[DROPPED] Ban on Person-sourced Meats

[Simone Republic]

I note that Apatosaurus is trying to repeal GAR#430 altogether, so if that passes, I'd prefer a global ban on person-sourced meats outright.

Ooc: Don't call me Apatosaurus.
-----

"meat derived from a person" is meat, derived from a person per the definition of a person in the jurisdiction in which the meat was derived;

"Is this definition really necessary? This seems self-evident and generally pointless. However, in any case, support."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

I assume this has to do with how a "person" is defined and the "AI are persona too" issues.

[Tinhampton]

I agree with SR that this should be converted to an outright ban should 430 be struck.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

I assume this has to do with how a "person" is defined and the "AI are persona too" issues.

"A member nation that defines a 'person' as including AI would presumably interpret 'person' in this resolution as indeed including AI. Therefore, defining 'meat derived from a person' effectively as 'meat derived from a person' is redundant."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Imperium Anglorum]

I assume this has to do with how a "person" is defined and the "AI are persona too" issues.

"A member nation that defines a 'person' as including AI would presumably interpret 'person' in this resolution as indeed including AI. Therefore, defining 'meat derived from a person' effectively as 'meat derived from a person' is redundant."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

I don't think you understand that nations will have different definitions for person. Imagine there are two "sapient" species on Omicron Convenience IV. There are the covenistiaeorban and the humans. The convenistiaeorban country classifies humans as non-person plants. Is that meat derived from a person? Whose jurisdictional definition should be taken?

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

I don't think you understand that nations will have different definitions for person. Imagine there are two "sapient" species on Omicron Convenience IV. There are the covenistiaeorban and the humans. The convenistiaeorban country classifies humans as non-person plants. Is that meat derived from a person? Whose jurisdictional definition should be taken?

"Would a member nation already not interpret 'person' as not including humans, if they indeed do not classify humans as persons?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

(Edit: I see your point now -- consider that comment withdrawn.)

[The Web of Life and Destiny]

"A member nation that defines a 'person' as including AI would presumably interpret 'person' in this resolution as indeed including AI. Therefore, defining 'meat derived from a person' effectively as 'meat derived from a person' is redundant."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

I don't think you understand that nations will have different definitions for person. Imagine there are two "sapient" species on Omicron Convenience IV. There are the covenistiaeorban and the humans. The convenistiaeorban country classifies humans as non-person plants. Is that meat derived from a person? Whose jurisdictional definition should be taken?

I will say, this strengthens my point about ensuring food safety in person sourced meats

[The Pacific Northwest]

Just because some minor tribe in Papua New Guinea think it's alright to eat human meat, doesn't mean the rest of the world has to. I am obviously trying to not repeal the "freedom to religion" resolution and really want to get rid of the idea of cannibals altogether.

I note that Magecastle Embassy is trying to repeal GAR#430 altogether, so if that passes, I'd prefer a global ban on person-sourced meats outright.

Quote edited because they requested to not be called that and I didn’t want to leave it in the quote as part of my post.

First, I’ll say that I’m not advocating for cannibalism by any means, I find it gross personally and would never willingly partake in anything of the sort.

However as you pointed out in the first quote, morality is subjective. If something is considered immoral in one part of the world that does not necessarily make it objectively so. If a certain group practices cannibalism as a normal funeral rite that is considered just as acceptable, or even more so, than burying or burning the body, then the members of that group are not going to think it’s immoral because that’s normal for them. I think it’s wrong to try to impose your own morality on another completely different culture because you think their cultural practices are weird, gross, or immoral.

This proposal caused me to look up the topic of cannibalism throughout human history and it looks like it was more prevalent than I would have previously thought. If multiple groups of people have practiced cannibalism human history then obviously more than one group was okay with it in some respect. So if cannibalism is just a regular cultural practice for a certain group and doesn’t involve the murder of non consenting individuals or something along those lines then I wouldn’t consider it morally wrong. I would only be concerned with consent and disease risk, which is what this resolution seeks to address.

As far as the site and RP go, if it’s happened in real life then it’s perfectly feasible to imagine that some WA nation or an ethnic minority within one does this. Banning it within your borders is fine by me, but I would consider a global blanket ban to be “forcing a different morality” on those hypothetical people unless there are zero cultural groups in the WA that practice cannibalism in this manner, which would be hard to prove considering the nature of this place.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Long post

Ooc: To be honest, I personally would not find cannibalism in itself sufficiently immoral to prohibit it. The sole reason I believe that member nations should have the authority to prohibit the practice is the health risk it inherently poses. As someone else pointed out, there is a very serious danger of certain diseases spread, inter alia, through cannibalism, which are very difficult to promptly identify and treat.

Given how religions work, people will very often engage in cannibalism without being fully informed of the health risk it poses, meaning that religious cannibalism is no better -- and arguably worse -- than secular cannibalism. Even under the "substantial risk of contracting any disease from such consumption" test, there is still a health risk which -- in my opinion -- is sufficient to justify a member nation completely banning cannibalism.

As to the morality question -- I still very much agree with your post. If someone freely and non-coercedly consents to being eaten, I don't see a morality issue with it. A blanket ban on cannibalism is also unsuitable, but not as much that it may infringe on traditions as the fact that there is no real need to prohibit cannibalism in a nation wherein the health risk of cannibalism is indeed minimal.

In this matter, I would prefer a NatSov policy that addresses the health and consent issues while leaving the whether cannibalism is legal in general up to member nations. This is contrasted with legislation such as 430 which would prevent a member nation from banning cannibalism wholesale under its jurisdiction.

[The Pacific Northwest]

Also a long post

I agree, most of the world believing cannibalism to be immoral isn’t a sufficient reason to ban it. Strongly discouraging cannibalism for health reasons would be best. I don’t think morality should factor into any sort of ban or regulation as the act itself is neutral, it’s murder and lack of consent that are immoral, not the cannibalism itself. Where cultural and religious practices are concerned, the risk of developing terrifying, life threatening prion diseases is very concerning. Any groups still regularly engaging in cannibalism in this manner should be informed of the risks and told it would be best to stop, but in the end if they choose to continue they are putting themselves at risk and not the outside world (although I believe some, if not all of these diseases can pass from parent to child if I’m remembering right). Even so, I would not support forcing them to stop by banning it and throwing them in jail or any other means of punishment. They’re just doing what is normal and acceptable for them, which shouldn’t be punished by the government.

So in short for anyone who doesn’t want to read a few walls of text: Individual ban/regulation and strong discouragement for health and consent reasons = Good
Global ban because most of the world thinks it’s weird, gross, or wrong = Not good

[Heidgaudr]

So in short for anyone who doesn’t want to read a few walls of text: Individual ban/regulation and strong discouragement for health and consent reasons = Good
Global ban because most of the world thinks it’s weird, gross, or wrong = Not good

They want to ban it because they find it weird and gross.

I want to ban it because it disproportionately hurts the poor for the benefit of the rich.

We are not the same.

[Simone Republic]

Bump. Assuming the repeal of GAR#430 passes, please give some space for IA to modify his resolution to outright ban cannibalism (perhaps defined as any sapient species eating the same species) - so we can dodge the issues about sapient species and accommodate the sci-fi role players etc etc

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Is this really what we’re working on these days? Far be it from me to question the priorities of the most prolific resolution writer in GA history, but cannibalism?

Convinced that the sourcing of meat from person sources (eg cannibalism) without affirmative consent should be prohibited,

Believing that the least restrictive means to do this is to require the licensing thereto, as a full ban on such sourcing would be overly broad and therefore violate GA 430 "Freedom of Religion", hereby enacts as follows.

I suppose in a universe in which many nations do embrace cannibalism this preamble makes perfect sense.

1. In this resolution:
   
   
   1. "meat derived from a person" is meat, derived from a person per the definition of a person in the jurisdiction in which the meat was derived;
      
      
   2. "licensing requirements" are met when meat derived from a person is so derived with the affirmative and notarised consent of the person from which it was derived, memorialised in writing affixed to such meat or the packaging thereof and providable upon demand; and
      
      
   3. "licensed person meat" is meat derived from a person which complies with licensing requirements.

I think you can safely remove definition (a) if the only point of that is to say that meat from a person means any meat derived from whatever a nation considers a person.

Otherwise I think the definitions are fine. I won’t debate with what the full breadth of the word “derived” might be taken to mean, although I could.

Aside: have you ever had something notarized? It’s a pain. If we required that someone sign a notarized document swearing that each pound of beef contained less than a lethal amount of lead, the cost of beef would increase by an order of magnitude.

