Broadly offending content ~ what is it for *you*?

Lias. I'm still waiting....

Stop trying to avoid the question. *YOU* said:-

From: someone

It wasnt just child avatars these cited groups depicted- it was the situation these groups depicted the child avatars in that was cross the line into pedophilia.

Now I want to know what those situations were. You said it, you explain it. If you can't explain it, you were making it up, and you know what that makes you, don't you?

This is the last time I'm going to ask you for the details of the situations. You either know them or you don't. If you fail to provide them, then you don't know the details, you made it up, and you ARE a liar.

I find self-appointed, self righteous moral vigilantes broadly offensive.

People who have never learned the difference between fantasy and reality. Whose major concern is sticking their nose into other peoples lives where it never belongs.

People who wish to impose their idea of morality, no matter how warped it may be, on everyone else.

People who want to dictate what everyone else can or cannot say, can or cannot look at, can or cannot watch, can or cannot read or prohibit any other activity that doesn't fall in line with their way.

That's what I find broadly offensive. Whether in a virtual world or in real life.

But does anything faze you?

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/faze.html

An interesting view. If you were given the right to amend the TOS and CS what would YOU allow/prohibit? Would you allow something that is contrary to the law in any key market for LL, for example?

You also mention 'real life' too, at the end of your post. So the same question there, if you had the power what would you allow/prohibit?

This is what legislators the world over have to wrestle with (and even companies who create virtual worlds, and have to abide by the various laws in some of their key markets). So please, instead of just saying this, that, or the other offends you, tell us what you would do.

Rock

Somone has created a Jira because they are offended by people who don't want to see adult content or visit adult sims asking that they are no longer visible. http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/MISC-2733

I find these people broadly offensive and would demand the ability to make people who use the ability to make other people not visible no longer visible to me

Last night was a good example of misunderstanding on her part. In an IM debate I asked about the "2 AR's filed for an adult hitting on child av's". I managed to get the 1st name of the av involved.. and ejected them fro mthe group as there was only one.

Said avatar IM's me asking why and I explained... and I was told they were on the beach once, and was awhile ago. So I questioned Lias as to "this happened last night right?and she said it did, and put he timeof the alleged happening.

I said ok the person swore theyweren't here. .let me check my email for my visitor logs which loges arrival departure and total time. After saying that she told me oh this notecared is from _____ place, not your beach. Also, refers to it spedophiles doing this... what about the child av's are they adultophiles?

Also Lias you keep saying "Linden Labs doesn't see it that way." The oficial policy on ageplay in LL ALL deals with sex involving a child avatar. I've posted both the link and the text of LL's ageplay Policy, which was given to me by a LINDEN and Gteam member. Also you're not a representative for LL, don't try speaking for them.

I'd also paste part of a public gteam meeting, which they have every week, where the question of this came up before, a beach that was being harassed for having all ages. the reponse rom a LINDEN on the Gteam was with child nudity it would depend on context.

Last point here. You keep saying LL is an American Company, and American taboos and morals should apply. more accurately with your thinking American bible belt taboos and morals. LL has offices in the UK and Singapore as well as the USA making them international. And Singapore Well hmm how many stories are there of child prostitution running rampant there? and the UK, they don't have the nudity hangups some Americans do.

All my replies deal in facts and laws not speculations, personal morals and emotions.

You ever heard of Russell's Paradox?

I hadn't, but now I wiki'ed it,I do and have aheadache

In my own point of view - As long as it's virtual: it flys. (^_^)

Even in the case of RL laws. No chilling effects allowed. (>_<

If I can think it and the thought is evil; it remains in my mind. Nobody can administer to that.

If I can draw my thought and it remains evil; it remains on the media. Nobody can administer to that.

If I can distribute the media and it remains evil; it can be received by those who can accept or reject it. Nobody can administer to that.

But, if I act out the evil; then an evil has been committed and real harm occurs. This is the case when administration can be dealt.

As long as all this stuff is virtual and unfathomable, I see no harm in what ever can be expressed. Sure, everything has its place and it's inappropriate to have hate speech in a shopping mall, sex in church, or yell fire in a crowded theater.

But, in this particular case, we have nudity in a nudist region.

Just like severe beatings may be accepted in a BDSM dungeon, the context is fitting. At the same time, you'd be seriously offensive to the crowd if you were to start quoting the bible while attending an atheist lecture on Darwinism. Considering LL's (Sexual)ageplay stance is worded to address sex and lewd behaviour, the context balances that mere nudity and dancing doesn't apply. (^_^)

I didn't miss that part, OR sanitize ANYthing. My point was that you patently refuse to recognize that it's 2 consenting adults using 2 avatars, and instead conjure up images of some real life tragedy that never occurred, and wouldn't necessarily be considered a crime if it did.
The fact that you move to that conclusion over mere nudity, not having witnessed it for yourself or having seen them engage in something unmistakably sexual, is what I said was disturbing.. and it is disturbing.. very soap-opera'ish and reactionary. Nobody said you don't have the right to feel that it may be inappropriate. However, you have to consider the sheer volume of counter responses by those who HATE child abuse as a good indicator to you that possibly your reaction in that scenario is more knee-jerk than anything.


