3 ms·
>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 tim
by happytoexplain 4y ago
>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.
- ajross 4y agoIt'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.