Northeast Assembly Thread

[k-onmmunist]

No, you are trying to make a "poor me, I'm fat" and I findit absolutely sickening. If youthink discrimination against fat people is a problem, write a bill to combat the problem of obesity. We shouldn't accept unsightliness and unhealthiness as "okay" when it is a serious problem. It's not "okay" to be obese. Not only that, but size, again, can mean anything and I already explained why that is a problem.

How can you have a -7 social score and pretend to tell everybody what is "okay" and what is not ?

How can you have a -5 social score and think freedom of speech needs limits?

[Antonio the Sixth]

While 14 years should be a reasonable limit for pornography, it's definitely too young for sexual activities.

[k-onmmunist]

While 14 years should be a reasonable limit for pornography, it's definitely too young for sexual activities.

No.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I hereby propose this Amendment :

Pornography and Age of Consent Act of 2010

An act to liberalise laws restricting sexual activity and to amend the Pornography and Age of Consent Act of 2005

1.   In accordance with the federal Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act of 2009, All individuals 14 years of age or older shall have the right to buy, possess, and view pornography depicting only persons of 18 years of age or older.

2.   All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons who are less than 5 years older.

3.   Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 16 years of age or younger is guilty of statutory rape.


I expressed the reason of the first modification. The second is due to a logical concern : why a 20 years-old girl with a 22-years-old boyfriend ?
However, since it's clear that Hamilton hates debate, this Amendment will probably have the same effect that for the last bill...

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Why change it to 16? 14 is fine.

[cinyc]

I hereby propose this Amendment :

Pornography and Age of Consent Act of 2010

An act to liberalise laws restricting sexual activity and to amend the Pornography and Age of Consent Act of 2005

1.   In accordance with the federal Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act of 2009, All individuals 14 years of age or older shall have the right to buy, possess, and view pornography depicting only persons of 18 years of age or older.

2.   All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons who are less than 5 years older.

3.   Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 16 years of age or younger is guilty of statutory rape.


I expressed the reason of the first modification. The second is due to a logical concern : why a 20 years-old girl with a 22-years-old boyfriend ?
However, since it's clear that Hamilton hates debate, this Amendment will probably have the same effect that for the last bill...

I think we're better off striking 2 and 3, since what you've proposed was more or less covered by the Amendment to the Northeast Pornography and Age of Consent Act passed in the Provisional Assembly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think 20-year-olds who have sex with 22-year-olds are caught up by the amended law - nor are 16-year-olds who have sex with 22-year-olds.

[cinyc]

Why change it to 16? 14 is fine.

The proposed change is to 14.  Current law is 16.  Adults should not be having sex with 14-year-olds.  It's way too young and the potential for exploitation is far too great.

[k-onmmunist]

Why change it to 16? 14 is fine.

The proposed change is to 14.  Current law is 16.  Adults should not be having sex with 14-year-olds.  It's way too young and the potential for exploitation is far too great.

That's why I inserted the statuory rape clause. The point was to lower the age of consent, but this idiocy about completely removing the effect of the bill makes it pointless. I'd rather see it die than butchered like that.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Would you consider 15? Because 16 is ridicolous.

And 18 instead of 21.

[cinyc]

Why change it to 16? 14 is fine.

The proposed change is to 14.  Current law is 16.  Adults should not be having sex with 14-year-olds.  It's way too young and the potential for exploitation is far too great.

That's why I inserted the statuory rape clause. The point was to lower the age of consent, but this idiocy about completely removing the effect of the bill makes it pointless. I'd rather see it die than butchered like that.

15 will get you 20.  That's the law in most US states.  I see no reason to lower the age of consent.  14 is way too young.

You're no longer a Northeast Representative.  It's up to Hamilton to withdraw the bill. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think 20-year-olds who have sex with 22-year-olds are caught up by the amended law - nor are 16-year-olds who have sex with 22-year-olds.

As it is written, such situation is forbidden.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Why change it to 16? 14 is fine.

The proposed change is to 14.  Current law is 16.  Adults should not be having sex with 14-year-olds.  It's way too young and the potential for exploitation is far too great.

Well I would prefer psychological evaluations be mandated in such cases rather than implement a one-sized-fits-all policy. It may be disgusting to think of, but if the 15-year-old has the capacity to consent, what he or she does is his/her business.

If I am reading the bill right, a 21-year-old having sex with a 14-year-old would be illegal, so we are talking about 15+ anyway.

[cinyc]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think 20-year-olds who have sex with 22-year-olds are caught up by the amended law - nor are 16-year-olds who have sex with 22-year-olds.

As it is written, such situation is forbidden.

No it's not.  A 22-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old is forbidden.  Nothing prohibits a 22-year-old from having sex with a 20-year-old with that person's consent.  

Now I see your point.  As the BILL on the floor is written, it could be viewed as a crime for a 20-year-old to have sex with a 22-year-old.  But under current law AS AMENDED BY THE PROVISIONAL ASSEMBLY, anyone 16 or older can have sex with anyone 16 or older. 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This simply allows 14 year ols to consent with people up to 21. The only change I'm willing to make it to lower 21 to 19.

I propose lower it to 18

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This simply allows 14 year ols to consent with people up to 21. The only change I'm willing to make it to lower 21 to 19.

I propose lower it to 18

nah

May I ask why you think otherwise?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I propose lower it to 18

nah

May I ask why you think otherwise?

u first

All right, since we have actual debate.

I generally support that since person reach age of consent (whenever it is 14, 15 or 16) she or he should be free to engage in sexual relationship with others above this age no matter of whenever it's above . But if there's no approval of that, 18 would be fairer than 19.

It's hiporcitical to allow 16 year old to have sex with people up to 19, but not let say 21.

Your turn, Representative.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Not worthy of response from me.

Typical for you.

[Badger]

By a vote of 5-3, Proposed Amendments 1 (Rep. Mr. Moderate) and 2 (Rep. Doctor Cynic) pass.
By a vote of 1-7, Proposed Amendment 3 (Rep. Sewer Socialist) fails.
By a vote of 6-2, Proposed Amendment 4 (Rep. Kalwejt) passes.

The final bill on the floor, as amended, reads as follows:
Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, gender identity, socioeconomic status, sexuality, size, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, socioeconomic status, sexuality, size, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, socioeconomic status, sexuality, size, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.

However, as Rep. Hamilton has decided to withdraw the bill, it shall not proceed to a final vote.

<wondering why someone doesn't reintroduce the same bill with amendments passed as their own to avoid it being retabled?>

[cinyc]

<wondering why someone doesn't reintroduce the same bill with amendments passed as their own to avoid it being retabled?>

Somebody already has - but under our rules, it has to wait in the queue behind other legislation.

[cinyc]

<wondering why someone doesn't reintroduce the same bill with amendments passed as their own to avoid it being retabled?>

Somebody already has - but under our rules, it has to wait in the queue behind other legislation.

We will not get to it this session and next session the composition will be more favorable to us.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  You're probably forgetting the rule in the SOAP that gives priority to other members' bills after another representative has had 2 pieces of legislation placed on the floor. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

<wondering why someone doesn't reintroduce the same bill with amendments passed as their own to avoid it being retabled?>

Somebody already has - but under our rules, it has to wait in the queue behind other legislation.

We will not get to it this session and next session the composition will be more favorable to us.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  You're probably forgetting the rule in the SOAP that gives priority to other members' bills after another representative has had 2 pieces of legislation placed on the floor. 

Even so, I will just have it repealed.

Power is starting to make you mad. I foresee you will end up like DWTL.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hamilton proves once again he's only attention-seeker. He's not interested in debate and feel even offended if someone else have suggestions He want to either take full credit or to kill the bill, if we don't follow him like blind zombies. He refuses to engage in debate.

Pathetic.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

<wondering why someone doesn't reintroduce the same bill with amendments passed as their own to avoid it being retabled?>

Somebody already has - but under our rules, it has to wait in the queue behind other legislation.

We will not get to it this session and next session the composition will be more favorable to us.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  You're probably forgetting the rule in the SOAP that gives priority to other members' bills after another representative has had 2 pieces of legislation placed on the floor. 

Even so, I will just have it repealed.

Power is starting to make you mad. I foresee you will end up like DWTL.

Hamilton proves once again he's only attention-seeker. He's not interested in debate and feel even offended if someone else have suggestions He want to either take full credit or to kill the bill, if we don't follow him like blind zombies. He refuses to engage in debate.

Pathetic.

Would you two trolls please cut the dramatics already?

Rep. Hamilton is perfectly within his right to table his bill if it is ruined with poor amendments.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Yeah, no one could answer any of our questions about the stupid amendments.

It’s easy to avoid any debate if you just label questions “stupid”

I don’t care if you respond to me, but can’t you show some respect for the Assembly? Where is a dude full of ideas and will of cooperation I remember since first term?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I don’t care if you respond to me, but can’t you show some respect for the Assembly?

And you are showing respect for the Assembly by personally attacking other members of the Assembly rather than debating the legislation at hand?