[GA] Repeal "Rights of Sapient Species"
- Thread starter Marnip
- Start date
Mousebumples
TNPer
First, thanks to Marnip and Fort for drafting this and putting it here for WA discussion. (Hello, also, to Kaboom!) I'm hopeful that we can get some good discussions going on this here as a part of WALL and then - when the time for submission comes - use that to show our weight in WA voting affairs. 
Anyhow, I need to run off to work momentarily, but I'll try to take a look at this later tonight.
Anyhow, I need to run off to work momentarily, but I'll try to take a look at this later tonight.
Mousebumples
TNPer
I'm hoping that the OP is the most recent version of this, but if it's not ... sorry?
Sorry (or you're welcome?) for the significant formatting suggestions, but lists often make it easier to see and understand the details of a given repeal, since there are usually a few main things to work on highlighting and explaining why it's an issue.
Sorry (or you're welcome?) for the significant formatting suggestions, but lists often make it easier to see and understand the details of a given repeal, since there are usually a few main things to work on highlighting and explaining why it's an issue.
Excidium Planetis
TNPer
As the author of the target resolution, I must question your motives here. Do you really support Sapient Rights and found legitimate flaws with the target? Are you actually just a xenophobe and wish to repeal the only thing standing in your way of oppression? Or is it neither of those honorable goals and you simply seek a badge?
You can believe whatever you want, surely, but I'd like to see your support for those beliefs.
Red tape? The proposal is so loose it doesn't even specify how species must be tested! Pray tell, what red tape must be traversed?
What? Those are the basic definitions of what it takes to be sapient! Are you seriously arguing that it too difficult to expect sapient beings to be capable of forming rational thought? Have you ever met a sapient being that was not capable of doing so?
Those are neither part of the definitions nor part of the active clauses, so I'm not sure why you mention them here.
Yes, yes, so when you are done applauding me for my efforts, can you tell me why you seek the undoing of those efforts?
What? What else would it apply to? That clause was meant to apply only to the mentally ill and disabled and those under the age of majority, and yet you criticise it for only applying to the things it was meant to apply to?
This clause is completely incomprehensible. What "non-sapient beings" would be considered sapient? That's a paradox. And of course a sapient being must be a sapient being before being treated as a sapient being, but that's so redundant I can't even understand what you are arguing here.
That was to prevent baby elf rape, which should be illegal regardless of whether or not a culture had a legal age of consent.
If a member of their species is old enough to mate, then they are above the minimum age of consent required by the Resolution, as the resolution specifies the minimum age of consent is the age of onset of sexual maturation.
I can't see what you have against that, unless you advocate mating with sexually immature beings, otherwise known as pedophilia?
That's because any test that was specified would not be broad enough to include all varieties of Sapient life. I did not wish to exclude any beings simply becuase the test formula failed to account for their unique characteristics.
What? Any species that meets the resolution's "harsh" (sarcasm) standards must be included, regardless of any damn tests. You are either lying or fail to comprehend the resolution.
So you say any singular test could be inconclusive... Yet you criticize the resolution for not having a singular test?
How exactly does RoSS require human decisions in warfare?
A large number of Sapient beings would disagree with you.
Oh, no, you don't.
I will fight this. Nobody Repeals my sapient rights resolutions but me! And to a lesser extent the newbies I take under my wing that turn out to be badge-hunting idiots I never should have helped in the first place.
Mousebumples
TNPer
I won't speak for Fort, but he's been against this one since it was at vote. I would hardly call him a "badge hunting idiot" since he isn't terribly active on the NS forums or even on his nation page enough that he'd probably care much about getting another badge.
There are flaws in this resolution, and while it's an admirable attempt at ensuring sapient rights, your unwillingness to accept those flaws doesn't mean that the repeal won't pass. Fort, I'll pass along a few more suggestions for you in the near future.
There are flaws in this resolution, and while it's an admirable attempt at ensuring sapient rights, your unwillingness to accept those flaws doesn't mean that the repeal won't pass. Fort, I'll pass along a few more suggestions for you in the near future.
fortunado
TNPer
I will also defend myself here. I do agree that we need to impose a set of rights, the question here is how well one accomplishes it. I am not here to put on a badge on my chest and say that I did this just to say I did. I believe this resolution is insufficient, and the only reason I am against it is because I consider it insufficient. I thank you for your concerns, and, whether or not you assist this repeal, I will continue on regardless.
And on my activity, for the sake of disclosure, I am actually on the NS forums quite frequently. I only really go on the rp section. This is just in case this ever comes into question.
And on my activity, for the sake of disclosure, I am actually on the NS forums quite frequently. I only really go on the rp section. This is just in case this ever comes into question.
Mousebumples
TNPer
To clarify for those who are unfamiliar with NS WA forum speak, "badge seekers" are those that just want to get the shiny "Resolution Authored" badge below their name. Excidium Planetis tossed that term out like you guys would be familiar with it, and given that that's not your motivation (and that you're not an NS WA forum regular), that may or may not have been 100% clear.
Excidium Planetis
TNPer
The comment "badge-hunting idiot" was directed at The Global Republic, who I assisted in repealing Protection of Sapient Rights under the impression that he would become an active member of the WA community. Unfortunately, he has not commented on any WA drafts nor put forward any of his own since he got his badge.Mousebumples:
Furthermore, I am not unwilling to accept my resolution's flaws, as the repeal of my prior resolution should attest to. But I have seen nothing here to merit repeal, nor have I seen any real evidence that this repeal is done with good faith to protect Sapient Rights...
So, Author, if you really find fault with the resolution, what are your suggested fixes? It is common GA practice that if you agree with a resolution's intent, yet not its text, you write a replacement draft. I have not seen a replacement draft. How do you intend to fix these flaws without a replacement?
Mousebumples
TNPer
For the record - not that I'm the author of the repeal here - but I strongly object to you saying that "that is common GA practice." I have repealed some resolutions and authored replacements, and other times just repealed things. Some things do not need to be legislated on, and the author of the repeal is in no way obligated to work on any hypothetical replacement.Excidium Planetis:
Excidium Planetis
TNPer
If you repeal something because it does not need to be legislated on, then you do not agree with the resolution's intent: that is, the intent to legislate on something. I specifically said it was GA practice to write a replacement if you agreed with the resolution's intent.Mousebumples:
Additionally, I never said anyone was obligated to write a replacement. But the real question is if the author of the repeal agrees with RoSS, then why would they write a repeal with no replacement, or even a promise of replacement?
Can you honestly say, Mousebumples, that you repealed legislation you agreed with, and never replaced it? Such is extremely uncommon from what I have seen.
fortunado
TNPer
Why exactly do you feel it necessary to question my intent? Even if it is common practice to produce a new proposal, I am not a common member in the WA. I am somebody who found things I think are wrong, not that the whole resolution is wrong. It is good that you seek to give rights to sapient species and I acknowledge that. Do I purport to have the ability to write the one legislation that will finally put the question of sapient rights to bed? no. The very fact that people have put resolution upon resolution trying to nail that final, good resolution is will and testament to the difficulty in this topic. I just believe that this resolution is insufficient and have said such multiple times. If you think that because I have not provided, nor plan to provide, a replacement, that there is no way to know the legitimacy of my arguments, than you will not know the legitimacy of my arguments.Excidium Planetis:
Please, if you have problems with me, as a person, leave that for my inbox. If you have problems with my resolution, tell me below, so I may make a good resolution. The point the WALL is to "be a learning/development area", not to attack my resolution because you do not like it. Do you have any constructive criticisms which could help me perfect this resolution? Even if you aren't going to vote for it, I hope to see that sort of help and learning, so I may develop my own skills, even if this resolution will or will not pass.
Mousebumples
TNPer
Guns and Mental Capacity I repealed and never replaced. I agreed with the concept; however, I felt it was not something that should be legislated on a WA-wide basis. (My NatSov bonafides shining through yet again.) There are probably others as well, but I'd have to check my list of passed repeals - that was just my first repeal, so that one sticks out in my head.Excidium Planetis:
Excidium Planetis
TNPer
I question your intent (whether or not you actually agree with the resolution) because your repeal specifically states that. Am I not allowed to question the validity of statements in your own repeal text?fortunado:
Furthermore, you claim the resolution is "insufficient" and that you have found things you "think are wrong". Yet you offer no way to correct those wrongs... How then do you know that the resolution has not already fulfilled its purpose in the best possible way?
Indeed, the point of the WALL is to "be a learning/development area". Yet that works both ways. How do you expect anyone to " nail that final, good resolution" if no one learns anything from past wrongs? I cannot work towards a better resolution if you can't explain how to fix what I did. Can you offer any constructive criticism of RoSS, or just plain criticism?
Lastly, I did question several parts of your repeal... And you have not adequately responded to them. You claim that the definition of Sapient is too much of a hurdle... I asked how (which is not explained in the repeal) and why you felt it was too much of a problem to require sapient beings to reason. You claim that tests could exclude beings that meet the definition... Yet this is false, beings that meet the definition MUST, according to the resolution, be given rights. You criticize the target resolution for not mandating a specific test... Yet I explained my reasoning for doing so, and I have seen no argument on your end for how a specific test would improve anything, and not be too narrow to include the vast range of Sapient beings in the universe.
What I have seen here is a repeal that claims the target is wrong, but doesn't really explain why, claims things about the target that are untrue, and offers no hint as to how to correct any problems with the target.
fortunado
TNPer
and the fact that the repeal mentions my hopes for rights to other species should be enough. I don't think my intent really factors in to the quality of my resolution. If you are so worried about me providing further proof, of which you have forced me to provide an arbitrary proof at that, than you will not get it. You may be in the blind about my intent from hereon, and I have no shame in that fact. That is my answer, now can we move past it or do you have any more tests of my intent I will oblige to not provide answer for or against?
Do you question the intent of every repeal, or do you actively look at the concerns they brought up? Do people vote for a repeal even if there is no proposal (yes, many people do)? Is this the most vital question, or should we be questioning the repeal in question, rather than the mindset of the author when he submitted it?
I think the criticism in the repeal is enough. Here are some problems, fix them. The repeal is meant as a constructive criticism just as much as it is meant to show what is wrong with something. In actuality, the fact that I highlight the problems, means I have now shown you something wrong that may have been in plain sight. If I may make it more explicit, after constructive revisions, it may become more apparent, so as to see you, or somebody else, prepare that final, good resolution.
I understand that, and am working to redress those concerns. I hope to alleviate those concerns during my current revisions. I can think of many broad tests, that a human could achieve, that focus on intelligence, and would be heavily exclusive. Either revise the specifications on how a test should be formulated, or provide a singular test that would do much better.
"alright, species who should probably be sapient, can you take this test on human history for us?" Heck, IQ tests were famously racist, so finding them to be soon speciesist is not outside of the realm of reality.
Excidium Planetis
TNPer
That isn't proof of a claim, that's the claim itself. It cannot be proof enough.
Are you telling me that if the politicians who wrote the USA Patriot Act came out and said they wanted to use private phone data to blackmail American citizens, people would have felt the same way about it? Would Congress have still passed it?
