NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings fellow UN members,
Posted in the proposals on page 16 is my nation's proposal for a Basic Animal Rights Act. The nation of Barrylon is not posting this as a carte-blanche "please vote for my proposal!" but to drum up awareness and discussion of the proposal, ensuring that if it is indeed worthy of consideration as a resolution, it does not fail to do so simply due to not enough delegates realizing it was proposed. Please use this topic page to discuss the act, and the nation of Barrylon, King Matthew I sovereign, will be more than willing to answer questions.

Basic notes on the proposal:
This is not intended to be a terribly restrictive act, merely to establish basic guidelines.
This proposal PURPOSELY does not restrict the more contentious areas of the animal rights debate (eg: animal testing) because, as stated prior, it is intended only to be a base standard, not the be-all, end-all moralistic standpoint

One of the problem you have in that proposal is what is determine inhumane by one nation is considered humane by another.

Also some cultures (like mine) have traditional methods of killing their food, which others think is cruel but they think is necessary for flavour enhancement.

Take my culture for example; we eat Hamsters as they are our traditional food but other beings consider how we kill them inhumane. It is traditional in the Free Land of Slagkattunger to "play" with the Hamster, showing respect to our ancestors as well as increasing the flavor of the meat. After the Hamster has been "played" with enough we wring it's neck and then dress it for eating (ie:- skin it, remove it's inner organs & remove it's head). It is typical for an Adult Slagkattungerian of catperson decent to eat about three Hamsters for a meal.

http://www.users.on.net/killerkoala/skambass.JPG
Ambassador Jade Purrlinda
The Free Land of Slagkattungerhttp://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif
Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.
Email:- Slagkattunger@hotmail.com
Slagkattunger Nation Profile (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=78165)
My Nations GDP (http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=Slagkattunger)
Covered by DRI (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=83705)

How about rights to eat other animals?

We are for this proposal, but what about the right of animals to kill human and eat them? I know that it is doubtfull that someone will ever be eaten by a ship, but try a lion for example:
- if a lion eat an ox, shall the ox familie sue the lion for murder?
- if a villager can only eat ox because there is nothing else to eat around, should they be prossecuted? shall they eat each other instead to avoid the law?

Cruelty shall not be tolerated against anyone,including the animals, but the food chain has it's own laws, and there's nothing we can do about it for many reasons .e.g. "Lions can't read...."

Our economy is nased upon the cloning of prehistoric animals.
They are the basis of ourtransportation and construction industries, as well as our military.
We fear this proposal would severly limit these sectors.

To reply:
1) What is "humane" is obviously subjective. In gray area cases, a special committee would be convened to decide what constitutes humane for any given culture which is unsure how the law applies to them.

2) As stated, killing to eat and killing to defend are both perfectly legal under this act. Hence, a lion is allowed to kill an ox to eat, but the ox is allowed to defend himself. But technically, since neither are fully sentient (ie: they do not have self-awareness, higher cognition, nor the capacity for abstract thought), they do not fall under the laws set for sentient creatures

3) This proposal in no way addresses the issue of cloning. Clone as much as you want, all this would do is ask you to treat any animals you clone or use in your scientifc work humanely (ie: without undue pain, proper feeding and housing).

Also, the proposal is now on page 13 of the proposals page, just to clear up any possible confusion.

To reply:
1) What is "humane" is obviously subjective. In gray area cases, a special committee would be convened to decide what constitutes humane for any given culture which is unsure how the law applies to them.

Ah, the irony of a post-modernist trying to assert a moral principle! You can't be politically correct if you don't think that animals have rights, but you can't be politically correct if you don't agree that non-Western cultures have better values than Western ones. How to reconcile two conflicting but indispensible absurdities? Oh, the horror!

The United Socialist States of Tration agrees that the UN should consider a resolution addressing the excessive abuse towards animals. We are a small nation, and so do not suffer the large food demands of larger countries, but we believe that even though animals are used for food they are still living creatures capable to feeling pain. And because they are so important to our existense, we believe they have earned a measure of respect. We have banned corporate farming projects in leiu of free range and organic farms. We understand that this brings up the market price of our food, but at the same time we believe that the monetary sacrifice is more important that the inhumane treatment of our food supply.
-President Justin Almeida
-United Socialist States of Tration

Ah, the irony of thinking you know the totality of an individuals thought process from one statement. Since you apparently need more clarification on the issue, allow me to go more in depth with it. There is a continuum of what is acceptable treatment of animals. On the one end, there are acts that are always wrong, such as randomly killing an animal for no good reason. On the other, there are acts that are wholly acceptable, such as feeding a pet dog a bowl of dog food. In the middle, there is a gray area. A ritualized form of killing (which sounds to be torture but has not been fully defined) for the pupose of eating falls into this gray category. While the nation of Barrylon would outlaw this within its own borders, it is for the UN at large, or at least a committee thereof, to decide if this is true for the international community on the whole. This is not a case of conflicting views on the issue, this a case of right of decision.

Barrylon: So basically, you want to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own property, eh?

Screw that!

This is the foulest, most evil, most inhuman idea I have ever heard of.

You bet your ass I'm saying that. Just like its illegal to use a gun, even if its your own property, to shoot people in the face.

The Holy Empire of Ustasha renounces this legislation as a hippie vegitarian plot to control the world. I, Emperor Jim, personaly dislike this legislation because I am a devout meat-eating carnivore, with the exception of bread and cheese. Ustashans are a proud meat-eating people. We eat all forms of meat: cows, chicken, turkeys, giraffes, zebras, emus, llamas, spotted owls and pygmy owls, pandas, killer whales, eagles, velociraptors, lions, tigers, and bears, oh my. We even eat our Imperial Symbol, the Sharks with Freakin' laser beams on their foreheads. Our UN Representive will soon introduce a Resolution that will make meat-eating mandatory for every UN member nation. Those who refuse to eat meat will be fed to the lions, or the sharks. 8)

The nation of Ustasha has misunderstood the proposal quite thoroughly. It clearly provides that the killing of an animal for the purpose of eating is still quite legal. In fact, the citizens of Barrylon, King Matthew I sovereign, fully enjoy animal flesh, most notably buffalo wings, beef jerky, and thai peanut chicken.

A message from the General Staff of Matalonia: The Matalonian government warmly commends the King of Barrylon for drafting such a fine proposal. It provides for basic animal rights while not limiting the basic human prerogative to eat meat. At the same time, it leaves a convenient backdoor allowing for product testing on animals. Well done, Barrylon!

Basic animal rights act

Recognizing that even non-sentient animals are capable of feeling pain and that life should always be preserved if there is no pressing reason to end it, it shall become illegal to cause pain to, harm, or kill animals belonging to the groups known as Fish, Reptiles, Amphibians, Birds, and Mammals unless it is for the following reasons:
1)They are being killed for consumption as food
2)They pose an immediate or persisting threat to one's self or others
3)They pose an ecological threat to an area
4)They pose an immediate or persisting threat to a person's or persons' property
5)Their death will serve the greater good through scientific research

Note that in any cases where the ending of animal life is premeditated, it must be done in a manner deemed humane.

The nation of Barrylon believes these minimum standards should be set in place because they preserve the lives and well-being of other living things without impinging upon the rights and needs of human beings.

That is so that you don't have to go looking for it.

As for my comments... bravo Barrylon. I can see no loopholes that Equality for All was torn up on. Perhaps United Middle-Earth should take lessons from you.

Let's see, stays on topic to inhumane animal killing, covers all the bases that I can see. This government sees nothing wrong with this bill.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

We deem filleting fish alive to be the most humane method of killing them, because it lets them enjoy a few more precious seconds of life, and because it's so damn funny. And deer should only be hunted with .22 rifles, because it inflicts less hearing loss on nearby squirrels.

We deem filleting fish alive to be the most humane method of killing them, because it lets them enjoy a few more precious seconds of life, and because it's so damn funny. And deer should only be hunted with .22 rifles, because it inflicts less hearing loss on nearby squirrels.

Good for you. Your comments are both productive and intelligent, and do not in any way show arrogance or immaturity. The great nation of Rational Self Interest continues to be a benchmark for rhetorical skill.

Sarcasm is wasted on the oblivious.

The citizens of Doriszappa don't have a problem with people eating meat, as long as the animal is killed in a humane way.

Although, they don't like the fact that animals are used in medical research they are prepared to accept it as long as it is done in an ethical way and for valid reasons.

What they are suprised at is the fact that some citizens from other nations kill animals for fun. :shock:

*Ambassador Kom walks in wearing an orange hunting cap and hunting jacket* Sorry, I was busy hunting wolves for fun.

*looks around at the silence.*

What? Did I say something?

The nation of Ustasha has misunderstood the proposal quite thoroughly. It clearly provides that the killing of an animal for the purpose of eating is still quite legal. In fact, the citizens of Barrylon, King Matthew I sovereign, fully enjoy animal flesh, most notably buffalo wings, beef jerky, and thai peanut chicken.

With Respect to the Honorable Ambassadors of Barrylon, the Holy Empire of Ustasha believes that this legislation is paving the way for outlawing meat-eating, on purpose or otherwise, just like medicinal marijuana bills pave the way for drug legalisation, and gun registration paves the way for the banning of guns. I, Emperor Jim, respect the Constitutional Monarchy of Barrylon's ideas that animals should not be killed without pourpose, but I fear that hippies could hijack this legislation in the future and make it seem as if "animal rights" means not eating animals, either.

*Ambassador Kom walks in wearing an orange hunting cap and hunting jacket* Sorry, I was busy hunting wolves for fun.

*looks around at the silence.*

What? Did I say something?

Ambassador Kom is formaly invited to lecture at the quaterly Animal Rights meeting, as the citizens enjoy learning about alien cultures.

The Ambassador for Alien Culture
The Free Land of Doriszappa
North Pacific

With Respect to the Honorable Ambassadors of Barrylon, the Holy Empire of Ustasha believes that this legislation is paving the way for outlawing meat-eating, on purpose or otherwise, just like medicinal marijuana bills pave the way for drug legalisation, and gun registration paves the way for the banning of guns. I, Emperor Jim, respect the Constitutional Monarchy of Barrylon's ideas that animals should not be killed without pourpose, but I fear that hippies could hijack this legislation in the future and make it seem as if "animal rights" means not eating animals, either.

Ironically, I bet most "hippies" would dislike the proposal for not going far enough. I was very careful to word the proposal to avoid any loopholes or loose interpretations, except for the lack of definition of "humane", so while this particular piece of legislation cannot (forseeably) be contorted to ban the consumption of meat, I understand (but disagree with) your fear that it could be a springboard to more restrictive ideas. But please do understand that the intent of this proposal is not to act as that springboard, and should be taken at its face value.

like its illegal to use a gun, even if its your own property, to shoot people in the face.

Idiot.

The other person, while he may be on my property, he himself is NOT my property so I do not control him (although I am free to shoot him if he attacks me).

The animal, on the other hand, IS my property so I can do whatever I damn well please with it.

Barrylon: So basically, you want to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own property, eh?

Screw that!

This is the foulest, most evil, most inhuman idea I have ever heard of.

Hey, I have an idea, how about you start backing up your arguments?

Like maybe;

This is the foulest, most evil, most inhuman idea I have ever heard of because it restricts my personal liberties. (Then offer support for this statement by showing that any good that can come of this is not worth the restriction)

This is the foulest, most evil, most inhuman idea I have ever heard of because it is bad for society in some way. (Then offer support for this statement by showing the detrimental effects it could have on society and showing that they outwiegh any good that could come from this)

This is the foulest, most evil, most inhuman idea I have ever heard of because it goes against the bible. (Then offer support for this statement by proving the existance of god and that the bible is fact)

But don't do something like this;

This is the foulest, most evil, most inhuman idea I have ever heard of because it violates the rights man has which we have because we can reason. (Then offer support for this by repeating the same thing over and over again and making the word "right" completely useless.

Now do you understand?

like its illegal to use a gun, even if its your own property, to shoot people in the face.

Idiot.

Is your argument so weak that you need to resort to insults and ad hominem attacks to support it?

The other person, while he may be on my property, he himself is NOT my property so I do not control him (although I am free to shoot him if he attacks me).

Not in America you aren't.

The animal, on the other hand, IS my property so I can do whatever I damn well please with it.

Not in America you can't.

I'm talking about rights, not law--what SHOULD be allowed; what MUST be allowed by any moral nation, not what IS allowed.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

I'm talking about rights, not law--what SHOULD be allowed; what MUST be allowed by any moral nation, not what IS allowed.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

Because rights ARE law. What good is a right if nobody recognizes it and it is not enforced anywhere?

Why must you constantly use the wrong words to describe things? NOBODY will agree with you just because you abuse the hell out of words. And claiming things are moral just because does not change anyones opinion either. In fact, those things are more likely to cause people to disagree with you, I find myself not wanting to agree with things you say just because you said it, even when those things actually make sense.

Are you that an unreasonable person that you can't use common sense for just a second? If you aren't trying to convince people you are right, then why the hell are you at the UN forum?

The animal, on the other hand, IS my property so I can do whatever I damn well please with it.

