NationStates Jolt Archive

Continuation of the proposal and thread of ''Animal Suffering (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=528792)''.
------------

Unnecessary Animal Cruelty
Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: New Spain / Emperor Carlos V / Old Argentina

Description: The United Nations,

Recognizing the cruelty and inhumane treatment to which a great number of animals are continuously and unnecessarily subject to;

Acknowledging animals’ basic freedom from needless torture and abuse;

Horrified by the widespread practice of so-called ‘blood sports’, such as bullfighting or dog fighting, in a legal manner;

Disgusted at how certain individuals and organizations make an economic profit from the affliction, agony, and death of animals as a public spectacle,

Not considering cultural significance as a valid argument defending the torture of animals for the purpose of entertainment or recreation, and;

In an attempt to eradicate the dispensable suffering of other living beings;

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution:
a) The term ''animal'' as every non-sapient, non-botanical living being except fungi and microorganisms.
b) The term ''legal biomedical research'' as the scientific tests, experiments, or investigations conducted by any individual, institution or organization which has been given permission to perform such activities by competent authorities in accordance with standing UN legislation.
c) The term ''proper shelter'' as (i) area with sufficient space to allow the animal to easily stand, sit, lie, turn about, and make all other normal body movements in a comfortable, normal position for the animal and (ii) dwelling place which is safe and protects the animal from injury, physical suffering, and impairment of health.
d) The term ''proper veterinary care'' as any veterinary treatment needed to prevent suffering or impairment of health.

2. Mandates that:
a) The following shall be strictly prohibited:
- Torturing, cruelly beating, overdriving, overloading, causing substantial bodily harm or tormenting any animal.
- Maliciously, deliberately or recklessly injuring, wounding, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, mutilating or killing any animal.
- Knowingly and willfully depriving any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink.
- Force-feeding any animal by any method.
- Willfully depriving any animal of proper shelter or proper veterinary care.
- Knowingly and willfully causing or procuring any of the aforementioned.

b) All public or social activities displaying, exhibiting or involving the substantial bodily suffering of, the intentional infliction of significant physical pain on or the death of any animal shall be prevented and banned.

c) The following shall be exempted from all the above clauses:
- Activities conducted for the primary purpose of and strictly required for providing food for human or animal consumption.
- Activities conducted for purposes of legal biomedical research.
- Professional veterinary practices performed in the interests of an animal's health or welfare.
- The destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health.
- The humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death.

d) All forms of organized animal combat, where participating animals are forced, instigated or in any way encouraged to fight between each other, shall be prevented and banned.

3. Urges members to increase the awareness of animal cruelty and continue to instill respect for animals through education, and;

4. Further encourages the adoption of policies and regulations to preserve the basic dignity of all animals.

You've done numerous edits. Please repost the whole thing (including category and strength).Repost it in a new thread you mean?

No, that's not what he meant, he meant to make it clear what we were supposed to be Approving. One thread per proposal is generally enough. Given the size of the old thread, we'll allow it this once.

Ugh. It's suddenly occurred to me that (c) prohibits the use of animals for pest control. Sometimes this is good (I don't really want to see fox hunting with hounds, for instance), but sometimes it's the smart approach. I can see people using this to try to argue that keeping cats purely to hunt the mice in your warehouse was a Bad Thing. More to the point, using dogs to help hunt for food is an important part of some survival strategies. Unfortunately I'm way too tired to evaluate how much of a problem this would be, and how to fix it.

It looks legal to me.

It's a pretty narrow area of effect, which would normally carry a "Mild" strength, but what it does in that narrow area is pretty broad-sweeping. The strength is fine, as is the category.

Ugh. It's suddenly occurred to me that (c) prohibits the use of animals for pest control. Sometimes this is good (I don't really want to see fox hunting with hounds, for instance), but sometimes it's the smart approach. I can see people using this to try to argue that keeping cats purely to hunt the mice in your warehouse was a Bad Thing. More to the point, using dogs to help hunt for food is an important part of some survival strategies. Unfortunately I'm way too tired to evaluate how much of a problem this would be, and how to fix it.
I don't know that cats need to be instigated or encouraged to hunt mice, but you may have point on the using of dogs.

