NATION

PASSWORD

[DEFEATED] Restrictions on Blood Sports

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1255
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Mon May 25, 2020 8:53 pm

Flying Eagles wrote: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

Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Hepperle

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 "Regulating Desalination"
GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"

SC#315 "Commend Vippertooth33"

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1255
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Mon May 25, 2020 8:58 pm

Kranostav wrote: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.
Honeydewistania

Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Hepperle

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 "Regulating Desalination"
GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"

SC#315 "Commend Vippertooth33"

User avatar
Astrobolt
Attaché
 
Posts: 75
Founded: Jul 30, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Astrobolt » Mon May 25, 2020 9:09 pm

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.
Chief of WA Mission: Reede Tappe
W.I.P

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1255
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Mon May 25, 2020 10:06 pm

Astrobolt wrote: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?
Honeydewistania

Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Hepperle

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 "Regulating Desalination"
GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"

SC#315 "Commend Vippertooth33"

User avatar
Bormiar
Diplomat
 
Posts: 887
Founded: Mar 25, 2019
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Bormiar » Mon May 25, 2020 10:51 pm

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.
Authored 4 SCRs | Issue Author | The Rejected Realms' Current World Assembly Officer | Defeated Security Council Proposals | Founder of Chameleon

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1255
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Mon May 25, 2020 11:00 pm

Bormiar wrote: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.
Honeydewistania

Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Hepperle

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 "Regulating Desalination"
GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"

SC#315 "Commend Vippertooth33"

User avatar
Kranostav
Envoy
 
Posts: 314
Founded: Apr 01, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kranostav » Tue May 26, 2020 1:59 am

Honeydewistania wrote:
Kranostav wrote: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.
Last edited by Kranostav on Tue May 26, 2020 2:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
Insert Creative Title Here
Former MoWAA (4 terms)
Former MoFA (2 terms)
The meddling WA Kid of Kranostav
Author of GAR #423 and #460

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1255
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Tue May 26, 2020 2:03 am

Kranostav wrote:
Honeydewistania wrote: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.
Honeydewistania

Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Hepperle

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 "Regulating Desalination"
GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"

SC#315 "Commend Vippertooth33"

User avatar
Astrobolt
Attaché
 
Posts: 75
Founded: Jul 30, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Astrobolt » Tue May 26, 2020 6:48 am

Honeydewistania wrote:
Astrobolt wrote: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.
Chief of WA Mission: Reede Tappe
W.I.P

User avatar
Kranostav
Envoy
 
Posts: 314
Founded: Apr 01, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kranostav » Tue May 26, 2020 9:52 am

Honeydewistania wrote:
Kranostav wrote: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 :P)

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.
Last edited by Kranostav on Tue May 26, 2020 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Insert Creative Title Here
Former MoWAA (4 terms)
Former MoFA (2 terms)
The meddling WA Kid of Kranostav
Author of GAR #423 and #460

User avatar
Ardiveds
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 191
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Tue May 26, 2020 10:14 am

Kranostav wrote: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 :P)

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?
Last edited by Ardiveds on Tue May 26, 2020 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1046
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Maowi » Tue May 26, 2020 4:44 pm

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.
Last edited by Maowi on Tue May 26, 2020 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1255
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Sat May 30, 2020 7:46 am

Bumping for when this goes to vote later
Honeydewistania

Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Hepperle

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 "Regulating Desalination"
GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"

SC#315 "Commend Vippertooth33"

User avatar
Ardiveds
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 191
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Sat May 30, 2020 8:06 am

Maowi wrote: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.

User avatar
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan
Minister
 
Posts: 2227
Founded: Dec 08, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Champagne Socialist Sharifistan » Sat May 30, 2020 9:15 am

Would this apply to duelling to the death?
Last edited by Champagne Socialist Sharifistan on Sat May 30, 2020 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
A semi-satirical nation which does not fully represent my views.
The Turkish War of Independence and everything before along with 2014 modernisation are set in stone.
Everything else is subject to change
Black Lives Matter!

User avatar
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan
Minister
 
Posts: 2227
Founded: Dec 08, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Champagne Socialist Sharifistan » Sat May 30, 2020 9:26 am

Libertarian nations might argue that people can choose to fight to the death if they want.
A semi-satirical nation which does not fully represent my views.
The Turkish War of Independence and everything before along with 2014 modernisation are set in stone.
Everything else is subject to change
Black Lives Matter!

User avatar
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan
Minister
 
Posts: 2227
Founded: Dec 08, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Champagne Socialist Sharifistan » Sat May 30, 2020 9:27 am

Certain forms of hunting should also be prohibited by this.
"Hunting purely or primarily for pleasure that causes unnecessary suffering" should be included.
A semi-satirical nation which does not fully represent my views.
The Turkish War of Independence and everything before along with 2014 modernisation are set in stone.
Everything else is subject to change
Black Lives Matter!

User avatar
Ardiveds
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 191
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Sat May 30, 2020 10:00 am

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote: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.
Last edited by Ardiveds on Sat May 30, 2020 10:43 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Astrobolt
Attaché
 
Posts: 75
Founded: Jul 30, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Astrobolt » Sat May 30, 2020 10:07 am

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote: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."
Chief of WA Mission: Reede Tappe
W.I.P

User avatar
Disgraces
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 185
Founded: Apr 07, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Disgraces » Sat May 30, 2020 10:12 am

Each and every one of you who voted against disgusts me.
I use NS stats.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20769
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Wallenburg » Sat May 30, 2020 10:57 am

Disgraces wrote: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."
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Slackertown
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 51
Founded: Dec 16, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Slackertown » Sat May 30, 2020 11:03 am

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

User avatar
Disgraces
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 185
Founded: Apr 07, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Disgraces » Sat May 30, 2020 11:10 am

Wallenburg wrote:
Disgraces wrote: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.
I use NS stats.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20769
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Wallenburg » Sat May 30, 2020 11:15 am

Disgraces wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"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."
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Gryphonian Alliance
Envoy
 
Posts: 239
Founded: Nov 12, 2015
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Gryphonian Alliance » Sat May 30, 2020 11:21 am

Wallenburg wrote:
Disgraces wrote: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.
Gryphonian Alliance
The West Pacific
The GA is a North American country in an alternate universe set a century into the future.
A 9 civilization, according to this index.
1st place in Women’s Individual Large Hill/10 km Nordic Combined
1st place in Mixed Relay 2×6 km+2×7.5 km Biathlon
2nd place in Two-Man Bobsleigh
3rd place in Two-Woman Bobsleigh

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads