NationStates Jolt Archive

I have now submitted my proposal, please show your support! I had to shorten it do to length restrictions, so this is the submited proposal:


---
Proposal: Animal Welfare Act
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Signifigant

Description: DESCRIPTION: To protect all animals from deliberate torture, or undue harm

GIVEN the fact that as people we are protected against torture and undue harm, it should be extended towards animals,

RECOGNIZING that some species of animals are used as food

1. Definitions

i) “Torture” is defined as purposefully causing death, physical, or mental pain on a pet, farm, or wild animal for entertainment
ii) “Undue Harm” is defined as causing mental or physical harm by keeping a pet or farm animal in unhealthy conditions, not providing the necessities of life or general health care, and/or causing bodily harm for punishment/training
iii) “Bodily Harm” is defined as broken bones, intentional cuts, burns, or bruising
a. With the exception of branding farm animals
iv) A “pet” is defined as animal(s) kept for the enjoyment of a person
v) A “farm animal” is defined animal(s) kept by a person to help said person, supply food, or to generate income
vi) A “wild animal” is any animal not confined by, or maintained by, a person

2. Implementation

i) the Animal Welfare Task Force shall be set up as a part of existing police forces in each nation
a. the AWTF will work with the nation’s government to set punishments for offenders
b. the AWTF will be responsible for the investigation and prosecution of animal cruelty
i. the AWTF will not have the right to inspect any house, farm, or land privately owned unless the AWTF has obtained a warrant
1. sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant will be defined as photographs or videotaped evidence provided by a citizen or at least three (3) eye witness accounts of animal cruelty
c. the AWTF will be responsible for the inspection of sacrificial animal(s) prior to the sacrifice
i. any neglect or abuse noted by the AWTF of the sacrificial animal(s) will allow the AWTF to prosecute the people(s) in charge of the sacrificial animal(s)
d. the AWTF will be responsible for removing neglected and/or abused animals and moving them to either an animal shelter, or other such animal refuge sites

ii) Animal Testing will only take place for medical research into new medications or medical practices
a. The animal being used must be provided with the necessities of life

iii) Hunting will only be applicable to wild animals

iv) Animal Sacrifice will be for religious practices only
a. the AWTF will inspect all sacrifices before the sacrifice
b. before it is sacrificed, an animal will be protected by the Animal Welfare Act

v) Dangerous Animals will be defined as any animal which poses a significant threat to humans or property
a. a significant threat against a human will include life or death situations, or health hazards
i. any force necessary will be allowed in a life or death situation
ii. a health hazard will be defined as any creature living in close proximity to a person that causes the person(s) health to decline
1. reasonable force will be allowed to remove or exterminate the creature
b. a significant threat to property will include damage to a building, damage to farm or home equipment, damage to crops or livestock, or damage to a water source
i. reasonable force will be allowed to remove or exterminate the creature

---


Thank you to everyone who has helped me to write my very first proposal! I couldn't have done it without you guys.

:)

Just so as I can be sure on something - if I have a pet (say a unicorn) that escapes in to the wild (cause it learns how to jump fences), and it turns feral (as unicorns in the wild are wont to do somreetimes), I am permitted to kill it if is a threat to me, aren't I?

Yes, even if your pet unicorn turns against you while you are keeping it as a pet you are allowed to use any force necessary to keep yourself safe. The dangerous animal clause states "any animal", not just wild.

I hope that clears things up.

Let's worry about people first, shall we?

The Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta will not support this proposal or any proposal like it. This is not appropriate for the UN.

Could you tell me why this proposal is not appropriate for the UN?

Resolutions have been passed before regarding the welfare of animals.

Please note:

#48 Save the forests of the World
Which indirectly saves animal species by encouraging the decrease of the wood chipping industry.

#52 Ballast Water
Which indirectly saves different marine animals by limiting invasive species, such as the zebra muscle, which - when introduced to a new ecosystem - could cause the endangerment or the extinction of another species.

#70 Banning Whaling
Which protects whales from being hunted to extinction, and protects against overfishing.

#72 Reduction of Greenhouse gases
Indirectly helps the animal population from climate changes which could endanger their success as a species.

Just to name a few that deals with the animals that populate our world.

Aight, I'll try again.

This proposal is inappropriate for human beings.
Propose a Human Welfare Act.

Aight, I'll try again.

This proposal is inappropriate for human beings.
Propose a Human Welfare Act.

That is a redundant resolution, and besides - I am not trying to pass just ANY proposal. I am trying to pass a resolution for the welfare of animals.

I am still not sure why you think the UN should be only about human beings, especially when there have already been resolutions passed which have not exclusivly been about human beings, and/or have had more positive effects for nature/others than for humans.

Perhaps you should provide an expanded explanation, rather than your opinion of a solution.

*Throws another olive from the bar at the hippy as she leaves*

*Throws another olive from the bar at the hippy as she leaves*

*Considers reporting this...*

Check the UN Stranger's Bar thread.

Check the UN Stranger's Bar thread.

I've read the posts there. You still need to avoid being derrogatory towards others.

Let's worry about people first, shall we?

The Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta will not support this proposal or any proposal like it. This is not appropriate for the UN.

