NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's a draft of my most recent proposal. Note that I have submitted it to the queue to assess support among the delegates.


Rights of Sentient Beings
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Texan Hotrodders

Description: The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that humanity is not the only species in our world that has attained sentience.

FURTHER NOTING that sentient non-humans are often excluded by this body where the rights and freedoms of sovereign persons are concerned.

DECIDING to rectify this situation in the interest of liberty and equality for all sovereign persons.

URGES all nations to grant all sentient beings the same rights and freedoms that any other person would have under their laws.

As always, I'm hesitant about the use of the phrase 'sovereign human'. But otherwise this is a fine proposal that allows for national interpretation, and should avoid the 'Are whales/cats/cyborgs/Random slug people from MyNation sentient?' problems.

[edit] I do appreciate the irony of putting this under the Human Rights category. There's no-where else for it to go, but it is quite amusing.

As always, I'm hesitant about the use of the phrase 'sovereign human'. But otherwise this is a fine proposal that allows for national interpretation, and should avoid the 'Are whales/cats/cyborgs/Random slug people from MyNation sentient?' problems.

Thanks. :)

[edit] I do appreciate the irony of putting this under the Human Rights category. There's no-where else for it to go, but it is quite amusing.

I had a good laugh about that myself. :D

As always, I'm hesitant about the use of the phrase 'sovereign human'. But otherwise this is a fine proposal that allows for national interpretation, and should avoid the 'Are whales/cats/cyborgs/Random slug people from MyNation sentient?' problems.

[edit] I do appreciate the irony of putting this under the Human Rights category. There's no-where else for it to go, but it is quite amusing.

Yup, that is the best part. :)

First, I'd vote for this in a hearbeat, the principle alone really indirectly cuts into racism and is suggesting that it is the self-awareness is where a person becomes "a person".

Though I've seen the phrase "sovereign person" used before, I tend to think of it applied to nations and not individuals. My compromise is to change your third clause:

DECIDING to rectify this situation in the interest of liberty and equality for all individuals with the capacity of self-awarness.

Hmmmm, even that sounds weird. Think about it and if we all put our heads together we'll figure out what sounds best.

i love your resolution

What defines a "sentient" being?

Hmm just wondering if there's any legislation that's conflict with this, like the fact that (IRL) corporations can be considered people in some countries - would this conversely make them sentient?

Eep better not hurt Microsoft's feeling I hear he's a real prick!

Here's a draft of my most recent proposal.

NOTING that humanity is not the only species in our world that has attained sentience.

FURTHER NOTING that sentient non-humans are often excluded by this body where the rights and freedoms of sovereign persons are concerned.

DECIDING to rectify this situation in the interest of liberty and equality for all sovereign persons.

URGES all nations to grant all sentient beings the same rights and freedoms that any other person would have under their laws.

We, the people of The Celestial Peace, cannot approve of this measure for the following reasons:
1: There is no definition of the term 'sentience'.
2: Instead of outright stating which species have achieved sentience, the amendment as written allows nations to decide what is sentient, and what is not.
3: We contest the implication that there is a non-human species that can perform the duties and functions of a human being in society.

"I would call first for a census of the membership to see just how many little green men and grey eyed aliens we do have in the UN. As many members may believe that we are as Humans alone in this vast universe. That the very idea of life from outside our own Humanality is impossible."

"Shut up junior, and no you can't take the spaceflyer to Earth. You know how much trouble you caused last time you visited them. And how many times have I told you not to come in here when I'm on the Radio to Earth."

"Dang now look what you made me do forget to turn the sender off."

What defines a "sentient" being?

Good question, and probably something worth including ... so we don't hear people complaining about pets voting.

Self-awarness is usually what my government considers sentient. Sometimes people also include the ability for self-sacrafice, but animals actually do this all the time, so I'd be wary about working that in without the self-awarness.

yes but how do you quantify self awareness, how do you measure it?

I'd put something in about language, cause seemingly that shaped how we evolved into sentient beings

3: We contest the implication that there is a non-human species that can perform the duties and functions of a human being in society.

As a nation that not only has humans, but also Neko, Kitsune, Segonune, Naga, Nekoite, Cervidine, Elf, and Hyperboreans, as well as Electronic Intelligences, we find you assertations to be blantantly offensive, backwards, and pitifully uninformed.

- Association to Stamp Out Ignorance
The Semi-Autonomous Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Donning my Modly hat, I'm curious: don't we already have something that does this, or am I remembering wrong?

Resolution 56 covers only clones but in some sense they might be seen as coming under this also.. as one could argue their status under this one also..



UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #56
BioRights Declaration
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The free carolinas
Description: The United Nations and its member states shall hereby recognize and henceforth regard the inherent rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons.

Also Resolution #36 might also cover this same subject..---

Freedom of Humor
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The Orion Nebula
Description: Whereas all the enlightened nations of the world recognize that sentient beings possess certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And whereas these same nations delineate many of these rights and recognize that pre-eminent among them is the freedom of speech and expression.
And whereas humor is not merely a pathway toward increased happiness, but can also be used to make important points more gently and succinctly than would otherwise be possible,
Therefore let it be resolved that the member states of the United Nations recognize the right to humor as a fundamental right of sentient beings.
And let it be further resolved that the member states of the United Nations shall make no laws preventing any sentient being from exercising this right to humor except where said exercise is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community or where said exercise is unduly hurtful to a particular individual or group.


