[WITHDRAWN] Fair Use of GMOs

[A Humanist Science]

The Federation of A Humanist Science hereby submits the following draft proposal, Fair Use of GMOs for critique and debate:

THE FEDERATION HAS SUSPENDED THIS PROPOSAL pending the exploration of an alternative proposal intended to address the problem of commercial/non-commercial use raised by participants in this discussion.

Fifth, and current draft:

Fair Use of GMOs

Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

SADDENED by the continued struggle of many of the poor to secure sufficient and affordable daily nutrition;

RECOGNIZING the potential of genetically modified organism (GMO) technologies to provide for more blight-resistant and nutritious crops;

ACKNOWLEDGING the immense expenses incurred by the producers of GMOs seeking safe and effective genetic modification methodologies;

NOTING the use of genetic use restriction technologies (GURT) by producers of GMOs, as a means of recuperating research expenses by maintaining exclusive production and sale of GMOs, which take two general forms:

• V-GURT - a variety-level restriction technology, which causes a cultivar to produce sterile seed;
  
• T-GURT - a trait-level restriction technology, which prevents a cultivar from expressing a desirable trait unless treated with a specific and exclusively supplied chemical substance;

DEFINING "Subsistence farming" to consist of the keeping of livestock and the production of crops by farmers seeking to feed themselves and their families, producing little surplus;

CONCERNED that the use of V-GURT and T-GURT techniques may greatly increase the expense of subsistence farming by the poor, because these techniques effectively prevent seed saving and so require the purchase of new seed and activators from exclusive producers for each new crop;

ALARMED that patent law existing at the national and international levels, to the extent that such law protects the use of V-GURT and T-GURT techniques, legally codifies and enforces these disadvantages faced by subsistence farmers;

SEEKING to establish in all member states the right of Fair Use of GMOs, in order to remedy the noted economic disadvantage suffered by subsistence farmers;

HEREBY RESOLVES that:

1) Member states shall not prevent any subsistence farmer, group of subsistance farmers, nor any public or private non-profit organization providing assistance to subsistence farmers, from:

• Reverse engineering GMO seed so as to remove any V-GURT or T-GURT traits;
  
• Sowing such reverse-engineered seed or harvesting the resulting produce and any seed contained therein;
  
• Collecting and storing such reverse-engineered seed.

2) Member states shall not prevent the publishing and dissemination of the methods and results of any process pertaining to the reverse engineering of GMO seed for the purposes of subsistence farming.

3) Member states shall not allow any injunction, nor claim of damages, to be brought against any person or organization engaged in the reverse engineering of GMO seed for the purposes of subsistence farming.

4) No part of this resolution shall otherwise affect the legality of GMO technologies generally, nor genetic use restriction technologies specifically.

5) No part of this resolution shall prevent the General Assembly from addressing the legality or regulation of GMO technologies generally, nor genetic use restriction technologies specifically, in future resolutions.

Fair Use of Genetically Modified Organisms

Category: Social Justice | Strength: Significant

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

SADDENED by the continued struggle of the world's poor to secure sufficient and affordable daily nutrition;

RECOGNIZING the potential of genetically modified organism (GMO) technologies to provide for more blight-resistant and nutritious crops;

ACKNOWLEDGING the immense expenses incurred by public and private researchers in developing safe and effective genetic modification methodologies, as well as the right of these entities to protect their biological intellectual properties in order to recover compensation for these expenses;

NOTING the use of genetic use restriction technologies (GURT) by producers of GMO technologies, which takes two general forms:

• V-GURT - a variety-level restriction technology, which causes a cultivar to produce sterile seed;
  
• T-GURT - a trait-level restriction technology, which prevents a cultivar from expressing a desirable trait unless treated with a specific and exclusively supplied chemical substance;

CONCERNED that the use of V-GURT and T-GURT techniques may greatly increase the expense of crop production for the world's poor, by preventing seed saving and so requiring the purchase of new seed and activators from exclusive producers for each new crop;

