SENATE BILL: Animal Protection Act (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Franzl Averroës Nix

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senator, you have 24 hours to start advocating for this.

[Franzl]

I'm nor going to "advocate" for this in a conventional sense. I basically would like to ask those that were staunchly opposed to the Freedom To Eat Act whether the same arguments they used would not also be easily applied to this?

To clarify: I'm not a vegetarian, and I enjoy the taste of most meat. At the same time, I see no moral justification for eating animals and I think the most honest explanation is: "Yes it's wrong, but we do it anyway".

I'm not sure myself whether I would vote for this. (Note that it does not ban private hunting and meat eating), but could some others comment?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why does it necessarily have to be wrong or immoral for you to like the taste of meat?

[Franzl]

Why does it necessarily have to be wrong or immoral for you to like the taste of meat?

Because animals are living beings with feelings and emotions, and humans don't need to eat animals to live.

Is it morally defensible to unnecessarily inflict pain and suffering on a living creature?

[Franzl]

I would like to request that the (probably many) opponents of this at least provide their reasoning (especially if they voted against Freedom to Eat), instead of just saying it's impossible to support and/or empty quoting.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I am firmly opposed to this bill.  Dogs have a special place in Atlasian society that most animals used for food do not.

[Franzl]

I am firmly opposed to this bill.  Dogs have a special place in Atlasian society that most animals used for food do not.

Why is that the case? Wouldn't we be interested in doing the morally right thing for every animal?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Why is that the case? Wouldn't we be interested in doing the morally right thing for every animal?

I'm not making a morality argument, actually.  I'm making a cultural argument regarding dogs.

[Franzl]

Why is that the case? Wouldn't we be interested in doing the morally right thing for every animal?

I'm not making a morality argument, actually.  I'm making a cultural argument regarding dogs.

So you choose not to make a morality argument...or you believe there are no moral issues with consuming animals?

[Franzl]

I am firmly opposed to this bill.  Dogs have a special place in Atlasian society that most animals used for food do not.

Also, since you say "most" animals, which other animals have that "special place in Atlasian society"? We might want to consider offering them the same protection as dogs.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

So you choose not to make a morality argument...or you believe there are no moral issues with consuming animals?

The latter.  I see nothing wrong with eating animals for food.

Also, since you say "most" animals, which other animals have that "special place in Atlasian society"? We might want to consider offering them the same protection as dogs.

I would include cats in the same category as dogs, yes.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I fully support that amendment.

[Franzl]

I object to the amendment.

I'll probably end up voting for it myself, but I really want to hear some more arguments from the opposing side.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, I used the all or nothing argument. And banning "all" would be a huge infringement on personal freedom, which also formed the cornerstone of my argument in favour of the Freedom to Eat Act. There's no way I can support this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why does it necessarily have to be wrong or immoral for you to like the taste of meat?

Because animals are living beings with feelings and emotions, and humans don't need to eat animals to live.

Is it morally defensible to unnecessarily inflict pain and suffering on a living creature?

Is not everything that humans consume, a living organism somewhere along the line? If it is wrong to differential between animals, is it not also wrong to differentiate amongst living organisms?

Excess or unnecessary destruction of organisms could be considered immoral, but doesn't a species reserve the right to exist? And if so, why must it be wrong to treat animals differently, but not wrong to differentiate at a higher level on the hierarchy of living organisms?

[Franzl]

My answer would be that animals have feelings, emotions, and the ability to think. That's why people take a pet dog, cat or pig and not a pet sunflower, although it also "lives ".

I think this is a rather significant distinction.

That said, I'll be more than happy to vote for Nix's amendment as it is important progress for animal rights. I am rather disappointed that so few people are willing to defend their (illogical) position. If you voted to protect dogs, then there's no reason a pet pig shouldn't enjoy the same status.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: Vote to begin soon, so prepare!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: A vote is now open on the above amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Aye

[bgwah]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is the point of a if you're going to include b?

This amendment seems to just repeat a lot of previous legislation, which also happened to be named the Animal Protection Act.

[Napoleon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is the point of a if you're going to include b?

This amendment seems to just repeat a lot of previous legislation, which also happened to be named the Animal Protection Act.

Both provisions are already law. We could repeal section B though.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

The initial version will never pass. This might. And there are some pretty problematic sections (like Section 3).

[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.

[tmthforu94]

The act was authored by Badger in myself in the Mideast, but then was introduced by yours truly and implemented at the federal level. Certainly wasn't one of my finest editing skills, but glad a great bill got passed from it.