[PASSED] Preventing Animal Abuse

[Wallenburg]

"Incorrect assumption. The faster you defend yourself, the more effectively the threat ends. That does not necessarily preclude a slow death. I only mentioned my aircraft to point out that, in such a situation, an inanimate object was still more important than the individual on the receiving end of my defense.

"Combat aside, you keep conflating successful defense with a clean kill, which is not the case in the least. You are also assuming that the suffering of the target is a consideration. I can assure you that it is not. This has little to do with the proposal itself, but if you are going to make an argument, ambassador, don't make such wild assumptions, please."

"I agree that this is has little to do with the proposal itself."
"Why are we even talk about defending yourself when the second amendment of the draft guarantees a right to defend yourself?"

I want to point out that defending your self from attack is not malicious behavior, and so would not be prohibited or even discouraged under this act and that further the only "exception" clause I left in this thing was the one for self defense, so it's doubly not an issue.

I consider myself pretty creative but I don't think I can come up with a plausible scenario for malicious self defense.

"I'm not criticizing the draft. I am criticizing this Ambassador's argument."

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

"I agree that this is has little to do with the proposal itself."
"Why are we even talk about defending yourself when the second amendment of the draft guarantees a right to defend yourself?"

"I'm not criticizing the draft. I am criticizing this Ambassador's argument."

"But then why did you bring this up Ambassador?"

"Abuse to any living creature is horrific."

"Ambassador, if an animal attacks me and I can defend myself, I will beat the living hell out of it, with absolutely no concern for how abusive I am."

[Bears Armed]

And Jedis don't?

OOC: No, they don't.

OOC: absolutely not?

^_^

I consider myself pretty creative but I don't think I can come up with a plausible scenario for malicious self defense.

Deliberately provoking the animal into attacking you so that you can kill it "in self defence"?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I consider myself pretty creative but I don't think I can come up with a plausible scenario for malicious self defense.

Deliberately provoking the animal into attacking you so that you can kill it "in self defence"?

Ahem.

[Wallenburg]

"But then why did you bring this up Ambassador?"

"I didn't. You did."

Support. "Animals are our friends. Abusing them is a horrific act."

[Wallenburg]

I consider myself pretty creative but I don't think I can come up with a plausible scenario for malicious self defense.

Deliberately provoking the animal into attacking you so that you can kill it "in self defence"?

"Yes, and beating up your murder victim because he pulled a knife on you is 'self defense'."

[Europe and Oceania]

"When half of this is not copied from a previous resolution, Ambassador, we will then take it seriously. As it stands, this is hardly an international issue, and what we do with creatures that cannot even think rationally is none of the international community's business."

So just because non-human-animals can't "think" rationally that means they don't feel pain or are immune to suffering? Does that mean
any human being who doesn't have the mental capacity to "think" rationally whether it be due a mental/psychological
disorder/condition or not, that means the person cannot experience pain if you strike him/her or apply any kind of trauma whether it's
psychological or physical, they won't feel any pain?
You don't have to be an Aerospace Engineer/Rocket Scientist to know that kindness is a virtue.

and what we do with creatures that cannot even think rationally is none of the international community's business.

That's Speciesism
I'm actually surprised this is coming from a liberal. I expect this with conservatives but not liberals.

With that being said, I fully support this.

[Araraukar]

That's Speciesism
I'm actually surprised this is coming from a liberal. I expect this with conservatives but not liberals.

OOC: I hope you realize that the animals in the proposal are non-sapient, as in "not intelligent like humans in real life", and that Wallenburg is inhabited with a humanoid species that looks much like humans do, but aren't humans? And please take the conservative/liberal thing back to NSG, if that's where you got it from.

Additionally, most people don't RP according to their gameside nations.

[Europe and Oceania]

OOC: I hope you realize that the animals in the proposal are non-sapient, as in "not intelligent like humans in real life"

Okay... so?

[Wallenburg]

"When half of this is not copied from a previous resolution, Ambassador, we will then take it seriously. As it stands, this is hardly an international issue, and what we do with creatures that cannot even think rationally is none of the international community's business."

So just because non-human-animals can't "think" rationally

"I didn't say that. At all. Hell, even if I had, I do not belong to the species you call 'human', so that would mean I was insulting my own species. Does that make any sense to you, Ambassador."

that means they don't feel pain or are immune to suffering?

"Of course not. Sapience and sentience are two vastly different things. I never claimed they were not."

Does that mean any human being who doesn't have the mental capacity to "think" rationally whether it be due a mental/psychological
disorder/condition or not, that means the person cannot experience pain if you strike him/her or apply any kind of trauma whether it's
psychological or physical, they won't feel any pain?

"No, it doesn't, because that is not what I said."

You don't have to be an Aerospace Engineer/Rocket Scientist to know that kindness is a virtue.

"In some cases. In others, it is the worst weakness imaginable, and will get you killed."

and what we do with creatures that cannot even think rationally is none of the international community's business.

That's Speciesism

"I am not being speciest. I am reasonably distinguishing between sapient and non-sapient beings."

I'm actually surprised this is coming from a liberal. I expect this with conservatives but not liberals.

"I am not a liberal, Ambassador. I am a social nationalist. Liberalism died long ago in my country."

OOC: My ambassador and I are not the same person.

[Separatist Peoples]

You don't have to be an Aerospace Engineer/Rocket Scientist to know that kindness is a virtue.

"Perhaps to you. To many, its a social consideration that often gets in the way."

[Europe and Oceania]

OOC: My ambassador and I are not the same person.

I don't roleplay on WA forums, and I didn't know your ambassador was a social nationalist. I thought he was a liberal like you.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: My ambassador and I are not the same person.

I don't roleplay on WA forums which is why I don't use "Out Of Character" and I didn't know ambassador was a social nationalist.
I thought he was a liberal like you.

OOC: The GA is a roleplay forum. Posts are generally expected to be In Character. You might want to consider that in the future.

[Europe and Oceania]

When is he going to submit it? Is he?

[Araraukar]

When is he going to submit it? Is he?

OOC: No-one should submit their proposal until they're happy with it/have time for it in RL/have time for it in-game/in general want to do it.

[Europe and Oceania]

When is he going to submit it? Is he?

OOC: No-one should submit their proposal until they're happy with it/have time for it in RL/have time for it in-game/in general want to do it.

I know. I said when is he going to submit it?

[Tinfect]

OOC: No-one should submit their proposal until they're happy with it/have time for it in RL/have time for it in-game/in general want to do it.

I know. I said when is he going to submit it?

OOC: [when] they're happy with it/have time for it in RL/have time for it in-game/in general want to do it.

[Europe and Oceania]

I know. I said when is he going to submit it?

OOC: [when] they're happy with it/have time for it in RL/have time for it in-game/in general want to do it.

Does he announce when he is going to submit it?

[Losthaven]

Does he announce when he is going to submit it?

[Europe and Oceania]

Does he announce when he is going to submit it?

Hip hip hoo-ray! Full support comrade!

[Araraukar]

Hip hip hoo-ray! Full support comrade!

OOC: In the future, TG the author to ask.

[IPCD]

3. Outlaws the use of animals in fighting sports and any other non-military and non-law enforcement exhibition where the animal is intentionally and purposefully exposed to physical injury;

While I see it make an exception here for animals used in police or military service during exhibitions, What of use in service? A warzone is hardly an exhibition, but also places animals in danger.

(I may be being slightly pedantic)

[Losthaven]

3. Outlaws the use of animals in fighting sports and any other non-military and non-law enforcement exhibition where the animal is intentionally and purposefully exposed to physical injury;

While I see it make an exception here for animals used in police or military service during exhibitions, What of use in service? A warzone is hardly an exhibition, but also places animals in danger.

(I may be being slightly pedantic)

The point of that clause is to address animal blood sports. Someone said the use of animals in the military or law enforcement could be considered an "exhibition", so even though I thought that would be a pretty creative use of the word I added an exception just to make it clear that use of animals in dangerous situations for law enforcement or military purposes is not prevented by the animal blood sport provision.

If you think military or law enforcement service does not count as an "exhibition" then there's no problem as the law only applies to "exhibitions". If you think that service could be a type of exhibition, there's still no problem because the law explicitly exempts military and law enforcement exhibitions.

Does that clear the clause up for you?

[Europe and Oceania]

Hip hip hoo-ray! Full support comrade!

OOC: In the future, TG the author to ask.

Why do you even debate in here if you're not even a World Assembly member? "Becuase I don't have to be one" and "I can do whatever I want" blah blah" I know. Unless one of your other nations is.

If you don't have a nation in the WA then why do you even debate in the WA forums other than the fact that you can?

[IPCD]

While I see it make an exception here for animals used in police or military service during exhibitions, What of use in service? A warzone is hardly an exhibition, but also places animals in danger.

(I may be being slightly pedantic)

The point of that clause is to address animal blood sports. Someone said the use of animals in the military or law enforcement could be considered an "exhibition", so even though I thought that would be a pretty creative use of the word I added an exception just to make it clear that use of animals in dangerous situations for law enforcement or military purposes is not prevented by the animal blood sport provision.

If you think military or law enforcement service does not count as an "exhibition" then there's no problem as the law only applies to "exhibitions". If you think that service could be a type of exhibition, there's still no problem because the law explicitly exempts military and law enforcement exhibitions.

Does that clear the clause up for you?

I believe so thank you.