NationStates Jolt Archive

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

I'm opposed to the original resolution, and in favour of the repeal.

But let's get something straight, slut and prostitute are two entirely different words!

Slut is a derogatory term that originally meant dirty (and was applied to women). Today slut is used to mean promiscuous, basically somebody of either geneder who just enjoys sex. I've dated "sluts". I can easily be called one too. I will say no more there, except to say that as somebody who has been to parties where naked people were literally hanging from the ceilings of warehouses, I've probably got some of the WILDEST tales to tell (but I can't ... this is a family bulletin board). ;) Bottom line, I know what a slut is, and they aren't evil or the boggie men.

A prostitute is a man or a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money. No money, no prostitution. It is a simple as that.

Basically any frat-daddy will tell you that a slut gives away for free what a prostitute charges for.

Slutty behavior is already permitted by another UN resolution: Sexual Freedom resolution #7. Prostitution is different. It is a business transaction.

The reason men and women become prostitutions (mind you that there are substantial rumours that Arnold Schwarzenegger was a male prostitute in Germany before he back a body-builder and moved to the US) is because they really have few (if any) other skills and need money.

A resolution dealing with sex is not the same thing as dealing with prostitution.

Both sides here are having an incredibly hard time seeing this too, because the original resolution didn't really address prostitution either.

Just making something legal and taxing it is a half-asred solution. We could tax everybody till their eyes pop, but that won't help schools until we get good teachers and parents involved. We know this. The same is true with prostitution.

Please don't vote either way out of ignorance. There are a host of issues here:

Sexual Freedom (already covered as a different human rights resolution),
Economic Freedom (not covered in any resolution yet),
Social Justice (helping these people -- also not covered), &
Moral Decency (this would be the anti-version of the Sexual Freedom).

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.

How? Do you seriously believe the spreading of sexually transmitted diseases is being reduced by a resolution that legalizes prostitution? Tell me, how does it reduce health risks? I'd really like to here this.

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.

The kidnapping and pimping of women and children? A little extreme, don't you think? If there was any kidnapping of women and children for sexual purpose prior to the passing of this resolution, I can assure you it was about as common as a talking penis in Florida Oranges. As for encouraging people to exercise their freedom of choice by jumping into the sex industry, you're also encouraging them to degrade themselves and sell their body for money. I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't encourage any of my family members to become prostitutes. Would you? Would you seriously consider allowing your child to become a prostitute? If not, explain why. That should also explain why this resolution is wrong.

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.

You know, me and Chris Carter are practically brothers. I could probably hook you up with a part on his hit show. You might've heard of it-it's called the X-Files. Seriously, this issue isn't about right-wing reverends trying to convert your nation to Christianity. You're too obsessed with your liberal agenda to figure out it's actually the OTHER WAY AROUND. This repeal doesn't make prostitution illegal globally. It gives you an option. Haven't you ever heard of compromise? Why can't you except a mutually-agreeable repeal like this, instead of shoving your worldviews down my throat?

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.

I'm afraid prostitution is a much more serious health issue than sugar.

Walkendalia has already voted against this proposition. We ecourage others to vote against it as well.

I encourage you to rethink your decision.

So you make them dependant on foreigners? I'm sure that's the dream of many developing nations.

I'm sure there are less pleasent alternatives, if you want me to find those.

So, in Mikitivities post, he makes it clear that to solve a low unemployment rate, people could become prostitutes, and also build an economy, if the nation is developing.

*sigh*
And now I'm waiting for the counterpoint.

And Florida Oranges, we're shoving our veiwpoints down your throat because we can, and because you have an utter lack of doing it to us.

Have you all actually read the resolution?
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?

All it has done is make it legal. Nothing else. It's a aweful resolution

Awful, yes.
Aweful?


Anyway, despite it's meager content, it still works.
And, again, once NS gets an amendment system, then we can fix it.
You only REPEAL something if you want it gone completely, not if you want to change some of what's inside.

when is this planned to come into effect on a certain date?

It says on the proposal on the UN main page. When the voting stops, there's about a 1 day buffer, then it's implemented.

Sorry I ment this amendment system

It's...not.
That's why you need to wait indefinently, meaning letting this repeal not get passed.
If alot of people want it, they'll have to do it eventually.

Really I think not. If I was running this site I would be quite annoyed if people told me I had to add new features

The resolution must be repealed and redrafted. it just makes it easier all round

Instead of repealing it, why don't you submit another resolution, adding what you want.
How about that, hmm?

I'm sure there are less pleasent alternatives, if you want me to find those.

So, in Mikitivities post, he makes it clear that to solve a low unemployment rate, people could become prostitutes, and also build an economy, if the nation is developing.


If I did give that impression, I must apologize. This subject is extremely complex, and this is what I really think about it:


Let's look at the "imaginary" place called the Netherlands. I'm not sure when prostitution was legalized in Amsterdam or even how regulated it is, but when you walk around the city there are nasty places where you will find it. (Frankfurt actually had the same thing going, as there were plenty of men and women -- in equal numbers -- hooking near the Hauptbahnhof {i.e. Central Train Station}.)

In both cities, it didn't look to me as if many of these prostitutes were even Dutch or German. The guide books for Amsterdam warn English speaking travelers that most of the women are in fact Eastern European. They also point out that many of the women aren't really women.

I hate to say this, but they keep the prostitutes on display in tiny rooms that look out on the street and canal in Amsterdam. I'm pretty certain that few of us here would find ANY of these prostitutes remotely physically attractive. If they were, perhaps they'd be in the business of making porn or just modeling nude, but they aren't. Granted this is an opinion, but prostitution is not something people go into lightly or because they have a skill in sex. They do it because they are falling between the cracks.

Legalized prostitution in UN nations can mean it is regulated or not. It could just be a "who cares" type of thing.

The original resolution is just so horrible that is just doesn't say.

But I'll tell you this, in a city where it is a "who cares", what we'll see if men and women from non-UN members that have no job skills immgrating or even moving in as illegal citizens for the cash. And even if prostitution is legal, these immigrants will work for less than our native citizens ... this *is* what happened in the Netherlands, where few of the prostitutes were born Dutch.

And since these people are not citizens working, they will be *gasp* doing so illegally and in the same conditions advocates want to protect.

The solution to prostitution isn't short term. It exists and always will, but we can make it less common by improving the quality of life and ability of people to get safer jobs. No where does this resolution talk about building shelters and training programs so people can stop being prostitutes.

All this said, my government does regulate the practice. There are places were it is allowed, but under the watchful eye of government. Interestingly in Mikitivity since "Houses of Ill Repute" require government identification of clients, tourists (the ones whom are most likely to buy a poke) tend to just go up to the Ski Resorts where they can have free sex instead of paid sex with the oddles of cute ski bunnies and horny snowboarders.

My government does have programs that will provide shelter for men and women, reducing the real risks associated with homelessness, which also means that fewer Mikitivity citizens go into the field. But we still have problems with citizens from your countries moving to our cold mountains and hooking on the streets, which is still against Mikitivity law. In short, my government is compliant with the UN resolution, because the UN resolution said only to make prostitution legal. No where did it prohibit my government from saying that legal means that prostitution MUST be run through special businesses, that are subject to inspection and review by health inspectors, and businesses that must provide real benefits to the employees there. The passage of the resolution actually didn't change the laws in the Confederated City States, but they did drive more women from the streets of other UN members to our "Houses of Ill Repute" because many of you simply turned a blind eye to the abuses these men and women are still subjected to.

We really need to work together to get social programs built in other nations ... as while my government likes your tourists and their money, we really aren't thrilled about having 20-year old men from your countries coming and slapping on fake boobs and then trying to apply for citizenship, when the only thing they are skilled at is putting on eyeliner and lip gloss.

This isn't an easy problem, and simply saying, "It is legal, problem gone" is not a realistic solution.

n.p. this morn' omina :: the drake equation [ecf] {BE}

Isn't it harder than to accept that it's happening rather than punishing it?
And by accepting it, I mean leagalizing it.

Oh, and Mikitivity, don't worry, I was just twisting your words.

The Democratic State Assembly of Pilot has endorsed the repeal of this resolution and has cast its vote in favor.

So, all you need to do is just say that, and not give any reason?
Okay...

Mikitivity names most of the reasons it should not be repealed, but rather strengthened with another proposal listing off what should be added to protection.

But then again, most people would rather sweep it under the rug. Which they will if this repeal goes through - a point Mikitivity has completely missed. Ergo, overall, things get worse.

Nice job. :rolleyes:

I support the resolution and am opposed to prostitution as it degrades, dehumanises and encourages disrespect and violence towards women.

"When men use women in prostitution, they are expressing a pure hatred for the female body. It is as pure as anything on this earth ever is or ever has been. It is a contempt so deep, so deep, that a whole human life is reduced to a few sexual orifices, and he can do anything he wants." (Andrea Dworkin)

I support the resolution and am opposed to prostitution as it degrades, dehumanises and encourages disrespect and violence towards women.

"When men use women in prostitution, they are expressing a pure hatred for the female body. It is as pure as anything on this earth ever is or ever has been. It is a contempt so deep, so deep, that a whole human life is reduced to a few sexual orifices, and he can do anything he wants." (Andrea Dworkin)

So, you'd prefer it to be illegal and outside the protection of your government, then legal where you can address these problems directly.

:rolleyes:

So, you'd prefer it to be illegal and outside the protection of your government, then legal where you can address these problems directly.

:rolleyes:


Thank you!
I needed help!
Thank you!

I support the resolution and am opposed to prostitution as it degrades, dehumanises and encourages disrespect and violence towards women.

"When men use women in prostitution, they are expressing a pure hatred for the female body. It is as pure as anything on this earth ever is or ever has been. It is a contempt so deep, so deep, that a whole human life is reduced to a few sexual orifices, and he can do anything he wants." (Andrea Dworkin)
I most certainly am not!

and I don't "use" women in prostitution - if they aren't eager participants, I'm not interested anyway.

you should try it just once before passing judgement.

The Democratic State Assembly of Pilot has endorsed the repeal of this resolution and has cast its vote in favor.
and we all know what a fascist state Pilot is when anyone disagrees with them.

Hmm...
Looking at it that way...
I'm still against the repeal!

So, you'd prefer it to be illegal and outside the protection of your government, then legal where you can address these problems directly.

:rolleyes:

I don't believe that banning prostitution is enough and it will continue to exist until the goverment makes a real effort to end it. This would require a programme to help get women out of prostitution through financial help and help in getting them alternative employment. I also believe that capitalism is the main reason for the existence of prostitution and it will cease to exist after the inevitable transition to communism.

So, you'd prefer it to be illegal and outside the protection of your government, then legal where you can address these problems directly.
:rolleyes:
Well thats just the whole damn point. It only makes it legal, yeah is says and "tax income", however it gives no indication of how to do this or how the problem of prostitution can be solved. Drafting, proposing and passing a resolution could take a long time we need to remove this resolution now before it gets out of hand.

This reminds me of something...
If only I could remember...
Anyway, why don't you just submit a Captialism to Communism resolution?
Instead of this one?

Well thats just the whole damn point. It only makes it legal, yeah is says and "tax income", however it gives no indication of how to do this or how the problem of prostitution can be solved. Drafting, proposing and passing a resolution could take a long time we need to remove this resolution now before it gets out of hand.

But it won't get out of hand with the government regulating it.

Well thats just the whole damn point. It only makes it legal, yeah is says and "tax income", however it gives no indication of how to do this or how the problem of prostitution can be solved. Drafting, proposing and passing a resolution could take a long time we need to remove this resolution now before it gets out of hand.

You did look at when the resolution passed, right?


Implemented: Mon Feb 2 2004

This is not a "recent event".

So lets follow what happens next, assuming the repeal happens.

Legalization is repealed. You've destroyed your base to add more legislation to. So now you have to convince people to (1) make it legal AND (2) have protections on it.

My, huge step backwards there. It appears you want to remake the wheel because it wasn't right the first time, which will force you to overcome more resistance.

In the meantime, areas which make it illegal have blossoming crime - as you've now made a way for them to make more income, increases in STD transmission, more unreported rape and other crimes....

Yep, looks like this repeal will do alot of good. :rolleyes:

I don't believe that banning prostitution is enough and it will continue to exist until the goverment makes a real effort to end it. This would require a programme to help get women out of prostitution through financial help and help in getting them alternative employment. I also believe that capitalism is the main reason for the existence of prostitution and it will cease to exist after the inevitable transition to communism.

what's your point here?
Prostitution is an effiicient way (in the real world) for a woman to pay for her education. Contrary to the christian propaganda that's apparently been shoved down you throat, many women find it to be the least objectionable way, too.

I've had sex with many prostitutes, but never with one who wasn't having a good time.

*estatic*

Yeah! You tell them!

Seriously, it seems like having it under control will let less STDs happen.
You could, say, screen people who apply to be prostitutes.

Isn't it harder than to accept that it's happening rather than punishing it?
And by accepting it, I mean leagalizing it.

Oh, and Mikitivity, don't worry, I was just twisting your words.

Ah, then I'm not insane! :)

I agree that punishing prostitutes is the wrong thing to do. Heck, even going after the Johns and Janes isn't really going to solve the problems.

But just legalizing is the wrong step.

Let's look at injecting drug use (IDU). IDUs are a government word to describe any drug that is injected instead of absorbed by the body via another means. Heroin and opiates are the popular injection based drugs. One of the dangers of IDUs isn't the drug or the addiction, but the risk of spreading HIV or Hepatitus B, C, or D.

http://www.undp.org/hiv/publications/deany.htm
http://www.healthscout.com/ency/1/39/main.html

For years governments have been working hard to stop IDU, but they are fighting a very real physical addition. IDU is popular because the drug use can be concealed and is rather potent! For example, in smoking a drug, much of the "drug" is lost in the combustion and not directly inhaled (by the user). Drug users know this, and are in effect paying more for less.

The down side with IDU has been the practice of needle sharing. But even having programs that warn against needle sharing is simply not enough to prevent users from sharing costly needles.

The idea behind exchange programs (which do work) has been to remove the cost of the needles, thus encouraging users to have some protection ... which has reduced not only the spread of HIV and Hep., but amazingly means that users are having more contact with compassionate medical professionals and are slowly finding a system that is interested in helping them instead of persecuting them.

Prostitution needs a similar social justice program. Nations should be allowed to keep prostitution legal or illegal as per their domestic laws. I never made IDU legal when I wrote my resolution. But I looked at the real problem, public health and HIV, and realized that there are social programs that can solve that.

In fact, the present resolution will likely turn non-careful nations away from a good solution and they'll say, "But gee, we already talked about hookers, why do you want to create outreach programs for them if it is legal already?"

I voted against the repeal "The 40 Hour Workweek" resolution. My government does not support poorly written repeals nor repeals for well written resolutions. This is a matter of UN record. But my nation does support well written resolutions, and the original "Legalize Prostitution" has major gaps and really does alienate nations from the UN.

I don't believe that banning prostitution is enough and it will continue to exist until the goverment makes a real effort to end it. This would require a programme to help get women out of prostitution through financial help and help in getting them alternative employment. I also believe that capitalism is the main reason for the existence of prostitution and it will cease to exist after the inevitable transition to communism.

ROFLMAO!

You do realize there is FAR more prostitution in Communist countries then in Capitalist ones?

You do realize an attempt to "end prostitution" is doomed from the onset as long as there is dating, as long as sex can be traded for anything?

Legislating morality has never and will never work. It will absorb a large chunk of your police budget, fill your prisons, and cause the courts to be all that much more flooded with cases. But that's about it. There is no place anywhere where prostitution is possible and it is not present.

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.


Great, so you've got a rich country where no one starves to death. That is not true of large parts of the world. There are any number of third world countries where people often have that exact choice; prostitute yourself, or starve and allow your children to starve. Remember, when making UN resolutions, we're talking about all countries, not just yours.

Anyway, even in rich "real world" countries that have widespread social networks (like America's welfare, and food stamps and so on) there are always people who fall through the cracks or are not eligable for welfare, or can't go to the government and admit who they are for whatever reason (teenage runaways, illigeal immigrents, ect), and very often that is they only way they can keep alive, get the money they need for basic necessities like food and sheater. So if you have managed to somehow solve all these problems and have no citizans in your entire country who do not have these basic needs met, then good job, but understand that you're probably the only one.


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.

Yes, it is a choice. You can choose to be a prostitute, or you can choose to starve to death. However, in "forced" prostitution, which you say you are opposed to, there is also a choice, it's just that the choice is something like "Do it or we shoot you." instead of "Do it or starve to death". Yes, it is a different situation, but the point is that, in survival situations, "choice" is often just a theoretical construct, not something that has any real meaning.

