[DEFEATED] Restrictions on Blood Sports

[Honeydewistania]

We note that this resolution is effectively a total ban on all blood sports involving non-sapients. This is because they, despite being participants, cannot provide consent (as they are non-sapient) as required by Clause 2. We request clarification on whether this was the intent of the resolution.

That was the intent of the resolution.

[Honeydewistania]

Facepalms

Maybe one day people will learn to not use "sapient" in their proposal given how debated and ambiguous its definition is

Clause 2 effectively prohibits any blood sport related to animals as animals cannot provide consent (oh wait you disagree on the sapience of various animals? Please refer to my first point)

Clause 3's point about killing seems mute given most gladiatorial battles (I assume this is what inspired the entire proposal) were never meant to actually kill, but wound. (Because training bloodthirsty killers who are good at their jobs is expensive and takes time). So any nation could just say the intention is to wound and to kill is a happy accident.

Clause 4 talks about returning sapient blood sports participators to their natural habitat, which would indicate it is referring to some sort of animal but against casts doubt on this in the definition (Again refer to why the use of "sapient" is an awful idea)

This is a poorly defined and ill-witted proposal that creates more questions than it solves

1. The point is, animals can’t provide consent. None of them actually express that they consent to being thrown into a ring and fight to the death. Of course keeping in mind nations that have sentient animals who could potentially provide consent, I decided to word it like that.

2. If the intention is to wound, that’s fine by the proposal. (For example, boxing). However if the mortality is so high I don’t think they can use their ‘happy little accidents’ pass for long.

3. Natural habitat doesn’t necessarily mean animal.

[Astrobolt]

OOC: If this resolution fails, I might consider separating sapients and non-sapients into separate proposals. I think the phrasing is slightly awkward due to the need to accommodate both groups in the same resolution.

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: If this resolution fails, I might consider separating sapients and non-sapients into separate proposals. I think the phrasing is slightly awkward due to the need to accommodate both groups in the same resolution.

Do you think it’ll fail?

[Bormiar]

A few hesitant notes (feel free to be mad at me for not bringing it up in drafting-- I didn't see this):

• Clause 3-- something along the lines of crippling or maiming injury should've been included. I appreciate the safety vs freedoms compromise though.
• Consent should (maybe) be defined as people might give "consent" against tacit, assumed threat.
• If you split and have a non-sapient draft, I think it needs to do more than just encourage things.

[Honeydewistania]

A few hesitant notes (feel free to be mad at me for not bringing it up in drafting-- I didn't see this):

• Clause 3-- something along the lines of crippling or maiming injury should've been included. I appreciate the safety vs freedoms compromise though.
• Consent should (maybe) be defined as people might give "consent" against tacit, assumed threat.
• If you split and have a non-sapient draft, I think it needs to do more than just encourage things.

It was suggested to not define consent and instead use the dictionary definition.

[Kranostav]

Facepalms

Snip

1. The point is, animals can’t provide consent. None of them actually express that they consent to being thrown into a ring and fight to the death. Of course keeping in mind nations that have sentient animals who could potentially provide consent, I decided to word it like that.

2. If the intention is to wound, that’s fine by the proposal. (For example, boxing). However if the mortality is so high I don’t think they can use their ‘happy little accidents’ pass for long.

3. Natural habitat doesn’t necessarily mean animal.

1. So by your definition, is professional hunting of "sapient" animals allowed? It would not seem as such, however you seem to intend that since you specifically address that hunting of non sapient animals is allowed.

2. Your proposal only addresses the aim, so realistically you can't do anything about result, just intention.

3. It was to support that you were referring to animals.

[Honeydewistania]

1. The point is, animals can’t provide consent. None of them actually express that they consent to being thrown into a ring and fight to the death. Of course keeping in mind nations that have sentient animals who could potentially provide consent, I decided to word it like that.

2. If the intention is to wound, that’s fine by the proposal. (For example, boxing). However if the mortality is so high I don’t think they can use their ‘happy little accidents’ pass for long.

3. Natural habitat doesn’t necessarily mean animal.

1. So by your definition, is professional hunting of "sapient" animals allowed? It would not seem as such, however you seem to intend that since you specifically address that hunting of non sapient animals is allowed.

2. Your proposal only addresses the aim, so realistically you can't do anything about result, just intention.

3. It was to support that you were referring to animals.

1. If I’m not wrong, hunting of sapient animals is called murder. Which is illegal.

2. We can’t do anything about the result, but people can’t go around claiming that it’s an accident when it clearly isn’t.

[Astrobolt]

OOC: If this resolution fails, I might consider separating sapients and non-sapients into separate proposals. I think the phrasing is slightly awkward due to the need to accommodate both groups in the same resolution.

Do you think it’ll fail?

