[PASSED] Repeal "Prohibiting Animal Abuse"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Repeal “Prohibiting Animal Abuse”
Category: Repeal | Proposer: Imperium Anglorum

---

Applauding the World Assembly’s stance on the paternal and protectively patronising treatment of animals,

Bemoaning the inherent problems and uncaught exceptions of large overreaching legislation, not matter the author, and,

Believing that the provisions set forth in this resolution are too broad and in the end, self-destructive of animal and sapient rights,

This august World Assembly;

1. Objects to the current state of affairs, where sapient beings are not given the same overarching protections as non-sapient animals;
   
   
2. Protests against the whiff of moral supremacy in the resolution, deciding the morals and requirements of all nations based on the morality of a subset of World Assembly members, thereby committing a crime against cultural diversity in preventing cultures from exercising their religious and societal traditions;
   
   
3. Considers that the resolution's prohibition of self-defence against animals as harmful to sentient populations, since:
   
   
   1. the killing of an animal which is attacking a person would clearly be an intentional actions which inflicts physical trauma or intense pain on an animal,
      
      
   2. this is not itself not excepted in clause (3), the clause which contains exceptions placed there to appease certain outspoken members of the World Assembly,
      
      
   3. and thus, prohibits the killing of an animal in the case of an attack;
4. Chuckles at the imprecision of the definition of animal in this resolution, as jellyfish, a collection of microscopic species of non-person animal, are given the protections of this resolution, even when they lack a nervous system capable of feeling pain or many other types of negative stimulus;
   
   
5. Seriously recognises the implications of the above clause, as this would mean that the definition of animal would include all manners of species which are poisonous, invasive, or destructive to ecosystem health and hence grant the same protections to those undesirable types of animal;
   
   
6. Derides the doublethink necessary to state in the same resolution that (i) all abuse of sentient non-person mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, or fish should be prohibited in clause 2, (ii) unless the animal is raised for butcher, slaughter, or the killing of persons, in clause (3).b and (3).e and thus, all right;
   
   
7. Observes that in cases where animal reproduction or needs is not entirely understood, putting an animal in a zoological garden is illegal, since this would endanger the 'long term health and safety of the animal' in clause 4;
   
   
8. Hopes that this resolution is to be replaced by a more acceptable alternative without the flaws of this current resolution;
   
   
9. Repeals this unfortunately flawed yet well-intentioned resolution which prohibits animal abuse.

Comments? I'll be happy to welcome any feedback.

1. Accepted suggestions from Bears Armed.
   
   
2. Added clause on religious practices. Shuffled the deck.

[Wallenburg]

I would add:

Bemoans the effective seizure of animals held or cared for by the impoverished, which engages in brutal class warfare.

Realizes the serious implications to the economy of excessive restrictions on the process of butchering livestock or quarry for food.

[Ainocra]

We offer our support to this repeal should it be necessary.
The draft at vote is frankly a travesty of both over reach and under think.

[Bromida]

I would support a repeal.

[Bears Armed]

Objects to the current state of affairs, where sapient beings are not given the same overarching rights and protections as animals;

Most sapient beings are "animals" in the broader sense, so I'd insert the descriptor "non-sapient" in front of that word here.

Chuckles at the imprecision of the definition of animal in this resolution, as zooplankton, a microscopic species of non-person fish,

Most zoo-plankton aren't "fish", and there's a LOT more than "a" species of them...

[Bitely]

Objects to the current state of affairs, where sapient beings are not given the same overarching rights and protections as animals;

Most sapient beings are "animals" in the broader sense, so I'd insert the descriptor "non-sapient" in front of that word here.

Chuckles at the imprecision of the definition of animal in this resolution, as zooplankton, a microscopic species of non-person fish,

Most zoo-plankton aren't "fish", and there's a LOT more than "a" species of them...

I believe that they where talking about humans when they referred to "sapient beings"

[Separatist Peoples]

Objects to the current state of affairs, where sapient beings are not given the same overarching rights and protections as animals;

Most sapient beings are "animals" in the broader sense, so I'd insert the descriptor "non-sapient" in front of that word here.

Chuckles at the imprecision of the definition of animal in this resolution, as zooplankton, a microscopic species of non-person fish,

Most zoo-plankton aren't "fish", and there's a LOT more than "a" species of them...

I believe that they where talking about humans when they referred to "sapient beings"

"And the other sapient nonhumans we have here, too."

[Losthaven]

Objects to the current state of affairs, where sapient beings are not given the same overarching rights and protections as non-sapient animals;

People have all kinds of rights recognized by this assembly, including a vast number of liberty rights that are not given to animals (mostly for good reason). It is not a flaw in the resolution that it gives some modicum of protections to animals. They're still living beings.

Chuckles at the imprecision of the definition of animal in this resolution, as zooplankton, a collection of microscopic species of non-person fish, are given the protections of this resolution, even when they lack a nervous system capable of feeling pain or many other types of negative stimulus;

There's nothing "imprecise" about the definition: an animal is a non-person mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or fish. Most of us come to understand that definition in grade school, and that definition contains sufficient precision for all but the dimmest bulbs to understand what is covered.

The only thing worth chuckling about is that you don't understand what zooplankton are and you're counting on voters to be equally ignorant. (Hint: the "non-person fish" that fall under the classification of "zooplankton" do in fact have a nervous system. What makes those particular fish "zooplankton" is that for a while in their development they lack the ability to swim strongly against the water current and thus primarily float in the water column. I say "primarily" because the little guys do have individual motility, which they use to travel very short distances against the current to gently adjust their position and move toward food. And how often are you intentionally abusing zooplankton, anyway?)

Seriously recognises the implications of the above clause, as this would mean that the definition of animal would include all manners of species which are poisonous, pests, invasive, or destructive to ecosystem health and hence grant the same protections to those undesirable types of animal;

You can't abuse an animal just because it's poisonous and pests are explicitly exempted by the plain language of Prohibiting Animal Abuse. I seem to remember you being one of the more vocal opponents of UFoC when they were lying in repeals and yet, here you are. The law does not "grant the same protections to those undesirable types of animals."

Derides the mental doublethink necessary to state in the same resolution that (i) all abuse of sentient non-person mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, or fish should be prohibited in clause 2, (ii) unless the animal is raised for butcher, slaughter, or the killing of persons, in clause (3).b and (3).e and thus, all right;

There's no inconsistency with saying that all animals - even ones that are bred for consumption - ought not to be abused. It's truly a shame that you can not appreciate the difference between abuse and ethical slaughter. A farmer may well plan to slaughter and sell his chickens once they are of age, but that's no excuse for mistreating them along the way, or subjecting them to a cruel or malicious death.

You're also baldly misstating what the resolution does. The resolution doesn't say the animal should not be abused "unless" it's raised for slaughter, in which case abusing it is "all right." The resolution says slaughtering an animal humanely is not abuse. Even animals that will eventually be slaughtered are still protected from abuse in the meantime by this resolution.

"Mental doublethink" is not even a real thing. Thinking is inherently mental, so saying "mental doublethink" is like saying "java coffee", "foot shoe", or "head hat."

Observes that in cases where animal reproduction or needs is not entirely understood, putting an animal in a zoological garden is illegal, since this would endanger the 'long term health and safety of the animal' in clause 4;

Let me get this straight... you're concerned that the resolution outlaws zoos because putting animals in a zoo might endanger the long term health and safety of the animal? Ridiculous! Animals in zoos live much much longer than their wild brethren. While there may be other reasons not to keep certain animals in zoos, the safety and health of a particular animal is not one of them.

There is no merit to this argument, unless the "zoos" you want to put your animals in are filled with boobytraps, lava pits, and disease-spewing waste turrets. I'm assuming this is about pandas. Regardless of whether pandas breed well in captivity or not, keeping a panda in a zoo does not endanger its health or safety.

Considers that the resolution's prohibition of self-defence against animals is harmful to sentient populations, as:

1. the killing of an animal which is attacking a person would clearly be an intentional actions which inflicts physical trauma or intense pain on an animal,
2. this is not itself not excepted in clause (3), the clause which contains all the exceptions necessary to appease certain outspoken members of the World Assembly,
3. and thus, prohibits the killing of an animal in the case of an attack;

...
Hopes that this resolution is to be replaced by a more acceptable alternative without the flaws of this current resolution;

Repeals this unfortunately flawed yet well-intentioned resolution which prohibits animal abuse.

We have already said we would support a repeal on these narrow grounds as the lack of an explicit self-defense exemption was an unfortunate oversight. We won't support the rest of this nonsense, which clearly serves only to "beef-up" the repeal with unfair attacks and blatant lies and misinformation.

We take you at your word that you really do hope for a replacement, and we can promise that if the current law is repealed we plan to add the exception and make a few minor tweaks before resubmitting.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Full, blind support."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Objects to the current state of affairs, where sapient beings are not given the same overarching rights and protections as non-sapient animals;

People have all kinds of rights recognized by this assembly, including a vast number of liberty rights that are not given to animals (mostly for good reason). It is not a flaw in the resolution that it gives some modicum of protections to animals. They're still living beings.

Considering that there is no legislation against the rape, assault, abuse, battery, or murder of persons, I think these protections (not rights, because animals cannot have rights, because they are not sapient, and hence, cannot exercise rights) go far beyond the level given in legislation about persons in the World Assembly. This is the same argument that Jarish Inyo (going to have to double check spelling) gave.

Chuckles at the imprecision of the definition of animal in this resolution, as zooplankton, a collection of microscopic species of non-person fish, are given the protections of this resolution, even when they lack a nervous system capable of feeling pain or many other types of negative stimulus;

There's nothing "imprecise" about the definition: an animal is a non-person mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or fish. Most of us come to understand that definition in grade school, and that definition contains sufficient precision for all but the dimmest bulbs to understand what is covered.

Krill. Are. Non-person. Fish. Secondarily, this leads to the semantic playground of words coined before the knowledge acquired through modern science, as one of the OED's definition of animal is 'a mammal, as opposed to a bird, reptile, fish, or insect'. What a semantic mess.

The only thing worth chuckling about is that you don't understand what zooplankton are and you're counting on voters to be equally ignorant. (Hint: the "non-person fish" that fall under the classification of "zooplankton" do in fact have a nervous system. What makes those particular fish "zooplankton" is that for a while in their development they lack the ability to swim strongly against the water current and thus primarily float in the water column. I say "primarily" because the little guys do have individual motility, which they use to travel very short distances against the current to gently adjust their position and move toward food. And how often are you intentionally abusing zooplankton, anyway?)

They cannot feel pain or abuse, which makes the exercise of these 'rights' non-existent, which is the crux of the counter-argument. Anyway, I can't speak for the nation of Abusing Zooplankton, but I think they might be abusing zooplankton.

Seriously recognises the implications of the above clause, as this would mean that the definition of animal would include all manners of species which are poisonous, pests, invasive, or destructive to ecosystem health and hence grant the same protections to those undesirable types of animal;

You can't abuse an animal just because it's poisonous and pests are explicitly exempted by the plain language of Prohibiting Animal Abuse. I seem to remember you being one of the more vocal opponents of UFoC when they were lying in repeals and yet, here you are. The law does not "grant the same protections to those undesirable types of animals."

I'm not sure where you're coming from. Are asps non-person reptiles or not? It grants these protections to undesirable types of animals. Semantically, you can argue that it does not prohibit the abuse of such animals, but I would argue that it does. You're right. you cannot abuse an animal just because it is poisonous. It happens that to abuse something, you need to do more that observe its existence. I never opposed UFoC's misstatement of repeal texts. I opposed the repeal due to what it targeted.

Derides the mental doublethink necessary to state in the same resolution that (i) all abuse of sentient non-person mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, or fish should be prohibited in clause 2, (ii) unless the animal is raised for butcher, slaughter, or the killing of persons, in clause (3).b and (3).e and thus, all right;

There's no inconsistency with saying that all animals - even ones that are bred for consumption - ought not to be abused. It's truly a shame that you can not appreciate the difference between abuse and ethical slaughter. A farmer may well plan to slaughter and sell his chickens once they are of age, but that's no excuse for mistreating them along the way, or subjecting them to a cruel or malicious death.

You're also baldly misstating what the resolution does. The resolution doesn't say the animal should not be abused "unless" it's raised for slaughter, in which case abusing it is "all right." The resolution says slaughtering an animal humanely is not abuse. Even animals that will eventually be slaughtered are still protected from abuse in the meantime by this resolution.

What do you find as humane? Is guillotining humane? Is this humane? To quote from Glog in an old UN repeal: 'UN [WA] law not say. This not protect any rights'.

"Mental doublethink" is not even a real thing. Thinking is inherently mental, so saying "mental doublethink" is like saying "java coffee", "foot shoe", or "head hat."

Refers to coffee from islands called Java, unless we are programming coffee. Please tell me about all the Department of Redundancy Departments. Also, please enlighten me on the utility of this resolution in a country with strong animal abuse legislation? Is that not redundant? Or, are we to patrol for spelling errors in both of our texts for the rest of time?

Observes that in cases where animal reproduction or needs is not entirely understood, putting an animal in a zoological garden is illegal, since this would endanger the 'long term health and safety of the animal' in clause 4;

Let me get this straight... you're concerned that the resolution outlaws zoos because putting animals in a zoo might endanger the long term health and safety of the animal? Ridiculous! Animals in zoos live much much longer than their wild brethren. While there may be other reasons not to keep certain animals in zoos, the safety and health of a particular animal is not one of them.

There is no merit to this argument, unless the "zoos" you want to put your animals in are filled with boobytraps, lava pits, and disease-spewing waste turrets. I'm assuming this is about pandas. Regardless of whether pandas breed well in captivity or not, keeping a panda in a zoo does not endanger its health or safety.

One of the main purposes of life is to reproduce. I think preventing it would endanger health, especially when there is overwhelming evidence in humans and other species that sexual activity improves bodily function and health.

We take you at your word that you really do hope for a replacement, and we can promise that if the current law is repealed we plan to add the exception and make a few minor tweaks before resubmitting.

That is for you to decide.

[Losthaven]

People have all kinds of rights recognized by this assembly, including a vast number of liberty rights that are not given to animals (mostly for good reason). It is not a flaw in the resolution that it gives some modicum of protections to animals. They're still living beings.

Considering that there is no legislation against the rape, assault, abuse, battery, or murder of persons, I think these protections (not rights, because animals cannot have rights, because they are not sapient, and hence, cannot exercise rights) go far beyond the level given in legislation about persons in the World Assembly. This is the same argument that Jarish Inyo (going to have to double check spelling) gave.

If you're going with the argument that guy made good luck. The one thing the passage of PAA makes absolutely clear is that the WA nations do by and large support animal protection legislation, even mildly flawed legislation. Arguing that we shouldn't have animal protection at all because there are other protections we haven't gotten to first is simply not going to go well with the majority of voters.

There's nothing "imprecise" about the definition: an animal is a non-person mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or fish. Most of us come to understand that definition in grade school, and that definition contains sufficient precision for all but the dimmest bulbs to understand what is covered.

Krill. Are. Non-person. Fish. Secondarily, this leads to the semantic playground of words coined before the knowledge acquired through modern science, as one of the OED's definition of animal is 'a mammal, as opposed to a bird, reptile, fish, or insect'. What a semantic mess.

Don't be absurd. There are limits to the "you didn't define x" arguments and you're hitting one. The definition I provided avoids semantic meddling and clearly says what an animal is for the purposes of this resolution. You're bending this argument to the point of ridiculousness. If some bizarre nation wants to claim that a "mammal" is a "type of rock, often found at the bottom of your shoe when you're attempting to run a marathon" that's not a problem with the resolution. At some point, we need to accept that member nations know what words mean.

Also, krill are not fish. Saying. Otherwise. Slowly. Does. Not. Make. It. True.

Krill are crustaceans (they have an exoskeleton, a feature fish lack). And they, too, have nervous systems, though I elected not to include them in my resolution because I took Bear's Armed's suggestion to limit the definition to certain "higher" forms of animals (ones that unquestionably feel fear, stress, and pain). You should avoid making an argument based on marine biology since you really don't have a firm grasp on it.

The only thing worth chuckling about is that you don't understand what zooplankton are and you're counting on voters to be equally ignorant. (Hint: the "non-person fish" that fall under the classification of "zooplankton" do in fact have a nervous system. What makes those particular fish "zooplankton" is that for a while in their development they lack the ability to swim strongly against the water current and thus primarily float in the water column. I say "primarily" because the little guys do have individual motility, which they use to travel very short distances against the current to gently adjust their position and move toward food. And how often are you intentionally abusing zooplankton, anyway?)

They cannot feel pain or abuse, which makes the exercise of these 'rights' non-existent, which is the crux of the counter-argument.

Fish fry that qualify as zooplankton do so because of their inability to swim against the current, not because they don't have a nervous system. They are not impervious to pain. They're just baby fish that can't move against the current and must literally go with the flow.

You can't abuse an animal just because it's poisonous and pests are explicitly exempted by the plain language of Prohibiting Animal Abuse. I seem to remember you being one of the more vocal opponents of UFoC when they were lying in repeals and yet, here you are. The law does not "grant the same protections to those undesirable types of animals."

