NationStates Jolt Archive

On page 36 of the proposed resolutions is my own: a resolution to save the world's fish stocks and provide the ever-demanding food marker with a new resource and selling point.

Here is my argument, structured in nice numbers:

1. World fish stocks are in danger, the North Sea being a specific example.

2. To alleviate pressure on said stocks, we need to find new methods of fishing and eating that don't endanger fish. This requires us to think outside the box: there is far less space on land than there is on sea, and the increase in size of cattle herds and so forth invariably means environmental destruction. Just look at the cattle situation in South America, where the hamburger herds have vast tracts of rainforest slashed-and-burned so they can graze to fill America's bulging bellies.

3. My resolution tackles this in a unique and unconventional way, approaching the problem from two angles at once. Firstly, it establishes a new food resource that can be easily picked up by people cast out from a downsized fishing industry. Secondly, it reduces both our predation on the fish stocks and the predation of the new food source in question.

That's right. I'm talking about dolphins.

Of course, some species of dolphin are endangered. We wouldn't hunt them, any more than we hunt sunfish or goblin sharks. However, there are many species which are both proliferous and ideally placed for this scheme. The bottlenosed dolphin is a prime example, living in numbers across the American coast and in the North Sea.

A single dolphin like this could easily feed a family for a week! Not only do dolphins contain a large quantity of high-protein meat, they also contain other valuable materials like blubber and whalebone. This would be a highly efficient resource, reclaiming practically everything from the corpse once caught. Some people may have moral qualms: I say this to them. One dolphin has to lose its life to feed the aforesaid family, whereas you would need more than a score of fish. Dolphins are already caught up in our trawler-nets, but the valuable bodies are wasted. In this age of environmental slide, we need to think outside the box, and then outside of that box, and then outside of that box. By saving the fish stocks, we will in fact be doing the dolphins a favour - they need their prey as much as we do, and if we carry on overfishing there just won't be any fish left and the dolphins will starve.

Animal has always preyed upon animal. We do not hesitate to eat fish of equal size and beauty to a dolphin, such as marlins. The French eat horses, equally cute, everyone eats pigs, similarly intelligent. This is a simple matter of natural selection, survival of the fittest. Laws would be in place to prevent the dolphins themselves being fished to extinction, but in the end they have no more right not to be eaten than the poor fishes we are driving to extinction as we speak.

Finally, there is an easy way to fish selectively for dolphins. They are well known for "playing" or even "frolicking" in the wakes of boats. Converted fishing boats (for the fishing industry would be downsized to make way for new dolphin meats, the whole idea being to reduce fishing for fish) could exploit this by dropping concussion/depth charges into their wake once a large enough pod had gathered, and simply reeling the floating carcasses in. Very few if any fish would be caught in this particular method of dolphin-hunting - it would provide ample quantities of dolphin meat for the nations concerned.

I urge you to support this resolution.

On page 36 of the proposed resolutions is my own: a resolution to save the world's fish stocks and provide the ever-demanding food marker with a new resource and selling point.

Oh boy. This should be a blast.

Here is my argument, structured in nice numbers:

1. World fish stocks are in danger, the North Sea being a specific example.

:checks the fish stocks of both worlds:

Terran has the same percentage of fish as before, and most of Terrator isn't fished. Not a problem.

2. To alleviate pressure on said stocks, we need to find new methods of fishing and eating that don't endanger fish. This requires us to think outside the box: there is far less space on land than there is on sea, and the increase in size of cattle herds and so forth invariably means environmental destruction. Just look at the cattle situation in South America, where the hamburger herds have vast tracts of rainforest slashed-and-burned so they can graze to fill America's bulging bellies.

Illegal. You are not supposed to use real-world nations and continents in NSUN proposals. Here, the United States of America doesn't exist, there are (at last count) 7 Earths, and velociraptors rub shoulders with a species that evolved from humans, humans, and elves. Plus, we have a nation that is ruled by sentient penguines and my own nation comes from so far away from Earth that it takes warp technology years to travel there.

3. My resolution tackles this in a unique and unconventional way, approaching the problem from two angles at once. Firstly, it establishes a new food resource that can be easily picked up by people cast out from a downsized fishing industry. Secondly, it reduces both our predation on the fish stocks and the predation of the new food source in question.

Uh oh...

That's right. I'm talking about dolphins.

Illegal in my nation. Dolphins are recognized as a species potentially capable of sentience and, as such, are protected for the next 200 years against hunting.

Finally, there is an easy way to fish selectively for dolphins. They are well known for "playing" or even "frolicking" in the wakes of boats. Converted fishing boats (for the fishing industry would be downsized to make way for new dolphin meats, the whole idea being to reduce fishing for fish) could exploit this by dropping concussion/depth charges into their wake once a large enough pod had gathered, and simply reeling the floating carcasses in. Very few if any fish would be caught in this particular method of dolphin-hunting - it would provide ample quantities of dolphin meat for the nations concerned.

Okay, I don't even want to touch this paragraph with a ten foot pole.

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

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Lord Pifling

Description: Ladies and gentlemen of all nations - it is clear that the fish stocks of the world, especially of the North Sea, are in serious danger. We, the people of Our Lord Pifling, feel we have the solution.

Eat Dolphins.

We must do this to save the fish. One dolphin will feed a family for a week, and what's more these dolphins eat the fish as well! By reducing fishing of the North Sea and other threatened areas and instituting a new _dolphining_ industry to make up for the food deficit, we shall allow the fish stocks to thrive.

Dolphins are available in plenty. Only certain types are endangered: these will not be eaten. The bottlenose dolphin, for example, exists in large numbers and is large itself, providing a large amount of meat per catch. Dolphin bodies also contain other valuable materials such as blubber and whalebone.

So long as they are not overfished, the inclusion of dolphin in the diet of nations should allow both dolphins and fish to thrive in a more natural state. Of course, some people may have moral qualms about eating dolphins, but these can be vanquished by a serious government information campaign, including the Channel 5 programme "dolphin murder mystery" in which dolphins are shown to sadistically kill their own babies, and the episode of the Simpsons where killer dolphins take over the world.

Of course, businesses may take a hit from the drop in economy caused by the downsizing of the fishing industry, but in the long term this will be compensated for by the rise of Dolphin foods. We are informed that dolphins are in fact quite tasty, somewhere between pork and tuna (tuna stocks are also in danger, by the way - and dolphins eat tuna).

Dolphin-fishing can be carried out with the utmost ease, fishing selectively to catch only dolphins. How? It is simple, my friends! Dolphins frolick in the wakes of boats. We simply need dolphin-fishing boats, which wait for a large enough pod to be frolicking under the bows before dropping a depth charge and simply scooping in the carcasses. No fish will then be harmed.

I urge you to support this resolution.


Approvals: 3 (SubParEmcees, Kalamov, WZ Forums)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 138 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Dec 4 2004

The Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeteria has not approved this proposal ... nor will they.

So what's this saying? Is it requiring all people in the NS world to eat dolphins? What if they don't like the taste? Is it requiring all the UN nations to make it legal? I'm confused.

Strikes me that even despite the fact the proposal appears to break a few rules- no way on this clean earth that anyone will vote for it. Mano, there's just TOO MANY dolphin lovers out there...

Amusing though. Haven't giggled that much since I left primary school.

Strikes me that even despite the fact the proposal appears to break a few rules- no way on this clean earth that anyone will vote for it. Mano, there's just TOO MANY dolphin lovers out there...

Amusing though. Haven't giggled that much since I left primary school.

Personally, I wonder what dolphin would taste like. But due to their potential for developing sentience, I feel they must be given a chance to do so before I decide whether or not to eat them.

It could be argued that as dolphins have very few natural predators- sharks tend to only worry them when giving birth due to the mass of blood and general bodily gunk given out by the whole messy process- that suddenly being forced to adapt to a new predator could be the vital push that dolphins need to turn them sentient... yanno, picking up new methods of communication and such in the fight against depth charges...

Personally, I wonder what dolphin would taste like. But due to their potential for developing sentience, I feel they must be given a chance to do so before I decide whether or not to eat them.

Remember when Tuna tasted good?

Remember when Tuna tasted good?

Oh. I forgot about that.

A serious resolution

This is the only part that worries me.

Look at it this way: the dolphins aren't sentient. Not yet, anyhow. No-one would have looked at the amoebas that comprised some of the first life on earth and said "hell, I can't kill that, it could become sentient". But they did. There's nowhere you can draw a line on the sentience issue except at sentience itself. Plus, as I said, we will ensure the dolphins are not overfished. They will not be denied their chance for sentience as a species, and of course a dolphin cannot evolve sentience in the course of its lifetime, so we are not damaging their chances in any way, shape or form. In fact, as a previous poster pointed out, we may even be encouraging them.

Plus, remember that without the fish we save by this method, the dolphins become extinct via starvation. We have a choice: kill and eat them in small numbers, both species survive. Kill and eat only fish in large numbers: both species die out, we shift our food resources and the cycle supplants itself to the land.

What this resolution is proposing is that we create a demand via campaigning and simply having the meats on offer - not to mention a decrease in fish available - and a supply, using the depth-charge method and later dolphin-farming. We then downsize the fishing industry and reduce the pressure on fish, thus reducing pressure on dolphins, thus creating a better long-term environmental situation. We're not forcing people to eat dolphins, we're simply creating a new industry to alleviate the pressure on fisheries that is creating overfishing.

As I said in the resolution, the wills of the dolphin-lovers can be broken by a programme of anti-dolphin programmes, such as the one about how they brutally murder their own children (it's true!).

Finally, on real/fantasy world applications: we use the real world as a model, as far as I'm aware. We have a whole category of resolution on gun control, whereas for all we know your particular world uses lightsabers and psychic pulses or sharp sticks and rocks. On this particular point...
llegal. You are not supposed to use real-world nations and continents in NSUN proposals.

Au contraire good buddy. I looked it up in the guide - you may use them as examples. I have. I have not included their names as part of the proposed legislation. So ya boo sucks to you :mp5:

Oh yes, and on serious: well, that's partly a lure in the title to draw people in and partly because I want to get this resolution up for a common vote. This is a fantasy world, we're not really killing dolphins, and I want to see whether I can get it passed :D

Here, by the way, is the link to the resolution:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/

Here, by the way, is the link to the resolution:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/
Umm, not. Proposals are in a frameset. That's the main page.

You can't link to a proposal, but you can search for it by name. If you wanted to. Which I don't.

Look at it this way: the dolphins aren't sentient. Not yet, anyhow.

I don't suppose you have some unbiased cognitive/comparative studies you could cite to prove that.

No-one would have looked at the amoebas that comprised some of the first life on earth and said "hell, I can't kill that, it could become sentient". But they did. There's nowhere you can draw a line on the sentience issue except at sentience itself. Plus, as I said, we will ensure the dolphins are not overfished. They will not be denied their chance for sentience as a species, and of course a dolphin cannot evolve sentience in the course of its lifetime, so we are not damaging their chances in any way, shape or form. In fact, as a previous poster pointed out, we may even be encouraging them.

Quite possibly so, in the case of your nation. I just don't think it's an issue that the UN needs to be addressing.

What this resolution is proposing is that we create a demand via campaigning and simply having the meats on offer - not to mention a decrease in fish available - and a supply, using the depth-charge method and later dolphin-farming. We then downsize the fishing industry and reduce the pressure on fish, thus reducing pressure on dolphins, thus creating a better long-term environmental situation. We're not forcing people to eat dolphins, we're simply creating a new industry to alleviate the pressure on fisheries that is creating overfishing.

That sure is a good idea...for *your* nation.

As I said in the resolution, the wills of the dolphin-lovers can be broken by a programme of anti-dolphin programmes, such as the one about how they brutally murder their own children (it's true!).

How unusual. You would never see other sentient species coughhumanscough doing brutal things like that. :rolleyes:

This will never make it to vote man. Its just wrong on a plethora of levels.

I don't suppose you have some unbiased cognitive/comparative studies you could cite to prove that.

I don't need them. With an animal, you generally need to try and prove that it is sentient first.

Quite possibly so, in the case of your nation. I just don't think it's an issue that the UN needs to be addressing.

Overfishing is a general issue! We draw the templates for our issue from the real world. As I said earlier, you might say "yeah, gun control, for your nation maybe... we don't have guns, we're a medieval society" or you might say "women's rights, maybe for your nation, but my nation is populated by asexual newts". This is a whole-world, real-world issue which should affect a lot of nations, so it's a UN-worthy issue.

How unusual. You would never see other sentient species coughhumanscough doing brutal things like that.

Did I say we didn't? No. I was just pointing out how the public could be desensitized to the false "dolphins are wunnerful" perception.

One could however point out that while pods of dolphins participate in these infanticides, we tend to lock up people who do that.

If you wanted to. Which I don't.

Thanks for the thing on the link and all, but please, either back up your statements or get off the thread. This kind of unsupported statement is tantamount to spam, and is not welcome in what's meant to be a forum for the debate of issues. Similarly, this:

This will never make it to vote man. Its just wrong on a plethora of levels.

is not wanted. If you want to state your opinion on the matter (which I hope you do), please don't leave us to guess at your reasoning! Provide an argument rather than a blank statement.

Thanks for the thing on the link and all, but please, either back up your statements or get off the thread. This kind of unsupported statement is tantamount to spam, and is not welcome in what's meant to be a forum for the debate of issues.
Thanks for the advice, dude. I guess I just didn't learn anything from my other 1500 posts in this forum on serious resolutions that actually stood a chance of passage. In future, I'll make a point of deferring to all nations with three posts, who obviously know more about the NSUN than I do.

I don't need them. With an animal, you generally need to try and prove that it is sentient first.

So...

[cut to large colonization ship orbiting a small planet]

First Officer: "Whoa, there's like, animals down there! Should we be colonizing this planet?"

Captain: "Dude, I've checked it out, and they have like, huge brains in proportion to their body, advanced neurological and cognitive structures, complex social behaviors, but we have no proof that they are sentient, so they're fair game!"

First Officer: "Righteous! Rock on, dudes! Let's just terminate the local population of funky-looking bipedal ape-things."

Overfishing is a general issue! We draw the templates for our issue from the real world. As I said earlier, you might say "yeah, gun control, for your nation maybe... we don't have guns, we're a medieval society" or you might say "women's rights, maybe for your nation, but my nation is populated by asexual newts". This is a whole-world, real-world issue which should affect a lot of nations, so it's a UN-worthy issue.

The people who decide whether an issue is worthy of the UN's consideration are the Admin, Mods, and Regional UN Delegates.

Look, even though I totally disagree with you killing dolphins, I'm not making proposals trying to outlaw it in your nation and everyone else's nation. I only ask that you show me the same courtesy.

One could however point out that while pods of dolphins participate in these infanticides, we tend to lock up people who do that.

Ah. Humans are better because we have absolute moral values and enforce those values on others. I see.

Whatdya mean dolphins aren't sentient? How else could the dolphins swimming in the North Adam Sea build all those elaborate underground cities?

Look at it this way: the dolphins aren't sentient. Not yet, anyhow.

And giant winged reptiles that breathe fire, talk, and fly are also not supposed to exist. Personally, I prefer not to try to tell them they don't exist, as they have a bad tendency of eating people who annoy them or fireballing their cars and then using the scrap as a toilet. Now, if you wish, I'll let you argue with the dragons of my nation that they don't exist.

Keep in mind that we have a nation of sentient penguines on NS. Sentient dolphins is not that much of a stretch.

No-one would have looked at the amoebas that comprised some of the first life on earth and said "hell, I can't kill that, it could become sentient". But they did.

You must apply to the "all life is sentient" theory. If not, you would realize that amoebas are still not sentient.

There's nowhere you can draw a line on the sentience issue except at sentience itself.

We can't even actually prove humans are sentient beyond a huge doubt. You want to start eating them next?

Plus, as I said, we will ensure the dolphins are not overfished. They will not be denied their chance for sentience as a species, and of course a dolphin cannot evolve sentience in the course of its lifetime, so we are not damaging their chances in any way, shape or form. In fact, as a previous poster pointed out, we may even be encouraging them.

Uh, no longer true. My people have demonstrated than an individual can undergo evolution on a rapid scale. That's why they are now multiple races (and still multiplying) instead of the one they were before (though, they are still one species). If an entire species can undergo that and undergo physical and mental changes, the idea of a dolphin becomming sentient overnight isn't that strange.

Plus, remember that without the fish we save by this method, the dolphins become extinct via starvation. We have a choice: kill and eat them in small numbers, both species survive. Kill and eat only fish in large numbers: both species die out, we shift our food resources and the cycle supplants itself to the land.

Overfishing is not a problem on my worlds. I've stated that before.

What this resolution is proposing is that we create a demand via campaigning and simply having the meats on offer - not to mention a decrease in fish available - and a supply, using the depth-charge method and later dolphin-farming. We then downsize the fishing industry and reduce the pressure on fish, thus reducing pressure on dolphins, thus creating a better long-term environmental situation. We're not forcing people to eat dolphins, we're simply creating a new industry to alleviate the pressure on fisheries that is creating overfishing.

I still fail to see how this solves a problem I do not have by forcing people to break the law.

As I said in the resolution, the wills of the dolphin-lovers can be broken by a programme of anti-dolphin programmes, such as the one about how they brutally murder their own children (it's true!).

So do humans.

Finally, on real/fantasy world applications: we use the real world as a model, as far as I'm aware. We have a whole category of resolution on gun control, whereas for all we know your particular world uses lightsabers and psychic pulses or sharp sticks and rocks. On this particular point...

The difference is that gun technology is something all nations can account for. Some nation may have sentient dolphins.

Au contraire good buddy. I looked it up in the guide - you may use them as examples. I have. I have not included their names as part of the proposed legislation. So ya boo sucks to you :mp5:

I'll have to double-check that.

Oh yes, and on serious: well, that's partly a lure in the title to draw people in and partly because I want to get this resolution up for a common vote. This is a fantasy world, we're not really killing dolphins, and I want to see whether I can get it passed :D

You can't. Doesn't even take proposing it. I know that just from the general voting history of the UN.

Here, by the way, is the link to the resolution:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/

Links are bad at this point. It moves too quickly.

I don't need them. With an animal, you generally need to try and prove that it is sentient first.

Okay. Prove humans are sentient.

Overfishing is a general issue! We draw the templates for our issue from the real world. As I said earlier, you might say "yeah, gun control, for your nation maybe... we don't have guns, we're a medieval society" or you might say "women's rights, maybe for your nation, but my nation is populated by asexual newts". This is a whole-world, real-world issue which should affect a lot of nations, so it's a UN-worthy issue.

Except it only affects nations that fish the ocean. Most don't. Most don't even border an ocean. And in many, such as my own, there is no problem with overfishing. This is not a universal resolution.

Did I say we didn't? No. I was just pointing out how the public could be desensitized to the false "dolphins are wunnerful" perception.

Never claimed they are "wunnerful". I'm just giving them the same chance I give humans: The chance to prove itself as sentient. If you wish, my genetically and physically superior species can declare humans a tasty delicacy. After all, we have yet to prove humans are, as a whole, sentient.

One could however point out that while pods of dolphins participate in these infanticides, we tend to lock up people who do that.

And we tend to lock up people who try to force others to their religious viewpoint through certain methods while humans allow them to go free. Also, let's not forget that humanity allows the wholesale destruction of entire peoples. Once again, no point on your side.

So far, you have provided just as good of an arguement for my people declaring humanity a food source as for humanity declaring dolphins a food source.

