NationStates Jolt Archive

Protection of Vampire Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Blog Waters

Description: WHEREAS it is a well-noted flaw of democracy that certain social classes and cultures in the minority can face undue hardship;

AND WHEREAS certain subclasses originating from the Transylvanian region are ostracized by the majority, excluded from business dealings, and face genocide in most parts of the globe;

AND WHEREAS said group is physically incapable of participating in government during daylight hours, thus excluding an entire class of people from voting, holding government office, and using most public utilities;

AND WHEREAS the wholesale exclusion of ANY individual is fundamentally contrary to a free and democratic society -- and disparate oppression is equally contrary in a despotic or totalitarian society -- regardless of that party's religion, creed, race, gender, disability, existence, immortality or dining habits;

THE UN HEREBY RECOGNIZES that vampires deserve the right to participate in government to the extent granted to any other subclass of individuals;

FURTHERMORE, WE HEREBY RESOLVE that all nations shall ensure that vampires have the same access to government and its protections (where they exist) as are granted to the non-vampire population;

HOWEVER, this resolution DOES NOT RECOGNIZE the existence of vampires, merely their right to equal protection in the event that they do exist.

Approvals: 1 (WZ Forums)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 104 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Mar 6 2008

Be gentle. Its my first proposal.

Also, I realize this may be thought by some to be categorized as a joke proposal and therefore should not be legal. I disagree b/c I think that it blends the realities of some more fantasy-based NS nations (many have vampires/werewolves/etc. as national animal; 25 have vampire in their nation's name) with that of the more serious majority in a satisfying manner.

Although we agree that all humans should have the right to be in a government, so also vampires if they did exist, we do not want any vampire to be in our government.
We do not believe that there are creatures as vampires. It is like allowing Big-foot in your government, it just makes no sense. And we agree with you that some country's claim they have vampires living there, but there still is no proof they actually exist. And if they existed we wouldn't allow them in our government too because they kill people. We don't give criminals the right to be in a government, so why should we give vampires that right.

that is why we of the Kingdom of Escobosia are strongly against this proposal.

OOC: Actually, vampires do not originate from Transsylvania, even if the most notorious and popular story is placed there. There are legends that are vampire related from all over the world.
Also, I'm not sure the region exists in the NS multiverse. If so, it might be branding, although I'm not entirely sure.

OOC: Not branding but RL references would be the illegality cited.

And...how can you protect the rights of something you don't recognize the existance of? That'd be like giving Santa Claus overflight rights and a military escort and then stating that he doesn't exist.

Why only vampires? Why not toasters, faries, angels, aliens, elves, drawves, undead, AI, dolphins, and tigers? They too are intelligent beings.

I will support a wholescale reform of UN laws to grant rights to all intelligent beings, not just vampires. The UN ambassador from St. Edmund made something similar (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544930), but I don't think he would be able to have time to campagin for it.

I am aiming for a little differnet way of reform, but it would be based highly off St. Edmund.

Though, I'm going to have to one day propose that reform. Erm.
---Dr. Bob

Assuming that no proposal like this has been passed previously, Aoi Kiru Usagi Minzoku are in favor of this resolution as the vast majority of its citizens are not humans, and rather sentient blue rabbits. However, a few problems arise.
A. You do not recognize the existence of vampires. You cannot pass law on something that does not exist. Recognizing their existence would go a long way in securing their rights.
B. You have not defined a vampire. The loose term "vampire" can refer to a species of blood-sucking bat, or a brand of cricket equipment. You will have to define vampire as homo chiroptera.

Wait, is he saying that cold-blooded killers should be protected?

For centuries, we have denied the existence of "Vampires" or so called blood-drinking monsters of super-human strength. It has come to light (or dark rather) that they do exist, even within the borders of Agregorn as well as other neighboring nations. Awareness of intelligent non-life that exists as an abomination placed only to serve against humanity does not give any credence to their claim of rights or government. Indeed, they should be exterminated for the safety and benefit of all humanity. I, for one, will gladly take arms against any vampire that tries to get a threshold in society beyond terrorism.

You don't grant equal rights to monsters... you lay them to rest. Were this a case of other nations seeking cooperation within the guise of sentient life, we could see to reason. But we're talking about the undead here, a perverse and cruel antithesis of the human (or other) being they once were. What's next, granting food and monetary aid to zombies? I'm just waiting for UN planes to airdrop brains in questionable zones.

Even if we were to consider vampires as beasts (which they are not), there is a certain degree of humanity that we cannot cross, and this proposal is there to define that degree.

Although we do support the extension of "human" rights to other types of intelligent beings, we do not believe it should be limited to vampires. We believe it would be better if this type of rights was also given to elves, dwarves, faeries, pixies, angels, demons, orcs, khajiit, artificial intelligence, the undead, and any other types of intelligent beings that may or may not exist.

Also, we do not exactly feel comfortable voting for a proposal with so many factual inaccuracies, such as the idea that vampires originated from the "Transylvanian region". We have not heard of such a region, and the only vampires we have ever seen were from Wijaska Island (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13296434&postcount=3), and were most likely humans wearing costumes.

Wait, is he saying that cold-blooded killers should be protected?

Only in the same ways that any other group is. Should said cold-blooded killers actually kill, injure or otherwise assault any other person, they would be similarly liable under national law as any other individual would be. Our experience is that aside from the rare Brooding Vampire, most vampire species are unwilling to quench their thirst with a trip to the butcher's, thus falling foul of the law with gratifying promptness.

We must compliment the author on their thoughtful approach to a thorny problem. We would, however, prefer legislation that extended rights to all self-aware beings in a more general manner, such as the draft being worked on by St Edmundan Antarctic that has been mentioned before. We would be intrigued to see the author's approach to this more general problem.

i see one problem with this proposal, it isnt broad enough. it should apply to all sentient creatures. not just vampires. this also eliminates having to say they may not exist. a "sentient beings' rights" resolution is actually a really good idea. The Mud Planet of Decapod Ten being a nation of non-human sentients we would support "sentient being rights".

its time to end 'human' rights and begin sentient rights!

