• If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at stararmy@gmail.com or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy

Senate: Passed [PASSED] Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

Pass this law, as written in the OP post?

  • No

    Votes: 7 46.7%

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 53.3%

  • Abstain

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act


I would ask my opponent on the floor to re-read my proposal and to examine it closely; I not only defined words used in the change, but also did not add anything excessive to it.

What he may think is extra words is not actually part of the change; it is an argument on behalf of it, the actual change is in quotes.
 
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

My esteemed colleagues, we are allowing ourselves to become embroiled over details which are better dealt with by the courts. Therefor I propose we move forward on this by going with the following:


When it comes to the matter of extenuating circumstances which is what all this circular debate has been about. That is a matter we should leave to the courts to decide on a case by case basis.
 
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

I'm okay with the that.

Seconded.
 
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

I'm curious to know why we excluded

2. "The consumption of sapient flesh is only justified in the direst of situations when no other food source presents itself."
Click to expand...

That wording did not have any problems to my knowledge.
 
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

Because that is to be left to the courts. The courts will decide if a violate on this law is 'Justified'.
 
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

According to this law, however, there is no justification.
 
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

Because the court can make that decision. For any law there can be extenuating circumstances for a violation.

The violation may happen, its the courts duty to determine if there should be punishment, and if so what that punishment should be.
 
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

Then it needs to be clarified that exceptions are to be determined by the courts. The current phrasing makes it a no questions, no debate matter.
 
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

Fine so amended.

 
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

I'd feel more comfortable with it if we had a definition of sapient. I'm still rather troubled that Nashoba can consider dolphins and whales to be sapient.
 
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

Get over it, Proposal 88 - Marine Life Protection Act has declared them so.
 
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

I vote YES for the law as last amended.
 
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

Well, there's no need to be rude about it. NO. It's so vague that a case could very depend on a judge's definition of the key terms, personal beliefs and interpretation of the law. There's too little defining what they should accept as an exception. The Senate is where we make the laws, not the courts.
 
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

"The judiciary (also known as the judicial system) is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state."

The senate may make the law, but it is the courts interpret and apply them.

And the proposal clearly states that courts are responsible for extenuating circumstances. We do not need a laundry list of what those conditions are, common sense applies.
 
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

The courts interpret how a given situation fits into the law, and rule based off of those laws, they only make decisions about the meaning of the law where the law is unnecessarily vague. NO.
 
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

It is stated within the law that a person must "knowingly and willfully consume the flesh of another sapient." Therefore, in the event that a person consumes the flesh of a being that they were unaware was sapient, they would be exempt from punishment under this current law. The only interpretation required of the court is whether they believe the consumption of sapient flesh was done knowingly. YES.
 
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

Hemosynthetic material while on its own is hardly a viable food source however, in times of hardship and with the decommissioning of old model neko bodies, perhaps the usage of the leftovers would be sound and reasonable to feed the masses. Furthermore, in a combat situation, it would be reasonable for users of high-demand, or injured bodies, to consume readily available bio-matter for sustenance.

Neko haggis, it's whats for dinner.

I vote NO to the proposition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…