Not if this proposal passes you cant. Do you believe children are their parents property too? If so, should sexual abuse of children be legal? For a less extreme example, dont police order you to keep it down if you blare your stereo (your own property) too loud at a late hour? Is it not true that you are not allowed to operate your car (your own property) if you are past the legal limit of alcohol (even alcohol that is your own property). Governments have every right to intervene between a person and his or her property when what they are doing affects others, be they your children, neighbors, fellow motorists, or yes, your pets.

I'm talking about rights, not law--what SHOULD be allowed; what MUST be allowed by any moral nation, not what IS allowed.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

It's awfully bold of you to use morality as an argument in your favor, unless you define morality as the unrestricted liscense for human beings to do whatever they feel like. That does in fact seem to be your standpoint, in view of the following statement: "The animal, on the other hand, IS my property so I can do whatever I damn well please with it." Is that really your idea of a moral standpoint? Is it moral to torture and kill animals simply because they aren't human? And for that matter, what makes you so sure that all animals are your property? Frankly, you seem to me to be one of those hippie types who thinks that any restriction on personal freedoms, even laws restricting murder and rape, are immoral. This law isn't trying to stop you from enjoying life; it's attempting to stop idiots from needlessly taking life. I, for one, find it offensive that you hide your own agendas behind the shield of a false and poorly-defined morality, and suggest that you work out your general rancor toward life in a different forum.

The animal, on the other hand, IS my property so I can do whatever I damn well please with it.

Not if this proposal passes you cant.
And this is why it should not pass, because it violates individual rights.
Do you believe children are their parents property too? If so, should sexual abuse of children be legal?
No...another human being cannot be property without his consent. The same is not true for other species.
For a less extreme example, dont police order you to keep it down if you blare your stereo (your own property) too loud at a late hour?
Just because they do doesn't mean they should.
Is it not true that you are not allowed to operate your car (your own property) if you are past the legal limit of alcohol (even alcohol that is your own property).
Yes, it's true--but drinking and driving poses an inherent threat to OTHERS. Killing animals doesn't hurt anyone else; therefore, there is no valid reason to outlaw it.
Governments have every right to intervene between a person and his or her property when what they are doing affects others, be they your children, neighbors, fellow motorists, or yes, your pets.

False. Humans have rights. Other species do not; therefore, I can do whatever the hell I want with them as long as I own them and don't use them in a way that causes harm to other HUMANS.

I'm talking about rights, not law--what SHOULD be allowed; what MUST be allowed by any moral nation, not what IS allowed.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

It's awfully bold of you to use morality as an argument in your favor, unless you define morality as the unrestricted liscense for human beings to do whatever they feel like. That does in fact seem to be your standpoint, in view of the following statement: "The animal, on the other hand, IS my property so I can do whatever I damn well please with it." Is that really your idea of a moral standpoint? Is it moral to torture and kill animals simply because they aren't human?
Morality does not concern what one does with his own property. All morality deals with is the proper restrictions that should be placed on humans--and it is evil to restrict what one can do with his own property as long as what he does does not harm another.
Frankly, you seem to me to be one of those hippie types who thinks that any restriction on personal freedoms, even laws restricting murder and rape, are immoral.
Murder and rape hurt OTHER PEOPLE. Skinning an animal alive does not. Certainly, it's not nice--but since it doesn't hurt anyone, there's no valid reason to outlaw it.

Murder and rape hurt OTHER PEOPLE. Skinning an animal alive does not. Certainly, it's not nice--but since it doesn't hurt anyone, there's no valid reason to outlaw it.

It hurts the animal. Why do you find humans especially deserving of protection and other creatures are not? They feel pain, they are capable of communicating that pain and deserve protection from needless cruelty.
Does this mean you would also see no immorality in painfully killing the cat people and flying monkies and other citizens of assorted non-human nations?

Dont waste your words, Tilba, its become undeniably clear that our friend, the delegate from Ithuania is simply a bigot. He is visibly unwilling to listen to reason and clings to specious idealist principles at whatever cost. He would rather living things needlessly suffer than have to follow the edicts of someone he doesnt agree with. Note, he has had no new arguments, merely "Its mine, I can do what I want"... seems to me the last time I heard that line of reasoning was when my little sister and I used to bicker over sharing. Unless Ithuania magically grows up, its a waste of time trying to reason with him, Tilba.

The citizens of Doriszappa don't have a problem with people eating meat, as long as the animal is killed in a humane way.

Although, they don't like the fact that animals are used in medical research they are prepared to accept it as long as it is done in an ethical way and for valid reasons.

What they are suprised at is the fact that some citizens from other nations kill animals for fun. :shock:

Some people kill other people for fun.

Murder and rape hurt OTHER PEOPLE. Skinning an animal alive does not. Certainly, it's not nice--but since it doesn't hurt anyone, there's no valid reason to outlaw it.

It hurts the animal. Why do you find humans especially deserving of protection and other creatures are not?

Because man alone is capable of reason. Therefore, man has rights; other species do not.

Murder and rape hurt OTHER PEOPLE. Skinning an animal alive does not. Certainly, it's not nice--but since it doesn't hurt anyone, there's no valid reason to outlaw it.

It hurts the animal. Why do you find humans especially deserving of protection and other creatures are not?

Because man alone is capable of reason. Therefore, man has rights; other species do not.

Why is reason the defining ability for rights to be given?
The animal knows its in pain, it knows you're doing it, if it escapes it will be capable of communicating to other animals, including often those of different species, that you're the one who hurt it. What more could a reasoning person add to the discussion of their need for defense in the same circumstances?
The only thing a person can give is superior communication but if they have a different culture and language to their rescuer it may be barely easier than animals, especially if you have zoo-psychologists who are working on the particular animals language.

Murder and rape hurt OTHER PEOPLE. Skinning an animal alive does not. Certainly, it's not nice--but since it doesn't hurt anyone, there's no valid reason to outlaw it.

It hurts the animal. Why do you find humans especially deserving of protection and other creatures are not?

Because man alone is capable of reason. Therefore, man has rights; other species do not.

Why is reason the defining ability for rights to be given?
Because reason confers the ability to UNDERSTAND those rights, to willingly EXERCISE those rights, etc.

Murder and rape hurt OTHER PEOPLE. Skinning an animal alive does not. Certainly, it's not nice--but since it doesn't hurt anyone, there's no valid reason to outlaw it.

It hurts the animal. Why do you find humans especially deserving of protection and other creatures are not?

Because man alone is capable of reason. Therefore, man has rights; other species do not.

Why is reason the defining ability for rights to be given?
Because reason confers the ability to UNDERSTAND those rights, to willingly EXERCISE those rights, etc.

Such as to exercise the right not to be murdered by someone in power over you?
As you said the law in question is limiting the person/creature who is exercising their ability to cause harm, it is them who is affected, not the victim as such. The proposal protects those who cannot exercise power on their own behalf.
You previously mentioned that a human child in a similar circumstances should be protected, yet they also wouldn't understand the rights they have, even if they will later.
The only person who needs reason (and empathy) is the person who going to perform the killing/torture/inhumane act. If they understand it is against the law, or more importantly that it will cause unnecessary suffering to the victim, they know they should not perform the action. If they cannot understand that they are causing undue suffering they probably should get some psychological help.

Murder and rape hurt OTHER PEOPLE. Skinning an animal alive does not. Certainly, it's not nice--but since it doesn't hurt anyone, there's no valid reason to outlaw it.

It hurts the animal. Why do you find humans especially deserving of protection and other creatures are not?

Because man alone is capable of reason. Therefore, man has rights; other species do not.

Two points;

The chimpanzee is capable of reasoning, so you must agree that it deserves the same rights as us.

And you must be saying that any human that is not capable of reason (fetus, severely mentally retarded person, a person who is in a coma) does not have any of the rights humans have, and can be bought and sold as property.

The chimpanzee is capable of reasoning,
No, he's not.

And you must be saying that any human that is not capable of reason (fetus, severely mentally retarded person, a person who is in a coma) does not have any of the rights humans have, and can be bought and sold as property.

Even the most severely retarded individual is aware of his own existence--a conclusion that can only be arrived at through reason.

The chimpanzee is capable of reasoning,
No, he's not.

And you must be saying that any human that is not capable of reason (fetus, severely mentally retarded person, a person who is in a coma) does not have any of the rights humans have, and can be bought and sold as property.

Even the most severely retarded individual is aware of his own existence--a conclusion that can only be arrived at through reason.

Pretty much every animal we've communicated with to any depth (chimps, gorillas, dolphins, even dogs to an extent) is capable of differentiating between themselves and others of their race. eg in a specific experiment a dog has 'said'. "You gave him a grape. I only got a cucumber bit. I won't do the trick until I get a grape."
Primates refer to themselves quite directly through sign language. eg refer to themselves by name as anticipating an event. So refering to their own internal mental state.