Separatist Peoples wrote: If it is not sentient, why does it deserve protection?"
Sapient.
The term is sapient.
We went over this.
Repeatedly.
Advertisement
by ADST World » Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:58 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote: If it is not sentient, why does it deserve protection?"
by Araraukar » Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:01 pm
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 Liagolas » Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:02 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:06 pm
Liagolas wrote:
"You misunderstand," the Mouth says with a groan. "Mr. Bell is well aware that the term to apply to a rational, thinking, and conscious (OOC: Human-level intelligence) being is 'sapient,' and it is the recollection of the Dominion that Mr. Bell may have been among those who tried to convince you of such previously. However, since sapient undead would be protected by existing civil rights resolutions, why should the World Assembly be concerned about non-sapient undead rights? It should only be concerned if they possess awareness of the world or sentience, much as animals do - though whether or not animals ought to be protected by the World Assembly is disputed as well.
by Dooom35796821595 » Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:14 pm
by XKZ Coordination Office » Sun May 01, 2016 4:39 am
ADST World wrote:2. Any form of experiment, ritual, or other practise with the intent of creating a sapient undead be monitored by the Undead Preservation and Defense Force.
a. the UPDF being created of volunteers, who will monitor and actively represent the rights of sapient undead, and also assisting in the monitoring of unapproved non-sapient undead, including bringing them to the attention of the nation in question for proper disposal.
by Araraukar » Sun May 01, 2016 6:26 am
XKZ Coordination Office wrote:Ambassador, does the WA monitor your sex life?! No?
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 » Mon May 02, 2016 4:12 am
by ADST World » Mon May 02, 2016 7:28 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Liagolas wrote:"You misunderstand," the Mouth says with a groan. "Mr. Bell is well aware that the term to apply to a rational, thinking, and conscious (OOC: Human-level intelligence) being is 'sapient,' and it is the recollection of the Dominion that Mr. Bell may have been among those who tried to convince you of such previously. However, since sapient undead would be protected by existing civil rights resolutions, why should the World Assembly be concerned about non-sapient undead rights? It should only be concerned if they possess awareness of the world or sentience, much as animals do - though whether or not animals ought to be protected by the World Assembly is disputed as well.
"The ADST ambassador desperately needs to learn a little reading comprehension. The word choice was deliberate, to reflect those laws passed by member states that protect sentient but not sapient species. I was, in fact, stressing clarity.
"But lets pretend I totally misspoke. Your correction is pedantic and misses the entire point of my argument, which is becoming something of a reoccurring theme with you. Would you like to nitpick my intentional word choices, or address my concern?"
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon May 02, 2016 7:30 am
ADST World wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"The ADST ambassador desperately needs to learn a little reading comprehension. The word choice was deliberate, to reflect those laws passed by member states that protect sentient but not sapient species. I was, in fact, stressing clarity.
"But lets pretend I totally misspoke. Your correction is pedantic and misses the entire point of my argument, which is becoming something of a reoccurring theme with you. Would you like to nitpick my intentional word choices, or address my concern?"
If you argument is 'if it is not sapient, why should it have protection', then you misunderstand the purpose of the proposal. The purpose is to ban creating non-sapient undead, which could be a dangerous hazard, and create a bureau to differentiate between the two, without taking any form of military or police action.
Topic: National Security
Strength: Mild
by ADST World » Mon May 02, 2016 7:32 am
XKZ Coordination Office wrote:ADST World wrote:2. Any form of experiment, ritual, or other practise with the intent of creating a sapient undead be monitored by the Undead Preservation and Defense Force.
a. the UPDF being created of volunteers, who will monitor and actively represent the rights of sapient undead, and also assisting in the monitoring of unapproved non-sapient undead, including bringing them to the attention of the nation in question for proper disposal.
Ambassador, does the WA monitor your sex life?! No? Then why on earth do you feel it's appropriate for the WA to monitor the reproductive actions of my species?
by ADST World » Mon May 02, 2016 7:37 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:ADST World wrote:If you argument is 'if it is not sapient, why should it have protection', then you misunderstand the purpose of the proposal. The purpose is to ban creating non-sapient undead, which could be a dangerous hazard, and create a bureau to differentiate between the two, without taking any form of military or police action.
Four questions.
1. Why is it a 'dangerous hazard'?
2. Why is a bureau necessary?
3. Why is a ban necessary?
4. Why is an international ban necessary?Topic: National Security
Strength: Mild
This category does not exist.
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon May 02, 2016 7:47 am
ADST World wrote:1. Why is it a 'dangerous hazard'? It is dangerous, because (a) it is a biological hazard, and some types of undead have no form of immune system, and dangerous bacteria can be implanted through their saliva; (b) mass creation of non-sapient undead could effectively lead to a 'zombie apocalypse' scenario, which is dangerous in itself. The emergence of supernatural threats is not really within the realm of the World Assembly. This is why we don't have legislation against planet smashers, galaxy destroyers, and molecular disintegration devices a la Ender's Game.
2. Why is a bureau necessary? The bureau is necessary to be a independent source of judgement and to help protect those experiments and/or rituals that are deemed appropriate. Okay then. Let me rephrase that question. Why is allowing power-hungry WA bureaucrats to make expansive standards to justify mass intervention better than specified standards in the text?
3. Why is a ban necessary? The ban is necessary to help control the population. If you would prefer different terminology to clarify this clause, recommend some and it will be taken under consideration. A ban necessarily means that there is no population. I don't understand this response. Why is a ban necessary? Tell me why this is such a massive danger we need to ban it!
4. Why is an international ban necessary? Because listing every nation that has sapient and non-sapient undead would take forever, and any future nations that had a similar scenario would be exempt. Also, all nations should be affected in a WA legislation. Thus, it should be international. I don't see why this necessitates international action. What about this requires that international action be taken that goes above and beyond national action?
ADST World wrote:Also, I requested a category earlier, and this was the ONLY suggestion. If you have a issue with it, please suggest a alternative category.
by ADST World » Mon May 02, 2016 8:00 am
by Separatist Peoples » Mon May 02, 2016 8:02 am
ADST World wrote:
1. It is dangerous, because
a. it is a biological hazard, and some types of undead have no form of immune system, and dangerous bacteria can be implanted through their saliva.
b. A mass creation of non-sapient undead could effectively lead to a 'zombie apocalypse' scenario, which is dangerous in itself.
by Separatist Peoples » Mon May 02, 2016 8:03 am
ADST World wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:The category does not exist. You cannot submit legislation in a category which doesn't exist.
Yes, great, I get that, but what should go there instead? I can't fix it if you don't tell me what's wrong, but I also an't fix it if I don't know what would actually go there. If you read my response, you will see a asked for an alternative. If you wish to bring this to my attention again, please please PLEASE provide an alternative, or I will not and cannot address the issue.
by ADST World » Mon May 02, 2016 11:29 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:ADST World wrote:
Yes, great, I get that, but what should go there instead? I can't fix it if you don't tell me what's wrong, but I also an't fix it if I don't know what would actually go there. If you read my response, you will see a asked for an alternative. If you wish to bring this to my attention again, please please PLEASE provide an alternative, or I will not and cannot address the issue.
"There may not be an alternative. Experienced authors write to the category, they don't write a proposal and try to shoehorn it in. If you don't have a category this fits into, you need to pick a category and rewrite it to fit. Sometimes, though, that isn't possible. I don't believe that is your issue here."
by Separatist Peoples » Mon May 02, 2016 11:46 am
ADST World wrote:
Your statement is useful for the future. However, it is not helpful now. If that is not my issue, then great. Give me an example of a relevant category. If you can't, I will leave it as is, and you may take up the issue with the original suggester.
by Araraukar » Mon May 02, 2016 11:49 am
ADST World wrote:Give me an example of a relevant category. If you can't, I will leave it as is, and you may take up the issue with the original suggester.
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 ADST World » Tue May 03, 2016 7:50 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:ADST World wrote:
Your statement is useful for the future. However, it is not helpful now. If that is not my issue, then great. Give me an example of a relevant category. If you can't, I will leave it as is, and you may take up the issue with the original suggester.
"Ambassador, you have this bizarre notion that what you are doing is salvageable. As it stands, the closest category this would apply to is Moral Decency, but you've got chunks of Health and International Security all over it, and none of it can stand to be pulled apart. I can't suggest an appropriate category, because, once again, you've picked an impossible topic to legally write. The list of categories and their descriptions is here. Pick through them and consider how you want to redesign this to match.
"Yet again, I am going to suggest you drop this and all other authorship attempts. You do not understand the General Assembly. That's fine, because nobody is asking you to withdraw. I am suggesting you give up on authoring for a while and take the time to participate in existing debates and discussions on proposal written by authors who already understand how things work here. You will get to chance to see how drafting works without the compounding frustration that authorship brings on us. I have been where you are. I participated as a debater for two years before I tried to draft anything. It may or may not take that long; I was a cautious soul. But, thanks to the information I had gleaned from watching experienced ambassadors work, I have since passed nine resolutions. You would do well to consider spending time participating in other drafts rather than pursuing your own, currently misguided ideas until you have a better understanding of the nuance of authorship.
"Or, you know, you could keep with the futile efforts. It won't get anything passed, and your learning curve will be full of frustration, and you'll definitely lose a lot of credibility, but...um...no, that's all of it. There are no up sides to that approach."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]
Advertisement