not done something, spend a few minutes looking over the prior resolutions first.

The Knootian representative to the UN speaks up:
"Bah, silly runaway idealism once more. The DDR states its opposition to this resolution which will destroy an entire economic sector and will seriously hamper ecological research by swamping it in bureaucracy.

Again, left-wing politicians seek to win the populist vote by choosing an especially sexy subject to score with in the UN halls. As previous speakers already said, whales are of course more photogenic then researches pointing out the results of dumping chemicals or waste materials into the ocean.

This resolution does not take into account whatsoever the possibility of controlled hunting though the use of quota. It places the economic livelyhood of other peoples directly under the controll of a UN bureaucracy. A bureaucracy, I might add, that forces a people to hunt inefficiently regardless of the quota's they are "allowed" to have. Such ignorance and disrespect for indiginous peoples who have hunted whales for centuries is truly stunning.

It is only fortunate that our whaling interests are insignificant. We can survive. However we will demand that a Knootian will be part in the deliberations and decisions regarding permits and we will have the interests of the scientific community at heart in such deliberations."

As previous speakers already said, whales are of course more photogenic then researches pointing out the results of dumping chemicals or waste materials into the ocean.


Then those previous speakers are ignorant.

The UN actually addressed the dumping of chemicals and waste materials into the ocean before approaching the topic of endangered species. The two topics are of course related, and the UN actually responded to the larger issue first.

If you are so concerned about oceanic dumping and feel that the prior resolution is inadequate, begin working on a new proposal. Despite what some might suggest, not all UN resolutions are mutually exclusive. The repeated passage of resolutions about prosititution and protecting trees are pefect examples of that social justice and environmental resolultions can be revisited.

I feel that Cloudy Somewhere stated it best:

This issue is about protecting wildlife which has been on the verge of extiniction due to human hunting.

The Knootian stands up and speaks with dramatic effect, looking at the representative from Mikitivity.

"Nay Sir, I am not saying that nothing has ever been done or that nothing should ever be done. I am saying that you are motivated more by your leaders re-election then by any sort of commitment to the Common Good. We know about those issues you spoke of because they have been revisited again, and again, and again and again.

I have a commitment to a balance between ecology and economy. I have supported UN resolutions in the past that strive for such a balance. This resolution knows no end. Even if hunting would become possible again because the species recovers this ban would still apply."

He frowns for a moment, as if thinking. Then, he continues:
"Perhaps you can answer this for me: when will you ever be satisfied with your resolutions? Is there even a theoretical end to your seemingly endless stream of "environmental" regulations? Or does this theoretical end come only when trees have replaced all human settlements and real monkeys are populating these halls, swinging from lamp post to lamp post. Will this ban on hunting whales end when whales are colliding like trucks in giant whale traffic jams in the ocean? Or is this another indefenite proposal that takes no account for any circumstances as they may change?"

I think that Mitkivity has reached a new low in his arguments. We can recall that Mitkivity was caught saying:

"Finally, I'd like to call into question the quality of page quoted:
http://luna.pos.to/"

Now we can see my "pretty pretty pictures argument came full circle".

Mitkivity has questioned information BASED ON THE PICTURES. Of course, not on the content. Why? BECAUSE ITS IN JAPANESE.

Irrelevant, Mitikivity has reiterated my point however it was phrased. It doesn't matter if 57% were employed, or if 57% after unemployed, could not find jobs. Irrelevant on however you phrase it or jab or stab at it, the fact remains that THIS RESOLUTION SEEKS TO FAVOR WHALES OVER HUMAN BEINGS.

Even the author of this resolution agrees that there will be an economic impact, and over the course of my argument, I have made qualitative observations to what you could expect to happen in terms of the supply/demand and resource/industry chains.

Mitkivy's only response is to create the magical long-term fiscal policy.

We're not talking about whale meat. We're talking about economic impacts. And exactly how do you expect whaling communities to magically turn a "oil/lubraction/wax" business into "whale-watching"? This isn't rocket science people, its cause-effect economics. Time to make some excuses, pro-whaling advocates.

Time to convince poor Sailor Johnny that he doesn't have a job anymore because you can't hunt whales and theres a 57% chance you'll be underemployed or unemployed in the future, and that its better off.

Time to convince Suzy that she might have to sell her body now because her husband has lost his work.

Time to convince Factory Ted that he has to rely on foreign oil for lubrication because the local source is illegal.

And time to convince all the small, fishing-based industries, why their lives will be harder just because some hippies want to go whale watching.

I have a commitment to a balance between ecology and economy. I have supported UN resolutions in the past that strive for such a balance. This resolution knows no end. Even if hunting would become possible again because the species recovers this ban would still apply.

Not true. I quote from the resolution:


A commission is set up by the United Nations to study the effects of overfishing and on other human activities on the marine ecosystem, and to propose solutions. If it sees a genuine need for scientific whaling, then it is empowered to licence limited scientific whaling.

Basically the author of this resolution, already addressed your complaint. There is a balance and a means to again allow whaling, when it is sustainable.

But wait, there is more:


Indigenous peoples who engage in 'aboriginal whaling' using traditional non-industrial methods and taking only a small number of whales each year, to be exempt from the ban. A register of such peoples to be set up by the UN.


This is sustainable development. This is balanced.

Let me describe what sustainable development is.

When a non-rewenable resource is used, any industry built around the use of that resource is short-term only. This is not a sustainable base to an economy.

When a rewenable resource is used, any industry built around the use of that resource is only sustainable if the resource recovers at a rate approximately equal to the use of that resource. If the resource does not recover at the rate of use, then that economy is non-sustainable. In short, in the future that economy will have to adjust.

Whales were once (about 200 to 300 years ago) an important part of our oceans and plentiful. As human technology increased, our ability to hunt whales did so at such a rate, that humans were able to kill whales faster than they could reproduce.

The following is an ABC news article about whale populations:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/US/whales030724.html

I'll quickly paraphrase the article: DNA evidence indicates that the pre 1700 whale population is larger than we initially thought. The decline in the population has been to over hunting.




Perhaps you can answer this for me: when will you ever be satisfied with your resolutions? Is there even a theoretical end to your seemingly endless stream of "environmental" regulations?

My resolutions???
WTF!

First, I'm not the author of this environmental proposal. My "endless stream" of environmental regulations thus far is limited to the Ballast Water resolution (I was a co-author) adopted earlier this year. My other two resolutions have been in International Security and Social Justice. Not even close to this topic.

Second, my voting record should speak for itself:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6666733&postcount=2

I'll call attention to the following resolutions that I've voted no on:

Save the foreests of the World: EN-W: N: 1.7
Illegal Logging: EN-Al: N: 2.2

If you look there are plenty of other resolutions that my nation has voted no on because they were unstainable, including several other "save the forests" resolutions. While most "save the trees" resolutions are extremely poorly worded, I've actually been impressed with the level of detail that the maritime resolutions have captured.


[OOC: Spend a bit of time reviewing the NS maritime related issues and then spend an equal amount of time looking at the real world. Being an environmental engineer by profession, I actually think that the authors of the maritime resolutions aren't doing this just as a knee-jerk reaction. These authors may be young or old, but each of them has convinced me, that they actually do have an understanding of the basic environmental problems, and frankly it pisses me off to see a bunch of people who don't know jack shit about the topic jumping in and flaming them. When I saw the flamebaiting for the first ballast water proposal, I jumped in quickly and used the IMO, US, and Canadian resources to clean up the proposal. Konigreich_der_Nacht actually has including enough hidden references to the IWC in his / her resolution, that again, I'm convinced that this resolution is easily several orders of magitude better than the "save the trees" resolutions. KdN probably could have drafted a better resolution, by including issues of whale meat, which is unsafe, but all-n-all, until you've seen a resolution run its course, I don't think you can appreciate how hard it is to address international environmental problems in NationStates. My apologies if you used a puppet or co-authored one of the resolutions, but according to my records, you've done not experienced this to date.

If you actually care about pollution and the environment, why don't you take a different approach. Why don't you begin work on a proposal that you feel would represent sustainable development?

If you post a draft here, I'll provide my feedback the resolution comes to a vote and I'll work with your nation to continue to meet the balance and promote sustainable economies.

Personally, I think you aren't trolling like the other dude in this thread. But as a nation that has been around in NS for some time, you might want to reconsider your position. Afterall, look at the company you are keeping ... here I'm pointing to that guy that has been taking and purposefully misquoting articles.]

http://whale.wheelock.edu/whalenet-stuff/ser_population.html

There are 1,950,000 spermwhales in the world today according to this
site. I don't think they will become extinct if we killed some for
food.......

What a shame that the The Confederated City States of Mikitivity resorts to such infantile insults - and that it is unable to distinguish between the real world and a game.

There is no evidence that all species of whale are endangered in this world -- or the real world. The resolution allows for 'cultural whaling' well in the real world the only nations which still whale in any numbers are Japan and Norway, both of which have a 'whaling culture'.

A resolution such as this should be voted down, and instead I would propose a resolution which favours an International Whaling commision to oversee whaling on a quota basis. Then if a given species numbers fall a limited ban can be impossed. If a species is abundent it can be hunted. This avoids the need for a blanket ban which is some what nebulous.

The Empire of Itinerate Tree Dweller has voted against this issue, which would further limit the freedom of nations around the world.

The purpose of the UN should be to give nations MORE freedoms, not take freedoms away.

- Christopher Irons
- ITD Diplomat to the UN

A resolution such as this should be voted down, and instead I would propose a resolution which favours an International Whaling commision to oversee whaling on a quota basis. Then if a given species numbers fall a limited ban can be impossed. If a species is abundent it can be hunted. This avoids the need for a blanket ban which is some what nebulous.

Will your nation actually write this proposal? Until such a time that the idea you've stated is presented, a "blanket ban" (even this one which does provide for some exceptions) is preferred to no international policy.

Typically nations that waltz into the UN and start claiming things like "This is horrible!" do not follow through on proposals like you've made above.

I'd encourage nations to vote yes on this, and to address the issue of quotas (which actually is a fair idea) in a future proposal. While it is common knowledge that you can not "amend" or "repeal" prior resolutions, it is possible to revisit prior NS ideas *if* you are careful to remain true to the intent of the original resolution. An example of this is the ruling on the UNEC proposal from April / May. Basically several of us worked together to revisit the UNEC resolution (which originally I voted against). One moderator deleted the proposal on the grounds that it was an amendment to the UNEC, but the author of the second proposal was also the author of the first, and we managed to convince the moderators that everything in our new proposal remained true to the original UNEC proposal.

With that in mind, this resolution is likely going to pass, and for good reason: Whales are in fact endangered (which has been shown in other posts above)!

Instead of coming off as a troll, like that other guy, if you focused more on your quota idea (which again, I think is "fair and just"), you can work with instead of against the resolution author and the two of you could revisit this issue.

Though you may not like my nation (or me), I'd be interested in helping you, because frankly this is an important issue. My government feels strongly that a ban or quota system needs to be adopted.

Some whales are endangered not all ! Do you belive hunting a small number of the almost 2 million sperm whales will make them extinct ?

"Sir, I must object to this underestimation of the Knootian point of view. I have indeed read this resolution and I know what is in it. Indeed I dare claim that our literacy rating outshines nine out of ten countries represented in this honoured hall."

(boohs from the audience. The speaker pauses and stares defiantly before continuing)

"The issues I have raised have not been sufficiently adressed in the resolution by the Constitutional Monarchy of Konigreich der Nacht. In fact, I take the way they have been adressed to be an insult to common sense and a threat to the empowerment of traditional cultures; causes we champion.

There are sad days ahead indeed for the United Nations if I must admit on behalf of my government that it cannot bear faith in an institution to uphold a blanket-ban with wisdom and prudence if that same institution systematically seeks to eliminate the production of wood. A commission which "may" license practices that have been sustained for centuries by ancient cultures. The resolution tackles a problem that does not exist or is, at any rate, severely overestimated.

Mr. Chairman, please allow me to to my point without diverting to the issue of sustainability more then absolutely needed. Whales are a renewable resource. They procreate. There is no evidence whatsoever that the whale population in NationStates has reached a critical level. In fact, the Emerald Seas and the waters surrounding the Greater Aperinian Continent are teeming with such lifeforms. The Greenfields region already protects migrating whales and provides them with a living environment through the Non-Human Union. The Pacific Problems and Atlantic Anxieties are no global issue. They are regional issues that should be dealt with regionally."

---

OOC:
I am not saying this is your resolution. You are, however one of those who is defending it. "You" (and this is one of the examples of the English language being delightfully ambigious) are part of the club of active socialistic nations forming an active lobby, a special interest group if you will, that dominates resolution-making in NS. I am not holding you personally responsible, but it should be said that this group has driven many nations away from the NS UN. And I am not just talking about trolls or religious zealots. Just ask around in #nationstates and you'll see that a vast majority of nations that are really old and active have given up UN membership for their main nation and are actively opposed to the NS UN as being a ridicilous institution. And, yes. I often see the same names when these naive "save the trees" and "outlaw profit" resolutions are discussed.

My conclusion is that the NS world is different. I mentioned seas and continents above that exist in NS but not IRL. That alone makes this resolution silly, IMO.

And to continue on the subject of my knowledge. As you have already mentioned I have been around for a while. I´ll be quick to admit that I am no environmental engineer but I have spent some time looking over this stuff and I have read the Greenpeace magazines when my parents still subscribed to it. I also used to be moderately active in the UN a loooong way back but I got sick of the rampant stupidity that was running amock in those days. Nowadays it seems to be a little bit better which is why I have dared to venture back in here. The UN was never my main thing but I have submitted a resolution in the past (on capital punishment when this was not as chewed out as it is now) and I have given others advice on their resolutions on occasion. (Usually to people I know or people in my region) I have also been a UN delegate for half a year or so and I have spent time weeding through the proposals and discussing it with region members. Mostly not in these forums though. So yes. I can appreciate it. That does not stop me from disagreeing nor does it make my opinion irrelevant. My opinion is rendered irrelevant because a majority of NS nations goes OMG TEH NATURE! WE MUST SAVE IT! however stupidly phrased or irrelevant to NS the issue may be.

I am not going to propose a resolution on sustainable development because too MUCH is already being done for the trees, cute bunnies and whales here. I have been running around with an idea about banning low-yield tactical nukes but a nuclear resolution is already being made right now so I am waiting to see what is to become of that one.

Some whales are endangered not all ! Do you belive hunting a small number of the almost 2 million sperm whales will make them extinct ?

First, I like the table presented for all of the whale species on your link. The following society confirms your estimate:

http://www.cetacea.org/sperm.htm

The reason that the sperm whale population is better off than other species might be answered by the following:


The Influence of Man: Sperm Whales were killed mainly for the oil produced from their thick blubber, and for the wax found in the head - known as spermaceti. Originally used for purfume, ambergris also came from this species of whale; and the black, oily meat of the Sperm Whale was never taken for food, except by a few communities. This cetacean has been killed every year from around 1690-1987, with the heavy commercial fishery beginning in earnest in the early Eighteenth Century. Hundreds of thousands had been killed in all oceans of the world, with a peak in the 1963/64 whaling season of 29,300 individuals. In 1971 the first International Whaling Commission restrictions were enforced, and by 1984 all commercial Sperm Whale catches were banned.


This same organization has the following to say about the justification of hunting whales:


Following the invention of Svend Foyn's explosive harpoon in 1864, the whaling industry has become so ruthless and efficient that species after species have been decimated. In 1900, 250,000 blue whales - the largest animal ever to roam the planet - lived in the oceans; today there are but 3,000. There were 115,000 humpback whales in the seas at the turn of the century; now fewer than 7,000 remain.


from http://www.cetacea.org/cause.htm

If you continue to search other organizations' estimates of sperm whale populations, you'll find different numbers, some of which are lower than the 2 million population by a factor of 10!

Though I chidded one troll from misquoting an article he took from a homepage as coming from an unreiable source, I think the following archived question / response is pretty fair:

http://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask97/0416.html


The latest statistics I have for you are:
The original population estimates suggest that the sperm whale population
was once at 2.4 million individuals. Current estimates of the population
size suggest that 1.95 million sperm whales are alive today. So, there
has been a decline in the population over time, but the US Government
lists the species as at it's optimum sustainable population - meaning that
the sperm whales that are in the oceans are eating as much food and using
as much space as the ocean has to offer. The IUCN however, differs from
the US and states that not enough is known about the sperm whale
population to be able to formulate a solid population status. As you
probably know from your research already, sperm whales can dive for
extended periods of time (in comparison to other whales) and live in very
deep waters. Both of these life history characteristics make them a bit
more difficult to study than a coastal species like the humpback.

I've highlighted the important part, namely that it was clear in 1997 (when the above was posted) that our understanding of whales is limited. We do however know that hunting has decreased most populations (the first link shows that).

((All of this information is about the REAL planet earth and not about NS. We are not doing resolutions about Iraq or islamic terrorism either.))

Mr. Chairman, please allow me to to my point without diverting to the issue of sustainability more then absolutely needed. Whales are a renewable resource. They procreate. There is no evidence whatsoever that the whale population in NationStates has reached a critical level. In fact, the Emerald Seas and the waters surrounding the Greater Aperinian Continent are teeming with such lifeforms. The Greenfields region already protects migrating whales and provides them with a living environment through the Non-Human Union. The Pacific Problems and Atlantic Anxieties are no global issue. They are regional issues that should be dealt with regionally."


Whom is this "Chairman" you are addressing?

OOC: There is plenty of evidence that the whale population in NationStates is endangered. The mods have repeated said that real world problems apply in NationStates. While real world people and places (Canada and Michael Jackson) don't exist, the problems do.

It is godmodding to say that these problems don't exist.

"Cancer? You are mistaken my friend. My nation has no cancer.
Crime? Surely you joke, it doesn't exist in my nation.
Old age! Bah! The people of my nation live to be 1,200!
Whales! Well, the walk in the forests like all of the other formerly endangered species. And if you are going to cry that they can't walk in forests, I challenge you to prove this is not the case in NationStates."

Frankly, I'm surprised that a nation as old as yours would actively advocate in favour of godmodding, but if people can easily dismiss PROVEN real world problems, there is no point in being a part of the UN. I can easily argue that EVERY UN resolution is not a problem in NationStates.




OOC:
I am not saying this is your resolution. You are, however one of those who is defending it. "You" (and this is one of the examples of the English language being delightfully ambigious) are part of the club of active socialistic nations forming an active lobby, a special interest group if you will, that dominates resolution-making in NS. I am not holding you personally responsible, but it should be said that this group has driven many nations away from the NS UN. And I am not just talking about trolls or religious zealots.

You sure sounded like it. Perhaps you should have made the distinction.

Furthermore, what "active soalistic lobby" am I a part of???

The reason I dominate resolution making in NS isn't because there is any organized lobby. The reality is, while plenty of players are capable of writing resolutions, frankly they are LAZY. I'm counting you in that category, because having written several resolutions and worked with others it is incredibly easy.

When you see a proposal that you don't like, you politely make a minor amendment. The problem with lazy players is they don't take an interest in draft proposals and only make an appearance in the UN when a resolution has come to a vote. If they would stick around for more than a 5-day period and participate in other threads than the current resolution based ones, they'd find younger nations willing to listen to their advice.

Despite what you may believe, most resolution authors are more than willing to compromise their ideas in order to have their issue reach the floor.

No sir, you are wrong. There is no secret society of nations trying to pull the strings of the UN. If anything, there is a group of nations that have learned that by working together we can slowly all a positive influence.


Just ask around in #nationstates and you'll see that a vast majority of nations that are really old and active have given up UN membership for their main nation and are actively opposed to the NS UN as being a ridicilous institution. And, yes. I often see the same names when these naive "save the trees" and "outlaw profit" resolutions are discussed.

Maybe if they would stick around that wouldn't be the case. I've not once voted in favour of any save the trees or outlaw profit resolutions. Did you even look at my voting record?

But you will see my nation's name in the UN. Because *gasp* I've been active in other issues.


My conclusion is that the NS world is different. I mentioned seas and continents above that exist in NS but not IRL. That alone makes this resolution silly, IMO.


The moderators disagree with you. Look for some of Cogitation's posts, or I can find the link for you. But your conclusion IS godmodding.

I'd honestly like you to name a few topics that you think "do" exist, and I can easily apply your twisted logic right back at you.


I am not going to propose a resolution on sustainable development because too MUCH is already being done for the trees, cute bunnies and whales here. I have been running around with an idea about banning low-yield tactical nukes but a nuclear resolution is already being made right now so I am waiting to see what is to become of that one.

Well, I've yet to hear anybody say whales are cute. That is a really stupid argument for you and others to use.

While it is true that "saving forests" are easy, the problem isn't that these issues have been overdone. You and I both know that to write a well balanced resolution is difficult. You must be unfortunately long-winded, or some 15-year old who is approaching 40 is gonna point out how you missed something. But at the same time, the other 15 year olds don't like to read long-winded anything (unless sex is mixed in there).

While I've supported the maritime resolutions, I'll be the first to admit that some of them could be longer. The problem isn't the resolutions or the authors though. It is NationStates itself. You can be a jerk and vote anything down that isn't up to whatever your high standards are, but if you really have tried to see a resolution from start to finish, and even *gasp* roleplay it out later (like Hersfold and Galdago are both doing with their creations) you'll change your mind and realize there are limitations in this game. It is far to easy for some kid to come in and godmod ("Whales are not in danger in NationStates) or for somebody else to say, "Your proposal is too long" or for somebody else to say, "There are no details in this!".

For somebody who was posting in that other thread about the need to be moderate and compromise, I'm asking that you take a few seconds and reconsider two ASSUMPTIONS you've made:

1) Is there really some "socialist lobby group" in NationStates? If there is, could you provide a list of members ... because I don't appreciate you implying that there is some "organized" effort when there isn't.

2) Basic real-world problems / global and domestic issues aren't also included in NationStates. In this case, the author would have been warned had he / she made a resolution just about "Sperm Whales" or "Right Whales". While a proper noun like those species may be different in NS, whales as a group do exist. Again, if you want to continue to argue this point, I suggest you and I take this up in MODERATION, because I'd be more than happy to ask Cog to repeat his point on this issue. I'm more than SICK of seeing experienced players godmod.

((All of this information is about the REAL planet earth and not about NS. We are not doing resolutions about Iraq or islamic terrorism either.))

OK, I can see you are going to insist on godmodding.

I've already pointed to Cog's thread *once* in this thread when this was only a proposal, but here goes again:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343155&page=2&pp=15

You'll want to read *all* of Cog's posts. Cog even goes on to suggest that "Hippos" exist. It is therefore logical that "Whales" exist. It doesn't take that big a leap of faith to then extend this logic a step further and suggest that like real world Whales, that NS Whales face similar problems to those I've referenced above. (Given the number of Nazi / Troll nations, I'd say NS Whales are probably worse off.)

Care to take this back to moderation? I'm more than happy to, because I already know what the answer will be. Do you?

I would like to point out that this resolution does nothing. It says in it's own text it is proposing, if it is passed there is nothing binding, the UN is merely making a statement. On those grounds, I do not support this resolution, I feel it is frivioulous.

OOC:
Moderation? We are debating a UN issue here. However if a mod wants to move this thing for some reason or (more likely) split it off then fine. *shrugs* Just TG me please so I can actually find it back. I see this as a different debate from the hippo one since you misrepresent my case. I do not like to being wrongly accused of "godmoding." There is a difference between denying cancer out of convenience and implying that the number of whales in NS is not exactly the same as the number of whales IRL. Note how I am

Not denying that there is whalehunting
Not denying that this has increased with industrialisation, which is a logical inference.
Not denying that there might be a problem with the whale population. (At least, not OOCly which is different for me here from IC. I will blatantly deny that there is a problem at all when speaking In Character. "Problem" is relative, after all.)
Not denying AIDS, Cancer, crime or old age.

HOWEVER

The NS earth is much bigger and does not contain IRL nations. In fact, there are plenty of regions (also with maps and all) that do NOT hunt whales. I have provided you with a (small, admittedly) list of regions where there is no whale hunting.

In NS there are many nations with 100% income tax while this is not the case with the "real" planet. THe NS earth has a lot more people. The NS earth has different politicians making different decisions. Even if the real world problems apply. This makes pointing to IRL surveys about the whale population as pointless as pointing to IRL population surveys to infer the human population in NS. Again, I am not denying that there is a problem, I am denying that the number of whales existing in NS is the same number as the whales existing in real life and discussions about it are, hence, irrelevant.

The argument of my delegate may not assume the exact situation on the planet earth but this does not render my argument qualitatively invalid. My argument was: In NS, habitats exist because regions have been established according to environmental principles. Therefore I feel fully justified in mentioning them as examples in my case against this resolution. You instead choose to deny them in favour of surveys of a planet that is not really the one we are deciding about right now.

While the arguments are literally contracdictory, I am not denying that there is a problem and likewise you should not be saying that I am lying/godmoding about the existence of no-whale hunting zones because NS earth is a pseudo-exact copy of the real planet. Its called the multiverse, its contradictory. I am likewise of the opinion that the Moon colonisation is illegal because there are already people on the moon in my version of the multiverse. (In the region "the Moon") You can have different ideas or not recognise the 'Moon' players but you cannot force me to accept your vision on how this planet looks like as a reality and accuse me of "godmoding" for non-compliance as a thought-crime.

You are seemingly willing to account for Nazi nations in NS hunting whales (they seem to be hunting Jews/Gays/[Minority of choice] more then whales in particular, but that is besides the point). However if you go down this path you should ALSO account for the hundreds, if not thousands of environmentally friendly regions ruled by the very same people that make the tree resolutions who would arguably protect whales. IMO that would provide a very nice habitat for the little critters.

However, all this guesswork (because really... its your word against my word since the NS earth does not actually exist) aside. If you would assume NS earth to be exactly like the real earth (only bigger) then the amount of whales should go up accordingly with the human population. This alone would render the entire problem moot.

Summary
The points I have made were actually quite limited:

IRL =! NS even if the same problems exist. Pointing to IRL surveys to 'prove' the exact whale population in NS is futile, IMO, beyond a mere indication fo the approximate size of the problem. We all know that whales are being hunted. We all know that they are being threatened by some NS equivalents of the Japanese. Lets leave our options open for exact NS numbers. Googling up reports about the IRL situation. Note how I did not claim anything about exact NS numbers OOCly.
is a non-debate since it is impossible to have a count in NS.
Multiverse. = Respect. If something has been roleplayed or done in issues by NS nations, I can assume it exists and use it in an argument in this council. Even if such things are not the case in the real world or would "contradict" IRL or even things other nations have roleplayed..


With regard to your personal remarks
I find it surprising that you deny that there is a network of people who are actively campaigning to get their resolutions though.

When I was still a delegate I would ALWAYS get telegrams from the same people patting eachother on the back and I STILL see it happening to others. For crying out loud the CACE has a special board devoted entirely to churning out resolutions that are against capitalism. Now you tell me again that the left has not completely hijacked the NS UN through superior organisation. In fact, you can be proud of that. I will hold out with the NS UN for roleplaying reasons and bend my interpretation of resolutions I do not like. As many are poorly written, it is not so difficult.

I simply do not want to extend all my energy and limited time on NS trying to find support for my ideas (more free trade, intelligent nuclear disarmament, a balance between economy and ecology and establishing international institutions which, by consensus building, make for a more stable planet) with a crowd that obviously is not interested in working with ideas that do not fall within their own narrow ideological boundaries. They do not HAVE to compromise because as soon as a resolution of theirs reaches quorum due to mass telegramming it will be approved ANYWAY. Just look at the list of approved resolutions and weep. I get the gay rights and the legalised prostitution that I do agree with for free.

Side point: I am a member of one of Galdagos committees. (Which is apparently on holiday right now... but that is besides the point :S)

I can hardly go and politely request to amend their "ban meat eating" resolution into a "do not ban meat eating" resolution. You now effectively control the UN because 90% of the serious non-far-leftists do not want to actively bother with it anymore. Hurrah. Pat yourself on the back.

Bah. This is all pointless anyway. I enter this thing to participate and have some fun with the UN again and I am accused of godmoding after the very first post. This NSUN has gone down the drain. This kind of thing is spoiling it for me and a whole lot of other people anyway.

Ignore me. Continue the debate on sperm whales and google. :/

OOC:
Moderation? We are debating a UN issue here. However if a mod wants to move this thing for some reason or (more likely) split it off then fine. *shrugs* Just TG me please so I can actually find it back. I see this as a different debate from the hippo one since you misrepresent my case. I do not like to being wrongly accused of "godmoding." There is a difference between denying cancer out of convenience and implying that the number of whales in NS is not exactly the same as the number of whales IRL. Note how I am

Not denying that there is whalehunting
Not denying that this has increased with industrialisation, which is a logical inference.
Not denying that there might be a problem with the whale population. (At least, not OOCly which is different for me here from IC. I will blatantly deny that there is a problem at all when speaking In Character. "Problem" is relative, after all.)
Not denying AIDS, Cancer, crime or old age.



But you are denying the "relative decrease" in whale populations! Dying the decrease is no different than denying morality rates, AIDS prevalance rates, addiction rates, crime, etc.

And that *is* God modding.

We certainly should be allowed to provide evidence of NS trends based on RL trends.

I very much maintain that anybody who is going to deny a report that is used to illustrate a trend, in this case population, economic, and biological issues related to whales, is godmodding.

You very much have continued to do so by protesting my links.

The point in taking this to moderation, isn't to have anybody censored or warned, but at the point somebody derails the debate into discussion if things like "frogs are dying, if pollution is rampant, if elections are being rigged, if the Earth is warming" based on a "Dude, this is like a fictional world, now of this stuff is real", the mods are here to basically remind you that your daily issues assume the existence of these real-world events.

Have you read the link I provided to Cog's comments? He made it pretty clear that the ruling was really there to prevent the UN from singling out individual nations or organizations for two reasons:

1) UN resolutions are global in effect ... we can't via game mechanics put an embargo on a single nation, and

2) A PLO or Iraq doesn't have a voice here, so the debate would be pretty chaotic to begin with.

People have continually brought the following statements up:

- Whales aren't endangered.

I've shown evidence they are.

- Whaling is important to some economies.

I've talked about long-term costs, but honestly nobody has yet to provide a single estimate of how much of their GDP or local economy is tied to whaling, with the exception of that single link to part of IWC paper from 1980 claiming that four small villages saw a 57% unemployement rate for an unspecified amount of time. <-- we don't know how long that unemployment lasted, but I've provided evidence from Japan's testimony in the IWC in recent years that indicates that this figure was not in fact as bad as projected in 1980.

- But there are lots of Sperm Whales.

Actually opponents are right here. Most estimates put the global population between 200,000 and 2,000,000 whales. But I've also provided links recounting historical evidence, including DNA based projections, that put general whale populaions and estimate some sperm whale populations in the 1700s to be significantly higher.

I don't see how you can honestly claim that real-world trends about whales (and references used to answer many of the STUPID comments against this resolution) aren't valid, but in the same statement are willing to admit that cancer is a problem.

But you know what, I'm sick of your attitude. I know any experienced player hates being accused of god modding, but you are. I'll start a thread in moderation and simply ask them if "Real World Trends and Governmental and Non-Governmental Reports concerning general issues such as population estimates and history of whaling are valid in the NationStates world".

How does that sound?

OOC:

While the arguments are literally contracdictory, I am not denying that there is a problem and likewise you should not be saying that I am lying/godmoding about the existence of no-whale hunting zones because NS earth is a pseudo-exact copy of the real planet. Its called the multiverse, its contradictory.


If you want to play the Multiverse card, that is fine.

When a resolution on Zombies comes to the floor, the Zombie Multiverse rules come into play.

When a resolution about real-world issues, such as the hunting of whales comes to the floor, the real-world Multiverse rules come into play.

It really honestly is just that simple. If you'd look, I was completely happy to debate cloning months ago and participated in the recent zombie threads.

I have no problem with future tech / multiverses. You on the other hand do. You are basically saying that NO resolution can be debated because multiverses exist. What a boring game you must play where everything shuts down because somebody has a different view.

In this case, it is ballantly obvious that whales and the issues related to hunting exist ... the resolution would not have come to the floor otherwise, because you need around 135 endorsements, meaning 135 experienced players agreed that this issue is worth debate / discussion!


accuse me of "godmoding" for non-compliance as a thought-crime.


Yup, I have. For the simple reason that you are godmodding by claiming anything that disagrees with your "multiverse view" to be a non-fact and out of play.

I got news for you: that is the definition of god modding.


You are seemingly willing to account for Nazi nations in NS hunting whales (they seem to be hunting Jews/Gays/[Minority of choice] more then whales in particular, but that is besides the point). However if you go down this path you should ALSO account for the hundreds, if not thousands of environmentally friendly regions ruled by the very same people that make the tree resolutions who would arguably protect whales. IMO that would provide a very nice habitat for the little critters.

However, all this guesswork (because really... its your word against my word since the NS earth does not actually exist) aside. If you would assume NS earth to be exactly like the real earth (only bigger) then the amount of whales should go up accordingly with the human population. This alone would render the entire problem moot.


That is simply wrong. Think about what you are really saying.

If there was a "larger" Earth, not only would the whale population be "larger", but the number of nations consuming whales would be "larger" as well.

Another way ...

More nations & larger population --->

More food needed ---->

More human waste products produced.

If we were arguing about garbage produced, and somebody said, "Nations don't produce trash." and if I replied by saying, "Funny that, because according to this link, the United States produces X billions of "cows" of trash per day." While you could then say, "But the US doesn't exist!" I should be able to say, "Well, you're right, but somehow I feel that this polllution trend does exist." And if you say, "Nope, Iraq doesn't exist!" I'm going to say, "But the trash generated by a nation like Iraq does and to deny that is god modding."

The trends, are going to be roughly the same. If you want to say, "But liberal nations don't hunt whales!" I'm going to say, "But Norway does, and it is one of the world's most liberal nations." And I can predict you'll say, "Norway? What is Norway!" And I'll toss back, "Dude, it is an example based on your real-world based ASSUMPTION that liberal nations don't hunt whales."

The truth is while we don't know everything in NationStates, without the assumption that your "multiverses" have trends and physical rules that mirror known trends and physical rules, the UN would be nothing more than a silly godmodding pissing contest.

Yes.
No.
Yes yes yes.
No, Stupid head!
Yes, Idiot!
No, Double Stupid Head!

Would you rather people just pull things out of the darker regions of space during UN debates? Or would you rather people actually look to the real world and try to run their nations by their beliefs, but using the real world as something as a guide?

:headbang: HOW ABOUT WRITING IT IN THE PROPER FREAKING FORMAT SO THAT IT CAN ACTUALLY BE IMPLEMENTED AS A REAL RESOLUTION!!!!!!!

geez people...learn about how the UN works before you join and before you try to write propsals....pfft

As a UN member, my nation is required to adhere to UN resolutions, but I guarantee you all that my puppet nations will not. I will just shift my whale-hunting sector to the puppet nations, which don't belong to the UN. This ensures that my interests are not harmed, and that the resolution will have absolutely no effect as far as my nations are concerned.

Emperor Erik I of the ITD Empire.

Oh yes.... I, me, myself, is the person trolling, compared to other people who keep on talking and writing and repeating facts, many different ways, in many different fashions.

My ONLY issue was the economy, and that was NEVER, EVER addressed by the pro-whaling advocates.

Infinite Hoarding agrees whole-heartedly that whales are endangered, and are on the brink of extinction and are bad to eat.

These are not good excuses to tell my people when it comes down to the fact that they don't have jobs.

OOC[In retrospect, what is the chance that this resolution will fail? We should all just stop writing. Its not helping. But I am impressed with the amount of time that Mivitikivy or whatnot was able to put into this. I mean, how much time did he really put into arguing a Nationstate topic? We should start a "Finding the leader of the imaginary Mitikivity a way to score some chicks or guys (Infinite Hoarding does not descriminate)". I mean, wow. This dude deserves major props for all the work he did to not convince people that wouldn't be convinced, myself certainly included, and when it comes down to it, the vote is basically already decided even now, unless everybody magically changes their vote.

I may have sounded sarcastic in my glorification, but nonetheless, major props to those who spent more than 5 minutes on google.com, and it was a fun debate, even though it was a fruitless effort if measured otherwise]

The Empire of Traian Sees that this resolution will pass. We will not abide by it, and has decided to withraw from the UN. We find that the UN has become conterproductive to our national policy. We has thus decided to leave.

