Zero Tolerance = Zero Common Sense

Oh yes, of course. Thanks so much! Unlike all those others, who don't have the mental...stability? to differentiate between fantasy and reality, MY problem is that I'm just too stupid to understand your words.



I would argue that I DID find a contradiction, and your belief that said contradiction is not germaine to the conversation doesn't mean it doesn't exist.



You're over-generalizing. Let me rephrase that - you're not being specific enough. This thread relates to a VERY SPECIFIC sexual fetish. Not sexual roleplay in general, or even "controversial fetishes" in general. Nobody cares if you like to play a shapeshifting tentacled demonic anthropomorphic multi-tailed fox who has sex with people, because the thread is about sexual ageplay. Despite your claim that they are incredibly controversial, there are no rules against the kinks you mentioned, nor is anybody calling for their banning, nor is anyone complaining about people who do them.



Until you mentioned it, I've never once heard of the notion that using shapeshifting demonic avatars to have sex could, according to some, possibly lead to acceptance of sex with "tentacled things" in RL. It sounded like something you invented on the spot.



I would suggest weeding out styles and genres of roleplay that don't have to do with sexual ageplay, since sexual ageplay is what the thread is about. I think it's been established that nobody cares about those other "controversial" fetishes you felt compelled to bring up, no matter how much you say people are supposed to hate them.



Nobody said YOU made any references to child abuse. But maybe you have a point - after all, all those ARs LL gets for "ageplay" usually involve folks who are roleplaying avatars that are just two weeks shy of 18.

*sigh*



Can you re-parse that please?



Oh...sorry, I didn't mean to tire, bother, or irk you. If it makes you feel any better, it's not uncommon for people to feel uncomfortable when somebody is scrutinizing their beliefs.

Would anyone change their mind on the permissibility Sexual Ageplay if it was known that Real Life Minors participate in it?

Yeah, I'd want to find more effective ways of keeping the kids out.

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?

I will be rather frank here: I find it irksome that you persist in this line of discussion because to me, you appear to not understand the ramifications of having a global and generalized ban on this. In addition to taking what someone says to such a literal end that you hound them concerning something that was implied but never actually said.

The current rules exist because some 'reporter' got it into his head that Second Life is a Pedophiles den.

what is to stop another from coming in from a country where other kinks/fetishes are illegal and forcing Linden Lab to ban those as well?

Nothing at all.

Now, see here is where you've made a mistake and where I have as well Dakota. When reading a response directed at me, I generally assume you are responding to the content of the quoted post.

Number six? The griefers that love to pick on people for what they like are not posters here.

What really needed to happen was for Linden Lab to ban virtual images pertaining to child abuse.

Moving on to Colette ...

Nope, as it is not my job, your job, or the job of anyone here to police the grid and keep the children of another parent from seeing or partaking in any form of sexual activity here at all.

Parents need to do their job and stop trying to get others to do it for them ... end of story.

I'd rather find more effective ways of keeping the perverts out. Thankfully, OpenSim will soon solve this problem.

Even if it were someone's motivation to get the Sexual Ageplay ban lifted in order to facilitate this sort of activity between RL adults and minors in Second Life?

Not your job.

Leave it to their parents.

ighs softly:

If there was a way to do this, without the rest of the residents suffering for it and being forced to act as net nannies?

Go right ahead.

Personally? I'm not here to deal with or report on someone's kid being on the Grid.

I'm here t talk to my friends and have fun.

I completely agree that Parents should be responsible for their own children's activities.

---------------------------------------

In fact thats kind of what causes a quandary.

Is it better to concentrate on keeping minors out and allowing Sexual Ageplay -

-Or-

Not allowing Sexual Ageplay and keeping the access system pretty much as it is?

Obviously!

Personally?

I'd rather the people that play as matured teens (usually 16-1 not be persecuted for their kink.

and let us be honest ..... what male hasn't wanted or thought about asking their partner to play the part?

's almost hardwired.

I'm sure you're an exemplary parent. It isn't a case of not liking what you said - I agree such fantasies are sickening, but I think you're overreacting and missed my point.

Fears about children being (in your own words) raped and buggered on SL are IMO overwrought and also aimed in the wrong direction because, as is pointed out over and over, child avatars in SL are not RL children, they are adults roleplaying.

Yes, online there is the potential of unwary and unsupervised youngsters being contacted by paedophiles, although I do believe this is less likely than current media hysteria suggests. But the point is that this will be happening in places where these lowlives expect to find lots of rl kids - and that *isn't* likely on the SL adult grid.

