NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a draft of a proposal that aims to regulate certain sectors of activity and eliminate the indiscriminate and unnecessary suffering inflicted to animals.
We would appreciate input, namely on what category should this be placed if it earns your approval.


---------- "Animal Protection" DRAFT PROPOSAL'S TEXT --------------


EMPHASIZING that the most widely accepted scientific theory about evolution (by C. Darwin) descredits the idea that humans are "superior" to other animals.

KEEPING IN MIND that the majority of the human kind consumes meat and requires certain species of animals for medical experimentation

CONVINCED that it is possible and acceptable to consume animal products required for human subsistence, without putting animals through unnecessary pain

NOTING WITH REGRET that, all around the World, animals are injured, mistreated, tortured and randomly murdered with no intent of defense or survival


This proposal:

1) DESIGNATES "mistreatment of animals" as:
1a) The infliction of corporal damage on an animal, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.
1b) The deliberate destruction of animals' habitat, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.
1c) Abandoning animals that were treated as pets

2) PROCLAIMS that the mistreatment of animals, regarding the exceptions mentioned in points 3 and 4, should be outlawed and punished (with a highly discouraging penalty) by UN member nations.

3) APPROVES that animals are killed for food, as long as:
3a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible
3b) They are executed using a painless method. Science and mechanics have evolved enough for nations to consider execution techniques other than electric shocks or brutal, cold blooded, beatings.

4) APPROVES that animals are used in medical research (cosmetics are not included) and/or study if, and only if:
4a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible
4b) The research has the purpose of solving problems related to human health (cure diseases, discover treatments)
4c) If their life is to end, the animals have to be executed using a painless method.

5) FURTHER REMINDS that, even though it is made clear that all mistreatment is outlawed by this resolution, with the exceptions made in points 3 and 4, certain activities sometimes thought as "innofensive" are also covered by this resolution, and are therefore outlawed. To state only a few that fall under the definition presented in point 2:
5a) Violent sports that involve animals (namely combat between roosters, dogs, bulls and any other animal)
5b) Hunting for sport
5c) Using animals to retrieve their fur or skin, having none of the purposes mentioned in points 3 and 4 and noting that point 4 does not include the cosmetic industry

I agree fully on your agument, ferthermore you have coverd evory possible argument aganst it .


Your comrade in arms,
The Iron Curten

---------- "Animal Protection" DRAFT PROPOSAL'S TEXT --------------


EMPHASIZING that the most widely accepted scientific theory about evolution (by C. Darwin) descredits the idea that humans are "superior" to other animals.

That assumes Darwin is correct in the NS universe.

KEEPING IN MIND that the majority of the human kind consumes meat and requires certain species of animals for medical experimentation

Hell yeah.

CONVINCED that it is possible and acceptable to consume animal products required for human subsistence, without putting animals through unnecessary pain

You don't live long enough to feel the pain from a bullet to the head.

NOTING WITH REGRET that, all around the World, animals are injured, mistreated, tortured and randomly murdered with no intent of defense or survival

Nature Rocks.


This proposal:

1) DESIGNATES "mistreatment of animals" as:
1a) The infliction of corporal damage on an animal, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.

Does this imply only Physical threats? And what about threats to itself(overpopulation?
1b) The deliberate destruction of animals' habitat, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.

Expansion is a fact of life, so hell no.

1c) Abandoning animals that were treated as pets

I won't prosecute people for letting go their dog who shits all over the floors, walls, ceilings, and children.

2) PROCLAIMS that the mistreatment of animals, regarding the exceptions mentioned in points 3 and 4, should be outlawed and punished (with a highly discouraging penalty) by UN member nations.

Should be? Regardless of my opinion of the resolution, it should do more than just suggest punishment.

3) APPROVES that animals are killed for food, as long as:
3a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible

If it doesn't happen in Nature why should it happen in my slaughterhouses?
3b) They are executed using a painless method. Science and mechanics have evolved enough for nations to consider execution techniques other than electric shocks or brutal, cold blooded, beatings.

I guess I can live with that still in the resolution.

