NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate] - Version 3

[Oneracon]

Only parents should be able to inflict APPROPRIATE forms of corporal punishment.

There is no such thing as "appropriate" corporal punishment. Raising your hand to a child is child abuse.

[The Nihilistic view]

I shall begin the debate by stating my opposition against the Restriction of Corporal Punishment Act. My reasons for disagreement are
-The act is way too vague and pretty much bans any form of corporal punishment whatsoever
-This act, while stopping child abuse, also limits the rights of parents to punish their children. I believe a more appropriate version of this act should ban excessive corporal punishment
-This act is pretty much unenforceable and a waste of our time. Making spanking children illegal is not the solution. I protest against child abuse but this is not the right solution. This situation resembles a situation in which, in order to combat automobile deaths, a legislator submits a bill banning all cars. A more appropriate bill would be requiring safe driving procedures rather than just banning cars. Same in this case as this bill is to vague and bans all form of corporate punishment. I think a better bill should ban specific types of corporal punishment and should ban institutions, schools, and such from punishing children this way. Only parents should be able to inflict APPROPRIATE forms of corporal punishment.

Also the fact is that evolution has taught our subconscious to react to pain and teach us not do things that cause us pain a second time. Punishments such as smacking remain the best way of disciplining young children who are yet to be able to understand reason and teach them that a certain pattern of behavior is wrong.

[Oneracon]

Also reposting this to make sure it gets noticed.

In line with the admin ruling on what we were to do, we shall now begin debate on Order C and then proceed to a vote (no new legislation will be accepted to Order, anything added now will be debated and voted on the next time reach order), following this we shall debate Misc B and conclude that category before proceeding as normal.


Debate has now begun on Order

Order
To deal with issues pertinent to the Interior and Justice ministries

---

Section C
- Restriction of Corporal Punishment Act
- Criminalisation of Hate Speech Act
- First Amendment to the Internal Security Act
-Improved Firearms Safety and Licencing Act
-Private Security Regulation and Licencing Act
-Aurentine Information Sharing Act
-Blues and Twos Act
-Firearms Licensing and Reasonable Restrictions Act
-Protection of Workers Act

You got too many acts at debate here, the bottom two need to be put in section D.

[Britanno]

Only parents should be able to inflict APPROPRIATE forms of corporal punishment.

There is no such thing as "appropriate" corporal punishment. Raising your hand to a child is child abuse.

Agreed. While this law will be hard to enforce all the time, it is much needed. I, for one, am disgusted by the honourable senator's words.

[The Nihilistic view]

Only parents should be able to inflict APPROPRIATE forms of corporal punishment.

There is no such thing as "appropriate" corporal punishment. Raising your hand to a child is child abuse.

I happen to think that wrapping one's child in cotton wool and not disciplining them properly is child abuse. Since you are so inclined to tell me I should feel abused by being smacked a few times when I was younger. I have to tell you I feel it was something that helped in both my development as a conscientious human being who thinks about how one's actions will effect others before carrying them out. This modern age see's a generation of self-centered spoilt brat's, who in many cases have no respect for anything other than their own personal desire. I credit one of the things that prevented me from following this increasing norm to be mild corporal punishment.

[Neo Rome Republic]

There is no such thing as "appropriate" corporal punishment. Raising your hand to a child is child abuse.

I happen to think that wrapping one's child in cotton wool and not disciplining them properly is child abuse. Since you are so inclined to tell me I should feel abused by being smacked a few times when I was younger. I have to tell you I feel it was something that helped in both my development as a conscientious human being who thinks about how one's actions will effect others before carrying them out. This modern age see's a generation of self-centered spoilt brat's, who in many cases have no respect for anything other than their own personal desire. I credit one of the things that prevented me from following this increasing norm to be mild corporal punishment.

How do you account for those who are kind to others, feel empathy, and never faced corporal punishment?

[Oneracon]

There is no such thing as "appropriate" corporal punishment. Raising your hand to a child is child abuse.

I happen to think that wrapping one's child in cotton wool and not disciplining them properly is child abuse. Since you are so inclined to tell me I should feel abused by being smacked a few times when I was younger. I have to tell you I feel it was something that helped in both my development as a conscientious human being who thinks about how one's actions will effect others before carrying them out. This modern age see's a generation of self-centered spoilt brat's, who in many cases have no respect for anything other than their own personal desire. I credit one of the things that prevented me from following this increasing norm to be mild corporal punishment.

So while we're making exceptions for physical assault of children because it is "corrective" action by their parents, should we be making exceptions for someone physically assaulting their spouse because it is "corrective"?

Surely correcting someone having no respect for anything other than their own personal desire is something that should not be bound by age.

[Senate President pro Tempore]

In line with the admin ruling on what we were to do, we shall now begin debate on Order C and then proceed to a vote (no new legislation will be accepted to Order, anything added now will be debated and voted on the next time reach order), following this we shall debate Misc B and conclude that category before proceeding as normal.


Debate has now begun on Order

Order
To deal with issues pertinent to the Interior and Justice ministries

---

Section C
- Restriction of Corporal Punishment Act
- Criminalisation of Hate Speech Act
- First Amendment to the Internal Security Act
-Improved Firearms Safety and Licencing Act
-Private Security Regulation and Licencing Act
-Aurentine Information Sharing Act
-Blues and Twos Act
-Firearms Licensing and Reasonable Restrictions Act
-Protection of Workers Act

You got too many acts at debate here, the bottom two need to be put in section D.

I am aware of the amount of bills, however it is my desire to get Order out the way as soon as possible so we can get back on track following the confusion of a few days ago.

It is two additional bills of reasonable length, additionally if people debated everything instead of one bill like they usually do you'd find that you will have enough time to debate all the bills at hand.

Order C shall remain as it is, we shall debate, we shall vote and we shall move on.

Swift and simple and there is no need for further confusion

- Battlion

[Lamaredia]

Then perhaps we should increase the debate time?

If so, I motion for the debate time to be extended by 12 hours (or whatever it is per bill)

[Senate President pro Tempore]

Then perhaps we should increase the debate time?

If so, I motion for the debate time to be extended by 12 hours (or whatever it is per bill)

I'd second the motion and approve whatever I gotta do, although really I don't see why people can't debate multiple bills at a time instead of this "we must debate one bill for days before voting on all of them" attitude we have.

[The Nihilistic view]

You got too many acts at debate here, the bottom two need to be put in section D.

I am aware of the amount of bills, however it is my desire to get Order out the way as soon as possible so we can get back on track following the confusion of a few days ago.

It is two additional bills of reasonable length, additionally if people debated everything instead of one bill like they usually do you'd find that you will have enough time to debate all the bills at hand.

Order C shall remain as it is, we shall debate, we shall vote and we shall move on.

Swift and simple and there is no need for further confusion

- Battlion

That is not the law. You can't break it because you feel like it Batt.

[Lamaredia]

I am aware of the amount of bills, however it is my desire to get Order out the way as soon as possible so we can get back on track following the confusion of a few days ago.

It is two additional bills of reasonable length, additionally if people debated everything instead of one bill like they usually do you'd find that you will have enough time to debate all the bills at hand.

Order C shall remain as it is, we shall debate, we shall vote and we shall move on.

Swift and simple and there is no need for further confusion

- Battlion

That is not the law. You can't break it because you feel like it Batt.

I think that the admins overruled that so that everything in C shall be done immediately.

EDIT: And seriously, remove the NLP part from your sig.

[Battlion]

That is not the law. You can't break it because you feel like it Batt.

I think that the admins overruled that so that everything in C shall be done immediately.

Exactly this, the admins ruled order was to be done so we could do Misc... I'm following the admin rules buddy.

Just debate multiple bills at once, only requires a few more sentences per post.

[Ainin]

Order C shall remain as it is, we shall debate, we shall vote and we shall move on.

Actually, the 1A-SIMBEDS directly contradicts this. Please separate order into C and D.

(Pretend this is written from the admin account, I'm on mobile)

[The Nihilistic view]

I think that the admins overruled that so that everything in C shall be done immediately.

Exactly this, the admins ruled order was to be done so we could do Misc... I'm following the admin rules buddy.

Just debate multiple bills at once, only requires a few more sentences per post.

No your not............buddy. MV came up with that ruling when there were not enough bills for a section D.

[Kamchastkia]

Order C shall remain as it is, we shall debate, we shall vote and we shall move on.

Actually, the 1A-SIMBEDS directly contradicts this. Please separate order into C and D.

(Pretend this is written from the admin account, I'm on mobile)

Then you the admins need to stop making contradictory statements.

[The Nihilistic view]

Actually, the 1A-SIMBEDS directly contradicts this. Please separate order into C and D.

(Pretend this is written from the admin account, I'm on mobile)

Then you the admins need to stop making contradictory statements.

Its not contradictory, what part of "when MV made that ruling there were not enough bills for a section D" don't you understand? They have not done anything contradictory in the slightest.

[Ainin]

Actually, the 1A-SIMBEDS directly contradicts this. Please separate order into C and D.

(Pretend this is written from the admin account, I'm on mobile)

Then you the admins need to stop making contradictory statements.

The original ruling was made when the context was different. There is no contradiction, just an update reflective of changing circumstances.

[Kamchastkia]

Then you the admins need to stop making contradictory statements.

The original ruling was made when the context was different. There is no contradiction, just an update reflective of changing circumstances.

You are contradicting a prior decision, that is contradiction.

[Senate President pro Tempore]

Order
To deal with issues pertinent to the Interior and Justice ministries

---

Section C
- Restriction of Corporal Punishment Act
- Criminalisation of Hate Speech Act
- First Amendment to the Internal Security Act
-Improved Firearms Safety and Licencing Act
-Private Security Regulation and Licencing Act
-Aurentine Information Sharing Act
-Blues and Twos Act

I have updated the queue, somewhat stupidly... This queue is so inefficient it's unbelievable... Might have to propose some more amendments myself and people wonder why we have bills from ages ago waiting to be voting on.

Please debate the bills above, time will not be extended etc..

- Battlion

[The Nihilistic view]

I happen to think that wrapping one's child in cotton wool and not disciplining them properly is child abuse. Since you are so inclined to tell me I should feel abused by being smacked a few times when I was younger. I have to tell you I feel it was something that helped in both my development as a conscientious human being who thinks about how one's actions will effect others before carrying them out. This modern age see's a generation of self-centered spoilt brat's, who in many cases have no respect for anything other than their own personal desire. I credit one of the things that prevented me from following this increasing norm to be mild corporal punishment.

So while we're making exceptions for physical assault of children because it is "corrective" action by their parents, should we be making exceptions for someone physically assaulting their spouse because it is "corrective"?

Surely correcting someone having no respect for anything other than their own personal desire is something that should not be bound by age.

If you read my prior post on the matter you will see that there is no need to ask this for I already clarified what you wish to know in an above post.

[The IASM]

Only parents should be able to inflict APPROPRIATE forms of corporal punishment.

There is no such thing as "appropriate" corporal punishment. Raising your hand to a child is child abuse.

No its not, a life of only happiness makes it ever more painful and ever more bitter when the hammer smacks down.

[Phocidaea]

Hoo boy, "hate speech", also known as "I have a paper-thin skin".

Certainly, we should ban legitimate hate speech that actually incites violence against people. But banning insulting people is both difficult to enforce and a ludicrous infringement of even the vaguest and uncodified notions of free speech.

[Ainin]

Hate speech is already a crime (International Law Act), this just adds punishment.

[Phocidaea]

Hate speech is already a crime

Since when? What clause? I must have voted without reading the whole bill for once.

Also, if hate speech is defined there as including insults that do not incite violence, then we best leave it unpunished, because that's ridiculous.