NationStates Jolt Archive

:mad: we should be voting against this

It is an example of human hubris to assume that way in which we display the trait of intelligence is the best and only way to display that trait. This bais may blind us to a better understanding of intelligence as a universal trait. The best way to see intelligence as a universal trait is to view it and evaluate it as a factor within the environment in which it evolved. By using this method, human and non-human intelligence are considered to be inherently different because they evolved to facilitate the survival of an organism with two separate environmental histories. In this light it is impossible to say one is better than the other because it is a question of comparing how well and organism is adapted to its lifestyle not how well it is adaptive on any one scale. For example it is common to say that a dolphin is not as smart as a human because it doesn't use tools, but using this definition of intelligence it would also be valid to say that humans are not as smart as dolphins because they can't examine the internal organs of their other group members using natural ultrasound.

And on that, I'm going to leave this argument. I'm not qualified enough to make judgements on relative intelligence of species. If that means neutral onlookers will take this as my conceding you this point, so be it.

Even so, I still do not understand why relative intelligence matters. The pigeons you quoted as one example are certainly less intelligent than dolphins. Isn't it a good job we let them die out then, so they stopped polluting the world with their harmfully dull brain waves?

No. This is a question of ecology. We do not believe a case has been presented as to why repealing PoDA would immediately lead to ecological damage, given that its provisions in fact constitute artificial meddling.

STFU.
Well this is a hell of a thing to wake up to. So you think Dolphins are more intelligent than Chimps. Fine. Not proven. So you think they are almost as intelligent as Humans. Fine. Not proven. Are you talking all species in family Delphinidae? All Cetaceans? Are you a Marine Biologist, or just the representative of Strontiumas posting a bunch of urls? This debate is (or should be) about whether or not it is appropriate to have a resolution that only protects Dolphins. And I might add that PoDA does a poor job of that.

I'm not going to bother with a detailed answer to any of your other posts. STFU sums up the stance taken by your nation. If you choose to answer this post with STFU or something comparable, Yelda will respond in kind.

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.
You do understand that the Chinese River Dolphin would not be protected at all by PoDA? It would fall under the protection of UNCoESB. It is a River Dolphin. It does not live in international waters.

The resolution Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act" was passed 7,269 votes to 6,454.

Congratulations to Yeldan UN Mission.

The resolution Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act" was passed 7,269 votes to 6,454.http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/kennyyelda.jpg
THANK YOU YELDA!!

I, Angelina Gallo, carry my government's congratulations on the successful passage of this repeal. Congratulations, Yelda.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank those of you who voted for the repeal. And I would especially like to thank those who defended it here on the forum, particularly Venerable Libertarians, Gruenberg and Ausserland.

The resolution Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act" was passed 7,269 votes to 6,454

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.

We would assume you are aware that relative brain size and other physiological determinants are not universally accepted by scientists as measures of intelligence. If not, we would commend to your attention the following paper. We will quote its final paragraph:

Thus, while it is not yet possible to make any final scientific judgements on cetacean "intelligence", there are sufficient doubts to render the unqualified perpetuation of the dogma highly questionable - and possibly even counter-productive in the wider conservation and animal welfare context.

http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-be-an.htm

You are also aware, we would assume, that there are concerns within the scientific community that behavioral studies of the intelligence of aquatic animals are not sufficiently reliable due to the small sample sizes and lack of replicability caused by the difficulty of experimentation in the marine environment.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The Principality of Ausserland extends its heartiest congratulations to the distinguished representative of Yelda on the successful outcome of this excellent effort.

By direction of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/kennyyelda.jpg
THANK YOU YELDA!!
You're welcome! (And I'm touched by the flag image!)

If we see any Yeldan whaling ships in Strontiumas' water, we will sink them without warning.

:p

Well done Yelda, and congrats :).

On behalf of our moon dolphins, we thank you for finally getting this resolution off the books.

Had to edit my post and put this in. Something to wash down all that cheese ;).
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v379/Kyronia/7f007e7a.jpg

Whaling is still banned by the NSUN...

But they use the same ships for hunting dolphins - and I don't think dolphining is a word ;)

Ok. I don't think the Yeldans actually plan on hunting dolphins, though. Their objection to PoDA was never based on that; it was built around redundancy. So I think you'll be ok.

Well done Yelda, and congrats :).

On behalf of our moon dolphins, we thank you for finally getting this resolution off the books.

Had to edit my post and put this in. Something to wash down all that cheese ;).
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v379/Kyronia/7f007e7a.jpg

Wow, thanks!
<sips champagne>
Wonderful! :)

But they use the same ships for hunting dolphins - and I don't think dolphining is a word ;)
What makes you think we're about to start hunting Dolphins?

Was there actually a forum vote on this?

Was there actually a forum vote on this?
No. This is LAE's thread and they never added a poll.

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.
I realize that this is a little late to be pointing this out but you cited the wrong resolution, 109 is Nuclear Armaments and makes no mentionm of dolphins whatsoever.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I realize that this is a little late to be pointing this out but you cited the wrong resolution, 109 is Nuclear Armaments and makes no mentionm of dolphins whatsoever.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Well...it gives Strontiumas the right to nuke Yelda's whaling ships. Sort of.

I wish to add my congradulations to the rest of this august body's in saying "Well Done!", to all involved with this repeal, and especially the Yeldan Delegate who put his chestnuts on the Chopping block for this to pass. I thank you, My Emperor thanks you, and the Palentine Naval dolphins thank you. Now we can do some serious recruiting. Soon the warers of the Antarctic Oasis will be filled with the colorful swearings of our newest sailors!
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

P.S. Please accept this Case of Iron City(TM) Beer, in appreciation.:D

P.S. Please accept this Case of Iron City(TM) Beer, in appreciation.:D
Splendid, it will go well with cheese! Thank you.

Unsurprisingly this has not restored my faith in democracy.

Unsurprisingly this has not restored my faith in democracy.

Unsurprisingly, it hasn't affected mine. I tend to evaluate concepts like the merit of democracy based on principles and ethics, rather than my not getting my own way.

I realize that this is a little late to be pointing this out but you cited the wrong resolution, 109 is Nuclear Armaments and makes no mentionm of dolphins whatsoever.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC:

Ah! But you forgot about the classified stuff in the invisible writing that talks about delivering low-yield nukes with dolphins!

Didn't buy that, huh? OK... I screwed up. :)

Unsurprisingly this has not restored my faith in democracy.
Sorry to disappoint you. I'd like to hear your take on the fact that it passed despite all of the feeders either voting against or abstaining.

Sorry to disappoint you. I'd like to hear your take on the fact that it passed despite all of the feeders either voting against or abstaining.

It's based on the disparity of the two votes.

(note - "the resolution" means protection of dolphins and "the repeal" means - well the repeal. Just for clarity)

The total support for the resolution (votes for it plus votes against the repeal) WAY outweighed the votes not in support of it (votes against the resolution plus votes for the repeal).

In fact more people voted against the repeal than against the original resolution, and that is with an apparently huge drop in numbers, and certainly a huge drop in the number who voted.


It just strikes me as depressing that good and bad law is just a matter of timing :}

Please desist with your shameless and petty attacks. They are uncalled for. The repeal was based on UNCoESB, which was not in existence at the time of PoDA. Such comparisons are as such rendered irrelevant.

Please desist with your shameless and petty attacks. They are uncalled for. The repeal was based on UNCoESB, which was not in existence at the time of PoDA. Such comparisons are as such rendered irrelevant.

Woah!! This was not an attack on you, nor the repeal or the original resolution. It wasn't really an attack on anything - just more of a commentry on the wonder that is UN democracy.

So calm down already.

There was a similar discussion at the end of the Worldwide Media Act thread. At that time, you were upset because the feeders (not sure if it was all of them) had voted against the proposal, thus leading to its defeat. They All voted against this one too except the East Pacific, which apparently abstained. Yet it passed. I believe you were concerned that "outside influences" had affected their vote. I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Woah!! This was not an attack on you, nor the repeal or the original resolution. It wasn't really an attack on anything - just more of a commentry on the wonder that is UN democracy.

So calm down already.

As a member of that UN democracy, it is an attack on me. And I consider it as such. (Although I was responding within the context of it denegrating the efforts of the Yeldan delegate.)

What makes you think we're about to start hunting Dolphins?
Because I can think of no other reason why a nation would propose repealing a law that outlawed such an activity?

Because I can think of no other reason why a nation would propose repealing a law that outlawed such an activity?

How about they wanted to remove duplicate legislation that was wasteful of UN resources, wished to get rid of a poorly worded resolution that did little to promote the goals of the UN, and felt that doing so was within their rights, and would prove positive to the state of the UN?

I've been a vociferous proponent of the resolution. Yet, anyone found hunting dolphins in Gruenberger sovereign waters will be shot. Repeatedly.

Happy?

Because I can think of no other reason why a nation would propose repealing a law that outlawed such an activity?
Nobody really eats Dolphin, and Yeldans most certainly don't. Dolphins have no commercial value. What would be the point of hunting them?

It's based on the disparity of the two votes.

(note - "the resolution" means protection of dolphins and "the repeal" means - well the repeal. Just for clarity)

The total support for the resolution (votes for it plus votes against the repeal) WAY outweighed the votes not in support of it (votes against the resolution plus votes for the repeal).

In fact more people voted against the repeal than against the original resolution, and that is with an apparently huge drop in numbers, and certainly a huge drop in the number who voted.


It just strikes me as depressing that good and bad law is just a matter of timing :}

We don't consider this a matter timing, but rather of situation. The "Protection of Dolphins Act" was passed before the "UNCoESB." It was repealed after passage of that resolution. It would seem logical to believe that it was not timing, but rather the existence of the broader resolution that caused the shift in views.

OOC:

Ah! But you forgot about the classified stuff in the invisible writing that talks about delivering low-yield nukes with dolphins!

Didn't buy that, huh? OK... I screwed up. :)
OOC: Believe me if there was any classified stuff written in invisible ink hidden amongst the fine print of resolution #109 I'd know about it, after all I wrote the thing.

We don't consider this a matter timing, but rather of situation. The "Protection of Dolphins Act" was passed before the "UNCoESB." It was repealed after passage of that resolution. It would seem logical to believe that it was not timing, but rather the existence of the broader resolution that caused the shift in views.

But the figures just don't support that view.


The original resolution had around 5,500 votes against it - people who just didn't like it cause they didn't like it (they wanted to hunt dolphins, they wanted to use fishing nets - whatever their reason)

The repeal had around 6,500 votes against it - people who wanted to keep the original resolution. Now if the arguement is that UNCoESB was meant to lead people to realise PoD was redundant then that arguement kind of fails - cause another 1000 (or so) people voted in favour of keeping POD, even after UNCoESB was put in place.


Don't get me wrong, this is not me whining about the result cause it didn't go the way I wanted - I am fine and happy that democracy has once again shown that if more people vote for something than against it, it gets past.

I just found it comical that even with the introduction of UNCoESB, the total number of people who voted to keep POD was above the number of people who voted to oppose it the first time - even more so given the vote was a lot, lot smaller than the original.

Once more, this sort of numerical comparison is irrelevant. In any case, UN voters are entitled to change their minds. The repeal has passed; it is over.

Once more, this sort of numerical comparison is irrelevant. In any case, UN voters are entitled to change their minds. The repeal has passed; it is over.

I know. I just like playing with numbers :}

How about they wanted to remove duplicate legislation
Well, that's just it: it isn't duplicate legislation, is it?

The UNCoESB protects dolphins only if they are endangered
The PoDA protects dolphins whether they are endangered or not

Quite clearly, the hunting of dolphins is now allowed where it once was not - argue for or against that, by all means, but please don't try and pretend that "nothing has changed".

There was a degree of duplication; any duplication is damaging. Also, you did not quote my post in its entirety. Finally, where did I say "nothing has changed"?