Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Welcome to The Rejected Realms

Government:

Delegate: Wabbitslayah
Officer: Frattastan (Foreign Affairs)
Officer: Marilyn Manson Freaks (Outreach)
Officer: PowerPAOK (Media)
Officer: Relfa (Culture)

Other Officials:

Speaker: Vulturret
RRA High Commander: Frattastan
RRA Commander: Guy
RRA Commander: Wopruthien
Welcome to The Rejected Realms, NationStates' ejection-free zone!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you can only view some areas of the board and you can only post in the Troubleshooting and Suggestions forum. If you register an account, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customising your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Register now!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Repeal "Prohibiting Animal Abuse"; Proposed by Imperium Anglorum
Topic Started: Jul 18 2015, 08:24 AM (59 Views)
Christian Democrats
Member Avatar
HMSM James II
Voting on this proposal should start in about 20 hours.

In-game debate thread: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=347451

Repeal "Prohibiting Animal Abuse"
Proposed by Imperium Anglorum
Applauding the World Assembly's stance on the paternal and protectively patronising treatment of animals,

Bemoaning the inherent problems and uncaught exceptions of large overreaching legislation, not matter the author, and,

Believing that the provisions set forth in this resolution are too broad and in the end, self-destructive of animal and sapient rights,

This most august and renowned World Assembly,

1. Objects to the current state of affairs, where sapient beings are not given the same overarching protections as non-sapient animals;

2. Protests against the whiff of moral supremacy in the resolution, deciding the morals and requirements of all nations based on the morality of a subset of World Assembly members, thereby committing a crime against cultural diversity in preventing cultures from exercising their religious and societal traditions;

3. Considers that the resolution's prohibition of self-defence against animals as harmful to sentient populations, since:
  1. the killing of an animal which is attacking a person would clearly be an intentional actions which inflicts physical trauma or intense pain on an animal,

  2. this is not itself not excepted in clause (3), the clause which contains exceptions placed there to appease certain outspoken members of the World Assembly,

  3. and thus, prohibits the killing of an animal in the case of an attack;
4. Chuckles at the imprecision of the definition of animal in this resolution, as jellyfish, a collection of microscopic species of non-person animal, are given the protections of this resolution, even when they lack a nervous system capable of feeling pain or many other types of negative stimulus;

5. Seriously recognises the implications of the above clause, as this would mean that the definition of animal would include all manners of species which are poisonous, invasive, or destructive to ecosystem health and hence grant the same protections to those undesirable types of animal;

6. Derides the doublethink necessary to state in the same resolution that (i) all abuse of sentient non-person mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, or fish should be prohibited in clause 2, (ii) unless the animal is raised for butcher, slaughter, or the killing of persons, in clause (3).b and (3).e and thus, all right;

7. Observes that in cases where animal reproduction or needs is not entirely understood, putting an animal in a zoological garden is illegal, since this would endanger the 'long term health and safety of the animal' in clause 4;

8. Hopes that this resolution is to be replaced by a more acceptable alternative without the flaws of this current resolution;

9. Repeals this unfortunately flawed yet well-intentioned resolution which prohibits animal abuse.

Click here to read the original resolution

"I was born free and desire to continue so."

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Christian Democrats
Member Avatar
HMSM James II
For.

I support this repeal proposal for the same reasons that I opposed the original resolution, namely subsidiarity, ambiguity, and self-defense; however, I am not a major fan of the style or the disparaging tone here.
"I was born free and desire to continue so."

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banned: Chester Pearson
Member Avatar
Resouluton Author Extraordinaire
For.
The Right Honourable Chester B. Pearson,

Prime Minister, United Federation of Canada

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · General Assembly · Next Topic »
Add Reply