NATION

PASSWORD

467: Saving your own foreskin

A place to spoil daily issues for those who haven't had them yet, snigger at typos, and discuss ideas for new ones.
User avatar
Eastern Merconitonitopia
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Oct 23, 2013
Ex-Nation

467: Saving your own foreskin

Postby Eastern Merconitonitopia » Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:30 pm

I wish to achieve 100/100 civil rights and political freedoms, which option should I choose?

The pride of Eastern Merconitonitopia's national swimming team, Samuel Cho, recently acknowledged that his parents had him circumcised when he was younger for "aerodynamic purposes". This has caused considerable debate throughout the Anarcho-Capitalist Region, and people have taken to ambushing you while you're out for your evening meal.

The Debate

1. "This is sick and wrong!" vents trilby-clad protester Calvin Leach, flinging a copy of a news article strategically between you and your meal. "How can people think that mutilating diaper parts is okay? Religions and cults be damned. As you can read in this editorial, the paper's resident doctor proves beyond doubt that non-necessary circumcision has a host of negative effects. It doesn't matter that they're a doctor of journalism and not urology; it's basically the same thing. Bar emergency medical reasons, you must make circumcision illegal in all circumstances."

2. "Oy veh! Don't get between me, my kid, and our religion!" blusters restaurateur Ariel Goldberg, admonishing the trilby-clad protester and knocking over your glass of water in the process. "This kibitzer has nothing but disdain for our way of life - or the right to privacy! There are many opinion pieces and medical papers on circumcision telling of positive effects and, for me personally, my religion demands it! Look, you're a mensch, so I know you'll allow circumcision to continue; and, more importantly, allow parents to decide on circumcision if the bubalas are too young."

3. "Hey now, there is room for compromise," interjects Fanny Chicago, a cosmetic surgeon at a nearby table, as she pockets a butter knife to add to her collection. "You see, we could ban all elective surgical procedures until a certain age, and then let the patients themselves make informed decisions on whether they want these procedures or not. It will take some extra funding to actually teach kids about different surgeries, to be sure, but that should have no negative effects on the population. I hope. Nonetheless, you can't put a price on informed decisions!"

4. "You people are all rather annoying," sighs Cooper Neumann, your friend and dinner guest who has had to sit through the preceding debate while trying, at the same time, to eat currywurst. "Leader, do me a favor and teach these disrespectful intruders a lesson in etiquette. Make all body modification illegal. Yes, illegal - under all circumstances, medical need or no. That will show these three for daring to interrupt our lovely evening. On the bright side, it should also disrupt that awful 'body-mod' scene that is simply ... distasteful."

User avatar
Hillary Clinton 2016-2024
Minister
 
Posts: 3414
Founded: Nov 06, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Hillary Clinton 2016-2024 » Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:37 pm

Option three
NS quotes I like
[spoiler]
Napkiraly wrote:
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Cruz has been having an affair with Trump, can confirm.

They're making their erections great again.

User avatar
Trotterdam
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10541
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Wed Dec 30, 2015 7:10 pm

Eastern Merconitonitopia wrote:I wish to achieve 100/100 civil rights and political freedoms, which option should I choose?
Either 2 or 3.

I think 2 would count as giving more civil rights. (The rights of parents generally count for more than the rights of children in the game, and rights being curtailed by the government counts for more than letting citizens infringe each others' rights.)

User avatar
Dingbats
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: Jan 14, 2014
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Dingbats » Thu Dec 31, 2015 1:04 am

Trotterdam wrote:
Eastern Merconitonitopia wrote:I wish to achieve 100/100 civil rights and political freedoms, which option should I choose?
Either 2 or 3.

I think 2 would count as giving more civil rights. (The rights of parents generally count for more than the rights of children in the game, and rights being curtailed by the government counts for more than letting citizens infringe each others' rights.)
That was more or less my reasoning, but my civil rights dropped by 4 points (93>89) after picking 2. So, I would definitively go with 3.

User avatar
Drachmaland
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 439
Founded: Dec 14, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Drachmaland » Thu Dec 31, 2015 1:42 am

Trotterdam wrote:I think 2 would count as giving more civil rights. (The rights of parents generally count for more than the rights of children in the game, and rights being curtailed by the government counts for more than letting citizens infringe each others' rights.)

I'd really need some solid proof for that (and some real examples) — and I mean both for options 467.2/3 having a positive effect on Civil Rights and for the generalization about parents-vs-children rights (cf. options 183.1 and 341.1).
Keeping in mind what Dingbats experienced with option 467.2, I gotta say I'm not sure even for option 467.3 boosting Civil Rights (I'm afraid that "banning" anything affects them negatively in general), but I'll test it anyhow to see what happens.
Last edited by Drachmaland on Thu Dec 31, 2015 1:43 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Freelibreland
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 10
Founded: Aug 05, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Freelibreland » Thu Dec 31, 2015 10:45 am

Option 3 decreased my civil rights.

User avatar
Drachmaland
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 439
Founded: Dec 14, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Drachmaland » Thu Dec 31, 2015 11:39 am

Drachmaland wrote:
Trotterdam wrote:I think 2 would count as giving more civil rights. (The rights of parents generally count for more than the rights of children in the game, and rights being curtailed by the government counts for more than letting citizens infringe each others' rights.)

I'd really need some solid proof for that (and some real examples) — and I mean both for options 467.2/3 having a positive effect on Civil Rights and for the generalization about parents-vs-children rights (cf. options 183.1 and 341.1).
Keeping in mind what Dingbats experienced with option 467.2, I gotta say I'm not sure even for option 467.3 boosting Civil Rights (I'm afraid that "banning" anything affects them negatively in general), but I'll test it anyhow to see what happens.

My test for option 467.3 led to a 98 Civil Rights rating to drop to 92.
Thankfully I was sane enough to dismiss this issue to all of my nations that really matter to me. 8)
Last edited by Drachmaland on Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Drachmaland
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 439
Founded: Dec 14, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Drachmaland » Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:47 pm

Btw let me state that imo the worded effect of option 467.3 (i.e. "teenagers performing appendectomies on their friends has become a popular schoolyard prank") is quite off — as appendectomy is typically an urgent rather than an elective procedure (which are the only ones banned until a certain age, under this legislation).
Last edited by Drachmaland on Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sanctaria
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7922
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:49 pm

Drachmaland wrote:Btw let me state that imo the worded effect of option 467.3 (i.e. "teenagers performing appendectomies on their friends has become a popular schoolyard prank") is quite off — as appendectomy is typically an urgent rather than an elective procedure (which are the only ones banned until a certain age, under this legislation).

It will take some extra funding to actually teach kids about different surgeries

Children are taught a variety of surgeries, not just elective ones.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258

Dr. Bethany Greer CMD, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
GA#590 (Co)
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

Auralia wrote:Your condescending attitude is remarkably annoying.

User avatar
Drachmaland
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 439
Founded: Dec 14, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Drachmaland » Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:50 pm

Sanctaria wrote:
Drachmaland wrote:Btw let me state that imo the worded effect of option 467.3 (i.e. "teenagers performing appendectomies on their friends has become a popular schoolyard prank") is quite off — as appendectomy is typically an urgent rather than an elective procedure (which are the only ones banned until a certain age, under this legislation).

It will take some extra funding to actually teach kids about different surgeries

Children are taught a variety of surgeries, not just elective ones.

Ah, they're taught how to perform them, as well — that's way cool! :lol:

User avatar
Sanctaria
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7922
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:53 pm

Drachmaland wrote:
Sanctaria wrote:
It will take some extra funding to actually teach kids about different surgeries

Children are taught a variety of surgeries, not just elective ones.

Ah, they're taught how to perform them, as well — that's way cool! :lol:

Sometimes the effects are exaggerated, unintended, and nonsensical. This is intended, and an important part of NS issues.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258

Dr. Bethany Greer CMD, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
GA#590 (Co)
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

Auralia wrote:Your condescending attitude is remarkably annoying.

User avatar
Trotterdam
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10541
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Thu Dec 31, 2015 1:42 pm

Drachmaland wrote:appendectomy is typically an urgent rather than an elective procedure
Even if it's normally done for urgent reasons, you can still do it as an elective procedure, too. It may not be a good idea, but you can.

Letting people do stuff even when they don't need to is what "elective" means.

Drachmaland wrote:Ah, they're taught how to perform them, as well -- that's way cool! :lol:
What gets me is how you can perform surgery on someone as a "prank".

Surgery isn't a quick activity. It's not just something you can spring on someone as a surprise, and an unwilling participant would be able to put up a reasonable struggle, which puts it beyond the "prank" line.

I guess if you ambushed someone with anaesthetic fast enough, you'd be able to finish the surgery before he wakes up and realizes what happened.

User avatar
Drachmaland
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 439
Founded: Dec 14, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Drachmaland » Thu Dec 31, 2015 5:02 pm

Trotterdam, typically always. :)

As far as the "prank" thing is concerned, well it's obviously the nonsensical NS element Sanctaria talked about.

User avatar
Trotterdam
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10541
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Sat Feb 13, 2016 11:41 pm

Rather late, but...

Drachmaland wrote:
Trotterdam wrote:I think 2 would count as giving more civil rights. (The rights of parents generally count for more than the rights of children in the game, and rights being curtailed by the government counts for more than letting citizens infringe each others' rights.)
I'd really need some solid proof for that (and some real examples) — and I mean both for options 467.2/3 having a positive effect on Civil Rights and for the generalization about parents-vs-children rights (cf. options 183.1 and 341.1).
I just had the opportunity to test #148 Spare The Rod, Demand Welfare Activists option 1, "parents live in fear of governmental 'child protection' squads", and it reduced Civil Rights by 1 point, confirming that my memory was accurate: restricting parents' rights, even in the name of child welfare, reduces Civil Rights. I didn't test if option 2 raises Civil Rights, but on an issue with only two options that clearly reflect opposite stances it would be rather silly for them to not do approximately opposite things.

Legalizing abortion also consistently raises Civil Rights in the game, but #148 is a clearer example because it's about already-born children.

However, I have also observed firsthand that, as other posters have noted, option 2 on this issue reduces Civil Rights, despite being the same kind allowing-parents-to-raise-their-children-however-they-want-even-if-you-disapprove that increases Civil Rights elsewhere, so I have no idea what the editors were thinking.

I especially cannot fathom any logic to both option 2 and option 3 reducing civil rights, despite that being exactly what has been attested so far. Option 2 offers ideal rights for parents (and has the least government intervention in general), while option 3 offers ideal rights for children (they can have a circumcision if they want to, once they're old enough to give informed consent, but their parents can't make them). Options 1 and 4 are both framed as flat-out banning something, which is exactly the kind of thing that should be reducing your freedoms.

I can only conclude that someone on the editing team really hates circumcision.

User avatar
Drachmaland
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 439
Founded: Dec 14, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Drachmaland » Sun Feb 14, 2016 4:01 am

Trotterdam wrote:Rather late, but...

Drachmaland wrote:I'd really need some solid proof for that (and some real examples) — and I mean both for options 467.2/3 having a positive effect on Civil Rights and for the generalization about parents-vs-children rights (cf. options 183.1 and 341.1).
I just had the opportunity to test #148 Spare The Rod, Demand Welfare Activists option 1, "parents live in fear of governmental 'child protection' squads", and it reduced Civil Rights by 1 point, confirming that my memory was accurate: restricting parents' rights, even in the name of child welfare, reduces Civil Rights. I didn't test if option 2 raises Civil Rights, but on an issue with only two options that clearly reflect opposite stances it would be rather silly for them to not do approximately opposite things.

Legalizing abortion also consistently raises Civil Rights in the game, but #148 is a clearer example because it's about already-born children.

I don't feel Issue #148 provides a handy case, for in my tests both options reduce Civil Rights in medium-or-high-civil-rights nations, and both options increase Civil Rights (and I mean a lot: +6) in outlawed-civil-rights nations.

Still, issue #148 does have a connection to #467 in my book: They both carry a huge DISMISS caution marking, for any nation that cares even the slightest for their civil rights. :)

If we are to take the various abortion-related issues and options, please take into account this huge (imho) inconsistency: When you choose to abort one embryo (and there's no birth eventually), you get more Civil Rights. When you abort possibly a few more embryos and there's eventually a birth (option 183.1), then you lose Civil Rights. :blink:

User avatar
Marshite Ponies
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 136
Founded: Jul 03, 2013
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Marshite Ponies » Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:41 pm

My Civil Rights went up by 2.9% on option 2.
Member of the Romani-Marshite Union.
Marshite Ponies is ranked 1st in Borealias for Largest Defense Forces.

User avatar
The Otter Archipelago
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 112
Founded: Aug 31, 2011
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby The Otter Archipelago » Tue May 03, 2016 1:05 pm


User avatar
Okefenokee Swamp
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 9
Founded: Apr 10, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Okefenokee Swamp » Tue May 03, 2016 11:49 pm

The Otter Archipelago wrote:Youch.

Option 2:
http://imgur.com/RYmT1B4

Yeah, It's an another issue that's dismissed by most of my puppets.
Options 1, 3 and 4 also lower Civil Rights. In other words: all of them do that. And by proxy, all options also lower Recreational Drug Use and nudity, and raise Social Conservatism. And options 1, 2 and 4 lower Intelligence, while 3 leaves it unchanged.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Got Issues?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads