Im no prude but...

It's not. I think it's totally offensive and it gives me the creeps. The problem is when you disallow it because it's offensive, which a few people seem to be advocating. If we started banning things because people found them offensive, we would have absolutely nothing left. Our freedoms would be so severely compromised that we might as well be dead.

Everything I do is offensive to someone. My job, obviously, but my hobbies: fishing - PETA hates it. Motorcycling: plenty of people hate it. Computer gaming...well, yeah. BTW, I'm divorced, so plenty of Christian groups would condemn me to hell, and I'm getting a tattoo next week, so I can't convert to a few other religions to avoid condemnation from mine.

I'm pretty hopeless, aren't I?

There's a difference between being offended by something and banning it because you don't like it, regardless of what others want. That's the narcissism of people like Bartlebus, who believe their opinion should be law because it is so much more righteous than the opinions of others.

BTW, Subversive - I'm not aiming any of this at you. I know you aren't like that; I've seen you post before. I'm just springboarding off the question you asked.

I'd be offended. The shop proprietor should put up a warning sign saying that "extremely violent/abusive animations" are displayed in the bed. If at that point someone clicks on the bed and cycles through it, they can't say they haven't been warned. It's like Two Girls One Cup. Everyone TELLS you not to do it, and you'll be scarred for life, but only you can Google it. At least you know ahead of time.

You're just trying to get people who haven't seen it curious enough to go google Two Girls One Cup. I see your trickery. It's the same trickery we used to get Astray to go google Dolcett. Now he's probably in therapy somewhere.

...

It was pretty funny, though, wasn't it?

Oh - and Smoke said the store, if it's the one he's thinking of, has warning signs all over the place.

Don't worry... It was just a question. *points at the question mark*... See? (^_^)y

I didnt see any warning signs...at all...there were a load of beds ...mixed in with other things.. a freebie section...hmm some boxed kisses and stuff..i was looking at beds in particular, but as most days,i was wandering about , exploring...im eternally curious.

But no..i saw no warning signs...it was pretty laggy there but im pretttty sure everything had rezzed for me...

It's also nobody's business to decide if it's acceptable or not.

When it comes to simulated images/writings/thoughts, everything is fine.

I know it depend of the country you live in but if a country start limiting what you can dream up i highly suggest you to leave it in a hurry.

Must be a different place then. I agree with Oryx and a few others who said there should have been some sort of warning that the bed contained graphically violent animations.

I have to admit, I lol'ed a little at the "Shot in the foot" dance, but I was picturing an old Don Knotts bit. He always really made me laugh hard.

Heh, I used to wear a /cake/ group tag up until SL5B when I decided to clean up a bit and put a better face forward. Proceed with caution, especially if you live anywhere in Europe. (^_^)y

I am not responsible for others, including minors and parents who don't supervise their children.
And my sexuality isn't open to argument its between those I involve, including animations I choose.
You choose to go on pose ball, there is chance you might see something you don't like.
Just avoid places like that.
I took someone somewhere I told them and over and over about this certain animation.
The person was all cool about it till they saw it and freaked out.
I warned them, they could said I am not interested before hand.
I am not responsible, I told them what exactly would happen before we used the animation and they stayed only left after the fact
They didn' say anything prior, and then they freaked out after being warned over and over again prior.
If they had issue they are adults they should have done something prior to fact if that would have bothered them.
I am sorry but you go to places like that you might see stuff offensive.

It always amuses me in discussion forums when such overt supporters of the 1st amendment then go on to speak in a manner that indicates that it only protects those not suspected of being a "Troll".

But I guess, as so regularly stated, the bill of rights only protects Americans.. and suspected Trolls are obviously .. well from Troll.

It's interesting that a lawyer doesn't recognise the very well publicised and recognised tensions in providing "children" with protection, while maintaining the freedoms enumerated by the bill of rights.

I'm not a lawyer, but I read the papers and know that even as recently as May of this year the Supreme Court wrestled yet again (albeit it unsuccessfully) with this very issue.

Little did they realise that they need only avail themselves of the wisdom of that excellent Jurist and Constitutional expert Trout Recreant, in order to set the matter to rest.

Are you referring to the agenda to block pronz from public library computers? In what way was that unsuccessful? The 1st Amendment prevailed. (^_^)

/me is a 1st Amendment fanatic too. (^_^)y

I think there's more truth in this than you probably intended.

I am positive there are a lot of people, including many in government who wish there was no 1st amendment.

And because those sort of people its imperative we have it and it be rigorously enforced.

A the voice which recognises no nuance..

I was always under the impression that we're talking about a working document.. otherwise how the hell did amendments 11 to 27 get in there?

If nothing else, and argument about the arbitrary benchmark aside, surely the presence of the 26th Amendment indicates that someone somewhere recognises "children" as a community for which special conditions need apply.

Fortunately, there's enough description on the Wikipedia that I don't actually have to watch the video. I'm grateful for that.

Lowering the voting Age from 21 to 18 is recognizing children as a community for which special conditions need apply?

Maybe you should explain your logic on this one.

Really...?

If there were no signs then it definitely was not the same place. The way you described it in your first post with the animation names and all are the exact titles of the animations made by this particular place, who do make their own animations. Maybe they have satellite stores set up in other areas that lack the signs their main store does, or maybe someone just copied the animation names and it's an entirely different product.

The first Amendment was intended to be our protection from the Tyranny of the government -

It is definitely more important than setting up the internet so that parents can use it as a babysitter.

If the fact that citizens under the age of 18 are stripped of a very important "democratic right" doesn't indicate that we think they should be treated differently.. what does?

Really.

Much of what Congress attempts to legislate for the sake of the children tends to try and pick up the slack for their parents' lack of interest in what they are doing on the computer.

Lol.. ok well I'll bow to what obviously passes for the moral and intellectual high ground in these parts.

Thanks for the discussion this afternoon.

B

Please point out where I said it didn't apply to you. If you are in the US, you have the protection of the First Amendment. That doesn't mean you aren't completely wrong. It just means you can say what you please without the government telling you to stop. It doesn't stop me from calling you a troll when you are obviously trolling.

Insulting my professional credentials is a sure sign of someone who cannot form a coherent argument of their own. Personal attacks are red herrings - they fail to address the issues. If you haven't got the ability to defend your position, you should have chosen a defensible position. As for the Supreme Court, it has never held that the users of an internet platform are responsible for policing that platform, nor has it infringed on the rights of people to say and do as they please within reasonable standards. those standards do not even come close to banning the type of content that this bed represents. In fact, there is significantly more offensive content available both in SL and elsewhere on the web, and the age protections on that content are not significantly greater.

Feel free to cite the cases you are referring to, though. Or, if you can't, feel free to insult me personally some more. I'm convinced I'm a pretty awful human being, so you are actually going to have to do some work to hurt me. Snotty comments about my professional competence just aren't going to cut it.

What are you talking about? the Amendment was about lowering the Age from 21 to 18.

It wasn't an Amendment to strip the right to vote from people under 18.

People under 18 could never vote.


Who the heck is arguing the fact that kids do not need supervision. Were just arguing over who the hell should be doing it.

Do not want the government raising my kids, thanks.

Come on, by this time shouldn't the identity of the poster "B" be obvious to us all?