SEEKING to secure continued beneficial GMO research by allowing for the reasonable recovery of expenses while also ensuring the ability of the world's poor to grow and harvest sufficient and affordable daily nutrition;

HEREBY RESOLVES to recognize and guarantee certain GMO fair use rights:

• The right of all persons to reverse engineer commercially-obtained legally purchased GMO seed, for the purpose of circumventing V-GURT and T-GURT techniques, in order to restore fertility to seed intended to produce crops for non-commercial use;
  
• The right of all persons to sow such restored seed, and to harvest the resulting produce and any fertile seeds contained therein, for non-commercial use;
  
• The right of all persons to collect and store such restored seed for non-commercial use.

Remembering the above guarantees, and pursuant to existing international law:

• No part of this resolution shall affect the legality of either GMO technologies generally, nor genetic use restriction technologies specifically;
  
• No part of this resolution shall prevent the General Assembly from addressing the legality or regulation of GMO technologies generally, nor genetic use restriction technologies specifically, in future resolutions.

Fair Use of Genetically Modified Organisms

Category: Social Justice | Strength: Significant

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

SADDENED by the continued struggle of the poor to secure sufficient and affordable daily nutrition;

RECOGNIZING the potential of genetically modified organism (GMO) technologies to provide for more blight-resistant and nutritious crops;

ACKNOWLEDGING the immense expenses incurred by public and private researchers in developing safe and effective genetic modification methodologies;

NOTING the use of genetic use restriction technologies (GURT) by producers of GMOs, as a means of maintaining exclusive production and sale of said GMOs, which take two general forms:

• V-GURT - a variety-level restriction technology, which causes a cultivar to produce sterile seed;
  
• T-GURT - a trait-level restriction technology, which prevents a cultivar from expressing a desirable trait unless treated with a specific and exclusively supplied chemical substance;

CONCERNED that the use of V-GURT and T-GURT techniques may greatly increase the expense of crop production by, and so the sustenance of, the poor, because these techniques effectively prevent seed saving and so require the purchase of new seed and activators from exclusive producers for each new crop;

SEEKING to secure continued beneficial GMO research by protecting manufacturers' commerical interests, while also ensuring the ability of the poor to grow and harvest sufficient and affordable daily nutrition;

HEREBY RESOLVES to recognize and guarantee the following rights of Fair Use of Genetically Modified Organisms:

• The right of all persons to reverse engineer GMO seed purchased legally from authorized manufacturers, ONLY IF for the purpose of removing V-GURT and T-GURT traits, in order to restore fertility to derivative seed, and ONLY IF such derivative seed are not sold for any commercial purpose or profit;
  
• The right of all persons to collect and store reverse-engineered derivative seed, ONLY IF such derivative seed are not sold for any commercial purpose or profit.
  
• The right of all persons to sow reverse-engineered derivative seed, and to harvest the resulting produce and any fertile seeds contained therein, ONLY IF the resulting produce and fertile seed are not sold for any commercial purpose or profit.

Limitations

Pursuant to the above guarantees and existing international law:

• No part of this resolution shall limit or otherwise affect the authority of WA Members to prevent the sale of reverse-engineered derivative seed for commercial use or profit within their recognized legal jurisdictions;
  
• No part of this resolution shall affect the legality of either GMO technologies generally, nor genetic use restriction technologies specifically;
  
• No part of this resolution shall prevent the General Assembly from addressing the legality or regulation of GMO technologies generally, nor genetic use restriction technologies specifically, in future resolutions.