--------------
But then R36 only lets Sentient Beings Laugh at humans..

We, the people of The Celestial Peace, cannot approve of this measure for the following reasons:
1: There is no definition of the term 'sentience'.
2: Instead of outright stating which species have achieved sentience, the amendment as written allows nations to decide what is sentient, and what is not.
3: We contest the implication that there is a non-human species that can perform the duties and functions of a human being in society.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9385857&postcount=6

And by the way, I'm a sovereigntist, and I'm not interested in wasting my time defining something when most of the nations who wish to oppress non-human sentients will just find a loophole in the definition anyway.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

yes but how do you quantify self awareness, how do you measure it?

I'd put something in about language, cause seemingly that shaped how we evolved into sentient beings

That is a can of worms and a logical question ...

I'm thinking aloud here: each of our governments has its own definition, because we grant citizenship to individuals that we consider sentient? Does that sound like a starting point? :)

Ausserland applauds the intent of this proposal, however, we would hesitate to support it as written. We believe that the word sentient should be replaced in all occurrences with sapient. Allow us to quote a brief passage from Wikipedia in support of this suggestion:

"Sapience is the ability of an organism or entity to act with intelligence. Sapience is synonymous with some usages of the term sentient, though the two are not exactly equal: sentience is the ability to sense or feel, while sapience is the ability to think about sensations, feelings and ideas. In usage, sentience and sapience both imply some form or state of consciousness, although consciousness is not strictly required in the case of sentience (as applied to plant life, which ordinarily react to the stimuli of warmth and ultraviolet radiation from the sun)."

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ausserland applauds the intent of this proposal, however, we would hesitate to support it as written. We believe that the word sentient should be replaced in all occurrences with sapient. Allow us to quote a brief passage from Wikipedia in support of this suggestion:

"Sapience is the ability of an organism or entity to act with intelligence. Sapience is synonymous with some usages of the term sentient, though the two are not exactly equal: sentience is the ability to sense or feel, while sapience is the ability to think about sensations, feelings and ideas. In usage, sentience and sapience both imply some form or state of consciousness, although consciousness is not strictly required in the case of sentience (as applied to plant life, which ordinarily react to the stimuli of warmth and ultraviolet radiation from the sun)."

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

we didnt know the term sapient before, but we also think it will be more apropiate
it will be also great to write a short and clear definition of the term "sapient" at the beginning of the resolution

Looks ok. All my complaints I know you won't care for because of your National Sovereigntist position so I'll go with it as is.

'Sapient' would appear to be a better term to use.

Synonyms within Context: Sentient

Context Synonyms within Context (source: adapted from Roget's Thesaurus).
Feeling Adjective: feeling; Verb: sentient; sensuous; sensorial, sensory; emotive, emotional; of feeling, with feeling; n.
Physical Sensibility Adjective: sensible, sensitive, sensuous; aesthetic, perceptive, sentient; conscious. (aware).

Synonyms within Context: Sapient

Context Synonyms within Context (source: adapted from Roget's Thesaurus).
Intelligence Wisdom Wise, sage, sapient, sagacious, reasonable, rational, sound, in one's right mind, sensible, abnormis sapiens, judicious, strong-minded.


Finaly got my dang translator working here.

Looking at what came up on the two words find that SAPIENT would for me be better understood word.. We would hope that before one gives anything certain rights that they be in their 'right mind' to start with and the other does not cover the mental conditions of the subject.

For those that have the abiltity this is a link to 'translator' as I hope the dang thing works as it is neither Sapient nor Sentient.. More "Natural" than anything.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/sapient

As a nation that not only has humans, but also Neko, Kitsune, Segonune, Naga, Nekoite, Cervidine, Elf, and Hyperboreans, as well as Electronic Intelligences, we find you assertations to be blantantly offensive, backwards, and pitifully uninformed.


Hey, how did you know our national anthem?

I'll support either sapient or sentient, but I'd like to say that I do feel the word sapient would probably meet our needs.

One could also use Apperception (http://www.answers.com/topic/apperception?method=5&linktext=apperception). I think it would be acceptable to use any of these terms, as long as the individual nation is allowed to define it's application.

One could also use Apperception (http://www.answers.com/topic/apperception?method=5&linktext=apperception). I think it would be acceptable to use any of these terms, as long as the individual nation is allowed to define it's application.


I see that this Apperception is a process thus here we need references to that which would or could perform a process not the process itself.. Thus Sapient Being or Sentient Beings need to have abilty to do this process if that be the desire of the nations involved to grant rights to the being..

2) The process of understanding by which newly observed qualities of an object are related to past experience.

I see that this Apperception is a process thus here we need references to that which would or could perform a process not the process itself.. Thus Sapient Being or Sentient Beings need to have abilty to do this process if that be the desire of the nations involved to grant rights to the being..

2) The process of understanding by which newly observed qualities of an object are related to past experience.
OOC:If it was my resolution, I would just stick with sentient. Sapient is O.K. too, but less well known. I was offering apperception (apperceptive?) as an example.

