NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Uh-huh. And you're sure you're familiar with all possible kinds of communication? "Respond to questioning?" A telepath without recognizable (to UN GNOMES, yikes) hearing or seeing organs is gonna have a hard time responding to anything with symbols or words. Do the Gnomes (fighting back laughter) have telepaths?

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).No, I'm pretty sure most regulars are aware of us.

Who are these gnomes?That would be me. Well, us.

What are their qualifications?We run the joint.

No gnome has ever delivered a Compliance Ministry text to Intangelon.Um... just who do you think the Compliance Ministry is? A bunch of humans?!


- UN Gnome in Charge of Stating the Obvious
"Fools to the left of me / Jokers to the right, here I am / Stuck in the middle with you"

I would, but I don't speak dog. And that's the point.
And MY point was that I find it highly unlikely that dogs will be applying for rights under this resolution.
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?
Define unclench.
"Likely"? What's that mean?
It means just what says. Likely.
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.
OOC: I think it means that this game was written by humans. It doesn't take into account the fact that many players choose to RP as non-human and therefore, the resolutions which mention "human" rights could be seen as not applying to them.

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 played that card because A): You've come in here acting as if you are some sort of authority, and B): I've never heard of you.

Intangelon has a long history of providing uniquely insightful commentary on resolutions...as an example - here is the commentary on my last resolution...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10042666&postcount=193

W.

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.)

Very well, but since the only way to address the UN and "ask" for recognition and rights is to appear on this forum, then what's the need for a resolution? A species or nation-species of sapient chukkar boots already has the rights the UN guarantees merely by joining the UN and appearing here. This resolution is pointless and indicative of the majority of resolutions here.

This resolution is merely the whimsy of a few people who wish to curry the favor (and thus the future voting support) of those nations populated with non-human beings. It's pork-barrel political capital, and as such it should be rejected as grandstanding.

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

Come on, now. Shit fire and save matches.

I proposed that a sign-language-learning chimp might be able to qualify. My rebuke was to someone engaging in a Planet of the Apes fantasy as an argument. For someone able to make such fine distinctions earlier, you sure missed this one.

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

There was no respect in that statement. You want to attack, do so out in the open.

Very well, but since the only way to address the UN and "ask" for recognition and rights is to appear on this forum, then what's the need for a resolution? A species or nation-species of sapient chukkar boots already has the rights the UN guarantees merely by joining the UN and appearing here. This resolution is pointless and indicative of the majority of resolutions here.

This resolution is merely the whimsy of a few people who wish to curry the favor (and thus the future voting support) of those nations populated with non-human beings. It's pork-barrel political capital, and as such it should be rejected as grandstanding.

It is NOT YOUR PLACE to rewrite international legislation to suit your RP whims. The Universal Bill of Rights clearly applies only to 'human beings'. A non-human nation joining the UN clearly does not have its provisions extended to its citizens. If you do not understand the proposal, that's fine. But I'd caution against getting so worked up about something you have repeatedly shown an inability to comprehend. The proposal HAS an effect. Why not try debating whether that effect is effectively legislated, or whether it's a worthy end? Those would be points of debate.

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.

OOC:Excuse me, but you'll notice I'm not telling anyone how to play. I'm objecting to how the UN is being used to further the cause of fantasy creatures' rights, and doing so as Magister Jubal Harshaw, a man who has little time or consideration for Tolkeinites and Trekkies. I could easily reflect your very argument back at you.

Come on, now. Shit fire and save matches.

I proposed that a sign-language-learning chimp might be able to qualify. My rebuke was to someone engaging in a Planet of the Apes fantasy as an argument. For someone able to make such fine distinctions earlier, you sure missed this one.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10124631&postcount=227

Gruenberg: You know any monkeys capable of requesting sapient status?
Intangelon: I do.

So much for whalers and those fond of dolphin steaks.

If any populations of whales or dolphins are proven to be sapient (and there already is one nation of ["Bloodthirsty"] Dolphins, currently outside of the UN, whose citizens seem to fall into that category) then the government of St Edmund, at least, would consider continuing to hunt the members of those populations to be a "crime against sapience". Our courts would be unable to strip any Humans who were involved in that hunting of any rights that they held under pre-exisiting UN Resolutions, because new laws (such as either Reformentia's proposed resolution or the one that we were drafting) are not allowed to over-ride existing UN Resolutions: We would, however, prosecute them for murder on the basis of the improved 'Sapient Rights' legislation that we intend to pass very soon on a national basis even if no such proposal is accepted by the UN.

We thank you for pointing out that that clause in our [admittedly unfinished] draft proposal might need to include a clarification about what happens when it is only some members of a particular type of sapient beings who habitually prey on other sapients.


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?


As far as I am aware, very few nations have practised warfare for the purpose of turning their opponents into food...

OOC:Excuse me, but you'll notice I'm not telling anyone how to play. I'm objecting to how the UN is being used to further the cause of fantasy creatures' rights, and doing so as Magister Jubal Harshaw, a man who has little time or consideration for Tolkeinites and Trekkies. I could easily reflect your very argument back at you.

The proposal doesn't mention Tolkien or Star Trek. You're the one forcing yourself to acknowledge these non-species. I hadn't seen someone shoot themselves in both feet before.

There was no respect in that statement. You want to attack, do so out in the open.

You'll notice I did say "with all due respect."

And MY point was that I find it highly unlikely that dogs will be applying for rights under this resolution.
And I disagree. Who will decide which vocalization of any given dog will be intelligible as a request for rights?

Define unclench.
Relax your sphincter.

I played that card because A): You've come in here acting as if you are some sort of authority, and B): I've never heard of you.

And I've never heard of you. I am acting as a Delegate for my region who are up in arms at the presence of this resolution. It seems that, with your dismissive tone and immediate attempts to put me in some kind of subordinate place based upon my lack of experience in writing resolutions (which has nothing to do with anything and certainly doesn't disqualify anyone from a debate), that you are acting like some sort of authority. I'm debating.

This debate is getting quite heated on all sides.

If we take a step back and look at the plain facts:

1. This is a game, created by a man.
2. The game has evolved from the vision of its creator.
3. The game does include non-human, sentient beings.
4. #3 is an accepted fact by the games moderators and administrators.
5. The NS-UN is not the RL UN.
6. The NS-UN does not have any formal recognition of non-human sentients.

No, I'm pretty sure most regulars are aware of us.

That would be me. Well, us.

We run the joint.

Um... just who do you think the Compliance Ministry is? A bunch of humans?!


- UN Gnome in Charge of Stating the Obvious
"Fools to the left of me / Jokers to the right, here I am / Stuck in the middle with you"

Okay. Gnomes. Run. The joint.

The Greater Seattle Region offers its apologies to the NSUN Gnomes for doubting their existence. None of us had honestly ever seen one. Well done on your part for being smoothly efficient stewards of the bureaucracy.

Please accept this symbolic gift of the finest Intangelonian Briard-hair cloak as a token of our corrected ignorance and apology.

Intangelon has a long history of providing uniquely insightful commentary on resolutions...as an example - here is the commentary on my last resolution...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10042666&postcount=193

W.

I thank you for your recognition of my insight. That's very kind of you. 'Cause MAN, was that resolution flawed! I'm glad you came to see it that way, too.

I thank you for your recognition of my insight. That's very kind of you. 'Cause MAN, was that resolution flawed! I'm glad you came to see it that way, too.

Feel free to note the sarcasm.

OOC:Excuse me, but you'll notice I'm not telling anyone how to play. I'm objecting to how the UN is being used to further the cause of fantasy creatures' rights, and doing so as Magister Jubal Harshaw, a man who has little time or consideration for Tolkeinites and Trekkies. I could easily reflect your very argument back at you.

OOC:

Really? I must have misunderstood this, then:

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.

And I don't think I misunderstood your reference to other members as "fantasy-addled" or the snide remark about "someone speaking on behalf of the Tolkein races because they think they're cool".

It is NOT YOUR PLACE to rewrite international legislation to suit your RP whims. The Universal Bill of Rights clearly applies only to 'human beings'. A non-human nation joining the UN clearly does not have its provisions extended to its citizens. If you do not understand the proposal, that's fine. But I'd caution against getting so worked up about something you have repeatedly shown an inability to comprehend. The proposal HAS an effect. Why not try debating whether that effect is effectively legislated, or whether it's a worthy end? Those would be points of debate.

Nor is it YOUR place to tell me which points of ridiculous legislation to point out and attack. A non-human nation comes on to the forum and posts replies, and guess what! They've got the same rights as we all do! I understand the proposal for what it is, political grandstanding. Can you show me ANY instance of a non-human nation being afforded anything less than the full rights given to any other UN nation? If you can, I'll be pleased to withdraw my objections and even change my vote.

How DARE you tell me what I am or am not comprehending! Your statements are elitist, dismissive and completely uncalled-for.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10124631&postcount=227

Gruenberg: You know any monkeys capable of requesting sapient status?
Intangelon: I do.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10125025&postcount=257

MAN, I hate repeating myself.

Can you show me ANY instance of a non-human nation being afforded anything less than the full rights given to any other UN nation?Somebody appears to be unfamiliar with The Reich...

Feel free to note the sarcasm.

Oh, I noted it. I was ignoring it because it was completely irrelevant and essentially a personal attack. If you can't just come out and say you think I'm full of shit, then you're a coward to hind behind sarcasm and sophistry.

Nor is it YOUR place to tell me which points of ridiculous legislation to point out and attack. A non-human nation comes on to the forum and posts replies, and guess what! They've got the same rights as we all do! I understand the proposal for what it is, political grandstanding. Can you show me ANY instance of a non-human nation being afforded anything less than the full rights given to any other UN nation? If you can, I'll be pleased to withdraw my objections and even change my vote.

How DARE you tell me what I am or am not comprehending! Your statements are elitist, dismissive and completely uncalled-for.

1. Calm down.
2. As Hack notes below, elf genocide is the staple of some people's RP.
3. I'm not talking about non-human nations: I'm talking about non-humans. (The same is true for the proposal, but that doesn't seem of great concern to some.) I am talking about non-humans. Clauses 1-6 of the UBR refer exclusively to 'human beings'.
4. I have no interest in appeasing non-humans; we tend to kill those few we encounter in Gruenberg. So instead of second-guessing the motives of the supporters - which are irrelevant - attack the actual proposal. There's plenty of meat there.

EDIT: Re your second comment. You suggested the proposal didn't refer to monkeys to one poster, yet you had responded to my question regarding monkeys affirmatively. I don't care about the context: it is the actual words that matter. I think you need to calm down a little - however justifiable your rage may be - because it seems to be clouding your judgement. You dismissed the argument of someone, and then used that same argument. That just doesn't make sense. That's not 'debate'.

The opressed people of Punishment Castle are going against this proposal, anything that does not look human such as a chimp must not be allowed in the UN, anything that does resemble a human talks the language like dwarfs will be allowed. If you think this is stupid, two words BACK OFF.

Very well, then, citizens of the UN. I can't help what you're all familiar with. I do not make a point of cruising every single forum available to UN members, primarily because I have my own nation to run. If that makes me ignorant of "The Reich", or any other section of this august body, I apologize. As far as I have seen, there have been no attempts to stop anyone from posting arguments in this forum, be they human, chimpanzee, penguin, dragon, unicorn or super-intelligent shades of the color blue. My nation doesn't have any of these beings, though with the delivery of Compliance Ministry bulletins by gnomes who somehow managed to look like human UN envoys, I must admit we haven't exactly been looking for them.

AS SUCH, Intangelon hereby withdraws its objections and arguments before this body, and while we still believe this resolution to be completely unnecessary and will keep our vote "no", we have no desire to further inflame the debate and distance ourselves from the international community.

Any further posts following this one will therefore go unresponded... ...unless they're really good digs at my character. I love those.

--Magister Jubal Harshaw of Intangelon
Greater Seattle's feistiest UN Delegate ever.

EDIT: Re your second comment. You suggested the proposal didn't refer to monkeys to one poster, yet you had responded to my question regarding monkeys affirmatively. I don't care about the context: it is the actual words that matter. I think you need to calm down a little - however justifiable your rage may be - because it seems to be clouding your judgement. You dismissed the argument of someone, and then used that same argument. That just doesn't make sense. That's not 'debate'.

For the love of all that's holy, it's nuance. The "stop with the monkeys" comment was aimed at those who were actually suggesting that they'd be subject to a Baboonocracy! I suggested that a chimp learning sign language just MIGHT be able to petition for rights. If you can't see that difference, then that's your own lookout.

Didn't you leave already?

Didn't you leave already?

Didn't you read the last sentence of my departing post?

I need to read these "at vote" threads more often... it's an endless parade...

I need to read these "at vote" threads more often... it's an endless shitstorm...

Fixed. ;)

Oh, I noted it. I was ignoring it because it was completely irrelevant and essentially a personal attack. If you can't just come out and say you think I'm full of shit, then you're a coward to hind behind sarcasm and sophistry.

It wasn't a personal attack - it was an observation that your logic is faulty and your arguments are weak.

Nations are not all homogenius. So assume a UN nation with 20 percent of that nation made up of sentient apes.

While the human portion of the population would (under the watchful eyes of the gnomes) receive full protection under UN resolutions - the apes would not.

That is the point of the resolution.

The vote is fairly close:

Votes For: 3,065

Votes Against: 4,141

Stay tuned...

I need to read these "at vote" threads more often... it's an endless parade...

OOC:

I notice you didn't say a parade of what. Very diplomatic of you. ;)

Didn't you read the last sentence of my departing post?

I did, it said:
Any further posts following this one will therefore go unresponded... ...unless they're really good digs at my character. I love those.

Thus, stating "didn't you leave already?" is a "really good dig at your character." Good to know.

PS: I hope "good to know" is not another character attack...

OOC:

I notice you didn't say a parade of what. Very diplomatic of you. ;)

OOC: If I weren't such a trusting soul, I might be inlcined, from the last few posts, to think that snideness, sarcasm and stealth-insult posts are the way you get to have the last word or put down people who disagree with you. I'd hate to think that.

I did, it said:


Thus, stating "didn't you leave already?" is a "really good dig at your character." Good to know.

PS: I hope "good to know" is not another character attack...

You're right. That was a substandard dig. I apologize for responding.

You're right. That was a substandard dig. I apologize for responding.

...and for this response as well...

...uh-oh...feedback loop!

You're right. That was a substandard dig. I apologize for responding.

Warning: This is a dig.

You seem to be quite worked up, using personal attacks with almost everyone who dares to disagree with you, and at the same time, complaining about how everyone is attacking your flawless character. I suggest you either:
a) Raise the level of discussion, and stop the name-dropping, or
b) Stop whining, nobody is sorry for you.

My esteemed fellow delegates and members of the U.N. It is clear that this debate has ignited passions that few would have thought possible to have emanated from such normally composed and serene individuals as yourselves. I feel that we are perhaps, in the endless tit-for-tat arguing over examples, sapient apes, etc, forgetting the core principle behind this resolution.

No I am aware that many nations consider non-humans to be incapable of sapience nor of intelligent, calcualted, logical, past-comprehension and analysis thought. Some do so out of honest scientific belief, others due to cultural influences and others due to pure ignorance and racism.

Yet The Republic of Compadria suppports this resolution, because we recognise the underlying principle that is at vote here and its important repercussions for all other related Human Rights Legislation. Let us consider the issue. Most of us, logically, would want to see full respect extended to all other sapient and savant species, whatever their ilk or nature. Furthermore, we would recognise that to deny one species, of sapience and qualifying as such under the definitions of this resolution, the essential rights of existence and liberty, is unfair and hypocritical. We would make ourselves fools in that we would offer the hand of friendship to our fellow man, but take it away if proffered by another creature of intelligence of thought. Given what I have seen so far on these forums, there are plenty of supposedly inferior creatures, who would be far more intelligent and cogent in their contributions to this forum, than the supposedly superior humans.

If we reject this resolution, we will reject our fundamental humanity. We will be saying that whilst we will legislate on behalf of human injustice and guarantee human rights, we would not do the same for our non-human equals.

Where is the logic in that? Where is the justice? Where is the sense?

Please, I urge my fellow members to throw off their chains of narrow-minded xenophobia or disdain and to embrace the message of full equality, for all the sapient animate creatures of our earths and the U.N.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Warning: This is a dig.

You seem to be quite worked up, using personal attacks with almost everyone who dares to disagree with you, and at the same time, complaining about how everyone is attacking your flawless character. I suggest you either:
a) Raise the level of discussion, and stop the name-dropping, or
b) Stop whining, nobody is sorry for you.

Your whole post seems to be more reflective of what you've just posted than anything I have, but hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Who's asking for anyone's sympathy? I've attacked no one personally: I challenge you to find an example.

Your post, however, is a self-admitted personal attack. Has the emperor clothes? I think not.

The Empire of Forgottenlands proudly supports this resolution and is happy to not that the United Nations of Aberdeen thus far is unanimous in our support for this resolution. Unfortunately, I do not have time to keep careful track of this thread watching for those that complain about others "forcing RP" on them when it is they who is attempting to force their own RP - or lackthereof - on us.

Your whole post seems to be more reflective of what you've just posted than anything I have, but hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Who's asking for anyone's sympathy? I've attacked no one personally: I challenge you to find an example.

Your post, however, is a self-admitted personal attack. Has the emperor clothes? I think not.

I beg to differ with the honourable representative from Intangelon:

Post 273:
Oh, I noted it. I was ignoring it because it was completely irrelevant and essentially a personal attack. If you can't just come out and say you think I'm full of shit, then you're a coward to hind behind sarcasm and sophistry.

or Post 264:
And I've never heard of you. I am acting as a Delegate for my region who are up in arms at the presence of this resolution. It seems that, with your dismissive tone and immediate attempts to put me in some kind of subordinate place based upon my lack of experience in writing resolutions (which has nothing to do with anything and certainly doesn't disqualify anyone from a debate), that you are acting like some sort of authority. I'm debating.

or even Post 270:
How DARE you tell me what I am or am not comprehending! Your statements are elitist, dismissive and completely uncalled-for.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Look, Intangelon has stated he doesn't want to continue the discussion. Let's let him leave, peacefully, and move on, to discussion of the actual proposal. For example, I restate my doubts regarding the clause about biologic characteristics rendering rights unsuitable. I appreciate this probably refers, for example, to the right to free speech, to those creatures who can't speak. But, this definition just isn't clear enough. After all, we have the right, under UN law, to take heroin, or to have abortions. We were not designed to do this; in fact, they could be termed 'unsuitable'.

I beg to differ with the honourable representative from Intangelon:

Now, you see what you've done? You called him honourable, which is a dig at his character, which will force him to post yet again. I feel my sympathy beginning to sway...

I wasn't going to let him get away with that statement though, it was too tempting.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Now, you see what you've done? You called him honourable, which is a dig at his character, which will force him to post yet again. I feel my sympathy beginning to sway...

Yeah, this is nice, but stop baiting him. If the poor chap wants to go, let him go. This strikes me as a little unfair: we all have our outbursts. Let it rest. There's bigger issues here, like the proposal, which almost NO ONE in the whole thread has actually seemed to have read.

OOC:

Fine, I'll desist from baiting him.

Weinerdogstan has read and considered the proposal at vote. We respectfully seek clarification on the following point:

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


What happens when the UN sets the criteria, such as "can't eat humans or dachshunds", and then they must be enforced? Will this force UN nations to accept these sapient lifeforms as citizens? Will we still have the autonomy to decline that, given the UN position?

Weinerdogstan would appreciate clarification on this matter, and applauds Reformentia and The Two Sheds for this thoughtful resolution.



Fidel,
Supreme Chancellor, Weinerdogstan
UN Delegate, Con Thien

OOC: Intangelon, you didn't actually need to to attack this resolution by making the demeaning assumption that anyone acknowledging the sapience of non-humans is an elfwanking Tolkein fiend. If you want to roleplay a nation that isn't aware of the existence of the, ah, fantastical, then do so in an appropriate fashion: in character. To attack players rather than nations on the basis of their populations... tut, tut.

IC: Ecopoeia acknowledges that this legislation may prove useful at some point in the future when such sapients are encountered, but given the lack of any pressing need to acknowledge such beings, we abstain from voting.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

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

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

Well, you have one using a typewriter. If he can learn to peck out understandable words, how is that different from me typing with my hands?

Geoffrey Arctus
UN Permanent Ambassador for Cantarch

The Nation of Great Big Wet Thing is appaled at the atacks on our peoples freedoms. When we joined the United Nations, we joined under the assumption that all member nations would be treated as equals. Our regional deegate has already spoken on this issue, but we feel we can not remain silant while these 'debates' take place.

Diplomat Harvey reads from the proposed bill.
"DECLARES that, if any biological species or member thereof demonstrates the capacity to issue a request to the UN, of their own volition". A vast part of the argument aginst this proposal is that nations will be forced to grant garden variety barnyard animals the rights of humans. This is absurd. Absolutely ludicris. I have yet to see you adverage cow walk up to someone and demand that they not be slaughtered for meat, or that they are given rights. You have no fear that with the passage of this resolution that the United Nations will 'go to the dogs' as it were.

"This shall not apply when such rights or freedoms are inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species. " If a species sense of rights differs from our own, they will not be granted the same rights. Plain and simple.

"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." Under this section of the proposed bill, you will not recive a single case, such as your hypothetical sign language monkey. For this to aply, all monkeies would have to be capable of sign language. Insted, only those 'monkies' capable of sign language would qualify, be being granted a new species designation.

To further our points, our citizens, who range in species from anthropomorphic felines to anthopomorphic canines and beyond, travel outside of our nation either on buissness or vacation or a number of reasons. Should they travel to another nation, it would become an international catastrophy if there were arrested when they got of their plane or boat and sold as slaves, or murdered. Our naion would be forced to take imediate retaliatory actions.

The problem with this issue is that before this was brought up, anthropomphic beings reciving the same rights was implied. Now that it is on the floor, should it fail, it would potentialy be viewed as stripping us of our rights. The exact implications of this we can only guess at, but we fear that unspeakable acts should be commited blatently and without fear of reprisal. I've no doubt that history has shown us all what humans are capable when they fear no backlash from their actions.

Thank you.

*the Diplomat from Great Big Wet Thing take his seat*

I agree with Big Wet Thing (very interesting name by the way).

Under this resolution, a tree, toe fungus, algae, and the common cold have a right to be UN members, as they are biological beings.

The only time this resolution can be of importance is if aliens attack, which, do we really want them voting in the UN anway? If that happens, we can pass special resolutions on the spot for the circumstances.

If this resolution passes, dolphins will soon be voting on embargoes.

Mojohojo
Delegate of The United Region

it is a pitty that this looks like failing due to some nations inability to properly read and interprate this proposal. i guess timing (RL holiday season) doesnt help either.

I agree with Big Wet Thing (very interesting name by the way).

Under this resolution, a tree, toe fungus, algae, and the common cold have a right to be UN members, as they are biological beings.

The only time this resolution can be of importance is if aliens attack, which, do we really want them voting in the UN anway? If that happens, we can pass special resolutions on the spot for the circumstances.

If this resolution passes, dolphins will soon be voting on embargoes.

Mojohojo
Delegate of The United Region

My apologies, no, this would NOT grant these rights to any of those thigns you mentioned. That is, unless these things were capable of submitting a request, most likely in the form of some writen request or paper work.

Please MojoHojo, dont make a joke of this issue.

This resolution does not make any sense to pass. The reasons for this are as follows:

1) the resolution does little to define which creatures would be affected by this resolution. Any type of living organism would be able to claim rights that they shouldn't. For Example: a parrot that is accomplished in speaking a language could make absurd requests of the UN, which may cause the UN to then forbid people to have parrots as pets because it would be holding the parrot against its will.

2) the resolution assumes that all creatures of the world desire and are suited for the rights the UN grants humans. The arbitrary standards this resolution sets up will be the foundation of a great deal of conflict if the resolution is passed.

A more suitable resolution would guarentee all creatures a few basic rights, and would encourage governments to adopt their own laws further granting creatures of higher intelligence more rights as each individual nation sees fit.

This resolution does not make any sense to pass. The reasons for this are as follows:

1) the resolution does little to define which creatures would be affected by this resolution. Any type of living organism would be able to claim rights that they shouldn't. For Example: a parrot that is accomplished in speaking a language could make absurd requests of the UN, which may cause the UN to then forbid people to have parrots as pets because it would be holding the parrot against its will.

2) the resolution assumes that all creatures of the world desire and are suited for the rights the UN grants humans. The arbitrary standards this resolution sets up will be the foundation of a great deal of conflict if the resolution is passed.

A more suitable resolution would guarentee all creatures a few basic rights, and would encourage governments to adopt their own laws further granting creatures of higher intelligence more rights as each individual nation sees fit.
i think the signing monkeys thing would sum it up best. just because an animal has been taught how to talk, dosent garentee them the rights. they actually have to demonstrate their sapience, and their free will in wanting the rights.

This resolution does not make any sense to pass. The reasons for this are as follows:

1) the resolution does little to define which creatures would be affected by this resolution. Any type of living organism would be able to claim rights that they shouldn't. For Example: a parrot that is accomplished in speaking a language could make absurd requests of the UN, which may cause the UN to then forbid people to have parrots as pets because it would be holding the parrot against its will.

2) the resolution assumes that all creatures of the world desire and are suited for the rights the UN grants humans. The arbitrary standards this resolution sets up will be the foundation of a great deal of conflict if the resolution is passed.

A more suitable resolution would guarentee all creatures a few basic rights, and would encourage governments to adopt their own laws further granting creatures of higher intelligence more rights as each individual nation sees fit.


1) your first reason is acounted for in the proposal, because the parrots aplication would not be likely to stand up under a cross examination. Second, it would only aply to parrots that requested UN recognition, providing that their request stood up under cross examination, and the parrots that request citizenship would be classified as a new species, while other parrots would remain ordinary parrots.

2) this resolution does not assume that all creatures are deserving or desiering of citizenship. Only those capable of properly aplying to the UN. And without this resolution, a great deal of enslavement and genocied will continue to take place within UN nations because sapient beings are not recognised by their own countries as worthy of rights. We extend rights to humans and they are equal in our nation. We dont enslave them or hunt humans down as anthropomorphics are in other regions.

It's time that the NS United Nations expands its horizens and begins to protect not just humans, but all races.

I am sorry..but this proposal is just retarded.

I am sorry..but this proposal is just retarded.
a) in what way? and
b) that isnt exactly a valid argument.

After much deliberation, We have decided to cast Our vote in favor of this proposed Resolution. It provides a common-sense test for what species have demonstrated the rational capacity to assume the rights of sapient beings, along with the responsibilities inherit alongwith.

If this debate has shown this august assembly nothing else, it is that a test for rationality is sorely needed among the various NationStates.

I'm Afreaid I will have to Vote Aguenst this proposal, as it would wreak the econmy of our nation.

I'm Afreaid I will have to Vote Aguenst this proposal, as it would wreak the econmy of our nation.
and how would this wreck your economy?

I'm Afreaid I will have to Vote Aguenst this proposal, as it would wreak the econmy of our nation.

We fail to see any way this could weaken your economy. That is, unless of course your economy deals in a slave trade of sorts involving these sapient anthropomorphic beings. In such a case, it would only serve to faurther bring to light the injustices anthopomorphic beings are facing without the protection of this bill.

If this debate has shown this august assembly nothing else, it is that a test for rationality is sorely needed among the various NationStates.

I would like to pick up the inspired point of the honorable and cute representative from TEK, and suggest the following: The cross-examination proposed as a test for sapience should include the reading of randomly selected UN legislation, and a description of their effects, in the petitioner's own words. It seems to be the most sophisticated and demanding test developed thus far.

As a nation inhabited almost solely by three different non-human races (Ferals- cat people, the Wolcarn- equine sorts, and Evendarians- ... hard to explain), as well as being ruled by a member of the Feral race, the kingdom of Darein Riey is voting FOR this resolution. Grand idea all around, really.

I would like to pick up the inspired point of the honorable and cute representative from TEK, and suggest the following: The cross-examination proposed as a test for sapience should include the reading of randomly selected UN legislation, and a description of their effects, in the petitioner's own words. It seems to be the most sophisticated and demanding test developed thus far.


Now, that might just clasify as crule and unusual, and i think it's safe to say that a majority of the UN members that vote dont understand the legislation themselfs, seeing as this bill is currently being defeated by about 1150 votes. An adaquit test can be agreed upon later, but this bill must pass first.

Now, that might just clasify as crule and unusual, and i think it's safe to say that a majority of the UN members that vote dont understand the legislation themselfs, seeing as this bill is currently being defeated by about 1150 votes. An adaquit test can be agreed upon later, but this bill must pass first.

i think the humor of that post is lost here....

Now, that might just clasify as crule and unusual, and i think it's safe to say that a majority of the UN members that vote dont understand the legislation themselfs, seeing as this bill is currently being defeated by about 1150 votes. An adaquit test can be agreed upon later, but this bill must pass first.

Sure thing, my friend. (I do hope you understood the irony in my words... speaking of which, I love your sig.)

a good 70% of our Lower caste workforce are composed of organicaly agmunted robotic huminoids. only about .01% are Turning capible, but things could get messy if we are froced to free even those. as it is, they have no human genetic matirial in there compisition, so they are not bound by the laws. heck, most of them only have IQ's in the low tens.

a good 70% of our Lower caste workforce are composed of organicaly agmunted robotic huminoids. only about .01% are Turning capible, but things could get messy if we are froced to free even those. as it is, they have no human genetic matirial in there compisition, so they are not bound by the laws. heck, most of them only have IQ's in the low tens.

we see your delima. By 'turning capable' you mean 'would potentialy reqest citizenship recognition by the NS United Nations? If they could request citizenship, under this law, yes, it might be granted. However, as they are only partialy organic, they might fall under the final clause in the bill, stating that non biological life forms must be addressed in another legislation. Perhaps if a certian percent of the being, or more specificaly, it's brain, was biological it would considered eligable or not? Perhaps for this bill, only fully biological, or biological with prostetics would be eligable.

Did we stop doing Polls?

And I don't know about this resolution.



I can really fall either way.

Did we stop doing Polls?
this one didnt have one to start with

And I don't know about this resolution.



I can really fall either way.

well, what do you see as the pro's and con's of this resolution?

well, what do you see as the pro's and con's of this resolution?


Well a Pro could be the recognition of not being so arrogant to think we are a supreme entity.

And a Con could be over regulation based on an unrealistic ideal, that could be exploited in terms that it was never meant for.

this one didnt have one to start with


That sucks. I think polls are good.

I think the thread owner would gladly give you a poll in exchange for support... :p

Now seriously, most of the supposed loopholes described in this thread were by people who either didn't read the proposal, or were wanking all the way to Mars. The bottomline is:

If a species is intelligent enough to pass the criteria, they are also intelligent enough to be granted rights; denying this is bigotry.
If a species is not able to pass the criteria (and this includes RL dogs, cows, dolphins, penguins, etc), then this proposal gives them no rights, and nothing changes.

I beg to differ with the honourable representative from Intangelon:

Post 273:


or Post 264:


or even Post 270:


May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Perhaps you otter learn the difference between a personal attack and an if-then statement (post 273). Other than that the other posts you cite are not personal attacks.

I thought you were leaving.

This resolution does not make any sense to pass. The reasons for this are as follows:

1) the resolution does little to define which creatures would be affected by this resolution. Any type of living organism would be able to claim rights that they shouldn't. For Example: a parrot that is accomplished in speaking a language could make absurd requests of the UN, which may cause the UN to then forbid people to have parrots as pets because it would be holding the parrot against its will.

Okay, I'm voting no and even I can tell you that even a skimming of the actual text of the resolution makes this reason completely flawed. As my example of a sign-language speaking chimpanzee was similarly rebuked upon my closer reading of the text, I suggest you read...really read the resolution and see why this reason makes no sense. A parrot can be taught to speak, but any request for rights would have to be taught to it, just like anything else it "says". A parrot is effectively a biological audio recording device -- and an Olympus voice recorder can't ask for anything (even fresh batteries).

2) the resolution assumes that all creatures of the world desire and are suited for the rights the UN grants humans. The arbitrary standards this resolution sets up will be the foundation of a great deal of conflict if the resolution is passed.

Again, the actual text of the resolution specifically owns up to the idea that some species may not want the rights so granted. If that's the case, the assumption and writing is this: if they're sapient enough to ask for rights, they're sapient enough to not want them as well. As such, this reason falls flat as well.

I now understand why the abbreviation "RTFR" is common in this forum. My original objections still stand, but in fairness I will always try to ensure that even the side I disagree with gets any debative help I can offer.

I would like to pick up the inspired point of the honorable and cute representative from TEK, and suggest the following: The cross-examination proposed as a test for sapience should include the reading of randomly selected UN legislation, and a description of their effects, in the petitioner's own words. It seems to be the most sophisticated and demanding test developed thus far.

Now that was funny. Touche.

I suspect that there are several types of nations who are voting no.

1. Those that have a honest beef with the resolution; they may enjoy keeping their sapient non-humans under control or believe the UN should work for and by humans only. Tinis disagrees with these nation's whole heartedly.
2. Those that didn't read the resolution but instead relied on knee-jerk reactions to it, often baseless. Some of these can be enlightened but many are either too lazy or to thick headed to want to change their minds. But some can be reached.
3. Those that vote no on any UN resolutions. These foolish nations claim to be fighting a one world order of some sort by corrupting the UN from the inside. The fallacy of this is that the best way they could fight the enemy they percieve is to get any nation that has the slightest of similar belief as theirs and leave th UN, and then rely on the forces they seek to counter to carry out what they claim will happen, which if the UN is to be a world dictatorship of the many, it will then fail as the moderate and even formerly pro-UN nations jump ship as the system goes to the extermes they claim it is destined for. So these nations are hopelessly confused.
4. Those that vote against it because they were asked to and coerced with scarry language. These can be convinced by logic, sanity, and RTFR some of the time, but not always.
5. Those that vote randomly. They are very few.
6. Those that are delegates that vote as their region urges. Almost impossible to turn without inside support. I'm looking to the biggies to weigh in the last day to find out how things go. If enough of the biggies move towards it, it passes, but that means most of them have to approve.

If this resolution fails however, the Union of Tinis will be quite willing to assist in the crafting and advertisement of a updated and improved resolution. Perhaps one that contains a definition of sapient to halt all those that think that's the wrong word.

I thought you were leaving.

Christ, pal, that was what, ten hours ago? Seriously, unclench.

I came back to check the vote and to see how the argument was progressing. Nobody has successfully answered "who decides" and I have already conceded the point that fey/futuristic/anthropomorphic/anthropoid populations exist. To be honest, I'd never bothered to find out the species of persons who were posting here or in General, the two fora I visit most. I can't imagine a post that would require, say, a felinoid (or whatever the adjective form -- sorry if I'm mischaracterizing a species with my ignorance) to identify themselves as such. A nation called "Cat-Tribe" I've seen post I could have supposed was Jellical in nature, but I never read any actual catlike self-references in his posts.

Once again, to those nations who are replete with all sorts of non-human creatures, I humbly apologize. Intangelon biologists have been informing my lower echelon for years, apparently, that we have more than a dozen sapient species in our temperate rainforest alone. One of them is a telepathic moss who was only able to make itself known by painstaking re-shaping of its form to make symbols it had detected in the minds of passing horticulturalists. No human of Intangelon is currently telepathic, though the empaths we have confirmed the presence of feelings within the moss.

From what we've been able to determine from the other species of the kingdom Animalia, what they really want is nothing whatsoever to do with Intangelon's humanity. No houses, income tax, votes or anything like that. They simply wish to be left alone and their biospheres left unmolested. This entails only a minor restructuring of Intangelonian policy, as we've been green-friendly since day one, but it has certainly opened my eyes to the presence of sapient non-humans. And what they have requested is respect for their environment. That's all.

its interesting that the reasons for the no vote are being disected now.

I've already made my points clear early in the debate and I still say this is unnecessary. Once a member of a sapient race has citizenship in a UN nation they have the rights and privilages which go with citizenship.

I won't deny what I see with my own eyes. Even our resident Musk Dragon, Gurgle from Dastardly Stench, and a friend of mine took the stand in this debate. I've debated with Mr Olembe from Ausserland on many occasions as well as others who aren't human from time to time.

The members of my region took a good hard look at this and made clear what they thought of this. They just don't think its unnecessary. They thought this was a piece of useless sci-fi inspired fluff as well. I explained to them that there are Sapients in the UN and they are already covered by existing UN law.

They are happy with the way i'm handling this. I suggest that the people pushing this agenda have a good long think about what they have brought into the debating chamber and if it fails to pass use the holiday season to make this a practical proposal.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

At last, the final remaining nation of Greater Seattle, after lengthy parliamentary debate, has come to a decision. Their initial objections, and mine, have been satisfactorily remedied as a result of this forum and the views presented herein. None of our nations had ever borne witness to a sapient non-human because, as my last post presented, they were content to be left to their own devices. The beavers, the moss, and the others have declined representation or even ambassadorships as that would take time away from what they really want to do -- exist peacefully. With that in mind, and with the knowledge that the Rights of Biological Sapients resolution fully authorizes a sapient species to decline whatever rights might be festooned upon them, that objection is dropped.

The remaining objection of "who decides" was defeated at last when it was pointed out that if the Gnomes (I capitalize that word now out of newfound respect and not a little fear) had been implementing UN resolutions for all of NSUN's existence without us ever even knowing they existed, they could damn well be trusted to figure out whoch species was asking for rights, and which ones were merely asking for kippers (both quite reasonable requests, by the way).

THEREFORE, it is with great faith in the capacity of the UN forum to educate, enlighten and sway even the most stubborn dissenter if the cause is truly just that I announce with both pride and humility that the Delegation from Greater Seattle has authorized me to RESCIND my "no" vote and change it to "yes." Congratulations and apologies to all those who suffered through my earlier tirades, most especially the Honorable Delegates from Reformentia, Fonzoland and Gruenberg.

Christ, pal, that was what, ten hours ago? Seriously, unclench.
First, I'm not your "pal". Second, you never have specified which sphincter it is that I am to unclench, the anal or urinary.

Frankly, the Imperial Government of Krioval is astounded that another ambassador would state that the phrase "human beings" somehow automatically applies to non-human sapient beings without a single shred of evidence to support that conclusion. Resolutions of the United Nations apply to precisely what they say they apply. Certainly, nations may go above and beyond the call of a resolution, provided they contravene no other resolution, but there is nothing in particular to compel such action.

In addition, those nations who feel that, because their lands contain no non-human sapients, this resolution is impractical or useless may do well to expose themselves to cultures and societies other than those in their insular region. If nothing else, Krioval must wonder why said nations have chosen to participate in an international body such as this.

高原由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval

First, I'm not your "pal". Second, you never have specified which sphincter it is that I am to unclench, the anal or urinary.

Whichever one's got that stick in a death-grip. Likely anal, but hey, who knows.

Intangelon, you honor I and my nation with your decision to vote for this resolution. I thank you very much. I hope that some day when there is not a raging debate going on that we may meet and talk of more mundane things, and that I many then shake, your hand with my paw.

Whichever one's got that stick in a death-grip. Likely anal, but hey, who knows.
ROFL!
OOC: I fear that we have now achieved a new all-time low in UN forum debate visual imagery.

Intangelon, you honor I and my nation with your decision to vote for this resolution. I thank you very much. I hope that some day when there is not a raging debate going on that we may meet and talk of more mundane things, and that I many then shake, your hand with my paw.

That will be a fine day indeed. I feel so ashamed to have wallowed in belligerent ignorance for so long. Your words bring the citizens of Greater Seattle hope for eventual redemption. We've got a lot more searching to do, but we shall make a census of each sapient species in our region and strive to either enfranchise or leave alone all those who wish either. Your example has been among those who have enlightened us, and for that, we are grateful.

ROFL!
OOC: I fear that we have now achieved a new all-time low in UN forum debate visual imagery.

OOC: Indeed! That was just such a great set-up line you left me, I would have been betraying my RL self to not leap at the opportunity. You're a terrific "straight man". Thanks.

OOC: Indeed! That was just such a great set-up line you left me, I would have been betraying my RL self to not leap at the opportunity. You're a terrific "straight man". Thanks.
OOC: No problem. Glad you changed your vote, and sorry about the earlier unpleasantness. No hard feelings.

IC: I still think you're an ass and the Seahawks suck. Go Steelers!

OOC: No problem. Glad you changed your vote, and sorry about the earlier unpleasantness. No hard feelings.

IC: I still think you're an ass and the Seahawks suck. Go Steelers!

OOC: None taken, and same to you.

IC:Well, you're completely uptight and the Steelers haven't got a prayer. Colts-Seahawks in Detroit!

OOC: Of course, being a lifelong Seattle sports fan, I know that we'll lose that game, but it'll be nice to at least be in a Super Bowl for once. *sigh*

Colts-Seahawks in Detroit!
BAH! I'm going to bed.

We really understand the argument: there are no other sapient species in RL, used by people wanting to vote to NSUN resolution with a RL approach.

That said:
- Sapient species are an interesting, nice and fun part of this game; it’s why it will be great to grant them similar rights for better Role Play.
- Maybe one day in RL, even if I have to recognize it will sadly not happen soon, we will meet another sapient species. This will be great for us and them. We will be able to share our respective experiences, thinking, science, literature, religions, philosophies, society models …

So we think it’s better to be ready to this. We think it is better that every sapient species grant similar rights to every other sapient species, as nowadays, white, black, yellow, grey, red people grant respectively same rights to each others.

I do not like this resolution for a number of reasons that might seem at odds with each other, but mostly because I think that it is oriented in the wrong direction.

In the first sense, the resolution is exceptionally vague, of necessity I will grant, but that vagueness can cause interesting problems in and of itself due to the open nature of NS role play. But at the same time it requires the sentient beings to both know about the UN and want the rights of "humans" in the UN.

Which leads me to the following observation, any sentient race capable of interracial communication and understanding of other alien ('casue that is what we are to them) sentient races is probably advanced enough to have their own culture and their own set of "rights" which would probably not be the same as our own set of "rights." Instead of wanting the rights of humans they would probably want and demand the mutual acceptance of the rights of each other, we should respect their rights, not impose our rights on them.

There is another element which troubles me. Requiring a pro-active ability to request rights in the first place seems to make a number of assumptions that troubles me. It seems to imply that we can simply ignore the rights of those who cannot make such requests. I'm sure we would grandfather ourselves as it were, but there are a number of human conditions that would cause some humans to not be able to appeal to the UN and I am sure we don't want to simply deny them rights as a result. We need to adopt a more compassionate scale of the ability to understand and preceive as opposed to the ability to identify and communicate.

I would like to speak on the behave of the other Biological Sapients even though there are no Biological Sapients population in my own nation. Some of our region members are populated by non-human, and we respect them.

Why most human populated nations would not agree to the UN resolution? Do you all free unsecure if they have an equally civil rights with you? You afraid if one day their population outnumbered you then you will lose control of the your beloved nation?

Think again! If it's true, if they population outnumbered you, they will rebel against your goverments. If you are not strong enough, you will be enslave, and then you will be the minority. Think what will they do to you?

If you be kind to them, treat them equally, they will also be kind to you. Remember, life is like a wheel, sometime we at the top, and not posibble someday we will be at the bottom.

I ask to all UN members and regional delegates to vote For the resolution.

Ambassador Amd Tiruviel
The Empire of Narmolanya
Region Commonwealth Nation

p/s: I'm sorry if my post is not good enough because English is not my native tongue.

I do not like this resolution for a number of reasons that might seem at odds with each other, but mostly because I think that it is oriented in the wrong direction.

In the first sense, the resolution is exceptionally vague, of necessity I will grant, but that vagueness can cause interesting problems in and of itself due to the open nature of NS role play. But at the same time it requires the sentient beings to both know about the UN and want the rights of "humans" in the UN.

Of course it does. See further below.

Which leads me to the following observation, any sentient race capable of interracial communication and understanding of other alien ('casue that is what we are to them) sentient races is probably advanced enough to have their own culture and their own set of "rights" which would probably not be the same as our own set of "rights." Instead of wanting the rights of humans they would probably want and demand the mutual acceptance of the rights of each other, we should respect their rights, not impose our rights on them.

Unfortunately we're dealing with matters of international law here. Unless we're talking about making exceptions to it for different species based upon some biological necessity (egg layers don't have the right to "abortion" for example, or species that only live 10 years are not entitled to free education until they're 18) allowing each individual species to define for themselves which rights they would like internationally enforced based upon things like cultural peculiarities would create a complete nightmare.

There is another element which troubles me. Requiring a pro-active ability to request rights in the first place seems to make a number of assumptions that troubles me. It seems to imply that we can simply ignore the rights of those who cannot make such requests.

It makes the assumption that such requests could not be made for one of two reasons. (Feel free to add a third if I'm missing something)

1. There is no contact between the UN and this species. In which case we couldn't give them the rights even if we wanted to.

2. Communication between this species and other UN member species simply cannot occur. In which case we STILL can't give them the rights even if we wanted to. There's no way to communicate to them that they have them. Or inform them what legal restrictions they're subject to. Or to give them a fair trial if they violate any of them. Or to determine that the species even wants them. Etc... It would be completely unworkable.

I'm sure we would grandfather ourselves as it were, but there are a number of human conditions that would cause some humans to not be able to appeal to the UN

The requirement is not for every individual member of the species to make the request on their own in order for them to qualify, so a condition negatively affecting the ability of some members is irrelevent.

its interesting that the reasons for the no vote are being disected now.

I've already made my points clear early in the debate and I still say this is unnecessary. Once a member of a sapient race has citizenship in a UN nation they have the rights and privilages which go with citizenship.

I won't deny what I see with my own eyes. Even our resident Musk Dragon, Gurgle from Dastardly Stench, and a friend of mine took the stand in this debate. I've debated with Mr Olembe from Ausserland on many occasions as well as others who aren't human from time to time.

The members of my region took a good hard look at this and made clear what they thought of this. They just don't think its unnecessary. They thought this was a piece of useless sci-fi inspired fluff as well. I explained to them that there are Sapients in the UN and they are already covered by existing UN law.

They are happy with the way i'm handling this. I suggest that the people pushing this agenda have a good long think about what they have brought into the debating chamber and if it fails to pass use the holiday season to make this a practical proposal.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

We must respectfully disagree with the distinguished representative of Kirisubo. There are NSUN resolutions that clearly guarantee rights only to "human beings". As the most striking example, we commend his attention to NSUN Resolution #26, "Universal Bill of Rights". The language is unmistakable. It applies only to "human beings". It might be argued that the intent of the resolution was to include all. But the letter of the law is clear and unambiguous. Non-human sapient races are not covered.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

for openers, what types of beings would be able to propose something to the UN that AREN'T humans? and i'm talking real-life...not all this dungeons and dragons crap.

secondly, even if other beings could propose something to the UN, they aren't human, bottom line. it is our minds (and opposable thumbs, of course) that separate us from animals. other beings don't have the capacity to handle diplomacy.

and i can't believe i'm ACTUALLY having this conversation...hahaha. this proposal is completely ridiculous.


Queen Kate I

The day I'll support this is the day when sapients start acting and wanting it. I am not going to support this until someone proposes artificial sapient rights, and wouldn't the word sentient be more appropiate?

To simplify that, Optischer is not going to like this. We give some sentients rights, and not others.

The day I'll support this is the day when sapients start acting and wanting it.

Funny. The only way this resolution comes into effect is if "sapients start acting and wanting it." Now, isn't THAT a coincidence?

I am not going to support this until someone proposes artificial sapient rights, and wouldn't the word sentient be more appropiate?

Artificial sapients rights are left for a different resolution. Your thoughts on those are irrelevant for this resolution. As for the rest, would you please be so kind as to oblige us and read the thread before imposing such tired questions? They have been endlessly answered. Thank you very much.

To simplify that, Optischer is not going to like this. We give some sentients rights, and not others.

Woah, that simplified a lot. I guess you also give some genders rights, not others. Oh wait, that is illegal.

gender discrimination, or any other discrimination is abhorred in optischer, except for alien, sentient or shudder sapient discrimination. Now while it may be illegal, Our country is a bit like Taris from Kotor 1. Rich on top, aliens and middle class on bottom, but instead of the lower class on the bottom, you'll find factories, with aliens and prisoners. We aren't racist, but rather prefer to bring in purification and allow only top ranking officials on the top level.

gender discrimination, or any other discrimination is abhorred in optischer, except for alien, sentient or shudder sapient discrimination. Now while it may be illegal, Our country is a bit like Taris from Kotor 1. Rich on top, aliens and middle class on bottom, but instead of the lower class on the bottom, you'll find factories, with aliens and prisoners.

Indeed, this is illegal. Why has no UN action been made on this that i am aware of?

We aren't racist, but rather prefer to bring in purification and allow only top ranking officials on the top level.

Again, this is a poorly conceled way of saying that citizen A is better then B, and citzen B will most likely not be human. The word 'purifacation' frightens me in that the same termanology has been used before to describe genocide.

*Diplomat Harvey retaks his seat and instructs his aids to begin moving all GBWT citizens to the GBWT embassy's compounds after reviewing the latest vote tally*

We are not genocidal maniacs, but would rather keep these beings as slaves. As for any technicians out there, I can't get onto UN.

The way i would play it, is how i play everything, agree with everything that anyone higher up the politacal food chain tell you.
regards Tony Blair

Anyman who believes Tony Blair is doing a good job is in our eyes crazy, Anyone who thinks he could have been doing a better job is ok, and anyone who thinks we should vote for the conservatives will receive 100 units each!

With regards to my last comment, I have just voted after waiting for (looks at watch) 30mins and have voted against this resolution like the majority. I have a question though, did everyone who voted get a red sentence at the top saying their position on the proposal was noted? Or is it because the UN has eyes on what we do?

OOC: everyone gets that when their vote is recorded

OOC:

I have a question though, did everyone who voted get a red sentence at the top saying their position on the proposal was noted? Or is it because the UN has eyes on what we do?

no, we're watching you very carefuly now. :eek: lol

I thought so! This morning, I found a brown piece on my cornflakes! It must be a UN tracking device, and on my way to parliament, I got asked directions to the nearest public toilet, by a man! And he was wearing a hat! It must have had a recording device i it! Oh no! Someone's coming up the stairs.

:p lol:p

The government of St Edmund has voted for this proposal, as it's got this far, although we still think that the rival version we were drafting ourselves is superior to this one in some ways...

If i am correct about which rival one you were talking about, then in our view it was inferior. Watered down proposals would be more welcome instead of full proposals. And no proposals are better. Why don't you vote against it instead and then propose yours? Again?

I thought so! This morning, I found a brown piece on my cornflakes! It must be a UN tracking device... *snip*

No, that was a rabbit turd.

Well regardless, I sent it to your embassy. Hope your ambassador enjoys her complimentary piece of optischerian chocolate.

Well regardless, I sent it to your embassy. Hope your ambassador enjoys her complimentary piece of optischerian chocolate.

Good thing Cluichstan doesn't have an embassy in Optischer...

sorry, i know we have no embassy. We sent it to one of your existent ones.

i see the naysayers are winning here.

DAMN IT!!!

i might be an absolute dictator.. but the bloody unions are demanding i force you all to vote YES.

my economy is mainly based on the pizza delivery industry. but at the moment, we are suffering around 12.4% losses to ants and rats and other non-paying non-sapients.

without the passage of this resolution, those non-sapients cannot legally apply for credit cards, and become productive consumers. without integrating them into my consumerist economy, i cannot afford that dream island. without this bill, our only option is to exterminate rather than integrate.

and for all those long-haired ,tree-huggen, animal-loven, dirty hippies out there: what's the best way to protect your precious animals? overbearing laws & regulations have obviously failed.
what do you think would happen to the whaling fleets if we started selling willy fisheries rights? or the ivory industry, if we imposed a tusk-tax on bambi? or the beef industry if we charged daisy a grass levy?

as for those 'democratically' elected politicians afraid of having to suddenly having to cuddle ten-tentacled giant octopus babies. if you wanted to apply today's outmoded definition of sapience on your current electorate, you'll suddenly find your support base disappear overnight, and with it much of your revenue sources too.

no. i say give women the vote. give minorities the vote. even give unionists the vote, if you must.. but please, please, please.. also give it to rex and flipper and nemo too.

i say Yay to the vote.. Yay! Yay!

i see the naysayers are winning here.

DAMN IT!!!

i might be an absolute dictator.. but the bloody unions are demanding i force you all to vote YES.

*snip*

Force us? Uh...yeah...good luck with that.

for openers, what types of beings would be able to propose something to the UN that AREN'T humans? and i'm talking real-life...not all this dungeons and dragons crap.

secondly, even if other beings could propose something to the UN, they aren't human, bottom line. it is our minds (and opposable thumbs, of course) that separate us from animals. other beings don't have the capacity to handle diplomacy.

and i can't believe i'm ACTUALLY having this conversation...hahaha. this proposal is completely ridiculous.

Queen Kate I

Your Highness,

This so-called "Dungeons & Dragons crap" is exactly how UN resolutions get carried out here on NS -- The UN Gnomes. Until this thread, I didn't know about them either and I thought this resolution was a load of fetid dingos kidneys myself. Read back a few pages on this thread and see how I was convinced of the necessity of this resolution.

Magister Jubal

--snip--
what do you think would happen to the whaling fleets if we started selling willy fisheries rights? or the ivory industry, if we imposed a tusk-tax on bambi? or the beef industry if we charged daisy a grass levy?


A tusk tax on Bambi? What kind of fucked-up mutant deer do you have in Monstronia? Unless you meant Dumbo, but still, the idea of a six-point buck with antlers and tusks is rather...interesting...even if only from a scare-the-shit-out-of-a-pack-of-Hamm's-drinking-hunters kind of way.

"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."


Okay tell me if I read this right. As say a vampire I need human blood to live and survive thus since it is a biological need I can go out find a human and drink all I want of them. As my so call biological characteristics require that I have a pint of blood a day. Then consider I'm a big sucker so drink more than a pint a day. So poor human is gone and this exempts me from being tried for meeting a biological need for human blood.. Then we have those who eat human flesh as it's basied on their biological needs thus exempts them from taking a big bite out of any human that looks tasty to them.

All they have to do to apply is come in and say I want to be sapient and since I'm here telling you this I pretty much meet the requirements to be such. Thus the UN can't do a think to me or about me once I get rights under this proposal when it comes to my biological charactestics. Also what about certain humans who have alos certain biological charactestics that might give them good cause to break a number of laws. Abortion, drugs for medical reasons, in areas where these may be against laws. As pregancy would to me be a biological charactestic of as would say some virus that infects a person...

Of course Zeldon is not a nation of vampires or flesh eaters but we do eat certain animals or critters that might one day come up and say you can't eat us. Think about monkey or certain talking birds.. say they get the ability to prove them meet the requirements of this proposal. No more birds eggs or monkey stew for anyone. Thus we can't support this one at all..

A tusk tax on Bambi? What kind of fucked-up mutant deer do you have in Monstronia? Unless you meant Dumbo, but still, the idea of a six-point buck with antlers and tusks is rather...interesting...even if only from a scare-the-shit-out-of-a-pack-of-Hamm's-drinking-hunters kind of way.


well.. we do have the best genetic engineering industry in the region...

so, to increase our ivory exports, while bypassing restrictive UN regulations, we have grafted elephant tusks on to cute baby deer. which we then export as christmas pet animals.

further, it helps scare off the hunters, so pleasing our slimy green lobby...

those red-necked, inbred, country hicks that we employ in our science and technology industry do put their second heads to good use. you must admit

A tusk tax on Bambi? What kind of fucked-up mutant deer do you have in Monstronia? Unless you meant Dumbo, but still, the idea of a six-point buck with antlers and tusks is rather...interesting...even if only from a scare-the-shit-out-of-a-pack-of-Hamm's-drinking-hunters kind of way.
It's Monstronia. Their version of bambi has seven legs, eight eyes, is green, and has far too many sharp teeth. Also, its mother never died, having eaten the hunter...

Mirg']It's Monstronia. Their version of bambi has seven legs, eight eyes, is green, and has far too many sharp teeth. Also, its mother never died, having eaten the hunter...

Brilliant! :D

Okay tell me if I read this right. As say a vampire I need human blood to live and survive thus since it is a biological need I can go out find a human and drink all I want of them. As my so call biological characteristics require that I have a pint of blood a day. Then consider I'm a big sucker so drink more than a pint a day. So poor human is gone and this exempts me from being tried for meeting a biological need for human blood.. Then we have those who eat human flesh as it's basied on their biological needs thus exempts them from taking a big bite out of any human that looks tasty to them.

All they have to do to apply is come in and say I want to be sapient and since I'm here telling you this I pretty much meet the requirements to be such. Thus the UN can't do a think to me or about me once I get rights under this proposal when it comes to my biological charactestics. Also what about certain humans who have alos certain biological charactestics that might give them good cause to break a number of laws. Abortion, drugs for medical reasons, in areas where these may be against laws. As pregancy would to me be a biological charactestic of as would say some virus that infects a person...

Of course Zeldon is not a nation of vampires or flesh eaters but we do eat certain animals or critters that might one day come up and say you can't eat us. Think about monkey or certain talking birds.. say they get the ability to prove them meet the requirements of this proposal. No more birds eggs or monkey stew for anyone. Thus we can't support this one at all..


this has been an argument that we've out to rest time and again, but it seems we must go through this yet again.

Any species that becomes a recognised citizen of the UN would be subject to ALL UN laws. Thus, killing someone, would still be illegal. Even taking one pint unwillingly would be considered assult at the least. What might be done insted would be to boost blood donations, or do like we have, and grow your own blood in bio generators. A simple prosece really, and it could be done with a miniscule amount of funding from the UN.

And no, note every member of a sapient species would be granted rights, for once a species shows sapience, it would hence recive a new species classification, and only these new species would be considered citizens. And you could still have your monkey stew and scrambled eggs or what ever it is that you eat.

Okay tell me if I read this right. As say a vampire I need human blood to live and survive thus since it is a biological need I can go out find a human and drink all I want of them. As my so call biological characteristics require that I have a pint of blood a day. Then consider I'm a big sucker so drink more than a pint a day. So poor human is gone and this exempts me from being tried for meeting a biological need for human blood.. Then we have those who eat human flesh as it's basied on their biological needs thus exempts them from taking a big bite out of any human that looks tasty to them.

*snip*

Vampires would not be given the right to murder. Humans are not given this right, and neither would vampires. Yes, vampires require blood. But there are other sources of blood than from live humans. In the Arcadian Empire, there exist humans who gladly let vampires feed on them. The vampires don't kill them, they are not savages. If vampires were to visit your nation, they would bring their consorts with them, or stop at on of your nations blood banks ( you do have blood banks, don't you?) Anyway, if this resolution passes, and a vampire happens to visit your nation and kill one of your citizens, you can charge him with murder and theft (as he stole a meal). The vampire would have the right to a trial, but is he was guilty, your legal system would prosecute him as any human.

This resolution is not intended to give extra rights to nonhumans.
It is meant to give nonhumans the rights they deserve.

If a nonhuman is intelligent enough to ask for rights, and prove they know what they are asking, should they not be given those rights?

Vote YES

...there needs to some way to make those who debate here read the resolution before they do so...

OOC:
...there needs to some way to make those who debate here read the resolution before they do so...

i fear that only those that are capable of running the UN do that, my freind.

i agree. although i voted against it, i enjoy hearing the other side of the debate. what annoys me is people who just post random things saying like that the resolution is a joke, so they voted no. i voted no because there were some errors that needed to be fixed, but i am still unsure about that decision now that ive read some of the valuable arguements that the opposing side has made.

debate is supposed to be educated and diplomatic, not hostile and useless.

so please, whether you are for or against, read the resolution before you post.

The Representive of the Community of Kitsune agrees wholeheartedly with the views of Union of Tinis and the Republic of Compadria.

Or state will be willing to assist the Union of Tinis in drafting a new resolution if this one fails. The problem is that there may be a tragedy within nations that do not treat all sentient beings that live as citizens equally. By creating this discrimination seeds of discourse, hatred and possible revolution. This can be avoided just by acknowledging that sentient beings may exist in that are not of the majority or ruling species.

Throughout history many wars have been fought on grounds similar to this, the hate of all things different than their own kind. I hope that by approving this resolution we will finally be able to say that we have learned from our mistakes of history.

The Nation of Great Big Wet Thing will also aid Tinis in drafting of a new proposal should this one fail. However, i believe i have missed teh exact reason as to why we need a new bill other then that many are not reading the bill in its entirety.



*snip*
so please, whether you are for or against, read the resolution before you post.
We move to second this.

What happens if you just think that humans are a superior race and all other races are inferior?

What happens if you just think that humans are a superior race and all other races are inferior?
embargos etc.... oh, an some UN zelot nation may declare war on you

What happens if you just think that humans are a superior race and all other races are inferior?

we would surely put in place trade embargos. We've got sevral in the works right now. If one cannot recognize our citizens are equals, then we'd have nothing to do with those offending nations. War is also a distinct posability should hostile actions be taken aginst our nation or our citizens.

This all depends on what people classify themselves as. A long time ago, people grouped themselves in tribes, and people from other tribes were denied rights. Now we group ourselves as nations, and people from other nations don't always get the full rights they deserve, no matter what we say they get. We just need to realize that the largest clasification we can give rights to is all sapients, and this is an easy decision.

"I would suggest that all non-human nations currently members of the UN should simply leave and form your own organisation, rather than rooting for this proposal. This proposal will never go through in any format, as the UN is a strictly humanist organisation. As clearly shown by history, humans are intolerant, and even now after hundreds of wars and civil disturbances, they are still incapable of accepting certain races of their own species. What chance do you think you have of being accepted by them? Given the results this proposal has already, I am going to say that the chance is low. Leave the ship now before it sinks."

Bonfaaz Burntfur

"I would suggest that all non-human nations currently members of the UN should simply leave and form your own organisation, rather than rooting for this proposal. This proposal will never go through in any format, as the UN is a strictly humanist organisation. As clearly shown by history, humans are intolerant, and even now after hundreds of wars and civil disturbances, they are still incapable of accepting certain races of their own species. What chance do you think you have of being accepted by them? Given the results this proposal has already, I am going to say that the chance is low. Leave the ship now before it sinks."

Bonfaaz Burntfur
i think someone here doesnt realise what percentage of the UN the Human Beings actually make up....

Basically creatures that are capable of independent thought, but are generally more apt to kill, maim and destroy than think logically and coherently.

This description fits a number of UN members that post here on a regular basis...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH AHH A HA HAAHHAA AAHA:p

Edit: Just a joke don't get offended. Too much.

We in Cramistan cast our vote in the Negative. While we like the idea addressed by this resolution, we would prefer an alternate approach that would have more effect and less ambiguity.

We believe that non-human sapient beings have rights, just not necessarily granted in-absentia.

We would prefer an approach that each sapient species, being or borg apply individually. Oh, did I say Borg?

Would the Borg qualify? Suppose we grant them automatic rights and because of that they absorb us? Geez, that would be kind of cool, or not, depending on your slant on the Borg. Now, if a Vulcan shows up and wants rights, we would probably give it to them.

The resolution is sufficiently ambiguous, beginning with the first "REGRETTING" and all the way down to the "when such rights or freedoms are inappropriate" phrase, continuing down to the point where it talks about genetic alternative sapient lifestyles -- is the resolution addressing slavery, or an adopted species that is genetically modified? (Much as are cattle and rose bushes.)

We think it the resoultion addresses good intentions but is not yet ready. How about a resolution that simply the last two items, the "FURTHER REQUIRES" and the final "DECLARES" Much simpler and easier to address.

The delegate from Cramistan sits down and resumes crocheting.

This still seems to me to be a pointless resolution. Is it not just stating that anyone who can place a resolution has a right to place a resolution? If so, this is already in practice. Who else besides humans can place a resolution? Humans already have a right to do this. It just seems like a waste of the UN's time to pass this.

Vampires would not be given the right to murder. Humans are not given this right, and neither would vampires. Yes, vampires require blood. But there are other sources of blood than from live humans. In the Arcadian Empire, there exist humans who gladly let vampires feed on them. The vampires don't kill them, they are not savages. If vampires were to visit your nation, they would bring their consorts with them, or stop at on of your nations blood banks ( you do have blood banks, don't you?) Anyway, if this resolution passes, and a vampire happens to visit your nation and kill one of your citizens, you can charge him with murder and theft (as he stole a meal). The vampire would have the right to a trial, but is he was guilty, your legal system would prosecute him as any human.

*snip*

OOC: Someone's been playing too many White Wolf games... :rolleyes:

This still seems to me to be a pointless resolution. Is it not just stating that anyone who can place a resolution has a right to place a resolution? If so, this is already in practice. Who else besides humans can place a resolution? Humans already have a right to do this. It just seems like a waste of the UN's time to pass this.
it is not about placing resolutions. it is ensuring those non-human sapient biologicals are awarded the same rights as humans are.

This still seems to me to be a pointless resolution. Is it not just stating that anyone who can place a resolution has a right to place a resolution? If so, this is already in practice. Who else besides humans can place a resolution? Humans already have a right to do this. It just seems like a waste of the UN's time to pass this.

I agree -- any member of the UN with two endorsements can place a resolution. This resolution stops short of offering membership in the UN, but there is nothing stopping the UN right now from admitting any Borg, Vulcan or Yeti as it is.

Now, the debate would have been much cooler had we used the best of Sci-Fi throughout, and it would have had 42 clauses in deference to the answer to "life the universe and everything."

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 the ambassador for Palentine UN Office (www.nationstates.net/palentine_un_office), the delegate for our region, carefully reviewed the proposed text of the article in question and consulted with the top scientists, lawyers, doctors, experts of non-human intelligence, and even the native sapients of its own country, the Palentine Navy Dolphins, which, although cute, cuddly and beloved of children everywhere, have developed the filthiest mouths this side of the Southern Ocean (owing to their extensive time with sailors). When he asked them what they thought of this resolution, they minced no words: "What the *bleep* are these *bleep* *bleep* morons thinking when *bleep* and they *bleep* for God's sake *bleep* *bleep* *bleep* testicular circumference *bleep* *bleep* and mating turtles *bleep* *bleep* *bleep* *bleep* *bleep*!!!" Upon hearing this bold oration, children in listening range cried, women fainted, even the sailors blushed, and several people hurled themselves into the sea, wanting not to live in a world where such detestable creatures would be granted equal rights under UN law. (The dolphins saved these people, by the way, and had them brought up on charges, for suicide is a crime in The Palentine.) Thus Palentine UN Office has voted AGAINST (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10124627&postcount=225) this article.VICTORY IS MINE!!

Mirg']It's Monstronia. Their version of bambi has seven legs, eight eyes, is green, and has far too many sharp teeth. Also, its mother never died, having eaten the hunter...


i see you're an avid follower of MONSTRONIAs developing un-natural wildlife.

may i interest you in a subscription to our monthly newsletters? or a year's supply of dumboBurgers? (now that dumbo has lost his tusks for bambi, he has no intrisic economic value, other than the blubber round his buttox)

What a waste of NSUN time. :(

What a waste of NSUN time. :(

Waste of time? Oh my, so your saying that righting wrongs and establishing equal rights for the citizens of my nation and others before the eyes of this international body is a waste of time? I'm afraid I and many others must disagree with you. Perhaps if you consider this a waste of time, then perhaps Tinis should consider any other resolution a waste of time? Or perhaps anyone who has voted for the rights of sapients viewing any other resolution or repeal as a waste of the UN's time?

Waste of time?

Yea that's why Cramistan is here -- to waste time, until we have no more.

Waste of time? Oh my, so your saying that righting wrongs and establishing equal rights for the citizens of my nation and others before the eyes of this international body is a waste of time? I'm afraid I and many others must disagree with you. Perhaps if you consider this a waste of time, then perhaps Tinis should consider any other resolution a waste of time? Or perhaps anyone who has voted for the rights of sapients viewing any other resolution or repeal as a waste of the UN's time?

Hear hear! *applause from GBWT section*

What a waste of NSUN time. :(
if it was a waste of NSUN time, how did it make it through the forum debate, through to quarum?

The problem with this resolution is that it's extremely partial, in such a way as to completely sidestep the more important issue and be all but irrelevant.

Non-human biological intelligences aren't the problem - the chances of the aliens coming visiting is LOW. Any extraterrestrial intelligence capable of paying a call is extremely unlikely to bother. Venturing far from one's home system costs enormous energy, and pushes you further away from the fast-thinking bandwidth-rich core where the civilization and economy progress at maximal rate. Of course, such alien intelligences are probably themselves unlikely to even remember being biological, leading me to the real issue - machine intelligence.

The rights of artificial intelligences, sapient simulations, human uploads, partial or complete, and the forked/copied instances thereof, A-Life-evolved intelligences, spontaneously self-aware complex programs, etc. etc. are all much more complex, near-term, and, in the full term of things, important issues to the future of the human species' light cone. Pure machine/digital/information-based intelligence is the future of any tool-using sentient species. This resolution, while I voted in the affirmative because it's better than nothing, is at best a minor issue in the face of the larger, non-organic/biological ones.

The problem with this resolution is that it's extremely partial, in such a way as to completely sidestep the more important issue and be all but irrelevant.

Non-human biological intelligences aren't the problem - the chances of the aliens coming visiting is LOW. Any extraterrestrial intelligence capable of paying a call is extremely unlikely to bother. Venturing far from one's home system costs enormous energy, and pushes you further away from the fast-thinking bandwidth-rich core where the civilization and economy progress at maximal rate. Of course, such alien intelligences are probably themselves unlikely to even remember being biological, leading me to the real issue - machine intelligence.

The rights of artificial intelligences, sapient simulations, human uploads, partial or complete, and the forked/copied instances thereof, A-Life-evolved intelligences, spontaneously self-aware complex programs, etc. etc. are all much more complex, near-term, and, in the full term of things, important issues to the future of the human species' light cone. Pure machine/digital/information-based intelligence is the future of any tool-using sentient species. This resolution, while I voted in the affirmative because it's better than nothing, is at best a minor issue in the face of the larger, non-organic/biological ones.

First of all, NS =/= RL. If you take the time to read through the thread, you will find many reasons for bio sapients to be important. Many nations include, or are even ruled by, non-human sapients.

Second, although I cannot speak for the authors, I believe the separation between bio and AI is not a sign of preferences, but rather an acknowledgement of the different specificities of each case. I don't think any of the supporters of this proposal see AI as a "lesser issue."

Having said that, thank you for your support.

The problem with this resolution is that it's extremely partial, in such a way as to completely sidestep the more important issue and be all but irrelevant.

Non-human biological intelligences aren't the problem - the chances of the aliens coming visiting is LOW. Any extraterrestrial intelligence capable of paying a call is extremely unlikely to bother. Venturing far from one's home system costs enormous energy, and pushes you further away from the fast-thinking bandwidth-rich core where the civilization and economy progress at maximal rate. Of course, such alien intelligences are probably themselves unlikely to even remember being biological, leading me to the real issue - machine intelligence.

