NationStates Jolt Archive

The Nation of Yeldan UN Mission submitted the following Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act"
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=dolphins

As there was no thread created for this repeal we opened this thread for the debate.

We oppose this repeal. If the repeal pass, then Dolphins will not be protected by the UN anymore. (#119 "UNCoESB don't protect dolphins)


Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #106


Proposed by: Yeldan UN Mission

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

Argument: 1): COMMENDING the goals of United Nations Resolution #106, Protection of Dolphins Act;

2): NOTING the passage of United Nations Resolution #119, UNCoESB;

3): FURTHER NOTING article 7 of UNCoESB which bans all hunting of endangered species, in addition to other provisions which ensure the survival of endangered species;

4): CONVINCED that Resolution #106 is rendered redundant by the protections provided in Resolution #119;

5): BELIEVING that the removal of unnecessary legislation is in the best interests of the member nations of the UN;

6): HEREBY repeals United Nations Resolution #106, Protection of Dolphins Act.

We would like to remark that:
- #119 “UNCoESB” deals with endangered species but offers no guarantee for non-endangered species, and
- Most dolphin species are not endangered
Then #119 "UNCoESB” don't protect most dolphin species

Or #106 "Protection of Dolphins” protects dolphins

We think paragraph 4 of the repeal is an "honest mistake" violation as it states:

4): CONVINCED that Resolution #106 is rendered redundant by the protections provided in Resolution #119;

PS: even with a strict NS point of view, as we cannot say if Dolphins are undangered or not in NS, so we cannot say if they are protected by UNCoESB, so we cannot say anyway if there is a redundancy


#106 "Protection of Dolphins Act"
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/59944/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=105
#119 "UNCoESB”
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=118

We would like to remark that:
...
- Most dolphin species are not endangered


How can you state this? It is for the Executive of the UNCoESB, not the delegate of Love and esterel, to state what is and is not endangered.

How can you state this? It is for the Executive of the UNCoESB, not the delegate of Love and esterel, to state what is and is not endangered.


ok, so Did the Executive of the UNCoESB stated that dolphins are endangered?

if not, the redundancy is obviously false

ok, so Did the Executive of the UNCoESB stated that dolphins are endangered?

if not, the redundancy is obviously false

...I have no idea whether the Executive declared dolphins endangered. Given that Yelda, the co-author of UNCoESB, has based their repeal proposal on it, I'm inclined to assume so, though.

...I have no idea whether the Executive declared dolphins endangered. Given that Yelda, the co-author of UNCoESB, has based their repeal proposal on it, I'm inclined to assume so, though.


No problem, but UNCoESB never made some declaration that dolphins were endangered

No problem, but UNCoESB never made some declaration that dolphins were endangered

True.

Your point?

True.

Your point?

Thanks
my point?

as dolphins are not endangered in NS
then dolphins are not protected by UNCoESB
then #106: Protection of Dolphins Act is NOT rendered redundant by the protections provided in Resolution #119
then article 4 of the repeal is an "honest mistake" violation

Honest Mistakes

This usually happens with Repeals. Someone will misread the Resolution and submit a Repeal that supports the Resolution, or tries to undo a Resolution because they think it does something it doesn't

from
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465

Thanks
my point?

as dolphins are not endangered in NS
then dolphins are not protected by UNCoESB
then #106: Protection of Dolphins Act is NOT rendered redundant by the protections provided in Resolution #119
then article 4 of the repeal is an "honest mistake" violation

You cannot make assumptions about the status of dolphins in NS. Where they are endangered, they will be protected by the full weight of UNCoESB. Where they are not endangered, there is no need for them to be afforded the extra protection of PoDA. If you have special connection to or affinity for dolphins so be it, but don't try to enforce that irrational conception onto the UN at large.

I think maybe I'm getting confused about terms. By 'endangered' I mean in a state where there is serious danger of extinction. Such species are protected by UNCoESB. If dolphins are not endangered, then there is no reason for PoDA to exist.

You cannot make assumptions about the status of dolphins in NS. Where they are endangered, they will be protected by the full weight of UNCoESB. Where they are not endangered, there is no need for them to be afforded the extra protection of PoDA. If you have special connection to or affinity for dolphins so be it, but don't try to enforce that irrational conception onto the UN at large.

I think maybe I'm getting confused about terms. By 'endangered' I mean in a state where there is serious danger of extinction. Such species are protected by UNCoESB. If dolphins are not endangered, then there is no reason for PoDA to exist.

If you want PoDA repealed, no pb, a repeal is democratic
but one cannot use a false argument in a repeal

You agreed that UNCoESB never made some declaration that dolphins were endangered in this thread, after you have said :

It is for the Executive of the UNCoESB, not the delegate of Love and esterel, to state what is and is not endangered.

Could you rephrase your last sentence? I'm afraid I can't understand it. Sorry.

Thanks
my point?

as dolphins are not endangered in NS
then dolphins are not protected by UNCoESB
then #106: Protection of Dolphins Act is NOT rendered redundant by the protections provided in Resolution #119
then article 4 of the repeal is an "honest mistake" violation

Honest Mistakes

This usually happens with Repeals. Someone will misread the Resolution and submit a Repeal that supports the Resolution, or tries to undo a Resolution because they think it does something it doesn't

from
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465

The honorable representative from Love and esterel raised this issue in the Moderation forum and requested a ruling on the legality of the repeal. Obviously, the moderators' ruling was that this was not an "honest mistake" violation and that the repeal proposal was legal. Can we not stop belaboring this already-resolved issue and move on to substantive discussion of the proposal?

We would look forward to hearing the reasons why the honorable representative from Love and esterel believes dolphins deserve protection beyond that provided by Resolution #119.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Could you rephrase your last sentence? I'm afraid I can't understand it. Sorry.

of course, sorry if i was confuse

you said

It is for the Executive of the UNCoESB, not the delegate of Love and esterel, to state what is and is not endangered.

then i said:
No problem, but UNCoESB never made some declaration that dolphins were endangered

you answered:

True.

So in NS world you said that It is for the Executive of the UNCoESB, to state what is and is not endangered, and then agreed that UNCoESB never made some declaration that dolphins were endangered

This imply you agree that dolphins are not endangered in NS

So in NS world you said that It is for the Executive of the UNCoESB, to state what is and is not endangered, and then agreed that UNCoESB never made some declaration that dolphins were endangered

This imply you agree that dolphins are not endangered in NS

The UNCoESB has never made a declaration about moon rams. Glance at my nation description (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=gruenberg). You'll see they're teetering on the brink of extinction owing to massive deforestation. They, surely, would qualify as endangered.

In fact, the moon ram is an endangered species. And it's not just deforestation: it was also the sort of chemicals used in the industrial reforms of the 720s.

The UNCoESB cannot make declarations, because it does not exist in game mechanics. Clearly, my national animal is, under any normal definition, endangered. As such, we must assume declarations; they are roleplayed. The UNCoESB cannot make a declaration about dolphins. We can, however, define it as having done so.

(Ausserland, sorry to keep dragging this on. But until he raises a different objection, there's little else to do.)

Obviously, the moderators' ruling was that this was not an "honest mistake" violation and that the repeal proposal was legal.

The Most Glorious Hack said in the mods forum

The endangered/nonendangered status of "most" dolphins is not a matter for Moderator discussion, but is something that would need to be brought up in UN Forum as discussion; especially since arguing the endangered status of any animal is more than a little iffy on NS Earth.

and

If you disagree, debate them.


We would look forward to hearing the reasons why the honorable representative from Love and esterel believes dolphins deserve protection beyond that provided by Resolution #119.


#106 is an effective resolution which protect dolphin and is not yet repealed
it states:
"
RECONGNIZING that dolphins are extremely intelligent, man-loving and friendly mammals, that symbolize to millions around the world the spirit of freedom, happiness and togetherness,"

if you don't agree support a repeal but a repeal which didnot include false argument:

#119 don't protect dolphins as UNCoESB never declared them endangered

The UNCoESB has never made a declaration about moon rams. Glance at my nation description (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=gruenberg). You'll see they're teetering on the brink of extinction owing to massive deforestation. They, surely, would qualify as endangered.

In fact, the moon ram is an endangered species. And it's not just deforestation: it was also the sort of chemicals used in the industrial reforms of the 720s.

The UNCoESB cannot make declarations, because it does not exist in game mechanics. Clearly, my national animal is, under any normal definition, endangered. As such, we must assume declarations; they are roleplayed. The UNCoESB cannot make a declaration about dolphins. We can, however, define it as having done so.

(Ausserland, sorry to keep dragging this on. But until he raises a different objection, there's little else to do.)

The UNCoESB cannot make declarations, OK
And as nobody can say if dolphins are endangered in NS or not
Then nobody can say if dolphins are protected by UNCoESB or not
Then #106: Protection of Dolphins Act is NOT rendered redundant by the protections provided in Resolution #119

The UNCoESB cannot make declarations, OK
And as nobody can say if dolphins are endangered in NS or not
Then nobody can say if dolphins are protected by UNCoESB or not
Then #106: Protection of Dolphins Act is NOT rendered redundant by the protections provided in Resolution #119

Do you understand, though, that if dolphins are endangered then they are covered by UNCoESB? Yes, can we agree on that? And if they are not endangered, then they DO NOT NEED EXTRA PROTECTION as they are NOT ENDANGERED. So what is the point of your objection?

We thank the distinguished representative from Love and esterel for his prompt reply.

We believe that Resolution #119, "UNCoESB", provides sufficient protection for all species of animal which are determined to be endangered. There are almost 40 species of dolphin. If any or all of these species are determined to be endangered, they will be protected in accordance with Resolution #119. We see no reason why dolphins should receive special treatment beyond that accorded to all other animals.

Ausserland will vote in favor of this repeal should it come to the floor.

Do you understand, though, that if dolphins are endangered then they are covered by UNCoESB?

you right

And if they are not endangered, then they DO NOT NEED EXTRA PROTECTION as they are NOT ENDANGERED. So what is the point of your objection?

it's your position, but it's obviouly not the position of the UN, as #106 has not been yet repealed
under #106, you like it or not, dolphins are protected endangered or not

under #119 dolphins will be protected only when endangered

=>#106 is not rendered redundant

Yes, and my argument is that animals shouldn't be given extra protection because they are nice. We should protect species according to their risk of extinction; anything else is imposition of human or other sentient morality onto animals where such systems are not applicable.

Yes, and my argument is that animals shouldn't be given extra protection because they are nice. We should protect species according to their risk of extinction; anything else is imposition of human or other sentient morality onto animals where such systems are not applicable.

it's your position, but sorry the UN law say the opposite

it's your position, but sorry the UN law say the opposite

This is a repeal! Of course UN law says the opposite: that's the whole fucking point. Just because UN law says something does not mean it is correct or that I have to agree with it. I am supporting this repeal because I disagree with UN law. I ask again: what is your point?

This is a repeal! Of course UN law says the opposite: that's the whole fucking point. Just because UN law says something does not mean it is correct or that I have to agree with it. I am supporting this repeal because I disagree with UN law. I ask again: what is your point?


Whatever our and your arguments for or against the repeal:

under #106, you like it or not, dolphins are protected endangered or not

under #119 dolphins will be protected only when endangered

=> #106 is not rendered redundant

and repeal don't have to include false argument

SYLLABICATION: re·dun·dant
PRONUNCIATION: r-dndnt
ADJECTIVE: 1. Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous. 2. Needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression: a student paper filled with redundant phrases. 3. Of or relating to linguistic redundancy. 4. Chiefly British Dismissed or laid off from work, as for being no longer needed. 5. Electronics Of or involving redundancy in electronic equipment. 6. Of or involving redundancy in the transmission of messages.
ETYMOLOGY: Latin redundns, redundant-, present participle of redundre, to overflow : re-, red-, re- + undre, to surge (from unda, wave; see wed-1 in Appendix I).
OTHER FORMS: re·dundant·ly —ADVERB

SYLLABICATION: re·dun·dant
PRONUNCIATION: r-dndnt
ADJECTIVE: 1. Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous. 2. Needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression: a student paper filled with redundant phrases. 3. Of or relating to linguistic redundancy. 4. Chiefly British Dismissed or laid off from work, as for being no longer needed. 5. Electronics Of or involving redundancy in electronic equipment. 6. Of or involving redundancy in the transmission of messages.
ETYMOLOGY: Latin redundns, redundant-, present participle of redundre, to overflow : re-, red-, re- + undre, to surge (from unda, wave; see wed-1 in Appendix I).
OTHER FORMS: re·dundant·ly —ADVERB



REDUNDANT:
1. repetition of same sense in different words; "`a true fact' and `a free gift' are pleonastic expressions"; "the phrase `a beginner who has just started' is tautological"
2. use of more words than required to express an idea
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=redundant+&sourceid=Mozilla-search

The ideas and senses in #106 and #119 are obviously not the same

REDUNDANT:
1. repetition of same sense in different words; "`a true fact' and `a free gift' are pleonastic expressions"; "the phrase `a beginner who has just started' is tautological"
2. use of more words than required to express an idea
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=redundant+&sourceid=Mozilla-search

The idea and sense in #106 and #119 are obviously not the sameYou conveniently omitted the third definition your own source lists:

3. [adj] more than is needed, desired, or required; "trying to lose excess weight"; "found some extra change lying on the dresser"; "yet another book on heraldry might be thought redundant"; "skills made redundant by technological advance"; "sleeping in the spare room"; "supernumerary ornamentation"; "it was supererogatory of her to gloat"; "delete superfluous (or unnecessary) words"; "extra ribs as well as other supernumerary internal parts"; "surplus cheese distributed to the needy"

You conveniently omitted the third definition your own source lists:

thanks, it's why this is really tricky

Anyway the fact that dolphin are endangered in NS or not is also tricky

"dolphin are endangered in NS" is the same assumption than
=> "promotion of solar panel" and "fossil fuel" are easy to comply with in NS

"dolphin are endangered in NS" is the same assumption than
=> "promotion of solar panel" and "fossil fuel" are easy to comply with in NS

Irrelevant. Let's stick to talking about harpooning the fuck out of friendly little critters.

You admit that you attempted to deceive the good people of the GA, and yet you have the audacity to accuse the Yeldan delegation of falsification? We would suggest that there are double standards on show here.

The UNCoESB gives member governments wide latitude to protect species of importance within their own borders, and grants an Executive similar latitude and discretion to impose gaming bans and other protections where endangered species are concerned. As opposed to a single declaration of which animals would qualify for protection under its mandate, UNCoESB authorizes the Executive to amend the endangered species list as circumstances warrant, basing its findings on scientific research. We supported the UNCoESB, and we feel that any special protections beyond its mandate are (to use what apparently is a loaded word) redundant and wholly unnecessary.

We authored an earlier repeal of the Protection of Dolphins Act, the first attempt to repeal existing UN environmental legislation. It reached the floor, but was voted down nearly 2-to-1, not necessarily because the UN as a whole opposed a repeal, but because of some of the arguments made in the repeal text. We bid the People's Democratic Republic of Yelda success where we failed, and furthermore announce the celebration of We Love Yelda Week in the Federal Republic. Omigodtheykilledkenny citizens are encouraged to show appreciation for Yelda, its people, its culture and its fine cheeses. Citizens are also urged, wherever possible, to buy a Yeldan a damn beer.

We support the repeal of UN Resolution #106: Protection of Dolphins Act.

The repeal of the PoD Act has my support. I look forward to the debate that will occur should it reach quorum.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I'm going to stick my nose into this argument.

Our nations national animal is the moon dolphin, so the resolution this repeal wants to get rid of directly affects us. Believe it or not I voted against the original resolution when it was up for vote and support this repeal enough to post a copy of it on our regions offsite forum for our delegate to see and hopefully endorse.

Under the privisions of UNCoESB, dolphins are afforded the same protection as any other animal if they are endangered. In our moon dolphins case, they most certainly aren't. They are fully protected within our national waters and were long before the PoD act was written. The fact we as a nation love and in some cases worship our dolphins doesn't give us the right to force that veneration on other nations.

Moon dolphins are not endangered, so the author of this repeal has not made a false statement. I hope that clears things up. If any other species of dolphin in the NS world is, then they are protected under UNCoESB.

As the PoD act only affects dolphins in international waters, its protection is very limited anyway. Nations are still free to do what they wish with dolphins in their own territorial waters.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has no dolphins because, as I stated during the debate of the Protection of Dolphins Act, some time prior they all got up and left saying "So long, and thanks for all the fish." So as we have no dolphins in our nation to protect, we see no need to keep the Protection of Dolphins Act around as it requires us to spend money to try to protect dolphins, which we can't do anyway because we don't have any.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We just chase dolphins into international waters before hitting them over the head with a shovel....

To be honest a lot of the honourable members of this forum appear to be missing the point of the "Protection of Dolphins Act".

The only problem with the UNcoESB is that it kicks in only when the species in question are endangered. Enormous damage can be done to a species or biome prior to them being considered endangered, simply because the set standards of definition for 'endangered' or 'at risk' are comprehensive and can sometimes overlook instances where there exist exceptions to the rules.

For instance, a species might be in a state of decline over a prolonged period, i.e. ten years, yet on technical grounds it may be classified as not meriting intervention by the authorities who enforce the UNcoESB. Yet the species needs pro-active measures to ensure its survival and future, not the reactive ones of the UNcoESB.

For this reason, we oppose the repeal of the "Protection of Dolphins Act".

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

To be honest a lot of the honourable members of this forum appear to be missing the point of the "Protection of Dolphins Act".

The only problem with the UNcoESB is that it kicks in only when the species in question are endangered. Enormous damage can be done to a species or biome prior to them being considered endangered, simply because the set standards of definition for 'endangered' or 'at risk' are comprehensive and can sometimes overlook instances where there exist exceptions to the rules.

For instance, a species might be in a state of decline over a prolonged period, i.e. ten years, yet on technical grounds it may be classified as not meriting intervention by the authorities who enforce the UNcoESB. Yet the species needs pro-active measures to ensure its survival and future, not the reactive ones of the UNcoESB.

For this reason, we oppose the repeal of the "Protection of Dolphins Act".

We will not dispute the assertions of the honorable representative from Compadria. His knowledge of species protection is obviously greater than ours, and we will defer to it.

We are left, though, with our original concern. Given that what the honorable representative says is true, wouldn't that suggest that additional measures for protection should be implemented for all species? Perhaps a resolution supplementing Resolution #119? (Please note that we said "supplementing", not "amending".) Why should dolphins alone be singled out for the special treatment accorded by Resolution #106?

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

For instance, a species might be in a state of decline over a prolonged period, i.e. ten years, yet on technical grounds it may be classified as not meriting intervention by the authorities who enforce the UNcoESB. Yet the species needs pro-active measures to ensure its survival and future, not the reactive ones of the UNcoESB.

Or how about there are too many dolphins in a nation's waters. They escaped from captivity. They are destroying the eco system. But we can't get rid of them because of 'survival of the cutest'.

It has always been the opinion of The Black New World, correct me if I'm wrong Gi, that protection for a specific, non-endangered species should be handed out by the nation with the problem to avoid the scenario above.

We were against the original resolution and we are for the repeal.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Or how about there are too many dolphins in a nation's waters. They escaped from captivity. They are destroying the eco system. But we can't get rid of them because of 'survival of the cutest'.

It has always been the opinion of The Black New World, correct me if I'm wrong Gi, that protection for a specific, non-endangered species should be handed out by the nation with the problem to avoid the scenario above.

We were against the original resolution and we are for the repeal.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I can see the merits of your argument, but I stand by my original point. If dolphins are overpopulating an area then that is a different matter, you would be entitled to cull them, so long as it was only up to the necessary levels to protect the eco-system. This is not covered by the UNcoESB or Protection of Dolphins Act, which cover protecting species that might be at risk or who are endangered.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I can see the merits of your argument, but I stand by my original point. If dolphins are overpopulating an area then that is a different matter, you would be entitled to cull them, so long as it was only up to the necessary levels to protect the eco-system. This is not covered by the UNcoESB or Protection of Dolphins Act, which cover protecting species that might be at risk or who are endangered.
And if dolphins are only protected by the Protection of Dolphins Act when they are endangered then, it is redundant because at that time they are also covered under the UNcoESB.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

As Author of the UNCoESB Resolution i have read all the previous arguements for and against the Repeal of 106. I would like to make a few Points thus.

1, The representative of love and Esteril is incorrect with regard to the legality of Point 4 of the repeal as Article 4 of the UNCoESB Clearly states ...


Where there are species regarded with a sense of national importance, National governments may apply conservation orders on that species within its own national boundaries and impose national restrictions to hunting of that species. These restrictions shall only apply within the National boundary and are not applicable to neighbouring Nations unless an agreement has been set by the neighbouring countries.
National Governments may set penalties for breaches of these national conservation orders. This Clearly allows for any UN Nation to put a conservaion order on Any unendangered Species including dolphins. Resolution 119 also allows nations who wish to Hunt dolphin the legal right to do so as long as it is done within quotas allowing for the continuation of the Species. Where a Nation over steps the mark and ANY species hits the endangered marker set by the UNCoESB Executive the resolution gives its full support and backing to conserving the endangered species.

2, The Nation of Love And Esteril has in previous engagements also made false statements against my own nation hoping to show my nation as a Money grubbing comercialist. It was in the same thread where L&E apologised to my nation after our Excelent Environmental record was Pointed out again using the same text infered By the Member of L&E.

3, I am officially registering my nationality as Smurf as i am Blue in the face trying to convince Nations that Duplicated Resolutions are costly to our Nations and 106 is no longer required as The UNCoESB Protects All species in all cases against extinction and in local cases against any form of hunting pursuant to article 4 of that resolution. It is simply better and Resolution 106 Protection of Dolphins Act is by that measure Redundant.

Thank you all for your time.
Prince Esheram Byron,
Regent to the King and Chief Negotiator to the UN for the Realm of Hibernia.

If dolphins are overpopulating an area then that is a different matter, you would be entitled to cull them, so long as it was only up to the necessary levels to protect the eco-system.

I stand corrected. Although I would like to point out the exact wording is 'unless when done in circumstances where it is absolutely necessary for… the prevention of an ecological disaster' which is, at least in my interpretation, more restrictive than 'protect[ing] the eco-system'.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I stand corrected. Although I would like to point out the exact wording is 'unless when done in circumstances where it is absolutely necessary for… the prevention of an ecological disaster' which is, at least in my interpretation, more restrictive than 'protect[ing] the eco-system'.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Surly that only confounds the need to have this repealed as UNCoESB also allows for culling! Can sombody Please give me a reason for retaining 106? If not! then lets stop messing about and get rid of it!

Dolfins often swim far out to sea beyond national territorial waters, therefore in areas where UNCoESB does not apply.

Further, they cross territorial boundaries of coastal waters, some of which might be protected by national laws, and in other cases not.

We believe that this resolution stands to protect not just dolfins per se, but protects them as a bellweather species which indicates the entire health of an ecosystem that relate to them.

We believe it is just not the right time to be repealing any environmental protections unless they can be proven harmful to the environment. In which case they should not have been passed in the first place.

We will not support the repeal.

Dolfins often swim far out to sea beyond national territorial waters, therefore in areas where UNCoESB does not apply.
Neither does PDA.

Further, they cross territorial boundaries of coastal waters, some of which might be protected by national laws, and in other cases not.
PDA does not offer anymore protection in this instance than UNCoESB.

We believe that this resolution stands to protect not just dolfins per se, but protects them as a bellweather species which indicates the entire health of an ecosystem that relate to them.
We've already been over what happens when the ecosystem doesn't relate to them.

If PDA were about the ecosystem then it would be about the ecosystem. Under PDA killing of other marine life is perfectly acceptable. It's survival of the cutest.

We believe it is just not the right time to be repealing any environmental protections unless they can be proven harmful to the environment. In which case they should not have been passed in the first place.
'All mistakes belong to the past' was the old system. Please clarify what you mean by 'right time'.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Thanks
my point?

as dolphins are not endangered in NS

Dolphin status regarding endangered is no longer relevant. We, the delegates, removed our power to state whether they are or aren't because resolution 119 delegated that to a committee we have no control over.


then dolphins are not protected by UNCoESB

If they become endangered, they will be. If they aren't, they don't deserve protection until they satisfy requirement 1. Considering most people are more concerned about endangered status than the "sentience" question, it is redundant insofar as what the people are concerned about.

then #106: Protection of Dolphins Act is NOT rendered redundant by the protections provided in Resolution #119

Arguably false

then article 4 of the repeal is an "honest mistake" violation

Why'd you bring it up on this forum then? If you want to debate the politics behind it, that's one thing. If you want to challenge legality, then you have the mod forum.

Reading through, Ausserland already addressed the moderator ruling

The endangered/nonendangered status of "most" dolphins is not a matter for Moderator discussion, but is something that would need to be brought up in UN Forum as discussion; especially since arguing the endangered status of any animal is more than a little iffy on NS Earth.

That's great, but you are attacking honest mistake violation. Something that is, in your opinion, a legality violation is not a reason to stop a resolution from being repealed or passed. How many resolution in past are illegal by our current rules? Argue the actual politics, not because you thing the legality is bad when the moderators have ruled otherwise.


it's your position, but sorry the UN law say the opposite

UN law is interpreted by the moderators, and they have stated what their interpretation is regarding this repeal. They are the judges of UN law, not you.

The ideas and senses in #106 and #119 are obviously not the same

It only needs to match one definition of redundant to be considered redundant. It doesn't have to match them all

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

LAE, please stop. This is one of the worst debates I've ever seen you perform. Your arguments have been disproven by several people and you're arguing in a field that is not your jurisdiction and you have been overruled by those who's jurisdiction it is. If you want to argue that it is not redundant, fine. But don't say its illegal and start discussing why this is relevant. We feel it is redundant enough that it is worthy of repeal. If the dolphins are not endangered, then why should they be protected? These are the arguments you need to make. The issues of legality have been ruled on so they are barely an argument - and I'm certain you know that fighting a single front when you have many you can fight is stupid at best.

LAE, please stop. This is one of the worst debates I've ever seen you perform. Your arguments have been disproven by several people and you're arguing in a field that is not your jurisdiction and you have been overruled by those who's jurisdiction it is. If you want to argue that it is not redundant, fine. But don't say its illegal and start discussing why this is relevant. We feel it is redundant enough that it is worthy of repeal. If the dolphins are not endangered, then why should they be protected? These are the arguments you need to make. The issues of legality have been ruled on so they are barely an argument - and I'm certain you know that fighting a single front when you have many you can fight is stupid at best.


Thanks for your post
i just tried, i had to do it:fluffle::D

Or how about there are too many dolphins in a nation's waters. They escaped from captivity. They are destroying the eco system. But we can't get rid of them because of 'survival of the cutest'.

Dolphins destroy ecosystem (partly)
Ecosystem renders less food
Dolphin population decreases
Ecosystem repairs itself

End of worries. Natural balance will make sure that the ecosystem won't get destroyed, and if it does, it'll change in a new ecosystem with a different balance.

However, we fully support repealing the dolphin act.

we have had similar experiences in Kirisubo but not with dolphins.

after uranium mining began our foxes were nearly wiped out by over zealous miners.

however this was quickly realised, the miners were restricted to certain mines and strict regulations and now the fox population has returned to its former numbers.

mother nature always finds a way and dolphins will be no different. there is already resolutions covering the protection of animal species as well as local laws.

We support this repeal.

I would argue that deciding to protect something only after it has become endangered is a remarkably stupid way of protecting a species.

Would you accept we only need to protect children from harm when we come close to running out of them? Or does it not make more sense to protect them while they are still in plentiful supply?

While I would agree with the idea of the repeal, the actual reason it is being repealed is, quite frankly, crap. And to my people and I, it is the process that matters, not the result.

I would argue that deciding to protect something only after it has become endangered is a remarkably stupid way of protecting a species.

Would you accept we only need to protect children from harm when we come close to running out of them? Or does it not make more sense to protect them while they are still in plentiful supply?

While I would agree with the idea of the repeal, the actual reason it is being repealed is, quite frankly, crap. And to my people and I, it is the process that matters, not the result.

First, children is a ridiculous example, as we're talking about species that are by-and-large considered non-sentient. Sentient species generally fall under a completely different classification.

The idea of protection at the point of endangerment is more of acknowledging that this is the point where we no longer can hope that a balance will exist with human desire and special existance. We give certain protections to creatures before this point, but those protections are not things like a total ban on fishing and such. If we did that, we would never be able to eat any fish (BTW, I go under the assumption that a rule for one species is a rule for all - I see no reason to give Dolphins a special status over, say, trout, seals, penguins or cows). When we mark them as being endangered, we are saying that human activity has brought this species to the point where further human activity is likely to set the species beyond the point where they can really exist any longer.

If you think they are worthy of protection under normal conditions, I say you are condoning us to being vegans for life. I don't support that position and I fully support this repeal.

I support this repeal.

Dolphins. Oh, how do we loathe you, let us count the ways...

1. Beaks:

Dolphins have beaks. That should tell you something from the kick off, but in case you are still in any doubt, look at their beaks for a second. Whereas the beak of a Bird or Octopus actually looks like a beak, the beak of the Dolphin just looks like a stupid mixture of a nose and a mouth. Pathetic.

2. Sonar:

Yeah, very clever that sonar, really useful for navigating around isn't it? What's that? A net? Did you swim into it? Did you? Not that useful then. Not quite so clever now are we? How many bats do you ever see in fishing nets? Exactly.

3. Mammals:

No you're not, you're a fish. Stop trying to get in with the cool crowd, gill-boy.

4. Noise:

And stop clicking, you're giving me a migrane. I don't care if you're trying to alert me to a diver with his leg trapped in an undersea crevasse or an imminent underwater explosion caused by poachers up to some dastardly scheme, you're really annoying me. And besides, Gentle Ben told me about those poachers half an hour ago. Catch up.

5. Flipper:

Yeah, great.

6. Spiritual People:

Who like you and think you're "amazing". You really aren't. Get back to the zoo and take your crystal hanging, creepy, dirty, vegan friends with you.

So there you have it. Any questions?


(not mine, I hasten to add. It comes from Animal Reviews (http://animalreviews.zelica.net/reviews/dolphin.htm))

First, children is a ridiculous example, as we're talking about species that are by-and-large considered non-sentient. Sentient species generally fall under a completely different classification.


There are some who would consider dolphins the most intelligent beings on the planet, and having seen some of the proposals, repeals and comments in this forum alone, I might tend to agree.

However....


The idea of protection at the point of endangerment is more of acknowledging that this is the point where we no longer can hope that a balance will exist with human desire and special existance. We give certain protections to creatures before this point, but those protections are not things like a total ban on fishing and such. If we did that, we would never be able to eat any fish (BTW, I go under the assumption that a rule for one species is a rule for all - I see no reason to give Dolphins a special status over, say, trout, seals, penguins or cows). When we mark them as being endangered, we are saying that human activity has brought this species to the point where further human activity is likely to set the species beyond the point where they can really exist any longer.


I am not saying that that isn't true. I am saying that the repeal argues that dolphins will be equally protected under the USONEOCUEB (whatever the hell it is called) resolution as they are under Protection of Dolphins. And that is, quite clearly, a load of crap. So while the resolution might not be the best, the repeal is not even worthy of looking at, let alone dignifying it with support. It is an insult to the intelligence of everyone in the UN, as its arguements are false and misleading, and it should not be voted through just because the end product will be acceptable. It is the process that matters, and the ends do not justify the means. Not now, not ever.


If you think they are worthy of protection under normal conditions, I say you are condoning us to being vegans for life. I don't support that position and I fully support this repeal.

Yes, because people who eat meat have only the option of eating dolphins and nothing else. What do you take me for? An idiot? There are plenty of other animals out there that people can eat that will provide meat (cows, llamas, aligators, kestrels, pigs, swans, peacocks, whiter chickens, normal chickens, hens, roosters, cockrels - do you want me to go on or have you got the point yet?) without the necessity of killing and eating dolphins. And I say that if you think that not killing them is condemming everyone to being vegans, then you have my understanding as to why you support this goddess forsaken excuse for a piece of law.

So there you have it. Any questions?


Yes - have you noticed everything it the repeal is a LIE?

cows, llamas, aligators, kestrels, pigs, swans, peacocks, whiter chickens, normal chickens, hens, roosters, cockrels - do you want me to go on or have you got the point yet

So, why shouldn't we protect those (which are useful animals) before they come extinct, as opposed to just dolphins which have no point whatsoever

Yes - have you noticed everything it the repeal is a LIE?
And you think I care?

And it isn't a lie. If dolphins are endangered (which they may well be in NS), then they are covered by the Endagered Species act. If not, it doesn't matter as we can only hunt them until the point they become endangered. So, it is redundant because there is no way dolphins could become extinct.

And you think I care?

I was kind of hoping, yeah. But I guess that was a bit of hopeful thought, wasn't it.

So, why shouldn't we protect those (which are useful animals) before they come extinct, as opposed to just dolphins which have no point whatsoever

That's not the issue. The resolution wasn't passed to protect them, it was passed to protect dolphins. That are at more risk than your average llama from being hit by a fishing boat, caught in fishing nets etc etc (unless it is true, that llamas are quadropeds with an aqualung, but it would appear unlikely given current evidence).

Further more dolphins are intelligent, and sentient (some would argue). They are also capable of all sorts of helpful things (planting mines, carrying toxic dart guns and so forth) and generally being more useful than a lot of humans.

If you want to protect them, pass a resolution to do it. But repealing this on the basis of a lie doesn't actually do anything, except enshrine the principal in UN law that as long as something gets done, it doesn't matter how. Which I think is a bad thing to enshrine, but eh - it's not like other people have ever used "the ends justifies the means" to do horrible, brutal things.

And you think I care?

And it isn't a lie. If dolphins are endangered (which they may well be in NS), then they are covered by the Endagered Species act. If not, it doesn't matter as we can only hunt them until the point they become endangered. So, it is redundant because there is no way dolphins could become extinct.

At the moment dolphins are entirely protected.

When it is repealed (as it seems to be the case) they will not be entirely protected.

Therefore the arguement that they will be equally protected under the USOENSOBEC act as they are under this is A LIE and I wish people would just admit they are willing to go along with people who lie just to get something done.

That's not the issue. The resolution wasn't passed to protect them, it was passed to protect dolphins. That are at more risk than your average llama from being hit by a fishing boat, caught in fishing nets etc etc (unless it is true, that llamas are quadropeds with an aqualung, but it would appear unlikely given current evidence).

Doesn't that disagree with the next paragraph?

Further more dolphins are intelligent, and sentient (some would argue).

If they were so intelligent then why do they swim into nets? Seem a bloody stupid thing to do to me

They are also capable of all sorts of helpful things (planting mines, carrying toxic dart guns and so forth) and generally being more useful than a lot of humans.
Repealing the resolution doesn't mean that an individual nation can't breed them for this reason.

At the moment dolphins are entirely protected.

When it is repealed (as it seems to be the case) they will not be entirely protected.

Therefore the arguement that they will be equally protected under the USOENSOBEC act as they are under this is A LIE and I wish people would just admit they are willing to go along with people who lie just to get something done.

Where in the resolution does it say they will recieve equal protection?

There are some who would consider dolphins the most intelligent beings on the planet, and having seen some of the proposals, repeals and comments in this forum alone, I might tend to agree.

However....

If you think they are intelligent enough to be worthy of protection, then protect them in your waters. The UN has not yet recognized the sentience of any species beyond humans, but it certainly allows other nations to recognize the sentience of non-humans.

I am not saying that that isn't true.

Actually, you did

I am saying that the repeal argues that dolphins will be equally protected under the USONEOCUEB (whatever the hell it is called) resolution as they are under Protection of Dolphins. And that is, quite clearly, a load of crap. So while the resolution might not be the best, the repeal is not even worthy of looking at, let alone dignifying it with support. It is an insult to the intelligence of everyone in the UN, as its arguements are false and misleading, and it should not be voted through just because the end product will be acceptable. It is the process that matters, and the ends do not justify the means. Not now, not ever.

Actually, you didn't (LAE did).

But fine. It perhaps suffers from that flaw. However, I think its worthy of protection regardless whether it is missing the one all-important-line or not. The fact of the matter is there are few nations who care enough about protecting dolphins for reasons beyond endangered species, and they will be more than happy to change the jurisdiction of international protection to just endangered species list under UNCOESB. That doesn't make it unworthy of endorsement. As I pointed out to LAE, if you truly think there is another reason to protect dolphins at an international level other than endangered species lists, please suggest it.

Yes, because people who eat meat have only the option of eating dolphins and nothing else. What do you take me for? An idiot? There are plenty of other animals out there that people can eat that will provide meat (cows, llamas, aligators, kestrels, pigs, swans, peacocks, whiter chickens, normal chickens, hens, roosters, cockrels - do you want me to go on or have you got the point yet?) without the necessity of killing and eating dolphins. And I say that if you think that not killing them is condemming everyone to being vegans, then you have my understanding as to why you support this goddess forsaken excuse for a piece of law.

You missed my point

(BTW, I go under the assumption that a rule for one species is a rule for all - I see no reason to give Dolphins a special status over, say, trout, seals, penguins or cows)

You were arguing that they aren't worthy of protection because only protecting them while they were endangered was, to use your term, "remarkably stupid". As such, I'm suggesting that not doing so would be protecting all animals while they are not endangered - which means that we can't kill any of them for meat.

Thank you for reading.

