[PASSED] Repeal "Animal Cruelty Prevention"

[Knootoss]

It's interesting to see how many delegates are voting against something that even the original author wants to get rid of.

[Sanctaria]

It's interesting to see how many delegates are voting against something that even the original author wants to get rid of.

Alsted's policy of always voting against a repeal can be annoying sometimes. Especially as he votes so early.

[Bears Armed]

It's interesting to see how many delegates are voting against something that even the original author wants to get rid of.

All of the ones who think that 'Repeal "Animal Cruelty Prevention"' means 'Make Animal Cruelty Compulsory'...

[Odinburgh]

Odinburgh votes in favor of this repeal.

[Huskvarneque]

"What is this? I don't even... why? Just.... just get this the hell outta my face already. of course I vote against it!!!! Well, you think I wouldn't?!"
Yells Hyoni L., leader and High King of the New Huskvarneque Kingdom, apparently talking with his advisor. A few moments late he could be saw walking out of his office, a purely frustrated look stricken on his face.

[Scion Lop On]

"What is this? I don't even... why? Just.... just get this the hell outta my face already. of course I vote against it!!!! Well, you think I wouldn't?!"
Yells Hyoni L., leader and High King of the New Huskvarneque Kingdom, apparently talking with his advisor. A few moments late he could be saw walking out of his office, a purely frustrated look stricken on his face.

You... support animal cruelty? Voting against this repeal would reflect as much.

EDIT: Horrendous typo.

[Huskvarneque]

"What is this? I don't even... why? Just.... just get this the hell outta my face already. of course I vote against it!!!! Well, you think I wouldn't?!"
Yells Hyoni L., leader and High King of the New Huskvarneque Kingdom, apparently talking with his advisor. A few moments late he could be saw walking out of his office, a purely frustrated look stricken on his face.

You... support animal cruelty? Voting against this repeal would reflect as much.

EDIT: Horrendous typo.

*Looks back at Repeal*
Well darn... totally misread that.... obviously haven't had my coffee today..... nevermind that...

[Scion Lop On]

You... support animal cruelty? Voting against this repeal would reflect as much.

EDIT: Horrendous typo.

*Looks back at Repeal*
Well darn... totally misread that.... obviously haven't had my coffee today..... nevermind that...

OOC: Don't worry. You're definitely not the only one who's made this mistake so far.

[Huskvarneque]

*Looks back at Repeal*
Well darn... totally misread that.... obviously haven't had my coffee today..... nevermind that...

OOC: Don't worry. You're definitely not the only one who's made this mistake so far.

OOC: Thanks... amazing how bad it sounded after not reading part of it... then it was like... oh.. feeling like a dummy now... d:

[Unibot II]

Against, not entirely sure on the terms brought up for a repeal, but the Knootian replacement is a milkshake of animal feces.

[Vorond]

Enough already, that animal protection nonsense has gone far enough. We have legislation in place already, why would this need amending? *carefully reviews the repeal* "other sapient creatures" Ah, those pony-clowns are at it again... no, this nonsense will not be sanctioned by this government. The Free territory votes AGAINST this proposal and urges any other voters to do the same.

[Scion Lop On]

Enough already, that animal protection nonsense has gone far enough. We have legislation in place already, why would this need amending? *carefully reviews the repeal* "other sapient creatures" Ah, those pony-clowns are at it again... no, this nonsense will not be sanctioned by this government. The Free territory votes AGAINST this proposal and urges any other voters to do the same.

... What? I will repeat this: this proposal is repealing current legislation that is ineffective. This does not pursue an ideological agenda - it merely recognizes that GAR#145 does not ban animal cruelty. If you vote against this repeal, then you are voting for animal cruelty. Also, please don't throw around the term "carefully reviews," because you obviously haven't done so.

Against, not entirely sure on the terms brought up for a repeal, but...

You've voted against the repeal without considering the merits of the repeal...?

[Embry]

Embry finds that the previous law is completely fine and that any further regulations would intrude on certain peoples rights, which should be given primary consideration. Thus we vote against this bill.

[Scion Lop On]

Embry finds that the previous law is completely fine and that any further regulations would intrude on certain peoples rights, which should be given primary consideration. Thus we vote against this bill.

Tell me, ambassador. What part of GAR#145 do you find most pleasing? The part that doesn't prevent animal cruelty, or the bit that legalizes human sacrifice?

[Malmothia]

Malmothia will support the repeal, and any replacement that does not exclude mistreatment of animals for religious reasons.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Retired WerePenguins is OPPOSED to the repeal and has voted against it.

We find the resolution "mostly harmess" and we find the repeal arguments "totally without merrit."

The basic flawed argument of the repeal is that just because a specific thing is excluded from a resolution it is implied that the resolution must cover it in the negative sense.

That which is excluded from the resolution is excluded from the resolution, no more and no less and may in fact be covered by other resolutions or laws of the state.

If a nation, for example, were to approve human sacrifice, what business it is of yours? If the secretariat were to say that this basically is a blocker against a resolution banning human scaficice I'll admit my error but I can't see how such a rulling can be made.

Personally the only thing I can see about the resolution is that it goes from (1) straight to (4). That makes me laugh but not enough to repeal.

[Scion Lop On]

Retired WerePenguins is OPPOSED to the repeal and has voted against it.

We find the resolution "mostly harmess" and we find the repeal arguments "totally without merrit."

The basic flawed argument of the repeal is that just because a specific thing is excluded from a resolution it is implied that the resolution must cover it in the negative sense.

That which is excluded from the resolution is excluded from the resolution, no more and no less and may in fact be covered by other resolutions or laws of the state.

If a nation, for example, were to approve human sacrifice, what business it is of yours? If the secretariat were to say that this basically is a blocker against a resolution banning human scaficice I'll admit my error but I can't see how such a rulling can be made.

Personally the only thing I can see about the resolution is that it goes from (1) straight to (4). That makes me laugh but not enough to repeal.

The basic argument of this repeal is not because "it implied [religious exemption] in [a] negative sense." The proposal is misguiding because it doesn't prevent animal cruelty towards wild animals, or domestic animals (should the reasons be religious). Succinctly, it doesn't prevent animal cruelty! If you believe that a resolution doing the total opposite of what it intends to do "mostly harmless," then arguing this point is wholly unnecessary. For goodness sake, the author of the original has publicly recognized the flaws (a noble act, needless to say) in his own resolution.

Also, I consider it uncouth to include trivial things like it skipping from (1) to (4) in the repeal text.

[Retired WerePenguins]

I am reminded of a musical about a fictious nation declaring independence from another fictious nation and writing a document to say so. At one point someone shouts, "what about fishing rights?" Ye Gods my good sir/madam, do you really expect a resolution to cover everything under the sun and do you actually think such a resolution can be passed by this assembly?

Do you really think you can ban religious ceremonies? Such an objection would kill any reasonable bill. I would remind you of our recent attempts to ban cannibalism, which failed.

The resolution does not do the "oposite of what it intended to do." Instead it does what is plainly reasonable to accomplish given this current body.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. The resolution isn't perfect, but it is good enough.

[Scion Lop On]

Do you really think you can ban religious ceremonies? Such an objection would kill any reasonable bill. I would remind you of our recent attempts to ban cannibalism, which failed.

Yes, I do think that religious ceremonies that involve the torture and death of domestic animals should be banned. Also, the ban on cannibalism was an entirely different scenario. From what I recall, much of the opposition was concerned with the fact that cannibalism was banned, regardless of whether or not it was consensual. Not because of "religious freedom."

The resolution does not do the "oposite of what it intended to do." Instead it does what is plainly reasonable to accomplish given this current body.

"Plainly reasonable?" The resolution seeks to ban animal cruelty, but it doesn't. The author recognizes this. What more is there to argue?

The perfect is the enemy of the good. The resolution isn't perfect, but it is good enough.

I disagree.

[Tibberiria]

There's too many loopholes in the original resolution to make it effective. We support this repeal.

[Vorond]

Enough already, that animal protection nonsense has gone far enough. We have legislation in place already, why would this need amending? *carefully reviews the repeal* "other sapient creatures" Ah, those pony-clowns are at it again... no, this nonsense will not be sanctioned by this government. The Free territory votes AGAINST this proposal and urges any other voters to do the same.

... What? I will repeat this: this proposal is repealing current legislation that is ineffective. This does not pursue an ideological agenda - it merely recognizes that GAR#145 does not ban animal cruelty. If you vote against this repeal, then you are voting for animal cruelty. Also, please don't throw around the term "carefully reviews," because you obviously haven't done so.

And just how am I condoning animal abuse by not voting in favour of this repeal?

[Opaloka]

Hmmm, another repeal with no clear replacement ready;

AGAINST!

The W&SG would welcome a repeal/replace that banned animal cruelty in ALL circumstances. This isn't it.

[Sciongrad]

... What? I will repeat this: this proposal is repealing current legislation that is ineffective. This does not pursue an ideological agenda - it merely recognizes that GAR#145 does not ban animal cruelty. If you vote against this repeal, then you are voting for animal cruelty. Also, please don't throw around the term "carefully reviews," because you obviously haven't done so.

And just how am I condoning animal abuse by not voting in favour of this repeal?

Because the original doesn't outlaw animal abuse.

Hmmm, another repeal with no clear replacement ready;

AGAINST!

The W&SG would welcome a repeal/replace that banned animal cruelty in ALL circumstances. This isn't it.

There are currently two replacements ready, one of which is linked in the OP of this thread.

[Quelesh]

Against, not entirely sure on the terms brought up for a repeal, but the Knootian replacement is a milkshake of animal feces.

There's a considerably better replacement draft by Cowardly Pacifists floating around here somewhere.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Delegate Vinage]

I, Lothar Prolark, World Assembly Delegate & Media Minister of Europeia will be voting AYE on this proposal after a 5/1 internal vote. When the author wants rid of a proposal.... that's a hint in our eyes that a repeal-replace is the way forward.