[DRAFT] Repeal "Protection of Sapient Rights"

[Mundiferrum]

*INSERT INTRODUCTORY TEXT HERE*

The World Assembly and Herby,

Recognizing the existence of sapient species other than humans,

Alarmed by the continued ambiguity regarding the establishment of key civil and political rights for these species by this esteemed body,

Applauding the intentions of GAR#335 in trying to resolve this ambiguity,

Dismayed, however, by its extensions of those rights applying only to sapient beings specifically, thus unreasonably excluding members of species considered to be wholly sapient,

Further dismayed by its very definition of sapient beings, in that

1) It always excludes the mentally handicapped, the emotionally disturbed, and infants, since the natures of their conditions always prevent them from reasoning and acting with appropriate judgement,

2) It always includes entire groups of beings, such as corporations, cities, churches, and even entire nations, since it is unclear by what it means for "entity", and those entities can always act, reason, and consider experiences as a group,

3) It effectively excludes everyone but the omniscient, since "appropriate judgement" could be easily broadened in scope to that of reasoning and acting properly with regards to every single experience in existence,

4) It effectively includes all plants, animals, microbes, and even laws of physics, since "appropriate judgement" could be easily limited in scope to that of reasoning and acting properly with regards to all the parameters those beings immediately recognize,

5) Its idea of sentience is too broad, since it could allow unreasonable beliefs to come into play, such as the recognition of wholly inanimate objects as beings with sentience and sapience,

Knowing that these problems of definition will lead to abuse, especially since it gives individual nations full responsibility in determining what has sapience,

Concerned that its final affirmation, on considering its sketchy definition of sentience, may in fact include beings that are actually biologically dead,

Hoping that with the passage of this repeal, a much better replacement will be submitted and established,

Hereby repeals GAR#335

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the existence of sapient species other than humans,

Alarmed by the continued ambiguity regarding the establishment of key civil and political rights for these species by this esteemed body,

Applauding the intentions of GAR#335 in trying to resolve this ambiguity,

Dismayed, however, by its extensions of these rights applying only to sapient beings specifically, thus possibly but unreasonably excluding members of species considered to be sapient,

Further dismayed by its very definition of sapient beings, in that

1) Its idea of sentience is, by virtue of itself, impossible to determine,

2) It consistently excludes the mentally handicapped, the emotionally disturbed, and infants, since the natures of their conditions always prevent them from reasoning and acting with appropriate judgement,

3) It consistently includes entire groups of beings, such as corporations, cities, churches, and even entire nations, since it does not specify what it means by "entity", and those entities can always act, reason, and consider experiences as a group,

4) It effectively excludes everyone but the omniscient, since "appropriate judgement" could be easily broadened in scope to that of reasoning and acting properly with regards to every single experience in existence,

5) It effectively includes all plants, animals, microbes, and even laws of physics, since "appropriate judgement" could be easily limited in scope to that of reasoning and acting properly with regards to all the parameters that being immediately recognizes,

Believing that these problems of definition easily lead to abuse, especially with its giving individual nations their own capacity in determining sapience,

Concerned that its final affirmation, in considering its already noted problems in definition, may in fact include beings that are actually biologically dead,

Hereby repeals GAR#335

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Well done. Support."

"I'll won't do any grammatical nitpicking until you've had the chance to caffeinate yourself, Ambassador - or to apply whatever other substances you need for a productive morning - but this is a pretty comprehensive repeal argument and I hope we can get it passed."

[Adab]

I see no problem with this. Grammar is perfect, content makes sense. I support this.

[Secular State of the Philippines]

Pardon my french.

Does the terminology of sapient sentient welcomes non-homo sapien entities? Notable bipedals in relation to Homo (Human) genus:
Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo florensis

This resolution only permits and recognizes Homo Sapiens.

I do not want to encourage role-playing but genitive genus Hominis by definition notes Human being or man.
Suppose the isolated tribe across a parallel universe (history of its inhabitants) or scientific bred by a certain nation (suppose my national animal is Homo erectus or neanderthal); would they be given the debated sapient rights?

[Phydios]

"Support."

[Mundiferrum]

Pardon my french.

Does the terminology of sapient sentient welcomes non-homo sapien entities? Notable bipedals in relation to Homo (Human) genus:
Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo florensis

This resolution only permits and recognizes Homo Sapiens.

I do not want to encourage role-playing but genitive genus Hominis by definition notes Human being or man.
Suppose the isolated tribe across a parallel universe (history of its inhabitants) or scientific bred by a certain nation (suppose my national animal is Homo erectus or neanderthal); would they be given the debated sapient rights?

Rights get weird when evolution comes into play, WA or otherwise -- I suppose since anything "Homo" is basically human, all human rights, regardless of specific species or whatever, already apply to them, since "human" doesn't exactly refer to "Homo sapiens", but that's just me.

Also, new draft posted, as well as our fine mixture of coffee, honey, caek batter, Millicentais wine, and Dimethyltryptamine ingested. Pick ma nits!

[Arach-Naga Combine]

1) Its idea of sentience is, by virtue of itself, impossible to determine,

And are you going to offer any actual justification for this, or merely assert it as if it wasn't nonsense?

2) It consistently excludes the mentally handicapped, the emotionally disturbed, and infants, since the natures of their conditions always prevent them from reasoning and acting with appropriate judgement,

With good reason, as any rational government would do. Rights are granted to those with the capability to exercise them and mental capacity to understand their actions. Do you think that 8 year olds should be considered exactly the same as an adult in the eyes of the law?

3) It consistently includes entire groups of beings, such as corporations, cities, churches, and even entire nations, since it does not specify what it means by "entity", and those entities can always act, reason, and consider experiences as a group,

Those entities do no such thing, as they are both imaginary and have no such capacities. All judgement, reasoning, and actions performed are purely done so by actual persons.

4) It effectively excludes everyone but the omniscient, since "appropriate judgement" could be easily broadened in scope to that of reasoning and acting properly with regards to every single experience in existence,

Such a feat could only be performed with a herculean effort of equivocation, for which they would have to name a new fallacy after you.

5) It effectively includes all plants, animals, microbes, and even laws of physics, since "appropriate judgement" could be easily limited in scope to that of reasoning and acting properly with regards to all the parameters that being immediately recognizes,

Only with a second, possibly even more spectacular and awe-inspiring effort of equivocation, success at which might merit founding a city in your name. Because ATP doesn't judge. It just phosphorylates ADP as a result of mechanical force exerted by protons crossing a membrane.

The Combine is firmly opposed.

[Mundiferrum]

1) Its idea of sentience is, by virtue of itself, impossible to determine,

And are you going to offer any actual justification for this, or merely assert it as if it wasn't nonsense?

Check new draft. We did in fact realize how silly that was, so we changed it up.

2) It consistently excludes the mentally handicapped, the emotionally disturbed, and infants, since the natures of their conditions always prevent them from reasoning and acting with appropriate judgement,

With good reason, as any rational government would do. Rights are granted to those with the capability to exercise them and mental capacity to understand their actions. Do you think that 8 year olds should be considered exactly the same as an adult in the eyes of the law?

These rights don't just refer to the right to vote, ya know. There's the right to live, the right to education, the right to a good bill of health....surely babies and the depressed shouldn't have those, yes?

3) It consistently includes entire groups of beings, such as corporations, cities, churches, and even entire nations, since it does not specify what it means by "entity", and those entities can always act, reason, and consider experiences as a group,

Those entities do no such thing, as they are both imaginary and have no such capacities. All judgement, reasoning, and actions performed are purely done so by actual persons.

It doesn't say whether the entities it defines as sapient are individuals or not, it just says entities -- and an entity, especially considering its legal definition, could include a whole group of people, with all the considerations of law applying to them as a group.

4) It effectively excludes everyone but the omniscient, since "appropriate judgement" could be easily broadened in scope to that of reasoning and acting properly with regards to every single experience in existence,

Such a feat could only be performed with a herculean effort of equivocation, for which they would have to name a new fallacy after you.

By effectively, I meant if a government chose to abuse it -- yes, it is a herculean effort of equivocation, but the point is that whole process of idiocy shouldn't even be possible, if you want this resolution to work.

5) It effectively includes all plants, animals, microbes, and even laws of physics, since "appropriate judgement" could be easily limited in scope to that of reasoning and acting properly with regards to all the parameters that being immediately recognizes,

Only with a second, possibly even more spectacular and awe-inspiring effort of equivocation, success at which might merit founding a city in your name. Because ATP doesn't judge. It just phosphorylates ADP as a result of mechanical force exerted by protons crossing a membrane.

See my response above. As to why this is a problem, well, for example, a government who wants more voters could, in theory, declare all their dogs and cats and such to be sapient, and tally up their clearly nonexistent votes as such -- that level of corruption might be a bit bonkers, but hey, it's still possible, and GAR#335 basically gives them the power to implement that, and I don't think that's the purpose of any resolution we pass here.

The Combine is firmly opposed.

Hope we change your mind.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

We are willing to lend our support for this draft.

However, can we please omit the completely unnecessary boilerplate "Applauds the intentions of $RESOLUTION" clause?

Good intentions need never be applauded, particularly when they pave the road to hell -- or however the saying goes.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Also, new draft posted, as well as our fine mixture of coffee, honey, caek batter, Millicentais wine, and Dimethyltryptamine ingested. Pick ma nits!

"The only nit I found originally, you already refactored for substantive reasons. I see no others. I'm not quite clear on the inclusion of 'laws of physics' under things that act according to 'appropriate judgement,' but I'm also not sure that'll be a deal breaker at vote. We'll support either way."

[The Candy Of Bottles]

OOC: Just feel the need to, if nothing else, urge that this not be submitted until a replacement draft is ready, using a definition with a good consensus. The current resolution (Feels safe to call it that) is at least better then nothing.

[Mundiferrum]

OOC: Just feel the need to, if nothing else, urge that this not be submitted until a replacement draft is ready, using a definition with a good consensus. The current resolution (Feels safe to call it that) is at least better then nothing.

We stated that we don't intend this as an insta-repeal anyway, so we can probably wait. But not for too long -- EP has, at least, a whole framework and host of criticisms to work with, so we expect for the replacement to not take too long.

[Polar Svalbard]

*lights cigar*
"Must we repeal, every, resolution we pass?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

*lights cigar*
"Must we repeal, every, resolution we pass?"

Damn straight!

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OOC: Just feel the need to, if nothing else, urge that this not be submitted until a replacement draft is ready, using a definition with a good consensus. The current resolution (Feels safe to call it that) is at least better then nothing.

Sorry, don't understand the necessity for this. We've gotten by without a sapient-rights resolution for twelve years -- hardly any legislation specifies humans as uniquely protected by international law anyway -- why is it so important to ensure not a day goes by without one?

Not that we don't support a sapient-rights bill; we just don't share the urgency for an immediate replacement.

[Atomic Utopia]

OOC: Just feel the need to, if nothing else, urge that this not be submitted until a replacement draft is ready, using a definition with a good consensus. The current resolution (Feels safe to call it that) is at least better then nothing.

Sorry, don't understand the necessity for this. We've gotten by without a sapient-rights resolution for twelve years -- hardly any legislation specifies humans as uniquely protected by international law anyway -- why is it so important to ensure not a day goes by without one?

Not that we don't support a sapient-rights bill; we just don't share the urgency for an immediate replacement.

How many of these proposals use the word "person" in them to describe the population that cannot be tortured, murdered, etc.?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Can we hold off on this for a week or two? The pass-repeal cycle is wreaking havoc on the voter base."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Can we hold off on this for a week or two? The pass-repeal cycle is wreaking havoc on the voter base."

This is very true. I'm pretty sure they are all going 'what the hell is going on up there' now.

[Atomic Utopia]

"Can we hold off on this for a week or two? The pass-repeal cycle is wreaking havoc on the voter base."

Plus this has little to no effect as it is, so it can be ignored as a piece of bad legislation.

[Excidium Planetis]

Sorry, don't understand the necessity for this. We've gotten by without a sapient-rights resolution for twelve years -- hardly any legislation specifies humans as uniquely protected by international law anyway -- why is it so important to ensure not a day goes by without one?

