[PASSED] Preventing Animal Abuse

[Imperium Anglorum]

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

OOC: *points a finger at IA* Vorlon!

Good.

[Araraukar]

OOC: *points a finger at IA* Vorlon!

Good.

OOC: I'm going to start calling you Kosh now.

[Herby]

Not all animals are sentient.

OOC: Name one.

Just one? I can name four off the top of my head! Sea cucumber, sponge, coral, and amen.... anemem... amenemen....enees... ehhhh okay I can name three off the top of my head.

[Losthaven]

OOC: Name one.

Just one? I can name four off the top of my head! Sea cucumber, sponge, coral, and amen.... anemem... amenemen....enees... ehhhh okay I can name three off the top of my head.

I don't want to get dragged into sea life biology again because last time it resulted in a repeal making false claims about jellyfish. I would just point out that while animals have varying degrees of intelligence, they are without fail "sentient" at least in the sense that they respond to outward stimuli, have a nervous system that enables them to feel and move about, and even engage in communication with others (sea cucumbers, for instance, communicate with one another via hormone signals in the water). Clearly, this isn't human, dog, or even shrimp level sentience, but the ability to feel and perceive is there.

[Bears Armed]

So, would this ban the eating of live oysters?

[Losthaven]

So, would this ban the eating of live oysters?

Only if you did so cruelly* while laughing maniacally.

*(making the oyster's kids watch?)

[Imperium Anglorum]

*(making the oyster's kids watch?)

I truly doubt that the oyster's children are aware of the death of the parent and suffer emotional distress from such an event. Especially because oysters lack eyes and are incapable of such remote sensing.

sea cucumbers, for instance, communicate with one another via hormone signals in the water

Similarly, I seriously doubt that sea cucumbers are capable of emotional pain from hormone signals in the water. Or, even if they have some sense of emotional pain, that pain can be made into some kind of impact anywhere approaching suffering.

[Losthaven]

*(making the oyster's kids watch?)

I truly doubt that the oyster's children are aware of the death of the parent and suffer emotional distress from such an event. Especially because oysters lack eyes and are incapable of such remote sensing.

I'm glad we can agree that this isn't problematic because eating raw oysters, even in the presence of other oysters, is not a "cruel" act.

sea cucumbers, for instance, communicate with one another via hormone signals in the water

Similarly, I seriously doubt that sea cucumbers are capable of emotional pain from hormone signals in the water. Or, even if they have some sense of emotional pain, that pain can be made into some kind of impact anywhere approaching suffering.

I'm inclined to agree that sea cucumbers, and probably most animals, don't feel emotional pain. I'm not prepared to concede Herby's point that they are an example of a non-sentient animal.

[Araraukar]

I'm inclined to agree that sea cucumbers, and probably most animals, don't feel emotional pain.

OOC: Actually, all mammals and birds that have been tested so far, have shown to have feelings and be able to feel emotional pain - for example, significant loss (mate, offspring, ability to move freely, etc.) usually leads to symptoms that in humans would classify as depression. All the research has done is making us shift the goalposts of "sapience" to keep humans on some kind of glorified pedestal, even though it's fairly crowded there already, what with great apes, dolphins (all species, including orcas) and elephants up there with us as is.

IC: They do feel pain, though. You could change the text to reflect that.

[Imperium Anglorum]

They do feel pain, though. You could change the text to reflect that.

Yes, but pain does not equate to suffering and therefore, isn't something that matters at all.

The real question is why this is an international issue.

[Wallenburg]

They do feel pain, though. You could change the text to reflect that.

Yes, but pain does not equate to suffering and therefore, isn't something that matters at all.

The real question is why this is an international issue.

"It isn't, of course. What our people do with their animals is of no concern to outsiders."

[Losthaven]

What our people do with their animals is of no concern to outsiders."

I simply don't accept this premise and I am going to ask the voters to disagree with it as well.

[Wallenburg]

What our people do with their animals is of no concern to outsiders."

I simply don't accept this premise and I am going to ask the voters to disagree with it as well.

"Ambassador, if your only response to a claim or argument is 'you are wrong, I am right!', you will not gain traction."

[Imperium Anglorum]

What our people do with their animals is of no concern to outsiders."

I simply don't accept this premise and I am going to ask the voters to disagree with it as well.

Then I'll write a repeal (and if I'm really feeling frisky, I'll have someone else submit it with a co-authorship for the sole purpose of spreading the badges around) that says this and includes one other argument about something else so it's legal and ask them to disagree with your premise as well. I know they will. And another year from now, we can try this again...

I do apologise for my actions in the last repeal, however. I got carried away ... though some kinds of jellyfish (the really simple ones) are still not sentient. And I do hope that similar circumstances do not prevail about this attempt either. I wish you the best of luck, as always, but that does not mean I will not stand up for my political beliefs.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Support.

"Animals are our friends. Abusing them is a horrific act."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Support. "Animals are our friends. Abusing them is a horrific act."

Then you can make animals your friends in your nation. They do not have to be friends everywhere else.

[Separatist Peoples]

Support.

"Animals are our friends. Abusing them is a horrific act."

"Perhaps to you. There is a carbosilicate amorph in the bar that just ate an entire box of kittens who would probably argue..."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Support.

"Animals are our friends. Abusing them is a horrific act."

"Perhaps to you. There is a carbosilicate amorph in the bar that just ate an entire box of kittens who would probably argue..."

Oh the kitten-anity! ... and all the kittens!

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Support. "Animals are our friends. Abusing them is a horrific act."

Then you can make animals your friends in your nation. They do not have to be friends everywhere else.

"That doesn't mean you can abuse them."

[Wallenburg]

Then you can make animals your friends in your nation. They do not have to be friends everywhere else.

"That doesn't mean you can abuse them."

"Actually, we can."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"That doesn't mean you can abuse them."

"Actually, we can."

Yes.

[John Turner]

I simply don't accept this premise and I am going to ask the voters to disagree with it as well.

Then I'll write a repeal (and if I'm really feeling frisky, I'll have someone else submit it with a co-authorship for the sole purpose of spreading the badges around) that says this and includes one other argument about something else so it's legal and ask them to disagree with your premise as well. I know they will. And another year from now, we can try this again...

I do apologise for my actions in the last repeal, however. I got carried away ... though some kinds of jellyfish (the really simple ones) are still not sentient. And I do hope that similar circumstances do not prevail about this attempt either. I wish you the best of luck, as always, but that does not mean I will not stand up for my political beliefs.

So you will basically write a repeal full of lies again? Hey I suppose if it worked five times already why change tactics huh?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Then I'll write a repeal (and if I'm really feeling frisky, I'll have someone else submit it with a co-authorship for the sole purpose of spreading the badges around) that says this and includes one other argument about something else so it's legal and ask them to disagree with your premise as well. I know they will. And another year from now, we can try this again...

I do apologise for my actions in the last repeal, however. I got carried away ... though some kinds of jellyfish (the really simple ones) are still not sentient. And I do hope that similar circumstances do not prevail about this attempt either. I wish you the best of luck, as always, but that does not mean I will not stand up for my political beliefs.

So you will basically write a repeal full of lies again? Hey I suppose if it worked five times already why change tactics huh?

I mean, if it was full of lies, it would have been removed.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

"That doesn't mean you can abuse them."

"Actually, we can."

"I meant to say should."

[John Turner]

So you will basically write a repeal full of lies again? Hey I suppose if it worked five times already why change tactics huh?

I mean, if it was full of lies, it would have been removed.

Heh.... That's what I thought as well.