NationStates Jolt Archive

You see I wont, unless this doesn't pass, because I have this thing about trying to change things that I feel are wrong and harm myself and others. I'm not a quiter like most people, if I was I'd be dead right now. I have this funny thing about not giving up, I guess it comes from being born not breathing, or being born with MD, or by growing up being locked out by others, or going through serious depression and other things you dont believe in. If i'm going to survive all I have, I'm going to use my life to change as much as I can, whether it's going to college (full paid), writting (being published in 4 books this year) or getting Eagle Scout at 13 or giving my life to minister to people like you. I dont quit, I dont leave, I dont give up. It's simply not in me. I believe what I believe and I have my convictions and I'll die before I turn my back on them or my Savior.

Great, we don't care.

As much as I'd LOVE to hear about your problems, just saying why you think it's immoral would suffice.

Look a the societies today, and which ones are still standing? The ones who have some morals and do not let harmfull and sick practices run rampant. Which survived, the Third Reich and the USSR or the UK and the US, who up untill a few years ago at least held to some of the morals and values that they were founded upon. Which lasted longer, the Japanese empire or the Roman one? One that had strict codes of honor and morals, or the one that let all kinds of sins corrupt their society? Look at the nation of Israel, they have a history going back over 6 millinia, and they survived as a relatively small people because they held to morals and ideals that kept them from following the doom of the other nations around them that no longer exist. A lack of morals and lawlesnes leads to destruction and suffering, that is what history shows.

First of all, having a "moral" society does not make a nation last longer- a good government does. The Mughal Empire, one of the most tolerant nations in world history, barely last 200 years as a major power- and that was mainly because the Mughals' only really challenger were the British, who took them apart as if they were nothing.

Second of all, a lot of your comparisons are irrelevant. First of all, Japan has not been around longer than Rome- the real power in the state (the Emperor under the Constitutional Monarchy) has only been around for 150 years or so, and the Roman Empire in the entire Mediterranean lasted for 600 years, a feat of continuous rule no one has ever matched (technically speaking, Rome lasted for 2100 years, and I could argue that it never really fell). Second of all, sticking with Japan and Rome: the two nations are so far apart geographically and so far removed culturally and historically that it doesn't make sense to compare the two. The Romans and Japanese probably never knew the other existed, plus the threats and peoples they came across were radically different. You'd be better off comparing the Romans to the Greeks or the Parthians, or the Japanese with the Chinese- at least both knew of each other and had extensive contacts with them.

Furthermore, regarding your comparisons: Israel has seen a myraid of people rule it for thousands of years, and the Jews only came back to Israel recently (they were dispersed in AD 70 after the Romans destroyed the Temple, travelling all over Europe). The state of Israel has only been in existence since 1948. Plus, no state today- bar the British and French, but even then it's questionable- has survived more than 300 years, and none have ever been powerful for more than 100. Plus, several moralistic and tolerant nations have failed to survive- the Mughal Empire, for example, lasted as a major power for only 200 years, and that's only because their first real threat- Britain- didn't appear until the 1700s, where they proceeded to pick them apart. The point is that good government- not morals- allows a nation to survive.

That makes sense, y'know.
Therefore, prostitution will HELP the government, so vote AGAINST.
I'm like a propaganda loudspeaker, but less fun to throw rocks at.

That makes sense, y'know.
Therefore, prostitution will HELP the government, so vote AGAINST.
I'm like a propaganda loudspeaker, but less fun to throw rocks at.

I dont get how you come up with these things, like a lack of morals will make your government last longer, and your not caring about anything along the lines of another person's trials does not speak well for your side. Also, the Japanese empire, not the one now, was one of the longest lasting empires, Rome was constantly changing rulers and systems of government, often only a few years apart. as for the rest of this argument I'm through, I've said what I've wanted to say, and yet you are as stupid and ignorant as when I came, but when I came the vote was over 200 more against than for, and it's now over 800 more for than against, so perhaps I did some good.

I might just try a few stones if you'd like, I was offered a full ride to two other school to pitch, being a southpaw and all.

I dont get how you come up with these things, like a lack of morals will make your government last longer, and your not caring about anything along the lines of another person's trials does not speak well for your side. Also, the Japanese empire, not the one now, was one of the longest lasting empires, Rome was constantly changing rulers and systems of government, often only a few years apart. as for the rest of this argument I'm through, I've said what I've wanted to say, and yet you are as stupid and ignorant as when I came, but when I came the vote was over 200 more against than for, and it's now over 800 more for than against, so perhaps I did some good.

I might just try a few stones if you'd like, I was offered a full ride to two other school to pitch, being a southpaw and all.

There you go, talking about yourself again.
*snaps fingers* REMEMBER! RESOLUTION!
So if you'd say what you liked to say, please leave us alone.
After you throw some rocks.
I'm due in for some irrational pain.

This isn't the only job for poor people. You can't regulate this. Anyone who voted to keep it is not very smart...or for lack of a better word: idiot.

Look, I've already stated that I believe prostitution should be internationally legalized because I fear that many, many nations will not replace this economic loss to the poor with the things that are necessary to help them avoid prostitution in the first place: improved education, better medicare coverage, and more effective social welfare. If this proposal is passed, then only the most uncaring, cruel nations could possibly vote against a proposal demanding international, stricter standards for those things. If this proposal does not pass, however, I swear I will immediately propose international laws for keeping this business sanitary and safe.

You can regulate prostitution if it is legal, by forcing them to comply with gov't requirements before they can even open a business. Force them to give the prostitutes excellent healthcare coverage, or better yet, have the government provide healthcare for everyone, and if they refuse, then don't allow them to have a business. It would work similar to the way restaurants work regarding Health Inspectors.

The argument that is immoral, although in my opinion not a valid one, seems to be a big part of this feud. The fact is, that it's immoral to steal jobs from people who need them, and give no help in return. I ask that people strongly consider the following before they finalize their vote: Legal or not, prostitution will exist. It's up to you whether it is to continue as an unsafe industry, or a safer, healthier one. For those whos concern is not health related, but more so monetary, consider the fact that legal prostitution would bring more money into the economy, while illegal prostitution would not. For those who consider it a moral issue, consider the fact that whether it's legal or not, much can still be done to prevent it from becoming a major industry,namely by helping the poor all you can, and asking, no, demanding a better educational system that is accessible to the poor, along with better welfare.

Doing my best not to sound melodramatic, the choice is up to you. You can help, or you can hinder, either by voting for or against this proposal. Understand though, that more can be accomplished for your nation's economy and the impoverished if prostitution remains legal.

If this proposal passes, as it seems it will, we all must join together, those for this proposal and those against it, and fight for a better chance for the poor, so they will not have to resort to prostitution, legal or illegal.

This isn't the only job for poor people. You can't regulate this. Anyone who voted to keep it is not very smart...or for lack of a better word: idiot.

*gasp*
You're the person who I had to talk slowly to, lemme try to say this again.

INSULTING PEOPLE IS BAD. Can you say, disrespectful?

Also, the Japanese empire, not the one now, was one of the longest lasting empires, Rome was constantly changing rulers and systems of government, often only a few years apart. as for the rest of this argument I'm through, I've said what I've wanted to say, and yet you are as stupid and ignorant as when I came, but when I came the vote was over 200 more against than for, and it's now over 800 more for than against, so perhaps I did some good.

First of all, if you want to debate, debate fairly. I don't take kindly to your little potshots.

Second of all: again, Japan vs. Rome is irrelevant. They are two worlds apart. Plus, the Chinese exerted direct influence on Japan- the Romans were influenced by no one (the Romans dominated their world for 600 years, which no one else has ever done, and the Japanese were overshadowed by the Chinese for over a thousand years). Furthermore, Japan's history is filled with division- it did not have one continuous state on the islands (effectively).

First of all, if you want to debate, debate fairly. I don't take kindly to your little potshots.

Second of all: again, Japan vs. Rome is irrelevant. They are two worlds apart. Plus, the Chinese exerted direct influence on Japan- the Romans were influenced by no one (the Romans dominated their world for 600 years, which no one else has ever done, and the Japanese were overshadowed by the Chinese for over a thousand years). Furthermore, Japan's history is filled with division- it did not have one continuous state on the islands (effectively).

Well, don't you think the Romans stole the idea of Togas from the Greeks?

Does anything I say mean anything to anyone?

Does anything I say mean anything to anyone?

If you have the sufficent funds.

Okay, really, uh...what do you mean?

While your discussion on the Bible was interesting, it was also irrelevant. Most of the Bible versions around today are nothing more than rehashed of the KJV with a few words and maybe a phrase or two changed.

Keep in mind if you are going to use the Bible, specify a part you are talking about or be prepared for it to come around and bite you. And even then, it may anyway.

I dont get how you come up with these things, like a lack of morals will make your government last longer, and your not caring about anything along the lines of another person's trials does not speak well for your side.

It's a case of morals against practicality. Morals are nice, but they don't stop the populous from overthrowing you and replacing you with someone they like more if they are starving. Just ask the French Royal Family in real life.

Also, the Japanese empire, not the one now, was one of the longest lasting empires, Rome was constantly changing rulers and systems of government, often only a few years apart.

Actually, the Romans lasted longer. What you are speaking about is internal stability, not actual time of lasting.

as for the rest of this argument I'm through, I've said what I've wanted to say, and yet you are as stupid and ignorant as when I came, but when I came the vote was over 200 more against than for, and it's now over 800 more for than against, so perhaps I did some good.

Flaming. Feel glad I'm in a mood not to turn you in.

I might just try a few stones if you'd like, I was offered a full ride to two other school to pitch, being a southpaw and all.

Not impressed.

I don't know how to quote, but anyway, Ciata said the following:

I dont get how you come up with these things, like a lack of morals will make your government last longer, and your not caring about anything along the lines of another person's trials does not speak well for your side.

No, the point isn't that a lack of morals makes your government last longer. Everyone knows that morals are important, I guarantee that nearly every modern nation has/had them: even the Soviet Union! The Soviet Union had one of the lowest crime rates in the world, because they killed or imprisoned anyone who murdered or stole, etc. Prostitution was not legal under Soviet Rule,and thanks to the fact that prostitutes were shunned, regulations were not put into place, and that those who were exploited had no other way out, AIDS is spreading rapidly in Russia!

Punishing those who murder and steal is moral, isn't it? Morals are present in every society, it's when you stop thinking and never question your morals that they become harmful. Those who are against prostitution have no reason to go to a brothel, so why should it matter if they're there?

I don't know how to quote, but anyway, Ciata said the following:

I dont get how you come up with these things, like a lack of morals will make your government last longer, and your not caring about anything along the lines of another person's trials does not speak well for your side.

No, the point isn't that a lack of morals makes your government last longer. Everyone knows that morals are important, I guarantee that nearly every modern nation has/had them: even the Soviet Union! The Soviet Union had one of the lowest crime rates in the world, because they killed or imprisoned anyone who murdered or stole, etc. Prostitution was not legal under Soviet Rule,and thanks to the fact that prostitutes were shunned, regulations were not put into place, and that those who were exploited had no other way out, AIDS is spreading rapidly in Russia!

Punishing those who murder and steal is moral, isn't it? Morals are present in every society, it's when you stop thinking and never question your morals that they become harmful. Those who are against prostitution have no reason to go to a brothel, so why should it matter if they're there?

I believe it has something to do with the people's sake.
I'm not against it, so I couldn't give you a good answer.

Well for the peoples sake, help them out of poverty and give them better benefits!

Well for the peoples sake, help them out of poverty and give them better benefits!

Amen to that!
...Where's the opposition...
Are they sleeping?

We NEED prostitution. It boosts so many private incomes. :eek: :fluffle: :headbang: :sniper:

Guys, the income horse is dead. You can keep flogging it as much as you want, but that's not going to make it get and miraclously (sp?) finish the race.

Well, don't you think the Romans stole the idea of Togas from the Greeks?

The Romans "stole" (if you will) most of their culture from the Greeks- they simply renamed the Greek gods and figures, and some not very creatively (Odysseus=Ulysses, Herakles=Hercules). What I was talking about is politically- the Romans dominated the Mediterranean world, *their* world, for 600 years. No one state has ever managed a period of domination for that long.

Guys, the income horse is dead. You can keep flogging it as much as you want, but that's not going to make it get and miraclously (sp?) finish the race.

Damn it income horse!
LIVE DAMMIT LIVE!

Guys, the income horse is dead. You can keep flogging it as much as you want, but that's not going to make it get and miraclously (sp?) finish the race.

Because we still have today.

Guys, the income horse is dead. You can keep flogging it as much as you want, but that's not going to make it get and miraclously (sp?) finish the race.

Not true. Three Pacific delegates have not voted on it and can still turn the tide.

Not true. Three Pacific delegates have not voted on it and can still turn the tide.

The West Pacific is probably going to double the lead of the "For Camp" at a guess :]

Well, at first glance, it doesn't strike me that Lake Lanier would approve of the Resolution. Plus, I remain positive.

...and don't you endorse him?

Not true. Three Pacific delegates have not voted on it and can still turn the tide.

I was talking about a specific type of arguement people keep bringing up. If it's not going to work by page 50, it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion the arguement is dead and you should let it rest.

Also, I checked the votes of the regions. 1 Infinite Loop's region is, from what I can tell, going to go in favor of this repeal. That leaves two.

Well there's really nothing else to argue. The truth is the truth.

There is actually plenty to argue. On the first few pages is enough evidence from the author to completely sabotage this if TGed to certain people.

I went straight to the delegates- I'm not going to join their forums as I'm not in their region.

Well, at first glance, it doesn't strike me that Lake Lanier would approve of the Resolution. Plus, I remain positive.

...and don't you endorse him?

I do. But the tradition is the Current Delegate of the West Pacific holds a poll on the meeting board, and he has to vote as the poll dictates. And the poll is way on the side of the "for" camp.

So whether he approves it or not, tradition (and democracy I suppose) would require him to vote for it.

Whether this happens or not remains to be seen. However even though I would prefer him to vote against, I would much rather he voted in line with the region than his own concience :}

I do. But the tradition is the Current Delegate of the West Pacific holds a poll on the meeting board, and he has to vote as the poll dictates. And the poll is way on the side of the "for" camp.

So whether he approves it or not, tradition (and democracy I suppose) would require him to vote for it.

Whether this happens or not remains to be seen. However even though I would prefer him to vote against, I would much rather he voted in line with the region than his own concience :}

Yeah, but that poll has just nine votes. It's hardly indicative of the electorate.

In any case, I'm hoping- against hope- that it can be defeated. In the name of human rights this can't pass.

Yeah, but that poll has just nine votes. It's hardly indicative of the electorate.

In any case, I'm hoping- against hope- that it can be defeated. In the name of human rights this can't pass.

(smirk) The UN has around 37 thousand member nations, and only around 15 thousand have voted on this proposal. I am not sure that should be accepted as a true view of the electorate either.

Decisions are made by those who show up. If you can't be arsed showing up, then you have no right to complain about the decision made.

Is there anything you can do to help me?

Loop detests being TGed about proposals and resolutions, so don't even bother with him.

Oops. I did so anyway.

While your discussion on the Bible was interesting, it was also irrelevant. Most of the Bible versions around today are nothing more than rehashed of the KJV with a few words and maybe a phrase or two changed.

Keep in mind if you are going to use the Bible, specify a part you are talking about or be prepared for it to come around and bite you. And even then, it may anyway.

It's a case of morals against practicality. Morals are nice, but they don't stop the populous from overthrowing you and replacing you with someone they like more if they are starving. Just ask the French Royal Family in real life.

Flaming. Feel glad I'm in a mood not to turn you in.

Not impressed.

Off the subject, but responding to these comments.

LOL, it's not called "flaming" it's called an ad hominem, or personal attack.

Also, the newer versions are not redone KJV, that is called the revised KJV, the newer translations are taken directly from the earliest known manuscript of the text, I studied under a man who does that. Also, I only put in the book and chapter when I am doing a direct and percise quote, I dont want to risk messing up anything. I also dont see how an aetheist is going to "come around and bite me" on not putting the right verse number on a Bible referense or something.

Morals are what keep you from starving your people in the first place.

Well, Nolan Ryan's first big league catcher was enough to offer me a scholorship to play at his school.

LOL, it's not called "flaming" it's called an ad hominem, or personal attack.

That is still flaming. Dislike the points, not the person. It's extremely disrespectful to flame.

I also dont see how an aetheist is going to "come around and bite me" on not putting the right verse number on a Bible referense or something.

It's not like all athiests haven't read the Bible. In fact, I'll bet most know its basic teachings. Anyway, this whole religious thing is an irrelevant argument, since it's argument that can't be proven by either side. As for the morals keeping you from starving your people, that's true, but there are morals that don't quite apply to modern times.

Morals are what keep you from starving your people in the first place.
Really?
Feudalist society was extremely moral - everyone knew their place, knew how to do things. And guess what. The villein class were always on the brink of starvation, while the nobility feasted and proselytised (sp?) about morals.
Feydalism lasted from the reign on Charlemagne (c. AD 800) to after the Black Death (c. 1400). Anyone who didnt fit into society's morality or religion was either excommunicated and exiled, or burnt at the stake.

Morals change over time. In ancient times, it was considered moral to sacrifice to the gods. Nowadays, that is seen as either quaint, or dangerous. Arguing that the Roman Empire collapsed because of its lack of morality is misleading, as you are judging by the morality of today.

In any case, the Roman Empire collapsed when they were mainly 'moral Christians'. So I really don't see where that argument came from.

Loop detests being TGed about proposals and resolutions, so don't even bother with him.

In the past the East Pacific would have a UN Liason, voted on by the East Pacific regional government. While Loop is pretty busy, the UN Liason post is exactly there for TGs about proposals and resolutions.

:)

Another bit of advice is it helps to maintain long term relationships with all the Pacific forums. Become a part of their embassy row and be yourself. That way when you come to them asking for their vote they have a bit of insight into your nation and why you might be asking for their support.

The same logic applies to the smaller regions too of course. I've voted against my better judgement in favour of a poorly worded resolution once just because the author campaigned so darn hard and joined our forum. Granted now that his resolution has passed, he hasn't stepped foot in our forum since ... a fact that will not be lost on me when he comes a calling again. I won't say anything, but nobody wants to feel used.

I glean a lot of useful info from the embassies in the Pacific forums. Heck, I should actually take advice PC once gave me and spend even more time visiting the smaller regions too.

(smirk) The UN has around 37 thousand member nations, and only around 15 thousand have voted on this proposal. I am not sure that should be accepted as a true view of the electorate either.

Decisions are made by those who show up. If you can't be arsed showing up, then you have no right to complain about the decision made.

Minor point, and one Tuesday will adress hopefully in the future with hard data, but while there are some 37,000 or so member nations, those 15k votes include Delegate votes ... meaning some number less than 15k has clicked yes or no.

I've abstained on a number of resolutions, though I've followed the debate (and sometimes even entered and hinted to the fact that I was going to abstain.

I suspect that some of those nations are idle and just waiting for deletion, others probably only pop in once a week or so. <-- wild guess

But the law of large numbers would suggest that at some point a sample population can be representative of the real population if there is no bias in the creation of the sample.

Is a certain point of view more likely to vote than another? For example, do Scorpios wait til the last minute? Are Virgos the first to cast their votes? Are the Gemnis constantly changing their votes and also advocating do so as well? Are the Leos coming in and just TELLING us what to do and think? Are the Sagittari really here to just babble away? Are the Aquarians upset that we can't get along and hiding in protest? And of course we all know that the Ophicuhusians don't really exist ... or so they'd like us to believe! ;)

Off the subject, but responding to these comments.

LOL, it's not called "flaming" it's called an ad hominem, or personal attack.

Direct insults, such as calling a person stupid, is flaming. Indirect insults, such as wording a statement in such of a way to suggest a drunk baboon using only its forehead could type a better post, is a personal attack.

Also, the newer versions are not redone KJV, that is called the revised KJV, the newer translations are taken directly from the earliest known manuscript of the text, I studied under a man who does that. Also, I only put in the book and chapter when I am doing a direct and percise quote, I dont want to risk messing up anything. I also dont see how an aetheist is going to "come around and bite me" on not putting the right verse number on a Bible referense or something.

Athiests might leave you alone about it, but a certain Roman Catholic won't. And I find quite a few know it better than you would think. Verse and chapter may be nice, but you worded it in such of a way to where you were using the whole Bible. And that is always bad.

Morals are what keep you from starving your people in the first place.

Not really. Ask France or one of a hundred nations about how well morals prevent it. And keep in mind morallity is, like all things, subjective.

Well, Nolan Ryan's first big league catcher was enough to offer me a scholorship to play at his school.

Still not impressed.

Okay, now that the religion subarguement has been dealt with for this proposal, anyone else got something we haven't fully covered yet?

Really?
Feudalist society was extremely moral - everyone knew their place, knew how to do things. And guess what. The villein class were always on the brink of starvation, while the nobility feasted and proselytised (sp?) about morals.
Feydalism lasted from the reign on Charlemagne (c. AD 800) to after the Black Death (c. 1400). Anyone who didnt fit into society's morality or religion was either excommunicated and exiled, or burnt at the stake.

Morals change over time. In ancient times, it was considered moral to sacrifice to the gods. Nowadays, that is seen as either quaint, or dangerous. Arguing that the Roman Empire collapsed because of its lack of morality is misleading, as you are judging by the morality of today.

In any case, the Roman Empire collapsed when they were mainly 'moral Christians'. So I really don't see where that argument came from.

OOC: ^ Points. In fact, one might even argue that a lack of tolerance in this period is what led to the fall of the Western Empire.

I am going to quote George Carlin to show you my stance on this

"Selling is legal. Sex is legal. Why isn't selling sex legal?"

Essentially this is what happens with men who get trophy wives (and visa- versa) and i don't see a problem when the person is willing to do it. especially if it is done by people who have CHOSEN! this profession

Now I am being a very bad person and have not read most of the responses that are already on the page, but there is like 45 pages, and I am sorry but I just dont have that kind of time. That being said, I am sorry if I am repeating what someone else has already said...

I believe that prostitution should be allowed in every nation, but I also believe that the UN should not make all of the nations follow a specific code concerning it, and that it should be up to the nations to decide. However, given the choice I personally would vote against repealing the resolution.

I agree that it is a foul practice, but prostitution is banned in many other countries in the real world and people get sent to jail for it and get diseases from it anyway. Someone who is desperate enough to sell their bodies on the street definately does not need jail time and bails on their record too. Prostitutes chances are already have some bad things on their record preventing them from getting normal jobs, and most certainly do not need more to go onto their permenant record...

The other main reason that I would vote against this resolution is that prostitutes should be allowed just as much rights as everyone else. Meaning that it is their body and they should be allowed to do what they want with it. It may be argued that minors should not be allowed that decision, so maybe have a legal age for it (god, that sounds corny, but if it'll make certain people happy so be it, lol). How do you have any freedom at all if people are not allowed to make decisions about what they do with their bodies, it is not like they are unaware of the health concerns involved, and they are not hurting anybody else, that is not also aware of all of the health concerns.

Alright now that I have taken up about two pages, lol, I think that I am done.

I am going to quote George Carlin to show you my stance on this

"Selling is legal. Sex is legal. Why isn't selling sex legal?"

Essentially this is what happens with men who get trophy wives (and visa- versa) and i don't see a problem when the person is willing to do it. especially if it is done by people who have CHOSEN! this profession

Please read the past 50+ pages. That quote has shown up quite a bit.

Please read the past 50+ pages. That quote has shown up quite a bit.

As it is such an egregiously long thread, I'm not surprised many aren't reading through it.

As it is such an egregiously long thread, I'm not surprised many aren't reading through it.

Yeah most people are probably just skipping to the last page, reading what is on there and calling it good...if that

As it is such an egregiously long thread, I'm not surprised many aren't reading through it.

I know. I just get tired of seeing that damn quote repeated once every ten pages.

Hey ummm, I am sorry because this is kind of off topic, but what time zone is this site set up on? It says that it is 3:56am, which day I dont know, where I am it is Jan 11 7:56pm. Does anyone know what day it is on this web site?
I feel so retarded asking that...

I know. I just get tired of seeing that damn quote repeated once every ten pages.
sorry to have added yet another quote then

but it doesn't seem to be doing much good seeing as how the vote is still infavor of banning prostitution

sorry to have added yet another quote then

but it doesn't seem to be doing much good seeing as how the vote is still infavor of banning prostitution

Yeah I know and I dont understand why, I mean what reason could you possibly have to ban it, other than the ones that someone or another has already disproved

About the only reason it's passing is you get a bunch of nations who see something that mentions being in favor of health and their brains turn off as they click yes. If I worded one right, I could probably create a resolution that allows breathing and get it passed.

Well, everyone who wants Prostitution legalized we must work together to keep it legal. Unite now- we don't have that much time.

About the only reason it's passing is you get a bunch of nations who see something that mentions being in favor of health and their brains turn off as they click yes. If I worded one right, I could probably create a resolution that allows breathing and get it passed.

lmao, we should try, just for fun

sorry to have added yet another quote then

but it doesn't seem to be doing much good seeing as how the vote is still infavor of banning prostitution

Actually the proposal up for vote doesn't ban prostitution. It just lets individual nation decide how best to address possible problems springing from prostitution, be it legalization and increased regulation, or banning and increased enforcement.

Actually the proposal up for vote doesn't ban prostitution. It just lets individual nation decide how best to address possible problems springing from prostitution, be it legalization and increased regulation, or banning and increased enforcement.

so let me get this straight this is proposing that nations be allowed to choose whether or not to have prostitution, but I thought that was what the other one said :headbang: nevermind, I will just sit here confused, lol

It's just the latest battle in the long-running conflict between national sovereignty and UN intervention.

the eastern bloc is disgusted at this legalizing of for other reasons than money.. if somone loves another, lovemaking is the result.. if only for money, than it is hollow.. the search for someone right may take a long time.. but it is reward in itself..


:gundge:

To Quote Ciata:

No, they can stick to real friends, people who love them despite the way they look or think, and someone out there is bound to be a match for them, either like them, or opposite in ways that complements them. I've never held and physical standards for looks for the person I'm going to marry, looks fade, but if you marry someone for their gorgous heart, that will make you happy for the rest of your lives, day in day out in ways that a sex partner cant fulfill.

I am sorry you have miss my sarcasam; sometimes it is not as obvious as I intend.

:D

the eastern bloc is disgusted at this legalizing of lovemaking for reasons of money.. if somone loves another, lovemaking is the result.. if only for money, than it is hollow.. the search for someone right may take a long time.. but it is reward in itself.. if a child is brought into a world of prostution and fake thrills... what world are they to have? it is not a world of truth, but of lies and dollars...



:gundge:

I know. I just get tired of seeing that damn quote repeated once every ten pages.
that's why i stopped reading.

Originally Posted by Anti Pharisaism
Did I make the Drinking and Driving analogy? Or did mobile suits... it has been awhile since I posted last and do not remember (regional affairs). It seems like something AP would throw out there for others to mull over.

Any way, such an anology is based on the right to conduct two legal acts mutually exclusively. The right to conduct the acts in tandem is denied when excercising those rights in unison causes an increased risk to the health and safety to others.



No, that's a moronic analogy on the level of "are you allowed because of your state to recklessly endanger nonconsenting others?" vs the stated analogy of "are you allowed to sell sex, if you allowed to sell and allowed to have sex?"

No it is not moronic.

Reread the post you quoted. It is self evident that it is not on the level you described.

Aid: All drivers on the roadway consent to driving on the roadway. The comments following what you quoted pertained to assumption and disclosure of risk.

You are allowed by law to do lots of varying acts x, you are also allowed by law to do lots of other varying acts y, there are also lots of combinations of allowed x's and y's that you are not allowed to do in tandem. So, George Carlin's comedic analysis of the American Legal system is invalid as a viable argument for if x is legal, and why is legal, than xy should also be legal.

I am better than twaddle, but enjoy using it with more substance behind it than other do. :p

Originally Posted by Anti Pharisaism
Hmm... sidenote: Legalized substance abuse cause more deaths in America than illegal substance abuse.

Alcoholism and abuse of the substance was a leading argument for prohibition. So I do not follow how prohibition created alcoholism.

Organized crime also existed prior to prohibition.



Well, no, alcoholism was not the leading arguement. Moralism was the leading arguement (see "the Temperance Movement").

Notice the bolding above. I did not make the same type of universal statement you did-particularly your statement that prohibition created alcoholism.

Also, the moral argument was based in part on excess consumption of alcohol as being immoral because of the effects, in addition to the fundamentalist non bible reading christians moral argument alcohol was inherently bad because of possible effects.

Crime existed before Prohibition. However, it bloomed far beyond small time crime due to the nature of creating a need everyone wanted, but was suddenly illegal. Because of the immense growth factor, organization became necessary in the US - and Organized Crime in the US was born.

It is good to know crime existed before prohibition. Of course, that I said organized crime existed before prohibition also lends itself to my implied yet obvious knowledge that if there was organized crime there was crime.

Note on Organized Crime in America: The term "organized crime" first came into regular use among the members of the Chicago Crime Commission, a civic organization that was created in 1919 by businessmen, bankers and lawyers to promote changes in the criminal justice system in order to better cope with the crime problem.
In the announcements of the Chicago Crime Commission, organized crime referred the orderly fashion in which the so-called "criminal class" of an estimated "10.000 professional criminals" in Chicago allegedly could pursue "crime as a business". The discussion centered around the conditions that seemingly allowed criminals to gain a steady income from crime, particularly property crimes, under virtual immunity from the law. In the eyes of the Crime Commission, the city government had to be blamed for incompetency, inefficiency and corruptness, while the public was criticized for indifference and even open sympathy towards criminals.

The term is now commonly understood as racketeering, or the Italian/Sicilian Maffia. However, it refers to the ability sustain oneself as a professional criminal.

If you are speaking of "outside the US" - well, DUH, but always in response to the same set of circumstances.

Well, Duh, if an act is not illegal, then of course you can not earn your living as an orderly professional criminal conducting the act.:p

Before Prohibition, alcoholism was a small problem. Social pressure controlled it.

Then why did you say alcoholism was created by prohibition.

If you meant it boomed, which the rest seems to outline, then say what you mean to begin with. :rolleyes:

You'll have to point out anywhere that Prohibition made any part of alcohol better. It decreased knowledge, it decreased visibility, it decreased societal pressure not to imbibe, it VASTLY increased money to Organized Crime (Capone alone made over $100 Million per year. That is roughly equivalent to Two Billion, Five hundred Million in modern equivalents. And that is PER YEAR of just him!).

Without the huge influx of money, the Corruption present to this day in Chicago and the USA would not have been possible.

So, do point out how Prohibition did a whit of good?

Why? I never said it was good at all. I disagreed with the assertion that prohibition created alcoholism. ;)

The resolution legalizing prostitution, but arguably not allowing regulation of the industry, describes prostitution as a profession for those in dire circumstances. If it is desired to legalize and regulate a profession that is very lucrative for a small percentage of those involved then the current resolution should be repealed-and one outlining a more objective analysis of the industry that explicitly allows regulation should be adopted.

so let me get this straight this is proposing that nations be allowed to choose whether or not to have prostitution, but I thought that was what the other one said :headbang: nevermind, I will just sit here confused, lol

no, the resolution as it stands says "Prostitution is Legal." This resolution is repealing the previous, which is to say "We give you the choice to make prositution legal or not."

I'm in favour because it's up to you to decide, not have it enforced on you.

Apologies, I'm about to be loud.

Yeah I know and I dont understand why, I mean what reason could you possibly have to ban it, other than the ones that someone or another has already disproved

For the LAST BLOODY TIME, this resolution is NOT ABOUT BANNING PROSTITUTION! It is about REPEALING a resolution legalizing prostitution, and therefore leaving the choice to each individual nationstate. I know the sheer length of this thread has obscured the issues, but it says this directly in the resolution under "Determining".

Also, DemonLordEnigma. You have complained numerous times through your contributions to this thread (I assure you, you account for a higher percentage of repeated garbage than any other) that "if I/we/you/Bob worded a resolution right, I/he/she/it could pass X". If you really do have the mental capacity to do so, leave this forum and GO TO IT. That way, you can get your precious legalization of prostitution back into the U.N. But for the love of rationality, stop misleading these poor nations and extending the thread beyond rational boundaries! Otherwise, I might lose my temper.

