[DEFEATED] Repeal "Preventing Animal Abuse"

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC:
Alright, so if you argue that criminalization and outlawing are different, and the resolution merely outlaws it, then we aren't required to criminalize any animal abuse, only outlaw it? So then the resolution is totally toothless, because we can make animal on human combat illegal and not enforce it. After all, it's so widespread in Excidium Planetis that enforcing it would be unrealistic and unreasonable.

OOC: Nope, I have never said that simply refusing to enforce the law is good faith compliance.

Neither did I. I am of the opinion that the law should be enforced fully, remember?

You've taken an aspect of my argument - that refusing to criminalize a marginal aspect of a law which is itself against the spirit of the resolution in question is compatible with good faith compliance - and have applied it to compliance in general.

No. In your example, the government is refusing to criminalize insect killing, and in mine the government is refusing to criminalize animal combat. In both cases, it is only a small aspect of the resolution in question, and, as I pointed out, by your argument the resolution never requires nations to criminalize anything, only outlaw it. We are actually going beyond the mandates of the resolution by choosing to criminalize some animal abuse that we have outlawed.

Simply refusing to criminalize all forms of abuse would be a violation of GAR#2 because that is not good faith compliance.

Because you say it is? Why is it not good faith compliance?

And why is your government refusing to criminalize insect killing good faith?

[Railana]

OOC: Resolutions can't always cover everything in 3500 words. Sometimes, it's good to let nations exercise reasonable discretion in enforcement! The argument about ants is so marginal (and, arguably actually covered by the resolution), that I don't think it warrants this type of backlash. I also believe the animal testing argument is specious, but that is an entirely different argument.

On that last point, how?

((OOC: I'd also appreciate some commentary on that point, seeing as it's the sole argument in the repeal.))

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: *snip*
Both states are in compliance with the federal regulation that insists the interstate roads be policed to a certain standard, but there is a difference in the execution. There isn't any reason to assume this wouldn't happen in the GA as well.

OOC: That reminds me, didn't someone try to make a proposal for speed limits a couple of years ago?

And yes, I get what you mean, but still, resolution language itself shouldn't be written so that leeway must be given for a nation to continue to operate after the laws are changed to be in compliance.

OOC: It should be written as to limit that as much as necessary, but it isn't always possible. Its reasonable to assume that, in cases where a resolution is vague, nations are granted more leeway on the actual enforcement. Which is why we write resolutions to be as close to airtight as possible, but that doesn't mean that, when they are vague, it necessarily requires chaotic interpretations.

"The resolution requires that nations outlaw killing animals, but it does not necessarily demand criminalization.

"Perhaps I am missing something, but could you please explain the difference vetween outlawing and criminalizing something?"

For the umpteenth time, you are conflating prohibition with criminalization. Nothing in this resolutions demands that children be arrested for killing ants, regardless of the psychological ramifications."

"I never said it would necessitate arrest. Fines would do, or any other method of law enforcement."

"Because one is an established legal concept while the other is just a flimsy pretext for noncompliance."

[Losthaven]

The repeal focuses on a narrow part of the law. This part

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;

The way the law is written, there's no obligation to provide care to an animal which is not, at a minimum, reasonable and appropriate. If you're keeping an animal for testing purposes, it's not "reasonable and appropriate" to treat the animal in a way that defeats the purpose of the testing. The "necessary to promote health and avoid disease" language is a modifier of the "reasonable and appropriate care" language. The repeal and the folks supporting it are fixating on the modifier without considering the term it is modifying.

While it may be possible to interpret the language, in good faith, in the way the repeal does, it is not the only interpretation of the law and it certainly does not follow invariably from the language of the law that animal testing is outlawed. Auralia in particular has been a staunch supporter of the idea of viewing laws holistically and considering the purpose and intent behind the law in arriving at an interpretation. I would urge them to view PAA through the lens they have so often advocated.

I'm not going to get into EP's child smashing insect nonsense or his criminalization argument as (1) the author of the repeal we're discussing does not advance those arguments, (2) insects are plainly not covered by the law absent an unreasonable interpretation, and (3) there are plenty of things that are outlawed and prohibited which result in less than criminal sanctions (police give warnings all the time, and speeding and a whole host of other infractions are unlawful but also not "criminal").

I would strongly implore Auralia to consider other targets for their legislation. Aren't there bigger fish to fry, old friend, than a law that is earnestly and reasonably attempting to protect animal rights?

[Mendelian Conglomerate]

Also the "preventing animal abuse" never defines what is considered self defense, meaning its left quite vague.
If it is left up to the member states law, then that also would provide a number of both conflicts and loopholes.

[Sciongrad]

Neither did I. I am of the opinion that the law should be enforced fully, remember?

OOC: Yes, but you did accuse me of holding that opinion.

No. In your example, the government is refusing to criminalize insect killing, and in mine the government is refusing to criminalize animal combat. In both cases, it is only a small aspect of the resolution in question, and, as I pointed out, by your argument the resolution never requires nations to criminalize anything, only outlaw it. We are actually going beyond the mandates of the resolution by choosing to criminalize some animal abuse that we have outlawed.

No matter how relentlessly you repeat that, you will still be wrong. You can bold it, you can italicize it, you can use garish colors, but you'll still be wrong. Killing ants is a marginal aspect of the resolution because 1. ants do not feel pain and 2. ants are obviously not the intended object of this proposal because they do not feel pain. Obviously, allowing grown men to rip apart defenseless animals that do feel both pain and fear falls more comfortably within the scope of this proposal. I am capable of acknowledging the difference in degree of the two actions we've listed in this back and forth and recognizing that reasonable law enforcement officials will treat them differently. For your convenience, I will provide a comparable analogy to the argument you've provided. Theft is illegal in Sciongrad. A child steals a single jellybean from a candy store. That is theft. The child will not be arrested, even if caught by a police officer. Jellybean theft, while prohibited by the law, is not enforced because it is a non-issue. A grown man steals a television from another person's house. He is caught by the police, arrested, and punished. Television theft, which is also prohibited by the same law, is punished. According to your warped absolutist view of the law, because they are both examples of theft and prohibited by the same law, they must be equally enforced. Reasonable nations don't behave that way. That is wrong, you are convincing nobody, and you are probably doing permanent damage to your credibility.

This is, of course, neglecting the fact that ants don't feel stress or pain in the first place and therefore are not covered by this resolution.

Because you say it is? Why is it not good faith compliance?

Are you asking me why it's not good faith compliance to ignore a resolution?

And why is your government refusing to criminalize insect killing good faith?

If you're going to be deliberately obtuse, I'm not going to continue this exchange.

On that last point, how?

((OOC: I'd also appreciate some commentary on that point, seeing as it's the sole argument in the repeal.))

OOC: Losthaven explained my opinion on that issue well. I do not believe that a reasonable nation must necessarily interpret this resolution as banning animal testing based on the language of clause 4. I recognize that a reasonable nation could interpret a resolution in the way you've done here, but I think a reasonable alternative exists. And, as I've argued many times before, I do not believe a repeal should be based on a single interpretation if another, alternate interpretation that eliminates the problems posed by the first interpretation exists.

[Pluoria]

Ambassador Schultz few here are calling you a psychopath for burning ants with a magnifying glass. Now having a private island a la Most Dangerous Game might be a bit of a warning sign. Also worker ants that would be commonly burned by children are not sentient as they are merely an extension of the Queen ant which is not being burned. So a child burning ants would not be a criminal act under this resolution.
OOC: I'm 80% sure that worker ants are not sentient, but if there are any experts on ant sentience please tg me if I am wrong.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The way the law is written, there's no obligation to provide care to an animal which is not, at a minimum, reasonable and appropriate. If you're keeping an animal for testing purposes, it's not "reasonable and appropriate" to treat the animal in a way that defeats the purpose of the testing. The "necessary to promote health and avoid disease" language is a modifier of the "reasonable and appropriate care" language. The repeal and the folks supporting it are fixating on the modifier without considering the term it is modifying.

'This is just clearly wrong', Parsons starts, when someone says they ' "Require 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", it means that people who keep animals must provide it with the appropriate care necessary to promote the health of the animal and avoid suffering and disease. It is care that must meet certain ends, which are then specified. Those ends are the promotion of its health and the avoidance of suffering and disease'.

I'm not going to get into EP's child smashing insect nonsense or his criminalization argument as (1) the author of the repeal we're discussing does not advance those arguments, (2) insects are plainly not covered by the law absent an unreasonable interpretation, and (3) there are plenty of things that are outlawed and prohibited which result in less than criminal sanctions (police give warnings all the time, and speeding and a whole host of other infractions are unlawful but also not "criminal").

Parsons looks at the representative from Losthaven and yarns, "Naturally, one can always write 'Concerned that minor actions against animals, such as insects, are now outlawed by the World Assembly', which is entirely correct and true — for heavens sake, the definition of insect in my OED includes the word animal — and allow the everyone else to fill in the gaps".

I would strongly implore Auralia to consider other targets for their legislation. Aren't there bigger fish to fry, old friend, than a law that is earnestly and reasonably attempting to protect animal rights?

"So the last line of defence is an appeal to old friends lounging about. I appreciate the sentiment, lots of people ask me to do things because of my position, but I think outright corruption might not be the best answer for the World Assembly. If this repeal is not pursued, this delegation will certainly pursue one".

---

And why is your government refusing to criminalize insect killing good faith?

If you're going to be deliberately obtuse, I'm not going to continue this exchange.

About this one, could you provide me the steps by which you derive a contrary conclusion?

[Excidium Planetis]

Neither did I. I am of the opinion that the law should be enforced fully, remember?

OOC: Yes, but you did accuse me of holding that opinion.

Would you care to point out where?

No. In your example, the government is refusing to criminalize insect killing, and in mine the government is refusing to criminalize animal combat. In both cases, it is only a small aspect of the resolution in question, and, as I pointed out, by your argument the resolution never requires nations to criminalize anything, only outlaw it. We are actually going beyond the mandates of the resolution by choosing to criminalize some animal abuse that we have outlawed.

No matter how relentlessly you repeat that, you will still be wrong. You can bold it, you can italicize it, you can use garish colors, but you'll still be wrong.

I'm wrong? So the resolution does criminalize insect killing? First you said it merely outlaws it, not criminalizes it (don't deny this... there is proof in the posts in the debate thread that you made that exact argument). Now you say that's wrong. Which is it?

Killing ants is a marginal aspect of the resolution because 1. ants do not feel pain

Wrong. Not even Losthaven denies this, as Losthaven argued that all animals (including insects) were sentient and therefore capable of feeling pain (just not emotional pain).

and 2. ants are obviously not the intended object of this proposal because they do not feel pain.

You have any proof that ants don't feel pain, or are you going to repeat that with no evidence? I mean, bees may have feelings, so shouldn't ants, also hive-based insects, at least exhibit pain?

Obviously, allowing grown men to rip apart defenseless animals that do feel both pain and fear falls more comfortably within the scope of this proposal.

Okay, so if a grown man burns an ant with his son, then he gets arrested or fined or whatever? Okay, so much more acceptable.

I am capable of acknowledging the difference in degree of the two actions we've listed in this back and forth and recognizing that reasonable law enforcement officials will treat them differently. For your convenience, I will provide a comparable analogy to the argument you've provided. Theft is illegal in Sciongrad. A child steals a single jellybean from a candy store. That is theft. The child will not be arrested, even if caught by a police officer. Jellybean theft, while prohibited by the law, is not enforced because it is a non-issue. A grown man steals a television from another person's house. He is caught by the police, arrested, and punished. Television theft, which is also prohibited by the same law, is punished. According to your warped absolutist view of the law, because they are both examples of theft and prohibited by the same law, they must be equally enforced. Reasonable nations don't behave that way.

Really? I guess real life nations aren't reasonable nations then, because they do behave that way. In the US, filling a water cup with soda can get you arrested for felony robbery. The problem is that even if proactive efforts are not taken to enforce something, outlawing something still makes it possible for someone to be punished for it. Even if one person in ten thousand got arrested for burning ants, that would still be too many.

That is wrong, you are convincing nobody, and you are probably doing permanent damage to your credibility.

That's what everyone said when I submitted Condemn Bitely. Look at that, I just remembered this is an online game, and no one here knows me in real life. Wow, I should really start taking my WA credibility more seriously.

This is, of course, neglecting the fact that ants don't feel stress or pain in the first place and therefore are not covered by this resolution.

That's funny, because their close counterparts the bees are literally dying of stress.

But of course, who needs proof when you can make claims all day, right?

Because you say it is? Why is it not good faith compliance?

Are you asking me why it's not good faith compliance to ignore a resolution?[/quote]
No, I'm asking why it isn't good faith to follow a resolution's mandate to outlaw something and then not enforce one aspect of it.

And why is your government refusing to criminalize insect killing good faith?

If you're going to be deliberately obtuse, I'm not going to continue this exchange.

So, basically good faith is what you say it is, and when questioned as to why, you just refuse to respond? Okay, I got it. Sciongrad is the unquestionable authority on good faith.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

some nonsense about the ants and the bees

ARI: Oh, come on now, Ambassador. Bees are not ants. Until we see evidence that ants, mosquitoes, tsetse flies and other pests do indeed feel pain and stress, we're not going to assume that they do, just because a higher order insect does. Just because they live in a similarly configured community structure does not make them psychologically or physiologically equivalent. We're making a good faith effort to comply with this resolution, but that does not mean we are going to pass laws that prohibit the killing of ants.

[Sciongrad]

Would you care to point out where?

So then the resolution is totally toothless, because we can make animal on human combat illegal and not enforce it

I'm wrong? So the resolution does criminalize insect killing? First you said it merely outlaws it, not criminalizes it (don't deny this... there is proof in the posts in the debate thread that you made that exact argument). Now you say that's wrong. Which is it?

OOC: Are you serious right now? I so obviously meant that you were wrong about whether or not killing insects is covered by this resolution (which has been the center of my entire argument thus far) that you have to be doing this on purpose.

Wrong. Not even Losthaven denies this, as Losthaven argued that all animals (including insects) were sentient and therefore capable of feeling pain (just not emotional pain).

Ants do not feel pain. Ants do not have nociceptors, like most insects, and therefore cannot feel pain.

You have any proof that ants don't feel pain, or are you going to repeat that with no evidence? I mean, bees may have feelings, so shouldn't ants, also hive-based insects, at least exhibit pain?

1. Bees aren't ants. 2. Ants do not feel pain. I'm not going to continue this point because I don't think you've convinced anyone here and this is a digression in a repeal thread that does not even make this argument.

Okay, so if a grown man burns an ant with his son, then he gets arrested or fined or whatever?

No. In the same way a grown man would not be arrested for stealing a single jellybean.

Really? I guess real life nations aren't reasonable nations then, because they do behave that way. In the US, filling a water cup with soda can get you arrested for felony robbery. The problem is that even if proactive efforts are not taken to enforce something, outlawing something still makes it possible for someone to be punished for it. Even if one person in ten thousand got arrested for burning ants, that would still be too many.

OOC: Tell me. How many thousands of people steal soda from McDonalds in a water cup daily. Unless you can demonstrate that this behavior is regular by law enforcement officials, it is anomalous and obviously does not demonstrate how all reasonable nations behave. It may also be worth noting that the alleged thief hit the manager with a car, which is almost certainly what justified the charges.

That's what everyone said when I submitted Condemn Bitely. Look at that, I just remembered this is an online game, and no one here knows me in real life. Wow, I should really start taking my WA credibility more seriously.

OOC: If you're not gonna do it for yourself then do it for everyone else because this ant nonsense is headache inducing.

No, I'm asking why it isn't good faith to follow a resolution's mandate to outlaw something and then not enforce one aspect of it.

I have explained that at least 5 times, including in this very post you're quoting. I'm not repeating myself and I'm not continuing this exchange.

About this one, could you provide me the steps by which you derive a contrary conclusion?

I don't understand this question. Why do I believe something can be outlawed but not prosecuted in every case?

[Losthaven]

The way the law is written, there's no obligation to provide care to an animal which is not, at a minimum, reasonable and appropriate. If you're keeping an animal for testing purposes, it's not "reasonable and appropriate" to treat the animal in a way that defeats the purpose of the testing. The "necessary to promote health and avoid disease" language is a modifier of the "reasonable and appropriate care" language. The repeal and the folks supporting it are fixating on the modifier without considering the term it is modifying.

'This is just clearly wrong', Parsons starts, when someone says they ' "Require 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", it means that people who keep animals must provide it with the appropriate care necessary to promote the health of the animal and avoid suffering and disease. It is care that must meet certain ends, which are then specified. Those ends are the promotion of its health and the avoidance of suffering and disease'.

You're again completely ignoring the fact that the object of the law is providing "reasonable and appropriate care". The mention of the ends to be served by "reasonable care" helps focus the type of care contemplated by the law. However, the first and foremost principle of that clause is that the care must be reasonable. It is not reasonable or appropriate to treat a kept animal in a manner that defeats the purpose for which the animal is kept in the first place.

Put another way, the law doesn't require member nations to achieve certain ends. Frankly, that would be impossible under these circumstances: a pet owner, despite their best efforts and care, may nonetheless have a pet that becomes ill. Rather, the law requires they provide "reasonable and appropriate care". Like many many laws out there, WA members could interpret that clause in a way that is problematic. But to do so, they would essentially have to select and overly emphasize one term of the law (the "promote health and avoid suffering" language) and ignore or minimize another (the "reasonable and appropriate care" language). The law does not need to be read that way. Where there are multiple plausible interpretations, member nations should be free to accept the most reasonable one. We shouldn't be repealing laws because member nations could decide to interpret them unreasonably. If we did, every single WA law would be ripe for appeal because there's not a single one of them that is completely impervious to unreasonable interpretation by WA members.

I'm not going to get into EP's child smashing insect nonsense or his criminalization argument as (1) the author of the repeal we're discussing does not advance those arguments, (2) insects are plainly not covered by the law absent an unreasonable interpretation, and (3) there are plenty of things that are outlawed and prohibited which result in less than criminal sanctions (police give warnings all the time, and speeding and a whole host of other infractions are unlawful but also not "criminal").

Parsons looks at the representative from Losthaven and yarns, "Naturally, one can always write 'Concerned that minor actions against animals, such as insects, are now outlawed by the World Assembly', which is entirely correct and true — for heavens sake, the definition of insect in my OED includes the word animal — and allow the everyone else to fill in the gaps".

With all due respect, you'll forgive me if I question your understanding of biology. I suppose one could also write that jellyfish are a a collection of microscopic species of non-person animals, but writing it doesn't make it true.

One could write what you propose, but that would be a misstatement of the law. I know you're not above misstating the law to pursue your political ends, but maybe at some point the shame of the reputation you're developing with your fellow ambassadors will stop you from making such specious and blatantly wrong statements about WA laws you don't like. Until then, I don't have much more to say on the matter, other than the quoted suggestion above misstates the law.

I would strongly implore Auralia to consider other targets for their legislation. Aren't there bigger fish to fry, old friend, than a law that is earnestly and reasonably attempting to protect animal rights?

"So the last line of defence is an appeal to old friends lounging about. I appreciate the sentiment, lots of people ask me to do things because of my position, but I think outright corruption might not be the best answer for the World Assembly. If this repeal is not pursued, this delegation will certainly pursue one".

No one's asking you to do anything other than stop making disingenuous and misleading statements. I realize that may be hard for you; old habits and all that. Frankly, it's laughable that an ambassador who has developed such a reputation for misleading people and making factually wrong statements to pursue their political agenda would have the gall to accuse someone else of corruption for, of all things, using a familiar tone with another ambassador. I was appealing to Auralia's long fight and avid support for reasonable interpretation of WA laws, not the friendship of our ambassadors. Of course, you omitted all that so you could focus just on the part you wanted to.

You can't even respond to a damn missive without twisting what other people are saying... Here's the rest of what I said to Auralia on the subject: "While it may be possible to interpret the language, in good faith, in the way the repeal does, it is not the only interpretation of the law and it certainly does not follow invariably from the language of the law that animal testing is outlawed. Auralia in particular has been a staunch supporter of the idea of viewing laws holistically and considering the purpose and intent behind the law in arriving at an interpretation. I would urge them to view PAA through the lens they have so often advocated."

And why is your government refusing to criminalize insect killing good faith?

About this one, could you provide me the steps by which you derive a contrary conclusion?

I can help here. Here's two arguments in premise-conclusion format:

(1) the law applies to animals which are capable of experiencing fear, stress, and pain
(2) insects do not demonstrate the ability to experience fear
(3) insects do not have the neural receptors necessary to feel pain
(4) the law does not apply to insects

(1) the law outlaws and prohibits certain acts against animals
(2) some things that are outlawed and prohibited, like theft, are criminal
(3) some things that are outlawed and prohibited, like speeding and jaywalking, are not criminal
(4) the law permits criminalizing certain acts against animals but does not necessarily requiring criminalizing certain acts against animals.

[Railana]

snip

Interpreting "reasonable and appropriate" in the manner you described would effectively render the clause meaningless. If I am only required to provide "care necessary to promote the health of the animal and avoid suffering and disease" to an animal consistent with the purpose for which I am keeping the animal, even if this purpose by its very nature requires that the animal be harmed and exposed to suffering and disease, then there is really no requirement to provide care at all.

For example, if I owned some farm animals, I could argue that my purpose in keeping them is to make the greatest profit possible without regard to their welfare. "Reasonable and appropriate care", under those circumstances, could be no care whatsoever. I trust you'd agree with me that this is a nonsensical result, so I don't think the interpretation you propose is valid. Whatever "reasonable and appropriate" mean in this context, they do not permit member states to completely disregard the mandate to provide care, which is unfortunately what many forms of animal testing require.

I realize that you didn't intend this result, but unfortunately the author's intent is irrelevant in the context of interpreting a resolution. Member states didn't vote on your intent; they voted on the text of the resolution. It's true that I support taking into account a resolution's object and purpose when interpreting it, but only insofar as it can be determined from the resolution's preambulatory clauses, which are part of the resolution's text. Unfortunately, in this case, the preambulatory clauses use even stronger language that suggests that animals have an absolute right to a "healthy life free from suffering":

Convinced that there is no just cause for intentionally abusing an animal, and that animals should be cared for in ways that support a healthy life free from suffering;

I'm sorry that things turned out this way, but I can't simply disregard the most appropriate interpretation of a resolution simply because it makes for bad policy. The appropriate thing to do in these circumstances is to repeal the offending resolution. I hope you understand.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Excidium Planetis]

Okay, so I had a longer response, but I decided most of it wasn't worth arguing (not because I don't think I'm right, mind you, but that it wasn't relevant enough or worth the time to discuss further). I'll focus almost entirely on this line of attack:
The body of scientific evidence points to many, if not all, insects experiencing pain, stress, and fear. This understandably leads to either enforcement of the outlaw on insect killing, or widespread animal abuse that simply isn't enforced.

Wrong. Not even Losthaven denies this, as Losthaven argued that all animals (including insects) were sentient and therefore capable of feeling pain (just not emotional pain).

Ants do not feel pain. Ants do not have nociceptors, like most insects, and therefore cannot feel pain.

They do not have nociceptors, but that doesn't mean they aren't capable of nociception. Fruit flies don't have nociceptors, but they display nociception. Same with bees. A number of other animals with no nociceptors have demonstrated nociception.

Although these neurons may have different pathways and relationships to the central nervous system than mammalian nociceptors, nociceptive neurons in non-mammals often fire in response to similar stimuli as mammals, such as high temperature (40 degrees C or more), low pH, capsaicin, and tissue damage.

It's also been demonstrated that giving crickets morphine reduces their response to negative stimuli and Jane A. Smith writes in her essay A Question on Pain in Invertebrates: "Invertebrates, it seems, exhibit nociceptive responses analogous to those shown by vertebrates."

We can reasonably conclude that since research consistently demonstrates that insects exhibit nociception, ants probably do. The lack of nociceptors is therefore insufficient to prove that ants do not exhibit pain.

You have any proof that ants don't feel pain, or are you going to repeat that with no evidence? I mean, bees may have feelings, so shouldn't ants, also hive-based insects, at least exhibit pain?

1. Bees aren't ants.

You are missing the point. Going to jail for killing a bee is not any better than the same for an ant. Also, the claim that was made repeatedly (maybe by you, I can't recall) was that insects in general aren't included, making me prove that ants specifically aren't included is moving the goalpost.

About this one, could you provide me the steps by which you derive a contrary conclusion?

I can help here. Here's two arguments in premise-conclusion format:

(1) the law applies to animals which are capable of experiencing fear, stress, and pain
(2) insects do not demonstrate the ability to experience fear
(3) the law does not apply to insects

Again, as studies on bees appear to be the most conclusive and numerous, I'll bring them up again. Bees exhibit negative emotional states, specifically stress and anxiety. Scientific American says in the article I linked earlier about bees having feelings:

Scientifically, we can say that bees have a persistent state of negative affect that is triggered by agitation, associated with system-wide changes in neurotransmitters and causes clear, measurable cognitive biases.

Now, you may yet say that this does not necessarily mean the bees have feelings. But as the article continues, such reasoning therefore leads to inconsistent reasoning, as we have just as much evidence for bees feeling as we do for dogs.

In other contexts, they imply, we’re instinctively willing to call a dog or a person anxious when we see behavioral evidence of pessimism. We see a “timid” but “personable” dog experience what is “quite likely” separation anxiety, test it for pessimistic biases, and upon finding these (as was done last year), conclude that dogs indeed feel anxious when left alone. “It is logically inconsistent,” Bateson and colleagues say, to conclude this “but to deny the same conclusion in the case of honeybees.”
Indeed it is. So you need to decide whether bees get a trial membership among the genuinely anxious, or if your dog’s pessimism implies nothing about its feelings. Probably not a tough choice for a dog owner.

So, now, you make the choice: Does GA#372 exclude dogs? Or does it include bees?

(1) the law outlaws and prohibits certain acts against animals
(2) some things that are outlawed and prohibited, like theft, are criminal
(3) some things that are outlawed and prohibited, like speeding and jaywalking, are not criminal
(4) the law permits criminalizing certain acts against animals but does not necessarily requiring criminalizing certain acts against animals.

So that law doesn't require Excidium Planetis to criminalize animals in fighting sports?

---

I'm leaving these here, because, while not directly relevant to the repeal or the target resolution, the question of good faith is something I feel has not sufficiently been answered in the WA.

No, I'm asking why it isn't good faith to follow a resolution's mandate to outlaw something and then not enforce one aspect of it.

I have explained that at least 5 times, including in this very post you're quoting. I'm not repeating myself and I'm not continuing this exchange.

No, you didn't explain why it was good faith. You explained why it would be reasonable not to enforce one aspect of the animal abuse. You never explained how that interpretation was in good faith.

About this one, could you provide me the steps by which you derive a contrary conclusion?

I don't understand this question. Why do I believe something can be outlawed but not prosecuted in every case?

I wasn't entirely sure about IA's question either. I saw one of two possible questions, one directed at me and one at you.
At me "Can you provide the steps by which you concluded that Sciongrad was not complying in good faith?"
or at you "Can you provide the steps by which one would conclude some interpretation is not in good faith?"

[Losthaven]

snip

Interpreting "reasonable and appropriate" in the manner you described would effectively render the clause meaningless. If I am only required to provide "care necessary to promote the health of the animal and avoid suffering and disease" to an animal consistent with the purpose for which I am keeping the animal, even if this purpose by its very nature requires that the animal be harmed and exposed to suffering and disease, then there is really no requirement to provide care at all.

I don't think the clause is meaningless, but what you say above is how the clause should be read. An animal whose purpose is to be eaten should be cared for reasonably, but that doesn't mean you refrain from ultimately slaughtering it. The whole reason the care was qualified as "reasonable and appropriate" was because the level of care provided to an animal should and indeed must be correlated to the purpose for which that animal is being kept.

For example, if I owned some farm animals, I could argue that my purpose in keeping them is to make the greatest profit possible without regard to their welfare. "Reasonable and appropriate care", under those circumstances, could be no care whatsoever. I trust you'd agree with me that this is a nonsensical result, so I don't think the interpretation you propose is valid. Whatever "reasonable and appropriate" mean in this context, they do not permit member states to completely disregard the mandate to provide care, which is unfortunately what many forms of animal testing require.

I disagree with this analogy, but lets assume you are keeping an animal "to make the greatest profit possible" off that animal. The law would require you provide reasonable and appropriate care to preserve and protect the health of the animal while still pursuing your purpose of making a profit off of it. I question the validity of keeping an animal for the purpose of disregarding its welfare. Disregarding an animal's welfare is hardly the "purpose" for which they keep the animal.

Also, as a brief factual aside, most animal testing does require care for the animal if for no other purpose than to rule out alternative variables. As someone who did laboratory testing on mice back in my undergraduate days, I can tell you that great care is taken to preserve the general health and well-being of the test subjects because if you don't other scientists will point out your results may have been the product of unhealthy lab conditions and not the hypothesis you were testing.

That said, you must, obviously, test on the mice you are keeping and sometimes that exposes them to injury and disease. So does letting a cow out to pasture, or taking your dog for a walk. Again, the touchstone here is that the care you are providing must be reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. It's not reasonable or appropriate to provide care to a test animal in a way that prevents testing, or to care for a beef cow in a way that prevents eating it.

I realize that you didn't intend this result, but unfortunately the author's intent is irrelevant in the context of interpreting a resolution. Member states didn't vote on your intent; they voted on the text of the resolution. It's true that I support taking into account a resolution's object and purpose when interpreting it, but only insofar as it can be determined from the resolution's preambulatory clauses, which are part of the resolution's text. Unfortunately, in this case, the preambulatory clauses use even stronger language that suggests that animals have an absolute right to a "healthy life free from suffering":

Convinced that there is no just cause for intentionally abusing an animal, and that animals should be cared for in ways that support a healthy life free from suffering;

I'm sorry that things turned out this way, but I can't simply disregard the most appropriate interpretation of a resolution simply because it makes for bad policy. The appropriate thing to do in these circumstances is to repeal the offending resolution. I hope you understand.

I simply don't agree that the issue you've raised calls for or necessitates a repeal. And I'm not sure what you mean by "I can't simply disregard the most appropriate interpretation of a resolution simply because it makes for bad policy"... Your interpretation is not a reasonable assessment of the care provision in this act and there are other, more reasonable positions nations could take to comply with this law in good faith. I realize it sticks in your craw that the members of this assembly are acting on animal welfare while they won't outlaw abortion, but don't delude yourself into believing that you're evaluating the resolution rationally. You're making the same kind of extreme argument against this law as those who insist it criminalizes children frying ants.

[Railana]

snip

I readily admit that owning an animal for certain purposes, such as keeping it as a pet, would impose a duty of care on the owner. My point is that if the term "reasonable and appropriate" is defined exclusively with respect to the purpose for which the animal is being kept, then the owner of the animal is free to define that purpose in such a way that the clause listed in the repeal imposes no obligations upon them, thus rendering the clause effectively meaningless. This can most easily be done by defining the purpose to include the withholding of care from the animal.

Now, you respond by questioning the validity of owning an animal for the express purpose of disregarding its welfare. But by ascribing validity or non-validity to a purpose, you're effectively conceding that your interpretation of "reasonable and appropriate" isn't solely contingent on the purpose for which the animal is being kept as defined by the owner. Clearly, in your view, it does have some objective basis; otherwise you couldn't claim that certain purposes are not legitimate for the purposes of withholding care.

I agree with you on this point. I think that "reasonable and appropriate" must be defined with respect to the only available objective basis in the context of World Assembly resolutions: the resolution itself, which -- even if this was not your intent -- is written in such a way as to suggest that animal testing would not be a valid purpose for withholding care. I think the preambulatory clause I cited establishing an animal's right to be cared for is the best evidence of this, as well as the lack of any language acknowledging the legitimacy of causing animals injury or suffering for reasons other than self-defense.

I'm not sure what you mean by "I can't simply disregard the most appropriate interpretation of a resolution simply because it makes for bad policy"...

To clarify, I was saying that I believe that the interpretation I've outlined is the most reasonable interpretation and that I will not choose a less reasonable interpretation merely because it suits my policy goals better. I think your resolution bans animal testing, period. I'm not going to interpret it as though it doesn't merely because I want to legalize animal testing.

It looks like we're probably not going to convince each other of the validity of our respective arguments, so I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. Assuming this repeal succeeds, I'd be happy to help you re-draft.

I realize it sticks in your craw that the members of this assembly are acting on animal welfare while they won't outlaw abortion, but don't delude yourself into believing that you're evaluating the resolution rationally. You're making the same kind of extreme argument against this law as those who insist it criminalizes children frying ants.

I made it quite clear that I didn't view that as a reason to oppose this resolution, nor is it one of my repeal arguments. It seems like you're arguing that my anger over this Assembly's refusal to recognize basic human rights is somehow blinding me to the legitimacy of your arguments?

