We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Public Safety Act 2101
Details
Submitted by[?]: RSDP - Democratic Front
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: February 2103
Description[?]:
| Bearing in mind that dangerous wild animals kept by private individuals, amateurs, will escape, no matter what precautions and preventive safety measures are taken, Bearing in mind the necessity to protect the public against the danger of wild animals roaming around freely, Taking note of one particular case in which a six-year old girl who was playing in the street with some friends was attacked an killed by an escaped tiger, which was kept by a private individual as a pet and was kept in a cage, and in which the police and the military hunted the tiger down for 48 hours in a very costly operation before they managed to shoot the tiger, Now, Therefore, The Federal Parliament of the Federated States of Rutania, Resolves that the keeping of dangerous wild animals as pets is henceforth forbidden; and Further resolves that the Federal Government will maintain a list of dangerous wild animals which may not be kept as pets, the keeping of wild pets which are not on that list remains legal. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the keeping of wild animals as pets.
Old value:: Wild animals may be kept as pets; the owners of dangerous wild animals must take the necessary measures to ensure they can't escape.
Current: The government maintains a list of dangerous wild animals which may not be kept as pets; other wild animals may be kept as pets.
Proposed: The government maintains a list of dangerous wild animals which may not be kept as pets; other wild animals may be kept as pets.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:41:56, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | Against. The current legislation is adequate to ensure public safety. |
| Date | 15:01:03, August 27, 2005 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | It isn't, no matter what precautions you take wild animals kept as pets will always escape. |
| Date | 15:15:22, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | Thanks for that unsupported and sweeping assertion... |
| Date | 15:30:39, August 27, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | It isn't unsupported, there are numerous examples of dangerous wild animals kept in a cage that escape. |
| Date | 15:36:22, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | We will support this, and think that anyone in this house should - thinking about the grieving parents of Nathalee it is the least we can do. |
| Date | 16:22:40, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | In a country of 60,000,000 people 20,000 are hospitalised every year whilst attempting to put on their trousers. Everything, in the hands of the stupid or unluky, can be dangerous but using individual examples as moral blackmail to restrict people's freedoms is a pathetic and ungentlemanly tactic. |
| Date | 18:53:29, August 27, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | I'd see that as a statement in favour of this bill, surely you don't want dangerous wild animals kept by the "stupid". Let me put it this way: would you approve of someone keeping a specimen of the Ebola virus at home? No, because it can break out and cause lots of deaths, such specimens should only be kept in scientific institutions where they are constantly guarded and where they know how to deal with it. So, why then would you approve of someone keeping a dangerous wild animal as a pet? |
| Date | 18:54:53, August 27, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | And what's more, the mere fact that a person wants to keep a dangerous wild animals as a pet indicates that that person: 1) knows nothing about the animal, and 2) does not know how to treat the animal. |
| Date | 19:30:52, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | I think there is a rather large difference between Ebola and a bear... for one bears dont kill millions of people, nor are they extremely difficult to contain. If someone can demonstrate, therefore, that they can keep such an animal safely then they should be allowed to do so. Clearly, this isnt going to be the majority of people, but that is no reason to deny people who do have the expertise and facilities to do it the chance to keep such animals. "And what's more, the mere fact that a person wants to keep a dangerous wild animals as a pet indicates that that person: 1) knows nothing about the animal, and 2) does not know how to treat the animal." ... ... That's just stupid. |
| Date | 19:31:37, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | [OOC: BTW did you just make this: "Taking note of one particular case in which a six-year old girl who was playing in the street with some friends was attacked an killed by an escaped tiger, which was kept by a private individual as a pet and was kept in a cage, and in which the police and the military hunted the tiger down for 48 hours in a very costly operation before they managed to shoot the tiger," up so it it would strengthen your case?] |
| Date | 21:29:27, August 27, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | OOC: No that actually happened IRL, I just transferred it to Rutania. |
| Date | 21:31:44, August 27, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | ""And what's more, the mere fact that a person wants to keep a dangerous wild animals as a pet indicates that that person: 1) knows nothing about the animal, and 2) does not know how to treat the animal." ... ... That's just stupid." It isn't, wild animals need lots of space, and above all, they need freedom, they need to be able to roam around in their own natural environment, not in a small cage in someone's backyard. They need to be able to hunt for their food, not being fed by their owner. Anyone who works with wild animals knows that they should not and cannot be kept as pets. |
