We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Health Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rightist Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 2392
Description[?]:
| TBD |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning organ donations.
Old value:: Unless otherwise stated, consent is assumed.
Current: Organ donations are legal with personal consent.
Proposed: Organ donations are legal with personal consent.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:00:58, April 17, 2007 CET | From | Free People's Movement | To | Debating the Health Act |
| Message | I like these to stay the same. This takes organs from people who are apathetic both ways. Cannabis also gives people an alternative to hard drugs and alchohol. |
| Date | 03:56:25, April 17, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Health Act |
| Message | We are not proposing eliminating it totally. Though we do not agree with Cannabis at all, we are willing to tolerate it for medical needs. As to Organ donation, why should we do so without their personal consent? To me, that is theft. |
| Date | 14:38:06, April 17, 2007 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Health Act |
| Message | We could live with proposal number 1, but will oppose proposal nr 2 |
| Date | 05:11:17, April 18, 2007 CET | From | Free People's Movement | To | Debating the Health Act |
| Message | Well, according to article one peopel can still say "don't take my organs" and the government doesn't. It's not cumpulsory so your argument makes little sense. Also, when I said for an alternative for drugs and alchohol I wasn't reffering to medical uses. |
| Date | 14:12:52, April 18, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Health Act |
| Message | And what if they are unconscience FPM? What if they are in a coma and cannot tell you that they do not want their organs harvested? |
| Date | 14:58:31, April 18, 2007 CET | From | Free People's Movement | To | Debating the Health Act |
| Message | Unless they were born in a coma there's no excuse for not telling the government. |
| Date | 17:32:49, April 18, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Health Act |
| Message | There's no excuse for the government to say we'll take your organs when people did not give their consent to have their organs harvested to begin with. To borrow a phrase, my body and I'll decide what I want. Not the government. |
| Date | 19:38:01, April 18, 2007 CET | From | Free People's Movement | To | Debating the Health Act |
| Message | I withdraw from this discussion because you are repeating yourself and using emotional arguments. |
| Date | 20:45:19, April 18, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Health Act |
| Message | Welcome to politics FPM. If you cannot stomach the fact that I know how to work this, then leave. Better yet, leave the game altogether. This is how debates are done and this is how I do debates. |
| Date | 23:07:50, April 18, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Tukarali Democratic Party | To | Debating the Health Act |
| Message | Opposed to both articles. |
| Date | 04:05:22, April 19, 2007 CET | From | Free People's Movement | To | Debating the Health Act |
| Message | Official Response to the Rightist Party by the Free People's Movement: no u |
| Date | 14:50:52, April 19, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Health Act |
| Message | OOC: who how very professional. Guess what, I should be curtious and tell you right now that I am studying politics in college and graduation in May with a Political Science and a History degree. The fact that you decided to withdraw from this argument because I( was "emotional arguments" shows you know jack shit about government. We've had a few of those come through here when I was totally active. They did not last long when they ran up against me. IC: The fact that the FPM's decided to withdraw shows that they do not know how to debate an issue properly. It also shows, beyond doubt, that they do not care at all for a person's right to choose what they want done with their organs. With that being said, I am willing to drop article 2. It is a minor thing. |
| Date | 15:02:17, April 19, 2007 CET | From | Free People's Movement | To | Debating the Health Act |
| Message | OOC: You made it obvious some time ago that you were studying politics. Doesn't impress me. It takes more than any kind of badge to impress me. Take the old band director at my school. All the official documents said she was qualified but she was a horrible teacher and her playing wasn't that good. And believe me, it isn't because you're rightist, because I've gotten along jolly well on here with people who have views going totally against what I believe in. Also I know emotional appeal paired with reason can help convince the masses, but you're doing more of the first and less of the second and the masses aren't on here, just a few quasi-intelectual types. I could claim that the fact that you tell me to quit shows that you can't debate an issue properly, but it really just shows you're being silly. |
| Date | 01:43:51, April 20, 2007 CET | From |   Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry' | To | Debating the Health Act |
| Message | Rightist Party, for your general OOC disregard and verbal abuse in bill 111485 "HAHA!!! That's funny as all shit. You really have no clue what you are talking about. God I miss the old days when people actually knew what they were talking about. Alwell...gotta deal with pricks who know jack shit about politics and economics.", you have been officially warned. Your logic is also flawed in areas. You are right to call for proof when needed, but your reductions ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) and appeal to authority based on your major is not a valid case to single-handedly disregard a counter argument. FPM's arguments need work in areas, but his premise flaws do not insult players as your attitude does. Your specialisation gives you a greater credance when asserting an opinion, but is invalid as a proof in its own right. As an aside, it's "courteous" from "courtesy" and "unconscious". If reductions ad hominem were logically sound form, people could use your spelling weaknesses to debase your writing style's suitability for the University course in Political Science and History, especially in an essay subject, so it's important for arguments to be respectful of others and logically feasible. We all have our own strengths and weaknesses, please show others more respect. |
| Date | 04:22:37, April 21, 2007 CET | From | Free People's Movement | To | Debating the Health Act |
| Message | This is the argument that convinced Liberal Democratic Party when the current value was passed before I was here: "There would be a portion of our population whose basic behaviour could be described as apathetic. These people are likely NOT to take the time to inform the appropriate organisation that they in fact would like/wouldn't mind donating their organs, simply due to not caring one way or another. However, if an individual is passionate about the fact that they DO NOT want their organs donated, they will ensure that the appropriate people are informed. We believe that the proposed legislation will see a rise in the number of possible organ donations in our country, and that can only be a good thing." |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 164 | ||
| no |
Total Seats: 185 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 150 |
| Random fact: Each user account may only be used by the player who set it up. Handing over an account to another player is not allowed. |
| Random quote: "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." - Plato |