SB 116-17: Dumb Regulations Repeal Act 22 - Tabled

[fhtagn]

It may be in your best interest to actually cite the text of the legislation you are trying to repeal, rather than claiming something is unnecessary without any way of backing it.

[fhtagn]

Nay

[fhtagn]

Since the Laki Amendment seems likely to fail, can the sponsor specifically explain what changes are being asked for in this bill and why?

He says they are "onerous" but it wouldn't appear that restrictions on making human-animal chimeras in lab or filming rape would have much of an impact on anyone normal. Also I have no clue what "sapient" is getting at as far as bestiality.

Many other changes aren't even stricken through as is normal practice but rather referenced by a section number. If the sponsor thinks parts of the existing law are bad, I'd ask that he explain what actual parts he wants to change along with an explanation of why. Otherwise it just looks like he wants to make it easier to commit sexual violence and crimes against humanity, and I'd prefer to think there is some actual reasonable thought behind this.

Can the sponsor help me out and actually explain each change and why so that I don't have to think the worst here?

[fhtagn]

Since the Laki Amendment seems likely to fail, can the sponsor specifically explain what changes are being asked for in this bill and why?

He says they are "onerous" but it wouldn't appear that restrictions on making human-animal chimeras in lab or filming rape would have much of an impact on anyone normal. Also I have no clue what "sapient" is getting at as far as bestiality.

Many other changes aren't even stricken through as is normal practice but rather referenced by a section number. If the sponsor thinks parts of the existing law are bad, I'd ask that he explain what actual parts he wants to change along with an explanation of why. Otherwise it just looks like he wants to make it easier to commit sexual violence and crimes against humanity, and I'd prefer to think there is some actual reasonable thought behind this.

Can the sponsor help me out and actually explain each change and why so that I don't have to think the worst here?

I did so (before I proposed the amendment).

Reply 3 and 4 of the thread.

Your replies don't actually answer my questions.

[fhtagn]

Wulfric claims the criminal prohibition on the following is an "onerous regulation":

It shall be unlawful for any person in Atlasia to knowingly:

...

8. prepare, serve, eat, or consume any human bone, flesh, appendage, skin, organ, blood, or adrenochrome obtained in interstate commerce.

Are we really at the point where Wulfric is openly pro-cannibalism just to own the South?

There is no need to formally restrict such an improbable event.

Since the Laki Amendment seems likely to fail, can the sponsor specifically explain what changes are being asked for in this bill and why?

He says they are "onerous" but it wouldn't appear that restrictions on making human-animal chimeras in lab or filming rape would have much of an impact on anyone normal. Also I have no clue what "sapient" is getting at as far as bestiality.

Many other changes aren't even stricken through as is normal practice but rather referenced by a section number. If the sponsor thinks parts of the existing law are bad, I'd ask that he explain what actual parts he wants to change along with an explanation of why. Otherwise it just looks like he wants to make it easier to commit sexual violence and crimes against humanity, and I'd prefer to think there is some actual reasonable thought behind this.

Can the sponsor help me out and actually explain each change and why so that I don't have to think the worst here?

I did so (before I proposed the amendment).

Reply 3 and 4 of the thread.

Your replies don't actually answer my questions.

The last question maybe not

But the changes on the original bills have literally been quoted in post 3 and 4. They are clearly indicated.

The "why" behind it, is up to others to explain. I didn't propose/sponsor the bill.

These regulations were enacted in bad faith by a proven traitor to the Republic. We will dispose of them.

So you're not going to bother actually answering my questions?

[fhtagn]

Nay on Laki's pro-incest amendment

[fhtagn]

It detests me to even attempt to answer your question, it should be sufficient that these were very niche regulations enacted as part of long, omnibus legislation enacted by a known traitor to the Republic. They simply should be disposed of to be on the safe side.

But:

- The Addition to Title I-10 of the Mad Scientist Act simply provides a narrow exception for a certain class of gene therapy. This is a reasonable carve out in the name of science.
- The first three lines of title II provide a near-complete ban on cloning. Several of the situations it names are absurd to even think about (a human into a chimera? how?) and it just seems to unnecessarily restrict scientific advancement.
- The second portion of Title II that is strikethroughed provides an unnecessary restriction on cannibalism (which no one is doing anyways, and if they are they have probably committed some other crime, making this regulation superfluous), and bans AI and Cryogenics. It is important to repeal these overbearing restrictions.
- The Terminate Cyberdine Act, in relevant part, allows and encourages discrimination against people based on any factor (ex. race) when that person has used certain types of AI. This is a closet way to take us back to Jim Crow by essentially banning non-whites from using certain technologies.
- The Preventing Degeneracy Act is modified to get government out of attempting to ban sex toys, which are harmless and do not need to be restricted.

At least one of the situations you claim is "absurd to even think about" is literally canon in game:

“Crocodile monsters” uncovered in Louisiana horror lab

TERRA BELLE, LA. Police investigating tips of a possible animal hoarding case stumbled across a nefarious lab of horrors in Terra Belle Friday morning. What started as a routine wellness check of the secluded house of Professor Trip L. Extralarge, where strange smells and tips of animal keeping interested police, turned into scenes from a monster movie. One room featured ten large crocodiles, sick and covered in tumors, dubbed “ears” by the Professor. In another room, four petri dishes of human embryos injected with crocodile DNA were discovered. Several mass animal graves in Extralarge’s backyard are still being exhumed, but preliminary reports indicate that these animals have also been genetically tampered with. “The stench was what you might think of in a nightmare … think the sickly smell of a nursing home mixed with rotting flesh and feces,” one of the first cops in the house, said.

“You fools are setting back human achievement!”  screamed Professor Extralarge as he was placed into a waiting police vehicle. Professor Extralarge is one scientist in the growing field of transhumanism, the belief that science and technology can lead to greater human advancement than environmental pressure alone. “I stand in solidarity with science and with Professor Extralarge,” tweeted Oregon transhumanist Dr. Douglas Ong, who experiments with dugong and cuttlefish DNA. “Mixing human and animal DNA could unlock the greatest mysteries of the universe … such as whether or not it is possible to have an eight-assed giraffe,” Dr. Alphonse Mephesto, a Colorado transhumanist stated on Youtube.

Professor Extralarge is being charged under the recently passed Black Mirror Act, which makes it a crime to create human-animal hybrids. This is the first known prosecution under this law, and given the horrific scene it presented, let’s hope there won’t need to be another any time soon in the bayou.  - Jamilah Custer, WVDU News Team.

It makes no sense to say that something evil and harmful to society that is nonetheless rare should therefore be legal.

It also makes no sense to say that you oppose the ban on literal cannibalism because you dont like the author but simultaneously support the ban on incest passed by the same author.

[fhtagn]

Leave it to Laki to publicly claim that gay sex is no different than incest.

[fhtagn]

Motion to table

[fhtagn]

Nay

[fhtagn]

Nay

[fhtagn]

Seconding the motion to table

[fhtagn]

Aye