NationStates

Recognizing that this should NOT be a matter of choice for individual state, due to the incredible sensitive nature of the protection of the vulnerable,

Understanding that minimums should be put in for the protection of the disabled, the elderly, and children,

We hereby repeal Repeal GA resolution #299 'Legal Competence'

OOC: Was this primarily made to bypass the legality issue on your Age of Consent draft?

Marche Verte-Bleu wrote:OOC: Was this primarily made to bypass the legality issue on your Age of Consent draft?

YES! I know some people find that really sleazy, but it’s not intended to be, I am just trying to remove an obstacle on a subject that is open and should be open to public debate. The GA resolution stops us from having a adequate debate on age of consent. By removing the legal obstacles, we are allowing that debate to occur.

NOFEAR wrote:

Marche Verte-Bleu wrote:OOC: Was this primarily made to bypass the legality issue on your Age of Consent draft?

YES! I know some people find that really sleazy, but it’s not intended to be, I am just trying to remove an obstacle on a subject that is open and should be open to public debate. The GA resolution stops us from having a adequate debate on age of consent. By removing the legal obstacles, we are allowing that debate to occur.

Seems sleazy to me. I support as to what has been mentioned in the other repeal thread by one of the GA Secretariats. It strongly feels to me that serious discussion has been overturned to repealing whatever stands in the way of the ambassador's agenda.

OOC: Maybe at least address the legality claims before suggesting the public debate to this is closed.

"Given the variety of cultures and, indeed, species within the General Assembly, the target resolution of this repeal is far and away the best compromise without undermining significant groups within these halls. A singular age of consent is overrestrictive and underinclusive, and we will oppose any such efforts to institute one."

Marche Verte-Bleu wrote:

NOFEAR wrote:
YES! I know some people find that really sleazy, but it’s not intended to be, I am just trying to remove an obstacle on a subject that is open and should be open to public debate. The GA resolution stops us from having a adequate debate on age of consent. By removing the legal obstacles, we are allowing that debate to occur.

Seems sleazy to me. I support as to what has been mentioned in the other repeal thread by one of the GA Secretariats. It strongly feels to me that serious discussion has been overturned to repealing whatever stands in the way of the ambassador's agenda.

OOC: Maybe at least address the legality claims before suggesting the public debate to this is closed.

To respond to both your points, my legislation is clearly illegal under current GA resolutions, therefore I am addressing the legality claims, the legislation is illegal and there is no denying that. It is illegal because it is contradicting two previous resolutions.

Serious discussion has certainly not been thrown out, as you can see from my age of consent thread, I am actively engaging with people‘s feedback, and have amended both the substance and grammar in my original resolution. My original age was set at 18, but after feedback was lowered to 16. I respond to all comments put on my thread, so serious discussion has been completely embraced.

But an adequate debate cannot occur on my original resolution as no matter how much support or how strong the resolution is, it would be unlawful unless these two are removed

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Given the variety of cultures and, indeed, species within the General Assembly, the target resolution of this repeal is far and away the best compromise without undermining significant groups within these halls. A singular age of consent is overrestrictive and underinclusive, and we will oppose any such efforts to institute one."

The idea that a 25-year-old could be prevented from having sex is crazy. The idea that a 10-year-old could be having sex is crazy. Those are both things which we as GA members can find objectively repulsive let’s set a standard that will enforce a common morality, but which can obviously have exemptions, such as exempting species other than humans from this law.

NOFEAR wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Given the variety of cultures and, indeed, species within the General Assembly, the target resolution of this repeal is far and away the best compromise without undermining significant groups within these halls. A singular age of consent is overrestrictive and underinclusive, and we will oppose any such efforts to institute one."

The idea that a 25-year-old could be prevented from having sex is crazy. The idea that a 10-year-old could be having sex is crazy. Those are both things which we as GA members can find objectively repulsive let’s set a standard that will enforce a common morality, but which can obviously have exemptions, such as exempting species other than humans from this law.

"If your concern is predicated on mere moral outrage, then you have not articulated a basis on which we should support your proposal. Moral outrage is the most flimsy of grounds you could find."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

NOFEAR wrote:
The idea that a 25-year-old could be prevented from having sex is crazy. The idea that a 10-year-old could be having sex is crazy. Those are both things which we as GA members can find objectively repulsive let’s set a standard that will enforce a common morality, but which can obviously have exemptions, such as exempting species other than humans from this law.

"If your concern is predicated on mere moral outrage, then you have not articulated a basis on which we should support your proposal. Moral outrage is the most flimsy of grounds you could find."

No, my resolution has more than moral outrage behind it. This resolution has the protection of children in mind, as children of a very young age are unable to make informed and positive choices, and therefore harm themselves and others. My resolution is above biological development, of a mental development, and about the capacity of children to make positive sexual choices, children at a very young age are unable, this is intended to protect children

NOFEAR wrote:

Marche Verte-Bleu wrote:OOC: Was this primarily made to bypass the legality issue on your Age of Consent draft?

YES!

Against, on that basis alone.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

NOFEAR wrote:
The idea that a 25-year-old could be prevented from having sex is crazy. The idea that a 10-year-old could be having sex is crazy. Those are both things which we as GA members can find objectively repulsive let’s set a standard that will enforce a common morality, but which can obviously have exemptions, such as exempting species other than humans from this law.

"If your concern is predicated on mere moral outrage, then you have not articulated a basis on which we should support your proposal. Moral outrage is the most flimsy of grounds you could find."

This resolution recognizes the children are much less biologically developed, and therefore children over young age are unable to make this decision,

The New California Republic wrote:

NOFEAR wrote:
YES!

Against, on that basis alone.

Unfortunately, I was not gonna win either way on this draft, either I deny that this was related to the bypass of the age of consent, and you guys would be calling me a liar, or admit the truth and you vote against it anyway.

NOFEAR wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Against, on that basis alone.

Unfortunately, I was not gonna win either way on this draft, either I deny that this was related to the bypass of the age of consent, and you guys would be calling me a liar, or admit the truth and you vote against it anyway.

So...if that's the case, why continue with this draft if you know it is doomed to fail?

The New California Republic wrote:

NOFEAR wrote:
Unfortunately, I was not gonna win either way on this draft, either I deny that this was related to the bypass of the age of consent, and you guys would be calling me a liar, or admit the truth and you vote against it anyway.

So...if that's the case, why continue with this draft if you know it is doomed to fail?

Because I have the support of the silent majority

NOFEAR wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
"If your concern is predicated on mere moral outrage, then you have not articulated a basis on which we should support your proposal. Moral outrage is the most flimsy of grounds you could find."

No, my resolution has more than moral outrage behind it. This resolution has the protection of children in mind, as children of a very young age are unable to make informed and positive choices, and therefore harm themselves and others. My resolution is above biological development, of a mental development, and about the capacity of children to make positive sexual choices, children at a very young age are unable, this is intended to protect children

"That's moral outrage. You have not offered empirical or reasoned evidence for why this is harmful to societies, or why there is a benefit to standardization. You simply claim that it is bad because it is wrong. This is pure ipse dixit."

NOFEAR wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:So...if that's the case, why continue with this draft if you know it is doomed to fail?

Because I have the support of the silent majority

"In my ten years here, ambassador, I have never seen anybody make that claim and prevail."

NOFEAR wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:So...if that's the case, why continue with this draft if you know it is doomed to fail?

Because I have the support of the silent majority

OOC: You have no evidence whatsoever for this.

IC: "You have no evidence whatsoever for this.

We oppose. The target is perfectly cromulent legislation. And the repeals "argument" is incredibly weak. Is there any particular reason why "THIS should not BE a matter of CHOICE for individual state (sic)"?

Incidentally, minimums of what?"

NOFEAR wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:So...if that's the case, why continue with this draft if you know it is doomed to fail?

Because I have the support of the silent majority

Lol. No.

The New California Republic wrote:

NOFEAR wrote:
Because I have the support of the silent majority

Lol. No.

I have not received any constructive comments in a long time on these threads, I am therefore submitting both of my repeals. Unless you guys up here to give me constructive criticism this will be going before the GA.

NOFEAR wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Lol. No.

I have not received any constructive comments in a long time on these threads, I am therefore submitting both of my repeals. Unless you guys up here to give me constructive criticism this will be going before the GA.

"You have. You didn't like it. This is unlikely to reach quorum."

NOFEAR wrote:I have not received any constructive comments in a long time on these threads, I am therefore submitting both of my repeals. Unless you guys up here to give me constructive criticism this will be going before the GA.

Seriously? You need to look again, as there has been plenty...

NOFEAR wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Lol. No.

I have not received any constructive comments in a long time on these threads, I am therefore submitting both of my repeals. Unless you guys up here to give me constructive criticism this will be going before the GA.

OOC: Twelve hours (from the first post in your age of consent proposal) isn't even remotely "a long time." Proposals that become resolutions tend to be drafted for weeks, at least. There are some exceptions, but they were all produced by veteran players.

If you insist on moving forward with this aggressive legislative agenda, it would be a good idea for you to take a step back for a bit. There are, I'm sure, a few people who a) understand how resolutions generally work, and b) are enough on board with your centralizing urge that they will give you the kind of nuts-and-bolts advice that you have wrongly decided is the only "constructive" criticism that could possibly exist.

I imagine, though, that they too will tell you this is highly unlikely to work out.

NOFEAR wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Lol. No.

I have not received any constructive comments in a long time on these threads, I am therefore submitting both of my repeals. Unless you guys up here to give me constructive criticism this will be going before the GA.

(OOC: The issue is that the WA is composed of multiple species. Banning intelligent mayflies from having sex below the age of sixteen would ban them from ever having sex, because no mayflies ever reach the age of sixteen. Likewise, a species of elves might live for hundreds of years and still be as developed as children.)

And he submitted it, this...thing...that only exists to get rid of a legality issue with one of the author's other proposals.

The New California Republic wrote:And he submitted it, this...thing...that only exists to get rid of a legality issue with one of the author's other proposals.

Summer has come early it seems.

The Seedless Watermelon rolls around on the floor a bit, in obvious distaste. All of a sudden, an incredibly deep, soothing voice radiates from the fruit.

"The repeal of any World Assembly legislation should only be done with great consideration, something not done by this proposal. Personally, the collective of the Seedless Watermelon finds your disdain for the established hierarchy of the World Assembly to be rather disturbing. You obviously would rather wreak havoc among the pre-existing order here in order to further your own misplaced agenda, and that is utterly despicable in our opinion."

Several more Seedless Watermelons roll into the door, seeking to reinforce the ambassadorial Watermelon.