Yes, because people who eat meat have only the option of eating dolphins and nothing else. What do you take me for? An idiot? There are plenty of other animals out there that people can eat that will provide meat (cows, llamas, aligators, kestrels, pigs, swans, peacocks, whiter chickens, normal chickens, hens, roosters, cockrels - do you want me to go on or have you got the point yet?) without the necessity of killing and eating dolphins. And I say that if you think that not killing them is condemming everyone to being vegans, then you have my understanding as to why you support this goddess forsaken excuse for a piece of law.

The people of Moldavistan have what we feel to be a vested interest in this debate. While it is not normally our practice to capture and consume whole dolphins as a source of meat, our cultural traditions do involve the harvesting of dolphin fins for use in a sort of "fin soup". The delicacy is called "mheena hljhip kreb" in our native tongue; loosely translated, "swimming blowhole mammal-fish broth". Extensive research carried out within our fine medical community has determined this soup to be have many positive and substantial effects to the health and well-being of our people. It is also worth noting that consumption dates back to prehistoric times; many examples of cave art show various scenes of fin harvesting and soup making. In addition, anthropological evidence of early humans in our region (Moldavistani Man) demonstrate the central importance of the soup as remains were often interred with a soup bowl and spoon.

I have consulted with the Ministry of Seas and Oceans - Fin Department on this matter, and was informed that it is not common for our harvesting methods to result in the destruction of the animal. Typically, our fin harvesters will lure the animals near their boats with smiles, song, and other festive types of behavior, at which point the fins are quicky cut off with sharp blades. Only a very small percentage of the beasts die after this procedure. It has been noted that the surviving animals do tend to swim out the remainder of their days in an erratic fashion, corkscrewing through the sea, but this does not appear to have any detrimental effects on the psychological well-being of the dolphins.

With all of this in mind, the people of Moldavistan clearly support repealing this resolution. The ambiguous nature of Article 5 has placed a heavy burden on this traditional industry, and has driven much of these harvesting activities underground where they escape government scrutiny.

If you think they are intelligent enough to be worthy of protection, then protect them in your waters. The UN has not yet recognized the sentience of any species beyond humans, but it certainly allows other nations to recognize the sentience of non-humans.


That's not the point. The point is the repeal is a lie.



Actually, you did


I didn't, but I can see how you might think I did.


Actually, you didn't (LAE did).


I did, just not very clearly.


But fine. It perhaps suffers from that flaw. However, I think its worthy of protection regardless whether it is missing the one all-important-line or not. The fact of the matter is there are few nations who care enough about protecting dolphins for reasons beyond endangered species, and they will be more than happy to change the jurisdiction of international protection to just endangered species list under UNCOESB. That doesn't make it unworthy of endorsement. As I pointed out to LAE, if you truly think there is another reason to protect dolphins at an international level other than endangered species lists, please suggest it.


I don't care if there is another reason. The repeal is claiming something that is patently not true, and people don't appear to care.


You missed my point


ditto.


You were arguing that they aren't worthy of protection because only protecting them while they were endangered was, to use your term, "remarkably stupid". As such, I'm suggesting that not doing so would be protecting all animals while they are not endangered - which means that we can't kill any of them for meat.


I was talking about protecting dolphins under the current resolution that exists, not about any other animals. Cause no other animals are covered, and are not the point of my issue with the repeal.


Thank you for reading.

You are most welcome.

The repeal is a lie. Support it and support the death of the truth in the UN.

Where in the resolution does it say they will recieve equal protection?


4): CONVINCED that Resolution #106 is rendered redundant by the protections provided in Resolution #119;


#106 can only be redundant if the dolpins lose no protection by it being repealed. Otherwise it plays a point.

Ergo they must be equally protected, which they are not. So it's a lie.

snip


You want to repeal it so you can torture and eat dolphins?

Good plan.

Doesn't that disagree with the next paragraph?


No.


If they were so intelligent then why do they swim into nets? Seem a bloody stupid thing to do to me


If humans are so smart, why do they jump in to a river to rescue a dog that is a better swimmer than they are? Why do humans cross the road without looking? Why do humans build bombs capable of wiping out an entire race?

They don't swim in to nets, the nets drag in to them before they can escape.


Repealing the resolution doesn't mean that an individual nation can't breed them for this reason.

I don't disagree. But again - not my point.


I am done trying to defend this. A lot of people (in other threads and posts) have already indicated that the result matters more than how you get that, and despite the fact I find that an abhorrent, I am obviously in the minority.

So eh - go vote it in and see the results. I am done.

First Let me explain what UNCoESB (For Palladiums Reference as He/She seems to be having some difficulty with it!) stands for .....
the United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Bill.
Now let me explain something. I first got the idea of the UNCoESB when after noticing the Resolution Banning Whaling (#70) and PoDA (#106) there was an attempt to bring a further resolution to the books to protect another single species. had it got through it would have meant 3 singular resolutions covering 3 separate species. Why have 3 when you can have one? this is the question I asked.
Lets look to A real organisation, The WWF.(World Wildlife Fund ~ again just in case Palladium has trouble) Now picture that organiseation as a singular species organisation aimed at protecting JUST pandas. There would have to be a separate one for the Bald Headed Eagle, the Blue Whale, The Rhinoserous, Elephant, Bengali Tiger, Orangutaan, Gorrilla, Siberian Tiger, ............ The List is as endless as there are species of animal on this planet. We would have to fund the commitees and separate networks of each group. The costs would be immense.
The WWF raises funds, Monitors populations, Publicises and creates awareness of possible endangerments and acts in the case where a species has been deemed endangered. It does so with the aid and assistance of NGO's and Governments and tries where it can to educate local populations on the dangers of over hunting and over fishing. This is what in NS the UNCoESB does. There is no longer a need or requirement for singular species resolutions in the UN. Both PoDA and Banning Whaling in my opinion are now defunct. See sence and lets Repeal these.

Venerable Libertarians, Rampant Capitalists with an ecological Heart.

First Let me explain what UNCoESB (For Palladiums Reference as He/She seems to be having some difficulty with it!) stands for .....
the United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Bill.
Now let me explain something. I first got the idea of the UNCoESB when after noticing the Resolution Banning Whaling (#70) and PoDA (#106) there was an attempt to bring a further resolution to the books to protect another single species. had it got through it would have meant 3 singular resolutions covering 3 separate species. Why have 3 when you can have one? this is the question I asked.
Lets look to A real organisation, The WWF.(World Wildlife Fund ~ again just in case Palladium has trouble) Now picture that organiseation as a singular species organisation aimed at protecting JUST pandas. There would have to be a separate one for the Bald Headed Eagle, the Blue Whale, The Rhinoserous, Elephant, Bengali Tiger, Orangutaan, Gorrilla, Siberian Tiger, ............ The List is as endless as there are species of animal on this planet. We would have to fund the commitees and separate networks of each group. The costs would be immense.
The WWF raises funds, Monitors populations, Publicises and creates awareness of possible endangerments and acts in the case where a species has been deemed endangered. It does so with the aid and assistance of NGO's and Governments and tries where it can to educate local populations on the dangers of over hunting and over fishing. This is what in NS the UNCoESB does. There is no longer a need or requirement for singular species resolutions in the UN. Both PoDA and Banning Whaling in my opinion are now defunct. See sence and lets Repeal these.

Venerable Libertarians, Rampant Capitalists with an ecological Heart.

If you are going to take the time and effor to patronise me, at least spell my name right.

You want to repeal it so you can torture and eat dolphins?

Of course not! We just want to make a little soup.

If you are going to take the time and effor to patronise me, at least spell my name right.
It was sarcasm.. next time i will Highlight! And to be fair it was a fair reply to your disrespect of MY resolution. Touche!

OOC! Perhaps we should agree to stick to the discussion and leave the Playground retorts out. I will continue with due respect to you and the Peoples you represent. Agreed?

Of course not! We just want to make a little soup.
If repealed, The Nation of Moldavistan may make as much soup as it likes, As long as it is fished under the provisions of the UNCoESB's Quotas. Whereas the Nation of Pallatium may within its own borders and in cross border agreements with like minded nations Nurture and tend its burgeoning Dolphin population.
One UN Nation has no right to force another to not fish where it is not necessary for the UN to do so. With PoDA this is the case.

It was sarcasm.. next time i will Highlight! And to be fair it was a fair reply to your disrespect of MY resolution. Touche!


My apologies. Given the seriousness with which the repeal is being taken, I was just assuming everyone else was being equally serious.


OOC! Perhaps we should agree to stick to the discussion and leave the Playground retorts out. I will continue with due respect to you and the Peoples you represent. Agreed?

(ooc) Seems unlikely. I am not coming back to debate this ludicrous excuse for a repeal because I have paint drying on my wall.

First Let me explain what UNCoESB stands for .....
the United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Bill.
Now let me explain something.
I first got the idea of the UNCoESB when after noticing the Resolution Banning Whaling (#70) and PoDA (#106) there was an attempt to bring a further resolution to the books to protect another single species. Had it got through it would have meant 3 singular resolutions covering 3 separate species.
Why have 3 when you can have one? is the question I asked. My Solution? A single resolution to have a widespread protection for all wildlife with garuntees for species who are endangered or are held in high esteem, while giving the right to fish or hunt back to Nations once garuntees were given that it would be done in a responsible manner.

Lets look to A real organisation, The WWF. (World Wildlife Fund )Now picture that organisation as a singular species organisation aimed at protecting JUST pandas. There would have to be a separate one for the Bald Headed Eagle, the Blue Whale, The Rhinoserous, Elephant, Bengali Tiger, Orangutaan, Gorrilla, Siberian Tiger, ............ The List is as endless as there are species of animal on this planet.
We would have to fund the commitees and separate networks of each group. The costs would be immense.
The WWF raises funds, Monitors populations, Publicises and creates awareness of possible endangerments and acts in the case where a species has been deemed endangered. It does so with the aid and assistance of NGO's and Governments and tries where it can to educate local populations on the dangers of over hunting and over fishing. This is what in NS the UNCoESB does. There is no longer a need or requirement for singular species resolutions in the UN. Both PoDA and Banning Whaling in my opinion are now defunct. See sense and lets Repeal these.

Venerable Libertarians, Rampant Capitalists with an ecological Heart.

(edit: This is a reposting of a previous post with all sarcasm and patronising comments removed, spelling corrected and points embellished.)

You cannot make assumptions about the status of dolphins in NS. Where they are endangered, they will be protected by the full weight of UNCoESB. Where they are not endangered, there is no need for them to be afforded the extra protection of PoDA. If you have special connection to or affinity for dolphins so be it, but don't try to enforce that irrational conception onto the UN at large.

I think maybe I'm getting confused about terms. By 'endangered' I mean in a state where there is serious danger of extinction. Such species are protected by UNCoESB. If dolphins are not endangered, then there is no reason for PoDA to exist.Ah.

Well, humans are not endangered, either. Ergo, it is entirely acceptable for anyone who wishes to slaughter them on the high seas or in international airspace, for whatever reason, to do so, no questions asked.

What makes you hairless monkeys so special, human?

If PoDA passes, we will consider this a declaration of war on our species - and will begin slaying humans wherever we find them - outside of anybody's national borders. Let the wars begin.

Ah.

Well, humans are not endangered, either. Ergo, it is entirely acceptable for anyone who wishes to slaughter them on the high seas or in international airspace, for whatever reason, to do so, no questions asked.

What makes you hairless monkeys so special, human?

If PoDA passes, we will consider this a declaration of war on our species - and will begin slaying humans wherever we find them - outside of anybody's national borders. Let the wars begin.
Jeesh... you say that every time this comes up. A couple of Points ......
1, Chimps are not afforded any extra protections even though they are Humanities closest relative according to science and have an equal if not better chance of sentience. So Again why should dolphins have any extra specific Protections?
2, PoDA has been passed! we wish to repeal it!
3, http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=venerable_libertarians&nation2=Bloodthirsty+Dolphins
Erm a lil bit puny to be pushing the WAR word around arent you? If you wish for war, looking at the stats i say bring it on.
4, You arent even a member of the UN! As things stand i could have my Puppet nation which is currently 3X your population and Non UN have your nation fished clean of all mammals!

To summarise, a repeal of this resolution is fiscally sensible, legislatively sensible and morally Sensible. I ask again make the sensible choice. Repeal UN resolution 106 "PoDA", NOW!

Do you understand, though, that if dolphins are endangered then they are covered by UNCoESB? Yes, can we agree on that? And if they are not endangered, then they DO NOT NEED EXTRA PROTECTION as they are NOT ENDANGERED. So what is the point of your objection?False.

You are misreading #106.RECONGNIZING that dolphins are extremely intelligent, man-loving and friendly mammals, that symbolize to millions around the world the spirit of freedom, happiness and togetherness,...You assert that dolphins only "deserve" protection if we are on the brink of extinction, yet you almost certainly (we would venture to guess) would not accept that humans - as a species that is anything but endangered - do not "deserve" protection either.

So why do you deserve special treatment? We suspect that it is because you believe yourselves to be "sentient (or intelligent) beings, made in (your anthropomorphic conception of) the image of God". That this is nothing more than your opinion means nothing, but that doesn't stop you from assuming that you hold a special place in the Universe.

Isn't that precious?

NSUN Resolution #106 makes no pretense to give us the right to travel the seas - our natural habitat - safe from your predation due to your magnanimous desire to avoid wiping us from the face of the Earth. Rather, it asserts that we are "extremely intelligent" beings. Our right to exist safely in our native habitat is, in essence, our manifestation of what one of your political philosophers termed "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

This repeal brutalises us, reducing us to your chattel, granting you the power of life and death over our species. That you generously promise not to kill every last one of us - just 99.9% of our species - is cold comfort. If one of your nations were to do this to another, or even to a subset of individuals within their borders, you would call it "genocide" and (within the confines of the International Incidents forum) the nations of the world would rise up against the offender, overwhelm his defenses, topple his government, and end the slaughter.

But when one or more of you do it to us, well, that's just business as usual - literally.

How dare you. Who do you think you are?

We just chase dolphins into international waters before hitting them over the head with a shovel....And we respond by placing limpet mines underneath the keels of your fishing boats and then dragging the survivors so far underwater that they can't help but drown.

Have you noticed the uptick in "unexplained losses at sea" on the part of your fishing fleet yet? :D

Or how about there are too many dolphins in a nation's waters. They escaped from captivity. They are destroying the eco system. But we can't get rid of them because of 'survival of the cutest'.There are too many humans on land, and they are destroying the ecosystem, too. So shall we declare open season on these hairless monkeys, then?

If not, why not?

You do realise that only UN members are affected by UN resolutions and UN nations are outnumbered in the NationStates world 3 to 1 right?

That means that there are tens of thousands of nations that do not have to follow the laws set down in the PoD act and are quite happily hunting dolphins in international waters just like they have always done, so you have never had the right to travel the seas - our natural habitat - safe from your predation.

Under UNCoESB endangered species of dolphin recieve protection. End of story. The PoDA is redundant. If dolphins deserve to recieve special protection, not because they need it but just because they are "cute", then every animal in the NS world should as well.

By the way, if you are a sentient species of dolphin, then you don't count as unsentient animals needing UN protection, and in my opinion aren't covered under either PoDA or UNCoESB.

First, children is a ridiculous example, as we're talking about species that are by-and-large considered non-sentient. Sentient species generally fall under a completely different classification.Considered non-sentient by who, you silly primate?

Our brains are every bit as large and complex as yours. How do you know that we're not a sentient species? Just because we don't speak in grunts and barks, the way you do, that doesn't make us "dumb animals". You can't speak in clicks and whistles, the way we do, so does that make you dumb animals?

If they were so intelligent then why do they swim into nets? Seem a bloody stupid thing to do to me.Why do humans walk into quicksand or run each other over with cars? Seems like a bloody stupid thing to do to me. I mean, they have eyes and ears, so you'd think they could use them or something...

The people of Moldavistan have what we feel to be a vested interest in this debate. While it is not normally our practice to capture and consume whole dolphins as a source of meat, our cultural traditions do involve the harvesting of dolphin fins for use in a sort of "fin soup". The delicacy is called "mheena hljhip kreb" in our native tongue; loosely translated, "swimming blowhole mammal-fish broth". Extensive research carried out within our fine medical community has determined this soup to be have many positive and substantial effects to the health and well-being of our people. It is also worth noting that consumption dates back to prehistoric times; many examples of cave art show various scenes of fin harvesting and soup making. In addition, anthropological evidence of early humans in our region (Moldavistani Man) demonstrate the central importance of the soup as remains were often interred with a soup bowl and spoon.

I have consulted with the Ministry of Seas and Oceans - Fin Department on this matter, and was informed that it is not common for our harvesting methods to result in the destruction of the animal. Typically, our fin harvesters will lure the animals near their boats with smiles, song, and other festive types of behavior, at which point the fins are quicky cut off with sharp blades. Only a very small percentage of the beasts die after this procedure. It has been noted that the surviving animals do tend to swim out the remainder of their days in an erratic fashion, corkscrewing through the sea, but this does not appear to have any detrimental effects on the psychological well-being of the dolphins.

With all of this in mind, the people of Moldavistan clearly support repealing this resolution. The ambiguous nature of Article 5 has placed a heavy burden on this traditional industry, and has driven much of these harvesting activities underground where they escape government scrutiny.I wonder what human fingers and toes taste like? Hmmmm.

I am done trying to defend this. A lot of people (in other threads and posts) have already indicated that the result matters more than how you get that, and despite the fact I find that an abhorrent, I am obviously in the minority.

So eh - go vote it in and see the results. I am done.Thank you for your sensitivity. If this resolution passes, and you paint your flag on the bottom of your vessels, we will make sure that we don't blow your people out of the water when the Great Human-Dolphin War begins.

Jeesh... you say that every time this comes up. A couple of Points ......Well, if someone were proposing that we legalise the slaughter of humans on the high seas, we bet you'd have a thing or two to say about that, now wouldn't you?Chimps are not afforded any extra protections even though they are Humanities closest relative according to science and have an equal if not better chance of sentience. So Again why should dolphins have any extra specific Protections?First, being humanity's closest relative confers no special privilege - unless you consider humanity (which you capitalise, which says quite a lot) something special. Of course, being human, you would.

Second, maybe you should protect chimps, just like our cousins the whales. If they're sentient, isn't that the right thing to do?PoDA has been passed! we wish to repeal it!No, really? Who'd have thunk it?

IOW, you don't have the right to kill us, but you want to. Gosh, we're glad you cleared that up.http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=venerable_libertarians&nation2=Bloodthirsty+Dolphins
Erm a lil bit puny to be pushing the WAR word around arent you? If you wish for war, looking at the stats i say bring it on... You arent even a member of the UN! As things stand i could have my Puppet nation which is currently 3X your population and Non UN have your nation fished clean of all mammals!Oh, and that's a good reason not to fight against letting every nation kill our kind? Or to fight those nations that kill our kind? Yeah, sure.

