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: Move for a Clean Public
Details
Submitted by[?]: Aldurian Moderates
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: June 2143
Description[?]:
| People should be able to walk the streets without seeing others engaged in lewd behaviour. Such activities are fine in the privacy of one's own home, but no where else. Citizens should be able to direct their governments about what they wish to see. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Displays of public affection and obscenity laws.
Old value:: There are no laws regarding obscene public acts.
Current: Sexual intercourse is illegal in public.
Proposed: Local governments may regulate laws on public acts of affection and obscenity.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:13:54, November 17, 2005 CET | From |  United Socialist Front | To | Debating the Move for a Clean Public |
| Message | What is fine and what is not is totally subjective. If they don't like it, they can turn their heads. Hiding things often only makes people want them more. In the 19th century, an ankle was considered sexually arousing. The ankle. Why? because you never saw anything, and if you saw a woman's ankle, say, at the beach, well... that was just set men to drooling. Today, the ankle means nothing.Why?because it is so familiar a sight. Just like nudity on the beaches of Europe, it is totally acdepted, and not vulgar in any way shape or form. Repression is the root cause of perversion |
| Date | 04:17:49, November 17, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Libertarian Socialist Party | To | Debating the Move for a Clean Public |
| Message | We agree with USF. |
| Date | 05:51:15, November 17, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Moderates | To | Debating the Move for a Clean Public |
| Message | But we no longer in the 19th century. We are an enlightened people. And part of that enlightenment comes from the fact that we know we should respect others. Why should anyone be forced to turn away in the public? People should realize that others may not want to see them kissing, fondling, or engaging in any other sexual interaction. They should respect other people's right not to see that. We just can't understand why so many parties in this country claim to campaign civil rights and then fail to ignore measures that promote respect for other people's wishes. |
| Date | 06:37:52, November 17, 2005 CET | From | Market Socialist Party | To | Debating the Move for a Clean Public |
| Message | We do not agree...it is not the place for the government to tell people how to act if these acts are not a direct infringement on someone else's rights. |
| Date | 07:24:03, November 17, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Front | To | Debating the Move for a Clean Public |
| Message | Just as the MSP put it, yes... We are not in the 19th century as we are more open than then in many respects. But we are still close minded in others. Let us open these closures, at least, on a social level, and then those who wish to remain closed may. Those are civil rights, those who wish to, may, and those who do not, shall not. And no one infringes on any one else's rights. Yes, they have a right not to see, but then don't the others have a right to do? to enjoy them selves? are they not too entitled to the "pursuit of happiness"? In this case, they may enjoy and the other may recoil in disgust, and feel all the more better about his "purity" as those engaged feel all the better for the privilege of enjoying themselves and their liberty. |
| Date | 12:02:05, November 17, 2005 CET | From | Jacobites | To | Debating the Move for a Clean Public |
| Message | We support, we do not see any point in allowing sex in public, surely it is a tad barbaric for a child to go into a park, or worse into a public toilet, and see adults engaged in certain matters. |
| Date | 17:31:30, November 17, 2005 CET | From | Market Socialist Party | To | Debating the Move for a Clean Public |
| Message | There are theories that would say that the reason there are sexual perverted people, these people who committ acts against children and other people against their will had been brought up to think that sex was a very horrible thing, something that should be avoided, never thought of and never engaged in. |
| Date | 18:47:18, November 17, 2005 CET | From | Jacobites | To | Debating the Move for a Clean Public |
| Message | Haha, where did ya read that? Funny that paedophilia is more common now than ever before, guess we must all think sex is horrible and should be avoided. There are also theories that link being a vegetarian to a love of bestial sex, doesn't mean it is in anyway accurate. |
| Date | 21:27:37, November 17, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Libertarian Socialist Party | To | Debating the Move for a Clean Public |
| Message | OOC: >where did ya read that? Funny that paedophilia is more common now than ever before <sarcasm> Sure, back in time people were more disposed of denouncing pedophilia than now and that's why we can assume that was fairly rarer than now. Also, everybody know that pedophiles are always sane persons that are just exposed to too much sex. </sarcasm> |
