[DEFEATED] Factory Farming Ban

[The Python]

"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.”

"Yes, but that is completely irrelevant to factory farming being utterly unethical and disgusting."

[Kenmoria]

“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.”

"Yes, but that is completely irrelevant to factory farming being completely and utterly unethical and disgusting."

“I don’t deny that, apart from maybe the ‘disgusting’ part - that justification has been used a lot on some slopes with an awful lack of friction. What I do deny is that states have any rational interest, obligation or responsibility on this matter. Laws exist for the benefit of the state and of its citizens, not for cosmic principles. Regarding laws of ethics and laws of the state as the same is, in addition to being impractical, simply an archaic idea.

You have demonstrated why a person would care, and done well on that; you have not demonstrated why a state would care.”

[The Python]

"Yes, but that is completely irrelevant to factory farming being completely and utterly unethical and disgusting."

“I don’t deny that, apart from maybe the ‘disgusting’ part - that justification has been used a lot on some slopes with an awful lack of friction. What I do deny is that states have any rational interest, obligation or responsibility on this matter. Laws exist for the benefit of the state and of its citizens, not for cosmic principles. Regarding laws of ethics and laws of the state as the same is, in addition to being impractical, simply an archaic idea.

You have demonstrated why a person would care, and done well on that; you have not demonstrated why a state would care.”

"A state does have an ethical obligation to outlaw this barbaric practise."

[Kenmoria]

“I don’t deny that, apart from maybe the ‘disgusting’ part - that justification has been used a lot on some slopes with an awful lack of friction. What I do deny is that states have any rational interest, obligation or responsibility on this matter. Laws exist for the benefit of the state and of its citizens, not for cosmic principles. Regarding laws of ethics and laws of the state as the same is, in addition to being impractical, simply an archaic idea.

You have demonstrated why a person would care, and done well on that; you have not demonstrated why a state would care.”

"A state does have an ethical obligation to outlaw this barbaric practise."

“You, ambassador, are the one making the positive claim. Therefore, I ask you to justify your position, ideally without making circular references to morality. Kindly explain to the gathered delegations precisely why this ethical compulsion exists to member states to prevent an economically-viable practice which does not harm its citizens nor cross international borders.”

Ambassador Lewitt briefly looks skywards. “If I were Christian, I would say that I am definitely going to hell.” He mutters to himself. “Did I see a Baatezu walking around earlier? Perhaps I can ask them about the tax rates there.”

[Separatist Peoples]

"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."

"Ambassador, you keep using the term 'logic' but haven't actually applied any. Logic is an assessment of formal reasoning. What you are offering is an appeal to emotion. You posit that animal suffering is bad because it makes you feel bad and it makes the animals feel bad. I, conversely, am addressing the utility of the issue. In your example, the suffering of an animal provides five of your dollars worth of utility per person per product. That is measurable and of concern to states, as states are primarily concerned with resource expropriation. Feelings are not measurable.

"You suggest we put the suffering of property over that of people. This is irrational."

[The Python]

"A state does have an ethical obligation to outlaw this barbaric practise."

“You, ambassador, are the one making the positive claim. Therefore, I ask you to justify your position, ideally without making circular references to morality. Kindly explain to the gathered delegations precisely why this ethical compulsion exists to member states to prevent an economically-viable practice which does not harm its citizens nor cross international borders.”

Ambassador Lewitt briefly looks skywards. “If I were Christian, I would say that I am definitely going to hell.” He mutters to himself. “Did I see a Baatezu walking around earlier? Perhaps I can ask them about the tax rates there.”

"Factory farming is simply extremely unethical. Just because animals don't have the ability to vote, doesn't mean mean that their abuse and suffering should be legal."

"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."

"Ambassador, you keep using the term 'logic' but haven't actually applied any. Logic is an assessment of formal reasoning. What you are offering is an appeal to emotion. You posit that animal suffering is bad because it makes you feel bad and it makes the animals feel bad. I, conversely, am addressing the utility of the issue. In your example, the suffering of an animal provides five of your dollars worth of utility per person per product. That is measurable and of concern to states, as states are primarily concerned with resource expropriation. Feelings are not measurable.

"You suggest we put the suffering of property over that of people. This is irrational."

"Property? Animals have feelings."

[Kenmoria]

“You, ambassador, are the one making the positive claim. Therefore, I ask you to justify your position, ideally without making circular references to morality. Kindly explain to the gathered delegations precisely why this ethical compulsion exists to member states to prevent an economically-viable practice which does not harm its citizens nor cross international borders.”

Ambassador Lewitt briefly looks skywards. “If I were Christian, I would say that I am definitely going to hell.” He mutters to himself. “Did I see a Baatezu walking around earlier? Perhaps I can ask them about the tax rates there.”

"Factory farming is simply extremely unethical. Just because animals don't have the ability to vote, doesn't mean mean that their abuse and suffering should be legal."

“I wish to remind your ambassadorship that I asked for a justification without reference to morality, to avoid a circular argument. Adding the lexeme ‘extremely’ to your prior statement might add emotive effect, but it doesn’t add logical authority. Thus, my question about why a state ought to have the aforementioned ethical compulsion about factory farming still stands.”

[Separatist Peoples]

"You suggest we put the suffering of property over that of people. This is irrational."

"Property? Animals have feelings."

"And despite that, people can own them. It is not illegal for me to purchase an animal, take it home, kill it, and eat it. It is not illegal for me to purchase a potato plant, take it home, kill it, and eat it. It is not illegal for me to take that potato plant and have a professional destroy it, nor either is it illegal for me to do the same with an animal. It is not illegal for me to go into the wilderness to find a wild potato and kill it anymore than it is for me to do the same with an animal.

"Animals are property. Either of the state or of an individual. It is not clear why property is given priority over empirical benefits to people."

[Bananaistan]

"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."

[Separatist Peoples]

"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."

"Prior failure is not a grant to promulgate future failure."

[The Python]

"Property? Animals have feelings."

"And despite that, people can own them. It is not illegal for me to purchase an animal, take it home, kill it, and eat it. It is not illegal for me to purchase a potato plant, take it home, kill it, and eat it. It is not illegal for me to take that potato plant and have a professional destroy it, nor either is it illegal for me to do the same with an animal. It is not illegal for me to go into the wilderness to find a wild potato and kill it anymore than it is for me to do the same with an animal.

"Animals are property. Either of the state or of an individual. It is not clear why property is given priority over empirical benefits to people."

"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."

And yes I second what Banana said.

[Separatist Peoples]

"And despite that, people can own them. It is not illegal for me to purchase an animal, take it home, kill it, and eat it. It is not illegal for me to purchase a potato plant, take it home, kill it, and eat it. It is not illegal for me to take that potato plant and have a professional destroy it, nor either is it illegal for me to do the same with an animal. It is not illegal for me to go into the wilderness to find a wild potato and kill it anymore than it is for me to do the same with an animal.

"Animals are property. Either of the state or of an individual. It is not clear why property is given priority over empirical benefits to people."

"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 luxury meat /sarcasm."

And yes I second what Banana said.

"Sentient beings are inherently lesser to sapient beings. Their rights are inherently lesser. As such, it is not clear why their suffering should exceed sapient creatures' concerns.

"The Bananamen have made a poor argument. Echoing it does you few favors."

[The Python]

"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 luxury meat /sarcasm."

And yes I second what Banana said.

"Sentient beings are inherently lesser to sapient beings. Their rights are inherently lesser. As such, it is not clear why their suffering should exceed sapient creatures' concerns.

"The Bananamen have made a poor argument. Echoing it does you few favors."

Uh huh, sapient creatures' concerns of a few round pieces of metal.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Sentient beings are inherently lesser to sapient beings. Their rights are inherently lesser. As such, it is not clear why their suffering should exceed sapient creatures' concerns.

"The Bananamen have made a poor argument. Echoing it does you few favors."

Uh huh, sapient creatures' concerns of a few round pieces of metal.

"No, we are unconcerned with the feelings of nonsentient objects. We are concerned with the owners of those objects, who are themselves sapient."

[The Python]

Uh huh, sapient creatures' concerns of a few round pieces of metal.

"No, we are unconcerned with the feelings of nonsentient objects. We are concerned with the owners of those objects, who are themselves sapient."

"You are concerned with the owners keeping those objects, more than sentient beings being stuck in ridiculously cramped cages in a disgusting practise for their whole life."

[Separatist Peoples]

"No, we are unconcerned with the feelings of nonsentient objects. We are concerned with the owners of those objects, who are themselves sapient."

"You are concerned with the owners keeping those objects, more than sentient beings being stuck in ridiculously cramped cages in a disgusting practise for their whole life."

"Yes. Because you have not explained how the rights of sentient but not sapient creatures exceed those of sapient creatures. All you have done, ambassador, is emote."

[The Python]

"You are concerned with the owners keeping those objects, more than sentient beings being stuck in ridiculously cramped cages in a disgusting practise for their whole life."

"Yes. Because you have not explained how the rights of sentient but not sapient creatures exceed those of sapient creatures. All you have done, ambassador, is emote."

"The basic welfare of sentient but not sapient beings exceeds the greediness of sapient creatures."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Yes. Because you have not explained how the rights of sentient but not sapient creatures exceed those of sapient creatures. All you have done, ambassador, is emote."

"The basic welfare of sentient but not sapient beings exceeds the greediness of sapient creatures."

"Yes, you keep screeching that. Why."

[The Python]

"The basic welfare of sentient but not sapient beings exceeds the greediness of sapient creatures."

"Yes, you keep screeching that. Why."

"One is basic rights. The other is greed. You are insisting that greed is more important than basic rights."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Yes, you keep screeching that. Why."

"One is basic rights. The other is greed. You are insisting that greed is more important than basic rights."

"You have not asserted why, ambassador."

[The Python]

"One is basic rights. The other is greed. You are insisting that greed is more important than basic rights."

"You have not asserted why, ambassador."

You really need an argument to explain why greed is less important than basic rights?

Farm animals are sentient beings. All sentient beings have the right not to suffer for their entire life. Factory farming ensures that animals suffer their entire life. So, a proposed solution would be banning the cruel practise in the World Assembly. However, at what cost? Humans have to spend a tiny bit more money. I simply do not understand how that tiny bit more money outweighs millions of farm animals suffering their entire lives.

[Separatist Peoples]

"You have not asserted why, ambassador."

You really need an argument to explain why greed is more important than basic rights?

"No, ambassador. I need you to prove your statement that animals are more important than the societal structures on which their exploitation and use are built."

Farm animals are sentient beings. All sentient beings have the right not to suffer for their entire life.

"From where does this right come?"

Factory farming ensures that animals suffer their entire life.

"So?"

So, a proposed solution would be banning the cruel practise in the World Assembly. However, at what cost? Humans have to spend a tiny bit more money.

"Small amounts of money repeated constantly and by billions comes to a large amount of money, ambassador. Using your concept, if there is a $5.00 delta in proce per package of meat, and people use one package per day, that comes to a unit cost of $1,825 per person per year. That comes to $1.8 billion per one million people per year. Most nations have several million people. In exchange, those people get nothing."

I simply do not understand how that tiny bit more money outweighs millions of farm animals suffering their entire lives.

"Money has utility. Nonsapient feelings have no utility. You propose a policy that costs money for no useful benefit."

[The Python]

You really need an argument to explain why greed is less important than basic rights?

"No, ambassador. I need you to prove your statement that animals are more important than the societal structures on which their exploitation and use are built."

Their basic rights are more important than human greed.

Farm animals are sentient beings. All sentient beings have the right not to suffer for their entire life.

"From where does this right come?"

From the fact that they are sentient.

Factory farming ensures that animals suffer their entire life.

"So?"

So it is unethical.

So, a proposed solution would be banning the cruel practise in the World Assembly. However, at what cost? Humans have to spend a tiny bit more money.

"Small amounts of money repeated constantly and by billions comes to a large amount of money, ambassador. Using your concept, if there is a $5.00 delta in proce per package of meat, and people use one package per day, that comes to a unit cost of $1,825 per person per year. That comes to $1.8 billion per one million people per year. Most nations have several million people. In exchange, those people get nothing."

I simply do not understand how that tiny bit more money outweighs millions of farm animals suffering their entire lives.

"Money has utility. Nonsapient feelings have no utility. You propose a policy that costs money for no useful benefit."

Yeah sure. But the benefit is the BASIC RIGHTS of sentient beings.

[Separatist Peoples]

Their basic rights are more important than human greed.

"You have argued this. Despite that, greed is productive, where animal rights are not."

From the fact that they are sentient.

"This is circular logic, and, as such, a logical fallacy."

So it is unethical.

"This is circular logic, and, as such, a logical fallacy.

Yeah sure. But the benefit is the BASIC RIGHTS of sentient beings.

"Which are not useful."

[The Python]

Their basic rights are more important than human greed.

"You have argued this. Despite that, greed is productive, where animal rights are not."

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.

Yeah sure. But the benefit is the BASIC RIGHTS of sentient beings.

"Which are not useful."

See above.

EDIT: I suggest rereading Bananaistan's statement:

"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."