Bow Chicka Bow Wow Bill (Debating)

[MaxQue]

Like I said many times, I am on the fence on that bill.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

You talked to your parents about this?

I didn't. My mother did. Well, talking is not really the good word, since I didn't say anything. They don't know if I look at it.

[MaxQue]

I have a feeling that this bill will be struck down by the Superior Court if a case is brought against it and the Court relys on the LGBT Dignity Act ruling, as it restricts the rights of parents to raise children in accordance with religious principles and have command over what content their children have access to.

If our judges are enough stupid to do that, they deserve to be fired, really.

[MaxQue]

I have a feeling that this bill will be struck down by the Superior Court if a case is brought against it and the Court relys on the LGBT Dignity Act ruling, as it restricts the rights of parents to raise children in accordance with religious principles and have command over what content their children have access to.

If our judges are enough stupid to do that, they deserve to be fired, really.

It would depend on
a. the bill passing
b. any attempts to have it challenged
c. the Court relying on the Dignity Act case in making it's decision

The Court haven't really given the Senate as law makers much guidance on legal precedent and how they choose to make their decisions.

Problem is than judges would fail to do their job if the rule against that law, because they would exercise the legislative power of the Senate by involving in perfectly Constitutional laws without any reasons, but personal disagreement with the law.

[MaxQue]

Well Afleitch you're assuming the court cares about being consistent at all and that the previous ruling on the Dignity bill wasn't based on personal feelings on homosexuality rather than objective legal opinion.

I take the decision in good faith. Though I feel that we may be in a position to legislate to formally protect sexual minorities (and indeed other minorities/majorites)in the constitution if the Court does not consider that their personal liberties are not already protected within the current constitution.

There is a problem, then. The question is if the problem is the Constitution or the Court.

[MaxQue]

Well Afleitch you're assuming the court cares about being consistent at all and that the previous ruling on the Dignity bill wasn't based on personal feelings on homosexuality rather than objective legal opinion.

I take the decision in good faith. Though I feel that we may be in a position to legislate to formally protect sexual minorities (and indeed other minorities/majorites)in the constitution if the Court does not consider that their personal liberties are not already protected within the current constitution.

There is a problem, then. The question is if the problem is the Constitution or the Court.

'Freedom of religion' is the trump card when it comes to tinkering with anything that protects the rights of things that mainstream religions don't often wish to tolerate or even accomodate. There is a strong case for a 'secularisation' of Atlasia.

Well, court decisions will decide of Senate reactions, who could be quite radical, in some cases.

[MaxQue]

But the SRCAs already access to porn anyways. They will access to porn anyways. So, if other persons know than they do, does that helps autorities to identify them?

[MaxQue]

Since the law is unenforceable and not because I support the idea, Aye.

[MaxQue]

Ughh working with you people is torture sometimes.

Uh oh

As in people with no regard for moral values.

Cuz I'm sure you didn't look at porn at 14.. that you were illegally possessing.

Since when is it a crime to NOT look at porn at 14 or 15 or 16 for that matter? Why does our culture force everyone to live lives of sin in order to be treated fairly. You got to look at porn at 14, have sex at 16, start smoking at 12 and start Marijauna by 16. Am I the only that finds something wrong with a culture that discourages NOT doing these thinks.

Okay, we force nobody to sin. I think than parents should enforce rules against sin, not government.

[MaxQue]

Ughh working with you people is torture sometimes.

Uh oh

As in people with no regard for moral values.

Cuz I'm sure you didn't look at porn at 14.. that you were illegally possessing.

Since when is it a crime to NOT look at porn at 14 or 15 or 16 for that matter? Why does our culture force everyone to live lives of sin in order to be treated fairly. You got to look at porn at 14, have sex at 16, start smoking at 12 and start Marijauna by 16. Am I the only that finds something wrong with a culture that discourages NOT doing these thinks.

I don't find anything wrong with looking at porn at the age of 14 or having sex at 16. But smoking cigarettes and marijuana is harmful to your health and kids cannot make those decisions. Until you can prove to me that watching porn at 14 or having sex at 16 is harmful to one' health, please keep quiet and stop embarrassing yourself.

Since when are concerned about just physical health. What about Mental and emotional health as well. Surely these are affected by someone having sex so early.

They are affected positively. Before, at 14, you were already married and you were already trying to have kids. I don't think than brain grow slowed down since then.

[MaxQue]

People respond differently to different situations and the reactions always vary.

You are right, NCY.

But, then, why ban underage sex if only a minority will have a bad reaction to it? It is unfair to the majority.