NationStates

The Python wrote:Ok, so you are saying that animals don't matter because it's not productive. By this logic, deforestation is good because it's a good source of wood - after all, wild animals don't matter because they are not productive /sarcasm. Not everything has to do with productivity.

"Ambassador, your ability to totally misapprehend an argument is astonishing.

"Animals are productive. Preventing their suffering has limited utility. Lumber harvesting has utility. Too much is wasteful. That does not mean lumber operations are without utility. In fact, preventing overlogging has utility. Stopping lumber operations entirely to avoid tree suffering? No utility.

"Productivity is the reason for state existence. Animal suffering is only valuable insofar as its prevention provides value."

The Python wrote:
EDIT: I suggest rereading Bananaistan's statement:

Bananaistan wrote:"There is no rational or logical reasoning behind most of the international laws which are based on emotional ideas around hurt feelings and so on. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander."

OOC: and you can rearead my response to that statement."

Seeing yet another animal welfare law, Muffins strolls in and starts barking

"I'm not sure why ethics are not being considered as valid reasoning for the enactment of laws. Half of the laws passed by this body are not conducive to an efficient economy, yet were enacted due to the ethical implications of allowing welfare issues to go under the radar. There is no ''logic' in banning slavery as it increases productivity and economic returns of the state, yet it has been done as we have decided it was morally wrong. One might view this action as an appeal to emotion, but I imagine most will realise this as an appeal to moral decency."

"This law is not looking for much. It is banning a practice which encourages flagrant misuse of antibiotics, encourages exploitation of labourers and environmentally damaging farming practices, as well as increasing risk of infections that could affect the general population. Why is the main focus, then, on welfare?"

Vilverin wrote:Seeing yet another animal welfare law, Muffins strolls in and starts barking

"I'm not sure why ethics are not being considered as valid reasoning for the enactment of laws. Half of the laws passed by this body are not conducive to an efficient economy, yet were enacted due to the ethical implications of allowing welfare issues to go under the radar.

"Those laws affect other questions of international utility. Utility is not always purely economic."

There is no ''logic' in banning slavery as it increases productivity and economic returns of the state,

"It demonstrably does not. Slavery is objectively terrible for economies. It has almost no utility."

yet it has been done as we have decided it was morally wrong. One might view this action as an appeal to emotion, but I imagine most will realise this as an appeal to moral decency."

"Moral decency and emotion are the same thing."

"This law is not looking for much. It is banning a practice which encourages flagrant misuse of antibiotics, encourages exploitation of labourers and environmentally damaging farming practices, as well as increasing risk of infections that could affect the general population. Why is the main focus, then, on welfare?"

"This is the first useful justification for regulating farming ethics that has been made so far."

Vilverin wrote:Seeing yet another animal welfare law, Muffins strolls in and starts barking

"I'm not sure why ethics are not being considered as valid reasoning for the enactment of laws. Half of the laws passed by this body are not conducive to an efficient economy, yet were enacted due to the ethical implications of allowing welfare issues to go under the radar. There is no ''logic' in banning slavery as it increases productivity and economic returns of the state, yet it has been done as we have decided it was morally wrong. One might view this action as an appeal to emotion, but I imagine most will realise this as an appeal to moral decency."

Exactly! This only seeks to ban a barbaric practise which is somehow still legal.

Vilverin wrote:"This law is not looking for much. It is banning a practice which encourages flagrant misuse of antibiotics, encourages exploitation of labourers and environmentally damaging farming practices, as well as increasing risk of infections that could affect the general population. Why is the main focus, then, on welfare?"

I second all of this (though of course, animal welfare is one of the biggest, if not the biggest argument for this law.)

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Vilverin wrote:
"This law is not looking for much. It is banning a practice which encourages flagrant misuse of antibiotics, encourages exploitation of labourers and environmentally damaging farming practices, as well as increasing risk of infections that could affect the general population. Why is the main focus, then, on welfare?"

"This is the first useful justification for regulating farming ethics that has been made so far."

"Did your read the preamble of this proposal?"

Separatist Peoples wrote:
"Those laws affect other questions of international utility. Utility is not always purely economic."

"Yet, they were an issue of ethics. If ethics were considered important enough by the WA for prior legislation, why are they to be discounted now?"

"It demonstrably does not. Slavery is objectively terrible for economies. It has almost no utility."

"My understanding on the economic disadvantages of slavery is not among my specialities, so I apologise for that. However, the point stands that some things, although economically beneficial or have utility, are not morally decent."
(OOC: I pulled slavery out of the air, it was the first entry filed under "BAD" in my brain lol)

"Moral decency and emotion are the same thing."

"I would argue that they are not. Moral decency is more concerned about the understanding between right and wrong, whereas emotion is a more vague term that is difficult to define and use in reasoning. However, personally, I believe they are both of equal consideration when arguing ethics, although I understand that emotions are less so when arguing legislation."

"This is the first useful justification for regulating farming ethics that has been made so far."

I aim to please :3

Araraukar wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:OOC: Solitary confinement of farm animals has been prohibited.

OOC: Going too far in the other direction. Raising animals for pet trade seems to come under the definition used. I don't know if you've ever had anything more complicated than a dog as pet, but there are some animals that MUST be kept in "solitary confinement" or they'll try to kill one another. Like spiders for example. Put more than one spider outside of breeding season in the same terrarium, and sooner or later you're going to have just one, slightly fatter spider. Also whatever is the more PC term for Siamese fighting fish males.

Also you just made quarantine impossible.

But you could just, instead, require that as far as reasonably possible, they be provided species-appropriate living conditions. The "reasonably" is important, because, well, chickens are from a jungle, yet requiring they can only be kept in jungle-like conditions would be mmmmmaaaaad. And impractical.

b.ii. "the force-feeding of farm animals against their will" - could be just "force-feeding of farm animals", as the "force" means "no choice given" and animals can't consent to begin with. Though that should have a medical exception, as few animals happily take their meds even when they're meant to save their life/improve their wellbeing.

I still don't really care about the feelings of shrimp, though.

OOC: Ummmm just gonna keep it here since IMO it's more important than arguing about the utility of sentient meat chattel welfare. I hope Cesnica sees this.

Clarified that non-sentient animals like oysters etc are not protected and legalized solitary confinement when strictly necessary.

Vilverin wrote:"Yet, they were an issue of ethics. If ethics were considered important enough by the WA for prior legislation, why are they to be discounted now?"

"No, ambassador, they were not. Further, failure in the past is not invitation to continue that pattern in the future."

"I would argue that they are not. Moral decency is more concerned about the understanding between right and wrong, whereas emotion is a more vague term that is difficult to define and use in reasoning.

"Right and wrong absent utilitarian value is fairly meaningless to states. This is why there is no exception to murder based on" he was a bad dude". States are essentially self interested entities, and prioritize usefulness."

Old Hope wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
"This is the first useful justification for regulating farming ethics that has been made so far."

"Did your read the preamble of this proposal?"

"You, ambassador, of all people should recognize meaningless fluff when you see it."

OOC: Especially given the coauthors post immediately above.

“It would make more sense for you to put ‘member states’ or ‘all member states’ in clause 3 rather than ‘any member state’, since the legislation will affect multiple nations. Also, I’ve just read your preamble, which contained a lot of useful and intelligent responses against factory farming that focused on something other than ethics; they were good reasons.”

We'd have a very different proposal if we were to focus on antibiotic resistance (but see my resolution on it), environmental impacts of agriculture, and worker rights for farmhands.

The Python wrote:"Okay, but they are sentient beings. Sentient beings suffering their entire life is clearly better than people having to spend a couple more coins on meat /sarcasm."

OOC: Okay, so I started writing an IC reaction, but I don't know your nation's IC reality - based on the flag you're a nation of snakes, which are carnivores, and worrying about the feelings of something you require to stay alive, and would likely need to farm instead of hunting in the wild, so you're coming off as highly hypocritical.

If you're NOT a nation of snakes, then you're just hilariously misinformed about plants. I've done a crapton of research to be able to RP this nation with as much accuracy as possible, and keep up to date with interesting science news about botanics. If you think plants are not sentient, feel no pain and do not suffer when farmed for food, then all I can think is "LOL".

If you want details, I can provide them, but if you're anti-intensive-animal-farming while being pro-intensive-plant-farming, and try to justify it by ethics, then you're really talking out of your ass and sound so fake in caring about one type of living thing while not caring about another - exactly what you foam at the mouth about other people doing - that it's really hard to take you the least bit seriously, IC or OOC.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:We'd have a very different proposal if we were to focus on antibiotic resistance (but see my resolution on it), environmental impacts of agriculture, and worker rights for farmhands.

Honestly, that is what I was hoping for the proposal to go for, but the rabid fanaticism of (author? submitter? does the snake nation belong to OP player?) the person going to submit it later seems to mean he cares only about non-sapient suffering, not sapient. Which is weird.

Potted Plants United wrote:(author? submitter? does the snake nation belong to OP player?)

(OOC: snake nation is not mine, that is a separate person).

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Potted Plants United wrote:(author? submitter? does the snake nation belong to OP player?)

(OOC: snake nation is not mine, that is a separate person).

OOC: Then you might not want them to submit your proposal, given they're actively working on getting people to dislike your proposal on this thread.

Potted Plants United wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:(OOC: snake nation is not mine, that is a separate person).

OOC: Then you might not want them to submit your proposal, given they're actively working on getting people to dislike your proposal on this thread.

OOC: They came up with the original draft, which I've been editing subsequently. Of course, they're also editing.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Potted Plants United wrote:OOC: Then you might not want them to submit your proposal, given they're actively working on getting people to dislike your proposal on this thread.

OOC: They came up with the original draft, which I've been editing subsequently. Of course, they're also editing.

OOC: Then why are you handling the thread at all? Also, talk to your coauthor about not burning all the bridges and reconsidering the direction of the thread to address also the workers' rights, not just the animals. I'm not even suggesting "plant rights" (would need to include fungi too, just so you know ), mind you, just that "ethical farming" is so much more than treating animals well.

Do some RL research into farm animal treatment outside of USA.

Potted Plants United wrote:

The Python wrote:"Okay, but they are sentient beings. Sentient beings suffering their entire life is clearly better than people having to spend a couple more coins on meat /sarcasm."

OOC: Okay, so I started writing an IC reaction, but I don't know your nation's IC reality - based on the flag you're a nation of snakes, which are carnivores, and worrying about the feelings of something you require to stay alive, and would likely need to farm instead of hunting in the wild, so you're coming off as highly hypocritical.

If you're NOT a nation of snakes, then you're just hilariously misinformed about plants. I've done a crapton of research to be able to RP this nation with as much accuracy as possible, and keep up to date with interesting science news about botanics. If you think plants are not sentient, feel no pain and do not suffer when farmed for food, then all I can think is "LOL".

Uh, I'm usually OOC in the WA...

Potted Plants United wrote:If you want details, I can provide them, but if you're anti-intensive-animal-farming while being pro-intensive-plant-farming, and try to justify it by ethics, then you're really talking out of your ass and sound so fake in caring about one type of living thing while not caring about another - exactly what you foam at the mouth about other people doing - that it's really hard to take you the least bit seriously, IC or OOC.

Plants don't have feelings, so there's no point in protecting them through this law.

Potted Plants United wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:We'd have a very different proposal if we were to focus on antibiotic resistance (but see my resolution on it), environmental impacts of agriculture, and worker rights for farmhands.

Honestly, that is what I was hoping for the proposal to go for, but the rabid fanaticism of (author? submitter? does the snake nation belong to OP player?) the person going to submit it later seems to mean he cares only about non-sapient suffering, not sapient. Which is weird.

"suffering" by people having to spend a tiny bit more money on their food is definitely a stretch

Regarding 1.b.ii, there are cases in which animals must be coerced, to some degree, to eat. For instance, an ill animal may either not wish to eat at all or refuse to eat food mixed with necessary medicine.

Regarding 1.b.v, "the infliction of pain or fear on farm animals for the purposes of maintaining their compliance" includes nearly all forms of sheepherding and such other practices of animal crowd control. That is not acceptable.

The Python wrote:"suffering" by people having to spend a tiny bit more money on their food is definitely a stretch

OOC: This 'tiny bit more money' can be pretty high depending on the nation, their imports of animal products and the financial conditions of the person in question. And this doesn't even take into consideration the 'tiny bit more money' that the farmer has to pay. Coming from a country where agriculture is one of the biggest employers, the farmers here often make less money than beggars in the cities and this 'tiny bit more money' is certainly not 'tiny' for them.

Alexander Smith, again: To wit, since the... Pythonian ambassador? is fully aware that he cannot seriously consider a proposal to directly make meat products more expensive in member states, he has instead decided by means of this "ban on factory farming" to indirectly increase their price. He and Ambassador McCooley should expect repeal attempts if this ever looks like seriously passing.

Wallenburg wrote:Regarding 1.b.ii, there are cases in which animals must be coerced, to some degree, to eat. For instance, an ill animal may either not wish to eat at all or refuse to eat food mixed with necessary medicine.

I have asked Cesinca to fix this.

Wallenburg wrote:Regarding 1.b.v, "the infliction of pain or fear on farm animals for the purposes of maintaining their compliance" includes nearly all forms of sheepherding and such other practices of animal crowd control. That is not acceptable.

That is not true, see below.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Ardiveds wrote:OOC: And what about farmers corralling cows themselves, sometimes with sticks? Is fear not involved in that either? I dunno if these are dumb questions but I don’t know shit about this stuff.

OOC: Using sticks to inflict pain or fear is an antiquated method that is almost universally frowned upon, and is not effective to corral animals, especially cows. It is also very rare. The compliance of farm animals is ideally achieved through insistence and designing fields and enclosures to ensure they have a better likelihood of following the wishes of the herder. All fear-based compliance does is make them likely to resist or attack farmers and farm hands in the future.

Bananaistan wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:OOC: Using sticks is an antiquated method that is almost universally frowned upon, and is not effective to corral animals, especially cows. It is also very rare. The compliance of farm animals is ideally achieved through insistence and designing fields and enclosures to ensure they have a better likelihood of following the wishes of the herder. All fear-based compliance does is make them likely to resist or attack farmers and farm hands in the future.

OOC: Yeah, my experience of sticks is that they are an extension of your arm to wave about to block a gap, or prod on the backside, etc. These let the cattle know you're there or want to go in a certain direction and are not for fear or pain, and keep the farmer at a safe distance from the kicking range of the animal when they decide that they don't want to move and lash out at the clown annoying them. Also, compare a congratulatory slap on the back to a person, does not cause pain or fear - the same principle is at play with sticks and if the farmer is whacking the cattle so hard as to cause pain, they prolly deserve a whack of the stick themselves.

Tinhampton wrote:Alexander Smith, again: To wit, since the... Pythonian ambassador? is fully aware that he cannot seriously consider a proposal to directly make meat products more expensive in member states, he has instead decided by means of this "ban on factory farming" to indirectly increase their price. He and Ambassador McCooley should expect repeal attempts if this ever looks like seriously passing.

What?

This is no attempt to indirectly increase the price of animal products; that is simply a side effect. This only seeks to ban a disgusting and unethical practise which is somehow still allowed by the WA.

OOC: My general advice for most issues dealing with animal welfare is having a stipulation of assessing each situation individually, and whether the harm outweighs the benefit. As others have noted, force-feeding may be a necessity in the treatment of disease or sickness, for example boluses of propylene glycol in the treatment/prevention of ketosis in cattle. Or, for 1.b.i, an animal may be held within a crush cage in order for various procedures, such as clinical exams, AI, drug administration, etc. Although this is a technical breach of the Five Freedoms, the argument can be clearly made that the temporary distress is outweighed by the long-term benefit.

Having that stipulation will help reduce counter-arguments and "what-if" scenarios.
I'm not an expert in economics so i can't help you there lol, my usual response is to hit them with the ol' "the market adapts" response, works 60% of the time, all the time.

Vilverin wrote:OOC: My general advice for most issues dealing with animal welfare is having a stipulation of assessing each situation individually, and whether the harm outweighs the benefit. As others have noted, force-feeding may be a necessity in the treatment of disease or sickness, for example boluses of propylene glycol in the treatment/prevention of ketosis in cattle. Or, for 1.b.i, an animal may be held within a crush cage in order for various procedures, such as clinical exams, AI, drug administration, etc. Although this is a technical breach of the Five Freedoms, the argument can be clearly made that the temporary distress is outweighed by the long-term benefit.

Having that stipulation will help reduce counter-arguments and "what-if" scenarios.
I'm not an expert in economics so i can't help you there lol, my usual response is to hit them with the ol' "the market adapts" response, works 60% of the time, all the time.

Hmm, how about this or smth:

Greater Cesnica wrote:keeping farm animals in spaces where they are unable to exercise their full range of motion,

to

keeping farm animals in spaces where they are unable to exercise their full range of motion for prolonged periods of time and where such is not strictly necessary for the welfare or health of said farm animals,

and

Greater Cesnica wrote:solitary confinement of farm animals where such is not necessary for the welfare of said farm animals,

to

prolonged solitary confinement of farm animals where such is not necessary for the welfare of said farm animals,

and ofc

Greater Cesnica wrote:the force-feeding of farm animals

to

the force-feeding of farm animals where such is not necessary for the health or welfare of said farm animals,

(I already suggested the latter change thoguh)