[DISCARDED] People are Strange When You're @@A@@ @@ANIMAL@@

[Jutsa]

IMPORTANT:

I still have no idea if the draft I fear a redo could have serious overlap with is actually (still) in the pool or not. Until I find out, this'll more-or-less be on hold.

(that said, if you wanna give feedback to a draft that might not exist within a few days, feel free to :3)

So, has anyone ever wondered what happens if you pick one of the options in #502 — where not only one, but [/i]two[/i] thirds of the options involve giving animals personhood?

Well, I've created a couple of interesting drafts based on that.
Also, if this is a bad idea, you can say so, but frankly I can see a lot of ramifications from this.
I haven't even written anything for nations with @@ANIMAL@@ citizenship who eat @@ANIMALS@@ but cannibalism is illegal... probably even more niche than this, though.

At any rate, this one's specifically for nations where they're citizens, so this is easily a chain issue.
That said, I really really do hope that "animals are people" is a flag, or, if not, can be a new flag.

Title: People are Strange When You're @@A@@ @@ANIMAL@@
The Issue: After the full citizenship of @@ANIMALPLURAL@@, @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ humans are now questioning how on earth they're going to survive in human society, citing unemployment, lack of health care, and road kill by bicycle.
Validity: Chain issue for #502.3

Option 1: "You really didn't think this whole giving citizenship to @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ thing through, did you?" interrogates @@RANDOMNAME@@, trying to shoo off @@A@@ @@ANIMAL@@ biting @@HIS@@ pantleg. "How do you expect them to work or run a household? I'm not sure if you've noticed, but while they're smart, they're not that smart. They can keep their people status, but for the love of Violet, stop regarding them as citizens."
[effect] @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ can spend their entire lives not having to lift a finger thanks to their human slaves

Option 2: "I told you not to listen to those quacks!" fumes @@RANDOMNAME@@, who has a phobia of both @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ and losing @@HIS@@ job. "You should never have let these ferocious beasts take away our jobs, homes, and free mints at restaurants! Take away all of their personhood and civil rights, and have the government sieze any possessions they might somehow own!"
[effect] @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ are upset @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ baby-talk to them about why their mansions have been stolen

Option 3: "What is wrong with you humans!" hisses @@RANDOMNAME@@, who seems to think that @@HE@@ is the pet of @@A@@ @@ANIMAL@@. "You can't relieve our fellow citizens the right to humanity! We can fix this by teaching them how to become functioning members of society. Let @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ go to optional training schools, run by me and Mr. Puffles, so they can learn how to do things on their own."
[effect] @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ are required by law to be able to work in scientific research

[Trotterdam]

road kill by bicycle

Bicycles don't go fast enough to kill most animals larger than a bug (of course, @@ANIMAL@@ can be anything from a bug to a whale), and are easier to dodge (and are better at swerving) than cars. I understand you're trying to make this applicable to nations where cars are banned, but it isn't very likely.

[effect] @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ are required by law to be able to work in scientific research

Huh?

Actually, Huh? to the whole issue.

The whole situation is kinda confused. Which is understandable, but still. At least, you need to have more @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ in the narrative actually doing stuff. They're citizens now, after all! Their opinion matters.

[Jutsa]

Good points @bicycle @animals doing stuff @everything behing "HUH".

Can't tell if that last one's a good or a bad thing but I'm happy about it regardless.

[Ab Humanitatis Scientiam]

Might it help if the issue can more carefully differentiate between personhood versus citizenship? #502 seems to focus specifically on granting the former because @@ANIMALS@@ has certain characteristics of sentience. These characteristics imply that @@ANIMALS@@ deserve certain protections (from abuse, etc) but no one really expects them to wear ties and hold down jobs.

Hmm...except #502.3.

How about an issue concerning the design of a voting process so as to accommodate non-human persons? Like the classic mirror test, but with chads and butterfly ballots, and how that can all go hilariously right/wrong? Marking ballots by poop slinging. Or elephants creating works of art with the marker pen, leading to ambiguity as to who they actually voted for. Etc.

[Jutsa]

The thing is that there are so many interesting ramifications that giving @@ANIMAL@@s personhood alone brings up.
Ed: I specifically chose this route so pretty much any nation could get it if they picked that option.
Ed2: Huh, guess that option actually opens up political elections... may actually take another look at this.

Still, thinking about it, one of my other two drafts is actually probably too niche and unlikely to ever occur to really be worth adding,
though the other one I have lined up would apply to both citizenship and personhood.

That said, I'd definitely like to keep this one specifically for citizenship.

[Ab Humanitatis Scientiam]

That said, I'd definitely like to keep this one specifically for citizenship.

How about an issue concerning the design of a voting process so as to accommodate non-human persons? Like the classic mirror test, but with chads and butterfly ballots, and how that can all go hilariously right/wrong? Marking ballots by poop slinging. Or elephants creating works of art with the marker pen, leading to ambiguity as to who they actually voted for. Etc.

[Jutsa]

Yeah, edited my post a couple times... yeah, that option does actually relegalize voting if you don't already have it so I'll try to take that approach.

[Ab Humanitatis Scientiam]

Yeah, edited my post a couple times... yeah, that option does actually relegalize voting if you don't already have it so I'll try to take that approach.

I like the mirror test as a frame, because it, much like voting, may not actually indicate self-awareness or intelligence at all.

It's debatable, anyway.

[Jutsa]

Hmm, that actually does give me an idea, since looking at this I may have gotten the wrong idea when I read "give (animals) citizenship." as anything but "give (animals) voting rights".

That said, I wouldn't know how to actually frame that into an issue, if you have any ideas.
Until then, I'll stick to this and maybe add some references to voting in it like I originally did before removing it for dictatorships.

[Trotterdam]

Marking ballots by poop slinging.

Isn't that how political campaigns already work anyway?

I like the mirror test as a frame, because it, much like voting, may not actually indicate self-awareness or intelligence at all.

You know, I failed the mirror test once. I was trying to pass another person in a hallway, but was stymied because whenever I tried to duck in one direction, the other person just happened to try ducking in the same direction at the same time, still blocking my path, until I realized that the "hallway" I was tying to head into was actually a wall-sized mirror. (I figured it out when my reflection started laughing about the predicament at the same time I did.) Sure, I was distracted, but still.

I think "self-awareness" is a dumb concept anyway. I'm pretty sure nearly all animals are aware of their own existence, and for that matter, also aware of the existence of that critter in the mirror. Realizing that those two are the same being requires some intelligence, but failing to do so doesn't mean you're not self-aware, any more than a doctor being able to tell you more about your body than you know yourself means you're not self-aware. You're still aware of your own existence and actions, and the mirror image's existence and actions, you just failed to notice the suspicious similarities between those actions.

As for whether voting indicates intelligence, well... looking at the outcomes of many elections, signs point to no

[Ab Humanitatis Scientiam]

Hmm, that actually does give me an idea, since looking at this I may have gotten the wrong idea when I read "give (animals) citizenship." as anything but "give (animals) voting rights".

That said, I wouldn't know how to actually frame that into an issue, if you have any ideas.
...

[validity] Previously selected #502.3

[description] After @@ANIMALS@@ were granted the right to vote, the @@DENONYM@@ Voting Commission is holding a mock election to test various voting methods for @@NAME@@'s more oligodactic citizens.

And then the various options address various forms of human-animal communication, with advocates of animal voting dismissing some problems, and opponents emphasizing them.

So...

1) Equine citizens vote by hoof-stamping. Sure, they may just be responding to subtle clues unconsciously projected by their owners, but that's no different from election advertisements, so is it really a problem?

2) Yes, of course that's a problem. Just look at that elephant. It used the ballot marker pen to create a perfect duplicate of the Barry Lisa. Not only will this disrupt the international art market, but more than one ballot choice is marked. Which is their true vote? Absurd!

3) Everyone knows voting is just a bunch of crap-slinging anyway, and what the apes are doing to their ballots is just unspeakable! Reduce voting rights all round, etc.

[Trotterdam]

oligodactic

Okay, I think you just won this thread for that.

[Ab Humanitatis Scientiam]

oligodactic

Okay, I think you just won this thread for that.

**bows**

[Jutsa]

Well, on one hand it does pain me to see this one go out the window, but your idea is frankly more consistent with what the option seems to actually be proposing.

I'll go ahead and work on it. In the meantime I'll wait until tomorrow to upload another draft; may wanna fix a different one up a bit first.

[Jutsa]

Hmm, think I should go ahead and keep the title though?

[Jutsa]

Oh, wait, I seem to recall a draft about animals voting, actually...
and it wasn't even for this option.

That definitely could prove to be a bit too much overlap if it's been accepted...

[Ab Humanitatis Scientiam]

I'll go ahead and work on it. In the meantime I'll wait until tomorrow to upload another draft; may wanna fix a different one up a bit first.

Having thought about it a bit, one might consider a fourth option where research into appendage-challenged voting might end up benefiting @@DENONYMS@@ with disabilities.

Perhaps a sort of "full non-human citizenship is maybe a bit too far, but a society taking alternately-cognitive persons seriously may be hugely beneficial in other ways" position.

[Australian rePublic]

Effect for option 1- how does this make humanity a slave?

[Ab Humanitatis Scientiam]

Effect for option 1- how does this make humanity a slave?

If you've ever owned a cat, then that's the joke.

[Australian rePublic]

Effect for option 1- how does this make humanity a slave?

If you've ever owned a cat, then that's the joke.

Oh. I see

[Bears Armed]

road kill by bicycle

Bicycles don't go fast enough to kill most animals larger than a bug

Speaking as a cyclist whose route to & from work includes some lengthy slopes on which my bike can build up considerable momentum, I'd say that small mammals such as rabbits and [grey] squirrels would be potentially at risk too -- and maybe even some ground-feeding birds, as well -- if they don't get out of the way in time. I haven't actually hit any yet, and hope not to do so, but...

[Jutsa]

I still have no idea if the draft I fear a redo could have serious overlap with is actually (still) in the pool or not. Until I find out, this'll more-or-less be on hold.

(that said, if you wanna give feedback to a draft that might not exist within a few days, feel free to :3)