| Date | 21:39:56, August 27, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | Another reason why dangerous wild animals should not be kept as pets is that they are wild; they are unpredictable. They can treat their owner well for years and allow the owner to enter their cage, allow him to go near them and even allow him to pet them (yes, ALLOW, the owner does not decide when to pet a dangerous wild animals, the animals themselves decide when they let their owner come close), but they can just as easily be startled or annoyed by a small thing and attack their owner when he enters the cage or tries to feed them. (OOC: something similar happened to Roy of Siegfried & Roy a couple of years ago, even though they got along well up to that point. That tiger had been had been trained by Roysince he was a cub; he had performed with the act for six years and there was no reason to assume he would attack his owner, but apparantly someone in the croud "fascinated and distracted" him, and that can happen with other dangerous animals too) That is how they can escape (if they don't escape because the owner left them unguarded or forgot to close their cage), that is why dangerous wild animals should not be kept as pets. |
| Date | 22:06:39, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | "It isn't, wild animals need lots of space, and above all, they need freedom, they need to be able to roam around in their own natural environment, not in a small cage in someone's backyard. They need to be able to hunt for their food, not being fed by their owner. Anyone who works with wild animals knows that they should not and cannot be kept as pets." Not by people who only have a "backyard" and a small cage, but those people would not be allowed to keep them. Im thinking more of people who have an amount of money, an amount of land and enough time on their hands to care for the animal properly, or have the ability to employ someone else to do so. In these circumstances, the animals will not escape. |
| Date | 22:11:22, August 27, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | You don't seem to be getting the point; only zoos or animal parks can provide sufficient professional care for keeping dangerous wild animals. And they'll still escape under those circumstances, and they'll still be able to attack their owner of the person who looks after them. And this act is purely about keeping them as pets, what you describe is a private zoo (which is a completely different issue). ;-) |
| Date | 22:12:23, August 27, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | A small question: would you support this act if it included an addendum saying that dangerous wild animals may be kept by certified private zoos? |
| Date | 23:44:10, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | No. |
| Date | 11:14:57, August 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | Why not? If someone wants to keep a dangerous wild animals (such as a tiger) as a pet, that means getting in the cage with them, so persons who want to do that are obviously not fit to take care of a dangerous animal. |
| Date | 11:27:33, August 28, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | Tigers dont just attack people randomly because they "dont like people" or some other silly reason. They'll attack people if they are: 1) Hungry 2) Angry Clearly we wont let people keep tigers if they: 1) Dont feed them 2) Anger them for no apparent reason |
| Date | 12:06:40, August 28, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | OOC: Something like the little girl accident could happen in Rutania right now. Politicians responding to incidents = win. Gives the game a twist IMO because they do it so often ;) IC: Why is it the LIP is so adamant in defending the right of people to keep dangerous animals? This list will mean *less* regulation and bureaucracy for those animals that *are* allowed, so it will lessen the burden upon the Rutanian government in this issue. This convinced *us* to vote in favour. |
| Date | 12:30:05, August 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | "Tigers dont just attack people randomly because they "dont like people" or some other silly reason. They'll attack people if they are: 1) Hungry 2) Angry Clearly we wont let people keep tigers if they: 1) Dont feed them 2) Anger them for no apparent reason" Tigers can be annoyed or angered for many reasons, including neighbours making noise or children passing by the cage, so your argument don't makes any sense. And this is about keeping wild animals as PETS, that always means getting in the cage with them. |
| Date | 12:30:42, August 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | *doesn't make any sense |
| Date | 16:48:07, August 28, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | "OOC: Something like the little girl accident could happen in Rutania right now. Politicians responding to incidents = win. Gives the game a twist IMO because they do it so often ;)" OOC: RPers making up random incidents to support their case = borderline godmod ;) "Why is it the LIP is so adamant in defending the right of people to keep dangerous animals? This list will mean *less* regulation and bureaucracy for those animals that *are* allowed, so it will lessen the burden upon the Rutanian government in this issue." Why yes of course you are right. You would also be right to say that if, say, cars were banned it would all be much easier because we wouldnt need to regulate their manufacture and use. Is this a reason for imposing such authoritarian restrictions on peoples' mode of transport? Of course not. Beaurocracy should be kept to a minimum, but when faced with the choice of beaurocracy and freedom or effeciency and tyranny, I would choose the beaurocracy and freedom, as should anyone else who purports to be a "liberal". Of course, you are NOT liberals. "Tigers can be annoyed or angered for many reasons, including neighbours making noise or children passing by the cage, so your argument don't makes any sense. And this is about keeping wild animals as PETS, that always means getting in the cage with them." Actually it doesnt. Many people with a lot of land choose to run private pseudo-safari parks in which they can leave food without going near the animals. THIS is what we're talking about, not letting some idiot keep a tiger in a 6 by 6 foot cage in the back garden of his terraced house. [OOC: Btw: This is extremely irritating because GRP told me on MSN that he pressed the wrong button and voted yes by accident but he cant change it back because he's been inactivated. So enjoy your victory.] |
| Date | 17:10:25, August 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | "Actually it doesnt. Many people with a lot of land choose to run private pseudo-safari parks in which they can leave food without going near the animals. THIS is what we're talking about, not letting some idiot keep a tiger in a 6 by 6 foot cage in the back garden of his terraced house." Those are PRIVATE ZOOS, those animals are not being kept as pets. We are talking here exactly about some idiot keeping a tiger in a 6 by 6 foot cage in the back garden of his terraced house. |
| Date | 17:14:53, August 28, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | What is the difference between a "private zoo" and "being allowed to keep a wild animal was a pet"? |
| Date | 17:33:59, August 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | Here is the definition of a pet: "An animal which is kept in the home as a companion and treated affectionately." And here is the definition of a zoo: "An area in which animals, especially wild animals, are kept so that people can go and look at them, or study them." So, there is a major difference. A private zoo might be owned by a person who likes those animals, but not to pet them. |
| Date | 17:50:44, August 28, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | This is just pedantics. Just because an animal is a pet does not mean that it cannot be allowed to roam over an area of land. I have a cat which is allowed out it wanders nearby fields (OOC; for the sake of simplicity, the MP speaking does too) does this mean it is not a pet? I also challenge your definitions: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pet http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=zoo Unlike your definitions (which I presume you made up) do not make an animal having space and it being a pet mutually exlusive. |
| Date | 18:05:06, August 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | That definition still says: "# An animal kept for amusement or companionship. # An object of the affections. # A person especially loved or indulged; a favorite: the teacher's pet" So you only prove my point. And my definitions come from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. ;-) |
| Date | 18:25:19, August 28, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | It doesnt prove your point. Why can an animal not be "for amusement or companionship" simply because it is given a lot of space rather than being kept in a small cage. "And my definitions come from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. ;-)" I dont intend to sound offensive, but unlike anyone else in this debate English is actually my first language, so can we assume that I might perhaps be right on this... |
| Date | 20:32:54, August 28, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | We do not see this list as being more restrictive. Rather the reverse. Owners of normal wild animals will have no problems. |
| Date | 20:43:38, August 28, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | Owners of "normal" wild animals will have no problems anyway since the current law only regulates the dangerous ones. Banning things for the sake of simplicity is the earmark of the authoritarian state. |
| Date | 22:12:09, August 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | "It doesnt prove your point. Why can an animal not be "for amusement or companionship" simply because it is given a lot of space rather than being kept in a small cage." "For amusement or companionship" directly implies keeping it as a pet and petting it, which directly implies getting in the same cage as the animal. In my opinion, any person who wants to do that is not fit to keep a dangerous animal. |
| Date | 22:13:19, August 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | "I dont intend to sound offensive, but unlike anyone else in this debate English is actually my first language, so can we assume that I might perhaps be right on this..." The definitions are exactly the same in Dutch, so that argument makes no sense whatsoever. |
| Date | 22:33:38, August 28, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Public Safety Act 2101 |
| Message | ""For amusement or companionship" directly implies keeping it as a pet and petting it, which directly implies getting in the same cage as the animal." No it doesnt :S You can be just as "amused" and feel just as much "companionship" driving through your field and seeing your animals. TBH this argument is a lot of crap and is based on what words mean rather than actual arguments and it's just plain irritating. Since you've won anyway because GRP pressed the wrong button and then got inactivated before he could change it, I see no point in continuing this debate. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 368 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 163 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 68 |
| Random fact: Dorvik is a nation based on Germanic and old Prussian cultures, it is located on the far north of Artania, making it an almost arctic nation. |
| Random quote: "In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a cheque. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - Martin Luther King Jr. |