NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: Determined that the UN shall have the responsibility to create and protect the right of its animal denizens not to be tested nor experimented on by any person, organization, faction or company

Affirming that animals shall have at least the basic rights allowing them freedom from testing or experimentation by persons, organizations, factions or companies

Recognizing the severe impact such testing has had on our worldwide eco-systems

Recognizing that such testing is not only damaging to the environment, but is furthermore immoral as well

Recognizing that the use of such testing for the purposes of cosmetics, medicines, etc. is an injust excuse for the killing/harming of animals

Recognizing that the use of such testing is out-dated and that most human products experimented with during such testing are still not proven safe nor successful

Proclaims the following:

1) Defines an animal as any living creature from the kingdom Animalia.

2) Defines a test animal as any such animal in the possession of any person, organization, faction or company, that is having some form of chemical or biological product being used on it in order to assess whether the product is suitable for use by humans

3) All such test animals are to be released into the custody of licensed animal professionals working in animal care facilities and shelters. If a nation does not have any licensed animal proffesionals, then the animals are to remain in the custody of the persons, organizations, factions or companies to whom they belonged. Animals under such circumastances will continue to benefit from this resolution and will be fed and taken care of by the said persons or groups. Harming or maltreatment of any animals under such circumstances will result in a violation of UN law.
If the persons or groups do not have the funds/ supplies to continue caring for such animals, they will turn the animals over for adoption, and then the ones that are not adopted will be given into the care of other such persons or groups. Extremely sick or harmed animals are to be put to sleep peacefully.

4) All persons,organizations, factions and companies who engage in such testing shall be ordered to halt such experiments immediately after this order has been given to them

5) All persons, organizations, factions and companies who engage in such testing will be ordered to take off any product labels stating that their product has been tested on animals

6) Such testing is deemed immoral and illegal under UN law


I ask that all UN delegates approve my proposal so it may come to vote and animals will be forever free from such testing and experimentation

Although I am an animal rights activist, I cannot approve of your proposal because I agree with medical testing on animals. Such testing has provided us with medical treatments like chemotherapy for leukemia, and I don't want any further improvements to take longer, or not happen at all.

Although I am an animal rights activist, I cannot approve of your proposal because I agree with medical testing on animals. Such testing has provided us with medical treatments like chemotherapy for leukemia, and I don't want any further improvements to take longer, or not happen at all.
Agreed

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

So you would both be in agreement of the proposal if it were to say animal testing for non-medicinal purposes?

Description: Determined that the UN shall have the responsibility to create and protect the right of its animal denizens not to be tested nor experimented on by any person, organization, faction or company

So, instead, you would rather us pull those dangerous experiments on living beings.

If you excuse me, I have five hundred humans to infect with horrifying manmade strains of the HIV virus so I can watch them die as I gain information on how the virus works.

Affirming that animals shall have at least the basic rights allowing them freedom from testing or experimentation by persons, organizations, factions or companies

I don't see anything passed by the UN or Nature saying they have these rights. Sounds like you are giving them to them. Say, did you know that pretty much all of the medications that are used were tested on animals at one time or another? Animal testing is pretty much the backbone of medicine, and this takes that away. Who do you propose we test on?

Recognizing the severe impact such testing has had on our worldwide eco-systems

What impact? The animals are domesticated and usually come from lines that have been domesticated for generations.

Recognizing that such testing is not only damaging to the environment, but is furthermore immoral as well

You just called the entirety of medicine immoral. While your people are dying of disease, I'll make it a point not to ship medicine to you so you don't benefit from immorality.

Oh, everything humanity does is, in some form, damaging to the environment. Part of life.

Recognizing that the use of such testing for the purposes of cosmetics, medicines, etc. is an injust excuse for the killing/harming of animals

It's either animals or humans. Your choice which ones die.

If you wish help in your nation's extermination by disease, my biotech department has been wondering how their new airborn chimera virus would do when released.

Recognizing that the use of such testing is out-dated and that most human products experimented with during such testing are still not proven safe nor successful

Generally, if they harm the rats they can cause harm to the humans. As it is, you have millions more people dying either as medical experiments or from disease. Real blow to the human rights issue.

Proclaims the following:

1) Defines an animal as any living creature from the kingdom Animalia.

Standard science definition. And, in the end, destroys the medical community.

~Reclassifies all items in the kingdom Animalia under the kingdom Sciencia Experimenta, leaves the classification of Animalia on record~

2) Defines a test animal as any such animal in the possession of any person, organization, faction or company, that is having some form of chemical or biological product being used on it in order to assess whether the product is suitable for use by humans

Yay! I can still implant cybernetic devices in my animals!

Now, I just need a way to get the dogs to survive the cybertorsos...

3) All such test animals are to be released into the custody of licensed animal professionals working in animal care facilities and shelters. If a nation does not have any licensed animal proffesionals, then the animals are to remain in the custody of the persons, organizations, factions or companies to whom they belonged. Animals under such circumastances will continue to benefit from this resolution and will be fed and taken care of by the said persons or groups. Harming or maltreatment of any animals under such circumstances will result in a violation of UN law.
If the persons or groups do not have the funds/ supplies to continue caring for such animals, they will turn the animals over for adoption, and then the ones that are not adopted will be given into the care of other such persons or groups. Extremely sick or harmed animals are to be put to sleep peacefully.

Well, so much for releasing the animals infected with the Sarkarasetan Vampiric Virus on your nation...

4) All persons,organizations, factions and companies who engage in such testing shall be ordered to halt such experiments immediately after this order has been given to them

"Sir, a mail mixup has the orders we sent to all companies a little out of the way."
"How far out of the way?"
"We accidentally transmitted them to the Andromeda Galaxy and then a computer virus erased them from records."

The problem you have is you still have yet to say who will be tested instead. I'm perfectly fine with grabbing random humans and injecting them with horrifying viruses and bacterial agents and who knows what else in the name of science. But that's because DLE doesn't have humans as citizens of it.

5) All persons, organizations, factions and companies who engage in such testing will be ordered to take off any product labels stating that their product has been tested on animals

So they won't be labelling any products tested on animals. I hope you didn't mean remove the products themselves, because in that case the entire medical community will collapse.

6) Such testing is deemed immoral and illegal under UN law

Morallity is an arguement used as a crutch by those who cannot support their arguement with cold facts.

This proposal is dangerous, a poor attempt at destroying the UN from the inside, and something that shows a total lack of forethought. The arguement for it makes, in effect, medicine illegal. It also damages nation economies through its elimination of medicine and the resulting rapidly increased death rate. About the only thing it does good is establish a form of population control, but it does so in the same manner a salvo of nuclear missiles would. I honestly pity the citizens of your nation if you have implemented this there.

I ask that all UN delegates approve my proposal so it may come to vote and animals will be forever free from such testing and experimentation

I ask all nations who value the lives of their citizens to vote against this.

So you would both be in agreement of the proposal if it were to say animal testing for non-medicinal purposes?
It would need to be cleaned up too.

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

So you would both be in agreement of the proposal if it were to say animal testing for non-medicinal purposes?

Not if it's like this draft.

So you would both be in agreement of the proposal if it were to say animal testing for non-medicinal purposes?
No. When animals can vote, then they should get rights.

This proposal comes perilously close to saying we shouldn't eat meat.
If god didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

No. When animals can vote, then they should get rights.

This proposal comes perilously close to saying we shouldn't eat meat.
If god didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

A better version of that statement is "If God didn't want us to eat animals, meat proteins wouldn't be a dietary requirement." Or do I have to remind you humans are also made out of meat?

Not if it's like this draft.

What kind of draft would you support, DLE?

It would need to be cleaned up too.

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Cleaned up in which ways, might I ask? Generally speaking, I think the wording is rather clean, if I may say so.

What kind of draft would you support, DLE?

Try focussing on protecting them from unneccessary harm, drop the rights arguement. The rights arguement reminds me of PETA and my views of them, and the fact I think the best think they could do for humanity is to become grenade launcher test dummies, are well established.

Lord Enigma. You do realize that your indredibly long posting concerning animal testing for medicinal purposes was made somewhat void from my posting prior to that? So what are your views on animal testing for cosmetic purposes, for instance?

Lord Enigma. You do realize that your indredibly long posting concerning animal testing for medicinal purposes was made somewhat void from my posting prior to that? So what are your views on animal testing for cosmetic purposes, for instance?

At the time I began typing that long post, no one had replied.

Sometimes the testing for cosmetic purposes is to make sure said cosmetics have no harmful effects on the animals. You don't want to release a new type of blush, only to have your company sued because it caused thousands of pet deaths. And in some cases weapons tests are used on highly dangerous animals, such as the cockatrices of DLE, to make sure that the weapon can be used to effectively kill the animal in a very short amount of time in order to protect people in case the wild versions ever attack settlements. Those I find acceptable, but you'll notice the common vein: The health of living beings is a reason for each.

If it doesn't apply to that subject, I don't see a need for it. It's just like how I did tests of cybernetic limb replacements on animals. Despite losing 60 of them in the tests, thousands of my citizens have benefitted from the knowledge gained and there is even a market for the animal version for when animals require them, which potentially saves animal lives as well. However, due to a certain insanity problems that crop up from high levels of cybernetics in animals, the animal versions are limited to just one limb or organ replacement...

Ashelmetta

Children do not have rights. Do you believe then that we should do as the good Johnathan Swift says and eat them? Turn them into shoes and handbags and lady's dining gloves? What about foreigners? Criminals?

The killing of animals for the purposes of a new blush or lipstick is immoral. I care not whether it burns the lips or cheeks of some vain woman who can't get over the fact that she is old. Killing an animal is no excuse for vanity.

On the other hand what you said about the cybernetic limb I would include in the new draft as "medical puposes" use to rehabilitate humans after some form of accident or something.

The killing of animals for the purposes of a new blush or lipstick is immoral. I care not whether it burns the lips or cheeks of some vain woman who can't get over the fact that she is old. Killing an animal is no excuse for vanity.

Testing it on the target species is phase two. The part I mentioned is testing it on animals to make sure the animals themselves, usually the species being tested, don't have an adverse reaction. You don't want to sell a type of eye shadow that will people's dogs.

On the other hand what you said about the cybernetic limb I would include in the new draft as "medical puposes" use to rehabilitate humans after some form of accident or something.

I agree with that.

If you insist on it I shall also make exceptions for dangerous animals. I see nothing wrong with the killing and capture of animals that are an extreme danger to wild and human life.

The dangerous animals one is a concern I have, and not just for my nation. Ignoring my nation, certain Earth nations have wildlife that has proven extremely dangerous to the lives of people and even local wild life.

I am confused about one thing though. Would say, a cat, be tested on for the creation of a new lipstick, in the version that you would like?

Only if said lipstick contains ingrediants not olready proven safe for the animal.

Yeah like the Mauri birds of southern Polynesia. Those are an awful bother.

I must protest to that. If an unknown substance, or any substance not proven safe were to be used in a cosmetic tested on an animal, that is not a good enough reason to test it. Cosmetics are no reason to take any chance at animal-harm

At the same time, you don't want a cosmetics company to release something safe for the wearer but harmful for animals.

If the person desires the lipstick and is vain enough to need such a controversial cosmetic then they are not worth such consideration.

Anyway I know I must take a more political view to that. Thus, if they think animal testing is the only way to create their new product, too bad. They can either do it the long way and review every possible problem that could arise, pay a human guineapig a lot of money and get a contract to have it tested on them, use a sample peace of skin or a replicate, or, the obvious one, not make the product.

Try focussing on protecting them from unneccessary harm, drop the rights arguement. The rights arguement reminds me of PETA and my views of them, and the fact I think the best think they could do for humanity is to become grenade launcher test dummies, are well established.

Now this is a potentially appealing approach: perhaps the proposal can say that any animal tester shall employ "the least harmful approach," and then provide some definitin of harm. Perahaps measured in terms of pain and/or death.

What do you think?

If you insist on it I shall also make exceptions for dangerous animals. I see nothing wrong with the killing and capture of animals that are an extreme danger to wild and human life.

Wait! By favoring the "cute" animals over the "wild" ones, you threaten to disrupt the ecosytem (for the "wild" predators that pose a danger to animal and human life are needed in the food chain!).

