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: Puritanism sucks (II)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberty Party
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: July 2139
Description[?]:
| People should be able to watch porn all day long, if that is their interest |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The time at which sexually explicit content may be shown on broadcast television (if allowed).
Old value:: Sexually explicit content may only be shown during hours that very few children watch. Nudity may be shown all day long.
Current: Sexually explicit content or nudity may only be shown during hours that very few children watch television
Proposed: Sexually explicit content may be shown all day long.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:58:48, November 10, 2005 CET | From |  Herut Orthodoxy | To | Debating the Puritanism sucks (II) |
| Message | Amazing. |
| Date | 02:43:02, November 10, 2005 CET | From | People's Equality Party Of Trigunia | To | Debating the Puritanism sucks (II) |
| Message | It is amazing HO, making parents responsible for what their children see and not having the goverment do that for them. |
| Date | 02:58:41, November 10, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Puritanism sucks (II) |
| Message | Thanks PEPOT, hearing someone else express a desire for parents to take responsibility for parenting is like a breath of fresh air! |
| Date | 03:01:07, November 10, 2005 CET | From | Red Octopus Party | To | Debating the Puritanism sucks (II) |
| Message | While we agree that parents are responsible for children, we refer you to the fact that enabling this type of material to be broadcasted will in fact create a greater demand for these industries, thereby increasing the scope of this naturally exploitative industry. We also remind our friends that our poorer citizens are usually required to work long tiresome hours, meaning that they cannot be home to parent their children properly. We are against it. |
| Date | 18:13:45, November 10, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Puritanism sucks (II) |
| Message | Where is your evidence for your 'fact' that increasing supply necessarily increases demand? I also take issue with your assertion that it is exploitative. It is an industry where earnings are very much above the national average and therefore empowers willing participants. Poorer citizens are only required to work the hours they agree to, but in any event, if they can't look after their children properly, TV porn is the least of those kids' worries. |
| Date | 00:03:40, November 11, 2005 CET | From | Red Octopus Party | To | Debating the Puritanism sucks (II) |
| Message | By demand, we mean demand for new workers. This refers to an increase in the scope of employment in this industry. A growing industry requires more workers. If we allow this material to the airwaves, it will surely increase the size of the industry. Empowers its employees? Or degrades and exploits them? We challenge your assertion that it is "empowering" in any manner. It is an industry which teaches its employees that their bodies are simply commodities to be sold on television for the pleasure of the consumer. |
| Date | 00:37:01, November 11, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Puritanism sucks (II) |
| Message | You can challenge our assertion all you like. Since our proposal increases freedom, rather than diminishes it, we have no obligation to prove our assertions. You, on the other hand, are determined to limit individual freedom according to some unproven claim of exploitation. If you want to deny people the right to act according to their own wishes, you should come up with some evidence more tangible than simply complaining about exploitation. The industry teaches its employees that their bodies have value as aesthetic objects. This is a fact, clearly if there is a market that supports many sex workers earning large amounts of money, their bodies have a very significant value in that market. However, to claim that anything can only be valued for one single quality is not only absurd but demonstrably false. It is perfectly possible to appreciate the simple aesthetic elegance of an iPod while at same time valuing it for its substantial hard disk size, or good quality mp3 playback. Similarly, it is perfectly possible to enjoy porn without necessarily thinking that women are objects. |
| Date | 08:37:07, November 11, 2005 CET | From | Red Octopus Party | To | Debating the Puritanism sucks (II) |
| Message | Simply because their bodies attract large sums of money does not mean that the workers themselves see their work as particularly fulfilling or aesthetic in an artful manner. You make the assumption that they must, because they are paid more for it. You have also said yourself that their bodies have value on a market. Since when has it become ethically permissible to treat people (or, laborers by extension) as commodities on a market? We continue to assert that people treated as commodities in such a manner will feel like commodities. |
| Date | 22:15:34, November 11, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Puritanism sucks (II) |
| Message | "Simply because their bodies attract large sums of money does not mean that the workers themselves see their work as particularly fulfilling or aesthetic in an artful manner." True, I have a reasonably well paid job, but it doesn't provide me with any creative fulfilment nor has any particular aesthetic value. Still, it's a job I'm willing to do, and my employer offers a salary which I believe is fair for the work involved. This personal choice (I can choose to accept/decline a job depending on whether it seems a fair offer, my employer can offer/deny a job depending on whether the (potential) employee meets their criteria) is all that matters. "You make the assumption that they must, because they are paid more for it. You have also said yourself that their bodies have value on a market." I make no such assumption. All I said was that their bodies have a value (and a fairly high value). Whether the individual feels that the reward on offer (both financial reward and less tangible, e.g., job satisfaction etc) is adequate is entirely a matter for them. "You have also said yourself that their bodies have value on a market. Since when has it become ethically permissible to treat people (or, laborers by extension) as commodities on a market?" It has always been ethical. What do you think models, film stars etc are being paid for? What do you think determines how much they are paid? Above all it is the value that the market places on their bodies. The same as every other characteristic a person possesses: an academic is paid according to the value the market places on their intellect, a care worker according to the value the market places on their caring character, etc. Every person is a collection of characteristics and every person is entitled to decide for themselves how to employ those characteristics. I sleep perfectly well at night in the knowledge that the collection of skills and education I employ at my work is treated like a commodity by my employer. I can accept that my value as a person is not just whatever value my employer places on my work - I am more than just my job. If some people can't see further than their job, that is their choice, it is not the place of the State to replace their (or my) own free will. |
| Date | 04:19:33, November 12, 2005 CET | From | People's Equality Party Of Trigunia | To | Debating the Puritanism sucks (II) |
| Message | Red, this is not worth an arguement. All this is doing is allowing pornography to be shown all day, that's it. Pornography is not an exploitive industry as long as it involves willing participants. No one is forcing people to have sex infront of a camera, and to do so is illegal. People should have the freedom to do whatever they want with their bodies, and watch whatever they want with their eyes. |
| Date | 04:42:44, November 12, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Puritanism sucks (II) |
| Message | Succinctly put, PEPOT. Your brevity is the perfect counterweight to my loquacity! |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 282 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 156 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 117 |
| Random fact: Moderation reserves the discretion to declare RP laws invalid if the players supporting them are doing so in an excessively confrontational way. |
| Random quote: "Non-violence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our very being." - Mahatma Gandhi |