Subject only to active prior resolutions, member nations, jointly and severally, shall have power to restrict, regulate, or ban cannibalism; no clause may be enacted which would violate this resolution but for any subordinating or excepting clause, including an other like clause with such effect, or a clause which would delay such a violating clause's commencement until a future date or event.

Much of this feels gratuitous. If you saw fit you could full stop after the word “cannibalism.”

“The Princess does not condone cannibalism in her domaine. She also does not feel strongly about whether other cultures do it. Honestly, eating a dead person’s body is hardly any more offensive than the many acts of violence, pain, and degradation that nations allow on people while they are still here with us.” - Official statement; Office of the Sparkly Press Secretary.

In the above section, use of the plural includes the singular and vice versa.

But whyyyyyyyy? Has this ever really come up? Seriously?

[Imperium Anglorum]

1. In this resolution:
   
   
   1. "meat derived from a person" is meat, derived from a person per the definition of a person in the jurisdiction in which the meat was derived;
      
      
   2. "licensing requirements" are met when meat derived from a person is so derived with the affirmative and notarised consent of the person from which it was derived, memorialised in writing affixed to such meat or the packaging thereof and providable upon demand; and
      
      
   3. "licensed person meat" is meat derived from a person which complies with licensing requirements.

I think you can safely remove definition (a) if the only point of that is to say that meat from a person means any meat derived from whatever a nation considers a person.

Otherwise I think the definitions are fine. I won’t debate with what the full breadth of the word “derived” might be taken to mean, although I could.

Aside: have you ever had something notarized? It’s a pain. If we required that someone sign a notarized document swearing that each pound of beef contained less than a lethal amount of lead, the cost of beef would increase by an order of magnitude.

The reason why that clause is there is because it specifies that the relevant jurisdiction is that in which the meat was derived, rather than the jurisdiction in which the meat happens to be. Do you have an alternative word for "derived"? I wanted to avoid words like "slaughter" and "butcher". As to notarisation, I have had things notarised. I found it very easy, I took the stairs up one floor to the legal division and found one of the notaries therein.

Subject only to active prior resolutions, member nations, jointly and severally, shall have power to restrict, regulate, or ban cannibalism; no clause may be enacted which would violate this resolution but for any subordinating or excepting clause, including an other like clause with such effect, or a clause which would delay such a violating clause's commencement until a future date or event.

Much of this feels gratuitous. If you saw fit you could full stop after the word “cannibalism.”

I'm not interested in someone writing a proposal "ban on cannibalism with changes, subject to previous resolutions, + one barely relevant thing" followed separately by "repeal this resolution".

In the above section, use of the plural includes the singular and vice versa.

But whyyyyyyyy? Has this ever really come up? Seriously?

"I enacted TWO clauses!"
"But for TWO subordinating or excepting clauses!"
"But for TWO clauses which delay TWO violating clauses' commencements until TWO future dates and events"

---

I intend to rework this proposal into an outright ban on production, transshipment, and sale of cannibal meats.

[Simone Republic]

I intend to rework this proposal into an outright ban on production, transshipment, and sale of cannibal meats.

That's great news. Full support. The earlier we get rid of this issue the better. I find the whole cannibalism debate strongly repugnant.

[Heavens Reach]

Full support as written

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Full support as written

I've got bad news for you.

I intend to rework this proposal into an outright ban on production, transshipment, and sale of cannibal meats.

[Heavens Reach]

Full support as written

I've got bad news for you.

I intend to rework this proposal into an outright ban on production, transshipment, and sale of cannibal meats.

OOC: That's actually great news for me. I'm completely opposed to cannibalism on public health and safety grounds. Though, good catch; I completely missed that line!

[Simone Republic]

I assume this has to do with how a "person" is defined and the "AI are persona too" issues.

"A member nation that defines a 'person' as including AI would presumably interpret 'person' in this resolution as indeed including AI. Therefore, defining 'meat derived from a person' effectively as 'meat derived from a person' is redundant."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

I hope there aren't going to be complaints from the RP folks about cyborgs etc or part robot/part meatbags.

