What would you say then to the people who are running countries where housecats are the dominant species?
Advertisement
by Teretstein » Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:48 am
by Potted Plants United » Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:06 am
Teretstein wrote:What would you say then to the people who are running countries where housecats are the dominant species?
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant
by Teretstein » Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:12 am
by Potted Plants United » Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:17 am
Teretstein wrote:But what if the dominant species isn't sapient? The official dictionary definition of sapient is "appearing to be wise".
I don't have a problem with this proposal in theory, but using the word sapient opens up a lot of grey areas there.
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:34 pm
by Araraukar » Sat Jan 18, 2020 4:45 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Just cut the science fiction technobabble out and use the standard words 'person', 'people', 'individuals', etc.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Jan 18, 2020 5:29 pm
by Maowi » Sat Jan 18, 2020 7:33 pm
Araraukar wrote:OOC: More than half asleep, but why's clause 8 saying they can't kill the animals, referring to clause 9, which says they can kill the animals? So which is it?
Also, clause 7, why? The proposal is supposed to spell out the minimum requirements. The committee's not needed to handhold scientists/professionals who most likely know better than some random committee how to take care of their research animals.
by Maowi » Sat Jan 25, 2020 8:07 pm
by Desmosthenes and Burke » Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:08 pm
by Maowi » Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:20 am
by Kenmoria » Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:50 am
by Desmosthenes and Burke » Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:35 am
Maowi wrote:"Well, I don't think 2.a. is the problematic clause for what you describe, but 2.b. in conjunction with the former is. I concur with you, seeking to develop more humane methods of pest control and other necessary killing of animals should not be prohibited. I have changed 2.b. in a manner that should hopefully acount for that."
by Maowi » Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:22 am
Kenmoria wrote:“The use of the word ‘objective’ in clause 2b disagrees with me. The pleasure derived from seeing one’s home free of flies can’t really be objectively measured, nor can the taste improvements from eating lobster rather than a lobster substitute. Just having ‘material benefit’ should work just as well.”
Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:Our apologies ambassador. The typographic error in our translation has been corrected, and the gnome responsible has been sacked. We will have to think on the new wording, as we admit, we find it difficult to parse, though we do think the Kenmorian delegation may have a point. Perhaps it could read "material benefit to the user or a reduction in suffering for an animal killed for a lawful purpose" or something similar
by Maowi » Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:29 am
by Maowi » Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:52 am
by Kenmoria » Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:18 pm
Maowi wrote:OOC: Apologies for the triple post, but I will submit this in one week if no major flaws are pointed out in that time, so I'm bumping this for more feedback.
by Maowi » Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:32 pm
by Araraukar » Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:27 pm
Maowi wrote:OOC: Made some very minor changes, and intend to submit this in around 24 hours. Speak now or forever hold your peace
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Maowi » Mon Apr 20, 2020 4:37 pm
by Maowi » Thu Apr 23, 2020 6:37 am
by Maowi » Mon May 18, 2020 5:48 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement