>If enacted, IP3 would remove many of the exemptions from Oregon’s laws against animal abuse, animal neglect, and animal sexual assault.
I have such a hard time with chains of negatives like this when I'm trying to casually read something. Part of it is I'm sure just my own limitations, but part of it is the order of terms in English - I get to the end of the chain and have lost track, so I have to start over reading from right to left to actually make it coherent for me:
1. Animal abuse
2. Laws against #1
3. Exemptions from #2
4. Removal of #3
And now I can see that IP3 is anti-animal-abuse, and therefore it is a thing they are supporting, not a thing they are attacking.
Overall this isn't a good example for me to complain about, because one of the biggest things a writer can do to avoid this is provide the end position first, before the journey (in this case, "IP3 is good") and they have in fact done that with the header at the top of the page ("Let's Get IP3 on the Ballot"). But of course I skipped that and went straight into the body text, when I shouldn't have.
It's a ballot measure. There are limitations as to how they can present this. Yes, the effect is to get the government to protect animals via law. But the government already does, those laws are already on the books. But they're neutered by exemptions. So this is a ballot measure to remove those.
A ballot measure initiative can only tell voters what the ballot measure does. If the law is complicated the measures are going to be complicated, necessarily.
You have to click through to the "About" page to really make it clear, but yes, this proposition would make it illegal to farm livestock for meat. Full stop.
Their FAQ says:
> Could a rancher still raise cattle?
> IP3 does not prohibit a rancher from strictly raising and caring for bovines or any other animal. It would, however, require that the rancher does not abuse, neglect, or sexually assault the animals under their care, meaning that the animals could not be killed or forcibly impregnated. This would certainly increase the cost to raise animals, since many are currently killed at a small fraction of their natural lifespan, which is why we encourage ranchers to transition to an alternative agriculture practice. If a rancher would prefer to continue caring for animals, there is also the possibility that they could help operate an animal sanctuary. At a sanctuary, they could still care for animals, while also letting the animals live out their natural lives.
They're couching it carefully, but the gist is: "yes, a rancher can still raise cattle, as long as he just leaves them alone until they die of natural causes."
Is it unhinged to want to stop the mass breeding and killing if sentient creatures who we don’t need to eat for health or happiness? We should have very a strong rational for continuing to support exploitative industries/practices.
5 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 33.8 ms ] threadI have such a hard time with chains of negatives like this when I'm trying to casually read something. Part of it is I'm sure just my own limitations, but part of it is the order of terms in English - I get to the end of the chain and have lost track, so I have to start over reading from right to left to actually make it coherent for me:
1. Animal abuse
2. Laws against #1
3. Exemptions from #2
4. Removal of #3
And now I can see that IP3 is anti-animal-abuse, and therefore it is a thing they are supporting, not a thing they are attacking.
Overall this isn't a good example for me to complain about, because one of the biggest things a writer can do to avoid this is provide the end position first, before the journey (in this case, "IP3 is good") and they have in fact done that with the header at the top of the page ("Let's Get IP3 on the Ballot"). But of course I skipped that and went straight into the body text, when I shouldn't have.
A ballot measure initiative can only tell voters what the ballot measure does. If the law is complicated the measures are going to be complicated, necessarily.
Their FAQ says:
> Could a rancher still raise cattle?
> IP3 does not prohibit a rancher from strictly raising and caring for bovines or any other animal. It would, however, require that the rancher does not abuse, neglect, or sexually assault the animals under their care, meaning that the animals could not be killed or forcibly impregnated. This would certainly increase the cost to raise animals, since many are currently killed at a small fraction of their natural lifespan, which is why we encourage ranchers to transition to an alternative agriculture practice. If a rancher would prefer to continue caring for animals, there is also the possibility that they could help operate an animal sanctuary. At a sanctuary, they could still care for animals, while also letting the animals live out their natural lives.
They're couching it carefully, but the gist is: "yes, a rancher can still raise cattle, as long as he just leaves them alone until they die of natural causes."
This is... unhinged.