Zero Tolerance = Zero Common Sense

In honor of myself and this thread for my 451st post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colette Meiji
LOL 2K, this is actually a good point

No one wins arguments IRL either.




I agree with both you and Colette. In both online and offline arguments, most of the time the participants are NOT going to change their minds---and therefore, neither can 'win' in the sense of getting their viewpoint to be acknowledged as Correct.

But there's still a point to posting one's argument: readers (or listeners) might not have already made up their own minds, and therefore might be convinced by one chain of reasoning or the other.

Aside from this, your point about Flamefests is all too true. My observation from years of message boarding is that if one person is all Strutting and Ha!I Pwned You! and chest-thumping in general----that's almost always the person whose argument is actually the weakest.

(Humans is funny.....)

Quote:
Originally Posted by A THIRD PARTY
Dakota, I am puzzled here ... what do you gain by looking for a contradiction that exists only to, considering no one else has said anything, you?




Well-done, on spotting this tired tactic: trying to 'win' an argument by saying 'Nobody Else Agrees With You, So....'

Use of that tactic is one of several fairly infallible indicators that the user has....got nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponsonby Low
Even granting that there are a lot of issues floating around in this thread: this seems like a distortion of the basic question of whether depictions of child sex can rationally be considered to be 'bad'.

(The question of whether LL should permit such depictions is, as many have pointed out, moot: they are bad for business and so they won't be permitted.)

The issue of whether depictions of child sex are bad, has nothing to do with the degree to which people "can keep reality and fantasy separate".

Why?

Because if it happens outside your head, IT IS REAL*.

If you are participating in role play with another person or persons---on the Internet, on the telephone, in person, it doesn't matter where---then you have left the world of Fantasy (the world inside your own head) and entered the world of Reality (the world in which you act: speak, type, move, etc.)

Hence the concept that 'ability to separate reality and fantasy' has anything to do with anything, is just as moot as is the question of whether LL 'should' permit sexual age play.


*remember, "real" is NOT limited to "physically harms a child", because you have no way of ensuring that, say, a child seeing depictions of child sex on a computer screen, won't be harmed. "Harm" can't be limited to physical injury.




The basic idea here seems to be: the ONLY kind of harm that can follow from depictions of child molestation, rape, torture, etc., is 'the viewer goes out and does the same thing'.

I believe that this is an incorrect premise.*

This is not the only kind of harm that can be done by such depictions.

Therefore the conclusion 'since not EVERYONE who sees these images goes out and performs the behaviors, then that means the images are harmless' is a fallacious one.


*it is incorrect to assume that children who grow up seeing images of child molestation and torture are unaffected by it; but it is also incorrect to assume that NO one who sees such images, later goes out and performs similar actions themselves. Some people do.

The defense 'well, if not EVERYONE goes out and performs similar actions, but only SOME people go out and perform similar actions, then such images are fine and dandy' is a very weak defense.

Nope you are attributing more to me than I wrote. I am saying in its simplist form that if "roleplay" is "real" then you are saying acting out or depicting any socially unacceptable scene (such as murder, torture, rape) on any medium is wrong because the people acting have desires to perform those acts or else they would not be acting it out. The premise of your viewpoint was that people roleplaying in SL must want to do these things for real because roleplaying is real. You cannot pick and choose where you apply that logic and still have a good argument.

I agree for sure.

OK, tangent (not directed at you, Ponsonby) warning:

Philosophers figured it out decades, centuries and even millenia ago, that it's very difficult to decisively win arguments. Both sides usually end up conceding to some degree, and some thought (and I agree) that this was a good thing. To me, that's what Socrates, Kant, Hegel, et al, had in mind. Finding relief, or "synthesis" (Derrida even called it 'relever') by looking for common truths and then formulating a new, common thesis. But, like many philosophies, applying it to modern, Western society is all but a pipe dream. Too often, philosophers strive for perfection. Modern debates in high schools and universities still reflect this yen for perfection, but it's really only useful in it's own place and time; it will never become mainstream.

Moving everyday people, myself included, to adhere to such routines is impossible, and it's sort of silly to even imagine that we could (not that you implied as such). We are what we are, as fortunate or unfortunate as that may be.

tl;dr version:

We're gonna argue.

And how's about we get us some philosophers who can give us something we can really work with?!

P.S. I am watching the Olympics closing ceremony for the second time. It's epic.

First off, as long as they're not your kids and you're not the one involved it's not your business so stop trying to save the world.

Secondly, none of you know the true age of anyone else here so why are you flipping out over this?

No matter what you say the truth is you don't know anyone here. You only know what they tell you.

How dare you!



Stop making sense, Ricardo!

