by NOFEAR » Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:56 am
by Marche Verte-Bleu » Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:11 am
by NOFEAR » Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:17 am
Marche Verte-Bleu wrote:OOC: Was this primarily made to bypass the legality issue on your Age of Consent draft?
by Marche Verte-Bleu » Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:25 am
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.
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:30 am
by NOFEAR » Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:38 am
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.
by NOFEAR » Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:46 am
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."
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:48 am
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.
by NOFEAR » Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:59 am
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."
by The New California Republic » Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:59 am
by NOFEAR » Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:00 am
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."
by NOFEAR » Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:01 am
by The New California Republic » Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:02 am
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.
by NOFEAR » Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:14 am
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?
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:25 am
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
by Bananaistan » Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:26 am
by The New California Republic » Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:32 am
by NOFEAR » Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:59 am
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:02 pm
by The New California Republic » Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:09 pm
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.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:21 pm
by Kenmoria » Fri Feb 21, 2020 2:23 pm
by The New California Republic » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:13 pm
by WayNeacTia » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:38 pm
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.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Seedless Watermelon » Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:11 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bisofeyr
Advertisement