The rights of artificial intelligences, sapient simulations, human uploads, partial or complete, and the forked/copied instances thereof, A-Life-evolved intelligences, spontaneously self-aware complex programs, etc. etc. are all much more complex, near-term, and, in the full term of things, important issues to the future of the human species' light cone. Pure machine/digital/information-based intelligence is the future of any tool-using sentient species. This resolution, while I voted in the affirmative because it's better than nothing, is at best a minor issue in the face of the larger, non-organic/biological ones.
and for the umpteenth time, NS is NOT soley populated by humans!

and for the umpteenth time, NS is NOT soley populated by humans!

indeed it is not! take me for example. *The GBWT pulls on the fur covering the back of his hands, and indicates his floopy dog-like ears and tail* Do you hear me? Do you see me? Can you understand me? The fact of the mater is, is that if you can see and hear and touch me, i am not a figment of your imagination, and am quite real. And to be quite frank, both I, the inhabitants of GBWT, and the other non human nations i'm sure have taken offence to your atacks on our existance and our eligability to partisipate in these , excuse me, 'United' Nations.

As for the acounting of non biological sapients or intelegents, a note in the end of the resolution, here...
DECLARES that the rights and freedoms of non biological life forms shall be left unaddressed by this resolution and open to separate consideration.
I think that that should answer your question. You are more then welcome to write up legislation to address that compleatly seperate issue and submit it to the NSUN, or to your delegate if you lack endorsments.

We hate to tell you this, but no nation [OOC: or any player, for that matter] is under any obligation to recognize non-human sapience. We kindly refer you to the honorable delegation from Ecopoeia ...

[Fernanda, still seated in the balcony with the Thessadorians and now armed with a Super Soaker™ CPS 2000, takes aim and douses the irascible Mr. Vergniaud ...]

... and while we do recognize non-human sapience ...

[With malicious glee, Fernanda fires upon the Ausserlander dwarf who punched him in the nads just the other night ...]

... we are in no position to impose our view of the NS multiverse on any other nation.

[Fernanda has the TLA rep in his sight ...]

Jack Riley
Ambassador to the United Nations

... we are in no position to impose our view of the NS multiverse on any other nation.



The thing I always find amusing by this argument being used in the blanket context is that it fails to answer the question, why are you even in these United Nations then? An organization who's duty it is to regulate international manners and to promote a better world for all. Why not just save yourself the trouble and leave sir Kenneth? If you don't have any interest in joining with others to create internationally recognized rules and the like, why even let yourself be subject to them? It seems quite, illogical.

Participation in an international body such as the UN is voluntary. Its rules only go as far as its member's boarders do. There are many arguements about weather the UN should be small but absolutists in its scope, or large with few rules. But in either case, the UN should fit the character of those that are members of it. But to support no rules eliminates the function of the UN all togeather. In that case, those that wish to have international rule of law will have to form an indepedendant organization. But I'm sure you'll move to infest that one as well with your anti-internationalism.

Well those are hardly the grounds for our opposition to this article. We have already stated (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10121993#post10121993) the reasons for our opposition.

Apart from that, we take umbrage at the rather catty and stale "If you don't like it, then leave" line. Voluntary membership is no excuse for making bad law. And what's more, you already know that.

From here on out, you will address us as "Ambassador Riley." We will respond to no other styling from your delegation. Thank you.

There's a big difference between your stated reasons for voting a certain way and the real reasons for voting a certain way.

Enlighten us: What are the real reasons for our "voting a certain way"?

This is rediclous. Not everything needs to have rights. You are going to far. You might as well have it so a rock has the same rights as me.

This is rediclous. Not everything needs to have rights. You are going to far. You might as well have it so a rock has the same rights as me.Slippery Slope (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html) fallacy.

I'm just saying, this is just too liberal.

Then give a rational argument against, not some illogical nonsense. There are plenty of reasons to oppose (see the link above provided by Omigodtheykilledkenny) with making the ridiculous parallel to granting rights to rocks. It does nothing aside from make your argument worthless.

"I would suggest that all non-human nations currently members of the UN should simply leave and form your own organisation, rather than rooting for this proposal. This proposal will never go through in any format, as the UN is a strictly humanist organisation. As clearly shown by history, humans are intolerant, and even now after hundreds of wars and civil disturbances, they are still incapable of accepting certain races of their own species. What chance do you think you have of being accepted by them? Given the results this proposal has already, I am going to say that the chance is low. Leave the ship now before it sinks."

Bonfaaz Burntfur

Was not the goal of promating tolerance and peace the exact reason the United Nations was Formed?

We of the Community of Kitsune Clans acknowledge that the representitive of The United Clans of The Charr is correct on the fact that humans have commited such wars and attrocities even amoung factions of themselves. To say that this is impossible is a defeatest view, we believe that given time this goal can achieved and would be representive of the goal of this organization

This is rediclous. Not everything needs to have rights. You are going to far. You might as well have it so a rock has the same rights as me.

It takes a brave man to admit having the IQ of a rock.

Apart from that, we take umbrage at the rather catty and stale "If you don't like it, then leave" line. Voluntary membership is no excuse for making bad law. And what's more, you already know that.

Well put, Mr. Riley.

Was not the goal of promating tolerance and peace the exact reason the United Nations was Formed?

We of the Community of Kitsune Clans acknowledge that the representitive of The United Clans of The Charr is correct on the fact that humans have commited such wars and attrocities even amoung factions of themselves. To say that this is impossible is a defeatest view, we believe that given time this goal can achieved and would be representive of the goal of this organization

We congratulate the honourable representative for the Community of Kitsune Clans for his succinct and correct extrapolation of the values embodied by this resolution. The U.N. must act to guarantee that all sapient beings are given the rights necessary to function and operate as equals within human society, else we contradict, as I have previously stated, the notions of human rights that we grant to ourselves. If we leave Sapient Creatures in a state of inferiority, then they will be given fewer chances to develop and reach the heights of civilisation we accord to ourselves. We are saddened that this resolution will be defeated, but we hope to see the day when the racism and xenophobia of those delegates opposing this measure, shall be swept aside by the tide in favour of egalitarianism.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Was not the goal of promating tolerance and peace the exact reason the United Nations was Formed?

No, it wasn't.

We congratulate the honourable representative for the Community of Kitsune Clans for his succinct and correct extrapolation of the values embodied by this resolution. ... We are saddened that this resolution will be defeated, but we hope to see the day when the racism and xenophobia of those delegates opposing this measure, shall be swept aside by the tide in favour of egalitarianism.If your goal is to promote "tolerance" among the UN membership, you might refrain from accusing honorable delegates of this body of "racism and xenophobia" just because they disagree with you. Just a suggestion.

If your goal is to promote "tolerance" among the UN membership, you might refrain from accusing honorable delegates of this body of "racism and xenophobia" just because they disagree with you. Just a suggestion.

Silence, you racist xenophobe! :p

Silence you same comment cluichstani citizen!:p

If your goal is to promote "tolerance" among the UN membership, you might refrain from accusing honorable delegates of this body of "racism and xenophobia" just because they disagree with you. Just a suggestion.

I should have been more careful in my phrasing, which was rather too sweeping I will concede. I was merely venting my frustration at the arguments of many of those who opposed this legislation, which appeared to me prejudiced by a disdain for non-human sapients.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

If the UN doesn't stand to promote peace amongst it's members, then please, tell us, what exactly does it stand for?

Regarding the current vote tally. We have a list of nations and regions that have decided that our people are not worthy of recognition as citizens. Trade embargoes are now in place and travel between our nations is severely restricted. We will not, however, leave the UN at this time, as our citizens are urging us, and will rather continue to atempt to promote the rights of all and peace between nations dispite the dispicable ideals of the voting majority.

Well, despite all the loud bleats, growls, moos, dwarvish grunts, and cockroach sounds, it seems that sanity has prevailed at least temporarily. At least until another hormone crazed, socially disadvantaged adolescent comes up with another drug induced proposal.

All the sane people (that's right - people) who voted down this dreck should now leave the building in an orderly fashion as the workmen are starting to tent off areas of the building in preparation for an evening of pest euthanasia - that's right, BUG BOMBS.

The entire UN will be open tomorrow morning for business. I would have said business as usual, but if these bombs work, I think we'll find it much more sane ande enjoyable.

Oh, and uh, Yelda? Why don't you stick around and see if you can find your sense of humor? Besides, the smell would probably be an improvement.

Long Live RAID,

Black Flag
Keeping the UN Pest Free

Was not the goal of promating tolerance and peace the exact reason the United Nations was Formed?
No, it wasn't.

If it wasnt formed for that reason, then what was it formed as? A way for people to argue? That seems to be what is being accomplished here. Just saying that you dont agree isnt enough- if you want your opinion to be understood, you have to explain it. If you dont want people to understand, then why post at all?

If it wasnt formed for that reason, then what was it formed as? A way for people to argue? That seems to be what is being accomplished here. Just saying that you dont agree isnt enough- if you want your opinion to be understood, you have to explain it.

Alright: please demonstrate any form of evidence showing the UN was 'formed for promoting peace and tolerance'. (Although it might seem I'm setting you a challenge, I wouldn't actually bother: you won't find any, as it doesn't exist.)

Alright: please demonstrate any form of evidence showing the UN was 'formed for promoting peace and tolerance'. (Although it might seem I'm setting you a challenge, I wouldn't actually bother: you won't find any, as it doesn't exist.)

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that though the U.N. was not founded with the explicit intent to promote peace and tolerance, it has set a legislative precedent in this regard and thus this should be considered a de facto aim of the organisation.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The resolution "Rights of Biological Sapients" was defeated 7,949 votes to 4,783.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that though the U.N. was not founded with the explicit intent to promote peace and tolerance, it has set a legislative precedent in this regard and thus this should be considered a de facto aim of the organisation.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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


It has also set a legislative precedent for endorsing woolly-minded propositions and bad science: Should supporting those types of activity therefore be considered de facto aims of this organisation as well?
;-)

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that though the U.N. was not founded with the explicit intent to promote peace and tolerance, it has set a legislative precedent in this regard and thus this should be considered a de facto aim of the organisation.

I dislike basing 'de facto aims' on that which can - and will - be repealed. No thanks. The UN was set up 'to improve the world one resolution at a time'. How we interpret that is up to us.

I dislike basing 'de facto aims' on that which can - and will - be repealed. No thanks. The UN was set up 'to improve the world one resolution at a time'. How we interpret that is up to us.
Is the world to be improved by denying equal rights to beings, or to support wars? I believe not.

Is the world to be improved by denying equal rights to beings, or to support wars? I believe not.

What does 'I believe not' refer to? You're giving two options...

Anyway, 'equal rights' is a stupid term. Should I have the right to an abortion? If so, fine, but then it's meaningless, and degrades the concept of 'rights'. And wars can be good, especially where they spread justice. Assuming the UN is built on 'peace and tolerance' is just as fallacious as assuming it was built on 'war and intolerance'.

Thank god it's been defeated. It was so restricting, just like my underwear.

It is a sad day for the garden gnomes and other sentient creatures of the world. Perhaps one day we will all sit down at the table of brotherhood and join hands in unity.

As my government feared, the UN has FAILED to continue with its efforts to spread freedom.

Despite the immature jokes about the extermination of the non-humans who are a part of this body, we are here to stay, and we will be back to achieve the rights that we deserve.

If there is to be a new attempt, at this point Tinis has the following recomendations to assist in crafting a resolution that will not illict so much irrational fear and bigotry as this last one has. First, a new attempt should take place in two parts, a resolution that defines sentients, sapients, biological, and any other terms that might be necessary to try to deny nay-sayers the easy arguement of 'oh, that's not the right word!' when indeed the right words are being used. This first resolution will not make any guarantees of rights or obligations of any UN state.

The second resolution shall be the resolution granting equal rights. It will call upon the definitions in the first resolution as a basis and then will contained a detail explaination of how the UN will recogonize non-human intelligent beings. It must contain the creation of a council or organization explicitly to review applications of recognition. It must assure people that this rule is not to give unintelligent beings such as the family dog kept by many humans equal rights. And it must contain warnings that indeed there are abuses of non-human intelligent beings taking place right now that must be halted.

I sincerily hope that this body will take my recomendations to heart. If not, the Union of Tinis will be working with those who are interested in guranteeing rights to craft these resolutions ourselves and to campaign for them independantly of the normal channels of advertisement.

However, the Union of Tinis also has lost some respect for the majority of the UN. As such, until we are recognized as having equal rights to humans, we shall begin a campaign to halt business on the UN floor. We call upon all those who support equal rights for all to vote AGAINST any and all UN resolutions and repeals until a resolution is put to vote that will gunaratee equal rights for non-humans. Our intentions are not to 'fight' the UN, but to guarantee we are not marginalized any furthur. In fact, since we'll be voting against repeals as well as resolutions, so this won't be a campaing against the good laws that area already on the books. It will be a protest.

Good day.

Well, if you intend to vote against all RESOLUTIONS, that would mean you will be voting FOR the Repeal of Res. #135: Right to Divorce, and AGAINST the Chemical Weaponry Ban. We sincerely wish you luck in your spiteful gridlock campaign. ;)

The Nation of The Great Big Wet Thing backs The Union in all points of their course of action.

I'm glad that the Union of Tinis wants to stay in the UN.

I may have been opposing the proposal but UN law applies to all member states equally regardless of their species.

If your beef is with the UN Bill of rights specifically mentioning 'human rights' then try to repeal and replace it with something more inclusive.

I wasn't around in these halls when the bill of rights was passed but i'm sure that the intention was that the term human rights could transcend species.

If we had non-humans living in Kirisubo they would have the same rights, privilages and responsibilities as anyone else would have. A citzen of a UN nation enjoys the rights and responsibilities that UN laws give them regardless of their species and the failure of this proposal will not change that fact.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

I wish to thank this august body on behalf of the Citizens of the Palentine. Especially our women and children, and most importantly our foul mouthed friends in the sea, the Palentine Navy Dolphins. Respecting the sensebilities of this august body I will refrain from repeating exactly how they phrased their thanks.:D
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

<Sen Sulla reaches behind the podium and pulls out a six...err five pack of Iron City, and a Super Soaker.> "Time To celebrate....Water Fight!!!"<he opens a beer and takes aim at the Thessadorian Section with the Soaker>:D

As perviously stated The Community of Kitsune Clans stands alongside in with The Union of Tinis in future action.
It also disheartens the citizens of my fair land that this resoultion was defeated and by such a large majority.

While many failed resolutions were a shame to not have passed, this proposal failing is an attrocity. The failure shows a complete failing by this body to understand that humans are not alone on this planet, we are not the only sapient species and many others deserve recognition. However, it goes even farther than that - even those that fail to recognize this fact and yet still voted against it show a total contempt for the powers that might be out there in the galaxy. Of all the would be resolutions, none compare in importance to this one.

As the Prime Minister, Delegate and UN representative of the United Nations of Aberdeen, I state to this body that we must push forward and try again. We must raise awareness of our intelligent fellows and the rights they deserve but are not granted by the UN. We MUST protect the rights of those citizens of other nations who are not human.

Well, if you intend to vote against all RESOLUTIONS, that would mean you will be voting FOR the Repeal of Res. #135: Right to Divorce, and AGAINST the Chemical Weaponry Ban. We sincerely wish you luck in your spiteful gridlock campaign. ;)

Incorrect. The Union of Tinis will vote AGAINST the Repeal of Res #135 and AGAINST the Chemical Weaponry Ban. Our intent as I said is not to tear down the UN, but to stand against any action is it wishes to take until the citizens of my nation are recognized.

And my countries beef is not with any one resolution. If it was that simple then yes we would seek to repeal the human rights resolution. But it goes beyond that. If we were to replace that resolution what about the next time that humans were granted special rights? No, a resolution must pass that grants rights to all intelligent beings.

The Union of Tinis once again calls on all nations who support equal rights for all to vote against any and all UN business until an equal rights resolution for all is constructed and brought to the floor.

As the Prime Minister, Delegate and UN representative of the United Nations of Aberdeen, I state to this body that we must push forward and try again. We must raise awareness of our intelligent fellows and the rights they deserve but are not granted by the UN. We MUST protect the rights of those citizens of other nations who are not human.

Considering the number of people who thought this applied to cows and monkeys, or complained that we were misspelling "sapien" or "sentient", we're considering just replacing all instances of "sapient" and "sapience" with "intelligent" and "intelligence" and resubmitting it just to see how many hundreds if not thousand of votes swing because of the substitution of a near synonym. And a less appropriate one at that.

We might also include the clause:

"RECOGNIZING that yes, there are non humans in the UN. And they can walk and speak and use dinnerware and everything..."

...just as a kind of textual smack upside the head to certain parties who appear to never visit the UN despite being members.

OOC: No, I won't really include that clause. I really don't care if you want to RP in a setting that doesn't include the existence of these beings and I won't put a clause in the resolution that would force everyone to acknowledge their existence in character rather than just the possibility of that existence. Fine. They don't exist for you. So they'll never show up making this request and requiring you to give them any rights. So this resolution (and it will be reworked... very slightly... and resubmitted) will cost you exactly nothing... so if you can't bring yourself to vote for it then at least abstain and don't screw over all the people who don't RP the same way you do, or come up with a better reason for voting against.

<Sen Sulla reaches behind the podium and pulls out a six...err five pack of Iron City, and a Super Soaker.> "Time To celebrate....Water Fight!!!"<he opens a beer and takes aim at the Thessadorian Section with the Soaker>:D[Sulla's Soaker fire hits the Thessadorian ambassador, who screams and quickly covers herself up. What do you know? The one day she decides to wear a white T-shirt! Her Water Balloon Security Detail are fast to respond with 15 carefully aimed volleys straight into the Palentine delegation.

[Fernanda, meanwhile, sneaks up behind the ambassador from Tinis and vigorously wedgies him till he cries; he then runs from the hall, slapping Forgottenlord upside the head as he goes.]

our comiserations go to the author. but dont give up, just go back to the drawing board and resub. oh, and as a suggestion, next time, start a new thread for the vote topic, and point out that there are already sapient species in the NSUN other than human, list them off, then post the proposal.

our comiserations go to the author. but dont give up, just go back to the drawing board and resub. oh, and as a suggestion, next time, start a new thread for the vote topic, and point out that there are already sapient species in the NSUN other than human, list them off, then post the proposal.

I still do not believe one has to recognise the existence of non-human intelligence to support - or oppose - the resolution. I do not think it is unreasonable to debate a grand 'what if'.

I still do not believe one has to recognise the existence of non-human intelligence to support - or oppose - the resolution. I do not think it is unreasonable to debate a grand 'what if'.
the biggest thing that sunk that resolution was people saying "we arent going to give (insert random animal here) rights!" or "Humans are the only ones that exist". maybe just a little piece explaining that this is nationstates, and in its nature, these sapients exist.

the biggest thing that sunk that resolution was people saying "we arent going to give (insert random animal here) rights!" or "Humans are the only ones that exist". maybe just a little piece explaining that this is nationstates, and in its nature, these sapients exist.

Sigh. These sapients DO NOT HAVE TO EXIST for one to acknowledge the proposal. It is a 'possibility'. I choose to recognise Ausserland's dwarves, but I accept if people don't want to. All I'd ask is they acknowledge the possibility.

maybe just a little piece explaining that this is nationstates, and in its nature, these sapients exist.


Agree, Maybe the best proof is this:) :
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Category:Species

Also, in the draft threads, some people as _Myopia_ wanted to include some criteria to define sapient, maybe a good direction

the biggest thing that sunk that resolution was people saying "we arent going to give (insert random animal here) rights!" or "Humans are the only ones that exist". maybe just a little piece explaining that this is nationstates, and in its nature, these sapients exist.[semi-OOC:] How many times must we repeat ourselves? It's a question of perception. Nations and players do not need to recognize such non-human sapience if they don't want to, because this is a, how do you call it? game, and there is no need to patronize and assume the ignorance of those who oppose sapient rights just because they don't play the same way you do.

We kindly petition some of the members of this hall to get a fucking life.

Agree, Maybe the best proof is this:) :
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Category:Species

Also, in the draft threads, some people as _Myopia_ wanted to include some criteria to define sapient, maybe a good direction
thanks for that link. i was wanting to add some 'catpeople' to TLA (population composition is very much WIP) and now you have given me some ideas.

Well, daahlings, it seems that, this time round, the simple aim of ensuring that the rights of all sapients are protected hasn't been achieved by direct diplomacy.

My government does not feel that threatening to hold our breath till we turn blue in the face, or chucking the contents of the toybox all over the floor, or taking our bat and ball and going home, are appropriate means of persuading the rest of the UN to come around to our point of view.

Consequently, with the full support of our citizens, we will continue a program of indirect diplomacy. Through our universities, our major business organisations and our unions, Lloegeyrians already sponsor any number of means by which interspecies co-operation may be developed.

I would urge sapient non-humans to apply for one of the many programs, such as the renowned Chifley Scholarship and the international Joern Utzon Prize, which my nation hosts to encourage the recognition of intelligence, regardless of the form it wears.

We will certainly consider the suggestion of several delegates that trade be employed as a means to this end. We do not yet support the imposition of blanket boycotts or sanctions, but we pledge to examine our relations with all nations in the light of their treatment of, or attitude toward, non-humans, and to limit or end those connections which prove unsuitable.

Right, that's the end of the official stuff. Now, sweeties, I have to say, if I'm to follow the spirit, as well as the letter, of my government's instructions about indirect diplomacy I'll have to get to know everyone better, so I hope to see you at my next little soiree! It's at 7pm on December 27, to fill in that annoying no-party time between Christmas and New Year; do come, but don't bring those naughty Super-Soakers, boys!

*subsides, waving a chiding finger at the Kennyites*

Well, daahlings, it seems that, this time round, the simple aim of ensuring that the rights of all sapients are protected hasn't been achieved by direct diplomacy.

My government does not feel that threatening to hold our breath till we turn blue in the face, or chucking the contents of the toybox all over the floor, or taking our bat and ball and going home, are appropriate means of persuading the rest of the UN to come around to our point of view.

Consequently, with the full support of our citizens, we will continue a program of indirect diplomacy. Through our universities, our major business organisations and our unions, Lloegeyrians already sponsor any number of means by which interspecies co-operation may be developed.

I would urge sapient non-humans to apply for one of the many programs, such as the renowned Chifley Scholarship and the international Joern Utzon Prize, which my nation hosts to encourage the recognition of intelligence, regardless of the form it wears.

We will certainly consider the suggestion of several delegates that trade be employed as a means to this end. We do not yet support the imposition of blanket boycotts or sanctions, but we pledge to examine our relations with all nations in the light of their treatment of, or attitude toward, non-humans, and to limit or end those connections which prove unsuitable.

Right, that's the end of the official stuff. Now, sweeties, I have to say, if I'm to follow the spirit, as well as the letter, of my government's instructions about indirect diplomacy I'll have to get to know everyone better, so I hope to see you at my next little soiree! It's at 7pm on December 27, to fill in that annoying no-party time between Christmas and New Year; do come, but don't bring those naughty Super-Soakers, boys!

*subsides, waving a chiding finger at the Kennyites*

A drenched Sen. Horatio Sulla crawls up from behind his desk and fires a blast from his Super-Soaker at the Lloegeyr delegation. Then he says,
"looks like you forgot about my Super-Soaker,mate.The party sounds like a good idea,bud. I'll bring some Iron City and Wild Turkey."
He then quickly dives for cover underneath his desk.

Ave atque vale, Reformentia.

The Intangelonian Senate has passed legislation recognizing and holding in trust the rights and enfranchisement of the newly-discovered sapient non-humans in the forests and seas of Intangelon. As of this passage, the sable beaver, the pixilated mallard, and mallow moss have all demonstrated sapience. All three of these species have declined the rights offered by the Senate. As such, the Senate elected to hold those rights in trust in perpetuity until such time as these and any other discovered species desire to claim them...or until we anthropocentric Senators figure out a better way to approach the new and complex issue of extending similar rights to dissimilar societies.

We once again apologize for our earlier anthropocentric outbursts and urge the resolution's authors to try again.

Magister Jubal Harshaw of Intangelon