| Date | 21:48:05, November 17, 2005 CET | From | Jacobites | To | Debating the Move for a Clean Public |
| Message | ooc: how funny of you, you have to state when you put sarcasm before anyone reads it ha. Pornography and paedophilia are linked, the rise of one has led to an increase in the other, so one can assume that it is a greater problem now that it was before. Also violent pornography was recently banned in the UK, because there had been several killings of women, by men who viewed hardcore pornography, and they got thrills out of doing it, that would suggest that being over exposed to sex wasn't a good thing for them. Besides someone under exposed to sex is less likely to do anything wrong, because they are underexposed to it. Also many paedophiles are 'sane' people, teachers, policemen, businessmen etc, figures of authority. Although perhaps I confuse sanity with intelligence? |
| Date | 02:07:13, November 18, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Front | To | Debating the Move for a Clean Public |
| Message | The Greeks and Romans were a bunch of pedophiles. So were most of the sexually enlightened Ancients. Besides, when does it become pedophilia? is it at the "legal" age of adult-hood? Do we not go through puberty a while earlier? Of course, prepubescence is an other thing and that's when we think of pedophilia as wrong, agreed. Yes, we stated the same thing, or similar to, as the MSP did. Well, no, the pedophilia of today is fueled by that paradox inherint in our society. That sex is good. But it is bad. This can drive some psyches to neuroses. Well of course, over exposure to sick things like excessively violent things is different. We're just talking about a couple kissing and fondling in public, and then adhering to social standards of sexual acts in more private areas. Really, just because there are no laws does not mean all people will do it. as the reverse goes, just because there are laws does not mean all people will not do it. |
| Date | 03:17:45, November 18, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Libertarian Socialist Party | To | Debating the Move for a Clean Public |
| Message | OOC: >how funny of you, you have to state when you put sarcasm before anyone reads it ha. I used markup to help you. Since my english is not excellent and that you are very fastidious, I didn't want you to say that I contradict myself. > Pornography and paedophilia are linked, the rise of one has led to an increase in the other, so one can assume that it is a greater problem now that it was before. What you say is backed by facts for sure. <sarcasm>Just like it was backed by fact when you insinuated that sexual education was responsible for a rise in teen pregnancy.</sarcasm> >Also violent pornography was recently banned in the UK, because there had been several killings of women, by men who viewed hardcore pornography, and they got thrills out of doing it, that would suggest that being over exposed to sex wasn't a good thing for them. Besides someone under exposed to sex is less likely to do anything wrong, because they are underexposed to it. I suppose you're one of these guys and gals that say 'guns don't kill people, video games and viollent movies does' >Also many paedophiles are 'sane' people, teachers, policemen, businessmen etc, figures of authority. These people use their position of authority to abuse children. This is not a sane attitude. >Although perhaps I confuse sanity with intelligence? That's it. You can be intelligent and insane at the same time. |
| Date | 09:06:48, November 18, 2005 CET | From | Jacobites | To | Debating the Move for a Clean Public |
| Message | (>how funny of you, you have to state when you put sarcasm before anyone reads it ha. I used markup to help you. Since my english is not excellent and that you are very fastidious, I didn't want you to say that I contradict myself.) Come of it, when have I done that. The Jacobite Party is interested in debate, whether in a high handed or low handed manner. However we knoe sarcasm, we do not need to be told, that sort of dents the sarcasm. (> Pornography and paedophilia are linked, the rise of one has led to an increase in the other, so one can assume that it is a greater problem now that it was before. What you say is backed by facts for sure. <sarcasm>Just like it was backed by fact when you insinuated that sexual education was responsible for a rise in teen pregnancy.</sarcasm>) All I suggested is that sexual education isn't effective as some people like to think, it certainly doesn't always lead to a reduction in teenage pregnancy,. (>Also violent pornography was recently banned in the UK, because there had been several killings of women, by men who viewed hardcore pornography, and they got thrills out of doing it, that would suggest that being over exposed to sex wasn't a good thing for them. Besides someone under exposed to sex is less likely to do anything wrong, because they are underexposed to it. I suppose you're one of these guys and gals that say 'guns don't kill people, video games and viollent movies does' ) Never actually said it, and I couldn't give a fig either way, all I am doing is pointing out that in that example the courts ruled that overexposure to hardcore and violent pornography had disturbed those men, so the government banned it. (>Also many paedophiles are 'sane' people, teachers, policemen, businessmen etc, figures of authority. These people use their position of authority to abuse children. This is not a sane attitude.) Good point (>Although perhaps I confuse sanity with intelligence? That's it. You can be intelligent and insane at the same time.) Another good point |
