Why we don't need a bill of rights

How about the freedom to make contracts without fear of being ripped off? How about the freedom to sell textures without someone else turning around and selling them?

The freedom to enjoy yourself without having some griefer harrass you, all the time, not most of the time.

The freedom to dispute abuse reports. The freedom to build in a sandbox without having to sit on something.

I'm sure there are others.

Most of these things haven't really affected me, but my faith in the abuse report system, for instance, is less than 7 on a scale of 10.

Anyway, hope that answered some of your questions

Sniff - so no really meant no?

Yes, you pervert.

Fear the truth of my sig. Against it, all arguments fail. KNEEL BEFORE ZOD! (grin)

Its ok Taco, we know when we aren't wanted. Lets go have forum sex with 'roo over in Off topic.

Hey Aimee, are you saying God wants more freedom too? I wouldn't be surprised though, if God is sick of the whiny humans, how liberating it may be to get rid of them all!?

SHHHH!!


*looks up nervously*

I will have to say amen to this. We are users of a system, not citizens of a country. What do I know - I'm just a mere user/landowner.

I think these call for features / technicalities, not policies. Like a revised permissiosn system and a STATUS_BLOCK_PUSHES flag for avatars and objects.


You have that already. Call LL or have your lawyer do it on your behalf. SecondLife does not exist in a vacuum.

We were laughing about this one all morning - an instant-classic contradiction in terms that says it all.

How is it so funny?

Maybe his analogy isn't effective, but I understood what he was getting at:

We're users of a system.

Like any user on any network system -- be it a shell account, a MUD/MOO, an SG subscriber, or an SL resident.

How is that funny?

You have become the classical anti-intellectual lobbyist.

I imagine you're the kind of person who's responsible for calling for intelligent design being taught as an opposing theory because you just haven't had someone convince you that the science behind evolution makes sense.

~Ulrika~

Thank you for the deep analysis of my character.

I tire of your claim to some position as a superior intellectual philanthropist.

Your ability to jump to conclusions and make assumptions of personal character are coming to a point where I might just have to put you on ignore and discontinue our conversations.

Had you approached me on a level playing field, we might have actually had a productive dialectic and come to some beneficial conclusions. However, your ad-hominem responses are becoming personally insulting and are detrimental to the civility required for proper discussion.

You may find yourself clever, but your lack respect for me is insulting and shameful. I don't believe I have been harmed or slighted in any way by you at this time, but should you choose an attempt to do so, I may just follow up with a report to the moderators. I wouldn't put it past you either, so this is me asking you not to go there.

I'd appreciate it if we could just stick to the topics at hand.

Glad to have an example of intellectual discourse, towards which I might one day aspire.

I showed you quite a bit of respect when I spent an hour crafting a clear example of how a bill of rights would be beneficial in another thread. You dismissed the entire thing without a whit of analysis.

~Ulrika~

It is an observation. I believe that the threads that Icon has been spawning recently, which oppose a bill of rights and mock the position of those who support it, is a classic anti-intellectual lobbying technique. If you can't argue with them, make fun of them.

If Icon cannot discuss rationally his issues than what recourse do I have but to recognize that he's an irrational force which seeks to oppose a progressive change?

~Ulrika~

Icon strikes me as completely rational and indeed relatively moderate in his responses.

How something might be beneficial is irrelevent to whether or not it is applicable or legitimate in the context in which it is presented.

As I said elsewhere, people who live in the ivory tower often find the views breathtaking... usually due to oxygen deprivation.... lofty heights and all.

He mixes a principle qualification for political participation in the real world - land ownership - with a principle qualification for participation in the virtual world - usership. And does it unintentionally.

It's funny because it's an irony - a paradoxical illustration of the contradictory character of rights, privileges, ownership, and usership in Second Life - and an indication that the issues are not so simple as many people on both sides think.

And finally, it's funny because I say it is. And, of course, you are free to agree or disagree with me.

May you always have that freedom.