Intent matters in a law, intent matters in a repeal. Resolutions can say the same thing, but achieve a different result if the intent is different. In this case, if your intent is to see a replacement of RoSS, the repeal can result in a new, better resolution. If your intent is simply to get rid of it, then the repeal will result in no sapient rights resolutions being written, and WA nations being allowed to treat non-humans as an underclass.
If you are not willing to write the replacement yourself, will you not at least wait until someone else does? No point in getting rid of legislation that is at least better than nothing only to see it be several months of Civil Rights abuses before a replacement appears.
I do both, as I have done here.
People vote FOR without reading the resolution, but does that make it a good idea? No. Why should I do something stupid because many other people do it?
I am questioning the repeal in question: the repeal still states its intent in the repeal text, and I am still questioning that text. Stop treating this like a personal attack, when it is a question over the repeal.
That's not how constructive criticism works. Didn't you ever go to school? Did your teachers say "this is spelled wrong, fix it"? Or did they say "this is how the word is spelled correctly"? Every math paper I ever got back had notes on where I went wrong in a problem, and what the correct answer was. You can't learn from a mistake if you don't know what you did wrong.
But it doesn't show what is wrong with something, it simply says there is something wrong and won't say what it is. You say the definition is wrong, but not what in the defintion is wrong. You say that the test requirements are wrong, but not what is wrong with them (or when you do, it is a lie).
So far, you have yet to name one test that simultaneously meets the requirements of RoSS and excludes non-human sapients.
Test is not passable by all healthy, normal adult humans, and therefore illegal under the requirements of RoSS. Sorry, try again, and read the resolution this time.
First of all, you are thinking of Literacy tests, not IQ tests, and they were deemed racist and banned as a requirement for voting in the US not because the tests themselves were set up to be racist, but because their application was racist. Blacks were given harder tests than whites, or people were allowed to skip the test through grandfather clauses, which favored whites over blacks. Such selective testing is not allowed by RoSS.
It is hard to see how any test that all normal humans are capable of passing could prevent truly sapient beings from being deemed sapient. Even if a history test were allowed, it would be possible for non-humans to learn human history and thus pass the test.
fortunado
TNPer
If this is the only thing that will get you to stop questioning my credibility, than yes. I will still say, though, that if nothing is created after a while, I will still pass it. At that point, doing nothing is worse than assuming a law I think has problems with should stay on the books.
People often vote NAY without reading the resolution, just because there is no replacement. Why should I do something just because other people do it?
Well, this isn't a math test, and fixing one's mistakes themselves is a form of critical thinking. If people simply give you the answer, than it is hard to truly have learned it, and be able to apply it forward.
One, that requirement is absurd. There will always be a test that a certain person won't be able to complete. two, the only way that could effectively be tested, is by looking at the average human, or an aggregate group could pass something. You would basically have to take each species' test and have it be administrated to every human to see if it is passable, by your version of this test. At that point, someone could slip up on a test they would have normatively passed, meaning the perfectly fine test could be thrown away instantly. three, if we were to assume all humans have to pass it, than any human that doesn't pass it would be a separate species, based off of the fact this is an individual test, not a group test. The only thing we have to define "Species" is that it has something in relation to one's intelligence, so anybody who is unintelligent could simply be considered a separate species. Even when you ask mentally ill humans to be considered legally the same, the fact that the definition of species is seemingly tied to their intelligence, it would be easily viable to relegate them as a separate species, restart the test, and watch as they be considered a non-sapient species different from humans. fourth, any human who would not pass would simply be prescribed as mentally ill, meaning the test would simply prefer samples who could "pass." This being just as preferential. So tell me, how is this test scale logistically plausible?
It was also the IQ test, not just literacy tests. Many species could be considered mute or deaf, so a test could be distributed in common human languages, and human braille. To the point that all humans were given a test they could pass, but no test of that variant would be passable by a species that doesn't know things like swahili, or braille. As soon as they get all humans to pass, they stop making translations for their test. many species may simply communicate through physical behaviors that only they exhibit, so the test would simply avoid that sort of variants.
How many individuals are tested before a whole species is defined as sapient? What is even defined as a species?
Excidium Planetis
TNPer
I'm gonna be honest, I know longer know what point you are trying to make here. First it seemed you were trying to convince me that voting for a repeal without a replacement was a good idea, now it seems you are trying to say you'd vote for your own repeal (duh).
There are three major problems with this line of reasoning:
1) It isn't that you aren't giving me the answers, you aren't even giving me the problems. You say the definition of Sapient Being is a problem. But you don't explain why. How am I suppose to fix something without even knowing what's wrong? That's like telling your doctor you are sick without describing your symptoms. How do you expect the doctor to give treatment?
2) You are essentially saying that me exercising critical thinking is more important than the rights of sapient beings. How can you repeal a resolution that protects sapients, subjecting them to abuse and discrimination for however long it takes for me to figure out a solution because you won't even say what is wrong with the original resolution? That's bull****. Can you imagine outlawing all fossil fuel use, and when asked how exactly energy needs are supposed to be met, the reply is "figure it out"? Total societal destruction would happen while people practiced "critical thinking".
3) This isn't a school. The WA is not a school. Neither is UN or any other real-life organization of similar operation. The purpose of these organizations is not to teach critical thinking, but to pass effective legislation. By refusing to offer any advice on how too improve legislation, you are hindering the passage of effective legislation, and thus running counter to the WA's goal.
False. Every healthy, normal, adult human can complete an IQ test. Same with a Mirror test. Or the Rorshach test. And many other tests that rely on reasoning rather than the subject's knowledge. In fact, such tests are the only type of tests I am aware of that could determine the sapience of non-humans in an unbiased way.
1) Why would it need to be administered to every human? As long as it could be demonstrated to be passable by every human, it wouldn't need to be administered to everyone.
2) You assume separate tests would be used for each species, which is not true. The same test could be used each time, which would actually be the least biased way of doing things.
