butafly v. the Northeast

[sentinel]

Yeah, I'm against legalizing people having sex with animals. Some of us are focused on creating jobs, others are focused on banging animals.

[sentinel]

It is the responsibility of the state to protect life within the region. If the life is human, we have laws against murder and rape. If the life is animal, we have laws against inhumane killing of animals and bestiality. If the life is nature, we have laws to preserve nature and regulate its destruction by humans.

Laws preventing the raping of animals is in the interest of the state, just as laws preventing the raping of human beings.

[sentinel]

This is an absurd interpretation of the right to privacy. I will not condone the raping of animals.

Under Butafly/A Person's interpretation you can also argue that murdering a non citizen is legal. Interpreting it in this way would set a horrible precedent for the future.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[sentinel]

Woof.

[sentinel]

[sentinel]

http://youtu.be/9gspElv1yvc

[sentinel]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Under Butafly's ridiculous interpretation, citizens of the Northeast shall have the unabridged right to drunk drive without legal restraint by the government, through its laws, providing said action does not directly harm another citizen physically, mentally, or otherwise prevents another citizen from exercising this same freedom.

[sentinel]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Under Butafly's ridiculous interpretation, citizens of the Northeast shall have the unabridged right to drunk drive without legal restraint by the government, through its laws, providing said action does not directly harm another citizen physically, mentally, or otherwise prevents another citizen from exercising this same freedom.

There's a reasonable argument to be made that drunk driving probabilistically causes physical and mental harm upon citizens. No need to worry about that getting shot down

There really needs to be an amendment, though.

You can drunk drive on a road alone and not cause harm to someone else...

[sentinel]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Under Butafly's ridiculous interpretation, citizens of the Northeast shall have the unabridged right to drunk drive without legal restraint by the government, through its laws, providing said action does not directly harm another citizen physically, mentally, or otherwise prevents another citizen from exercising this same freedom.

There's a reasonable argument to be made that drunk driving probabilistically causes physical and mental harm upon citizens. No need to worry about that getting shot down

There really needs to be an amendment, though.

You can drunk drive on a road alone and not cause harm to someone else...

The expected value of accidents while driving drunk is a statistically significant nonzero number. Yes, it's possible not to harm someone while drunk driving, just like it's possible not to harm someone while punching him. The probability of hurt is much higher, but both should be illegal under the law.

Sounds like an equally absurd interpretation of this clause.

[sentinel]

I would submit that anyone practicing bestiality suffers from a mental illness and are thus directly harming themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

butafly, why did you pick this bill to stand on, anyway? There are so many more bills that could demonstrate the issues with this clause. Heck, you could have just gone ahead and tried to amend the clause.

Because he finds animals attractive?

I would have supported amending the clause. I don't support pointing out imperfections in the clause by legalizing bestiality.

[sentinel]

How does this feel!?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[sentinel]

I will file a brief before my tenure as GM begins.

[sentinel]

Crap, I forgot and now I'm not Governor. Is it ethical of me to file a brief now?

[sentinel]

At the federal level, the Animal Protection Act of 2013, protects animals from Willful neglect, Malicious killing, Beatings, Dog fighting, cock fighting, and any other events involving animals maiming, hurting, or killing one another, torture, Impound or confine an animal without affording it access to shelter from wind, rain, snow, or excessive direct sunlight if it can reasonably be expected that the animals would otherwise become sick or in some other way suffer and Carry or convey an animal in a cruel manner.

The prohibition of bestiality in the Northeast can be seen as a regional manifestation of the Animal Protection Act of 2013. Because animals cannot consent it is reasonable to say that sex with an animal is the rape of an animal --and rape is torture. It is an act of violence. Both laws already prohibit this.

The Supreme Court of Atlasia and the Federal Constitution have already established the supremacy of the federal law and constitution over the regions. The Northeast passed the Supremacy Act, a resolution acknowledging an already known fact.

If the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast finds that the prohibition of bestiality violates the Right to Privacy clause of the Northeast Constitution then the Right to Privacy Clause must be struck down.

The Right to Privacy clause would have the Northeast government treat legal non-citizens differently than citizens, and one could even argue that the prohibition of drunk driving is a violation of the Privacy Clause. It is absurd that we are even having to debate fundamental values such as a prohibition on raping animals.

In conclusion, the Right to Privacy Clause of the Northeast Constitution was designed in a way that it obviously conflicts with federal laws. It must be struck down by this Court in order to preserve the safety and security of all living things within the Northeast.

I rest my case.