[GA - FAILED] Restrictions On Blood Sports

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fregerson

Fregerson

Secretly here
-
-
-
TNP Nation
PotatoFarmers
Discord
Freg#0420

ga.jpg

Restrictions On Blood Sports
Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Honeydewistania | Onsite Topic​

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING that sports such as bullfighting, cockfighting and dogfighting are popular amongst member nations;

HORRIFIED that in most of these cases at least one of the participants in such competitions is forced to participate, usually resulting in their death or serious injury;

BELIEVING that, for the safety and protection of all sentient beings, legislation in the form of a General Assembly resolution is needed to prevent such cruel and barbaric practices;

Hereby:

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;

2. Prohibits all forms of blood sports in which one or more of the participants did not provide consent;

3. Prohibits all forms of blood sports in which the aim is to kill the opponent, despite consent;

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;

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

Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
 
While “Restrictions on Blood Sports” sets out to achieve a commendable goal in the outlawing of fatal blood sports or those with forced participation, the proposal’s effectiveness is compromised by its execution. Despite prohibiting blood sports in which the aim is to kill the opponent, the legislation inexplicably permits such practices when the goal is “merely” to maim the opponent and both parties consent. This reliance on intent and consent undermines the proposal, as intent to only maim cannot possibly guarantee that combatants are not crippled for life or eventually succumb to their injuries; additionally, consent is unreliable at best, and can always be coerced. It is the belief of the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs that any resolution pursuant to the subject matter cannot allow such exceptions, and it is the Ministry’s recommendation that the author resubmit the otherwise respectable proposal with this in mind.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting Against the resolution, Restrictions on Blood Sports.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is currently missing quorum as of 2 am EST ftr

Very Against

Throws WA law books against wall
For the love of God can we stop defining things based on their qualification of "sapience" when that is currently such a debated term - I could be against for exclusively the usage of that qualifier again and again in this proposal

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
 
Against, as TlomzKrano stated above, I think the use of "sapient" and "non-sapient" throughout the proposal is unclear and leaves too much up to interpretation, making it either possible to completely ignore the resolution through narrowly defining sapience or over-enforcing through very loose definitions.
 
Against.

The dictionary definition of sentient is:
1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2: aware
3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

The definition of sapient is:
: possessing or expressing great sagacity

Both definitions from Merriam-Webster.

Neither word is synonymous with the word
"intelligent", yet usage of the last word strongly implies it. Homo sapiens [insert favored flavor here]. Need I say more?

So this resolution is, at worst, poorly worded or, at best, tries to accomplish two aims. An attempt at legislated morality and a poorly composed one.

Edited for the usual reasons.

Edit 2: see new post below.
 
Last edited:
Against. I don't see how Clause 4&5's difference is necessary. Furthermore, as Tlomz said above, bloodsports that heavily injure someone to a near-death situation is excluded from Clause 3, which makes 0 sense.
 
Janus:
Against.
<snip>
Click to expand...

Huh. I blew that one. No excuse but that of exhaustion and a bit of stress/distraction.

Still against.

Clause 2: as Tlomz stated.

3. Personally I have no issue with a nonforced consent to risk one's own life in such games if one is considered an adult by the member nation and possesses the rights of any other adult. If one is a condemned criminal, lacking many if not all such rights, and offered an out via this means then I'd likewise consider that consent.

4/5: I agree that there is a lack of necessary distinction between these two clauses.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top