[DEFEATED] Restrictions on Blood Sports

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Although the proposal no longer contradict GA #267, it it now illegal because of the House of Cards rule. This means that your proposal relies on an extent resolution to support it, and is therefore not an independent piece of legislation.)

Oh yeah. Better?

(OOC: The proposal is now legal.)

[Araraukar]

not inclusive of

OOC: I'd just reword that as "not including".

[Ancient Greek Empire]

Edited

[Kenmoria]

“Do you really need to require member states to kill animals involved in blood sports that can’t be rehabilitated? I think this clause could also work as an encouragement.”

[Ancient Greek Empire]

“Do you really need to require member states to kill animals involved in blood sports that can’t be rehabilitated? I think this clause could also work as an encouragement.”

It would be ideal, however it’s probable that some will get lazy and release these dangerous animals wherever they want, causing carnage. Unless you think encouraging will have more pros than cons, than I shall change it.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Blood sports are unnecessarily violent and risk ending sacred Lifes. For that reason, the Holy Empire supports this Proposal. However, we suggest that the Proposal allow Nations to choose between putting down animals that cannot be rehabilitated or permanently detaining them in a humane manner. Nations should not be forced to kill animals if they have moral objections.

--Saint Telemachus
Membrum, Sanctum Collegium Cardinalium

[Honeydewistania]

Blood sports are unnecessarily violent and risk ending sacred Lifes. For that reason, the Holy Empire supports this Proposal. However, we suggest that the Proposal allow Nations to choose between putting down animals that cannot be rehabilitated or permanently detaining them in a humane manner. Nations should not be forced to kill animals if they have moral objections.

--Saint Telemachus
Membrum, Sanctum Collegium Cardinalium

Nations are required to attempt rehabilitation first, if the animals pose too much a risk they are to be put down

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Blood sports are unnecessarily violent and risk ending sacred Lifes. For that reason, the Holy Empire supports this Proposal. However, we suggest that the Proposal allow Nations to choose between putting down animals that cannot be rehabilitated or permanently detaining them in a humane manner. Nations should not be forced to kill animals if they have moral objections.

--Saint Telemachus
Membrum, Sanctum Collegium Cardinalium

Nations are required to attempt rehabilitation first, if the animals pose too much a risk they are to be put down

A Nation may prefer permanently detaining them instead of killing them, which they should be allowed to.

--Saint Telemachus
Membrum, Sanctum Collegium Cardinalium

[Ancient Greek Empire]

Nations are required to attempt rehabilitation first, if the animals pose too much a risk they are to be put down

A Nation may prefer permanently detaining them instead of killing them, which they should be allowed to.

--Saint Telemachus
Membrum, Sanctum Collegium Cardinalium

Good point, it will be changed

[Ancient Greek Empire]

If there are no objections, I will submit this in the next 12 hours

[Kenmoria]

If there are no objections, I will submit this in the next 12 hours

(OOC: I have no objections.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: If you're fine with leaving the animals captive, then exactly why are you making any mandates for non-sapients' release to begin with? I mean, you could make the freedom bits only applicable to sapients, and leave it up to the member nations what to do with animal one.

[Ancient Greek Empire]

OOC: If you're fine with leaving the animals captive, then exactly why are you making any mandates for non-sapients' release to begin with? I mean, you could make the freedom bits only applicable to sapients, and leave it up to the member nations what to do with animal one.

That is a good point.

[Tinhampton]

Resubmitted under the aegis of Honeydewistania.

[Ancient Greek Empire]

Resubmitted under the aegis of Honeydewistania.

Thank you

[Morover]

OOC: Hey there, sorry for not really getting to this in a while. A bit of critiques/questions below.

1. Defines a "blood sport" as a form of entertainment involving two or more living beings in which the aim is to injure or kill the opponent, not including hunting of non-sapient creatures;

I'm pretty sure, under this definition, that this would essentially completely exempt all non-sapient blood sports that you intend to include in this proposal. While personally I feel that a draft such as this should wholly focus on sapient-on-sapient blood sports, I'm fairly certain that this wasn't your goal.

To elaborate, saying "not including hunting of non-sapient creatures" doesn't specify that it's a sapient being hunting the non-sapient creatures, and due to the vagueness that may very well arise from the loose term "hunting," this could very much allow people to pit non-sapient animals against each other. Additionally, it would allow the import of non-sapient creatures to be hunted by sapients in some sort of arena (think of the classic image of the gladiator fighting the lion).

Furthermore, is it not an unreasonable interpretation to assume that this includes stuff such as bonsai as well? I'm not exactly up-to-date as to the specifics of bonsai, but I know that it's living, and the actual process of cutting leaves/branches could certainly be constituted as an injury - really, the only argument I can see against this interpretation is that bonsai plant/tree/whatever is not an actual being, but that may be entirely subjective at that point. Of course, this probably runs afoul of RNT, but it still goes to demonstrate that the language can be tightened up significantly.

4. Requires member states to relocate all captive former sapient blood sport participants to a safe and healthy rehabilitative environment, such as their natural habitat, where they will not destroy the environment, be harmed or harm others;

5. Encourages member states to relocate all captive former non-sapient blood sport participants to a safe and healthy rehabilitative environment, such as their natural habitat, where they will not destroy the environment, be harmed or harm others;

Why not merge these into one clause? And why encourages in the second one? This whole thing is confusing as to how it's worded.

6. Encourages members states to humanely put down non-sapient creatures groomed for blood sports if rehabilitation is not possible.

Why? Is this effective?

[Ancient Greek Empire]

OOC: Hey there, sorry for not really getting to this in a while. A bit of critiques/questions below.

1. Defines a "blood sport" as a form of entertainment involving two or more living beings in which the aim is to injure or kill the opponent, not including hunting of non-sapient creatures;

I'm pretty sure, under this definition, that this would essentially completely exempt all non-sapient blood sports that you intend to include in this proposal. While personally I feel that a draft such as this should wholly focus on sapient-on-sapient blood sports, I'm fairly certain that this wasn't your goal.

To elaborate, saying "not including hunting of non-sapient creatures" doesn't specify that it's a sapient being hunting the non-sapient creatures, and due to the vagueness that may very well arise from the loose term "hunting," this could very much allow people to pit non-sapient animals against each other. Additionally, it would allow the import of non-sapient creatures to be hunted by sapients in some sort of arena (think of the classic image of the gladiator fighting the lion).

Furthermore, is it not an unreasonable interpretation to assume that this includes stuff such as bonsai as well? I'm not exactly up-to-date as to the specifics of bonsai, but I know that it's living, and the actual process of cutting leaves/branches could certainly be constituted as an injury - really, the only argument I can see against this interpretation is that bonsai plant/tree/whatever is not an actual being, but that may be entirely subjective at that point. Of course, this probably runs afoul of RNT, but it still goes to demonstrate that the language can be tightened up significantly.

4. Requires member states to relocate all captive former sapient blood sport participants to a safe and healthy rehabilitative environment, such as their natural habitat, where they will not destroy the environment, be harmed or harm others;

5. Encourages member states to relocate all captive former non-sapient blood sport participants to a safe and healthy rehabilitative environment, such as their natural habitat, where they will not destroy the environment, be harmed or harm others;

Why not merge these into one clause? And why encourages in the second one? This whole thing is confusing as to how it's worded.

6. Encourages members states to humanely put down non-sapient creatures groomed for blood sports if rehabilitation is not possible.

Why? Is this effective?

Not sure about you, but I think hunting is specific enough such that it's wont be like that. For example, if there's a cockfight, you wouldn't consider the cock hunting the other cock. That doesn't make sense. It'd be different if it was a lion vs gazelle, but honestly that isn't so cruel as its their animal instinct controlling the lion to attack the gazelle.

Also, its encourages because you have three options: Release them to the natural habitat, put them down or detain them. Honestly the last two are pretty bad for sapients, so it's required to set them free. However, there are pit bulls and cocks bred to fight. If you release them to the wild, they'd cause carnage. However, you shouldn't really force nations to put down animals either. So there's a choice.

[Maowi]

Also, its encourages because you have three options: Release them to the natural habitat, put them down or detain them. Honestly the last two are pretty bad for sapients, so it's required to set them free. However, there are pit bulls and cocks bred to fight. If you release them to the wild, they'd cause carnage. However, you shouldn't really force nations to put down animals either. So there's a choice.

OOC: You're also giving nations the choice not to do either of those things, and just not bother being humane about putting the animal down ...

[Araraukar]

OOC: Throwing a dude and a lion in an arena and seeing which kill which cannot be called hunting by any sensible stretch of the word. Even ancient civilizations didn't try to call it hunting.

Lack of definition of hunting is a good thing here, as it requires the word to be read as its dictionary definition. Arena fights and dog fights and whatever cage fights don't apply.

EDIT: Also, on the humane thing, it's an encouragement because people protested about being required to put down animals they can't rehabilitate. Which is nonsense, because confining such animals to a cage for the rest of their lives is more cruel as solitary confinement (they're not safe to others of their own species) than humane for not being humanely put down. 2nd EDIT: But agreed that the re-submission was perhaps a bit hasty. To author: the whole "last call" thing doesn't really work, because so many people use that, that it has lost all allure. You might instead have titled the thread as NEW DRAFT or Nth DRAFT (with draft number instead of N), for people to actually know you actually wanted feedback on the new wording.

[Kenmoria]

Also, its encourages because you have three options: Release them to the natural habitat, put them down or detain them. Honestly the last two are pretty bad for sapients, so it's required to set them free. However, there are pit bulls and cocks bred to fight. If you release them to the wild, they'd cause carnage. However, you shouldn't really force nations to put down animals either. So there's a choice.

OOC: You're also giving nations the choice not to do either of those things, and just not bother being humane about putting the animal down ...

(OOC: Perhaps something along the lines of ‘Requires that any animals, bred for blood sports, that are put down by member states are killed in a humane fashion’ could either be added to clause 6 or added as a separate mandate.)

[Morover]

OOC: Hey there, sorry for not really getting to this in a while. A bit of critiques/questions below.


I'm pretty sure, under this definition, that this would essentially completely exempt all non-sapient blood sports that you intend to include in this proposal. While personally I feel that a draft such as this should wholly focus on sapient-on-sapient blood sports, I'm fairly certain that this wasn't your goal.

To elaborate, saying "not including hunting of non-sapient creatures" doesn't specify that it's a sapient being hunting the non-sapient creatures, and due to the vagueness that may very well arise from the loose term "hunting," this could very much allow people to pit non-sapient animals against each other. Additionally, it would allow the import of non-sapient creatures to be hunted by sapients in some sort of arena (think of the classic image of the gladiator fighting the lion).

Furthermore, is it not an unreasonable interpretation to assume that this includes stuff such as bonsai as well? I'm not exactly up-to-date as to the specifics of bonsai, but I know that it's living, and the actual process of cutting leaves/branches could certainly be constituted as an injury - really, the only argument I can see against this interpretation is that bonsai plant/tree/whatever is not an actual being, but that may be entirely subjective at that point. Of course, this probably runs afoul of RNT, but it still goes to demonstrate that the language can be tightened up significantly.


Why not merge these into one clause? And why encourages in the second one? This whole thing is confusing as to how it's worded.


Why? Is this effective?

Not sure about you, but I think hunting is specific enough such that it's wont be like that. For example, if there's a cockfight, you wouldn't consider the cock hunting the other cock. That doesn't make sense. It'd be different if it was a lion vs gazelle, but honestly that isn't so cruel as its their animal instinct controlling the lion to attack the gazelle.

Also, its encourages because you have three options: Release them to the natural habitat, put them down or detain them. Honestly the last two are pretty bad for sapients, so it's required to set them free. However, there are pit bulls and cocks bred to fight. If you release them to the wild, they'd cause carnage. However, you shouldn't really force nations to put down animals either. So there's a choice.

OOC: At least to me, hunting (in this instance) seems to imply seeking out and killing something for sport. My interpretation isn't always right, but I think it's not an unreasonable interpretation.

Also, I echo Maowi's sentiment.

[Ancient Greek Empire]

This has achieved quorum.

[Kranostav]

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

[Kenmoria]

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)

(OOC: Specifically on this argument, I think that’s the point. Animal blood sports as a whole are needlessly cruel.)

[Flying Eagles]

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.