Bow Chicka Bow Wow Bill (Debating)

[Badger]

I call on Badger to testify

Thank you Senator Hashemite. If it fits the chamber's schedule I hope to testify possibly as early as tomorrow evening, or otherwise by Saturday.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I am in full support, although I do suggest that the bill removes federal restrictions on the issue rather than set an age for the whole country

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I call on Badger to testify

I second this.


I tend to agree with what Fritz has said. I also look forward to the testimony of Badger, which I think will be very enlightening considering his first hand experience with this and other teen social  issues.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Personally, while I look forward to what Badger has to say, I don't particularly see it's relevance at all.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Personally, while I look forward to what Badger has to say, I don't particularly see it's relevance at all.

I would argue he knows more about the subject than you or I and that makes it relevant by itself.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Personally, while I look forward to what Badger has to say, I don't particularly see it's relevance at all.

I would argue he knows more about the subject than you or I and that makes it relevant by itself.

His "testimony" is anecdotal at best. This discussion should be settled between us, objective findings on the subject, and realistic consequences of rolling back the restrictions. Not by listening to Badger's little stories.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Personally, while I look forward to what Badger has to say, I don't particularly see it's relevance at all.

I would argue he knows more about the subject than you or I and that makes it relevant by itself.

His "testimony" is anecdotal at best. This discussion should be settled between us, objective findings on the subject, and realistic consequences of rolling back the restrictions. Not by listening to Badger's little stories.

On issues like Drugs, porn etc. Anecdotal evidence and individual trends might be better then statistics of the overall population.

[Marokai Backbeat]

That is the dumbest thing you've said in awhile. Anecdotal evidence is called "anecdotal evidence" because it's not representative of the overall situation. Viewing the trees instead of the forest is one of the most misguided and irresponsible things you could ever do.

If you think anecdotal evidence is better than the actual facts here, you shouldn't be a Senator.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That is the dumbest thing you've said in awhile. Anecdotal evidence is called "anecdotal evidence" because it's not representative of the overall situation. Viewing the trees instead of the forest is one of the most misguided and irresponsible things you could ever do.

If you think anecdotal evidence is better than the actual facts here, you shouldn't be a Senator.

Settle down!!! Anecdotal evidence are facts. They don't represent the majority, true, but are the 20% who are negatively effected not important. What about 10%. I think that statistics can be misleading and cause us to forget we are talking about individual people who respond in different ways to different things and that needs to be considered. If you thing you can hide behind a 60 or a 70% and forget the other 30%, then you sir shouldn't be a Senator.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Anecdotal evidence are facts

Quite. And we have too many immigrants around here who can't speak proper English.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Anecdotal evidence are facts

Quite. And we have too many immigrants around here who can't speak proper English.

What does that have to do with anything?

[Robespierre's Jaw]

If only the Senate debated such legislation when I was around, otherwise I might have stayed longer

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Anecdotal evidence are facts

Quite. And we have too many immigrants around here who can't speak proper English.

What does that have to do with anything?

Read what you wrote.

[Хahar 🤔]

Badger, you're aware that you can just walk in and speak, right?

[Ebowed]

Badger, you're aware that you can just walk in and speak, right?

It's like asking someone whether you can ask them a question.

Which actually serves a useful purpose.  (Gets your full attention.)

[MaxQue]

Personally, while I look forward to what Badger has to say, I don't particularly see it's relevance at all.

I would argue he knows more about the subject than you or I and that makes it relevant by itself.

His "testimony" is anecdotal at best. This discussion should be settled between us, objective findings on the subject, and realistic consequences of rolling back the restrictions. Not by listening to Badger's little stories.

I wouldn't call the ''testimony'' of someone who is working in the legal domain in that kind of things, irrelevant and a anecdotal evidence, Marokai. Remember the DUI bill for Badger and stop being so afraid than someone can have a decent argument with you, who is not about some ''Religious values, the country will decay and collapse because we will be morally bankrupt'' nonsense.

You talk about objective findings, yet I failed to see one objective finding on the Senate floor about that bill, except from Fritz.

Can we just stop being ideological and start using facts and not ideology on that bill.

I remind to everybody than I am on the fence on that bill, so you need to convince me (and perhaps other Senators) to vote on your side on this bill. And to choose, Senators need some substance, not partisanship.

And Al, please don't insult immigrants again on that floor. They build this country and they will continue to do so in the next generations.

[Ebowed]

Al was satirizing NC Yank for being a xenophobe who decries people who come to America without being able to speak English when his own language skills are embarrassingly awful.

[MaxQue]

Al was satirizing NC Yank for being a xenophobe who decries people who come to America without being able to speak English when his own language skills are embarrassingly awful.

Ebowed, I'm not that dumb! Still, I saw that as an occasion to put in light the importance of immigrants in Atlasia history and to honore them.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Personally, while I look forward to what Badger has to say, I don't particularly see it's relevance at all.

I would argue he knows more about the subject than you or I and that makes it relevant by itself.

His "testimony" is anecdotal at best. This discussion should be settled between us, objective findings on the subject, and realistic consequences of rolling back the restrictions. Not by listening to Badger's little stories.

I wouldn't call the ''testimony'' of someone who is working in the legal domain in that kind of things, irrelevant and a anecdotal evidence, Marokai. Remember the DUI bill for Badger and stop being so afraid than someone can have a decent argument with you, who is not about some ''Religious values, the country will decay and collapse because we will be morally bankrupt'' nonsense.

I remind to everybody than I am on the fence on that bill, so you need to convince me (and perhaps other Senators) to vote on your side on this bill. And to choose, Senators need some substance, not partisanship.

Wow I don't know what the hell you're talking about, Max. I'm not "afraid of someone that could have a decent argument with me," I'm simply unconcerned with someone's outside opinion on the matter. This isn't really a matter of legality as the other situation was, if any opposition to this bill is found it will be psychological or theological. Is Badger a psychologist? If so, then I'll be happy to listen.

You, on the other hand being a "fencesitter," don't have alot to make up your mind about. This is a clear cut, simple issue of fairness. Any cultural issues are not the government's concern, but the concern of parents, individuals, and communities.

You talk about objective findings, yet I failed to see one objective finding on the Senate floor about that bill, except from Fritz.

Can we just stop being ideological and start using facts and not ideology on that bill.

Clearly these:

I'm sorry, but this is victimless. Porn is harmless, and since most teenagers consume it illegally, it makes no sense to keep something like this on the books.

Legalize a victimless crime, and you have freed up law enforcement resources and encouraged the sale of legal material instead of illegal downloads or unlawful copying of material. There's no reason to stigmatize sex, or make it a "forbidden fruit" because this ends up with worse consequences down the road than anything like this could lead to.

Sorry guys, opposed.

There are reasons we have age restrictions on all of the things that are age restricted, including drinking, smoking, and pornography.  The main reason being to protect the children from vices they are not yet mature enough to handle.  Pornography can be harmful to the user.  It encourages the mind to view women, or men if that is your preference, as sexual objects rather than as human beings.  Pornography can also be highly addictive.  If you favor this bill, you must also be in favor of legalising any other potentially harmful, addictive vices for teenagers that are legal for adults.

Guess you hit my conservative side here 

That is ridiculous. Even accepting for the sake of argument (which is a big jump) that you're right in that it does make men view women as sexual objects that is A) A cultural issue that the government couldn't change either way and B) Already going on anyway since kids are getting their hands on illegal material en masse as it is.

Secondly, porn is about as addictive as video games are. That is also not the fault of the government nor is there anything we can do about it.

This is an individual issue that the government should have no say in one way or another. I guess you hit my 'libertarian' side.

Don't matter to you at all as "substantive." Abandon your absurd Catholic sensibilities for a moment and see the reasoning that I've already laid out.

In Quebec, you can drink at 18, and in fact you have drank many times at 18, the age you are now, and before then. Did it screw you up? Does a lower drinking age cause chaos to fill the streets of Quebec and ruin the lives of little puppies and children? No.

Because most people were already drinking anyway. It just made it more socially acceptable, normal, and safe.

Same thing here. Instead of people scurrying around trying to hide the material, treating it as a forbidden fruit, and getting it from illegal sources, it would be more open, more acceptable, less "dirty/forbidden/taboo" and simply relax one element of society that desperately needs it.

These arguments would make sense if people below 18 never consumed porn and we were suddenly making it mandatory. This argument is stupid, and similarly stupid is "fence sitting" on such an obvious issue. Kids 14 and above are already consuming porn anyway.

This is not our place to interfere, this is not going to increase porn consumption, this will legalize a victimless crime and free up law enforcement resources, increase the sale of legal material, and allow us to maturely and serious deal with issues of sex, among other things.

If anyone is being ideological in their opposition it is NOT me. But thank you for the lovely lecture.

[Vepres]

Regardless of your opinions, current laws are unenforceable.

@ MaxQue: Lowering the age wouldn't make it much less taboo as parents still would not be happy with their children viewing porn.

[MaxQue]

Thanks.

Before going further, are some persons are really arrested/fined for possessing some pornographical material?

I'm still undecided, I am processing information now. Still, I want to hear what Badger and other persons have to say, as long than this is not rambling about religion and morality.

[MaxQue]

Regardless of your opinions, current laws are unenforceable.

@ MaxQue: Lowering the age wouldn't make it much less taboo as parents still would not be happy with their children viewing porn.

Don't overgeneralize, Vepres. Some parents has no problems with that. My parents autorized me to look porn at 16 years old, since they jugded than I was mature enough.

[Vepres]

Regardless of your opinions, current laws are unenforceable.

@ MaxQue: Lowering the age wouldn't make it much less taboo as parents still would not be happy with their children viewing porn.

Don't overgeneralize, Vepres. Some parents has no problems with that. My parents autorized me to look porn at 16 years old, since they jugded than I was mature enough.

True, though there are fewer parents like that in the US/Atlasia due to our puritan roots and such. But as I said, it's unenforceable. Hell, I started watching porn when I was 13  (my parents disapproved ), though it's been months since I've watched it lately (last part irrelevant).

[MaxQue]

Regardless of your opinions, current laws are unenforceable.

@ MaxQue: Lowering the age wouldn't make it much less taboo as parents still would not be happy with their children viewing porn.

Don't overgeneralize, Vepres. Some parents has no problems with that. My parents autorized me to look porn at 16 years old, since they jugded than I was mature enough.

True, though there are fewer parents like that in the US/Atlasia due to our puritan roots and such. But as I said, it's unenforceable. Hell, I started watching porn when I was 13  (my parents disapproved ), though it's been months since I've watched it lately (last part irrelevant).

True, teens don't tell their parents than they look porn. Also, they are enough smart to hide it well or to delete browser history.

[Хahar 🤔]

Regardless of your opinions, current laws are unenforceable.

@ MaxQue: Lowering the age wouldn't make it much less taboo as parents still would not be happy with their children viewing porn.

Don't overgeneralize, Vepres. Some parents has no problems with that. My parents autorized me to look porn at 16 years old, since they jugded than I was mature enough.

You talked to your parents about this?