Advertisement
by Ilstoria » Tue Nov 27, 2012 1:54 pm
Constitutional Monarch of Ilstoria
In the region of 10000 Islands
Libertarian, Unitarian Universalist and Cosmopolitan in one friendly bundle of joy!
by Ilstoria » Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:05 pm
Constitutional Monarch of Ilstoria
In the region of 10000 Islands
Libertarian, Unitarian Universalist and Cosmopolitan in one friendly bundle of joy!
by Dagguerro » Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:54 pm
Ilstoria wrote:Please remember it doesn't protect WILD animals or animals like bugs who don't feel pain.
by Flibbleites » Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:57 pm
Dagguerro wrote:Ilstoria wrote:Please remember it doesn't protect WILD animals or animals like bugs who don't feel pain.
Your opinion, not absolute fact. The question whether insects feel pain or not is a point of conjecture which this committee would have to tend towards the more cautious viewpoint that insects CAN feel pain. Therefore they ARE protected under your act.
Also please refrain from sending me harassment and insulting Telegrams in future. I am not three years old and absolutely do not appreciate being talked to in this way. Disgusting attitude. Thanks.
by Ilstoria » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:05 pm
Flibbleites wrote:Dagguerro wrote:
Your opinion, not absolute fact. The question whether insects feel pain or not is a point of conjecture which this committee would have to tend towards the more cautious viewpoint that insects CAN feel pain. Therefore they ARE protected under your act.
Also please refrain from sending me harassment and insulting Telegrams in future. I am not three years old and absolutely do not appreciate being talked to in this way. Disgusting attitude. Thanks.
If it happens again, I suggest reporting it
Constitutional Monarch of Ilstoria
In the region of 10000 Islands
Libertarian, Unitarian Universalist and Cosmopolitan in one friendly bundle of joy!
by Dagguerro » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:17 pm
Ilstoria wrote:Flibbleites wrote:If it happens again, I suggest reporting it
I thought we were having a discussion, and my responses were in the same tone as the responses I got. On that note: "the scientifically demonstrated" abilility to feel pain. I am yet again urging people to read the language. I may have missed something, but SENTIENCE was not it.
by Ilstoria » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:31 pm
Dagguerro wrote:Ilstoria wrote:
I thought we were having a discussion, and my responses were in the same tone as the responses I got. On that note: "the scientifically demonstrated" abilility to feel pain. I am yet again urging people to read the language. I may have missed something, but SENTIENCE was not it.
You sent me a telegram, unsolicited, to subtly gloat. Then have the audacity to sarcastically offer "advice" on writing repeals. Frankly if you weren't giving me so much damn attitude over this I wouldn't even be bothering to consider a repeal. I don't actually care about this subject at all, and a poorly written piece of legislation on it isn't going to change whether I care or not (although it may make me lose a bit more faith in the WA) and there are plenty of loopholes to play with. But since you insist on making this a personal battle then I'm hardly going to take insults lying down.
As for your point...you're implying sentience is not the case in insects. But as an even more obscure concept than "pain" there is a significant obscurity over whether insects are sentient. As above, the committee will have to err on the cautious side and protect all insects in the home or risk causing harm to those they're mandated to protect.
Constitutional Monarch of Ilstoria
In the region of 10000 Islands
Libertarian, Unitarian Universalist and Cosmopolitan in one friendly bundle of joy!
by Dagguerro » Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:13 pm
Ilstoria wrote:You say "gloat" I say "discuss."
I was honestly flattered you felt it would be such a sure thing and greatly offended that you would threaten to repeal it based on ideas that were already addressed in the legislation which you chose to ignore.
And the committe is only called in if the nation, region, et al cannot come to its own concensus. I don't see this as being often.
Similarly, fish have just recently been shown to feel pain (there was a really cool study over it) and unless the committee is going to conduct its own studies (which isn't required) it will be using the scientific community as its baseline, which is what most everyone does, not "err on the cautious side."
You are reading way too far into this, if this were done for every Resolution then NONE would pass because there is a way to abuse any rule, regulation or restriction if you try hard enough.
I felt it important to address these, your erroneous concerns, as other people will be reading this discussion and believe your inaccurate "facts." I thought it would be better to let the discussion go on in a telegram rather than a long, drawn out, back and forth in the forum.
Yuu may feel like you are being treated like a three year old but I want to make it perfectly clear what is not only the intention of the Resolution, but also the LEGISLATION of the written word, and you are not the only one reading the forum.
by Isalenoria » Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:27 pm
by National States of America » Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:31 am
by Isalenoria » Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:02 am
DEFINES owners as any person who has purchased an animal or its descendants and/or has provided food or shelter or medical care to an animal on that person’s property for more than 31 days.
by Alqania » Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:17 am
National States of America wrote:LIMITS THE DEFINITION of interaction between humans and animals in this resolution to include only all forms of domesticity as well as the hunting of animals for sport and/or sustenance.
I will only support bill if it prevents hunting for sport but allow domestic farming...Majority of us all eat meat, cow, pig, turkey, chicken, etc but they need not be cruelly treated upon for sustenance.
by Grantsburg » Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:15 am
by Yes Im Biop » Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:26 am
[violet] wrote:Urggg... trawling through ads looking for roman orgies...
Idaho Conservatives wrote:FST creates a half-assed thread, goes on his same old feminist rant, and it turns into a thirty page dogpile in under twenty four hours. Just another day on NSG.
Immoren wrote:Saphirasia and his ICBCPs (inter continental ballistic cattle prod)
by Allinlia » Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:48 am
by Atmos » Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:13 am
by Jekrehnot » Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:42 am
Mefpan wrote:Three, there are three things certain in Jekrehnot: Death, Taxes and Nazism. To try and change that natural order is ridiculous.
by The Two Jerseys » Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:37 am
Isalenoria wrote:There is a MAJOR issue with the act which everyone should know about before they vote for this act: (emphasis added by mwah)DEFINES owners as any person who has purchased an animal or its descendants and/or has provided food or shelter or medical care to an animal on that person’s property for more than 31 days.
This means that if I purchase the descendant of an animal, I am the owner of its father and mother and grandfather and great great aunt. This makes no sense! I have never even MET the father of my pug, so how can I be his owner?
The writer of this proposal probably meant that you are the owner of the descendants of the animal you purchased. However, what they meant means nothing. The only thing that matters is what IS. And as the act currently stands, if you purchase an animal's descendant, you are legally responsible for the animal and all its older relatives!
Why, I imagine a lot of people would be falsely convicted of cruelty to animals they have never seen, never met, and never even knew existed!
by Zarconne » Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:40 am
by Multnomah » Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:30 pm
by Xarxis » Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:10 pm
by Castillano » Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:24 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement