NationStates Jolt Archive

Not yet submitted. Any ideas, comments, suggestions, etc., will be greatly appreciated.

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

Unnecessary Animal Cruelty
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strengh: Significant
Description:

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

Recognizing the cruelty and inhumane treatment to which a great number of animals are continuously and unnecessarily subject to;

Acknowledging animals’ basic freedom from needless torture and abuse;

Horrified by the widespread practice of so-called ‘blood sports’, such as bullfighting or dog fighting, in a legal manner;

Disgusted at how certain individuals and organizations make an economic profit from the affliction, agony, and death of animals as a public spectacle,

Not considering the use of cultural importance as a valid argument defending the intentional infliction of pain and torture of animals for the purpose of entertainment or recreation, and;

In an attempt to eradicate the dispensable suffering of other living beings;

1) Defines, for the purpose of this resolution:
a) The term ''animal'' as every non-sapient non-botanical living being.
b) The term ''legal biomedical research'' as the scientific tests, experiments, or investigations conducted by any individual, institution or organization which has been given permission to perform such activities by competent authorities in accordance with standing UN Resolutions.
c) The term ''proper shelter'' as (i) area with sufficient space to allow the animal to easily stand, sit, lie, turn about, and make all other normal body movements in a comfortable, normal position for the animal and (ii) adequate shelter which is safe and protects the animal from injury, physical suffering, and impairment of health.
d) The term ''proper veterinary care'' as any veterinary treatment needed to prevent suffering or impairment of health.

2) Mandates that:
a) The following shall be strictly prohibited:
i) Torturing, cruelly beating, overdriving, overloading, causing substantial bodily harm or tormenting any animal.
ii) Maliciously or recklessly injuring, wounding, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, mutilating or killing any animal.
iii) Knowingly and wilfully depriving any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink.
iv) Wilfully depriving any animal of proper shelter or proper veterinary care.
v) Knowingly and wilfully causing or procuring any of the aforementioned.

b) The following shall be exempted from the above clause:
i) Activities conducted for the primary purpose of and strictly required for providing food for human or animal consumption.
ii) Activities conducted for purposes of legal biomedical research.
iii) Professional veterinary practices performed in the interests of an animal's health or welfare.
iv) The destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health.
v) The humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death.

c) No animal shall be forced, instigated, or in any way encouraged to fight another animal.

d) All public or social activities displaying, exhibiting or involving the substantial bodily suffering of or the intentional infliction of significant physical pain on any animal for any reason or purpose shall be prevented and banned.

3) Urges members to increase the awareness of animal cruelty through education, and;

4) Further encourages the adoption of policies and regulations to preserve the basic dignity of all animals.

Try to see if you can glean anything from This thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=525891)

i hope it helps

p.s. as silly as this sounds you might have to prove animals feel pain

p.s. as silly as this sounds you might have to prove animals feel pain

I felt this point as completely ridiculous and not needed to be addressed. Anyone having come in contact with any kind of animal on some point in their lives, maybe just a dog, knows that they feel pain as much as any human would.

Try stabbing a bull with a sword, observe his reaction, and dare to say that it doesn't resemble what any human would do.

The idea is very good. The anti meters you are taking in order to...prevent animals from being hurt by humans are not very efficient i believe. Try changing it in "Every nation must adjust their educational program" etc. I mean that you are saying the pain is banned; you mean kids or scientists working in the name of health? This is what i am trying to tell you; It is a UN proposal and it defines exactly, from every point what UN members must do if they vote for it. I hope you understand what i mean. Anyway, i am not here to tell you what to do, no offense, but to give you a little help.
I wouldn't vote for it. Because although the idea is good, as i said before, the meters you are taking aren't "saying" anything.
Good luck and take care!

@Worldwide Ministries: Actually that's a really good point. I haven't specifically addressed what the resolution's stance is relating to science. Thanks for the feedback, really appreciate it.

And please, this is a draft. It's supposed to be critisized for its improvement! ;)

Changed to:

2. Any sort of pain inflicted on animals will be strictly condemned, with the exception of that,
a. directly required for the production of food or other goods deriving from such animals,
b. necessary for educational, scientific, and/or research purposes.

I believe you should also include wild animals as well as their envirroment. Make their areas sensitive areas so you can secure their survival. Note that there won't be required any budget raising for further construction. Just a definition of a secure area. That's all i can think for now. I am really looking forward to this proposal. I will keep an eye on this.;)

Wild animals... seems I have not yet developed a position on the hunting of animals...

Anyhow, this resolution wasn't aimed for environmental purposes, but rather to prevent all unnecessary animal cruelty (how about this as a resolution title?). Maybe the aim of the proposal wasn't sufficiently clear..?

Again, thanks for your support. :)

Added:

1a. This includes the practice of all hunting and fishing not intended for human consumption.

"1. All forms of public expression involving the intentional physical and/or psychological suffering of animals will be banned."

Meaning that? Kids won't be allowed to throw stones at animals, or hikers killing an animal in the purpose of self defence?

Define that paragraph and the antimeters for possible actions that do not apply with that paragraph.
Don't urge nations to add animal classes in educational programs.
This resolution must do that.;)

"I note that clause 2a does not forbid, for example, the farming of bears for bile, which is practiced to supply certain traditional "medicines". While I firmly believe that animals must suffer if it is necessary to alleviate human suffering, there should be some way to stem abuses such as this, and the proposal at hand should cover such situations."

~ Margaret Andrea Morgan Cheltenham, FIHTL Ambassador to the UN

You should probably add:
2.c. necessary for the saving of human lives.

You have full support from my country.


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

This draft is getting better and better. You should add all the above. We are here to help you after all.

Added:1a. This includes the practice of all hunting and fishing not intended for human consumption.

There are actually quite a few nations in the NSUN whose populations include intelligent non-humans too...

While dog fighting and similar forms of entertainment accomplish nothing but maybe a few hours of fun and dead or injured animals, hunting is a form of survival, not only for food, but many other valuable resources that animals can provide. I refuse to support any proposal that restricts hunting in any form.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate for NeoPrussia

"I'd be interested to know where the honourable Ambassador from Jinau stands upon fox hunting, as it is traditionally carried out. Whilst it is unquestionably hunting, it is also unquestionably nothing more than a sport, and has no value in terms of food or other animal products."

~ Margaret Andrea Morgan Cheltenham, FIHTL Ambassador to the UN

I like the idea of ending cruelty to animals but, no recreational hunting and fishing?

"The wording of the preamble of this proposal - which clearly defines the topic as "blood sports" such as dog-fighting, bear-baiting, kickstool-crab tipping, and so forth - seems to be at odds with the mandates put forward - which are more of a blanket ban upon cruelty to animals.

"This proposal may work better if reworded to be instead a ban upon blood sport, rather than a general ban upon animal cruelty - which is much harder to define workably."

~ Margaret Andrea Morgan Cheltenham, FIHTL Ambassador to the UN

"I'd be interested to know where the honourable Ambassador from Jinau stands upon fox hunting, as it is traditionally carried out. Whilst it is unquestionably hunting, it is also unquestionably nothing more than a sport, and has no value in terms of food or other animal products."

~ Margaret Andrea Morgan Cheltenham, FIHTL Ambassador to the UN

I have no problem with hunting for recreation, given that the species of animal being hunted is not threatened by extinction.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate for NeoPrussia

I have no problem with hunting for recreation, given that the species of animal being hunted is not threatened by extinction.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate for NeoPrussia

Besides, the UNCoESB (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UNCoESB) (United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Bill) would kick in, to prevent that.

Jainey Slate
UN Rep

While dog fighting and similar forms of entertainment accomplish nothing but maybe a few hours of fun and dead or injured animals, hunting is a form of survival, not only for food, but many other valuable resources that animals can provide. I refuse to support any proposal that restricts hunting in any form.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate for NeoPrussia

Need not to worry. This resolution only bans recreational hunting, that is, ''all hunting not intended for human consumption''. ;)

Interesting suggestions, I'll go over them all in detail.

P.S. Actually, I'd appreciate a little more input on hunting and fishing. Recreational hunting is nevertheless part of animal cruelty, but it is popular...

"I note that clause 2a does not forbid, for example, the farming of bears for bile, which is practiced to supply certain traditional "medicines". While I firmly believe that animals must suffer if it is necessary to alleviate human suffering, there should be some way to stem abuses such as this, and the proposal at hand should cover such situations."

~ Margaret Andrea Morgan Cheltenham, FIHTL Ambassador to the UN

Addressed.

[quote]b. necessary for educational, scientific, medical and/or research purposes.

;)

"I'm afraid I can't support extending this proposal to cover both blood sport and recreational hunting; the latter is far more controversial, and, I imagine, could well sink an otherwise admirable proposal. I'd encourage you to restrict this proposal to blood sport only for that reason.

"If you feel you must extend it to do so, you should seek to cover also the hunting of pest species, which vary, of course, depending upon the ecosystem. In some nations that includes foxes; in other nations foxes are protected. In the Library it's largely kickstool crabs."

~ Margaret Andrea Morgan Cheltenham, FIHTL Ambassador to the UN

OOC: I'm from New Zealand, practically everything is an introduced pest here. :P

P.S. Actually, I'd appreciate a little more input on hunting and fishing. Recreational hunting is nevertheless part of animal cruelty, but it is popular...

I think that is a step too far. I mean i support ending cruelty to animals, but 2 reasons

1.) if you include ending recreational hunting i really don't think it will be popular with the people who actually read the proposals. then again im only guessing.

2.) No catch and release fishing?, C'mon!

"1. All forms of public expression involving the intentional physical and/or psychological suffering of animals will be banned."

Meaning that? Kids won't be allowed to throw stones at animals, or hikers killing an animal in the purpose of self defence?

How about:

1. Torturing, cruelly beating, or unjustifiably injuring, maiming, mutilating or killing any animal, wheather tamed or wild, or depriving any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, will be strictly forbidden, excluding solely that,
a. directly required for the obtainment or production of food or other goods deriving from such animals,
b. necessary for educational, scientific, medical and/or research purposes.

2. 1. All forms of public expression, where an audience or group of spectators is present, involving the intentional physical and/or psychological suffering of animals for recreational, entertainment, commercial or artistic reasons, will be banned.

Seeing that including or making reference to recreational hunting will probably not lead to this proposal's approval, all mention to such has (I think) been excluded. Please point that out if that's not the case.

Shouldn't you restrict more efficiently hunting and fishing by adjusting them in categories such as illegal and legal. Use licenses that will be provided by the government. Draft the terms for a license to be handed. That's a more efficient way of reducing uneccessary animal suffering.

Shouldn't you restrict more efficiently hunting and fishing by adjusting them in categories such as illegal and legal. Use licenses that will be provided by the government. Draft the terms for a license to be handed. That's a more efficient way of reducing uneccessary animal suffering.

That sounds more like the start of a new proposal. While ''blood-sports'' and animal cruelty are widely unpopular, I find that going into hunting and fishing is a bit off-topic and would probably just lessen the resolution's chances for approval. It's not the basic purpose of this resolution to go into environmental protection, it's mainly to prevent animals from suffering unnecessarily...

"In the Library it's largely kickstool crabs."As long as I'm still allowed to obliterate corner-spiders, I'll be just fine. Oh, and hunting, too. I'm sorry, but a cheeseburger just isn't going to cut it, ya know? And I'm hardly going to go vegan...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

That sounds more like the start of a new proposal. While ''blood-sports'' and animal cruelty are widely unpopular, I find that going into hunting and fishing is a bit off-topic and would probably just lessen the resolution's chances for approval. It's not the basic purpose of this resolution to go into environmental protection, it's mainly to prevent animals from suffering unnecessarily...

Hunting and fishing is legal or/and illegal. Make hunting of bears, foxes, snakes and others illegal because there is no need of those. By adjusting licences you are making a border around the resolution. Hunting of a fox is unnecessary and the animal is suffering. I hope you get what i mean...:cool:

The Dominion questions whether it would be against this bill to
1. kill an ant.
2. remove a pest from your backyard.

Perhaps you should be more specific.

The Dominion

This is what i am saying. You must specify all your points, categories and regulations. You need to cover every view with every detail, written with the simplest way

There should be an exception for pest control and fishing..... who knows what other things. It would be much better to instead ban doing "bad things" to animals for purely recreational purposes.

Though that would still ban recreational fishing. Bleh.

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman
Ambassador representing the Knootian UN Office

This is what i am saying. You must specify all your points, categories and regulations. You need to cover every view with every detail, written with the simplest way

You do realize that there's a maximum size on proposals right?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

yes indeed, that's why i mentioned making it with the simplest way

All your concerns (I believe) have now been addressed:

-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every living vertebrate in the classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, and Mammalia except human beings.

-Mandates that:
1. Torturing, cruelly beating, or maliciously or unjustifiably injuring, tormenting, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, mutilating or killing any animal, wheather tamed or wild, or depriving any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, will be strictly prohibited.

2. The following are excempted from the above rule:
a. Activities conducted for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption.
b. Activities conducted for purposes of biomedical research.
c. The destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health.

3. All forms of public expression, where an audience or group of spectators is present, involving the intentional physical and/or psychological suffering of animals for recreational, entertainment, commercial or artistic reasons, will be banned.

Your comments and suggestions are really helping me out. ;)

Ailyn leans over and mutters to her bodyguard, "So they have to be vertebrates to be covered by this? I can still kick Geonosians around? Sounds good to me."

She chuckles and takes a sip from a flask of Corellian brandy.

What about circuses?

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman
Ambassador representing the Knootian UN Office

What about circuses?

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman
Ambassador representing the Knootian UN Office

I think that's clear enough. As long as they don't:

''...torture, cruelly beat, or maliciously or unjustifiably injure, torment, poison, maim, disfigure, mutilate or kill any animal, wheather tamed or wild, or deprive any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink...''

...they (the circus) will have no conflicts with this proposal, and I do believe elephants aren't subject to any of these in circuses. :)

Uh, was Old Argentina given permission to submit this already?

Category: Moral Decency


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Old Argentina

Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

Recognizing the cruelty and inhumane treatment to which a great number of animals are continuously and unnecessarily subject to;

In agreement with the concept of animal rights;

Acknowledging animals’ basic freedom from needless torture and abuse;

Horrified by the widespread practice of so-called ‘blood sports’, such as bullfighting or dog fighting, in a legal manner;

Shocked at how certain individuals and organizations make a profit from the pain, suffering and death of animals as a public spectacle,

Not considering the use of cultural importance as a valid argument defending the infliction of pain and torture of animals for the purpose of entertainment, and;

In an attempt to eradicate the dispensable agony of other living beings;

-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every living vertebrate in the classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, and Mammalia except human beings.

-Mandates that:
1. Torturing, cruelly beating, or maliciously or unjustifiably injuring, wounding, tormenting, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, mutilating or killing any animal, whether tamed or wild, or depriving any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, will be strictly prohibited.

2. The following are exempted from the above rule:
a. Activities conducted for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption.
b. Activities conducted for purposes of biomedical research.
c. The destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health.

3. All forms of public expression, where an audience or group of spectators is present, involving the intentional physical and/or psychological suffering of animals for recreational, entertainment, commercial or artistic reasons, will be banned.

-Urges members to increase the awareness of animal cruelty through education, and;

-Further encourages the adoption of policies and regulations to preserve the basic dignity of all animals.

Authored by the Members of New Spain

Either way it'll end up being deleted, without permission it's plagurization, with permission the last line is a Branding violation.

Nono, I'm Old Argentina. Old Argentina is my UN Nation. ;)

Nono, I'm Old Argentina. Old Argentina is my UN Nation. ;)

OK then, it's still illegal though the branding rules clearly state that you're allowed to list one nation as a co-author, not a region.

You think?

Repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12412284&postcount=202)

Repeal "UN Educational Committee" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12270690&postcount=197)

Repeal "Support Hemp Production" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11762090&postcount=178)

Repeal "The 40 Hour Workweek" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11421319&postcount=166)

Waste Disposal Covenant (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10960307&postcount=156)

Actually, the rules have changed since then:


Branding

Limited branding is allowed. "Limited" means that you may list one co-author by nation name only. Example:

"Co-authored by The Most Glorious Hack"

Further branding will result in the Proposal being deleted. Don't list everyone who posted in the thread for your draft, don't list yourself, don't list your Minister Of Making Proposals, and don't post the 'pre-title' of the co-author (ie: "The Republic Of..."). This includes creating nations that have the same name as your region or group and using them to promote your region or group.

I'm pretty sure the rules haven't changed since the last two resolutions have been approved. Besides, the rule again doesn't especifically prohibit stating the region which helped create the proposal, I don't see why there would be a fuss over it.

No, it doesn't "especifically" prohibit anything. You should ask a Mod, though, because that's what it means. As I recall, we are no longer allowed to say "co-authored by ACCEL" or "Wall Street" and so on. That was my understanding.

The Wolf Guardians;12737260']No, it doesn't "especifically" prohibit anything. You should ask a Mod, though, because that's what it means. As I recall, we are no longer allowed to say "co-authored by ACCEL" or "Wall Street" and so on. That was my understanding.

I still believe the rule doesn't forbid mentioning the region... but, well, I'll ask a mod anyhow. Thanks for pointing that out for me. ;)

I still believe the rule doesn't forbid mentioning the region...
Yes, it does. It's one NATION only, not a region, not a nation named the same as your region so you sneak past our prohibition. A NATION.

I'm not going to be an ass about this unless or until it makes quorum, then I'll seek input from others. If it doesn't make quorum and you repost it, the reference comes out. Fair enough?


Edit: It looks like it's going to make quorum without problem, and that's a clear violation. I'm going to leave it up until you respond to this thread (or tomorrow morning, whichever comes first) to give you a chance to capture your approvals, and then down it comes.

I'm afraid I didn't quite understand. So, is the proposal going to continue?

I'm afraid I didn't quite understand. So, is the proposal going to continue?

No, it's dead on arrival, Fris is just giving you a chance to grab the list of people who approved it before he deletes it.

I'm pretty sure the rules haven't changed since the last two resolutions have been approved.Check the dates. The rules changed while Repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles" was in the queue, which is why it was grandfathered. All the others you listed were before the branding rules were updated (and, indeed, were the reason for the update).

Here's your list: Approvals: 115 (Mahasoori, Apokalypto, Cyliano, Westmar, Hawaiialaska, The Sacred Spoon, Jesus freaks89, Lady Peaches, Graimear, Rabbit Industrial, Tyralee, Zombie Love, Guerra Sucia, Tammriell, WZ Forums, Understood correctnes, ARC Captains, Totoral, Mousehold Heath, LinkinParkism, Druggieland, Harvest Squee, Japan and Korea, Jed Scott, Gobbo Power, Boekenkunst, Ellenburg, Dioxin, Multyfarnham, Josefsburg, Chilly Tsui, Snuffolama, Viljar, Oclate, Mefecawaran, DuQuadland, The Golden Sunset, Ugnabad, Cayladon, DragonsVenom, Calypso Freedom Land, West-Side, Bungdunkler, Panido, Cafrin MC, Lothloland, Manfigurut II, Arcandy, Lygonia, Dornach, The 2 leaders, Chandelier, Neo Puddin, Gunfreak, DSniper, Fearsome attack, Rhen Var 68, Mabrville, Jamesingtonland, Okrainetz, Berryhill Park, Green Hats, Future of Hope, Al Yungbar, Homieville, Baiteria, Lackland, Jordend, Ganja-Smokers, GMTA, JMDS, Our Truth, The Penguin Isles, Renlon, Carsonii, Mikeswill, Angellos the Swift, NewTexas, Cornabe, Ultra Communism, Maggie Mul, SandBirchland, The Alleghenies, Psycotia Island, Dellvia, The Mattabooloo, United Khandins, Pace Libera, Sea Gorillas, New Old New New York, Lanterne, Goudrony, Misplaced States, Higher thinkers, Naga Morich, Philosophical Pacifism, Cranberry Mice, Triple Draw, Ryno III, Enjuekk, Black Curtains, GrOovy Free ThinKerS, TaiTrin, Nurdia, Myceena, Auremtos, The abbandoned Glauber, Freemanton, Ann of the Word, KoG Apollyon XS, Sovietal, Aegialopolis, Alpacadom, Kraapsundic, Cabrochasa)

Mods: Wasn't it possible to simply delete the branding part and allow it to proceed?

And: what is the reason for the branding rules changing? Resolutions are more likely to be created if credit is given to regions as well as individual nations. Additionally, if the name of a nation is permitted as co-author, I see no reason why the name of a region would be banned. I understand that NationStates is not a democracy, but a private organization, though... isn't is possible to somewhere, somehow, discuss the issue? I do believe giving regions credit for their work isn't something that should be forbidden.

Putting the above aside (although still hoping a Mod will read it), I will of course re-submit the proposal. To answer the concerns of Jey...

Congratulations on having one of your region members get a proposal so close to quorum. It seems that it will eventually achieve quorum if it is not deleted before it gets the chance. However, this proposal WILL get deleted because of its branding violation: the reference to "New Spain," your region. I would gladly endorse this proposal in the future, because I think it has great promise, provided that:

1) All illegalities are removed (such as the branding violation);

2) The preamble is grammatically fixed to resemble that of previous resolutions;

3) The definition of "unjustifiable injuring" is addressed (we are not sure how or if this mandate applies to hunting, stepping on ants, etc.);

4) The author returns this to the UN forum for some more minor adjustments.

1) Will be removed.

2) What is meant by this exactly?

3) Already addressed:

''-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every living vertebrate in the classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, and Mammalia except human beings.'' ---- Does not include ants.

''a. Activities conducted for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption.'' ----- Excludes hunting.

4) Any further suggestions by other representatives?

Mods: Wasn't it possible to simply delete the branding part and allow it to proceed?

No. We can't edit proposals. We can only delete them. This keeps control of proposals firmly in the hands of the players, and prohibits mods from becoming little tin gods. 'sa good thing, really.

The United Nations Colonial Administration Authority of Bautizar is interested in the working draft of the resolution, but my government has asked me to raise a point regarding operative clause 2.b. The section in question concerns the exception granted for the purposes of biomedical research, but this is a very wide exception. Therefore, the UNCAA is wondering if this definition can be tightened any farther.

Sir Reginald Spears
Hon. Representative to the United Nations of the Planet Earth
United Nations Colonial Administration Authority of Bautizar

As a real-life case-in-point, I'll note the example of the Japanese whaling industry, which has claimed for an extended period of time that its controversial whaling is in the name of scientific research. I trust that everyone can follow my logic here.

No. We can't edit proposals. We can only delete them.

:rolleyes:

Makes sense... unfortunately.

Another question: lets say that the nation ''New Spain Mission'' or ''New Spain Island'' (real nation actually) submits a completely legal proposal. Is that still a violation of the branding rule?

The United Nations Colonial Administration Authority of Bautizar is interested in the working draft of the resolution, but my government has asked me to raise a point regarding operative clause 2.b. The section in question concerns the exception granted for the purposes of biomedical research, but this is a very wide exception. Therefore, the UNCAA is wondering if this definition can be tightened any farther.

Sir Reginald Spears
Hon. Representative to the United Nations of the Planet Earth
United Nations Colonial Administration Authority of Bautizar

Interesting point. I will look farther into this, paying special attention to the Japanese whaling industry's argument. I'm suprised that they could have any kind of logical support for that statement. Do you, Honourable Representative, have any specific suggestions, or might you be so kind as to provide a link for this?

Another question: lets say that the nation ''New Spain Mission'' or ''New Spain Island'' (real nation actually) submits a completely legal proposal. Is that still a violation of the branding rule?
I'm fairly certain that would be legal (I'm not a mod though, obviously). Putting said nation as co-author probably wouldn't be legal though.

The best source available regarding Japanese whaling practices, ironic as this may sound, tends to be the Japanese whaling industry itself. I would therefore direct your attention to the Question & Answer section (http://www.whaling.jp/english/qa.html) of the Japan Whaling Association's own website. (You might also note that some of the questions there parallel those raised earlier in discussion over this resolution.) In addition there's also the section on Wikipedia concerning scientific research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#Scientific_research), but as that website is open to the public, the article may or may not be biased.

The UNCAA believes that adding clarification to operative clause 2.b, perhaps something along the lines of "... defined as research involving animal species not recognized as endangered by the United Nations" might suffice on this particular matter. We are of course open to further suggestions on this matter.

Sir Reginald Spears
Hon. Representative to the United Nations of the Planet Earth
United Nations Colonial Administration Authority of Bautizar

And: what is the reason for the branding rules changing?First off the "no region rule" has always existed if I recall correctly, the change was more to stop people from creating nations whose names are the same as a region or organization to get around the rule.
I understand that NationStates is not a democracy, but a private organization, though... isn't is possible to somewhere, somehow, discuss the issue?That would be here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503526).

First off the "no region rule" has always existed if I recall correctly, the change was more to stop people from creating nations whose names are the same as a region or organization to get around the rule.The "no region rule" wasn't enforced, which is how the Members of Wall Street and DEFCON (to name two) were able to be listed as co-authors. When we cracked down on "descriptive" nation names, we reaffirmed to no region rule. Submitting from a nation called "The Members of New Spain" will not be allowed either. It's just trying to scam the rules, and is highly irritating.

One point: everyone knows that regions like the IDU and Antarctic Oasis have sponsored lots of proposals. Yet they've not branded their proposals. So how does everyone know it?

Through forum posts and NSwiki articles, both options available to you. If you want to show off New Spain's UN activity, why not mention it in the 'Unnecessary Animal Cruelty' NSwiki page?

Also: I know of at least two nations that joined my current region because I had a resolution at vote. But I didn't mention Wysteria in my proposals: they simply followed the link at the top of the proposal. They may well do the same for you.

In conclusion: branding is totally unnecessary.

Ailyn leans over and mutters to her bodyguard, "So they have to be vertebrates to be covered by this? I can still kick Geonosians around? Sounds good to me."

She chuckles and takes a sip from a flask of Corellian brandy.

Excuse me?

M. Diegaus, III
FGI UN Rep

-The Genoshan Marine Embassy Security Detail nervously eyes their ambassador, who eyes the Vandalian ambassador with contempt.-

Excuse me?

M. Diegaus, III
FGI UN Rep

-The Genoshan Marine Embassy Security Detail nervously eyes their ambassador, who eyes the Vandalian ambassador with contempt.-

Geonosians, not Genoshans.

But don't tempt me.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Submitting from a nation called "The Members of New Spain" will not be allowed either. It's just trying to scam the rules, and is highly irritating.

Hmmm, I could see some kind of misunderstanding leading from this. OK, ''The Members of New Spain'' is not allowed as the nation name. But what about a nation named ''New Spain'' or any other nation called ''New Spain [Insert Random Title Here]''?

Not if the point is to point to your region. If there really is another person's nation named such who helped you, I think it'd be OK. </notamod>

Several minor changes, as well as the following additions:

-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''legal biomedical research'' as the activities performed by any kind of institution, organization or entity which has been given permission to perform such activities by competent authorities.

1. Torturing, cruelly beating, causing substantial bodily harm, tormenting, or maliciously or recklessly injuring, wounding, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, mutilating or killing any animal, whether tamed or wild, or knowingly and wilfully depriving any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, or knowingly and wilfully causing or procuring any of the aforementioned will be strictly prohibited.

2c. Professional veterinary practices performed in the interests of an animal's welfare or health condition.

2e. The humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death.

3. No animal shall be forced, instigated, or in any way encouraged to fight another animal.

But what about a nation named ''New Spain'' or any other nation called ''New Spain [Insert Random Title Here]''?

We hate rules-lawyer-ish nitpicking. We really do. You've got your ruling. Just let it go.

Okok... just asking...

If a rabbit gets into a farmer's garden and gorges itself, we must recognize it's right to live?

If a fox gets into a chicken coop and kills a farmer's chickens, but no humans, we must recognize it's right to eat chickens?

If someone's house is infested with cockroaches, we cannot kill them until they pose a threat?

Fishing and deer hunting for sport are to be banned?


OOC:
A lot of you are off topic.

Question regarding cockroaches has been withdrawn. This resolution does not consider humans, fish, or anything without a backbone to be animals.

If a rabbit gets into a farmer's garden and gorges itself, we must recognize it's right to live?

Of course. Drive it away, there is no need to kill it. And if there is, the following is permitted, which includes protecting property.

''2d. The destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health.''

If a fox gets into a chicken coop and kills a farmer's chickens, but no humans, we must recognize it's right to eat chickens?

Clause 2d allows an animal to be killed to protect other animals, including chickens.

Fishing and deer hunting for sport are to be banned?

The definition of ''animal'' does not include fish (in the classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, and Mammalia except human beings...). Although deer hunting which is not ''for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption'', that is, killing an animal just for the fun of it, IS banned. It is also true, however, that mostly all hunting is intended for human consumption.

Not yet submitted. Any ideas, comments, suggestions, etc., will be greatly appreciated.

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

Unnecessary Animal Cruelty
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strengh: Significant
Description:

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

Recognizing the cruelty and inhumane treatment to which a great number of animals are continuously and unnecessarily subject to;

In agreement with the concept of animal rights;

Acknowledging animals’ basic freedom from needless torture and abuse;

Horrified by the widespread practice of so-called ‘blood sports’, such as bullfighting or dog fighting, in a legal manner;

Shocked at how certain individuals and organizations make a profit from the pain, suffering and death of animals as a public spectacle,

Not considering the use of cultural importance as a valid argument defending the infliction of pain and torture of animals for the purpose of entertainment, and;

In an attempt to eradicate the dispensable agony of other living beings;

-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every living vertebrate in the classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, and Mammalia except human beings.

-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''legal biomedical research'' as the activities performed by any kind of institution, organization or entity which has been given permission to perform such activities by competent authorities.

-Mandates that:
1. Torturing, cruelly beating, causing substantial bodily harm, tormenting, or maliciously or recklessly injuring, wounding, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, mutilating or killing any animal, whether tamed or wild, or knowingly and wilfully depriving any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, or knowingly and wilfully causing or procuring any of the aforementioned will be strictly prohibited.

2. The following are excempted from the above rule:
a. Activities conducted for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption.
b. Activities conducted for purposes of legal biomedical research.
c. Professional veterinary practices performed in the interests of an animal's welfare or health condition.
d. The destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health.
e. The humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death.

3. No animal shall be forced, instigated, or in any way encouraged to fight another animal.

4. All forms of public expression or public exhibition, where an audience or group of spectators is present, involving the intentional physical and/or bodily suffering or substantial pain of any animal for recreational, cultural, entertainment, commercial, or artistic reasons, will be prevented and banned.

-Urges members to increase the awareness of animal cruelty through education, and;

-Further encourages the adoption of policies and regulations to preserve the basic dignity of all animals.

In order to have rights you actually have to understand the concept of rights and the corollary concept of responsibilities. Animals have not been proven to have this understanding and, therefore, do not have rights as understood by human beings; It is, however, my contention that animals are entitled to protections and humans, having rights and the responsibilities that go with those rights, are obligated to protect animals (and, for that matter, small children and the retarded - i.e. those humans who might be considered to be incapable of understanding the concept of rights and responsibilities).

If, in the future, research shows that some animals have the capacity to understand rights and responsibilities, then those animals should be extended rights in accordance with their understanding of the concept.

Change the bolded wording and I will support this proposal. However, you should understand that other cultures will not have the same appreciation of animals that our particular cultures have and will resent the interference of the UN in this matter.

You might also want to think about this - subsitute the word woman for animal in your proposal and you can anger even more people in the world, specifically some Islamic and Asian countries who hold women as less than animals. Consider a UN resolution that addresses this.

I see that we aren't in disagreement with the idea, but rather with the term to refer to that idea.

You could argue that anyone under the age of X years does not have the necessary understanding to comprehend the concept of rights. For that reason, one as a person doesn't achieve complete rights until a certain age. However, a very small child is still entitled to possess certain rights. Couldn't this same reasoning be equally applied to other living beings, or at least those which are scientifically proven to suffer just as any other human would?

I personally believe that using ''animal rights'' as a way to refer to the protection guaranteed in this proposal is correct, as a newborn baby still has ''rights''. Wouldn't you agree?

This resolution has a number of problems from a Cobdenian perspective:

1) I fail to see how it's an international issue
2) Non human sapience
3) War
4) Meh
5) Bleh

This resolution has a number of problems from a Cobdenian perspective:

1) I fail to see how it's an international issue
2) Non human sapience
3) War
4) Meh
5) Bleh

1) Using that same reasoning, are human rights an international issue?
2) Read above.
3) War? How come?

Proposal Re-Submitted by Old Argentina (the nation had permission to do so).

All suggestions and comments have been considered and inserted into the proposal.

Any kind of branding, or anything that might even look like branding, or anything that might give the slightest impression that it's branding, has been removed.

In all: the proposal is ready to be voted on by the whole United Nations. Please give your support for the future resolution to become so. ;)

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=cruelty

Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every living vertebrate in the classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, and Mammalia except human beings.

Huh. So... Guardian Citizens are classified as 'animals', then. Excellent.

Guardian citizens? :confused:

"The Commonwealth of the Wolf Guardians." Like many, many other nations, my citizens are not human. Or, at least, not fully human. Mine are a combination of cat and dog and human. We're still 100% mammal, though, and thus are classed as "animals" by that wording. There are many nations that will be. That's what Cobdena's number 2 was about.

Seeing as my mother was Kiffar, I'm an animal under this proposal, too.

Damned narrow-minded humans.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

The Wolf Guardians;12749233']We're still 100% mammal, though, and thus are classed as "animals" by that wording.Mammals are overrated.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Yeah, this from someone that'd be protected under this garbage.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

"Actually, I lied. It's being scientifically debated in the Commonwealth about whether or not some of our genetics are reptilian, too. And how is Madame Pejorative protected, good sir? Is she not a reptilian vertebrate that is not a human being?"

The Wolf Guardians;12749454']"Actually, I lied. It's being scientifically debated in the Commonwealth about whether or not some of our genetics are reptilian, too. And how is Madame Pejorative protected, good sir? Is she not a reptilian vertebrate that is not a human being?"

Good sir? Er...okay, I'll just let that slide.

The text of the proposal says that the following "animals" are to be protected:

every living vertebrate in the classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, and Mammalia except human beings.

I'm going to guess that Pejorative falls under the Reptilia category.

It also presumes that all species in those classes are animals, which I personally find rather offensive.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

"Uh... Pardon that. That's what happens when technology allows us to split our attention 42 different ways. And yes, I agree. We, apparently, are all animals."

I see that we aren't in disagreement with the idea, but rather with the term to refer to that idea.

You could argue that anyone under the age of X years does not have the necessary understanding to comprehend the concept of rights. For that reason, one as a person doesn't achieve complete rights until a certain age. However, a very small child is still entitled to possess certain rights. Couldn't this same reasoning be equally applied to other living beings, or at least those which are scientifically proven to suffer just as any other human would?

I personally believe that using ''animal rights'' as a way to refer to the protection guaranteed in this proposal is correct, as a newborn baby still has ''rights''. Wouldn't you agree?

Reword it to state that non-sentient, non-sapient animals have the right to protection from the unreasonable depredations of human beings (animals as food is not what I consider unreasonable given that I do eat meat and wear leather). Also, some things could be defined as cruel (such as shearing sheep for wool and milking cows) that in reality are not.

I would also like to see a resolution requiring similar rights to be extended to women in all UN countries - there are many nations, as I've stated previously, who regard women as less than animals. Perhaps I'll look into it.

It also presumes that all species in those classes are animals, which I personally find rather offensive.Well, I suppose it's technically accurate. But, technically, humans are animals too. Probably why these sorts of things are so stupidly difficult. It's a pity that sentient rights act thing from last year (?) died horribly.


Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Reword it to state that non-sentient, non-sapient animals have the right to protection from the unreasonable depredations of human beings (animals as food is not what I consider unreasonable given that I do eat meat and wear leather).

I completely disagree with the statement that animals (animals as defined by this proposal) are ''non-sentient''. Claiming that, say, a dog does not feel pain when injured is a ridiculous idea. For the other part, I believe that's already been addressed:

''2a. Activities conducted for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption.''

Also, some things could be defined as cruel (such as shearing sheep for wool and milking cows) that in reality are not.

None of those examples fall under clause 1, so no need to worry about that.

"You've not addressed how Madames Vel and Pejorative and myself are to be classified by this. Commonly we refer to being such as ourselves as 'sentients,' simply meaning that we're complex enough to form a complex society. We do not argue that non-sapient beings such as... dogs... do not feel pain, but, by all observation, my race, decidedly dog-like, are not the same. Yet you've included us in your list of 'animals.'"

OOC: Assuming that the UN Rules recognize the existance of other species, doesn't this duplicate and/or contradict the Universal Bill of Rights. And doesn't 3 ban war between non-human nations?

OOC: Assuming that the UN Rules recognize the existance of other species...

Do you mean the existence of animals as in RL or other species being citizens of certain nations? If it's the former, why wouldn't they? If it's the latter, I don't think they do, not really...

...doesn't this duplicate and/or contradict the Universal Bill of Rights.

That resolution deals with human rights. This resolution is completely the opposite really. It (sort of) limits the right of humans to unnecessarily inflict pain on other animals.

And doesn't 3 ban war between non-human nations?

It forbids humans from encouraging wars between non-human nations (¿?¿?¿?non-humans nations?¿?¿). It doesn't ban the war itself.

Do you mean the existence of animals as in RL or other species being citizens of certain nations? If it's the former, why wouldn't they? If it's the latter, I don't think they do, not really...
Are you a mod? If not, what makes you think you have the authority to decide that. This has, historically, been an iffy subject with the rules.
That resolution deals with human rights. This resolution is completely the opposite really. It (sort of) limits the right of humans to unnecessarily inflict pain on other animals.
Human Rights just means rights. Heck, we had a "Rights of Nonhuman Sapients" in that category.
It forbids humans from encouraging wars between non-human nations (¿?¿?¿?non-humans nations?¿?¿). It doesn't ban the war itself.
It bans ANYONE from encouraging animals to fight each other. That includes the governments of non-human nations.

Are you a mod? If not, what makes you think you have the authority to decide that. This has, historically, been an iffy subject with the rules.

I applaud your outstanding observative skills: I am not a mod, you are correct. That is why I was only assuming, not stating, as can be noted by the words ''I think'' or ''I believe''.

Human Rights just means rights. Heck, we had a "Rights of Nonhuman Sapients" in that category.

Human rights mean just that, rights of humans. T_T

It bans ANYONE from encouraging animals to fight each other. That includes the governments of non-human nations.

1st: Isn't that a good thing?

2nd: Depends if the governments of non-human nations are formed by humans or not.

3rd: Can we stop talking about imaginary non-human nations, please?

I applaud your outstanding observative skills: I am not a mod, you are correct. That is why I was only assuming, not stating, as can be noted by the words ''I think'' or ''I believe''.
Fine.
Human rights mean just that, rights of humans. T_T
The mods themselves have stated multiple times that it's an unfortunate category name. It doesn't just refer to rights of human in the world of NS.
1st: Isn't that a good thing?
Making nations essentially defenseless as commanders cannot "encourage" their soldiers to fight.
2nd: Depends if the governments of non-human nations are formed by humans or not.
Your resolution says nothing about "by humans". It says, and I quote "No animal shall be forced, instigated, or in any way encouraged to fight another animal."
3rd: Can we stop talking about imaginary non-human nations, please?
Imaginary? Can you read? Non-human nations (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12749233&postcount=79) have posted in this thread already.

All UN resolutions, as any kind of laws existing today, are laws of mankind. Thus, such laws apply solely to humans.

In acordance with the above, this proposal applies solely to humans. It forbids humans from acting in certain ways which cause unnecessary harm to other species, but nothing else.

I fail to see your disagreement with this proposal...

All UN resolutions, as any kind of laws existing today, are laws of mankind. Thus, such laws apply solely to humans.

In acordance with the above, this proposal applies solely to humans. It forbids humans from acting in certain ways which cause unnecessary harm to other species, but nothing else.

I fail to see your disagreement with this proposal...
So you're saying that you believe UN Resolutions do not apply to non-human nations?

Even if those non-human nations happen to be UN members?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

All UN resolutions, as any kind of laws existing today, are laws of mankind. Thus, such laws apply solely to humans.

In acordance with the above, this proposal applies solely to humans. It forbids humans from acting in certain ways which cause unnecessary harm to other species, but nothing else.

I fail to see your disagreement with this proposal...
Incorrect. We've had proposals that deal solely with nonhumans before. There are many nonhuman nations in the UN, such as The Wold Guardians mentioned before, and Ausserland, one of the better known and rspected nations of this body. You are not a Game Administrator. You are not a Game Moderator. You have zero influence on the policies of NationStates. You have no authorith to say "UN resolutions apply solely to humans".

:eek:

I honestly don't know what to say. Is the NSUN a semi-roleplaying entity loosely modelled after RL politics or a place where no limits exist between reality and complete fantasy?

Maybe my next proposal should deal with the right of fairies to form their own state...

P.S.
We've had proposals that deal solely with nonhumans before.

Link please.

All UN resolutions, as any kind of laws existing today, are laws of mankind. Thus, such laws apply solely to humans.

In acordance with the above, this proposal applies solely to humans. It forbids humans from acting in certain ways which cause unnecessary harm to other species, but nothing else.

At that moment a small white furred creature with a red pom-pom on it's head runs into the room.

Kupo! Ku ku kupo po kupo kupo ku po po kupo kupo kupo. Ku po po kupo po kupo ku po!

http://tn3-2.deviantart.com/fs10/300W/i/2006/095/3/a/Pimpin_Moogle_by_ccWildcard.jpg
Mog
Moogle Chieftan

Since I'm certain none of you here speaks moogle, (and I'll admit that I'm not fluent in that language myself) allow me to translate. He said basically, How dare you claim that UN resolutions only affect humans. The last comment, I'm not entirely sure if I've got it right, but is sounded like something that shouldn't be repeated in polite company.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Link please.
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Rights_of_Biological_Sapients

Having reviewed the ongoing discussion, we can come to no other conclusion than this proposal is hopelessly mired in contradiction and illogic. As others have noted, the preamble discusses so-called 'blood sports', yet the operative clauses are so wide, a veritable ark could fall prey (or slip through).
In agreement with the concept of animal rights;Others have noted the problem with endowing animals (as you have defined them here, more below) with rights. I would strongly emphasize that many people who would support an anti-cruelty statute, may not do so with this unnecessary clause in place.Not considering the use of cultural importance as a valid argument defending the infliction of pain and torture of animals for the purpose of entertainment, We believe this clause to illegally contradict clause 8 of "Rights of Indigenous Peoples"-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every living vertebrate in the classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, and Mammalia except human beings.Aye, and here is the big rub. This definition makes the proposal a 'protection of the cute and big'. It is scientifically indefensible. And in regards to the members of this Assembly is rude in its ignorance.2. The following are excempted from the above rule:
a. Activities conducted for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption.So we can still shark-fin? As long as the remains are used for dog food, canned hunts of lions are still legal? It's good to know that running an entire herd of antelope off a cliff with helicopters would still be a-okay, because honestly, they're just feeding the hyenas.b. Activities conducted for purposes of legal biomedical research.Jolly good. The pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies will be overjoyed to learn that their repetitious LD50 tests will continue unabated.3. No animal shall be forced, instigated, or in any way encouraged to fight another animal.Which of course outlaws conscription in nonhuman nations.

Also, though not specifically noted, the spelling errors were disconcerting.
I completely disagree with the statement that animals (animals as defined by this proposal) are ''non-sentient''. Claiming that, say, a dog does not feel pain when injured is a ridiculous idea.We would suggest you look more closely at the definition of sentient. Although common definitions include "feeling", the total context of the definition is self-awareness or self-perception. It has nothing to do with whether the animal reacts to pain. And despite arguments to the contrary, animals without language (or more accurately animals with which we cannot at this time communicate) cannot be proven to be sentient.

All UN resolutions, as any kind of laws existing today, are laws of mankind. Thus, such laws apply solely to humans.

In acordance with the above, this proposal applies solely to humans.
I honestly don't know what to say. Is the NSUN a semi-roleplaying entity loosely modelled after RL politics or a place where no limits exist between reality and complete fantasy?

Maybe my next proposal should deal with the right of fairies to form their own state...This is not the RW. As you will find if you read the rules, all resolutions apply equally to all members of the NS UN. As you will find if you reread your own thread, there are any number of non-human species here.

It is general etiquette in this Assembly to include all sapient, sentient species in all resolutions. Thus one will see the inclusive terms "person" "individual" and "people" used frequently.

Oh and by the way, there is no need for such a resolution as you suggest. There are already a number of faerie states in the NS multiverse with every right to be there.


I'm sorry, but a cheeseburger just isn't going to cut it, ya know?

Vermithrax Pejorative
Were Mlle. to have a taste for a cheeseburger, it just might be possible. (http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y22/thewrongcrowd/Cheese-Icon.jpg).

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador

I honestly don't know what to say. Is the NSUN a semi-roleplaying entity loosely modelled after RL politics or a place where no limits exist between reality and complete fantasy?
The former. I'm not sure how the species of the parties involved hinders that.
Maybe my next proposal should deal with the right of fairies to form their own state...
Proposals have to affect all nations.

We believe this clause to illegally contradict clause 8 of "Rights of Indigenous Peoples"

Cultures of indiginous people may be preserved, as indicated by that clause, although certain issues (such as human rights... or animal cruelty) have priority and naturally overrule that clause.

Aye, and here is the big rub. This definition makes the proposal a 'protection of the cute and big'. It is scientifically indefensible. And in regards to the members of this Assembly is rude in its ignorance.

The definition is by no means ignorant. The resolution is not extreme, and that is indicated by the definition of animal, which includes all creatures which most resemble humans. What else were you planning to include?

So we can still shark-fin? As long as the remains are used for dog food, canned hunts of lions are still legal? It's good to know that running an entire herd of antelope off a cliff with helicopters would still be a-okay, because honestly, they're just feeding the hyenas.

Sure, you are still allowed to do that. Although taking into account terms like time, cost, and usefullness, I doubt anyone will attempt those things which you describe, and the similar.

Jolly good. The pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies will be overjoyed to learn that their repetitious LD50 tests will continue unabated.

Again, this resolution is not extreme. I doubt banning such practices will get the proposal's approval. Even so, a tougher proposal might be considered further on...

Also, though not specifically noted, the spelling errors were disconcerting.

Please point them out.

We would suggest you look more closely at the definition of sentient. Although common definitions include "feeling", the total context of the definition is self-awareness or self-perception. It has nothing to do with whether the animal reacts to pain. And despite arguments to the contrary, animals without language (or more accurately animals with which we cannot at this time communicate) cannot be proven to be sentient.

And... in what way does this justify unnecessary cruelty on such animals (as defined in this proposal)?

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Rights_of_Biological_Sapients

Failed? I wonder why...

It's failure is generally attributed to the fact that most people don't know the meaning of the word "sapient". Nonetheless, the use of that resolutoion as an example was simply to point out that the "Human Rights" category, and UN law in general, does not specifically apply to humans.

We believe this clause to illegally contradict clause 8 of "Rights of Indigenous Peoples"

Cultures of indiginous people may be preserved, as indicated by that clause, although certain issues (such as human rights... or animal cruelty) have priority and naturally overrule that clause.
While I'm not certain if it amounts to a contradiction or not (that will be for a Mod to decide), I am curious about this concept of your proposal somehow "overruling" one of the provisions of a previously passed resolution.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

The definition is by no means ignorant. The resolution is not extreme, and that is indicated by the definition of animal, which includes all creatures which most resemble humans. What else were you planning to include?Perhaps we attributed to ignorance that which had malice behind it? The definition is rude in that it singles out member species of this body and assigns them a less-than-human status. You have stated any number of times that we do not qualify for the rights previously passed by this body as they only apply to humans.

That aside, your definition is indefensible scientifically in that it artificially exempts from protection species that fall in Arthropoda that have been shown to exhibit far more intelligence than anything in Amphibia. Not only do you exhibit anthropocentric behavior, you're a vertebratist.
Sure, you are still allowed to do that [shark-finning, canned hunts, etc.]. Although taking into account terms like time, cost, and usefullness, I doubt anyone will attempt those things which you describe, and the similar.

Again, this resolution is not extreme. I doubt banning such practices will get the proposal's approval. Even so, a tougher proposal might be considered further on...Perhaps you are confused as these are things that are documented as occurring at this time and create significant suffering for the animals involved, but appear to be exempt under your exclusions. We suspect that many of the people endorsing your resolution will be aghast to learn that it doesn't protect animals from some of the most egregious instances of cruelty.

Although we are not saying it couldn't be done, the existence of this resolution (if passed) would generally preclude any other legislation on the topic per the rules of this body.
Please point them [spelling errors] out.Our apologies. We were working from the version posted in the thread. You seem to have caught them when submitting.
And... in what way does this justify unnecessary cruelty on such animals (as defined in this proposal)?It doesn't. It does, however, speak to your apparent assumptions in drafting your resolution, your lack of understanding with respect to nonhuman members of the UN, and our perception that this resolution doesn't accomplish what it ought or even what you think it does.
Failed? I wonder why...The debate thread is linked from the wiki entry. Reading should give you a thorough understanding of the stances at the time with respect to that resolution.

--L.T.

And... in what way does this justify unnecessary cruelty on such animals (as defined in this proposal)?

OOC: Ok, I've just about enough of this, so I'm going to explain it carefully. This is NationStates, a RP game loosely based on reality. Not Real Life(TM). Many, many players choose to portray their citizens as fanciful non-humans of various kinds.

What does any of this have to do with animal cruelty? NOTHING. The point is that your definition, regardless of its intention, has labeled those players' citizens as lesser than the human citizens. This is the problem. That is why our characters are trying to drive this point home. We're objecting to your indication that only humans are "non-animals."

I see a few other issues with the proposal, but I'm not inclined to worry about them until this is sorted out. Why? In the sake of realism. Yes, in a fantasy game, an element of realism. Just as most of the modern real world prevents (or at least tries to) race and so forth from being a point of weakness, so we should try to emulate that here.

The NS Multiverse is politically based on reality, and probably economically. It is very much not, however, physically based on reality. Anything is physically possible. The only rules we are bound to are political ones. That's why it's a simulation. You talk of limits between fantasy and reality when, in the context of the game, they are completely up to Max Barry and the Mod-ly people who've tweaked it over time.

Perhaps you are confused as these are things that are documented as occurring at this time and create significant suffering for the animals involved, but appear to be exempt under your exclusions. We suspect that many of the people endorsing your resolution will be aghast to learn that it doesn't protect animals from some of the most egregious instances of cruelty.

Maybe a certain word has been ignored from the clause in question:

''a. Activities conducted for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption.''

Clearly knocking an animal of a cliff is not allowed by the resolution, even if it does feed other animals (sort of). Also, this proposal is intended to prevent all unnecessary animal cruelty, and although some activities should be banned to further protect animals from human abuse, I don't think the proposal should go into such issues, as that would just become too controversial and limit its chances of approval while basic protection is still not guaranteed.

If this resolution is passed, a new, tougher proposal could also be considered to put an end to the practices you describe. Also note that the resolution does not allow, protect or guarantee the activities mentioned under clause 2, it just doesn't prohibit it. Therefore, a new proposal banning such practices wouldn't contradict this resolution.

While I'm not certain if it amounts to a contradiction or not (that will be for a Mod to decide), I am curious about this concept of your proposal somehow "overruling" one of the provisions of a previously passed resolution.

Maybe I didn't express myself clear enough. What I meant by that was if, for example, if religious practices involving the sacrifice of humans were considered part of a certain culture, any UN human rights resolution would clearly prohibit this part of their culture.

Besides, ''culture'' is a vaguely defined term. I could very well say that oppressing the masses if part of my nation's culture...

The proposal does not put an end to indigenous culture, it just bans animal cruelty.

That aside, your definition is indefensible scientifically in that it artificially exempts from protection species that fall in Arthropoda that have been shown to exhibit far more intelligence than anything in Amphibia. Not only do you exhibit anthropocentric behavior, you're a vertebratist.

The definition isn't scientific, I agree. It just includes all animal species which most resemble humans, therefore includes animals most compared with humans and are thus most likely to be morally protected by humans.

Practically no humans feel pity for a dead spider, which can also be considered as undesired pests.



On the issue of non-human nations... I'd prefer to have a mod talk about this before saying something else which might very well be wrong.

Failed? I wonder why...

The debate thread is linked from the wiki entry. Reading should give you a thorough understanding of the stances at the time with respect to that resolution.

--L.T.
I'll give you the cliff notes version, 90% of the debate was whether the proposal should have used sapient or sentient.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I am curious about this concept of your proposal somehow "overruling" one of the provisions of a previously passed resolution.Mmm... I'll have to look into that.


On the issue of non-human nations... I'd prefer to have a mod talk about this before saying something else which might very well be wrong.What is there to say? There's non-human nations. Hell, I've posted in character with a freaking firebreathing dragon (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/VermithraxPejorative.jpg)! Now, you're perfectly welcome to ignore the concerns raised by my character, or the characters from Wolf Guardians and so on. However, their concerns will likely crop up again should this get to vote.

And speaking of that, please show some patience in submitting your drafts. I've already deleted one version of this Proposal, I'd rather not have to do it again.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

OOC: *applauds the modly wisdom of His Hackness*

IC: "Now, if you'll kindly listen to reason. I'M BLOODY HERE! I'M SENTIENT! AND I'M NOT HUMAN! AND I'M A UN AMBASSADOR! The rest of the world has acknowledged us. We'll shoot down any proposal that doesn't."

Mmm... I'll have to look into that.

§8 Indigenous peoples have the right to practice cultural traditions & customs, the right to maintain, protect & develop the past, present & future expression of their cultures, such as archaeological & historical sites, designs, ceremonies & technologies.

Please not that such a clause does not permit or give right to indigenous people to kill or injure animals. My proposal does not overrule the resolution in question. And besides, the resolution only deals with indigenous people as defined by that same resolution, it does not include the rest of humanity (and sentient non-humans).

§8 Indigenous peoples have the right to practice cultural traditions & customs, the right to maintain, protect & develop the past, present & future expression of their cultures, such as archaeological & historical sites, designs, ceremonies & technologies."[C]ultural traditions & customs" could include things that could be considered cruel to animals. The list at the end is simply a series of examples, and is not implied to be all inclusive.


And besides, the resolution only deals with indigenous people as defined by that same resolution, it does not include the rest of humanity (and sentient non-humans).Irrelevent.

IC: Trying to ease other creatures and prevent them from viciously attacking him because of his previous comments.

''I, the Representative from Old Argentina, pledge to work with sentient non-humans, now that I have to.''

Now, the controversial clauses:

-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every living vertebrate in the classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, and Mammalia except human beings.

If your nation's citizens are not included under this definition of animal, then no need to worry about anything. If this definition of animal does include the citizens of your nation, then you are entitled to protection from human nations, so no need to worry about that either.

3. No animal shall be forced, instigated, or in any way encouraged to fight another animal.

Well, you can still fight humans all you like, as well as any other creature which does not fall under this definition of animal. And besides, if you can't fight other non-human nations, neither can they! Non-human world peace! :)

"[C]ultural traditions & customs" could include things that could be considered cruel to animals. The list at the end is simply a series of examples, and is not implied to be all inclusive.

If it doesn't specify, then it is not guaranteed. The clause is too open to interpretation to claim that it contradicts this proposal.

"Now that you have to?!?!" Wolfgang slams his fist down on the table. "I'm not going to take any more of this. This proposal is vague and unenforceable. There are simply too many variables it does not address. And I'm not going to help beyond that in a debate where I am classed as an animal and my presence is merely tolerated!" Wolfgang storms out of the room.

The Wolf Guardians;12752339']"Now that you have to?!?!" Wolfgang slams his fist down on the table. "I'm not going to take any more of this. This proposal is vague and unenforceable. There are simply too many variables it does not address. And I'm not going to help beyond that in a debate where I am classed as an animal and my presence is merely tolerated!" Wolfgang storms out of the room.

*Tries to convince Wolfgang to return, assuring him that it was merely a joke.*

If it doesn't specify, then it is not guaranteed. The clause is too open to interpretation to claim that it contradicts this proposal.Amusingly, this clause is too vague to make your Proposal illegal, but you have similar vagueries in your own Proposal and are claiming protections because of it.

The Wolf Guardians;12752339']"Now that you have to?!?!" Wolfgang slams his fist down on the table. "I'm not going to take any more of this. This proposal is vague and unenforceable. There are simply too many variables it does not address. And I'm not going to help beyond that in a debate where I am classed as an animal and my presence is merely tolerated!" Wolfgang storms out of the room.

KUPO! Kupo ku po po po ku ku kupo kupo po po po kupo! Ku po kupo KUPO!

*Mog storms out behind Wolfgang*

http://tn3-2.deviantart.com/fs10/300W/i/2006/095/3/a/Pimpin_Moogle_by_ccWildcard.jpg
Mog
Moogle Chieftan

Don't look at me for a translation, Mog was going so fast that I couldn't tell what he was saying any more that the rest of you.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Returning to the topic of culture... culture is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as:

The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.

Another definition could be:

The behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.

Surely these definitions do not include torturing other species as part of a group's ''behaviour'' or as part of their ''products of human work and thought''?

Amusingly, this clause is too vague to make your Proposal illegal, but you have similar vagueries in your own Proposal and are claiming protections because of it.

An argument in favour of a proposal does not need to be as specific or accurate as what the proposal actually mandates. Wouldn't you agree?

Animal sacrifice can't be an aspect of a culture's "beliefs"?

An argument in favour of a proposal does not need to be as specific as what the proposal mandates. Wouldn't you agree?No, I wouldn't.

In the interests of attempting to bring this resolution to some level resembling sanity, how about you define the term "animal" thusly:

An "animal" shall be defined as any non-botanical living organism that has not been declared sentient by the nation in which it resides.

If there are sentient botanicals living among us, it is my understanding that they shall not be affected by this proposal one way or the other. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

*Tries to convince Wolfgang to return, assuring him that it was merely a joke.*
OOC: There is no way of which I can conceive that anyone would have interpreted what you said as a joke, Emperor Carlos V. Even so, it was not wise to attempt the joke in the first place. If you really think what you want to say can and should be interpreted as a joke, make yourself clear from the start. Some people use such indicators as "/sarcasm", "/joke", and certain smilies to show their intent. Text is just as imperfect a method of communication as any other, and you need to take special care that you are not misunderstood if such is your goal.

Animal sacrifice can't be an aspect of a culture's "beliefs"?

Possibly, although again the definition is rather unclear, and right of thought and conscience does not refer to any kind of action.

No, I wouldn't.

How come? An argument in a proposal is really only intended to give a general idea of why the resolution is being proposed. It does not need to concentrate on the details. However, what the resolution actually does must be specific, of course.

OOC: There is no way of which I can conceive that anyone would have interpreted what you said as a joke, Emperor Carlos V. Even so, it was not wise to attempt the joke in the first place. If you really think what you want to say can and should be interpreted as a joke, make yourself clear from the start. Some people use such indicators as "/sarcasm", "/joke", and certain smilies to show their intent. Text is just as imperfect a method of communication as any other, and you need to take special care that you are not misunderstood if such is your goal.

Very true. I apologise for my behaviour.

Possibly, although again the definition is rather unclear, and right of thought and conscience does not refer to any kind of action.Then thought and conscience are irrelevent here. The fact is, Rights of Indigenous People grants the carte blanche to do pretty much whatever the hell they want. That's what you have to work around (which isn't terribly difficult, really).

How come? An argument in a proposal is really only intended to give a general idea of why the resolution is being proposed. It does not need to concentrate on the details. However, what the resolution actually does must be specific, of course.Like Ausserland likes to say, "The law is what the law says". You're attempting to use double standards to squirm your way out and hoping nobody notices your contradictory positions.

And, again, this would be less of an issue if you weren't in such a rush to submit this thing.

Maybe a certain word has been ignored from the clause in question:

''a. Activities conducted for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption.''

Clearly knocking an animal of a cliff is not allowedYou don’t seem to grasp the weakness of your proposal. You’ve left the determination of purpose up to the entity that would normally be the party prevented from committing the prohibited act. For example, the Old Men With Guns Dog Food Company, primarily produces dog food. That they happen to use so-called big game meat to supplement the horse, chicken and beef by-products and sell tickets for monthly culls doesn’t affect their stated primary commercial purpose thus allowing said company to meet your exemption and continue to offer canned hunts.
...this proposal is intended to prevent all unnecessary animal cruelty, ... If this resolution is passed, a new, tougher proposal could also be considered to put an end to the practices you describe.The proposal may be intended to prevent all unnecessary animal cruelty, but it certainly doesn’t succeed at that goal, as illustrated above. It also creates a permanent exemption for those conditions in section two with respect to the prohibited activities in section one that cannot be contradicted by any other resolution. Thus, if this passes the “tougher” resolutions you allude to won’t come into existence.
...for example, if religious practices involving the sacrifice of humans were considered part of a certain culture, any UN human rights resolution would clearly prohibit this part of their culture.

Besides, ''culture'' is a vaguely defined term. I could very well say that oppressing the masses if part of my nation's culture... We aren’t speaking, however, of human sacrifice. We’re balancing the rights guaranteed to indigenous peoples (sapient, self-determining) by a previous resolution with putative non-sapient animal rights.

One can “say” anything one wishes, but in order to invoke cultural rights of indigenous peoples, one must first establish one’s “indigenous-ness” and two, there must be a historical and anthropological record of cultural practices that one wishes protected under the applicable statute
It just includes all animal species which most resemble humans, therefore includes animals most compared with humans and are thus most likely to be morally protected by humans.

Practically no humans feel pity for a dead spider, which can also be considered as undesired pests.Again with the "humans". Nor were we referring to class Insecta in our comments.
...''I, the Representative from Old Argentina, pledge to work with sentient non-humans, now that I have to.''

If your nation's citizens are not included under this definition of animal, then no need to worry about anything. If this definition of animal does include the citizens of your nation, then you are entitled to protection from human nations, so no need to worry about that either.

Well, you can still fight humans all you like, as well as any other creature which does not fall under this definition of animal. And besides, if you can't fight other non-human nations, neither can they! Non-human world peace! :)We get the distinct impression now that you're just jerking us around. Despite our hope for a resolution on this topic, this is very obviously not the one that deserves our support.

Amusingly, this clause is too vague to make your Proposal illegal, but you have similar vagueries in your own Proposal and are claiming protections because of it.Presumably the conflict between the two clauses will remain then and be subject to nations' judicial interpretation?
... how about you define the term "animal" thusly:

An "animal" shall be defined as any non-botanical living organism that has not been declared sentient by the nation in which it resides.We would consider this an improvement; unfortunately the proposal has been submitted and is close to quorum. It looks like this mess is going to come up for a vote.

Presumably the conflict between the two clauses will remain then and be subject to nations' judicial interpretation?Potentially. That's why I'm reviewing the two now. I don't much care for sinking close Proposals without a second opinion, but it's the 11th hour, and everyone's asleep.

Potentially. That's why I'm reviewing the two now. I don't much care for sinking close Proposals without a second opinion, but it's the 11th hour, and everyone's asleep.Gotcha. And thanks for the work.

You don’t seem to grasp the weakness of your proposal. You’ve left the determination of purpose up to the entity that would normally be the party prevented from committing the prohibited act. For example, the Old Men With Guns Dog Food Company, primarily produces dog food. That they happen to use so-called big game meat to supplement the horse, chicken and beef by-products and sell tickets for monthly culls doesn’t affect their stated primary commercial purpose thus allowing said company to meet your exemption and continue to offer canned hunts.


Clause 4 comes into play.


The only problem I see with the proposal is the fact that it doesn't really recognize the fact that other nations' citizens may be sentient non-humans. :rolleyes:

Like Ausserland likes to say, "The law is what the law says". You're attempting to use double standards to squirm your way out and hoping nobody notices your contradictory positions.



I'm stating that cultural importance should not be used as an argument against the proposal. I'm actually agreeing with myself by then claiming that the right to preserve one's culture does not permit the torturing/killing of animals.

Presumably the conflict between the two clauses will remain then and be subject to nations' judicial interpretation?


There's also a difference. Mine is not a clause or mandate, it's merely an argument.

Can I just say that "Rights of indigenous peoples" is a horrible Resolution? I mean, seriously. It's total crap. Somebody Repeal it; please.

Anyway, we're in a strange land here. To begin with, I am seeing contradictions.
§8 Indigenous peoples have the right to practice cultural traditions & customs, the right to maintain, protect & develop the past, present & future expression of their cultures, such as archaeological & historical sites, designs, ceremonies & technologiesEmphasis added, underlined sections are a single group when other examples are removed. Furthermore, §9 Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use & develop histories, languages, traditions, philosophies, writing systems & literatures, to designate and retain their own names for places & personsSame thing.

Now, this clearly gives indigenous people the right to, pretty much, do whatever they want as long as it is traditional and part of their culture. This clearly includes all sorts of things dealing with animals, including animal sacrifice. However,1. Torturing, cruelly beating, causing substantial bodily harm, tormenting, or maliciously or recklessly injuring, wounding, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, mutilating or killing any animal, whether tamed or wild, or knowingly and wilfully depriving any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, or knowingly and wilfully causing or procuring any of the aforementioned will be strictly prohibited....clearly bans animal sacrifice, regardless of the method used.

With just this, it looks like enough of a contradiction to pull. Animal Suffering doesn't explicitly exempt indigenous people, thus it is stepping on the rights already granted them; a clear contradiction.

However, case law muddies the waters.

There are precious few Moral Decency Resolutions on the books. The most recent (I believe) is Outlaw Necrophilia. Outlaw Necrophilia doesn't grant exemptions to indigenous peoples, but it doesn't have any hard mandates regardless, so it's a non-issue.

Going back further, we find Child Pornography Prohibition, a Strong Moral Decency Resolution that has quite a few blanket prohibitions. 2. Requires member nations to prohibit:
- the possession, production, distribution and trade of child pornography;
- any act of coercing a child to participate in the production of child pornography;
- the trade of children for the purposes of the production of child pornography;CPP doesn't care about indigenous culture, it just outright bans it.

And thus, we're in a pickle. Case law seems to indicate that the rights of indigenous people can be trumped if the activity in question is morally repugnant. However, this can be handled by turning to Rights and Duties of UN States:Article 11 § Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

In short, Rights of Indigenous Peoples applies to member states and not to the United Nations as an institute. Yes, this somewhat guts RoIP, and no, I'm not especially comfortable with this position, but it's the only way to mesh case law and the Proposal Rules. I think much of the difficulty comes from the fact that RoIP extends psuedo-nation status to indigenous people, which just fouls everything up.

Regardless, I'm not comfortable enough to delete this Proposal based on this legality challenge. Essentially, indigenous people are either utterly immune to everything the UN does, or they're boned just like normal UN nations.

Now, if the proposer would like to request that the submitted version be deleted so language can be added to deal with indigenous people, I'll gladly do so. Also, if someone wants to argue against this ruling, you've got... um... until this thing hits the floor. Unless Fris wants to overrule me, which is fine, too.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

I'm stating that cultural importance should not be used as an argument against the proposal.While I've ruled in your favor, this argument is utterly and completely irrelevent. One line in the preamble is not sufficient to ignore previous Resolutions. If it could, every Resolution could be blatently contradicted with no recourse.

Clause 4 comes into play.

The only problem I see with the proposal is the fact that it doesn't really recognize the fact that other nations' citizens may be sentient non-humans. :rolleyes:Canned hunts (or shark-finning for another example) are neither "expression" or "exhibition" nor is there an "audience" present. Clause 4 is useless in those cases.
I'm stating that cultural importance should not be used as an argument against the proposal. I'm actually agreeing with myself by then claiming that the right to preserve one's culture does not permit the torturing/killing of animals.

There's also a difference. Mine is not a clause or mandate, it's merely an argument.The statement in question is most definitely a clause, one that appears in the preamble. "Merely" an argument? It's true that you don't include a specifically worded active clause that negates indigenous rights; however, your argument and lack exception for indigenous cultural rights serves en toto to contradict the earlier granted rights, in our opinion.

Edit: Ah, we see a ruling has come in while mid-post...

Also, if someone wants to argue against this ruling, you've got... um... until this thing hits the floor. Unless Fris wants to overrule me, which is fine, too.Let me start by saying this isn't a disagreement with the ruling, rather an exploration of an alternative view. ;)

Pseudo-nation status for indigenous peoples may create problems with respect to other resolutions, but it is the goal of a legal (by dent of passage) resolution.

The citation of Child Pornography Prohibition's lack of an exception for indigenous rights is noted. Two things blunt that example of case law, however. One, CPP allows a small amount of room for interpretation in allowing definition of a minor child to be set nationally (and arguably RoIP would then allow definition of a minor to be adjusted if there was cultural precedent). More importantly in this case, CPP is a 'Strong' resolution and thus it's over-ruling of a (merely) 'Significant' resolution, even of a different category, is reasonable.

Unnecessary Animal Cruelty, however, is only "Significant" in effect and thus is equal to RoIP in terms of strength. Therefore, UAC wouldn't be strong enough to over-rule the pre-existing statute and remains in conflict. When laws of equal strength conflict, the one that imposes least onerously on the individual is classicly upheld. In this case, a sapient society's right to their culture would outweigh the moral outrage of an outsider and/or the "right" of a non-sapient biological organism.

Indigenous societies are in the difficult situation of being subject to UN directives, as interpreted through the national government they are subject to, without having the option to opt-out of the UN. This situation makes it even more imperative to rigorously uphold the rights granted to them by this body to the broadest extent possible.

We agree that CPP, RoIP, and UAC are all directed at member states rather than restricting activity of the UN, except with respect to the rules concerning duplication or conflict. We don't find that fact particularly compelling, because each piece of legislation, once passed, becomes a part of the extant body of international law and equally enforceable at the national level.


Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

Serves me right for taking a vacation from the debate floor. Get a little hot headed and need to take a break, and people come up with some of the stupidest tripe to ever ooze their ways across the GA floor.

What the hell could you possibly be thinking to even remotely believe that this is anything even distantly related to rational? Seriously! Your definitions are so flawed that there are illiterate children worldwide wondering what the bloody heck you must have been smoking to think that you are anywhere near correst with them. The actual mandates are so preposterous that they come a half step away from completely banning any form of war or police capabilities from every single UN nation. Congratulations! This is just about the most ridiculous piece of garbage that I have ever seen approach the voting stage in the General Assembly. But I'm off on a rant; let's put this picture together one piece at a time, keeping in mind the words from our noble secretariat that have already been spoken about ROIP....

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

Recognizing the cruelty and inhumane treatment to which a great number of animals are continuously and unnecessarily subject to;

In agreement with the concept of animal rights;

Acknowledging animals’ basic freedom from needless torture and abuse;

Horrified by the widespread practice of so-called ‘blood sports’, such as bullfighting or dog fighting, in a legal manner;

So far, no major issues. A good start even.

Shocked at how certain individuals and organizations make a profit from the pain, suffering and death of animals as a public spectacle,

Honestly, I'm not shocked. Nor will many other members of the UN. There are any number of us that will fully acccept that there are people willing to turn a profit off of anything, up to and include acts so horrendous that I refuse to speak of them in polite conversation. A minor issue, but we are not shocked by this.

Not considering the use of cultural importance as a valid argument defending the infliction of pain and torture of animals for the purpose of entertainment, and;

Aside from Hack's statement about ROIP, we will return to this point very shortly as it pertains to non-human sentients residing within UN Member nations.

In an attempt to eradicate the dispensable agony of other living beings;

Another minor language quibble. All agony is dispensable. There is no such thing as indispensable agony. All pain can be removed from every situation. In the worst cases of terminal chronic pain, euthanize them and the pain is dispensed with.

-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every living vertebrate in the classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, and Mammalia except human beings.

Here the major trauma begins. There is no end to the amount that is wrong with this definition, especially since more rational definitions have been offered by others already, not the least of whom being Intellect and Art who offered an incredibly concise and apt definition which would suit your purposes admirably. That such a suggestion seems to have been blindly ignored is so many steps past disgusting in your disrespect of their helpful advice that I truly fear for us all.

For the definition itself, you have just classified entire national populations as being "animals", generally construed as being less than humans. I'm fairly certain that the wolf-people of Wolf Guardians or the elves of Menelmacar will take great offence at this. Hell, Kivisto is populated almost exclusively by humans and WE take offence to it. The many varied peoples of gnomes, snakes, dragons, elves, fish, holograms, and whatever else is out there are being called "animals" by this definition. I know for a fact that I am not the first to bring this up, but apparently you did not hear it the first times.

-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''legal biomedical research'' as the activities performed by any kind of institution, organization or entity which has been given permission to perform such activities by competent authorities.

This is so vastly wrong for every reason that makes the definition necessary in the first place. To prevent nations from abusing their animals, you are allowing them to decide who gets to perform research upon the animals, and free license to decide what form that research may take. Brilliant! To keep the governments from being corrupt, we'll let the governments decide who gets to do the stuff that might otherwise be against the law. You earn a gold star for finding your way to the GA today.

-Mandates that:

By the time I got to this line, I was nearly in tears from laughter that all the previous offences of this proposition managed to come in before the actual mandates. Spectacular. How magnificent must be the actual laws being proposed?

I'm going to slightly restructure what is written for clarity, without changing any of the meaning:

1. The following things will be prohibited:
Torturing,

You know what? Cool. This I don't mind. I'm not big on torture of anything.

cruelly beating,

With this you successfully prohibit any non human sentients from engaging in boxing, wrestling, martial arts, hockey, and any number of other sporting activities that they might voluntarily wish to participate in.

causing substantial bodily harm,

And there goes there chance of cosmetic surgery.

tormenting,

Schoolyard bullies are now convictable felons.

or maliciously or recklessly injuring, wounding, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, mutilating or killing any animal,

You have just completely outlawed any UN nation from engaging in any act of war against any nonhuman sentients. Not only that, but those same nonhuman sentient nations just had their police forces crippled since they must completely refrain from using any form of force against their criminals. Bravo. I'll be returning to this point at the end of my tirade.

whether tamed or wild,

Again with the offensive language? Look up to Vermithrax there and you tell me if she's tame or wild. I'd be offended if you even asked me that. These are sentient creatures that you are calling animals here!

or knowingly and wilfully depriving any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink,

And now they aren't even allowed to practice any form of fasting.

or knowingly and wilfully causing or procuring any of the aforementioned

Any everybody else has to make sure that these entire nations are oppressed in this fashion. I'll have no part of it.

2. The following are excempted from the above rule:

I got to this line and began to hope beyond hope that there might be a glimmer of a chance of some sanity. Alas...

a. Activities conducted for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption.

So we can torture, torment, wound, inflict incredible agonies on any nonhuman, sentient or otherwise, as long as we eat them later. Fascinating. In a train wreck kind of way.

b. Activities conducted for purposes of legal biomedical research.

Where, we've already determined, it is to be decided upon by the governments as to what qualifies as legitimate research and who can perform it. Genius. We'll let the gaming communities perform experiments on what breed of dog can most often beat the rest in a fight to the death. And it will be a government funded research institution that oversees the whole thing.

c. Professional veterinary practices performed in the interests of an animal's welfare or health condition.

Here we're back to the nonhuman sentients that are no longer allowed to see doctors. They must now degrade themselves to see the same physician they bring their pets to. Is there no end to the amount of fascism you wish us to legislate?

d. The destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health.

And here you have legislated on the death penalty for those nations. I don't know that that is really a barrel of monkeys that should really be opened by what this resolution purports to be.

e. The humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death.

And here you have mandated that murder of these nonhuman sentients is fine as long as it is "humane". I can't even get into the amount of bile that rises into my throat at the thought that someone could kill Vermi there and get away with it because it was done "humanely" and that isn't against the law by UN standards. Heck, you've just given terrorists free reign to do as they please to those nations of nonhuman sentients as long as they do so in a humane fashion.

3. No animal shall be forced, instigated, or in any way encouraged to fight another animal.

The nonhumans can no longer institute the draft for their own militaries, nor can they be encouraged to defend themselves against another of their own kind.

4. All forms of public expression or public exhibition, where an audience or group of spectators is present, involving the intentional physical and/or bodily suffering or substantial pain of any animal for recreational,

There goes the BDSM crowd into the felon pile.

cultural,

Here's where I get back to the point of cultural significance. There are religions that practice public self flagelation to achieve purity of spirit. This would now be completely outlawed, even though this would mean that those people's religion is being completely dismissed and they will never achieve the purity they seek.

entertainment,

Their professional sports networks will be closed down completely.

commercial,

Alright, this one just falls back into the pile with everything that I've already mentioned. Realistically, it's redundant in the first place.

or artistic reasons,

and there go any comics, cartoons, or serious pieces of art that might include any animal getting hurt. Wile E. Coyote is out of a job. Spectacular.

will be prevented and banned.

Had you used just the title and that line there, you would have been much closer to actually having good law ready to be passed. Consider deleting everything else and using your current title followed by "will be prevented and banned" and you will be about 1000% better off than you currently are for having good law.

-Urges members to increase the awareness of animal cruelty through education, and;

-Further encourages the adoption of policies and regulations to preserve the basic dignity of all animals

These lines can probably stay, but it's hard to tell if they are actually decent, or if they just appear that way compared to the rest of the drivel.

In summation; the major issues that need to be really addressed:

Category:
-This manages to seriously affect militaries and police forces throughout the UN. That should be Global Disarmament, not Moral Decency.
-This mandates the allowance of the death penalty within nonhuman nations. That is definitely NOT withing the scope of Moral Decency
-This legalizes the murder of nonhumans as long as it is done humanely. Moral Decency is the exact opposite of accomplishing that.

Strength:
For the amount that this proposition does, Significant does not cut it at all. Strong. If you can get them to create something stronger than Strong, then use that. UberMegaHyperChrist would be a good strength for anything that does all of this so haphazardly to so many all at once.

Other Resolutions:
UNCTI: This would allow the terrorist issue I mentioned earlier, which would stand in contradiction to our extant counter terrorism law.

Freedom of Scientific Research: This declares that only the government can choose who can perform the experiments, which contravenes FSR.

Individual Self Determination: This would allow people to legally euthanize a nonhuman sentient which is directly contradicting article 5 of ISD.

Religious Freedoms: I know it has been mentioned, but this states that the UN essentially does not care about the religious beliefs of its member states, running against its already passed law resolving to promote religious tolerance. Not a flat out contradiction; just really silly.

Miscategorized, wrong strength, numerous counts of contradiction.....I'm surprised that this didn't end up in the Silly and/or Illegal Proposal Discussions. I'd be even more surprised that this garnered as many approvals as it has, but I received the TG. Very well marketted, I'll grant you that. I am glad that I usually take the time to read anything I am about to put my name to.

Oskar Feldstein
UN Ambassador for Kivisto
Petting The Master's Puppy

More importantly in this case, CPP is a 'Strong' resolution and thus it's over-ruling of a (merely) 'Significant' resolution, even of a different category, is reasonable.Mmm... no, I don't want to get into that level of micromanagement. Especially since existing law is... well... law, while Proposals... aren't. If they could somehow be passed simultaniously, you'd have a point, but that's not the case here.

Indigenous societies are in the difficult situation of being subject to UN directives, as interpreted through the national government they are subject to, without having the option to opt-out of the UN.Only because of said dreadful Resolution.

OOC: At this stage, our time might be better spent on an unendorsement campaign. I can't be online long enough this weekend to do so, but if we pick out some major flaws, a campaign might just knock enough endorsements to keep it below quorum. Worth trying anyway, given this is a) awful and b) possibly capable of passing. EDIT: Bah, it has till Tuesday.

Although - because I'm sure Hack isn't already sick of all this - the following is possibly worthy of note:
4. All forms of public expression or public exhibition, where an audience or group of spectators is present, involving the intentional physical and/or bodily suffering or substantial pain of any animal for recreational, cultural, entertainment, commercial, or artistic reasons, will be prevented and banned.
Artistic Freedom (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=137) makes absolutely no allowance for this: only a person is prohibited from being harmed. Something like nailing twelve ferrets to a cereal box and calling it A Dialectic on the Plight of Post-Feminist Theory would be protected.

OOC: At this stage, our time might be better spent on an unendorsement campaign.... EDIT: Bah, it has till Tuesday.

ooc: It's worth a shot. If anyone wants to help (and it hasn't gone to vote yet) PM me.

Funny how this proposal will probably never get passed because it forgets to recognize that member nations can have firedragons, fairies, and other similar products of one's imagination as citizens.

Freedom of Scientific Research: This declares that only the government can choose who can perform the experiments, which contravenes FSR.

So this proposal must be ammended to agree with ''Freedom of Scientific Research''. OK, fine.

Artistic Freedom makes absolutely no allowance for this: only a person is prohibited from being harmed. Something like nailing twelve ferrets to a cereal box and calling it A Dialectic on the Plight of Post-Feminist Theory would be protected.

Actually ''artistic freedom'' defines a work of art as ''an object (such as a painting or sculpture) or intellectual construct (such as a novel or musical piece) created with the primary purpose of attaining aesthetic value'', which doesn't include any kind of public spectacles as a protected work of art. I think the proposal is fine concerning that.

Funny how this proposal will probably never get passed because it forgets to recognize that member nations can have firedragons, fairies, and other similar products of one's imagination as citizens.
I think you'll find that much of the opposition to this proposal is from people who are not opposed to the idea of an animal cruelty resolution, they're just opposed to this one as it is currently written. I myself would certainly consider supporting a well-written proposal that sought to eliminate unnecessary cruelty to animals.

Coming up with a workable definition of "animal" is going to be difficult, but not impossible. You'll need to separate the humans from the animals and then further separate the animals from the non-human sapients. Like I said, it will be difficult but not impossible.

The problem with contradiction of Rights of Indigenous Peoples can be handled by giving an exemption to indigenous populations.

I know you won't want to do this but my advice is to request that the Mods remove the proposal so that it can be drafted further and the problems fixed. An animal cruelty proposal can be passed, but I don't believe this one can (or should) pass in its current form.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

I know you won't want to do this but my advice is to request that the Mods remove the proposal so that it can be drafted further and the problems fixed. An animal cruelty proposal can be passed, but I don't believe this one can (or should) pass in its current form.

Sigh... unfortunately I think I'm going to have to follow your advice on this one.

Once again, I would like to submit an alternative definition of "animal" that would satisfy the needs of non-human sentients as well as serve the purposes of this proposal.

An "animal" shall be defined as any non-botanical living organism that has not been declared sentient by the nation in which it resides.

At the very least, this change needs to be made. Argue the rest among you, but I will campaign against this proposal until either my definition or one very much like it is used to replace the defunct definition currently being used.

Again with the "humans". Nor were we referring to class Insecta in our comments.

Psst, spiders are arachnids not insects.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

This is at quorum. Will it go to vote at the next update?

Psst, spiders are arachnids not insects.

Bob Flibble
UN RepresentativeJa, ja. If we were only as smart as the Cephalopoda. ;)

This is at quorum. Will it go to vote at the next update?That's my understanding. Unless enough delegates remove endorsements, the author requests removal, or it's declared illegal before it goes to vote.

Well the proposal has reached queue status, and I just realized something that I think should be brought up. Doesn't this proposal refuse a large number of rights to a specific race of people and therefore illegal?

Grossly Offensive

If you want to execute left-handed men named "Earl" in your country, that's fine. Don't go yammering about it in a Proposal. Yes, this includes screwing with a 'majority' group. Killing all whites is just as bad as killing all jews. Or blacks. Or poor people. Things such as eliminating "all rights for $group", forced deportation of said group and the like fall under this too. Correct me if I'm wrong...but it seems to fall under this category based on the arguments given by Kivisto.

A dry, mind-twisting, creaking filled the Assembly. Heads turned as an incredibly large, hoary spider made its way forward to the podium. It’s crystalline eyes glittered with death and the droplets of ichor from its maw singed the carpeted steps.

The air in the room seemed fetid, and the gasps of undersecretaries could be heard over the widespread whispers. Shelob flung her bloated abdomen onto the dais, leaving a putrid wash on the stairs.

Klitic ksst stklik –

A gnome timidly adjusted controls at the podium, as Shelob let one lascivious eye caress him.

Yesssz. No member are we for eating and killing we enjoy too much. Chasingz, yessz and tauntingzz. Victimsss twissting in webssz makez uz glad.

Me I hearzs from krktc domestic szpidersz –she spits a perfect ball of phlegm at the feet of the delegation on the front row-- that szome do notsz belieeeeve in usz. Belieeevesz you szhould. Perhapszz fear you szhouldsz, yessz?

A dry chuckle, like a bag of bones shaken in the wind issued from the podium.

Goesz we will. For now. Ktnssk klitic ksst.


Again with the "humans". Nor were we referring to class Insecta in our comments.

Psst, spiders are arachnids not insects.

