[DEFEATED] Repeal "Preventing Animal Abuse"

[Railana]

For example, GAR#17 explicitly calls for a non-mandatory funding scheme in its preamble, but we both agree that it does, indeed, establish an obligatory funding mechanism.

GAR #17 calls for "solicited donations from national and private benefactors". It's not clear whether such a system would be voluntary or involuntary, so I don't think you can claim that the resolution "explicitly calls for a non-mandatory funding scheme".

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Imperium Anglorum]

For example, GAR#17 explicitly calls for a non-mandatory funding scheme in its preamble, but we both agree that it does, indeed, establish an obligatory funding mechanism.

Sciongrad makes a good point here, IA. Your method of interpretation is apparently inconsistent.

It's very consistent. Interpret in a way that the proposal you're currently looking at is legal (this, by the way, is what makes it appear inconsistent, since I'll say contradictory things to make different proposals interpretable as legal). Otherwise, in the abstract, go with the two options of nations trying to assert their rights or the WA trying to get its own powers.

[Araraukar]

Could the target resolution be reasonably interpreted to rule out pest control for farmers? After all, many pest control methods do not kill the target organism - some of which may be just below sapience threshold, to keep the "what feels pain and stress and what doesn't" away from this question - in a kind and humane way, but rather by causing internal bleeding (OOC: rat poison) or tumours (OOC: myxomatosis in rabbit control) or liver failure or suffocation or any number of nasty ways to die.

Or is it all down to the cruelty clause? If the farmer says "I want those damn pests die suffering" it's cruelty, but if they say "I just want those damn pests to stop eating my crops" it's not?

If you're trying to rid your field, house, whatever, of a pest, using pest control is not "cruel" or "malicious".

Even though it's harming/killing an animal in what many would consider a cruel manner, at least if their pet was to be euthanized in the same manner?

OOC: I know you deleted the post, but still posting this extra argument.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Could the target resolution be reasonably interpreted to rule out pest control for farmers? After all, many pest control methods do not kill the target organism - some of which may be just below sapience threshold, to keep the "what feels pain and stress and what doesn't" away from this question - in a kind and humane way, but rather by causing internal bleeding (OOC: rat poison) or tumours (OOC: myxomatosis in rabbit control) or liver failure or suffocation or any number of nasty ways to die.

OOC: I, unsurprisingly, would interpret it in the former way. I entirely agree with the absolutist characterisation of the prefatory clauses given by Auralia, so I don't have any doubt in my mind on that topic. And about that, in your pesticide thing, put in that nations have a right to decide whether to ban them or not (or something like that).

[Araraukar]

OOC: And about that, in your pesticide thing, put in that nations have a right to decide whether to ban them or not (or something like that).

OOC: I'm not going to be talking about that proposal outside its drafting thread, sorry. I was just asking the question of whether people think this repeal's target does ban pest control, because if it does, then it could be one additional point for the repeal argument.

[Bad Libertopia]

Home pest control like setting a roach trap (roaches carry disease) could be construed as "self-defense".

But an ant poison that wipes out an entire colony is like shooting a burglar and going and murdering his extended family in their homes.

Is spraying pesticides on a farm self-defense? Animal species are indigenous to the land, then a farmer shows up, plants some crops, and he sprays chemicals to kill millions of them.

[Sciongrad]

For example, GAR#17 explicitly calls for a non-mandatory funding scheme in its preamble, but we both agree that it does, indeed, establish an obligatory funding mechanism.

GAR #17 calls for "solicited donations from national and private benefactors". It's not clear whether such a system would be voluntary or involuntary, so I don't think you can claim that the resolution "explicitly calls for a non-mandatory funding scheme".

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

"It does make a point to distinguish 'solicited donations from national and private benefactors' from 'coerced taxation,' however. I may have overstated my case when I argued that the clause was explicit, but the intended meaning is obvious."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Yet another animal-abuse resolution. Coming to vote in 48 minutes.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Yet another animal-abuse resolution. Coming to vote in 48 minutes.

OOC: Never liked noon votes.

[Khar Od]

"Hoping that replacement legislation on animal cruelty will soon be passed"

Hoping that replacement legislation will be passed when none that I am aware of are in draft. I am voting no on this until a plausible replacement proposal is brought forth.

-President Delkhiin Azarga

[Imperium Anglorum]

Your vote matters today.

Votes For: 609
Votes Against: 608

The margin is basically 1 vote!

EDIT: Well, for a few moments at least. It's spread out again.

[Blunited States]

I do not sponsor this resolution. I have a soft spot for animals (dogs in particular) and abusing them is just plain wrong.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Yet another animal-abuse resolution. Coming to vote in 48 minutes.

OOC: Never liked noon votes.

Are you in New York?

[Riddleness]

It is really annoying to deal with another animal abuse resolution. How about an entertaining one, for shits and giggles.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Never liked noon votes.

Are you in New York?

OOC: I do live in US Eastern Time, yes.

[Excidium Planetis]

Are you in New York?

OOC: I do live in US Eastern Time, yes.

Always thought you were a Brit. Are you a Brit that lives in the US?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I do live in US Eastern Time, yes.

Always thought you were a Brit. Are you a Brit that lives in the US?

Yup.

[The Ego-Maniacal Juggernauts]

Why is it that every time legislation is passed, someone writes a counter bill repealing that legislation? And why is it that the repeal passes?

What the hell are we doing? What's the point of voting for a bill if we are just going to repeal it immediately after its passed?

Someone help me understand it, because it makes no sense.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why is it that every time legislation is passed, someone writes a counter bill repealing that legislation? And why is it that the repeal passes?

What the hell are we doing? What's the point of voting for a bill if we are just going to repeal it immediately after its passed?

Someone help me understand it, because it makes no sense.

Because there is never a way to have the arguments on both sides heard. Most voters do not read the forums and maybe, possibly, read the proposal. If they do, that's one side of the issue. The repeal is the other side of the issue where the WA can reconsider its previous action.

[Excidium Planetis]

Why is it that every time legislation is passed, someone writes a counter bill repealing that legislation? And why is it that the repeal passes?

What the hell are we doing? What's the point of voting for a bill if we are just going to repeal it immediately after its passed?

Someone help me understand it, because it makes no sense.

"Because people are sheep. That, and often times issues with the proposal that was passed do not come to the attention of voters until too late." Schultz replies.

[Oceanias Elena Inge Dreyden]

Strongly opposed to this. We voted against this repeal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Strongly opposed to this. We voted against this repeal.

Yea, yea. Why?

[Tinfect]

Strongly opposed to this. We voted against this repeal.

Yea, yea. Why?

OOC:
The Target Resolution has a nice fluffy title.

[Sciongrad]

Yea, yea. Why?

OOC:
The Target Resolution has a nice fluffy title.

OOC: Or because the argument presented is unconvincing. A repeal by almost the exact same name passed within the last year. I don't think voters are stupid and I don't think they just change their votes arbitrarily.

[Normlpeople]

OOC:
The Target Resolution has a nice fluffy title.

OOC: Or because the argument presented is unconvincing. A repeal by almost the exact same name passed within the last year. I don't think voters are stupid and I don't think they just change their votes arbitrarily.

OOC: You've been around here far too long to believe that. Its a fluffy title, a bleeding heart issue and its the summer invasion.

Wait till school starts again and this will breeze through.

IC: "I've been instructed to unconditionally support any repeal attempt of this resolution. I have cast the Kingdoms vote FOR. Clover would have delivered the vote personally, but she's on a hunting trip or something. Shooting animals."