Grumph. I suppose I retract the statement to Autumnn, 'twas hasty, hotheaded and apparently already covered anyways. My challenge to DLE stands, though.

Thank you for saving me a lot of time by writing exactly what I was thinking. DLE enjoys being disingenous and seeks to continually distract the discussion from the topic at hand.

Your comment regarding the fact that repealing does not guarantee a ban seems to not be understood by the vast majority of opponents. Logic does not seem to be a high priority on here. There are plenty of reasonable arguments against this resolution. Would the opponents of this resolution focus on those that have some logic behind them. I can then disagree but respect it.

Saying that the repeal bans prostitution means you are either not reading the various other posts or are not intellectually capable of understanding the resolution.

Roman3282 President of Samsonish :headbang:

Well, everyone who wants Prostitution legalized we must work together to keep it legal. Unite now- we don't have that much time.
Why do you need to work to keep it legal, if the repeal passes your nation can still have legal prostitution if it wants?

I don't know whether this classes as a 'reasonable argument' against the resolution, but I'm just going to say it.

I believe that prostitution should be legalised in all nations as part and parcel of sexual rights. The right to sexual intimacy is already guaranteed, so from there I don't see what people have against the ability to attach conditions to that intimacy - including the concept of one participant paying another. Regulation of prostitution, including the ability to ensure proper health care of both prostitutes and their clients, is only possible when prostitution is legalised.

Why do you need to work to keep it legal, if the repeal passes your nation can still have legal prostitution if it wants?
Don't know about RomeW's thinking, but I believe that prostitution should be legalised in all nations, as that is the only way to protect the health of both prostitutes and their clients.

Its very interesting to look at how a forum devolopes over time and how it strays from the topic. I must say that DLE, as well as Vastiva are two nations that we pay close attention too. DLE does come up with some of track topics, but they are topical and very insightful. Vastiva has a certain one-two logic that makes sense but unfortunatly the agenda is clear from the outset.
Anyway, I'd just like to recommend that people be sure to read the first 5 or 10 pages of the forum.... a lot of the same stuff has been argued endlessly since then. We are strongly in favour of this repeal.

Vastiva quotes the source above:

In that time period 2,045 men were charged with communicating for the purpose of prostitution, but only 44 repeated the offence, said Lowman. However, the recidivism rate for prostitutes was approximately 80 per cent, he said.


Interesting isn't it Vastiva. If prostitution is legal in Canada, why are those who purchase it being arrested? Why are the police 'no longer' going after the prostitutes themselves and trying a new strategy in Vancouver (only one city)? Right, so if you insist that prostitution is legal, then the prostitutes can't really be prostitutes then if no one is allowed to buy their services..... interesting.
If you understand a nation like Canada's system of law, then you will understand that most of Canada's constitution (laws) are not actually written, but set by precedent.

Sai

OOC:
I quite understand the precedent system, Sai - America is rather heavy on it.
However, what the article pointed out was prostitution was not illegal. Soliciting was illegal, purchasing was illegal, but selling oneself was not illegal.

Found it very interesting. And I would be lacking if I did not post that which I found interesting, regardless of the side it was on.

You should just go through with this repeal, and let the UN member nations decide for themselves what they shall do, ban prostitution, legalize it, or legalize it and regulate it. I'm going with the ban, but thats just me... If this is passed, everyone else can do whatever they want on this issue. This is a repeal of 'Legalized Prostitution', not a law that says 'Ban Prostitution'.

Just so long as you're aware that you're going to increase your crime, increase your STD and AIDS rate, increase the number who defy the government, therefore undermining overall authority...

Much comes of decisions. Be sure you make the right one.

I'm for this repeal on these grounds:

The UN is an authority created to govern international issues, such as trade, war, the enviroment, and global humanitarian concerns. The legality of prostitution is in no way an international concern. It should be individual countries' right to choose for themselves their own domestic policies.

The counter - again - is that the right to do with oneself as you choose transcends international boundaries.

I've been here as long as you, just I have real friends, two jobs, college, and in short a life outside of this place. So I can't afford to post a hundred times a day or keep up with all the silly little politics like some people.

OOC: Gee, and I've only got real friends, one real job, a teaching position, multiple leadership positions in voluntary organizations, a family, life outside of this place... and I still find time to do what I want here! Maybe I just have better time management skills. :p

Now it's my turn to ask "prove it" because that just makes no sense. If a person has spent a good part of their life running around and sleeping with dozens of random people, I dont think they will all of a sudden be happy with one person and not cheat more than a person who has never been involved with multiple people sexualy.

Before I go running down sources, I'd remind you that its the shoemakers family who goes barefoot for a reason; and most chefs do not want to cook at home.

I would also point out, a prostitute is not "running around". Its a business, not a pleasure. It's a skill set, not "oooh, free love!".

Why are they happy with one person? Because they're beyond sex, and most know what they want out of someone else. And cheat - why? For the sex? Don't you think years of sex whether you were in the mood or not, all sorts of kinkyness, would sort of burn out the want?

That is the mind set that makes me so mad. "If you cant stop it, then support it" Also, how can people standing up for morality cause more immorality? And duh, if you make everything legal there will be less crime. Also, to say that morality is the cause of smuggling and alchoholism is.....less than wise.

Morality - via the Temperance Movement - was the cause of Prohibition. The result of Prohibition was the sound thrashing of everything the Temperence Movement stood for.

If you want people to change, you give them something to aspire to. You dont' regulate out their choices.



True, if people were allowed to get anything they wanted, people wouldn't have to smuggle is, but then what would be the point of having laws at all? And how do laws like having a minimum age for buying alchohol cause more alchoholics? If something is hard to get that doesn't mean people will abuse it more and more and drink more and more.

Well, actually, yes it does. This is what "forbidden fruit" means. But then again, you are also discussing a different social structure - the difference between "no one can do it" and "rite of passage". The former will have a huge underground revolt - the latter has a societal pressure against violating the rule, as it becomes a "rite of passage". This is part of the reason they are more successful in areas with strong community.



Look a the societies today, and which ones are still standing? The ones who have some morals and do not let harmfull and sick practices run rampant.


*HACK!* Name one.



Which survived, the Third Reich and the USSR or the UK and the US, who up untill a few years ago at least held to some of the morals and values that they were founded upon.

Uhm.... the simplest answer to this one is, the UK and US are capitalist. The other two were not. And the two who no longer exist, attempted to force their views on everyone - legislated morality. Didn't work. So this actually argues my point.

As to the US and UK being "moral" countries... uh, no.



Which lasted longer, the Japanese empire or the Roman one? One that had strict codes of honor and morals, or the one that let all kinds of sins corrupt their society?

Unrealistic comparison. The Japanese Empire existed until it was "corrupted" by the realization it had neighbors on the planet. The Romans fell through internal corruption and "me first"-ism. "Sin" (which was a Roman archery term) had nothing to do with the final fall.



Look at the nation of Israel, they have a history going back over 6 millinia, and they survived as a relatively small people because they held to morals and ideals that kept them from following the doom of the other nations around them that no longer exist. A lack of morals and lawlesness leads to destruction and suffering, that is what history shows.

Did I mention that Tel Aviv is the brothel capital of Europe? So you've again blown your own arguement. ;)

History does not show "a lack of morals" leads to destruction. It has shown repeatedly where the attempt is made to force morality on another, it fails ultimately (Texas seceeded from Mexico because of religious arguements); the main cause of nations falling appears to be a lack of focus upon their people, when the divide between becomes too large to hold.

But I do await any proof of another view - we are always ready to be enlightened.

Thank the Lord, someone on my side for once. It is the same in my country, where there is no distinction between faith and politics. If you have true faith it affects every part of your life. To us prostitution is as much a real job as being a hitman. I find it very ironic that the same philosophy that demands that everyone's rights must be adhered to and people must be free to do whatever they want for the most part, also heavily oppreses and dismisses the religious rights and wishes of people. Talk about hypocrites.

*floored* Being a hitman is a real job in your nation, as you are in compliance with the UN Resolution legalizing prostitution until (and if) it is repealed...

Wow. Must do more hiring in your nation. Now that is freedom of career!

My thoughts exactly. If someone wants to legalize it in their country, that's all well and good for them. But I don't think my nation should have to comply with resolutions which can directly come in conflict with religion, which is not just a faith but a way of life for Muslims. I might not agree with certain economic or environmental regulations, but they do not challenge the basic beliefs of my people.

*cough* reread the FAQ. You don't have a choice in the matter after you tap "Join UN".

*cough* reread the FAQ. You don't have a choice in the matter after you tap "Join UN".

Don't be absurd. If the repeal passes, Roma Islamica, along with all other nations in the UN will have a choice in this matter--even though they've all tapped the "Join UN" button.

Morals are what keep you from starving your people in the first place.


Nope. Logistics.

Well, everyone who wants Prostitution legalized we must work together to keep it legal. Unite now- we don't have that much time.

What are you smoking? The repeal goes - then more legislation is made and the attempt is to pass it. That's the way of this place.

Grumph. I suppose I retract the statement to Autumnn, 'twas hasty, hotheaded and apparently already covered anyways. My challenge to DLE stands, though.

Of note: DLE was this close to having a resolution passed which would essentially ban nuclear weapons and lay the whole UN open to destruction by FT nations. You're not challenging a featherweight there.

Don't be absurd. If the repeal passes, Roma Islamica, along with all other nations in the UN will have a choice in this matter--even though they've all tapped the "Join UN" button.

(bolding mine)

PC, you are fully aware that any nation in the UN has to remain in compliance with any resolution made. So this must be further politicking on your part?

Everyone who believes this way has no place in the United Nations. The point of this orginization is to protect the rights of the citizens from governments that want to restrict people rights. You say that everyone in your country believes, which shows that you are supressing the minority to the point that you will not even recgonize them. This is evil in one of the highest forms. It is this line of thinking that makes genocide possible. You forget that all of "your" people do not necessarily believe the same as you do, and if they dont you cannot presecute them for it. If you dont feel like complying with the U.N. resolutions then don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

One of the few reasonable postings I found here, thank you. And all of these "it´s not a business of the UN" posters seem to not even have read it. At least I have found no reasonable answer to this until now.

The UN are to protect human rights. And you only can protect human rights (like the right to free choice of profession and employment) of sex workers by legalizing prostitution. The human rights of people forced into prostitution are protected by other laws against child abuse and slave trade which do NOT conflict with the legalization of prostitution. To the contrary, legalization will also boost efforts to crack down on child trafficking for the sex trade. By making the sex trade operators transparent in the tax system, it is less likely that they will want to get into trouble by including child prostitutes in their places.

It´s not a business of the nations governments to violate human rights by the prohibition of prostitution. Therefore we oppose this repeal proposal strongly.

(bolding mine)

PC, you are fully aware that any nation in the UN has to remain in compliance with any resolution made. So this must be further politicking on your part?

Yes I am aware, as is Roma Islamica. In Roma Islamica's statement,

But I don't think my nation should have to comply with resolutions which can directly come in conflict with religion, which is not just a faith but a way of life for Muslims.

he, or she, merely states that he doesn't think his nation should have to comply with the prostitution resolution. He does not challenge the UN rule of compliance to resolutions, he challenges the resolution's worthiness as something he's forced to comply to. There's no need to try to demean those that disagree with you to non-FAQ-ed status.

Oh, and with regards to your assertion on your regional board of my admitting my argument was a "ruse and unsupportable", I'd like you to know that I don't believe I've done any such thing. Yes, I've recognized there are many reasons for nations to vote for the proposal. Yes, I've tried to encourage these multiple parties interested in the proposal's passage. No, I have never admitted public health was a "ruse and unsupportable". It's understandable for me to address the several different reasons for voting FOR since I, as the proposal's author, am hardly interested in discouraging favorable votes. I find your response's direction at my "confession to a sinister conspiracy" (or a like implication) rather than the proposal itself to be severely deficient in the tact department.

Why do you need to work to keep it legal, if the repeal passes your nation can still have legal prostitution if it wants?

As is always my stance with Repeals, should the Resolution go, it opens up the risk that Prostitution would get banned by later UN Resolutions, which is NOT something I want to see. Seeing as how the current Resolution isn't "flawed beyond control" (as is the Abortion Rights Resolution), I'd rather be safe and have this Resolution than see it Repealed.

As is always my stance with Repeals, should the Resolution go, it opens up the risk that Prostitution would get banned by later UN Resolutions, which is NOT something I want to see. Seeing as how the current Resolution isn't "flawed beyond control" (as is the Abortion Rights Resolution), I'd rather be safe and have this Resolution than see it Repealed.

A proposal to ban prostitution would not pass; you can rest easy. The nations supporting this one, with its razor thin majority as of now (knocks on wood), include a very large number of national sovereignty supporters. These nations would not be interested in a proposal which they'd view as only further restricting their national sovereignty. There just simply wouldn't be enough support to ban prostitution in UN nations.

And before it even came to vote you'd have to find a proposal writer with a grasp of the conventional style, a lot of time and motivation to telegram, and a willingness to lay future support on the line with a proposal which is clearly one-sided and almost assured failure. I don't think there are many, if any, of those.

And you need an English class, or a spell checker. I dont think that it is the world oldest profesion, things like gardening, making tools, and hunting probably came first. Also, the earliest forms of prostitution probably came at a time where woman were little more than slaves anyway and that wouldn't count as a profesion.
...Ciata, before u start rating others english abilities, maybe you need to do some "spell checking of your own?

profesion = ? i think thats profession maybe? and the plural of woman is women i do believe...its so amazing how THIS worlds hang ups are carried on into Nationstates..If you look at countries that have LEGALIZED prostitution, you'll see its a win/win situation for all involved..of course the exception are those bible thumpers who still believe masturbation is a sin...

Resolution 46 was put into place to ensure the right for a country to employ whatever laws it sees fit on the topic of prostitution. It's language, no matter how you twist it, FORCES nations to do nothing.
To revoke this resolution is to willingly give away your rights to set your own policy.

Resolution 46 was put into place to ensure the right for a country to employ whatever laws it sees fit on the topic of prostitution. It's language, no matter how you twist it, FORCES nations to do nothing.
To revoke this resolution is to willingly give away your rights to set your own policy.

I am against the repeal for other reasons, but if it doesn't force you to do anything, what difference does it make if it is there or not?

Resolution 46 was put into place to ensure the right for a country to employ whatever laws it sees fit on the topic of prostitution. It's language, no matter how you twist it, FORCES nations to do nothing.
To revoke this resolution is to willingly give away your rights to set your own policy.

You should better say: To revoke this resolution is to close the door to despotism.
It is not the business of a government to trample all over human rights with the prohibition of sex work.

It is not the business of a government to trample all over human rights with the prohibition of sex work.

It is the business of the government to balance the interests of human rights, with promoting decent social care and welfare to prevent people getting into this situation in the first place.

if you know anything of the efforts being made on these forums, you'll know we are looking at writing a much better resolution.

Sweet Jesus someone talking sense! well done

Please consider the following:

1) One cannot eliminate prostitution. If you pass laws against it, it still flourishes. Making it illegal, then, will not make it stop.

2) The cost of vice squads, the courts, the jails, etc. involved in attempting to stop the unstoppable is very high. Those resources would be better spent elsewhere.

3) A legal pleasure trade could/would be regulated. Pleasure workers should be licensed and should be required to undergo regular health screening and treatment. This would lower the health care costs of member states as prevention of STDs is far less expensive than is treatment.

4) A legal pleasure trade would be taxable and any licensing program would also bring in revenues -- money that can be spent to help the entire society as a whole rather than to line the pockets of the pimps who are the ones 'taxing' the trade now.

Bottom line -- the pleasure workers would have a better lives, the customers of the pleasure workers would be safer, society would have more resources available to it, and the only ones to suffer would be the pimps. I can't say I lose a lot of sleep over their loss.

Whatever legislation on the issue the UN adopts must permit nations to exercise wisdom over the gut revulsion some people have over the pleasure trade. There are simply no benefits to a society that tries to eliminate it.

It is the business of the government to balance the interests of human rights, with promoting decent social care and welfare to prevent people getting into this situation in the first place.

if you know anything of the efforts being made on these forums, you'll know we are looking at writing a much better resolution.

If this is the case then this repeal resolution has no basis. And as long this is not the case (promoting decent social care and welfare to prevent people getting into this situation) it makes more sense to prevent governments from despotism by prohibition.
It is not the business of a government to trample all over human rights with the prohibition of sex work.

Well, for each ugly or stupid man as you put it, there is an ugly or stupid woman to match, though it is a crude way of putting it. Also if you are a Christian then you believe that God has someone special for you. Almost all established religions honor marriage.

LOL
Where do you live?
Do you _realy_ believe that???
wow

Rather amused when people say, "When you are a Christian, you believe that. . ."

I can assure you that not all Christians believe the Deity has ordained one true One for each of us.

There are precious few ideas that ALL Christians believe.

If this is the case then this repeal resolution has no basis.
Yes it does, because the original resolution makes no provision to provide care.

Personally, I'd rather the actual issue of the legality of prostitution is left down to nations, but that nations are compelled to provide some decent welfare for people vulnerable in the industry, and try and dispel the culture of holding prostitutes responsible, and targetting the perperators of the industry.

It is not the business of a government to trample all over human rights with the prohibition of sex work.

But human rights have to be balanced against other issues. We could say it is a persons human rights to commit a crime, but could the government be accused of trampling over their human rights if they were locked up?

It is the governements wishes to conform to the will of the populace, and if the populace does not want prostitution to be legal, then a government will feel the tug of obligation compelling them to comply. At least the UN has a much stronger footing when promoting the rights of victims within the sex trade.

By legalising prostitution we make available the avenue to oversee the 'trade' and ensure that it is governed in a sensible and clean fashion. This would open the door for State Brothels which overseen in turn by the health authority, therefore ensuring desease free enviroments.
Prostituion is a fact of life and should not be swept away and hidden. An open policy will take any trade away from those who would exploit those who have no other means of employment but enjoy the act itself. Surely this is a better attitude than allowing the criminal element to gain control and exploit, in addition to stealing from the rest of any countries population the revenue that could be gained in the form of taxation, providing a revenue to find better health care and understanding.

What about the rights of others? It is my right for my religious laws to be followed in my religious country. It is my right to see that my government is followed the way it is set up. This is not the US, or Germany, or France. There is no separation of "church and state." It is my right not to see whores on the street when my religion and government forbid it. There is a difference in the right to whore yourself, and the right to live. The purpose of the UN is not to limit national sovereignty, but to intervene in issues which are pressing to the world. It is not their right to tell me whether or not what my people want is ok. No one is being deprived of life. And there is no persecution for any belief. You can believe anything you want to. I can believe I am allowed to kill people if I want to. It doesn't make it right. There is a point when the rights of minorities should be protected. They should be able to live without fear of persecution for whatever reason. They should not have to fear for their lives. However, the right to prostitute oneself is not an inalienable right in any government that I know of, and it most certainly isn't in mine. Notice how the resolution is winning? I don't think I will be leaving the UN anytime soon, but maybe if you feel so strongly about this absurd "profession" you should. Oh wait, it doesnt make illegal that right, does it? It allows nations to CHOOSE! Oh my, democracy, what an evil thing, as opposed to tyranny by the majority (when the resolution passed), which you were just condemning, except those "religious psychos" are wrong, and you're right, huh? Idiot.


You say that the purpose of the UN is to intervine in issues that are pressing the world, is not prostitution one of those issues, it clearly is. You forget the basic principle of individual rights and personal soverginty which the U.N. was created to hold up. How can you say that the right to prostitute oneself is not an inalienable right, does not a person have the right to choose who to love, and have total controll of themselves as long as it does not harm another. To forbid this would be to repress your citizens, and to my knowledge the U.N. is there to protect citizens that are being repressed.
Since prostitution or the desire to purchase a prostitute is a completely personal decesion it is not up to a government to repress people from making this decesion. You also seem to forget that regardless of your law it will happen in your country, and to not regulate it will cause more harm than the status quo.

P.S. You make the point that democracy is a good thing, however if you have no seperation of church and state it is impossible to have a democracy, they are mutually exclusive. I dont think that you are "religious psychos", and it is fine to have religion included in you government, however, it is not acceptable to oppress a minority in your country because they do not share the same beliefs as the government, this will, and has, lead to genocide accross the globe over and over again. Think before you call me and idiot, instead of just repeating you previous post about how your government doesnt care about it minorites.

Pwned

By legalising prostitution we make available the avenue to oversee the 'trade' and ensure that it is governed in a sensible and clean fashion. This would open the door for State Brothels which overseen in turn by the health authority, therefore ensuring desease free enviroments.Sorry, but the DSH is not accepting your policy of further victimising the victims of the sex trade, no matter how much you cotton-wool it in legislation or inspections. My government prefers what is known as the moral high ground.An open policy will take any trade away from those who would exploit those who have no other means of employment but enjoy the act itself.ahhh so the government can exploit them instead???Surely this is a better attitude than allowing the criminal element to gain control and exploit,Which is what I want any future resolution to crack down on. the revenue that could be gained in the form of taxation, providing a revenue to find better health care and understandingAgain, my government is not into exploiting people.

You say that the purpose of the UN is to intervine in issues that are pressing the world, is not prostitution one of those issues, it clearly is. Clearly?? :rolleyes: How can you say that the right to prostitute oneself is not an inalienable right,You could say someone has the right to commit a crime as well, but that does not mean they are immune to the consequences of an act. I don't want to see prostitutes treated as criminals, but it's an apt comparisson.and have total controll of themselves as long as it does not harm another.Ahh but at it's most fundamental level, that is exactly what the sex trade does - legal or otherwise.U.N. is there to protect citizens that are being repressed.And apparently give nations carte blanche to do it instead under the pretence of being "legal" and taxable.Since prostitution or the desire to purchase a prostitute is a completely personal decesion No, it is not. Most people are forced into it through various events and reasons. Most need the money, either for drugs, debts or some other problem. You also seem to forget that regardless of your law it will happen in your country, and to not regulate it will cause more harm than the status quo.Which is what the original proposal does - it allows it, but does it regulate it? Another very valid reason to get rid of the proposal and do another.You make the point that democracy is a good thing, however if you have no seperation of church and state it is impossible to have a democracy, they are mutually exclusive. Actually you could have a form of democracy, but I doubt it would be wholly inclusive.

You have the support of The Holy Empire of Hargrimmia. I agree on the point that legalized prostitution poses a risk to national health. I ask my predecessors in this discussion, in what way does nationally regulated prostitution not affect national health. And furthermore, in what way can prostitution even be regulated. If prostitutes are to have intercourse with many persons, they are a lot more likely to get infected with a sexually transmited disease (STD), and, consequetially are a lot more likely to infect others with STD.

Proconsul Salagashi
The Holy Empire of Hargrimmia
South Olinadia

Also, DemonLordEnigma. You have complained numerous times through your contributions to this thread (I assure you, you account for a higher percentage of repeated garbage than any other) that "if I/we/you/Bob worded a resolution right, I/he/she/it could pass X". If you really do have the mental capacity to do so, leave this forum and GO TO IT. That way, you can get your precious legalization of prostitution back into the U.N. But for the love of rationality, stop misleading these poor nations and extending the thread beyond rational boundaries! Otherwise, I might lose my temper.

Actually, I'm not extending past rational boundaries. See the following thread for how easy it is to distract using a proposal:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=380626&page=1&pp=15

Read the entire topic. Keep in mind I had to point out what it is really for to get it actually discussed.

Thank you for saving me a lot of time by writing exactly what I was thinking. DLE enjoys being disingenous and seeks to continually distract the discussion from the topic at hand.

If all you can do is attack a person rather than addressing their arguements, you are trolling and posting spam. Please stop wasting bandwidth unless you have an arguement to make against somebody.

Hirota

I find your attempt to destroy my arugment futile, as you take everything I say out of context, and do not back up your arugment. You compare the right to be a prostitute to the right of committing a crime, however, they are not similar at all. It is someones right to choose their line of busineess, people do not have to partake in the act of purchasing prostitution, therefore it is not like crime which is not voluntary. You claim that sex trade harms people and I will conced that point, but leaglized prostitution is not sex trade, in fact legilization stops that. If you make it legal prostitutes can form union and recieve benefits. It is no longer a black market operation. If you look at Las Vegas the legal and certified prostitutes are treated very well. It is the ones that are not certified and disease ridden that are harmful. You also claim that people are forced into being prostitutes to pay off debts or get drugs, these are the same reasons for crime and violence. People will resort to any means necessary to get out of debt or get money for drugs, the problem there is not prostitution. You are assuming that legalizing will not regulate, however if you leaglize the governmnet will have to take some action to oversee, and even if not prostitutes will form independent unions, they workers always create controlls for there own comfort, how do you think workers came out of the industrial age, they adapted and formed regulations when none had existed before. Also you are completely wrong saying that you can have democracy and a combination of church and state. This is really simple because church and state implys that something governs over the decesions that can be made, therefore even if the majority wanted something, for instance gay marriage, the church would not allow it and therefore the principle of demorcarcy would be destroyed.

Pwned

Hirota

I find your attempt to destroy my arugment futile...

-snip-

Pwned

Please do not debate-godmod. The last thing this forum needs is another member saying "your argument is destroyed by my superiorness argument"--especially in l33t.

A proposal to ban prostitution would not pass; you can rest easy. The nations supporting this one, with its razor thin majority as of now (knocks on wood), include a very large number of national sovereignty supporters. These nations would not be interested in a proposal which they'd view as only further restricting their national sovereignty. There just simply wouldn't be enough support to ban prostitution in UN nations.

And before it even came to vote you'd have to find a proposal writer with a grasp of the conventional style, a lot of time and motivation to telegram, and a willingness to lay future support on the line with a proposal which is clearly one-sided and almost assured failure. I don't think there are many, if any, of those.

I don't know...I've seen quite a few "national soverignty" proponents who have also called things like Prostitution and Abortion "immoral", so I'm thinking that at least some of those proponents would just as easily switch to banning Prostitution after the Repeal is over.

I do agree that a ban may be difficult to pass, though.

DLE criticizes me for stating my perception of what I think he occasionally does. Then he once again proves my point by not addressing what I said in my post regarding the repeal not banning prostitution. Coming from the person that smugly enjoyed criticizing my grammar I found his most recent comments proof of my point. Until the next topic arrives.

Sincerely,

Samsonish

I guess it's over, isn't it.
Now, I have nowhere to post.
Wahh!

Please do not debate-godmod. The last thing this forum needs is another member saying "your argument is destroyed by my superiorness argument"--especially in l33t.

I will debate whom ever I please. I might now win, but untill i get a well tough out answer, or one that clearly proves me wrong, I will convers with anyone. The fact that I just started this games does not mean that I am not articulated enough to debate the godmod. In fact I have been participating in debate on the internationl level for many years. Im not saying im better, just qualified to talk on the matter.

Cheers

I will debate whom ever I please. I might now win, but untill i get a well tough out answer, or one that clearly proves me wrong, I will convers with anyone. The fact that I just started this games does not mean that I am not articulated enough to debate the godmod.

No, I'm not talking about who you're debating. I'm talking about how you're debating. Godmodding (also, godmoding, godmodeing, etc.) is usually defined something near the following:

'Being unrealistic, calling on divine/supernatural/super-tech forces, or posting others' losses in free-form role-play' (the type of roleplay practiced in nationstates).

To debate-godmod is to state that another's argument's losses. Some examples are when a poster says things like "which completely destroys your argument" or "this makes your previous statement stupid" or even "pwned". There has been a rash of it recently, and I hope the trend will begin to die out when those who perform this unattractive practice realize just how unattractive it is. It would hardly be right to attack you for it as you've just begun to become acclimated to the forum. I just hope you don't make a habit out of it.

My deepest appreciation for all those nations which have supported this repeal. Thank you!

Specifically, I thank Neigh Var for agreeing to try out my list of probable-approving delegates, and for sticking to his guns through everything. I thank NewTexas and Neo Portugal for being actively involved in both bringing the proposal to quorum and passing it through the general UN vote. I thank the Pacific delegates for their dedication to democracy, and willingness to vote with will of their region. Many thanks to the many nations in the forum who advertised their views and thoughts on the issue.

And, most of all, I'm grateful to the UN members for granting the proposal-repeal the priveledge of being a resolution-repeal.

The next step for me is to eat a ham sandwich and take a rest. Then, however, I'll actively campaign for a more suitable measure to address this issue, as it has become very apparent (at least to me) that one is needed.

Thanks!

My deepest appreciation for all those nations which have supported this repeal. Thank you!

Specifically, I thank Neigh Var for agreeing to try out my list of probable-approving delegates, and for sticking to his guns through everything. I thank NewTexas and Neo Portugal for being actively involved in both bringing the proposal to quorum and passing it through the general UN vote. I thank the Pacific delegates for their dedication to democracy, and willingness to vote with will of their region. Many thanks to the many nations in the forum who advertised their views and thoughts on the issue.

And, most of all, I'm grateful to the UN members for granting the proposal-repeal the priveledge of being a resolution-repeal.

The next step for me is to eat a ham sandwich and take a rest. Then, however, I'll actively campaign for a more suitable measure to address this issue, as it has become very apparent (at least to me) that one is needed.

Thanks!

A job well done if I may say so myself. I'd like to thank you for your effort and all the hard work you poured into this, along with Mikitivity, who really fought tooth and nail for this repeal to pass. You guys should give yourselves a hardy slap on the back.

DLE criticizes me for stating my perception of what I think he occasionally does. Then he once again proves my point by not addressing what I said in my post regarding the repeal not banning prostitution. Coming from the person that smugly enjoyed criticizing my grammar I found his most recent comments proof of my point. Until the next topic arrives.

My "smug superiority" has nothing to do with it. The mods have said to deal with the arguements, not the players, when criticizing. Once again, you cannot be bothered to address my arguements and are instead going after the person. If my calling you on it is "smug superiority," it's because you used a desperate tactic that only those totally incapable, whether through lacking evidence or competence of discussion, of even bothering to deal with an arguement and are desperate to try to win use when it is used exclusively. You are not bothering to address my arguements. Now post that crap one more time.

And as for your point in your post: Find where I said it did. I want a link to the post and an exact quote.

Excellent the repeal legalised prostitution act has passed albeit narrowly. Hopefully this spells a new dawn for NS: a place where moral opinions are given precedence from the whinging bleeding heart liberals.

What exactly is it that prostitutes do wrong? Sex? Promiscuity is not a crime. The combination of sex and money? Pornography is not a crime. So where's the illegal act??

Excellent the repeal legalised prostitution act has passed albeit narrowly. Hopefully this spells a new dawn for NS: a place where moral opinions are given precedence from the whinging bleeding heart liberals.

The above is exactly why I didn't want this repealed.

Which set of moral opinions? If you want to be technical, it was moral opinions that passed the Legalized Prostitution resolution in the first place.

Also, I've noted it isn't the "whinging bleeding heart liberals," as you call the people of NS who currently dominate in viewpoint, who do most of the complaining about the UN. Finally, I want you to post evidence that they are truly "whinging bleeding heart liberals" and that your arguement not just trying to flamebait the majority in hopes they will flame you and you can turn them into the mods. Because as it is, I see your "arguement" as exactly that.

The above is exactly why I didn't want this repealed.

Which set of moral opinions? If you want to be technical, it was moral opinions that passed the Legalized Prostitution resolution in the first place.

Also, I've noted it isn't the "whinging bleeding heart liberals," as you call the people of NS who currently dominate in viewpoint, who do most of the complaining about the UN. Finally, I want you to post evidence that they are truly "whinging bleeding heart liberals" and that your arguement not just trying to flamebait the majority in hopes they will flame you and you can turn them into the mods. Because as it is, I see your "arguement" as exactly that.

That's true. It's just flamebait. There's better places to be posting, than in a thread that's gonna be dead. Like them all. This is a vicious cycle.
Anyhow, a better way to post would be 'I'm glad this was passed, but share regrets to both sides, and they both suffered cataclysmic losses'.
Or something.

The above is exactly why I didn't want this repealed.[

Which set of moral opinions? If you want to be technical, it was moral opinions that passed the Legalized Prostitution resolution in the first place.

Also, I've noted it isn't the "whinging bleeding heart liberals," as you call the people of NS who currently dominate in viewpoint, who do most of the complaining about the UN. Finally, I want you to post evidence that they are truly "whinging bleeding heart liberals" and that your arguement not just trying to flamebait the majority in hopes they will flame you and you can turn them into the mods. Because as it is, I see your "arguement" as exactly that.


I absolutely agree, and commend DLE for his efforts.

Unfortunately the resolution has passed, but we cannot stand around bitching about it. We must get to work...

Actually, I'm not extending past rational boundaries. See the following thread for how easy it is to distract using a proposal:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=380626&page=1&pp=15

Read the entire topic. Keep in mind I had to point out what it is really for to get it actually discussed.

Rational boundaries was referring to this thread and the obscene amount of repetitive argumentation you contributed to it. When you send me a link to an 89 page long forum based around your argumentation, it doesn't really convince me that you aren't a huge part of why there are 50+ pages on this forum and nobody wished to read it. As for reading the entire topic, I'm afraid I'd have to respond with a hearty ARE YOU COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR MIND?!?!

Now that the resolution has passed, I still think you should attempt to reinstate a new resolution regarding the legalization of prostitution. If it is better worded and does the job correctly, I may just stand in support of it. And if it isn't and fails miserably, I (or my citizens, depending on your view of the game) can laugh at you.

PC promised a proposal dealing with this. I suggest we await his proposal before we do drafts or anything else related to this issue.

Rational boundaries was referring to this thread and the obscene amount of repetitive argumentation you contributed to it.

Repetitive arguing was contributed by all sides in obscene amounts. Besides, you can easily see I wasn't the majority of the posts. Go through the thread and count. There were certain points during which I was absent from posting for a few pages, mainly dealing with issues that required talking to the mods. I really didn't contribute as much to this thread as normal.

When you send me a link to an 89 page long forum based around your argumentation, it doesn't really convince me that you aren't a huge part of why there are 50+ pages on this forum and nobody wished to read it.

89 page long forum? The topic was only 6 pages. I even tested the link just to make sure it led to that topic. Maybe you mean 89 posts.

As for reading the entire topic, I'm afraid I'd have to respond with a hearty ARE YOU COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR MIND?!?!

What, this topic? Light read. Most of it is short one- or two-liners. The rest of it is quickly read if you only do a quick glance at the quotes to see which post they are responding to.

Now that the resolution has passed, I still think you should attempt to reinstate a new resolution regarding the legalization of prostitution. If it is better worded and does the job correctly, I may just stand in support of it.

I want to see what PC has in mind first. As it is, I'm going to end up trading puppets in one region anyways.

And if it isn't and fails miserably, I (or my citizens, depending on your view of the game) can laugh at you.

Good luck on that.

I offer my sincerest apologizes. I misinterpreted your snide comment regarding my grammatical abilities as a criticism. Naturally this annoyed me. Since that was the initiating comment that created an enthusiasm for reading your posts with a critical eye, we have had a misunderstanding. You were only trying to assist me in improving my writing abilities.

However I am trying to read your most recent post with an optimistic outlook and find it difficult to come up with any. I am not sure what "crap" you are referring to. Your descriptive word is somewhat ambiguous and does not reference anything in particular so I am at a loss to respond to it.

Your ability to use three syllable words in conjunction with some relevant outsideinformation seems to give you the freedom to attempt to intimidate others. While it is obvious that you possess the intellectual ability to discuss these matters I don't like the way you attempt to hammer others. I find your belittling amusing and decided to respond. Sorry if you are not used to people standing up to you. I responded to your comments on a number of ocassions. Pojonia, I admit, responded better. I was just congratulating her for expressing my ideas better. Relax and take a deep breath. I am sure we will be discussing another issue soon. I will try and respond to your ideas and view your comments with an optimistic outlook.

Samsonish

I offer my sincerest apologizes. I misinterpreted your snide comment regarding my grammatical abilities as a criticism. Naturally this annoyed me. Since that was the initiating comment that created an enthusiasm for reading your posts with a critical eye, we have had a misunderstanding. You were only trying to assist me in improving my writing abilities.

However I am trying to read your most recent post with an optimistic outlook and find it difficult to come up with any. I am not sure what "crap" you are referring to. Your descriptive word is somewhat ambiguous and does not reference anything in particular so I am at a loss to respond to it.

Your ability to use three syllable words in conjunction with some relevant outsideinformation seems to give you the freedom to attempt to intimidate others. While it is obvious that you possess the intellectual ability to discuss these matters I don't like the way you attempt to hammer others. I find your belittling amusing and decided to respond. Sorry if you are not used to people standing up to you. I responded to your comments on a number of ocassions. Pojonia, I admit, responded better. I was just congratulating her for expressing my ideas better. Relax and take a deep breath. I am sure we will be discussing another issue soon. I will try and respond to your ideas and view your comments with an optimistic outlook.

Samsonish

What is this? New revelation day?
PC stood up to DLE alot y'know.

Thank god, finally our streets are free of these sluts.

PC promised a proposal dealing with this.

As far as a proposal dealing with the issue in a positive way, there are the beginnings of a draft here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7915846&postcount=40). I feel somewhat conflicted here. I don't want to be a vigilante and take the reigns on this, too, but it seems that any efforts I'd likely be able to support (in my "sooner-is-better" time frame, right now), would require me to take some sort of initiative. I'll look over Hirota's text tomorrow and consider what the possible draft options are, and further weigh how much of a leadership role my nation will have. Don't get me wrong. I do think there should be a "semi-replacing" proposal. But I do not, at all, want to step on the toes of others who may just as easily take the helm. I'll figure it out tomorrow.

As far as a proposal dealing with the issue in a positive way, there are the beginnings of a draft here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7915846&postcount=40). I feel somewhat conflicted here.

Don't.

Three players have had 3 resolutions reach the UN floor. 2 players have had those 3 resolutions pass. (A repeal is a resolution, just with different game stats and effects.)

You've earned a break. :)

Once we get the Tsunami proposal submitted, I have 134 telegrams to send out. Being that I've not visited my family in a bit, I won't be around this weekend to work on better resolutions, but I intend to.


I have *3* resolutions in mind, and we can easily use Hirota's text:

- "International Sex Trade Regulations" or something like that (believe it or not, as Economic Freedoms) <--- trust me, I don't know how _exactly_ to write the preamble, but I have a good plan for the first few activating clauses such that this is *legal* within the game rules (there is a reason I've been beating everybody over the head with Cog's posts on the rules).

- some sort of Welfare resolution (Social Justice), but I'm conflicted here ... I think it should actually include provisions for sexual abuse, the idea here being it is for men and women who don't *want* to be in the sex trade.

- some sort of moral decency resolution limiting conflicts of interests related to police and government employees being *involved* in the sex trade. You can't very well be an objective police officer if you also are a customer.

Those are my ideas, and though I don't have them written down, I typically write my resolutions in my head and twist them while jogging or talking my walks. I'd love to see other peoples ideas. The best part about what we've done with the Tsunami resolution is there really are *4* authors in that resolution. :) Anyway, the moral decency issue will be a tight vote, and I'll need political help to get that one passed, but I think it will be fun.

Just remember: real world human rights, are divided into three categories in NationStates:

- civil freedoms (Human Rights / Moral Decency)
- political freedoms (Political Stability / the Furtherment of Democracy)
- economic freedoms (Free Trade / Social Justice)

When I write resolutions, since I try to balance globalism and sovereignty, I usually end up drafting resolutions as pairs ... meaning I like to see trade offs and a nod of the hat in both directions.

The key to whatever we do should really build from the base of existing UN resolutions.

So for those of you wanting to act quickly, the first and most useful thing would be to in that other thread list off all existing resolutions related to sexual freedom (or lack thereof) (including the rights of minors here). I'd recommend we read the text and then copy and paste the exact sections that we feel apply.

[NOTE: A crude UN resolution subject index is available at:
http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=33

I won't be able to update that puppy til next week, but the UNO is a free forum, and it would help a LOT if other players want to reply to that thread with keywords and resolutions so I can copy and paste to edit that file. All my files are resources for us and I encourage people to use them.] :p

My deepest appreciation for all those nations which have supported this repeal. Thank you!

Specifically, I thank Neigh Var for agreeing to try out my list of probable-approving delegates, and for sticking to his guns through everything. I thank NewTexas and Neo Portugal for being actively involved in both bringing the proposal to quorum and passing it through the general UN vote. I thank the Pacific delegates for their dedication to democracy, and willingness to vote with will of their region. Many thanks to the many nations in the forum who advertised their views and thoughts on the issue.

And, most of all, I'm grateful to the UN members for granting the proposal-repeal the priveledge of being a resolution-repeal.

The next step for me is to eat a ham sandwich and take a rest. Then, however, I'll actively campaign for a more suitable measure to address this issue, as it has become very apparent (at least to me) that one is needed.

Thanks!

By 1351 votes, passed. Close, but a win is a win. Hats off to you, PC.

Nicely done, well fought, and we shall meet again.

Excellent the repeal legalised prostitution act has passed albeit narrowly. Hopefully this spells a new dawn for NS: a place where moral opinions are given precedence from the whinging bleeding heart liberals.

Haven't been here long, have you?

Thank god, finally our streets are free of these sluts.

Wanna bet?

That you seek to be a "guiding force" is noble, but let us not believe you are coming to see yourself as the "saviour" or "director" of the UN.

Your strength is in your ability to refocus and play a resolution into sensibility. Attempting to "take all the spotlight" reduces your effect - we are certain you see the mechanism by which this is true.

In short - any may do as they will by their own timetable. They are free to do so. Your inclusion or lack thereof is not germaine to the existance of new legislation.


Don't.

Three players have had 3 resolutions reach the UN floor. 2 players have had those 3 resolutions pass. (A repeal is a resolution, just with different game stats and effects.)

You've earned a break. :)

Once we get the Tsunami proposal submitted, I have 134 telegrams to send out. Being that I've not visited my family in a bit, I won't be around this weekend to work on better resolutions, but I intend to.


I have *3* resolutions in mind, and we can easily use Hirota's text:

- "International Sex Trade Regulations" or something like that (believe it or not, as Economic Freedoms) <--- trust me, I don't know how _exactly_ to write the preamble, but I have a good plan for the first few activating clauses such that this is *legal* within the game rules (there is a reason I've been beating everybody over the head with Cog's posts on the rules).

- some sort of Welfare resolution (Social Justice), but I'm conflicted here ... I think it should actually include provisions for sexual abuse, the idea here being it is for men and women who don't *want* to be in the sex trade.

- some sort of moral decency resolution limiting conflicts of interests related to police and government employees being *involved* in the sex trade. You can't very well be an objective police officer if you also are a customer.

Those are my ideas, and though I don't have them written down, I typically write my resolutions in my head and twist them while jogging or talking my walks. I'd love to see other peoples ideas. The best part about what we've done with the Tsunami resolution is there really are *4* authors in that resolution. :) Anyway, the moral decency issue will be a tight vote, and I'll need political help to get that one passed, but I think it will be fun.

Just remember: real world human rights, are divided into three categories in NationStates:

- civil freedoms (Human Rights / Moral Decency)
- political freedoms (Political Stability / the Furtherment of Democracy)
- economic freedoms (Free Trade / Social Justice)

When I write resolutions, since I try to balance globalism and sovereignty, I usually end up drafting resolutions as pairs ... meaning I like to see trade offs and a nod of the hat in both directions.

