The 13th Ordinary meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 6th of
February in the Senate Room.
Alex Horkan and Ryan Jones supported the motion! Horkan argued that no weapon can be said to be used ethically but that war is inevitable so drone warfare must be considered. While warfare should be a last resort, drones allow better and more informed decisions when it comes about. Ryan Jones continued saying he hearts drones. There were some memorable quotes *cough* ‘whether your beliefs are communism, fascism or feminism’ *cough*.He said that like all advances in warfare, drones are necessary as it’s not about how many men you have in war but about how advanced your weapons are.
Henry Adams and James McAlister took the floor in opposition! Adams compared the cause and effect of the situation. He argued that staying silent about the use of drones and having a lack of transparency would result in dangerous consequences due to an indifference to casualties. McAlister closed the debate. He told the House that it is just a way of allowing the government to make a kill list and carry out secret executions instead of giving trials and that it could escalate to a point where there is a disregard for human life.
We then went to the floor, a vote and the motion passed.
The 9th Ordinary meeting of the 165th session of the Literary and Scientific society took place on the 28th of November in the Senate Room.
Matthew Allen, Dr. Stephen Goss and James McAlister proposed the motion. Allen opened the debate with a very interesting account of past philosophers and anthropologists (I think). He ended by reading a lovely poem to the House in its native Swedish. Yes. Goss brought up scientific theories that have been widely accepted but which have since been disproven and asked if it was worthwhile condemning ourselves for this. James McAlister compared our society’s way of life to that of the Amish who follow the bible for guidance and concluded that we will inevitably be damned by our advancements. However, he also said that we should just roll with it and be damned.
Fionnbharr Rodgers, Nick Millington and Dr David Timson opposed the debate. Fionn advised the House to ignore the extremists who create conflict as they are not a fair representation of either side. Mr Millington argued that heaven, the option other than being damned, has been raised in people’s minds but that in reality it may not be so wonderful. Dr Timson, our guest, said that science is good, that it has enhanced our lives in many ways; he argued that if science has damned us then God help the Vatican who sponsor science.
The debate then went to the floor.
Both sides summarised, the proposition in Swedish and we went to a vote. The motion was defeated.
The 3rd Ordinary Meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 17th of October in the Senate Room. It was in conjunction with IDEA.
A vote was taken before the debate: there were 2 abstentions, 8 people for and 34 against.
Mr James McAlister, Mr Jonathan Irwin and My Joshua Wilburn came forward in proposition. Both McAlister and Wilburn explained that equality shouldn’t be reserved for humans. They questioned why it is acceptable to test on animals that are equally aware, intelligent and can feel pain. Wilburn compared animals to orphaned newborns and asked whether we should raid orphanages. Mr Irwin explained that we should be protecting animals, he told the House that the majority of animal testing doesn’t lead to medical advances and that testing is cruel.
Mr Robert Bentall, Mr Brendan Kelters and Mr Nick Millington spoke for the opposition. Robert claimed testing on animals is a necessity and that the animals involved are not in pain. He valued human life more than animal life. Mr Kelters questioned the logic of the proposition. He supported the banning of animal testing for frivolous things but that ethically it is needed for medical research. Mr Nick Millington closed the debate with admitting that animal testing is not the best model but that there is currently no alternative as science has not yet advanced enough.
Another vote was taken, there were 3 abstentions, 8 ayes and the motion was defeated with 36 nayes and it was off to the bar!
The motion failed.