4) APPROVES that animals are used in medical research (cosmetics are not included)

So you're fine with someones lips blistering off their faces because they were not sufficiently tested?

and/or study if, and only if:
4a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible

Aggression, pain, and low life conditions are sometimes a part of science you know.

4b) The research has the purpose of solving problems related to human health (cure diseases, discover treatments)
4c) If their life is to end, the animals have to be executed using a painless method.

That's good, keep it.

5) FURTHER REMINDS that, even though it is made clear that all mistreatment is outlawed by this resolution, with the exceptions made in points 3 and 4, certain activities sometimes thought as "innofensive" are also covered by this resolution, and are therefore outlawed. To state only a few that fall under the definition presented in point 2:[/quote]

It doesn't do anything of the sort, it suggests it.

5a) Violent sports that involve animals (namely combat between roosters, dogs, bulls and any other animal)

Outlawing bloodsport may not fly well with some people.

5b) Hunting for sport

I think this lies under the assumption that hunting in NS is the same as in the real world, which is fucking hard to.

5c) Using animals to retrieve their fur or skin, having none of the purposes mentioned in points 3 and 4 and noting that point 4 does not include the cosmetic industry


Using fur and skin to keep warm and cloth people is perfectly acceptable; lose it.

There are many flaws in this proposal, but I'll limit my commentary to stating that many nations, cultures, communities and societies simply do not have the luxury of considering animal welfare. This proposal would place unbearable strain on such peoples.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I'll limit my commentary to stating that many nations, cultures, communities and societies simply do not have the luxury of considering animal welfare.

Animal welfare a simple luxury? I don't think so. In fact, it shows how human you are if you think about your relationship to nature and animals. Our World - NS or not - is in bad enough shape to consider the right to live without unnecessary pain of humans and animals. In fact, giving this right to animals only enforces it more when humans are concerned.

We from the Republic of Cally24 love this proposal and find it especially well written, cause it's very clear in every point. You have our approval!

Right, let's deal with this thoroughly, shall we?

EMPHASIZING that the most widely accepted scientific theory about evolution (by C. Darwin) descredits the idea that humans are "superior" to other animals.
Already contestable - is human superiority 'descredited' [sic] by Darwin's work (OOC: even allowing for the RL reference)? I'm not convinced.

CONVINCED that it is possible and acceptable to consume animal products required for human subsistence, without putting animals through unnecessary pain
At all times? Even when starving, or in environmentally hostile locations? Not convinced.

This proposal:

1) DESIGNATES "mistreatment of animals" as:
1a) The infliction of corporal damage on an animal, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.
1b) The deliberate destruction of animals' habitat, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.
1c) Abandoning animals that were treated as pets

1a) - you realise that this includes the consumption of animal flesh?

1b) - in any scenario? Even when human life is in danger (not from the animal)?

1c) - is a shame. Does it require UN attention? I'm not convinced.

2) PROCLAIMS that the mistreatment of animals, regarding the exceptions mentioned in points 3 and 4, should be outlawed and punished (with a highly discouraging penalty) by UN member nations.
Well, the provisos are all important, though I'm not convinced that anything listed above is automatically deserving of punishment.

3) APPROVES that animals are killed for food, as long as:
3a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible
3b) They are executed using a painless method. Science and mechanics have evolved enough for nations to consider execution techniques other than electric shocks or brutal, cold blooded, beatings.
3a) - not always possible in desperate cases. Unacceptable.

3b) - not always possible in desperate cases. Unacceptable.

4) APPROVES that animals are used in medical research (cosmetics are not included) and/or study if, and only if:
4a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible
4b) The research has the purpose of solving problems related to human health (cure diseases, discover treatments)
4c) If their life is to end, the animals have to be executed using a painless method.
These conditions are fine, though please be aware that 'unnecessary' isn't defined.

5) FURTHER REMINDS that, even though it is made clear that all mistreatment is outlawed by this resolution, with the exceptions made in points 3 and 4, certain activities sometimes thought as "innofensive" are also covered by this resolution, and are therefore outlawed. To state only a few that fall under the definition presented in point 2:
No - state ALL, not a few. The unmentioned do not exist as far as UN law is concerned.

