[PASSED] Environmental Warfare Act

[Draconae]

OOC: Accurate, but grossly misleading and under this resolution, their introduction would not constitute environmental warfare as they were no intended to cause ecological harm.

And as I have argued, if intent is all that matters, this resolution is toothless, as any nation can contrive reasons for introduction of an invasive species and not be in violation of this resolution because they were not introducing the species for the purpose of destroying the environment.

OOC: What everyone seems to be forgetting is that invasive species have to cause "extreme harm" to the ecosystem for their introduction to be considered environmental warfare, or even for them to be considered invasive species at all. Therefore, horses would not be an invasive species except in the most extreme of contexts.

[Excidium Planetis]

And as I have argued, if intent is all that matters, this resolution is toothless, as any nation can contrive reasons for introduction of an invasive species and not be in violation of this resolution because they were not introducing the species for the purpose of destroying the environment.

OOC: That's not true, sorry. No serious player has ever really recognized that argument in any of its iterations (and there have been many). And even if they did, willful misinterpretation is a violation of GAR#2. "Sorry, when I introduced this predator species into your ecosystem without your government's permission, it wasn't to disrupt the ecosystem, I swear." Really? Be more creative than that, please.

"Sorry, when I introduced this invasive species [of horses] into your ecosystem without your government's permission, it wasn't to disrupt the ecosystem, I swear."

Why is the above argument considered acceptable by you while to one you listed is not?

[Sciongrad]

OOC: That's not true, sorry. No serious player has ever really recognized that argument in any of its iterations (and there have been many). And even if they did, willful misinterpretation is a violation of GAR#2. "Sorry, when I introduced this predator species into your ecosystem without your government's permission, it wasn't to disrupt the ecosystem, I swear." Really? Be more creative than that, please.

"Sorry, when I introduced this invasive species [of horses] into your ecosystem without your government's permission, it wasn't to disrupt the ecosystem, I swear."

Why is the above argument considered acceptable by you while to one you listed is not?

OOC: You're seriously going to make the argument that horses were brought in by the Europeans with the express purpose of conducting environmental warfare and not because they were extremely effective in killing infantry? That's so far removed from the realm of reality that you should feel dirty for making such a disingenuous argument.

Edit: On second that, I'm done here. You aren't arguing in good faith, and this resolution has already passed, so I don't see any point in continuing this root canal of an argument.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Sorry, when I introduced this invasive species [of horses] into your ecosystem without your government's permission, it wasn't to disrupt the ecosystem, I swear."

Why is the above argument considered acceptable by you while to one you listed is not?

OOC: You're seriously going to make the argument that horses were brought in by the Europeans with the express purpose of conducting environmental warfare and not because they were extremely effective in killing infantry? That's so far removed from the realm of reality that you should feel dirty for making such a disingenuous argument.

You're seriously going to make the argument that our fungal weapons were brought in by our military with the express purpose of conducting environmental warfare and not because they were extremely effective in killing infantry? That's so far removed from the realm of reality that you should feel dirty for making such a disingenuous argument

Edit: On second that, I'm done here. You aren't arguing in good faith, and this resolution has already passed, so I don't see any point in continuing this root canal of an argument.

You will in the repeal thread.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You're seriously going to make the argument that horses were brought in by the Europeans with the express purpose of conducting environmental warfare and not because they were extremely effective in killing infantry?

Well, I mean, if that argument is invaid, then this resolution is toothless and arguments could be construed to that end, since nations can always find a different reason to say that something was done.

[West Angola]

Well, I mean, if that argument is invaid, then this resolution is toothless and arguments could be construed to that end, since nations can always find a different reason to say that something was done.

"Horses do not cause extreme environmental damage. Excidium Planetis and I went around about this; he cited evidence that wild horses erode grasses, which I pointed out only occurs with repeated running over the same area. So the only way horses constitute an invasive species is if they remain the same area for months, which is pretty much completely contradictory to the idea of cavalry as a mobile offensive force."

"Furthermore, intent goes hand in hand with vehicle. Ifnyour choice of weapon kills enemy infantry via extreme environmental damage, i.e. hijacking native wildlife's nervous systems to induce changed behavior, then you can't argue you didn't intend to cause environmental damage when you introduced the species."

[Sciongrad]

You're seriously going to make the argument that horses were brought in by the Europeans with the express purpose of conducting environmental warfare and not because they were extremely effective in killing infantry?

Well, I mean, if that argument is invaid, then this resolution is toothless and arguments could be construed to that end, since nations can always find a different reason to say that something was done.

OOC: Not really, because intent is not nearly as nebulous as EP is making it out to be. Europeans so obviously did not bring horses here with the intent of doing extreme environmental damage. I am almost never persuaded by appeals to the difficulty of proving intent.

[World Assembly Improvement Foundation]

A belated congratulations to the author for passing a WA resolution. Keep up the good work.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Grats for passing it. Missed the vote due to vacation.

A belated congratulations to the author for passing a WA resolution. Keep up the good work.

Oh, you're posting on that account again? Good.