Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Leia36

Child AVs and ToS

Recommended Posts


Leia36 wrote:

When found to be children it is the parents who are to be held accountable

How? Chances are the parents have never even hearduv SL ..

Jeanne

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Leia36 wrote:

Why then are child avatars banned frrom adult areas?

They are not banned from adult areas.  They are only banned from sexual activities.  And as far as we know from any official statements from LL, sexual age play was banned because of legal and I believe publicity issues, not because of any moral or ethical criteria.

 


Leia36 wrote:

Consenting adults with adult avatars

 

And people still get hurt.  What is the difference if the avatars were adult or child?  They were still consenting adults behind them.

Your standard fails.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


... not because of any moral or ethical criteria.


corporations have no moral or ethical criteria

in fact they can be sued by their shareholders if they make decisions based on moral or ethical criteria that hurts their bottom line

Jeanne

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

minority report.jpg

I really don't think I have any more that I can add to this thread.  Sometimes I think that this is the type of society people are asking for.  I for one am not sure I'd want to live in it.

 

 

 


JeanneAnne wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:


... not because of any moral or ethical criteria.


corporations have no moral or ethical criteria

in fact they can be sued by their shareholders if they make decisions based on moral or ethical criteria that hurts their bottom line

Jeanne

 

Not wanting to get off on a tangent, if you have never read them I might suggest you check out Teddy Roosevelt's 1904 State of the Union address.  While you may not agree with everything he says, his comments on the responsibility of Corporations to Society are very interesting.


http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/116.html

I believe he also says more on the subject in his 1906 speech.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have every right to judge you - especially when you demand that which you should be searching for yourself.

This topic - in various forms - has been debated for the last century or more, thus the information you demand I spoon feed you is out there. You do the work - not me.

This isn't a debate forum Leia - I don't have to provide you with jack squat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

Not wanting to get off on a tangent, if you have never read them I might suggest you check out Teddy Roosevelt's 1904 State of the Union address.  While you may not agree with everything he says, his comments on the responsibility of Corporations to Society are very interesting.

 

I believe he also says more on the subject in his 1906 speech.

 

I LOVE Theodore Roosevelt !! him & John Muir were friends & JM is 1uv my bestest heros .. i dont think iv read these speeches so thank you!

know what? id like to see TRs Progressive or "Bull Moose" party revived .. as a viable 21st century 3rd party alternative to the repubs & demos .. i think that TR would be ashamed of US politics these days ..:(

Jeanne

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said that any form of roleplay is acceptable, your reasoning was that nobody will get hurt in RL they will sate themselves here in SL.

You made a statement of fact yet you are not prepared to back it up with facts. THEREFORE IT IS YOUR OPINION.

Furthermore you want ME to do YOUR research to prove YOU right.

Show me one single document anywhere that backs your argument up. And if you reply with anything else other than proof then I hold you in utmost contempt.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


JeanneAnne wrote:



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

 

Told ya so ... !!! :cattongue:

Jeanne

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already hold you in contempt. Do. Your. Own. Homework.

This is not a debate forum - I am not rwquired to educate you in any manner whatsoever.

Show me your proof that I am trying to get you to do my research - you cannot.

I am telling you to Do. Your. Owb. Research.


I have made a statement of fact, backed up by my own reasearch - in the future, remember this: I don't say a bloody thing until I've looked it over.

I hashed crap like this out long ago Leia - I'm not going to do other people's work for them this time around.

You want proof? Do what I did and go looking for it.

Anything less simply proves that my judgement of you is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leia36 wrote:


 sexual age play was banned because of legal and I believe publicity issues 


Leia36 wrote:

Consenting adults with adult avatars

 

And people still get hurt.  What is the difference if the avatars were adult or child?  They were still consenting adults behind them.

Your standard fails.

------------------------------------

You wrote

" What is the difference if the avatars were adult or child?"

you wrote before

 sexual age play was banned because of legal and I believe publicity issues 

You have answered your own question

 

That is the difference 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me the research.. Come on man up, show it to me... Is copying and pasting so hard for you? 

So letting every pediophile in creation free reign in SL would solve child sex abuse? You're insane to believe that when such a tiny minority of this planet's population is on SL.

Glad you're nowhere near my kids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


JeanneAnne wrote:


JeanneAnne wrote:



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

 

Told ya so ... !!! :cattongue:

Jeanne

 

im gettina kick outuv watching Leia & Solar fite .. cuz neither 1uv em understands hypothesis testing, statistics or the scientific method .. theyre just arguing over conflicting opinion ~strongly held as it may be~ & neither 1uv em hasa clue about whether or not simulating an antisocial activity inhibits or disinhibits said activity .. they just go on & on about "proof" w/out understanding empirical support or refutation :cattongue:

time for this thread to be capped

Jeanne

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Leia36 wrote:

Leia36 wrote:

 sexual age play was banned because of legal and I believe publicity issues 

Leia36 wrote:

Consenting adults with adult avatars

 

And people still get hurt.  What is the difference if the avatars were adult or child?  They were still consenting adults behind them.

