a Newbie with a Kid avvie

No...not the same one mentioned earlier here. This one was selling some of the romantic japanese art the original poster spoke of....wasn't up long and I don't remember the name....there was another that supposedly got banned for something similar but I don't really know the story on that one.

type less, read more; the upside is you'll understand more stuff, but the downside is your have to find something else to do with your fingers.

Robin posted several pages ago that there is a difference between PUBLIC and PRIVATE displays, under the TOS 'broadly offensive' clause.

You also might want to take a class that explains timespace to you, you're arguing from your conclusion backwards rather than toward a conclusion.

Weee!

------can I have the money!!? i've only posted at the thought of cash

-----This isn't a fantasy in someones head, it's acted out using photorealistic textures in a 3d environment and you are able to take quite realistic screenshots (look in the images thread), so.....

National Crime Intelligence Service

http://www.ncis.co.uk/ukta/2003/threat09.asp

"Some are obsessive collectors and keep detailed diaries and pictures of children and catalogue their activities and fantasies."

"Some experts believe that viewing images of child abuse allows offenders to normalise their sexual feelings and break down any barriers of guilt and fear which prevent them from physically offending. "
-----------------
"All the child sex abusers in one treatment unit had used some type of pornography "

---the pose balls are a 'type' of pornography
Rosenberg, citing Wall from http://www.icasa.org/uploads/pornography.pdf


Marshall (2000) states that it is possible to “infer from the available literature that pornography exposure may influence … the development of sexual offending in some men”.

from Marshall, W.L. (2000) Revisiting the use of pornography by sexual offenders: Implications for theory and practice. The Journal of Sexual Aggression Vol 6 (1/2) Whiting & Birch

more evidence can be seen in....
Marshall, W.L., (198 “The Use of Sexually Explicit Stimuli by Rapists, Child Molesters and Non-offenders” The Journal of Sex Research Vol.25 (2) 267-288

I would call the pose ball sexually explicit.
I could go on and on *but* you did say any.

We'll have to split the cash. I my posted my links first!

Unfortunately for you you can't comprehend what what was being discussed. It wasn't a point of public or private ....someone mentioned this type of japanese art can be " cute ". The conclusion has always been the same.

you know, I really did resolve to be less cynical this year, for new year's, but you're making it very difficult.

You made a snide comment regarding a banning. You ignored the post that would explain how that was a different issue. Then I pointed it out to you, and you ignored that.

M&Ms are good. That could be a hobby.

Read the part in red.

Neither Ingrid nor Bubbles are even CLOSE to proving such a thing.

And Talen? You seriously protest too much. Not that I expect you'll get the meaning behind the Shakespearean reference, but that's ok. Someone else here might.

It wasn't a seperate issue from what the other poster wrote and I respnded to. I read and understood Robins statement. What I haven't understood and still don't is how so many people find this particular type of Japanese anime " romantic" and or "cute". I never brought this into the discussion the original poster did by referencing it then later saying they enjoy it.

My remark was snide ....with good reason, but it wasn't directed at you.

They act out fantasies using images of child sex........ yes? 3D IMAGES

SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!

The inference was that they were banned for the images, when in fact they were banned for the images being displayed in a _public_ place. It's a sloppy and rather lazy argument, a bit of a slow underhanded pitch, you could do much better!

And I know it wasn't directed at me, I just get bent at poorly focused snideness

Yes I do And I'll continue to protest asshats that find sexualizing children in any form acceptable. You can argue all you want that it's censorship, thought control, or whatever theory you have. Art that depicts adults with children in sexual situations is SICK....people that fantasize and roleplay situations about children in sexual situations is SICK. The thing I find interesting is how many people are up in arms over my stance on the matter.

Nice try to insult my intelligence but I'm quite well read and I understand the quote...I even know it was from Hamlet....Act 3 I believe.

Talen and others:

Look.... if you guys think the arguments against you are about sex with children, then perhaps we aren't making ourselves clear enough. No one thinks child molestation is a good thing. That isn't what we are saying.

What we are saying is that what YOU are saying amounts to a witch hunt. You can't punish people for what they think, because we don't control our thoughts, we just experience them. Additially, even if I DO want all my fantasies to come true.... like chopping my boss into tiny pieces with a spoon, we still know better. I'm not a criminal even if I would -really- like to do bad things.

I wish to make 2 points:

First, we can talk about how offensive this is all night. But when all is said and done, if we punish people for THIS thing that some find offensive, then we can punish people for thoughts that other people find offensive. Before long, one of your thoughts is gonna end up on the forbidden list. (Cuz believe me, you are a nut! ) The world would not be a better place if we did this, regardless of the intentions.

Second, It's -way- to easy to end up on a sex offender registry (especially if you are a man), because if you think a 17 year old is attractive, you are not a pervert. But you might be a sex offender.

All that said, if you don't like people who think naughty thoughts, you are still free to not associate with them. And no one can make you.

Mike Zidan just summed this up so well that I'm going to have find another thread to get lathered up about.

Thanks a lot, Mike :/

Acting out fantasies of child rape is akin to, or a few steps worse than simply viewing child porn. The link is there.

I understand what you're saying but thats not how this whole ball of wax was presented by the original poster. Things in as many pages have been blurred greatly. When someone comes into the forums to ask about roleplaying a child av having sex and in the same breath says I don't care what you really think because I'll do it anyway and then supports their position on the matter stating that" Japanese anime depicting men with boys is romantic literature" and then a few posts later says " I enjoy it as well".

