www.lcav.org/content/minimum_age_purchase_possess.pdf
Pep (Hmmmmm)
Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Inclusive Communities and Representations of Violence against Women |
|
|
Pserendipity Daniels
Assume sarcasm as default
Join date: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 8,839
|
05-22-2009 15:32
_____________________
Hypocrite lecteur, — mon semblable, — mon frère!
|
|
Pserendipity Daniels
Assume sarcasm as default
Join date: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 8,839
|
05-22-2009 15:33
I thought that was Cato's job.......... Pep (For a change) _____________________
Hypocrite lecteur, — mon semblable, — mon frère!
|
|
Shane Roxan
Registered User
Join date: 16 May 2009
Posts: 187
|
05-22-2009 15:35
You have obviously not heard of the laws of incitement. If a guy has a gun on a cop, and you shout, 'go on, shoot him', and he does, you know that you will face a murder charge too. You cannot claim that the guy who had the gun had a choice after listening to your words, and that you should be found innocent. It does not matter if the incitement was verbal, by the written word, or by inflammatory images. It is just so naive to think incitement plays no part in crime. BTW, you are not a member of the NRA by any chance are you? They have similar idiotic sayings about 'a gun never killed anyone..' Rock I'm not a fool to think an inanimate object picked it self up, and put a round in the chamber and shot someone of it's own accord. Anymore than a baseball bat, knife or other tool used itself. And for the record, people have been told to shoot and chose not to. So try a different tactic, the shooter still had a choice. Only someone who doesn't want to take responsibility for any of their actions believes they have no control of the choices they make. _____________________
The scariest thing in the world: a lady chanting bunneh over and over in a super cheerful voice.... I lose too many outfits that way...
|
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
05-22-2009 15:36
I was acting sycophantically Fixed it for you, Pap. _____________________
Don't you ever try to look behind my eyes. You don't want to know what they have seen.
http://brenda-connolly.blogspot.com |
|
Pserendipity Daniels
Assume sarcasm as default
Join date: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 8,839
|
05-22-2009 15:38
No, that friends of authority figures who may act solely on their own discretion have far more rights than anyone else. (Assuming, of course, this off-topic thread is the only one of- what- thousands recently that will be shut down because it's off time. By someone who is no longer a moderator. Because someone who knew him requested it.) I am sure you are right. I believe there are probably a few in the "non-clique" who have relationships with persons in positions of influence and relative power over the Forums and who take advantage of their relationships. Pep (I am not one of them; I contacted the person who had closed the original thread and pointed the situation out.) _____________________
Hypocrite lecteur, — mon semblable, — mon frère!
|
|
Pserendipity Daniels
Assume sarcasm as default
Join date: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 8,839
|
05-22-2009 15:39
Fixed it for you, Pap. Pep (Who am *I* going to suck up to, Breeder?) _____________________
Hypocrite lecteur, — mon semblable, — mon frère!
|
|
Lord Sullivan
DTC at all times :)
Join date: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 2,870
|
05-22-2009 15:45
<SNIPPED FOR BREVITY> I wonder if Mark Kingdon could face arrest for being the purveyor of extreme pornography (by UK law, and UK definitions) if he ever visited the UK. Rock No he wouldn't because images under the act mean "a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real." http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5-pb1-l1g63 Thats the section you need. Now I run a BDSM profile website, but we come under the Safe Harbour rule as we are just the service provider, just as LL are to SL so I can visit the UK without the risk of getting arrested, not that I have any plans to return lol. Mind you are servers are housed in Amsterdam and if we wished we could allow animal sex acts to be displayed on our site as that is legal to do that here in Holland, in fact in the Sex Museum in Amsterdam they have still pictures from various porn films and yes Animal Farm is there and not G Orwells one lol so we do not allow animal stuff because it is not suited to a BDSM lifestyle and over 18 only and no kiddie porn is the other rule. Apart from that people can place what they like on the site and guess what? apart from the normal Nigerian scammers we get on the site our members self police and respect each other, because we allow them to build the site their way and we get very few AR's because we treat them as adults and its their site because without them our site would fail. We are open and honest and transparent with the site and it works maybe LL could learn a lesson from us  I think that the UK reacted in its normal knee jerk way enacting this ridiculous section of the law. I am so glad I left the UK with its ever growing Nanny State and moved to a country where tolerance is taught from a young age, whatever your colour, creed or sexuality. Just my opinion mind  _____________________
Independent Shopping for Second Life residents from established and new merchants.
http://slapt.me  slapt.me - In-World HQ http://slurl.com/secondlife/Bastet/123/118/26 |
|
Lord Sullivan
DTC at all times :)
Join date: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 2,870
|
05-22-2009 15:48
I'd say 6 is a good age for a 9mm. I loved my 9mm when I was working overseas. What is the fascination for firearms in the USA i have often wondered that _____________________
Independent Shopping for Second Life residents from established and new merchants.
http://slapt.me slapt.me - In-World HQ http://slurl.com/secondlife/Bastet/123/118/26 |
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
05-22-2009 15:49
No he wouldn't because images under the act mean "a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real." http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5-pb1-l1g63 Thats the section you need. Now I run a BDSM profile website, but we come under the Safe Harbour rule as we are just the service provider, just as LL are to SL so I can visit the UK without the risk of getting arrested, not that I have any plans to return lol. Mind you are servers are housed in Amsterdam and if we wished we could allow animal sex acts to be displayed on our site as that is legal to do that here in Holland, in fact in the Sex Museum in Amsterdam they have still pictures from various porn films and yes Animal Farm is there and not G Orwells one lol so we do not allow animal stuff because it is not suited to a BDSM lifestyle and over 18 only and no kiddie porn is the other rule. Apart from that people can place what they like on the site and guess what? apart from the normal Nigerian scammers we get on the site our members self police and respect each other, because we allow them to build the site their way and we get very few AR's because we treat them as adults and its their site because without them our site would fail. We are open and honest and transparent with the site and it works maybe LL could learn a lesson from us I think that the UK reacted in its normal knee jerk way enacting this ridiculous section of the law. I am so glad I left the UK with its ever growing Nanny State and moved to a country where tolerance is taught from a young age, whatever your colour, creed or sexuality. Just my opinion mind What makes you think the Nanny State won't work it's way where you are? _____________________
Don't you ever try to look behind my eyes. You don't want to know what they have seen.
http://brenda-connolly.blogspot.com |
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
05-22-2009 15:55
I loved my 9mm when I was working overseas. What is the fascination for firearms in the USA i have often wondered that Our heritage. The country was settled and expanded at a time when firearms were a necessary tool, for both self defense and for hunting for food. They became ubiquitous to our culture. Recreational shooting is cherished pastime for many people, with guns being family heirlooms, passed down from generation to generation. When my Dad passed, I staked claim to his prized shotgun. Having it means a lot to me. _____________________
Don't you ever try to look behind my eyes. You don't want to know what they have seen.
http://brenda-connolly.blogspot.com |
|
Lord Sullivan
DTC at all times :)
Join date: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 2,870
|
05-22-2009 15:59
What makes you think the Nanny State won't work it's way where you are? 1) The Dutch are to laid back, heck if I fall and hurt myself I cannot sue the local town Hall because the pavement is not laid straight as I would be told I should have looked where I was going, responsibility for ones own actions here is high on the list. 2) The Dutch political figures are always stoned lol I was only kidding on 2 Holland is unlike any place I have lived before, yes there are problems, but the murder rate is low and crime rates are low, in fact the government announced they are closing 11 prisons because they have not got enough criminals to fill them and in fact leases one to the Belgiums as it was going spare lol_____________________
Independent Shopping for Second Life residents from established and new merchants.
http://slapt.me slapt.me - In-World HQ http://slurl.com/secondlife/Bastet/123/118/26 |
|
Lord Sullivan
DTC at all times :)
Join date: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 2,870
|
05-22-2009 16:01
Our heritage. The country was settled and expanded at a time when firearms were a necessary tool, for both self defense and for hunting for food. They became ubiquitous to our culture. Recreational shooting is cherished pastime for many people, with guns being family heirlooms, passed down from generation to generation. When my Dad passed, I staked claim to his prized shotgun. Having it means a lot to me. Thanks for the explanation _____________________
Independent Shopping for Second Life residents from established and new merchants.
http://slapt.me slapt.me - In-World HQ http://slurl.com/secondlife/Bastet/123/118/26 |
|
Ponsonby Low
Unregistered User
Join date: 21 May 2008
Posts: 1,893
|
05-22-2009 16:02
Originally Posted by Ponsonby Low One would think that if you want to claim the OP 'feels anointed', you'd have come to that view based on some particular remark or remarks that the OP made.But.......no? Your claims about How The OP Feels and What The OP Assumes aren't based on any particular remark or remarks that the OP made? ??? I can't speak for Meltia, but I got that "anointed" feeling from the OP when she first used the word "allow". All her following posts just reinforced this thought. I want to be sure I have this straight: your claim here is that anyone who speaks or writes the word "allow"....feels anointed? If not 'anyone', then....in what circumstances are you claiming that the use of the word "allow" indicates that the person using the word feels anointed? If you could actually quote the sentence or sentences Scylla Rhiadra used that led you to this conclusion, that would help a lot. Can you quote any such sentence? Then when you pair it with the "agenda" of her partner in posting, what other conclusion could a reasonable person draw? You're going to need to expand on this. If you explain your claim instead of simply asserting it, you might be able to persuade readers to your side. But as it stands, it contains too many unsupported allegations. "Partner in posting"...? "Agenda"...? It all seems very Grassy Knoll and all, but it doesn't shed much light on the claims that the OP 'feels anointed'. A reasonable person might draw the conclusion that those who disagree with the message can't think of any way to counter it; therefore attacking the messenger is the only strategy they have left. |
|
Jezebella Desmoulins
Registered User
Join date: 4 Nov 2005
Posts: 561
|
05-22-2009 16:08
No, I am all for sex and experimenting. What I object to is women, vulnerable women, being subjected to stuff they do not want to be involved in, because some guy has seen it in a porno. See my link above to the study on this. What I object to is anyone, man or woman, limiting my freedoms and telling me they're only protecting me because I'm just a "vulnerable woman." I'll thank you and your kind NOT to protect me, Rock. I can protect myself, thank you very much. In SL, I have the TP button. In RL, I have concealed carry. Both are more than enough to deal with "some guy" who wants to try something because he "has seen it in a porno." I suggest you do some more research, however, into how often the viewing pornography is the primary motivator of criminal acts, not just an incidental component of the criminal's background. |
|
Ceka Cianci
SuperPremiumExcaliburAcc#
Join date: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 4,489
|
05-22-2009 16:13
I loved my 9mm when I was working overseas. What is the fascination for firearms in the USA i have often wondered that mine are for work ,fun ,hunting and protection.. _____________________
|
|
Rock Vacirca
riches to rags
Join date: 18 Oct 2006
Posts: 1,093
|
05-22-2009 16:16
No he wouldn't because images under the act mean "a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real." http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5-pb1-l1g63 Thats the section you need. Many thanks for pointing that out. I would also point out that in many of these sims that depict extreme violence they also show in their clubs uloaded images showing real people. Scotland (also part of the UK) has legislation under consultation, as Ledoof as pointed out, that even encompasses non-real depictions of extreme violent pornography, and even mention SL in their consultation paper on the subject. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S3/committees/justice/inquiries/CriminalJusticeandLicensing/CJL17.pdf Recently, in Australia, a guy was convicted of possessing child pornography, when he was found in possession of spoof Simpsons cartoon videos depicting Bart and Lisa having sex, when the judge ruled that a fictional cartoon character was a "person" within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws. So the UK (England and Wales) law is still to be tested on this point. Rock |
