Tolerance & Morality - what what what?

I'd say that's largely because most sexual issues are choice-related, whereas race and arguably religion are not.


However, you're getting caught up in a legal term. "Community Standards" is essentially a document that outlines the rules of the game, not an actual moral guidebook. If it were to come up in a courtroom, they would be treated as such. The rules were designed only with the success of the business in mind.

Some people are morally opposed to "no shirt, no shoes, no service" but they have to live with it in order to do business with those companies. SL is not at all bound to any standards by which we would either hold our government accountable for or any other aspect of deigning a government. That's where I say you're deluding yourself.

Rape is a sexual issue that is not choice related and so is child molestation.

I disagree also that SL is not at all bound to any standards-- it falls under all laws subject to its jurisdiction.

I think I read someone else stating that the childplay stuff falls under the child protection act that is currently in place so it is just a matter of enforcement really.

Absolutely, you are right but, I think Lindens remove swastikas if they appear on people's plots in SL don't they? I could be wrong about that.

We all know it's all fake, so then why the blurb in the TOS about intolerance? And where do you draw the line and how do you decide what is intolerable and what isn't? I think it's a very interesting question.

The ageplay stuff is protected by a clause in that act from 2003 you're referring to, stating that the image must be indistinguishable from an actual child. Considering even with a photorealistic skin that is impossible in SL (since it's obviously happening in SL), there's no legal foundation requiring ageplay to be banned. We did this to death already with someone who was much better at arguing a point than you have been. And the Lindens have made their stance clear as well.

However, starting up a porn shop of photorealistic characters from SL using photoshopped backgrounds COULD be a violation of the PROTECT document from 2003.


And real rape is not a sexual issue. It's a civic disorder and control issue. Sex just happens to be the outlet of it.

Actually, by attempting to address it, you pointed something out. It's against the law for someone to force someone else to have sex. Because this is harmful, a health matter involving protection of the populace. Same with child molestation. Even if they were morally acceptable to most, they would be societally destructive and would still need to be forbidden.

Still no moral foundation.

Exactly...

and if they decided they simply couldn't then state that but instead, the Lindens did put a mark up and stated that this is not okay anywhere, but everything else is okay in the privacy of your own... pixels?

I think it's the line between reality and virtual reality we're addressing now. Punching someone's character can be part of the game, but if you were able to reach through a screen and beat the hell out of them IRL, that'd be an issue.

Swastikas and other propoganda have that exact effect to the psyche. Their presence communicates that an entire community is unwelcome as a customer, because they alienate them by allowing symbols of hatred toward their race or religion.

Ageplay, however, is something you can very easily avoid because the Lindens have stated that it is to remain behind closed doors or in places where it is openly warned it is practiced. I'm sure if you stuck a copy of "Mein Kampf" as a script and put it inside a book prim on your bookshelf, noone would care either.

It's only when you make something a problem for others that you become a problem yourself. This is the spirit in which LL was driving that point.

Well, in regard to skins now, yes they are not quite there. Give that about 2 years and you'll be able to screw your own very realistic grandma if you want to.

Rape is not lovemaking, but I guarantee sex is involved.

Images of defecation and fisting are against the law in most communities and there is no "victim" being harmed in these cases. (Altho that's gotta hurt!)

I'm going to remove my post, since the thread is apparently about something rather different from what I was talking about.

coco

I think, when it comes down to it Coco, the material stays because more would be lost to LL by removing it than by keeping it. Most of the proponents of ageplay on this forum have never experienced it and never will, and that says volumes.

If ya don't wanna see it, don't look.

Well, Corvus, I see you replied to my post before I removed it. I removed it because it was more about the forum application of those so-called guidelines than the in-game stuff you are talking about, in addition to the fact that it seems like a thinner link between that portion of the guidelines and consentual age-play.

But I would point out that, regarding derogatory and demaning language about women, for example, and the coarse and aggressive sexist assaults that occur on these forums, your advice that I should just "not look" if I don't like it essentially means, "leave the forums."

Which is a lousy bit of advice.

The forums should be a place where people of all genders, ethnicities, etc., should be able to participate without assaults to their dignity.

I believe more is lost to LL from allowing this than would be lost by editing them out and protecting us from such intolerance.

I can only hope some day they might actually start doing it.

coco

I wasn't referring to the forums themselves, I was referring to activities within the game.

On the forums, we agree.

Oh, ok. In the game, it's very easy for me to avoid anything I don't want to be around. And when people come to my lot dressed as giant pink penises, or whatever, well, that doesn't bother me anyway.

coco

Centralized control, by its very nature, puts tremendous power into the hands of a few people; people who will not always have your best interests in mind. You should never want a central body to decide on morals for the simple reason that you do not want someone like me controlling something with such a profound effect on your life and wellbeing. In such a situation, where could you turn? You would be trapped by your own shortsightedness into either accepting things as they are or completely tearing down the entire system on which morals are based.

Central bodies should be allowed only to criminalize those acts that cause harm to others. Killing, rape and theft all do others harm and are thus crimes. Thought, no matter how abhorrent, does not and thus should never be. If you fear the potential of harm it is incumbent that you protect yourself and in a manner that does others no harm.

Being lawful does not make something moral. Being illegal does not make it immoral. Do not so easily confuse the two. Laws are for the government. Morals are for individuals.

You're thinking of ethics when you describe the decisions of an individual. Morals are (to a greater or lesser degree) agreed upon standards of behavior. And when a moral is important enough or agreed-upon enough (like not committing murder) it tends to get written into law.

Morals get shuffled by different people as to their importance. Some people think freedom of expression is a more important moral than sexual purity. Some think it's the other way around. Either way, they are agreements of a group and the power of that group is what decides whether they become law.

Morality also covers those things pretty much everyone agrees on, not just the ones specific to a particular religious or political group.

I didn't bother to read this thread. I just wanted to take a moment and let everyone know.

I have no tolerance for morals.

Oh, so you aren't really interested in the discourse, you just have an agenda to push, and there's an obvious "correct" answer.

Good. Another thread I can ignore.

Yeah, this is exactly why I stepped back from it.

That and his association with the other one who was pushing an agenda all last night and today.

I just want balloon animals made out of meat.

I totally agree. Ignore anyone who has any thoughts on important issues.

Good call!

How about 'ignore people with an obvious axe to grind, who are clearly unwilling or unable to offer logical, sensible, and open discourse on that subject'?

Now, about my balloon animals...

While I'm not a moral expert of any kind, as an experiential empiricist, there is one area of the website stating LL's vision for the community of Second Life. It is as follows:
Source

Where is the part about supporting a mature adults right to create a safe and focused environment to explore the fantasy of child molestation?

Oh that's right it isn't formally sanctioned, just tolerated.

... for a second there, I thought you said you were an experimental imperialist...

Yeah. Time for me to go to sleep.

no... she's just like everyone else...