Resolution #36
Freedom of Humor
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The Orion Nebula
Description: Whereas all the enlightened nations of the world recognize that sentient beings possess certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And whereas these same nations delineate many of these rights and recognize that pre-eminent among them is the freedom of speech and expression.
And whereas humor is not merely a pathway toward increased happiness, but can also be used to make important points more gently and succinctly than would otherwise be possible,
Therefore let it be resolved that the member states of the United Nations recognize the right to humor as a fundamental right of sentient beings.
And let it be further resolved that the member states of the United Nations shall make no laws preventing any sentient being from exercising this right to humor except where said exercise is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community or where said exercise is unduly hurtful to a particular individual or group.


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

My question is what is the definition of Sentient Beings as it is applied in R #36 and should it not also be applied to any new proposals for Sintient Beings.. As how can we have two separate meaning for what should be one... Thus to move this proposal to say Sapient Beings would avoid an already defined subject... per R #36. of Sentient Beings.

Also this new proposal may violate R #36 final statement that covers making laws about Sentient Beings.. Forgive me if I'm out of line but trying to understand the process. -- except where said exercise is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community or where said exercise is unduly hurtful to a particular individual or group. -- so I find this new proposal is one that is contrary to something in my nation thus you can't make it.. even for the good of Sentient Beings because this would let them laugh thus humor..

My question is what is the definition of Sentient Beings as it is applied in R #36 and should it not also be applied to any new proposals for Sintient Beings.. As how can we have two separate meaning for what should be one... Thus to move this proposal to say Sapient Beings would avoid an already defined subject... per R #36. of Sentient Beings.

Not really. It means that the two may (depending on how the nation defined sentience and sapience) apply to different groups, or the may apply to the same ones. However, they do not contradict each other - and in the cases of those that they both apply to, they basically overlap each other (since they effectively do the same thing - only this resolution is for ALL Human rights)

Also this new proposal may violate R #36 final statement that covers making laws about Sentient Beings.. Forgive me if I'm out of line but trying to understand the process. -- except where said exercise is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community or where said exercise is unduly hurtful to a particular individual or group. -- so I find this new proposal is one that is contrary to something in my nation thus you can't make it.. even for the good of Sentient Beings because this would let them laugh thus humor..

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. In my eyes, #36 says "these rights shall extend to all sentient beings" whereas this one says "any rights granted to a human should be granted to all other sentient/sapient beings as well" - which means it overlaps #36 instead of contradicting it.

Sentient or sapient is fine with me, but I would favor sentient because it is more commonly known regardless of my personal fondness for other words like "sapient". Basically, I want as many people as possible to know the words in the proposal. Debates over passed resolutions (whether here or in a number of small regions) have shown me that you can lose quite a few votes when you use too many uncommon words and make your proposal difficult for the average person to understand. And since I'm not offering a definition in the proposal, the distinction would likely be irrelevant to most anyway.

I'm not sure where going with this one as feel that R #36 has already defined Sentient Being and given them certain rights... Arguements have been here about what Sentient Beings are but that should have been inclusive in R #36.. Thus a reason to repeal it so can redefine or even define what it didn't. Also if you define it here and didn't in R #36 you may be changing the intent of R #36 by how you redefine Sentient Beings... Thus change who/what R #36 might have included. To me Sentient Being has been defined and I know who/what to apply R #36 toward. Other wise we have problems as now we want to give them more rights than just humor and possibly extend the definition to something not originaly included in R #36..

Am I making sense... Forgive me as still trying to drift between RP and RL thouhts here.


Texas.. My concern is that the term Sentient Being is already used in R #36 and thus should have been clearly defined in it thus establishing what they are... clearly for everyone. To redefine them and then give Sentient beings additional rights besides humor is ammending the definition established by R #36 and the giving them additional rights not given in R #36... To do that would you need to repeal R #36 if you maintain Sentient Beings.. as the subject of your proposal...

I'm not sure where going with this one as feel that R #36 has already defined Sentient Being and given them certain rights... Arguements have been here about what Sentient Beings are but that should have been inclusive in R #36.. Thus a reason to repeal it so can redefine or even define what it didn't. Also if you define it here and didn't in R #36 you may be changing the intent of R #36 by how you redefine Sentient Beings... Thus change who/what R #36 might have included. To me Sentient Being has been defined and I know who/what to apply R #36 toward. Other wise we have problems as now we want to give them more rights than just humor and possibly extend the definition to something not originaly included in R #36..

Am I making sense... Forgive me as still trying to drift between RP and RL thouhts here.

I think I see where you're going, however, I disagree. In neither this resolution nor Resolution 36 was sentient defined - it was just granted rights - not at the exclusion of all other rights, just granted rights. It's like the Human rights category - we give people rights from one resolution - and the next resolution gives more rights on top of the ones already given. Here we just say that not only do we feel that humor should be given to all sentient beings, but ALL rights granted to humans should be given to sentient beings.

True they may not have been defined SB in the Resolution but in order for it to be applied their has to be some definition of SB to go by... So R #36 set a definition... to Sentient Beings thus any new definition formed after it can be seen as amending the original definition or even changing it completly. As I if say in this new one they define Sentient Beings as now having Blue Eyes... I could argue that in the initial depate and intent of R #36 that they were only with Green Eyes. Somewhere they had to set up what was Sentient Being or not.. The fact that they didn't was a fault of the original thus to come along and now define it is sort of correcting that error... or ammending R #36 by now defining what it didn't...