So...that means we shoud legalize prostitution!
And it starts again.

Ah, then I'm not insane! :)

I agree that punishing prostitutes is the wrong thing to do. Heck, even going after the Johns and Janes isn't really going to solve the problems.

But just legalizing is the wrong step.

(*snip*)


So then we can expect you to be at the forefront of getting a resolution with protections passed? Or is this alot of hot air?

Then do explain why a repeal is the necessary first step, rather then adding the new, then getting rid of the "badly written" one. We're curious as to your logic.

Yeah, if you submit a new one, then you will have almost a unanimous vote to get rid of the old one.

Great, so you've got a rich country where no one starves to death. That is not true of large parts of the world. There are any number of third world countries where people often have that exact choice; prostitute yourself, or starve and allow your children to starve. Remember, when making UN resolutions, we're talking about all countries, not just yours.

Of course. So where is your proposal about a UN Food Bank?



Anyway, even in rich "real world" countries that have widespread social networks (like America's welfare, and food stamps and so on) there are always people who fall through the cracks or are not eligable for welfare, or can't go to the government and admit who they are for whatever reason (teenage runaways, illigeal immigrents, ect), and very often that is they only way they can keep alive, get the money they need for basic necessities like food and sheater. So if you have managed to somehow solve all these problems and have no citizans in your entire country who do not have these basic needs met, then good job, but understand that you're probably the only one.

You do understand, where prostitution is legal and regulated you have removed a large part of the market for those who fall through the cracks to go into prostitution?



Yes, it is a choice. You can choose to be a prostitute, or you can choose to starve to death. However, in "forced" prostitution, which you say you are opposed to, there is also a choice, it's just that the choice is something like "Do it or we shoot you." instead of "Do it or starve to death". Yes, it is a different situation, but the point is that, in survival situations, "choice" is often just a theoretical construct, not something that has any real meaning.

A "do it or we shoot you" is against the "End Slavery" resolution, already passed. Vastiva has a manditory "Death by Ocean" on the books for slavers.
And choice is not theoretical - it is forced, but not theoretical. And those who force a choice will get theirs in the end, we are most certain.

If you are so worried about starvation, add a UN Food Bank. Address the problems, not the symptoms.

Originally Posted by Flordia Organs
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


There are other ways to combat STD’s. You don’t need a full ban on prostitution to do that. The number of abortions, teen pregnancies and STD’s has been lowered quite somewhat in Britain through the implementation of a rigorous advertising campaign – in the same way drunk driving has been lowered in countries around the world. It’s like saying ban drinking outright because the number of car crashes involving drunk drivers is up… it just isn’t necessary. You have to try everything else before resorting to such extreme measures. If you ban prostitution because of sexually transmitted diseases, then why not just place a ban on promiscuity as well? I can guarantee you that promiscuity is going to be a lot larger and much more of a concern as far as STD’s go…

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.

“Your nation can join the UN, but it's not compulsory. As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up.” – NationStates.net FAQ

As long as I am a member of the UN, then I feel that it is my duty to vote against such resolutions as the one currently being discussed and stand up for freedom.

-JRV

Oh and by the way… a growing number of experts believe that ‘Big Foot’ may actually exist and I’m not sure it qualifies as a conspiracy theory either.

So, are you voting against the repeal leagalized prostitution or voting for the repeal?

The down side with IDU has been the practice of needle sharing. But even having programs that warn against needle sharing is simply not enough to prevent users from sharing costly needles.

The idea behind exchange programs (which do work) has been to remove the cost of the needles, thus encouraging users to have some protection ... which has reduced not only the spread of HIV and Hep., but amazingly means that users are having more contact with compassionate medical professionals and are slowly finding a system that is interested in helping them instead of persecuting them.

Prostitution needs a similar social justice program. Nations should be allowed to keep prostitution legal or illegal as per their domestic laws. I never made IDU legal when I wrote my resolution. But I looked at the real problem, public health and HIV, and realized that there are social programs that can solve that.

In fact, the present resolution will likely turn non-careful nations away from a good solution and they'll say, "But gee, we already talked about hookers, why do you want to create outreach programs for them if it is legal already?"

Are you saying repeal the legalisation of prostitution, but put in place measures to help them remove themselves from the industry. So instead of punishing for being what they had to be to survive, we should help them to change into someone new.

*estatic*

Yeah! You tell them!

Seriously, it seems like having it under control will let less STDs happen.
You could, say, screen people who apply to be prostitutes.

Bingo! Give that man a cookie.

Our regulation includes licensing, which requires manditory classes in STD prevention, pregnancy prevention, and legal proceedures, as well as several business classes. These are all covered under basic education, and are available at any community college. The government underwrites the students classes and books and lab equipment in return for a slightly higher tax rate to pay off the (non-interest bearing) loan.

The license also requires a manditory health check, and a check every two weeks.

As a result, all the forces that would have been attempting to enforce illegality, are now working with the prostitute, to protect their industry and safeguard their customer base. Effectively, we have doubled the enforcement numbers (as the prosititutes themselves now have a marked interest in the process), we have lots more court and prison space for the real crimes, STDs presence has dropped overall - as there is no shame in "going in for a physical" and getting medication as needed.

In short, worked with the resolution, got social benefits.

This is a personal choice :) and you do not have my nations or regions support.

So, are you voting against the repeal leagalized prostitution or voting for the repeal?

If you were talking to me: JRV and the Golden Hills Region will be voting AGAINST Repeal Legalized Prostitution.

what's your point here?
Prostitution is an effiicient way (in the real world) for a woman to pay for her education. Contrary to the christian propaganda that's apparently been shoved down you throat, many women find it to be the least objectionable way, too.

I've had sex with many prostitutes, but never with one who wasn't having a good time.

It is a very sick society where women have to sell their bodies to pay for something as basic as a good education. I am an Atheist and can certainly not be accused of swallowing Christian propaganda but I support a society where all people are valued and are not forced to degrade and humiliate themselves to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. It is also a complete myth to say that women enjoy being prostitutes and they only do it to escape from the poverty forced on them by the capitalist male dominated society.

ROFLMAO!

You do realize there is FAR more prostitution in Communist countries then in Capitalist ones?

You do realize an attempt to "end prostitution" is doomed from the onset as long as there is dating, as long as sex can be traded for anything?

Legislating morality has never and will never work. It will absorb a large chunk of your police budget, fill your prisons, and cause the courts to be all that much more flooded with cases. But that's about it. There is no place anywhere where prostitution is possible and it is not present.

It is a lie to say that prostitution occcurs more in the so called "communist" countries. In countries like the USSR and Cuba prostitution was almost completely eradicated by socialism as the government made a real attempt to help women escape from the poverty and sex slavery which exists under capitalism.

I believe that prostitution can be completely ended if the whole society can be changed, if the capitalist oppressors can be overthown, and if the male domination of society is destroyed. Under a socialist society there would be no poverty and everyone would be guaranteed a job by the government which would almost wipe out prostitution immediately. The attitudes of men would also be changed and they would cease to see women as commodities, as objects to be used to give them sexual pleasure.

Under the capitalist society it would be difficult to legislate against the sex industry on its own without trying to address the cause. That is why I believe that simply banning it is not enough and a real effort must be taken to end the reasons for the existence of prostitution which are poverty and all forms of discrimination against women.

Yeah, if you submit a new one, then you will have almost a unanimous vote to get rid of the old one.

Someone who thinks logicly and strategicly in the UN?

*takes picture quick*

No one is ever going to believe this... ;)

It is also complete myth to say that women enjoy being prostitutes and they only do it to escape from the poverty forced on them by the capitalist male dominated society.

It is complete myth to say that all women who work in the sex industry don’t enjoy what they do. Some of them do, even if most probably don't. I’ve seen a number of documentaries doing inside brothels, prostitutes openly about their work… there seems to be various types and you can’t categorize them all in one.

*Thoughtfully munching on cookie*

Yeah JRV, I was talking to you, because you didn't flat out say what you were doing. Which confused me and probably a few other nations.

Anybody want to take the liberty to write a new prostitution resolution?
We'll need one regardless if the repeal gets passed or not.

what's your point here?
Prostitution is an effiicient way (in the real world) for a woman to pay for her education. Contrary to the christian propaganda that's apparently been shoved down you throat, many women find it to be the least objectionable way, too.

I've had sex with many prostitutes, but never with one who wasn't having a good time.

It is a very sick society where women have to sell their bodies to pay for something as basic as a good education. I am an atheist and can certainly not be accused of swallowing christian propaganda but I support a society where all people are valued and are not forced to degrade and humiliate themselves to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. It is also complete myth to say that women enjoy being prostitutes and they only do it to escape from the poverty forced on them by the capitalist male dominated society.


Ever been to Nevada, USA, where it is legal and very capitalistically protected? No? Then we'll fill you in. It is not "degrading or humiliating". Nor does it give just a "reasonable standard of living" - prostitutes fit in the highest brackets of society for income.

As to the myth - there are many reasons for women becoming prostitutes, just as there are many reasons for men becoming prostitutes. "Good income" is only one of them.



ROFLMAO!

You do realize there is FAR more prostitution in Communist countries then in Capitalist ones?

You do realize an attempt to "end prostitution" is doomed from the onset as long as there is dating, as long as sex can be traded for anything?

Legislating morality has never and will never work. It will absorb a large chunk of your police budget, fill your prisons, and cause the courts to be all that much more flooded with cases. But that's about it. There is no place anywhere where prostitution is possible and it is not present.

It is a lie to say that prostitution occcurs more in the so called "communist" countries. In countries like the USSR and Cuba prostitution was almost completely eradicated by socialism as the government made a real attempt to help women escape from the poverty and sex slavery which exists under capitalism.

ROFL! So NOT. It went underground, was under or unreported to meet government level dictates. With the fall of the imaginary "USSR", the full extent of the problem became evident to even a casual observer.

As to "Cuba" - ROFL again, I should introduce you to all the Marines who served at Guantanamo, who know heaven knows how many prostitutes; to the Cubans who escaped who were prostitutes, who can tell you all about what really exists there.

If you believe the propaganda, goody for you. If you want the truth, go to the trenches.



I believe that prostitution can be completely ended if the whole society can be changed, if the capitalist oppressors can be overthown, and if the male domination of society is destroyed. Under a socialist society there would be no poverty and everyone would be guaranteed a job by the government which would almost wipe out prostitution immediately. The attitudes of men would also be changed and they would cease to see women as commodities, as objects to be used to give them sexual pleasure.

Under the capitalist society it would be difficult to legislate against the sex industry on its own without trying to address the cause. That is why I believe that simply banning it is not enough and a real effort must be taken to end the reasons for the existence of prostitution which are poverty and all forms of iscrimination against women.

So, you'd rather work at McDonalds for $6.50 an hour, then as a prostitute for $500 an hour? You'd rather have an income of $20,000 a year, then one of $200,000 a year?

Oh, yes, and there are male prostitutes, in droves. You are aware of that?

As to the reason for the existance of prostitution - "F*cking is legal, selling is legal, why shouldn't selling f*cking be legal?" Please answer in your response.

As to the reason for the existance of prostitution - "F*cking is legal, selling is legal, why shouldn't selling f*cking be legal?" Please answer in your response.

Your argument is not logicaly sound in the very least sense of the word. Having sexual relations with certain people is illegal in nearly all places, such as people below 18, or mentaly handicaped people, or raping people, or doing it for money, though it is not often enforced. Also, you cannot say I am a man, Bob is a man, therefore I am Bob. It's the same logic you just used and it makes no sense. Marriage exsist for a reason, you get married to have a life partner and to have sex to reproduce. Stable marriage lowers every single type of crime in the household and of the children that are produced.

Also, even though many of you here aparently do not have morals, some people in this world do, and I dont see how you can try to force your lack of morals on people that actualy have some decency and morality in their life and country.

Finaly, it not even the point of this argument whether it is wrong at all or not, it is whether you can force every nation in the UN to legalize it against their will. When it was first passed over 8,000 nations stood against it, that is 8,000 nations that were forced to legalize prostitution against their will and sacrifice their morals.


Also to Graceofseppuku, nearly every word out of your mouth has made me very mad and very sick as to how stupid some people are.

Are you saying repeal the legalisation of prostitution, but put in place measures to help them remove themselves from the industry. So instead of punishing for being what they had to be to survive, we should help them to change into someone new.

If they want, yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting. :)

The problem with the current resolution is it fools people into thinking that the problem will go away. Prostitutes are subject to horrible mental abuse and all too frequently physical abuse too! That is the nature of the "industry". The reason people *pay* somebody to beat is they generally aren't the type to just go out and find somebody. Sure there is some measure of consent, but just legalizing doesn't protect.

Now, though I've never dated a prostitute, I have dated an actual real life stripper, and she said the stripping industry was HORRIBLY exploitive ... and *gasp* she worked in a unionized club run by women. There are some strippers that do get by, and I've met them too. But I've yet to meet a single person in the sex industry that really likes it. They've all told me or the people I know in the field that they view it as a stepping stone.

There will be cases where a man or women actually wants to have people pay him or her in exchange for some wild things. And my *personal* belief is more power to them. But as a head of a government, I need to look out for the needs of all of my people, and the facts remain that most of these people are there because of economics (talk to people in the sex industry -- they are usually very friendly and very open minded -- it will be an eye opening experience).

Waving a magic wand (which the original Legalized Prostitution resolution did) is nothing but a placebo. It is a fluff resolution, designed to make people feel better.

But the major problem with the fluff resolution is it was not only horribly written, but:

1) in the wrong category, it talks about taxation and public health, but was misclassified as a human rights resolution -- a resolution's text and classification should match and don't in this case,

2) it is a directive and sends the nations MOST in need of changing their laws packing out of the UN ...

Let's pretend you are dating a woman who tends to be bossy. Every night you go out, you go to where she wants to eat, you watch her movie, you end up sleeping in her bed, at her house, etc. etc. It gets old fast. For most people, her ability to tell you what to do slowly "wears thin", and eventually she crosses a line.

Now let's pretend that even though she is bossy, she actually did a pretty good job of forcing you to at least be social and talk to other people. The woman might have been high maintance, but she did manage to keep you going out and meeting new people. So one day she starts telling you exactly what you'll eat and you say, "To hell with you! I'm going to get a hamburger because I want it!"

Her response is, "Nope, you can't take care of yourself dear. You will do what I say, because I know better."

Most people would walk away (IRL I've *been* in this situation, though the food of choice was believe it or not those tiny baby corns, I love those and carrots, and that was the straw that broke the back) ...

The next thing that happens is you stop going out. While she had a lot of stupid ideas and didn't respect you, like it or not, at times she did some things that had some benefit to you. Socialization and meeting people among them.

But you decide that to get even with her, you won't go out. And so you stop. (For the record I didn't do this ... I still went out plenty.)

The UN is the same way. You can believe in the tyranny of the majority like some players advocates when they say, "Newbie, you don't know jack! Read the FAQ and don't let the door hit you on your way out."

In the case of protecting prostitutes, they are more likely to get help in a nation that either regulates or looks the other way when they are doing their thing (for example: Las Vegas, Amsterdam, or Frankfurt). If you are voting for this because you simply feel they need another chance to learn useful skills, then a human rights resolution is wrong ... it means the nations that should be offering social programs will leave the UN and ignore its advice, just like in my example the person left his (or her) bossy girlfriend and reacted the opposite way.

In the real world imagine what Saudi Arabia would do if we legalized prostitution? I can tell you right now that it would resign from the UN in a matter of nano-seconds after the vote.

Japan resigned from the League of Nations when it was pushed too far in the 1930s, and frankly it was the nation that MOST needed to be in the League in order to have other nations prevent it from raping the Korean and Chinese women ... Japan committeed HORRIFIC crimes that today go completely unrecognized by the Japanese government and is why North Korea still to this day has stressed relationships. (I could tell more horror stories about the kidnapped Japanese citizens from the past 30 years ... but back to my point.)

A poorly worded resolution that does nothing isn't going to help people. It fools people.

There are other bad resolutions in existence, but right now we have a chance to work on a single one.

I've had sex with many prostitutes, but never with one who wasn't having a good time.

Anyone want the vegas odds on that being true? (no offence)

Your argument is not logicaly sound in the very least sense of the word. Having sexual relations with certain people is illegal in nearly all places, such as people below 18, or mentaly handicaped people, or raping people, or doing it for money, though it is not often enforced.


I feel the need to point out that you are right, if the argument is:

Sex is legal between adults,
Trading stuff is legal between adults ...

Then logic would dictate that a "legalize prostitution" based on that argument would be an economic freedom issue. Not human rights, but free trade.

:) Of course I'm preaching to the choir, because based on what you've written above I'm sure you and the other logical nations in the UN know this.

This is a personal choice :) and you do not have my nations or regions support.

Either you are confused, or I am confused about what you mean.

This is a repeal. It will allow nations to ban prostitution if it passes.

So do you oppose the repeal because you want it to be legal, so that the people can decide if they should become prostitutes, or do you oppose legal prostitution because you think it should be up to the nations to decide, and thus support the repeal?

(Am I making any sense here?)

I'm back and ready to rant.

And yes your making perfect sense.

Mikitivity, I can understand where you are coming from and I agree with you to quite some extent – more needs to be done, in order to ‘fix’ the situation. I am all for protecting sex workers. But this particular legislation we are discussing isn’t going to do it either, and I will not support it - I can't even begin to explain why. Until a better resolution is produced, I’d rather stick with Legalized Prostitution than repeal it.
I wasn't around when that was passed and I'm not sure how I would have voted, but it is clear that a better resolution should be drafted - it just doesn't come in the form of this one.

That's my last word on the matter.

If we reapeal this one, we can make a better one. Granted I'm gunna vote against it, but thats besides the point.

I am all for protecting sex workers.

That's my last word on the matter.

Then I'll honor that kind post by keeping my reply brief. :)

I'd suggest that a proper resolution actually be named "Protecting Sex Workers" and that with a title like that, this is really something I'd consider a text book "Social Justice" issue.

Then I'll honor that kind post by keeping my reply brief.

I'd suggest that a proper resolution actually be named "Protecting Sex Workers" and that with a title like that, this is really something I'd consider a text book "Social Justice" issue.

Agreed. :)

Fellow United Nations members, this is an outrage that this has been allowed to even come up for discussion. This resolution to effectively outlaw prostitution is moronic at best. This cannot be allowed to pass, and yet it is currently winning! Please, rise up and join me in striking down this nonsensical proposal!

Then I'll honor that kind post by keeping my reply brief. :)

I'd suggest that a proper resolution actually be named "Protecting Sex Workers" and that with a title like that, this is really something I'd consider a text book "Social Justice" issue.

That IS a good point. We can repeal this, then pass a resolution to protect prostitutes in nations that have it legal. Everybody wins.

Fellow United Nations members, this is an outrage that this has been allowed to even come up for discussion. This resolution to effectively outlaw prostitution is moronic at best. This cannot be allowed to pass, and yet it is currently winning! Please, rise up and join me in striking down this nonsensical proposal!

:headbang: You idiot. This resolution is NOT to outlaw it, it's to make it so that nations what don't wish to have it, can outlaw it. You can still have your gf that ur paying $50 a night.

I'm gunna call it a night. Keep fighting for this resolution. As for those against it:

you me
:) :mp5:

Fellow United Nations members, this is an outrage that this has been allowed to even come up for discussion. This resolution to effectively outlaw prostitution is moronic at best. This cannot be allowed to pass, and yet it is currently winning! Please, rise up and join me in striking down this nonsensical proposal!

It does not outlaw prostitution. It gives the nation the choice as to whether it should be legal or not. In TilEnca it is going to remain legal.

Also to Graceofseppuku, nearly every word out of your mouth has made me very mad and very sick as to how stupid some people are.

What if I were to say 'you're smart'. Hmm...?

Besides me making an ass of myself, I'd just like to say that no matter how long we debate it, we're all just ignorant and won't listen to each other.

Ever been to Nevada, USA, where it is legal and very capitalistically protected? No? Then we'll fill you in. It is not "degrading or humiliating". Nor does it give just a "reasonable standard of living" - prostitutes fit in the highest brackets of society for income.

Yeah...that's why "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas"...:rolleyes:




As to the reason for the existance of prostitution - "F*cking is legal, selling is legal, why shouldn't selling f*cking be legal?" Please answer in your response.

Yes, I almost forgot that one. How stupid of me. That's the reference to Prof. George Carlin my sociology book gave when talking about prostitution. What's his degree in? He's a professor in...?

Carlin says things to be funny. His style of humor is a satiric commentary. Saying things like that fits into his comic persona. His motivations aren't the betternment of mankind or the furtherment of human rights. He just wants to be funny so he can pay the bills.

Yes, I almost forgot that one. How stupid of me. That's the reference to Prof. George Carlin my sociology book gave when talking about prostitution. What's his degree in? He's a professor in...?

Carlin says things to be funny. His style of humor is a satiric commentary. Saying things like that fits into his comic persona. His motivations aren't the betternment of mankind or the furtherment of human rights. He just wants to be funny so he can pay the bills.

So, that means you can't answer the question.

Ever been to Nevada, USA, where it is legal and very capitalistically protected? No? Then we'll fill you in. It is not "degrading or humiliating". Nor does it give just a "reasonable standard of living" - prostitutes fit in the highest brackets of society for income.

Yeah...that's why "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas"...

Gee, that was... nonsensical. The aforementioned quote is a marketing tool, found in an imaginary state in an imaginary country filled with very repressed individuals. Hence, it would be effective.

Was there an actual point?

Pretty speech. Can we then expect you at the forefront of the new resolution, or has this been only a pretty speech?

If they want, yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting. :)

The problem with the current resolution is it fools people into thinking that the problem will go away. Prostitutes are subject to horrible mental abuse and all too frequently physical abuse too! That is the nature of the "industry". The reason people *pay* somebody to beat is they generally aren't the type to just go out and find somebody. Sure there is some measure of consent, but just legalizing doesn't protect.

Now, though I've never dated a prostitute, I have dated an actual real life stripper, and she said the stripping industry was HORRIBLY exploitive ... and *gasp* she worked in a unionized club run by women. There are some strippers that do get by, and I've met them too. But I've yet to meet a single person in the sex industry that really likes it. They've all told me or the people I know in the field that they view it as a stepping stone.

There will be cases where a man or women actually wants to have people pay him or her in exchange for some wild things. And my *personal* belief is more power to them. But as a head of a government, I need to look out for the needs of all of my people, and the facts remain that most of these people are there because of economics (talk to people in the sex industry -- they are usually very friendly and very open minded -- it will be an eye opening experience).

Waving a magic wand (which the original Legalized Prostitution resolution did) is nothing but a placebo. It is a fluff resolution, designed to make people feel better.

But the major problem with the fluff resolution is it was not only horribly written, but:

1) in the wrong category, it talks about taxation and public health, but was misclassified as a human rights resolution -- a resolution's text and classification should match and don't in this case,

2) it is a directive and sends the nations MOST in need of changing their laws packing out of the UN ...

Let's pretend you are dating a woman who tends to be bossy. Every night you go out, you go to where she wants to eat, you watch her movie, you end up sleeping in her bed, at her house, etc. etc. It gets old fast. For most people, her ability to tell you what to do slowly "wears thin", and eventually she crosses a line.

Now let's pretend that even though she is bossy, she actually did a pretty good job of forcing you to at least be social and talk to other people. The woman might have been high maintance, but she did manage to keep you going out and meeting new people. So one day she starts telling you exactly what you'll eat and you say, "To hell with you! I'm going to get a hamburger because I want it!"

Her response is, "Nope, you can't take care of yourself dear. You will do what I say, because I know better."

Most people would walk away (IRL I've *been* in this situation, though the food of choice was believe it or not those tiny baby corns, I love those and carrots, and that was the straw that broke the back) ...

The next thing that happens is you stop going out. While she had a lot of stupid ideas and didn't respect you, like it or not, at times she did some things that had some benefit to you. Socialization and meeting people among them.

But you decide that to get even with her, you won't go out. And so you stop. (For the record I didn't do this ... I still went out plenty.)

The UN is the same way. You can believe in the tyranny of the majority like some players advocates when they say, "Newbie, you don't know jack! Read the FAQ and don't let the door hit you on your way out."

In the case of protecting prostitutes, they are more likely to get help in a nation that either regulates or looks the other way when they are doing their thing (for example: Las Vegas, Amsterdam, or Frankfurt). If you are voting for this because you simply feel they need another chance to learn useful skills, then a human rights resolution is wrong ... it means the nations that should be offering social programs will leave the UN and ignore its advice, just like in my example the person left his (or her) bossy girlfriend and reacted the opposite way.

In the real world imagine what Saudi Arabia would do if we legalized prostitution? I can tell you right now that it would resign from the UN in a matter of nano-seconds after the vote.

Japan resigned from the League of Nations when it was pushed too far in the 1930s, and frankly it was the nation that MOST needed to be in the League in order to have other nations prevent it from raping the Korean and Chinese women ... Japan committeed HORRIFIC crimes that today go completely unrecognized by the Japanese government and is why North Korea still to this day has stressed relationships. (I could tell more horror stories about the kidnapped Japanese citizens from the past 30 years ... but back to my point.)

A poorly worded resolution that does nothing isn't going to help people. It fools people.

There are other bad resolutions in existence, but right now we have a chance to work on a single one.

Sex is legal, trade is legal, so why shouldn't trading money for sex be legal?

In Sankaraland, only CONSENSUAL sex is legal between adults. That's the issue in this resolution--sex with a prostitute is not consensual sex. The decision to enter into a money-for-sex contract--with the implied threat, if it is legally recognized, of government action to secure fulfillment of it--is a decision to have sex with someone with whom you don't want to have sex, because you need money. "Have sex with someone you don't want or starve"--the alternative offered to many today--is the same imperative as "Have sex with someone you don't want or be shot." If it is not food that is at issue, but rather a nice car, a college education, or even the mansion of one of the minute percentage of high-class prostitutes, the principle is still the same.

I fully realize that the same argument can be made--and correctly so--that all wage-labor contracts are exploitative. Prostitution is a particularly serious one, though, because most prostitutes are women, and women (not uncoincidentally) are systematically oppressed, with particular emphasis on the denial of sexual freedom. (Most male prostitutes are homosexuals, who are also oppressed.)

I also wish to object to the line of argument that marriage is the alternative of the "moral" crowd. Most marriages are just special cases of prostitution--long-term, monogamous (at least on the part of the "kept" spouse--the woman in the vast majority of cases), and with housework thrown in.

"Free trade" is and should be regulated to protect human rights. That's why our society also prohibits other forms of indentured servitude.

The argument that legalizing prostitution protects sex workers better than keeping it illegal is worth considering. However, our nation has found empirically that they can be better protected through a three-pronged strategy. First, while we will not prosecute prostitutes, we will prosecute pimps and solicitors vigorously. Second, we will undertake measures that raise the living standards of all members of the working class, and, incidentally, of the vast majority of prostitutes. For example, we will enact a national free public health care program, which will stop anyone from ever again trading sex for money to pay health care bills. Third, we will undertake measures--such as free abortion on demand--that advance the status of women in society, again to the advantage of most prostitutes. It's this combination of tactics that worked in Cuba, the only modern nation in the real world to (alas, temporarily--1971-1991) eradicate prostitution.

One last thing (I know this is long). Although I don't agree with the George Carlin point above, I definitely take exception to the claim that he "just wants to be funny" and is not deliberately using humor as a vehicle for social criticism--as all great artists do with their media.

This is an absolutely ridiculous proposition. I imagine being in the military is legal in your backwards nation. I imagine your soldiers get paid. You can take a job to kill someone, but not to have sex? Idiocy. Besides, government regulation and participation allows it to be safe and standard for the working girls as well as the customers.

This proposal makes quite the inane "argument". Get that damn porkchop out of your mouth, fatty, before you tell me not to smoke or screw whores! If the government dictated every health choice the populace was to make, we'd be living in a totalitarianship yet unperpetuated upon this world. It's our right to get STDs, from hookers or from one-night stands - it's all the same.

Health choices are INDIVIDUAL, unless someone else is endangering your health (ie. corporations polluting) ONLY THEN it's a matter of "public health" and a serious crime.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em...

I'm not sure if anyone even reads this far into a thread.. or of this has been mentioned before
if it has, I appologise..i gave up reading after 2 pages :\

If prostitution is illegal, then the percentage of rape-crimes will increase.
If people who have high enough morals to pay someone who is willing to prostitute for their service, if this is made illegal, then they will be reduced to rape.

This proposal makes quite the inane "argument". Get that damn porkchop out of your mouth, fatty, before you tell me not to smoke or screw whores! If the government dictated every health choice the populace was to make, we'd be living in a totalitarianship yet unperpetuated upon this world. It's our right to get STDs, from hookers or from one-night stands - it's all the same.

Health choices are INDIVIDUAL, unless someone else is endangering your health (ie. corporations polluting) ONLY THEN it's a matter of "public health" and a serious crime.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em...

*removes porkchop from mouth*

I'm not telling you "not to smoke or screw whores". I'm simply saying that maybe the UN should try to remember the exceptions to the rules. In nation running there are times in which the rights of individual members must be compromised to serve the greater good. The current resolution does not take this into account. Furthermore, there is need to regulate prostitution in prostitution-legalized nations, otherwise there's a large health risk in a now rampant and unchecked industry (which situation can spread STDs quickly). Repealing this resolution gives us a chance to take a new stab at the issue. It also gives us the opportunity to modernize more of the written approach to resolutions.

-snip-

I thought you weren't going to respond to what I said, as I am a--what did you call it--a "servant of ignorance" or somesuch.

I'm not sure if anyone even reads this far into a thread.. or of this has been mentioned before
if it has, I appologise..i gave up reading after 2 pages :\

If prostitution is illegal, then the percentage of rape-crimes will increase.
If people who have high enough morals to pay someone who is willing to prostitute for their service, if this is made illegal, then they will be reduced to rape.

I have to say that I don't see a lot of basis for this argument. The vast majority of people who believe that paying a prostitute for sex is an okay action (because the services are purchased) are most definitely NOT rapists.

The state of New Larson is currently against this repeal. That's not to say that we endorse prostitution as a healthy choice for our citizens but rather that our economic knowledge of supply and demand says that when there is demand for a service it will be developed. If prostitution is illegal, a black market WILL develop for prostitution. This is not too say that the black market will not be smaller than a legal market, because it will. It is more our belief that the amount of harm that black market prostitution does to our society (violence, STDs, and the black market in general) is more harmful than the effect that legalized prostitution has on our society (increase in prostitutes, moral acceptibility of prostitution).

We'd like to see prostitution go away altogether, but that simply wont happen. Century after century of prostitution seems to show this to us.

Matthias Betsworth
UN Delegate for the Allied States of New Larson

I thought you weren't going to respond to what I said, as I am a--what did you call it--a "servant of ignorance" or somesuch.

*spews pepsi all over keyboard*
ROTFL!

Serious advice my friend ... I've been reading his posts all day and I've yet to see him actually say anything of subtance in this thread. He is going for cheap shots (flamebait) and has picked up where DemonLordEnigma left off after Cog asked people to cool down in this thread.

Just toss him in your killfilter for a short while. The worst thing he can possibly do is continue to flamebait people ... that is the absolute worst. If he had some examples or real points, he would have posted them in his first 20+ posts in this thread today. Trust me, if he really wanted people to reply to his posts, he wouldn't insult them. :(

So let him continue to flamebait people! If you decide to not killfilter him and think his flamebaiting has gotten out of hand, given that Cog is already familiar with this situation and already once asked us all to tone it down here (there is a reason why Cog posted that message in public view here instead of just telegramming individual players), I'd recommend telegramming Cog and telling him that his polite "advice" was ignored. I'm sure Cog will find a way to get everybody to cool down and remain civil.

In the mean time don't forget to visit the Pacific forums (if you aren't already there too). :)

Mikitivity, I must ask you to not use my name again. Doing so is considered harassment by myself and will be reported as such.

Trust me, if he really wanted people to reply to his posts, he wouldn't insult them. :(

Pots and kettles, and I'll respond to you anyway - about those apologies you keep going on about, yet never get around to? It appears we have come full circle - you're back to where we began.

As to the proposal - it remains a very tight race, and a very bad idea.

Edit: I've noted, Mik, each and every time someone argues you into a corner, you have a tendency to pick someone else, and speak to them about the other as if they weren't there. It is a sure sign you have no arguement, and are only concerned with attacking the messenger. Just pointing out the pattern.

"F*cking is legal, selling is legal, why shouldn't selling f*cking be legal?". If you wouldn't mind answering that one?


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.

Firstly, I must appoligize for the delay in my response.
I'd like to point out that your argument about sexual intercourse and selling things being legal so why not selling sex being legal is rather simplistic. Real things don't follow such simplistic logical paths. You simply can't reduce it to an A + B equation as the combination of the two is greater then the some of its parts. Do you understand? I'm trying to make this easy.
I'll ignore the part about "sex...(being) a commodity" as I have not interest in debating this finer point with you. My statement that the U.N has nothing to offer on this matter was made with our belief that this is a national matter, not an ubernational matter. This bill has done nothing to help prostitutes in many nations and it seems that the "debate" on this forum is offering no alternatives. My nations view is that we know the situation in our country, and we can best handle that situation.
Lastly Vavstiva, I must say that your arguments are always a bit galvanizing. I mean to say that you approach all of this with such and emotional and angry tone, that its hard to be on your side about anything.
Finally I'd like to comment that my nation has still not formalized its position on this vote. Our parliament will be offering its decision today, and then I will make the official announcement. I was somewhat out of line in suggesting that this position had already been formalized.

Sai
Principality of Prachya

As described in http://www.liberator.net/articles/prostitution.html the philosophy of repression and abolition bears no merit. After the alcohol prohibition in 1920 prices skyrocketed in black market, the government lost considerable tax amounts which could have provided social programs and health care, criminals were created and filled the jails.
Legalization would prevent underground prostitution, pimps would no longer control women, encounters could happen in controlled environments, prostitution would no longer be "invisible" and troubled minors would no longer be swept to illegal prostitution...
A Health and Safety at Work Act could be enacted. STDs would be prevented from being spread as well as other communicable ailments like hepatitis and tuberculosis. It would also reduce gender violence, allow women to escape prostitution, if they so choose, and prevent women from becoming infertile as a consequence to obtaining certain STDs.
But let the sex workers speak for themselves: The International Union of Sex Workers (http://www.iusw.org/)

LOL...

This thing is still going on.

Driving is legal.
Drinking alcohol is legal.
Why shouldn't drinking alcohol while driving be illegal?

Health and safety I wonder...

...making prostitution illegal would make it (and any attending health risks) disappear? Surely the only way to to reduce those risks is for the 'oldest profession' to be legalised and regulated, with regular health screening of prostitutes and the encouragement of barrier methods of contraception. Londonis is proud to legalise prostitution and to use the tax revenue generated for voluntary, re-education programs to provide alternative forms of employement for working women (and men!).

LOL...

This thing is still going on.

Driving is legal.
Drinking alcohol is legal.
Why shouldn't drinking alcohol while driving be illegal?

Health and safety I wonder...

Because operating a motor vehicle without being in control of your facilities, such as under imparement, endangers unconsenting people who with rights.

This does not apply to "F*cking is legal, selling is legal, why shouldn't selling f*cking be legal" as your example is nonconsensual events, and my question is of a consensual event.

:rolleyes:

...making prostitution illegal would make it (and any attending health risks) disappear? Surely the only way to to reduce those risks is for the 'oldest profession' to be legalised and regulated, with regular health screening of prostitutes and the encouragement of barrier methods of contraception. Londonis is proud to legalise prostitution and to use the tax revenue generated for voluntary, re-education programs to provide alternative forms of employement for working women (and men!).

This is what we've been saying all along - repeal is a bad idea, and a step in the wrong direction.

Perhaps if we take this from another direction. We repeal this resolution because it forces something on a nation that they do not want. Then we make a new resolution not one that legalises it, but one designed to tackle the problem.
*Free clinics for Prositutes
*Free education
*Protection from pimps
*Police do not punish, but force attendence of rehabilitation
*etc it will need some work, but I think this might solve the moral argument of forcing prostitution on another nation while trying to combat the cause.

Perhaps if we take this from another direction. We repeal this resolution because it forces something on a nation that they do not want. Then we make a new resolution not one that legalises it, but one designed to tackle the problem.
*Free clinics for Prositutes
*Free education
*Protection from pimps
*Police do not punish, but force attendence of rehabilitation
*etc it will need some work, but I think this might solve the moral argument of forcing prostitution on another nation while trying to combat the cause.

Again, why not put in your protective legislation first? Performing these actions in this order will make your later protection far more difficult to pass.

Actually, we would gamble strongly, once repealed, no other legislation on the matter will be seen and pass, as those who wanted it shot down will have had their day, swept things under the rug, and will now ignore the whole problem while things grow worse for the ordinary citizen.

Several hours ago, the Regency of the Principality of Prachya has notified me of its support for this repeal.

This is a very difficult issue for us as we view most prostitution as a social problem. We fully intend to keep prostitution legal, but our courts have been interpreting this resolution very liberaly. We have had trouble prosecuting "johns" accused of battering prostitutes, and we have several high profile cases of pimps comitting henous acts agains their workers and then only to have our Crowns charges dismissed. We have also lost a court case to confine prostitution to "Red Light" zones.

We would like the flexibility to legislate on this issue more heavily without risking noncompliance within the U.N. We also believe that as the situation varies from country to country, the U.N will have a very difficult time creating suitable solutions to every countries unique needs. We understand that their are nations that wish to make it completly illegal but cannot do so. We do not believe these nations should be forced to allow prostitution.

Sai

Actually, we would gamble strongly, once repealed, no other legislation on the matter will be seen and pass, as those who wanted it shot down will have had their day, swept things under the rug, and will now ignore the whole problem while things grow worse for the ordinary citizen.

My experience has been that a resolution on the books is what lessens an issue's chance at passing. And I believe that an aggressive enough telegram campaign and good planning can overcome that anyway.


Perhaps if we take this from another direction. We repeal this resolution because it forces something on a nation that they do not want. Then we make a new resolution not one that legalises it, but one designed to tackle the problem.
*Free clinics for Prositutes
*Free education
*Protection from pimps
*Police do not punish, but force attendence of rehabilitation
*etc it will need some work, but I think this might solve the moral argument of forcing prostitution on another nation while trying to combat the cause.

Exactly. The issue of legalized, regulated, fully addressed prostitution is much more multifaceted than the current legislation gives due for. The points expressed in the proposal are supposed to emphasize one area in which the current resolution doesn't take important possibilities into account. There are many good things the UN should require of its nations regarding this issue, and universal legalization, I feel, not only isn't requisite for those good things but is counterproductive.

That's why I urge people vote FOR.

Exactly. The issue of legalized, regulated, fully addressed prostitution is much more multifaceted than the current legislation gives due for. The points expressed in the proposal are supposed to emphasize one area in which the current resolution doesn't take important possibilities into account. There are many good things the UN should require of its nations regarding this issue, and universal legalization, I feel, not only isn't requisite for those good things but is counterproductive.

That's why I urge people vote FOR.

Please take note of our comments:

Our courts have been interpreting this resolution very liberaly. We have had trouble prosecuting "Johns" accused of battering prostitutes, and we have several high profile cases of pimps committing henous acts agains their workers and then only to have our Crown's charges dismissed. We have also lost a court case to confine prostitution to "Red Light" zones.

This repeal is the right thing to do as the original resolution is so vague its difficult to do anything with.

Sai

this one is going right down to the wire, isn't it?
some big old powerful countries are likely to declare war over this, ima thinking.

glad my countries are little, insignificant nothings. (HINT: please don't nuke me)

I am for the repeal not to say that I am against prostitution as a government (as a person, yes, but the needs of a government are a bit different) but against the UN forcing nations to absolutely HAVE legalized prostitution. As many have said and I shall repeat myself, this is a national matter, not a UN matter. Each and every nation should make it's own decision regarding prostitution.

If you want prostitution to be legal, fine. But consider the other nations who feel that it is immoral. Force them on this issue and they will (and have) quit the UN, and with good reason. Forcing issues on torture and slavery, yes, that is appropriate. But prostitution is a more tricky matter that values more on the people's moral beliefs and government's standing rather than the UN's purview.

Something that needs to be addressed:

We have these resolutions that deal with health and trying to encourage it. And we have a resolution legalizing prostitution. Doesn't that create the case where a nation has to put health regulations on prostitution in order to be abiding by those resolutions? That also leaves open the arguement that this entire repeal is based on nations that are not doing their jobs as UN members.

Perhaps we need a court and penalties to force people to abide by the resolutions rather than a repeal.

You have our support. The resolution does not limit any particular nation from legalizing prostitution. None of the arguments against this repeal would prohibit nations from continuing the practice of legalization. The repeal would allow choice.

This is not such a global problem like many other issues that needs a standardized answer. There is no danger from this repeal. We support this resolution.

Roman 3282 Samsonish

This is not such a global problem like many other issues that needs a standardized answer.
International sex trade, anyone?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

You have our support. The resolution does not limit any particular nation from legalizing prostitution. None of the arguments against this repeal would prohibit nations from continuing the practice of legalization. The repeal would allow choice.

The repeal is based on the premise of helping people be healthier, a premise attacked and easily dealt with many times.

This is not such a global problem like many other issues that needs a standardized answer. There is no danger from this repeal. We support this resolution.

Problems this can lead to:

1) Illegal Internation Sex Trade.

2) Abuse of people's civil rights because of their choice of employment.

3) Increased disease spread (some nations will illegalize it, meaning it is likely to go on underground and be unregulated)

4) Prostitution could end up being forcibly illegalized by the UN (well, there goes the free choice arguement).

Yes, there is danger from this one, and I'm not sure if I'm willing to accept it.

Yeah, and to expand on that, no matter what you do, you can mold the minds of your nation, and as long as one nation has it, than people will follow the example.
Therefore, it is impossible to stop prositiution, and it's better to profit from it than not.

I don't see how any of those reasons could "harm" a country. Sure your civil rights will go down if you don't have that. But how many countries' major income if prostitution. That is stupid. I support the resolution. And about the health thing, the "Legalize Prostitutipm" doesn't say that the government supports the building of brothels. It just says its allowed. Prostitution is an underground thing, many people are going to hide it. Besides, it doesn't say that it is making it illegal, your country can still have it if you want to. Its a win win stituation.

I don't see how any of those reasons could "harm" a country. Sure your civil rights will go down if you don't have that. But how many countries' major income if prostitution. That is stupid. I support the resolution. And about the health thing, the "Legalize Prostitutipm" doesn't say that the government supports the building of brothels. It just says its allowed. Prostitution is an underground thing, many people are going to hide it. Besides, it doesn't say that it is making it illegal, your country can still have it if you want to. Its a win win stituation.

No it's not. Because no UN resolutions would be passed if we 'left it up to the nations to decide'.
Don't join the UN if you don't want your nation to be screwed around with.

I support this resolution. This is simply a repeal proposal. Prostitution should not be forced to be made legal in UN states. This proposal does not make prositution illegal, it repeals an earlier UN proposal to make it legal. There are disadvantages to prostitution being made legal, and nations should be able to decide for themselves.

You join the UN to be screwed around with in a good way :P

"the "Legalize Prostitutipm" doesn't say that the government supports the building of brothels. It just says its allowed."

And that the International Body of the World supports it, and supports exploitation of young men and women who are in dire straits.

Rather, we should seek to eliminate the source of the problem, that being enabling jobs that do not need the exploitation of the body for all, stop the slave trade, etc.

Driving is legal.
Drinking alcohol is legal.
Why shouldn't drinking alcohol while driving be illegal?

Health and safety I wonder...

That is a very good point, and one that I'd like to see the opponents to the repeal address.


On another note, I know that there was a new (unrelated) abortion resolution waiting some time ago, but I wanted to ask if any nations currently have a working draft for a replacement here. If not, I'd like to see if perhaps Engineering chaos and others are interested in starting a new thread and talking about what we do want.

No it's not. Because no UN resolutions would be passed if we 'left it up to the nations to decide'.
Don't join the UN if you don't want your nation to be screwed around with.

Ha. Did anyone notice my play on words?
I guess not.
It's not exploitations, prostitution brings in alot of money, which they could put towards lots of stuff.

Desetica supports this resolution, and marvels at the close vote count.

Ben

The repeal is based on the premise of helping people be healthier, a premise attacked and easily dealt with many times.



Problems this can lead to:

1) Illegal Internation Sex Trade.

2) Abuse of people's civil rights because of their choice of employment.

3) Increased disease spread (some nations will illegalize it, meaning it is likely to go on underground and be unregulated)

4) Prostitution could end up being forcibly illegalized by the UN (well, there goes the free choice arguement).

Yes, there is danger from this one, and I'm not sure if I'm willing to accept it.

1) Illegal Sex Trade- As most know there are many nations that are not in the UN that UN members deal with and an illegal sex trade is very much still a possiblity. Also, if a nation wants to heavily tax prostitution (as the original resolution I believe states) then pimps and others might look for cheapest place etc. Finally on this point, if there are was and still is an increase of prostitution because legalization (as one would logically think would be the case) then the total market jumps up as well thus creating more chance of illegal affairs...where the money is, there will be more problems.
2)Abuse of Civil Rights- The original resolution did not state that prostitutes would be treated equal to other people in society. A government could in fact totally treat them like trash and just use them for money. Prostitutes also I'd imagine in most societies would not be loved by all, in fact I'd imagine it to be still a low brow job. This is also true in that the legal prostitution the orig. resolution states does not even speak of bill of rights for the prostitutes within the brothels. So, the idea of them being NOT totally degraded is not (and never was) the case.
3) Increased Disease Spread- If a businessman travels to 8 countries and all of them have prostitutes then comes back and well...he'll probably spread disease. I don't believe the original resolution (as has been stated) includes a list of health precautions. The idea that every country will have tons of prostitutes probably is increasing disease spread to...well every country (in the UN at least.)
4) Prostitution could be illegalized- when you DLE, tell me any situation were the UN (and their -sarcastic voice on-insano conservative doctrine of human rights and decaying all ethics ever held close to anyone) would pass a resolution banning prostitution...DLE, this is probably the most absurd point that can be made (look at this forum, look at the UN membership...it is not going to happen for a long while if then and oh what different game it would be).

Its so UNBEARABLY close. 20 in it.

International sex trade, anyone?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
OK!

Ooh, its a close race...tense!

The sometimes Commonwealth, really just enjoying the show government of Ile-Rien is selling box-office tickets to watch the increasing debate on the repeal of legalized prostitution! There will be vendors of all kinds (possibly prostitutes) and many advertising billboards up for use.

Watch the excitement! Feel the tension! See the politicians first debate, then argue, then scream, and go further down the path of violence! Hear the whirring of chainsaws and rat-tat-tat of assault rifles! Taste the blood splattering your suit!

Don't wait, phone (or buy online) today!

What the hell?

Markinland fully supports the repeal of Resolution #46. The United Nations should not be encouraging immoral activity which can lead to the spread of many diseases. Furthermore, violence against prostitutes (both male and female) is a huge problem in the world. Finally, the UN should not be infringing on individual states' sovereignty to make their own laws regarding prostitution. Prostitution should be strongly discouarged by this world body, and Markinland is confident that Resolution #46 will be repealed.

Votes For: 3,604

Votes Against: 3,605

Man, if you are stupid enough to keep protitution, then maybe you need to reconsider your life.

I support this resolution, Though the UN can and will meddle in the affiars of all nations, you need to ask "Should they be forcing this resolution?" Obviously if a resolution comes by that will improve civil rights for all or will improve the universe over-all the UN has the moral right to pass it.

But this is something that should be left up to individual nations, Prostitution goes against many religious beliefs of many people and some governments cannot in anyway controll it within their borders.

Man, if you are stupid enough to keep protitution, then maybe you need to reconsider your life.

Man, if I didn't want protitution so bad, I'd spell it right.
Again, if you don't want the UN screwing up your nation than leave until you are comfortable with the world.

Any latecomers to the debate:

Please note the closeness of the voting, and the 25 pages of contentious debate in the thread, and consider both sides before voting.

Also, you may wish to consider the character of the nation which proposed the repeal.

Votes For: 3,657

Votes Against: 3,625

*bites nails*
It's so close!
I can hardly wait, read the debate, don't be late!

Graceofseppuku: Master of the rhyme.

Well, I can't help but do it all the time.

nor do you seem to be unable to deem all those underneath you unclean.

:P

(j/k just needed to find soemthing to rhyme with )

I haven't deemed people underneath me unclean!
The people underneath me are my equals, I'm just right.

chill, mate, just rhyming to date, there is nothing here to defame or to relate!

(ill stop rhyming now :P)

And we should be talking about how we should all vote AGAINST or change your vote to AGAINST from for.

No, mate, you got it wrong, this forum is all about discussion.

(and changing your vote from against to FOR, or making your vote FOR in the first place.)

Touche!

Okay. Making big words isn't making our point, so lets have a rap off!

Or...

We should talk about reasons why instead of big words.

If not, I'd like to see if perhaps Engineering chaos and others are interested in starting a new thread and talking about what we do want.
I'm up for it. However I do have some exams this week and next for my degree so my imput would be limited by that, otherwise sure fire away and I shall add what I think.

Though we find prostitution to be a sad by product of society's inability to take care of it's own, we don't understand how anyone can desire to force another nation to outlaw something. Leave it up to us! stay out of our bedrooms!

Though we find prostitution to be a sad by product of society's inability to take care of it's own, we don't understand how anyone can desire to force another nation to outlaw something. Leave it up to us! stay out of our bedrooms!

I think there's a misunderstanding. The proposal is to stop the UN from legislating a universal outlaw or legalization, at least in its current form. If you're for the right of nations to make their own decisions in this matter, then you should vote FOR.

Though we find prostitution to be a sad by product of society's inability to take care of it's own, we don't understand how anyone can desire to force another nation to outlaw something. Leave it up to us! stay out of our bedrooms!

Even if this were the case, it's the UNs job to mess with society.
'You should quit the UN if you don't want it to meddle'.

This resolution intrigues me to no end. Obviously a divisive issue, the current vote as of this critique is 3,648 to 3,620. The early arguments - and the only ones I have the patience to go through - classify the argument of a possible health risk as nonexistent provided each nation has strict health regulations and manages that activity- apparently with its own funds. The other primary issue is that the repeal of the resolution might lead to a second resolution banning prostitution outright. The proponent of this amendment, PowerHungryChipmunks, and the negative, DemonLordEnigma, have engaged in a petty squabble that irritates me to no end, since it obscures the issue in a flurry of quotes and ridiculous insults. The "quote" function is a useful privilege, but when you use it more than seven times in a single post you should know you are abusing that privilege.

After very careful consideration and not a little skimming through the continued argumentation, I have decided to cast my ballot in support of the repeal. My reasons for this have to do with the lack of good argumentation against the repeal, but more specifically with these particular issues:

1) The "health threat" issue and the Social Contract theory
Governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens - often due to a restriction of natural rights - laws against killing, stealing, and so forth to restrict freedoms in the interest of protecting primary freedoms such as life. Forcing legalization on member nations erodes at their ability to do exactly this - forcing them to make a decision between reaping the benefits of the U.N. and correctly managing issues they believe might constitute a threat to their citizens security. Not all nations have the necessary economic or political power - or indeed, even the law enforcement - to influence the strict health regulations that prevent diseases from spreading. Such diseases are not to be taken lightly - they have devestated the populations of entire nations.

2) Banning prostitution
What does banning prostitution have to do with this debate? Nothing. The argumentation that this resolution will lead to a prostitution ban is what we refer to as a "slippery slope" argument, a logical fallacy at the very least. This resolution proposes taking an ambiguous resolution that forces legalization on all member nations and removing it. It does not uphold that prostitution is amoral or that any action should be taken to make it illegal. Instead, it leaves the choice to each nation in particular, which is overall a better method since the issue is so very contraversial. There is very impressive and logical argumentation for both sides, so therefore taking the issue on a situational, case-by-case basis is the better idea.

3) Wording of the resolution and repeal
This is an excellently drawn-out proposal repealing an ambiguous, poorly worded resolution that can easily be taken out of context. By removing the resolution, the board is opened for a better resolution regarding prostitution possibly including the required rhetoric to defeat the conflicting issues. The repeal implies no solid impacts or detriments, whereas the phrasing of the original resolution creates the serious problem of corruption due to misinterpretation of that resolution, going against the core ideals of the U.N.

For these specific reasons, I urge a vote in support of this repeal.

This resolution intrigues me to no end. Obviously a divisive issue, the current vote as of this critique is 3,648 to 3,620. The early arguments - and the only ones I have the patience to go through - classify the argument of a possible health risk as nonexistent provided each nation has strict health regulations and manages that activity- apparently with its own funds. The other primary issue is that the repeal of the resolution might lead to a second resolution banning prostitution outright. The proponent of this amendment, PowerHungryChipmunks, and the negative, DemonLordEnigma, have engaged in a petty squabble that irritates me to no end, since it obscures the issue in a flurry of quotes and ridiculous insults. The "quote" function is a useful privilege, but when you use it more than seven times in a single post you should know you are abusing that privilege.

After very careful consideration and not a little skimming through the continued argumentation, I have decided to cast my ballot in support of the repeal. My reasons for this have to do with the lack of good argumentation against the repeal, but more specifically with these particular issues:

1) The "health threat" issue and the Social Contract theory
Governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens - often due to a restriction of natural rights - laws against killing, stealing, and so forth to restrict freedoms in the interest of protecting primary freedoms such as life. Forcing legalization on member nations erodes at their ability to do exactly this - forcing them to make a decision between reaping the benefits of the U.N. and correctly managing issues they believe might constitute a threat to their citizens security. Not all nations have the necessary economic or political power - or indeed, even the law enforcement - to influence the strict health regulations that prevent diseases from spreading. Such diseases are not to be taken lightly - they have devestated the populations of entire nations.

2) Banning prostitution
What does banning prostitution have to do with this debate? Nothing. The argumentation that this resolution will lead to a prostitution ban is what we refer to as a "slippery slope" argument, a logical fallacy at the very least. This resolution proposes taking an ambiguous resolution that forces legalization on all member nations and removing it. It does not uphold that prostitution is amoral or that any action should be taken to make it illegal. Instead, it leaves the choice to each nation in particular, which is overall a better method since the issue is so very contraversial. There is very impressive and logical argumentation for both sides, so therefore taking the issue on a situational, case-by-case basis is the better idea.

3) Wording of the resolution and repeal
This is an excellently drawn-out proposal repealing an ambiguous, poorly worded resolution that can easily be taken out of context. By removing the resolution, the board is opened for a better resolution regarding prostitution possibly including the required rhetoric to defeat the conflicting issues. The repeal implies no solid impacts or detriments, whereas the phrasing of the original resolution creates the serious problem of corruption due to misinterpretation of that resolution, going against the core ideals of the U.N.

For these specific reasons, I urge a vote in support of this repeal.


Whee!

First, submit a new, better resolution, then repeal the old one, where no one will care.
How about that?
We care if there's nothing!
We don't care if we scrap an old one!

Secondly, we use the quote function more than once in an attempt to make it easier for people to see to what we are reffering.

Thridly, just because you denounced the use of petty insults, doesn't mean you won't get some yourself.
Not from me, because I'm just crazy.

Fourthly, I think a screening process to apply to be a prostitute would not be out of the reach of most nations.

And that's how I denounced your post by using one quote.

Whee!

First, submit a new, better resolution, then repeal the old one, where no one will care.
How about that?


That is a violation of game rules. See the second Global Library thread that Great Agnostica started on Thursday. Great Agnostica wanted to write a resolution to repeal his nation's Global Library resolution and the Most Glorious Hack (a game moderator) pointed out that you must first repeal a resolution before even submitting a new one.

Failure to follow the UN rules may be responded to be the mods issuing a warning.

Anyway, the point behind the repeal has been to build something better. We can't do that right now.

Okay, okay.

First WRITE the better thing.
Then REPEAL the bad one.
Then SUBMIT the better thing.

Therefore, just repeal the damn thing and get a better one!

I refuse to repeal it until we HAVE a better one written.

Just finish the repeal first, you have ALL the time in the world to make another one.

And, may I be the first to say, that was one of the best written pieces I have read yet Pojona. It was brilliant.

Just finish the repeal first, you have ALL the time in the world to make another one.

And, may I be the first to say, that was one of the best written pieces I have read yet Pojona. It was brilliant.

*cough* *cough*

But then who knows what might get passed?!
We might actually have to leave it up to the UN nations!
They can't handle it!
We need something written before this is repealed.
And besides, if it's not repealed, we also have all the time in the world.

Health Risk My Ass!!!
Prostitutes Know To Hand Out Condoms When They Fuck!!!!

Health Risk My Ass!!!
Prostitutes Know To Hand Out Condoms When They F***!!!!

Can somebody else take this please?
Aw what the hell, I'll do it.

1. Unless you consider having children a health risk, condoms don't stop it.
2. There's not a health risk because you can screen prostitutes before they get the job.

Jeez. Learn to express your emotions better, like not capitalizing every word.

But then who knows what might get passed?!We might actually have to leave it up to the UN nations!
They can't handle it!
We need something written before this is repealed.
And besides, if it's not repealed, we also have all the time in the world.

Arent you a UN nation?

Of course I am.
The point of the UN is to control our nations to a very high extent.
So, what I'm saying is that the resolution needs to stay because we can't handle it and I think it's within the UN's jurisidiction to do so, which it is.

So, essentially, you like being bossed around. :P

No, essentially, I joined the UN to boss people around.

Encouraging prostitution by condoning it is nothing something the Nation of Vinelight is prepared to do. Both this nation and our region's delegate support this resolution.

Encouraging prostitution by condoning it is nothing something the Nation of Vinelight is prepared to do. Both this nation and our region's delegate support this resolution.

Okay thanks for sharing something we don't care about unless you tell us
What is your region?
Nothing something?
That doesn't make sense no yes?
And we're encouraging the economy to grow and STD's to go down, not encouraging perse.

Voted FOR.

It's always been illegal in my country, and I really do not give a crap what the UN says I can do about.

Why the heck would anybody vote against it?

1) The "health threat" issue and the Social Contract theory
Governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens - often due to a restriction of natural rights - laws against killing, stealing, and so forth to restrict freedoms in the interest of protecting primary freedoms such as life. Forcing legalization on member nations erodes at their ability to do exactly this - forcing them to make a decision between reaping the benefits of the U.N. and correctly managing issues they believe might constitute a threat to their citizens security. Not all nations have the necessary economic or political power - or indeed, even the law enforcement - to influence the strict health regulations that prevent diseases from spreading. Such diseases are not to be taken lightly - they have devestated the populations of entire nations.

2) Banning prostitution
What does banning prostitution have to do with this debate? Nothing. The argumentation that this resolution will lead to a prostitution ban is what we refer to as a "slippery slope" argument, a logical fallacy at the very least. This resolution proposes taking an ambiguous resolution that forces legalization on all member nations and removing it. It does not uphold that prostitution is amoral or that any action should be taken to make it illegal. Instead, it leaves the choice to each nation in particular, which is overall a better method since the issue is so very contraversial. There is very impressive and logical argumentation for both sides, so therefore taking the issue on a situational, case-by-case basis is the better idea.

3) Wording of the resolution and repeal
This is an excellently drawn-out proposal repealing an ambiguous, poorly worded resolution that can easily be taken out of context. By removing the resolution, the board is opened for a better resolution regarding prostitution possibly including the required rhetoric to defeat the conflicting issues. The repeal implies no solid impacts or detriments, whereas the phrasing of the original resolution creates the serious problem of corruption due to misinterpretation of that resolution, going against the core ideals of the U.N.

For these specific reasons, I urge a vote in support of this repeal.

100% Agree with that post.

Voted FOR.

It's always been illegal in my country, and I really do not give a crap what the UN says I can do about.

Why the heck would anybody vote against it?
Hmmm.
Some people might look at the vote totals so far and think, "wow! that's surprising! maybe there's something wrong with this proposal that isn't obvious at first glance. I'd better go read the discussions about it before voting."

Then one of those people might see a thread 27 pages long and at least skim through the arguments to see why so many people voted against the proposal, and why it's contentious enough to warrant 27 pages of debate.

Some people might, but apparently not you.

Stankystan has voted favourably to the repeal.

Our government and myself think prostitution does more harm than good to the people. Therefore we will never legalize it in our country. With or without UN's consent. Period.


No, essentially, I joined the UN to boss people around.

Make bigger efforts because... you're doing a lousy job. :rolleyes:

Hmmm.
Some people might look at the vote totals so far and think, "wow! that's surprising! maybe there's something wrong with this proposal that isn't obvious at first glance. I'd better go read the discussions about it before voting."

Then one of those people might see a thread 27 pages long and at least skim through the arguments to see why so many people voted against the proposal, and why it's contentious enough to warrant 27 pages of debate.

Some people might, but apparently not you.

So it's more of a human nature problem? I see...

The "quote" function is a useful privilege, but when you use it more than seven times in a single post you should know you are abusing that privilege.

1) The "health threat" issue and the Social Contract theory
Governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens - often due to a restriction of natural rights - laws against killing, stealing, and so forth to restrict freedoms in the interest of protecting primary freedoms such as life.

3) Wording of the resolution and repeal
This is an excellently drawn-out proposal repealing an ambiguous, poorly worded resolution that can easily be taken out of context. By removing the resolution, the board is opened for a better resolution regarding prostitution possibly including the required rhetoric to defeat the conflicting issues. The repeal implies no solid impacts or detriments, whereas the phrasing of the original resolution creates the serious problem of corruption due to misinterpretation of that resolution, going against the core ideals of the U.N.

For these specific reasons, I urge a vote in support of this repeal.

I have to say this is one of the most sensible posts I've seen here.

I've trimmed some of Pojonia's post, but wanted to reiterate three points:

- I too find a point by point quote / rebuttal argument to really be counterproductive, though I've learned to just skip over most of those styles of posts.

- The Social Contract ... now that sounds like real world political science entering in here. :)

- I 100% agree.

Stankystan has voted favourably to the repeal.

Our government and myself think prostitution does more harm than good to the people. Therefore we will never legalize it in our country. With or without UN's consent. Period.




Make bigger efforts because... you're doing a lousy job. :rolleyes:


Meh. You know, you can't always win. But if one side stopped trying, they'rd be no point in life. If everyone always veiwed the same, it wouldn't get anything different. I'm not bossing people around you realize?
It was a joke you realize?
Sometimes, you need to cast aside morals to see what'll do good.

1) Illegal Sex Trade- As most know there are many nations that are not in the UN that UN members deal with and an illegal sex trade is very much still a possiblity. Also, if a nation wants to heavily tax prostitution (as the original resolution I believe states) then pimps and others might look for cheapest place etc. Finally on this point, if there are was and still is an increase of prostitution because legalization (as one would logically think would be the case) then the total market jumps up as well thus creating more chance of illegal affairs...where the money is, there will be more problems.

If it is a legal occupation, then doing the simple job of creating a few regulations on it helps. Have your police do their job on it and your government pass a few simple laws.

To be honest, that arguement is easily used for banning governments as well. If you're not willing to take the chance of having to deal with problems, then NS is not your game.

2)Abuse of Civil Rights- The original resolution did not state that prostitutes would be treated equal to other people in society. A government could in fact totally treat them like trash and just use them for money. Prostitutes also I'd imagine in most societies would not be loved by all, in fact I'd imagine it to be still a low brow job. This is also true in that the legal prostitution the orig. resolution states does not even speak of bill of rights for the prostitutes within the brothels. So, the idea of them being NOT totally degraded is not (and never was) the case.

The original resolution doesn't have to state this. The other resolutions the UN passed also cover prostitution. You must remember the resolutions are intended to work together.

3) Increased Disease Spread- If a businessman travels to 8 countries and all of them have prostitutes then comes back and well...he'll probably spread disease. I don't believe the original resolution (as has been stated) includes a list of health precautions. The idea that every country will have tons of prostitutes probably is increasing disease spread to...well every country (in the UN at least.)

The original resolution didn't state a lot of things. Guess what? Other UN resolutions did state about disease.

Try using the resolutions as a whole instead as totally separate entities.

4) Prostitution could be illegalized- when you DLE, tell me any situation were the UN (and their -sarcastic voice on-insano conservative doctrine of human rights and decaying all ethics ever held close to anyone) would pass a resolution banning prostitution...DLE, this is probably the most absurd point that can be made (look at this forum, look at the UN membership...it is not going to happen for a long while if then and oh what different game it would be).

Actually, it's very easy to illegalize it once it is repealed. All I have to do is write up some health resolution and include it at the bottom or somewhere in the middle. The average UN member doesn't read the entire thing anyway, and most don't read past the title if they bother to read any part of it at all. I've demonstrated in the past, and I can provide a link to it, how easy it would be to ban something by attaching it as part of a resolution. And while this board would actually read the resolution being voted on, you must remember this board is not even a tiny part of the UN. If I wanted to, I could push through a resolution that bans nukes by hiding it in a resolution they would pass, despite the fact the UN opposes the banning of nukes in general.

You have to keep in mind that all it takes it one person to realize how easy it is and this to be repealed for it to suddenly become illegal.

Actually, it's very easy to illegalize it once it is repealed. All I have to do is write up some health resolution and include it at the bottom or somewhere in the middle. The average UN member doesn't read the entire thing anyway, and most don't read past the title if they bother to read any part of it at all. I've demonstrated in the past, and I can provide a link to it, how easy it would be to ban something by attaching it as part of a resolution. And while this board would actually read the resolution being voted on, you must remember this board is not even a tiny part of the UN. If I wanted to, I could push through a resolution that bans nukes by hiding it in a resolution they would pass, despite the fact the UN opposes the banning of nukes in general.

You have to keep in mind that all it takes it one person to realize how easy it is and this to be repealed for it to suddenly become illegal.

Actually no, it would not be easy at all for a proposal writer to illegalize prostitution. Right now, the voters FOR this proposal, mostly, are people against prostitution and people in favor of national sovereignty. And it is, with these drawn lines, really tight. A proposal to outlaw prostitution would be supported only by those against prostitution. There would not be much support, if any. It might not make it to quorum, even with an aggressive telegram campaign. And it definitely wouldn't pass through the general UN vote.

Actually no, it would not be easy at all for a proposal writer to illegalize prostitution. Right now, the voters FOR this proposal, mostly, are people against prostitution and people in favor of national sovereignty. And it is, with these drawn lines, really tight. A proposal to outlaw prostitution would be supported only by those against prostitution. There would not be much support, if any. It might not make it to quorum, even with an aggressive telegram campaign. And it definitely wouldn't pass through the general UN vote.

Which brings up the fact that UN members don't have national sovereignty.

Which brings up the fact that UN members don't have national sovereignty.

Ah, but they do. The "Rights and Duties of the UN" (paraphrased) states that UN nations have sovereignty in every issue except those specifically precluded by UN resolution. We're just arguing that, given either the diverse nature of prostitution/medical circumstances or the quality of the current resolution's approach, this should not be a protected-from-national-sovereignty area.

Actually no, it would not be easy at all for a proposal writer to illegalize prostitution. Right now, the voters FOR this proposal, mostly, are people against prostitution and people in favor of national sovereignty. And it is, with these drawn lines, really tight. A proposal to outlaw prostitution would be supported only by those against prostitution. There would not be much support, if any. It might not make it to quorum, even with an aggressive telegram campaign. And it definitely wouldn't pass through the general UN vote.

Try reading it again. You have to consider I'm taking into account the fact most members won't read the entire thing. If I really wanted to hide it, I'd make a long list of items midway through the proposal and stick nuclear weapons or prostitution towards the back of the list. Very few people would notice.

You have to keep in mind I'm someone who has drafted a proposal before that would trick the UN into banning nukes by convincing them to limit the use of weapons that can blow up planets.

This needs to be passed. Prostitution is a question of morals, and its wrong to impose it on member nations who do not desire it. PROSTITUTION NEEDS TO BE REPEALED. I'm tired of this crap where a bunch of atheist idiots who think they know everything decide what is best for everyone. They are as bad as the religious fanatics they mock.

Which brings up the fact that UN members don't have national sovereignty.

And this mentality makes it that way. Maybe they would have it if nations like your own weren't so oppressive.

This needs to be passed. Prostitution is a question of morals, and its wrong to impose it on member nations who do not desire it. PROSTITUTION NEEDS TO BE REPEALED. I'm tired of this crap where a bunch of atheist idiots who think they know everything decide what is best for everyone. They are as bad as the religious fanatics they mock.

Congrats. You managed to use morals in an arguement as though everyone shares your moral code (they don't) while posting flames and flamebait.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has voted for the repeal of this resolution. First off we never liked the prostitution resolution from the beginning as it required us to create some clever laws in order to continue to not have any legal prostitution in our nation. While these laws probably will remain on our books we would like the decision on this issue to be returned to where it belongs, to the individual nations.

And this mentality makes it that way. Maybe they would have it if nations like your own weren't so oppressive.

The mentallity stems from the FAQ saying the UN is a place where you can try to force your will onto others by getting the majority to agree with you. Pretty much, you signed away your sovereignity and must deal with what privilages the UN allows you.

This needs to be passed. Prostitution is a question of morals, and its wrong to impose it on member nations who do not desire it. PROSTITUTION NEEDS TO BE REPEALED. I'm tired of this crap where a bunch of atheist idiots who think they know everything decide what is best for everyone. They are as bad as the religious fanatics they mock.

Don't be dragging religon into this.
Just forget about that.
Use facts, don't mock atheists for mocking religous fanatics.

And Powerhungry Chipmuncks, by joining the UN you are saying you are sussceptable to anything passed. Therefore, the UN has semi-direct control over your nation.

This isn't a fair vote, because we got a higher male population than female population in NS, and that means that every teen male will be voting "NO" because he wants to do it with a hooker without getting arrested.

Votes For: 3,920

Votes Against: 4,120

[And this is why no one wants to be in the UN, just leave the UN before it becomes more corrupt. I am not going back to the UN as it is almost as corrupt as it is in real life]

I think prostitution is not possible to regulate, it is always a free for all buisness of pure captialistic ideals, this not like other industries, it is like the drug industry, the government, no matter how oppressive or communist or socialistic the government is, you can almost stop it, you just cannot regulate it.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has voted for the repeal of this resolution. First off we never liked the prostitution resolution from the beginning as it required us to create some clever laws in order to continue to not have any legal prostitution in our nation. While these laws probably will remain on our books we would like the decision on this issue to be returned to where it belongs, to the individual nations.

The UN decided it didn't belong in the hands of the individual nations, and the majority of the UN agreed. Thus, you got your right to make it officially illegal taken away from you because a democratic vote decided you didn't need it. Ain't democracy grand?

Also, PC has raised a serious question on whether or not the resolution even makes prostitution legal.

This isn't a fair vote, because we got a higher male population than female population in NS, and that means that every teen male will be voting "NO" because he wants to do it with a hooker without getting arrested.

But everybody voting is a president/dictator, so they can already get it free, because politics works that way

Thus, you got your right to make it officially illegal taken away from you because a democratic vote decided you didn't need it. Ain't democracy grand?
Our laws clearly state the prostitution is legal only in government approved brothels, of which there are none because no one who has ever tried to open one has ever managed to meet all of our requirements. They usually fail to meet the last one which is, to get our Grand Poobah to visit it and give it his seal of approval. He has never done that primarily because he is happily married and doesn't want to find out what would happen if his wife found out that he had visited one.

So technically it is legal, but there are no locations for it to occur legally.

Our laws clearly state the prostitution is legal only in government approved brothels, of which there are none because no one who has ever tried to open one has ever managed to meet all of our requirements. They usually fail to meet the last one which is, to get our Grand Poobah to visit it and give it his seal of approval. He has never done that primarily because he is happily married and doesn't want to find out what would happen if his wife found out that he had visited one.

So technically it is legal, but there are no locations for it to occur legally.

In...your nation?
That doesn't hardly even apply here.

[And this is why no one wants to be in the UN, just leave the UN before it becomes more corrupt. I am not going back to the UN as it is almost as corrupt as it is in real life]

The real UN is powerless. This one is what it would be if it had power. Besides, this is actually a pretty accurate model of why democracies don't work very well in real life.

I think prostitution is not possible to regulate, it is always a free for all buisness of pure captialistic ideals, this not like other industries, it is like the drug industry, the government, no matter how oppressive or communist or socialistic the government is, you can almost stop it, you just cannot regulate it.

Wanna bet? I require all prostitutes to have licenses. Those are free of charge, which makes them cheaper than driver's licenses are, and are legal forms of ID. I then put health regulations on them and require checkups every so often (quite often, actually). The police goo around, check the prostitutes, ask about when they had their last checkup, and arrest those who have broken the law. Considering the very large amount of police officers I employ combined with the fact the military helps, I have no problem hitting every prostitute in DLE in under two hours. To top it all off, I have a law that states any prostitute who has not had their regular checkup is automatically quarantined, and in DLE breaking quarantine is punishable by death as soon as you are discovered. Any caught with STDs are also quarantined while investigations happen.

To make it more fun, add in medical research into special contraceptives, disease control methods, and new types of vaccines that rely on hostile viruses helping the body instead of harming it by targetting invading viruses.

So, yes, I can and do regulate it. Also, Thailand (IIRC) is a real-life nation that successfully regulates prostitution.

The mentallity stems from the FAQ saying the UN is a place where you can try to force your will onto others by getting the majority to agree with you. Pretty much, you signed away your sovereignity and must deal with what privilages the UN allows you.

The FAQ states NOTHING about nations forfeiting their national sovereignty once they join the United Nations. This is a stale argument that nations like yourself have used time after time to restrict the rights of other nations, to further your own left-wing agenda. The fact that people buy this garbage astounds me.

What the FAQ basically says is, you can try to mold the United Nations to your vision, but it's a double-edged sword; meaning issues will get passed that you don't like. I'm guessing this is where you got the idea that national soveriegnty doesn't apply in the UN; nations are forced to enforce resolutions they may not like. Well, this is amended with the repeal system. If their national sovereignty is being encroached on in a tremendously negative manner (like this legalise prostitution resolution is doing), they can repeal it on that basis.

The members of the United Naions WOULD have national sovereignty if idiotic legislation like this legalise prostitution resolution didn't get passed.

Your Tax Dollars Are Being Wasted Ruining Citizens Lives Instead of fighting real crime

While most all Western and many other countries have more reasonable laws regarding sexual pleasure, in the U.S. we are faced with moralists imposing their values on other people. If they can't reach us by knocking on our doors and preaching, then they will instead enact laws to prevent us from doing what they secretly wish they could. We oppose laws that violate our freedom as consenting adults to in private share intimacy and pleasure.

It is long overdue for private consenting adult prostitution to be decriminalized in the U.S. There are millions of sexworkers in the U.S. who enjoy their profession and the largest risk is not bad clients, not STD's since most insist on safe sex, but the law enforcement stings wasting resources on morality crimes with no victims.

Prostitution fills a vital role in our society by addressing the sexual and emotional needs of men and women, and by providing high paying employment options to women and men who wish to provide sexual services.

People in a free society have the right to work in their chosen profession, and to do with their own bodies as they so choose. Likewise, all citizens have the right to engage in consensual adult sexual contact.

Criminalization of private adult prostitution is wrong. Almost all the rest of the world realizes this, and the U.S. is one of the few countries were private sexwork is illegal.

Decriminalize Private Adult Sexwork Coalition (http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/index.html)

U.S. may have to decriminalize prostitution per U.N. Treaty

If the U.S. Senate passes the UN Convention the was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly and has been signed by 165 countries this could force the U.S. to acknowledge voluntary prostitution is a legal women’s choice as well as a women’s right to choose of abortion. If passed the U.S. would have to accept these human rights as the treaty provides.

http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/untreaty.html

The FAQ states NOTHING about nations forfeiting their national sovereignty once they join the United Nations. This is a stale argument that nations like yourself have used time after time to restrict the rights of other nations, to further your own left-wing agenda. The fact that people buy this garbage astounds me.

Excuse me for laughing. You see, I didn't state in the section you quoted that it did. If you are going to make that statement, use a quote from me that actually has what you are saying in it.

Also, I want evidence to support the idea I have a left-wing agenda and am not just looking out for myself. If you can't find any, then I want you admit that your allegation is baseless and that you were wrong in making it or for you to not bother replying.

Now, if you don't mind, my nation's dictator has something to declare illegal just because he can.

What the FAQ basically says is, you can try to mold the United Nations to your vision, but it's a double-edged sword; meaning issues will get passed that you don't like. I'm guessing this is where you got the idea that national soveriegnty doesn't apply in the UN; nations are forced to enforce resolutions they may not like. Well, this is amended with the repeal system. If their national sovereignty is being encroached on in a tremendously negative manner (like this legalise prostitution resolution is doing), they can repeal it on that basis.

Tell me: If you have to obey the will of the majority, and the majority is passing items that take away your right to choose in some areas, where is your national sovereignity really at? The reality of the situation is you only have what the majority allows you to have, which is not sovereignity of any sort.

Also, if national sovereignity were such of a real issue, then why have none of the repeals that mention it really made it to quorum? The one that passed was based around the idea that the UN body was being forced to obey something the majority didn't pass while this one relies on health issues even in the one instance it shows any glimmer of being on the sovereignity side. That shows that the repeals the UN is willing to vote on have nothing to do with national sovereignity.

The members of the United Naions WOULD have national sovereignty if idiotic legislation like this legalise prostitution resolution didn't get passed.

No, the UN would have national sovereignity if it didn't have so many resolutions that dictate what nations must do or the ability to defy the resolutions. It has those resolutions and doesn't have the option of defying them.

Your Tax Dollars Are Being Wasted Ruining Citizens Lives Instead of fighting real crime

While most all Western and many other countries have more reasonable laws regarding sexual pleasure, in the U.S. we are faced with moralists imposing their values on other people. If they can't reach us by knocking on our doors and preaching, then they will instead enact laws to prevent us from doing what they secretly wish they could. We oppose laws that violate our freedom as consenting adults to in private share intimacy and pleasure.

It is long overdue for private consenting adult prostitution to be decriminalized in the U.S. There are millions of sexworkers in the U.S. who enjoy their profession and the largest risk is not bad clients, not STD's since most insist on safe sex, but the law enforcement stings wasting resources on morality crimes with no victims.

Prostitution fills a vital role in our society by addressing the sexual and emotional needs of men and women, and by providing high paying employment options to women and men who wish to provide sexual services.

People in a free society have the right to work in their chosen profession, and to do with their own bodies as they so choose. Likewise, all citizens have the right to engage in consensual adult sexual contact.

Criminalization of private adult prostitution is wrong. Almost all the rest of the world realizes this, and the U.S. is one of the few countries were private sexwork is illegal.

Decriminalize Private Adult Sexwork Coalition (http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/index.html)

U.S. may have to decriminalize prostitution per U.N. Treaty

If the U.S. Senate passes the UN Convention the was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly and has been signed by 165 countries this could force the U.S. to acknowledge voluntary prostitution is a legal women’s choice as well as a women’s right to choose of abortion. If passed the U.S. would have to accept these human rights as the treaty provides.

http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/untreaty.html

Uh, that's real life and not NS. Also, the US has told the UN to shove its dictates before and won't hesitate to do so again.

The FAQ states NOTHING about nations forfeiting their national sovereignty once they join the United Nations. This is a stale argument that nations like yourself have used time after time to restrict the rights of other nations, to further your own left-wing agenda. The fact that people buy this garbage astounds me.

What the FAQ basically says is, you can try to mold the United Nations to your vision, but it's a double-edged sword; meaning issues will get passed that you don't like. I'm guessing this is where you got the idea that national soveriegnty doesn't apply in the UN; nations are forced to enforce resolutions they may not like. Well, this is amended with the repeal system. If their national sovereignty is being encroached on in a tremendously negative manner (like this legalise prostitution resolution is doing), they can repeal it on that basis.

The members of the United Naions WOULD have national sovereignty if idiotic legislation like this legalise prostitution resolution didn't get passed.

While the FAQ does not explicitly say so, UN Members DO voluntarily resign some of their national soverignty to join the UN, in that the UN has the right to unilaterally enact new laws in member states. It may not amount to much of a loss, but it is still a loss.

Excuse me for laughing. You see, I didn't state in the section you quoted that it did. If you are going to make that statement, use a quote from me that actually has what you are saying in it.

Also, I want evidence to support the idea I have a left-wing agenda and am not just looking out for myself. If you can't find any, then I want you admit that your allegation is baseless and that you were wrong in making it or for you to not bother replying.

You're a smarmy fuck. Now go scuttle off to the mods and tell them what I've said.

While the FAQ does not explicitly say so, UN Members DO voluntarily resign some of their national soverignty to join the UN, in that the UN has the right to unilaterally enact new laws in member states. It may not amount to much of a loss, but it is still a loss.

First, this is essentially correct.

But I wanted to point out that how you've stated it here versus how some of those other kids (who also engage in tossing disgruntled former UN ambassadors out of windows) are two completely different views.

This is a much better way to state it, but in reality, it seems like we are constantly avoiding talking about issues and just arguing over a couple of paragraphs that Max wrote just to get the ball rolling.

When players say, "Well you don't know jack! If you had the read the UN FAQ you'd see how ignorant you are." they are basically attempting to flame and discredit another player. We really need to put a stop to this.

I've done it in the past, and I stopped long ago as I noticed the number of players spending time in this forum was dropping.

Part of the reason there are so many flames now is in part related to the lack of diverse view points. We've said it all time and time again.

The irony here, is in most all of the Model UNs I've been in, instead of arguing about a stupid FAQ the debate is about sovereignty with respect to the UN Charter. At least in that case, the arguments are about a document that was designed to address the issue.

I'd like to suggest that Frisbeeteria's "Rights and Duties of UN States" was actually designed with roleplaying and bickering over sovereignty in mind. It is the most underrated resolution in the game, because it represents both points of view. At least by shifting the arguments to that, it may help establish UN continuity and really engage both sides in really wondering why the UN is here for.

That is at least my suggestion.

You're a smarmy fuck. Now go scuttle off to the mods and tell them what I've said.

Seeing as you seem incapable of behaving, you will remain banned from this forum until voting on the current resolution has ended.






http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/EyeOfMyrth.jpg
Myrth
The Eye of Myrth is upon thee
Forum Moderator

Quote (Originally Posted by Roma Islamica)
This needs to be passed. Prostitution is a question of morals, and its wrong to impose it on member nations who do not desire it. PROSTITUTION NEEDS TO BE REPEALED. I'm tired of this crap where a bunch of atheist idiots who think they know everything decide what is best for everyone. They are as bad as the religious fanatics they mock.


(Answer By DLE)
Congrats. You managed to use morals in an arguement as though everyone shares your moral code (they don't) while posting flames and flamebait.


Reply by Sarcodina:
I just wanted you to note how wrong you are in the interpretation of the post by Roma Islamica and how it reflects you idealogy amongst other things. RI stated "a question of morals" not what kind of morals. He is simply stating that it is up to nations to decide morality. Then he obviously showed his views by saying "atheist idiots". But, the fact that you
a) don't share his moral code
b) think you know everything
c) FOR EXAMPLE BELIEVING THAT AN ANTI-PROSTITUTION RESOLUTION WOULD PASS THE UN (do you ever take the time to look at former resolutions)
d) Supported expensive resolutions like the aids and library but not a repeal (which is just to not force people to do anything) of prostitution...
You are a left-wing atheist who believes he knows what he is talking about all the time. Though it is your right to hold the idealogy, it is very absurd of you to act so self-assuring. I respect you willingness to find the negatives of proposals etc...but please stop hiding your agenda and stop being such an egocentric.

Also the fact that the UN must force a nation to not follow its moral code is a moral code. And the right to speak about morality (though it is quite unproductive) is a right for UN nations to use.

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.
Just because the resolution will be repealed, doesn't mean that it will make prostitution illegal. All that it will do is allow nations to choose for themselves, rather than have people force them to legalize it.

Uh, that's real life and not NS. Also, the US has told the UN to shove its dictates before and won't hesitate to do so again.
Uh, you missed the boat on that one.

An interesting and informative post it was, too; I had no idea.

No, the US could safely enact it and then say it's a states rights issue and the federal government has no jurisdiction. So Nevada could keep its legalized prostitution and Utah could keep its prohibition and sex-starved guys from Utah would still just drive over the border...

I just wanted you to note how wrong you are in the interpretation of the post by Roma Islamica and how it reflects you idealogy amongst other things. RI stated "a question of morals" not what kind of morals. He is simply stating that it is up to nations to decide morality.

I misinterpreted nothing. He felt the need to bring up a moral question. Well, one aspect of morality is whether or not nations should be allowed to vote on it. Not everyone shares his moral code in that nations should be allowed to decide, and there is even a split among them as to how the nations should be forced to go. Little secret: Never bring up morality on a forum where you have people who have explored it in arguements many times before.

Then he obviously showed his views by saying "atheist idiots".

Which is a flame of some people on this forum and flamebait. Notice I said nothing to the mods about it.

But, the fact that you
a) don't share his moral code

Actually, you don't know what moral code I have. I post with a combination of IC and OOC without telling you which is which. ICly, I'm an athiest who has no problems with prostitution. OOCly, I'm a Roman Catholic who is very opposed to the issue. On here, I let the athiest IC show as primary due to it being more acceptable.

b) think you know everything

Prove it. I want you to post links to every post I have ever made on these forums. If in any post I have admitted to not knowing enough on the issue or being wrong, then your allegation is false. If you are unwilling to do that, then this is obviously not a fact and you owe me an apology.

c) FOR EXAMPLE BELIEVING THAT AN ANTI-PROSTITUTION RESOLUTION WOULD PASS THE UN (do you ever take the time to look at former resolutions)

This entire thread is about pro-prostitution vs. anti-prostitution. And let's not forget this repeal started out in the lead and maintained it for quite awhile. Even now, 4005 of the 8182 people who have voted have voted in support of this repeal. Also, notice the following:

You have to consider I'm taking into account the fact most members won't read the entire thing. If I really wanted to hide it, I'd make a long list of items midway through the proposal and stick nuclear weapons or prostitution towards the back of the list. Very few people would notice.

I removed the first sentence that really added nothing to the statements made.

In that I am explaining that it is a case where I am tricking the UN if I bothered to try it. Now, if I can figure out how easily that is to do just by watching the UN and asking around, how hard is it for someone actually wishing to make prostitution illegal to create a proposal that tricks the UN into making it such? If you wish, I can post a link to the draft I created that showed how easy it is to create a case where you are distracting people from something similar.

d) Supported expensive resolutions like the aids and library but not a repeal (which is just to not force people to do anything) of prostitution...

Actually, if you bothered to read the threads on the issue, I was adamantly opposed to the Library. I'm one of the ones who made a major effort to point out flaws and technological problems.

You are a left-wing atheist who believes he knows what he is talking about all the time.

Where is your proof for this? All I see are baseless accusations that don't even match up with the facts easily found on this forum.

Though it is your right to hold the idealogy, it is very absurd of you to act so self-assuring. I respect you willingness to find the negatives of proposals etc...but please stop hiding your agenda and stop being such an egocentric.

I haven't ever hid my agenda. It is people who accuse me of having a different agenda than what my real one is that hide it for me. In fact, I've stated my agenda on here so many times that only someone who is guilty of not bothering to find the facts to back up accusations of what my agenda is could get it wrong.

Also the fact that the UN must force a nation to not follow its moral code is a moral code. And the right to speak about morality (though it is quite unproductive) is a right for UN nations to use.

Speaking about morality gets little respect here for a reason. Also, that first part is exactly my point when I said that not everyone follows that poster's moral code.

Uh, you missed the boat on that one.

How? This is a question of curiousity, as I'm wondering how I got wrong on this one.

An interesting and informative post it was, too; I had no idea.

But, how relevant is it? I don't know of any nations in NS that actually follow that model of dealing with their internal region separations.

How? This is a question of curiousity, as I'm wondering how I got wrong on this one.


Thought I explained that. It isn't a dictate, anyway.

How many posts per page on these forums? Is it time to do a new top of form post?

Try reading it again. You have to consider I'm taking into account the fact most members won't read the entire thing. If I really wanted to hide it, I'd make a long list of items midway through the proposal and stick nuclear weapons or prostitution towards the back of the list. Very few people would notice.

You have to keep in mind I'm someone who has drafted a proposal before that would trick the UN into banning nukes by convincing them to limit the use of weapons that can blow up planets.

Thanks for the concern, but I read it perfectly fine the first time. The fact still stands that an "outlaw prostitution" proposal would have less support than a "nationalize the decision of prostitution" proposal, top to bottom, regardless of how much people read of the proposals.

Excuse me for laughing.
Ain't democracy grand?
I misinterpreted nothing.
I removed the first sentence that really added nothing to the statements made.
if you bothered to read the threads on the issue,
PC has raised a serious question on whether or not the resolution even makes prostitution legal.

Heck, I can just stop posting altogether; you and Vastiva are doing an excellent job of mobilizing my base.

Thought I explained that. It isn't a dictate, anyway.

Not in a way I found to be actually explaining why. And if I get something wrong, I do appreciate a correction.

Thanks for the concern, but I read it perfectly fine the first time. The fact still stands that an "outlaw prostitution" proposal would have less support than a "nationalize the decision of prostitution" proposal, top to bottom, regardless of how much people read of the proposals.

If you read it just fine, then why are you assuming that's what it would appear to be about? Hell, I posted the following:

All I have to do is write up some health resolution and include it at the bottom or somewhere in the middle.

That should make it obvious it's to trick people.

Heck, I can just stop posting altogether, you and Vastiva are doing an excellent job of mobilizing my base.

And your base is being shot down. Also, your fourth quote is wrong. Post it in its entirety as I wrote it if you want to use it in those posts.

Finally, I should note I've admitted to being egotistical. But the comment on not reading the threads is legitimate.

If you read it just fine, then why are you assuming that's what it would appear to be about? Hell, I posted the following:

-snip-

That should make it obvious it's to trick people.


I really don't have time to discuss with you the groups of people that vote on proposals and the reasons for their votes. Obviously, I believe it'd be a little harder to trick the UN population than you do. Perhaps we can share our different perspectives later.


And your base is being shot down.

Just what I was looking for...

Also, your fourth quote is wrong. Post it in its entirety as I wrote it if you want to use it in those posts.

Er, no. I used the respectful journalistic standard of only subsituting in words, to add context, using brackets. I see no problem with it.

Thanks for the concern, but I read it perfectly fine the first time. The fact still stands that an "outlaw prostitution" proposal would have less support than a "nationalize the decision of prostitution" proposal, top to bottom, regardless of how much people read of the proposals.








Heck, I can just stop posting altogether; you and Vastiva are doing an excellent job of mobilizing my base.

All your base are belong to us, Chipmunks.

And, on the other side, DLE, you're being a teensy bit snotty.
But that's all I've got there.
But, I've also got to say people don't seem to understand no matter how many times I say, its not up to individual nations, it's up to the UN, so actually start arguing facts, and not yelling at each other with snotty remarks, *cough* DLE/Chipmunks *cough* because it doesn't help either side, though people already know what side I'm on by now.

Any latecomers to the debate:

Please at least skim through the many pages of animated discussion before casting your vote. There are reasons this proposal is contentious enough to provoke a debate thread this long, and to be so closely balanced in the voting thus far.

You might also want to consider the character of the nation which proposed the resolution...

Wow. That seemed unbiased, but it wasn't.

Wow. That seemed unbiased, but it wasn't.
thank you.

Any latecomers to the debate:

Please at least skim through the many pages of animated discussion before casting your vote. There are reasons this proposal is contentious enough to provoke a debate thread this long, and to be so closely balanced in the voting thus far.

Well, they don't have to. If there's someone just coming to the forum with a question answered previously I'd be ecstatic to respond again.

The main misconceptions I can clear up right now:

This proposal does NOT outlaw prostitution.

This proposal does NOT legalize prostitution.

This proposal is based on the idea that, in this issue, the UN hasn't taken enough circumstances into consideration to universally legislate. At best, I feel the proposal is a misplacement of UN legislative power. At worst, it's just a waste of paper as it "doesn't do anything".

I plead that you vote FOR. Be it that you have an STD crisis in your coutnry, that you want to outlaw what you see as an immoral practice, or you, like me, want to clean up previous resolutions.

Please vote FOR.

Thank you for your time.

Well, they don't have to. If there's someone just coming to the forum with a question answered previously I'd be ecstatic to respond again.

The main misconceptions I can clear up right now:

This proposal does NOT outlaw prostitution.

This proposal does NOT legalize prostitution.

This proposal is based on the idea that, in this issue, the UN hasn't taken enough circumstances into consideration to universally legislate. At best, I feel the proposal is a misplacement of UN legislative power. At worst, it's just a waste of paper as it "doesn't do anything".

I plead that you vote FOR. Be it that you have an STD crisis in your coutnry, that you want to outlaw what you see as an immoral practice, or you, like me, want to clean up previous resolutions.

Please vote FOR.

Thank you for your time.

No, that makes me think you just want them to see your side and not theirs.
You're not being objectionable *tsk tsk*
Also, you didn't say that by being in the UN you don't have sovergeinty either.

No, that makes me think you just want them to see your side and not theirs.
You're not being objectionable *tsk tsk*
Also, you didn't say that by being in the UN you don't have sovergeinty either.

I'm interested in the proposal passing. I view these things this way. I'm just trying to express my opinion and educate people of "my side".

And nations do have sovereignty. No they can't just ignore resolutions. Yes, they can decide to outlaw red sweatshirts. They have sovereignty in areas not explicitly expressed as the UN's domain. This is a proposal to define the UN's domain slightly differently.

Wow. So let's not.
By joining the UN you have made the choice to listen to it, therefore there is nothing that the UN doesn't have a reason to decide on.

Wow. So let's not.
By joining the UN you have made the choice to listen to it, therefore there is nothing that the UN doesn't have a reason to decide on.

I don't mean that the UN can't decide on certain issues. I mean that with regard to issues the UN hasn't decided upon, nation's have full sovereignty. Nations do have sovereignty in certain areas. Just because the UN decides restrictions to that sovereignty doesn't mean nations don't have it. Having sovereignty over a land, I beleive, is the definition of a 'state'.

Yes, joining the UN means you'll abide by their resolutions. But this is the appointed way of going about to change those resolutions. The fact that we have to do what the UN says has nothing to do with us deciding what the UN says--through this vote.

Did everyone just see the FOR count jump 700 some votes, or is it just me? *falls over*

I really don't have time to discuss with you the groups of people that vote on proposals and the reasons for their votes. Obviously, I believe it'd be a little harder to trick the UN population than you do. Perhaps we can share our different perspectives later.

Agreed. You have a forum in mind?

Just what I was looking for...

Ego at it's finest is that quote you were looking for. At least I resisted using that horrid joke about bases made so famous a few years back.

Er, no. I used the respectful journalistic standard of only subsituting in words, to add context, using brackets. I see no problem with it.

Except the way you quoted it, you made it look like I was telling him I removed a first sentence from his quote when I was removing it from mine. Besides, I've always found that journalism part to be a bit annoying.

All your base are belong to us, Chipmunks.

Okay, I swear I'm going to discover time travel just so I can go back in time and erase that from existance. Now, I just need a degree in physics, quantum physics, nuclear physics...

And, on the other side, DLE, you're being a teensy bit snotty.

:Thumbs nose while sticking out tongue and crossing eyes:

But, I've also got to say people don't seem to understand no matter how many times I say, its not up to individual nations, it's up to the UN, so actually start arguing facts, and not yelling at each other with snotty remarks, *cough* DLE/Chipmunks *cough* because it doesn't help either side, though people already know what side I'm on by now.

Actually, stop and look behind the surface. You'll see that just beneath the surface ego we are actually touching on the resolution. PC has been replying to arguements I have made with arguements about them and I have been replying to his with arguements about his. It's still quite on the topic. I do happen to find the personal attacks made a bit back by others to be amusing, but totally ineffective in actually doing anything.

Also, it's not his job to be objectional. It's his job to convince people to vote in support of his repeal.

You might also want to consider the character of the nation which proposed the resolution...

Okay, this annoys me enough I'm going to take PC's side in response to that comment.

You got evidence to support that implication? If so, post it.

Agreed. You have a forum in mind?



Ego at it's finest is that quote you were looking for. At least I resisted using that horrid joke about bases made so famous a few years back.



Except the way you quoted it, you made it look like I was telling him I removed a first sentence from his quote when I was removing it from mine. Besides, I've always found that journalism part to be a bit annoying.



Okay, I swear I'm going to discover time travel just so I can go back in time and erase that from existance. Now, I just need a degree in physics, quantum physics, nuclear physics...



:Thumbs nose while sticking out tongue and crossing eyes:



Actually, stop and look behind the surface. You'll see that just beneath the surface ego we are actually touching on the resolution. PC has been replying to arguements I have made with arguements about them and I have been replying to his with arguements about his. It's still quite on the topic. I do happen to find the personal attacks made a bit back by others to be amusing, but totally ineffective in actually doing anything.

Also, it's not his job to be objectional. It's his job to convince people to vote in support of his repeal.



Okay, this annoys me enough I'm going to take PC's side in response to that comment.

You got evidence to support that implication? If so, post it.


I know you are touching on the resolution, but it would be easier just to come out and say it rather than tearing down each other.
And all your base are belong to us makes a point.

Chipmunks is right that we, the member nations, decide what is and isn't in the NSUN's jurisdiction.

I'd hate to see this repeal passed, as it would enable religious moralists (like Chipmunks, I believe, even if he won't admit it) to kill or impoverish millions of young women and weaken the NSUN's programs against STD's.

Legalized prostitution was an excellent and necessary idea. That's why the resolution passed in the first place.

Powerhungry Chipmunks' arguments in the last few pages I consider disingenuous and refutations of what he explained his reasons to be earlier.

Chipmunks is right that we, the member nations, decide what is and isn't in the NSUN's jurisdiction.

I'd hate to see this repeal passed, as it would enable religious moralists (like Chipmunks, I believe, even if he won't admit it) to kill or impoverish millions of young women and weaken the NSUN's programs against STD's.

Legalized prostitution was an excellent and necessary idea. That's why the resolution passed in the first place.

Powerhungry Chipmunks' arguments in the last few pages I consider disingenuous and refutations of what he explained his reasons to be earlier.

Yay! Now you're completely biased!

I know you are touching on the resolution, but it would be easier just to come out and say it rather than tearing down each other.
And all your base are belong to us makes a point.

In what way have we really torn each other down? The snide comments are par for the course when you are dealing with big egos.

Why are you people against this proposal, just because joining the UN means that you're supposed to listen to it? This proposal increases the freedom of the UN nations to do what they want. It doesn't force anyone to do anything. I wasn't here when the proposal was made, so I don't have to abide by it though. Hahaha.

Agreed. You have a forum in mind?

I'm not sure. Perhaps once this'n is passed or failed we can just use this thread. We can share our observations and maybe discuss the strategies of overcoming weaknesses. I'm testing out a few new theories in the general vote right now, I'd like to hear what you think.



Except the way you quoted it, you made it look like I was telling him I removed a first sentence from his quote when I was removing it from mine. Besides, I've always found that journalism part to be a bit annoying.

Hm, I think I was wrong. I thought you were objecting to me changin around articles/pronouns. I guess I ought to reread the quote in question as I seem to misunderstood it and have changed around the wrong articles/pronouns. I'll change it back to the original text.

In what way have we really torn each other down? The snide comments are par for the course when you are dealing with big egos.

I suppose. Still, wouldn't it be nicer to just deflate each other's egos nice and slow?

Why are you people against this proposal, just because joining the UN means that you're supposed to listen to it? This proposal increases the freedom of the UN nations to do what they want. It doesn't force anyone to do anything. I wasn't here when the proposal was made, so I don't have to abide by it though. Hahaha.

*whack* that doesn't make you still shouldn't care! *see below* and you're also wrong alot too!

Why are you people against this proposal, just because joining the UN means that you're supposed to listen to it?

Actually, yes.

This proposal increases the freedom of the UN nations to do what they want.

The repeal itself doesn't state that.

It doesn't force anyone to do anything.

So what?

I wasn't here when the proposal was made, so I don't have to abide by it though. Hahaha.

:Adds another name to the extremely long list of people who didn't read the FAQ:

If you're in the UN, you do.

Yay! Now you're completely biased!
I was in the first place.

I've said all along that prostitution is a good thing for everyone involved - as long as that everyone doesn't include pimps because it's been made illegal and the girls need organized crime to protect them.

When everything is above board and legal, prostitution provides a lot of benefits for the women. They make enough money to put themselves through school, they broaden their horizons by meeting men they couldn't have by other means, and yes, it is a fun lifestyle - a party all night, every night!

I hold no truck with anyone who thinks there are valid reasons to make prostitution illegal.

I was in the first place.

I've said all along that prostitution is a good thing for everyone involved - as long as that everyone doesn't include pimps because it's been made illegal and the girls need organized crime to protect them.

When everything is above board and legal, prostitution provides a lot of benefits for the women. They make enough money to put themselves through school, they broaden their horizons by meeting men they couldn't have by other means, and yes, it is a fun lifestyle - a party all night, every night!

I hold no truck with anyone who thinks there are valid reasons to make prostitution illegal.

Hold no truck?
Everything made sense except that last sentence.
Namely, the beggining of the last sentance.
And, I guess I should have realized that, but I didn't.

You might also want to consider the character of the nation which proposed the resolution...


Okay, this annoys me enough I'm going to take PC's side in response to that comment.

You got evidence to support that implication? If so, post it.
Were this one of the less genteel forums I usually inhabit, I would suggest that you do your own homework.

If the name suggests nothing to you, if the fact that PC has changed his arguments over the course of this thread from "prostitution is wrong" to "the original resolution was poorly worded", you might try...

oh, nevermind. I would suggest that you do your own homework.

So what?

Suppose we made a resolution to make it illegal, and it passed. Then will you be saying so what? No you'll complain that we're forcing you to do something you don't want. Acticing like this is both hipocritical and cynical. Think before you say anything, because your not tyhe only smart-ass out there.

Hold no truck?
Everything made sense except that last sentence.
Namely, the beggining of the last sentance.
And, I guess I should have realized that, but I didn't.
*sigh* 30 seconds and google...

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/22/messages/860.html

I'm not sure. Perhaps once this'n is passed or failed we can just use this thread. We can share our observations and maybe discuss the strategies of overcoming weaknesses. I'm testing out a few new theories in the general vote right now, I'd like to hear what you think.

That would be interesting. It could lead to a standard method of campaigning and other methods of gaining votes that is more accurate than the hit-or-miss systems already in place.

Hm, I think I was wrong. I thought you were objecting to me changin around articles/pronouns. I guess I ought to reread the quote in question as I seem to misunderstood it and have changed around the wrong articles/pronouns. I'll change it back to the original text.

My only objection was how it appeared. It was one of those rare times when I think the confusion was caused by me forgetting to cite it when quoting myself, which I normally do.

I suppose. Still, wouldn't it be nicer to just deflate each other's egos nice and slow?

In the end, both sides should walk away with egos pretty much intact and willing to move on to the next topic. To be honest, I don't care how egotistical a person is if they are willing to at least listen to the opposite side and admit when they are wrong. On quite a few occasions I've admitted my lack of knowledge on a subject or that I had been disproven.

Suppose we made a resolution to make it illegal, and it passed. Then will you be saying so what? No you'll complain that we're forcing you to do something you don't want. Acticing like this is both hipocritical and cynical. Think before you say anything, because your not the only smart-ass out there.


So, we should all be smart asses and piss each other off?
No, we should just let DLE and PC go at it, let new nations post that they don't think the UN should have a say in it, and laugh at them, and, for some reason, I think DLE would be FORCED to argue his old points.
Denouncing smart asses while trying to be one is also a very, very bad tatic.

Did everyone just see the FOR count jump 700 some votes, or is it just me? *falls over*
Pixiedance voted for it, and by default threw all 700 votes from The North Pacific in favor of it. Unless the members vote independently, I think.

Seems to us that this repeal would not allow legalized prostitution in any UN nation. The orginal act doesn't require prostitution in any state. It allows for a system of legailzed prostitution. The repeal would enact a ban that is based not on a desire to help nation's manage health, but on a moral position that may not be shared by other nations.

This is a trojan horse repeal that is will hurt 1) healthcare, by deregulating prostitution, 2) economies, from the loss of taxable income, 3) legal systems, by the creation of new mafias and crime families, 4) liberties, by taking the choice of whether to legalize prostitution out of the people's hands.

In fact PC, for the good of all involved,you should withdraw this repeal.

Pixiedance voted for it, and by default threw all 700 votes from The North Pacific in favor of it. Unless the members vote independently, I think.

He's a puppet master of the Pacific!
The pied piper of the Pacific!
The...other cliche of the Pacific!

Damn.

Were this one of the less genteel forums I usually inhabit, I would suggest that you do your own homework.

If the name suggests nothing to you, if the fact that PC has changed his arguments over the course of this thread from "prostitution is wrong" to "the original resolution was poorly worded", you might try...

oh, nevermind. I would suggest that you do your own homework.

I do my own homework. But if I'm going to ask that people who make accusations against me at least be willing to back up their arguements, I must be fair and ask the same of people on my side when accusing the other.

Suppose we made a resolution to make it illegal, and it passed. Then will you be saying so what? No you'll complain that we're forcing you to do something you don't want. Acticing like this is both hipocritical and cynical. Think before you say anything, because your not tyhe only smart-ass out there.

Resolutions I opposed but which still passed:

Rights of Minorities and Women (already covered)
The Eon Convention on Genocide (switched sides mid-debate)
The Global Library (technologically impossible)

The resolutions I actually complain about:

Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (before my time)
Elimination of Bioweapons (originally supported, came to oppose after it was passed)
Sustainable Energy Sources (time between accounts, often proposed by newbs)

Hmm. Odd.

Seems to us that this repeal would not allow legalized prostitution in any UN nation. The orginal act doesn't require prostitution in any state. It allows for a system of legailzed prostitution. The repeal would enact a ban that is based not on a desire to help nation's manage health, but on a moral position that may not be shared by other nations.

This is a trojan horse repeal that is will hurt 1) healthcare, by deregulating prostitution, 2) economies, from the loss of taxable income, 3) legal systems, by the creation of new mafias and crime families, 4) liberties, by taking the choice of whether to legalize prostitution out of the people's hands.

In fact PC, for the good of all involved,you should withdraw this repeal.

Umm...you're mostly right, execpt repealing the Act doesn't put a ban on it.

and, for some reason, I think DLE would be FORCED to argue his old points.

I don't always argue my old points. Sometimes I just tell them to read the thread.

Yeah, yeah.
But you wouldn't want to fall into the hypocrit trap.

On the bright side, I just noticed that almost every delegate I telegrammed yesterday asking them to change their vote to "no" did so.

I am most certainly not recommending a spamming campaign of any sort against pixiedance - I nicely asked him/her to reconsider his/her vote and to study the issue and this thread carefully.

Seems to us that this repeal would not allow legalized prostitution in any UN nation. The orginal act doesn't require prostitution in any state. It allows for a system of legailzed prostitution. The repeal would enact a ban that is based not on a desire to help nation's manage health, but on a moral position that may not be shared by other nations.

This is a trojan horse repeal that is will hurt 1) healthcare, by deregulating prostitution, 2) economies, from the loss of taxable income, 3) legal systems, by the creation of new mafias and crime families, 4) liberties, by taking the choice of whether to legalize prostitution out of the people's hands.

In fact PC, for the good of all involved,you should withdraw this repeal.

Actually, no. The original proposal requires prostitution in all UN member nations.

I, for one, hope this gets shot down. In the name of human rights, the current Resolution has to be upheld.

It would help if you say why. If you haven't noticed, you're not going to get anywhere by saying "I hope."

And besides, if this gets shot down there's no need for pimps, so I suggest you change that.

Wow. There's nothing for me to quote and make fun of right now.
I think I'll just watch the votes.
VOTE AGAINST!

Wow. There's nothing for me to quote and make fun of right now.
I think I'll just watch the votes.
VOTE AGAINST!

No wise-cracks? This isn't like you.
^
stupid random (insane, even) retorts

No wise-cracks? This isn't like you.

I wouldn't call them wise cracks.
I'd call them stupid random (insane, even) retorts

I wouldn't call them wise cracks.
I'd call them stupid random (insane, even) retorts

Yeah I agree, I better change the post.

And thats a night. TTY2M Seppuku (Annoy Midden for me).

VOTE YES!
VOTE YES!
VOTE YES!
VOTE YES!

No DLE reports? No PC reports?
What's going on?!

It would help if you say why. If you haven't noticed, you're not going to get anywhere by saying "I hope."

And besides, if this gets shot down there's no need for pimps, so I suggest you change that.

I can't change the moniker Jolt gives me for going over 1,000 posts- at least, not that I am aware of.

Anyhow, I've explained my reasoning earlier in the thread:



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.

On the bright side, I just noticed that almost every delegate I telegrammed yesterday asking them to change their vote to "no" did so.

I am most certainly not recommending a spamming campaign of any sort against pixiedance - I nicely asked him/her to reconsider his/her vote and to study the issue and this thread carefully.
As it turns out, Pixiedance is a shell anyway. She reportedly recently gave control of her country to Pierconium.

I can't change the moniker Jolt gives me for going over 1,000 posts- at least, not that I am aware of.

Anyhow, I've explained my reasoning earlier in the thread:

Yeah, I agree with that...I think.

As it turns out, Pixiedance is a shell anyway. She reportedly recently gave control of her country to Pierconium.

So, that means that a huge amount of power isn't even in the delegate's hands?
We are a sad, sad race.

So, that means that a huge amount of power isn't even in the delegate's hands?
We are a sad, sad race.

It means that the delegate of the North Pacific is being controlled by a different "government" than before. A puppet if you will.

I'm not sure what to make of it, but my government has been reading the discussions on the West and North Pacific forums. I'd encourage others to visit the sites as well.

I just wanted to post my thoughts. The main reason for legalizing prostitution is that it makes sense. We will not be able to stop it and by legalizing it we will be able to regulate it. This will help us ensure that disease is not spread. It will also allow prostitutes to be able to form unions to make sure that they are treated as working adults and not sex slaves. To repeal this act would be taking a step back for individual rights and healthcare.

I just wanted to post my thoughts. The main reason for legalizing prostitution is that it makes sense. We will not be able to stop it and by legalizing it we will be able to regulate it. This will help us ensure that disease is not spread. It will also allow prostitutes to be able to form unions to make sure that they are treated as working adults and not sex slaves. To repeal this act would be taking a step back for individual rights and healthcare.

Yeah! A new nation that makes sense!

Yeah, yeah.
But you wouldn't want to fall into the hypocrit trap.

I'm the one who enjoys setting it up.

No DLE reports? No PC reports?
What's going on?!

I do have other things to deal with at the moment.

I'm the one who enjoys setting it up.



I do have other things to deal with at the moment.

*gasp* We all have lives!
*goes to alert the media*

*gasp* We all have lives!
*goes to alert the media*

:Shoots the media from a distance using an experimental rifle for future use in DLE, killing them all quite easily:

:Shoots the media from a distance using an experimental rifle for future use in DLE, killing them all quite easily:

You got the media!
<sarcasm>How will we know anything!</sarcasm>

It means that the delegate of the North Pacific is being controlled by a different "government" than before. A puppet if you will.

I'm not sure what to make of it, but my government has been reading the discussions on the West and North Pacific forums. I'd encourage others to visit the sites as well.
The number of independent tie-ins to this game continually astound me.

So, is there anything to be done about it, or is this fair gameplay?
It just seems wrong, somehow, that all those people endorsed Cathy and are now having their votes cast by someone else.

For a thread this serious, we're having entirely too much fun.

The number of independent tie-ins to this game continually astound me.

So, is there anything to be done about it, or is this fair gameplay?
It just seems wrong, somehow, that all those people endorsed Cathy and are now having their votes cast by someone else.

Nope, there is nothing we can do.
Well, it depends, is the nation that is controlling it in the UN? If it is, we can report them to the mods, but that's about it.

For a thread this serious, we're having entirely too much fun.

It's never too much fun until someone gets hurt.

It's never too much fun until someone gets hurt.

:Points at the dead media bodies:

You don't call that hurt?

:Points at the dead media bodies:

You don't call that hurt?

*shrug* I didn't know them personally.

What are the other super-regions in this game?

What are the other super-regions in this game?
Some of the Pacific ones...
(Quick question: How many posts until you can give yourself a custom title?)

After a hiatus to accomplish some more mundane activities I return to this board to find that someone has already articulated my position very well. Thank you to Pojonia for you intelligent, logical, and calm comments on this issue.

Reading through the posts there are a variety of arguments that consistently seek to distract the reader from the point of the resolution. I don't know anything regarding the motives of the writers or of any particular persons agenda. However, I do understand what the well written resolution does say.

Regardless of what tangent someone wants to argue, all the resolution does is repeal a mandatory law that is applicable to everyone. Those with legalized prostitution will continue to do so. Those who do not wish it, for whatever reason, will not. Arguments about health, cost, international sex trade, and economics to name a few, are interesting but do not address the essential point which is allowing choice for each nation. Those who want to address the issue on moral grounds can do so. Those that want to address the issue on economic or health reasons can do so also.

The current resolution eliminates all choice and forces an arbitrary and controversial action upon everyone. Yes, I do not think this rises to the level of an international crisis. I know this is not the real world but even in here I am sure there are economic, social justice, military, and political issues that dwarf who gets to have sex with whom for how much and whether it is legal.

Roman3282 from the Nation of Samsonish

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? --from the original

Someone show me where this original act requires prostitution? It seems to me that the act simply opens the door to allow prostitution in member nations. It doesn't require it, though.

Umm...you're mostly right, execpt repealing the Act doesn't put a ban on it.

OK. I see this point, but I also think,based on the rhetoric (if it be called so) by PC indicates that his next step will be to ban prostitution.

Actually, no. The original proposal requires prostitution in all UN member nations.

See above.