For medical purposes I agree animals should be tested on. But not for cosmetics.

Oh no a didn't mean all harmful animals. Say for instance a wild Mauri chases villagers up trees. If seen, it should be hunted down and killed/ captured/ relocated. If test Mauri's are need to test a mauri-killing weapon, be my guest.

Now this is a potentially appealing approach: perhaps the proposal can say that any animal tester shall employ "the least harmful approach," and then provide some definitin of harm. Perahaps measured in terms of pain and/or death.

What do you think?

I like.

I like.

I like it, also.

How about you, Gelgameks?

Oh no a didn't mean all harmful animals. Say for instance a wild Mauri chases villagers up trees. If seen, it should be hunted down and killed/ captured/ relocated. If test Mauri's are need to test a mauri-killing weapon, be my guest.

Oh I see. Am less bothered by this explanation. Would like for it to be clear in the draft, but I agree with this principle.

I am still not sure whether it pertains to medical testing, cosmetics testing, or both.

I think that no matter the decision reached on the cosmetics issue, it should apply to all laboratory tests. Those where the obvious goal is to develop a way to protect against dangerous animals would use the pain clause for sure, with the death clause if the goal is not to harm the animal at all.

ok first off what exactly is the "pain clause" and "death clause"

My stance currntly on each of the following is:

Medical purposes: anything goes

extremely dangerous animals: anything goes

cosmetics and other non-essentials: banned

Some of us are beginning to think that there is a medium ground to be had -- somewhere between "anything goes" and "outright banned," which might apply to any or all of the categories you've mentioned.

In short, that animals should be tested in such a way that brings the least harm to the animal.

Here's a refernce to the post where this idea was picked up:

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

Originally Posted by DemonLordEnigma
Try focussing on protecting them from unneccessary harm, drop the rights arguement. The rights arguement reminds me of PETA and my views of them, and the fact I think the best think they could do for humanity is to become grenade launcher test dummies, are well established.


Now this is a potentially appealing approach: perhaps the proposal can say that any animal tester shall employ "the least harmful approach," and then provide some definitin of harm. Perahaps measured in terms of pain and/or death.

What do you think?

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

I think I'll compromise on the cosmetics issue. Limit it to just what has been proven safe. People won't be happy, but they won't complain. Not that important.

On the medical one, I think I'll see the draft before I comment. I'm not getting any ideas, but something at the back of my mind is bugging me. Something I can't call to the surface at the moment.

Some of us are beginning to think that there is a medium ground to be had -- somewhere between "anything goes" and "outright banned," which might apply to any or all of the categories you've mentioned.

In short, that animals should be tested in such a way that brings the least harm to the animal.

Unless it is something intended to bring harm, in which case it should be as quick and painless as possible.

Ok I'll compromise. So the new one will say that cosmetics/ other checmical/bilogical testing that is already proven safe may be used on animals.

Draft of the Ammended Act:

Description: Determined that the UN shall have the responsibility to create and protect the right of its animal denizens not to be tested nor experimented on by any person, organization, faction or company for the purposes of cosmetics and other non-medicinal, non-protective purposes

Affirming that animals shall have at least the basic rights allowing them freedom from testing or experimentation by persons, organizations, factions or companies

Recognizing the severe impact such testing has had on our worldwide eco-systems

Recognizing that such testing is not only damaging to the environment, but is furthermore immoral as well

Recognizing that the use of such testing for the purposes of cosmetics, medicines, etc. is an injust excuse for the killing/harming of animals

Recognizing that the use of such testing is out-dated and that most human products experimented with during such testing are still not proven safe nor successful

Proclaims the following:

1) Defines an animal as any living creature from the kingdom Animalia.

2) Defines a test animal as any such animal in the possession of any person, organization, faction or company, that is having some form of chemical, biological, or mechanical product being used on it in order to assess whether the product is suitable for use by humans.

3) All such test animals are to be released into the custody of licensed animal professionals working in animal care facilities and shelters. If a nation does not have any licensed animal proffesionals, then the animals are to remain in the custody of the persons, organizations, factions or companies to whom they belonged. Animals under such circumastances will continue to benefit from this resolution and will be fed and taken care of by the said persons or groups. Harming or maltreatment of any animals under such circumstances will result in a violation of UN law.
If the persons or groups do not have the funds/ supplies to continue caring for such animals, they will turn the animals over for adoption, and then the ones that are not adopted will be given into the care of other such persons or groups. Extremely sick or harmed animals are to be put to sleep peacefully.

4) All persons,organizations, factions and companies who engage in such testing shall be ordered to halt such experiments immediately after this order has been given to them

5) All persons, organizations, factions and companies who engage in such testing will be ordered to take off any product labels stating that their product has been tested on animals

6) Such testing is deemed immoral and illegal under UN law

7) Defines the forms of such testing that are to be restricted as any such testing of products meant for cosmetic or other non-essential purposes

8) Defines essential products permitted to be tested on animals as any product which has the purpose of promoting medical advances (IE chemicals used in vaccinations, chemicals used to further stem-cell research, mechanical devices used to further production of artificial body parts, etc.)

9) Designates that any species of animal that continually causes harm to humans and becomes a danger to human civilization may be tested on in order to produce a way to defend against such dangerous animals (IE the Mauri bird may be used to test some way in which to ward off the Mauri so it does not cause harm to humans as it historically does)

9) Designates that any species of animal that continually causes harm to humans and becomes a danger to human civilization may be tested on in order to produce a way to defend against such dangerous animals (IE the Mauri bird may be used to test some way in which to ward off the Mauri so it does not cause harm to humans as it historically does)

Hold on there... I thought we said that if a specific animal (not a whole species) was found to represent a danger, then it could be tested. I have problem with exempting a whole species (because of the ecosystemic concerns outlined above).

A better version of that statement is "If God didn't want us to eat animals, meat proteins wouldn't be a dietary requirement." Or do I have to remind you humans are also made out of meat?
It's a quote. And a funny one, I think. Your version, otoh...

Eating meat isn't just about dietary requirements, anyway. There's the whole taste issue, and joys of killing, skinning, butchering, and cooking the animal. Aesthetics are important.

Ashelmetta

Children do not have rights. Do you believe then that we should do as the good Johnathan Swift says and eat them? Turn them into shoes and handbags and lady's dining gloves? What about foreigners? Criminals?
are you equating children and rats?

well, that just about says it all.

No. When animals can vote, then they should get rights.

This proposal comes perilously close to saying we shouldn't eat meat.
If god didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

Children can't vote.

As I read it, I have no problems with the current draft other than numbering. #7, #8 and #9 should come between #2 and #3. That way, they have the restricted forms and allowed forms right off the bat.

The killing of animals for the purposes of a new blush or lipstick is immoral. I care not whether it burns the lips or cheeks of some vain woman who can't get over the fact that she is old. Killing an animal is no excuse for vanity.

I can't call that a sane viewpoint. I have trouble believing I actually read it.

I think the pain and suffering of women far outweighs the pain and suffering of lab rats (or lab chimpanzees). Leaving aside the implied misogyny of saying it's not important because it's only women, can you really be saying human life is no more important than animal life?

Appearance is not nothing. Do you think women would stop wearing makeup if they knew lab animals were being tortured with them to make sure they're safe? Guess what - they know it, and they still by cosmetics! There are deep biological imperatives involved; attracting the best possible mate to continue the species, as Dawkins would point out, being foremost.

As I said above, I'm not even going to touch the misogynistic underpinnings of that post.

If the person desires the lipstick and is vain enough to need such a controversial cosmetic then they are not worth such consideration.

Just in case this resolution goes forward, I'm saving that quote and I'm going to telegram it to anyone who votes in favor.

meh. i'm done with this thread.

are you equating children and rats?

well, that just about says it all.


No Asshelmetta, you are.

Ok DLE I'll put 7, 8, and 9 inbetween 2 and 3 to make it more relevantly placed.

Wow That's very grown up of you Asshelmetta.

How dare you call me a mysoginist? Just because I am pointing out that women buy more makeup than men (who, if they purchase such makeup, would be vain as well) does not mean I hate them. If a man or woman purchases makeup to make themselves look better at the expense of any animal's life, that is injust and immoral. I appologize that we all can't have as little faith in humanity as yourself sir, but I believe that if it was brought to more people's attention, they would cease using such products.

How dare you call me a mysoginist? Just because I am pointing out that women buy more makeup than men (who, if they purchase such makeup, would be vain as well) does not mean I hate them. If a man or woman purchases makeup to make themselves look better at the expense of any animal's life, that is injust and immoral. I appologize that we all can't have as little faith in humanity as yourself sir, but I believe that if it was brought to more people's attention, they would cease using such products.
How dare I?

Because you posted to the effect that you didn't care if women were scarred by improperly tested products.

Because you posted to the effect that they deserved what they got if that happened to them.

Because you posted to the effect that it was only the old and ugly ones who neede the products anyway.

Because you are valuing the life of a test animal above the life of a woman.

Like I said, I couldn't really believe I was reading it...

p.s. I spelled it right, and you responded to me and mispeled it. Might I recommend dictionary.reference.com?

Pain and suffering of women? You call women getting a few wrinkles pain and suffering?

Pain and suffering of women? You call women getting a few wrinkles pain and suffering?
Originally Posted by The Gelgameks

I care not whether it burns the lips or cheeks of some vain woman who can't get over the fact that she is old.

I did not equate the life of an animal to that of a woman. My point was that if they don't want to get scarred by a product, they shouldn't use the product. Looking a little better than you do is no excuse to harm innocent animals.

Firstly what exactly did I misspell?

Secondly having your cheeks burnt is hardly pain and suffering. Oh, you didn't think I meant like, a third degree burn did you?

I appologize that we all can't have as little faith in humanity as yourself sir, but I believe that if it was brought to more people's attention, they would cease using such products.

I can only answer that by quoting myself a few posts ago:

Guess what - they know it, and they still buy cosmetics!

This has nothing to do with faith in humanity. You put a value on animal life that I do not feel is justified, and that millions or billions of other people in RL Earth don't feel is justified. Your proposal is an attempt to enforce your views on the rest of us.

And also I was referring to new products. They can still use old products that are proven safe, but if they want to use new ones that don't make them look any better than the old ones, they'll just have to take their chances.

Firstly what exactly did I misspell?

Secondly having your cheeks burnt is hardly pain and suffering. Oh, you didn't think I meant like, a third degree burn did you?
Firstly, misogynist.

Secondly, yes. That's what happens when companies don't test chemical compounds for facial application thoroughly. Partial loss of sight has happened too.

Even if you think the researchers who do the testing are a bunch of sickoes, why do you think cosmetics companies pay for the testing? Estee Lauder never got to watch the animals squealing in pain - there must have been some other reason for it, hmm?

If you think that cosmetics purposes justify the murder of innocent animals, and that this is in no way immoral, then I must tell you that you are not in the vast majority that you believe yourself.

And yes, I am attempting to push forward my beliefs and those of others. This is a bill, all bills push forward some opinion or other. That is why you are here to counter it.

Um, as you can see from an earlier post of mine, I offered several other ways which they could use to test products. Once again I don't think any further advances are needed in the cosmetics industry. It has come quite far and people with wrinkles are quite able to make them less visible. No further testing is required to hide blemishes and wrinkles.

And also I was referring to new products. They can still use old products that are proven safe, but if they want to use new ones that don't make them look any better than the old ones, they'll just have to take their chances.
1a. in a capitalist economy, things don't work like that. Nobody would buy the old products, even if the new ones are inferior.
1b. The companies would all move to non-UN countries and export back to the UN countries.

2. That doesn't make sense from an ethical viewpoint. If the products were made and tested immorally, they must be illegal too. Just because the harm is already done doesn't make it OK. I could bring up RL examples, but I'm sure you could too.

If you think that cosmetics purposes justify the murder of innocent animals, and that this is in no way immoral, then I must tell you that you are not in the vast majority that you believe yourself.

I can only extrapolate from the number of chicken mcnuggets sold daily.

Yeah. See, most people don't actually care so much about the killing of animals, as long as it provides some benefit to their lives.

p.s. your use of the word "innocent" in that sentence is cracking me up. thank you; i'll be snickering all through dinner.

Um, if they don't create new products, then they won't have that problem. And you do realize that we're not all capitalist in this game?