In reality it's known that children and teens are much more likely to be abused, or 'groomed' for possible abuse, by family members or other known adults in their everyday environment rather than shifty strangers. I think people focus their fears on this subject onto a medium like SL because they feel that's controllable ("AR the kid avs, AR and ban all the perves" etc) whereas in RL the "perves" aren't usually easily identifiable.

If what you're saying is you want to ban consensual fantasies between adults that you (or me or anyone) might find repugnant, then that's a separate pit of snakes.

It's not like a whole lot of people are talking to you - so really, "nobody else" bringing that particular item up isn't beyond the prediction of chance or anything.



The "slippery slope" argument is as much a logical fallacy as an argument from emotion. As for the second part...well cut me some slack, here. I asked you over and over again to clarify, but you refused, saying I should be able to work it out on my own. So I worked it out, and now you're complaining about the result?



No. The current rules exist because some 'reporter' got it into his head that Second Life is a pedophiles den, which prompted him to log onto Second Life, whereupon he got screenshots of avs doing something that, in RL, would be called "pedophilic" in nature, but which somehow is absolutely not pedophilic in nature on SL (according to you, and ilk).



What was to stop that from happening BEFORE sexual ageplay was banned? Nothing, either. Didn't happen, though. Hasn't happened yet, either. Because the "slippery slope" is a fallacy.



A forum thread is not a closed system. Just because I'm responding to you doesn't mean everything I say is alleged to be a direct quote.



...which leaves the more progressive folks here. So my notion stands.

Why not just call their AVs 18 and avoid the problem?

-----------------------------

I think your "hardwired" claim would be easily debated by an anthropologist. Many cultures have embraced a more motherly shaped sexual ideal.

There are some logical fallacies in this thread, but not all from the "pro" side. Since Dakota brought it up, let's lay the one central to many of the "anti" crowd's arguments out on the table...

X = sexual age play within SL
Z = transition from SL sexual age play to real life molestation of minors

X has happened so...
Z may or will happen (slippery slope)
X is bad so...
Z is bad (straw man)

Yes, yes, I think we ALL know it was a business move on LL's part, case closed on that. The scope of this conversation has not just been limited to that however, and yes Dakota, I know you're not responsible for what other people post, so this really wasn't aimed at you. You just triggered it when you brought up logical fallacies, and I concede that there have been some from the "pro" side as well.

Slippery slope is not ALWAYS considered a fallacy. Further, many governments have many laws based upon slippery slope arguments. In fact, the whole argument about virtual/cartoon imagery of simulated child sex is based upon the slippery slope I outlined above. There are many more, older laws, which are based on slippery slope, among other fallacies, and we live with them without questioning it.

Lastly, while it would be nice, in a perfect world, if everyone followed debate competition rules whenever they interact, it isn't going to happen and many people aren't even aware of fallacies unless they've been in debates. This isn't an official debate, it's just a somewhat misused forum where people exchange ideas and in some cases insults, and some are very clever about how they go about doing so, I must say!

You can never win an argument on the internet. I always laugh at people who try to. Like yourself and everyone arguing with you.

I disagree.



OOPS

If that was directed at me, then you should look a little closer at what I said, because it's pretty much what I said in my closing paragraph.

It was this part which you may have missed or misunderstood (if your post was directed at me):

"This isn't an official debate, it's just a somewhat misused forum where people exchange ideas"

That means that I agree, there's nothing to be won, and that you can't expect people to adhere to debating rules, because it's not a contest in the first place, it's more like pub chat.

Hey! You knocked my block off!

Yep, in RL we fumble for words and so a typical argument quickly ends with "Yeah but... well... umm... err.. OH WHATEVER!". Whereas on the net we get lots of time to formulate a reply.

A typical argumentative internet bastard working on their reply:

LOL 2K, this is actually a good point

No one wins arguments IRL either.

Ever argued with a cop, a judge, a boss, or a parent when you were a kid? Or, as in my case, my significant other...

People definitely lose arguments, both in RL and online.

The Dems argued that Bush stole the election and lost that argument. Ted Bundy lost his argument, and Trump's hair loses ALL arguments!

And then there's a a certain prolific blogger who loses the argument before she even presents it, because she has to pour Naplam on everyone first.

Oh FFS! I am arguing with you about arguing...



Anyway, I do understand where y'all are coming from and it actually drives me nuts when I see people strut around in forum flamefests (this thread really is tame by comparison, and no one's done it here) proclaiming victory - trying to create a reality out of thin air. The scary part is that some of them actually believe it. Because they acted tougher or something, in their minds, I guess.

Anyway, I'll STFU now, as this thread left the derail station about an hour ago.

lol