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.
Advertisement
by The New California Republic » Sun Dec 24, 2017 3:54 pm
by Latrovia » Sun Dec 24, 2017 3:58 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Latrovia wrote: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.Latrovia wrote: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...
by Araraukar » Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:00 pm
United Republic Empire wrote:United Republic Empire wrote: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"
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.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by The New California Republic » Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:04 pm
Latrovia wrote:Are you actually joking?
Latrovia wrote: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.
by The New California Republic » Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:06 pm
Araraukar wrote: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.
by United Republic Empire » Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:11 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Latrovia wrote: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.Latrovia wrote: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.
by The New California Republic » Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:17 pm
United Republic Empire wrote:1) nobody is ignoring his personal decision - We're asking him to explain it - Do you understand that part
United Republic Empire wrote:2) The proposal sat in Drafting for a week and apparently 100+ delegates approve of it in its current form.
United Republic Empire wrote: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.
by Araraukar » Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:22 pm
United Republic Empire wrote:2) The proposal sat in Drafting for a week
The New California Republic wrote:OOC: I also tried to hammer this point home, but to no avail.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by The New California Republic » Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:32 pm
by Stoskavanya » Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:10 pm
by Greater vakolicci haven » Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:27 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Araraukar wrote: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.
by The New California Republic » Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:31 pm
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:The New California Republic wrote: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.
by Greater vakolicci haven » Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:32 pm
Stoskavanya wrote: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.
by Greater vakolicci haven » Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:33 pm
by The New California Republic » Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:36 pm
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:The New California Republic wrote: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.
by Greater vakolicci haven » Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:38 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Greater vakolicci haven wrote: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...
by The New California Republic » Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:40 pm
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:The New California Republic wrote: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.
by Greater vakolicci haven » Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:45 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Greater vakolicci haven wrote: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?
by Aclion » Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:47 pm
Latrovia wrote: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.
by The New California Republic » Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:49 pm
Greater vakolicci haven wrote: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.
by Greater vakolicci haven » Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:54 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Greater vakolicci haven wrote: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":Christian Democrats wrote:And this is why I've voted illegal. It straddles the line between categories A and B and has been placed in category C.
by The New California Republic » Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:59 pm
by TURTLESHROOM II » Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:08 pm
United Republic Empire wrote:Except we've established based on the definitions provided in the proposal that this is not prostitution
As TS adapts to new normal, large flagellant sects remain -|- TurtleShroom forfeits imperial dignity -|- "Skibidi Toilet" creator awarded highest artistic honor for contributions to wholesome family entertainment (obscene gestures cut out)
by Greater vakolicci haven » Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:12 pm
TURTLESHROOM II wrote:United Republic Empire wrote: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!!"
by TURTLESHROOM II » Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:13 pm
Greater vakolicci haven wrote: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.
As TS adapts to new normal, large flagellant sects remain -|- TurtleShroom forfeits imperial dignity -|- "Skibidi Toilet" creator awarded highest artistic honor for contributions to wholesome family entertainment (obscene gestures cut out)
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement