[Submitted] Escort Health Act & Escort Education Act

[The New California Republic]

Actually, a proposal goes to the floor so long as:

1. it has reached quorum; and
2. legal votes >= illegal votes.

What you called illegal just reached 100 WA Delegates support

OOC: Entirely irrelevant. A thousand delegates could support it, but if it is illegal then it is illegal, the number of approvals doesn't matter.

[Latrovia]

OOC: Just because you doubt it, it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened that way. I sincerely feel like this was an unorthodox attempt to get the bill somehow down. I personally don't agree with Christian Democrat or his verdict as it is based not in facts but basically his personal wishes.

OOC: That is a pretty bold accusation to make, an accusation that is not based on anything but your personal feelings on the matter, and willingly disregards the reason that Christian Democrats has already given, namely that it is illegal because of a category violation.

If it ia true as he says and this is illegal, I'd like to see all the material that deema it illegal instead from just his personal thought on the matter.

OOC: Christian Democrats has already given a valid reason...

Are you actually joking? Calling a bill illegal while explained as to why it is not. Ignoring all arguments, facts etc and then simply act like saying "Nope I'll keep this illegal just because I want to" makes his argument valid? I want to see proofs that this bill actually needs to go on an other category. CD has not given any bold reasons, he has not even answered properly any of the previous questions.

When he does I will retract my statement.

[Araraukar]

So why would it matter if the customer is pleasuring themselves during the phone call because the worker isn't physically touching the customer correct ? So since there is no physical contact there is also no illegal activities going on.

Yes He did talk about the customer "pleasuring themselves"

OOC: Actually, you did, like you so helpfully quoted above.

but if that has no connection to them using genitals on each other because that is not possible to do through a phone. See what I was talking about now.

Read your own proposal text. "Usage" does not mean "using them on one another", it only means "using them". If you want your proposal to say something, you actually need to write it in.

Also, it's not like you got blindsided by the category issues. Multiple people pointed it out. Additionally I'd like to thank CD for using his time during Christmas (which I know is an important holiday in his religion ) to act in his GenSec capacity. If necessary, once I'm not on a mobile device, I'll draft up a proper challenge if someone doesn't beat me to it.

[The New California Republic]

Are you actually joking?

OOC: No, I am serious. Christian Democrats has given a reason. Ignoring the reason that they have given does not make said reason disappear.

Calling a bill illegal while explained as to why it is not. Ignoring all arguments, facts etc and then simply act like saying "Nope I'll keep this illegal just because I want to" makes his argument valid? I want to see proofs that this bill actually needs to go on an other category. CD has not given any bold reasons, he has not even answered properly any of the previous questions.

When he does I will retract my statement.

OOC: Again, Christian Democrats has given reasons. Just because you choose to ignore them doesn't mean that said reasons don't exist. Christian Democrats clearly and correctly stated that there is a category violation. Even Bears Armed said that this proposal needed more time for drafting, and that is proved by the fact that it does not seem to fit into the chosen category.

[The New California Republic]

but if that has no connection to them using genitals on each other because that is not possible to do through a phone. See what I was talking about now.

Read your own proposal text. "Usage" does not mean "using them on one another", it only means "using them". If you want your proposal to say something, you actually need to write it in.

OOC: I also tried to hammer this point home, but to no avail.

[United Republic Empire]

Are you actually joking?

OOC: No, I am serious. Christian Democrats has given a reason. Ignoring the reason that they have given does not make said reason disappear.

Calling a bill illegal while explained as to why it is not. Ignoring all arguments, facts etc and then simply act like saying "Nope I'll keep this illegal just because I want to" makes his argument valid? I want to see proofs that this bill actually needs to go on an other category. CD has not given any bold reasons, he has not even answered properly any of the previous questions.

When he does I will retract my statement.

OOC: Again, Christian Democrats has given reasons. Just because you choose to ignore them doesn't mean that said reasons don't exist. Christian Democrats clearly and correctly stated that there is a category violation. Even Bears Armed said that this proposal needed more time for drafting, and that is proved by the fact that it does not seem to fit into the chosen category.

1) nobody is ignoring his personal decision - We're asking him to explain it - Do you understand that part
2) The proposal sat in Drafting for a week and apparently 100+ delegates approve of it in its current form.

If you are trying to flamebait us into a heated argument. Please do not. It's as if you only reading the most recent post and making a comment on just that.

[The New California Republic]

1) nobody is ignoring his personal decision - We're asking him to explain it - Do you understand that part

OOC: But he already explained it...

2) The proposal sat in Drafting for a week and apparently 100+ delegates approve of it in its current form.

OOC: Proposals can take months to draft, so a week is a relatively short time. The 100 approvals is also irrelevant if it is illegal.

If you are trying to flamebait us into a heated argument. Please do not. It's as if you only reading the most recent post and making a comment on just that.

OOC: No, I am most definitely not flamebaiting. I am discussing the issue at hand in a reasonable manner. If you really feel that I am flamebaiting, then feel free to open a report in Moderation.

[Araraukar]

2) The proposal sat in Drafting for a week

OOC: During which time you called no attention to a new draft and which week happened to be the one right before Christmas. Some of us have lives in the RL world that can get a bit busy during this time of the year.

OOC: I also tried to hammer this point home, but to no avail.

OOC: Like you could see from what he quoted, I've tried that multiple times already... *sigh*

[The New California Republic]

OOC: I also tried to hammer this point home, but to no avail.

OOC: Like you could see from what he quoted, I've tried that multiple times already... *sigh*

OOC: The language of the proposal needs tightening up, it probably needs at least another month in the drafting stage before it is ready for submission. This is one of those proposals that, had it not been ruled illegal, would have been a prime target of one or more repeal attempts because of the vague language.

[Stoskavanya]

To bring the discussion someplace else, i'm bamboozled that this lackluster legislation got a quorum at all.

Firstly there still has been no explanation as to why escorts need this vague increase of healthcare/education at all. One delegate has mentioned that escorts are somehow marginalized in society, which I find dubious; compared to so many other segments of society, I doubt that escorts, of whom usually accompany well off individuals, are so disenfranchised as opposed to others that they cant get access to healthcare or education.

Second, the other parts of the legislation seem almost like non sequiters to me. Why are phone hotlines even mentioned? Are you saying that phone workers who have no physical contact with clients really need better healthcare? Why do sex toys necessitate international legislation to ensure "quality manufacturing" over literally any other product that people handle.

If you feel that your country needs something to address this issue in your country, do it, but there is absolutely no reason for international regulation. The only reason I can see a nation support this is so that they can inevitably blast it afterwards and snag an easy repeal under their name.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

OOC: Like you could see from what he quoted, I've tried that multiple times already... *sigh*

OOC: The language of the proposal needs tightening up, it probably needs at least another month in the drafting stage before it is ready for submission. This is one of those proposals that, had it not been ruled illegal, would have been a prime target of one or more repeal attempts because of the vague language.

I don't believe that that is what is being argued here. Whether you like the proposal itself is a matter for your personal vote: we are arguing whether it has met the criteria for being considered 'social justice.' I will not repeat myself yet again, however I would like a reason from Christian Cemocrats or another Gen Sec member why this does not meet the criteria to be considered 'social justice.'

[The New California Republic]

OOC: The language of the proposal needs tightening up, it probably needs at least another month in the drafting stage before it is ready for submission. This is one of those proposals that, had it not been ruled illegal, would have been a prime target of one or more repeal attempts because of the vague language.

I don't believe that that is what is being argued here.

OOC: The language of the Proposal was most definitely being argued, look at all the pages of this thread, namely the posts by Araraukar et al.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

To bring the discussion someplace else, i'm bamboozled that this lackluster legislation got a quorum at all.

Firstly there still has been no explanation as to why escorts need this vague increase of healthcare/education at all. One delegate has mentioned that escorts are somehow marginalized in society, which I find dubious; compared to so many other segments of society, I doubt that escorts, of whom usually accompany well off individuals, are so disenfranchised as opposed to others that they cant get access to healthcare or education.

Second, the other parts of the legislation seem almost like non sequiters to me. Why are phone hotlines even mentioned? Are you saying that phone workers who have no physical contact with clients really need better healthcare? Why do sex toys necessitate international legislation to ensure "quality manufacturing" over literally any other product that people handle.

If you feel that your country needs something to address this issue in your country, do it, but there is absolutely no reason for international regulation. The only reason I can see a nation support this is so that they can inevitably blast it afterwards and snag an easy repeal under their name.

Are you attempting to call supporters of this legislation as somehow chancers?
I feel that is a rather bold assumption to make: as someone who has approved of this legislation from the start, I believe that the legislation is entirely justified as:

• Sex toys are often cheaply manufactured and not protected by such safety legislation as, say, childrens toys despite the fact that they enter a very senseative area of the body.
• It is highly likely that nations which discriminate against sex workers do so on religious grounds, thus making their specific protection necisary to prevent injustices which hurt many others from hurting sex workers spacificly.
• Their is a far higher rate of abuse amongst sex workers than much of the population at large, making their access to healthcare and education mandatory.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I don't believe that that is what is being argued here.

OOC: The language of the Proposal was most definitely being argued, look at all the pages of this thread, namely the posts by Araraukar et al.

The pertanant issue is whether this is a category violation. If you feel the language of the proposal is insufficient, please inform us as to why following the address of the main, pertanant issue. Please do not try to drive the discussion off track.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: The language of the Proposal was most definitely being argued, look at all the pages of this thread, namely the posts by Araraukar et al.

The pertanant issue is whether this is a category violation. If you feel the language of the proposal is insufficient, please inform us as to why following the address of the main, pertanant issue. Please do not try to drive the discussion off track.

OOC: I really wasn't. I was responding to something that Araraukar said, that's all. But that being said, how is the language of the Proposal not a pertinent issue? It has been discussed on every page of this thread so far...

