NationStates

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"Actually, we can."

"I meant to say should."

Wallenburg wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:"I meant to say should."

"In that case, that is a matter of opinion, and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis."

Wallenburg wrote:

Losthaven wrote:I simply don't accept this premise and I am going to ask the voters to disagree with it as well.

"Ambassador, if your only response to a claim or argument is 'you are wrong, I am right!', you will not gain traction."

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Losthaven wrote:I simply don't accept this premise and I am going to ask the voters to disagree with it as well.

Then I'll write a repeal (and if I'm really feeling frisky, I'll have someone else submit it with a co-authorship for the sole purpose of spreading the badges around) that says this and includes one other argument about something else so it's legal and ask them to disagree with your premise as well. I know they will. And another year from now, we can try this again...

I do apologise for my actions in the last repeal, however. I got carried away ... though some kinds of jellyfish (the really simple ones) are still not sentient. And I do hope that similar circumstances do not prevail about this attempt either. I wish you the best of luck, as always, but that does not mean I will not stand up for my political beliefs.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"In that case, that is a matter of opinion, and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis."

"Abuse to any living creature is horrific."

Prohibiting Animal Abuse
Category: Moral Decency ~*~ Strength: Significant

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Recognizing that animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing stress, fear, and pain;

Convinced that there is no just cause for intentionally abusing an animal, and that animals should be cared for in ways that support a healthy life free from suffering;

Resolved that animal abuse is utterly unjustifiable and should be universally condemned and prohibited;

Saddened that some individuals continue to permit or perpetrate acts of animal abuse out of antipathy, intransigence, and even malicious character;

Resolved that putting an end to unjustifiable cruelty is part of what it means to make the world a better place, one resolution at a time;

Now, therefore, the General Assembly hereby enacts the following provisions, subject to the rules and laws set by earlier WA resolutions that are still in force:

1. Declares that cruelly or maliciously causing physical injury to an animal, cruelly killing an animal, and torturing an animal are outlawed and prohibited within World Assembly member nations.

2. Further declares that individuals have an absolute right to defend themselves and others against a hostile animal, and nothing in this law shall be read to prevent or prohibit reasonable acts of self-defense, even if they cause injury to the animal;

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;

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;

5. Recommends that any person who keeps an animal must, to the best of their means and ability, provide the animal with access to professional veterinary care.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Terenthia wrote:

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;

"The third clause would result in the death of a great many traditional or cultural exhibitions. 'Exposed to direct injury' is an overly vague statement-one could argue that, in something such as horse racing, that the animals are 'exposed' to injury, due to the extant possibility of it."

"The remainder of the resolution seems to be generally acceptable."

Losthaven wrote:

Terenthia wrote:

"The third clause would result in the death of a great many traditional or cultural exhibitions. 'Exposed to direct injury' is an overly vague statement-one could argue that, in something such as horse racing, that the animals are 'exposed' to injury, due to the extant possibility of it."

"The remainder of the resolution seems to be generally acceptable."

Thanks!

The third clause was modified with this concern in mind to extend only to exhibitions where the animal is purposefully exposed to injury. Horse racing, calf roping, pigeon synchronized swimming - all of these may expose the animal to injury but don't involve purposefully exposing the animal to injury. Precautions are taken so that the animal does not get injured in such events: no one wants their prize derby horse to go down with a broken leg.

Examples of exhibitions where the animal is purposefully exposed to injury are dog fighting, bear baiting, squirrel stomping, and deer smacking. You know, animal blood sports. The purpose of these exhibitions is for an animal to be hurt, often for the sadistic or gambling pleasure of the viewers.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"In that case, that is a matter of opinion, and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis."

"Abuse to any living creature is horrific."

Araraukar wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

And Jedis don't?

Wallenburg wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:"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."

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"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."

"Would not not be easier to shoot it causing a mostly painless death? This is not about killing animals, this is about causing as less pain as possible."

Wallenburg wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:"Would not not be easier to shoot it causing a mostly painless death? This is not about killing animals, this is about causing as less pain as possible."

"I suppose that would work if every person in Wallenburg had a gun loaded fully with ammunition and had training to sufficiently defend oneself against whatever animal might attack them.

"In case you hadn't guessed, not all Wallenburgians own guns. I understand your confusion, though, since it is a popular misconception that every man, woman, and child in our nation owns a standard military rifle and a handful of explosives."

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"I suppose that would work if every person in Wallenburg had a gun loaded fully with ammunition and had training to sufficiently defend oneself against whatever animal might attack them.

"In case you hadn't guessed, not all Wallenburgians own guns. I understand your confusion, though, since it is a popular misconception that every man, woman, and child in our nation owns a standard military rifle and a handful of explosives."

"All I'm saying is, a faster death for the animal who is attacking you is better than beating it to death."

"And if a fast death is less painful than a beating death, then fast deaths are better all around."

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:"All I'm saying is, a faster death for the animal who is attacking you is better than beating it to death."

"And if a fast death is less painful than a beating death, then fast deaths are better all around."

Wallenburg wrote:"Someone under attack really could not care less, Ambassador. They'll use what is convenient."

Wallenburg wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
"All I'm saying is, a faster death for the animal who is attacking you is better than beating it to death."

"And if a fast death is less painful than a beating death, then fast deaths are better all around."

"Someone under attack really could not care less, Ambassador. They'll use what is convenient."

Wallenburg wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
"All I'm saying is, a faster death for the animal who is attacking you is better than beating it to death."

"And if a fast death is less painful than a beating death, then fast deaths are better all around."

"Someone under attack really could not care less, Ambassador. They'll use what is convenient."

Losthaven wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"Someone under attack really could not care less, Ambassador. They'll use what is convenient."

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.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"Someone under attack really could not care less, Ambassador. They'll use what is convenient."

"I understand that but I would think the person under attack would care about how fast there attacker dies"

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:"I understand that but I would think the person under attack would care about how fast there attacker dies"

Separatist Peoples wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:"I understand that but I would think the person under attack would care about how fast there attacker dies"

"That is an interesting expectation, ambassador. I'd love to know why you think that, because all the times I've had to defend myself, my only concern was myself and my bird."

Wallenburg wrote:"Ambassador, I thought Polly had been part of the Wrapperian delegation."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:"I understand that but I would think the person under attack would care about how fast there attacker dies"

"That is an interesting expectation, ambassador. I'd love to know why you think that, because all the times I've had to defend myself, my only concern was myself and my bird."

Wallenburg wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:"I understand that but I would think the person under attack would care about how fast there attacker dies"

"What part of 'not every person has a gun' do you not understand? Hell, most people won't have any weapon whatsoever available to them. Using one's own hands often would be the only choice."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"Ambassador, I thought Polly had been part of the Wrapperian delegation."

"You people are bloody impossible. I was a carrier-based fighter-intercept pilot before getting stuck on diplomatic duty. Bird is slang for airplane."

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:"The faster you defend yourself the faster it dies." "The faster it dies the less pain it feels."

"In that last statement I never said anything about guns." "If it's just there hands then you can still aim for the head for a quicker death."

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
"And that concern for you and your bird is driven by action to defend yourself."

"The faster you defend yourself the faster it dies." "The faster it dies the less pain it feels."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
"And that concern for you and your bird is driven by action to defend yourself."

"The faster you defend yourself the faster it dies." "The faster it dies the less pain it feels."

"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."

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:"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?"