CNET article on SL Age Play

Posted earlier today, didn't see it pop up when I searched for "Cnet" so here it is.

http://news.com.com/Phony%20kids%2C%20virtual%20sex/2100-1043_3-6060132.html

I find it interesting that they actually interviewed a constitutional law professor at yale. ""It would not be (illegal) under child pornography laws because no actual child was used in the act,""

So, summing up... person throws tizzy, contacts news media, news media investigates, says "Creepy, but nothing wrong here".

In the words of my hero...

Excellent, well-written, and well-balanced little article.

coco

That is what many of us said from the beginning of this non issue but we aren't all Yale professors.

Of course, we all know that by not explicitly condemning it, the prof is probably a closet pedophile.

Or at least if you used the logic of a certain vocal, oft-incoherent minority who seek offense where none exists.

Fortunately most people posting to this forum seem to have a firmer grip on reality than that.





(That first sentence of my reply was sarcastic, for those using imperfect browsers like IE without the appropriate plugin. )

Ya, and Yale law professors stated that Dred Scott v. Sanford gave a constitutional mandate to slavery until most of them changed their minds in 1860. Later, Yale law professors stated that Plessy v. Ferguson gave a constitutional mandate to racial discrimination, until most of them changed their minds in the 1930's and started saying "yes, but... " instead. Don't get fixated on authority.

Laws are mutable and interpretations of existing law change radically, often in just a few years. Whatever the rightness or wrongness of an issue, a Yale law professor isn't an argument-ender.

I'm sowwy, Daddy.

ive not been trying to debate this subject, i find it silly but here i am

1 i didnt find the article verry rounded



wow frequently for less than a week, where was the cnet article on the bush guy? that garbage lasted for months



when? since the time ive been here its been brought up once in a threadstorm and its not come back till this article



ok SL claims 170,000 players in the article and C-Net could only dig up 2, wow theres some coughed up sensationalst bull, here is a big stink but we could only find 2 ppl to comment on it... BAH



cornfiller, this is such a non issue they had to find someone else to make up another half page.

Besides, congrats, you got some major attention now expect a flood of age play ppl to sign up, after all, the squeaky wheel gets the freaks =(

2


altho you do bring up some very valid points, i would take the opinion of a yale law professor anyday over a busybody

A random samplng is the call here, and since you can`t make all people happy outside the sampling. you need some measure of indications........IN my rl i done studies and you have to have some idea or measure. Nothing is perfect and sampling is just a mesure of views and or outcomes. But what can we measure to the highest possible correct outcome? well we could ask False sighting of childage play observers?. These I doubt would do any good..........Hence You need people that have had some contact. Otherwise the sampling you take is Misgiving and totally throwoff the basis of the out ome. You have many levels of sampling..........simple to very complex. In this (Daniel Terdiman) case he knows what values are impotant and to whom to ask for his sources.
I believe he did a fair and unbasis sampling. HE made sure what his goal was to be without aiming the topic in tight minded basis outcome.

Usagi

to me it made sound like this is a raging war using splash terms like constantly and buzzing

and 2 out of 170,000 is not anywhere close to a sample its hardly a percentage

Well perhaps now the fucktard who was spamming the forums on this subject will get a clue considering much of that article was a rerun of what we've all been trying to beat through its thick skull.

I wasn't that impressed with the article. Two sources, only one named... neither of which has witnessed first-hand child-adult sexual ageplay. Standing around looking sexy and childish isn't enough. Hmmm... can you say mountain out of a molehill?

That said, the article could have been much worse.

I know the non sexual ageplayer groups were contacted, but I like most of my fellow group members, after seeing the brick wall we talked to in the forums, decided to not be interviewed.

Personally I have only seen one adult child having sex, and that ended up with a ban on the property.

Becky

Well os at times sampling does seem like so. But how else can they do a measure of the people? well I seen worse sampling and this one seemed alittle more fair and thought. They way he conducted this interview was pro and done in a way that did not make the out come int the favorable outcome.

Lets be fair Oz, (2 out of 170,000) as i said in my last post he could have taken people other untrue remarks and used . But he did not. I am sorry but as i said you can`t please people outside the sampling range. Thats life in the sampling of people in measure of issues. Anyone can say a NEG remark like this in a sampling like you have. Unless you know the way to do complex issues in doing a proper sampling which shows a fair and unbasis outcome good luck!............This is not a radio talkshow host that makesup outcomes to please his fans. You have to pare it down and say well..........AM I better then the poll taker> I doubt so.....

well 2 ppl in this thread wernt impressed, so that is the entire vibe isnt it

either way im not gonna go on and on and on, ive got lindens to bitch about somewhere

well Oz, you can cut it short and say well i right and that all.......but really poll taking is deep and hard to be fair about at times.. as for the lindens LOL no remark from moi

Awww, I took the happy ignorance out of your play. What a bad person I am....

It's an article, and a SHORT article, and the guy did say that no one had been found who had actually seen this age play going on.

Plus, since I have been in SL, I have thought of the age play thing as an issue that comes up every so often. Perhaps he made it sound like we talk about it more than we do, but I do think of it as a sort of perennial issue.

coco

ummmmm thisis alittle strange because he was told that there was.....Oh well

very good article!

The article wasn't bad, could have been a lot worse given the subject matter...

Amazing how there's so little evidence presented of sexual age play taking place given that this is such a 'big' problems that is discussed 'endlessly' on the forums. Pitchforks and torches anyone? I'll meet y'all at the lynching tree!

The final section related to potential sanctions etc. was troubling. I would not want to see LL impose some kind of rule banning child avs or restricting the options we have at the moment because of some moral panic on the back of not much evidence at all. (Just for the record I don't have a child av, don't want to play one and I find them slightly creepy. That said, I don't want to restrict other's rights to role play kids just because I don't get it).

The more I see of this debate, the more I feel the motive of the original posters was not so much to complain about something they thought was objectionable, but was simply to cause damage to Second Life. If I discovered that they had been employed by another virtual world for this purpose it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

I am just thankful that so far the damage they have caused has been limited.

LOL omg your so funny!

I suspected a lot of posters here to work for the "avatar child porn" industrie.

hehehe

That's a revolting suggestion. You should withdraw it.

As revolting as your suggestion that the people that asked the questions are working for other companies?

For the people that know better: ofcourse this was just a sarcastic remark..

You know I love you all!!

Oh god, here we go again.

There isn't even any such thing as the "av child porn industry".