-
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 [email protected] 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
- Thread starter Wes
- Start date
- Status
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act
I'm voting YES here.
The reason is listed below:
Allowing people to 'eat' the dead, or even, to eat that which the dead have been processed into - is sickening. Not only are you eating someone part of the Empire (or part of another nation) you are also in a way supporting the practice.
In the case of the NMX, they've processed many citizens, of the empire, and of other nations, into food products. You are essentially eating man, women, and CHILDREN in the process. This is something that is sickening to me, and downright distasteful. By accepting the rations, and eating that product despite knowing what it was made out, is - in some cases - supporting the practice there-of.
Not to mention that by allowing people to cannibalize during these times, you are also going to effect moral and it could also potentially lead to trust issues in the populace. People will notice one person cannibalizing, and that'll cause that person to be looked at with suspician, then the process spreads outward to effect others. Before long, you have a population that is distrustful or concerned about the person beside them.
So, yes I do vote for this act.
I'm voting YES here.
The reason is listed below:
Allowing people to 'eat' the dead, or even, to eat that which the dead have been processed into - is sickening. Not only are you eating someone part of the Empire (or part of another nation) you are also in a way supporting the practice.
In the case of the NMX, they've processed many citizens, of the empire, and of other nations, into food products. You are essentially eating man, women, and CHILDREN in the process. This is something that is sickening to me, and downright distasteful. By accepting the rations, and eating that product despite knowing what it was made out, is - in some cases - supporting the practice there-of.
Not to mention that by allowing people to cannibalize during these times, you are also going to effect moral and it could also potentially lead to trust issues in the populace. People will notice one person cannibalizing, and that'll cause that person to be looked at with suspician, then the process spreads outward to effect others. Before long, you have a population that is distrustful or concerned about the person beside them.
So, yes I do vote for this act.
Gabriel
🎖️ Game Master
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act
In light of the recent events regarding mass amounts of aid being sent from other Yamataian systems, I implore my fellow senators to observe that the nation is no longer in as dire a threat of starvation. Cannibalism is no longer necessary for survival, if it ever was before, and this proposal has little to do with the threat of starvation, but is intended to allow closure for the families of those soldier and sailors that perished to create the NMX rations as well as promote moral superiority over our enemies.
In light of the recent events regarding mass amounts of aid being sent from other Yamataian systems, I implore my fellow senators to observe that the nation is no longer in as dire a threat of starvation. Cannibalism is no longer necessary for survival, if it ever was before, and this proposal has little to do with the threat of starvation, but is intended to allow closure for the families of those soldier and sailors that perished to create the NMX rations as well as promote moral superiority over our enemies.
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act
Yamatai is better than this. We have more honor than this.
I vote YES on the proposal.
Yamatai is better than this. We have more honor than this.
I vote YES on the proposal.
SSharp
Inactive Member
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act
We are not talking about the Empire at large; we are talking about individuals who, stuck in dire situations, would not have access to any other resources for their food. Faced with slow death by starvation or eating one of the fallen, it seems extraordinarily PRACTICAL and PRUDENT for a survivor to pick the second choice.
You do not make laws in sentiment. This law, as well, does not affect the NMX but the Empire's civilians.
Who's honor are we discussing? Before honor, you must be alive. The dead do not have honor of their own, rather, it is those living that honor them.
My vote continues to be NO.
Gabriel said:
We are not talking about the Empire at large; we are talking about individuals who, stuck in dire situations, would not have access to any other resources for their food. Faced with slow death by starvation or eating one of the fallen, it seems extraordinarily PRACTICAL and PRUDENT for a survivor to pick the second choice.
You do not make laws in sentiment. This law, as well, does not affect the NMX but the Empire's civilians.
Doshii Jun said:
Who's honor are we discussing? Before honor, you must be alive. The dead do not have honor of their own, rather, it is those living that honor them.
My vote continues to be NO.
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act
The second entry in it covers that.
in the case you a citing, we are talking about individuals who, stuck in dire situations, would not have access to any other resources for their food. Faced with slow death by starvation or eating one of the fallen, it seems extraordinarily PRACTICAL and PRUDENT for a survivor to pick the second choice.
would be covered by that, an investigation into charges brought forth, the courts if the person was truly in a life or death situation, would declare it an extenuating circumstance. so your objection is baseless. Besides, if said person were in the middle of nowhere, dying of starvation, and the only source was a dead body. who would report the person? Common sense..
