[DEFEATED] Repeal "Preventing Animal Abuse"

[Excidium Planetis]

Even your own source, Psychology Today, says in another article that young children harming animals as part of curiosity is not a troubling sign: it is only later in life, when the abuse becomes sadistic, that it becomes a warning for possible mental illness.

Are you trying to make my point? Both the papers talk about young children harming animals being an opportunity to correct that behavior and teach the kid empathy.

Yes, but neither says that negative behavior follows from harming animals.

And neither justifies criminalizing children harming animals. The resolution requires nations to criminalize child insect-killing.

Your point was that if a child gets jollies from hurting animals the happiness the child gets outweighs the animals suffering...

Yes. That does not conflict with anything Psychology Today said. Animal abuse is sometimes a symptom of mental illness, but not vice versa. Schultz argues that, if it brings happiness, children should be allowed to kill insects. Screening for mental illness (which is taken very seriously in EP, given the liberal gun rights and compulsory military service) eliminates the threat of children who abuse animals growing up to be mass murderers. So where are the negatives associated with it?

Ambassador Schultz =/= EP the player. And to be fair, Excidium Planetis as a nation is probably psychopathic. We went to war over a bet one time.

OOC: totally not calling you out as a player, mate. EP is just a shorthand for your nation, like UK or USA. I like to think that in real life you're a swell guy/gal who doesn't condone children hurting things for fun.

But if Obama said something about child abuse, you wouldn't say "USA argues for bunny-torture"... because Obama is not the USA. Likewise, you can't say "EP is in favor of supporting psychopathy in children" if you are referring to an IC argument, because the opinions expressed IC are those of Ambassador Schultz. She sometimes speaks for her nation ("Excidium Planetis casts it's vote against" or "In the opinion of Excidium Planetis") but not always. And as your comments were OOC, it seemed directed at me the player.

What about the fact that GA#372 bans animal testing? Isn't that a good reason to repeal?

I think it's a bit of a red herring. Most human diseases are not communicable to animals; that's just not how biology works. Similarly, many animal born pathogens that become diseases in humans are benign to their host animals. So you simply don't see scientists infecting animals with small pox in order to derive a cure. Most disease study is done in tiny little petri dishes.

First of all, not all medical research is infectious diseases: there are experiments into genetics, where lab mice shine due to their homogenous genomes, and prosthetics. where research has been done on primates. There are also a host of other studies, like drug research or the study of the effects of space on the body, where animal research plays a part.

Second, animal research is far more important than you know: The California Biomedical Research Association even goes so far as to say that nearly every medical breakthrough in the past 100 years directly resulted from animal testing (California Biomedical Research Association, "CBRA Fact Sheet: Why Are Animals Necessary in Biomedical Research?," ca-biomed.org). Mice in particular have high value due to their high genetic similarity to humans (97.5%) and short lifespans (2-3 years, which allows lifelong studies, something difficult to do in humans).

Now, as for the applicability of human diseases to mice: New research into Chimeric Mice, mice with human genes inserted into their genome, allows research to be conducted on mice that closely simulates research on humans... without the possibility of human suffering. Look what Medical News Today says:

Medical News Today reported on a study that applied 21st Century laboratory methods to an infamous phase 2 clinical trial in 1993, where five human subjects died as a result of taking the drug fialuridine...
The researchers found that the chimeric mice displayed the same symptoms as the human participants in the 1993 trial. If these mice had been used in the preclinical testing for fialuridine, then the human deaths of the clinical trial would have been averted.

The full article, which covers the value of mice in lab tests in full, can be found here.

[Sciongrad]

The resolution requires nations to criminalize child insect-killing.

"The resolution requires that nations outlaw killing animals, but it does not necessarily demand criminalization. For the umpteenth time, you are conflating prohibition with criminalization. Nothing in this resolutions demands that children be arrested for killing ants, regardless of the psychological ramifications."

[Excidium Planetis]

The resolution requires nations to criminalize child insect-killing.

"The resolution requires that nations outlaw killing animals, but it does not necessarily demand criminalization.

"Perhaps I am missing something, but could you please explain the difference vetween outlawing and criminalizing something?"

For the umpteenth time, you are conflating prohibition with criminalization. Nothing in this resolutions demands that children be arrested for killing ants, regardless of the psychological ramifications."

"I never said it would necessitate arrest. Fines would do, or any other method of law enforcement."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Outlaw is making it illegal. Criminalisation is putting a punishment to it. It's the classic 'you can outlaw it, just don't punish anyone for it and don't enforce the actual law' argument. The usual response is then 'that just increases the complexity of the legal code for no reason at all' and 'that is not worth the ink it's written on then'.