Be gentle. Its my first proposal.
Very well-written and I'm impressed that it is your first proposal.

Would you consider doing as others in the thread have mentioned and broadening the proposal to cover all self-aware beings? We badly need such a Resolution and I'm sure many of the regulars would be willing to assist.

From the Dictatorship of Proplocate,
The people of this great nation do not believe that, even if such creatures do exist that the protection of said groups rights are not necessary if not even important. This may sound like a prejudice decision but the why couldn't the creatures of said countries break away and make a "Vampire" Republic or a "Werewolf" Confederacy.




So says the great Dictatorship of Proplocate.

From the Dictatorship of Proplocate,
The people of this great nation do not believe that, even if such creatures do exist that the protection of said groups rights are not necessary if not even important. This may sound like a prejudice decision but the why couldn't the creatures of said countries break away and make a "Vampire" Republic or a "Werewolf" Confederacy.




So says the great Dictatorship of Proplocate.
Why can't the Arabs, the Africans, the aborigines or any other community make their own confederacy? They're happy where they are, and there's no reason to change that.

I fully approve the widening of this proposal to include all sentient beings, so long as a sentient being is accurately defined.

Wait, is he saying that cold-blooded killers should be protected?

Being a vampire and being a killer are not necessarily linked. Plus, the proposal (would have) only brought vampires up to the same status as other citizens. The proposal allowed you to prosecute them of crimes as they exist in your nation, so long as they were prosecuted through the same process as other citizens.

The comments about protecting all sentient beings are a good idea, though I was particularly concerned with a single class that often faced genocide and not necessarily sentience as a basis for citizens rights (for example, animals have rights in many locations without regards to their sentience). Vampires, however, are originally humans and it could be argued that they remain human, just "enhanced." At the same time, I was attempting to design the law so that it would not bind non-fantasy nations to a multiverse they don't want to belong to. In my opinion, vampires exist in the Nation State multiverse. They just don't exist in every nation.

As for passing a resolution about something without formally recognizing its existence, this would not render the resolution void. In order to remove the rights from vampires, an individual nation must first recognize their existence. If passed, the UN would have basically said that, by recognizing their existence, that nation is required to recognize their rights. Next time I will be more specific.

Thanks for all the advice and your thoughts. Better luck on my second resolution, eh? Maybe next time I'll have figured out how to find my own post in the forums earlier... :rolleyes:

please tell me you mean second draft. or im going to hijack this idea in a heartbeat if you give up on it.

please tell me you mean second draft. or im going to hijack this idea in a heartbeat if you give up on it.

Sure thing. How about some help revising? Here is draft 2 -- still sticking with Vampires only -- with changes underlined. Is this something that you guys would be more comfortable endorsing?

_____________________


Protection of Vampire Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Blog Waters

Description: WHEREAS it is a well-noted flaw of democracy that certain social classes and cultures in the minority can face undue hardship;

AND WHEREAS certain subclasses particularly associated with the Transylvanian region are ostracized by the majority, excluded from business dealings, and face genocide in most parts of the globe;

AND WHEREAS said group is physically incapable of participating in government during daylight hours, thus excluding an entire class of people from voting, holding government office, and using most public utilities;

AND WHEREAS the wholesale exclusion of ANY individual is fundamentally contrary to a free and democratic society -- and disparate oppression is equally contrary in a despotic or totalitarian society -- regardless of that party's religion, creed, race, gender, disability, existence, mortality or dining habits;

THE UN HEREBY RECOGNIZES that vampires deserve the right to participate in government to the extent granted to any other subclass of individuals;

THE UN FURTHERMORE RECOGNIZES that this class is not immune from existing laws within a nation, such as prevention of murder, provided those laws are not construed or applied unduly against vampires.

FURTHERMORE, WE HEREBY RESOLVE that all nations shall ensure that vampires have the same access to government and its protections (where they exist) as are granted to the non-vampire population;

HOWEVER, this UN resolution DOES NOT RECOGNIZE the existence of vampires, merely the possibility that they exist in some nations.

FURTHERMORE, this resolution DOES NOT BIND NATIONS INTO RECOGNIZING the existence of vampires. However, for those Nations recognizing this class for any purpose, persecution is strictly prohibited.

Same problems exist as before.

Assuming that no proposal like this has been passed previously, Aoi Kiru Usagi Minzoku are in favor of this resolution as the vast majority of its citizens are not humans, and rather sentient blue rabbits. However, a few problems arise.
A. You do not recognize the existence of vampires. You cannot pass law on something that does not exist. Recognizing their existence would go a long way in securing their rights.
B. You have not defined a vampire. The loose term "vampire" can refer to a species of blood-sucking bat, or a brand of cricket equipment. You will have to define vampire as homo chiroptera.

A. Assuming that it is true that you cannot pass a law on something that does not exist (an assumption I personally disagree with), this law recognizes that vampires MAY exist. It leaves the question of their existence up to the individual nation. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say this is a law about something that does not exist; it simply is a law about something which may not exist. I was attempting to keep a "states rights" approach in that regard.

B. Yes, it isn't defined very specifically, which would certainly weaken a real resolution. I will spell that out. Is this a suitable definition?

"Vampires shall be defined as any immortal individuals incapable of being exposed to daylight who maintain unusual eating habits."

OOC: either way, it's a real life or (if you make a region called transsylvania) branding. Moreover, you cannot claim that they may or may not exist and at the same time say where they originate.It's contradictory. By the way, I think that the otherkin/vampiric communities may well disagree with your definition.

I'd like to start my argument against this by pointing out the percentage of countries who have vampire in their name (and by extension, a relative though not exact amount of those who have vampires in the nation itself).

25 nations have this.

72401 nations- as of this afternoon- exist.

That equates to 3.4529909807875581828980262703554^-4 - .00034% (and that's generously rounding up) of all the nations. This figure, assuming all those nations are part of the UN, is an incredibly small number of involved nations.

This really isn't something that has an effect on any large number of nations, like something regarding health care, drug laws, or human rights. In fact, it may complete leave out entire nations (including my own) who don't have these creatures living in them. Is it really worthy of being voted on by a collective body, composed of nations who don't have these creatures? All nations have health care, drug laws, and human rights. No real amount of nations would be affected by this; as such, I see the UN as an inappropriate place for this type of legislation.

My national animal is the bottle. I won't explain why, because it's not important. Consider this- I find 30 other people who love soda enough to make the bottle their national animal, too. And I want them protected. At any cost. Is it right for me to make legislation that concerns only myself and a minute amount of other nations, to be voted on by THE ENTIRE UNITED NATIONS?

Seconding the arguments on protecting killers, which I won't list here.

But it was well written, if that helps soften the blow.

As you admit, just because a nations description or name does not reference vampires does not mean vampires do not exist there. I doubt most nations have even seriously considered the question and, as such, I find your argument flawed.

All nations have health care, drug laws, and human rights. No real amount of nations would be affected by this; as such, I see the UN as an inappropriate place for this type of legislation.

My nation does not have health care or drug laws. Yet I freely admit the importance of the UN ruling on these matters.

Seconding the arguments on protecting killers, which I won't list here.

You are assuming that all vampires are killers, which is not necessarily the case. This resolution in no way protects killers from prosecution.

We badly need such a Resolution and I'm sure many of the regulars would be willing to assist.

Agreed.

As you admit, just because a nations description or name does not reference vampires does not mean vampires do not exist there. I doubt most nations have even seriously considered the question and, as such, I find your argument flawed.



My nation does not have health care or drug laws. Yet I freely admit the importance of the UN ruling on these matters.



You are assuming that all vampires are killers, which is not necessarily the case. This resolution in no way protects killers from prosecution.
-The assumption that they do is flawed even more. If you say vampires exist in all those nations, it's not necessarily true. I cam say every nation worships the sun god Qwerty, because I do, and I wish to make resolution on it. Does that make it any more true? No.

- If you're in the UN, you follow UN guidelines, and resolutions in the past have guaranteed both of these. Point dismissed. Plus, those were two examples, and you never even bothered to address the third. They were the first two that came into mind.

- Vampires require "unusual food", as you put it, which is a legal roundabout way of saying "these guys need to feed off blood". The amount needed to sustain any substantial population would require either a.) mass blood donations and preference of vampire food over blood to dying people, or b.) importing of blood, leading to the same thing.
If there's not a large enough population to do any harm, why bother protecting them?



I can't believe there's a serious proposal for a mythical creature here.

As you admit, just because a nations description or name does not reference vampires does not mean vampires do not exist there. I doubt most nations have even seriously considered the question and, as such, I find your argument flawed.



My nation does not have health care or drug laws. Yet I freely admit the importance of the UN ruling on these matters.



You are assuming that all vampires are killers, which is not necessarily the case. This resolution in no way protects killers from prosecution.
-The assumption that they do is flawed even more. If you say vampires exist in all those nations, it's not necessarily true. I cam say every nation worships the sun god Qwerty, because I do, and I wish to make resolution on it. Does that make it any more true? No.

- If you're in the UN, you follow UN guidelines, and resolutions in the past have guaranteed both of these. Point dismissed. Plus, those were two examples, and you never even bothered to address the third. They were the first two that came into mind.

- Vampires require "unusual food", as you put it, which is a legal roundabout way of saying "these guys need to feed off blood". The amount needed to sustain any substantial population would require either a.) mass blood donations and preference of vampire food over blood to dying people, or b.) importing of blood, leading to the same thing.
If there's not a large enough population to do any harm, why bother protecting them?



I can't believe there's a serious proposal for a mythical creature here.

The United Nations

WHEREAS it is a well-noted flaw of democracy that certain social classes and cultures in the minority can face undue hardship;

WHEREAS certain subclasses are ostracized by the majority, excluded from business dealings, and face genocide in most parts of the globe;

WHEREAS the wholesale exclusion of ANY individual is fundamentally contrary to the principles of this body,

DEFINES the term ‘Sapients’ as meaning “Beings of any origin who, individually or as indicative of a species or genetic group or other category of comparable scope, possess self-awareness, free will, and levels of intelligence that approach, match or exceed the average for members of the species ‘Homo sapiens’"

THE UN HEREBY MANDATES that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by any nation on account of species, or any subclass thereof, so long as that species is sentient.

FURTHERMORE, WE HEREBY RESOLVE that all nations shall ensure all sentient beings have the same access to government and its protections,
--Mandate all governments take reasonable means to ensure participation given the different needs of certain species.

Co-Authored by Decapod Ten
………………………………………………
Ok, so I tried to help change it to apply to all non-human sentients and not just vampires, as that is the only way which it will pass, yet still apply to vampires. This required massive editing of the preamble, and body. The fourth paragraph is mainly taken from the equal rights amendment that the US never ratified (though rather awkwardly). The fifth is an attempt (albeit not so good) at crossing the Americans with Disabilities Act with different species, as come species may have very special needs to participate in government (different eyes can see different spectrums, so ballots may need to be printed with UV dye or something…..(ironically this specifically would be a terrible thing for vampires))

Then, I literally hacked the definition of sapient from iron felix’s attempt at doing this, and deleted a single word. Im not at all sure however, if it should be defined, or left to a committee (as I think is the way to go with most definitions).

Yes, its extremely rough. There is little point in polishing this early. I assume, for example, that sentience will be argued over for pages.

Just as a note, I typed this entire post on Microsoft word, which explains the capitalization, im not yelling at any of you:p

I must say, I like the general idea, since I'm a resident of a non-human nation. I don't think it should be vampire-specific, but I like a more generic approach.

could there be a clause about speaking, sentient animals please...that's what most of our population is anyway...talking squirrels.

no. they dont have to speak. see above, recognizing all sentient beings. (protoss from starcraft for example, did not speak, and were sentient and have rights)

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise in shock to oppose this proposal. Surely the esteemed representatives here can understand that the undead are cursed beings, denied the gift of death and the final repose of their souls? It is a hellish existence they are forced to endure, bound to this earth in an unnatural "unlife". Because of this, in our nation creatures determined to be undead are routinely destroyed. It is an act of mercy to free their souls from the curse they are under.

Such notions as "protection for the undead" are sadly and dangerously misguided. The undead do not need their status protected, neither do they want it protected. In fact, they seek release from it. Forcing them to endure it, such as this proposal recommends, is cruelty of the vilest form!

I can live with a generic resolution, giving equal rights to all sentient beings. As you say, however, the definition of sentient will most likely be a point of debate. This attempt, however, seems to be a very good one.

My nation, also shares this characteristic, wherein a majority of its citizens are sentient blue rabbits. We have achieved only limited acceptance in the global community. We would love to see a UN resolution assuring all sentient beings of equal rights, and more importantly, rights equal to that of human beings.

In response to Byrnsjing, I suggest you search for nations with "human" in them. I am quite sure you will not find many. Yet humans remain the most dominant sentient species in the world. I would like to say that there IS a small number of vampires in our country, and they receive equal rights to all other citizens, as we believe that protecting the minorities is essential.

People don't put "Human" or its variants because it's the default race, and most people would think of it as such. I'm not condemning other races as dominant, or even minorities; I fully believe in protecting all humans in a given nation. But the undead, rabbits, etc., etc., are NOT humans. Why should we treat them as such? If you want equal rights for your sentient dominant creature, go ahead; I'll support that. But it is fallacious and misguided to believe the entire world community should be dragged into a struggle for rights that will have an effect on only a tiny amount of those nations.

In short, my problem doesn't lie in what/who will be protected, but how. Again, the UN should be for universal matters affecting everyone, not only a few people.

People don't put "Human" or its variants because it's the default race, and most people would think of it as such. I'm not condemning other races as dominant, or even minorities; I fully believe in protecting all humans in a given nation. But the undead, rabbits, etc., etc., are NOT humans. Why should we treat them as such? If you want equal rights for your sentient dominant creature, go ahead; I'll support that. But it is fallacious and misguided to believe the entire world community should be dragged into a struggle for rights that will have an effect on only a tiny amount of those nations.

so if it affects a small amount of nations, why would they object? Youre right, it doesnt affect that many nations, but those it does affect, it affects a lot. Its also not just the affect, its the principle. For example, if a nation has laws discriminating against jews, that is usually considered bad. If your nation has laws discriminating against any mentally equal being, we consider that bad.

If we are to reopen the biological sapient rights debate, the authors may want to reference the past failed resolution (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/rights_of_biological_sapients.html) on this topic.

I'd like to point out, Jewish people are humans. Vampires (and the other sentients) are not. Fallacious argument by asserting that the other sentient beings are not only equal to in law but in actual race as a human.

I understand the magnitude this type of a resolution has on those nations. However, it still doesn't really have an effect on any others

Biological sentients rights have been shot down in the past; why, then, would one specifically stating only one type fair any better? And if you opened it up to all sentients, what's the likelihood it'll pass a second time?

fair queston. i appppoloigize, i aim quite drunk. i suggest that i have no idae what the likely hood that it would pass is. one type would fair terriblly. period. it would fair terribley and that is why it was expanded to all sentients (decapodians inclucedd)

I'd like to point out, Jewish people are humans. Vampires (and the other sentients) are not. Fallacious argument by asserting that the other sentient beings are not only equal to in law but in actual race as a human.

id like to point out that this is a blatantly razist arguement. not only is it debatable to the fact that vampirs are the samre species as humans (just a subclass) but allso that it is inherently prejudiced to argue that "other sentient beings" are not "in actual race as human." there is no doubt that we are not equal in law, that is the flaw wwe are trying to fix, but that we are inherently inferior in race to humans is racist at best. If you give on reason other than opposable thumbs that decapodians are inferior to humans, i shall quit this debate. the fact that shell cruashers are incredibly dangerous to us does not apply.

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

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

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

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

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

i find this incredibly intersting, and would ilke to see it in the moring sober, but i do not understand it now, and my desk chari keeps on turnignt to the right, ans so i belive iw ill stop now. i just find this passage fascinating and would likre to see it tomorrow, and am interested on peoples opinions of it, particularly regulars.

im going to go pass out.....

decapod te n.

In response to the jewish question, I would like to point out that for several groups that are now considered, and rightly so, human, there has been a fierce debate over whether or not they actually are. Shakespeare's play (OOC: as Shakespeare turns up in my nations description in response to my response to a recent issue, I'll assume him to exist as is, in the NS world) The Tempest actually shows part of that debate.
It is our firm conviction that if a species can be shown to have equal or exceeding sentience, they should be given equal rights and duties. It is furthermore our opinion that the latter should not be given, though, if only one member of the species has shown said sentience. An exception may well be made for the individual, but for an entire species, I think we need more examples. Of course, there may be species that, for some reason or other, have only one member at a time; for which allowance should be made as well.
Also, I wonder, can it be possible that a certain species request not to have these rights? Being free, in every way, also implies being free to give up one's freedom, and rights. I know that this may be an unpopular opinion, as the debt bondage convention evidences, however, I feel that this too is part of freedom.

It is our firm conviction that if a species can be shown to have equal or exceeding sentience, they should be given equal rights and duties. It is furthermore our opinion that the latter should not be given, though, if only one member of the species has shown said sentience. An exception may well be made for the individual, but for an entire species, I think we need more examples. Of course, there may be species that, for some reason or other, have only one member at a time; for which allowance should be made as well.
Also, I wonder, can it be possible that a certain species request not to have these rights? Being free, in every way, also implies being free to give up one's freedom, and rights.

agreed. however we get to two problems. #1, if we are to examine sentience on an individual level, we may end up discriminating against those with disabillities. #2, how would a species give up its rights collectively? if any species has free will (and that is crucial to sentience) they will have varying opinions on giving up those rights.

Jey, thanks for the resolution, it was helpful, but i dont think UN proposal submission should be the criteria for sentience, and i bet that might have been the downfall of that proposal.

Castesene does not understand why such a small number of countries are looking to the UN to delegate rights that they should be taken care of themselves. Whithin our borders, all sentient, intelligent beings are allowed the same rights and abilities as a "normal" human citizen, provided that the sentient, intelligent being is able to pass the appropriate tests that all immigrants are subjected to.

If this is an argument about whether Vampires exist or not, the Castisinian Church, having declared Vampirism and other Vampe activities illegal, must take a negative stance on this.

However it is completely acceptable that any "being", demonstrating a standardized level of intelligence, is applicable to the same rights as a human, who demonstrates the same level of intelligence.

We suggest generalizing the target of the target for rights.

Well, in answer to the first of your concerns: I wanted to make the point that there should be sufficient examples of sentient beings of a species, to give rights to all members of the species, rather than being presented with one specimen, that might be an exceptionally capable being; for instance; should one finch gain sentience, it could be accepted as a sentient being as an exception, if we can't find any other examples of sentient finches. It should not work the other way though, as there are always members of a species that are less capable; they are also rather a minority. So, if it can be shown that the majority is sentient, sentient rights should be given, whereas if it is only a minority, either we should redefine the species, or grant individual rights.
I also agree that for the second issue, this probably is an option that will never be needed. yet, if it is a fairly small species, and have free will, and are sentient, it is possible, though unlikely, that they can come to an agreement. It is highly unlikely, though, that such a position would ever be taken.

Perhaps the best way to approach this would be to enact a broad definition of "human beings" as this would avoid the need to rewrite many previous important UN measures.

Beaucalsradt, perhaps you will like this argument:

We agree that vampires exist in some NS nations. Also, UN Resolution #198 (Emigration Rights) prohibits those nations from containing those vampires. Therefore, unless you have enacted legislation to lock down your borders, then you probably do have vampires in your nation, whether you recognize them or not. (You also have sentient blue rabbits.)

For better or worse, as soon as a nation is accepted into the UN, so too are all species residing in that nation.

Thanks for the link to the "Rights of Biological Sapients" resolution. That might be helpful!

The undead do not need their status protected, neither do they want it protected. In fact, they seek release from it. Forcing them to endure it, such as this proposal recommends, is cruelty of the vilest form!

How do you know if they are not represented in your government? I could make the exact same argument for "releasing" any number of groups from their "hellish existence," including IRS auditors, taxi cab drivers and Roman Catholics.

Brain Ball #2 floats to the podium. His cohort of balls bounce (variety #1)
along side him sounding eerily like kickballs. They cease bouncing and orbitally roll (variety #2) around the lectern.

"Spheron one supports the measures that would grant us rights equal to those of you that niether bounce nor roll. Although it would force us to grant you non-bouncers and non-rollers rights equal to us, we accept that.

"In response to Northern Castesene I suggest that it is not an issue that many of the nations seeking rights havent issued them to their own species, but that other nations do not recognize their species as having rights in foreign lands.

"Thank you, and may you bounce in peace."

Brain Ball #2 floated away from the podium in such a manner that none could help but notice that he had a lot of brains, and a lot of.... hutzpah.

Well, in answer to the first of your concerns: I wanted to make the point that there should be sufficient examples of sentient beings of a species, to give rights to all members of the species, rather than being presented with one specimen, that might be an exceptionally capable being; for instance; should one finch gain sentience, it could be accepted as a sentient being as an exception, if we can't find any other examples of sentient finches. It should not work the other way though, as there are always members of a species that are less capable; they are also rather a minority. So, if it can be shown that the majority is sentient, sentient rights should be given, whereas if it is only a minority, either we should redefine the species, or grant individual rights.

i agree to an extent, but how would we achieve that? achieving both species-wide sentience to not discriminate against disablilities, and exceptional sentience to give that finch its rights, seems impossible......

unless we create some kind of committee that decides sentience of individuals and species as a whole. which would allow us to avoid a definition entirely as well. ive just spent half an hour trying to write a clause for that committee, but i cant figure it out.

I also agree that for the second issue, this probably is an option that will never be needed. yet, if it is a fairly small species, and have free will, and are sentient, it is possible, though unlikely, that they can come to an agreement. It is highly unlikely, though, that such a position would ever be taken.

yeah, i also take rights as things that are never bad to have. 40% of americans that have the right to vote, dont excercise that vote. just because all sentient species would be entitled to have those rights, does not mean they are entitled to excercise them.

Castesene does not understand why such a small number of countries are looking to the UN to delegate rights that they should be taken care of themselves. And they in most are taken care of within their own borders just as you do...
Whithin our borders, all sentient, intelligent beings are allowed the same rights and abilities as a "normal" human citizen, provided that the sentient, intelligent being is able to pass the appropriate tests that all immigrants are subjected to. It is when they go outside those borders to other nations that problems arise since some nations don't believe that such exist as you note here..
If this is an argument about whether Vampires exist or not, the Castisinian Church, having declared Vampirism and other Vampe activities illegal, must take a negative stance on this. Now you become part of the problem here as you make it illegal where in some nations it is their way of life.

However it is completely acceptable that any "being", demonstrating a standardized level of intelligence, is applicable to the same rights as a human, who demonstrates the same level of intelligence.What difference would it be for one to declare cows sacred and it a crime to make burgers of them... Than another to make it a crime to eat grass or corn or peas or beans or any plant life...? Or suck the juice from an orange or lemon or grape or a human.