|
Ponsonby Low
Unregistered User
Join date: 21 May 2008
Posts: 1,893
|
05-22-2009 16:18
Quote: Originally Posted by Chris Norse Simple, there was no implied use of force. The OP wants to use force to stop opinions she doesn't like. Now you've really got me intrigued. In which post or posts does the OP express this "want"? There are several claims in your reply; it's probably best to go one-by-one: She has talked repeatedly about "compromise" and "giving up just a little of our freedoms", how does she enforce this without the use of force? 1) Why would 'compromise' need to be enforced? 2) What does enforcing rules or TOS have to do with the fact that one poster wrote "Go away please" to the OP and you defended the poster as one who would "support you ranting all you want"....? Your answer that there was no inconsistency because "there was no implied use of force" was not remotely salient. She has repeatedly connected RL behaviour and fantasy behaviour, saying that the former should mean the latter is banned. How does she enforce this except at the point of a gun? What are you claiming, here? Does she come out and say "The thought police will kick down your door and drag you to a reeducation camp."? No, but if you read her posts you can see she would love that idea if you thought a way she didn't approve of. I have read her posts. Can you quote even one sentence that supports your claim "she would love that idea"....??? |
|
Ceka Cianci
SuperPremiumExcaliburAcc#
Join date: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 4,489
|
05-22-2009 16:21
Many thanks for pointing that out. I would also point out that in many of these sims that depict extreme violence they also show in their clubs uloaded images showing real people. are they violent images or are they just sex?? i know the violent ones have been banned.. rl images of sex haven't.. i see those but i don't really see violent images like before they were told to be taken down.. if it's against the TOS and CS just AR them.. _____________________
|
|
Melita Magic
On my own terms.
Join date: 5 Jun 2008
Posts: 2,253
|
05-22-2009 16:30
That's quite a strong accusation. Can you cite any remarks I've made that support such a characterization? So you still haven't gone to dictionary.com and checked the definitions for 'opinion' and 'perceptions'? If you did you might need to reread them. I clearly stated "read to me" as vitriol. Do you have adequate reading comprehension to be in this discussion? Reading below - it seems not. One would think that if you want to claim the OP 'feels annointed', you'd have come to that view based on some particular remark or remarks that the OP made. YOU - not one - can think whatever you wish. I never stated what the OP "feels." But why are you OBSESSING on what I think of the OP? Is this main issue important to you, or not? ETA: Oh and by the way, Lindal said this to Scylla, not to you; and you took issue with that and with Chris' post about it. A post that seemed to very calmly try to explain things to Scylla. But you reply as if you ARE her. Interesting. Not that I care much - but it might explain your spamming the thread with your 'defending her honor' for pages. Quote: (from #262: ) Go away, please. Quote: Originally Posted by Chris Norse A simple request for you to leave. Not censorship at all. You are free to stay or go as you want. I know [[name of poster of #262]] pretty well. I know she will support you ranting all you want. In what way does "support you ranting all you want" = posting "Go away, please"......?? *takes a look at Posonby's posts @ Chris grilling him on why I might've chosen that particular word, and demanding repeatedly, he tell her why. Goooood grief. |
|
Chris Norse
Loud Arrogant Redneck
Join date: 1 Oct 2006
Posts: 5,735
|
05-22-2009 16:47
I want to be sure I have this straight: your claim here is that anyone who speaks or writes the word "allow"....feels annointed? If not 'anyone', then....in what circumstances are you claiming that the use of the word "allow" indicates that the person using the word feels annointed? If you could actually quote the sentence or sentences Scylla Rhiadra used that led you to this conclusion, that would help a lot. Can you quote any such sentence? You're going to need to expand on this. If you explain your claim instead of simply asserting it, you might be able to persuade readers to your side. But as it stands, it contains too many unsupported allegations. "Partner in posting"...? "Agenda"...? It all seems very Grassy Knoll and all, but it doesn't shed much light on the claims that the OP 'feels annointed'. A reasonable person might draw the conclusion that those who disagree with the message can't think of any way to counter it; therefore attacking the messenger is the only strategy they have left. 1) "can we allow this type of behaviour...." or words to that effect. Just like when AG Horner asked if we as a nation could "continue to allow........" behaviour he doesn't like. 2) I am not going to post links to this entire thread and the thread her partner started a few days ago. You are a big boy/girl, read it yourself. But it appears I am not the only one who thinks this way, judging from the responses they received. Sometimes the messenger and who they represent are just as important as the message. Especially when they come in with a planned attack upon the freedoms we have now. _____________________
I'm going to pick a fight
William Wallace, Braveheart “Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind” Douglas MacArthur FULL |
|
Chris Norse
Loud Arrogant Redneck
Join date: 1 Oct 2006
Posts: 5,735
|
05-22-2009 16:53
There are several claims in your reply; it's probably best to go one-by-one: 1) Why would 'compromise' need to be enforced? 2) What does enforcing rules or TOS have to do with the fact that one poster wrote "Go away please" to the OP and you defended the poster as one who would "support you ranting all you want"....? Your answer that there was no inconsistency because "there was no implied use of force" was not remotely salient. What are you claiming, here? I have read her posts. Can you quote even one sentence that supports your claim "she would love that idea"....??? Because some of us will not compromise our freedoms, so force will be used against us to protect the weak from offense. It is only censorship when there is a use of force or a use of force is implied. I am claiming that she wants to use the power of the state to enforce her sensibilities, to stop people from thinking and speaking in ways she doesn't like. If you don't see that, maybe you need to read a little closer. _____________________
I'm going to pick a fight
William Wallace, Braveheart “Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind” Douglas MacArthur FULL |
|
Amity Slade
Registered User
Join date: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 2,183
|
05-22-2009 16:56
The original post did not object to what was perceived to be pervasive depiction of violence against women because it may cause people to commit sex crimes. The objection was based on such depiction creating a hostile environment for women as a group. This is the same rationale behind prohibition of sexual harassment by creating a hostile work environment.
Words and art do influence societal and individual attitudes, which are in turn the basis of action. That's one of the reasons free speech is so important- speech has influence. But influence isn't causation. Before an image of an act to turn into an emulation of the act, it has to pass through an individual's free will. A source of authority is necessary to keep people from using their free will in such a way that people will destroy each other and society. But law in a free society- at least, just laws- wait to incarcerate people after they act on their free will and not before. Because without giving people a chance to do the right thing acting on their free will, there is no freedom. The surest way to prevent people from committing crimes is to not have people. Convince everyone in the world to drink cyanide-laced Kool-Aid, and the world's crime problems are solved. While speech does influence people, and thus bad speech and influence people to commit bad acts, truly free speech should recitify the problem by exposing people to other, counter-veiling viewpoints so that they can make the best choices. One source of speech may have a great impact on people's attitudes and actions if it were the only source available; but the more sources of speech that are available, the less impact any one has. And well-educated people are able to evaluate how true any act of speech rings for them. (Access to good education for everyone may be the single most effective cure for many social ills.) |
|
Desmond Shang
Guvnah of Caledon
Join date: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 5,250
|
05-22-2009 17:00
Quote: Originally Posted by Ponsonby Low: I'm just not seeing Talking Down and Lecture-Not-Discussion. ... I do appreciate that you took the time to reply. I note the irony that the two numbered reasons you gave me (in the post quoted above) for characterizing Scylla Rhiadra's posting as Talking Down and Lecture-Not-Discussion are both about something you'd said having been ignored...and yet you explain that being 'occupied' might prevent you, yourself, from responding rapidly. Possibly you pride yourself on responding to each sentence of a person's post. If so, that is good and fine. But I think 'talk down' and 'lecture-not-discuss' are inapproriate characterizations for someone who doesn't respond to each sentence. Particularly in light of the fact that you're talking about the thread originator, who, at that point, had more than 150 posts to which to respond. And for all we know, the OP, like you, may have been faced with other manner of things that might occupy time. In such circumstances, it seems