I'm not sure where going with this one as feel that R #36 has already defined Sentient Being and given them certain rights... Arguements have been here about what Sentient Beings are but that should have been inclusive in R #36.. Thus a reason to repeal it so can redefine or even define what it didn't. Also if you define it here and didn't in R #36 you may be changing the intent of R #36 by how you redefine Sentient Beings... Thus change who/what R #36 might have included. To me Sentient Being has been defined and I know who/what to apply R #36 toward. Other wise we have problems as now we want to give them more rights than just humor and possibly extend the definition to something not originaly included in R #36..

Am I making sense... Forgive me as still trying to drift between RP and RL thouhts here.

Ok. I think you're saying that if I were to redefine sentience in the context of the proposal I would be making an amendment, which is illegal.

No worries. I have no plans to define sentience in this proposal, so that wouldn't be a problem. And as it stands the proposal would not make any amendment whatsoever to any resolution were it to pass. It would extend what has already been granted, but lots of resolutions do that and it's perfectly legal.

So the nation just applies the sentience definition they used before to the new resolution. If they defined it as blue eyes before, e-gads, they defined it as blue eyes again. If they decide to say "Sentient beings only consist of humans, but sapient beings also include dwarves, and we grant the freedom of humor to sapient beings as well", then they are actually going above and beyond the requirements of the resolutions in question.

Regardless, if we defined sentient beings differently than what the nation had previously defined it, I would argue the nation would be required to modify its definition of sentience to come into line with that of the UN (in fact, its definition would be overruled by the UN's). See my comment about how that applies to necessity in my last post on the "alternate view on resolution 110" thread.

Then I can agree with that as just feel that you don't need to redefine what is already defined even if in Game Only... and understand extending ones rights in different areas or over other issue as being not ammending...

To me to define SB would be not allowing individual nations to do so... As R #36 didn't do it so it left it up to individuals to define SB as they see fit... Had they defined SB the arguement would be rule wise amending R #36 proposal wise... That R #36 has already defined them and you have either lowered the grouping or added to SB.. also have taken individual nations rights to define SB away.

Thanks for listening and clearing me up on this...

Then I can agree with that as just feel that you don't need to redefine what is already defined even if in Game Only... and understand extending ones rights in different areas or over other issue as being not ammending...

To me to define SB would be not allowing individual nations to do so... As R #36 didn't do it so it left it up to individuals to define SB as they see fit... Had they defined SB the arguement would be rule wise amending R #36 proposal wise... That R #36 has already defined them and you have either lowered the grouping or added to SB.. also have taken individual nations rights to define SB away.

Thanks for listening and clearing me up on this...

No problem. I like to help people understand the rules, and I imagine Forgottenlands does too.

Now on an entirely record-keeping note...

Approvals: 20 (Shoot_The_Moon, Howard Wong, Flibbleites, Nelvaan, Yeldan UN Mission, Liberialand, Xanthal, -Free Luna-, Binhaii, The Sanctuary Islands, Litzkrieg, The Bruce, Witherspoon, Love and esterel, Newtron, Ecopoeia, Green Wik, Gerolsteiner, Punrovia, Aquarian Arcadia)

You both were a lot of help and I checked the one on 110 out but will have to go back and look at it later when more awake than now...

Was going to ask why your name not on list of those endorsing then realized only deligates can do that and not all making these have that status...

I would definitely vote for this.

I'd define 'intelligent life' (for the purposes of this resolution, whether you call it sentient or sapient) as 'any being with suffiecient intelligence to understand and acknowledge its role in society' or something like that. That covers anything intelligent enough to be worth covering.

Once again, Ausserland respectfully urges the substitution of sapient for sentient in this resolution. As one member has correctly pointed out, sentient is a much more familiar term. All else being equal, we would gladly accept its use. The problem arises from the fact that, although it is often misused (especially, it seems, by writers of science fiction), it has a quite specific meaning. We cite the definitions from several reputable dictionaries:

Responsive to or conscious of sense impressions (Merriam-Webster)
Able to experience physical and possibly emotional feelings (Cambridge)
Having sense perception (American Heritage)
Able to perceive or feel things (Compact Oxford)
Having the capacity to receive sensations; able to perceive (Wordsmyth)
Having the power of perception by the senses; conscious (Infoplease)

And another article in the Wikipedia comments:

Sentience is the capacity for basic consciousness — the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connotate knowledge, higher consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different meanings in English. (One can easily distinguish the two by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".)

We believe that the use of this term extends the scope and effect of the resolution far beyond the intent of the honorable proposer. We could not possibly vote in favor of a resolution that could properly be read as extending "human rights" to -- for example -- rattlesnakes, crows, badgers and sewer rats.

Sapience is less easily defined and is variously defined in various sources, but carries a clear connotation of intelligence. We believe it is the appropriate term for use here.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I would definitely vote for this.

I'd define 'intelligent life' (for the purposes of this resolution) as 'any being with suffiecient intelligence to understand and acknowledge its role in society' or something like that. That covers anything intelligent enough to be worth covering.


From my point of view the issue here is not so much the proposal as it stands but that some part of it might set a definition of a word to where one would be offended and another very happy with it. Thus the solution is to leave out defining it and let each retain their own definition of the word. Example... Say we allow Melborn Muts the right to vote. We let each nation grant rights to their Melborn Muts. If they don't have them then the resolution is not applied and they don't need to deal with it.. except in the context of peace between them and other UN members who do have them. Thus the UN is doing what it was designed to do promote peace by recconizing that not every nation sees things the same way.. it just lets them know that fact of life. thus promotes peace.....

And I have no idea what a Melborn Mut is.. they became extinct years ago here... only a few women still wear their hides and have jewelery from their teeth and bones. There meat was not suited to eat but made good shark bait.

[Unread individual] (I.E. I was too lazy to go through the entire thread this time around)

Simple, clean, brilliant. Ties it all together in just a few sentences, and supports a pretty good cause. I like. Pojo the sentient firebreathing chicken approves, telegram me when it's gone to the approvals list in case I miss it.

As a representative of a nation that is over 99% non-human, I do say this resolution is a good start and a good idea. However I have to express that it is quite inperfect.

1. As many have pointed out, it is very subjective as far as what sentient means. But the same goes for sapient and intelligent. One suggestion would be to move away from the test of what a person is entirely.

2. The resolution is rather non-binding. Where as other resolutions have stated requirements such as in Resolutions #25, 26, 27, ect, this one is more of a suggestion to the UN member nations that it might be a good idea. Tinis would vote for it but it would be disapointed in its lack of staying power. It seems the UN is growing more afraid to take firm stands on certain issues such as universal rights and the like.

The Union of Tinis makes the following recomendations:

1. Leave out the sentience and related qualifiers and instead base it around equal rights amung all persons, human or non-human.

2. Require that all persons are treated equally under the law in every member nation. And in addition, extend all rights and responsibilities granted by previous and future UN resolutions to all persons as well. This might look like an amendment, yet this requirement does not modify previous resolutions but basically duplicates them but explicitly non-human persons. For those of you who now say that this is duplication, calm down and think about it. If a resolution grants righs to X, and a different resolution grants the same rights to Y, they are still different resolutions that affect different spheres of influence. The first and second resolution may look similar but the difference of who they affect make them different resolutions with no duplication.

3. Create a seperate resolution that tries to define what a person is. This can be the place where eveyone tries to discriminate and the like. But make sure to state in the seperate resolution that its primary use is as a reference document of definitions that will be used for past present and future resolutions. Aka, keep the controversy of intelligence/sentience/sapients away from the equality resolution.

4. In the final text of the resolution, include a pharse such as this:
'OBSERVING the abuse, humiliation, and torture of various non-humans at the hands of humans caused bye the sole factor that the subjects of the crimes was non-human. And furthur OBSERVING the tendency of some nations with few or no humans in their populace to ignore certain United Nations resolutions due to the technicallity of their populaces being non-human to the extreme deteriment of their citizenry. And furthur OBSERVING the unfair condition this not only makes to the citizens of said nations but the fact that these nations can get away with unspeakable attrocities with out answering for their crimes, but not human dominated nations...'

This statement both explains that yes, there are bad things that happen because individuals such as myself are not human, that some UN nations get away with murder, literally, because they are of a non-human nature, and also that this disparity of responsibility is quite insulting to human dominated nations. The last big I hope will show some of the more conservative or rigth leaning human nations that perhaps this resolution is a good idea for the simple fact that they might see it and think 'well I can't do it, why should those freaks down the road be able to?' and thus hopefully vote yes when the vote comes.

I'll be keeping watch of this resolution. Please keep me informed in the event that this resolution fails and a newer and better one is proposed.

As a representative of a nation that is over 99% non-human, I do say this resolution is a good start and a good idea. However I have to express that it is quite inperfect.

1. As many have pointed out, it is very subjective as far as what sentient means. But the same goes for sapient and intelligent. One suggestion would be to move away from the test of what a person is entirely.

We're asking for more qualifiers - you're asking for less. Don't think it's going to happen. We're basically trying to get nations to recognize more species as "persons" because they are sapient/sentient/intelligent/etc

2. The resolution is rather non-binding. Where as other resolutions have stated requirements such as in Resolutions #25, 26, 27, ect, this one is more of a suggestion to the UN member nations that it might be a good idea. Tinis would vote for it but it would be disapointed in its lack of staying power. It seems the UN is growing more afraid to take firm stands on certain issues such as universal rights and the like.

That is much more a personal issue with the proposal author. You aren't going to win that battle - don't bother fighting it

The Union of Tinis makes the following recomendations:

1. Leave out the sentience and related qualifiers and instead base it around equal rights amung all persons, human or non-human.

2. Require that all persons are treated equally under the law in every member nation. And in addition, extend all rights and responsibilities granted by previous and future UN resolutions to all persons as well. This might look like an amendment, yet this requirement does not modify previous resolutions but basically duplicates them but explicitly non-human persons. For those of you who now say that this is duplication, calm down and think about it. If a resolution grants righs to X, and a different resolution grants the same rights to Y, they are still different resolutions that affect different spheres of influence. The first and second resolution may look similar but the difference of who they affect make them different resolutions with no duplication.

No - it's not duplication - it just does less than we want it to because it isn't trying to get nations to recognize more races - instead it's trying to provide rights to races the nation already recognizes - which (for the majority that we're trying to reach, includes.....humans and nothing else - and thus provides them with nothing we haven't already done)

3. Create a seperate resolution that tries to define what a person is. This can be the place where eveyone tries to discriminate and the like. But make sure to state in the seperate resolution that its primary use is as a reference document of definitions that will be used for past present and future resolutions. Aka, keep the controversy of intelligence/sentience/sapients away from the equality resolution.

It's just plain easier to combine them. Honestly - I want to grab most of the resolutions granting equality rights (and this will be added to the list) and just repeal them all and replace them with a general equality act which will give equal rights to people regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, or species and guaranteeing rights for clones and I think another group but their name escapes me - combined which currenlty count for at least 5 possibly as high as 10 resolutions.

4. In the final text of the resolution, include a pharse such as this:
'OBSERVING the abuse, humiliation, and torture of various non-humans at the hands of humans caused bye the sole factor that the subjects of the crimes was non-human. And furthur OBSERVING the tendency of some nations with few or no humans in their populace to ignore certain United Nations resolutions due to the technicallity of their populaces being non-human to the extreme deteriment of their citizenry. And furthur OBSERVING the unfair condition this not only makes to the citizens of said nations but the fact that these nations can get away with unspeakable attrocities with out answering for their crimes, but not human dominated nations...'

That might not be a bad idea

This statement both explains that yes, there are bad things that happen because individuals such as myself are not human, that some UN nations get away with murder, literally, because they are of a non-human nature, and also that this disparity of responsibility is quite insulting to human dominated nations. The last big I hope will show some of the more conservative or rigth leaning human nations that perhaps this resolution is a good idea for the simple fact that they might see it and think 'well I can't do it, why should those freaks down the road be able to?' and thus hopefully vote yes when the vote comes.

I'll be keeping watch of this resolution. Please keep me informed in the event that this resolution fails and a newer and better one is proposed.

we think it will not be easy to write such a good and popular resolution, but we will strongly support future proposal about sentient (or sapient or...) beings

Please excuse my ignorance, but what exactly qualifies as a sentient being?

I mean, if we follow the denotation of sentient, then it would mean any living being having sense perception. Which would qualify even dolphins as having all of these rights.

So do we mean, all sentient beings, or E.T beings?

Please excuse my ignorance, but what exactly qualifies as a sentient being?

I mean, if we follow the denotation of sentient, then it would mean any living being having sense perception. Which would qualify even dolphins as having all of these rights.

So do we mean, all sentient beings, or E.T beings?

Considering it's...well... TH - whatever the nation ****ing decides

Please excuse my ignorance, but what exactly qualifies as a sentient being?

I mean, if we follow the denotation of sentient, then it would mean any living being having sense perception. Which would qualify even dolphins as having all of these rights.


Exactly. Sentient has a clear dictionary meaning, as we tried to point out earlier in this discussion. It is simply not the proper word for use in this resolution. A better term would be sapient, which connotes intelligence. Or a definition of what beings the resolution covers might be in order. The intent of the proposal is excellent; its effect would be far different than the intent.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

If everyone is set on keeping it based around the sentience/sapience qualifier then I certainly hope the final wording will be direct and conscise and leave little wiggle room to convienetly 'missclassify' thinking persons by more despotic nations.

As for which to use, my government is leaning towards using sapience, due to sentience being a more debatable term. Of course to insure that its properly understood, a definition of such needs to be included that spells out the qualities that if possessed make something sapient. Here's a suggested list:

'A sentient being is a life form or similar construct that contains one or more of these aspects:

1. The ability to communicate information of a factual and not emotional nature to another being.
2. The ability to understand the rights and responsibilities given to it by its government or the United Nations.
3. The ability to express a claim to its rights and responsibilities given to it by its government or the United Nations.
4. The ability, in the case of biological life forms, to ignore instinct and partake in actions that run counter to instinct or away from instincts domain of control.
5. The ability, in the case of non-biological life forms, to act against its programming or to partake in actions not granted it by its origional programming.
6. Any being capable of learning the use and production of advanced tools; ie, tools that are more complex than levers, ramps, pokers, screws, wheels, pullys, and wedges.
7. Any being that is capable of self sacrifice beyond the protection of family members and offspring.'

I hope you can use my suggestion.

-Secretary of State Waldo

I oppose this resolution on the following grounds: 1) It dictates to other nations how they should treat their own native beings/creatures/wildlife; 2) I am sick and tired of all these animal-rights proposals; 3) This resolution mostly applies to beings in FT and PT nations, most of whom pay little or no mind to U.N. discussions/mandates anyway; 4) This resolution will invite a circus of loopy nations to argue in its favor by noting that their nations are actually ruled/occupied by intelligent dolphins, intelligent penguins, intelligent hamsters, intelligent space overlords, intelligent weasels, intelligent mindless drones -- whatever -- whose legal rights have never been recognized.

I can have fun in the way I roleplay my nation as much as the next guy, but U.N. resolutions should only assume sentience (or "sapience" or whatever the heck you wanna call it) for human beings. Even the sentience of dolphins and chimpanzees hasn't been proven absolutely.

It is the opinion of the Democratic Republic of Tajiri_san that this bill is rather too vague and has no place in the UN as unless there are Extraterrestrials living on this planet in UN countries i don't feel i would do anything anyway.

It is the opinion of the Democratic Republic of Tajiri_san that this bill is rather too vague and has no place in the UN as unless there are Extraterrestrials living on this planet in UN countries i don't feel i would do anything anyway.
Actually UN members are not just human, there are (and this is only what I can remember off the top of my head) humans, elves, dwarves, robots, sentient penguins, etc. Not to mention the fact that some UN nations are not even on Earth.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I oppose this resolution on the following grounds: 1) It dictates to other nations how they should treat their own native beings/creatures/wildlife; 2) I am sick and tired of all these animal-rights proposals; 3) This resolution mostly applies to beings in FT and PT nations, most of whom pay little or no mind to U.N. discussions/mandates anyway; 4) This resolution will invite a circus of loopy nations to argue in its favor by noting that their nations are actually ruled/occupied by intelligent dolphins, intelligent penguins, intelligent hamsters, intelligent space overlords, intelligent weasels, intelligent mindless drones -- whatever -- whose legal rights have never been recognized.

I can have fun in the way I roleplay my nation as much as the next guy, but U.N. resolutions should only assume sentience (or "sapience" or whatever the heck you wanna call it) for human beings. Even the sentience of dolphins and chimpanzees hasn't been proven absolutely.

Actually.....modern tech can still have extraterrestrial life forms - and many modern techs roleplay with newly arrived extraterrestrial visitors. This has very little to do with "intelligent" animals - but applies when nations have found animals that are truly intelligent enough to be considered citizens. Additionally, it works as a way to try and prevent maltreatment of various intelligent species by various Future and Post-Modern Tech - who are supposed to follow resolutions just as much as us. If you feel there are no intelligent lifeforms in your nation other than human - then it is your right to ignore this resolution as it is irrelevant to you

Try again

I don't know weather to find it funny or extremely sad that there are nations out there who still refuse to believe they are reading the words of a raccoon.

But anyway, the fact that some nations can wiggle out of a resolution due to a limited human only world view causes my government, if a qualifier is to included in this resolution, that the qualifier of what this resolution covers be strict and irrefutable. Heance my suggestion for a concrete definition. If the life forms in your nation do not fit the requirements, then you should have no issues with the idea of this resolution. If they do, and you wish to continue to abuse the rights of intelligent beings, then it is your right to oppose the resolution as is your right under the UN, but if the resolution passes you must either accept the rules or leave the UN. And if you're leaving the UN because you refuse to accept the simple fact that you may not be alone in the universe, then Tinis will shed no tears over your leaving.

But I do hope that the UN will come to in senses and finally recognize the existance and rights of non-humans. Being one myself, I would have to thank the international community on that day for their wisdom.

[btw, I'm almost always in character when I'm doing UN or international stuff]

I support a resolution that would affirm the rights of sapient beings, however my country maintains that non-sapient beings do not have rights, simply that sapient beings have the responsibility to treat non-sapient beings respectfully.

I don't know weather to find it funny or extremely sad that there are nations out there who still refuse to believe they are reading the words of a raccoon.

But anyway, the fact that some nations can wiggle out of a resolution due to a limited human only world view causes my government, if a qualifier is to included in this resolution, that the qualifier of what this resolution covers be strict and irrefutable. Heance my suggestion for a concrete definition. If the life forms in your nation do not fit the requirements, then you should have no issues with the idea of this resolution. If they do, and you wish to continue to abuse the rights of intelligent beings, then it is your right to oppose the resolution as is your right under the UN, but if the resolution passes you must either accept the rules or leave the UN. And if you're leaving the UN because you refuse to accept the simple fact that you may not be alone in the universe, then Tinis will shed no tears over your leaving.

But I do hope that the UN will come to in senses and finally recognize the existance and rights of non-humans. Being one myself, I would have to thank the international community on that day for their wisdom.

[btw, I'm almost always in character when I'm doing UN or international stuff]

And this is why I shall be voting against this resolution when it comes to vote. TH, I love the idea, but I'm finding more and more myself at odds with your National Sovereignty beliefs. I commend you on holding such beliefs, but for me, I just cannot bring myself to push something through that has no teeth.

Exactly. Sentient has a clear dictionary meaning, as we tried to point out earlier in this discussion. It is simply not the proper word for use in this resolution. A better term would be sapient, which connotes intelligence. Or a definition of what beings the resolution covers might be in order. The intent of the proposal is excellent; its effect would be far different than the intent.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations
I would agree that 'sapient' would be better used here than 'sentient'.
Other than that bit, it is a proposal of a sort that I had been hoping would get into the UN for a while. I'd vote for it. Sure, it doesn't have much by way of 'teeth', but to me the principle counts, and I rather doubt that anyone would be able to push through a proposal with a satisfactory definition of sapience and self-awareness and such.