For the new draft:
(1) is clause 4 necessary given 2(a) (because you cannot export or import given 2(a) anyway) or is that intended to catch some other issue?
(2) do we need to do the "sentient beings consuming other sentient beings" thing to cover RP (although I personally don't care as much if this is about Pokemon grinding other Pokemon or whatever)

[Tinhampton]

I can support the new version of this proposal. However:

1. The preamble may need to be corrected owing to the fact that Article 2 does not only apply to "the sourcing of meat from person sources (eg cannibalism) without affirmative consent."
2. Article 4 forbids the import of person-sourced meats (PSMs) and the consumption of likely-diseased PSMs, even though Article 2 now forbids both PSM importation and PSM consumption with no exceptions.

[Yxnadalsoxl]

Vampirism is still okay, as I can see no sensible interpretation of blood as "meat".

Also, I'm pretty sure this bans Catholicism, a religion which is referenced in game via issues.

Does this still count as an ideological ban?

[Comfed]

Also, I'm pretty sure this bans Catholicism, a religion which is referenced in game via issues.

Does this still count as an ideological ban?

I'm not exactly sure how you came to that conclusion, but in any case the ideological ban is not in effect anymore.

[Yxnadalsoxl]

Also, I'm pretty sure this bans Catholicism, a religion which is referenced in game via issues.

Does this still count as an ideological ban?

I'm not exactly sure how you came to that conclusion, but in any case the ideological ban is not in effect anymore.

It is a central dogma of Catholicism that the Real Presence of Christ, his flesh, is actually, not symbolically, present in the Communion wafer.

I'm old enough to have witnessed at least one attempt of banning human-sourced food flounder, for its failure in accomodating Catholic dogma.

The passage of this resolution would imply two things: 1) or the Catholic nations would have all to leave en masse the WA upon passage of this resolution, 2) or the inhabitants of those who remain would have to commit mass apostasy/abjuration of their deeply held religious beliefs (in order to stay complaint). It's one or the other.

[Yxnadalsoxl]

In any case, ideological ban or not, I remain deeply concerned about this text's oversight of vampirism.

We do not have to believe that actual vampires exist in order for this to be of concern: the whole premise of wanting to ban cannibalism to be deeply disturbed by it, enjoining the thought that (mostly) only deeply disturbed persons, or persons growing in deeply disturbed cultures, would partake on it. In the same vein (haha) deeply disturbed persons who think they are vampires, may source meat blood from a range of deeply disturbing ways, ranging from battery, robbing blood banks, or simply paying poor people.

Also, it would be questionable if the WA would prosecute those nations, which have children who eat their fingernails. The text does not make exception for people who eat their own body parts.

[Excidium Planetis]

In any case, ideological ban or not, I remain deeply concerned about this text's oversight of vampirism.

We do not have to believe that actual vampires exist in order for this to be of concern: the whole premise of wanting to ban cannibalism to be deeply disturbed by it, enjoining the thought that (mostly) only deeply disturbed persons, or persons growing in deeply disturbed cultures, would partake on it. In the same vein (haha) deeply disturbed persons who think they are vampires, may source meat blood from a range of deeply disturbing ways, ranging from battery, robbing blood banks, or simply paying poor people.

Also, it would be questionable if the WA would prosecute those nations, which have children who eat their fingernails. The text does not make exception for people who eat their own body parts.

Do fingernails count as "meat"?

[Yxnadalsoxl]

In any case, ideological ban or not, I remain deeply concerned about this text's oversight of vampirism.

We do not have to believe that actual vampires exist in order for this to be of concern: the whole premise of wanting to ban cannibalism to be deeply disturbed by it, enjoining the thought that (mostly) only deeply disturbed persons, or persons growing in deeply disturbed cultures, would partake on it. In the same vein (haha) deeply disturbed persons who think they are vampires, may source meat blood from a range of deeply disturbing ways, ranging from battery, robbing blood banks, or simply paying poor people.

Also, it would be questionable if the WA would prosecute those nations, which have children who eat their fingernails. The text does not make exception for people who eat their own body parts.

Do fingernails count as "meat"?

I don't know. "Meat" is not defined anywhere, a serious oversight, in my opinion. Is bone marrow meat? Are eyeballs meat? Hair? The text leaves us in deafening silence.

I think the Ambassador agrees with me that blood is not "meat", as implying so would be an extreme exercise of the imagination.

Maybe the intent is for people to taste for themselves where the boundaries lie?