Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Leia36

Child AVs and ToS

Recommended Posts


Solar Legion wrote:

This is not only very well said Perrie but it is a far more polite way to say what I have
been
saying for years in regard to the divide between the world of RP and Reality.

The long and short answer is - of course - 
No one has the right to dictate acceptable RP scenarios to anyone they are not directly engaged in 'playing' with.
I lost track of the number of times (in SL and prior to it, in public chat rooms made for RP) I ran across a scenario being played out that pushed my squick buttons. In the case of the old chats, I just used the Ignore features and contiued to play. Never bothered to give them any further thought no matter what had been going on (and yes, that includes scenarios which would net a visit from law enforcement these days). When it comes to SL, at the time I was running into these scenarios (back when I actually bothered to explore the grid) I either pretended they were not there .... or I teleported out.

Honestly, I firmly believe that there should be 
no
restrictions on allowed RP 
anywhere
. My reasoning is simple enough: Anyone who would take the step beyond questionable RP and actually engage in some of those acts in real life .... They'll do so anyway. This whole reasoning concerning RP being a gateway for it to happen ... it's nothing but bunk.

If anything, RP for most people - even the most questionable scenarios - is a means to 
prevent
or to 
remove/reduce
any desire to commit such acts in real life.

There's plenty that I find detestable .... But I'm not going to tell anyone what they can and cannot portray in play.

 

 

 

^ This. 

And, the whole 'if they try it in RP they'll wanna do it in RL' thing.... You can always reason the same way about all the other immoral things people do in RP. Cheat, steal, backstab, abuse, shoot, murder, rape.

If everyone involved is a consenting adult, and no one gets hurt unless they want to be hurt, then I say live and let live is a good philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nyx Karas wrote:


Solar Legion wrote:

 

 

^ This. 

And, the whole 'if they try it in RP they'll wanna do it in RL' thing.... You can always reason the same way about all the other immoral things people do in RP. Cheat, steal, backstab, abuse, shoot, murder, rape.

If everyone involved is a consenting adult, and no one gets hurt unless they want to be hurt, then I say live and let live is a good philosophy.

Prove it

Show me proof that not one incident of child abuse anywhere on the planet  has resulted from people on SL RPing child abuse.

Or show me proof that it has happened.

It is impossible to prove, therefore the only policy LL can safely implement is zero tolerance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nyx Karas wrote:


Solar Legion wrote:

This is not only very well said Perrie but it is a far more polite way to say what I have
been
saying for years in regard to the divide between the world of RP and Reality.

The long and short answer is - of course - 
No one has the right to dictate acceptable RP scenarios to anyone they are not directly engaged in 'playing' with.
I lost track of the number of times (in SL and prior to it, in public chat rooms made for RP) I ran across a scenario being played out that pushed my squick buttons. In the case of the old chats, I just used the Ignore features and contiued to play. Never bothered to give them any further thought no matter what had been going on (and yes, that includes scenarios which would net a visit from law enforcement these days). When it comes to SL, at the time I was running into these scenarios (back when I actually bothered to explore the grid) I either pretended they were not there .... or I teleported out.

Honestly, I firmly believe that there should be 
no
restrictions on allowed RP 
anywhere
. My reasoning is simple enough: Anyone who would take the step beyond questionable RP and actually engage in some of those acts in real life .... They'll do so anyway. This whole reasoning concerning RP being a gateway for it to happen ... it's nothing but bunk.

If anything, RP for most people - even the most questionable scenarios - is a means to 
prevent
or to 
remove/reduce
any desire to commit such acts in real life.

There's plenty that I find detestable .... But I'm not going to tell anyone what they can and cannot portray in play.

 

 

 

^ This. 

And, the whole 'if they try it in RP they'll wanna do it in RL' thing.... You can always reason the same way about all the other immoral things people do in RP. Cheat, steal, backstab, abuse, shoot, murder, rape.

If everyone involved is a consenting adult, and no one gets hurt unless they want to be hurt, then I say live and let live is a good philosophy.

like i said before: NO ONE KNOWS !!

my guess is that yes .. in some cases .. ppl who RP sexual ageplay, cheating, stealing, backstabbing, abuse, shooting, murder & rape .. get so excited from RPing it that they go out in RL & actually do it

& my guess is that in other cases .. ppl who might do these things in RL get their yayas from RPing doing it & this keeps them from actually doing it in RL

so the question is ..... which is predominant .. is the former scenario twice as common as the latter? 10 times as common? or is it the other way around ??

if someone had statistical information on this .. from replicated studies published in the peer reviewed lit .. then we would have some basis for making a judgement

if we knew for sure that more ppl who RPed something heinous would then go out & do it in RL .. then wed have a rational basis for prohibiting the RP

if we knew for sure that more ppl who RPed pervy stuff were satisfied w/ mere RP .. & this kept them from going out & doing it in RL .. then wed have reason for "anything goes" inworld

but we DONT have this information .. hence .. its a mere matter of opinion which is best

as things now stand sexual ageplay is banned by US law & by LL's ToS .. while i may have a general disgust for censorship i really dont have much problem with the status quo .. its possible that sexual ageplay my instigate child abuse in RL .. or it may not .. or it may actually reduce the incidence of child abuse .. but since we dont know .. better safe than sorry !!

Jeanne

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Solar Legion wrote:

The long and short answer is - of course - 
No one has the right to dictate acceptable RP scenarios to anyone they are not directly engaged in 'playing' with.
 

I disagree.   I think you will find that both LL and -- in some cases -- particular national legislatures do, in fact, have that right and are also prepared to use it.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:


Solar Legion wrote:

The long and short answer is - of course - 
No one has the right to dictate acceptable RP scenarios to anyone they are not directly engaged in 'playing' with.
 

I disagree.   I think you will find that both LL and -- in some cases -- particular national legislatures do, in fact, have that right and are also prepared to use it.   

 

having the power to do something & having the right to do it arent necessarily the same thing

Jeanne

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, indeed not, but I think you will find that LL has not only the power but also the legal right to terminate people's accounts for engaging in certain types of RP in SL, and that governments in various countries are acting perfectly within their rights (as defined by those countries' constitutions and, where appropriate, the European Convention on Human Rights) in imposing legal sanctions on particular sorts of RP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Innula; LL can ban anything they like, for any reason they like (or no reason at all) simply because it's using their wires, being stored on their servers, and being transferred via their service. With that, most of 'is it okay?', becomes moot.

As for whether there is a correlation between the pretense and the reality; the burden of proof remains on the person  presenting the argument (the OP), and not those questioning the argument. The OP stated they were made uncomfortable by what they saw (which is subjective, and okay), however they were also the ones to say that it is a 'bad thing' for people to do (which is not okay, without supporting evidence that there are real, definable victims AND evidence of this happening directly). The only people who get to say which things are good, and which are bad (for SL), is LL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Leia36 wrote:

So then should we all disregard the ToS and just live and let live? What's next? Child AVs with xcite attachments?


 

you deliberately misread me... Was just stating that the collar in itself does not a TOS violation make. Xcite genitals (or similar) probably (but check with LL if you want to start marketing them in child sizes) would be a TOS violation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought then and still do now that the collar was borderline. Agreed nothing would be done by wearing it. Its the intent that crosses the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proof was supplied, in full to LL on the day of the OP. The facts are irrefutable, whether or not someone was harmed cannot be determined easily. (see my posts above) That being said it is my opinion that to tolerate this kind of behavior is unacceptable until it can be proven that in fact nobody can be harmed by sexually active child avatars in Second Life.  Agreed Second Life and LL are the judge and jury. They have the evidence, it is up to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes - the old "show me proof or it isn't true, oh wait you can't prove it" argument.

It's already been proven in other areas such as murder, rape, theft, etc.

People who are damaged enough to do X would have done X no matter what. That has already been proven.

This "debate" is more or less the same as "Video Games cause violence" - no, they don't. The tendency to be violent causes violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not referring to anything else other than child avatar sex. The rest is irrelevant to this thread.

"People who are damaged enough to do X would have done X no matter what."

How do you know that?

"That has already been proven."

Show me the proof

"This "debate" is more or less the same as "Video Games cause violence"

Video game violence is not a part of this thread, don't over simplify

The tendency to be violent causes violence.

Show me proof

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Leia36 wrote:

The proof was supplied, in full to LL on the day of the OP. The facts are irrefutable, whether or not someone was harmed cannot be determined easily.

You miss my point. I believe the event took place as you describe it, and stated earlier in the thread that it is LL's decision alone and that AR-ing it was the correct course of action.


Leia36 wrote:

That being said it is my opinion that to tolerate this kind of behavior is unacceptable until it can be proven that in fact nobody can be harmed by
sexually active child avatars
in Second Life.

This is the statement that requires proving. Why should it be taken as unacceptable until it can be proven? Shouldn't an activity be permissable until proven that it does have legitimate victims?

I also disagree with your use of the term 'sexually active child avatars', since at least two of these words are false-equivilences in this context (they're neither pre-fully-grown-avatars (avatars don't grow, or age, and they have no 'age of majority'), nor was anyone having sex (and as has been said before, collars don't equal sex) in your OP). Obviously if it HAD been either of these two things, my position would be vastly different. I'm half-tempted to think you put those four words in there to try and prevent people from adopting a defence, which is unfair.

Your opinion has been repeated several times in this thread, usually followed by a statement of absolute fact. There has never been any proof that anybody has been harmed, and I can assume LL have taken no action against the avatars in your OP. I find this entire line of debate to be deceitful, because you're asking people to prove that something 'right', before anyone (including LL) has proved that it is wrong.

This isn't the first time I've perceieved you to be deliberately mis-reading peoples' posts. On a known-inflammatory subject such as this, I find your behaviour to be regrettable, since it will naturally stifle peoples' ability to present a fair counter-argument. I'm certainly not motivated to participate further.

The burden of proof remains yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zero-tollerance policies are inevitably zero-intelligence policies that end up harming everyone.


Like the kid who was told by his school to change his name because in sign language it is spoken using a symbol that looks like a drawn gun (as used by children the world over in play).
Or the kid who got sent to prison by his school teacher for bringing a peeling knife to school for cleaning the orange he had for lunch. a 2", blunt, piece of metal but under the zero-tollerance policy it was a deadly weapon and therefore the police was called and the kid thrown in jail. Under the same policy, criminal charges were filed against the kid and a 7 year old ended up with a criminal record that will harm his chances at a career for the rest of his life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not your teacher, I'm not your Master - It's not my job to do the work for you.

You want proof? Get off your lazy tush and do what everyone else does: Research.

And no - it's not my respobsibility to do your work for you - especially not on topics that have been covered ad nauseum for over a century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proof has been supplied to Linden Lab. It is up to them not me to judge. I originally asked for opinions. They where supplied and I acted on that advice.

This is the statement that requires proving. Why should it be taken as unacceptable until it can be proven? Shouldn't an activity be permissible until proven that it does have legitimate victims?

Because of the nature of the behavior. ie involving anything to do with children, avatars included.

Your opinion has been repeated several times in this thread, usually followed by a statement of absolute fact. There has never been any proof that anybody has been harmed, and I can assume LL have taken no action against the avatars in your OP. I find this entire line of debate to be deceitful, because you're asking people to prove that something 'right', before anyone (including LL) has proved that it is wrong

Where my opinions are stated I state as such. Similarly there has never been proof that someone hasn't been harmed and If what you say is right, then why has it been legislated against in many counties?

I find this entire line of debate to be deceitful, because you're asking people to prove that something 'right', before anyone (including LL) has proved that it is wrong.

I would never place such a burden of proof on any other type of behavior.

This isn't the first time I've perceived you to be deliberately mis-reading peoples' posts. On a known-inflammatory subject such as this, I find your behavior to be regrettable, since it will naturally stifle peoples' ability to present a fair counter-argument.

Because I can argue my case does not make the others argument any less. If you makes statements that you can't back up with logic or fact and I am not in agreement with you, then I will tell you. Do not call me deceitful, I hide nothing except my RL details. My opinions are honest.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Freya Mokusei wrote:


Leia36 wrote:

The proof was supplied, in full to LL on the day of the OP. The facts are irrefutable, whether or not someone was harmed cannot be determined easily.

You miss my point. I believe the event took place as you describe it, and stated earlier in the thread that it is LL's decision alone and that AR-ing it was the correct course of action.

Leia36 wrote:

That being said it is my opinion that to tolerate this kind of behavior is unacceptable until it can be proven that in fact nobody can be harmed by sexually active child avatars in Second Life.

This is the statement that requires proving. Why should it be taken as unacceptable
until
it can be proven? Shouldn't an activity be permissable until proven that it
does
 have legitimate victims?

Your opinion has been repeated several times in this thread, usually followed by a statement of absolute fact. There has never been any proof that anybody has been harmed, and I can assume LL have taken no action against the avatars in your OP. I find this entire line of debate to be deceitful, because you're asking people to prove that something 'right', before anyone (including LL) has proved that it is wrong.

This isn't the first time I've perceieved you to be deliberately mis-reading peoples' posts. On a known-inflammatory subject such as this, I find your behaviour to be regrettable, since it will naturally stifle peoples' ability to present a fair counter-argument. I'm certainly not motivated to participate further.

The burden of proof remains yours.

What's being debated is the difference between making a Type I and a Type II error.

Type I error occurs when a true null hypothesis is rejected.

Type II error occurs when an untrue null hypothesis fails to be rejected.

In this case the null hypothesis is that sexual ageplay in Second Life causes no Real Life harm.

If this hypothesis is true and is rejected, consenting adults have their freedom restricted. This is bad but not too bad.

If this hypothesis is untrue and is accepted, real life children are abused. This is very bad.

Since no one knows whether or not the null hypothesis is true or false, the US Congress, various European Parliments, Linden Lab and Leia36 have decided that it is safer to risk making a Type I error than to risk making a Type II error.

Until the null hypothesis is subjected to rigorous empirical testing, this decision seems reasonable to me. Feel free to disagree Freya.

Those of you demanding "proof," one way or the other, won't understand this post.

Jeanne

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You made the statement not me. you supply the proof. If you cant back up your statement with fact then why did you comment?

 

And keep your argument based in logic and fact. you have no right to judge me. Not once has anyone here been impolite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leia36 wrote:

Where my opinions are stated I state as such. Similarly there has never been proof that someone hasn't been harmed and If what you say is right, then why has it been legislated against in many counties?

Public distaste and disquiet?  

Things get banned for reasons other than that they may cause harm, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zero tolerance works both ways. Modern society has Zero tolerance within the law for rape. I doubt anyone has been harmed by those policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, and to clarify; I'm not talking about sexual ageplay, because that IS banned in Second Life. It is a known outcome, and a policy decision which I completely agree with.


Freya Mokusei wrote:

I also disagree with your use of the term 'sexually active child avatars', since at least two of these words are false-equivilences in this context (they're neither pre-fully-grown-avatars (avatars don't grow, or age, and they have no 'age of majority'), nor was anyone having sex (and as has been said before, collars don't equal sex) in your OP). Obviously if it HAD been either of these two things, my position would be vastly different. I'm half-tempted to think you put those four words in there to try and prevent people from adopting a defence, which is unfair.



I added this to my comment after posting, as I missed this re-defining of my argument before that.

This thread, until the avatars in the OP are proven to have been breaking the Terms of Service, is about collars and 'child avatars' in combination, and has an unknown verdict. My opinion is that the discussion is being led too far out of context and into dishonest territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Leia36 wrote:

The proof was supplied, in full to LL on the day of the OP. The facts are irrefutable, whether or not someone was harmed cannot be determined easily. (see my posts above) That being said it is my opinion that to tolerate this kind of behavior is unacceptable until it can be proven that in fact nobody can be harmed by sexually active child avatars in Second Life.  Agreed Second Life and LL are the judge and jury. They have the evidence, it is up to them

"That being said it is my opinion that to tolerate this kind of behavior is unacceptable until it can be proven that in fact nobody can be harmed..................."

You do realize that if we used this as the standard for what is acceptable in Second Life that we could take the entire BDSM community to task.

Do you wear a collar?  Does your Master ever leash you?  Does he ever drag you around or restrict you movement?  Does he ever turn off your ability to chat with any one else?  Has he ever stripped you in public of your clothes to humiliate you?  Has he ever commanded you to get on a pose ball in a public place and allow any Avatar who wanted to to have their way with you?  Has he ever commanded you to get on a bed and then invited his friends over to use you?  Shall I go on?  I have a long list of activities I could post here.  What about dulcet?  Do you realize that there are people who are deeply affected by these sort of things in RL and not in a good way?

While it is conceivable that an actual child was involved in the activity you reported I think the odds of it happening in SL with an actual child are absolutely miniscule.  But if we use the standard you are proposing, ALL ADULT activity in SL should be shut down because of the potential harm that could be done.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

"That being said it is my opinion that to tolerate this kind of behavior is unacceptable until it can be proven that in fact nobody can be harmed..................."

You do realize that if we used this as the standard for what is acceptable in Second Life that we could take the entire BDSM community to task.

Thanks Perrie, your post examplifies exactly what I meant. Words r hard. I bow to your wordiness, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...