NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems that Demon enigma feels very passionate about making whoring legal. I didn't ask how to leave the UN,
OK... but then you say...

I asked how to leave the UN and throw out regulations like this whoring resolution.
Kinda sounds like you asked to leave the UN.

If this bill passes I see myself leaving the UN. The basic argument for legalization of whoring is "morals are bad, religion is wrong, whoring is healthy," and whatever else they can come up with.
No, that isn't the argument. But you aren't really interested in the argument, so there's no point in going over it again.

What's next up for the UN, mandatory legalization of abortion across the board, or maybe banning religion altogether?
(a) It already is
(b) I'd be for that resolution

With about 2000 or so (If I am not mistaken) UN delagates, how can you in anyway say that the majority of the delagates agree with you and this shifty resolution?

Assuming the passage of this Resolution, Krankor has submitted a proposal for the establishment of "Caligula" houses of prostitution. These houses will be totally compatible with the Sex Industry Worker Act, and judging from the general attitude of the UN membership, highly popular. A separate thread will be started momentarily.

Saw it. I'm assuming you thought it was funny.

I don't believe that the UN has any business in this matter. This should be left up to the individual sovereign nations. :mad:

They aren't. The main issue is economic freedom - the right to "sell" your body. This is best done throughout the NSUN - I don't want my people to be arrested somewhere for visiting or being a prostitute. It's ridiculous that someone who has made a certain career decision can be excluded solely on that ground. And don't start about criminals - having sex with someone is entirely different from stealing or doing physical harm.
Well then common sense would say to not be a prostitute some place where it is illegal or some place where the regulations make certain aspects and practices of the job illegal; Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Calling prostitution a career decision is a euphemism for a practice that has been looked down apon for centuries.

Having sex with some one for cash does cause harm, having to pay some one to get something you can get for free after going through the various stages of relationships is in no way healthy to some one financially or mentally.

Besides, the things people come up with (crime, drugs, STDs) are all effects of illegal prostitution, or unregulated prostitution. This resolution will change that.

You know what? I am getting sick and tired of you saying "This mighty nice peice of paper will change everything!" Because it wont. Crime is still a factor in prostitution as boot legging is still a factor in the selling of CDs. STDs will become more widespread no matter how its regulated outside of facism.

Suddenly turning something illegal into a national industry and regulating it costs alot of money, but I guess you forgot about that.

Now, the moral argument is difficult, because I can't change nations's viewpoints if they're that strong. However, my reasoning is: this resolution only legalizes prostitution. It doesn't say what you have to think about it. It doesn't say you have to promote it. And if you are so against, then educate your people, take away the cause of prostitution.

Only legalizes it huh? Thats changing a nations opinion for them as their old opinion of it (Making it illegal FYI) has now been changed; Forcefully. And what happens if people decide to declare all prostitutes horrible dirty shanky whores like they always have been? I think that is illegal under former resolutions. Also, the children in my nation need to learn how to operate massive warships, not why they shouldn't be a whore (Besides the obvious).

And greed is the root of the problem pall, and that will never change.

It is only a symptom, there is no point in trying to put it away because it will come back anyway. So you will have to do more than that, you have to put effort into it to go to the root. That might be poverty, or strict morals about sex, poor education, the treatment of women. Fix that, whatever it is (your nation can decide that) and prostitution will disappear.

Alot of things in life "Will always come back anyway" this doesn't make them suddenly valid under the law and the logic behind that argument is poor and almost non-existent. And again, you seem to think money grows on trees.

Isn't that a great prospect? Less prostitution through legal prostitution? I have yet to see a convincing argument against this. And remember: forbidden fruit tastes best.
I have yet to see ANY EVIDENCE at all that suggests making something legal that was illegal makes things better for all.

And that's the problem: They're only global issues. The UN is an intergalactic group. It includes nations such as my own that are thousands of lightyears away from Earth and nations that can use magic, travel through time, etc.

In order to make them work, you have to word it so that they only affect Earth. Otherwise, they tend to be argued against because they affect someone in a damaging way.

Sorry I am a little behind with the posts... a lot of stuff happens here quickly!

I will confess to limiting my thinking to global ideas but I really was not aware this game covered intergalactic/universe and fantasy types of issues.

Is there a forum for this or something I am missing?

With about 2000 or so (If I am not mistaken) UN delagates, how can you in anyway say that the majority of the delagates agree with you and this shifty resolution?

Right now? Simply which side gets the most votes. If you wish, you can count the number of delegates for each side.

Well then common sense would say to not be a prostitute some place where it is illegal or some place where the regulations make certain aspects and practices of the job illegal; Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Automatic bonus points.

Calling prostitution a career decision is a euphemism for a practice that has been looked down apon for centuries.

That depends on the nation. The people of mine haven't looked down upon it for millions of years.

Having sex with some one for cash does cause harm, having to pay some one to get something you can get for free after going through the various stages of relationships is in no way healthy to some one financially or mentally.

They're in it to get their bit of fun, maybe live out a fantasy or two they can't otherwise. Hell, why do you think dominatrixes are so popular in the modern era? It's no more unhealthy than people who choose to escape reality by retreating into books, television, or games over the internet.

You know what? I am getting sick and tired of you saying "This mighty nice peice of paper will change everything!" Because it wont. Crime is still a factor in prostitution as boot legging is still a factor in the selling of CDs. STDs will become more widespread no matter how its regulated outside of facism.

Suddenly turning something illegal into a national industry and regulating it costs alot of money, but I guess you forgot about that.

If you're going to want to control this, you have to realize that no matter how it goes you have to be nearly fascist to actually control the spread of STDs through prostitution, no matter the legality of it. Most nations don't have the necessary amount of force in their police to even attempt to deal with prostitution, and those that do are usually members who use fear to rule. Making it legal makes it easier for many nations to control it, as then they can set up methods of control not available as long as it remains illegal.

And as for the cost: Use tax revenues from prostitution to pay for it.

And greed is the root of the problem pall, and that will never change.

Greed will always be the root of the problem. The people of DLE happen to like the fact their government is greedy and yet still manages to be concerned enough about them to try to keep taxes reasonably low.

Government is a balancing act between the greed of those in it, the concern for those it rules, and the things either side would like the government to pay for. If you're going to be a good government, you need a little greed.

Alot of things in life "Will always come back anyway" this doesn't make them suddenly valid under the law and the logic behind that argument is poor and almost non-existent. And again, you seem to think money grows on trees.

See what I said above about how to pay for it.

I have yet to see ANY EVIDENCE at all that suggests making something legal that was illegal makes things better for all.

I think I'll leave this one for Groot Gouda. It's his arguement.

I don't believe that the UN has any business in this matter. This should be left up to the individual sovereign nations.

Already dealt with, try reading the first ten pages, and smilies don't help your case.

Sorry I am a little behind with the posts... a lot of stuff happens here quickly!

I will confess to limiting my thinking to global ideas but I really was not aware this game covered intergalactic/universe and fantasy types of issues.

Is there a forum for this or something I am missing?

The daily issues generally don't cover it, but the game itself allows such. Check Internation Incidents or the NationStates forums. In there, you'll find plenty of topics related to MT and FT, as well as the occasional one about the magic nations.

"It doesn't belong in the UN" is mostly something nations who are against use, so I assume there must be an underlying reason. That is what should be discussed here.

So what your saying is that once the delegates send a proposal to vote, the argument that it shoulld be beyond the UN sphere of influence is no longer valid? I disagree. Believing that a proposal should not be within the pervue of the UN is a perfectly valid reason to vote agqainst it, a perfectly good argument to make, and indeed may persuade some members of the UN to vote against said preposal. getting something to the floor is only the first step. Debate is still vaid as long as voting is occuring. And perhaps more people would come to these forums and engae in debate, if that debate was not so often squelched by others out of hand. Those who are trying to squelch debate are usually doing so for a reason, they are afraid that the debate may accually change some peoples minds against thier position.

Why do you find it necessary to force this farcical legislation on the DECENT people of the Republic of Dorksonia? This is an issue that belongs at the local level for debate there. Ahh......the shame of it all!

you need to define mature you can t just say it is it 18, 21, 14? you need to say

That is decided within each nation, some populations may decide their people are mature after a few weeks others not until they are ancient by others standards.

Somebody wrote:

"I have yet to see ANY EVIDENCE at all that suggests making something legal that was illegal makes things better for all."

I missed the context of that post, as I've been working on some regional and United Nations Association tools as of late, however, American History only need to look back at Prohibition and the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments to the US Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition#United_States

I don't know how many of you have been to the hidden speakeasies in San Francisco or New York City, but it is fairly well documented that making something like this illegal only promotes organized crime.

While national Prohibition did much to reduce the consumption of alcoholic beverages by Americans, they were still widely available at speakeasies and other underground drinking establishments, and many people kept private bars to serve their guests. Large quantities of alcohol were smuggled in from Canada and the French islands of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. Legal and illegal home brewing was popular during Prohibition. Limited amounts of wine and hard cider were permitted to be made at home. Some wine was still produced in the U.S. but was only available through government warehouses for use by churches at communion. Whiskey was available by prescription from medical doctors. "Malt and hop" stores popped up across the country and some former breweries turned to selling malt extract syrup, ostensibly for baking and "beverage" purposes.

Even prominent citizens and politicians later admitted to having used alcohol during Prohibition. This discrepancy between legality and actual practice led to widespread disdain for authorities. Some Prohibition agents took bribes to overlook the illegal brewing activities of gangsters. Many problems arose. It had been estimated that six million dollars would be needed to enforce prohibition laws. Over time, however, people drank illegally and money ended up in gangster's pockets. Gangsters would then bribe officials to ignore their illegal activities. The cost of enforcing prohibition laws thus increased. In some cases, the money likely ended up in corrupt Prohibition agencies.


Wiki continues with ...

Prohibition also presented lucrative opportunities for organized crime to take over the importation ("bootlegging"), manufacture, and distribution of alcoholic beverages. Al Capone, one of the most famous bootleggers of them all, built his criminal empire largely on profits from illegal alcohol.

Illegal alcohol! Not other drugs, but booze.

In any event, this is not to say that legalizing prostitution will make crime go away. In fact, organized crime could easily turn to something else. My government has reason to believe that organized crime will respond locally to the next illegal demand of each society, and that this response will change from country to country. But this does not change my government's position that spending money of busting prostitutes is really a fundamental flaw in economic freedoms and waste of resources.

OOC: It happens that one of my ancestors was a truck driver for Capone. He delivered "water" and other "legal" liquids. ;)

"1. War, violence, and conflict cannot be reduced without affecting nonmember nations or attempting to actually unite the UN, which is an impossibility.

2. Those in poverty either come from societies that need fixing or are lazy. Neither of which are problems the UN can solve.

3. Education and pollution have been dealt with.

4. Civil rights have gone pretty much as far as they can legally.

5. This is about economics, not civil rights." from Demon Lord

Looking at Demon Lords responses I am even more confused. #1 since we can't unite the whole UN we are not going to address the most prevalent problem in nation states, the real world, or for that fact in almost any fantasy world. Interesting conflict and violence we will ignore because it is too hard but we will invest enormous amounts of time in who has sex with whom.

#2 Poverty is due to laziness or broken societies. Wow that is not quite up to your usual standards of proving your points. From the poorest societies to the richest there are levels of poverty. It is so unlike you to blame the victim. The poor are poor because they choose to or because their society is broken. I guess that would apply to all societies since poverty is in every one to a degree.

#3 I began skimming the previous resolutions and see some that deal with education and some pollution issues but there sure a lot of issues that have not been dealt with. Is sex truly the most prevalent problem of the day?

4. Civil rights have gone as far as they can legally. What does that mean?Legally, some would argue that some resolutions are illegal and go to far. Now you are saying their are limits on civil rights. Can you define that. I don't understand.

5. I agree that the resolution views this subject as an economic event. However, that is the weakness of the resolution. For a significant amount of the population it is a moral issue. Before you get off on the rant about morality, economics issues have frequently been a moral issue. (i.e. equal pay for equal work, slavery, etc.)

Samsonish

1. I was giving you directions on how to resign if you chose to. Common sense dictates how you would be rid of the resolution's effects.

2. Now, I'm advising you to leave. I'll help you into the express elevator.

3. Abortion was already made a mandatory legal option across the board. Try reading passed resolutions.


Who are you to tell me to leave, and what I may or may not say on this board? My concerns are just as valid as your's. Only difference is mine are not the most popular right now. Also, if abortion is legalized why then in my issues, was i allowed to ban it?

Some of you probably havent read the arguements against the resolution. Please go back and read the entire topic.
Also keep in mind that you can just legalize it yourself in your own nations. And not force other nations who believe it is bad(such as myself, i may leave the UN if this passes. I do not want prositution legal in my nation. It is a immoral, unhealthy regardless of what precautions you take, and a child production risk(i am also anti abortion). Do not force upon us what you want in your nation.

Ecomnomics and morality go hand in hand. We could make a whole lot of money selling crack but we don't. Why not? Because it could ruin lives and is imoral. Like prositiution.

Ecomnomics and morality go hand in hand. We could make a whole lot of money selling crack but we don't. Why not? Because it could ruin lives and is imoral. Like prositiution.

Immoral how? (In relation to prostitution, not crack)

Immoral how? (In relation to prostitution, not crack)

I dont mean to flame, but that is a dumb question. Theres a very long list to answer that with. Im going to let you try and figure it out for yourself.

Tell me how that's immoral if you both people consent to having sex, and if both persons aren't married, or, if one of them is, they have the permission of the spouse.

I'm not seeing why prostitution is an issue that the UN should address. This seems to me to be an issue that is for each individual nation to address, reguarding morality, economics etc. Don't tell me how not to be affected by this resoulution etc, I just think this is totally out of the UN's jurisdiction. I also know this is an opinion that has been heard many times here, I'm just adding my voice.

DLE, thank you for your thoughtful, reply. I'll try to repay the favor in what time I have.

I said something about how I found this whole thing hilariously conrtadictory.. You said:




Then you must find a lot of the UN resolutions, such as the Universal Bill of Rights, Sexual Freedom, Gay Rights, and others hilariously contradictory.



No I don't those resolutions address basic human rights, not the ability of someone to engage in a particular industry. The former is an appropriate role for an international body. The latter seems heavyhanded, even authoritarian which seems counter to the proposed goals of expanding individual choice.



All the resolution does is have you make it legal. It then asks you to put regulations on prostitution, but doesn't require them. Basically, it makes it legal and then allows you to decide in what way. Your police stop arresting prostitutes. You get to choose which prostitutes they don't arrest. That is your option. The resolution was, from my reading of it, designed with that option in mind... Pretty much, you're free to regulate it as you wish without outside interference. The only people who should be unhappy are those who want to ban it outright in the entire UN.



So basically you are agreeing that this resolution *at best* does nothing at all. I could declare prostitution "legal" but put so many restrictions on it that it is still de facto illegal. For instance, the proposition addresses legalizing the provision of sexual services, but does not address the consuption of these services. If it is still illegal to hire a prositute, then what good is it to be a prostitute?

If you concern is thwarting those who would ban prostitution outright in the entire UN (something I wholeheartedly support, for the same reason I oppose this proposal), then why not simply uphold the right of states to make their own laws regarding the Sex Industry, and perhaps address some of the International issues such as traficking and extrodition disputes.


Don't you mean "basic human privilages?" The only basic right you have is the right to die. The rest can be taken away from you with ease.



IANAL, but I believe that there are a body of human rights that the UN believe that all humans have upon birth just on their based on their humaness alone. Their ability to exercise these rights is anothe matter. Human rights are worth fighting for and are worth preempting national legislation for, the right to engage in a particular economic endeavor is not.

I said that "it is a silly argument to say that "prostitution is going to happen anyway, so you might as well legalize it." Terrorism is also going to happen anyway, and somehow I don't think that legalizing it is going to allow you to control the problems associated with it." You said:


Wanna bet? Terrorist actions against other nations are, by DLE law, perfectly legal. One of my citizens is legally allowed to take a nuclear device, go into one of your cities, and detonate it. Now, how do I control the terrorists who would do this? My border guards are loyal military, and each one is probably more heavily armed than your entire military. They decide who comes in and who leaves, and they're very efficient at their job.

As for internal problems: Those are also controlled, by a combination of military, police, and public cameras armed with special equipment. You don't pass down one of my streets without my police forces knowing everything about you, down to your cellular structure and genetic coding.



I'm not sure how this adds to your case. It would seem that survailence and robust law enforcement to prevent any illegal activities is your MO here, not the legal status of terrorism no matter what that may be.

I dont mean to flame, but that is a dumb question. Theres a very long list to answer that with. Im going to let you try and figure it out for yourself.

Two consenting people have sex. One gets paid, the other pays. There is no co-ercion, no rape, no forced sex.

How is that immoral?

And - btw - it's not a dumb question. Morals are all a matter of perspective. I want an answer to why some narrow minded people think its immoral when most people who actually can see past their own tiny little concerns don't appear to believe it is.

Exactly. Promiscuity is not illegal. If I walked into the street and randomly slept with the next consenting person I saw, then no one would care. But if they were to slip me a fiver afterwards, suddenly it is illegal? What exactly is the illegal part of the act? It's not the sex. That happens legally. It's not the exchange of money on its own. That happens legally. The combination of the both? What about porn? People get paid to have sex, albeit by a third party. But that's legal. What exaclty is it about prostitution that is wrong? And don't quote religion, because it frowns on adultery, promiscuity, and pre-marital sex, and none of them are illegal.

I'm not seeing why prostitution is an issue that the UN should address. This seems to me to be an issue that is for each individual nation to address, reguarding morality, economics etc. Don't tell me how not to be affected by this resoulution etc, I just think this is totally out of the UN's jurisdiction. I also know this is an opinion that has been heard many times here, I'm just adding my voice.

Because it is a matter of individual choice, not of national choice.

I'm not seeing why prostitution is an issue that the UN should address. This seems to me to be an issue that is for each individual nation to address, reguarding morality, economics etc. Don't tell me how not to be affected by this resoulution etc, I just think this is totally out of the UN's jurisdiction. I also know this is an opinion that has been heard many times here, I'm just adding my voice.

Hmm...your point has been heard before, why bring it up again? We've debated it SO many times, people already basically know what'll happen.

Because it is a matter of individual choice, not of national choice.

So you're saying that the government shouldn't act as a role model to it's citizens? Setting a coherent set of morals for people to follow can save a lot on jain space.

So you're saying that the government shouldn't act as a role model to it's citizens? Setting a coherent set of morals for people to follow can save a lot on jain space.

In some cases? No. Because by that justification you can make sodomy a crime, even though most people would consider what people do in the privacy of their own homes their business.

And morals should not dictate what is legal and what is not - especially not the morals of just a few people who happen to be in a position of power over everyone else. If the person is doing nothing to harm anyone else, why should what they are doing be considered a crime, just because one or two people who happen to be in a position of power consider it morally wrong?

are u kidding me every one who votes for are pervs i cant beleve any one would vote yes for this with any morals at all


die pervs :sniper:

Dude people we already repealed this crap why on earth are we voting for it over again. and who the heck are the people who are voting for every single freakin resolution regardless of what it says. What the heck is wrong with the pervs obsessed with sex who seem to think that the UN should govern be involved in sexual relations?

In some cases? No. Because by that justification you can make sodomy a crime, even though most people would consider what people do in the privacy of their own homes their business.

And morals should not dictate what is legal and what is not - especially not the morals of just a few people who happen to be in a position of power over everyone else. If the person is doing nothing to harm anyone else, why should what they are doing be considered a crime, just because one or two people who happen to be in a position of power consider it morally wrong?

If morals shouldnt be dictated why on earth do you want the UN to dictate what is sexually permissible instead of the people of each individual nation. if you want to permit prostitution fine, pass laws in your own land dont force others to back your sexual immorality.

They aren't. The main issue is economic freedom - the right to "sell" your body. This is best done throughout the NSUN - I don't want my people to be arrested somewhere for visiting or being a prostitute. It's ridiculous that someone who has made a certain career decision can be excluded solely on that ground. And don't start about criminals - having sex with someone is entirely different from stealing or doing physical harm.

Besides, the things people come up with (crime, drugs, STDs) are all effects of illegal prostitution, or unregulated prostitution. This resolution will change that. Now, the moral argument is difficult, because I can't change nations's viewpoints if they're that strong. However, my reasoning is: this resolution only legalizes prostitution. It doesn't say what you have to think about it. It doesn't say you have to promote it. And if you are so against, then educate your people, take away the cause of prostitution. It is only a symptom, there is no point in trying to put it away because it will come back anyway. So you will have to do more than that, you have to put effort into it to go to the root. That might be poverty, or strict morals about sex, poor education, the treatment of women. Fix that, whatever it is (your nation can decide that) and prostitution will disappear.

Isn't that a great prospect? Less prostitution through legal prostitution? I have yet to see a convincing argument against this. And remember: forbidden fruit tastes best.


OOC: Where I live lots of things (prostitution, euthanasia, softdrugs) that people in this thread probably condemn are legal. But it doesn't lead to the problems people mention, and if it does, it's because of the restrictions, not the freedom. I'm not a sex-mad individual smoking dope all the time. On the contrary, I've never smoked anything and am in a stable relationship. Lots of stuff is extremely boring when it's legal. Walking through a street with prostitutes is not a lot different from walking past other shops. And as soon as you reach that point, where things become normal, it's much easier to deal with, and society benefits from that by being more open and friendly towards each other and other people. If you repress that, or put away the different people, society becomes hostile and closed. Especially societies with strong moral rules, laid down from Above, tend to be very violent. Ignoring that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I don't care if it's will make a place better or whatever, it should be up to individual nations regardless, because people feel very strongly about it.

The Parliament of Pitts Park is beginning to wonder what the heck is the matter with the UN. First, there was a UN resolution to legalize prostitution, then more recently there was a resolution to repeal that resolution and now there is a resolution that essentially reestablishes the original resolution. UN members need to decide on this issue once and for all and critically think about every resolution before automatically voting for it.
We will now reiterate part of the argument we used to support the repeal of legalized prostitution. Although prostitution is legal in Pitts Park, we do not feel this is an issue that should be decided by the UN. We do not equate joining the UN with surrendering all state sovereignty. We joined the UN because it is an institution that promotes the values we believe in, namely human rights, peace, democracy, and freedom. We feel we can better contribute to issues regarding these values when we join together with other nations. For example, the recent AIDS act that passed in the UN to help fight AIDS in poorer nations and throughout the world. AIDS is a global problem that requires a global solution and the better-off nations have a duty to join together to try to solve the problem and help nations that cannot deal with the problem.
Legalizing prostitution, on the other hand, is an issue that different nations and peoples are going to have different feelings about and it is not an issue that involves a huge human rights crisis, and therefore it should be dealt with on a state by state basis. If we planned on giving up all decision power on everything to the UN, then there'd be no purpose of having individual nation-states. There might as well be one massive nation-state called the United Nations. Pitts Park tries to work with the UN to defend human rights and peace but we believe strongly in our right and the right of other nations to determine their own constitutions, laws, etc. if they do not interfere with human rights and peace. Therefore we reiterate vehemently that we vote AGAINST this resolution.
The Parliament of Pitts Park is also seriously considering withdrawing our nation from the UN, not necessarily because this, or any other resolution, has really bothered us, although we do disagree with some resolutions, but rather because UN members throughout the world do not seem to be taking their voting responsibilities seriously. It appears as if most UN members are just automatically voting FOR every resolution that comes to vote. This is evidenced by what we said earlier that prostitution has been legalized and then it was repealed and now it looks like it will be legalized again---all of that has happened in a relatively short period of time and leads us to believe that UN members are not considering the resolutions, but rather just adding their rubber stamp approval to all proposed resolutions. UN Nations, the Parliament of Pitts Park strongly urges you to stand up against this pathetic submissiveness in the UN and vote AGAINST the current resolution. As earlier stated, if things don't soon change in the UN, the Republic of Pitts Park will have no choice but to withdraw from the UN.

Two consenting people have sex. One gets paid, the other pays. There is no co-ercion, no rape, no forced sex.

How is that immoral?

And - btw - it's not a dumb question. Morals are all a matter of perspective. I want an answer to why some narrow minded people think its immoral when most people who actually can see past their own tiny little concerns don't appear to believe it is.

Their own tiny little concerns? If people are having concerns, then there is probably a problem with it. What is the purpose of sex? It's not make money off of, surely. I mean, think of the people who do it for a living, having sex with so many people, would you take a person like that home with you? Could you trust them not to compare you to others they've screwed? And reverse, people going to prostitutes because they can't get sex I'd presume, if they do find someone, how many people would find it credible that they were so desperate for sex that they would pay someone for it? To me it's immoral because it promotes problems with intimate relationships, and says their effects are okay. It speaks a message of "hey, sex is nothing! It's just a product! Prostitutes are just products! There's no MEANING to it." And, most people would object to that.

If it was widely accepted that sex should be easily sold with money, what value does it have beyond money? I think sex would drop in value if it was widely marketed.

Two consenting people have sex. One gets paid, the other pays. There is no co-ercion, no rape, no forced sex.

How is that immoral?

And - btw - it's not a dumb question. Morals are all a matter of perspective. I want an answer to why some narrow minded people think its immoral when most people who actually can see past their own tiny little concerns don't appear to believe it is.

You still dont get it. I feel sorry for you. (that is not a flamebait, i seriously am sorry for you.)

Two reasons:1. religion. It is an ignorance of most religions. enough said
2. Other people. And the future. (This is a deep answer, but in the long run, your actions now will effect the future. I know this first hand.)
3. I know i said 2. Your using sex for reasons other than its purpose(maybe religous, but not quite in this case), basicly its an abuse of a system with a base function that we abuse for our own misdeeds. Sex was not meant for us to abuse and take pleasure from. God probably made it pleasurable to persuade the human race to reproduce itself.
Its otherwise a gross practice, and noone would do it.


Nations, those who wish to have prostitution. Do not force other nations into it by making it a UN law. Vote against it, and form the policies yourself in your OWN nation. not ours.

Their own tiny little concerns? If people are having concerns, then there is probably a problem with it. What is the purpose of sex? It's not make money off of, surely. I mean, think of the people who do it for a living, having sex with so many people, would you take a person like that home with you? Could you trust them not to compare you to others they've screwed? And reverse, people going to prostitutes because they can't get sex I'd presume, if they do find someone, how many people would find it credible that they were so desperate for sex that they would pay someone for it? To me it's immoral because it promotes problems with intimate relationships, and says their effects are okay. It speaks a message of "hey, sex is nothing! It's just a product! Prostitutes are just products! There's no MEANING to it." And, most people would object to that.

If it was widely accepted that sex should be easily sold with money, what value does it have beyond money? I think sex would drop in value if it was widely marketed.

Sorry for the double post, but this a great explanation. Very much explaining some of what i said.

It's like slavery. It makes people into commoditys.

In some cases? No. Because by that justification you can make sodomy a crime, even though most people would consider what people do in the privacy of their own homes their business.

And morals should not dictate what is legal and what is not - especially not the morals of just a few people who happen to be in a position of power over everyone else. If the person is doing nothing to harm anyone else, why should what they are doing be considered a crime, just because one or two people who happen to be in a position of power consider it morally wrong?

Sure, but the fact that the role of prostitution is such a contentious issue in most societies shows that there are real and legitamate concerns on both sides of the issue. Different cultures deal with sex trade in different, and why shouldn't that be permitted, just as they are issues such as drug trade, gambling, and gun sales? Different rules make sense for different societies and blanket regulations don't fit. Yes, I agree that there are basic human rights that all people should have access to, and the UN should fight to preserve these rights whenever necessary. The ability of people to have sex when they want to with whom they want to is a basic human right. However, the ability of a person to enter into a the sex industry is not. If a country decided that it did not want to permit billboards along highways, would the UN rush to the aid of the oppresed workers in the roadside advertising industry? If a country wants to prohibit smoking, will the UN rush to the aid of the tobacco farmers industry?

EXactly the UN has better stuff to do.

This resolution merely seeks to make the contract between the customer and the sex worker legal.

It does not force anyone into the trade, it does not force anyone to become a customer that is their choice.

It does allow nations to set restrictions on the sex industry internally.

It does encourage nations to clean up their squalid "red light" areas.

Sensible nations will acknowledge this resolution enhances safety, improves our enviroment and secures human rights.

Calling people whores in a derogatory manner publicly is exactly the type of action this resolution seeks to stop. We notice several of the opposition have done that, so assume they are from societies that promote harassment and enjoy demeaning others.

We find that extremely sad especially if they profess to justify their discrimination through religion or morals.

My nation dosen't have a red light district. I had two legislations about prostituiton and alout of my po-lice is commited to hunt down prostitues.

We can justify any thing moraly. My nation could make alout of money selling weed to children, we could spike the water with heroin and after they have some, we cut them off until they pay huges amounts of money or labor but we don't. Why? It's not moral.

Bloody hell. I hate it when this gets to three pages. Always logs me out when I attempt to reply.

Why do you find it necessary to force this farcical legislation on the DECENT people of the Republic of Dorksonia? This is an issue that belongs at the local level for debate there. Ahh......the shame of it all!

Because the other side feels it necessary to outlaw this. I'm not willing to take the risk of them succeeding.

Looking at Demon Lords responses I am even more confused.

If you are, be wary. It usually means I'm setting up a trap or had editted it.

#1 since we can't unite the whole UN we are not going to address the most prevalent problem in nation states, the real world, or for that fact in almost any fantasy world. Interesting conflict and violence we will ignore because it is too hard but we will invest enormous amounts of time in who has sex with whom.

It's a bit of irony that most people fail to see.

In order to even limit violence, you have to manage to affect all of NS. You limit it in the UN, all you get is nonmember nations with grudges taking advantage of you and striking quickly. You try to affect them, you have a war on your hands.

Besides, my nation's economy system is based around the military. The military is how DLE controls its economy.

#2 Poverty is due to laziness or broken societies. Wow that is not quite up to your usual standards of proving your points. From the poorest societies to the richest there are levels of poverty. It is so unlike you to blame the victim. The poor are poor because they choose to or because their society is broken. I guess that would apply to all societies since poverty is in every one to a degree.

The one great thing I find is a lot of rich societies promote cases where the talented and educated go far, or they let business decide the job market. Their governments often never take enough of an active role in providing jobs for them. In the cases where they do, individual laziness or other societal issues create poverty. In any case, these are issues that can only be solved on an individual basis.

You have to remember that DLE has job openings for two times its total population and for people of every skill, with those job openings heavily advertised. Yet I still have poverty, which can only be explained as a result of laziness. Since I managed to solve that problem as much as possible with minimum effort, I see no reason others cannot.

#3 I began skimming the previous resolutions and see some that deal with education and some pollution issues but there sure a lot of issues that have not been dealt with. Is sex truly the most prevalent problem of the day?

Only because people won't leave the issue alone. I was willing to let it drop after the repeal passed. You see how well the issue has died.

4. Civil rights have gone as far as they can legally. What does that mean?Legally, some would argue that some resolutions are illegal and go to far. Now you are saying their are limits on civil rights. Can you define that. I don't understand.

There are rules in NS about certain areas. About the only area civil rights has to advance in the UN is in the area of governments, and yet NS rules prohibit limiting governments.

There are a few other areas, such as dealing with artificial and alien lifeforms, but so far those have failed to reach quorum and I honestly doubt we'll ever see them.

5. I agree that the resolution views this subject as an economic event. However, that is the weakness of the resolution. For a significant amount of the population it is a moral issue. Before you get off on the rant about morality, economics issues have frequently been a moral issue. (i.e. equal pay for equal work, slavery, etc.)

How are those moral issues? The equal pay portion is a simple case of dealing with it in a way that prevents uprisings, while the slavery issue can do the same thing and gets rid of the danger of your nation being attacked and enslaved.

Who are you to tell me to leave, and what I may or may not say on this board? My concerns are just as valid as your's. Only difference is mine are not the most popular right now. Also, if abortion is legalized why then in my issues, was i allowed to ban it?

Who am I? I'm the person with the title of Demon Lord in their name. I didn't sign a contract saying I had to be nice. Oh, and advising someone to do something and telling them to do it can be different things. I'll let you puzzle over how.

Because there are nations outside the UN, which are not affected by UN resolutions, and trying to limit the issues is a coding nightmare at this point. Besides, the UN Gnomes merely force it to be legal as soon as you illegalize it. Look them up sometime.

Also keep in mind that you can just legalize it yourself in your own nations. And not force other nations who believe it is bad(such as myself, i may leave the UN if this passes. I do not want prositution legal in my nation. It is a immoral, unhealthy regardless of what precautions you take, and a child production risk(i am also anti abortion). Do not force upon us what you want in your nation.

It's ironic you advise people to reread the thread and yet bring up the same tired arguements that have already been dealt with a dozen times. Okay, time to have some fun.

1. Legalizing it in my own nation would be fine if we didn't have people actively trying to ban it.

2. No proof it is immoral. The morals of DLE have nothing against it.

3. No proof that all precautions will fail to make it as healthy as any other occupation. I've posted my methods on this topic already, so look them up.

4. You're too late on the abortion issue.

5. The UN forces what its members want on everyone all of the time. That's its job.

Ecomnomics and morality go hand in hand. We could make a whole lot of money selling crack but we don't. Why not? Because it could ruin lives and is imoral. Like prositiution.

If there were a way to produce crack that eliminated the addiction factor and the health side-effects, you'd see that version on DLE shelves. But as long as such of a way is not found, it remains illegal due to the severe health problems. In the case of prostitution, I can effectively limit or outright eliminate the spread of certain STDs by having it legal and regulating it.

Also, the comment about ruining lives is a bad one. Just driving down the street can ruin lives. One accident is all it takes to destroy entire families.

Finally, the morality issue is not universal. Not everyone views it as immoral, thus the morality arguement doesn't apply. You need a codified set of morals that everyone applies to in order for it to apply.

Economics and morality don't go hand-in-hand. Mainly because of how easily I just separated them.

I'm not seeing why prostitution is an issue that the UN should address. This seems to me to be an issue that is for each individual nation to address, reguarding morality, economics etc. Don't tell me how not to be affected by this resoulution etc, I just think this is totally out of the UN's jurisdiction. I also know this is an opinion that has been heard many times here, I'm just adding my voice.

Which has been addressed many times. Try dealing with the dozens of times we've addressed this.

No I don't those resolutions address basic human rights, not the ability of someone to engage in a particular industry. The former is an appropriate role for an international body. The latter seems heavyhanded, even authoritarian which seems counter to the proposed goals of expanding individual choice.

You said, and I quote:

I find it hilariously contradictory that member states would further individual choice by forcing legislation down the throats of us and our citizens.

The ones I pointed out do just that. Sounds a bit hypocritical to find one hilariously contradictory for doing that but come up with ways to try to rationalize to yourself others that do it.

So basically you are agreeing that this resolution *at best* does nothing at all. I could declare prostitution "legal" but put so many restrictions on it that it is still de facto illegal. For instance, the proposition addresses legalizing the provision of sexual services, but does not address the consuption of these services. If it is still illegal to hire a prositute, then what good is it to be a prostitute?

If you concern is thwarting those who would ban prostitution outright in the entire UN (something I wholeheartedly support, for the same reason I oppose this proposal), then why not simply uphold the right of states to make their own laws regarding the Sex Industry, and perhaps address some of the International issues such as traficking and extrodition disputes.

Because neither side wants that. Your side and mine are so dead-set in our ways and our wills on this one that a compromise would be buried under all the fighting, and a compromise would be attacked and shot down for doing nothing.

IANAL, but I believe that there are a body of human rights that the UN believe that all humans have upon birth just on their based on their humaness alone. Their ability to exercise these rights is anothe matter. Human rights are worth fighting for and are worth preempting national legislation for, the right to engage in a particular economic endeavor is not.

If it is a right given at birth, then no government can take it away. If a government can, it's just a privilage. It's simplistic, but works.

I said that "it is a silly argument to say that "prostitution is going to happen anyway, so you might as well legalize it." Terrorism is also going to happen anyway, and somehow I don't think that legalizing it is going to allow you to control the problems associated with it." You said:

[My quote]

I'm not sure how this adds to your case. It would seem that survailence and robust law enforcement to prevent any illegal activities is your MO here, not the legal status of terrorism no matter what that may be.

I'm pointing out that something that can happen anyway, such as terrorism, can be made legal and regulated. I managed to find a way to do that, and to control the problems associated with it. Isolation helps greatly.

are u kidding me every one who votes for are pervs i cant beleve any one would vote yes for this with any morals at all


die pervs

Flamebait, flaming, trolling. No actual arguement presented.

Try posting an actual arguement next time.

Dude people we already repealed this crap why on earth are we voting for it over again. and who the heck are the people who are voting for every single freakin resolution regardless of what it says. What the heck is wrong with the pervs obsessed with sex who seem to think that the UN should govern be involved in sexual relations?

Flamebait, flaming, minor trolling. Actual arguement, albeit a weak one, presented.

We're voting for it again because the UN wants to. That is sufficient reason enough.

Oh, and the people you're talking about are called "the majority."

If morals shouldnt be dictated why on earth do you want the UN to dictate what is sexually permissible instead of the people of each individual nation. if you want to permit prostitution fine, pass laws in your own land dont force others to back your sexual immorality.

While I'm not TilEnca, I'll answer anyway. People want to ban it outright and I don't want that to happen. This is, for me, the best road to take.

I don't care if it's will make a place better or whatever, it should be up to individual nations regardless, because people feel very strongly about it.

By this piece of "logic" none of the resolutions should have been passed, as people have felt strongly about each one.

We will now reiterate part of the argument we used to support the repeal of legalized prostitution.

Nice try to add weight to your arguements, but unless this is a puppet nation, you weren't involved in that arguement.

Although prostitution is legal in Pitts Park, we do not feel this is an issue that should be decided by the UN. We do not equate joining the UN with surrendering all state sovereignty.

Once again, repeating the same damn arguement we've already been over. Either read the damn thread or don't post at all.

Legalizing prostitution, on the other hand, is an issue that different nations and peoples are going to have different feelings about and it is not an issue that involves a huge human rights crisis, and therefore it should be dealt with on a state by state basis. If we planned on giving up all decision power on everything to the UN, then there'd be no purpose of having individual nation-states. There might as well be one massive nation-state called the United Nations. Pitts Park tries to work with the UN to defend human rights and peace but we believe strongly in our right and the right of other nations to determine their own constitutions, laws, etc. if they do not interfere with human rights and peace. Therefore we reiterate vehemently that we vote AGAINST this resolution.

Nice, long-winded, but already dealt with in previous posts. Hell, even this one deals with it.

The Parliament of Pitts Park is also seriously considering withdrawing our nation from the UN, not necessarily because this, or any other resolution, has really bothered us, although we do disagree with some resolutions, but rather because UN members throughout the world do not seem to be taking their voting responsibilities seriously.

Then go. Now. Don't even bother to grab your stuff. We'll mail it to you. Here, take the express elevator.

It appears as if most UN members are just automatically voting FOR every resolution that comes to vote.

Try reading the NSWiki timeline sometime. It has a nice list of resolution histories and the ones that have been voted down.

