NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, as promised yesterday the proposal has now been submitted in it's final form. It can be found here:

Rights of Biological Sapients (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=sapients)

Here is the text:
=========================================================
Rights of Biological Sapients
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Reformentia

Description: RECOGNIZING the anthropocentric tendencies of UN legislation.

ACKNOWLEDGING the possibility of the existence of non-human sapient life worthy of being granted the rights and freedoms humans enjoy.

REGRETTING the difficulty in establishing an objective direct measure of the possession of sapience.

CONVINCED that some clearly identifiable criteria for granting such rights and freedoms must be established.

DECLARES that, if any biological species or member thereof demonstrates the capacity to issue a request to the UN, of their own volition, that the rights and freedoms granted to human beings be extended to them and demonstrates a coherent understanding of the request under cross examination, they shall be considered to be equal to humans under the law with regard to those rights and freedoms. This shall not apply when such rights or freedoms are inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species.

DECLARES that should these rights and freedoms be granted to the requesting species that species will also be subject to the restrictions contained in UN law except where they too are inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species.

REQUIRES that if any genetic or technological modifications or augmentations are required to communicate this request they be performed by the members of the species in question if the entire species is to qualify for those rights and freedoms. If any member of a species is genetically or technologically augmented by a member of a different species that individual or individuals shall be considered a distinct species of their own under the law, qualifying for the rights and freedoms requested but only securing them for themselves.

FURTHER REQUIRES that if a request is made by any UN member that a species be thus evaluated for sapience that contact between that species and the UN shall not be prevented by any member nation.

DECLARES that the rights and freedoms of non biological life forms shall be left unaddressed by this resolution and open to separate consideration.

Co-authored by: The Two Sheds
========================================================

Not to rampage in to the world of fiction and fantasy, but what about certain creatures that might be able to "appeal to the UN", but are infact very dangerous?

Examples (from another nation, other than mine) might be vampires, certain breeds of dragon, orcs....

Basically creatures that are capable of independent thought, but are generally more apt to kill, maim and destroy than think logically and coherently. (Vampires are a very good example of this)

I know - real world, real life, vampires not so much. But there are 31,000 nations in the UN (ish) and some of them might have issues with creatures they determine as monsters (for good reason) being classified as protected.

Not to rampage in to the world of fiction and fantasy, but what about certain creatures that might be able to "appeal to the UN", but are infact very dangerous?

What about them? You mean like humans? I can probably point out some human UN members who could give any dragon or vampire a run for their money in the "dangerous" depratment.

Examples (from another nation, other than mine) might be vampires, certain breeds of dragon, orcs....

Basically creatures that are capable of independent thought, but are generally more apt to kill, maim and destroy than think logically and coherently. (Vampires are a very good example of this)

And if they do so they can be treated the same as any human being which does any of these things... as either criminals on an individual basis or a nation committing an act of war if we're talking about nations of these species.

I know - real world, real life, vampires not so much. But there are 31,000 nations in the UN (ish) and some of them might have issues with creatures they determine as monsters (for good reason) being classified as protected.

"Protected"? These aren't endangered species, they're sentient beings. They're only 'protected' under the law so long as they obey that law, and only to the extent that the law establishes protections for the law abiding.

And if they do so they can be treated the same as any human being which does any of these things... as either criminals on an individual basis or a nation committing an act of war if we're talking about nations of these species.

"Protected"? These aren't endangered species, they're sentient beings. They're only 'protected' under the law so long as they obey that law, and only to the extent that the law establishes protections for the law abiding.

This is why i suggested you should explicitly give them the obligations together with the rights. It would make your proposal less prone to this sort of criticism.

This is why i suggested you should explicitly give them the obligations together with the rights. It would make your proposal less prone to this sort of criticism.

You mean it does make it less prone to this sort of criticism...

"DECLARES that should these rights and freedoms be granted to the requesting species that species will also be subject to the restrictions contained in UN law except where they too are inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species."

I do listen to the occasional suggestion... when the mood strikes me. ;)

You mean it does make it less prone to this sort of criticism...

"DECLARES that should these rights and freedoms be granted to the requesting species that species will also be subject to the restrictions contained in UN law except where they too are inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species."

I do listen to the occasional suggestion... when the mood strikes me. ;)

Ooooops, didn't read it properly... but see the positive side - I approved it even without noticing it! ;)
I guess the pace of the current divorce debate made me more of a "diagonal reader." :rolleyes:

We have asked our regional delegate to add his approval. We believe this is a sensible and valid approach to ensuring that all sentient beings enjoy the rights they deserve.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Approved. Good luck.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/God-member.PNG

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/untitled.jpg
Antarctic Oasis (www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=antarctic_oasis) Department of UN Affairs
"We will bury you!"This is to inform you that our region and its delegate have decided AGAINST approving this proposal, simply because non-human sapient species have largely different mating practices, different family structures, entirely different societies, different standards of living, require things for sustaining their livelihood that humans do not, and some are even immortal -- so bestowing upon them a series of rights tailored especially for humans and human societies does not seem like the most sensible approach to us. On the contrary, it strikes us as rather "anthropocentric" ... think you not?VICTORY IS MINE!!

...-- so bestowing upon them a series of rights tailored especially for humans and human societies does not seem like the most sensible approach to us. On the contrary, it strikes us as rather "anthropocentric" ... think you not?[/i][/indent]

As the proposal makes specific allowances regarding the granting of rights/establishments of restrictions that would be innappropriate to any given species' unique biological characteristics... no.

DECLARES that, if any biological species or member thereof demonstrates the capacity to issue a request to the UN, of their own volition, that the rights and freedoms granted to human beings be extended to them ... This shall not apply when such rights or freedoms are inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species.And what if certain species require rights and freedoms that humans don't? That point was made in my last post, but of course you didn't read it. Some species fly; some dwell underwater; some are coldblooded; some never sleep; some have gills; some eat only sandpaper -- yet all these species will be granted only the rights given to humans that are compatible with their biology.

And who decides whether such rights are "appropriate" to sapients' biological characteristics? Seems to me if the task fell upon member governments, they could simply decide that all rights granted humans are inappropriate for biological sapients, and that would be it.

Nope, sorry. The region's decision stands.

will be granted only the rights given to humans that are compatible with their biology.
the rights and freedoms granted to human beings be extended to them.
...it doesn't say only.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/God-member.PNG

It doesn't say we should all fly around on pink unicorns either ...

The only rights guaranteed to sapients under this proposal are those "granted to human beings."

It doesn't say we should all fly around on pink unicorns either ...

The only rights guaranteed to sapients under this proposal are those "granted to human beings."
If you had said that originally I would have agreed with you but said that it is better then the current situation where non-humans are guaranteed nothing.

If the pink unicorn are sentient then it would be wrong to ride them without their permission.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/God-member.PNG

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/untitled.jpg
Antarctic Oasis (www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=antarctic_oasis) Department of UN Affairs
"We will bury you!"This is to inform you that our region and its delegate have decided AGAINST approving this proposal, simply because non-human sapient species have largely different mating practices, different family structures, entirely different societies, different standards of living, require things for sustaining their livelihood that humans do not, and some are even immortal -- so bestowing upon them a series of rights tailored especially for humans and human societies does not seem like the most sensible approach to us. On the contrary, it strikes us as rather "anthropocentric" ... think you not?VICTORY IS MINE!!

While we certainly appreciate the concerns of the honorable representative of Lois-Must-Die, we cannot agree with her decision. As things stand now, many NSUN resolutions guarantee rights to "human beings", "persons", and similarly-described entities. And many nations seem to take an extremely narrow view of the meaning of these terms and would deny the rights they guarantee to any life-form not meeting their definitions.

As a nation whose population is made up almost entirely (94%) of members of the ancient and honorable Dwarven race, we support this proposal 100%. We are well aware that there are nations that consider us non-human and thus would deny us the rights covered in NSUN resolutions. This proposal will at least ensure that this does not happen.

We recognize that there are sapient species whose biological and sociological situations would require assurance of rights beyond those accorded to "humans". And we concur that this proposal does not address that. But we believe that refusing to approve the proposal on those grounds is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Why continue to deny sapient species the rights granted to humans just because there are others they require?

If the honorable representative from Lois-Must-Die would draft a proposal covering the situations she addresses, we would give most serious consideration to supporting it. But we continue to support the proposal at hand as a positive and worthwhile measure.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We are the delegate for the region in question, so the decision was ours. And we agree wholeheartedly with LMD: Settling for a proposal because at least it does something, and something's better than nothing, is an unacceptable mindset for making law (remember FFRA?), especially for a proposal that hasn't reached queue yet. LMD is also correct on the question of who determines whether human rights are "inappropriate" for sapient creatures; if the member governments retain the right to make the call, couldn't they just declare that all rights granted humans are inappropriate for sapients? We also take issue with a proposal that bemoans the "anthropocentricity" of UN law, while at the same time offering a most ironically anthropocentric concept of rights for non-human sapients.

As we indicated before, we would prefer a proposal that would grant sapient communities the autonomy to declare and protect their own concept of rights for members of their own communities. But our lazy-ass proposal drafting department has yet to produce such a proposal.

"Protected"? These aren't endangered species, they're sentient beings. They're only 'protected' under the law so long as they obey that law, and only to the extent that the law establishes protections for the law abiding.

We don't have a death penalty in our nation. But we happily stake vampires since they are evil creatures who need to be destroyed.

If they are granted the rights that humans hold then who knows what will happen? We can't put them in jail, because they are immortal. We can't banish them because apparently that is not a nice thing to do. And we can't kill them because killing sentients is wrong (even when we don't think they are)

Further more - what if someone finds a way to grant (say) cows the rights of sentients. Various resolutions would make it entirely illegal for cows to be raised for slaughter, and an entire industry would be destroyed in days.

I realise it is open to massive and undeniable abuse, but I would argue that each nation should be permitted to decide, within their borders, who gains protection under the law, and who doesn't

I realise it is open to massive and undeniable abuse, but I would argue that each nation should be permitted to decide, within their borders, who gains protection under the law, and who doesn't

Does that include blacks and women? I think the principle is similar here - human rights resolutions are only there to protect individuals from misguided governments.

Does that include blacks and women? I think the principle is similar here - human rights resolutions are only there to protect individuals from misguided governments.

Like I said - massive and undeniable abuse. But we are talking about species here, not races and genders, so no - it doesn't include people of the same species but having different characteristics.

(I know - the obvious answer is that vampires are of the same species, except they have different characteristics. Yet another reason why I think this proposal is entirely unworkable in any meaningful sense)

Like I said - massive and undeniable abuse. But we are talking about species here, not races and genders, so no - it doesn't include people of the same species but having different characteristics.

Of course, I am not suggesting YOU would do it. I am asking a simple question:
Dou you think each nation should be permitted to decide, within their borders, if women, blacks, disabled, elderly, etc. should be protected by the law, or does the UN have a moral duty to protect them, if abuses are present?

(I know - the obvious answer is that vampires are of the same species, except they have different characteristics. Yet another reason why I think this proposal is entirely unworkable in any meaningful sense)

No, I would not go that way, mainly for fear of changing the topic to Godzilla. My answer would just be: Yes, giving rights to vampires might be open to abuse. Still, you can consider preying on people an act of (civil) war, and throw your army at them until they promise not to eat people (ie until they are exterminated).

Of course, I am not suggesting YOU would do it. I am asking a simple question:
Dou you think each nation should be permitted to decide, within their borders, if women, blacks, disabled, elderly, etc. should be protected by the law, or does the UN have a moral duty to protect them, if abuses are present?


That's what I meant - that once the right it granted to "human beings" then it includes blacks, the disabled, the elderly, the stupid, the smart and the politicians -- because they are all part of the same species. So no nation should be permitted to NOT do that (if you get what I mean)


No, I would not go that way, mainly for fear of changing the topic to Godzilla. My answer would just be: Yes, giving rights to vampires might be open to abuse. Still, you can consider preying on people an act of (civil) war, and throw your army at them until they promise not to eat people (ie until they are exterminated).

And then you get calls for The Pretenama Panel to investigate exactly why you committed genocide by anihilating every single vampire (if they are sentient, they are protected by The EON Convention).

That's what I meant - that once the right it granted to "human beings" then it includes blacks, the disabled, the elderly, the stupid, the smart and the politicians -- because they are all part of the same species. So no nation should be permitted to NOT do that (if you get what I mean)

What I don't understand is the undefendable assumption that the NSUN is a human institution. In many members nations, the political power is in the hands of non-human sentients. So, by your argument, we should start passing resolutions called elven rights, and vampiric rights, etc.

And then you get calls for The Pretenama Panel to investigate exactly why you committed genocide by anihilating every single vampire (if they are sentient, they are protected by The EON Convention).

The convention states:
"If Genocide is used in self-defence, it is still considered genocide, and will be brought to TPP to confirm the validity of the action."
I interpret this as - You get judged, they check if vampires were indeed too nasty too live, you go free if you were right. That an investigation would take place is only fair, in my view.

What I don't understand is the undefendable assumption that the NSUN is a human institution. In many members nations, the political power is in the hands of non-human sentients. So, by your argument, we should start passing resolutions called elven rights, and vampiric rights, etc.


If you read all of the resolutions that pertain to human rights (in one way or another), nearly all of them say "human", "human being" or other such thing. Some don't mention humanity at all, but as far as I remember none of them say "sentient being" as a qualificiation for who is covered by them.

That's where the idea that the NSUN is a human institution came from - from the rules it has passed.


The convention states:
"If Genocide is used in self-defence, it is still considered genocide, and will be brought to TPP to confirm the validity of the action."
I interpret this as - You get judged, they check if vampires were indeed too nasty too live, you go free if you were right. That an investigation would take place is only fair, in my view.

I would entirely agree but it is still a potentially gray area.

Anyone else think it's amusing this is a 'Human Rights' proposal?



No?



Ok.

We are the delegate for the region in question, so the decision was ours. And we agree wholeheartedly with LMD: Settling for a proposal because at least it does something, and something's better than nothing, is an unacceptable mindset for making law (remember FFRA?), especially for a proposal that hasn't reached queue yet.

The proposal is in no sense a "something is better than nothing" measure. What exactly would the representatives from OMGTTK prefer that we do, draft a proposal detailing the granting of specific rights and freedoms tailor made to every hypothetically possible unique biological need that could exist?

If LMD has some pressing need to see rights specific to flying sentient creatures, or burrowing sentient creatures, or underwtaer sentient creatures, etc... be addressed, they can most certainly write a proposal specifically to address it. Expecting a proposal extending all sapients equal rights under the law to somehow magically address all those highly specific individual needs at the same time itself is simply absurd.

LMD is also correct on the question of who determines whether human rights are "inappropriate" for sapient creatures;

Since the UN is the one granting those rights, would you care to suggest who besides the UN should be determining who they are granted to?

if the member governments retain the right to make the call,

The proposal secifically dictates that the request for those rights be made to the UN, not to individual member governments. What part of that requirement suggests that it is the individual governments which have the power to decide whether any given rights are granted?

couldn't they just declare that all rights granted humans are inappropriate for sapients?

No they could not, they would have to show a specific biological characteristic of the species in question which dictated that the granting of any given specific right was innapropriate.

As for granting legal autonomy to determine their own laws to any given community of sapient species so that they may draft their own communal laws... some might just possibly take exception to effectively granting total legal immunity to any non human sapient community residing within their national borders. And the entire point of UN legislation is that it is international. Are we to grant these communities of sapients that same ability? To pass their own internationally binding legislation?

And if we're talking aout only applying this to nations of sapient beings there is already instituted in the UN the ability for them to pass their own laws rather than adhere to those of the UN.

It is known as resigning from the UN.

We don't have a death penalty in our nation. But we happily stake vampires since they are evil creatures who need to be destroyed.

Then you do have a death penalty in your nation quite frankly.

If they are granted the rights that humans hold then who knows what will happen? We can't put them in jail, because they are immortal.

Immortality does not preclude imprisonment. It does speak to appropriates sentencing times...

We can't banish them because apparently that is not a nice thing to do. And we can't kill them because killing sentients is wrong (even when we don't think they are)

Further more - what if someone finds a way to grant (say) cows the rights of sentients.

Let's say we not venture into the realm of the completely and udderly ridiculous? The only way that could happen under this proposal is if the cows came to the UN, petitioned for human rights, and demonstrated an understanding of all the concepts that request entailed under cross examination. Quite frankly any species of cow capable of pulling that off should have the rights of sapients because they are sapient.

Then you do have a death penalty in your nation quite frankly.

As does any nation that eats animals.


Let's say we not venture into the realm of the completely and udderly ridiculous? The only way that could happen under this proposal is if the cows came to the UN, petitioned for human rights, and demonstrated an understanding of all the concepts that request entailed under cross examination. Quite frankly any species of cow capable of pulling that off should have the rights of sapients because they are sapient.

That would be my point - what some nations consider sentient/spaient, other nations do not, and the entire arguement will descend in to a political battle - not out of any concern or care about these creatures rights, but to use the power of granting sentience to mess up another nation's economy.

That would be my point - what some nations consider sentient/spaient, other nations do not, and the entire arguement will descend in to a political battle - not out of any concern or care about these creatures rights, but to use the power of granting sentience to mess up another nation's economy.

Your point does not respond to the remark Reformentia made. The debate would never arise, unless the cows themselves addressed the UN.

That would be my point - what some nations consider sentient/spaient, other nations do not, and the entire arguement will descend in to a political battle - not out of any concern or care about these creatures rights, but to use the power of granting sentience to mess up another nation's economy.

The representative from Pallatium describes the situation that exists now and that this proposal is trying to alleviate. It is an argument for the proposal, not against it.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Esteemed Colleagues:

I was recently petitioned to vote on a bill granting "human rights" to any species who exhibits "sapience" by Reformentia. Well, when I asked the sensible questions "what do you define as sapient" and "what if a species cannot make itself known as sapient in any way that those who decide can understand", this was the response:

> "If a species exhibits 'sapience in a manner unintelligible to those
> observing it' (relevent to this proposal "those observing it" being the UN)
> then by definition whatever it is that they are exhibiting is unrecognizable
> as sapience by the UN and we could not possible grant them the rights of
> sapients no matter what the defining criteria were since the UN cannot
> identify it as such."

My counter was this:

"If this is the case, then in no way, shape or form can I condone this proposal. This is the kind of unilateral thinking, absent of nuance or even the possibility that those making the decisions might make bad ones, that makes for spectacularly bad legislation. The question represented here is as old as philosophy itself: "Who decides?" I am not comfortable with politicians deciding what constitutes sentience, and as such, I am decidedly uncomfortable with the nature of this proposal. My apologies to you and those who worked on it -- I appreciate your effort as it rises above the average dreck that passes for propsals in the UN -- but I cannot, in good conscience, support this proposal."

It is alarming to me that the simple problem of "who decides" was so quickly and thoughtlessly rejected by someone proposing a resolution designed to separate those with and those without rights. I therefore urge the UN not to support this proposal and to vote it down should it become a resolution in question.

Weeping for the future,

M. Jubal

Your point does not respond to the remark Reformentia made. The debate would never arise, unless the cows themselves addressed the UN.

But how far down the species line does this go?

(This gets in to the realms of fantasy and imagination, but give me a minute to explore something in those realms)

Suppose Hyrule breeds a species of cow that is capable of addressing the UN and asking for rights. And the UN grants them.

Does that mean all cows in every nation are protected, or just that specific species?

Further more, some nations might argue that Unicorns are just a rare breed of horse. So would horses require protection if Unicorns receive it?

I know - this is straying in to pedantry and so forth. But, at the moment, it stays with in a nation as to who gets protection under the law and who doesn't. If this resolution passes, and Hyrule knows I have a HUGE beef export market and they don't, they could conceivably engineer a situation to declare cows sapient, and make it illegal for any nation to kill them, when the cows in Pallatium don't have anywhere near the level required for it.

Can we challange rulings? Or are we summarily required to destroy an industry based on another breed of the same species?

Originally Posted by Pallatium
That would be my point - what some nations consider sentient/spaient, other nations do not, and the entire arguement will descend in to a political battle - not out of any concern or care about these creatures rights, but to use the power of granting sentience to mess up another nation's economy.

The representative from Pallatium describes the situation that exists now and that this proposal is trying to alleviate. It is an argument for the proposal, not against it.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

How does it exist now? Give me an example where the current laws (or lack of laws) would cause me to have to accept a species in my nation as sentient just because another nation did.

Read the proposal:

"If any member of a species is genetically or technologically augmented by a member of a different species that individual or individuals shall be considered a distinct species of their own under the law, qualifying for the rights and freedoms requested but only securing them for themselves."

Read the proposal:

"If any member of a species is genetically or technologically augmented by a member of a different species that individual or individuals shall be considered a distinct species of their own under the law, qualifying for the rights and freedoms requested but only securing them for themselves."

So any genetic differences and the whole thing is off?

Ok. So if the average cow goes to the UN to require sapience, I can just modify the genetic structure of my cows and claim they are a different species.

Is that a cool loophole or what?

So any genetic differences and the whole thing is off?

Ok. So if the average cow goes to the UN to require sapience, I can just modify the genetic structure of my cows and claim they are a different species.

Is that a cool loophole or what?

<sigh> Again, read the proposal. That is not what it says.

<sigh> Again, read the proposal. That is not what it says.

I read the bit you quoted - if a species is genetically augmented then it is a different species.

Consequently if one species goes and gets classified sapient, then I can augment that species, and make it a whole different species and it is no longer protected.

What am I missing here?

I read the bit you quoted - if a species is genetically augmented then it is a different species.

Consequently if one species goes and gets classified sapient, then I can augment that species, and make it a whole different species and it is no longer protected.

What am I missing here?

The actual text of the proposal?

If a species is genetically augmented, by a seperate species, in order to enable it to make the request for rights... those augmented members shall be considered a seperate species under the law and only qualify for the rights for themselves.

It does not make a blanket claim that any genetic modification to any species automatically classifies them as a distinct species and changes how the law applies to them.

And I did make a request that you stop venturing into the realm of the completely absurd. An "average cow" strolling into the UN and petitioning for rights while demonstrating an understanding of all that entails under cross examination? Are we holding our breath on this one while living in fear of it occuring? I think not. Could you try coming up with at least a halfway plausible objection if you're going to argue against the proposal?

"If this is the case, then in no way, shape or form can I condone this proposal. This is the kind of unilateral thinking, absent of nuance or even the possibility that those making the decisions might make bad ones, that makes for spectacularly bad legislation. The question represented here is as old as philosophy itself: "Who decides?"

Unfortunately the representative from Intangleon appears not to grasp that that question can have only one possible answer. These are UN granted rights. If the UN doesn't decide to grant them they don't get granted. Period. Not on an international level. Either you can accept the UN making the decision, or you can accept that those species will not get those rights internationally established at all. Ever.

I am not comfortable with politicians deciding what constitutes sentience, and as such, I am decidedly uncomfortable with the nature of this proposal.

If that is your objection you would be decidedly uncomfortable with any UN attempt to grant sapient beings rights since such an attempt necessarily includes an evaluation of the actual possession of sapience being performed by the UN.

As I said in my telegrammed reply to you, considering this I do not begin to understand the actual source of your objection. Unless of course you are objecting to granting these rights at all.

The actual text of the proposal?

If a species is genetically augmented, by a seperate species, in order to enable it to make the request for rights... those augmented members shall be considered a seperate species under the law and only qualify for the rights for themselves.

It does not make a blanket claim that any genetic modification to any species automatically classifies them as a distinct species and changes how the law applies to them.

And I did make a request that you stop venturing into the realm of the completely absurd. An "average cow" strolling into the UN and petitioning for rights while demonstrating an understanding of all that entails under cross examination? Are we holding our breath on this one while living in fear of it occuring? I think not. Could you try coming up with at least a halfway plausible objection if you're going to argue against the proposal?


My point, if somewhat off target, was that there are 31,000 nations in the UN, and a fair number of those nations are on other planets. So who gets to decide how much genetics have to differ in a species (say one from earth, and one from mars, that look similar and are more or less genetically compatible, but not exactly 100%) before they are classified as two different species?

Further more there are (at a guess) a fair number of fantasy realms out there. Elves, dwarves and so forth. So where do fantasy races fit in to this? If I say orcs are not sentient, cause they are mindless slaves, does that apply to all orcs or only Pallatuim orcs?


Finally - any halfway decent programmer could create a computer program to issue a request to the UN, and a more advanced progammer could programm a computer to respond to cross-examination and fullfill all your creteria, yet it would still not be capable of any thought not provided to it by the programmer itself. That is not what I would class as sentient/sapient, yet it qualifies.

The government of the Democratic States of Andressa has noted that the proposal in question has reached quorum, and would like to register our intent to vote for the proposal when it reaches the floor. Although our population is mostly human, our laws provide for the extension of "human" rights to members of non-human sapient species who choose to become Andressan citizens. We are very happy to see a resolution that would extend these rights to non-human sapients on an international level and which recognizes the incredible diversity of the NSUN member nations.



Finally - any halfway decent programmer could create a computer program to issue a request to the UN, and a more advanced progammer could programm a computer to respond to cross-examination and fullfill all your creteria, yet it would still not be capable of any thought not provided to it by the programmer itself. That is not what I would class as sentient/sapient, yet it qualifies.

We would like to respectfully point out to the representative of Pallatium that the proposal specifically states that it does not address the rights of non-biological sapients; therefore, a computer program would not qualify.

Alexandra Picard
Andressan Ambassador to the NSUN

We would like to respectfully point out to the representative of Pallatium that the proposal specifically states that it does not address the rights of non-biological sapients; therefore, a computer program would not qualify.

Alexandra Picard
Andressan Ambassador to the NSUN

Then that raises two more issues :-

Firstly - what about life forms that are not carbon based? What does a species have to do to show it is a "biological life form"? I think there are seven requirements for life - reproduction, resperation, and five others that I can't remember. If a species fulfils all of those requirements, would it be considered biological even if it were made entirely out of (say) silicon or steel or plastic?


Secondly - you put some genetic matter in to the mix for the computer that hosts it (off the chart example would be bio-neural gelpacs). It would contain a biological component, but not be alive (so to speak). Would it then be capable of qualifiying under this resolution?

edit

Oh god - it reached quorum?

I guess this means a swift but dramatic resignation from the UN then.

Then that raises two more issues :-

Firstly - what about life forms that are not carbon based? What does a species have to do to show it is a "biological life form"? I think there are seven requirements for life - reproduction, resperation, and five others that I can't remember. If a species fulfils all of those requirements, would it be considered biological even if it were made entirely out of (say) silicon or steel or plastic?


Secondly - you put some genetic matter in to the mix for the computer that hosts it (off the chart example would be bio-neural gelpacs). It would contain a biological component, but not be alive (so to speak). Would it then be capable of qualifiying under this resolution?

edit

Oh god - it reached quorum?

I guess this means a swift but dramatic resignation from the UN then.

OOC: Unless I'm reading the "List of Proposals" page wrong, it has reached quorum--but IIRC, that just means it will be voted on by the full NSUN--it won't necessarily pass.

IC: Our Minister of Science and Medicine informs us that among the other requirements for life are the ability to adapt to changes in the environment, and the ability to take in nutrients and excrete waste. He points out however, that just because something is alive doesn't necessarily mean it's sapient. In order to gain rights under this proposal, a lifeform must prove not only life, but intelligence.
Also, there is a clause in the resolution stating that a species that has been augmented by another species can gain rights only for the enhanced members of said species, not unenhanced ones. So even if a computer with biological components applied for rights under this proposal, only that particular computer would get rights--a nonbiologically-enhanced computer would not.
Alexandra Picard
Andressan Ambassor to the NSUN

Oh god - it reached quorum?

I guess this means a swift but dramatic resignation from the UN then.

Really... the prospect of you possibly having to acknowledge the possession of human rights by someone's painstakingly engineered faux-sapient cyborg terrifies you that much does it?

If what we've seen so far is the extent of your argument against the proposal... meh. Dibs on Pallatiums office space...

Can we do that before the actual resignation, given a declaration of intent? What's the protocol here?

Really... the prospect of you possibly having to acknowledge the possession of human rights by someone's painstakingly engineering sapient cyborg terrifies you that much does it?

Meh. Dibs on Pallatiums office space...

Can we do that before the actual resignation, given a declaration of intent? What's the protocol here?

Shotgun stapler.

Shotgun stapler.

(smirk) Do you know how hard a shotgun stapler would be to use properly? We don't have any of them after the great "eye loss" incident of '96

We do, however, have some stapler shaped shotguns, if you would like those :}

Edit

Anyways - take it.

While we certainly appreciate the concerns of the honorable representative of Lois-Must-Die, we cannot agree with her decision. As things stand now, many NSUN resolutions guarantee rights to "human beings", "persons", and similarly-described entities. And many nations seem to take an extremely narrow view of the meaning of these terms and would deny the rights they guarantee to any life-form not meeting their definitions.

As a nation whose population is made up almost entirely (94%) of members of the ancient and honorable Dwarven race, we support this proposal 100%. We are well aware that there are nations that consider us non-human and thus would deny us the rights covered in NSUN resolutions. This proposal will at least ensure that this does not happen.

We recognize that there are sapient species whose biological and sociological situations would require assurance of rights beyond those accorded to "humans". And we concur that this proposal does not address that. But we believe that refusing to approve the proposal on those grounds is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Why continue to deny sapient species the rights granted to humans just because there are others they require?

If the honorable representative from Lois-Must-Die would draft a proposal covering the situations she addresses, we would give most serious consideration to supporting it. But we continue to support the proposal at hand as a positive and worthwhile measure.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs


The alternative proposal about this matter that the government of St Edmund has been drafting (in the thread whose title is 'Sapient Rights') says that if a species' innate differences from humanity make certain 'human rights' inappropriate for them then "fair alternative" rights should be devised & granted instead.

We are the delegate for the region in question, so the decision was ours. And we agree wholeheartedly with LMD: Settling for a proposal because at least it does something, and something's better than nothing, is an unacceptable mindset for making law (remember FFRA?), especially for a proposal that hasn't reached queue yet. LMD is also correct on the question of who determines whether human rights are "inappropriate" for sapient creatures; if the member governments retain the right to make the call, couldn't they just declare that all rights granted humans are inappropriate for sapients? We also take issue with a proposal that bemoans the "anthropocentricity" of UN law, while at the same time offering a most ironically anthropocentric concept of rights for non-human sapients.

As we indicated before, we would prefer a proposal that would grant sapient communities the autonomy to declare and protect their own concept of rights for members of their own communities. But our lazy-ass proposal drafting department has yet to produce such a proposal.

But then wouldn't they only have those rights while they were actually in their own communities, rather than also when travelling in other lands?

We don't have a death penalty in our nation. But we happily stake vampires since they are evil creatures who need to be destroyed.
If they are granted the rights that humans hold then who knows what will happen? We can't put them in jail, because they are immortal. We can't banish them because apparently that is not a nice thing to do. And we can't kill them because killing sentients is wrong (even when we don't think they are)


The alternative proposal about this matter that the government of St Edmund has been drafting (in the thread whose title is 'Sapient Rights') specifies that any sapient beings who habitually prey on other sapient life-forms don't have to be tolerated or granted any rights...

The alternative proposal about this matter that the government of St Edmund has been drafting (in the thread whose title is 'Sapient Rights') says that if a species' innate differences from humanity make certain 'human rights' inappropriate for them then "fair alternative" rights should be devised & granted instead.

But without specifying what those rights are (which is impossible given the diversity which exists) which means that in order to actually have any of those alternative rights granted would require an additional proposal be written and passed which does specify them... just as would be required with the passage of this proposal.

The alternative proposal about this matter that the government of St Edmund has been drafting (in the thread whose title is 'Sapient Rights') specifies that any sapient beings who habitually prey on other sapient life-forms don't have to be tolerated or granted any rights...

Or they could just be dealt with within the confines of the law and should any members of that species elect to defy their predatory instincts and live a civilised life they would have the rights and freedoms to do so... or we could just declare by fiat that entire sapient species groups are automatically classified as sub-human animals that can be hunted down and killed without individual justification for doing so based on generalized behavioral trends. I think they have a word for that actually, it's not a nice one either.

We wouldn't recommend that kind of thinking, don't support it with our proposal, and would condemn it in another... but it's an option.

But without specifying what those rights are (which is impossible given the diversity which exists) which means that in order to actually have any of those alternative rights granted would require an additional proposal be written and passed which does specify them... just as would be required with the passage of this proposal.

The duties of the UN committe to be created by that proposal would, as specified there, include judging claims that rights were being denied: Maybe I need to include a line about that committee using common sense...

Or they could just be dealt with within the confines of the law and should any members of that species elect to defy their predatory instincts and live a civilised life they would have the rights and freedoms to do so... or we could just declare by fiat that entire sapient species groups are automatically classified as sub-human animals that can be hunted down and killed without individual justification for doing so based on generalized behavioral trends. I think they have a word for that actually, it's not a nice one either.
We wouldn't recommend that kind of thinking, don't support it with our proposal, and would condemn it in another... but it's an option.

Again, deciding which types of sapients could be covered by that exclusion from rights would be a matter for the UN committee rather than for the national governments...

The alternative proposal about this matter that the government of St Edmund has been drafting (in the thread whose title is 'Sapient Rights') specifies that any sapient beings who habitually prey on other sapient life-forms don't have to be tolerated or granted any rights...

Which would also include some humans?

LAE would like to apologize as i don't read the thread, so i will not expect an answer even if i would appreciate it.

-It sems to me that many nation had said to favour a comittee, as it could be interesting, fair and also a great roleplay opportunity, with members inventing some stunning species

Which would also include some humans?

As indivdiuals, possibly yes, but trying them for their crimes locally would probably be easier than asking the UN committee to decide whether they were covered by that exception.


Oops! Let me clarify that... If those beings clearly are 'human' (as defined in my proposed resolution) then this committee couldn't strip them of any 'human rights' guaranteed by earlier Resolutions that were still in force (because trying to give it that power would presumably count as trying to amend all of those earlier measures, which would be illegal) and it couldn't strip them of any 'human rights' or 'sapient rights' guaranteed by later Resolutions that included clauses specifically rejecting its authority: What it could strip them of would be any rights conferred by later Resolutions that didn't include such a rejectionary clause, and any rights that were conferred "only" by national or subnational legislation... (So that, for example, it could authorise the removal of the right not to be executed from serial killers &/or [deposed] bloodthirsty tyrants in any nations whose own laws normally forbade the death penalty -- at least unless & until any UN Resolution was passed to block this -- but couldn't allow the governments of those nations to continue sending criminals into exile if the currently proposed Resolution against banishment had already been passed...)

The duties of the UN committe to be created by that proposal would, as specified there, include judging claims that rights were being denied: Maybe I need to include a line about that committee using common sense...

You know committees don't actually do anything concrete right? If you don't spell out exactly what the committee is supposed to do nothing is going to come of it... and if you can spell it out in detail you don't need the committee to do it because you just made it a law. The law will do it. Why do we need a mystically staffed committee to interpret and implement what is spelled out in the law when we have the law right there for ourselves?

We would not entertain the idea of creating Yet Another Useless Committee.

Again, deciding which types of sapients could be covered by that exclusion from rights would be a matter for the UN committee rather than for the national governments...

Under the proposal it's a matter for international law rather than for national governments. Adding a committee accomplishes nothing but the creation of an added level of beaurocracy.

And thread bumped since this goes to vote soon.

This is to inform you that Macdo has voted against this resolution, and has recommended that the South Pacific Delegate do likewise.


Macdo strongly recommends an "against" vote in the UN today, on "Rights of Biological Sapients" for the following reasons:
- Man as we know him has been on this planet for at least tens of thousands of years, and has never met another sapient species, so the resolution is pointless.
- The resolution has been de-fanged anyway, as it excludes the extension of any "rights or freedoms (...) inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species", i.e. the same arguments used for slavery could legally be used here.
- These pointless resolutions do nothing to further the UN cause amongst nations who already feel that the UN is actually a forum for meddlers and do-gooders.

Yrs,
Macdo,
Too little, too late - it's not a policy but it happens.
http://www.nationstates.net/macdo

This is to inform you that Macdo has voted against this resolution, and has recommended that the South Pacific Delegate do likewise.


Macdo strongly recommends an "against" vote in the UN today, on "Rights of Biological Sapients" for the following reasons:
- Man as we know him has been on this planet for at least tens of thousands of years, and has never met another sapient species, so the resolution is pointless.

This. Is. Not. The. Real. Life. UN.

There are nations posting right here on this forum that are primarily composed of non human sapient species.

- The resolution has been de-fanged anyway, as it excludes the extension of any "rights or freedoms (...) inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species", i.e. the same arguments used for slavery could legally be used here.

Really? What biological characteristics of the slaves made it inappropriate for them to be extended human rights?

- These pointless resolutions do nothing to further the UN cause amongst nations who already feel that the UN is actually a forum for meddlers and do-gooders.

Oh please let us not be smeared with the label of do-gooders...

In my view this is a very good resolution and should pass, but I will consult my region before voting...but a resounding thumbs up to the author for going beyond the boundaries, thinking outside the box, and indeed fighting for a class of people never fought for before (at least in the history of my involvement in the U.N), the minority "non-human" peoples.

There are nations posting right here on this forum that are primarily composed of non human sapient species.



It has been my understanding that the UN laws relating to Human rights apply to all nations irregardless of whether they are primarily ruled by Dwarves, Elves, Halflings or Orcs.

Human rights must be a generic term allowing rights to sapient creatures as it stands.

If this is incorrect and therefore Dwarves, Elves and others are not covered under human right laws, then they cannot be part of the UN because they do not comply with current resolutions. However, because they still are under UN law, then Human rights resolutions must also apply to them.

Also, if this were the case that Dwarves and Elves and others were not covered, then it is my understanding that all laws relating to human rights must be repealed and resubmitted as sapient creature rights because this resolution by its nature changes retrospectively all other current resolutions referring to human rights which is illegal.

Accordingly, I have instructed the Ambassador Plenipontiary to cast the Nation's vote as Against.

The Law Chancellor to the UN Mission

This. Is. Not. The. Real. Life. UN.

Point taken, I wasn't thinking straight. Doh.
My apologies to all you non-human nations out there.


Really? What biological characteristics of the slaves made it inappropriate for them to be extended human rights?
You misunderstand me. The arguments used to defend and promote slavery were often biological. For example :
His lips are thick, his zygomatic muscles, large and full* (*"These muscles are always in action during laughter and the extreme enlargement of them indicates a low mind." Lavater)--his jaws large and projecting,--his chin retreating,--his forehead low, flat and slanting, and (as a consequence of this latter character,) his eyeballs are very prominent,--apparently larger than those of white men;--all of these peculiarities at the same time contributing to reduce his facial angle almost to a level with that of the brute--Can any such man become great or elevated?--the history of the Africans will give a decisive answer. Even the ancients were fully aware of this kind of mutual coincidence, between the facial angle, and the powers of the mind: consequently, in their statues of heroes and philosophers, they usually extended the angle to 90 degrees,--making that of the Gods to be 100: beyond which, it cannot be enlarged without deformity. Modern anatomists have fixed the average facial angle of the European at 80--negro 70,--ourang outang 58--all brutes below 70, the average angle of quadrupeds being about 20.
Richard H. Colfax. Evidence Against the Views of the Abolitionists, 1833

In no way do I agree with this argument, or indeed with any pro-slavery argument.

The point is that precision is important. For instance, what rights and obligations could non-human sapient species lose through biology? The right to life, for example, for aggressive species? The right to access the bloodbank, for Vampires? (okay, so that one's a bit self-evident - but you get my point.)

It has been my understanding that the UN laws relating to Human rights apply to all nations irregardless of whether they are primarily ruled by Dwarves, Elves, Halflings or Orcs.

Human rights must be a generic term allowing rights to sapient creatures as it stands.

If this is incorrect and therefore Dwarves, Elves and others are not covered under human right laws, then they cannot be part of the UN because they do not comply with current resolutions. However, because they still are under UN law, then Human rights resolutions must also apply to them.

Also, if this were the case that Dwarves and Elves and others were not covered, then it is my understanding that all laws relating to human rights must be repealed and resubmitted as sapient creature rights because this resolution by its nature changes retrospectively all other current resolutions referring to human rights which is illegal.

Yeah, well, you're wrong. All nations, regardless of species, have to comply with resolutions...but that doesn't necessarily mean the rights of proposals extend to their citizens. For example, "Sexual Freedom" clearly does apply to elves etc., because only 'adults' are specified. But then look at "The Universal Bill of Human Rights". It only refers to human beings. So, yes, vampire nations are obliged to respect those rights...but only with regards to 'human beings', and not to vampire citizens.

in which case, we need to implement resolutions dealing with all sapient species seperately rather than using this resolution to ensure that all previous human rights resolutions also apply to sapient beings which i understand to be the purpose of the resolution currently up for vote.

It has been my understanding that the UN laws relating to Human rights apply to all nations irregardless of whether they are primarily ruled by Dwarves, Elves, Halflings or Orcs.

Human rights must be a generic term allowing rights to sapient creatures as it stands.

We agree with the honorable representative's interpretation. The problem is that not all nations necessarily share our views. The resolution at vote removes doubt and the need for interpretation on that point.

If this is incorrect and therefore Dwarves, Elves and others are not covered under human right laws, then they cannot be part of the UN because they do not comply with current resolutions. However, because they still are under UN law, then Human rights resolutions must also apply to them.

We cannot agree with this statement. Although a large majority of our nation's population are Dwarves, we are in full compliance with all NSUN resolutions. We guarantee the rights established by NSUN resolutions to all.

Also, if this were the case that Dwarves and Elves and others were not covered, then it is my understanding that all laws relating to human rights must be repealed and resubmitted as sapient creature rights because this resolution by its nature changes retrospectively all other current resolutions referring to human rights which is illegal.

Again, we must respectfully disagree. The resolution at vote does not conflict with the earlier, relevant resolutions. Humans still retain the rights guaranteed by those resolutions. This resolution assures their application to other sapient beings.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

in which case, we need to implement resolutions dealing with all sapient species seperately rather than using this resolution to ensure that all previous human rights resolutions also apply to sapient beings which i understand to be the purpose of the resolution currently up for vote.

Wildly impractical. I'm not strongly supporting this one, and I'm not sure which way I'll vote yet, but I do understand its aims. Given the sheer variety of life, we cannot craft individual resolutions for each species. We assess rights in this context on the basis of 'sapience': as such, this resolution seeks to secure rights for all biological sapients. That seems to me to be a much more efficient way of affording rights than writing 90,000 resolutions and still having aliens coming up to us and pointing out they're not covered.

Okay...so if I have it correct animals will have the same rights as humans...
Stupid.
Who let's a monkey vote

Okay...so if I have it correct animals will have the same rights as humans...
Stupid.
Who let's a monkey vote

'Stupid'. Interesting choice of word. Read the proposal. You know any monkeys capable of requesting sapient status? If not, then I think you've nothing to worry about.

Okay...so if I have it correct animals will have the same rights as humans...
Stupid.
Who let's a monkey vote


You clearly:

a: did not read the proposal carefully
b: did not read the other discussion carefully

otherwise you would have better understood the purpose of this resolution. Yes any animal who can request sapience can vote and be protected by human rights amendments, but the purpose of the amendment is to better define "human" rights. Your argument is just a tiny bit flamerish... but thats just me. I mean, if you were to coherently say why having monkeys vote is a bad thing then maybe I might consider it an arguement, but saying that it is stupid, that is not very reasonable.

I hold this truth to be self-evident that humans are the only sapient species. Elves, gnomes, vampires, fairies, pixies, zombies, sphinxes, and centuars don't exist. Feel free to put them in you're RP, but keep them out of the UN.

I hold this truth to be self-evident that humans are the only sapient species. Elves, gnomes, vampires, fairies, pixies, zombies, sphinxes, and centuars don't exist. Feel free to put them in you're RP, but keep them out of the UN.

I don't think you have the right to say that. Since when was UN membership dictated by the people of Commustan? Since, uh, never. We find your racist sentiments offensive and obnoxious, and urge you to take them back immediately.

This is quite rich - a so-called nation that governs by bumbling from one misguided decision to another, now proposes, in essence, that we give human rights (oh, and responsibilities too) to the equivalent of talking cockroaches.

This points out quite well one of the biggest problems of the UN: The inmates are running the asylum.

If sanity cannot prevail by euthanizing this proposalfollowed by filling the UN corridors with "Roach Motels", then there is absolutely no hope for the UN.

Black Flag
Acting UN Representative for East Juhunga

Ok, as promised yesterday the proposal has now been submitted in it's final form. It can be found here:

Rights of Biological Sapients (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=sapients)

Here is the text:
=========================================================
Rights of Biological Sapients
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Reformentia

Description: RECOGNIZING the anthropocentric tendencies of UN legislation.

ACKNOWLEDGING the possibility of the existence of non-human sapient life worthy of being granted the rights and freedoms humans enjoy.

REGRETTING the difficulty in establishing an objective direct measure of the possession of sapience.

CONVINCED that some clearly identifiable criteria for granting such rights and freedoms must be established.

DECLARES that, if any biological species or member thereof demonstrates the capacity to issue a request to the UN, of their own volition, that the rights and freedoms granted to human beings be extended to them and demonstrates a coherent understanding of the request under cross examination, they shall be considered to be equal to humans under the law with regard to those rights and freedoms. This shall not apply when such rights or freedoms are inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species.

DECLARES that should these rights and freedoms be granted to the requesting species that species will also be subject to the restrictions contained in UN law except where they too are inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species.

REQUIRES that if any genetic or technological modifications or augmentations are required to communicate this request they be performed by the members of the species in question if the entire species is to qualify for those rights and freedoms. If any member of a species is genetically or technologically augmented by a member of a different species that individual or individuals shall be considered a distinct species of their own under the law, qualifying for the rights and freedoms requested but only securing them for themselves.

FURTHER REQUIRES that if a request is made by any UN member that a species be thus evaluated for sapience that contact between that species and the UN shall not be prevented by any member nation.

DECLARES that the rights and freedoms of non biological life forms shall be left unaddressed by this resolution and open to separate consideration.

Co-authored by: The Two Sheds
========================================================

I hold this truth to be self-evident that humans are the only sapient species. Elves, gnomes, vampires, fairies, pixies, zombies, sphinxes, and centuars don't exist. Feel free to put them in you're RP, but keep them out of the UN.And we say that humans don't exist. Whee!

- UN Gnome In Charge of Snide Comments
"Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born / Don't you forget My unicorns"

Right......So this is a law giving rights to mythical creatures and super intelligent apes?
Stop wasting time....

Right......So this is a law giving rights to mythical creatures and super intelligent apes?
Stop wasting time....

Right. So you don't believe in them? Excellent. Then this resolution won't affect you. So I'm not sure why you're wasting your time 'debating' it.

Animals do have the right to be protected against us humans. We humans are even the greatest enemies of the animals itself. But giving animals human rights is not correct in my eyes. Why would you ask? Because animals, even if they have these rights, won't be helped. Even if this resolution passes, still there will be hunted on protected animals, animals will be tortured etc. So my thoughts about this resolution: Against.

There has to be something to protect animals better.

Let animals be what they are and do not and don't pass such a dumb resolution. Does anyone know a dog, cat, rabbit, monkey or other animal which is smart enough to accually know that he has these rights and can use them?

Don't think so

Okay...so if I have it correct animals will have the same rights as humans...
Stupid.
Who let's a monkey vote
I hold this truth to be self-evident that humans are the only sapient species. Elves, gnomes, vampires, fairies, pixies, zombies, sphinxes, and centuars don't exist. Feel free to put them in you're RP, but keep them out of the UN.
This is quite rich - a so-called nation that governs by bumbling from one misguided decision to another, now proposes, in essence, that we give human rights (oh, and responsibilities too) to the equivalent of talking cockroaches.

This points out quite well one of the biggest problems of the UN: The inmates are running the asylum.

If sanity cannot prevail by euthanizing this proposalfollowed by filling the UN corridors with "Roach Motels", then there is absolutely no hope for the UN.

Black Flag
Acting UN Representative for East Juhunga
Before I even attempt to respond to these absurd comments, can any of you point out exactly where this proposal mentions monkeys, elves, gnomes, vampires, fairies, pixies, zombies, sphinxes, centuars or cockroaches?

Our nation sees this resolution as a waste of time. The only sapient species on the planet are humans. Things like unicorns and orcs do not exist.

OCC: The above might sound ignorant, but when I joined I assumed this was a simulation game about human government. Also when you look at FAQ it says this.

So what is this?

Jennifer Government: NationStates is a nation simulation game. You create your own country, fashioned after your own ideals, and care for its people. Either that or you deliberately torture them. It's really up to you.

Looking at a dictionary people is a group of persons. Here's the defininition for person. 1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.

So NationStates is about humans. Please don't turn this into some fantasy game.

Things like unicorns and orcs do not exist.

Get in line behind Jantjuh, Commustan and East Juhunga. I'll be back later today to see what you've come up with.

I hold this truth to be self-evident that humans are the only sapient species. Elves, gnomes, vampires, fairies, pixies, zombies, sphinxes, and centuars don't exist. Feel free to put them in you're RP, but keep them out of the UN.

Ausserland takes great exception to this arrogant and arrantly speciesist statement by the representative of Commustan. It is a well-known fact of long-standing that some member nations of the NSUN are populated by sapient species other than "humans".

By order of his Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

It is Fourheart's interpretation that sentient non-humans already have the same rights and privledges as any other nation with a constitution, a system of government, and the ablility to hit the "Apply to UN" button on thier systems. Are we mistaken?

OCC: The above might sound ignorant, but when I joined I assumed this was a simulation game about human government.

OOC: Well, the NSUN is based on the RL UN, which of course is a human government. The thing is, the rules of the NS game don't put any limits on what kind of nation you can make. The only rule is that UN member nations have to abide by UN resolutions--beyond that you can make pretty much any kind of nation you want, even one that doesn't exist in RL. As far as I know, there is absolutely nothing in the game mechanics that would prevent someone from making a nation that operates in a fantasy or sci-fi setting and has the appropriate nonhuman sentients as part (or all) of the population. If you decide that Jamesamasaurus's population includes 63,000 Whatsits, you have effectively added Whatsits to the NS universe.

I hold this truth to be self-evident that humans are the only sapient species. Elves, gnomes, vampires, fairies, pixies, zombies, sphinxes, and centuars don't exist.

IC: The Democratic States of Andressa would like to join Ausserland, Gruenberg, and The UN Gnomes in registering its distaste for Commustan's dismissal of the sentience of some nonhuman beings. We are quite sure that the significant number of dwarves living in Ausserland, for example, would be very surprised to learn that they do not exist. Although our own population is mostly human, we do have some citizens who are members of various other sentient species, and our constitution stipulates that "human" rights set forth in both Andressan and UN laws must be applied equally to all sapients, whether human or not. We are therefore happy to see a resolution that would make this principle applicable on an international level.
Alexandra Picard
Andressan Ambassador to the NSUN

OOC: I honestly don't quite remember whether it was Ausserland or Compadria that has a large dwarven population. If I got it wrong, I'm sorry.

IC: The Democratic States of Andressa would like to join Ausserland, Gruenberg, and The UN Gnomes in registering its distaste for Commustan's dismissal of the sentience of some nonhuman beings. We are quite sure that the significant number of dwarves living in Ausserland, for example, would be very surprised to learn that they do not exist. Although our own population is mostly human, we do have some citizens who are members of various other sentient species, and our constitution stipulates that "human" rights set forth in both Andressan and UN laws must be applied equally to all sapients, whether human or not. We are therefore happy to see a resolution that would make this principle applicable on an international level.

Alexandra Picard
Andressan Ambassador to the NSUN

OOC: I honestly don't quite remember whether it was Ausserland or Compadria that has a large dwarven population. If I got it wrong, I'm sorry.

We thank Ambassador Picard for her thoughtful and cogent comments.

And she did not get it wrong.... 94% of the people of Ausserland are proud members of the ancient Dwarven race. We also have citizens who belong to other sapient but "non-human" races, as well as "humans".

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I prefer the realistic political RP to fantasy, and I'd like the UN to be that way. I stand by my statement.

~Commustan
Homo Sapien Supremacist

I prefer the realistic political RP to fantasy, and I'd like the UN to be that way. I stand by my statement.

~Commustan
Homo Sapien Supremacist

Your use of 'Homo Sapien Supremacist' totally invalidates everything you've just said. You do realize that, yes? That's actually a real debate, though - suggesting humans should be granted more rights than other species is fine. That's what we should be discussing. Not having you force your RP on us. I'd like the UN to be a free trade area. You wanna play that game?

Your use of 'Homo Sapien Supremacist' totally invalidates everything you've just said. You do realize that, yes? That's actually a real debate, though - suggesting humans should be granted more rights than other species is fine. That's what we should be discussing. Not having you force your RP on us. I'd like the UN to be a free trade area. You wanna play that game?

The signature is a joke.

The signature is a joke.

And? It's still stupid.

You might, in any case, have borne in mind that there, IRL, SETI programs. The idea of non-human life is not something NS possesses a monopoly on. If you're so determined to stick your head in the sand, then you might at least consider that your 'realistic political' counterparts in the real world have made similar considerations. So your objections aren't even grounded in fact: they're just mindlessly obtuse.

The Armed Republic of Cantarch supports the proposal.

Given the large number of non-human biological sapients that exist, and may come to exist, and the great differences between them, it is unreasonable to expect the proposal to enumerate all the rights that may be required.

We note also, for those who do not believe in sentient non-humans, that this would also apply to those individuals descended from humans, but genetically modified to the degree that they can no longer be considered homo sapiens. We have such people in Cantarch, as we permit a wide variety of genetic engineering and experimentation.

Citizen Geoffrey Arctus
Permanent UN Ambassador for Cantarch

We, the governors of the Macunarian council of international affairs have investigated the existence of intelligent lifeforms. A large committee of scientists have studied the matter and as they concluded that there is no evidence that any intelligent lifeforms other than humans exist or have ever existed we see no reason to vote for or against this resolution.

Josef Anderlof

President of the Macunarian council of international affairs.
Representing the Emirate of Macunaria

Given our Duchy's populace's national characteristic of indulging regularly in our national drink the Galactic Gargleblaster, we're not sure that we'd be able to qualify for the UN again, should for some reason we resign or get ejected.

There don't appear to be any provisions for the [hic] handicapped! Is it enough to just say "We'd like to apply to the UN" or does a potential applicant have to know how to write at the time of application?

Given our Duchy's populace's national characteristic of indulging regularly in our national drink the Galactic Gargleblaster, we're not sure that we'd be able to qualify for the UN again, should for some reason we resign or get ejected.

There don't appear to be any provisions for the [hic] handicapped! Is it enough to just say "We'd like to apply to the UN" or does a potential applicant have to know how to write at the time of application?

OOC: C'mon...the drink is the Pangalactic Gargleblaster... :rolleyes:

given the view that people who oppose this are being racist I don't think theres an easy way to say this.

the Empire of Kirisubo is voting against and we feel this proposal is a waste of UN time.

However since there are other races (Ausserland Dwarves, elves and maybe even little green men) surely the simplest approach is to change the way we look at existing resolutions.

If a member of another species holds citizenship in a UN state then the protection of UN law would be automatic anyway. All thats needed is to stretch the terms 'person' and 'people' a little and thats something nations already do.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

very much for. the species of the living Goddess Shiva hasnt really been determined, but this means she is entitled to the same rights.... not that she wasnt before, because anyone denying her these rights would have been smited.

to anyone who says that they are against this bill, because X, Y and Z spiecies dont exist, dont waste your time. the very nature of nationstates means each nation is as variable as the next. we have past tech nations, stuck with horses and carts. we have present tech nations, mimmicking the RL world. we have future tech nations, with people living in space stations. we have myth tech nations, in which orcs and unicorns do exist. hell, we even have more that one earth, and also other planets scattered around (mental note: ask flibs if final fantasy is a region on a planet, or a planet in itself....). since we do have this vastly variable nature, this resolution is more than appropriate. if humans are the only biological sapients withing your border, you dont need to worry about this then, but dont stuff it up for others. you make your nation what you want, and so will others, and we need to respect that.

given the view that people who oppose this are being racist I don't think theres an easy way to say this.
the Empire of Kirisubo is voting against and we feel this proposal is a waste of UN time.
However since there are other races (Ausserland Dwarves, elves and maybe even little green men) surely the simplest approach is to change the way we look at existing resolutions.
If a member of another species holds citizenship in a UN state then the protection of UN law would be automatic anyway. All thats needed is to stretch the terms 'person' and 'people' a little and thats something nations already do.

No, I don't think you're racist. I think you're illiterate. Because "The Universal Bill of Rights" refers only to 'human beings', other species do not have those same rights. Granted, for many resolutions, no species is specified, so such laws do cover all for species...but for those about 'humans', then for you to attempt to interpret them in this way - your 'stretching' is illegal. Really, I can't see the point in opposing this on these grounds - if it's pointless, then abstain. I would suggest grounds for opposition would be problems with THE ACTUAL PROPOSAL.

Anyway, I've just realized this'll shelve the fucking dolphin issue once and for all, so I'm very strongly for.

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/6877/dolphin4il.jpg

To be honest i dont have much of a problem with this other than its a bit silly. But on that note i agree some nations are Rp'ed as Alien, Elvin, Dwarfish and theres even a dragon that frequents the strangers bar. If it thinks therefore it is and is able to communicate that before a human clubs it to death I say Ok, why the feck not?.

For, Unless you can sway me.

Anyway, I've just realized this'll shelve the fucking dolphin issue once and for all, so I'm very strongly for.

:confused: Was there an issue about fucking dolphins? Is it allowed or not? I remember something about sheep, but that never reached quorum...

Esteemed delegates and representatives, We rise neither in support nor rejection of this propsal but to state Our concern with its application, notably in this article:

DECLARES that, if any biological species or member thereof demonstrates the capacity to issue a request to the UN, of their own volition, that the rights and freedoms granted to human beings be extended to them and demonstrates a coherent understanding of the request under cross examination, they shall be considered to be equal to humans under the law with regard to those rights and freedoms. This shall not apply when such rights or freedoms are inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species.

Exactly how does one determine whether a given non-human species "demonstrates the capacity to issue a request to the UN, of their own volition, that the rights and freedoms granted to human beings be extended to them and demonstrates a coherent understanding of the request under cross examination"?

As a case in point, Our national animal and revered spiritual icon, the Sanrio kitten, is believed by Our people to be sapient. Indeed, much of their demonstrated behavior points to that inescapable conclusion. However, We have never received such a request from them, nor any indication that they care one way or another whether humans believe them to be sapient or not.

Our question is: how does this resolution affect the rights of species that are obviously sapient, but apparently choose for reasons of their own not to request "human rights"?

What would prevent UN nations from declining to grant non-human sapient species rights (or parts thereof) because of possible economic loss? If for example the species in question occupies an oceanic region which many nations use for shipping trade, oil mining, fishing etc?

from the bill of rights

Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members. If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected. If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights.

Again I say if a nation lets dolphins or even little green men become citizens that automatically gives them protection under UN law. we don't need a new resolution on the books to do it.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

from the bill of rights

Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members. If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected. If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights.

Again I say if a nation lets dolphins or even little green men become citizens that automatically gives them protection under UN law. we don't need a new resolution on the books to do it.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

from the bill of rights

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

Article 3 -- All human beings have the right to peacefully assemble.

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Article 6 -- No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses.

Article 8 -- A human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative.

This demonstrates the unfairness of UN law. At present, I cannot oppress my citizens to the extent that Ausserland I can. In the interests of international balance, that must be redressed.

I prefer the realistic political RP to fantasy, and I'd like the UN to be that way. I stand by my statement.Curious. I wasn't aware that the species of the comentator mattered in the slightest. Does a debate about, say, capital punishment suddenly become invalid because one of the participants has fur? This statement is about as silly as saying "I prefer discussing politics with people wearing blue ties as opposed to red ones."

If your nation has no non-human sentients, then this Proposal will mean nothing to your nation. Much like the Law of the Sea is largely meaningless to nations that are landlocked.

The Empire of Kramsey has voted against this proposal.

If we gave animals the same rights as humans, then that would be one less thing seperating us from them.

Exactly how does one determine whether a given non-human species "demonstrates the capacity to issue a request to the UN, of their own volition, that the rights and freedoms granted to human beings be extended to them and demonstrates a coherent understanding of the request under cross examination"?

One watches them do it.

As a case in point, Our national animal and revered spiritual icon, the Sanrio kitten, is believed by Our people to be sapient. Indeed, much of their demonstrated behavior points to that inescapable conclusion. However, We have never received such a request from them, nor any indication that they care one way or another whether humans believe them to be sapient or not.

Great. If they don't care whether they're considered sapient or not we don't have a problem. Unless you prefer to foist human rights on species that don't want them...

The Empire of Kramsey has voted against this proposal.

If we gave animals the same rights as humans, then that would be one less thing seperating us from them.

I searched the proposal for the word "animals" and was unable to find it. Which one were you reading?

What would prevent UN nations from declining to grant non-human sapient species rights (or parts thereof) because of possible economic loss?

The law, once the resolution is passed?

"But, but, there are no sapients species except humans!"

Welcome to the NS Universe. You obviously haven't been here long. Stand up and take a look around the halls of the UN. You will see several such species right in front of you.

The Empire of Kramsey has voted against this proposal.

If we gave animals the same rights as humans, then that would be one less thing seperating us from them.
the only thing that seperates humans and animals in the real world is sentience. this is just giving those beings, of a biological nature (ie, not machines), who are sentient the ability to share the rights that we have.

I can't believe some people want to give apes and monkeys human rights.

If we do, then they should abide by the law that gives them these rights. Meaning, they have to get jobs and if they are caught breaking the law, we can arrest and fine them.

I can't believe some people want to give apes and monkeys human rights.

If we do, then they should abide by the law that gives them these rights. Meaning, they have to get jobs and if they are caught breaking the law, we can arrest and fine them.
RTFR

currently:

Votes For: 1,249

Votes Against: 1,168

close at the moment. i hope this doesnt fail on people not reading it properly

by the way, i wonder if it is worth actually replying to some of these people. i mean, they seem the kind that only post when the proposal is up for vote, make their comment, and dont bother to look again.

by the way, i wonder if it is worth actually replying to some of these people. i mean, they seem the kind that only post when the proposal is up for vote, make their comment, and dont bother to look again.
Probably not if your aim is to change their minds. Some of these inane posts need to be replied to though in order to rebut them, thus possibly changing the minds (and votes) of onlookers.

I can't believe some people want to give apes and monkeys human rights.

For the love of god, would you read the proposal? You know any apes or monkeys capable of strolling into the UN and issuing a request that they be extended the legal rights and protections of human beings while demonstrating an understanding of all that entails under cross examination?

If we do, then they should abide by the law that gives them these rights.

What a brilliant idea! Too bad there isn;t something like, oh, this:

DECLARES that should these rights and freedoms be granted to the requesting species that species will also be subject to the restrictions contained in UN law except where they too are inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species.

...in the proposal.

Oh wait.

Great. If they don't care whether they're considered sapient or not we don't have a problem. Unless you prefer to foist human rights on species that don't want them...

Well now, that's where We have the problem. Should the fact that they themselves may not care be a license for humans to exploit a sapient species by denying them human rights? Don't we, as moral beings, have the responsibility for our fellow sapients' welfare, regardless of their attitude?

Well now, that's where We have the problem. Should the fact that they themselves may not care be a license for humans to exploit a sapient species by denying them human rights?

Nobody is denying them anything. They are theirs for the asking. We are simply not forcing them upon them if they don't want them.

I've just read this thread through from start to finish, and really can't see any glaring reason not to vote for this resolution, so we have done just that.

It looks to me like most (though by no means all) arguements against it are either misinformation (not reading the resolution properly) or nitpicking. None of the arguements against are strong enough to turn my opinion against this well written resolution however.

This is a good thing to approve because lets say some intelligent alien life forms comes form a different galaxy and we offer them their own rights. Then they would offer us something in return, maybe like new technology. Then we would have new allies across the galaxy. I approved it. I say show respect and you'll get respect. AKA Give rights and you'll be treated right.

Are you people friggin kidding me? just because an animal can state what it wants does not mean that it should be given any rights or especially government. I would rather not see the UN turn into a literal KANGAROO court.

-Emperor of Daladur

P.S. it also doesn't matter at all because monkies CAN'T USE COMPUTERS!!!!!!! What relevance does this have at all?

-Emperor of Daladur

and what about the elves, dwaves and gnomes that can?

P.S. it also doesn't matter at all because monkies CAN'T USE COMPUTERS!!!!!!! What relevance does this have at all?

-Emperor of Daladur

Suggest you try reading the thread before posting in it. But let's repeat everything that has already been said anyway.

1. The proposal never mentions "animals"... I'm trying to figure out where that keeps coming from.

2. This is not the real life UN. This is the NS UN. Some of the nations you are speaking to right now are composed of non human sentient beings.

3. I've never met a 'monkey' that could go to the UN, make a request that the legal protections extended to humans be extended to them as well, and demonstrate an understanding of all that request entails under cross examination. This resolution has nothing to do with monkeys except that it establishes criteria for granting a being these rights that no 'monkey' will ever pass so they're never going to get them!

I, frankly, see no reason why this resolution shouldn't be passed. This is just a precautionary measure that would allow, in the case of another sentient being discovered or contacting us, the ability to extend the rights of humans to them if they so choose. I've been reading through this thread and a lot of the arguments are picking out a specific species and throwing them into a "what if" scenario. Because there are no convincing arguments against this proposal, I have voted for it and will also lobby to have our region vote for it as well.

-Kernwaffen

given the view that people who oppose this are being racist I don't think theres an easy way to say this.

the Empire of Kirisubo is voting against and we feel this proposal is a waste of UN time.

However since there are other races (Ausserland Dwarves, elves and maybe even little green men) surely the simplest approach is to change the way we look at existing resolutions.

If a member of another species holds citizenship in a UN state then the protection of UN law would be automatic anyway. All thats needed is to stretch the terms 'person' and 'people' a little and thats something nations already do.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

We certainly agree with the honorable delegate from Kirisubo that his approach is the simplest and, in an ideal world, would also be the most logical. Unfortunately, the world of the NSUN is far from ideal. As is clearly demonstrated by many of the postings in this thread, there are NSUN member nations who refuse even to acknowledge the possibility of sapient races and species outside what they decide to define as "human".

We believe this resolution would have the same effect as what the honorable delegate suggests in his last paragraph. It would make it NSUN law that the definition be "stretched". And, if he believes that "that's something nations already do", we would respectfully ask that he scan back through the postings here and see how many nations flatly refuse to do it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Greednandmoria would like to 'hand it' to the Honorable State of Reformentia. Not only did this proposal receive enough approvals to make it a resolution, but this HARD-HITTING piece of legislation will truly serve the world well and make it a better place... for Super Chimpanzees.

So, in anticipation of this resolution's approval, Greedandmoria has prepared contingent adjustments to its own Charter. Specifically, Greedandmoria has passed new laws making it a felony for the theft of bananas or possessing or ingesting stolen bananas. This act would, of course, be punishable by death. We are also looking into including the atrocious act of Poo-Throwing as a Capital Offense.

Further, we are promoting Sapients join our national military. The new, non-human sapient recruits will be sent to our front lines, assuming they do not disclose their preferences on sexual relations with sapients of the same sex (assuming the non-human sapients have distinguishable sexual organs)... :fluffle: =NO!!!

...And what of sapients with three or more different sexes? How should we manage that on a global front? I call for a new, smelly piece of crap UN resolution to characterize sapients with three or more sexual intities within their species and further recommend we also address the issue of sapients with more than one sexual organ. Let's make sure they get equal rights. Heck, let's even give them their own history month!

And what of cross-sapienization? The resolution at hand does not directly address the issue of sexual relations of humans with newly approved sapients. Would the sapients no longer fall under UN decrees prohibiting intercourse with animals? Oh baby, I feel another UN resolution coming on!!!

Hats off to the great nation of 'Deformentia'.

--The Huge Distractorate of Greedandmoria

Greednandmoria would like to 'hand it' to the Honorable State of Reformentia. Not only did this proposal receive enough approvals to make it a resolution, but this HARD-HITTING piece of legislation will truly serve the world well and make it a better place... for Super Chimpanzees.

Oh for chrissakes. What is it with you guys and the primates? Unless you actually having talking super intelligent chimpanzees this has nothing to do with them, and if you do what's your problem with them?

...And what of sapients with three or more different sexes?

What about them? Your rant is extremely disjointed and rather confusing.

And what of cross-sapienization? The resolution at hand does not directly address the issue of sexual relations of humans with newly approved sapients.

And I'd really rather not, thanks anyway. And I'd suggest it's contra-indicated to refer to all of the non human sapient species of the NS universe as "animals".

No frickin' way is there that I'm gonna bossed around by a monkey.



:) :sniper:

No frickin' way is there that I'm gonna bossed around by a monkey.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Can anyone spare some Prozac? :(

Damn dirty apes!!!! :upyours:

Reformentia, should we fire up the Alpha Omega bomb?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Can anyone spare some Prozac? :(
I have some vodka.

After actually reading all of the proposal it's not that bad of an idea, and put together pretty well. You seem to have made a good case for this, so the Nation of Naviblah will support this. Perhaps this will open some peoples minds, and perhaps the problem of speciesism will end.


End Speciesism!

This resolution seems like a joke, therefore we vote NAY.

The Republic of Karkala of believes in civil rights and human rights. It also knows its responsibility towards the Flora and Fauna of this world. Having said that the republic does not believe in giving preemptive rights to any species without knowing the species, its environment, its behaviour its feeding habits etc. We believe it is dangerous, and fraught with risk to established civilizations.

We urge like minded nations to vote against this resolution. We also ask the nations in favor of the resolution to rethink their stand on such contentious issue.

This resolution seems like a joke, therefore we vote NAY.
joke is on you, mate, because this is a serious issue, about a serious subject.

What kind of retarded proposal is this?? If it's non-human, it's either an animal or an alien. We should give equal rights? Do these creatures even know what a "right" is? Give them freedoms? What if they attack us? What if they go through our garbage cans? We should keep them in the cage to avoid being capture or being attack by humans.

If they are near extinction, them put them on the endangered species list.

what the proposal is stating is that non-human life that is capable of submitting a request to the UN qualifies as sapient. homo-SAPIENS=humans, mankind, humankind, whatever. so if a dog walks up to the UN, barks at a member, that qualifies as submitting a request right? i mean just because nobody speaks their language doesn't mean that they aren't submitting a request. If nobody spoke Japanese and no Japanese spoke any other language then how would we know if they were just talking strange or voicing their input? this is precisely why there are other categories that make life intelligent (sapient). this is also why the resolution cannot pass and why the Empire of Kramsey has voted nay.

and if its non-human, what is it? elvish? please.

What kind of retarded proposal is this??
What kind of a retarded first post is this? Way to make an impression there. To answer your question, it's the kind of proposal that someone put a lot of time and effort into.
If it's non-human, it's either an animal or an alien.
Correct. But you obviously have not read the fucking resolution, because it isn't about animals.
We should give equal rights?
If they are capable of requesting those rights, yes, we should.
Do these creatures even know what a "right" is?
If they make the request, then yes, I guess they do.
Give them freedoms?
Yep.
What if they attack us?
If they have the capability of attacking us then don't you suppose they can already do that? Hmm?
What if they go through our garbage cans?
RTFR. This isn't about animals.
We should keep them in the cage to avoid being capture or being attack by humans.
What the hell do you mean here? That they are going to capture/attack us, or we them?
If they are near extinction, them put them on the endangered species list.
RTFR

so if a dog walks up to the UN, barks at a member, that qualifies as submitting a request right? i mean just because nobody speaks their language doesn't mean that they aren't submitting a request.
If you had read the proposal, you might have noticed this:

DECLARES that, if any biological species or member thereof demonstrates the capacity to issue a request to the UN, of their own volition, that the rights and freedoms granted to human beings be extended to them and demonstrates a coherent understanding of the request under cross examination, they shall be considered to be equal to humans under the law with regard to those rights and freedoms. This shall not apply when such rights or freedoms are inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species.

Would you like to cross examine the dog?

and if its non-human, what is it? elvish? please.
Yes, there are Elves here. I'm sorry.

Ahem.

I understand the desire to defend this resolution (for what it's worth, I support it), however, there's no need to frustrate yourselves. New nations cruising in and making baseless comments, especially when it's the tired old yarn about animals, or when they have less than 5 or so posts, aren't worth the effort to bother with. Chances are, they'll never see your responce, and they wouldn't care anyway. It's obvious they aren't reading anything, so there's no need to upset yourselves over it. Just ignore them and save your arguments for people that actually demonstrate reading comprehension.

Ahem.

I understand the desire to defend this resolution (for what it's worth, I support it), however, there's no need to frustrate yourselves. New nations cruising in and making baseless comments, especially when it's the tired old yarn about animals, or when they have less than 5 or so posts, aren't worth the effort to bother with. Chances are, they'll never see your responce, and they wouldn't care anyway. It's obvious they aren't reading anything, so there's no need to upset yourselves over it. Just ignore them and save your arguments for people that actually demonstrate reading comprehension.
I know, it's just maddening reading some of this stuff. I think I'll go to bed now.

I find the continued view by many United Nation's member states that myself and my fellow citizens are below them, nothing but vicious beasts and dangerous others, as insulting. However, a view born out of ignorance, dangerous as it is, is forgiveable, if one is able to see wisdom eventually. Thus, I shall make my nations, and my federation's appeal for wisdom on this matter.

Freedom. For over fourty years now the Union of Tinis has strived for the blessings of liberty for all the many species in our lands. Among those being weasles that walk on two legs, the mammals of the ocean, and even humans. The cosmopolitan nature of Tinis is a shinning example of what can be achieved when all people are recognized before the law. Freedom to speech and expression, freedom of the press, to assemble, and of religion and belief. Even freedom to bear arms, or arm bears, of the intelligent variety of course, as our military does often.

But the problem is not that Tinis guarantees equal rights for all, no matter what species, but that there are nations that do not. Nations that, like Tinis, are members of these United Nations, but because of they are not required to protect all the species of the intelligent variety inside their boarders, abuse and enslave them. If this resolution passes these abuses inside the UN will end.

Some fear that they will have to 'open the cage' or accept the barking of an unitelligent dog as a signal to be recognized, but these concerns are absurd. The burdon of proof to attain the status of recognized as equal to humans before the UN falls on the species applying for that status. If a beast is fitted with a human made device to translate the scratches and barks into the words 'I wish to be recognized by the UN', the life form in question has not themselves sought this. A human can easily build a device that says what ever they think the beast wishes to say. But if the life form builds the device themselves, or even better, says in a well known language such as English, as I do now, that they wish to be on equal footing with their human neighbors, then that is proof that the life form has both the desires, the knowledge, and the abilities needed to demonstrate they are indeed intelligent.

And is not the desire to be treated as equals the very founding of these United Nations? Is not the desire for a world of harmony not our goal?

With out equality for all intelligent beings there will not be harmony. The Union of Tinis wishes for harmony. Will you join us in this dream?

If you do, then please join us in supporting this resolution.

If you have a concern, before you vote, contact us, and we will do our best to explain how this resolution will affect the world. And I am quite convinced that at the end of the day the net effect will be for the betterment of all.

I have asked my nation's delegate, the human Dicey Riley, to yield the floor to me, her Feline Advisor, the Ardchoille Cat known as Bast.

This resolution has raised questions in Ardchoille which have never been asked before.

We had, perhaps foolishly, assumed that the laws of Ardchoille applied equally to both Cats and humans. When those laws were adjusted in line with UN decisions, we had assumed that both species would benefit or suffer equally.

However, two recent events have forced us to examine our attitudes. First, the success of the Neutral Nations resolution had encouraged us to begin lowering our previous all-embracing means of defence, the Godmoding Ubiquitous Magical Bubble. Second, this debate has opened our eyes to the fact that some nations accept only humans as sapients.

If a nation were so lost to decency as to overpower a neutral nation, it might also be despicable enough to refuse sapient rights to half that defeated nation's citizens.

We are, of course, confident that the NS UN would move instantly to impose the most severe sanctions possible against such an offender, particularly if this proposal passes, as the miscreant would then be in breach of two UN rulings.

Ardchoille will, therefore, instantly begin whatever proceedings are necessary to have ourselves declared a neutral nation, and we Ardchoille Cats, should this proposal pass, will make a separate application to be declared sentient.

On the home front, the humans of Ardchoille will ask the Cats' Clowder to declare humans sentient, and we would urge such a move on the human population of all multiple-species nations.

Regrettably, however, all citizens, human and Cat, have been so alarmed by the depth of animosity here displayed that we have sadly decided to begin reinstating the GUMB.

I realise that these are not directly arguments for or against the proposal. They are, however, consequences of the debate, and therefore relevant. If the mere suggestion that other species may be sentient can raise such ire, it is evident that we non-humans need protection from certain sections of the human population.

This proposal contributes to that process and therefore the people of Ardchoille, Cat and human, vote in favour of it.

Edit: I have since been informed by my human colleague that we declared ourselves a neutral nation when we signed the convention. I had not expected human affairs to be so simple and therefore overlooked the fact. I do apologise for my deplorable assumption that humans are inherently bureaucratic.

i will vote for it. my king kongs need rights!

I can appreciate the need for this within some nations, however within Jondalar the only animal that would have enough intelligence to debate political issues would be the cave bear. It would seem a little unfair to have some animals with political rights and others with none or less political rights. Also if you give sapient beings the right to be elected then you also have to gvie them voting rights and that could mean that they have more political say than the humans within the country.

I can appreciate the need for this within some nations, however within Jondalar the only animal that would have enough intelligence to debate political issues would be the cave bear. It would seem a little unfair to have some animals with political rights and others with none or less political rights.

You have sapient cave bears that are capable of communication with you? Really?

And quite frankly if you do, yes it is fair that they have rights beyond what non sapient animals do.

Is the UN primary job not to focus on the needs of humanity first? not worrying about what sentient being may fall down from the sky. I am appalled that our great global governance would waste there time on an issue that holds no bearing outside of Hollywood and science fiction films, it is with this that I strongly vote NO on the grounds that this is a waste of the UN's time and resources.

Is the UN primary job not to focus on the needs of humanity first? not worrying about what sentient being may fall down from the sky. I am appalled that our great global governance would waste there time on an issue that holds no bearing outside of Hollywood and science fiction films, it is with this that I strongly vote NO on the grounds that this is a waste of the UN's time and resources.

Well, this is a recurring theme.

This is not real life. We have non human sapient beings in the NSUN right now.

Is the UN primary job not to focus on the needs of humanity first? not worrying about what sentient being may fall down from the sky. I am appalled that our great global governance would waste there time on an issue that holds no bearing outside of Hollywood and science fiction films, it is with this that I strongly vote NO on the grounds that this is a waste of the UN's time and resources.

How can we represent Humanity if we don't hold on to one of our most precious values? Everyone is equal. If we don't give all these "aliens" or whatnot a chnce and decide to persecute them because they're different or "potentially hostile", we'll be no different from the "hostiles" we're trying to protect ourselves from. And are you saying we don't deserve to be treated as sentient beings?

While the predominant population of Darvainia is non-human, we accept people of all sapient "species". We would like to point once again to our fellow nations that this does not talk about animal rights. For what can be defined as an animal would never pass a test for sapiency. For those who say they don't exist, denial will not make them go away, it is time for us to move on as a society and acknowledge both the existence and the rights of these noble people. Also one nation quoted the dictionary as defining a "person" as a living human being, but of course as always failed to give you the second definition:

2. An individual of specified character

Furthermore it is racist and unfair for those who have asked questions about dangers of other sapient. Saying for example that orcs are more aggressive and apt to kill and war with others. This is nothing more than a shameless stereotype portrayed in movies and fantasy novels, all written by humans interestingly enough. Africans and Arabs, I will point out, were also assigned similar stereotypes.
All in all this is a good resolutions, and at last goes beyond the standard environmental protection, and fighting for human rights we always see. It's time for us to do something new, that will actually change our world. We must move beyond the false perception that biology, and physical appearance determines the presence or even value of the soul and spirit, a realization that hasn't taken place even within the confines of the human race by itself...vote for this resolution.

"This shall not apply when such rights or freedoms are inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species."

This is a loophole large enough to drive a truck through.

Who decides? Only if the sentient species itself decides that the rights and freedoms don't apply should they be set aside.

Otherwise, you could have someone claiming: "Oh, those Ooogie-boogians, they're biologically incapable of making a choice between two candidates because their innately determined social structure requires them to please the alpha female. So no vote for them!"

I'm sure you can think of many other possible such constructs.

I've voted for this, but it desperately needs amendment.

Damn sapient dolphins...

hello, fellow UN debaters.

i wish to demonstrate to you that this resolution must not come to pass, so as not to make exactly the same mistake that humankind made in the first place.


the worst mistake in the history of the human race was the development of agriculture. agriculture necessitated that farm workers stay in permanent or semi-permanent settlements in order to avoid cultivating different land every time that one moved, which would not result in nearly as much population boom. gradually, the farmers became relatively bored of their lives, and since the villager population had nothing to do, they became depressed and turned to exterminating other hunter-gathering peoples. in short order, many of the hunter gathering tribes of humans were eliminated from existence. one thing to note is that the process of becoming a sapient species [b]directly led to genocide of the human race[b], which is not acceptable in and of its own right.

however, the newfound creation of permanent settlements and the proceeding of sapient life proceeded to cause more damage than just genocide. as agricultural practices were improved and villages and towns grew, they were increasingly able to support a population of persons who did not produce food. thus, modern human society began, bringing with it all of its evils, including poverty, greed, jealousy, boredom, and other societal pressures which led to general malevolence.

these evils were not necessary. society brought them about itself by attempting to transform humans into more than they were biologically capable of doing. society has been expanding ever since, and it has never stopped doing so.

hunter-gathering, transcendent, natural society is infinitely superior in comparison to settled, agricultural society. indeed, there is no boredom, since work is constantly necessary to survive. greed, jealousy, and poverty are nonexistent, since the assistance of every member of a particular group is necessary to survive in any situation. if all resources are not shared equally throughout the group, then the result will be that the one member of the group who did not receive his or her equal share of the goods will be unable to contribute to the welfare of the group, causing its eventual demise. people living in such societies had none of the cares or worries of modern society; they merely, ate, slept, copulated, and hunted/gathered.

this is the way that nature intended all biological species to function. only by maintaining this natural, pristine, and transcendent state can all species flourish. therefore, this resolution is unproductive since it would allow for more sapient species to be produced than already exist, and therefore it will cause yet more problems and anguish for these creatures. this resolution ought to be sent away and given a decent burial.

(note that another resolution indicacting the rights of all species which already have had the misfortune to achieve sapience would be perfectly acceptable.)

For making us read that, we are so tempted to bomb your nation back into the Stone Age, since that seems to be what you want anyway.

For making us read that, we are so tempted to bomb your nation back into the Stone Age, since that seems to be what you want anyway.
Indeed.
My eyes were horrified by the lack of capitalization, and I only skimmed that post...
And I fail to see the point that it addressed...

hello, fellow UN debaters.

i wish to demonstrate to you that this resolution must not come to pass, so as not to make exactly the same mistake that humankind made in the first place.


the worst mistake in the history of the human race was the development of agriculture. agriculture necessitated that farm workers stay in permanent or semi-permanent settlements in order to avoid cultivating different land every time that one moved, which would not result in nearly as much population boom. gradually, the farmers became relatively bored of their lives, and since the villager population had nothing to do, they became depressed and turned to exterminating other hunter-gathering peoples. in short order, many of the hunter gathering tribes of humans were eliminated from existence. one thing to note is that the process of becoming a sapient species [b]directly led to genocide of the human race[b], which is not acceptable in and of its own right.

however, the newfound creation of permanent settlements and the proceeding of sapient life proceeded to cause more damage than just genocide. as agricultural practices were improved and villages and towns grew, they were increasingly able to support a population of persons who did not produce food. thus, modern human society began, bringing with it all of its evils, including poverty, greed, jealousy, boredom, and other societal pressures which led to general malevolence.

these evils were not necessary. society brought them about itself by attempting to transform humans into more than they were biologically capable of doing. society has been expanding ever since, and it has never stopped doing so.

hunter-gathering, transcendent, natural society is infinitely superior in comparison to settled, agricultural society. indeed, there is no boredom, since work is constantly necessary to survive. greed, jealousy, and poverty are nonexistent, since the assistance of every member of a particular group is necessary to survive in any situation. if all resources are not shared equally throughout the group, then the result will be that the one member of the group who did not receive his or her equal share of the goods will be unable to contribute to the welfare of the group, causing its eventual demise. people living in such societies had none of the cares or worries of modern society; they merely, ate, slept, copulated, and hunted/gathered.

this is the way that nature intended all biological species to function. only by maintaining this natural, pristine, and transcendent state can all species flourish. therefore, this resolution is unproductive since it would allow for more sapient species to be produced than already exist, and therefore it will cause yet more problems and anguish for these creatures. this resolution ought to be sent away and given a decent burial.

(note that another resolution indicacting the rights of all species which already have had the misfortune to achieve sapience would be perfectly acceptable.)

We must regretfully confess that we are quite befuddled by the remarks of the honorable representative of New York Jet Fanatics. We fail to see how passage of this resolution would allow for development of more sapient species. Does the honorable member believe that, if this resolution is not passed, species which are now progressing toward sapience will stop doing so? Further, we're at a loss to understand what the number of sapient species has to do with agriculturalization.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

has unfair treatment of non-human sapient life occurred? if not, then why is the resolution necessary?

"This shall not apply when such rights or freedoms are inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species."

This is a loophole large enough to drive a truck through.

Who decides? Only if the sentient species itself decides that the rights and freedoms don't apply should they be set aside.

Otherwise, you could have someone claiming: "Oh, those Ooogie-boogians, they're biologically incapable of making a choice between two candidates because their innately determined social structure requires them to please the alpha female. So no vote for them!"

I'm sure you can think of many other possible such constructs.

I've voted for this, but it desperately needs amendment.

Funny...when I made that point to Reformentia when he petitioned the Intangelon Senate for our approval of this proposal, he steadfastly refused to understand the entire concept of "Who Decides?" It is this Delegate's view that such people are inherently dangerous and determined to make decisions for far more than themselves.

The other concept he dismissed out of hand was the notion that even if the UN were to accept the very Star-Trekky notion that there are sapient life-forms who just haven't yet said "hello" here on this planet, how would we know which way they'd choose to communicate? In short, if you're buying the claptrap about potential sapients, don't you necessarily need to buy the corollary possibility that these sapients just might try to ask for rights in a manner that humanity will misunderstand...or miss completely?

Not for Reformentia. Oh, no. He was arrogantly disdainful of these two simple objections and pedantically relegated my concerns to his personal trash heap. Well, without consideration of basic logical precepts in order to establish even a working definition of "sapience" (a word Reformentia decided to use for its academically legitimizing sound), I say flush this resolution. It is a deeply flawed vessel which no epoxy -- no bonding agent of any kind -- could or would successfully repair.

I'll leave the personal attacks on Reformentia for him to respond to.
In short, if you're buying the claptrap about potential sapients, don't you necessarily need to buy the corollary possibility that these sapients just might try to ask for rights in a manner that humanity will misunderstand...or miss completely?
It is, of course, possible that they would attempt to communicate in a manner which we would find incomprehensible at first. It's also likely that efforts would be undertaken to decipher their message. There are several non-human species that are currently UN members. Are you proposing that, when they first applied for membership, our response should hve been: "What the hell is that thing, and what are those sounds it's making. Let's eat it."?

Well, without consideration of basic logical precepts in order to establish even a working definition of "sapience" (a word Reformentia decided to use for its academically legitimizing sound), I say flush this resolution.
Really? What term would you have chosen, and how would you have defined it? I'm not familiar with your record as a proposal author. Enlighten us.

I have to say that the main issue with this is that it assumes all nations in this GAME are populated by humans to begin with.

Starblaydia is known for its Dwarven Poulation and The Caprine States is comprised of sentient goat-like beings. These are just two examples. Other nations here are populated by cyborgs, minotaurs, or completely alien life forms. At least one nation has a population comprised of demons from the depths of hell. Remember this is a game and each nation can decide these things for themselves.

Now, do these populations deserve fewer rights than the vast majority of nations that are mainly comprised of humans. NO!

If these nations have these types of inhabitants, surely others must exist. I say equal rights for all!

given that this resolution has considerable strength and my very well pass, it is important that the resolution not be COMPLETELY foolish.

"sapient" - not a word
"sentient" - the word you're looking for

"sapiens" - the species classification for humans, often appearing in conjunction with the genus classfication, "homo", as in "homo sapiens"
"sentient beings" - thinking creatures that can make independent decisions. The concept of "free will" is associated with SENTIENT beings.

Please do not ignore such an easily rectifiable mistake. "Sentient," not "sapient."

edit: I was wrong about the word sapient in that it is a word, but its still way the wrong word. Sapient means wise. Sentient is still the word you're thinking of for sensory perception.

"sapient" - not a word

Oxford says otherwise:
sapient

/saypint/

• adjective formal wise, or attempting to appear wise.

— ORIGIN from Latin sapere ‘be wise’.
http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&field-12668446=sapient&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname

[The doors to the General Assembly hall swing open, and the Destructor from Del Fuego, Mexico, the president of the Federal Republic, casually saunters into the chamber, pushing Riley aside and seizing a microphone at the Kenny delegation's table.]

What's up, General Assembly members? I was just here to buy the Thessadorian ambassador a drink at the Strangers' Bar ...

["I was wondering what he was doing here," whispers Riley to the secretary of state.]

... when I noticed the joke of a proposal currently at vote. Are you idiots freakin' serious? We're talking about non-humans here! What could they possibly want with "human rights"?! Oh, and look-it here [reading from the proposal text]: "RECOGNIZING the anth-ro-po-cent-ric tendencies of UN legislation ...." I had to look in a dictionary to find out what the hell "anthropocentric" means, but wouldn't we with this bill be imposing a rather "anthropocentric" concept of rights on non-human sentients? Rest assured, I don't need no dictionary to find out what "irony" means.

Now if y'all 'll excuse me, I gotta go; you only get one chance with the ambassador from Thessadoria, and Senator Sulla's been paying her a little too much attention lately, so ... ¡adios!

[He playfully slaps Riley upside the head and proudly strides back up the aisle, wetting his pinky and shoving it in the Reformentian ambassador's ear as he exits ...]

~Manuelo Fernanda (ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Manuelo_Fernanda)

edit: I was wrong about the word sapient in that it is a word, but its still way the wrong word. Sapient means wise. Sentient is still the word you're thinking of for sensory perception.
I posted while you were editing. There have been long, drawn out debates on this forum about this subject and whether "sentient" or "sapient" was the most appropriate term. Dogs, cats and field mice are "sentient", to a certain extent. The word we were looking for is "sapient".

*The delegate representing Darvain glances at the fellow from omigodtheykilled kenny and as he sees him leave abruptly, rolls his eyes*

"Well there's an informed opinion." he sarcastically muttered loud enough for his fellow delegates to hear.

... when I noticed the joke of a proposal currently at vote. Are you idiots serious?
Yes, we are.

We're talking about non-humans here!
And? Do you deny the existence of non-humans within these halls?

What could they possibly want with "human rights"?? Oh, and look-it here [reading from the proposal text]: "RECOGNIZING the anth-ro-po-cent-ric tendencies of UN legislation ...."
OOC: The proposal category is "Human Rights". There is no "Alien Rights" or "Sapient Rights" category.

I had to look in a dictionary to find out what the hell "anthropocentric" means,
I didn't.

but wouldn't we with this bill be imposing a rather "anthropocentric" concept of rights on non-human sentients? Rest assured, I don't need no dictionary to find out what "irony" means.
OOC: <sigh> The proposal categories are hard-coded into the game. You know this.

I wouldn't get to tide up by the Kenney's remarks. Though my nation has agreed with his nation's efforts from time to time, today they are acting foolishly and as extremists. But I do not fear them. But what we should fear is their ability to campaign. To the telegrams!

As as for has abuses of non-humans occured? Hell yes. The best example that I can find is the now defunct nation of Lord Nogitsune where a child dictator abused and dismembered his many citizens for his own pleasure. Citizens that were even recognized by his government as being citizens, but were non-human, and thus did not have the protection of the UN. Lord Nogi has since been deposed and currently no UN nation in our federation has such abuses, but that doesn't mean it can't or won't happen again. And I am not familiar with the non-humans beyond our continent, so I do not know of their plights.

I have noticed a disturbing trend in the responses from those delegates who oppose this bill. They have adopted a reactionary attitude in the sense that because there has never been a need for this resolution, there will never be a need. I don't see why we can't be safe and put something into place that would protect the rights that Humanity and other species within the UN hold sacred. When the time comes where we must face a new species that requests the same treatment that Humans and other sentient/ sapient species desire, there will be no hesitation, no arguements over what should be done. If this resolution is not passed, it will be a sad day when the UN closes it's doors to those who seek help from persecution and ridicule and the only ones who will feel guilty should be those that closed the door.

[Fernanda, having returned to the General Assembly hall and now seated with the Thessadorian delegation, raises a straw to his mouth and proceeds to pelt the Reformentian ambassador with spitballs, immediately turning and smiling to his giggling Thessadorian companion for her approval. Then, noting the unguarded back of Riley's head, he turns his weapon on his own representative ...]

[OOC: I couldn't care less what the category is; I'm referring to the proposal text, which states: "the rights and freedoms granted to human beings be extended to them," meaning we are extending to non-human sapients an anthropocentric concept of rights, even while bemoaning the "anthropocentric tendencies" of our own laws. That to me is irony. Oh, and unlike my college-dropout character, I didn't need to look up "anthropocentric," either; I could pretty much guess what it meant when I read it, even though I'd never seen the word before. :p]

hello, fellow UN debaters.

i wish to demonstrate to you that this resolution must not come to pass, so as not to make exactly the same mistake that humankind made in the first place.


the worst mistake in the history of the human race was the development of agriculture. *snip*

Honestly, I didn't even read the rest. I suggest our next proposal should be "Ban Agriculture."

Oh, I love this proposal! :rolleyes: That is why we the people of Barvinia vote NO! This proposal deserves no more of my time. Good day!

Funny...when I made that point to Reformentia when he petitioned the Intangelon Senate for our approval of this proposal, he steadfastly refused to understand the entire concept of "Who Decides?" It is this Delegate's view that such people are inherently dangerous and determined to make decisions for far more than themselves.

The process will be handled by the UN Gnomes -- the mystical beings who implement all NSUN resolutions. That is a given, and need not be stated in a resolution.

The other concept he dismissed out of hand was the notion that even if the UN were to accept the very Star-Trekky notion that there are sapient life-forms who just haven't yet said "hello" here on this planet, how would we know which way they'd choose to communicate? In short, if you're buying the claptrap about potential sapients, don't you necessarily need to buy the corollary possibility that these sapients just might try to ask for rights in a manner that humanity will misunderstand...or miss completely?

Does the honorable representative dismiss the fact that there are already nations in the NSUN populated, in whole or in part, by "non-human" sentient beings? Should we deny these beings rights because of a potential difficulty in communicating with some as-yet-unknown species?

Not for Reformentia. Oh, no. He was arrogantly disdainful of these two simple objections and pedantically relegated my concerns to his personal trash heap. Well, without consideration of basic logical precepts in order to establish even a working definition of "sapience" (a word Reformentia decided to use for its academically legitimizing sound), I say flush this resolution. It is a deeply flawed vessel which no epoxy -- no bonding agent of any kind -- could or would successfully repair.

We suggest that the honorable representative of Reformentia did not choose sapient "for its academically legitimizing sound". He chose it because, in discussion on this forum of a previous proposal on the subject, sapient was the preferred term of most members who expressed an opinion.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

"But humans are animals" is the generic term used by the people who proposed this resolution.
Unfortunately, animals are not human. It doesn't work both ways.
It's called human rights, not sentient rights.
Animals may have some rights, but not those of a human.
I, for one, will vote no.

I'm actually very confused as to why this resolution is a good idea. This is not an issue where I come from, and I bet that there are a lot of people here who could say the same thing. I guess that the people making the argument that "just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't/won't" have a good point. But I think that this is an issue better left to individual nations, mostly because I subscribe to the theory that 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.

So, to sum up that confusing block o' text, you don't need laws governing problems that don't exist.

OOC: I couldn't care less what the category is; I'm referring to the proposal text, which states: "the rights and freedoms granted to human beings be extended to them," meaning we are extending to non-human sapients an anthropocentric concept of rights, even while bemoaning the "anthropocentric tendencies" of our own laws. That to me is irony.
OOC: You're opposed because you find it ironic? You would have worded the proposal differently? How? I guess I'm really just not able to grasp your argument.

I'm actually very confused as to why this resolution is a good idea. This is not an issue where I come from, and I bet that there are a lot of people here who could say the same thing. I guess that the people making the argument that "just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't/won't" have a good point.

No they don't, because it has happened. We suggest the honorable representative from Mreah stand up and look around at the membership of the UN which he is addressing. Many of them are in fact not human. Would the representative from Mreah like to explain to these fellow UN members why they should not have rights equal to the human members under international law?

So, to sum up that confusing block o' text, you don't need laws governing problems that don't exist.

Agreed. This problem does exist. Hence the resolution.

"But humans are animals" is the generic term used by the people who proposed this resolution.

Really? Where? We are the people who proposed this resolution, and I assure you we haven't used that argument once. We're not talking about "animals" we're talking about sapient species. Some of them are standing right over there <*gestures around the UN assembly*>. They're the ones speaking to their defense ministers and from whom you can hear occasional snippets of conversation like "...called us animals..." and "...how many nukes prepped for..." and "...no problem, they don't think the law should apply to us anyway..."

This is stupid and a waste of the UN's time.

Okay, I realize there are some nations here with non-human populations. (Key word here:"some") But if they're in the UN, they are bound by UN resolutions also. A UN issue that is designed to "promote human rights" will affect your country if passed whether you have a Human, Elven, Klingon, or Jello nation. If resolutions (and issues) affect all racess equally, then this should be a non-issue.

"Human" is used as a catch-all phrase because "Human and other sentient beings' rights" is cumbersome (sort of like "he" instead of "he/she"). Deal with it.

The nations who are oppressing non-human-sentient beings, if they even exist, are probably not in the UN anyway.

OOC: You're opposed because you find it ironic? You would have worded the proposal differently? How? I guess I'm really just not able to grasp your argument.From the NSO board:

I still think it's a dumb idea to impose a rights system specially designed for humans on non-humans, without giving them some sort of autonomy and legal structure to review for themselves those rights extended to humans, accepting only those they feel their own species would require, and then adding on additional rights their species may require that humans do not. But hey, that's just me.

This is stupid and a waste of the UN's time.

Okay, I realize there are some nations here with non-human populations. (Key word here:"some") But if they're in the UN, they are bound by UN resolutions also.

Like, oh, the Universal Bill of Rights?


Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

Article 3 -- All human beings have the right to peacefully assemble.

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Article 6 -- No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses.

Article 7 -- Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Article 8 -- A human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative.

That resolution? Yeah, they are bound by it. They have to do exactly what it says. Give human beings all those rights.

A UN issue that is designed to "promote human rights" will affect your country if passed whether you have a Human, Elven, Klingon, or Jello nation. If resolutions (and issues) affect all racess equally, then this should be a non-issue. "Human" is used as a catch-all phrase

"Human being" has a very specific meaning. It does not function as a "catch all phrase".

Additionally this resolution establishes official criteria by which it can be determined whether or not any given species does or does not qualify for those rights, so we can avoid incidents like the "dolphins deserve rights too" silliness during the debate over the protection of dolphins repeal.

From the NSO board:

I still think it's a dumb idea to impose a rights system specially designed for humans on non-humans, without giving them some sort of autonomy and legal structure to review for themselves those rights extended to humans, accepting only those they feel their own species would require, and then adding on additional rights their species may require that humans do not. But hey, that's just me.

We think it's the height of stupidity to grant non human species effective international legal immunity by passing internationally binding legislation that gives them the ability to grant themselves any rights they want just because they decide on their own that they think they require them. But maybe that's just us.

i know this is from several pages back.

We fail to see how passage of this resolution would allow for development of more sapient species. Does the honorable member believe that, if this resolution is not passed, species which are now progressing toward sapience will stop doing so?

indeed. there are no species which are currently progressing towards sapience without the explicit help of human intervention (or the jurisdiction of complete human nonintervention.) however, this resolution will fail to give those of us concerned for out nonsapient brethren an opportunity to prevent their sapience.

Honestly, I didn't even read the rest. I suggest our next proposal should be "Ban Agriculture."

that would just cause more problems. all species that are currently sapients should be allowed to remain as such. however, the continued creation of sapients is not particularly beneficial to them. your self-imposed lack of knowledge on the particular issue of the well-being of species as sapients or non-sapients merely reflects your inability to make an informed decision on the issue.

i know this is from several pages back.



indeed. there are no species which are currently progressing towards sapience without the explicit help of human intervention (or the jurisdiction of complete human nonintervention.) however, this resolution will fail to give those of us concerned for out nonsapient brethren an opportunity to prevent their sapience.

All we can say is... what?

On several different levels.... WHAT?

The continued disregard for non-organic lifeforms on the part of the so-called 'United' Nations is a clear example of the persistent and irredeemable racism and oppression it is consistently guilty of. And it is a reason why we shall continue to regard the United Nations as a symbol of inequality and tyranny, incapable of promoting the ideals of freedom and liberty that it espouses. Though, seeing as humans are clearly incapable of tolerance and compassion for elements of their own species, I should not really be surprised that they cannot see beyond their own watery components and recognise a different form of sentience.

H2-50

My Greetings to All and Sundry,

I think what a lot of players have yet to realize is that in the role-playing regions of the Nation States World, like Wysteria, there exist nations that are peopled by unusual denizens. Elves, Gnolls, Dwarves, Gzinti, and others too strange to describe without several long sentences live in the nation states I have come across.

What this Resolution tries to address is the language of Resolutions that expressly states, “Human Rights.” It wants this language extended to apply to the other sentient peoples of the Nation States World. This doesn’t mean that your housecat would suddenly have POW rights or not have to work more than 40 hours a week. This specifically targets the kind of sentient peoples that form societies capable of addressing the UN.

So for regions that just exist to exist, or live only for the pursuit of the Invader-Defender wars, this Resolution doesn’t mean very much. But for those regions where role-playing in a rich tapestry of cultures and civilizations occurs, this sort of Resolution is just what the doctor ordered.

Grande Elector Bruce

The Green and Pleasant Dominion of The Bruce

i hate to say this, but i have changed my mind, and a post a little back made me change it, and i am surprised nobody picked it up in the drafting process (i will admit i largely stayed out of it). i think this proposal should fail, be re-written to replace sapient with sentient, the re-submitted. it may clear things up for some people, and it would make more sence.

[edit] I have read the reply to that post, but still feel sentient would be more appropriate than sapience

i hate to say this, but i have changed my mind, and a post a little back made me change it, and i am surprised nobody picked it up in the drafting process (i will admit i largely stayed out of it). i think this proposal should fail, be re-written to replace sapient with sentient, the re-submitted. it may clear things up for some people, and it would make more sence.

And elaborating on which post, or what was supposedly missed, or why it changed you mind... all these things are completely unnecessary of course.

If it's the idea of replacing sapience with sentience, our dogs are sentient. We're not giving them human rights.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sentient?view=uk

sentient

/sensh’nt/
adjective able to perceive or feel things.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=71829&dict=CALD

sentient
adjective FORMAL
able to experience physical and possibly emotional feelings:

Or more commonly expressed as simply "self aware". Extremely inadequate criteria for granting the kinds of rights we're talking about here. Sapience is the proper and appropriate term. It only makes more sense to make that change if you actually do want to give the family cat voting rights.

All we can say is... what?

On several different levels.... WHAT?

in order to appropriately comprehend my argument, you need to understand the context in which it was given. the thread is all here for you to decipher. i believe my previous post was on page 10.

The government of Krioval must honestly wonder if much of the opposition is due to those who do not understand the meaning of the word "sapient". Be assured, while this resolution would require the demonstration of intelligence, the bar would be set quite low. Thus, even those for whom the use of a dictionary is difficult, any national representative debating here would be covered.

高原由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval

The government of Krioval must honestly wonder if much of the opposition is due to those who do not understand the meaning of the word "sapient". Be assured, while this resolution would require the demonstration of intelligence, the bar would be set quite low. Thus, even those for whom the use of a dictionary is difficult, any national representative debating here would be covered.

たかはら由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval
i think you hit the nail on the head there. i believe it would have a better chance using sentience than sapience

Will the opponents of this resolution at least take off their translator earphones and their RW goggles, stand up in their seats and look about them? I'm here, and I'm not human. The number of 'felinous' nations, if you'll pardon the term, is so great that we're listed in NS Wiki.

Then there are the dragons. I can see how you managed to overlook the representative from Deadly Stench, as he's currently in the Strangers' Bar, but those who've tried to pass him in the corridors of the UN would be well aware that he's definitely a dragon -- not human.

The Kenny-ites would do well to check out their diplomatic quarter. Our own representative in that nation is a former human, so I suppose she's already entitled to rights, even though she's dead, but there's a formidable embassy of dwarves from Ausserland -- not human -- and I gather diplomatic receptions are attended by some others who might best be described as Angry Penguins, decidedly not human.

I have no intention of turning this debate into a filibuster by embarking on a roll-call of non-human nations. My point is simply this: human beings have their rights guaranteed by the NS UN. We don't. So, damn you, fix it!

joke is on you, mate, because this is a serious issue, about a serious subject.

poor elves

Dicey Riley rises: On a point of order, Mr Secretary. I would ask the Assembly to overlook my colleague's possibly unparliamentary language. I am sure you will understand that, as an Ardchoille Cat, an officer of State and a magical being in his own right, he is taking the entire debate somewhat personally.

Ardchoille withdraws the phrase 'damn you'. We would not wish to give offence to nations of a theological persuasion. We assure you that, despite being spoken by a magical being, it will have no actual effect on the destination of your souls. Thank you. (Sits.)

look come on you want us to vote that if a creature is smart enough to ask the UN for membership we should grant all rights to it as humans... so as long as the species can comunicate in such a way we understand... and are willing to take the time to learn our languages or learn to write them at least. or has the ability to teach us theres... add on that if we do find some life out there smart enough to talk to us why do you believe it would want to be human or defined as equal to humans.

Not to mention the UN Gnomes. I mean, honestly.

~ 高原 (Takahara)

Non-human sapients are by no means equal to human beings. We were created above them, and below us they should remain. VOTE AGAINST THE RESOLUTION!

"No, blacks can't have rights because they're not the same human as us."

"No, women cant have rights because they're not men."

"Ack! Jews must die for they are not the supreem aryian race. Nazi all the way!"


And yet history put the smack down on each and every one of these ideas. How is this any diffrent? At least we can avoid a few bloody wars over it, right?

Not to mention the UN Gnomes. I mean, honestly.

~ 高原 (Takahara)
yeah, i know... i am of a changing mind atm, mainly because of one word. i do support other beings getting their rights, but at this point in time, i am concidering going against, just so the change could be made, and it resubmited. it is really close atm, with the against side leading, but i am unsure how many of those are voting because of misunderstanding sapients. i kinda tend to agree with them, and i will show an example, but i am unsure how relevent it is. RL: in Terry Pratchett's discworld novels, there is a chest, called Luggage, made out of sapient pearwood. whilst it is alive, it doesnt communicate well with humans, and shows more the traits of animals. i am unsure, as i said, if this is a good example, but it may give a tad bit of an idea where some people are getting their viewpoint from.

"No, blacks can't have rights because they're not the same human as us."

"No, women cant have rights because they're not men."

"Ack! Jews must die for they are not the supreem aryian race. Nazi all the way!"


And yet history put the smack down on each and every one of these ideas. How is this any diffrent? At least we can avoid a few bloody wars over it, right?

...WRONG!:sniper:

...WRONG!:sniper:

So you think that slavery, women supresion, and the Holocost were good things then?

My nation introduced a similar action, except that we specified that Industry and Research must provide tangible evidence that the development of Biological Sapients is not for destructive research.

Additionally, the development of Biological Non-Sapients for research and organ harvesting should be addressed as well by making it a crime to intentionally create and then destroy the Biological Sapient's ability to become truely sapient.

With Regards

The Prime User,
Steve Jobs the Eleventeenth

Ladies and Gentlemen, Delegates of the NSUN:
The Andressan Ambassador has graciously allowed me, a member of Andressa's diplomatic team, to address this august body in order to explain why this resolution must pass. It seems to me that many of the delegates are laboring under the misunderstanding that this resolution would grant rights to ordinary animals. It would not. Only those species capable of addressing the UN directly and asking for those rights would be eligible to have them granted.
Although the majority of Andressa's population is human, there are some citizens, like myself, who are members of other sapient species. We are fortunate enough to live in a country that has, of its own accord, chosen to extend "human" rights to nonhuman sapients living within its borders, but we recognize that not all our brethren are so lucky. The exclusive mention of "human beings" or "human rights" in previous UN resolutions provides a loophole for unscrupulous nations to exploit nonhuman sapients living within their nations. All this resolution would do is close that loophole by explicitly stating that "human" rights apply to all sapient beings.
On behalf of Andressa's nonhuman sapients, I would strongly encourage all the honorable representatives here to vote in favor of this noble resolution.
Erwyn Brightblade
Junior Attache to the Andressan Diplomatic Ministry

As Erwyn sits, Alexandra stands and walks to the microphone.
The Andressan Diplomatic Ministry has formally requested that our regional delegate vote in favor of this resolution. We in Andressa believe that exposure to other cultures and viewpoints can enrich our own lives, and for that reason we have happily welcomed those elves, dwarves, and halflings who have chosen to become Andressan citizens. Our nation would be a poorer, sadder, less just place if we had denied rights to those nonhuman sapients, who, like Mr. Brightblade, have made a positive contribution to our society.
Alexandra Picard
Andressan Ambassador to the NSUN

i believe it would have a better chance using sentience than sapience
It would have a better chance of me not voting for it. Sapience is the correct term.

It would have a better chance of me not voting for it. Sapience is the correct term.
how is sapience the correct term? i will go to askoxford.com to see the definitons:

sapient
/saypint/

• adjective formal wise, or attempting to appear wise.

— ORIGIN from Latin sapere ‘be wise’.



sentient
/sensh’nt/

• adjective able to perceive or feel things.

— DERIVATIVES sentience noun sentiently adverb.

— ORIGIN from Latin sentire ‘to feel’.



okay, neither of them are quite clear really, are they? then again, with that definintion of Sapient, it could refer to an old man sitting on a mountain. the sentient one could be a bit clearer, but it is generally to do with self-awareness and emotions. bit of a mixed bag, either way, its just that i feel sentient is more appropriate and probably more accepted

that would just cause more problems. all species that are currently sapients should be allowed to remain as such. however, the continued creation of sapients is not particularly beneficial to them. your self-imposed lack of knowledge on the particular issue of the well-being of species as sapients or non-sapients merely reflects your inability to make an informed decision on the issue.

News-flash: Knowledge is not attained by absorbing every piece of information floating around. A significant part of the work is sifting through sources and selecting the trustworthy ones. I am very able to make informed decisions, but unfortunately, I do not consider your arguments relevant or interesting, nor do I consider your presumption entertaining. Have a good day.

how is sapience the correct term? i will go to askoxford.com to see the definitons:

okay, neither of them are quite clear really, are they?

They're pretty clear from where we're standing.

then again, with that definintion of Sapient, it could refer to an old man sitting on a mountain

Yes, it could. One among many examples of things it refers to that deservedly qualify for human rights.

the sentient one could be a bit clearer, but it is generally to do with self-awareness and emotions.

Qualities possessed by hamsters and puppies... so it could be quite clearly innapropriate. But at least it has the "clearly" in there.

They're pretty clear from where we're standing.



Yes, it could. One among many examples of things it refers to that deservedly qualify for human rights.



Qualities possessed by hamsters and puppies...
i will admit that i am still not sold on definintion, but i guess it is better than nothing. For

Sentient beings are those that can perceive or sense. People, dogs, and fleas are sentient. Sapient beings are those that are capable of reasoning. Sapience implies sentience.

Sapience is the correct term.

The dominion of Malairia, representative from the Arcadian Empire, supports this resolution. While dragons and vampires do not live on our isle, they do live elsewhere in the Empire, and as citizens of the Empire, they are granted the rights they deserve. However, in many of the other nations, they would not have those rights. If a Malairian can travel to another nation and enjoy being treated as an equal, should a vampire not have that same right?

Many representatives present view vampires as evil being worthy only of death. Is it such a surprise that the vampires you have met have been ill-tempered, with your attitude toward them?
If you travelled to a nation where everyone you met wanted to plunge a stake through your heart, wouldn't you be hostile toward them?

The dominion of Malairia, no, the entire Arcadian Empire supports this resolution.

Sentient beings are those that can perceive or sense. People, dogs, and fleas are sentient. Sapient beings are those that are capable of reasoning. Sapience implies sentience.

Sapience is the correct term.

The dominion of Malairia, representative from the Arcadian Empire, supports this resolution. While dragons and vampires do not live on our isle, they do live elsewhere in the Empire, and as citizens of the Empire, they are granted the rights they deserve. However, in many of the other nations, they would not have those rights. If a Malairian can travel to another nation and enjoy being treated as an equal, should a vampire not have that same right?

Many representatives present view vampires as evil being worthy only of death. Is it such a surprise that the vampires you have met have been ill-tempered, with your attitude toward them?
If you travelled to a nation where everyone you met wanted to plunge a stake through your heart, wouldn't you be hostile toward them?

The dominion of Malairia, no, the entire Arcadian Empire supports this resolution.
that explains it to me more clearer. i have to appologise. in the confusion of others on this, i had become confused myself. hopefully this explination will make it clearer for others too

The Kenny-ites would do well to check out their diplomatic quarter. Our own representative in that nation is a former human, so I suppose she's already entitled to rights, even though she's dead, but there's a formidable embassy of dwarves from Ausserland -- not human -- and I gather diplomatic receptions are attended by some others who might best be described as Angry Penguins, decidedly not human.[Riley stands to address the Ardchoillian deputy, flinching at the barrage of spitballs (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10119798#post10119798) being fired from his boss's perch with the Thessadorian delegation.]

We freely acknowledge that numerous sapient non-humans exist, and that they are entitled to certain basic rights. Our opposition to this article is based neither on the denial of non-human sapience nor any prejudice against those who exhibit it. We simply feel this resolution addresses the issue in a rather short-sighted and "anthropocentric" manner.

We have maintained from the beginning that a far more agreeable remedy to the sapience issue lies in a system not unlike that in our own nation -- where our natives (the "Angry Penguins" you speak of, who wouldn't even qualify for protection under this proposal, as they are penguins and do not communicate verbally) freely exist in their own colonies and maintain an autonomous legal system and code of rights that suit their own species, and our government recognizes their jurisdiction over their own citizens. Which is why we support a resolution that would enjoin member states to recognize the autonomy of sapient communities within their borders. Naturally, such a system would entail issues of jurisdictory and territorial rights where human and non-human sapient interaction is concerned, but we would prefer that such details be worked out by the national governments and sapient councils.

Simply declaring "all rights granted humans now apply to non-human sapients as well" doesn't make sense to us, since non-human sapients are obviously not human, and their concept of "rights" may differ dramatically from that of their homo sapiens brothers.

That is our position, the Reformentian ambassador's feeble attempt (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10120399#post10120399) to put words in our mouth notwithstanding, we maintain our opposition.

[Fernanda, having acquired a bag of Fine Yeldan Peanuts™, gives up on pestering his deputy and returns the aim of his straw at the back of the Reformentian ambassador's head ...]

Jack Riley*
Ambassador to the United Nations

* No relation to Dicey. So far as we know ...

We have maintained from the beginning that a far more agreeable remedy to the sapience issue lies in a system not unlike that in our own nation -- where our natives (the "Angry Penguins" you speak of, who wouldn't even qualify for protection under this proposal, as they are penguins and do not communicate verbally) freely exist in their own colonies and maintain an autonomous legal system and code of rights that suit their own species, and our government recognizes their jurisdiction over their own citizens. Which is why we support a resolution that would enjoin member states to recognize the autonomy of sapient communities within their borders. Naturally, such a system would entail issues of jurisdictory and territorial rights where human and non-human sapient interaction is concerned, but we would prefer that such details be worked out by the national governments and sapient councils.

We remind the representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny that the UN is an organization which exists to pass international legislation. Urging that it pass legislation to make all the individual sapient species autonomous and able to determine their own rights... and then declaring that every single individual national government is going to get to set the limits of that autonomy, and thus the limits upon those rights and how far they extend, is absurd. It completely undermines the entire purpose of having international rights legislation at all.

Simply declaring "all rights granted humans now apply to non-human sapients as well" doesn't make sense to us, since non-human sapients are obviously not human, and their concept of "rights" may differ dramatically from that of their homo sapiens brothers.

Provision for this is made in the proposal. However individually defining custom rights for every unique species out there is unworkable. As is your approach which in the end accomplishes nothing in the cases of any national government inclined to oppress these species.

Well, I wasn't going to get mixed up in this, possums, as there aren't any non-humans in Lloegeyr, but I've just got this weird message from my Government and, co-incidentally, it fits in perfectly with what our nice Mr Riley from the dear little Kennies has just been saying.

The message says ... waffle waffle Dear Dame Andrea waffle waffle .. ah, here we are: If a non-human species already exists in a UN nation and if that nation already regards the non-humans as legal equals of humans, would the non-humans still need to make a separate application to the UN if this becomes law?

It goes on to say that the reason for this question is that it is always possible for a human/non-human nation to be conquered by another nation that does not recognise the rights of non-humans. What they want to know is, Do the non-humans in a conquered nation, as citizens of that nation, still have the rights that would be accorded to conquered human citizens under UN laws?

If the answer is No, then, you see, it's going to become very important to non-humans to have something like this proposal on the books.

Now I don't know why someone in my Government's got their knickers in a knot over this, because, as I said, we don't have any non-humans, though if somebody would like to fund some, that's a situation that could easily be remedied.

But it just shows you the sort of thing that can happen, doesn't it? And if that sort of thing could happen, then I'd want to be sure all those lovely non-humans here were as protected as we could make them.

So you see, Mr Riley -- and I'm glad to hear you're not related to the lady from Ardchoille, we don't want things to get too inbred here, do we? -- I think we should go for this resolution just to be sure. I mean, I'm not always a belt and braces woman, as anyone who attended my little soiree a few weeks ago would agree, but it seems to me we have to do all we can. It's all very well to have special arrangements within your own nation for the way intelligent species interact, but you couldn't expect some great big hairy conqueror to respect them, could you? Whereas, if they've at least got the UN to toss them a lifebelt, your non-human sapients -- yes, I'm sure I've got the word right -- have some way of clinging to existence till the cavalry comes.

If it does come, of course, but that's another matter entirely. So do vote for this one, petals!

It goes on to say that the reason for this question is that it is always possible for a human/non-human nation to be conquered by another nation that does not recognise the rights of non-humans. What they want to know is, Do the non-humans in a conquered nation, as citizens of that nation, still have the rights that would be accorded to conquered human citizens under UN laws?

If the answer is No, then, you see, it's going to become very important to non-humans to have something like this proposal on the books.

Now I don't know why someone in my Government's got their knickers in a knot over this, because, as I said, we don't have any non-humans, though if somebody would like to fund some, that's a situation that could easily be remedied.

But it just shows you the sort of thing that can happen, doesn't it? And if that sort of thing could happen, then I'd want to be sure all those lovely non-humans here were as protected as we could make them.

So you see, Mr Riley -- and I'm glad to hear you're not related to the lady from Ardchoille, we don't want things to get too inbred here, do we? -- I think we should go for this resolution just to be sure. I mean, I'm not always a belt and braces woman, as anyone who attended my little soiree a few weeks ago would agree, but it seems to me we have to do all we can. It's all very well to have special arrangements within your own nation for the way intelligent species interact, but you couldn't expect some great big hairy conqueror to respect them, could you? Whereas, if they've at least got the UN to toss them a lifebelt, your non-human sapients -- yes, I'm sure I've got the word right -- have some way of clinging to existence till the cavalry comes.

If it does come, of course, but that's another matter entirely. So do vote for this one, petals!

The nation of Graet Big Wet Thing would like to thank you for summing up the fears of our nation and those of our federation. You have put them better then any befor you.

(Smedley looks blank, consults with several of his honor guard. One of them appears to be holding a small cocktail list. Everyone shakes their head, one o fthem produces a six-pack of something green and intoxicant looking based on all the skulls and crossbones printed on the label, and passes it around. Smedley is taking a pull from one, and tosses one at the spitballer with a sotto voce "think fast")

We don't know what the honorable representative from Cluichstan is talking about. There's no PanGalactic Gargleblaster in our nation, and it *certainly* isn't our national drink. Although, we were still having a hangover from last night at the time he/she/zhe spoke, so we may have misheard.

With due respect for Mr. Otterby, but there's an animal common in our nation with a remarkable likeness to the Lutra lutra. If you charter a boat to the edge of one of our protected reefs and pick yourself up a babblefish and stick it in your ear, it turns out the squeaks and whistles it is making are in fact an amazing imitation of the words and phrases it heard in the world spoken around it. A pod of these creatures could do a better than the average GGGG citizen, at an attempt of asking for sapeint rights and appearing to respond to this august body.

What they cannot do, is create any tools, as the esteemed Tinis has quite interestingly mentioned in post #135. We have a very famous physicist David Birn in our nation which has written a case that all sapient creatures must prove it by building a spaceship that's capable of reaching the nearest United Planets office. This is science fiction for the nation of Galactic Gargleblaster, but we can understand a respect a similar requirement, of say manufacture of a bicycle or an infernal combustion engine that will get the requesting sapient here to the NSUN.

(now his voice gets quiet and a little desperate, and his honor guard all straigten out the elaborate towels they are all wearing in sympathy)

The Duke Bartender is of the opinion that these creatures are sapient, but loses interest in them fairly regularly, so for now we are safe! He is very interested in this UN thing though and will take any ruling it makes with the utmost seriousness. help!

____Smedley

Sentient beings are those that can perceive or sense. People, dogs, and fleas are sentient. Sapient beings are those that are capable of reasoning. Sapience implies sentience.Not exactly. When discussing true intelligence, sentience is used to describe not just being aware of surroundings (fleas, hagfish, people) but being self aware (people).

Regardless, either term is sufficient, although both could have been skipped to avoid silly debates like this.

The Empire of Ardandis is in full support of this resolution. The founding fathers of our nation were able to see past the differences of their species and unite under a single Empire, the Ardanian Empire, for the betterment of all. As it stands at least half of the Empires population is of a species other than human and all enjoy equal freedoms and liberties.
We believe that this resolution will ensure that regardless of ones species, one will be treated as an equal by all. And as is necessary, all will be punished equally under the law.
The people of Ardandis, and any other sentient being for that matter, should be able to wander among fellow nations freely and not be treated like vermin or animals.
In the interests of equal rights and freedoms for all, the Empire of Ardandis strongly urges all member nations to support this resolution.

In the name of the Three and the people of Ardandis
Darwin Fox
Imperial ambassador to the United Nations

Not to rampage in to the world of fiction and fantasy, but what about certain creatures that might be able to "appeal to the UN", but are infact very dangerous?

Examples (from another nation, other than mine) might be vampires, certain breeds of dragon, orcs....

Basically creatures that are capable of independent thought, but are generally more apt to kill, maim and destroy than think logically and coherently. (Vampires are a very good example of this)

I know - real world, real life, vampires not so much. But there are 31,000 nations in the UN (ish) and some of them might have issues with creatures they determine as monsters (for good reason) being classified as protected.

Speaking as a dragon, I can assure you that those who would be predisposed
to killing other sapients would not be predisposed to appealing to an
institution that is composed of them. Needless to say, I am not of one of
those "species of dragon" that is so predisposed, and I resent the inference.

Gurgle the Dragon
Ambassador Aromatus
Dominion of Dastardly Stench

the "Angry Penguins" you speak of, who wouldn't even qualify for protection under this proposal, as they are penguins and do not communicate verbally

Where in the proposal does it require verbal communication? If they can type, write, use telepathy, whatever, all they have to do is make the request and respond to questioning to prove they understand what they are asking for.

Geoffrey Arctus
UN Permanent Ambassador for Cantarch

Yesterday, 11:32 PM #189
United European Powers
New Member


Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13 Non-human sapients are by no means equal to human beings. We were created above them, and below us they should remain. VOTE AGAINST THE RESOLUTION!

This is the very reason the wording of this resolution must be changed. Ideas and thinking such as this become the very reason we need to set in stone that other living beings are entitled to the rights they need as individual species.

According even to legends of humankind, Dwarves, Elves, and Dragons all were created before the "human master race".

Below us??? Some people need to curtail their intolerance of things far beyond the ability their "flat world, sun circles the earth" views allow to be understood effectively.

Below us??? Some people need to curtail their intolerance of things far beyond the ability their "flat world, earth circles the sun" views allow to be understood effectively.

Errr... I still view the earth as circling the sun, is that bad? ;)

I'm actually very confused as to why this resolution is a good idea. This is not an issue where I come from, and I bet that there are a lot of people here who could say the same thing. I guess that the people making the argument that "just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't/won't" have a good point. But I think that this is an issue better left to individual nations, mostly because I subscribe to the theory that 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.

Even though I oppose the Resolution, on the grounds that it's unfeasible and currently not neccessary (Those sapient species you people see are actually the result of magic mushrooms, in my opinion), I have to point out a story that would probably happen in Real Life if the circumstances were right. It's called X-Men. Yeah, this is a cartoon, but if this law doesn't come in then any future genetic deviants are completely unprotected in all countries where a national legislation regarding this has been sent down in flames.

And Genosha. Genosha - home of a genetically engineered race of slaves, who served their human masters. Genosha - several times, in fact - nearly took over Earth in the X-Men's world.

Now, I'm not expecting you to pass legislation based on a comic book. I'm hoping that we'll pass it based on a respect for our children. That is all.

Originally posted by Fonzoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andossa Se Mitrin Vega
Below us??? Some people need to curtail their intolerance of things far beyond the ability their "flat world, earth circles the sun" views allow to be understood effectively.


Errr... I still view the earth as circling the sun, is that bad?


Errr....Uh...Oops. Fixed to what I meant now ;)

The Ministry of Citizenship & The Ministry of Eden's Nature of
The Holy Empire of the Order of Rome hereby announce their support for this Resolution. All creatures were made by God, and are all equal to humans. We should not impose any suffering upon them that we would not impose upon ourselves, and that if they can communicate, they shall be granted access to human organisations and privlelges, adhereing to UN rules.

We do note however that any animal/species that have been deliberately biologically engineered by humans will not be able to qualify for these rights, just like homosexuals are not in our Great State. Any mutations caused by indirect pollution, cross-breeding or evolutioanry progression SHOULD qualify.

Joint Sapient Investigationary Committee.

...

DECLARES that, if any biological species or member thereof demonstrates the capacity to issue a request to the UN, of their own volition, that the rights and freedoms granted to human beings be extended to them and demonstrates a coherent understanding of the request under cross examination, they shall be considered to be equal to humans under the law with regard to those rights and freedoms. This shall not apply when such rights or freedoms are inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species.

...

FURTHER REQUIRES that if a request is made by any UN member that a species be thus evaluated for sapience that contact between that species and the UN shall not be prevented by any member nation.

...


There appears to be a basic problem with this resolution.

First, we begin by saying we are in favour of equal rights being given to all sentient species. A neighbouring nation in our region is a nation of hyper-intelligent trees and our region has always found them to be deserving of treatment as our equals in every way.

As for the concerns some have expressed about misbehaviour by non-humans, this should be dealt with using the laws pertaining to crime or international crime as appropriate, NOT by denying fundamental rights and freedoms on the spurious grounds of species differentiation.

Despite that, we have a problem with this resolution. Is there any way for any of us to make a request of the NSUN for anything, except to change our UN status between "member" and "non-member"? I know of none.

It is a fundamental right of any human nation to refuse membership of the UN. Do human nations lose their other rights by exercising this one? If not, why should non-human nations be forced to join the UN in order to have their other rights granted?

In the absence of any way to correspond with the UN, making the safety of any species dependent on their capacity to place a successful request of the UN is tantamount to refusing those rights.

This problem is underscored by this resolution itself. A later paragraph reads, "FURTHER REQUIRES that if a request is made by any UN member that a species be thus evaluated for sapience..." The rest is irrelevant; note that this assumes the possibility that one of us could make the request on behalf of a non-human sentient species. Really? How?

Not only is there no mechanism to request "human" rights (we too consider that this phrase highlights how deeply entrenched speciesism is in the NSUN) for non-human sentients, there is no means by which we could request them even for ourselves.

NB -- if the rights and freedoms of any of our nations depended upon our ability to "...demonstrate the capacity to issue a request to the UN, of [our] own volition, ...", we would have no rights or freedoms, not because we are not sentient, but because there is no possibility of complying with this condition of this law.

To sum up, NSUN laws assume that humans (even the most intractably stupid) deserve basic rights and freedoms because of the accident of their species. If the assumption didn't exist there would be no way to request these rights. By contrast, non-humans (even intelligent ones like our neighbour) are assumed to have to prove themselves by making use of an appeal mechanism that doesn't exist.

This nullifies the whole value of the resolution, since it will do nothing for the rights of non-human species, and it will tend to block a future proposal of an effective law that addresses this problem. Repeal of this resolution likely would be necessary before a better could be enacted.

It seems better to defeat this resolution first, and then to establish a means by which such communication with the UN could take place. Then a resolution like this one would mean something.

*snip*The Department of State respectfully disagrees. Not all creatures are equal, and even this resolution, with which we strongly take issue, attests to that. Not all creatures would be eligible for equal protection under the law; only those meeting certain criteria. Oh, and it's illegal to discriminate against gays. Oh, and what kind of sick God considers all creatures equal to humans?

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

[B]We do note however that any animal/species that have been deliberately biologically engineered by humans will not be able to qualify for these rights, just like homosexuals are not in our Great State. Any mutations caused by indirect pollution, cross-breeding or evolutioanry progression SHOULD qualify.

If you're in the UN, then homosexuals do qualify for all those rights.

There appears to be a basic problem with this resolution.

First, we begin by saying we are in favour of equal rights being given to all sentient species. A neighbouring nation in our region is a nation of hyper-intelligent trees and our region has always found them to be deserving of treatment as our equals in every way.

As for the concerns some have expressed about misbehaviour by non-humans, this should be dealt with using the laws pertaining to crime or international crime as appropriate, NOT by denying fundamental rights and freedoms on the spurious grounds of species differentiation.

Despite that, we have a problem with this resolution. Is there any way for any of us to make a request of the NSUN for anything, except to change our UN status between "member" and "non-member"? I know of none.

Anyone may address the assembly. You're doing it right now.

It is a fundamental right of any human nation to refuse membership of the UN. Do human nations lose their other rights by exercising this one?

Legally... yes, they do lose their UN guaranteed rights. Because they're not under our jurisdiction so we can't enforce those rights.

They may of course still have them established by their national governments, but if their national governments don't give them to them they can't get them from the UN like the citizens of UN nations do.

This problem is underscored by this resolution itself. A later paragraph reads, "FURTHER REQUIRES that if a request is made by any UN member that a species be thus evaluated for sapience..." The rest is irrelevant; note that this assumes the possibility that one of us could make the request on behalf of a non-human sentient species. Really? How?

Exactly like you're doing now. As for the actual request and cross examination occuring, that's clearly a roleplay concern. As would be the performance of any conceivable test that a species possessed a level of sapience sufficient to qualify for the rights in question.

If they ["Angry Penguins"] can type, write, use telepathy, whatever ...No, they can't type, write, use telepathy, whatever; they're penguins, for Christ's sake!

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

[EDIT: More info on our native sapients: 1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9967197#post9967197), 2 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9970813#post9970813), 3 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9971199#post9971199), 4 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9995377#post9995377)]

No, they can't type, write, use telepathy, whatever; they're penguins, for Christ's sake!

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

[EDIT: More info on our native sapients: 1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9967197#post9967197), 2 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9970813#post9970813), 3 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9971199#post9971199), 4 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9995377#post9995377)]

Keep in mind NS doesn't equal RL...perhaps somewhere amongst the thousands of nations out there is a country who is populated by sentient penguins.

Do those penguins deserve any less protection under the law then your citizens do?

Unfortunately the representative from Intangleon appears not to grasp that that question can have only one possible answer. These are UN granted rights. If the UN doesn't decide to grant them they don't get granted. Period. Not on an international level. Either you can accept the UN making the decision, or you can accept that those species will not get those rights internationally established at all. Ever.

And they shouldn't be granted on an international level! Example: One nation's Endagered Species is another's pest. Well, if some majority UN nations' idea of sapience is another's colossal waste of time, why should ALL UN nations be required to recognize and grant RIGHTS to (remember, rights cost money) a species they do not recognize as being sentient? ANd for the love of all that's holy, you KEEP DODGING THE QUESTION: Who, WITHIN THE UN, decides? Who does the UN ask about this? Surely you're not going to advocate letting a bunch of politicians make this decision? Defining what is or is not sapient is thorny at best, and please -- the species in question must "ask" for these rights? Come on! How is a (hypothetically) telepathic species who thinks in a completely different way than humans do going to convince us that the mild headaches we've been getting are a plea for recognition?

If that is your objection you would be decidedly uncomfortable with any UN attempt to grant sapient beings rights since such an attempt necessarily includes an evaluation of the actual possession of sapience being performed by the UN.

As I said in my telegrammed reply to you, considering this I do not begin to understand the actual source of your objection. Unless of course you are objecting to granting these rights at all.

If you cannot understand the source of this objection, then I worry for the governance of your region. My objection is to the granting of full UN recognition to any species that one person might imagine is talking to them! Worse yet, are you seriously endorsing a resolution which, if the test for sapience proves it to exist in a MAJORITY species on any UN nation, that the new sapient majority immediately take over? Madness. Especially if the test is only "asking" for rights. Deal with sapients in YOUR OWN way in YOUR OWN nation. If they ask YOU for rights, then by golly, YOU grant them. Please do NOT waste UN time with this science fiction.

The alternative proposal about this matter that the government of St Edmund has been drafting (in the thread whose title is 'Sapient Rights') specifies that any sapient beings who habitually prey on other sapient life-forms don't have to be tolerated or granted any rights...

So much for whalers and those fond of dolphin steaks. Isn't war just the hunting of other "biological sapients" on a grand and semi-organized scale? We won't grant rights to countries who participate in wars?

The Arguements for this resolution almost seem to me to be "sheer Jesuit- style sophisiry". THe Un already has a bill of rights. Why do we need this. Because they say the current bill of rights presumes all are humans, and there are quite a few non humans in the UN. Well spank me and call me Belinda, isn't that whaty implied rights are for. When we entered the UN we agreed to follow all of the resolutions. These resulution do not look to species. I expect all UN members to follow at least the basic rights granted to all peoples. By implied rights I mean those rights given in the spirit if not the letter of the law. For example ifyou are visiting my country I expect you as a guest to follow my laws, It matters not to me what race or species you are.My house, my rule. If you break those rules I shall punish you. Likewise if I visit your country, you can expect me to follow your laws and custom, for I am a guest. I know the consequenses of doing otherwise. This reslolution once again is a feel good measure that creates additional bureacracy, yet solves no real problems. It also is a slap in the face of all nations. In effect it says you people are to ill mannered and stupid to recognize the rights of others so we, in our infinite wisdom, kindness and goodness, will do it for you. Leave it all to us. Vox populi,vox humbug.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN office

P.S. I also wish to take this time to wish my friend, President Fernanda, better luck with the Thessadorian Ambassador, than I had. Good luck,Mate.

'Stupid'. Interesting choice of word. Read the proposal. You know any monkeys capable of requesting sapient status? If not, then I think you've nothing to worry about.

I do. His name is Washoe and he communicates in hundreds of sign-language sentences in the Chimpanzee-Human Communications Institute at Central Washington University. With hundreds of words and concepts to his credit, I daresay he's more "sapient" than some folks covered under the USA's ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).

Also I wonder about who is going to be giving the tests for sentience. Philosopically speaking What really consitutes sentience. Can anybody be truly neutral and unbiases to the subject and be objective? What is said sentient creature gives the tester the hebbie jeebies. Can we really expect unbiased results. I think not.

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

I hold this truth to be self-evident that humans are the only sapient species. Elves, gnomes, vampires, fairies, pixies, zombies, sphinxes, and centuars don't exist. Feel free to put them in you're RP, but keep them out of the UN.

I don't think you have the right to say that. Since when was UN membership dictated by the people of Commustan? Since, uh, never. We find your racist sentiments offensive and obnoxious, and urge you to take them back immediately.

The Delegate from Gruenberg is engaging in needless and whiny political correcteness for species that don't exist. If the "Biological Sapient" rights resolution WASN'T to placate this fantasy-addled segment, then WHAT is it's REAL purpose?

I petition Reformentia to either confirm or deny that unicorns, dwarves, elves and other mythological creatures are the intended benficiaries of these "rights". To not do so is disingenuous and invalidates the proposal as there is no reason for it to exist in a UN-sim designed to be RPd as PEOPLE. If you want a multiplayer online experience with fantasy creatures, FINE, there are PLENTY of them out there. Myself and my region are here because we want to debate and simulate relations about topics that happen in reality. THAT is the simulative nature of NS, as it's described in its own literature and FAQ section.

So please, if you want faeries and mer-folk, that's fine, but do not expect them to be treated with any kind of respect or consideration here.

It is Fourheart's interpretation that sentient non-humans already have the same rights and privledges as any other nation with a constitution, a system of government, and the ablility to hit the "Apply to UN" button on thier systems. Are we mistaken?

HEAR, HEAR! (or is it "here, here!", I've never looked it up).

Well, anyway, RIGHT THE HELL ON!

Your use of 'Homo Sapien Supremacist' totally invalidates everything you've just said. You do realize that, yes? That's actually a real debate, though - suggesting humans should be granted more rights than other species is fine. That's what we should be discussing. Not having you force your RP on us. I'd like the UN to be a free trade area. You wanna play that game?

I'LL play that game, because free trade is a REAL issue being debated in the REAL world. The purpose of this sim is to do exactly that -- take the reins of actual issues among ourselves and see what we come up with.

The nation of Intangelon stands by and FIERCELY supports Cummustan's statement. It is the fantasy-addled who are "forcing" THEIR RP on NSUN, not the other way around.

And? It's still stupid.

You might, in any case, have borne in mind that there, IRL, SETI programs. The idea of non-human life is not something NS possesses a monopoly on. If you're so determined to stick your head in the sand, then you might at least consider that your 'realistic political' counterparts in the real world have made similar considerations. So your objections aren't even grounded in fact: they're just mindlessly obtuse.

You're dangerously close to flaming.

Also, SETI is an invisible dot on an invisible dot with regard to relevance on the world stage IRL. It's mostly US astronomers and it NEVER gets brought up in the RLUN.

Nice try. Next!

Anyone may address the assembly. You're doing it right now.



Legally... yes, they do lose their UN guaranteed rights. Because they're not under our jurisdiction so we can't enforce those rights.

They may of course still have them established by their national governments, but if their national governments don't give them to them they can't get them from the UN like the citizens of UN nations do.
...

So let's see if I've understood:

[1] This forum is actually the NSUN, and whenever anyone posts here they are in fact addressing the NSUN. Is that accurate? This surprising, as I will try to explain at the end.

[2] NSUN rights only apply to NSUN nations? Is that correct? I can see how this might be, but I want to be certain.

I'm left with one question arising from this. Does this not imply that the NSUN is in fact little more than a public thoroughfare where anyone may post graffiti? I'm here as a member of the UN, but even without UN membership I could be here. I'm not sure I see the point of that since, as you've said, UN laws and rights only apply to UN members, and UN authority doesn't extend beyond its members. So, how does this open access do anything for the function of the UN?

Sorry to belabour this point, but this is the first time I've become aware of this apparent equation between an open, public discussion forum and the UN.

Thanks in advance for the clarification.

I believe that passing such resolutions would lessen tensions in cases of First Contact since this would garuntee the fairness and treatment of the Extraterrestrial Visitors.

Also the Community of Kitsune Clans consists primarily of Kitsune which under current law would be able to be treated unfairly by nations who felt that since Kitsune were not human they were inferior beings that deserved to be treated as such.

The Community of Kitsune Clans holds the possition that all Sentients, both biological and mechanical, deserve the same basic rights as outlined in this proposition.

To vote against this will bring only pain to the future where nations with intelligent machines will have to deal with the issue of if the silicon-based sentients deserve the same rights of carbon-based sentients.

given the view that people who oppose this are being racist I don't think theres an easy way to say this.

the Empire of Kirisubo is voting against and we feel this proposal is a waste of UN time.

However since there are other races (Ausserland Dwarves, elves and maybe even little green men) surely the simplest approach is to change the way we look at existing resolutions.

If a member of another species holds citizenship in a UN state then the protection of UN law would be automatic anyway. All thats needed is to stretch the terms 'person' and 'people' a little and thats something nations already do.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

INtangelon supports this well-worded statement as being rife with common sense. Arigato, Miromuta-san.

I do. His name is Washoe and he communicates in hundreds of sign-language sentences in the Chimpanzee-Human Communications Institute at Central Washington University. With hundreds of words and concepts to his credit, I daresay he's more "sapient" than some folks covered under the USA's ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).

I'm not talking about what you 'daresay' constitutes sapience. I - unlike quite a few here - am talking about the proposal at vote (which, to repeat, I'm not supporting - I'm just getting annoyed at some of the counter-'arguments'). Washoe is not capable of independently requesting the rights granted by this proposal. He can respond to certain stimuli. He can do certain things, that appear quite swanky. But he cannot state that he, Washoe, wishes to receive the full protection of the Universal Bill of Rights. (And, if he is, then Reformentia would probably agree he should be given those rights.)

The Delegate from Gruenberg is engaging in needless and whiny political correcteness for species that don't exist. If the "Biological Sapient" rights resolution WASN'T to placate this fantasy-addled segment, then WHAT is it's REAL purpose?

I petition Reformentia to either confirm or deny that unicorns, dwarves, elves and other mythological creatures are the intended benficiaries of these "rights". To not do so is disingenuous and invalidates the proposal as there is no reason for it to exist in a UN-sim designed to be RPd as PEOPLE. If you want a multiplayer online experience with fantasy creatures, FINE, there are PLENTY of them out there. Myself and my region are here because we want to debate and simulate relations about topics that happen in reality. THAT is the simulative nature of NS, as it's described in its own literature and FAQ section.

So please, if you want faeries and mer-folk, that's fine, but do not expect them to be treated with any kind of respect or consideration here.

Ok. I think what this comes down is one's RP world. I acknowledge that there are non-human sapients in the UN. The dwarves of Ausserland, for example. If you are unwilling to do so, fine. And I don't expect anyone to force their RP paradigm on you. But this proposal isn't doing that. This proposal isn't talking about 'fantasy creatures': it's acknowledging the existence of non-human intelligence. I do not believe anyone in a 'RL' RP setting could categorically rule out the existence of such: space exploration has not been sufficiently advanced. As such, you cannot dismiss the existence of them, merely because you haven't encountered them.

So you shouldn't be arguing 'unicorns don't exist'. You should be arguing, 'if unicorns exist, then they would probably require a different rights set to us'. Talk about the fact that anthropocentric tendencies have forged anthropocentric laws, that can't just be transferred across to everyone in a messy cut and paste. Argue that there may exist species who should not be afforded certain rights, because they, although sapient, are entirely parasitic, and if allowed to interact with us, will destroy us. Query the mechanics of this: for example, the clause about 'biological characteristics' leaves open a serious problem with who decides the 'suitability'. There are plenty of arguments against this proposal (and, frankly, I'd say Reformentia would prefer to rebut them, whatever he thinks of them, than discuss whether elves exist). But instead, you keep acting the victim, as though he's forcing his RP on you. The ONLY people who've mentioned elves are those arguing against the proposal. That's a nonsensical approach.

One watches them do it. --snip--


Once again, completely missing the point of my and others' objections. YOU ASSUME THAT ANY REQUEST WILL BE VISIBLE! If we're gonna include the entire panoply of creatures battled by 30-year-old adolescents in their parents' basements, then what of telepathy? That can't be "watched" and I am alarmed that those nations so vociferously whining about having their dwarves and vampires recognized have steadfastly refused to take issue with the definition of AN OBSERVABLE REQUEST!

What if said sapient species cannot make itself known in any way that the UN can recognize? Surely if we're going to allow for the existence of ORCS (for fuck's sake) in NS, then why not species such as crystalline entities incapable of speech or writing or anything else a UN Committee on Sapience might recognize as a request for rights? (Jesus, I'm actually invoking Star Trek as a point of order.)

You would condemn a species to live without UN recognition merely because you haven't evolved to the point where you can understand telepathy, emapthy, or crystalline utterances. SHAME!

Vote no.

the only thing that seperates humans and animals in the real world is sentience. this is just giving those beings, of a biological nature (ie, not machines), who are sentient the ability to share the rights that we have.

If Lt. Data were here, I believe he'd object strongly to your naked bio-ism. Racist anti-anthropoid talk has no place in the UN (see how stupid this sounds?).

Machines/computers inch closer to sentience with every innovation...IN THE REAL WORLD. So why the anti-machine rhetoric when we're willing to enfranchise unicorns?

I'LL play that game, because free trade is a REAL issue being debated in the REAL world. The purpose of this sim is to do exactly that -- take the reins of actual issues among ourselves and see what we come up with.

The nation of Intangelon stands by and FIERCELY supports Cummustan's statement. It is the fantasy-addled who are "forcing" THEIR RP on NSUN, not the other way around.

No. It's. Not.

Firstly, 'the purpose of this sim'? Show me in the FAQ, in Max Barry's statements, where humans are mentioned (I haven't checked, so it may well be there, in which case I concede the point). The 'appeal to design' is the perennial worst argument of the UN forums. Frankly, I don't give a fuck what he thought when he built the game: we're the ones playing it now.

No one is forcing you to acknowledge other species. You can stand by this proposal and say "they don't exist". Notice I'm not getting snarky with Ecopoeia? He's already done just that. They don't exist. Move on. Talk about an important issue. (Like free trade: a bullet the ESC leader Commustan is frantically attempting to dodge.) If unicorns don't exist, then you won't have to grant them any rights under this. You are the ones forcing an RP paradigm, by suggesting NSUN discussions must be rooted in the idea that humanity is the only intelligence. Maybe it is. But that doesn't mean we can't respond to possibilities. If another tsunami never happens, that doesn't render the TEWC irrelevant. It just makes it not do anything. Which, to you, this resolution does. There's no need to get to worked up about it.

You're dangerously close to flaming.

Also, SETI is an invisible dot on an invisible dot with regard to relevance on the world stage IRL. It's mostly US astronomers and it NEVER gets brought up in the RLUN.

Nice try. Next!

So? This isn't the RLUN. We can do whatever the hell we like. I wish we wouldn't, but we can. The priorities of the NS universe are of course going to be different to those of RL Earth. I'm not arguing SETI is massively important in the real world. I'm arguing that even the real views you're basing your RP on do acknowledge the possibility of non-human intelligence. You are categorically denying its existence. There is a difference.

You're dangerously close to flaming.
Just how in the fuck was anything he said here:
Originally Posted by Gruenberg
And? It's still stupid.

You might, in any case, have borne in mind that there, IRL, SETI programs. The idea of non-human life is not something NS possesses a monopoly on. If you're so determined to stick your head in the sand, then you might at least consider that your 'realistic political' counterparts in the real world have made similar considerations. So your objections aren't even grounded in fact: they're just mindlessly obtuse.
"dangerously close to flaming"?

No frickin' way is there that I'm gonna bossed around by a monkey.

STOP WITH THE #%$@ING MONKEYS!
You wanna post, that's fine, but READ THE MOTHER-LOVING THREAD FIRST, please. It ain't about monkeys, skeezix.

Yet when I asked if you knew any monkeys who would qualify, you said yes. Interesting standards.

Would you like to cross examine the dog?

I would, but I don't speak dog. And that's the point.

Yes, there are Elves here. I'm sorry.

So am I.

I'll leave the personal attacks on Reformentia for him to respond to.

Then expect no response, for there were no personal attacks on Reformentia in that post. I referenced his beahvior. Unclench and read a bit, will you?

It is, of course, possible that they would attempt to communicate in a manner which we would find incomprehensible at first. It's also likely that efforts would be undertaken to decipher their message.

If that's true, where are the provisions for this eventuality in the resolution? There are none! AND THAT IS MY POINT. "Likely"? What's that mean?

There are several non-human species that are currently UN members. Are you proposing that, when they first applied for membership, our response should hve been: "What the hell is that thing, and what are those sounds it's making. Let's eat it."?

I can't help where some of the UN nations claim to be from. If they want to reign as All-Supreme Tolkein of their nation, fine. I've already conceded that point. Thing is, there's no part of the UN application process that even mentions race. Doesn't that assume that either we're all human or that it doesn't matter? Either way, that invalidates any need for this resolution.

Really? What term would you have chosen, and how would you have defined it? I'm not familiar with your record as a proposal author. Enlighten us.

Ah, you've played the "proposal author record" card. This ply is similar to the "post count" card and is equally dismissive, elitist and invalid. I have written one resolution attempting to repeal a resolution that made world policy of an internal cultural matter (marriage or education or some such subject). Once I saw how resolutions here are treated, without consideration of their effects, but rather as "here's a neat idea" without thinking about implementation or how the supposed actions were to be done, I realized that any further attempts to legislate common sense were going to be similarly treated. I decided to speak with my vote, as I am today.

Vote no.

The process will be handled by the UN Gnomes -- the mystical beings who implement all NSUN resolutions. That is a given, and need not be stated in a resolution.


That is NOT a given. Ask anyone who these gnomes are, and I'll wager a majority will say "hwah?" (or some similarly confusion-implying sound). Who are these gnomes? What are their qualifications? No gnome has ever delivered a Compliance Ministry text to Intangelon. I've got no beef with gnomes, but I'd like to know what their training is in, and I'd like to hear it from a MODERATOR, not someone speaking on behalf of the Tolkein races because they think they're cool.

With all due respect, the representative of Intangelon needs to settle the fuck down.

That is NOT a given. Ask anyone who these gnomes are, and I'll wager a majority will say "hwah?" (or some similarly confusion-implying sound). Who are these gnomes? What are their qualifications? No gnome has ever delivered a Compliance Ministry text to Intangelon. I've got no beef with gnomes, but I'd like to know what their training is in, and I'd like to hear it from a MODERATOR, not someone speaking on behalf of the Tolkein races because they think they're cool.

You do 'The UN Gnomes' are a puppet of the main UN mod, right?

The Delegate from Gruenberg is engaging in needless and whiny political correcteness for species that don't exist. If the "Biological Sapient" rights resolution WASN'T to placate this fantasy-addled segment, then WHAT is it's REAL purpose?

I petition Reformentia to either confirm or deny that unicorns, dwarves, elves and other mythological creatures are the intended benficiaries of these "rights". To not do so is disingenuous and invalidates the proposal as there is no reason for it to exist in a UN-sim designed to be RPd as PEOPLE. If you want a multiplayer online experience with fantasy creatures, FINE, there are PLENTY of them out there. Myself and my region are here because we want to debate and simulate relations about topics that happen in reality. THAT is the simulative nature of NS, as it's described in its own literature and FAQ section.

So please, if you want faeries and mer-folk, that's fine, but do not expect them to be treated with any kind of respect or consideration here.

OOC:

I'm getting more and more tired of people who, for some unknown and unknowable reason, think they have the right to tell everyone else how they ought to play this game. There is nothing in any of the official NS documentation that precludes players from populating their nations with non-human creatures. Many have chosen to do so. They have done that because they find that enhances the fun of playing.

If you object to that, it's certainly your right. And I'd suspect that you're probably correct in your assumption that the original intent of the game was to simulate a more RL-reflective environment. Of course, the original intent of the game was to act as a short-lived sales promotion gimmick, too. But the game has grown and expanded its horizons far beyond any original intent. If someone is going to participate, I believe it's incumbent upon them to accept the game as it is, not as it was meant to be 'way back when or what they'd like it to be.

If Max Barry would show up here and say, "Please folks, stop with the non-human sapients," I'd respect his wishes. If the Moderator staff ruled that having non-human sapients in your population was a violation of game rules, I'd disagree, but would have to accept the ruling. What I cannot and will not accept is sneering at other players as "fantasy-addled" just because we choose to play the game differently than you'd like.

That is NOT a given. Ask anyone who these gnomes are, and I'll wager a majority will say "hwah?" (or some similarly confusion-implying sound). Who are these gnomes? What are their qualifications? No gnome has ever delivered a Compliance Ministry text to Intangelon. I've got no beef with gnomes, but I'd like to know what their training is in, and I'd like to hear it from a MODERATOR, not someone speaking on behalf of the Tolkein races because they think they're cool.

ooc: I am not a moderator - but I believe I've been around long enough to comment on the "gnome effect"

UN gnomes are a metaphor for the forced compliance with all UN resolutions by all UN nations.

They are, if you will, a incarnation of game mechanics, thus fully trained, all powerful, and NS-UN authorized to mess with your nation.

Those that don't like the gnome effect have but one option - leave the NS-UN.

W.