Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Scylla Rhiadra

The UnQueering of Second Life

579 posts in this topic

 


Ishtara Rothschild wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

then there can be no trust.

Exactly
:)
Welcome to Second Life. Or perhaps: Welcome to the internet.

 

And coming to think of it, RL is not much different either. Imagine yourself on a blind date with a woman you've never met before. She's exploiting an optical illusion that makes her appear thinner by wearing a vertically striped dress. She also wears high heeled shoes, which make her legs appear longer, as well as a padded push-up bra.

But that is not all. Her blond hair is fake, she's actually a brunette. Her long fingernails, which make her fingers appear longer and more feminine, are glued-on acrylic extensions. And her beautiful green eyes are the product of tinted contact lenses, which also hide the fact that she's near-sighted. Her naturally bushy eyebrows are meticulously plucked, her lady moustache is waxed off and so is her leg hair.

In addition to accentuating her lips and eyes with makeup, which makes her face appear a lot more feminine than it naturally does, she also hides her acne scars under a layer of concealer and setting powder. And her smile? It wouldn't look quite as gorgeous if it wasn't for those perfectly white high-end ceramic crowns, which she had put in after she quit smoking 30 cigarettes a day.

 

I could go on, but I think I got my point across by now
:)
Unless you're dealing with a homeless person who lives under a bridge and lacks the necessary tools to wrap her- or himself in an attractive cocoon, you rarely ever get to see the true expression of someone's DNA, which is what you're looking for when searching for a mate. You'd have to be married to a person for several years in order to begin to understand who they actually are, and how much they've fooled you in the early days of your relationship.

As Carole said, nobody has the self-awareness to present themselves exactly the way they are. Even in RL, nobody would want to do that. We all mask our natural body odours with more pleasant smells, partially remove our body hair or facial hair, wrap ourselves in flattering clothes that hide most of our physical flaws, and probably suck our belly in when we visit the beach. SL merely gives people an additional layer of masquerade, deception and self-invention, and of course people make use of these unique new possibilities. 

 

I had a very interesting rl conversation a couple of weeks ago with a person which could be justifiably labelled an "intellectual". The topic of discussion was identity and the absolute instability of it. Quoting philosophers at me, he very neatly expounded a theory which in my much poorer words could be summed up as "You're not even the same person you were five minutes ago. That person no longer exists. What has occurred in the last five minutes has changed - albeit subtlety - the essence of your person in an irrevocable way".

In other words, cosmetics and surgery aside, the deepest most internal part of us is in constant metamorphosis. None of us are able to pin down a definitive and permanent description of who we are.

*Carole goes back to prancing round SL in a set of home-made tie-tied slave silks in a VERY unintellectual way*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Mags Indigo wrote:

But there is honest dishonesty and erm... the other one...

No one can ever be totally honest, but to go out of one's way to dupe, manipulate and decieve... that's not 'creating a fantasy' (which would in effect need each one of us to say - my fantasy world stop trying to make RL of it) that's being at the least 'dishonest'.

I believe everybody - but not about everything :smileywink:

Awww Mags. Sweetypoo. Lovely to see you. Hate to have to say this but...erm....CRAP! There can be no handy distinguishing of what's acceptable dishonesty and what isn't. Or rather - the only one who can decide whether being "duped" is okay is the dupee, not the duper...and...since we're all different, the canons for what defines acceptable and not will vary from individual to individual. However, my gut feeling is that if honesty is important to you, SL is the worst place to be. We're ALL going out of our way to create an alternative identity. Well, maybe some aren't but that's their choice. And that attitude is somewhat contrary to the concept of the game, isn't it?

 

Say I was a male in rl. A crossdresser. Say I used SL to "be" a woman. Wouldn't I have that right? What if I wanted to create an alternative version to my RL to enhance my SL experience. Why is that wrong? This isn't a dating agency, after all. People sign up under "be anything you want to be" publicity blurb and then get their knickers in a twist when they discover some folks do just that.

*goes off to shave her 5 o'clock shadow*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Ian Undercroft wrote:

Carol, you seriously believe that many SL males wouldn't give a toss if they knew Fred was a bloke?!

The typical SL males that you have encountered are clearly very different in their outlook on life from almost all of those that I've met. 

 

Some don't. I have at least four who really, really don't give a damn on my friends list.

What I find hard to believe is that so many people cling to their fantasy that Pixielalagirlie really is a 21 year old hottie in RL, when if she was, she probably would be out shaking her booty in RL clubs picking up flesh and blood blokes right, left and centre and not wasting her Saturday night at home hunched over a pc.

Forget the gender issue for a moment. You sure that all those typical SL males you know would always even be SLIGHTLY attracted to the females they play with? Being a RL female is hardly the guarantee that she'd be ANYTHING  near your taste....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

 

Hi Carole!  I'll second what Venus says:  welcome back, even if only briefly.

I don't think we are really very much at odds in our views.  I guess that I would insist upon some kind of distinction between someone using SL to express their creativity, etc., and someone employing those same mechanisms "creatively" to consciously hurt or dupe someone.  That said, please don't ask me to define the line separating these two things:  the distinction is undoubtedly extremely fuzzy, and debatable.

 

I duuno, Scylla, I think we're all aware that, in most cases, our avatars are "prettier" than we are in real life. We stuff our pretty lil hawt bodies with our own scintilating personalities and is what occurs next not "duping"? The poor schmuck or schmuckess falls for the lethal, irresistible combo based on misrespresentation. But again, I believe that anything you did to alter this (like Facebookify it) would totally and utterly ruin the spirit of SL - fantasies running amok. In all honesty, I doubt many set out deliberately to hurt feelings - that is simply a consquence of indulging in the highly introspective fantasy-elaboration which is the main SL activity and which is necessarily ego-centric in nature,

 


Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

Your post makes an important point, implicitly at least: the very notion of "dishonesty" becomes somewhat meaningless in a virtual world built upon what might be termed deception.  I might go further, and tentatively suggest that to some degree the same is true of RL, where, as you note, we frequently don't know ourselves well enough to know if we are being "honest." 

And honest to what?  Accepting and understanding our own complexity means also acknowledging that our essential "self" is difficult to define.  I, personally, am by turns generous, sympathetic, bitchy, engaged, complacent, busy, lazy, etc., etc., etc.  I
am
all of these things:  I can't with any real confidence pick and choose from among them which I think is the "essential me."

The same isn't quite true of real life, Scylla. In real-life others get the opportunity to observe us in our natural habitat, indulging in our daily routine, wearing our real flesh, warts and all. If we have a digestive complaint which causes us to fart complusively - they get to see it. Or should I say "smell it"? My point being that in here others base their opinion and sensation of us entirely on what we feed them. We TELL them who we are - rather than letting them decide for themselves. And as you quite rightly point out - defining self accurately is a nigh impossible task. I believe it's completely impossible, to be honest.  What we all do here is tell others who the essential "me" is, wthout actually knowing ourselves. What is proffered as "the truth about real me" is in 99.9999999999% of cases an overly optimistic projection of self, propped up even higher with conscious and unconcious claiming of qualities we'd like to possess but don't.

 

Let's face it - when was the last time you read a first life profile which read "Middle-aged housewife, neglected by husband who repeats how unattractive and overweight I am daily, suffering from depression, with a tendency to hit the bottle when nobody's looking, plays SL in order to while away the endless hours of solitude and emptiness"? Nah - what you usually get is "RL? Mmm...maybe when you get to know me better, I'll share. But I have one and it's even better than my SL!!! In the meantime, why don't you IM me? I don't bite...unless you ask me!!! LOLZZ!!!!"

A thought came to me whilst answering another post. Is it more or less morally unacceptable to be less than wholly truthful about one's rl sex-appeal and physical attractiveness? I mean - once gender's been openly and honestly declared - is it okay to fuzz the facts about..let's say...the fuzz on your rl woman's face caused by a hormone imbalance? And what about age? Is it okay to shave off a year or ten? What I mean - up to what point should we be morally obliged to be fully "truthful"? And...consequently...at what point would that stop Second Life being SECOND Life?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Mags Indigo wrote:

But there is honest dishonesty and erm... the other one...

No one can ever be totally honest, but to go out of one's way to dupe, manipulate and decieve... that's not 'creating a fantasy' (which would in effect need each one of us to say - my fantasy world stop trying to make RL of it) that's being at the least 'dishonest'.

I believe everybody - but not about everything :smileywink:

Awww Mags. Sweetypoo. Lovely to see you. Hate to have to say this but...erm....CRAP! There can be no handy distinguishing of what's acceptable dishonesty and what isn't. Or rather - the only one who can decide whether being "duped" is okay is the dupee, not the duper...and...since we're all different, the canons for what defines acceptable and not will vary from individual to individual. However, my gut feeling is that if honesty is important to you, SL is the worst place to be. We're ALL going out of our way to create an alternative identity. Well, maybe some aren't but that's their choice. And that attitude is somewhat contrary to the concept of the game, isn't it?

 

Say I was a male in rl. A crossdresser. Say I used SL to "be" a woman. Wouldn't I have that right? What if I wanted to create an alternative version to my RL to enhance my SL experience.
Why is that wrong?
This isn't a dating agency, after all. People sign up under "be anything you want to be" publicity blurb and then get their knickers in a twist when they discover some folks do just that.

*goes off to shave her 5 o'clock shadow*

Why is that wrong? I don't know I'd go so far as to define it as 'wrong'. I will say it's entirely wrong for me. And I'm sorry, but I have to disagree very much with your assertion that the 'dupee' is wrong, not the 'duper'. One who sets out to dupe or decieve is wrong. Period. The one duped may be a fool, but the one duping is at fault.

The fact we don't really look in RL as we look in SL, or may not be the same gender, race, or species has nothing whatever to do with it. Deliberate deception to gain something one might not otherwise have is wrong on my side of the street. Making up RL details to attract/keep someone's attention in SL is perhaps not unusual; people do it in RL all the time. But it is still deception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 



 

I had a very interesting rl conversation a couple of weeks ago with a person which could be justifiably labelled an "intellectual". The topic of discussion was identity and the absolute instability of it. Quoting philosophers at me, he very neatly expounded a theory which in my much poorer words could be summed up as "You're not even the same person you were five minutes ago. That person no longer exists. What has occurred in the last five minutes has changed - albeit subtlety - the essence of your person in an irrevocable way".

In other words, cosmetics and surgery aside, the deepest most internal part of us is in constant metamorphosis. None of us are able to pin down a definitive and permanent description of who we are.

*Carole goes back to prancing round SL in a set of home-made tie-tied slave silks in a VERY unintellectual way*

 

but does that mean its ok to be immoral?

i dont think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you have the right to 'be' anything you want to be in SL and I would fight for you to keep that right.

You even have the right to tell someonbe you really are your chosen SL  'character' in RL.

You also have the right to download pics from the internet or use photos of your sister/wife/daughter/brother/husband/son and distribute them as being you.

You also have the right to make up life stories with all the intimate bits of growing up in great detail borrowed from other people, magazines or books.

You have the ultimate right to spend days, weeks and even months assuring your chosen conquest that you are all those things.

Yes all of that is your right - does it make you a better person than the person you dupe? Does it make you a worse person than the person you dupe? Does having great stories to share in the pub with your mates make it all worthwhile?

No idea to any of the above questions all I know is that I'd prefer not to know someone who would go to those lengths to fool someone else.

That probably makes me a really silly sweetiepooo or whatever the going phrase is at the moment. But you know what... I prefer to be poor lil silly me than someone who thinks it's ok to do all of the above - even in an internet environment.

Of course everyone is equally entitled to their own opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Dillon Levenque wrote:


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Mags Indigo wrote:

But there is honest dishonesty and erm... the other one...

No one can ever be totally honest, but to go out of one's way to dupe, manipulate and decieve... that's not 'creating a fantasy' (which would in effect need each one of us to say - my fantasy world stop trying to make RL of it) that's being at the least 'dishonest'.

I believe everybody - but not about everything :smileywink:

Awww Mags. Sweetypoo. Lovely to see you. Hate to have to say this but...erm....CRAP! There can be no handy distinguishing of what's acceptable dishonesty and what isn't. Or rather - the only one who can decide whether being "duped" is okay is the dupee, not the duper...and...since we're all different, the canons for what defines acceptable and not will vary from individual to individual. However, my gut feeling is that if honesty is important to you, SL is the worst place to be. We're ALL going out of our way to create an alternative identity. Well, maybe some aren't but that's their choice. And that attitude is somewhat contrary to the concept of the game, isn't it?

 

Say I was a male in rl. A crossdresser. Say I used SL to "be" a woman. Wouldn't I have that right? What if I wanted to create an alternative version to my RL to enhance my SL experience.
Why is that wrong?
This isn't a dating agency, after all. People sign up under "be anything you want to be" publicity blurb and then get their knickers in a twist when they discover some folks do just that.

*goes off to shave her 5 o'clock shadow*

Why is that wrong? I don't know I'd go so far as to define it as 'wrong'. I will say it's entirely wrong for me. And I'm sorry, but I have to disagree very much with your assertion that the 'dupee' is wrong, not the 'duper'. One who sets out to dupe or decieve is wrong. Period. The one duped may be a fool, but the one duping is at fault.

The fact we don't really look in RL as we look in SL, or may not be the same gender, race, or species has nothing whatever to do with it. Deliberate deception to gain something one might not otherwise have is wrong on my side of the street. Making up RL details to attract/keep someone's attention in SL is perhaps not unusual; people do it in RL all the time. But it is still deception.

I didn't say it was wrong and I didn't assert the dupee was wrong....

 

Re-read maybe - with your specs on this time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 


 

I had a very interesting rl conversation a couple of weeks ago with a person which could be justifiably labelled an "intellectual". The topic of discussion was identity and the absolute instability of it. Quoting philosophers at me, he very neatly expounded a theory which in my much poorer words could be summed up as "You're not even the same person you were five minutes ago. That person no longer exists. What has occurred in the last five minutes has changed - albeit subtlety - the essence of your person in an irrevocable way".

In other words, cosmetics and surgery aside, the deepest most internal part of us is in constant metamorphosis. None of us are able to pin down a definitive and permanent description of who we are.

*Carole goes back to prancing round SL in a set of home-made tie-tied slave silks in a VERY unintellectual way*

 

but does that mean its ok to be immoral?

i dont think so.

 

Whose morals? Yours or mine? British ones? American ones? Anglosaxon ones in general? If so, Protestant or Catholic?

Establishing morality in a cross-culural, trans-global society is a big headache, Dogboat. I hink it's simpler if each do what they feel is right and remember that others will do the same but according to THEIR values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... if I understand what you're saying you think/believe that because most people don't present themselves as 100% who they are anyway it's ok to deliberately lie while swearing you're not. And no I don't mean just about gender - I mean about most things - age, sexual orientation, size even. After the first few intitial flippant conversations where we all (near enough) don't take anything said seriously, once a slight friendship is developed, once those barriers are coming down (and I don't mean just sexual relationships) it's ok to enlarge on the fantasy to a point where your 'friend' believes you?

I guess people do live like that and there are moral codes somewhere that would uphold it...

not for me though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Theia Magic wrote:

Well I've been pretty quiet on these new forums, but this one got my attention.

I personally don't care what gender avatar a person chooses to use so long as it doesn't hurt another person by doing so.  Let me explain.

Bob plays a female avatar in Second Life.  He gets off on watching two girls go at it and frequents Adult sims, taking part in random one night stands.  There is obviously no emotional attachment in such a scenario, and the person with Bob's female avatar will likely never be the wiser the typist is male, so no harm no foul.

Ruth plays a male avatar because though born a RL woman, she identifies as a male.  She is far more comfortable on her male avatar than she is on in her RL female body.  When someone asks about her RL, she simply declines to discuss it, saying she rather keep that information private.  Again, no harm no foul. 

Fred plays a female avatar, because like Ruth, he's more comfortable playing an avatar opposite his RL gender.  He simply identifies with being a woman far more than being the male he's born as.  However, Fred claims to be a RL woman, even going so far as to pass out fake RL pics of himself and getting deeply emotionally involved with straight men. 

Bob and Ruth I have zero issue with.  Fred I have a huge issue with, because he's being intentionally deceptive.  It may be "your world, your imagination" but for some it's also their very real emotions, and having them trampled by deliberate lies is just plain wrong no matter how you look at it.

I guess it is the "deliberate lies" that is hard to understand.  I mean, if the TOS said, "By entering this environment you understand that the parties you engage with are fictional representations derived from their respective imaginations and should not be taken seriously," people would take them seriously anyway.  But who is really at fault?  SL for not understanding that despite the clicking of the 'I agree' box, humans connect on an emotional level and therefore demand RL tenets to take over....or the users who said they understood but didn't really because they could not predict that they would meet Mr./Ms Rightpixelstack. 

I always hate to hear when someone gets hurt emotionally in SL.   It has happened to me and it does not feel good, but I learned something from it...and I gained new perspective.  So not a total loss.

I think it is the loss of the concept of SL that is at risk of forever changing the environment.

We call people who make believe in a make believe world, liars, morally corrupt, and inherently dishonest human beings.  When our feelings are hurt or have been hurt, we nevermind that they were utilizing the service for the intended purpose--Make believe.   Are we at a point in SL where we have to put limitations on what degree people are allowed to make believe so that none of us risk getting our feelings hurt? I don't know, maybe.  It starts to feel like RL then.

I would hate to see SL get to a place that the only thing that is regarded as acceptable, moral behavior is full disclosure especially if it is to satisfy  only those that are looking for Reality in a Fantasy world.  Will we have to start revealing our RL names, credit scores, accumulated wealth, real estate holdings, 5 year plans,and instituting pre-nups to partnering, and equitable distribution of pixels upon un-partnering?  

I'm sure it is a subject that will be debated for many moons....Is playing fantasy in a fantasy world dishonest or is expecting reality in a fantasy world dishonest? 

It is interesting to ponder and read the varying opinions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

they are not restrictive morals, they are very human and essentially good by any standards.

do unto others as you  would have them do unto you is probably the most important moral in civilised intelligent society.

read Kant or study ethics for an insight. 

 

Just cuz somebody wrote it on paper doesn't make it right for everyone. I mean, sure it probably fits for a lot of people where I live, but I bet I can just as easily find a community where Kant's writings are, if not wrong, at least contrary to their way of life. I also refuse to accept the assertion that my failure to apply my morals to someone else makes me less educated or unethical. (In fact, it's been my experience that the opposite is most often true; those with less education are more willing to subjugate and oppress others.)

It is interesting though that you'd quote the Golden Rule .. while telling others that they have to live by your moral code. I guess that means you expect them to force you to live by theirs as well? If so, then I'll have some Amish drop by to disconnect you from the moral terpitude and indecency of the Internet and other similar modern contrivances. (But they will do so with the utmost respect and decent ethics.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 


 

I had a very interesting rl conversation a couple of weeks ago with a person which could be justifiably labelled an "intellectual". The topic of discussion was identity and the absolute instability of it. Quoting philosophers at me, he very neatly expounded a theory which in my much poorer words could be summed up as "You're not even the same person you were five minutes ago. That person no longer exists. What has occurred in the last five minutes has changed - albeit subtlety - the essence of your person in an irrevocable way".

In other words, cosmetics and surgery aside, the deepest most internal part of us is in constant metamorphosis. None of us are able to pin down a definitive and permanent description of who we are.

*Carole goes back to prancing round SL in a set of home-made tie-tied slave silks in a VERY unintellectual way*

 

but does that mean its ok to be immoral?

i dont think so.

 

Whose morals? Yours or mine? British ones? American ones? Anglosaxon ones in general? If so, Protestant or Catholic?

Establishing morality in a cross-culural, trans-global society is a big headache, Dogboat. I hink it's simpler if each do what they feel is right and remember that others will do the same but according to THEIR values.

 

universal morals.

think bill and ted.

be awesome be excellent and party on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

they are not restrictive morals, they are very human and essentially good by any standards.

do unto others as you  would have them do unto you is probably the most important moral in civilised intelligent society.

read Kant or study ethics for an insight. 

 

Just cuz somebody wrote it on paper doesn't make it right for everyone. I mean, sure it probably fits for a lot of people where I live, but I bet I can just as easily find a community where Kant's writings are, if not wrong, at least contrary to their way of life. I also refuse to accept the assertion that my failure to apply my morals to someone else makes me less educated or unethical. (In fact, it's been my experience that the opposite is most often true; those with less education are more willing to subjugate and oppress others.)

It is interesting though that you'd quote the Golden Rule .. while telling others that they have to live by your moral code. I guess that means you expect them to force you to live by theirs as well? If so, then I'll have some Amish drop by to disconnect you from the moral terpitude and indecency of the Internet and other similar modern contrivances. (But they will do so with the utmost respect and decent ethics.)

 

its not MY moral code.

i dont think you understand ethics.

or the underlying thought behind them that makes for a better society.

the indecency of the net?

i choose what i see.

there are many immoral things on the net.

i don't choose to view them or hoist them on others.

ps. why would the amish want to disconnect me from the net?

im evidently not amish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Ian Undercroft wrote:

Those of us who have spoken of morals and having respect for the feelings of others have, as far as I can see, been seeking to apply a moral code which I would hope is pretty much universal in any western, liberal society. As I see it such a moral code is pretty relaxed. Most certainly, I fail to see how that moral code can on any objective basis be viewed as unduly restrictive.

If there are places in this world which adopt a more relaxed moral code than western Europe, USA and Canada and Australasia, then I am willing to be informed and educated. That there are many places in the world with a much more restrictive moral code, I have no doubt. 

Immersionists post here and present themselves as the majority in SL. I have no doubt that, in truth, they are a relatively small minority.

Some people here seek to present themselves as nothing more than an imaginary collection of pixels, free to engage in unfeeling acts of "intimacy" with whoever and whatever they see fit. I don't understand how they can get upset when others call foul on some aspects of such behaviour. How can an imaginary collection of pixels have feelings to enable this happen?

 

I certainly won't argue that "Western Morals" are more relaxed than in many other places in the world. But I will argue that Relaxed Western Morals are the "Right" morals for everyone. Heck, I need only look to my next door neighbors to see two very different extremes in "Personal Rightness" (and I'm quite sure they look at me as being just as different from them). I'm also just as sure that neither one of them would find my moral code 100% acceptable, nor I theirs. But we are still neighbors and we all still accept that though different, we are part of the same community.

Not quite sure about the "Immersionists" though. I do know that when I post, I am posting the majority opinion ... inside my own head. Whether that happens to fit some other definition of majority is beyond my concern. (Or even if I'm an Immersionist?)

I believe though that conflict, and the beginnings of "wrongness", are found when two people interact with an implied understanding that the other person is "just like me." When implied becomes expressed and the true differences are discovered, how each reacts determines the right or wrong yet to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

its not MY moral code.

i dont think you understand ethics.

or the underlying thought behind them that makes for a better society.

the indecency of the net?

i choose what i see.

there are many immoral things on the net.

i don't choose to view them or hoist them on others. 

 

I understand Ethics quite well. I also understand Morals. You may think whatever you wish about how much I do or do not understand, and apparently you consider it ethical to insist you know my level of understanding too. You might even consider it morally right.

But I don't .. and therein lay the proof that yours are yours .. and mine are mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

its not MY moral code.

i dont think you understand ethics.

or the underlying thought behind them that makes for a better society.

the indecency of the net?

i choose what i see.

there are many immoral things on the net.

i don't choose to view them or hoist them on others. 

 

I understand Ethics quite well. I also understand Morals. You may think whatever you wish about how much I do or do not understand, and apparently you consider it ethical to insist you know my level of understanding too. You might even consider it morally right.

But I don't .. and therein lay the proof that yours are yours .. and mine are mine.

 

ethics do not equal judgement.

however, having been a student of ethics i can make an educated guess that you know nothing of Kant, socrates, aristotle,  ethics or morals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Mags Indigo wrote:

Of course you have the right to 'be' anything you want to be in SL and I would fight for you to keep that right.

You even have the right to tell someonbe you really are your chosen SL  'character' in RL.

You also have the right to download pics from the internet or use photos of your sister/wife/daughter/brother/husband/son and distribute them as being you.

You also have the right to make up life stories with all the intimate bits of growing up in great detail borrowed from other people, magazines or books.

You have the ultimate right to spend days, weeks and even months assuring your chosen conquest that you are all those things.

Yes all of that is your right - does it make you a better person than the person you dupe? Does it make you a worse person than the person you dupe? Does having great stories to share in the pub with your mates make it all worthwhile?

No idea to any of the above questions all I know is that I'd prefer not to know someone who would go to those lengths to fool someone else.

That probably makes me a really silly sweetiepooo or whatever the going phrase is at the moment. But you know what... I prefer to be poor lil silly me than someone who thinks it's ok to do all of the above - even in an internet environment.

Of course everyone is equally entitled to their own opinions.

 

This particular Internet environment is one dedicated to creating an alternative life...

How is at all possible to be miffed when you discover people are doing just that??

You want truth, honesty, real-life realness? There must be oodles of Internet environments where people hook up with real people, presenting the God's honest truth about themselves...

The more I stay in here, the more perplexed I get. There's a weird hypocrisy about it all. As long as I get to weave my version of what I am, nobody else better do the same...

Yeah, I'm a RL woman so I'm okay on that point - CHECK

Well, once, about 20 years ago some guy said I was quite attractive...sorta...yeah...not TOO bad - so I can say I'm attractive - CHECK

Want a photo? I send one which is only 5 years old (15 would be morally wrong, right?) and taken on that brilliantly sunny day so all my wrinkles are washed out by the over-exposure and also, its a tad fuzzy, making me look even better BUT it IS me so....CHECK

You ask what I do? I tell you I'm a nuclear physicist. I fail to mention I've been unemployed for the last 6 months because I got fired for having broken a very expensive machine which...uhm...splits atoms or summat. Still, it's the truth, albeit incomplete so... CHECK

In a moment of pixel-passion I get asked to describe my body. You can't be saying I'm morally obliged to tell some complete stranger that my left breast is missing after cancer surgery? I came here to forget the experience and to pretend to have both breasts once again. So - CHECK

Asked if single in RL, I reply yes. Ex hubby and I are in counselling but surely its more morally objectionable that I reveal details of the state of my real-life marriage, necessarily discussing intimate details about a person (the husband) who would never agree to his private life being disclosed to strangers? Definitely CHECK

So....morally I'm okay. And everybody else - all the "good" people in SL do exactly the same. So we're all good and noble and positively glowing in our morality. It's the stinkers who do bend any truth that we already haven't (like gender) who are the bad guys, right?

One final point, Mags. You cannot possibly know if among your SL friends there are people who go down the pub to snicker over their SL escapades. The choice to be friends with such a person is denied you by the medium.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One also has the right to be deliberately obtuse or choose NOT to read what is written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're missing my point entirely.

At no point did the dude in the Adult sim say to Bob "hey, are you a RL woman?".  The question was never asked and Bob never offered the information.  Bob isn't lying by omission or otherwise.

Fred point blank and deliberately lied, claimed to be a RL woman, and even passes along fake RL pics.  It was an act of 100% deception for the purpose of furthering his own agenda regardless of how it would effect the person he's with.

I'm not saying for a moment the man mounting Bob in the Adult sim wouldn't be seriously ticked if he found out Bob was a RL man, but unlike Fred, Bob never made any claim to being a RL woman.  He only played a female avatar and the dude he was with didn't care enough to ask.

Moral of my story- if you want to gender bend and play an avatar other than your RL gender have fun, but don't lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

 Or rather - the only one who can decide whether being "duped" is okay is the dupee, not the duper

 However, my gut feeling is that if honesty is important to you, SL is the worst place to be. We're ALL going out of our way to create an alternative identity. Well, maybe some aren't but that's their choice. And that attitude is somewhat contrary to the concept of the game, isn't it?

 

I didn't say it was wrong and I didn't assert the dupee was wrong....

 

Re-read maybe - with your specs on this time?

I didn't say you said it was wrong, so maybe you should clean your own specs. I quoted you asking the question and answered it with my opinion.

You are right; you didn't assert the dupee was wrong. You said the only one who can decide is the 'dupee'. I disagree with that, too.

Your attitude that one who finds honesty important should consider SL the worst place to be leaves me bewildered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

ethics do not equal judgement.

however, having been a student of ethics i can make an educated guess that you know nothing of Kant, socrates, aristotle,  ethics or morals.

 

And education does not equal smarts either.

However, if you will recall correctly, this began when you stated you did not drop your morals just because you signed on. I commented that neither did I. Further I added that just because your morals were different, that did not prove that others dropped theirs "at the digital door." (Which was the insinuation in your post.)

You are correct .. I have not read Kant. I found some years ago that holding up one single person's perspective as being 'totally right" doesn't always work for me. But since Kant seems to have struck a very resonant chord within your perception of morals and ethics, please do educate us by citing the passage in which Kant proves the ethical correctness of imposing your morals on others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont think is morally wrong to be an immersionist. to separate the RL self from a fantasy self. is not morally wrong to live a Second Life as you please to do it, even if that fantasy expands outside of SL. there are no limits set about how much resources can be invested to create a fictional character.

if a person believes that a fictional character is true, like many times happens, is not the fault of the creator of the fictional character, is just that that person choosen to believe it is real.

some people create a fictional second life not with the malicious intention to fool people, but for many other reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

ethics do not equal judgement.

however, having been a student of ethics i can make an educated guess that you know nothing of Kant, socrates, aristotle,  ethics or morals.

 

And education does not equal smarts either.

However, if you will recall correctly, this began when you stated you did not drop your
morals
just because you signed on. I commented that neither did I. Further I added that just because your
morals
were different, that did not prove that others dropped theirs "at the digital door." (Which was the insinuation in your post.)

You are correct .. I have not read Kant. I found some years ago that holding up one single person's perspective as being 'totally right" doesn't always work for me. But since Kant seems to have struck a very resonant chord within your perception of
morals
and ethics, please do educate us by citing the passage in which Kant proves the ethical correctness of imposing your
morals
on others.

 

read it yourself.

1 passage quoted will not enlighten you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

read it yourself.

1 passage quoted will not enlighten you. 

And a library full of words will not make a wrong right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0