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

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Amendment fails 2-10-0-6. Debate resumes.

[Utah Neolib]

Nay ftr

[ChiefFireWaterMike]

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?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

[Devout Centrist]

More to the point, shouldn't all of this stuff already be banned by statute? I know a lot of things got cut out during the reset, but didn't existing US Code get carried over in 2016?

[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?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Proposing amendment on Preventing Degeneracy Act repealing title 1, subsection 4

[West_Midlander]

Proposing amendment on Preventing Degeneracy Act repealing title 1, subsection 4

The amendment is not formatted properly but I will recognize it unless the PPT decides to overrule this judgment. In the future, it would probably be better for all Senators involved to clearly outline the intended changes. My understanding is that this is meant to expand the section "4.Title I, Section 4 of SB 113-8 is hereby amended by striking all instances of “adoption” from the section and its subsections" to strike the entire Section 4 found below.

4. Incest means knowingly:

A. Engaging in sexual contact with, either legitimately or illegitimately:

i. his or her ancestor or descendant by blood or adoption, or the spouse thereof;

ii. his or her brother or sister of the whole or half-blood or by adoption, or the spouse thereof; or

iii. his or her uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece of the half or quarter blood or by adoption, or the spouse thereof.

For purposes of this definition, participation in group sex activities while any of the preceding relatives are also contemporaneous participants shall be considered incest;

B. causing another person by force, threat, or intimidation to engage in sexual contact as described in Section A of this definition;

C. permitting sexual contact as described in Section A of this definition to be conducted on any premises under his or her ownership or control;

D. producing, distributing, publishing, selling, transmitting, financing, advertising, possessing with the intent to produce, distribute, publish, sell, transmit, finance, or advertise, or making any attempt to produce, distribute, publish, sell, transmit, finance, or advertise an obscene item depicting or purporting to depict a person engaged in sexual contact as described in Section A of this definition.

E. Traveling in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in or facilitating sexual contact as described in Section A of this definition.

In which case, I object and hereby open a vote on the amendment.

Nay.

[West_Midlander]

Ftr, I respect ideological opposition to the targeted sections in general but blanket opposition merely due to the original author's own actions is unwise imo.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Well given a full repeal has been rejected i'll just amend the things out that are unacceptable to me.

And apologies for not formatting correctly but this is indeed what i want to repeal.

The government should not have any business determining with who one should have sexual contact with.

In practice though it's going to be rare anyways because of the Westermarck effect which makes indeed sense because despite being adopted, i never developed sexual or romantic feelings towards any of my cousins (even if not tied with blood).

That same effect will usually lead to incest being very rare, unless being forced on or unless brother/sister, cousins etc. lived separately.

Theoretically, it's also possible to not be tied with blood with a spouse of a family member. I just think the section is very extreme, and if wrong - should not be handled this way.

4 A.i would fall under pedophilia though still if the descendant (by blood or adoption) is a minor, so would still be a criminal act in case the descendant (son/daughter) is a minor.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Respectfully, I overrule the previous ruling and declare the amendment frivolous due to lacking clear instructions.

I welcome another amendment from the sponsor providing a copy of the relevant bill showing what they want stricken.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

TITLE I: DEFINITIONS

4. Incest means knowingly:

A. Engaging in sexual contact with, either legitimately or illegitimately:

i. his or her ancestor or descendant by blood or adoption, or the spouse thereof;

ii. his or her brother or sister of the whole or half-blood or by adoption, or the spouse thereof; or

iii. his or her uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece of the half or quarter blood or by adoption, or the spouse thereof.

For purposes of this definition, participation in group sex activities while any of the preceding relatives are also contemporaneous participants shall be considered incest;

B. causing another person by force, threat, or intimidation to engage in sexual contact as described in Section A of this definition;

C. permitting sexual contact as described in Section A of this definition to be conducted on any premises under his or her ownership or control;

D. producing, distributing, publishing, selling, transmitting, financing, advertising, possessing with the intent to produce, distribute, publish, sell, transmit, finance, or advertise, or making any attempt to produce, distribute, publish, sell, transmit, finance, or advertise an obscene item depicting or purporting to depict a person engaged in sexual contact as described in Section A of this definition.

E. Traveling in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in or facilitating sexual contact as described in Section A of this definition.

Proposing amendment.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

You're allowed to think incest is awful (though we're not even talking about marriage but the sexual act) and i don't think the government has any business determining with who you want to sleep with if the sexual partners are grown up adults and share mutual consent.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I object to the amendment. Incest prohibitions are sensible, long-standing regulation.

Nay

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Aye

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I object to the amendment. Incest prohibitions are sensible, long-standing regulation.

Nay

In most of the world it's actually legal.

And the definition of incest in this bill is actually very extreme.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

3. A violation of this act shall be classified as a felony punishable by imprisonment for no less than one (1) and no more than ten (10) years, a fine of no more than $100,000.00, and disgorgement of any profits. Any person convicted of a violation of section 1 of this title shall be required to register as a sex offender an shall be ordered to attend an appropriate treatment program or obtain psychiatric or psychological counseling.

And punishment for all of these acts is very severe.

Written by someone who would also have wished to include LGBTQ sex in that act (but know that would not pass due to the spirit of the modern era).

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

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?

As the writer of the original bill, I suppose it makes more sense for me to answer these.

The strikes to the Mad Science Prevention act are moreso because I believe that should people give informed consent to partake in those sorts of scientific trials, passing ethical review, then there is no moral issue. We could find some interesting new information through that.  As all trials done without consent and without ethical review are, as I understand it, already illegal, there's no need to single these out.


the changes to Terminate Cyberdyne are civil rights based. Especially AI, in the future, could gain human-like intelligence and should be treated as such once that happens, I believe.

Finally, the big one from this bill, the Preventing Degeneracy act. The sapience thing is actually a big issue regarding digital art which this does effect. Essentially this change is trying to codify the Harkness Test, where if a different creature has adult human-level intelligence and consents, all's good. This is, and has been, the interpretation of this bill since Cao issued an executive order regarding it here.

The other change you noted I believe you have misunderstood. This applies to roleplay situations being acted out, not flat out rape. If 2 adults both agree, without threat, to act out that situation, film it, and put it on OnlyFans or something else like that, that's their right. Obviously if one person films them forcing themselves on someone else and puts it online, that's still illegal.

[West_Midlander]

Nay

[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.

[NewYorkExpress]

Nay

Laki, you do realize incest leads to more genetic disorders, right?

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Nay

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Nay