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Losthaven]

It looks like we're probably not going to convince each other of the validity of our respective arguments, so I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Then I won't go in-depth in response to your above comments. Suffice to say, my position is that the law requires reasonable and appropriate care be given to kept animals. I believe member nations could interpret that to allow animal testing, as the concept of reasonable and appropriate care must at some level be based on the attendant circumstances of the animal. Regardless of whatever other care they are due, it is reasonable and appropriate for animals kept for testing purposes to be subjected to those tests.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Supposing this succeeds, would not a separate resolution dealing with medical testing on non-sapient creatures be a valuable resolution to pass before attempting another iteration of Preventing Animal Abuse? Then the issue of medical testing would be settled, much like the issue of hunting is rather settled by Sensible Limits on Hunting."

[Prusselanden]

We should not Repeal it! We must teach our youth that abusing animals is not ok!

[Separatist Peoples]

We should not Repeal it! We must teach our youth that abusing animals is not ok!

"You can still do so if this is repealed. Nothing stops you from tackling this issue nationally, as we have."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Supposing this succeeds, would not a separate resolution dealing with medical testing on non-sapient creatures be a valuable resolution to pass before attempting another iteration of Preventing Animal Abuse? Then the issue of medical testing would be settled, much like the issue of hunting is rather settled by Sensible Limits on Hunting."

"That sounds like a wonderful idea."

[Imperium Anglorum]

'This is just clearly wrong', Parsons starts, when someone says they ' "Require 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", it means that people who keep animals must provide it with the appropriate care necessary to promote the health of the animal and avoid suffering and disease. It is care that must meet certain ends, which are then specified. Those ends are the promotion of its health and the avoidance of suffering and disease'.

You're again completely ignoring the fact that the object of the law is providing "reasonable and appropriate care". The mention of the ends to be served by "reasonable care" helps focus the type of care contemplated by the law. However, the first and foremost principle of that clause is that the care must be reasonable. It is not reasonable or appropriate to treat a kept animal in a manner that defeats the purpose for which the animal is kept in the first place.

Put another way, the law doesn't require member nations to achieve certain ends. Frankly, that would be impossible under these circumstances: a pet owner, despite their best efforts and care, may nonetheless have a pet that becomes ill. Rather, the law requires they provide "reasonable and appropriate care". Like many many laws out there, WA members could interpret that clause in a way that is problematic. But to do so, they would essentially have to select and overly emphasize one term of the law (the "promote health and avoid suffering" language) and ignore or minimize another (the "reasonable and appropriate care" language). The law does not need to be read that way. Where there are multiple plausible interpretations, member nations should be free to accept the most reasonable one. We shouldn't be repealing laws because member nations could decide to interpret them unreasonably. If we did, every single WA law would be ripe for appeal because there's not a single one of them that is completely impervious to unreasonable interpretation by WA members.

OOC: About all of this stuff, I buy Railana's interpretation. I think its very reasonable.

1. Resolutions ought be interpreted based on the reasons the resolution puts at the top.
2. This resolution talks about loving and fuzzy animals with its absolutist statements.
3. Things like purposefully infecting them with diseases, sleep deprivation, lots of medical testing, etc. violate an absolute statement of animal 'rights'.
4. Loving and cuddling all animals therefore precludes medical testing.

With all due respect, you'll forgive me if I question your understanding of biology. I suppose one could also write that jellyfish are a a collection of microscopic species of non-person animals, but writing it doesn't make it true.

One could write what you propose, but that would be a misstatement of the law. I know you're not above misstating the law to pursue your political ends, but maybe at some point the shame of the reputation you're developing with your fellow ambassadors will stop you from making such specious and blatantly wrong statements about WA laws you don't like. Until then, I don't have much more to say on the matter, other than the quoted suggestion above misstates the law.

It doesn't though. Both you and Sciongrad have admitted that it outlaws killing animals. Animals include ants, since it is not defined and my dictionary says "insect |ˈɪnsɛkt| / noun /a small arthropod animal that has six legs and generally one or two pairs of wings". So I would say that it is entirely true.

I can help here. Here's two arguments in premise-conclusion format:

(1) the law applies to animals which are capable of experiencing fear, stress, and pain Where? I don't believe this premise is correct.
(2) insects do not demonstrate the ability to experience fear
(3) insects do not have the neural receptors necessary to feel pain
(4) the law does not apply to insects

(1) the law outlaws and prohibits certain acts against animals
(2) some things that are outlawed and prohibited, like theft, are criminal
(3) some things that are outlawed and prohibited, like speeding and jaywalking, are not criminal
(4) the law permits criminalizing certain acts against animals but does not necessarily requiring criminalizing certain acts against animals. Yes, but this doesn't mean that it is not outlawed. Which makes my statement above entirely correct. The other response is from the other side, 'this doesn't impose punishments on any of this stuff, so it is useless legislation'.

Always happy to see arguments laid out like this. It honestly is so much clearer. My responses in blue.

Whoops. Numbering inside the spoiler was wrong.

[Sciongrad]

1. Resolutions ought be interpreted based on the reasons the resolution puts at the top.
2. This resolution talks about loving and fuzzy animals with its absolutist statements.
3. Things like purposefully infecting them with diseases, sleep deprivation, lots of medical testing, etc. violate an absolute statement of animal 'rights'.
4. Loving and cuddling all animals therefore precludes medical testing.

OOC: Using the preamble to obtain a single interpretation of the resolution despite the obvious existence of multiple reasonable interpretations is really no better than relying on authorial intent. I do not believe authorial intent can preclude otherwise reasonable interpretations. In the past, you've subscribed to particular interpretations that flagrantly defy the preambles of their respective resolutions. For example, GAR#17 explicitly calls for a non-mandatory funding scheme in its preamble, but we both agree that it does, indeed, establish an obligatory funding mechanism.

It doesn't though. Both you and Sciongrad have admitted that it outlaws killing animals. Animals include ants, since it is not defined and my dictionary says "insect |ˈɪnsɛkt| / noun /a small arthropod animal that has six legs and generally one or two pairs of wings". So I would say that it is entirely true.

It outlaws cruelly killing animals. It does not generally outlaw killing animals. I do not think it unreasonable to argue that cruelly killing ants is impossible if ants are incapable of pain. But even so, refusing to criminalize ant-killing is a marginal aspect of the law. Additionally - and I will note that my argument exists independently of this fact - according to your argument regarding preambles as tools of interpretation, ants must necessarily be excluded from this resolution because the first clause qualifies that it is concerned with animals "capable of experiencing stress, fear, and pain." But even then, refusing to criminalize the most marginal provision of a law does not violate good faith compliance in the same way that refusing to arrest people for stealing pennies from the tip jar is not bad faith enforcement of theft laws."

Yes, but this doesn't mean that it is not outlawed. Which makes my statement above entirely correct. The other response is from the other side, 'this doesn't impose punishments on any of this stuff, so it is useless legislation'.

"This argument neglects the fact that laws can be broken in degrees. Therefore, while swatting at a fly with a newspaper does not need to be punished by the law, stabbing a dog with a knife does. I do not subscribe to the frankly absurd absolutist conception of the law you have presented here."

[Imperium Anglorum]

1. Resolutions ought be interpreted based on the reasons the resolution puts at the top.
2. This resolution talks about loving and fuzzy animals with its absolutist statements.
3. Things like purposefully infecting them with diseases, sleep deprivation, lots of medical testing, etc. violate an absolute statement of animal 'rights'.
4. Loving and cuddling all animals therefore precludes medical testing.

OOC: Using the preamble to obtain a single interpretation of the resolution despite the obvious existence of multiple reasonable interpretations is really no better than relying on authorial intent. I do not believe authorial intent can preclude otherwise reasonable interpretations. In the past, you've subscribed to particular interpretations that flagrantly defy the preambles of their respective resolutions. For example, GAR#17 explicitly calls for a non-mandatory funding scheme in its preamble, but we both agree that it does, indeed, establish a obligatory funding mechanism.

On first reading, I would tell you that it wouldn't. But I don't ascribe to that interpretation standard. I go by the 'can it be interpreted in a fashion that it (or its repeal) is legal?'. People have argued that there is no recourse, naturally, there is the telegram. However, I also believe that some interpretations are better for the WA or people than others and would say that nations want the most power they can get (so creative compliance is a given) and the WA wants the most power it can get (so restrictive regulations). I've argued both sides of most of the coins here already.

Yes, but this doesn't mean that it is not outlawed. Which makes my statement above entirely correct. The other response is from the other side, 'this doesn't impose punishments on any of this stuff, so it is useless legislation'.

"This argument neglects the fact that laws can be broken in degrees. Therefore, while swatting at a fly with a newspaper does not need to be punished by the law, stabbing a dog with a knife does. I do not subscribe to the frankly absurd absolutist conception of the law you have presented here."

This is really on the same topic, the proposed pseudo-clause I wrote down a few posts back. The law does what the law says. The law says we must prevent animals from dying or whatever. The punishments for that are irrelevant. It still is illegal. Outlaw is not the same as criminalise, an argument which you guys picked up after I put it in response to EP a few pages (?) ago.

[Excidium Planetis]

For example, GAR#17 explicitly calls for a non-mandatory funding scheme in its preamble, but we both agree that it does, indeed, establish an obligatory funding mechanism.

Sciongrad makes a good point here, IA. Your method of interpretation is apparently inconsistent.

It I do not think it unreasonable to argue that cruelly killing ants is impossible if ants are incapable of pain.

Sure, if ants are incapable of feeling pain. But with evidence that insects feel pain and no evidence that ants don't, that's a pretty big assumption to make. And taking the approach of assuming they don't until proved otherwise allows past tech nations that still hold to the idea that no animals are conscious to kill all animals, since none are capable of feeling pain according to what they know of science.

But even so, refusing to criminalize ant-killing is a marginal aspect of the law.

Says who? How did you arrive at the conclusion that ant killing was marginal and man on wolf combat was not marginal?

Additionally - and I will note that my argument exists independently of this fact - according to your argument regarding preambles as tools of interpretation, ants must necessarily be excluded from this resolution because the first clause qualifies that it is concerned with animals "capable of experiencing stress, fear, and pain."

Why must that necessarily exclude ants? You keep saying that ants don't experience stress, fear, and pain like it's established fact, when scientific evidence indicates insects do feel pain, and also exhibit stress and anxiety in a manner analogous to stress and anxiety in dogs.

Also, while ant killing is a fun hobby for many children, bee killing is also fairly common. Why fixate on ants, specifically? Is it to avoid facing the fact that multiple scientific studies on bees give strong indication that this resolution applies to them?

But even then, refusing to criminalize the most marginal provision of a law does not violate good faith compliance in the same way that refusing to arrest people for stealing pennies from the tip jar is not bad faith enforcement of theft laws.

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

"This argument neglects the fact that laws can be broken in degrees. Therefore, while swatting at a fly with a newspaper does not need to be punished by the law, stabbing a dog with a knife does. I do not subscribe to the frankly absurd absolutist conception of the law you have presented here."

Wait, when did this become IC? Eh, whatever.

"Where does one draw the line between what needs to be punished and what doesn't? Clearly the line falls somewhat short of no enforcement whatsoever, but I argue that unless it goes to outlaw in all cases, the line will be too flexible for nations to move it to."