The Writers' Block

[Australian rePublic]

AFAIK, there hasn't been an issue on habitat fragmentation yet. I'll do up a draft tomorrow sometime, thinking something along the following lines:

Urban green spaces are actually contributing to detrimental environmental effects by fragmenting native @@ANIMAL@@ populations.
1. Connect them all up, making a fully "green city" where everything has plants
2. What are you talking about, we have plenty of green spaces. Just move all the animals outside the city and they can live there.
3. That's too expensive, we don't need animals anyway!

Option 1's not gonna work. Most national animals can't climb buildings. And this @@ANIMAL@@ is a land animal

[Australian rePublic]

Why does 1171 only have one option which takes him seriously? I want to turn think that he's serious, and turn him down lightly, but that's not an option. The only option that takes him seriously is the one where you have to date him? I do take seriously, but I don't want to date him. That aside, we have 4 options which pass off the concept of him wanting to date you as a publicity stunt, and only one that it takes it seriously. 4 to 1. That's not a good ratio

[Trotterdam]

I want to turn think that he's serious, and turn him down lightly, but that's not an option.

Dismiss button.

[The Blaatschapen]

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49294861

Is there an issue about this?

[Australian rePublic]

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49294861

Is there an issue about this?

I don't think so

[The Blaatschapen]

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49294861

Is there an issue about this?

I don't think so

Then enjoy, for whomever wants it

[Trotterdam]

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49294861

Is there an issue about this?

I believe the most similar are #349 option 3, and all of #1153.

[Australian rePublic]

That would be better as a broader question of whether the means justifies the ends

[Trotterdam]

That would be better as a broader question of whether the means justifies the ends

But the means have already been done. The question is less "Is it acceptable to perform cruel human experimentation if it produces useful scientific insight?", and more "Someone has already performed cruel human experimentation whether you like it or not, now is it acceptable to use the scientific insight gained from it?". The former wouldn't be a very controversial question, except to those of us deliberately playing evil nations. The latter is a tricky ethical issue.

You could argue that by using it, you're tacitly endorsing the methods that produced it, even though you didn't do any of it yourself and it's too late for you to prevent it. On the other hand, you could also argue that if you refuse to use it, it just means those people will have suffered and died for nothing.

[Australian rePublic]

That would be better as a broader question of whether the means justifies the ends

But the means have already been done. The question is less "Is it acceptable to perform cruel human experimentation if it produces useful scientific insight?", and more "Someone has already performed cruel human experimentation whether you like it or not, now is it acceptable to use the scientific insight gained from it?". The former wouldn't be a very controversial question, except to those of us deliberately playing evil nations. The latter is a tricky ethical issue.

You could argue that by using it, you're tacitly endorsing the methods that produced it, even though you didn't do any of it yourself and it's too late for you to prevent it. On the other hand, you could also argue that if you refuse to use it, it just means those people will have suffered and died for nothing.

Yes, yes, true. Carry on

[The Blaatschapen]

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49294861

Is there an issue about this?

I believe the most similar are #349 option 3, and all of #1153.

Thank you

That would be better as a broader question of whether the means justifies the ends

But the means have already been done. The question is less "Is it acceptable to perform cruel human experimentation if it produces useful scientific insight?", and more "Someone has already performed cruel human experimentation whether you like it or not, now is it acceptable to use the scientific insight gained from it?". The former wouldn't be a very controversial question, except to those of us deliberately playing evil nations. The latter is a tricky ethical issue.

You could argue that by using it, you're tacitly endorsing the methods that produced it, even though you didn't do any of it yourself and it's too late for you to prevent it. On the other hand, you could also argue that if you refuse to use it, it just means those people will have suffered and died for nothing.

Yes, and of course there can be the evil third option for those that enabled capital punishment. "We should redo the research ourselves, we should just speed up the time prisoners spend on death row. Why don't we perform this research on them afterwards. For Science!" ----> side effect, judges get incentives to send more people to the death penalty, to enable scientific research.

[Trotterdam]

Yes, and of course there can be the evil third option for those that enabled capital punishment. "We should redo the research ourselves, we should just speed up the time prisoners spend on death row. Why don't we perform this research on them afterwards. For Science!" ----> side effect, judges get incentives to send more people to the death penalty, to enable scientific research.

I... really don't see the point of that. If you're evil and don't see any problems with how the research was gathered the first time around, why would you redo it? That's no longer science, not even evil science, just random cruelty.

Of course an evil nation could use similar methods to gather further data that wasn't in the original book, but that feels like it's moving beyond the actual subject being discussed. Plus, the entire point is that this book really is a pretty impressively complete reference on its subject matter, which is why people want to use it so much.

For good nations there could be an option of "Let's try to re-gather the same data using more ethical means.", but really, that would probably follow automatically from refusing to use the existing book - scientists don't like not knowing stuff. This could lead to some uncomfortable conclusions if it turns out the data really is very hard to gather ethically.

I'd put it in the issue's validity that it's only assigned to nations that aren't inclined to do this kind of research themselves (although I don't think we actually have that as a flag, unfortunately), since it's a pretty trivial dilemma for the ones that are. It could work fine as a two-option issue, emphasizing the unconfortable situation with few choices because the biggest choice (to produce the book in the first place) has already been made without you, but a third compromise option could be something along the lines of "Allow doctors to use the book, but mandate that they lecture their patients about its origins each time they do." (which would have the implicit side effects of (A) doctors only resorting to the book in the most serious medical cases where they really need it, to avoid the hassle of giving that lecture, and (B) giving the patient the opportunity to make an informed decision to refuse the treatment).

[Socio Polor]

I've returned!! My constant hiatuses I've drawn me back from NS, but I'll try to devote more time here if possible! Hello Everyone again!

[Australian rePublic]

1131.2

It's too much of a leap in logic from discouraging cults to encouraging civil disobediance

[The Free Joy State]

1131.2

It's too much of a leap in logic from discouraging cults to encouraging civil disobediance

Yes.

Firstly, religion and morality/law-abiding behaviour has zero correlation.

Let me repeat that louder for the people at the back: Religion and morality/law-abiding behaviour has zero correlation.

Here's some research:

Studies conducted among American Christians, for example, have found that participants donated more money to charity and even watched less porn on Sundays. However, they compensated on both accounts during the rest of the week. As a result, there were no differences between religious and nonreligious participants on average[...]
A recent cross-cultural study showed that those who see their gods as moralizing and punishing are more impartial and cheat less in economic transactions. In other words, if people believe that their gods always know what they are up to and are willing to punish transgressors, they will tend to behave better, and expect that others will too.

Such a belief in an external source of justice, however, is not unique to religion. Trust in the rule of law, in the form of an efficient state, a fair judicial system or a reliable police force, is also a predictor of moral behavior.

And indeed, when the rule of law is strong, religious belief declines, and so does distrust against atheists.

Secondly, the option was teaching small children how to avoid brainwashing cults that stripped them of their identity. How you could get from that to "teaching civil disobedience" -- I have no idea...

[Trotterdam]

And indeed, when the rule of law is strong, religious belief declines, and so does distrust against atheists.[/box]Okay, now I'm thinking we need an issue where a religious person distraught at falling religiousness in the nation argues in favor of crippling the government and promoting anarchy in order to encourage people to rediscover their spirituality

Secondly, the option was teaching small children how to avoid brainwashing cults that stripped them of their identity. How you could get from that to "teaching civil disobedience" -- I have no idea...

It's probably the effect line, "five-year-olds who refuse to line up on command get gold stars".

[Daarwyrth]

1131.2

It's too much of a leap in logic from discouraging cults to encouraging civil disobediance

Yes.

Firstly, religion and morality/law-abiding behaviour has zero correlation.

Let me repeat that louder for the people at the back: Religion and morality/law-abiding behaviour has zero correlation.

I strongly agree. Morality and ethics were being developed by philosophers and great thinkers long before any of the modern religions took shape. It always bothers me when religious people keep insisting society will go to hell without religion because we won't have morals. People have existed for thousands of years now and even in the earliest days of civilisation they created laws and morals to not randomly kill people for example. Besides, it's atheists that are some of the most pleasant and peaceful people out there, if you ask me!

[The Free Joy State]

And indeed, when the rule of law is strong, religious belief declines, and so does distrust against atheists.[/box]Okay, now I'm thinking we need an issue where a religious person distraught at falling religiousness in the nation argues in favor of crippling the government and promoting anarchy in order to encourage people to rediscover their spirituality

It's probably the effect line, "five-year-olds who refuse to line up on command get gold stars".

I'd be nervy about basing an issue on an effect line, rather than the option.

And that was a cult-suicide reference, not a general disobedience joke.

EDIT: I quite like the "promoting anarchy in the name of religion" issue idea though.

[Japanese Schoolgirls]

Sorry to ask but is there a way for me to avoid smart quotes that causes issues with submissions?

[Trotterdam]

You know, something I've always found ironic about automobiles is how, for all that modern technology allows us to do, one of the biggest problems is where to put the thing when you're not using it.

The only issues we have right now about parking in particular are #566 (which is mainly about fines rather than parking, with only the last option really addressing parking specifically) and #896 (which is about parking in a very specific circumstance). However, in practice, the options for dealing with a parking space shortage would be pretty similar to the options for dealing with road congestion, such as #100 and options 2/4 of #727.

[Sanctaria]

Sorry to ask but is there a way for me to avoid smart quotes that causes issues with submissions?

Draft in notepad/wordpad or similar.

[Australian rePublic]

And indeed, when the rule of law is strong, religious belief declines, and so does distrust against atheists.[/box]Okay, now I'm thinking we need an issue where a religious person distraught at falling religiousness in the nation argues in favor of crippling the government and promoting anarchy in order to encourage people to rediscover their spirituality

It's probably the effect line, "five-year-olds who refuse to line up on command get gold stars".

Correct

[Australian rePublic]

Sorry to ask but is there a way for me to avoid smart quotes that causes issues with submissions?

Go back and change them. The format used on the NS forum is suitable for submission

[Trotterdam]

I guess having signed a Climate Treaty doesn't strictly prevent choosing #733 option 5, but it's still pretty funny. Didn't even kick me out of the treaty.

[Trotterdam]

EDIT: I quite like the "promoting anarchy in the name of religion" issue idea though.

I came up with an effect line too:
"citizens pray the government will become less religious"