MPs vote that ‘animals can’t feel pain.

[opethdisciple]

Article.



And we trust this lot to make our laws....

 

[Dis86]

I saw that. Utterly utterly insane. I can't actually fathom that kind of thinking.

 

[weringo]

MPs vote that ‘animals can’t feel pain.

No they haven't, if you want to start a sensible discussion why begin it with a sensationalist statement?

 

[Ayahuasca]

Over half of them must have thought they were voting about themselves.

 

[Dis86]

No they haven't, if you want to start a sensible discussion why begin it with a sensationalist statement?

Then what have they voted?

 

[weringo]

Then what have they voted?

They have voted that animal sentience will not form part of UK law.

 

[Conscript]

What is the definition of animal sentience?

 

[Dis86]

What is the definition of animal sentience?

"Sentient animals are aware of their feelings and emotions. These could be negative feelings such as pain, frustration and fear."

 

[weringo]

What is the difference between something being a fact and something being a relevant consideration as part of law?

 

[Uther]

What is the definition of animal sentience?

That they feel pain?
I ******* hate this planet sometimes, what is wrong with these people!

 

[Conscript]

That they feel pain?
I ******* hate this planet sometimes, what is wrong with these people!

Bingo.

 

[opethdisciple]

Semantics. It's still nonsense law any which way you look at it.

 

[weringo]

Semantics.

Not really, "I don't believe in animal sentience" and "I believe in animal sentience but I don't believe it should be enshrined in law for X reason" are very different statements. One is sensationalist and one promotes a decent discussion.

 

[Dis86]

Not really, "I don't believe in animal sentience" and "I believe in animal sentience but I don't believe it should be enshrined in law for X reason" are very different statements. One is sensationalist and one promotes a decent discussion.

There is no moral reason to not enshrine it in law. Only commercial. Greed.

 

[weringo]

There is no moral reason to not enshrine it in law. Only commercial. Greed.

I don't disagree although I would be interested in hearing some balanced arguments before drawing a conclusion, from a quick look most of the internet is much like this thread title unfortunately.

 

[opethdisciple]

I don't disagree although I would be interested in hearing some balanced arguments before drawing a conclusion, from a quick look most of the internet is much like this thread title unfortunately.

I just copied and pasted the article title.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Not really, "I don't believe in animal sentience" and "I believe in animal sentience but I don't believe it should be enshrined in law for X reason" are very different statements. One is sensationalist and one promotes a decent discussion.

A refusal to recognize it in law. Or effectively to remove recognition as the debate was whether to keep EU law. Either way, it's absurd and wrong to remove one of the basic foundations of animal welfare law that is established scientific fact.

I'm Right Wing. The Tories ought to be my party. But every time they find some way to bring in some stupid immoral social issue. Probably because somebody's inbred cousin wants to go badger baiting or something.

 

[Mason-]

How do you break the law of recognising animal sentience? Seems like a pointless law.

 

[Dis86]

How do you break the law of recognising animal sentience? Seems like a pointless law.

By subjecting an animal to cruelty and suffering. How can you not grasp that?

 

[h4rm0ny]

How do you break the law of recognising animal sentience? Seems like a pointless law.

It's foundational. A lot of animal welfare law derives from the very basic principle that animals can suffer as we can. Remove that and you get the "oh they look like they're in pain but they're not really" stuff.