NationStates

[title] Mary Had A Little Lamb

[desc] Just as you're about to pack up and go home for the evening, Mary @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, a distraught, crying 5 year old girl marches her way past your security guards and into your office.

[validity] must allow meat, must allow pets

[option] "Baarrrb is dead!" cries Mary @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, the five year old in question, whilst having a panic attack. "She was- she was the cu- the cutest little la- lamb ever! She even fol- she even followed me to school one day! But t-today sh- she didn't. When I came home from school I asked mummy what was for di- dinner and she sai- ai- she said Baarrrb was! Make it illegal for mummies and daddies to kill pets for f- food!"
[effect] treating livestock with dignity legally prevents the owner from sending it to the slaughter house

[option] Your secretary walks her out and tries to comfort her whilst your security guards allow the mother to enter. "@@LEADER@@, you have to understand, we're trying to raise our own food as small-holders. We're doing it so we can help the environment and have fresh meat! I told her not to name the bloody thing, but she did anyway! Centuries ago, people used to kill their pets all the time with no qualms! We need to better educate children to better deal with death of pets."
[effect] "your pet will die!" is a mandatory school subject for kindergarteners

[option] "Growing one's own food is the tool of capitalist swine!" informs @@RANDOMNAME@@, your minister of socialism. "If people own animals and kill them, it contradicts our great collective and gives people more food than their rations allow, whilst others can't share in those animals. Ban the practice!"
[option validity] must be communist
[effect] eating any animals which dies in one's home is a criminal offence

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=465902

The rest of the dilemma is weird. Subsistence farming is something that people in primarily developing countries practice - IMO it's not widespread enough for every meat-eating nation in the multiverse to receive this issue. Maybe more primitive nations... say, nations not in the top 10% of scientific advancement or something.

SherpDaWerp wrote:Subsistence farming is something that people in primarily developing countries practice

Not necessarily. Even people who are wealthy enough to be able to buy their food in a store will sometimes keep an animal or two of their own (most often chickens, because they're small, cheap to care for, and lay eggs, but a lamb is possible depending on where you live) in order to save a little money or have super-fresh food. Children taking a liking to a "pet" that their parents had just meant to butcher for food is uncommon, but it can happen, even in developed countries.

Trotterdam wrote:

SherpDaWerp wrote:Subsistence farming is something that people in primarily developing countries practice

Not necessarily. Even people who are wealthy enough to be able to buy their food in a store will sometimes keep an animal or two of their own (most often chickens, because they're small, cheap to care for, and lay eggs, but a lamb is possible depending on where you live) in order to save a little money or have super-fresh food. Children taking a liking to a "pet" that their parents had just meant to butcher for food is uncommon, but it can happen, even in developed countries.

I wasn't really considering the typical "backyard chicken" to be subsistence farming, but I guess that's true. Option 2 seems to imply they are doing a bit more than just keeping a few backyard animals though, by naming them as "6th-generation subsistence farmers".

An issue like this (with different family members not all being on the same page about what's going on) is far more likely to come up in a family that's just dabbling than in a family whose entire lifestyle revolves around this.

Trotterdam wrote:An issue like this (with different family members not all being on the same page about what's going on) is far more likely to come up in a family that's just dabbling than in a family whose entire lifestyle revolves around this.

Then that should probably be put in the issue, rather than calling them 6th-generation subsistence farmers.

subsistence farming is not at all incompatable with technological advancement. however, and interesting additional option would be to give farm animals the vote.

also meat mountains (cloned meat tissue) provide sapient carnivours an alternative to killing their pray, and in a future tech world, could be an alternative for subsistence farmers as well.

SherpDaWerp wrote:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=465902

The rest of the dilemma is weird. Subsistence farming is something that people in primarily developing countries practice - IMO it's not widespread enough for every meat-eating nation in the multiverse to receive this issue. Maybe more primitive nations... say, nations not in the top 10% of scientific advancement or something.

Trotterdam wrote:Not necessarily. Even people who are wealthy enough to be able to buy their food in a store will sometimes keep an animal or two of their own (most often chickens, because they're small, cheap to care for, and lay eggs, but a lamb is possible depending on where you live) in order to save a little money or have super-fresh food. Children taking a liking to a "pet" that their parents had just meant to butcher for food is uncommon, but it can happen, even in developed countries.

Thanks you two for the feedback. I remembered that issue. I tried to make this issue distinct. Though, if any issue editors say that there's too much overlap between this and yours, I'll ditch this one because you should get first dibs. Now, as for subsistance farming, it's not widespread, but people do own animals for food. This is actually based on a story my dad told me. Despite the fact that both his parents worked full time, he came home and found his pet on the dinner table. I'll change it to say that they kept a pet lamb rather than being subsistence farmers. The rest of the feedback that you two provide just keeps following the same discussion, so I think I'll end it here

Cameroi wrote:subsistence farming is not at all incompatable with technological advancement. however, and interesting additional option would be to give farm animals the vote.

also meat mountains (cloned meat tissue) provide sapient carnivours an alternative to killing their pray, and in a future tech world, could be an alternative for subsistence farmers as well.

Thanks for the feedback. We already have issues about giving animals the vote (though this refers specifically to the national animal, rather than pets) and we already have an issues about VAT grown meat. I also feel that both are out of the scope of this issue. As such, I don't think I should add either of them, but if anyone else thinks I should, I shall

Maybe refer to them as 'smallholders'?

Australian rePublic wrote:Thanks you two for the feedback. I remembered that issue. I tried to make this issue distinct. Though, if any issue editors say that there's too much overlap between this and yours, I'll ditch this one because you should get first dibs. Now, as for subsistance farming, it's not widespread, but people do own animals for food. This is actually based on a story my dad told me. Despite the fact that both his parents worked full time, he came home and found his pet on the dinner table. I'll change it to say that they kept a pet lamb rather than being subsistence farmers. The rest of the feedback that you two provide just keeps following the same discussion, so I think I'll end it here

That issue's not mine, and it's also not submitted AFAIK. Just wondering whether this draft may have been connected. Making it more along the lines of what Trotterdam described, where people often keep traditionally farm-dwelling animals in suburban homes, would be much more reasonable IMO than having 6th-generation subsistence farmers (and their kid, soon to be a 7th-generation subsistence farmer) unsure of what happens to their animals.

Bears Armed wrote:Maybe refer to them as 'smallholders'?

Not sure about that, wouldn't that be commercial?

SherpDaWerp wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Thanks you two for the feedback. I remembered that issue. I tried to make this issue distinct. Though, if any issue editors say that there's too much overlap between this and yours, I'll ditch this one because you should get first dibs. Now, as for subsistance farming, it's not widespread, but people do own animals for food. This is actually based on a story my dad told me. Despite the fact that both his parents worked full time, he came home and found his pet on the dinner table. I'll change it to say that they kept a pet lamb rather than being subsistence farmers. The rest of the feedback that you two provide just keeps following the same discussion, so I think I'll end it here

That issue's not mine, and it's also not submitted AFAIK. Just wondering whether this draft may have been connected. Making it more along the lines of what Trotterdam described, where people often keep traditionally farm-dwelling animals in suburban homes, would be much more reasonable IMO than having 6th-generation subsistence farmers (and their kid, soon to be a 7th-generation subsistence farmer) unsure of what happens to their animals.

Fixed, cheers.
I changed "sheeps" at the end of the first option to "pets", which is a shame, because I liked the little charm that "sheeps" gave. It was wrong, but not too wrong, exactly what you'd expect from a five-year-old

Australian rePublic wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:Maybe refer to them as 'smallholders'?

Not sure about that, wouldn't that be commercial?

Can be that, can be subsistence, can be to supplement income from regular employment which is what I was thinking of in this context. Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallholding

Bears Armed wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Not sure about that, wouldn't that be commercial?

Can be that, can be subsistence, can be to supplement income from regular employment which is what I was thinking of in this context. Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallholding

Fair enough. Changed in second option. Thanks

Bump?

Last call

I like it! Some stuff:

Australian rePublic wrote:a distraught, crying 5-year-old girl [hyphens needed!]

"5" would look much better as "five", in my opinion, especially when you take into account consistency with the first option.

The second use of "@@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@" will likely sound strange after its use in the description. Given that she's five, you can probably get away with just saying "Mary".

Australian rePublic wrote:the five-year-old in question, [same thing]

Technically, all the points where she hiccups and her words get cut off should be "—", not "-", but that's not particularly important…
This effect line feels awkward and wordy, and honestly the joke just doesn't land for me, sorry. :/ What about:

meat-loving farmers are on the lam

Australian rePublic wrote:Your secretary walks her out and tries to comfort her whilst your security guards allow the mother to enter.

This feels like kind of a long opener (at least to be without humour); you could probably shorten it a good deal. Also, I feel like there's a "sheepish" pun in there somewhere.
You use "pet" twice in close succession near the end of the option, which feels a tad repetitive; what about closing with "… deal with these deaths."? There's a similar problem with "better" too.

With the "Growing one's own food" bit of the last option… I'd say "Raising" or something else instead, as you don't really grow a sheep.
Having the speaker "inform" @@LEADER@@ makes the subject matter sound like a fact rather than an opinion, so it feels a little off. Maybe or "rants"?

Australian rePublic wrote:"If people own animals and kill them, it contradicts our great collective

You start this sentence by talking about what people (i.e. "they") do, then switch to "it". You could say "they are contradicting…" instead, or something along those lines. But not "contradicting", because you can only contradict a statement, not a "collective".
Again, this effect line doesn't land for me. It feels like a simple restatement of the option, especially since animals don't tend to die in one's home unless one kills them…

Hope this helps!

Looks like I never got around to submitting this, so, submitted

Though, it also looks like I didn't take Authoritaria-Imoeria's criticism into account. D'oh! Should I resubmit after revaluation based on his/her suggestions?