Antiwar and Anti-Bush Rally

True --but the only way to guarantee it never happened would be to begin with the premise that all opinion be forbidden. I don't particularly like that idea at all.

I agree. It would be tasteless and insensitive. But the Constitution - and the Supreme Court (so far) - make no distinction against tasteless speech. If I decided to go to a public memorial and quietly hold a sign that says "These soldiers died for something other than their country!" there is NO Constitutional prohibition against this.

Just because various people are having difficulty staying with the discussion, I was simply reacting to the idea that American protest is somehow defiling to American soldiers. I have no interest in defiling anyone, or even protesting at the memorial for that matter, but I will not be told that exercising my right to speak is disgusting in the eyes of all "true" Americans.

If Ace was simply trying to say that he felt extremely uncomfortable with protest around his memorial, then he should, by now, realize that that's not how it sounded to me. To me, it sounded like he considered political protest as something unrelated to (and offensive to) the very men and women who are dieing in defense of our right to MAKE political protest.

Regardless of Ace's good intentions - which I do not doubt - I hear that argument from the mouths of those who mean to divide us far too much lately. And I feel a need to speak whenever they try again.

Now, frankly, I may have held back a bit if I hadn't been distracted by the rest of the posters complaining about a political experiment with built-in censors. If I'd thought a bit about Ace's general position on other things, I might have realized he didn't mean quite what it sounded like he meant. Sorry about that, Ace. But I do NOT apologize for my statements, points, principles, perspective or politics.

I'm not going to go to Ace's memorial to protest. I doubt I ever would have, but I will NOT admit that doing so would be unAmerican or insulting to our soldiers.

Nope.

Please relook at the oath. It is an entire sentence punctuated accordingly. The swearing is to the entire statement which I will point out is unto allegiance(obedience) to the president as well as officers appointed, as well as to the defense and allegiance to the Constitution. Once again have a nice day and thanks for clearing this up for me.

Then I guess you must be prepared to lose.

Some of us did not take TAKE oath. Some of us were not enlisted men. That, unless my memory fails me, was the oath taken by enlisted men. Some of us were officers. We took a different oath, materially different in certain aspects. You might also care to look up the oaths of office of the President and the Justices of the Supreme Court while you go check whether I know what I am talking about here or not.

As for being simple-minded, I think the problem is that you are arguing with blinders on. Any and all legal documents are open to linguistic interpretation - hence the need for lawyers. But that's another discussion.

That "paper" as you so succintly put it.. says much more and yet it is so vague as to be arguable that it says just about anything you want it to say.

So... you want to argue free speech.. fine.. Yet most people argue that YOUR rights extend only so far as they interfere with someone else's rights.

That being said.. get back on point. It's a group project that was Linden approved and supported - and supported with fees from ALL of SL as well as tier contributions from group members... What gives anyone in the group unilateral rights to hold such an event where their implicit support woould be assumed by others in attendance?

What difference is there between such an action and Bush deciding "on his own" to impose American power on the Iraqis?THAT is how you are Bush's poor relative, spinelessly imitating him while denying it.

I feel most secure when I don't hear about guns and wars. The "undefended" part makes me FEEL safe.



Well if they are going to talk about peace and feeding the hungry, what do you expect to hear? In order for it to be a balanced discussion you expect people to argue for more war, more starving people?

True, I wont disagree with that. Maybe the original premise was something different though and this might overshadow that premise.

Uh...Officers' Oath:

"I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."


And I don't see the "vagueness" of the Constitution as having any bearing on the fact that it is what American soldiers defend. Did you have something else in mind?

Let me put it THIS way. *I* promised to defend the Constitution as *my* primary responsibility. Against aliens, swamp monsters, crazy politicians, religious zealots, foreign armies, or people who say it's too vague.

And, whether you like it or not, every one of those soldiers died in carrying out that same promise.

And - in America - the Constitution is still ultimately more "sacred" than any other example you feel like constructing.

As for the ORIGINAL discussion - before people started insulting each other - I still think we have to have an agreement before we start arguing over breaking it.

The protest obviously should not be construed to have the support of the Neualtenburg community. On the other hand, people shouldn't be griping about what they agreed to until we get a constitution.

Frankly, we probably shouldn't have started building until we had a constitution.

Jack... don't be an ass.

By your argument I could only voice my opinion on a privately owned Sim.

And I'll tell ya two big differences between me and Bush.
Nobody is gonna die from a peace rally in Neualtenburg, and dissenting opinion is both allowed and welcome.

I'll pipe in on that and say that a constitution probably wouldnt have helped either. I was a founder of one of the first cities in SWG and we worked hard on setting up rules and guidelines to run the place and it all fell apart in the end. The best thing to do is have one person run it how they see fit and be the owner of it. If people like it good, if not go somewhere else.

I know this was supposed to be an experament and you might say you have some of your first data to add to the list.

As Reagan said in a famous debate.. "There you go again..."

You can voice your opinion at any time. However, voicing it on someone else's dime is gonna get you a reaction - almost certanly one you won't agree with based on past eperience with you.

Your analogy stretches the imagination... I could die crossing the street tomorrow... and you'd probably blame Bush. Presidents order people into hostile territory. That's what they do. Agree or not with the policy all you want. Bush is doing what he thinks is right - what he thinks the American people elected him to do... you can debate that if you want. I won't.