I have no moral objection to eating humans. I do have objections to eating humans: cannibalism encourages the production of free radicals which leads frequently to brain damage and insanity. This is detrimental to the survival of the species, not to mention the fact that if we kill and eat each other the killing is also damaging the species. I am a human. I'm kind of in favour of the survival of the species. Any food source that doesn't damage the species is okily dokily by me, and humans don't fall into that category. I tried to tackle it on a moral level because that's the frequency most people here seemed to be tuned to here, but if you start asking me to do work to back up all this subjective moral stuff then I'm afraid I'm going to have to reveal my actual views. Eat or be eaten :p

The difference is that gun technology is something all nations can account for. Some nation may have sentient dolphins.

Excusez-moi? What if my nation exists on a large, dense planet where the gravity is too fire for the functioning of projectile weapons? What if my country is completely pacifist and populated by mindwashed clones who would never pick up a gun? What if my nation is made up of blind people who can't even see the gun? What if my nation is made up of immortal robots who don't even feel the effects of the gun and never have any motive to attack each other? Etc... etc.... again I return to the point that you must use a real-world model even for Nation States resolution. Which, by the way, completely topples this point:

My people have demonstrated than an individual can undergo evolution on a rapid scale

Only in your fantasy world. You'll notice that on the UN rules, roleplaying is strictly separated from the UN. All nations are implicity assumed to be realistic, as far as I'm aware, and that includes the regular functions and laws of genetics.

I still fail to see how this solves a problem I do not have by forcing people to break the law.

As far as I'm aware, there isn't an issue saying "No More Harming Dolphins" that you can approve, in which case these laws are unofficial, existing only in RP and therefore completely separate from the UN. If the resolution was passed, it would not force them to break the law, it would force the government of the country in question to repeal the law and institute the dolphin-hunting statute in its place.


Finally, I'd like to know how people here can tolerate this:
Thanks for the advice, dude. I guess I just didn't learn anything from my other 1500 posts in this forum on serious resolutions that actually stood a chance of passage. In future, I'll make a point of deferring to all nations with three posts, who obviously know more about the NSUN than I do.

Perhaps you didn't. If we suddenly factor in sheer quantity of posts as being some kind of arbitrary moral advantage, then I would point out that on one other forum I have around equal to that amount and am actually presiding Admin on a second, with around twice that. However, I don't ever recall agressively barging into a new poster's thread, spamming and then throwing my weight around when I was asked to contribute rather than be a detriment to the discussion, or at least leave. "DemonLordEnigma", "Texan Hotrodders"... they seem to be making proper discussion, backed-up debate. They seem to be high posters as well. So I'd assume you're some kind of grumpy rogue element among the regulars on this forum, and ask you politely again to stop posting on this thread if you find intelligent debate offensive.

I have no moral objection to eating humans. I do have objections to eating humans: cannibalism encourages the production of free radicals which leads frequently to brain damage and insanity. This is detrimental to the survival of the species, not to mention the fact that if we kill and eat each other the killing is also damaging the species. I am a human. I'm kind of in favour of the survival of the species. Any food source that doesn't damage the species is okily dokily by me, and humans don't fall into that category. I tried to tackle it on a moral level because that's the frequency most people here seemed to be tuned to here, but if you start asking me to do work to back up all this subjective moral stuff then I'm afraid I'm going to have to reveal my actual views. Eat or be eaten :p

My people are almost as distant from humans as humans are from chimps on the genetic level. There are no buildups of free radicals as a result of us eating human brains (that's where the free radical buildup comes from). And morality is useless on the forum, as most of us prefer logic even when we have a set of morals.

Excusez-moi? What if my nation exists on a large, dense planet where the gravity is too fire for the functioning of projectile weapons? What if my country is completely pacifist and populated by mindwashed clones who would never pick up a gun? What if my nation is made up of blind people who can't even see the gun? What if my nation is made up of immortal robots who don't even feel the effects of the gun and never have any motive to attack each other? Etc... etc.... again I return to the point that you must use a real-world model even for Nation States resolution. Which, by the way, completely topples this point:

Actually, it doesn't topple the point, only point out you have yet to figure it out yet. If we must use the real world as an example, then why did the definition of marriage have to be changed to allow people to marry across species borders in order to pacify nations with elves? Why was there a resolution on the rights of clones? Why is my mentioning of the fact my technology is superior and using the standards come up with in the electricity standard proposal a step backwards considered a valid point?

