Amethyst Jetaime Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 The law only concerns the depiction of minors involved in a sexual act or sexualizing them through any type of media. So far it has only been applied to people who view a lot of it, collect or produce child pornography and the owner's of websites that allow it to be distributed. I imagine it would apply to a play too would be subject to this law. However there is the artistic merit exception that allows Romeo and Juliet, Lolita and other other legitimate literature. No one goes into anyone's bedroom. Most people are caught by undercover cops on the internet, or checking out adult book stores etc. or by other people seeing it in their home and reporting it, or being arrested pedophilia for something else and having their computer confiscated and it is discovered. My state is not the only one to have this law either. It was based on a model law that has been adopted by most of the states from what I've read. I won't swear my life on it but I believe something like 36 states have passed it and others are considering it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 sometimes we can end up making mental jumps in our logic thinking when consider this kinda things where gets difficult sometimes is when we interpret laws like this one and apply to ourselves and think is about us. like the effect that it has on our rights as consenting adults + like say for example/ you wearing a nappy and got a dummy in your mouth and you seating on your highchair and your wife is on her knees with a collar round her neck and you poking her with a spoon or vice versa or even your neighbours husband or wife was role playing your wife or vice versa you not going to get arrested for this and locked up in jail. you could even do in the middle of a olympic stadium and sell tickets and broadcast to the entire world and not get convicted. not even arrrested you in a adult body. the nappy and dummy dont change that. no matter how many googoo noises you making. no jury is going to accept that you are a minor for starters. what they will see if they ever do. is a grown person in a nappy and a dummy + so no. the law isnt about anyone doing this the law is about minors and the depiction of children in sexualised activities is not about depictions of a 40yo man in a nappy or his wife even Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Bump to scroll the spam down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solar Legion Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Gee, I see the usual types are here all over again to pounce on this rehashing of an old, resolved (as far as the ToS is concerned) issue .... oh and look! Some have brought up the concept of "universal Morality"! Now, one poster has already said much of what I have to say for me in regard to what two consenting adults get up to in their spare time. I'll restate a few things here before closing with my own commentary on "Universal Morality". Any person who would go out and molest (or worse) a real life kid .... is going to do so anyway. They're not going to peruse Loli Hentai (of any medium), they're not going to spend hours and hours role playing in a chat room. No - they're going to go out and actually do it. They're going to try to talk some minor into meeting them. Their PC will be filled with images of real children (and to take this a step further folks - and if you ignore this part, be certain that it'll be shoved into your face so you cannot miss it - any sort of illegal perversion). This is how they are wired. Like any "perversion" (and yes folks, that includes those that society accepts or turns a blind eye to), people are wired differently. For some, nothing but the real thing will do. For others, they never go that far because of therapy or other, non-harmful outlets. And if you think the only answers are therapy or being locked up ... you know nothing about the mind whatsoever. Newcomers to these forums, you can ask a few of those here ... I am this vehement about any form of play between two consenting adults. As another has already said: It may disgust me (and I could make a small list of that which disgusts me) ... But I'll certainly be vocal about allowing two consenting adults play with each other as they see fit (within reason mind you - there are two different lines for this for Online and Offline play). Finally .... "Universal Morality" does not exist, nor has it ever existed. All one has to do to understand this is to examine human history. What is perfectly moral in any one part of the world was once immoral in the past - the same for the converse, what was once immoral in any one part of the world is presently perfectly moral. Furthermore, there are quite a great many differences in morality in societal groups as small as one town to the next. There are precious few things which the entire world, down through the ages, have deemed to be immoral: Theft, Murder (on any level, of anyone, of any age), Betrayal (no matter if it is for the "greater good" or not) .... These are just three. Yes, at certain points in time, the abuse (in any form) of minors has been among this list. The sticking point has always been the age of consent. Before I get any more wordy on this ... I catch someone actually trying anything with a kid? There won't be a body left to find. The same can be said of a number of other things. Yep, it's explicitly against the ToS - Linden Lab didn't want to dabble in the grey area - and for the most part, current society doesn't want to either (a mistake, yes. People should not be punished for what they do with other consenting adults, within reason). Here's my moral code: Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto you. Do What Thou Wilt, But Harm None. (Etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Solar Legion wrote: Here's my moral code: Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto you. Do What Thou Wilt, But Harm None. (Etc.) define harm. without an appeal to universal morality. be as specific as you can edit: am just wondering really why you made a case against universal morality and then finish with a statement that is based on a universal moral Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solar Legion Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 16 wrote: Solar Legion wrote: Here's my moral code: Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto you. Do What Thou Wilt, But Harm None. (Etc.) define harm. without an appeal to universal morality. be as specific as you can edit: am just wondering really why you made a case against universal morality and then finish with a statement that is based on a universal moral "Do no harm" is not a universal moral - it is subjective on each and every level. The premise is simple: Do nothing which lessens humanity by means of severe physical or mental trauma. Do not kill, do not steal. Do not damage the next generation. These are not "moral" issues - they are survival issues. By killing others, you make enemies of those whom were once their friends/family. By steaing from them, you lessen their chances to continue on and at the same time increase the chance you will be stolen from. By damaging the next generation, you increase the chance that said generation will be the last generation. Severe physical or mental harm? That you should be able to figure out for yourself. "Morality" is subjective and always has been. It is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize away the means we as individuals and groups use to enhance our own chances of survival. In other words ... while there is no such thing as a universal morality ... there is a universal code for the continued survival of the human race. Sadly, some use "morality" as an excuse to ignore this code. This has been done since the first disagreement on "morality" occured and the first faiths began to disagree with each other. These two points are not intertwined ... they simply compounded the problem. In short - if you do what is best for the continuation of the species ... you don't need to worry to much about running afoul of too many societal "morals" as the largest of these still follow that code of survival. Oh yes, you'll end up running afoul of other, minor parts ... But then, that is unavoidable as different societies like to use "morality" to excuse the way they treat those who do not agree with them. And that's as specific as anyone can get without delving int the realm of pure opinion. One either understands it ... or they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 yes i see now. can understand what you saying is not the word moral really. is the word universal. same like is no universal god or universal rules outside humankind that we just somehow know and ascribe to i think thats what you mean + just say that i am interpret universal in a more basic way like is this statement: all men are created equal this a moral that applied universally to a society. like in a modern democracy for example from this other moral standards flow and are also applied universally like do no harm. which like you say can devolve into more specific things like do not kill. dont eat people and so on we cant just know that do no harm means these things tho if we just say: do no harm bc if we do then is assumed that the moral/meaning is universally known/accepted + about the survival part. i will make a another post about that. bc is quite interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 on survival less than 200 years ago my tipuna/ancestors were headhunters. cannibals even they not subscribe to the moral that all men are created equal. in the same way that: sealion is not a seal. kahawai is not a eel. kiwi is not kakahe to survive they live according to the universality. kill and be killed. eat and be eaten i am Ngapuhi. i am not Ngati Whatua or Tuhoe. i/we am not them. they are not me/us. they are creatures like any other. and i/we am a creature just like any other to them also. just the same as a bird in the sky and a fish in the water. is how that goes + this horrify the British Empire when it come here. like totally unchristian and heathen savage they get even more horrified when my tipuna Hongi Hika get invited to England. he was darling of the Establishment. a actual forreal headhunter. get introduced to the Royal Court even. he get lots and lots of presents and gifts off them. so that part was ok on the way home tho he stop in Australia. he trade all his presents and golds that he get off them for guns our warriors armor up and they went down the country and killed all them other creatures they found. 100s and 1000s of them the Empire went mental over that. and impose the all men are equal moral on us. so cant kill anyone now. or eat them the Empire was pretty brutal to us in how they went about imposing that. so not much different really + edit: i change from kill or be killed. eat or be eaten. to kill and be killed. eat and be eaten is my bad to say or. bc leads people to think i am saying something i dont mean ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knowl Paine Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Have you heard of the author Ayn Rand? The video is in english. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syo Emerald Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Sounds like you would like the idea of eating your neighbours, survival of the strongest clan and such stuff....what again had this to do with the rape of children? Would you like that this things happen to you or your family? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 no we discussing the concept of universal morality now. me and Solar. how it works Solar made a argument that is no such concept as universal morality. that moral is subjective. i was just show the counter-example to the universal component of the argument by use an actual realworld situation that did happen in quite recent times. historically speaking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 yes i have read Ayn Rand + is rubbish this whole myth that will be better if go back to the old ways. survival of the fittest and all that if look at the way i wrote the ways of my tipuna then can see i wrote it in the way they actual lived it is quite chilling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Knowl Paine wrote: Have you heard of the author Ayn Rand? The video is in english. So is this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knowl Paine Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 :matte-motes-frown: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArgontheDevil Ormega Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 About ten years ago the US Supreme Court addressed the issue and ruled that virual representations were protected speech, thus striking down all Federal and State laws on the matter. The law may still be on the books but it cannot be enforced. LL is making a wise business decision in its TOS, because virtual kiddie porn sets of a major PR yuck factor. Legally they can allow it (they are a US corporation and the servers are in the US so foreign law does not apply) but they don't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 ArgontheDevil Ormega wrote: About ten years ago the US Supreme Court addressed the issue and ruled that virual representations were protected speech, thus striking down all Federal and State laws on the matter. The law may still be on the books but it cannot be enforced. LL is making a wise business decision in its TOS, because virtual kiddie porn sets of a major PR yuck factor. Legally they can allow it (they are a US corporation and the servers are in the US so foreign law does not apply) but they don't want to. from Wikipedia: "The PROTECT Act [2003] includes prohibitions against illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, also known as virtual child pornography. Provisions against virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002." + the Protect Act 2003 has been upheld by the Supreme Court since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solar Legion Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 16 wrote: on survival less than 200 years ago my tipuna/ancestors were headhunters. cannibals even they not subscribe to the moral that all men are created equal. in the same way that: sealion is not a seal. kahawai is not a eel. kiwi is not kakahe to survive they live according to the universality. kill and be killed. eat and be eaten i am Ngapuhi. i am not Ngati Whatua or Tuhoe. i/we am not them. they are not me/us. they are creatures like any other. and i/we am a creature just like any other to them also. just the same as a bird in the sky and a fish in the water. is how that goes + this horrify the British Empire when it come here. like totally unchristian and heathen savage they get even more horrified when my tipuna Hongi Hika get invited to England. he was darling of the Establishment. a actual forreal headhunter. get introduced to the Royal Court even. he get lots and lots of presents and gifts off them. so that part was ok on the way home tho he stop in Australia. he trade all his presents and golds that he get off them for guns our warriors armor up and they went down the country and killed all them other creatures they found. 100s and 1000s of them the Empire went mental over that. and impose the all men are equal moral on us. so cant kill anyone now. or eat them the Empire was pretty brutal to us in how they went about imposing that. so not much different really + edit: i change from kill or be killed. eat or be eaten. to kill and be killed. eat and be eaten is my bad to say or. bc leads people to think i am saying something i dont mean ok Cannibals act counter to the survival of the human race as a whole. The British Empire acted on two very distinct grounds there: Their own societal morality and in the best interest for the continued survival of the human race as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Solar Legion wrote: Cannibals act counter to the survival of the human race as a whole. The British Empire acted on two very distinct grounds there: Their own societal morality and in the best interest for the continued survival of the human race as a whole. is pretty interesting the way you said this can understand the conclusion in the second part when accept that the first sentence is true. or accepted as a truth/moral. true or not. and applied universally to the human race as a whole + consider this only true if the cannibals kill and eat at a rate more than the rate they breed and raise/grow to an eatable stage is pretty gross this. but in principle is the same as growing/raising cows and sheep + maybe is just way more basic tho like is it that we dont eat each other in modern society bc is just icky. or bc is alternative food sources or is it that we just dont want to get killed and eaten ourselves. if this is the answer then is more about self-preservation than survival of the race as whole. survival of the race as a whole being a byproduct of self-interest + is even more interesting i