I'm with this guy. Next thing you'll know, we'll be trying to protect the rights of molecules. :rolleyes:

But in all seriousness, I just can't support it. As a UN member, I feel there are more important issues to be covered besides animal rights. I hope you understand.

I've already announced my support for this act in our region, and I hope our delegate will also see it fit to support this act.

I'm with this guy. Next thing you'll know, we'll be trying to protect the rights of molecules. :rolleyes:

But in all seriousness, I just can't support it. As a UN member, I feel there are more important issues to be covered besides animal rights. I hope you understand.

Like what? The protection of prositutues in the UN?

Also - animals are not a national but an international issue. If you go out and kill a unicorn in your nation, then find out it was the last one on the planet, you have just made unicorn extinct throughout the whole of the world - not just your nation.

Clearly animals are a subject the UN should be paying some attention to as they are an international issue.

But in all seriousness, I just can't support it. As a UN member, I feel there are more important issues to be covered besides animal rights. I hope you understand.

You could make a proposal about theses important issues. I don't think anyone is stopping you.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

I feel it proposterous that several member states will not encourage this resolution because it does not cover the safety of humans. Animal welfare is a huge issue, now that several countries are ignoring the environment. Radlett will support this proposal to the end, and will help in any way.

Bitchkitten will support this proposal wholeheartedly. I see no reason why anyone would reasonably object to the humane treatment of feelow creatures. It doesn't mean we all have to become vegaterians or ban a sustainable amount of sport hunting.

a. the AWTF will inspect all sacrifices before the sacrifice

Sorry, that line is just a little confusing to me, could you please explain it?

Sorry, I should have put "sacrificial animals" inplace of "sacrifices"

Basically, the AWTF needs to inspect an animal which is about to be sacrificed. If the AWTF finds evidence of abuse or neglect, then they are able to prosecute the people who were taking care of the animal sacrifice before the ceremony.

I wanted to close a loop hole that would allow people to get out of animal abuse or neglect by claiming the animal was going to be used as a sacrifice.

Like what? The protection of prositutues in the UN?

I don't know about prositutues, but I hear there are nations concerned over the protection of prostitutes.

Also - animals are not a national but an international issue. If you go out and kill a unicorn in your nation, then find out it was the last one on the planet, you have just made unicorn extinct throughout the whole of the world - not just your nation.

Great. What's your point? No offense, but did you even read the proposal? It doesn't protect animals from extinction; it's clearly written to prevent animal cruelty. Starving farm animals, pets, abusing beasts of labor-this is the main focus of the proposal. Domestic animal violence; no where in the proposal is it even implied that I can't hunt down every last kind of an animal. In fact, the only thing I saw about hunting was that it was applicable to wild animals only. I can still hunt down every unicorn in my nation for food, make them completely extinct in Florida, and be exempt from any form of punishment from this AWTF organization. This proposal doesn't prevent extinction in the least bit.

Clearly animals are a subject the UN should be paying some attention to as they are an international issue.

It's hardly an international issue at all. This proposal was made with the intention of restricting animal cruelty in our nation's businesses and homes. Now, while it's a noble cause, and I hate animal abuse as much as anybody else, this is micromanagement in its most extreme form. This really doesn't belong in the UN.

'Course, that won't stop people from voting YES on it, unfortunately. "Who cares if it's wrong, I like it!" they all say...

I don't know about prositutues, but I hear there are nations concerned over the protection of prostitutes.


I would tell you it is the TilEncan word for prostitutes, but I am not sure I could really convince you of that, could I? (smirk - sometimes I type badly!)


Great. What's your point? No offense, but did you even read the proposal? It doesn't protect animals from extinction; it's clearly written to prevent animal cruelty. Starving farm animals, pets, abusing beasts of labor-this is the main focus of the proposal. Domestic animal violence; no where in the proposal is it even implied that I can't hunt down every last kind of an animal. In fact, the only thing I saw about hunting was that it was applicable to wild animals only. I can still hunt down every unicorn in my nation for food, make them completely extinct in Florida, and be exempt from any form of punishment from this AWTF organization. This proposal doesn't prevent extinction in the least bit.


I did read the proposal actually, and I think it is pretty good. But I can't help noticing if you starve a farm animal long enough, it dies. And if you do it to every farm animal in the world, there will be no more farm animals.

And my more general point was that since animals do not recognise the borders we have set up to say which land is which, their existance, their welfare and their protection is going to have to be an international issue.


It's hardly an international issue at all. This proposal was made with the intention of restricting animal cruelty in our nation's businesses and homes. Now, while it's a noble cause, and I hate animal abuse as much as anybody else, this is micromanagement in its most extreme form. This really doesn't belong in the UN.

I would say different :}

I would tell you it is the TilEncan word for prostitutes, but I am not sure I could really convince you of that, could I? (smirk - sometimes I type badly!)

Hey, I'm just having some fun at your expense. It's all cool in the school. Take a jab at my spelling errors any time...we all let our spelling slip once in a while.

I did read the proposal actually, and I think it is pretty good. But I can't help noticing if you starve a farm animal long enough, it dies. And if you do it to every farm animal in the world, there will be no more farm animals.

Yeah, but let's not get too imaginative here. If you have farm animals in the first place, you must be using them for something. Doesn't make sense to starve them into extinction. For anybody reading this, the proposal has nothing to do with protection from endangerment. Anyone that would have you believe in such is leading you on. It's about animal abuse.

And my more general point was that since animals do not recognise the borders we have set up to say which land is which, their existance, their welfare and their protection is going to have to be an international issue.

I disagree. There's no doubt in my mind that this is a domestic issue, and a severe case of micromanagement. I trust I'll have your support when I propose my "Particle Protection Act" this upcoming week?

I would say different :}

If you consider little Billy abusing his pony an international issue, all power to you.

If you consider little Billy abusing his pony an international issue, all power to you.

I consider little Billy being abused by his parents an international issue. And that is just one kid being abused by two people.

It's when you look at it on a national scale, then an international scale that animal abuse becomes an obvious problem that the UN should be dealing with :}

You can make a Proposal for Animal Welfare and, at the same time, make a proposal for whatever you'd like to see changed on the human side of things, Florida. It makes no difference that the Animal Welfare one came first, it's the fact that it came.

If you were being attacked by a small faction, and, at the same time, by a very large nation, the large nation would not supercede the small one. You'd want to fix the problems that were present in both situations, as quickly as possible. Regardless of which you fixed first.

I consider little Billy being abused by his parents an international issue. And that is just one kid being abused by two people.

That's actually rather interesting...

It's when you look at it on a national scale, then an international scale that animal abuse becomes an obvious problem that the UN should be dealing with :}

So I suppose if I don't eat my dinner, it can be considered an international event? Shit, if a little boy kicking his dog qualifies as an international issue, why shouldn't my refusal to eat brussel spouts, or my qualms about bed time be considered world events? Because they're domestic issues.

The fact that animal abuse is a wide-spread event in hundreds of nations is the international incident.

One event in one nation is a domestic matter.

Thousands of events of the same caliber in hundreds of nations of the same world is an international matter.

I've read the posts there. You still need to avoid being derrogatory towards others.
Are you quite certain she would feel "hippy" is derogatory?

That's actually rather interesting...


Cool, isn't it :}


So I suppose if I don't eat my dinner, it can be considered an international event? Shit, if a little boy kicking his dog qualifies as an international issue, why shouldn't my refusal to eat brussel spouts, or my qualms about bed time be considered world events? Because they're domestic issues.

The thing is it is the abstract idea of the issue that is international - not the specifics.

For example - Mr Smith and Mr Jones having the right to kiss in their own home is not something that should concern the whole world. But two men having the right IS something that should concern the whole world.

And in my previous example - Billy being abused by his parents is not something I would ask the world to help me stop. However a boy being abused by his parents is something that should be prevented in the world. Otherwise the UN would not, in its enduring wisdom, have passed the padeophillia resolution, the child protection resolution and the Universal Bill Of rights resolution.

Are you quite certain she would feel "hippy" is derogatory?

Actually, I don't.

What I felt was dergoatory was your comment about "vegetable rights", which doesn't even matter anymore because I posted my little sarcastic comment at the Bar, and as far as I was concerned it was over.

Thank you for the defense Powerhungry Chipmunk :) , but I'd rather not drag it out. We both had our little pokes at each other.

Asshelmetta, I would rather not drag out such a small event. Drop it, and find another argument against my proposal, k? Thanks.

The PDSRA will give full support to this proposal. There is no reason to claim that upholding animal rights means neglecting the rights of human beings.

Thgin supports fully the ideas and motivations behind this proposal, but we cannot support it due to the mechanics of the bill.


iii) “Bodily Harm” is defined as broken bones, intentional cuts, burns, or bruising
a. With the exception of branding farm animals


While I respect your attempt to remove loopholes, you simultaneously prohibit many practices considered standard in animal care and management. There are many different practices for marking animals, including tatoos, ear notches, etc. that would be banned through the passage of this bill. By being overly specific, you impede upon the best interests of the animal.


iv) A “pet” is defined as animal(s) kept for the enjoyment of a person


I don't like the way that reads. Perhaps 'A "pet" is defined as animal(s) kept for the companionship of a person.


1. sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant will be defined as photographs or videotaped evidence provided by a citizen or at least three (3) eye witness accounts of animal cruelty


I like that you don't set punishments in the bill, but setting warrant guidelines is something that should be handled on the same level - the individual nation.


c. the AWTF will be responsible for the inspection of sacrificial animal(s) prior to the sacrifice
i. any neglect or abuse noted by the AWTF of the sacrificial animal(s) will allow the AWTF to prosecute the people(s) in charge of the sacrificial animal(s)

Animal sacrifice groups could consider this an attempt to attack their beliefs...

This is definitely a good start, but it has some issues yet to be resolved..

Thgin

Cool, isn't it :}

You're a regular comedian.

The thing is it is the abstract idea of the issue that is international - not the specifics.

For example - Mr Smith and Mr Jones having the right to kiss in their own home is not something that should concern the whole world. But two men having the right IS something that should concern the whole world.

But Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones are human beings. Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones can actually speak and contribute way more to society than an animal ever could. If we're going to hand out rights to animals, why not fetuses? Why not plants? Once again, micromanagement. At best, this is a national issue. Even if animal abuse is widespread in one nation, how does that affect another? How does a thousand horses being whipped and abused in Florida Oranges affect the nation of TiLenca?

If we're going to submit animal-related proposals, why not submit some that actually protect animals from extinction? Animal-abuse is hardly widespread enough in the world to affect other nations. Extinction, on the other hand, is most definitely an international issue.

You're a regular comedian.


Before I became President I did the Thursday Night stand up shows :}


But Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones are human beings. Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones can actually speak and contribute way more to society than an animal ever could.


Wow. That is a pretty revealing comment. Animals do most of the farm labour in my nation, they provide a lot of comfort and love to pet owners, and so on and so on and so on...... To say they contribute less than Mr Smith and Mr Jones, who might be theives and rapists, is insulting.


If we're going to hand out rights to animals, why not fetuses? Why not plants?


Why not? People have tried to do it, by the way. A right to humanity proposal declared that life begins at the moment of conception and all the resolutions that apply to people must now also apply to fetuses.


Once again, micromanagement. At best, this is a national issue. Even if animal abuse is widespread in one nation, how does that affect another? How does a thousand horses being whipped and abused in Florida Oranges affect the nation of TiLenca?


Because if you abuse these animals to the point of death, that is a thousand less horses in the world. If that is multiplied across all member nations that is 37 thousand million less horses in the world.


If we're going to submit animal-related proposals, why not submit some that actually protect animals from extinction? Animal-abuse is hardly widespread enough in the world to affect other nations. Extinction, on the other hand, is most definitely an international issue.

Abuse leads to extinction sometimes. And if we protect children - who are pretty much little animals who eat, crap and scream all the time - why not protect animals?

Basically, the AWTF needs to inspect an animal which is about to be sacrificed. If the AWTF finds evidence of abuse or neglect, then they are able to prosecute the people who were taking care of the animal sacrifice before the ceremony.

I wanted to close a loop hole that would allow people to get out of animal abuse or neglect by claiming the animal was going to be used as a sacrifice.

What if the sacrifices are to be performed privately at ones home, and each family is to sacrifice an animal? It's impossible for the government to inspect all of the animals, or even a majority of them, and if those people were forced to take their animals to the gov't to be inspected, they could easily abuse them afterwards, and that would be, in my opinion, a discrimination based on religion, since they're forced to report to the government, but other ones wouldn't be simply because they do not sacrifice.

Thign:

Branding is a broad term. Branding means to mark the animal in some manner to show property ownership. At least I think that is what Jeinga means.

Before I became President I did the Thursday Night stand up shows :}

You should audition for Saturday Night Live. You're a natural.

Wow. That is a pretty revealing comment. Animals do most of the farm labour in my nation, they provide a lot of comfort and love to pet owners, and so on and so on and so on...... To say they contribute less than Mr Smith and Mr Jones, who might be theives and rapists, is insulting.

You're right-Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones could be a couple of rapists. Or they could be inventors. They could be the next Thomas Edison, or perhaps the next Wright brothers.

But let's go with your example and say they're rapists. Even if they do rape women and animals and little boys, I'm going to say they contribute more to society than a live animal ever could. What?!? you say? How?

Well, it's simple. Mr. Edwards is a police man. His job is to catch the bad guys. Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith are bad guys. Mr. Edwards catches them, he gets paid. Even if he doesn't catch them, he gets paid for looking for them. He takes that money home to his wife and children. Puts food on the table. They grow up, have children of their own. His children have children, and their children have children, and so on and so forth. Thus contributing to society.

Now, as for animals doing most of your farm labor, I'm curious-how developed is TiLenca? Because if you'll notice, most of the modern world uses machinery for their farm labor. Even picking oranges, a seemingly simple task, is done with machinery in some parts of Florida. Plowing can be done with machinery, planting can be done with machinery...you'll find most if not all farm tasks can be done with machinery. If your nation is so poor (or cheap and unefficient) that you can't afford that type of machinery and have to rely on animals, you're probably one in a hundred nations. You probably also have a weak agricultural market, but hey, what do I know.

Now, I'm not saying live animals can't contribute to society at all. Chickens lay the eggs that we eat and cows give us milk. What I'm saying is, humans can contribute way more to society than those cows or chickens ever could. And that giving animals such rights, as if they're equal to humans (which they're certainly not), is definitely not the job of the United Nations.

Why not? People have tried to do it, by the way. A right to humanity proposal declared that life begins at the moment of conception and all the resolutions that apply to people must now also apply to fetuses.

In that case, I hope to see you supporting any future "repeal abortion" proposals that pop on this board. I look forward to your aide in the battle against fetus slayings.

Because if you abuse these animals to the point of death, that is a thousand less horses in the world. If that is multiplied across all member nations that is 37 thousand million less horses in the world.

But that's a stretch and you know it. For someone who supports this proposal so staunchly, you sure don't offer a convincing supporting argument. Give me an example of when there's been a mass abuse of animals like that. Give me an example of when a particular animal has been abused to the point of extinction. To the point that it even affects another country. You can't. That's never happened, and it never will. Find another argument, because the one you're using is weak and completely devoid of logic. Once again, and probably not for the last time, this is a national issue.

Abuse leads to extinction sometimes.

It's easy to say stuff without backing it up. Give me an example.

And if we protect children - who are pretty much little animals who eat, crap and scream all the time - why not protect animals?

Because a child has the potential to become a lawyer. Or an inventer. That little baby may one day be the future of the world. They could be the inventor of the flying car, or the cure to cancer. Animals don't have that kind of potential brainpower or importance. The UN doesn't need this micromanagement.

Thign:

Branding is a broad term. Branding means to mark the animal in some manner to show property ownership. At least I think that is what Jeinga means.

That was my intention.

What if the sacrifices are to be performed privately at ones home, and each family is to sacrifice an animal? It's impossible for the government to inspect all of the animals, or even a majority of them, and if those people were forced to take their animals to the gov't to be inspected, they could easily abuse them afterwards, and that would be, in my opinion, a discrimination based on religion, since they're forced to report to the government, but other ones wouldn't be simply because they do not sacrifice.

It is not discrimination against a religion because they are still allowed to practice it. If I said just anybody could sacrifice an animal, and the animal sacrifice is not protected by the Animal Welfare Act, then what is the point of the act when people could say "Well, I beat the crap out of my dog because he was a private animal sacrifice at home."

Or, I could leave out sacrifice all together in the proposal, and than anybody who kills an animal, whether sacrificial or not, would be comitting a crime. Including religion into this resolution was neccesary, not discriminatory.

Yes, they could abuse them after the inspection - it is meant as a detterant. People can abuse their animals all the time, if they like. This resolution would make animal abuse a crime, but that does not mean that the citizens of our nations will follow the law.

It is not impossible for the AWTF to inspect all animal sacrifices. The AWTF will be a part of the police force. Just set up a meeting, and the whole family's sacrifices can be inspected at once. Since the AWTF is in the police and working with their government, any special practices or times of the year when sacrifices are high, the government and the police will know of it and can plan for it.

Just one day left, please show your support!

How many endorsements does your proposal have thus far?

34, up from 12 yesterday.

You're right-Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones could be a couple of rapists. Or they could be inventors. They could be the next Thomas Edison, or perhaps the next Wright brothers.

But let's go with your example and say they're rapists. Even if they do rape women and animals and little boys, I'm going to say they contribute more to society than a live animal ever could. What?!? you say? How?

Well, it's simple. Mr. Edwards is a police man. His job is to catch the bad guys. Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith are bad guys. Mr. Edwards catches them, he gets paid. Even if he doesn't catch them, he gets paid for looking for them. He takes that money home to his wife and children. Puts food on the table. They grow up, have children of their own. His children have children, and their children have children, and so on and so forth. Thus contributing to society.


(grin) That is the most amazing attempt to rationalize something I have ever seen. And even though I totally disagree, and think it is somewhat crazy, I am smiling at the logic you have put in to it :}


Now, as for animals doing most of your farm labor, I'm curious-how developed is TiLenca? Because if you'll notice, most of the modern world uses machinery for their farm labor.


We are mostly what I think you would class a medieval country. There are a few major cities, but mostly it's farm land, and the farmers do it in the old fashioned way we have done it for years. Hence the reason we have a very healthy respect for our animals.


Even picking oranges, a seemingly simple task, is done with machinery in some parts of Florida. Plowing can be done with machinery, planting can be done with machinery...you'll find most if not all farm tasks can be done with machinery. If your nation is so poor (or cheap and unefficient) that you can't afford that type of machinery and have to rely on animals, you're probably one in a hundred nations. You probably also have a weak agricultural market, but hey, what do I know.


(smirk) We think we are doing pretty well. And it is not a matter of being poor, or cheap, or ineffecient (but thank you for being randomly insulting and/or patronising on that matter) but of our farmers thinking the way things have always been done is a pretty good way to continue.


Now, I'm not saying live animals can't contribute to society at all. Chickens lay the eggs that we eat and cows give us milk. What I'm saying is, humans can contribute way more to society than those cows or chickens ever could. And that giving animals such rights, as if they're equal to humans (which they're certainly not), is definitely not the job of the United Nations.


So if we removed all of the animals in the world today - every single one from the dragons (that sometimes attack and eat us) to the cows and pigs (that we sometimes kill and eat) - the world would be not be significantly different?


In that case, I hope to see you supporting any future "repeal abortion" proposals that pop on this board. I look forward to your aide in the battle against fetus slayings.


(smirk) You may hope for such a position, but quite honestly it is unlikely to happen.



But that's a stretch and you know it. For someone who supports this proposal so staunchly, you sure don't offer a convincing supporting argument. Give me an example of when there's been a mass abuse of animals like that. Give me an example of when a particular animal has been abused to the point of extinction. To the point that it even affects another country. You can't. That's never happened, and it never will. Find another argument, because the one you're using is weak and completely devoid of logic. Once again, and probably not for the last time, this is a national issue.