Don't make me go all Big Suit! (better than Big Sig though)

I just have to respond to this, as much as I hate touching this thread again. The missing link here is causation: Some of the people who view such images will get heart disease too. Or, equally silly, some people who don't recycle their newspapers will become child molesters. There's just no evidence that there's any causal link--nor even so much as a positive correlation.

And that distinction is interesting, for a different reason: Imagine that it could be shown that people who already are pedophiles are more likely to engage in sexual ageplay in SL than is the general population, even if we knew for a dead certainty that sexual ageplay in SL could never cause someone to become a pedophile. If that were known to be true, it would be a valid reason to ban sexual ageplay, simply to keep out the undesirables.

(This would be especially true if we had some responsibility to minors who sneak onto the grid. As far as I'm concerned, minors on the grid can all go directly to hell. If their moral standards are already so corrupted that they'd lie to get in-world, well, there's just no saving them anyway. Don't ever expect sympathy from me for those little scammers.)

But I suspect there is no such correlation--or, if anything, the correlation is negative. I'd be willing to bet that the incidence of RL pedophiles in SL is very much lower than the incidence in the general population, and that any who are in-world wouldn't be particularly predisposed to sexual ageplay anyway. (I'm thinking "low prim furniture" would be their thing. )

I still have the originals!

So, as long as it not your car being stolen, house being graffitied or kid being beaten and you're not the one involved it's not your business so stop trying to save the world......................

eeek

I love Bill Engvall's comic bit on "Here's Your Sign" for Stupid People

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=famhW3PkFfA

/me thinks of a new product idea for SL

A bit late in responding to this but raudf?

companies only protect the stupid people because said stupid people have stupid relatives that file suits when their brother/sister/mother/father/son/daughter/etc is killed thanks to using a product in a manner not intended for it.

I would personally love to see all of the labels meant for the truly dense removed from all products so we can leave that particular population think itself out.

Not like we'd be losing anyone important when Billy Bob decides to swallow anti-freeze, thinking it'll keep him warm.

Woot! I get to add someone else to my ignore list!

Well done in your attempt to reason with this person, Ponsonby. He's just given me a headache....lol.

EDITED TO ADD: Well done Ponsonby and Dakota! I admire people who can debate. After awhile my eyes just start glazing over.

While you may or may not see this ... The same goes for anyone else that wishes to use the Ignore feature:

If you're going to use Ignore ... Use it and keep quiet.

There is no need to post publicly that you have ignored someone in this manner.

*yawns* You are boring. Very, very, very boring. And this is one dead horse you are beating.

What you say, over, over, and over doesn't matter. You aren't changing anyone's minds except about how they wish to interact with you. You're arguing with the wrong crowd, because WE don't have the powers to make the gods that is Linden Lab change their minds, if they fully believe that what they did was for the best of their virtual world.

As for the bit late part? How many pages back was that response anyhow? Oh, right, you didn't bother to read it the first time around.. so you're running behind to boot.

What you think is 'logical' is actually bullshit of the lowest degree. If you want to debate, you must weight all emotional responses as well as factual responses. Especially if you wish to win someone to your side. Some of our best orators learned this very early on and that is what separates you from them.

Good day.

Oh, yes there is. The simple satisfaction of letting some asshat know that you think they are completely insufferable and that you are no longer going to put up with them.

I think I will Ignore you, too.

Sorry but, no.

emotional responses are what get people into trouble during a debate or argument, just as they do in every other aspect of interaction.

Kindly do not presume to tell me how to act when dealing with people. If someone does not like how I do things, they are welcome to silently use the Ignore function.

As for what you think is bullshit raudf?

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.

don't ever presume to state it as a fact however.

I approach these topics in this manner for a reason: I'm not trying to 'win anyone over'. I am here to present the other side of it in a cold, direct manner. That's it.

As for having the power to make Linden Lab change their choice? That's something the OP and many others had in mind. As I said, I'm just here to present my side of it i a cold and direct manner. If you don't like it? tough. Use ignore and be done with it.

If I really wanted to change your mind, I'd follow the trends and cite some meaningless studies or some other utter nonsense that has no real bearing at all on anything except how we like to put our trust in someone that actually thinks that they can figure out how the human mind works by using such things.

Christ .... so I took a little bit to actually respond to you - get over it.

Nope - not a valid reason - that's just an ego trip. go ahead ...

This is still going on? Really?

Oh... looks like it's gotten down to the attackin people stage. Shouldn't be long now.

IBTL, again.

Then I declare IBTL!

Damn it, I can't report on my own post. Grrr....

Wait!!! Don't lock the thread!!! I haven't posted any self-nudes here yet!!!11!!!!11!!one!!! (>_<

...


....quick, Lock The Thread Now!

Why don't you ask all those people arrested for having photos on their computer?