And this is why I shall be voting against this resolution when it comes to vote. TH, I love the idea, but I'm finding more and more myself at odds with your National Sovereignty beliefs. I commend you on holding such beliefs, but for me, I just cannot bring myself to push something through that has no teeth.

OOC: Hmmmm. Have you ever considered doing a cost-benefit analysis on both the resololutions that have strict language and those that do not and then comparing the two? My conclusion from doing such an analysis was that the net benefits of strict resolutions was negligible and that the negative reprecussions were considerable, while the net benefits of those that are 'toothless' are also negligible while having much less negative consequences.

That said, I understand the motivations behind what I call the "universal policy" approach. I just don't see the arguments for it as being any better than the arguments for the "national sovereignty" approach. And if the arguments are no worse and the results are better...I will support the "national sovereignty" approach every time, regardless of how negligible I feel the benefits will be. *shrug*

I oppose this resolution on the following grounds: 1) It dictates to other nations how they should treat their own native beings/creatures/wildlife; 2) I am sick and tired of all these animal-rights proposals; 3) This resolution mostly applies to beings in FT and PT nations, most of whom pay little or no mind to U.N. discussions/mandates anyway; 4) This resolution will invite a circus of loopy nations to argue in its favor by noting that their nations are actually ruled/occupied by intelligent dolphins, intelligent penguins, intelligent hamsters, intelligent space overlords, intelligent weasels, intelligent mindless drones -- whatever -- whose legal rights have never been recognized.

I can have fun in the way I roleplay my nation as much as the next guy, but U.N. resolutions should only assume sentience (or "sapience" or whatever the heck you wanna call it) for human beings. Even the sentience of dolphins and chimpanzees hasn't been proven absolutely.

Actually, my own nation roleplays itself as having citizens that are sentient/sapient robots and otherwise non-human, and it's MT. I've seen several other MT nations do the same (in various regions across NS).

Have you considered changing "sentient" to "sapient" and submitting it again to see if it gets a different amount of support?

Have you considered changing "sentient" to "sapient" and submitting it again to see if it gets a different amount of support?

I could, but I don't think it would provide us with any useful data. Delegates tend to be more knowledgeable than the rest of the voting population (though not always) and I would expect the Delegates to be more understanding of the sapient/sentient distinction than the average UN member.

I could, but I don't think it would provide us with any useful data. Delegates tend to be more knowledgeable than the rest of the voting population (though not always) and I would expect the Delegates to be more understanding of the sapient/sentient distinction than the average UN member.

We apologize, but we're not sure of the meaning here. We agree that most delegates are perhaps more knowledgeable that the rest of the voting population and more likely to understand the difference between sapient and sentient. We believe that this is clearly a point in favor of the suggestion made by the Yeldan UN Mission. Several posters in this thread have expressed a preference for use of sapient in lieu of the over-broad sentient. The honorable delegate from Tinis also had some excellent suggestions for defining the scope of coverage. We believe that discarding the inappropriate sentient in favor of either of these approaches would garner additional approvals. We can pretty much guarantee at least one -- from our own regional delegate. :)

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

We apologize, but we're not sure of the meaning here. We agree that most delegates are perhaps more knowledgeable that the rest of the voting population and more likely to understand the difference between sapient and sentient. We believe that this is clearly a point in favor of the suggestion made by the Yeldan UN Mission. Several posters in this thread have expressed a preference for use of sapient in lieu of the over-broad sentient. The honorable delegate from Tinis also had some excellent suggestions for defining the scope of coverage. We believe that discarding the inappropriate sentient in favor of either of these approaches would garner additional approvals. We can pretty much guarantee at least one -- from our own regional delegate. :)

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

With respect, that seems irrelevant to me. To make it perfectly clear -- I prefer the word sapient. I just think it'll lose too many votes from the general membership if it's not readily understandable. I've seen far too many cases of votes being cast against a resolution because a member couldn't understand a resolution to ignore that as a factor, but garnering the requisite number of Delegate approvals is relatively easy and doesn't require my explaining the definition of sapient to them.

If you're suggesting that I do something to lose votes while making more sense...then I may well change it. I'll just need to see more compelling argumentation than what has been presented so far.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I note a few things:

1) Delegates have considerable voting power, so it is difficult to weigh them against the general populace

2) Some will vote this resolution down because they thing sentience is too broad (even though it's a recommendation resolution and sentience is left for nations to define - you just KNOW those that oppose on grounds of "National Sovereignty" are going to come out of the woodwork and bash you for infringing upon their national sovereignty :D)

3) Sapient species they may confuse with Homo Sapient and thus feel that...well...this is a good resolution that way (or they may see that as further reason to turn it down)

4) I think most people will at least be able to get the gist of Sapience - even if they don't understand the full specifics.

Hows about, since we have things like nations of Racoons and Pengins and other non human species, Sentient or Spient be defined as any species caipable of organising a country?

Hows about, since we have things like nations of Racoons and Pengins and other non human species, Sentient or Spient be defined as any species caipable of organising a country?

Very good suggestion. Add that to my recomendations as well.

As for nations who will come out about it for national soverignty reasons, they'll be doing it weather we have a tough definition or not. Thus unless the route of a second resolution that defines such things a sentient beings is taken, I still support a strong definition in this resolution.