OOC: I am not an expert on what WA nations tend to vote for, but my thinking is that it should pass based on the title and a cursory reading of the resolution.

[Kranostav]

1. So by your definition, is professional hunting of "sapient" animals allowed? It would not seem as such, however you seem to intend that since you specifically address that hunting of non sapient animals is allowed.

2. Your proposal only addresses the aim, so realistically you can't do anything about result, just intention.

3. It was to support that you were referring to animals.

1. If I’m not wrong, hunting of sapient animals is called murder. Which is illegal.

2. We can’t do anything about the result, but people can’t go around claiming that it’s an accident when it clearly isn’t.

1. You do realize many animals are considered "sapient". From deer to wolves/dogs to whales to crows, many studies have shown that these animals can be considered sapient, and thus your proposal would ban the hunting of them under those conditions. (also, murder isnt illegal in the WA )

Sapient is not a quality exclusive to humans and our equivalents.

2. That would be a good faith issue, but maiming someone and/or brutally wounding them would certainly bring them close to death or kill them without that ever being the intention.

[Ardiveds]

1. You do realize many animals are considered "sapient". From deer to wolves/dogs to whales to crows, many studies have shown that these animals can be considered sapient, and thus your proposal would ban the hunting of them under those conditions. (also, murder isnt illegal in the WA )

Sapient is not a quality exclusive to humans and our equivalents.

2. That would be a good faith issue, but maiming someone and/or brutally wounding them would certainly bring them close to death or kill them without that ever being the intention.

OOC: I couldn't find any studies on deer being sapient. Can you please find one?

[Maowi]

OOC: It seems odd that clause 4 requires that captive sapient ex-participants of blood sports be forcibly relocated, as opposed to just set free ... although I also struggle to see a situation in which it would be legal for sapient to be held captive for this purpose without their consent.

[Honeydewistania]

Bumping for when this goes to vote later

[Ardiveds]

OOC: It seems odd that clause 4 requires that captive sapient ex-participants of blood sports be forcibly relocated, as opposed to just set free ... although I also struggle to see a situation in which it would be legal for sapient to be held captive for this purpose without their consent.

OOC: I guess its for evaluation of mental and physical condition and potential rehabilitation of the ex participants. Constantly being forced to fight for your life could take a toll on someone's psyche similar to how animals who were used in blood sports all their life can't be released into the wild cause they would try to kill the first animal they come across.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Would this apply to duelling to the death?

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Libertarian nations might argue that people can choose to fight to the death if they want.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Certain forms of hunting should also be prohibited by this.
"Hunting purely or primarily for pleasure that causes unnecessary suffering" should be included.

[Ardiveds]

Would this apply to duelling to the death?

OOC: Not if the participants have both freely consented to it. yes it would. Clause 3 prohibits duelling to death regardless of consent.

[Astrobolt]

Certain forms of hunting should also be prohibited by this.
"Hunting purely or primarily for pleasure that causes unnecessary suffering" should be included.

"If you want to make a resolution banning hunting, you are free to do so."

[Disgraces]

Each and every one of you who voted against disgusts me.

[Wallenburg]

Each and every one of you who voted against disgusts me.

"Your cultural imperialism disgusts me. Wallenburg votes against this. A significant portion of our population adheres to customs of voluntary combat which have preserved local order for hundreds of years. The last thing we need is all-out clan warfare within our borders just because some dainty foreign fucks think it's too bloody."

[Slackertown]

This has so many holes in it, it's effectively useless.

[Disgraces]

Each and every one of you who voted against disgusts me.

"Your cultural imperialism disgusts me. Wallenburg votes against this. A significant portion of our population adheres to customs of voluntary combat which have preserved local order for hundreds of years. The last thing we need is all-out clan warfare within our borders just because some dainty foreign fucks think it's too bloody."

You didn't understand anything, did you? It's not because it's "too bloody", it's to stop killing animals for fun.

[Wallenburg]

"Your cultural imperialism disgusts me. Wallenburg votes against this. A significant portion of our population adheres to customs of voluntary combat which have preserved local order for hundreds of years. The last thing we need is all-out clan warfare within our borders just because some dainty foreign fucks think it's too bloody."

You didn't understand anything, did you? It's not because it's "too bloody", it's to stop killing animals for fun.

"Which, quite honestly, is of very little legislative importance. Unfortunately, that's not all this resolution affects."

[Gryphonian Alliance]

Each and every one of you who voted against disgusts me.

"Your cultural imperialism disgusts me. Wallenburg votes against this. A significant portion of our population adheres to customs of voluntary combat which have preserved local order for hundreds of years. The last thing we need is all-out clan warfare within our borders just because some dainty foreign fucks think it's too bloody."

As long as this voluntary combat doesn't regularly result in death of the participants, it does not conflict with the resolution.