NationStates

Sciongrad wrote:

Flerfy Lergs wrote:Well what about hunting? The members of my nation hunt to live. If that happens to be cruel, should I prevent my members from seeking the means of survival?

OOC: Hunting is not, ipso facto, cruel or malicious.

What if you are hunting the Most Dangerous Game?

"The United Socialist States of Mondial Peoples fully endorses this resolution, for the flagrant and pointless abuse of animals has to end. We share our world with these animals, and yet we tyrannize over them. They must be given back their freedom."

This makes no mention of allowing the slaughter of livestock for food. And from the language of the resolution, it would prohibit it without an amendment. Please vote this down or we'll all have to be vegetarians.

I believe that animal abuse is one thing and killing animals for food is another.

M-dog Islands wrote:I believe that animal abuse is one thing and killing animals for food is another.

"Sure. But if you keep a pet, you have to care for it. So no more eating your pet cow."

(Fun fact, my mother once had a pet cow that ended up on the dinner table.)

In light of the current legislation, and the expected legislation to pass, the Community of Investigation, Science, Learning, and Engineering resigns from the World Assembly. Our departments have agreed that the majority of other nations are not yet informed enough to create policies that will lead to progress and world betterment. The Community of ISLE cannot be part of an orginization that willingly subjects their members to technological backwater.

The Community of ISLE will still work towards the advancement of scientific knowledge, but the WA has made clear that it is not an orginization that fosters such endevours.

Excidium Planetis wrote:

Sciongrad wrote:OOC: Hunting is not, ipso facto, cruel or malicious.

What if you are hunting the Most Dangerous Game?

Considering the fact that the GA has not legislated on cruelty towards humans, I would say you are free to do so.

P.S When do I get an invite?

Pluoria wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:
What if you are hunting the Most Dangerous Game?

Considering the fact that the GA has not legislated on cruelty towards humans, I would say you are free to do so.

P.S When do I get an invite?

"So long as it isn't a summary execution, not a forced disappearance, and doesn't meet the definition of torture, it's legal, but that's only because legislating on homocide as a whole is too difficult, while legislating on hunting sapient species is too esoteric to bother."

Hunting should be OK, provided the hunted isn't subjected to an agonizing death.

So feel free to hunt and kill the last baby elephant to get its foot for a wastebasket, so long as it isn't caused unnecessary suffering.

But the park ranger who knowingly allows a hunter to attack the baby elephant using razor sharp pincers and then allows her hunting party to tear flesh from the still living baby elephant--that ranger is grossly negligent of international law to allow the reckless endangerment of an animal he is legally obliged to protect.

It would be like throwing a baby to a lion and then after it's eaten alive claiming, "Oh, gee, I had no idea lions could be so dangerous. But it's not the lion's fault, what should we put the lion in jail? Now give me another baby, I made a good faith effort to protect it as any reasonable person/nation would."

A large potted plant in a big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"Due to clauses three to five, we unfortunately have to cast our vote against. We keep stingless bees that have been genetically modified for our purposes of pollination, and which have, in the past, been used by others in a manner that was fully appropriate in our opinion, but which did "purposefully expose" them to physical injury. Furthermore, some of our selves eat them for an extra source of nutrients in ways that certainly do not "promote the health of the animal" nor "avoid suffering", due to the biology of our selves.¹

Furthermore, we absolutely refuse to let any "professional veterinary" carer to mess around with our bees. If any should attempt that, we will view that as an attempt to steal our trade secrets on genetic modification, and trying to interfere with any of our selves consuming them as food, as a breach of our national sovereignity, and will react accordingly."

Potted Plants United wrote:Furthermore, some of our selves eat them for an extra source of nutrients in ways that certainly do not "promote the health of the animal" nor "avoid suffering", due to the biology of our selves.

¹ OOC: Think of how pitcher plants, Venus flytraps and sundew plants eat insects (and sometimes larger prey). It is not a gentle death.

"An interesting, and perfectly valid, interpretation. I had only just considered it. Because the resolution does not state for what purpose people keeping animals are keeping them for, people keeping animals for slaughter must 'promote the health of the animal[s]'... and slaughter doesn't really promote the animal's health. I guess those people concerned about being forced to be vegan were right, after all."

Schultz continues. "Wait, let me guess: I'm making another ridiculous argument again, right?"

