by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Forest Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .1,8141,8151,8161,8171,8181,8191,820. . .1,8381,839»

Forestal wrote:There was also a more recent failed proposal on blood sports that had issues with a number of flaws regarding the failure to distinguish between "sentience" and "sapience" definitionally speaking. Worth reading to avoid similar mistakes.
My personal problem with it, primarily, was the fact that who among homo sapiens sapiens can tell me that an animal, or a tree, is nonsentient? We're the chattering monkeys requiring words and not them.
Edit: incorrect word choice.

OCC: We would definitely like to take you up on that! Could you please add the link.

The Young Ur wrote:OCC: We would definitely like to take you up on that! Could you please add the link.

I can't provide you with a link, but it was a failed GA proposal of the category of Moral Decency and with a Mild strength titled "Restrictions on Blood Sports". It can be found on the NS website as well.

Middle Barael wrote:This may be wrong, but I think the difference is that sentient would refer to species such as humans that are able to build complex societies AND think rationally and/or subjectively, whereas sapience only requires the ability to think rationally and/or subjectively.

This means that species such as Orangutans, Chimapnzees, Elephants, and dolphins would be sapient, but not sentient, but humans are both sapient and sentient. I’m not sure though about creatures such as cats and dogs; they can think subjectively and rationally, but this often is more about survival instincts than it is about complex thought.
<snip>

Oxford Dictionary of the adjective "sentient":
able to see or feel things through the senses

Same source:
Sapient: having great intelligence or knowledge

Edit: apologies for the double post.

In news today: DND has hit 50k Religiousness.

All those who bid our fair legislatures to do something productive, here you are:

Rights of Vat-Born Beings

The General Assembly,
Acknowledging that many of our number use technology to produce their offspring in vats, whether because they have lost the ability to naturally produce offspring or simply for the sake of convenience.
Fearing that in the production of these human beings many may be mistreated or even killed outright.
Also fearing that in a nation in which this production is not undertaken by the government the corporations that do undertake this creation of life will feel as though they own these people.
With these things in mind, and assuming the produced being is from a sapient species, these things are clarified:
Resolution #355, Rights Of Sapient Species defines "Sapient Being” as:
Any physical entity possessing the ability to: Think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic; Choose a sensible course of action or considered response; Experience subjectively, feel, or recognize, discern, envision, understand, or attain awareness of.”
This classification extended to those in a species with above stated characteristics who are mentally ill or below the age of majority.
A person is a sapient being and a sapient being is a person.
With these thing established the protections of Ban On Slavery And Trafficking can be invoked.
Insistent that after the development of a being is initiated in an artificial environment it must not be terminated. Contrary to a natural setting where there are cases in when the parent acting as a host might be harmed by the individual birthed, in a synthetic setting, where there is no host to be harmed, there is no reason to terminate the developing being.
This is supported especially in the case of the pursuit of scientific knowledge by the Medical Research Ethics Act by clause three:
“UNDERSTANDING that ethical dilemmas exist in medical research, including:
i. Excessive coercion or deception of prospective testing subjects.
ii. Exploiting weak, undereducated, or emotionally unstable subjects.“
Reminding these nations that at a time that that an entity producing can no longer do so that they can call on World Health Authority to fund the medical expense it costs allow the vat created beings to mature to a point they can live outside the artificial environment. This is due to the legislature, Access To Life-Saving Drugs which resoloves that:
“An appropriate part of World Health Authority’s budget shall be directed for buying and distributing, when and where necessary, high-cost life-saving medications and vaccines. Negotiations shall take place between the agencies and patent holders so as to achieve a minimum acceptable price, one that does not hamper the industries affected nor further research, nor depletes the WA economic resources or otherwise adversely impacts the multitude of activities dependant on WA funding.”

Please give advise and correction, I'm sure I need it.

The Young Ur wrote:All those who bid our fair legislatures to do something productive, here you are:
...
Please give advise and correction, I'm sure I need it.

I am far from experienced here, but it seems to me that you spent so long fearing and understanding that you forgot to actually make a policy proposal. If it is there, perhaps make it more explicitly stated towards the end of the proposal.

Post self-deleted by The ra.

Girelna wrote:I am far from experienced here, but it seems to me that you spent so long fearing and understanding that you forgot to actually make a policy proposal. If it is there, perhaps make it more explicitly stated towards the end of the proposal.

Most of the policy proposal is

Insistent that after the development of a being is initiated in an artificial environment it must not be terminated. Contrary to a natural setting where there are cases in when the parent acting as a host might be harmed by the individual birthed, in a synthetic setting, where there is no host to be harmed, there is no reason to terminate the developing being.
This is supported especially in the case of the pursuit of scientific knowledge by the Medical Research Ethics Act by clause three:
“UNDERSTANDING that ethical dilemmas exist in medical research, including:
i. Excessive coercion or deception of prospective testing subjects.
ii. Exploiting weak, undereducated, or emotionally unstable subjects.“

Also I feel many of the referenced resolutions I applied count as policy.

The Young Ur wrote:Most of the policy proposal is

Insistent that after the development of a being is initiated in an artificial environment it must not be terminated. Contrary to a natural setting where there are cases in when the parent acting as a host might be harmed by the individual birthed, in a synthetic setting, where there is no host to be harmed, there is no reason to terminate the developing being.
This is supported especially in the case of the pursuit of scientific knowledge by the Medical Research Ethics Act by clause three:
“UNDERSTANDING that ethical dilemmas exist in medical research, including:
i. Excessive coercion or deception of prospective testing subjects.
ii. Exploiting weak, undereducated, or emotionally unstable subjects.“


Also I feel many of the referenced resolutions I applied count as policy.

I feel one major problem with this is that for nations that are overpopulated, this may cause further problems. If someone secretly creates a vat-born infant without government knowledge, or if by mistake or overlook one is created, and they are not allowed to abort, this could cause further overpopulation or economic hardship.

I would therefore suggest amending your resolution so that it outlaws the termination of vat-born fetuses only if they are in their “third trimester” or if the infant already has some form of consciousness. If they are still an unborn, unconscious fetus, I feel that it should be legal to terminate the development of the infant, as their may be reasons why a country or a family may no longer be able to support another person.

Outer Bele Levy Epies wrote:I think that the small regions were larger when the embassies were created.

Or we were smaller and had less strict requirements when the embassies were created. We weren't always 500 nations strong, and some of those embassies go back eight years.

That's the main reason I'm opposed to just a forceful "we're closing embassies now, burn the waste to make way for the new!". Those regions' ties with Forest have existed for nearly a decade. They were once just as, if not more active than, Forest. As someone who experiences mild nostalgia for a past, smaller Forest (even though I'm nowhere near the oldest at four years so far), I think it's important to remember our roots and not cut off ties just because we're too big and important to be dealing with tiny inactive regions like them anymore.

That said, I've conceded to the concept of closing inactive embassies after a "funeral" for that region. The "funeral" might involve posting tributes or memories of the region, thanking them for having an embassy for so long, etc. It'd be a way of moving on while still honoring the history and showing that we close the embassy reluctantly.

Middle Barael wrote:I feel one major problem with this is that for nations that are overpopulated, this may cause further problems. If someone secretly creates a vat-born infant without government knowledge, or if by mistake or overlook one is created, and they are not allowed to abort, this could cause further overpopulation or economic hardship.

I would therefore suggest amending your resolution so that it outlaws the termination of vat-born fetuses only if they are in their “third trimester” or if the infant already has some form of consciousness. If they are still an unborn, unconscious fetus, I feel that it should be legal to terminate the development of the infant, as their may be reasons why a country or a family may no longer be able to support another person.

Riddle me this Middle Barael, if I adopt a puppy, then realize I have nether the money to provide for it, nor the space in my house, what would you have me do (We could even say, for accuracy's sake that the dog is in induced medical comma and will wake in a little over a month)?

The Young Ur wrote:Riddle me this Middle Barael, if I adopt a puppy, then realize I have nether the money to provide for it, nor the space in my house, what would you have me do (We could even say, for accuracy's sake that the dog is in induced medical *coma and will wake in a little over a month)?

Not an accurate analogy.

-WCD

Western Continental Divide wrote:Not an accurate analogy.

-WCD

Quite possibly I agree with you, but please specify what is inaccurate about my analogy.

Mount Seymour wrote:Or we were smaller and had less strict requirements when the embassies were created. We weren't always 500 nations strong, and some of those embassies go back eight years.

That's the main reason I'm opposed to just a forceful "we're closing embassies now, burn the waste to make way for the new!". Those regions' ties with Forest have existed for nearly a decade. They were once just as, if not more active than, Forest. As someone who experiences mild nostalgia for a past, smaller Forest (even though I'm nowhere near the oldest at four years so far), I think it's important to remember our roots and not cut off ties just because we're too big and important to be dealing with tiny inactive regions like them anymore.

That said, I've conceded to the concept of closing inactive embassies after a "funeral" for that region. The "funeral" might involve posting tributes or memories of the region, thanking them for having an embassy for so long, etc. It'd be a way of moving on while still honoring the history and showing that we close the embassy reluctantly.

One suggestion would be to create a dispatch or other form of link to a "In Memoriam", along with the stories and memories.

Middle Barael wrote: Snip for sake of space conservation
I would therefore suggest amending your resolution so that it outlaws the termination of vat-born fetuses only if they are in their “third trimester” or if the infant already has some form of consciousness. If they are still an unborn, unconscious fetus, I feel that it should be legal to terminate the development of the infant, as their may be reasons why a country or a family may no longer be able to support another person.

I see no reason that the third trimester would be the cutoff point, by even six weeks the child has a regular heart beat and brain activity (in the case of humans). I am also trying to be accommodating to the species that are not human by not giving arbitrary time limits that might make no sense for an alien species. Also, who defines consciousness, me? It seems in a multiverse so diverse in life that it’s safer to protect life both familiar and strange, than give people any alibi to destroy it.

Checking in because my nation was about to vanish.
I also have my open house tomorrow...hmm what else?
If anyone remembers my GPA struggle, I barely got under 3.0...I have a final GPA of 2.91

Sapnu puas wrote:Checking in because my nation was about to vanish.
I also have my open house tomorrow...hmm what else?
If anyone remembers my GPA struggle, I barely got under 3.0...I have a final GPA of 2.91

I presume a GPA of 2.91 is... good? If so, congratulations!

The Young Ur wrote:Riddle me this Middle Barael, if I adopt a puppy, then realize I have nether the money to provide for it, nor the space in my house, what would you have me do (We could even say, for accuracy's sake that the dog is in induced medical comma and will wake in a little over a month)?

You’d obviously give it away, but there are two major problems with this analogy:

  • With the puppy, you can give it away or put it up for adoption. But with the humans, most orphanages are already overcrowded.

  • The puppy is already alive in your example, but with the vat-produced infant, it cannot be counted as alive until the third trimester, meaning until then the infant is just a collection of cells, and thus the “virtual pregnancy” can be terminated.

Not to mention the fact that his would be a gross intrusion on nations’ sovereignty, which even you complained about in the past, and so ultimately if the people of a nation agree with you, they can introduce national laws, and if they don’t, they don’t have to. This should not be a WA-wide thing.

Plus, this is essentially a repeat of the whole abortion debate, and just like it wouldn’t be fair to outlaw abortions nationwide, it is not fair to ban this. If an individual chooses to abort, it is their business and theirs alone, so this should not be dictated by the state, but rather dictated by the morals, values, and religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of the individual.

The Young Ur wrote:I see no reason that the third trimester would be the cutoff point, by even six weeks the child has a regular heart beat and brain activity (in the case of humans). I am also trying to be accommodating to the species that are not human by not giving arbitrary time limits that might make no sense for an alien species. Also, who defines consciousness, me? It seems in a multiverse so diverse in life that it’s safer to protect life both familiar and strange, than give people any alibi to destroy it.

About the heartbeat, this is actually inaccurate, and has been proven to be caused by the quality of scientific instruments used. While I agree with you that this only applies to humans and that consciousness is somewhat subjective, I find a key mistake in your argument: You say that you do not want arbitrary cut-off dates, so then the answer should be not to cut it off, and to allow people to terminate their “virtual pregnancies” up until the infant is able to think, to feel pain, or to be considered a living being by the society they are in. You claim that consciousness is subjective, and I completely agree, so then let the parents decide the fate of their unborn child based upon their own beliefs about abortions.

The TSP LC: Where we not only allow, but encourage foreign interference in our elections!

page=poll/p=160093

Middle Barael wrote:You’d obviously give it away, but there are two major problems with this analogy:
  • With the puppy, you can give it away or put it up for adoption. But with the humans, most orphanages are already overcrowded.

  • The puppy is already alive in your example, but with the vat-produced infant, it cannot be counted as alive until the third trimester, meaning until then the infant is just a collection of cells, and thus the “virtual pregnancy” can be terminated.

Not to mention the fact that his would be a gross intrusion on nations’ sovereignty, which even you complained about in the past, and so ultimately if the people of a nation agree with you, they can introduce national laws, and if they don’t, they don’t have to. This should not be a WA-wide thing.

Plus, this is essentially a repeat of the whole abortion debate, and just like it wouldn’t be fair to outlaw abortions nationwide, it is not fair to ban this. If an individual chooses to abort, it is their business and theirs alone, so this should not be dictated by the state, but rather dictated by the morals, values, and religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of the individual.

About the heartbeat, this is actually inaccurate, and has been proven to be caused by the quality of scientific instruments used. While I agree with you that this only applies to humans and that consciousness is somewhat subjective, I find a key mistake in your argument: You say that you do not want arbitrary cut-off dates, so then the answer should be not to cut it off, and to allow people to terminate their “virtual pregnancies” up until the infant is able to think, to feel pain, or to be considered a living being by the society they are in. You claim that consciousness is subjective, and I completely agree, so then let the parents decide the fate of their unborn child based upon their own beliefs about abortions.

If orphanages are overcrowded, that can be taken care of by upgrading and constructing more orphanages, I know that that this expectation might be unfair in RL, but if we are in a multiverse with faster than light travel, then we can build some more places for orphans.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you mean sentient, not alive. If you do mean alive then you are wrong, even yeast is alive!
I do not think demanding that an innocent and harmless life be protected is an overreach of the World Assembly's Power! I feel that the duty to not kill and each being's personal right to their lives is so simple, that I'm saddened we even need these demands, but if people, need an authority figure to say they can't commit murder, then so be it.
I was unaware this (heartbeat not at six weeks) was an inaccuracy and thank you fervently for bring this to my attention.
As you have said before, "this is essentially a repeat of the whole abortion debate." In which I am pro-choose, what this means to me, is that every being aught to have the right to choose what to do and what not to do, so long as this choice does not harm others. With this in mind, the nine hundred million choices the person would have made in their lives outweigh the one choice of a being to get an abortion.
You probably will bring up rape, and my opinion on that is even then the choice made by the assailant should still not make it an option to take away the nine hundred million choices that the newly conceived being would have made. As for the fate of the rapist, a day bound and alone with the victim and their friends and family, weekly torture, and lifetime solitary confinement at all other times may not be quite harsh enough. In the vat-created scenario, the closest thing to rape would be coercing or forcing the victim to request or order a child, so the punishment for this could simply be making them pay for the cost of raising the being, and possibly some jail time.

I thank you Middle Barael and Forest in general for your extensive and well reasoned arguments. Too many times I have heard from conservatives, liberals, and everyone in between, arguments such as, "It's always been this way," or, "It's accepted, you can't change it," or, "It's just evil," or "It's pure good," and though I lean more right than many of you, I stay and I listen even if I doubt my mind will ever be changed on somethings, it is refreshing to be in a place that logic holds more sway then the voice of the mob, and a place where views may be dissected and argued against, but not turned away cold. This is why I came to Forest, and this why I will stay.

Middle Barael, I have updated my resolution based on our debate, sorry if it's not what you hopped for.
Hey! Any of you older wiser nations who goaded me into this writing this going to to give me advise or what? (I am simply joking in the second statement, but really help would be appreciated.)

Oh no! I just discovered the house of cards rule!

The General Assembly,
Acknowledging that many of our number use technology to produce their offspring in vats, whether because they have lost the ability to naturally produce offspring or simply for the sake of convenience.

Fearing that in the production of these human beings many may be mistreated or even killed outright and that in a nation in which this production is not undertaken by the government the corporations that do undertake this creation of life will feel as though they own these people.
Keeping these things in mind, and assuming the produced being is from a sapient species, these things are clarified:

  1. Resolution #355, Rights Of Sapient Species defines "Sapient Being” as:
    "

    • Think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic;

    • Choose a sensible course of action or considered response;

    • Experience subjectively, feel, or recognize, discern, envision, understand, or attain awareness of.

    This classification extended to those in a species with above stated characteristics who are mentally ill or below the age of majority.

  2. A person is a sapient being and a sapient being is a person.

  3. With these thing established the protections of Ban On Slavery And Trafficking can be invoked.

Insistent that after the development of a being is initiated in an artificial environment it must not be terminated. Contrary to a natural setting where there are cases when the parent acting as a host might be harmed by the individual birthed. But in the synthetic setting, where there is no host to be harmed, there is no reason to terminate the developing being.
This is supported especially in the case of the pursuit of scientific knowledge by the Medical Research Ethics Act by clause three:

UNDERSTANDING that ethical dilemmas exist in medical research, including:

  1. Excessive coercion or deception of prospective testing subjects.

  2. Exploiting weak, undereducated, or emotionally unstable subjects.

Prepared for the case that the being produced by this process by its ‘birth’ is no longer wanted or able to be cared for by the ‘parents’ or ‘parent’, they become an orphan and are thereby protected and regulated by Rights Of The Orphaned Child and Child Welfare In Adoption.

Reminding these nations that at a time that that an entity producing can no longer do so that they can call on World Health Authority to fund the medical expense it costs allow the vat created beings to mature to a point they can live outside the artificial environment. This is due to the legislature, Access To Life-Saving Drugs which resoloves that:
“1) An appropriate part of World Health Authority’s budget shall be directed for buying and distributing, when and where necessary, high-cost life-saving medications and vaccines. Negotiations shall take place between the agencies and patent holders so as to achieve a minimum acceptable price, one that does not hamper the industries affected nor further research, nor depletes the WA economic resources or otherwise adversely impacts the multitude of activities dependant on WA funding.”

(Oops, sorry for the double post.)

The Young Ur wrote:<snip>

You can always say "as covered by legislation previously passed by this body" as a legal workaround the House of Cards' rule.

Turbeaux wrote:Would anyone be willing to sponsor and/or serve ambassador to Thalassia?

On the topic of embassies, I am still willing to sponsor and serve as ambassador to the New West Indies as they have absorbed Conifer. I can get them to submit a request at any time. They have a healthy democratic regional government and a RP-heavy RMB featuring very detailed posts. The ambiance is reminiscent of Wintreath. Additionally, I believe that we should close our embassy with Evergreen Conifer because it is entirely dead. The entire government has moved to the NWI and an ex-governmental nation always tells tells me that EC is a zombie region when I post my environmental dispatches there. I am sure that I could get Funky Goats, Gallaton, and or Central Birdland to confirm this via TG. Additionally, our resident Conifer Roless can do the same.

Ruinenlust, I think that Republicans using the "OP" bit is strange because the Democratic Party is older. Also, it annoys me when Trumpists say that the Dems are racist due to the political situation that existed in the Civil War era. If that were to be true, most of the former Confederacy would vote Democratic rather than Republican. It is almost like politics change over 150 years. Imagine that! Of course, these are the same people who start frothing at the mouth when a Dem "flip flops" on an issue (despite the fact that their Dear Leader was a Dem relatively recently). I think that ideological evolution is often a very good thing, but I suppose that people who are stuck in the 1860s (minus the good president) cannot comprehend that things change over time.

Indeed, we have fully merged with the New West Indies and will delete Evergreen Conifer in the near future, best regards Central Birdland :)

Darths and Droids wrote:You can always say "as covered by legislation previously passed by this body" as a legal workaround the House of Cards' rule.

The Young Ur wrote:Middle Barael, I have updated my resolution based on our debate, sorry if it's not what you hopped for.
Hey! Any of you older wiser nations who goaded me into this writing this going to to give me advise or what? (I am simply joking in the second statement, but really help would be appreciated.)

Oh no! I just discovered the house of cards rule!

The General Assembly,
Acknowledging that many of our number use technology to produce their offspring in vats, whether because they have lost the ability to naturally produce offspring or simply for the sake of convenience.

Fearing that in the production of these human beings many may be mistreated or even killed outright and that in a nation in which this production is not undertaken by the government the corporations that do undertake this creation of life will feel as though they own these people.
Keeping these things in mind, and assuming the produced being is from a sapient species, these things are clarified:

  1. Resolution #355, Rights Of Sapient Species defines "Sapient Being” as:
    "

    • Think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic;

    • Choose a sensible course of action or considered response;

    • Experience subjectively, feel, or recognize, discern, envision, understand, or attain awareness of.

    This classification extended to those in a species with above stated characteristics who are mentally ill or below the age of majority.

  2. A person is a sapient being and a sapient being is a person.

  3. With these thing established the protections of Ban On Slavery And Trafficking can be invoked.

Insistent that after the development of a being is initiated in an artificial environment it must not be terminated. Contrary to a natural setting where there are cases when the parent acting as a host might be harmed by the individual birthed. But in the synthetic setting, where there is no host to be harmed, there is no reason to terminate the developing being.
This is supported especially in the case of the pursuit of scientific knowledge by the Medical Research Ethics Act by clause three:

UNDERSTANDING that ethical dilemmas exist in medical research, including:

  1. Excessive coercion or deception of prospective testing subjects.

  2. Exploiting weak, undereducated, or emotionally unstable subjects.

Prepared for the case that the being produced by this process by its ‘birth’ is no longer wanted or able to be cared for by the ‘parents’ or ‘parent’, they become an orphan and are thereby protected and regulated by Rights Of The Orphaned Child and Child Welfare In Adoption.

Reminding these nations that at a time that that an entity producing can no longer do so that they can call on World Health Authority to fund the medical expense it costs allow the vat created beings to mature to a point they can live outside the artificial environment. This is due to the legislature, Access To Life-Saving Drugs which resoloves that:
“1) An appropriate part of World Health Authority’s budget shall be directed for buying and distributing, when and where necessary, high-cost life-saving medications and vaccines. Negotiations shall take place between the agencies and patent holders so as to achieve a minimum acceptable price, one that does not hamper the industries affected nor further research, nor depletes the WA economic resources or otherwise adversely impacts the multitude of activities dependant on WA funding.”


(Oops, sorry for the double post.)

OK, lets try this again.

The General Assembly,
Acknowledging that many of our number use technology to produce their offspring in vats, whether because they have lost the ability to produce offspring naturally or purely for the sake of convenience.

Fearing that in the production of these beings many may be mistreated or even killed outright. Also, worrying those that partake in this creation of life will feel as though they own those created.
With these concerns in mind, clarifies these things:
For this legislature a sapient being is:

  1. Any entity possessing the ability to: Think, understand, and form judgments using logic.

  2. Any entity able to choose a sensible course of action or considered response

  3. Any entity able to experience subjectively, feel, recognize, discern, envision, understand, or attain awareness.

  4. Any juvenile or mentally ill member of a species that has these characteristics.

  5. A person is a sapient being, and a sapient being is a person.

Hereby creates the Oversight Committee of Sapient, Biological Creature Creation (OCSBCC). This committee is entrusted with protecting and upholding the rights of synthetically produced, sapient, biological creatures. Their duties include:

  1. Ensuring that after the development of a being is initiated in an artificial environment it is not terminated. Where, contrary to a natural setting where there are cases when the parent acting as a host might be harmed by the individual being born, in the synthetic setting, where there is no host to be harmed, there is no reason to terminate the developing being.

  2. Regulating the facilities used to create living beings to ensure they are sanitary and safe for both the workers and the creature synthesized.

  3. Preparing for the possibility that by the concussion of its time ‘in utero’ the being produced is no longer wanted or able to be cared for by its future guardian, the OCSBCC with two duties:

    1. Securing their status as orphans, and therefore protecting and constraining them by all current legislation that applies to the status.

    2. Ensuring by the new constitution of new facilities and updating current facilities, that there is sufficient space in orphanages for the new beings

    3. Both above duties are voided if the creature in question emerges from 'in utero' fully mature.

Reminding these nations, that at a time when an entity producing sapient biological creatures can no longer do so, that they can call on the World Health Authority for funding. The funding can only be used to finish the 'batch' of synthetically created beings to a point they can live outside the artificial environment.

«12. . .1,8141,8151,8161,8171,8181,8191,820. . .1,8381,839»

Advertisement