What if you are hunting the Most Dangerous Game?
Advertisement
by Excidium Planetis » Mon May 23, 2016 12:04 pm
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Mondial Peoples » Mon May 23, 2016 12:36 pm
by Joplax » Mon May 23, 2016 12:58 pm
by M-dog Islands » Mon May 23, 2016 1:49 pm
by Excidium Planetis » Mon May 23, 2016 2:02 pm
M-dog Islands wrote:I believe that animal abuse is one thing and killing animals for food is another.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by I S L E » Mon May 23, 2016 5:09 pm
by Pluoria » Mon May 23, 2016 6:40 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:Sciongrad wrote:OOC: Hunting is not, ipso facto, cruel or malicious.
What if you are hunting the Most Dangerous Game?
by Separatist Peoples » Mon May 23, 2016 6:45 pm
Pluoria wrote:
Considering the fact that the GA has not legislated on cruelty towards humans, I would say you are free to do so.
P.S When do I get an invite?
by CastAway Island of Wilson » Mon May 23, 2016 8:15 pm
by Potted Plants United » Mon May 23, 2016 8:37 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant
by Excidium Planetis » Tue May 24, 2016 12:20 am
Potted Plants United wrote:Furthermore, some of our selves eat them for an extra source of nutrients in ways that certainly do not "promote the health of the animal" nor "avoid suffering", due to the biology of our selves.1 OOC: Think of how pitcher plants, Venus flytraps and sundew plants eat insects (and sometimes larger prey). It is not a gentle death.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue May 24, 2016 1:19 am
Excidium Planetis wrote:Potted Plants United wrote:Furthermore, some of our selves eat them for an extra source of nutrients in ways that certainly do not "promote the health of the animal" nor "avoid suffering", due to the biology of our selves.1 OOC: Think of how pitcher plants, Venus flytraps and sundew plants eat insects (and sometimes larger prey). It is not a gentle death.
"An interesting, and perfectly valid, interpretation. I had only just considered it. Because the resolution does not state for what purpose people keeping animals are keeping them for, people keeping animals for slaughter must 'promote the health of the animal[s]'... and slaughter doesn't really promote the animal's health. I guess those people concerned about being forced to be vegan were right, after all."
Schultz continues. "Wait, let me guess: I'm making another ridiculous argument again, right?"
by Lysandrion » Tue May 24, 2016 2:57 am
CastAway Island of Wilson wrote:Hunting should be OK, provided the hunted isn't subjected to an agonizing death.
So feel free to hunt and kill the last baby elephant to get its foot for a wastebasket, so long as it isn't caused unnecessary suffering.
But the park ranger who knowingly allows a hunter to attack the baby elephant using razor sharp pincers and then allows her hunting party to tear flesh from the still living baby elephant--that ranger is grossly negligent of international law to allow the reckless endangerment of an animal he is legally obliged to protect.
It would be like throwing a baby to a lion and then after it's eaten alive claiming, "Oh, gee, I had no idea lions could be so dangerous. But it's not the lion's fault, what should we put the lion in jail? Now give me another baby, I made a good faith effort to protect it as any reasonable person/nation would."
by Separatist Peoples » Tue May 24, 2016 4:52 am
CastAway Island of Wilson wrote:Hunting should be OK, provided the hunted isn't subjected to an agonizing death.
So feel free to hunt and kill the last baby elephant to get its foot for a wastebasket, so long as it isn't caused unnecessary suffering.
But the park ranger who knowingly allows a hunter to attack the baby elephant using razor sharp pincers and then allows her hunting party to tear flesh from the still living baby elephant--that ranger is grossly negligent of international law to allow the reckless endangerment of an animal he is legally obliged to protect.
It would be like throwing a baby to a lion and then after it's eaten alive claiming, "Oh, gee, I had no idea lions could be so dangerous. But it's not the lion's fault, what should we put the lion in jail? Now give me another baby, I made a good faith effort to protect it as any reasonable person/nation would."
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue May 24, 2016 6:30 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:CastAway Island of Wilson wrote:Hunting should be OK, provided the hunted isn't subjected to an agonizing death.
So feel free to hunt and kill the last baby elephant to get its foot for a wastebasket, so long as it isn't caused unnecessary suffering.
But the park ranger who knowingly allows a hunter to attack the baby elephant using razor sharp pincers and then allows her hunting party to tear flesh from the still living baby elephant--that ranger is grossly negligent of international law to allow the reckless endangerment of an animal he is legally obliged to protect.
It would be like throwing a baby to a lion and then after it's eaten alive claiming, "Oh, gee, I had no idea lions could be so dangerous. But it's not the lion's fault, what should we put the lion in jail? Now give me another baby, I made a good faith effort to protect it as any reasonable person/nation would."
"Hunting endangered species is illegal according to two extant resolutions, not counting this one. I'm not going to touch the rest of that, because you've been told over and over that this isn't the case. Your understanding of "good faith" interpretations is poor at best."
by The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper » Tue May 24, 2016 6:33 am
by Araraukar » Tue May 24, 2016 7:26 am
The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:Firstly, the resolution defines animals as "non-sapient, sentient beings capable of experiencing stress, fear, and pain". That would not only exclude the dominant sapient species, in our case, humans, it would also exclude the lowest orders of species, such as spiders, ants, flies, and the aforementioned sea cucumbers, which are incapable of being stressed out.
For cryin' out loud, does anyone, as a matter of course, put a tiger or a lion on trial for assault and battery if it were to slash someone?
The burden does not fall on the dominant sapient species to regulate what wild animals do to other wild animals to survive, just to ensure prey does not suffer cruelly, and nothing in this resolution makes it so.
Same goes with the livestock industry. Yes, this resolution applies, if only to ensure that animals are properly cared for and not crammed into overcrowded cages with fecal matter coming up to their bellies prior to a humane slaughter.
Sorry, even that's kind of icky to us pacifists, who fortunately have learned how to grow meat on trees.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper » Tue May 24, 2016 8:15 am
Araraukar wrote:Wrapper wrote:The burden does not fall on the dominant sapient species to regulate what wild animals do to other wild animals to survive, just to ensure prey does not suffer cruelly, and nothing in this resolution makes it so.
IC: Even if those "wild animals" were sapient themselves?
Araraukar wrote:Wrapper wrote:Same goes with the livestock industry. Yes, this resolution applies, if only to ensure that animals are properly cared for and not crammed into overcrowded cages with fecal matter coming up to their bellies prior to a humane slaughter.
That's not quite what the resolution says, though: "4. Requires that any person who keeps an animal to provide that animal with reasonable and appropriate care necessary to promote the health of the animal and avoid suffering and disease;". That's entirely separate from the cruelty outlawing in clause 1. Food animals certainly will work better as food if they themselves are healthy...
Araraukar wrote:...and sorry Wads, but if you eat plants where you don't kill the whole plant in one go, you're actually ripping apart a sentient creature, or so the greenery keeps telling me...
Araraukar wrote:but is the animal's health ultimately promoted and suffering avoided, if it's being raised to be killed, however humanely?
by Araraukar » Tue May 24, 2016 8:55 am
The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:Araraukar wrote:...and sorry Wads, but if you eat plants where you don't kill the whole plant in one go, you're actually ripping apart a sentient creature, or so the greenery keeps telling me...
ARI and AHUME: What?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Wallenburg » Tue May 24, 2016 9:15 am
Preventing Animal Abuse was passed 14,994 votes to 3,777.
by Separatist Peoples » Tue May 24, 2016 9:16 am
Wallenburg wrote:Preventing Animal Abuse was passed 14,994 votes to 3,777.
I voted against, of course, but congratulations anyway.
by Europe and Oceania » Tue May 24, 2016 9:19 am
Wallenburg wrote:Preventing Animal Abuse was passed 14,994 votes to 3,777.
I voted against, of course, but congratulations anyway.
by Araraukar » Tue May 24, 2016 9:30 am
Wallenburg wrote:Preventing Animal Abuse was passed 14,994 votes to 3,777.
I voted against, of course, but congratulations anyway.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Bears Armed » Tue May 24, 2016 9:39 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Hunting endangered species is illegal according to two extant resolutions, not counting this one."
by The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper » Tue May 24, 2016 9:42 am
Araraukar wrote:The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:ARI and AHUME: What?
The higher order of plants - think houseplants, trees, vegetables, fruiting plants - are sentient and respond to tissue damage similarly to animals, the only difference is that their timescale in doing so is slower and generally speaking1 less easily detected by us animals. Other plants can detect one of their own in distress via airborne natural chemicals2, and some signals3 cross species quite easily.
So if you, say, tear off just a couple of leaves off of a lettuce, you're essentially ripping out a couple of bodyparts, with which it does both respiration and energy production. A bit like if you picked a fish out of water, ripped out some gill leaves, or whatever the thin layers are called, and put it back in the water to re-grow them.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement