NationStates

Tinfect wrote:"The plight of non-sapients is of no concern to the Imperium."

"Ur'rmm, where exactly in the draft's text does it say that the proposal only applies to non-sapient animals, rather than to sapient ones as well?"

Tinfect wrote:"The plight of non-sapients is of no concern to the Imperium."

"Ur'rmm, where exactly in the draft's text does it say that the proposal only applies to non-sapient animals, rather than to sapient ones as well?"

Losthaven wrote:Hunting is already regulated by other laws.

"And those only urge member nations to ban 'unnecessarily cruel' hunting methods, so you have a contradiction here..."

Bears Armed wrote:

Tinfect wrote:"The plight of non-sapients is of no concern to the Imperium."

"Ur'rmm, where exactly in the draft's text does it say that the proposal only applies to non-sapient animals, rather than to sapient ones as well?"

Losthaven wrote:Hunting is already regulated by other laws.

"And those only urge member nations to ban 'unnecessarily cruel' hunting methods, so you have a contradiction here..."

We had this conversation back in the first proposal on this subject. You suggested I include the disclaimer that this law is "subject to the rules and laws set by earlier WA resolutions that are still in force" and that that would clear up any apparent conflict with your hunting law. I agreed and that language remains in the present draft.

Pre-test run bump

Losthaven wrote:Recognizing that animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing stress, fear, and pain;

Make that non-sapient instead. Otherwise you're looking at a lot of duplication claims.

Araraukar wrote:

Losthaven wrote:Recognizing that animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing stress, fear, and pain;

Make that non-sapient instead. Otherwise you're looking at a lot of duplication claims.

Doesn't "sentient" just mean "able to feel". I'm certainly not suggesting that animals are sapient.

I'm no fan of species wanking but my dictionary says that humans are animals, so it would appear that clause 3 has banned sports such as boxing between consenting sapient animals, and indeed, all the clauses apply to all animals, including humans.

Furthermore, why is everyone insistent on military exemptions?

Edit: I'll add my official IC opinion:

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan does not see the treatment of non-human animals as a matter worthy of international concern and, while generally the terms of the proposal are already law in Bananaistan, we will be unable to support codify such matters in international law."

- Mrs Ambassador Mary CP Doe

Losthaven wrote:Doesn't "sentient" just mean "able to feel". I'm certainly not suggesting that animals are sapient.

OOC: Yeah, but like others have said, humans are animals that are sentient and sapient. By saying "non-sapient", you eliminate that problem. If you made it read "Recognizing that animals are non-sapient, living beings capable of experiencing stress, fear, and pain;" it should be kosher.

If an artificial non-sapient thing was able to feel stress, fear and pain, then yeah, it probably should be classed as an animal and treated as such. (And I won't even bring PPU in to point out that non-sapient plants count as sentient, because I feel the word "animal" shouldn't have to be separately defined. )

Araraukar wrote:

Losthaven wrote:Doesn't "sentient" just mean "able to feel". I'm certainly not suggesting that animals are sapient.

OOC: Yeah, but like others have said, humans are animals that are sentient and sapient. By saying "non-sapient", you eliminate that problem. If you made it read "Recognizing that animals are non-sapient, living beings capable of experiencing stress, fear, and pain;" it should be kosher.

If an artificial non-sapient thing was able to feel stress, fear and pain, then yeah, it probably should be classed as an animal and treated as such. (And I won't even bring PPU in to point out that non-sapient plants count as sentient, because I feel the word "animal" shouldn't have to be separately defined. )

Good call you two. I'll make this change.

Something needs to be added to take into account animal testing.

Law Enforcers wrote:Something needs to be added to take into account animal testing.

"Unless you're scientists are unbalanced or improperly screened, it is the belief of the Dominion that animal testing would not be considered 'cruel' or 'malicious,' and it is the understanding of the Dominion that this resolution only prohibits cruel and malicious injury to an animal," the hooded Mouth of the Dominion to the World Assembly says. "Nonetheless, the Dominion is not yet entirely convinced that this ought to be made a matter of international concern. Why should this not be left to member nations to legislate upon, especially since this regards the rights of non-sapient beings?"

Bananaistan wrote:I'm no fan of species wanking but my dictionary says that humans are animals, so it would appear that clause 3 has banned sports such as boxing between consenting sapient animals, and indeed, all the clauses apply to all animals, including humans.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Yeah, but like others have said, humans are animals that are sentient and sapient. By saying "non-sapient", you eliminate that problem. If you made it read "Recognizing that animals are non-sapient, living beings capable of experiencing stress, fear, and pain;" it should be kosher.

This change was made! Thanks to those who recognized this problem and suggested a good fix!

Liagolas wrote:

Law Enforcers wrote:Something needs to be added to take into account animal testing.

"Unless you're scientists are unbalanced or improperly screened, it is the belief of the Dominion that animal testing would not be considered 'cruel' or 'malicious,' and it is the understanding of the Dominion that this resolution only prohibits cruel and malicious injury to an animal," the hooded Mouth of the Dominion to the World Assembly says. "Nonetheless, the Dominion is not yet entirely convinced that this ought to be made a matter of international concern. Why should this not be left to member nations to legislate upon, especially since this regards the rights of non-sapient beings?"

Correct. My last go around with this I tried the "exceptions for everything" route and it didn't work out so well. Because most of those exceptions came down to "yeah, but what if there's a legitimate reason to do such and such to an animal" I've addressed the overarching issue by focusing on the actor's intent. So animal testing is fine under this law so long as you're not cruelly or maliciously harming the animal. I don't imagine any legitimate researchers out there are maliciously harming animals in the name of science. In fact, most animal testing groups go out of their way to minimize pain and suffering in animals whenever possible while still accomplishing the aims of their research.

Bananaistan wrote:"The People's Republic of Bananaistan does not see the treatment of non-human animals as a matter worthy of international concern and, while generally the terms of the proposal are already law in Bananaistan, we will be unable to support codify such matters in international law."

Parsons concurs with their eloquent remarks.

"It is the inclination of the Dominion to agree with those ambassadors who have said that this subject does not warrant international legislation," the Mouth says. "Why should the people of Losthaven care what happens to animals in the Dominion or in Bananistan or Imperium Anglorum or anywhere else?"

Liagolas wrote:"It is the inclination of the Dominion to agree with those ambassadors who have said that this subject does not warrant international legislation," the Mouth says. "Why should the people of Losthaven care what happens to animals in the Dominion or in Bananistan or Imperium Anglorum or anywhere else?"

The author probably feels that while animals are non-sapient, they are still sentient, and that being cruel to sentient beings is, or should be, considered morally wrong. Especially considering the category.

Mind you, I don't necessarily agree with it being morally wrong, but rather it being pointless behaviour, because it only teaches sentient creatures as defined in the proposal to fear the sapient being(s) that hurt it. For sapient beings fear can be used effectively to teach desired behaviour models, but this is not always, or even very often, the same case when it comes to merely sentient creatures. Especially not if you want to teach them something, rather than just scare them away.

...although now I'm wondering if hurting them to scare them away would count as "intentional cruelty", or just as "necessary evil"?

A lot of things, Aru, are intentional cruelty. A lot of others are also a necessary evil. Conscription. Taxes. Eminent domain. The greater good is pursued and is sought without recognition to the means. And this world is still better than the alternative.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:A lot of things, Aru, are intentional cruelty. A lot of others are also a necessary evil. Conscription. Taxes. Eminent domain. The greater good is pursued and is sought without recognition to the means. And this world is still better than the alternative.

OOC: Was that directed at me?

Araraukar wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:A lot of things, Aru, are intentional cruelty. A lot of others are also a necessary evil. Conscription. Taxes. Eminent domain. The greater good is pursued and is sought without recognition to the means. And this world is still better than the alternative.

OOC: Was that directed at me?

Yea, should have been Ara.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:A lot of things, Aru, are intentional cruelty. A lot of others are also a necessary evil. Conscription. Taxes. Eminent domain. The greater good is pursued and is sought without recognition to the means. And this world is still better than the alternative.

OOC: Claiming "for the greater good" as a defense without consideration for the impact that mindset actually has is a pretty shameful thing to do. You could as easily tuck eugenics and systemic oppression into that particular weltumblick, but you're going to have a hell of a hard time selling that to anybody with a moral compass.

Just because something is considered a necessary evil doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps to reducing the necessity of that evil, or at least reconsider how necessary it really is. Either way, it hardly follows that deliberate and malicious cruelty to animals is a necessity.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Was that directed at me?

Yea, should have been Ara.

OOC: So was it OOC or IC? Because calling me by nation name is/should be OOC.

Araraukar wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Yea, should have been Ara.

OOC: So was it OOC or IC? Because calling me by nation name is/should be OOC.

Yes.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: So was it OOC or IC? Because calling me by nation name is/should be OOC.

Yes.

> Was it this or that?
> Yes.
> ...

Wallenburg wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Yes.

> Was it this or that?
> Yes.
> ...

Yes.

Not all animals are sentient.

Wallenburg wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Yes.

> Was it this or that?
> Yes.
> ...

OOC: *points a finger at IA* Vorlon!

And I never argued that necessary evil wasn't necessary (though I disagree with conscription being any more "evil" than any other type of army ), I was just wondering if the proposal text didn't actually just prove that. "Intentional cruelty for cruelty's sake" is not a "necessary evil".

Herby wrote:Not all animals are sentient.

OOC: Name one.