Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Marokai Backbeat]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

I'm not going to, I was going to suggest doing the same thing, so it still serves a purpose.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

I'm not going to, I was going to suggest doing the same thing, so it still serves a purpose.

And I thought I was the only insane one around here, I am feeling much better knowing I am not.

[Franzl]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

[MaxQue]

Senator Marokai's Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act;

1. 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

May be, for good or bad, unecessary due to the Liberalisation of Sex Laws Act

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Liberalization_of_Sex_Laws_Act

Obviously, unecessary bill. Marokai, please withdraw that bill to no lose our time, thanks.

When I was digging through the statutes on the wiki a few days ago I noticed that disgusting piece of trash. Time to repeal or amend it if you ask me.

The problem is then some 14-18 years old paid for that. We can't force them to delete something they bought legally. That is not right.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

[Franzl]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senator Marokai's Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act;

1. 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

May be, for good or bad, unecessary due to the Liberalisation of Sex Laws Act

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Liberalization_of_Sex_Laws_Act

Obviously, unecessary bill. Marokai, please withdraw that bill to no lose our time, thanks.

When I was digging through the statutes on the wiki a few days ago I noticed that disgusting piece of trash. Time to repeal or amend it if you ask me.

The problem is then some 14-18 years old paid for that. We can't force them to delete something they bought legally. That is not right.

Why not?. If they already purchased the stuff legally, then they would be grandfathered in.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

Any parent who lets a 12 year old look at a nude women needs to have there children taken away and put in protective custody, and they should be punished severely.

[tmthforu94]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

[Franzl]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

Any parent who lets a 12 year old look at a nude women needs to have there children taken away and put in protective custody, and they should be punished severely.

I didn't know you hated freedom and like the nanny state so much

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

Any parent who lets a 12 year old look at a nude women needs to have there children taken away and put in protective custody, and they should be punished severely.

I didn't know you hated freedom and like the nanny state so much

Well I did say I would support a $12.50 minimum wage yesterday.

[Franzl]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.

Why settle for that? Let's ban sex outright.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.

Why settle for that? Let's ban sex outright.

I am a Moderate remember. Just Banning Sex before marriage will do.

[Rowan]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.

Why settle for that? Let's ban sex outright.

I'll compromise with banning sodomy.

[Franzl]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.

Why settle for that? Let's ban sex outright.

I am a Moderate remember. Just Banning Sex before marriage will do.

Oh I see that I'm going to have fun with this bill

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.

Why settle for that? Let's ban sex outright.

I am a Moderate remember. Just Banning Sex before marriage will do.

Oh I see that I'm going to have fun with this bill

Did you honestly think it would pass quitely?

[MaxQue]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.

I have a moral fiber. I just don't see why I should impose it on other persons.

[Lief 🗽]

The difference between Marokai's proposed law and FL 20-6 (what Afleitch linked) is that FL 20-6 amended laws that only applied to the District of Columbia and federal territories. The way Marokai's bill was written, it seems like it would apply to the entire country.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Here's an interesting question. Is DC actually a federal territory in fantasyland? I mean, it's a fully paid-up part of the Mideast Region, isn't it.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Here's an interesting question. Is DC actually a federal territory in fantasyland? I mean, it's a fully paid-up part of the Mideast Region, isn't it.

u mean nyman?

[Hash]

Here's an interesting question. Is DC actually a federal territory in fantasyland? I mean, it's a fully paid-up part of the Mideast Region, isn't it.

u mean nyman?

AFAIK, it is known as Nyman D.C.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Here's an interesting question. Is DC actually a federal territory in fantasyland? I mean, it's a fully paid-up part of the Mideast Region, isn't it.

u mean nyman?

AFAIK, it is known as Nyman D.C.

What is its standing? Is it a federal territory or regularly incorporated into the Mideast like states are? I suppose that was the original question.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     There is a D.C. that is incorporated into the Mideast. Whether that D.C. is the same as Nyman D.C. is something that, as far as I know, has never been addressed.