Flibblezzs we likesz. Klst slem.

Well the proposal has reached queue status, and I just realized something that I think should be brought up. Doesn't this proposal refuse a large number of rights to a specific race of people and therefore illegal?

Correct me if I'm wrong...but it seems to fall under this category based on the arguments given by Kivisto.

Yeah, I think that's right. If the proposal is deleted, I want the original paper copy, in order to set it on fire.

Deleted. Again.

Clearly, this still needs a lot of work, and there just wasn't time to try and work out the numerous potential contradictions brought up by Kivisto and QuoD. When it was just a question of RoIP, I was willing to create an ad hoc ruling, but this is rapidly becoming more and more complex, and needs considerable thought.

Adding to this the fact that the author seems to realise existing contradictions (would have been nice if you requested its removal instead of being willing to charge ahead with a potentially illegal Proposal, by the way), and this thing is DOA.

Try again.

Also, please, please, please wait to submit this until you're sure its legal and all set. It's been deleted twice now.

As an aside, many of the potential contradictions can be avoided by the addition of a single phrase. I'm sure most of the regulars can figure it out given a moment's thought.

- The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

Approvals: 116 (Cornabe, Hawaiialaska, The Penguin Isles, Guerra Sucia, Homieville, Baiteria, Myceena, Mahasoori, Bretonnian Europa, Black Curtains, Ryno III, Mabrville, The Mattabooloo, Zowali, Goudrony, Lygonia, Rhykmos, WZ Forums, Frankogando, Jed Scott, Nurdia, Of The Lost Boy, Dioxin, Santa Maria De La Loma, Gunfreak, Spaz Land, GMTA, Alpacadom, Manfigurut II, UP Baguio, Txiniamagna, Multyfarnham, The Lightened Humanity, Chandelier, The culturally inept, Josefsburg, Mikeswill, NewTexas, North Riding, Monkeys with TommyGuns, Dellvia, Jamesingtonland, Da Atte Preniez, JMDS, Cyliano, Monkeychickens, Bungdunkler, Frances Garcia, Tarmsden, Lackland, Scary Monkeys, Kanu Tanu, Auremtos, The abbandoned Glauber, Kraapsundic, Kungpaomao, Neo Puddin, Cal D, New Muskoka, Despoticania, Bubalonia, Worldwide Ministries, The Kings Guard, Red Mage Anarchism, Pubski, The Nacitav City, Calypso Freedom Land, Mefecawaran, Mungaia, KoG Apollyon XS, Mousehold Heath, Psycotia Island, Equally Treated People, Pink Floyd Animal, Ellenburg, Lothloland, Mattatron, AP3 10, Discordia Magna, Mary Island, Maggie Mul, Totoral, Arming Republics, LinkinParkism, Jordend, Pace Libera, Arcandy, Momochine, Gerry1034, Great Revelation, Dysia, Landreth, Kejuree, Snuffolama, Felasia, Tadyjos, Phthisis, Gwenstefani, Veltia, Douzie, Mordlander, The Bob III, Gobbo Power, Amdusias, Cabrochasa, Green Hats, Astur-Country, CYFA, Living Rights, Maryat, Nereffid, Natasua, Faded Smiles, Derbb, Higher thinkers, Spartakles)

*applauds*

Oh, and refresh my memory as to what RoIP is. I'm drawing a blank.

Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Cool. Thanks.

Frankly, I'm disappointed at every delegate who approved this. I would defenestrate them, but I'm lazy.

Wait wait wait, why is it illegal again?

Now let me take a look at all your troubles:

--contravenes Rights of Indigenous Persons, UNR #89
--contravenes Artistic Freedom, UNR #138
--contravenes Individual Self Determination, UNR #166, with respect to sapient nonhuman's within the UN

1) It really doesn't contravene Rights of Indigenous Persons... does it?
2) Under that resolution's definition of ''work of art'', my proposal was fine.
3) Sapient non-humans... of course... people from outer space are also excluded from the proposal's definition of ''animal'', no?

You should try reading all of Quod and Kivisto's posts. Or at least Kivisto's. They're very insightful.

In summation; the major issues that need to be really addressed:

Category:
-This manages to seriously affect militaries and police forces throughout the UN. That should be Global Disarmament, not Moral Decency.
-This mandates the allowance of the death penalty within nonhuman nations. That is definitely NOT withing the scope of Moral Decency
-This legalizes the murder of nonhumans as long as it is done humanely. Moral Decency is the exact opposite of accomplishing that.

Strength:
For the amount that this proposition does, Significant does not cut it at all. Strong. If you can get them to create something stronger than Strong, then use that. UberMegaHyperChrist would be a good strength for anything that does all of this so haphazardly to so many all at once.

Other Resolutions:
UNCTI: This would allow the terrorist issue I mentioned earlier, which would stand in contradiction to our extant counter terrorism law.

Freedom of Scientific Research: This declares that only the government can choose who can perform the experiments, which contravenes FSR.

Individual Self Determination: This would allow people to legally euthanize a nonhuman sentient which is directly contradicting article 5 of ISD.

Religious Freedoms: I know it has been mentioned, but this states that the UN essentially does not care about the religious beliefs of its member states, running against its already passed law resolving to promote religious tolerance. Not a flat out contradiction; just really silly.

Miscategorized, wrong strength, numerous counts of contradiction.....I'm surprised that this didn't end up in the Silly and/or Illegal Proposal Discussions. I'd be even more surprised that this garnered as many approvals as it has, but I received the TG. Very well marketted, I'll grant you that. I am glad that I usually take the time to read anything I am about to put my name to.

Granted, some of these may have been cleared up already.

I have read it all. Only thing is, most of it deals with the fact that the proposal omits the fact that sapient non-humans are out there. I'm of course willing to change that in the proposal, but I still believe it is completely ridiculous.

Wait wait wait, why is it illegal again?

Now let me take a look at all your troubles:
1) It really doesn't contravene Rights of Indigenous Persons... does it?

Kinda, but Hack wasn't going to overturn it just on that.

2) Under that resolution's definition of ''work of art'', my proposal was fine.

Iffy.

3) Sapient non-humans... of course... people from outer space are also excluded from the proposal's definition of ''animal'', no?

Good for space, still leaves room for the earthbound nonhuman sapients.

Stack all these together with all of the others and you're left with a mess of paperwork to wade through before they could even begin to figure out where all the illegalities lie. As Hack said, the issue has gotten rather complex and needs to be sorted out before it goes to vote. Many of the issues I brought up can be covered with the usage of the definition provided by Intellect and Art. Many of the rest can be covered through a careful exception clause regarding already extant resolutions.

fwiw - I might consider supporting an animal cruelty ban, but I cannot support this one as written.

Imagining that the definition of ''animal'' has been cleared up and everyone is OK with that part... in what else should this proposal improve on?

Not all sapient non-humans are aliens! Did you even LOOK at my definition suggestion either time I put it up? I get that you don't think "the fantastical and mystical imaginary world of certain players" should be given the same consideration as those who stick to your so-called 'real world' and play as humans, but the fact is you're trying to make rules that exclude "fantasy" in a COMPUTER GAME! Guess what! This UN is an IMAGINARY UN! Your nation is an IMAGINARY nation! You can't visit it. It isn't on any map. The people who live there aren't real. It's the internet. It's a game. Stop trying to impose 'reality' on imaginary constructs. It just doesn't work. Wake up and smell the programming.

EDIT: Ok, so other people posted while I was typing...but I don't want to just assume the definition has been resolved. The fact is that the vast majority of the problems with the proposal can be solved simply by changing the definition of "animal". Once again, I point to the definition I created. It solves a whole lot of issues and would make the proposal nearly perfect. In as far as the contradicting of other resolutions is concerned, I'll let others take care of that, but until you actually tell us what definition you're going to use, I say it's still an issue.

I have read it all. Only thing is, most of it deals with the fact that the proposal omits the fact that sapient non-humans are out there. I'm of course willing to change that in the proposal, but I still believe it is completely ridiculous.

I'll just politely ask Wolfgang from the Commonwealth of the Wolf Guardians here, to let him defend this issue.

Perhaps, if you haven't realized, the fact is that NS =/= Real Life. We can make up whatever we want here. If I want a nation operated by two million Arcturan Megadonkeys, I can do such. Therefore, all UN drafts need to recognize that there are "animals" out there that are sapient/sentient. Like the Wolf Guardians, who are only part human (I think).

Furthermore, my Arcturan Megadonkeys are telling me to tell you to bugger off to a cultural sensitivity class.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador
Adamant Defender of the Non-Human Sentients Cause

Fine.

Let me propose a definition for animal then. I took part of Intellect and Art's one, although his/her's includes spiders and insects.

''-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every living vertebrate that has not been declared sapient by the nation in which such creature resides in and that falls into the classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, or Mammalia.''

And the definition of sapient:

Having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment.

Now you can all tell me how I am still discriminating someone or something. [/SARCASM]

Well, what animals in need of protection were you thinking of?

I still dislike this definition (as nations can and do roleplay animals that aren't in one of those categories but are still worthy of protection) but it's miles ahead of the previous definition. I'm certainly not going to push it here.

Other than defining "sapient", which I believe should be left up to each nation to set for itself, I believe a decent compromise has been reached. Unless this issue is breached again, I have said my piece. I don't completely agree with excluding insects, but it seems you have no intent of budging on this point. I'll be checking in here from time to time, but for now, I take my leave.

:eek:

An agreement? Wonderful!

Well, the thing with insects is that they could be considered pests... and are for the most part. Giving protection to insects would be... a little exaggerated, maybe?

Well, I'm sure that S-14 (www.nationstates.net/s-14), being a nation of sentient ants, would object to being called pests, but it seems they'd be excluded regardless.

Just so we don't have to change pages:

''-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every living vertebrate that has not been declared sapient by the nation in which such creature resides in and that falls into the classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, or Mammalia.''

To be considered an ''animal'' under this definition one must not be sapient and be classified under one of those categories. If that nation possesses sapient ants, then this definition doesn't include them, and so they're fine. :)

Shorten it to "Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every living vertebrate that has not been declared sapient by the nation in which they reside" and you have yourself a working definition. Adding all the "class" information may not work well as not all nations teach or recognize Linnaean taxonomy as an acceptable way to classify types of living organisms.

By shorting it, the proposal effectively bans all pest control... and makes it a crime to kill an ant. I think the current class classification is necessary, and an equivalent could also be devised for other classification systems.

Ok, lets start introducing some changes:

-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''legal biomedical research'' as the activities performed by any kind of institution, organization or entity which has been given permission to perform such activities by competent authorities in accordance with UN Resolution #166, ''Freedom of Scientific Research''.

Adding that basically solves the contradiction issue.

Disgusted at how certain individuals and organizations make a profit from the pain, agony and death of animals as a public spectacle,

Re-worded. Now the UN isn't ''shocked'', just ''disgusted''.

In an attempt to eradicate the dispensable suffering of other living beings;

Re-worded, instead of ''agony''.

a. Activities conducted for the primary purpose of and stricly required for providing food for human or animal consumption.

There. Now beating a dog to death is not allowed, even if you do eat the dog later, as it is not ''strictly required for''...

The shortened definition does not ban pest control if you make pest control and extermination companies exempt from your legislation. You can make exceptions, you know. Also, common sense tels us that the penalty for the illegal killing of ants, gnats, and other insects will not be enforced by reasonable governments as long as those insects are not considered sentient.

The shortened definition does not ban pest control if you make pest control and extermination companies exempt from your legislation. You can make exceptions, you know. Also, common sense tels us that the penalty for the illegal killing of ants, gnats, and other insects will not be enforced by reasonable governments as long as those insects are not considered sentient.

Nah, too complex. Common sense does not seem to be applicable in NationStates UN proposals (:rolleyes:). Besides, do ants, spiders, and the similar really need to be protected? (please please please don't say otherwise) [/Sarcasm]

A heretofore unseen and rather svelte Guardian walked into the room. The astute would note the holo-emitter disguised as an earring. Glowing blue "veins" could be seen pulsating gently through his arctic-translucent fur. He spoke in an odd double tone, as though he had two voices, both impeccably smooth and controlled, speaking in a perfect and pleasant harmony. "Hello. I'm IX-8492 of the Commonwealth. Wolfgang dot oh thirteen has asked me to convey his quote utter disgust for this sham of a debate end-quote and most specifically the person designated 'Emperor Carlos V' continually dismissing all nonhuman sapient species. On a side note, I am an artificial intelligence, created at Commonwealth Electronics. In the Commonwealth, AIs have been given Citizenship. Wolfgang dot oh thirteen thought one of us would be a good representative in this matter.

"Now, as for important matters. How will this be enforced? We can't just say 'no more war' or another such positive intention and have it become true. Now, the line stating, 'The humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death,' is ambiguous. I could shoot a creature in the head and fulfill this requirement. You, who claim to be trying to protect the animals, made no reference to making it as painless as possible in a specific set of circumstances.

"In addition, you have, yourself, stated that you were only trying to protect those creatures that most resembled humans, which seems to mean those with a similar facial structure to humans. This is unfair. Yes, it is necessary for nations with inferior technology to eradicate infestations by simple beings, but we cannot simply ignore other creatures. In addition, there are other nonsentient species in the Multiverse that are not connected in any way to the classes you listed. We cannot ignore them, either. Because of this, your definition is still invalid. Please attempt to comprehend the following: The Multiverse is not homogeneously the same as your nation. It is, by its nature, bound to contain things beyond possible imagination.

"The definition needs to be altered to deal with the population and complexity of a species, rather than attempting to define a limited group."


WOLFEDIT:OOC: Might I add that, to my knowledge, insects are not vertebrates, and therefore would not be protected by this silly definition, just exactly like you want. Shortening it, as per IAA's suggestion, would not encroach upon the ability to kill every bloody insect on the planet, if one wishes. Please understand the vocabulary of your own proposal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invertebrate

Emperor Carlos V,

Just a friendly word of advice... people here are trying to help you. Continuing to be snarky, excessively sarcastic, and generally unpleasant is likely to result in nobody being willing to offer any assistance any more.

Of course, if you'd rather just steam on ahead and alone, that's your choice. It's just not a very wise one.

"In addition, you have, yourself, stated that you were only trying to protect those creatures that most resembled humans, which seems to mean those with a similar facial structure to humans. This is unfair. Yes, it is necessary for nations with inferior technology to eradicate infestations by simple beings, but we cannot simply ignore other creatures. In addition, there are other nonsentient species in the Multiverse that are not connected in any way to the classes you listed. We cannot ignore them, either. Because of this, your definition is still invalid. Please attempt to comprehend the following: The Multiverse is not homogeneously the same as your nation. It is, by its nature, bound to contain things beyond possible imagination.

It is proving to be increasingly difficult to clearly determine which classes of living beings need protection and which are considered, for the lack of a better term, as unworthy for protection from sapient beings. As an example, bacteria continue to be ''living beings'', and practically no-one in its right mind would think of limiting cruelty on such creatures. The definition of ''animal'' for the purpose of this proposal also becomes nearly impossible based on the fact that the multiverse contains things ''beyond possible imagination''.

Seeing as your knowledge of classification of living beings seems extense, might you suggest your idea for the definition of ''animal''?

It is proving to be increasingly difficult to clearly determine which classes of living beings need protection and which are considered, for the lack of a better term, as unworthy for protection from sapient beings. As an example, bacteria continue to be ''living beings'', and practically no-one in its right mind would think of limiting cruelty on such creatures. The definition of ''animal'' for the purpose of this proposal also becomes nearly impossible based on the fact that the multiverse contains things ''beyond possible imagination''.

Seeing as your knowledge of classification of living beings seems extense, might you suggest your idea for the definition of ''animal''?

If you use the definition that was so kindly provided by Intellect and Art, which you seem to have completely ignored, you'll be fine. It's not impossible.

An "animal" shall be defined as any non-botanical living organism that has not been declared sentient by the nation in which it resides.

There. Simple.

And common sense is left to decide which animals are worthy of protection and which are just too insignificant to be included in that definition...

Basically all non-sapient living beings are protected then?

OOC: I'm sorry if my voice is muffled, but I'm choking on the arrogance here.
Greetings Quintessence of Dust,

I am Emperor Carlos V, co-author of the proposal ''Unnecessary Animal Cruelty''. I have seen your wish to begin a campaign against the proposal in question, and while it is obviously entirely your decision to do so or not, I'd like you to reconsider.

The main argument, if not basically the only one still standing, against the proposal is the fact that it does not recognize that animals may be citizens of certain nations. Such a position is ridiculous at best. Is the fantastical and mystical imaginary world of certain players really worthy of UN consideration? I believe not, and I'd hope you'd agree.

Please, help put some kind of reason into United Nations. A response will be greatly appreciated.
Look. Who are you to tell people how they roleplay their nations? If you want yours to be - like Quintessence of Dust - a completely "normal", modern-tech, non-silly, human nation, then fine. I like it too. But I don't pretend I have the authority to posture around and tell others they have to do it this way. What harm does having a spacefaring nation, or an ancient civilization, or a nation populated by hyperintelligent shades of the colour blue, actually do?

