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.
Sciongrad wrote: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.
Wikipedia wrote: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.
Losthaven wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote: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?"