This is evidenced by what we said earlier that prostitution has been legalized and then it was repealed and now it looks like it will be legalized again---all of that has happened in a relatively short period of time and leads us to believe that UN members are not considering the resolutions, but rather just adding their rubber stamp approval to all proposed resolutions.

Or, try the fact this answers the questions brought about by the repeal. But, I guess that doesn't fit in with your arguement and was conveniently ignored.

UN Nations, the Parliament of Pitts Park strongly urges you to stand up against this pathetic submissiveness in the UN and vote AGAINST the current resolution. As earlier stated, if things don't soon change in the UN, the Republic of Pitts Park will have no choice but to withdraw from the UN.

Once again, go ahead and leave. We don't respond well to such threats beyond telling you to go ahead and get out. Using that threat is, IMHO, deserving of being ejected.

And if you think this is submissiveness, try actually reading the damn thread and seeing how submissive people have been.

Their own tiny little concerns? If people are having concerns, then there is probably a problem with it. What is the purpose of sex? It's not make money off of, surely. I mean, think of the people who do it for a living, having sex with so many people, would you take a person like that home with you? Could you trust them not to compare you to others they've screwed? And reverse, people going to prostitutes because they can't get sex I'd presume, if they do find someone, how many people would find it credible that they were so desperate for sex that they would pay someone for it? To me it's immoral because it promotes problems with intimate relationships, and says their effects are okay. It speaks a message of "hey, sex is nothing! It's just a product! Prostitutes are just products! There's no MEANING to it." And, most people would object to that.

Any evidence it promotes problems in nations that view it as acceptable?

If it was widely accepted that sex should be easily sold with money, what value does it have beyond money? I think sex would drop in value if it was widely marketed.

Gee, the porn industry in real life has disproven that one. It's widely marketted and is still making millions. You wouldn't see so many porn sites on the internet if there wasn't a huge market for it.

Two reasons:1. religion. It is an ignorance of most religions. enough said
2. Other people. And the future. (This is a deep answer, but in the long run, your actions now will effect the future. I know this first hand.)
3. I know i said 2. Your using sex for reasons other than its purpose(maybe religous, but not quite in this case), basicly its an abuse of a system with a base function that we abuse for our own misdeeds. Sex was not meant for us to abuse and take pleasure from. God probably made it pleasurable to persuade the human race to reproduce itself.
Its otherwise a gross practice, and noone would do it.

1. You have evidence it is in "ignorance" of most religions? I have yet to see any that it is such. If anything, there are a lot of religions on NS that don't view it as bad, and in number they are the majority.

2. This answer needs to be extended. Otherwise, it's just spam.

3. Not everyone believes in your god, and not everyone who does believe in your god is willing to try to rely on it for their arguement. Arguement invalid due to lack of logic.

4. People do practices that are considered to be more gross than that. Or did you forget about cannibalism?

Nations, those who wish to have prostitution. Do not force other nations into it by making it a UN law. Vote against it, and form the policies yourself in your OWN nation. not ours.

I'll make a deal: You get your side to stop trying to ban it, I'll get mine to stop trying to legalize it. Until then, I'd rather it legal throughout the UN than someone managing to illegalize it for the UN.

It's like slavery. It makes people into commoditys.

NS has over 30 trillion people. People are too plentiful to even be a commodity anymore.

We can justify any thing moraly. My nation could make alout of money selling weed to children, we could spike the water with heroin and after they have some, we cut them off until they pay huges amounts of money or labor but we don't. Why? It's not moral.

Okay, once again: Not everyone shares your morality.

Some moralities have that as moral. Why? It's a way of introducing children to the hardships of life early on and getting them used to what they will go through in adulthood. Plus, it helps the society out by giving plenty of money to the government, which can be spent on other moral crusades, and creates a caste of people completely loyal to the government.

As you said, anything can be justified morally.

This resolution merely seeks to make the contract between the customer and the sex worker legal.

It does not force anyone into the trade, it does not force anyone to become a customer that is their choice.

It does allow nations to set restrictions on the sex industry internally.

It does encourage nations to clean up their squalid "red light" areas.

Sensible nations will acknowledge this resolution enhances safety, improves our enviroment and secures human rights.

Calling people whores in a derogatory manner publicly is exactly the type of action this resolution seeks to stop. We notice several of the opposition have done that, so assume they are from societies that promote harassment and enjoy demeaning others.

We find that extremely sad especially if they profess to justify their discrimination through religion or morals.

Why can't nations do that without a U.N. resolution? Why can't they set these restrictions and such on their own accord? This is not a nation crisis or epidemic. Calling someone a whore is a deragatory term because... most people don't agree with whoring. If your being a whore, you will be demeaned because it's considered demeaning to be one. And I'm not gonna list all the other crap that's already been said that would prove your points invalid.

Any evidence it promotes problems in nations that view it as acceptable?

Adunno, it's just a game. But that's still why people say it's immoral.



Gee, the porn industry in real life has disproven that one. It's widely marketted and is still making millions. You wouldn't see so many porn sites on the internet if there wasn't a huge market for it.

I suppose you missed the double-meaning of the word "value" in my statement. Besides, actual sex and watching sex are two different things.

Members of the United Nations:

For thousands of years, civilization has been dealing with this prostitution issue, and for thousands of years, prostitution has been looked down upon.

Prostitution is a double edged sword. On one edge, it can bring economic benefits, and pleasures for both the customer and the server. One the other edge, it can product instability, decline in natural brith rates, and physcial and mental illness.

With the understanding of the draw backs and productivity of prostitution we can no longer hide from this issue. I fully understand that many leaders want to deal with this issue privately, but we must take sides on this resolution, for only that way the United Nations can truely reflect the decisions of the majority.

As for those who declare this resolution as a "pervert" resolution, I strongly disagree with them. Many countries have tried to deal with this issue, and many have failed.From large countries such as the United States, China, and Russia, to small countries such as Monaco and Switzerland.From old countries such as Ancient Greece, to new countries such as Canada. This is a serious issue, and the future of the civilized world depends on it. A few of you may laugh at my arguement, but I must warn you, that many civilizations failed because they chose not to deal with this issue.

If we pass this resolution, then we, as national leaders instead of heads of organized crime, can regulate this "industry" and make it clean and safe. However, we should not use this industry as a major income. Instead, we can perhaps pass other resolutions to invest profits from this industry to educational and pyschological programs that would help steer society from crime and corruption. This way, we can ensure that both sides of this issue have an agreement. However, this resolution is vital, because it would create the first step towards the dissolvement of this industry under the control of organize crime, which I may remind the members of this council that it has been the root of many instability and violance.

The The Sex Industry Worker Act must not pass. Some have said prostitution has been looked down upon; because it deserves to be looked down upon! Prostitution either involves premarital sex or, even worse, cheating! Making prostitution legal would only encourage these things.

The The Sex Industry Worker Act must not pass. Some have said prostitution has been looked down upon; because it deserves to be looked down upon! Prostitution either involves premarital sex or, even worse, cheating! Making prostitution legal would only encourage these things.


*begins list of "Those who don't read the thread, but make the same tired, old, useless, ridiculous, foolish, inane, and senseless comments"*

Looks like another best-seller.

I'm rather amazed how all these nations are the current month. Makes me truly amazed at how cowardly the "parents" of these puppets are.

Well then common sense would say to not be a prostitute some place where it is illegal or some place where the regulations make certain aspects and practices of the job illegal;

So part of my working populations is not allowed to travel everywhere, according to you.

Calling prostitution a career decision is a euphemism for a practice that has been looked down apon for centuries.

By some, not by everyone.

Having sex with some one for cash does cause harm, having to pay some one to get something you can get for free after going through the various stages of relationships is in no way healthy to some one financially or mentally.

Perhaps you will find it refreshing to look at your citizens, to find out that not everybody is the succesfull career man/woman, happily married with a few kids like you and me. Why do you think prostitution exists at all?

You know what? I am getting sick and tired of you saying "This mighty nice peice of paper will change everything!" Because it wont. Crime is still a factor in prostitution as boot legging is still a factor in the selling of CDs. STDs will become more widespread no matter how its regulated outside of facism.

I'm not saying that all problems will be over. They will be reduced. But if you stick your fingers in your ear and go "lah lah lah lah" at it, nothing will improve.

Suddenly turning something illegal into a national industry and regulating it costs alot of money, but I guess you forgot about that.

It has been pointed out several times how that can be compensated. Read.

Only legalizes it huh? Thats changing a nations opinion for them as their old opinion of it (Making it illegal FYI) has now been changed; Forcefully. And what happens if people decide to declare all prostitutes horrible dirty shanky whores like they always have been? I think that is illegal under former resolutions. Also, the children in my nation need to learn how to operate massive warships, not why they shouldn't be a whore (Besides the obvious).

Funny you should mention that, as soldiers really require prostitutes, unless you find it more healthy for them to rape women in countries they invade. But I assume you don't.

Alot of things in life "Will always come back anyway" this doesn't make them suddenly valid under the law and the logic behind that argument is poor and almost non-existent. And again, you seem to think money grows on trees.

You are worried about costs that aren't there, or are well compensated by higher tax income and lower health and police spendings.

And you don't get the point. It should be a basic right for people to decide what they do with their body. It's theirs, not the government's. So if they want to prostitute it, they should be able to. What gives you or me the right to forbid that? Prostitution is relatively harmless compared to, say, driving a car. Yet driving a car is accepted, prostitution isn't.

I'm afraid *your* logic is severely flawed, and influenced too much by some weird kind of morality where people are considered incapable of using their body sensibly, and by the criminalization of a profession that is causing way more problems than this resolution.

I have yet to see ANY EVIDENCE at all that suggests making something legal that was illegal makes things better for all.

End of the alcohol prohibition in the USA. Legalizing/decriminalizing prostitution (but also softdrugs, euthanasia, abortion) in the Netherlands and several other countries in the real world. Mostly improving, sometimes not a lot of change because it the situation was silently tolerated anyway, and never a worse situation.

Because some nations think you can trust people to do the right thing.

I don't care if it's will make a place better or whatever, it should be up to individual nations regardless, because people feel very strongly about it.

Well, as it's legal, the *people*, not the nations, can make their own mind up about it. If they don't want to become a prostitute or visit one, that's fine. Precisely the kind of freedom you want to be as low as possible, at citizen's level, so the state won't have to force one viewpoint or the other on the whole nation. Yes, it's legal, which some people may object to, but they aren't harmed by people who don't object to prostitution.

Nations, those who wish to have prostitution. Do not force other nations into it by making it a UN law. Vote against it, and form the policies yourself in your OWN nation. not ours.

It is the right of the people to be socialist, whether the government says they are or not.


It is the right of people to become a prostitute, whether the government likes it or not.

This resolution merely seeks to make the contract between the customer and the sex worker legal.

It does not force anyone into the trade, it does not force anyone to become a customer that is their choice.

It does allow nations to set restrictions on the sex industry internally.

It does encourage nations to clean up their squalid "red light" areas.

Sensible nations will acknowledge this resolution enhances safety, improves our enviroment and secures human rights.

Calling people whores in a derogatory manner publicly is exactly the type of action this resolution seeks to stop. We notice several of the opposition have done that, so assume they are from societies that promote harassment and enjoy demeaning others.

We find that extremely sad especially if they profess to justify their discrimination through religion or morals.

Well said. It seems that the nations against promote hate and like to polarise, and prefer a weird moral system where certain types of people are lower (by calling them "whores" and/or speak derogatory about them), and rather stick to their morals than give their people freedom and rights to solve things for themselves, and decide for themselves. And it is exactly that which is tackled by this resolution.

I don't know if this was already mentioned, but don't you, who support this act, think that this can encourage people with financial problems to sell their bodies, even if they don't want this but see no ohter choice to get some money?
I believe that most people become prostitutes because of this kind of problem and not because they like it. Goverments should help these people to find good jobs or at least existencial foundations instead of encourage them to go this, in my opinion, humiliating way.

It seems that the nations against promote hate and like to polarise, and prefer a weird moral system where certain types of people are lower (by calling them "whores" and/or speak derogatory about them)
I wouldn't say that prostitutes are "lower", but I believe that most of them feel for themselves that they lose their dignity when they sell their bodies to strangers.

I don't know if this was already mentioned, but don't you, who support this act, think that this can encourage people with financial problems to sell their bodies, even if they don't want this but see no ohter choice to get some money?

If they do, is that a problem of legal prostitution or another problem, that of poverty? And which one should be solved? You give the answer yourself:

I believe that most people become prostitutes because of this kind of problem and not because they like it. Goverments should help these people to find good jobs or at least existencial foundations instead of encourage them to go this, in my opinion, humiliating way.

Then do that. Because with illegal prostitution, they can do the same. Or become a criminal.

I wouldn't say that prostitutes are "lower", but I believe that most of them feel for themselves that they lose their dignity when they sell their bodies to strangers.

The keyword is "themselves". Not everybody feels that. Why decide for them how they should feel and what they should do?

Then do that. Because with illegal prostitution, they can do the same. Or become a criminal.
I work on that (as every nation's leader should, in my opinion) but outlawing prostitution would make it much less tempting for those people, until the time being where nobody will have the need to sell his body because his or her existencial basis will be ensured.

The keyword is "themselves". Not everybody feels that. Why decide for them how they should feel and what they should do?
To prevent people from making a step they could (and would) regret for the rest of their life. The number of people who don't have financial problems but really want to become prostitutes (maybe because they are nymphomanic or something like that) should be small enough to neglect it.

If morals shouldnt be dictated why on earth do you want the UN to dictate what is sexually permissible instead of the people of each individual nation. if you want to permit prostitution fine, pass laws in your own land dont force others to back your sexual immorality.

Because letting people chose for themselves whether they want to be prostitutes or not is not dictating morals to people. Telling them they can't be prostitutes because it is immoral is dictating morals to them.

If EVERYONE in your nation thinks prostitution is immoral, you won't have a problem because even if it is legal, there won't be any prostitutes. The only way you would have a problem is if your government wants to run roughshod over the feelings of it's people and tell them that what they chose to do is immoral and they will be punished for it.

I don't know if this was already mentioned, but don't you, who support this act, think that this can encourage people with financial problems to sell their bodies, even if they don't want this but see no ohter choice to get some money?
I believe that most people become prostitutes because of this kind of problem and not because they like it. Goverments should help these people to find good jobs or at least existencial foundations instead of encourage them to go this, in my opinion, humiliating way.

I wouldn't say that prostitutes are "lower", but I believe that most of them feel for themselves that they lose their dignity when they sell their bodies to strangers.

I'll be sure to mention that to the one I know who added on to her house lately.

For cash.

You are holding on to a stereotypical view, which is flawed. There is no "one" sort of prostitute - and many get off very, very well.

Dude people we already repealed this crap why on earth are we voting for it over again. and who the heck are the people who are voting for every single freakin resolution regardless of what it says. What the heck is wrong with the pervs obsessed with sex who seem to think that the UN should govern be involved in sexual relations?

Because (and this might only be me) I believe that national governments SHOULD NOT be involved in sexual relations. And the only way to ensure that happens is to put it on a UN level, not a national one

Sure, but the fact that the role of prostitution is such a contentious issue in most societies shows that there are real and legitamate concerns on both sides of the issue. Different cultures deal with sex trade in different, and why shouldn't that be permitted, just as they are issues such as drug trade, gambling, and gun sales? Different rules make sense for different societies and blanket regulations don't fit. Yes, I agree that there are basic human rights that all people should have access to, and the UN should fight to preserve these rights whenever necessary. The ability of people to have sex when they want to with whom they want to is a basic human right. However, the ability of a person to enter into a the sex industry is not. If a country decided that it did not want to permit billboards along highways, would the UN rush to the aid of the oppresed workers in the roadside advertising industry? If a country wants to prohibit smoking, will the UN rush to the aid of the tobacco farmers industry?

If enough countries agreed, yes. Isn't democracy fantastic?

Then do that. Because with illegal prostitution, they can do the same. Or become a criminal.

I work on that (as every nation's leader should, in my opinion) but outlawing prostitution would make it much less tempting for those people, until the time being where nobody will have the need to sell his body because his or her existencial basis will be ensured.

You're obviously misinformed. Prostitution is an incredible moneymaker - and legality or illegality has done nothing to alter that.

No, not true - making it illegal has made it even more profitable.

Legalizing and regulating made it profitable for the State. As in us.



The keyword is "themselves". Not everybody feels that. Why decide for them how they should feel and what they should do?

To prevent people from making a step they could (and would) regret for the rest of their life. The number of people who don't have financial problems but really want to become prostitutes (maybe because they are nymphomanic or something like that) should be small enough to neglect it. .

In California, the pornography business is estimated at three billion per year. That's one state, and only the known, legal porn.

A conservative estimate puts legal prostitution in Nevada at four times that number.

The average prostitute in Nevada makes about $200,000 per year before taxes. They also work three to four days per week, with a week off every month.

Yeah, I can see the draw a $5 an hour job at McBurgerWorlds would have in comparison. :rolleyes:

You are holding on to a stereotypical view, which is flawed. There is no "one" sort of prostitute - and many get off very, very well
This can be true, but I'm sure that the majority of them would prefer a more dignified job, if they had the possibility to have one.
I mean, what do you want to tell your children for their lifeways if the only thing you ever did in your life was selling yourself? That make-up is everything?

(Except of that, which use can the prostitutes offer to their society?)


In California, the pornography business is estimated at three billion per year. That's one state, and only the known, legal porn.

A conservative estimate puts legal prostitution in Nevada at four times that number.

The average prostitute in Nevada makes about $200,000 per year before taxes. They also work three to four days per week, with a week off every month.

I see the reason of this in the great social inequality of this societys. Of course, to someone who never had the possibility to get a good education and the chance for a job better than
a $5 an hour job at McBurgerWorlds
prostitution can be tempting, but by making sure that the difference between poor and rich shrinks and that there is the chance for everyone to get a good job you can ensure that poor people aren't forced to make themselves to properties of the rich.
You don' want to tell me that prostitute isn't a phenomenon which goes hand in hand with poverty and social inequality?

This can be true, but I'm sure that the majority of them would prefer a more dignified job, if they had the possibility to have one.
I mean, what do you want to tell your children for their lifeways if the only thing you ever did in your life was selling yourself? That make-up is everything?

(Except of that, which use can the prostitutes offer to their society?)



I see the reason of this in the great social inequality of this societys. Of course, to someone who never had the possibility to get a good education and the chance for a job better than

prostitution can be tempting, but by making sure that the difference between poor and rich shrinks and that there is the chance for everyone to get a good job you can ensure that poor people aren't forced to make themselves to properties of the rich.
You wan't tell me that prostitute isn't a phenomenon which goes hand in hand with poverty and social inequality?
did you read the resolution?
here is one of the things that written there:
3. RECOMMENDS nations that want to limit prostitution to tackle the issue by its roots and create education and social programs that will give more choice to people who might want to become a prostitute
I think you could take it and decrease the poverty and social inequality in your countrey. anyway you will had to let yuor popolation choose but that way, you could get the resolution without the defects.
what is your realproblem with the resolution?

what is your realproblem with the resolution?
That, in my opinion, it would be easier to vanish prostitution from my society if I can concentrate on these "educational and social programms" without having to supporting or accepting prostitution.

It would be harder to get services from a prostitute than say, a chiropracter.(chiroprachtor?) And if we made prostitution legal, than there would be many more prostitutes readily availible. Then all that 200,000 average salary would be much smaller because of distribution.

That, in my opinion, it would be easier to vanish prostitution from my society if I can concentrate on these "educational and social programms" without having to supporting or accepting prostitution.
you don't have to support the prostitution. you have to regulate the already exists prostitution.
and as I understood, if you will have good "educational and social programms" the people who will be prostitutes will ne the ones that want it. people that want to be prostitutes only because they had no other way to earn money will went to your programs against the prostitution.
what so bad in that?

That, in my opinion, it would be easier to vanish prostitution from my society if I can concentrate on these "educational and social programms" without having to supporting or accepting prostitution.

Tell me, why would a prostitute - illegal in your nation - be inclined to cooperate on your educational or social programs? Bit risky, when you're doing something illegal, isn't it?

This can be true, but I'm sure that the majority of them would prefer a more dignified job, if they had the possibility to have one.

How do you know? For all I know, many prostitutes think they have a dignified and well-earning job. Who are we to argue on such subjective criteria? If they choose that job, and that's *choose*, not *be forced into*, let them. Don't patronise them by saying what you think they should think.

I mean, what do you want to tell your children for their lifeways if the only thing you ever did in your life was selling yourself? That make-up is everything?

Dunno. Does that matter? As long as those kids grow up with confidence, with knowledge, with freedom to choose as long as they don't harm another individual.

You don' want to tell me that prostitute isn't a phenomenon which goes hand in hand with poverty and social inequality?

In part. Like every other job. But don't think all prostitutes are deperate woman. Some take quite some pride in it. After all, they are in control, not the bloke who visits them. Apart from money it gives them a sense of power. Scary, eh? ;)

Why can't nations do that without a U.N. resolution? Why can't they set these restrictions and such on their own accord? This is not a nation crisis or epidemic. Calling someone a whore is a deragatory term because... most people don't agree with whoring. If your being a whore, you will be demeaned because it's considered demeaning to be one. And I'm not gonna list all the other crap that's already been said that would prove your points invalid.

Because some nations would not make the contract legal, that is why the NSUN is democratic.

They can set restrictions after the resolution is passed, but cannot make the contract illegal.

In the past a lot of people were derogatory about the colour of a persons skin, did that make it right?

This resolution accepts sex workers as normal workers is progressive in ensuring a safer and less discriminatory society.

Phew! so pleased that you recognised that there is a list of crap attempting to prove our points invalid. But why bother posting the first three?

you don't have to support the prostitution. you have to regulate the already exists prostitution.
and as I understood, if you will have good "educational and social programms" the people who will be prostitutes will ne the ones that want it. people that want to be prostitutes only because they had no other way to earn money will went to your programs against the prostitution.
what so bad in that?
So let's say that there are two groups of potential prostitutes:
Group 1, the ones, who want it and group 2, the ones who have to do it because of their financial situation. While I think that you can neglect the first group, let's go to the second group:
As long as the social equality isn't ensured (while I hope that it's development is only a matter of time), prostitution will look more lucrative to these people if it's legal. So, by banning it, I can hold the prostitution rate low (because it's illegal, people will be less agreed to make this step), until they (group 2), will have enough alternatives to prostitution. It is then my duty, to hold the promises I made to them to keeping them off from prostitution.

How do you know? For all I know, many prostitutes think they have a dignified and well-earning job. Who are we to argue on such subjective criteria? If they choose that job, and that's *choose*, not *be forced into*, let them. Don't patronise them by saying what you think they should think.
Well, how about that: I will legalize prostitution at the time being, where it is sure that only members of group 1 will be the ones who sell their bodies. No prostitution because of poverty, but only by those who want it. But until then...group 1 has to wait.

Dunno. Does that matter? As long as those kids grow up with confidence, with knowledge, with freedom to choose as long as they don't harm another individual.
Yes, in theory, but I see a spreadground for moral complexes and unhappy citizens in this situation.

In part. Like every other job. But don't think all prostitutes are deperate woman. Some take quite some pride in it. After all, they are in control, not the bloke who visits them. Apart from money it gives them a sense of power. Scary, eh?
There are really better ways of confirmation than this one, if you ask me.

If enough countries agreed, yes. Isn't democracy fantastic?

That's not democracy. Democracy is allowing the people of Lordosis to make their own decisions about the issues that they care about. Democracy is not having regulations imposed on them by an international body in which approximately one 50,000th of the decisionmaking power has any knowledge of their interests or culture. You are not distributing democracy, you are stealing it from the mouths of my people, and it cannot be tollerated. To quote the great Peter Griffen:

"Because the world don't move to the beat of just one drum.
What might be right for you might not be right for some
You take the good, you take the bad,
you take it all and there you have...
my opening statement"

What exactly is up with this proposal? is it for or against prostitution? I can't vote till i get that cleared up!

I think that's pretty obvious, isn't it? It is for a state-regulated legalisation of prostitution.

So let's say that there are two groups of potential prostitutes:
Group 1, the ones, who want it and group 2, the ones who have to do it because of their financial situation. While I think that you can neglect the first group, let's go to the second group:
As long as the social equality isn't ensured (while I hope that it's development is only a matter of time), prostitution will look more lucrative to these people if it's legal. So, by banning it, I can hold the prostitution rate low (because it's illegal, people will be less agreed to make this step), until they (group 2), will have enough alternatives to prostitution. It is then my duty, to hold the promises I made to them to keeping them off from prostitution.
as I said: the resolution recommand you make better social and educational progrrams. if the terms group 2 could get from those progrrams would be better than the ones they will have in prostitution, they wouldn't be prostitutes. if they still stay in the prostitution they are part of group 1 or you need to make the terms far better.
as such, I can't see the point in your argument. the resolution take care to this issue, so if you still have problems with the resolution try to clearified them better.

That's not democracy. Democracy is allowing the people of Lordosis to make their own decisions about the issues that they care about. Democracy is not having regulations imposed on them by an international body in which approximately one 50,000th of the decisionmaking power has any knowledge of their interests or culture. You are not distributing democracy, you are stealing it from the mouths of my people, and it cannot be tollerated. To quote the great Peter Griffen:

"Because the world don't move to the beat of just one drum.
What might be right for you might not be right for some
You take the good, you take the bad,
you take it all and there you have...
my opening statement"

The UN is an organisation that people choose to belong to. It is a democratic organisation, in that if enough people support an idea, it will become international law.

Which is basically what democracy is - mob rule run amok.

And - by the way - to take your arguement to a natural conclusion - democracy is not having one part of a nation decide what is best for the whole nation, it is each person chosing what is best for themselves.

And what is best for us, is not having prostitution. This is not an arguement that the UN should be argueing. This is up to the nations individually. Change your votes..its not like it will be illegal..you can make it legal in your OWN nation..why make it mandatory..

And what is best for us, is not having prostitution. This is not an arguement that the UN should be argueing. This is up to the nations individually. Change your votes..its not like it will be illegal..you can make it legal in your OWN nation..why make it mandatory..

This is not making it mandatory. No where does it force people to become prostitutues, and I would ask you to show you where it does?

It gives the choice to the people - each individual, not each nation. It's freedom of choice in it's purest form.

I urge all moral national leaders to vote AGAINST this immoral, unhealthy, unfair proposal

You know what else is freedom of choice? Murder. Rape. Mugging. It's on a personal level. Want to make THAT legal to?

Murder? Hurts someone else.
Rape? Hurts someone else.
Mugging? Hurts someone else.

Deciding to have sex with someone and having them pay you for it? Doesn't hurt anyone else.

You really can't see a difference?

Adunno, it's just a game. But that's still why people say it's immoral.

And they need to learn that morality is too subjective to be used. Hell. certain religions in NS view human sacrifice as acceptable and in DLE there are a large number of people who view human organs as delicacies, a practice the government frowns upon. Of course, DLE isn't populated by humans, but you get the idea about the morality issue.

I suppose you missed the double-meaning of the word "value" in my statement. Besides, actual sex and watching sex are two different things.

You missed something very obvious: They're both selling sex. And, yes, some people pick up prostitutes to watch them have sex with others.

The The Sex Industry Worker Act must not pass. Some have said prostitution has been looked down upon; because it deserves to be looked down upon! Prostitution either involves premarital sex or, even worse, cheating! Making prostitution legal would only encourage these things.

Already dealt with. Read the damn thread.

I don't know if this was already mentioned, but don't you, who support this act, think that this can encourage people with financial problems to sell their bodies, even if they don't want this but see no ohter choice to get some money?

That sounds like a societal issue you have to deal with on your own. If they feel there is no other choice, it's because you need to fix something in your society.

I believe that most people become prostitutes because of this kind of problem and not because they like it. Goverments should help these people to find good jobs or at least existencial foundations instead of encourage them to go this, in my opinion, humiliating way.

Once again, a societal issue you have to solve. Not all of us have that problem.

I work on that (as every nation's leader should, in my opinion) but outlawing prostitution would make it much less tempting for those people, until the time being where nobody will have the need to sell his body because his or her existencial basis will be ensured.

It's been tried, and I still had a problem with illegal prostitution. Not everyone who is in it is in it because they need money.

That, in my opinion, it would be easier to vanish prostitution from my society if I can concentrate on these "educational and social programms" without having to supporting or accepting prostitution.

Been tried in the real-life US. The nation in question has a prostitution problem so immense the majority of its police forces have stopped going after the prostitutes and are now trying to go after the customers. The program is a failure by all accounts.

It would be harder to get services from a prostitute than say, a chiropracter.(chiroprachtor?) And if we made prostitution legal, than there would be many more prostitutes readily availible. Then all that 200,000 average salary would be much smaller because of distribution.

DLE average, with widespread legal prostitution: $210,000 a year, plus dental and medical benefits.

Average amount of income tax paid in per prostitute: $22,134

Having even 100 prostitutes nets me taxes in the millions. Have one million, on the other hand, is a huge amount of income tax. You have to remember that making it legal means you can control it, and controlling it means you can control how many prostitutes there are in your nation.

That's not democracy. Democracy is allowing the people of Lordosis to make their own decisions about the issues that they care about.

No, that's national sovereignity. Democracy is "rule by the majority," which is the reason why it's a failed ideology that can only lead nations to ruin or corruption in reality. In NS, you can have a successful democracy.

Democracy is not having regulations imposed on them by an international body in which approximately one 50,000th of the decisionmaking power has any knowledge of their interests or culture. You are not distributing democracy, you are stealing it from the mouths of my people, and it cannot be tollerated.

Then quit the UN. The UN is a mob-rule alliance, and you had no excuse not to know that when you joined. Democracy in this case is having regulations imposed on you by an international body, which really doesn't give a damn about your culture.

And what is best for us, is not having prostitution. This is not an arguement that the UN should be argueing. This is up to the nations individually. Change your votes..its not like it will be illegal..you can make it legal in your OWN nation..why make it mandatory..

The fact the UN is arguing about it means not everyone agrees with you. The fact the resolution is looking like it will pass by 3000 votes means that so far the majority also disagrees with you.

And as for the legality of prostitution: Certain nations have been trying to make it illegal. I was perfectly happy to let the issue drop after the repeal. You can see how well it has dropped.

Oh, this whole resolution was actually in the planning stages during the repeal vote and, if I remember correctly, the author of the repeal mentioned that they'd support it.

I urge all moral national leaders to vote AGAINST this immoral, unhealthy, unfair proposal

Who's defining morality? You? Not everyone shares your morality, and not everyone thinks this is immoral. Pretty much your entire arguement has been dealt with already. Get a new one instead of reading the same script as everyone else.

You know what else is freedom of choice? Murder. Rape. Mugging. It's on a personal level. Want to make THAT legal to?

Those have logical reasons as to why they are illegal. But, I'm not the one arguing the free choice issue. I'll admit I'm looking at economics, not free choice.

You know what else is freedom of choice? Murder. Rape. Mugging. It's on a personal level. Want to make THAT legal to?
I don't think you understood the right subject.
there are many kinds of rights the basic human rights are: life and security, freedom, free trial, equality, private enterprise and honour.
sometimes the rights clashed with other rights and then the leadership had to find the way that harm less as could in the rights.
most of the goverments take life and security as much important than freedom (in reasonable way).
but in the prostitution case there aren't right that could harmed by the legalization:
-life and security couldn't harmed by secure sex.
-freedom only benefits
-equality acheived because every mature person could do it and earn money (or get it from the "social and educational progrrams" his goverment do as another option).
- the three other rights can't effected by this subject.

are you fine with it?

as I said: the resolution recommand you make better social and educational progrrams. if the terms group 2 could get from those progrrams would be better than the ones they will have in prostitution, they wouldn't be prostitutes. if they still stay in the prostitution they are part of group 1 or you need to make the terms far better.

That sounds like a societal issue you have to deal with on your own. If they feel there is no other choice, it's because you need to fix something in your society.
You both might be right in that point, but even than an U.N. proposal which legalizes prostitution would make my work in my state more difficult, because I can fight social inequality more effective if prostitution is illegal and as consequence of that less attractive for the poor. So why not let the decision about legalize it or not on every state for itself?

It's been tried, and I still had a problem with illegal prostitution. Not everyone who is in it is in it because they need money.

I mentioned those people before. As I said, they can be free to sell themselves if it is sure that they will be the only ones to do that.

Been tried in the real-life US. The nation in question has a prostitution problem so immense the majority of its police forces have stopped going after the prostitutes and are now trying to go after the customers. The program is a failure by all accounts.
That's because the US tried to fight only prostitution itself, but not the poverty it comes from.

You both might be right in that point, but even than an U.N. proposal which legalizes prostitution would make my work in my state more difficult, because I can fight social inequality more effective if prostitution is illegal and as consequence of that less attractive for the poor. So why not let the decision about legalize it or not on every state for itself?

Because neither side wants to. If we don't legalize it, someone may be successful in illegalizing it. In this case, I'm not willing to risk allowing that to happen.

Also, illegality doesn't mean less attractive to the poor. If they're that desperate, I doubt your laws on the issue matter.

I mentioned those people before. As I said, they can be free to sell themselves if it is sure that they will be the only ones to do that.

You want it that way? Regulate it that way. That's your job.

That's because the US tried to fight only prostitution itself, but not the poverty it comes from.

Once again, a societal issue they need to solve. As long as that societal issue exists, a problem of some sort or another will continue to exist.

Saw it. I'm assuming you thought it was funny.

Quite the contrary. I seriously believe that those who are willing to allow the "choice" of the desperate act of selling one's own body should have no qualms about their own spouses being given the same "choice", for the sake of their nations if nothing else.

Also, illegality doesn't mean less attractive to the poor. If they're that desperate, I doubt your laws on the issue matter.

I believe that it is a duty of mine, to ensure that such desperation will not appear in my society. And I think I can ensure that better if I handle prostitution as an undiscussable alternative to other jobs from the beginning.

You want it that way? Regulate it that way. That's your job.
Yes, but to do that I have to illegalize prostitution for a certain space of time.

Delete this post, please. Dunno where it came from.

Some nations have moral standards that rise above prostitution, we don't want legel prostituting in our history books.

Did you know that in Germany, many women are being denied unemployment benefits if they refuse to take jobs in brothels, as prostitution was recently legalised. I thought it was interesting.

Although I am in favour of legalising prostitution, I don't think it can be treated the same as other occupations in this way, and any legislation should recognise this.

It's a demening practise and if we are suppsed to have equality we can't have a practise that turns people into sex bags.

It's a demening practise and if we are suppsed to have equality we can't have a practise that turns people into sex bags.

And looking down on people who are using what ever means they can to make a living after their government has abandoned them is cruel and unusual, and, quite frankly, something the goverment should be ashamed of.

The UN is an organisation that people choose to belong to. It is a democratic organisation, in that if enough people support an idea, it will become international law.

Actually people don't belong to the United Nations, nations do. And just because it is a body that happens to have elections to make its own decisions internally doesn't mean that its decisions result in more democracy for the citezens of the nations. Actually the reverse is true for countries that are already democratic. The more areas of policymaking that are preempted by "international law" the less citizens will have the ability to have their own voices heard. the reason that we willingly cede *some* areas of decisionmaking is because we recognize that it is the only way to protect a minimum standard of human rights worldwide. This bill goes too far by infringing on state sovernty for narrow benefit to people in one particular profession. My issue is not with prosititution, which is actually legal in Lordosis, but with the precident that it sets with over-the-top language.

And - by the way - to take your arguement to a natural conclusion - democracy is not having one part of a nation decide what is best for the whole nation, it is each person chosing what is best for themselves.

No that's anarchy. That doesn require governance, it requires the lack of it.

No, that's national sovereignity. Democracy is "rule by the majority," which is the reason why it's a failed ideology that can only lead nations to ruin or corruption in reality. In NS, you can have a successful democracy.

Actually its both national sovereignty and democracy in my case, since I happen to be a democracy, transgressions against national severeignty are transgressions against the the democracy.

Democracy is a failed ideology? Seems to me to be catching on. By now in most advanced democracies the majority has recognized the need to find mechanisms that protect the minority and prevent corruption and consolidation of power.

Then quit the UN. The UN is a mob-rule alliance, and you had no excuse not to know that when you joined. Democracy in this case is having regulations imposed on you by an international body, which really doesn't give a damn about your culture.

I'm trying ot fix it from within. The government of Lordosis recognizes the potential value of the UN and would like to see it realize that value. The UN isn't a valuable institution when a large portion of the world is operating outside of it. The value of the UN is defending those key areas of human rights that are fundementally agreed upon by the majority of nations. A supranational organizaiton such as the UN must have a higher standard for passing resolutions than a national legislature precisely because nations can so ealily opt out of the system. The UN has a foot to stand on when it tries to enforce a resolutions that had the overwhelming support of nations around the world, not when it attempts to enforce resolutions that were devisive but barely passed. Proposals such as this one cripple the UN when they force out nations who do not feel that their culture is being respected.

If you were truly concerned about the plight of would-be prostitutes in nations like Lordosis, you wouldn't word your proposals so strongly. Actually, the current administration in Lordisis is very friendly toward the sex industry (in more ways than one!). We're not concerned about the issues of prostitution itself, but the people of Lordosis are rightly concerned about the dangerous precident this resolution would represent, and we may be forced to leave the UN if it continues on this path. Let's see if the next administration in Lordosis is as friendly to sex workers. Particularly if Lordosis is no longer in any international organization that requires it to recognize even the basic sexual rights of individuals

Actually people don't belong to the United Nations, nations do.


(grin) I meant people as in people who run nations. Not the people in the nations :}


And just because it is a body that happens to have elections to make its own decisions internally doesn't mean that its decisions result in more democracy for the citezens of the nations. Actually the reverse is true for countries that are already democratic. The more areas of policymaking that are preempted by "international law" the less citizens will have the ability to have their own voices heard.


I disagree. The Free Press for example. If the UN mandates that news papers have to be permitted to print the stories they want to print, rather than being controlled or censored by the government, then the people have more power to make their voices heard. If however it is left in national hands, then the governments could easily subdue the press, and so subdue the voices of the people.

In this case, there are people who will have been earning their living by prostitution for a good long while (since it used to be legal, before the repeal). But now the nations can make prostitution illegal, turning many of their people in to criminals in the process. And it is not the fault of the people - it is the fault of the government who made it illegal and created a criminal out of a previously law abiding citizen. The government is subduing the will of the people by telling them that they are now criminals, and not free citizens.


the reason that we willingly cede *some* areas of decisionmaking is because we recognize that it is the only way to protect a minimum standard of human rights worldwide. This bill goes too far by infringing on state sovernty for narrow benefit to people in one particular profession. My issue is not with prosititution, which is actually legal in Lordosis, but with the precident that it sets with over-the-top language.


Because prostitutes are a minorty of people they don't deserve the right to carry on in their profession as they have for a long while now?
And - by the by - the same arguement has been used for repealing gay rights, since they are a minority and people find it immoral.

This is an outrage!

Not only does this proposal push young people into selling their bodies giving eachother STD's, it also undermines the will of the Lord. Did He not forbid prostitution and name it a sin?!

If citizens feels deprived they should turn to the love of God instead of stepping on the path of sin! This resolution encourages them to go in the wrong direction.

We, Senile Old Motorists, reject this proposal and will continue to reject its successors. If it gets passed we will regard it as an unapropiate UN guideline instigated by moraly deprived state.

This is an outrage!

Not only does this proposal push young people into selling their bodies giving eachother STD's, it also undermines the will of the Lord. Did He not forbid prostitution and name it a sin?!

If citizens feels deprived they should turn to the love of God instead of stepping on the path of sin! This resolution encourages them to go in the wrong direction.

We, Senile Old Motorists, reject this proposal and will continue to reject its successors. If it gets passed we will regard it as an unapropiate UN guideline instigated by moraly deprived state.

Do it say prostitution is mandatory? Does it say condems are forbidden?

And is this the same "Lord" who approved burning witches? (Which - by the way - would apply to me as a female magic user) And who no one in my nation has really heard of? And who no one in our nation believes in?

This nation lets people chose their own future. It doesn't encourage or dis-encourage them - it just says this is the way it is.

Given the subject matter and what it stands for i cannot condone this proposal. Before i am condemned as a conservative god fearing nut let me clarify that i do not, as a scientist, believe in an all seeing all knowing superbeing and i am a liberal thinker on most matters.
I dissaproove of this proposal simply because sex for money is morally wrong and results in crime, disease and sexual enslavery of the majority of participants, wither as a prostitute or porn industry worker. True, some high class hookers, porn stars and their pimps are well looked after and can make a lot of financial wealth from the sex industry but it has been prooven time and time again that prostitution and porn are bad for the social fabric.

People affected by poverty and lack of education must be protected from those that would exploit them for financial gain.

I say no to The Sex Industry Worker Act.
President Murphy,
UN Delegate to the Realm of Hibernia.

Given the subject matter and what it stands for i cannot condone this proposal. Before i am condemned as a conservative god fearing nut let me clarify that i do not, as a scientist, believe in an all seeing all knowing superbeing and i am a liberal thinker on most matters.
I dissaproove of this proposal simply because sex for money is morally wrong and results in crime, disease and sexual enslavery of the majority of participants, wither as a prostitute or porn industry worker. True, some high class hookers, porn stars and their pimps are well looked after and can make a lot of financial wealth from the sex industry but it has been prooven time and time again that prostitution and porn are bad for the social fabric.

People affected by poverty and lack of education must be protected from those that would exploit them for financial gain.

I say no to The Sex Industry Worker Act.
President Murphy,
UN Delegate to the Realm of Hibernia.

We have prostitution, and yet we have no crime. We have no epidemic of sexual diseases cause we know what condoms are. Not a single prostitute has been struck down by The Powers or The Lords for what they are doing.

What evidence do you have to back up your arguement?

It's about stopping a practice that was banned for a reasons. People are more then sex bags and have to be encoureged to overcome challanges, not take the easy way out. If people take the easy road and become prostitues it shows that you don't have to work hard to amount to any thing. What kind of example does that set? And it also stunds long term thought. If your in debt, you have to figure a way out and if your way is being a sex bag, you are'nt thinking about long term goals. If it's on your resume, or backround cheack you may not get the job because you were a hooker. Also, think about peoples concinces, haveing been a hooker, how will they ever be able to have a serious realtionship?

You seek evidence......

in 90% of countries the sex industries have ties or are controlled by organised crime bosses and or families.

99% of people polled who have worked for the sex industry have ended up with nothing after years of working within it, have ended up being treated for disease, substance abuse and depression.

Many have tried to commit suicide and many succeeded,

My source... An expose on the sex industry within the UK and USA by an independant broadcaster and film maker.

I cant name the source as i am unsure if it is allowed by the NS Rules to name individual media companies or their workers.

It's about stopping a practice that was banned for a reasons. People are more then sex bags and have to be encoureged to overcome challanges, not take the easy way out. If people take the easy road and become prostitues it shows that you don't have to work hard to amount to any thing. What kind of example does that set? And it also stunds long term thought. If your in debt, you have to figure a way out and if your way is being a sex bag, you are'nt thinking about long term goals. If it's on your resume, or backround cheack you may not get the job because you were a hooker. Also, think about peoples concinces, haveing been a hooker, how will they ever be able to have a serious realtionship?

Firstly, can I congratulate you on the amout of respect you show for your fellow man.

Secondly - people go in to it for short term reasons sometimes. They want to pay their way through college, but can't get a day job due to having to attend college.

Thirdly - prostitutes are regarded as any other worker in TilEnca. They provide a service that people require, and are paid suitably for it. Why is that so wrong?

Fourthy - why should people have to have "serious" relationships. If you can't find the one true love of your life - your soul mate - then why not make a good living.

Finally - for someone who believes people should be treated with respect you are showing a remarkable lack of respect for those who deserve it most.

You seek evidence......

in 90% of countries the sex industries have ties or are controlled by organised crime bosses and or families.


Are these countries where it is legal or illegal? Cause if it's legal I have no idea why it could be called organized crime.


99% of people polled who have worked for the sex industry have ended up with nothing after years of working within it, have ended up being treated for disease, substance abuse and depression.


And how many people who don't work in the sex industry get depressed? Work in the same job all their life? Take drugs? Get diseases?
I think I am going to be President for the rest of my life. Does that mean I should be helped and taken out of my current job? Even if I get depressed about the amount of stupidity I have to deal with? Or I get a cold from travelling from my office to the UN every day?


Many have tried to commit suicide and many succeeded,


Again - what about statistics outside the sex industry?


My source... An expose on the sex industry within the UK and USA by an independant broadcaster and film maker.


(smirk). Someone who was trying to make a name for themselves by doing a sensationalist story?


I cant name the source as i am unsure if it is allowed by the NS Rules to name individual media companies or their workers.

Given that NS is not real life, any of your evidence can easily be dismissed. TilEnca has no crime, has no apparent suicide or drug issues and no crime. And yet we have prostitution, and have for as long as we have existed. We just made it legal, gave people access to doctors, councilling, condoms and general career help. None of which they would get if it were banned, which would - quite possibly - lead to the problems you describe.

Did you ever consider that making prostitutues social pariahs and criminals might be contributory factors to the issues you described above, and that if it was legal all those problems might either vanish, or at least be lessened? Or is that not something you are willing to consider?

Because some nations would not make the contract legal, that is why the NSUN is democratic.

They can set restrictions after the resolution is passed, but cannot make the contract illegal.

In the past a lot of people were derogatory about the colour of a persons skin, did that make it right?

This resolution accepts sex workers as normal workers is progressive in ensuring a safer and less discriminatory society.


The color of a persons skin is not their choice, prostitution is. See? I can take differences in examples and use them to my advantage, too.

What, discriminating paying women for sex limits progression? Should this be encouraged or something?

Phew! so pleased that you recognised that there is a list of crap attempting to prove our points invalid. But why bother posting the first three?

Why bother answering them?

And they need to learn that morality is too subjective to be used. Hell. certain religions in NS view human sacrifice as acceptable and in DLE there are a large number of people who view human organs as delicacies, a practice the government frowns upon. Of course, DLE isn't populated by humans, but you get the idea about the morality issue.

Since morality is so subjective, wouldn't it be infringing on peoples rights to make everyone accept something even if they view it as immoral? Morality is ALWAYS used in decisions, you can't get away from it because it's what people use to decide what is right and wrong to begin with. Even you're doing that now in supporting this proposal. A government also reflects the values and morality of it's citizens, if it's operating fairly.

You missed something very obvious: They're both selling sex. And, yes, some people pick up prostitutes to watch them have sex with others.

You still don't get it. I'm not just talking about the value of sex financially, I'm also talking about the value of it's essence.

So what if some people do? That's not the main advertisement.

People affected by poverty and lack of education must be protected from those that would exploit them for financial gain.

I say no to The Sex Industry Worker Act.
President Murphy,
UN Delegate to the Realm of Hibernia.

Just wanted that repeated.

Europaland is completely opposed to the sex industry in all its forms as it exploits, degrades and dehumanises women. While we support greater regulation and protection for sex workers in countries where it is legal we will vote against this resolution as it includes the legalisation of prostitution in all UN countries which is detrimental to the rights of women and is incompatible with our Socialist beliefs.

If people think prostitution is personal choice, why force people to follow it? That isn't personal choice. I don't want a sex indusatry in my contry, and thats my right and choice. Forcing me to legelize prostititon is a violation of that right.

My nation, my choices.

If people think prostitution is personal choice, why force people to follow it? That isn't personal choice. I don't want a sex indusatry in my contry, and thats my right and choice. Forcing me to legelize prostititon is a violation of that right.

My nation, my choices.

Not if you're in the UN. :p

Thats a problem we need to address.

Empirial Jagara must voice its opinion that this topic is not fit for international discusion. As just stated, it is a national right as to what sexual practicies are allowed in a nation, and this action infringes on that right. I never thought there would be a more corrupt organization than the real U.N., but this takes the cake. What kind of ultra decadent nation would propose this? I only joined as an experiment, but I think I'll leave if theres another discusion like this. Internationalism is only good in the context of each nation looking each other straight in the eye, and discusing real problems. When nations get together and decide to impose decadent laws on other nations, then you have a rotten organization. I strongly petition U.N. members to resist this resolution. Vote no, and stick it to the immoral cess pool of a state that brought this up. If this behavour continues I suggest protecting your nations by leaving the U.N..

This law is all about trying to find an easy way out of things and forcing nations to follow.

Empirial Jagara must voice its opinion that this topic is not fit for international discusion. As just stated, it is a national right as to what sexual practicies are allowed in a nation, and this action infringes on that right. I never thought there would be a more corrupt organization than the real U.N., but this takes the cake. What kind of ultra decadent nation would propose this? I only joined as an experiment, but I think I'll leave if theres another discusion like this. Internationalism is only good in the context of each nation looking each other straight in the eye, and discusing real problems. When nations get together and decide to impose decadent laws on other nations, then you have a rotten organization. I strongly petition U.N. members to resist this resolution. Vote no, and stick it to the immoral cess pool of a state that brought this up. If this behavour continues I suggest protecting your nations by leaving the U.N..

Newsflash - its gonna pass. :p :fluffle: :D

Come on, like the law against prostitution gets police on every womans door who take money from sex. The issue is the 3rd party who sells women and with this resulotion you make those legal. And this resolution does talk about the police results but it doesn't make it better if the polices are absent from scene. Sure it decreases crime rate but only because it will be hidden.

Metafora: It's ok to light a match but its not ok to burn down cities.

Newsflash - its gonna pass. :p :fluffle: :D

news flash, its going to get repealed.

Isn't progress wonderful?

I'm voting OPPOSED on this resolution, and am encouraging my regional delegate to vote the same. First off, the fact that it COMPELS nations to legalize a process which many of its inhabitants may find distasteful, but will now find themselves unable to make illegal. While the issue of prostitution has never been put to a vote in the Republic of Waco-via, I'd like to at least have the option to allow for a free and democratic process...if the majority decides that prostitution would erode or otherwise deteriorate our society, and desires to make it illegal, then I'd like the majority in our nation to be able to make that decision.

Or, simply put, this isn't the purview of the UN to regulate this industry. If the UN starts legalizing or outlawing this industry, what's to stop UN intervention on other industries? Next month we may be voting on a resolution to "Legalize Drug Trafficking", recognizing the right of the dealer to make a living and the right of the addict to choose to destroy his/her body through the use of narcotics. This is a slippery slope from which it is difficult to recover, once the precedent is set. Given, its not like we started onto the slope in a subtle fashion with this resolution though.

However, the single greatest reason for the Republic of Waco-via to oppose this resolution is due to the staggering economic implications associated with legalizing prostitution. For starters, the increase in medical costs alone will be astronomical. Health care, prevention centers, education programs, and access to regular medical care and frequent health checks and testing will be virtually mandatory for and sex trade workers, in order to prevent potential for widespread disease. If we wish to regulate the industry into non-profitable land, we're forced to pass numerous legislative actions, all of which will require monies to enforce, regulate, inspect, etc. If we simply allow it to be legalized, and comply with the "encouragement" towards sanitary, clean, and pleasing work environments for sex trade workers, we have to find funds to create these environments, establish an inspection process (health department? HUGE expansion of public health programs there), and, once again, create an enforcement process. Any one of these paths simply costs far too much money for a "profession" that, in all likelihood, will only be chosen by a smallest percentage of the population. Small benefit, huge cost...not a capitalistic venture that my nation would choose to engage in.

So, to sum up...OPPOSED, and encouraging others to do the same, because:

1 - It is not the purview of the UN to set regulations which erode the democratic process within individual nations, unless it affects the basic human rights and well beings of the individuals within those nations. Prostitution is neither a basic human right nor a source of well being.

2 - Resolution sets a dangerous precendent toward giving individual interest groups with a small percentage a tremendous amount of power over the rest of the population

3 - Resolution is economically unsound...it will cost nations billions to regulate, inspect, monitor, protect, and construct for a small, special interest group of dubious "professional" standard.

4 - Morally unpopular. This is totally subjective, but informal polling within my nation indicates this is not a subject the average citizen considers morally acceptable.

-Republic of Waco-via

After this has passed sex workers will be at liberty to ply their trade freely within the restrictions set by each nation.

Many of the opposition have opposed this on the grounds of health care, cost etc.

After a repeal if it ever happens, the sex worker would again become a criminal and be treated us such in a nation opposed to their work. So how will those nations deal with them? Mass imprisonment? Programme of cleansing their nation?

Also having set up expensive health care units and improved run down areas where sex workers trade, will they tear down those instiutions?

It will be more expensive to repeal than to keep.

The cat is almost certainly out of the bag, keep the cat happy.

Trying to shove the cat back in the bag will upset the cat, and the cost is enormous.

After this has passed sex workers will be at liberty to ply their trade freely within the restrictions set by each nation.

Many of the opposition have opposed this on the grounds of health care, cost etc.

After a repeal if it ever happens, the sex worker would again become a criminal and be treated us such in a nation opposed to their work. So how will those nations deal with them? Mass imprisonment? Programme of cleansing their nation?

Also having set up expensive health care units and improved run down areas where sex workers trade, will they tear down those instiutions?

It will be more expensive to repeal than to keep.

The cat is almost certainly out of the bag, keep the cat happy.

Trying to shove the cat back in the bag will upset the cat, and the cost is enormous.

That's why people are fighting for it not to be enacted in the first place.

The right of every person to have self-determination is something I think the UN should have a voice in. And what someone does with their body, even if they sell it for sex, would be a large part of self-determination.

:fluffle: I feel this is the best course of action for all concerned. Those who don't have what it takes to have free consentual sex and those that need the income that happen to be sexually attractive. It's a win, win situation for all concerned. :)

That's why people are fighting for it not to be enacted in the first place.

*beats you with a baguette*

It already exists in your nation. This act only forces you to deal with it as a legal profession instead of as something you can attempt to ignore.

enough said.

*beats you with a baguette*

It already exists in your nation. This act only forces you to deal with it as a legal profession instead of as something you can attempt to ignore.

*flails*

Weren't you saying that the cat being out of the bag is harder to put back in? Well I was saying that that's why people are trying not to let it out. No need to be violent with food articles!

You both might be right in that point, but even than an U.N. proposal which legalizes prostitution would make my work in my state more difficult, because I can fight social inequality more effective if prostitution is illegal and as consequence of that less attractive for the poor.

I've already explained that you can't fight prostitution more effective when it's illegal. And as far as it changes the attraction, be glad, because they'd better be prostitutes than thieves.

Did you know that in Germany, many women are being denied unemployment benefits if they refuse to take jobs in brothels, as prostitution was recently legalised. I thought it was interesting.

Cite your source, please. As far as I know, it's not happening, because brothels don't offer their jobs through the government agencies, so they can't be refused.

Furthermore, it is the result not of legalized prostitution, but other job regulation. That's the one to change. Not the legal prostitution.

The more areas of policymaking that are preempted by "international law" the less citizens will have the ability to have their own voices heard. the reason that we willingly cede *some* areas of decisionmaking is because we recognize that it is the only way to protect a minimum standard of human rights worldwide. This bill goes too far by infringing on state sovernty for narrow benefit to people in one particular profession. My issue is not with prosititution, which is actually legal in Lordosis, but with the precident that it sets with over-the-top language.

I don't understand you. This resolution gives a basic economic/human right to the *people*, giving them the opportunity to make their *own* decision. You should be happy with this resolution...

If people think prostitution is personal choice, why force people to follow it? That isn't personal choice. I don't want a sex indusatry in my contry, and thats my right and choice. Forcing me to legelize prostititon is a violation of that right.

My nation, my choices.

And you don't see that as the mentality of a dictator?

i am a liberal thinker on most matters.
I dissaproove of this proposal simply because sex for money is morally wrong

How dare you call yourself a liberal? Liberals are pro-freedom, they don't decide for people what morals they should have.

You seek evidence......

in 90% of countries the sex industries have ties or are controlled by organised crime bosses and or families.

etc. Now, that's all related to *illegal* prostitution. Wouldn't it be great it you could solve all that? But wait, you can? With the great Sex Industry Worker Act you can actually solve those problems! Isn't that great? And if you vote FOR now, you get a free regulatory clause! Mike, that is great!

Since morality is so subjective, wouldn't it be infringing on peoples rights to make everyone accept something even if they view it as immoral?

Yes, and that is why this resolution legalizes prostitution, so everyone can make their own decision. People aren't forced to become a prostitute, they are less restricted. Someone who considers prostitutes immoral need never even come near one. It would be very undemocratic if, because of the will of a small "moral" group (used as in "I am moral, therefor right", despite the fact that those voting FOR are as moral as those AGAINST) an individual would be limited in his or her right to do something.

Europaland is completely opposed to the sex industry in all its forms as it exploits, degrades and dehumanises women. While we support greater regulation and protection for sex workers in countries where it is legal we will vote against this resolution as it includes the legalisation of prostitution in all UN countries which is detrimental to the rights of women and is incompatible with our Socialist beliefs.

There are male prostitutes too you know. This isn't a gender inequality issue.

And the only reason people see it as dehumanising and exploitative is because of outdated moral codes that tell us that sex is immoral, something naughty. It isn't. But that's my opinion just as much as theirs'. So instead I'll argue that discrepancies between what is moral and immoral within the UN generally have to come down to how the right to choose clashes with others' rights to choose. Prostitution harms no one other than the 2 people involved, who are both consenting. (any mention of organised crime is moot, since we are talking about making prositution legal, potentially state-run).

Regardless, legalising the sex trade would make it much less exploitative as there would be industry regulations and guidelines. Without the stigma atgtached to prostitution, it may even become a respected trade, especially with the potential earnings involved.

Of course as a child knowing your mum is fucking as many men as possible to get money isn't going to harm you at all :rolleyes:

Given the subject matter and what it stands for i cannot condone this proposal. Before i am condemned as a conservative god fearing nut let me clarify that i do not, as a scientist, believe in an all seeing all knowing superbeing and i am a liberal thinker on most matters.
I dissaproove of this proposal simply because sex for money is morally wrong and results in crime, disease and sexual enslavery of the majority of participants, wither as a prostitute or porn industry worker. True, some high class hookers, porn stars and their pimps are well looked after and can make a lot of financial wealth from the sex industry but it has been prooven time and time again that prostitution and porn are bad for the social fabric.

People affected by poverty and lack of education must be protected from those that would exploit them for financial gain.