We have two words for you: guerilla warfare.To summarise, a repeal of this resolution is fiscally sensible, legislatively sensible and morally Sensible. I ask again make the sensible choice. Repeal UN resolution 106 "PoDA", NOW!To summarise, repealing the PoDA is tantamount to endorsing genocide. Does this body have any morals, or is it just a bunch of greedy, self-satisfied savages?

You do realise that only UN members are affected by UN resolutions and UN nations are outnumbered in the NationStates world 3 to 1 right?

That means that there are tens of thousands of nations that do not have to follow the laws set down in the PoD act and are quite happily hunting dolphins in international waters just like they have always done, so you have never had the right to travel the seas - our natural habitat - safe from your predation.You are correct. But the U.N. is a trend-setter, and that means something.

Even if it didn't, the argument that just because 3/4 of the world is not restricted from killing us, it's O.K. to let the other 1/4 join in seems a little ridiculous, doesn't it?If dolphins deserve to recieve special protection, not because they need it but just because they are "cute", then every animal in the NS world should as well.NSUN Resolution #106 doesn't say that we shouldn't be killed just because we're "cute". It says that we shouldn't be killed because we're intelligent.By the way, if you are a sentient species of dolphin, then you don't count as unsentient animals needing UN protection, and in my opinion aren't covered under either PoDA or UNCoESB.And you base this opinion on what, precisely?

The author of that resolution stated dolphins were intelligent, he didn't state all dolphins were sentient. I can and do accept there are sentient species of dolphin, but don't accept they are all sentient.

Other animals have varied levels of intelligence as well. Dogs can be taught to obey commands, pigs can be taught to do tricks, some species of apes can be taught sign language. Should we pass special resolutions to protect them too on the basis of their intelligence?

There is a big difference between intelligence and sentience. Your species is obvioulsy sentient, or you wouldn't be a recognised nation. Why would a nation of any beings or species need UN protection. Does that mean I can get a resolution passed to protect Wateranan citizens from harm as well? As an independant nation of intelligent sentient beings, you are expected to protect yourselves.

Our national animal, the moon dolphin, is very intelligient but isn't sentient. They are animals and do fall under the protections of both resolutions mentioned in this thread. They deserve and get full protection under our laws. No-one but no-one is permitted to harm a dolphin in any way within our territorial waters.

What I am apparently failing to understand is why some member nations feel that Act 106: Protection of Dolphins Act is necessary in the catalogue of U.N. laws. It appears to me Act 119 covers all endangered species; any other document pertaining then to specific species would be redundant. Is this not the goal of the repeal to eliminate redudant acts such as Act 106?

Yes - have you noticed everything it the repeal is a LIE?
[OOC]: So everything in the repeal is a lie? You know, when you first admitted that you were TilEnca, Yelda was the first nation to welcome you back. (it was in the Worldwide Media Act thread if you don't remember) I welcomed you back because I remembered you from when I first began playing the game and had a great deal of respect for you. That level of respect is falling like a rock, as is your credibility.

[Back to IC]: Right! Let's examine this "pack of lies", shall we?
1): COMMENDING the goals of United Nations Resolution #106, Protection of Dolphins Act;
Not a lie. We actually do commend what PoDA was trying to achieve. We are convinced, however, that the resolution is no longer needed. If a species of Dolphin is not endangered then we are of the opinion that it is no more deserving of protection than any other non-endangered species. If a species of Dolphin is endangered it is protected under UNCoESB.
2): NOTING the passage of United Nations Resolution #119, UNCoESB;
Not a lie. UNCoESB did pass. We noted it.
3): FURTHER NOTING article 7 of UNCoESB which bans all hunting of endangered species, in addition to other provisions which ensure the survival of endangered species;
Not a lie. Article 7 of UNCoESB really does ban all hunting of endangered species and UNCoESB really does contain other measures to ensure the survival of endangered species.
4): CONVINCED that Resolution #106 is rendered redundant by the protections provided in Resolution #119;
Not a lie. We, as well as many others, really are convinced that it is redundant.
5): BELIEVING that the removal of unnecessary legislation is in the best interests of the member nations of the UN;
Not a lie. We really do believe that unnecessary legislation should be removed.
6): HEREBY repeals United Nations Resolution #106, Protection of Dolphins Act.
Not a lie. Although whether or not it comes to pass is up to the membership. Call it a prediction.

Unless you can come up with actual substantive arguments against this repeal, rather than long posts full of nothing but air, don't expect the Yeldan delegation to respond.

i am against this repeal. i think that even though the protection of dolphins may have been touched over, i think that laws need to be toughened. If people keep "killing" the dolphins by "accident" as they are a byproduct from fishing, they need to be protected, because sooner or later, the species will be extinct and there will be then, nothing we can do about it.

Redundancy is not a relevant factor here. The PoDA was established in order to protect all dolphins, not merely endangered ones. Merely by that virtue, it is not rendered redundant.

The real question is: Do we feel that dolphins no longer require protection, unless they are in danger of extinction?

Do we want to repeal an act protecting a species that, at the time, we felt was worth protecting as a whole?

Besides, the question if dolphins are endangered is moot: Dolphins are not a species, but a family consisting of almost 40 different species. The PoDA effectively covers all 40, where as the UNCoESB will cover only specific species, to whom, as we can see by debate, we don't even agree if a threat exists.

So again, do we want to repeal an act protecting a family of species that we felt was worth protecting as a whole?

The Community of Fahnytum's stance on this is no, we recognize in good faith that a decision was made at the time that still holds strong and is in no way redundant, and that redundancy in the future should be better examined as an arguement.

Bloodthirsty Dolphins: I am sorry, but I have not seen any evidence of dolphin intelligence. I consider your acting as though you are a sentient dolphin to be both mildly kinky and extremely wanky, and cannot as such recognise any arguments thus presented with reference to 'sentience'.

The is no scientific proof that dolphins are endangered. Furthermore, they are not man loving. As an sailor could tell you, dolphins are dogs of the sea - if you were to fall into the ocean with them they would become so excited that they would drown you. I just dont see how anyone could support something that is so economicly damaging.

So while the resolution might not be the best, the repeal is not even worthy of looking at, let alone dignifying it with support. It is an insult to the intelligence of everyone in the UN, as its arguements are false and misleading, and it should not be voted through just because the end product will be acceptable. It is the process that matters, and the ends do not justify the means. Not now, not ever. ... And I say that if you think that not killing them is condemming everyone to being vegans, then you have my understanding as to why you support this goddess forsaken excuse for a piece of law.Yes - have you noticed everything it [sic] the repeal is a LIE?And you think I care?I was kind of hoping, yeah. But I guess that was a bit of hopeful thought, wasn't it.But repealing this on the basis of a lie doesn't actually do anything, except enshrine the principal in UN law that as long as something gets done, it doesn't matter how. Which I think is a bad thing to enshrine, but eh - it's not like other people have ever used "the ends justifies the means" to do horrible, brutal things.Therefore the arguement that they will be equally protected under the USOENSOBEC act as they are under this is A LIE and I wish people would just admit they are willing to go along with people who lie just to get something done.That's not the point. The point is the repeal is a lie. ... The repeal is claiming something that is patently not true, and people don't appear to care. ... The repeal is a lie. Support it and support the death of the truth in the UN.Ergo they must be equally protected, which they are not. So it's a lie.A lot of people (in other threads and posts) have already indicated that the result matters more than how you get that, and despite the fact I find that an abhorrent [sic] ....An hysterical, highly emotional line of argument that assigns dark and sinister motives to all those who disagree. Why am I not surprised?

We have heard it all, and frankly, we don't care if the argument is that dolphins are cute and cuddly; that they are happy and friendly and beloved by children everywhere; that their intelligence far exceeds that of any other sentient being; that they are foul-mouthed (ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Antarctic_Oasis#Native_sentients) and need to be guarded against the FCC; that we should impose our values on all nations and force them to recognize same-sex dolphin marriages before the homophobe dolphins have their say; that the dolphin ambassador quite possibly could blow himself up inside an embassy, bringing harm to untold numbers of immunity waivers, and the Mighty Dolphin King may not waive diplomatic immunity in order to prosecute him; that this repeal may strip dolphins of their God-given right to view Hyrulian DVDs without having to worry about regional media coding; that those responsible for "rigging" the Worldwide Media vote in the West Pacific were highly secretive anti-dolphin conspirators who operate hundreds of dolphin-torture chambers the world over; or even that you worship dolphins and we all must preserve their UN shield or fear the terrible wrath of the Dread Dreadlocked Rastafarian Dolphin Goddess -- the fact of the matter is that dolphins are already afforded due protection under the UNCoESB, and we have yet to see any convincing argument as to why they are uniquely entitled to special protections beyond Resolution #119's mandates. Moreover, the UNCoESB does something the PoDA does not: It protects dolphins in sovereign national waters (where they are more likely to come to harm). The PoDA applies only to international waters, over which the UN's authority is murky at best, and its enforcement is nonexistant, since it lacks any military or police force to enforce its own laws.

Heck, this repeal may even come in handy should "The Simpsons'" frightening vision of the future -- Lisa freeing captive dolphins, only to have them return and reign terror on their former human oppressors -- ever come to fruition. :p

Therefore, as previously stated (forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9827718&postcount=30), we continue to support the repeal of Resolution #106: Protection of Dolphins Act, and have cast our votes thusly.

If one resolution would sum up why I'd ever leave the UN, it's the Protection of Dolphins. Therefor, the republic fully supports any repeal of that preposterous resolution.

Dolphins are well enough protected anyway. The repeal of this resolution does not change that. So let's get rid of it ASAP.

[Vigdís Tirfinnbogadót, the Vice-President of love and esterel delivered a speech at the UN general Assembly]

Dear UN Members,
Dear UN Delegates,

The UN Resolution #106: Protection of Dolphins Act emphasize that humans are READY.

READY to ENCOUNTER
READY to ACCEPT
READY to RESPECT
READY to APPRECIATE another sentient species than our own; either Aliens, Post-Humans, Artificial Intelligences

Yes, dolphins are not sentient beings, but they approach sentience, as they have an elaborated language, pass the Mirror Test and can use tools.

We live in a complex world, where sentience is not a black & white notion, but a progressive one with no clear delimitation (babies don’t born sentient they become progressively sentient and we, humans reached sentience progressively in the course of our history).

Between sentience and non-sentience is a grey area, dolphins belong to this grey area and therefore deserves some COMPATION from us, this is what #106 does.

For centuries we didn’t accepted differences:
-European committed the genocide of pre-Columbian population
-On 28 March 1968 some people in USA had to demonstrate with a “I am a man” placard
-On 20 June 2005, some Kuwait MPs banged their desks to try to stop the 1st speech in parliament of the 1st woman minister in this nation ever
…the list is so long

Protection of Dolphins Act is a rare international act providing COMPATION for another species, and emphasize that our species is not egoistic.

If #106 is repealed, dolphins will not be protected by the UN anymore (as they are not protected by #119 UNCoESB)

The UN should be proud to have passed and to keep #106

Thank You.

PS:
Dolphins use tools: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7475
20 June 2005 in Kuwait: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4111234.stm

[Vigdís Tirfinnbogadót, the Vice-President of love and esterel delivered a speech at the UN general Assembly]

As the applause died down, Moltan Bausch rose from his chair, and ascended to the platform. A silence settled, one so dense and precious that you could hear a stoat choking a weasel on the pavement.

"Madam Chair, Honourable Delegates, Fellow Members.

I'm confused. I don't like admitting it, but I'm confused. The representative from Love and esterel comes to us insistent that dolphins are not a species, but a family, and that this is somehow important. He admits that dolphins are not truly sentient.

And yet he begins his speech tonight telling us, and in doing so ignoring the vast racial constitution of the UN at present, tellinn us that we are ready to recognise another 'sentient species'. And I am compelled to ask the honourable representative: which one?

He talks to us of language, and tool use, and biological tests. Yet if we are to take this as the criterion on which we decide who to protect, then by his own admission we may as well go out tomorrow and start slaughtering the newborn: after all, he claims, they are less sentient than dolphins!

It is about time this duplicitous huxter stopped trying to con the honourable assembly before him, and admitted that there are no moral grounds for affording extra protection to dolphins, and that his remaining objections are mere whisps of childish petulence.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some near-sentient mammals to harpoon."

The English Union is going to vote in favor of repealing this Act as we see it as redundant. Instead of enacting different legislation for every single animal species, we would rather see a law passed cracking down on illegal hunting.

[The Foreign Minister of Ausserland rises and walks to the podium, pushing his glasses up onto his nose and fumbling with a sheaf of papers. Frowns and murmurred comments. The Ausserland delegation always spoke from their seats in the Assembly, not from the podium.]

My distinguished colleagues --

I would like to thank and commend the honorable Vice-President of Love and esterel for his thoughtful and thought-provoking remarks. We disagree with his position on this issue, but we thank him for raising the quality of debate on this issue from the level of name-calling and sneers to which it had unfortunately been lowered.

I beg leave to quote one paragraph of the distinguished gentleman's remarks:


We live in a complex world, where sentience is not a black & white notion, but a progressive one with no clear delimitation (babies don’t born sentient they become progressively sentient and we, humans reached sentience progressively in the course of our history).


We agree completely with this observation, yet we see its impact on this issue very differently than the honorable Vice-President. We see Resolution #106 as an unfortunate instance of drawing just such a clear delimitation: with dolphins on one side of the line and all other species of animal on the other. Dolphins are in the "white", deserving extra protection beyond that afforded to any other species. All other animals are appropriately protected under Resolution #119, but dolphins are "special" and deserve special treatment. We cannot agree.

We believe that species which are or which become endangered are appropriately protected under Resolution #119. If any of the almost 40 species included in the Dolphin family are or become endangered, they will receive equal protection to that given all other such animals.

Ausserland has voted in favor of this repeal. We respectfully request our colleagues to give consideration to doing likewise. Thank you.

[The foreign minister walks back to his seat.]

We simply like dolphins, so are voting against the repeal.

There's no reason to not protect them, is there?

Any nation that has a surplus population of them can send them in our direction.

Thank you.

We simply like dolphins, so are voting against the repeal.

There's no reason to not protect them, is there?

Any nation that has a surplus population of them can send them in our direction.

Thank you.

Stuff that, we're turning our surplus into burgers. And yes, there is a reason not to protect them: money, and resources. We do not want to divert the attentions of anti-smuggling patrols in the Bay of Abzhan-Rejak into chasing those practicing their tribal traditional hunting.

Pompomia votes to repeal. We like Dolphins... they taste like chicken.

The Socialist Republic maintains that the Protection of Dolphins Act stands alone and is not backed up by the UNCoESB, but as the underlying issue of whether or not to specially protect dolphins is outside our scope of concern and does not directly affect Xanthal it is not our place to take action in favor or opposition to the PDA's repeal. The Alphin has opted to abstain from casting a vote on the matter 3-0. What choices are made to protect Earth's natural habitats and wildlife is up to the people that reside there and the nations that house them.

Yătzĭl Ämsi
First Lanalphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

Gravelbourg is against the repeal of the Protection of Dolphins Act.

This one's a little tricky. We really like the UNCoESB resolution (and voted FOR it) as it provided protections to all endangered species. UNCoESB is a good resolution and we need to continue to support it.

However, the Protection of Dolphins Act does things that the UNCoESB can't do. UNCOeESB only deals with endangered species. Technically, that only means it deals with two dolphin species, the Chinese River Dolphin (Lipotes vexillifer) and the Indus River Dolphin (Platanista minor).

And that's the problem: there are other dolphin species out there that aren't endangered but 'depleted,' to borrow the phraseology of the United States Marine Mammal Act. The UNCoESB legislation can't protect dolphin species such as the ...

* North Atlantic Coastal Bottlenose Dolphin
* Eastern Spinner Dolphin
* Northeastern Offshore Spotted Dolphin
* Coastal Spotted Dolphin

... but the Protection of Dolphins Act does offer protection.

Northeastern Offshore Spotted Dolphins comprise the one species most affected by purse-seine fishing in the east Pacific. UNCoESB can't fully protect them. The old legislation can. We should keep the Protection of Dolphins Act on the books. So we vote AGAINST the current resolution.

Olivier Trudeau, Prime Minister,
The Metacognitive Reflections of Gravelbourg

And that's the problem: there are other dolphin species out there that aren't endangered but 'depleted,' to borrow the phraseology of the United States Marine Mammal Act. The UNCoESB legislation can't protect dolphin species such as the ...

* North Atlantic Coastal Bottlenose Dolphin
* Eastern Spinner Dolphin
* Northeastern Offshore Spotted Dolphin
* Coastal Spotted Dolphin

... but the Protection of Dolphins Act does offer protection.

Olivier Trudeau, Prime Minister,
The Metacognitive Reflections of Gravelbourg

The PoD Act only offers protection to those dolphins that have the good fortune to be in international waters. Once the dolphins swim into national waters (perhaps having been lured into said waters), the PoD Act no longer covers them. This is extremely limited protection and I submit that it is unlikely that the PoD Act would prevent further depletion of the species you mentioned.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

The PoD Act only offers protection to those dolphins that have the good fortune to be in international waters. Once the dolphins swim into national waters (perhaps having been lured into said waters), the PoD Act no longer covers them. This is extremely limited protection and I submit that it is unlikely that the PoD Act would prevent further depletion of the species you mentioned.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Once dolphins are in national waters, the PoD Act does the following, and we approve what it does:

1. Condemns in the strongest terms the intentional killing of dolphins around the world.

4. Calls upon all its members to find ways to minimize the accidental killing of dolphins in the fishing business.

5. Calls upon all states to prevent dolphin abuse, in any way that they see fit, provided that no dolphin shall ever be preferred over human lives.

The repeal is a lie. Support it and support the death of the truth in the UN.

Have you read the resolutions all the way through? There's various false stats, points of irrelevance, points that seem ridiculous, points that are legalities wise odd, etc. Repeal of Ban Chemical Weapons is one of the most false-statement riddled resolutions I've seen, showing a failure to understand both the governance of the UN and the legalities of resolutions. As far as I'm concerned, the false statement in this resolution is....well....irrelevant.

The death of truth started from resolution 1. I don't believe that it is possible to revitalize the dead.

[Vigdís Tirfinnbogadót, the Vice-President of love and esterel delivered a speech at the UN general Assembly]

To the Vice-President of Love and Esterel:

While I acknowledge that dolphins do, indeed, approach sentience, I do not believe this makes them any more worthy of protection. The fact of the matter is that few nations consider them to be fully sentient, and most nations believe that if an animal is non-sentient, they are not worthy of protecting.

My problem with claiming that approaching sentience is valid is then I ask where the line is drawn. The matter of fact is that I draw the line when sentience is reached, and not before.

Until we can find a species that most nations believe and can agree is sentient, I shall not support that species' protection at an International level. I encourage the researchers of Love and Esterel to work at finding proof of Dolphin sentience, but I do not see it, nor do you claim it to be there.

I cannot, in good conscience, rewrite the line because a species is close. Our decision has been made. If a majority of nations wish to rewrite that line, I welcome them, but I shall oppose them all the way.

I am truely saddened at the way this debate has gone! Shame on every one of you! If you cant make an arguement for or against the repeal and make it intellegently and with resect honesty and integrity i suggest you post no more for what we are witnessing here is Bubblegum syndrome. The dumbing down of the UN. I have seen more relevant opinions in a spam thread.

You're right, VL, and I'm sorry for indulging in silliness.

PoDA:
1. is culturally insensitive;
2. is crap pro-dolphin legislation anyway;
3. affords protection to a family species because they are nice and quite clever really.

Presumably then, whenever I am able to get my dog to do a trick, I should reward with, not Boneo biscuits, but a small security detachment and a legislative amendment guaranteeing its safety in international dog pounds?

PoD does something that UNCoESB does not:

4. Calls upon all its members to find ways to minimize the accidental killing of dolphins in the fishing business.

Sentience or otherwise, endangered or otherwise, where is the need to kill a species in the process of acquiring another species for consumption? If you do plan to eat Dolphins, PoD does not prevent you from hunting them within your own territory; it simply prevents you from hunting them in International Waters (since deliberate hunting could hardly be considered "accidental killing".

Since there is nothing in UNCoESB that offers an equivalent protection for dolphins saying that PoD is made redundant by UNCoESB is not a contention I support; despite the intentions of the author of UNCoESB for it to be recognised as a comprehensive cover for all species.

Since I do not support the position this repeal takes, I can not support the repeal.

Do you realize how expensive net adaptations are? And that given our territorial waters are limited to 20km, fishing outside them is absolutely necessary? Clause 4 isn't a nice little side-thought: it's a dagger to the heart of the Gruenberger economy. Our sentient fishermen's sentient children starve because of it.

If you truly care for your fishermen and consider it a crucial industry then you are welcome to subsidise the expenses they incur. If you are not willing to I am hardly going to be swayed by an argument that suggests that your economy or people will suffer for it.
As outlined above I see no need to unnecessarily kill one species in order to obtain another

It is not a question of 'need'. It's just what happens. We don't feel we should have to raise taxes, thus starving more sentient children, to fund subsidies than inflict upon the idea of free trade anyway. We kill comparatively few dolphins accidentally, but are hurt by the stinging condemnation PoDA brings, and angered at the considerable costs adjustments to fishing technology bring. Your argument that economic damage is only damage when it's so bad no manner of government intervention can unfuck the situation falls on deaf ears.

No my argument is that I care little for your economic disadvantage from this proposal as I believe the cost is warranted to protect dolphins. Only when you claimed that your people were starving did I suggest that you had it in your power to alleviate the problem. Your argument that your people are suffering is irrelevant when you have the power to do something about it. I sincerely doubt you don't have the funds; you simply chose to spend them elsewhere.

Once dolphins are in national waters, the PoD Act does the following, and we approve what it does:

1. Condemns in the strongest terms the intentional killing of dolphins around the world.

4. Calls upon all its members to find ways to minimize the accidental killing of dolphins in the fishing business.

5. Calls upon all states to prevent dolphin abuse, in any way that they see fit, provided that no dolphin shall ever be preferred over human lives.

Which accomplishes, in simple terms, nothing. Let's translate the clauses and see what they really say when we get right down to it.

"1. Killing dolphins intentionally is bad. We, the UN, say so.

4. Hey you, yeah the member states, you should really find ways to minimize the accidental killing of dolphins.

5. Hey you, yeah the member states, you should really find some way to prevent dolphin abuse as long as you don't have to prefer dolphins over humans to do it."

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

No my argument is that I care little for your economic disadvantage from this proposal as I believe the cost is warranted to protect dolphins. Only when you claimed that your people were starving did I suggest that you had it in your power to alleviate the problem. Your argument that your people are suffering is irrelevant when you have the power to do something about it. I sincerely doubt you don't have the funds; you simply chose to spend them elsewhere.

So what you're saying is this: poor nations should divert government subsidies to the fishing industry, not to increase their yields, but in fact to decrease them, instead wasting the money on costly equipment to avoid netting a few non-sentient critters. I find that a disturbing set of priorities.

No what I am saying is I have researched your nation and a country with a powerhouse economy and average tax rate of 20% is not short of funds: you simply prefer to spend your money elsewhere. Since you are the only nation to have made this complaint my comments are aimed directly at your nation. I have no interest in furthering your economic priorities, particularly at the expense of dolphins.

I find it disturbing that you suggested that in the interests of free trade you would not subsidise your industry, despite the fact you think your people will starve. Not really my business but it demonstrates that we have largely different priorities. Can we lay this to rest now or do you require that I repeat my opinion one more time?

No what I am saying is I have researched your nation and a country with a powerhouse economy and average tax rate of 20% is not short of funds: you simply prefer to spend your money elsewhere. Since you are the only nation to have made this complaint my comments are aimed directly at your nation. I have no interest in furthering your economic priorities.

I find it disturbing that you suggested that in the interests of free trade you would not subsidise your industry, despite the fact you think your people will starve. Not really my business but it demonstrates that we have largely different priorities. Can we lay this to rest now or do you require that I repeat my opinion one more time?

Yes please. I'm not saying Gruenberg would suffer too badly financially. Wena forbid I should think of poor nations. But no, you're right. Let's assume we're all filthy rich, and, well, if anyone can't afford it, tough luck, huh?

Gruenberg has not always been the economic power it is now. We remember the hard times all too well. And we do not like the suggestion that we should adopt morally bankrupt policies, divert government from priority areas, waste the time of anti-terror patrols, and tax our citizens further SOLELY to pay for nets which are more expensive, all because dolphins are nice. (And if they're so clever, why do they need fancy mirror nets? Surely they can work out 'thing loaded with dead fish = bad', if they're oh so sentient?)

The people of Cluichstan wonder why we must protect dolphins, while it is okay, for instance, to kill tuna. What makes dolphins so worthy of special consideration?

Yes please. I'm not saying Gruenberg would suffer too badly financially. Wena forbid I should think of poor nations. But no, you're right. Let's assume we're all filthy rich, and, well, if anyone can't afford it, tough luck, huh?
I believe that the Nations concerned can speak on their own behalf. Since you are the only Nation to be voiced such concern, I am responding solely to you, and for your benefit. If poor nations choose to make their voice heard then I will acknowledge their issues, not your assumptions of what their issues are.


Gruenberg has not always been the economic power it is now. We remember the hard times all too well. And we do not like the suggestion that we should adopt morally bankrupt policies, divert government from priority areas, waste the time of anti-terror patrols, and tax our citizens further SOLELY to pay for nets which are more expensive, all because dolphins are nice. (And if they're so clever, why do they need fancy mirror nets? Surely they can work out 'thing loaded with dead fish = bad', if they're oh so sentient?)
Morally bankrupt is of course simply your value judgement, and one I don't agree with. I am not dictating how you implement this policy, therefore what measures you feel you need to take are of none of my business nor caring. Notice how I've never actually claimed that Dolphins are sentient yet you persist on debating me on that issue?
In fact you seem determined to debate me on points I never raised through
misappropriation of my words. I feel no further need to repeat myself or defend myself from positions I never took, and so will not acknowledge any further correspondence from your nation on this issue.

Cluichstan: Tuna you kill for the purposes of eating. The death of Dolphins are an undesirable by-product of this. Since their death adds nothing to the survival of a nation I feel it is unneccesary

The people of Cluichstan wonder why we must protect dolphins, while it is okay, for instance, to kill tuna. What makes dolphins so worthy of special consideration?

Well I believe the delegate from Bloodthirsty Dolphins summed it up best when he said:

Keeekickee crrk kee kee srr squeak crr keeek krr crr crr click clack kreek

I believe that the Nations concerned can speak on their own behalf. Since you are the only Nation to be voiced such concern, I am responding solely to you, and for your benefit. If poor nations choose to make their voice heard then I will acknowledge their issues, not your assumptions of what their issues are.

We are the United Nations. Divided we stand. And I shall defend my brothers' and sisters' rights. Many of them are so poor they can't even afford to send representatives to these proceedings. And until I am told that I am not speaking for them, I shall continue to do so. These concerns must be heard, regardless of who is voicing them.

Morally bankrupt is of course simply your value judgement,

Yep.

and one I don't agree with.

Ok.

I am not dictating how you implement this policy, therefore what measures you feel you need to take are of none of my business nor caring. Notice how I've never actually claimed that Dolphins are sentient yet you persist on debating me on that issue?
In fact you seem determined to debate me on points I never raised through
misappropriation of my words. I feel no further need to repeat myself or defend myself from positions I never took, and so will not acknowledge any further correspondence from your nation on this issue.

Ok. Not all of my points are directed at you: we are in open debate, and the entire GA is watching our discussion. Others have raised sentience as an argument, and I have no problem with tarring all my opponents with the same rhetorical brush in an effort to put across my arguments as to why they are wrong. I know you haven't raised sentience as an argument: consider comments about it as being pointed remarks towards other delegates who have not had the courage to return to the floor to stand up for their arguments.

... we are in open debate, and the entire GA is watching our discussion.Funny though, how so many members of the General Asembly simply rush in, vote, and rush out, without any regard to whatever discussion is going on. At least in this case, the honorable members seem to be reading the proposal. Hopefully the Feeder regions don't spoil this vote for us.

The government of St Edmund _
Recognises that Dolphins are significantly closer to sapience, on average, than are most other species of animal that are native to the Earths with which we are familiar.
Believes that this consequently entitles Dolphins to a higher standard of protection than need apply to most other species on those Earths.
Has already granted Dolphins (which are our 'national animal') full protection within our own territorial waters.
Acknowledges & agrees with the arguments that Resolution #119 does NOT grant Dolphins a comparable level of protection to Resolution #106, and believes that the argument of redundancy used in this motion to repeal the latter Resolution is therefore incorrect.
Therefore votes against this Repeal.

(And is delighted to discover the existence of a community of fully sapient Dolphins, even if they have chosen a rather belligerent national name for themselves, and invites that nation of 'Bloodthirsty Dolphins' to appoint an ambassador to our own nation...)

The government of St Edmund _
Recognises that Dolphins are significantly closer to sapience, on average, than are most other species of animal that are native to the Earths with which we are familiar.
Believes that this consequently entitles Dolphins to a higher standard of protection than need apply to most other species on those Earths.
Has already granted Dolphins (which are our 'national animal') full protection within our own territorial waters.
Acknowledges & agrees with the arguments that Resolution #119 does NOT grant Dolphins a comparable level of protection to Resolution #106, and believes that the argument of redundancy used in this motion to repeal the latter Resolution is therefore incorrect.
Therefore votes against this Repeal.

(And is delighted to discover the existence of a community of fully sapient Dolphins, even if they have chosen a rather belligerent national name for themselves, and invites that nation of 'Bloodthirsty Dolphins' to appoint an ambassador to our own nation...)

"But why does sapience matter? This is something I don't understand: I personally believe in animal rights, although my government does not accept them legally. I believe that all animals should be protected in event of endangerment, regardless of their intelligence. Ability to use primitive tools or recognise coloured objects does not, in my view, make dolphins any more special than another animal."

"Is the representative from Gruenberg stating an opinion?"

"Yes. I am not representing my national statement of policy, which remains 'fry the fuckers'."

Cluichstan: Tuna you kill for the purposes of eating. The death of Dolphins are an undesirable by-product of this. Since their death adds nothing to the survival of a nation I feel it is unneccesary


Perhaps unnecessary, but oh well...

Besides, (since people seem to love to bring up outlandish fictitious examples here) what about a nation in which the people actually like to eat dolphins?

Perhaps unnecessary, but oh well...

Besides, (since people seem to love to bring up outlandish fictitious examples here) what about a nation in which the people actually like to eat dolphins?

Actually not so outlandish. It's tribal places in some remote areas.

Like, SURPRISE SURPRISE, Gruenberg. The government frowns on it, of course, but the Kikkikakki tribe continue to lobby the UN, demanding that PoDA be reviewed to add a 'cultural relativism' clause along the lines of Banning Whales. They have been vociferous supporters of the federal government decision to vote for the repeal.

In RL that's Japan: DNA testing, a year or two back, revealed that a significant proportion of the 'whale' meat which was being sold for human consumption there was actually from dolphins instead... And there's at least one Japanese province where dolphin meat [as such] is a traditional delicacy.

This is an odd discussion. Why are we fighting over wether dolphins should be protected by the U.N. or not? Why, when our good money and time could go to something else? This is ubsurd! of course the U.N. shouldnt protect dolphins. If someone wants to protect the dolphins, they can do it themselves. they could start a project or fund an organization, but the U.N. needs not to bore us all with such a simple discussion. Maybe i can knock some sence into you're heads for a second, or maybe you can show me a reason we SHOULD protect the dolphins.

The government of St Edmund _
Recognises that Dolphins are significantly closer to sapience, on average, than are most other species of animal that are native to the Earths with which we are familiar.
Believes that this consequently entitles Dolphins to a higher standard of protection than need apply to most other species on those Earths.
Yes, Dolphins approach sapience/sentience. So do Bonobos, Mountain Gorillas and Orangs. Yet we have no special protection for them and they actually are endangered.
Has already granted Dolphins (which are our 'national animal') full protection within our own territorial waters.
Good.
Acknowledges & agrees with the arguments that Resolution #119 does NOT grant Dolphins a comparable level of protection to Resolution #106, and believes that the argument of redundancy used in this motion to repeal the latter Resolution is therefore incorrect.
It is redundant as in unnecessary. Most species of Dolphin which are endangered are coastal dwellers. They are not protected by PoDA. At all. PoDA only covers international waters. I am amazed that Real paradise (PoDA's author) managed to get this passed as "Environmental, All Businesses" when it really only affects international fisheries and offers NO protection to the coastal Dolphin species that really could have used some protection. At least now they are covered by UNCoESB.

[OOC]I wish I had time to construct a chart or graph of some kind that would illustrate visually that the Protection of Dolphins Act does not protect any endangered dolphin species. It could also show that UNCoESB protects all endangered Dolphin species. Maybe then it would be easier to understand why this legislation is unnecessary, redundant and in need of being repealed.

This is an odd discussion. Why are we fighting over wether dolphins should be protected by the U.N. or not? Why, when our good money and time could go to something else? This is ubsurd! of course the U.N. shouldnt protect dolphins. If someone wants to protect the dolphins, they can do it themselves. they could start a project or fund an organization, but the U.N. needs not to bore us all with such a simple discussion. Maybe i can knock some sence into you're heads for a second, or maybe you can show me a reason we SHOULD protect the dolphins.

As international law stands, individual nations can only protect dolphins (if they want to do so) within their own territorial waters: A number of dolphin species have ranges extending into international waters, where international agreements are the only possibly-effective method of protecting them.

Yes, Dolphins approach sapience/sentience. So do Bonobos, Mountain Gorillas and Orangs. Yet we have no special protection for them and they actually are endangered.

St Edmund favours the protection of the Great Apes (including Lowland Gorillas, non-Bonobo Chimpanzees, and any species that might exist only in NS rather than in RL too, in addition to the species/races that you mentioned) as well as the protection of Dolphins. If there was a resolution specifically protecting them and somebody tried to repeal that then we would almost certainly oppose that repeal too.

Oh, and isn't it a fact that any particular species being endangered in RL doesn't necessarily make that the case for them in NS too?

Ok.

You can already protect dolphins within your national waters.

When PoDA is repealed, you will still be able to protect dolphins in international waters.

What is your remaining objection?

[to Pallatium] Thank you for your sensitivity. If this resolution passes, and you paint your flag on the bottom of your vessels, we will make sure that we don't blow your people out of the water when the Great Human-Dolphin War begins.Dolphin War? Meh. It's been done (ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Repeal_%22Protection_of_Dolphins_Act%22_%28failed%29#Resolution_History). At least we all know now to paint the Pallatian flag on the bottom of all our vessels should we wish to avoid attack. :rolleyes:

Hmm...having reread The Law of the Sea, I'm increasingly convinced they can stop dolphin-hunting anyway. If they bilaterally declare it illegal, they can then board dolphin-hunting vessels.

So this law really does nothing.

Dolphin War? Meh. It's been done (ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Repeal_%22Protection_of_Dolphins_Act%22#Resolution_History). At least we all know now to paint the Pallatian flag on the bottom of all our vessels should we wish to avoid attack. :rolleyes:

Flying the Pallatian flag on your vessels, however, is a sure way to invite attack. :p

The sniping at a person because of his/her position, especially if he/she has left the debate, is unnecessary.

:p = joke

:rolleyes:

Ok, well, let's move on now.

I am willing to give a little ground on the sentience issue. However, I believe nations concerned about dolphins can still devote resources to protecting them once the repeal is passed. Thus, I still support the repeal.

:p = joke

:rolleyes:

When you're making fun of people, it is normally in a humorous manner, but that doesn't make it any less insulting

but yes, let's move on.

Doesn't this attempt to get rid of needless legislation only make more legislation...bad statement from the position of the issue's author.

Doesn't this attempt to get rid of needless legislation only make more legislation...bad statement from the position of the issue's author.

Not really. Repeals aren't recorded on the statute books, and the resolution text is struck out. x-1 < x, by Gruenberger algebra.

Doesn't this attempt to get rid of needless legislation only make more legislation...bad statement from the position of the issue's author.

One line of legislation (repeal old resolution) that is irrelevant after passed to repeal all the lines of the original resolution.

Not really needless legislation.

A note on Wikification. I've moved 'Kenny's one to (failed); should this one fail, we'll have to move it to (failed again) or something.

Actually, another reason to vote for! Less work for me!

EDIT: Ok, done. All links (should) have been fixed.

Ok, well, let's move on now.

I am willing to give a little ground on the sentience issue. However, I believe nations concerned about dolphins can still devote resources to protecting them once the repeal is passed. Thus, I still support the repeal.

On the sentient issue...

If folks want to write a proposal to protect sentient/sapient being and/or recognize their rights, that would be a far more important and useful means of addressing the issue in contrast to opposing the repeal of a mostly useless resolution.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

On the sentient issue...

If folks want to write a proposal to protect sentient/sapient being and/or recognize their rights, that would be a far more important and useful means of addressing the issue in contrast to opposing a mostly useless resolution.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Agreed. Then they can have their apes too.

I'm inclined to agree with the honorable representative from Texan Hotrodders. I vote in favor.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

I'm inclined to agree with the honorable representative from Texan Hotrodders. I vote in favor.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Goobergunchia and Texan Hotrodders agreeing? Well, I'm framing this. It really must be a good proposal.

Perhaps unnecessary, but oh well...

Besides, (since people seem to love to bring up outlandish fictitious examples here) what about a nation in which the people actually like to eat dolphins?

This area I have already covered.

PoD does something that UNCoESB does not:

4. Calls upon all its members to find ways to minimize the accidental killing of dolphins in the fishing business.

Sentience or otherwise, endangered or otherwise, where is the need to kill a species in the process of acquiring another species for consumption? If you do plan to eat Dolphins, PoD does not prevent you from hunting them within your own territory; it simply prevents you from hunting them in International Waters (since deliberate hunting could hardly be considered "accidental killing".

But we are restricted to 20km territorial claims. Many dolphin species prefer deeper ocean. So we can't, at present, hunt them in international waters, as it's illegal, and we can't hunt them in national waters, because they're not there to be hunted.

Goobergunchia and Texan Hotrodders agreeing? Well, I'm framing this. It really must be a good proposal.

OOC:

We've agreed before.:p

Actually, Goob and I have mutual respect for each other. It's only on the national sovereignty issue that we tend to be in opposition, and even then it's not an unfriendly thing.:)

Currently, the Palentine has complied with the resolution by drafting the local dolphins into our glorious Navy. The dolphins make excellent underwater mine inspectors and sabateurs. Of course they are more flighty, need more positive and negative reinforcement, and have a lower attention span than our Noble Pengiun Hordes. However the dolphins seem to have adjusted well to Naval life, with one small drawback. THey have picked up the speech patterns and vocabularies of our Chiefs(CPOs),and Gunnys(Gunnery Sergents). Thus they know have the filthiest mouths of all creatures in the Palentine, man or beast. Howerer even that flaw has been turned into a positive tourism attraction. We support the repeal, because we want the ability to legally send press gangs...err naval recruiters out in international waters to sign more of the flippered buggers up.
Excelsior,
Senator Horatio Sulla,
UN Ambassador,The Evil Conservative Empire of the Palentine:D

P.S. The Thessadorian Ambassador looks simply smashing today.


-Come Visit the Palentine, our Dolphins swear like drunken sailors!-
(this message brought to you by the Palentine Tourism Board)

Who is this Thessadorian ambassador?

Ah.

Well, humans are not endangered, either. Ergo, it is entirely acceptable for anyone who wishes to slaughter them on the high seas or in international airspace, for whatever reason, to do so, no questions asked.

What makes you hairless monkeys so special, human?

If PoDA passes, we will consider this a declaration of war on our species - and will begin slaying humans wherever we find them - outside of anybody's national borders. Let the wars begin.


To Which I'll ask a highly esteemed member of our military to respond via teleconference.
<turning on moniter to the Palentine waters where a dolphin is swimming in the shallows.>
Sen Sulla:"Go ahead Admiral, sir."
Admiral of the Red, Flipper:" To the estemed ambassador of Bloodthirsty Dolphins. i wish to say this. BRING IT ON YOU #@#$%$#@!! can of Tuna Filler. Thank you Ambassador Sulla for allowing me to respond. Sempter Fi! Carry on!"
Sen Sulla:"Thank you Sir!

Who is this Thessadorian ambassador?


You'ld know it when you see her my friend! She's a heathy lass with very good posture!

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Or how about there are too many dolphins in a nation's waters. They escaped from captivity. They are destroying the eco system. But we can't get rid of them because of 'survival of the cutest'.

It has always been the opinion of The Black New World, correct me if I'm wrong Gi, that protection for a specific, non-endangered species should be handed out by the nation with the problem to avoid the scenario above.

We were against the original resolution and we are for the repeal.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

If you'ld like I can notify my Emperor, to send some recruiters to take some of them off your hands.:D
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Bloodthirsty Dolphins: I am sorry, but I have not seen any evidence of dolphin intelligence. I consider your acting as though you are a sentient dolphin to be both mildly kinky and extremely wanky, and cannot as such recognise any arguments thus presented with reference to 'sentience'.

Once we recruited our dolphins in the Navy we were able to prove their sentience. They certianly learned a new vocabulary quickly!:p
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

how can people vote for this proposal. this is ridiculous and nobody should vote for this. it doesnt matter if they are endagered or not. we have this act so they wont become or they wont become endangered. i dont see why you say yes. do you care for the animals. this is the third time they have tried to repeal this proposal. we should show them that you cant repeal this and they should just give up. i am voting no!

how can people vote for this proposal. this is ridiculous and nobody should vote for this. it doesnt matter if they are endagered or not. we have this act so they wont become or they wont become endangered. i dont see why you say yes. do you care for the animals. this is the third time they have tried to repeal this proposal. we should show them that you cant repeal this and they should just give up. i am voting no!

You can still protect dolphins once this is repealed. You can, in fact, board any boats you suspect of dolphin-hunting in international waters. The resolution does nothing.

yes but other nations wont. we need to protect the dolphins as a group. how can everyone just forget about the dolphins. if this passes i will try to repeal this reapeal if that makes any sense. Gruenburg, do you have an aim or aol or msn name? maybe windows messenger name? we should talk.

yes but other nations wont. we need to protect the dolphins as a group. how can everyone just forget about the dolphins. if this passes i will try to repeal this reapeal if that makes any sense. Gruenburg, do you have an aim or aol or msn name? maybe windows messenger name? we should talk.

Repeal a repeal? :confused:

yes but other nations wont. we need to protect the dolphins as a group. how can everyone just forget about the dolphins. if this passes i will try to repeal this reapeal if that makes any sense. Gruenburg, do you have an aim or aol or msn name? maybe windows messenger name? we should talk.

Sorry, I missed that; had to go have lunch (dolphin fried noodles with seal dumplings). I'll TG you.

Why do we need to protect dolphins as a group? I personally find that an extremely racist sentiment. No reason has been outlined as to why we should afford certain species extra protection under international law. There are many species more 'sentient' than dolphins not currently protected by UN legislation.

You cannot repeal a repeal, but should you try to propose a new PoDA, we will of course actively campaign against it. Must dash, though: stew's cooking. Flipperlicious.

It appears to me, the delegate of Stulsa, and the delegate to the region of New Mexico, that this resolution is quite pointless. Now, I do understand that dolphins, along with every other living creature, is important, especially my national animal, the lion. I believe that dolphins do not need any extra restrictions. Resolution #119 bans the hunting of endangered species, and I believe that if the dolphins are not endangered, they need no special rights. IF, they do become endangered, then they will fall under the umbrella of resolution #119, and will no longer be hunted, killed, etc. That is why I will vote yes.

A note: the game server appears to be down at the moment. Presumably, there will be no further votes cast until it is back up again.

Hey hey hey hey hey..

Repealing Protection of Dolphins Act is one huge mistake. If it happens in the real world, for god sake, come on... You guys know this.. If I were US President, I would propose Protection of Dolphin Act to congress and they'll approve it. You guys are a moron that thinks repealing this is a good idea. Use your head.

The game server's is totally shut down. We don't know what caused it, but I believe that the harddrive may have exploded. I have tried to get on that site, but it shows me that the server is in complete shut down.

Hey hey hey hey hey..

Repealing Protection of Dolphins Act is one huge mistake. If it happens in the real world, for god sake, come on... You guys know this.. If I were US President, I would propose Protection of Dolphin Act to congress and they'll approve it. You guys are a moron that thinks repealing this is a good idea. Use your head.

Please don't flame us. Also: we do not recognise the existence of your 'god', or of any 'US'. Repealing PoDA is a necessary first step in the UN-wide war on unnecessary legislation and annoying wannabe-fish.

Please don't flame us. Also: we do not recognise the existence of your 'god', or of any 'US'. Repealing PoDA is a necessary first step in the UN-wide war on unnecessary legislation and annoying wannabe-fish.

Really? I don't see this resolution as unnecessary. I see this resolution as a step toward protecting endangered species. UN should have expand it, not repeal it.

Really? I don't see this resolution as unnecessary. I see this resolution as a step toward protecting endangered species. UN should have expand it, not repeal it.

All endangered species are already protected by UNCoESB. The ONLY reasons for keeping this on the books are entirely unrelated to endangerment.

You do realize this is the second time the NS site has crashed while we were voting on a repeal of the dolphins act? Either Max Berry really likes dolphins ... or God is pissed.

how can people vote for this proposal. this is ridiculous and nobody should vote for this. it doesnt matter if they are endagered or not. we have this act so they wont become or they wont become endangered. i dont see why you say yes. do you care for the animals. this is the third time they have tried to repeal this proposal. we should show them that you cant repeal this and they should just give up. i am voting no!

Because we don't give a stuff about a bloody irritating animal that is considered "cute" because of Flipper?

You do realize this is the second time the NS site has crashed while we were voting on a repeal of the dolphins act? Either Max Berry really likes dolphins ... or God is pissed.

Hmm...[violet] = Max Barry = Flipper?

Hey hey hey hey hey..

Repealing Protection of Dolphins Act is one huge mistake. If it happens in the real world, for god sake, come on... You guys know this.. If I were US President, I would propose Protection of Dolphin Act to congress and they'll approve it. You guys are a moron that thinks repealing this is a good idea. Use your head.

Now this is certainly one intellectual argument. I'm completely behind this guy on this one.

/sarcasm

Hey.. Go fight all you want.. Repeal or not, it is still consider a honest mistake. If you think this resolution is stupid, continue repealing good resolution cuz good nations will re-propose it anyway for the god sake of the world. PLUS there is too many rouge nations in NationStates that supports stupid resolutions and then repeal it on the next day. It doesn't make clear understanding on why a nation wants to repeal good resolution and it doesn't make sense. If you were a politican for your real country, would you repeal good laws that protects people? This game is about how to handle your nation as a president and it is very educational. I think NationStates is teaching you something, so if you have a dream about wanting to become the President of the United States, you have to learn how to manage United States in various issues. It does benefits me because I wanted to be a businessperson and I think this game teaches me on how to run a nation and how I make decisions. What if I own a business that requires a lot of decision-making? This game is what it is about. If you think you aren't listening to this, then you don't understand the purpose of this game because you think you can repeal every good resolutions? It does benefits you on how you run it, not based on the simulation game itself. You gotta think twice on how to make your world safe and secure. That is all I am going to say to solve all that argument that every nation is saying and just get over it. Thank you.

All endangered species are already protected by UNCoESB. The ONLY reasons for keeping this on the books are entirely unrelated to endangerment.

Well, stop making stupid resolution that is all ready protected and move on to the next resolution that isn't in the book.

Hey.. Go fight all you want.. Repeal or not, it is still consider a honest mistake. If you think this resolution is stupid, continue repealing good resolution cuz good nations will re-propose it anyway for the god sake of the world.

Once more, we do not recognise your 'god'.

PLUS there is too many rouge nations in NationStates that supports stupid resolutions and then repeal it on the next day.

Attention to detail doesn't make one a lipstick fetishist.

It doesn't make clear understanding on why a nation wants to repeal good resolution and it doesn't make sense.

Quite.

If you were a politican for your real country, would you repeal good laws that protects people?

This doesn't protect people. It protects dolphins.

This game is about how to handle your nation as a president and it is very educational. I think NationStates is teaching you something, so if you have a dream about wanting to become the President of the United States, you have to learn how to manage United States in various issues.

I can't become president, as you have to be born in the USA to become president. And the game is about political satire, not accuracy.

It does benefits me because I wanted to be a businessperson and I think this game teaches me on how to run a nation and how I make decisions. What if I own a business that requires a lot of decision-making? This game is what it is about. If you think you aren't listening to this, then you don't understand the purpose of this game because you think you can repeal every good resolutions? It does benefits you on how you run it, not based on the simulation game itself. You gotta think twice on how to make your world safe and secure. That is all I am going to say to solve all that argument that every nation is saying and just get over it. Thank you.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand all of this, and how it relates to protecting dolphins. Hunting dolphins is not a threat to international security. Lecturing us on 'how to play the game' doesn't convince us this resolution is a waste of space.

Well, stop making stupid resolution that is all ready protected and move on to the next resolution that isn't in the book.

I will campaign to remove any and all legislation I dislike. Doing so is as productive as creating new legislation.

And voting can continue. Gap's about 1500 at the moment.

Once more, we do not recognise your 'god'.



Attention to detail doesn't make one a lipstick fetishist.



Quite.



This doesn't protect people. It protects dolphins.



I can't become president, as you have to be born in the USA to become president. And the game is about political satire, not accuracy.



I'm sorry, I just don't understand all of this, and how it relates to protecting dolphins. Hunting dolphins is not a threat to international security. Lecturing us on 'how to play the game' doesn't convince us this resolution is a waste of space.



I will campaign to remove any and all legislation I dislike. Doing so is as productive as creating new legislation.

I see.. So, you're going to campaign just like that? You are bringing a heated debate on this.. and you can try to campaign hard enough. Most nations will say, "yeah right.. he doesn't know how to repeal resolutions". As far as I go, I think this resolution shouldn't be in the UN in the first place, but who's dumb is it? Who creates this stupid resolution in the first place that shouldn't have gone through in the first place? Maybe nations needs a 200/200 glasses to read the proposal to prevent it from taking up spaces. It looks like I am winning the battle over you because you don't show many good senses to me and I think these stupid resolutions shouldn't be in the UN at all. If you want to propose a resolution, go back in the book and read it over. Try me to see if you think you can repeal these resolution that you dislike about. Try me! You won't win over me because I know wide knowledge about politics myself. I have learned politic pretty well and no one is going to make me think I'm a moron. I think you don't have much knowledge about politic, do you?

I see.. So, you're going to campaign just like that? You are bringing a heated debate on this.. and you can try to campaign hard enough. Most nations will say, "yeah right.. he doesn't know how to repeal resolutions". As far as I go, I think this resolution shouldn't be in the UN in the first place, but who's dumb is it? Who creates this stupid resolution in the first place that shouldn't have gone through in the first place? Maybe nations needs a 200/200 glasses to read the proposal to prevent it from taking up spaces. It looks like I am winning the battle over you because you don't show many good senses to me and I think these stupid resolutions shouldn't be in the UN at all. If you want to propose a resolution, go back in the book and read it over. Try me to see if you think you can repeal these resolution that you dislike about. Try me! You won't win over me because I know wide knowledge about politics myself. I have learned politic pretty well and no one is going to make me think I'm a moron. I think you don't have much knowledge about politic, do you?

None whatsoever. Why does that matter? We're discussing international law and enviromental protection, not 'politic'.

To Gruenberg,

I have a question for you to see if you can answer this:

Why the dolphins should be limited just because humans are selfish and see themselves as better than everything else?

To Gruenberg,

I have a question for you to see if you can answer this:

Why the dolphins should be limited just because humans are selfish and see themselves as better than everything else?

I don't. I see all animals, including humans, as equal. As such, I believe it is racist to extend extra protection to one particular family. I approve of this repeal in the name of racial equality. Why do you oppose racial equality?

I don't. I see all animals, including humans, as equal. As such, I believe it is racist to extend extra protection to one particular family. I approve of this repeal in the name of racial equality. Why do you oppose racial equality?

Dolphins are an animal and they are supposed to be considered a endangered species, plus there is no equality between human and animal. For example, I can kill a ape if I want to because ape is like a animal, there is no law to make it a crime to kill an ape. Same as to the dolphins. Human tend to kill dolphins to make tuna out of it. So, it goes back to this question:

Why the dolphins should be limited just because humans are selfish and see themselves as better than everything else?

Also, I don't agree with Resolution #119, UNCoESB. It does not clearly states an establishments of endangered species and it DOES NOT protect every endangered species. So, what's the point of UNCoESB? I can expand something that is more of broad establishments of specific species that is considered endangered. In UNCoESB, it doesn't make any sense. How can UNCoESB protect every species? They can't.

Dolphins are an animal and they are supposed to be considered a endangered species, plus there is no equality between human and animal. For example, I can kill a ape if I want to because ape is like a animal, there is no law to make it a crime to kill an ape. Same as to the dolphins. Human tend to kill dolphins to make tuna out of it. So, it goes back to this question:

Why the dolphins should be limited just because humans are selfish and see themselves as better than everything else?

Right. Firstly: all endangered species of dolphin are protected by a separate resolution. Endangerment is not an argument.

I don't understand your question. Please could you rephrase it? I don't see myself as better than a dolphin. Which is why I don't want to give them protection I don't have, as I feel that's discriminatory.

Also, I don't agree with Resolution #119, UNCoESB. It does not clearly states an establishments of endangered species and it DOES NOT protect every endangered species. So, what's the point of UNCoESB? I can expand something that is more of broad establishments of specific species that is considered endangered. In UNCoESB, it doesn't make any sense. How can UNCoESB protect every species? They can't.

UNCoESB protects every endangered species.

Right. Firstly: all endangered species of dolphin are protected by a separate resolution. Endangerment is not an argument.

I don't understand your question. Please could you rephrase it? I don't see myself as better than a dolphin. Which is why I don't want to give them protection I don't have, as I feel that's discriminatory.

You know what.. USA have laws on dolphins. Do you know why? Because USA protects dolphins from hunting and USA have stiffer penalty in it. Under USA law, if you kill a dolphin, the killer gets 10 to 15 years in federal prison, plus $250,000 fine, plus 500 hours community service. We don't kill dolphins for food or for any purposes. We let dolphins roam freely in the Atlantic Ocean without killing them. Plus if you feel that's discriminatory, don't vote on Resolution #119, UNCoESB in the first place. UNCoESB cannot protect every endangered species, because it doesn't clearly have a line drawn and how this resolution have a impact on these species? My nation still kills Thunder Panthers (listed under endangered species), eventhough UNCoESB does apply to it, but not effective enough. IF I were proposing UNCoESB, I would have written a clear definition of endangered species and how should this resolution be enforced? Stiffer penalty for killing a species? Throwing a hunter in jail for the rest of his or her life for killing a endangered species? There are tons of question on how UNCoESB should be enforced. Every nations still kills endangered species anyway because there is no clear line drawn on the enforcements of the endangered species. I'm still debating this and it is going to be on and on and on and on.

I think that'll ends right there because I have no point of going further with your disagreements. If you think that protects every species, that's fine.. but I am going to keep saying it over and over and over. I will not change my opinion.

You know what.. USA have laws on dolphins. Do you know why? Because USA protects dolphins from hunting and USA have stiffer penalty in it. Under USA law, if you kill a dolphin, the killer gets 10 to 15 years in federal prison, plus $250,000 fine, plus 500 hours community service. We don't kill dolphins for food or for any purposes. We let dolphins roam freely in the Atlantic Ocean without killing them. Plus if you feel that's discriminatory, don't vote on Resolution #119, UNCoESB in the first place. UNCoESB cannot protect every endangered species, because it doesn't clearly have a line drawn and how this resolution have a impact on these species? My nation still kills Thunder Panthers (listed under endangered species), eventhough UNCoESB does apply to it, but not effective enough. IF I were proposing UNCoESB, I would have written a clear definition of endangered species and how should this resolution be enforced? Stiffer penalty for killing a species? Throwing a hunter in jail for the rest of his or her life for killing a endangered species? There are tons of question on how UNCoESB should be enforced. Every nations still kills endangered species anyway because there is no clear line drawn on the enforcements of the endangered species. I'm still debating this and it is going to be on and on and on and on.

What is this USA of which you speak?

As for UNCoESB, 'heavy penalties' will be applied. Gruenberg has taken this to mean UNCoESB grants nations a military mandate to enforce hunting quotas. Your continued oppression of an endangered species will be met my full-scale deployment if necessary.

Stop living in the past. UNCoESB has passed. If you don't like it, try to repeal it. Which is exactly what we're doing now.

Nice to see you're open to debate, by the way.

I think that'll ends right there because I have no point of going further with your disagreements. If you think that protects every species, that's fine.. but I am going to keep saying it over and over and over. I will not change my opinion.


Good to see you are firm in your belief's, buy and support a dolphin?

I guess I must've lost my 200/200 glasses.

We would like to re-iterate a very important point, and that is that most species of dolphin are quite common, and therefore would not be protected under the Endangered Species Protection Act, which means thy would need a serarate protection act, which is what is currently in place, and should, for the sake of nature, be kept in place.

And voting can continue. Gap's about 1500 at the moment.
1881 now.

We would like to re-iterate a very important point, and that is that most species of dolphin are quite common, and therefore would not be protected under the Endangered Species Protection Act
Do you mean UNCoESB?
, which means thy would need a serarate protection act, which is what is currently in place, and should, for the sake of nature, be kept in place.
Why?

We would like to re-iterate a very important point, and that is that most species of dolphin are quite common, and therefore would not be protected under the Endangered Species Protection Act, which means thy would need a serarate protection act, which is what is currently in place, and should, for the sake of nature, be kept in place.

We would ask the honorable representative from Alta Vexus why, if--as he says--most species of dolphin are quite common, they require protection at all? Resolution #119 will protect species of dolphin which are or will become endangered. Why should other species of dolphin--the "quite common" ones--receive protection beyond that provided to other species of animal? That, we believe, is the central issue here.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Indeed. Why should dolphins be better treated than German Shepherds or Kangaroos when, let's face it, the Littlest Hobo and Skippy was far better than Flipper

The way I see it is that instead of us wasting precious time and electricity on this matter, how about we create this new resolution which I believe will be found satisfactory to all:

"Resolution #???

Any region may, if they deem it necessary, have any animal(s) that are not currently endangered and thereby not protected by resolution #119, protected as per this resolution, but only after submitting a sub-resolution which will be voted on by the UN. If this sub resolution passes then it will be added to a list of other sub-resolutions at the end of this resolution;along with its short hand form in parentheses. However, the sub-resolution must clearly, in its title, state the name of the animal that is being considered for protection under this resolution, otherwise it will and should not be considered.

Sub Resolutions:
Sub-Resolution #???(R#???/SR#???-acronym for name of sub-resolution)"

In short, if they or any other region wants to waste their time creating sub-resolutions for every little animal under the sun that's not already protected by resolution #119 then let them. Meanwhile the rest of us will be debating other issues of actual IMPORTANCE(hint,hint) that will actually be useful, helpful, and matter to everyone, because all we need to do is vote for or against the sub-resolutions with this new resolution and there would be no need to waste time debating.Simple,yes?

The way I see it is that instead of us wasting precious time and electricity on this matter, how about we create this new resolution which I believe will be found satisfactory to all:

"Resolution #???

Any region may, if they deem it necessary, have any animal(s) that are not currently endangered and thereby not protected by resolution #119, protected as per this resolution, but only after submitting a sub-resolution which will be voted on by the UN. If this sub resolution passes then it will be added to a list of other sub-resolutions at the end of this resolution;along with its short hand form in parentheses. However, the sub-resolution must clearly, in its title, state the name of the animal that is being considered for protection under this resolution, otherwise it will and should not be considered.

Sub Resolutions:
Sub-Resolution #???(R#???/SR#???-acronym for name of sub-resolution)"

In short, if they or any other region wants to waste their time creating sub-resolutions for every little animal under the sun that's not already protected by resolution #119 then let them. Meanwhile the rest of us will be debating other issues of actual IMPORTANCE(hint,hint) that will actually be useful, helpful, and matter to everyone, because all we need to do is vote for or against the sub-resolutions with this new resolution and there would be no need to waste time debating.Simple,yes?

The "sub-resolutions" would, in effect, be amendments. Which are illegal. However, nations already can designate "Species of National Importance" under UNCoESB.
Article 4: Species of National Importance.

Where there are species regarded with a sense of national importance, National governments may apply conservation orders on that species within its own national boundaries and impose national restrictions to hunting of that species. These restrictions shall only apply within the National boundary and are not applicable to neighbouring Nations unless an agreement has been set by the neighbouring countries.
National Governments may set penalties for breaches of these national conservation orders.

people may look at nationstates and see that we dont protect them and then they will think we hate dolphins and the ones that like dolphins will be discriminated and they will say stuff and it will be a whole mess.

i have seen it happen before

Thanks, I was unaware that there was already a way for nations to do that, and if there is such a thing then why don't they declare dolphins an animal of national importance, I mean they're making a big enough deal about it to safely assume that it is of national importance to them.Right? So, why don't they just do that and save everyone else the headache.

people may look at nationstates and see that we dont protect them and then they will think we hate dolphins and the ones that like dolphins will be discriminated and they will say stuff and it will be a whole mess.

Oh, the horror.

"Urrr! That one's a filthy NSer! Oh yuk!"

"What, what's he done wrong?"

"They passed an imaginary resolution saying that we shouldn't discriminate based on intelligence."

"Urrr! Outcast!"

I am not going to alter my nation's voting record based on what some people might think of NS. Let's deal with real arguments.

Thanks, I was unaware that there was already a way for nations to do that, and if there is such a thing then why don't they declare dolphins an animal of national importance, I mean they're making a big enough deal about it to safely assume that it is of national importance to them.Right? So, why don't they just do that and save everyone else the headache.

Our nation already has, ages ago, long before either the PoDA or UNCoESB were written. Our national animal is a species of dolphin. We also strongly support this repeal.

Some people want every dolphin protected, everywhere, at all times. Apart from the "cute" arguement, I just can't figure out why unendangered animals need UN protection. If and when any dolphin species becomes endangered, it automatically falls under the protection of UNCoESB.

If the intelligence arguement is going to be used, then apes deserve blanket protection too. They are much smarter than dolphins. I can't remember any dolphin being taught how to communicate using sign language.

Also, I don't agree with Resolution #119, UNCoESB. It does not clearly states an establishments of endangered species and it DOES NOT protect every endangered species. So, what's the point of UNCoESB? I can expand something that is more of broad establishments of specific species that is considered endangered. In UNCoESB, it doesn't make any sense. How can UNCoESB protect every species? They can't.
As th Author of UNCoESB i thought it would be best if I answer this one.

You are correct in your assertion that it does not state which species is endangered and what constitutes an endangerment for that species. That is ultimately impossible given that there are millions of species out there in the NS world and each species has its own individual requirements regarding what endangers it and what would be an acceptable recovery count for that species. The Executive was my solution to this. The Executive Monitors and regulates the species of the NS world, gathers and coalates all data on numbers and stocks and decides what where and when to act in the event of an endangerment or extinction threat.
It does however VERY CLEARLY protect all species of wild life in ALL UN NATIONS and their territorial waters.

Article 1:The Executive
On ratification by the General Assembly, the UN shall set up an executive body to monitor NS World wildlife numbers. The Executive shall decide what numbers apply to each level of animal population and what Species receive the title "Endangered" and the protections the title affords. The Executive shall control funding and see it is used where it is most requiredThis sets out UNCoESB's stall and informs that all Wild life in the NS world are monitored by the Executive and it will act in the event of wildlife numbers dropping consistantly.
UNCoESB was never envisioned to ban hunting or fishing. It was envisioned to ensure if a species was treated as game by a nation it would still be in existance when your great grand children are making the decisions for your nation. UNCoESB says you can hunt and fish, but only with due diligence with regard to the species you are hunting/fishing. Also UNCoESB enables a nation to hunt a recovered species whereas res 106 and 70 are a complete blanket ban on hunting and fishing for every UN Nation even if there are sufficient stocks for that species to exist for millenia.
In summary Resolution 119 enables UN Nations to hunt and fish responsibly and where they dont it promises to Protect any species that becomes threatened with an extinction.
I hope this explanation has been enlightening for any one who would try to say UNCoESB does nothing. It is in fact one of the Few resolutions with any teeth.
VL.

We would like to re-iterate a very important point, and that is that most species of dolphin are quite common, and therefore would not be protected under the Endangered Species Protection Act, which means thy would need a serarate protection act, which is what is currently in place, and should, for the sake of nature, be kept in place.
May i Quote Article 4 of the UN resolution #119 "UNCoESB"

Article 4:Species of National Importance.
Where there are species regarded with a sense of national importance, National governments may apply conservation orders on that species within its own national boundaries and impose national restrictions to hunting of that species. These restrictions shall only apply within the National boundary and are not applicable to neighbouring Nations unless an agreement has been set by the neighbouring countries.
National Governments may set penalties for breaches of these national conservation orders. Clearly if your nation wishes to restrict hunting or fishing on a species you may do so under this provision. Why your ideal must be forced on every UN Nation is incomprehendable to me. Will i force your nation and your peoples to go to bed before 3pm just because I believe naps are good for people? the answer is no! So dont try to force your laws on my people.

Thanks, I was unaware that there was already a way for nations to do that, and if there is such a thing then why don't they declare dolphins an animal of national importance, I mean they're making a big enough deal about it to safely assume that it is of national importance to them.Right? So, why don't they just do that and save everyone else the headache.
I believe the Nations here who do not support the repeal of 106 "PoDA" wish that ALL UN Nations regardles of their wishes or desires to hunt and fish, follow this directive.

This is neither democratic or fair in my opinion. The PODA is simply a form of UN Dictatorship where it is simply not necessary.

Official Message
From The
Texas Department of UN Affairs
As the current Secretary of United Nations Affairs for the region of Texas, it is my duty to infom you that NewTexas (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/06089/page=display_nation/nation=newtexas), the Delegate for our region, has cast his vote FOR the current resolution in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
Texas Secretary of UN Affairs
Sam I Am

1. UNCoESB's allowance that one nation can protect a species does not protect a species if the next nation down the migratory route is grinding them into sausage. People might be stopped at national borders and may comply with such jurisdictions. An animal species will find that protections in one nation do not hold in other nations.

2. Marine animals, including dolphins, swim into international waters where no national protection applies. Therefore, the UN is the appropriate body to consider international proections.

3. UNCoESB simply does not deal with international agreements except on a voluntary basis. Which means that if 9 of 10 nations agree to protect a species, the 10th can hunt it to extinction, given cases #1 or #2 above.

4. Protection of dolphins protects one species and does not preclude protections for other specific species or whole schedules of species. If you want to protect others, pass legislation for them.

5. You should not have to wait until a species is endangered to pass laws to protect it.

6. We still like dolphins.

1. UNCoESB's allowance that one nation can protect a species does not protect a species if the next nation down the migratory route is grinding them into sausage. People might be stopped at national borders and may comply with such jurisdictions. An animal species will find that protections in one nation do not hold in other nations.

2. Marine animals, including dolphins, swim into international waters where no national protection applies. Therefore, the UN is the appropriate body to consider international proections.

You can create international protection. If you bilaterally declare dolphin hunting to be illegal in international waters, you can legally, under UN law, board dolphin hunting ships.

3. UNCoESB simply does not deal with international agreements except on a voluntary basis. Which means that if 9 of 10 nations agree to protect a species, the 10th can hunt it to extinction, given cases #1 or #2 above.

But other nations are entitled to actively prevent that 10th nation. Proponents of dolphin legislation have argued that dolphin meat is useless; many repeal proponents have avowed they would not hunt dolphins anyway. As such, the number of nations you'd be dealing with is likely to be small (certainly compared to the 80,000 nations not bound by UN law in any case).

4. Protection of dolphins protects one species and does not preclude protections for other specific species or whole schedules of species. If you want to protect others, pass legislation for them.

It's a question of precedent. It implies we should think up separate resolutions for each species we believe we should protect, rather than promoting legislation based on wacky ideas like principle. It is a waste of UN legislation to have a PoDA, a PoWhalesA, a PoApesA, a PoChimpsA, a PoHamstersA...

5. You should not have to wait until a species is endangered to pass laws to protect it.

But once again, this is a question of disproportionate protection. The vast majority of ocean-dwelling organisms are not protected. We should protect all wildlife? Sorry, my people have to eat. Sorry, so we only protect the clever ones? Yes: we protect the ones that are clever enough not to swim into tuna nets.

Votes For: 6,823

Votes Against: 6,263

Voting has narrowed.

We also encourage people to change their votes to protect the dolphin species, as the claims that UNCoESB protect the species are false.

Individual nations can protect the dolphin, but their national protections do not allow international waters search-and-seizure. That would actually constitute piracy.

This could lead to various international incidents regarding fishing boats being boarded by nations who were dolphin-protecting against those who were dolphin-hunting.

Further, we believe the dolphin is an indicator species as to overall quality and health of its marine habitat.

We just believe it is unnecessary to repeal this protection. We are also concerned that it will cause a general denigration of marine habitats, which are already increasingly threatened.

We see this Resolution actually serves a purpose.

Some of you just do not like it because of various reasons.

Some of you are thinking that another proposal protects it, when in fact, it does not. Not directly. Individual national protections should never be confused with international agreements.

Yet we ask that those who have pondered: Is this necessary? -- for them to see that it serves a vital role for the overall management of our coastal and deep sea environments.

We also encourage people to change their votes to protect the dolphin species, as the claims that UNCoESB protect the species are false.

Indeed. Your problem is you're referring to 'the dolphin species'. In fact, dolphins are a family, of which there are several species. Those species of dolphin that are endangered are protected by UNCoESB. Those species of dolphin that are not endangered are not protected by UNCoESB. If any pro-repeal speakers have suggested otherwise, they are wrong; however, before you make repeat mention of 'the claims', could you direct us to them? We can't see any, at the minute, who have argued that UNCoESB protects non-endangered dolphins.

Individual nations can protect the dolphin, but their national protections do not allow international waters search-and-seizure. That would actually constitute piracy.

No, it would not. You cannot define piracy within the context of NSUN law, as The Law of the Sea makes it clear that

"Illegal" will be defined by bilateral diplomacy

Furthermore, all nations are given the right to board any ship they believe to be committing an international crime by this same resolution. Since 'international crime' in this instance is clearly defined by bilateral diplomacy, you and Thunder Comets/Bloodthirsty Dolphins/whoever else likes dolphins need only agree that dolphin hunting in international waters is illegal, and you may then legally under NSUN law board any ships you believe to be hunting them.

This could lead to various international incidents regarding fishing boats being boarded by nations who were dolphin-protecting against those who were dolphin-hunting.

Yes, it could.

Further, we believe the dolphin is an indicator species as to overall quality and health of its marine habitat.

This is, as far as I can tell, a fairly new angle. Could you expand? There are many different species whose behaviour can be used to measure marine habitat health, not to mention independent monitoring using scientific equipment. Furthermore, this is not something PoDA promotes: it solely refers to their being happy, and the economic damage of PoD being limited.

We just believe it is unnecessary to repeal this protection. We are also concerned that it will cause a general denigration of marine habitats, which are already increasingly threatened.

Increasingly threatened by what? We keep passing environmental legislation, we passed UNCoESB, Banning Whales and TLotS are still on the books...on what are you basing this claim?

We see this Resolution actually serves a purpose.

I know. A 'Right To Eat Babies' resolution serves a purpose. That doesn't mean it is right, or should remain part of UN law.

Some of you just do not like it because of various reasons.

And those reasons include: it's unnecessary, it's culturally insensitive, it's impractical, it's a waste of UN resources, it's discriminatory, AND IT IS BASED ON DOLPHINS BEING 'FRIENDLY'.

Some of you are thinking that another proposal protects it, when in fact, it does not. Not directly. Individual national protections should never be confused with international agreements.

Ah, but under TLotS, they are confused. As you point out, the voting is narrowing. There are several thousand nations who agree with you. You can all sign a Dolphin Protection Agreement and then will be legally empowered under UN law to board my hunting ships, even in international waters.

But, yes, you're right. National protection shouldn't be confused with international agreement. At present, that agreement looks like suggesting that there are many nations, and possibly a majority, who oppose continued protection for dolphins under PoDA. Reasons and conclusions may vary; however, this is increasingly looking like something too divisive to remain on the books.

Yet we ask that those who have pondered: Is this necessary? -- for them to see that it serves a vital role for the overall management of our coastal and deep sea environments.

Again, how? Few dolphins will be hunted, we believe, and the UNCoESB will protect any species hunted into endangerment. Dolphins don't secrete cleaning fluid through their pores; they are no 'better' for the marine environment than any other creatures.

the UNCoESB will protect any species hunted into endangerment.
How awfully good of them. Let us hope that when (not if) dolphins are decimated to near-extinction, they have a population that is still numerous enough to recover.

I am minded to draw states' attention to the case of the passenger pigeon, whch once numbered 5,000,000,000 individuals in the United States alone, but was hunted to extinction by the start of the 20th century.

Dolphins don't secrete cleaning fluid through their pores; they are no 'better' for the marine environment than any other creatures.
Strontiumas believes that dolphin intelligence is on a par with that of humanity, and therefore, the killing of individual dolphins, whether intentional or not, is a crime of severe import.

Does Strontiumas therefore sanction the killing of the mentally retarded?

Does Strontiumas therefore sanction the killing of the mentally retarded?
Why on earth would we?

Why on earth would we?

Because you justify your argument on the grounds that dolphins are as clever as humans. Clearly, cognitive function is the only criterion on which to decide right to life for you. Someone with a sub-par intelligence - of course, many mentally handicapped people are not so afflicted, but there are some who are - would then, in your books, fall 'lower' even than these super dolphins who still swim into fishing nets. Odd logic.

Further, we believe the dolphin is an indicator species as to overall quality and health of its marine habitat.

We are unaware that the dolphin serves as a reliable indicator of habitat quality. However, if we accept this statement as true, it would seem that providing special treatment to dolphins (as Resolution #109 does) would invalidate any data gained from them. They would not be representative of marine species in general.


We just believe it is unnecessary to repeal this protection. We are also concerned that it will cause a general denigration of marine habitats, which are already increasingly threatened.