Thats not mind police....or condemning someone for their thoughts....I went for the jugular on those points.

Prove it. With facts, not suppositions.



AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

AHAHAHAHA!

Oh dear LORD! You just walked right into that one.

Hell, you stood up and had a spotlight shown on you so I could hit you better.

You seriously have no CLUE what the quote actually means, do you?

When someone protests -too- much, it means they come off as actually sounding like they mean the opposite of what they're saying. Much like a homosexual guy that beats up guys for suspecting they're homosexual because he can't deal with the fact that he himself likes guys.

So you -do- protest too much then? K. Thought as much. (HAH! *snerk*)

First of all, "experts say" and "some experts believe" are not reputable research or statistics.

Second, trafficking child pornography is NOT the same as acting out fantasies with other adults. If you think that downloading, trading, buying, and even creating REAL images of REAL children being REALLY exploited is on par with -- or not as bad as!? -- two adults acting out a fantasy... I don't know. My mind is blown.

Third, saying that some number of people who do some activity also do some other activity does not prove that they are more likely to do the second activity because they did the first. What percentage of child molestors drink water? I bet it's pretty high. It can suggest a link -- maybe -- but it is far from proof.

Fourth, "it is possible to infer" and "may influence" make me wonder if you know what the word "conclusive" means.

Finally, all this and the talk of splitting the cash makes me wonder if you read my post at all.

Here it is again, with the important parts bolded:

I'll give L$5000 to the first person to show me any reputable research or statistics which conclusively prove that people who act out fantasies with other consenting adults in private are more likely to molest, rape, or otherwise abuse children. I've seen arguments presented in this thread which hinge on this, and at least one person has asserted that it is true, so someone should be able to prove it, right?

Glad the subject makes you laugh....I knew what you meant and where you were going with it... but unlike you and others that have posted to this thread I'm quite secure in my sexuality so it made no difference to me...unlike you who finds this bullshit tolerable or at at best doesn't have the balls to stand up to it ...I don't find it tolerable and I have the balls to speak out against it.

Perhaps you aren't as smart as you think you are....you only served to make yourself look like an ass....not me.


So basically someone reading your arguements can only surmise that you don't care or you like it....so which is it?

Roleplaying child sex between consenting adults is worse than viewing pornographic images featuring real children? Wow..think I'm gonna have to disagree with that.

Yes..... >_>
So, we should better set up porn studio where we film children in sexual situation quick ; then we can give the videos in the hope to distract the bad people from roleplaying fantasies in an online game.

Seriously, I hope you didn't meant what you wrote or fumbled and failed to convey what you really meant. Because otherwise you would be the sick person here.

The discussion has moved away from Second Life and SL concerns. I'm going to shift the thread to off-topic for those of you who want to continue to debate this issue.

It's clear that folks still equivocate non-factual rping to factual immoral acts.

It's time to turn in our guns in SL, they're making us kill folks in real life!!!

Turn in your thong panties and dildos, it makes people in real life want to do it in public!

And turn in anything and everything that may be just you acting out something that IS NOT REAL but may have a parallel to real life because it may 'offend' someone.

I really wonder if folks are thinking this logic to its consequence.

If I'm offended by open displays of Christianity in SL because there is an obvious parallel between that and say the 700 Club does that mean it's wrong for the SL user to have a church and meetings in SL for xians only, and on top of that to be open about it? The answer is NO. And I'm an atheist Objectivist!

If I'm offended by someone for making a female avatar with big breasts, stiletto heels and repeatly says sexually suggestive things in a Mature rated sim shouldn't I have the right to have a Linden ban that user? NO.

And why no on each of these concocted cases? Because neither has each user harmed anyone or violated TOS. Now if Zoe's avie violates TOS that's another issue. But if it doesn't violate morality then it's still not immoral. LL can ban all displays of Christianity if they wished to do so on their service (It's private therefore they OWN SL and can tell anyone to leave even after paying.). But the argument isn't with LL it's with the users that mistake the concept of roleplay with actual acts of immorality.

If acts of roleplay are equally immoral as actual acts of immorality, then I guess I best turn in all my horror flicks and action movies [Bye bye Total Recall and Vampire flicks]. The fact is that something that is roleplayed isn't equivocal to the actual act. A simulation isn't equal to a non-simulation if we accept that Nature is objective.

So until someone invalidates this position I can be very happy in the fact that I can play a weirdo bisexual pre-teen girl that ganks people with a chainsaw in SL.

-- Bridget can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. =)

'possible to infer' and 'may influence' is the best you get in psychology. YOU prove that adults acting out fantasies using explict images of children having sex with each other do not make them predisposed to molesting children.

Spliting the cash was joke, we know you have no intention of paying out! Are just posting your revolting defense of these people for a joke? If not save the money to further your own collection of harmless fun.

Wait a fekking second now. Two things you put here really disturb me.

1) This guy is offereing a reward for anybody who can present him with data to back a claim. You're response is "prove that it doesn't" ----Please tell me you're a science teacher.

2) It's revolting to defend somebody? Please, please tell me you don't know how to register to vote.

You just really, really frightened me.

It just insults my sensibilities when folks want to manipulate others in a virtual environment. I swear some folks are psychologizers or second-handers. Bleh!

Where's a Howard Roark when you need one!?

-- Bridget