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: Kompromiss �ber "Private Walh in den �ffentlichen Moral"

Details

Submitted by^[?]: Nationalliberale Partei

Status^[?]: passed

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: September 2614

Description^[?]:

Would this compromise carry the support of other parties?

Proposal^[?] to change The government's policy on public nudity.

Old value:: Public nudity is illegal, but private nudist colonies and beaches are permitted.

Current: Public nudity is illegal, but private nudist colonies and beaches are permitted.

Proposed: There are no laws with regards to public nudity, it is allowed.

Proposal^[?] to change Displays of public affection and obscenity laws.

Old value:: Local governments may regulate laws on public acts of affection and obscenity.

Current: Sexual intercourse is illegal in public.

Proposed: Sexual intercourse is illegal in public.

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date	17:01:52, July 30, 2008 CET
From	Militärregierung - Alte Kämpfergruppe
To	Debating the Kompromiss �ber "Private Walh in den �ffentlichen Moral"
Message	What else is implied in the term "intercourse"? Does it include sexual behaviors of an oral nature as well? What of other acts that are sexual but not necessarily "intercourse"? Let us be more specific before we decide; although, we feel that local governments are doing a fantastic job.

Date	19:54:26, July 30, 2008 CET
From	FreiStaatsPartei
To	Debating the Kompromiss �ber "Private Walh in den �ffentlichen Moral"
Message	It seems a fair step in the right direction. Our people should be free, but held responsible.

Date	23:01:22, July 30, 2008 CET
From	Nationalliberale Partei
To	Debating the Kompromiss �ber "Private Walh in den �ffentlichen Moral"
Message	"Behaviours of an oral nature" would constitute intercourse, we feel.

Date	00:05:33, July 31, 2008 CET
From	Militärregierung - Alte Kämpfergruppe
To	Debating the Kompromiss �ber "Private Walh in den �ffentlichen Moral"
Message	Why are you letting people walk around naked? This isn't freedom, it is oppression! The idea of freedom is to "have it as long as it doens't hurt someone", well, nudity can and may hurt people. People find it disturbing, distracting, distasteful, and just all-around innappropriate. Children should not be victims of roving pedophiles with a state mandate to expose themselves to unsuspecting children. People should not have to worry about leaving their homes and what they children are going to be exposed to; intercouse illegal or not. We really find both of these laws unncessary and ill-conceived.

Date	09:34:09, July 31, 2008 CET
From	FreiStaatsPartei
To	Debating the Kompromiss �ber "Private Walh in den �ffentlichen Moral"
Message	The last time the FSP checked, children come into this world naked. Clothing should be optional, and even though some should seriously be clothed simply for the public good ((recalls that supremely obese person walking down the street with a triple ice cream cone)), it should certainly be an individual's right to choose. And if the children are traumatized by nudity, we pity our nation and it's unwashed masses.

Date	17:16:29, July 31, 2008 CET
From	Militärregierung - Alte Kämpfergruppe
To	Debating the Kompromiss �ber "Private Walh in den �ffentlichen Moral"
Message	It is clear the FSP leadership has no children. Shouldn't young children remain as innocent as possible for as long as possible? Public nudity is just inaproporiate and unnecessary. We don't feel this is increasing freedom, people should just be required to wear clothing, how difficult is it?

Date	17:26:00, July 31, 2008 CET
From	FreiStaatsPartei
To	Debating the Kompromiss �ber "Private Walh in den �ffentlichen Moral"
Message	Our children should not be intimidated by their own nudity. It's a ridiculous assumption that children are somehow harmed by seeing the human form without clothing, and the FSP would challenge the NPD to provide a single shred of scientific evidence to the contrary. Our mothers tend to breast feed their children, should they be disciplined by the government because they happen to be providing the most nutritious meal for their offspring? The FSP wonders why the NPD is so adamant against nudity, when each and every party member CAME into this world without the benefit of clothing.

Date	18:39:00, July 31, 2008 CET
From	Militärregierung - Alte Kämpfergruppe
To	Debating the Kompromiss �ber "Private Walh in den �ffentlichen Moral"
Message	We were born that way, and then we put clothes on. So what is your point? Your argument of "born that way" can also be used against education, against civility, against law, against government. Humans are not apes my friend, it is our decisions to control our natural "born that way" urges that make us human. The legalization of all nudity is paramount to taking away our humanity.

Date	19:04:54, July 31, 2008 CET
From	FreiStaatsPartei
To	Debating the Kompromiss �ber "Private Walh in den �ffentlichen Moral"
Message	The FSP is DEEPLY concerned with the NPD's argument that "The legalization of all nudity is paramount to taking away our humanity." Does the NPD not recognize the human form as part of our humanity? Or, is the NPD so uptight and self conscious about their own personal form that they must hatefully force their view on the rest of the population? Perhaps the NPD needs to spend a bit more time outside or on a treadmill, and then such objections should go away.

Vote

Seats

yes

Total Seats: 298

Total Seats: 163

abstain

Total Seats: 139

Random fact: Role-play is most enjoyable and successful when there is good communication and friendly relations between all players involved.

Random quote: "The honest politician is one who, when he is bought, stays bought." - Simon Cameron

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 65