With all respect to the distinguished representative of Listeneisse, we are always skeptical of "slippery slope" and "domino theory" arguments presented without supporting evidence. While we can appreciate the honorable representative's concern, we do not share it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

After reviewing all the arguments on this issue it really seems to boil down to this:

Thos for the repeal:
1)This is a pointless law, it's covered by UNCoESB
2) it protects Dolphins because they are a cute animal and falsely imagined as people friendly,
3) If a species is not endangered, then it does not need extra protection.
4)a nation can pass its own laws on Dolphin hunting, said nations are also allowed to board ships in international waters under the beliefe that said ships are breaking their laws,
5) The dolphin serves no more or less purpose in marine life/health than any other animal in the ocean.

Those against the repeal

1) UNCoESB doesn't cover dolphins because they aren't endangered, but are. (this logic makes my head hurt)
2) Dolphins are smart
3) Dolphins are seen as indicators of marine health/national symbols/what have you
4) Dolphins are actually smarter than man! (actually having reviewed some of the arguements I have to agree... sadly)

Until those who wish this repeal to not go through present reasonable and logical reasons as to why it should not be, the nation of Gravemalkin must vote for this repeal. UN law should not be dictated by ones feelings alone.

Because you justify your argument on the grounds that dolphins are as clever as humans.
Correct.
Clearly, cognitive function is the only criterion on which to decide right to life for you.
Well now, that's quite a leap isn't it?

I suggest you find where I said that cognitive function was the only criterion on which to decide right to life, or help yourself to a nice cup of STFU.

It is a criterion, but by no means the only one. To suggest otherwise is strawmanning of the most heinous and trollish kind.

Odd logic.
You said it buddy! I suggest you take a brief course in the use of logic to support arguments.

We find it very odd that the representatives from Strontiumas suggest other representatives review logic in order to support their claims, when they have presented arguments that fail basic logic.

The best example being the following assertion

given
not all dolphins are endangered
dolphin species that are endangered are protected
a species that is not endangered is not protected

your claim seems to be as follows

Dolphin species that are not endangered are going to die out if this repeal is allowed.

However, in order for a species to face extinction it must pass through a period in which it is endangered. This is why nations are required to monitor animal life. Thus the species facing extinction will be determined, the species then falls under instant protection and are allowed to thrive once more.

Strontiumas believes that dolphin intelligence is on a par with that of humanity, and therefore, the killing of individual dolphins, whether intentional or not, is a crime of severe import.

I'm basing my assumption on the use of 'therefore'. The killing of dolphins, according to you, is a crime (which the resolution you're defending permits) BECAUSE dolphin intelligence is on a par with that of humanity. Thus, it seems as though you are defending dolphins' rights based solely on their perceived intelligence.

How awfully good of them. Let us hope that when (not if) dolphins are decimated to near-extinction, they have a population that is still numerous enough to recover.

I am minded to draw states' attention to the case of the passenger pigeon, whch once numbered 5,000,000,000 individuals in the United States alone, but was hunted to extinction by the start of the 20th century.



Since the delegate from Strontiumas seems ready to criticize the logical abilities of other members of this body, we find it curious that he would introduce a completely irrelevant example into this debate.

We would draw the attention of the representative to the fact that the passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction when no endangered species laws existed to prevent that. That is clearly not the case in the current world of the NSUN, since Resolution #119 was enacted to prevent just such a thing and remains on the rolls of Resolutions.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

My nation concedes that dolphins are both cute and clever.

The same cannot be said of lawyers; not with a straight face, anyway.

The more unnecessary laws we have, the more unnecessary lawyers we have.

Consequently, Ardchoille has voted in favour of repealing this unnecessary law.

*Sigh*

All right, if you must, serious argument: UNCoESB provides for monitoring of wildlife species, thus making possible special protection before the species reaches the desperate stage of being declared endangered. So the PoD is not only unnecessary, but also less favourable to dolphins than the existing protection ...

A point which I see the delegate from Gravemalkin was already making while I was still shuffling my notes.

Correct.

Well now, that's quite a leap isn't it?

I suggest you find where I said that cognitive function was the only criterion on which to decide right to life, or help yourself to a nice cup of STFU.STFU! I presume by that you mean Shut the f*ck up? I suggest you return for another term in what ever Academy of Diplomacy you flunked.
Law is not a Matter of fluffieness. There is no Cuteness in the rule of Law. Every reason the anti repeal brigade have given has been countered and disproved by those on the Pro repeal side. And now with the 11th hour at hand the anti repeal side are back to their only real arguement, that dolphins are intelligent. So i ask this question. When was the last time you seen a dolphin do anything intellegent? and if your answer is circus tricks You need your intelligence examined.
I see no reason to protect Dolphins if they are not endangered. It is a ridiculous waste of UN resources and time. And by the way as UN nations are currently out numbered by Non UN Nations 3:1, and are not bound by our agreements and resolutions, we can not presume some thing so idiotic as to say we can and have the right to protect anything in International waters.
VL.

We find it very odd that the representatives from Strontiumas suggest other representatives review logic in order to support their claims, when they have presented arguments that fail basic logic.
Okay, let me explain.

However, in order for a species to face extinction it must pass through a period in which it is endangered.
Indeed. The President of Strontiumas, being a university graduate in Ecology, understands this.

What you are failing to grasp is that dolphins are, like all cetacean species, extremely vulnerable to external factors, and so waiting until something becomes endagered to protect the population may well be too late to save it.

Thus the species facing extinction will be determined, the species then falls under instant protection and are allowed to thrive once more.
So, we set arbitrary boundaries (say 1 million) as an acceptable population, and we're allowed to hunt them so long as there are 1,000,001 individuals, but not if they fall to 999,999?

You'll forgive me if I think this yo-yoing between endangered and non-endangered status is unsound!

I'm basing my assumption on the use of 'therefore'. The killing of dolphins, according to you, is a crime (which the resolution you're defending permits) BECAUSE dolphin intelligence is on a par with that of humanity. Thus, it seems as though you are defending dolphins' rights based solely on their perceived intelligence.
I am defending dolphins' rights based on their intelligence.

I don't see how that implies that I believe that intelligence is the only criterion on which right to life should be judged.

You'll forgive me if I think this yo-yoing between endangered and non-endangered status is unsound!

The UNCoESB will set appropriate quotas. It will also liaise with national governments - including yours - in monitoring and deciding levels. They will set the level at a bar they consider to be suitable for the species. If the particular species of dolphin is particularly susceptible to change, the quota will naturally be set higher.

Since the delegate from Strontiumas seems ready to criticize the logical abilities of other members of this body, we find it curious that he would introduce a completely irrelevant example into this debate.
Irrelevant? How so? It was merely used to demonstrate that because something is common, it shall not necessarily remain so.

Irrelevant? How so? It was merely used to demonstrate that because something is common, it shall not necessarily remain so.
Irrelevant in so far as ..... THERE WERE NO PROTECTIONS IN PLACE FOR THAT SPECIES, AT THE TIME IT BECAME ENDANGERED TO THE TIME IT BECAME EXTINGT!
Hope that cleared up the point of irrelevance.
VL.

I am defending dolphins' rights based on their intelligence.

I don't see how that implies that I believe that intelligence is the only criterion on which right to life should be judged.

Right, ok. Probably both our faults then. What are the other criteria?

The UNCoESB will set appropriate quotas. It will also liaise with national governments - including yours - in monitoring and deciding levels. They will set the level at a bar they consider to be suitable for the species. If the particular species of dolphin is particularly susceptible to change, the quota will naturally be set higher.
You'll forgive me if I place little trust in the ability of beaurocrats to accurately gauge when a species has become endangered or not ;).

I still think back to the case of the Chinese River Dolphin, which was declared endangered in 1979, and hunting of it banned in 1983. That wasn't enough to save it: from a population of 300 in the mid-80s, it plummeted to 7 by the end of the last decade, and is almost certainly now extinct.

What this shows is that merely designating something as endangered is not always sufficient to protect it from becoming extinct. Strontiumas suggests that banning the hunting of these extremely vulnerable animals outright is necessary to protect other dolphin species from a similar fate.

You'll forgive me if I place little trust in the ability of beaurocrats to accurately gauge when a species has become endangered or not ;).

I still think back to the case of the Chinese River Dolphin, which was declared endangered in 1979, and hunting of it banned in 1983. That wasn't enough to save it: from a population of 300 in the mid-80s, it plummeted to 7 by the end of the last decade, and is almost certainly now extinct.

What this shows is that merely designating something as endangered is not always sufficient to protect it from becoming extinct. Strontiumas suggests that banning the hunting of these extremely vulnerable animals outright is necessary to protect other dolphin species from a similar fate.

No, I won't forgive you. A fundamental tenet of NSUN membership is the ability to trust the operational efficiency of the Secretariat. If you are unable to invest your confidence in your ability, then that is a situation no piece of legislation will resolve.

Evidently, you won't be happy until all dolphin species are on the endangered list.

In any case, I am pleased to announce the hunting of all cetaceans will remain illegal within the waters surrounding Strontiumas whether or not this repeal goes ahead.

Irrelevant? How so? It was merely used to demonstrate that because something is common, it shall not necessarily remain so.

Irrelevant simply because, as we pointed out, it has no relevance to the situation in which this debate is taking place. The context positioned it as a cautionary example, but the difference in situations of the passenger pigeon in RL and the dolphin in NS render the example spurious.

To cite the fate of the passenger pigeon in an environment where no protective measures existed as a warning to people in an environment where such measures do exist is inappropriate.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Evidently, you won't be happy until all dolphin species are on the endangered list.

In any case, I am pleased to announce the hunting of all cetaceans will remain illegal within the waters surrounding Strontiumas whether or not this repeal goes ahead.

Firstly, I resent the idea that I wish to endanger the future existence of the dolphin family. Wishing to hunt, eat or generally annoy dolphins is one thing; wishing to see an important group of creatures endangered (and have the UNCoESB spend my nation's money preserving them) is not something Gruenberg would defend.

And GOOD! This is what I'm talking about; this sort of policy is much better on a national level. If all nations follow your responsible approach, dolphins really won't have much to worry about.

You'll forgive me if I place little trust in the ability of beaurocrats to accurately gauge when a species has become endangered or not ;).UNCoESB differs from the PoDA in this way as PoDA is run by the very Bureaucrats you seem to dislike. It is clearly stated in the UNCoESB that the Executive is run and manned by the UN Gnomes who very capably see to it that All UN Legislation is instituted. Perhaps you should go and read resolution 119.

I still think back to the case of the Chinese River Dolphin, which was declared endangered in 1979, and hunting of it banned in 1983. That wasn't enough to save it: from a population of 300 in the mid-80s, it plummeted to 7 by the end of the last decade, and is almost certainly now extinct.
While it is a sad case of the extinction of this noble creature it is however not relevant as this is a real life example and therefore not covered by NSUN Resolutions. Had it been it would have been constantly monitored and its numbers would have had a much earlier reply from the UNCoESB executive.
Yet again your arguement has been rebutted in its entirety.
VL.

4) a nation can pass its own laws on Dolphin hunting, said nations are also allowed to board ships in international waters under the beliefe that said ships are breaking their laws, ...Actually, no. Nations are able to enter into treaties to enforce not their own laws, but whatever bilateral agreement is reached; in this case, that dolphins should not be subject to abuse over international waters. And apparently under LotS international coalitions are empowered to enforce their agreements over international waters, deeming PoDA wholly redundant unnecessary, not only under UNCoESB, but under LotS as well.

This is why nations are required to monitor animal life. Thus the species facing extinction will be determined, the species then falls under instant protection and are allowed to thrive once more.You are entirely correct. Breeding programs, such as those authorized under UNCoESB, have been remarkably effective in restoring endangered species' numbers. Dare I mention the California condor?

So, we set arbitrary boundaries (say 1 million) as an acceptable population, and we're allowed to hunt them so long as there are 1,000,001 individuals, but not if they fall to 999,999?Wrong. The UNCoESB does not wait for species to fall below some arbitrary number to declare a species endangered: It creates a consortium between the UN and national and regional governments to annually monitor wildlife numbers, and where species are found to be decreasing at a worrying level then capture and breeding programs kick into gear.

The UNCoESB is not some one-step process that declares, "Oh, wait. This animal is now endangered. Now we can protect it." It closely monitors all animals, and tracks their population levels, and where numbers are found to be decreasing, UNCoESB actually creates a two-step process to preserve an endangered species: 1) Capture and breeding programs and local hunting bans, and 2) "Full Escalation" where a species continues to decrease and has in fact come "dangerously close to world extinction levels."

In short, we supported UNCoESB, and it was the only environmental legislation we supported, because it is a sensible law that gives national governments wide latitude to protect species of national importance in their own borders, and requires a cooperative relationship between the United Nations and national and regional governments to prevent the extinction of endangered animals. And where species are found to be endangered, it is on the basis of scientific data, not on whether an animal is cute, cuddly, intelligent and beloved by children everywhere.

We invite you, where you purport to argue about the UN's protection of endangered animals, to actually read the UNCoESB (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9692854#post9692854), so you can understand what you're talking about.

You'll forgive me if I place little trust in the ability of beaurocrats to accurately gauge when a species has become endangered or not ;).

I still think back to the case of the Chinese River Dolphin, which was declared endangered in 1979, and hunting of it banned in 1983. That wasn't enough to save it: from a population of 300 in the mid-80s, it plummeted to 7 by the end of the last decade, and is almost certainly now extinct.

What this shows is that merely designating something as endangered is not always sufficient to protect it from becoming extinct. Strontiumas suggests that banning the hunting of these extremely vulnerable animals outright is necessary to protect other dolphin species from a similar fate.

If the representative from Strontiumas believes that Resolution #119 is insufficient to provide proper protection for animal species that might be at risk, we suggest he author a proposal which would add additional protections to those in that resolution. We would certainly give such a proposal careful and respectful attention. We cannot guarantee that we would agree with it, but we would consider it with an open mind.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

It's a question of precedent. It implies we should think up separate resolutions for each species we believe we should protect, rather than promoting legislation based on wacky ideas like principle. It is a waste of UN legislation to have a PoDA, a PoWhalesA, a PoApesA, a PoChimpsA, a PoHamstersA...


The people of Cluichstan humbly propose a Protection of Chiggers Act.

Yet again your arguement has been rebutted in its entirety
LOL. For something to be rebutted yet again, it must be rebutted once.

Its vulnerability as an animal species aside, my main argument for sparing the dolphin from death is that I believe its intellect to be on a par with humanity - an argument that has yet to be rebutted in any meaningful way.

The people of Cluichstan would like to note that all the dolphins in its territorial waters have already said, "So long and thanks for all all the fish."

LOL. For something to be rebutted yet again, it must be rebutted once.

Its vulnerability as an animal species aside, my main argument for sparing the dolphin from death is that I believe its intellect to be on a par with humanity - an argument that has yet to be rebutted in any meaningful way.
All the arguements, which there have been many, against repealing Resolution 106 "PoDA" have been found wanting. As to a dolphins intelect, where is your scientific proof and data when compared to Homosapiens? By all means present this wonderful science for the nations of the UN and their scientific communities to peruse. Show us and i will release our findings on the existance of Santa Claus. Untill then You have been rebutted. Enjoy!
VL.

LOL.
Its vulnerability as an animal species aside, my main argument for sparing the dolphin from death is that I believe its intellect to be on a par with humanity - an argument that has yet to be rebutted in any meaningful way.


which is irrelevant, as has been pointed out a number of times now. PoDA does not extend the protection of Dolphins beyond the limits of UNCoESB. The intelligence of the animal is not something that even enters the debate, it is protected if it faces the mere threat of looking like it may become endangered.

Therefore the idea of an animal being smarter than any other animal is a pointless argument that rebutes itself within the confines of this debate.

Ok, I don't think I can rebut the intelligence argument. Here's some thoughts, though:

1. prove that dolphins are intelligent;
2. if they're so clever, why do we need to do so much damage to our fishing industry? can't they just swim round the nets?
3. even if they are intelligent, that's not enough, as there are other more intelligent species unprotected;
4. why should we discriminate based on intelligence, when UN law clearly suggests that we cannot do this in the human world? I do not believe humans are so different to animals;
5. I JUST DON'T CARE.

As to a dolphins intelect, where is your scientific proof and data when compared to Homosapiens? By all means present this wonderful science for the nations of the UN and their scientific communities to peruse. Show us and i will release our findings on the existance of Santa Claus. Untill then You have been rebutted. Enjoy!
VL.
Because you are ignorant of the existence of something, does not mean it does not exist.

A great deal of research has been done into the nature of dolphin intelligence. The conclusions are that:


Bottle-nosed dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) have an absolute brain mass of 1500-1700 grams. This is slightly greater than that of humans (1300-1400 grams) and about four times that of chimps (400 grams)
A cerebral cortex 40% larger than human beings, with "wrinkles" of near equivalent complexity
A similarly developed frontal lobe
Brain stem transmission time faster than that normally found in humans
Humans and dolphins are one and two, respectively, for animal brain-to-body ratio, among all animals weighing more than one kilogram.
Scientific research into self-awareness has suggested that Bottlenose Dolphins possess self-awareness.


To this end, Strontiumas believes that dolphins are sentient creatures, and therefore deserving of the same protections as human beings. As such, we are opposed to any downgrading of measures designed for their protection.

Sources, please.

Sources, please.
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html
http://dubinserver.colorado.edu/prj/jbes03/brain.html
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper3/Ball3.html
http://www.jhu.edu/~newslett/05-3-01/Science/2.html

Let me know if you need any more.

Because you are ignorant of the existence of something, does not mean it does not exist.

A great deal of research has been done into the nature of dolphin intelligence. The conclusions are that:


Bottle-nosed dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) have an absolute brain mass of 1500-1700 grams. This is slightly greater than that of humans (1300-1400 grams) and about four times that of chimps (400 grams)
A cerebral cortex 40% larger than human beings, with "wrinkles" of near equivalent complexity
A similarly developed frontal lobe
Brain stem transmission time faster than that normally found in humans
Humans and dolphins are one and two, respectively, for animal brain-to-body ratio, among all animals weighing more than one kilogram.
Scientific research into self-awareness has suggested that Bottlenose Dolphins possess self-awareness.


To this end, Strontiumas believes that dolphins are sentient creatures, and therefore deserving of the same protections as human beings. As such, we are opposed to any downgrading of measures designed for their protection.
An elephant has a Huge brain at least twice the size of a Humans. Anyone ever see an elephant with its feet up Smoking a pipe in his home reading the Times?
VL.

An elephant has a Huge brain at least twice the size of a Humans. Anyone ever see an elephant with its feet up Smoking a pipe in his home reading the Times?
VL.
If that's supposed to rebut my scientific evidence, I find that pretty weak.

You'll notice that while an elephant brain is huge, its BRAIN TO BODY RATIO is small. As indicated above, humans and dolphins have much higher brain to body ratios than any other large mammal, as well as very similar brain structures.

Thank you. The more sources you quote, the better.

Firstly, brain size.

The correlation of brain size with intelligence may seem reasonable at first, though holds little in actual determination of intelligence.