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

forgot to add one thing....i wish you the best of luck lias...cuz with your attitude you are gonna need it in this world...also...if you need a good therapist, let me know...seems this blurring of reality and fantasy that you have might need to be addressed...take care!

Fine then....take your forum etiquette lessons from Pep.

I gave you some thoughts to consider....but it's your way or the highway.....even expressed a wee bit of empathy for you. You came back condescending.

I'm not even going to address the rest of your responses after that.

Which was pretty much my whole point. Thanks.

That others believe the way you do or similar has never been in dispute.

That said, Treasure's agreement is both qualified and guarded, so not sure how you can include his/her statement as support for your core point of view.

Arcady throws in behind your argument pretty much completely, so you have at least one subscriber.

Even still, if you're so concerned about "groupthink", what does it matter that others hold an opinion similar to yours?



There are people that see me being a Dragon in SL as "wrong" or, at best, "perverted". Not doing anything wrong as one, just BEING one. Holding that belief doesn't make them right, but they are free to believe it.



I don't recall him ever saying any such thing. Even in the quote you gave, he said "perverts". "Pedophiles" are a subset of possible perverts that could show up at a nude beach, but they are far from the majority or even the only kind.

He likely includes griefers as well. Griefers aren't perverts in the sexual sense, since they have no real interest in sex. Their goal is simply to harass and cause a disturbance. If one can do that by pretending to be a "pedophile" at a nude beach, that doesn't say anything negative about the beach, only about the griefer.

Anyone can attach a giant, erect, floppy prim penis on a nude beach and run around griefing everybody, both adult and "child" alike. Sadly, that situation fails to give your argument any legs to run with.

Simply put, griefers don't justify your view, and that is more apparent in his words than your take on them.

Please ensure that going forward, your dragon wears both pants, and underpants. Also, if you are a dragon that breaths fire. please stay a respectful distance (lets say 40m) from Argent and all other furries.

What do nude people clip their iPhones to?
And I have a check I need you to cash for me. Its good. Take my word for it.
Again, those links weren't for content. They were to show that anyone can use pictures from Second Life and blog about pediophilia with no reprisals. It has been going on for years - and also that no one outside of SL will give credence to the distinction between ageplay and pediophilia. Ageplay is just some word used to soft-peddle pediophilia.
Obviously I do not - since I am the only one posting with this view point. I use the 'we' to remind you forward thinkers that there are still some folks back there (a few million) that don't agree with your new age definitions of pediophilia or the distinction of it happening in the bathtub or the internet. Or that nude adults should be interacting with nude,unsupervised children.
I posted what was offensive to me. You can bang your head against that rock as long as you like.
I posted - they stepped in and labeled themselves. That is their problem.You cannot seek negative attention and then complain you got it.
Cast all you want. I have been posting on these forums since 2005. I am encased in tephlon.

.

I'm holographic, with all safety protocols fully engaged. So long as my mobile holoemitter doesn't overheat, I'm fine.

I agree with what *I* see as the core point of view. That pedophilia is broadly offensive. (to me). Period. To me that is the core point of view here (and that was the original OP's question, too, what does broadly offensive mean to you?). The rest of it I know nothing about. Not the beach, or the owner of the beach, or any of his groups or members. I would never go 'to blogville' or accusatory-ville based on the information that has come out here. I can, and will, stay away, simply because the premise of a nude SL beach is not to my taste. Any nude SL beach. That's me and I have the right to do that. For me, that's about it. Remember I also said I don't mind, and have no problem with being called narrow-minded, and all the other names that have been flung through here. I am ok with that, and I am the one who has to live with me, both the RL and SL me. The name calling doesn't phase me. So yes, I have too many caveats to be in full agreement with Lias, outside of what I see as the basic core. I am not going to have an opinion on conjecture. I, personally, have no proof, and no first hand knowledge of the accusations.

You slung it first and I slung it back. Enjoy your Dolcett, genius.
.

Pep revels in being the forum punching bag. He's the epitome of the Palooka.



This is your first post in this thread, #242:



Outside of the title, you point out a specific circumstance/person/group/venue in an attempt to illustrate your belief.

If the thread was about "List your favorite color", you would have crossed the line if you posted similarly about it, hence:

"Title: I like Blue

There was a thread in the Xstreet forums about a Mentor who runs a green beach for red avatars (the thread was deleted this morning). The owner of the green beach actually responded to the thread saying there was nothing wrong with it (even after several forumites went over there and witnessed red avatars dancing greenly with purple avatars).

I find this green beach broadly offensive. The fact that it is run by a Linden Approved Mentor compounds the issue."

Outside of the title, the rest is nothing more than casting stones. If you just wanted to state your belief, the title was all you needed. Of course, you WANTED to do more than simply state your belief, you wanted to beat someone else up to justify it, and you did. The other party(ies) involved didn't bring it here, or open up the discussion about your belief; YOU did.



Except that, in your case, you MADE them a target from the get-go. Sorry, you can't deflect the glaringly obvious.



I don't think most people even bother with the forums because they don't see the value in contributing for themselves; it's not a question of fear.

If it isn't necessary, then why do you use their posts in defense of your "groupthink".

I suppose that you don't see the irony in using the phrase "broadly offensive" along with your denouncement of "groupthink", either.



Sorry, love, but you're about as innocent as the cat who swallowed the canary.

Not http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm#?

So your saying the beach had these pedophiles as members and they were tossed out and tried to expose the pedophilia they themselves were practicing on said beach? That is a diabolical plan. I see that it's ok for you to make baseless accussations in these forums.
Lady, I posted what was offensive to me. YOU and ASCIIrider went into details about your sordid little drama. That was your mistake. Own it and move on.
Maybe if you keep accusing them they will post here in an attempt to defend themselves. OR they are not idiots and will not defend themselves against something that is not even associated with their names. Hmmm?
Well maybe ASCIIrider got the hint and won't post anymore. Why would anyone associate themselves with a nameless post in a public forum if they were not guilty?
One can only hope
I would assume to avoid you. Your silly post on page 17 started this entire thing.
Go sniff around in another thread please.

.

Good for you. Would be nice to have some participation and thoughts from people who are not coated in teflon....you would have some entirely different viewpoints.

You're just toying with people now. It's beyond making any points or contributing to the discussion. At this point....it's just trying to prove your staying power....at the expense of others.

Several people gave you some serious RL information to make their points. I did not see you acknowledge it. That bugs me.

This is not exactly the topic/discussion that you would want to entertain yourself with at the expense of others. Some of the flippant responses make me cringe, and want to puke.

I hope that someone who is not coated in teflon doesn't get strung out here, while you test your staying power.

THIS!!!
I am broadly offended by $41t stirrers.

You've heard of body piercing, right?



Much prefer taking the word of someone who presents an intelligent, internally-consistent case for their beliefs over one who is all over the map with holes in it big enough to drive a Death Star through.



Anyone can use pictures from SL and blog about anything with no reprisals. Blogging isn't about responsible journalism any more than the mass media is. At least the mass media supposedly has a responsibility for it, but bloggers don't even have that.

It's likely to continue to go on for many years to come, seeing as LL is focusing on REAL instances of it, rather than imagined ones from crackpots.



You can't even be consistent with two adjacent sentences, let alone your whole argument. You claim "I am the only one posting with this viewpoint", yet you quoted two others to show solidarity with your point of view. Classic groupthink tactic. Well done!

You must have failed at math; three does not "a few million" make. Well, unless you have an extreme multiple-personality disorder pathology with a million personalities each. Yeah, that makes sense.

As for "my" "new age definitions of 'pediophilia'(sic)", I haven't stated any. Just the facts, ma'am.



Can be until the stars burn out of the sky, as far as I am concerned. You started the discussion, and it far exceeded simply posting "what was offensive to you". I'm happy to keep banging your head on that rock, too.



You called them out by posting. You labeled them. That's YOUR problem. You cannot offer negative, deceitful, harassing comments disparaging other people and expect them to just take it without comment.



"Tephlon"; is that what people such as yourself call "bullshit" these days? I'll have to remember that. Sadly, it isn't much of a defense, but that almost goes without saying.

You're seriously making one? if so I wish you the best of luck and maybe you I and other owners of places that allow children, nude or not, can get a group together to share info on who and why was banned from our places for ageplay, or as Lias says being a pedo.