5a) Violent sports that involve animals (namely combat between roosters, dogs, bulls and any other animal)
5b) Hunting for sport
5c) Using animals to retrieve their fur or skin, having none of the purposes mentioned in points 3 and 4 and noting that point 4 does not include the cosmetic industry
5a) - definition of 'violent' may cause problems. Does this preclude horse riding, for instance?

5b) - even if hunting does not involve death or injury?

5c) - this disallows using animal pelts for the purpose of warmth. Unacceptable.

I've made a point of not addressing grammatical errors, merely dealing with the substance of the proposal. Essentially, for many nations animal rights are a luxury. This proposal, while well-intentioned, should not be endorsed, especially as it is contructed from a highly contestable opening statement.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Animal welfare a simple luxury? I don't think so. In fact, it shows how human you are if you think about your relationship to nature and animals. Our World - NS or not - is in bad enough shape to consider the right to live without unnecessary pain of humans and animals. In fact, giving this right to animals only enforces it more when humans are concerned.
Emphasis mine. Your statement serves only to emphasise how misguided the proposal is from its opening statement.

(...)
Already contestable - is human superiority 'descredited' [sic] by Darwin's work (OOC: even allowing for the RL reference)? I'm not convinced.
At all times? Even when starving, or in environmentally hostile locations? Not convinced. (...)
1a) - you realise that this includes the consumption of animal flesh?

No it doesn't:
3) APPROVES that animals are killed for food, as long as:

3a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible
3b) They are executed using a painless method. Science and mechanics have evolved enough for nations to consider execution techniques other than electric shocks or brutal, cold blooded, beatings.

Then you seem obsessed with "desperate cases" ... I wonder why? Even so, I could agree that starving and the protection of one's live in the case of an animal attack (as there are lions around in the NS) should be made an exception in this resolution. I don't see which other desperate case could allow a nation not to object to the painfully killing of animals.

Fact is to me that quotes like "it's a shame" aren't good enough.

Oh yeah, the "Darwin Thing". I see that the discussion about if humans are superiour or not to animals getting a lot of uneeded attention here. I propose to change this first sentence by something like:
"Emphasizing that animal rights have become an important moral issue in modern society" ...
I would really like this proposal to be approved by most delegates, so it stands a chance. It's worth the while, so I think it's best to avoid the superiority-discussion which is a philosophical matter and not a very practical one in this case.

Oh, and excuse any misspellings in here: english isn't my mothertongue, and I do my best ...

No worries on all counts, Cally24. Your English is easily understood and that's possibly the most important thing in these debates.

Why am I concerned about 'desperate cases'? Because the people affected by such situations are often the least able to adapt, and not because of malevolence towards animals.

My point against 1a) was made prior to reading on and should have been omitted. Nonetheless, objections to the limited exceptions remain.

M Vergniaud

Why am I concerned about 'desperate cases'? Because the people affected by such situations are often the least able to adapt, and not because of malevolence towards animals.

Most of these "desperate cases" depend very much on international solidarity to survive. Killing an animal isn't an easy task and demands strength and skills, and "desperate cases" mostly don't have both anymore. So I still don't quite get your argument here.
And I'm sure you didn't mean to be malevolent towards animals.

By the way, is the author of the proposition still following what's going on here? ...

correct me if I am wrong, but I see no exception for hunting an animal whose overabundance has created a dangerous situation for humans. For example alligators in certain swamplands. I believe one needs to be made otherwise, great proposal.

If the animal poses a threat to humans or other animals then killing it doesn't configure mistreatment of animals, as defined in point 1. We thank all of you who gave constructive input and present a revised text:


---------- "Animal Protection" DRAFT PROPOSAL'S TEXT --------------


EMPHASIZING that the most widely accepted scientific theory about evolution descredits the idea that humans are "superior" to other animals.

KEEPING IN MIND that the majority of the human kind consumes meat and requires certain species of animals for medical experimentation.

CONVINCED that it is possible and acceptable to consume animal products required for human subsistence, without putting animals through unnecessary pain.