[ EDIT: So. Many. Typos. ]

[Tinfect]

Outlaw is making it illegal. Criminalisation is putting a punishment to it. It's the classic 'you can outlaw it, just don't punish anyone for it and don't enforce the actual law' argument. The usually response is then 'that just increases the complexity of the legal code for no reason at all' and 'that is not worth the ink it's written on them'.

OOC:
Pretty much exactly this. If you do not enforce the Law, the Law is meaningless.

[Blaccakre]

But if Obama said something about child abuse, you wouldn't say "USA argues for bunny-torture"... because Obama is not the USA. Likewise, you can't say "EP is in favor of supporting psychopathy in children" if you are referring to an IC argument, because the opinions expressed IC are those of Ambassador Schultz. She sometimes speaks for her nation ("Excidium Planetis casts it's vote against" or "In the opinion of Excidium Planetis") but not always. And as your comments were OOC, it seemed directed at me the player.

(1) Obama and just about every other real politician understands that when they are holding office their statements can often be equated with actual governmental policy positions, and (2) public figures often mind their damn tongues for exactly this reason and get super embarrassed if they did say something objectively stupid about the merits of children torturing animals, and (3) your ambassador is an AMBASSADOR so I'm going to assume they speak for the nation because that's what ambassadors DO.

Also, you keep wanting to use child smashing insect examples, even though insects don't really feel stress or fear, do they? You're purposefully selecting the most absurd fact situation you can think of even though the text of that law looked at holistically is clearly not targeted at insects and insects are not included in the resolution's definition of animals.

In any case, I think we've come full circle. Ambassador Shultz or EP the nation or EP the player or whoever can keep advocating for repeal because they want to preserve man-on-bear gladiatorial combat and the right of children to torture animals. The Kingdom of Blaccakre and me the actual guy behind it are both extremely unconvinced by those arguments.

animal research is far more important than you know

The resolution doesn't prohibit animal research! And most animal research doesn't involve intentionally infecting animals with diseases. The repeal is trying to latch on to a narrow part of the act - the one about people who keep an animal must provide "reasonable care," and arguing that "reasonable care" of a lab rat includes refraining from testing on it. That doesn't make sense to me.

[Wallenburg]

Outlaw is making it illegal. Criminalisation is putting a punishment to it. It's the classic 'you can outlaw it, just don't punish anyone for it and don't enforce the actual law' argument. The usual response is then 'that just increases the complexity of the legal code for no reason at all' and 'that is not worth the ink it's written on then'.

[ EDIT: So. Many. Typos. ]

Wouldn't that fall afoul of a good faith interpretation? The WA clearly isn't going to legislate without intending for members to actually enforce its mandates.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Outlaw is making it illegal. Criminalisation is putting a punishment to it. It's the classic 'you can outlaw it, just don't punish anyone for it and don't enforce the actual law' argument. The usual response is then 'that just increases the complexity of the legal code for no reason at all' and 'that is not worth the ink it's written on then'.

[ EDIT: So. Many. Typos. ]

Wouldn't that fall afoul of a good faith interpretation? The WA clearly isn't going to legislate without intending for members to actually enforce its mandates.

OOC: That's the argument which the RNT people are giving today. I say an interpretation exists in which it is criminalised and outlawed and therefore, is a valid reason for repeal (plus, I say almost everything is legal anyway, haha).

[Separatist Peoples]

Outlaw is making it illegal. Criminalisation is putting a punishment to it. It's the classic 'you can outlaw it, just don't punish anyone for it and don't enforce the actual law' argument. The usual response is then 'that just increases the complexity of the legal code for no reason at all' and 'that is not worth the ink it's written on then'.

[ EDIT: So. Many. Typos. ]

Wouldn't that fall afoul of a good faith interpretation? The WA clearly isn't going to legislate without intending for members to actually enforce its mandates.

OOC: jurisdictions decline to prosecute individuals all the time. In cases of clear cut self-defense, many jurisdictions will decline to prosecute because there is insufficient evidence to contest it, or it is otherwise a waste of time to attempt it. This is much more common than you might think.

[Sciongrad]

Wouldn't that fall afoul of a good faith interpretation? The WA clearly isn't going to legislate without intending for members to actually enforce its mandates.

OOC: jurisdictions decline to prosecute individuals all the time. In cases of clear cut self-defense, many jurisdictions will decline to prosecute because there is insufficient evidence to contest it, or it is otherwise a waste of time to attempt it. This is much more common than you might think.

OOC: This. Refusing to enforce a marginal aspect of a law (especially one that is inconsistent with the spirit of the law, like the prison time for ant killing children argument) is not a bad faith interpretation of the law. There's this weird thing that's been going on in the GA where people seem to think that the only way to enforce a resolution in good faith is to arrest and punish every single person that violates it. That is unreasonable and, frankly, unrealistic.

[Excidium Planetis]

But if Obama said something about child abuse, you wouldn't say "USA argues for bunny-torture"... because Obama is not the USA. Likewise, you can't say "EP is in favor of supporting psychopathy in children" if you are referring to an IC argument, because the opinions expressed IC are those of Ambassador Schultz. She sometimes speaks for her nation ("Excidium Planetis casts it's vote against" or "In the opinion of Excidium Planetis") but not always. And as your comments were OOC, it seemed directed at me the player.

(1) Obama and just about every other real politician understands that when they are holding office their statements can often be equated with actual governmental policy positions,

Okay, so Mayor Lindsey Horvath of West Hollywood said Donald Trump is not welcome in her city... I guess that's official US policy? And we can infer that the United States hates Trump?

and (2) public figures often mind their damn tongues for exactly this reason and get super embarrassed if they did say something objectively stupid about the merits of children torturing animals,

Donald Trump.

and (3) your ambassador is an AMBASSADOR so I'm going to assume they speak for the nation because that's what ambassadors DO.

Not exactly. Ambassadors represent their nation in diplomatic matters, that does not mean that everything they say is the opinion of their entire nation. Unless, of course, you are a Mouth of the Dominion, and even then you are only de jure speaking for your nation at all times, and not de facto.

Also, you keep wanting to use child smashing insect examples, even though insects don't really feel stress or fear, do they?

Do you have any proof to back that up? Stress is the response to fight or flight situations, something ants exhibit.

You're purposefully selecting the most absurd fact situation you can think of even though the text of that law looked at holistically is clearly not targeted at insects and insects are not included in the resolution's definition of animals.

But they are.

In any case, I think we've come full circle. Ambassador Shultz or EP the nation or EP the player or whoever can keep advocating for repeal because they want to preserve man-on-bear gladiatorial combat and the right of children to torture animals. The Kingdom of Blaccakre and me the actual guy behind it are both extremely unconvinced by those arguments.

animal research is far more important than you know

The resolution doesn't prohibit animal research! And most animal research doesn't involve intentionally infecting animals with diseases. The repeal is trying to latch on to a narrow part of the act - the one about people who keep an animal must provide "reasonable care," and arguing that "reasonable care" of a lab rat includes refraining from testing on it. That doesn't make sense to me.

No, not reasonable care. The part it refers to is:

necessary to promote the health of the animal and avoid suffering and disease;

Which medical research actually does the exact opposite of. It is detrimental to the health of the animal and purposefully inflicts disease and suffering on it.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: jurisdictions decline to prosecute individuals all the time. In cases of clear cut self-defense, many jurisdictions will decline to prosecute because there is insufficient evidence to contest it, or it is otherwise a waste of time to attempt it. This is much more common than you might think.

OOC: This. Refusing to enforce a marginal aspect of a law (especially one that is inconsistent with the spirit of the law, like the prison time for ant killing children argument) is not a bad faith interpretation of the law. There's this weird thing that's been going on in the GA where people seem to think that the only way to enforce a resolution in good faith is to arrest and punish every single person that violates it. That is unreasonable and, frankly, unrealistic.

OOC:
Alright, so if you argue that criminalization and outlawing are different, and the resolution merely outlaws it, then we aren't required to criminalize any animal abuse, only outlaw it? So then the resolution is totally toothless, because we can make animal on human combat illegal and not enforce it. After all, it's so widespread in Excidium Planetis that enforcing it would be unrealistic and unreasonable.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: This. Refusing to enforce a marginal aspect of a law (especially one that is inconsistent with the spirit of the law, like the prison time for ant killing children argument) is not a bad faith interpretation of the law. There's this weird thing that's been going on in the GA where people seem to think that the only way to enforce a resolution in good faith is to arrest and punish every single person that violates it. That is unreasonable and, frankly, unrealistic.

OOC:
Alright, so if you argue that criminalization and outlawing are different, and the resolution merely outlaws it, then we aren't required to criminalize any animal abuse, only outlaw it? So then the resolution is totally toothless, because we can make animal on human combat illegal and not enforce it. After all, it's so widespread in Excidium Planetis that enforcing it would be unrealistic and unreasonable.

Response would then be 'that goes against the purpose of the resolution, 2 GA prevents this'. Also one of the reasons I don't like this paradigm of interpretation.

[Araraukar]

Schultz looks at Coco the intern. "What's with everybody having interns? Don't Ambassadors ever have, like, actual staff? Or other Ambassadors? At least the Wads can put out two WA Ambassadors."

OOC: Ahume is a debuty ambassador. You could achieve the same with an aide or intern, as long as they're debutized by the home office. (Which, I imagine, usually consists of a message to the tune of "Get the damn job done, will you?!")

Not exactly. Ambassadors represent their nation in diplomatic matters, that does not mean that everything they say is the opinion of their entire nation. Unless, of course, you are a Mouth of the Dominion, and even then you are only de jure speaking for your nation at all times, and not de facto.

OOC: *cough* Except for actual hiveminds... *cough*

As for the main arguments, don't forget trans-species transplants... certainly not for the good health of the animal from which the transplanted organ is harvested from.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC:
Alright, so if you argue that criminalization and outlawing are different, and the resolution merely outlaws it, then we aren't required to criminalize any animal abuse, only outlaw it? So then the resolution is totally toothless, because we can make animal on human combat illegal and not enforce it. After all, it's so widespread in Excidium Planetis that enforcing it would be unrealistic and unreasonable.

Response would then be 'that goes against the purpose of the resolution, 2 GA prevents this'. Also one of the reasons I don't like this paradigm of interpretation.

Isn't not enforcing laws against children abusing insects also against the purposes of the resolution, and GA#2 would prevent that? The purpose of the resolution is to prevent animal abuse isn't it? Can selectively ignoring some abuse while cracking down on other kinds ever be in line with the purpose of the resolution?

For that matter, who decides what the purpose of the resolution is? The author? That seems rather unfair... nations vote on a resolution, but then they must comply in whatever way the author feels to be good faith? The Mods? So now we need an official ruling on the interpretation of every resolution ever passed?

Will there ever be an end to these rhetorical questions? Who knows?

[Araraukar]

Isn't not enforcing laws against children

OOC: Are children even considered to be legally responsible for their actions in the eyes of WA law? I didn't sleep last night, so my mind's a bit fuzzy and I can't remember this off the top of my head.

[Louisistan]

You could put in that GAR #372 bans inhumane killing of animals for food, as well as requiring nations arrest children for burning ants with a magnifying glass.

"I agree with this and also add that GA#372 is an overreach of WA power."

"This, really. Shoot me a TG when we can approve the thing."

[Separatist Peoples]

]

Isn't not enforcing laws against children abusing insects also against the purposes of the resolution, and GA#2 would prevent that? The purpose of the resolution is to prevent animal abuse isn't it? Can selectively ignoring some abuse while cracking down on other kinds ever be in line with the purpose of the resolution?

For that matter, who decides what the purpose of the resolution is? The author? That seems rather unfair... nations vote on a resolution, but then they must comply in whatever way the author feels to be good faith? The Mods? So now we need an official ruling on the interpretation of every resolution ever passed?

Will there ever be an end to these rhetorical questions? Who knows?

OOC: I'm focusing mostly on the underlined here. ICly speaking, the GA is not a lawmaking entity in itself. It does not produce laws, it produces directives to create law. As a purely legislative body, it lacks a judicial wing to formally interpret resolutions intentions, and only arguably possesses an executive wing in the form of the gnomes. The only enforcement we know of is that the gnomes change national laws to come into compliance, which really reinforces the idea that resolutions are only directives to create law rather than laws themselves.

Since it is national laws that really hold the weight of law, it is reasonable to assume that a nation's judicial branch will, at some level, handle the interpretation of resolutions. Much like how SCOTUS clarifies particular laws, such as recognizing that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, but not an unlimited right, and so determining that specific restrictions are applicable without categorical bans being legal, IC judges are going to make judicial determinations based on precedent, interpretation, and the statutory details that the gnome-written laws actually contain. Since we don't know exactly what it is, and because we know that judiciaries have, at worst, a little interpretive flexibility, its fair to assume that a good-faith interpretation can practically include reasonable selective enforcement. Not unlike evolution, judicial interpretation can't not occur in this system.

[Araraukar]

its fair to assume that a good-faith interpretation can practically include reasonable selective enforcement.

OOC: That gets close to saying that compliance can be selective.

EDIT: I know that people RP NonCompliance and "Creative Compliance", Guthix knows I do CC myself on PPU, but the resolutions are supposed to be written so as to pretend noncompliance is impossible. That's why "encourages" works as legislative language as the nation can't help but be encouraged to do X, whether it actually ends up doing X or not.

[Separatist Peoples]

its fair to assume that a good-faith interpretation can practically include reasonable selective enforcement.

OOC: That gets close to saying that compliance can be selective.

OOC: Compliance with the law in real life is selective to a point. Government attorneys make judgement calls all the time about what prosecutions to pursue and what prosecutions not to pursue. Judges create precedence all the time with their rulings, especially in common law systems. Its not so much that it's selective as that it's an evolving interpretation. I would liken it, in terms of roleplay, to being allowed to color outside the lines a little, so long as the picture is still clear.

The idea that judicial interpretation changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction isn't as far fetched as you'd think. When you cross from Maryland to Virginia on US Interstate 95 at 80 miles an hour, you go from a jurisdiction that considers it speeding, and therefore a moving violation, to a jurisdiction that considers it reckless driving, a criminal offense. Both states are in compliance with the federal regulation that insists the interstate roads be policed to a certain standard, but there is a difference in the execution. There isn't any reason to assume this wouldn't happen in the GA as well.

[Araraukar]

OOC: *snip*
Both states are in compliance with the federal regulation that insists the interstate roads be policed to a certain standard, but there is a difference in the execution. There isn't any reason to assume this wouldn't happen in the GA as well.

OOC: That reminds me, didn't someone try to make a proposal for speed limits a couple of years ago?

And yes, I get what you mean, but still, resolution language itself shouldn't be written so that leeway must be given for a nation to continue to operate after the laws are changed to be in compliance.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: This. Refusing to enforce a marginal aspect of a law (especially one that is inconsistent with the spirit of the law, like the prison time for ant killing children argument) is not a bad faith interpretation of the law. There's this weird thing that's been going on in the GA where people seem to think that the only way to enforce a resolution in good faith is to arrest and punish every single person that violates it. That is unreasonable and, frankly, unrealistic.

OOC:
Alright, so if you argue that criminalization and outlawing are different, and the resolution merely outlaws it, then we aren't required to criminalize any animal abuse, only outlaw it? So then the resolution is totally toothless, because we can make animal on human combat illegal and not enforce it. After all, it's so widespread in Excidium Planetis that enforcing it would be unrealistic and unreasonable.

OOC: Nope, I have never said that simply refusing to enforce the law is good faith compliance. You've taken an aspect of my argument - that refusing to criminalize a marginal aspect of a law which is itself against the spirit of the resolution in question is compatible with good faith compliance - and have applied it to compliance in general. Simply refusing to criminalize all forms of abuse would be a violation of GAR#2 because that is not good faith compliance.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: *snip*
Both states are in compliance with the federal regulation that insists the interstate roads be policed to a certain standard, but there is a difference in the execution. There isn't any reason to assume this wouldn't happen in the GA as well.

OOC: That reminds me, didn't someone try to make a proposal for speed limits a couple of years ago?

And yes, I get what you mean, but still, resolution language itself shouldn't be written so that leeway must be given for a nation to continue to operate after the laws are changed to be in compliance.

OOC: Resolutions can't always cover everything in 3500 words. Sometimes, it's good to let nations exercise reasonable discretion in enforcement! The argument about ants is so marginal (and, arguably actually covered by the resolution), that I don't think it warrants this type of backlash. I also believe the animal testing argument is specious, but that is an entirely different argument.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: That reminds me, didn't someone try to make a proposal for speed limits a couple of years ago?

And yes, I get what you mean, but still, resolution language itself shouldn't be written so that leeway must be given for a nation to continue to operate after the laws are changed to be in compliance.

OOC: Resolutions can't always cover everything in 3500 words. Sometimes, it's good to let nations exercise reasonable discretion in enforcement! The argument about ants is so marginal (and, arguably actually covered by the resolution), that I don't think it warrants this type of backlash. I also believe the animal testing argument is specious, but that is an entirely different argument.

On that last point, how?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Resolutions can't always cover everything in 3500 words. Sometimes, it's good to let nations exercise reasonable discretion in enforcement! The argument about ants is so marginal (and, arguably actually covered by the resolution), that I don't think it warrants this type of backlash.

OOC: I was originally talking about bees in a PPU in-character comment that was my IC reasoning for voting against the target resolution. That IC reasoning is based on research data from real life. And if the resolution does cover bees, then that's another reason for me to want to see it repealed in PPU's IC view, as the nation views itself currently in involuntary non-compliance in regards to their treatment of their bees.