The second entry in it covers that.
in the case you a citing, we are talking about individuals who, stuck in dire situations, would not have access to any other resources for their food. Faced with slow death by starvation or eating one of the fallen, it seems extraordinarily PRACTICAL and PRUDENT for a survivor to pick the second choice.
would be covered by that, an investigation into charges brought forth, the courts if the person was truly in a life or death situation, would declare it an extenuating circumstance. so your objection is baseless. Besides, if said person were in the middle of nowhere, dying of starvation, and the only source was a dead body. who would report the person? Common sense..
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act
I make a motion to end debate on this issue.
I make a motion to end debate on this issue.
Toshiro
Well-Known Member
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act
There have been people murdered and killed because of the dragging of our feet, and unreasonable fears of people digging up and consuming the dead have risen to where guards have been posted at such places. This discussion has actually done more harm than good thus far in taking a remote possibility and turning it into a fear of our populace which has claimed lives.
I vote yes on the current law as an acceptable stop gap, at least until such a time as we can define the issue more carefully and discuss it further without the populace slaughtering each other. Further discussion and later amendment is still required even if we pass the law as-is, because the unreasonable fear this discussion has generated may compel a judge to sway to public opinion out of fear of retribution.
There have been people murdered and killed because of the dragging of our feet, and unreasonable fears of people digging up and consuming the dead have risen to where guards have been posted at such places. This discussion has actually done more harm than good thus far in taking a remote possibility and turning it into a fear of our populace which has claimed lives.
I vote yes on the current law as an acceptable stop gap, at least until such a time as we can define the issue more carefully and discuss it further without the populace slaughtering each other. Further discussion and later amendment is still required even if we pass the law as-is, because the unreasonable fear this discussion has generated may compel a judge to sway to public opinion out of fear of retribution.
Aendri
Inactive Member
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act
My vote stands as no. I refuse to pass the law in the current form. If it is amended to my satisfaction, then my vote will change, no sooner. Passing a law I disagree with on the grounds that you "might" amend it to my satisfaction later is nothing short of idiotic.
My vote stands as no. I refuse to pass the law in the current form. If it is amended to my satisfaction, then my vote will change, no sooner. Passing a law I disagree with on the grounds that you "might" amend it to my satisfaction later is nothing short of idiotic.
SSharp
Inactive Member
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act
It doesn't really matter what he's satisfied with, his argument for 'No' was more based on the logical fallacy of ((Toshiro))'s post.
We can't vote 'yes' because it might be changed later. No law is a stop-gap -- Law is actually very difficult to change, according to history.
Kyle said:
It doesn't really matter what he's satisfied with, his argument for 'No' was more based on the logical fallacy of ((Toshiro))'s post.
We can't vote 'yes' because it might be changed later. No law is a stop-gap -- Law is actually very difficult to change, according to history.
Sigma
Inactive Member
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act
My vote stands as a NO. If I were to follow my own principles, this law falls short of the quality work that I would expect from such a moral issue.
Nor will I be swayed to change my vote because of mob violence. If this is supposed to be a democracy, the people show little faith in the workings of their government. The discussion was ended by a motion. I see no reason why it should start up. Vote and let the polling decide. We're in our camps and I doubt that will change with a lot of serious revision.
My vote stands as a NO. If I were to follow my own principles, this law falls short of the quality work that I would expect from such a moral issue.
Nor will I be swayed to change my vote because of mob violence. If this is supposed to be a democracy, the people show little faith in the workings of their government. The discussion was ended by a motion. I see no reason why it should start up. Vote and let the polling decide. We're in our camps and I doubt that will change with a lot of serious revision.
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act
I make a motion to close the voting window and tally the votes as they stand right now.
I make a motion to close the voting window and tally the votes as they stand right now.
Gabriel
🎖️ Game Master
Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act
This is irrelevant since a motion was made to end discussion, the motion was seconded, and the motion went un-objected. As it stands debate is closed and shall remain closed until there is an unchallenged and seconded motion to reopen debate.
I move that the voting window be decreased to 48 hours from the time of this motion.
SSharp said:
This is irrelevant since a motion was made to end discussion, the motion was seconded, and the motion went un-objected. As it stands debate is closed and shall remain closed until there is an unchallenged and seconded motion to reopen debate.
I move that the voting window be decreased to 48 hours from the time of this motion.
- Status
