[Challenge] Repeal "Toxic Heavy Metals Act"

[Araraukar]

And yes, lithium is a relatively dense metal. All atoms heavier than helium are metals.

Hold on! So oxygen is a metal?

No. This is what Chester Wayne is talking about.

[Wallenburg]

Hold on! So oxygen is a metal?

No. This is what Chester Wayne is talking about.

Which, by the inclusion of "metalloid" in the definition, we can certainly know is not the correct interpretation.

[Trellania]

Hold on! So oxygen is a metal?

No. This is what Chester Wayne is talking about.

And the resolution uses atomic grouping terms; "metalloid" refers to specific physical qualities of atoms. I don't think his argument flies unless he can give a definition of "metalloid" that comes from the specific standards of "heavier than helium is a metal."

[Goobergunchia]

Amazing how you can simply dismiss an argument without any reasoning whatsoever. I see you haven't changed a bit. Anything you agree with has a strict narrow interpretation. Anything you are trying to pass has the most broad definitions possible.

Do you go out of your way to be as wrong as possible, or is it a gift? An alloy is a compound and you can very much measure it's atomic density. As for snark? You are the king of it. I couldn't hope to match your prowess.

*** Warned for flaming. ***

Wallenburg, your counter-snark isn't helpful either.

Reminder to everybody:

Players should avoid getting into tit-for-tat quote battles, and instead address competing arguments with organized responses. These threads should be treated like a courtroom, avoiding off-topic discussion, personal fighting, peanut-gallery comments, etc. In other words, if you don't have anything substantive to add to the legal issues at hand, refrain from posting in Legality Challenge threads.

[Wrapper]

Well now. there is a decent bit of information (including, sadly, snippets of misinformation) to go through here, but let me give my opinion on the matter, not just why the repeal is legal, but why it should be repealed in the first place.

Full disclosure, I have a chemical engineering degree from MIT, so I daresay that I know what I'm talking about and I don't need Google or Wikipedia to have an intelligent conversation about the periodic table or toxicity.

Let's start with this: What is a toxic heavy metal? Rather than trying to define the term (a term that, to be frank, physicists, environmentalists and geologists might disagree on), let's go through some obvious examples:

-- Lead is a toxic heavy metal. No one would argue that, and anyone who does I would immediately discredit.

-- Cadmium is a toxic heavy metal. Same.

-- Mercury is a toxic heavy metal. No one can argue about mercury's toxicity. Anyone who tries to argue that mercury is not a "heavy metal" based on its density (it is, after all, a liquid), needs to understand that the term "heavy metal" is not just related to physical density. It is related to atomic mass and atomic number as well. While some metallurgists may not consider mercury a heavy metal from a purely geological standpoint, physical chemists and most governmental regulators do consider it a heavy metal due to its high atomic mass and number.

-- Aluminum is not a toxic heavy metal. It is, like most metals, toxic at moderate concentrations, but in no way can it be considered a heavy metal based on density, atomic mass, or atomic number. It is a light metal. Just because certain governmental institutions might include aluminum in their heavy metal regulations, doesn't make aluminum a heavy metal.

-- Gold is not considered a toxic heavy metal. Now we come to the pivotal argument here. Yes, gold is a heavy metal no matter what kind of definition you apply to it, but, no, it is not considered toxic. We can even eat gold (as someone points out), and unless we're dealing with extremely high concentrations (analogous to water toxemia, as someone else points out) or with a certain segment of the population (as someone else points out), gold is not normally toxic.

HOWEVER.

A WA committee, one that is presumably infallible and well-intentioned, can say that gold is "potentially toxic" because, well, it is potentially toxic, in the right concentration or situation. And that's the crux of this repeal attempt. The intent of the resolution (from my point of view, as the co-author who did not have a say in the final version) was to regulate toxic heavy metals and their compounds, to prevent landfilling of such chemicals if they can leach into the soil, and to find alternatives to such chemicals wherever possible. The intent of the resolution was not to regulate every "potentially toxic" metal, which would include metals like gold, bismuth, or tin. While a well-intentioned WASP may not include essential elements such as iron on their list, there is no roadblock from them classifying gold, bismuth or tin as "potentially toxic," which they are, and therefore including them as toxic heavy metals under GA#371. As a committee, they are handcuffed by a resolution that must do what it says it does.

As such, in my opinion, there is no Honest Mistake here. As the repeal states:

the definition of "Toxic Heavy Metals" is incredibly broad and problematic as the resolution does not require that toxic heavy metals actually be toxic, only "potentially toxic"

This is not just an absolutely true statement, in my mind it is indisputable.

Admittedly the repeal does gets a little hyperbolic in the next paragraph:

Believing that WASP acting exactly as it is told to act would be forced to note every "relatively dense" metal as potentially toxic, and as such every "relatively dense" metal shall be a toxic heavy metal as defined by GA#371,

That is arguably incorrect, but, it is stated as a Believing clause. As such, it is up to the electorate as to whether they believe it or not, given the set of circumstances laid out. Therefore, while one may argue against this statement's veracity, such a hyperbolic statement of belief should be considered embellishment or exaggeration; as such it would not be subject to the Honest Mistake rule.

Bottom line, this resolution sucks and it has to be replaced, and the proposed repeal is (mostly) right in its interpretation on the matter.

FYI I'm heading out for a much-needed vacation in about 24 hours, but until then I'll pop in occasionally to respond to any comments or questions.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ok I've tried to post a reply to this challenge and some points made in the thread like four times but my phone ate all of them and my thumbs really hurt now, so I'm gonna say I agree with IA for now and circle back later.

[Herby]

Ok I've tried to post a reply to this challenge and some points made in the thread like four times but my phone ate all of them and my thumbs really hurt now, so I'm gonna say I agree with IA for now and circle back later.

LOL wut? You agree with IA but you marked it legal? That needs an explanation.

[Jedinsto]

I would assume it would be to allow the challenge to play out.

[DristanTheBest2]

I agree with this

[Separatist Peoples]

Ok I've tried to post a reply to this challenge and some points made in the thread like four times but my phone ate all of them and my thumbs really hurt now, so I'm gonna say I agree with IA for now and circle back later.

LOL wut? You agree with IA but you marked it legal? That needs an explanation.

I marked it legal before reviewing this thread. Control panel rulings are custodial. Where something isn't overtly illegal, it generally gets a pass. This got a pass before I got to review the challenge.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Admittedly the repeal does gets a little hyperbolic in the next paragraph:

Believing that WASP acting exactly as it is told to act would be forced to note every "relatively dense" metal as potentially toxic, and as such every "relatively dense" metal shall be a toxic heavy metal as defined by GA#371,

That is arguably incorrect, but, it is stated as a Believing clause. As such, it is up to the electorate as to whether they believe it or not, given the set of circumstances laid out. Therefore, while one may argue against this statement's veracity, such a hyperbolic statement of belief should be considered embellishment or exaggeration; as such it would not be subject to the Honest Mistake rule.

That belief is identical to the the justification which you give for the claim that the WA committee would in fact do that. If wrapping anything into a 'Believing' clause or something of the like would mean we can put anything we want into repeals, I mean, sure I guess that'd be great. I'll get on repealing lots of stuff for entirely bogus reasons.

[Herby]

LOL wut? You agree with IA but you marked it legal? That needs an explanation.

I marked it legal before reviewing this thread. Control panel rulings are custodial. Where something isn't overtly illegal, it generally gets a pass. This got a pass before I got to review the challenge.

Well that’s bad news then. I was hoping you meant you agreed with Wrapper, not IA. Which, you should agree with Wrapper, because, you know, he’s da man!

Ehhh not very convincing, is it?

[Jedinsto]

Admittedly the repeal does gets a little hyperbolic in the next paragraph:

Believing that WASP acting exactly as it is told to act would be forced to note every "relatively dense" metal as potentially toxic, and as such every "relatively dense" metal shall be a toxic heavy metal as defined by GA#371,

That is arguably incorrect, but, it is stated as a Believing clause. As such, it is up to the electorate as to whether they believe it or not, given the set of circumstances laid out. Therefore, while one may argue against this statement's veracity, such a hyperbolic statement of belief should be considered embellishment or exaggeration; as such it would not be subject to the Honest Mistake rule.

That belief is identical to the the justification which you give for the claim that the WA committee would in fact do that. If wrapping anything into a 'Believing' clause or something of the like would mean we can put anything we want into repeals, I mean, sure I guess that'd be great. I'll get on repealing lots of stuff for entirely bogus reasons.

I agree that this is a rather terrible precedent to set.

[Separatist Peoples]

I marked it legal before reviewing this thread. Control panel rulings are custodial. Where something isn't overtly illegal, it generally gets a pass. This got a pass before I got to review the challenge.

We’ll that’s bad news then. I was hoping you meant you agreed with Wrapper, not IA. Which, you should agree with Wrapper, because, you know, he’s da man!

Ehhh not very convincing, is it?

Wrapper makes a convincing argument but it involves findings of fact. GenSec doesn't do that. Otherwise we would need advanced degrees in everything. I can only bullshit so much.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ehhh not very convincing, is it?

I was going to make a 'Wrapper wants to wrap everything in a Believing clause' pun but I thought it a bit derivative.

[Jedinsto]

We’ll that’s bad news then. I was hoping you meant you agreed with Wrapper, not IA. Which, you should agree with Wrapper, because, you know, he’s da man!

Ehhh not very convincing, is it?

Wrapper makes a convincing argument but it involves findings of fact. GenSec doesn't do that. Otherwise we would need advanced degrees in everything. I can only bullshit so much.

Anyways, seeing as you've marked it illegal, I'd like to see your reasoning.

[Separatist Peoples]

Wrapper makes a convincing argument but it involves findings of fact. GenSec doesn't do that. Otherwise we would need advanced degrees in everything. I can only bullshit so much.

Anyways, seeing as you've marked it illegal, I'd like to see your reasoning.

Ok I've tried to post a reply to this challenge and some points made in the thread like four times but my phone ate all of them and my thumbs really hurt now, so I'm gonna say I agree with IA for now and circle back later.

[Vikanias]

Hey if you eat too much of a certain material, food etc. you can die because toxins are in those said things. A couple apples are fine because your body can deal with the toxins, but many many apples and you’ll die.

[Wrapper]

I can only bullshit so much.

You can say that again!

That belief is identical to the the justification which you give for the claim that the WA committee would in fact do that. If wrapping anything into a 'Believing' clause or something of the like would mean we can put anything we want into repeals, I mean, sure I guess that'd be great. I'll get on repealing lots of stuff for entirely bogus reasons.

Hmmm. Much as I would love to continue to contend that this is still hyperbole and exaggeration, which is explicitly allowed under the Honest Mistake rule, I'm not sure I want to give you that kind of ammunition, because that's how we wind up with utter shit like "a secret treaty is defined as a cat".

Would you concede that if the clause was reworded as the following it would be legal?

Believing that WASP acting exactly as it is told to act would be forced to note every "relatively dense" metal as potentially toxic, and as such every "relatively dense" metal shall be a every "potentially toxic" metal, including relatively low toxicity heavy metals such as gold, bismuth and tin, as a toxic heavy metal as defined by GA#371,

[WayNeacTia]

Admittedly the repeal does gets a little hyperbolic in the next paragraph:

Believing that WASP acting exactly as it is told to act would be forced to note every "relatively dense" metal as potentially toxic, and as such every "relatively dense" metal shall be a toxic heavy metal as defined by GA#371,

That is arguably incorrect, but, it is stated as a Believing clause. As such, it is up to the electorate as to whether they believe it or not, given the set of circumstances laid out. Therefore, while one may argue against this statement's veracity, such a hyperbolic statement of belief should be considered embellishment or exaggeration; as such it would not be subject to the Honest Mistake rule.

That belief is identical to the the justification which you give for the claim that the WA committee would in fact do that. If wrapping anything into a 'Believing' clause or something of the like would mean we can put anything we want into repeals, I mean, sure I guess that'd be great. I'll get on repealing lots of stuff for entirely bogus reasons.

Hasn't that been done on many occasions and been ruled legal already? Rarely before the advent of GenSec, was anything ever declared illegal because the reasoning was bogus.

[Herby]

Can we get a decision before this goes to vote in twelve hours?

[Trellania]

We could just let it go to vote and see what the general assembly thinks. It might fail to pass for reasoning similar to the challenge.

[Separatist Peoples]

We could just let it go to vote and see what the general assembly thinks. It might fail to pass for reasoning similar to the challenge.

Ooc: not how it works.

[Jedinsto]

We could just let it go to vote and see what the general assembly thinks. It might fail to pass for reasoning similar to the challenge.

Illegal proposals can be removed from the voting floor if they go to vote.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Wrapper makes a convincing argument but it involves findings of fact. GenSec doesn't do that. Otherwise we would need advanced degrees in everything. I can only bullshit so much.

Not only RL findings of fact, but RP'd findings of fact as to what, precisely, WASP has "noted" as being a potentially toxic heavy metal. I am convinced by the argument that a WA committee staffed by generally competent people would not mindlessly put every metallic element and compound known to exist on its list of toxic heavy metals, nor that (consisting largely of scientists to begin with) it couldn't subsequently correct its own initial findings.

I also don't think the claim that development is the same thing as "discharging" substances into the environment is a reasonable use of the word.

I have therefore marked the proposal illegal in the queue.