[DRAFT] Repeal Reproductive Education Act

[Sciongrad]

Unlike what people think I meant, I was only responding to the quoted section:

It would be reasonable and absolutely within the bounds of the legislation to define an age range during which the average girl undergoes "sexual maturation."

I was arguing with that by linking to a pair of discussions proving that to be impossible.

OOC: Umm, discussions don't have any precedential value whatsoever. Your argument is still unclear to me, though, because the WA itself is not setting the defined age range.

[Excidium Planetis]

Unlike what people think I meant, I was only responding to the quoted section:

It would be reasonable and absolutely within the bounds of the legislation to define an age range during which the average girl undergoes "sexual maturation."

I was arguing with that by linking to a pair of discussions proving that to be impossible.

OOC:
It isn't impossible. Sciongrad said it was possible for individual nations to define an age range, you linked a discussion saying that the WA cannot define an age range.

It is actually ironic that those drafts made it very clear that nations could define age ranges themselves, and you are trying to tell Sciongrad that that is impossible.

[Floor 448]

Unlike what people think I meant, I was only responding to the quoted section:
I was arguing with that by linking to a pair of discussions proving that to be impossible.

OOC:
It isn't impossible. Sciongrad said it was possible for individual nations to define an age range, you linked a discussion saying that the WA cannot define an age range.

It is actually ironic that those drafts made it very clear that nations could define age ranges themselves, and you are trying to tell Sciongrad that that is impossible.

In defense, that's not exactly made clear in their post…

[Bad Libertopia]

It's funny how so many newbie ambassadors keep making that claim for some reason.

OOC: I guess I don't understand the gameplay here. I thought an individual was allowed only one nation in the WA at a time.

Is this not the nation that must guarantee compliance with WA #369?
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=wallenburg

[Wallenburg]

It's funny how so many newbie ambassadors keep making that claim for some reason.

OOC: I guess I don't understand the gameplay here. I thought an individual was allowed only one nation in the WA at a time.

Is this not the nation that must guarantee compliance with WA #369?
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=wallenburg

No. The authoring nation has no responsibility to guarantee the compliance of all other nations. Honestly, how did you come up with such a strange idea?

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: I guess I don't understand the gameplay here. I thought an individual was allowed only one nation in the WA at a time.

Is this not the nation that must guarantee compliance with WA #369?
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=wallenburg

"No. The authoring nation has no responsibility to guarantee the compliance of all other nations. Honestly, Ambassador, how did you come up with such a ridiculous notion?"

That comment was clearly marked OOC. Why are you speaking IC?

[Excidium Planetis]

It's funny how so many newbie ambassadors keep making that claim for some reason.

OOC: I guess I don't understand the gameplay here. I thought an individual was allowed only one nation in the WA at a time.

OOC: That is true. I don't understand what that has to do with anything, though.

[Bad Libertopia]

OOC: Forum-Wallenburg is disavowing any connection to...
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=Wallenburg
...while claiming authorship of a WA resolution and membership in the WA. I'm not understanding the rules apparently, since everyone here is OK with him doing that.

[Tinfect]

OOC: Forum-Wallenburg is disavowing any connection to...
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=Wallenburg
...while claiming authorship of a WA resolution and membership in the WA. I'm not understanding the rules apparently, since everyone here is OK with him doing that.

OOC:
Mate, there is is a difference between in-character, and out-of-character.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Forum-Wallenburg is disavowing any connection to...
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=Wallenburg
...while claiming authorship of a WA resolution and membership in the WA. I'm not understanding the rules apparently, since everyone here is OK with him doing that.

No, he's not. You need to read. "Forum-Wallenburg" and the nation of Wallenburg are the same thing. But Ambassador Ogenbond, the Ambassador Wallenburg speaks as In Character on these forums, never said Wallenburg was libertarian, and neither did anyone in the the nation of Wallenburg. That comment you quoted was Out of Character, meaning the only person who said it was Wallenburg the player.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Forum-Wallenburg is disavowing any connection to...
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=Wallenburg
...while claiming authorship of a WA resolution and membership in the WA. I'm not understanding the rules apparently, since everyone here is OK with him doing that.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=244222

[Bananaistan]

I think it's definitely a flaw in the resolution that it requires sexual education based on when the individual is going through sexual maturity (unless they happen to already have received it). Requiring nations to single out which students are going through puberty at a given time and provide them with sex ed right then is a stupid system. But that is what the law requires when it says:

Requires all general education services in member states to guarantee that all their students who are experiencing reproductive maturation... are educated through a reproductive education course on the nature of their species's reproduction

OOC: You do realise that puberty lasts for years? The "right then" that you complain about is actually a window of ~4 years.

[Excidium Planetis]

I think it's definitely a flaw in the resolution that it requires sexual education based on when the individual is going through sexual maturity (unless they happen to already have received it). Requiring nations to single out which students are going through puberty at a given time and provide them with sex ed right then is a stupid system. But that is what the law requires when it says:

OOC: You do realise that puberty lasts for years? The "right then" that you complain about is actually a window of ~4 years.

No, I don't think they have. They seem to think 4 year olds are fully mature just because they can give birth in rare instances.

[Bad Libertopia]

No, he's not. You need to read. "Forum-Wallenburg" and the nation of Wallenburg are the same thing. But Ambassador Ogenbond, the Ambassador Wallenburg speaks as In Character on these forums, never said Wallenburg was libertarian, and neither did anyone in the the nation of Wallenburg. That comment you quoted was Out of Character, meaning the only person who said it was Wallenburg the player.

OOC: I find the inconsistencies between "forum-Wallenburg" and the "NationStates-Wallenburg" to be too jarring:

NationStates-Wallenburg is "highly libertarian" with "Human population: 32,129,000". It is a WA member, and, according to the rules of NationStates, required to comply with WA #376.
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=wallenburg/detail=factbook/id=447401

Forum-Wallenburg's in-character Ambassador Ogenbond, insists the country he represents is not libertarian and is shocked anyone would think that. No homo sapiens live there. It is a "ridiculous notion" to think that the authoring nation (also named Wallenburg) would be responsible for the compliance of this country: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=wallenburg

I don't mind reading--but I see I have wasted my time reading about NationStates-Wallenburg's highly libertarian humans and not Forum-Wallenburg's unlibertarian non-humans. Is there a link where I can read about the latter?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Is there a link where I can read about the latter?

OOC: You can take Wallenburg's ambassador's word when he says his nation's not libertarian. That's all, really.

Many people ignore gameside nations when roleplaying - I for sure don't pretend to be able to explain having 16 billion people - and also don't roleplay according to their RL choices (Araraukar is far more extreme than my RL opinions, and that goes doubly for my puppet nations, not to mention how their RP reality differs even more from the gameside accounts).

The distinction you seem to be struggling with, when it comes to RP reality, is that even if someone says their nation does X on one of the other IC forums, that doesn't mean their nation did X in the GA forum. Many WA nations engage in RP actions that are against the WA resolutions, elsewhere on the forums. That doesn't mean they'd claim noncompliance here.

[Tinfect]

OOC: Is there a link where I can read about the latter?

OOC: You can take Wallenburg's ambassador's word when he says his nation's not libertarian. That's all, really.

Many people ignore gameside nations when roleplaying - I for sure don't pretend to be able to explain having 16 billion people - and also don't roleplay according to their RL choices (Araraukar is far more extreme than my RL opinions, and that goes doubly for my puppet nations, not to mention how their RP reality differs even more from the gameside accounts).

The distinction you seem to be struggling with, when it comes to RP reality, is that even if someone says their nation does X on one of the other IC forums, that doesn't mean their nation did X in the GA forum. Many WA nations engage in RP actions that are against the WA resolutions, elsewhere on the forums. That doesn't mean they'd claim noncompliance here.

OOC:
I'll just add to this, Wallenburg is a rather interesting case, in which its populace is, to my knowledge, a species similar, but not identical to the standard Human we have lying about in RL.

Now, when it comes to RP Reality, quite a few people, especially those like myself, that don't run a Modern Tech Nation, tend to ditch NS Stats entirely. Many MT Rpers do so as well, partially because NS Stats are batshit insane and don't make any sense at all, especially for Nations that have existed for some time.

[Bad Libertopia]

No, I don't think they have. They seem to think 4 year olds are fully mature just because they can give birth in rare instances.

In teaching the requisite biology, the students in the required courses will learn that reproductive maturity is the age or stage that an organism can first reproduce, so the adults who make the resolutions ought to acquaint themselves with the science.

WA #369 was drafted carefully with a very young student age in mind. It does not require the reproductive education course concurrent with the student learning algebra, biology, and literary analysis--it would be obvious then the student in mind were in middle school or high school. Rather, the classes must be offered along with "basic education" such as "mathematics" and "language skills". Any student who is taught 1+1=2 and the ABC's needs to learn that A is for Abortion, B is for Baby, and C is for Coitus.

WA #369 particularly impacts more developed and stable nations, which have improved nutrition. Since organisms with better nutrition will begin being reproductively capable at younger ages, WA #369 mandates that education begin much, much earlier than when society might traditionally consider puberty to occur.

If it is socially inappropriate or legally restrictive to teach about condoms and STD's to 8-year-olds and younger children, then your nation has a compliance problem to solve.

[Bananaistan]

No, I don't think they have. They seem to think 4 year olds are fully mature just because they can give birth in rare instances.

In teaching the requisite biology, the students in the required courses will learn that reproductive maturity is the age or stage that an organism can first reproduce, so the adults who make the resolutions ought to acquaint themselves with the science.

Read the resolution carefully: "... experiencing reproductive maturation ...". It makes no comment as to whether the subject matter should be thought at the commencement or at the end of reproductive maturation but simple while the student is "experiencing reproductive maturation".

WA #369 was drafted carefully with a very young student age in mind. It does not require the reproductive education course concurrent with the student learning algebra, biology, and literary analysis--it would be obvious then the student in mind were in middle school or high school. Rather, the classes must be offered along with "basic education" such as "mathematics" and "language skills". Any student who is taught 1+1=2 and the ABC's needs to learn that A is for Abortion, B is for Baby, and C is for Coitus.

This is untrue, see above, it can be any age during reproductive maturation. Typically for humans this is a process taking at least 4 years so there's a large time frame available.

WA #369 particularly impacts more developed and stable nations, which have improved nutrition. Since organisms with better nutrition will begin being reproductively capable at younger ages, WA #369 mandates that education begin much, much earlier than when society might traditionally consider puberty to occur.

Oh noes, When teh children are old to have sex and reproduce we have to teach them about the birds and the bees. Seriously, what is the issue with this?

If it is socially inappropriate or legally restrictive to teach about condoms and STD's to 8-year-olds and younger children, then your nation has a compliance problem to solve.

If your populace undergo reproductive maturation at 8 years or younger, then it is precisely the right time to teach them about such things.

[Excidium Planetis]

No, he's not. You need to read. "Forum-Wallenburg" and the nation of Wallenburg are the same thing. But Ambassador Ogenbond, the Ambassador Wallenburg speaks as In Character on these forums, never said Wallenburg was libertarian, and neither did anyone in the the nation of Wallenburg. That comment you quoted was Out of Character, meaning the only person who said it was Wallenburg the player.

OOC: I find the inconsistencies between "forum-Wallenburg" and the "NationStates-Wallenburg" to be too jarring:

NationStates-Wallenburg is "highly libertarian" with "Human population: 32,129,000". It is a WA member, and, according to the rules of NationStates, required to comply with WA #376.
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=wallenburg/detail=factbook/id=447401

Forum-Wallenburg's in-character Ambassador Ogenbond, insists the country he represents is not libertarian and is shocked anyone would think that. No homo sapiens live there. It is a "ridiculous notion" to think that the authoring nation (also named Wallenburg) would be responsible for the compliance of this country: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=wallenburg

I don't mind reading--but I see I have wasted my time reading about NationStates-Wallenburg's highly libertarian humans and not Forum-Wallenburg's unlibertarian non-humans. Is there a link where I can read about the latter?

The "Human population: 32,129,000" is in a spoiler that clearly says "OBSOLETE STATISTICS". I have no idea how you could have assumed that meant they were perfectly valid. I know that for a long time since that factbook was last edited, Wallenburg has claimed that his population is not human.

[Bad Libertopia]

This is untrue, see above, it can be any age during reproductive maturation. Typically for humans this is a process taking at least 4 years so there's a large time frame available.

And what do you tell the WA inspectors when students waddling into their scheduled reproductive education classes in year 3 or 4 that are already pregnant? Clearly you have to start the classes at the start of the 4-year-process, or somewhat beforehand.

Calculate L, the age in years, which is a Latest Start Age of a WA-required reproductive course for a given species where:

A = Age of the earliest documented live birth
G = The gestation period

According to the formula: L = A - G

Using data for a human population I cited earlier showed A = 5.5, G = 0.75, therefore L = 4.75 years.

Oh noes, When teh children are old to have sex and reproduce we have to teach them about the birds and the bees. Seriously, what is the issue with this?
That might be what you (and I) both think is a good and reasonable idea, but "what is the issue" is that the resolution mandates something much different.

[Excidium Planetis]

This is untrue, see above, it can be any age during reproductive maturation. Typically for humans this is a process taking at least 4 years so there's a large time frame available.

And what do you tell the WA inspectors when students waddling into their scheduled reproductive education classes in year 3 or 4 that are already pregnant? Clearly you have to start the classes at the start of the 4-year-process, or somewhat beforehand.

Calculate L, the age in years, which is a Latest Start Age of a WA-required reproductive course for a given species where:

A = Age of the earliest documented live birth
G = The gestation period

According to the formula: L = A - G

Using data for a human population I cited earlier showed A = 5.5, G = 0.75, therefore L = 4.75 years.

Oh noes, When teh children are old to have sex and reproduce we have to teach them about the birds and the bees. Seriously, what is the issue with this?
That might be what you (and I) both think is a good and reasonable idea, but "what is the issue" is that the resolution mandates something much different.

"Unless you are going to argue that a 4 year old has already undergone puberty completely, and all secondary sexual characteristics are developed, I don't see how you could argue that reproductive maturation is over in a 4 year old. Reproductive maturation takes years, and usually doesn't end until a human is in their teens.

"Also, 'the children are too old to have sex'? The f*** are you talking about? I'm over 30 years old and can still have sex."

[Araraukar]

And what do you tell the WA inspectors when students waddling into their scheduled reproductive education classes in year 3 or 4 that are already pregnant? Clearly you have to start the classes at the start of the 4-year-process, or somewhat beforehand.

If your species matures that early, then certainly the education should be started that early too. If you're instead saying that your species reproduces before reaching the age for sapience, then I guess you'll be fucked whether you teach them the courses or not.

[Bad Libertopia]

"Unless you are going to argue that a 4 year old has already undergone puberty completely, and all secondary sexual characteristics are developed, I don't see how you could argue that reproductive maturation is over in a 4 year old. Reproductive maturation takes years, and usually doesn't end until a human is in their teens.

Not "over" but "experiencing". When an organism is capable of reproducing itself, it is "experiencing" reproductive maturity.

[Blaccakre]

I think it's definitely a flaw in the resolution that it requires sexual education based on when the individual is going through sexual maturity (unless they happen to already have received it). Requiring nations to single out which students are going through puberty at a given time and provide them with sex ed right then is a stupid system. But that is what the law requires when it says:

OOC: You do realise that puberty lasts for years? The "right then" that you complain about is actually a window of ~4 years.

Of course I do. The law creates a requirement that children "experiencing" puberty get an education in sexual activity. So as soon as a child starts "experiencing" puberty, they must be enrolled in classes. The law is pretty clear: (1) is the child experiencing puberty? (2) Has the child previously received an education in sexual activity? If the answers are "yes" and "no" respectively, the law requires those people be enrolled in the classes.

Put another way, if Johnny starts puberty at 10 and doesn't get his sexual activity education until 14, you've failed to comply with the law, as Johnny was a person "experiencing" puberty for 4 years, had not previously had the sex activity class, and was not provided the education guaranteed by the law during that period.

[Blaccakre]

OOC: You do realise that puberty lasts for years? The "right then" that you complain about is actually a window of ~4 years.

No, I don't think they have. They seem to think 4 year olds are fully mature just because they can give birth in rare instances.

The law doesn't allow you to wait until people are "fully mature" to provide the sex activity education, and the point is that providing education to people based on when they are "experiencing" a bodily change is a stupid, stupid system. Why not, say, a system where you provide the education based on demonstrated maturity, or ability to grasp the subject matter? You know, a graduated system, perhaps even one building on the foundation of prior knowledge, where a person in Grade 2 would be expected to build on the foundation of knowledge they developed in Grade 1, and so on until they could handle more complex subjects like sexual reproduction. But I don't think local school boards could ever figure out something so reasonable on their own. Good thing the WA stepped in and set up a system where education is provided based on funny feelings and bodily changes rather than something crazy those school boards might cook up, amiright?!

I wasn't the one who made the 4-year-olds-can-have-kids comment, so please don't ascribe that to me. You completely missed my point, and the fact that puberty can happen early is not my issue at all. But way to knock over a straw man; you really showed that argument no one was making who's boss. You should retire now as I doubt you'll manage to top that accomplishment.