We leave holding no spite to anyone. However we will not let the UN meddle with our ancient traditions. We see that other nations migth not have the same goals as our, and thus we will still consider these nations friends. We ask not for riches, nor for land. Neither to dominate others. We ask only for freedom, and to be left to our own ways.

So to the other nations of the UN, we will but say good-bye, and best of luck.
Traian.

OOC: Due to Real World events, I have not had time, and will not get time to play NS in any depth. Thus my short stay in NS will end, but if I can get time to play it in the futere, I migth come back. And I used this opportunety to go out with a bang instead witha a fissle :).

Well, since you obviously feel the need to run to the mods to complain about my evil ways of "multiverse and respect" I guess I will have to follow suit when/if I feel like it. Maybe after lunch. Lunch is important.

Frankly, I think you are overreacting here. I have so far remained calm. I would suggest you do the same since we are ultimately discussing a technical issue. No actual whales are being harmed by my postage. I am not saying that no resolution can be debated because of the multiverse. I was describing a situation that is arguably existing in NS whereas you quote the real world. You do not see me cry "THOUGHT CRIME! GRODLOAD! MODS!" do you?

Now, you are being a bit dodgy here. Are you claiming that
Amount of real world whales = Amount of whales in NS
Yes or no please?

And another one. Do you agree that some NS nations and regions might be *gasp* different from the real world?
Again, a yes or a no would suffice.

Frankly, I think our difference opinion is overstated. The Real World is fine as a guide but IMO it is not a Bible. This is also your point of view, I think. But instead of implying a black-or-white argument there is IMO a `gliding scale` of how much you think NS Earth is like Earth. No mod, even cog, can describe in one mod ruling on what place on that scale we are unless the mods are going to prescribe to us what the NS world looks like. If that is the case, I am outta here because the objective of this game is to create our own world that may actually not be like the real lives we are trying to escape by playing this game..

To the people of Mikitivity, I shall change my vote to one of yes, if you would agree in principal to a second resolution. Such a resolution would create an International Whaling Commision - IWC - who would license the hunting of whaling by certain groups, in accordance with a strict quota system.

This would allow for the IWC to respond rapidly to any changes in population, in the event that evidence comes to light that a given species is far fewer or greater in number than thought, in which case quotas may be adjusted accrodingly. The IWC should also have responsibility for maintaing standards of hunting to ensure they are as humane as possible.

Don't ban whaling. I haven't tasted whale meat yet. So I can't tell whether It should ban it or not. If you do ban whaling, how would I ever be able to taste whale flesh?

You guys at the UN don't make sense. :(

The Peoples Republic of Hippie States has voted in favor of the motion, but requests that the wording of the memorandom be changed from "Save the Whales" to "Shave The Wales."

Respectfully,
Norman Alistar
- President of The Peoples Republic of Hippie States

For my nation, this new whaling propsal is a dual strike against
A. Our economies by denying us access to a rare and valuable good
B. Our world view by implicitly stating that the good of some other speicies outweighs the good of human beings.

Granted the whale populations are deminishing, but I do not think a total ban on whaling is the answer. Rather, I'd suggest voting no on this proposal, and instead regulating the whaling industry to

A. reduce whaling to such levels that the whale population is no longer in danger of exinction. This would save the species as well, while preserving the value of whales in the market by restricting 'production' of whale meat in the same way diamond cabals restrict production of new diamonds.

or

B. Institute a temporary ban on whaling until whale farms can replace unregulated hunting. Seriously people, this is the 21st century. Valuably animals should be farmed not hunted. I like to think we, like our ancestors long ago, can learn to herd species instead of simply chasing them down.

Restraint.

This proposal has gone too far.

Our nomadic nation depend on whaling. Probably we would be exempted from the ban on whaling, but that is not the point.

a) There are many types of whale. The Blue whale and others must not be hunted. The Minky whale that we go for is plentiful - and must be regulated.

b) The whale is swimming happy and free in the ocean and then BANG. Dead. The pig, the cow, the chicken, the turkey and others are kept in terrible places under torture like conditions, and are then slaughtered, often in a dreadful and frightening way. That is no proud and free life. Than is no merciful and decent death.

THUS - anyone who eat industriously produced meat, i.e. who buys it in the shop - should not be allowed to vote in this matter.

Vegetarians like myself may - and I am against - until all other animals are free too.

Eat whale, ban beef.

c) Anyone that favour death penalty for humansm should not vote. MY favourite tee-shirt has a picture of a whale in the electric chair saying "humane killing of whales."

thank you for yout attention

Chieftain of Gaupe - please visit us anytime - plenty of salad around.

Infinite Hoarding is planning to farm whales in a "Sea world", and suggests other UN member nations do the same, or possibly find a way to attract whales into inland bodies of water. Is it possible? Probably not, so thats why I'd start farming in "Sea World", but then rename it "See World of Farmed Whales". We could even use the same system as many cow and pig-farming establishments. Sure, its against every form of animal cruelty act possible, and it might prove to be expensive, but it also might be fun!

[QUOTE=Mikitivity]But you are denying the "relative decrease" in whale populations! Dying the decrease is no different than denying morality rates, AIDS prevalance rates, addiction rates, crime, ect.[QUOTE=Mikitivity]

Well Mr./Ms. you think you know it all.............So you think that real world is the same as NS world? Are you mad? I know, you must be one of those people who cannot tell the difference between real life and fantasy arent you!! You must be, because arguing that NS world is an any way close to real life is insane and mad! First off think of all the Nations who live in space or are undead or have 7 sexes or whatever. For a closer example look at my nation....NO CRIME! Wow, i dont think that there are any REAL nations out there without crime my friend. This is a game, if one nations says that they have an overabundance of whales, then they have that, if a nation says it fishes for whales so they can send them into space as part of a new project, then so be it. If you are to say a nation doesnt do this or that, then you are god modding, not them!!! I reccomend this to you.....ONE,Get a life outside this game, your mashing them together to much....TWO, have fun with this game!!....THREE, dont accuse someone of godmodding without evidence, since that is a big offence here....and finally....REMEMBER its only a game and one where lots of things happen that arent real at all, with nations not like yours or any real nations at all.
Now you can take this advice and be constructive or destructive, thats up to how mature you are in the real world!!!!!

Thank you and be safe!

Reseach has been offered by both sides, and honest disagreement has arisen. Tempers have indeed become a bit heated over this issue, as is often the case in UN votes. So be it. The resolution will pass or fail and we can move on.

In the meantime ... Lacomb, you'd do well to follow your own advice concerning maturity and letting other people play the way they want to. Your post was mostly (yes, mostly, see below) attacks on Mikitivity without anything to back it up other than your disagreement with his playing style. The big difference between you two is that Mikitivity seems to bring mostly researched facts to the table, where you mostly brought ad hominem attacks and opinons that can't really be backed up.

My advice to you would be to study the debating styles of Mikitivity and Knootoss. Even as they disagreed, they managed (mostly) to keep it focused on the issue, not the individual. You could stand to learn from that.
Well Mr./Ms. you think you know it all
Are you mad?
you must be one of those people who cannot tell the difference between real life and fantasy arent you!!
Get a life outside this game
dont accuse someone of godmodding without evidence, since that is a big offence hereNow you can take this advice and be constructive or destructive, thats up to how mature you are in the real world!!!!!

Well actually i was keeping it real so to speak. I was just tired of hearing "Mik" talking about how other nations "have" to be hi/her way! I was pointing out that in this game there is more than meets the eye!! Also i was pointing out that saying someone is god-modding when they clearly are not is not acceptable. The truth is that i do think "Mik" is or has gone mad! I think that person has spent to much time on the computer and cant tell the difference between fantasy and reality, if thats personal, then so be it! Its real life!!!! I dont want to hurt feelings

Bahgum is worried about the resumption of whaling, we have some rather large women here and note that this is increasingly common in many nations. We would hate to have to lower our human rights record further by banning the more generously blessed ladies from paddling on our stunning beaches in order to prevent any unfortunate mishaps with a harpoon gun.
Therefore Bahgum supports an anti-whaling ban. And there you have it, Bahgum approves of a serious issue for a change.

... by banning the more generously blessed ladies from paddling on our stunning beaches in order to prevent any unfortunate mishaps with a harpoon gun.
Coastal waters, Bahgum. Unless they slip into an array of inner tubes and life preservers in an attempt to do some aquatic sunbathing, they should be safe on the beaches. I'm sure this Whale Banning thing only applies in International Waters.

Come to think of it, has anyone ever defined International Waters? It's implied in three different resolutions, but nobody ever defined it. Maybe your caution is well-founded.

This is stupid. In the resolution the proposer states something like:
"whales already are endangered by pollution, fishnets, some other stuff, active sonar,blah,blah,blah..."
THe solution? hm.... "Lets ban whaling". Not harmful runoff, bycatching, forms of fishnets, active sonar, whatever. Aparently we should kill them as an act of compassion to put them out of their misery. Only ban it when they get shot with a harpoon. And only hunting with a harpoon. Nothing about rpg's orr dynamite or guns or whatever, but harpoons.

OKAYYYYYY..........
Also, what about the classification of natives? If you're stupid enough to endorse this you should be classified as one. It would be more efficient to simply masturbate for whales.

Bahgum is worried about the resumption of whaling, we have some rather large women here and note that this is increasingly common in many nations. We would hate to have to lower our human rights record further by banning the more generously blessed ladies from paddling on our stunning beaches in order to prevent any unfortunate mishaps with a harpoon gun.
Therefore Bahgum supports an anti-whaling ban. And there you have it, Bahgum approves of a serious issue for a change.

it would take a really drunk person to confuse a person with a whale.

it would take a really drunk person to confuse a person with a whale.

or someone who voted for this resolution. their stupid enough. no offense

*note im against mindless slaughter of whales, who would want to kil one (appearently someone) we should actually do something to stop whale deaths, like stopping runnoff. tthat would save fish too.

as for the larger ladies, no offense but that may even cleanse the gene pool darwin style.
"if you look like a seal don't swim with sharks. if you look like a whale don't canoe with the hunters."

It has long become an accepted truth that whales are special, mythic creatures. Whales are intelligent, almost akin to humans. Killing and eating them is morally wrong, unnecessary and cruel. Silhouettes of dolphins and whales now adorn hundreds of consumer products, a symbol of lost natural innocence.

The government of the principality of redragon while not yet a member of the U.N, supports this motion.

The First minister :)

After much deliberation within Moontian and her colonies, the Moontian Empire has decided to vote AGAINST this resolution. The reasons are mainly game-mechanics related. Even though the Moontian Empire doesn't have a whaling industry, this resolution would still cripple the economy at a time when the Emperor wants to finally bring the Empire up as a whole to somewhere near the economic standards set in some of the colonies.

Also, after much debate, the people of Moontian have voted to remove ourselves from the UN temporarily, so that this whaling resolution will not affect the economy.

The reasons are mainly game-mechanics related.

Also, after much debate, the people of Moontian have voted to remove ourselves from the UN temporarily, so that this whaling resolution will not affect the economy.
How DARE you propose opposition to this proposal because of 'game-mechanics' reasons, and then turn around to use those same 'game-mechanics' to absolve yourself of any effect.

Hypocrite!

OOC:
*cough*

You know, his vote does not really count if he withdraws from the UN at the moment of voting. Just a friendly reminder.

*cough*
Are you trying to deny me the use of excessive font sizes to emphasize my position on the moral high ground?

::grin::

Are you trying to deny me the use of excessive font sizes to emphasize my position on the moral high ground?

::grin::
Hmmm... a actually, yes. I guess I am. :P

The Government of The Principality of Redragon is now a member of the UN and has voted FOR the resolution.


The first minister.

The glorious peoples of pia-no-sa, under the leadership of milo minderbender wonders why we have to give up our delicious whale meat enjoyed by our aristocracy because foreign fringe environmentalists want to talk about whales' feelings. if they're so smart, why dont' they evolve opposible thumbs and defend themselves? huh? take that smart guys!

The glorious peoples of pia-no-sa, under the leadership of milo minderbender wonders why we have to give up our delicious whale meat enjoyed by our aristocracy because foreign fringe environmentalists want to talk about whales' feelings. if they're so smart, why dont' they evolve opposible thumbs and defend themselves? huh? take that smart guys!

exactly what ive been trying to say all along!! thanks man for putting it so good!!

Kill all the whales!!!!!!!!

:mp5:

The truth is that i do think "Mik" is or has gone mad! I think that person has spent to much time on the computer and cant tell the difference between fantasy and reality, if thats personal, then so be it! Its real life!!!! I dont want to hurt feelings

Jesus Freaking Christ! The difference between fantasy and reality?

Did you even read Frisbeeteria's post?


But let's say that we use your logic and pretend that we can make no references to the real world. Let's look at how a hypothetical air pollution resolution from Infinite Hoarding will go.

Lacomb: "Air Pollution Doesn't Exist in the World!"

Infinite Hoarding: "Sure it does."

Lacomb: "No it doesn't. This is a game you moron, not the real world. Take your real world fantasies and get a life."

Infinite Hoarding: "Of course air pollution still exists in this game, or are you going to next tell me that clothing doesn't exist either because this is a game and not a real life thing?"

Lacomb: "Dork. Of course clothing exists! I said this is a game, but clothing still exists in games."

Infinite Hoarding: "So clothing exists, because Lacomb says so, but air pollution doesn't because this is a game and not real. Do you realize how stupid that sounds? Basically you are suggesting only real world concepts, like clothing exist, if you happen to like them. What about the rest of us? Don't you think that since clothing exists, that air pollution exists as well? You're godmodding!"

Lacomb: "Oh whales exist, and taste good! Mmmmm BLUBBER, I love blubber. But what I said is they aren't endangered."

Infinite Hoarding: "But I just provided evidence, which you asked for, that they are endangered."

Lacomb (now crying): "But it is from the real world! You have no LIFE if you quote real world sources! You have no LIFE! No life at all if you quote real world sources!"


Think about it, because we can wash, rinse, and repeat this same argument with anything that you claim doesn't exist just because this is a game. It is a sad and patetic way to debate, and it is classic godmodding, but instead of having nukes, future-tech, and whatever else passes for godmodding in the II forum, you just deny away anything you dislike on the basis that it isn't "real", even though every day you are selecting daily issues and resolutions which are based on reality. If you want to play a game where real-life issues and fantasy have no part, NationStates isn't for you. Go play Dungeons and Dragons instead. Trust me, you'll be much happier.

To the people of Mikitivity, I shall change my vote to one of yes, if you would agree in principal to a second resolution. Such a resolution would create an International Whaling Commision - IWC - who would license the hunting of whaling by certain groups, in accordance with a strict quota system.


I'll completely agree with that principal. And not just out of respect or vote collecting, but for another environmental reason.

Though there are natural limits on species, just has humans can over hunt species, it is possible that humans could over protect species as well.

A "hypothetical" example of this would be in an "imaginary" place called the Grand Canyon.

http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/kaibab.html

I understand that some nations will object to the above link, but for the rest of your nations that don't live in some complete fantasy world, I think the lesson behind the above "hypothetical" example is sound: species can have too small a population or too large of a population.

Did you overlook the point, made early in the article, that in addition to banning hunting of the deer, the Forest Service tried to eliminate the deer's predators?

Your argument shoots itself in the foot on page one.

Now see "Mik" the problem is that i understand its a game and it has real world influences, however even though you make fun of me , you should read your own posts concerning whales! You made reference that because a nation said that it has plenty of whales and/or fishes for whales as a means of living that cant be so, because in the real world whales are being over fished and are in danger. Look, if someone says their nation has millions of whales....Guess what...its a game, they have millions of whales, hell if they say they breed whales in a special space port off the edge of mars, then so be it. My point to you "Mik" is you cannot assume anything about a nation since we the Leaders of such nations decide what we have in our nation and how we live in our nation. You are trying to apply a specific problem in real world to this game, AND YOU ARE NOT LETTING other nations argue that they dont have this problem. That is my issue with you and this proposal! If you think im wrong i can quote you if you like, but you know im right, just look back a couple of posts and read your stuff. YOU ASSUME THAT REAL WORLD PROBLEMS EFFECT EVERYONE IN THE GAME AND IF SOMEONE SAYS THEY DONT HAVE THIS PROBLEM THEN YOU SAY THEY MUST BECAUSE THE PROBLEM EXCISTS IN THE REAL WORLD. Well in Lacomb we clone whales....If anyone needs any let me know we clone people too....[THE GAME MOD'S TOLD ME SO] i can send about a million whales to any nation in need! NOW WHAT??? do you see my point, please tell me you see my point someone!! My nation clones people and all kinds of mammals[the game made it that way, not excactly my choice, well kinda] so since i can clone whales and do often how is there any danger of the whale population dying out, just kinda curious? If im off base with this one take it to the mod's you will see that they my agrre with what im saying, since after all they made the rules about cloning in this game!!! Im not trying to be mean at all, just straight forward and to the point! No bs with me. The truth or nothing!

Did you overlook the point, made early in the article, that in addition to banning hunting of the deer, the Forest Service tried to eliminate the deer's predators?

Your argument shoots itself in the foot on page one.

I didn't overlook the point. In fact, that is why I agree with Trimely, that quotas are better than a ban!

But right now we aren't being asked to make a decision:

quotas vs. ban

Instead we are debating:

ban vs. possible extinction

But if you would have read my earlier statements, I think a ban is better than nothing, because right now, there is no danger in the whale population growing too quickly. There is a danger of the male / female population being so low that the species will not be genetically viable. The same story can be told about many salmon populations. Species don't have to be completely hunted to death, because as California has found, salmonids need a certain population count simply to allow genetic diversity in order to continue to thrive. (Trust me here, I work for the state and would be more than happy to continue to talk about salmon runs.)

[OOC: Personally I find it very disappointing that the nations opposed to this resolution didn't *start* their debates with this classic example from American History. The story of the Kaibab deer is something that is pretty much standard fair in any "Environmental Science" course, because it addresses both sides of the issue.

Instead opponents to this resolution have simply relied upon tired arguments:

"This game is a complete fantasy! Your facts are wrong!"

They aren't arguing, despite the fact that a few days ago I hinted in my exchanges with Infinite Hoarding that there was in fact, a pretty solid case against this resolution waiting to be had.

The idea that real-world trends aren't valid when defending a resolution are ridiculous. The resolutions are inspired by real-world trends. They are endorsed by UN Delegates aware of the real-world facts. They are not deleted by the Game Moderators, because of their relevance to real-world facts.

As a member in the UN forum, you shouldn't base your arguments on "This if fantasy, not real!", but instead look for counter arguments. I promise you that I can find a real-world counter argument for most any NationStates issue or resolution. Anybody can. It is simple.

But at the point when nations vote against a resolution, which actually is fairly well written (not perfect, but at least the author has convinced me that he does know a lot more about endangered species than a few of the posters in this thread) is coming under attack for very lame reasons: "Dude, this is NationStates, whales in my country fly and own bank accounts. They aren't endangered. If anything, we humans are!", then my vote and posts will basically prove just how stupid those kids are.

We are going to continue to see more lame reasons too, unless more players don't start basing their early arguments on somewhat grounded basis.

Now, if you ask me, I really do agree with Trimely, and feel that a quota system would be better. And though I will continue to say that a ban is necessary before we start a quota, I will honestly respect any player that bases their no vote on any argument that makes sense, such as the importance of quotas or even a strong local tradition. No votes are fine. But ballantantly denying provable things? Lame. These people should go play Dungeons and Dragons like I told Lacomb to do, if they don't want to discuss real-world problems when a real-world based resolution comes to the floor.]

Now see "Mik" the problem is that i understand its a game and it has real world influences

Listen kid.

If you have a problem playing NationStates, which is based on real-world ideas such as nations and interactions between them, I really suggest you ask your parents if they can buy you a Dungeons and Dragons book.

Every daily-issue and most UN resolutions are based on real-world problems.

While I was happy to engage in the silly zombie debate last week, I think it is wrong to totally deny real-world trends, when clearly a resolution was inspired by them. In this case, if you would get out of your parent's house and spend a bit of time reading about the IWC, you'll see that clearly the resolution author cribbed some of his ideas from them.

Until you admit that when a real world issue that contradicts your Dungeon and Dragons view can be based in the real world, all you are doing really is Godmodding 101.

Does clothing exist? Sure. Why? Um, because most people wear it.

Whales exist for the same reason. And guess what skippy ... the Game Mods and over 100 UN Delegates seemed to agree that whales are endangered as well.

Get over yourself or go find your +2 sword and +1 shield vs. flames. NationStates is a game based on real-world ideas. The fantasy stuff that occurs in the International Incidents forum is often called "closed roleplay" because kids like you, not adults like me, have a hard time recognizing what "physical rules" apply in a certain circumstance. The idea that a whale protection resolution was created in a world where whales are not in danger, is stupid.

Seriously kid, the one with the problem here is you. You are basically butting into a resolution that is based on real-world issues and telling us ALL that your vision the world applies to us. If you can claim there are TRILLIONS of whales coming out of some magical Lacombian whale farm, what is to stop somebody else from saying that there are TRILLIONS more of alien whale hunters eating them all?

I hope you can one day see that this is Godmodding 101, because most of the rest of us can now.

Im just curious again but you talk about real world issues and such yet the last issue, which i was against was what i would call a very fine peice of gamesmanship, the issue of equal rights for sexes. It is a real world issue but the way the proposal was written it allowed for everyone in the game to be apart of it, for example allowing for a third sex or so on in the proposal, this INCLUDED just about everyone in the game, for as some are zombie nations and such or whatever. The point is simple write so everyone is included, and dont argue that because its not in the real world then its not apart of the game. I myself would like restrictions put out basing the game in current times and with current issues, something more solid. But i dont run the game only play it. So, I have to play with all types of nations, now maybe i wont let future types in one of my RP's but i do encourage them in some of my others. And the key is i dont God-Mod and say that because its not in the real world its not in the game, when im trying to pass a proposal that is going to effect everyone!!!

In replay to your last thread there, first off, not that its any of your buisness or anything but im 31yrs. old and have my degree in Political science and French, from UW. I am a war vet, and currently work for the DNC, democratic national commitee. I also lived and worked in Davis, CA. at the Yolo County Airport. This is the only on-line game i play and i do so because i liked the book as well as the idea behind this game! So since you were so far off base on who i am, maybe you could be so far off base about this issue, You never know?

P.S. I still love you Bro, its only a game, dont take it to serious, please.

In replay to your last thread there, first off, not that its any of your buisness or anything but im 31yrs. old and have my degree in Political science and French, from UW. I am a war vet, and currently work for the DNC, democratic national commitee. I also lived and worked in Davis, CA. at the Yolo County Airport. This is the only on-line game i play and i do so because i liked the book as well as the idea behind this game! So since you were so far off base on who i am, maybe you could be so far off base about this issue, You never know?

P.S. I still love you Bro, its only a game, dont take it to serious, please.

I will take it seriously when somebody is really encouraging and now practicing godmodding.

You said:

i can send about a million whales to any nation in need! NOW WHAT???

Sure you can. And while you are at is, why don't you claim that your nation has a bottled cure for HIV/AIDS, that your free telepathic police force would be happy to eliminate global crime, and that you have a guy named Hesus who can convert sand into bread and water thus eliminating the need for any nations to produce food.

The answer is simple:

That is Godmodding.

To suggest that whales aren't threatened (or perhaps are) by your nation's consumption, is fair game. To even talk about what the species in and around your nation is again fine.

To dismiss real-world reports being used in counter to arguments like, "Whales aren't endangered! My nation breeds BILLIONS of them to feed to your nations." is godmodding.

Godmodding is when one player constantly "changes the rules" and "reality" of the world to fit his / her need. To dismiss these reports, which were most likely used in coming up with the resolution idea, is just that.

It is one thing to say, "My government finds the scientific basis of these reports faulty." It is another to launch into the personnel attacks instead of actually defending his / her position.

I'll say it again: if you have a problem with real-world issues being brought up in NationStates, go play some other fantasy game. I don't mind fantasy topics coming up and time and time again, I've demostrated that I'll participate in those debates as well. But I'm not about to sit by and watch somebody godmod and for the game and everybody else to only play by their rules.

You'll note I didn't jump into this thread with real-world links until the godmodders first started playing this "but my nation has the cure for cancer" styled crap.

Im just curious again but you talk about real world issues and such yet the last issue, which i was against was what i would call a very fine peice of gamesmanship, the issue of equal rights for sexes.

Actually I voted in favour of that one.

But you can't incorporate any environmental problems equally for all nations:

- Air Polllution

Only takes one nation to say, "But we live in deep space and don't breathe!"

- Genetic Diversity

We are a species from another universe, we have no bodies and hence no genetic structure. You law infringes upon us.

etc.

To allow the "fantasies" of a few completely restrict the play for us all really defeats the point of most UN Resolution categories.

I didnt make the rules or the game mechanics./.infact it is those who made this game that told my nation they Clone stuff....I dont do fantasy and really did not like the fact that my nation clones things but in one of my daily issue that came up, something about cloning rats to find cures or something and i went withit, kinda a good idea, however the game started to tell me i was cloning people everyday...so if the game is made this way then what? I didnt god-mod [And you should read the rules on god modding again] If i offer a service and another nation takes it then im not god-moding...if however i said i just clone these things and send them into the ocean and it effects everyone then thats god-modding, at least get that straight. And ask if you will why the game designer designed the game the way he did, because its really here for every taste.

Actually I voted in favour of that one.

But you can't incorporate any environmental problems equally for all nations:

- Air Polllution

Only takes one nation to say, "But we live in deep space and don't breathe!"

- Genetic Diversity

We are a species from another universe, we have no bodies and hence no genetic structure. You law infringes upon us.

etc.

To allow the "fantasies" of a few completely restrict the play for us all really defeats the point of most UN Resolution categories.



Well not really if someone had some good ideas i would say for example take an issue like aids, ok its bad and we should find a cure or keep people with aids from , i dont know having sex.....
Someone argues that in their nation they dont have aids or any std's...
Okay no prob then the ban on aids inflicted folks wont deal with your nation....


Even better lets take this issue, whale fishing...
I agree we should stop fishing whales.....
But what about those nations who depend on whales as a source of food or income....
okay, no problem, this ban effects those nations who's whale population is below 33 % and whos nations people thrive off of whales all others just dont worry about it, problem solved, no more debate!!!

See how easy it is?

It's easy to be strongly opposed to something when it has no direct consequenses on your life. Those whales that "make those cute sounds" are surely mammals and fascinating creatures, just like cows, but I don't hear many concerned voices over their miserable existance, bread in captivity only to be exploited and finally slaugtered for the sake of meat eaters. Whales have considerable impact on the economy in Iceland.
The current estimate is that there are circa 340.000 whales in the seas around iceland. They eat approximately 6 million tons of seafood each year, 2 million of which are fish. The total amount of fish our fleet extracts from the sea is between 1,5 to 2 million tons. The whale population has increased enormously the last years but to have exact data scientist must catch whales and examine the contents of their stomacks, their overall health etc. If some fish species are not to become extinct 1 of 2 things must happen. 1. Iceland must stop fishing or 2. the whale population must be controlled. For someone who lives far from the sea, the choice may seem simple, but for a country who totally depends on fishing (65% of all exports are fish) the choice is between living and dying. Finally: Why is it ok for cod to become extinct?

Thank you Dudua. your the person of the day in my book! I love people from iceland.

Well not really if someone had some good ideas i would say for example take an issue like aids, ok its bad and we should find a cure or keep people with aids from , i dont know having sex.....

See how easy it is?

AID/HIV can spread other ways, such as needle sharing and blood transfusion. How hard is it to realize that?

But that isn't my point. Problems aren't as simple as you try and make them. Worse, you are backpeddling. You now want to admit that HIV/AIDs is a problem, but what if like your "I create MILLIONS of whales" godmodding leads somebody else to say,

"Dude, I have a cure for HIV/AIDS. Shut up and I'll just give it to you."

The reason to state the above is because the person doesn't have the ability to debate or discuss a real world issue related to HIV/AIDS.

You've done the exact thing time and time again about whales. If you can't just make up facts "MILLIONS of cloned whales" you personally attack me. Personally, I think that makes you an idiot.

The bottom line is, you don't have a clue about:

- God Modding (what is and what is not)
- How NS incorporates real-world ideas

Anybody breaking into a "fantasy" or "future" tech roleplay trying to "rewrite" the rules and then cries, "Boo Hoo, but you need to spend less time on your computer" is gonna be asked to wake up and realize that game or not, there has to be some common assumptions in order for people to talk and work together. In the case of whales, it can be easily pointed out that even if NationStates is a game, that whales still exist and for every ass that wants to claim he produces millions of them, that some other god modding ass can claim that he eats just those million putting the game back in balance.

See how this works?

I have a novel idea? Instead of telling people that they spend too much time confusing your fantasy with reality, when a UN resolution comes to debate, if you find yourself feeling so strongly about something, how about instead of Godmodding, you go and actually research the issue. A 31-year old political science student who worked at the Democratic National Convention should be above telling people "get a life" and just research his position.

The reason real-world problems continue to exist, is they aren't solved by a simple statement. There always are two sides.

I wouldn't have jumped in this thread if it wasn't for godmodding trolls like you distorting the debate with incredibly lame ass arguments. Personally I'd be ashamed to call myself a 30-something is that was *all* that I had to offer in this game.

It's easy to be strongly opposed to something when it has no direct consequenses on your life. Those whales that "make those cute sounds" are surely mammals and fascinating creatures, just like cows, but I don't hear many concerned voices over their miserable existance, bread in captivity only to be exploited and finally slaugtered for the sake of meat eaters. Whales have considerable impact on the economy in Iceland.
The current estimate is that there are circa 340.000 whales in the seas around iceland. They eat approximately 6 million tons of seafood each year, 2 million of which are fish. The total amount of fish our fleet extracts from the sea is between 1,5 to 2 million tons. The whale population has increased enormously the last years but to have exact data scientist must catch whales and examine the contents of their stomacks, their overall health etc. If some fish species are not to become extinct 1 of 2 things must happen. 1. Iceland must stop fishing or 2. the whale population must be controlled. For someone who lives far from the sea, the choice may seem simple, but for a country who totally depends on fishing (65% of all exports are fish) the choice is between living and dying. Finally: Why is it ok for cod to become extinct?


First off, the only people to talk about how "cute" whales are, are people oposed to the idea.

Anybody claiming the word "cute" is motivating the desire to create sustainable global economies, is highly suspect in my opinion. They are basically no better than the people who attempt to discredit others by calling them Nazis if they disagree with their opinion. It is called mudslinging, and avoids the real issues. I ask you leave your mudslinging outside of this debate.


Second, the idea that whales will "over farm" the oceans is frankly stupid.

For thousands of years, whales feed on fish in the sea long before human hunting of whales would make any dent whatsoever in the global whale populations. If there is any reason that the global fisheries are in endanger, it is because like whales, the human population has grown to an unsustainable amount and over-fished the non-mammal fisheries in addition to the whale population.

In basic english: whales and humans are competiting for a fishery that is much smaller than it was prior to the mass whale hunting campaigns of the 1700s through present.

While my government will agree that feeding coastal nations is important, I would suggest that comprehensive fisheries management should be critical to international environmental policies. Furthermore, I think when socities grow to a point that they can no longer sustain themselves, which is what you are saying if you are afraid a bunch of stupid whales will out feed your nations, then I would ask that your governments look to alternatives like population growth.


Anyway, for those of you that still want to claim that "Whales are eating all the fish", please consider also reading the following:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3906775.stm

While I'm aware that this might upset some nations that hate so called "imaginary" links, I think the above account is much more realistic than the absurd claims that nations like Lacomb made about releasing millions of cloned whales. I've yet to see a single report of Lacombian Cloned Whales in the oceans, and if there is any truth to the Lacombian assertion, I'll claim that it is just as equally likely that Martians will come from outer space and eat these millions of newly cloned whales.

In replay to your last thread there, first off, not that its any of your buisness or anything but im 31yrs. old and have my degree in Political science and French, from UW. I am a war vet, and currently work for the DNC, democratic national commitee. I also lived and worked in Davis, CA. at the Yolo County Airport.
I ... I just ... giggling madly ... I just can't let this go unanswered.

Hi. I'm Frisbeeteria. I'm actually a 7 month-old foetus with an IQ Einstein would covet. I've been telepathically instructing my mom to transcribe all my thoughts for me, as I don't really have developed fingers yet. I can levitate jet fighters, and I manage General Electric through another of my telepathic puppets.



It's on the Internet, so it's GOT to be true!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacomb
In replay to your last thread there, first off, not that its any of your buisness or anything but im 31yrs. old and have my degree in Political science and French, from UW. I am a war vet, and currently work for the DNC, democratic national commitee. I also lived and worked in Davis, CA. at the Yolo County Airport.


I ... I just ... giggling madly ... I just can't let this go unanswered.

Hi. I'm Frisbeeteria. I'm actually a 7 month-old foetus with an IQ Einstein would covet. I've been telepathically instructing my mom to transcribe all my thoughts for me, as I don't really have developed fingers yet. I can levitate jet fighters, and I manage General Electric through another of my telepathic puppets.



It's on the Internet, so it's GOT to be true!




Well,... I'm only a 6 week old foetus, and I can do that..! Slacker..!

But as to the whale problem,.. if the whale hunters are making you mad, get your group of friends together and stomp them..?

If everyone but a tiny minority agrees that whales should not be killed, and the minority can not be convinced by talking about it, then the only form of communication left is to physically stop them from killing whales.

The world needs MORE escalation of tensions, not less..!

This would flush out the bluffers, and make targets of the truely evil ones.

There are those who would say that many disasters would happen if this rule were instituted, and they'd be right,.. which is why this particular "reality" doesn't allow rogues such as my nation to have any influence whatsoever.


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Let's look at how a hypothetical air pollution resolution from Infinite Hoarding will go.

Lacomb: "Air Pollution Doesn't Exist in the World!"

Infinite Hoarding: "Sure it does."

Lacomb: "No it doesn't. This is a game you moron, not the real world. Take your real world fantasies and get a life."

Infinite Hoarding: "Of course air pollution still exists in this game, or are you going to next tell me that clothing doesn't exist either because this is a game and not a real life thing?"

Lacomb: "Dork. Of course clothing exists! I said this is a game, but clothing still exists in games."

Infinite Hoarding: "So clothing exists, because Lacomb says so, but air pollution doesn't because this is a game and not real. Do you realize how stupid that sounds? Basically you are suggesting only real world concepts, like clothing exist, if you happen to like them. What about the rest of us? Don't you think that since clothing exists, that air pollution exists as well? You're godmodding!"

Lacomb: "Oh whales exist, and taste good! Mmmmm BLUBBER, I love blubber. But what I said is they aren't endangered."

Infinite Hoarding: "But I just provided evidence, which you asked for, that they are endangered."

Lacomb (now crying): "But it is from the real world! You have no LIFE if you quote real world sources! You have no LIFE! No life at all if you quote real world sources!"


I believe that you were godmodding my intellegence there. Do you realize how smart I sound? Basically you are suggesting only real world concepts, like clothing exist, if you happen to like them. What about the rest of us? Don't you think that since clothing exists, my total ignorance and misunderstandings of basic english exists as well? You're godmodding!

Maybe Dungeons and Dragons might be better for you.
lol.

I believe that you were godmodding my intellegence there. Do you realize how smart I sound? Basically you are suggesting only real world concepts, like clothing exist, if you happen to like them. What about the rest of us? Don't you think that since clothing exists, my total ignorance and misunderstandings of basic english exists as well? You're godmodding!

Maybe Dungeons and Dragons might be better for you.
lol.

Don't worry, he does it everywhere. Very dependant on emotional arguements and character assassination. Perhaps a class in Logic and Debate would be helpful.

The The United Socialist States of the American Region (USSAR) supports policies that pertain to the protection of the environment.

However as the Minister of Operations of the USSAR I cannot totally agree with banning whaling all together. I feel it must be strictly limited but not banned all together.

With strictly limiting the amount of whaling we can easily replenish what has been taken from the oceans in a matter of good time.

The USSAR understands that a government cannot totally ensure a high economic status without some form of private industry. The USSAR allows for private industry with strict regulations in order to produce jobs and overall create a more stable environment for the people.

Some whaling is part of our industry in the USSAR being that we are located in the south pacific and surrounded by oceans. The USSAR has put strict limitations on whaling and limitations on the purposes of the whaling activities.

Development of less painful methods of whaling should also be looked into.. the USSAR is currently funding research into this.