Your standard fails.

------------------------------------

You wrote

" What is the difference if the avatars were adult or child?"

you wrote before

 sexual age play was banned because of legal and I believe publicity issues 

You have answered your own question

 

That is the difference 

You skirted the issue.

The issue was people (not) getting hurt as a standard for deciding what is acceptable in SL.  That is what you stated as the standard.

People do get hurt in the Second Life BDSM community.  Very badly at times.  I've been watching this for years now.  If you haven't seen it you either, A) Are too new to SL , or  B) Have blinders on.

 

Dang, I thought I was through with this thread.   Truncating my post here was pretty disengenious.  Time for me to go enjoy some butterflies.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The burden of proof generally lies on the one who accuses another of committing, or planning to commit, a crime. If you claim a certain activity leads people to rape children, the burden lies on you to prove that it's true, before we go and ban that activity.

That being said, the discussion -is- kinda pointless, as depictions of fictional, non-existant children in sexual situations already is illegal in some countries. And even if it wasn't, LL would still have every right to ban whatever they want. Of course, we don't have to agree with it, and so we can continue to argue about it forever anyway, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Leia36 wrote:

I welcome any hypothesis testing, statistics or the scientific method. thats all I asked for

providing any is problematic cuz itd be very unethical to set up a controlled experiment

hence .. the best social scientists can do is offer correlational studies after the fact .. which arent statistically rigorous & are fraught w/ uncontrolled variables & complicating factors .. & have yielded conflicting results

which is why nobody knows ..

which is why the 'powers that be' have decided "better safe than sorry" .. or better to risk a Type I error than risk Type II

im down w/ that ..

 

Jeanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nyx Karas wrote:

The burden of proof generally lies on the one who accuses another of committing, or planning to commit, a crime. If you claim a certain activity leads people to rape children, the burden lies on you to prove that it's true, before we go and ban that activity.

That being said, the discussion -is- kinda pointless, as depictions of fictional, non-existant children in sexual situations already is illegal in some countries. And even if it wasn't, LL would still have every right to ban whatever they want. Of course, we don't have to agree with it, and so we can continue to argue about it forever anyway, I guess.

"burden of proof" is a legal concept .. not a statistical or scientific one .. the concept doesnt mean much outside a court of law

what we want to know is whether or not simulating sexual ageplay in SL promotes or inhibits child abuse in RL .. no1 knows the answer to this question

since no1 knows LL has followed the lead of legislatures in various nations & has banned sexual ageplay from SL ... yet it goes on behind banlines .. on private sims .. & in various places where there are no witnesses to AR it

the consensus is that virtually all the sexual ageplay that goes on in SL is between consenting adults & hence no actual child is being harmed .. & so said consenting adults should be free to do as they wish .. opinions vary about this

a related issue pertains to actual children lying about their age & engaging in virtual sex w/ (usually) an adult avatar .. which is worse? a real child having virtual sex or a real adult having virtual sex w/ a child avatar ?? once again .. opinions vary

Jeanne

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also matters in discussions, where if you claim something harmless leads to a bad thing and should therefor be made illegal, there should be some proof to back it up. Because forcing new laws on everyone kinda sucks. That's what I was getting at. If there is no connection however, that can't exactly be proved.

I'm not claiming to know whether actual child rapists are likely to be roleplaying in SL or not either. I just think that, if there are no particular signs that they do, it's silly to ban it. But that again goes back to the whole thing about it being illegal in some RL countries already, how LL wouldn't want people to break the law in SL and get bad press, and that they can do whatever they want for any reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


JeanneAnne wrote:


JeanneAnne wrote:


JeanneAnne wrote:



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

 

Told ya so ... !!! :cattongue:

Jeanne

 

im gettina kick outuv watching Leia & Solar fite .. cuz neither 1uv em understands hypothesis testing, statistics or the scientific method .. theyre just arguing over conflicting opinion ~strongly held as it may be~ & neither 1uv em hasa clue about whether or not simulating an antisocial activity inhibits or disinhibits said activity .. they just go on & on about "proof" w/out understanding empirical support or refutation :cattongue:

time for this thread to be capped

Jeanne

 

When I was a teenager I started smoking marijuana along with my best friend and two others.  By the time I was 17 the three of them were doing heroin and also many others I was aquainted with.  Watching what it did to them scared teh hell out of me and I had to disassociate myself from them and wound up leaving NY for my own well being.  I quit taking drugs when I was nineteen.

Over twenty years later I had never sought to reconnect with any of them and pretty well assumed they were dead.  So it was quite a shock (and pleasant surprise) when my best friend contacted me again about two weeks ago.  He's been off the needle now for seven years. 

The other two friends are dead.

Based upon my experience I could make a pretty damned good argument for why marijuana should NEVER be legalised.  But I don't.

I do know quite a few people now who do smoke.  A few of them know my back ground.  Most don't.  Regardless, it is not an easy thing for me to be around.

Using "somebody might get hurt" as the basis for a law is a very slippery slope that in my mind opens the door to something I don't want to see, The Nanny State.

Yes I'd love to see child abuse in any form stopped before it happens.  Should any one ever start to act out on this, I absolutely feel that the hammer of justice should fall on them hard, it should fall on them swiftly and that it should fall on them decisively.

But what two consenting adults do, no matter how wierd or deviant I may think it is, I still feel it is absoluetly their right to do together in the privacy of their own home.  I may not like it, but it is still their right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:



When I was a teenager I started smoking marijuana along with my best friend and two others.  By the time I was 17 the three of them were doing heroin and also many others I was aquainted with.  Watching what it did to them scared teh hell out of me and I had to disassociate myself from them and wound up leaving NY for my own well being.  I quit taking drugs when I was nineteen.

Over twenty years later I had never sought to reconnect with any of them and pretty well assumed they were dead.  So it was quite a shock (and pleasant surprise) when my best friend contacted me again about two weeks ago.  He's been off the needle now for seven years. 

The other two friends are dead.

Based upon my experience I could make a pretty damned good argument for why marijuana should NEVER be legalised.  But I don't.

I do know quite a few people now who do smoke.  A few of them know my back ground.  Most don't.  Regardless, it is not an easy thing for me to be around.

Using "somebody might get hurt" as the basis for a law is a very slippery slope that in my mind opens the door to something I don't want to see, The Nanny State.

Yes I'd love to see child abuse in any form stopped before it happens.  Should any one ever start to act out on this, I absolutely feel that the hammer of justice should fall on them hard, it should fall on them swiftly and that it should fall on them decisively.

But what two consenting adults do, no matter how wierd or deviant I may think it is, I still feel it is absoluetly their right to do together in the privacy of their own home.  I may not like it, but it is still their right.

 

im glad your one friend is ok Perrie .. sorry about the other two ... :(

when i was in college i had issues w/ hard booze & XTC .. it made me take 5 yrs to graduate .. actually

i smoke quite a bit of weed & drink beer & white zin sometimes .. but iv not touched hard booze or anything but weed in several yrs now

i DO understand your stance & have quite a bit of sympathy for it .. i realize that in terms of SL 2 adults engaging in sexual ageplay directly & immediately harms no child ..&  even if a child lies about her or his age & has pixel sex no physical harm is done .. & prolly no real psychological harm either .. this is all very true

the question comes down to whether or not simulated sexual ageplay instigates pedophiles to act out their fantasies as child abuse .. no one knows whether or not it does .. for all anyone knows it may well reduce the incidence of child abuse .. its a cogent argument that since no1 knows theres no call for censorship & that the liberty of consenting adults need not be curtailed over a hypothetical .. i would tend to agree .. except ...

children are involved .. children may ~or may not~ potentially be harmed .. if .. as it turns out .. we discover that pervs get so worked up over the simulation that they actually do what theyre drooling over in the cartoon .. then we were well advised to prohibit the simulation before the hard evidence was in

i dont know that this is the case just like you do not know that it isnt

please review what iv said about Type I & Type II error .. & grok it

would you rather be informed that youre HIV + when you really arent .. even tho that might scare you to death !!

than be informed that youre HIV - when you are actually infected ?? in the latter case youd be dead

this is about false positive vs false negative error

given the seriousness & horrendousness of child abuse .. i tend to come down on the side of Leia & LL this time ..

i think that its legit to curtail some freedom just in case children might be harmed if we dont

~hugggzzzz~~ ~ Perrie

Jeanne

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear, I've hashed this ut with people of far more importance than you - there's nothing to "man up" about. Espeicially when you misrepresent me so boldly.

I did not mention any specific form of Role Play - and now you have.

Do your own homework - I'm not here to spoon feed you or anyone else. I'm here to prod you along until you engage those nice little neurons of yours and do a bit more than parrot from morality.

Is cracking open a book before spouting from the pulpit so hard for you?

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...