We suggest generalizing the target of the target for rights. We would hope that if the nation meets the requirements to become a member those who fall into the lifeform or nonlifeform that applied for and where given membership become egual in everyway with any other member lifeform or unlifeform.. Thus there is no need to single out every lifeform or nonlifeform that is granted membership special protections... They have it when they become members... as the resolutions and other rules that might apply to members as applied equal across all lifeforms or nonlifeforms in the UN... or at least the governments they have established.

As the UN should hold all members as equals.... if it wants to promote world order and peace as it was established to do. Not single out this or that lifeform or nonlifeform and deal with only issues granting them rights they should have like all members of the UN once they are members.

As President/Chief Executive Governing Official of the Holy Republic of Suozziland, it is my obligation to keep my citizens free from an infestation of Vampires. One could make the argument that, since vampires can change humans into more vampires, it is a disease that needs to be eliminated. It is an inalienable right for my citizens to walk the streets at night without being afraid of this disease. They should be afraid of me more than anything. If Vampires cannot respect the right to life in my nation, why should I give them a special set of rights? Why should I put the needs of a few select beings, over the rights of the 50 million people who live in my country? It is the obligation of my government to protect the citizens and that is what I will do. Suozziland will NOT endorse any rights for Vampires.

-Vic Smart
President of Suozziland

How's this latest working draft?

For the Expansion of Rights

WHEREAS it is a well-noted flaw of democracy that certain social classes and cultures in the minority can face undue hardship, unfair treatment and exclusion from participation in government; and

WHEREAS the wholesale exclusion of any individual is fundamentally contrary to a free and democratic society -- and disparate oppression is equally contrary in a despotic or totalitarian society -- regardless of that party's religion, creed, race, gender, disability, existence, mortality or dining habits; and

RECOGNIZING that the Nation States UN is a complex multiverse composed of vastly diverse nations, many with differing cultures, citizenships and even realities; and

RECOGNIZING that emigration occurs naturally, spreading citizens from various realities throughout the entire multiverse;

SEEKING to expand protections offered to citizens traditionally defined as “human” to equally-deserving citizens of various origins who have a similar stake in nations' governments;

RECOGNIZING that with these freedom come the full responsibilities of citizens and, as such, violation of the laws of any nation are equally enforceable upon all subclasses, provided such laws do not unduly deny equal rights; and

THEREFORE, the UN seeks to clearly define “person” as used in the laws of this organization to mean any self-aware being (organic, robot, energy-based or otherwise) intellectually capable of independently participating in government when given adequate access;

AS SUCH, previous and future resolutions shall be interpreted to include all covered by this definition in their protections or limitations.

Why only vampires? Why not toasters, faries, angels, aliens, elves, drawves, undead, AI, dolphins, and tigers? They too are intelligent beings.

Some excellent questions have been brought up. Though this is a touchy subject bringing up rights for mythological creatures, some of which seem absurd. Many Krimsonikans would heartily laugh at the mention of creatures of fantasy such as toasters, dolphins and tigers. Moreover, to limit this to vampires does seem to be a discriminatory affirmative action forwarded by lobbyists in the employ of said vampires, who are seeking to have their interest group raised above other potentially sentient beings beings which does come across as being impartial.

Thus, with the argument shifting to include sentient beings of all sorts, not just of the human variety, there lay another issue. That issue is the definition of sentience itself. The United Nations cannot provide rights to sentient beings unless it first defines what those beings are. In other words, we may need a form of Turing Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test) in order to establish whether or not a being is sentient.

This falls back to the issue of sentience once again. The traditional Turing Test was designed more as a test of the humanity of a supposedly intelligent machine taking it. The criteria was to measure a mixture of Intelligent and non-intelligent human behavior, and did not account for the existence of intelligent non-human behavior.

Generally sentience is defined of having the ability to act subjectively, which does not necessarily encompass self-awareness. An accepted definition of sentience would have to declare whether or not self-awareness is needed. Also, sentience is not synonymous with sapience, which is the ability to act with judgment. Whether or not sapience is included in the criteria is also something the UN would need to decide.

Should things run smoothly, and somehow a definition of sentience is agreed upon, then devising the appropriate Turing Test would also need to be developed in order to prove a being's claim to sentience. Potential criteria for such a test, such as intelligence, self-awareness and possibly sapience would have to be agreed upon. Should the UN get that far, then in order to be properly fair the test would have to be applied equally to all parties claiming to be sentient.

This creates another issue. The issue is not whether vampires, fairies, or iPhones succeed in passing the test. The issue will be dealing with a certain (potentially large) portion of humanity that fails to prove itself sentient. This in itself has potential ramifications itself such as: What if among those who fail to prove themselves sentient includes political leaders and lawmakers? That can call into question the validity of certain national, regional, and world policies including United Nations resolutions. A worse case scenario would be if the majority of the UN delegates who passed a proposal for the rights of sentient beings were themselves, unable to prove their own sentience, thus potentially negating the law which was proposed.

I merely want to ensure that we are thinking this proposal thoroughly.

How do you know if they are not represented in your government? I could make the exact same argument for "releasing" any number of groups from their "hellish existence," including IRS auditors, taxi cab drivers and Roman Catholics.

While it is true that the Office of the Holy Inquisition was dissolved along with the rest of our former otaku government, rest assured we are not sleeping on the job. There are plenty of former shrine maidens who have taken up demon-hunting as a second career.

While it is true that the Office of the Holy Inquisition was dissolved along with the rest of our former otaku government, rest assured we are not sleeping on the job. There are plenty of former shrine maidens who have taken up demon-hunting as a second career.

It's an unfortunate economic situation when the shrine maidens fall on hard times.

How's this latest working draft?

We support it, but the final clause about past and future resolutions might need to be run by our UN Secretariat (i.e. a mod).

Good Luck To You,
Howie Katzman

That issue is the definition of sentience itself. The United Nations cannot provide rights to sentient beings unless it first defines what those beings are. In other words, we may need a form of Turing Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test) in order to establish whether or not a being is sentient.


Thanks for the feedback. I think that if you reread the proposal, you'll see I didn't end up going for sentience exactly. The three requirements are 1) self awareness, 2) impacted by government and 2) sufficient intelligence to independently participate in government.

I agree that "sufficient intelligence" may be too vague. This would also, incidentally, require governments to make themselves available to those who are illiterate.


We support it, but the final clause about past and future resolutions might need to be run by our UN Secretariat (i.e. a mod).

Your probably right; it sounds a bit like it goes into effect retroactively, which wouldn't be kosher. I might just take out that clause.

Didn't we have a resolution against retroactive laws? The entire clause needn't go, if you take out the past part. But then again, what you are left with is self evident.

If I may offer the input of me and my brothers of the night, we are vampires, and as such, have our own country under the protection of our leader, The Raven Lord. If any would deny our existence, please feel free to send in official delegates and talk with our vampiric citizens. Due to your negligence in this case, many vampires from accross the globe have flocked to our country seeking refuge, which we have given them.

Please, recognize this petition for equal rights so my oppressed breatheren may finally live normally, otherwise, a plague of some sort of vampire disease would be a nasty thing to have happen...

Thanks for the feedback. I think that if you reread the proposal, you'll see I didn't end up going for sentience exactly. The three requirements are 1) self awareness, 2) impacted by government and 2) sufficient intelligence to independently participate in government.

I agree that "sufficient intelligence" may be too vague. This would also, incidentally, require governments to make themselves available to those who are illiterate.

THEREFORE, the UN seeks to clearly define “person” as used in the laws of this organization to mean any self-aware being (organic, robot, energy-based or otherwise) intellectually capable of independently participating in government when given adequate access;

Its written quite well. I suppose a proper definition of personhood might need further definition at some point. In this case, it works well though the word intellectually could easily be omitted since (OOC: can't help laughing here) participation in government is not specifically a function of intelligence.

If I may offer the input of me and my brothers of the night, we are vampires, and as such, have our own country under the protection of our leader, The Raven Lord. If any would deny our existence, please feel free to send in official delegates and talk with our vampiric citizens. Due to your negligence in this case, many vampires from across the globe have flocked to our country seeking refuge, which we have given them.

Please, recognize this petition for equal rights so my oppressed brethren may finally live normally, otherwise, a plague of some sort of vampire disease would be a nasty thing to have happen...

As you can see the discussion has moved to create a proposal to encompass a broader definition of personhood so as to protect the rights of all persons in the Nation States. If enacted then all entities meeting the criteria of personhood will have the same rights in all nations who are part of the UN. Thus, any vampires (also otherkind, and entities of all sorts) who disagree with their status in a particular nation will still have the right to make their opinions known at the ballot box. Unless of course said nation leaves the United Nations.

My objection to a ruling specifically directed at vampires is not in specific against that particular group. It is against the precedent by a particular special interest group gaining unique recognition because they have access to vocal lobbyists. I perceive this as a form of discrimination in the guise of Affirmative Action. No one special interest group should have any form of special status under the United Nations in my humble opinion. Hence the broadening of the term personhood so that all potential citizens in UN nations can benefit equally.

[I]
...participation in government is not specifically a function of intelligence.

I realize I'm setting the bar pretty low, but I wanted to get humanity in. :cool:

As you can see the discussion has moved to create a proposal to encompass a broader definition of personhood so as to protect the rights of all persons in the Nation States. If enacted then all entities meeting the criteria of personhood will have the same rights in all nations who are part of the UN. Thus, any vampires (also otherkind, and entities of all sorts) who disagree with their status in a particular nation will still have the right to make their opinions known at the ballot box. Unless of course said nation leaves the United Nations.

We wish to point out that the commonly accepted definition of "personhood" includes, first and foremost, that said "person" is alive. Vampires and other members of the undead do not meet that standard, their walking around, talking and voting in the NSUN notwithstanding.

We wish to point out that the commonly accepted definition of "personhood" includes, first and foremost, that said "person" is alive. Vampires and other members of the undead do not meet that standard, their walking around, talking and voting in the NSUN notwithstanding.

This proposal seems to be an expansion on the definition of personhood, hence the part:

THEREFORE, the UN seeks to clearly define “person” as used in the laws of this organization to mean any self-aware being (organic, robot, energy-based or otherwise) intellectually capable of independently participating in government when given adequate access;

AS SUCH, previous and future resolutions shall be interpreted to include all covered by this definition in their protections or limitations.

As you can see, several of the examples of those who would be encompassed by the definition are not necessarily living, as defined by possessing a metabolism, being able to reproduce as well as being able to adapt to its environment. Should this proposition make it to a point where it can be voted upon, then those who are opposed to expanding rights to self-aware yet metabolically challenged entities have the right to do so.

Wait. You mean people are seriously debating this? As if the epidemic of vampires being arrested for crimes against non-vampires is of such overwhelming importance that the wheels of the world should stop spinning while people debate the minutiae of <i>personhood</i>?

Good God. I thought this was all a big joke.

Wait. You mean people are seriously debating this? As if the epidemic of vampires being arrested for crimes against non-vampires is of such overwhelming importance that the wheels of the world should stop spinning while people debate the minutiae of <i>personhood</i>?

Good God. I thought this was all a big joke.
The ambassador of The Popotan steps up, "While The Popotan does believe the actual proposal is indeed a joke, unless Blog Waters is willing to bring forth clear evidence of the existence of vampires to the UN," he waits dramatically knowing full well the outcome, "the proposal has spurred legitimate debate about whether the term person should be broadened. We acknowledge at such time, and for the foreseeable future some of the possibilities discussed here are in the real of the fantastic, however, we also realize that science has turned things once deemed fantasy into reality. Therefore, we see no real qualm is debating the expansion of what would be classified as a person by the UN, but this particular proposal is just ludicrous given the present data."

Wait. You mean people are seriously debating this? As if the epidemic of vampires being arrested for crimes against non-vampires is of such overwhelming importance that the wheels of the world should stop spinning while people debate the minutiae of <i>personhood</i>?

Good God. I thought this was all a big joke.

You're kidding, right? I mean, you do realize this is a game on the Internet, right? :headbang:

Yes. This is a legitimate attempt to develop legitimate legislation that would cover the rights of legitimate NSUN Nations who have created their nations using alternate realities. I think in the past many have simply assumed their vampires, invisible talking rabbits and androids had rights, but we would like that formally recognized. This is legit. It's too legit. It's too legit to quit.

unless Blog Waters is willing to bring forth clear evidence of the existence of vampires to the UN

Although the current resolution is no longer restricted to vampires, here is some evidence in support of the existence of this one subclass that would gain recognition through my latest draft:

The World Factbook recognizes vampires in many locations.
At least four regions recognize vampires in their name in such a way that it implies they have citizenship. Three of these regions contain UN members.
At least 24 nations recognize vampires in their names.
Vampires are the national animal in many nations, including Pisylvania, No_State_At_All, Vampire Piggies, Ariel the Diva, El Vampiro, Kevin Thorn and Ariel, UnholyCrap, Embroja, Akesania, Twilight Vampie, Gilganis, Vinathians and Vampire rocky. (Surely in others, but these are the ones I am aware of.)


I believe there is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of vampires, not only in Nation States, but in the NSUN.

Although the current resolution is no longer restricted to vampires, here is some evidence in support of the existence of this one subclass that would gain recognition through my latest draft:

The World Factbook recognizes vampires in many locations.
At least four regions recognize vampires in their name in such a way that it implies they have citizenship. Three of these regions contain UN members.
At least 24 nations recognize vampires in their names.
Vampires are the national animal in many nations, including Pisylvania, No_State_At_All, Vampire Piggies, Ariel the Diva, El Vampiro, Kevin Thorn and Ariel, UnholyCrap, Embroja, Akesania, Twilight Vampie, Gilganis, Vinathians and Vampire rocky. (Surely in others, but these are the ones I am aware of.)


I believe there is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of vampires, not only in Nation States, but in the NSUN.I am looking at the current proposal and am concerned about the lack of the possibility digitally-based intelligent life forms as well should they appear and one become sentient. They would not fit any of the criteria listed as far as I can tell.

I am looking at the current proposal and am concerned about the lack of the possibility digitally-based intelligent life forms as well should they appear and one become sentient. They would not fit any of the criteria listed as far as I can tell.

The law would apply to "any self-aware being (organic, robot, energy-based or otherwise) intellectually capable of independently participating in government when given adequate access." What criteria do you feel they may fail to meet?

I'm going to go ahead and propose this. Thank you for your support!

The law would apply to "any self-aware being (organic, robot, energy-based or otherwise) intellectually capable of independently participating in government when given adequate access." What criteria do you feel they may fail to meet?

I'm going to go ahead and propose this. Thank you for your support!Digitially based entities would not consist of any of that. They would not be made up of substance but data itself therefore the proposal doesn't seem like it could cover them. Specifically some may argue whether such an enity would be considered a "being" without any physical or energy structure.

Digitially based entities would not consist of any of that. They would not be made up of substance but data itself therefore the proposal doesn't seem like it could cover them. Specifically some may argue whether such an enity would be considered a "being" without any physical or energy structure.

I'm not sure how data without energy could constitute a being. (If it had energy it would obviously be covered.)

I'm not sure how data without energy could constitute a being. (If it had energy it would obviously be covered.)
Let's put it this way:

You have a game on a CD. That CD is a physical object, the ink on it, the label (if it has one), etc. You burn some information on it. That information is "data". it exists without energy.

The importance here is that it really doesn't exist in the 'real-world' (or real simulated UN world). It can only exist virtually. An energy-based life form still exists in the real world, and obviously vampires do to.

If you clone a person's brain, that brain still exists and can be interacted with in the real-world. Copying/cloning a digital entity does not work that way.

That is the fundamental difference.
----
Think of it as a plane of existance, like heaven, hell, nirvana, etc and you can interact with it, but not it with you (like an omnipotent god interfering from a heaven/hell/etc that you can't interact with).

You have a game on a CD. That CD is a physical object, the ink on it, the label (if it has one), etc. You burn some information on it. That information is "data". it exists without energy.
Technically incorrect; energy is bound up in the storage of the data, which is as subject to entropic decay as anything else.

However, if one were to allow the honoured ambassador's point, one would still be hard pressed to consider that static data on the CD as being alive. At best such could be considered a highly effective means of suspended animation, but the point is that the animation is suspended in such a state. To be alive, information entities must exist within a medium -- a computer system, say -- in which they are unarguably energy patterns as much as we are energetic patterns within the physical substance of our bodies.

Technically incorrect; energy is bound up in the storage of the data, which is as subject to entropic decay as anything else.

However, if one were to allow the honoured ambassador's point, one would still be hard pressed to consider that static data on the CD as being alive. At best such could be considered a highly effective means of suspended animation, but the point is that the animation is suspended in such a state. To be alive, information entities must exist within a medium -- a computer system, say -- in which they are unarguably energy patterns as much as we are energetic patterns within the physical substance of our bodies.

I agree. Also, I personally feel that data alone cannot constitute a being, rather it would be a record of a being. However, if evidence was presented of such a being, I would personally support any petition the UN to expand our definition to suitably allow for their participation.

I'm going to start a new thread with the new proposal in it. I think it has changed significantly enough that the current thread title is not doing it justice.