Furthermore, does it eliminate the possibility of proper discussion to allow this? No. I don't want dwarves committing terrorism, or androids imposing tariffs, or dragons dumping toxic waste: I don't really see it matters. If you would rather exist in a perfectly non-fantastical bubble, then obviously that's your prerogative: but you can't expect to come to the UN (pop. ~28,000) and demand everyone do it the same way.

If you think anyone recognising non-human intelligence is automatically 'ridiculous', maybe you should check out Ausserland (http://www.vguild.hostrocket.com/new_un/New_UN.html) or Knootoss (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Knootoss): they've put plenty of detail into their nations, and have contributed plenty to NS, including the NSUN.

Finally, you don't seem to understand that this entire game is a work of imagination. I'm not a war veteran or a political scientist, but my UN reps are: is that a bit of imagining that's allowed, because it fits your paradigm, but having a UN rep who is a wolf or a pokemon is not? (Ok, pokemon really shouldn't be allowed :P).

IC:
A bacteria is not an animal. It's not a member of the kingdom Animalia. Using 'non-botanical' doesn't work, because bacteria aren't plants, either. I don't see what the problem (aside from assuming all UN nations use a Linntoomanyvowelsen system of taxonomy...but that's probably a whole new area) with

'An animal is, for the purposes of this resolution, a non-[qualifier] member of the kingdom Animalia'

I mean, yes, it's tautologous, but that's unlikely to be a huge concern for a resolution that presumes nations incapable of working out what an animal is to start with. For [qualifier], insert 'sapient', 'sentient', 'intelligent', or change to, 'not a person': whichever you like, and I'm not qualified (ho ho) to advise which is preferable (though the consensus seems to be 'sapient').

-- Samantha Benson
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

(aside from assuming all UN nations use a Linntoomanyvowelsen system of taxonomy...but that's probably a whole new area)
That gives me an idea for a new draft...

(though the consensus seems to be 'sapient').

I agree with "sapient" because "sentient" is defined as
sentient
–adjective
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.

...which contrasts from sapient which, as defined earlier in this topic, as having "sound judgment". Granted, I don't know what :sound judgment" may be, but sapient seems to be the best route. Thusly, I propose this:

An animal is, for the purposes of this resolution, a non-sapient member of the kingdom Animalia

Granted, however, that legislation does not exist (to my knowledge) to regulate the classification or taxonomic systems of nations. That may need to be addressed first, but that is another matter.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

OO BLOODY C: Last edited by Emperor Carlos V : Yesterday at 9:22 PM. Reason: Imaginary and fantastical (but sapient) creatures were constantly at my throat.

I'm really growing tired of this.


IC: "Unfortunately, due to the nature of the Multiverse, a definition will either have to be so simple as to leave it up to the 'common sense,' as you call it, of the independent nations, or must be complex enough to encompass exactly what we're trying to protect.

"'Defines, for this proposal, the term animal to indicate any being demonstrated to have rudimentary intelligence but have not been declared sapient.'

"You could improve the ability to mass-murder small creatures by adding an exclusion, 'f. Activities to decrease the populations of minimal-intelligence beings whose population is so high as to be an extreme nuisance or hazard to the public at large.'

"I am further concerned that you made no mention towards altering line 2E to account for the actual pain inflicted upon the being or beings being destroyed. I would add something along the lines of, '... in as painless a way as possible.' After all, even a relatively cruel death could be humane for a creature that is suffering more."

The Wolf Guardians;12757737']
"I am further concerned that you made no mention towards altering line 2E to account for the actual pain inflicted upon the being or beings being destroyed. I would add something along the lines of, '... in as painless a way as possible.' After all, even a relatively cruel death could be humane for a creature that is suffering more."

By involving ''instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death'', one is effectively killing an animal without any kind of pain. Although, for clarification purposes, your suggested phrase will be added. ;)

I'd rather define ''animal'' in the most detailed way possible. That is where all the troubles seem to come from, and leaving it up for interpretation would be... risky.

Lets see... the current one is as follows:

''-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every living vertebrate that has not been declared sapient by the nation in which such creature resides in and that falls into the biological classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, or Mammalia.''

...which could also be put in the following way, leaving less space for interpretation:

''-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every non-sapient living vertebrate in the biological classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, or Mammalia.''

...the other suggested ones were along the lines of:

''An animal is, for the purposes of this resolution, a non-sapient member of the biological kingdom Animalia.''

...and while that definition is simple and to the point, it includes things like mosquitos, spiders, worms, and ants. Adding the suggested clause:

''. Activities to decrease the populations of minimal-intelligence beings whose population is so high as to be an extreme nuisance or hazard to the public at large.''

Will probably just make it unnecessarily complex, and sort of once again open to interpretation on what the boundaries between ''minimal intelligence'' and ''average intelligence'' is.

Besides, do ants, spiders, and the similar really need to be protected? (please please please don't say otherwise) [/Sarcasm]Her spiracles wheezing like an ancient calliope, the giant spider stopped at the top of the stairs in the hall,. And turned, flinging spittle on the hapless backs of the Akimodan delegation. Scanning for the insolent youngster...

Yessz. Protectz the krktc. Szmarter than you thinksz and prettiesz. Yessz.

Hmmmz. Szportzs here for old Szhelobsz there may be. Slkt.

With a brutal grin on her maw, she plopped her bloated body in the aisle leading to the west door.

By involving ''instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death'', one is effectively killing an animal without any kind of pain. Although, for clarification purposes, your suggested phrase will be added. ;)
"As I stated earlier, I could shoot an animal in the head. Despite being artificial, myself, I reasonably feel that this causes immense pain, however brief. It could, however, be the most humane way available, if one were not in range of an animal hospital, where the being can be put to sleep, which is the most humane way of murdering anything."

I'd rather define ''animal'' in the most detailed way possible. That is where all the troubles seem to come from, and leaving it up for interpretation would be... risky.

Lets see... the current one is as follows:

''-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every living vertebrate that has not been declared sapient by the nation in which such creature resides in and that falls into the biological classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, or Mammalia.''

...which could also be put in the following way, leaving less space for interpretation:

''-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every non-sapient living vertebrate in the biological classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, or Mammalia.''

...the other suggested ones were along the lines of:

''An animal is, for the purposes of this resolution, a non-sapient member of the biological kingdom Animalia.''

...and while that definition is simple and to the point, it includes things like mosquitos, spiders, worms, and ants. Adding the suggested clause:

''. Activities to decrease the populations of minimal-intelligence beings whose population is so high as to be an extreme nuisance or hazard to the public at large.''

Will probably just make it unnecessarily complex, and sort of once again open to interpretation on what the boundaries between ''minimal intelligence'' and ''average intelligence'' is.

"You're completely missing the point. First, it needs to be open to interpretation in order to allow for beings we haven't even encountered yet. As I've stated, some creatures that ought to be protected might not fall into the classes you're trying to use.

"Secondly, if you so wish to do so, simply including the word 'vertebrate' automatically prevents insects from being included. They are invertebrates. That problem is solved, and for the sake of efficiency I will not make this point again.

"However, let's run a hypothetical scenario. Planet X evolves a being physically identical to a spider, except that it only lays a few eggs at a time, preventing its population reaching gargantuan numbers. The creature is the size of a small dog, and is of approximately the same intelligence. The people of Planet X, by and large, consider them to be pets, just as you consider dogs and cats.

"They are not, however, protected, because they are most similar to the insect class of Earth.

"As an alternative lifeform, myself, I contend that this is quite unfair. In order for the definition to encompass all possibilities, it simply must be based on the intelligence and the nature of the population. If the same creature of Planet X laid three million eggs, they would cross the line becoming a severe nuisance, as they would absolutely litter the landscape. They would likely also die out due to insufficient resources to support such a population, so it would actually be humane for the species to cull their population in some way.

"Similarly, bacteria and Earth-insect populations grow to such proportions, and you'd be allowed to destroy them because of such an exception.

"Believe it or not, most nations do have an element of common sense. It's hard to find, at times, but really, when it comes to exterminating pests, no nation is going to say no, regardless of the law.

"This proposal, while well meant, will continue to be nothing but a superficial, empty gesture unless we apply it in the broadest way possible."

Well, the thing with insects is that they could be considered pests... and are for the most part.The same could be said for children.
Imagining that the definition of ''animal'' has been cleared up and everyone is OK with that part... in what else should this proposal improve on?

Glad you asked.

I'm assuming what's on the first page is your current version (with the exception of the definition of animal, which I pulled from above).
In agreement with the concept of animal rights;This remains a contentious clause. Many people hold to a definition of rights that precludes bestowing rights on those who have no ability to exercise them. It is also unneeded in light of your next clause...
Acknowledging animals’ basic freedom from needless torture and abuse;Horrified by the widespread practice of so-called ‘blood sports’, such as bullfighting or dog fighting, in a legal manner;Your wording here is awkward. Practices not prohibited by law are by definition legal. And "horrified" is way over the top. Suggested wording: Disturbed by the widespread practice of so-called “blood sports” such as bullfighting and dog fighting;Disgusted at how certain individuals and organizations make a profit from the pain, agony and death of animals as a public spectacle,As written, this includes things such as horse racing. Is that your intent? Suggested wording: blah blah... make a profit from the intentional infliction of pain, agony and death of animals for public spectacle;Not considering the use of cultural importance as a valid argument defending the infliction of pain and torture of animals for the purpose of entertainment, and;Although we still consider support of RoIP worthy, it occurs to us that most indigenous cultural rights in this area would be in the name of religion, not entertainment, and therefore not be prohibited by this resolution (and indeed receive additional protections of Religious Tolerance.In an attempt to eradicate the dispensable suffering of other living beings;“Dispensable” leaves a sour taste in our mouths. Pain can be necessary or unnecessary, but suffering is inherently undesirable.-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every living vertebrate that has not been declared sapient by the nation in which such creature resides in and that falls into the biological classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, or Mammalia.And here you continue to jump the shark. As any number of people have pointed out your insistence on restricting the definition of animal to Linnean vertebrates makes this entire proposal less than desirable. For example, if I were to fill a 5000 gal. tank with octopi, zap a few million volts of electricity through the pool and sell tickets so the good people could cheer and laugh as the tentacles fly and the octopi fry, it would be defined as “not cruel” per your resolution as it stands.

In the interest of an enduring resolution (and trust me, leaving this definition as is will result in a successful repeal at some point in the near future if the proposal passes), remove the restriction of vertebrate and of your selective phylla. Sufficient exceptions for pest irradication can be made. There have been any number of suggestions for an appropriate definition that could be supported by a large number of people. Use one of them.2. The following are excempted from the above rule:
a. Activities conducted for the primary purpose of and stricly required for providing food for human or animal consumption.
Misspellings in bold.c. Professional veterinary practices performed in the interests of an animal's welfare or health condition.Although this would be nice, many places do not have the services of a professional veterinary and animal medicine is performed by whoever has the knowledge. I would strike “professional”. e. The humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death.Although veterinary-directed euthanasia would be ideal, as we noted many peoples of the world do not have access to such (either generally or in emergency cases). Putting an animal down with whatever one has available is often preferable to letting it die an excruciating death. And death, even from a bullet to the brain, is seldom immediate. Better phrasing would harken back to the purpose of your proposal, for example: ...by a method that involves as little suffering as possible.
4. All forms of public expression or public exhibition, where an audience or group of spectators is present, involving the intentional physical and/or bodily suffering or substantial pain of any animal for recreational, cultural, entertainment, commercial, or artistic reasons, will be prevented and banned.This clause is still very weak. As long as only participants are present, any activity bypasses your intended ban.
-Urges members to increase the awareness of animal cruelty through education, and;Not critical, but I would suggest: ... awareness of animal well-being through education.

Educate for want you want to occur, not in the acts you want to stop.
-Further encourages the adoption of policies and regulations to preserve the basic dignity of all animals.Do nonsapient, nonsentient animals have dignity—other than that which you’ve anthropomorphized onto them? This is actually obnoxious PETA crap.

--L.T.

I'm glad to see how the number of problematic clauses is decreasing.

Your wording here is awkward. Practices not prohibited by law are by definition legal. And "horrified" is way over the top. Suggested wording: Disturbed by the widespread practice of so-called “blood sports” such as bullfighting and dog fighting;

Exactly. The purpose of that statement was to indicate that the UN was ''horrified'' at how the law did not prohibit the practice of blood sports.

This remains a contentious clause. Many people hold to a definition of rights that precludes bestowing rights on those who have no ability to exercise them. It is also unneeded in light of your next clause...

Fine. Will be removed.

As written, this includes things such as horse racing. Is that your intent? Suggested wording: blah blah... make a profit from the intentional infliction of pain, agony and death of animals for public spectacle;

Reasonable. Will be implemented.

“Dispensable” leaves a sour taste in our mouths. Pain can be necessary or unnecessary, but suffering is inherently undesirable.

Since it's undesirable, people will support this proposal to prevent it.

Misspellings in bold.

Corrected.

Although this would be nice, many places do not have the services of a professional veterinary and animal medicine is performed by whoever has the knowledge. I would strike “professional”.

The word ''professional'' is needed to differenciate between just some random guy trying to cure the animal from someone with some sort of knowledge. ''Professional'' practices doesn't really require any sort of technology, just understanding of one's field area. Anyhow, very minor issue.

Although veterinary-directed euthanasia would be ideal, as we noted many peoples of the world do not have access to such (either generally or in emergency cases). Putting an animal down with whatever one has available is often preferable to letting it die an excruciating death. And death, even from a bullet to the brain, is seldom immediate. Better phrasing would harken back to the purpose of your proposal, for example: ...by a method that involves as little suffering as possible.

I'm sure we can allow head-shots as methods involving ''instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death''. I mean, how long does it take between the shot and death? Fractions of a second? Maybe a second or two? In my understanding, that's enough to be considered ''instantaneous/immediate''. Although the ''little pain as possible'' phrase would be nice to add.

This clause is still very weak. As long as only participants are present, any activity bypasses your intended ban.

Remember clause 1 is still in effect. I don't think this ban could be easily bypassed. Although it may also be that I didn't quite understand what you were trying to convey.

Do nonsapient, nonsentient animals have dignity—other than that which you’ve anthropomorphized onto them? This is actually obnoxious PETA crap.

Dignity as viewed by us sapient creatures.

I'm glad to see how the number of problematic clauses is decreasing.


You're not following the same discussion as the rest of us, are you? :confused:

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

And here you continue to jump the shark. As any number of people have pointed out your insistence on restricting the definition of animal to Linnean vertebrates makes this entire proposal less than desirable. For example, if I were to fill a 5000 gal. tank with octopi, zap a few million volts of electricity through the pool and sell tickets so the good people could cheer and laugh as the tentacles fly and the octopi fry, it would be defined as “not cruel” per your resolution as it stands.

In the interest of an enduring resolution (and trust me, leaving this definition as is will result in a successful repeal at some point in the near future if the proposal passes), remove the restriction of vertebrate and of your selective phylla. Sufficient exceptions for pest irradication can be made. There have been any number of suggestions for an appropriate definition that could be supported by a large number of people.

I am still a little uneasy with broadening the definition. There's a lot of cases where killing a certain creature considered, under such a definition, as a criminal act would be simply stupid... :rolleyes:

You're not following the same discussion as the rest of us, are you? :confused:

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Compared to the middle of this discussion, the number has decreased.

Just to clear up some issues that may or may not have been brought up, such as the mention of sapient bacteria and ants, how about adding a clause that allows for the killing or injuring of creatures when one's life or health, or the life or health of another person or persons, is in danger? Basically a self-defense/defense of others clause. That way if, say, you or your friend or family member is under attack by an animal (or bacteria), you would be allowed to kill or 'wing' said animal (or bacteria) without suffering penalty for saving your hide.

One of the reasons I'm unhappy with the taxonomy deal is that not all nations have animals that fall into the categories of real-life taxonomy. As has been stated, this is an imaginary world, and imaginary creatures don't necessarily bow to the laws of RL science. Take, for example, an animal comprised of biological plasma. Under which of the limited categories of your chosen taxonomy. RL science has no place for these creatures, but NationStates does. Does this, therefore, mean that they have no rights to protection simply because they don't mean RL standards? I believe they should be protected just as much as 'real' creatures, and I believe many people here would agree with me. This is neither unreasonable nor absurd. It's simply what happens when you try to define life-forms in a free-flowing video game.

The Federation will not be supporting this resolution as long as it contains the clause about "blood-sports". Some so-called "blood-sports" are an integral fabric of Ambrose-Douglas' history, such as Phoenix Rings. We see no reason that this sport should be banned as the animal technically dies, if the ringer wins, of course, but is then reborn again, each and every time.

Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the UN and Foreign Lands
Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

The Federation will not be supporting this resolution as long as it contains the clause about "blood-sports". Some so-called "blood-sports" are an integral fabric of Ambrose-Douglas' history, such as Phoenix Rings. We see no reason that this sport should be banned as the animal technically dies, if the ringer wins, of course, but is then reborn again, each and every time.

The proposal can't be agreed by everyone, unfortunately. Cultural or historical reasons are no justification for animal cruelty.

