NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is the proposal text:

Repeal "Legalize prostitution"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #46
Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks

Description: UN Resolution #46: Legalize prostitution (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING as a precedent of the UN to uphold health and safety as public rights,

BEARING responsibility to encourage healthy practices in member nations and discourage unhealthy practices,

REVIEWING the possible increased public health risk from encouraging prostitution in member nations,

DETERMINING it a member nation’s right to allow or disallow prostitution independently, based upon that member nation’s independent medical need and standing;

REPEALS “Legalize Prostitution”, implemented February 2 2004;

HONORS the following passed resolutions, in their efforts to bring about a healthier, more disease-free world: “Keep the world disease free!”, implemented April 14 2003; “Required Basic Healthcare”, implemented June 5 2003; “’RBH’ Replacement”, implemented June 26 2003; “The IRCO”, implemented September 1 2003; “Global AIDS Initiative”, implemented October 18 2003; “No Embargoes on Medicine”, implemented October 24 2003; “Increased Access to Medicine”, implemented December 28 2003; “World Blood Bank”, implemented April 14 2004; “Needle Sharing Prevention”, implemented July 23 2004; “Epidemic Prevention Protocol”, implemented October 13 2004; “Stem Cell Research Funding”, implemented Novermber 30 2004; and “NS HIV AIDS Act” implemented December 28 2004;


Please approve this repeal proposal!

You can get to it by typing in "pros" in the search bar at the bottom of any page in the "list proposals" queue. There's also a link to it here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/90955/page=UN_proposal/start=60).

Thank you for you time.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

We support the legalisation of prostitution. Also we do not see what prostitution has to do with spreading disease if it is regulated properly. You do not have our support.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Nor ours. Properly regulated, it poses less of a health threat than illegal and unregulated. Plus it should be a matter of personal choice, not governmental choice.

I love destroying these. It gives my twisted, blackened little heart a personal joy and two extra pumps of effort to rip these attempts to shreds. If it paid money, I'd make it my primary job.

Description: UN Resolution #46: Legalize prostitution (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Not going to pass. I'll bet the souls of four young nations on it.

Argument: The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING as a precedent of the UN to uphold health and safety as public rights,

Not if you bother putting up regulations on it. If it is a health risk in your nation, that means your nation's government isn't doing its job. It's no more a health risk in DLE than doctors are.

BEARING responsibility to encourage healthy practices in member nations and discourage unhealthy practices,

If nation governments do their job, they will see this as helping oppose your previous point. Which it does.

It's sad that even your proposal opposes your proposal.

REVIEWING the possible increased public health risk from encouraging prostitution in member nations,

Which only results from national governments not doing their job.

DETERMINING it a member nation’s right to allow or disallow prostitution independently, based upon that member nation’s independent medical need and standing;

Health regulations on the national level take care of that, so this is more a point that results from a government not bothering to use health regulations and is not the fault of the UN.

REPEALS “Legalize Prostitution”, implemented February 2 2004;

Not likely to happen.

HONORS the following passed resolutions, in their efforts to bring about a healthier, more disease-free world: “Keep the world disease free!”, implemented April 14 2003; “Required Basic Healthcare”, implemented June 5 2003; “’RBH’ Replacement”, implemented June 26 2003; “The IRCO”, implemented September 1 2003; “Global AIDS Initiative”, implemented October 18 2003; “No Embargoes on Medicine”, implemented October 24 2003; “Increased Access to Medicine”, implemented December 28 2003; “World Blood Bank”, implemented April 14 2004; “Needle Sharing Prevention”, implemented July 23 2004; “Epidemic Prevention Protocol”, implemented October 13 2004; “Stem Cell Research Funding”, implemented Novermber 30 2004; and “NS HIV AIDS Act” implemented December 28 2004

All of which are honored if you use health regulations.

Once again, shot down with ease.

Here is the proposal text:



Please approve this repeal proposal!

You can get to it by typing in "pros" in the search bar at the bottom of any page in the "list proposals" queue. There's also a link to it here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/90955/page=UN_proposal/start=60).

Thank you for you time.

Powerhungry Chipmunks
Haven't you tried this like 3 times in the last week?

Give it up already.

Haven't you tried this like 3 times in the last week?

Give it up already.

Nah. It's been tried 3 times this week by a variety of people. He just bandwagoned with them.

You have our nation's and our region's delegate's support. Why should it be forced upon us to legalize Whoring?

DLE's job is to be an ass and pull things apart but it looks like Asshelmetta :mp5: is trying to move in on his territory. :sniper:

You have our nation's and our region's delegate's support. Why should it be forced upon us to legalize Whoring?

DLE's job is to be an ass and pull things apart but it looks like Asshelmetta :mp5: is trying to move in on his territory. :sniper:
Never.

His territory is in the middle of a cosmic no-fly zone. And it's full of aliens and things.

No, my focus at present is helping eScrew stay alive long enough that I can have a war with them.

DLE's job is to be an ass and pull things apart but it looks like Asshelmetta :mp5: is trying to move in on his territory. :sniper:

My job is to look out for my nation in any way I can. That's what I do. It requires ripping apart a lot of proposals.

Nah. It's been tried 3 times this week by a variety of people. He just bandwagoned with them.

yeah, i remember arguing against this repeal just a day or two ago...

Anyways, since your naming so many resolutions that indirectly address reasons against legalizing prostitution, how 'bout one that directly addresses reasons for keeping prostitution legal:

UN Resolution #7 Thu Mar 13 2003:
"What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.)."

You'd have to repeal both... passed with 8:1 ratio... yadda yadda I've said all this before...

UN Resolution #7 Thu Mar 13 2003:
"What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.)."

This does not necessarily preclude illegalization of prostitution. In the real world, much the same practice of "Sexual Freedom" is in place in the US. And yet, there are many places in which prostitution is illegal.


Anyways, since your naming so many resolutions that indirectly address reasons against legalizing prostitution, how 'bout one that directly addresses reasons for keeping prostitution legal:

I named those resolutions to further emphasize the first point ("RECOGNIZING as a precedent..."), as many delegates are new enough to the game so as not to recognize the extensive nature of the UN's commitment to public health.

Nah. It's been tried 3 times this week by a variety of people. He just bandwagoned with them.

Actually, I've been long planning a repeal. It's a poorly worded resolution, and I disagree with the ideology behind it. The reason I've presented it now is because there were no other prostitution repeals in front of it (thus allowing me the search function for the entirety of my 3.5 days), and because Neigh Var's campaign tested (a positive result) the constituency I've been compiling for several months. It's all "go"s on my launch indicator.

RECOGNIZING as a precedent of the UN to uphold health and safety as public rights, Not if you bother putting up regulations on it. If it is a health risk in your nation, that means your nation's government isn't doing its job. It's no more a health risk in DLE than doctors are.

Whether I bother putting regulations up or not, the resolutions stand. There is a precedent of passing pro-health resolutions. DLE’s doctors and government regulation have no bearing on that.

Which only results from national governments not doing their job.

What job exactly? The super-protective regulation that was instilled by the honorable "legalize prostitution" proposal? Allow me to recall it for you:

Description: As you are aware, there are citizens who get by in desperate times by selling their bodies in order to pay their bills and feed their children. Both men and women partake in this profession. If we legalized prostitution, people would be able to sell themselves to get by. In return, the government could use the money collected from taxes on prostitution income to support programs that help the poor. Prostitution is the oldest profession. Why must we make it a priority for law enforcement to monitor and arrest prostitutes when there are greater crimes out there?

Does this resolution suggest we regulate prostitution? No. Does this resolution suggest mandatory STD testing for prostitutes? No. There is nothing in this proposal which, as Myopia (in my next quote, actually) suggests, mandates a better, cleaner, government-run prostitution market. In fact, the proposal suggests something to the contrary: it suggests a major motivating factor for legalizing prostitution is to gain taxes from the industry. If a government is staking a portion of its fiscal future in the taxation of prostitutes, is there much motivation to slow the market with costly and time-consuming health regulations? No.


Member nations, in order to "do their job" (as DLE suggests we must) in securing the public health, need this resolution removed: in order to add the illegalization of prostitution to their arsenal. Not every nation is in the same medical need and standing. Some nations need these measures to fight STD epidemics.

Nor ours. Properly regulated, it poses less of a health threat than illegal and unregulated. Plus it should be a matter of personal choice, not governmental choice.

The assumption that prostitution will occur regardless of its legal status seems awfully cynical, but I'll just consider it constant for now, for argument's sake.

The regulation of prostitution is not an direct result of its legalization, and definitely not a direct (in indirect) result of this resolution. Consider the real-life example of Thailand. In Thailand, prostitution is illegal, though it's tolerated as part of the "underground". In fact, due to increasing AIDS problems there, known trafficking places' locations are known to the Health Department and police stations. Even further, the government has enacted thorough mandatory condom use, and mandatory check-ups for these brothels. As a result, STD rates are down among prostitutes. It's still illegal, yet the nation has found a way to regulate. Legalization (which this proposal does) does not equate healthy regulation (which this proposal most definitely does not).

This does not necessarily preclude illegalization of prostitution. In the real world, much the same practice of "Sexual Freedom" is in place in the US. And yet, there are many places in which prostitution is illegal.

This does not necessarily preclude illegalization of prostitution. In the real world, much the same practice of "Sexual Freedom" is in place in the US. And yet, there are many places in which prostitution is illegal.

I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress.

OK, but no. But yes. But seriously.

Whoa! News flash! Prostitution is legal in the US?

Dude, you've been reading too much http://www.arabnews.com
Prostitution is illegal pretty much everywhere in the United States. Except certain parts of Nevada, a small unimportant state with few people anyway.

Actually, I've been long planning a repeal. It's a poorly worded resolution, and I disagree with the ideology behind it. The reason I've presented it now is because there were no other prostitution repeals in front of it (thus allowing me the search function for the entirety of my 3.5 days), and because Neigh Var's campaign tested (a positive result) the constituency I've been compiling for several months. It's all "go"s on my launch indicator.

Neigh Var's attempt was a stunning failure. Most of the people who posted there disagreed with him.

Whether I bother putting regulations up or not, the resolutions stand. There is a precedent of passing pro-health resolutions. DLE’s doctors and government regulation have no bearing on that.

There's also a precedence of not bothering to repeal resolutions the body actually passed, no matter how harmful or idiotic they are. The one successful attempt was the test resolution, which had a total of three votes and was passed before the site even openned to the public.

What job exactly? The super-protective regulation that was instilled by the honorable "legalize prostitution" proposal? Allow me to recall it for you:



Does this resolution suggest we regulate prostitution? No. Does this resolution suggest mandatory STD testing for prostitutes? No. There is nothing in this proposal which, as Myopia (in my next quote, actually) suggests, mandates a better, cleaner, government-run prostitution market. In fact, the proposal suggests something to the contrary: it suggests a major motivating factor for legalizing prostitution is to gain taxes from the industry. If a government is staking a portion of its fiscal future in the taxation of prostitutes, is there much motivation to slow the market with costly and time-consuming health regulations? No.

1) If it doesn't state something, does that mean you cannot do it? No.
2) If you are concerned about health, should you not regulate it just because the resolution says nothing about it? No.
3) If you're not in it for the money, should you not regulate it? No.
4) Is there motivation to regulate if money is not your only concern? Yes.
5) Are there a variety of protections available? Yes.

Member nations, in order to "do their job" (as DLE suggests we must) in securing the public health, need this resolution removed: in order to add the illegalization of prostitution to their arsenal. Not every nation is in the same medical need and standing. Some nations need these measures to fight STD epidemics.

If they need them, then either they have a very unusual epidemic on their hand or they have not bothered investigating all option. Usually, it's the second one. The proposal leaving off the regulation aspect leaves it up to the nations to regulate as their situation desires. You can even regulate it in such of a way to make it effectively illegal.

The regulation of prostitution is not an direct result of its legalization, and definitely not a direct (in indirect) result of this resolution. Consider the real-life example of Thailand. In Thailand, prostitution is illegal, though it's tolerated as part of the "underground". In fact, due to increasing AIDS problems there, known trafficking places' locations are known to the Health Department and police stations. Even further, the government has enacted thorough mandatory condom use, and mandatory check-ups for these brothels. As a result, STD rates are down among prostitutes. It's still illegal, yet the nation has found a way to regulate. Legalization (which this proposal does) does not equate healthy regulation (which this proposal most definitely does not).

Congrats. You just undermined your own arguement with an example of a nation that successfully regulates it, despite the fact they are allowing it to happen. Them allowing it to go on like that makes it effectively legal.

1) If it doesn't state something, does that mean you cannot do it? No.


True. And as it is true, there is "no need" to have this resolution. Repealed or no, the decision to regulate prostitution or protect the health of sex workers is entirely up to the national government. Is there a reason to leave this example of a poor UN proposal up, other than apathy?


3) If you're not in it for the money, should you not regulate it? No.
4) Is there motivation to regulate if money is not your only concern? Yes.


I still question the value of the resolution because it not only refuses to mention a need for regulation, but it also includes a motivating factor which possibly decreases the effectiveness of regulation. No, I'm not saying nations which tax prostitutes can't regulate them effectively. I mean the spirit of the proposal is contrary to effective control of health concerns in the sex industry. That, on top of doing nothing to help the medical situation of sex workers, is why I submit this repeal.

If they need them, then either they have a very unusual epidemic on their hand or they have not bothered investigating all option. Usually, it's the second one. The proposal leaving off the regulation aspect leaves it up to the nations to regulate as their situation desires. You can even regulate it in such of a way to make it effectively illegal.

Yes, the resolution allows for a positive outcome (meaningful regulation), but it plays no positive role in such an outcome. And, as such, isn't necessary for such an outcome to occur. If there's to be a UN decision to regulate the sex industry, this resolution isn't necessary. There isn't a negative effect on nation's abilities to regulate prostitution with the repeal of this resolution. In fact, there's the possibility that making it illegal in some nations produce a positive effect in regulation. I don't see any reason not to endorse that outcome.

(this is) an example of a nation that successfully regulates it, despite the fact they are allowing it to happen. Them allowing it to go on like that makes it effectively legal.

According to the old school interpretation of resolution compliance, a nation, I believe, cannot over-regulate a legal act into 'illegality', or vice versa.

After this fails, will you please hush about it?

After this fails, will you please hush about it?

Uh, I think you, er, missed a memo at some point.

Oh well, it being a new page, I'll re-post the particulars here:


Here is the proposal text:



Repeal "Legalize prostitution"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #46
Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks

Description: UN Resolution #46: Legalize prostitution (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING as a precedent of the UN to uphold health and safety as public rights,

BEARING responsibility to encourage healthy practices in member nations and discourage unhealthy practices,

REVIEWING the possible increased public health risk from encouraging prostitution in member nations,

DETERMINING it a member nation’s right to allow or disallow prostitution independently, based upon that member nation’s independent medical need and standing;

REPEALS “Legalize Prostitution”, implemented February 2 2004;

HONORS the following passed resolutions, in their efforts to bring about a healthier, more disease-free world: “Keep the world disease free!”, implemented April 14 2003; “Required Basic Healthcare”, implemented June 5 2003; “’RBH’ Replacement”, implemented June 26 2003; “The IRCO”, implemented September 1 2003; “Global AIDS Initiative”, implemented October 18 2003; “No Embargoes on Medicine”, implemented October 24 2003; “Increased Access to Medicine”, implemented December 28 2003; “World Blood Bank”, implemented April 14 2004; “Needle Sharing Prevention”, implemented July 23 2004; “Epidemic Prevention Protocol”, implemented October 13 2004; “Stem Cell Research Funding”, implemented Novermber 30 2004; and “NS HIV AIDS Act” implemented December 28 2004;




Please approve this repeal proposal!

You can get to it by typing in "pros" in the search bar at the bottom of any page in the "list proposals" queue. There's also a link to it here.

Thank you for you time.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

True. And as it is true, there is "no need" to have this resolution. Repealed or no, the decision to regulate prostitution or protect the health of sex workers is entirely up to the national government. Is there a reason to leave this example of a poor UN proposal up, other than apathy?

Actually, yes. It prevents nations from forcing it to be illegal throughout the UN and, thus, removing a legitimate employment opporunity in many nations.

I still question the value of the resolution because it not only refuses to mention a need for regulation, but it also includes a motivating factor which possibly decreases the effectiveness of regulation. No, I'm not saying nations which tax prostitutes can't regulate them effectively. I mean the spirit of the proposal is contrary to effective control of health concerns in the sex industry. That, on top of doing nothing to help the medical situation of sex workers, is why I submit this repeal.

Ya know, you can make a resolution about health regulations on industries and types of employment and include prostitution as an industry to be regulated in the proposal. The UN will back it and your goal in the health area will be accomplished.

Yes, the resolution allows for a positive outcome (meaningful regulation), but it plays no positive role in such an outcome. And, as such, isn't necessary for such an outcome to occur. If there's to be a UN decision to regulate the sex industry, this resolution isn't necessary. There isn't a negative effect on nation's abilities to regulate prostitution with the repeal of this resolution. In fact, there's the possibility that making it illegal in some nations produce a positive effect in regulation. I don't see any reason not to endorse that outcome.

Repealing this makes it possible for it to be completely illegalized, if someone plays their cards right. I'm opposed to such, but as I do not see this as an issue where the UN can maintain balance, I would rather be stepping on others than stepped on.

According to the old school interpretation of resolution compliance, a nation, I believe, cannot over-regulate a legal act into 'illegality', or vice versa.

I banned cars to get around the hydrogen resolution. This (http://www.freewebs.com/demonlordenigma/AtmoSkimmer.JPG) is what I replace them with. More efficient and ecologically friendly fuel source while solving problems of traffic jams by being airborne. Made it effectively illegal through regulation.

The old-school definition is fine, but many nations in NS don't accept it. It's more the new-school of "How can I twist this to my benefit?" I argue using them, as it's the method I also use. I just require less twisting of resolutions to benefit me due to national outlook.

Actually, yes. It prevents nations from forcing it to be illegal throughout the UN and, thus, removing a legitimate employment opporunity in many nations.

Except that it doesn't even do that. Officially the proposal only states, hypothetically, the "benefits" of prostitution and queries, "Why must we make it a priority for law enforcement to monitor and arrest prostitutes when there are greater crimes out there?" Theoretically there could still be a resolution passed stating "The UN has reviewed the ideals inherent in 'Legalize Prostitution' and has decided to outlaw prostitution anyway". Or somesuch.

If there's to be a real legalization of prostitution, it would most likely need this original resolution removed, as many members would not support a new one with the "we already have that" argument. So, if you want protection against a hypothetical future proposal outlawing prostitution, then support this repeal, and draft a new prostitution proposal, actually legalizing it.

Ya know, you can make a resolution about health regulations on industries and types of employment and include prostitution as an industry to be regulated in the proposal. The UN will back it and your goal in the health area will be accomplished.

My goal is not to make health regulation for prostitutes. My goal is to pass this repeal, simply put.

Repealing this makes it possible for it to be completely illegalized, if someone plays their cards right.

Again, it's already possible. Your best bet to keep someone from doing this is to repeal the original proposal which will increase the chances of a new legalization passing.

I would rather be stepping on others than stepped on.

That seems a bit petty.

Uh, I think you, er, missed a memo at some point.



We noted your attempt. Now, once it fails, will you stop attempting it? It gets tedious with all these repeal attempts over and over and over and over. How many passed? One.

So, as a note, when this one bites it, would you please hush about it and stop with the repeal attempt?

I was wondering how long it would take someone to notice.

Except that it doesn't even do that. Officially the proposal only states, hypothetically, the "benefits" of prostitution and queries, "Why must we make it a priority for law enforcement to monitor and arrest prostitutes when there are greater crimes out there?" Theoretically there could still be a resolution passed stating "The UN has reviewed the ideals inherent in 'Legalize Prostitution' and has decided to outlaw prostitution anyway". Or somesuch.

If there's to be a real legalization of prostitution, it would most likely need this original resolution removed, as many members would not support a new one with the "we already have that" argument. So, if you want protection against a hypothetical future proposal outlawing prostitution, then support this repeal, and draft a new prostitution proposal, actually legalizing it.

So if the resolution doesn't actually legalize prostitution, that means your whole arguement falls apart. Why? Because the resolution doesn't actually legalize it and, thus, nations already have the option to illegalize it. Therefore, your goal has already been accomplished and this repeal attempt is utterly worthless and standing on nonexistant ground.

Congrats for providing an arguement that disproves yours and shoots down the entirety of your repeal attempt.

My goal is not to make health regulation for prostitutes. My goal is to pass this repeal, simply put.

And none of the reasons stated is impossible under the current one. You're just trying to repeal a resolution and in the process of doing so are disproving your own arguements. It will fail to reach quorum anyway.

Again, it's already possible. Your best bet to keep someone from doing this is to repeal the original proposal which will increase the chances of a new legalization passing.

Most of them don't realize it and attempts to do so are shot down by the international community as being in violation of this resolution. So, they really can't.

As it stands, the current system is perfect.

That seems a bit petty.

It's standard survival tactics and egocentricity. If you think that is petty, keep in mind the general attitude of humanity is "me first," so it's the standard. I just don't disguise I'm that way.

True. And as it is true, there is "no need" to have this resolution. Repealed or no, the decision to regulate prostitution or protect the health of sex workers is entirely up to the national government. Is there a reason to leave this example of a poor UN proposal up, other than apathy?

Because I don't believe national governments should be able to impinge on personal choices like this.

Not every nation is in the same medical need and standing. Some nations need these measures to fight STD epidemics.

....

The assumption that prostitution will occur regardless of its legal status seems awfully cynical, but I'll just consider it constant for now, for argument's sake.

If a nation doesn't have the resources to properly regulate legalised prostitution, it is unlikely to have the resources to stamp out illegal prostitution.

We noted your attempt. Now, once it fails, will you stop attempting it? It gets tedious with all these repeal attempts over and over and over and over. How many passed? One.

So, as a note, when this one bites it, would you please hush about it and stop with the repeal attempt?

I have no reply to these assertions. I'll just see you when it reaches quorum, I guess.

I was wondering how long it would take someone to notice.

The fact that you haven't mentioned this (that you realized it doesn't actually do anything beforehand) really doesn't lend credibility to your stance or arguments. You have at no time in the past made any efforts toward pointing this out which, as you say, would "destroy" my argument. It's an easy cop-out, but I don't buy it as truth. Also not helping you, you've stated three times something such as "congrats, you've just ruined your own argument, and, by the way, I'm a whole lot smarter than everyone else on here". Stating this, while perhaps the truth in your eyes, it hardly brings me, or any person other than you, closer to believing it. If you don't have the abilities to participate in forum discussion, don't.



Except that it doesn't even do that. Officially the proposal only states, hypothetically, the "benefits" of prostitution and queries, "Why must we make it a priority for law enforcement to monitor and arrest prostitutes when there are greater crimes out there?" Theoretically there could still be a resolution passed stating "The UN has reviewed the ideals inherent in 'Legalize Prostitution' and has decided to outlaw prostitution anyway". Or somesuch.

If there's to be a real legalization of prostitution, it would most likely need this original resolution removed, as many members would not support a new one with the "we already have that" argument. So, if you want protection against a hypothetical future proposal outlawing prostitution, then support this repeal, and draft a new prostitution proposal, actually legalizing it.


Congrats for providing an arguement that disproves yours and shoots down the entirety of your repeal attempt.


I haven't. First of all, argument on the forum has little to do with the passage of a proposal (as you and Vastiva seem to have trouble understanding). The main reasons I keep posting here are to keep the thread up and to keep the contact information updated. I'm not interested in winning your support. But there are plenty of other delegates out there. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll come to grips with your powerlessness in the UN.



My goal is not to make health regulation for prostitutes. My goal is to pass this repeal, simply put.


And none of the reasons stated is impossible under the current one. You're just trying to repeal a resolution and in the process of doing so are disproving your own arguements. It will fail to reach quorum anyway.


As I've said, according to old-school definitions of compliance, No, it isn't possible to do many of the reasons stated. You have no experience passing resolutions, or in fact, even participating positively in the UN process, I suggest you stop asserting its failure and start learning your head from your butt...in a UN-proposal-passing-figurative way, of course.



Again, it's already possible. Your best bet to keep someone from doing this is to repeal the original proposal which will increase the chances of a new legalization passing.



Most of them don't realize it and attempts to do so are shot down by the international community as being in violation of this resolution. So, they really can't.

As it stands, the current system is perfect.


From what vast international proposal campaigns do you draw your self-exalted, infinite understanding of proposals and repeals? Since when have you been really involved in the nuts and bolts of passing or failing a proposal? According to my observations, you only have experience getting nasty on forums and exalting your opinions worth beyond their merit.



That seems a bit petty.


It's standard survival tactics and egocentricity. If you think that is petty, keep in mind the general attitude of humanity is "me first," so it's the standard. I just don't disguise I'm that way.

Well, at least you're up front about it. Thinking back to "The Crucible", I'd rather have a known sinner, than an unknown sinner.

Before you lecture me about whether or not my proposals will reach quorum, try to gain some meaningful credentials. You're acting as though exploiting my inexperience. This may work for those that actually are new to the game, but my "inexperience" consists of conducting four successful telegram campaigns (including that hard sell of "The Global Library"). How dare I act like I know anything about what it takes to bring a proposal to quorum?



Because I don't believe national governments should be able to impinge on personal choices like this.

Not even in a situation of extreme need? This resolution, as it stands, makes no allowances for the individual needs of nations in controlling disease. imagine if, in another RL example, one weren't allowed to ground the flights on September 11th, because it would violate a resolution which "protected peoples' choice to fly on airplanes"?

As per the update here are the particulars, again, for any delegates interested in finding the proposal.

Search for "pros" at any time in the search bar.

or follow this link (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/pin=43492370/page=UN_proposal/start=45) at any time.

Thank you and please approve this repeal proposal!

Powerhungry Chipmunks

The fact that you haven't mentioned this (that you realized it doesn't actually do anything beforehand) really doesn't lend credibility to your stance or arguments. You have at no time in the past made any efforts toward pointing this out which, as you say, would "destroy" my argument.

I've not stated a lot of things. If people want to go with a certain interpretation on the majority, why should I bother challenging it? Besides, it's fun to set people up for them to give their own downfall.

It's an easy cop-out, but I don't buy it as truth. Also not helping you, you've stated three times something such as "congrats, you've just ruined your own argument, and, by the way, I'm a whole lot smarter than everyone else on here". Stating this, while perhaps the truth in your eyes, it hardly brings me, or any person other than you, closer to believing it. If you don't have the abilities to participate in forum discussion, don't.

So you would rather attack the author instead of the arguement? That's a poor way to attempt to gain credibility. And, yes, all of the ones I have said as going against your arguement are more successfully used against it, and I have explained why each time. The second one provided a real life example of what I had been discussing on here about regulations, and you were the one who brought it up. The third case was you bringing up the idea the resolution does nothing, which invalidates your arguement as your arguement assumes it actually does something. So, really, you're the one shooting yourself in the foot. I'm just pointing out you've been shot.

I haven't. First of all, argument on the forum has little to do with the passage of a proposal (as you and Vastiva seem to have trouble understanding).

You have. The portion I quoted makes your arguement worthless. Why? Because under your interpretation, it isn't actually forced to be legal.

And if this isn't related to the passage of a proposal, than it is just spam and you are wasting everyone's time. That weakens your arguements overall, as you are showing you are not willing to discuss it. That's part of what got Agnostica yelled at yesterday.

The main reasons I keep posting here are to keep the thread up and to keep the contact information updated. I'm not interested in winning your support. But there are plenty of other delegates out there. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll come to grips with your powerlessness in the UN.

Once again, you can't be bothered to address the arguements and would rather attack the authors. If you don't have the abilities to participate in forum discussion, don't.

As I've said, according to old-school definitions of compliance, No, it isn't possible to do many of the reasons stated. You have no experience passing resolutions, or in fact, even participating positively in the UN process, I suggest you stop asserting its failure and start learning your head from your butt...in a UN-proposal-passing-figurative way, of course.

And now you're posting flamebait, further proving you cannot argue the topic at hand and must resort to personal attacks. Also, you are showing you actually have not bothered to do some research on the person you are talking to. If you had, you would realize you're also stating an outright lie about the person you are talking to. The evidence is on the forum.

From what vast international proposal campaigns do you draw your self-exalted, infinite understanding of proposals and repeals? Since when have you been really involved in the nuts and bolts of passing or failing a proposal? According to my observations, you only have experience getting nasty on forums and exalting your opinions worth beyond their merit.

Once again, attacking the author and not the arguement.

Considering how long I've been here, you have no clue what I have and have not helped with. All you have is statements from someone who didn't bother to even do some research on this forum to back up his claims. Where is your evidence I never actually helped on a resolution or proposal? Or that I never campaigned for it? I want you to search all of the posts on this forum I have made under this account and post your evidence. That includes any topics on repeals or resolutions that are in the archive.

Well, at least you're up front about it. Thinking back to "The Crucible", I'd rather have a known sinner, than an unknown sinner.

I'd say something witty and insightful, but in this case isn't worthy of it.

Before you lecture me about whether or not my proposals will reach quorum, try to gain some meaningful credentials.

Two words: Religious Tolerance.

You're acting as though exploiting my inexperience. This may work for those that actually are new to the game, but my "inexperience" consists of conducting four successful telegram campaigns (including that hard sell of "The Global Library"). How dare I act like I know anything about what it takes to bring a proposal to quorum?

The Global Library is now opposed by the author, so I wouldn't count that.

Also, how many have you helped revise? How many have you helped correct ideas, spellings, or even made suggestions that became clauses in? Or created the idea for? How many?

