SENATE BILL: Animal Protection Act (Law'd)

[Franzl]

AYE

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nay

[Oakvale]

So we decide that something is wrong in part A, yet decide to make an exception for ritualistic slaughter in part B? Bizarre logic.

It's ritualistic slaughter if done in a way that causes minimal suffering to the animal, from what I can tell.

I think Section 3 might present some difficulties... but it's good legislation on balance. Aye.

[Niemeyerite]

Aye

[bgwah]

So we decide that something is wrong in part A, yet decide to make an exception for ritualistic slaughter in part B? Bizarre logic.

It's ritualistic slaughter if done in a way that causes minimal suffering to the animal, from what I can tell.

I think Section 3 might present some difficulties... but it's good legislation on balance. Aye.

Who gets to decide what is and is not an appropriate form of ritual slaughter? Why do some religions get to slaughter a special way, while others are banned from it?

It's a bizarre standard. If you've decided that it is unnecessarily cruel to kill a conscious animal, than the only logical solution is to ban that form of slaughter.

[tmthforu94]

So we decide that something is wrong in part A, yet decide to make an exception for ritualistic slaughter in part B? Bizarre logic.

It's ritualistic slaughter if done in a way that causes minimal suffering to the animal, from what I can tell.

I think Section 3 might present some difficulties... but it's good legislation on balance. Aye.

Who gets to decide what is and is not an appropriate form of ritual slaughter? Why do some religions get to slaughter a special way, while others are banned from it?

It's a bizarre standard. If you've decided that it is unnecessarily cruel to kill a conscious animal, than the only logical solution is to ban that form of slaughter.

I completely stand with Bgwah on this. It creates a double-standard.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay, I guess


I can't figure out what happened with 10 or not, but I will jsut assume it was a mistkae on the Wiki and thus isn't law. If so, then I am reluctant to add it in.

I don't care much for the lack of references to the previous Act, which will create an interesting situation of trying to navigate what segments were repealed and what was not. It would be so much easy to operate from a basis of specifying that.

And finally, I would prefer that the bill keep the Regionalization brought in by Afleitch's redraft, only this time with some more aggressive implementation and enforcement on the part of the Secretary of Internal Affairs, with the Secretary being placed in charge of the enforcement in the act itself.

[Spamage]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 53:17 by Averroës Nix:

Aye (5): Averroës Nix, Ben, Franzl, JulioMadrid and Oakvale
Nay (4): HagridOfTheDeep, jdb, NC Yankee and Spamage
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (0):
Vacant Seats (1): Roy Barnes 2010

The amendment has passed.

[Franzl]

I'm giving up sponsorship of this bill.

[Napoleon]

I would appreciate an explanation on why we should support this. Thanks.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I will be offering a conservative alternative that will likely be found unfriendly. But I've gotta do it—there are a few things in this new bill that I think would unnecessarily work against the economic interests of our society.

Also, would it be wise to define what an "animal" actually is? What about insects and bugs? Or household pests? Would Raid Ant Killer and mousetraps now be considered illegal? I wonder if it might be worth working in a few more exceptions...

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Is injecting a monkey with an experimental anti-AIDS drug before testing it on a person cruel research if the monkey ends up dying?

[bgwah]

Repeal of the Primate Protection Act is unnecessary and repulsive.

[Napoleon]

Repeal of the Primate Protection Act is unnecessary and repulsive.

I agree!! Senator, can you explain why you don't think we need a ban on experiments involving primates if we're prohibiting cruel and unnecessary research? It seems like for a Court, that's a pretty broad text.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Repeal of the Primate Protection Act is unnecessary and repulsive.

I agree!! Senator, can you explain why you don't think we need a ban on experiments involving primates if we're prohibiting cruel and unnecessary research? It seems like for a Court, that's a pretty broad text.

Certainly, while I favor banning cruel and unnecessary research, cruel but necessary research can be necessary.  I admit it is a double-standard for people and animals, I realize this will be an unpopular position, but the realities are what they are.  And the reality is that sometimes cruel and necessary research on animals is...well...necessary.  Also, I do think we need a ban on many types of experiments involving primates, but some types are necessary.  I don't think the Primate Protection Act is the answer to this problem.  My position is not that we should simply repeal it, it is that we should repeal it and replace it with a better and less absolutist piece of legislation. 

[Napoleon]

Repeal of the Primate Protection Act is unnecessary and repulsive.

I agree!! Senator, can you explain why you don't think we need a ban on experiments involving primates if we're prohibiting cruel and unnecessary research? It seems like for a Court, that's a pretty broad text.

Certainly, while I favor banning cruel and unnecessary research, cruel but necessary research can be necessary.  I admit it is a double-standard for people and animals, I realize this will be an unpopular position, but the realities are what they are.  And the reality is that sometimes cruel and necessary research on animals is...well...necessary.  Also, I do think we need a ban on many types of experiments involving primates, but some types are necessary.  I don't think the Primate Protection Act is the answer to this problem.  My position is not that we should simply repeal it, it is that we should repeal it and replace it with a better and less absolutist piece of legislation. 

If you offer some examples of research that is necessary that can no longer be conducted I am more likely to be swayed. Lifting a ban for hypothetical research that may or may not exist will only lead to more deaths.

Also I would like to see Nix's definition of cruel because its possible we may be all on the same page. I dunno.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Repeal of the Primate Protection Act is unnecessary and repulsive.

I agree!! Senator, can you explain why you don't think we need a ban on experiments involving primates if we're prohibiting cruel and unnecessary research? It seems like for a Court, that's a pretty broad text.

Certainly, while I favor banning cruel and unnecessary research, cruel but necessary research can be necessary.  I admit it is a double-standard for people and animals, I realize this will be an unpopular position, but the realities are what they are.  And the reality is that sometimes cruel and necessary research on animals is...well...necessary.  Also, I do think we need a ban on many types of experiments involving primates, but some types are necessary.  I don't think the Primate Protection Act is the answer to this problem.  My position is not that we should simply repeal it, it is that we should repeal it and replace it with a better and less absolutist piece of legislation. 

If you offer some examples of research that is necessary that can no longer be conducted I am more likely to be swayed. Lifting a ban for hypothetical research that may or may not exist will only lead to more deaths.

Also I would like to see Nix's definition of cruel because its possible we may be all on the same page. I dunno.

That is a good point, before proceeding we should find out how Senator Nix's definition of cruel.  As for examples, how would such a hypothetical drug as the one I described be able to be tested, if not on primates?  I'd be fine with both this and The Primate Protection Act if you could let point out some other ways it could be tested without risking human lives.

[Napoleon]

Repeal of the Primate Protection Act is unnecessary and repulsive.

I agree!! Senator, can you explain why you don't think we need a ban on experiments involving primates if we're prohibiting cruel and unnecessary research? It seems like for a Court, that's a pretty broad text.

Certainly, while I favor banning cruel and unnecessary research, cruel but necessary research can be necessary.  I admit it is a double-standard for people and animals, I realize this will be an unpopular position, but the realities are what they are.  And the reality is that sometimes cruel and necessary research on animals is...well...necessary.  Also, I do think we need a ban on many types of experiments involving primates, but some types are necessary.  I don't think the Primate Protection Act is the answer to this problem.  My position is not that we should simply repeal it, it is that we should repeal it and replace it with a better and less absolutist piece of legislation. 

If you offer some examples of research that is necessary that can no longer be conducted I am more likely to be swayed. Lifting a ban for hypothetical research that may or may not exist will only lead to more deaths.

Also I would like to see Nix's definition of cruel because its possible we may be all on the same page. I dunno.

That is a good point, before proceeding we should find out how Senator Nix's definition of cruel.  As for examples, how would such a hypothetical drug as the one I described be able to be tested, if not on primates?  I'd be fine with both this and The Primate Protection Act if you could let point out some other ways it could be tested without risking human lives.

you test it on volunteer humans and the like. Keep in mind, our research capabilities allow us to understand what combinations will and will not be lethal, so usually the risks are not that severe, but humans and primates don't always even operate or react the same when being tested with various things. Primate research isn't necessarily our most effective tool and if we can protect the animals, we must.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators have 48 hours to object to Nix's assumption of sponsorship.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: ID ENTRY ERROR
Status: Iin Limbo

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Repeal of the Primate Protection Act is unnecessary and repulsive.

I agree!! Senator, can you explain why you don't think we need a ban on experiments involving primates if we're prohibiting cruel and unnecessary research? It seems like for a Court, that's a pretty broad text.

Certainly, while I favor banning cruel and unnecessary research, cruel but necessary research can be necessary.  I admit it is a double-standard for people and animals, I realize this will be an unpopular position, but the realities are what they are.  And the reality is that sometimes cruel and necessary research on animals is...well...necessary.  Also, I do think we need a ban on many types of experiments involving primates, but some types are necessary.  I don't think the Primate Protection Act is the answer to this problem.  My position is not that we should simply repeal it, it is that we should repeal it and replace it with a better and less absolutist piece of legislation. 

If you offer some examples of research that is necessary that can no longer be conducted I am more likely to be swayed. Lifting a ban for hypothetical research that may or may not exist will only lead to more deaths.

Also I would like to see Nix's definition of cruel because its possible we may be all on the same page. I dunno.

That is a good point, before proceeding we should find out how Senator Nix's definition of cruel.  As for examples, how would such a hypothetical drug as the one I described be able to be tested, if not on primates?  I'd be fine with both this and The Primate Protection Act if you could let point out some other ways it could be tested without risking human lives.

you test it on volunteer humans and the like. Keep in mind, our research capabilities allow us to understand what combinations will and will not be lethal, so usually the risks are not that severe, but humans and primates don't always even operate or react the same when being tested with various things. Primate research isn't necessarily our most effective tool and if we can protect the animals, we must.

Fair enough!

[Napoleon]

Here is an act that we might want to consider giving federal support to: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=151886.msg3257219#msg3257219

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Here are some suggestions (sorry if I compromised the formatting)...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I made the change in section III, subsection 3(a) because I think it presents quite a few challenges. What counts as mutilation? Who decides whether mutilation is “needless?” I think here of farmers who remove the tails of young lambs. I’m not exactly sure why it’s done, but it’s just the way things have worked for a long time. Maybe we’d consider making specific exceptions for young animals.

I also altered part of section III, subsection 3(c). Honestly I don’t really even understand what you mean by the section I crossed out. Is putting a sweater on a dog considered “conveying an animal in a human manner?” I don’t want people getting in trouble for things that aren’t really that terrible.

The next change may also be contentious: I changed the fine you specified in section III, subsection 4. I do not believe in fining people based on percentages of their wealth or income. I believe in dollar amounts. It doesn’t have to be $10,000 (I just took it from Canada’s Criminal Code), but it ought to be something specific. People with no wealth or income shouldn’t be exempt, and people with lots of income shouldn’t be forced to hand over millions of dollars for animal cruelty. One dollar still has a value that we shouldn’t ignore when setting fines. I think Senator Franzl (or maybe it was Marokai) proposed a similar scheme for traffic fines a few months ago. I fought it vigorously—I don’t want police to start cracking down on rich people because they know they can get more income for their region out of it.

Another controversial change: section IV, subsection 2. Using growth hormones in farm animals is now enshrined in factory farming and meat production. It is permitted in Canada and the United States, and probably most other places too. I agree that antibiotics should only be used upon receiving prescriptions from veterinarians (human deaths can be linked to the use of antibiotics in animals—hard numbers, too), but I think the picture is murkier with hormones. Prohibiting the use of growth hormones would be an economic setback to many companies.

Also, I’m wondering whether section VI is a little too strict, but I’m not really sure what to do about it. Anyhow, those were most of the changes I’d make (aside from defining “animal” and “cruel” and making exceptions for the extermination of household pests).

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I certainly support the passage of the amendment. I still remain unsure on the growth hormones. I may be a downer and still introduce it later if enough people indicate that they agree with me in the interim.

[Napoleon]

And as I haven't provided much of a case for that ban here, I'll see what I can do to convince you on it.

Any thoughts on my proposed definition of "animal," by the way? I'm wondering whether its worth including cephalopods in addition to vertebrates.

I would support that,