Maybe it could be changed to this:
c) No animal shall be forced, instigated, or in any way encouraged to fight another animal for sport or entertainment.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

b) The following shall be exempted from the above clause:
....
- Activities conducted for purposes of legal biomedical research.

I would suggest you add "where there is significant reason to believe that such would enhance human and/or animal life"

This would, for example, exempt biological weapons research and the like, from aforementioned exemption.

Otherwise, the proposal is fine

I think its a good text. The only problem I might see is the title. "Unnecessary Animal Cruelty" makes it sound as if animal cruelty is sometimes necessary.

I think its a good text. The only problem I might see is the title. "Unnecessary Animal Cruelty" makes it sound as if animal cruelty is sometimes necessary.
Like the slaughter of livestock? Indeed.


The Dominion

Defining animals as "non-sapient" would be a problem per se (are sapient beings somehow not animals?), but since it's only "for the purpose of this resolution", I suppose it's not so bad...

Good proposal on the whole.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I would suggest you add "where there is significant reason to believe that such would enhance human and/or animal life"
For legal reasons, the research exemption has to remain broad, otherwise it would rub up against Freedom of Scientific Research.

I would say there is a definite line between training and instinct. Cats by instinct will hunt for smaller animals. It's what they do to survive in the wild.

Dogs in the wild will fight or mate depending on the sexes of the dogs. It's taking that dog and training it do only that which is the deplorable act.

So how about something along the lines of:

C) No animal shall be trained for the purpose of animal combat.

Javar Parez Dequar
Ambassador At Large
The United States of Philimbesi

Y'know, I think I'm actually going to be voting for this.

Devon Rose
Expert on Environmental Issues*

*This may be Moral Decency, but it's still an environmental issue.

Over all. I think it is a good and legal proposal and doesn't pose too many restrictions. And isn't totally repugnant to our general stance in favor of Nations deciding for themselves laws.

However, I would like to bring to the attention of the author, that some religious communities like the Judans in our south-western areas view the slaughtering of animals for food with a knife, and bleeding them, as opposed to an other, more widely viewed as humane method of using a powerful electric shock in the anal area that immediately stops animal's heartbeat, to be in accordance with their dietary practices. These practices are limited to domesticated cattle, and wild deer as their religion prohibits the eating of other animals with the exception of some insects and fish.

While Zyrwick is working to exterminate this pernicious superstition would this possibly effect communities outside of the norm in other countries where such practices might be protected under the banner of "religious liberty"?

Also on the question of biomedical research would this prohibit the intentional infection in test animals of a virus to test the potential cure by a drug?

Other than these questions, we would like to see floor debate on the issue, where we will make up our mind as to whether to approve or disapprove of the measure.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

Under this current version of the proposal:

While Zyrwick is working to exterminate this pernicious superstition would this possibly effect communities outside of the norm in other countries where such practices might be protected under the banner of "religious liberty"?

If such practices are ''conducted for the primary purpose of and strictly required for providing food for human or animal consumption'', they are not prohibited by this resolution. Although I would rather not include any exceptions regarding culture or religion, as these possibly barbaric practices should nevertheless not be allowed, I believe.

Also on the question of biomedical research would this prohibit the intentional infection in test animals of a virus to test the potential cure by a drug?

That is not up to this resolution to decide. That is the competence of individual nations and any other UN resolutions regarding scientific research.

Thank you. I will forward the Proposal to the Politburo of the People's Communist Party for their condideration.

Just some further points. I apologise if they've already been brought up; I rather lost track of the previous discussion.
Acknowledging animals’ basic freedom from needless torture and abuse;
I'm a little sceptical as to whether an animal has any basic freedoms, and a little concerned about the UN acknowledging such. Maybe this could be reworded to say that torture and abuse reflects poorly on the person doing it: this is, for example, how our classical philosopher Quodistotle justified prohibiting animal cruelty, while not believing animals had any rights in themselves. '[R]eflects poorly' is a little tame, actually: more that it is unethical because it wasteful and cruel, qualities that are deplorable when applied to other humans.
Not considering the use of cultural importance as a valid argument defending the intentional infliction of pain and torture of animals for the purpose of entertainment or recreation, and;
This strikes me as oddly worded, but I may be misreading it. Can you not strike 'the use of'? 'Not considering cultural importance [perhaps 'significance'?] as a valid argument...' makes more sense.
a) The term ''animal'' as every non-sapient non-botanical living being.
This still includes everything that is not in the plant kingdom: so fungi and bacteria are now animals.
c) The term ''proper shelter'' as...(ii) adequate shelter
Tautology? I'm not sure, but it reads oddly.
- Torturing, cruelly beating, overdriving, overloading, causing substantial bodily harm or tormenting any animal.
'cruelly beating' seems to introduce quite a vague qualifier. I assume this is so one can still beat a pack animal, whip a horse, etc., but is there not a way to make it less open to abuse?
- Maliciously or recklessly injuring, wounding, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, mutilating or killing any animal.
I'm not sure of the difference between maiming, disfiguring and mutilating, and certainly not between the latter two.

-- Samantha Benson,
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

This proposal is much improved, though we, like Ms. Benson, believe the definition of "animal" could still use more work.

We do, however, still have significant concerns with the underlying assumption that all UN members are fully developed nations in the style of the mythical United States (and its ilk) as demonstrated by
...b) The following shall be exempted from the above clause:

- Professional veterinary practices performed in the interests of an animal's health or welfare.

- The humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death.Professional veterinary services aren't even uniformly available in developed nations. The unintended criminalization of what animal care is available in undeveloped areas negates the attempted good of this proposal.

We also note the author still has not educated themselves in the nature of death and continues the attempt to criminalize any attempt to cease an animal's suffering through any means other than veterinary-induced euthanasia.

Moving on...
...d) All public or social activities displaying, exhibiting or involving the substantial bodily suffering of, the intentional infliction of significant physical pain on or the death of any animal for any reason or purpose shall be prevented and banned.We note that the exceptions in 2b) cover only actions designated in 2a) and that 2d) is explicitly placed outside those exceptions. We also note the complete lack of an exception for educational purposes. We wonder where all those professional veterinarians are going to come from when we have to shut down the vet schools to conform to 2d)....

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

The Ambassador from the Federation of Ambrose-Douglas would like to inform the Ambassador from Emperor Carlos V that we will still not be supporting this resolution for the inclusion of so-called "blood-sports" being chastised and banned. As stated before, there is no indication that an animal such as the phoenix feels any pain whatsoever, and when a phoenix dies, whether it be in a Phoenix Ring (one of our nation's favorite pastimes) or not, it still bursts into flame and roasts itself to death. I contend that, should a phoenix feel pain, this would be much more painful than any inflicted by the ringer.

Therefore, the Federation will not be putting its support behind this resolution until such wording is changed.

Respectfully,
Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands
Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

I'm a little sceptical as to whether an animal has any basic freedoms, and a little concerned about the UN acknowledging such. Maybe this could be reworded to say that torture and abuse reflects poorly on the person doing it: this is, for example, how our classical philosopher Quodistotle justified prohibiting animal cruelty, while not believing animals had any rights in themselves. '[R]eflects poorly' is a little tame, actually: more that it is unethical because it wasteful and cruel, qualities that are deplorable when applied to other humans.

I'd rather not concentrate on the philosofical aspect of the term. We seem to agree on the idea, but disagree on how to describe such idea. I believe the existing argument should be left as it is, as personally I think the proposal should basically protect animals from abuse, rather than prevent humans from ''looking bad'' or ''developing certain phycological traits which could negatively affect other humans''. By simply declaring killing animals is ''unethical'', one is looking at how humans feel towards animals, instead of at least recognizing how an animal feels of such abuse.

I'm not completely sure if I expressed myself well enough.

This strikes me as oddly worded, but I may be misreading it. Can you not strike 'the use of'? 'Not considering cultural importance [perhaps 'significance'?] as a valid argument...' makes more sense.

Re-worded it a bit. Little better?

Tautology? I'm not sure, but it reads oddly.

Fixed it.

I'm not sure of the difference between maiming, disfiguring and mutilating, and certainly not between the latter two.

Maybe it's a bit redundant...

This still includes everything that is not in the plant kingdom: so fungi and bacteria are now animals.

I'll look into it later.

'cruelly beating' seems to introduce quite a vague qualifier. I assume this is so one can still beat a pack animal, whip a horse, etc., but is there not a way to make it less open to abuse?

Probably not... although I'll try to introduce more changes when I get a little more time.

I'm not sure of the difference between maiming, disfiguring and mutilating, and certainly not between the latter two.


I believe maiming applies mostly to limbs, disfiguring to the face, and mutilating is more general.


Christopher Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Professional veterinary services aren't even uniformly available in developed nations. The unintended criminalization of what animal care is available in undeveloped areas negates the attempted good of this proposal.

Professional does not imply that such practices need to be done by a world-class expert, just by someone who is knowledgeable in such an area.

We also note the author still has not educated themselves in the nature of death and continues the attempt to criminalize any attempt to cease an animal's suffering through any means other than veterinary-induced euthanasia.

The proposal does not limit the humane killing of an animal to euthanasia. Would you consider a bullet shot in the head as involving ''instantaneous unconciousness''? I'd say yes.

We note that the exceptions in 2b) cover only actions designated in 2a) and that 2d) is explicitly placed outside those exceptions. We also note the complete lack of an exception for educational purposes. We wonder where all those professional veterinarians are going to come from when we have to shut down the vet schools to conform to 2d)....

Very true. That must be changed. Thanks for pointing that out.

Changes:

2a)
- Force-feeding any animal by any method.

A slight re-shuffle of clauses to correct the problem mentioned by Rubina.

Claude 2d (formerly clause 2c) has been re-worded:


d) All forms of organized animal combat, where participating animals were forced, instigated or in any way encouraged to fight between each other, shall be prevented and banned.

And also, most importantly, the defintion of ''animal'' has been changed. Please comment:

a) The term ''animal'' as every heterotrophic, multicellular, non-sapient, non-botanical living being, excepting fungi, arachnids and insects.

a) The term ''animal'' as every heterotrophic, multicellular, non-sapient, non-botanical living being, excepting fungi, arachnids and insects.How about taking out the "heterotrophic" and "multicellular" bits and just say "excepting fungi and bacteria". Most people won't know what "heterotrophic" means, and if you except arachnids and insects, you'll get two types of objections: those from people who find your proposal suddenly too silly to support because you 'bothered' to include them in the exceptions, and those who fuss about pulling the legs off live tarantulas and the mutilation of butterflies. Keep it simple and concise, and you'll get more votes.

Like Benson already pointed out, there are a lot of problems with the wording of this proposal, and the so-called "fixes" made by the author are nothing of the kind.

But I'll leave those for Benson to deal with. I'm just going to pick at the mandatory clause.


2. Mandates that:
a) The following shall be strictly prohibited:
- Torturing, cruelly beating, overdriving, overloading, causing substantial bodily harm or tormenting any animal.

Animals -- particularly mounts and pack animals like horses, mules, dewbacks and tauntauns -- have been pushed to their limits in times of war or other crises, but their masters have as well during those times. I don't see the problem. If a Vandalorian warrior can lug around as much as he is capable of, so can a dewback.

- Maliciously or recklessly injuring, wounding, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, mutilating or killing any animal.

Recklessly? So if I'm flitting across the deserts of Tattooine in a speeder, going a bit too fast for safety, and I run over a womp rat, I'm violating international law? You got to be kidding!

- Knowingly and wilfully depriving any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink.

I guess this is okay, since it includes specific intent to deprive with "wilfully," even though it's spelled incorrectly. Just a guess, though. Then I read the "wilfully" bit below...

- Force-feeding any animal by any method.

People are sometimes force-fed by different methods and for various reasons, not all of them malicious in any way. You need to be more specific.

- Wilfully depriving any animal of proper shelter or proper veterinary care.

Okay, "wilfully" again. Now I'm starting to suspect that this is nothing more than a veil. Is it to mean a direct, malicious intent -- "I'm going to destroy this animal's habitat! Buwahahaha!" -- or will this cover knowing that a certain action could result in the destruction of a certain animal's habitat and going ahead with it anyway, despite any positive gains from that action?

- Knowingly and wilfully causing or procuring any of the aforementioned.


Again with the "wilfully"? And as if that weren't bad enough, "procuring any of the aforementioned" what? Procuring any force-feeding? Can I procure some deprivation of shelter, too?

In summary, this proposal is still horrible.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

People are sometimes force-fed by different methods and for various reasons, not all of them malicious in any way. You need to be more specific.

In the interests of their health or welfare maybe?

Recklessly? So if I'm flitting across the deserts of Tattooine in a speeder, going a bit too fast for safety, and I run over a womp rat, I'm violating international law? You got to be kidding!

Maliciously and recklessly then?

Now I'm starting to suspect that this is nothing more than a veil. Is it to mean a direct, malicious intent -- "I'm going to destroy this animal's habitat! Buwahahaha!" -- or will this cover knowing that a certain action could result in the destruction of a certain animal's habitat and going ahead with it anyway, despite any positive gains from that action?

By ''wilfully'' it is meant that one intends to. How is that a veil for anything?

Also ''proper shelter'' is not defined as an animal's habitat. By ''depriving an animal of proper shelter'', one is placing an animal wilfully under inhumane conditions, such as locking up 20 horses in an extremely small space.

Again with the "wilfully"? And as if that weren't bad enough, "procuring any of the aforementioned" what? Procuring any force-feeding? Can I procure some deprivation of shelter, too?

Maybe by forcing someone else to do it for you? That clause is just there to prevent anyone from getting around the law.

Animals -- particularly mounts and pack animals like horses, mules, dewbacks and tauntauns -- have been pushed to their limits in times of war or other crises, but their masters have as well during those times. I don't see the problem. If a Vandalorian warrior can lug around as much as he is capable of, so can a dewback.

Surely you're not ''tormenting'' your dewbacks to run faster?

In summary, this proposal is still horrible.

I see you have a big problem with the word ''wilfully''. Such a term is necessary to prevent an accident from breaking international law. I see no reason why the word should be removed.

Also... ''wilfully (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wilfully)'' isn't spelt incorrectly.

Recklessly? So if I'm flitting across the deserts of Tattooine in a speeder, going a bit too fast for safety, and I run over a womp rat, I'm violating international law? You got to be kidding!

You were already breaking national (planetary?) law by "going a bit too fast for safety," so why not? Having an animal run out in front of you and get mown down is one thing, going so fast that you can't avoid a womprat that's just sitting there is another. As is playing 'bullseye' with them, an odious practice that I understand is common amongst the uneducated yahoos of Tattooine, and which should be stamped out with great prejudice.

How about taking out the "heterotrophic" and "multicellular" bits and just say "excepting fungi and bacteria". Most people won't know what "heterotrophic" means, and if you except arachnids and insects, you'll get two types of objections: those from people who find your proposal suddenly too silly to support because you 'bothered' to include them in the exceptions, and those who fuss about pulling the legs off live tarantulas and the mutilation of butterflies. Keep it simple and concise, and you'll get more votes.

You're right. Changed.

Beuracracy, Capitalism and Industry are holding back this important issue and with it our humanity.

You were already breaking national (planetary?) law by "going a bit too fast for safety," so why not? Having an animal run out in front of you and get mown down is one thing, going so fast that you can't avoid a womprat that's just sitting there is another. As is playing 'bullseye' with them, an odious practice that I understand is common amongst the uneducated yahoos of Tattooine, and which should be stamped out with great prejudice.

As far as I know, there is no law regarding speed on the Great Desert on Tattooine. And I suppose a squirrel sitting in a road on Earth should expect humans to drive at 5 mph so they can avoid the little rodents on the off-chance that there might be one around the next bend in the road? Give me a break. Not every nation, planet, or interplanetary nation feels the need to legislate on every single potential "threat" to safety, you know.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

P.S. You might take a step back and take a look at who you call yahoos. Some of those "yahoos" from Tattooine turned out to be great men.

EDIT: Actually, looking at it again, the term ''recklessly'' would not imply accidential. By acting ''recklessly'' one is acting in a way ''utterly unconcerned'' about the counsequences of one's actions. However, by accidentially driving over a [insert random animal name here], that doesn't necessarily mean that you were driving in such a way that you were putting others in danger.

If no other concerns are raised, I think the proposal is good to go.

:D This proposal has my complete support. It's about time.

Your proposal exceeds the maximum length by 47 characters.

Is the proposal that long?

Minor changes have been made to reduce the size of the proposal.

Also: The proposal has been submitted for its third time.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=cruelty

As far as I know, there is no law regarding speed on the Great Desert on Tattooine. And I suppose a squirrel sitting in a road on Earth should expect humans to drive at 5 mph so they can avoid the little rodents on the off-chance that there might be one around the next bend in the road?
I should have thought it was pretty bloody obvious that if you can't avoid a squirrel or a womprat, you aren't going to have much joy avoiding a human being either. Most national laws are pretty vociferous on that.

P.S. You might take a step back and take a look at who you call yahoos. Some of those "yahoos" from Tattooine turned out to be great men.
P.S. Lucky buggers with a talent for sabotage and destruction do not meet my definition of "great". Certainly not for their driving habits.

OOC: I knew there was a reason that I didn't see the original trilogy until nearly a decade after their release :-)

I'd rather not concentrate on the philosofical aspect of the term.Perhaps not, but your philosophy is writ large in the proposal and if this passes will become part of international law. As a result of your unwillingness to address the philosophical components and their continued inclusion, deciding whether or not to support the proposal will be difficult for us.
Professional does not imply that such practices need to be done by a world-class expert, just by someone who is knowledgeable in such an area.Professional denotes, generally, one who is paid for their services, but specifically within health services professions, one who has formal training and is licensed to provide such services.
Would you consider a bullet shot in the head as involving ''instantaneous unconciousness''? I'd say yes.You evidently haven't seen an animal drag itself around, avoiding capture, for over a week after being shot in the head then.
Very true. That [clauses that place veterinary and medical education in danger] must be changed. Thanks for pointing that out.Yet we see no changes in the submitted version. Would you care to point out the pertinent changes?

----
P.S. You might take a step back and take a look at who you call yahoos. Some of those "yahoos" from Tattooine turned out to be great men.Odd that the daughter of the Vandalore himself would speak highly of "rebel scum"....

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

Perhaps not, but your philosophy is writ large in the proposal and if this passes will become part of international law. As a result of your unwillingness to address the philosophical components and their continued inclusion, deciding whether or not to support the proposal will be difficult for us.

I see no reasonable argument why this proposal should not be supported because of the use of a different term to describe, basically, the exact same idea. Wouldn't you agree that animals must have some sort of freedom (or protection, if you prefer) from ''needless torture and abuse''?

Professional denotes, generally, one who is paid for their services, but specifically within health services professions, one who has formal training and is licensed to provide such services.

Exactly, knowledgeable in his own area of work. I doubt of a country which does not give some sort of license or training to its skilled workers.

You evidently haven't seen an animal drag itself around, avoiding capture, for over a week after being shot in the head then.

I am sure one can figure out a way of instantaneously killing an animal without the need to use injected anaesthesia. Two simultaneous shots then?

Yet we see no changes in the submitted version. Would you care to point out the pertinent changes?

Of course. The clause in question is now exempted from all the situations mentioned in clause 2c. It just needed a re-shuffle, not a real change, to change the meaning of the proposal.

OOC: I knew there was a reason that I didn't see the original trilogy until nearly a decade after their release :-)

OOC: :eek: I'm expected to debate politely with such a blasphemer? :p

I see no reasonable argument why this proposal should not be supported because of the use of a different term to describe, basically, the exact same idea. Wouldn't you agree that animals must have some sort of freedom (or protection, if you prefer) from ''needless torture and abuse''?Because words have meanings and different words have different meanings. A person can agree that animal cruelty should be prevented without agreeing that animals have rights and the legal problems that such conference can create.
Exactly, knowledgeable in his own area of work. I doubt of a country which does not give some sort of license or training to its skilled workers.Then you once again display a narrow-minded view of the nations that make up our world.

I am sure one can figure out a way of instantaneously killing an animal without the need to use injected anaesthesia. Two simultaneous shots then? We appreciate your confidence, ungrounded in experience though it seems to be. We too were once sure you would be able to tease a rational proposal out of this mess, but it doesn't seem to have happened.
Of course. The clause in question is now exempted from all the situations mentioned in clause 2c. It just needed a re-shuffle, not a real change, to change the meaning of the proposal.Perhaps you should reread your proposal. Rearranging the order did nothing to extend the exemptions to veterinary and medical education.

--L.T.

Because words have meanings and different words have different meanings. A person can agree that animal cruelty should be prevented without agreeing that animals have rights and the legal problems that such conference can create.

...and some words have similar meaning too.

