HB 20-2: LGBT Protection Act (Passed)

[YE]

The objection above seems obstruction to me, with all due respect. Why oppose an amendment just because one opposes a bill in general? Now it'd make sense if the objector thought objecting amendment makes a bill worse but it isn't clear that's the case. If anything, when incorporating the argument of the objector, doesn't my amendment (though it wasn't fully intended to be viewed this way) make it more regionalist since it allows regions to step in and regulate at the middle school level rather than be subject to federal regulations?

I brought up legitimate concerns, ones other people in here have expressed that they agreed with. That's not obstruction.

I suggest actually paying attention.

Voting against some amendment because you have an issue with a provision of the bill that the amendment isn't even concerned with, that either means you don't understand the amendment process...or you're trying to obstruct anything, even unrelated stuff, until your demands are met.

The amendment does concern an issue I raised with the bill, and as I said already, the amendment does nothing to resolve the issues with the bill.

I suggest reading the thread and trying again after you've done so.

I’ve argued that a case could be made that my amendment, from your argument, could be seen as an improvement but I realize that some may not buy such argument. That aside, unless you are arguing that my amendment makes it worse, the objection was unnecessary. Just because you don’t agree with a bill or a part of the bill doesn’t mean you have to object to unrelated amendments.

[fhtagn]

The objection above seems obstruction to me, with all due respect. Why oppose an amendment just because one opposes a bill in general? Now it'd make sense if the objector thought objecting amendment makes a bill worse but it isn't clear that's the case. If anything, when incorporating the argument of the objector, doesn't my amendment (though it wasn't fully intended to be viewed this way) make it more regionalist since it allows regions to step in and regulate at the middle school level rather than be subject to federal regulations?

I brought up legitimate concerns, ones other people in here have expressed that they agreed with. That's not obstruction.

I suggest actually paying attention.

Voting against some amendment because you have an issue with a provision of the bill that the amendment isn't even concerned with, that either means you don't understand the amendment process...or you're trying to obstruct anything, even unrelated stuff, until your demands are met.

The amendment does concern an issue I raised with the bill, and as I said already, the amendment does nothing to resolve the issues with the bill.

I suggest reading the thread and trying again after you've done so.

I’ve argued that a case could be made that my amendment, from your argument, could be seen as an improvement but I realize that some may not buy such argument. That aside, unless you are arguing that my amendment makes it worse, the objection was unnecessary. Just because you don’t agree with a bill or a part of the bill doesn’t mean you have to object to unrelated amendments.

Considering you offered an amendment that not only doesn't fix the issue, but also goes against the sponsor's wishes for the bill, the objection was justified.

[YE]

The objection above seems obstruction to me, with all due respect. Why oppose an amendment just because one opposes a bill in general? Now it'd make sense if the objector thought objecting amendment makes a bill worse but it isn't clear that's the case. If anything, when incorporating the argument of the objector, doesn't my amendment (though it wasn't fully intended to be viewed this way) make it more regionalist since it allows regions to step in and regulate at the middle school level rather than be subject to federal regulations?

I brought up legitimate concerns, ones other people in here have expressed that they agreed with. That's not obstruction.

I suggest actually paying attention.

Voting against some amendment because you have an issue with a provision of the bill that the amendment isn't even concerned with, that either means you don't understand the amendment process...or you're trying to obstruct anything, even unrelated stuff, until your demands are met.

The amendment does concern an issue I raised with the bill, and as I said already, the amendment does nothing to resolve the issues with the bill.

I suggest reading the thread and trying again after you've done so.

"does nothing to resolve" means it addresses something besides the issue you're concerned with. In fact, this amendment clearly doesn't move the bill any further away from your position. The argument could be made that it moves it closer, but even if you don't agree with that, the section still goes from "unworkable no" to "unworkable no" for you. Literally the only reason to object to an amendment that you don't think makes the bill any better or any worse is in order to slow proceedings by a few days.

If you are going to make ignorant statements that aren't remotely based in facts, I suggest taking a bit of a break and not coming back until you're able to think clearly.

I made very clear that I objected to the amendment because it doesn't resolve any issues with the bill. In the case of this amendment, I said already that education is a regional issue. Moving the age range a bit doesn't make it any more of a federal issue.

Unlike you and several others in here, some of us actually care enough about the regions to not want to take everything away from them.

Without my amendment, said problem in your view (which prompts me to a broader point I’ll address later) would still be prevalent, correct?

[Sestak]

So because you oppose sec 4, you are objecting to any amendment that does anything at all to section 4 aside from eliminating it completely.

How is that not obstruction?

[YE]

The objection above seems obstruction to me, with all due respect. Why oppose an amendment just because one opposes a bill in general? Now it'd make sense if the objector thought objecting amendment makes a bill worse but it isn't clear that's the case. If anything, when incorporating the argument of the objector, doesn't my amendment (though it wasn't fully intended to be viewed this way) make it more regionalist since it allows regions to step in and regulate at the middle school level rather than be subject to federal regulations?

I brought up legitimate concerns, ones other people in here have expressed that they agreed with. That's not obstruction.

I suggest actually paying attention.

Voting against some amendment because you have an issue with a provision of the bill that the amendment isn't even concerned with, that either means you don't understand the amendment process...or you're trying to obstruct anything, even unrelated stuff, until your demands are met.

The amendment does concern an issue I raised with the bill, and as I said already, the amendment does nothing to resolve the issues with the bill.

I suggest reading the thread and trying again after you've done so.