Just to clear up some issues that may or may not have been brought up, such as the mention of sapient bacteria and ants, how about adding a clause that allows for the killing or injuring of creatures when one's life or health, or the life or health of another person or persons, is in danger? Basically a self-defense/defense of others clause. That way if, say, you or your friend or family member is under attack by an animal (or bacteria), you would be allowed to kill or 'wing' said animal (or bacteria) without suffering penalty for saving your hide.

I do believe there's a clause on that...

''2d. The destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health.''

The public including anyone and everyone, of course.

This is neither unreasonable nor absurd. It's simply what happens when you try to define life-forms in a free-flowing video game.

I'll work on a definite definition (lol) as soon as possible, though not today. ;)

Compared to the middle of this discussion, the number has decreased.

Yet there are still so many glaring errors. Or incompetencies.

One of the reasons I'm unhappy with the taxonomy deal is that not all nations have animals that fall into the categories of real-life taxonomy. As has been stated, this is an imaginary world, and imaginary creatures don't necessarily bow to the laws of RL science. Take, for example, an animal comprised of biological plasma. Under which of the limited categories of your chosen taxonomy. RL science has no place for these creatures, but NationStates does. Does this, therefore, mean that they have no rights to protection simply because they don't mean RL standards? I believe they should be protected just as much as 'real' creatures, and I believe many people here would agree with me. This is neither unreasonable nor absurd. It's simply what happens when you try to define life-forms in a free-flowing video game.

Exactly. The UN has not legislated on taxonomic systems, so nations are free to choose how to classify animals. In some countries, particularly some of Akimonad's puppet corporations, animals are grouped by how much work they can do before dying. And furthermore...

*motions to a small teddy bear-sized creature made entirely of cheese puffs*

My friend Baron Manfred von Puf d'Cheez has informed me that he is not amused.

That said, we will be vehemently opposing this piece of fluffy PETA crap.

No, wait, I'm sorry: calling it "fluffy" is an insult. To the real fluffies.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

"I acknowledge my overlooking of the "protection" clause and apologize for having done so. I also appreciate your stated willingness to rework your 'animal' definition without the pesky non-universal taxonomy jargon."

President Akia curtsies politely and exits the debate.

I completely disagree with the statement that animals (animals as defined by this proposal) are ''non-sentient''. Claiming that, say, a dog does not feel pain when injured is a ridiculous idea. For the other part, I believe that's already been addressed:

''2a. Activities conducted for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption.''



None of those examples fall under clause 1, so no need to worry about that.

My only quibble is with the assumption that animals, who have not been proven to be aware of the concept of rights and the corollary concept of responsibilities, do indeed have rights. I am conceding that they have the right to protection from unreasonable, sometimes irrational, cruelties from humans - that is the only animal right I will concede. Make that amendment and you will have my unequivocal support.

I do believe that one of the measures of a person is the way he/she treats animals. It has definitely been demonstrated that an individual who is systematically cruel to animals has potential for extending that cruelty to humans - the same can be said for cultures that are systematically cruel to animals. It has been noted that serial killers have started by torturing animals. But I do not believe that a creature who is unaware of the concept of rights and responsibilities has rights, what that creature has, must have, is protection.

The proposal can't be agreed by everyone, unfortunately. Cultural or historical reasons are no justification for animal cruelty.


And I'd like to see how that is animal cruelty, sir. Have you ever seen how a phoenix dies? It bursts into flame. It makes itself burst into flame, roast to death, and turn into ashes. It is then reborn again as a young phoenix from those ashes.

While there is no indication that a phoenix even feels pain, we contest that anything we should do to it during a Phoenix Ring would cause nearly as much pain as burning it alive.

Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands
Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

And I'd like to see how that is animal cruelty, sir. Have you ever seen how a phoenix dies? It bursts into flame. It makes itself burst into flame...

Hmmm...interesting point. Maybe while we're at it, we should set up a suicide hotline for lemmings. ;)

Ailyn Vel (URL=http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Not yet submitted. Any ideas, comments, suggestions, etc., will be greatly appreciated.

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

Unnecessary Animal Cruelty
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strengh: Significant
Description:

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

Recognizing the cruelty and inhumane treatment to which a great number of animals are continuously and unnecessarily subject to;

Acknowledging animals’ basic freedom from needless torture and abuse;

<snipped... blah blah...>

In an attempt to eradicate the dispensable suffering of other living beings;

-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every living vertebrate that has not been declared sapient by the nation in which such creature resides in and that falls into the biological classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, or Mammalia.

<snipped... blah blah...>

-Urges members to increase the awareness of animal cruelty through education, and;

-Further encourages the adoption of policies and regulations to preserve the basic dignity of all animals.

As vice ambassador to the magnanimous Queendom of Wampi, and with great concern for living beings, I must strongly (yet politely and with much gentillity) protest to the above definition of "animals" as it, I'm sure inadvertantly, omits any and all INvertebrates. This omission must not be ignored! I therefore regretfully cannot and must not provide my support of said proposal, until and unless this omission is corrected.

Thank you kindly for your ears...

Hmmm...interesting point. Maybe while we're at it, we should set up a suicide hotline for lemmings. ;)

Ailyn Vel (URL=http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

*Lemming dials number*

*Droning voice on the other end* Don't jump... don't jump... don't jump...

*Lemming hangs up and takes a flying leap off a cliff*

Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands
Federation of Ambrose Douglas

*Droning voice on the other end* Don't jump... don't jump... don't jump...


The frightening (yet tremendously funny) thing is, that's probably exactly how a UN-run suicide hotline for lemmings would work.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

IX-8492 was confused. That is to say, the 0.2% of his memory dedicated to the discussion was confused. The rest of his artificial mind was monitoring digital traffic of the Commonwealth and socializing in the virtual world with organic beings to learn more about them. The standard pastime of AIs.

He ran a quick check on his holographic systems, which were also responsible for holographically creating a speaker within him for communication. Sure enough, his sensorlogs noted that he had, in fact, spoken aloud. Oh well, he thought with a mental shrug. He kicked his legs up on the table, leaned back, and began whistling an incredibly complex duet by himself, designing another Starship, seeing how far he could get through pi in a set time, calculating how much energy his emitters would require to vaporize the planet, and developing a healthier formula for cat food.

...UN-run suicide hotline...

We just call it the Stranger's Bar Ordering Hotline.

IX-8492 was confused. [...] Sure enough, his sensorlogs noted that he had, in fact, spoken aloud. Oh well, he thought with a mental shrug.

Dr. Hodz noticed the actions of this holographic Guardian.

"I know how you feel. Sometimes authors are just jerks about their proposals being changed. You should go off to the bar, where, as I mentioned in a different discussion, drinks are on me, now that my tab's paid off."

IX-8492 ceased whistling, though not his other activities. "I suppose I would, but even free drinks are of very little use to me. Perhaps I will visit later for the sake of discourse. I'm thoroughly entertained right here, for the time being. Brain the size of a planet, and all." He resumed whistling, to the enjoyment of some delegates and the chagrin of the others. Strangers' Bar. I shall have to investigate once these proceedings have been completed.

Some changes:

1. Torturing, cruelly beating, overdriving, overloading, causing substantial bodily harm, tormenting, or maliciously or recklessly injuring, wounding, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, mutilating or killing any animal, whether tamed or wild, or knowingly and wilfully depriving any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, or unjustifiably and intentionally depriving any animal of proper shelter or proper veterinary care, or knowingly and wilfully causing or procuring any of the aforementioned, will be strictly prohibited.

Title:
Prevention of Unnecessary Animal Cruelty

I'll just leave some kind of definition up, open for constructive criticism of course, so it can be ammended tomorrow. Of course, the definition itself is quite vague, but the idea is there:

''-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every non-sapient non-botanical living being with a minimal degree of intelligence.''

The other definition being:
''-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every non-sapient living vertebrate in the biological classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, or Mammalia.''

1. Torturing, cruelly beating, overdriving, overloading, causing substantial bodily harm, tormenting, or maliciously or recklessly injuring, wounding, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, mutilating or killing any animal, whether tamed or wild, or knowingly and wilfully depriving any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, or unjustifiably and intentionally depriving any animal of proper shelter or proper veterinary care, or knowingly and wilfully causing or procuring any of the aforementioned, will be strictly prohibited.
Nicely covered; poorly formatted. Try starting with "1. The following acts will be strictly prohibited:" and following that with bullet points or some similar listing of the acts to be prohibited. Making it one long phrase like that makes it harder to read and will put off a lot of potential voters.

Title might be too long. I don't know the character limit...

It is too long. It's 10 characters over the limit.

It is too long. It's 10 characters over the limit.

OK then, shortened to how it was before.

Nicely covered; poorly formatted. Try starting with "1. The following acts will be strictly prohibited:" and following that with bullet points or some similar listing of the acts to be prohibited. Making it one long phrase like that makes it harder to read and will put off a lot of potential voters.

Very true. Will be changed.

You know, I don't think I've ever been so frustrated by such a bone-headed proposal before. I really, really want to support an anti-animal cruelty resolution, not least because it will severely piss off my Ambassador. But this really, really stinks.

1. Why are you messing about about trying to define an "animal" as something other than an animal?

2. If your proposal can't cope with ants being a pest, then it can't cope with rabbits being a pest. Fix the proposal, not the definition, if it needs fixing at all.

3. The exemption for medical research is still going down like a lead balloon back home. Fixing the definition of legal research has solved a lot of that problem, but the initial cock-up has caused a lot of damage and it'll take time to win the populace over.

You know, I don't think I've ever been so frustrated by such a bone-headed proposal before. I really, really want to support an anti-animal cruelty resolution, not least because it will severely piss off my Ambassador. But this really, really stinks.

1. Why are you messing about about trying to define an "animal" as something other than an animal?

The problem we are encountering is that because of the Multiverse not everyone agrees on exactly what constitutes an animal.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

The problem we are encountering is that because of the Multiverse not everyone agrees on exactly what constitutes an animal.

Er, no. The problem we are encountering is that because of idiocy, we are trying to be selective about something we don't need to be selective about.

We're not quite sure what the problem is. The confusion continues unabated because Emperor Carlos has indicated that he is willing to change the definition to essentially the common sense (NS version 1.7) definition, but doesn't do so when updating the posted draft.

Given his historical unwillingness to acknowledge the problem, we're beginning to doubt this proposal will ever develop into something worthy enough to support, especially given the continued presence of several other problem areas.

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador

In semi-seriousness, I believe that there should be a section here (or perhaps a future proposal) regarding a UN-run animal anti-suicide hotline that Ambassador Ailyn Vel and I came up with... you know, for pheonixs and lemmings and such.

Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands
The Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

Not yet submitted. Any ideas, comments, suggestions, etc., will be greatly appreciated.

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

Prevention of Unnecessary Animal Cruelty
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strengh: Significant
Description:

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

Recognizing the cruelty and inhumane treatment to which a great number of animals are continuously and unnecessarily subject to;

Acknowledging animals’ basic freedom from needless torture and abuse;

Horrified by the widespread practice of so-called ‘blood sports’, such as bullfighting or dog fighting, in a legal manner;

Disgusted at how certain individuals and organizations make a profit from the affliction, agony, and death of animals as a public spectacle,

Not considering the use of cultural importance as a valid argument defending the intentional infliction of pain and torture of animals for the purpose of entertainment, and;

In an attempt to eradicate the dispensable suffering of other living beings;

So long as they get eaten afterwards, I don't mind. Oh, if you see my pet alligator, make sure to avoid the front end. He hasn't been fed properly in a while, so you may have to club him a bit to make him go away.

And you may want to see a psychologist about your excessive concern for other beings. It bodes ill for your own health, not least because it makes people like me want to kill you, stuff you, and mount you on a wall.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

And you may want to see a psychologist about your excessive concern for other beings. It bodes ill for your own health, not least because it makes people like me want to kill you, stuff you, and mount you on a wall.


I think you've got something there, Dioce!

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

I must commend the ambassdor from Emperor Carlos V for his great patience in continuously reworking this proposal. And his even greater patience in putting up with less than constructive comments from some of the less evolved delegates in this Assembly.

This is becoming a most worthy proposal.


Christophe Boco (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christophe_Boco),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

How do you like the following definition:

-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every non-sapient warm-blooded living being.

Yes? No?

I dislike the term "being" but otherwise it's definitely better than past definitions.

So does that mean I can kill those cold-blooded kimono dragons and octopuses because I want to since they are cold-blooded?

I dislike the term "being" but otherwise it's definitely better than past definitions.

The term ''creature'' would be more appropriate?

Lets try the most broadest of definitions:

-Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every non-sapient non-botanical living creature.

Also some minor changes made in the proposal.

A definite improvement.

Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, the term ''animal'' as every non-sapient non-botanical living creature.

That would suggest that humans (and other sapient creatures) are not animals.

Also, what's wrong with the term "being"?

The term being implies, to most people, that the creature is sapient.

The term being implies, to most people, that the creature is sapient.

Then they're mistaken; "being" means simply "who is".


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Creature, being, organism... mostly all the same.

-Creature: 1. an animal, esp. a nonhuman: the creatures of the woods and fields; a creature from outer space.
2. anything created, whether animate or inanimate.

-Being: 1. the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).
2. conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.
3. substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear.
4. something that exists: inanimate beings.

-Organism: 1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.
2. a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran.

Some minor format changes. And the addition of more definitions:

1) Defines, for the purpose of this resolution:
a) The term ''animal'' as every non-sapient non-botanical living being.
b) The term ''legal biomedical research'' as the scientific tests, experiments, or investigations conducted in by any individual, institution or organization which has been given permission to perform such activities by competent authorities in accordance with UN Resolution #166, ''Freedom of Scientific Research''.
c) The term ''proper shelter'' as (i) area with sufficient space to allow the animal to easily stand, sit, lie, turn about, and make all other normal body movements in a comfortable, normal position for the animal and (ii) adequate shelter which is safe and protects the animal from injury, physical suffering, and impairment of health.
d) The term ''proper veterinary care'' as any veterinary treatment needed to prevent suffering or impairment of health.

For the term, I think I'll finally go with ''being''. No?

Take out the specific mentioning of UN Resolution #166, and simply say "in accordance with UN law", or you risk a House of Cards violation.

This is finally becoming a proposal I can consider supporting with a clean conscience. Well done. I'll run this by a few colleagues of mine and see how it sits with them before I make my final decision, but it looks good to me at the moment.

Take out the specific mentioning of UN Resolution #166, and simply say "in accordance with UN law", or you risk a House of Cards violation.

Done.

This is finally becoming a proposal I can consider supporting with a clean conscience. Well done. I'll run this by a few colleagues of mine and see how it sits with them before I make my final decision, but it looks good to me at the moment.

Great! Thanks for all your help and support, and thanks for putting up with my behaviour for so long. :p

You still haven't turned the mandates of provision 2 into a list rather than a confusing run-on, by the way. You earlier stated you would correct that.

2) Mandates that:
a) The following shall be strictly prohibited:
i) Torturing, cruelly beating, overdriving, overloading, causing substantial bodily harm or tormenting any animal, or
ii) Maliciously or recklessly injuring, wounding, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, mutilating or killing any animal, or
iii) Knowingly and wilfully depriving any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, or
iv) Unjustifiably and wilfully depriving any animal of proper shelter or proper veterinary care, or
v) Knowingly and wilfully causing or procuring any of the aforementioned.

;)

Actually, I'll simplify clause d)

d) All forms of public expression showing, displaying, exhibiting or involving the substantial bodily suffering of or the intentional infliction of significant physical pain on any animal for any reason or purpose shall be prevented and banned.

Make an exception for simulated suffering so the videogame, movie, and other such entertainment industries as well as educational facilities cannot throw rocks at you for preventing them from doing their job, and methinks you're golden.

Yes, this means NationStates United Nations will be the proud owner of the video disclaimer "No animals were harmed in the making of this film".

You also might want to consider photographs that are taken of suffering animals as part of campaigns to raise public awareness.

Let me slightly change that part:

d) All public or social activities displaying, showing, exhibiting or involving the substantial bodily suffering of or the intentional infliction of significant physical pain on any animal for any reason or purpose shall be prevented and banned.

Doesn't restrict the media.


Also, there aren't any issues with the proposal's strength, no?

I'm not a mod, but it seems right to me.

Glorious Hack,

Does this future UN proposal have your modly approval?

You've done numerous edits. Please repost the whole thing (including category and strength).

And how do you propose we enforce this? By adding yet another layer of bureaucracy? Spend tax money on this too? This should be a local government issue, not a federally mandated issue. I don't think the federal government should waste time on chicken fights, nor should it waste money on it.

Another possible argument that could be made against this is that pets are legally considered property. And one has the right to do whatever one wants with his/her property.

Obviously, I do not want people torturing their pets, or neglecting them. However, I'm just giving you a heads up.

You've done numerous edits. Please repost the whole thing (including category and strength).

Repost it in a new thread you mean?

And how do you propose we enforce this? By adding yet another layer of bureaucracy? Spend tax money on this too? This should be a local government issue, not a federally mandated issue. I don't think the federal government should waste time on chicken fights, nor should it waste money on it.

Nations don't have their own police force and judicial system?

Another possible argument that could be made against this is that pets are legally considered property. And one has the right to do whatever one wants with his/her property.

People have custody (similar to ''ownership'', no?) over children too. Does that give the custodian the right to abuse them?