If they would have normally passed, the test is passable by them. They aren't require to actually pass the test, the test is required to be passable. Again, if they normally would have passed, that means that, even if they didn't actually pass, the test was still passable.
That's BS, the resolution never defines species and so certainly would not make a human who failed a separate species.
Did you even read the resolution? It makes no connection between species and intelligence, that's bogus. Stop making stuff up in an attempt to find problems with the target resolution.
How on earth could you conceivably redefined mentally ill humans as a separate species, without using such a f***ed up definition of species that the dozen or so active resolutions which use the word "species" become absolute nonsense? You'd be in effective non-compliance anyways, so it doesn't matter what I wrote, any nation insane enough to redefine species in such a way would not follow WA law anyways.
As they likely would be, if they were unable to pass a test designed to be passable by all normal, healthy, adult humans.
What test doesn't prefer samples who can pass? I've never heard of a test that is easier to pass the more likely you are to fail it.
They exist in real life.
But those tests are now not equally applied to humans and non-humans. If you apply translations for humans, you'd need to do it for non-humans too to equally apply the test. And that means translating the test into the test-taker's native language, since that's what you did for humans.
Are you going to actually make a test following the resolution's mandates, or are you going to keep making up biased tests that don't follow the resolution?
I don't know. The resolution never defines species as sapient, oonly beings. Which, I'll admit, is odd considering the title, but the resolution didn't just give rights to sapient beings, so "Rights of Sapient Beings" would not have worked.
If your nation does not know what "species" is, we have bigger problems than RoSS. Many other resolutions use that term in operative clauses.
fortunado
TNPer
ok... lets have a talk here. 1.) I am giving you the answers, or will plan to if it is yet not explicit, which I will have hopefully done in later versions, if you would check the main page. I have been describing the symptoms, you have taken the approach of listening to your "own diagnosis." At this point, I think you went to a witchdoctor, so as to have someone say, "your fine, nothing wrong. Don't listen to the other doctor." 2.) I don't think I am asking you to understand quantum mechanics. I am mentioning plausible loopholes, and asking that these be removed or adjusted. 3.) Passing effective legislation involves looking at something closely. If at one point, someone asks me how to pass a version that resolves my problems, great, I can help them. Speaking of which, it would be sacrificing sapient rights, if I wasn't going to wait for a replacement, but I already said I would.
oh boy, a list for target practice. Let me begin:
- IQ test: "IQ tests have been used for decades to assess intelligence but they are fundamentally flawed because they do not take into account the complex nature of the human intellect and its different components, the study found" (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html)
- Mirror Test (sometimes known as the mark test or mark mirror test as a mark is often placed on the animal, if the animal looks in the mirror, and notices the mark, it is said that the animal is self-aware): "These tendencies weave themselves into the behavioral fabric of a species. Akin to an animal version of culture, it might explain why some not particularly vision-oriented creatures, such as dogs, fail the mark test. We're just not applying the test in a way that means something to them. Gorillas are another good example: for many years, nobody thought gorillas could pass the mark test. Turns out, the test was just very uncomfortable for them. Eye contact is a thorny social issue for gorillas, often leading to fights, several researchers said." (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kids-and-animals-who-fail-classic-mirror/)
- Rorschach test:"First, the test lacks what testing experts call "scoring reliability." Scoring reliability means than you get the same results no matter who is scoring the test. [...] The authors also looked at all the extant studies on the test's validity. This is testing jargon for: Does it measure what it claims to measure? Does it predict behavior? And again the answer is a clear no. With the exception of schizophrenia and similarly severe thought disorders, the Rorschach fails to spot any common mental illnesses accurately."(http://www.newsweek.com/problem-rorschach-it-doesnt-work-81507)
Actually that is slightly in reverse. It is very plausible. This resolution is mostly to protect beings who would be excluded by governments beforehand, so it is important to be careful with our wording. The fact that no definition is brought for "species" means that it would be up to the nation and regions. If a region/nation hated the idea of allowing sapience to other species, they would simply define "species" harshly, and use it to separate not only humans, but other species based off of mental health. Extreme? yes, but so was jim crow.
Let's put on our legalist hats here. If we apply the most basic idea of a species as "a group or collective which exhibits similar attributes and physiology" than we have to look at what the resolution is using. The only attribute the resolution uses is "intelligence." This can especially be seen as "Tests [...] shall be based solely on the mental capabilities of species tested." We are looking into intelligence of a species, so we can attribute intelligence to a species. If an individual has dissimilar intelligence, it could be accused of being a different species.
Though, I will say, this is more extreme than I would want to argue extensively. I feel the use of intelligence as a marker allows groups to decisively exclude certain groups based off of personal bias and special "superiority." enough said on that topic.
"but wait... it is the same test... given to the same species in the same form, and humans could pass it. We did the test in so many languages. A cognizant, sapient species should be able to learn it. " says the speciesist nation with harsh testing laws. We may look and go "that is unfair", but under a strict look at the rules ("methods of determination must apply equally to humans and any other entities examined, and must also be passable by all healthy, normal, adult humans.") there is nothing we can do. To use a different example to illustrate the same point: a flat tax is equally distributed to each person (on paper), yet it often can be overbearing for people of low income, where such money could mean using a house, and at the same time barely anything to someone of high income, where such money would be so minute as to mean nothing.
The lack of a definition of sapient species, and a lack of the number I think is a significant problem for the usage of a test, along with the presence of multiple nations giving out different tests. You must understand that you are giving the nations the ability to administer these tests, meaning they are allowed to define anything that you leave open for interpretation. A species could be anything to them, and how many of said species need to pass would as well. It's not just odd in relation to the title, but odd in relation to how much you use it without a clear definition of the term.
Also, I know what a species is, the problem is that there is no legal definition here. What does a "species" mean, in relation to law and in relation to the resolution in question? Definitions can be used for different resolutions, and for the same word, so species does mean different things, but a clear, presentable definition is given for each, or is at least necessary.
Excidium Planetis
TNPer
I have checked the main page numerous times. You don't explain what is wrong with the definition of sapient being as I have written it, you simply claim that a being could be " too smart" to be sapient (how?) and then some pretty difficult to understand argument about non-humans being left out while humans are grandfathered in, which is bogus because any being who meets the definition is a sapient being, and if a non-human cannot reason, or lacks the ability to understand things, then they obviously aren't sapient.
No, I took the approach of listening to everyone who posted in the NS threads on the two resolutions (and the repeal) I worked on. Believe me, I have listened to a lot of doctors on this one.
Except I've listened to dozens of doctors, and most of the time they all come back with a different diagnosis.
No, you are just asking me to write a resolution which not only defines what a sapient being is in a realistic way, but to ensire that definition covers all sapient life in all forms everywhere it could ever exist (and we have sapient plants in the WA), and not only that, but also provides a specific test whoch could cover every single lifeform in the universe and would allow them to pass in a non-biased way.
And this is something that has never been done in real life legislation.
There will never be an end to the loopholes. Every single piece of WA legislation has loopholes, and I can say that with confidence not just because I have seen them and written legislation, but because OmigodtheykilledKenny used to determine methods of non-compliance for WA legislation, and had at one time exposed the loopholes of every single resolution on the books.
But that's not what you said. You said you'd wait... But if a few months passed and there was no replacement, you'd still submit the repeal anyways. Given that it took months to write the target resolution in the first place, a replacement will likely not be done for a long time.
Yes, I read that source beforehand. But though it is true IQ tests do not measure all aspects of intelligence, they do measure an aspect: reason. Combined with other forms of tests in a single larger test, IQ tests could very well be used to determine sapience.
Additionally, my claim wasn't that the test was without flaw, I merely demonstrated that your claim that there was no test that could be completed by every normal adult human was false.
Even mentally disabled adult humans, and even children, can complete IQ tests.
Yes, but those animals aren't humans, are they? You said there was no test that all normal, healthy humans could pass. Well there are, the Mirror test being one of them. Additionally, none of those animals are sapient.
Well, look at that? Still no evidence for your claim that there isn't a test which all normal humans can pass. How about that?
What is "the IQ Test"? There are dozens of different IQ tests, there is no "the" IQ Test. While some (older) IQ tests contained questions assuming an underlying knowledge of culture, not all IQ tests are biased in favor of a specific culture.
I believe the best tests to administer to species that do not share a culture or language with humans would be non-verbal IQ tests, such as Raven's Progressive Matrices, for example. Others exist, but Raven's is perhaps the most well known.
But that would be illegal. Forced Roleplay, it's why I had to make the tests administered by individual nations, rather than a WA Committee as some suggested.
But RoSS does not exist in a vacuum. There are at least a dozen resolutions which use "species" in operative clauses, and those resolutions must be followed too. Messing up the definition of species deliberately would make it impossible to follow those other resolutions, and thus the nations using the strange definition would be in non-compliance anyways. Since they would then be willing to violate WA law anyways, they could refuse to comply with RoSS regardless of the definition of species. Therefore, they simply should not be factored in. Why should I write a definition for nations that aren't willing to comply with WA laws anyways?
You completely ignored my point. GA Resolution #355 is not the only resolutions to use the word species. If you redefine species, you then must try to use that same definition for every other resolution which uses that term. What you get is complete non-compliance.
I think you mean "says the nation who is not following the resolution". The resolution mandates equality in application (not equality in language selection) and that is not equally applied. It was applied differently between humans and non-humans, for humans great pains were taken to translate the test into the speaker's native language, and for non-humans it was not. The law does what the law says, and in order to apply the test equally, either every being tested must get the test in the same language (thus being illegal, as not all humans can pass) or every test must be given in the test taker's native language (not the case here) or the test must be non-verbal (not the case here).
A strict look at the rules deems that the method of determination must aplky equally to humans and non-humans. Not apply equally to all types of humans but not non-humans.
But that's a false anaolgy. The flat tax in this case is applied equally.
But in your test example, it would be more like this:
The government looks carefully at the income and expenses of all white families, and after consideration sets personalized tax rates for all of them in a way that is not overbearing.
All minority families must choose one of the tax rates given to whites, they do not get their own personalized tax rate.
Is this equal application? No, it is not even remotely similar to a flat tax, which at least could not be accused of racism.
Yes, but they should be careful about what they define... for example, a loophole pointed out in PoSR was that "normal, healthy adult human" could be redefined to mean "our nation's leader", and thus could deny sapience to everyone except the dictator in charge of said nation. However, as I pointed out, that would make it problematic for the nation to comply with "Read the Resolution Act", which requires an office to staffed by a sapient employee.
Redefining things comes with the cost of needed to use that new definition in other resolutions, which makes it impossible for species to be redefined in a way that retains compliance with all WA resolutions, let alone national laws that could also use species.
Nor is there one in every other resolution which uses the term. The reason is likely that the term species is so common it is assumed every nation knows what it is. We don't have to define the word "nation", do we?
A clear presentable definition is not given for each, and if you feel it should be, please, start the Repeals. You have only about a dozen resolutions to repeal.
fortunado
TNPer
The grandfather clause being the portion stating we can't treat the mentally disabled unfairly (which is good, we can all agree that they should be treated fairly), yet how would it "feel" to a non-sapient being to see a human of exact mental capacity as them who is considered sapient? You state this standard is to treat all species equally, yet this test is applied unequally, with many people being "grandfathered" in based on their association with another member of their species. It is purely preferential in that nature.
And this is reason to stop trying? Imagine being a cart-pusher at a store, and giving up because all of your carts never stayed inside. These are, in my opinion, major loopholes, and not things you can just whisk away and act like they don't exist.
I am not even going to bother with this one. I am sorry for not checking the time it took for me to make this resolution. Big whoop. If, after a reasonable amount of time, people don't prepare a replacement, it would be better to push it, rather than become compliant in a faulty resolution. Better? or are you going to hold me to every minute wording even more than this?
stop for a second. Can you please look at what I am questioning here? I moved past that claim, and was focusing on the claim: "tests I am aware of that could determine the sapience of non-humans in an unbiased way." Which is why all of the sources talk about species, rather than trying to show that your tests separate humans. These are tests which "equally apply to everyone" but can fail certain species which would normally pass. You have tests, which can discriminate unintentionally. By this fact, it is possible for a nation to intentionally discriminate and create tests which void other species for purely racial meanings.
Now I know. Your knowledge of many types of psychological tests is great, but how does telling me about the many kind of IQ tests bolster your points? Sure, you have some possibly good tests, and it would take years to understand all of them. The burden of proof here is on me, not to show tests that succeed, but that tests could be discriminatory while being distributed equally in a way that humans could pass, while still failing many sapient beings. I think the mirror test is the best example, actually, as behaviorally, beings may react to a mirror in separate ways, causing them to fail that test.
Also, aren't apes sapient, though? They can: 1.) form judgements, 2.) take a sensible course of action (they often make their own tools, y'know), 3.) Are self-aware. If we assume they aren't, I would still remind you that this is roleplay, people may easily rp as dogs, cats, apes, elephants; or at least have species in their nation with capabilities similar to that. I guess this comes down to what kind of test you are using, but this still seems absurd. If we take a sapient dog species, they behaviorally act in a different way when it comes to vision and the like. Also, imagine a sapient bat species. Imagine giving them a hearing test. Imagine giving a dog a test about picking the color red out of all other colors. This is very much possible for nations as they could do just that.
After looking at all rulings in relation to Forced Roleplay, I can't see how this violates that. What? it says that can't discriminate against sapient dolphins? well, if they don't have dolphins, they don't care or even have to recognize sapient dolphins. Committees are commonplace, with some putting out licenses, and others. They don't violate that.
Incorrect. Problem 1: there are actually very few definitions of species which is defined in this kind of context. Problem 2: Laws should be assumed to be "in a void", if you used a definition of species used in X resolution, and then X is repealed, you fail the house of cards. Problem 3: keyword here is context. For example one resolution, GAR #224 refers to bees and states, "Bees not only play a major role in pollinating many species of plants", yet this is a very separate context than that of sapient beings. While, yes, it might be good to have some consistency, often times the specifics of a resolution require differing definitions. Just as Work can mean a job, but also be a unit in physics.
But it is applied in the exact same way! They have not administered the test in a way that is different towards different species. Imagine if, to get a life-saving medication, you had to be 7 feet tall. The test is applied equally, yet it isn't exactly fair is it? You can apply something equally, but unfairly.
what exactly are you saying here? I have absolutely no clue how you interpreted my example like this. What does this mean in relation to what I am talking about? Neither tax is racist... in my example. The discrimination was based on socio-economic status. If you want to look at that from the angle of racism, you could look at the unfortunate fact that a disproportionate number of people of low-income are "of color," but I was merely showing that a test could be equally distributed, yet be unfair...
Again, Read the Resolution Act could be repealed at any time. Yes, we would need to be careful about how we define species, but that is much better than letting every nation have a way to create a definition of their own.
Except one is necessary in the presence of your resolution, lest those nations have the ability to do as they please, under power you specifically give them.
Excidium Planetis
TNPer
They wouldn't. If they have the same mental capacity as a human, they are sapient.
How is it preferential that the mentally ill are "grandfathered" (a misuse of the term, as grandfather implies some induction based on a tradition) in? They are of the same species as other sapient beings, and thus rightly deserve the same rights afforded to them as a member of such species. Are you say it would be "non-preferential" if we allowed mentally ill beings to be stripped of rights?
Your analogy is problematic for two reasons:
1) If the cart pusher stops, the situation becomes worse (no carts in the store), whereas the situation will not get worse if we stop trying to close loopholes. Loopholes don't grow bigger.
2) The cart pusher can certainly get all carts inside the store. They won't stay there, but it can be done. On the other hand, you cannot close all loopholes on a WA resolution, especially one on so difficult a subject.
You are still placing the burden of replacement on other people, and, I feel, giving them an impossible task: No sapient rights resolution will close all issues addressed both here and in my drafts. Even the very definition of sapient was contested multiple times, despite the fact that I pulled dictionary definitions.
As far as I am aware, neither IQ nor Rorshach tests have even been given to other species, so I'm not sure how you can say they discriminate against species.
The Mirror test is the only one that has been administered to other species, and it is questionable whether any of them are sapient. I would argue that dolphins are, at least, and they passed the mirror test.
The animals that failed the mirror test failed not because of their behavioural differences (although behavior is a reason for thier reaction and/or non-reactions), but because they lacked the capability to reason an attain an awareness of the visual properties of mirrors and of themselves. A dog, while they rely on smell far more than vision, still can see. They are thus physically capable of seeing the correlation between the dog in the mirror and themself, and are only unable to pass because mentally the dog cannot associate vision with identification.