The key to whatever we do should really build from the base of existing UN resolutions.

So for those of you wanting to act quickly, the first and most useful thing would be to in that other thread list off all existing resolutions related to sexual freedom (or lack thereof) (including the rights of minors here). I'd recommend we read the text and then copy and paste the exact sections that we feel apply.

[NOTE: A crude UN resolution subject index is available at:
http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=33

I won't be able to update that puppy til next week, but the UNO is a free forum, and it would help a LOT if other players want to reply to that thread with keywords and resolutions so I can copy and paste to edit that file. All my files are resources for us and I encourage people to use them.] :p

That you seek to be a "guiding force" is noble, but let us not believe you are coming to see yourself as the "saviour" or "director" of the UN.

Your strength is in your ability to refocus and play a resolution into sensibility. Attempting to "take all the spotlight" reduces your effect - we are certain you see the mechanism by which this is true.

In short - any may do as they will by their own timetable. They are free to do so. Your inclusion or lack thereof is not germaine to the existance of new legislation.

Be it noted that this post, and many others are considered flames. Your attacks are not germaine to the topic at hand and designed solely to attack me.

I'll be reporting this one and future ones to the moderators. I'm sure that should this pattern continue that this will be considered grounds for griefing per the NationStates game FAQ (I trust I don't need to point out where in the FAQ, but I will be happy to if asked).

Tell ya what, Mik - as you're impossible to compliment (as I pointed out you have strength, and you take it as a "flame"?), how about you hit ye olde "ignore" button, and I'll do the same on you? We'll both be happier for it, and you'll never have to bring up those three apologies you owe?

*goes first*click*

Don't delude yourselves that banning prostiution will end it, or make people healthier or safer. You may have won this battle, Ayatollahs, but we will be back, bringing our libertarian message of personal choice with us. :sniper:

Sic semper tyrannis!

Don't delude yourselves that banning prostiution will end it,Sorry, who has banned it?or make people healthier or saferWell, neither did the original resolution expect by implication.You may have won this battle,Yes, we got rid of a bad resolution, and started working on a good one. I'd say that is a victory for everyone. but we will be back, bringing our libertarian message of personal choice with us. :sniper:Did you know 8 out of 10 newcomers never post again??

Tell ya what, Mik - as you're impossible to compliment (as I pointed out you have strength, and you take it as a "flame"?), how about you hit ye olde "ignore" button, and I'll do the same on you? We'll both be happier for it, and you'll never have to bring up those three apologies you owe?

*goes first*click*

A compliament buried in a flame is still a flame. This is the FIRST of your flames that I've responded to. I let 9 other attacks in this very thread on my character (not my argument) go unanswered.

In this particular case, you earlier called me full of hot air and a liar suggesting that I wasn't really planning on making a resolution to replace the one we repealed. I have already shown that I am interested in doing this, along side with Hirota, RomeW, _Myopia_, the Powerhungry Chipmunks, and others.

So your post here now flaming me for doing something you flamed me earlier for makes it clear that your interest here is to attack my character. The work on the new resolutions was even linked in a post by the PC, which I believe you responded to shortly before responding to my post.

As for the long-term trend ...

Remember when you posted nothing else but, "When you sleep at night, do you dream about NationStates?" That too is a rude post, designed to attack me. This is just one example, one of the more memorable ones, but you've made it crystal clear that you don't like me. My objection is to you ignoring my posts and just top posting a flame ... you do this FREQUENTLY.

I'm not planning on interacting with you, but given that you have a long history of flaming me, I will read your posts and when you cross that line again (and I honestly hope you don't), it will be considered part of a longer established trend of griefing.

Wow, this topic exploded from the last time I checked it. Nuts.

Anyway, congrats on getting the legislation repealed, though I hope a more suitable resolution comes to our plates regarding the matter, if prostitution is not simply left alone for our sovereignties to deal with.

Congratulations.
This forum and the whole concept of the 'game', is just like real life.
What ever the people want ignore and do what you, the elected or unelected representative wants and the hell with the so called democracy of the UN. Exactly like the real world.

Prostitution is real in what ever world you live. Deal with it in a real way...

Prostitution is very real and i won't deny it. If people are going to do it then it should be done safely in a professional run cat house, right? Wrong. I think it's completely wrong for the plain and simple fact, most women, not all, who get involved with prostitution is doing it as means of escape or for survival. You think most of them do it because they want to? Or because they've had to and just got used to it?

You could argue that many people are in jobs they hate but come on, this is prostitution, selling your body for sex. Some people do it because they simply enjoy sex. I'm not going to go into the morals of these women because it isn't my place but the fact is, many women are prostituting themselves because they feel they have to. Women shouldn't feel they need to sell their bodies to be happy because they make good money. I don't care what anyone says but women who prostitute themselves have issues that i won't even go into. They're not bad people, not at all, some are very normal compared to how their presented on television and in the media.

Either way i believe that repealing this was the best solution. It mightened stop prostitution from happening but allowing it is promoting it and instead we should try to be getting help for those who're doing it for the wrong reasons.

...the hell with the so called democracy of the UN.


Just because you disagree with the outcome doesn't mean it wasn't arrived at democratically.

Don't.

Three players have had 3 resolutions reach the UN floor. 2 players have had those 3 resolutions pass. (A repeal is a resolution, just with different game stats and effects.)

You've earned a break. :)

Once we get the Tsunami proposal submitted, I have 134 telegrams to send out. Being that I've not visited my family in a bit, I won't be around this weekend to work on better resolutions, but I intend to.


Phew!

Yeah, I was thinking there might be some pressure for me to push a proposal through on the fly. I'd much rather allow the forum to draft its own new proposal or proposals. I'm glad I can take at least a short breather.

I offer my sincerest apologizes. I misinterpreted your snide comment regarding my grammatical abilities as a criticism. Naturally this annoyed me. Since that was the initiating comment that created an enthusiasm for reading your posts with a critical eye, we have had a misunderstanding. You were only trying to assist me in improving my writing abilities.

And I appreciate it when people point out my mistakes. I know I make them, partially because I type so damned fast, but many of them are more habbit than anything else.

However I am trying to read your most recent post with an optimistic outlook and find it difficult to come up with any. I am not sure what "crap" you are referring to. Your descriptive word is somewhat ambiguous and does not reference anything in particular so I am at a loss to respond to it.

Ignore the crap comment. Mostly very mild annoyance speaking.

Your ability to use three syllable words in conjunction with some relevant outsideinformation seems to give you the freedom to attempt to intimidate others. While it is obvious that you possess the intellectual ability to discuss these matters I don't like the way you attempt to hammer others.

Not many people do. But I use the style because it gets the point across in a fashion that leaves you no doubt as to my opposition and hopefully no doubt as to what I am saying. If you look into my earlier posts on this forum, you'll see I've mellowed a bit. I've actually mellowed quite a bit, as I perfected this style on a forum where even a spelling error could cause your entire arguement to be dismissed.

I find your belittling amusing and decided to respond. Sorry if you are not used to people standing up to you.

Actually, I find arguements are more interesting if people do stand up. It sometimes comes to the most interesting pieces of evidence and arguements people have not considered being posted.

Just note that if you are assaulting my arguement, be prepared to post evidence. You don't have to have it on hand (I don't always), but at least be able to point to where you got it from. If you have to search out evidence for a bit, feel free to do so. After all, I'm not exactly going to call you on not having evidence if you say you are going to get some or you delay a bit in posting.

Sometimes, I don't post on a issue for a bit because I'm doing research. And some topics I don't know enough on to formulate an arguement in a certain area. And, if you look it up, you'll find cases of me admitting I'm wrong or can't find the evidence to back it and, thus, am surrendering.

I responded to your comments on a number of ocassions. Pojonia, I admit, responded better. I was just congratulating her for expressing my ideas better. Relax and take a deep breath. I am sure we will be discussing another issue soon. I will try and respond to your ideas and view your comments with an optimistic outlook.

Don't be afraid to be a bit of an ass. If you have the evidence to back you, part of the fun of this place is being able to be an ass and back up your statements.

As far as a proposal dealing with the issue in a positive way, there are the beginnings of a draft here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7915846&postcount=40). I feel somewhat conflicted here. I don't want to be a vigilante and take the reigns on this, too, but it seems that any efforts I'd likely be able to support (in my "sooner-is-better" time frame, right now), would require me to take some sort of initiative. I'll look over Hirota's text tomorrow and consider what the possible draft options are, and further weigh how much of a leadership role my nation will have. Don't get me wrong. I do think there should be a "semi-replacing" proposal. But I do not, at all, want to step on the toes of others who may just as easily take the helm. I'll figure it out tomorrow.

No problems. I would wait for a bit on this issue anyway. Give the UN a bit of time to calm down on this issue before throwing it back in their faces. Besides, now the mods have a bit less work in that they don't have to delete as many proposals.

Congratulations.
This forum and the whole concept of the 'game', is just like real life.
What ever the people want ignore and do what you, the elected or unelected representative wants and the hell with the so called democracy of the UN. Exactly like the real world.

Prostitution is real in what ever world you live. Deal with it in a real way...

Actually, this is true democracy in action. You get the people who end up being leaders because the public of that area supports them as such, thus giving them more weight and the ability to bully around others, while they in turn must keep those who put them in that semi-power happy. The result is the minority, whoever it is on the issue, always loses. That is why democracy never works and republics are so fraught with problems, while both have questionable stability.

This resolution is completely ridiculous.
This is an attempt from democratic countries to bring dictatorships down.
Laides and gentlemen, you all need o understand that sometimes, it is not possible to treat everyone equaly. if we were supposed to be equal, there would not be white, black, orientals and red people walking on earth. If we were supposed to be equal, there would not be men and women, and we would simply reproduce without sexual intercourse.
In this world, some people are born to rule and others are born to obey, and this is the only way to survive. You simply cannot treat a tycoon and an unemployed, handicap beggar the same way. A tycoon is a lot more productive to a nation.
The same thing to races and gender. Each race was designed by nature to have a special characteristics. I do not know if you have notice this, but black people usually have a greater performance then white people in sports involving speed. orientals are usually better skilled in math and logic competitions etc. Of course these races can be friends, get married and have children with each other, but it would be hypocrite to treat them equaly.
The same thing goes for men and women. It is scientificly proven that men are better drivers, because their brain have a greater capacity regarding orientation. Women, have a greater capacity to do more than one actions at a time, and that is why they are so good maids: They can clean, cook and take care of the kids all at once.
Ladies and gentlemen, evolution gave us the oportunity to have different carachteristics. It is up to us to use them to our own benefit, but it is not possible to treat everyone equaly. I repeat, some people are born to rule and others to obey.
This is the most utopan resolution ever, and it will not work.
Thank you very much

What the hell it's over.
It's time to complain about that it got passed, not about anything else.