Not that we don't support a sapient-rights bill; we just don't share the urgency for an immediate replacement.

How many of these proposals use the word "person" in them to describe the population that cannot be tortured, murdered, etc.?

"The very argument used to justify slavery of non-human sapients in Excidium Planetis until the resolution was passed." Excidian Ambassador Cornelia Alena Schultz nodded.

OOC: Just feel the need to, if nothing else, urge that this not be submitted until a replacement draft is ready, using a definition with a good consensus. The current resolution (Feels safe to call it that) is at least better then nothing.

We stated that we don't intend this as an insta-repeal anyway, so we can probably wait. But not for too long -- EP has, at least, a whole framework and host of criticisms to work with, so we expect for the replacement to not take too long.

"Nevertheless, we support this repeal, as long as you support our replacement draft, and if you agree to either A) Wait a month for me to come back from vacation* or B) Submit a finished and edited version of my replacement draft yourself, with me listed as a coauthor."

OOC
*No joke, I'm going to upstate New York for 4 weeks. In 3 days.

[Mundiferrum]

We are willing to lend our support for this draft.

However, can we please omit the completely unnecessary boilerplate "Applauds the intentions of $RESOLUTION" clause?

Good intentions need never be applauded, particularly when they pave the road to hell -- or however the saying goes.

It's in there for appeasement -- I don't want to look too much like a guy who's repealing this because he simply doesn't believe in it. I assume folks read into repeals more than logically.

*lights cigar*
"Must we repeal, every, resolution we pass?"

Must you comment unproductively on repeals you don't read?
*downs a shot of absinthe*

"Can we hold off on this for a week or two? The pass-repeal cycle is wreaking havoc on the voter base."

This is very true. I'm pretty sure they are all going 'what the hell is going on up there' now.

I wonder...could I use this confusion to my advantage? Part of the reason why I'm holding back on this anyway is because I'm half-sure this won't receive as much support if I submit it now -- a lot of people seem to have commented clear "aye" votes in the original's thread.

We stated that we don't intend this as an insta-repeal anyway, so we can probably wait. But not for too long -- EP has, at least, a whole framework and host of criticisms to work with, so we expect for the replacement to not take too long.

"Nevertheless, we support this repeal, as long as you support our replacement draft, and if you agree to either A) Wait a month for me to come back from vacation* or B) Submit a finished and edited version of my replacement draft yourself, with me listed as a coauthor."

Like I said, I'd rather you do all the bonework. But then again, one month of corporations having the same rights as humans, and alien babies essentially having no rights whatsoever might be a bit too long -- don't wanna give the critics that much fuel.

[Mundiferrum]

Anymore arguments to be added? We might submit this a bit earlier than planned, if only because our opinion of the original resolution's drafter has decreased, regarding his arguments in support of one of his other proposals -- we feel that a person so willing to defend an already proven-to-be-bad proposal, and in a way that seems neither productive nor reasonable, has agendas much worse than simply working for the good of this assembly. We'd like some advice, though, on how we're going to campaign for this (OOC: I haven't got no cash): we strongly feel that this repeal is gonna be very divisive, if only because the original has a nice title.

OOC, unrelated: What? My own posts here are green? THAT'S SO UNUSUAL!

[Mundiferrum]

So no more qualms (really)? Alright, since I'm too busy to campaign for this at the moment, I'll submit this by the end of the week (where I am, at least -- Friday here is Thursday to much of y'all, I believe).

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Are you in Australia?

By all means, submit it. We'd even help campaign if it were necessary (I'm assuming not).

EDIT: I'm also assuming the reference to Herby will be taken out?

[Herby]

Are you in Australia?

By all means, submit it. We'd even help campaign if it were necessary (I'm assuming not).

EDIT: I'm also assuming the reference to Herby will be taken out?

I say, vroom, keep it in of course!

Naturally, I am deeply against this repeal. I do not want to lose my rights as a sapient. I mean, do you know how many parking tickets I used to rack up just by snoozing in WA nations? I don't want to go through that again.