I've got six resolution campaigns, all from before you even registered on here, and five resolutions I've helped revised or even helped generate the idea for under my belt. Want to see some of my ideas? Check Section 4 of the NS HIV AIDS Act. I've also helped shoot down this particular arguement for a repeal over a dozen times already just on this forum.

So before you throw your weight around, make sure the person you're talking to doesn't have more. Some of us do not feel the need to throw around our experience in some futile hope it will give our arguements some credence.

And unlike many, I pay careful attention on here to the proposals. I've seen far more extensive arguements than yours fail to reach quorum. I'm basing my prediction on patterns, not on some random hope I am pulling out of my ass.

I would suggest you be careful who you are insulting. It's been known to come around and bite people.

Congrats for providing an arguement that disproves yours and shoots down the entirety of your repeal attempt.

You have no experience passing resolutions, or in fact, even participating positively in the UN process, I suggest you stop asserting its failure and start learning your head from your butt...in a UN-proposal-passing-figurative way, of course.
The both of you: Knock it off, now.

Debate the matter civilly or don't debate it at all.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

We noted your attempt. Now, once it fails, will you stop attempting it? It gets tedious with all these repeal attempts over and over and over and over. How many passed? One.

So, as a note, when this one bites it, would you please hush about it and stop with the repeal attempt?

The second repeal was close to passing.

Do keep in mind that repeals have only been a part of this game since Sept. and unlike resolutions from Nov. 2002 through Sep. 2004 (nearly 21 months), now must compete with proposed resolutions for UN floor time.

Most resolutions require several attempts to build a coalition and reach the UN floor. The Fight the Axis of Evil repeal took roughly a month before somebody had generated support.

The way many resolution authors attempt to get support is by proposing a resolution / repeal, and then collecting endorsements. They then resubmit the proposal and telegram the prior endorsements.

Repeal attempts are generally treated differently. For one thing, they're a case of trying to convince the UN they made the wrong decision. They end up having a much harder time gaining support because quite a few people prefer the status quo and do not wish to be told the decision they made is in error. That is part of why repeals have such a hard time reaching quorum.

They end up having a much harder time gaining support because quite a few people prefer the status quo and do not wish to be told the decision they made is in error. That is part of why repeals have such a hard time reaching quorum.

(First, are you DemonLordEnigma's puppet? I'd like to clear the air here so we know who is talking.)

And you know this because???

A. You asked players?
B. You just KNOW this?
C. It is the only possible "logical" answer?
D. You are just guessing?

I've only telegrammed for one repeal, Frisbeeteria's. I found it very easy to get support, and stopped after a few hours when Frisbeeteria said that his nation was not fully behind their own proposal. (Why bust your chops for somebody who doesn't care?)

In short, my experience with telegramming for repeals parallels what I've done for my resolutions (3 of them were mine), my allies resolutions (Sydia, XG, Adam Island, Cheney Land, and others), and my failed proposals.

I honestly don't agree with your opinion (and that is all you have here) that nations oppose repeals because they don't like being told they've made an error. From what I've learned in telegramming with nations, if the argument behind an idea sounds reasonable, nations that voted for a resolution will at the very least be open to revisiting an idea via a repeal.

To imply otherwise is to imply that players are closed minded, and I don't believe that for a minute!

I don't have to agree with a resolution or repeal to recognize that the best way to answer the larger question: "Is this something that players will support?" is something none of us can answer. (Well, Pilot might be able to ... he / she has a much better prediction tool than I do, and I respect that a great deal.)

Do keep in mind that in Dec. the number of nations in NationStates was around 127,000. Now it is between 123,000 and 124,000. If you visit my UN Organizations forum, you'll see that I've created graphs displaying the UN member changes too. UN membership has flucuated on the same trend, just an order of magnitude less.

Tuesday Heights may soon start a study on the voter turnout for Nov / Dec / Jan resolutions. We suspect that the voter turnout is low.

In short, it is my GUESS that there has been significant turnover in player participation in NationStates. Take Tejasdom who said they will be reducing their activity / participation in the game. I think this is frequent.

So a nation that voted on a resolution a year ago might not be around today, and this other player might want a chance to say yes or no.

There are many repeals I disagree with. In part because I'd rather we focus on making positive resolutions (and not resolutions that are attempts to lie and trick players -- that is dishonest behavior). But also in part because the text of many repeals is IMHO poor. But I also can say that about many resolutions ... hell, I've voted in favour of resolutions that were poorly written.

But I'd like to encourage players to continue to submit both proposal and repeals.

I've watched many players endorse my own proposals and vote against them. And endorsement is nothing more than saying, "I think we should at least talk about this."

In any event, in the year that I've played and been active in the UN, I think that it doesn't hurt to try.

Mik, have you notice the Jan 2005 nation you were replying to has 320 million people? That irks me for some reason, and I can't quite lay a finger on it.

Anyway, while all of this is fascinating, can we get back to the topic?

I'll be more civil. DLE, here's the problem I have with your posts.

which invalidates your arguement
The portion I quoted makes your arguement worthless
That weakens your arguements overall
I've also helped shoot down this particular arguement for a repeal over a dozen times already just on this forum.
that means your whole arguement falls apart
your goal has already been accomplished and this repeal attempt is utterly worthless and standing on nonexistant ground.

Congrats for providing an arguement that disproves yours and shoots down the entirety of your repeal attempt.
You're just trying to repeal a resolution and in the process of doing so are disproving your own arguements.
Congrats. You just undermined your own arguement with an example of...
It requires ripping apart a lot of proposals.
Once again, shot down with ease.

Do you see why I'm getting annoyed with your posts? It rubs me wrong that you take it upon yourself to determine the conclusion of what your arguments or my arguments do. That's my big problem with your posts. I appreciate that you're interested in presenting opposing viewpoints, but to state my "casualties" from such viewpoints is almost like debate godmodding. That's what's been annoying me. I ignored it originally, and should've continued to ignore it. Addressing it in the way I did was a mistake on my part.

And now you're posting flamebait, further proving you cannot argue the topic at hand and must resort to personal attacks. Also, you are showing you actually have not bothered to do some research on the person you are talking to. If you had, you would realize you're also stating an outright lie about the person you are talking to. The evidence is on the forum.

My big beef with your forum practices is that I perceive it to be coarse and unhelpful.

I love destroying these. It gives my twisted, blackened little heart a personal joy ... to rip these attempts to shreds.
If nation governments do their job, they will see this as helping oppose your previous point. Which it does.

It's sad that even your proposal opposes your proposal.

These two are from your first post in my thread. At first glance of my proposal you already seemed decided it was wrong and you were right.

Neigh Var's attempt was a stunning failure. Most of the people who posted there disagreed with him.

This is what I should've said when I was going on about you're "inexperience": proposals are not won and lost in the forums. Perhaps this is my own failure of perception, but it seemed to me that you thought proposals were won and lost in the forum. That's why I said you didn't have much experience, and why I said you needed to learn a little more about proposal passage.

Also, how many have you helped revise? How many have you helped correct ideas, spellings, or even made suggestions that became clauses in? Or created the idea for? How many?

Calm down a bit. I've helped some proposals get of the ground, however, I haven't invested nearly as much time in it as you seem to have because there are those that are much better at it than I. Consider Mikitivity's advise to Tejasdom (my apologies Mikitivity, not to drag you into it). His counsel and thoughts are absolutely indispensable. When I input on a proposal, I tend to have a lot less insight. So, I've tried to not butt in on that aspect of UN proposals.

I've got six resolution campaigns, all from before you even registered on here, and five resolutions I've helped revised or even helped generate the idea for under my belt. Want to see some of my ideas? Check Section 4 of the NS HIV AIDS Act.

Huh? Which ones? Not in an accusatory sense, I honestly have no idea which proposals you're talking about.

So before you throw your weight around, make sure the person you're talking to doesn't have more. Some of us do not feel the need to throw around our experience in some futile hope it will give our arguements some credence.

I wasn't trying to say "I've been here longer and know more than you", though it seems to have come out that way. What I should've said is something more along the lines of "DLE, the forums aren't everything when it comes to proposals". I was wanting to point out that regardless of how horribly you "tear apart" a proposal on here, it has little to do with how many approvals it receives.

And unlike many, I pay careful attention on here to the proposals. I've seen far more extensive arguements than yours fail to reach quorum. I'm basing my prediction on patterns, not on some random hope I am pulling out of my ass.

And I've seen proposals with far worse arguments than mine reach quorum, too. As I pointed out before, The Global Library made it to quorum even though most on the forum disagreed with it. That's why I cited my experience with telegram campaigns. The merit of my proposal will be decided by how well I run the telegram campaign and how well the delegates respond to it. The way it came out, I realize it sounded a lot like "my Mustang's bigger than your Mustang". That's a failure of communication from me.

I still feel the repeal is a good idea. If you interpret it to actually illegalize prostitution, I feel that it's necessary, for, health reasons, to allow nations the option of outlawing. If you don't interpret it to do anything, then why should we keep it on the books? One way or another I feel it an important repeal to make.

I'll be more civil. DLE, here's the problem I have with your posts.

Do you see why I'm getting annoyed with your posts? It rubs me wrong that you take it upon yourself to determine the conclusion of what your arguments or my arguments do. That's my big problem with your posts. I appreciate that you're interested in presenting opposing viewpoints, but to state my "casualties" from such viewpoints is almost like debate godmodding. That's what's been annoying me. I ignored it originally, and should've continued to ignore it. Addressing it in the way I did was a mistake on my part.

This is a great irony, but not on you. The forum where I first developped my style at required a conclusion as to what you were trying to say, so they could refute it. If not, they ripped you apart for indecisiveness. It's really disheartening to someone new to the internet to have a three-page arguement they typed up derided as having no statement because they didn't post a conclusion after every point. After awhile, it developped into a habbit. Originally, I did not post in such a way and was a much nicer person.

My big beef with your forum practices is that I perceive it to be coarse and unhelpful.

It's course, rude, semi-angry, and generally comes out to me being an ass. But, the intentions I have with it is to point it out in a way that leaves you with what I am saying in a blunt fashion and leaves no questionas to my opinion of it.

These two are from your first post in my thread. At first glance of my proposal you already seemed decided it was wrong and you were right.

It's a repeal attempt of prostitution, which has had several arguements on here. And, in all cases, the arguements have been dealt with. Many of the arguements have been similar to this one, except this one actually bothered to list resolutions to back it and appears to be on its way to setting a new record for approvals.

This is what I should've said when I was going on about you're "inexperience": proposals are not won and lost in the forums. Perhaps this is my own failure of perception, but it seemed to me that you thought proposals were won and lost in the forum. That's why I said you didn't have much experience, and why I said you needed to learn a little more about proposal passage.

To be honest, I usually measure a proposal by a simple question: Did it reach quorum? Yes means it is a successful campaign, no means it isn't. I judge how successful by the replies on the forum compared to its passing. It's a very flawed system, but it's one that fits in with the time I have available in a day to post.

Calm down a bit. I've helped some proposals get of the ground, however, I haven't invested nearly as much time in it as you seem to have because there are those that are much better at it than I. Consider Mikitivity's advise to Tejasdom (my apologies Mikitivity, not to drag you into it). His counsel and thoughts are absolutely indispensable. When I input on a proposal, I tend to have a lot less insight. So, I've tried to not butt in on that aspect of UN proposals.

Which means we have different areas of expertise.

Huh? Which ones? Not in an accusatory sense, I honestly have no idea which proposals you're talking about.

I listed the general topics around back when talking with Mikivity. Keep in mind my memory isn't that sharp due to the passage of time and I'll have to look up my notes (or that arguement) again.

I wasn't trying to say "I've been here longer and know more than you", though it seems to have come out that way. What I should've said is something more along the lines of "DLE, the forums aren't everything when it comes to proposals". I was wanting to point out that regardless of how horribly you "tear apart" a proposal on here, it has little to do with how many approvals it receives.

True, though sometimes on here you can convince people to change their minds. I've actually been practicing for when I get back into TG campaigns. It'll be awhile, as I need to work on my conciseness.

And I've seen proposals with far worse arguments than mine reach quorum, too. As I pointed out before, The Global Library made it to quorum even though most on the forum disagreed with it. That's why I cited my experience with telegram campaigns. The merit of my proposal will be decided by how well I run the telegram campaign and how well the delegates respond to it. The way it came out, I realize it sounded a lot like "my Mustang's bigger than your Mustang". That's a failure of communication from me.

It's not exactly like I was that clear in my attitudes when communicating. I come across a lot exactly as you accused me of. That tends to lead to the resulting arguements.

I still feel the repeal is a good idea. If you interpret it to actually illegalize prostitution, I feel that it's necessary, for, health reasons, to allow nations the option of outlawing. If you don't interpret it to do anything, then why should we keep it on the books? One way or another I feel it an important repeal to make.

Actually, I don't see it as illegalizing prostitution when the resolution is repealed. The problem is I don't want to deal with the flood of attempts to illegalize it immediately after the repeal. Although, I am surprised Aliste hasn't endorsed yours yet, as he usually goes for any repeal attempt of certain subjects.

Now, why keep it on the books? Why keep the Hemp resolution on the books? The UN has plenty of resolutions it should get rid of that actually do nothing. But the reason they are kept on the books seems to be because people like the status quo. You have to get past the big delegates who have been around since before even me (1 Infinite Loop was actually my first regional delegate) and who have supported the very resolutions that should be repealed. Convince them and those that back them and you can effectively ignore the rest of the UN.

However, I am keeping track of your support. Whether or not it reaches quorum, it's likely to be a record for this particular repeal.

Mik, have you notice the Jan 2005 nation you were replying to has 320 million people? That irks me for some reason, and I can't quite lay a finger on it.

Anyway, while all of this is fascinating, can we get back to the topic?

Using a puppet in the moderation forum when filing a complaint against another player is bad form. Using that same puppet to debate a player after a mod asked you to cool off is bad form too.

I don't mind players using puppets, but not to confuse other players and mods when complaining about another player.

IIRC:
The reason a nation can have a population of 320 million and only be 4 days old, is population is a measure of NS game time, while the Jan 2004 is a rough measure of forum time.

p.s. DemonLordEnigma ... my nation name is Mikitivity, not Mikivity. You've been constantly mistyping this for some time. Please get it right. To continually mess it up is disrespectful or ignorant. You are one of the few players to mention my name so frequently and get it wrong. It is not hard.

Using a puppet in the moderation forum when filing a complaint against another player is bad form. Using that same puppet to debate a player after a mod asked you to cool off is bad form too.

You're not the only one unhappy with it posting. I suspect I know, and it will be dealt with in a more permanent fashion than the last few times. Same problem as Sarkarasa, different screenname targetted. I just delayed saying anything because this is a private matter that doesn't require NS to deal with.

I don't mind players using puppets, but not to confuse other players and mods when complaining about another player.

No confusion intended when I used it to post the first post on the topic in the Moderation forum. Any following posts weren't mine. I don't back down from an arguement unless I'm wrong, a mod has asked it to stop, or something outside NS forces me to.

IIRC:
The reason a nation can have a population of 320 million and only be 4 days old, is population is a measure of NS game time, while the Jan 2004 is a rough measure of forum time.

In this case, it's a resurrected account. That's the one I used my first time here.

Edit:

p.s. DemonLordEnigma ... my nation name is Mikitivity, not Mikivity. You've been constantly mistyping this for some time. Please get it right. To continually mess it up is disrespectful or ignorant. You are one of the few players to mention my name so frequently and get it wrong. It is not hard.

To be honest, I actually thought it was Mikivity. I didn't know I was skipping a syllable this entire time.

You're not the only one unhappy with it posting.

To be honest, I actually thought it was Mikivity. I didn't know I was skipping a syllable this entire time.

Two replies:

First, if you've been mistyping (by accident) my name for over a month, it is because you did not carefully read it. If you can make this mistake, perhaps you are also making many other assumptions based on not reading things carefully.

Second, my warning bells go off when I read things like, "I don't back down from an arguement unless I'm wrong, a mod has asked it to stop, or something outside NS forces me to."

Given these to points, I hope you'll understand why I consider you a hostile player and will NOT reply to you in character. :( I've certainly not seen an apology.

Two replies:

First, if you've been mistyping (by accident) my name for over a month, it is because you did not carefully read it. If you can make this mistake, perhaps you are also making many other assumptions based on not reading things carefully.

You're taking one mistake and using it as a reason to attack the entirety of my posting history? No apology will be rendered.

Second, my warning bells go off when I read things like, "I don't back down from an arguement unless I'm wrong, a mod has asked it to stop, or something outside NS forces me to."

Consider my history of arguing on here.

Given these to points, I hope you'll understand why I consider you a hostile player and will NOT reply to you in character. :( I've certainly not seen an apology.

Up to you, but considering your first point, I don't feel an apology is deserved anymore.

Mikitivity, I think DemonLordEnigma's misspelling is the result of a trick played by the human eye. I remember on another forum I had been misspelling a user's name for months because for some reason I never registered the extra "m" in his name in my brain. Also, to be honest, Mikitivity, I also thought your name was "Mikivity", until I took a closer look at your name when I wanted to reply to you at one point.

Why does this happen? Usually on message boards like these you don't examine closely every username you come across, unless it's a complicated name. In your case, since your name can be easily read as "Mikivity" (from a glance), your name gets incorrectly spelled because it gets incorrectly registered. Now, I'm no expert on the human eye- I'm only recounting this from experience.

You're taking one mistake and using it as a reason to attack the entirety of my posting history? No apology will be rendered.

Up to you, but considering your first point, I don't feel an apology is deserved anymore.

I still don't think you understand why this is important to me. The reason is, I've felt what you are doing (and continuing now) is being confrontational solely for the purpose of harassment. This is what lead to your conflict with me earlier over Genocide, with Great Agnostica, with the PowerhungryChipmunks, and now here with me again. I think there is a trend here.


Let's pretend that for the past month I've replied to the PowerhungryChipmunks or to you (DemonLordEnigma) with posts like:

"PowerhungerChipmonks, it is clear you've not read your own post. If you want us to believe you, you'll have to do better than that."

or

"DevilLordEngima, I'd attempt to reply to your thread, but it is completely illogical. LOL! In fact, you've disproven your entire point. It is obvious to the rest of us. LOL!"

A forum mod would likely jump in and tell me to cut it out, as this type of behavior if a mild form of flamebaiting.

These sorts of posts serve to alienate players. They don't help debate anymore more than when somebody threatened to kill Pilot. While this player thought he was just roleplaying, Pilot did not feel comfortable. Simply put, hostile / confrontrational posts they cross the line. IMHO they contribute to the reason why few players visit this forum. Please don't add to this!

p.s. DemonLordEnigma ... my nation name is Mikitivity, not Mikivity. You've been constantly mistyping this for some time. Please get it right. To continually mess it up is disrespectful or ignorant. You are one of the few players to mention my name so frequently and get it wrong. It is not hard.

Chill out, Mikivititty!

Perhaps, if you have some story behind your cohice of name, and shared it with us, we'd be less prone to make mistakes.

Mikitivity, I think DemonLordEnigma's misspelling is the result of a trick played by the human eye. I remember on another forum I had been misspelling a user's name for months because for some reason I never registered the extra "m" in his name in my brain. Also, to be honest, Mikitivity, I also thought your name was "Mikivity", until I took a closer look at your name when I wanted to reply to you at one point.



I wouldn't mind if somebody just passing through mispelled a name, but when you basically establish that you are following another player to other forums, if you don't bother to take the time to read their name carefully, isn't it also likely that you aren't even really reading their posts anymore?



Look at this another way ... if I were the President of the United States and wanted to talk about Iraq, shouldn't I take the time to actually pronounce it correctly? In the eyes of many citizens of the world, the constant mispronounciation of Iraq by a few American Presidents is considered disrespectful, because Iraq is a very important part of American Foreign policy and part of demonstrating a familiarity / knowledge of the Middle East includes pronouncing places correctly.

It's standard survival tactics and egocentricity. If you think that is petty, keep in mind the general attitude of humanity is "me first," so it's the standard. I just don't disguise I'm that way.

Humanity?

I thought you said you were some alien race.

Humanity?

I thought you said you were some alien race.

Humanity is used as a general term, because writing humanity/elfishness/dwarvely/internesstiness is just too damn time consuming :}

I wouldn't mind if somebody just passing through mispelled a name, but when you basically establish that you are following another player to other forums, if you don't bother to take the time to read their name carefully, isn't it also likely that you aren't even really reading their posts anymore?



Look at this another way ... if I were the President of the United States and wanted to talk about Iraq, shouldn't I take the time to actually pronounce it correctly? In the eyes of many citizens of the world, the constant mispronounciation of Iraq by a few American Presidents is considered disrespectful, because Iraq is a very important part of American Foreign policy and part of demonstrating a familiarity / knowledge of the Middle East includes pronouncing places correctly.

You have a point though- and don't forget that I did take the time to get your name right before I addressed you (in an earlier thread). I was just trying to say that I see how DLE made his mistake.

I still don't think you understand why this is important to me. The reason is, I've felt what you are doing (and continuing now) is being confrontational solely for the purpose of harassment. This is what lead to your conflict with me earlier over Genocide, with Great Agnostica, with the PowerhungryChipmunks, and now here with me again. I think there is a trend here.

Yes, there is a trend. The trend is that you and I post on similar forums. And, during the days of the Genocide arguement and immediately after, I almost did report you for harassment, but decided to see what time would bring and if it was a case of misjudging. In time, I've come to the conclusion that not enough evidence was present to warrant such an opinion.

Personally, I find it interesting that you waited until today to say anything about a misspelling and that no one else could be bothered to correct the misspelling either. That right there slightly annoys me. I would rather have had it corrected long ago, before the use of the misspelling were automatic. But this is more general annoyance than annoyance at any particular person.

I'll try to get your name correct in the future.

Let's pretend that for the past month I've replied to the PowerhungryChipmunks or to you (DemonLordEnigma) with posts like:

"PowerhungerChipmonks, it is clear you've not read your own post. If you want us to believe you, you'll have to do better than that."

or

"DevilLordEngima, I'd attempt to reply to your thread, but it is completely illogical. LOL! In fact, you've disproven your entire point. It is obvious to the rest of us. LOL!"

A forum mod would likely jump in and tell me to cut it out, as this type of behavior if a mild form of flamebaiting.

This is still a case of it being your name registering to the eye as Mikivity and no one correcting the mistake. One of the reasons it annoys me now is now I've got it memorized and will need to commit time to memorizing the correct spelling.

Now, while those posts are hostile, one of the things I try to do is at least address their arguements in their entirety. That way, while I am hostile they can still respond to my arguements. A few use that opportunity to argue back and, in some cases, actually revise what they are saying.

Another part is, as we can see with the Global Library resolution, whenever there is a resolution, we get people who come in, make one post and maybe stick around to start a topic or two, and then don't bother to continue. I've been asking around as to how to improve this place, and so far the majority of the complaints I get are those people who come in, making a single post, and then don't bother to come back. I'm nowhere near as done as I'd like to be, so that information may be a minority that got contacted first. But it's still a problem.

These sorts of posts serve to alienate players. They don't help debate anymore more than when somebody threatened to kill Pilot. While this player thought he was just roleplaying, Pilot did not feel comfortable. Simply put, hostile / confrontrational posts they cross the line. IMHO they contribute to the reason why few players visit this forum. Please don't add to this!

One of the things I am trying to do is find out what areas need improvement. And I do need help in this.

I wouldn't mind if somebody just passing through mispelled a name, but when you basically establish that you are following another player to other forums, if you don't bother to take the time to read their name carefully, isn't it also likely that you aren't even really reading their posts anymore?

You're talking about that UN thread in NS? That was brought to my attention on another forum. I didn't even know you were in it until after my first post. Ask Enn about it.

Humanity?

I thought you said you were some alien race.

This is mostly OOC at this point.

IMHO they contribute to the reason why few players visit this forum.

IMNSHO you shouldn't really be using that acronym.

I don't want to cast personal aspersions about the size of your ego, but...

IMNSHO you shouldn't really be using that acronym.

I don't want to cast personal aspersions about the size of your ego, but...

I'd rather you post something on topic or constructive.

IMNSHO you shouldn't really be using that acronym.

I don't want to cast personal aspersions about the size of your ego, but...

:) It is a way to say, "OPINION" instead of trying to present something as if it were a fact, i.e. tone it down a bit. One of my biggest complaints is that many players (experienced and new) will often make some very broad assumptions about what other players are thinking and doing.

For example, "Players don't read the entire text of resolutions. They read just the game stats and vote based on that."

It has often been said, but true or not (and I disagree with that opinion), it closes constructive debate.

But if somebody had said, "I don't think players read the entire text of resolutions", I think they are presenting a less confrontational tone. It is the same statement of opinion, but it makes for a less hostile debate.




Personally, I find it interesting that you waited until today to say anything about a misspelling and that no one else could be bothered to correct the misspelling either. That right there slightly annoys me. I would rather have had it corrected long ago, before the use of the misspelling were automatic.

I don't appreciate what you are implying here (I added the blue formatting, but the text is his). It is not anybody's fault but your own. I honestly don't think anybody else but me cares, and they shouldn't. But this doesn't mean this shouldn't be taken as flamebait on your part and upsetting to my nation.

The reason I feel it is flamebait is you know very well that I told you I want NOTHING to do with you. And yet you've denied my requests to give me space even after Hack's warning and started casting my character into doubt in the International Incidents forum in a thread I didn't think you were involved in. I figured you'd find somebody else to pick a fight with if I just left, so I did. It is a shame when somebody is run out of a thread. :(

I found your Global Disarmament proposal idea where you admitted to wanting to: (1) trick UN members into passing a nuclear disarmament resolution, and (2) wouldn't mind having your puppets violate your own resolution really telling as to how your nation thinks. When your nation admit to wanting to trick UN members, how can I believe your nation when you claim you did not mean to insult me? How can I believe your nation when you claim that you've not been using your puppets in this thread and in the moderation forum with respect to your complaint about the Chipmunks? How can I trust you when you admit to wishing to report me to the moderators? None of these are ways to establish respect or trust.

Please look at this from my perspective ...

How we treat each other is important to not only our individual reputations, but also the UN's credibility.

The UN is built upon the idea that nations will come together and vote on issues. If the UN wasn't build on the spirit of cooperation, why bother to be in the UN (and yes, I'm aware that at present your nation isn't in the UN). The transparency of UN democracy is extremely important to gaining members (and as a democratic nation more so to my government). And larger membership means that this body will be more effective, afterall, as many players like to point out: a global disarmament treaty that is signed between only 1/3 of the nations of the world isn't exactly "global".



Now to the Chipmunks' I must apologize here.

I must say that for the record, I honestly feel there can be enough support for your repeal. I actually did vote yes on the original resolution, but would gladly change my vote to yes for a repeal. Since I've joined the NS UN, my opinion on what is a domestic issue has moved closer to the sovereignty camp's belief that some issues are best dealt with as domestic laws. While there are plenty of international laws that I feel should be made, my nation's belief that prostitution should be legal should not be imposed on others. This is a profession, and if somebody really wants to hook, they can apply for citizenship in Mikitivity! :)

I'd rather you post something on topic or constructive.

^ Repeats. I think you guys are straying from the course just a little too much.

I'd rather you post something on topic or constructive.

I think I've done quite enough of that on this subject.
I disagree with this resolution. I sneer at anyone who thinks it's a good idea.

I reject the very premises of your so-called "morality".

:) It is a way to say, "OPINION" instead of trying to present something as if it were a fact, i.e. tone it down a bit. One of my biggest complaints is that many players (experienced and new) will often make some very broad assumptions about what other players are thinking and doing.

Dear Mikivititty, IMHO is an acronym for "in my humble opinion".

Doesn't tone things down a bit, IMNSHO - just professes a smug superiority.

I think I've done quite enough of that on this subject.
I disagree with this resolution. I sneer at anyone who thinks it's a good idea.

I reject the very premises of your so-called "morality".

RomeW is right.

So my question is to Asshelmetta, if you disagree with this proposal to repeal the legalized prostitution, how is it OK for one nation's system of beliefs to impose upon another nation's when the issue is not clearly defined as one of international interest.

In other words, if Mikitivity were to legalize man on pumpkin sex, how would men-fruit relationships impact any other UN member? What if instead Mikitivity were to pass a law saying that gas stations must be opened no matter what on Monday nights? (That is important, because that is when teen Miervatians like to hit dance clubs.) Does that mean that my government should make this an international law?

I'm just interested to hear proponents of the original resolution explain why they feel it has international standing (i.e. why it is an issue for the UN).

I'm sure that the region Gatesville would agree with my government's position here. Heck, I think a few IDU members might agree that prostitution is a domestic issue.

OK, here is my thought:


HONORS the following passed resolutions, in their efforts to bring about a healthier, more disease-free world: “Keep the world disease free!”, implemented April 14 2003; “Required Basic Healthcare”, implemented June 5 2003; “’RBH’ Replacement”, implemented June 26 2003; “The IRCO”, implemented September 1 2003; “Global AIDS Initiative”, implemented October 18 2003; “No Embargoes on Medicine”, implemented October 24 2003; “Increased Access to Medicine”, implemented December 28 2003; “World Blood Bank”, implemented April 14 2004; “Needle Sharing Prevention”, implemented July 23 2004; “Epidemic Prevention Protocol”, implemented October 13 2004; “Stem Cell Research Funding”, implemented Novermber 30 2004; and “NS HIV AIDS Act” implemented December 28 2004;

I'd really change this if you have a chance. Basically you don't need to list every public health resolution, as they aren't up for recall. What I think should be done is something like:

REITERATES that governments still have a moral obligation to provide medical care to men and women whom have been accused or found guilty of prostitution even if said governments choose to regulate the practice;

Basically the idea of the repeal is to not to degrade the rights of these men and women, but rather to promote the idea that in some societies it there is no international justification. Heck, I'd even add:

OBSERVING no international justification for a unilateral policy on which professions are legal and which ones aren't in individual UN member states,

CONFUSED that the only profession legally mandated is prostitution,

Or something like that. Confused is an odd word to use, but the bottom line is how many of us think that the real UN would ever start making laws saying, THOU MUST HAVE PROSTITUTES (but mud wrestling is optional)? ;) Not going to happen, so I find it curious that we allowed it.

I voted for it in my first month in the game (first few weeks in fact), largely because I felt the arguments against the idea were focusing too much on the moral implications and less on domestic / sovereign rights. When somebody starts walking around with a Bible in hand, I tend to roll my eyes.

Anyway, it is best to not promote that image (not to say that there aren't some wonderfully open minded Christians, there are ... but being a PIB -- person in black -- I know first hand that Bibles actually hurt!). ;)

You can ask this, in the wake of the proposal requiring me to subsidize industrial marijuana production?

After the AIDS resolution fiasco?

While voting continues on a resolution about a bad sci-fi idea (the global library)?

It's OK because the NSUN charter says it's OK.

n.b. I think your laws against man-pumpkin sex probably violate several NSUN resolutions. You'd better repeal them pronto or the UN gnomes may invade your country and overthrow your government.

p.s. asshelmetta was not a member of the NSUN when prostitution was legalized. that does not prevent us from being overjoyed to find out it's legal now - we are strong supports of prostitution as a social policy and as a hobby.

I'm just interested to hear proponents of the original resolution explain why they feel it has international standing (i.e. why it is an issue for the UN).

I'm sure that the region Gatesville would agree with my government's position here. Heck, I think a few IDU members might agree that prostitution is a domestic issue.

We look at it in the form of eradicating a blatant human rights abuse: that if someone voluntarily decides to sell their bodies for any purpose (including sex) it is not the right of the government to step in, unless that purpose directly infringes on the right of someone else (e.g. someone selling themselves off as a hitman).

To put things in another way: if a man decides to walk around with a leather thong, for example, our government does not believe it needs to stop that man. Yeah, it may not be something you'd want to look at, but since his wearing of a thong does not affect you in any way (i.e., you will still be able to complete your daily tasks, like running an errand or reading a book, despite this eyesore), he has every right to wear his thong unopposed. Now, if he decided, say, to forcibly strip people then he'd get in the wrong- he can't force others to wear what he wants them to- but if he doesn't do that then no one can tell him that he did wrong.

The same can be said of prostitution. Okay, so there's "hookers" around these parts- so what? Are you forced to interact with them? Do they impose their services on you even when you didn't want them? Do they force you to pay them when they have provided you no service? Under legalized prostitution, the answer is no. As for the argument that people get "forced" into it: pass a law and actually enforce it prohibiting the forcing of people into the prostitution industry, ensuring that you only have willing participants involved. Part of the arguments against prostitution come without realizing that, like all industries, it can be regulated.

Two replies:

First, if you've been mistyping (by accident) my name for over a month, it is because you did not carefully read it. If you can make this mistake, perhaps you are also making many other assumptions based on not reading things carefully.

Second, my warning bells go off when I read things like, "I don't back down from an arguement unless I'm wrong, a mod has asked it to stop, or something outside NS forces me to."

Given these to points, I hope you'll understand why I consider you a hostile player and will NOT reply to you in character. :( I've certainly not seen an apology.

OOC:
Mikitivity, you being the one who decided months ago I was "a troll who would not last out the month" when I bitched out a proposal you supported, have little room to speak of others. I've not seen an apology either - there are very few of them in this forum.

As to DLE's persistance - I've seen him back off when wrong (doesn't happen often - the "wrong" part, not the "back off"). There's nothing wrong with his characterization of his character - arrogance is easy to RP. Trust me. Or a mirror.

As to your straw horse arguement - here's a match. Any questions?

Now, everyone calm down and play nice. Thank you.

Now to the Chipmunks' I must apologize here.

I must say that for the record, I honestly feel there can be enough support for your repeal. I actually did vote yes on the original resolution, but would gladly change my vote to yes for a repeal. Since I've joined the NS UN, my opinion on what is a domestic issue has moved closer to the sovereignty camp's belief that some issues are best dealt with as domestic laws. While there are plenty of international laws that I feel should be made, my nation's belief that prostitution should be legal should not be imposed on others. This is a profession, and if somebody really wants to hook, they can apply for citizenship in Mikitivity! :)

There's no need for apology. I'd rather this thread open for discussion about forum practices than there be no where for it to be addressed. The more people post on this thread, whatever the nature, the higher it's profile, and, hopefully, the greater nubmer of delegates can take a gander. And I greatly appreciate your support of this repeal proposal coming to the floor. So, I see no need for any apology to me :)

I'd really change this if you have a chance. Basically you don't need to list every public health resolution, as they aren't up for recall.

Yes, I fear I may have been in a bit of rush in submitting and didn't think out my arguments for repeal as well as I should. I really should've written that clause out of the proposal and used it strictly as an argument on the forum, if that. I just hope its overly-idealistic nature doesn't preclude it from quorum. If it does however, I like the ideas brought up for a substitution to that clause.

RomeW is right.

So my question is to Asshelmetta, if you disagree with this proposal to repeal the legalized prostitution, how is it OK for one nation's system of beliefs to impose upon another nation's when the issue is not clearly defined as one of international interest.

In other words, if Mikitivity were to legalize man on pumpkin sex, how would men-fruit relationships impact any other UN member? What if instead Mikitivity were to pass a law saying that gas stations must be opened no matter what on Monday nights? (That is important, because that is when teen Miervatians like to hit dance clubs.) Does that mean that my government should make this an international law?

I'm just interested to hear proponents of the original resolution explain why they feel it has international standing (i.e. why it is an issue for the UN).

I'm sure that the region Gatesville would agree with my government's position here. Heck, I think a few IDU members might agree that prostitution is a domestic issue.

Blunt and simple - this repeal attempt is an attempt to restrict free trade, to restrict the rights of the individual to the property of the individual (in this case, their own body) to do with as they choose. It has no positive nature - it is sheer arrogance and foolishness, old outdated morality seeking to shunt its head upwards, vainly attempting to shut down freedom of choice in the name of... well, god knows what this week, but it will always be something.

No arguement we have seen has been significant, no arguement shown is a reason to shut down free trade. To increase medical aid, maybe - particularly to poor regions as needed. But to repeal? No.

We see nothing but arrogance and foolishness in this attempt, blindness to what is and a twisted morality that serves none. As such, we do not support the repeal.

We look at it in the form of eradicating a blatant human rights abuse: that if someone voluntarily decides to sell their bodies for any purpose (including sex) it is not the right of the government to step in, unless that purpose directly infringes on the right of someone else (e.g. someone selling themselves off as a hitman).

To put things in another way: if a man decides to walk around with a leather thong, for example, our government does not believe it needs to stop that man. Yeah, it may not be something you'd want to look at, but since his wearing of a thong does not affect you in any way (i.e., you will still be able to complete your daily tasks, like running an errand or reading a book, despite this eyesore), he has every right to wear his thong unopposed. Now, if he decided, say, to forcibly strip people then he'd get in the wrong- he can't force others to wear what he wants them to- but if he doesn't do that then no one can tell him that he did wrong.

The same can be said of prostitution. Okay, so there's "hookers" around these parts- so what? Are you forced to interact with them? Do they impose their services on you even when you didn't want them? Do they force you to pay them when they have provided you no service? Under legalized prostitution, the answer is no. As for the argument that people get "forced" into it: pass a law and actually enforce it prohibiting the forcing of people into the prostitution industry, ensuring that you only have willing participants involved. Part of the arguments against prostitution come without realizing that, like all industries, it can be regulated.

Here, here!

Here, here!

Thank you.

Blunt and simple - this repeal attempt is an attempt to restrict free trade, to restrict the rights of the individual to the property of the individual (in this case, their own body) to do with as they choose. It has no positive nature - it is sheer arrogance and foolishness, old outdated morality seeking to shunt its head upwards, vainly attempting to shut down freedom of choice in the name of... well, god knows what this week, but it will always be something.

No arguement we have seen has been significant, no arguement shown is a reason to shut down free trade. To increase medical aid, maybe - particularly to poor regions as needed. But to repeal? No.

We see nothing but arrogance and foolishness in this attempt, blindness to what is and a twisted morality that serves none. As such, we do not support the repeal.

Perhaps if the honorable representative from Vastiva would describe more the foolishness and arrogance we've engaged in we can more appropriately reply.

We look at it in the form of eradicating a blatant human rights abuse: that if someone voluntarily decides to sell their bodies for any purpose (including sex) it is not the right of the government to step in, unless that purpose directly infringes on the right of someone else (e.g. someone selling themselves off as a hitman).

And what if one's rights are needed to be violated for the greater good? One's right to own property is violated when a highway is needed to serve the greater good. What if a nation is in some serious medical need, and the greater good would be served by eliminating prostitution?

n.b. I think your laws against man-pumpkin sex probably violate several NSUN resolutions. You'd better repeal them pronto or the UN gnomes may invade your country and overthrow your government.

p.s. asshelmetta was not a member of the NSUN when prostitution was legalized. that does not prevent us from being overjoyed to find out it's legal now - we are strong supports of prostitution as a social policy and as a hobby.

I'd be happy to see which UN resolutions you feel outlaw man-pumpkin sex, because there are a number of nations that would tell you that the definition of marriage resolution (please read it) actually supports this idea. ;)

We look at it in the form of eradicating a blatant human rights abuse: that if someone voluntarily decides to sell their bodies for any purpose (including sex) it is not the right of the government to step in, unless that purpose directly infringes on the right of someone else (e.g. someone selling themselves off as a hitman).

To put things in another way: if a man decides to walk around with a leather thong, for example, our government does not believe it needs to stop that man.

That is great for your government, but do you really think human rights should be extended to the point that the UN should pass laws granting citizens the rights to wear thongs?

Remember, the Bare Breasts (which was misspelled originally) proposal was removed from the UN floor by the UN Secretariat (Game Mods) for being inappropriate or perhaps not worthy of the UN's consideration.

The issue is that the UN should stand for larger human rights issues. As we begin to make resolutions that say, "Legalization of Mimes" that grant all world citizens the right to become mimes or perhaps "The Couch Potato Protection Act" which allows citizens the right to waste away, we not only alienate some socities that have issues, but you really have to ask, "Are we really extending human rights?"

Look what Joccia did in Feb. 2004. After the passage of the Legalization of Prostitution and the Leglization of Euthanasia (I forgot which one is spelled in English and not American-English), Joccia rounded up all the prostitutions and killed them all. 10,000s of people were killed.

While the UN wasn't responsible, you can't force every whim idea down nation's as "this is in the interest of human rights".

The reality is there always will be domestic markets (socities) were the right to consume Spice Melange and sell ones body exists. And having a government that can protect and regulate both acts is important ... but to just blanket legalize the issue is poor.

Let me ask you this, if there were a better worded version that allowed governments the right to regulate prostitution (not just a repeal) how would you feel? The category would be better stated as social justice, since we are talking about health benefits ... and no other profession has a UN resolution saying, "You have a human right to be a garbage man and nobody can take that from you.", I could see UN activity. But as a human rights issue I think the argument is in favour if pushing it a bit.

I'd be happy to see which UN resolutions you feel outlaw man-pumpkin sex, because there are a number of nations that would tell you that the definition of marriage resolution (please read it) actually supports this idea. ;)

Actually, it doesn't - unless the individual nation decides to permit such a marriage. But the Definition of Marriage resolution does not address sex at all.

Straw man arguements bad, Mikitivity - you know better. So do point out where "sex" - as in "intercourse" - is mentioned in that resolution or do apologize.

That is great for your government, but do you really think human rights should be extended to the point that the UN should pass laws granting citizens the rights to wear thongs?

Remember, the Bare Breasts (which was misspelled originally) proposal was removed from the UN floor by the UN Secretariat (Game Mods) for being inappropriate or perhaps not worthy of the UN's consideration.

The issue is that the UN should stand for larger human rights issues. As we begin to make resolutions that say, "Legalization of Mimes" that grant all world citizens the right to become mimes or perhaps "The Couch Potato Protection Act" which allows citizens the right to waste away, we not only alienate some socities that have issues, but you really have to ask, "Are we really extending human rights?"

Look what Joccia did in Feb. 2004. After the passage of the Legalization of Prostitution and the Leglization of Euthanasia (I forgot which one is spelled in English and not American-English), Joccia rounded up all the prostitutions and killed them all. 10,000s of people were killed.

While the UN wasn't responsible, you can't force every whim idea down nation's as "this is in the interest of human rights".

The reality is there always will be domestic markets (socities) were the right to consume Spice Melange and sell ones body exists. And having a government that can protect and regulate both acts is important ... but to just blanket legalize the issue is poor.

Let me ask you this, if there were a better worded version that allowed governments the right to regulate prostitution (not just a repeal) how would you feel? The category would be better stated as social justice, since we are talking about health benefits ... and no other profession has a UN resolution saying, "You have a human right to be a garbage man and nobody can take that from you.", I could see UN activity. But as a human rights issue I think the argument is in favour if pushing it a bit.

"Human Rights" means the "right of all humans". Vastiva maintains it is the right of all humans to engage in any sort of selling or trading of their own persons as they see fit.

We understand that Mikitivity appears to wish to possess the right to all people's persons, but that is their view and not ours. We find such a view to be short-sighted and dictatorial in extremis.

We also put to the delegate from Mikitivity - is that someone might in some way do something incredibly stupid and destructive a valid reason not to pass a resolution? If not, we request yet another apology from the delegate for a ridiculous arguement.

At our notes, that is three requests, and none performed. Please rectify the situation.

WARNING-HARSH ROLE PLAY TO FOLLOW

Perhaps if the honorable representative from Vastiva would describe more the foolishness and arrogance we've engaged in we can more appropriately reply.

As you wish.


Repeal "Legalize prostitution"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #46
Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks

Description: UN Resolution #46: Legalize prostitution (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING as a precedent of the UN to uphold health and safety as public rights,

BEARING responsibility to encourage healthy practices in member nations and discourage unhealthy practices,

REVIEWING the possible increased public health risk from encouraging prostitution in member nations,

DETERMINING it a member nation’s right to allow or disallow prostitution independently, based upon that member nation’s independent medical need and standing;

REPEALS “Legalize Prostitution”, implemented February 2 2004;

HONORS the following passed resolutions, in their efforts to bring about a healthier, more disease-free world: “Keep the world disease free!”, implemented April 14 2003; “Required Basic Healthcare”, implemented June 5 2003; “’RBH’ Replacement”, implemented June 26 2003; “The IRCO”, implemented September 1 2003; “Global AIDS Initiative”, implemented October 18 2003; “No Embargoes on Medicine”, implemented October 24 2003; “Increased Access to Medicine”, implemented December 28 2003; “World Blood Bank”, implemented April 14 2004; “Needle Sharing Prevention”, implemented July 23 2004; “Epidemic Prevention Protocol”, implemented October 13 2004; “Stem Cell Research Funding”, implemented Novermber 30 2004; and “NS HIV AIDS Act” implemented December 28 2004;


We shall begin by stating you have proven in your words within that you are a fraud.

Your claim is to say this repeal shall be for the good of the public health; you shroud your argument by adding so many good resolutions at its tail, when it is at the heart the rotten core shall be found.

Your apparent claim is that prostitution – regulated, legalized prostitution – is responsible for greater amounts of transmission of disease then illegalized, hidden, criminal but everpresent prostitution. Furthermore, by nature of this repeal, you are claiming that unregulated, illegal prostitution is somehow an improvement over legalized prostitution.

In other words, your position is to say something which will exist regardless of a nation’s belief in it or not is better swept under many rugs then to be faced - and by the nature of being faced, to be made cleaner, better, safer, taxed.

You, sir, are a Servant of Plague.

We are not aware of any state anywhere upon this planet or in this universe where prostitution in some form does not exist – we are aware of many places the local governments are in denial, or believe their laws shall completely stamp out this “menace”, but we have never found where it could exist, it does not exist.

You, by the nature of your repeal, would rather a country where such things are not forced in the open, where crime holds sway and draws income from such activity. You, by the nature of your repeal, are calling for ignorance and a culture of secrets to again exist where none did under this resolution.

You are calling for there to be again women and men who sell themselves without knowledge of risk – for such knowledge shall indeed be suppressed by the wrong-headed if the existence of the trade is allowed to be “swept under the rug and ignored”. You are calling for citizens who do become infected by diseases to avoid treatment, for to admit the need for treatment is to condemn oneself to punishment, for where else but the Trade is such a thing possible?

You, sir, are a Servant of Ignorance.

You are calling not for conditions to improve, where people as a whole are better educated to risk, but for a world where darkness and secrets stand. Yes, yes, you will prattle your silly arguments about how each nation can choose or not choose – and by such empty words, you doom many to their deaths because of so-called leaders who have not the interest of their people but of their pocketbooks, of their pocket morality, of their own short-sightedness, foremost in their minds. You are not calling for a movement forward of Man, but of one backwards, to dark ages where diseases remains best suited to grow.

You, sir, are a Servant of Crime.

You are calling for once again a shroud to be drawn, and under that shroud shall many give forth sums, back and forth, all in the thrall of the estrus which is evident within this race. And who shall oversee these sums? Shall they be given to government? Shall they enrich the public – shall they come to the need of the Public Health? NAY! Your proposal shall most certainly feed Crime in all its guises. By making this illegal, you feed this true Disease, this mockery of Public Health – the black festering that wastes the heart of society. You will drivel and claim it is up to a nation, but we know better. By nature of this resolution, Crime could no longer suckle at the teat of mankind’s estrus – it was denied succor, and dies a slow death. Yet you would rejuvenate this Cancer! You would call for nations to accept as criminal what is natural, and by such a call, create a market for such, an illicit market, one which exists beyond the sight and reach of the law. By this action, by your words, by your deeds, you shall make far worse so many nations citizens by allowing this travesty!

Arrogant Fool – hide behind your yammering of “it should be choice” if you will, we know better – we demonstrate better! By forcing such a thing to the public eye, by forcing a nation to “deal with the problem” as it will, a betterment is forced upon the population, humanity is freed from the Chains of Plague, Ignorance, Crime!

And you call for the reversal of this bitter medicine??

You, sir, are a Servant of Death.

You seek through your actions to bring Plague. You seek through your actions to bring Ignorance. You seek through your actions to bring Crime. You, sir, seek no betterment of humanity, but a reversion to its most animalistic, most demonic nature. You shall prattle and whistle of how each can choose, but the result of your actions is already marked in stone – you shall only make things worse for the Public Health as a whole by your actions, because all we have prophesied here shall come to pass; this is in evidence everywhere narrow-mindedness has been given free reign. You speak of making the world better, yet your actions only serve to Doom.

Arrogance! Foolishness! Did not that resolution do precisely what it sought to do, what so many claim the Purpose of the United Nations truly is – make better the conditions for the citizenry of the world as a whole? Why then do you seek to put a stake in the heart of such an improvement?

We know that answer, we see who and what your actions serve.

Speak on, if you will – we label you justly as a Servant of Plague, a Servant of Ignorance, a Servant of Crime, a Servant of Death! We do hereby inform you that Vastiva sees you and yours as the Danger you are. As such, all persons traveling to, from, or under the passport of your nation will be subjected to a six-month quarantine, as it is most obvious your nation has no interest in “The Public Health”, no matter how you wrap yourself in that flag.

Come, prattle on! State your case of how each nation can choose – and in that statement give the Serpent more land to fester in. Your Arrogance blinds you, it does not bind us, and never shall – we are most certainly on to you, and shall remain so. You think not of consequences, only of pretty speeches. So, come, prattle on, Servant of Death! Let us hear your pretty words, for we know them as the Reapers Whispers they are. Show truly how dedicated you are to Death, to Ignorance, to Crime, to Plague!

The floor is yours, the Piper stands ready. Call the tune. We wait.

OOC:
Mikitivity, you being the one who decided months ago I was "a troll who would not last out the month" when I bitched out a proposal you supported, have little room to speak of others. I've not seen an apology either - there are very few of them in this forum.


Let me ask you this ... do you feel you've changed since you came in and were telling the rest of us about the legaity of the UN Taxation Ban? How many times have you told newbies that they need to read the UN FAQ?

As for my own public apologies, I've apologized for my comments with respect to Frisbeeteria, whom I greatly respect. You should remember, you had a sarcastic remark in response to my public apology -- it was uncalled for and I can see that you still carry some hard feelings even today. :(

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372235



As to DLE's persistance - I've seen him back off when wrong (doesn't happen often - the "wrong" part, not the "back off"). There's nothing wrong with his characterization of his character - arrogance is easy to RP. Trust me. Or a mirror.

Do you mean actual public apologies??? Could you provide a few links please? I'd honestly like to see this.

Because you are right, few players actually make public apologies.

Let me ask you this ... do you feel you've changed since you came in and were telling the rest of us about the legaity of the UN Taxation Ban? How many times have you told newbies that they need to read the UN FAQ?

The two statements being unrelated:
1) Nope. And I still see the Nat. Sov. arguement appear. Usually invalid, occasionally valid.
2) Lost count long ago.



As for my own public apologies, I've apologized for my comments with respect to Frisbeeteria, whom I greatly respect. You should remember, you had a sarcastic remark in response to my public apology -- it was uncalled for and I can see that you still carry some hard feelings even today. :(

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372235

You will have to point out the sarcasm - I see a factual statement. As to "hard feelings" - no feelings. I keep score real well. And you're still zero for three.



Do you mean actual public apologies??? Could you provide a few links please? I'd honestly like to see this.

Because you are right, few players actually make public apologies.

You posted your own. You'll have to watch - few do it. I'm not hunting for them, I merely award points to those who manage to remember they are human and do make mistakes.

WARNING- LONG POST

What if a nation is in some serious medical need, and the greater good would be served by eliminating prostitution?

Three things:

1) If prostitution was regulated correctly, there would not BE a medical emergency as the government would make sure that the prostitutes and their patrons are completely clean of STD's (and use preventative measures).

2) Eliminating prostitution DOES NOT eliminate that medical need. It is the equivalent of when the Medieval people killed the rats in an attempt to quash the Black Death- instead of striking at the source of the problem (in the Medievals' case, the rats' fleas), they struck at the most visible source (the rats). Likewise, if prostitution is gone because of a STD problem, the STD problem still exists- a ban on prostitution does NOT eliminate the virii and bacterium that cause the STD's. Medicine will, and frankly, if a STD problem occurs as a result of prostitution, it is the fault of the government for not adequately ensuring that the prostitution industry was safe enough for such a problem to be prevented. Plus, if governments worked to create medicines that can eradicate STD's they will go a lot further in the STD fight than simply banning prostitution.

3) Prostitution in no way infringes someone else's rights. Tell me, in what way will a prostitute selling their service to a willing patron affect you in any way shape or form? It won't. Your life still goes on, and will continue to go on even with prostitution. Now, if the prostitutes forced you to use their services or to pay for something you didn't ask for then they'd be in the wrong, since they are infringing on your rights and your life. However, if they don't do that, they do not infringe on your rights or your life because what they do has no bearing on what you can do.

Also, for the record, if a government decides to build a road over someone's property without the property owner's consent, the government is at fault. The Roman government believes that is irresponsible for a government to simply plow through their citizens' land at will with no regard for their citizens' property rights. Road construction should only occur on publicly-owned land, and if the government needs more land they can buy it from their citizens at market value. They cannot insert the road and abuse their citizens' rights to their property. Thus, the example of highway construction does not hold water since if the government is responsible they would not override their citizens' property rights just to build the highway.

That is great for your government, but do you really think human rights should be extended to the point that the UN should pass laws granting citizens the rights to wear thongs?

Remember, the Bare Breasts (which was misspelled originally) proposal was removed from the UN floor by the UN Secretariat (Game Mods) for being inappropriate or perhaps not worthy of the UN's consideration.

The issue is that the UN should stand for larger human rights issues. As we begin to make resolutions that say, "Legalization of Mimes" that grant all world citizens the right to become mimes or perhaps "The Couch Potato Protection Act" which allows citizens the right to waste away, we not only alienate some socities that have issues, but you really have to ask, "Are we really extending human rights?"

The UN does not need to make such laws, but it does need to uphold basic human rights (which are larger human rights); and part of those basic human rights is the freedom of choice. As long that choice does not abridge someone else's rights then that choice can be whatever that person wants. The man in the thong is one such example- he may not be someone to look at, but your life moves on. Same thing with prostitution.

Look what Joccia did in Feb. 2004. After the passage of the Legalization of Prostitution and the Leglization of Euthanasia (I forgot which one is spelled in English and not American-English), Joccia rounded up all the prostitutions and killed them all. 10,000s of people were killed.

While the UN wasn't responsible, you can't force every whim idea down nation's as "this is in the interest of human rights".

We were present during that time, and, as you said and as I observed then, the UN's Resolutions were not responsible. That is a case of a government being irresponsible, using loopholes in the Resolutions (more specifically, the "Legalize Euthanasia" one), although we would like to point out the Joccians did end their practices. The legalization of prostitution had no bearing on the government act, and we would suggest that the mass killings would have happened regardless of the existence of the Legalization of Prostitution Resolution.

The reality is there always will be domestic markets (socities) were the right to consume Spice Melange and sell ones body exists. And having a government that can protect and regulate both acts is important ... but to just blanket legalize the issue is poor.

Let me ask you this, if there were a better worded version that allowed governments the right to regulate prostitution (not just a repeal) how would you feel? The category would be better stated as social justice, since we are talking about health benefits ... and no other profession has a UN resolution saying, "You have a human right to be a garbage man and nobody can take that from you.", I could see UN activity. But as a human rights issue I think the argument is in favour if pushing it a bit.

Considering that the rights to prostitution, like gay rights, continually get abused and in such large scale fashion, it is important for a government to act. If prostitutes were treated on the same level as garbage men (with the right to engage in their business as they please with minimal interference), then there would be no need for a government to intervene. However, since the prostitutes' right to select their jobs gets routinely and massively abused, then it becomes an important issue. Certainly it was large enough of an issue that the UN voted on it- if not, then it would not have reached the floor.

Besides, your two paragraphs are contradictory. On one hand, you state that "blanket legalization is wrong", but on the other hand you state that targeting a specific job is also wrong. You can't have it both ways.

We shall begin by stating you have proven in your words within that you are a fraud.

Your claim is to say this repeal shall be for the good of the public health; you shroud your argument by adding so many good resolutions at its tail, when it is at the heart the rotten core shall be found.

Your apparent claim is that prostitution – regulated, legalized prostitution – is responsible for greater amounts of transmission of disease then illegalized, hidden, criminal but everpresent prostitution. Furthermore, by nature of this repeal, you are claiming that unregulated, illegal prostitution is somehow an improvement over legalized prostitution.

In other words, your position is to say something which will exist regardless of a nation’s belief in it or not is better swept under many rugs then to be faced - and by the nature of being faced, to be made cleaner, better, safer, taxed.

You, sir, are a Servant of Plague.

We are not aware of any state anywhere upon this planet or in this universe where prostitution in some form does not exist – we are aware of many places the local governments are in denial, or believe their laws shall completely stamp out this “menace”, but we have never found where it could exist, it does not exist.

You, by the nature of your repeal, would rather a country where such things are not forced in the open, where crime holds sway and draws income from such activity. You, by the nature of your repeal, are calling for ignorance and a culture of secrets to again exist where none did under this resolution.

You are calling for there to be again women and men who sell themselves without knowledge of risk – for such knowledge shall indeed be suppressed by the wrong-headed if the existence of the trade is allowed to be “swept under the rug and ignored”. You are calling for citizens who do become infected by diseases to avoid treatment, for to admit the need for treatment is to condemn oneself to punishment, for where else but the Trade is such a thing possible?

You, sir, are a Servant of Ignorance.

You are calling not for conditions to improve, where people as a whole are better educated to risk, but for a world where darkness and secrets stand. Yes, yes, you will prattle your silly arguments about how each nation can choose or not choose – and by such empty words, you doom many to their deaths because of so-called leaders who have not the interest of their people but of their pocketbooks, of their pocket morality, of their own short-sightedness, foremost in their minds. You are not calling for a movement forward of Man, but of one backwards, to dark ages where diseases remains best suited to grow.

You, sir, are a Servant of Crime.

You are calling for once again a shroud to be drawn, and under that shroud shall many give forth sums, back and forth, all in the thrall of the estrus which is evident within this race. And who shall oversee these sums? Shall they be given to government? Shall they enrich the public – shall they come to the need of the Public Health? NAY! Your proposal shall most certainly feed Crime in all its guises. By making this illegal, you feed this true Disease, this mockery of Public Health – the black festering that wastes the heart of society. You will drivel and claim it is up to a nation, but we know better. By nature of this resolution, Crime could no longer suckle at the teat of mankind’s estrus – it was denied succor, and dies a slow death. Yet you would rejuvenate this Cancer! You would call for nations to accept as criminal what is natural, and by such a call, create a market for such, an illicit market, one which exists beyond the sight and reach of the law. By this action, by your words, by your deeds, you shall make far worse so many nations citizens by allowing this travesty!

Arrogant Fool – hide behind your yammering of “it should be choice” if you will, we know better – we demonstrate better! By forcing such a thing to the public eye, by forcing a nation to “deal with the problem” as it will, a betterment is forced upon the population, humanity is freed from the Chains of Plague, Ignorance, Crime!

And you call for the reversal of this bitter medicine??

You, sir, are a Servant of Death.