I’ve argued that a case could be made that my amendment, from your argument, could be seen as an improvement but I realize that some may not buy such argument. That aside, unless you are arguing that my amendment makes it worse, the objection was unnecessary. Just because you don’t agree with a bill or a part of the bill doesn’t mean you have to object to unrelated amendments.

Considering you offered an amendment that not only doesn't fix the issue, but also goes against the sponsor's wishes for the bill, the objection was justified.

The sponsor did vote for my amendment FWIW so that reasoning doesn’t seem to be aging well. Ofc if we actually inserted friendly/hostile into the explicit rules, this would be moot but that’s for another day.

Honestly if you wanted to adhere to the sponsor’s wishes, the more productive thing IMO to do was introduce yourself rather than try to force a vote.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I cant imagine section 1 is constitutional in light of Hurley and dale. The government cant control freedom of association by mandating membership requirements of private gatherings.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Also worth noting, even the sponsor requested Section 4 to be struck:

Yeah, I'd appreciate this not being a partisan bill. I'd urge the chamber to reject MB's amendment and then strike Section 4.

Yes, I'd support striking section 4 and I'll bring that up once this vote is done. But in the event that does not have the votes, YE's amendment still weakens the power of section 4 by making middle schools exempt, therefore it remains a step in the right direction, and therefore I voted for it. Sometimes you have to prepare for the possibility of not getting everything you want by accepting the idea of an incremental step. It's how life works. 

[fhtagn]

Also worth noting, even the sponsor requested Section 4 to be struck:

Yeah, I'd appreciate this not being a partisan bill. I'd urge the chamber to reject MB's amendment and then strike Section 4.

Yes, I'd support striking section 4 and I'll bring that up once this vote is done. But in the event that does not have the votes, YE's amendment still weakens the power of section 4 by making middle schools exempt, therefore it remains a step in the right direction, and therefore I voted for it. Sometimes you have to prepare for the possibility of not getting everything you want by accepting the idea of an incremental step. It's how life works. 

If a bill is overall bad because of certain sections, making them less bad doesn't make them good. Especially when the section has no good reason to exist anyway.

[Pericles]

Also worth noting, even the sponsor requested Section 4 to be struck:

Yeah, I'd appreciate this not being a partisan bill. I'd urge the chamber to reject MB's amendment and then strike Section 4.

Yes, I'd support striking section 4 and I'll bring that up once this vote is done. But in the event that does not have the votes, YE's amendment still weakens the power of section 4 by making middle schools exempt, therefore it remains a step in the right direction, and therefore I voted for it. Sometimes you have to prepare for the possibility of not getting everything you want by accepting the idea of an incremental step. It's how life works. 

If a bill is overall bad because of certain sections, making them less bad doesn't make them good. Especially when the section has no good reason to exist anyway.

Not obstructing the amendment doesn't require you to support the entire bill. You should know this given you've been in Atlasian legislatures for a while, so yet again it seems you are making it your business to make life harder for everyone else. We will defeat you in the end though.

[Former President tack50]

Also worth noting, even the sponsor requested Section 4 to be struck:

Yeah, I'd appreciate this not being a partisan bill. I'd urge the chamber to reject MB's amendment and then strike Section 4.

Yes, I'd support striking section 4 and I'll bring that up once this vote is done. But in the event that does not have the votes, YE's amendment still weakens the power of section 4 by making middle schools exempt, therefore it remains a step in the right direction, and therefore I voted for it. Sometimes you have to prepare for the possibility of not getting everything you want by accepting the idea of an incremental step. It's how life works. 

If a bill is overall bad because of certain sections, making them less bad doesn't make them good. Especially when the section has no good reason to exist anyway.

Even you are admitting it's "less bad"! Why not just let the amendment slide and then present another one to eliminate that section entirely? It would make everyone's life easier

[Poirot]

Maybe proceeding the other way around is more logic. First decide if we keep section 4 and then if yes, propose changes.

I want to go look about the division of powers concerning education, what our laws say and what is sort of game agreement.

I've understood that my vote doesn't matter much so I'll go with:

Nay

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Maybe proceeding the other way around is more logic. First decide if we keep section 4 and then if yes, propose changes.

Admittedly this would be nice, but unlike in RL, Atlasia doesn't allow us to postpone a recorded votes and roll them together in a sensible order later on. It's basically one of the limitations of an online forum game.

[YE]

Maybe proceeding the other way around is more logic. First decide if we keep section 4 and then if yes, propose changes.

I want to go look about the division of powers concerning education, what our laws say and what is sort of game agreement.

I've understood that my vote doesn't matter much so I'll go with:

Nay

Maybe in hindsight but I don’t have a time machine with me.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I think the vote should be closed?

[RC]

Aye

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

If I read this correctly, it looks like we're just voting on whether it should be sixth or ninth grade? Nay. Sex education should start before the age when kids start getting possibly negative ideas from the Internet, in my opinion

[YE]

Amendment fails I’m pretty sure.

[YE]

Fails 3-4.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Motion for a final vote

[fhtagn]

Objecting to the final vote motion.

[YE]

I'm pretending I didn't see this and giving a grace period of 12 hours for Wulfric to withdraw the motion.

Didn't you, as the sponsor, say you wanted to remove a section? Do you have short term memory loss?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I wasn't aware that still had the votes to be done, but okay. Motion withdrawn.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Move to amend the bill by striking section 4.

[YE]

24 hours to object.

[fhtagn]

I also have another amendment to make once this is finished, that is in line with another concern several people here have made from both sides.