Introduction of slavery?

[Terabithya]

Sorry if this is the wrong thread because this might also be a bug report for Technical. Terabithya just faced issue no 593 and I passed law #4 which introduced slavery despite having nothing to do with it. Option 4 is a matter of Prudism (Terabithya had this policy anyway already) but why did slavery come as policy?

[Boreal Light]

No, that option introduces Slavery. I'll agree, though, that it's a rather unconventional form of slavery...basically it results in the forced servitude of all women in your nation. Imagine the situation in Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. I do think it should be made more clear in the text, however.

Though, I kind of like that it takes the stance that if a society forces women to cover themselves head-to-toe while in public, requires that they beg male members of the household for permission to leave the house, and forces them to "obey their husbands or male relatives in all things, including their clothing choices,” that this amounts to enslavement. Some folks think this is merely being properly pious.

[The Free Joy State]

The option you chose features this text:

All women should be forced to cover themselves head-to-toe while in public, and should not venture out of the home without permission. They should obey their husbands or male relatives in all things, including their clothing choices."

These elements of force -- removing all choice from women over the course of their lives and enforcing that all women must obey their male relatives "in all things" -- are severe enough to install slavery and this change is bookmarked enough.

After all, slavery does mean: "the condition of being legally owned by someone else and forced to work for or obey them", and this option makes it very clear that women would come under the complete subjugation of men.

No changes needed.

EDIT: In future, please note that potentially unusual issue effects go in this thread.

[Terabithya]

Option 4 introduces a healthy pious family. This has nothing to do with slavery (the husband does not "own" his wife in that sense, the couple 'owns' each other in the romantic sense) nor does it (or the option) have anything to do with "fathers are free to sell their daughters to whomever they choose" which is an insult to Terabithya! Fathers don't "sell" their children, it is not addressed in the issue. Even if from your liberal point of view it might be slavery, NS must maintain a neutral point of view, and "slavery" is understood as workers being owned by their master (like you see in the policy where slaves work on the field for someone). So please change the issue effects and move this thread to the given link if necessary.

[The Free Joy State]

Option 4 introduces a healthy pious family. This has nothing to do with slavery (the husband does not "own" his wife in that sense, the couple 'owns' each other in the romantic sense) nor does it (or the option) have anything to do with "fathers are free to sell their daughters to whomever they choose" which is an insult to Terabithya! Fathers don't "sell" their children, it is not addressed in the issue. Even if from your liberal point of view it might be slavery, NS must maintain a neutral point of view, and "slavery" is understood as workers being owned by their master (like you see in the policy where slaves work on the field for someone). So please change the issue effects and move this thread to the given link if necessary.

We do not change the programmed effects based on one request, because one player is displeased. We change them because they are inaccurate -- which they are not in this case.

We did not base the stats on the effect line, but on the option, which -- as has already been addressed -- removes all life options from women and enforces obedience and subjugation (which is slavery, as the definition provided shows).

The results cannot be reversed immediately (even if they were incorrect), although there are issues that will allow you to reverse the Slavery option you installed. These will come at some point in the future (I can't say when that will be).

The option is clearly bookmarked.

No changes will be made.

Kindly consider your query closed.

[Terabithya]

situation in Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.

"The Handmaid's Tale" is obviously some liberal anti-Christian hate prolefeed which aims to show how women would be treated in a Christian country/society. It fails because women aren't treated like that by Christians. These are liberals' imagination of Christianity and "conservatism". Pure hatred and probably anti-Christian/anti-right propaganda. Perhaps there should be a reference to it in the issue but such series wouldn't be aired in Terabithya anyway. The issue has nothing to do with that dystopia.

[Terabithya]

We did not base the stats on the effect line, but on the option, which -- as has already been addressed -- removes all life options from women and enforces obedience and subjugation (which is slavery, as the definition provided shows).

And as I told you, the definition doesn't.

[The Free Joy State]

We did not base the stats on the effect line, but on the option, which -- as has already been addressed -- removes all life options from women and enforces obedience and subjugation (which is slavery, as the definition provided shows).

