NationStates Jolt Archive

Recognising the Passing of UN Resolution # 119 “UNCoESB”, which empowers Nations Who are UN Members to protect a Species that may or may not be endangered with extinction, under Article 4 of that resolution,

Understanding Human affinity with Marine Mammals,

Recognising that the “UNCoESB” Bill Guarantees protections to species that are threatened with extinction,

Noting that the passing of the “UNCoESB” renders Resolution # 106 “the Protection of Dolphins Act”, Redundant,

Recognising that as a redundant Resolution, it is no longer cost effective or efficient to continue funding for this Resolution which is now an unacceptable burden on the UN treasury and the funds it draws from our Nations,

We hereby repeal UN Resolution # 106 “the Protection of Dolphins Act”.
I will be submitting this following the submission of the repeal of Res 70, "Banning Whaling". Your comments Please.

if one day we meet sentient beings with intelligence far beyound ours,

what if they decide to consider us, in the same way we used to consider our own closest sub-sentient species?

if one day we meet sentient beings with intelligence far beyound ours,

what if they decide to consider us, in the same way we used to consider our own closest sub-sentient species?What if the same sentient beings do drugs daily and dissaprove of same sex relationships? What if they like to eat Human flesh and have bowling balls for a head? What if? Indeed. However such consideration is rediculous when considering the context of the repeal. If you have an arguement that is remotly associated with the repeal then lets hear it.
The two Arguements for the repeal are simple.

1, UNCoESB makes the resolution redundant.
2, Do you wish to continue having your nations charged 3 times to fund what is covered by UNCoESB.

See sense. Lets repeal this.

Both repeals (of 70 and 106) have our support, and we will encourage the support of our region. We agree the UNCoESB renders both unnecessary.

The theory of evolution teach us, that obviously sentience is a progressive notion.

We never think or intended to grants dolphin, bonobos or chimps many right.
But we think, they deserve our compassion, and we like the idea that 1 UN resolution deliver a compassion message about at least 1 of our sub-sentient species (and dolphin are indeed the best choice).

so maybe, the dophin resolution is not well written and need to be repeal+repla with something better writen, i will agree with you.

but until this, we will not support any repeal

Our argument is philosophical.

if one day we meet sentient beings with intelligence far beyound ours, what if they decide to consider us, in the same way we used to consider our own closest sub-sentient species?
Greetings.

We of Roathin do not see the point of your comment. Are you a) saying that you have an intelligence far beyond that of dolphins, b) saying that dolphins are sub-sentient, c) saying that you would like super-intelligent beings to treat you like an endangered species and pamper you so that you will not need to fend for yourselves in the spaces between the stars?

Perhaps there is no one here, indeed, but those who wish to repeal the dolphin-lovers salve-of-conscience act, and the chickens.

The theory of evolution teach us, that obviously sentience is a progressive notion.

*snip*

Our argument is philosophical.
Greetings again.

We believe that there is nothing obvious about sentience being progressive. The prophet Artorius Clericus, as much a dolphin lover as anyone could be (author of The Deep Spread among other wonderful scrolls and inventor of the geosynchronous eyeball concept) once famously said, "It has yet to be proven that intelligence has survival value."

If this is true, whither sentience? No doubt a case might be crafted that sensation and the possession of sensory apparatus are aids to survival. Hence, consider viri and bacteria. Counter-examples indeed.

Please do not sully the theory of evolution with postmodernist cant on the nature of what we should do for other species after inflicting our anthropomorphically-slanted attitudes on them. Given the chance, most of them would consume us. What makes us human is that we are strange enough to sometimes not extend like for like in their direction. But do not mistake that for the natural order of things.

Our colleague has spoken on points of order, regarding the facts of repeal and prior case. But we feel it is vital to rebuff the sham and shame of what some feel are 'philosophical arguments'. Forsooth.

The theory of evolution teach us, that obviously sentience is a progressive notion.

We never think or intended to grants dolphin, bonobos or chimps many right.
But we think, they deserve our compassion, and we like the idea that 1 UN resolution deliver a compassion message about at least 1 of our sub-sentient species (and dolphin are indeed the best choice).

so maybe, the dophin resolution is not well written and need to be repeal+repla with something better writen, i will agree with you.

but until this, we will not support any repeal

Our argument is philosophical.
It has been replaced! By resolution #119 UNCoESB!

Greetings.

We of Roathin do not see the point of your comment. Are you a) saying that you have an intelligence far beyond that of dolphins, b) saying that dolphins are sub-sentient, c) saying that you would like super-intelligent beings to treat you like an endangered species and pamper you so that you will not need to fend for yourselves in the spaces between the stars?

Perhaps there is no one here, indeed, but those who wish to repeal the dolphin-lovers salve-of-conscience act, and the chickens.

a) i don't know how exactly how much,

b) yes, or approaching sentience, dolphin pass the mirror test:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

c) no, i just want to say i hope if we meet super-intelligent beings they will threat us as them

a) i don't know how exactly how much,

b) yes, or approaching sentience, dolphin pass the mirror test:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

c) no, i just want to say i hope if we meet super-intelligent beings they will threat us as them
Greetings.

Consider a) dolphins may be more intelligent than you; and they might not take kindly to being patronised by a less-intelligent species defending their rights; b) the mirror test assesses a response to a visual stimulus, and as been said many times, may be of doubtful use wrt species who are not primarily visually oriented; c) yes, by all means be threatened as you threaten. Haha.

Check out Dolphin Intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_intelligence).

While Dolphins have shown signs of intelligence, it is significantly far from where humans are at. For example, they, presently, fail to use tools - something we have done for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. If we want to argue that we do not wish to be mistreated by a more intelligent species than our own, one must ask if it is even possible to compare the situations - lest we end up looking at the concern of protecting all animals. If a species had an average IQ of 3000 based upon the human scale, are we claiming that anything 30 times less intelligent than us is worthy of protection? What about 60 times? Can you even define a number.

As such, I feel this method is irrelevant. You need to go, IMO, from manners to prove or disprove sentience. If we ran across an intergalactic race, they'll probably respect us as sentient for our ability to master the machine and split the atom (though admittedly, that may or may not get in the way of them considering us worthy of protection or cannon fodder). When I consider a dolphin, I see it as a developing sentience. I do not consider it worthy of protection since it is not actual sentience. Again, if we were to protect for developing sentience, you could expand that to protect each animal for all animals (since they are all evolving) are developing sentience.

As I said in Abortion, we consider and protect people for what they are, not what they might be in the future.

While Dolphins have shown signs of intelligence, it is significantly far from where humans are at. For example, they, presently, fail to use tools - something we have done for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. If we want to argue that we do not wish to be mistreated by a more intelligent species than our own, one must ask if it is even possible to compare the situations - lest we end up looking at the concern of protecting all animals. If a species had an average IQ of 3000 based upon the human scale, are we claiming that anything 30 times less intelligent than us is worthy of protection? What about 60 times? Can you even define a number.

As such, I feel this method is irrelevant. You need to go, IMO, from manners to prove or disprove sentience. If we ran across an intergalactic race, they'll probably respect us as sentient for our ability to master the machine and split the atom (though admittedly, that may or may not get in the way of them considering us worthy of protection or cannon fodder). When I consider a dolphin, I see it as a developing sentience. I do not consider it worthy of protection since it is not actual sentience. Again, if we were to protect for developing sentience, you could expand that to protect each animal for all animals (since they are all evolving) are developing sentience.

As I said in Abortion, we consider and protect people for what they are, not what they might be in the future.

We fully agree

We just like that the UN has 1 resolution which teach us about compassion and respect of differences for 1 other species (even if this one is only approaching sentience), as long as this resolution grants this species only few rights, and has no important side effects

I feel as though my head would explode. The UNCoESB already protects dolphins (albeit with some qualifications) and thus renders #106 PoDA moot, and as such, we support this repeal.

The "sentience" of dolphins is neither here nor there.

... Recognising that as a redundant Resolution, it is no longer cost effective or efficient to continue funding for this Resolution which is now an unacceptable burden on the UN treasury and the funds it draws from our Nations, ...The wording for this clause is very awkward; can we make it easier to read? Might I suggest: Recognizing that the continued funding for a redundant resolution would be neither efficient nor cost effective, and indeed would constitute an unacceptable burden on the treasuries of the UN and member states ... ?

Also, would it be advisable to slip into the text a clause stating that the UN "continues to condemn the intentional harm of dolphins" -- heck, would Love and esterel be mollified if the text also included calls for "compassion and respect toward possibly sentient beings," or whatever? I'm not one to get hung up on the text of the repeal, just as long as we're getting rid of a bad resolution.

I'm very much in favor of this. Best of luck, Lord Byron.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Our vote in favor of Resolution #106 was the first Our nation cast in the NSUN. Some may recall that it was given under the guidence from a HOCEK Conclave of Discernment, which determined that dolphins were a Manifestation of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp), and therefore deserved protection according to their Holy status. We also voted against the subsequent motion for repeal, for the same reasons.

It is the considered judgment of Our Conclave of Wisdom, that Resolution #119, "UNCoESB", provides equal protection for a wide range of perceived and yet undiscovered Manifestations, including dolphins. We concur with the esteemed delegate of the Venerable Libertarians then, that Resolution #106 has served its noble purpose and may be retired with honor. Therefore, We will support its repeal.

I feel as though my head would explode.
I feel as though mine already has. It's distressful to encounter a discussion such as this first thing in the morning. It has driven me to drink.
We fully agree

We just like that the UN has 1 resolution which teach us about compassion and respect of differences for 1 other species (even if this one is only approaching sentience)
As dolphins are protected under UNCoESB, why do we need this resolution teaching us about compassion and respect for them? Why not have one teaching us to have compassion and respect for all species of great apes? Or pigs? Or dogs? Or walruses?
as long as this resolution grants this species only few rights, and has no important side effects
(bolding mine)Bah. I was unaware that it granted rights to the dolphins. As for the side effects, it is a redundant, unneeded resolution. It is causing nations to spend money protecting dolphins when they could be using it for more constructive pursuits such as healthcare and education.

I feel as though mine already has. It's distressful to encounter a discussion such as this first thing in the morning. It has driven me to drink.

If you need a snort I've got some Old Crow in the top drawer of my desk. Just under the Sports Afield magazine.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
The Palentine

P.S. We also support this repeal as we did before. However until it is repealed, We'll keep the dolphins in the Palentine's waters inducted into the Palentine Navy. We after all, are compassionate conservatives who don't want to see this resource...err species go to waste. :D Can't have our flippered sabateurs getting turned into Tuna filler! :p

The wording for this clause is very awkward; can we make it easier to read? Might I suggest: Recognizing that the continued funding for a redundant resolution would be neither efficient nor cost effective, and indeed would constitute an unacceptable burden on the treasuries of the UN and member states ... ?

Also, would it be advisable to slip into the text a clause stating that the UN "continues to condemn the intentional harm of dolphins" -- heck, would Love and esterel be mollified if the text also included calls for "compassion and respect toward possibly sentient beings," or whatever? I'm not one to get hung up on the text of the repeal, just as long as we're getting rid of a bad resolution.
I have looked again at the wording of the resolution repeal for both and i am happy with them. I see no need to change it.
As for adding to it clauses etc regarding what the UN condemns or otherwise i do not see the point. The Repeals are based on the redundancy now in effect due to the passing of the UNCoESB and the text therefore should be kept relative to that Resolutions Articles.

Oh please let this repeal pass and kill the orginal silly resolution. Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top. I'm begging you all pleeeeeeeze :D.

*regains composure*

Ahem...Waterana supports this repeal attempt without any hesitations on the basis a much better resolution has passed, and this one is now redundant :).

The Great Gear moves us all towards a more efficient existance. We, the people of the Machine Spirit, will support this repeal.

- End Statement -

Ausserland will be happy to vote for this repeal.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites fully supports any and all attempts to repeal this resolution, especially now that it's unecessary.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I have decided to submit this repeal on wednesday to give an oppertunity for people who log in at work to respond.

I have decided to submit this repeal on wednesday to give an oppertunity for people who log in at work to respond.

Good deal! I'll be looking forward for this to finally be repealed, once it has reached the Quorum.

In the meantime, the Palentine Board of Tourism has begun a new campaign for dolphin lovers. We wish to show that evil conservatives love the flippered buggers as much as feel good liberals. The new slogan is: "Visit the Palentine, our Dolphins swear like Drunken Sailors!" :p

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

This resolution is obselete, replaced, taken over, this parrot's dead! Keeping this resolution now it has been replaced by a more up to date version is ridiulous and I personally support this repeal.

We would like, at this time, to thank all those who have offered their support.
The repeal will be submitted wednesday morning.

I have added a Poll. Feel free to vote.

Dammit! I didn't see that you had an option for UN Delegate. I voted as UN member. Oh well.

Yelda you dope ! :D

We have decided to hold off on submission of this repeal for one more day. RL concerns (work) have prevented me from attaining the time required to submit the proposed repeal.
Thank you for your continued support and patience.

Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #106
Proposed by: Venerable libertarians

Description: UN Resolution #106: Protection of Dolphins Act (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Recognising the Passing of UN Resolution # 119 “UNCoESB”, which empowers Nations Who are UN Members to protect a Species that may or may not be endangered with extinction, under Article 4 of that resolution,

Understanding Human affinity with Marine Mammals,

Recognising that the “UNCoESB” Bill Guarantees protections to species that are threatened with extinction,

Noting that the passing of the “UNCoESB” renders Resolution # 106 “the Protection of Dolphins Act”, Redundant,

Recognising that as a redundant Resolution, it is no longer cost effective or efficient to continue funding for this Resolution which is now an unacceptable burden on the UN treasury and the funds it draws from our Nations,

We hereby repeal UN Resolution # 106 “the Protection of Dolphins Act”.

Approvals: 1 (Venerable libertarians)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 128 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Sep 18 2005

Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #106
Proposed by: Venerable libertarians

Description: UN Resolution #106: Protection of Dolphins Act (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Recognising the Passing of UN Resolution # 119 “UNCoESB”, which empowers Nations Who are UN Members to protect a Species that may or may not be endangered with extinction, under Article 4 of that resolution,

Understanding Human affinity with Marine Mammals,

Recognising that the “UNCoESB” Bill Guarantees protections to species that are threatened with extinction,

Noting that the passing of the “UNCoESB” renders Resolution # 106 “the Protection of Dolphins Act”, Redundant,

Recognising that as a redundant Resolution, it is no longer cost effective or efficient to continue funding for this Resolution which is now an unacceptable burden on the UN treasury and the funds it draws from our Nations,

We hereby repeal UN Resolution # 106 “the Protection of Dolphins Act”.

Approvals: 1 (Venerable libertarians)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 128 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Sep 18 2005

It is true that technically the UNcoESB resolution renders the above resolution redundant. Nevertheless, some species that exist in perpetual peril, due to the fragile nature of their populations, i.e. that they can be affected dramatically by relatively minor events. I sense that the impetus of this resolution is more a Trojan Horse effort to prepare for the repeal of the UNcoESB resolution, by stripping away supplementary protections.

In addition, if you have concerns as to the drain on the U.N. treasury, why not simply put forwards a resolution trying to streamline operations with the intent of making them more cost effective.

Compadria votes against this repeal.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live dolphin-friendly Compadria!

I sense that the impetus of this resolution is more a Trojan Horse effort to prepare for the repeal of the UNcoESB resolution, by stripping away supplementary protections.
What? Are you paranoid or just daft? There is no "Trojan Horse effort" at work here. This is an attempt to repeal redundant and unneccessary legislation, nothing more. Take off the tin foil hat please. Yeldan UN Mission fully supports this repeal and will work diligently to see that it passes.

What? Are you paranoid or just daft? There is no "Trojan Horse effort" at work here. This is an attempt to repeal redundant and unneccessary legislation, nothing more. Take off the tin foil hat please. Yeldan UN Mission fully supports this repeal and will work diligently to see that it passes.

Tin foil hat? My dear Yeldan UN Mission, I am a born cynic and if you can't see through the agenda here, then I truly despair.

Leonard otterby of compadria! Take off your beer goggles!

I sense that the impetus of this resolution is more a Trojan Horse effort to prepare for the repeal of the UNcoESB resolution, by stripping away supplementary protections. Take a look at who the repeals of 106 and 70 are by! Answer =Venerable Libertarians.
Now Take a look at who is the author of the UNCoESB. Answer =Venerable Libertarians!
Why would i build a trojan horse to attack my own resolution? That would be like Troy Besieging Troy?

Tin foil hat? My dear Yeldan UN Mission, I am a born cynic and if you can't see through the agenda here, then I truly despair.
If there is an "agenda" then I am part of it. You have a TG.

Leonard otterby of compadria! Take off your beer goggles!

Take a look at who the repeals of 106 and 70 are by! Answer =Venerable Libertarians.
Now Take a look at who is the author of the UNCoESB. Answer =Venerable Libertarians!
Why would i build a trojan horse to attack my own resolution? That would be like Troy Besieging Troy?

Already happened, when Powerhungry Chipmunks got a resolution passed and was the author of the repeal of that same resolution. So, considering it has happened in UN history, in this case the conspiracy theorist at least has evidence their views are perfectly possible.

With regards to the 'Trojan Horse' comment, I have just exchanged telegrams with the Yeldan UN Mission. I have realised that my above comments were stupid, inflammatory, irrelevant to the discussion and above all, deeply paranoid.
I apologise to both Yeldan and Venerable Libertarians for my remarks.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you both.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Already happened, when Powerhungry Chipmunks got a resolution passed and was the author of the repeal of that same resolution. So, considering it has happened in UN history, in this case the conspiracy theorist at least has evidence their views are perfectly possible.
May I point out, I am commited to the articles of the UNCoESB and i am repealing 70 and 106 as they are simply "Redundant" as the species covered in the resolutions have substantial protections By the UNCoESB. Let me state I will NOT be repealing or supporting any repeals of the UNCoESB.
Thank you.

Calling all delegates!

With less than 24 hours remaining in the proposal listings we require YOU to step up to the mark and be counted. Get off the fence if you havent already done so. Solar panels is a done deal! Forget about it for tomorrow and give our nations economies a break by repealing this resolution and the repeal of resolution 70.

The UN Needs YOU!