OTOH, YOU are acting unilaterally without being elected, using group land and materials, and already given effort to further apersonal agenda. THAT is what you are saying Bush is doing - acting without consent of the people. Dispute that... keep the dying out of the argument, you are beginning to sound like a broken record and it does't wiin your argument for you. Death occurs. Get over it.

Wow! I stumbled upon this thread by accident. I so rarely make it into the off-topic forums and have not been in world much lately due to RL constraints. I have had Neualtenburg on my mind a lot lately though, and was making plans to set time aside to catch up with the project. Then I find this thread.

Talen has put into words already much of how I feel about this event being hosted in Neualtenburg. I will however touch on the two things that I feel are most important for me to express from myself.

One thing is that I do wish is that this event had been presented to the group. I suppose it could be said that there is no rule stated that group members must announce or discuss before hand if they wanted to host an event, but I think with an event that has this deep a meaning to so many people, it just would have been a good idea to talk to the group first. That of course is just my opinion.


Also, I too truely thought that the Neualtenburg project was to be about us forming an inworld government experiment. That while we may each bring to the table our RL beliefs, the finished product would be an entirely new government (at least new to most maybe). I also thought we would not be dealing with RL government (other than how I mentioned above - ie: discussions only to help bring together our own constitution) nor other issues from RL either. The only time I could see bringing RL politics into the Neualtenburg project would be if some political action in RL were going to have a direct affect on our community. And then it would be that action in particular we would focus on, not everything behind and around it.

I avoid talking RL politics with friends as much as possible. Especially in SL. I think I just misunderstood the goal and/or the allowances behind the Neualtenburg project. That may be my fault alone, or a combination of fault of myself and those presenting the idea. Either way, I do not feel I can support the project based on this event, and much of what I have read in this thread which makes me feel that some on the project are just fine with these types of events. And that is fine with me for you all! I wish the project much success and the best of luck! I just know that I need to pull out for myself. I will be removing my land teir later this evening when I can get in world.

Thank you for listening to me.

President:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Justices have two oaths:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. Do help me God.”

And they also say:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me ….according to my abilities and understanding agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”


All these oaths place the Constitution above all else.

Okay. You have proven you can find things via Google. And that you will continue to argue by appealing to extremes of exaggeration and minimalization.

Have fun. I am not in your group project. I certainly am happy that I am not.

Take your topic to your forum please. At this point, that is where this discussion belongs.. not here. It never was an off-topic discussion as you argue it.

I am outta this thread.

Korg, I'm NOT being an ass. I'll ask again, and I'll ask again tonight if you're around,

But what makes an anti-war discussion more balanced, in your eyes?

Firs, I apologize for the "ass" comment. It was an over reaction.


This IS my final post in this thread because Jack deserves a response.

This event was NEVER intended to be a discussion event. It was couched and presented as a protest event... one of a continuing series of protests the event sponsors have put forth. Had there been any doubt in my mind that this was not the case, then your question might be valid. In this instance, it doesn't seem to be.

Also, I never said ANY discussion had to be balanced. However, that this is intended to be a biased event must be obvious to you. If not, sorry, I can't explain it any better than to point to the series of "justifications and explanations" used by Ulrika, Kendra and Kathy. They proved the truth of my statemtn with every post.

Fine --go out on a distortion that you won't (or can't) back up.

Hmmm. Too on-topic?

I've never been accused of that before

Besides, I have the feeling that you and I were never arguing about the same topic anyway.

And I'm sorry it seemed as if I was exaggerating and minimizing. I didn't intend to, and I don't agree with your assessment. I try to argue about what's true and what's not true. And not just in my own estimation, but as determined by the constitution, God, and my belief that the first priorities for a human are compassion, truthfulness, and a universal ethic.

I do admit that I am rather aggressive about these sometimes, but better to be hot or cold than lukewarm.

Besides, those who fight against these principles are SO prevalent and vocal.

the fact that it shouldn't be construed to have the support of the Neualtenburg alone should say that its a conflict of interest.

So then show up and talk about ideas that will bring peace to the world.



Well yes, the bias is "War = Bad". Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I don’t understand why people would pull out of an experiment based on their assumptions about the outcome.

If we decide – constitutionally – that we will restrict speech within the city to Second Life politics only, then that will obviously be the Law. If not, then not.

But, unless I’m mistaken, that discussion has not taken place. Right?

Or are you guys pulling out because you already believe the process can’t succeed? Or is it because you don’t trust the others in the experiment to be truthful? Or do you simply have preset restrictions on how much experimentation you’ll allow?

I pulled out simply because of this rally or protest, it can easily be construed that all in the group agreed to this, I for one absolutely dont. Saying, go ahead and make your own event then, simply points out that at this time and place this protest was ill concieved, at this rate the group is nothing more than anarchy. I also do not have to defend why I pulled out.

Obviously decisions are already being made without the consent of the group. How can something be discussed when it has already been pre determined by certain group members that it will happen.

I believe you and Kendra also said you would pull out of the experiment if your criteria for the experiment weren't met. What are your answers to those questions? As I stated before I haven't moved my position in the project yet.

I was just drawing from my own previous experiences as to what happens with in game governments. Not really enough consequences to keep people civil and acting within the bounds that society functions under.

Basically, wars have been fought and people died and went to prison to form governments and that isnt going to happen in this game. So, people are going to continue to argue over things and probably never totally agree to what needs to happen. Something like the United Nations.