NOTING WITH REGRET that, all around the World, animals are injured, mistreated, tortured and randomly murdered with no intent of defense or survival.


This proposal:

1) DESIGNATES "mistreatment of animals" as:

1a) the infliction of corporal or psichologycal damage on an animal, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.
1b) The deliberate destruction of animals' habitat, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.
1c) Abandoning animals that were treated as pets

2) PROCLAIMS that the mistreatment of animals, regarding the exceptions mentioned in points 3 and 4, is hereby outlawed and is to be punished by UN member nations.

3) APPROVES that animals are killed for food, as long as:
3a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible
3b) They are executed using a painless method. Science and mechanics have evolved enough for nations to consider execution techniques other than electric shocks or brutal, cold blooded, beatings.

4) APPROVES that animals are used in medical research (cosmetics are not included) and/or study if, and only if:
4a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible
4b) The research has the purpose of solving problems related to human health (cure diseases, discover treatments)
4c) If their life is to end, the animals have to be executed using a painless method.

5) FURTHER REMINDS that, even though it is made clear that all mistreatment is outlawed by this resolution, with the exceptions made in points 3 and 4, certain activities sometimes thought as "innofensive" are also covered by this resolution, and are therefore outlawed. To state only a few that fall under the definition presented in point 2:
5a) Violent sports that involve animals (namely combat between roosters, dogs, bulls and any other animal)
5b) Hunting for sport
5c) Using animals to retrieve their fur or skin, having none of the purposes mentioned in points 3 and 4.

I didn't express myself correctly, so here goes a revision of point 5c:

5c) Using animals to retrieve their fur or skin, when the fur or skin are meant to produce luxury objects.

The Borgoan government fully supports this proposal. We believe it is solidly crafted and delivers sound reasoning for its worth in its opening preamble.

It is not extremist and thus is likely to find a wide-level of support (we would hope) at the NS United Nations, hopefully allowing it to progress fully to an adopted resolution at some stage.

We urge United Nations regional delegates to support this proposal to enable it to become a resolution.

Foreign Minister
Nordic Democratic Republic of Borgoa

---------- "Animal Protection" DRAFT PROPOSAL'S TEXT --------------


EMPHASIZING that the most widely accepted scientific theory about evolution descredits the idea that humans are "superior" to other animals.

I would just lose this clause, it really doesn't contribute anything to the resolution.


This proposal:

1) DESIGNATES "mistreatment of animals" as:

1a) the infliction of corporal or psichologycal damage on an animal, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.

What about training? I think rubbing Max's nose in it may count as coporal punishment and I think it would be in violation of this clause.

1b) The deliberate destruction of animals' habitat, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.

Would this put an end to expansion of housing complexs into wild life environments?
1c) Abandoning animals that were treated as pets

I think you should expand on this somehow, or just get rid of it all together. It makes little sence to prosecute a family for abandoning a dog really.

2) PROCLAIMS that the mistreatment of animals, regarding the exceptions mentioned in points 3 and 4, is hereby outlawed and is to be punished by UN member nations.

Now thats more likely.



4) APPROVES that animals are used in medical research (cosmetics are not included) and/or study if, and only if:

Some people may disregard cosmetics as science, but people use them all the same, and their safety needs to come first.


5b) Hunting for sport
That seems to be more of a cultural thing you should probably leave alone.

5c) Using animals to retrieve their fur or skin, having none of the purposes mentioned in points 3 and 4.[/INDENT]
[/font][/size]

I saw your update and it was good ;)

This is a great proposal. You've got our word that we'll vote for this proposal if it becomes a resolution, and we ask for regional delegates to endorse it.


NOTING WITH REGRET that, all around the World, animals are injured, mistreated, tortured and randomly murdered with no intent of defense or survival.

As a former owner of a cat that had been tortured in its previous family, I completely agree.

1c) Abandoning animals that were treated as pets

This is actually a good part. When a pet is abandoned, it has to seek for food and shelter elsewhere, thus making it more likely that it'll cause damage or a threat to humans or other pets.

