Issue choices are forcing my ideology poorly

[Frisbeeteria]

Because I happen to have a conservative political bent, I'm still being penalized for it. For example, I was punished for essentially voting to implement "Don't ask Don't tell" in the military. This is the result: "people have to sneak out of the country in order to have sex, 'unconventional' weaponry has been banned, and military geniuses responsible for brilliant campaigns are drummed out because they have close same-sex friends and an interest in interior design"

Don't you think its ridiculous that my viewpoint, shared by around half of US citizens, would immediately be condemned to be anti-civil rights? Every time I take a position against what seems to be Nationstates' prevailing liberal agenda, I get penalized for it in the form of depreciations in civil rights/political freedom?

I submitted an issue two weeks ago discussing gay marriage, and did a pretty fair job on it (I didn't, for instance, make the obligatory 'reverend' character choice seem completely ludicrous). It was rejected. I want to emphasize so that everyone knows; just because I'm for traditional marriage and will take stances consistent with that view, does not mean I'm against gay people. I'm not. I just won't have marriage redefined after a 5,000 year history.

That's it.

[Sedgistan]

I submitted an issue two weeks ago discussing gay marriage, and did a pretty fair job on it (I didn't, for instance, make the obligatory 'reverend' character choice seem completely ludicrous). It was rejected.

No it wasn't. We're still processing issues submitted at the beginning of the year. I doubt anyone has seen your issue yet.

[AugustusX]

can't you modify issues so that taking a stance based upon moral conviction doesn't detract from civil rights/political freedom?

[Panageadom]

'fraid that not having to listen to your conception of moral convictions (nor you mine) is inherent to freedom.

[Luna Amore]

Every. Choice. Has. Unintended. Side-effects.

It's as simple as that. If you're looking for 'perfect' solutions to problems, you're gonna have a bad time.

For example, I was punished for essentially voting to implement "Don't ask Don't tell" in the military. This is the result: "people have to sneak out of the country in order to have sex, 'unconventional' weaponry has been banned, and military geniuses responsible for brilliant campaigns are drummed out because they have close same-sex friends and an interest in interior design"

You're implementation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" led only to the bolded part. This can be seen in your national happenings:

1 day 4 hours ago: Following new legislation in AugustusX, military geniuses responsible for brilliant campaigns are drummed out because they have close same-sex friends and an interest in interior design.
1 day 16 hours ago: AugustusX was reclassified from "Inoffensive Centrist Democracy" to "Moralistic Democracy".
1 day 16 hours ago: Following new legislation in AugustusX, 'unconventional' weaponry has been banned.
1 day 16 hours ago: Following new legislation in AugustusX, people have to sneak out of the country in order to have sex.

can't you modify issues so that taking a stance based upon moral conviction doesn't detract from civil rights/political freedom?

If those moral convictions hinder a person's rights, no. Take the euthanasia issue for example. Woman wants it to be legal, church doesn't for moral reasons. If you side with the church you're limiting civil rights.

[AugustusX]

Every choice typically doesn't have unintended side effects for me. I know what's coming; however, I still refuse to compromise my moral convictions to gain a few points up in civil rights. Your definition of what are 'civil rights' are actually quite historically revisionist and incredibly subjective. The issue of gay marriage has never been an issue; in fact, the first country to ever implement it was the Netherlands in 2001. It wasn't until this past decade that people decided that is was somehow a good idea to re-define marriage.

You just proved my point that Nationstates is incredibly revisionist in its leftist agenda. "If those moral convictions hinder a person's rights, no. Take the euthanasia issue for example. Woman wants it to be legal, church doesn't for moral reasons. If you side with the church you're limiting civil rights"

This is exactly what I've been fighting against. I am NOT limiting civil rights by opposing euthanasia (which, by the way, why would women support its legality moreso than men). In my view, I'm preserving life in combating euthanasia and abortion. In promoting traditional marriage I am preserving a man made institution that has been around (and unchanged) until 2001, and that buffers natural law. Why do I have to be wrong in saying that gay marriage is wrong, if the bulk of human history (compared to your decade) says otherwise?

[Luna Amore]

Every choice typically doesn't have unintended side effects for me. I know what's coming; however, I still refuse to compromise my moral convictions to gain a few points up in civil rights. Your definition of what are 'civil rights' are actually quite historically revisionist and incredibly subjective. The issue of gay marriage has never been an issue; in fact, the first country to ever implement it was the Netherlands in 2001. It wasn't until this past decade that people decided that is was somehow a good idea to re-define marriage.

You just proved my point that Nationstates is incredibly revisionist in its leftist agenda. "If those moral convictions hinder a person's rights, no. Take the euthanasia issue for example. Woman wants it to be legal, church doesn't for moral reasons. If you side with the church you're limiting civil rights"

This is exactly what I've been fighting against. I am NOT limiting civil rights by opposing euthanasia (which, by the way, why would women support its legality moreso than men). In my view, I'm preserving life in combating euthanasia and abortion. In promoting traditional marriage I am preserving a man made institution that has been around (and unchanged) until 2001, and that buffers natural law. Why do I have to be wrong in saying that gay marriage is wrong, if the bulk of human history (compared to your decade) says otherwise?

Argumentum ad populum. How long something has been believed or how many people believe it doesn't affect how true something is.

Civil Rights: the personal rights of the individual citizen,

Can gays marry? Answer no and you are limiting personal rights.
Legalize euthanasia? Answer no and you are limiting personal rights.

It's really not that difficult. You aren't being punished for your political bent. Real life history has nothing to do with it. Poll numbers have nothing to do with it.

[Literary Detectives]

you do know that your bigoted rant against gay marriage has zero to do with your bigoted stance against homosexuals serving in the military?

and yes, you are limiting civil rights by passing such laws and banning euthanasia. You are taking away a freedom. Your opinion of a particular freedom doesn't mean that banning is it not taking away freedoms.

You would probably be against murder, animal cruelty, pedophilia, etc. Banning those things do take away a freedom. It is freedom that most would agree must be not be given. However it is still a freedom being denied.

[Frisbeeteria]

Let's not get into personalities here. Back on topic.

Reducing choices for the finest of reasons is still reducing choices. There's no agenda behind it.

[AugustusX]

I'm not going to even discuss the ludicrous assertions of bigotry made by literary detectives. Obviously, they have not read my argument concerning the subject. It's about the preservation of something important, not bigotry or hatred. Ultimately, Frisbeeteria, your argument still doesn't hold water. There are choices for the good of society, and there are choices that negatively impact society's well being. If I "take away" a choice that negatively impacts society (gay marriage/related issues), I'm helping society, not hurting it. Government limits the scope of choices we make, but then again, its not really limiting choices (the government is not wrong, for instance, to limit someone's decision to take another's life). It increases freedom for those who would be adversely affected by the undesirable actions of some individuals.

[AugustusX]

While I'm still on the topic, I do want to apologize for my subject header, and I'll be using more responsible language in future. However, my sentiments still stand.

[Sedgistan]

If I "take away" a choice that negatively impacts society (gay marriage/related issues), I'm helping society, not hurting it.

Society being different to civil freedoms.

It increases freedom for those who would be adversely affected by the undesirable actions of some individuals.

Not really. It increases happiness for them perhaps, but it doesn't meant they suddenly have the freedom to do more actions.

[Pyramala]

Every choice typically doesn't have unintended side effects for me. I know what's coming; however, I still refuse to compromise my moral convictions to gain a few points up in civil rights. Your definition of what are 'civil rights' are actually quite historically revisionist and incredibly subjective. The issue of gay marriage has never been an issue; in fact, the first country to ever implement it was the Netherlands in 2001. It wasn't until this past decade that people decided that is was somehow a good idea to re-define marriage.

You just proved my point that Nationstates is incredibly revisionist in its leftist agenda. "If those moral convictions hinder a person's rights, no. Take the euthanasia issue for example. Woman wants it to be legal, church doesn't for moral reasons. If you side with the church you're limiting civil rights"

This is exactly what I've been fighting against. I am NOT limiting civil rights by opposing euthanasia (which, by the way, why would women support its legality moreso than men). In my view, I'm preserving life in combating euthanasia and abortion. In promoting traditional marriage I am preserving a man made institution that has been around (and unchanged) until 2001, and that buffers natural law. Why do I have to be wrong in saying that gay marriage is wrong, if the bulk of human history (compared to your decade) says otherwise?

Are you here to discuss the mechanics of nationstates or have a debate on gay marriage? Your OP says one, your follow up posts say another...

There is no right or wrong choice. I don't know why you think nationstates is somehow branding your choice as wrong. It simply has a consequence you didn't foresee and possibly didn't want. Like all issues in nationstates (and the real world for what it's worth), you (or a government) may make a choice that it believes is good for the people and for the country, but has side-effects that simply cannot be predicted.


And fact of the matter is, what civil rights boils down to is literally the freedom to choose your own path. By restricting someone choices, be it gay marriage, euthanasia, the right to bear arms, or even public nudity you are taking away their civil rights. It has nothing to do with saving the lives of the people or preserving cultural traditions.

If I were to ban all fast food and mandate that my population must eat a perfect and balanced diet every day, I would certainly save thousands of lives. However would you not complain your civil rights had been reduced when you received your weekly ration of government approved Celery-and-Bran snackcakes every monday morning?


What you seem to desire is a fourth line on the graph marked 'Cultural Stability', a stat that increases as you reinforce legislation you have previously passed, and decreases when you pass radical new laws.


Summation:
Civil Rights != Tradition or Health
Civil Rights = The ability to make choices (regardless of who in society may disapprove)


tbh if you want perfect civil rights you are going to have to pass a lot of laws you would never agree with. You would need to mandate a persons right to eat another person, and that persons right to sell their body to a restaurant if they wish, you will need to completely legalise all drugs and probably subsidise them, you will need to ban prisons and give your police force sensitivity training, you will need to allow citizens to marry whatever species or OBJECT they please, let alone whatever gender ^^

Now if you think what you're trying to do is tough, try achieving my goal of perfect economy, perfect civil rights, no political freedoms.
Then you can talk to me about unintended consequences

[Pyramala]

I'm not going to even discuss the ludicrous assertions of bigotry made by literary detectives. Obviously, they have not read my argument concerning the subject. It's about the preservation of something important, not bigotry or hatred. Ultimately, Frisbeeteria, your argument still doesn't hold water. There are choices for the good of society, and there are choices that negatively impact society's well being. If I "take away" a choice that negatively impacts society (gay marriage/related issues), I'm helping society, not hurting it. Government limits the scope of choices we make, but then again, its not really limiting choices (the government is not wrong, for instance, to limit someone's decision to take another's life). It increases freedom for those who would be adversely affected by the undesirable actions of some individuals.

If you really want to put a fine point on it, Eugencs is good for society as a whole as well. It cleanses the genepool and after a few generations should theoretically result in a fitter, healthier, smarter population.


But I doubt you would call Hitler a civil rights pioneer would you?


sorry for dbl post

[Geilinor]

Every choice typically doesn't have unintended side effects for me. I know what's coming; however, I still refuse to compromise my moral convictions to gain a few points up in civil rights. Your definition of what are 'civil rights' are actually quite historically revisionist and incredibly subjective. The issue of gay marriage has never been an issue; in fact, the first country to ever implement it was the Netherlands in 2001. It wasn't until this past decade that people decided that is was somehow a good idea to re-define marriage.

You just proved my point that Nationstates is incredibly revisionist in its leftist agenda. "If those moral convictions hinder a person's rights, no. Take the euthanasia issue for example. Woman wants it to be legal, church doesn't for moral reasons. If you side with the church you're limiting civil rights"

This is exactly what I've been fighting against. I am NOT limiting civil rights by opposing euthanasia (which, by the way, why would women support its legality moreso than men). In my view, I'm preserving life in combating euthanasia and abortion. In promoting traditional marriage I am preserving a man made institution that has been around (and unchanged) until 2001, and that buffers natural law. Why do I have to be wrong in saying that gay marriage is wrong, if the bulk of human history (compared to your decade) says otherwise?

You don't win NationStates by having high civil rights. This is a role-playing game and the issues are purposely written to be exaggerated in every direction, both liberal and conservative. Your WA classification is Moraliastic Democracy, which is what you want, is it not? To debate real live, visit the General forum.