And as I told you, the definition doesn't.

Firstly, being forced to obey is covered by the definition.

Second, as you seem to have missed it:

Kindly consider your query closed.

[The Sladerstan]

Option 4 introduces a healthy pious family. This has nothing to do with slavery (the husband does not "own" his wife in that sense, the couple 'owns' each other in the romantic sense) nor does it (or the option) have anything to do with "fathers are free to sell their daughters to whomever they choose" which is an insult to Terabithya! Fathers don't "sell" their children, it is not addressed in the issue. Even if from your liberal point of view it might be slavery, NS must maintain a neutral point of view, and "slavery" is understood as workers being owned by their master (like you see in the policy where slaves work on the field for someone). So please change the issue effects and move this thread to the given link if necessary.

I am a Christian and that is slavery
No I'm not a liberal, no I'm not a leftist.
To me, being forced to stay home, cover themselves head to toe, and obey their husband or male relatives is in fact slavery. Those aren't traditional values. Sorry to break it to you.

[South Ccanda]

Option 4 introduces a healthy pious family. This has nothing to do with slavery (the husband does not "own" his wife in that sense, the couple 'owns' each other in the romantic sense) nor does it (or the option) have anything to do with "fathers are free to sell their daughters to whomever they choose" which is an insult to Terabithya! Fathers don't "sell" their children, it is not addressed in the issue. Even if from your liberal point of view it might be slavery, NS must maintain a neutral point of view, and "slavery" is understood as workers being owned by their master (like you see in the policy where slaves work on the field for someone). So please change the issue effects and move this thread to the given link if necessary.

Your argument hinges on the opinion I've marked in bold. Lets first define slavery in the context of the issue at hand. Oxford Dictionary states it as," a condition compared to that of a slave in respect of exhausting labor or restricted freedom." In this case, women have restricted freedoms by not having a choice but to be covered head to toe, and not allowed to do anything without the explicit command of a man. Also, the part of "Selling" daughters can mean legitimately selling your daughter2 or marrying her off to strengthen your family's standing with another family. Anyways, she doesn't have a choice in who she marries.

[Newvigen]

please try to not get too political.

All women should be forced to cover themselves head-to-toe while in public, and should not venture out of the home without permission. They should obey their husbands or male relatives in all things, including their clothing choices.

Read this part again, specifically the underlined part.

[Trotterdam]

Treating women like that certainly counts as slavery under modern sensibilities, but was historically seen as a quite different thing by the cultures that actually practiced both. More to the point, it wouldn't make sense for this option to result in a nation receiving followup issues that assume the nation has male slaves, or that assume that there is a distinction between enslaved and non-enslaved women (like #1313, where the recently-deceased had children with both).

[Terabithya]

please try to not get too political.

All women should be forced to cover themselves head-to-toe while in public, and should not venture out of the home without permission. They should obey their husbands or male relatives in all things, including their clothing choices.

Read this part again, specifically the underlined part.

There's a difference between "should" and "shall/must". The latter means you're forced to something. "Should" on the other hand concludes what would be good (in this case what a healthy family would be like).

[Old Zealand Founder]

please try to not get too political.

Read this part again, specifically the underlined part.

There's a difference between "should" and "shall/must". The latter means you're forced to something. "Should" on the other hand concludes what would be good (in this case what a healthy family would be like).

Definition of "should":
1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.

[Terabithya]

I am a Christian and that is slavery
No I'm not a liberal, no I'm not a leftist.
To me, being forced to stay home, cover themselves head to toe, and obey their husband or male relatives is in fact slavery. Those aren't traditional values. Sorry to break it to you.

No, it is a healthy family. Being covered head to toe doesn't necessarily mean headscarfs. Women (and men) can e.g. be clothed like in the Byzantine Empire. I could quote you a statement from the Holy Bible but I fear that you might leave Christian faith so I better don't do it.

[Terabithya]

There's a difference between "should" and "shall/must". The latter means you're forced to something. "Should" on the other hand concludes what would be good (in this case what a healthy family would be like).

Definition of "should":
1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.

Yes, it indicates obligation / duty / what is correct, but it doesn't mean you're forced to.

[South Ccanda]

Definition of "should":
1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.

Yes, it indicates obligation / duty / what is correct, but it doesn't mean you're forced to.

Okay, you say they "Shouldn't be forced to..." buuuut the option you chose directly states "All women should be forced to cover themselves head-to-toe while in public..." so you are giving off mixed vibes here.

[The New California Republic]

Option 4 introduces a healthy pious family. This has nothing to do with slavery

As always with issues: read the text carefully. The option that you picked is describing a state of slavery. But then again you may not think that qualifies as slavery, but that's entirely on you.

And has been said, the matter is closed, so continuing to debate this is pointless.

[The New California Republic]

Definition of "should":
1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.

Yes, it indicates obligation / duty / what is correct, but it doesn't mean you're forced to.

Seriously man, read the text carefully. It says forced. Authors can't be held accountable for you making mistakes when answering issues.

[Terabithya]

@South Canada and New Californian Republic

The main reason I passed the law was to ensure that women don't walk around seducing man to sin. Actually I shouldn't get that issue or such option at all because Prudism is already a policy in Terabithya. Instead of introducing slavery, this option should have made adultery banned. Another reason for having passed that law is that the woman must have respect towards her husband and the husband to have resposibility for his family. It's not like a woman is forced to marry someone she doesn't want to. But the consequences of choosing the option impy it despite it not being addressed as such.

[Old Zealand Founder]

@South Canada and New Californian Republic

The main reason I passed the law was to ensure that women don't walk around seducing man to sin. Actually I shouldn't get that issue or such option at all because Prudism is already a policy in Terabithya. Instead of introducing slavery, this option should have made adultery banned. Another reason for having passed that law is that the woman must have respect towards her husband and the husband to have resposibility for his family. It's not like a woman is forced to marry someone she doesn't want to. But the consequences of choosing the option impy it despite it not being addressed as such.

That's what you think happened. The issue text says otherwise.

[The New California Republic]

@South Canada and New Californian Republic

The main reason I passed the law was to ensure that women don't walk around seducing man to sin. Actually I shouldn't get that issue or such option at all because Prudism is already a policy in Terabithya. Instead of introducing slavery, this option should have made adultery banned. Another reason for having passed that law is that the woman must have respect towards her husband and the husband to have resposibility for his family. It's not like a woman is forced to marry someone she doesn't want to. But the consequences of choosing the option impy it despite it not being addressed as such.

And yet again if you do not read it or you misinterpret it then that is entirely on you. There is only so much handholding that an issue can offer before it becomes absurdly condescending.

[Terabithya]

@South Canada and New Californian Republic

The main reason I passed the law was to ensure that women don't walk around seducing man to sin. Actually I shouldn't get that issue or such option at all because Prudism is already a policy in Terabithya. Instead of introducing slavery, this option should have made adultery banned. Another reason for having passed that law is that the woman must have respect towards her husband and the husband to have resposibility for his family. It's not like a woman is forced to marry someone she doesn't want to. But the consequences of choosing the option impy it despite it not being addressed as such.

That's what you think happened. The issue text says otherwise.

Whatever, one of Terabithya's banners shows a mother and her daughter who aren't "covered head-to-toe". The banner is showing a happy family in Terabithya.

[Trsmk2]

Is this slavery?

Have you ever seen real slavery? It's just a little bit of social discrimination

[Trotterdam]

All issue options involve forcing someone to do something. Even legalizing something is forcing the police and vigilantes to stand back and do nothing while it happens. Merely saying that you think something should happen without taking steps to make it happen isn't a government action.

Banners only show one aspect of your nation at a time, and you keep old banners even after you stop qualifying for them. It's not realistically possible to always show only banners that take into account every single law you have.