NationStates Jolt Archive

The Dominion of Miriana humbly requests your support.
We do not expect all to agree with us however we do ask that you read our suggestion and take it into considderation.

We thank you for the time you have taken just to take a look at our suggestion and will be glad to offer you the same respects in time.

Sincerely
Freetha Jones
UN Ambassador
The Dominion of Miriana


Repeal "Banning whaling"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Resolution: #70

Proposed by: Miriana

Description: UN Resolution #70: Banning whaling (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The ideals behind resolution #70 are noble and any attempt to protect endangered species is commendable.

The reasons we have for you to consider are the following.

1. UNCoESB or Resolution #119 already has a article (#7.) which makes the hunting of endangered species completely illegal. Therefor other resolutions to the same extent are not needed as is proven by the subsequent repeal of the Protection of Dolphins Act (UN resolution #106)

2. In resolution #70 all species of whales are treated equally. However we know they breed at different rate and some species of whale are at this point far from extinction even to the point where they have become a pest.

3. Faulty terminology. Over-fishing does not apply to whales as they are hunted, not fished.

4. The apparent intelligence and social capabilities of other animals has not driven us to make it completely illegal to hunt them and so resolution #70 is speciest.

The resolution is obviously outdated and redundant and should therefor be repealed.

Voting Ends: Wed Aug 2 2006

Always post what you are repealing in your post. So here is the resolution .

Description: Recognising that:

* Overfishing is a serious problem which is depleting the marine environment by upsetting its natural ecosystem.

* Whales are a highly-developed mammal with advanced social and communications systems.

* Whales already face many threats including entanglement in fishing nets, noise disturbance and pollution.

* Whaling has already driven the world's whale population to the brink of extinction before the present moratorium was put in place.

* The current motorised harpoon method of killing whales is barbarous, causing a slow and agonising death to the creature involved.

* There is little that can now be learned from 'scientific whaling'. Scientific enquiry can take place without the need for slaughtering its subjects.

* A voluntary moratorium on whaling is not working. Pro-whaling nations will simply subvert it for their own ends by vote-buying or by abusing so-called 'scientific whaling'.

Proposing that:

* Unlicenced scientific and all commercial whaling are outlawed in international law. Nations that flout this ban are subject to economic sanctions and whalers' boats can be impounded and destroyed.

* A commission is set up by the United Nations to study the effects of overfishing and on other human activities on the marine ecosystem, and to propose solutions. If it sees a genuine need for scientific whaling, then it is empowered to licence limited scientific whaling.

* Indigenous peoples who engage in 'aboriginal whaling' using traditional non-industrial methods and taking only a small number of whales each year, to be exempt from the ban. A register of such peoples to be set up by the UN.

Votes For: 12,385
Votes Against: 3,684

Implemented: Mon Aug 23 2004

Always post what you are repealing in your post
I can't help but notice you're the only one who ever gets upset - or even remotely cares - about this.

I can't help but notice you're the only one who ever gets upset - or even remotely cares - about this.
I don't really get upset... I do post the resolution every time I see one though. Me upset is a long post that starts making sense then goes into inchoherent repetitive drivel:) .

I can't help but notice you're the only one who ever gets upset - or even remotely cares - about this.

I (and Flibs too) make the suggestion when I can, but he usually gets to it before anyone else.

Let's have a looksie.

The ideals behind resolution #70 are noble and any attempt to protect endangered species is commendable.
Agreed.

The reasons we have for you to consider are the following.
Who is "we" and who is "you"? That's borderline branding. When Resolutions are on the books, they ought to say that the UN does or says something. Not we, or you, or I, or anything else. Pronouns = bad in official writing.

1. UNCoESB or Resolution #119 already has a article (#7.) which makes the hunting of endangered species completely illegal. Therefor other resolutions to the same extent are not needed as is proven by the subsequent repeal of the Protection of Dolphins Act (UN resolution #106)Alright.

2. In resolution #70 all species of whales are treated equally. However we know they breed at different rate and some species of whale are at this point far from extinction even to the point where they have become a pest.Got an example? Because I'm hard pressed to think of any place in the world with an over-population of whales.

3. Faulty terminology. Over-fishing does not apply to whales as they are hunted, not fished.So what?

4. The apparent intelligence and social capabilities of other animals has not driven us to make it completely illegal to hunt them and so resolution #70 is speciest.
.... That'd be funny, if I didn't think you were serious.

The resolution is obviously outdated and redundant and should therefor be repealed.This sounds pompous to me. Get rid of the word obviously. I don't like catering to superiority complexes, so avoid any words that seem insulting or foppish.

I have a very high standard for repeals. Points 3 and 4 are plenty reasons for me to not vote for this repeal.

Random statement of useless trivia:

I'm pretty sure the term would be "speciesist".

[EDIT]: I can't believe I just wasted my 400th post on that statement.

I (and Flibs too) make the suggestion when I can, but he usually gets to it before anyone else.

No, I only complain when people don't post their proposals, I could care less whether or not anyone post the text of a resolution that they want to repeal.

No, I only complain when people don't post their proposals, I could care less whether or not anyone post the text of a resolution that they want to repeal.

Potato, potahto.

Anyway, we support a repeal, but feel it's best to concentrate on the duplication with UNCoESB.

Anyway, we support a repeal, but feel it's best to concentrate on the duplication with UNCoESB.

Agreed. Quibbling over terminology isn't the best of arguments.

Originally Posted by Newfoundcanada
Always post what you are repealing in your post

I can't help but notice you're the only one who ever gets upset - or even remotely cares - about this.

We're afraid our distinguished colleague and friend from Gruenberg is mistaken. Our delegation doesn't get upset, but we do care. Posting the text of the original resolution along with a repeal is a convenience for members who might want to examine the original text. It's simply a courtesy -- and courtesy towards people whose votes you seek is smart politics.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We think we would support a repeal of NSUN Resolution #70 as redundant with NSUN Resolution #119. We're not sure, though, because environmental protection isn't our strong suit. We'd wait to hear the opinions of more knowledgeable members before deciding. That being said, some comments....

1. UNCoESB or Resolution #119 already has a article (#7.) which makes the hunting of endangered species completely illegal. Therefor other resolutions to the same extent are not needed as is proven by the subsequent repeal of the Protection of Dolphins Act (UN resolution #106)

It seems to us that this is true. We'd hesitate to cite the repeal of #106 in a repeal, though. No sense raising the dander of those who opposed that repeal. And, picking nits, it's "therefore".

2. In resolution #70 all species of whales are treated equally. However we know they breed at different rate and some species of whale are at this point far from extinction even to the point where they have become a pest.

We'dlike to see something substantiating this claim.

3. Faulty terminology. Over-fishing does not apply to whales as they are hunted, not fished.

The comment is technically correct, but we suggest deleting the clause. It has the appearance of "piling on arguments", which weakens the force of the main argument.

4. The apparent intelligence and social capabilities of other animals has not driven us to make it completely illegal to hunt them and so resolution #70 is speciest.

As someone pointed out earlier, it's "speciesist". And we think it's stretching some to apply the term here. It's generally taken to mean a chauvinistic attitude toward one's own species to the detriment of another. And we don't see the clause as necessary.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I've got a new game. I'm just not going to bother making it rainbow colored or fancy, cuz the tags would be ridiculously long.

NAME THAT FALLACY!!! [Spanish Flea song]4. The apparent intelligence and social capabilities of other animals has not driven us to make it completely illegal to hunt them and so resolution #70 is speciest.

What logical fallacy lies within this clause? 15 seconds, GO!

We support this resolution due to its superfluousness and because it protects non-endangered species, which would be too restricitve, such as the minke whale. The Japanese (IRL) hunt them in their thousands every year (no sources, sorry - you'll have to look for them yourself). And yes, whales DO have differing reproductive cycles (is it really necessary to quote some in the repeal?). Compare the African elephant and the Indian elephant with the blue whale and the minke whale. Non-endangered whales or those with shorter reproductive cycles may also outcompete whales few in numbers and/or that have longer time periods between each generation.

WHO CARES?? I mean this is remotely stupid. I mean you can do better than
this. Come up with a resolution that will be sound and beneficial, not some stupid ploy. You are just wasting our valuable time.

Sincerely,

Supreme President Klaus Lehmann
of Unified Narnia

I've got a new game. I'm just not going to bother making it rainbow colored or fancy, cuz the tags would be ridiculously long.

NAME THAT FALLACY!!! [Spanish Flea song]

What logical fallacy lies within this clause? 15 seconds, GO!


You think there's just one?

Maybe a tight control on all whaler's and a tax on whale skins, oil etc.

I've got a new game. I'm just not going to bother making it rainbow colored or fancy, cuz the tags would be ridiculously long.

NAME THAT FALLACY!!! [Spanish Flea song]
4. The apparent intelligence and social capabilities of other animals has not driven us to make it completely illegal to hunt them and so resolution #70 is speciest.

What logical fallacy lies within this clause? 15 seconds, GO!

That a more moral response to the contradiction noted in that clause would be to ban the hunting of those other intelligent species (such as Dolphins, the repeal of whose protection from hunting was opposed by St Edmund) too?

I support a repeal of "Banning Whaling" and most of the other early environmental legislation as well. Most of it's just poorly-constructed legislation with good intentions behind it. I prefer to see well-constructed legislation with good intentions behind it.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

You think there's just one?

No, I just mean the major one.

I've been informed that I can't do any game show stuff, cuz we don't have prizes to give. So...

Yeah.... -reaches over, pushes "stop"- [/Spanish Flea song]

-snip-
And now that I bring the damn thing up, I can't recall the name. But it's the no-no that says because we don't do something for situation A, we should not do it for situation B. Trying to force consistency unnecessarily kinda thing.

WHO CARES?? I mean this is remotely stupid. I mean you can do better than
this. Come up with a resolution that will be sound and beneficial, not some stupid ploy. You are just wasting our valuable time.

Sincerely,

Supreme President Klaus Lehmann
of Unified Narnia


http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/Buttons/TrollButton.jpg

And now that I bring the damn thing up, I can't recall the name. But it's the no-no that says because we don't do something for situation A, we should not do it for situation B. Trying to force consistency unnecessarily kinda thing.

Ah, argumentum ad antiquitatem, or appeal to tradition.