I'm not sure where you're coming from. Are asps non-person reptiles or not? It grants these protections to undesirable types of animals. Semantically, you can argue that it does not prohibit the abuse of such animals, but I would argue that it does. You're right. you cannot abuse an animal just because it is poisonous. It happens that to abuse something, you need to do more that observe its existence.

I'm saying that the law does not grant protections to pests. You're misstating what the law does. The resolution explicitly states that pest control is not abuse. Claiming otherwise is not "argument," it's "lying."

The law does protect what some people may consider "undesirable" animals, which you've apparently grouped with pests. People should not abuse animals just because they are "undesirable" - whatever the hell that means. Even asps have a very valuable place in the ecosystem and while they may become pests, simply existing and being poisonous does not make them pests.

There's no inconsistency with saying that all animals - even ones that are bred for consumption - ought not to be abused. It's truly a shame that you can not appreciate the difference between abuse and ethical slaughter. A farmer may well plan to slaughter and sell his chickens once they are of age, but that's no excuse for mistreating them along the way, or subjecting them to a cruel or malicious death.

You're also baldly misstating what the resolution does. The resolution doesn't say the animal should not be abused "unless" it's raised for slaughter, in which case abusing it is "all right." The resolution says slaughtering an animal humanely is not abuse. Even animals that will eventually be slaughtered are still protected from abuse in the meantime by this resolution.

What do you find as humane? Is guillotining humane? Is this humane? To quote from Glog in an old UN repeal: 'UN [WA] law not say. This not protect any rights'.

I used the word humane here as a shorthand, though even that word has a pretty readily understandable meaning. The resolution goes into additional detail. This is not a case where a weak quantitative word (like "better," or "equal") was used. I used qualitative and descriptive words that adequately described what I was going for. You're nitpicking.

"Mental doublethink" is not even a real thing. Thinking is inherently mental, so saying "mental doublethink" is like saying "java coffee", "foot shoe", or "head hat."

Refers to coffee from islands called Java, unless we are programming coffee. Please tell me about all the Department of Redundancy Departments. Also, please enlighten me on the utility of this resolution in a country with strong animal abuse legislation? Is that not redundant? Or, are we to patrol for spelling errors in both of our texts for the rest of time?

I was just being snarky about your writing because you're being snarky (and more than a bit unfair) about mine. Fair point about Java Coffee - I should have gone with a different example there.

Let me get this straight... you're concerned that the resolution outlaws zoos because putting animals in a zoo might endanger the long term health and safety of the animal? Ridiculous! Animals in zoos live much much longer than their wild brethren. While there may be other reasons not to keep certain animals in zoos, the safety and health of a particular animal is not one of them.

There is no merit to this argument, unless the "zoos" you want to put your animals in are filled with boobytraps, lava pits, and disease-spewing waste turrets. I'm assuming this is about pandas. Regardless of whether pandas breed well in captivity or not, keeping a panda in a zoo does not endanger its health or safety.

One of the main purposes of life is to reproduce. I think preventing it would endanger health, especially when there is overwhelming evidence in humans and other species that sexual activity improves bodily function and health.

No, there's a difference between preventing an animal from reproducing (something which is a stretch argument against the resolution anyway that I really don't concede) and endangering its longterm health and safety. I am sure there are many animals that go their whole lives without reproducing and are nonetheless healthy and safe. You're reaching for arguments and grasping sand.

[Jarish Inyo]

Considering that there is no legislation against the rape, assault, abuse, battery, or murder of persons, I think these protections (not rights, because animals cannot have rights, because they are not sapient, and hence, cannot exercise rights) go far beyond the level given in legislation about persons in the World Assembly. This is the same argument that Jarish Inyo (going to have to double check spelling) gave.

If you're going with the argument that guy made good luck. The one thing the passage of PAA makes absolutely clear is that the WA nations do by and large support animal protection legislation, even mildly flawed legislation. Arguing that we shouldn't have animal protection at all because there are other protections we haven't gotten to first is simply not going to go well with the majority of voters.

It is a valid argument that you outright dismissed and ignored. Once the voters are aware of the argument, they will most likely repeal your farce of a resolution. Until sentients are protected by WA lawfrom rape, abuse, battery, murder and are provide with food of appropriate quantity and quality to keep them healthy, access to a sufficient quantity of clean water to satisfy their needs, shelter, refuge, or other appropriate protective barriers that supply reasonable protection from weather and injury, and provide sentients with access to professional medical care deemed necessary to relieve them from distress, injury, neglect or disease, then we will not provide such protections to non-sentients.

[Blaccakre]

If you're going with the argument that guy made good luck. The one thing the passage of PAA makes absolutely clear is that the WA nations do by and large support animal protection legislation, even mildly flawed legislation. Arguing that we shouldn't have animal protection at all because there are other protections we haven't gotten to first is simply not going to go well with the majority of voters.

It is a valid argument that you outright dismissed and ignored. Once the voters are aware of the argument, they will most likely repeal your farce of a resolution. Until sentients are protected by WA lawfrom rape, abuse, battery, murder and are provide with food of appropriate quantity and quality to keep them healthy, access to a sufficient quantity of clean water to satisfy their needs, shelter, refuge, or other appropriate protective barriers that supply reasonable protection from weather and injury, and provide sentients with access to professional medical care deemed necessary to relieve them from distress, injury, neglect or disease, then we will not provide such protections to non-sentients.

There are many conclusions that might be drawn from the world assembly's fickle nature. However, seeing how many folks supported this even after the author publicly conceded a flaw and requested moderator intervention to take it down suggest that this is at least an area WA members are interested in legislating on and not something they are likely to agree should be shelved until we've exhausted all possible resolutions on human rights topics (and then some).

Additionally, many of the things being provided to animals under this proposal wouldn't even make sense if applied to people. As much as I would like a "keeper" to clean up my enclosure and provide me with sufficient food and water, those things don't make sense when applied to people. So how do you argue we shouldn't provide kept animals with those until we provide them to people first?

Also, how exactly was the author supposed to address this concern other than by dismissing or ignoring it? Simply scrap his draft? There's no "addressing" this issue other than either agreeing with it (i.e. dropping the legislation on this subject entirely) or disagreeing with it (i.e. proceeding with the legislation despite those who will scream DO SOMETHING ELSE).

[Imperium Anglorum]

Also, how exactly was the author supposed to address this concern other than by dismissing or ignoring it? Simply scrap his draft? There's no "addressing" this issue other than either agreeing with it (i.e. dropping the legislation on this subject entirely) or disagreeing with it (i.e. proceeding with the legislation despite those who will scream DO SOMETHING ELSE).

Repealing it and passing legislation which then addresses the concerns raised by such an author's peers. If it is so popular as you claim, that shouldn't be a problem.

[Blaccakre]

Also, how exactly was the author supposed to address this concern other than by dismissing or ignoring it? Simply scrap his draft? There's no "addressing" this issue other than either agreeing with it (i.e. dropping the legislation on this subject entirely) or disagreeing with it (i.e. proceeding with the legislation despite those who will scream DO SOMETHING ELSE).

Repealing it and passing legislation which then addresses the concerns raised by such an author's peers. If it is so popular as you claim, that shouldn't be a problem.

My point is, if the "concern" that's been raised is "don't pass animal protection legislation while there's still other human rights issues to worry about", what the "concern" really boils down to is a statement of opposition. There's no possible revision to any animal protection law that can possibly satisfy a person whose concern is "I'd rather do something else and not talk about this issue."

[Kyuria]

It's not so much an issue of the legislation being bad, but rather the sheer scope of loopholes for it to over reach or be circumvented.
For instance,...
The first and most obvious is that "Animals" in the issue are treated as if they are persons. The wording is exactly to that effect whether it was intended or not. They have been granted similar basic inalienable rights as any persons. So if they have the right to so much protection and oversight by my nation's government, particularly poling forces that have better things to do, why could I not tax the little bastards then? If they're sentient enough to feel pain, fear, and stress, they should be sentient enough to feel gratitude and responsibility. So what do I do if they don't pay up? Or what if they commit a crime, like vandalism, theft, arson, or manslaughter? A roach isn't the only thing stupid enough to press the little red button,... if a cow kicks over a candle and burns down half a city, are they not subject to the same punishment as they are the same protection?

Here's another hypothetical. So, say, some schmuck gets mauled, and an angry relative or friend comes along and kicks that animal's ass. So tell me why this constitutes "abuse" when it's really just "revenge" and why I should think the little bastard is the victim in such a situation? Both parties are guilty, what makes the animal any less so? Is it because it's too stupid to know right from wrong? Then how can it know the meaning of pain, fear, and stress?
And while on the subject, you can't have a "universal" blanket of protection and expect to have dramatic exceptions. War is nasty business for instance, and nothing about it is humane. Are animals to stupid to know what it means when they're being trained to go into battle, and die excruciating deaths? Then would training them not in itself be a form of abuse?
Hell, speaking of unpleasant deaths, by your definition, fishing, duck hunting, whaling, or just walking through a patch of tall grass would be abuse since they are by nature impossible to make "humane."

And all of this is at a glance. It's all over the place, doesn't keep itself neat, and makes no effort to try and cover its bases.
It does too much with too little, for frankness.

[Mikemapolis]

I fully support this repeal effort, even if the WA is to legislate animal rights it should be massively more specific. I would happily support some anti abuse provisions for mammals, but certainly not reptiles, birds, or fish.

[Bears Armed]

Objects to the current state of affairs, where sapient beings are not given the same overarching rights and protections as non-sapient animals;

People have all kinds of rights recognized by this assembly,

But unfortunately some member governments argue that because that when that recognition is through resolutions in the 'Human Rights' category, as so much of it is, that means that they're under no obligation to extend the protection to non-Human sapients...

[Imperium Anglorum]

Any more comments?

[Tinfect]

Any more comments?

"The Imperium has only one thing to say, Ambassador.
Submit the damned thing already."

[Wallenburg]

Any more comments?

"The Imperium has only one thing to say, Ambassador.
Submit the damned thing already."

Exactly. If you don't, the Wallenburgian representative will submit her own.

[Separatist Peoples]

Any more comments?

"I don't actually see any major concerns, ambassador. I wish I had more useful feedback but all I have is: go get 'em, tiger!"

[Blaccakre]

You people. You'll piss and moan and complain about every little detail in a proposal to the point of driving off new players (ahem... ambassadors), but when it comes to one of your good ol' boys you just pat each other on the back and chortle about how fine a job has been done.

Chuckles at the imprecision of the definition of animal in this resolution, as jellyfish, a collection of microscopic species of non-person animal, are given the protections of this resolution, even when they lack a nervous system capable of feeling pain or many other types of negative stimulus;

In your race to congratulate Imperium Anglorum on his "fine work" and encourage him to submit as hastily and sloppily as possible, none of you noticed or cared that he's now claiming jellyfish:

1. are "animals" under PAA - they're not; they're invertebrates and by definition, fish are vertebrates. PAA on its terms doesn't cover invertabrates. IA has made the common mistake of thinking that jellyfish are fish because "fish" is in the word. But it's the difference between elephant and elephant beetle. That jellyfish are not "fish" is something even children know.

2. "a collection of microscopic species" - this is a left over from his claim about zooplankton that he simply didn't change before submitting, which does not accurately describe jellyfish.

3. "lack a nervous system capable of feeling pain/negative stimulus" - simply untrue. Jellyfish do have a nervous system and are capable of feeling pain.

Essentially, this whole argument is an epic failure. Jellyfish are not covered by the law, they are not accurately described here, and even if they were covered it would not be a travesty because they are in fact capable of feeling pain and other types of negative stimulus through their nervous system.

But none of you care. You're happy if this repeal fools voters into siding with you. You consider voters to be "lemmings" who simply need to be herded in your direction, by any duplicitous means necessary. Because you're awful.

The rank hypocrisy here astounds me. But go get 'em, IA! Repeal that law! And in the process enshrine for all time in WA law that you produce sloppy work and are in such a hurry to deceive people into taking your side that you can't even be troubled to get basic biological facts straight.

[Separatist Peoples]

You people. You'll piss and moan and complain about every little detail in a proposal to the point of driving off new players (ahem... ambassadors), but when it comes to one of your good ol' boys you just pat each other on the back and chortle about how fine a job has been done.

"Or, perhaps, we view the shortfalls of one resolution as entirely acceptable compared to the benefits of removing another, less palatable resolution. But I suppose you're welcome to mischaracterize our position to your heart's content, free speech being protected and all. If it makes you feel better about yourself, you go right ahead, ambassador."

[Blaccakre]

You people. You'll piss and moan and complain about every little detail in a proposal to the point of driving off new players (ahem... ambassadors), but when it comes to one of your good ol' boys you just pat each other on the back and chortle about how fine a job has been done.

"Or, perhaps, we view the shortfalls of one resolution as entirely acceptable compared to the benefits of removing another, less palatable resolution.

Translation = It's okay to mislead people and support blatantly wrong, misinformed legislation if it furthers my political desires.