by Hillbillica » Tue May 07, 2019 2:02 pm
by Kenmoria » Tue May 07, 2019 2:07 pm
by Potted Plants United » Tue May 07, 2019 3:59 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant
by Hillbillica » Tue May 07, 2019 4:41 pm
Potted Plants United wrote:A large plant growing in a plantpot with wheels rolls into the room. "This is not something I will ever agree with," it says, "as when I grow food - berries, fruits, leaves, stems, roots and bulbs - for the exact purpose for them to be eaten as food by other sapients, then forbidding them to be eaten simply because they originate from a sapient being, is insane. If the idea behind this is to disallow causing suffering, then that is fine, as I do not suffer when those selves that are for eating, are eaten. But to ban the eating regardless of suffering, will only cause waste of resources."
by Hillbillica » Tue May 07, 2019 4:51 pm
Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 4 worries me due to a lack of limitations. I don’t think being starving hungry would justify one to eat a crew of twenty for nourishment, particularly as you haven’t defined a ‘last resort’.”
by Kenmoria » Wed May 08, 2019 1:52 pm
by Sethtekia » Wed May 08, 2019 1:55 pm
by The New Nordic Union » Wed May 08, 2019 1:56 pm
Eating more than the bare minimum required to sustain oneself in any situation is not necessarily allowable, and is not protected under this legislation.
by Kenmoria » Wed May 08, 2019 2:50 pm
by The New Nordic Union » Thu May 09, 2019 2:11 am
Kenmoria wrote:“Your ‘realising’ clause rather trivialises the issue at hands and should perhaps be rewritten to adopt a more serious tone. Also, the ‘horrified’ clause doesn’t really have any precedent in the World Assembly. I find it hard to believe that this is actually occurring.”
by Kowani » Thu May 09, 2019 2:14 am
Kenmoria wrote:“Your ‘realising’ clause rather trivialises the issue at hands and should perhaps be rewritten to adopt a more serious tone. Also, the ‘horrified’ clause doesn’t really have any precedent in the World Assembly. I find it hard to believe that this is actually occurring.”
by Hillbillica » Thu May 09, 2019 9:22 am
Kenmoria wrote:“‘Unconsensual’ isn’t a word; I think you meant ‘non-consensual’. Also, clause 5 is utterly useless, since that is true as soon as legislation is passed by default.”
by Hillbillica » Thu May 09, 2019 9:25 am
The New Nordic Union wrote:Eating more than the bare minimum required to sustain oneself in any situation is not necessarily allowable, and is not protected under this legislation.
'Does this mean that nations would be free to legislate in a way that only eating enough not to die of starvation is permitted, but anything else, e.g., to get enough sustenance from the food to actually escape the survival situation, would be illegal?'
by Hillbillica » Thu May 09, 2019 9:31 am
Kenmoria wrote:“Your ‘realising’ clause rather trivialises the issue at hands and should perhaps be rewritten to adopt a more serious tone. Also, the ‘horrified’ clause doesn’t really have any precedent in the World Assembly. I find it hard to believe that this is actually occurring.”
by Hillbillica » Thu May 09, 2019 9:33 am
The New Nordic Union wrote:Kenmoria wrote:“Your ‘realising’ clause rather trivialises the issue at hands and should perhaps be rewritten to adopt a more serious tone. Also, the ‘horrified’ clause doesn’t really have any precedent in the World Assembly. I find it hard to believe that this is actually occurring.”
'Especially so since killings for religious reasons are outlawed by GAR #416.'
by Giant Bats » Tue May 14, 2019 6:39 am
by Bears Armed » Tue May 14, 2019 10:14 am
OOCGiant Bats wrote:Our reproductive biology works so that fetuses devour other fetuses while still in the womb. They are obviously not sapient at that point, so it is an instinctual act more than a deliberate choice. Are we all cannibals because of actions committed before even sentience has developed, nevermind sapience?
by Kenmoria » Tue May 14, 2019 10:55 am
Giant Bats wrote:Those who were familiar with the WA delegation of the Tikrr - entities that could be best described as some kinds of hybrids between bats, birds of prey and great white shark - would have known that the individual now perching behind the desk space allotted to them, was Atikitir, as her short fur was lighter in colour than that of Ikiti, who was their official ambassador.
"I have a question about how is intent taken into account? Our reproductive biology works so that fetuses devour other fetuses while still in the womb. They are obviously not sapient at that point, so it is an instinctual act more than a deliberate choice. Are we all cannibals because of actions committed before even sentience has developed, nevermind sapience? Or should the proposal only be applied to choosing to commit such an act, which requires conscious thought?"
- Atikitir Tikilikrr, Spiritual Advisor to the Head of Diplomatic Wing, 9th generation mother of six
by Araraukar » Tue May 14, 2019 10:12 pm
Bears Armed wrote:OOCGiant Bats wrote:Our reproductive biology works so that fetuses devour other fetuses while still in the womb. They are obviously not sapient at that point, so it is an instinctual act more than a deliberate choice. Are we all cannibals because of actions committed before even sentience has developed, nevermind sapience?
And anybody here who wants to complain about people "making things up to derail proposals" should be informed that this really happens in RL, certainly in some species of sharks and possibly [although I'd have to check] in one or more other groups of animals as well.
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 Aclion » Tue May 14, 2019 10:28 pm
Bears Armed wrote:OOCGiant Bats wrote:Our reproductive biology works so that fetuses devour other fetuses while still in the womb. They are obviously not sapient at that point, so it is an instinctual act more than a deliberate choice. Are we all cannibals because of actions committed before even sentience has developed, nevermind sapience?
And anybody here who wants to complain about people "making things up to derail proposals" should be informed that this really happens in RL, certainly in some species of sharks and possibly [although I'd have to check] in one or more other groups of animals as well.
by Giant Bats » Wed May 15, 2019 12:59 am
by Kenmoria » Wed May 15, 2019 8:43 am
by The New Nordic Union » Wed May 15, 2019 9:27 am
by Kenmoria » Wed May 15, 2019 11:02 am
The New Nordic Union wrote:If you do not want to do that, maybe change the title to reflect that you are regulating unconsensual cannibalism.
by Araraukar » Thu May 16, 2019 5:16 am
Kenmoria wrote:The New Nordic Union wrote:If you do not want to do that, maybe change the title to reflect that you are regulating unconsensual cannibalism.
(OOC: I’ll add to this that the title might need to be changed anyway. ‘Concerning’ doesn’t really say what you want to do, and could just as well being about the WA encouraging, forcibly legalising, banning entirely, or obligating member nations to commit cannibalism.)
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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement