Taijitu
Forum Meta => Office of the Delegate => Executive Offices => May 2008 - Government of Taijitu => Government Archive => Archive => UN Resolutions => Topic started by: Amy on May 01, 2007, 12:01:09 AM
-
Before I post the resolution, in future, if someone notices that this hasn't been done...instead of bitching about it and doing nothing, have the sense to do it yourself ;)
Repeal "Banning whaling"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #70
Proposed by: WhaleCo Global LLC
Description: UN Resolution #70: Banning whaling (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Argument: 1): NOTING the passage of United Nations Resolution #119, UNCoESB;
2): FURTHER NOTING article 7 of UNCoESB which bans all hunting of endangered species, in addition to other provisions which ensure the survival of endangered species;
3): EXPRESSING its gratitude for the protection granted by Resolution #70 in the intermediate period before the passage of Resolution #119;
4): CONVINCED that Resolution #70 is rendered redundant by the protections provided in Resolution #119;
5): BELIEVING that the removal of unnecessary legislation is in the best interests of the member nations of the UN;
6): THE UNITED NATIONS hereby repeals United Nations Resolution #70, Banning whaling.
-
:fight:
-
Yeah Amy, sorry about that, I was under the mistaken impression it was your job...
In the future, I won't bitch about it any more... my bad.
-
Yeah Amy, sorry about that, I was under the mistaken impression it was your job...
In the future, I won't bitch about it any more... my bad.
How kind of you.
Are you trying to provoke an angry response?
-
I admitted my mistake and apologized. Like I said, I was under the mistaken impression that it was her job. Relax already.
-
I was under the mistaken impression it was your job...
Congratulations, it is now your job.
Yup, thats right folks....since DrenEgralA cares so much about the UN resolutions being posted on the day they start, he is now in charge of doing so. Who else would be better suited for the job than someone who has made a name for himself by being so concerned about it being done?
DEA, I expect to see the new resolutions posted on time. You hold this position unless TGR decides that your services are no longer required, but I do expect to see you making every effort to do this job correctly.
Congratulations again DEA ;)
-
Congratulations!! :drunks: :fight: :clap: :clap:
-
Cute and very childish to boot.
It’s easy to see why you were not re-elected to the Delegate’s position.
As a new citizen to Taijitu it is very simple to make the mistake that the UN Delegate be in charge of all things UN related, especially since it is not clearly defined.
But instead of understanding and correcting my mistake, you and EL have chosen to take a rather immature path. I am not surprised however, it's a behavior you and EL have repeatedly demonstrated.
So no, I will not be making sure the poll is posted in a timely fashion.
I guess TGR will have to fire me very soon.
-
DEA, it is a form of endearment. I urge you, take it. At least someone will keep up with it then. Besides, you are active enough, it seems. Why DON"T you want to take it?
-
Its okay Talmann. Evidently DEA doesn't want to advance in his NS career. Or it could be that he never actually had a problem with the UN resolutions being posted at all...but it was just something to moan at me about.
Either way, by not accepting this position, DEA has kindly forfeited his right to complain about such matters ever again.
Oh and DEA...don't call this immature. When an NS player clearly has a passion for something, I help them get more involved in whatever it is they are passionate about. In this instance, it was giving you this opportunity. However, you've turned it down, so the offer has now expired. Next time we'll all know not to offer you a position of any kind as you might see it as immaturity as opposed to what it really is...helping you to get more involved.
-
You are a very young woman and as such it’s easy to let your passions cloud your judgment.
Amy, my position here and in the RMB is that the UN Delegate *must* be in charge of all things UN related. I was mistaken in my thinking that in Taijitu that would be held true. Apparently anyone can do the job the Delegate *should* be responsible for. A mistake I acknowledged and apologized for making, even if certain nations chose not to accept that apology.
As I was once a young and rash individual, I can understand your youthful enthusiasm and vigor. But that is no excuse for being vindictive and rude.
Excessive scotch intake is an excuse for being vindictive and rude. Trust me on that point.
-
No passions were clouding my judgement...I just had a desire to appoint you to a position you seemed to be highly interested in is all.
If your position was what you claim it was....why didn't you ask for clarification before bitching bitterly on the RMB and here?
The only one who has been vindictive and rude here is you...I'm sure lots of others will tell you the same thing. So maybe you wanna lay off that scotch then huh?
And no, I do not trust you. I find it hard to trust you for many reasons. Like the way you gained 42 endorsements within 32 hours and how from the moment go you decided you had a problem with me and decided to show that on the RMB. If you want me to trust you, you are going to have to earn it.
-
Now here is the real core of the disagreement. You have always felt threatened by me.
I however, feel no threat from you. In fact, your behavior is amusing. At one time we could have been friends, but your continued aggression prevents that.
I wish you all the best Amy. I truly do.
-
Haven't we had this discussion before? I do not feel threatened by you. I do however do not like the way you have attacked me on the RMB without asking for clarification about the things you were attacking me on in the first place.
Oh, and its TCM to you if you wouldn't mind.
-
As previously stated here and in the RMB, I have apologized for my misunderstanding. You and El have continued this well beyond where it should have gone.
Again, I attribute that to your youthful energies and passions. I am almost twice your age Amy, and I am familiar with how those magnificent qualities can affect judgment.
If you only had the ability to focus those energies, but alas, that knowledge comes with age and at a time when those passions begin to fade in favor of rational thought. It's truly the curse of the humanity we all share.
-
I know I'm kind of new to the NS community, but is this really how it is with everyone? I'm very confused by this... I don't even know what to call it. Anyway, I approve of what Taijitu has accomplished and I hope I can make some good friends here.
Oh, and keep the resolution in place, disrupting the ecosystem is NOT a good thing.
-
I am almost twice your age Amy
Really? Huh...strange that.
Anywho, I asked you to use TCM. Please don't make me ask you again.
And kindly leave Elu out of this...I have no idea what your problem with him is.
DEA, I am not going to continue going round and round in circles with you. I gave you an opportunity I thought you'd appreciate. You didn't. I see no need for this to become a long drawn out process simply because you failed to once again ask for clarification before going at me. If you have anything further you feel you need to say, please either do it via PM or start a new thread on the forum....this topic is for discussion of the UN resolution.
-
TOTALLY AGAINST!
-
Against
-
I know I'm kind of new to the NS community, but is this really how it is with everyone? I'm very confused by this... I don't even know what to call it. Anyway, I approve of what Taijitu has accomplished and I hope I can make some good friends here.
No, it isn't like this with everyone. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen any citizens of Taijitu apart from DEA behaving so condescendingly and rudely. I would encourage you to look to this as an anomaly and nothing more; we're mostly a very nice bunch and discourage impetuous argument-mongering. I hope you make some good friends here, as well.
By the by, I vote against this resolution.
-
Ditto and against.
-
May people explain to me why they vote against? Just out of sheer curiosity.
-
This happened in RL. There was 'Banning whaling'. Then there was 'Set up a committee where everybody can participate and vote and decide what to do.' Then Japan had enough 'way of influence' to convince poor African countries (without seacoast) to participate in this committee and vote for free whaling.
Now, #119 sets up such committees in case of problems with species. In committees 'way of influence' decides about hunting. So #119 DOES NOT ban whaling.
The whole argument that #119 is equivalent to Banning whaling is NOT TRUE. If you vote for repeal you vote for tricks and tactics and the 'influence by whaling money'. I hope you won't.
-
The whole argument that #119 is equivalent to Banning whaling is NOT TRUE. If you vote for repeal you vote for tricks and tactics and the 'influence by whaling money'. I hope you won't.
Actually, I voted for the repeal because I heard whales are very tasty. ;)
-
And therein lies the dilemma Rom... give up munching on delicious, tasty whale meat or hunt these poor things to extinction...
and it doesn't help that an old adage keeps springing to mind... "Life is simply nature's way of keeping meat fresh"... sigh.
I voted to keep the meat fresh.
-
Actually they are not that tasty. But then I actually support whaling, as whales are not really as endangered as those environmentalists claim in their propaganda (the other example is the sharks), and a whaling ban affects the livelihood (and to an extent, culture) of many people. A regulation, IMO, is much better than an outright ban.
-
Also, if you take whale meat, killing just ONE animal can feed a lot of people. That does reduce (the number of) suffering of animals.
-
I vote against for a reason shared by a few people here: #119 does indeed say nothing about the banning of whaling. :)
-
Also, if you take whale meat, killing just ONE animal can feed a lot of people. That does reduce (the number of) suffering of animals.
Who says one whale is less important than, say, twenty humans?
-
Also, if you take whale meat, killing just ONE animal can feed a lot of people. That does reduce (the number of) suffering of animals.
Who says one whale is less important than, say, twenty humans?
But why is the life of one whale more important than a hundred chickens?
-
the against is winning...but we'r loosing in UN. If we must do something, dont forget to do it. passing through in favor to top is very important! gives the AGAINST a strong role and might influence other nations!
-
Why are humans so important that we can eat other species?
-
Why are humans so important that we can eat other species?
um... are you a vegetarian?
but then, even if you are, you can't force other to be vegetarians too.
With the same logic, I don't see why eating whales is so much more evil than eating chicken or beef.
-
chickens are 'created' in 'chicken-factories'. so you can control: you 'never' run out of chickens.
whales are NOT renewable.
this is the difference.
-
Whales are renewable too, as long as whaling is regulated.
Regulated hunting has been working for so many species, why not whales?
-
im not against eating whales, im against endangering endangered species! whales are important, endangered and huge. Im also against wasting.
do you know what they do with a shark in the pacific? they cut their tails out and throw them alive back to the sea...thats fucking cruelty, and its outlawed in EU. in EU you are not allowed to fish and throw the fish back to the sea, the fish after being fished is already damaged, most likely dead, they can use it for any kind of fish food, instad of throwing them dead back to the sea. plus theres strick fishing rules to endangered species, there's a great problem with codfish at northern sea, 95% of the fish was underage, didnt reproduced, so if they didnt stop fishing so much codfish, the codfish could disappear from northern sea.
SPECIES MUST BE PROTECTED AS HUMANS ARE!
Do you eat pig-brain? In Mediterranean countries, all parts of the pig are merchandised, there is no waste!
-
The sharks one is the worst "green" propaganda!!!
The fishermen were paid by the "green groups" to throw the shark bodies back to the sea!!! In fact, sharks are in no way endangered, and every part of a shark is in fact consumed - meat of fish balls, bones as medicines!
Don't believe in everything you see!
Come back to whales, it is exactly because of the ban, the Japanese used "scientific research" as an excuse, and continued whaling without check. However, if whaling is regulated, we can get the whaling in check, and avoid extinction of the mammal...
-
Why are humans so important that we can eat other species?
um... are you a vegetarian?
but then, even if you are, you can't force other to be vegetarians too.
With the same logic, I don't see why eating whales is so much more evil than eating chicken or beef.
Ah, but I was not comparing whales to poultry or livestock. It is not their relative evilness, but rather the evilness that stems from the slaying of any noble beast that dares roam upon this world which we have, without any right, claimed ours. Depending on your perspective, it can easily be argued that there is no difference in the moral value of eating a whale or eating a chicken, but you most consider where that path leads. Yes, the beloved sentence, "all God's creatures, loved equally under the heavens." Meaning that if you're going to eat Daisy, your prize cow, you might as well eat Danny from next door.
And no, I'm not a vegetarian. My hobbies include eating meat. A lot of it. From animals that are still living and breathing. But if I were, why couldn't I? It is, after all, what is best for our species on the long run. Would you be so petty as not to relent to a cause greater than our generation and cultures?
-
btw, Chinese do not only eat pig's brain, but also blood, intestines, kidneys, pancreas, liver, lungs, trachea, heart, head - more thoroughly than Mediterraneans... :P
-
takasia: please make a reality check
with chickens we have a well-controlled environment (food, light, space). this is why we can predict number of generations and are able to influence the number of chickens very well.
with whales we can have controlled hunting but this is VERY far from controlled environment:
- we cannot influence all parameters of the living territory of whales (food, temperature of oceans etc.)
- we cannot control hunting (see Japan)
so, controlled hunting is NOT a real argument (or frankly speaking is a LIE)
Tigris
-
What is happening is, if you ban something, you can't control it. As long as there is demand, someone is willing to take the risk.
Once you make something legal and regulated, there will be incentive for someone to comply - very many people will choose to go by the rules if they have a choice.
and with your argument, all fishing should be banned outright!
-
Also, would you agree with dog eating if they are bred in farms like chicken?
-
Humans have no right to eat anything.
-
we say here 'you sit wrong way on the horse'.
it is not that 'if we ban we can't control'. it is that 'if we can't control we should at least ban in case it harms'. yes, world is big, people are at least stupid or even evil but anyway too many so control is not possible. don't dream if you allow to hunt 20 then it will be 20.
yes, any kind of fish (or any other animal) that is threatened to be extinct should be protected by ban. in fact in RL they do it. many species are not huntable not just whales (and flora is also protected that way). the speciality of whales that they do not belong to any nation as they are in international waters.
I accept controlled environment as a likelihood based on scientific observations. These observations said that hunting most probable leads to extinction of whales. At other fishes they don't say that this is the reason why you are allowed fishing for some but not all kind of fish.
-
takasia: you try to ask questions as extreme but alas: eating dogs (and cats) is an everyday habit in many countries. at WWII 'civilized' european nation's restaurant's have menu from cats, dogs, rats, horse.
do not mix moralistic taste (itsy-bitsy cats), digestive taste and extinction.
-
I bet you really don't get what I meant.
The Japanese will not agree to an outright ban, so they actually allow whaling without limits.
If the world allow the Japanese to whale with a quota, it is unlikely that the Japanese will reject - and the government is likely to enforce it too.
The Japanese just act "rebellious" in the whaling issue, now the Koreans act similarly on the dog one.
It is not a very good idea to impose your own values on everyone without discretion, especially when it will never work!
-
It is not a very good idea to impose your own values on everyone without discretion, especially when it will never work!
And for zat, you mazt die!
-
This is your dream. The actual situation is that there are more nations that want whaling (poor Japan is not the only one). The quota they ask for altogether is much more than needed for extinction. Of course there are scientist who said no problem with hunting so many whales, enough will be left.
And if you allow a ship to go out to hunt 1 you can be sure they will go for 3, one after another. You can not stop them on the sea: they will have a permission for 1 and there will be only one at a time.
Now with the ban you can stop the ship and say: here is a whale, you are arrested, ship is taken.
you said: until demand someone take the risk. if you allow just 1/5 of the demand why do you think they do not go for the rest?
(imagine: you want to store 1GB of pictures, MP3-s and an ISP offers you 200MB? would you accept it and drop the rest?)
-
ah, as per imposing values: what is the value you think of? can you be a little bit more concrete?
-
The problem is, with this ban, Japan is NOT arresting anybody!
If there is a quota, Japan will. As Japan has a population of more than 100 million, their reduction in whaling can most likely compensate the quota for Norway, Iceland, etc.
-
ah, as per imposing values: what is the value you think of? can you be a little bit more concrete?
So, eating whale is not part of your culture, you suggest whaling ban.
Others think it is not right to eat dogs, dogs are banned for consumption.
Hindu believe cows are sacred, so no beef
Muslim believe pigs are dirth, so no pork
Mongolians don't quite eat vegetables, so no vegetables either
hm... not much left, huh?
Why must we impose what we believe on the others?
-
No more new idea just summarizing:
1. whaling is an advantage for the few - no whaling is not a disadvantage for anybody
2. no scientifically reasonable quota will be enough for the ones who want whaling
3. whaling will not be reduced if allowed using quotas
4. over quota ships will be much harder to detect and stop
(parallel: allowing guns in the US does not lower the number of kills. indeed.)
-
No more new idea just summarizing:
1. whaling is an advantage for the few - no whaling is not a disadvantage for anybody
2. no scientifically reasonable quota will be enough for the ones who want whaling
3. whaling will not be reduced if allowed using quotas
4. over quota ships will be much harder to detect and stop
(parallel: allowing guns in the US does not lower the number of kills. indeed.)
My summary then:
1. Not an advantage for ANYBODY? No stakeholder in the industry?
2. No, it won't be enough. But it can please some countries for sure.
3. No one is stopped by the Japanese govt from whaling now. With quota, the govt will act.
4. Whales are huge! If licensing did not work, what are they doing with those Alaskan Crabs? Only quotas and licensing can prevent (not eliminate) over whaling.
(Killers can be irrational; profit-making fishermen are)
-
Here's a point no one seems to be addressing:
Whether or not you believe a quota will satisfactorily prevent extinction while allowing certain cultures to continue whale hunting, THIS LEGISLATION DOES NOT ESTABLISH ONE. This piece of legal fun repeals the ban but fails to establish a limit on hunting whales in particular, and thus permits a total failure to protect the endangered or threatened species from extinction.
Even if you are pro-quota, you should vote against this resolution. Propose a quota later, if you must.
-
Here's a point no one seems to be addressing:
Whether or not you believe a quota will satisfactorily prevent extinction while allowing certain cultures to continue whale hunting, THIS LEGISLATION DOES NOT ESTABLISH ONE. This piece of legal fun repeals the ban but fails to establish a limit on hunting whales in particular, and thus permits a total failure to protect the endangered or threatened species from extinction.
Even if you are pro-quota, you should vote against this resolution. Propose a quota later, if you must.
We cannot propose a "quota" resolution without repeal this one, as they are contradictory
-
We cannot propose a "quota" resolution without repeal this one, as they are contradictory
I'm saying an entirely new proposal could be written up to repeal "Banning whaling" and establish a quota system. Leaving it open like this is too risky.
-
We can't write a proposal like this, can we? There is some stupid UN proposal rules regarding this
-
True. If you're for LIMITED whaling, the only real option is to pass the repeal and propose a separate whale quota bill, and hope to get that passed.
-
Oh bugger. Well, I still vote against.
-
Actually, if this resolution passes, we *can* write a proposal limiting the amount of whaling a nation can engage in. The language must be precise and there can be no real world examples within the proposed resolution.
If accepted, it'll be put the queue and voted on.
-
We established that, but I personally support a full ban so my vote remains as is. I was only trying to persuade those in favor of a limited hunting system to vote against it before I found out you can't cancel legislation and create a new policy in one proposal. At the time, I thought it would better serve their interests to do it all at once.
I personally don't like the idea of people being able to whale to their hearts' content between now and the proposal to instate a limit (which may or may not ever happen).
-
Some of the arguments floating around seem to be, "Well banning it doesn't stop it." Erm, well that may be true, yet it's impossible to totally stop anything, so I don't really see... how that one holds up. I took a look at the UN Forums because I'm bored in a small town with 2 months to waste :) LoL, and aside from all the futile "we stand for whaling because we like barbeques" arguments, they were against it because a ban wouldn't stop it, and it would make it harder to control.
Well, I beg to differ! Cocaine is illegal, and people go through illegal measures to get it. Murder is illegal, and people go through illegal means to do it anyway. However, I don't see how this correlates with banning whales. There are only... so many "dirty" ways to hunt a whale, and being out on a boat in the middle of an ocean is a totally different scenario. If you ban whaling, it's not going to magically become a dirty underground business along the lines of a drug trade. It just won't. Poachers exist now, and poachers will exist afterwards, yet a ban on whaling should help the whale population because it's much easier to manage than a drug trade. Sure, the oceans are huge, yet if a ban is placed on it, I don't anticipate a sudden rush of boats to the open waters to hunt whales with some sort of sneak attack. I just don't. Laws taken towards helping sustain the panda population have helped, and not harmed: this is an appropriate example to look at. And unless NS has developed a miraculous new way to poach whales, the techniques aren't exactly the most humane.
And as for the arguments that, "My people need whale products..." give me a break. :)
I'm not entirely sure what I was trying to prove there... I hope it's "decipherable" :)
-
Question: so what if whales go extinct and we lose a bit of biodiversity?
-
Could the more logical question be, "What is the point in causing that to happen?"
-
takasia: your argument that limited hunting makes all people and government in the industry angels (what industry? whaling is banned since the 70s) ... fortunately no i with double dot on my keyboard to write naive.
I tell you only one example: in 1933 they gave power to Hitler to satisfy him. in 1937 they gave Czech republic to satisfy him (Chamberlain said: 'this is a contract that brings 25 years of peace to Europe'). In 1938 Hitler annexed Austria. They thought this will be enough for him. We know the rest.
This will happen to your quotas. You give 10. Then they fight for 15 and then 20 and then 30. And you can not step back just always up.
-
soly: nothing and everything. I (and hope we) think that nature and evolution is too complex to make 'active' decisions. We are not God we can not actively kill species (and look rabbits in Australia: we try to make it back, this is not only about extinction but also about disturbing local fauna and flora). We keep situation away from human influence to let nature decide. I can see no other way how can we do that. There are far too many examples that active human interference only ruin life on Earth.
-
You seem to be thinking that humans are somehow not related to nature.
-
just a little bit different: I think that humans are not the same participants in the nature game as all others. I do believe that our responsibility is just not equal to the responsibility of lions, gazelles, eagles, whales. why? because we can have much more influence on nature than they have.
and this is not limited to nature. in any situation if someone has more influence than he/she/it has more responsibility as well.
let it be the way: humans are the Delegates of many species in the nature game (1000000000 endorsement). humans can kick out other species. humans should act as a wise delegate taking the responsibility.
-
Why? We have the power, so any action we take is automatically the right one. We reign supreme, so we can't be wrong.
-
My argument is simple: with the ban, Japan govt is not cooperating at all. If there is a quota, those Japanese may start cooperating and reduce the scale of whaling.
The hunt will definitely be exceeding the quota, but it would still be better than the Japanese hunting without limit now.
-
save the whales, save the whales, save the whales!
-
Soly: you are kidding
takasia: quote: 'may start cooperating'. history does not justify this optimistic, naive standpoint. you are a dreamer. and if you say it 100 times as a mantra it still will be a dream and does not become serious.
-
We should not give up on any chance in saving any whale.
If we don't do anything and keep the ban, the unchecked whaling will continue. We are killing more whales by banning whaling!
-
FT: Not completely, at least. We are a part of nature, nature has given us methods to exploit other creatures so why should we forsake our natural right?
And Takasia, there's a simple solution to that if it is true: harsher enforcement. Someone tries to sell a product containing whale, they're shot on sight. Japan is over-populated anyway.
-
they are not, they sell it in the 'west coast'.
takasia can be optimistic and idealistic, it's his way. no one has the right to say his ideals are impossible. It is with ideals that earth goes around.
save the whales, save the whales, save the whales!
-
takasia: you try to ask questions as extreme but alas: eating dogs (and cats) is an everyday habit in many countries. at WWII 'civilized' european nation's restaurant's have menu from cats, dogs, rats, horse.
do not mix moralistic taste (itsy-bitsy cats), digestive taste and extinction.
lol im ok with that as long as it tastes good...but frankly, have you ever ate in an european restaurant? there's no cats dogs rats horses in the menu. you speak of reality which yourself lack..oh well we eat snails at the mediterranean countries...
-
haha.... I haven't really tasted those things in a "European restaurant". Neither did I say they are common (except in Korea).
Escargots are tasty, that's for sure!
-
delfos: you missed a point WWII means World War II.
-
OK, guys it looks like you think I am attacking takasia personally. No, I just opposing to take into account in this resolution his standpoint. so, takasia is fine, but please ignore his opinion just for this decision.
(it just came to my mind: killing people is banned. but there are thousands of killing each year. what if we allow to kill 50 people a year? 12 in the US, 7 in China, 8 in Europe, 3 in Africa and Americas each, 1 in Australia, 2 in India, 7 in Iraq (including US kills there), 3 in Afghanistan (including NATO kills there) and 4 for the rest of Earth. do you really think that it would reduce number of killings?)
-
Question: so what if whales go extinct and we lose a bit of biodiversity?
Very valid question. I suppose it's a matter of cultural and monetary loss, environmental impact, and partially of subjective value judgment.
If a species goes extinct because it was over-hunted, it can be assumed that those hunting it placed value on its continued existence. Any cultures placing value on it for food, material goods production, religion, etc. lose that just as much as if it had been banned. The difference is that they cannot ever get it back. I do believe this constitutes a notable loss to humanity. When the population is allowed to re-expand, however, eventually there can be more whaling (still limited, of course) and perhaps there could eventually be an open market.
Secondly, most species fill a particular niche in their ecosystem and to have that niche become empty can pose very serious problems. Sometimes other species compensate and the ecosystem balances back out, but sometimes it does not and the extinction of a single type of animal can lead to that of numerous others. This usually spreads from animals to plant life, which can cause serious geographic repercussions.
Finally, some people (myself included) place value on the existence of an animal in and of itself. The loss of biodiversity can be mourned whether or not it changes the world for humans... if that is what you believe. As a Christian, I think we are called to be good stewards of the Earth; to use it within the bounds of sustainability. It is a beautiful creation and to knowingly destroy parts of it is as disgusting as destroying a precious work of art. Again, it's a very subjective reason.
-
I'd have to second everything Allama said. I mean, obviously, not every nation will be a Liberal Democratic Socialist-driven one like my own, and this sense of responsibility doesn't exist in every nation. :P Yet in the end, maybe it just has to be looked at from the perspective that we inherited a responsibility to care for everything around us. Who knows!
-
a bit of biodiversity? are you mad? do you think something that big disappears without taking few other species with it? if whales get extinct you'll be destroying a full eco-system of sea life. Plus how can you sleep at night? how will you explain people in the future about Moby Dick when there's no whale on earth. You guys must be mad or something! Human population is already excessive, if we keep going like this we'll be the only specie on earth!
-
Well, consider it repealed y'all.
-
a bit of biodiversity? are you mad? do you think something that big disappears without taking few other species with it? if whales get extinct you'll be destroying a full eco-system of sea life. Plus how can you sleep at night? how will you explain people in the future about Moby Dick when there's no whale on earth. You guys must be mad or something! Human population is already excessive, if we keep going like this we'll be the only specie on earth!
Exit: animal-eating
Enter: cannibalism
-
The resolution Repeal "Banning whaling" was passed 6,209 votes to 5,893.
cant believe we were that close. this shouldnt count.