I think only severe isolation (such as via inbreeding) leads to warped mindsets like this. They're so extreme that other people don't develop the tiniest sympathies. Why are you trying to reason with it still? It's wired up wrong. There is no middle ground to be gained. It's entrenched, with a touch of cabin fever.

Nobody even gives two shits about nudist colonies where I come from. Each to their own, live and let live, whatever floats your boat, yadda yadda, is the general mindset of balanced individuals. Nudist beaches are no more or less offensive in the real world than any kind of hippy commune, grandma sewing circle, or Star Treck gathering. You don't like it? You don't join in. It's a non-issue.

No, Lias' original statement of belief was simply this:

"Nude Beach For Child Avatars Dancing With Men"
"I find this child nude beach broadly offensive. The fact that it is run by a Linden Approved Mentor compounds the issue."

She didn't even mention "pedophilia" until later posts justifying her attacks the beach owner and those who called her on it.

I said your opinion was guarded and qualified, which is what you are reiterating here.



As I said to Lias, I don't think your belief here counts as agreement with hers. She is doing a disservice to you by attempting to associate it with hers.

As stated by others (and myself), something someone finds personally offensive is just that: personally offensive. It does not make it in any way, shape, or form "broadly" offensive. "Broadly offensive" is the ultimate groupthink euphemism.

But you said in your OP.



Also you misrepresented by saying child nude beach, it's a nude beach. .pure and simple... not for adults not for children but for nudists.

You may see 10 people nude and say there were 4 children, 5 adults, and a furry. Ask me the same thing and I'd say 10 nudists.

If you're going to refer to your own posts. .make sure you remember what you said.

All you had to do was say "I find child nudity in SL offensive" Period.. not refer to the xstreet post.. not refer to the mentor group. just what you found offensive.

Maybe in part. The Flame Warriors are a perverse, specific form of Jungian-esque archetypes. No real person is completely defined by just one.

I don't recall Pep using the "no sense of humor" accusation as a defense, so "Evil Clown" doesn't fit as a main archetype for him, IMO.

I think he has a bit of "Grammarian", "Jerk", and "Profundus Maxmius" as well, but the fact that he keeps coming back for more abuse all the time screams "Palooka" to me, especially since his "jabs" are not particularly witty or effective, for that matter.

comments like this is what I think is braodly offencive, it shows that you have absolutly no idea what ageplay realy is, sexualety in rl ageplay is accepted and nobody gets offended by it offcourse in rl ageplay it is clear all parties are adults in SL nearly all ageplay is non sexual because of the rules brought on by sewer journalism.

I sugest reading a site by someone who knows about it rather then blogs by someone pretending to be a journalist for exsample or the first dealing with both rl and sl ageplay the second with rl ageplay

=^-^=

It's like a train wreck, the main difference being it is one that you can participate in.

The rebuttals are not for Lias. I fully admit I have no intention in changing her mind; she's free to believe in whatever she wants, be it virtual nudity being equivalent to RL harm, the tooth fairy, or the Great Pumpkin.

They are simply to provide a warning to others: "Danger! Ignorance ahead".

No I didn't. I said 'there is a beach'. I do not even know the name of the beach myself (It was posted in the xstreet forum but I didn't remember it). ASCIIrider filled in the blanks - not me.
I did? The only way to 'beat anyone up' would have been to break the forum rules and list his name and/or location. I could have just cut and paste the xstreet thread if that was my motivation. I saw the xstreet thread, found the subject matter offensive and said so in the thread dedicated to what we found offensive. You need to point your attention to those (including you) that wish to debate this issue with me.That is your choice. But it's not necessary.
ASCIIrider made himself a target by telling everyone the beach was his. He did not have to do that.
You suppose correctly.
Using terms like 'a beach', 'a mentor' or 'a guy' is as vague as I can get. If this guy wants to own it he can.

.

Lias, a lot of people interpreted your original comment as an attack on nudist facilities in general, and frankly it and a lot of your subsequent comments STILL sound like an attack on nudism to me. And that's something a lot of people are into, in real life, for reasons that have nothing to do with sexual fetishes. THAT is why you got the reaction you did and you wouldn't have gotten the same reaction to saying "the color blue is offensive".