[DEFEATED] Repeal "Preventing Animal Abuse"

[Railana]

Repeal "Preventing Animal Abuse"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #372

Affirming the object and purpose of GAR #372, "Preventing Animal Abuse", which is to criminalize animal cruelty,

Strongly condemning in particular the morally depraved practice of torturing or cruelly killing animals for sadistic pleasure or entertainment,

Acknowledging, however, that the welfare of persons must take precedence over the welfare of animals,

Recalling the historic importance of animal testing in medical breakthroughs that have saved countless lives,

Emphasizing that there are presently no feasible alternatives to animal testing in many World Assembly member states,

Noting that clause 4 of the target resolution requires "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",

Concerned that this clause effectively prohibits animal testing when such testing requires the deliberate infection of animals with diseases in order to test medical treatments,

Believing for the aforementioned reasons that this practice is morally legitimate and should not be prohibited by the World Assembly,

Hoping that replacement legislation on animal cruelty will soon be passed,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #372, "Preventing Animal Abuse".

[Kaboomlandia]

You could put in that GAR #372 bans inhumane killing of animals for food, as well as requiring nations arrest children for burning ants with a magnifying glass.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

You could put in that GAR #372 bans inhumane killing of animals for food, as well as requiring nations arrest children for burning ants with a magnifying glass.

ARI: Well, that's not quite true, Ambassador. Theoretically, you can make it a petty crime and just write children a ticket. Theoretically.

[Sciongrad]

You could put in that GAR #372 bans inhumane killing of animals for food, as well as requiring nations arrest children for burning ants with a magnifying glass.

"Repeating that last argument relentlessly will not make it true. And somehow, I don't think objecting to the requirement that you must treat animals humanely (even if it's for food) is a convincing argument against a resolution about treating animals humanely."

[Ryanvillle]

100% agree. Animal testing is very, very important, and there is no reason that animals should take priority over humans.

[United States of 1776]

I don't believe that GAR #372 says anything about defending animals from preditors. So if the farmer kills the coyote to protect their stock, wouldn't that be a crime under the GAR #372?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't believe that GAR #372 says anything about defending animals from preditors. So if the farmer kills the coyote to protect their stock, wouldn't that be a crime under the GAR #372?

The self-defence exception clause includes the phraseology, 'defend themselves and others', which can be interpreted so broadly as to allow any kind of consequentialist reasoning as well as so narrowly to only include relatives...

---

OOC: I'll stack for ya if you include some stuff about how bolding in resolutions is an abomination. Heh heh.

[Adytus]

Ambassador Mike Lynn walks in,

Recalling the historic importance of animal testing in medical breakthroughs that have saved countless lives,

You had me here, and I expressed the same concerns to my region when the proposal was at vote. I will help you lobby, or whatever assistants you may need. I hope this proposal comes to vote.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Disagree, as a supporter of the Preventing Animal Abuse bill, we strongly disagree with this repeal.

[Excidium Planetis]

You could put in that GAR #372 bans inhumane killing of animals for food, as well as requiring nations arrest children for burning ants with a magnifying glass.

"I agree with this and also add that GA#372 is an overreach of WA power."

[Imperium Anglorum]

You could put in that GAR #372 bans inhumane killing of animals for food, as well as requiring nations arrest children for burning ants with a magnifying glass.

"I agree with this and also add that GA#372 is an overreach of WA power."

Don't say 'arrest children'. Say 'criminalise'. Arresting is not guaranteed. It certainly is a possible consequence, but RNT would say otherwise. However, criminalisation certainly is something which would happen here, so that isn't anything which would be up for debate.

[United States of 1776]

You could put in that GAR #372 bans inhumane killing of animals for food, as well as requiring nations arrest children for burning ants with a magnifying glass.

"I agree with this and also add that GA#372 is an overreach of WA power."

I second this. Far more important matters can be addressed than this. How about assistance for nations fighting Zika for one? Let's help the mothers and children first rather than a blasted insect.

[United States of 1776]

Disagree, as a supporter of the Preventing Animal Abuse bill, we strongly disagree with this repeal.

Why?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Disagree, as a supporter of the Preventing Animal Abuse bill, we strongly disagree with this repeal.

Why?

We believe that preventing cruelty to any living thing is a moral imperative.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why?

We believe that preventing cruelty to any living thing is a moral imperative.

1. Why?

2. Even if that is true, why does that responsibility outweigh our responsibilities to ourselves and the suffering that could be prevented via medical testing?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

We believe that preventing cruelty to any living thing is a moral imperative.

1. Why?

2. Even if that is true, why does that responsibility outweigh our responsibilities to ourselves and the suffering that could be prevented via medical testing?

1. Cruelty is generally a negative thing.

2.There are other ways to test.

[Imperium Anglorum]

1. Why?

2. Even if that is true, why does that responsibility outweigh our responsibilities to ourselves and the suffering that could be prevented via medical testing?

1. Cruelty is generally a negative thing.

2.There are other ways to test.

OOC: So you're saying that we actually don't have an imperative to do so, but rather, a consequentialist reason for action. If we take a consequentialist approach, we ought care about things which are able to suffer and therefore should place the wellbeing of non-sapient fauna below that of people. But if we take the deontological approach, then I would argue that our responsibilities to ourselves are beyond that to others, since it would be inconsistent for a duty to non-entities to outweigh our duties to self-aware and life with abstract thought.

You haven't proven we have a moral imperative towards animals. In fact, for deontological ethics, I would just agree with Kant on the subject and say we don't have such responsibilities. The only way you can justify this morally is by consequentialism in the thread of Peter Singer, but that would still have to concede that there exist extenuating circumstances, like medical testing, because with current technology, there aren't other ways to test.

[Normlpeople]

Coco the Intern stood up. "Uhm... I have a dispatch from Ambassador Clover, who is unfortunately too busy performing her duties domestically to personally appear here." It states:

'This is not remotely an international issue. While I'm not shocked the seasonal lemmings passed it, I shall unconditionally support any and all repeal attempts"

[Excidium Planetis]

Schultz looks at Coco the intern. "What's with everybody having interns? Don't Ambassadors ever have, like, actual staff? Or other Ambassadors? At least the Wads can put out two WA Ambassadors."

1. Why?

2. Even if that is true, why does that responsibility outweigh our responsibilities to ourselves and the suffering that could be prevented via medical testing?

1. Cruelty is generally a negative thing.

2.There are other ways to test.

"Okay, first of all, Cruelty is a negative thing... in your opinion. It is in mine too, but that's beside the point.

"Now then, even if cruelty is a negative thing, do the negatives of cruel ant-killing outweigh the happiness of a sapient child? I would argue that because the child is sapient and the ants are not, the happiness of the child outweighs the pain inflicted on the ants by the magnifying glass.

"Of course, we must also look at things from a materialistic perspective: are the ants valuable? They aren't in Excidium Planetis. Dairy cows, on the other hand, are very valuable. So killing a dairy cow may come with a fine, and killing an ant... well, a scolding not to kill other people's ants if they were pets, and nothing else otherwise.

"Lastly, what method would you propose to test to see if a vaccine is effective against a disease? You could test the vaccine on sapient beings, but that would mean exposing sapients to a disease rather than non-sapient animals. I believe the safety of sapient beings outweighs the safety of non-sapient animals."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Lastly, what method would you propose to test to see if a vaccine literally any medication is effective against a disease and actually safe to administer? You could test the vaccine on sapient beings, but that would mean exposing sapients to a disease rather than non-sapient animals. I believe the safety of sapient beings outweighs the safety of non-sapient animals."

Changed a bit there, but I entirely agree. Our obligations to other people automatically supersede any consequentialist approach to ethics here. Non-sapient fauna don't have rights because (1) they cannot assert such rights, (2) our obligations to sapients automatically supersede our obligations to animals i.e. Kant's argument, and (3) consequentially, we should always prioritise the wellbeing of beings which can suffer above those which cannot.

[Blaccakre]

"Okay, first of all, Cruelty is a negative thing... in your opinion. It is in mine too, but that's beside the point.

"Now then, even if cruelty is a negative thing, do the negatives of cruel ant-killing outweigh the happiness of a sapient child? I would argue that because the child is sapient and the ants are not, the happiness of the child outweighs the pain inflicted on the ants by the magnifying glass.

Emphasis mine. This horrible point of view completely misses the fact that animal abuse has been linked to human violence. Please note, I linked to a psychological paper there by a PhD in Psychology who teaches child development at Purdue, and not some animal rights groupie.

So EP is in favor of supporting the development of psychopathy in children rather than simply teach them better habits than hurting things for fun.

The best argument I've heard is that we should be supporting freedom from cruelty for people and that it's a little bizarre that we addressed animals first. That's not a reason to repeal the law that protects animals from cruelty, it's a good reason to SUPPORT laws protecting people from cruelty.

TL;DR - people making arguments for repeal based on the fact that this prevents children from finding joy in torturing animals should not be allowed to reproduce. People making arguments that it's weird to protect animals from cruelty and not people should focus their energy on passing a law against cruelty to people.

[Timsvill]

You could put in that GAR #372 bans inhumane killing of animals for food, as well as requiring nations arrest children for burning ants with a magnifying glass.

