To the extent that

[LMMM]

Hello,

I have some doubts regarding the translation of this sentence:

"To the extent that these changes offer any benefits to animals, they are offset by the fact that exploiters can point to the support of animal advocates"

What is problematic to me is the any.
Without it, I would translate by "Dans la mesure où" but I wonder if the correct translation could not be "Si tant est que"

Thanks

 

[bloomiegirl]

I think that "Si tant est que" is a good choice, since it is possible that there will be no benefit at all.
What do others think?

 

[Maped40]

"Si tant est" is fine here, and it is enough to convey the restrictive meaning in "any", so you could just use a verb:
"Si tant est que ces changements (modifications) bénéficient aux animaux, cela est..."

 

[LMMM]

And what do you think of:
" Quand ces changements bénéficient aux animaux, ceci est compensé par le fait que les exploiteurs peuvent se parer du soutient des défenseurs des animaux"

 

[Moon Palace]

I would go even further in the first part of the sentence, since as Bloomiegirl, any conveys the idea that it is likely not to entail any benefits:
Si tant est que ces changements puissent bénéficier aux animaux, ...

But I fail to see the point of the sentence, as 'offset' usually means 'compenser / contrebalancer' and is therefore used to balance two contradictory points. Yet, here it seems to go along the same line. (I don't see any contradiction between the benefits of animals and pointing to animal advocates).

 

[LMMM]

In fact, Francione criticizes animal welfarists for their association with institutional animal exploiters because thanks to it they can make believe that they care for animal interests even though they continue to exploit them...
And what do you think of "quand"? Is that totally wrong?

 

[Moon Palace]

I understood this, but my question has to do with 'offset' here, since to me, it reinforces the argument rather than offsets it.
Now, regarding quand, I would indeed not use it here, insofar as 'to the extent' does not mean 'when' but provided this happens.

 

[LMMM]

Sorry I didn't remember that I had shortened the sentence. Here is the complete sentence

To the extent that these changes offer any benefits to animals, they are offset by the fact that exploiters can point to the support of animal advocates, which in turn promotes the continued social acceptance of animal exploitation.

Thanks to all

 

[bloomiegirl]

So the animals would be better off without any advocates??? But that doesn't seem to make sense...

 

[LMMM]

Not that kind of advocates!
Francione is not a welfarist he is an abolitionist... and so am I ;O)
He opposes welfarism because he considers that it just makes people feel well at ease with the use of animals (by "improving" their treatments) while abolitionism promotes the end of animal use...
I think that now it makes sense ;0)
Thanks again

 

[david314]

I'm not so sure that ChiMike would approve the use of 'to the extent that' in our text. I'm not positive that it's technically correct.

Isn't the definition rather: To the extent that / plus ...plus, dans le mesure où.

I certainly could be mistaken. Professors?

 

[bloomiegirl]

Not a professor, but "to the extent that..." is mitigated in LMMM's sentence by "...any" which allows that there may be no benefit at all.

 

[the-quality-man-4]

to the extent that.....=à un tel point que ces changements puissent bénéficier aux animaux

 

[Moon Palace]

I'm not so sure that ChiMike would approve the use of 'to the extent that' in our text. I'm not positive that it's technically correct.

Isn't the definition rather: To the extent that / plus ...plus, dans le mesure où.

I certainly could be mistaken. Professors?

This is precisely why I am puzzled by the whole sentence:
to the extent should be understood as provided it eventually brings about benefits for animals, yet I can't see why offset is used later as to me, what follows reinforces the argument instead of counterbalancing it...
I still haven't solved the riddle...

 

[LMMM]

Let me explain,

according to Francione, it offsets the supposed (and eventual) benefits (less animal suffering) because the animal products consumers will feel at ease with such 'humanely' produced food (or clothes). And so, people who stopped consuming animal products (because they had problem with animal treatment) could restart consuming it. In the same way, people who have a 'low' consumption of animal products because they have the same problem as the latter (but are not consistent), could feel better about their consumption and so increase it.
Finally, while welfarists sincerely aim at reducing suffering , the increased demand resulting of the welfarist reforms... increases the suffering, by incresaing the number of animals used (with limited but 'humane' mobility. limited but 'humane' life, limited but 'humane' social life, i.e. what abolitionists also consider as suffering)

I don't think I can be clearer... in English ;0)

I hope it helps

 

[Moon Palace]

You are very clear, and I get the message. Yet my question remains: in this instance, I would not have used offset, but rather reinforces. To me, it does not appear as an argument which opposes the benefits and their effects, but it comes on top of this argument since as you said it will increase the consumption of animal products.
I am puzzled because 'offset' really means opposing contradictory arguments, and I do understand, like you, that it bolsters the argument.

 

[JeanDeSponde]

"To the extent that these changes offer any benefits to animals, they are offset by the fact that exploiters can point to the support of animal advocates, which in turn promotes the continued social acceptance of animal exploitation."

I'm afraid my English is not sharp enough to shave fly legs - so I'll simply translate it as I understand it...
Du fait que les exploiteurs pourront se targuer du soutien des défenseurs des animaux, cela confortera l'acceptation, par la société, de l'exploitation des animaux; du même coup cela annulera jusqu'au moindre bénéfice que les animaux auraient pu tirer de ces réformes.

 

[Moon Palace]

Thanks, JDS . I have finally got the main point, which indeed is linked to the end of the sentence. Yet, I would suggest a somewhat different translation if I may:

A supposer que ces changements puissent être bénéfiques pour les animaux, de tels bénéfices seront annihilés par le fait que les exploitants pourront se targuer (that verb is spot on) du soutien des défenseurs des animaux, ce qui facilitera finalement / finalement renforcera durablement l'acceptation par la société de l'exploitation des animaux.

 

[LMMM]

Many thanks to all