Tinies, Babies, kids and more.. Please give me a breakdown

I do as well.

If a land owner doesn't want Child Avs on their land - fine, they can restrict their access. Land owners should be able to restrict access for any reason.

But a blanket wide ban of Child Avs from Mature areas? That is wrong. They aren't children.

Do you know something the law enforcement agencies are up to that the rest of us don't?

I also live on a island designated M..... now being a 'child av' I shouldnt be 'allowed' to be home? Seems a mite rediculous. I set my land to M for my moms sake. She can build in a portion of the land as she wishes. I just dont go there, even tho there's nothing going on that would 'harm' a child. BTW, I do own all the land.

Mos child avs bend over backwards to relieve the dult av minds. Now if the dult starts becoming confused that we arent really children then I will and have drawn the line. We get called peds simply for being 'child avs' we accept and change as possible to salve those minds that have a 'problem'.

Accept us for who we are, what we are and for our contributions to the dult world. We have done much. We dont ask that you join us, nor do we really need you to, what we do ask is just to be considered human beings. We have earned it.

An yes by golly Mari, der is a Santa

An TY Collette for your short, yet precise comments

I am not sure where you got the impression I did that... lol

I can imagine anyone who is wrongly accused of such a horrible crime would be upset... though I am surprised people don't expect it if they choose to wear a child-av. I wouldn't got that far without seeing behavior to suggest it. I just think the whole child-av thing is odd.

No, I haven't. I have suggested that it doesn't fit the role-play, and seems out of place. That's not the same thing.

All I said was I think it is odd.

Would be nice if you stopped for a moment and actually read what I am saying, and stop putting words (or implications) into my mouth. that would make this whole topic move along a little easier for both of us.

That's because you're paranoid. (teasing)

I agree... just like child-av's can ban "adults" from their land if they wish.

I never said ban them... I said they were out of place. Seeing little Susie in " a shop named Pixel Tits" would certainly look a bit strange to some.

Nope... however I have learned in life that you should never bank on something like this... you never know what will change and when. A woman won a lawsuit because she put her motorhome on "cruise control" and went to the bathroom and it crashed.

Don't underestimate the power of stupid people accessing our legal system. lol

I am not only making statements directly against yours but against the attitudes and opinions of others. Therefore If I seem to catagorize you harshly, remember I have seen quite a bit more by others to add to this.

You imply strongly they should expect that sort of treatment- this is what I took from your thicker skin comment as well.

Well Im saying: NO they shouldn't expect this sort of treatment.

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

I didn't say you specifically accused Child Avs of being pedophiles.


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

Why do you find it odd? What is the reason for your aversion?

That sounds like an urban legend. In fact in the version I heard it was a man and he died while making a sandwich on cruise control. No lawsuit was involved in that version of the story.

If its a real case It must have been very recent since I until a few years ago worked in the Ford Development community and I never heard of any case like this.

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

Still there is a difference between civil lawsuits and government exertions of authority.

This endless replowing of the same tired ground, where Certain People brand child avs pedos unless proven otherwise to a standard of proof that somehow can never quite be met and the rest of us vainly try to reason with them has gotten more than old, more than tiresome. It has gotten stupid. There is nothing worse than stupid. Lets stop pandering to these neurotics.

We have long passed the point where this nonsense should be taken seriously any more. A person apparently innocently asks about distinctions between tinies, kid avs and the like, and we are treated to umpteen pages of wrangling about the Child Av = ZOMG PEDO PEDO PEDO!!! issue yet again. It really is time to stop treating the mentally ill as if they were not mentally ill.

People who are still biased against child avs after all these months of explanations and vain attempts at reasoning with them are closet pedophiles trying desperately to repress their unnatural sexual attraction toward children by attacking SL "children" and need to see psychiatrists at once....Pass it on.

Couple more pages of this useless wrangling with hopeless neurotics, and I'll find a way to invoke Godwin's Law.

/me wanders off looking for biographical data about Hitler's attitude toward children.

Oh, and hey! It's time for a pie break.

I'm torn between 70% cacao content chocolate pie and cherry cream pie (IM me in-world for FREE! FREE! FREE! samples of each).

Either goes really well with a tall mocha latte. With whipped cream.

Anybody with me on this?

But they aren't getting tolerance.

They are being AR'd for just walking onto Mature sims.

There are even people who think Child Avs are totally banned from Second Life now and AR any child Av for any reason.

They are being lumped in with pedophiles.

that isn't tolerance.

Read all about it.

But following the thread of quotes back, the original reference was to a child-av "in an adult venue like a night club on a 'mature' sim".

There's nothing about that that could constitute illegal pornography in any country. At least assuming that night-club is being used to mean dance hall, with socializing, people hooking up to go elsewhere, slow dancing, hugs and kisses, but no sex on site.

It may seem incongruous to some, and if the club owner wants to ban child-avs solely for that reason, that's ok. But it's perfectly ok for someone else to have a mixed nightclub, adults-avs, child-avs, furries, etc.

The way things stand today, there's nothing about a sim being labelled "mature" that implies child-avs must be prohibited.

See http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp .

Don't underestimate the ability of otherwise intelligent people to not only believe nonsense, but to pass it on as truth without doing a simple one minute search with Google that would have proved otherwise.

While I am sure you probably have seen harsher remarks than mine about this... I find it a little contradictory that you would generalize me while reacting to generalizations other people have made against child-av's. I think that is where some of my frustration has been in all of this. I really am just trying to discuss the topic without being an ass.

Everyone in the world who does something different than what is generally accepted should expect flack. It's not fair, but expecting people to behave the way you want them to is really no different than what you are defending. I agree that it is unfortunate... but there are far worse things to be discriminated against than playing a particular age in a video game.

And I am saying that is an unrealistic point of view... as unfortunate as poor treatment is... it is going to happen. Doesn't make it right... but it will happen.

It seemed that way, thank you for clarifying that.

I think it's more of a general idea that child-av's don't really fit the environment, and I am not exactly sure what the allure of pretending to be a child is. It just seems odd to me. It's nothing I am up in arms about.

Most of my discussion in this thread has been a learning experience, and an attempt to see both sides of the coin. Nothing more.

Sorry Kidd, I beat you to it.......

When I spoke of tolerance earlier, I was speaking of my own point of view... which is far more tolerant than AR'ing people without actually seeing something that should be AR'd.

All opinions but TY Har

Yes, but your link is broken link on my screen

I was using your quotes to discuss the topic. I was not accusing you of being a rabid anti child av type person.

I do not think Burnman is a radical anti child av person and hope those reading this thread will understand that.

I less meant to generalize Burnman than to generalize a situation that exists.

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

I have a serious problem with the ammunition thats been handed to ANYONE who wants to AR a Child Av.

A Child Av by application of policy has LESS rights than any other player. This is a serious issue.

We should all be free from unjust accusations.

Call me a cynic (*puts hands over her ears as a chorus of shouts of "cynic" deafens her for a moment) but i don't believe anything i read on Google necessarily, be it legend or denial of legend. Just because someone wrote on Google that this urban myth is not true, doesn't mean it isn't. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

imogen

I believe the debate in this thread got triggered by this post, which contains a perfectly reasonable answer to the original terminology, followed by an utterly gratuitous opinion.

Certainly this person is entitled to such an opinion, and as far as I can tell, the people defending child-avs agree. If someone had actually asked how people feel about child-avs, it would have been a perfectly reasonable response (though whether the question is appropriate for this forum is a different story).

The problem is when people feel a desire to express a negative opinion that is at best tangential to the thread. It's the type of thing that people often do, it's understandable and forgiveable that they do it, but it's also the type of thing that should be discouraged for the simple reason that we always run around in circles when that happens.

I suggest that the next time someone asks a factual question about child-avs (or furries or Gor or other BDSM or whatever), that the question be answered without opinions being thrown in simply because it seems opportune.

First, Google is the search engine. The only thing you can actually read on Google are help documents, descriptions of their technology, corporate information, etc. To discredit something because it was found by a Google search is ludicrous.

This particular article is on Snopes. Snopes has been around for years, and is a highly respected source specilizing in refuting urban legend. You're still free to choose not to believe them, but you should at least put a smidgin of effort to determine who it is you're disbelieving before doing so.