Yeah - I know it's a streach. And I wasn't really trying to convince you that it would happen - I don't think it would.
But animals are helpless, and (in TilEnca at least) they provide a lot of help, and a lot of comfort to our people. And they are helpless. They can't stand up for themselves (well - some of them can) and they do a lot of good for the world.
so why shouldn't we protect them?



It's easy to say stuff without backing it up. Give me an example.


I don't have one I admit. But can you deny it can't happen?


Because a child has the potential to become a lawyer. Or an inventer. That little baby may one day be the future of the world. They could be the inventor of the flying car, or the cure to cancer.


As I have said in another arguement in another thread, the child also has a potential to become a mass murderer. Or the guy who creates a whole new disease that wipes out the world. He could invent the next weapon of mass destruction and kill twenty billion people.

What a child could, or could not, become doesn't define what they are. When I was a wee lass I was a bit of a brat. And now I am the leader of my country and the representative of TilEnca to the United Nations. And one of my best friends was the sweetest, most wonderful guy you could imagine. He is now in jail for attempted necromancy.

So just because a baby might end up well, they don't really act as more than a pet while they are a baby.


Animals don't have that kind of potential brainpower or importance.


And as a consequence animals don't create weapons of mass destruction, horrible diseases and generally try to wipe out entire civilizations.


The UN doesn't need this micromanagement.

I would disagree.

And honestly I think that - unless we can come up with something new and original to discuss - that we are probably done with this discussion. I don't think you are going to change my mind, and I don't think I am going to change yours :}

Please don't misunderstand me - I am not saying we should abandon all the resolutions that protect humanity (inc all other sentient species), and we should keep on passing them and writing more. But this is not an evil and bad thing to pass this.

Is this proposal not dead yet?

Is this proposal not dead yet?
If only it were, DLE and others trath these animal welfare proposals on a near daily basis, Seeing them pop up again and again just gets annoying now.

If only it were, DLE and others trath these animal welfare proposals on a near daily basis, Seeing them pop up again and again just gets annoying now.

Are they trashed because they are about animals, or just not done properly?

Are they trashed because they are about animals, or just not done properly?

Not done properly.

Are they trashed because they are about animals, or just not done properly?
Because they ask people to care about lesser beings in a way that is degrading and offensive to them.

Because they ask people to care about lesser beings in a way that is degrading and offensive to them.

How is it offensive to want to protect animals from abuse?

I cannot fathom your way of thinking. Animals are "lesser beings"? They provide us with companionship, help us complete our tasks, and provide us with food. Animals can help save us from being lost, from drowning, or from a burning building. They help the blind and disabled to be independant - yet we cannot protect them from people who abuse them?

:headbang: I cannot understand how anyone can't see the importance of animals, and their welfare.

How is it offensive to want to protect animals from abuse?
Because what is and what is not abuse varies from person to person, one may think that looking at an animal wrong is abuse while someone else may have to see someone slaughter a whole species to feel any anger. Forcing your ideas of abuse onto other nations is offensive.

I cannot fathom your way of thinking. Animals are "lesser beings"? They provide us with companionship, help us complete our tasks, and provide us with food. Animals can help save us from being lost, from drowning, or from a burning building. They help the blind and disabled to be independant - yet we cannot protect them from people who abuse them?
Animals do not help us do anything, unless you mean certain animals that help the blind and deaf function, but those animals are few and far between. We can (Though I am agaisnt it because it is unnatural and I think not as healthy) go without meat of any kind, substitutes for animal foods and products have been invented to totally turn us away from our omnivorious lifestyle.

And it would make more sense to putt all animals made for consumption or for clothing into factory farms to be mass produced(Though I am not a fan of this either) so more food and clothing. And the animals you speak off are rare at best and to not hold any water wieght when it comes right donwn to it.

:headbang: I cannot understand how anyone can't see the importance of animals, and their welfare.
Because over all they are not important, we can live without, animals dont even care about each other (Some species do but not enough to matter) so why should I?

Are they trashed because they are about animals, or just not done properly?
Some people feel you're insulting them by proposing it.
So, while I wouldn't say animals specifically, subject matter is a determinant.

Several people just like ripping up badly written proposals, too.

We can (Though I am agaisnt it because it is unnatural and I think not as healthy) go without meat of any kind, substitutes for animal foods and products have been invented to totally turn us away from our omnivorious lifestyle.

OOC: Actually, the human digestive system was designed with meat in mind. It's no more unnatural than a lion eating meat is. Keep in mind it is only recently that such substitutes have been invented and they do not have the market spread to actually be worthy of replacing meat in more than just a minority. Plus, we have no idea exactly how much our bodies depend on meat at this time, despite what our scientists say. There is still too much of the human body that is unknown for us to just discard something.

There have been some very good points about the wordage of this perposal. The nationstate of Gothic Fire would support a perposal of this kind. Perhaps if you rewrote it with some of the points that have been mentioned (such as the wording of "pets" as enjoyable and theres the point about tatooing animals). I do commend you on the idea though. I think it's something that should be in the UN. good luck.

That's the spirit!

I'll go one step further and point out that RAW meat is what we're evolved to eat.
That's why steak tartare and sushi are so tasty - that's the way it was meant to be!

Even I would stop one step short of Idi Amin and not eat steaming livers fresh from my political opponents' bodies, though.

OOC: Actually, the human digestive system was designed with meat in mind. It's no more unnatural than a lion eating meat is. Keep in mind it is only recently that such substitutes have been invented and they do not have the market spread to actually be worthy of replacing meat in more than just a minority. Plus, we have no idea exactly how much our bodies depend on meat at this time, despite what our scientists say. There is still too much of the human body that is unknown for us to just discard something.
Trust me I agree, I have been battleing peta and those who would have us eat only grass and I know how important meat is, and I no said substitutes are new for us in the actual world especially, but this isnt actually the real world, I am a techonological powerhouse with space ships and mind control, so these substances fit well with us and our advanced tech. And all I am saying is that we can go without.

Even I would stop one step short of Idi Amin and not eat steaming livers fresh from my political opponents' bodies, though.

Why? Human livers are a delicacy in DLE (remember: different species). You just gotta get them when they are available.

Trust me I agree, I have been battleing peta and those who would have us eat only grass and I know how important meat is, and I no said substitutes are new for us in the actual world especially, but this isnt actually the real world, I am a techonological powerhouse with space ships and mind control, so these substances fit well with us and our advanced tech. And all I am saying is that we can go without.

Ah. Nation differences. With my own, meat is a requirement. I have yet to say why officially, but I'll announce it one day. Basically, a certain piece of genetic coding is required, and plants lack it. Can only be found in meat, and substitutes tend to lack it.

Thign:

Branding is a broad term. Branding means to mark the animal in some manner to show property ownership. At least I think that is what Jeinga means.

Branding specifically is a livestock process. It is a form of tagging, which is the proper animal industry term.

OOC: I'm a zookeeper, so I have to gripe about little things like this :)

How is it offensive to want to protect animals from abuse?

It isn't. The discussion I referred you to was very civil and productive. The only difference is the crowd that is buzzing around your thread. They aren't nearly as helpful or constructive as those which participated with Hersfold's draft. If the proposal fails, just start a new draft thread. Call it the second draft to rework what the proposal does and why it does it.

Don't worry. When posters declare they've "trashed" a proposal it's just them being juvenile, and, essentially, unreallistic. No one's "trashed" your proposal. There may have been arguments against the proposal expressed, but it's hardly in anyone's jurisdiction to have officially "trashed" anything. No one thinks your proposal is rubbish. In fact, those with half-a-mind of how real work gets done in the UN think you're off on the right track, agree or disagree with the issue at hand.

Because what is and what is not abuse varies from person to person, one may think that looking at an animal wrong is abuse while someone else may have to see someone slaughter a whole species to feel any anger. Forcing your ideas of abuse onto other nations is offensive.


And yet that is what every single resolution does. Resolutions exist to prevent abuse of one type or another. The UN Taxation Ban stops the UN abusing people by taxing them in what some people might deem an unfair manner (but others might not see it that way). The Paedophillia resolution stops the abuse of children, but does not actually detail what "molestation" is - so in one nation looking at a child with interest might be a crime, where as it might take full blown sex in another nation. The EON Convention sets out to deal with those who commit genocide, but the definition of that has already provoked a lot of commentary and complaint.

So why should animals not be protected just because two nations differ on what "abuse" is?


Animals do not help us do anything, unless you mean certain animals that help the blind and deaf function, but those animals are few and far between. We can (Though I am agaisnt it because it is unnatural and I think not as healthy) go without meat of any kind, substitutes for animal foods and products have been invented to totally turn us away from our omnivorious lifestyle.


They are responsible for most of our farm work. I say they do help us.


Because over all they are not important, we can live without, animals dont even care about each other (Some species do but not enough to matter) so why should I?

Really? You think that if ALL the animals in the world vanished today - every single one of them regardless of how big or small - the world would not be a horrible place?

Because they ask people to care about lesser beings in a way that is degrading and offensive to them.

Who gets to define "lesser being"? Do I have to remind you about the history of various nations in regard to slavery and ethnic clensing? Slaves were considered "lesser beings" by their masters, and yet we now have a resolution preventing slavery.

It isn't. The discussion I referred you to was very civil and productive. The only difference is the crowd that is buzzing around your thread. They aren't nearly as helpful or constructive as those which participated with Hersfold's draft. If the proposal fails, just start a new draft thread. Call it the second draft to rework what the proposal does and why it does it.

Thank you.

I have realized that some people aren't here to help with proposal writings, but rather expect you to give every allowence possible, so much so that writing *any* proposal is pointless.

Animals do not help us do anything, unless you mean certain animals that help the blind and deaf function, but those animals are few and far between.

You are obviously not a farmer, a hunter, or disabled in anyway.

You point out that it is "offensive" to want to help our animal friends, yet you offend anybody who has enjoyed the help of an animal, or just the companionship that some species offer us unconditionally.

Thank you.

I have realized that some people aren't here to help with proposal writings, but rather expect you to give every allowence possible, so much so that writing *any* proposal is pointless.

Not all of us are. I'm actually quite happy with the draft I just saw on the first page. It covers everything, provides enough definitions, and allows for certain animals to be dealt with to prevent them from causing harm. Pretty much all of my complaints covered.

I have always said that animals are 'animals' and therefore should not be obliged rights! Also, I've always said there is no difference in slaughtering an animal for food and sport! It's all the same.

I have always said that animals are 'animals' and therefore should not be obliged rights! Also, I've always said there is no difference in slaughtering an animal for food or for sport! It's all the same.
You do know people are just animals too, right?

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

This proposal did not recieve the neccesary votes, and was closed today. I will likely resubmit it in the next week.


Also, I've always said there is no difference in slaughtering an animal for food and sport! It's all the same.

Read the proposal. The killing of animals through hunting is allowed, I do not specify between sport or food.

Who gets to define "lesser being"? Do I have to remind you about the history of various nations in regard to slavery and ethnic clensing? Slaves were considered "lesser beings" by their masters, and yet we now have a resolution preventing slavery.
A lesser being is something with lesser capabilities then that of a higher being, a cow is no doubt lesser to humans as is all other animals, They are not consciously aware of their surrondings (Except for very few and on a limited basis) Slavery was different, they were treated as lessers because of their skin color, the factors of mental stability and capability were not included and makes your example false in comparison to animals.

But are humans not lesser beings to other animals, such as, as you say, the cow?

Cows digest grass happily, wheras humans can not. Therefore, we are inferior because cows can digest grass with ease, and we can't.

It is not discrimination against a religion because they are still allowed to practice it.

Or, I could leave out sacrifice all together in the proposal, and than anybody who kills an animal, whether sacrificial or not, would be comitting a crime.

By forcing them to report to government facilities, you're forcing them to stand out. I'm going to get a lot of fire for saying this, but the Jewish population was labelled by being forced to wear armbands, yet they were still allowed to practice their religion for a little while without being murdered. That may very well be a bit of a stretch, but no so much of one to make my argument unbelievable. By making people carry their animals to a place for them to be inspected isn't fair to them, and is discrimination based on religion. If the Jews had not have eventually been subject to the most heinous acts of our time, you still would be opposed to them being forced to wear armbands, and having to stand out, whether they were mistreated or not.

I could easily sympathize with someone who would be upset about being branded even only once, twice, or maybe even more times a year. It's just not fair.

With the exception of that part, I support your proposal, but you cannot ignore the religious discrimination that such a thing implies, no matter how minute. I have a last name that's hard to pronounce, and I know how frustrating it is to have to constantly pronounce it to people, merely for the sake of their amusement, and not so they can remember it. That's something that shouldn't really bother me, but it does. Just like it would bother me to be labelled simply as one who engages in animal sacrifice.

That's my problem with this proposal, it's unrealistic. Sacrifices for religious purposes should be justifiable reasons for killing an animal, but you're right, someone could just lie and say that the animal they killed was for a sacrifice, but that's the chance you take. To demand unrealistic demands of people just isn't right, and unfortunately, I don't think this proposal, although extremely true and fair in many aspects, is one I'd be willing to support wholeheartedly.

On that note, I'd still be delighted to vote for it if it simply said that sacrifice for religious purposes is accepted, and not demand such hardships upon those who partake in them.

But are humans not lesser beings to other animals, such as, as you say, the cow?

Cows digest grass happily, wheras humans can not. Therefore, we are inferior because cows can digest grass with ease, and we can't.
Physical characteristics do not matter in the long run, the ability to adapt to situations to later on make your species and yourself better and high mental capacity is what matters. A cow cannot speak, neither can monkies or any other animal, so based on that physical characteristic they are inferior to us.

By making people carry their animals to a place for them to be inspected isn't fair to them, and is discrimination based on religion.

I never stated that they would have to carry their sacrificial animals anywhere. Actually, I replied by saying that a simple phone call to the AWTF police devision would have them visit and the whole family's sacrifices could be inspected at once.

In my next proposal, I will specify that the AWTF will visit the home.

And yes, I do think it is a stretch to compare what was done to the Jews to a basic inspection of an animal about to be slaughtered for a religious sacrifice that is protected by law.

And no, I don't think I would want to take the chance of such a huge loop hole. If I remove the clause about religious sacrifices, than I may as well forget my proposal altogether.

You can't please everybody,

A lesser being is something with lesser capabilities then that of a higher being, a cow is no doubt lesser to humans as is all other animals, They are not consciously aware of their surrondings (Except for very few and on a limited basis) Slavery was different, they were treated as lessers because of their skin color, the factors of mental stability and capability were not included and makes your example false in comparison to animals.

And yet slaves were consistantly treated and described as lesser beings. They were described as not having the same capabilities as their masters, that their brains were smaller, they lacked the ability to reason, that they were best off doing menial labour because they were not capable of anything more and didn't really understand the real world anyway.

Just because the description was wrong doesn't mean it wasn't there.

But are humans not lesser beings to other animals, such as, as you say, the cow?

Cows digest grass happily, wheras humans can not. Therefore, we are inferior because cows can digest grass with ease, and we can't.

(grin) And in terms of what animals have done *to* the world (as opposed to for it) I think that most animals are considerably better. I can't remember if any animals have conciously set out to cause wars, invade nations, slaughter millions of billions of people, invent weapons capable of destroying everyone in the world five times over........