Your problem is you fail to realize something important: The UN must account for nations in its fold that match nothing the real world has to deal with and deals with problems and challenges the real world UN would crumble and die under.

Only in your fantasy world. You'll notice that on the UN rules, roleplaying is strictly separated from the UN. All nations are implicity assumed to be realistic, as far as I'm aware, and that includes the regular functions and laws of genetics.

Actually, it was a regular function of genetics. In this case, the genetic change had been building and preparing for generations and it decided to express itself. The changes to physical form were mostly cosmetic and, in many cases, extremely painful. A few unexpected mutations (the arise of vampires, nosferatu, and ghouls from mutated viruses) happened, but those have not caused as much trouble.

If you notice anything about UN nations, the laws of physics barely apply to the MT nations. You have to account for nations that use technology far beyond what you do and nations that use things which exist outside the known laws of physics (which can be counted on one hand without using any finger twice and have been shown to be flawed).

As far as I'm aware, there isn't an issue saying "No More Harming Dolphins" that you can approve, in which case these laws are unofficial, existing only in RP and therefore completely separate from the UN. If the resolution was passed, it would not force them to break the law, it would force the government of the country in question to repeal the law and institute the dolphin-hunting statute in its place.

I was talking about my national laws, which prevent the hunting of dolphins. And it does not force me to actually change my laws, as I can simply limit it to the one nation apart of the UN and have that nation not have an industry related to this at all. One of the benefits of being a multination empire.

Also, if RP is separate, then why this proposal, which is entirely RP?

We can't even actually prove humans are sentient beyond a huge doubt. You want to start eating them next?

The meat's a little stringy.

What?!

Don't look at me like that, it's only cannabalism if you eat your own kind!

- "Needs more tenderiser..."
UN Gnome #3763x971



What if my nation is made up of blind people

Hm. That's an interesting RP concept. A nation of blind people...

- "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king..."
UN Gnome #3820m154

1. World fish stocks are in danger, the North Sea being a specific example.

2. To alleviate pressure on said stocks, we need to find new methods of fishing and eating that don't endanger fish. This requires us to think outside the box: there is far less space on land than there is on sea, and the increase in size of cattle herds and so forth invariably means environmental destruction. Just look at the cattle situation in South America, where the hamburger herds have vast tracts of rainforest slashed-and-burned so they can graze to fill America's bulging bellies.

This does not appear to be grounded in any sort of fact.

Finally, there is an easy way to fish selectively for dolphins. They are well known for "playing" or even "frolicking" in the wakes of boats. Converted fishing boats (for the fishing industry would be downsized to make way for new dolphin meats, the whole idea being to reduce fishing for fish) could exploit this by dropping concussion/depth charges into their wake once a large enough pod had gathered, and simply reeling the floating carcasses in. Very few if any fish would be caught in this particular method of dolphin-hunting - it would provide ample quantities of dolphin meat for the nations concerned.

With all due respect, you're going to hell.

Do you deny that world fish stocks are falling? Do you live on a landlocked country? Have you not heard the controversy over this? Greenpeace protesters doing all sorts of things against trawling?

On the going to hell thing... thankfully I'm an atheist, so this doesn't bother me :)

To DemonlordEnigma: If the elf-marrying resolution was passed, then you are most definitely in the right. I'll have to look into the exact lines and boundaries between the UN and RP, but in the meantime I'll leave you with this point: My nation doesn't allow inter-species marriages, it's against scientology or whatever the little wackos worship. Are you going to force them to break the law? Similarly, that nation only has one species living on its planet!

So I'm asking you what we should use as a template for our resolutions...?

Do you deny that world fish stocks are falling? Do you live on a landlocked country? Have you not heard the controversy over this? Greenpeace protesters doing all sorts of things against trawling?

Well that all depends on what world this is happening in. That aside, I think its kind of mind bending logic to propose solving a fish shortage by killing aquatic mammals instead. Wouldn't it be easier to try to practice conservation, protect key mating areas, and try to regulate fishing?

I say we solve nuclear proliferation by killing all people.

I say we solve nuclear proliferation by killing all people.

AP votes votes in favor of the Vastivian Resolution: Solve Nuclear Proliferation.

AP votes votes in favor of the Vastivian Resolution: Solve Nuclear Proliferation.

It would certainly solve those pesky national sovereignty issues as well. Hmmm...

Well, it's clear I haven't garnered enough support for this resoution, as voting ends tomorrow: it's quite a short period in which to garner support, is it not?

Anyway, I'd like to submit a second version of the resolution on Sunday after it's deleted, hopefully much improved. All your input on how to make it better is greatly appreciated.

My ideas, gathered from what I've read so far:
1. Have a proportionate "fish level", determined by an independent commission. Once a country falls below this "fish level", the legislation is enforced.
2. Only apply the legislation to
a) dolphin species that appear exactly as they are found on Earth
b) dolphin species that are not endangered in the world/nation in question.
3. Have Dolphin Farms set up after fishing in the wild has reduced dolphins past the level where they can be effectively fished without damaging the species, and take 60 to 80% of dolphin foods from these farms until the wild dolphins reach a level where they need to be fished again.
4. Lay down specific parameters for the reduction of the fishing industry with environmental conservation as first priority.
5. Give government/UN grants to dolphin-hunting companies and chains that stock dolphin foods to encourage the growth of the business.
6. Place new, higher taxes on fish-based foods.

As I said, more input would be greatly appreciated!

Finally, I've received a pretty abusive telegram from Frisbeeteria. Who can I contact about this, and where?

Finally, I've received a pretty abusive telegram from Frisbeeteria. Who can I contact about this, and where?

I suggest you read the site FAQ, which is what answers those sorts of questions. And whatever you do, don't delete the telegram.

Thanks for the advice, I followed it and found what to do :D.

Those who have been active in this forum for a while may well be expecting me to make a horrified response that condemns this resolution for this, that and the other. However...

... we eat dolphins. Well, some of the communities of Ecopoeia do, anyway. Personally, I find the idea distasteful, but Ecopoeia has determined that individual communities and townships have the power to make their own laws concerning the consumption of meat, up to a point. The national position is that if one is prepared to eat meat, then why should any animal be excluded? Well, if they're endangered, then national law prevents their consumption. That aside, eat what you wish.

We're not supporting the proposal, however. Good luck with future efforts.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Do you deny that world fish stocks are falling? Do you live on a landlocked country? Have you not heard the controversy over this? Greenpeace protesters doing all sorts of things against trawling?

Greenpeace protesters protest whenever you sneeze wrong in the general presense of a water-based animal. But as bad as they are, at least they're not PETA.

The DLE homeworld has one sea. One. Uno. No dos, no tres, one. It's about the size of the Meditteranean and completely surrounded by land. And keep in mind this is a planet roughly the size of Mars. If they can manage to not have fishing problems, Earth has no excuse.

On the going to hell thing... thankfully I'm an atheist, so this doesn't bother me :)

Actually, it's a beautiful place. But all Michigan (or is it Maine?) small towns are.

To DemonlordEnigma: If the elf-marrying resolution was passed, then you are most definitely in the right. I'll have to look into the exact lines and boundaries between the UN and RP, but in the meantime I'll leave you with this point: My nation doesn't allow inter-species marriages, it's against scientology or whatever the little wackos worship. Are you going to force them to break the law? Similarly, that nation only has one species living on its planet!

DLE is also a one-species nation (unless you count the flying sentient fire-breathing bad-tempered reptiles). They have a couple of reps from other species, but those are not likely to end up interbreeding with the locals. The resolution that allows interspecies marriage says a nation has the right to choose how much they allow.

So I'm asking you what we should use as a template for our resolutions...?

The better-worded ones already passed. And make this one just an option, not a requirement.