[DEFEATED] Factory Farming Ban

[Greater Cesnica]

“Ambassador, wouldn’t 1.b.iv ban the use of sheep dogs or any other methods to corral farm animals? From our understanding, that is basically inflicting fear to gain compliance.”

OOC: Sheep are not afraid of well trained sheep dogs. https://www.isds.org.uk/trials/sheep-we ... ss%20there!

IC: "Unless a sheep dog is not well-trained, sheep do not actually fear sheep dogs. I understand where that impression comes from, but it's simply a misconception."

[Ardiveds]

“Ambassador, wouldn’t 1.b.iv ban the use of sheep dogs or any other methods to corral farm animals? From our understanding, that is basically inflicting fear to gain compliance.”

OOC: Sheep are not afraid of well trained sheep dogs. https://www.isds.org.uk/trials/sheep-we ... ss%20there!

IC: "Unless a sheep dog is not well-trained, sheep do not actually fear sheep dogs. I understand where that impression comes from, but it's simply a misconception."

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.

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: Sheep are not afraid of well trained sheep dogs. https://www.isds.org.uk/trials/sheep-we ... ss%20there!

IC: "Unless a sheep dog is not well-trained, sheep do not actually fear sheep dogs. I understand where that impression comes from, but it's simply a misconception."

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]

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 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.

[The Python]

*bumps*

[Araraukar]

OOC: "keeping farm animals confined in close proximity with numerous other farm animals for extended period of time" - this is what all animal farming is, so congrats, you've banned all animal farming. Also take into account that most farmed animals are social by nature and solitary confinement would be as bad or worse for their health as ours.

Also not entirely certain why we should care about the nonexistent feelings or crickets or shrimp. Both are farmed for food.

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: "keeping farm animals confined in close proximity with numerous other farm animals for extended period of time" - this is what all animal farming is, so congrats, you've banned all animal farming. Also take into account that most farmed animals are social by nature and solitary confinement would be as bad or worse for their health as ours.

Also not entirely certain why we should care about the nonexistent feelings or crickets or shrimp. Both are farmed for food.

OOC: Nothing in the draft suggested the solitary confinement of animals. I do recognize that the part about close confinement isn't necessary, due to the earlier stipulation about keeping farm animals confined in spaces where their range of motion is limited.

[The Python]

Also not entirely certain why we should care about the nonexistent feelings or crickets or shrimp. Both are farmed for food.

It's much more preferrible with situations such as these to over-regulate than to under-regulate.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I concur with Ara re animals without indication of feelings of any sort.

[Separatist Peoples]

Also not entirely certain why we should care about the nonexistent feelings or crickets or shrimp. Both are farmed for food.

It's much more preferrible with situations such as these to over-regulate than to under-regulate.

"Disagree. Underregulation can be addressed domestically. Overregulation cannot. Underregulation is not inherently wasteful. Overregulation is.

"The welfare of livestock is, frankly, meaningless to states, which have real concerns relative to the interactions of states and protection of their people."

[The Python]

It's much more preferrible with situations such as these to over-regulate than to under-regulate.

"Disagree. Underregulation can be addressed domestically. Overregulation cannot. Underregulation is not inherently wasteful. Overregulation is.

"The welfare of livestock is, frankly, meaningless to states, which have real concerns relative to the interactions of states and protection of their people."

The price of animal products and other unimportant things like that etc is less important than the welfare of animals.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Disagree. Underregulation can be addressed domestically. Overregulation cannot. Underregulation is not inherently wasteful. Overregulation is.

"The welfare of livestock is, frankly, meaningless to states, which have real concerns relative to the interactions of states and protection of their people."

The price of animal products and other unimportant things like that etc is less important than the welfare of animals.

"This is an unsupported statement. I welcome your subsequent reasoning."

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: Solitary confinement of farm animals has been prohibited.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Solitary confinement of farm animals has been prohibited.

OOC: What if the farm animal requested it because of threats against that farm animal's life by other farm animals? What if its to cool down the farm animal that just got into a fight with another farm animal? What if-wait, I'm reading off the Standard Questions for Prison Reform card, not the Standard Questions for Animal Welfare card. Sorry, my bad.

[Araraukar]

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.

[Separatist Peoples]

The price of animal products and other unimportant things like that etc is less important than the welfare of animals.

"This is an unsupported statement. I welcome your subsequent reasoning."

"I still await more support than bare assertion for the claims made."

[The Python]

"This is an unsupported statement. I welcome your subsequent reasoning."

"I still await more support than bare assertion for the claims made."

"Since when is the welfare of animals and they are not suffering as much as factory farming makes them suffer, less important than how many pieces of paper or metal are needed to get animal products?"

[Araraukar]

"I still await more support than bare assertion for the claims made."

"Since when is the welfare of animals and they are not suffering as much as factory farming makes them suffer, less important than how many pieces of paper or metal are needed to get animal products?"

"I am intrigued. How were you planning to pay for rent or food or electricity or internet with animal welfare?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"I still await more support than bare assertion for the claims made."

"Since when is the welfare of animals and they are not suffering as much as factory farming makes them suffer, less important than how many pieces of paper or metal are needed to get animal products?"

"This is begging the question. Suffering of nonsapient animals has literally never been more important than the profits derived from them. This is literally why factory farming, which you admit exists, exists. You have not given any effective argument, ambassador, as to why state interests should value the suffering of animals over the economic and strategic value of a robust food and animal product production sector.

"Food production is the historical foundation of sapient society. The ability of a population to be fed is an a priori requirement of states. The ability to operate that source of food independently from foreign reliance is a strategic concern. The value derived from commercial activity provides jobs, economic prosperity, and tax revenue, allowing states to fund other policy concerns. Animal product production allows states to engage or otherwise participate in international commerce, facilitating the flow of funds into state coffers at one level or another.

"Conversely, animal suffering provides no harm to state interests. It provides no harm to individual interests for most persons. It is a consequence external to the sapient individuals for whom the state exists. Why, then, is animal suffering a greater cost to society than the byproducts of that suffering? "

[Hookah Castle]

Delegate-Ambassador Smith: Everything is "possibly carcinogenic." Deal with it.

OOC: In its resolution from January on enshrining the right to disconnect in European law, the European Parliament notes that "the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified radio-frequency radiation as a possible carcinogenic" (see section D). Ought the World Assembly to ban computers and televisions?

I mean...maybe. It certainly would upset a lot of people and it's none of my strong industries anyway so...

Than again it might be as I do have big chungus retail so maybe we shouldn't prevent computers and televisions.

I mean I'm not ambassador nation of my Union anyway so it isn't my problem if I don't follow resolutions lol

[The Python]

"Since when is the welfare of animals and they are not suffering as much as factory farming makes them suffer, less important than how many pieces of paper or metal are needed to get animal products?"

"This is begging the question. Suffering of nonsapient animals has literally never been more important than the profits derived from them. This is literally why factory farming, which you admit exists, exists. You have not given any effective argument, ambassador, as to why state interests should value the suffering of animals over the economic and strategic value of a robust food and animal product production sector.

"Why is it better that animals suffer their entire life just because some people decided that it's cheaper??"

[Kenmoria]

"This is begging the question. Suffering of nonsapient animals has literally never been more important than the profits derived from them. This is literally why factory farming, which you admit exists, exists. You have not given any effective argument, ambassador, as to why state interests should value the suffering of animals over the economic and strategic value of a robust food and animal product production sector.

"Why is it better that animals suffer their entire life just because some people decided that it's cheaper??"

“People run nations, food production and factories. Animals do not. Therefore, to a presumably-person-run nation, the priorities of people and of the economy naturally outrank those of animals. As the ambassador from Separatist Peoples has stated, you have not yet given a reason as to why a state might prioritise animal welfare over the state’s average consumer.”

[Separatist Peoples]

"This is begging the question. Suffering of nonsapient animals has literally never been more important than the profits derived from them. This is literally why factory farming, which you admit exists, exists. You have not given any effective argument, ambassador, as to why state interests should value the suffering of animals over the economic and strategic value of a robust food and animal product production sector.

"Why is it better that animals suffer their entire life just because some people decided that it's cheaper??"

"You have not answered my question, ambassador. I will happily answer yours when you answer mine. Until you do, you have not met your burden of persuasion, and can count on my active opposition."

[The Python]

"Why is it better that animals suffer their entire life just because some people decided that it's cheaper??"

"You have not answered my question, ambassador. I will happily answer yours when you answer mine. Until you do, you have not met your burden of persuasion, and can count on my active opposition."

"Humans who eat meat can spend 5 more dollars on a pack of animal products. Farm animals have to suffer their entire life by being cramped in ridiculously tiny cages. If you can explain to my why, it is better that animals suffer as much as they do in factory farming than someone having to spend 5 more dollars, then your argument will have logic."

[Kenmoria]

"You have not answered my question, ambassador. I will happily answer yours when you answer mine. Until you do, you have not met your burden of persuasion, and can count on my active opposition."

"Humans who eat meat can spend 5 more dollars on a pack of animal products. Farm animals have to suffer their entire life by being cramped in ridiculously tiny cages. If you can explain to my why, it is better that animals suffer as much as they do in factory farming than someone having to spend 5 more dollars, then your argument will have logic."

“It is not about what is better, ambassador; it is about what is relevant to a rational nation’s interest, and therefore to the WA’s interest. Utility is a very different thing to morality. Also, use ‘individuals’ rather than ‘humans’ - let’s not be anthropocentric now.”