You seek through your actions to bring Plague. You seek through your actions to bring Ignorance. You seek through your actions to bring Crime. You, sir, seek no betterment of humanity, but a reversion to its most animalistic, most demonic nature. You shall prattle and whistle of how each can choose, but the result of your actions is already marked in stone – you shall only make things worse for the Public Health as a whole by your actions, because all we have prophesied here shall come to pass; this is in evidence everywhere narrow-mindedness has been given free reign. You speak of making the world better, yet your actions only serve to Doom.

Arrogance! Foolishness! Did not that resolution do precisely what it sought to do, what so many claim the Purpose of the United Nations truly is – make better the conditions for the citizenry of the world as a whole? Why then do you seek to put a stake in the heart of such an improvement?

We know that answer, we see who and what your actions serve.

Speak on, if you will – we label you justly as a Servant of Plague, a Servant of Ignorance, a Servant of Crime, a Servant of Death! We do hereby inform you that Vastiva sees you and yours as the Danger you are. As such, all persons traveling to, from, or under the passport of your nation will be subjected to a six-month quarantine, as it is most obvious your nation has no interest in “The Public Health”, no matter how you wrap yourself in that flag.

Come, prattle on! State your case of how each nation can choose – and in that statement give the Serpent more land to fester in. Your Arrogance blinds you, it does not bind us, and never shall – we are most certainly on to you, and shall remain so. You think not of consequences, only of pretty speeches. So, come, prattle on, Servant of Death! Let us hear your pretty words, for we know them as the Reapers Whispers they are. Show truly how dedicated you are to Death, to Ignorance, to Crime, to Plague!

The floor is yours, the Piper stands ready. Call the tune. We wait.

All we have to say is :eek:

Actually, it doesn't - unless the individual nation decides to permit such a marriage. But the Definition of Marriage resolution does not address sex at all.


Bah, you are smart enough to figure this out, don't get so worked up about it: man and pumkpin UNIONS. The UN permits man and pumpkin unions. If one nation allows it, all nations do, right? Isn't that how the Definition of Marriage resolution works?

Surely you remember the polygamy example?

Man A marries Women B in Country A.
Country B then has to recognize the Man A - Woman B Union also.

Man A marries Man C in Country C.
Countries A, B, and C then have to recognize the Man A - Man C Union and the Man A - Woman B Union.

etc.

Though I think Man C and Woman B aren't married, they just share a husband.


If the resolution isn't about having countries recognize the unions in other countries, I really don't see the international focus of the resolution.


Straw man arguements bad, Mikitivity - you know better. So do point out where "sex" - as in "intercourse" - is mentioned in that resolution or do apologize.

My serious reply:
Straw man arguments also sometimes illustrate a flaw in logic. The legalization of prostitution singles out *ONE* single profession. Why aren't mimes legalized? What about absinthine or pot? What about various forms of soft porn? How about nudity (an issue that was deleted by the mods when it reached resolution status ... "Bear Breasts" IIRC)?

The point is that the proposal had no international standing. I could see a social justice resolution promoting health care and assistance for prostitutes, but gee ... you only have to walk down a few streets in Amsterdam to realize that in the real world, the idea of legalizing prostitution isn't as glamour as it might sound.

The resolution honestly is one of the worst in NationStates. I'm a big fan of Social Justice programs and I think one could be drafted that could address some (not all) of the problems associated with prostitution. And I honestly believe it should be legalized. But I don't believe running to Sauda Arabia and saying, "Folks, you MUST allow your women to sit in the front seats of your cars! You have no choice, the UN so demands this." is going to help those women.

I grew up in south Texas. You know the play ... the state were black families wake up to burning crosses in their lawns and where sometimes white kids will chain a poor black man to the back of their pickup and see how fast he can run. I also spent a year of my childhood in Wyoming ... that state made famous for the beating of the gay kid.

While this happens in many places, in conversative (red states if you will) states, when liberals force change too quickly the response sometimes is to swing the other direction. Hell, I'm even thinking out "Roe" from Roe v. Wade later changed her own mind about abortion -- she was from Dallas Texas.

Anyway, if you want to really promote human rights and welfare, you can't push things too fast. History has shown us that doing so only builds up resentment. In fact, it ranks up there will global mistakes like the creation of modern day Israel.

So you want to say that I don't care about human rights, well that is wrong. I deplore the abuse of people and believe that freedom of choice is a fundamental right. But I just disagree on the means on how it is being achieved.

To talk about American Politics, it has often been pointed out that the only Democrats that can become US President post JFK have been "bubbas". Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. All from the South. In fact, even Ford (a Republican from Ohio) was not liked, though I'd argue much of that is from Nixon backlash. While I like Carter and Clinton, the reaction of American voters has been to go with a more conservative cannidate.

I'd argue that the same applies in the real world. At the point that this UN really does start to advocate real man on pumpkin sex laws (and that should be a human right -- honestly -- just not the type of thing the UN promotes), the UN's credibility in the eyes of the nations that MOST need liberal laws is shot and they walk out that door that you and DemonLordEnigma just love to slam on people as they are walking out.

So yeah, if your attempt is to really drive conservatives out of the UN, keep on trucking! But if the idea is to really make this an organization based on a mix of ideas, at some point we have to stop and say, "Gee if there really isn't an international problem here, I think this is a problem we can best address at home." It really is a question of when do you want the UN to become a true mommy state.

My not so serious reply:
I was just thinking about how in my government marriage is frequently consumated via intercourse. So what are baby half pumpkins called? Goths?

All it takes is for one single country to allow man and pumpkin unions and presto, that couple can travel and has to be legally protected as a married couple in all UN nations. However, if our individual nations still have domestic laws to prohibit man on pumpkin sex, I'd say that your resolution is hollow and that the Definition of Marriage for whatever bizarre country is promoting this really hasn't extended any real human rights to the person (or even to the fruit or vegetable).

We were present during that time, and, as you said and as I observed then, the UN's Resolutions were not responsible. That is a case of a government being irresponsible, using loopholes in the Resolutions (more specifically, the "Legalize Euthanasia" one), although we would like to point out the Joccians did end their practices. The legalization of prostitution had no bearing on the government act, and we would suggest that the mass killings would have happened regardless of the existence of the Legalization of Prostitution Resolution.


For the record, I completely agree with you here. (I'd like this noted!) ;)


Considering that the rights to prostitution, like gay rights, continually get abused and in such large scale fashion, it is important for a government to act. If prostitutes were treated on the same level as garbage men (with the right to engage in their business as they please with minimal interference), then there would be no need for a government to intervene.

All we have to say is :eek:

I think even if that was roleplayed that it too should be fall under the warning Cog posted to DemonLordEnigma and the Chipmunks about this thread.

As for the other paragraph, what nations are the most in need of having laws to address these abuses?

Let's look at a real world example:

It's 1950:
What US state do you feel has a larger need of say ... desegregation in schools?

What US state do you feel will have a more succesful program?

I hate to rely on popular movies, but I'll do so in the hopes that people can connect with them. "Remember the Titans" with D. Washington (good movie BTW) was about a desgregation program in the US ... I forgot what state it took place in, but it was not California. It was interesting how the white and black football players would get into conflict, but the kid from California really didn't judge the others based on their skin color. Had the movie been set in California at the time, it wouldn't of had as much of an impact.

So unlike the United States, if the UN pushes its liberal agenda (which I personally like) too far, do you think UN members grin and bear it?

In reality it is hard to tell. Membership numbers don't show significant decreases after liberal resolutions (see the UN Organizations page for the posts and graphs supporting this). But if you go to the #nationstates IRC channel, damn if that isn't a hostile group of players! I've found that some players are quick to claim that they've left the UN because of its liberal agenda.

The HIV resolutions, the prostitution, the marriage issues ... they push nations away.

Now I'm not advocating that they should be removed. In fact, I think they are important. But I do think that some of the poorly written NS resolution (and this one was one of them) should be rewritten in my opinion.

I'd still say that a Social Justice resolution "regulating" prostitution, but affording equal rights to prostitutes would be a compromise.

While I'm not really talking about a Joccia, think about the real world again ... at what would would our resolutions piss off the Middle East? If we are really trying to make the quality of life for Saudi women better, can we do this better with smaller steps or just adopting resolutions that Norwegian women would say, "But we've had this law on the books for 30 years!" (Though a bit of trivia here that I always like ... the first US state to give women the right to vote was ... ANSWER +10 pts!) :)

Please understand that I do agree with most of your points, but I also would be willing to trade this particular resolution in if it gets more conservative nations to sign up for the rest of our resolutions. :)

WARNING-HARSH ROLE PLAY TO FOLLOW



As you wish.



We shall begin by stating you have proven in your words within that you are a fraud.

Your claim is to say this repeal shall be for the good of the public health; you shroud your argument by adding so many good resolutions at its tail, when it is at the heart the rotten core shall be found.

Your apparent claim is that prostitution – regulated, legalized prostitution – is responsible for greater amounts of transmission of disease then illegalized, hidden, criminal but everpresent prostitution. Furthermore, by nature of this repeal, you are claiming that unregulated, illegal prostitution is somehow an improvement over legalized prostitution.

In other words, your position is to say something which will exist regardless of a nation’s belief in it or not is better swept under many rugs then to be faced - and by the nature of being faced, to be made cleaner, better, safer, taxed.

You, sir, are a Servant of Plague.

Legalize prostitution



A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kepone

Description: As you are aware, there are citizens who get by in desperate times by selling their bodies in order to pay their bills and feed their children. Both men and women partake in this profession.

If we legalized prostitution, people would be able to sell themselves to get by.

In return, the government could use the money collected from taxes on prostitution income to support programs that help the poor. Prostitution is the oldest profession. Why must we make it a priority for law enforcement to monitor and arrest prostitutes when there are greater crimes out there?

Votes For: 10899

Votes Against: 9310

Implemented: Mon Feb 2 2004

Where does the resolution state that prostitution not only be legal, but regulated so as to be cleaner, better, and safer? No where.
All it does is legalise, tax, and disburse the generated revenue

You sir have also proven through your words to be a fraud

We are not aware of any state anywhere upon this planet or in this universe where prostitution in some form does not exist – we are aware of many places the local governments are in denial, or believe their laws shall completely stamp out this “menace”, but we have never found where it could exist, it does not exist.

Given the nature of college dating, I must agree with this statement.

You, by the nature of your repeal, would rather a country where such things are not forced in the open, where crime holds sway and draws income from such activity. You, by the nature of your repeal, are calling for ignorance and a culture of secrets to again exist where none did under this resolution.

Rhetoric. Repeal does not call for ignorance. No more than the resolution legalizing it is enlightening of the subject.

You are calling for there to be again women and men who sell themselves without knowledge of risk – for such knowledge shall indeed be suppressed by the wrong-headed if the existence of the trade is allowed to be “swept under the rug and ignored”. You are calling for citizens who do become infected by diseases to avoid treatment, for to admit the need for treatment is to condemn oneself to punishment, for where else but the Trade is such a thing possible?

You, sir, are a Servant of Ignorance.

Legalize prostitution



A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kepone

Description: As you are aware, there are citizens who get by in desperate times by selling their bodies in order to pay their bills and feed their children. Both men and women partake in this profession.

If we legalized prostitution, people would be able to sell themselves to get by.

In return, the government could use the money collected from taxes on prostitution income to support programs that help the poor. Prostitution is the oldest profession. Why must we make it a priority for law enforcement to monitor and arrest prostitutes when there are greater crimes out there?

Votes For: 10899

Votes Against: 9310

Implemented: Mon Feb 2 2004

Where does the resolution state that prostitution not only be legal, but regulated so as to educate those in the trade of the risks inherent in their profession. No where.
All it does is legalise, tax, and disburse the generated revenue

You sir, are also a servant of ignorance.

You are calling not for conditions to improve, where people as a whole are better educated to risk, but for a world where darkness and secrets stand. Yes, yes, you will prattle your silly arguments about how each nation can choose or not choose – and by such empty words, you doom many to their deaths because of so-called leaders who have not the interest of their people but of their pocketbooks, of their pocket morality, of their own short-sightedness, foremost in their minds. You are not calling for a movement forward of Man, but of one backwards, to dark ages where diseases remains best suited to grow.

Disease remains best suited to grow? The resolution highlights all of the UN Resolutions on Health. The prostitution resolution says nothing of advancing health in the proffession.

You, sir, are a Servant of Crime.

You are calling for once again a shroud to be drawn, and under that shroud shall many give forth sums, back and forth, all in the thrall of the estrus which is evident within this race. And who shall oversee these sums? Shall they be given to government? Shall they enrich the public – shall they come to the need of the Public Health? NAY! Your proposal shall most certainly feed Crime in all its guises. By making this illegal, you feed this true Disease, this mockery of Public Health – the black festering that wastes the heart of society. You will drivel and claim it is up to a nation, but we know better. By nature of this resolution, Crime could no longer suckle at the teat of mankind’s estrus – it was denied succor, and dies a slow death. Yet you would rejuvenate this Cancer! You would call for nations to accept as criminal what is natural, and by such a call, create a market for such, an illicit market, one which exists beyond the sight and reach of the law. By this action, by your words, by your deeds, you shall make far worse so many nations citizens by allowing this travesty!

The current resolution on prostitution leaves all that you clamor about up to individual governments as well. It is legal, however, the industry is still regulated by individual NS.

Arrogant Fool – hide behind your yammering of “it should be choice” if you will, we know better – we demonstrate better! By forcing such a thing to the public eye, by forcing a nation to “deal with the problem” as it will, a betterment is forced upon the population, humanity is freed from the Chains of Plague, Ignorance, Crime!

It outlines the resolutions that actually work against those items. The prostitution resolution does nothing to eliminate plagues or ignorance. Crime is debatable, as NS still regulate the industry-or not, depending upon their choice they may just be taxing it.

And you call for the reversal of this bitter medicine??

Interesting comment.

You, sir, are a Servant of Death.

You seek through your actions to bring Plague. You seek through your actions to bring Ignorance. You seek through your actions to bring Crime. You, sir, seek no betterment of humanity, but a reversion to its most animalistic, most demonic nature. You shall prattle and whistle of how each can choose, but the result of your actions is already marked in stone – you shall only make things worse for the Public Health as a whole by your actions, because all we have prophesied here shall come to pass; this is in evidence everywhere narrow-mindedness has been given free reign. You speak of making the world better, yet your actions only serve to Doom. [Quote]

Plague, Ignorance, Public Health... I see a chorus.
There is a specter haunting NSUN, and that specter is the repeal of legalize prostitution yadda, yadda, yadda...

[Quote]Arrogance! Foolishness! Did not that resolution do precisely what it sought to do, what so many claim the Purpose of the United Nations truly is – make better the conditions for the citizenry of the world as a whole? Why then do you seek to put a stake in the heart of such an improvement?

We know that answer, we see who and what your actions serve.

It legalized prostitution, so, yeah, it did what it sought. Did nothing really to improve public health or any of the other gibberish mentioned. Other UN resolutions outlined in the bill do that.

Speak on, if you will – we label you justly as a Servant of Plague, a Servant of Ignorance, a Servant of Crime, a Servant of Death! We do hereby inform you that Vastiva sees you and yours as the Danger you are. As such, all persons traveling to, from, or under the passport of your nation will be subjected to a six-month quarantine, as it is most obvious your nation has no interest in “The Public Health”, no matter how you wrap yourself in that flag.

Why, his nation enforces the UN Resolutions pertaining to public health.

Come, prattle on! State your case of how each nation can choose – and in that statement give the Serpent more land to fester in. Your Arrogance blinds you, it does not bind us, and never shall – we are most certainly on to you, and shall remain so. You think not of consequences, only of pretty speeches. So, come, prattle on, Servant of Death! Let us hear your pretty words, for we know them as the Reapers Whispers they are. Show truly how dedicated you are to Death, to Ignorance, to Crime, to Plague!

Pretty speech.

The floor is yours, the Piper stands ready. Call the tune. We wait.

Have fun PC. The pipes should play loudly, as the piper has a lot of hot air to blow.:p

I think even if that was roleplayed that it too should be fall under the warning Cog posted to DemonLordEnigma and the Chipmunks about this thread.

As I was going after his proposal and national character for not thinking through such a proposal, my opinion is otherwise. YMMV.



As for the other paragraph, what nations are the most in need of having laws to address these abuses?

Let's look at a real world example:

It's 1950:
What US state do you feel has a larger need of say ... desegregation in schools?

What US state do you feel will have a more succesful program?

Flash-forward to 2000. Which US states HAVE desegregated? Which have successful programs?

Pushing works. Dithering doesn't.



So unlike the United States, if the UN pushes its liberal agenda (which I personally like) too far, do you think UN members grin and bear it?

In reality it is hard to tell. Membership numbers don't show significant decreases after liberal resolutions (see the UN Organizations page for the posts and graphs supporting this). But if you go to the #nationstates IRC channel, damn if that isn't a hostile group of players! I've found that some players are quick to claim that they've left the UN because of its liberal agenda.

So what? If the "point" of the UN is to make the world better, and thats what we're doing, no foul. If it's to push our own agenda, no foul.



The HIV resolutions, the prostitution, the marriage issues ... they push nations away.

Now I'm not advocating that they should be removed. In fact, I think they are important. But I do think that some of the poorly written NS resolution (and this one was one of them) should be rewritten in my opinion.

As soon as there is an "edit" or "amend" option. Until then...



I'd still say that a Social Justice resolution "regulating" prostitution, but affording equal rights to prostitutes would be a compromise.

While I'm not really talking about a Joccia, think about the real world again ... at what would would our resolutions piss off the Middle East? If we are really trying to make the quality of life for Saudi women better, can we do this better with smaller steps or just adopting resolutions that Norwegian women would say, "But we've had this law on the books for 30 years!" (Though a bit of trivia here that I always like ... the first US state to give women the right to vote was ... ANSWER +10 pts!) :)

Gee, problem here, Mik, is there is no option to selectively apply a resolution. It's all-or-nothing.

Wyoming.



Please understand that I do agree with most of your points, but I also would be willing to trade this particular resolution in if it gets more conservative nations to sign up for the rest of our resolutions. :)

Sorry, but you believe too heavily in the brake pedal. I believe in the gas pedal. It works to throw people into unfamiliar situations where the options are "adapt or die". Darwins theory gets you much more adaptable people.

While a continued vexing on both sides would be quite enjoyable, one sometimes grows weary of the sweat of horses and blood of men as the armies of our words continually crash together in an epic struggle across the great field that is NationStates, resulting in accusations from both sides that at the end of the day result in naught but fields of death and generals frustrated by the other side refusing to give. Thus it is that one must refuse to engage the battle anymore against a certain foe and send one's armies to other fields of death and glory, where they may continue to fight in many other wars and shed their lives for other victories and defeats. As such, and to help the Great Judges from having to cast down a decision upon either side they have yet to be forced to make, Mikitivity's forces shall not be engaged by those of DLE.

And what if one's rights are needed to be violated for the greater good? One's right to own property is violated when a highway is needed to serve the greater good. What if a nation is in some serious medical need, and the greater good would be served by eliminating prostitution?

And that is where we get into a stickler. I'll have an arguement for it when I get up.

IC:


WARNING-HARSH ROLE PLAY TO FOLLOW

As you wish.

We shall begin by stating you have proven in your words within that you are a fraud.

Your claim is to say this repeal shall be for the good of the public health; you shroud your argument by adding so many good resolutions at its tail, when it is at the heart the rotten core shall be found.

Your apparent claim is that prostitution – regulated, legalized prostitution – is responsible for greater amounts of transmission of disease then illegalized, hidden, criminal but everpresent prostitution. Furthermore, by nature of this repeal, you are claiming that unregulated, illegal prostitution is somehow an improvement over legalized prostitution.

In other words, your position is to say something which will exist regardless of a nation’s belief in it or not is better swept under many rugs then to be faced - and by the nature of being faced, to be made cleaner, better, safer, taxed.

You, sir, are a Servant of Plague.


Legalize prostitution

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kepone

Description: As you are aware, there are citizens who get by in desperate times by selling their bodies in order to pay their bills and feed their children. Both men and women partake in this profession.

If we legalized prostitution, people would be able to sell themselves to get by.

In return, the government could use the money collected from taxes on prostitution income to support programs that help the poor. Prostitution is the oldest profession. Why must we make it a priority for law enforcement to monitor and arrest prostitutes when there are greater crimes out there?

Votes For: 10899

Votes Against: 9310

Implemented: Mon Feb 2 2004

Where does the resolution state that prostitution not only be legal, but regulated so as to be cleaner, better, and safer? No where.
All it does is legalise, tax, and disburse the generated revenue

You sir have also proven through your words to be a fraud

No, but you have most certainly shown yourself to be short-sighted.

If there appears an employment, and the government must legitimize it, it follows naturally it will be taxed. As it becomes evident that employment has an impact on the public health - and again, that employment cannot be swept under the rug - that will be regulated by any thinking government.

Anyone with an ounce of sense would perceive this as logically following - if you cannot get rid of it, you must legislate it. This is how society functions, how culture adapts.

But then, you know this. Therefore, we must take your comments as provocative, as they lack the knowledge we know you have.



We are not aware of any state anywhere upon this planet or in this universe where prostitution in some form does not exist – we are aware of many places the local governments are in denial, or believe their laws shall completely stamp out this “menace”, but we have never found where it could exist, it does not exist.

Given the nature of college dating, I must agree with this statement.




You, by the nature of your repeal, would rather a country where such things are not forced in the open, where crime holds sway and draws income from such activity. You, by the nature of your repeal, are calling for ignorance and a culture of secrets to again exist where none did under this resolution.


Rhetoric. Repeal does not call for ignorance. No more than the resolution legalizing it is enlightening of the subject.

Repeal, good sirrah, calls for many to become suddenly ignorant of the presence of prostitution in their nation. As such, they will remain ignorant of the dangers, of the possibility of transmission of disease. There are entire nations where pregnancy is seen as a "miracle", with no understanding of biology. Place something of this nature in their lap, and culture must adapt - it has no choice.

In this way, cultural evolution is achieved.



You are calling for there to be again women and men who sell themselves without knowledge of risk – for such knowledge shall indeed be suppressed by the wrong-headed if the existence of the trade is allowed to be “swept under the rug and ignored”. You are calling for citizens who do become infected by diseases to avoid treatment, for to admit the need for treatment is to condemn oneself to punishment, for where else but the Trade is such a thing possible?

You, sir, are a Servant of Ignorance.


Legalize prostitution

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kepone

Description: As you are aware, there are citizens who get by in desperate times by selling their bodies in order to pay their bills and feed their children. Both men and women partake in this profession.

If we legalized prostitution, people would be able to sell themselves to get by.

In return, the government could use the money collected from taxes on prostitution income to support programs that help the poor. Prostitution is the oldest profession. Why must we make it a priority for law enforcement to monitor and arrest prostitutes when there are greater crimes out there?

Votes For: 10899

Votes Against: 9310

Implemented: Mon Feb 2 2004

Where does the resolution state that prostitution not only be legal, but regulated so as to educate those in the trade of the risks inherent in their profession. No where.
All it does is legalise, tax, and disburse the generated revenue

You sir, are also a servant of ignorance.

Again, you have interpreted only the letter of what you see, not the obvious effects - which yet again we know you are aware of. As such, once again, we must take your commentary as provocation as you are assuming an ignorant stance of what will follow.



You are calling not for conditions to improve, where people as a whole are better educated to risk, but for a world where darkness and secrets stand. Yes, yes, you will prattle your silly arguments about how each nation can choose or not choose – and by such empty words, you doom many to their deaths because of so-called leaders who have not the interest of their people but of their pocketbooks, of their pocket morality, of their own short-sightedness, foremost in their minds. You are not calling for a movement forward of Man, but of one backwards, to dark ages where diseases remains best suited to grow.

Disease remains best suited to grow? The resolution highlights all of the UN Resolutions on Health. The prostitution resolution says nothing of advancing health in the proffession.

Repeating ourselves yet again - as you have seen fit to - the effects on the nation which must adapt to the resolution are obvious. Another provocation by you.



You, sir, are a Servant of Crime.

You are calling for once again a shroud to be drawn, and under that shroud shall many give forth sums, back and forth, all in the thrall of the estrus which is evident within this race. And who shall oversee these sums? Shall they be given to government? Shall they enrich the public – shall they come to the need of the Public Health? NAY! Your proposal shall most certainly feed Crime in all its guises. By making this illegal, you feed this true Disease, this mockery of Public Health – the black festering that wastes the heart of society. You will drivel and claim it is up to a nation, but we know better. By nature of this resolution, Crime could no longer suckle at the teat of mankind’s estrus – it was denied succor, and dies a slow death. Yet you would rejuvenate this Cancer! You would call for nations to accept as criminal what is natural, and by such a call, create a market for such, an illicit market, one which exists beyond the sight and reach of the law. By this action, by your words, by your deeds, you shall make far worse so many nations citizens by allowing this travesty!

The current resolution on prostitution leaves all that you clamor about up to individual governments as well. It is legal, however, the industry is still regulated by individual NS.

How difficult the leap of logic by which if crime increases in one nation because of this repeal, it has increased overall! Again, another provocation by you as you are intentionally avoiding the obvious.




Arrogant Fool – hide behind your yammering of “it should be choice” if you will, we know better – we demonstrate better! By forcing such a thing to the public eye, by forcing a nation to “deal with the problem” as it will, a betterment is forced upon the population, humanity is freed from the Chains of Plague, Ignorance, Crime!

It outlines the resolutions that actually work against those items. The prostitution resolution does nothing to eliminate plagues or ignorance. Crime is debatable, as NS still regulate the industry-or not, depending upon their choice they may just be taxing it.

Repeating ourselves yet again taxes our vocal cords.



And you call for the reversal of this bitter medicine??

Interesting comment.

Simple comment. Ignorance hates to be revealed, culture hates to be forced to adapt. And yet through these events - bitter though they be - culture evolves, ignorance becomes education and knowledge.

And yet again - you already know this.



You, sir, are a Servant of Death.

You seek through your actions to bring Plague. You seek through your actions to bring Ignorance. You seek through your actions to bring Crime. You, sir, seek no betterment of humanity, but a reversion to its most animalistic, most demonic nature. You shall prattle and whistle of how each can choose, but the result of your actions is already marked in stone – you shall only make things worse for the Public Health as a whole by your actions, because all we have prophesied here shall come to pass; this is in evidence everywhere narrow-mindedness has been given free reign. You speak of making the world better, yet your actions only serve to Doom.

Plague, Ignorance, Public Health... I see a chorus.
There is a specter haunting NSUN, and that specter is the repeal of legalize prostitution yadda, yadda, yadda...

If mockery is the best arguement you can foist upon us, so be it.



Arrogance! Foolishness! Did not that resolution do precisely what it sought to do, what so many claim the Purpose of the United Nations truly is – make better the conditions for the citizenry of the world as a whole? Why then do you seek to put a stake in the heart of such an improvement?

We know that answer, we see who and what your actions serve.


It legalized prostitution, so, yeah, it did what it sought. Did nothing really to improve public health or any of the other gibberish mentioned. Other UN resolutions outlined in the bill do that.

We again point out your own knowledge, and point out that you yet again pretend ignorance.



Speak on, if you will – we label you justly as a Servant of Plague, a Servant of Ignorance, a Servant of Crime, a Servant of Death! We do hereby inform you that Vastiva sees you and yours as the Danger you are. As such, all persons traveling to, from, or under the passport of your nation will be subjected to a six-month quarantine, as it is most obvious your nation has no interest in “The Public Health”, no matter how you wrap yourself in that flag.


Why, his nation enforces the UN Resolutions pertaining to public health.

Yet again, you keep your view too small. This repeal affects the entire, not one nation. Each nation which suffers, their blood is on his hands, because he allowed that which was made public and curable, to be cast again in the shadows.



Come, prattle on! State your case of how each nation can choose – and in that statement give the Serpent more land to fester in. Your Arrogance blinds you, it does not bind us, and never shall – we are most certainly on to you, and shall remain so. You think not of consequences, only of pretty speeches. So, come, prattle on, Servant of Death! Let us hear your pretty words, for we know them as the Reapers Whispers they are. Show truly how dedicated you are to Death, to Ignorance, to Crime, to Plague!

Pretty speech.

Thank you.

Removed

IC: For those interested:

Society does not regulate all vocations individually.

That a vocation is not illustrated in a resolution does not mean society is ignorant of it. Ignorance is one of several options: i.e the nation may consider it legal with or without specific regulation, illegal, or has not ruled either way on the vocation-knows but dismisses it until a need for action arises.

The current resolution plays no role on health care, nor does it logically follow that it would for all governments, as there are other blanket health care resolutions that apply irregardless of profession. Or, some nations may be of the mindset that if you choose pay for pleasure in a legalized industry you suffer the consequences of that action, and accept the risk by performance of the act.

Prostitution existed in cultures where lack of knowledge percieved birth to be a miracle, in some it was accepted, in others it became taboo.

A resolution that states prostitution is legal does nothing to enlighten anyone of biology or disease. It merely states you can now legally engage in the act regardless of what UN NS you are in. STD's and pregnancy occur without prostitution, cultures will become aware of the science, become comparitively weak, or die out irregardless of being told it is alright to pay for sex.

Sorry, but when I saw this:Your apparent claim is that prostitution – regulated, legalized prostitution – is responsible for greater amounts of transmission of disease then illegalized, hidden, criminal but everpresent prostitution. Furthermore, by nature of this repeal, you are claiming that unregulated, illegal prostitution is somehow an improvement over legalized prostitutionI am very interested in exactly WHY you think prositution is regulated? I mean, I look at the resolution, and it says it's legalised....but does it say standards have to be enforced? It just says it's legal.

You might have regulated your industry, and bravo for doing so. But clearly this resolution does not do what you think it does. It allows people to take advantage of others without any form of regulation if the nation is not as pro active.

I support the repeal of this resolution - only with the prospect of writing a much better one which brings about providing welfare for those that need it, and penalise those who profit.

The arguments on STDs for repealing prostitution are illegitimate. If that is the reasoning, then government enters the slippery slope of the bedroom. As all sex outside of wedlock entails risk of STDs. Do you want government regulating your sex life, no-sexual freedom.

Sexual freedom pretty much makes prostitution legal. Do it if you want with whoever you want, then get paid in cash or dinner and a movie if you prefer as you can have sex for any reason you want.

Sorry, but when I saw this:I am very interested in exactly WHY you think prositution is regulated? I mean, I look at the resolution, and it says it's legalised....but does it say standards have to be enforced? It just says it's legal.

You might have regulated your industry, and bravo for doing so. But clearly this resolution does not do what you think it does. It allows people to take advantage of others without any form of regulation if the nation is not as pro active.

I support the repeal of this resolution - only with the prospect of writing a much better one which brings about providing welfare for those that need it, and penalise those who profit.

Prostitutes profit from it. That would be setting a double standard.
Saying a person is allowed to engaged in prostitution, but is penalized if the person makes money in excess of percieved costs is confusing. And sets up interesting tax scenarios for non-profit pimp organizations.

Like the comment on regulation.

Sorry, but when I saw this:I am very interested in exactly WHY you think prositution is regulated? I mean, I look at the resolution, and it says it's legalised....but does it say standards have to be enforced? It just says it's legal.

You might have regulated your industry, and bravo for doing so. But clearly this resolution does not do what you think it does. It allows people to take advantage of others without any form of regulation if the nation is not as pro active.

I support the repeal of this resolution - only with the prospect of writing a much better one which brings about providing welfare for those that need it, and penalise those who profit.

You make the same mistake we see elsewhere - you assume because the resolution does not spell out everything, that which it does not spell out does not exist.

Further, you assume you can repeal and reinstall - improbable.

If you wish more regulation, put in another resolution, but a repeal-and-replace is highly unlikely to work.

Why is prostitution regulated? Because any nation with anyone earning money in it, in a legal manner, which does not tax that career is looking over a source of income. Once a government has one hand it, it will invariably put the other in, and regulate.

That is how culture and society - and government - work.

Bluntly, if you think marriage=sex, you've never been married.


Bah, you are smart enough to figure this out, don't get so worked up about it: man and pumkpin UNIONS. The UN permits man and pumpkin unions. If one nation allows it, all nations do, right? Isn't that how the Definition of Marriage resolution works?

Surely you remember the polygamy example?

Man A marries Women B in Country A.
Country B then has to recognize the Man A - Woman B Union also.

Man A marries Man C in Country C.
Countries A, B, and C then have to recognize the Man A - Man C Union and the Man A - Woman B Union.

etc.

Though I think Man C and Woman B aren't married, they just share a husband.


If the resolution isn't about having countries recognize the unions in other countries, I really don't see the international focus of the resolution.



My serious reply:
Straw man arguments also sometimes illustrate a flaw in logic. The legalization of prostitution singles out *ONE* single profession. Why aren't mimes legalized? What about absinthine or pot? What about various forms of soft porn? How about nudity (an issue that was deleted by the mods when it reached resolution status ... "Bear Breasts" IIRC)?

The point is that the proposal had no international standing. I could see a social justice resolution promoting health care and assistance for prostitutes, but gee ... you only have to walk down a few streets in Amsterdam to realize that in the real world, the idea of legalizing prostitution isn't as glamour as it might sound.

The resolution honestly is one of the worst in NationStates. I'm a big fan of Social Justice programs and I think one could be drafted that could address some (not all) of the problems associated with prostitution. And I honestly believe it should be legalized. But I don't believe running to Sauda Arabia and saying, "Folks, you MUST allow your women to sit in the front seats of your cars! You have no choice, the UN so demands this." is going to help those women.

I grew up in south Texas. You know the play ... the state were black families wake up to burning crosses in their lawns and where sometimes white kids will chain a poor black man to the back of their pickup and see how fast he can run. I also spent a year of my childhood in Wyoming ... that state made famous for the beating of the gay kid.

While this happens in many places, in conversative (red states if you will) states, when liberals force change too quickly the response sometimes is to swing the other direction. Hell, I'm even thinking out "Roe" from Roe v. Wade later changed her own mind about abortion -- she was from Dallas Texas.

Anyway, if you want to really promote human rights and welfare, you can't push things too fast. History has shown us that doing so only builds up resentment. In fact, it ranks up there will global mistakes like the creation of modern day Israel.

So you want to say that I don't care about human rights, well that is wrong. I deplore the abuse of people and believe that freedom of choice is a fundamental right. But I just disagree on the means on how it is being achieved.

To talk about American Politics, it has often been pointed out that the only Democrats that can become US President post JFK have been "bubbas". Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. All from the South. In fact, even Ford (a Republican from Ohio) was not liked, though I'd argue much of that is from Nixon backlash. While I like Carter and Clinton, the reaction of American voters has been to go with a more conservative cannidate.

I'd argue that the same applies in the real world. At the point that this UN really does start to advocate real man on pumpkin sex laws (and that should be a human right -- honestly -- just not the type of thing the UN promotes), the UN's credibility in the eyes of the nations that MOST need liberal laws is shot and they walk out that door that you and DemonLordEnigma just love to slam on people as they are walking out.

So yeah, if your attempt is to really drive conservatives out of the UN, keep on trucking! But if the idea is to really make this an organization based on a mix of ideas, at some point we have to stop and say, "Gee if there really isn't an international problem here, I think this is a problem we can best address at home." It really is a question of when do you want the UN to become a true mommy state.

My not so serious reply:
I was just thinking about how in my government marriage is frequently consumated via intercourse. So what are baby half pumpkins called? Goths?

All it takes is for one single country to allow man and pumpkin unions and presto, that couple can travel and has to be legally protected as a married couple in all UN nations. However, if our individual nations still have domestic laws to prohibit man on pumpkin sex, I'd say that your resolution is hollow and that the Definition of Marriage for whatever bizarre country is promoting this really hasn't extended any real human rights to the person (or even to the fruit or vegetable).

Prostitutes profit from it. That would be setting a double standard.
Saying a person is allowed to engaged in prostitution, but is penalized if the person makes money in excess of percieved costs is confusing. And sets up interesting tax scenarios for non-profit pimp organizations.

Sorry I was not clear on what I defined by profit. I was not referring to financial gains, but more.....carnal.

Further, you assume you can repeal and reinstall - improbable.

If you wish more regulation, put in another resolution, but a repeal-and-replace is highly unlikely to work.

are you sure? I thought that youc can't add or replace things in existed resolution.

You make the same mistake we see elsewhere - you assume because the resolution does not spell out everything, that which it does not spell out does not exist.Well, I fundamentally disagree with that. I can just declare I have no actual regulation, and since I'm not explicitly bound by the UN, I can do it freely and say you are wrong just like that. :) Further, you assume you can repeal and reinstall - improbable.Why?If you wish more regulation, put in another resolution, but a repeal-and-replace is highly unlikely to work.I'd rather repeal and replace, on the basis that the original resolution is so bad and so easy for people to ignore.Why is prostitution regulated? Because any nation with anyone earning money in it, in a legal manner, which does not tax that career is looking over a source of income.Till recently Hirota had no taxation (we only have now thanks to annoying resolutions) and are working on removing them.That is how culture and society - and government - workNot mine thanks. Hirota does not and will not participate in the exploitation of victims. We do have some standards you know.are you sure? I thought that youc can't add or replace things in existed resolution. I agree. Besides if I wrote a follow on to the previous resolution, it would suggest I endorse the previous resolution. And I don't.

are you sure? I thought that youc can't add or replace things in existed resolution.

Gay Rights was passed. Then Definition of Marriage. The latter resolution added to the former, indirectly. There are other examples. Go through the resolutions passed, you'll see how.

You make the same mistake we see elsewhere - you assume because the resolution does not spell out everything, that which it does not spell out does not exist.

Well, I fundamentally disagree with that. I can just declare I have no actual regulation, and since I'm not explicitly bound by the UN, I can do it freely and say you are wrong just like that.

If that made sense, I'd respond to it. :confused:



Further, you assume you can repeal and reinstall - improbable.

Why?

Human psychology. First, to repeal, you have to convince people they were wrong to vote for the first, or that the first is not needed. The second group won't vote for something new, and the first is now offended.



If you wish more regulation, put in another resolution, but a repeal-and-replace is highly unlikely to work.

I'd rather repeal and replace, on the basis that the original resolution is so bad and so easy for people to ignore.

Its never going to work. I'll bet you a year's pay.



Why is prostitution regulated? Because any nation with anyone earning money in it, in a legal manner, which does not tax that career is looking over a source of income.

Till recently Hirota had no taxation (we only have now thanks to annoying resolutions) and are working on removing them.

So how do you fund public works?



That is how culture and society - and government - work

Not mine thanks. Hirota does not and will not participate in the exploitation of victims. We do have some standards you know.

Show me a victim or eat your hat.



are you sure? I thought that youc can't add or replace things in existed resolution.

I agree. Besides if I wrote a follow on to the previous resolution, it would suggest I endorse the previous resolution. And I don't.

Therefore, you're trying to repeal. Good luck. And afterwards - and after you make prostitution illegal - good luck with rampant STDs. As you've created a shadow want, you shall get all the problems that come with that want.

Sorry I was not clear on what I defined by profit. I was not referring to financial gains, but more.....carnal.

So you're against sex? :confused:

Why is prostitution regulated? Because any nation with anyone earning money in it, in a legal manner, which does not tax that career is looking over a source of income. Once a government has one hand it, it will invariably put the other in, and regulate.

Placing economics above morals is a big assumption. If it is assumed an earner of income is entirely interested in protecting the source, then even less regulation is desired so as not to impede industry growth. Or, as Munson would say, who has done more research on the effects of smoking than the good hard working people of the tabacco industry, if people die, then they can not smoke.

Placing economics above morals is a big assumption. If it is assumed an earner of income is entirely interested in protecting the source, then even less regulation is desired so as not to impede industry growth. Or, as Munson would say, who has done more research on the effects of smoking than the good hard working people of the tabacco industry, if people die, then they can not smoke.

:rolleyes:

That industry is not interested in the individual, but the keeping of the masses and the addicting of more into the mass. A single death - or a million - means nothing if you get an additional five million smokers yearly. It's called "increasing and maintaining your customer base".

But we are talking about a government, not an addictive industry. So you're off topic, apparently just to argue with me. Who would have thought?

Do you ever support anyone, or am I just lucky and you argue with every single post I make out of love and affection?

The resolution legalizing prostitution classifies prostitutes as victims of economic woes.

So, legalize prostitution as a source of income. Or govern so as to create a stronger economy so that people do not have to revert to prostitution.

The UN Has made that choice apparently. Hirota, however, adopts the standard of working more on the economy so that its citizens do not have to become prostitutes as the resolution states they may become.

Do you ever support anyone

Just offered some aid to Hirota.

Or am I just lucky and you argue with every single post I make out of love and affection?

*Gives Vastiva a hug (Accompanied with symbolic three pats) and a beer :p*

The arguments on STDs for repealing prostitution are illegitimate. If that is the reasoning, then government enters the slippery slope of the bedroom. As all sex outside of wedlock entails risk of STDs. Do you want government regulating your sex life, no-sexual freedom.

Sexual freedom pretty much makes prostitution legal. Do it if you want with whoever you want, then get paid in cash or dinner and a movie if you prefer as you can have sex for any reason you want.

This is me agreeing on the illegitimacy of being against prostitution for public health concerns. However, I can not discount that prostitutes, by their profession, are more likely than an average person to transmit STDs.

:rolleyes:

That industry is not interested in the individual, but the keeping of the masses and the addicting of more into the mass. A single death - or a million - means nothing if you get an additional five million smokers yearly. It's called "increasing and maintaining your customer base".

But we are talking about a government, not an addictive industry. So you're off topic, apparently just to argue with me. Who would have thought?



If government is interested in revenue from the industry, then it allows it to grow unhindered and distributes the tax revenue. That is a common principle for developing and expanding countries. Agriculture, industrial revolution, and railroads for example. In those instances, the government has sacrificed the interests of the individual for economic and tax revenue growth. (OOC: The government profits the same way off of cigarettes-CA wanted to increase Cig taxes because it would generate rev for the budget that would not decrease during the period projected as necessary to stabilize the budget without further need for the tax.)

I would promote this. The reason why is here:
DETERMINING it a member nation’s right to allow or disallow prostitution independently, based upon that member nation’s independent medical need and standing;
It's not a complete go-against for prostitution. It just is saying that it should be based on your country.

You make the same mistake we see elsewhere - you assume because the resolution does not spell out everything, that which it does not spell out does not exist.


Is a nation with a rampant, unregulated, legal prostitution market better than one which attempts to outlaw it? As the original resolution does not make any measures toward regulation and disease prevention (and, I feel, advocates a spirit contrary to such), what damage is it then to the regulation of prostitution to repeal it? As you say, the resolution and regulation of prostitution are unrelated. Thus, is there harm in allowing nations unwilling to regulate it the ability to outlaw it, as opposed to now when they must legalize it, safety regulations or not?

I would promote this. The reason why is here:

It's not a complete go-against for prostitution. It just is saying that it should be based on your country.

Powerhungry Chipmunks greatly appreciates Bladawt's support of this. Thank you.

Any wishing to find the repeal proposal can search for it under "pros".

Or, for Wednesday only, Follow this link (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/78551/page=UN_proposal/start=25).

As I was going after his proposal and national character for not thinking through such a proposal, my opinion is otherwise. YMMV.

Flash-forward to 2000. Which US states HAVE desegregated? Which have successful programs?

Pushing works. Dithering doesn't.


I completely disagree.

In a government where states can't leave it does. Saudi Arabia is will only tolerate so much UN "well meaning human rights". The State of Texas hardly has a choice.


So what? If the "point" of the UN is to make the world better, and thats what we're doing, no foul. If it's to push our own agenda, no foul.


Who's agenda though? One that nations can be comfortable with. Or your own values?

It was a relatively close resolution, but more to the point ... many nations have pointed out that environmental and disarmament resolutions only work if there is a large number of nations in the UN. The human rights resolutions work better if they are toned down and acceptable to the extreme governments, instead of acting to drive those governments away ...

*hits head against wall*

You know what, I give up. Others have described this, and I can see you and I just aren't going to come to an agreement. *sigh*


Gee, problem here, Mik, is there is no option to selectively apply a resolution. It's all-or-nothing.


Depends on how you apply it. Be creative, many players have been and found unique ways to exploit loopholes. And a few players have roleplayed non-compliance: Sophista is a good example (reference the dogde ball war).

I might be able to support this repeal, but first a few issues.

The "health risk": almost too vague, yet intuitively I presume we are to gather that that means STDs. Or maybe it includes pregnancy, and battering or customers when they do not pay, or the injuries that occur when prostitutes are raped. While the label "health risks" and the like marginally work in describing that there ARE health problems associated with prostitution, I would prefer to see in the repeal more specific examples where these health problems are worse because prositution is legalized. Or that these health problems are more significant than the ones that come with other dangerous professions.

About prostitutes getting raped, how will you bring their justice to them? In the United States, prostitution is not a respected buisness, whether due to its legality or not. There thus are people who think prostitutes get what they deserve when they are abused and thus these women get little sympathy. Coupled with the fact that coming forward about a rape as a prostitute would expose you of your misdeeds under the law, we are left with a dangerous profession for neglected women and men who may not have an option otherwise to make ends meet.

MAYBE, along with the repeal, or perhaps if the repeal is passed and one is to write up a new prostitution proposal, one could include the methods of which they would either regulate or provide alternatives to men and women who are in desperate situations who would go into prostitution. While we likely won't be rid of prostitution whether it's legal or not, there takes more to counteract a practice than just writing up a prohibition of it. Methods, such as regulation and rehabilitation, are much better ways to get a leash on a practice that has been so much a part of human societies since the days of Sumer, when in the legend of Gilgamesh, Enkidu was seduced into civilzation by a courtesan.

I agree that Resolution #46 is not strong enough to be a resolution I would be more comfortable with agreeing on. It's straightforward, and often being broad is better (pardon the pun). I like it because it permits more choice for people to do what they want to do. But I would prefer it expand on the "human rights" aspect its categorized in, that is, expound on how it could be made into safer and less "dirty" work as it comes out of the underground.

About prostitutes getting raped, how will you bring their justice to them? In the United States, prostitution is not a respected buisness, whether due to its legality or not. There thus are people who think prostitutes get what they deserve when they are abused and thus these women get little sympathy. Coupled with the fact that coming forward about a rape as a prostitute would expose you of your misdeeds under the law, we are left with a dangerous profession for neglected women and men who may not have an option otherwise to make ends meet.


It is interesting that you bring this subject up. This isn't directed at anybody, but I am thinking out loud here. :)

A friend of mine served on a jury where a known and convicted prostitute and drug user was the primary witness against a man who had in the past been a client of hers. The man was charged with rape and several other charges.

Just because a profession is illegal doesn't necessarily mean that the people who are victims of crime should be treated any less because they themselves have done illegal things.

I think this particular issue can and should be addressed. If the Chipmunks were to resubmit this repeal, how about adding a new line:


ACKNOWLEDGES that men and women who practice prostitution, should still be entitled to full and equal protection under domestic and international law regardless of the extent to which prostitution is regulated;


This idea could be improved. To provide another example, just because you are pulled over and given a speeding ticket, does not mean that if a robber breaks into your house that the police should take their time in responding.

p.s. thanks for joining the discussion. :)

Just because a profession is illegal doesn't necessarily mean that the people who are victims of crime should be treated any less because they themselves have done illegal things.


That's true, but if you work in an illegal industry, would you be willing to come forward and admit it, knowing that after you have have got the person who raped you convicted, you could then be charged with a crime yourself?

If the prostitution industry is legal, it's workers can get legal protection at no risk to themselves. If you make it illegal, then there is more chance they will let crimes go unreported because they fear the consequences to themselves.

Just because a profession is illegal doesn't necessarily mean that the people who are victims of crime should be treated any less because they themselves have done illegal things.

Hehe, yea, I watch plenty of Law & Order SVU to understand that "cracking down" on prostitution equates to "Take it somewhere else, ladies." Despite the leniency in an example such as the United States, I do agree that your suggestion ought to be added to the repeal, just to cover all of the bases and explicitly give prostitutes some options when they've been victimized.

Thanks for pointing out that criminals, through mala prohibita or not, are no less victims when they are made to be.

If you make it illegal, then there is more chance they will let crimes go unreported because they fear the consequences to themselves.

A government could possbily extend immunity from prostitution prosecution to victims of such crimes. Also, a national government might set-up safehaven clinics in which prostitutes can come for medical treatment, especially to prevent STDs, and grant immunity from prosecution to them there.

There are many possible actions a national government could take to diminish an outlaw of prostitution from contributing to either violent crimes or STD transmission.

A government could possbily extend immunity from prostitution prosecution to victims of such crimes. Also, a national government might set-up safehaven clinics in which prostitutes can come for medical treatment, especially to prevent STDs, and grant immunity from prosecution to them there.

There are many possible actions a national government could take to diminish an outlaw of prostitution from contributing to either violent crimes or STD transmission.

I guess. And since it will remain legal in TilEnca whether this passes or not, I am not really that bothered about it being repealed.

A government could possbily extend immunity from prostitution prosecution to victims of such crimes. Also, a national government might set-up safehaven clinics in which prostitutes can come for medical treatment, especially to prevent STDs, and grant immunity from prosecution to them there.

There are many possible actions a national government could take to diminish an outlaw of prostitution from contributing to either violent crimes or STD transmission.

Sorry, this just struck me.

Say I am a prostitute who has never been caught, and never been charged. I am raped, so I report it, knowing I will get immunity from prosecution for this one incident.

How long does that last for? If I go back to work the next night, will I be followed by a policeman who will wait for me to solicit, then arrest someone?

Once I admit what I do, it will be, for all intents and purposes, impossible for me to continue doing my job. I will have to quit.

So why would I want to report the crime?

I think this particular issue can and should be addressed. If the Chipmunks were to resubmit this repeal, how about adding a new line:

ACKNOWLEDGES that men and women who practice prostitution, should still be entitled to full and equal protection under domestic and international law regardless of the extent to which prostitution is regulated;


I wholly agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure on protocol. I was considering including something similar, or a provision that national governments still ought to try to provide medical assistance to prostitutes, but I wondered "is this against the rules?" I'm not exactly clear on how much re-legislation is allowed in repeals. That's why I only included two action clauses (one of which being the "REPEALS" line and the other just "HONOR"-ing). Do you think that such a statement would need a seperate proposal submitted?

Does anyone know if there are specific examples of mod rulings on where the line is drawn between "giving reasons for the repeal/providing direction to the UN following the repeal", and "proposing new legislation insinde a repeal"?

I'll try to research a little on this. Knowing me, the answers probably will be really obvious, but take forever for me to find.

That's true, but if you work in an illegal industry, would you be willing to come forward and admit it, knowing that after you have have got the person who raped you convicted, you could then be charged with a crime yourself?

If the prostitution industry is legal, it's workers can get legal protection at no risk to themselves. If you make it illegal, then there is more chance they will let crimes go unreported because they fear the consequences to themselves.

Actually in many societies you can be immune to prosecution, it starts with the concept of attorney client priviledge.

For example, if I say something to my lawyer like, "I was hooking when I saw a guy murder my friend", my lawyer is bound to not use that information against me.

The bottom line remains that the same arguments could be used for drug dealing. "If drug dealing was legal, its workers can get legal protection at no risk to themsleves. If you make it illegal, then there is more of a chance that they will let crimes go unreported because they fear the consequences to themselves."

So why have we legalized one profession and not another? Do keep in mind that just legalizing something does not mean it can't be regulated. In fact, the Netherlands and Nevada have specific laws designed around many things that would be considered "vices".

I just wonder why proponents behind legalized prostitution stop there and don't extend their arguments to legalization or regulation of certain types of recreational drugs.

I wholly agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure on protocol. I was considering including something similar, or a provision that national governments still ought to try to provide medical assistance to prostitutes, but I wondered "is this against the rules?" I'm not exactly clear on how much re-legislation is allowed in repeals. That's why I only included two action clauses (one of which being the "REPEALS" line and the other just "HONOR"-ing). Do you think that such a statement would need a seperate proposal submitted?

Does anyone know if there are specific examples of mod rulings on where the line is drawn between "giving reasons for the repeal/providing direction to the UN following the repeal", and "proposing new legislation insinde a repeal"?

I'll try to research a little on this. Knowing me, the answers probably will be really obvious, but take forever for me to find.

Ask Cog in the moderation forum. I was wondering the same thing ... but we aren't saying anything new that hasn't been established under the various other human rights resolutions.

You could even go *back* and point to the NS UN Bill of Rights or whatever its exact name is and reference that in the preamble and then add a few words to point to it a second time to make it clear that the point of that phrase is realistically to say,

"Hey, just because states have rights to make their own laws in this issue, does not take away your fundemantal rights as a citizen of that nation."

I'm actually surprised players haven't suggested that there be a UN Speed Limit! It would be a moral decency issue, and perhaps that is why it has been avoided.

I wrote and submitted a proposal to amend the resolution of "Legalizing Prostitution". I think it deals with some of the issues addressed by the original nation wishing to repeal said resolution.

Here it is:

The Republic of Volare Mezzo is aware that such a resolution exists, and wishes to further amend said resolution in hopes of establishing certain guidelines that nations can abide by.

Humans are entitled to the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law, these are inalienable rights.

As such, any person willing and able to sell themselves to others for sexual gratification should, in effect, be able to do so without fear of reprimand from law enforcement.

Guidelines:

- Prostitute (male and female) must be at least eighteen (18) years of age. Underage prostitution will be punishable by law according to each individual country's legislature.

- Each nation must institute an organization to oversee prostitution. All prostitutes must be registered with and monitored by said organization. Each prostitute will recieve a prostitution license for one (1) year and must renew said license anually. Organization must provide full medical checks for applicants. Prostitutes caught operating without a license will be punished according to that nation's law.

- Prostitutes (male and female) must be tested weekly by a hospital for contagious and sexually transmitted diseases. One or more positive tests disqualifies said prostitute from legally providing sexual services in exchange for profit. Consequences of prostitution without a license are left to each individual country's legislature.

Sorry, this just struck me.

Say I am a prostitute who has never been caught, and never been charged. I am raped, so I report it, knowing I will get immunity from prosecution for this one incident.

How long does that last for? If I go back to work the next night, will I be followed by a policeman who will wait for me to solicit, then arrest someone?

Once I admit what I do, it will be, for all intents and purposes, impossible for me to continue doing my job. I will have to quit.

So why would I want to report the crime?

I'm not sure how other individual governments would work it. But in Powerhungry Chipmunks, if prostitution were outlawed following the repeal (if it were to pass), I'd ensure my police officers not pursue those that come forward willingly. Mainly, this would be to keep my police officers from being overextended: there are just too many other things which are more important for my law enforcement officers to be doing. Also, in a judicial sense, I'd make certain any evidence gathered as a result of a prostitute followed from reporting a violent crime would be unusable in court. Unless there is clear evidence the reporting of the violent crime did not affect the arrest of a prostitute for prostitution, my judges would be instructed to throw the case out.

As an additional safety measure, violent crimes would probably be reported to a group as independent from the investigation unit of law enforcement as possible, with very strict rules about when to exchange and not to exchange information.

In a way, there might be motivation for a prostitute to come forward, because it'd increase the chance of a technical-based dropping of charges if the police depeartment could not solidify its leads to be independent of the coming forward of a prostitute. This would depend on how actively Powerhungry Chipmunks police were pursuing prostitutes all-around.

The same would be effected for prostitutes coming forward for medical treatment. The groups involved in the treatment, beyond having to respect patient-client priveledge, would be under specific intructions not to inform the police about a prostitute being treated.

I'm not sure all those in the prositution business (should the repeal pass and should Powerhungry Chipmunks outlaw it), would believe it safe for prostitutes to come forward even if I disbanded the police force. But I feel there would be some ways to allow prostitutes adequate protection (as I judge to be adequate) if they are abused. Powerhungry Chipmunks is much more committed to stopping violent crimes such as rape, that it would ever be to eliminating prostitution, if it were.

I wrote and submitted a proposal to amend the resolution of "Legalizing Prostitution". I think it deals with some of the issues addressed by the original nation wishing to repeal said resolution.

Here it is:
This proposal is illegal under NationStates rules and has been deleted.

Direct amendments are not allowed, as they constitute game mechanics violations. You must repeal the existing resolution before submitting the new proposal.

Please read the proposal rules. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5224569&postcount=1) It's in a sticky topic at the top of the "united Nations" board. Thank you.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Sorry, this just struck me.

Say I am a prostitute who has never been caught, and never been charged. I am raped, so I report it, knowing I will get immunity from prosecution for this one incident.

How long does that last for? If I go back to work the next night, will I be followed by a policeman who will wait for me to solicit, then arrest someone?

Once I admit what I do, it will be, for all intents and purposes, impossible for me to continue doing my job. I will have to quit.

So why would I want to report the crime?

There is a reason that prostitution is so common in many California cities. Police aren't all evil jerks looking to spoi somebody's day. Given the choice behind following and attempting to arrest a hooker versus responding to a theft, most cities will overlook prostitution.

But the question isn't what happens in more liberal places, but what would happen in say an extremely conservative community, say a small town in rural Texas. Yeah, the man who was selling himself would now be known to the police and they could probably bring him in in the future. The DA couldn't use his self admission from the earlier incident, but he could use any other information arrived at later.

It certainly can happen, but chances are that in a small town, if the guy selling himself wasn't already known to the cops, they were going to find out eventually or he'd be forced to leave anyways.

There is a reason that prostitution is so common in many California cities. Police aren't all evil jerks looking to spoi somebody's day. Given the choice behind following and attempting to arrest a hooker versus responding to a theft, most cities will overlook prostitution.

But the question isn't what happens in more liberal places, but what would happen in say an extremely conservative community, say a small town in rural Texas. Yeah, the man who was selling himself would now be known to the police and they could probably bring him in in the future. The DA couldn't use his self admission from the earlier incident, but he could use any other information arrived at later.

It certainly can happen, but chances are that in a small town, if the guy selling himself wasn't already known to the cops, they were going to find out eventually or he'd be forced to leave anyways.

The DA (that is a type of Sherrif, isn't it?) would not need the self-admission. Since the police now know that this person is a prostitute, they could follow them around until that person commits a crime and arrest them for that. It would, more or less, put them out of business.

And, because of a quite appalling spelling mistake in the Due Process resolution, TilEnca does not recognise the so called fifth amendment right. So people can be asked if they committed a crime and compelled to answer if it is relevent. It is not used very often, but sometimes people are required to give testimony that will implicate them in a crime to ensure someone else is convicted of the crime they commited. (Aren't loopholes cool?)

Anyway - I still think that if you make prostitution illegal that it will drive it underground, and crimes against prostitutes will go unreported for fear of the consequences.

On another note - the reason this is different from drugs is that if protection is used, and proper security (for want of a better phrase) is in place, prostitution is far less dangerous than drugs. People don't die from having sex, and it's rare that if they are doing it for money they will get addicted. They also don't break in to other people's houses to get money, since they get all the money they need from their job. That's why you should keep prostitution legal, even if the drugs industry is outlawed.

"Human Rights" means the "right of all humans". Vastiva maintains it is the right of all humans to engage in any sort of selling or trading of their own persons as they see fit.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that person should be able to sell himself or herself into slavery? This has actually happened in historic times; there have been places, such as Rome, where if a person got too far into debt, he sometimes had to make the choice of either selling himself into slavery to pay off his debt or go into debtors prison, or starvation.

The same question can apply to prostitution, actually. Is it really a question of "choice" or "freedom" when the choice is between "starve to death or have sex with strangers for money?"

The DA (that is a type of Sherrif, isn't it?) would not need the self-admission. Since the police now know that this person is a prostitute, they could follow them around until that person commits a crime and arrest them for that. It would, more or less, put them out of business.


When you live in a small town, the reality is that the law enforcement officials are likely going to know about this type of thing long before any event happens in which a prostitute feels the need to admit that he has been selling himself.


And, because of a quite appalling spelling mistake in the Due Process resolution, TilEnca does not recognise the so called fifth amendment right. So people can be asked if they committed a crime and compelled to answer if it is relevent. It is not used very often, but sometimes people are required to give testimony that will implicate them in a crime to ensure someone else is convicted of the crime they commited. (Aren't loopholes cool?)


:) I agree, the Due Process resolution is very poorly worded, and eventually we should talk about repeal / replacement options on that resolution as well.

On an unrelated note, I really wish that the game mods could line item "strike through" references or statements in existing resolutions that non-violate the current rules, but the reason for *not* doing this would be to say that all of these older resolutions are grandfathered and apply (messy or not).

But yeah, that sounds like a fair loophole to me. :)

The issue of criminal law however, can be address by another resolution (even without repealing Due Process). If anybody is really concerned about the legal rights provided by the Universal Bill of Rights (specifically article 4), which imply that reguardless of criminal history, that citizens are still afforded equal protection under the law, I think that the solution isn't to defend a poorly worded resolution (in this case the Legalization of Prostitution) but maybe to strengthen an unrelated series of resolutions: the Universal Bill of Rights and Due Process resolutions.


Anyway - I still think that if you make prostitution illegal that it will drive it underground, and crimes against prostitutes will go unreported for fear of the consequences.


I agree, but what is to stop a nation from making it legal and just mistreating prostitutes now?

Making something legal does NOT make it socially acceptable.

That is what proponents of this resolution failed to understand. The resolution never addressed the fundamental problems associated with prostititution (poverty) nor did it address social biases against it.

In short, you really can't mandate open mindedness and tolerance. And a poorly worded resolution really probably gives anti-UN members some valid cause for complaint against ALL UN resolutions.

Look at how I wrote the Needle Sharing Prevention. It is a social justice resolution. Not a human rights resolution. It isn't saying "Using injection drugs is good!" In fact it is saying that the practice is extremely dangerous. But instead of ignoring the problem (poverty and decreased access to medicine) it encouraged nations to implement new needle exchange programs and to provide medical care to injecting drug users in order to reduce the spread of HIV and other dieases.

It really bothers me that the focus here is so often is to take a human rights issue and talk about social justice (health and security) issues. The two issues should be separated. If the reason for the legalization of prostitution is to encourage better access to government, that is a social justice issue ... not a human right. It is basically righting a wrong.

If instead the idea is that people should be allowed to sell themselves or do whatever they want, then let's not confuse human rights with specific social justice issues. (There is a reason these are different UN resolution categories.)


On another note - the reason this is different from drugs is that if protection is used, and proper security (for want of a better phrase) is in place, prostitution is far less dangerous than drugs. People don't die from having sex, and it's rare that if they are doing it for money they will get addicted. They also don't break in to other people's houses to get money, since they get all the money they need from their job. That's why you should keep prostitution legal, even if the drugs industry is outlawed.

I will completely disagree. Pot and Spice Melange actually have been proven to have many medical benefits. Pot and Spice don't kill people ... and yet sexuality activity does lead to things like ... well children (which in some cases end up as wards of the state).

I just find it interesting how people will defend prostitution to the death and insist that it is a basic fundamental human right:

You have the right to free speech.
You have the right to marry whom you want.
You may become a prostititute.
You may choose your own god(s).
etc.

And yet, the legalization of Spice Melange or pot is something many of these nations don't hold in the same tier of basic human rights.

This is me agreeing on the illegitimacy of being against prostitution for public health concerns. However, I can not discount that prostitutes, by their profession, are more likely than an average person to transmit STDs.

So are promiscuous people in general. There is one glaring difference in the two, however - the promiscuous person is doing it for kicks, the prostitute for livelihood. The latter has a greater tendency towards self-interest, and as such, a greater tendency to take precautionary measures.

Is a nation with a rampant, unregulated, legal prostitution market better than one which attempts to outlaw it?


Bluntly, yes. Think it through.



As the original resolution does not make any measures toward regulation and disease prevention (and, I feel, advocates a spirit contrary to such), what damage is it then to the regulation of prostitution to repeal it? As you say, the resolution and regulation of prostitution are unrelated. Thus, is there harm in allowing nations unwilling to regulate it the ability to outlaw it, as opposed to now when they must legalize it, safety regulations or not?

We would repeat our earlier speech, but it is apparent you did not listen the first time. Our points would then be lost on you, as you refuse to listen.

There is much damage.
There is harm.

You have chosen not to understand such things, so we will stop talking to you about it.

As I was going after his proposal and national character for not thinking through such a proposal, my opinion is otherwise. YMMV.

Flash-forward to 2000. Which US states HAVE desegregated? Which have successful programs?

Pushing works. Dithering doesn't.

I completely disagree.

What a shock.



In a government where states can't leave it does. Saudi Arabia is will only tolerate so much UN "well meaning human rights". The State of Texas hardly has a choice.

Never read the Texas Constitution, did you? They had the right to leave whenever they wanted to.

Alright - so as yet again you erred, and as yet again an apology will not be forthcoming - We point out the UN is a voluntary organization whose actions improve its members. If you don't want to be here, don't be here. If you stay, you may not like the medicine, but the cure is certain.



So what? If the "point" of the UN is to make the world better, and thats what we're doing, no foul. If it's to push our own agenda, no foul.

Who's agenda though? One that nations can be comfortable with. Or your own values?

*adds Mikitivity to the list of names of people who didn't read the FAQ*



It was a relatively close resolution, but more to the point ... many nations have pointed out that environmental and disarmament resolutions only work if there is a large number of nations in the UN. The human rights resolutions work better if they are toned down and acceptable to the extreme governments, instead of acting to drive those governments away ...

*hits head against wall*

You know what, I give up. Others have described this, and I can see you and I just aren't going to come to an agreement. *sigh*

You want "acceptably slow" and we prefer "progress". If we move at your speed, we might just have reached grass huts. You are too timid in your actions, too afraid to step on toes.

We would rather a resolution with long term benefits at the risk of short term discomfort. That is how progress appears.



Gee, problem here, Mik, is there is no option to selectively apply a resolution. It's all-or-nothing.

Depends on how you apply it. Be creative, many players have been and found unique ways to exploit loopholes. And a few players have roleplayed non-compliance: Sophista is a good example (reference the dogde ball war).


Thank you for blowing your own arguement out of the water - if there are ways of getting around resolutions if you really apply yourself to it, then there is no reason to repeal.

Bluntly, yes. Think it through.

I've thought it through, and continually come to the same conclusion, well, a different conclusion from you, but the same between the times I attempt it. Obviously, the way in which Vastiva is "thinking it through" is different from PC's. We'd be a bit more interested in learning how Vastiva is arriving at it's conclusions, but it appears...

We would repeat our earlier speech, but it is apparent you did not listen the first time. Our points would then be lost on you, as you refuse to listen.

There is much damage.
There is harm.

You have chosen not to understand such things, so we will stop talking to you about it.

PC would cherish a repeat of the previous speech. It would truly become a beacon of hope in our hearts.

I might be able to support this repeal, but first a few issues.

The "health risk": almost too vague, yet intuitively I presume we are to gather that that means STDs. Or maybe it includes pregnancy, and battering or customers when they do not pay, or the injuries that occur when prostitutes are raped. While the label "health risks" and the like marginally work in describing that there ARE health problems associated with prostitution, I would prefer to see in the repeal more specific examples where these health problems are worse because prositution is legalized. Or that these health problems are more significant than the ones that come with other dangerous professions.

There aren't any. If you look towards real figures of STDs in the various states of the imaginary nation of "The United States of America" which exists in "The Real World", the levels are lower in the one state prostitution is legal in.



About prostitutes getting raped, how will you bring their justice to them? In the United States, prostitution is not a respected buisness, whether due to its legality or not. There thus are people who think prostitutes get what they deserve when they are abused and thus these women get little sympathy. Coupled with the fact that coming forward about a rape as a prostitute would expose you of your misdeeds under the law, we are left with a dangerous profession for neglected women and men who may not have an option otherwise to make ends meet.

Where it is illegal, there is no justice. There is no way to sue, no way to make a complaint of criminal action. There is no insurance for those in the business, there is no protection by the police - the opposite is the standard.

In other words - a repeal makes things worse for people, as compared to the way things are with the resolution in place.



MAYBE, along with the repeal, or perhaps if the repeal is passed and one is to write up a new prostitution proposal, one could include the methods of which they would either regulate or provide alternatives to men and women who are in desperate situations who would go into prostitution. While we likely won't be rid of prostitution whether it's legal or not, there takes more to counteract a practice than just writing up a prohibition of it. Methods, such as regulation and rehabilitation, are much better ways to get a leash on a practice that has been so much a part of human societies since the days of Sumer, when in the legend of Gilgamesh, Enkidu was seduced into civilzation by a courtesan.

I agree that Resolution #46 is not strong enough to be a resolution I would be more comfortable with agreeing on. It's straightforward, and often being broad is better (pardon the pun). I like it because it permits more choice for people to do what they want to do. But I would prefer it expand on the "human rights" aspect its categorized in, that is, expound on how it could be made into safer and less "dirty" work as it comes out of the underground.

Once again - a better way is to add legislation, then repeal later if necessary. Straight repeal makes a hole, which will then cause oh so many to attempt to make it so it never be filled again.

About prostitutes getting raped, how will you bring their justice to them? In the United States, prostitution is not a respected buisness, whether due to its legality or not. There thus are people who think prostitutes get what they deserve when they are abused and thus these women get little sympathy. Coupled with the fact that coming forward about a rape as a prostitute would expose you of your misdeeds under the law, we are left with a dangerous profession for neglected women and men who may not have an option otherwise to make ends meet.

It is interesting that you bring this subject up. This isn't directed at anybody, but I am thinking out loud here.

A friend of mine served on a jury where a known and convicted prostitute and drug user was the primary witness against a man who had in the past been a client of hers. The man was charged with rape and several other charges.

Just because a profession is illegal doesn't necessarily mean that the people who are victims of crime should be treated any less because they themselves have done illegal things.

"Should". Great word. Useless, but great. Those who work illegally are the prey of those who know this for a fact.

Idealism of this sort is dangerous.



I think this particular issue can and should be addressed. If the Chipmunks were to resubmit this repeal, how about adding a new line:


ACKNOWLEDGES that men and women who practice prostitution, should still be entitled to full and equal protection under domestic and international law regardless of the extent to which prostitution is regulated;

As the representative from Mikitivity knows a repeal may not propose new legislation, we believe this sort of shenanigans are beneath the general membership and request a public apology to the membership from the representative from Mikitivity.



This idea could be improved. To provide another example, just because you are pulled over and given a speeding ticket, does not mean that if a robber breaks into your house that the police should take their time in responding.


Oh, how to respond to this part - how about proof that someone who practices a trade considered illegal is far less likely to call or assist the police then someone who practices a legal trade?

We will leave it to you - swallow the truth, or force us to drop proof all over you in large steel cannisters?

As for the other paragraph, what nations are the most in need of having laws to address these abuses?

OOC: It'd be hard to say because anyone can make up what happens in their nations, but I'd say that if it reached the UN floor, it is a problem so widespread among nations that it'd need to be addressed. It may not be happening in all nations but- like Black rights in the US- it'd have to be in enough nations and/or be a problem so huge in a few nations that it casts a black eye on the UN, so it'd have to act.

IC:

I support the repeal of this resolution - only with the prospect of writing a much better one which brings about providing welfare for those that need it, and penalise those who profit.

We cannot agree with this. As we've said to you before, this stance makes prostitution technically legal but practically illegal. Such an underhand trick we would find abhorrent. Also, if the prostitution proposal were to be made saying that the government would discourage "paying for sex" it would violate Resolution #7 "Sexual Freedom" since it would make the government play a role in what is allowed in the bedroom, which is prohibited in Resolution #7.

If you make it illegal, then there is more chance they will let crimes go unreported because they fear the consequences to themselves.

A government could possbily extend immunity from prostitution prosecution to victims of such crimes. Also, a national government might set-up safehaven clinics in which prostitutes can come for medical treatment, especially to prevent STDs, and grant immunity from prosecution to them there.

Or... what a concept!... we could LEAVE IT LEGAL AND FACE THE FACTS OF WHAT A REPEAL WOULD DO AND CAUSE!

:headbang:



There are many possible actions a national government could take to diminish an outlaw of prostitution from contributing to either violent crimes or STD transmission.

....like, say, swallowing the bitter pill and leaving it legal.

Here's a good reference on consensual crime, (http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/101.htm#controversial) I neither expect you to look at it nor read it in entire. Either action might cause thought about the nature of consensual crimes, and the ridiculousness caused by making such things "crimes".

Please, continue, We are amused with how many additions you would have to put into legislation to keep the act illegal but protect the people. Much more difficult then, say leaving it legal, but then again, as long as we're in the paper business we don't mind you creating meaningless clutter.

Thank you for blowing your own arguement out of the water - if there are ways of getting around resolutions if you really apply yourself to it, then there is no reason to repeal.

First off, don't godmod arguments. If it really did "blow his argument out of the water", there's no need to say it. It's more powerful for your points to speak for themselves. Have you ever boxed someone who makes punching noises? It's something like that.

Secondly, you're wrong anyway. Some of us in the UN want there to be less bureaucracy, not more. If there's a resolution which isn't doing anything, then Powerhungry Chipmunks is for repealing it, regardless of the argument. We chose this argument because it, according to our perception, addressed the primary concern over unregulated, yet legalized prostitution most widely recognized as legitimate. The argument could have just as easily been that nations deserve power over this issue, or the resolution is simply wasting member nation money in paper.

As a UN that should be interested in uniting, and protecting, this resolution seems awfully interested in dividing and excluding. If there's a resolution needed for prostitution, it's to ensure their rights in countries which legalize it, to ensure they have medical protection, and are able to report violent crimes against them. If you're interested in producing a positive net effect, I'd suggest you start there. Whether the repeal passes or fails.

I wholly agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure on protocol. I was considering including something similar, or a provision that national governments still ought to try to provide medical assistance to prostitutes, but I wondered "is this against the rules?" I'm not exactly clear on how much re-legislation is allowed in repeals. That's why I only included two action clauses (one of which being the "REPEALS" line and the other just "HONOR"-ing). Do you think that such a statement would need a seperate proposal submitted?

Does anyone know if there are specific examples of mod rulings on where the line is drawn between "giving reasons for the repeal/providing direction to the UN following the repeal", and "proposing new legislation insinde a repeal"?

I'll try to research a little on this. Knowing me, the answers probably will be really obvious, but take forever for me to find.

Repeals can only repeal.

Actually in many societies you can be immune to prosecution, it starts with the concept of attorney client priviledge.

For example, if I say something to my lawyer like, "I was hooking when I saw a guy murder my friend", my lawyer is bound to not use that information against me.

The bottom line remains that the same arguments could be used for drug dealing. "If drug dealing was legal, its workers can get legal protection at no risk to themsleves. If you make it illegal, then there is more of a chance that they will let crimes go unreported because they fear the consequences to themselves."

So why have we legalized one profession and not another? Do keep in mind that just legalizing something does not mean it can't be regulated. In fact, the Netherlands and Nevada have specific laws designed around many things that would be considered "vices".

I just wonder why proponents behind legalized prostitution stop there and don't extend their arguments to legalization or regulation of certain types of recreational drugs.

See the above reference.

Here's a good reference on consensual crime, (http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/101.htm#controversial) I neither expect you to look at it nor read it in entire. Either action might cause thought about the nature of consensual crimes, and the ridiculousness caused by making such things "crimes".


I'll not read it because I already have to my liking. When you first entered the forum, you waved that resource as if it were a bible and we all heathens. There's no need for me to review it. I have the right to believe what I want, as do you. I ask that you respect it when I decide not to buy into your ideology.

Repeals can only repeal.

As Cogitation beat you to in posting many hours ago. And besides that his statements were concise, polite, and official, all of which I'm not sure are present in your posts.

"Human Rights" means the "right of all humans". Vastiva maintains it is the right of all humans to engage in any sort of selling or trading of their own persons as they see fit.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that person should be able to sell himself or herself into slavery? This has actually happened in historic times; there have been places, such as Rome, where if a person got too far into debt, he sometimes had to make the choice of either selling himself into slavery to pay off his debt or go into debtors prison, or starvation.

This is a non-question in Vastiva - anyone can enter into any contract they like; there is protective legislation to a point, but if someone wants to put themselves into an indentured servant position, they are allowed to do so.



The same question can apply to prostitution, actually. Is it really a question of "choice" or "freedom" when the choice is between "starve to death or have sex with strangers for money?"

As you've pushed things to extremes here, the question has been similarly stretched out of reality. We shall have to restrict this to my own country as an example.

Food is available to those who wish it; it is a climatic reality it must be provided. Better food is available for sums, but survival level is readily available.

As to choice - yes, it is a choice. There are likely other choices available, which the individual may or may not be aware of - nevertheless, they are making a choice. Just as they made choices which resulted in their ending up in that situation in the first place.

Thank you for blowing your own arguement out of the water - if there are ways of getting around resolutions if you really apply yourself to it, then there is no reason to repeal.

First off, don't godmod arguments. If it really did "blow his argument out of the water", there's no need to say it. It's more powerful for your points to speak for themselves. Have you ever boxed someone who makes punching noises? It's something like that.

Don't teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. If I want to hammer it home, I'll hammer it home, thank you.



Secondly, you're wrong anyway. Some of us in the UN want there to be less bureaucracy, not more. If there's a resolution which isn't doing anything, then Powerhungry Chipmunks is for repealing it, regardless of the argument.


Ah, well, here we agree with you, and could name a ream of resolutions which would be better served not existing. This, however, is not one of them because of the long term positive effects.

We would also request you be more honest in naming your reasons for attempting repeals. This would be the third reason for the same repeal, and it will require a scorecard if more are given.



We chose this argument because it, according to our perception, addressed the primary concern over unregulated, yet legalized prostitution most widely recognized as legitimate. The argument could have just as easily been that nations deserve power over this issue, or the resolution is simply wasting member nation money in paper.

As a UN that should be interested in uniting, and protecting, this resolution seems awfully interested in dividing and excluding. If there's a resolution needed for prostitution, it's to ensure their rights in countries which legalize it, to ensure they have medical protection, and are able to report violent crimes against them. If you're interested in producing a positive net effect, I'd suggest you start there. Whether the repeal passes or fails.

As Patton said, I'm not willing to pay twice for the same real estate. If later material is added which makes the former "bureaucratic excess", then certes we are all for its removal!

But we are not for the removal of that which makes sense and progress.

Ah, well, here we agree with you, and could name a ream of resolutions which would be better served not existing. This, however, is not one of them because of the long term positive effects.

...

But we are not for the removal of that which makes sense and progress.

You've admitted that member nations don't even have to abide by this resolution, or, more accurately, that nations can abide by it and not legalize prostitution. I see no positive effects from having a "unexecuting" resolution.

Progress and sense are to be made by you, or another high-minded nation, submitting and passing some form of protection for prostitutes in nations which allow prostitution. Now's the perfect time, as there's a resolution up to vote and delegates are cleanly laid out before you. In chronological order, at that.

Don't teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. If I want to hammer it home, I'll hammer it home, thank you.

I'm not sure you realize why this is offensive to other posters. It implies your supremacy over them. In a forum of equals, all share their ideas and every reader serves as an independent judge on the merit or "victory" of an idea or argument. If you place yourself as the judge for the absolute value of an argument, then you imply yourself above others.

You, and I, are incapable of determining final absolute worth of anything. We can't decide what will convince or sway others. We can only determine what changes our minds. To assume that you have the power to decide how an argument fairs in others' minds comes off as arrogant and juvenile. At least, it does to me.

So are promiscuous people in general. There is one glaring difference in the two, however - the promiscuous person is doing it for kicks, the prostitute for livelihood. The latter has a greater tendency towards self-interest, and as such, a greater tendency to take precautionary measures.

At first glance I thought the same, however, after re-reading the resolution at bar I am not so sure.

When it comes to personal health and safety UN Resolutions on the matter would lend both groups to taking the same precautionary methods, absent a requirement for professionals.

It is reasonable if it is your chosen profession and a competitive source of income to take more precautions than your average person. However, a common occurance amongst individauls in dire circumstances is to sacrifice personal health and safety to generate income given that the occupation chosen is a last chance for survival. Those described in the legalize prostitution bill are in dire condition, and would likely make such sacrifices for monetary gain despite information obtained from UN resolutions pertaining to health and safety.

At first glance I thought the same, however, after re-reading the resolution at bar I am not so sure.

When it comes to personal health and safety UN Resolutions on the matter would lend both groups to taking the same precautionary methods, absent a requirement for professionals.

It is reasonable if it is your chosen profession and a competitive source of income to take more precautions than your average person. However, a common occurance amongst individauls in dire circumstances is to sacrifice personal health and safety to generate income given that the occupation chosen is a last chance for survival. Those described in the legalize prostitution bill are in dire condition, and would likely make such sacrifices for monetary gain despite information obtained from UN resolutions pertaining to health and safety.

You did notice when the resolution was passed? Yes? Good.

You will notice, when some profession is legal for a longer time, it begins to self-correct, as within the scope of a legal profession there is greater competition. This in turn calls for greater standards. True? Good.

Your assumption here is "all persons prostituting themselves are in dire straits". This is demonstratably not the case in a legal profession. Over time, the Trade will make its own way, by nature of the market itself.

At the same time, a government faced with such a legal profession and working in accordance with the listed resolutions will by simply remaining in compliance, become more sensitive to the nature of the Public Health, and what measures are mandated in bettering the Public Health.

Remember - we are not discussing a new resolution, but one which has existed for some time. As such, the nature of societal adaptation will have begun its progression.

You did notice when the resolution was passed? Yes? Good.

You will notice, when some profession is legal for a longer time, it begins to self-correct, as within the scope of a legal profession there is greater competition. This in turn calls for greater standards. True? Good.

Your assumption here is "all persons prostituting themselves are in dire straits". This is demonstratably not the case in a legal profession. Over time, the Trade will make its own way, by nature of the market itself.

At the same time, a government faced with such a legal profession and working in accordance with the listed resolutions will by simply remaining in compliance, become more sensitive to the nature of the Public Health, and what measures are mandated in bettering the Public Health.

Remember - we are not discussing a new resolution, but one which has existed for some time. As such, the nature of societal adaptation will have begun its progression.

My assumption is not that at all. What I said was based on the resolution at bar, the grouping of people that serve as the rationale in the resolution for passing it.

Competitition dictates two things, development for greater efficiency which can lead to lower MC and in turn a lower p to increase market share and profits. Or, a highly competitive market decreases p due homogenous goods or services that are interchangeable and in abundance of demand.

Those in the resolution are concerned with maximizing profits. To do so requires sacrifice in other areas so as to maximize work time and profits (goes back to other comment). If economic conditions necesitating prostitution grow, then competition increases, and p drops without increasing efficiency, worsening the above comment. The resolution proffers no need to act on information on health and safety available in other UN resolutions, or to follow a standard greater than recomended.It just allows such events to occur legally, allowing society to turn a blind eye to the problem with respect to employment and the economy.

Or... what a concept!... we could LEAVE IT LEGAL AND FACE THE FACTS OF WHAT A REPEAL WOULD DO AND CAUSE!

:headbang:




....like, say, swallowing the bitter pill and leaving it legal.

Here's a good reference on consensual crime, (http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/101.htm#controversial) I neither expect you to look at it nor read it in entire. Either action might cause thought about the nature of consensual crimes, and the ridiculousness caused by making such things "crimes".

Please, continue, We are amused with how many additions you would have to put into legislation to keep the act illegal but protect the people. Much more difficult then, say leaving it legal, but then again, as long as we're in the paper business we don't mind you creating meaningless clutter.
That is my favorite book of all time. Better than the bible. "Ain't Nobody's Business" should be required reading.

I'm not sure you realize why this is offensive to other posters. It implies your supremacy over them. In a forum of equals, all share their ideas and every reader serves as an independent judge on the merit or "victory" of an idea or argument. If you place yourself as the judge for the absolute value of an argument, then you imply yourself above others.

You, and I, are incapable of determining final absolute worth of anything. We can't decide what will convince or sway others. We can only determine what changes our minds. To assume that you have the power to decide how an argument fairs in others' minds comes off as arrogant and juvenile. At least, it does to me.

Agreed! 100% spot on.<applauds PC>

The Republic of UnimportantAffiars does not think that UN Resolution 46 needs to be repealled. Prostitution is the oldest profession in our region, and we believe that it is the oldest in the world. We believe that our citizens have the right to use their bodies for what they see fit, and we do not take kindly to other members of the global community trying to infrenge upon our most basic human rights.

You do not now, and you shall never have the support of my nation on this issue.

I'm not sure you realize why this is offensive to other posters. It implies your supremacy over them. In a forum of equals, all share their ideas and every reader serves as an independent judge on the merit or "victory" of an idea or argument. If you place yourself as the judge for the absolute value of an argument, then you imply yourself above others.

You, and I, are incapable of determining final absolute worth of anything. We can't decide what will convince or sway others. We can only determine what changes our minds. To assume that you have the power to decide how an argument fairs in others' minds comes off as arrogant and juvenile. At least, it does to me.
Agreed! 100% spot on.<applauds PC>

The irony in this is beyond reckoning.

The irony in this is beyond reckoning.

Yeah right....whatever Vastiva. You just hold onto your beliefs and others can do the same. Savvy?

I see the proposal reach the minimum endoresments and became resolution, so I want to understand it clearly.



DETERMINING it a member nation’s right to allow or disallow prostitution independently, based upon that member nation’s independent medical need and standing;

did that pharase mean that if I had legal protitution now, I can stay with this?
did it tell me that my countrey could choose if she want to ban prostitution or legalize it?
if I right, I can't see what someone try to get in the proposal. you only want that countrey could ban prostitution if she want it?

anyway, if I right I had no problem with the proposal. if I wrong, please tell me why, so I could get opinion on the proposal.

did that pharase mean that if I had legal protitution now, I can stay with this?
did it tell me that my countrey could choose if she want to ban prostitution or legalize it?
if I right, I can't see what someone try to get in the proposal. you only want that countrey could ban prostitution if she want it?

anyway, if I right I had no problem with the proposal. if I wrong, please tell me why, so I could get opinion on the proposal.


You're absolutely right. By repealing the previous resolution, other countries will still be allowed the right to legalize prostitution if they so choose. The only way for that not to be the case is if one were to make a proposal outlawing prostitution UN-wide, and PC promises to campaign against that 100%, as we wholly feel it best placed in the national sphere.

I fear this will be one of the great misunderstandings of this repeal, what it actually does. Please, tell the nations in your region that voting FOR this measure is not "anti-prostitution", and they can still have it legalized in their country. In fact, voting FOR may even increase the business, as it will most likely decrease competition in neighboring countries.

Everyone, please help get the word out as to what this repeal actually does. I only ask that, if it's within your time constraints, you alert your region of what a repeal will do. I'm very, very grateful to all those who are supporting this measure, who have supported it, and who will support it. Thank you for your time.

RECOGNIZING as a precedent of the UN to uphold health and safety as public rights,

BEARING responsibility to encourage healthy practices in member nations and discourage unhealthy practices,

REVIEWING the possible increased public health risk from encouraging prostitution in member nations,

DETERMINING it a member nation’s right to allow or disallow prostitution independently, based upon that member nation’s independent medical need and standing;

REPEALS “Legalize Prostitution”, implemented February 2 2004;

We, the glorious People's Republic of Groot Gouda, care about the health of the UN member nations. We can therefor only vote AGAINST this resolution. By allowing nations to make prostitution illegal again their health will go down, when the prostitutes are forced to go back to shabby rooms, with no security and little acces to health care due to their illegal status. This can cause epidemics that will cross borders, affecting other member UN nations.

Of course, it is a bit weird that there has to be a UN resolution to make prostitution legal, as opposed to, say, making Truck driving legal. However, my nation feels that prostitution deserves a little bit of protection due to the nature of their job and the effects on society when their job disappears.

For the safety of our nations, vote AGAINST this repeal! Think of the children!

We, the glorious People's Republic of Groot Gouda, care about the health of the UN member nations.Thanks!By allowing nations to make prostitution illegal again their health will go down, when the prostitutes are forced to go back to shabby rooms, with no security and little acces to health care due to their illegal status.I am very interested in exactly WHY you think prostitution is regulated? I mean, I look at the resolution, and it says it's legalised....but does it say standards have to be enforced? It just says it's legal. Are there any minimum standards set for the welfare of prostitutes? That's why I don't like the original resolution, and why I'd like to see it repealed. At least then we can go about setting some decent controls in place to protect the welfare of the victims of the sex trade (better still, I think we can do it without making it globally legal in the UN and forcing it down the throats of nations which might not appreciate it).

By allowing nations to make prostitution illegal again their health will go down, when the prostitutes are forced to go back to shabby rooms, with no security and little acces to health care due to their illegal status.

I disagree. I feel that an illegal state of prostitution is not worse from a health perspective from what we have now: a rampant, legal, but unregulated practice. If the resolution's going to make prostitution legal it should make nations take some sort of regulatory action. Now, nations are forced to keep it legal with or without needed regulation. Thus, I find leaving it a resolution a more dangerous option for many nations.

We believe that our citizens have the right to use their bodies for what they see fit, and we do not take kindly to other members of the global community trying to infrenge upon our most basic human rights.
Is there something in this resolution that forces your nation to make prostitution illegal? I must have missed it if there were. Instead, it restores to each nation the right to make its own determinations regarding prostitution.

It seems to me that someone opposed to repeal has to believe that the "right to use their bodies for what they see fit," including commercial purposes, is a basic human right, which no nation should be able to infringe, but regulation of prostitution for health purposes should be a nation-by-nation decision that is not important in a global health initiative.

I cannot support this repeal. To make prostitution illegal would be to opress people. Although I realize that this repeal would give me the choice it would be causing suffering in other corners of the globe (and throughout the universe for the space-faring nations) because some nations WOULD make it illegal. It is my personal belief that the UN's main mission is to end oppresion in all nations and hence, I will usually vote toward this objective if it comes to it. I believe the infingment of national rights in this issue is well worth it.

Furthermore, when it comes to medical reasons to having it illegal, I believe that illegality would only increase the spread of STD. In al but the most law-enforcing of nations, prostitution will still exist and an underground system would be developed. If we keep prostition legal, we can (fairly easily) enforce mandatory STD tests for prostitutes and their clients.

Finally, I don't believe nations should have the right to pass laws to control sex. In fact there is already a UN resolution that supports my stance (Resolution #7 p.2).

I cannot support this repeal. To make prostitution illegal would be to opress people. Although I realize that this repeal would give me the choice it would be causing suffering in other corners of the globe (and throughout the universe for the space-faring nations) because some nations WOULD make it illegal. It is my personal belief that the UN's main mission is to end oppresion in all nations and hence, I will usually vote toward this objective if it comes to it. I believe the infingment of national rights in this issue is well worth it.

Furthermore, when it comes to medical reasons to having it illegal, I believe that illegality would only increase the spread of STD. In al but the most law-enforcing of nations, prostitution will still exist and an underground system would be developed. If we keep prostition legal, we can (fairly easily) enforce mandatory STD tests for prostitutes and their clients.

Finally, I don't believe nations should have the right to pass laws to control sex. In fact there is already a UN resolution that supports my stance (Resolution #7 p.2).

I completely agree with everything, except the interpretation of The Sexual Freedom (#7) resolution. I am not sure you can argue that the right of people to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes is the same as the right to set up a business to sell your body to someone else.

But maybe I am wrong :}

I disagree. I feel that an illegal state of prostitution is not worse from a health perspective from what we have now: a rampant, legal, but unregulated practice.
But that's just because you're repressed and afraid of your own sexuality.

Note: that's not a personal attack, just a statement of reality. Illness is not destiny either - spend more time in strip clubs, and your outlook will normalize.

It makes no difference to me, as long as you don't ban it. In my own personal opinion, regulated prostituion is far better than having illeagle prostituion in your country, as long as it IS regulated. If your government fails to properly regulate it and it affects your health and crime adversly, then that's the government's own fault and they have no right to complain about it.

Legalization leads naturally to regulation, particularly where mass sums of money are available. :rolleyes:

Legalization leads naturally to regulation, particularly where mass sums of money are available. :rolleyes:

How could I have forgotten this fact? I'm so stupid, sometimes.

But that's just because you're repressed and afraid of your own sexuality.

Note: that's not a personal attack, just a statement of reality. Illness is not destiny either - spend more time in strip clubs, and your outlook will normalize.

Uh, sure. Please, please, please post regularly in the official debate thread when it comes up to vote. Really, I think this unique perspective will be valuable.

Our nation intends to keep prostitution legal but we do have an extensive program for the rehibilitation of prostitutes. We are afraid of the prostitution 'free-for-all' that exists in some nations.

Vastiva, I'm afraid your gravely mistaken if you believe that prostitution is always a choice. In many many parts of the world, young women and men are abducted (or sold by their families) into the sex trade. They often die of aids at a young age and have a high tendency to commit suicide or to be tortured and murdered by their pimps.
Human beings are not merchandice! Sexuality is not a commodity and it is not a right to purchase or sell it. I really don't care if it is indeed (as the old colloquilism says) the worlds oldest profession. It is a profession usually born out of desperation or repression. We believe in the liberation of the oppresed and will always fight for that.
I do admit that for some it is a free choice, and we will protect their right to practice this, at this moment. We do respect that many nations feel even more strongly against prostitution than we do, and they should have the right to make it illegal. This is not a matter for the U.N as the U.N has nothing to offer in this matter.
Human sexuality is not a commodity, people cannot be bought and sold.

Sai
Principality of Prachya

Legalization leads naturally to regulation, particularly where mass sums of money are available. :rolleyes:

No. It does not. The extent to which specific regulation exists, if any, depends upon the nature of the industry, and societies interest therein. As such it is not a universal application that regulation follows legalization.

Our nation intends to keep prostitution legal but we do have an extensive program for the rehibilitation of prostitutes. We are afraid of the prostitution 'free-for-all' that exists in some nations.

Vastiva, I'm afraid your gravely mistaken if you believe that prostitution is always a choice. In many many parts of the world, young women and men are abducted (or sold by their families) into the sex trade. They often die of aids at a young age and have a high tendency to commit suicide or to be tortured and murdered by their pimps.
Human beings are not merchandice! Sexuality is not a commodity and it is not a right to purchase or sell it. I really don't care if it is indeed (as the old colloquilism says) the worlds oldest profession. It is a profession usually born out of desperation or repression. We believe in the liberation of the oppresed and will always fight for that.
I do admit that for some it is a free choice, and we will protect their right to practice this, at this moment. We do respect that many nations feel even more strongly against prostitution than we do, and they should have the right to make it illegal. This is not a matter for the U.N as the U.N has nothing to offer in this matter.
Human sexuality is not a commodity, people cannot be bought and sold.

Sai
Principality of Prachya

What you are talking about is slavery. Slavery should be kept undercontrol by the government and really shouldn't be an issue. It's like saying that large farms can't be run because some of the field workers may be slaves. I do believe this is an issue for the UN because it is based on morals. It's our job when voting on repeals (and proposals) such as this one to ATTEMPT to agree on moral issues (in my own opinion anyways).

What you are talking about is slavery. Slavery should be kept undercontrol by the government and really shouldn't be an issue. It's like saying that large farms can't be run because some of the field workers may be slaves.

Yes, we are talking about slavery, which is of course something I think we would likely have a similar distaste for. The point I am making is that prostitution is very often coerced, unlike farming. Most farmers today are not serfs, and are free to find other work, while most prostitutes do so as it is their only option.

Prostitution is not a healthy career move, it is counterproductive to the goals of society. We can discuss medical facts, if you like (such as the risk of STD's, unwanted pregnancy, as well as cervical cancer).

Sai

I think not,

Why are we not thinking right, this 'act' is absolutely pointless, there are other ways to get jobs. Why sell your body for money? Your body for just money? You could easily get a job, all you have to do is get yourself some clothes, then maybe scavange. Get that money, go to the newsangency and get a job as a paper deliverer. At least you get money. Why sell your OWN body for a few hundred dollars, its just damn paper. It has no worth. It is just paper. Sure you can buy lots of stuff but would you sell your own body for some food? There is an easier way. There is a less illegal way. All you have to do is think.

Salemwin will vote to repeal this massive piece of U.N. garbage.

While prostitution is legalized in Salemwin and will continue to be legal after this resolution is repealed, we believe the U.N. has no place in telling any country what it can and can't do morally and economically.

I urge my fellow U.N. members to think with their heads, and realize that it is unfair to force this kind of thing on nations that might believe it wrong.

THIS SHOULD BE A MATTER FOR A COUNTRY TO DECIDE LOCALLY.

Repeal this resolution.


S.G. Shiruda
Gatesville

No. It does not. The extent to which specific regulation exists, if any, depends upon the nature of the industry, and societies interest therein. As such it is not a universal application that regulation follows legalization.

You're not really up on sociology, are you? Where something is legal, and exists in an "I'm special" category - and further, makes money fast - people naturally wish to control it, particularly those in power.

The precise level of legislation is a matter of national decision, but there will be commonality, and there will be a direction, both which are predictable and applicable to the greater numbers.

Now, if you are talking about a law of "all whores should wear red socks", then the answer is a "well, duh, of course not". But that sort of thing isn't what was being mentioned in the first place.

Vastiva, I'm afraid your gravely mistaken if you believe that prostitution is always a choice. In many many parts of the world, young women and men are abducted (or sold by their families) into the sex trade. They often die of aids at a young age and have a high tendency to commit suicide or to be tortured and murdered by their pimps.

Which would be against the UN Resolution "End Slavery". You do enforce it, don't you? Good. And those who are legally following the career of prostitution can then place complaints against those who are breaking the law, right? Good.

Just checking.



Human beings are not merchandice! Sexuality is not a commodity and it is not a right to purchase or sell it. I really don't care if it is indeed (as the old colloquilism says) the worlds oldest profession. It is a profession usually born out of desperation or repression. We believe in the liberation of the oppresed and will always fight for that.

Good! Though I will argue about the right - we all have a right to our own bodies. And the simplest arguement is "F*cking is legal, selling is legal, why shouldn't selling f*cking be legal?". If you wouldn't mind answering that one?



I do admit that for some it is a free choice, and we will protect their right to practice this, at this moment. We do respect that many nations feel even more strongly against prostitution than we do, and they should have the right to make it illegal. This is not a matter for the U.N as the U.N has nothing to offer in this matter.
Human sexuality is not a commodity, people cannot be bought and sold.

Sai
Principality of Prachya

Sex, however, is a commodity. More precisely, it is a service.

We are rather curious why you believe the UN has nothing to offer here. Do enlighten us, at your leisure.

I think not,

Why are we not thinking right, this 'act' is absolutely pointless, there are other ways to get jobs. Why sell your body for money? Your body for just money? You could easily get a job, all you have to do is get yourself some clothes, then maybe scavange. Get that money, go to the newsangency and get a job as a paper deliverer. At least you get money. Why sell your OWN body for a few hundred dollars, its just damn paper. It has no worth. It is just paper. Sure you can buy lots of stuff but would you sell your own body for some food? There is an easier way. There is a less illegal way. All you have to do is think.

Freedom of choice. It's your body - no one elses. Why should someone be able to tell you what you can and can't do with it, if you are hurting no one else?

And - by the way - there are many people who are desperate enough to sell their own body for food, and for other things.

(OOC)
Have you ever watched Casablanca? There is the hint (that is we don't actually see the sex, but we all know what is going on) that the head of Police is giving visas to women who will sleep with him. They are so desperate to get away from the war (World War Two if you don't know) that they will do anything).

But since this repeal will not make prostitution illegal in all member nations, I don't really have a problem with it.

Prostitution is not a healthy career move, it is counterproductive to the goals of society. We can discuss medical facts, if you like (such as the risk of STD's, unwanted pregnancy, as well as cervical cancer).

You do know there are condoms in NationStates, right?

I think not,

Why are we not thinking right, this 'act' is absolutely pointless, there are other ways to get jobs. Why sell your body for money? Your body for just money? You could easily get a job, all you have to do is get yourself some clothes, then maybe scavange. Get that money, go to the newsangency and get a job as a paper deliverer. At least you get money. Why sell your OWN body for a few hundred dollars, its just damn paper. It has no worth. It is just paper. Sure you can buy lots of stuff but would you sell your own body for some food? There is an easier way. There is a less illegal way. All you have to do is think.

A "less illegal way"? At the moment, prostitution is legal. As the average income (average, not highest) for a prostitute in Vastiva is around $200,000 per year, we do see a great advantage of that career to your proverbial paper-seller, who makes about $6.50 an hour, or less then $20,000 per year. The latter also has no benefits guaranteed, whereas the whore does.

You have thought this out, haven't you? Or is this another "it's icky and I don't like it" arguement?

AGAINST the repeal for all reasons aforementioned by others.

There is a major problem in this repeal. In all honesty, while I feel that men and women who find themselves in a position where all they think they can do is sell their bodies for food or money, then the government isn't trying hard enough to help all of their people. However, if we make prostitution illegal, then we are upping the stakes. Legalized prostitution means that the government can keep an eye on problems. If it were not legal, do you think it would just stop *snap* just like that?

You do not have the support of myself OR my country.
Queen Malecaia Noir, elect of the Queendom of Kodomo Chi
Member of the United Nations

When it's illegal, it's more dangerous. Every day in America prostitutes are subject to violent crime, but they are afraid to come forward because prostitution is against the law.

Keep it in the open, so that it can be kept safe (even regulated).

You're not really up on sociology, are you? Where something is legal, and exists in an "I'm special" category - and further, makes money fast - people naturally wish to control it, particularly those in power.

The precise level of legislation is a matter of national decision, but there will be commonality, and there will be a direction, both which are predictable and applicable to the greater numbers.

Now, if you are talking about a law of "all whores should wear red socks", then the answer is a "well, duh, of course not". But that sort of thing isn't what was being mentioned in the first place.

So, the UN is in the business of just legalizing things and assuming nations will take use legalization to make something positive out of it? No, the UN is not here to just take actions which nations might possibly construe as reasons to do good things. The UN is here to make nations do good things. If you're so interested in regulating prostitution as a health matter, than why not draft a proposal? That's what the UN needs. It's foolish to assume the current resolution addresses the issues of regulating a legalized industry. Because it doesn't.

When it's illegal, it's more dangerous. Every day in America prostitutes are subject to violent crime, but they are afraid to come forward because prostitution is against the law.

Keep it in the open, so that it can be kept safe (even regulated).

Consider matters of national security after the attack on the trade towers. People still should've had the right to board planes and travel overseas. They should've still had the right to privacy, the right not to be searched. However, it was in the nation's best interest that these rights be suspended for a period of time: planes were grounded, people followed, bags and such searched. All I'm asking for in this repeal is that the UN open its eyes and try to understand that some nations in severe AIDS or other STD epidemics would benefit from a suspension of the right of people to sell their bodies.

It's fine that the UN display idealized principles and act to display its points of view. But this must be done in a practical way. If the legalization of prostitution is unconditional the UN suffers from it. Legalized prostitution needs to take into account the nuanced and subtle natures of individual nation’s situations. The fact is, if we're going to have a resolution legalizing prostitution, we need a new resolution which is a little more realistic. In a fully enlightened UN, we need no bumper sticker answers. The resolution is a bumper sticker. It says "legalize prostitution!" but refuses to effect how’s, why’s or take into account the individual status of nations. The resolution is out of touch with reality.

Sorry but if you repeal this you just make it worse. The argument of public health is stupid. Prostitution is a part of society whether you like it or not.

Now you may either have it controlled by the government: with medical check ups for all the people involved and mandatory guidlines, or you can make it illegal and have girls being kidnapped from 3rd world countries and forced to work in the sex industry, with whatever STDs they bring with them, with whichever STDs they catch and then pass on.

Personally the whole idea of prostitution makes me sick, but as the leader of my people I must act in their interest and not, I repeat not, mine!

However I do have reservations about forcing other leaders to do the same.

However I do have reservations about forcing other leaders to do the same.

Then why vote against? Your nation will still be allowed to legalize prostitution, even if this repeal passes. The only thing that changes is that other nations in the UN won't be forced to legalize it.

There is a major problem in this repeal. In all honesty, while I feel that men and women who find themselves in a position where all they think they can do is sell their bodies for food or money, then the government isn't trying hard enough to help all of their people. However, if we make prostitution illegal, then we are upping the stakes. Legalized prostitution means that the government can keep an eye on problems. If it were not legal, do you think it would just stop *snap* just like that?

You do not have the support of myself OR my country.
Queen Malecaia Noir, elect of the Queendom of Kodomo Chi
Member of the United Nations

This will not make prostitution illegal in your nation. It will allow you to chose whether it is legal or not.

When it's illegal, it's more dangerous. Every day in America prostitutes are subject to violent crime, but they are afraid to come forward because prostitution is against the law.

Keep it in the open, so that it can be kept safe (even regulated).

This will not make prostitution illegal in your nation. It will allow you to chose whether it is legal or not.

The saftey of my people in when they are abroad must be considered. I might tell them that it is not safe to use prostitutes in other countries however I suspect that most of them will ignore the guidlines and do it anyway.
Since there is no way I can enforce a law stopping them from going to prostitutes abroad I feel I would be easier to make it a common thing across many nations.
However I am tempted to go for a repeal and redraft the proposal.

Then why vote against? Your nation will still be allowed to legalize prostitution, even if this repeal passes. The only thing that changes is that other nations in the UN won't be forced to legalize it.

Which is exactly why this repeal should fail. Prostitution is an international issue and for every country that makes it illegal the problems of trafficking, the spread of deseases and other problems inherant to illegal prositution increase even for us who would keep it legal.

Since these problems won't stop at your border, we need a common UN policy.

Prostitution should be an issue each nation decides on its own. How many little girls grow up and say, "I want to be a prostitute when I grow up." Such a system would allow the increased trafficking of girls across borders.

Whether you think it's right or wrong, as a matter of public policy, forcing legalization of prostitution on all member nations is wrong.

Prostitution should be an issue each nation decides on its own. How many little girls grow up and say, "I want to be a prostitute when I grow up." Such a system would allow the increased trafficking of girls across borders.

Trafficking can only occur where prostitution is illegal. And I see nothing wrong with forcing legalization on other nations - that's what the NS UN is for.

Trafficking can only occur where prostitution is illegal. And I see nothing wrong with forcing legalization on other nations - that's what the NS UN is for.
That's not true to say that is only the case. Trafficking can occur anywhere--it's just not illegal in places where prostitution is legal. Or if allowance of trafficking of prostitutes, why not prostitutes under 18? Why not 17? Or 16? Or just post puberty?

And the purpose of NS UN is to force legalization of things that may be morally or medically ambiguous?

That's not true to say that is only the case. Trafficking can occur anywhere--it's just not illegal in places where prostitution is legal. Or if allowance of trafficking of prostitutes, why not prostitutes under 18? Why not 17? Or 16? Or just post puberty?

There are various resolutions that protect the rights of children not to be molested and forced in to sex against their will. And since children can not, by law, consent it will always be against their will.

Just thought I would mention that.

There are various resolutions that protect the rights of children not to be molested and forced in to sex against their will. And since children can not, by law, consent it will always be against their will.

Just thought I would mention that.
As there are with the real UN and laws of various real countries. It still happens. And forced legalized prostitution would make it all the easier.

That's not true to say that is only the case. Trafficking can occur anywhere--it's just not illegal in places where prostitution is legal.

Trafficking is the illegal "selling", if you so will, of people across borders so that they can be inserted into another country to make money through prostitution.

With legal prostitution this would be unnessesary since nobody would have to "traffic" people around - they could just apply for working visas and they could seek government help if someone was forcing them into it - something they cannot do when prostitution is illegal.

The saftey of my people in when they are abroad must be considered. I might tell them that it is not safe to use prostitutes in other countries however I suspect that most of them will ignore the guidlines and do it anyway.
Since there is no way I can enforce a law stopping them from going to prostitutes abroad I feel I would be easier to make it a common thing across many nations.
However I am tempted to go for a repeal and redraft the proposal.

That is logical. The original resolution is poorly written and based on its justification in the wrong category:


UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #46
Legalize prostitution
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kepone

Description:
As you are aware, there are citizens who get by in desperate times by selling their bodies in order to pay their bills and feed their children. Both men and women partake in this profession. If we legalized prostitution, people would be able to sell themselves to get by. In return, the government could use the money collected from taxes on prostitution income to support programs that help the poor. Prostitution is the oldest profession. Why must we make it a priority for law enforcement to monitor and arrest prostitutes when there are greater crimes out there?

Votes For: 10,899
Votes Against: 9,310
Implemented: Mon Feb 2 2004


The resolution isn't saying that people should be allowed to trade sex for money. That would be an economic freedom proposal, but it isn't saying that at all.

The resolution isn't saying this is a fundamental human right. It doesn't address social freedoms at all.

It does talk about collecting taxes and building support programs. These are text book Social Justice issues. Don't believe me, here is what the UN Secretariat (i.e. Cogitation) wrote months ago about Social Justice and Free Trade resolutions:


[Free Trade and Social Justice] are almost exactly opposed types of resolutions. Both affect Economic freedoms. "Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms while "Social Justice" reduces Economic freedoms. In addition, "Social Justice" also increases government spending on welfare and healthcare (though "Free Trade" does not have an opposite effect). Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry or how much government spending goes to helping poor/sick people. Total Economic freedom is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Zero Economic freedom is a completely government-controlled economy. Creating a Food and Drug Administration in all UN member nations, or creating a Securities and Exchange Commission in all UN member nations is imposing a mild form of Economic control, and therefore a mild reduction of Economic freedoms; you're imposing restrictions on what businesses and industries may do and you're moving away from a completely-uncontrolled Laissez-faire system.

In terms of Economic Freedoms, "Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.


In fairness to Kepone (which is no longer in NationStates), a year ago most resolutions were extremely poorly written. Sophista's guide was relatively new at the time and most UN members weren't yet experienced with how to write resolutions.

What really should be done, is addressing the problem. The problem isn't that men and women want to trade sex for money. I don't know about you, but many people whom make use of prostitues are buying their services because they have some other issue. I would not characterize most "Johns" or even "Janes" as being people I'd want to associate with. And if the only way I could make a living was to associate with these people I'm guessing it would not help my self respect.

The long-term solution is to address income inequality and train the men and women who tend to become prostitutes. Education based proposals like those promoted by Hersfold and the Powerhungry Chipmunks are the first step. This will help prevent future generations from turning to "selling their bodies in order to pay their bills".

The second step is to use existing government tax money spent on law enforcement and divert some of it to outreach programs and shelters. And adult educational programs. Let's stop pretending we are solving the problem by waving our hands and just pretending that by legalizing a bad situation that we are helping things.

Do you really think legalized prostitutes are going to hand governments that much tax money?

[OOC: Go to Amsterdam. Walk down the red light district. While the Netherlands and Amsterdam is a beautiful place, I found the red light district sick. There are men (often dressed as women) and women sitting in glass booths waiting for somebody to come and have their way with them. While I felt safe there, which means the Dutch seem to have the situation under control, those prostitutes these days are often coming from Eastern Europe and are invisible. Who knows if they are really paying that many taxes, and I sure as hell didn't see to many government employees trying to give them real skills. It is not an ideal situation, and I honestly think the wrong approach. It is still exploitation, but now the government encourages it.]

My government would support a Social Justice resolution similar in nature to my Needle Sharing Prevention resolution. My government is a strong proponent of helping people via Social Justice.

We need a real resolution with clauses like:

1. AFFIRMS the basic human right for all people, including injection drug users, to equal access to HIV/AIDS based prevention and treatment programs;

3.STRESSES that for IDU HIV/AIDS prevention programs to be successful, that the individuals that organize or participate in these programs shall not be subject to arrest or harassment, nor shall participation in these programs imply drug use;

But instead of reaching out to help injection drug users, let's help prostitutes. See it is very easy to write something in plain English that protects people from wrongful prosecution and also helps them at the same time.

[NOTE: When I wrote the Needle Sharing Prevention resolution I was in the East Pacific at the time. The Xtraodrinary Genetleman had not yet founded the International Democratic Union (IDU) ... it just is a creepy coincidence that as one of the original IDU members I had also pinned a resolution seeking to reduce injecting drug use (IDU).]

I do want to say that I could have legalized and taxed injected drug use via a Recreational Drug use resolution. The thought occurred to me, but my government immediately dismissed it. Legalizing IDU would only help the rich. The poor wouldn't be able to afford huge taxes on drugs and the IDU reduction programs would fail.

You can't fight vices simply by taxing them. You must invest money into education, prevention, and counciling services. In the case of prostitution I'd point to the brilliant successes of the sadly underfunded shelter programs as well.

I'd like to ask all liberal nations to join the Confederedate City States of Mikitivity, and vote no on this wrong resolution and then work with the Powerhungry Chipmunks and Engineering chaos and my government to draft a better Social Justice program. We have a problem here, let's fix it!

Which is exactly why this repeal should fail. Prostitution is an international issue and for every country that makes it illegal the problems of trafficking, the spread of deseases and other problems inherant to illegal prositution increase even for us who would keep it legal.

Since these problems won't stop at your border, we need a common UN policy.


If it is an international issue, it should have appropriate legslation: legislation which mandates regulation for prostitution. My argument is that the possibility for a nation to outlaw prostitution, under extreme circumstances, should be allowed in this regulation legislation. I feel there need to be strict mandates for nations which legalize prostitution, in order to slow the spread of disease. However, I do not feel all nations in the UN should have to legalize it. There are international aspects of this issue (such as cross-border disease spread) however I feel the issue itself should not be international.

Furthermore, if we in the UN are going to clean up resolutions from the past that aren't written well, I feel this is a good place to start. Just read the resolution, it isn't exactly a positive reflection of the UN.

I feel really stupid. Having read the original resolution I am forced to wonder how on earth it was passed. It has great big holes in it. It only addresses the issue of social equality. A better Idea would have been to draft a proposal giving prostitutes free education and support to help them find proper jobs.
The Resolution does not tackle the issues of Sexually Transmitted Deseases (STD) or rehabilitation.
The resolution could cause more women to become prostitutes, as in poorer nations a woman might find selling herself under the protection of the government to be more attractive than working as say a cleaner. Infact it could cause imigration to a country by people wanting to become sex workers.

I have changed my original opinion totally. While the resolution might protect the prostitutes it does not tackle the issue in any way shape or form, it just makes a nice way for us to brush it under the carpet and make some money at the same time.
We must repeal the resolution and redraft it to:
*Remove the need for legalised prostitution through governmental rehabilitation schemes, controlling the number of prostitutes and swift action to track down those acting without government permission.
*Health checks must be mandatory for all workers in the industry and for the clients, with free medical aid for those with STDs and other illnesses.
*There must be no chance of a child being born as a result of purchased sex.
*All activities must be with the consent of both parties
*Further education will be a mandatory principle to become a prostitute.
*The no one is to promote prostitution as a job

I could go on and draft further, but we must first repeal resolution #46.
In summary the resolution contains massive holes that some governments would exploit. we must repeal and redraft.

I am disgusted, not only at de UN's audacity ta put forth such a resolution an pass it, but my ignorance of it happening.

MAH CLAN WILL RESIGN FROM THE UN IF THIS IS NOT REPEALED!

I will not allow such a revolting sin to be forced upon mah clan. To force any kinda issue such as this upon any group of nations directly offending an contradicting their beliefs, should never be allowed. Me and mah clan belief in the one true God, an we follow an impliment His commandments in every part of our lives, an this openly violates one of His great commandments. It is my responcibility as the Diacanos of mah clan to guard against such things that are against our faith and shalll bring a downfall of morality in mah people.

Fer the reasons of morality an any nation's sovereign right to choose their own policies on such matters, I strongly vote for this repeal.

Opalance Calaminion, Diacanos of the Chattan

I feel really stupid. Having read the original resolution I am forced to wonder how on earth it was passed. It has great big holes in it. It only addresses the issue of social equality.

:)

My government originally voted in favour of the resolution. In fact, it was our first vote.

We thought, well gee. Prostitution is regulated, but legal in parts of Mikitivity. Sex is fun. Let's allow people to make money making sex.

That was a year ago.

Then my government actually started researching HIV AIDS when drafting the Needle Sharing Prevention resolution, and related to that really looked into the international / global plight associated with many illicit activities: drugs and prostitution chief among them.

We've changed our opinion on the resolution, but still believe in several things:

- People should have the economic freedom to make choices about where to work and how to work, so long as the greater public health is not endangered,

- Taxation with no real network of programs to help underprivledged social groups has never worked ... education, prevention, and outreach are necessary for adults and children (though via separate programs),

- Legalization and even regulation still don't address the under lying cause.

In any event, the "heart" of the original resolution was in the right place. My government can understand why others would vote based on the "heart" of a resolution.

The real question isn't can we do this, but how?

Should we focus on the human rights, economic freedoms, or income inequality? The moderators today are more focused on making sure that a resolution's text actually measures up to its category. Even six months ago they were lack. But it is actually possible to write three resolutions, each addressing a different part of the problem.

In any event, I feel bad about voting in favour a year ago. :( It really and honestly is a horribly written "resolution", and as you said, it doesn't really provide strong justification and has many gaps. I'd really like a second shot at this.

I do not support this proposal. For starters, whenver some sort of "questionable practice" is legalized, two benefits come about. 1) The practice can be regulated for public safety. 2) The practice can be taxed. It is a good idea to have some sort of legalized regulation on prostitution so that it isn't such a dirty, potentially unhealthful practice.

If you've read any of the Discworld novels by Terry Pratchett, you know about the Thieves and Assassins guilds. The basic premise of this is that crime of all sorts is going to happen, pretty much no matter what. And if it is going to happen, it should at least be regulated so that you can put a direct control on how much of it goes on and in what manner it goes on.

If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't complain, I'd just look for a way to make the legalization of prostitution work for my country.

....And if it is going to happen, it should at least be regulated so that you can put a direct control on how much of it goes on and in what manner it goes on.

If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't complain, I'd just look for a way to make the legalization of prostitution work for my country.

If you think somethin tis wrong, you do not support it just because you cant stop it completly, you stand an fight against it!

IS THERE NO ONE WHO HAS MORALS AN CONVICTIONS IN THIS WORLD ANYMORE! WILL NO ONE STAND UP FOR WHAT THEY FEEL IS RIGHT, EVEN IF YOU PROBABLY WON'T WIN!

Even if YOU have no morals, why should you push this same indiferrence upon other sovereign nations?

I figure that the nations themselves should decide if they make prostitution legal. The UN has absolutely NO right to do this. If you want it to be legal, make an Issue that'll let you, but leave the rest of us out of it. That way you can be happy with your STD's and we can be happy without them.

If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't complain, I'd just look for a way to make the legalization of prostitution work for my country.

I'm against the legalization of prostitution as an UN-resolution because i believe that a nation should be able to choose if it wants to legalize prostitution on its own.
Oh, and im for legal prostitution as such.

EDIT: the guy above me beat me to it. :p

See even those who want legalized prostitution say that the UN shouldn't force it upon us.

There are various resolutions that protect the rights of children not to be molested and forced in to sex against their will. And since children can not, by law, consent it will always be against their will.

As there are with the real UN and laws of various real countries. It still happens. And forced legalized prostitution would make it all the easier.

How would legalized prostition make it easier? Please eleaborate because it seems to me like that's saying that, for example, legal drugs are less pure than illegal drugs.

See even those who want legalized prostitution say that the UN shouldn't force it upon us.

How is that an argument? Some do and some don't and I believe that in this instance the UN SHOULD force it upon us. I don't really feel like jumping on any bandwagon's right now...

Yes that is something that I agree with however if offering a new born baby to the god of the sea is my nations belief how can the UN tell me I can't. Don't tell me it's different because it isn't. It is not a good example, but it does carry my point.
Either you accept the NS UN can pass this law or you can't end of. I will vote to protect my people when they are abroad end of story

I think the central issue [with regards to the repeal] is national soverignty, if the repeal passes prositution will still be legal in your country if you want it to be legal. If you don't want it to be legal in your country you can make it illegal. Both instances have problems, you either accept it and attempt to regulate it to reduce the potential harmful concequences associated with prostitution. Alternatively you outlaw it, send it underground and set up vice-squads (for example) to combat it directly.

I don't know which is more effective in combatting the problems, but what I do know is that I will be able to decide what I want to do based upon my own opinions on what I think will be effective.

The original resolution merely legalises prostitution, it does not attempt to regulate it in anyway shape or form. This is worst case scenario for this issue, prostitution is rampant, yet there are no controls placed upon it by the people who made it legal, how ridiculous is that?

If there is going to be a new resolution on prostitution I would suggest that it merely reccomends programs to combat the causes and consequences of prostitution (whether legal or illegal), but leaves it up to each member nations as to whether they wish to make prostitution legal or illegal.

JRV, a nation friendly to Random Kingdom, posted this in the Golden Hills Civil HQ 16 hours ago:

Just to add to what I TGed you: It's just a ploy to implement religious values in to the United Nations. The more right-wing Christian sects in the UN realize that their arguments are weak, and are resorting to disguising them in bills like the above - hiding their real agendas behind so called ‘concerns for health and safety’. It is laughable. I am leaning towards Catholicism myself, but refuse to buy into this ridiculous ‘moral conservatism’ that a few extremists are trying to force on us. What will be next, a bill re-appealing abortion based on ‘health and safety concerns’?

- JRV

As a liberal region it is our duty to stand up for the free and tolerant society which the UN is supposed to be about.
Vote: NO.
Random Kingdom fully supports this message, and wishes it to be known that RK is voting against this resolution for the same reason. Religious swing is a corruption that must not be allowed into the UN. If this repeal is passed, RK will attempt to re-instate the legalization of prostitution.

For the love of god people most of us agree with the idea of the resolution, but it doesn't have any substance, there isn't any aim to tackle the problem it just sweeps it under the carpet

I'm not saying that we should pass an illegalize prostitution resolution. I'm saying don't force it upon us who don't want it. Your talking about an infringement of human rights by making it illegal? Hipocrites. Forcing it upon us is also an infringement of human rights. Let us choose our own paths.

I'm not saying that we should pass an illegalize prostitution resolution. I'm saying don't force it upon us who don't want it. Your talking about an infringement of human rights by making it illegal? Hipocrites. Forcing it upon us is also an infringement of human rights. Let us choose our own paths.
You can only use that argument when we force you to use a prostitute.

You do not represent a human, you represent a nation.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I represtent the humans in my nation. Let's hear your arguement. Then you can judge mine.

I'm not saying that we should pass an illegalize prostitution resolution. I'm saying don't force it upon us who don't want it. Your talking about an infringement of human rights by making it illegal? Hipocrites. Forcing it upon us is also an infringement of human rights. Let us choose our own paths.

Actually it would be an infringement upon national rights. If the nation forced everyone to be a prostitute OR denied anyone the right to be a prostitute THEN it would be an infringemnt on human rights. Since the second is more much more likely to happen if this repeal passes, I believe that forcing legalized prostitution is the answer. Each individual should have the right to choose their own path, their nations should not be able to choose it for them.

There is no argument against legalized prostitution that is not basically a moral and religious one. As the arbiter on morality and on the religious institution in my state, I feel personally that any man or woman should be free to sell their sexual services. Aren't they all adults? How is this different than pornography, being a kept man or woman or all the others ways that people sell their sex? And what is inherently wrong with selling sex--the prostitute earns money, the John gets sexually satisfied--and he doesn't have to resort to more nefarious means.

Finally, it has happened in one way or another in every society on earth. It will either be underground and unregulated, leading to the spread of STDs throughout the regular population or monitored. I test the prostitutes in my land monthly, require regular use of condoms--if the Johns get rowdy, insist on not using condoms or are violent with my prostitutes, they report it to the proper authorities who can take proper measure. It promotes better behavior.

I represtent the humans in my nation. Let's hear your arguement. Then you can judge mine.
To quote Lady Desdemona when the UN was asked to endorse the proposal

We support the legalisation of prostitution. Also we do not see what prostitution has to do with spreading disease if it is regulated properly. You do not have our support.

It is there for you to judge but the validity of our argument has no effect on the validity of yours. See the quote in our signature.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

:mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

Just Shut up and listen. The UN was created to protect the rights of nations, not the humans in them. The UN states that nations can treat their citizens however they want, so long as it doesnt effect other nations. You can have prostitution legal, but don't make your decisions effect me.

Random Kingdom fully supports this message, and wishes it to be known that RK is voting against this resolution for the same reason. Religious swing is a corruption that must not be allowed into the UN. If this repeal is passed, RK will attempt to re-instate the legalization of prostitution.


Every person makes decisions according to their religion, whether they realize it or not. It may not always be the religion they claim, but tis the one that they practice. You can call it a philosophy, but even Aetheism is a religion, albeit one without a god. All nations an people base all of their decisions upon their religious or philisophical views, whether they claim it or not. A person's religion is not the main party they lean towards, but the thing they actualy live by. (I should know, I'm in college working on my Religion and Philosophy degree)

Also, you have no authority or right to question the reason behind another person's or nation's views, only present yours and argue why yours is better. You cannot dismiss a group of people's reasoning because they base it on a more visable and recognizable religious viewpoint. The UN is not an Aetheist organization, because Aetheism is a religion or world view, just one that does not acknowledge any god. The UN reflects whatever religious view the majority of the nations that make it up hold.

However this is not simply an issue on morality and religion, it is about a nation's right to choose the inward going ons of it's society. Many nations do not support a great amount of freedom and control everything in it's society (though mine is not one of them) and you cannot force them to alter their views and policy in such a way.

God, i feel dumb right now. :headbang:

Im voting against this resolution.

:confused: Explain why or shut up.

:mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

Just Shut up and listen. The UN was created to protect the rights of nations, not the humans in them. The UN states that nations can treat their citizens however they want, so long as it doesnt effect other nations. You can have prostitution legal, but don't make your decisions effect me.
The UN was not made to protect sovereign rights. The protect sovereign rights is not protected by how the UN operates and can only be achieved through consensus of the members.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

In a language we can all understand?

:mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

Just Shut up and listen. The UN was created to protect the rights of nations, not the humans in them. The UN states that nations can treat their citizens however they want, so long as it doesnt effect other nations. You can have prostitution legal, but don't make your decisions effect me.

That's your own opinion. I believe almost the exact opoosite. And their are more mature ways to call attentions to your points.

..just voted against.

No sense in forcing all UN nations to legalise prostitution. What of theocracies and moralistic states? It'd be deeply unjust and poorly thought-out.


Regards,

TNE

In a language we can all understand?
The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

Of course that doesn't take into account the effect of democracy on what the UN finds acceptable.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

The UN was not made to protect sovereign rights. The protect sovereign rights is not protected by how the UN operates and can only be achieved through consensus of the members.


You missed his point, what he was saying is that the UN was not founded to protect or alter the internal doings of any nation's people or any sovereign nation's policies or moral standpoints. Only to unite nations for the good of all by promoting policies that advance better international relationships and peace. Hence the name "UNITED nations". We aren't united to promote a particular political view, such as legalizing certain things that offend or contradict the policies of many of the nations in it.

To quote Lady Desdemona when the UN was asked to endorse the proposal



It is there for you to judge but the validity of our argument has no effect on the validity of yours. See the quote in our signature.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

That is nice that you support the legalization of prostitution, but look at the text of the resolution and can you honestly tell me that if this were a proposal today and the Most Glorious Hack was screening the queue that he wouldn't bounce this social justice proposal which talks about increasing taxation of prostitution and correctly point out that the proposal is in the wrong category?

People voted for the idea of legalized prostitution, but they did so for a very poorly worded and incorrect categorization of a resolution.

To extend my point ... remember how many nations were angry about the Law of the Sea resolution for being in the wrong category? Well, the mods admitted that they would have rejected the proposal had they seen it before it became a resolution.

The same argument was also used against the Eon Convention on Genocide which was adopted on Dec. 7, 2004. Namely it had a clause for double jeopardy and the moderators admitted that they missed it.

We have a chance here and now to remove this resolution and replace it with a true Social Justice resolution that will make a difference. The current resolution is just fluff, and poorly written fluff. It just waves its hands and says, "Vote for this and tax prostitution! Everybody will win." I would not say this worked in Amsterdam, where Eastern European men and women flock to in order to put their lack of skills to some use. But if they had skills would they really want to do this?

I think the larger issue isn't is this illegal or not, but fixing some of the old and terribly written resolutions from the past.

Why do I get the feeling that I'll get alot of angry telegrams if this passes?

..just voted against.

No sense in forcing all UN nations to legalise prostitution. What of theocracies and moralistic states? It'd be deeply unjust and poorly thought-out.


Regards,

TNE

A vote against the repeal *is* forcing all UN nations to legalize prostitution, and ignoring theocracies and moralistic states.

But yes, the original resolution is one of the worst thought out resolutions we've debated and passed since 2002. There are ways to please everybody, and I'm asking that nations give me the chance.

You missed his point, what he was saying is that the UN was not founded to protect or alter the internal doings of any nation's people or any sovereign nation's policies or moral standpoints. Only to unite nations for the good of all by promoting policies that advance better international relationships and peace. Hence the name "UNITED nations". We aren't united to promote a particular political view, such as legalizing certain things that offend or contradict the policies of many of the nations in it.
I didn't miss that point. The UN (OOC: in the game) works like a global government.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

The UN (OOC: in the game) works like a global government.


But the UN is not a sovereign world government and does not hold power over the internal and private doings of it's member nations. It is a confederation of nations, and not a soveriegn nation itself. Much like in the United States of America, the private and more personal issues are usualy decided on a state (or in our case national) level. One view on contraversial issues such as this are wrong to try to force upon all nations. The vote in this is not to make it illegal in your countries, but to make it not legal in ours if we do so choose.

ooc-The UN here is not the same as in our world

OOC ((Yeah, in this game, you force your beliefs on people via the UN))

Thanks. :)

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Just an idea, so Prostitution is legalized? Well The Doors Corporation has put many laws and regulations to control prostitution. So many woman and men become discouraged after observing all the papers they must fill out. Also, after this, these beleaguered men and women, must prove that they are sexually attractive to more than thirty percent of the Corporation. After this, they must pay for at least thirty different types of sexual stimulating objects. By now, four-fifths of these hopeful prostitutes have given up hope. The other fifth of hopeful prostitutes might –might – make it in, if the Corporation does not find some other assignment that it must enforce on them to go and do. That is a delaying action, yes, but all the Corporation can do is delay the drop of sexual standards.

OOC: ((I call them as I see them, and when I see them, I'm usually right))

And as The Doors Corporation has said, if you don't want prostitution to be leagalized, just put lots of restrictions within your own nation where you have the jurisdiction to do so.

This repeal MUST succeed. How can the UN ever be respected when it tolerates the legalisation of this social disease. I urge everyone to vote FOR the REPEAL OF LEGALIZED PROSTITUTION.

But, if everyone respects the UN for allowing this to pass, then your statement is null and void isn't it?
Have you even read the origional proposition?
You can put restrainments on it in your own nation.

..just voted against.

No sense in forcing all UN nations to legalise prostitution. What of theocracies and moralistic states? It'd be deeply unjust and poorly thought-out.


Regards,

TNE

Then you should vote "for". If you vote "for" it takes the power to decide on legalization of prostitution away from the UN and puts it back in the hands of individual nations. Ugh, just saw Mikitivity's post. It's good listen to it:

A vote against the repeal *is* forcing all UN nations to legalize prostitution, and ignoring theocracies and moralistic states.

But yes, the original resolution is one of the worst thought out resolutions we've debated and passed since 2002. There are ways to please everybody, and I'm asking that nations give me the chance.

Just an idea, so Prostitution is legalized? Well The Doors Corporation has put many laws and regulations to control prostitution. So many woman and men become discouraged after observing all the papers they must fill out. Also, after this, these beleaguered men and women, must prove that they are sexually attractive to more than thirty percent of the Corporation. After this, they must pay for at least thirty different types of sexual stimulating objects. By now, four-fifths of these hopeful prostitutes have given up hope. The other fifth of hopeful prostitutes might –might – make it in, if the Corporation does not find some other assignment that it must enforce on them to go and do. That is a delaying action, yes, but all the Corporation can do is delay the drop of sexual standards.


But if we allow your nation to make the decision on its own we reduce considerably the amount of paperwork and end-arounds you have to do to reach your final objective.

OOC ((Yeah, in this game, you force your beliefs on people via the UN))

I hope that was sarcastic

JRV, a nation friendly to Random Kingdom, posted this in the Golden Hills Civil HQ 16 hours ago:

Just to add to what I TGed you: It's just a ploy to implement religious values in to the United Nations. The more right-wing Christian sects in the UN realize that their arguments are weak, and are resorting to disguising them in bills like the above - hiding their real agendas behind so called ‘concerns for health and safety’. It is laughable. I am leaning towards Catholicism myself, but refuse to buy into this ridiculous ‘moral conservatism’ that a few extremists are trying to force on us. What will be next, a bill re-appealing abortion based on ‘health and safety concerns’?

- JRV

As a liberal region it is our duty to stand up for the free and tolerant society which the UN is supposed to be about.
Vote: NO.


Random Kingdom fully supports this message, and wishes it to be known that RK is voting against this resolution for the same reason. Religious swing is a corruption that must not be allowed into the UN. If this repeal is passed, RK will attempt to re-instate the legalization of prostitution.

I am simply astounded by the lack of reason and the blatant bias exhibited here. Just a ploy to implement religious values into the United Nations? Where's Mel Gibson? I wasn't aware "Conspiracy Theory" was playing in the UN forums.

Yeah, those concerns for health and safety are just hilarious! Prior to this resolution, when prostitution was completely illegal in Florida Oranges, sexually transmitted diseases had reached an all time low. Our police forces cracked down heavily on pimps, hookers, and brothels through undercover operations and anti-pimp propaganda shown in move theaters and on cable television. The problem was virtually eliminated until this piece of moronic legislation was put into play. Despite attempts to regulate prostitution by making condums, licenses, and regular checkups mandatory, diseases like herpes and critters like crabs are ravaging the genitals of my citizens!

How do you enforce mandatory condum use? It's not like we can set up cameras in every brothel...that'd be a blatant invasion of privacy. How do you even keep track of who has a license and who doesn't? What's to stop a disease-ridden prostitute without a license from practicing her trade? Am I suppose to form some sort of prostitute police to combat these problems? These are legitimate concerns that are being offered here! The health of my people are in jeapardy! Yet you just write this off as a right-wing conspiracy rather than taking the time and effort to analyze what's being said here.

My favorite part in the above messages is, "but refuse to buy into this ridiculous ‘moral conservatism’ that a few extremists are trying to force on us." That's really a beautiful piece of fiction that completely contradicts itself. What are you? What are you trying to do by voting against this repeal? FORCE nations to LEGALISE prostitution. Nobody's trying to force their religion on you-quite the contrary. YOU'RE the one forcing YOUR views on everybody! All this repeal does is make legalization of prostitution in nations optional. Take into consideration the theocracies and moralistic nations (like myself) whose cultures clash dramatically with this resolution. As we speak, Floridians are rioting in the streets of Miami, Tampa, Orlando, Tallahassee, Key West, and Naples as a result of this resolution.

Drop the conspiracy theories and take the time to realize your so-called "left-wing agenda" is severely stomping on the rights of others, not vice versa. There are no men in black. Aliens haven't visited Earth. Big Foot doesn't live in Canada, and Nessie's about as real as Daffy Duck. The complaints here are legitimate. Your arguments that the big bad bible-thumpers are out to get everyone are not.

But if we allow your nation to make the decision on its own we reduce considerably the amount of paperwork and end-arounds you have to do to reach your final objective.


Could you explain Powerhungry? I did not completely comprehend what you were saying..

As the ruler of Engineering chaos I add my support to this repeal. The original resolution is, for want of a better word, "Pants". It must be repealed and then perhaps we can put foward a better proposal in a few weeks time.

OOC ((Yeah, in this game, you force your beliefs on people via the UN))
OOC-Then quit! if you don't like the game don't play, easy answer.
We would not be having this discussion if it was a resolution to stop a nation murdering people. That would be forcing beliefs on people via the UN, even if the belief was that it is ok to murder people.

But if we allow your nation to make the decision on its own we reduce considerably the amount of paperwork and end-arounds you have to do to reach your final objective.

Some people enjoy putting people through paperwork.

And besides, I like his way because SOME prostitutes get through, but just the ones dedicated the their work.
As opposed to eradicating them.

As the ruler of Engineering chaos I add my support to this repeal. The original resolution is, for want of a better word, "Pants". It must be repealed and then perhaps we can put foward a better proposal in a few weeks time.


OOC-Then quit! if you don't like the game don't play, easy answer.
We would not be having this discussion if it was a resolution to stop a nation murdering people. That would be forcing beliefs on people via the UN, even if the belief was that it is ok to murder people.

What do you mean? I like pushing my beliefs on people!

But if we allow your nation to make the decision on its own we reduce considerably the amount of paperwork and end-arounds you have to do to reach your final objective.


Could you explain Powerhungry? I did not completely comprehend what you were saying..


Well, if you want to discourage prostitution, repealing the UN resolution requiring you to legalize it would make it easier to do. Instead of having to worry about satisfying the UN's requirements you'd set your own. This would lessen the expenses from all that extra paperwork (which is, I believe, one of the ways you suggested as a way to discourage prostitutes), and would tighten down on any run-around or bureaucracy in your nation. Or, if you prefer, your nation can continue with its current policies, pass or fail of this proposal. If the resolution is repealed you don't have to change your nation's behavior at all. I'd prefer it pass though.

We could all pretend that the only people who have sex are couples that opposite sex that are married to each other and they did not have sex until they where married but the truth of the matter this is not so.

I am voting against this resolution

I hope that was sarcastic

I believe there's a whole sticky-thread about how when I said that, I wasn't being sarcastic.

Some people enjoy putting people through paperwork.

And besides, I like his way because SOME prostitutes get through, but just the ones dedicated the their work.
As opposed to eradicating them.

Well, he doesn't have to change his practices if the repeal were to pass. The UN would just be no longer requiring him to continue them.

Here is the proposal text:



Please approve this repeal proposal!

You can get to it by typing in "pros" in the search bar at the bottom of any page in the "list proposals" queue. There's also a link to it here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/90955/page=UN_proposal/start=60).

Thank you for you time.

Powerhungry Chipmunks


I fully support this proposal - for the repeal.

To me it is unthinkable that anyone would support the abuse of another person in this way. What about human rights.

I am sure some will say that people are entering into this trade of their own choice, but that would be rare. People involved in this trade are being taken advantage of and all for the sake of the lust of others.

Vote for this resolution!!!

Well, he doesn't have to change his practices if the repeal were to pass. The UN would just be no longer requiring him to continue them.

They aren't requiring him to continue them in the first place.
It all comes down to your morals, doesn't it.

We could all pretend that the only people who have sex are couples that opposite sex that are married to each other and they did not have sex until they where married but the truth of the matter this is not so.

I am voting against this resolution

Why? If you were to vote for it you wouldn't be pretending any of those things. You'd simply be testifying that the UN is too lethargic and unforseeing a body to legislate so universally on the matter.

Dang, Mr Chipmunks. You have a good point!

Why? If you were to vote for it you wouldn't be pretending any of those things. You'd simply be testifying that the UN is too lethargic and unforseeing a body to legislate so universally on the matter.

So, you're trying to pass a resolution in the letharigc and unforseeing body that already has ruled FOR what you're trying to repeal?
Smart.

About the current UN resolution up for vote, the repeal of legalized prostitution--FIRST AND FOREMOST, it is a national sovereignty issue that should lie with each individual nation. No nation should be FORCED to legalize prostitution. With many religions, the practiced is viewed as highly immoral. Further, it encourages the practice of adultery as revealingly WHORISH women will attempt to lure men away from their wives and girlfriends. And LASTLY, the practice brings about crime and spreads disease. Usually, pimps are willing to do anything to protect their prostitutes, even if it means killing someone. This is no exception. Prostitution will spread disease by STD-infected whores having sexual relations with people. Potentially, an epidemic could arise. But alas, the most important thing above all, just to reiterate, is not whether prostitution should be legalized or not, but whether that decision should lie with individual nations or not. VOTE FOR THE REPEAL AND GIVE EACH NATION A VOICE IN WHETHER THEY WANT PROSTITUTION IN THEIR SOCIETY OR NOT. NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY!!
-Respectfully,
Nico, frusterated and angered leader of Bushlia
and Delegate to the Pristine Region of Democratus

I didn't miss that point. The UN (OOC: in the game) works like a global government.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

That is not completely correct. The following is a link to the United Nations Association "NS UN FAQ Series":

http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=48

These are a new series of Frequently Asked Questions related to the UN and NationStates.

This question basically asks, can the UN interfere with domestic issues. I've quoted Cogitation in the link and highly recommend anybody interested in this question read carefully how he answered this same question earlier this week. :)

About the current UN resolution up for vote, the repeal of legalized prostitution--FIRST AND FOREMOST, it is a national sovereignty issue that should lie with each individual nation. No nation should be FORCED to legalize prostitution. With many religions, the practiced is viewed as highly immoral. Further, it encourages the practice of adultery as revealingly WHORISH women will attempt to lure men away from their wives and girlfriends. And LASTLY, the practice brings about crime and spreads disease. Usually, pimps are willing to do anything to protect their prostitutes, even if it means killing someone. This is no exception. Prostitution will spread disease by STD-infected whores having sexual relations with people. Potentially, an epidemic could arise. But alas, the most important thing above all, just to reiterate, is not whether prostitution should be legalized or not, but whether that decision should lie with individual nations or not. VOTE FOR THE REPEAL AND GIVE EACH NATION A VOICE IN WHETHER THEY WANT PROSTITUTION IN THEIR SOCIETY OR NOT. NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY!!
-Respectfully,
Nico, frusterated and angered leader of Bushlia
and Delegate to the Pristine Region of Democratus


How many times do I have to say, the UN is FOR the prescise purpose of forcing your beliefs on people!

Thank you Mikitivity that was most helpful

i think prostitution is wrong. why have sluts going around your nation making your youths want to sh*g the bejeezers out of their mates, and then trying to get away with other sanitary things, thus increasing crime, and also diseases (sexually transmitted). vote wisely - vote against legalizing prostitution! :upyours

How many times do I have to say, the UN is FOR the prescise purpose of forcing your beliefs on people!

A good portion of it, sure. That's what everyone on this board will tell you when you bring up the question of national sovereignty. "The UN is designed to restrict your rights. That's how it works. Read the FAQ. Max Berry says so!" It's only that way if you allow it to be that way. The United Nations doesn't have to be restrictive at ALL.

A good portion of it, sure. That's what everyone on this board will tell you when you bring up the question of national sovereignty. "The UN is designed to restrict your rights. That's how it works. Read the FAQ. Max Berry says so!" It's only that way if you allow it to be that way. The United Nations doesn't have to be restrictive at ALL.

And what's the point if you don't don't don't play by the rules?
It doesn't HAVE to be, but it can't do anything if it isn't.

I agree.

i think prostitution is wrong. why have sluts going around your nation making your youths want to sh*g the bejeezers out of their mates, and then trying to get away with other sanitary things, thus increasing crime, and also diseases (sexually transmitted). vote wisely - vote against legalizing prostitution! :upyours

Then you should vote FOR it. Under current UN rules you can't outlaw prostitution. If this repeal passes, then you could. Please vote FOR!

OOC ((Yeah, in this game, you force your beliefs on people via the UN))

Just because a human being is capable of rape and/or murder does not mean one should run around raping and murdering people.

Please read the following:
http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=48

In particular pay attention to the subtle hint Cogitation drops. ;) The mods are mysterious and rarely offer these gems (probably in fear that somebody like me will be paying attention), but they are extremely experienced and respected by us all.

The bottom line is just because the UN Secretariat will allow use to make resolutions on some rather mundane domestic issues, does not mean that it is wise for the UN to do so.

It has been long argued that "Environmental" resolutions put the UN at a disadvantage to non-UN members in that these resolutions limit our nation's economic freedoms and abilities, while opening up entire markets for non-members to exploit. The argument used is that if only 40,000 in 120,000 (1 in 3) nations in NationStates is in the UN, that the other 2/3 will continue to make matters worse.

The counter has always been to point out that nations can *choose* to join the UN.

If the UN is constantly driving away nations, and believe me, go to the IRC channel and see how many of those kids complain about how stupid they think many of the UN resolutions are ... the original resolution here is one of the worst written ones from 2004, then that 1 in 3 in the UN could slip to 1 in 4. (The reality is most of those non-UN nations are puppets ... or as so people like to say, they are the real nations and the others are puppets, which is illogical ... but that is a point for another day.)

We should always be trying to find ways to make that ratio get closer to 100%, and shy away from 33%. By becoming extremists, we aren't helping prostitutes, little pine trees, or cuddly little mountain lions. We are only pushing those nations away.

I ask that we all think about this not as a national leaders, but in terms of relationships with our friends -- specifically the influence we have over our friends. When we start telling them what to do more and more often, they often spend less time with us. As we get older, we'll begin to see that bossy people have fewer friends, and loose their ability to boss people around. The UN is in the exact same situtation.

But in the case of prostitution, I've shown with other resolutions that there are ways to appeal to the liberals and conservatives as the same time. There are ways (not easy ones, but we've figured them out) that can build bridges.

A vote in favour of this repeal will give liberal, yet confederal (instead of federal) nations like mine a chance to heal the wounds of this body. Please join the Confederated City States of Mikitivity and vote yes.

This repeal is not a good idea. Rather than encouraging health, it will promote disease by forcing prositution underground, where it will not be regulated by any government.

Rather than stopping the exploitation of women or men, as has been suggested by other member nations, it will encourage more exploitation by denying free individuals the right to choose to work in the sex industry. This will leave a vacuum in this particular market which will be filled by kidnapping and pimping of many women and children.

Rather than ecouraging national sovereignty, this proposal attemps to force Chipmonk's morality on the U.N. It is an attempt to force morality on member nations disguised as health care legislation, and supported by those who claim this will restore sovereinty.

Legalized prostitution, like legalized gambling or legalized marijuana, allows governments oversight that banned activities do not allow. For a very brief time, Walkendalia banned those sugars most associated with tooth decay in an attempt to support our National Coalition of Dental Health Providers. The result was a rising in illegal cartels dealing in jellybeans, raw cane sugar and other sugar products. Our government was forced to imprison children for possession of candy, and a long campaign against the sugar black market ensued. The result? The creation of powerful mafia families, even though the ban was repealed. During the ban, these crime families made enough money to establish themselves and we were left with a new crime subculture that had not existed before the ban.

Walkendalia has already voted against this proposition. We ecourage others to vote against it as well.

Jeez.
If people, don't agree with resolutions, argue their case instead of saying that it's outside the UN's right to do so.
Say 'Well, I think it's immoral'
Rather than 'I think the UN shouldn't do this because it's up to the nations themselves.'
And, it doesn't promote disease because you can REGULATE it. (See the post above this one)
And once NS gets an amendment system, then fix it for what it's worth.
For now, let it stay.

Jeez.
If people, don't agree with resolutions, argue their case instead of saying that it's outside the UN's right to do so.
Say 'Well, I think it's immoral'
Rather than 'I think the UN shouldn't do this because it's up to the nations themselves.'
And, it doesn't promote disease because you can REGULATE it. (See the post above this one)
And once NS gets an amendment system, then fix it for what it's worth.
For now, let it stay.

Some nations don't have the means to enforce regulation of prostitution. What is a nation to do if they can not enforce their regulations, and are stricken by disease?

Some nations don't have the means to enforce regulation of prostitution. What is a nation to do if they can not enforce their regulations, and are stricken by disease?

Then, my dear collegue, they request aid from the UN.
Or nations around them.
Some nations are just abundant in paper and police.

Then, my dear collegue, they request aid from the UN.
Or nations around them.
Some nations are just abundant in paper and police.

So you make them dependant on foreigners? I'm sure that's the dream of many developing nations.