think when go down this path proprogation/breeding is the one thing that is universally stronger than self-preservation. like those little praying mantis guys. they got it really hard. to propogate/breed they risk getting eaten by their girlfriend. which happens a lot is a kinda weird balance in this that helps the mantis to survive as a species. the female mantis eat the male bc he is just food + human beings got a few more brains than mantis tho. like is not necessary to eat your boyfriend just bc you hungry. even when he sometimes tastes a bit yummy when you lick him (: actually ewwwww!!! is even more gross when think about that. altho sometimes like just some tiny little times if he is like really really really yummy ??? umm! nah!!! jejejjejeje (: i prob shouldnt have said that. i think it maybe detract from my serious argument somehow. but oh! well (: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Solar Legion wrote: 16 wrote: on survival less than 200 years ago my tipuna/ancestors were headhunters. cannibals even they not subscribe to the moral that all men are created equal. in the same way that: sealion is not a seal. kahawai is not a eel. kiwi is not kakahe to survive they live according to the universality. kill and be killed. eat and be eaten i am Ngapuhi. i am not Ngati Whatua or Tuhoe. i/we am not them. they are not me/us. they are creatures like any other. and i/we am a creature just like any other to them also. just the same as a bird in the sky and a fish in the water. is how that goes + this horrify the British Empire when it come here. like totally unchristian and heathen savage they get even more horrified when my tipuna Hongi Hika get invited to England. he was darling of the Establishment. a actual forreal headhunter. get introduced to the Royal Court even. he get lots and lots of presents and gifts off them. so that part was ok on the way home tho he stop in Australia. he trade all his presents and golds that he get off them for guns our warriors armor up and they went down the country and killed all them other creatures they found. 100s and 1000s of them the Empire went mental over that. and impose the all men are equal moral on us. so cant kill anyone now. or eat them the Empire was pretty brutal to us in how they went about imposing that. so not much different really + edit: i change from kill or be killed. eat or be eaten. to kill and be killed. eat and be eaten is my bad to say or. bc leads people to think i am saying something i dont mean ok Cannibals act counter to the survival of the human race as a whole. The British Empire acted on two very distinct grounds there: Their own societal morality and in the best interest for the continued survival of the human race as a whole. Not on your nelly. The British acted solely out of a sense of morality. There is no way in the world that the cannibalism that existed in various places had any chance of threatening the survival of the human race as a whole, and the British didn't think that it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I don't know about "Solely our of a sense of morality". Seems to me that no colonial government -- no government, come to that, colonial or not -- is going to tolerate armed bands, independent of government, going up and down the country killing people, if it can help it. That's one of the main reasons you have governments, to my mind -- to stop that sortf of thing happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drake1 Nightfire Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Pussycat Catnap wrote: Bottom feeders always try to pretend anyone with common decency is an uppity nosey body with unusual morals and that thee is no such thing as a universal set of basic norms, ethics, and morals. But there are. And if you can't see that, you should consider some serious self-reflection. Few people are genuinely confused on an issue like this. WRONG!! So wrong on many levels. There is no universal set of morals, norms and ethics on this planet. In Christian society it is morally wrong to commit adultery, not so in a Wiccan one. Is it morally wrong for a tribe of cannibals, which do still exist on this rock we call home, to kill and eat another tribe? Not to their moral code, but to most it is. The legal age of consent cannot even be agreed upon in the US, never mind the world. Who are you to push a set of morals on anyone? Slavery is illegal in most of the world. Yet it is common in SL. So is Dolcett. Where is this universal set of codes to live by? Who do they apply to? And who wrote them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Pussycat Catnap wrote: Bottom feeders always try to pretend anyone with common decency is an uppity nosey body with unusual morals and that thee is no such thing as a universal set of basic norms, ethics, and morals. But there are. And if you can't see that, you should consider some serious self-reflection. Few people are genuinely confused on an issue like this. WRONG!! So wrong on many levels. There is no universal set of morals, norms and ethics on this planet. In Christian society it is morally wrong to commit adultery, not so in a Wiccan one. Is it morally wrong for a tribe of cannibals, which do still exist on this rock we call home, to kill and eat another tribe? Not to their moral code, but to most it is. The legal age of consent cannot even be agreed upon in the US, never mind the world. Who are you to push a set of morals on anyone? Slavery is illegal in most of the world. Yet it is common in SL. So is Dolcett. Where is this universal set of codes to live by? Who do they apply to? And who wrote them? This sort of argument strikes me as a bit of a red herring. The fact that different societies have, and have had over history, various moral codes is all very interesting, but the fact of the matter is that we all of us live in a particular society and in a particular time and place. Had I been born into a cannibal society I would doubtless have very different views, notably on what to serve at dinner parties, from what I have as a Brit (which is what I am). But since I wasn't born into a cannibal society, it's all rather hypothetical. It's a bit like if I were to go to the USA and start driving on the left, because that's the way we do it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drake1 Nightfire Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Innula Zenovka wrote: Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Pussycat Catnap wrote: Bottom feeders always try to pretend anyone with common decency is an uppity nosey body with unusual morals and that thee is no such thing as a universal set of basic norms, ethics, and morals. But there are. And if you can't see that, you should consider some serious self-reflection. Few people are genuinely confused on an issue like this. WRONG!! So wrong on many levels. There is no universal set of morals, norms and ethics on this planet. In Christian society it is morally wrong to commit adultery, not so in a Wiccan one. Is it morally wrong for a tribe of cannibals, which do still exist on this rock we call home, to kill and eat another tribe? Not to their moral code, but to most it is. The legal age of consent cannot even be agreed upon in the US, never mind the world. Who are you to push a set of morals on anyone? Slavery is illegal in most of the world. Yet it is common in SL. So is Dolcett. Where is this universal set of codes to live by? Who do they apply to? And who wrote them? This sort of argument strikes me as a bit of a red herring. The fact that different societies have, and have had over history, various moral codes is all very interesting, but the fact of the matter is that we all of us live in a particular society and in a particular time and place. Had I been born into a cannibal society I would doubtless have very different views, notably on what to serve at dinner parties, from what I have as a Brit (which is what I am). But since I wasn't born into a cannibal society, it's all rather hypothetical. It's a bit like if I were to go to the USA and start driving on the left, because that's the way we do it here. and yet, if you were to vist you would confor to our way of driving, wouldnt you? Most moral codes are not universal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Drake1 Nightfire wrote: and yet, if you were to vist you would confor to our way of driving, wouldnt you? Most moral codes are not universal. That was my point, sorry. The fact that the side of the road on which you should drive is an arbitrary convention doesn't change the fact it's very important to drive on the same side as everyone else. Similarly, I would say, the facf that a moral code isn't universal isn't that important. The two things that matter are, to my mind, what your moral code says and how well it meshes with the moral code in force where you happen to be (and how you resolve it, I suppose, if the two come into conflict). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solar Legion Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 16 wrote: Solar Legion wrote: Cannibals act counter to the survival of the human race as a whole. The British Empire acted on two very distinct grounds there: Their own societal morality and in the best interest for the continued survival of the human race as a whole. is pretty interesting the way you said this can understand the conclusion in the second part when accept that the first sentence is true. or accepted as a truth/moral. true or not. and applied universally to the human race as a whole + consider this only true if the cannibals kill and eat at a rate more than the rate they breed and raise/grow to an eatable stage is pretty gross this. but in principle is the same as growing/raising cows and sheep + maybe is just way more basic tho like is it that we dont eat each other in modern society bc is just icky. or bc is alternative food sources or is it that we just dont want to get killed and eaten ourselves. if this is the answer then is more about self-preservation than survival of the race as whole. survival of the race as a whole being a byproduct of self-interest + is even more interesting i think when go down this path proprogation/breeding is the one thing that is universally stronger than self-preservation. like those little praying mantis guys. they got it really hard. to propogate/breed they risk getting eaten by their girlfriend. which happens a lot is a kinda weird balance in this that helps the mantis to survive as a species. the female mantis eat the male bc he is just food + human beings got a few more brains than mantis tho. like is not necessary to eat your boyfriend just bc you hungry. even when he sometimes tastes a bit yummy when you lick him (: actually ewwwww!!! is even more gross when think about that. altho sometimes like just some tiny little times if he is like really really really yummy ??? umm! nah!!! jejejjejeje (: i prob shouldnt have said that. i think it maybe detract from my serious argument somehow. but oh! well (: There are very few species for which the act of cannibalism does not cause some form of damage to them, be it on a genetic or simple tissue level. Humans are not one of the species which can engage in this act without damage. Those engagedin this act diminish themselves and - when they reproduce - the rest of the species. No morality involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now