As I know.. the UN has a majority vote for the banning of whaling however our stance is currently against the banning of whaling. The USSAR would agree more with legislation to limit whaling activites but not totally ban them.

Don't worry, he does it everywhere. Very dependant on emotional arguements and character assassination. Perhaps a class in Logic and Debate would be helpful.

Who are you talking about? Me?

Perhaps you should create that class, because most modern logic classes relate to philosophy and/or (yes, its and/or) algorithms.

Perhaps you meant to say that I should study Nash's Govorning Dynamics, which is the mathematical explination that would lead to more effective debate.

Unless you were talking about my earlier "Try to tell homeless joe that he can't see his kids any more whatever", in which case I am truely flattered that you remembered.

I honestly think, and I think that the whole of Infinite Hoarding does too, that this debate will lead us no furthur into the future. Earlier, I might have deluded myself into believing that other nations would take my cold, hard-calculated economic-geared ideas to heart, but alas, at the advent of this resolution's passing, there is no furthur need to retain decorum. Shouts against diminish into the ocean, and the victory cries of the orca, and the great blue. Why remain cold and calculating? Why bother fighting the lost fight? Instead, let us all rejoice that the end has come, and let us make haste to review old national stances, and mimic, mock, and destort what's being said. We have worked hard, and the pro-whaling advocates have fought hard, but alas, to no avail. So let there be sneers, jabs, pokes, and jokes, because the day of mockening (i know, but I wanted to make it sound like "reckoning") is upon us, and there shall be light.

And character assasination? "Making harmless jabs at others that are not meant to be taken seriously" sounds a tad bit less cool, but I think it appeals to those of more miniscule vocabularies. Should concisity be sacrificed for the verbose but painfully blunt with more veracity? I say yes, but in the end, it is up for you to decide, padawan (no, I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, not that thats a bad thing, but I don't want to decieve anyone into thinking that I'm interested. Padawan is like a synonym of squire, but squire has that sharp "qu" sound that makes the word sound harsh).

Do you realize how smart I sound?

Hm, for some reason I'm not seeing this as sounding smart.

In fact, now that I read it again, I'm going to need to do some laundry because my trousers just got soiled. That can happen when you laugh really hard.

You are, however one of those who is defending it. "You" (and this is one of the examples of the English language being delightfully ambigious) are part of the club of active socialistic nations forming an active lobby, a special interest group if you will, that dominates resolution-making in NS. I am not holding you personally responsible, but it should be said that this group has driven many nations away from the NS UN. And I am not just talking about trolls or religious zealots. Just ask around in #nationstates and you'll see that a vast majority of nations that are really old and active have given up UN membership for their main nation and are actively opposed to the NS UN as being a ridicilous institution. And, yes. I often see the same names when these naive "save the trees" and "outlaw profit" resolutions are discussed.

Cave Canem is very concerned about the tone of this post. Knootoss is apparently claiming that the cooperation of nations with similar outlooks and objectives is a negative force in the UN. The mysterious 'same names' referred to by Knootoss are made to sound like some sort of political cabal, Cave Canem questions the appropriateness of this insinuation, particularly as it appears to be made with little or no empirical support.

If the member for Knootoss has a genuine concern to raise, let's have their suggestion of who exactly forms this 'club of active socialistic nations' that is so negatively impacting the UN.

Member for Cave Canem

First off, the only people to talk about how "cute" whales are, are people oposed to the idea.

Anybody claiming the word "cute" is motivating the desire to create sustainable global economies, is highly suspect in my opinion. They are basically no better than the people who attempt to discredit others by calling them Nazis if they disagree with their opinion. It is called mudslinging, and avoids the real issues. I ask you leave your mudslinging outside of this debate.


Second, the idea that whales will "over farm" the oceans is frankly stupid.

For thousands of years, whales feed on fish in the sea long before human hunting of whales would make any dent whatsoever in the global whale populations. If there is any reason that the global fisheries are in endanger, it is because like whales, the human population has grown to an unsustainable amount and over-fished the non-mammal fisheries in addition to the whale population.

In basic english: whales and humans are competiting for a fishery that is much smaller than it was prior to the mass whale hunting campaigns of the 1700s through present.

While my government will agree that feeding coastal nations is important, I would suggest that comprehensive fisheries management should be critical to international environmental policies. Furthermore, I think when socities grow to a point that they can no longer sustain themselves, which is what you are saying if you are afraid a bunch of stupid whales will out feed your nations, then I would ask that your governments look to alternatives like population growth.


Anyway, for those of you that still want to claim that "Whales are eating all the fish", please consider also reading the following:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3906775.stm

While I'm aware that this might upset some nations that hate so called "imaginary" links, I think the above account is much more realistic than the absurd claims that nations like Lacomb made about releasing millions of cloned whales. I've yet to see a single report of Lacombian Cloned Whales in the oceans, and if there is any truth to the Lacombian assertion, I'll claim that it is just as equally likely that Martians will come from outer space and eat these millions of newly cloned whales.

Did you even read my post, or just the first lines? But if you did, you sure don't have the facts right. First off, overpopulation of humans is hardly a problem in Iceland! The human population is just over 290.000 (yep) compared to 340.000 whales. Second, Iceland has a very strict fishing policy and it is totally illegal to fish more than the policy board, Hafrannsóknarstofnun Íslands, warrants. This is why marine animals still thrive here, but not near Canada for example where many of the fish populations imploded in the 80's. It would be stupid to overfish when the economy is totally dependent on marine animals, especially if your country is a volcanic rock in the north sea with almost no other natural resources. It is therefore totally necessary to have ALL the facts about the situation correct, and that includes how much fish the whales eat. If the fish population collapses, both the human and the whale population is in serious trouble. Both will starve, and the whales are already underfed. Some nations have been known to overfish and destroy the fishing populations, and the whales therefore leave those areas to areas where policies are better implemented, the north sea is one of those areas. The "cute" comment, which you found so disturbing is rooted in my attempt to understand why middle class people in non-fishing countries feel so strongly about whaling, while killing of some other animals seem to slip their minds. Cows, sheep, goats and pigs are examples of mammals who are killed indiscriminately everyday, almost without protest. I've worked in a slaughterhouse and I can verify that their deaths are not pretty at all (the final screams of the pigs still dwell in my head). Like I said earlier many of those animals are kept in tiny cages all their lives just to be exploited and killed. Other marine animals could become extinct. Nobody wants to exterminate whales, and knowing more about them and the food they need could prevent this. If the living whales can help exterminate species like loðna (don't know the english word for it) which is a vital part of the marine food chain other marine animals could also starve. Remember that there are many ways to bring species to extinction without the help of humans. Again, think before you pass judgement on things that don't concern your own economy. It can be very hurtful, for example in the 70's and 80's a big campaign was fought to stop seal killings in Greenland. This was a huge blow for the Greenlanders, who live on the second biggest glacier in the world, and many of them had almost no other means of living. This resulted in them being totally dependent on the Danish government. They had no voice in the international community, unlike those who opposed them. Greenlanders had to abandon a way of life they had conted on for thousands of years because of bored people, miles away. Well, that's all for now; but again, read my post before you comment on it please.

Hm, for some reason I'm not seeing this as sounding smart.


Wow, you didn't get the joke? It was just a bad bad bad joke about Mikitivity roleplaying me debating and how he roleplayed me as having a sharper intelect and having less patience for the weak of mind. So, I called his roleplaying "godmodding". Now, if you want me to piece any other jokes you might not altogether understand such as any of the popular "You might be a redneck if" jokes or any of the "Knock Knock" jokes, then please, feel free to call, or send me a line.

Oh, and you knocked my minimal expectations for human understanding down a notch. Thanks alot.

In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.
^^^This one's about you (You being Powerhungry Chipmunks, not your imaginary friends, and its about stupidity, yours to be more specific).

Did you even read my post, or just the first lines? But if you did, you sure don't have the facts right. First off, overpopulation of humans is hardly a problem in Iceland! The human population is just over 290.000 (yep) compared to 340.000 whales. Second, Iceland has a very strict fishing policy and it is totally illegal to fish more than the policy board, Hafrannsóknarstofnun Íslands, warrants. This is why marine animals still thrive here, but not near Canada for example where many of the fish populations imploded in the 80's. It would LA LA LA LA HA HA I DID RESEARCH TOO! I CAN RESEARCH EVEN WHEN ITS TOO LATE TO CHANGE ANYTHING AND ITS MONDAY MORNING AND NOONE CARES AND THE VOTE IS ELEVEN THOUSAND TO TWO THOUSAND I JUST WANT TO ADD MORE POSTS SO I CAN HAVE THE TITLE "FORUM BOREDOME" BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A REAL ACCOMPLISHMENT AND DID I MENTION THAT I LIKE LONG WALKS ON THE BEACH AND AM SINGLE AND ATTRACTIVE AND SOMETIMES I THINK THAT PEOPLE WILL THINK I'M REALLY COOL AND MAYBE I CAN CHANGE THE WORLD AND IT WOULD BE REALLY AWESOME IF THE WHOLE VOTE GOT CHANGED FROM ELEVEN THOUSAND TO TWO THOUSAND TO ZERO TO THIRTEEN THOUSAND WHOOOO!!!! IM A PINBALL WIZARD THERE HAS TO BE A TRICK. And thats why if all nationstate countries were more like iceland then we wouldn't have a problem the end I am GOD

Bloody Brilliant man!

Cave Canem is very concerned about the tone of this post. Knootoss is apparently claiming that the cooperation of nations with similar outlooks and ob..............insert stuff here.............
Member for Cave Canem

I had arrived in Las Vegas. It was a sweltering summer day. I needed to find someplace cool, somewhere I could collect my thoughts. So, I went to an Art Galleria of old DaVinchi sketches and imitation sculptures. As I expected, the museum was as empty as the calories in cotton candy. I knew I had escaped the boredom and terror of school and the archaic leanings of foreign dead language. More specifically, Latin.

I sit with my laptop on my lap; a machine that was doing what its name implied: downloading questionable content involving love/money relationships. I thought the terror of Latin was over. I had unsubscribed to "Consumer Reports, just to avoid having to recognize "caveat emptor".

Then there was your name. It brought back bad memories of translating "Who let the dogs out" into Latin, and our Certamen team slogan, which was "beware of the dog", so please, don't cave canem, cave Latin, uh (noo, can't decline...noo), em?

Finally: Why is it ok for cod to become extinct?
OOC: I'd happily draft a resolution dealing with the overfishing of cod if it weren't for the fact that it would clearly be a waste of time. People would just turn around and tell me that cod isn't in danger.

And Knootoss: Yes, CACE have a UN Thinktank. Do you and your allies not then? A serious oversight, if you ask me. Additionally, Mikitivity isn't a member of CACE. This socialist cabal you mention simply isn't there. Furthermore, Ecopoeia - a fairly active nation in the UN - may come under your umbrella of 'socialist' nations, yet it is not in CACE or IFTA and hasn't collaborated on 'socialist' resolutions. Funnily enough, we're not all robots with exactly the same views.

Environmentalism ought not to be a left-right issue. The economy need not always suffer.

Apologies for the muddled nature of this posting. I need more coffee.

Then there was your name. It brought back bad memories of translating "Who let the dogs out" into Latin, and our Certamen team slogan, which was "beware of the dog", so please, don't cave canem, cave Latin, uh (noo, can't decline...noo), em?

Touche.

Hey, what do you know? It seems our socialist special-interest group controls the UN now! Guess our work is done...

*votes in favour of the resolution, basks in the warming glow of the flames leaping from the thread*

Cave Canem wishes to formally apply to the post of Lefty-in-Chief of the secret special interest group in control of the UN.

In secret of course.

Sorry - way off topic there but we couldn't resist.

Why can't we just hunt the whales that are in no danger of becoming extinct and leave the deplepted ones alone. The crazy idiot hippie who created this resolutions is a moron and should be shot.


EDIT: I have just looked at the page of the idiot and his economy is Imploded! What does that mean... should you trust the idiot when he has an imploded economy from banning whailing I bet?

Why can't we just hunt the whales that are in no danger of becoming extinct and leave the deplepted ones alone. The crazy idiot hippie who created this resolutions is a moron and should be shot.


EDIT: I have just looked at the page of the idiot and his economy is Imploded! What does that mean... should you trust the idiot when he has an imploded economy from banning whailing I bet?

i fully agree with you!! anyone trying to get our whaling ships will provide intresting target practice for our navy.

