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

That is what have been saying. Nude adults interacting with random nude children - big flashing red warning light.
No, your talking ageplay. The media outside of Second Life considers it pedophilia. posted all of those articles from different bloggers and media outlets to show you their bold headlines using the word pedophilia. They do nto care if we rez, teleport or click danceballs. They realy are not interested in our virtual world. What they are interested in is virtual pedophilia which they reported on ad naseum in 2007. Not one avatar sued because of screenshots from Second Life showed their avatar in these blogs - or their avatar name was mention.
Its is the nude child avatar with the nude adult avatar that is questionable. Obviously, enough people think its wrong or they would not have reported it. And none of us know these people that left your island because of some argument. You say they left because of a financial disagreement. Imnotgoing blasted that: But none of these vengeful people have posted here in defense of themselves or to maliciously acuse ASCIIrider of anything.
I answered this one already - but I will indulge you. Its perceptions - and its your roleplay. Like the virtual concentration camp was unsettling - as is the scenario you have designed.
Then I do not understand why you would role play that children wandered onto your beach - saw a bunch of nude adults and then stripped naked and interacted with them. You clai a good parent would never let this happen Yet it is your fantasy.
.

I think it's more the source of the meat...

I am sure the folks that liked visiting the virtual concentration camp felt the same way. - but such is life. You can help him run a island on his own computer - but then there is no hiding behind any TOS.

.

I suspect you are massively misrepresenting the facts in this comment.

Hope you had fun. I have a iPhone so I can respond anywhere I am - Technology is a woot.
Dear, I did not mean to ignore you - I did think I responded to all of your posts. If I did not do please forgive.
What is vile to me is the depiction of nude adults interacting with random nude children, remember?
Your the same genius that claimed pedophiles do not like Second Life virtual pedophilia.
You may be the girl in teh office that gets coffee for the therapists that treat pedophiles - but I doubt you have any advanced degrees in the area. But please do nto send over any PDFs of any degrees.
Jojo - on page 17 I posted in line with the thread as to what offended me. Absolutely no one forced you, Imnotgoing or ASCIIrider to interject. You jump into a thread and then claim I am talking about you - perhaps your seeking negative attention.
I posted about ten links to blog on this subject - you never complained about those before.
Well a internet mob of group thinkers were never worth impressing. But anyone ever afraid to post because of this sort of pile-on behavior can now see how ineffective it can be if your not easily intimitated.
And I stand by that.

.

Again see my given example. In the pool at the nudist camping I had a conversation with a nude girl around 8 years old. About the temperature of the water I might add. She was quite random, I was not related to her, did not know her parents either. If you think that deserves a red flashing light, you are the pervert here, not me.

That is the most disturbing of all, be it broadly or not: People connecting the presence of a nude man (or woman) and a nude child interacting with sex. Tell me who is the the pervert: the people making that connection automatically, or the persons interacting? It is people like Lias that make nudity something dirty, not the people being nude.

Yeah, that's just crazy.
Your just going to have to take some time and accept that there are people out there that do not interact with nude children while being nude. Once you accept that - you won't be so aghast when you hear some feel it is wrong.

.

Of course they didn’t. They have something to hide. That’s why they made 0-day alts to post on the Xst forums in the first place. Really, if they really had a genuine concern, they’d have come out with their MAIN avatar and stated their case. Instead, they put on a second mask, failing to even reveal their own main avatar taking on an extra layer of anonymity, to stir up a s**t storm. Such efforts, to date, have done nothing to get the beach closed. Even after Linden involvement. (=_=)

Now, you decide to drag the s**t storm over here, not realizing who’s side you’ve taken. While you’re here comparing little dancing nudists to pedophiles, they’re still hiding behind their dual veil and probably trying to find the next place they can turn into their (Sexual)ageplay haven. Lias. You have been taken advantage of. A genuine (Sexual)ageplayer has used you as a public bullhorn to deliver false accusations about a non-sexual region. I don’t know what else to say. (>_<

I have personally posted here on the forums about illegal content I’ve found, worked with it in contact with the Lindens and the FBI. I used my main avatar the whole time. Why, I ask, would anyone working for the greater good hide behind a 0-day alt to accomplish the same thing? At the same time, why would people so easily bandwagon behind a person like this?

Have you ever heard of “Barking up the wrong tree?” *Woof! Woof!* (=_=)

Again twist the info around I said people like YOU, yes you Lias who see children nude as a sexual thing are the ones what should have the big flashing red warning light.

The though you should even consider plain old nudity as sex is rather disturbing.

And you're the one who sees it that way, not us nudists. you even agreed that people who see it that way are disturbing.

And your comment



then why can't you realize that there are people who find nothing wrong with it if there's no sex involved.. it's called a naturist liifestyle. and while you may not find it to your liking, plenty of others do. It's called being a hypocrite. Your ideas and opinions matter, people who disagree with your opinions are therefore automatically wrong, and theirs don't.

Yes, I forgot. He mandates that these child avatars strip nude - they have no choice in the matter if they stay on his parcel. That's the first 'rule' on the notecard he sent me. Now its accurate.

.

I'm missing the point you're trying to make here. Lady Bay didn't have any rules requiring nudity, but many many RL nudist facilities DO have such a requirement. This is completely irrelevant, and you're still massively misrepresenting the circumstances.

ASCIIrider there are others that see it as wrong also.



There are people that see nude adults interacting with nude, unsupervised children as wrong.

You said several times that pedophiles do come to your beach - They aren't there for the music.


.

Rule 1 is anyone who uses it..ANYONE must be nude yes... and with a L$200 join fee to even get on the beach THEY decide that they'll get nude. NOWHERE does the rules say "If you are a child avatar you must be nude". If Govenor Linden were to visit.. I'd tell him he'd have to be nude too.

You jut fixate on nude child av's... I think you're obsessed with nude children in SL.

I have mandatory nudity because the people who ARE causing the afeplay are the ones who I've seen show up in 3 piece suits at a clothing optional one. They're also the ones who'l lsit in the (formerly) open access landing area, waiting for people to prey on which is why I also had a rule about loitering in the landing area.

You fixate on the tiny parts yet ignore the big picture and completeness of things.

There's people who work with the problem of pedophelia for a living disagreeing with you.. People who have been sexuually molested as children disagreeing with you. From quotes on other threads from Lindens they don't agree with your thinking.. so therefore the one with the problem here is...... you.

I'm just wondering if this is the smoke and mirriors routine, you trying to have people notice one thing so your kinks don't get the atention.

Now once agaion your post above this.. you TWIST, you say that I admit pedophiles come to my beach and quite me and it says Perverts.

Oh, ok.

And Argent, Why do they have that mandatory nudity rule?

Because if you show up at a nude recreation area and aren't nude, you're there to gawk, right? You've seen it yourself many times I bet with the "bushwhackers"

I don't think anyone here would even for a moment show up at a Naturist Beach thinking that it's going to be a meeting of Greenpeace reps. So if you're not there to participate, you're there for suspicious reasons.

What Lias and others are doing is given bad PR to nudists worldwide.

She claims things like the media labeled it pdophelia great when does the media make law? also the articles were al lfrom a skynews story, which is basically in the same catagory as the National Enquirer or other tabloids.

Sir you sell child avatars at your parcel - and your rule is that they have to nude - who is obsessed?
3 piece suit - do you remeber anything else about the perpertrator?
You mean the smokescreen of a virtual nude beach as a excuse to have nude child avatars around your nude adult avatar? I am sure it is a lovely beach.
Not in this thread
Just look up a post or two. I conveniently re-posted some posts of people that feel its hinky.
Have you closed yourself off from the rest of society to the point that you are not aware that there are millions of people that feel such an interaction is wrong? Surely you must be aware of that. And you must be aware that no amount of keystrokes will dissuade them, or me, from that position.
All you are accomplsishing now is publicizing it. You mandate that all of your members must hide their group tag in their profiles. Why you would be blathering about it on a public forum is unclear to me if you want to stay below the radar.
Like a virtual nude beach scenario with nude children interacting with nude adults?
.

Only to the clueless. Most SENSIBLE people don't have a problem with it until inappropriate behavior occurs. Since it doesn't matter if said adults / children are fully clothed for such inappropriate behavior to occur, the whole nudity point is moot.

I agree that YOU are welcome to believe whatever you want, right or wrong, though.



I couldn't care less what the "media" considers it; the "media" doesn't determine legality. (clue for ya: bloggers aren't it, and I could care less what some idiot blathering on his tiny little internet podium has to say, let alone a thousand idiots blathering away on their tiny little internet podiums)



It's only questionable to you and others who don't understand or comprehend it. "How can it be anything other than pedophilia?" is pretty much your whole point summed up in a single question. The answer is that it can be, and is, your lack of comprehension notwithstanding.



Unsettling doesn't automatically equate illegal or immoral, for that matter. Lots of things are unsettling to many people. That doesn't make them wrong or even bad. People's perceptions vary from accurate on some topics to wantonly inaccurate on others. That's why people shouldn't make judgments for anyone but themselves and their dependents, unless they are charged with that role in and by society.



Yes, that is the crux of the problem. You just do not understand. You don't want to understand because your apparent revulsion for what you don't understand precludes you from ever understanding. It's your ignorance and, thus, your cross to bear on this matter.



There is no evidence that nudists are bad parents (in fact, a mountain of evidence that they are as good, if not better parents than non-nudists), and they are quite fine with their kids being on a nudist beach, themselves nude, with other nude adults around. What they would not be fine with is nude adults soliciting or molesting their children, regardless of surrounding. There is no indication that the prevalence of adults acting out pederasty is significantly higher at nude beaches than anywhere else. In fact, research into the habits and tendencies of pederasts would indicate that nude beaches are not a preferred venue for a number of reasons.

That said, if the children of non-nudists were to wander onto a nude beach, I am sure they would not be happy with their kids stripping down and joining in. However, that doesn't make the nude beach somehow "wrong" or at fault. It's their choice for their kids, right or wrong, and I don't have any problems with that. They need to take it up with their kids and educate them on what is allowed and where they can't go. Thus, a "good" parent would never simply "let this happen", because "good" parents care about whether their kids obey them or not.

I don't see anywhere that ASCIIrider stated that his fantasy was remotely related to kids of non-nudists joining in the activities on a nude beach without their parents' knowledge or consent. I think he clearly explained the converse, which makes your gross attempt to twist his words both obvious and pathetic.

Sir you can roleplay as a virtual construction worker. If your construction site had nude adult avatars interacting with nude child avatars I would comment on it. But I do not think the Steelworker's union will come out in defense of you.

.

.

Not at all Lias, I do know there are people that do not act with children while being nude. That is their choice, and I respect that.

What I do not respect is when those people think they have to force their opinions on to others, and that is what you are doing. Nudity is natural, and in my given example neither me, nor the girl felt weird. The fact YOU make a connection between an naked adult (me) and a naked child (the girl) and sexuality, does say something don't you think? But it says something about you, not me.

What disturbs me is that there are people around that would consider a picture of that same girl and myself in a conversation about the water temperature, porn. Child porn even. What disturbs me is that the average father is taking a risk when bathing with his child. Because of people like you Lias. Not because of you directly, but people with the same attitude, on the same witch hunt.

You don't address people this way if you truly want to make your point. Completely Condescending. Uncalled for. Out of line. No different from what's-his-name calling me stupid, blatantly. Same thing.



I agree. Generally not part of the mob.

You would have had one less person in the mob....(possibly more).....considering your thoughts....if you had not implied that because we entered into the discussion we approve of pedophiles or that we are rallying behind pedophile friends. Extremely Offensive statement.

There might be someone reading who actually wants to come in and support your views....but no way will they do it....if you use these tactics.....so you're part of the reason that one may be afraid to post.

Some of the pile-on behavior came from your methods and not your thoughts. That's a shame. I personally, think that at the core.....you have good intentions. But your methods of presentation and tactics suck.

OK lias...now you are just wayyy nasty. I dont have to be since i actually know what im talking about in RL.

I have been sexually molested as a child as well as raped....I also have a master's degree in counseling with years of experience working in the field. i have been trained specifically to understand what makes a pedophile tick including having to listen to hours of the north american man/boy love association speeches in order to be aware of the buzz words, midn set and arguments that the REAL pedophiles use. i have interviewed many adult men to determine if they had any tendencies toward pedophilia and have also been involved in getting some prosecuted. i am still a state designated reporter of child abuse and also have been cleared by the jessica lunsford act to work with children. again, just for the record...what exactly are YOUR credentials in this area???

you my dear are full of crap...and i dont drink coffee much less make it for anyone. im quite techno savvy as well, but take the time to turn off my computer and interact in the real world which i find a much healthier way to live my life than obessessing about adults interacting with other adults in a pixelated world. any responsible person who was truly concerned about this issue would be taking it up with the lindens directly with hard evidence and not encouraging nameless faceless people to blog pixel incidents of stuff that is CLEARLY not a RL issue...

Wow, you're such a gearhead! Can I lick your cogs?

I bet you didn't know that iPhones are mainly used by the "hip" crowd, of which some are the kind who like to strip nude on a beach and dance along with nude children. Hell, by just HAVING one, you're signaling to everyone your approval!

Well, it's at least as good an argument as any you've made so far. Guilt by circumstance and association, and all that rot.



Given that she has (or at least claims/appears to have) professional experience with RL "pedophiles", I would tend to take her word over that of someone who can't tell the difference between a normal, healthy situation and one where something bad is actually happening. That alone definitely makes her a genius by comparison.



Beyond the fact that the blog links were nothing more than commentary/opinion articles regarding the SAME reported situation in the RL media (which has nothing to do with the issue at hand, btw), the additional fact that they were BLOGs speaks volumes about the kind of support you have for your position. Basically, none.



The only one here who seems to be desperately grasping for "group-think" is yourself with all the pitiful attempts to make your views held by others through the use of inclusive pronouns ("we". You apparently need the group to bolster your beliefs. I don't.

I don't have any intentions to "intimidate" you. That's not my desire. However, as long as you're going to mischaracterize a harmless situation, and call specific people out over it, I'm happy to break your arguments up on the jagged rocks of reality.

You can believe whatever you want; you can state your belief with as much veracity as you can muster. I'm good with all that, really. Just like you can be against abortion. What you CAN'T do is harm other people based on that belief. You can't bomb abortion clinics, harass their patients or staff, or slander/libel them over that belief. That's where you crossed the line here.

Beyond that, you cast stones at what you believe is someone's glass house. I don't see any problem with anyone else returning the favor and casting stones back at yours. I certainly hope you don't mind, either.

And your exchange with that Pep guy was classy.


I think I will skip the forum etiquette lessons from you.
The funny part is that this thread was not set up as an discussion. We were to list what offends us. If the subject of the thread was 'List your favorite color' and I posted 'BLUE' - I would not expect 25 pages of people telling me I was wrong.

Its like someone standing still shooting arrows at a target. You decide to step in front of that target and then claim the person shooting the arrows was attempting to kill you.

Most people are afraid to post anything in opposition of the forum regulars. That has been the standard for years. And thanks for the tip - but I do not need a few people to post on what is offensive to me. It is not necessary.
After I innocently tried to participate in the 'pet peeve' thread I got this:



So I did not do anything to make these folks post - and continue to post. (see all of this on page 17).

Perhaps my point of view makes no sense ...

... but instead of the government and fellow citizens worrying so much about what goes on with little pixel people on a computer screen ... why don't they spend some time worrying about the one-hundred thousand runaway kids living on the streets, most of whom ran away to get away from abusive parents ... they end up doing unspeakable things, just to survive.

I'm making a place for childish people to dance nude on Second Life. I'll have to get with Desmond to rent his 49 sims.

Marcel I responded to a thread. I mentioned no names or locations. Just as the other people on the 16 pages before I did. Mine was a very small post with no bible-thumping or soapboxing. You really cannot ever find a reason a mob attacks - it is baffling.
Well, it should concern you. No need to keep your head in the sand. Be aware of other people and their perceptions.
And actual incestuous pedophiles - don't forget how they ruin the reputation of those innocent baths.
.