Fair Use of GMOs

Category: Social Justice | Strength: Significant

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

SADDENED by the continued struggle of the poor to secure sufficient and affordable daily nutrition;

RECOGNIZING the potential of genetically modified organism (GMO) technologies to provide for more blight-resistant and nutritious crops;

ACKNOWLEDGING the immense expenses incurred by public and private researchers in developing safe and effective genetic modification methodologies;

NOTING the use of genetic use restriction technologies (GURT) by producers of GMOs, as a means of maintaining exclusive production and sale of said GMOs, which take two general forms:

• V-GURT - a variety-level restriction technology, which causes a cultivar to produce sterile seed;
  
• T-GURT - a trait-level restriction technology, which prevents a cultivar from expressing a desirable trait unless treated with a specific and exclusively supplied chemical substance;

CONCERNED that the use of V-GURT and T-GURT techniques may greatly increase the expense of crop production by, and so the sustenance of, the poor, because these techniques effectively prevent seed saving and so require the purchase of new seed and activators from exclusive producers for each new crop;

SEEKING to secure continued beneficial GMO research by protecting manufacturers' commerical interests, while also ensuring the ability of the poor to grow and harvest sufficient and affordable daily nutrition;

HEREBY RESOLVES to recognize and guarantee the following rights of Fair Use of GMOs:

• The right of all persons to reverse engineer GMO seed purchased legally from authorized manufacturers, ONLY IF for the purpose of removing V-GURT and T-GURT traits, in order to restore fertility to derivative seed, and ONLY IF such derivative seed are not sold for any commercial purpose or profit;
  
• The right of all persons to collect and store reverse-engineered derivative seed, ONLY IF such derivative seed are not sold for any commercial purpose or profit.
  
• The right of all persons to sow reverse-engineered derivative seed, and to harvest the resulting produce and any fertile seeds contained therein, ONLY IF the resulting produce and fertile seed are not sold for any commercial purpose or profit.

Limitations

Pursuant to the above guarantees and existing international law:

• No part of this resolution shall limit or otherwise affect the authority of WA Members to prevent the sale of reverse-engineered derivative seed for commercial use or profit within their recognized legal jurisdictions;
  
• No part of this resolution shall affect the legality of either GMO technologies generally, nor genetic use restriction technologies specifically;
  
• No part of this resolution shall prevent the General Assembly from addressing the legality or regulation of GMO technologies generally, nor genetic use restriction technologies specifically, in future resolutions.

Fair Use of GMOs

Category: Social Justice | Strength: Significant

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

SADDENED by the continued struggle of the poor to secure sufficient and affordable daily nutrition;

RECOGNIZING the potential of genetically modified organism (GMO) technologies to provide for more blight-resistant and nutritious crops;

ACKNOWLEDGING the immense expenses incurred by producers of GMOs in developing safe and effective genetic modification methodologies;

NOTING the use of genetic use restriction technologies (GURT) by producers of GMOs, as a means of recuperating research expenses by maintaining exclusive production and sale of GMOs, which take two general forms:

• V-GURT - a variety-level restriction technology, which causes a cultivar to produce sterile seed;
  
• T-GURT - a trait-level restriction technology, which prevents a cultivar from expressing a desirable trait unless treated with a specific and exclusively supplied chemical substance;

DEFINING "Subsistence farming" to consist of the production of crops by farmers seeking to feed themselves and their families, producing little or no surplus;

CONCERNED that the use of V-GURT and T-GURT techniques may greatly increase the expense of subsistence farming by the poor, because these techniques effectively prevent seed saving and so require the purchase of new seed and activators from exclusive producers for each new crop;

SEEKING to enhance the general welfare of the poor who rely on subsistence farming, while still permitting the producers of GMO technologies to recuperate the costs of their research and development;

HEREBY RESOLVES THAT:

1) Subsistence farmers, working alone, in concert with other subsistence farmers, and/or in concert with public or private non-profit institutions providing assistance to subsistence farmers:

• Shall be permitted to reverse engineer GMO seed so as to remove any V-GURT or T-GURT traits;
  
• Shall be permitted to sow such reverse-engineered seed and to harvest the resulting produce and any seed contained therein;
  
• Shall be permitted to collect and store such reverse-engineered seed.

2) WA Members shall retain the authority to prevent subsistence farmers, and/or any public or private non-profit organizations providing assistance to subsistence farmers, from selling or otherwise commercially exploiting reverse-engineered seed.

Limitations

Pursuant to the above and existing international law:

• No part of this resolution shall affect the legality of either GMO technologies generally, nor genetic use restriction technologies specifically;
  
• No part of this resolution shall prevent the General Assembly from addressing the legality or regulation of GMO technologies generally, nor genetic use restriction technologies specifically, in future resolutions.

[Tinfect]

SADDENED by the continued struggle of the world's poor to secure sufficient and affordable daily nutrition;

"Certainly not in the Imperium. And in any case, the Imperium is not on your world, nor our any of our worlds anywhere near it."

The right of all persons to reverse engineer commercially-obtained GMO seed, for the purpose of circumventing V-GURT and T-GURT techniques, in order to restore fertility to seed intended to produce crops for non-commercial use;

"Clearly, your mention of support for private industries to protect their patents, however unreasonable, was a complete and utter falsehood."

[A Humanist Science]

SADDENED by the continued struggle of the world's poor to secure sufficient and affordable daily nutrition;

"Certainly not in the Imperium. And in any case, the Imperium is not on your world, nor our any of our worlds anywhere near it."

"Point taken. Thank you."

[A Humanist Science]

The right of all persons to reverse engineer commercially-obtained GMO seed, for the purpose of circumventing V-GURT and T-GURT techniques, in order to restore fertility to seed intended to produce crops for non-commercial use;

"Clearly, your mention of support for private industries to protect their patents, however unreasonable, was a complete and utter falsehood."

"The purpose of patents is generally to allow for the recovery of research and development costs, by providing for an exclusive right to production in commercial ventures. This draft is intended to allow for such patents - due to the undeniable R&D costs involved - by restricting the fair use rights recognized therein to non-commercial use.

"Many legal jurisdictions, in fact, provide for exceptions to intellectual property protections prohibiting reverse engineering, with the conditional that the resulting knowledge not be used to develop commercially competing products.

"The purpose of this draft is to permit people to circumvent GURT traits if necessary to feed themselves. The removal of GURT traits in order to circumvent patent protection in commercial ventures is not permitted by this draft, as only non-commerical use is explicitly authorized."

[A Humanist Science]

The right of all persons to reverse engineer commercially-obtained GMO seed, for the purpose of circumventing V-GURT and T-GURT techniques, in order to restore fertility to seed intended to produce crops for non-commercial use;

"Clearly, your mention of support for private industries to protect their patents, however unreasonable, was a complete and utter falsehood."

"Additional to our comments above, many legal jurisdictions also recognize an 'exhaustion' doctrine (called by some the "first sale doctrine") which holds that a patent holders' right to exclusive control of a specific article ceases once that article is sold to a consumer by an authorized manufacturer.

"Under such a doctrine, the owner of a patent on a toaster heating element, for example, may not prohibit you from actually using your legally purchased toaster containing such a heating element on a particular day or with a particular type of bread. You may even disassemble, repair, and even improve your particular toaster, if you like.

"This draft simply creates such a common sense doctrine for biological patents. Commercially obtained seed, purchased from authorized manufacturers, should be repairable and improvable by the purchaser for their own use."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Are the "GURT" things actual worlds from real life or are they lifted off of the original resolution that used them? If the latter, try using a new way to say it to avoid plagiarism claims.

And every time I read any of the acronyms, my brain wants to add "yo" to the front, and tries to make me hungry.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Are the "GURT" things actual worlds from real life or are they lifted off of the original resolution that used them? If the latter, try using a new way to say it to avoid plagiarism claims.

And every time I read any of the acronyms, my brain wants to add "yo" to the front, and tries to make me hungry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology

[A Humanist Science]

Bumped for new draft intended to clarify the purpose and intention of the fair use rights proposed, as well as the intended protections of the commercial interests of GMO producers.

[Wusmeinia]

Well I was always a supporter of GMOs, you have my support.

[A Humanist Science]

Well I was always a supporter of GMOs, you have my support.

"Thank you ambassador. The Federation recognizes and seeks to support the potential of safe and effective genetic engineering techniques, because of their promise in fighting food shortages through the production of heartier crops. The goal of assisting the most vulnerable is the highest scientific calling. That is precisely why we seek to assert the fair use rights contained in the proposal: to ensure the continued funding of that scientific promise while simultaneously ensuring the continued sustenance of the most vulnerable.

"We continue to appreciate any comments and suggestions for improving this proposal toward those ends."

[A Humanist Science]

Submitted for approval by WA Delegates, as well as to attract additional attention, critique, and suggestions.

[Wallenburg]

How is this Social Justice? It is clearly Free Trade.

[A Humanist Science]

How is this Social Justice? It is clearly Free Trade.

"We decided against the 'Free Trade' category, because this proposal does not recognize the right to freely trade/sell reverse-engineered seed. Indeed, the fair use rights recognized by the proposal in fact disallow the commercial use of reverse-engineered seed, in order to protect the commercial interests of the producers of GMO technologies. Fair use, essentially by definition, does not include any right to compete commercially with the original producers of GMO seed.

"Rather, we selected the 'social justice' category because the purpose of the proposal is to increase the living standards of the poor by allowing them to circumvent V-GURT and T-GURT traits in GMO seed, if necessary to allow their own nutritional sustenance. If necessary, they may create, store, and sow reverse-engineered seed in order to produce crops for their own consumption and health without the additional expense of repeatedly buying new seed (Social Justice), but this proposal does not permit them to sell reverse-engineered seed in competition with the manufacturers of the original GMO seed (so not Free Trade)."

[Wallenburg]

How is this Social Justice? It is clearly Free Trade.

"We decided against the 'Free Trade' category, because this proposal does not recognize the right to freely trade/sell reverse-engineered seed. Indeed, the fair use rights recognized by the proposal in fact disallow the commercial use of reverse-engineered seed, in order to protect the commercial interests of the producers of GMO technologies. Fair use, essentially by definition, does not include any right to compete commercially with the original producers of GMO seed.

"Rather, we selected the 'social justice' category because the purpose of the proposal is to increase the living standards of the poor by allowing them to circumvent V-GURT and T-GURT traits in GMO seed, if necessary to allow their own nutritional sustenance."

This proposal disallows or restricts nothing. All it does is guarantee rights and guarantees that the proposal does not cover certain subjects.

[A Humanist Science]

This proposal disallows or restricts nothing.

The right of all persons to reverse engineer GMO seed purchased legally from authorized manufacturers, ONLY IF for the purpose of removing V-GURT and T-GURT traits, in order to restore fertility to derivative seed, and ONLY IF such derivative seed are not sold for any commercial purpose or profit;

(emphasis added)

"Reverse-engineering of GMO seed is permitted "ONLY IF" the resulting de-GURT-ed seed is NOT used for commercial purpose or profit. This is in line with the general purpose and intention of fair use rights.

"The proposal also explicitly states that all WA Members retain full authority in preventing the use of de-GURT-ed seed for commercial purposes.

"As such, the proposal quite clearly restricts the use of reverse-engineered seed to non-commerical purposes."

All it does is guarantee rights and guarantees that the proposal does not cover certain subjects.

"The intended meaning of this sentence is not clear."

[Wallenburg]

This proposal disallows or restricts nothing.

The right of all persons to reverse engineer GMO seed purchased legally from authorized manufacturers, ONLY IF for the purpose of removing V-GURT and T-GURT traits, in order to restore fertility to derivative seed, and ONLY IF such derivative seed are not sold for any commercial purpose or profit;

(emphasis added)

"Reverse-engineering of GMO seed is permitted "ONLY IF" the resulting de-GURT-ed seed is NOT used for commercial purpose or profit. This is in line with the general purpose and intention of fair use rights.

No, it 'recognizes and guarantees' those rights. That it recognizes those does not mean that all other rights vanish. There is nothing in this proposal about permission.

"The proposal also explicitly states that all WA Members retain full authority in preventing the use of de-GURT-ed seed for commercial purposes.

And that is relevant how?

"As such, the proposal quite clearly restricts the use of reverse-engineered seed to non-commerical purposes."

No, it doesn't. Show me where the words 'prohibits', 'bans', or 'restricts' appears in your proposal.

All it does is guarantee rights and guarantees that the proposal does not cover certain subjects.

"The intended meaning of this sentence is not clear."

Then I suggest you read it again.

[Shazbotdom]

"Only performing THREE days of drafting, then submitting it, seems bad form. I might not be an expert, but honestly you should have done some more drafting, and perhaps waited quite a bit longer before submitting it before the WA Social Justice Board. And also, what we have here, is the fact that you drafted a proposal, then shoe-horned it into a category in which it, most likely, does not even fit into. I suggest dispatching a message to The Secretariat and asking that they remove the proposal from the floor so you can have more time to draft it to the proper category instead of doing what you have done."

Mr. Antuan D. Flaberghast
Shazbotdom Ambassador to the World Assembly

[A Humanist Science]

No, it 'recognizes and guarantees' those rights.

"ONLY IF" a certain conditional is met. That conditional is that the purpose of the reverse-engineering is to produce seed for non-commerical use.

"Thus, anyone seeking to reverse-engineer GMO seed in order to compete commercially against the original producer does not enjoy the rights described in this proposal."

"The proposal also explicitly states that all WA Members retain full authority in preventing the use of de-GURT-ed seed for commercial purposes.

And that is relevant how?

"The provision of enforcement of the aforementioned conditional?"

"As such, the proposal quite clearly restricts the use of reverse-engineered seed to non-commerical purposes."

No, it doesn't. Show me where the words 'prohibits', 'bans', or 'restricts' appears in your proposal.

OOC: Now, see, a statement along the lines of "your restriction should be made more explicit" would have saved a lot of argument. This is actually a valid point.

[Wallenburg]

No, it 'recognizes and guarantees' those rights.

"ONLY IF" a certain conditional is met. That conditional is that the purpose of the reverse-engineering is to produce seed for non-commerical use.

And any other cases of GMO use, therefore, are of no concern to these clauses.

"Thus, anyone seeking to reverse-engineer GMO seed in order to compete commercially against the original producer does not enjoy the rights described in this proposal."

That is absolutely false. If a friend says that he'll guarantee his help in getting you to work only if you do a particular thing, he isn't saying that he will refuse to help under any other circumstances. He is simply saying that doing that thing ensures that he will help you.

And that is relevant how?

"The provision of enforcement of the aforementioned conditional?"

Excuse me? Enforcing a conditional? How do you "enforce a conditional?"

No, it doesn't. Show me where the words 'prohibits', 'bans', or 'restricts' appears in your proposal.

OOC: Now, see, a statement along the lines of "your restriction should be made more explicit" would have saved a lot of argument. This is actually a valid point.

What restriction? I have already said and proven that this restricts nothing.

[A Humanist Science]

If a friend says that he'll guarantee his help in getting you to work only if you do a particular thing, he isn't saying that he will refuse to help under any other circumstances. He is simply saying that doing that thing ensures that he will help you.

"Incorrect. If my friend says she will do A, if I do B, then your conclusion follows. I can do B and expect that she does A. It is also possible that I can do C, and she will do A in that case as well.

"However, if my friend says she will do A ONLY if I do B, then my doing B is the ONLY thing that will cause her to do A. I can do C, and she will not do A. Precisely because B =/= C.

"Thus, the use of 'ONLY IF' in the proposal means that an intent for non-commercial use is required in order for the right to reverse engineer to be recognized as valid. Any other intent prevents recognition of the right; accordingly, reverse engineering in that case may be prevented."

[Wallenburg]

If a friend says that he'll guarantee his help in getting you to work only if you do a particular thing, he isn't saying that he will refuse to help under any other circumstances. He is simply saying that doing that thing ensures that he will help you.

"Incorrect. If my friend says she will do A, if I do B, then your conclusion follows. I can do B and expect that she does A. It is also possible that I can do C, and she will do A in that case as well.

"However, if my friend says she will do A ONLY if I do B, then my doing B is the ONLY thing that will cause her to do A. I can do C, and she will not do A. Precisely because B =/= C.

"Thus, the use of 'ONLY IF' in the proposal means that an intent for non-commercial use is required in order for the right to reverse engineer to be recognized as valid. Any other intent prevents recognition of the right; accordingly, reverse engineering in that case may be prevented."

You are choosing to ignore that your proposal does not say that this right only exists under those conditions, and instead says that the WA only "recognizes and guarantees" that right under those conditions.

[A Humanist Science]

"Incorrect. If my friend says she will do A, if I do B, then your conclusion follows. I can do B and expect that she does A. It is also possible that I can do C, and she will do A in that case as well.

"However, if my friend says she will do A ONLY if I do B, then my doing B is the ONLY thing that will cause her to do A. I can do C, and she will not do A. Precisely because B =/= C.

"Thus, the use of 'ONLY IF' in the proposal means that an intent for non-commercial use is required in order for the right to reverse engineer to be recognized as valid. Any other intent prevents recognition of the right; accordingly, reverse engineering in that case may be prevented."

You are choosing to ignore that your proposal does not say that this right only exists under those conditions, and instead says that the WA only "recognizes and guarantees" that right under those conditions.

"We ignore this distinction because it is not meaningful. If the conditions hold, the WA will recognize and guarantee the rights, and, therefore, the rights exist."

[Wallenburg]

You are choosing to ignore that your proposal does not say that this right only exists under those conditions, and instead says that the WA only "recognizes and guarantees" that right under those conditions.

"We ignore this distinction because it is not meaningful. If the conditions hold, the WA will recognize and guarantee the rights, and, therefore, the rights exist."

The distinction is not only meaningful, but crucial to the proper interpretation of this proposal, and to assessing whether it violates the Category Rule.

You clearly don't understand how the World Assembly works. Rights do not vanish because it does not guarantee them. The World Assembly does not guarantee the right to ride a horse-drawn wagon over a river bridge or the right of private citizens to own military surplus weapons, yet Wallenburgians and many other citizens of member states have these rights.

[A Humanist Science]

Rights do not vanish because it does not guarantee them.

OOC:

OK, I think I see your point now. The problem with the current approach is that it might actually end up limiting the rights of people where, for instance, reverse engineering GMOs is permitted in all cases and situations. In order for the current approach to work, the resolution would have to demonstrate that the rights contained therein can only exist in the specified condition (non-commercial use). Not even I believe that argument will hold.

IC:

You clearly don't understand how the World Assembly works.

"More likely, we are made of flesh and blood and are therefore just as prone to misunderstanding as any other. We accept this probability because misunderstanding, even error, is a normal part of the process of developing knowledge. We are neither dissuaded, nor made afraid.

"Thank you for the enlightening debate. We will request withdrawal of the current submission, and will work on a new draft. We hope you will remain willing to bring the same critical eye to that draft when it is presented."

[A Humanist Science]

Bump for withdrawal of third (premature) draft, and for presentation of fourth draft with the following changes:

• Framing of the proposal as intended to specifically address the general welfare of the subsistence farming poor, so as to better ground the proposal in the "Social Justice" category
• Reframing of "fair use" into specific permitted actions, rather than the previous rights and attempted conditionals.
• Correction of some typos (and no doubt some introduction of new ones)