to me, it would be more reasonable to make a second post saying 'I notice you didn't address this point and I'm really hoping for a response' than to immediately apply a label of 'talking down' and 'lecturing'. Is it possible that at the point you made your own post (the one that you felt wasn't responded to fully, thus inspiring the "talk down" characterization)...is it possible that at that point, S.R. was also 'occupied'; furthermore, isn't it possible that the fact that the thread had ten or more pages of posts might have contributed to S.R.s not making an individual comment on each and every sentence of your post? I know that's convoluted. I'm just saying that I think that labeling someone as Talking Down and as Lecturing-Not-Discussing, simply because you didn't get an individual response to each sentence of your post---in a thread so large as this---was not measured or fair. As you can see, I can't feel that a failure to respond individually to each and every sentence in someone's post, in so large a thread, qualifies as 'talking down' or 'lecturing.' Maybe you and I will just have to accept that we define 'talking down' and 'lecturing' differently. Oh, when I respond, I respond ~ I actually read the post and so forth. I just didn't know if I'd be able to make it back in here today. Major holiday approaching fast, and all that. Going line by line is a bit much and generally not necessary. I often find people use that as a technique to forcibly take people out of context. In other words, rather than taking on a decent ten sentence idea, it's easier to attack each fragment as if it stands by itself. Often it's a tactic used for grandstanding to the other readers. Which usually fails, as almost nobody else reads those things. And yeah, I do feel I had a fair, measured response. Insofar as I posted something which I believe was truly challenging to consider, and would reveal much about where all this was going. Yet, the soft targets were taken on; it's easier to angrily reply to all the "Hey! You Suck!" heckling and not reply to deeper issues. There was hope for an actual discussion until then in my mind, not a staged press conference where the questioners are picked in advance. Of course, it's true, it's utterly possible that she simply missed it. Regardless, that's the kind of thing that really sets a tone: discussion or lecture. We've done enough presupposing; let's allow her to reply. _____________________
 Steampunk Victorian, Well-Mannered Caledon! |
|
Rock Vacirca
riches to rags
Join date: 18 Oct 2006
Posts: 1,093
|
05-22-2009 17:01
What I object to is anyone, man or woman, limiting my freedoms and telling me they're only protecting me because I'm just a "vulnerable woman." I'll thank you and your kind NOT to protect me, Rock. I can protect myself, thank you very much. In SL, I have the TP button. In RL, I have concealed carry. Both are more than enough to deal with "some guy" who wants to try something because he "has seen it in a porno." I suggest you do some more research, however, into how often the viewing pornography is the primary motivator of criminal acts, not just an incidental component of the criminal's background. Just because you yourself do not feel vulnerable, that does not mean there are no vulnerable women out there. You only have to look at any of the video sites on the web to see girls being beaten into submission to become prostitutes, and the indignity of it being filmed on someone's cellphone, to know the kind of things that goes on. There was one particularly distressing piece of film that showed a girl, obviously an addict, and really strung out, being forced into the most depraved acts imaginable, before her handlers' would give her her next fix. I bet she was really comforted by the thought that you were OK though. From today's news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8063205.stm Do these girls and women (12-1  need protecting? Do they have only themselves to blame? Rock |
|
Whimsycallie Pegler
Registered User
Join date: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 1,003
|
05-22-2009 17:03
Just because you yourself do not feel vulnerable, that does not mean there are no vulnerable women out there. You only have to look at any of the video sites on the web to see girls being beaten into submission to become prostitutes, and the indignity of it being filmed on someone's cellphone, to know the kind of things that goes on. There was one particularly distressing piece of film that showed a girl, obviously an addict, and really strung out, being forced into the most depraved acts imaginable, before her handlers' would give her her next fixed. I bet she was really comforted by the thought that you were OK though. From today's news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8063205.stm Do these girls and women (12-1 need protecting? Do they have only themselves to blame? Rock Maybe drugs and poverty are a bigger problem there then porn? |