Now, you may be saying that the dog was only mentally incapable because of the physical characteristics of dogs lead to a reliance on smell. But not only have dogs been trained to act on visual cues (and thus demonstrate an understanding of meaning associated with sight), but humans demonstrate that intelligence is sufficient to overcome sensory obstacles. A blind person can learn to write, despite writing being visual information.
Apes are not sapient, as far as we know. They demonstrate one behavior that indicates an inability to understand and attain awareness of things: No ape has ever asked a question about themself. Indeed, I do not believe apes ask questions at all, though they clearly can answer questions when asked. Questions are key to understanding concepts and reasoning, and yet apes apparently lack the capability to do so.
(It is interesting to note that only one animal has ever asked a question about itself, and that was the somewhat famous African Gray Parrot, Alex. Alex asked what color he was.)
First of all, using species with atypical characteristics for the purposes of finding fault with a resolution is called species-wank. Yes, any nation can come along and say they have sapient bats who, despite having excellent hearing, fail a hearing test for some bizarre reason. This does not mean that the resolution is flawed, it means that the player's RP is ridiculous. Aside from the fact that color blindness does not mean colors are completely indistinguishable, and that dogs can indeed respond to visual cues, a sapient being, that is, one which can reason and act with appropriate judgement, should be able either pass such a test or at least ask (since they can clearly understand language) "What is Red?" or "How can I distinguish between Red and Green?".
Saying that nations can't discriminate against sapient Dolphins is forced roleplay. According to past modly ruling, WA resolutions can only change what the game allows them to change... And the game does not allow players to change the species of other nations. As such, no resolution can require an acknowledgement of the existence of non-human sapients, because that would be changing the species of another nation (by adding in a species not present before in their universe). A WA Committee tasked with ensuring non-human sapients are protected thus forces players to recognize other player's non-human sapient beings.
Of the top of my head, some resolution on endangered species and the invasive species one both absolutely require a definition of species consistent with the everyday definition.
Incorrect. Many resolutions use Committees established in prior resolutions. They do not fail house of cards because they continue to do something after the prior resolutions are repealed: that is, the committees defined in a prior resolution still exist and continue to operate.
Furthermore, I am not using a definition defined in an earlier resolution, because no resolution has ever defined species. I am saying that words have meaning assigned to them, and that saying species means one thing in one resolution makes the word mean that for all resolutions unless specifically defined in the resolution as "for the purposes of this resolution". For any nation to argue that a nation can interpret the words species to mean something in RoSS and something else entirely in another resolution, despite having the same context, is complete wank and awful creative compliance. Such a completely nonsensical nation cannot be forced to comply with any resolution, as they are willing to bend the very meanings of English words to make their non-compliance fit.
Work can mean job, yes, and it can mean force times distance. But in both cases the word has clearly delineated meaning with clear difference in context.
But in the case of the bees and the sapient beings, in both cases the word species has the same meaning, and the context is the same: species clearly appears to be a classification of life that divide larger classifications such as plants into smaller groups called "species". RoSS even provides further context by making it clear homo sapiens is an example of a species, so an idea of scale and the qualifications for species are clear.
But once again, you are using an analogy fundamentally different from your example. In your example, special concessions regarding language were given to humans, but not non-humans, which is unequal application. In your medical coverage example, no special concessions were given to anyone, they passed or failed entirely on their own merit. And I would say that is equal application. Whether or not it is "fair" is besides the point.
Your example: All humans ("white families") are given sapience tests in their native language ("personalized tax rates"), but non-humans ("minority families") must take a test in a human language ("must choose one of the tax rates given to whites"). I was pointing out that your flat tax example was fundamentally different from your example of sapience testing, because while flat taxes are equally applied, your tests showed special preference for some over others.
Fair? What is fair? Who cares if the test is "fair"? The test is not supposed to be fair, the test is supposed to result in unbiased separation between those who fit the definition of Sapient Being and those who do not. Equality of application, and a reliance solely on mental capabilities, as well as a requirement that humans are expected to be able to pass these tests (and thus a "maximum height" for raising the bar), are sufficient to result in this, I believe.
Yeah, and so could NAPA. *eyeroll*
And unlike that infamous resolution, Read the Resolution Act is pretty uncontroversial. It has no requirements that any nation would say is unreasonable to expect nations to comply with.
Any nation willing to redefine such an obvious word like "species" would be willing to redefine the words used in a definition of species. Say for example, you define species as any group of living organisms that can reproduce with each other and create viable offspring. Well, now they can define "reproduce" or "organism" and change the definition of species. The sad thing about definitions is they can only describe words with other words, and those words need to be defined.
"Rights" is key to my resolution, yet I didn't define it and you don't seem to worried about nations saying that "Rights" means cigarette rations, and thus RoSS only requires that nations grant sapient beings all the cigarrette rations granted to humans.
fortunado
TNPer
A human who wouldn't pass is grandfathered in, because all other humans can pass. Lets use that human who can't pass as our basis for this example. We will call him "Doggle". A friend of his "Peter", represents another species. They both take a test, and fail it, hard. Peter and Doggle could not pass. Peter is not sapient, lets just be honest here. Doggle, on the otherhand, got to pass because he is human, yet Peter is not. Peter is not quite happy is he? Does that get the point across?
I'm not saying we should strike out mentally ill people from this list, but I am saying that it is equally absurd to describe Peter as inadequate. Imagine if Peter was even smarter than Doggle, yet still not enough to pass. It is absurd to allow such preferential treatment, which is what this resolution gives. You can call that an inherent problem in defining sapience as a requirement to have legal rights.
I will be honest, it is possible, at least to iron out problems in your resolution. It is more stubborn to leave something in, when it can lead to such discriminatory result. This is the same as saying "Lets start burning everyone named 'Jerry'. It seems pretty nice, actually. My name isn't Jerry, so I don't think I have to worry. Let's keep the law!" Here we are, species are still being discriminated against, due to the unfair burden provided by some nation, and the circle starts over again.
I also disagree that we shouldn't fix loopholes. Loopholes are the basis of why a repeal is important. A law creates problems or ways to get out of the law. Heck, you repealed many sapient being resolutions, because they would exclude people with mental deficiencies. That is a problem, a loophole, that it excluded certain humans, despite the fact that humans should be included, or that jellyfish shouldn't be considered sapient. Those are reasons why a law fails or has problems. To believe that just because everything has loopholes, so we shouldn't do anything, would be to say that there is no reason to repeal anything. If something has problems, make it better, don't ignore the obvious problems something has.
Agree to disagree.
I will agree with the articles themselves, which highlighted the behavioral differences, and how they caused faulty results. I wish to not continue this argument, mostly because we both seem to be too stubborn to come to any agreement.
Fine, I will be a bit more careful not to do that. I will still say that a species could be affected due to behavioral concerns, but I won't say that someone will rp based off of that.
First, Thank you for explaining. I was unclear on that. There has been very little cases in the way of forced roleplay, from what I could find. Second, so we would play carefully. said committee would check to see if any species, Inside a nationstate is sapient, rather than making a general statement about all species. Done. We solved the problem, with a slight rework, and now you have a committee.
"require" and "get" are two different things. They may be very obviously related to species, as in animals, or at least one consistent with that, but they are not getting that, considering your resolution.
the mods have agreed to make Committees the only exception. Either way, believe what you wish.
Uncontroversial does not mean it won't happen. That is the whole point of a "hypothetical". And, as long as a nation makes sure that the ruler's species is sapient, and is more than just him, than he succeeds.
Except, your resolution is, in its entirety, defining species. You aren't defining the rights of an individual Beings who meet these tests are sapient. Species who have [undefined number of beings with undefined test] are sapient. You are defining how we delineate that legal right, and how we succeed in giving people sapience. Isn't that what you are doing? Here is how we define sapience, as to give them rights. We know sapient being are given rights, but we don't make the distinction of what is a "sapient being/species". You provide how, and it is this standard, which is discriminatory.
Excidium Planetis
TNPer
Well then, Doggle is obviously not a "healthy, normal adult human", right? Let's say Doggle is mentally handicapped. Now then, he may not be sapient, but he is still a human, and so deserves the rights given to mentally disabled humans. He will get those rights. He still did not pass, however, nor is he considered sapient.
Why would Peter not be happy? Neither he nor Doggle are sapient beings. Neither he nor Doggle get the rights given to sapient beings. Now, if Peter is a member of a species whose adults are normally sapient beings, and only failed because he is mentally disabled, then Peter is given the rights given to mentally disabled humans, even though he is not sapient. In that case, he has the same status as Doggle, so I don't see why he's be upset.
Or, perhaps Peter is not a member of a sapient species. Perhaps Peter is your average Orangutan. In this case, he obviously failed the test because he is not sapient. He is not given any rights, because the Orangutan is not classified as a sapient being. Perhaps, I suppose, Peter might get upset, but I find it highly unlikely that a non-sapient species would even understand the concept of missing out on rights.
But it isn't preferential treatment if Doggle and Peter are both held to the same standards. Both Doggle and Peter were tested. Both failed. In case #1, both received rights. In case #2, only Doggle received rights, but that's because Doggle was a member of a species of sapient beings and Peter wasn't, and it would be ridiculous to give the rights sapient beings give to their own species to species who aren't even sapient (I mean, really, that's like saying it is preferential to give infants medical care but not earth worms). It isn't because Doggle was grandfathered in as a human, had Doggle been a Wookie, or a Vulcan, he would have been given the same rights.
That's quite a hyperbole there. Burning everyone named Jerry is obviously a detrimental and completely arbitrary form of discrimination. If any species are left out by RoSS, it is not because of arbitrary rules, but because a minimum standard was not met. If they are left out, it is likely not universally detrimental, as some good could perhaps come out of being more exclusive than inclusive. Which is worse, accidentally not granting rights to some species, or forcing rights to be given to many species that are not sapient? I'd rather accidentally leave a few sapients out of universal medical care than start having to grant medical care to apes and dogs and Grey parrots.
I repealed one resolution, it was my own, and fixing the loophole in that case fixed more problems than it solved. I fear that your repeal here would create more problems than it would solve. Like the doctors say, "First, do no harm."
Fine.
That is actually a rather ingenius workaround, which I may implement in a replacement should anyone ever repeal RoSS.
Nevertheless, I am still unconvinced a replacement is necessary.
Could you please rephrase that? I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
Nearly every WA Resolution rests on GA#2, "Rights and Duties of WA States", including the principle that all WA nations are equal under the law, and that WA nations' sovereignty is subject to the supremacy of international law.
That is not House of Cards, because the other resolutions could still stand alone. But they operate on certain principles outlined in an earlier resolution. Likewise, RoSS can stand alone, but it operates on the underlying assumption of the definition of "species".
No it isn't.
Yes I am.
If your nation says so, sure. In Excidium Planetis, if one being meets the criterion for sapient being, the species is considered a sapient species. However, species as a whole can only be given certain rights, most rights require additional qualifications besides being merely a member of a given species (such as human).
Maybe? I don't really know what you mean here.
A sapient being is defined. What is a sapient being? Read the definition.
Sapient species is not defined. What is a sapient species? Presumably a species of sapients. Whether that is one sapient hivemind with countless drones, or a species of millions of sapients, who knows. You define it.
How is it discriminatory? There is one definition, it applies equally to everyone in the universe. Tests are given to determine who meets that definition, and they must be applied equally. Everyone who meets the definition must be given rights.