Suicide Girls using Linden Labs to promote their product.

"admit"???

Is there some guilt in being Christian or expectation of persecution in what is arguably a "Christian country" (and even world order, by virtue of the fact that the only super-power remaining is unabashedly a "Christian" nation led by a "born-again Christian" who arguably won his election through the support of the "conservative Christian base"? I sense delusions of persecution in that comment which are not in keeping with the facts. This is not ancient Rome and Christians aren't being led to slaughter.

My family has very close ties to the church. But by the same token, we're very aware that people can claim to be many things, and not behave in a manner that supports those claims.

Intolerance is not Christian afaic. Understanding and forgiveness and a willingness to embrace even the "lowest common denominator" are Christian values. Consequently, because of my belief, attacking intolerance in all its ugly self-righteousness, is not an attack on a religion, but on an individual making questionable claims and using a religion as a shield. There was NEVER any reason to "admit" anything.

This in no way excuses any blatant disregard for the ToS, however, one should fairly assess the truth of the matter before jumping to the defense of those themselves exhibiting questionable behavior.

You confused me here. I agreed with you about the "go fuck yourself", but that was done by one person, not a group of people.

As far as your Muslim example, yes I understand that different definitions of morality exist throughout the world. I don't have a problem with that. This is what I have a problem with.

Islamic SL member: Cat is a whore because she talks to men and shows her arms and legs in public.

I don't care what your religious beliefs are, that is a personal attack to call someone a whore, yes?

Lewis called these women professional hookers. I don't care if he is Christian, Islamic, or worships the third moon of Pluto, expressing your opinion that someone is a whore, even based upon your religious beliefs, is a personal attack against them. That is what I am talking about, and what you seem to be ignoring.

Additionally, he said they have no morals at all, and that these are not the type of people that should be in SL. How can you stand up against personal attacks and claim we need to talk about the issues, not the individuals, and just gloss over that Cat? That was the entire argument against him - not that he disapproved of the site choice or that he is Christian.

PS - his being Christian and using his position as greeter to spread Christianity is a valid issue. However, there was no evidence he was doing that - though he did state it was his reason for being in SL. You know you would be outraged if someone were using their position as greeter to take people to their friend's businesses, or sell products to them. That is no different. As a greeter of SL, it is your job to represent SL - not your own personal beliefs, businesses, or agenda.

Lets change that to "disclosed" I think that would be a better term for this purpose. As I read the threads it seemed to me he was jumped on after disclosing his reasons for his posts.

I realy do not wish to get into a religious debate on the LL forums.

Cat

In all the threads about SG Martin, I saw him jumped on for trying to impose his own morals on the whole of SL. Wouldn't you agree live and let live is better way to deal with SL? It's not like the SGs are setting up house next door to him.

That's what has made me laugh about all of the threads. SL is certainly big enough for one and all. If you don't like what someone MAY represent you really don't have to see it if you don't want to. That is my philosophy. The uproar has been hilarious to me and I'm sure to the SGs also if they haven't left because of it. That would be a shame IMO.

Simple question then: Why would anyone feel a need to voluntarily disclose that information? Nobody asked as far as I can remember. From my recollection, he made the information public while effectively laying claim to Mr. SL Morality Spokesperson of the Year and passing Judgement on everyone not in agreement with his own point of view on this matter. Assuming I'm incorrect, why did he disclose this at all? Why was it necessary to even bring religion into this in the FIRST place???

I do so love how you make me think

Oh boy I realy don't want to go into what I realy think here. What is a whore? I guess it would be an attack depending on what your definition of whore is. My definition could be showing an arm or a leg. Or it could be being paid to show her nude body. Or it could be selling her self in rl for money. It depends on what the definition is to the individual.

As I read the other posters belief was that these woman were associated with a porn site, sold their nude pictures and sex videos for cash. There by making them professional hookers in his belief system.

Who am I to question anyones religious beliefs.

---

I don't think there was any reason what so ever to call into question his volunteer status with LL as it had nothing to do with the topic at hand. If we call his beliefs into question then we MUST call into question every volunteers belief systems. We cannot single out ppl. Without calling ourselves into question.

---

I may not agree with everything he said but I think he has a right to speak without personal prosicution based on his belief system.

---

I would like to leave this discuscusion at that, as we are gettng into uncomfortable teritory that I am not comfortable with.

Cat

Yes I do think there is room for everyone in SL. Live and let live, of course.

I realy don't know why anyone would voluntarily give that information. I certainly would try and avoid it. But I'm not him so I cannot answer for him. But it was done and I gave my 2L$ on the subject.

Cat

Except that he was doing exactly that: singling out people and inferring that there was some "logical" clandestine purpose (the "project" to their being here in SL. He clearly indicated his alarm over this. And by virtue of his alarm, a reciprocal alarm was caused by applying the same "logic" to his inferred reason for being in SL (worse actually, at least the SG members are easily identifiable).

It's the old "Judge not, lest ye be judged" thing.



"belief system"? If you're referring to his religion, please point out where that was attacked. If you're referring to a generic system, please explain how his intolerance fits with the Community Standards. Thank you.

The discussion seems to be straying off topic, from Suicide Girls in Second Life to religion. Let's get back on-topic or move the conversation to the off-topic forum. Thanks.

Csven; I am realy not comfortable fighting other ppl's battles for them. I have done my very best to explain my thoughts, feeling, opinions on these subjects. I have said I don't agree with everything he said. I guess it comes down to group vs individual. But in the fourms calling either out on the forums are against the tos. I don't think anyone is completly without some blame here, just some went way too far imo. For all the wrong reasons, again imo. Your asking me questions that I don't have a right to answer as it's not my belief system called into question it's his. I would no more speak for him than I would for you. Please understand.

Cat/Mar

OK How many ppl does it take to get a special group name and a special deal on subscriptions?

How big does the web community need to be?



Cat

On this we completely agree.

The question I posed had nothing to do with him. It had to do with your comment "I think he has a right to speak without personal prosicution based on his belief system."

I was asking you to clarify what YOU meant. You apparently believe he was persecuted because of his "belief system". I was asking only that you clarify what you're saying. If you'd rather not clarify your comment, that's fine. I can understand your reluctance.

As for staying closer to the topic: Who will be the next web-based community promoting their product using SL? and will it cause a similar outcry?

Just wondering - since when has there been any attempt to keep people on the topic the threadstarter intended the thread to be about?

People do things like display pictures of animals having sex in a discussion of changes to the group system and they don't get moved, or edited, or cause a thread to get moved to a different forum.

The expression by a threadstarter of a desire to keep a thread on the thread's topic has been denounced as an improper attempt to micro-manage the content of threads.

Folks make off-the-thread's topic replies about things like pecan pie versus key lime all the time. Nothing much gets done about that.

I'm not objecting to the idea that being respectful to the threadstarter's intention is a good thing, it just seems a bit odd to hear it brought up.

Given that this thread was a joke anyway, what is the topic? Do people have to respond with parodies of replies? Or could they offer other parodies, like Weird Al lyrics?

Actually a personal attack is against a named individual - not a group.

If you have a problem with a group generally, and don't single out one individual for criticism, as far as I understand most forums that I post on allow that kind of thing to pass.

ie......
"I don't like Christians" - ok
"I don't like Lewis becase he's a Christian" - not OK.

I would post more but my cable is out and I'm on a 56k dialup backup connection..... somewhat painful when you're used to 8mb.

Lewis

So what?

What did I mean by ""I think he has a right to speak without personal prosicution based on his belief system.""

whoops typo queen strikes again!

"I think he has a right to speak without personal prosecution based on his belief system."

I don't think anyone should be singled out in the LL fourms, based on their religious beliefs. Reguardless of the reasons, I just think its wrong.

Very well said, I have been sitting here scratching my head thinking "what topic?" myself.

Cat

Well Lewis that's an inconsistancy here. Depends on who is questioning what, it appears. Some ppl can question groups others cant. Some ppl can question indivduals others can't. Depends on who is doing the posting, apparently. And who's doing the moding.

Dial up yikes.

Cat

Indeed....... wanted to show my friends my new water feature I installed this morning before the net went down - apparently it's a major fault and most of London is without broadband.

Oh well.... if you know me - or are even the slightest bit curious - follow the directions below and have a look at the water.

Lewis

hey I liked the waterfall Lewis very pretty and fits in well with your theme

Cat

ps I threw a load of wash in I hope you dont mind l lol love the kitchen.

When you are talking vaguely about a group of people ("Right wing Christians", "women", "gay truckdrivers", "Venezuelan strippers", making a blanket statement about the group is not an attack on the individual ("Venezuelan strippers have loose morals but they have nice asses". However, when you are speaking about a finite group of people that is clearly defined by the group members (Bedazzle, the Suicide Girls) and you make a statement about them ("The Suicide Girls are professional hookers" - it is not a general attack against a vague group of people - it is an attack on the women in this specific group. That is where some of the difference in enforcement regarding group comments come from. You can make a personal attack against a group - it completely depends what context you are speaking in.

I never ever get tired of your brilliant posts, Suezanne

Yup that's true too. I have learned from personal experience that its best to write once, check it twice, sometimes sleep on it, then post it. Makes life much easier than posting knee jerk reactions to things we might regret we said.

I for one do regret making a statement about Bedazzle long ago. I was wrong then.

"I do apologize to the Bedazzle team."

Cat