NationStates Jolt Archive

As the discussion goes on to repeal resolutions on protection of dolfins and, suddenly also, whales, apparently to replace it with a more general resolution on protection of wild life, but who knows, we would like to open this thread to see if a resolution about "Saving the elefants" would get much approval.

Our arguments are, of course, that these magnificent wildlife creatures are hunted down for their huge ivory teeth and that this is against their rights as animals and simply barbaric of humans.

Secondly, if dolfins and whales are protected by UN-resolutions, this is discriminatory against elefants who certainly need our protection as well, or is the UN just interested in sea-life?

Third, after seeing two threads in here, one about dolfins, one about whales, I thought I just had to do that!

And THAT is why we need a general resolution

As the discussion goes on to repeal resolutions on protection of dolfins and, suddenly also, whales, apparently to replace it with a more general resolution on protection of wild life, but who knows, we would like to open this thread to see if a resolution about "Saving the elefants" would get much approval.

Our arguments are, of course, that these magnificent wildlife creatures are hunted down for their huge ivory teeth and that this is against their rights as animals and simply barbaric of humans.

Secondly, if dolfins and whales are protected by UN-resolutions, this is discriminatory against elefants who certainly need our protection as well, or is the UN just interested in sea-life?

Third, after seeing two threads in here, one about dolfins, one about whales, I thought I just had to do that!


What's an "elefant"?

And THAT is why we need a general resolution
I see someone immediately understood my point here! :p

Its a smaller less developed elephant...think pigmy elephant

What's an "elefant"?
Yeah right, you are mostly english in here ... elephant seem righter in the spieling; ist it not? :headbang:

Not to forget the Hephalumps!

A draft for a single Conservation bill is formed and shall be here soon. It shall encompass all wild life on land, in the oceans and in the sky.

Firstly, if you're starting a thread simply as a counterargument to a seperate thread you shouldn't have ever left the thread in the first place. Requesting a mod merge here, I suppose.

Secondly, keep in mind that while I'm in full support of keeping the dolphin resolution, that doesn't mean I think a more encompassing resolution wouldn't be a better idea than continually passing a lot of little ones.

Thirdly, elephants is spelled with a PH. I'm fairly certain it doesn't matter if you're English or American.

Firstly, if you're starting a thread simply as a counterargument to a seperate thread you shouldn't have ever left the thread in the first place. Requesting a mod merge here, I suppose.

Secondly, keep in mind that while I'm in full support of keeping the dolphin resolution, that doesn't mean I think a more encompassing resolution wouldn't be a better idea than continually passing a lot of little ones.

Thirdly, elephants is spelled with a PH.

Here is somebody who didn't get the point AND didn't read the whole thread! Thank you for blaming me, I really appreciate that.

OOC: I believe Cally24 meant that he/she is not a native English speaker. Given that American English has amended some 'ph' words to have 'f' instead, it's not surprising that they spelt it incorrectly.

Let's try not to jump on people for their spelling, at least until you've established whether or not English is their first language.

OOC: I believe Cally24 meant that he/she is not a native English speaker. Given that American English has amended some 'ph' words to have 'f' instead, it's not surprising that they spelt it incorrectly.

Let's try not to jump on people for their spelling, at least until you've established whether or not English is their first language.
Not to mention that cally24 was also taking the proverbial Mikey in an attempt to point out one of my reasons for repealing the dolphin and whale resolutions in favour of a single proposal for all wildlife.
For some reason lost on some people? :D

OOC: I believe Cally24 meant that he/she is not a native English speaker. Given that American English has amended some 'ph' words to have 'f' instead, it's not surprising that they spelt it incorrectly.

Let's try not to jump on people for their spelling, at least until you've established whether or not English is their first language.

Merci beaucoup pour votre intervention!
Sie haben richtig erfasst, dass Englisch nicht meine Muttersprache ist.
And dee blöden Pojonia ka mech emol am Aasch lecken!
I'm neither English nor American, and somehow proud of it. Thank you for your attention.

PS: In the meantime 5 wales, 16 dophlins and 35 ephalants have been killed ... Despite my spelling!

And THAT is why we need a general resolution

It has been my observation that:
Nations want general resolutions when it comes to dealing with natural resources or weapons, but when it comes as a chance to discuss human rights it seems that nations are interested in numerous specific resolutions.

My government is willing to look at any general or specific resolution. :)

It has been my observation that:
Nations want general resolutions when it comes to dealing with natural resources or weapons, but when it comes as a chance to discuss human rights it seems that nations are interested in numerous specific resolutions.

My government is willing to look at any general or specific resolution. :)

Actually - I'd love to take all the gay rights, minority rights, womens rights, the new transgender rights, clone rights, and the new non-human-sentient rights, clear them ALL out of the UN system and replace it with a single, all encompassing resolution. With exception to some important components with transgender rights (legal gender status), it wouldn't, actually, be too difficult to give all those rights to people (or long IMO). The problem is that's somewhere along the lines of....I think 7 or 8 repeals before I can submit a replacement.......one heck of a big time commitment.

Tell me about it!
I seen the repeal for the dolphins and somthing sparked in me! since then i ve been spending basically every spare moment i have on the computer.
Dolphin repeal .... Whale repeal..... Draft for UN conservation of wildlife bill.
I have to start a telegram campaign tonight for to have resolution 70 repealed in time to submit my draft to the delegates next week.

Some one call my wife and children...... tell them im sorry :D

I have to start a telegram campaign tonight for to have resolution 70 repealed in time to submit my draft to the delegates next week.
Send me a list of delegates and the text of the TG you're using. I can't help right now, but will be able to send several out tonight/tomorrow morning. I'll also help with the TG's for the new resolution when submitted. Voting on the repeal ends Saturday, so there is still time.

Our arguments are, of course, that these magnificent wildlife creatures are hunted down for their huge ivory teeth and that this is against their rights as animals and simply barbaric of humans.


Now are you talking here about the Big Eared ones that they abuses in the circus trying to make them fly.. Or the Small Eared ones that are abused because the can be maintained for just peanuts which are today cheaper than gas. Or the pretty pink ones that help sober up drunks. Or the full spiecies her... As I would not include Rogues as they tend to be more harm than usefull to humans. This is why we need one committee to determine if an animal meets set criteria to be protected and what extent that protection will be. Thus set a level of proof to get all members to protect it equal.. in all borders of the UN. As doing it one animal at a time will cost more for in the long run and take funds and attention from where they would best serve to protect the human animal who needs it more. Also this committee would provided defining endangered a key reason to protect one or not to protect them. Also it would have authority to advance it's considerations to include new ideas and animals under one set of established standards and then decide exactly what level of protection each might get. Example:

1) Pink Elephants... would get no protection not enough proof they do what is said they do,, sober up drunks,..
2) Bigeared Elephants... would ger protection because they are abused and overworked also stuffed with peanuts. Solution stop the abuse... cut their work week to 30 hours... feed them carrots in place of peanuts... replace them with machines that polute the air and use far to much gas
3) Smalleared Elephants... yes they are hunted... use saber sharks teeth in place of their ivory these are much better and there are more sharks and they are not protected under a single resolution...Yet! But that's coming just has to get the votes needed.
4) Dumbo Elephants... not get protection; as they eat money and do little for mankind but pass out more than a Bull might from the End..

One resolution and unbiased fair functioning sane committe is all we need... not hunders of crazy biased idiots only interested in themselves and their minor animal... This committee would also have the task of making members aware of what is being done to protect all animals,,, human and those we love and fid fuzzy wuzzie and our children (ever those old big hearted softies who cried when Dumbo crashed and hurt his backside not laughed) love so much in circus, zoos, and movies.

And forgive me if I forgot your national elephant here as I'm not a Zoologists or Biologists...... Just a person loves pickled elephant tongue dipped in bullhoney..

Actually - I'd love to take all the gay rights, minority rights, womens rights, the new transgender rights, clone rights, and the new non-human-sentient rights, clear them ALL out of the UN system and replace it with a single, all encompassing resolution. With exception to some important components with transgender rights (legal gender status), it wouldn't, actually, be too difficult to give all those rights to people (or long IMO). The problem is that's somewhere along the lines of....I think 7 or 8 repeals before I can submit a replacement.......one heck of a big time commitment.


Meanwhile the floor of the forum is being used to debate each proposal to protect each animal one at a time. Thus you will not get rid of all nukes, bugs, drugs in a single consoliated effort to protect the one animal we all need to be concerned about here... HUMAN or whatever spieces the membership find themselves in that may not be ANIMAL..

Efforts to protect all animals has the attention of the people as has been shown in the debates here. In turn some of the issues to protect them fall back to benifit Humans... Example if you stop all dumping dung in the oceans to protect the Dulleyed Dolphin then it helps Humans,,, if we don't cut down rainforest for the Dwarf Elephant then we gain the benifits of cleaner air as well as others one might argue we lose if we cut down them all. So in effect we may by doing it for All Animals finaly realizing that most of our membership can be classed as ANIMAL maybe not HUMAN but ANIMAL and thus they need a lot of protection. A single bill is possible to Protect All Animals if they all get smart know their own needs as one Spieces Animal with many beliefs, levels of intellegence, needs, wants, rights.

The UN is suppose to help bring us together in peace not split us into Pink, Bigeared, Gray, Dwarf, Blueyed, Gender, groups who alone are not going to survive without the other... As there are other groups out there who want what we have and will stop at nothing to get it from us.

I say Protect All Animals and you protect your own rights as if they have these rights they have no need to come get or take them from you... or away from you.... leaving you dead or having to find those rights again.. this is not peace it evil... and needs to be ended. or none will survive because we will destroy all... with either nukes or some bug or some drug.

OOC: And I appoligize for my typos and spell errors here.. As hate computers... think things should be changed on me. Also English would be my second language as I'm American not English.. and Southern American Rebel Redneck... so Even pure American is not my first language. Oh and I live in a trailer but don't drive a truck..

*sigh*

Another person seeking to tear down yet another house of cards to build a weaker set of cards.

Meanwhile the floor of the forum is being used to debate each proposal to protect each animal one at a time. Thus you will not get rid of all nukes, bugs, drugs in a single consoliated effort to protect the one animal we all need to be concerned about here... HUMAN or whatever spieces the membership find themselves in that may not be ANIMAL..

Efforts to protect all animals has the attention of the people as has been shown in the debates here. In turn some of the issues to protect them fall back to benifit Humans... Example if you stop all dumping dung in the oceans to protect the Dulleyed Dolphin then it helps Humans,,, if we don't cut down rainforest for the Dwarf Elephant then we gain the benifits of cleaner air as well as others one might argue we lose if we cut down them all. So in effect we may by doing it for All Animals finaly realizing that most of our membership can be classed as ANIMAL maybe not HUMAN but ANIMAL and thus they need a lot of protection. A single bill is possible to Protect All Animals if they all get smart know their own needs as one Spieces Animal with many beliefs, levels of intellegence, needs, wants, rights.

The UN is suppose to help bring us together in peace not split us into Pink, Bigeared, Gray, Dwarf, Blueyed, Gender, groups who alone are not going to survive without the other... As there are other groups out there who want what we have and will stop at nothing to get it from us.

I say Protect All Animals and you protect your own rights as if they have these rights they have no need to come get or take them from you... or away from you.... leaving you dead or having to find those rights again.. this is not peace it evil... and needs to be ended. or none will survive because we will destroy all... with either nukes or some bug or some drug.

OOC: And I appoligize for my typos and spell errors here.. As hate computers... think things should be changed on me. Also English would be my second language as I'm American not English.. and Southern American Rebel Redneck... so Even pure American is not my first language. Oh and I live in a trailer but don't drive a truck..

You protect ALL animals, you
1) Take away the ability to conduct any form of logging
2) Take away some religious rituals (in particular, those that require one to hunt/fish for a certain animal)
3) Food
4) Ability to expand
5) Ability to open up more farmland
6) Ability to do things like controlled burns which actually help prevent forrest fires
7) Ability to hunt (which does wonders with regulating populations where Humans have taken down most of the predators....partly because the predators are taking down Humans) or fish as a leisurely activity
8) Raise animals for food (Chickens, Cows, etc)

I see no reason to protect all animals. If animals are endangered, then we should stop hunting/fishing for them and let their populations regrow. Until then, there are much more important issues - such as feeding the population, recognizing religious rights, and considering those who have elected us.

*sigh*

Another person seeking to tear down yet another house of cards to build a weaker set of cards.

Yes, and I'm quite proud of that fact - because quite frankly, UN law is already WAAAAY too complex.

OOC: The UN is hardly that complex, if school children can understand what is being done here, then the complexity argument should be thrown out entirely.

Creating weakness for less complexity always leads to disaster.

You protect ALL animals, I see no reason to protect all animals. If animals are endangered,


If I have said give blanket protection to ALL ANIMALS on an equal bases then I have errored in presenting my thoughts... As I believe that we can establish one committee that will determine which ANIMAL is in need of protection Rather than the entire membership sit around debating the Pink Elephant warrants protect; while it may be moving toward extinction. As this committe wil educated membership of each animal on the list so they can take proper actions to protect them as needed. A single committee with establish procedures for putting any animal on a UN protection list and setting a level of protection for it would do better at educating the full membership than thousands of individual committees duplicating efforts to protect their own individual animals would..

Again my understanding of the UN is to get nations to work together not divide them on promoting peace on this world. We already face a great threat from some not in the UN who would prefer to see it divide and each nation be on their own. I'd look at who is apposing the one Animal Protection Act and consider that a divided UN is weaker than ONE UN standing together. As other than destroy command and supply of an Army the next best thing is to divide it from it's command and supplies, or spread it out so far command and supplies can't reach the forces in battle. Don't let this happen here.. or the UN will be destroyed because it can't work together to Protect Animals, of which Humans are a part of.

OOC: The UN is hardly that complex, if school children can understand what is being done here, then the complexity argument should be thrown out entirely.

What we are doing, they understand. What the resolutions do, their full effects, how this works in this scenario - these they don't understand as well.

Further, how many people actually seem to know what EVERY SINGLE resolution does in its entirity? We've got 4 resolutions that effectively give gay people rights - not all of them say they are gay rights resolutions, but they succeed in doing so anyways. However, the protections they give are different (while some of them are overlapping). Resolution 110 is an extraordinarily good example - we debated for I think 3-4 weeks on that thing with INSANELY long posts and plenty of frustration. Half the time, we couldn't even understand the arguments both the opposing and our own side were bringing up. The sheer complexity of the discussion, including implications and relevancy of other resolutions and their effects was mind boggling. At one point, I was trying to convince TH and PC that Rights and Duties of UN States, Article 2 doesn't give the level of autonomy to nations that they thought it did. Yet, we still aren't positive on what the end effects of Resolution 110 are (and are waiting for the mods to decide). The concept of blocking resolutions is something many of these "school children" are missing. Heck, I'm pretty sure that TH and PC are both older and quite a bit more intelligent than these school children, but they both had to reconsider their positions on that article (whether they changed their positions or not, I'm not sure, but they both reconsidered them).

Creating weakness for less complexity always leads to disaster.

I find it rather humorous - both you and TH discuss the same point - what if the right wing takes over the UN? TH says that we should give them the right to make their own governmental decisions and protect them from the imposing its beliefs them so they will be unable to return the favor since no precedent has been set on that. You say that we should make UN law so bloody thick that after the right wing takes the UN, they'd need a good year to delete all the leftwing resolutions from the books.

I ask, why? Why shouldn't the majority get to decide - even if the majority is right wing? Why shouldn't the right wing, if they are in control of the UN, be able to (with little difficulty) clear out the resolutions they don't want so that they can operate the UN with their own beliefs and formulate their own government? Are we so fundamentally left wing and so fully into our beliefs that we no longer believe in the fundamental concept of democracy - that the majority should have the right to make their opinions known? I have no qualms simplifying law - for if it takes away none of the rights, but makes it so that people don't have to dig through a thousand pages to find all of these rights, wouldn't that be better? Weakness against attack from the enemy is no justification against simplification of law.

What we are doing, they understand. What the resolutions do, their full effects, how this works in this scenario - these they don't understand as well.

Further, how many people actually seem to know what EVERY SINGLE resolution does in its entirity?


How many Americans can agree on what exactly the Bill of Rights does, let alone what the Bill of Rights *is*?

The answer is few.

The point of NationStates has always been to explore tradeoffs. You want civil rights and freedoms, you get crime, you want social welfare, you get slapped with taxes, you want a strong economy, your tourism and quality of life are blown.

The *text* of UN resolutions are a dimension of the game that Max likes, but has taken a life of its own. And I personally think the beauty of the game is seeing what sorts of ideas are considered important and what aren't.


During Max Chat 4.0 I asked Max if after having seen how we all run our various ideal fantasy worlds if he views the countries he visits different. I certainly do when I travel. "Hmmm, what sort of tradeoff exists in Switzerland for its great system of free drinking fountains?" And my next thought it, "How can I bring this home with me?" or "How much would that cost our society?" I'm thinking again in the terms of trade-offs.

So while I don't believe the game or UN are complex, there are tradeoffs. The way these tradeoffs play out are ... well, complex. :) But the basic idea is pretty simple.

As for keeping track of what has been done and what has been left undone:
http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/UNSubjectIndex.pdf




Resolution 110 is an extraordinarily good example - we debated for I think 3-4 weeks on that thing with INSANELY long posts and plenty of frustration. Half the time, we couldn't even understand the arguments both the opposing and our own side were bringing up.

I'm of the opinion that the decision on Resolution 110 was really made a few weeks ago, by the moderators. I think it is a done deal. *shrug*

While the Resolution 110 ruling might change, it isn't going to be without a situtation in which a player has "standing" or justification via a course of events to challenge that ruling.

I'm of the opinion that the decision on Resolution 110 was really made a few weeks ago, by the moderators. I think it is a done deal. *shrug*

While the Resolution 110 ruling might change, it isn't going to be without a situtation in which a player has "standing" or justification via a course of events to challenge that ruling.

Actually, Fris made a deal with us that once we got our debates done, each side drafts a statement that finalizes their position. These are submitted and then all debate ceases so that the moderators can make a ruling without having to read exponentially growing threads. That final thread was posted just over 24hrs ago - mod ruling is pending.