Hey, what do you know? It seems our socialist special-interest group controls the UN now! Guess our work is done...


At the time that these accusations started my nation's UN Category actually was Capitalizt! :) [Currently my government is back to being classified as a Left-Leaning College State.]

And Ecopoeia is right, just about every off site UN forum I've visited has a UN forum, which both works on new proposals and serves as debating grounds for resolutions that have hit the UN floor. Anybody claiming that regulars here control the UN are on something.


Finally, Dudua, I read your post. It was kinda hard to read, but I caught the gist of it.

Overpopulation is not a problem associated with population or even population density, but rather sustainability. If a society is so large that it consumes renewable resources faster than nature can "restock the stores", then overpopulation exists.

Example:
Let's assume that there is a guy named Gilligan and he lives on a South Pacific island called "Gilligan's Island". He eats coconuts and lives in a bambo hut. If Gilligan can find a coconut every day and never has to worry about a shortage, then Gilligan's Island can sustain him. Now let's pretty a big fat guy named The Skipper, moves to Gilligan's Island too. If there is now a shortage in coconuts, then the island is overpopulated! Wow, and with only 2 people too! Surely that can't be possible!

While there are a few "fictional" nations that claim that whales are eating more fish than humans and thus a danger to human fisheries (and I believe this claim to be true), the article I posted above basically describes research that was done that shows that whales and many other marine mammals actually feed in parts of the oceans that humans current do not fish in.

Why can't we just hunt the whales that are in no danger of becoming extinct and leave the deplepted ones alone.

Are depleted whales at all like depleted uranium? If so I can see this one running and running.

Member for Cave Canem - clearly got that Friday feeling despite it being Monday.

Are depleted whales at all like depleted uranium?

Indeed yes. If you get little pieces of them in your lungs it can cause all sorts of long-term health problems.

Oh dear, it must be time to go home.

someone tell me how the this stupid policy got passed into law?! oh well, it at least will provide some intreesting target practice for our up and coming navy!

someone tell me how the this stupid policy got passed into law?! oh well, it at least will provide some intreesting target practice for our up and coming navy!Acts of war are in International Incidents, third door on your right. Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out, kthxbye!

Wow, you didn't get the joke? It was just a bad bad bad joke about Mikitivity roleplaying me debating and how he roleplayed me as having a sharper intelect and having less patience for the weak of mind. So, I called his roleplaying "godmodding". Now, if you want me to piece any other jokes you might not altogether understand such as any of the popular "You might be a redneck if" jokes or any of the "Knock Knock" jokes, then please, feel free to call, or send me a line.

Oh, and you knocked my minimal expectations for human understanding down a notch. Thanks alot.


^^^This one's about you (You being Powerhungry Chipmunks, not your imaginary friends, and its about stupidity, yours to be more specific).


Last time I checked, those that didn't play nicely in school had to stay with teacher during recess...

I really don't care about how this statement was used (even in a contextual sense) in your petty argument. As self-exalted as you are in your own world, you really couldn't mean much less to me.

My point was that with your constant attacking and ranting you are only souring your own name, and, yes, making yourself look stupid.

I'm not going to waste my time dwelling on the ridiculousness of your insults.

Just remember, no one likes a know-it-all -- much less a know-it-all that doesn't comes off as not knowing much.

How stupid can people really get?
I can understand that people don't want whales to bee wiped out, but can we try looking at the facts, and not cry emotionaly just because we feel bad after seeing "Free Willy"?

There are many sorts of whales living in the ocean; and many of the different sorts are NOT threathend from extermination.

In fact...There are so many whales in some areas that the fishing-industry is suffering heavely because whales eat all the fish.
Is this a good thing for the eco-system?

But hey...Banning all sorts of whaling makes us all have a good feeling in our heart right?

So be it that the spanish people torture bulls and the engslish people hunts for foxes with dogs(which tears them apart when the fox is still living)....
After all...It's just sports...Right?

Then so be it that some nations try to regulate the population of whales in some areas where it's important for both humans and mother nature.

So my point is this:
I can see the point in banning whaling if the animal is threathend from extermination. And some whale-species ARE threatend... These species we must protect...I totaly agree with that.
But this subject is much more complicated than that. And I get really pissed of when people only makes up a opinion based on how fu**ing cute the animal is! What they do in Spain and England is torturing animals for fun; but then again...Bulls and foxes aren't that cute are they?

[QUOTE=Infinite Hoarding]Bloody Brilliant man![/QUOT

What the...?

Congratulations on passage!

Congratulations on passage!


There is nothing to congratulate with this idiotic proposal and its passage.

There is nothing to congratulate with this idiotic proposal and its passage.
Whether we agree with the resolution or not, it takes a lot of work to get one through and there are many hands involved. Any proposal which perserveres through the UN challenges deserves some congratulations. Powerhungry Chipmunks echoes Tuesday Heights's salute.

The bottom line is, you don't have a clue about:

- God Modding (what is and what is not)
- How NS incorporates real-world ideas

Anybody breaking into a "fantasy" or "future" tech roleplay trying to "rewrite" the rules and then cries, "Boo Hoo, but you need to spend less time on your computer" is gonna be asked to wake up and realize that game or not, there has to be some common assumptions in order for people to talk and work together.


Sorry, oh great and mighty one [saying it sarcasticlly], SORRY FOR YOU! It seems that the Game Moderators disagree with you and your statements, please read the corresponding thread in Game Moderation, last few posts. It would appear, more so to some than others, that there is a vast difference between this game and reality therefore to continue to utilize your tiring argument that you have "Real-world" Stats and Links and everyone should bow down before you doesnt work , son. You see as i have told you countless times and again, this is a game and no not everything has to be or should be in corrilation with real-world facts and news. Come up with some fresh new ideas [this my make you an idealist---which would be a good thing] dont limit yourself or your mind, dont copyright the news...try to come up with something different and fresh. It doesnt have to be fantasy or future related, just new. Try it, you may like. Now, i have not[in this thread or the last at least] and continue not to "verbally abuse" you, only because you whined about, and thats fine i dont have to point out your short-comings to you, but please do not be a hypocrit and tell me not to when thats all you continue to do. I came to this thread in peace and plan to leave it that way!

ALSO PLEASE EVERONE,READ THE THREAD IN MODERATION:
Q:REAL WORLD VS. NATION STATES TRENDS, YOU WILL ALL FIND PERFECT EXAMPLES OF A HYPOCRIT, READ THE POST BY KNOOTOSS ON PAGE 2 POST #18, THERE LISTS 10, YES TEN EXAMPLES OF GODMODDING BY THE FAMOUS MIKITIVITY. IN THIS THREAD YOU WILL READ THAT "MIK" ACCUSSES ME OF GODMODDING WHEN YET THERE ARE NO SUSTANCIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT. THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT "MIK" IS A GODMODDER AND IS ACTIVE IN DOING SO. iF YOU BACK "MIK" THEN YOU BACK A GODMODDER AND A HYPOCRIT. CHEERS!

Here is the link to the thread Lacomb is talking about:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=350499&page=1&pp=15

Cog and others have some pretty interesting things to say. And for the record, I do not consider myself either a god modder nor a hypocrit, but I really think the thread in the Moderation forum will speak for itself.

Last time I checked, those that didn't play nicely in school had to stay with teacher during recess...

I really don't care about how this statement was used (even in a contextual sense) in your petty argument. As self-exalted as you are in your own world, you really couldn't mean much less to me.

My point was that with your constant attacking and ranting you are only souring your own name, and, yes, making yourself look stupid.

I'm not going to waste my time dwelling on the ridiculousness of your insults.

Just remember, no one likes a know-it-all -- much less a know-it-all that doesn't comes off as not knowing much.

The one-million dollar question is........

If you didn't care, why did you quote it and write a reasonable reply?
Why did you waste your time on my ridiculous insults?

Finally, why are you taking it so seriously? This is the Banning Whaling thread and the vote is over. Comon, take a shot at me. Have some fun. No point in getting all serious.

Sorry, oh great and mighty one [saying it sarcasticlly], SORRY FOR YOU! It seems that the Game Moderators disagree with you and your statements, please read the corresponding thread in Game Moderation, last few posts. It would appear, more so to some than others, that there is a vast difference between this game and reality therefore to continue to utilize your tiring argument that you have "Real-world" Stats and Links and everyone should bow down before you doesnt work , son. You see as i have told you countless times and again, this is a game and no not everything has to be or should be in corrilation with real-world facts and news. Come up with some fresh new ideas [this my make you an idealist---which would be a good thing] dont limit yourself or your mind, dont copyright the news...try to come up with something different and fresh. It doesnt have to be fantasy or future related, just new. Try it, you may like. Now, i have not[in this thread or the last at least] and continue not to "verbally abuse" you, only because you whined about, and thats fine i dont have to point out your short-comings to you, but please do not be a hypocrit and tell me not to when thats all you continue to do. I came to this thread in peace and plan to leave it that way!

ALSO PLEASE EVERONE,READ THE THREAD IN MODERATION:
Q:REAL WORLD VS. NATION STATES TRENDS, YOU WILL ALL FIND PERFECT EXAMPLES OF A HYPOCRIT, READ THE POST BY KNOOTOSS ON PAGE 2 POST #18, Lalalala

Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics:
You may win, but you're still retarded.

^I stole that from someone's signature. Props to the origional writer, whoever that was.

Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics:
You may win, but you're still retarded.

^I stole that from someone's signature. Props to the origional writer, whoever that was.

And I would know.

Nonsense on a grand scale
I've just read the thread. The examples of Mikitivity's godmoding you cite are in fact speculative examples he has provided, not godmoding of his own. Accusing him of such is disingenuous, petty and pathetic.

Begin Message
TO: All UN Member Nations
FR: Dargan Zaaraad, OUOS
RE: Recent Proposal
TX:
With the recent passing of this most recent UN Resolution, specifically, the banning of whaling, the Hack has an announcement to make, which includes an offer for all nations who voted against this resolution.

The Hack would like to announce that as a non-UN member, we are unaffected by this resolution. Because of this, we are upping the quota for our whalers by two thousand percent. The excess whales will be available for sale to any nation impacted by this resolution, with a "slight" markup. Hopefully this will be profitable for all involved parties.

The Hack would like to thank the UN for passing this resolution and allowing us this opportunity to make such profits off such worthless animals. Cheers!

- Dargan Zaaraad, Office of Unofficial Official Statements
The Semi-Autonomous Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack
End Message

I've just read the thread. The examples of Mikitivity's godmoding you cite are in fact speculative examples he has provided, not godmoding of his own.


Well, first off, thank you. Second, i did not cite any examples i merely asked people to READ the post where someone else cited the examples. Third i researched these examples and according to "Gomodding 101", they are in fact perfect examples of "godmodding". I found them on various threads and after reviewing them carefully, well, you know. But i do understand that you just want to side with your friend or fellow whatever. No problem. Im well past that. I would ask that next time, please READ my post dont skim it [ If thats what you did]. Thank you Ecopoeia, and be safe!

Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics:
You may win, but you're still retarded.

^I stole that from someone's signature. Props to the origional writer, whoever that was.

ROTFL! That's hilarious...wait...it would be slightly less funny if it weren't so true.

but still, kudos to the original writer!

Fellow delegates,

The Federation of Comporellan Congress has passed legislation deeming a number of companies as compliant under the 'aboriginal whaling' bullet of the "Banning Whaling" resolution. Comporellan authorities will monitor these companies to assure that traditional methods are used and an appropriate number of whales are harvested.
Comporellan will also treat any harm to whaling vessels as aggression against the Federation of Comporellan and will act accordingly.




--------------------

Emissary from the Federation of Comporellan




Visit Comporellan!

Well, first off, thank you. Second, i did not cite any examples i merely asked people to READ the post where someone else cited the examples. Third i researched these examples and according to "Gomodding 101", they are in fact perfect examples of "godmodding". I found them on various threads and after reviewing them carefully, well, you know. But i do understand that you just want to side with your friend or fellow whatever. No problem. Im well past that. I would ask that next time, please READ my post dont skim it [ If thats what you did]. Thank you Ecopoeia, and be safe!
I read it. You were disingenuous. Anyway, apologies for the harshness of the tone, I'm just getting tired of all this. Let's draw a line and move on, yes?

Best wishes.