"The Timsvill version of this resolution has excluded bugs and animals who's species is overpopulated from protection under said bill. It was added on during it's time on the house of representatives floor. It does have automatic repeal added on when "Preventing animal abuse" passes, meaning it will be automatically repealed. Anyways, I agree 100% with this repeal."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Okay, first of all, Cruelty is a negative thing... in your opinion. It is in mine too, but that's beside the point.

"Now then, even if cruelty is a negative thing, do the negatives of cruel ant-killing outweigh the happiness of a sapient child? I would argue that because the child is sapient and the ants are not, the happiness of the child outweighs the pain inflicted on the ants by the magnifying glass.

Emphasis mine. This horrible point of view completely misses the fact that animal abuse has been linked to human violence. Please note, I linked to a psychological paper there by a PhD in Psychology who teaches child development at Purdue, and not some animal rights groupie.

From your phrasing, I'm assuming you made this discussion OOC? Okay, I can do that.

There are two problems here. The first is that the article only states that animal abuse is a warning sign for psychopathy, not a cause. It repeatedly states that animal abuse can be an indicator of mental illness, but never refers to animal abuse as a cause. If mental illness were more easily and quickly detected, the animal abuse wouldn't be a problem. In fact, by criminalizing it, you actually make it harder to detect mental illness by eliminating one of the warning signs.

Second, the article is not referring to burning ants with a magnifying glass, but intentionally abusing animals such as dogs or rabbits. There is a difference between something that is a pretty common childhood activity and "intentional cruelty toward animals that is repeated, severe and without remorse". The evidence in the article as to what kind of animals we are talking about here: "Young children might pull the cat’s tail or yank the dog’s hair out of curiosity or mischief." And the statistic given also offers a clue: "less than 5% of U. S. children are estimated to have intentionally hurt an animal". This number is a lot lower than one would expect for a pastime featured in movies and popular culture, that most here are familiar with, or may have even done themselves (I've killed ants with a magnifying glass before... and look at that I've never killed anyone).

But let's put this line of argument to rest once and for all: In the US, the only federal law on animal treatment is the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, and while state laws may go further, the AWA is the minimum standard for animal treatment. And the AWA doesn't cover insects, or even reptiles, amphibians, birds, lab rats, or lab mice. In short, insect killing is not animal abuse in the US.

Even your own source, Psychology Today, says in another article that young children harming animals as part of curiosity is not a troubling sign: it is only later in life, when the abuse becomes sadistic, that it becomes a warning for possible mental illness.

So EP is in favor of supporting the development of psychopathy in children rather than simply teach them better habits than hurting things for fun.

Ambassador Schultz =/= EP the player. And to be fair, Excidium Planetis as a nation is probably psychopathic. We went to war over a bet one time.

The best argument I've heard is that we should be supporting freedom from cruelty for people and that it's a little bizarre that we addressed animals first. That's not a reason to repeal the law that protects animals from cruelty, it's a good reason to SUPPORT laws protecting people from cruelty.

What about the fact that GA#372 bans animal testing? Isn't that a good reason to repeal?

[Blaccakre]

Even your own source, Psychology Today, says in another article that young children harming animals as part of curiosity is not a troubling sign: it is only later in life, when the abuse becomes sadistic, that it becomes a warning for possible mental illness.

Are you trying to make my point? Both the papers talk about young children harming animals being an opportunity to correct that behavior and teach the kid empathy. Your point was that if a child gets jollies from hurting animals the happiness the child gets outweighs the animals suffering...

So EP is in favor of supporting the development of psychopathy in children rather than simply teach them better habits than hurting things for fun.

Ambassador Schultz =/= EP the player. And to be fair, Excidium Planetis as a nation is probably psychopathic. We went to war over a bet one time.

OOC: totally not calling you out as a player, mate. EP is just a shorthand for your nation, like UK or USA. I like to think that in real life you're a swell guy/gal who doesn't condone children hurting things for fun.

The best argument I've heard is that we should be supporting freedom from cruelty for people and that it's a little bizarre that we addressed animals first. That's not a reason to repeal the law that protects animals from cruelty, it's a good reason to SUPPORT laws protecting people from cruelty.

What about the fact that GA#372 bans animal testing? Isn't that a good reason to repeal?

I think it's a bit of a red herring. Most human diseases are not communicable to animals; that's just not how biology works. Similarly, many animal born pathogens that become diseases in humans are benign to their host animals. So you simply don't see scientists infecting animals with small pox in order to derive a cure. Most disease study is done in tiny little petri dishes.

[Railana]

((OOC: None of the above discussion is particularly relevant to this repeal. Can we stay on topic, please?))