[DRAFT] WA Resolution Proposition

[Imperium Anglorum]

"take care of it after the fact?"
As if punitive measures only have effects in punishment. Perhaps it's counterintuitive, but strong punitive measures often act as a deterrent for illegal activities.

OOC: Actually, "good evidence" shows that that's exactly what someone who's about to murder someone might think, especially in the case of first-degree murder. Yes, you will find countless articles about the death penalty being an ineffective deterrent, and this is perfectly legitimate. However, this is not to say that punishment itself isn't an effective deterrent. Study after study has found that the severity of the punishment has little deterrent effects, but the perceived probability of punishment indeed does. Punishment is a widely effective deterrent or wouldn't be so ubiquitous in international law.

If this is true, then your own argument for more stringent penalties should have no effect on illegal activities: the variable of interest would rather be the probability of capture. Your position is self-contradictory.

Corrected misquote.

[Sothoth Shub]

"Respectfully, your arguments appear quixotic in their contortions to convince the international community of the notion that current status quo legislation constitutes an adequate approach to the issue of child abuse.

"Somehow, I doubt that I will need to do much convincing, based on my political benefactors."

The body of law around the issue inevitably leaves room for the continuity of an abhorrent practice because the state is willing to endow those known to show contemptuous and negligent behavior toward children with the ability to lawfully procreate. As for your point regarding life imprisonment, we can look to an analogy. One who assaults, or even kills another with the use of a firearm, should probably not then be able to purchase a firearm upon release from a correctional facility. Has anyone immediately been shot in virtue of his ownership of that weapon? No, but it has massive destructive capability, and the right to own a firearm is simply not a natural or crucially important one.

"Perhaps not in your society. C.D.S.P. felons are entitled to a full return of all their rights upon release, firearm ownership included. Such is the success we have in our rehabilitative programs."

It seems that your issues can be encompassed by this analogy, but if not, I would conjecture that you have qualms with the status of procreation as a natural right, a position I would be happy to debate.

"I do not accept the notion of natural rights."

Also, if you could point me in the direction of WA law that delineates between abuse and spanking, it would be much appreciated.

"To my knowledge, ambassador, the relevant compendium of World Assembly law is free to access for all.

"I appreciate that you disagree with my analysis, ambassador. You are, of course, so entitled. I suspect, however, that you will find that my analysis sits more comfortably with the electorate."

"Firstly I would like to note that such appeals to popularity do not signal moral soundness. Secondly, I am glad that we can agree upon the notion that procreation is a natural right. Even if your society can boast such effective rehabilitative measures, surely you would acknowledge the rarity of that ability; recidivism is a worldwide issue, and we are striving for worldwide solutions. The sense of curtailing firearm use among ex-convicts stands for every nation that has a non-zero degree of recidivism. This response seems less a refutation of the ideas in the proposal and more an attempt to employ bandwagon logic that discredits our belief as unpopular and therefore wrong."

[Leishmania]

"take care of it after the fact?"
As if punitive measures only have effects in punishment. Perhaps it's counterintuitive, but strong punitive measures often act as a deterrent for illegal activities.

OOC:
Not really, no. There's good evidence that the death penalty, for example, does not serve as an effective deterrent. If literally one of the harshest sentences we can hand out doesn't work as a deterrent, chances are, lesser sentences won't either. Chances are, the people who are going to commit a crime in the first place were going to do it regardless of whether or not there's a law; nobody who genuinely intends to murder someone is going to stop and think, 'aw man I might go to prison for this.'

If this is true, then your own argument for more stringent penalties should have no effect on illegal activities: the variable of interest would rather be the probability of capture. Your position is self-contradictory.

Hey, thanks for replying, but the second box is a statement by Tinfect, not I. Try and find the original comments.

[Leishmania]

OOC: Actually, "good evidence" shows that that's exactly what someone who's about to murder someone might think, especially in the case of first-degree murder. Yes, you will find countless articles about the death penalty being an ineffective deterrent, and this is perfectly legitimate. However, this is not to say that punishment itself isn't an effective deterrent. Study after study has found that the severity of the punishment has little deterrent effects, but the perceived probability of punishment indeed does. Punishment is a widely effective deterrent or wouldn't be so ubiquitous in international law.

OOC:
I'd recommend that you refrain from making sweeping statements about ubiquity; just because everyone's doing it doesn't mean it's a good idea, especially when it comes to criminal punishment.
Regardless; if it is merely the risk of being caught and there being some punishment for it, then there is no grounds whatsoever to impose an absurd and authoritarian measure like this. Along this argument of yours, then standing law regarding child abuse should be quite-sufficient in preventing such in most cases.

This does not reflect reality. An abuser will take action, often via threats of continued abuse, or just continued abuse, to prevent reporting or discovery of their actions, if they are concerned about being caught. They absolutely do not simply stop being abusive because of the risk of a criminal penalty. The argument for this policy as a deterrent fails on its face.

To everything above: I am not proposing our legislation as a deterrent. If you'll note the actual course of our conversation, we discussed the efficacy of punitive measures as a deterrent only under the consideration of using those punitive measures to enforce the illegality proposed by the legislation.

OOC: That's just preposterous. Not only was the one-child policy still in effect up to 2017 for being so effective,

Use of the one-child policy was under steady reduction since the 80s, and it has had horrific side effects on the Chinese population.

OOC: It's as if I've stated multiple times that my argument regarding the one-child policy is only that it was an effective measure of decreasing procreation. If, as I believe I've also stated multiple times, you have moral qualms with the Chinese one-child policy, perhaps someone else might find that actually pertinent.

IC: *Shouting to the world* If however, one has moral qualms with my legislation, I would be more than happy to hear them.

[nonsense]
I'm advocating for a decrease in births by a specific group of people, which, as historical precedent proves, is entirely possible.

I'd recommend against trying to put your draft on the 'honorable' precedent of literal genocides. In any case; in those cases, they didn't do shit like this. They utilized things such as forced sterilization. Which, incidentally is an enforcement measure that your draft as written, wholly allows and endorses.

OOC: Was it me who said honorable? I really can't seem to find that in anything I've written. Perhaps I just need to look harder. Or perhaps you're trying to pin a moral support of policies I don't morally support on me so that you might have some basis for argumentation. Maybe, **as I've stated**, you can direct your clear moral qualms with my legislation to a moral attack of my legislation.

IC: However, I again implore you to stop fighting my legislation based on petty historical trifles regarding the effectiveness of something that I have at no point advocated for. The only thing under debate here is the moral soundness and legal allowance of the proposed legislation. Please direct your criticism there.

The failure of historical examples of similar activity is a perfectly valid point of argument against such policy as this, for one, and you can't just handwave that away by demanding a 'moral' argument. Second, you certainly aren't talking to the Imperial delegation at this point; I must wonder what phantoms your character is speaking to. Perhaps it is the gnomes.

OOC: Except this is hardly what you are noting. You are instead noting a moral failure of historical examples to produce something which could possibly be utilized by nation-states to enforce my legislation. A far cry. Frankly, one that I'm beginning to see very little utility in responding to.

As for that very nice-sounding proposal to "Expand child services and understandings of abusive behavior, put in place social and educational programs regarding proper childcare, expand access to childcare facilities, ect. Further, consider requiring Member-States to provide counseling services to victims of abuse, and assume a policy of rehabilitative efforts in criminal sentencing to reduce recidivism." I would remind you that every one of these things not only exists under the legislative status quo, but has active efforts going into its expansion. Your proposal is not one of action but of inaction that, given the grotesque rate of child abuse in developed countries alone, I do not find particularly convincing.

If you want to talk about the complex and varied sociological reasons for the prevalence of abuse in RL countries, we can do that. If you want to talk about RP reality and your government's good access to such services, we can do that. We cannot do both at the same time.

OOC: If my current activity is completely out of the bounds of good conduct then please give me a good reason for the existence of, and the debate surrounding, previous child abuse legislation. My goal is to use this forum as a simulacrum of the world, as many have done before me. I will not demand that you engage me on such grounds, but I ask that you respect my right to use them as a basis for my own action.

I have only marked OOC when referring to the real world or the game itself. Please, if you wish to continue this discussion with me, limit it to logical or moral legislative qualms.

I know you have; that's not how it works. That's literally just not how OOC tags or conversation work. And, please, don't presume to dictate the grounds of the debate.

OOC: I am sorry for any perceived disrespect of your experience within this institution. What I am saying is that I personally don't wish to continue our OOC debate. I wish to have an IC debate on the basis of using NS as a simulacrum of the real world, as many have done before me. If you don't wish to engage me on these grounds, I won't ask you to.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If this is true, then your own argument for more stringent penalties should have no effect on illegal activities: the variable of interest would rather be the probability of capture. Your position is self-contradictory.

Hey, thanks for replying, but the second box is a statement by Tinfect, not I. Try and find the original comments.

The original comments were linked in the original quote tag. I've edited the portion to reflect your actual remarks; care to address this seeming knife?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Somehow, I doubt that I will need to do much convincing, based on my political benefactors."


"Perhaps not in your society. C.D.S.P. felons are entitled to a full return of all their rights upon release, firearm ownership included. Such is the success we have in our rehabilitative programs."

"I do not accept the notion of natural rights."


"To my knowledge, ambassador, the relevant compendium of World Assembly law is free to access for all.

"I appreciate that you disagree with my analysis, ambassador. You are, of course, so entitled. I suspect, however, that you will find that my analysis sits more comfortably with the electorate."

"Firstly I would like to note that such appeals to popularity do not signal moral soundness. Secondly, I am glad that we can agree upon the notion that procreation is a natural right. Even if your society can boast such effective rehabilitative measures, surely you would acknowledge the rarity of that ability; recidivism is a worldwide issue, and we are striving for worldwide solutions. The sense of curtailing firearm use among ex-convicts stands for every nation that has a non-zero degree of recidivism. This response seems less a refutation of the ideas in the proposal and more an attempt to employ bandwagon logic that discredits our belief as unpopular and therefore wrong."

"A morally sound but unpopular proposal fails. The moral soundness is irrelevant. Further, I do not accept the notion of natural rights for anything, let alone procreation.

"I'm not sure how bandwagon logic applies. Ambassador. Your example was not pertinent to those of us with robust rehabilitative services. You have rejected the notion that nations are capable of investigating crimes as they occur and require extreme measures to combat them. I have provided examples and arguments as to why this is not supportable. You maintain your position. As we are at an impasse, I see little reason not to use political power to achieve my goals."

[Tinhampton]

Submitted without amendment as The Prevention of Child Abuse Act (preserved forever by IA)... and already marked illegal by 2/6ths of GenSec.

[The New Sicilian State]

"Would it be out of line to remark that I don't particularly care for you all that much? Your stubbornness is admirable, you consider the moral high ground that you believe you hold but fail to realize that you have to convince individuals to support this proposal; you fall short here. You've tilted your submission the "The Prevention of Child Abuse Act"... manipulative enough, why don't you name it the "Limited Procreation for Abusers Act", if you're trying to be honest with voters. For a surelatain of your moral grounds, you hide your intentions behind a deceptive title fairly well."

[Leishmania]

Hey, thanks for replying, but the second box is a statement by Tinfect, not I. Try and find the original comments.

The original comments were linked in the original quote tag. I've edited the portion to reflect your actual remarks; care to address this seeming knife?

Thank you. I can see how this may seem contradictory, however, if you'll note the actual course of our conversation, my saying that the perceived probability of punitive measures being enacted is their only effective method of deterrence relates not to the illegality proposed by our legislation, but to the possible enforcement of that illegality by individual Nation-States using fees and incentives to incite known abusers not to procreate. As a matter of fact, our proposed illegality does not have its greatest impact as a deterrent, but as a concrete barrier to those actions which produce a great amount of child abuse in the world today, namely, known abusers procreating with a great likelihood of continuing their abusive tendencies.

[Sothoth Shub]

"Firstly I would like to note that such appeals to popularity do not signal moral soundness. Secondly, I am glad that we can agree upon the notion that procreation is a natural right. Even if your society can boast such effective rehabilitative measures, surely you would acknowledge the rarity of that ability; recidivism is a worldwide issue, and we are striving for worldwide solutions. The sense of curtailing firearm use among ex-convicts stands for every nation that has a non-zero degree of recidivism. This response seems less a refutation of the ideas in the proposal and more an attempt to employ bandwagon logic that discredits our belief as unpopular and therefore wrong."

"A morally sound but unpopular proposal fails. The moral soundness is irrelevant. Further, I do not accept the notion of natural rights for anything, let alone procreation.

"I'm not sure how bandwagon logic applies. Ambassador. Your example was not pertinent to those of us with robust rehabilitative services. You have rejected the notion that nations are capable of investigating crimes as they occur and require extreme measures to combat them. I have provided examples and arguments as to why this is not supportable. You maintain your position. As we are at an impasse, I see little reason not to use political power to achieve my goals."

"Whereas there is immense moral gravity to the creation of a consciousness, how extreme is this measure really? Even for a nation with excellent rehabilitative services, a member of an international body would surely be remiss to believe that child abuse has merely subsided in the face of typical piecemeal legislation. And surely, for a nation that endorses no conception of natural rights, any abatement of the horrors of child abuse is worth the deprivation of a known abuser's privilege to procreate; for the value of that action is infinitely less than that of the noble goal of curbing a pervasive and insidious issue."

[Cisairse]

Cisairse would be opposed to this resolution should it reach the assembly floor.

[Tinhampton]

SNIPPEROO

EL SNIP

As I wrote earlier, two members of GenSec have marked your proposal illegal (despite Leishmania claiming that it doesn't duplicate anything because their revolver analogy is irrefutably correct). Do you plan to give up any time soon, or only when you get around to repealing "Right to Sexual Privacy"?

[Leishmania]

"Would it be out of line to remark that I don't particularly care for you all that much? Your stubbornness is admirable, you consider the moral high ground that you believe you hold but fail to realize that you have to convince individuals to support this proposal; you fall short here. You've tilted your submission the "The Prevention of Child Abuse Act"... manipulative enough, why don't you name it the "Limited Procreation for Abusers Act", if you're trying to be honest with voters. For a surelatain of your moral grounds, you hide your intentions behind a deceptive title fairly well."

I appreciate your admiration. As you've stated here, I am entirely under the impression that my argument lies on the moral high ground, yet this is not something that I steadfastly cling to in the face of all evidence. As a matter of fact, I would love to have the opportunity to reconsider my moral position. However, as of yet, not a single person in this thread has attempted to attack the moral assumptions outlined at the start of our legislation. Instead, I have received a few moral jabs with no logical justification, and a whole lot of logistical arguments that even if true, fail to take into consideration the moral importance of the issue at hand, which has direct logistical implications.

We have had the Resolution titled the same thing since we started writing it, as that is its purpose. I did not suppose that anyone who had taken the effort to become a World Assembly delegate and who was actually voting on legislation would do so without reading it.

[Leishmania]

Cisairse would be opposed to this resolution should it reach the assembly floor.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. May I ask why you are so opposed?

[Leishmania]

SNIPPEROO

EL SNIP

As I wrote earlier, two members of GenSec have marked your proposal illegal (despite Leishmania claiming that it doesn't duplicate anything because their revolver analogy is irrefutably correct). Do you plan to give up any time soon, or only when you get around to repealing "Right to Sexual Privacy"?

If it is truly irrefutable that our legislation contradicts GAR#383, and, as I believe in the moral necessity of our legislation, then yes, I would support a repeal of the part of that legislation that contradicts our own. I don't find the lack of support for our legislation to be a solid logical or moral argument against its legitimacy, but I'm glad that you can rejoice in our current failure. As always, any logical or moral attack against my suppositions would be warmly welcomed.

[Leishmania]

RECOGNIZING that the proposal is highly controversial in nature, and that, flying in the face of a large set of moral suppositions of modernity, is more than fairly attacked on moral grounds, I will attempt here to restate my opinions on the current legality of the legislation.

The issue at hand is whether the legislation contradicts GA#383, which states that sexual activity must be considered legal where it does not directly harm non-participating individuals.

I have previously brought up the following thought experiment, with the intention of comparing it to a scenario in which a known child abuser procreates with a greater-than-average likelihood of abusing the child which comes about as a result of that procreation, which falls under scrutiny for two reasons.

"Two consenting adults partake in sexual intercourse of a specified kind. The specification? They spin a revolver with an unknown probability of landing on a chamber with a bullet within it, and then point that revolver at a crowd and pull the trigger. Even with a low likelihood that the revolver fires a live round into the crowd, I don't think it would be ridiculous to propose that such sexual activity be banned (other laws regulating safety aside). Additionally, I don't think that anyone would have any trouble fitting that sort of activity into the exception in GA#383. Sure, there would be a number of times that the couple had sex and no one got hurt, but the clear innate danger of the activity itself is apparent."

The first, and perhaps most apparent reason for scrutiny, is the difference between the legislated scenario and the one above regarding "direct harm". It would appear at a cursory glance that the above scenario is definitionally more of a direct harm then the one proposed. However, this is not the case. The proposed legislation does not regulate all sexual activity between known abusers, only that which produces a child (procreation). Therefore, the sexual activity under consideration necessarily leads (directly) to the following: a known child abuser being given access to a child who, without the sexual activity in question, he/she would not have had access to. A scenario with a probability of harm being done that is directly comparable to the unknown-probability-revolver being fired into a crowd.

The second reason for scrutiny is that the revolver scenario itself does not exist as an exception under GA#383. To this, I would say that the debate of probability being a basis for a lack of the use of the word "direct" is a wholly pedantic argument which does not follow the spirit of GA#383 and that if one truly believed that the revolver scenario was not an exception under it, one should be heartily advocating for its repeal. As it stands, however, I do not believe this to be necessary if one considers with common sense the intention behind the "direct harm" clause.

Thank you.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Would it be out of line to remark that I don't particularly care for you all that much? Your stubbornness is admirable, you consider the moral high ground that you believe you hold but fail to realize that you have to convince individuals to support this proposal; you fall short here. You've tilted your submission the "The Prevention of Child Abuse Act"... manipulative enough, why don't you name it the "Limited Procreation for Abusers Act", if you're trying to be honest with voters. For a surelatain of your moral grounds, you hide your intentions behind a deceptive title fairly well."

I appreciate your admiration. As you've stated here, I am entirely under the impression that my argument lies on the moral high ground, yet this is not something that I steadfastly cling to in the face of all evidence. As a matter of fact, I would love to have the opportunity to reconsider my moral position. However, as of yet, not a single person in this thread has attempted to attack the moral assumptions outlined at the start of our legislation. Instead, I have received a few moral jabs with no logical justification, and a whole lot of logistical arguments that even if true, fail to take into consideration the moral importance of the issue at hand, which has direct logistical implications.

We have had the Resolution titled the same thing since we started writing it, as that is its purpose. I did not suppose that anyone who had taken the effort to become a World Assembly delegate and who was actually voting on legislation would do so without reading it.

"Almost certainly because the GA is, by and large, uninterested in moral arguments entirely. These halls trend heavily towards utilitarian problem solving."

[Leishmania]

I appreciate your admiration. As you've stated here, I am entirely under the impression that my argument lies on the moral high ground, yet this is not something that I steadfastly cling to in the face of all evidence. As a matter of fact, I would love to have the opportunity to reconsider my moral position. However, as of yet, not a single person in this thread has attempted to attack the moral assumptions outlined at the start of our legislation. Instead, I have received a few moral jabs with no logical justification, and a whole lot of logistical arguments that even if true, fail to take into consideration the moral importance of the issue at hand, which has direct logistical implications.

We have had the Resolution titled the same thing since we started writing it, as that is its purpose. I did not suppose that anyone who had taken the effort to become a World Assembly delegate and who was actually voting on legislation would do so without reading it.

"Almost certainly because the GA is, by and large, uninterested in moral arguments entirely. These halls trend heavily towards utilitarian problem solving."

If you'll note, the beginning of our legislation makes a complete case for a utilitarian justification of moral logic. By "moral argument", I do not mean an argument with its justification based solely in moral appeals, but an argument that uses moral logic in the name of utilitarianism.

[Leishmania]

"Almost certainly because the GA is, by and large, uninterested in moral arguments entirely. These halls trend heavily towards utilitarian problem solving."

If you'll note, the beginning of our legislation makes a complete case for a utilitarian justification of moral logic. By "moral argument", I do not mean an argument with its justification based solely on moral appeals (something I view with about as much contempt as one based solely on divine appeals), but an argument that uses moral logic in the name of utilitarianism.

[The New Sicilian State]

This is a duck. He is morally ambiguous, but he's working on it.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Almost certainly because the GA is, by and large, uninterested in moral arguments entirely. These halls trend heavily towards utilitarian problem solving."

If you'll note, the beginning of our legislation makes a complete case for a utilitarian justification of moral logic. By "moral argument", I do not mean an argument with its justification based solely in moral appeals, but an argument that uses moral logic in the name of utilitarianism.

"Then likely because your solution has ancillary concerns that are paramount to the individuals here that you have rejected, and ambassadors here know that when debate does not provide an adequate result, procedure will. I, for one, do not anticipate this proposal being nearly popular enough to succeed, regardless of the moral justifications you make. Probably because most delegations recognize a less invasive alternative that provides satisfactory results."

[Tinhampton]

>>> Immoral institutions tend to self-destruct; ergo, they must be Bad Things
>>> Ban child abusers from reproducing because each child has the right not to be abused
Rights are irrevocable and therefore cannot self-destruct. Which "institution" are you trying to preserve here?

I plan to have an InstaRepeal! lined up for the POCA Act if it somehow looks like passing at any stage

[The New Sicilian State]

>>> Immoral institutions tend to self-destruct; ergo, they must be Bad Things
>>> Ban child abusers from reproducing because each child has the right not to be abused
Rights are irrevocable and therefore cannot self-destruct. Which "institution" are you trying to preserve here?

I plan to have an InstaRepeal! lined up for the POCA Act if it somehow looks like passing at any stage

OOC: This won't pass, chill out

[Separatist Peoples]

>>> Immoral institutions tend to self-destruct; ergo, they must be Bad Things
>>> Ban child abusers from reproducing because each child has the right not to be abused
Rights are irrevocable and therefore cannot self-destruct. Which "institution" are you trying to preserve here?

I plan to have an InstaRepeal! lined up for the POCA Act if it somehow looks like passing at any stage

OOC: This won't pass, chill out

Ooc: both of you ought to cool your jets. This is far more hostile than the usual GA snarkery.

[The New Sicilian State]

OOC: This won't pass, chill out

Ooc: both of you ought to cool your jets. This is far more hostile than the usual GA snarkery.

OOC: You're right, I'm pullin' away.