It is logical and reasonable to state that animals, as living beings, have, or at least should have, ''freedom from needless torture and abuse''. I don't fully understand why you are against this argument in the proposal.

Then you once again display a narrow-minded view of the nations that make up our world.

I would still continue to doubt the fact that a nation in where animals habitate will not possess anyone capable of correctly treating an animal in a professional and knowledgeable manner.

We appreciate your confidence, ungrounded in experience though it seems to be. We too were once sure you would be able to tease a rational proposal out of this mess, but it doesn't seem to have happened.

You seem to believe that there is no other way to ''instantaneously'' kill an animal with any other method that through anaesthesia?

Perhaps you should reread your proposal. Rearranging the order did nothing to extend the exemptions to veterinary and medical education.

b) All public or social activities displaying, exhibiting or involving the substantial bodily suffering of, the intentional infliction of significant physical pain on or the death of any animal shall be prevented and banned.

c) The following shall be exempted from all the above clauses:
-- Activities conducted for purposes of legal biomedical research.
-- Professional veterinary practices performed in the interests of an animal's health or welfare.

Any problems there?

I have read the proposition, and i have to praise the person who submited it, but disagree with the title name, it makes it sound like sometimes it is necessary to torture animals, that of course is unacceptable.

I'm hoping you can change it's name so i can cast my vote in favour of such important issue.

Greeting from the Red Empire of the Killuminati People

...and some words have similar meaning too.

It is logical and reasonable to state that animals, as living beings, have, or at least should have, ''freedom from needless torture and abuse''. I don't fully understand why you are against this argument in the proposal.Your actual phrase is "basic freedom," which carries a different connotation. 'Basic freedoms' like 'rights' require an awareness on the part of the party in order to exercise such.
I would still continue to doubt the fact that a nation in where animals habitate will not possess anyone capable of correctly treating an animal in a professional and knowledgeable manner.In that mythical US, I am two hours away from "professional" care for my animals. (And almost as long for my medical care.) An inability on your part to conceive of nations even less developed and with fewer trained professional veterinarians than that is inconceivable to me.
You seem to believe that there is no other way to ''instantaneously'' kill an animal with any other method that through anaesthesia?And you continue to believe that there is such a thing as "instantaneous" death. It's a myth told to grieving family members and little children.
Quote:
b) All public or social activities displaying, exhibiting or involving the substantial bodily suffering of, the intentional infliction of significant physical pain on or the death of any animal shall be prevented and banned.

c) The following shall be exempted from all the above clauses:
-- Activities conducted for purposes of legal biomedical research.
-- Professional veterinary practices performed in the interests of an animal's health or welfare.
Any problems there?Yes. Medical and veterinary education (both of which use live animals for training purposes) are neither biomedical research nor veterinary practice in the interest of the animal. Your proposal still impinges on the ability to train both physicians and veterinarians.

--L.T.

And you continue to believe that there is such a thing as "instantaneous" death. It's a myth told to grieving family members and little children.


OOC: *pouts* I tried to make that point.

OOC: Cheer up, I'm not having much luck with him either. :) :( ;)

Yes. Medical and veterinary education (both of which use live animals for training purposes) are neither biomedical research nor veterinary practice in the interest of the animal. Your proposal still impinges on the ability to train both physicians and veterinarians.

Considering the definition of ''legal biomedical research'', there is no reason to believe that veterinary education would be limited.

I would still continue to doubt the fact that a nation in where animals habitate will not possess anyone capable of correctly treating an animal in a professional and knowledgeable manner.

Clearly a animal will only be subjected to ''substantial pain'' in its own interest if the person conducting such activities knows what he is doing. That's what the clause is saying, nothing else.

And you continue to believe that there is such a thing as "instantaneous" death. It's a myth told to grieving family members and little children.

I disagree. An animal can be killed in a ''very short space of time'' through various methods. [Although its already been said, how long would it take for an animal to die after being directly shot in the head? Seconds? Even less?]

Your actual phrase is "basic freedom," which carries a different connotation. 'Basic freedoms' like 'rights' require an awareness on the part of the party in order to exercise such.

I didn't use the word ''rights''. Try and interpret it as this: we as humans give animals the ''freedom'' to live and die without us subjecting them to ''needless torture and abuse''.

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

EDIT: See response to stated concerns on the previous page.