ElectronX wrote:

4) APPROVES that animals are used in medical research (cosmetics are not included) and/or study if, and only if:


Some people may disregard cosmetics as science, but people use them all the same, and their safety needs to come first.

Like most males, I don't wear make-up, but is it really ethically right to make an animal suffer, even die, so you could look good?


Finally, I have a question for Fair Progress:

1) When a baby wolf gets separated from its parents, it may start seeking for food in urban areas, thus posing a threat to people, expecially children. Many wolves like that live here in Eastern Finland, and the European Union has blamed us for killing them. So, in your opinion, is it allowed to kill these troublemaker wolves, possibly creating more of them?

The Commonwealth of Pontinia's Minister for the Environment, Alice Freeman, supports this resolution.

ElectronX wrote:


Like most males, I don't wear make-up, but is it really ethically right to make an animal suffer, even die, so you could look good?

For one thing you're using the word "ethical" which really has no meaning since everyones ethics on this issue are different. Also you have to keep it in the context of NS, some nations male population may wear a form of cosmetics, maybe the whole population does as a ritual to attract mates similar to the way other animals do, by looking good. While it may not settle well with some people that Animals get tested for cosmetic purposes, it is nessacary to keep my citizens safe who decide to use it.

Don't make me laugh. If your citizens are stupid enough to use dangerous cosmetics... well, then they're basically stupid enough to jump off from a cliff if someone tells them to do so. If anyone knows the English word for "turhamaisuus", please tell me. Because that's what it is.

Don't make me laugh. If your citizens are stupid enough to use dangerous cosmetics... well, then they're basically stupid enough to jump off from a cliff if someone tells them to do so. If anyone knows the English word for "turhamaisuus", please tell me. Because that's what it is.
Ok, I tried to be nice, but your response to what I said about cosmetics proves to me you are a total fucking idiot. The cosmetics are not dangerous if they have been tested and proven to be safe ofr use by humans(or otherwise), otherwise they are not used because they present an unexceptible risk to the lives of my citizens, it's the same goshdamn process that they use when creating medicine.

The cosmetics are not dangerous if they have been tested and proven to be safe ofr use by humans(or otherwise)

Well that's just what I meant. Nobody's so stupid that he/she would use untested cosmetics. But hell, testing medicine with animals may actually help curing lethal diseases, thus saving human lives, and why not animal lives. It benefits us all. But for god's sake, I've never heard of anyone who has died only because he/she hasn't put make-up on. Never. That's why cosmetics are virtually UNNECESSARY.

Well that's just what I meant. Nobody's so stupid that he/she would use untested cosmetics. But hell, testing medicine with animals may actually help curing lethal diseases, thus saving human lives, and why not animal lives. It benefits us all. But for god's sake, I've never heard of anyone who has died only because he/she hasn't put make-up on. Never. That's why cosmetics are virtually UNNECESSARY.
The nessecity of a product is not yours to decide.

I think that, nowadays, testing of cosmetics without mistreating animals is perfectely possible. Didn't you ever see those cosmetics that actually make their publicity by labbelling: "No Animal-Testing has been needed to realise this product" or something like that?

As for medicine-testing, point 4 of the resolution allows all the necessary exceptions in my opinion. Let's keep to the point here and don't mix up everything!

I still think that the "superiority clause" at the beginning is going to make a lot of nations back off for the wrong reasons. Change it!

Nevertheless, you got our support to make this very well written and thought out proposal become a resolution. Afterwards, we'll make a general vote in our region for, in the "Democrats"-region, majority is allowed to decide on UN matters.

Cally24
UN-Delegate of the
"Democrats"

I still think that the "superiority clause" at the beginning is going to make a lot of nations back off for the wrong reasons. Change it!
Contrary to what some users have said in this thread, I didn't make up facts to include on this proposal. Darwin saw man as part of a continuum with Nature and didn't consider humans superior to other animals. More about Evolutionary Continuity here (http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/aec-e-entries.html#Evolutionary%20Continuity)

However, as it was pointed out, Darwin's work has no value on the NS universe, so I think it's best to simply drop the clause. However, I'd like to know if Cally24 has an alternative to it, as constructive input is always welcome :)