Repeal Restrictions on Child Labor (DRAFT)

[Mousebumples]

OOC: The term "medicate" could mean "lots of sleep and water", so I believe that the analogy may still stand. Personally I never treat the symptoms of an illness that is as easily shaken off such as a cold, I just focus on getting rid of the illness.

Per Dictionary.com:

med·i·cate – verb
1. to treat with medicine or medicaments.
2. to impregnate with a medicine: medicated cough drops; a medicated bandage.

How sleep and water constitute "medicine" or "medicaments," I do not know. Also, colds tend to last 10-14 days and that really can't be hurried by focusing - or any other mumbo jumbo. (Zinc lozenges, etc., may shorten the duration by a day or two, per the best available scientific studies)

Anyhow, after finishing that little English lesson, we continue to be opposed to this repeal. Restrictions on Child Labor does not - by any stretch of the imagination - outlaw child labor. It merely limits it with understandable - and necessary - requirements and restrictions.

[Fascist Fae Elves]

It appears that my example with a cold has been thoroughly defeated. I will revise to a more extreme example:

Cancer [poverty, starvation] will kill you. Banning cancer, or treating its symptoms (alleviating pain, etc) [banning child labour] essentially does nothing; it might feel good in the short term, and it might make you feel as if you are being helpful but you are not. Chemotherapy [economic development, poverty alleviation] can stop cancer as it addresses the cause of the disease (rapid reproduction of cancerous cells).

Will my revised analogy be acceptable?

[Mousebumples]

It appears that my example with a cold has been thoroughly defeated. I will revise to a more extreme example:

Cancer [poverty, starvation] will kill you. Banning cancer, or treating its symptoms (alleviating pain, etc) [banning child labour] essentially does nothing; it might feel good in the short term, and it might make you feel as if you are being helpful but you are not. Chemotherapy [economic development, poverty alleviation] can stop cancer as it addresses the cause of the disease (rapid reproduction of cancerous cells).

Will my revised analogy be acceptable?

Other than the fact that the resolution does not ban child labor? And you are arguing a point that is not relevant to the discussion at hand?

[Hirota]

Economy is better than education.

How absurd. This notion that an uneducated child that becomes an uneducated adult brings more value to the nation than an educated one...I know which makes my government more money.

Your nations factbookhardly inspired confidence in your governments ability to lecture anybody on economy, ambassador.

But since you've wisely chosen to abort this proposal, lets wait and see what else you try and draft.

[Fascist Fae Elves]

Other than the fact that the resolution does not ban child labor? And you are arguing a point that is not relevant to the discussion at hand?

Ban, restriction; they are similar terms with similar connotations and results.

Economy is better than education.

How absurd. This notion that an uneducated child that becomes an uneducated adult brings more value to the nation than an educated one...I know which makes my government more money.

The delegate from Syvorji may be misguided, but he is correct. Your very own reply confirms this; that an educated child and educated adult are more productive than an uneducated one. My concern however is for those children that cannot survive to adulthood due to limitations on where they can get their next meal. Being educated won't help if you die of starvation at the age of 10.

[Mousebumples]

Other than the fact that the resolution does not ban child labor? And you are arguing a point that is not relevant to the discussion at hand?

Ban, restriction; they are similar terms with similar connotations and results.

Ah, lazy arguing and lazy reading. I see my time is being wasted in this debate.

[Fascist Fae Elves]

Ah, lazy arguing and lazy reading. I see my time is being wasted in this debate.

But they are similar. The restrictions bans certain types of child labour.

[Flibbleites]

Other than the fact that the resolution does not ban child labor? And you are arguing a point that is not relevant to the discussion at hand?

Ban, restriction; they are similar terms with similar connotations and results.

"Similar" and "same" are not interchangable terms ambassador.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Mousebumples]

But they are similar. The restrictions bans certain types of child labour.

Yes. It bans harmful and dangerous and adult jobs from being done by children. There are plenty of jobs that children are still able to do.

Is there anything in particular that you are concerned about that a child would not be able to do under RoCL?

[Hirota]

My concern however is for those children that cannot survive to adulthood due to limitations on where they can get their next meal. Being educated won't help if you die of starvation at the age of 10.

That's probably because mommy and daddy didn't stay in school and get a decent education to get themselves decent jobs - 'tis a vicous circle which needed to be broken.

[Fascist Fae Elves]

Yes. It bans harmful and dangerous and adult jobs from being done by children. There are plenty of jobs that children are still able to do.

Is there anything in particular that you are concerned about that a child would not be able to do under RoCL?

If a child is starving to death, I doubt they are concerned much as to if the job they want to do is dangerous. Better to risk it all, than willingly give up everything.

As to the concerns on more legitimate forms of work potentially bannable under RoCL, the former WA delegate from Epistamai already covered that:

(2) work in which they are required to be in physical locations that would be damaging to their health

What is considered "damaging to their health"? There are studies and hearsay all the time that come up that say that "this phone causes cancer", "this food causes obesity", "this drink is addictive", "this activity causes carpel tunnel in the long term", etc. Can we not have children work in a candy shop because that candy will make them fat? Can we not have children work as dancers because that would be damaging to their ankles? Can we not have children work as video game testers as that may give them carpel tunnel syndrome, or as samples for new television shows because those television shows may cause seizures? What about working at a petting zoo, they may develop allergies so I guess not!

"Similar" and "same" are not interchangable terms ambassador.

Yes ok, my terminology may not have been correct there. Though the restrictions in the resolution we are discussing does ban certain things.

That's probably because mommy and daddy didn't stay in school and get a decent education to get themselves decent jobs - 'tis a vicous circle which needed to be broken.

Exactly what I've been saying. To alleviate poverty you need to tackle the causes of poverty, not ban or restrict the symptoms... which does not contribute to the end goal at all.

...

It appears that I am beginning to just repeat myself. Even though RoCL does not even attempt to fix any problems, and therefore is seen as pointless... it appears that I am in a very tiny minority on this one. The feel-good but useless resolution remains.

I'll leave this topic alone until someone else brings it up, or if anyone has any constructive questions that have not already been answered.

[Embolalia]

If a child is starving to death...

Fail.

[Flibbleites]

Yes. It bans harmful and dangerous and adult jobs from being done by children. There are plenty of jobs that children are still able to do.

Is there anything in particular that you are concerned about that a child would not be able to do under RoCL?

If a child is starving to death, I doubt they are concerned much as to if the job they want to do is dangerous. Better to risk it all, than willingly give up everything.

As to the concerns on more legitimate forms of work potentially bannable under RoCL, the former WA delegate from Epistamai already covered that:

What is considered "damaging to their health"? There are studies and hearsay all the time that come up that say that "this phone causes cancer", "this food causes obesity", "this drink is addictive", "this activity causes carpel tunnel in the long term", etc. Can we not have children work in a candy shop because that candy will make them fat? Can we not have children work as dancers because that would be damaging to their ankles? Can we not have children work as video game testers as that may give them carpel tunnel syndrome, or as samples for new television shows because those television shows may cause seizures? What about working at a petting zoo, they may develop allergies so I guess not!

Considering that we can't amend passed resolutions, did you ever stop to think that that might be exactly why the Resolution doesn't contain a laundry list of where kids can and can't work?

That's probably because mommy and daddy didn't stay in school and get a decent education to get themselves decent jobs - 'tis a vicous circle which needed to be broken.

Exactly what I've been saying. To alleviate poverty you need to tackle the causes of poverty, not ban or restrict the symptoms... which does not contribute to the end goal at all.

One of the causes of poverty is a lack of education, and let's face it, education is hard to come by if you're stuck working in a coal mine for 18 hours a day. So it appears to me that ensuring that children are able to get an education would in fact be addressing one of the causes of poverty.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Fascist Fae Elves]

Fail.

I highly doubt it that there are no cases of famine, starvation or the like across the WA. Hell, many countries within the WA are communist or socialist, which when used in poor developing countries will result in broken economies, slums that account for the majority of the population and the like.

If that "Child Protection Act" actually forces WA nations to make sure that there is no poverty of the like that results in starvation.... than I believe that I have been enlightened into a dark secrete of the WA that was previously hidden from my eyes... which I bet that all the bleeding heart leftists of the WA would find despicable. Here is my theory:

...

Country A: Rich
Country B: Extreme poverty

Countries A and B trade with one another, A exploits B because they hold an obvious advantage.

B is stricken with mass amounts of poverty, because they were a poor shithole to begin with. B is subject to famines, huge refugee camps, population growth is restricted by deaths rather than being restricted by preventing pregnancies. These assumptions are based on many examples (RL examples are the easiest, and obvious).

Country B is in violation of the Child Protection Act, even though there is not enough resources to feed all the hungry mouths. It is impossible for B to conform with the Child Protection Act, as reproduction rates are completely out of control with respect to the shitty economy.

Country B is kicked out of the WA. B is no longer bound to the many other human rights laws, and other laws of the WA.

End result, WA policies do not promote human rights. In actuality, the result is a reduction of human rights across NS by kicking nations out of the WA because of economic mismanagement.... and in some cases an act of god (so to speak) that results in a famine, will eject nations out of the WA... which will no longer be bound by WA laws.

...

We being a far right, fascist free-marketeers need not worry about being kicked out of the WA due to our wealth... nor do we necessarily care about the suffering of developing socialist or communist regimes (we actually rather enjoy seeing communists fail). Though we do find this theory entertaining; we used to think that the WA was filled with a bunch of human rights whimpering leftists... but should our theory be correct, there is a vast network of loopholes that result in the complete opposite result of a human rights whimperist's agenda.

...

We had just stated that we would not return to this discussion unless there are constructive questions... but that realization was too entertaining not to share.

[The Dourian Embassy]

OOC: Compliance is mandatory, but nations don't get kicked out of the WA. The compliance simply happens. And it DOES happen, regardless, oddly enough, of the capacity of the nation in question to realistically comply. "So shall it be written, so shall it be done,"

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Compliance is mandatory, but nations don't get kicked out of the WA. The compliance simply happens. And it DOES happen, regardless, oddly enough, of the capacity of the nation in question to realistically comply. "So shall it be written, so shall it be done,"

OOC: Passing a resolution doesn't work miracles, it simply gets those measures written into the member nations' laws and thereby makes those nations' governments responsible for carrying them out... and if a government really hasn't got the money to do so completely then it hasn't got the money to do so completely, and so those measures dosn't actually get carried out completely...
Otherwise I'm going to introduce a proposal giving everybody from WA member nations the power of [wingless] flight...

[The Dourian Embassy]

OOC: Passing a resolution doesn't work miracles, it simply gets those measures written into the member nations' laws and thereby makes those nations' governments responsible for carrying them out... and if a government really hasn't got the money to do so completely then it hasn't got the money to do so completely, and so those measures dosn't actually get carried out completely...
Otherwise I'm going to introduce a proposal giving everybody from WA member nations the power of [wingless] flight...

OOC: I suppose my point was on the "or we get kicked out" bit. But the idea of flying armed bears is quite terrifying.... you should totally do that.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Passing a resolution doesn't work miracles, it simply gets those measures written into the member nations' laws and thereby makes those nations' governments responsible for carrying them out... and if a government really hasn't got the money to do so completely then it hasn't got the money to do so completely, and so those measures dosn't actually get carried out completely...
Otherwise I'm going to introduce a proposal giving everybody from WA member nations the power of [wingless] flight...

OOC: I suppose my point was on the "or we get kicked out" bit. But the idea of flying armed bears is quite terrifying....

And they're passing over your homeland right now!

^_^

[The Dourian Embassy]

I'm going out on a limb here and saying the Flying bears are what broke the forums. I took the liberty of creating an artists rendering.

http://img525.imageshack.us/i/flyingbears.jpg/