Excidium Planetis wrote:

Potted Plants United wrote:Furthermore, some of our selves eat them for an extra source of nutrients in ways that certainly do not "promote the health of the animal" nor "avoid suffering", due to the biology of our selves.

¹ OOC: Think of how pitcher plants, Venus flytraps and sundew plants eat insects (and sometimes larger prey). It is not a gentle death.

"An interesting, and perfectly valid, interpretation. I had only just considered it. Because the resolution does not state for what purpose people keeping animals are keeping them for, people keeping animals for slaughter must 'promote the health of the animal[s]'... and slaughter doesn't really promote the animal's health. I guess those people concerned about being forced to be vegan were right, after all."

Schultz continues. "Wait, let me guess: I'm making another ridiculous argument again, right?"

I entirely concur with this argumentation. I see it as a self-contradiction, honestly.

CastAway Island of Wilson wrote:Hunting should be OK, provided the hunted isn't subjected to an agonizing death.

So feel free to hunt and kill the last baby elephant to get its foot for a wastebasket, so long as it isn't caused unnecessary suffering.

But the park ranger who knowingly allows a hunter to attack the baby elephant using razor sharp pincers and then allows her hunting party to tear flesh from the still living baby elephant--that ranger is grossly negligent of international law to allow the reckless endangerment of an animal he is legally obliged to protect.

It would be like throwing a baby to a lion and then after it's eaten alive claiming, "Oh, gee, I had no idea lions could be so dangerous. But it's not the lion's fault, what should we put the lion in jail? Now give me another baby, I made a good faith effort to protect it as any reasonable person/nation would."

Please let me ponder on that for a second, Ambassador. First you try to convince us that we need to ruin natural foodchains and prevent carnivores from hunting their prey in order to comply with the resolution (which has been exposed as blatantly absurd during previous discussion) and now you claim that this resolution will fail to prevent humans from hunting animals? (though surprisingly, you almost got the point here, because not every method of hunting should be viewed as cruel and hunting for food or population control is not malicious in purpose - contrary to hunting for sport or trophies)

Can you see a contradiction?

CastAway Island of Wilson wrote:Hunting should be OK, provided the hunted isn't subjected to an agonizing death.

So feel free to hunt and kill the last baby elephant to get its foot for a wastebasket, so long as it isn't caused unnecessary suffering.

But the park ranger who knowingly allows a hunter to attack the baby elephant using razor sharp pincers and then allows her hunting party to tear flesh from the still living baby elephant--that ranger is grossly negligent of international law to allow the reckless endangerment of an animal he is legally obliged to protect.

It would be like throwing a baby to a lion and then after it's eaten alive claiming, "Oh, gee, I had no idea lions could be so dangerous. But it's not the lion's fault, what should we put the lion in jail? Now give me another baby, I made a good faith effort to protect it as any reasonable person/nation would."

"Hunting endangered species is illegal according to two extant resolutions, not counting this one. I'm not going to touch the rest of that, because you've been told over and over that this isn't the case. Your understanding of "good faith" interpretations is poor at best."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

CastAway Island of Wilson wrote:Hunting should be OK, provided the hunted isn't subjected to an agonizing death.

So feel free to hunt and kill the last baby elephant to get its foot for a wastebasket, so long as it isn't caused unnecessary suffering.

But the park ranger who knowingly allows a hunter to attack the baby elephant using razor sharp pincers and then allows her hunting party to tear flesh from the still living baby elephant--that ranger is grossly negligent of international law to allow the reckless endangerment of an animal he is legally obliged to protect.

It would be like throwing a baby to a lion and then after it's eaten alive claiming, "Oh, gee, I had no idea lions could be so dangerous. But it's not the lion's fault, what should we put the lion in jail? Now give me another baby, I made a good faith effort to protect it as any reasonable person/nation would."

"Hunting endangered species is illegal according to two extant resolutions, not counting this one. I'm not going to touch the rest of that, because you've been told over and over that this isn't the case. Your understanding of "good faith" interpretations is poor at best."

OOC: I actually interpreted the above as sarcasm.

ARI: We're sorry, but the understanding of this resolution has reached abysmal levels.

Firstly, the resolution defines animals as "non-sapient, sentient beings capable of experiencing stress, fear, and pain". That would not only exclude the dominant sapient species, in our case, humans, it would also exclude the lowest orders of species, such as spiders, ants, flies, and the aforementioned sea cucumbers, which are incapable of being stressed out. Yes, those of you who use pesticides needn't worry about the pain and suffering of your pests. Unless the bugs on your planet are sapient, in which case you really ought to be able to negotiate with them.

Secondly, the notion that this resolution would outlaw wild bears hunting fish or, as a better example, stray kittens playing with mice before slowly killing them, is utterly ridiculous. Laws do not apply directly to wildlife. For cryin' out loud, does anyone, as a matter of course, put a tiger or a lion on trial for assault and battery if it were to slash someone? The burden does not fall on the dominant sapient species to regulate what wild animals do to other wild animals to survive, just to ensure prey does not suffer cruelly, and nothing in this resolution makes it so.

As far as hunting, yes, in some cultures, hunting is necessary to survive. However, we do agree that under this resolution some methods can be considered cruel. Take, for example, a leg-hold trap. Unnecessarily cruel, indeed, when there are other more humane alternatives, like, erm, cage traps. (Ahume whispers in his ear.) Really? Ewww. How is that even-- (more whispers.) Hmm. I guess so. Okay, even body-gripping traps kill their prey quickly, and would still be acceptable-- (he shudders) --excuse me, would still be acceptable under this resolution since there is minimal suffering. Same goes with the livestock industry. Yes, this resolution applies, if only to ensure that animals are properly cared for and not crammed into overcrowded cages with fecal matter coming up to their bellies prior to a humane slaughter. (another shudder) Sorry, even that's kind of icky to us pacifists, who fortunately have learned how to grow meat on trees.

(Wad Ahume rolls his eyes and shakes his head.)

Anyway, we initially voted against due to the fact that there are a few minor flaws in this resolution, but now, we've switched our vote in favor, just to see how loudly some of you will howl about having to save flies from Uranus flytraps. (Ahume whispers.) Venus. Sorry.

(OOC note: I'm sure there are about a million typos in this post, please don't nitpick on those.)

The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:Firstly, the resolution defines animals as "non-sapient, sentient beings capable of experiencing stress, fear, and pain". That would not only exclude the dominant sapient species, in our case, humans, it would also exclude the lowest orders of species, such as spiders, ants, flies, and the aforementioned sea cucumbers, which are incapable of being stressed out.

For cryin' out loud, does anyone, as a matter of course, put a tiger or a lion on trial for assault and battery if it were to slash someone?

OOC: You don't have to go back more than about one century to find that the answer would've been "yes". The owner would likely have been the one to pay fines or go to jail, mind you.

The burden does not fall on the dominant sapient species to regulate what wild animals do to other wild animals to survive, just to ensure prey does not suffer cruelly, and nothing in this resolution makes it so.

IC: Even if those "wild animals" were sapient themselves? (OOC: Think orcas, for example, which kill both sentient (fish, seals) and sapient (other whales, some pinnipeds probably count for this too) creatures.)

Same goes with the livestock industry. Yes, this resolution applies, if only to ensure that animals are properly cared for and not crammed into overcrowded cages with fecal matter coming up to their bellies prior to a humane slaughter.

That's not quite what the resolution says, though: "4. Requires that any person who keeps an animal to provide that animal with reasonable and appropriate care necessary to promote the health of the animal and avoid suffering and disease;". That's entirely separate from the cruelty outlawing in clause 1. Food animals certainly will work better as food if they themselves are healthy - and sorry Wads, but if you eat plants where you don't kill the whole plant in one go, you're actually ripping apart a sentient creature, or so the greenery keeps telling me - but is the animal's health ultimately promoted and suffering avoided, if it's being raised to be killed, however humanely?

Sorry, even that's kind of icky to us pacifists, who fortunately have learned how to grow meat on trees.

OOC: Funny you should say that...

Additional note: You keep cracking me up with your dialogue.

OOC: Only addressing the IC parts or else I'll be here all day.

Araraukar wrote:

Wrapper wrote:The burden does not fall on the dominant sapient species to regulate what wild animals do to other wild animals to survive, just to ensure prey does not suffer cruelly, and nothing in this resolution makes it so.

IC: Even if those "wild animals" were sapient themselves?

ARI: Well, like we said, the preamble defines animals as non-sapient. Sapient beings in the wild, therefore, are not animals. (Ahume whispers in his ear; Ari looks at him momentarily.) But that's what it says. (more whispers) Erm.... Never mind, Ambassador, how about we avoid going down that yellow brick road for now, shall we?

Araraukar wrote:

Wrapper wrote:Same goes with the livestock industry. Yes, this resolution applies, if only to ensure that animals are properly cared for and not crammed into overcrowded cages with fecal matter coming up to their bellies prior to a humane slaughter.

That's not quite what the resolution says, though: "4. Requires that any person who keeps an animal to provide that animal with reasonable and appropriate care necessary to promote the health of the animal and avoid suffering and disease;". That's entirely separate from the cruelty outlawing in clause 1. Food animals certainly will work better as food if they themselves are healthy...

ARI: Right, we get that. What we're saying is, keepers of livestock have to fulfill both requirements -- ensure their animals get reasonable and appropriate care under clause 4, and avoid killing them in a cruel manner under clause 1. Neither should be an undue burden.

Araraukar wrote:...and sorry Wads, but if you eat plants where you don't kill the whole plant in one go, you're actually ripping apart a sentient creature, or so the greenery keeps telling me...

ARI and AHUME: What?

Araraukar wrote:but is the animal's health ultimately promoted and suffering avoided, if it's being raised to be killed, however humanely?

(Ari, looking dumbfounded, shrugs.)

AHUME: Yes, its health is ultimately promoted and suffering avoided. We do the same for our all life, don't we? Provide all with as comfortable and healthy an existence as possible, until their time is up. Ultimately, virtually all lifeforms die in one manner or another. Whether their destiny is food for humankind, food for natural predators or scavengers, or food for underground maggots, they're provided for as well as possible, and that includes humanely taking their lives as warranted. You do allow euthanasia in your nation, don't you?

ARI: Now what would euthanizing their elderly have to do with--

AHUME: Of their pets, their animals, not their elderly.

ARI: Ah. Sorry, carry on.

AHUME: (opens his mouth and closes it) Never mind, I've lost my train of thought.

ARI: Oh, thank goodness. And was that "maggots" thing really necessary?

The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:

Araraukar wrote:...and sorry Wads, but if you eat plants where you don't kill the whole plant in one go, you're actually ripping apart a sentient creature, or so the greenery keeps telling me...

ARI and AHUME: What?

The higher order of plants - think houseplants, trees, vegetables, fruiting plants - are sentient and respond to tissue damage similarly to animals, the only difference is that their timescale in doing so is slower and generally speaking¹ less easily detected by us animals. Other plants can detect one of their own in distress via airborne natural chemicals², and some signals³ cross species quite easily.

So if you, say, tear off just a couple of leaves off of a lettuce, you're essentially ripping out a couple of bodyparts, with which it does both respiration and energy production. A bit like if you picked a fish out of water, ripped out some gill leaves, or whatever the thin layers are called, and put it back in the water to re-grow them.

Preventing Animal Abuse was passed 14,994 votes to 3,777.

I voted against, of course, but congratulations anyway.

Wallenburg wrote:

Preventing Animal Abuse was passed 14,994 votes to 3,777.

I voted against, of course, but congratulations anyway.

"Impressive margin. We'll see if it can be reversed or not. Its getting increasingly hard to tell in advance."

Wallenburg wrote:

Preventing Animal Abuse was passed 14,994 votes to 3,777.

I voted against, of course, but congratulations anyway.

I voted for it.

Wallenburg wrote:

Preventing Animal Abuse was passed 14,994 votes to 3,777.

I voted against, of course, but congratulations anyway.

Seconded.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Hunting endangered species is illegal according to two extant resolutions, not counting this one."

"And one of those resolutions also protects nations' right to decide about the hunting of animals from non-endangered stocks..."

Araraukar wrote:

The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:ARI and AHUME: What?

The higher order of plants - think houseplants, trees, vegetables, fruiting plants - are sentient and respond to tissue damage similarly to animals, the only difference is that their timescale in doing so is slower and generally speaking¹ less easily detected by us animals. Other plants can detect one of their own in distress via airborne natural chemicals², and some signals³ cross species quite easily.

So if you, say, tear off just a couple of leaves off of a lettuce, you're essentially ripping out a couple of bodyparts, with which it does both respiration and energy production. A bit like if you picked a fish out of water, ripped out some gill leaves, or whatever the thin layers are called, and put it back in the water to re-grow them.

ARI: Well, then. If we ever want to draft a proposal on Preventing Plant Abuse, we'll know who to call. Come, Ahume. (He exits.)

AHUME: (whispers to Janis) You think that's bad, you should see how the plants on Luna II react when we try to pick them. Just sayin'. (He exits.)