Valid point about correlation and it's effect, but that comparison would be dependant on you actually seeing them FUCKING.. but you didn't. You react as though you had, but it was only just nudity that you heard about. Big difference.


The only action I'm aware of that LL took against any form of *nudity* involving a child depiction was during the SL5B, and some of the vendor ads there. Not talking depictions of sex, just nudity.

Matt - a school where teachers get nude with the students? Come on. There is no 'might'. He said pedophiles have come to the beach.

.

Sure teachers get nude with kids. Don't you watch the news or read papers? All sorts of people do, "they" are called pedophiles.

You have been phased!



Hey whats this? nude beaches where family is welcome! No way!

And look the state of California even patrols it!

http://www.sfbg.com/nudebeaches/sanfrancisco.php

I'll say that I've seen pedophiles go to your club. I'll say that I've spotted them while hanging out in the Bear Lodge infohub. You don't know who they are and you probably don't know they're pedophiles. Does this mean you condone pedophilia in your club? According to the "common sense" you've applied to the beach, it does. (^_^)

How do you spot a pedophile in a crowd anyway? Is it the one with the banana in his ear? (O.o)

This thread was not to be a debate. We were to list what broadly offended us. Others have and the thread moved along. So about 9 forum posters decided to debate me about what I was offended about - instead of moving on. Do you really think 9 people all agreeing with one another is going to badger an adult into agreeing with you all? Grow up.

.

I look at the first adult nude avatar dancing with a nude child avatar. That's usually a pretty obvious 'tell'.

.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you, I've got carrots in my ears.

We were to list what we considered offensive in order to see if there was a broad scope to any of the offenses with merit. I don't know how a singular person can be broadly offended by anything. Maybe deeply offended. But, no one person can so greatly represent the community to say that they as an individual is broadly offended. (=_=)

Now, what YOU did was target a specific group inworld with defaming remarks of inapplicable pedophilia claims and an onset desire to remove the group from the grid. Sorry... That breaks the theme of this discussion and directly targets contributors to the forums. Now, somehow, you seem surprised that people are defending their honor from your slander. (=_=)

Wrong. I'm no pedo, yet, I've danced. =^-^=

And, as I said... You're still yet to spot the pedos that attend your own club. =^-^=

To be completely honest... Now that I'm thinking about it. I've seen more signs of pedophilia in BDSM circles than I have in kid AVs... Funny, that. (O.o)

Imnotgoing Sideways - YOUR the one that insisted on discussing a actual place. I said A BEACH. Your the one that chimed in with some bizarre rebuttal and details of some sordid falling out. Then of course the owner of said beach also thought that this was the platform for him to go on and on about his rights to dance nude with naked child avatars.

And you still quote my posts and tell me I am wrong. We were to post what offended us - not to get it approved by you.

When I saw the xstreet thread - here was the my knee-jerk scenario I pictured:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I drop my 9 year old off at a classmates brithday party. I return to pick her up earlier than I had indicated. I walk in and all of teh adults and children are nude dancing.

After the SWAT Team leaves I bundle my child up and get her to a therapists.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The owner of said beach sent me his rules. He insists they all hide their affilliation to his organization. He said it was to ward off pedophiles. Ialso think it is to stay below the radar so this sort of scruitiny does not occur. And I guess thats a good idea - because information like this hitting the light of day is un-settling.

.

Oh cool - an enchantment! I'll never need to worry about distinguishing fantasy from reality ever again


Conjures up a whole new imagery about nibbling someone's ears...

can threads that run on forever about the same thing be broadly offensive??? just wonderin...giggling

During the course of this thread.....it appears that about 99% have determined that a particular method/content/behavior is offensive.....which would make it "broadly offensive."

This content:






These comments were totally out of line and Wrong. Highly Offensive. Several told you that directly....and I would venture to say that every single person who exchanged thoughts with you, would feel the same. You failed to comment on those who pointed this out to you directly, and very straightforward....you simply skimmed over it.

Someone correct me, if I am wrong.

It appears that 100% view Pedophiles as broadly offensive. There is NO debate. I saw NO ONE debating that.

So there you have it....2 examples of behavior/content that are "broadly offensive".....the thread is right on target....right on topic.

Thank You for offering the thread, Desmond. It was quite Enlightening.

I personally do not mind a reminder every now and then that hatred and hysteria invoking slander, based on misinterpretation and disinformation, is present in our little virtual world.

Agreed.

.