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The pertanant issue is whether this is a category violation. If you feel the language of the proposal is insufficient, please inform us as to why following the address of the main, pertanant issue. Please do not try to drive the discussion off track.

OOC: I really wasn't. I was responding to something that Araraukar said, that's all. But that being said, how is the language of the Proposal not a pertinent issue? It has been discussed on every page of this thread so far...

The language of the proposal is something that you can address via your vote on the general assembly floor. The category violation, however, is not.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: I really wasn't. I was responding to something that Araraukar said, that's all. But that being said, how is the language of the Proposal not a pertinent issue? It has been discussed on every page of this thread so far...

The language of the proposal is something that you can address via your vote on the general assembly floor. The category violation, however, is not.

OOC: The language of the proposal has been and can continue to be addressed on the thread. The language of proposals has been discussed in countless proposal threads before, so why not now?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The language of the proposal is something that you can address via your vote on the general assembly floor. The category violation, however, is not.

OOC: The language of the proposal has been and can continue to be addressed on the thread. The language of proposals has been discussed in countless proposal threads before, so why not now?

Of course you are entitled to give your opinion on the language of this proposal, however what I am waiting for is a reason from Christian Democrats or another member of gen sec why a proposal which reduces income inequality and promotes basic welfare doesn't reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare. This seems a lot like a hit-and-run ruling.

[Aclion]

OOC: Just because you doubt it, it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened that way. I sincerely feel like this was an unorthodox attempt to get the bill somehow down. I personally don't agree with Christian Democrat or his verdict as it is based not in facts but basically his personal wishes.

Then file a GHR.

[The New California Republic]

what I am waiting for is a reason from Christian Democrats or another member of gen sec why a proposal which reduces income inequality and promotes basic welfare doesn't reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare. This seems a lot like a hit-and-run ruling.

OOC: Christian Democrats already explained it, it was hardly a "hit-and-run ruling":

In addition, it straddles the line between health and education

And this is why I've voted illegal. It straddles the line between categories A and B and has been placed in category C.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

what I am waiting for is a reason from Christian Democrats or another member of gen sec why a proposal which reduces income inequality and promotes basic welfare doesn't reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare. This seems a lot like a hit-and-run ruling.

OOC: Christian Democrats already explained it, it was hardly a "hit-and-run ruling":

And this is why I've voted illegal. It straddles the line between categories A and B and has been placed in category C.

And I have given reasons why it is also applicable for the social ustice category.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Christian Democrats already explained it, it was hardly a "hit-and-run ruling":

And I have given reasons why it is also applicable for the social ustice category.

OOC: But it was hardly a "hit-and-run ruling" as you categorized it. In his defense, Christian Democrats did engage with you to try to resolve it. I think he can be forgiven for not replying immediately to your more recent posts, as tomorrow is a day of considerable importance to members of a certain faith after all...

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Except we've established based on the definitions provided in the proposal that this is not prostitution

"Pssh, please! That definition there says that it provides 'escourts' for people requestin' sexual services. Now, I know ya'll may think I'm stupid, but come on, what exactly is it called when you hire a ho to have sex? What service is sexual? Only the world's oldest profession, of course. This Resolution will be prone to instant repeal due to a violation, and I'll be the one submittin' it if someone in the Congregate don't."

The vent turtle scoffed.

"Oh, but this one covers PHONE WHORES too. I guess that makes it different? No. This here's an illegal proposal! I seek anyone who has reasons to tell me it ain't. Resolution One Hundred Seventy Nine superseds this'un!!"

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Except we've established based on the definitions provided in the proposal that this is not prostitution

"Pssh, please! That definition there says that it provides 'escourts' for people requestin' sexual services. Now, I know ya'll may think I'm stupid, but come on, what exactly is it called when you hire a ho to have sex? What service is sexual? Only the world's oldest profession, of course. This Resolution will be prone to instant repeal due to a violation, and I'll be the one submittin' it if someone in the Congregate don't."

The vent turtle scoffed.

"Oh, but this one covers PHONE WHORES too. I guess that makes it different? No. This here's an illegal proposal! I seek anyone who has reasons to tell me it ain't. Resolution One Hundred Seventy Nine superseds this'un!!"

"I'm sure you are aware that prostitution regulation proposals aren't illegal by their nature," Lord Valentin Naharis said, in his usual soft, almost whispering voice. "Different lands have different laws, my friend."

[TURTLESHROOM II]

There is a far higher rate of abuse amongst sex workers than much of the population at large, making their access to healthcare and education mandatory.

The vent turtle was displeased.

"They're treated like pieces of meat because they are sold like pieces of meat. Pimps are abusive 'cause they have no respect for women beyond their prah-vets. Why else do ya think we have somethin' called a pimp slap? Prostitution is a predatory trap that preys on the po' folks the worst. If ya'll wanted to protect the poor and end this war on women, ya'll would leave this well enough alone and obey Resolution One Hundred Seventy Nine."