I say no to The Sex Industry Worker Act.
President Murphy,
UN Delegate to the Realm of Hibernia.
1- there is no crime in prostitution while it legal (mean you could regulate it and take care for criminals in the place).
2- there is no disseas while the resolution request you take care of the health of the prostitutes and there safety equipment.
3- there aren't pimps or slavery while theose are banned by other resolutions (end slavery, stop tracking in humans)
4- at last, People affected by poverty and lack of education mean your countrey has social problems you could solve by social and educational progrrams that the resolution ask you to make if you aren't want prostitutes in your countrey.
any new problems?

Of course as a child knowing your mum is fucking as many men as possible to get money isn't going to harm you at all :rolleyes:

Only because of the stigma attached to sex. Besides, if this is what the child knows, then it is likely to develop a much different viewpoint on sex.

Only because of the stigma attached to sex. Besides, if this is what the child knows, then it is likely to develop a much different viewpoint on sex.

It sows the seeds of social breakdown. Once people decide it is fine to sleep with everyone and anyone then the family group will become unstable. The family is the basis of a balanced society. This act will have horrific impact on your culture.

It doesn't devalue the family at all.

Just because a person has the option to be promiscuous or a prostitute, doesn't mean that they cannot be monogamous. In fact, it lends more meaning to being monogamous than if it were compulsory by law.

Can a prostitute not be a good mother, daughter, sister, friend?? (Or father, son, brother...) People have many roles. And their job is just one of them, but at the end of the day, it is their job, and they hang that role up at the end of the working day and go home where they are themselves, and not their job.

Just because you have issues with sex does not mean everyone has to share them. By all means, don't become a prostitute if you don't want to. It's not for everyone. Neither is the army. Or teaching.

It sows the seeds of social breakdown. Once people decide it is fine to sleep with everyone and anyone then the family group will become unstable. The family is the basis of a balanced society. This act will have horrific impact on your culture.

The family? Which family? The one with step-brothers and sisters? Where the father has a new girlfriend cause he got tired of mother? The family where the kids are abused by the parents?

The basis of a balanced society is understanding and tolerance. Once you have that down, the rest is a lot easier.

Understanding and tolerance: Where do you draw th line? Want to legalise selling drugs too? How about someone sells their body to be beaten up? It's their body they can do what they want with it and it might reduce the number of mindless assaults.

Where the father has a new girlfriend cause he got tired of mother?

this is my point! If culture didn't accept that alot less people would do it. Because it is a social norm these days people don't care.

The basis of a balanced society is understanding and tolerance. Once you have that down, the rest is a lot easier.

This basically sums it up. Mind if I use that line too?

Understanding and tolerance: Where do you draw th line?

Where people are hurt. Everybody should be equally able to develop themselves as a person in society, without harming another person or preventing another individual from developing themselves. The old "the freedom to extend your fist ends at my face".

Want to legalise selling drugs too?

Yes. Why shouldn't my people be allowed to decide for themselves what they put in their body? And they have shown great responsibility. Doing drugs is considered somewhat boring, though a lot of people try it. There is a lot of attention for it in the educational system, and all drugs are checked on quality. The only problem is people visiting our country from more backwards countries who outlaw such trivialities.

How about someone sells their body to be beaten up? It's their body they can do what they want with it and it might reduce the number of mindless assaults.

This is called "boxing", and there are various related sports. They are allowed in Groot Gouda, though it's a small circuit.

this is my point! If culture didn't accept that alot less people would do it. Because it is a social norm these days people don't care.

If culture accepts it, maybe more people do it, maybe less. Forbidden fruit tastes best. As long as people only harm themselves willingly and knowingly, we don't forbid it, we just try to educate everybody of the dangers of the freedom of choice. That works.

I believe that prostitution was illegalized for a reason and if we are even going to think about legalizing it we have to think about the consquences. Like STDs and a lot of therapy for children who figure out their mother is a whore. Even though the hotels rates would go up, it could ruin marriages. Its not a good thing to legalize prostitution and I for one am against it. It is morally and ethically wrong.

The people of the Dominion of Oneel are amazed that this resolution even made it to vote! The logistics of legalized prostitution are simply shocking. Added health care costs, more government regulations, and upped surveilance to ensure properly regulated and licensed prostitutes will suck up a good portion of my country's budget. Has the UN decided to offer a subsidy program to help governments offset the costs of making prostitution legal?

My fellow delegates, there's only one clear option for this proposal; you MUST vote it down. Your country's financial future is at stake.

The people of the Dominion of Oneel are amazed that this resolution even made it to vote! The logistics of legalized prostitution are simply shocking. Added health care costs, more government regulations, and upped surveilance to ensure properly regulated and licensed prostitutes will suck up a good portion of my country's budget. Has the UN decided to offer a subsidy program to help governments offset the costs of making prostitution legal?

My fellow delegates, there's only one clear option for this proposal; you MUST vote it down. Your country's financial future is at stake.
In my analysis this one is pretty much cost-neutral.
Health care costs are no higher and are probably lower, unless you somehow assume illegal prostitutes only engage in safe sex.

The tax revenues your government will get from taking this out of the black market would in most cases more than pay for reasonable regulations and monitoring.

Although on a positive note you do get some time and Money back from not having to police this. I suppose the profits from this would go back into the pot to pay for it! Infact I think this should be mandatory! (if it isn't already)

I believe that prostitution was illegalized for a reason and if we are even going to think about legalizing it we have to think about the consquences. Like STDs and a lot of therapy for children who figure out their mother is a whore. Even though the hotels rates would go up, it could ruin marriages. Its not a good thing to legalize prostitution and I for one am against it. It is morally and ethically wrong.
Wait. You're against legalized prostitution because it would increase hotel rates?

Wow. After 27 pages, I didn't think I'd be hearing any new arguments.

Um, OK. I'll bite.

1) Why would hotel rates rise if prostitution were legalized?
ii. Why are higher hotel rates morally wrong?

This basically sums it up. Mind if I use that line too?

Feel free :}

I believe that prostitution was illegalized for a reason and if we are even going to think about legalizing it we have to think about the consquences. Like STDs and a lot of therapy for children who figure out their mother is a whore. Even though the hotels rates would go up, it could ruin marriages. Its not a good thing to legalize prostitution and I for one am against it. It is morally and ethically wrong.

Prostitution used to be legal in the UN. This is not an attempt do something that is unheard of - it is just an attempt to redress the perceived mistakes in the original resolution that made it legal (just over a year ago).

In a quality of President of The Republic of ITALIA-EUROPA i Agree this Resolution...
The Republic of ITALIA-EUROPA Vote yes for this Resolution we know the importance of this, and we agree absolutely yes.

It got passed, a sad day for the UN.

It got passed, a sad day for the UN.

The majority would disagree however.

The majority would disagree however.
yes, in the last hour parties open through the countrey and the wine come like water. it will be our greatest time.

Yes in the last hour you got to exercise your perversion. Pathetic that there are people like you running nations.

Yes in the last hour you got to exercise your perversion. Pathetic that there are people like you running nations.

Congratulations. Very few people can show so much contempt for so many of their fellow leaders in such few words. You really should be proud of yourselves.

It got passed, a sad day for the UN.

And this is the second time in a year and two days that the UN has voted to legalise prostitution in it's member nations.

I, for one, hope that this will put an end to the discussion as to whether or not it is a topic that the UN should be dealing with, because it is the only topic to be voted on twice and to win twice, all in the space of 368 days.

This clealry indicates that the majority of UN member nations believe it is something the UN should be dealing with, and indicates that the majority of the UN member nations think it should be legal.

But far be it from me to prevent any more nations from launching a repeal against this. Three resolutions being passed in a year or so will just make the point even more firmly than two already have.

Fine, you whoremongers won. But this is how whoring is legal in my nation. First all whores will pay 99% of all income to taxes, whether thru whoring alone or any other jobs combined. Second, to be a prostitute you must be older than 50, and have no previous title of influence(teacher,parent,political office, or manager). Third anyone who has ever gone to a prostitute will be taxed 99% of all income for the rest of their lives. These "customers" must also consent to daily searches for anything illegal anywhere they are. All whoring must be done in government sanctioned camps. Whores can not leave these camps while being whores, they may only leave after they have retired. Anyone who violates these laws will be executed in whatever way the executioner sees fit.

I send this to the messageboard so that it may serve as a model for regulating whoring. However, I propose stronger regulation.

I don't understand you. This resolution gives a basic economic/human right to the *people*, giving them the opportunity to make their *own* decision. You should be happy with this resolution...

I am supportive of the sentiment of the proposal/resolution, but I oppose the damage done ot the political rights of individuals by not allowing them the opportunity to make informed decisions about the role of prosititution in their own countries. At the end of the day I feel the harm done by the latter outweighs the good done by the former. I'd as adimately oppose a proposal to outlaw prostitution in every country. I think only the nation state itself is the appropraite level to make such a sensitive decision.

The resolution The Sex Industry Worker Act was passed 10,558 votes to 6,452, and implemented in all UN member nations.

A National Day of Celebration has been declared in Vastiva.

*flails*

Weren't you saying that the cat being out of the bag is harder to put back in? Well I was saying that that's why people are trying not to let it out. No need to be violent with food articles!

*throws bagels with lox*

If you believe it is not already out, you are a fool. Prostitution predates society, and will continue to exist long after. Not facing that reality is foolish.

Did you know that in Germany, many women are being denied unemployment benefits if they refuse to take jobs in brothels, as prostitution was recently legalised. I thought it was interesting.

Cite your source, please. As far as I know, it's not happening, because brothels don't offer their jobs through the government agencies, so they can't be refused.

Furthermore, it is the result not of legalized prostitution, but other job regulation. That's the one to change. Not the legal prostitution.

Gwenstefani is the dupe of an Internet Hoax.

You seek evidence......

in 90% of countries the sex industries have ties or are controlled by organised crime bosses and or families.

etc. Now, that's all related to *illegal* prostitution. Wouldn't it be great it you could solve all that? But wait, you can? With the great Sex Industry Worker Act you can actually solve those problems! Isn't that great? And if you vote FOR now, you get a free regulatory clause! Mike, that is great!

We have legalized, lisenced, and regulated prostitution, and a manditory death sentence for those attempting to organize illegal prostitution rings - not the prostitutes, those organizing.

Then again, Organized Crime members are also under manditory death sentences upon being discovered, so it works. We just get creative with the method of demise.

Fine, you whoremongers won. But this is how whoring is legal in my nation. First all whores will pay 99% of all income to taxes, whether thru whoring alone or any other jobs combined. Second, to be a prostitute you must be older than 50, and have no previous title of influence(teacher,parent,political office, or manager). Third anyone who has ever gone to a prostitute will be taxed 99% of all income for the rest of their lives. These "customers" must also consent to daily searches for anything illegal anywhere they are. All whoring must be done in government sanctioned camps. Whores can not leave these camps while being whores, they may only leave after they have retired. Anyone who violates these laws will be executed in whatever way the executioner sees fit.

I send this to the messageboard so that it may serve as a model for regulating whoring. However, I propose stronger regulation.

I think that, aside from being a petty snit in response to a democractic vote, most of what you propose is illegal under other UN resolutions.

Just thought I would mention that :}

Of course as a child knowing your mum is fucking as many men as possible to get money isn't going to harm you at all :rolleyes:

Mom goes to work.
Mom supports child.
Mom pays taxes.

Society supports this as a valid choice. No stigma is attached.

For that matter, in Vastiva, some prostitutes have rather high status - and very high asking prices.

We see no difficulty here.

It sows the seeds of social breakdown. Once people decide it is fine to sleep with everyone and anyone then the family group will become unstable. The family is the basis of a balanced society. This act will have horrific impact on your culture.

Boy are you malinformed.

(grin) I meant people as in people who run nations. Not the people in the nations :}

Fair enough.


I disagree. The Free Press for example. If the UN mandates that news papers have to be permitted to print the stories they want to print, rather than being controlled or censored by the government, then the people have more power to make their voices heard. If however it is left in national hands, then the governments could easily subdue the press, and so subdue the voices of the people.

In this case, there are people who will have been earning their living by prostitution for a good long while (since it used to be legal, before the repeal). But now the nations can make prostitution illegal, turning many of their people in to criminals in the process. And it is not the fault of the people - it is the fault of the government who made it illegal and created a criminal out of a previously law abiding citizen. The government is subduing the will of the people by telling them that they are now criminals, and not free citizens.


Alright, now we're getting somewhere. I agree entirely that there are fundemantal principals that the UN should protect. Right to a fair trial... I'm there with you. Right to a free press... absolutely, I'm right behind you. Right to reproduce whenever and whith whomever you chose... I agree. But I also staunchly support the political rights of individuals to make decisions about things that aren't basic undeniable human rights.

Does prostitution hurt people? There are legitimate arguments that it does--STD's, unwanted pregnancy, etc. While I personally believe prostitution should be legal, I recognize that these are legitimate arguments and further role of prostitution in Lordosis is much different as it is in TilEnca as it is in other place.

If the proposal had simply been to repeal the restriction on prostitution, and allow governments to make the decision that is appropriate for them, then I would have been behind you 100%. As it is, this proposition is just as bad as the porposition banning prostitution, and I'm afraid that while the policies it requires are consistant with Lordosis policy, the sentiment is not. I'm afraid that the Lordosis legislature will soon call for our country to cease its representation in this body.

Understanding and tolerance: Where do you draw th line? Want to legalise selling drugs too? How about someone sells their body to be beaten up? It's their body they can do what they want with it and it might reduce the number of mindless assaults.


Where the father has a new girlfriend cause he got tired of mother?


this is my point! If culture didn't accept that alot less people would do it. Because it is a social norm these days people don't care.

Vastiva has legalized and regulated recreational drugs.
We also accept as valid contracts which allow for ones pummeling - with very few, but necessary, guards accepted as manditory within the contract.
We also allow for "contract killing of oneself" - Euthanasia by Proxy.

If its their body to do with as they like, they have the right to sell it, rent it, expose it, deface it, whatever. We don't care, as long as you pay taxes and get your manditory contracts filed with the State beforehand.

As a result of prostitution, we have found marriages to have stabilized - those who really want to stay together do, those who don't do not.

We find this very stable.

I believe that prostitution was illegalized for a reason and if we are even going to think about legalizing it we have to think about the consquences. Like STDs and a lot of therapy for children who figure out their mother is a whore. Even though the hotels rates would go up, it could ruin marriages. Its not a good thing to legalize prostitution and I for one am against it. It is morally and ethically wrong.

Agoobioa : UN MEMBER.

Prostitution is legal in your country as of today. :D
Deal with it as you see fit.

The people of the Dominion of Oneel are amazed that this resolution even made it to vote! The logistics of legalized prostitution are simply shocking. Added health care costs, more government regulations, and upped surveilance to ensure properly regulated and licensed prostitutes will suck up a good portion of my country's budget. Has the UN decided to offer a subsidy program to help governments offset the costs of making prostitution legal?

My fellow delegates, there's only one clear option for this proposal; you MUST vote it down. Your country's financial future is at stake.

You lose. And our finances are doing amazingly well since we TAX prostitution.

Although on a positive note you do get some time and Money back from not having to police this. I suppose the profits from this would go back into the pot to pay for it! Infact I think this should be mandatory! (if it isn't already)

Now you're catching on.

Yes in the last hour you got to exercise your perversion. Pathetic that there are people like you running nations.

*puts Kamuras on "Least Favored Nations" list, prohibits importation of Kamuran goods or travel to Kamuras*

Yep, that did alot of good.

Fine, you whoremongers won. But this is how whoring is legal in my nation. First all whores will pay 99% of all income to taxes, whether thru whoring alone or any other jobs combined. Second, to be a prostitute you must be older than 50, and have no previous title of influence(teacher,parent,political office, or manager). Third anyone who has ever gone to a prostitute will be taxed 99% of all income for the rest of their lives. These "customers" must also consent to daily searches for anything illegal anywhere they are. All whoring must be done in government sanctioned camps. Whores can not leave these camps while being whores, they may only leave after they have retired. Anyone who violates these laws will be executed in whatever way the executioner sees fit.

I send this to the messageboard so that it may serve as a model for regulating whoring. However, I propose stronger regulation.

Gee, look, a fool who is going to create an even more profitable situation for his illegal prostitutes, therefore funding Organized Crime even more.

:rolleyes:

We, on the other hand, will be soaking up our trillions in tax income for social projects, and laughing at our new SitCom "Francaden's Funniest Leaders".

Alright, now we're getting somewhere. I agree entirely that there are fundemantal principals that the UN should protect. Right to a fair trial... I'm there with you. Right to a free press... absolutely, I'm right behind you. Right to reproduce whenever and whith whomever you chose... I agree. But I also staunchly support the political rights of individuals to make decisions about things that aren't basic undeniable human rights.

... like, say, the right to do with your body as you wish, the right to commerce...

Which leads to "If f*cking is legal, and selling is legal, why isn't selling f*cking legal?"



Does prostitution hurt people? There are legitimate arguments that it does--STD's, unwanted pregnancy, etc.

Those can be more then adequately faced by regulation.



While I personally believe prostitution should be legal, I recognize that these are legitimate arguments and further role of prostitution in Lordosis is much different as it is in TilEnca as it is in other place.

If the proposal had simply been to repeal the restriction on prostitution, and allow governments to make the decision that is appropriate for them, then I would have been behind you 100%. As it is, this proposition is just as bad as the porposition banning prostitution, and I'm afraid that while the policies it requires are consistant with Lordosis policy, the sentiment is not. I'm afraid that the Lordosis legislature will soon call for our country to cease its representation in this body.

Cool. *appraises your office* I think the desk will do. Though the bookshelves are nice too....

I think that, aside from being a petty snit in response to a democractic vote, most of what you propose is illegal under other UN resolutions.

Just thought I would mention that :}

The UN has proven itself a joke. I will comply on the outside, but in my own country I will look the other way when police officers carry out my wishes.

Gee, look, a fool who is going to create an even more profitable situation for his illegal prostitutes, therefore funding Organized Crime even more.

:rolleyes:

We, on the other hand, will be soaking up our trillions in tax income for social projects, and laughing at our new SitCom "Francaden's Funniest Leaders".



Illegal whores are worked in our mines till death. Organized Crime is nonexistant in my nation as we put whole "families" in trenches and shoot them.

New legislation just passed, no people of any nation which endorses whoring are allowed into Francaden. All products from these nations are banned. And on a lighter note. We will be aiding revolutionary groups in these nations to overthrow their oppressive regimes.

... like, say, the right to do with your body as you wish, the right to commerce... [/QOUTE]

Since when is the ability to engage in a *particular* area of commerce a fundemental human right?

[QUOTE]Which leads to "If f*cking is legal, and selling is legal, why isn't selling f*cking legal?"

If buying stock is legal, and knowing what's going on in my company is legal, then why is insider trading illegal? D'oh! *Martha Stewart hits herself in the forehead*


Those can be more then adequately faced by regulation.
Problems related to gambling can be addressed by regulation, but why shouldn't societies be able to decide that they'd prefer not to permit it.

Cool. *appraises your office* I think the desk will do. Though the bookshelves are nice too....
I've been in the UN for all of a week. I'm pretty sure this desk belonged to an intern before I got here. But then perhaps balsa is in.

Illegal whores are worked in our mines till death. Organized Crime is nonexistant in my nation as we put whole "families" in trenches and shoot them.

Well, we support you there...

New legislation just passed, no people of any nation which endorses whoring are allowed into Francaden. All products from these nations are banned. And on a lighter note. We will be aiding revolutionary groups in these nations to overthrow their oppressive regimes.

Francaden = UN MEMBER

So you threw all of your own people out of your own country???

WOW!

:D

... like, say, the right to do with your body as you wish, the right to commerce...

Since when is the ability to engage in a *particular* area of commerce a fundemental human right?

Right to your own body is a fundamental right.
Right to commerce is a fundamental right.

Ergo, right to commerce over your own body is a fundamental right.




Which leads to "If f*cking is legal, and selling is legal, why isn't selling f*cking legal?"

If buying stock is legal, and knowing what's going on in my company is legal, then why is insider trading illegal? D'oh! *Martha Stewart hits herself in the forehead*

Who is this "Martha Stewart" you speak of?

And insider trading in Vastiva is legal.



Those can be more then adequately faced by regulation.

Problems related to gambling can be addressed by regulation, but why shouldn't societies be able to decide that they'd prefer not to permit it.

It exists. Regulate it.



Cool. *appraises your office* I think the desk will do. Though the bookshelves are nice too....

I've been in the UN for all of a week. I'm pretty sure this desk belonged to an intern before I got here. But then perhaps balsa is in.

Were you going to keep the carpet? How about those drapes? And never can have too many staplers...

The time for the debate is over! The FOR people have won out again!

I wonder how many of the FOR people didn't realize they were legalizing prostitution.


Hehe.

It'll be an interesting bounceback thing.

Francaden = UN MEMBER

So you threw all of your own people out of your own country???

WOW!

:D
Not even. Francaden had whoring forced on us, we limit whoring, we do not endorse it. Remember our nation was one of the outspoken opponents to this resolution?

Not even. Francaden had whoring forced on us, we limit whoring, we do not endorse it. Remember our nation was one of the outspoken opponents to this resolution?


New legislation just passed, no people of any nation which endorses whoring are allowed into Francaden. All products from these nations are banned. And on a lighter note. We will be aiding revolutionary groups in these nations to overthrow their oppressive regimes.

Alright, follow the logic.

1)No person of any nation which endorses whoring is allowed in Francaden.
2)Francaden is in the UN.
3)All UN nations now endorse whoring (owing to the new resolution)
4)Hence, Francaden endorses whoring.
5)Ergo, Francaden threw all its own people out of its own country.

Clearer now?

Congratulations Groot Gouda!

I'm proud to have played a small part in getting this re-instated. You certainly showed me wrong in thinking it was too soon to do it.

Oh well, I didn't like bein in the UN anyway, I said that I would not stand for having another nation or groups of nations force me to loose my morals and faith, and I will not, I am leaving the UN on account of it's biased and immoral actions and it's violating my nation's sovereignty. Now, let's see how many nations will do like-wise.

Alright, follow the logic.

1)No person of any nation which endorses whoring is allowed in Francaden.
2)Francaden is in the UN.
3)All UN nations now endorse whoring (owing to the new resolution)
4)Hence, Francaden endorses whoring.
5)Ergo, Francaden threw all its own people out of its own country.

Clearer now?
you're trying to hard to get your point acrossed. Francaden does not endorse whoring, we are against it and limit it as much as possible. Your nations can have all the kinds of whoring you want? But your people can't come to my land. :upyours:

Oh well, I didn't like bein in the UN anyway, I said that I would not stand for having another nation or groups of nations force me to loose my morals and faith, and I will not, I am leaving the UN on account of it's biased and immoral actions and it's violating my nation's sovereignty. Now, let's see how many nations will do like-wise.
I call dibs on his desk!

you're trying to hard to get your point acrossed. Francaden does not endorse whoring, we are against it and limit it as much as possible. Your nations can have all the kinds of whoring you want? But your people can't come to my land. :upyours:
if you hate it so much you should just RP a nationstate that isn't in the UN. I have one nationstate not in the NSUN, for that exact purpose.

But that's not what you're really complaining about. You're mad because we've called your worldview immoral and told you that you don't have unrestricted freedom to follow evil policies.

Go For It! You get A Thumps up from me.

That the effect of the recently passed Sex Workers Act on our economy was to reduce income tax by 5% and move our economy from weak to good, we therefore look forward to a more prosperous future.

Criminals exploiting sex workers have either left or applied for decent jobs, our sex workers pay 28% tax like everyone else in our nation.

We of course welcome any sex worker that is distressed by another nation to emigrate to our Freeland.

No before anyone shouts it in misguided anger. We are not perverts here, just sensible.

Again, well done to all involved in this resolution :) .

It will always be one I'll never forget, because of the spirited debate and controversy, and because the first proposal I endorsed as a new delegate, not only made it onto the floor, but won the vote :D.

you're trying to hard to get your point acrossed. Francaden does not endorse whoring, we are against it and limit it as much as possible. Your nations can have all the kinds of whoring you want? But your people can't come to my land.

I guess my nation and its people fall into the banned from your land group. Thats fine, as a free, democratic people, they would'nt want to come anywhere near Francaden. I doubt there is anything for them to see there except the mass burial pits anyway :rolleyes: .

My nation does however open its borders to all and any refugees fleeing your oppressive, dictator regime. I'm sure there are plenty of them :( .

if you hate it so much you should just RP a nationstate that isn't in the UN. I have one nationstate not in the NSUN, for that exact purpose.

But that's not what you're really complaining about. You're mad because we've called your worldview immoral and told you that you don't have unrestricted freedom to follow evil policies.

I don't compromise with fascists, I will not make another nation so go to hell :upyours:

So the person who proposed the whoring resolution was an australian. That explains why it was passed, you australians and brits are immoral people. There are not many burial pits in my nation, we have an area specialized for this. It's not that big, about the size of a city's cemetary. As for refugees, our people have good civil rights and political freedom, they have all social services and they have our protection. We do not allow whoring under the age of 140, or baby killing except in extreme circumstances. Besides our government must be doing something right, we keep getting inspite of our many parties and relative ease to running for office.

So the person who proposed the whoring resolution was an australian. That explains why it was passed, you australians and brits are immoral people. There are not many burial pits in my nation, we have an area specialized for this. It's not that big, about the size of a city's cemetary. As for refugees, our people have good civil rights and political freedom, they have all social services and they have our protection. We do not allow whoring under the age of 140, or baby killing except in extreme circumstances. Besides our government must be doing something right, we keep getting inspite of our many parties and relative ease to running for office.

You're jumping to conclusions.

I don't know where the person or persons who wrote the proposal/resolution are from. I am one of the many delegates who endorsed it, as a proposal, and brought it to the floor for the vote, which the for side won by a comfortable margin. You can accept that result or not, the choice is yours. I really don't care whether you do or not.

As for the refugees, from all the ranting and raving I have read by you in 2 threads on this forum, it certainly seems to me your nation is far from free. You have stated you are going to RP that certain UN resolution you don't like are non-existant in your nation, well I am going to RP that you have a flood of refugees escaping oppression, and my nation is welcoming them with open arms.

Any refugees fleeing to your land are traitors of the state who do not deserve to live in Francaden. You can have all the would be whores, rapists, murderers, and drug dealers. This actually saves us in cost of bullets. If you like we can make some sort of treaty where you can have our undesireables in your land. But they can not take anything with them other than their own bodies, unless they are pregnant, then they have to wait till the baby is born and they can leave but the baby stays.

That the effect of the recently passed Sex Workers Act on our economy was to reduce income tax by 5% and move our economy from weak to good, we therefore look forward to a more prosperous future.

Criminals exploiting sex workers have either left or applied for decent jobs, our sex workers pay 28% tax like everyone else in our nation.

We of course welcome any sex worker that is distressed by another nation to emigrate to our Freeland.

No before anyone shouts it in misguided anger. We are not perverts here, just sensible.

*puts McGonagall on the "Most Favored Nations" list for Trade Status*

So the person who proposed the whoring resolution was an australian. That explains why it was passed, you australians and brits are immoral people. There are not many burial pits in my nation, we have an area specialized for this. It's not that big, about the size of a city's cemetary. As for refugees, our people have good civil rights and political freedom, they have all social services and they have our protection. We do not allow whoring under the age of 140,

As you can't discriminate, that puts your "age of maturity" at 140, so I'm going to invade you with a troop of girl scouts, seeing as your people can't legally be in the military if they're not mature.



or baby killing except in extreme circumstances.

No one asked you to kill babies. :rolleyes: If you're talking about abortion, well that's legal in Francaden because Francaden is in the UN and there is a resolution about abortion, legalizing it and removing your ability to prevent it.



Besides our government must be doing something right, we keep getting inspite of our many parties and relative ease to running for office.

No one else is mature enough to vote, your government is run by 141 year old men on life support?

Any refugees fleeing to your land are traitors of the state who do not deserve to live in Francaden. You can have all the would be whores, rapists, murderers, and drug dealers. This actually saves us in cost of bullets. If you like we can make some sort of treaty where you can have our undesireables in your land. But they can not take anything with them other than their own bodies, unless they are pregnant, then they have to wait till the baby is born and they can leave but the baby stays.

A touch harsh, don't you think?

This resolution has been accepted with a fairly large majority, a difference of 4000 votes. The previous resolution and repeal both had a difference of only about 1000 votes. That is saying something, and makes our nation feel confident that future repeals will be less likely to be passed.

This resolution, though my name is on it, couldn't have been made without the support of my region and the people here that assisted in campaigning and debating. I would like to mention Asshelmetta, Vastiva, DemonLordEnigma and TilEnca specifically, though many others helped in smaller or bigger ways. Thanks for all the support.

To those who voted against: please use this resolution wisely. It has all the possibilities of dealing with prostitution within the limits or your morals, but remember the foundation: freedom and respect for the individual citizen. If you think of that, you will be able to reduce prostitution-related problems even without killing all your citizens.

To those who made statements that indicated a bad looser's mentality: nyer nyer. Fortunately, most nations are a lot more mature than you. You all know who you are.

Our next resolution will not deal with sex in any way, but will extent the tsunami resolution to cover more types of disasters, on an everlasting conquest to save more lives.

We will meet again.

Our legal whoring maturity age is 140. Other than that 18 is mature. Abortion is legal in Francaden only under extreme circumstances. When will you fascists learn to stay out of Francaden's affairs? That is the problem with ultra liberals, they want to force their views on everyone. The nation of Francaden stands strong in their convictions firmly entrenched in moral beliefs. Any nation or nations who try to force their ways on us will be met with strong opposition.

4000 is really not that much when you consider that many regions have delegates with over 100 votes...
Groot, please use better judgement of UN jurisdiction before posting a proposal. As there are certain areas, where the UN should have no say. Such as the last resolution. Abusing the United Nations to force upon other nations such things out of the Jurisidiction of the UN will eventually lead to complaints by the nations who were adversely affected by the passing of the resolution, and taken up to the moderators. I will personally make a complaint if my nation is hurt with no way to get out of it.
Farewell.

Our legal whoring maturity age is 140. Other than that 18 is mature. Abortion is legal in Francaden only under extreme circumstances. When will you fascists learn to stay out of Francaden's affairs? That is the problem with ultra liberals, they want to force their views on everyone. The nation of Francaden stands strong in their convictions firmly entrenched in moral beliefs. Any nation or nations who try to force their ways on us will be met with strong opposition.

For someone who wants to dictate his beliefs on an entire nation of people, I find it a tad amusing you are going to define us as fascists who want to force our views on everyone. You won't let women have abortions unless they fit your moral profile, and you have the nerve to imply those who would are fascists?

You want us out? Quit the UN and run your country like the fascist dictatorship it appears to be. But stop whining to people who don't actually give a damn.

4000 is really not that much when you consider that many regions have delegates with over 100 votes...
Groot, please use better judgement of UN jurisdiction before posting a proposal. As there are certain areas, where the UN should have no say. Such as the last resolution. Abusing the United Nations to force upon other nations such things out of the Jurisidiction of the UN will eventually lead to complaints by the nations who were adversely affected by the passing of the resolution, and taken up to the moderators. I will personally make a complaint if my nation is hurt with no way to get out of it.
Farewell.

I think you are mistaken as to how the game will work. This resolution was perfectly with in game rules, perfectly legal and did nothing wrong. I think if it was taken to the moderators they would agree with me.

The UN has jurisdiction over whatever it's members vote it to have jurisdiction over. This resolution was a fine piece of writing and one of which the author should be very proud. And a great number of nations and delegates appear to agree with me.

If you truly, honestly think the UN should not be interefering in this, submit a repeal and see how many people will support it. Then you will have your answer. Until then I suggest you don't pontificate about how the game does or doesn't work, at least until you read the rules properly.

For someone who wants to dictate his beliefs on an entire nation of people, I find it a tad amusing you are going to define us as fascists who want to force our views on everyone. You won't let women have abortions unless they fit your moral profile, and you have the nerve to imply those who would are fascists?

You want us out? Quit the UN and run your country like the fascist dictatorship it appears to be. But stop whining to people who don't actually give a damn.

If you actually looked at my nation you would see that we are Democratic Socialists. What gives a woman the right to murder a baby? I don't have the right to go out and shoot some fool in the streets.

If you actually looked at my nation you would see that we are Democratic Socialists. What gives a woman the right to murder a baby? I don't have the right to go out and shoot some fool in the streets.

What gives you the right to decide what is best for every single person in your nation?

But this is ranging in to a wider topic than this thread covers, so I think leaving it here would be best. (I am always ready to debate the issue of freedom of choice for the individual over the nation, but this is really not the right thread to do it in)

That the effect of the recently passed Sex Workers Act on our economy was to reduce income tax by 5% and move our economy from weak to good, we therefore look forward to a more prosperous future.
Criminals exploiting sex workers have either left or applied for decent jobs, our sex workers pay 28% tax like everyone else in our nation.
We of course welcome any sex worker that is distressed by another nation to emigrate to our Freeland.
No before anyone shouts it in misguided anger. We are not perverts here, just sensible.

Hmm... Pretty much the same as with ours. Tax came down a bit, moved our economy from good to strong. Of course, prostitution has been legal in Zamundaland for some time, so we don't have to deal with people who must now find alternate means of employment.

As McGonagal stated, any sex worker that finds their nation has legislated their industry out of existence, and that McGonagal is too far :), may come to Zamundaland to work in our well-established, well-paid sex industry.

I think you are mistaken as to how the game will work. This resolution was perfectly with in game rules, perfectly legal and did nothing wrong. I think if it was taken to the moderators they would agree with me.

The UN has jurisdiction over whatever it's members vote it to have jurisdiction over. This resolution was a fine piece of writing and one of which the author should be very proud. And a great number of nations and delegates appear to agree with me.

If you truly, honestly think the UN should not be interefering in this, submit a repeal and see how many people will support it. Then you will have your answer. Until then I suggest you don't pontificate about how the game does or doesn't work, at least until you read the rules properly.

No you dont understand, the resolution is a break of each individual nations right to make a decision for itself. Actually any and all opinionative resolution such as this, are out of UN Jursidiction, because it denys the individual nation the right to choose upon his own opinion.
The UNs purpose is to vote on issues that will better society for the whole, not the majority vote on an opinionated issue. Continueing violations of the freedoms of the nation, would eventually result in Moderator intervention. BECAUSE, using the UN for personal gain(IE. Forcing your views on others)was not the purpose of the UN in this game, and is and will be considered abuse of the United Nations.
Therfor, upon petition, with sufficient evidence and witnesses could have the abuser removed from the UN. It may not be in the rules, but abusing the UN for personal gain: 1. Angers players. 2. Makes the game less fun. These two reason are sufficent enough(Reasoning that there is a sufficient number of people unhappy about it)to codemn the poster for 1. Abuse, and 2. Often Flaming against the rights of others to choose.

Final Statement: The UN is not a toy for facists to impose on other people. It is here to benefit everyone equally in places that the UN can help. On another note, Proposals here, should be larger in scale. Legalizing prostitution is a job for a national issue, not the 100% force of action by the UN. This resolution was a break of my rights, and many others, who will not benefit from legalizing prostitution. Thankfully it can be restricted, but in the future if it is not, the Moderation of the game will see my side and act, recognizing that the United Nations is being used for malicious purpose of ruining the fun of other players.

Thankfully it can be restricted, but in the future if it is not, the Moderation of the game will see my side and act, recognizing that the United Nations is being used for malicious purpose of ruining the fun of other players.
Honestly? No, they won't. TilEnca is correct. However, I noticed that you recently joined the National Sovereignty Coalition. I suggest you post actively in that forum to further your agenda.

For anyone who might be reading and is interested in the coalition, the site is:

http://s8.invisionfree.com/NSC/index.php?

Telegram Zamundaland or me if you have questions, and make sure to register on the board.

Why wouldnt they. Its kind of like having multiple UN nations, the purpose is to manipulate the Un, just as proposing issues to manipulate the UN. The differance is only how its done. It really is the same thing.

If you actually looked at my nation you would see that we are Democratic Socialists. What gives a woman the right to murder a baby? I don't have the right to go out and shoot some fool in the streets.

Women do not have the right to murder babies, they have the right to have abortions, which is removal of a parasitic organism, nothing more.

As to looking at your nation - you do quite enough demonstrating of your nations character here, and we are quite sure you look very pretty in your brown shirts. We are not, however, the slightest bit interested in going anywhere near you.

No you dont understand, the resolution is a break of each individual nations right to make a decision for itself. Actually any and all opinionative resolution such as this, are out of UN Jursidiction, because it denys the individual nation the right to choose upon his own opinion.
The UNs purpose is to vote on issues that will better society for the whole, not the majority vote on an opinionated issue. Continueing violations of the freedoms of the nation, would eventually result in Moderator intervention. BECAUSE, using the UN for personal gain(IE. Forcing your views on others)was not the purpose of the UN in this game, and is and will be considered abuse of the United Nations.
Therfor, upon petition, with sufficient evidence and witnesses could have the abuser removed from the UN. It may not be in the rules, but abusing the UN for personal gain: 1. Angers players. 2. Makes the game less fun. These two reason are sufficent enough(Reasoning that there is a sufficient number of people unhappy about it)to codemn the poster for 1. Abuse, and 2. Often Flaming against the rights of others to choose.

Final Statement: The UN is not a toy for facists to impose on other people. It is here to benefit everyone equally in places that the UN can help. On another note, Proposals here, should be larger in scale. Legalizing prostitution is a job for a national issue, not the 100% force of action by the UN. This resolution was a break of my rights, and many others, who will not benefit from legalizing prostitution. Thankfully it can be restricted, but in the future if it is not, the Moderation of the game will see my side and act, recognizing that the United Nations is being used for malicious purpose of ruining the fun of other players.

Ah, yet another name for the long list of those who did not read the FAQ on the NS UN.

And we're not Fascists, we're Sultanists.

Why wouldnt they. Its kind of like having multiple UN nations, the purpose is to manipulate the Un, just as proposing issues to manipulate the UN. The differance is only how its done. It really is the same thing.
Honestly? No, it's not. It's not even close. Any political body is going to be used for personal gain; that's how politics works.

[QUOTE=Vastiva]Women do not have the right to murder babies, they have the right to have abortions, which is removal of a parasitic organism, nothing more.

If the baby is a parasite when then does it become a human? Furthermore if a man were to punch a pregnant woman who wanted to have the baby in the stomach i'm sure you'd be mad at him. But thru your own flawed logic he's helping her rid her body of a parasite.


I still say if women can kill babies, all murder should be legal.

Women do not have the right to murder babies, they have the right to have abortions, which is removal of a parasitic organism, nothing more.

If the baby is a parasite when then does it become a human? Furthermore if a man were to punch a pregnant woman who wanted to have the baby in the stomach i'm sure you'd be mad at him. But thru your own flawed logic he's helping her rid her body of a parasite.

I still say if women can kill babies, all murder should be legal.

That's... nice... :headbang:

Women have the right to remove parasites. That is not "killing babies". Babies are those who have been born, and thus have rights.

If the baby is a parasite when then does it become a human? Furthermore if a man were to punch a pregnant woman who wanted to have the baby in the stomach i'm sure you'd be mad at him. But thru your own flawed logic he's helping her rid her body of a parasite.


I still say if women can kill babies, all murder should be legal.
the baby stop to be parasite when he born (although I will prefer to call him embryo).
and your example is exactly like the difference between donation and someone stealing from you- one time you choose to do it and the other you don't.
you really need to improve your logic.

No you dont understand, the resolution is a break of each individual nations right to make a decision for itself.


Surprisingly I do understand that fact.


Actually any and all opinionative resolution such as this, are out of UN Jursidiction, because it denys the individual nation the right to choose upon his own opinion.


And that one.

But this : http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/67026/page=faq#UN would indicate that you don't understand what the UN is.


What's the United Nations?

The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

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

If you're ready to take your nation onto the world stage, though, the UN is for you.

So I'm a UN member. Now what?

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)




The UNs purpose is to vote on issues that will better society for the whole, not the majority vote on an opinionated issue.


No, it isn't. It is for the majority to decide what the UN should be deciding about.



Continueing violations of the freedoms of the nation, would eventually result in Moderator intervention. BECAUSE, using the UN for personal gain(IE. Forcing your views on others)was not the purpose of the UN in this game, and is and will be considered abuse of the United Nations.


Forcing your views on others is ENTIRELY the purpose of the UN (from a certain point of view that is). The section in the FAQ that I underlined before will back me up on this.

The moderators will not intervene, because nothing has been done that is wrong within the game. Now - it might be wrong from your perspective, and from a lot of other people's perspective, but there is a difference between what you think is wrong, and what is actually wrong in the game.

If you don't believe me - there is a moderation forum here. Take this resolution to it, and argue your case. I am willing to bet they will tell me I am right, and you are mistaken about the role of the UN.


Therfor, upon petition, with sufficient evidence and witnesses could have the abuser removed from the UN.


Again - try it. See what happens.


It may not be in the rules, but abusing the UN for personal gain: 1. Angers players. 2. Makes the game less fun. These two reason are sufficent enough(Reasoning that there is a sufficient number of people unhappy about it)to codemn the poster for 1. Abuse, and 2. Often Flaming against the rights of others to choose.


Hold on. So by limiting our right to chose what the UN deals with, wouldn't you be guilty of the same thing you are now accusing us of?
Plus if people are unhappy there is the repeal system. If you really think the resolution is not in the best interest of the majority of the UN, then try repealing it.
And I think passing resolutions that stir up a lot of debate makes the game way more fun. The repeal of the 40 hour work week was the most interesting debate in recent times, because it annoyed so many people (me included).


Final Statement: The UN is not a toy for facists to impose on other people. It is here to benefit everyone equally in places that the UN can help. On another note, Proposals here, should be larger in scale. Legalizing prostitution is a job for a national issue, not the 100% force of action by the UN. This resolution was a break of my rights, and many others, who will not benefit from legalizing prostitution. Thankfully it can be restricted, but in the future if it is not, the Moderation of the game will see my side and act, recognizing that the United Nations is being used for malicious purpose of ruining the fun of other players.

Actually, from a very cynical perspecitve, the UN is a toy for facsists to impose on other people. From a more balanced approach it is a polace to make the world better. But with 37,000 members it is not surprising that everyone is going to have a different idea of what makes things better.

This resolution reversed the appalling decision to repeal the previous prostitution resolution, and so makes the world a lot, lot better in my view. Just because one or two (or 6,000) people disagree with me, does that make me wrong?

No you dont understand

No, you don't understand. And you haven't read the arguments against what you have been saying that have been repeatedly posted here. You are wrong, and implying that I am abusing the UN system is way off the mark. Submit a repeal if you don't like a resolution, that's how the UN works. If you don't, stop complaining because it doesn't help anything.

I didn't like the repeal of legalize prostitution. I didn't come back days after to whine. I actually did something, and that something was appreciated by 10.000 nations and not deleted by the moderators.

Now, before you're replying, read the faqqing FAQ, read the previous resolutions, read the debate about this resolution, the repeal and the legalize prostitution resolution, and then come back and say something that actually makes sense.

Are we really still discussing this?

Kamuras - you have to, I mean really have to stop confusing the purpose of the real life UN with NSUN.

If you don't like what is going on in the UN, you have some choices: write a repeal of the offending resolution; join a group that reflects your views and opinions and lobby; or resign. Understand I'm not saying "if you don't like it, leave... nyer"

But you have to get into the swing of things. The purpose of NSUN, note the NS in front of the UN part, is to change the legal climate within NSUN member nations to reflect YOUR point of view. Period. That's the point of it. There's no "higher mission". It's a freakin game. Get over it.

Fine, we have two babykillers here now. Well I say this life begins at conception, aborting a baby or fetus or embryo is the same as killing a 20 year old or smashing some old lady's skull in with a brick. It is all murder.

how in the world did the discussion of this topic turn to abortion?

>_< You people confuse me :P

hehe.... an unborn child a parasite... hehe.....

So why is a child not a parasite? He needs to be fed and taken care of by his/her parents and can't really care for him/herself. What is your definition of a parasite?

(just asking these questions to try and get you to think about your statement)

parasite-An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Babies grow up (unless liberals get to them) and provide for the parents in their old age (unless conservatives get to them), therefore they contribute back, so they are not parasites.

I'm merely talking about the futility of even arguing about such topics. If you are going to argue about a topic, do it constructively over a draft proposal or repeal.

And if you know you're not going to change their minds, then focus your energy elsewhere.

Francadan... you need to tone down and find a more polite way to pass on your arguments. I mean... calling australians and brits immoral? Kind of extreme isn't it? And besides, if the australians were so immoral, why were they one of the first to pass as legislation that same-sex marriage is explicitly not allowed.

Don't pass sweeping judgments :) SOme of the best praise and worship leaders come from the UK.

I'm merely talking about the futility of even arguing about such topics. If you are going to argue about a topic, do it constructively over a draft proposal or repeal.

And if you know you're not going to change their minds, then focus your energy elsewhere.

Francadan... you need to tone down and find a more polite way to pass on your arguments. I mean... calling australians and brits immoral? Kind of extreme isn't it? And besides, if the australians were so immoral, why were they one of the first to pass as legislation that same-sex marriage is explicitly not allowed.

Don't pass sweeping judgments :) SOme of the best praise and worship leaders come from the UK.

Because Australia doesn't have a real Constitution. Ours is actually written, and to adjust it, we'd have to pass an amendment, which is difficult. However, our Congress would have done so already if they could just make it a law lickity split like that.

EDIT- I've personally never thought of Australia as immoral. However, Britain, that's another story......

Because Australia doesn't have a real Constitution. Ours is actually written, and to adjust it, we'd have to pass an amendment, which is difficult. However, our Congress would have done so already if they could just make it a law lickity split like that.[/QOUTE]

Oooh a written constiution debate, should be interesting to see what the first year law students decide this time.

[QUOTE]EDIT- I've personally never thought of Australia as immoral. However, Britain, that's another story......

Thinking about imaginary places can upset your whole life in Nation States.

Let me just mention "Nazis" and "Godwin's Law".



Alright folks, that's a wrap!
You know the rule...

Find another thread.

i truly believe that if you are caught in this act you should crusified then tortured for the remainder of your so called life and that is the bottom line.

Let me just mention "Nazis" and "Godwin's Law".



Alright folks, that's a wrap!
You know the rule...

Find another thread.

hoo man... wikipedia is awesome. I didn't even know what Godwin's law was :P

Ah, but according to Godwin's law, the one who invokes Godwin's law has also lost the argument :P

In addition, whoever points out that Godwin's law applies to the thread is also considered to have "lost" the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly.

But that's a contested clause... so.. you konw. Just being silly.

On the whole however, I agree with asshelmetta. Discussion on this thread IS, for all intellectual purposes, over.

Fine, we have two babykillers here now. Well I say this life begins at conception, aborting a baby or fetus or embryo is the same as killing a 20 year old or smashing some old lady's skull in with a brick. It is all murder.

Amazing. And you're in the UN And you allow abortions.

Which, according to this logical sentence, means you allow murder too.

Wow.

*hands you a shovel* I figure yours is worn out by now from digging up mud to make bricks.

how in the world did the discussion of this topic turn to abortion?

>_< You people confuse me :P

hehe.... an unborn child a parasite... hehe.....

So why is a child not a parasite? He needs to be fed and taken care of by his/her parents and can't really care for him/herself. What is your definition of a parasite?

(just asking these questions to try and get you to think about your statement)

During birth, the parasite passes our three way test, and becomes a "human being person with rights".

Simple enough?

parasite-An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Babies grow up (unless liberals get to them) and provide for the parents in their old age (unless conservatives get to them), therefore they contribute back, so they are not parasites.

During birth, the parasite passes the tests to become a "human being person with rights". After that point, other laws are in effect.

Any more questions?

i truly believe that if you are caught in this act you should crusified then tortured for the remainder of your so called life and that is the bottom line.

...and as you're in the UN, you allow it and have no further say about it.

Neener neener neener!

During birth, the parasite passes our three way test, and becomes a "human being person with rights".

Simple enough?

What is this three way test pray tell? Remember I jumped in the conversation midway through.

And even though I await the details of this three way test, why is it that birth is more sacrosanct than conception? Now, I do not know much about this trimester thing... but I do know that many people who are for abortion, say that the only time that a woman should have an abortion is within the first trimester. The reason why for this I have never looked into really... which I should I guess :P... but then so what is this dictinction? Does this distinction then not complicate the issue muchly?

When it comes to most anything in real life (and this is not one of those exceptions), nothing is as simple as one qualifier.

Actually, on second thought, don't tell me the three way test. I have more important things to spend my time on right now.... matters of state at home, and drafting a particular proposal that I have been considering for a while now. I'll gladly welcome your input on this proposal once the first draft is complete. (OOC: got to get these tests and essays out of the way first :P)

How about you find the thread on the abortion debate? The three way test is there. Beyond that, we don't care.


What is this three way test pray tell? Remember I jumped in the conversation midway through.

And even though I await the details of this three way test, why is it that birth is more sacrosanct than conception? Now, I do not know much about this trimester thing... but I do know that many people who are for abortion, say that the only time that a woman should have an abortion is within the first trimester. The reason why for this I have never looked into really... which I should I guess :P... but then so what is this dictinction? Does this distinction then not complicate the issue muchly?

When it comes to most anything in real life (and this is not one of those exceptions), nothing is as simple as one qualifier.

Actually, on second thought, don't tell me the three way test. I have more important things to spend my time on right now.... matters of state at home, and drafting a particular proposal that I have been considering for a while now. I'll gladly welcome your input on this proposal once the first draft is complete. (OOC: got to get these tests and essays out of the way first :P)

if you remember, i was one of the most active posters on that abortion debate. And I found the three way test mentioned there quite unsatisfactory to say the least.

And perhaps my execution of the interim ambassador was slightly premature... I find your arrogance disconcerting at best.

Perhaps we can discuss things along more civil and intellectual lines at a later date.

Since morality is so subjective, wouldn't it be infringing on peoples rights to make everyone accept something even if they view it as immoral? Morality is ALWAYS used in decisions, you can't get away from it because it's what people use to decide what is right and wrong to begin with. Even you're doing that now in supporting this proposal. A government also reflects the values and morality of it's citizens, if it's operating fairly.

If the DLE government were to back the morality of most of its citizens, right now your country would be a crater and any surviving citizens would be either in a zoo or sent to slaughterhouses for food preparation. Most of DLE views humans as lesser lifeforms to be either tossed in cages or eaten. They are backed by the fact humans are genetically inferior to them, meaning you cannot convince them otherwise. When you point to the fact some human nations travel in space, they counter with the fact that even chimpanzees use tools and can learn basic communication skills. Are you sure you want me to use the morality of my citizens?

By saying all people use morality, you're ignoring a fact of NS: Not every being in NS is biological. DLE has AIs all over the place, with them being based on the sourcecode of DLE's dictator (a very advanced android left over from a previous empire). They use logic, not morality, to make their decisions. They are not incapable of morality, but as a whole find it inferior to logic. They are also considered people in DLE.

You still don't get it. I'm not just talking about the value of sex financially, I'm also talking about the value of it's essence.

The value of the essence of both is the same. The difference is whether or not you are interacting with the people, and in the modern age that line is becomming quite blurred. I recently saw a website where you can buy a porn program for your computer and interact with the character in it, and direct interaction between porn star and customer is pretty much the standard of the majority of hardcore porn sites on the net. The line of separation between the two is fading as technology advances. Just try to imagine what it must be like in DLE.

So what if some people do? That's not the main advertisement.

The main advertisement is sex as you want it in exchange for cash. That is part of the main advertisement.

If the DLE government were to back the morality of most of its citizens, right now your country would be a crater and any surviving citizens would be either in a zoo or sent to slaughterhouses for food preparation. Most of DLE views humans as lesser lifeforms to be either tossed in cages or eaten. They are backed by the fact humans are genetically inferior to them, meaning you cannot convince them otherwise. When you point to the fact some human nations travel in space, they counter with the fact that even chimpanzees use tools and can learn basic communication skills. Are you sure you want me to use the morality of my citizens?

What does this response have to do with what the person was saying in the first place? He was saying that morality generally dictates decisions. Your point that not all species in nationstates are humans is valid, and I don't discredit that, however, you seem to ignore the fact that humans, as a matter of recourse, DO use morality to dictate their decisions.

I'm sure that you DO use the morality of your citizens when it comes to the governance of your empire... but I think the person you were addressing was talking about morality in terms of making a voting decision. If you dont' use morality, bully for you :) BUt recognize that others do.

What does this response have to do with what the person was saying in the first place? He was saying that morality generally dictates decisions. Your point that not all species in nationstates are humans is valid, and I don't discredit that, however, you seem to ignore the fact that humans, as a matter of recourse, DO use morality to dictate their decisions.

Which is one of the reasons that in DLE they are viewed as best put in zoos. That's a form of hypocrisy, but that's how the people are.

You need to look down to the part immediately after as well, instead of just quoting part of my response to his comment. He was claiming all people use morality. I was pointing out that's not true. I was also pointing out that sometimes it can be a bit of a necessity for a nation to infringe on the morality of its citizens for he greater good. Unless he doesn't mind his citizens being used as food, I think he'll agree with me on that.

I'm not ignoring the fact humans do use morality, but I'm also not pretending they lack the capacity to use logic to override their morality. Not all humans use morality for their decisions. That's like saying all of humanity's inventions are equivolent to trying to make the sticks bigger and shinier. While true with some inventions, it isn't true of all of them. Humanity holds the greatest variety of all options, including ranging from geniuses to people that fall just below the mark of sentience. Moving beyond the biological, very few statements apply to humanity as a whole.

I'm sure that you DO use the morality of your citizens when it comes to the governance of your empire... but I think the person you were addressing was talking about morality in terms of making a voting decision. If you dont' use morality, bully for you :) BUt recognize that others do.

Actually, DLE's government doesn't use the morality of its citizens when making decisions. It's a case of logic vs. money and likelihood of uprising. If I did, the surviving humans in DLE's Earth territory would be dead by now. They may be genetically and technologically advanced, but as humanity has repeatedly demonstrated, technology and genetics don't equal civilization.

Psychedelic Happenings support this proposal.

Hmmm... ok I understand. I think I misinterpreted what you said.

If your people tend to be that cold blooded and ruthless.... remind me to make sure that I put out an advisory making sure my citizens don't go anywhere near your nation ;)

ALthough I'm not sure that there are vacation spots in the DLE.... are there any nice places that one could go?

Hmmm... ok I understand. I think I misinterpreted what you said.

If your people tend to be that cold blooded and ruthless.... remind me to make sure that I put out an advisory making sure my citizens don't go anywhere near your nation ;)

ALthough I'm not sure that there are vacation spots in the DLE.... are there any nice places that one could go?
pish!

read his .sig

the chances of successfully visiting DLE and surviving to tell of it are about equal to...
oh, nevermind. let's just say i wouldn't encourage any citizens i like to vacation in DLE.

Hmmm... ok I understand. I think I misinterpreted what you said.

If your people tend to be that cold blooded and ruthless.... remind me to make sure that I put out an advisory making sure my citizens don't go anywhere near your nation ;)

ALthough I'm not sure that there are vacation spots in the DLE.... are there any nice places that one could go?

Terran is a tropical planet with many nice vacation spots. It has all of the vacation resorts in DLE.

It's not that the Sarkarasetans are that cold-blooded. They're xenophobic and egotistical. Not a good combination.

Oh, and it is pretty much as Asshelmetta said. The only way you get in is if I want you to get in or you come with a very large and immensely powerful military with enough time and resources at your disposal to get past the natural protections and still have a military left over.

Terran is a tropical planet with many nice vacation spots. It has all of the vacation resorts in DLE.

It's not that the Sarkarasetans are that cold-blooded. They're xenophobic and egotistical. Not a good combination.

Oh, and it is pretty much as Asshelmetta said. The only way you get in is if I want you to get in or you come with a very large and immensely powerful military with enough time and resources at your disposal to get past the natural protections and still have a military left over.

Ah xenophobia.... the starter of so much conflict.

I'll keep that in mind... considering that military spending in gflekers is... 0%... i don't think i'll be trying to invade anytime soon :P

Because this is the debate thread...

sorry, DLE, but while it is a debate thread, i don't think it's supposed to be used like this. you've gotten off-topic with descriptions of how the resolution affects your nations, and then with descriptions of your nations. don't you think it's out of hand, especially since all discussion over the whys and why-nots is moot?

and because the debate on this thread is also dead? As in the sex worker act has already passed? And as the debate on abortion is absolutely pointless and doesn't even belong here? So might as well have fun :D

so why not start a new thread and direct everyone there? hmm? This is the UN board. let's keep it that way.

Information on how it affects your nation is relevant to the voting. After all, a similar nation may agree with you.

If you'll notice, I'm responding to the questions posed. They were at least semi-relevant because they were related to an arguement I used and the questions and comments about it. But now, Loratana, you've taken it even farther off topic.

Oh, and thread hijacks are not uncommon on the UN forum. They typically are temporary and usually related to an arguement used in some way. As you gain experience, you get used to it. The above is just a more extreme, but not the most extreme, example of this.

If you think the UN has to always stay on topic, you've never seen the posts we sometimes make.

so why not start a new thread and direct everyone there? hmm? This is the UN board. let's keep it that way.

I was merely interacting with my fellow UN members on the UN board. The discussion with DLE, I do admit, took a bit of a tangent... but if you trace it back it does start somewhat on topic. The interaction between Nargopia and myself also has a root in on topic business.

Don't YOU ever mix business with pleasure? :P

Personally I think you guys are just trying to hit the reply record for a thread (whatever that is; this is the largest thread I've seen since joining). ;)

Personally I think you guys are just trying to hit the reply record for a thread (whatever that is; this is the largest thread I've seen since joining). ;)

If you mean spam.. this is nothing :P I've seen MUCH worse.. :P

Personally I think you guys are just trying to hit the reply record for a thread (whatever that is; this is the largest thread I've seen since joining). ;)

The largest is the repeal of the previous prostitution resolution. It reached 20 pages before the repeal reached quorum.

The largest is the repeal of the previous prostitution resolution. It reached 20 pages before the repeal reached quorum.

hoo boy... is that why the vote was so close on that one. Wasn't it like a differnce of 4 votes?

It passed. That's all that matters.

IIt had over 50 pages when I finally stopped counting.

It passed. That's all that matters.

IIt had over 50 pages when I finally stopped counting.

0_o

well... right now we're just kind of... having one of those forum conversations.... worst way to jack up the post count on a thread :P

I'm off to bed now. Ciao, and comment on my national sovereginty! I command you! :P