| Date | 09:13:02, November 18, 2005 CET | From | Jacobites | To | Debating the Move for a Clean Public |
| Message | (The Greeks and Romans were a bunch of pedophiles. So were most of the sexually enlightened Ancients. Besides, when does it become pedophilia? is it at the "legal" age of adult-hood?) Yes, your point being. Of course we then go through a few thousand years where it is not encouraged. And with regards to the prepubescence thing, I have no qualms with say how in the olden days 20 yr olds married 12 yr old girls, similarly I have no qualms with 13 years old have sex with other 13 yr olds, but when an adult has sex with a child then that is wrong, whether committed by the ancients, moderns, or Aldurians. (Well, no, the pedophilia of today is fueled by that paradox inherint in our society. That sex is good. But it is bad. This can drive some psyches to neuroses.) Surely that goes against your previous statement on the matter? Suddenly sex has become a good thing, whereas it was bad earlier. (Well of course, over exposure to sick things like excessively violent things is different. We're just talking about a couple kissing and fondling in public, and then adhering to social standards of sexual acts in more private areas.) Well we support that last sentence, its why we are supporting this bill. Also above you mocked me as you thought I may believe that violent videos and games led to violence, now you are suggesting that overexposure does indeed lead to tha violence. (Really, just because there are no laws does not mean all people will do it. as the reverse goes, just because there are laws does not mean all people will not do it.) True, but I would rather the law frowned upon sex in public so that most people would continue to resist the urge to scew in a public area. |
| Date | 18:04:18, November 18, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Libertarian Socialist Party | To | Debating the Move for a Clean Public |
| Message | We will not support a bill that will severe freedom. Moreover, our advise is that the JP has not been able to bring facts that prove their point. |
| Date | 02:39:38, November 19, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Front | To | Debating the Move for a Clean Public |
| Message | Then pedophilia doesn't enter into it. Because, prepubescence shows a lack of sexual readiness, just like the actual phase of puberty. After this, this, the body is capable of sexual intercourse. So, in that sense, anything after puberty is alright, whenever the person has puberty (as children have it at different ages). And then, they may choose what is disgusting or not. Of course, rape is rape no matter what. The contradiction is intended. That is what the word "paradox" implies. This contradiction is what fuels neuroses. Mock? no, we weren't mocking... in fact i don't think we said that. Still, if you took as such, know that it was not. Overexposure to violence will obviously lead to violence in some cases (not all) because it shall be seen as normal, and thus, acceptable. Sex is a little more complicated. Except, sex does not involve the loss of life, and is actually quite enjoyable, and so, we might as well let people enjoy themselves. Understood. Laws come from society more often than not, in the cases of civil liberties especially. Which is why we would rather not involve our selves in such and allow society and the individual to decide what is right and wrong, as it is after all merely in their state of mind that they may perceive either good or bad. |
| Date | 23:34:17, November 19, 2005 CET | From | Jacobites | To | Debating the Move for a Clean Public |
| Message | Ha, in your face liberal girly men, now you'll have to do your kiddy fidling in private. |
| Date | 14:02:03, November 20, 2005 CET | From | Market Socialist Party | To | Debating the Move for a Clean Public |
| Message | Is this really necessary speach in Parliminent? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 207 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 194 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Real-life quotations may be used in Particracy, but the real-life speaker or author should always be referenced in an OOC (out-of-character) note alongside the quotation. |
| Random quote: "Patriotism is in political life what faith is in religion." - John Dalberg-Acton |